HomeMy WebLinkAboutClearCreek_UPRR Property_PL-2016-00684
i
CITY OF
ASHLAND
June 29, 2016
Notice of Final Decision
The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following: ,
Planning Action: PA-2016-00684
Subject Property: Railroad Property located north of railroad tracks and situated between east and
west sections of Clear Creels Dr.
Applicant: City of Ashland
Description: A request to change a deed restriction that was required in a 1999 planning
approval (PA 99-048) and recorded on the vacant 20-acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad. The
original deed restriction required that the 20-acre site be cleaned up to the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality's (DEQ) residential standard before further land divisions or development occur.
The proposed revision to the deed restriction clarifies the timing and type of clean up for consistency with
DEQ standards so that: 1) before the 20-acre site can be divided into smaller lots or developed, the initial
cleanup of the 20-acre site would be to the residential standard and 2) future subdivided lots would have
to be cleaned up to the standard DEQ requires for the proposed use of the individual lots: the
"occupational" standard for retail, office, or light industrial uses; the "residential" standard for ground
level housing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 09AB TAX LOT: 6700; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09AA TAX LOT:
6200.
The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final
Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified
on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are
available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the
effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1,060.1 of
the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon
Land Use Board of Appeals.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Maria Harris in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Owner; Parties of record
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900 4
www.ashland.or.ns
SECTION 18.5.1.060.1
L Appeal of Type H Decision. The City Council may call up a Type II decision pursuant to section
18.5.1.060.J. A Type 11 decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows.
1. Who May Appeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be
defined as the following.
a. The applicant.
b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to
participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to
the Council.
c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to
error.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.I.1, above, may appeal a Type II decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying
the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection.
b. Tune for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten
days of the date the notice of decision is mailed.
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a
reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies
as a parry, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of
the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on
identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by
the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time,
and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4. Scope of Appeal.
a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.4.b,
below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be
confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of
the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits, and
materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the
Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed
decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for
purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the
parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the
appeal proceeding.
b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence
on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator
together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to
the Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the
following.
i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 ( T'
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 1
www.ashland.or.us [ i r' 1 \
requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that
reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error.
ii. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting
party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision.
iii. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable,
through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and
during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A
requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the
new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This
exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant
evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body.
iv. Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional
written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the
Council.
5. Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an
appeal of a Type II decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission.
a. Oral Atgufuent. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral
argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different,
and three minutes for any other party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted
oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall
be submitted no less than ten days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written
and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set
forth in the notice of appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the
written argument.
b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the
record is allowed, the Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to
determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning
Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review
shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of
appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the
Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond.
c. Council Decision. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision and may
approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make
findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification
for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties
participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may
elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the Council elects to
remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission
decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant
to subsection 18.5.1.060.J.
6. Record of the Public Hearing. For purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the
written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall
become part of the record of the appeal proceeding.
The public hearing record shall include the following information.
a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us'r
f
I
b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the
application that the City mailed or received.
c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials
submitted with it.
d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times
when the record before the Planning Commission was open.
e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available).
f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application;
g. The minutes of the hearing.
g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions.
7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type
11 applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council
decisions on Type H applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals,
pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 I ) \
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 d
www.ashland,or.us
x r
I
I
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 28, 2016
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2016-00684, A REQUEST FOR A )
MAJOR MODIFICATION TO AMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF THE )
LAND PARTITION AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA 99-048 THAT )
REQUIRED THE CLEANUP TO A RESIDENTIAL STANDARD ) FINDINGS,
OF THE FORMER RAIL YARD LOCATED ON AN APPROXIMATELY 20-ACRE ) CONCLUSIONS,
PARCEL OWEND BY UNION PACIFIC RAIL ROAD (UPRR). ) & ORDERS
APPLICANTS: City of Ashland )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #6700 of Map 39 IE 09 AB and tax lot #6200 of Map 39 IE 09 AA are located north of the
railroad tracks and south of Hersey St. and zoned E- 1, Employment.
2) The hearing before the Planning Commission involves a request for a Major Modification to amend
a condition of approval of the land partition and lot line adjustment of PA 99-048. The original condition
from 1999 required a deed restriction on the UPRR property stating that the site is required to be cleaned
up to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) residential standards before further land
divisions or development occurs and that written confirmation from DEQ of the cleanup to residential
standards is submitted to the City of Ashland. The proposed modification amends the deed restriction to
require two levels of clean up. First, the initial cleanup of the 20-acre site would be to the residential
standard for a single residential property. Subsequent development or subdivided lots would have to be
cleaned up to the standard DEQ requires for the proposed use of the individual lots. The proposal is
outlined in the plans on file in the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for a Major Modification are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
18.5.6.030.C as follows:
C. Major Modification Approval Criteria. A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval
authority finding that all of the following criteria are met.
1. Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval,
except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a
commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot
and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc.
2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or
exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements.
3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written
findings.
PA #2016-00684
June 28, 2016
Page 1
I
I
I
4) The criteria for a Preliminary Partition Plat are described in AMC 15.5.3.050 as follows:
C
The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the
following criteria are met.
is
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
8. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded,
C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous
land use approvals for the subject area.
D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone
requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access,
tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
F, Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also,
18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria.
G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and
other requirements in part 18,4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent
lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications.
H. Unpaved Streets,
1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of
the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan,
such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed
street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works
Department.
2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition
when all of the following conditions exist
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The
City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as
required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent
c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except
where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road
surface, In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation.
d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to
participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both
with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs
PA #2016-00684
June 28, 2016
Page 2
thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding
of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner
declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and
prohibited from the street
J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to
development.
K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section
98.5.3.060.
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on June 14, 2016
at which time testimony was heard and evidence was presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the
Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends
as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony, and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Major Modification meets all applicable
criteria described in AMC 18.5.6.030.C and AMC 18.5.3.050.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application involves a request for a Major Modification
to amend a condition of approval of the land partition and lot line adjustment of PA 99-048. The original
condition from 1999 required a deed restriction on the UPRR property stating that the site is required to
PA #2016-00684 f<
June 28, 2016
Page 3
i
f 2
be cleaned up to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) residential standards before further
land divisions or development occurs and that written confirination from DEQ of the cleanup to residential
standards is submitted to the City of Ashland. The proposed modification amends the deed restriction to
require two levels of clean up. First, the initial cleanup of the 20-acre site would be to the residential
standard for a single residential property. Subsequent development or subdivided lots would have to be
cleaned up to the standard DEQ requires for the proposed use of the individual lots.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that a modification of an approved application or condition of
approval that could have a detrimental effect on adjoining properties requires Major Modification under
chapter 18.5.6. The review procedure (i.e., Type I administrative approval or Type II public hearing) for
a modification is the same as the procedure used for the original application. In this case, a Type II public
hearing process is required because the original land partition and lot line adjustment was processed as a
Type II (AMC 18.5.6.030.A.7).
f
f,
Major Modifications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except
that the scope of review is limited to the modification request (AMC 18.5.6.030.C). As a result, the
application review is limited to the deed restriction modification request and the applicable approval
criteria are those for a Preliminary Partition Plat.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is a large inactive rail yard that is
centrally located in Ashland. The UPRR property is approximately 20 acres in size and located north of
the railroad tracks, south of Hersey St., and between the two dead-end portions of Clear Creek Dr. The
west side of Clear Creek Dr. intersects with Oak St. and the east side intersects with N. Mountain Ave.
Rouge Place is a third dead-end street that abuts the property in the northeast portion of the site. Clear
Creek Dr. and Rogue Place are planned to continue through the UPRR property at the time the site is
developed.
The property is zoned Employment (E-1) and located in the Residential and Detail Site Review overlays.
The Residential overlay allows 15 dwelling units per acre as a special use in conjunction with permitted
commercial and employment uses. A building can have up to 35 percent in residential uses on the ground
floor (e.g., ground floor commercial or employment with upper story residential units) or up to half of a
lot used for residential purposes if there a multiple building on a site.
The area to the north, south, and west of the property is zoned E-1. The area to the northeast and east is
zoned residential and includes Multi-Family Residential (R-2), Suburban Residential (R-1-3.5), and
Single Family Residential (R-1) properties.
The general topography of the site slopes to the north toward Hersey St. The property's most significant
natural features include Mountain Creek that flows south to north on the eastern boundary of the property.
A trail connection is shown in the Mountain Creek area on the City's adopted 2002 Open Space Plan. The
water resources map also identifies three possible wetlands on the site.
The subject property was used for a rail yard for locomotive maintenance, service, and rail car repair
between 1887 and 1986. Various structures including a hotel/passenger station, a freight station, a car
PA #2016-00684
June 28, 2016
Page 4
I
t
repair shed, a turntable, a roundhouse, and miscellaneous work and storage buildings were once present.
The Ashland rail yard peaked in the early 1900's. Subsequently, the site was used for light locomotive
maintenance and car repair functions until the early 1970's by the Southern Pacific Transportation
Company (SPTCo). UPRR acquired SPTCo and many of its assets, including the Ashland site, in 1997.
UPRR has not operated or performed any railroad related activities ate the site since the acquisition in
1997.
The only structures remaining on the site are foundations of several of the buildings. There is a fenced are
on the eastern portion of the site that includes an oil/water separator and two manmade retention ponds
(see sheet EC-1). A mainline track and rail spur operated by Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Inc.
(CORP) are located along the site's southern Boundary.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that a Major Modification of an approved application or condition
of approval may be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria,
except that the scope of the review is limited to the modification request.
The Planning Commission based the original 1999 condition of approval on the land partition criteria that
requires "the future use for° urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded." Specifically,
the staff report included the following discussion.
"The application notes that the deed restriction will be placed on the remaining approximately 25
acres due to subsurface contamination resulting from the past railroad operations. The E-1 zoning
and residential overlay (R-Overlay) allows for a variety of commercial and residential uses. The
City's Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use development, and existing City ordinances and
neighborhood planning efforts provide a variety of incentives in the hope of achieving this goal.
Consequently, it is important that the contaminants on the remaining 20+ acres be removed or
reduced to levels which would allow for commercial, as well as residential uses. Staff has attached
a condition requiring that the final cleanup achieve this goal and verification be provided form the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)."
The intent of the original condition is somewhat ambiguous because the extent of the required cleanup to
residential standards was unclear. In 1999, UPRR and DEQ were not directly involved in the application. h
Instead, a local real estate agent, representing UPRR and a second property owner, was the applicant. In
addition, the focus of the 1999 application was separating the far western end of the UPRR property (now
the west end of Clear Creek Dr.) for further development. While the cleanup of the far western end of the
property was required by DEQ before the area was developed, the level and extent of contaminants was
comparatively minor. As a result, the 1999 land partition application and the subsequent Planning
Commission public hearing discussion and decision did not involve extensive information regarding
UPRR's plans for the remaining UPRR property (the subject property) or about DEQ's remediation
process and cleanup standards. The Planning Commission and staff were aware that cleanup of the
remaining UPRR property was necessary and would be an issue in the future, but detailed information
regarding the remediation process and standards was not presented or evaluated.
The Planning Commission finds that the modification of the original 1999 condition and deed restriction will
PA #2016-00684
June 28, 2016
Page 5
r
f
i
G
not impeded the future use of the subject property for urban purposes. The UPRR property represents
approximately one fourth of the Ashland's inventory of Employment and Industrial zoned land and therefore
is a significant portion of the City's 20-year land supply for employment purposes. The statewide planning
program and implementing state laws require all cities to designate sufficient land to accommodate the
proj ect land need for employment and j ob creation for a 20-year planning period. The City's adopted 2010
Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA) comparison of land supply and need in Ashland indicated an
adequate supply of employment land until 2027 and a deficit in the 2028-2057 planning period.
The bulls of Ashland's buildable employment lands is divided between the UPRR property, the Washington
Ave./Jefferson Ave./Benson Way area (Washington Ave. area), and the Croman Mill district on Mistletoe
Rd. The three areas require significant infrastructure improvements (utilities and streets) before development
is possible and both the UPRR property and the Croman Mill district are required to be cleaned up prior to
further development. In contrast to the Washington Ave. area and Croman Mill district, the UPRR property
is entirely located in the Residential overlay.
The central location of the site makes the UPRR property a logical candidate for future development. The E-
1 zoning and inclusion in the Residential and Detail Site Review overlays provide a flexible approach for
future development that allows a mix of commercial, employment, and residential uses. This type of mixed-
use development is consistent with the following Ashland Comprehensive Plan policies that speak to
providing a mix of uses, especially as a buffer between employment areas and residential neighborhoods, and
encouraging a mix of uses in close proximity so that people that work and live in the area have the option of
making trips by walking or bicycling.
Chapter VII, The Economy, Policy 2, E. The City shall design the Land Use Ordinance to
provide for e) Commercial or employment zones where business and residential uses are
mixed. This is especially appropriate as buffers between residential and employment or
commercial areas and in the Downtown.
Chapter X, Transportation Element, Goal lll, Policy 2, Promote a mixed land use pattern,
where appropriate, and pedestrian environment design that supports walking and bicycling
trips.
The UPRR property has been effectively unavailable for the past 20 years because of the need to clean up the
site prior to fiu-ther development. The City Council has been working with UPRR and DEQ to review the
cleanup options and solidify a comprehensive approach that would address the initial cleanup of the 20-acre
site, minimize truck traffic in Ashland by using railcars to remove contaminated soil, and ensure that future
development would be subject to further cleanup consistent with the proposed use of individual lots. Making
the UPRR property a viable piece of the City's 20-year land supply for employment purposes is consistent
with the City's adopted 2011 Economic Development Strategy which includes identifying barriers to
development for key industrial lands and working to make them "shovel ready" for re-sale for business
development. The EDS includes the following strategy and action.
Strategy 6. Provide appropriate land supplies for needed business growth/expansion with
quality infrastructure to all commercial and employment lands.
PA #2016-00684
June 28, 2016
Page 6
i
k k iE~
[[4
III{
4
S
Action 6.6 Determine feasibility and cost/benefit for public purchase of key industrial lands
to make "shovel ready" for re-sale for business development.
The EDS discusses identifying lands that have been neglected and determining the existing barriers of F
development such as lack of services, access limitations, and environmental abatement needs. In addition, `
the EDS discuss evaluating whether direct public financial involvement may be the more appropriate tool
to address those barriers and make lands more financially attractive and operationally functional for private
development (i.e., the railroad property)." I'
Additionally, the proposed modification of the condition and deed restriction is consistent with the mix of
uses and potential configurations that are allowed on the UPRR property under the current zoning. The
location in the E-1 zone and the Residential overlay allows residential dwelling units as a special use.
However, as a special use dwelling units are only allowed in conjunction with a permitted commercial or
employment use. In addition, the applicant decides whether to included dwelling units in a future development
proposal. As a result, a variety of uses and building and site configurations are possible on the subject
property. The amended condition would allow each development to be evaluated independently and cleaned
up to the DEQ standard that matches the type and configuration of the uses.
The proposed change in the deed restriction was developed cooperatively between the City, DEQ, and UPRR
and crafted to meet DEQ's standards. UPRR has indicated that the change to the deed restriction will facilitate
the cleanup of the property in the near future. The Planning Commission finds that it is in the public interest
to get the subject property in a state that can be developed and to become a viable piece of the City's 20-year
land supply for employment purposes.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that many of the criteria for a Preliminary Plat approval were
satisfied when the subject parcel was created and are not affected by the proposal to modify the deed
restriction regarding the cleanup of the subject property. As discussed above, the Commission finds that the
modification of the original 1999 condition and deed restriction will not impeded the future use of the subject
property for urban purposes. In contrast, the need to cleanup property has prevented development over the
past two decades and UPRR has indicated that the change to the deed restriction will facilitate the cleanup of
the property in the near future.
Similarly, the development of adjacent land and access is not impacted by a change in the deed restriction on
the subject property. In the future, Clear Creek Dr. and Rogue Place will be extended through the property
along with public utilities to serve the employment area located between the railroad tracks and Hersey St.
The continuation of the network of sheets and public services will eventually allow the development of the
site and general area.
Finally, the proposed change in the deed restriction was developed cooperatively between the City, DEQ and
UPRR and has been crafted to meet DEQ's standards. As a result, the proposal will allow the owner to obtain
the required State and Federal permits for the cleanup of the property.
PA 92016-00684
June 28, 2016
Page 7
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the request for a Major Modification to amend a condition of approval of the land partition and lot line
adjustment of PA 99-048 is supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2016-00684. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2016-00684 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval.
1) All conditions of the PA 99-048 shall remain conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically
modified herein.
2) That the deed restriction required in condition 9 of PA 99-048 shall be revised to read as follows.
Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains
a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the properly
meets cleanup standards applicable to a single residential property. Thereafter,
development of or any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a
determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets C
cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. Grantor
will provide written documentation form the Department of Environmental Quality
demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City.
3) That evidence shall be submitted demonstrating that the deed restriction has been revised in
accordance with condition 2 above and recorded prior to issuance of City excavation permit or any
site work.
m
June 28, 2016
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #2016-00684
June 28, 2016
Page 8
I°
i
a
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1900 PA-2016-00684 PA-2016-00684
DAVE LOHMAN MARK KNOX JAMES JARRARD
CITY OF ASHLAND 604 FAIR OAKS CT 1072 CLEAR CREEK DR
20 EAST MAIN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
k
PA-2016-00684 PA-2016-00684 PA-2016-00684
RICK HARRIS MARTY BREON UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
190 OAK ST, #1 295 EAST NEVADA ST 221 HODGEMAN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 LARAMIE, WY 82072
UPRR PROPERTY '
NOD 6/29/16
6
E
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
t.
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On 6/29/16 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope
with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person
listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each
person's name for Planning Action #2016-00684, UPRR Property.
Signature of Employee
Domumentt 6/29/2016
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission 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 Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
1
Marne
(please print)
Address (no P.O. Ilox)
Phone S~ ' Email
Tonight's Meeting Date 1 ` c
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (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
Chair 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 nonnal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Aleeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. Tl?e Ashland Planning Coiiui7issioi7 generally
invites the public to speak o» agenda items and duringpublic forufn on non-agenda items unless tinge
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 naay 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.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission 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 Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
~i
Name
(please print)
Address (no P.O. Box) Phone (t q
Tonight's Meeting Date
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (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
Chair 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:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
alivays require that the public be permitted to speak. Tire Ashland Planning C011rmissiOr9 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 ofproceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding office7-. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the 7-00177.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission 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 Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Name
(please print)
Address (no P.O. Box)
Phone Email
Tonight's Meeting Date
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (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
Chair 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:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city ineetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Plaiiniiig Coi77iliission generally
iin,ites the public to speak on agenda items and during public foruin on non-agenda itenis unless time
constraints hinit 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 lecn,e the rooln.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
i
i
Maria Harris
From: James Jarrard <Jarrard51@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 4:28 PM
To: Maria Harris
Cc: Maureen Wilson-Jarrard; AITKEN.Greg@deq.state. or.us; Bill Molnar; David Lohman
Subject: Re: PA-2016-00684 / Railroad Property / Commission Presentation by Citizen
Attachments: 3_Update_Road_Design.pdf
Ms. Harris
Attached is a presentation I would like to make to the planning commission on June 14, 2016. 1 will attend and stand to
speak.
James Jarrard
i
i
i
e
Ashland Planning Commission Citizen Communication
June 13, 2016
PA-2016-00684 Union Pacific Railroad Rail Yard Remediation
FROM:
James Jarrard, Ashland City Resident, james.jarrard@icloud.com
COMMUNICATION SUMMARY:
The planning action under consideration contains a number of references to street designs for
development of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) yard. Proposed street designs in PA-2016-
00684 for the UPRR yard date from October, 1999 in PA #99-048. Proposals and exhibits
submitted to the Commission are facsimiles of these dated surveys and plots. I come before the
Commission strongly recommends use of current, up-to-date surveys of the properties in
question and all adjacent properties prior to approval. Use of current, up-to-date surveys would
allow the Commission to approve actions which allow adherence to road specification in the City
Communication plan. Approval of this proposal would allow an in-depth analysis of the actual
necessity of new cross-city roads/streets in light of needed Hersey Street repairs and
improvements.
BACKGROUND AND ACTION IMPLICATIONS:
Materials provided as background for PA 2016-00684 consideration are dated to the time of the
original proposals for UPRR properties (October, 1999). Considerable action and determinations
have occurred in the intervening 17 years, including watershed protection, impervious surface
limitations, and the availability of water to the site in question. Exhibit D in this presentation
shows how planning actions by pertinent agencies are copying facsimile information from 1999
proposals to be presented in 2016 to the Ashland Planning Commission. Given the fiscal state of
many agencies, this lack of planning is understandable, but it is very detrimental to sound
community development.
Exhibit A presents a reasonable alternative to the plans under consideration by the Commission.
The new route for a commercial access street is presented. This new route accounts for
watershed developments since the original 1999 plan. The communities involved have gone to
considerable time and expense to improve their environment. Having the planning commission
make changes to the 1999 roads and streets designs would take into account the efforts of
citizens of Ashland to maintain an habitable environment.
Exhibit B provides the Commission with information on developments adjacent to the UPRR
property and those under consideration in PA 2016-00684. Two separate property associations
have made decisions and taken actions that were approved by Ashland City authorities. It is
imperative that the City planning commission take into account past approved actions exhibited
herein.
Planning Action: PA #2016-00684, et seq. Page 1 of 8
Petitioner: James P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland
i
i
Factual information that shows inadequate information is provided to the Commission on this
action (PA 2016-00684) is contained in Exhibit C. This provides official communication by
Ashland City officials on UPRR property. Inquiries to the city Planning Department by the
person before you indicates that records on PA-2016-00522 concerning riparian factors and city
electric services are not publicly available. This factor alone should give pause to the
Commission. The Commission needs to have accurate, actionable, up-to-date information at its
disposal prior to making long-range decisions.
Proposed modifications to the roads and street plans under consideration in PA 99-0048 and PA
2016-00684 take into account the declared Ashland City street standards (Exhibit E). The plans
submitted by the planning division in PA 2016-00684 cannot be implemented without
considerable modification, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the streets while increasing the
overall costs. Adjusting the placement of roads and streets from that proposed in the UPRR PA-
2016-00684/PA-99-0048 will allow Ashland City to adhere to its established standards, reduce
construction costs, while increasing the efficacy of implemented projects.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Due to the complexity of future UPRR developments, there are considerable fiscal implications,
both increases and reductions, to the City and to future developers of the property.
The most immediate implication would be a requirement to adequately survey the property and
obtain effective design plans for future construction. This would impact Planning Department
personnel time demands, as well as actual dollar costs for updating existing 1999 plans. As there
have been notable City watershed and wetland determinations effecting UPRR properties and
adjacent properties, actual dollar costs for professional consulting services would not be trivial.
To offset the above `planning' costs, the engineering costs for constructing a redesigned road and
street layout could be considerable. These reductions in engineering and construction costs
would come through: 1) reduced wetland/watershed/stream mitigation, 2) simplification of road
and street designs (roads/streets would be straighter and meet city standards), 3) the effectiveness
of constructed roads would be considerably higher.
CITIZEN RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
It is strongly recommended that the Ashland City Planning Commission require an in-depth
current and up-to-date analysis of the roads and streets design in the UPRR project (PA 99-048
and PA 2016-00684). The citizen coming before the Commission recommends possible
roadways taking into account watershed and wetland areas not currently accounted for in the
plans from 1999 which are the basis for Ashland Planning Division proposals before the
Commission.
This recommendation does not preclude the Commission from taking immediate action on
approving remediation of the rail yard industrial residues.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
The Ashland Planning Commission should direct the Planning Department to update all road and
street designs for UPRR to account for any changes since initial inception in 1999. The updated
i
Planning Action: PA #2016-00684, et seq. Page 2 of 8
Petitioner: James P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland
i
road and street designs should be presented to the Commission prior to commencement of
road/street construction layout design and construction activity,
C
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A
A proposed modification to road and street design for PA-2016-0068 which takes into account
more current information than that used by the Planning Department in the development of its
presentation to the Commission (using 2015 Google maps).
Exhibit B
Delineation of homeowner association properties and actions on watershed and wetlands
determinations and improvements in property development in the UPRR areas under
consideration in PA-2016-00684 and PA-99-0048.
Exhibit C
Actions by Ashland City entity on May 23, 2016 regarding riparian issues on `Railroad Property'
and identified as PA-2016-00522. Effective June 13, 2016 at 3:30pm, there is no publicly
available information available from the Planning Department on this action/decision item.
Exhibit D
An analysis of the use of 1999 dated road and street design information presented to the
Commission in PA-2016-00684 as current information. Close analysis of the PA-2016-00684
shows that considerable pertinent surface developments are not included for Commission
consideration in decision development for this project.
Exhibit E
Established Ashland City roads and street standards for "Neighborhod Collector, Commercial"
streets. The citizen proposal calls upon the Planning Commission to develop road and street
designs in UPRR property development that allow for implementation of these standards.
Planning Action: PA #2016-00684, et seq. Page 3 of 8
Petitioner: James P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland
i
l
kp
E
I
I
Exhibit A - 2015 Google Maps with Watershed Designations - Exceeds Accuracy of PA 2016-00684 Submissions
611 2120 1 6 G.g1,,%bp,
v ~
h.
_J
`F r" I
r; 1
I~ t z~ IrY r rm'
M1ups//nunv.googlemmrmap,I6J21935933.-t22'/03]02I,tit5mldua=13m1!Ie3 23
Planning Action: PA #2016-00684, at seq. Page 4of 8
Petitioner: James P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland
i
c
Exhibit B - Property Records (Jackson County) showing improvements not on PA 2016-00684
611112016 lhwele Maps T
'T,
a~
F-
3 [N.I.bl. kson CountyTax Lot 06 con Heights HCA RI Arian 1 a Ls 1
1 tl
i
m rvem n 2016 i,
s~ ^ a 1
1 ~-a. cif
J .6son CountyTax 1
- I
Iiii
ph Springs HCA ,
ll_l'JCU ds Preserv
hups:)Ammgw.I...mlmap<1942-1'Y3»33; 12 2 703 7021,666m~dms=emllle3 213
Planning Action: PA #2016-00684, et seq. Page 5of 8
Petitioner: James P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland
i
E
Exhibit C - Watershed/Wetlands actions by Planning Commission. Information on this action
PA2016-00522 is not currently available from Planning Department (June 13, 2016 2:45pm)
CITY OF
ASHLAND
MONTHLY PLANNING ACTION REVIEW MEETING NOTES
Monday, May 23, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. in the Siskiyou Room at 51 Winburn Way
1. ATTENDANCE:
Attencees were Jeverson rrom uommuev, smeenK - & Johnson --trom--Puptlc -
Works/Engineerings, and Tygerson & McBartlett from Electric
2. PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2016-00522
SUBJECT PROPERTY: "Railroad Property"
APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Union Pacific Railroad f`
PLANNER: Maria
DESCRIPTION: Modification of Original Approval
Smeenk noted that there are on-going flooding issues with the creek near the Southeast corner
of the site, and that it will need to be addressed soon.
Tygerson noted that all electric facilities were previously removed from the site, and that electric
facilities will need to be planned for the site as a completely new project.
I
3. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00768
APPLICANT: Stollings
PLANNER: Cory
DESCRIPTION: Tree Removal
If there are any electrical lines in proximity to the tree to be removed, the applicants should
contact the Electric Department prior to the commencement of work.
4. PLANNING ACTION: PA- 2016-00818
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 163-175 Pioneer St.
APPLICANT: Joan Yates/Christopher Brown
PLANNER: Cory/Mark
DESCRIPTION: Site Review to add arbors over outdoor seating at Gil's &
Ruby's
No Public Works issues if the pergolas do not extend over public right-of-way. If either extends
over the right-of-way, the applicant would need to submit a site plan for review and request an
encroachment permit.
Need to verify with Fire if there are any concerns with "rafter tails" impeding Fire Apparatus
Access.
5. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00836
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 364-384 Stadium St.
APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University (Bruce Abeloe)
PLANNER: Derek
DESCRIPTION: Tree Removals
The overhead power lines shown on the applicants' submittals were removed with the McNeal
demolition. Poles are down and lines are out and there should be no conflict with trees.
6. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00847
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 252 B St
APPLICANT: Van Heuit
PLANNER: Derek
DESCRIPTION: Residential Site Review & CUP to Exceed Maximum Floor
Area
If there are significant additions proposed, the applicants would be advised to look at upgrading
the existing services, and would need to underground at that time. Advised that the applicants
should contact the Electric Department.
Public Works noted that it appeared that the drainage at the rear would not be changing, but
noted that there are on-going drainage issues at the bottom of the alley.
Planning Action: PA #2016-00684, et seq. Page 6 of 8
Petitioner: James P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland
I
Exhibit D - 2016 Planning Department Proposals compared to 2001 Street Designs based upon PA99-
048 Actions. Facsimile copies of information without consideration of intervening developments
r , l Y l a ~ w t 1 lR aalb°a~~ Pro,ly~ct t
~1D) It-1°~ill ~I 1'! Vii'
i r ) ,t_I.~t,~il-1 n,r ] f11T'},• 1~
I
I
{ - -
/ la r
St vet Dr,t ~>>h~im
r ~r
I\ ,It I 1C Il tl-.l. I !L l it F ~
ti.
\ µ1L I i C I I'1 C 1
lyl l ~rhau~ Stn f, H Icnfi,~l ° r'
r 'IN
I III ~ ~ / ~'V1 I t ~
~ S S' ;I L I L ll I t I ~ r ~ -
! ar q;i rJ I ~r 1
100 'R ih,. IBolt' fl , 1 t1~' ~ ~I
I dn~e~l I
r 1 ~ 7
Street design from 2016 PA 2016-00684
_`__1.. Tract i i
1 ~
4
I
4
6 31
`~•~vo, 1 is
3
4 4 1 'I - - -
LLGEND 4
1 Nyi:~htiodr.:<a;! builS~kJf ~u 2 2
Corrintariiul
N budioud COll~utur, f r
f mmcrci( I i.
i
~ ~ t -:iioud ~G'aat, _ a fi hlaIL7156uri•r5ad 01rnEt.
4 Al"
t'.: ~~-:arhoodColleotor, Street Desigoatiot) Diagram
~t~rnn,arc'ai As.raiand ,Raitroad rnr>auodl, Va.stnr Tian
drhluud 2aihnud P npar[p Master Plun Ashland. Oregon The Muster Plan 20
2001 Design Plans - UPRR via PA 99-048 decision
Planning Action: PA #2016-00684, et seq. Page 7 of 8
Petitioner: James P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland
r;
i
Exhibit E - Ashland City street design standards. These designs do not fit in proposed PA 2016-
00684 street design layouts.
r
I;
i
)Nillk Tree Polk,ing Tr;jvc+l PRrbng Tree IN,ilk
'i~e~ll W,4;tl 'P C} `ryl
1NFIGHCORK)OD COLLIECTON, COMMERCIAL
{Parking Both Side&)
I
T-0 7-0- ,9' 0"
Wilk Parking Traver ~ Parking "Valk
Planting Planting
Strip Strip
:72'-rr, 1
i
R.u.VJ.
7 IlEIGI0-IORH0 OD cr I (,s:rO r:QMMrR.^,IAI
lpofkint7 H<:.1h Flrw;
Ashland Raihnad Property d/aster Plmr • Ashland, Oregon The A-fester Plan - 21
I+
Planning Action: PA #2016-00684, et seq. Page 8 of 8
Petitioner: James P. Jarrard, Resident of Ashland
P,
r
r_
U~
` e
{
i
i
Maria Harris
From: April Lucas
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 8:48 AM
To: Maria Harris; Bill Molnar
Subject: FW: Railroad property deed restrictions and future development
From: Melanie Mindlin [mailto:sassetta@mind.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 4:43 PM
To: April Lucas
Subject: Fwd: Railroad property deed restrictions and future development
Hi April,
For the record; distribute as you see fit.
Melanie
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marty Breon <martbreon.org>
Subject: Railroad property deed restrictions and future development
Date: June 7, 2016 at 2:21:18 PM PDT
To: sassettaCcDmind.net
Cc: Pam Marsh <Pam(abcouncil.ashland.or.us>, Greg Lemhouse
<qre_ council.ashland.or.us>, Rich Rosenthal <rich council. ash land. or, us>, "Michael
Morris (Council)" <mike council.ashland.or,us>, "stefani(cD-council.ashland. or.us
Seffinger" <stefani(a-)council.ashland.or.us>, Carol Voisin <civvo_isin yahoo.co Dave
Kanner <dave.kanner6o ashland.or.us>, Bert Etling <betlin Bail tidings.com>
June 7, 2016
Ashland Oregon Planning Commission:
In the matter of amending deed restrictions for the railroad property in Ashland, between Oak and Mountain
cast of A Street:
We agree that deed restrictions should be lifted to enable the cleanup of toxins on the site.
It is apparent that cleanup will take time, so actual development plans for this 72 acre site are maybe years
away. The conceptual plans developed fifteen years ago over a two week period of meetings, including some
public input, are extensive. Those plans are innovative and address a variety of issues and goals. But times
and circumstances change. For example, it could not have foreseen that, fifteen years later, a through route
through this property would be the best answer to Ashland's downtown traffic problems. The only proposed
alternate, East Nevada Street, has subsequently been developed and is now densely populated. It wasn't
known then that neighbors would unanimously oppose the City's intent to build a vehicular bridge over the
creek. Or that they would expect to divert downtown traffic, and even 15 bypass traffic, through quiet
neighborhoods. But it might have been reasonably assumed.
The Transportation Commission's instruction to Public Works to develop a bike and pedestrian bridge over the
creek is now the revised direction to Public Works. Public Works will also develop an option that will
accommodate emergency vehicles, which we hope will be affordable for Ashland. This option could also
accommodate a bus, should RVTD Route 8 ever become a reality. Public Works informed us that plans for
non-auto options would be presented at the September 2016 meeting of the Transportation Commission.
1
i
i
Downtown traffic congestion remains a problem with east west alternate routes to Main Street still
needed. We urge the Planning Commission to look at the potential of Clear Creek as an excellent alternate. It
has a number of advantages: it is commercially zoned; it remains a blank slate; and it leaves a low-carbon
footprint because the site is level. (No need for cars to climb out of a flood plain hole as at Hersey.)
i
The existing conceptual plan for the railroad property addresses some transportation goals within the
development but falls short otherwise. The development will attract new businesses, more jobs, more housing,
more people. And guess what - more cars - on Main Street!
Because it's new it can be designed with a straight, wide avenue as a viable east/west through route. With
ample off-street parking, bike lanes can be dedicated to safe bike lanes. Such a plan invites pedestrians and
sidewalk cafes. The existing conceptual design with twisty narrow streets jammed with parked cars endangers
bicyclists and does not attract pedestrians. It will maximize profits for the developers. It will also maximize
traffic problems for downtown Ashland.
East Nevada had been proposed as a downtown bypass. In the near future, residents in neighborhoods near
East Nevada will be approaching the Transportation Commission with a formal application to revise maps that
designate Nevada as a "collector street." Following protocol, the matter will eventually reach the City Council
and perhaps the Planning Commission. The 2012 TSP is going to be revised within the next few months. This
is a good time to change the designation of East Nevada back to a neighborhood street. Which it is.
We urge you, the planning commission, to keep your finger on the pulse of the community as you oversee the
railroad property development. The railroad property provides the perfect solution for a downtown traffic
bypass. East Nevada does not.
Thank you for your time,
Marty and Spike Breon
295 East Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
ATarty Breon
650 941-8525 541 512-5844
i
2
i
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
June 14, 2016
PLANNING ACTION: #2016-00684
OWNER: Union Pacific Railroad
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
LOCATION: Clear Creek Dr., Parcel 7
ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: June 2, 2016
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: October 2, 2016
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: (see http://www.ashIand.or.us/comdevdocs to view land
use ordinance on-line)
18.5.3 Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments
18.5.6 Modifications to Approved Planning Actions
REQUEST: A request to modify a condition of approval and change a deed restriction that was
required in a 1999 planning approval (PA 99-048) and subsequently recorded on the vacant 20-
acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The original deed restriction required that the
20-acre site be cleaned up to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) residential
standard before further land divisions or development occurs. The proposed revision to the deed
restriction clarifies the timing and type of cleanup for consistency with DEQ standards so that: 1)
before the 20-acre site can be divided into smaller lots or developed, the initial cleanup of the 20-
acre site would be to the residential standard and 2) future subdivided lots would have to be cleaned
up to the standard DEQ requires for the proposed use of the individual lots: the "occupational"
standard for retail, office, or light industrial uses; the "residential" standard for ground level
housing.
1. Relevant Facts
A. Planning Action History
In November 1999, the Planning Commission approved a land partition, including the
construction of a new public street and alley system and a lot line adjustment for the property
located southeast of the intersection of Hersey an Oak streets and north of the railroad tracks
(Planning Action 99-048). The west end of Clear Creek Dr. and six surrounding lots were
created as a result of the approved land partition and the lot line adjustment. A variety of
mixed-use building were and continue to be developed in the area. The seventh lot created by
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 11
the land partition and lot line adjustment is the undeveloped 20-acre site that is the subject of
the current application and owned by UPRR (see Staff Exhibit A).
In August 1999, the City Council approved a change to the Comprehensive Plan map from t
Industrial to Employment and to the Zoning map from M-1 to E-1 (Planning Action 99-066,
Ordinance 2843). In addition, the area was included in the Detail Site Review and Residential j
overlays (see Staff Exhibit B).
i
In June 2002, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the street dedication map I
for a street system in the area north of the railroad tracks and south of Hersey St., between
Oak St. and N. Mountain Ave. (Planning Action 2002-058) (see Staff Exhibit Q.
G
I
B. Background - History of Application
The subject property is commonly referred to as the railroad property because it is the former
site of the rail yard and is currently owned by UPRR. The property is also referred to as
"Parcel 7" because the remaining vacant 20-acre site was identified as Parcel 7 in the land
partition and lot line adjustment that was approved in 1999.
In 1999, the Planning Commission added a condition to a land partition and lot line adjustment
approval (PA 99-048) requiring a deed restriction on the UPRR property stating that the site
is required to be cleaned up to DEQ residential standard before further land divisions or
development occurs and that written confirmation from DEQ that the cleanup to residential
standards is completed be submitted to the City of Ashland.
In April 2015, UPRR proposed remediation of a limited portion of the site and using trucks
for transporting outgoing contaminated soil and incoming clean fill. The City Council
responded with a request that UPRR conduct a full-site remediation and use railcars for
transporting contaminated soil. In response, UPRR asked that the City consider relaxing the
deed restriction on the property. Subsequently, the Council held a study session on October
6, 2015 at which representatives of DEQ and UPRR presented cleanup options.
At the October 6, 2015 City Council study session, a representative of UPRR indicated UPRR
would like to cleanup and sell the property. However, the representative said the existing deed
restriction from 1999 is a barrier to potential buyers/developers because it requires future
subdivided lots that may not be used for residential purposes to be cleaned up to residential
standards. DEQ's standards require cleanup to match the proposed use of the individual lots:
the "occupational" standard for retail, office, or light industrial uses; the "residential" standard
for ground level housing. According to the UPRR representative, the existing deed restriction
has deterred interests of potential buyers/developers because it is inconsistent between DEQ's
remediation requirements.
Also at the October 6 meeting, the UPRR representative presented three possible scenarios
that UPRR could take at the rail yard: 1) full cleanup of the site to DEQ standard using rail to
remove contaminated soil and trucks to bring clean fill to the site; 2) partial cleanup per DEQ
standard using trucks for both contaminated soil and clean fill; and 3) no remediation, leaving
the property in the current state.
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 11
i
At the January 5, 2016 meeting, the City Council approved a motion directing staff to seek
modification of the 1999 deed restriction on the UPRR property and to negotiate with UPRR
to develop an agreement concerning full-site remediation of the UPRR property as soon as
possible using railcars for transporting contaminated soils.
At the April 5, 2016 meeting, the City Council approved a motion directing staff to prepare, F
file, and seek an application for a Major Amendment to replace the condition of approval in
PA 99-048 with the modified condition of approval presented in the April 5, 2016 Council
Communication and to continue working with UPRR and DEQ to achieve remediation of the
rail yard site to applicable DEQ standard using railcars for removal of contaminated soil. The
modified condition of approval from the April 5, 2016 Council Communication is as follows.
Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor
obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that
the property meets cleanup standards applicable to a single residential
property. Thereafter, development of any subdivided parcel cannot occur until
Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental
Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use
proposed for the subdivided parcel. Grantor will provide written
documentation form the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating
compliance with these standards to the City.
The City Council also directed staff to negotiate with UPRR to develop an agreement
concerning full-site remediation of the UPRR property to applicable DEQ standards using
railcars for transporting contaminated soils at the April 5, 2016 meeting. As described earlier,
the discussions about the cleanup of the UPRR property between UPRR, DEQ, and the City
Council began in April 2015. Staff has been working with UPRR and DEQ on behalf of the
Council to adjust UPRR's original proposal of a partial cleanup of the eastern portion of the
site and using trucks for transport of outgoing contaminated soil and incoming clean fill
material.
After more than a year of discussions and negotiations between the City, UPRR, and DEQ,
the following list of City Council requirements will be addressed in the course of the cleanup
proj ect.
® After the remediation of the full site as an aggregated unit cleaned up to residential
standards, development on any subdivided lots could occur only after remediation to
DEQ standards applicable to the proposed use of the individual lots.
® The bulk of the work performed in latter part of 2016 and early part of 2017.
® Contaminated soil removed by rail. Railcars containing contaminated soil will be
covered to prevent releases.
® Contaminated water and any debris will be contained and removed from the site.
® Batch deliveries of clean fill for stockpiling on site to avoid unpredictable, intermittent
deliveries spread throughout the duration of the project.
® DEQ-approved dust suppression measures.
® Wheel-washing of all trucks and other rubber-tired equipment leaving the site.
® Use of City-designated routes for heavy trucks traveling to and from the site.
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 11
i
® UPRR pays for repair and restoration of any pavement on public streets damaged by
heavy truck or other equipment used in project.
If the deed restriction is modified as directed by the City Council, UPRR has indicated they
will move forward with a full cleanup of the site (see figure 1-1, figure 1-2, and map EC-
3). The project would be completed in five phases as follows.
® Phase I - Installation of a temporary rail spur to the central portion of the site.
® Phase II - Removal of surface features (building foundations and remaining
equipment) and three NAPL areas. C
® Phase III - Removal of soil from the west excavation area.
® Phase IV - Removal of soil from the east excavation area. I;
® Phase V - Removal of temporary rail spur and final grading.
C. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The Site
The UPRR property is approximately 20 acres in size and located north of the railroad
tracks and between the two dead-end portions of Clear Creek Dr. The west side of Clear
Creek Dr. intersects with Oak St. and the east side intersects with N. Mountain Ave. Rouge
Place is a third dead-end street that abuts the property in the northeast portion of the site.
Clear Creek Dr. and Rogue Place are planned to continue through the UPRR property at
the time the site is developed.
The property is zoned Employment (E-1) and located in the Residential and Detail Site
Review overlays. The Residential overlay allows 15 dwelling units per acre as a special
use in conjunction with permitted commercial and employment uses. A building can have
up to 35 percent in residential uses on the ground floor (e.g., ground floor commercial or
employment with upper story residential units) or up to half of a lot used for residential
purposes if there a multiple building on a site.
The area to the north, south, and west of the property is zoned E-1. The area to the northeast
and east is zoned residential and includes Multi-Family Residential (R-2), Suburban
Residential (R-1-3.5), and Single Family Residential (R-1) properties.
The general topography of the site slopes to the north toward Hersey St. The property's most
significant natural features include Mountain Creek that flows south to north on the eastern
boundary of the property. A trail connection is shown in the Mountain Creek area on the City's
adopted 2002 Open Space Plan. The water resources map also identifies three possible
wetlands on the site (see Staff Exhibit D).
The subject property was used for a rail yard for locomotive maintenance, set vice, and rail car
repair between 1887 and 1986. Various structures including a hotel/passenger station, a freight
station, a car repair shed, a turntable, a roundhouse, and miscellaneous work and storage
buildings were once present. The Ashland rail yard peaked in the early 1900's. Subsequently,
the site was used for light locomotive maintenance and car repair functions until the early
1970's by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTCo). UPRR acquired SPTCo
and many of its assets, including the Ashland site, in 1997. UPRR has not operated or
performed any railroad related activities ate the site since the acquisition in 1997.
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 11
The only structures remaining on the site are foundations of several of the buildings. There is
a fenced are on the eastern portion of the site that includes an oil/water separator and two
manmade retention ponds (see sheet EC-1). A mainline track and rail spur operated by Central
Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Inc. (CORP) are located along the site's southern Boundary.
The Proposal
The request is to modify a condition of approval of the land partition and lot line adjustment
(PA 99-048). The original condition from 1999 required a deed restriction on the UPRR
property stating that the site is required to be cleaned up to DEQ residential standard before
further land divisions or development occurs and that written confirmation from DEQ that the
cleanup to residential standards is completed be submitted to the City of Ashland. The City
Attorney believes the original 1999 deed restriction as written means that every level or
stage of cleanup must be to residential standards, including future subdivided lots.
The original condition of approval from 1999 (PA 99-048) is as follows.
9) That a deed restriction be placed on the remaining 25 acres (approximately)
precluding further "development" or land divisions until the property has been
cleaned to residential standards. Written compliance with these standards shall
be provided to the City from the Department of Environmental Quality.
The proposed modification would amend the deed restriction to require two levels of cleanup.
First, the initial cleanup of the 20-acre site would be to the residential standard for a single
residential property. Subsequent development or subdivided lots would have to be cleaned
up to the standard DEQ requires for the proposed use of the individual lots: the
"occupational" standard for retail, office, or light industrial uses; the "residential" standard
for ground level housing.
As previously described in the background section on page 3, the City Council directed staff
to seek modification of the 1999 deed restriction on the UPRR property with the modified
condition presented in the April 5, 2016 Council Communication. The proposed modified
condition of approval is as follows.
Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor ti
obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that
the property meets cleanup standards applicable to a single residential'
property. Thereafter, development of any subdivided parcel cannot occur until
Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental
Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use
proposed for the subdivided parcel. Grantor will provide written
documentation form the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating
compliance with these standards to the City.
As described earlier, the site has been inactive since 1997 when UPRR acquired the subject
property. The property is in DEQ's voluntary cleanup program because the contaminants on
the property are considered low-risk. As a result, DEQ cannot compel UPRR to clean up the
property in a specific time period. However, the property does have to be cleaned up before
it can be redeveloped.
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 11
I
I
II. Proiect Impact
The modification of an approved application or condition of approval that could have a
i
detrimental effect on adjoining properties requires Major Modification under chapter
18.5.6. The review procedure (i.e., Type I administrative approval or Type 11 public
hearing) for a modification is the same as the procedure used for the original application. R
In this case, a Type 11 public hearing process is required because the original land partition
and lot line adjustment was processed as a Type 11 (AMC 18.5.6.030.A.7).
Major Modifications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project
approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request (AMC
18.5.6.030.C). As a result, the application review is limited to the deed restriction
modification request and the applicable approval criteria are those for a land partition.
The Planning Commission based the original 1999 condition of approval on the land
partition criteria that requires "the future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the
tract tivill not be impeded " Specifically, the staff report included the following discussion.
"The application notes that the deed restriction will be placed on the remaining
approximately 25 acres due to subsurface contamination resulting from the past
railroad operations. The E-1 zoning and residential overlay (R-Overlay) allows for
a variety of commercial and residential uses. The City's Comprehensive Plan
encourages mixed-use development, and existing City ordinances and
neighborhood planning efforts provide a variety of incentives in the hope of
achieving this goal. Consequently, it is important that the contaminants on the
remaining 20+ acres be removed or reduced to levels which would allow for
commercial, as well as residential uses. Staff has attached a condition requiring
that the final cleanup achieve this goal and verification be provided form the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)."
Staff believes the intent of the original condition is somewhat ambiguous because the
extent of the required cleanup to residential standards was unclear. In 1999, UPRR and
DEQ were not directly involved in the application. Instead, a local real estate agent,
representing UPRR and a second property owner, was the applicant. In addition, the focus
of the 1999 application was separating the far western end of the UPRR property (now the
west end of Clear Creek Dr.) for further development. While the cleanup of the far western
end of the property was required by DEQ before the area was developed, staff's
understanding is that the level and extent of contaminants was comparatively minor. As a
result, the 1999 land partition application and the subsequent Planning Commission public
hearing discussion and decision did not involve extensive information regarding UPRR's
plans for the remaining UPRR property or about DEQ's remediation process and cleanup
standards. The Planning Commission and staff were aware that cleanup of the remaining
UPRR property was necessary and would be an issue in the future, but detailed information
regarding the remediation process and standards was not presented or evaluated.
A. Long-Range Planning Policies
The UPRR property represents approximately one fourth of the Ashland's inventory of
Employment and Industrial zoned land with the bulk of buildable employment lands
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6 of 11
I
i
i
divided between the UPRR property, the Washington Ave./Jefferson Ave./Benson Way
area (Washington Ave. area), and the Croman Mill district on Mistletoe Rd. The three
areas require significant infrastructure improvements (utilities and streets) before
development is possible and both the UPRR property and the Croman Mill district are
required to be cleaned up prior to further development.
The statewide planning program and implementing state laws require all cities to
designate sufficient land to accommodate the project land need for employment and job
creation for a 20-year planning period. The City's adopted 2010 Economic Opportunity
Analysis (EOA) comparison of land supply and need in Ashland indicated an adequate
supply of employment land until 2027 and a deficit in the 2028-2057 planning period.
In contrast to the Washington Ave. area and Croman Mill district, the UPRR property is
entirely located in the Residential overlay. The site is zoned E-1 and also included in the
Detail Site Review overlay. The combination of the zoning and overlays provides a
flexible approach for future development that allows a mix of commercial, employment,
and residential uses. This type of mixed-use development is consistent with the
following Ashland Comprehensive Plan policies that speak to providing a mix of uses,
especially as a buffer between employment areas and residential neighborhoods, and to
encouraging a mix of uses in close proximity so that people that work and live in the area
have the option of making trips by walking or bicycling.
Chapter VII, The Economy, Policy 2, E. The City shall design the Land
Use Ordinance to provide for e) Commercial or employment zones where
business and residential uses are mixed. This is especially appropriate as
buffers between residential and employment or commercial areas and in
the Downtown.
Chapter X, Transportation Element, Goal lll, Policy 2, Promote a mixed
land use pattern, where appropriate, and pedestrian environment design
that supports walking and bicycling trips.
Despite the central location and significant contribution to the City's land supply for
employment purposes, the UPRR property has been effectively unavailable for the past
because of the need to clean up the site prior to further development. The City Council has
been working with UPRR and DEQ to review the cleanup options and solidify a
comprehensive approach that would address the initial cleanup of the 20-acre site, minimize
truck traffic in Ashland by using railcars to remove contaminated soil, and ensure that future
development would be subject to further cleanup consistent with the proposed use of
individual lots.
Malting the UPRR property a viable piece of the City's 20-year land supply for employment
purposes is consistent with the City's adopted 2011 Economic Development Strategy (EDS)
which includes identifying barriers to development for key industrial lands and working to
make them "shovel ready" for re-sale for business development. The EDS includes the
following strategy and action.
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7 of 11
i
i
Strategy 6. Provide appropriate land supplies for needed business
growth/expansion with quality infrastructure to all commercial and
employment lands.
Action 6.6 Determine feasibility and cost/benefit for public purchase of key
industrial lands to make "shovel ready" for re-sale for business
development. i
r
The EDS discusses identifying lands that have been neglected and determining the
existing barriers of development such as lack of services, access limitations, and
environmental abatement needs. In addition, the EDS discuss evaluating whether
direct public financial involvement may be the more appropriate tool to address those is
barriers and make lands more financially attractive and operationally functional for
private development (i.e., the railroad property)."
In staff's opinion, the proposed modification of the condition and deed restriction is consistent
with the mix of uses and potential configurations that are allowed on the UPRR property under
the current zoning. The location in the E-1 zone and the Residential overlay allows residential
dwelling units as a special use. However, as a special use dwelling units are only allowed in
conjunction with a permitted commercial or employment use. In addition, the applicant
decides whether to included dwelling units in a future development proposal. As a result, a
variety of uses and building and site configurations are possible on the subject property.
For example, future development proposals could include a single-use building housing a
permitted use such as a light manufacturing use or an office use, a mixed-use building housing
a permitted use such as a commercial or office use and residential units, or a multiple-building
development containing single-use buildings housing permitted uses such as commercial or
light industrial uses and single-use buildings housing dwelling units. The amended condition
would allow each development to be evaluated independently and cleaned up to the DEQ
standard that matches the type and configuration of the proposed uses.
111. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The approval criteria for a Major Modification are detailed in AMC 18.5.6.030.C as
follows:
C. Major Modification Approval Criteria. A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval
authority finding that all of the following criteria are met.
1. Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project
approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request
to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the
proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc.
2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or
exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements.
3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written
findings.
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant; City of Ashland Page 8 of 11
i
i The approval criteria for a Partition Plat are detailed in AMC 15.5.3.050 as follows:
The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the
following criteria are met.
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any
previous land use approvals for the subject area.
D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay
zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking
and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also,
18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria.
G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards
and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on
adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications.
H. Unpaved Streets.
1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage
of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for
the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done
under permit of the Public Works Department.
2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition
when all of the following conditions exist
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street.
The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and
surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent
c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director
except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level
of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street
elevation.
d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree
to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to
remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street
improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such
improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter,
sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of
the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
i
L Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and
prohibited from the street
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 9 of 11
i
l
J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior
to development.
K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section
18.5.3.060.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of a request to modify the condition of approval and change the deed
restriction that was required in a 1999 planning approval (PA 99-048) and subsequently recorded on
the vacant 20-acre site owned by UPRR. The original condition from 1999 required a deed
restriction on the UPRR property stating that the site is required to be cleaned up to DEQ residential
standard before further land divisions or development occurs and that written confirmation from DEQ
that the cleanup to residential standards is completed be submitted to the City of Ashland. The City
Attorney believes the original 1999 deed restriction as written means that every level or stage of
cleanup must be to residential standards, including future subdivided lots.
The proposed modification would amend the deed restriction to require two levels of cleanup. First,
the initial cleanup of the 20-acre site would be to the residential standard for a single residential
property. Subsequent development or subdivided lots would have to be cleaned up to the standard
DEQ requires for the proposed use of the individual lots: the "occupational" standard for retail,
office, or light industrial uses; the "residential" standard for ground level housing.
The UPRR property represents approximately one fourth of the Ashland's inventory of Employment
and Industrial zoned land and therefore is a significant portion of the City's 20-year land supply for
employment purposes. The central location of the site makes the UPRR property a logical candidate
for future development. The E-1 zoning and inclusion in the Residential and Detail Site Review
overlays provide a flexible approach for future development that allows a mix of commercial,
employment, and residential uses. This type of mixed-use development is consistent with the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan policies that speak to providing a mix of uses, especially as a buffer between
employment areas and residential neighborhoods, and encouraging a mix of uses in close proximity
so that people that work and live in the area have the option of making trips by walking or bicycling.
However, the UPRR property has been effectively unavailable for the past 20 years because of the
need to clean up the site prior to further development. The City Council has been working with UPRR
and DEQ to review the cleanup options and solidify a comprehensive approach that would address
the initial cleanup of the 20-acre site, minimize truck traffic in Ashland by using railcars to remove
contaminated soil, and ensure that future development would be subject to further cleanup consistent
with the proposed use of individual lots. Making the UPRR property a viable piece of the City's 20-
year land supply for employment purposes is consistent with the City's adopted 2011 Economic
Development Strategy which includes identifying barriers to development for key industrial lands and
working to make them "shovel ready" for re-sale for business development.
Staff believes the proposed modification of the condition and deed restriction is consistent with the
mix of uses and potential configurations that are allowed on the UPRR property under the current
zoning. The location in the E-1 zone and the Residential overlay allows residential dwelling units as
a special use. However, as a special use dwelling units are only allowed in conjunction with a
permitted commercial or employment use. In addition, the applicant decides whether to included
dwelling units in a future development proposal. As a result, a variety of uses and building and site
configurations are possible on the subject property. The amended condition would allow each
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 10 of 11
C`
4<
l
i
i
i
development to be evaluated independently and cleaned up to the DEQ standard that matches the type
and configuration of the uses.
Staff recommends approval of the request for a Major Modification to modify the condition of
approval and change the deed restriction that was required in a 1999 planning approval (PA 99-048)
and subsequently recorded on the vacant 20-acre site owned by UPRR. Staff recommends attaching
the following conditions to the approval.
1) All conditions of the PA 99-048 shall remain conditions of approval unless
otherwise specifically modified herein.
2) That the deed restriction required in condition 9 of PA 99-048 shall be revised to read
as follows.
Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until
Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental
Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to a
single residential property. Thereafter, development of or any
subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination
from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets
cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided
parcel. Grantor will provide written documentation form the
Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with
these standards to the City.
3) That evidence shall be submitted demonstrating that the deed restriction has been
revised in accordance with condition 2 above and recorded prior to issuance of City
excavation permit or any site work.
E'
t.
Planning Action PA #2016-00684 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report MH
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 11 of 11
N O
o _
I
3 m
o
d
a
ul,2wn 'R
- - -
l
7
j
r
I
- ~ t
f T ~~5 co
LL
- -
CO
00
Cl)
~r - STAF,'EXHIBIT
ORDINANCE NO,
AN, ORO
!NAN(* AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING P
AND THE DETAIL IT REVIEW ZONE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY NORTH THE
RAILROAD TRACKS STREET NORTH AND MOUNTAIN AVENUE.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
C ION 1. The Comprehensive Plan Map of the PIty ofAshland is a n m
Indu I to Employment and the Zoning Map of the . City of Ashland is aft rid ' from €
®1 to -1 with a Residential Overlay for the area indicated shed hibit`"A"
a O~ N 2. T11 tail Site. Review Zone map is amended to include the area
indicated on attached Exhibit "B".
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 1999,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this .J _day of , 1999.
w
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this 3 day of , 1999.
Don Laws
Council Chairperson
roved as to rm:
N
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
h'
Page 1
4
E
Exhibit "'A"
rt ~ n
/ WAY
FOR
WROW/
/ Industnal to Employment
M-1 to E-1 Residential Overlay - ~ ~ ~ j
! q a W
M
4
a
-rte
a •a `
i
i
f
Exhibit wB"
r - N
~ ~ aw
P! .
Added to Detail Site Review Zone r " r - -
n
q
44
q r
iv ~\ti 1\ l ti ~ ~ ~
v.~ ~ ti ' a q 6
ti t
r q
. I lam. ~
it
I
i
i
- - - -
m
I ~ o o O ~1 i
U
L I
X J_JJ_ L'
' eBe
(n j~ 4 v pcl ,1~/ a
❑ G1 Q m
Hm
g
WILLIAM" 2 O p
ra ( 7
~TT
I t 4C-'
o /
~ ~ - ~ i "l l Irn d~
f~
L i_ I'- f7 O o ~rl I I l I f O
I" v
0
a J Q,-3
Tu~ i ijI-~f~Lrs❑ I iE ~jp~?a/ltl!^/
5 h
u~ l ~I ,
E
- ~J
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 12, 1999
Findings, Conclusions and Orders
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #99-048, REQUEST FOR LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AND LAND PARTITION, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION,
OF A NEW PUBLIC STREET AN ALLEY SYSTEM FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HERSEY AND OAK
STREETS, AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
APPLICANT: Donna Andrews
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 2000 of 391E 13B is located at and is zoned
2) The applicant is requesting Lot Line Adjustment and Land Partition, including the
construction of a new public street and alley system for the property southeast of the
intersection of Hersey and Oak Streets and north of the railroad tracks. Site
improvements are outlined on the Site Plan on file at the Department of Community
Development.
3) The criteria for approval of a Land Partition are described in 18.76 as follows:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will
not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access
thereto will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not. been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or
resolution applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street
standards contained in the Chapter on Subdivisions.
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such
facilities can be provided, as determined by the Public Works
Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary
sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
i
1
i
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the
parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete
pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the
street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works
Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a
minor land partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not
exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required,
the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights
of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the
owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and
to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to
cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements
shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of
utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final
survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application
shall be denied.
H. Where an 41ley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided
from the alley and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995)
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on October 12, 1999
, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved
the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
E
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
I
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
i
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Land Partition,
including the construction of a new public street and alley system, for the property southeast
of the intersection of Hersey and Oak Streets and north of the railroad tracks meets all
applicable criteria described in the Partitions Chapter 18.76
2.3 The Commission finds that the future use of the remainder of the tract will not be [
impeded by the proposal. The proposed street design and layout allows for the new street to
be extended further to the east at a later date. This will provide public street access to the
I;
remaining 25 acres and the needed infrastructure to support future land divisions.
2.4 The Commission finds that there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such
facilities can be provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by
City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity. Sere, water and
electric services are available from the adjacent rights-of-way of Hersey and Oak
Streets. In addition, the preliminary engineering plan for the project indicates that a
portion of the run-off from impervious surfaces situated south and west of the
wetland (parcels 4 and 5) can be directed to storm drain facilities located within the
new street and Oak Street. The project engineer and written findings of fact identify
additional storm water improvements. Specifically, the existing storm drain line in
Hersey Street will be extended to the west to provide an overflow for the wetland, as
well as accommodating other run-off from the development. Finally, a filtration
system will be installed at existing, as well as new discharge points alongside the
wetland.
2.5 The Commission finds that the partition is in accordance with the design and street
standards contained in the Land Use Ordinance. The revised map includes a 60-foot
wide street right-of-way consistent with City standards for Neighborhood
Commercial Collectors. This will provide adequate width for the construction of
travel lanes, on-street parking, planting strips and sidewalks. Based upon the revised
right-of-way width of 60 feet, it is the Commission's opinion that the final street
design`to Neighborhood Commercial Collector standards will be adequate to
accommodate the development of the remaining 25 acres.
2.4 SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of
the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #99-048. Further, if any one or more
of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning
Action #99-048 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the
approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That the'wetland mitigation plan be reviewed and approved by the Oregon Division
of State Lands and City of Ashland prior to signature of the final survey plat. The
Wetland Mitigation Plan shall include mitigation strategies for expansion, protection and
enhancement, as well as engineered filtration devices to filter storm run-off prior to
entering the wetland. The mitigation strategies and storm water filtration system shall be
reviewed by the Ashland Tree Commission and approved by the Public Works
Department and Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat. All required
improvements noted above shall be installed or bonded for prior to the signature of the
final survey plat.
3) That a engineered storm drainage plan be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Division and Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat. Plan to
include: improvements that accommodate run-off south of the property from "A" Street, a
filtration system prior to entering the wetland, an overflow system at the north end of the
wetland, and the westerly extension of the existing storm drain within Hersey Street to its
intersection with the overflow system. All improvements noted above shall be installed or
bonded for prior to the signature of the final survey plat.
4) That the construction of full street and alley improvements end at the southern
boundary of parcel 6. An approved turnaround, complying with the specifications of the
Ashland Fire Department, shall be installed at the terminus of the street. In addition,
street plugs shall be dedicated on the survey plat at the ends of the street and alley.
5) That the final construction design for the proposed bicycle path from the south end
of parcel 1, across the wetland and connecting to Hersey Street be providing for review
and approval by the Engineering Division and Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final
survey plat. Final design shall be consistent with City "multi-use path" standards, with
the path installed or bonded for prior to signature of the final survey plat.
6) That automobile access to parcel 5 shall be from the public alley adjacent to the east
property line. Additional driveway access along the new street shall be prohibited.
7) That engineered construction documents for all proposed public facilities be
provided for review and approval of the Engineering Division and Staff Advisor prior to
the signature of the Final Survey Plat. Plans to include but not be limited to street and
alley cross-sections and profiles, utility/drainage layout, grading plan (including
elevations of building footprint), and multi-use path design. The new street shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with Ashland's Local Street Standards for
Neighborhood Collectors, including travel lanes, on-street parking, curb and gutter, curb
radii, storm drains, planting strips, street lights, street trees and sidewalks. All
improvements noted above shall be installed or bonded for prior to the signature of the
final survey plat.
8) That the overhead electric line crossing the southern portion of Parcel 1 be relocated
as per the requirements of the Ashland Electric Utility. Under-grounding of the electric j
line shall be completed or bonded for prior to the signature of the final survey plat.
9) That a deed restriction be placed on the remaining 25 acres (appro)dmately)
precluding further "development" or land divisions until the property has been cleaned to
residential standards. Written compliance with these standards shall be provided to the
City from the Department of Environmental Quality.
10) That parcel 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 sign in favor of a local improvement district for the
construction of a new railroad crossing from the new street to "A" Street. Final agreement
shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and signed by all affected property owners prior to
signature of the final survey plat.
11) That additional right-of-way shall dedicated on the survey plat along the south side
of the approximately first 150 feet of new Public Street. Full street improvements
including a 24 foot wide paved surface, curb and gutter, planting strip and sidewalk to be
installed or bonded for prior to signature of the survey plat.
12) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department be identified on the
Engineered Construction documents, including but not limited to hydrant spacing and
installation, turnaround placement, etc.
13) That all necessary public utility easements for sewer, water, electric, phone service,
storm drainage, streets, etc. be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of
Ashland.
14) That temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the boundary of the wetland
prior to any site preparation, grading, grubbing or construction of public facilities.
Planning Commission Ap roval Date
I'!
c
i
i,
E
CITY OF
i
Council Communication
April a Business tin
Union Pacific Railroad Rail Ward e mediation - Next Step
FROM:
Dave Lohman, city attorney, lohmand@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
At the January 5, 2016, Council business meeting, Council approved a two-part motion directing staff
to seek modification of a 1999 deed restriction on the Union Pacific Railroad ("UPRR") rail yard
property in Ashland. After completion of full-site remediation to DEQ's Residential standards, the
proposed revised deed restriction would allow subdivision and development of individual parcels upon
further remediation in conformance with the DEQ risk standards applicable to the proposed actual uses
of the parcels and the parcel-specific risks posed by the actual contaminants on them. The motion also
directed staff to negotiate with UPRR to develop an agreement concerning full-site remediation of the
rail yard property as soon as possible using rail cars for transporting contaminated soils. The purpose
of this agenda item is to advise Council on negotiations with UPRR and seek Council confirmation that
the second part of the January 5 motion has been satisfactorily addressed and therefore staff should
now proceed to apply for modification of the deed restriction.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In November 1999, the City placed a deed restriction on the Union Pacific Railroad ("UPRR") rail
yard property in Ashland requiring that entire property be remediated to DEQ's Residential standards
prior to further development or subdivision - even if subsequent subdivided parcels might be used for
asphalt-capped streets or parking areas or for light industrial or commercial purposes. Whether or not
it was intended have such broad application, the particular legal language of the restriction resulted in
years of no progress towards putting the rail yard to beneficial use. The cost of making every possible
future subdivided parcel meet Residential remediation standards regardless of potential uses made the
property unmarketable and diminished UPRR's incentive to undertake voluntary full-site cleanup.
In April 2015, UPRR proposed remediation of a limited portion of the site containing most of the high
concentrations of contaminants and using trucks for transporting outgoing contaminated soil and
incoming clean fill. City Council members countered with a request that UPRR conduct a full-site
remediation using rail cars for taking contaminated soils away. UPRR asked the City to consider
relaxing the deed restriction.
At the January 5, 2016 Council business meeting, Council approved a motion directing staff to initiate
the planning process to modify the 1999 deed restriction. Another part of the motion directed staff to
try to get agreement from UPRR to clean up the full site as soon as possible and to use rail cars for
transporting contaminated soils from the site. Unstated but implicit in the approved motion was the
necessity of reaching agreement among the City, UPRR, and DEQ on the wording of the modified
deed restriction.
Page 1 of 4
C1
CITY F
The three parties have now agreed that the following revised deed restriction is appropriate, assuming
DEQ's standards are met and the City's concerns are adequately addressed:
Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains
a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property
meets cleanup standards applicable to a single residential property. Thereafter,
development on any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a
determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets
cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. Grantor
will provide written documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality
demonstrating compliance with. these standards to the City.
The list presented below is City staff's summary of concerns expressed by City Council about UPRR's
remediation of the rail yard property. Councilmembers may decide the list is incomplete and choose to
add items or may decide that some of the concerns have been satisfactorily resolved already. The
discussion following the list outlines the reasons staff has concluded from its negotiations with UPRR
and DEQ that Councilmembers can be reasonably assured each of the listed concerns will be
adequately addressed in the course of the remediation project.
1. The full site should be remediated to applicable DEQ standards (meaning that after remediation
of the full site as an aggregated unit to Residential standards, development on any subdivided
parcels could occur only after remediation to DEQ standards applicable to the proposed actual
use of the parcel);
2. Contaminated soil should be removed by rail, as proposed in the 2013 work plan;
3. Contaminated water and any debris should be contained and removed from the site;
4. Railcars containing contaminated soil should be covered to prevent releases;
5. The bulls of the work should take place in the latter part of 2016 and the early part of 2017,
subject to unforeseen complications;
6. Union Pacific should make batch deliveries of clean fill in distinct phases and stockpile it, so as
to avoid unpredictable, intermittent deliveries spread throughout the duration of the project;
7. DEQ-approved dust suppression measures should be observed;
8. Wheel-washing of all trucks and other rubber-tired equipment leaving the site should be used to
prevent spread of contaminants beyond the worksite;
9. Heavy trucks traveling to and from the site should exclusively use routes designated by the City
in advance; and
10. Union Pacific should pay for repair and restoration of any pavement on public streets damaged
by heavy trucks or other equipment used in the project.
In discussions with the City and DEQ, UPRR has committed to incorporate the actions described in
items 1 through 9 in the above list in the Remedial Action Work Plan for which it will be seeking DEQ
approval. Upon DEQ approval, DEQ's authority to enforce those promised actions provides the City
reasonable assurance that its concern will be adequately addressed. If UPRR were to not follow
through as agreed, the City can take appropriate action to terminate the effort to revise the deed
restriction.
Page 2 of 4
l
CITY
E
ASHLAND
i
In discussions with the City, UPRR has agreed to pay for street repairs and restoration as described in
item 10 above. The City and UPRR have reached agreement already on how such damage to streets
will be measured and monetized. The City will require a contract detailing this commitment before
issuing the excavation permit UPRR needs in order to remove any soil from the site.
i
UPRR has declined to enter into a separate written agreement with the City on items 1 through 9
above, saying those will be the subject of primary commitments to DEQ, and UPRR cannot prudently
put itself in the position of possibly having to also respond to potentially conflicting interpretations of
those obligations by the City. See attached March 28, 2016 letter from Gary Honeyman, UPRR's
Manager of Environmental Site Remediation. UPRR's reluctance to enter into a separate agreement
concerning its work plan commitments to DEQ is understandable, and Staff believes the City's
leverage described in the two paragraphs above already provide sufficient assurance that the City's
concerns will be satisfactorily addressed.
Next Steps
If the Council authorizes staff to seek planning approval to modify the deed restriction, the anticipated
next steps towards realization of full-site remediation of the rail yard site using rail for removal of
contaminated soil are:
• Administration prepares and submits to the Planning Commission an application for Major
Amendment to modify the deed restriction, that is, the existing condition of approval of the
1999 land use approval concerning the rail yard.
• Meanwhile, UPRR finalizes and submits to DEQ its Remedial Action Work Plan for full-site
remediation using rail for removal of contaminated soil.
• DEQ hosts a public meeting in Ashland about the project to hear and address citizen concerns.
• DEQ approves Remedial Action Work Plan.
• Planning Commission conducts public hearing on modification of the deed restriction and
makes a decision.
• If deed restriction is modified and Work Plan is approved, UPRR submits application for City
excavation permit.
• City and UPRR enter into agreement on payment for project-related damage to streets.
• City issues excavation permit.
• Early September, 2016 (approximately): UPRR constructs rail spur.
• Fall 2016: Start of excavation and removal of contaminated soil by rail car and phased delivery
of clean fill.
• Before summer, 2017: Completion of project.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
Environment
13. Develop and support land use and transportation policies to achieve sustainable development.
13.2 Develop infill and compact urban form policies.
Economy
19. Ensure that commercial and industrial areas are available for development.
19.2 Evaluate the prospects for the redevelopment of the railroad property.
Page 3 of 4
E
CITY
ASHLAAAD
People
5.2. Support and promote, through policy, programs that make the City affordable to live in.
5.2.a Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no noteworthy near-term fiscal impacts. Future development of the railyard site could yield
significant economic activity and City tax revenues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Direct staff to apply for modification of the deed restriction.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a Major Amendment to
replace the condition of approval in PA99-048 with the modified condition of approval presented in
the April 5, 2016, Council Communication and to continue working with Union Pacific Railroad and
DEQ to achieve remediation of the rail yard site to applicable DEQ standards using rail cars for
removal of contaminated soil.
ATTACHMENTS:
March 28, 2016, letter from UPRR's Gary Honeyman
Page 4 of 4
i
Gary I.. Honeyman
\lanugar frlvironnwnwl SIIe I\cmldiaG(m
March 28, 2016
Mr. David Lohman
City Attorney
City of Ashland
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
SUBJECT: Ashland Railyard Cleanup
Dear David,
The Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) is looking forward to completing remediation
activities at the Ashland railyard. Your email sent on January 6, 2016 titled: "RE: proposed changes
to UPRR. City deed language" outlines four key items to be addressed in order for the project to
proceed. The first three items in the email, relating to the process and wording change to the deed
restriction, have been addressed to UPRR's satisfaction. The fourth item is quoted from the email as
follows;
"9, We also need to develop an agreement between the City and UP documenting the
connnit)nent by UP to petform jell-site remediation as soon as possible, using railcars to
remove contaminated soil, and the convnittnent by the City to modify the deed restriction:
Tine City Council will need t<) upprove this agreet))ent. The sooner we can get it in place, llte
better, "
UPRR is already committed to an agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODLQ) through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). As part of the VCP, a work plan for the
complete full-site remediation, including the removal of all contaminated soil by rail, was already
completed and approved by ODEQ in 2013. UPRR cannot enter into a separate agreement with the
City of Ashland regarding the full-site remediation.
The work plan is divided into a series of five phases, which are necessary because removal of the
contaminated soil by rail is a logistically complex process which is largely controlled by the ability to
deliver and remove rail cars to the site on the short-line track that is not controlled by UPRR.
Additionally, the rail spur into the center of the railyard needs to be constructed in order to allow for
the rail cars to be loaded, The phased clean-up approach outlined in the work plan serves as UPRR's
agreement with the State. UPRR is currently working with the ODEQ to complete any outstanding
regulatory requirements on the project and ensure that UPRR has a clear understanding of ODEQ's
roles and responsibilities during the cleanup process.
The only, impediment to completing the work in 2013, as originally intended, was the conflicting
wording ofthe deed restriction compared to ODEQ cleanup standards, which we now believe to be
resolved with the proposed language changes. The approach outlined in the existing work plan fully
meets the cleanup expectations of the City of Ashland, while complying with the ODEQ
UNfON PACIFIC RAILROAD 221 1-Imigc11011 Laramle, NVY 82Ui21 1.11)2) ;MI(10 1'k. 01)7', 745 40,13 'MM ;604111: gill m eymr)'I;pxon)
t
A3., .d
i•'hL'ir{I haili.tr,1 t (c.;r;t~; i! n:;r.',!;
j
requirements. A separate agreement with the City of Ashland has the potential of proposing
requirements that would delay the implementation of the remedy and that are unacceptable and
unnecessary given UPRR's current agreement with the ODEQ. UPRR would like to begin the
remediation this year with the placement of the spur line and the completion of a couple of the phases
defined in the work plan. Please let me know how we can get the wording change completed as
outlined in your email,
Sincerely,
LL ' in ~ r1
Gary oneyman
Manager Environmental Site Remediation
Cc_ Mark Ochsnei/CH2M HILL
i
5/31/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minu'
City of Ashland. Oregon / City Council
City Council - Minutes View Agenda
Tuesday, April 05, 2016
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
April 5, 2016
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Council
Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh were
present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (None)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of March 14, 2016, Executive Session of
March 14, 2016, Business Meeting of March 15, 2016 and Joint Meeting of March
29, 2016 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
The Mayor's proclamation of April 17-23, 2016 as Independent Media Week was
read aloud.
PUBLIC FORUM
Tawasi/572 Clover Lane/Explained Senate Bill 629 Right to Rest was the
equivalent of a Homeless Bill of Rights. Other comments included the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Joseph Kauth/1 Corral Lane 3/Thought the lack of media presence contributed
to the removal of founders' trees and construction of condominiums and other
events. He explained how the techniques used for the Ashland Forest Resiliency
(AFR) project did not use science and shared his suspicions regarding California
developers overdeveloping the Rogue Valley.
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 991Continued his explanation on why City staff
needed replacing and that Council should write code that provided full time
salaries for future councilors.
Jim Wells/321 Clay Street/Explained the techniques used by the Ashland Forest
Resiliency (AFR) project increased the possibility of manageable and safer
wildfires in the community. The methodology of creating safer spaces for
wildfires would work with the current issues regarding the homeless and
transients and shift belief systems.
1/11
http://www.ashland.or. us/Agendas.asp?D is play= M i nutes&AM I D = 6298&Pri nt=True
5/31/2016 - City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minut-
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2. Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement for traffic signal
maintenance
3. Special procurement request for approval for AFR Project wildfire fuels
reduction
4. Appointment of Isaac evers and Sarah Lassoff to the Climate and
Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
Councilor Marsh pulled Consent Agenda items #2 and #4 for discussion.
Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury addressed the agreement for traffic
signal maintenance and explained the average annual payment over the last four
years for maintenance was approximately $4,000 and $11,000 for power to all the
intersections. Based on that data they would not need the full $40,000-$60,000
in the agreement.
Councilor Marsh spoke on Consent Agenda item #4 and noted the City was
fortunate to have young people on the Commission passionate about these
issues.
Councilor Rosenthal/Seffinger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Report to Council on the 2016 winter shelter program
City Administrator Dave Kanner provided background on the 2016 winter shelter
program offered Tuesday and Thursday nights. Representatives from Temple
Emek Shalom, the Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (RVUUF), and
Ashland Parks and Recreation Department staff were present for questions. He
addressed and clarified a rumor that Council was going to discontinue the winter
shelter. He had spoken with representatives from RVUUF and Temple Emek
Shalom about concerns regarding shelter guests and the ice skating rink, and
activities occurring outside Pioneer Hall. The concerns were serious and if not
resolved, a discussion on whether Pioneer Hall was an appropriate location for a
shelter would ensue. He emphasized he did not say the shelter was going to
close. The representatives took these concerns seriously and met with the Parks
and Recreation Department to resolve them.
Shelter volunteers John Wieczorek and Sharon Harris spoke on the service the
shelter provided. Shelter volunteers came from the RVUUF, Temple Emek
Shalom, the Lyons Club, the Elks Lodge, district attorneys, and people from
mental health agencies. Additionally, Jackson County Mental Health provided
training for the volunteers.
To date, the shelters provided 1,300 safe nights of sleep for people. There was
an older population this year, many veterans, and economic refugees. The
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AM I D = 6298&Pri nt=True 2/11
5/31/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minuts
average number of people see red increased every year. Homelb,3sness was a
growing problem nationwide. This winter three homeless people died. Ms. Harris
read a statement from Rabbi Joshua Boettiger supporting a continuation of the
three-way partnership between Temple Emek Shalom, RVUUF, and the City.
Mr. Wieczorek thought the best way to more forward was forming a committee
with members from the Temple Emek Shalom, RVUUF, and Council to work on
an agreement. The committee could address the issues Mr. Kanner had noted.
Council supported the idea of a committee.
Ms. Harris suggested increasing the guest limit at Pioneer Hall or finding another
location possibly The Grove. It would eliminate having to refuse guests. Mr.
Wieczorek added a private home was going in by Pioneer Hall adding to the
incompatibility. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund could provide housing as
well. They had turned away 28 people due to occupancy load. Alternately, they
had kicked out more people this winter than ever before due to behavior,
intoxication, and occasionally mental health issues. This year, members from all
the shelters in the community met monthly to coordinate rules and get updates on
guests banned from a shelter or exhibiting bad behavior. This allowed a
consistent unified front for the shelters.
Director of Parks & Recreation Michael Black and Recreation Superintendent
Rachel Dials explained the Parks and Recreation Department managed the
facility the City owned. Shelter concerns were resolved and they supported the
shelter. The issues encountered consisted of shelter guests and a volunteer
informing ice rink employees they could skate free at the facility. The shelter was
not responsible for that incident. Other issues were small cooking fires in the
planting bed but nothing major. Staff evaluated using The Grove but realized
there was too much activity now that the Parks and Recreation Department had
moved offices to the building. In addition, there were early morning and late
evening classes during the week. Ms. Dials added Pioneer Hall was the least
utilized and recommended continuing with that facility. Shelter volunteers left
Pioneer Hall in good condition following shelter nights with only minor issues that
were resolved.
Carolyn Moeglein/715 Clay Street/Was a member of the First Presbyterian
Church and explained the Church hosted a shelter night once a week for ten
years and often the cold night emergency shelter. Despite concerns, the
congregation supported the shelter and the City's two shelter nights at Pioneer
Hall. She submitted a list of people in support of the City having a facility that
offered shelter seven nights a week for the homeless and community. Supplying
staff for seven nights would be a challenge.
Dave Hyde/616 Normal Avenue/Explained he volunteered at the shelter several
times and was impressed with how everyone cooperated and adhered to the
rules. Many would stand outside in the cold until 7:00 p.m. when shelter doors
opened and had created issues between shelter guests waiting and street people
not using the facility. He was a member of the Unitarian Church and participated
in an interfaith group interested in helping the homeless community. Housing
would alleviate some of stress at Pioneer Hall. He supported a committee.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?D isplay=M i nutes&AM ID=6298&Print=True 3/11
I
5/31/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minute
t
Reverend Kathy Keener/1516 Clark/First Presbyterian Church/This was the
tenth year of hosting a shelter. She met with people weekly in the process of
losing their housing or they had just become homeless. It was important to
remember that a number of the homeless in the community were recently
homed. The shelter was also receiving more men and women discharged from
the hospital without their medication at times too late to fill their prescriptions that
evening. This year, they averaged 45 guests a night where prior years the
average was 19.
Ms. Dials clarified Pioneer Hall was rented a few nights a week and most
weekends. Reverend Keener explained the process at the First Presbyterian
Church and turnover to the pre-school. The Church had more volunteers than
before. They hosted Monday when guests had not had a shelter night for three
days, and were often exhausted and hungry. A night crew spent the night and a
feeding crew brought in warm food for the evening and morning.
Councilor Marsh noted the need for good communication regarding the shelter
and responsible management. Councilor Voisin thought management at Pioneer
Hall was superb. However, there were communications sent out to the Council
that spoke otherwise and she agreed to send them to Mayor Stromberg. She
asked the Mayor to form the committee and address occupant load at Pioneer
Hall as well as the temperature for emergency shelters. Mayor Stromberg
explained in lieu of forming a committee he would ask councilors to participate.
Councilor Lemhouse also wanted copies of the emails Councilor Voisin had
mentioned and commented how misinformation harmed the community.
Councilor Voisin raised a point of order, questioned the direction of Councilor
Lemhouse's comments. Mayor Stromberg resolved the point of order and would
have Councilor Voisin forward the emails to him and he would then report to the
Council. Councilor Lemhouse continued and explained Council supported the
shelter for four years. Council questioning the process and voicing concerns was
part of negotiating and determining the best path forward.
2. Adoption of water rate cost of services study recommendations
Public Works Director Michael Faught along with Katherine Hansford presented
the staff report on the adoption of the Water Rate Cost of Services Study
recommendation. These recommendations came from the Hansford Economic
Consulting (HEC) Water Rate Cost of Service Study. In summary, the proposed
water rate modifications include the following:
® Adjustments to potable and non-potable water rates - Commercial,
institutional and non-potable metered irrigation customers are currently
paying more than their proportionate share of water system costs. Potable
irrigation and non-potable unmetered irrigation customers are paying less
than their proportionate share.
The overall increase to rates was 8% and each user would see a different rate
increase. Increases would come forward one year at a time.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas,asp?Display=M i nutes&AM ID=6298&Print=True 4/11
5/31/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minut
Commercial, institutional, anc, ion-potable metered irrigation cusLJmers currently
paid more than their proportionate share of water system costs. Potable irrigation
and non-potable unmetered irrigation customers paid less than their
proportionate share. The recommended rate structure modifications implemented
two separate base fees reflected on the bill as one charge. The first base fee
was a customer charge that covered the cost to maintain the system regardless
of the amount of water sold. Customer charges included customer service and
would remain the same every month. The second base fee was a service charge
that covered meter and service costs and capacity costs.
® Split base charges to account for administration costs and capacity costs -
The recommended rate structure modifications implement two separate
base fees that will be reflected on the bill as one charge. The first base fee
is a customer charge that covers the cost to maintain the system regardless
of the amount of water sold. Customer charges include customer service
and would remain the same every month. The second base fee is a service
charge that covers meter and service costs and capacity costs.
® New commercial categories - New commercial customers are separated
into commercial, institutional, and potable water irrigation customers.
Institutional include current government/municipal customers. All
commercial and residential customers will be billed the flat base fee year
round.
® A decrease in metered non-potable (Talent Irrigation District (TID)) rates -
TID non-potable customer rates are reduced from $.0055 to $0022 per
cubic foot on the metered accounts. Use of the term "reallocation" is
referenced to those that are current users of TID.
® Increase in charges for unmetered non-potable water - Fixed TID user costs
increase to $250 over the next six years.
® Reduction in residential rate increases proposed in the 2012 adopted water
master plan - Reallocation of rates resulted in a reduction
® 1-inch meter services reset to equal 3/ inch metered rates for households
adding fire sprinkler systems.
Mr. Faught explained although there were three sources of water it was important
to continue to test the Talent/Ashland/Phoenix (TAP) water source annually to
ensure the valve operated as expected. The study looked at the total picture of all
users, including the Ashland School District and Southern Oregon University,
when determining the rate structure.
Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to adopt the recommendations of the
Hansford Economic Consulting Water Rate Cost of Service Study and direct
staff to implement proposed rate re-allocations as recommended in the plan
in May 2016. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse noted the study was
thorough and supported moving forward. Councilor Morris liked that the bases
were established and broken out in the study and that it made a uniform set of
rates. The big change was the commercial side. Councilor Marsh would support
the motion and the process for TID. Councilor Voisin explained people left
Ashland because of their utility expenses and this was another example. She
had issues paying for TID and TAP. She would reluctantly support the motion.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?D isplay= M inutes&AM ID=6298&Print=True 5/11
5/3112016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minut
Councilor Marsh responded ti ,d projected increases to residentia, vvere less than
originally thought. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Seffinger, Marsh,
Voisin, Rosenthal and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
3. Union Pacific Railroad Rail Yard Remediation - Next Steps
City Attorney Dave Lohman presented staff report. He explained Council had
previously approved staff seeking modification of a 1999 deed restriction on the
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) rail yard property in Ashland. After completion of
a full-site remediation to the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ)
Residential Standards, the proposed revised deed restriction would allow
subdivision' and development of individual parcels upon further radiation ion
conformance with the DEQ risk standards applicable to the proposed actual use
of the parcels and the parcel-specific risks posed by the actual contaminants on
them.
In addition, staff negotiated with DEQ and UPRR for an agreement to clean up
the full site as soon as possible and to use rail cars for transporting contaminated
soils from the site.
Mr. Lohman provided a list of concerns expressed by Council to review, remove,
or add items to the list.
He explained that staff and DEQ had discussions with UPRR who committed to
incorporating the actions of items listed 1 through 9 in the Remedial Action Work
Plan and seek DEQ approval. If DEQ approved, their authority to enforce
provided the City assurance they would address their concerns. If UPRR did not
follow through as agreed, the City could take appropriate action to terminate
revising the deed restriction.
UPRR declined to enter into a separate written agreement with the City on items
1 through 9 and thought they would be the subject of primary commitments to
DEQ and responding to potentially conflicting interpretations by the City. Staff
agreed that the City's advantage was supported and there was sufficient
assurance that the City's concerns would be addressed.
Mr. Lohman provided the next steps as the following that included:
® Administration prepares and submits to the Planning Commission an
application for Major Amendment to modify the deed restriction, that is, the
existing condition of approval of the 1999 land use approval concerning the
rail yard.
® Meanwhile, UPRR finalizes and submits to DEQ its Remedial Action Work
Plan for full-site remediation using rail for removal of contaminated soil. It
was clarified that "full-site" is the considered the parcel as one unit and
using an averaging for the work plan.
It was noted that this would be heard by the Planning Commission and could be
"called up" by Council or appealed by a citizen.
Mr. Lohman commented that it was very difficult to make any changes to railroad
http://www.ashiand,or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=M i nutes&AM I D= 6298&Pri nt=True 6/11
i
5/31/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Mimut j
crossings. Continued discussion and clarification by Mr. Lohman on the different
types of remedial actions that could take place by DEQ depending on the use of
the property. It was clarified that soil would be removed by rail car and the City
would be issuing permits for excavation. That DEQ would have full control over
the action, including any issues regarding water contamination.
I
Councilor Marsh/Rosenthal m/s to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek
approval of an application for a Major Amendment to the replace the
condition of approval in A99-043 with the modified condition of approval
presented in the April 5, 2016, Council Communication and to continue
working with Union Pacific Railroad and DEQ to achieve remediation of the j
rail yard site to applicable DEQ standards using rail cars for removal of
contaminated soil. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought this was a major
breakthrough and a move towards getting the site cleaned using railroad cars.
She acknowledged the effort and work done on the matter by the Mayor, City
Attorney and City Administrator, and Management Analyst Ann Seltzer.
Councilor Rosenthal concurred with Councilor Marsh. He thought Mr. Lohman
was the correct person to handle this matter and had done well. This was an j
opportunity for a cleanup on one of the largest undeveloped pieces of property
within city limits. Councilor Morris agreed. This had gone on for decades. DEQ
cleanups were thorough and this was a good deal for the City. Councilor
Lemhouse thought it was important to acknowledge the team and specifically
noted Mr. Lohman's negotiating experience and appreciated the Mayor's efforts.
Councilor Seffinger was excited for the neighbors to have the removal done with
rail cars. Councilor Voisin was skeptical regarding the negotiations and thought
citizens would be concerned about the trucks bringing in replacement soil as well
as trucks used for any additional cleanup and subsequent damage to the streets.
Councilor Lemhouse raised a point of clarification for Mr. Lohman regarding
repair and restoration of the pavement and confirmed they would pay the City to
repair any damage their trucks might cause as well as the methodology used.
Mr. Lohman further clarified additional cleanup and resulting street damage was
the responsibility of the owner. Mayor Stromberg added it would be a condition of
the excavation permit. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Morris, Marsh,
Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Voisin, YES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution changing parking fees and
fines"
Administrative Services and Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained the
resolution would increase parking fines and parking rates at the Hargadine
Parking structure. Parking fines had not changed for decades and would
increase from $11 to $22 while other fines would remain the same.
Councilor Rosenthal/Morris m/s to approve Resolution #2016-03.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal explained the $22 ticket met inflationary
standards from 1983 but did not keep up with current inflationary pressures. The
$11 fine was not a deterrent. Councilor Marsh added increasing the fine would
help fund the parking management plan and required investment. Councilor
Lemhouse thought this was one part of dealing with the parking downtown.
Councilor Voisin was concerned that 55%-60% of parking tickets issued went to
http://www.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=M i nutes&AM ID=6298&Print=True 7/11
i
5/31/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon -Agendas And Minut,
employees. Mr. Tuneberg clay pried the Downtown Parking Management and
Circulation Committee would address employee parking. He explained fines for
multiple tickets and would research the number of employees receiving parking
tickets. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
2. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance adding
Chapter 10.130 Intrusive Solicitation to Title 10 Peace, Morals, and Safety of
the Ashland Municipal Code" and move to second reading.
City Attorney Dave Lohman addressed the intrusive solicitation ordinance and the
obstructing sidewalks and passageways ordinance. Both ordinances were not a
remedy and did not really address underlying issues but could make a limited
contribution by helping keep discrete behavior problems from getting in the way
of deeper solutions and make day-to-day encounters a little more civil for
residents, tourists, and other visitors including homeless people, and travelers.
The ordinances concerned people blocking passageways for other people and
certain types of solicitation. He made four distinctions. The first distinction
clarified this was not about storing objects on the sidewalks or camping. The
Boise Idaho case was not relevant to either ordinance. The second distinction
was there were alternatives for soliciting and using the sidewalks. The
ordinances prohibited soliciting in certain places and blocking specific portions of
the sidewalk. The third distinction was that it was easy to feel tangled up in
assertions on whether these ordinances unfairly targeted a particular
demographic or societal group. An ordinance that applied to anyone in the same
circumstance was not discriminatory. The fourth distinction made the unwanted
behavior they addressed violations and not crimes. As long as the person
receiving the citation paid the presumptive fine or went to court and abided
whatever consequences the municipal judge determined to be appropriate, the
incident remained a violation and did not become part of anyone's criminal
record.
The ordinance concerning intrusive solicitation banned soliciting contributions
from people at outdoor or indoor dining areas, people within 20-feet of a bank or
an ATM, and donations from occupants of vehicles on roadways except for
parking areas. It also banned donations from cars on roadways. Council could
remove this provision. He removed a provision prohibiting soliciting someone in
a parked car and received several comments from people that this was when
they felt most vulnerable. Enforcement was complaint driven or observation by a
police officer and required notice prior to issuing a citation.
Mr. Lohman noted an error in the second ordinance for obstructing sidewalks that
10.64.020 (D) should have been (E). This ordinance made the current prohibition
of blocking a pedestrian passageway with objects and dogs apply to people and
other animals. It established safe harbor for blockage up to five minutes, made
the definition of pedestrian passageway slightly broader, and included the 5-feet
inside the curb. It also applied to entries to public or private property from public
sidewalks and required the blockage to be intentional. It retained exceptions
permitted by the City and added exceptions for deliveries, medical emergencies,
physical or mental incapacitation, public safety, maintenance and construction
activities, and waiting in line. Enforcement was complaint driven or observation
by a police officer and required notice prior to issuing a citation as well.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AM ID=6298&Print=True 8/11
5/31/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minute
r
Paul rimsrud/1 Corral Lane/Expressed concern fining panhandlers since most
did not have any money to pay.
Mayor Stromberg explained the municipal court judge considered financial
situations when ruling on violations.
Caitlin Diefindorf/450 Wi9htman/Explained the difference between the local
homeless, and transients. Transients were the ones obstructing the sidewalks
and passageways and often were part of the marijuana harvest season and
known as "trimagrents." If the ordinance passed, transients would need a safe
place to store their belongings.
Bob Hackett/Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF)/15 S Pioneer Street/Shared
a letter that came to OSF from a long time customer who had stopped coming to
Ashland due to aggressive panhandling, and obstructing the sidewalk. This
individual worked at a food pantry and clothes closet. She would return to
Ashland when visitors could enjoy their full vacation, not just the time spent in the
theatres. He appreciated the steps Council was taking.
Michael Marshak/2283 McCall Drive/Appreciated the effort and noted the little
resources homeless people had available. He questioned at what point the City
would find a permanent facility for the homeless to sleep, hang out, and store
their gear.
Derek Johnson/Platform 9 3/4 /Explained it had been 8 years since the ACLU
condemned the City of Ashland's treatment of the homeless and read a
statement. He accused the City of Ashland of criminalizing homelessness and
colluding with the Chamber of Commerce pushing the agenda that served the 1 %
making life for the remaining 99% difficult.
Debra Neisewander/1159 Tolman Creek Road/Thought enforcement driven by
citizen complaints went away when the City hired a code compliance officer. This
put the police in the middle and thought the Police Department was trying to
change their public perception.
Conroy Whitney/2001 Table Rock Rd, Medford/Explained he was a member of
the Jackson County Homeless Task Force, a participant volunteer in the
homeless shelters, and a member of the Medford Hope Village Tiny House
Project. Many cities nationwide were trying to find solutions. He urged everyone
to remember the world was watching and history would judge present actions.
Councilor Marsh/Voisin m/s to approve first reading of an ordinance titled
"An ordinance adding Chapter 10.130 Intrusive Solicitation to Title 10
Peace, Morals and Safety of the Ashland Municipal Code" deleting
Findings 2 and #3, 10.130.020(D) and (D)(2) and place on agenda for
second reading.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh explained this was a broad continuum and
inevitably, law enforcement, ordinances, and the cadet program was part of
addressing the issues. The ordinances established the standard for civil behavior
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AM ID=6298&Print=True 9/11
5/31/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minut-
downtown. The overriding objdctive was not to write tickets but /(,,)mmunicate the j
standards and try to entice individuals into supporting them. She removed
Section B because it did not meet her interpretation of intrusive solicitation.
Councilor Voisin would not support the motion. She purposely accepted the
religious moral imperative that she must make the lives of the most vulnerable in
the community better. Transients and homeless people would change their
behavior when others showed them respect. Councilor Lemhouse agreed with
Councilor Marsh regarding passive solicitation along the highway. It was
unfortunate listening to comments that the ordinances attacked individuals. This
was a piece to the puzzle and part of the continuum. Nothing would be perfect.
The Streets Team was another component.
Councilor Seffinger explained there were several programs to help people in
need. Part of the money came from the Food and Beverage Tax and the
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). If Ashland had less tourists, there would be
less money to help people in need. Ashland was a tourist town that needed
everyone to feel safe. Mayor Stromberg had two conflicting problems with the
discussion. One was being careful not to create ordinances that targeted
homeless people. Even though the ordinances stemmed from safety or a form of
harassment, there was a belief in the community that any regulation the City
created disadvantaged the homeless people and persecuted them. The other
issue was enforcement. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Marsh, Morris,
Lemhouse, and Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
3. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance
amending AMC Chapter 10.64 Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways"
and move to second reading.
Item delayed to the next meeting due to time constraints. Mayor Stromberg
explained there would be no further public testimony taken on the topic.
4. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance repealing
AMC Chapter 2.27 in its entirety and amending Chapter 2.12 to designate
the Planning Commission as the committee for citizen involvement" and
move to second reading.
Councilor Voisin/Seffinger m/s to approve first reading by title only "An
ordinance repealing AMC Chapter 2.27 in its entirety and amending Chapter
2.12 to designate the Planning Commission as the committee for citizen
involvement" and move to second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin
noted Council was not interested in carrying out the ordinance and she would
bow to the majority. Councilor Seffinger understood it would require one full time
employee and thought the Planning Commission provided sufficient citizen
involvement in a positive way. Councilor Lemhouse supported the motion and
recognized the ordinance no longer had a function and the Planning Commission
was actually taking of these duties. He supported that level of transparency. Roll
Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Marsh, Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, and
Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
is
hftpJ/www.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=6298&Print=True 10/11
i
I
j
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
January , 2015, Business ti
Options to Move Forward with UPRR and DEQ
FROM:
Dave Lohman, city attorney, lohmand@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
E
At the Council study session on October 6, the Council directed staff to develop options for achieving
frill-site remediation of the UPRR's railyard property with soil removal by rail and as little
environmental risk and community disruption as possible.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In August of 2015, the City asked UPRR to conduct a full-site remediation of the former railyard using
rail, rather than the partial cleanup UPRR was planning for summer/fall of 2015. UPRR agreed to
work towards a full-site remediation if the City would agree to modify a 1999 deed restriction on the
property.
In November 1999, the City placed a deed restriction on the UPRR property requiring that it be
cleaned to Residential remediation standards prior to further development or division of the property.
Because a deed restriction "runs with the property," it applies even to discrete subdivisions of the
property established after the approximate 20 acres parcel has been generally cleaned to DEQ's
Residential standards. The deed restriction means that (1) unduly high concentrations of contaminants
("hotspots") must be remediated to DEQ's Residential standards; (2) the entire parcel must be
remediated to DEQ's Residential standards as an aggregated unit (that is, the average statistically ~
estimated concentration of contaminants must be below the maximum allowed for residential use of k'
the property); and (3) when the UPRR property is subsequently sold and subdivided, each subdivided
parcel must be remediated to DEQ's Residential standards even if the parcel is to be developed for
light industrial or commercial use or partially capped with asphalt for use as a street or parking area.
From what staff has been able to determine, the intent of the 1999 Council that imposed the deed
restriction was that the Residential cleanup standard should be applied to the UPRR railyard property
as a whole, but not necessarily to each future subdivided parcel without regard to how the parcel would
actually be used.
The property is currently zoned E-1 (employment), with a residential overlay. The residential overlay
allows for a maximum of 15 residential units per acre and requires at least 65% of ground floor
buildings to be dedicated for commercial uses.
At the Council's October 6 study session on this matter, representatives from the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and a representative from CH2MHILL, the remediation contractor i;
for Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), provided information to the Council.
Page 1 of 4
6 ~ 1
-,1
CITY
ASHLAND
Greg Aitken of DEQ explained that due to the low-risk contaminants on this property, cleanup of the
railyard site is voluntary - meaning DEQ cannot compel UPRR to take remediation action.
To undertake full-site remediation, UPRR would have to get DEQ approval, which would entail
cleaning up the worst hotspots and then bringing the entire parcel as an aggregated unit into
compliance with DEQ's Residential standards. This initial full-site remediation would also comply
with the City's 1999 deed restriction. Prior to deciding whether to approve a UPRR remediation plan
for the whole site, DEQ would host a public meeting in Ashland to address questions and suggestions
about the plan. Approval or disapproval of the plan would have to be based on substantive scientific
criteria.
Absent the City's deed restriction, upon completion of the initial full-site remediation to Residential
standards, UPRR could sell the property to a buyer intending to develop it in separate subdivided
parcels. In that event, DEQ would evaluate the site data and site risks for each parcel and require the
new property owner/developer(s) to remediate each parcel consistent with its proposed use. The
required remediation level for each parcel would be based on anticipated exposure to contaminated
soil. For example, a subdivided parcel to be used exclusively for residential purposes would have to
meet DEQ's stringent Residential cleanup standards. A subdivided parcel to be used exclusively for
light industrial or commercial purposes would be subject to somewhat less stringent Occupational
cleanup standards. A subdivided parcel to be used for a mixed commercial/residential development
would likely have to meet a variation of DEQ's Urban Residential cleanup standards, which are not
quite as stringent as the Residential standards but more restrictive than the Occupational standards.
If the use of a parcel were to change over time for example if a property owner wanted to convert a
parcel from exclusive commercial use to mixed commercial and residential use DEQ would conduct
a reassessment of the contaminants, determine risk levels, and require the property owner to remediate
the property to standards appropriate to the new uses.
At the October 6 meeting, Mark Ochsner of CH2MHILL, representing UPRR, outlined the three
possible scenarios for UPRR's actions at the railyard: 1) full remediation per DEQ standards using rail
to remove contaminated soil and trick to bring clean fill to the site; 2) partial cleanup per DEQ
standards using trucks for both contaminated soil and clean fill; 3) no remediation, leaving the property
as is. Mr. Ochsner said UPRR would prefer to implement scenario 1 and then sell the property.
However, the City's current deed restriction is a barrier because it requires cleanup to Residential
standards even for future subdivided parcels that may not be used for residential purposes. Potential
buyers/developers are put off by lack of consistency between the deed restriction and DEQ's
remediation requirements and by the unwarranted financial burden of having to remediate each parcel
to Residential standards even if the contemplated use for a particular parcel is commercial, mixed-use
or light industrial.
At the conclusion of the Council's October 6 study session on this matter, staff was directed to develop
options for achieving full site remediation of the UPRR's railyard property in full compliance with
DEQ's requirements, with soil removal by rail, and with as little environmental risk and community
disruption as possible.
Options
Page 2 of 4
t t
CITY
ASHLAND
1) Delete the current deed restriction.
2) Replace the current deed restriction with one that references applicable DEQ standards, such as
Development of individual parcels must be remediated in conformance with the DEQ risk
standards for the actual uses of the parcels and the contaminant concentrations thereon.
3) Replace the current deed restriction with one that requires the full site and any subdivided
parcels to at least meet DEQ's Urban Residential remediation standards.
a. Note: This would mean that on any subdivided parcels, DEQ Residential remediation
standards would be applied for any exclusively residential uses, and any other uses, ,
including light industrial and commercial-only uses to which DEQ's Occupational,
remediation standards would normally apply - would instead be subject to the more
stringent Urban Residential standards. This would likely deter at least some potential
buyers/developers because of concerns about regulatory uncertainty and because it
could make light industrial and commercial-only development financially infeasible.
This burden on the marketability of the property conceivably could affect UPRR's
willingness to undertake full-site cleanup in 2016 instead of proceeding with the partial
cleanup previously planned.
Keeping the current deed restriction in place was not one of the options Council directed staff to
explore, although Council could, of course, choose that option. Imposing DEQ's Residential
remediation standards even on subdivided parcels of the railyard would likely result in only a partial
cleanup in 2016 using trucks only and about 16 unusable acres of property in proximity of downtown
for an indefinite number of years. It would also likely inhibit any mixed use, commercial-only or light
industrial development on the site and achieve no discernible health or environmental benefits.
Next Steps
If the Council decides to remove or modify the deed restriction, it would need to initiate a Type II
planning action (see attachment). If the modification is approved, an Agreement between the City of
Ashland and Union Pacific Railroad will be drafted. The Agreement would detail the City's
expectations of UPRR, including but not limited to a full site remediation using rail, deflection testing
of Clear Creek Drive and Oak Street prior to remediation, and compensation for the cost of repairing
both streets at the end of the project. It would also include a commitment by the City to finalize the
agreed-upon deed restriction language and file it with the County Clerk.
Timeline
It could take up to four months for the Agreement to work its way through the UPRR legal review and
a month or more for the City Council to approve the final Agreement. If this process can occur by
May or June, UPRR has indicated that full remediation could begin in late September of 2016.
Discussion Questions
1. Should the railyard be cleaned up and be allowed to be developed for beneficial use?
2. Should Council modify the deed restriction in order to to get UPRR to perform railyard cleanup
in one round over several months in the late summer and fall of 2016, or should Council
maintain the deed restriction as is, thereby making it more likely that railyard cleanup will
occur piecemeal in accord with UPRR's priorities?
Page 3 of 4
i
I
I
CITY OF
i
ASHLAND
3. What is the best option for achieving full-site remediation of the UPRR's railyard property with
soil removal by rail and as little environmental risk and community disruption as possible?
4. Apart from providing greater clarity, would adopting Option 2 differ in terms of actual impacts
from adopting Option 1?
5. If Option 2 were adopted, could the City count on UPRR to conduct the cleanup in the late
summer and fall of 2016 using rail for transport of contaminated soil and at no cost to the City?
6. What would be the likely outcomes of adopting Option 3?
a. Would reservations about its impact on marketability of the property cause UPRR to
again defer full-site cleanup indefinitely and opt for partial cleanup using trucks only?
b. Aside from malting light industrial and commercial-only development at the railyard
even more unlikely, would adoption of Option 3 serve any purpose not achievable
through Option 2 - given that new light industrial development in the railyard site is
already unlikely due to the Transportation System Plan street layout for the railyard and
the Detail Site Review Overlay requirements already in effect?
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
Environment
13. Develop and support land use and transportation policies to achieve sustainable development.
13.2 Develop infill and compact urban form policies.
Economy
19. Ensure that commercial and industrial areas are available for development.
19.2 Evaluate the prospects for the redevelopment of the railroad property.
People
5.2. Support and promote, through policy, programs that make the City affordable to live in.
F
5.2.a Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no noteworthy near-term fiscal impacts. Future development of the railyard site could yield
significant economic activity and City tax revenues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Approve Option 2.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a Major Amendment to
modify the condition of approval in PA99-048 concerning a certain deed restriction such that the deed
restriction confirms to Option as presented in the January 5, 2016 Council Communication titled
"Options to Move Forward with UPRR and DEQ, and to negotiate with Union Pacific Railroad to
develop an agreement concerning full-site remediation of the railyard property as soon as possible
utilizing railcars for transporting contaminated soils.
ATTACHMENTS:
Background on Revising Railyard Deed Restriction
Page 4 of 4
t t (k
4
BACKGROUND ON REVISING RP9'L, I P1R® ®E® RESTRICTION
On October 12, 1999, Planning Commission approved PA99-048 (lot line adjustment and
land partition, including the construction of a new public street and public alley system) with
the follow condition:
9) That a deed restriction be placed on the remaining 25 acres (approximately)
precluding further "development" or land divisions until the property has been
cleaned to residential standards. Written compliance with these standards shall be
provided to the City from the Department of Environmental Quality (see survey plat)
To amend the condition:
® City Council initiates a Type II planning action by motion to direct staff to prepare an
application for Major Amendment - Modification of a condition of approval.
® Planning Commission reviews the request at a public hearing and makes a decision.
® City Council may call up any decision of the Planning Commission, providing it takes
place in the required appeal period.
® If Council calls the PC decision up for review, Council makes the final decision.
® Any appeal goes to LUBA.
f
rt
City Council Business Meeting
January 5, 2016
Page 6 of 9
came back to Council he hoped people were able to agree or disagree in a respectful manner,
I
Councilor Rosenthal would not support the motion. He did not think the motion would quell the acrimony
on the topic. There was a Public Art Master Plan based on a community survey conducted in 2007 and code
depicting the rules of engagement on public art installations and now Council was making up rules
spontaneously. Public art was subjective. He questioned what would happen when the artist presented a
second concept. People would love one, hate the other, or hate both. The easiest and most respectful thing
to do was vote for or against the proposal and start the process again if the vote was no. This did not set the
right precedent.
Mayor Stromberg was not a fan of metal geometric artwork in that it did not touch him personally the way
other artwork did. He was fully aware that was part of his upbringing and culture. Art was more than
something that created aesthetic pleasure. He supported the Public Arts Commission, the process and the
artist. The collective accomplishments of the community had paid off for everyone in important ways.
Having significant art in a prominent location would add to the luster and credibility of the community.
Mr. Kanner noted the Public Art Commission did not have $3,500 to pay for the second concept. He
suggested taking $3,500 from the restricted TOT funds allocated for unanticipated projects.
Mayor Stromberg addressed an earlier decision during a Council meeting to form an ad hoc committee to
look into improving the process for selecting public art. The Mayor decided he would work with staff and
personally interview each member of the Historic Commission and George Kramer instead. He would open
the process up for public input via email or letters. The City Administrator would summarize the suggestions
and the Mayor may or may not make recommendations. This was intended for future projects and not the
proposal before Council. Councilor Lemhouse strongly encouraged the Mayor to create an ad hoc committee
with citizen representation due to the contention regarding the process and lack of citizen involvement.
Mayor Stromberg noted Councilor Lemhouse's comments and would not create an ad hoc committee for the
issue. This was an information gathering process. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse,
Seffinger, and Marsh, YES. Councilor Morris, and Rosenthal, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Options to move forward with UPRR and DEQ
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the current deed restriction on the railroad property required cleanup
to residential standards for the entire 20-acre parcel. It would also require residential cleanup standards when
the property partialized and each parcel had a development proposal regardless of use. Council had three
options. The first option would delete the current deed restriction and have the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) require residential cleanup standards for the 20-acre parcel and apply appropriate cleanup
standards for subdivided parcels based on use. Option 2 replaced the current deed restriction with one where
DEQ required residential cleanup standards for the entire site, clearly defined cleanup standards appropriate
to use once the property subdivided, and ensured adherence to those requirements. The third option would
modify the deed restriction with one that required full site and any subdivided parcels to at least, meet DEQ's
Urban Residential standards.
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) was interested in cleaning up Bunker C, the most contaminated portion of
the property by truck. UPRR would consider a full site cleanup using railcar and postponed cleaning up the
4-acre area. UPRR and DEQ preferred Option 1 to delete the current deed restriction, and could work with
Option 2 if needed. Option 3 would limit the marketability of the land and UPRR would have to consider
this option carefully and mostly likely would not agree to it now and possibly never.
Full site cleanup would involve two phases. UPRR and contractors would clean up the worst area in Bunker
C, the ponds and an area with hot spots to residential standards then meet DEQ risk base requirements for the
entire site. Some spots would have a higher concentration when finished. Once the property subdivided,
City Council Business Meeting
January 5, 2016
Page 7 of 9
DEQ would require further cleanup standards based on use.
i
Apart from providing clarity, adopting Option 2 had the same effect as Option 1. DEQ would consider I
looking at some wells off site to determine potential contamination. This would occur when they dealt with
the initial cleanup of the entire site. UPRR would modify the 2013 Remedial Action Plan and Council could'
suggest modifications but the City had no control regarding the cleanup. The least amount of cleanup would
happen for light manufacturing, or storing materials. The property was in a prime location and the market'
would most likely want to have some residential use. Infrastructure for the 20-acres had not happened yet.
A cleanup plan would go through the Planning Commission, UPRR, and regulatory agencies and there was
no guarantee when that would happen.
Councilor Voisin/Seffinger m/s to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a
Major Amendment to modify the condition of approval in PA99-048 concerning a certain deed
restriction such that the deed restriction conforms to Option 2 as presented in the January 5, 2016
Council Communication titled "Options to Move Forward with UPRR and DEQ, and to negotiate with
Union Pacific Railroad to develop an agreement concerning full-site remediation of the rail yard
property as soon as possible utilizing railcars for transporting contaminated soils.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin thought option 2 provided strong language to protect the City. Councilor
Seffinger added Option 2 made sense and they could accomplish it in a shorter period. Councilor Rosenthal
supported the motion. It protected citizens and would make sure if it was mitigated it was done using a
reasonable, rational approach. It was a valuable piece of land and good things could happen if the property
was developed. Councilor Lemhouse supported Option 2. UPRR had shown willingness to compromise.
The City was not in the position to make many demands and could decide to do nothing but no one benefited
from that choice. Councilor Morris preferred Option l but could support Option 2. Roll Call Vote:
Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, Voisin, Rosenthal, Seffinger, and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
2. Request to extend City water service outside of City limits
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained West Jackson Properties requested connecting to the City's
Talent-Ashland-Phoenix (TAP) waterline to provide water for a fire suppression system in a residential care
facility West Jackson Properties planned to build. The property was in the urban growth boundary (UGB)
and within city limits at the intersection of Highway 99 and Valley View Road. The Ashland Municipal
Code (AMC) provided criteria that allowed extensions but did not clearly state the process. The AMC
required Council approval through a resolution during a public meeting.
Staff recommended denying the request. It was predicated as being in the City's "best interest" because an
Alzheimer's care facility benefited the town. The best interest question could not be considered in isolation.
The request had to meet codified criteria as well as be in the City's best interest and this request did not meet
codified criteria. Granting an exception created a "do for one, do for all" situation. If Council did not think
the rules were adequate to the present or future considerations and circumstances they could change the rules.
There was enough volume and pressure in the TAP line to supply a fire suppression system but that did not
mean connecting to the TAP line was a good idea.
John Chmelir from West Jackson Properties provided information on the shortage of beds for people with
Alzheimer's. He planned to build a 44-bed residential care facility for Alzheimer's patients. He was
requesting permission to connect their fire sprinkler system to the City's fire line that would exist on their
property. Phase I of the site plan was the approved TAP Pump Station. Phase 2 was the Alzheimer's care
facility. Phase 3 was a tentative project that included a medical building and restaurant. The request to
connect to the fire line was part of Phase 2. He shared statistics regarding people with Alzheimer's and
described the care facility. The care center would create 45 new jobs twenty-four hours a day, seven days a
week.
The City would install a fire hydrant across from the proposed facility. He wanted to connect to the fire line
C U
G O
O -
J X
O J p - O
a ~ ~ c o
0 0
N
0
o C
C
m a m a o m
w 'd
o w d ^o - x ^o • W:.a
c m
u w ~ Q
t
47
.
y
a
t.
ti
nlu rvzuoo „a3aoae 3°usi13olina3sivNO SS oaaao~3wna`iswNV'sa"waa3'i'o3iueloaao"'vI rvisr3i~is"•3o alrrv svzoiaui arvvsiuawno~oa sl"wo. :s1N3wnooa Ao asn3a
i
o
~our`i
zj> ! 4 ~Ua o
81
d O O\\ ` / 0 3 a a a 2 Q
Z >
\~Q~LLL W
low
o 8
~ ~ 030 ~y
11 1H R lot
d>a i~yo w xow~ow<'a
od '
/ , woe ~~oo ao
a <p avow ~
j w / ,V a s gou~i~yu k°-O °o~xa E~w
J I p
p - ~KY / v, ¢~u o-ob~oa a `w
oa OF / Jtdy~. u~an ~'w~w tto uw3 x.u
~O _ 00 ~ o n m ~ h e ~
,.,a o / os h 18 Ing, ~~z >
/ o~a? 11 m as ww
M 1; MI oil
HIM! H -1
_ - • ~~z=ry o w
® ~ - / k~,o ao~~o8gd moi oNxm>
- ~ ~ xg o ~ooo QNS w Bl'=oi
~o ~ <~o _ o3eaa3ao aoe
u~~ SSy ~ a
U Qa p a j ~z O
O Q 4 - n m y m _ o~
~ o
1. °
8 / / / a K
Lw:
ono
a _ ox
J W
I /G Q ° ~~e g
Li Z~ ° - d-~ m g
~ Q W
W LL
0
> o w w
m
y w
= G
a
o
-ALL,
fa , i
Wd ES~2>-2l E~OZIStll IQ3AbS 1Sb"1 i132tld-NJid NOI1tlAW,]%3t~. ~9V1 EOSE ~iP_SfiLL
- - -AVNlblNnow N T_-
mow,
> LU
LLJ
W C)
G co
w 1S NOIHAWE
J Q
co U
R3Tlf/1S H1NIN '
Co
cn i
J.
IJ ~ m ~S.
ls
1J "y~Jl~
co
/
~ r - _
LN _
w Y : ~M 3~f/d~ N
u
w ~Oj®o
F
LIJ
U
U
w Q~
~ ~ $ _ A zxtlE~ ~
sue, 0
"
u
w Q)
W
s VM o e g
M S S Y c } 3 N N ry,
CjL
IIIH VlzH~O d0ua3d0ad 3H15i13 d35l~m.INOIS53~o3adjO1N3Wt1a~SNIwSV'N3a3N U3~vaodao~I railsN~I cal~~~v34i3ui a~w5iN3VdfI~0a 51Hi SIN3%nooa jo 3sn1
Q
c
~ z
> w
i
1 F
k
c f
S o
ti ~ p
_ o
_ ~ da
25
~ ~ ~ .lri H #?.:t
t
r
0
x
d
z
CD o - x
L CD
J
i
Z
F -
' rav sc:ee:c~z~oz~s'~G-aanvs ise- ~,lnoAVl-N~nd ails-~a--:evl ross:a3sn LL
xuvp 68900-9IOZ-dJ\9I01sv3=5 3' sav,IoN papey~rap~o3 Smogo~svoipd 8uruuely~3u~uvs~dinap-wwov; p
'90£4-SS4-649 `uolslnl0 6uluueld puelysy ay; }oe;uoo o; aaj; lay; aseald ';sanbw sly; 6utwaouoo s;uawwoo jo suoi;sanb aneq nog( ;l
o; s;uewa6uejae aqeuoseaj a ew o; AII a a eua Inn 6ul aaw a o oud S no (1 a9ll VaV 40l'9£`ZoL 9£?Jdo SZ) '6w;aaw ay; o;A;Illglssaooe amsua
O 41 Iq I ; 4; 1 q ZL uol;enldlloN '(oo6Z-5£L-OOS-L jagwnu auogdAu) Z009-884-Lti41e
ani}}o s, o;e4slulwpy 40 ay;;ne;uon aseald `6ul;aaw sly; ul a;edlol:Ped o; aaue;slsse lelnads paeu not;! `;ny sal;Iliges14 pm usnuawy ay; y;I n anuepdwon ul
'6uueay ay; Ja4e sltep uanas;seal;e jo; uado ulewej 11egs pocei ay;'6uueay ay; ;o uolsnlouoo ay;
ejo;aq s;sanbaj os;uedlollied e;l 'aouenul;uoo a sl aje4; ssalun eua;lao algeolldde ay; o; pa;ola;sej aq s;uewwoo;eq; aambai pue tuowgsa;;o q;bual ay;;iw!1
0;;q6u ay; aney pegs gego aql ';sanbaj slq; 6ulwaouoo eouepua;;s ul asoq; pue;ueolldde ay; ww; (uowgsa; Molle Ile4s !ego aq; `6uuEeH nllgnd ay; 6uun4
OZ4L6uo6aa0'puel4sV'AeM
wnqwM 69'sanlniaS 6uuaaul6u3 pus;uawdolana4l;wnwwoo `;uaw~jedap 6uluueld puelysy ay;;e algepene ale sleua;ew IIV 'pa;sanbaj;i ';son algeuoseaj
;e papinoid aq pion pue 6uueay ay; o; joud sAep uanas uopadsul jo; algepene eq pw, ;jodab ge;S eq;;o Adoo V 'pa;senbai;I ';soo algeuoseai ;e paplnoad
aq IIIM pue ;soo ou ;e uo4oadsw ao; algepene we eua;uo algeolldde pue ;ueolldde ay; Aq uodn pally anuaplna pue s;uawnnop pe 'uogeolldde aq;;o (doo V
;,noo;moil ul sa6ewep ao; uol;ne ue sapnloaid anssl ay; o; puodsai o; uoisslwwoo slq; Mope o; (;loglaads
;uapps gjIM lenoidde;o suolupuon pasodoid o; 6ul;elaj sanssl jeq;o jo leuol;ng;suon eslej o;;ueogdde ay; ;o amlled 'uoua;un ley; uo v3n-i o; leadde;o
;q6u anoA sapnloeid osle uo poseq sl uol;oafgo aq; uoua;uo aoueupo golgnn fgloads o; amlled anssl;ey; uo (vam) sleaddy;o pjeoe asll pue-l ay; o; leadde
;o;y6u most sepnjowd `anssl ay; o; puodsaa o; l;lunuoddo ue ja lew uolsloap aq; pjoj}e o; l;ppeds;ualo!4ns apinoid o; amp; io 'ja;;al !rq to uosiad ul aaq;la
uol;eopdde slq; bulwaouoo uol;oafgo ue asm o; ampe;;e4; sa;e;s noel uo6aa0 aol;ou sly; o; pegoe;;e am uol;eolidde slq; o; elgeo!Idde eua;un aoueupo ayl
-uo6aj0
puelgsV IGGIIS uleW;sea 9L6I 'UM-N30 31A10 ONYIHSV aq;;e aq pion 6ul;aaw agl anoge unnogs a;ep 6ul;aaw uo NOISSIWW00 ONINNVId ONVIHSV
aq; ajo;aq plaq eq IIIM 9oNVNIM10 3Sn ❑NVI oNVIHSV a4; o;;nadsaj y;Inn;senbw bumollo; ay; uo JNIHV31-1 01'19nd 8 ;e4; u9Al6 (gajaq sl and;oN
LL S/j~ y c t tir [ 1 7~
Z ,,f ry P~..,1•x! ~ y~fi # 'tk r ~ rf t Y ~ _
4~y y~ h
ZI,
c fi - v a~
Q
~ : Ian pi 'L.b•. ~ ~ ~
If r I
1 Y
74
VD -1
{ - r I J
• ;m
~Y -7
{ y aI~ CY '~X a'1 .4fit' ,:L'Pf .,:1 1- ` A,
00'' r :JNI133N NOISSIWW03 JNINNVId ONVIHSV
'OOZ9 :10I X'dl ~Vb'60 3L 6£ :d` W S,LIOSS3SS`d OOL9 :10I X'dl 1SV60 36 6£
:dVIN S,NOSSISSV 1,-3 :JNINOZ :;uawAoldw3 :NOIIVNJIS30 NVId 3AISN3H3NdWO3 -Buisnoy lanai punoaB ao;
paepue;s,,lei;uaplsaa„ ay; sasn lela;snpui dy6il ao `ool;;o `lie;aa aoj paepue;s „leuol;ednooo„ ay; :s;ol lenplnlpul ay;
;o asn pasodoad ay; ao3 saalnbaa 03® paepue;say; o; do pauealo eq o; aney plnom s;ol paplnlpgns aan;n; (Z pue
paepup;s lel;uaplsaa ay; o; aq plnonn ails aaoe-OZ ay; ;o dnueelo lei;lul ay; `padolanap ao s;ol aal19WS o;ul paplnlp
aq ueo ails aaoe-OZ ay; aao;aq (1, :;ey; os spaepue;s 030 y;lnn Aoua;slsuoo ao; do ueelo }o adA; pue Buiwl; ay;
sal;laelo uol;ola;saa POOP ay; o; uolslnaa pasodoad ayl -anooo;uewdolanap ao suolslnlp puel aayjsn; aao}aq paepue;s
leo;uaplsaa (030) s,A;!len0 le;uawuoalnu3JO ;uaw),jeda0 uoBaaO ay; o; do pauealo eq ails aaoe-OZ ay;;ey; paalnbaa
uol;ola;saa paap leul6lao ayl •peoal1e-6 b!d!oed uolun Aq pauMO ails aaoe-OZ;ueoen ay; uo papaooaa pue (8v0
-66 dd) lenoadde 6uluueld 6661, a ul paalnbaa senn;ey; uol;ola;saa peep a puawe o;;sanbaa d :N011dWS30
puelysy;o 43 :AV3lldd`d
peoalled ol;Ioed uolun :N3NMO
•a0 ilaaa3 aeal3;o suoll3as Isom
pue;sea uaann;aq pa;en;ls pue sNoea; peoallea;o gIjou pa;eool A}aadoad peoal1ed :,kiN3dONd 103f Sf1S
V8900-91,0Z-Vc! :N0113y JNINNVId
006Z-9£L-008-1:i 11 sn•jo puelyse m- 0902-199-149 :xed 90c9-88b-6ti9
:1 A i I,) OZ9L6 uo6aap'puejgsy Aen" 'IquM l9';uawuedaQ 6uluueld
-P'43900-9IDZVd19:D1-!g:g'-!'oN pa~ieyyl~ap7a3 Smarr-K~-! VSuNez~~3u!uue!dlnap simoo~:~
•090 £ 9'81,
U01 as ul el GIP ay;;aaw Alleuolllppe Ileys sl0l Gel} aaow ao 9u0 buluwe;u03 4eld uoi;q} ed y -N
Iuawdolanap of joud paulelgo eq Algeuoseei ueo jo poulelgo uaaq aney 'elgeopdde se 'quad lejapad pue ale;S pajrnbo~j p
,jeans ayI wq pallglyoad pue Aalle ay} woa; paplnoid aq of pannbaa aq Aew ssaooe 'uollgaed ay} o};uaoefpe s;sixa Aelle ue aaayM •l
-paluep aq lleys
uogeolldde ay; uay; `aoibe os of saulloep jaumo ayl;l pue 'Ield Aanjns leul} ayI;o 6uluft ayI of;uapaoajd aq lleys;uawailnbaa
slyl saij!pn;o bulpunoibiepun ay} pue 's~ lemapp 'japn6 'gano '6ulned apnloul Ileys sluawanojdwl Iaaals lInd -;oajay; s;soo pue
s;uawanoidwl yons ]anoo 0};0lJIs1p luawanadwl pool e p uogewJol ayI of alealsuowaJ IOU o} pue sluawanaadwl Iaaals lln;;o Isoo
ayI ul aledlollied o; 6ulaaa6e sieumo ayI ol;oadsai yllm yloq aleilsuowaa o; 4adoid loafgns ay; ;o jeumo ayI to s;gbla ayI anlem
of pue s;soo eqI w aledlol;ied o; awbe lleys lueolldde ayI 'paambei Iou sl 6ulned pue;aaJIS panedun ue uo aq uol;l}aed ayI plnoyS •p
'uollenala Iaaals ICU]; ayI;aaw of
popeA aq lleys;ol ayI to adols ayI'eseo slyl ul •ooejjns peon ayI to larval ayI ul uolleuen legue;sgns e oonpoid plnom uollenala ayI
to luawysllge;sa ayI aaaym Idaoxe jolowia s~aoM oggnd ayI Aq payloads se pegsllge;se aq lleys Iaaals ayl;0 uollenala level ayI "o
;uaoaad ual paaoxa IOU saop Iaaals panedun ayl;o uopod Aue uo opea6 aupaluao ayI q
'AI!S ayI Aq leld uoijgl ed leull
ayl;o aan;eu6ls ayI of joud °g p g le jaldeyo ul pannbai se paoelans pue 'ylplm leols (yd paepuels sll of (pang pue ino) pepej6 aq of
Iaaj;s ay; aimbei Am Ills ayI •Iaaals leualae Jo J010a1100 panoidwl Allnl Isaaeau ayI of eplm Iaal-0Z Iseal;e sl joeils panedun ayI •e
;s[xa suo111pu00
6wmollol ayI to Ile uaym uollpied puel e ao; ssaooe Jo; Iaaals panedun ue mope Rew jo;oajl ] silaom oggnd ayI •siaaj;s pane uf1 •Z
-luawliedaa s~joAA ollgnd ayl;o;luliad japun
euop Tom Ile yllm Iaa;-0Z aq lleys Iaaals ayl;o ylplm wnwlulw ayI •Iaaals pasodoad ayl;o asn ayI aol pau6lsap Iuawaned alamoo
ollleydse ue y;lm panoidwl aq lleys ssaooe yons 'ueld anlsuayaadwon ayI ul pa;eu6lsep se 'Iaaals leualie 10 J01091100 panoidwl
Allnl Isaaeau ayI of holed ayl;o abe;uoa; Iaaals aipa ayI Lop ssaooe aplm loo;-OZ e slslxa aaayl uayM ';uawan0l WI laaJ;S wnwlulN -I,
•s;®aalS panedun •H
'suolleolpap pue sluawanoidwl oilgnd
pasodoad Ile A;guapl Heys geld Aaeulwllaid ayI 'spuel Iueaefpe uo luawdolanap aanln; lel;ualod pue 6ul;slxa o; suoglsueal aol mope pue 'Fgf
lied ul sluawaimbai aaylo pue spiepue;s u6lsap hails ayI of waoluoo sa!I!I!oel 96euleap aalem amps pue 'sailign 's;aajjs pasodoad ayI •E)
'elialPo leld U0411aed;07 field
lueulwllaad leuol}lppy 090£ 9'8 f 'osle aaS 'OPM easy a101yaA 020T£ V g f u01109s ul spaepuels ayI of Lwoluoo s;ol lenplnlpul o; sassaooy d
'(uoileluapo pue ssaooe jelos 'uogenlasaid aail 'ssaooe pue 6uhljed ` 6 a} V-9I lied jad 'spaepuels luawdolanap algeolldde Aue pue
'-C9 f4 Iced aad `sluawaalnbai auoz AeiJano algeolldde Aue ' gf }red jad 'auoz 6ulApapun ayl;o sluawannbai ayI of wao;uoo slol pasodoad '3
'sy;uow Z I. ao; pauoilped uaaq IOU sey puel;o;Deal ayI
•eaae Ioafgns
ayI ao; slenoadde asn puel snolnaad Rue pue 'Auell 'sueld loulslp ao pooyaogy6lau pa;dope-Alls algeolldde o; swao;uoo ueld uoilpied ayI •0
'papadwl aq Iou lllm olaaayl ssaooe ao puel bululofpe Aue to aapulewaa ay; ;o luawdolanap ayI _a
-pepadwl aq IOU Illm Ioeal ay; ;o aapulewaa ayl;o_sasodand uegan ao; asn aan;n; ayI 'y
';aw We eua;u0 6u1moll0l ayllo Ile aaaym Aluo lenoadde geld uoi;i red Aaeulwliaad ao} uogeopdde ue anoidde Ileys Aluoy;ne lenoadde ayI
OSO'E'S'86
` VMi1N0 ldld NOIIIIN'dd ANb'NIWI-IMId
I
,
w
I I ~
p ; j ',Y~4r~y c
r4
° tit ,
I
? '.7 rCF, .I.d r T :
~f I?I
t .
~ J ti y
~I
.3
.
y i •
s,
y~ L ~~~r( :a!-rtes I' rr
d
SIT'
t r" - y; 0 r r F_ 1
f,?1 6-1 11 4 : h
Y +ti y a m I' rr r
IA;
ILI
it rr.' ui 5r:;
~r Ira- I
' I l rl a ~ ri Ir 4 1. ~ I ,I if ! ' i t I ! I
I i la I
li i III 9 "a~ ra _r,ry f;l rJ
~I j l~, , ry ~I I i i• t t f
I
!rh ~ I ~ ~ I 14- I ! ' 1 I : ` ~ ~ _ ~2 1 ~4I 4 ~9 C I
' it I I r~ , I I! I, f r FI I I,"? j h! I
I
~ ` I ( ~ I fP ~ I I I n r.ry i.1
I i i !i
IT
f
i.
I
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 6506 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 2300 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 6900
645 A STREET LLC TRUSTEES OF 750 A STREET LLC ADLEMAN ALAN R
PO BOX 1018 PO BOX 306 886 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1900 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 6300 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 6505
ASHLAND CITY OF ASHLAND CITY OFC TRANSP CO AUSTIN J ELLEN TRUSTEE ET AL
20 EAST MAIN ST ASHLAND CITY HALL PO BOX 851
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 2800 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 4900 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1007
AYALA LAZ BANYAN DEPOT LLC BATTEN SUSAN ANN TRUSTEE ET AL
132 W MAIN ST 202 1390 ROMEO DR 317 STARFLOWER LN
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09BA 50003 PA-2016-00684 391 E04CD 2000 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 5900
BENDAT KEN TRUSTEE ET AL BERNARD DAVID A TRUSTEE BOLOM SURYA TRUSTEE ET AL
4021 SE 29TH AVE PO BOX 730 470 WILLIAMSON WAY
PORTLAND, OR 97202 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 9700
PA-2016-00684 391 E09A6 5100 BRISCOE JAMES CHRISTOPHER PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 6501
BONSELL TONY TRUSTEE ET AL BRUNNER PETER B TRUSTEE ET AL
564 A STREET 566 FARIVIEW ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 6625 CAMINITO BLYTHEFIELD ASHLAND, OR 97520
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 4600 PA-2016-00684 391 E09BA 60001 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 8500
CLAYTON GARETT S/LISA R CLEARCREEK PROPERTIES LLC COLE MARY ELLEN/JOHN C
301 DAVIDSON WAY 222 LANILOA WAY 286 8TH ST
TALENT, OR 97540 HAIKU, HI 96708 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 6604 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 2804 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 5300
COMSTOCK PAUL CSAFTIS RYAN DAVIS CAROL HORN TRSTEE FBO
PO BOX 35 PO BOX 131712 8003 S LAKE DR
PHOENIX, OR 97535 CARLSBAD, CA 92013 DABLIN, CA 94568
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1609
PA-2016-00684 391 E04DC 3630 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 2215
DEBOER ALAN W TRUSTEE ET AL DECKER MARK LOREN/ANGELA DOUGLAS JAMES R TRUSTEE ET AL
2260 MORADA LN MICHELLE 2120 CALAVERAS AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520 998 CLEAR CR DR DAVIS, CA 95616
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 2202 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1400 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 2203
EDMONDS SUSAN W TRUSTEE ET AL EDWARDS OREN RALPH JR ERIKSSON EDWARD/VU-ERIKSSON
282 NINTH ST ALY 219 N MOUNTAIN JULIE HUONG
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 931 SAVERIEN DR
SACRAMENTO, CA 95864
PA-2016-00684 391 E09BA 700 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 8400 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 6602
EVERITT JOHN K FENWICK STEPHEN C FOWLER GERARD STEPHEN TRUSTEE
845 OAK ST PO BOX 338 309 KENT ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 9800 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 90001 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 10200
GARSON THOMAS L/CYNTHIA H GIES BRIAN J ET AL GRANGE CO-OP SUPPLY ASN INC
P 0 BOX 966 479 RUSSELL ST 103 P 0 BOX 3637
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1100 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 6000 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 2400
GRANT LISA MAE HELMICH DAVID M TRUSTEE ET AL HOUNSELL REBECCA 0 TRUSTEE ET AL
271 MOUNTAIN AVE N 468 WILLIAMSON WAY 294 SIXTH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
G
PA-2016-00684 391 E09BA 60002
PA-2016-00684 391E09AB 6500 ISLAND IMPORTER INC PA-2016-00684 391E09AB 5000
HOXMEIER STEVE/KATHY GURU SANGEET KHALSA JACKSON DANIEL D TRUSTEE
435 B ST 1793 ANDERSON CREEK RD
2 TALENT, OR 97540
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, CLEAR OR CREEK 97520 0
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 6507 PA-2016-00684 391 E09BA 50004 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1607
KENEFICK JERRY LA ROSA HOLDINGS LLC LARKSPUR HOMES INC MARK TUTTLE
667 A ST NEAL KINZIE 1975 HOUSTON RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 180 CLEAR CREEK 203 PHOENIX, OR 97535
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 4700 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 2201 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 6503
LEWIS JAMES D TRUSTEE ET AL LUZ GEORGE A/SHELDON H MC MILLIAN WILLIAM M TRSTEE
640 A ST 4910 CROWSON AVE 35 BOARDWALK ONE
ASHLAND, OR 97520 BATCHELOR, MD 21212 LARKSPUR, CA 94939
PA-2016-00684 391 E04DC 3508
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 2101 MEESE JED D TRUSTEE ET AL JED D & PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1300
MCBRAYER KEITH/LYN MIX SARAH
CELIA MEESE
764 A ST 774 MAYS BLVD SUITE 10-366 1962 S LONGSPUR LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520 INCLINE VILLAGE, NV 89451 GILBERT, AZ 85299
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1608 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 6700 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 5400
MONOSOFF JEFFREY TRUSTEE ET AL MUNROE ROBERT W PALACE PROPERTIES LLC
1861 ASHLAND MINE RD 864 A ST PO BOX 3606
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 5500 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1200 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 5200
PAPEN FRANK CONRAD TRUSTEE PARRY DIANE E FAMILY TRUST ET AL POWELL GARY DEAN
267 MEADE 263 N MOUNTAIN AVE 562 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 6508 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 2100 PA-2016-00684 391 E09BA 50002
REEVES WILLIAM F/R J OSTROM RHONE ABRAHAM TRUSTEE ET AL ROGERS ALEX/TINA
681 A ST 11980 E STILLWATER WAY 450 PARK RIDGE PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520 REDDING, CA 96003 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 6500 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 6502 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 6800
RUBINSTEIN ILENE SACHS JAMES D TRUSTEE ET AL SATUREN STEVEN L ET AL
854 A ST 253 THIRD ST 868 A ST UNIT 1
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
i
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1006 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 2110 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1610
SCHMIDT DONNA C SHAFFER SUSAN ELIZABETH HAVARD SILBIGER RUSSELL W
442 THIMBLEBERRY LN TRUSTEE TRUSTEE/SILBIGER, RUS
ASHLAND, OR 97520 129 ALMOND ST 986 CLEAR CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 2216 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 2111 PA-2016-00684 391 E04DC 3507
SMITH ALFORD R JR TRUSTEE STARK ELIZABETH D SUTPHIN RONALD S/DENISE E
PO BOX 833 987 B ST PO BOX 128
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2016-00684 391 E04DC 3401 PA-2016-00684 391 E04DC 3402 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 1008
TONEY FAMILY CREDIT SHELTER TONEY JERRY E TRUSTEE ET AL TORRES LAUREL M
TRUST ET AL 6581 GRIFFIN CREEK RD 1932 NE HAREWOOD PL
3955 S STAGE RD 89 MEDFORD, OR 97501 HILLSBORO, OR 97124
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 90001 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 6200 UNION PACIFIC RR CO PROPERTY TAX PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 6100
TTW LLC WEATHERELL MARCIA M/JEFFREY L
117 ALMOND ST DEPARTMENT 466 WILLIAMSON WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520 1400 DOUGLAS - STOP 1640 ASHLAND, OR 97520
OMAHA, NE 68179
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 2000 PA-2016-00684 391 E09AA 2112 PA-2016-00684 391 E04DC 3500
WELLS SANDRA L ET AL WESTERMARK GEORGE D TRUSTEE WILLIAMSON ROBERT C
PO BOX 578 1269 SECOND AVE 960 BROADWAY NE 1
ASHLAND, OR 97520 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 SALEM, OR 97301
PA-2016-00684 391 E09AB 6504 Railroad Property
WILSON ELLIS V/MILDRED M
1475 WINDSOR ST 76 NOC 6/1/16
ASHLAND, OR 97520 76
i
i
i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On 6/2/16 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope
with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person
listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each
person's name for Planning Action #2016-00684, Railroad Property.
Signature of Employee
Oocument3 6/1/2016
\ 4'
ZONING MIT APPLICATION
CITY OF IL PL®2016-00684
-ASHLAND
Planning Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Major Modification of 1999 land partition and property line adjustment approval (PA 99-048) to change a deed restriction that was required
and recorded on the vacant 20-acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad.;
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO
Street Address Railroad Property - two vacant lots that do not have an address
Assessor's Map No. 391 E09AB, tax lot 6700 and 391 E09AA, tax lot 6200
Zoning E-1 Comp Plan Designation Employment
APPLICANT
Name City of Ashland Phone _541-552-2091 E-Mail david.lohman a(,.ashland.or.us
Address 20 East Main Street. City Ashland Zip 97520
PROPERTY OWNER
Name Union Pacific Railroad Phone 402-233-1007 E-Mail glhoneym(a up.com
Address 221 Nodgeman City Laramie, WY Zip 82072
1 authorize the submission of this Planning Action per the direction of the Ashland City Council as provided at their regular meeting on July 1, 2014
and reflected in the minutes as follows:
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
April 5, 2016
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
3. Union Pacific Railroad Rail Yard Remediation - Next Steps
Councilor Marsh/Rosenthal m/s to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a Major
Amendment to the replace the condition of approval in PA99-048 with the modified condition of approval
presented in the April 5, 2016, Council Communication and to continue working with Union Pacific Railroad
and DEQ to achieve remediation of the rail yard site to applicable DEQ standards using rail cars for removal of
contaminated soil. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Morris, Marsh, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and
Voisir YES Motion passed.
t
Applicant: Bill Molnar, Director of Community Development Date
1
i
As owner of the property involved in this regi I have read and understood the complete applica,.. and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
Property Owner's Signature (required) Date
[to be completed by City Staff]
Date Received Zoning Permit Type II Filing Fee $NoVApplicable
i
k
I'
2
4
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE #PL-2010-00684
CITY OF,
ASHLAND
Alarming Division
51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 !I i
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Major Modification of 1999 land partition and property line adjustment approval (PA 99.040) to change a deed restriction that was required
and recorded on the vacant 20-acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Cerliflcation7 ❑ YES ❑ NO
Street Address -Railroad Property two vacant lots lhal do nol have an address
Assessor's Map No. 391 E09AB, lax lot 6700 and 391 E09AA tax lot 6200
Zoning E-1 Comp Plan Designation Employing
APPLICANT
Name City of Ashland Phone 541-552.2091 E-Mail david.lohmancbashland, orms
R!
Address 20 East Main Street. City Ashland Zip 97520
i
PROPERTY OWNER
Name Union Pacific Railroad Phone 402-233-1007 E-Mail Ihoneym anup.com
Address 221 hlodgeman City Laramie, WY Zip 82072
i
1 authorize the submission of this Planning Action per the direction of the Ashland City Council as provided at their regular, meeting on July 1, 2094
and reflected In the minutes as follows:
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
AS11DIND CITY' COUNCIL
Alrril S, 2016
Cottrell Chnnnbers k
1175 E. Alain Stree! I
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
3. Union Pacific Railroad Rail Yard Remediation - Next Steps
Councilor Marsh/Rosenthal m/s to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a Major
Amendment to the replace the condition of approval in PA99-048 with the modified condition of approval j
presented in the April 5, 2016, Council Communication and to continue working with Union Pacific Railroad
and DEQ to achieve remediation of the rail yard site to applicable DEQ standards using rail car's for removal of
contaminated soil. Roll gall Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Morris, Marsh, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and r
Vois,1n; YES Motion,p 'sed.
,r
Ap icant; DIII oinar, Director of Community Development Date
r
1
i
i
As owner of Me propody involved In this request, t have read and understood the complete appllcatlon and Its consequences to me as a property
owner. Ake
Property per's Signature required) Date
Assistant Vice President ® Deal Estate
fro ba comploled byClly Slaf
Date Received Zoning Permit Type II Filing Fee $NoVApplicable
t
I
is
t ~ la
2
z i
t' I
€4
I
I
nl;lf•I;i'>
1
f
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
221 Hodgeman
Laramie, WY 82072
MEMORANDUM
TO: Laura Pollack
CC: Robert Bylsma
James Levy
FROM: Gary L. Honeyman
DATE: June 1, 2016
SUBJECT: Routing Request
Zoning Permit Application
Ashland, OR -Active SP Yard
I
I
Please obtain Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) signature by Tony Love on page 2 of the attached City
of Ashland Zoning Permit Application. The City of Ashland needs UPRR's application in order to
modify the deed restriction that has been on this UPRR property since 1999. UPRR has requested the
modification to allow remediation on the Ashland Rail Yard to proceed. The existing deed restriction
contains language that conflicts with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) cleanup
standards. The modified deed restriction will match the language of the DEQ standards and allow
UPRR to remediate the site in accordance with the work plan that has been approved by DEQ. The
Ashland Planning Commission is prepared to vote on the deed restriction modification at its June 14
meeting and their approval is expected.
Please scan and return the signed application to me via email.
Please contact me if you have questions at 307-760-0117 or glfioneym(d),umcom.
I'
Thank you.
fr,
F
r,
1
I
i
I.
i
' I
Job Address: Contractor:
Address:
C
Owner's Name: CITY OF ASHLAND O Phone:
P Customer 07515 N State Lic No:
P CITY OF ASHLAND T City Lic No:
Applicant: R
I Address: A
C C Sub-Contractor:
A Phone: T Address:
N Applied: 04/12/2016 O
T Issued:
Expires: 10/09/2016 R Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Modify Condition of Approval for UPRR Rail Yard Property
VALUATION
Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description
Total for Valuation:
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
STRUCTURAL
PERMIT FEE DETAIL
Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY ® F
-ASHLAND
f
~i1:!fill fill iii l!;
l
(i+
l
I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the
best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts
understood and agreed to the following:
Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation
(180 days). Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in
advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00
or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the
applicant. Sub-Total: $ 0
Fees Paid: $ 0
Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305;
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY F