Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-1107 Council Mtg MINS MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 7, 2017 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER Councilor President Seffinger called the Business Meeting to order at 7:02 PM Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, and Councilor Rosenthal were present. Mayor Stromberg, Councilor Lemhouse and Councilor Darrow were absent. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE HI. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilor Seffinger announced the current Commission and Committee vacancies. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of September 19, 2017 2. Study Session of October 16, 2017 3. Business Meeting of October 17, 2017 Councilor Slattery moved to approve the minutes. Councilor Morris seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Councilor Rosenthal moved to have discussion regarding Dead Indian Memorial Road at item 13. Councilor Slattery seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None VII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] Mary Bertrand- 2301 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland - Read a statement into the record regarding the Senior Center. She expressed that staffing being reduced while adding more services is a contradiction (see attached). Sue Wilson -1056 Dead Indian Memorial Rd., Ashland- Read a statement regarding the Senior Center. She spoke that it is the City and Parks role to deal with this issue responsibly. She spoke that cutting Staff is not the answer. She urged the Council to help fix this situation (see attached). Huelz Gutcheon- 2253 HWY 99, Ashland - Spoke regarding climate change. He spoke that there needs to be energy education. Louise Shawkut- 870 Cambridge, Ashland - Read a letter into the record regarding Clean Energy Jobs (see attached). Councilor Slattery suggested to get clarification from the Parks Staff and City Administration regarding the article in the paper about the Senior Center. Councilor Seffinger spoke regarding the senior center issues and the importance of ADA and senior needs. Councilor Slattery spoke that there is a difference between elected position and Parks Commissioners. Council does not dictate personnel issues. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Acceptance of minutes of boards, commissions, and committees Councilor Slattery suggested to have a list of the Board, Commission and Committee meetings times and dates available to ensure when minutes should be made available. 2. 8' Quarter financial report of the 2015/17 biennium 3. Procurement of a type 1 ambulance Councilor Rosenthal questioned what a type 1 ambulance is. Chief Shepherd explained the difference between type 1, 2 and 3 ambulances are. Chief Shepherd explained the reasons for the decision on choosing Hughes Fire Equipment. 4. Update on Food and Beverage Tax funded street projects Public Works Director, Paula Brown gave a Staff report. She explained that Food and Beverage Tax is an option to fund street projects. She explained that partial designs are complete. 5. Liquor license application for Boardgamer, LLC -DBA Funagain Games 6. Liquor license application for Lana Enterprise, LLC - DBA RedZone Sports Bar N' Grill 7. Liquor license application for Lucky Gate, Inc. - DBA Golden Dynasty Restaurant 8. Approval of Personal Services contract for stormwater and drainage master plan update Ms. Brown gave a brief Staff report and explained the master plan has not been updated since 2000. Councilor Slattery suggested that items on the consent agenda with a large dollar amount should not be on the consent agenda. City Attorney, David Lohman suggested that this can be discussed during the Study Session regarding Policies and Procedures. 9. Approval of the release of interest in a portion of a Sanitary Sewer easement 10. Appointment of Dee Ann Everson to the Municipal Audit Committee Councilor Slattery thanked Ms. Everson for applying for the Municipal Audit Committee. Councilor Slattery moved to appoint David Runkle to the Audit Commission with the term ending December 31, 2017. Councilor Seffinger seconded. Discussion: Councilor Slattery spoke that it would be good to have an appointed member who is familiar with the process. Councilor Rosenthal questioned the process. Councilor Slattery and Councilor Seffinger: YES. Councilor Rosenthal and Councilor Morris: NO. Motion failed. Councilor Slattery moved to approve the consent agenda. Councilor Morris seconded. Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, Councilor Rosenthal and Councilor Seffinger: YES. Motion passed unanimously. IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public hearing and adoption of a resolution titled, "A resolution repealing Resolution 2016-35 Transportation Systems Development Charges; and adopting the System Development Charges set forth in Resolution 1999-42, New Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology and Charges, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.20.040 and 4.20.050" Ms. Brown gave a Staff report. Council discussed the SDC methodology. Councilor Seffinger opened the Public Hearing at 8:04 PM Public input: Susan Sullivan -305 Stoneridge Ave., Ashland- Thanked Council and welcomed Paula Brown. Thanked Transportation Commission for their work. Councilor Seffinger closed the Public 8:07 PM Councilor Slattery moved approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution repealing Resolution 2016- 35 Transportation Systems Development Charges; adopting the System Development Charges Set Forth in Resolution 1999-42, New Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology and Charges, Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.20.040 and 4.20.050. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: Councilor Rosenthal spoke regarding his disappointment on the waste of time for the citizens who spent time on the SDC Ad-Hoc Committee. Councilor Morris asked if anyone has submitted applications since the new SDC increase. Ms. Brown spoke that 2 application came in and since they were so high they were put on hold. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, Councilor Seffinger and Councilor Rosenthal: YES. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Public hearing and first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapters 18.2.2.030, 18.2.3.090, 18.2.5.030, 18.3.4.040, 18.3.5.050, 18.3.9, 18.4.3.040, 18.4.8, and 18.5.2.050 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to establish standards for Cottage Housing Developments within R-I-S, R-1-7.5, and NN-1-5 Single Family Residential Zones" and move onto second reading. Commuhity Development Director, Bill Molnar gave a brief Staff report. City Planner, Brandon Goldman went over a PowerPoint presentation (see attached). He spoke that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the draft Ordinance. Councilor Seffinger questioned if ADA has been addressed in this Ordinance. Mr. Goldman spoke that this would be addressed in the building code for all developments. Councilor Seffinger opened the Public Hearing at 8:28 PM. Public Input: Ron Roth -6950 Old 99 South, Ashland- Spoke in support of the Ordinance. He suggested to revisit this in a year to see the progress. Michael Bielec -980 Ivy Ln., Ashland -Spoke in support of the Ordinance but is concerned of on street parking. He spoke in the importance of keeping the character of the neighborhood. Risa Buck- 798 Oak St., Ashland - Excited about this concept but spoke in concern about affordability. Ron Davies-171 Helman, Ashland- Spoke regarding vacant land and existing land. Gave examples of prior planning projects. Suggested a zone change on Mistletoe Road. Concerned about changing the character of the neighborhood. Karen Logan -261 Otis St., Ashland - Gave the description between Tiny Houses and Cottage Houses. Spoke that Cottage homes solve the problem of infill and creates affordable housing. She spoke that she would like the City to adopt an Ordinance regarding the 46% renters that are here. She spoke in concern of affordability. Jesse Sharpe -107 Lincoln St. Apt. #11 Ashland- Agreed with Ms.Logan. He spoke in regards for tenants. He explained that when infill is done we also need to create affordability clauses. He spoke that Ashland is in a severe housing crisis. He spoke that this is a good step in the right direction but to continue to look into affordable housing. Councilor Seffinger closed the Public Hearing at 8:44 PM. Councilor Rosenthal moved approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending chapters 18.2.2.030, 18.2.3.090, 18.2.5.030, 18.3.4.040, 18.3.5.050, 18.3.9, 18.4.3.040, 18.4.8, and 18.5.2.050 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to establish standards for cottage housing developments within R-1-5, R-1-7.5, and NN-1-5 single family residential zones", and move to second reading. Councilor Morris seconded; Discussion: Councilor Rosenthal spoke in appreciation of the time and effort on this issue. Councilor Morris spoke in support of the Ordinance but spoke to the complexity to the Land Use Ordinance. Councilor Slattery spoke in support of the Ordinance. He spoke that it probably won't help affordable housing but perhaps ownership and provide more stock in the long-term rental. Councilor Seffinger spoke in support of the Ordinance. She expressed her hopes for ADA and accessible living to be looked at. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Councilor Rosenthal, Councilor Morris and Councilor Seffinger: YES. Motion passed unanimously. X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Solid Waste & Recycling restrictions Interim Assistant to the City Administrator, Adam Hanks gave a Staff report. He introduced Recology General Manager, Gary Blake. Mr. Blake went over a PowerPoint presentation (see attached). Mr. Blake went over the options: • Continue to recycle. • Landfill the material with DEQ. Mr. Hanks spoke that Staff recommends a surcharge on the bills of Recology costumers and to come back to Council with a rate Resolution. Council discussed the short-term and long-term effects on this issue. Surcharge options were discussed. Councilor Rosenthal asked Mr. Hanks which option he recommends. Mr. Hanks answered option 1 as presented in the packet. Councilor Slattery moved to direct staff to work with Recology Ashland to develop and present to Council a rate resolution establishing a temporary Recycling Surcharge to account for the operational expenses incurred by Recology Ashland to maintain current recycling opportunities within Ashland. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: Councilor Rosenthal spoke that this isn't a fun item to deal with. He suggested thinking about identifying ways to help this situation and to help offset the surcharge cost. Councilor Seffinger spoke that this item is an important service provided by Recology. She spoke to the importance of recycling, reusing and looking into packaging that is not plastic. Councilor Slattery spoke in the importance of recycling. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Councilor Slattery, Councilor Rosenthal and Councilor Morris: YES. Councilor Rosenthal suggested creating an Ad-Hoc Committee to think of ways to work on this topic. 2. Community Development Housing Program - update of current actions Mr. Molnar gave Council an update. He discussed the different programs. He discussed monetary contributions the City has provided. He spoke that we are still progressive today. He went over the immediate, mid-term and extended tern strategies. Councilor Slattery thanked Mr. Molnar. Increasing the Urban Growth Boundary was discussed. XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Section 9.30.010 to clarify the linear limitation of smoking prohibition" Mr. Lohman gave a Staff report. He explained the 20 feet is vertical and horizontal to a facility. Councilor Rosenthal suggested some modifications to the Ordinance. Councilor Rosenthal moved to approve second reading by title only of, "An ordinance amending AMC Section 9.30.010 to clarify the linear limitation of smoking prohibition". As presented but with 3 amendments: 1. Adding WHEREAS, the prohibited smoking areas in AMC 9.30.020 are currently identified partly by reference to the map of Downtown which is attached as Exhibit A to AMC 10.120.010.B.1 and which has proven to be challenging to explain and enforce due to lack of specificity. 2. Deleting the current definition of "Downtown" in AMC9.30.010B and replacing it with "Downtown means the area within the boundary lines depicted in Exhibit A to AMC 10.120.010.B.1 plus the area within the outer perimeter of the public right of way of any street and sidewalk adjoining and parallel to those boundary lines." 3. To include the Pioneer Hall and Community Center tax lots on Winburn Way between Granite Street and the Plaza in AMC 09.30.020A. Councilor Slattery seconded. Discussion: Councilor Morris spoke to his concern on how to enforce this. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Councilor Seffinger, Councilor Morris and Councilor Slattery: YES. Motion passed unanimously. 2. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 2.08.020 to remove responsibilities from Recorder's function" and move onto second reading and First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 2.28.130 to add responsibilities to Finance Department functions" and move onto second reading This item will be placed on a future agenda when properly noticed. 3. Approval of a resolution titled, "A revised resolution authorizing the City of Ashland to provide a City building for a winter shelter three nights per week through April, 2018 and repealing Resolution 2017-23" Councilor Seffinger questioned if woman and children are allowed in the shelter. Mr. Karns answered yes. Councilor Slattery questioned the change made. Mr. Lohman explained the change on Section 2 (D). Stating that they will allow hosts of mixed gender but if that can't happen and there is notification by 3PM. Council discussed options regarding the host changes and possible staffing options. Councilor Morris moved to postpone this item to a future meeting. Councilor Slattery seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Rosenthal spoke regarding the Dead Indian Memorial Road decision from the County. He explained the County did not take action because there was no formal request for a name change. It was suggested for this item to be on a future agenda with a couple of options: • Placing a name change on the ballot. • Council and Mayor make a formal request to the County for a name change. Council gave consensus to bring back this topic. Councilor Slattery suggested to have someone who has helped organize the Winter Shelter present the reasoning behind male and female hosts. XIV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING The Business Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM Respectfully submitted by: es,V City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: M&Xok Strom berg In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ifyou need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 ('TTYphone number 1-800- 735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). Date: November 7, 2017 To: Mayor John Stromberg and Members of the City Council From: Mary Bertrand, Ashland, OR 'x RE: Ashland Senior Center Ashland is a marvelous place to live. The opportunities for cultural events, educational opportunities and recreational activities are endless, Yet the political scene makes me think of Laurel and Hardy or the Marx Brothers or even Stephen Colbert and the other late night comedians. Any of the above could provide great laughter for the contradictions and foolishness that is presently going on within the Parks and Recreation Department and the City of Ashland concerning the Senior Center. There doesn't seem to be any checks and balances for the P& R Department under Ashland's City government, and like my dad would say, "I smell a rat," 1) According to one of the City Councilors, The City of Ashland says it's not in their jurisdiction and that the City Charter states this. That the Parks and Rec Commission is independently elected and have control over all parks related programs. (Sneak Preview, 9/01/2017) 2) On a website of another City Councilor, one of her goals is:"continued development and services for our senior population including age friendly housing, better transportation options, support services that allow seniors to age in their homes." I haven't noticed any improvements because of this elected official. 3) The website for the City of Ashland lists the Senior Program Advisory Board but "Please remember that they are volunteers on behalf of our community and should only be contacted on matters related to this particular commission, committee, or Board." This is either such an obvious statement that insults our intelligence or a means to discourage us from contacting those who are "assigned on behalf of our community." 4) Again under the City of Ashland, The Parks Commission states that REORGANIZATION WILL BE TAKING PLACE F "Better services." Have these "better" services been listed somewhere??? Granted there are a couple of new programs (free pharmacy services, etc. that wouldn't require "reorganization") "Research ways to increase revenue". I don't understand why this is something new, and not been r: done already. I read the minutes of the subcommittee and a lot of ideas get floated around but 1 don't get the impression that there is an actual budget committee that could improve the present situation. "Ensure the Programs resiliency for years to come." This sounds like a veiled threat. It's been r functioning quite well for many years now. Would the reorganization help make it more permanent?? I doubt it. But the most Egregious is the following: "The Operations and Staffing will be E reduced."and from the Subcommitee goals, "Through the gathering of information, gain a greater understanding of the senior program." These two statements tell me that the Parks Director and Commission members as well as the City of Ashland Mayor and Councilors don't get it. Reduce the staff and add more services. That is an obvious contradiction. Full time Staff without question is the MOST important facet of the Senior Center. It's not the activities that are listed in the calendar or the Parks Department Brochure that are probably well run. It's what goes on in the office of the Program Director where folks who probably don't even participate in the listed activities stop by and are in need of empathy, compassion, and consideration. They are in need of someone who can appraise their concerns/problems and give them an appropriate referral in order to improve their present status. In addition, visits to the homebound 4 are incredibly important. That has already been taking place without reorganization. Someone can have all the degrees in the world, but without that "caring" concern in addition to "reduced staffing", ° it is doubtful that "Better Services can be provided, So with all these contradictions and faulty statements, it's understandable that there is so much anger and misunderstandings out there in this otherwise wonderful community. i Ashland City Council Regular Meeting - Nov. 7, 2017 pubic forum There has been talk of whether the Senior Program should be the City's program or the Parks and Recreation program. I see it as not either the City's or the Parks'. It's the Ashland citizens program and has been for 43 years. The City and Parks' role is to administer it responsibly. So when there is public outcry about the Parks recently laying off the entire Senior Center staff, thus endangering our seniors' well-being and we come to the City Council asking for help to rectify the harm the City responds by saying we cannot do anything its out of our jurisdiction city charter prohibits us to interfere.' The City also says it is a "personnel issue" when it is not. The staff was not terminated for cause which has employee appeal rights; they were involuntarily laid off. The Municipal Code has provisions for rehiring laid off staff. That the City is prohibited to act or interfere is not true. While the city charter does dictate that the Parks Commission shall have control and management of all the lands dedicated for park purposes and all park funds, the municipal code states The City Council is the final decision-maker on all city policies and the use of city resources. Also the August 9, 2014 Memorandum of Understanding, the MOU, between the City and Parks that was signed by the Mayor and City Council state the MOU is not legally binding. It also states that under the Ashland City Charter, the Ashland City Council is the sovereign authority over all matters of City-wide concern. 'in addition, Parks has repeatedly stated its desire to work with the City to E determine whether the senior program should be located in the Parks or City budget. It is in their 2017 Strategic Planning Goals statement. It was also discussed at length as something that was needed at the Parks' senior subcommittee meeting in January 2017. And the latest Parks View article in the Daily Tidings Oct. 25th, Parks stated that the essential senior programs are social services that are logically a responsibility of the City, and not specifically part of Parks' mission. 1 So the City has the authority to intervene, and Parks is asking them to yet the City Council is standing by and doing nothing. I say wake up WAKE UP, and do your jobs. The seniors need your help now more than ever. Sue Wilson 1056 Dead Indian Memorial Road Ashland, Oregon 97520 CLEAN S ENERGY JvBs:- Clean Energy Job It`s time for Oregon to transition from polluting energy to a clean energy economy. Our state is poised to reap the rewards of good-paying jobs, clean air, and local, renewable energy by putting a price on climate pollution and reinvesting the proceeds into our communities. The impacts of climate change are hurting Oregonians. Our families, farmers, fishermen and firefighters are bearing the burden of climate pollution and burning fossil fuels. A limit and price on pollution from the largest sources will cut down the harmful effects on Oregonians while investing in solutions to grow our economy, especially for people who need it most. We must act now. Oregon can seize the opportunity to lead the clean energy economy, create good paying jobs for Oregonians and protect the health of our families and clean air. We need to price pollution and invest in solutions. I I 9_0 Local, renewable energy like solar Building upgrades for energy bill savings Good paying jobs & training f ; RUM Clean 05M EM Modern transit in communities u 1 F The Renew regon coalition is championing a policy that will: • Cap: Limit climate pollution statewide for emitters of 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year, about the equivalent of burning 133 train cars full of coal, In other words, your favorite brewery or the store down the street will not fall under the cap, only the largest polluters in the state. The cap will decline J over time through 2050 to ensure we reach our reduction targets and provide certainty for business. • Price: The largest emitters will pay for every ton of climate pollution they put into our air. The price is stable and adjusted over time to ensure the cap is not exceeded giving polluters incentive to cut emissions and allowing flexibility to do so efficiently and at least cost. • Invest: At least $700 million per year in proceeds will be reinvested in clean :energy solutions in Oregon like affordable solar, energy efficient homes and businesses to save on bills, transportation, electric vehicles, and healthier communities. Major., investment will go to reduce pollution and grow opportunities for low-income and rural communities, communities of color, and training worl<ers in Oregon. Equity and a just transition to clean energy are central to the policy. a { t fn)n x' h tai 2S i~6kG8 7~~qd,. ~"Yslf 4 AR -J :,"$i .e.'~3~'•r-k?'S~'x' pi's-N~ e.a a z: erz~\,,~t2 . ` r 0.1 ^x' v''3`^ 1AZIN 4 •-'v t -a'Realm ~X E~~~{ - A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY FOR ALL By acting now, Oregon will reap rewards including clean, renewable energy and thousands of good paying jobs all over the state: More than 48,000 Oregonians working in the clean and green economy, producing $7 billion C' in goods and services. Imagine what major new investment could dol Oregon is home to more than 130 wind and solar companies and suppliers alone, making us poised to be a leader in the national clean energy job market. ~r Investing in clean energy creates opportunities for employment across all skill levels - and ups to 3-times more jobs than investing the same amount in-fossil fuel-production. Clean energy investments in Oregon directly created 5,300 jobs and indirectly supporting thousands, of additional jobs. Jobs for Oregonians with all kinds of skills like construction , workers, engineers, designers, manufacturing workers, salespeople, administrators and { custodians. ~i F k ~~3~tl RI THE - NEW YORKER U U ~~~L~~=~~a~r~at,r~,w~ra~no~uu~ced~~ ~pregoti~DE(~ Says Gap ani{Trade Could n~ztls,~trr~i h ~~t~v~c~uld work pasxtaninuest bins 2o1a [teduce Carbon Em sstAns at Lower Costs ~ Rt[t'ri~'a l~~e at~cati~s~anding up, she:' ~ f ~mazaos to dbaehard limits on ax x< 'iont~rt 42t~ggcxrrcllrsWe ~ ~~~e~nhouse gas en~~aszons m Qregon 4 - Join our campaign: bitty/Clean3nergyJobs #CleanEnergyJobs , 1 amgs^ -~".^•,'r"+~-r'.^, Its 1 ON IZ Wi i ,a 3 RV~ FM S 4 Mail Tribune Guest Opinion: Mean Energy Babson a no-regrets s®oulti® By Alan Jouroet Posted Oct 29, 2017 at 12:01 AM No-regrets and win-win solutions tarely come our way, but in the Clean Energy Jobs Bill, Oregon has a chance to hit that sweet spot. The next Southern Oregon Climate Action Now meeting, at 6 p.m Tuesday, Oct, 31 at the Medford Public Library, is devoted to the bill and the campaign. Anyone interested in learning more, or promoting its passage, is invited to attend. Most Southern Oregonians know our temperature has been climbing for many decades, bringing us early snowmelt and heat waves. Less obvious is the transition from high- elevation snowfall to lower-elevation rainfall, inducing reduced snowpack and water shortages during summer and fall. Additionally, rainfall is occurring more often as heavy downpours than as light, soil-replenishing drizzle. Together with reducing soil moisture, these patterns stimulate wildfire risk Furthermore, these trends will only become more severe unless we address their root cause: global warming induced by climate pollution. Oregon cannot solve the global emissions problem alone, since our emissions are a small proportion of national and global totals. However, we can do our share by becoming part of the solution rather than continuing as part of the problem. Unless we do our share, we cannot urge others around the nation and the globe to help protect our beautiful corner of paradise by doing their share. In 2007, our Legislature established statewide goals for climate pollution reduction, targeting a 70 percent reduction from the state's 1990 emissions by 2050, a goal to be achieved purely by voluntary measures. Unfortunately, we're not on a trajectory to achieve our target. Oregon's transportation, industries and utility sectors have not risen to the challenge of reducing their emissions sufficiently. Voluntary measures have failed. nftp:f/ +i`~w.matlVmune.comJopinion(2g1J1U29/guest-opinion-clean-energy-jogs-po-reyrets-soloiion 11/7/17, S IA PM Pape. 1 of 3 For several years, a statewide coalition has urged the Legislature to address the issue. While Oregon's Legislature has approved studies and has addressed components of the problem, legislation addressing the major sectors of the economy responsible for the climate pollution has been inadequate. A statewide coalition of climate-concerned Oregonians, including legislators, representatives of the social/environmental justice community and labor, developed a bill that would meet the concerns of these communities while also producing meaningful pollution reductions. The result of several years of effort, the Clean Energy Jobs Bill is a no-regrets proposal that addresses an urgent problem. It contains critical elements that address social justice and labor concerns while providing funds to assist rural Oregon in economic development. The essence of the proposal involves capping statewide climate pollution emissions, including emissions outside the state resulting from electricity generation, by at least 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. Rather than targeting individual polluters, the bill targets entities that emit over 25,000 metric tons annually. These major polluters are required to buy allowances that will limit their permitted pollution. Entities polluting in excess of their allowances suffer a penalty while entities not using all allowances can trade them on the open market. This encourages polluters to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources that are excluded from the allowance requirement. The state emissions cap is lowered annually to meet statewide targets with the expectation that the price will rise, thereby encouraging polluters to re-evaluate their energy sources. The proposal is a climate pollution cap and permitting process, not a tax. Since low-income Oregonians would be most compromised by rising utility prices, the program provides some free allowances to utilities. These allowances are returned to the pool for sale. Funds thus generated are assigned to the utility to be used to subsidize the bills of low-income customer. These utilities must still buy allowances to cover their pollution. Polluters can meet a small proportion of their emissions reduction goals by buying offsets, though these are limited to 8 percent of emissions. Offsets comprise investments in activities that are certified either to reduce emissions (solar or wind farms, for example) or reduce nttp:Ikrww.maiftribune,corn/op inion/2017102910uosI-opinion-clean -energy-jobs-no-regrets -solution 11/7/17.9:14 pid Page 2 of 3 'atmospheric concentration of the pollutants (such as forests or regenerative agriculture). Although it is estimated that the program will raise about $700 million annuall y, some of these funds are restricted by an Oregon constitutional requirement that revenue generated from vehicle propulsion fuel must go to roads. Both these and remaining funds are assigned to projects that stimulate renewable energy projects while assisting impacted and economically depressed (especially rural) communities. Workers dislocated by the transition are also targeted for support. States enacting climate pollution caps have exhibited economic growth that equals or outpaces the economies of neighboring states. This bill will help rural Oregon and our state's economy. Southern Oregon's representatives should support this win-win legislation. - Alan journet Jacksonville is co-facilitator of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now. Email him at alan@socan info. SIGN UP FOR DAILY E-MAIL 1 Wake up to the day's top news; delivered to your inbox___, l ~ l s I hltp://wwrr.maiRribune.cum/opiinion/2 01710 2 91guest-opinion-clean-energy-jobs-no-regrets-solution 1117117, 5:14 PM page 3 of 3 • 9 71 t L1 I ~ K, S y} r y ^ A_ ly..:.. tq ' may. I ~Lr ♦ r rQ"'b"Y-air'.. - `91~ •,~t7~ •~\~.]~r .mss I ~ I f.~ tea, fey f'/YI ~+Q~ j/u ~I ;If •f' ! / ~ irr' i 1 I ~ ~ Apt , ♦ 1, a i ` .,r til r ry~y n 1 I i r~ `I I a± r7• • tSy/e. r p~' A`•, f ~v t ~V I 11 a I- r✓y •om i~ f( f f i ~ { ~L Ise .ri. •i ' ;Qr k?~ C.' S.i• ` rely S i ry a+O ~q ~'y}/, t~~ 'f.i$p~ 'lr 1 '.I r/r , fns V [ ~rr~'!% ,~~J ~:~4f'I~\` a ~..s I rrfr1 5 7 '••!1 ~ vtf ! • ~ r ~ . rf I t1 tkltf ry5 6 . 1.,~ r a ' y ~ I ri i,'I I ~ Act ~ yk, ~~~a Off It ,%W • S4 rgfrj , • d.S Yl.• li t! `r l jll ~If / I !r~ir 1/JN. I ' a i, f-4 l ~t ~YF a~ ;:V E e'' b I t `~,F ~ ~ ' a I'l -•a l,W II kNrv'.. COTTAGE HOUSING ORDINANCE °ApPficabil`ity ~ o Single Family Zones R-1-5 - R-1-7.5 4 ~W Normal Neighborhood North Mountain Neighborhood 1 } t COTTAGE HOUSING STANDARDS j o Size of cottage housing developments dependent on lot sizes Minimum lot size Minimum Maximum Maximum Maximum Cottage (accommodates I ( number of number of Floor Area ; Density cottages cottages minimum number Ratio (FAR) I of cottages) (~M 1 cottage dwelling unit j j Q°~~p LNLf`t~° ! i per 2,500 square feet 3 12 7,500 sq.ft. 0.35 g of lot area ~I P 1 cottage dwelling unit per 3,750 square feet 3 12 11250' sq.ft. 0.35 of lot area COTTAGE HOUSING STANDARDS °Allows for variation in unit Example 695 sq.ft. cottage sizes _ 75% of cottages shall be less than 800 square feet in size, Maximum size: 1000 sq.ft o searoom Yw, 116"X134" eAxx oooR D DeBGxAm, _ ty L - - - - - _ ~ IADDER 1 i/Az Fami doom ~ ~ I I V 14'4"X140" i l 1! 9'6 1410" - VAIT _ iII I_I I L7- T ~ Ground . Floor - 595 sq.ft. Loft - 1/2 Story : 100 sq.ft. COTTAGE HOUSING STANDARDS ■ Setbacks from neighboring properties: Same as surrounding properties. ■`Building separation: 0 6' separation between cottages or two cottages attached ® Lot Coverage: o Same as surrounding properties. 0 10% allowance for pervious materials ■ Protects solar access for rooftop solar panels. ■'Design Standards Existing Site Review Standards street facing orientation and facades the cottage design architectural standards in the prior draft have been eliminated to add design flexibility. COTTAGE HOUSING STANDARDS Open, space A j 20% of the total lot area is required as open space available ;I to all residents. i . Private outdoor areas for each unit of at Feast 200 sq.ft. - , T R 'bp 'f _ I 4 COTTAGE HOUSING PARKING STANDARDS oParking Requirements ■Cottage Floor Area of 800 sq. ft. or less: o l parking spaces per unit. ®Cottage Floor Area of greater than 800 sq. ft. and less than 1000 sq. ft.: 01,.5 parking spaces per unit. ■Existing 'homes greater than 1000 sq. ft.: ®2 Parking spaces per unit. FLOOR AREA RATIO EXEMPTIONS DISCUSSION ITEMS E Existing Homes ■Ths ordinance proposes that the habitable floor area of an existing single family residential structure in excess of 1000 sq.ft., would not contribute to the maximum floor area permitted. ■ Homes considered pre-existing if built prior to the adoption of this Ordinance oGarages ■Existing garages attached to a single family home do not count toward the maximum FAR. ■New garages for cottages would count toward maximum FAR. COTTAGE HOUSING EXAMPLES R-1-7.5 zoned property Ews~3House_'unt4 17,000 sq.ft. lot. W1"L. G t t' o4 units n Existing home = 2000sq.ft 5a'd SR... ~ 2 units @ 800sq.ft. 1 unit at 500sq.ft f ITF' : - x b CD' Parking: 5 spaces on site 13 2 spaces for existing home 3 spaces for the three individual cottages WIN, 4 y Consolidated parking area COTTAGE HOUSING STANDARDS r * R-1-5 zoned property private drive • t¢ r_• 0 30,000 sq.ft. lot. f I' 12 units f. , Y - , common } buiidinn ® 2 units @ 1000 sq.ft. t>:} o tr`y,rj 2 units @ 800 sq.ft. ® 8 units @ 500 sq.ft. Parking: 12 spaces on ; *s5, site ® 1 on-street parking credit ® Consolidated' parking Ff+~ v { k 9 ardent ! I'k7 x 4 q a, o Common Building for area M s residents PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION oPC Hearing Sept 26, 2017 ®UnanimousGy recommended the Council approve PA-2017-01421, the Cottage Housing Ordinance. ■The proposed ordinance includes Planning Commission suggested amendments regarding how the floor area of a pre-existing home (bui'lt prior to the proposed ordinance) is considered in calculating the maximum Floor Area Ratio as presented in the draft ordinance. oCity Council - Second Reading ■December 5t", 2017 f COMMINGLE RECYCLING CITY COUNCIL UPDATE r. November 2017 11111 1 1 1 4 t 1111 / - 1 1 1 1 1 JI 'UI IN. 11111 1fT I l l r l s A E03 N, D V. Q r= 1 1 1 1 ~~Ft4 t 1 Recology. l ( I ' ~ WASTE ZERO MATERIAL , Commingle J Aggregator: Collection ■ • Rogue (Medford) Recolo Ell Sorting Facility (Portland, etc) QC Recology WASTE ZERO CHINA WHAT'S HAPPENING? February 2017 "National 'Sword" ■ Crackdown on "waste" ■ Increased inspections ■ Delays at port ■ July 2017 "WTO Notice :Import Ban" eff. 2018 ■ Post-consumer plastics Mixed Paper ■ August 2"017 Quality Standards ■ 3% contamination effective now ■ 1% contamination effective 1/1/18 ■ 2013' "Green Fence" ti- o off, CHINA19TH NATIONAL CONGRESS ■ Chinese Communist Party congress opened October 18, 2017 ■ Will solidify Xi Jingping's power ■Xi supports the policies impacting 4 recycling and the environment. II v WHY DO CHINA'S POLICIES MATTER? ■ China is the largest importer of American n _ recycled materials F~ q~~ NWest Coast is "ground M- W zero" for Chinese r I L ke, exports t- x. CURRENTIMPACTS ■'Commodity pricing has plummeted ■ Sort Facilities (MRFs) `x have slowed down sort lines or ran material sd - through twice to meet standard a ■ Capacity issues tk CURRENT REACTION ■ Oregon DEQ working in conjunction with stakeholders has issued a pathway (concurrence) for disposal as a last resort V ■ Rogue Material r Recovery storing s f p, nmx°Y:,, 1,000+ bales b}F i ~J r 0 00" cry OPTIONS LOCALLY? ■ ■ Ask for a concurrence Continue to recycle, albeit at a higher cost from the DEQ to landfill at a lesser cost. { _ -WIT i I I e-~ 1- u TM T^~ ~ s WASTE ZERO ! 1 I 1 ~ 1 RTM~ { Recol®gy L WASTE ZERO i I!