HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-0903 Council Mtg MIN
I
CITY OF
-ASH LAN D
I
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
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
Mayor Stromberg called the Business Meeting to order at 7:00 PM
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Study Session of August 19, 2019
2. Business Meeting of August 20, 2019
RosenthaUSeffinger moved to approve the minutes. Discussion: None. All Ayes.
VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Proclamation for Pain Awareness Month
Councilor Seffinger read this proclamation into the record (see attached).
2. Proclamation for Home Inventory Week
Councilor Graham read the proclamation into the record (see attached).
VIII. MINUTES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
Airport Conservation Forest Lands
Historic Housing and Human Srvs. Parks & Recreation
Planning Public Arts Transportation
Tree Wildfire Miti ag tion
IX. 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]
Robert Kaplan - Ashland - Spoke in support to Rally and Unite for Climate Action. He read a statement
into the record (.see attached). He encouraged Council to work on building a sustainable future.
Marion Moore - Ashland - Spoke regarding the Climate Energy Action Plan (CEAP). She spoke to the
importance to ensure education on this topic.
Huelz Gutcheon - Ashland - Spoke regarding electric cars. He spoke that a Tesla and Chevy Bolt are
great cars. He spoke to the importance of education on how to charge electric cars.
XI. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Invitation to Bid North Mountain Park Nature Play Area Construction Project
2. intergovernmental Agreement for TAP Master Plan
Slattery pulled this item. Deputy Public Works Director Scott Fleury gave a Staff report. He explained
that Staff is asking to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement Plan to work with Talent and Phoenix to
develop a TAP Master Plan.
Graham questioned the role of the TAP system. Fleury explained that if the Reeder Reservoir and TID
were diminished that would leave TAP as the emergency supply.
3. Special Procurement of TAP Master Plan Special Procurement
4. Special Procurement of Rogue to Go Reusable Take Out Boxes
5. Approval of Personal Services Contract - Water Quality Temperature Trading Program
Partnership (2018-21); Phase 2
6. Special Procurement - Repairs to Pumps, Motors, and Related Equipment
Graham pulled this item. She asked about the maintenance aspect of this equipment. Public Works
Director Paula Brown spoke that it depends on the needs per each piece of equipment and maintenance
would just be done as needed.
Seffinger/Graham moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Discussion: None. All Ayes.
XII. 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 . Appeal of Housing Authority's Snowberry Phase II Project
Mayor Stromberg opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 PM.
i
Mayor Stromberg read a statement into the record (see attached).
Ex Parte Contacts:
Rosenthal explained that he spoke to a contractor and read the statement below into the record "I have
not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I
will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant Cod standards to the facts and
evidence in the record of the proceeding".
Slattery explained that he was briefed on this topic from the Housing and Human Services Committee as
a Liaison and read the statement below into the record `I have not prejudged this application and I am
not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on
the application of the relevant Cod standards to the facts and evidence in the record of the
proceeding'
Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Derek Severson gave a Staff report and presented
Council with a PowerPoint presentation (see attached).
Items discussed were:
• Request to reopen the record.
• The proposal.
• Site Plan.
• Landscape Plan.
• Phase 1.
• McCall Drive.
• Connectivity - Clay to Tolman.
• Connectivity - McCall & Birchwood.
• Parking.
• Grounds for appeal:
o The Planning Commission erred in approving the application without a permanent locked
gate restricting access to McCall Drive to avoid pedestrian conflicts.
o The Planning Commission erred in approving a parking management strategy which is
counter to the General Automobile Parking Requirements and Exceptions in AMC
18.4.3.030.
• Ground I - Staff recommended that the Council make a finding that the Planning Commission
did not err in this regard and reject the first ground for appeal.
• Ground 2 - Staff recommended that the Council move to exclude the second ground for appeal
dealing with the parking management strategy from the hearing as it falls outside the allowed
"Scope of Appeal Deliberations" because it was not previously raised before the Planning
Commission.
Jensen/Seffinger moved to exclude the second ground for appeal dealing with the parking
management strategy from the hearing tonight as it falls outside the allowed "Scope of Appeal
Deliberations" because it was not previously raised before the Planning Commission". Discussion:
None. Roll Call Vote: Slattery, Graham, Akins, Seffinger, Rosenthal and Jensen: YES. Motion
passed unanimously.
Applicant - Sydney Dryer from Jarvis, Dreyer, Glatte & Larsen LLP
Ms. Dryer spoke in agreement of Staffs findings of the 2nd ground of appeal. She spoke that no
authority within the Code allows the Planning Commission or Council to allow encroachments. She
spoke that this is a policy decision.
Appellant - Russ Dale- Ashland
Spoke that there were many procedural errors regarding this issue. He spoke that he would like a locked
gate to stop pedestrian traffic. He spoke that pedestrian traffic causes issues of noise, litter and graffiti.
He spoke that the streets are too narrow. He spoke that it is the job of the City Council to represent the
citizen's best interests. He spoke that if the City does not provide a locked gate he will appeal this project
to LUBA.
Akins questioned if there was any data of how many pedestrians go through and if there have been issues
with pedestrians in that area such as Police Reports. Mr. Dale spoke that he gets constant complaints
from tenants. He suggested this item go back to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Parties' Oral Arguments - Bob Alessandrelli was not present
Rebuttal by Applicant
Ms. Dryer objected that there was new evidence submitted into the record regarding tenant complaints.
She reiterated that long before this project was considered the appellant was trying to block any
connectivity through the project. She spoke that this is not a good faith appeal. She spoke that the
appellant has been open about his bad faith motives and if he continues to appeal this project the City will
lose funding. She explained that the Council should be considering if the Planning Commission erred in
refusing to allow a locked gate and the record is clear they did not. She encouraged Council to not take
this back to the Planning Commission and the record is clear the appeal should be denied.
Mayor Stromberg closed the public hearing at 8:21 PM
ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF
City Attorney David Lohman explained to Council that they are voting on whether or not the Planning
Commission erred in saying that it does not have authority to decide on the encroachment permit.
Council Deliberation I
Slattery/Jensen moved to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, reject the appeal and
direct staff to prepare written findings for approval reflecting the original Planning
Commission decision from July 23, 2019 for adoption by Council. Discussion: Mayor
Stromberg questioned if the Council would like to adopt the draft Findings included in the packet.
Slattery and Jensen agreed to include adopting the draft findings provided in the packet. Roll Call Vote:
Jensen, Rosenthal, Seffinger, Akins, Graham, Slattery: YES. Motion passed unanimously.
XHI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Ashland Canal Piping Project Direction
Public Forum:
Don Morris - Ashland - Spoke to the reasoning's as to why to pipe the canal. He spoke regarding
evaporation rate and the need to have this done as well as possible. He spoke that a trail could be created
elsewhere.
Sallie Rose Sandler - Ashland - Climate change events in December the ditch is needed to help prepare
for climate change. Has a friend who lives outside of the city and that section of pipeline has been
enclosed and the volume of her water has doubled. Environmental causes do cost money and have to pay
for them.
Dr. Carol Voisin - Ashland - Explained that dozens of Ashlanders have talked to her about concerns of
the Ashland Canal. She spoke regarding concerns of cost and E. coli. She read a statement into the record
(see attached).
Jim Falkenstein - Ashland - Urged Council to vote no on the canal project.
John Hauschild - Ashland - Spoke that there are other ways other than piping the canal. He spoke that
there are less expensive ways. He spoke that shotcrete is less expensive and will last a long time. He
suggested for Council and Staff to look into alternatives.
Kacky Hoffman - Ashland - Spoke urging Council to vote no and to come up with a new proposal. She
read a statement into the record (see attached).
Julie Bonney-Shanor-Ashland -Read a statement into the record (see attached).
William Shanor-Ashland -Read a statement into the record (see attached).
Max Lowen - Ashland - Encouraged Council to vote no on this topic. She explained that there had been
approximately 100 letters signed in opposition of this Ordinance. She spoke that if approved there will be
lawsuits filed.
Helen Perina - Ashland - Spoke against piping the canal and read a statement into the record (see
attached).
Rick Kirschner- Ashland - Spoke in opposition of piping the canal. He suggested for Staff to find
alternatives.
Marsha Tokareff- Ashland - Thanked Council for listening and considering Citizens views on this topic.
She spoke to the importance of the canal in case of a fire.
Catie Foryl - Lived in Ashland and now in phoenix - Spoke regarding climate actions and solutions. She
suggested for Staff to do more studies on this topic before making a decision.
Beth Martin - Ashland - Spoke that she has lived on the TID for 48 years. She urged Staff to find an
alternative that is less expensive and urged Council to vote no on this topic.
Pat Acklin -Ashland - Spoke that she has served on many Committees in Ashland and 14 years on
Ashland Council. She spoke regarding City Policy. She spoke regarding the importance of water for our
future.
Allan Sandler- Ashland - Spoke regarding evaporation and climate change. He spoke in support of
piping the canal. He thanked Staff. ,
Ron Roth - Ashland - Spoke in support of the proposed piping of the canal. He spoke to the issue of
water conservation. He spoke that piping will conserve water. He spoke regarding cost. He spoke that
ongoing maintenance would be less if piped.
Zia Brandstetter - Ashland -Spoke to the importance of nature and spoke against piping the canal. She
spoke that it would affect future generations.
Karen Oppenheim - Ashland - Spoke that she lives near the TID and her family enjoys it. She spoke that
there are more questions to be answered before making this decision. She urged Council to vote no on
this topic.
Staff Discussion:
Public Works Director Paula Brown gave a Staff report. She went over background information on this
topic. She explained the suggested option will save water.
Madding explained how Water Fund Utility Fees are solely spent on water.
Council discussed options and next steps. testimony how the City spends money.
Council discussed E. coli.
Jensen/Rosenthal moved to direct Staff to proceed with final design on Alternative #1. And to
Direct staff to pursue grant opportunities and bring back to council prior to final approval of this
project. Discussion: Jensen read a statement into the record (see attached). Rosenthal spoke that it is
difficult to balance priorities and values. He explained that it is Councils job to make decisions that are
sometimes unpopular and that this is one is tough decision. He explained that this decision involves
trying to balance the least invasive option at the lowest possible cost. He spoke to the importance of
conservation. He spoke regarding shotcrete and the best long-term plan. Graham regarding water loss
and the best long-term plan. She spoke to the importance of being financially responsible. She spoke to
the importance of conservation. Seffinger spoke that she would like more research on unintended
consequences. She spoke regarding the cost of removing trees. She suggested to look at the Trails Master
Plan and see what affect it will have to pipe the canal. She spoke that she would like to have these items
looked at before a decision is made. Akins agreed with Seffinger and spoke that she cannot support the
motion. Slattery spoke in appreciation of all the work done. He spoke that there is no need to rush this
decision and it is 90% away to a good decision. He suggested more time to get more information from
Staff. Jensen Withdrew his motion.
Council directed Staff to bring this item back to Council.
Staff suggested Council send all questions to be researched to the Mayor and the City Administrator
within two weeks.
XIV. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Camera at Velocity
Rosenthal/Seffinger moved to approve the activation of the City-owned security camera on
the public art know as Velocity: Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously.
XV. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
XVI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
XVIL ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
The Business Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted by:
- ~ Z-oj~
City Recorder Melissa Huhtala
Attest:
t
44 4
~or Stromberg
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (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).
PROCLAMA"ZION PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS chronic pain is a public health crisis affecting 50 million WHEREAS, each September is recognized as National PreparednCSS Month:
and
Americans and costs the nation an estimated $635 billion annually in medical
expenses, lost wages, and lost productivity WHEREAS, Oregonians have witnessed and experienced natural disasters in
our own community: and
WHEREAS pain is the number one reason Americans seek out medical care WHEREAS, every community member can take active steps to protect their
and the leading cause of long-term disability families and neighbors from natural and manmade disasters: and
WHEREAS the U.S. Pain Foundation recognizes that chronic pain impacts WHEREAS, every family and business in Ashland, Oregon is encouraged to
almost every aspect of a person's life, and impacts the individual's family take active steps to be financially secure after a disaster: and
members, caregivers, and loved ones, which is why the organization's mission WHEREAS, every community member is encouraged to make sure the% are
is to educate, empower, support, and advocate for adults and children with properly insured against fire, flood, earthquakes, and storms; and
chronic pain and their caregivers WHEREAS, every community member is encouraged to create a home
WI IEREAS increased awareness about the effects of chronic pain result in inventory to include as part oftheir disaster preparedness kit,
better outcomes, increased access to effective pain care, and empowerment and NOW THEREFORE, 1, John Stromberg, Mayor of the City of Ashland do
validation for those living with pain hereby declare that the week of September 1 through September 7, 10 Q be
known as
NOW, THEREFORE, I, John Stromberg, Mayor of the City of Ashland, do
hereby proclaim September 2019 as Home Inventory Week
and join cities across Oregon to encourage evervone to build a home in%entory
PAIN AWARENESS MONTH of their personal property, and speak with an insurance agent to make sure the%
are financially prepared for a disaster.
in the City of Ashland. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my Signed this day of 2019
hand and caused the Great Seal of the city of Ashland to be affixed. -
Signed this day of, 2019
John Stromberg, Mawr
John Stromberg, Mayor
ytelissa I luhtaki, Citn Recorder
Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder
-PAGE 2- -PAGE 2-
Contact: Lorrie Kaplan SEPTEMBER 20, 2019 Contact: Lorrie Kaplan SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
Southern Oregon lorriekaolan(@gmail.com SOUTHERN OREGON Southern Oregon lorriekaolan(dgmail.com SOUTHERN OREGON
Climate Action Now socan.eco CLIMATE STRIKE COALITION Climate Action Now socan.eco CLIMATE STRIKE COALITION
Phone:(240)676-0040 Phone:(240)676-0040
Additional events are being planned across the Rogue Valley. Rogue Climate is organizing a
MEDIA ADVISORY Southern Oregon Climate Fiesta, 5:30pm - 8pm, Pear Blossom Park, Downtown Medford;
Contact Veronica(a)RogueClimate.org or Sara(@RogueClimate.org to get involved or for more
info. A Global Climate Strike will also be held at 4:30pm at the Josephine County Courthouse in
Grants Pass; contact Brian De LaGrange at Josephinealliance(@Rmail.com.
On September 20th, Southern Oregon Joins Global Climate Strike
You Can Help! Calling all Southern Oregon climate change movers and shakers, faith and other
Adults and Youth Rally and Unite for Climate Action community leaders, parents, cience nerds, the social media savvy, and more: We need your
skills and energy! Volunteer, he a partner organization, host a table, or help us spread the word
and build the momentum.
Ashland, Oregon, September 3, 2019: On September 20th, millions of people of all ages around
the world will walk out of their classes, jobs, and homes as part of a Global Strike to demand
climate action now. Southern Oregon residents will have multiple opportunities to participate Southern Oregon Climate Strike Coalition partners date include Southern Oregon
Climate
in this landmark event. Action Now (SOCAN) . Rogue Climate. Pachamama Alliance Southern Oregon Food Solutions
Group• and The Geos Institute. Other partners welcome--come join us!
The Global Climate Strike is destined to be the largest worldwide collective action in history, as
citizens from every nation raise their voices to demand climate action now. Led by a diverse
coalition of youth-led and adult-led organizations, September 20 is an intergenerational day of
striking that will launch an entire week of climate action across the world. The largest events
will take place on September 20-three days before the UN Climate Action Summit in NYC.
Learn more about the global movement at httos://strikewithus.org/.
Youth-led school walkouts are being planned across the Rogue Valley. In Ashland, the student
walkout will culminate in a rally in the Plaza. Adults are encouraged to join the students after
11am to celebrate their courage.
Unite for Climate Action, noon - 3:45 pm, Butler Bandshell in Ashland's Lithia Park
Immediately following the Ashland Plaza youth rally, the strike will migrate to Butler Bandshell
in Lithia Park for an all-ages community climate-action picnic and celebration of a sustainable
future. Under the creative direction of Barret O'Brien (httt)s://barretobrien.com/), the program
will feature music, spoken word, group art, spiritual centering for climate healing, and info on
opportunities to take personal and collective action. Join us to celebrate our beautiful planet
and re-energize to build a sustainable future. Food trucks will be available, or BYO picnic with
your own plates, cups, and utensils. Our goal is a zero-waste event! For more info, contact
Lorrie Kaplan (LorriekaplanfnDgmail.com) or Kathy Conwav (Kathy@socan.info).
Musicians, spoken word artists, acrobats, clowns, singers, and performers of all ilks desiring to
be part of the event should contact Barret O'Brien at artistscollectiveplive.com.
-MORE- -MORE-
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING I~OR LAND USE APPEALS appeal, I will stop you in order to avoid conlucion and kVastinL time :Am_ qucalion, four the Council kill
MAYOR TO READ ALOUD A1,1. IIIG11 LIGHTED IN YELLONN' not count against a speaker', allotted time.
('OI NCII M-FION IN RL:D
FOLLOW THE STEPS AND ASK EACH QUF,STiON IN FULL) In your testimony or evidence, ifyou fail to raise an issue that is within the scope of the permissible grounds
for appeal, then you cannot argue that issue later on in an appeal of the Council's decisinn.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Public Bearing is now open. This is a hearing for City Council to listen to and consider an appeal "on The remainder of this hearing process will consist of the following
elements
the record"of the Planning Commission's approval of a request for Site Design Review to construct a 60-
unit multi-family affordable housing development on Engle and Villard Streets. 1. I will ask Council members for applicable preliminary disclosures.
2 Persons permitted to make presentations to the Council at this hearing mac submit to the Cih
This is an appeal "on the record"ofa Type 11 land use decision, a quasi-judicial hearing which requires the Recorder anv challenges to Council members for bias- prejudgment
or conflict of interest
observance ofsomestringent procedural formalities. We'll take a few moments to cover some preliminary 3. Planning staff will present the staff report.
matters and required statements. 4. The applicant and the appellant will each have ten minutes to present their arguments
5, Parties who participated in the Planning Commission hearing process AND submitted written
Please note that the only persons permitted to make presentations to the Council at this hearing are staff, the arguments in advance of this hearing have three minutes to summarize
their arguments.
applicant, the appellant, and persons who participated in the Planning Commission hearing process AND 6. The applicant will have 5 minutes for rebuttal, if requested.
who submitted written arguments prior to this hearing. 7. i will then close the appeal hearing, and, after anv advice from I.cgal Counsel or City staff, the
Council will deliberate to a decision.
For those parties qualified to participate, your oral arguments tonight are confined to the substance ofyour
previously submitted written arguments. If you intend to speak, you must fill out the yellow speaker request 2. ABSTENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EX PARTE CONTACTS
form located at the back of the room and give it to the City Recorder. Within about 10 minutes we will This is the time for any members ofthe Council to declare am conflict
of interest or bins and to report anv
begin the hearing, and I will call you when it is your turn to present your argument Now, if you have not ex pane contact on this matter. If you declare a bias, conflict or
ex parte contact, you may still participate in
done so already, this is your time to provide your request forms to the City Recorder. the hearing provided vour conflict or bias is not so material or deeply held that you
cannot make a decision
based solely on the applicable decision criteria and the facts and evidence in the record because of that
This appeal "on the record" will be processed according to AMC 18.5.1.060.1. That means a speaker's conflict, bias, or prior contract. If, however, you feel you cannot make
a decision based solely on the
testimony must be limited to "the permissible grounds for appeal." The only "permissible grounds for applicable decision criteria and the facts and evidence in the record,
you may choose to abstain by stating
appeal" are specific points or arguments (1) which were raised and addressed in the existing record that it is your choice and stepping down from your chair. However, if your
presence is required for a
developed before the Planning Commission, AND (2) which were set forth in a timely-filed Notice of quorum, you should stay but not participate or vote. Do anv members of the
Council wish to declare a
Appeal that also included a statement of the purported applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. The personal bias or conflict of interest or report any ex parte contact
on this matter?
Council's consideration of the appeal likewise must be limited to such "permissible grounds for appeal."
jIF contacts are reported, consider the following:
There are two conceivably permissible grounds for the appeal in this matter. They are shown on the screen a. !:r Jiarte communicain,ns: 1f a member has had ex parte communication
the substance of the
now and will be read aloud by the City Recorder. contact must he c(isulu,ed. The presiditi of/icer.eltotrld yue.etiun the member the disclosure ofthe
written or oral carnmmric(itton is not complete. ifthe presiding nfficerfciils to do .w, a member may
[Cite Reorder reads appeal grounds: 1) The Planning Commission erred in approving the application request u more full rlr~~ lu.rure lpoint ofordcrJ.
Legal cnun.cel will ul.co monitor the diembe m
without a permanent locked gate restricting access to McCall Drive to avoid pedestrian conflicts: 2) The
Planning Commission erred in approving a parking management strategy which is counter to the Gencral b. Conflict oL:rere.rt: Il.r member Juts un actual nr otenncrl Cott lrcl
o Interest, the metnher must
Automobile Parking Requirements and Exceptions in AMC 18.43.030.] P f f
both unnounce the cor: 7rc1 and explain the nature of the conflict. Iftle Conflict is only a potentiai
conflict the member m, m parlicrpa(e and vote after umking art uffrmative statensen[ ofnnpartiality
in the staff report Vol] will hear staff's conclusion that lire second alleged error just read by the C'6
Recorder and shown on the screen fails to qualify as a "permissible ground for appeal" because it was not (see not be ~l the Cm Riot is an actual conflict, the member mu.et
then announce that the member
raised as part of the Planning Commission decision process and is therefore not in the record for this matter will n nut he pnrtiocicipurir t,~ or votrtag.
After the staff report, the Council will be asked to rule on whether the subject of that second alleged error c. Actual personal bias 1_y yudQment. If a member is aelually personally
biased, (117611 is, the member
was or was not addressed as part of the Planning Commission decision process and accordingly should or cannot make the decal rm hased upon applying the relevant Coale stundords
to the evidence and
should not be deemed "permissible ground for appeal." More on that after the staff report and before argument presented), one member must mmmunce the nature a f the biers
and also announce that
proceeding to hear testimony from the applicant and appellant. he'she will not be part: cipcuingo• voting. 17ie member should lecivc the room to civoiciaccusatiorac
For now, it's sufficient to keep in mind the general rule that a speaker's testimony must be limited to points of non-verbal commnication. (See also "Challenges" below.)
already addressed in the existing record and must relate only to matters determined to be the permissible
grounds for appeal. if you get off track or your testimony does not relate to the permissible grounds for
Revised procedure for Land l se Hearin-,-April 2019 Revised procedure for Land Use Hearings- April 2019
Pace I of",
face, of',
r- Afierdi,cdo.xureofanexpurtecontuct,/orpntenlialcunflic[ofintere.etnrnjiernchallengefinhiu.c Should the CounciIconcun%itli;taf-srecomntcudation,amotion " 11"',,iok"Iu,l-tiiI"
-I, i mid
(see below) the mender should either abstain or make the following affirmative statement of furappeal dealing Null the parkin, manau~-inenl slratrc~ from the -I w, tuni~hl
:o, it 1:111, r~ukldc
impartiality: the allowed "Scope of Appeal Delihcratiuna" bcc:ulsc it w:Is nut prey ino,ll raised hcforc the Plana in;,'
Commission" would be appropriate.
"Il have not prciudged this application and 1 am not prejudiced or hissed by my prior coataets
or involvement; l will make this decision based solely on the application of therelevantCode (If the Council votes to exclude the second ground... I With that, all oral
arguments tonight should he
standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." confined to the first ground for appeal dealing rrith the Planning Commission's decision relative
to a locked
gate restricting access to McCall Drive. Arguments with regard to the approved parking management
ter disclosure ofany ex pane a contact or potential conflict ofinierest and any affirmative statement strategy our outside the scope of the Council's deliberations and
will not be considered here tonight
of impartiality, the presiding afficer must make the following announcement:
d. APPLICANT'SORALARGI -MENTPRESENTATION
Any pcrsun has the right to rebut the.+whstunce of thc- evidence, or intbrnurtidm disclased. P/case Would the applicant the Housing Authority of Jackson County or the applicant's
representative please
present vourrebiNtal evidrnrermthe snb.stunce futtyet purtecoivurtkt bio'. ura,tual,onflictot come to the podium. You will have 10 minutes to make any comments you may
have regarding the
interest dhnring the normal time allowed fur testimw:v which has heen establWied for this application, at 9 minutes you kill be asked to conclude your remarks. Please state
your name and address
proceeding. Plea.rc reduce ant- biae, cnnJlirt of interest, mn! prcnulgmrm cbuilr igrs to writing and proceed.
with supporting evidence and provide these to the Cal' Recorder. /
5. APPELLANT'S ORAL ARGI NIENT PRESEN IA] ION
2. CHALLENGES Would the appellant Russell 1?Ilis Dale please come to the podium? You still havc 10 minutes to make
City Recorder, do we have any challenges to members ofthis hearingbody £orbias, prejud&ment orcontlict any comments you may have regarding the application, at 9 minutes you
will he asked to conclude your
of interest? remarks. Please state your name and address and ptacced.
IF a challenge is made, the challenge needs to he entered into the record and summarized by the 6. PARTIES' ORAL ARGUMENTS
presiding offucer. Would Bob Alessandrelli, the only party to submit scritten araunMItS- please come to the podium. state
your name, address and make any comments you mac hace for the Council regarding the application? You
I1 a member is challenged for bias, the member should make the above statement of impartiality or will have ? minutes to make any comments you mac hace regarding the application:
when the? minutes are
uhstam and not participate,further. up, you will be asked to conclude your remarks.
7. REBUTTAL BY APPLICANT'
3. STAFF REPORT Ifthe applicant has any rebuttal to the evidence presented by those (Iucstioninu or opposing the applicalion, N oil
At this time, I call for the staff to summarize the applicant's proposal and summarize the grounds for appeal will have five minutes for vour rebuttal.
and staffs evaluation ofthem. Bill and Derek....
_ S. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
[Bill's brief remarks... I ) Brief statement on on-the-record appeals. 2) The appellant, Russell Flhs Dale, At this time, I close the public hearing. The record is now closed.
requested in his written argument that the record be reopened tonight. AMC 18.5.1.060.1.4.b requires that
requests to reopen the record be provided to the City Administrator with the notice ofappeal. Because Mr. 9. ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF
Dale's request was not timely filed and came in with his written argument submittals roughly three weeks Does the Council have any questions of Legal Counsel or Planning staff
or does the staff have any matters
after his notice of appeal, the City Administrator has determined that the record will not be re-opened.] they wish to address?
[Derek's staff report... Powerpoint, then conclude with: The "Scope of Appeal Deliberations- in 10. COUNCIL DELIBERATION. kN D DECISION
AMC 18.5.1.060.1.5.6 is clear that "No issue muv he ruined on appeal to dad Council that was not raised How would the Council like to proceed?
before the Commission wuh.sufficient specificity to entitle the Commission and the parties to respond."
Staffhas determined that the second ground for appeal dealing with the parking management strategy was (DECISION)
not raised before the Planning Commission during the original hearing. As such, staff made note in the
Public Hearing notice that the Council would determine tonight whether the second ground for appeal (If the decision is consistent with the staff recommendations to exclude
the second ground and reject the
should be excluded from the appeal hearing. Staff recommends that the Council exclude the second ground appeal with regard to the first ground Would the Council like to
adopt the draft Findings included in
for appeal as falling outside the allowed Scope of Appeal Deliberations. This would strike materials related your packets tonight?
to this ground for appeal from the record and from consideration in the decision tonight, and all speakers
would lie directed to limit their testimony strictly to the first ground for appeal.
Re 1-1 Pro<edu C l0rl.1¢d l se lfearl❑LLS - \11T,1 2(11Q -
Revised pruccd 11r Lund : H Briny V1"11 '(1'p
I'° c -l of
C
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ~
r
• _
L I h,~ I'lannlnL, Commission erred in approvi]IL the application without a permanent locked
gate restricting access to McCall Drivc to avoid pedestrian conflicts. t p L`
Iff
•
2. The Planning Commission erred in approving a parking management strategy which is •
,r
counter to the (ieneral Automobile Parking Requirements and Exceptions in AMC
19.1 a iff In F
r f ~Gq
i m
c• b ,r:'~i:
• C
F iI
t
1
"
l
A
IY
0
r ,
t / I ~ 4-.
4c 1 4"
Reel-1 pa-d,- Ibr Land t-w l lap- April 20111 " ~ Y■
Pages)r3 a .
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Snowberry Brook Appeal
• to Reopen the Record
AMC 18.5.1.060.1.4.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
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.
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook Appeal -ASHLAND
Request to Reopen the Record
July 31, 2019 Appellant's 'Notice of Appeal" filed without a request to reopen the record.
August 12, 2019 Staff mailed notice for appeal hearing as required in AMC 18.5.1.060.1.3.
Mailed notice made clear hearing was to be "on the record."
Mailed notice made clear that Council would consider whether second ground
for appeal was within the allowed "Scope of Appeal Deliberations" since the
second ground had not previously been raised in the record during the
Planning Commission hearing.
August 22, 2019 Appellant's Written Argument Submittal received.
Appellant's Written Argument included request to reopen the record.
Because the request to reopen the record was not timely submitted as provided in AMC
18.5.1.060.1.3, the City Administrator has determined that the record cannot be reopened tonight.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11
June 11, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing
vwi
,
T_
3
617 CITY OF
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11 ASHLAND
The Proposal
• Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 60-unit multi-family development
on two tax lots (#2504 & 92505) along Villard and Engle Streets as Phase It of the existing
`Snowberry Brook" development.
❑ Four two-story 8-plex apartment buildings
❑ Seven two-story townhouse 4-plexes.
❑ Units will consist of ten 1-bedroom flats, 12 2-bedroom flats, ten 3-bedroom flats, and 28
2-bedroom townhomes.
• The application includes a request for Tree Removal Pen-nits to remove three trees:
❑ One 24-inch diameter Deodar Cedar (cedrus de-odara) which the project arborist
describes as posing a hazard.
❑ Two 13- to 14-inch scrub almonds in poor condition located in the path of the required
sidewalk improvements.
• The application also includes proposals for density bonuses because all units are to be built to
Earth Advantage 12 Gold standards and all units are to be deed-restricted as affordable housing.
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Snowberry Brook, Ph, 11
Vicinity Map
►a-r~-soy f-0voof
n.r. TAX LOT 92534, ENGIE 8T
SUIRACT PROPERTY
TAX LOT F1504 .w-A r o.
rw.ppv.a ~ flfl
tattsrf•wNr►~orrs~aa flw+epT~
i
f!4•T2.70fY~;Ovf
TAA LOT 92505. VILLARD S-
S4DIECT►R0~E11TV N j
VIU.ARD ST +r E
S ► TAX L6T t2')S
rart
j artW nvra r'.
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11 'ASHLAND
CITY OF
Site Plan
F ~ a ,-rr Y i- yL I .e`s .ems
_ f
1- _
t T za
0
'G' LU
I _
/per t w
BL G H' BLDG I ~t 7 ua:xo ce.¢aa~rrare
I
Egg
i I
MAY 1 3 1019 r
i
-
1 t
u 1
P
~ + ~ ' S tp 1 1 l 'as,
f 1 ~ 1 71 { ifrf Plj f -
f l 1!t{ I t j r e
it ~i!~;' ■ t'pfp{ jp!i~ {t~jrp~~~ { -1 g ~j ■
tai;! ,j , n1 ~ pgpg - - _ •
it ry
-4 i
f t 'r~• • i!ipt}1!i-''1}r}I~Ip1}[. pltll~~;!'p!;~iit+'t}tI .
1*q , S~SI S ~l I (Sp;,llth {I,lliil,.lpl}
~ I f+ ~ it lSiS 1 !Ili, { t~ i ! i III Ip~ll II tSS ri { I a -
• ! S} Ir {gyp 111 I+ I 1 I ~f'1 )ii}l 1 II }
I}r
+ } (j S!{11 1 ! };I}iS }r }i }N hq• Ill
'F s - ii }fj 1 itliii'~I i } I{ }tlii[it }[f 1 1 .
1 • i!}I 1 ! I S~'~) t ; ;i ; II i1~I }I~ ~ ee ~ -14 - •
~ 111
Ilk
• •
t' a 1 _
~ I !
ff
, lp i{I !t .(1 l ! !"'r'~'! i~}'
r. I€~ Iii}
01,
! r I ++tt1 I},
{in 1 I t ~ ~ ! r, t i! I fi{. S tP 1[ } ~ } 1
II[ !1 I i~ I [ ( 1
1 } Ir }I~tl .I, r i i ~ ! I' i ~1 ~ I } }t}I!I {lrf f It• ~l! i 1 I !i 1`
'`'il I'll } 111 tl !lit } I (I I I
I [ 1} y1} {
4 li, 1lj{ l ill Si~i (Iii 11 t ~ SI lip I ~ ~ ~jl t! { ~ I~~[ i'Ji }
I[hlI i { ! I I I l p l _ I I tlj t l i l t
I ! ! 1 t~
I! ° f 8 I 1 f
+I I,: Ill i{? p,i~}~+ II } ~iirpi 1 !)Et(( ~'p1 ; j; [I
s ail! (!I II{ i~ i Y.tip}.} [}p ,ll i f t 1 i I! t t}1 1 11
11111p
r} 111(:-! Il~ i
a r lit 1
' SNOWBERRY BROOK 2 Madam Des g` n Inc
- I~ ENGLE 8 VII-LARD STREET u~ r
ASRAND, OREGON
ICI 'l:.~uj -
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11 -ASHLAND
McCall Drive
6} - ~ -5J 'Vi
rrr`n
'F 7' 1
- -.r 1
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC concludes that the
60-units can be approved without adverse impacts to the transportation system. TIA
recommends limiting McCall Drive to bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles, and
restricting regular vehicle traffic, to avoid cut-through traffic. [NOTE: Connection is in the
TSP, right-of-way is already dedicated, and with the sale to HAJC, the city is to pay for
the McCall Drive connection.]
CITY OF
• r
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11
Connectivity
_a°•'
ff
r _ _ t
RY,
H~ ~ 7 t 1 ~ 4
I P a t _ ' ' y _-941
V
l C
'll ~ "1311
i
-.y
s. x
f
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11 ASHLAND
Connectivity - Clay to Tolman
i
}t / ~ T
~2.
. j.
. t
t
P ~ yM
J ty
T~
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11 ASHLAND
Connectivity - McCall & Birchwood
w
a ,
ir---
t;E P
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook, Ph, 11 -ASHLAND
McCall Drive
r I ~ ~ z
{fir'■■
~c'i AR"s
ii ■i L ..5: -
1~1►' s
r... . ~ y..~~'~ , r~ _ :!Ft7}'f£' ~J-., r.__Ytf .t. .s-.. ~ ..'-iii _ - P^. .~7M. ~ u _ ~ "~'~M'.yYr e . ~ - v
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11 -ASHLAND
McCall Drive
I ~`l , ~ r ~i C~,T I ~ Z,~ i '_~l L `_C~~ I i l ,.;z< . L ~
1
t dh r k i ( ~~p
a I r I` r. ~,I I~ E 1 4
i+! o c' I I r, I I ~ b
AL )G 4I Y'a
a 74 R
~f t` yy
L..i~' 5'E PL4f
lqi: ~ - I L.L. L .J:_ ~ ~ I ~ ..~.fil
t F,
`e-T•i - X94 `b ~"n ®q~`Y
rn
"77 1
'TC F Via, t'~r:'-+ 4' 5~~ ~~'v ~-.~~i-Y~.;
f
F
R.r
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11 -ASHLAND
Parking
P
r'
e
I
105 Off-Street Parking Spaces required for the 60 units proposed. The applicant
proposes 86 surface parking spaces and would meet the remaining 19 space
requirement using on-street parking credits. 90 covered bicycle parking spaces would
also be provided on-site.
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook,
Site Plan
.I s
o
i f 9LDG a tl LD
ryLO c - p
7 d1_ - - h7
(-~G ~=w
~ ~I f ~ ~ ~ I -d=.~ ~r.+cweeRer eROCrc z
BL G jH' v BLDG I' rae ioncxr.orz -
e
-
I ~ - - - I t ~taen Jnncwv%n
TM~~~..
m _ o I MAY 1.1
2419
I~
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11 ASHLAND
June 11, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing
ti
!f
F
-r.
f-e 77-
nr
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Snowberry Brook Appeal
Grounds • Appeal
1. The Planning Commission erred in approving the application without a
permanent locked gate restricting access to McCall Drive to avoid pedestrian
conflicts.
2. The Planning Commission erred in approving a parking management strategy
which is counter to the General Automobile Parking Requirements and
Exceptions in AMC 18.4.3.030.
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook Appeal -ASHLAND
Ground #1
The Planning Commission erred in approving the application without a permanent
locked gate restricting access to McCall Drive to avoid pedestrian conflicts.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS:
The Commission finds that McCall Drive is an alley as envisioned with its creation in Planning
Action #2013-00104, and right-of-way has already been dedicated to the city to connect the
existing terminus of McCall Drive to Villard Street. Based on concerns raised by neighbors
in the McCall Drive Condominiums development to the south about potential conflicts between
vehicles and pedestrians and about allowing public pedestrian access via the existing public right-
of-way between the two developments, the applicants have proposed to limit access with a
locked gate that could only be unlocked to enable emergency vehicle access...
CITY •
Snowberry Brook Appeal -ASHLAND
Ground #1
The Planning Commission erred in approving the application without a permanent
locked gate restricting access to McCall Drive to avoid pedestrian conflicts.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS:
...The Planning Commission finds that McCall Drive is public right-of-way that is already
owned by the city, that works in conjunction with a network of easements provided through
adjacent developments to enable connectivity in the absence of a more traditional gridded
street network and that is to be completed to address standards requiring that paved
access and adequate transportation be provided according to city street standards. The
Commission finds that it lacks jurisdiction to approve any encroachments such as the bollards
and gate proposed by the applicant and further finds that permits to encroach into public
right-of-way are regulated outside the Land Use Ordinance are obtained from the Public
Works Director, and are not reviewed or approved by the Planning Commission. A condition
has accordingly been included below to require that McCall Drive be completed to city alley
standards and that should the applicant or neighbors wish to install any sort of
encroachment to limit access they would need to make application for an encroachment
permit through the Public Works Department.
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook Appeal
• • #1 - Staff Recommendation
The Planning Commission specifically found that:
• It lacked jurisdiction to approve any encroachments such as the bollards and gate proposed by
the applicant.
• Permits to encroach into public right-of-way are regulated outside the Land Use Ordinance, are
obtained from the Public Works Director, and are not reviewed or approved by the Planning
Commission.
• An encroachment permit to allow any sort of encroachment, temporary or permanent, into public
rights-of-way is by code a ministerial decision on the part of the Public Works Director as set
forth in Chapter 13 and does not come before the Planning Commission.
This appeal ground seeks to obtain a permanent encroachment permit through a land use appeal
when an encroachment is a ministerial decision not involving land use discretion, and as such not is
not subject to a land use appeal (AMC 13.02.070 states that, "The Public Works Director's decision
is final and not appealable by any party through the normal land use process.") In staff's
assessment, the Planning Commission was correct in determining that encroachments are
not regulated in the Land Use Ordinance, but instead fall to the Public Works Director as
provided in Chapter 13, and that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to approve a requested
encroachment into existing public right-of-way. Staff would recommend that the Council
make a finding that the Planning Commission did not err in this regard and reject this first
ground for appeal.
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Snowberry Brook Appeal
Ground #2
The Planning Commission erred in approving a parking management strategy
which is counter to the General Automobile Parking Requirements and Exceptions
in AMC 18.4.3.030.
The Planning Commission finds that the application as proposed requires 105 off-street parking
spaces. The applicant proposes to provide 86 off-street parking spaces in the surface parking lots
proposed and to utilize 19 on-street parking credits for the remaining required parking which
amounts to approximately an 18 percent reduction in required off-street parking. The Planning
Commission here would note that it has previously found that a lower parking ratio for proposed
affordable units was appropriate based on the Affordable Housing Parking Study provided with the
"Rogue Ridge" application at 1661 Ashland Street, which asserted that affordable housing
developments require about one-half of the parking typically required of market rate rental
developments along with anecdotal observations by the Rogue Ridge applicants and by Planning
staff that affordable housing developments locally tend to generate less off-street parking demand
than market rate developments. The Planning Commission further found that determining the
minimum parking required based on these considerations was an allowed exercise of the
Commission's discretion supported by AMC 18.4.3.030. However, in the current application, the
applicant has not proposed a reduction in required parking and has instead simply proposed to
utilize a parking management strategy which is allowed in the municipal code to off-set some of the
parking requirement based on available on-street parking. The Commission finds the request to be
an appropriate use of an allowed parking management strategy, and further finds that given the
nature of the proposal the likely parking demand may be substantially less than calculated.
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Snowberry Brook Appeal
Ground #2
y ..:~-..m,,._ .:y. ;..,-:::.r..:->:=.. ._~.a.:_:;a~_. ;.~-:,xT.a .~.a~;.re+a:rtsas• .*::u^•s,m;c+:y,... - -
The Planning Commission erred in approving a parking management strategy
which is counter to the General Automobile Parking Requirements and Exceptions
in AMC 18.4.3.030.
In this case, the Commission relied on standard parking ratios to determine that 105 parking spaces
were required, and accepted the applicant's proposal to meet this requirement with 86 off-street
paces to be provided on-site and 19 on-street parking credits. On-street parking credits are an
allowed parking management strategy under AMC 18.4.3.060.A which may be used to reduce the
required off-street parking requirements by up to 50 percent with one off-street parking space
credited for each available on-street parking space. Here the credit requested and approved was
18 percent (i.e. 19/105 = 0.18).
The Commission found that the request was an appropriate use of an allowed parking management
strategy, and further found that given the nature of the proposal (i.e. affordable housing) the likely
parking demand could be substantially less than calculated. The parking study considered in the
Rogue Ridge application and included in the record here found that affordable housing developments
generated only about half the parking demand of market rate rental developments. This study was
noted as supporting the requested on-street parking credit, however there was no exception to
parking requirements granted and the application did not rely on any sort of lesser parking ratio in
reaching a decision, it simply used available on-street parking spaces to offset some required off-
street spaces as explicitly allowed by code.
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook Appeal
Ground #2/Allowed Scope of Appeal Deliberations
The "Scope of Appeal Deliberations" in AMC 18.5.1.060.1.5.b is clear that "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."
Staff has determined that this second ground for appeal dealing with the parking management
strategy was not raised before the Planning Commission during the original hearing. As such, staff
made note in the Public Hearing notice that the Council would determine tonight whether the second
ground for appeal should be excluded from the appeal hearing.
Staff recommends that the Council exclude the second ground for appeal as falling outside the
allowed Scope of Appeal Deliberations. This would strike materials related to this ground for appeal
from the record and from consideration in the decision tonight, and all speakers would be directed to
limit their testimony strictly to the first ground for appeal.
Should the Council concur with staff's recommendation, a motion such as "I move to exclude the
second ground for appeal dealing with the parking management strategy from the hearing
tonight as it falls outside the allowed "Scope of Appeal Deliberations" because it was not
previously raised before the Planning Commission" would be appropriate. Such a motion would
need to happen prior to taking testimony, and if passed parties would need to be advised that oral
arguments must be limited to only the first ground for appeal.
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook Appeal
Staff Recommendation
Planning staff recommends that the Council:
• Exclude the second ground from the scope of appeal deliberations prior to testimony
with a motion, and
• Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission,
• Reject the remaining (i.e. first) ground for appeal, and
• Adopt the draft findings tonight (or direct staff to prepare revised findings for adoption
by Council in two weeks.)
The draft findings provided in your packets reflect the staff recommendations above, and
have been provided should the Council wish to adopt them tonight in the interest of
meeting the 100-day rule in ORS 197.311, which requires a final decision on affordable
multi-family housing projects within 100 days of receiving a complete application, and
findings adoption within 14 days thereafter. (For this project, the 100-day timeline ends
on September 11, 2019.)
CITY OF
SHLAND
Snowberry Brook Appeal
Potential Motions
To Exclude the Second Ground for Appeal (before takin_g testimony)
I move to exclude the second ground for appeal dealing with the parking management
strategy from the hearing tonight as it falls outside the allowed "Scope of Appeal
Deliberations" because it was not previously raised before the Planning Commission.
Decision
I move to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and reject the appeal on the
remaining (first) ground.
Findings Adoption
I move to adopt the written findings as presented by staff rejecting the appeal and
supporting the original Planning Commission decision from July 23, 2019.
CITY OF
Snowberry Brook, Ph. 11 ASHLAND
AM
x~Pte, a ~~g
IR! t, It *~E13~ a
42,
i-T
.
cs yet r
- v +
~ ~ two
City Council Statement Regarding "Piping the Ashland Canal" Ashland City Council Business meeting Statement 09/03/19
September 3, 2019 Business Meeting Re: Ashland Canal piping Project
I feel the issue before council tonight represents shared values and shared concerns. I'm certain
Dozens of Ashlanders have talked to me about their concern of piping the Ashland Canal. we are all feeling the fragility of our environment in the light of climate change
which serves to
We've read the staff reports and heard the council on the matter, but nowhere do we see heighten our sense of responsibility to be the best stewards of our land and water resources,
anyone addressing "worst case scenarios" as the canal moves towards being piped. We'd like and to find solutions to environmental problems that make sense. I believe that protecting
to know whether the following concerns have been thoroughly investigated by staff as part of natural resources for ourselves, and our children, is a value we all share, and we
all agree a
their study. solution to the problems with the Ashland Canal must be enacted. We just differ in how to enact
those solutions.
1. Where is a detailed account of costs and plans for storm drain and potential
debris flow mitigation that comes with piping? The city's Public Works staff has defined plans to meet our shared value of conserving our
2. How do staff Justify the cost of piping a canal when the city is struggling to precious water from evaporation and seepage and reducing the amount of contaminants in
the
balance its budget in order to keep utility rates from continually rising? canal water. And I commend their work and motivation to protect our water supply. However,
3. How can staff be certain that E coli doesn't live in the new pipes when studies there are additional and also very important values that the community has repeatedly
show that it does and will? expressed. We have stated that we also value:
4. What is the detailed maintenance plan for the canal because lack of having finite costs and finite risks to the environment and properties over, under and
maintenance is what got us here in the first place? adjacent to the canal
5. What is the cost cap for this project? the historic nature of the open canal that has been here since 1929
6. How can the cost of destroying at least one hundred trees and other eco- the enjoyment of the healthy trees and existing ecosystems along its banks
systems along the canal be justified for this project? What is the guarantee that safety in knowing that the canal water can be immediately accessed by the fire
they can be replaced? department
7. What is the comparison of seismic risk between an open canal and a piped one - safety in knowing our economic resources are being used wisely and in the most
or what is the liquefaction susceptibility of the alternatives? conservative manner possible
• the beauty of the canal as a unique open space with flowing water '
These are serious questions with consequences and cost/benefit budgetary concerns that must
Regrettably, the proposed solution (Alternative 1) recommended by staff does not reflect the
be addressed by the council and staff before a vote this evening.
community values I just stated. In fact, staff has categorically dismissed these values as 'r
The staff opinion is that the opposition to the canal is simply a NIMBY problem, but the NIMBYism. To me, that indicates a big problem. City staff and community members need
to
listen
neighborhood of concerned citizens reaches from Oak Knoll to Ashland Mine Road as well as to one another and work together to create solutions that respect and protect our
i common values.
along the canal. The entire length of our town has citizens who want a "no" vote on piping the
i i
canal. Many community members have provided documented testimony, hard science, research and i
studies describing a common sense alternate solution that will safely protect the water running
When deliberating keep in mind these questions that have yet to be answered. Also realize through the Ashland Canal without burying it. A solution with finite costs to both
the budget and
that the Atkins Engineering report clearly states that foundations for decks close to the canal the environment. I believe their work needs to be included as part of a common
sense solution
are in jeopardy and would need support footing (21) and new retaining walls with drains are that the city's Public Works staff and community can support together.
essential (36) and expensive. This means citizen's property will be disturbed significantly and
Mr. Mayor and members of city council, I believe you should not dismiss community values as 1
here in lies the possibility of lawsuits. This can't be overlooked. NIMBYism. As elected officials promising to represent us, I ask you to include them as you
consider the proposal before you as flawed and incomplete and vote NO and I urge you direct
Do the right thing and get answers to these questions and concerns before going forward. staff to craft a proposal that reflects our community values while meeting our shared
values of
protecting our resources, conserving water and reducing contaminants in the water of the
Dr. Carol Voisin Ashland canal. City staff and community members need to work together.
Ashland
Kacky Hoffman, Ashland
I
I
i
{ i
9/3/19 9/3/19
First, I want to acknowledge the dedication and hard work that our Issues
Public Works department has put into outlining all of the alternatives
for the council. I am only a layperson, and not an accomplished 1) E. coli: While the canal would remain open with this option, as a
engineer like Paula Brown, but I do believe that I have some standing microbiologist I believe that in the long run piping would only
regarding this issue because I live along the canal and treasure it. create a stable environment for the organism to survive in.
a. No U.V. rays, which kill the bacteria, will be able to reach the
I support using shotcrete to repair the open sections of canal as was water and sediment.
done in the 400 feet of canal at the Starlight end because: b. More consistent temperature within the pipe
c. The organism can survive in sediment.
1) It would minimize the disruption caused by the removal of the old d. Screens need to be at least 80 - 100 microns in size to filter
canal lining and pipe, and subsequent construction of their out sediment. The mesh of a traveling bar screen can range
replacement. in size from 2.54 - 152.4 mm and will only keep out large
2) It would minimize the number of trees that would need to be debris, not silt (size range 1/256 - 1/16 mm).
removed. httns://www.eyoqua.com/en/brands/intake-
3) It would maintain the priceless aesthetic of an open canal. screens/Pages /Fine-Mesh-Screen.asl2x
4) It could save the city money e. The source of E. coli was not determined (There are storm
drains that also empty into the creeks).
I offer the following information to help substantiate my claim: f. DNA testing revealed that there were no isolates of human
origin
1) I spoke to engineer, Matt Hazen, with the Turlock, California g. Ashland Creek study is 10 years old and says FURTHER
Irrigation district about a recent (Nov.-Dec. 2018) rehabilitation STUDY IS WARRANTED
project that was done on 5,737 feet of open canal. 2) Maintenance procedures will need to be changed
a. They use fiber-reinforced shotcrete to repair all of their a. Power-wash and remove all sediment and debris to
open canal areas (250 miles; 5-10 miles are relined every secondary location prior to irrigation season.
year). b. This will most likely add to the current cost of maintaining
b. They apply it over the existing liner the ditch.
c. They expect it to last a minimum of SO years 3) Freeze-thaw concerns
d. https://www.tici.org/about-tidicurrent-pro4ects/lat4/ a. Coldest winter temperature on record in Turlock, Ca was 18
e. Matt Hazen (209) 883-8260 °F
2) Modesto Irrigation District also used this method to repair two of b. From Bureau of Reclamation Study: Canal lining of VLDPE
their laterals this past winter. liner with 4" of shotcrete (no added fibers) was in excellent
htti2s://www.mid.org/wateJirrigition/documents/Thelrrigator condition after 9 1h years and no freeze-thaw damage was
Summer2019 FINAL.pdf observed.
3) Bureau of Reclamation Study testing different irrigation canal
linings In light of this information that 1 have presented, I request that council
a. Test areas in Bend that used shotcrete with and without defer deliberation so that the public works department can follow-up
added fibers were all listed in excellent condition with and evaluate shotcrete, as well as relining of the currently piped
minimal maintenance required at the 10-year mark. sections, for rehabilitating the canal.
b. GY,LC4 n_ A-e f ash 4o - 6 0 cI.( rs
I i
9/3/19
City Councilors,
Respectfully,
Julie Bonney-Shanor 1 am certainly a lay person in the field of engineering. I am a Master in quite a
different field. Paula Brown is obviously a Master in her field. I respect people who
BA Chemistry have paid the price. The countless number of hours, endurance, thought and
BA Microbiology
MT (ASCP)
BA Microbiology expertise that it takes to be Public Works Director in a vibrant community like
CLS (NCA) Ashland....) can only imagine.
CLT (State of California)
We are directly affected by the Canal Issue. And, we are motivated. We believe
that it would be wise to postpone a decision tonight, until PW Staff has had time to
review our additional findings. We believe that fiber reinforced concrete applied by
the shotcrete method is a viable alternative to address Ashland's needs.
Something that I feel is unclear. The word shotcrete can be confusing. It is simply
a method of applying fiber reinforced concrete with a hose under high pressure.
Concrete is concrete. Both methods have the same pluses and minuses. Public works
has said, "both have a life of up to SO years if adequately maintained." And, each has
areas where it excels. Traditional methods are great for huge jobs; FRS is a better fit
for medium to small jobs, like ours. FRS can, in our case, rehabilitate an existing
shotcreted canal. The benefits of the shotcrete method for our community are
numerous. Primarily, it can be sprayed over an existing repaired shotcreted canal
(still functioning well in some areas after 50 years). I personally watched the
relining up on Starlight, I believe in the process.
"Nothing needs to be torn up. That motivates me. You simply repair existing
problem areas. When repairs are complete, then and only then, the canal is
pressure washed, and a full thickness layer of FRS is applied the entire length of the
open areas. Much greater strength results by taking advantage of what shotcrete is
already in place. And, the water carrying capacity of the canal is not affected if the
canal sides are raised using shotcrete. This was done up on Starlight. CHART
i
**Only trees that directly affect the integrity of the canal need be removed. That is
a motivator for me. You don't have to remove any trees to make room for heavy 9
equipment.
**The walking path remains intact. The canal path is part-o f the lives of those c " -
who live on the canal, as well as those who come to experience it. I am most
na ~nm
tw
.v.
motivated here. d _ a 9
- q n
**Money can be saved. Pitch in the cost of "rehabilitating existing pipes", and the
reduced cost of tree removal and 1 am motivated. That sounds like a compromise to
me. And, under 2 million dollars, by my figures.
~;cSea SSA r'4
E $ `o
f -5 r 15
So, how about the downsides? Evaporation is minimal and frankly mitigates the = m
heat near the canal in summer. The big down side: we have to initiate a new e a a v ~ „ .
Jra 3 E q? o N? N •O a,k
maintenance policy. Julie has certainly covered this. We can do that. 2 ¢ ` q E \ a h
-q E
~ E v
s` z
C E r_
This project has received so much attention. Perhaps, just one more look by PW, will
benefit everyone, v $
E c
Respectfully, u v \
oc "
i °FS ?E6
A
vm ._n
t~
I "2~E~aa
A~
gad
_
William i
unx ,very of alye erv uavn w•ileHw IR Hwmw> pw (pnlJ waw~va4 aNam ap ai HwJwnJ)>en <n;)
H inl narc I" wnwn wnunr~m ayl aw N NpW HU eaup w vnpv .noU a41 rV'+Inunnwuw~nwU.lo w~w~w aylaanpaa
Ipuerve ryvo~~.w..suwmv.9i rswie awlll!^ranrc)o leaJLl+~r F^a°Ir w°J-14nm~oNeul~ J-C alawivruo waunran rnaw4'+
' 4>u!-[Iw.iV In^.xyl Jo ran aN aanpv awn anu lp.w Pw vay'w CiJu saawlwyl•yl~n panidnoV+uro46'aJ!I PYrumwaw
Iv~rav pw awwnN[w Irwylippr vv~nbv y'uw( py 4arv.(rw.laurwamu>Jil n~ pn alanuuaJu uuoJ r n ahvi~mla nHmnI~IY
I,~ - I..u Ienri i i _ ..,,i I J.',i 4,Ltl ~ wnundul vvma
iIdd ll.,I o.I'll, anav yoµryr apn~,u wr)a r
. ..~y~...I Mn wnl aum eyl BUOp U!1 lPrc aaapW >41 w41'Payniv xn riae6wrp ayi pasnr. ~np anrn eu n'Iapun ayi Jiy>~xwfl
small >~~.rni I,vadn aann pur aplnnlrv>N reawd aniaudxew (lannly pw ~rinhe rmbiwlaN nun6 o N.u,wyr 8inr,1
I~nlwq
Bk JHamsuy s>LJOM o!19nd
Council Meeting September 3, 2019 Our Ashland Canal has been ~md continues to be a major source of water for our town and it is
Regarding Proposed Piping of the Ashland Canal contingent upon this council to preserve this water source for generations to come in the most
durable and cost-effective method possible.
Good evening, Mayor, and Council Members, While the 86 property owners that abut the canal have benefited from the open canal feature
they do not have any right or privilege or grandfathered claim to this infrastructure or its
So many Ashland residents, not just those who live along the canal whose properties serendipitously acquired amenities. Nowhere in their property titles and easement descriptions
they have spent years enjoying and maintaining and improving, but Ashland residents I is there any language other than a maintenance easement granted in perpetuity to
the COA. As
meet at the Coop, at Shop 'n Kart, at Market Choice, at SOU, at Paddington's, at the the final decision-makers for our city, we are responsible for the welfare and common
good of
rip out Varsity so Theater, many , treeshave, and asked spend " so Why much would the money city when want
there's rip a up perfectly people's good property, all 22,000 citizens and it is our duty to secure drinking water for all of them. me, alternative at a much less cost
that would accomplish the city's objectives? This project is an essential part of the adopted City of Ashland 2012 Water Master Plan that
I have been met by anger, and disbelief, and a sense of helplessness, followed by, specifically recommends "piping" the entire 2-mile section.
"Who's going to pay for this? Our utilities are already high and rising. Why impose this The recently adopted by ordinance: Climate and Energy Action Plan specifically
mandates:
additional burden on us?" "Maximize conservation of water and energy." Let us walk the talk and there is no better boot-
And then the question: "What is the City Council we elected going to do about it?" on-the-ground opportunity than this project.
This project has been solidly and formally recommended by three different citizen groups:
They're all good questions. I don't believe that city staff has considered the full impact of
the piping project on residents' property and their lives. I am here on my own behalf and • Ashland Water Advisory Committee (which is a mayor appointed water policy advisory
on behalf of my fellow Ashlanders who have enjoyed and loved living in Ashland for group)
many years and whose properties and lives are facing an unnecessary destruction, and I . Conservation Commission
devaluation, and whose lives are about to be turned upside down if you vote for piping
• Ashland Canal Advisorv Group (technical advisory group)
of the canal.
Our own Public Works staff led by Paula Brown, whose reputation and skilled professionalism
I ask you, respectfully, to please vote NO on the piping of the canal. Thank you for we are fortunate to have on board... strongly recommends this Alt #1.
listening and for your consideration.
This project has been exhaustively and thoroughly vetted: wildlife surveys, tree analysis,
engineering studies and designs, neighborhood impact and mitigation plans.
Adkins Engineering is a highly respected and capable water project group having completed
many irrigation projects in northern California and southern Oregon for over 35 years.
Helen Perina
Ashland
There are significant positive features of Alt #1. It is a complete and comprehensive fix and not
a patchwork quilt of liners, coatings, fiberglass, various concretes and shotcretes.
• Alt #1 has the best chance of securing grant funding. No project with any open canal
sections has a ghost of a chance for grant monies. Significant grant opportunities exist
with the following agencies.
i
I
Bureau of Reclamation
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
US Bureau of Reclamation
Oregon Water Resources Department
Rogue Basin Partnership
• Alt #1 is the least expensive by over $11M
• Alt #1 completely eliminates both seepage and evaporation loss. Let us remember: the
loss of 62M gal/yr to these aged eyes is a lot of water!
• Alt #1 completely eliminates any new source of water contamination introduced into
this 2 mi section of canal.
• Alt #1 completely eliminates the possibility of a mid-season debris slide that could block
the open ditch causing canal break-out and downslope flooding.
• Alt #1 will result in a maintenance road that will be wider, safer and more easily
maintained than the existing goat path.
Our forefathers had the wisdom and fortitude and, yes, financial courage and generosity to
install quality infrastructures that have stood the test of time and utility. We can best thank
them by continuing that forward-looking stewardship and secure our city's drinking water
for a long time to come. - Stephen Jensen