HomeMy WebLinkAboutClear_Creek_TL6700_PA-T2-2023-00042CITY OF
SIF iff L A N w uw'%'
June 14, 2023
Notice of Final Decision
The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: PA -12-2023-00042
Subject Property: Clear Creek Dr. Parcel 7 - 391E09AB TL 6700 & 391E09AA TL 6200
Applicant: City of Ashland
OWNER: Jacobs on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad
Description: A request to modify a condition of approval and change a deed restriction that
was required in a 1999 planning approval (PA 99-048), amended in 2016 (PA -2006-00684), and recorded
on the vacant 20 -acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The deed restriction required that
the 20 -acre site meets Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) cleanup standards
applicable to a "single residential property" before farther land divisions or development occurs. The
proposed revision to the deed restriction clarifies the site be cleaned to an "urban residential standard" to
enable future development consistent with the E-1 zoning of the property including commercial,
employment, and ground floor residential within mixed-use and apartment buildings. The modified
condition would stipulate the deed restriction would be removed from the property upon the City
receiving written documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating
compliance with these standards. COMPRE73ENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment;
ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E09AB & 391E09AA; TAX LOT: 6700 & 6200
The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final
Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified
on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion.
The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are
available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee
schedule.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the
effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1.060.1 of
the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon
Land Use Board of Appeals.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 549-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 549-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY, 800-735-2900
wwm ash land.or. us
Y 0 F
ASHLAND"",
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community
Development Department at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Jacobs on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad
Parties of record SECTION 18.5.1.060.1
1. Appeal of Type H Decision. The City Council may call up a Type II decision pursuant to section
18.5.1.060.7. A Type H decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows.
1. Who May Appeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be
defined as the following. A
a. The applicant.
b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to
participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to
the Council.
c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to
error.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.I.1, above, may appeal a Type H decision by fling a notice of appeal and paying
the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection.
b. Titne for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten
days of the date the notice of decision is mailed.
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a
reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies
as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of
the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on
identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by
the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered.
3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time,
and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4. Scope of Appeal.
a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.1.4.b,
below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be
confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tei: 541488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www,ashland.or.us
CITY 0 F
N DO`
the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits, and
materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the
Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed
decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for
purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the
parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the
appeal proceeding.
b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence
on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator
together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to
the Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the
following.
i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the
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.
Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an
appeal of a Type IT decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission.
a. Oral Argument. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral
argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different,
and three minutes for any other party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted
oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall
be submitted no less than ten days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written
and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set
forth in the notice of appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the
written argument.
b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations, Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the
record is allowed, the Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to
determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning
Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us IraiA
—��C I T Y 0 F
ASHLAND
shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of
appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the
Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond.
c. Council Decision. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision and may
approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make
findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification
for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties
participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may
elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the Council elects to
remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission
decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant
to subsection 18.5.1.060.J.
6. Record of the Public Hearing. For purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the
written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall
become part of the record of the appeal proceeding.
The public hearing record shall include the following information.
a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal.
b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the
application that the City mailed or received.
c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials
submitted with it.
d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times
when the record before the Planning Commission was open..
e. Recorded testirmony (including DVDs when available).
f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application;
g. The minutes of the hearing.
g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions.
7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type
11 applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council
decisions on Type H applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals,
pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.orms
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 13, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA -T2-2023-00042, A REQUEST TO )
MODIFY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL AND CHANGE A DEED RESTRICTION )
THAT WAS REQUIRED IN PLANNING ACTION #99-048, AMENDED IN PLAN- )
NING ACTION 92016-00684, AND RECORDED ON THE VACANT 20 -ACRE SITE )
OWNED BY UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD (UPRR) AT 202 CLEAR CREEK DRIVE. )
THE DEED RESTRICTION REQUIRED THAT THE 20 -ACRE SITE MEET THE )
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY'S (DEQ) CLEANUP )
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO A "SINGLE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY" BEFORE)
FURTHER LAND DIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED REVISION TO)
THE DEED RESTRICTION CLARIFIES THE SITE IS TO BE CLEANED TO AN )
"URBAN RESIDENTIAL STANDARD" TO ENABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT )
CONSISTENT WITH THE E -I ZONING OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING COM- )
MERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT AND GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL IN MIXED- )
USE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS. THE MODIFIED CONDITION WOULD )
STIPULATE THAT THE DEED RESTRICTION WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE)
PROPERTY UPON THE CITY RECEIVING WRITTEN DOCUMENT FROM THE )
DEQ DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THESE STANDARDS. )
APPLICANTS: City of Ashland )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #6700 of Map 39 IE 09 AB and tax lot 46200 of Map 39 IE 09 AA are located at 202 Clear
Creek Dr., north of the railroad tracks and south of Hersey St., and are zoned E-1, Employment.
2) The hearing before the Plaiming Commission involves a request to modify a condition of approval
and change a deed restriction that was required in a 1999 planning approval (PA 99-048), amended in
2016 (PA -2016-00684), and recorded on the vacant 20 -acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
at 202 Clear Creek Drive. The 2016 deed restriction required that the 20 -acre site meets Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) cleanup standards applicable to a "single residential
property" before further land divisions or development occurs. The proposed revision to the deed
restriction clarifies the site be cleaned to an "urban residential standard" to enable future development
consistent with the E- I zoning of the property including commercial, employment, and ground floor
residential within mixed-use and apartment buildings. The modified condition would stipulate the deed
restriction would be removed from the property upon the City receiving written documentation from the
Department of Enviromnental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards. The proposal is
outlined in the plans on file in the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for a Major Modification are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
18.5.6.030.0 as follows:
PA #2023-00042
June 13, 2023
Page I
C. Major Modification Approval Criteria. A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval
authority finding that all of the following criteria are met.
1. Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval,
except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a
commercial developments parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot
and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc.
2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or
exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements.
3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written
findings.
4) The criteria for a Preliminary Partition Plat are described in AMC 18.5.3.050 as follows:
The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the
following criteria are met.
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous
land use approvals for the subject area.
D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
E, Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18,2, any applicable overlay zone
requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access,
tree preservation, solar access and orientation).
F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also,
18.5, 3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria.
G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and
other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent
lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications.
H Unpaved Streets.
1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20 -foot wide access along the entire street frontage of
the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan,
such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed
street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 -feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works
Department.
2, Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition
when all of the following conditions exist.
PA #2023-00442
.lune 13, 2023
Page 2
a. The unpaved street is at least 20 -feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The
City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as
required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except
where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road
surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation.
d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to
participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both
with respect to 'the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs
thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding
of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner
declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and
prohibited from the street,
J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to
development.
K A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section
18.5.3.060.
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on May 9, 2023, at
which time testimony was heard and evidence was presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the
Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXMBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
PA #2023-00042
June 13, 2023
Page 3
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony, and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission notes that the application involves a request to modify a condition of
approval and change a deed restriction that was first required in the 1999 planning approval (Planning
Action #99-048), subsequently amended in 2016 (Planning Action #2016-00684) and recorded on the
vacant 20 -acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The deed restriction required that the 20 -
acre site meets Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) cleanup standards applicable to a
"single residential property" before further land divisions or development occurs. The proposed revision
to the deed restriction clarifies the site is to be cleaned to an "urban residential standard" to enable future
development consistent with the E-1 zoning of the property including commercial, employment, and
ground floor residential within mixed-use and apartment buildings. The modified condition would
stipulate the deed restriction would be removed from the property upon the City receiving written
documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these
standards.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that a modification of an approved application or condition of
approval that could have a detrimental effect on adjoining properties requires Major Modification under
chapter 18.5.6. The review procedure (i.e., Type I administrative approval or Type II public hearing) for
a modification is the same as the procedure used for the original application. In this case, a Type II public
hearing process is required because the original land partition and lot line adjustment were processed as a
Type 1I (AMC 18.5.6.030.A.7).
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is a large inactive rail yard that is
centrally located in Ashland. The UPRR property is approximately 20 acres in size and located north of
the railroad tracks, south of Hersey St., and between the two dead-end portions of Clear Creek Dr. The
west side of Clear Creek Dr. intersects with Oak St. and the east side intersects with N. Mountain Ave.
Rouge Place is a third dead-end street that abuts the property in the northeast portion of the site. Clear
Creek Dr. and Rogue Place are planned to continue through the UPRR property at the time the site is
developed.
The property is zoned Employment (E-1) and located in the Residential and Detail Site Review overlays.
The Residential overlay allows 15 dwelling units per acre as a special permitted use in conjunction with
permitted commercial and employment uses. A building can have up to 35 percent of its ground floor in
residential uses (e.g., ground floor commercial or employment with upper story residential units) or up to
half of a lot used for residential purposes if there are to be multiple buildings on a site. The areas to the
north, south, and west of the property are zoned E-1. The areas to the northeast and east are zoned
residential and include Multi -Family Residential (R-2), Suburban Residential (R-1-3.5), and Single
Family Residential (R-1) properties.
The general topography of the site slopes to the north toward Hersey St. The property's most significant
natural features include Mountain Creek that flows south to north on the eastern boundary of the property.
PA #2023-00042
June 13, 2023
Page 4
A trail connection is shown in the Mountain Creek area on the City's adopted 2002 Open Space Plan. The
Water Resource Protection Zones Requirements map also identifies three possible wetlands on the site.
The subject property was used for a rail yard for locomotive maintenance, service, and rail car repair
between 1887 and 1986. Various structures including a hotel/passenger station, a freight station, a car
repair shed, a turntable, a roundhouse, and miscellaneous work and storage buildings were once present.
The Ashland rail yard peaked in the early 1900's. Subsequently, the site was used for light locomotive
maintenance and car repair functions until the early 1970's by the Southern Pacific Transportation
Company (SPTCo). UPRR acquired SPTCo and many of its assets, including the Ashland site, in 1997.
UPRR has not operated or performed any railroad related activities at the site since its acquisition in 1997.
The property is in DEQ's voluntary cleanup program because the contaminants on the property are considered
low risk. As a result, DEQ cannot compel UPRR to clean up the property in a specific time period. However,
the property does have to be cleaned up before it can be redeveloped.
The only structures remaining on the site are the foundations of several of the buildings. There is a fenced
area on the eastern portion of the site that includes an oil/water separator and two manmade retention
ponds. A mainline track and rail spur operated by Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Inc. (CORP) are
located along the site's southern boundary.
2.5 The Planning Commission notes that a Major Modification of an approved application or condition
of approval may be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria,
except that the scope of the review is limited solely to the modification request. As a result, the application
review here is limited to the deed restriction modification request and the applicable approval criteria are
those for a Preliminary Partition Plat. The Planning Commission finds here that the proposal for a Major
Modification meets all applicable criteria described in AMC 18.5.6.030.0 and AMC 18.5.3.050,
Original Approval (1999)
The Planning Commission notes that in August of 1999, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan
map amendment fiom Industrial to Employment and a Zoning map amendment from M-1 to E-1 as Planning
Action #99-066 (Ordinance #2843). In addition, the area was included in the Detail Site Review and
Residential overlay zones.
In November of 1999, the Planning Commission approved a land partition, including the construction of a
new public street and alley system and a lot line adjustment for the property located southeast of the
intersection of Hersey and Oak Streets and north of the railroad tracks as Planning Action 499-048. This
Planning Action included a condition requiring a deed restriction stating that the site is required to be cleaned
up to DEQ residential standard before further land division or development, and that written confirmation
from DEQ be submitted to the City of Ashland when the cleanup to residential standards was completed. The
west end of Clear Creek Dr. and six surrounding lots were created as a result of the approved land partition
and lot line adjustment. A variety of mixed-use buildings have since been developed in the area. The seventh
lot created by the land partitions and lot line adjustment is the undeveloped 20 -acre Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR) site that is the subject of the current application.
PA #2023-00042
June 13, 2023
Page 5
The Planning Commission notes that the original 1999 condition of approval was based on the land
partition criteria in AMC 18.5.3.050.A which requires "the future use for urbanpurposes poses of the remainder
of the tract will not be impeded." Specifically, the staff report included the following discussion:
The application notes that the deed restriction will be placed on the remaining
approximately 25 acres due to subsurface contamination resulting from past railroad
operations. The E-1 zoning and residential overlay (R -Overlay) allow for a variety of
commercial and residential uses. The City's Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use
development, and existing City ordinances and neighborhood planning efforts provide a
variety of incentives in the hope of achieving this goal. Consequently, it is important that
the contaminants on the remaining 20+ acres be removed or reduced to levels which
would allow for commercial, as well as residential uses. Staff has attached a condition
requiring that the final cleanup achieve this goal and verification be provided from the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Condition #9 of Planning Action 499-048 as adopted read that, "A deed restriction be placed on the
remaining 25 acres(approximately) precluding further "development" or land divisions until the property
has been cleaned to residential standards. Written compliance with these standards ,shall be provided to
the City from the Department of Environmental Quality. "
Condition Modification (2096)
The Planning Commission further notes that in 2016, UPRR indicated they would like to cleanup and sell the
property; however, they indicated that the deed restriction froze the 1999 land use approval posed a barrier to
potential buyers/developers because it required future subdivided lots that may not be used for residential
purposes to nonetheless be cleaned up to residential standards. They argued that DEQ's standards required
cleanup to match the proposed use of the individual lots, with DEQ's "occupational" standard providing for
retail, office, or light industrial uses, while DEQ's "residential" standard allows for ground level housing.
According to the UPRR representative, the 1999 deed restriction had deterred potential buyers/developers
because it was not consistent with DEQ's remediation requirements.
The proposed modification was to amend the deed restriction to require two levels of cleanup. First, the initial
cleanup of the 20 -acre site would be to the residential standard for a single residential property. Subsequent
development or subdivided lots would have to be cleaned up to the standard DEQ requires for the proposed
use of the individual lots: the "occupational" standard for retail, office, or light industrial uses; the
"residential" standard for ground level housing.
As adopted, Condition #2 of Planning Action #2016-00684 amended the original condition to read:
Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a
determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup
standards applicable to a single residential property. Thereafter, development of or any
subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of
Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use
proposed for the subdivided parcel. Grantor will provide written documentation from the
Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the
PA #2023-00042
.lune 13, 2023
Page 6
City.
Current Re uest 2023
The current request again seeks to modify the language in the deed restriction/restrictive covenant. According
to UPRR, the existing deed restriction language, as revised in 2016, speaks to clean up to "single residential"
standards and remains inconsistent with DEQ's remediation standards for the "urban residential" and
"occupational" uses allowable on the property under its E-1 zoning. After completion of full -site
remediation to DEQ's cleanup standards, the proposed revised deed restriction would allow subdivision
and development of individual parcels upon further remediation in conformance with the DEQ risk
standards applicable to the proposed actual uses of the parcels and the parcel -specific risks posed by the
actual contaminants on them. After hearing UPRR's request, the City Council directed staff to apply for a
modification to the prior condition and amend the restrictive covenant and to continue to work with UPRR
and DEQ regarding the remediation plan to clean up the property for future development.
I move to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a Major Amendment
to replace the condition of approval in PA2016-00684 with the modified condition of approval
presented in the March 21, 2023, Council Communication and to continue working with Union
Pacific Railroad and DEQ to achieve remediation of the rail yard site to applicable DEQ
standards.
The modified condition considered by Council and forwarded by motion to the Planning Commission for
review as a Major Amendment to the PA2016-000684 condition was as follows:
Parcel 7 is restricted from ficrther development or land division until Grantor obtains a
determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup
standards consistent with the current and likely future land use zoning for the property. These
land uses correspond with the Department of Environmental Quality Urban Residential andlor
Occupational exposure scenarios. Thereafter, development of any subdivided parcel cannot occur
until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the
property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. This
covenant will be removed from the property, and/or any subdivided parcel(s), upon the grantor
providing the City written documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality
demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City.
UPRR has indicated that if the condition were modified as requested, they would move forward with a
full cleanup of the site.
In considering this request, the Planning Commission finds that the intent of the original 1999 condition
was somewhat ambiguous because the extent of the required cleanup to residential standards was unclear.
Neither UPRR nor DEQ were directly involved in that application. Instead, a local real estate agent,
representing UPRR and a second property owner, was the applicant. In addition, the focus of the 1999
application was in separating the far western end of the UPRR property (now the west end of Clear Creek
Dr.) for further development. While the cleanup of the far western end of the property was required by
DEQ before the area was developed, the level and extent of contaminants there was comparatively minor.
PA #2023-00042
.Tune 13, 2023
Page 7
As a result, the 1999 land partition application and the subsequent Planning Commission public hearing
discussion and decision did not involve extensive information regarding UPRR's plans for the remaining
UPRR property (the subject property here) or about DEQ's remediation process and cleanup standards.
The Planning Commission and staff were aware that cleanup of the remaining UPRR property was
necessary and would be an issue in the future, but detailed information regarding the remediation process
and clean-up standards was not presented or evaluated.
Further, the Commission finds that the terminology used to refer to the clean up to "residential" standards
in the 1999 condition and to "single residential" in the 2016 condition would typically apply to single
family detached homes, or townhomes, which can have individual yards. The presence of such yards
gives occupants direct access to subsurface contaminants through activities such as gardening, and thus
poses a greater risk. The "urban residential' standard is now used by DEQ to distinguish more suburban,
single family residential uses from the higher density, multi -family residential at urban levels of
development that would be consistent with the permitted uses under the current E-1 zoning. Essentially,
a property cleaned to "urban residential" standards can accommodate a multi -story mixed-use building or
an apartment complex even when residential uses occupy the ground floor. Lastly, if future lots were to
be subdivided from the parent parcel and developed to accommodate only commercial, employment, or
light -industrial buildings, only DEQ's "occupational" standard would be applicable.
The Planning Commission notes that the UPRR property represents approximately one fourth of Ashland's
inventory of Employment and Industrial zoned land and therefore is a significant portion of the City's 20 -
year land supply for employment purposes. The statewide planning program and implementing state laws
require all cities to designate sufficient land to accommodate the project land need for employment and
job creation for a 20 -year planning period. The City's adopted 2010 Economic Opportunity Analysis
(EOA) comparison of land supply and need in Ashland indicated an adequate supply of employment land
until 2027 and a deficit in the 2028-2057 planning period.
The bulk of Ashland's buildable employment lands are divided between the UPRR property; the Washington
St./Jefferson Ave./Benson Way area; and the Croman Mill district on Mistletoe Rd. Each of these three areas
will require significant infrastructure improvements in the form of utilities and streets before development is
possible, and both the UPRR property and the Croman Mill district will be required to be cleaned up prior to
further development. In contrast to the Washington Ave. area and Croman Mill district, the UPRR property
is entirely located in the Residential Overlay.
The central location of the site makes the UPRR property a logical candidate for future development. The E-
1 zoning and inclusion in the Residential and Detail Site Review overlays provide a flexible approach for
future development that allows a mix of commercial, employment, and residential uses. This type of mixed-
use development is consistent with the following Ashland Comprehensive Plan policies that speak to
providing a mix of uses, especially as a buffer between employment areas and residential neighborhoods, and
encouraging a mix of uses in close proximity so that people that work and live in the area have the option of
making trips by walking or bicycling.
Chapter VII, The Economy, Policy 2, E. The City shall design the Land Use Ordinance to
provide for e) Commercial or employment zones where business and residential uses are
PA #2023-00042
June 13, 2023
Page 8
mixed. This is especially appropriate as buffers between residential and employment or
commercial areas and in the Downtown.
Chapter X, Transportation dement, Goal III, Policy 2. Promote a mixed land use pattern,
where appropriate, and pedestrian environment design that supports walking and bicycling
trips.
Despite the central location and significant contribution to the City's land supply for employment purposes,
the UPRR property has been effectively unavailable for development because of the need to clean up the site.
Making the UPRR property a viable piece of the City's 20 -year land supply for employment purposes,
including urban residential mixed-use development, is consistent with the City's adopted 2011 Economic
Development Strategy (EDS) which includes identifying barriers to development for key industrial lands and
working to make them "shovel ready" for re -sale for business development. The EDS includes the following
strategy and action.
Strategy 6. Provide appropriate land supplies for needed business growth/expansion with quality
infrastructure to all commercial and employment lands.
Action 6.6 Determine feasibility and cost/benefit for public purchase of key industrial lands to make
"shovel ready" for re -sale for business development.
The EDS discusses identifying lands that have been neglected and determining the existing barriers of
development such as lack of services, access limitations, and environmental abatement needs. In addition,
the EDS discusses evaluating "... whether direct public financial involvement may be the more appropriate
tool to address those barriers and make lands more financially attractive and operationally functional for
private development (i.e., the railroad property)."
The Planning Commission finds that to not impede the future use of the subject property for the urban
purposes envisioned by its E-1 zoning and Residential Overlay, the condition and associated deed
restriction must not preclude or present barriers to future residential uses on the subject property as allowed
under its E-1 zoning and residential (R) overlay. As such, any modification must make clear that the
initial clean-up of the property would be to "urban residential" standards to accommodate mixed use
development allowed within the zone. For the Commission, the language necessary to make this clear is:
"Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a
determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets the
cleanup standards consistent with the current and likely future land use zoning for the property,
consistent with the DEQ Urban Residential exposure standard. Thereafter, development of any
subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of
Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use
proposed for the subdivided parcel. This covenant will be removed from the property, and/or any
subdivided parcel(s), upon the grantor providing the City written documentation from the
Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the
City"
The Planning Commission finds that this modification of the condition and deed restriction is consistent with
PA #2023-00042
June 13, 2023
Page 9
the mix of uses and potential configurations that are allowed on the UPRR property under the current zoning
and does not preclude the inclusion of residential uses consistent with eh E-1 zone and Residential Overlay.
Further this change in the deed restriction language is consistent with intention of establishing the condition
in 1999 and revising it in 2016. The location in the E-1 zone and the Residential overlay allows residential
dwelling units in conjunction with a permitted commercial or employment use. A variety of uses and building
and site configurations are possible on the subject property. These uses, including the provision of residential
uses on the ground floor of multistory mixed-use, or apartment buildings would be considered "urban
residential" development by DEQ. After the initial clean up of the site to a "urban residential standard", the
amended condition would allow the City's deed restriction to be removed, and each development to be
evaluated independently by DEQ to ensure subsequent developments comply with the cleanup standard that
matches the type and configuration of the proposed uses.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that many of the criteria for a Preliminary Plat approval were
satisfied when the subject parcel was created and are not affected by the proposal to modify the deed
restriction regarding the cleanup of the subject property. As discussed above, the Commission finds that the
amendment of the modified 2016 condition and associated deed restriction will not impede the future use of
the subject property for urban purposes. In contrast, the need to clean up the property has prevented
development over the past two decades and UPRR has indicated that the change to the deed restriction will
facilitate the cleanup of the property in the near fixture.
The Commission finds that development of adjacent land and access is not impacted by a change in the deed
restriction on the subject property. In the fixture, Cleat Creek Dr. and Rogue Place will be extended through
the property along with public utilities to serve the employment area located between the railroad tracks and
Hersey St. The continuation of the network of streets and public services will eventually allow the
development of the site and general area.
Finally, the proposed change in the deed restriction has been developed cooperatively between the City, DEQ
and UPRR and has been crafted to meet DEQ's standards. As a result, the Commission finds that the
amendment here will allow the owner to obtain the required State and Federal permits for the cleanup of the
property.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the request for a Major Modification to amend a condition of approval of the land partition and lot line
adjustment of Planning Action #2016-00684 is supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2023-00042. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2023-00042 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval.
1) All conditions of the PA #99-048 and PA #2016-00684 shall remain conditions of approval unless
otherwise specifically modified herein.
PA #2023-00042
June 13, 2023
Page 10
2) That the deed restriction required in Condition #2 of PA 2016-00684 shall be revised to read as
follows.
"Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a
determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets the cleanup
standards consistent with the current and likely future land use zoning for the property, consistent
with the DEQ Urban Residential exposure standard. Thereafter, development of any subdivided
parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental
Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the
subdivided parcel. This covenant will be removed from the property, and/or any subdivided
parcel(s), upon the grantor providing the City written documentation from the Department of
Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City"
3) That evidence shall be submitted demonstrating that the deed restriction has been revised in
accordance with Condition 2 above and recorded prior to issuance of City excavation permit or any
site world.
June 13. 2023
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA 92023-00042
June 13, 2023
Page I 1
WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" �aIIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID u� Illi a�l �V�'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u�
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, dive your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
Jun913, 2023
REGULAR MEETING
Minutes
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street. She welcomed Commissioners Gregory Perkinson, Russell Phillips, and Susan
MacCracken Jain. Commissioner MacCracken Jain was unable to attend the meeting.
Commissioners Present:
Lisa Verner
Kerry KenCairn
Doug Knauer
Eric Herron
Gregory Perkinson
Russell Phillips
Absent Members:
Susan MacCracken Jain
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Staff Present:
Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Council Liaison:
Paula Hyatt
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
• The City received a $1.58 million grant to be used for the acquisition of a homeless and
inclement weather shelter. The grant was provided by the Jackson County Continuum of
Care.
• The City Council approved the City's 2024-2025 biennium budget, and also approved some
consumer -price index -based increases for planning fees. These will go into effect July 1, 2023.
• Townmakers, LLC has updated the City regarding their development of the Croman Mill Site.
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has collected site samples and will have the
results of the tests in July, 2023. The application from Townmakers, LLC will be dependent
upon the level of cleanup necessitated based on the results of those tests, and staff expects
the group to apply for a preapplication conference over the summer. This item could come
before the Commission again if the Commission requests it.
• The June 27, 2023 Commission Study Session has four items to discuss: a Chamber of
Commerce Economic Diversification Study; an update from the Climate & Environmental
Policy Advisory Committee regarding a natural gas ordinance update; a draft review of a
Climate Friendly Area (CFA) study; and a discussion on where to hold the 2023 annual
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Page 1 of 5
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
�%i
WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u�
Commission retreat and the items to be discussed.
Commissioner Knauer expressed interest in hearing the presentation given by Townmakers, LLC, and
Mr. Goldman responded that staff would contact them.
111. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. May 9, 2023, Regular Meeting
Commissioner Knauer noted that test results included on page 12 of the packet were not seen at the
May 9, 2023 meeting. Mr. Goldman noted that those numbers were part of a digital presentation that
was given at the meeting that didn't show up in the infographic, but appeared in document form.
Commissioners KenCairn/Knauer m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote:
All AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM - None
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA -T2-2023-00040,1111 Granite St.
Commissioners Knauer/KenCairn m/s to approve the findings as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES.
Motion passed 6-0.
B. Approval of Findings for PA -T2-2023-00042, Clear Creek Dr. Parcel 7 - 391E09AB TL 6700 &
391E09AA TL 6200
Commissioners KenCairn/Knauer m/s to approve the findings as presented. Discussion:
Commissioner Herron asked if changes were made to the findings. Chair Verner noted that the
Commission had suggested changes, which Mr. Goldman stated were included on pages 90-91 of
the findings. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
V1. TYPE 11 PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2023-00041
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot 404 Clinton St.
Page 2 of 5
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
�%i
WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u�
OWNER: Magnolia Heights LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request Performance Subdivision Outline Plan approval for a
12 -lot, 11 -unit residential subdivision. The application also includes requests for an
Exception to Street Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit for four significant trees.
Additionally, the applicant has applied for a minor amendment to the adopted
Physical and Environmental Constraints map to effectively remove a drainage way
form the map that is not extant on the property. And finally, the applicant has
addressed the applicability standards of the Water Resource Protection Zone WRPZ by
providing a wetland determination demonstrating that there are no regulated
wetland resources on the subject property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 lE 04 DB; TAX LOT: 404 (PLEASE
NOTE: Th i-ecoi-d and public heafing aims closed" on this t::s islm. Tile Planning
Commission's consldsimsllon of this item Will be llt::llsd is thee. dslldsimstion and decision.
No fui-thei- submittals (evidence oi- aigutnent) Will be accepted into the i-ecoi-d.)
Chair Verner read aloud the guidelines for a Type II Public Hearing. She reminded the Commission
that was item was continued from the May 9, 2023 meeting. No further submittals or comments will
be submitted or accepted at this meeting. The Public Hearing was closed, but the Public Record was
left open and allowed for submitted comments to be received for two weeks.
Chair Verner stated that comments were received during this period, though no comments or
materials were received after May 30, 2023 (see attachment #1). Chair Verner also noted that
Commissioners Perkinson and Phillips were not present at the May 9, 2023 meeting when this item
was first heard. She stated that both Commissioners could participate in the continued discussion if
they could attest to having thoroughly reviewed the packet materials for the May 91h and June 13th
meetings, and have watched the recording of the May 9 meeting. Commissioners Perkinson and
Phillips attested that they had done so.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported. Chair Verner conducted a site visit.
Discussion and Deliberation
Commissioner Perkinson thanked staff for making changes to the findings, and asked if these
revisions changed staff's recommendation. Mr. Goldman responded that it did not, pointing out that
a new condition was added requiring that the final plan application include the Department of State
Lands' concurrence with the submitted wetlands report. Mr. Goldman noted several other changes
made to provide further clarification to the findings (see attachment #2).
Commissioner Knauer inquired about whether a Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) always
correlates to a wetland. Mr. Goldman responded that the designation of a wetland or a WRPZ along
creeks is based on whether they are intermittent or ephemeral, and that staff determined that there
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Page 3 of 5
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
�%i
WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u�
was no ephemeral creek on that site, as was previously mapped. Commissioner Knauer asked how
the City could conclude that an ephemeral creek did not exist given its intermittent nature. Mr.
Anderson answered that the wetland delineation report showed that there was no wetland present,
and that a visit to the site shows no physical drainage, therefore the WRPZ standards are not
applicable. Commissioner KenCairn commented that developments over the last few decades have
changed or removed many wetlands and ephemeral areas. She added that the development of the
site could also provide any necessary drainage from the site in the event of high precipitation.
Commissioners Perkinson/Phillips m/s to approve staff's recommendation of PA -T2-2023-00041
with the updates provided by staff on June 13, 2023. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers
Commissioner Perkinson motioned to elect Commissioner Verner as Chair. Voice Vote: All AYES.
Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner Herron/KenCairn m/s to elect Commissioner Knauer as Vice Chair. Voice Vote: All
AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
VI11. OPEN DISCUSSION
Councilor Hyatt spoke to the ongoing work at the Croman Mill Site by Townmakers, LLC, emphasizing
the role that the Commission will play in that process and the importance of their recommendation
that they will make to the Council.
Commissioner Perkinson spoke to the amount of information contained in the Housing Production
Strategy (HPS) report, stating that he may have questions about it in the future. Mr. Goldman
responded that the Commission would review a number of items contained in the HPS, and that staff
will begin reviewing the first of those items in July, 2023 before bringing them to be reviewed by the
Commission in the form of a study session.
Commissioner Herron stated that he would not be able to attend the July 25, 2023 Study Session.
The Commission discussed when to hold its annual retreat, though no date was decided. Mr.
Goldman stated that staff would sent out a poll in order to determine an appropriate date and time.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Page 4 of 5
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
�%i
WIIIIW ���////r �� ', �q�wi�� IIII � IIII � VIII VIII � �q w�0111 o Viu `'�i uonm" ��a� IIIIh IIII IIII IIIIh IIII VIII 4� Irk fl�ur� VIII `'�i uonm" IIII � VIII IIII IIID �u� Illi a�l �V��'�'k°� �'IY Q�,u�
Commissioner Knauer inquired how the Croman Mill project would be financed, what risks would be
shared with the City, and what the plans looked like for mixed housing. Councilor Hyatt responded
that there is no written plan yet, and that the Commission would likely not see any updates
regarding this project until the "no further action" notice from the Department of Environmental
Quality is lifted. Mr. Goldman added that the applicants have multiple plans for residential, mixed-
use, and commercial buildings on the site, and that the development will require code amendments
to take place. Once the applicants complete a pre -application they will provide the Commission
with a conceptual plan, but the Commission will not review the application until it comes before
them in the formal Public Hearing process.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Next Meeting Date: June 27, 2023
Page 5 of 5
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please emailra �r.l..ari nino.cLpashland.or.i..is. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
�%i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department,
2. On June 14, 2023, 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice
to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on
this list under each person's name for the Planning Action #PA -T2-2023-00042 for
Clear Creek 391 E09AA TL 6200 & 391 E09AB TL 6700.
4ichaeCSuffivan
Signature of Employee
G:lcomro-deu\alanningWlanning Ac0ansTft by SlreeWQear CreeklClearCreel_Parcel-7—UPRR PrapertyQ023 Gondilion ModiBcalion Planning Aclion1UPRFt Glear GreeLTL8700—PA T2-2023-
W042WaUcingWODtUPRR_Clear GreeK—TL8700-8200—NOD. AffidaAtotMailing.docx 011412023
49
PA -T2-2023-00042
WILLIAM SALTZSTEIN
164 CLEAR CREEK DR #201
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
DON HANSON
don.hanson@deq.oregon.gov
PA -T2-2023-00042
KENT NOONAN
167 ASHLAND ACRES RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
MARGARET OSCILIA
MargaretOSCILIA@deq.oregon.gov
PA -T2-2023-00042
MICHAEL NIEMET
Michael. Niemet@jacobs.com
Clear Creek TL6700 NOD
06/14/23
Mail: 2
Email• 3
abP3 do -clod
asodxa
o; au€I CW010 puag
Slagel
SSa.IPPV
Asps
„Ia2d
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this forin and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non -agenda items unless time
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and pray constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
b) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number) OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non -agenda items unless time
constraints liraritpublic testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding, Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and inay constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will he requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Foran
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Regular Meeting
pp
Agenda item number—VLA) OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For: Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
f you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Cballenge:
The Public Meeting Law, requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon lar, does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and duringpublic forum on non -agenda items unless tune
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and naay constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
Michael Sullivan
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Bill Saltzstein <bill@billandrae.com>
Monday, May 08, 2023 3:37 PM
Planning Commission - Public Testimony
05/09/23 PC Hearing Testimony
DEQ Comments on Proposal 111522.pdf
Dear Council,
It is difficult to understand how the process on changing the deed to alter the zoning on Tax Lots 6700 and 6200 can
proceed without understanding the current DEQ considerations. The DEQ is relaxing the cleaning requirements at the
same time as this hearing is proceeding. That makes understanding what is being allowed impossible.
I understood there was to have been a hearing of the DEQ changes before this time, and submitted the attached last
year (November 15, 2022). For your reference, I am submitting the attached for your information and consideration on
the flawed DEQ analysis, process, and conclusions. This should be taken into consideration with the zoning change. I
never received a response from the DEQ regarding this submission.
Thank you,
Bill
Bill Saltzstein
bill@billandrae.com
164 Clear Creek Drive #201, Ashland, OR 97520 1 billsalt42@gmaii.com
November 23, 2022
Margaret Oscilia DEQ Project Manager
State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Western Region
4026 Fairview Industrial Drive SE
Salem, OR 97302
Dear Margaret Osciiia:
Please consider and appropriately distribute this as public comment regarding the DEQ
Request for Comments, Recommended Revision of the Remedial Action for Union Pacific
Railroad Rail Yard Site located at 536 A Street in Ashland, Jackson County (Site ID 1146).
I am a property owner near that location and have watched the various back/forth in
potential hazard and remediation for decades, and researched the history prior to
construction of our present home on Clear Creek Drive. My professional career in Medical
Device engineering development and manufacturing has trained me in hazard and risk
analysis and mitigation. While I lack the background in geology and hydrology, I certainly
appreciate the thorough analysis and reporting that has been performed and presented in
the "Staff Report" recommendations dated October 2022.
I have great difficulty accepting the recommendations reached in the October report as the
best and most appropriate option for action. My concerns are with the conclusions of the risk
analysis and subsequent recommendation for action as follows:
The table of the "Comparative Analysis of Remedial Action Alternatives" [Section 7, p.
30) that represents the `balancing factors' (essentially decision criteria) is flawed in that
all factors are given equal weighting.
o The factors are not `balanced' in that they should just focus on risk and
outcomes. Costs and difficulty should be secondary, and only if the outcomes
of the mitigation are equal. The primary factors are the risk to the community
and the long-term effectiveness of mitigating those risks.
o As a resident, I am concerned for the health of our community (both human
and wildlife). This entire process and action is fundamentally motivated by
those concerns. I would propose that those criteria are the most important
factors, and the cost is one that should be the consequences of the years of
abuse from the property owners. Those costs should not be a consideration for
the most effective solution.
® The limits for acceptable concentrations of contaminants (carcinogens and poisons)
have changed over time.
o It is my understanding that a change in 2017 of the I=PA guidelines, prompted by
a relaxation of rules following the change in f=ederal Government, have altered
the risk levels associated with human contact of one or more of the pollutants.
It is unfortunate that a political change has effects that ripple through the
scientific community and change what is considered safe in order to shield
polluters.
o I pose a question: what will happen if/when guidelines change back or
become more stringent (some might think appropriately so), and development
of that property places those who dwell and work on that site in what would be
considered a hazardous situation? Who will bear the costs at that time in the
future?
While I appreciate that the groundwater is not currently sanctioned or used for direct
human use (drinking, washing, etc.), I am concerned that the risk of contamination of
the environment through groundwater of local streams and rivers has been
considerably downplayed and is not given any consideration in the risk analysis. It
appears to me that that risk is dismissed due to lack of direct human interaction; only
the direct human effects are considered as risks.
o The effects of lead and arsenic to wildlife are considerable, but do not appear
in the report as for as a risk consideration in the evaluation of alternatives.
o Numerous studies have proven the negative effects of lead on species
populations, especially eagles, hawks, and buzzards who are often seen
actively hunting in the area.
10)
o It wasn't clear how/whether these contaminants are mobile through the
ecosystem; I'd like to better understand the mobility of these materials (lead,
arsenic) when concentrated and simply 'capped' by soil that subsequently
drains through a potentially higher concentration of contaminated soils and
ends up in the streams through the groundwater. If this is addressed in the
report and I missed it, please point out those analyses.
• While I admit that I lack the background in geology and hydrology, my engineering
intuition would lead me to believe that when these soils are disturbed, they will
increase the interaction with rain and potentially increase groundwater
contamination.
o I would wonder/expect that moving the soil and keeping them on-site in an
increased concentration may increase contamination. I didn't see any analysis
of what the post -alternative 4 effects would be.
0 1t seems that it is simply capping the concentrated area to keep direct
interactions to a minimum, but still allowing migration of the contaminants from
rain and through ground water. Again, if I have missed this analysis, please
direct me to the appropriate discussion in the report or background
documentation.
I believe that analysis and conclusion presented are flawed in that they give too much
weight and emphasis on cost and implementation considerations.
I believe that the only real solutions are to either permanently cap the property and remove it
from all future development (with improved mitigations), or to remove the soils entirely
(Alternative 2) with safe excavation and removal practices to an appropriate site where
future effects can be minimized and shielded from human and environmental interactions.
Thank you for your work to date and consideration of my issues and concerns.
William Saltzst�in
3
Michael Sullivan
From: Kent Noonan <knoonan@mauilight.com>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2023 9:49 AM
To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony
Subject: 05/09/23 PC Hearing Testimony
[EXTERNAL. SENDER]
Comment
From
Kent Noonan
157 Ashland Acres Rd.
Ashland , OR 97520
PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2023-00042
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Clear Creek Dr. Parcel 7 - 391 E09AB TL 6700 & 391 E09AA TL 6200
OWNER: Jacobs on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
For over 130 years, the railroad yard property, and railroad political power, has divided Ashland along the
tracks. In those early years, the railroad operators were a force unto themselves. They decided where and how
public access would be allowed in the middle of this city. Railroad crossings were a nuisance for them, a
hazard. As a result, the A Street railroad district is cut off from Hersey street, and vehicle and pedestrian traffic
goes to Mountain Avenue or Oak street to get to A Street. A very short distance through the subject property
could allow access from Hersey to A Street. This could revitalize the core of the Railroad District. Ideally that
would connect at Fourth street and A, to make use of the best designed streets, and avoid undue impact on
private land adjacent.
There is an opportunity to designate a new street through the subject property to connect 4t" and A, to Hersey
St. This could connect with Williamson way, and it could be designated to place pavement and sidewalks over
the worst of the contaminated soil. Other end points are possible as well.
Let us not pass up the opportunity to improve things, when you get lemons, make lemonade.
0 IF
Im-
ASHLAND
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2023-00042
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Clear Creek Dr. Parcel 7 - 391 E09AB TL 6700 & 391 E09AA TL 6200
OWNER: Jacobs on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: A request to modify a condition of approval and change a deed restriction that was required in a 1999 planning approval
(PA 99-048), amended in 2016 (PA -2006-00684), and recorded on the vacant 20 -acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The
deed restriction required that the 20 -acre site meets Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) cleanup standards applicable
to a "single residential property" before further land divisions or development occurs. The proposed revision to the deed restriction clarifies
the site be cleaned to an "urban residential standard" to enable future development consistent with the E-1 zoning of the property including
commercial, employment, and ground floor residential within mixed-use and apartment buildings. The modified condition would stipulate
the deed restriction would be removed from the property upon the City receiving written documentation from the Department of
Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment;
ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #; 391 E09AB & 391 E09AA; TAX LOT: 6700 & 6200
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday May 9, 2023, at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East
Bain Street
s rl, (.�f r:•1.. LII
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 offrt-&l.
ashland.ar.us TTY: 800.735,2900
f F
1
ZZ
J P
f i
f
¢
77 T r :_
ry
a
7 t�
` l
i;ry
I,
-�
' i
e
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 offrt-&l.
ashland.ar.us TTY: 800.735,2900
IT Y OF
ASHLAND
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE
ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be
at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at "What's Happening
in my City" at https:/Iqis.ashiand.or.us/developmentproposals . Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable
cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development
& Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre -arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing
plan ning(cDashland. or. us.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an
objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision
maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that
issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on
that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with
sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request.
The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria.
Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open
for at least seven days after the hearing.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Brandon Goldman at
planning(dashiand.or.us or 541-488-5305.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City
to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1).
The approval criteria for a Major Modification are detailed in AMC 18.5.6.030.0 as follows:
C. Major Modification Approval Criteria, A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria
are met,
1. Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is
limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review
only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc.
2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other
ordinance requirements.
3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 87520 Fax 541.552.2050
ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900
�"HLANIJ
The approval criteria for a Partition Plat are detailed in AMC 18.5.3.050 as follows:
The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met.
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded,
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject
area.
D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months,
E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18 3 and any
applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e,g,, parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation),
F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot
Partition Plat Criteria,
G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part18,4, and
allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public
improvements and dedications.
H. Unpaved Streets.
1, Minimum Street Improvement, When there exists a 20 -foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete
pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20 -feet with all work done under permit of the
Public Works Department.
2, Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions
exist.
a. The unpaved street is at least 20 -feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, The City may require the street to be
graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition
plat by the City.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the
elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the
final street elevation.
d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive
the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street
improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full
street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent
to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
L Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street.
J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development.
K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section
18.5.3.060.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
51 Winburn Way Tei: 541.488.5305
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
ashiand.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON }
County of Jackson }
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On April 24, 2023, 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice
to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on
this list under each person's name for the Planning Action #PA -T2-2023-00042 for
Clear Creek 391 E09AA TL 6200 & 391 E09AB TL 6700
Re qL,t W 76w
Signature of Employee
C:lUsersWrappr4DesktopSTemplates'AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING _Regan.d= 412412023
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB6506 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB2300 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA6900
645 A STREET LLC TRUSTEES OF 750 A STREET LLC ADLEMAN ALAN R
PO BOX 1018 PO BOX 306 886 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA1611 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09ABB602
ALEPH SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSO ANASAZI WEST CLEAR CREEK LLC
986 CLEAR CREEK DR 603 LAKE ST E 206
ASHLAND, OR 97520 WAYZATA, MN 55391
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2805
AYALA PROPERTIES LLC
132 W MAIN ST 202
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA1901
BARCHET YOON-JAE
189 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E04CD2000
BERNARD HERSEY PROPERTY LLC
DAVID A BERNARD -MANAGER
PO BOX 730
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB4600
CLAYTON GARETT S/LISA R
PO BOX 482
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA8500
COLE MARY ELLENIJOHN C
286 STH ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB2100
CORDOVA JODI
762 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
146 CLEAR CREEK DR 201
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB4900
BANYAN DEPOT LLC
1390 ROMEO DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09BA50003
BENDAT KEN TRUSTEE ET AL
360 COVENTRY PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB9700
BRISCOE JAMES CHRISTOPHER TRU
6625 CAMNITO BLYTHEFIELD
LA JOLLA, CA 92037
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09BA60003
CLEARCREEK PROPERTIES LLC
3365KUAUA PL
KIHEI, HI 96753
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09BA700
COMSTOCK PAUL H TRUSTEE ET AL
845 OAK ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB6503
COSTELLO PROPERTIES LLC
565 A ST 100
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
156 CLEAR CREEK DR 201
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2801
AYALA LAZARO TRUSTEE ET AL
604 FAIR OAKS CT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB6505
BANYAN PEARL PROPERTIES LLC
6705 EAGLE ROCK AVE NE
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87113
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA5900
BENNION ENID ANN REV TRUST ET
470 WILLIAMSON WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09BA60002
CHAMPANERI TRISHA
184 CLEAR CREEK DR 2
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09BA60000
CLEARCREEK PROPERTIES LLC
575 TUCKER ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB6508
COOPER DENNIS & KATHY FAMILY
1182 TIMBERLINE TERR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2804
CSAFTIS RYAN
7184 AVIARA DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
164 CLEAR CREEK DR 201
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 PA -T2-2023-00042 PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
172 CLEAR CREEK DR 201 180 CLEAR CREEK DR 201 180 CLEAR CREEK DR 202
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 .
PA -T2-2023-00042 PA -T2-2023-00042 PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
184 CLEAR CREEK DR 1 184 CLEAR CREEK DR 3 184 CLEAR CREEK DR 4
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
184 CLEAR CREEK DR 5
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
426 A ST 202
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
479 RUSSEL 203
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB2000
DANIEL LEE WELLS
784 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391E09AB6605
DEBOER BRYAN BRUCE/STEPHANIE
85 WINBURN WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2202
EDMONDS SUSAN W TRUSTEE ET AL
282 9TH ST ALY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
184 CLEAR CREEK DR 6
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
479 RUSSEL 201
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
479 RUSSEL 204
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB5300
DAVIS CAROL HORN TRSTEE FBO
660 PRIM ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA1609
DECKER MARK LORENIANGELA MICH
998 CLEAR CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA1400
EDWARDS OREN RALPH JR
219 N MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2806 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA8400
FALCON HEIGHTS OWNERS ASSOCIA FENWICK STEPHEN C
OREO DEPARTMENT 270 8TH ST
PO BOX 40 ASHLAND, OR 97520
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA90000
GIES BRIAN J ET AL
27 N 3RD ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391E09AA90001
GIES BRIAN J ET AL
479 RUSSELL ST 103
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
426 A ST 201
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
479 RUSSEL 202
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042
CURRENT RESIDENT
479 RUSSEL 205
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E04DC3630
DEBOER ALAN W TRUSTEE ET AL
2260 MORADA LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2215
DOUGLAS JAMES R TRUSTEE ET AL
1906 CALAVERAS AVE
DAVIS, CA 95616
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2203
ERIKSSON EDWARDNU-ERIKSSON J
2443 FAIR OAKS BLVD 390
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB9800
CARSON THOMAS L/CYNTHIA H
PO BOX 966
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB10200
GRANGE CO-OP SUPPLY ASN INC
PO BOX 3637
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2110 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA6000 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB2400
HELFAND STEVEN M ET AL HELMICH DAVID M TRUST HOUNSELL REBECCA 0 TRUSTEE ET
6151 HAWARDEN DR 468 WILLIAMSON WAY PO BOX 851
RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB6500 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB6501 PA -T2-2023-00042
HOXMEIER STEVE/KATHY ICSTR8 LLC 391E09AB5000
435 B ST 175 LITHIA WAY 302 JACKSON DANIEL D TRUSTEE
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 1793 ANDERSON CREEK RD
TALENT, OR 97540
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2802
JACKSONVILE INVESTMENTS LLC
1813 W HARVARD AVE 431
ROSEBURG, OR 97471
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09BA50000
LA ROSA HOLDINGS LLC NEAL KINZIE
180 CLEAR CREEK DR 203
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2201
LUZ GEORGE A/SHELDEN H
4910 CROWSON AVE
BALTIMORE, MD 21212
PA -T2-2023-00042 391E09AB2101
MCBRAYER KEITH/LYN
764 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391E09AA1300
MIX SARAH
243 N MOUNTAIN AVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA6700
MUNROE ROBERT W
864 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391E09AA1200
PARRY DIANE E FAMILY TRUST ET
415 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2200
RAILROAD PARK COTTAGE HOMES A
PO BOX 1312
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AAl 007
KERR JUDITH
317 STARFLOWER LN
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA1608
LAUBE GOTTFRIED
11662 FOX CREEK DR
TAMPA, FL 33635
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2111
MARR LINDA TRUSTEE ET AL
987 B ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB5200
KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CE
PO BOX 102
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB4700
LEWIS JAMES D TRUSTEE ET AL
640 A ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB5100
MASSY SYLVIAIJOHNSON CHRIS
564 A STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E04DC3508 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09BA60001
MEESE JED D TRUSTEE ET AL CHARLIE MILLQUIP SERVICES CORP
J BURNS 2355 STATE ST 101
1101 SISKIYOU BLVD SALEM, OR 97301
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA1607
MOSES STEPHEN B/KATHERINE A
1008 CLEQR CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09BA50004
OMEGA GROUP
2784 SISKIYOU BLVD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB90000
PERCEPT LLC
426 A ST 101
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09BA50002
ROGERS ALEX/TINA
450 PARK RIDGE PL
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA5400
MOUNTAIN CREEK ESTATES INC
330 WIMER ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB5400
PALACE CHOP HOUSE LLC
PO BOX 3666
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB5500
POLINDER LISA KAREN
267 MEADE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA6500
RUBINSTEIN ILENE
842 A STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA6400 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB6502 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA6800
RUBINSTEIN ILENE K SACHS JAMES D TRUSTEE ET AL SATUREN STEVEN L ET AL
854 A ST 253 N 3RD ST 868 A ST 1
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA1006 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA1610 PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2216
SCHMIDT DONNA C SILBIGER RUSSELL W TRUSTEE/Sl SMITH ALFORD R TRUSTEE JR ET
442 THIMBLEBERRY LN 986 CLEAR CREEK DR 3009 CAMP BAKER RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E04DC3507
SUTPHIN RONALD SIDENISE E
401 WILLIAMSON WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E04DC3401
TONEY RUBY TRUST ET AL
6581 GRIFFIN CREEK RD
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA6100
WEATHERELL MARCIA WJEFFREY L
466 WILLIAMSON WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E04DC3500
WILLIAMSON ROBERT C
1165 14TH ST SE
SALEM, OR 97302
PA -T2-2023-00042
Email: michaelniemet@jacobs.com
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E04DC3402
TFT HERSEY ST PROPERTIES LLC
6581 GRIFFIN CREEK RD
MEDFORD, OR 97501
PA -T2-2023-00042 391E09AA1008
TORRES LAUREL M TRUSTEE ET AL
1932 NE HAREWOOD PL
HILLSBORO, OR 97124
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB6507
WENDT BONNIE R TRUSTEE ET AL
900 REICHERT AVE 539
NOVATO, CA 94945
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AB6504
WILSON ELLIS VIMILDRED M
1475 WINDSOR ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
Type 11 NOC
UPRR TLK 6700 & 6200
104 Mailed
2 emailed
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA1100
THOMAS THEODORE F TRUSTEE III
415 GRANITE ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA6200
UNION PACIFIC RR CO PROPERTY TAX
DEPARTMENT
1400 DOUGLAS ST 1640
OMAHA, NE 68179
PA -T2-2023-00042 391 E09AA2112
WESTERMARK GEORGE D TRUSTEE E
1269 2ND AVE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122
PA -T2-2023-00042
Email: Margaret.oscilla@deq.oregon.gov
Ashland Planning Commission
March 23, 2023
Page 1 of 2
March 23, 2023
Ashland Planning Commission
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject: Modification of Covenant for
Union Pacific Railroad, Ashland Railyard
Dear Ashland Planning Commission,
Jacobs
On behalf of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR), Jacobs is submitting this request for a Type 11 public
hearing before the Planning Commission regarding modification of an existing covenant on the UPRR Ashland
railyard property (site), which is referenced as Parcel 7 of Partition Plan No. P-32-2000. A presentation regarding
this covenant modification was given to the City Council on March 21, 2023 and was approved to be brought
before the Planning Commission. The existing covenant specifies that the remedial'action will achieve cleanup
standards applicable to a single residential property, which is inconsistent with the current land use zoning for the
site. Modification of the covenant is necessary for consistency with the current zoning and the approved cleanup
plan with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) for the site.
UPRR is committed to a cleanup agreement for the site with ODEQ through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP).
As part of the VCP, a Record of Decision (ROD) for the site was issued by ODEQ in 2001. An updated remediation
plan was approved by ODEQ in 2022, which represents a cleanup approach that is based on current data and
updated ODEQ guidance. The 2001 ROD specified that the site would be cleaned up to single-family residential
standards, which is inconsistent with the current zoning for the property which allows for mixed use commercial
and high-density urban residential development (i.e., E-1 with residential overlay).
Due to the potential ambiguity related to the exposure area assumptions used for the single-family residential
cleanup calculations, the original covenant on the property from 1999 (Condition 9 of PA 99-048) was amended in
2016 as per PA 2016-00684 to read as follows (with underlining added for emphasis):
Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a determination from
the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to a sib
residential property. Thereafter, development of or any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor
obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup
standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. Grantor will provide written document
from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the
City.
Because the updated remediation plan is based on current guidance, cleanup levels, and land zoning, an updated
ROD for the site will be issued by ODEA before the cleanup can begin. Before the initiation of the process for
issuing a new ROD can begin, the language of the existing covenant must be amended to be consistent with the
cleanup approach and the City of Ashland's current land use zoning. UPRR's proposed modifications to PA 2016-
00684 are shown below:
Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a determination from
the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards consistent with the
current and likely future land use zoning for the property fi.e., E-1, with residential overlay}e'pplieGbJe-
se These land uses correspond with the Deportment of Environmental Quality
Urban Residential and/or occupational exposure scenarios. Thereafter, development ofer any subdivided
parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality
that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. This
covenant will be removed from the Property, and or any subdivided arce! s u on the &rantorwill
provide-providinac the City written documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality
demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City.
Ashland Planning Commission Jacobs
March 23, 2023
Page 2 of 2
Modification of the existing covenant is necessary before a new ROD for the site can be issued, and the site
cleanup can move forward. It is our understanding that a hearing before the Planning Commission can potentially
be scheduled as soon as May 9, 2023. 1 am planning to attend the hearing in person, on behalf of UPRR, and will be
happy to answer any questions pertaining to the modifications needed to the covenant on the property.
Sincerely,
Jacobs
Michael Niemet
Project Manager
541-602-4760
michael.niemet@jacobs.com
Electronic copy only:
John DeJong/Union Pacific Railroad
Robert Bylsma/Union Pacific Railroad
Margaret Oscilia/ODEQ
Jeff Paik/Jacobs
®unciB uamass Meet'
March 21, 2023
..........................
Agenda I#em Union Pacific Railroad Restrictive Covenant amendment request
.From „ Brandon Goldman Interim Community Development Director
Contact -!, Brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us
iterr�Type (' Requested by Council ❑ Update ® Request for Direction ® Presentation ❑
SUMMARY
Before the Council is a request to modify a 2016 deed restriction (Restrictive Covenant) on the
Union Pacific Railroad ("UPRR") rail yard property in Ashland. After completion of full -site
remediation to DEQ's cleanup standards, the proposed revised deed restriction would allow
subdivision and development of individual parcels upon further remediation in conformance
with the DEQ risk standards applicable to the proposed actual uses of the parcels and the
parcel -specific risks posed by the actual contaminants on them.
POLICIES, PLANS & GOALS_ SUPPORTED
Comprehensive Plan - Economy Element
Goal 7.07.03 To ensure that the local economy increases in its health, and diversifies in the number, type, and
size of businesses consistent with the local social needs, public service capabilities, and the retention of a high
quality environment.
Policy ])The City shall zone and designate within the Plan Map sufficient quantity of lands for commercial and
industrial uses to provide for the employment needs of its residents and a portion of rural residents consistent
with the population projection for the urban area.
Policy 4) ... the City shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that economic development can occur in
a timely and efficient manner...
BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In November 1999, the City placed a deed restriction on the onion Pacific Railroad ("UPRR") rail yard
property in Ashland. The deed restriction required that the entire property be remediated to DEQ's
"Residential" standards before any further development or subdivision could take place, even if the
subdivided parcels might be used for purposes like asphalt -capped streets, parking areas, or light
industrial or commercial activities. However, the legal language of the originally recorded restriction
resulted in years of no progress towards putting the rail yard to beneficial use. The cost of making every
possible future subdivided parcel meet the strictest Residential remediation standards, regardless of
potential uses, made the property unmarketable and diminished UPRR's incentive to undertake
voluntary full -site cleanup.
In April 2015, UPRR proposed remediation of a limited portion of the site containing most of the high
concentrations of contaminants, using trucks for transporting outgoing contaminated soil and incoming
clean fill. City Council members countered with a request that UPRR conduct a full -site remediation
Page 1 of 3
Council Business Meeting
The immediate next step should Council be amenable to modifying the restrictive covenant language
will be for the City staff to submit to the Planning Commission a request for Major Amendment to modify
the existing Planning Action (PA -2016-00684) condition of approval concerning the rail yard's DEQ
clearance requirement prior to further subdivision or development. This is the same process that was
undertaken in 2016 to amend the 1999 Planning Action (PA -99-048) condition of approval relating to the
original subdivision of the property.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no noteworthy near-term fiscal impacts. Future development of the rallyard site following
completion of a DEQ approved remediation plan could yield significant economic activity and City tax
revenues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council direct the Planning Commission to consider an application for
modification of the prior planning condition, and upon approval of such modification that Staff and
UPRR execute an amended Restrictive Covenant.
ACTIONS OPTIONS & POTENTIAL MOTIONS
I move to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a Major Amendment to
replace the condition of approval in PA2016-00684 with the modified condition of approval presented in
the April 5, 2016, Council Communication and to continue working with Union Pacific Railroad and DEQ to
achieve remediation of the rail yard site to applicable DEQ standards.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Does the Council have any questions about the proposed amendment to the restrictive covenant or process
moving forward?
SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS
Next steps include scheduling a public hearing before the Planning Commission to amend the condition of
approval as set forth in planning action PA -2016-00684.
REFERENCES & ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1: UPRR/Jacobs Request for Amendment 03092023
Attachment #2: 2016 UPRR Restrictive Covenant (existing)
Attachment #3: DEQ Response To City Comments dated 03102023
Page 3 of 3 W_
J
Ashland City Council
March 9, 2023
Page 2 of 2
Jacobs
issued, and the site cleanup can move forward. It is our understanding that the City Manager has added this item
to the Council's look -ahead calendar on March 21, 2023, as "Union Pacific - Amendment to Restrictive Covenant
for Railroad Yard Property". I am planning to attend the hearing in person, on behalf of UPRR, and will be happy to
answer any questions pertaining to the amendments needed to the covenant on the property.
Sincerely,
Jacobs
I
Michael Niemet
Project Manager
541-602-47601
michael.niemet@jacobs.com
Electronic copy only:
John DeJong/Union Pacific Railroad
Robert Bylsma/Unlon Pacific Railroad
Margaret Oscilia/0)DEQ
Jeff Paik/Jacobs
C. All periods for appeal to land use decision of PA 2016-00684 have expired; and
THEREFORE, the City has established )awful authority, to which Owner voluntarily consents and agrees,
to amend PA 99-048 as follows:
AMENDED RESTRICTION COVENANT
City approves and Owner acknowledges and agrees:
1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated as substantive to this Amended Restriction
Covenant.
2. Reference in PA 99-048, the deed, or Partition Plan leo. P-32-3000 to the original condition of
approval for Parcel 7 from PA 99-048 on 11191199, which specifically reads:
"As a condition of approval of this plat, the City of Ashland has required the following statement:
Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until the property has been
cleaned to residential standards. Written compliance with these standards shall be provided to
the city form the Department of Environmental Quality."
is removed as a condition and replaced with the amended condition that is a final land use decision as
approved by the Planning Commission in Planning Action 2016-00684 as follows:
"Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a
determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets
cleanup standards applicable to a single residential property. Thereafter, development of
or any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the
Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards
applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel, Grantor will provide written
document from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with
these standards to the City."
4. Except as modified above the terms of the City of Ashland Planning Action 99-04B shall remain
in full force and effect.
CITY OF ASHLAND:
OWNER. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
By: a4—` By NY K
John K r s, Interim City Administrator
Assistant Vice President - Real Estate
STATE OF OREGON )
) ss.
County of Jackson )
Personally appeared before me this day of , 2016, John Karns, and Interim City
Administrator the City of Ashland, Oregon, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his
voluntary act and deed.
OFFICIAL STAMP
DIANA RENEE SHIPLET —
NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON Nota Public for Oregon
commissioN NO. 932446 Notary g
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 02, 2W, My Commission Expires:
STATE OF C6td )
N-ubrA&LA ) ss.
County of daccsen )
Do u. •I1ai.S S� -7
Personally appeared before me this -31 day of P,C-6A 2011£, Ta+s 1 �-bVt.
and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed.
AMENDMENT TO CLEANUP RESTRICTION COVENANT
Page 2 oft
General Notary . State d Nebraska
GREW A LARSEN
my Comm, W. .2S 2020.
Notary Public forte Nr,6rPS144%
My Commission Expires:
�1w� 'Z,`61 2020
AMENDMENT TO CLEANUP RESTRICTION COVENANT
Page 2 oft
RBCS.
t
Department of Entriroll I-nelltal Quality
coons, for all other contaminants to Table i are shown as being the same as urban residential
EQ Response: Table 1 will be revised to show 400 mg/kg as the site-specific cleanup goal for
ad with a Footnote added.tp the Final Site -Specific Goal column header that states, "The Final
to specific Cleanup foals will be compared to the Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs)
ilculated from the 90% upper confidence limits within a given exposure area." The EPC
ilculated from the 90% upper. confidence limits of current iead.concentrations.within the
estern 8.7 indicated acceptable risk for residential, urban`residential, and occupational
cposure scenarios when compared to the RBC of 400 mg/kg. Some of the lead concentrations
cluded in the EPC calculations exceeded 400 ml>/.kg and 1,000 mg/kg. Although the .►western
7 acres has a calculated acceptable risk for.lead, DEQ:commented in its review of the revised
>k assessment' that concentrations of lead above 1,000 mg/kg should still be addressed on.the
stern 8.7 acres as part of a risk management strategy_
4) E'xcep briefly in Section 3.1.1, The draft staff report omits any explanation of the 201612017 cleanup
plan, inr uding total volume of contaminated soil to be excavated or that the soil was proposed to be
moved.o -site.'We request o clear explanation and rationale for why the 2022 cleanup plan is.
significaj itly less extensive than the one proposed in 201.7. The previous cleanup plan .was painstakingly
develop4 d with extensive community involvement and the new plan should include.0. public explanation
of howIEQ
provides n# least -on equivalent level of site mitigation and public health protection.
Rns once: A more thorough explanation of changes since the 2016/2017 cleanup plan will
e included in the Final Record of Decision (ROD), Changes to IDEQ RSCS for contaminants of
antero at the Site required less cleanup to meet urban residential exposure requirements.
apping excavated soil on site addresses community concerns about transporting the Impacted
oil through town. Since this cleanup is being done voluntarily by UPRR, they have significant.
!eway as to how they want to implement a remedial action as long as it is protective of human
ealth. The remedy as proposed in the Staff Report is protective for urban residential and
ornmercial use. The current plan will remove pockets of high levels of contamination that
reviously would not have been removed_
5) simdo ly, the Adnministrotive Record included in the draft staff report omits reference to the 2008 and
20.16120 7 cleanup plans. These past documents were publicly available and are expected to be on
important port of'the project record for community members.
QEQ Response: Reference to the 20.08 and 2016/2017 cleanup plans will be included in the
drininistrative Record in the final ROD_
6j The d staff report indicates that a deed restriction will be imposed by DEQ requiring its approval
before a y portion of the eastern three acres of the roilyard be .subdivided or redeveloped in the future.
The stat reportshould explicitly state that additional site investigotian.and cleanup work would be
required before approval of any land development orsite work Now does DEQ contemplate the city's
role in this process, including notification and,consultarion with city planning staff about proposed local
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODFQ). 2019. Comments on the Supple mental Remedial
Investipt on/Feasibility Study Risk Evaluation 2nd Revision dated June 5, 2019. November S.
Page. 2 oil 8
Deoiart:nlent of Eiivi.ronmeraal QiiaMy
k1so, the likelihood that contaminants will migrate to off-site supply wells and affect current
nd/or future, reasonably likely, beneficial use is minimal- Groundwater is first encountered at
he Site within the silt/clay unit and/or discontinuous.sand unit at depths between
pproximately 5 and 20 feet below ground surface. A.dense sandy silt unit (weathered bedrock)
located below this shallow water bearing formation and above a deeper water bearing zone.
iroundwater for beneficial use in the Site vicinity is drawn from the deep aquifer at depths.
reater than 60 to 100 feet below ground surface. Site contaminants of concern (Bunker C Oil
nd diesel) were detected in shallow groundwater. The likelihood that Bunker C oil and diesel
411 migrate to off-site supply wells and affect current and/or future, reasonably likely, beneficial
se is minimal. because: -the viscous properties of Bunker.0 Oil limit its mobility; the vertical
eparation between the impacted.shallow groundwater and the deeper aquifer utilized for
eneficial use is at least 40 to 60 feet, containing at least 20 to 40 feet of bedrock; and cross-
ontarnination of the deeper aquifer by a. future installation of a well or borehole through
ontaminated shallow soil or groundwater is minimized through the use of Oregon well
onstruction standards.
9) Two as with high lead concentrations are targeted for cleanup, as well as one area with high
arsenic. Sample resolution in these rheas was very limited in past site investigations, so how were
polygon determined for the excavations shown in fig 6? The report.should acknowledge the importance
offature confirmation sampling when excavation occurs, to ensure removal of soil exceeding the cleanup
criteria.
=q Response: This information will be added to the final ROD. Confirmation sampling will be
quired after excavation and removal of contaminated soil. Regarding the excavation areas, the
to risk assessment showed that: arsenic was the primary contaminant risk driver, with lead
!ing a secondary driver. Figure.6 shows the sample locations.where the arsenic and lead
mpies exceeded 30 mg/kg and 1,000 mg/kg, respectively. Contiguous rectangular polygons
yre drawn around sample locations with arsenic and lead exceedances within the 8.7 -acre
astern area to form the remedial action target areas_ Each of the rectangular polygons has a
inimurn dimension of 50 feet in all directions from the sample location. Adjacent areas were
tended and connected when there were no clean samples in between."All the arsenic and lead
mpies to be addressed were in the upper 1.5 feet of the 0- to 3 -foot depth horizon of the
rFace soil, therefore, all the target areas extend to a depth of 1-5 feet.
tp) "/"he. port brie flyacknowledges the presence of significant volumes of subsurfoce soil saturated with
Bunker C oil (NAPL„ or non -aqueous phase liquids) in the eastern parcel, and the potential for direct
cnntac ith Bunker C oil far future construction or excavation workers. Unlike the September 2016
Rernedia Action Workplan, there is no acknowledgement of the estimated extent or volume of these
NAPL are s, previously estimated by UP and DEQ as.5,400 cubic yards. For better transparency, shouldn't
the three estimated Bunker Careas be shown graphically in Figure 5 (Hypothetical Future Exposure
Areas) to address anticipated public concerns about future exposure to subsurface NAPt (similar to how
they were shownin the 2015 plan)?
EQ Resaonse. DEQ will include the estimated extent and volume of NAPL areas in the final
D. However, there Is significant uncertainty associated with both estimates, which will be
:ed in any graphics or estimates.
Page 4 08
14) The
for ores
De artmertl of Environnien al Quality
don states that: "The eastern three -acre area will.befenced to limit access". The fencing
several }rears ago by UP to secure the contaminates' rallyard area have proven to be unreliable
nting access. How will the proposed fencinrg be made more secure in perpetuity to prevent
,ized access? Will signage be pasted with information and con toct information for citizen
? City stoff request on opportunity to review and comment on UP's soil monagement pion,
sated media managernent plan, and cap O&M plan.before final DEQ -approval.
fEQ ResQonse: These -details will be included in the final ROD. DEQ believes a locked gate. and
ign are adequate to secure the Site. An annual inspection of the cap and fence will be included
s part of, the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the Site after the :clean up remedy
as been Completed. There is no immediate health risk to trespassers in the Site's current
ondition and there will be no. immediate health risk to trespassers upon cleanup completion.
'he purpose of the fence is primarily to discourage vagrancy and prevent potential damage to
he cap until the property is developed. UPRR also has a no -trespass agreement in place with
he Ashland Police Department for the property.
soil management plan/contaminated media management plan and O&M Plan are typically
icluded in a Remedial Action Completion report and the final EES attached to the property
eed_ There will be a public comment period on these documents after the ROD cleanup
is complete and before Site closure.
15) The tall report brie, jly acknowledges the need for o new Record of Decision as port of this cleanup.
Please ir, clude a summary of D,EQ's administrative process for making environmental cleanup decisions
for this g ropert)4 including tine likelihood of a Certificate of Completion when the cleanup is.done. This
summorY should include DrQ s public involvement milestones as part of its cleanup process goring
EQ Response: Once the public comment period has ended for the Staff Report, DEQ will
-epare a final ROD to include a detailed description of the final remedial action. DEQ will then
/ersee.implementation and documentation of.the cleanup in conformance with the ROD. DEQ
ill enter into an RD/RA agreement with UPRR to define implementation. timeline and
!quirements for the remedial action. DEQwill also review a remedial action and remedial
sign work plan before implementation for cleanup. The responsible party will submit a
?medial Action Completion Summary Report when cleanup is complete_ If DEQ determines the
eanup has been performed as directed by the ROD, the regulatory process is complete. DEQ
ill provide public notice of cleanup completion and -allow 30 days for submission of comments
questions. Then DEQ issues a document to the Site owner called a No Further Action
tter%Certificate of Completion. Sites may carry long-term requirements that are recorded on
ieir deeds, such as ongoing monitoring and development restrictions, when necessary. Below
a more detailed draft outline of the UPRR Ashland ROD and Remedial Action process with
iticipated public involvement milestones:
Page 6
k fpafinient of Eiivironment�sl Qtjality
16) Before DEQ issues its Certificate of Completion when it deems the cleanup is complete, the City
request a public involvement process that is consistent with what is being planned in late 2022 and
early 2C 23for the proposed cleanup plan. This should include a 60 -day public comment period, at least
one DE -hosted public meeting, o presentation to the Ashland City Council, and continued collaboration
with ci stuff on public communications.
IDEQ Response: DEQ anticipates having a 30 -day public comment period of.the Remedial Action
ompletian report and follow the typical public notice process before a certificate of completion
s processed or NFA is issued, including: Publication of a notice and brief description of the
roposed action in a local paper of general circulation and in the Secretary of State's Bulletin,
nd continued collaboration with city staff on public communications.
hope t e information in this letteraddresses your current questions and concerns, Please contact me
at (503) 726-6522 with any additional questions. I can also be reached via e-mail at
Margar L Oscilia, P.E.
Project Manager
Western Region Cleanup and Emereency Response
or other formats
800-452- 11 1 TTY_ 711 I d�slsf� s -f •E,_,�� x�;.:r ��a
Non-dischmination statement
DEQ does.�ot discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age or sex In administration of its
programs T activities. Visit CDEQ'S i Mf..i i} � I d Frw I. s no tx ,_ ,i ! i
Page 8
For the Union Pacific Railroad Restrictive Covenant amendment request the potential
motion included in the Council Communication references the wrong meeting date, and
as such a corrected motion referencing this evening's Council Communication is
provided below.
"I move to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a
Major Amendment to replace the condition of approval in PA2016-00654 with the
modified condition of approval presented in the April 5,2016 March 21, 2023,
Council Communication and to continue working with Union Pacific Railroad and
DEQ to achieve remediation of the rail yard site to applicable DEQ standards."
Modified condition of approval presented March 21, 2023, Council Communication:
"Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a
determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup
standards consistent with the current and likely future land use zoning for the property. These
land uses correspond with the Department of Environmental Quality Urban Residential and/or
Occupational exposure scenarios. Thereafter, development of or any subdivided parcel cannot
occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality
that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided
parcel. This covenant will be removed from the property, and/or any subdivided parcels), upon
the grantor providing the City written documentation from the Department of Environmental
Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City."
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Background
Union Pacific Railroad Property
June 2016 (Public Notice)
A request to amend a deed restriction that was required in a 9999 planning approval (PA 99-
048) and recorded on the vacant 20 -acre site owned by union Pacific Railroad. The original deed
restriction required that the 20 -acre site be cleaned up to the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality's (DEQ) residential standard before further land divisions or development occur. The
proposed revision to the deed restriction clarifies the timing and type of clean up for consistency
with DEQ standards so that:
9) before the 20 -acre site can be divided into smaller lots or developed, the initial cleanup of the
20 -acre site would be to the residential standard and
2) future subdivided lots would have to be cleaned up to the standard DEQ requires for the
proposed use of the individual lots: the `occupational" standard for retail, office, or light industrial
uses; the "residential" standard for ground level housing.
• In 2000, the City received a grant to develop a transportation and land use plan for the
railroad property. A series of public "charettes" were held that included participation
from residents, property owners, elected and appointed official and state and local
government agencies. The result of the process was the production of the draft
Railroad Property Master Plan. The primary elements of the draft plan include
conceptual drawings for various segments of the area, street and open space plans and
the identification of neighborhood overlays with suggested design standards and code
language.
..................... . .
+ Septembe 2017 concentrations of contaminants were recalculated for the single
sitewide exposure following an update of risk based screening levels, leading to a
change in the remedial action without conducting soil removal.
3