The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBrief in Opposition to 2004-002BRIEF ~N SUPPORT OF OPPOSiTiON TO ~A, 2004~002 RANDALL A. HOPKINS 735 S. Mountain Ave Ashland, OR 9752 May 13, 2004 TO: Mayor DeBoer and the Ashland City Council: Attached is a brief in opposition to Planning Action 2004-002, the Shasta Building Project. I appreciate your attention on this matter. I've been listening a great deal to the recent disputes over other planning actions and have been impressed with two concepts that have come out of those proceedings. First, I agree with the Mayor that we should stick to the letter of the law. I think the City will benefit greatly by just doing that. Second, I agree with all those who argued that we shouldn't have special rules for special people. Over a recent front page headline, Councilperson Hearn was quoted as asking if we were going to hold certain people to a different standard under the rules because of who they are. I agree with Mr. Hearn. I don't think we should do that, either by picking out certain people on whom to impose a tougher standards because of \vho they are, or by giving others special benefit under the rules because of who they are. We live in a town that prospers by its tourist industry, and part of its tourist appeal is the town's natural and unique beauty. This planning action involves, among other things, the striking tree canopy that graces the very entrance to downtown. As you study this document, I'd ask that you ask yourselves this - do we \lvant to risk such an important part of that beauty and appeal on the basis of the kind of planning action described in these pages? Thank you for your service to the community and your attention to this matter. Randall Hopkins, an Ashland citizen 11 INTRODUCTION The first criterion in every planning action is simple - provide true and correct facts. Every planning application requires the applicant to certify that: U...the statements and information contained in (the planning) application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of facts, are in all respects true and correct." Further, the application form provides notice t.hat, in the event of a contest, the applicant has the burde!n to show that those furnished findings of facts justify granting the request and are adequate. Failure to provide true and correct information can give an applicant immense advantage throughout the planning process. Untrue and incorrect information can impact how the planning staff evaluates a project. Inaccurate facts can cause citizen volunteers like the Tree Commission (ITC') to approve things that they might not otherwise approve, which approval will then be cited by the Planning Commission (IPC') for a similar approval. Wrong information can cause the application to arrive at the City Council (ICe') in a completely different form and with different issues and endorsements than would otherwise be the case. Local architect David Wilkerson has stated that: U(Planning) projects are the result of an intensive and protracted design II effort that included collaboration between the clients, city agencies, and the public. The public is represented not only through the public hearing process, but also through the community volunteers who serve on various city commissions to ensure that the community's values are upheld." This process is derailed, however, by untrue and incorrect information. And it is the entire process, involving both planning staff and public effort, which is vital to a proper outcome. The importance of giving true and correct info:rmation from the outset, as well as adequate proposed findi.ngs of fact, is so great that the City's planning applicat~ion warns the applicant that failure to do so will 'result most likely in the request being set aside...' The derailing of planning staff and public effort is not cured merely by a denovo evidentiary hearing at~ the end of the line. Indeed, the giving of untrue and incorrect information at the beginning and during t~he process means that little faith should be placed in any 'new' information that an applicant shows up wavin9 at the last minute. P.A. 2004-002 seeks a removal permit for a sin9le tree - the Alder that guards the gateway to downtown Ashland. In reality, every tree on or adjacent to the project will be removed or put at risk by this development. These include the large grove of trees on the adjacent ODOT II property, the beautiful multi-trunk Maple on the subject property, and several large trees along Ashland Creek behind the project. This reality was obscured, however, by Applicant's failure to provide true and correct information and proposed findings of fact, all to the detriment of the planning process. 1. WHAT INFORMATION WAS THE APPLICANT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE? Applicant was required by two different sections of the Code to identify the dripline of trees on the project and land adjacent to it. Section 18.61.200(A)(2), which is applicable to any planning action, requires a Tree Protection Plan which includes the following: a. Location, species and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; (and) b. Location of the drip line of each tree. Sec.18.61.020E defines Idripline' as the imaginary vertical line extending downward from the outermost tips of a tree's branches to the ground. In addition, where a project requires a Physical Restraints Review as this one does, Sec.18.62.040(H)(1)(m) requires the filing of a plan which shall include: Accurate locations of all existing natural features...Natural features on adjacent properties potentially impacted by the pro- posed development shall also be included, such as trees with driplines extending across property lines. The location of such trees and their driplines are II necessary in order to ascertain whether an Applicant has satisfied the Criteria for Issuance of a Tree Remov'al Permit. Specifically, Sec.18.61.080(B)(3) provides that the City shall issue a removal permit for a non-hazardous tree when the Applicant proves, among other things, that: J(r)emoval of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. ' That cannot be done without determining, accurately, the densities, sizes and canopies of trees that will remain post-removal. Providing these plans and accurately representing tree sizes and canopies is so critical that the City has adopted a special provision in its Tree Ordinance. Sec. 18.61.050 mandates that: "Misrepresentation of any fact necessary for the City's determination for granting a tree removal permit shall inval; date the permit:.... Such misrepresentation may relate to matters including, without limitation, tree size, location, health or hazard condition, justification for issuance of the permit, or owner's authorized signature." Neither this law, nor the planning application warning about failure to provide true information and prope~r findings of fact, are criminal laws. They require no showing of any kind of improper intent with which t,he II untrue information was given, nor would rejection of a planning application carry a suggestion of criminal or improper intent. The negative impact on the planning process occurs from the fact of the inaccurate information. It is the wrong information that warps the planning procedure, not the intent behind it. Full copies of these ordinances and the planning application form are attached as Exhibit 1. 2. THE APPLICATION GROSSLY MISREPRESENTED THE DRIPLINE OF THE ODOT GROVE. Exhibits 2 and 4-11 demonstrate that the dripli.ne of the OOOT Grove extends well over the property line onto the subject property. The driplines of Tree #5 (including much of its trunk) and Tree #6, a Tree of Heaven which is the largest of the OOOT trees, extends along a broad front a full 16 feet into the property (as measured from -the inner face of the concrete retaining wall). Other trees extend 3 to 12 feet into the property. The dripline of the OOOT Grove covers close to 25% of the Proposed Building footprint. And that is wi thou.t counting a single leaf or branch from the Gateway Alder. Yet, save for a sliver of drip line from Tree liG, the portion of the OOOT Grove drip line over the suhjec.t property was completely missing from all three versions of the Applicant's Tree Protection Plan that have been filed to date. Exhibits 3, 18-20. II .:, .:~~~~,:~~:.." ' , ~ '~~~"., . ,.,. . ., ',"', " ' t \ . ". .~i it" . ~:" '. ~ " ,:. .'. ",.,,,.", ., . ",:,,,, . . , : i ";~~'~' ,~.,.,':"::.' .:\ '..' . REALITY - THIS JACKSON COUNTY AERIAL SHOWS THE AlCTUAL CANOPY AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NOTE THE CONTRAST WITH APPLICANT'S TREE PLAN, WtIlCH, EXCEPT FOR THE GATEWAY ALDER, SHOWS ONLY SLIVEI~S OF CANOPY OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE ODO.r GROVE, THE THREE TRUNK MAPLE AND THE ASHLAND CI~EEK TREES. INSTEAD, THESE TREES ALMOST COMPLETELY COVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF THIS CANOPY WILL BE REMOV'ED OR PUT AT SERIOUS RISK BY THIS DEVELOPMENT, A FACT CONCEALED BY APPLICANT'S MISLEADING TREE PLAN Exh. 2 II PROPOSED OeCK , PATIO .'..~ . , . ;'-"T'\~~~l , r~~-"; r .. t 1 PROPO~~D ~_..~_..J BUILDING ~. ~T"" _ 56" fJ?~ ,...- ~.._" '" "'". - ~~ - \-.- j J ~ - ._~... -~ . f -- EXICERPT OF Trt!e Plan 12:-2003 - -....\-:: :.-~~ - '. ....~, ~ I 'N ..E T . .~.",.~ .,. II PROPOSED DeCK 4 PATIO r ".--..-.\-. ..., . . \ -. -'-- '-\' ' -'.. .-. . 1 c:~:~] . J ,...~ . ",......~,.,. '" l ~ ! - .....4 . i - --.'-,;: '..:.~ - . "'. -..... -- EXCIERPT OF Tret:! Plan 12-:2003 ,. .. .. '. ~...~.,: --.-WI iA .. 'N " ' , ,").,. 'E T ACTUAL OOOT ORIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROIPERTY II . . . . " "",,:,~.lti'~.t....~t.,- '.~~1::,,~ I ',<<'i:,~, {.... '::(,i ".;:,'~l'ti!W, " ',::~al~,~~ '.',~. \....~;.,' Y'.~~,a....:~;" ..I_""ii~,.r _.:...-.- __: ,~'''''',\.~i.~ '::"'::'9.~~;';;:~"'.,I':.~~Jl,. ODOT DRIPLINE EXTENDS 16' INTO SUBJECT PROPERTY EXH.5 II . . . "t~ ~~ ... .,. ,fJ~' ..,' :..- ,",. PART OF ODOT GROVE DRIPLINE EXTENDING 16' INlrO PROPERTY - SHOT FROM BELOW CONCRETE RETAINING ~WALL EXH. 6 II . . . ',11 '1..."" MORE OOOT GROVE ORIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROPERT'( EXH. 7 II . . . TREE OF HEAVEN DRIPLINE OVER SUBJECT PROPERTY EXH.8 I I . . . SOON TO BE SKINNED CEDARS (TREES #12-14) EXH. 9 I I . . . \ flIII,r- , "~\. ,:"'0;;,...._ .'_ . CEDARS' DRIPLINE OVER PROPERTY (TREES 12-14) EXH. 10 II . . I ... .., :::j.: ~.:.. " . ...- \ :.~. ~~;~>;') '-. ' ~"'''''''.''':'''.~:'l''''- . h . -. '. ~,..", '1~:"'1~~~~~' ,,r-'.J,\ . I I -/,. UNDISCLOSED ODOT DRIPLINE FROM REAR PROPERTY CORNER EXH. 11 II 3. BY CONCEALING THE EXISTENCE OF THE OOOT GROVE DRIPLINE OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE APPLICATION CONCEALED THE FACT THAT THE PORTION OF THE GROVE ON THE OOOT LAND ITSELF WILL EITHER BE ELIMINATED OR PUT AT SERIOUS RISK. Applicant's Tree Plans represent that the trees in the OOOT Grove are iexisting trees to remain.' Exhibits 3, 18- 20. Indeed, the Planning Staff, expressly relying on information given them by Applicant, points to the continued existence of this grove to justify issuance of the permit for removing the Gateway Alder. The Staff Report states at page 6 that u..the location of many existing, healthy trees along the north side of the property(w/in State right of way) provide a concentration of canopy coverage in the area." The Staff, again expressly in reliance on Applicant's experts, also told the Planning Commission that 30 to 35 trees will remain. But the portion of OOOT trees and canopy over 1:he subject property cannot be removed with removing or jeopardizing the trees and canopy on the OOOT land itself. Much of the crown of Tree #5, including most o:E its trunk, extends into the Proposed Building area. It will have to be removed. One of the three multi-trunks of Tree #6 will have to be removed, and possibly a second t.runk which appears to touch the side of the proposed bui.lding. As noted at the Tree Commission hearing of March 2004, removal of one trunk of a multi-trunk puts the whole tree II at jeopardy. Besides the Gateway Alder, this Tree of Heaven provides the dominant tree canopy visible upon one's approach into downtown Ashland. Trees #12 and #14 will have be trimmed back from the building space, but since they only have significant foliage on the building side, they will be left as :mere wooden toothpicks extending in the air. The upper floors of the building may also impact yet other trees, as the OOOT tree canopy over the subject property extends quite high. All this damage will occur even if the root system of the OOOT Grove stops at the concrete retaining wall. If it doesn't, the potential harm will be that much worse. Moreover, because these trees are part of a grove, removal of one or more the trees will jeopardize the rest. This is why Applicant's proposed Findings of Fact emphasizes at page 51 that the Alder is not part of a grove, as does his Landscape Architect's letter of 1-29- 2004. The Landscape Architect's own Tree Protection Guidelines also acknowledge that Jtrees in a grove or forest stands are best retained in those groups.' Exhibit 21. Thus, the OOOT Grove will be eliminated or put at risk by this development. Since this is the very group of trees whose retained canopy is relied on by the City Staff in concluding that Applicant has satisfied the Criteria for Issuance of a removal permit on the Gateway Alder, the justification for such permit simply evaporates. Yet, these facts are precisely what are hidden by Tree Plans that failed to acknowledge that the OOOT Grove occupies much of the same space as the Proposed Building. Anyone looking at the Tree Plans would assume the OlDOT Grove was safely out of range of this development. In fact, the OOOT Grove on both sides of the property line is in the bull's eye. 4. THE APPLICATION ALSO MISREPRESENTED FACTS RELATI:N'G TO THE TRIPLE MAPLE LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Exhibits 12, 15-17 show the beautiful Maple located on the subject property. It fills almost the entire width of the property and extends toward the street. In its Application and again at the Tree Corranission meeting in January 2004, Applicant represented that while the Alder would go, the Maple would be saved. See TC Minutes for Jan. 8, 2004 meeting ("..the three multiple- trunk trees near the floodplain are proposed to be saved"). Exhibit 22. Like the OOOT Grove, the Maple was offered as proof that significant tree canopy would remain, thus justifying removal of the Alder. But at the very moment these representations WE~re being made, the Maple was facing two separate obstacles that would require its removal. 1. The Maple's Iprotuberance' problem. In spite of Applicant's representations, the Maple was doomed under the development contemplated in January, when the TC acted, because it would occupy the same physical space as a large cantilevered building segment protruding from the 2nd and 3rd floor of the building all the 'way back to Ashland Creek. The 'Protuberance' would hav,e dropped down right on top of the Maple over all thrlee of its trunks. Exhibits 23-25, 29. While the Protuberance appeared throughout the Applicant's drawings, it was omitted from the Tree Plan. In fact, the Tree Plan 'was the only place where it should have been shown, but wasn't. On January 8, 2004, the TC meeting was told thE~ Maple was going to be saved and a Tree Plan was presented with no hint of the Protuberance. Satisfied, the TC decided not to oppose the tree removal permit on the Gateway Alder. In late February, well after the TC had heard t:hat the Maple was being saved as justification for cutting -the Alder, Planning Staffer Bill Molnar discovered the problem. When called on the issue, Applicant and his Consulting Urban Planner stated that they were unaware that these upper floors extended back as far as they did. They said they thought the upper floors stopped ten feet back from the Creek. At that moment, the Protuberance appeared on at: least 20 different places in the Site Plan and other drawings. It was first appeared on the design plan attached to the Urban Planner's own 5-21-2003 letter that first advised 11 the City of this project. Exhibit 26. The Applicant had been present when the Historic Commission discussed the Idepth and treatment of the overhang in the back' on January 7th, the very night before he attended the ~rc meeting. That the Applicant and his Urban Planner WE~re still unaware of something as significant as the Protuberance hardly suggests that confidence can be placed in their assurances about the soundness of this project. The Protuberance has now been erased from the project, but the Maple remains severely compromised to this day by still existing (and still largely undisclosed) problems. 2. The Maple is still going to be I removed' Even after eliminating the Protuberance, the trunk and canopy of the Maple still extends into the current building plans, horizontally toward the street, by about 22 feet. But this is concealed in two ways. First, ~the Tree Plan identified the IProposed Building' as a large open space bounded with bold lines. But that is only the first floor foot print. The 2nd and 3rd floors, which is where the Maple will confront the building, still extends backward from the first floor approximately 7 feet, even after elimination of the Protuberance. Exhibit 28. ~rhis is the meaning of the completely undefined dashed line shown on the Tree Plan, that wasn't explained to the Tree Commission. II . . . Triple trunk Maple Note how dripline extends across entire width of Subject Property Contrast with the far narrower dripline shown on the Tree Protection Plan, which shows no dripline over about one- third of the property width E:XH. 12 'X' -----"\--.-. . \ ---- --.- \ - '- -- ---" -/ ".." . . l PF<:OPO.~r.:D -,-. ~_..___..J SUILDfN6" .~ ~. '.r e6" ~~~ T " -- ''-. ..~;~ oi~ '1 'M ~. .,<;~~. PROPoseD DECK . PATIO ."'..--.,.. -.-'- ." - -_.r.;,,___-; EX(:ERPT OF TrEte Plan 12..2003 .,_T . :~-i(~ TRIPLE MAPLE DRIPLINE OVER 2ND/3RD FLOORS OIF BUILDING 11 . . . CONTRAST BETWEEN ACTUAL DRIPLINE FROM THE 'TRIPLE MAPLE THAT EXTENDS OVER THE SPACE TO BE OCCUPIIED BY THE CURRENT DESIGN OF THE BUILDING'S 2ND AND 3RlJl FLOORS VERSUS THE SMALL OVERLAP ON THE TREE PL~~N EXtt 14 . . . :,:, , :'::..::<~,...:~'-{,:'~: ;:.':,:'..~i:::','.::i:~:'.'.j::): "~:;'?,'i:,../.i'.,'..f" ',,' ...', , "".. :' ~ . TREE #24 - 1000k OF CROWN TO BE REMOVED '<1' . "': ---4 ~... r.. EXH. 15 . . . . '1-. .; \ ! · t. 'r . ~..,. :." I . ! ... -. .', ." I I ... . 'j _L . t...,.L_.;..-...\... ";__,\ \ \. \..... \... . """ \\ '\ ~'" ". ......,...-: "', ..... ... \. .... .. .... ".... . '\ ...... ... >\ ~>):...~':'\, .\:~'<: - TREE #23 - MAIN TRUNK TO BE LOST DUE TO UPPER FLOIORS 16 II . ../ .;.... /".~,..,'." / . ,,0" ." ." .... . ENJOYING A SUNNY SUNDAY UNDER THE THREE MAPLES, EXH. 17 II Second, the Tree Plan again seriously understat:es the dripline. From the base of its front trunk (Tree #24), the Maple extends about 24 feet toward the street. The Plan only shows the dripline extending barely half that distance. Thus, when one looks at the Tree Plan, it appears that the Maple is well back from the IProposed Building' and that only a few feet of dripline overlaps. In fact, the building's upper floors extend a~ost to the base of the Maple and overlaps with approximately 22 feet of its dripline. Compare Exhibits 12-14. Anyone looking at the Tree Plan would be unaware that the entire crown of the eastern most trunk (Tree #24 on the original Tree Plan) will have to be eliminated. This trunk provides the largest canopy of the Maple. It was doomed even as Applicant was representing to the Tree Commission in January that the tree would be saved and even without regard to the Protuberance. While it w'as finally conceded in March that #24 was still in the: way of the building, both of Applicant's Landscape Archit€~ct and his Certified Arborist still describe this is only a I shortening.' In reality, what this I shortening' m€!ans is that a foot or so of the stump will be left above grround, so as to try to minimize impact on the other two trunks, not that #24 is being saved. In addition, over half of the middle tree (Tre4a #23) II also protrudes into the upper floors and will have to be topped. Exhibit 16. Under Sec. 18.61.020L, 'topping' means the severe cutting back of a trees limbs to stubs 3 inches or large within the crown to such a degree as to remove the natural canopy and disfigure the tree. This trunk consists of a main trunk with one subordinate branch growing toward the creek. Allor most of the main trunk will have to go, leaving only the subordinate limb branching off at an odd angle. Applicant's Landscape Architect describes this action as 'minor pruning.' Exhibit 27. The Certified Arborist doesn't mention this fact at all. Significantly, no portion of the drip line on ~~ree #23 is shown extending into the footprint called 'Proposed Building' on the Tree Plan. The third trunk (Tree #22) is also shown on thE~ Tree Plan as falling outside the 'Proposed Building' footprint, but it too has dripline within the upper floors. Sadly, this includes a healthy part of Tree #22, as one of the limbs that faces away from the building is dead. The portions of the Maple that need to be remo~Ted are clearly far more than 50% of the canopy. Under Sec. 18.61.020I, this means that the Maple is being 'removed' and, in turn, a removal permit is required. Yet, Applicant is proceeding without seeking a removal permit for the Maple. II To justify a non-permitted removal, Applicant's Landscape Architect/Site Planner claims that less than 50% of the Maple will be removed. Exhibit 27. But this is the same witness: (a) who failed to acknowledge over 600 square feet of ODOT Grove drip line that could be seen by the simple expedient of looking up in the air, (b) who was, at best, completely unaware of the Protuberance identified multiple times in the Site Plan, even though he is a professional Site Planner, and (c) who curiously understated the drip line of the Maple itself. Under the circumstances, this Architect's claim tha-c less than 50% is being removed should be accorded no wei9ht. If all this were not enough, the Maple will likely be damaged so as to cause it to decline or die by construction, which in itself qualifies as Iremoval' under Sec. 18.61.020L. Applicant's data concedes that the Maple has a Ipoor' tolerance for development impacts and 'chat its optimal protection zone should be about 17.5 feE~t. Exhibit 21. But this project will require 4 to 5 feE~t of topsoil to be removed from under the rear of the building toward the creek. Exhibit 28. This excavation will begin about 1 or 2 feet from the very base of the Maple and will continue through the entirety of the Maple's streetBide dripline. This will also require lots of earthmovin9 equipment running over the Maple's root system. NonE~ of II this is mentioned by either Applicants' Landscape Architect or his Arborist. The drawings also contemplate 4 to 6 foundation pillars/piers within the Maple's protection zone. E:x:h 29. Won't these have an impact? And to the extent that Applicant claims these will be of a footing type that will avoid a negative impact on the root zone, then why lcan't they use the same kind of footing to shorten the Ga'teway Alder's protection zone and save it too? In short, the Maple will be I removed' as that t:erm is defined by Ashland's law. Because the Maple is grea'ter than 12" d.b.h. and is within the flood plain (Exhibits 31-32), Applicant was required to seek a Physical Constraints Review for Tree Removal (Sec. 18.62.0408), as well as Tree Removal Permit. Applicant has not done so. Thus, on top of everything else, the Application is incomplete and should be denied for failure to seek a proper PCR for Tree Removal and a separate Tree Removal Permit for the Maple. On the other hand, if the Maple, with an allege!d poor tolerance for construction, is going to be saved af-ter all they are proposing to do to and around it, then maybe we shouldn't be so quick to assume the Alder couldn't survive as well. S. THE ASHLAND CREEK TREES ARE ALSO AT RISK. In its Tree Plan, Applicant's Landscape Archite!ct 11 added a series of large, dashed circles around the four trees on the Ashland Creek back across from the subject property. Exhibit 19. These areas were designated as Itree protection zones,' defined as areas where Ino construction activity of any sort shall occur...including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment or parked vehicles.' This includes areas under the Lithia Street overpass. While the circles are impressive on paper, they are likely to be meaningless. According to Planning Staff Mark Knox, the area under the overpass is going to be uS49d as a construction staging area. So, will it be a tree protection zone with no construction activity allow49d, or a construction staging zone? How can the two coexis"t:? Even if construction activities are completely excluded from the underpass/parking lot area (thus ~;hoving 100% of construction staging onto Main Street at th4:! bottleneck entrance to downtown, a prospect that d04:!s not appear to have been mentioned in the planning proce~;s), the situation remains grim regarding the large, 36" caliper Alder perched on the banks on the Creek. Applicant proposes to remove the existing historic bridge connecting Ashland Creek Bar & Grill and replace it with a Idrawbridge' located even closer to this Alder, right across its drip line. Applicant's claim that the Gat:eway II Alder is a shrinking violet when it comes to construction hardly suggests that the Creekside Alder faces a happier fate. 6 It A DE NOVO EVIDENTIARY HEARING CANNOT SAVE THE DAf FOR THIS APPLICATION. Several weeks ago, after a report was delivered to the City regarding the misrepresentations at issue, Applicant, at a meeting also attended by Planning Staff, gave ,the undersigned yet a new version of the Tree Plan. The description in that document of the quality of the OOOT Grove and other trees was as different as night and day to that contained in the Tree Plans on which this planning process has proceeded. The Tree Plans on which the TC and PC acted described the OOOT Grove and other trees in glowing terms. Exhibit 30. Twenty two different trees were described as Igood.' The high quality of these trees worked to the Applicant's benefit, as they Iproved' that much tree canopy would remain after the Alder was removed. This helped satisfy one of the criteria for issuance of a tree permit (no significant negative impact on tree canopy). In express reliance on Applicant's expert, this very argument carried through to the Planning Staff Report and was repeated at the PC hearing. Now that it has been discovered that the OOOT Grove and Triple Maple are in the risk zone, however, the story II appears to be changing. The same trees that were formerly I good' are characterized in the new Plan as only Ifair' to I poor' and are replete with purported problems. A t.ree (#5) that fonnerly leaned I westward ' (away from the~ project) and was going to be saved, now is Ipoor,' leans east over the fence into the property and is going to be Iremoved.' Whereas Staff, relying on Applicant's information, said there were many healthy trees on the OOOT Grove, Applicant's Certified Arborist now claims that Ithere are not any trees there that are of any grea.t significance.' Instead of 22 I good' trees, the late~st Plan says that only one tree in the whole area is still I good' - ironically, it is the Gateway Alder that Applican.t wants to cut. Compare Exhibits 30 and 31. They are the same trees. The differing inventory descriptions are contained in Plans prepared by the! same Landscape Architect. During the time that it was tOI Applicant's benefit that the trees be called good, they were called good. When it became to the Applicant's benefit that they be downgraded, they were downgraded. How can the Council view any of this as credible? Indeed, if Applicant's experts were to show up at t,he CC hearing with yet another version, that will only further lessen the credibility of information provided. And without being able to place faith in the Applicant's infonnation, how can even a de novo hearing and ele:venth II hour Inew' data save the day for this Application? 8. BENEFITS OF ENFORCING THE RULE OF LAW The attached proposed findings ask this Council to deny both the Tree Removal Permit and the Planning Application on various grounds, including failure to provide true and correct information and failure to satisfy necessary planning criterion. This will not prohibit Applicant from developing his property. A denied application can be resubmitted in one year under Sec. 18.108.180. Thus, Applicant can pursue another planning action, hopefully with accurate information. He can even do so in less than a full year if he can show changed conditions under Sec. 18.108.180. A denial of this application, combined with thE~ impact of the one year rule, provides a fair and balanced outcome for the providing of inaccurate information. The result is proportionate to that failure. Such an outcome will send a message to all future planning applicants. If any future applicant considers making intentional misrepresentations, they will be deterred. Innocent applicants will be on notice that they need to double check and make sure their information is true and correct, which, after all, is their burden. Either way, the faith that the planning staff and the citizens commission must place in the accuracy of planning representations will then be more justified. Real estate II developments will proceed or not proceed strictly on their merits, not upon incorrect information. Finally, the requested outcome will confirm to the entire City that the rule of law really does mean something in Ashland. And that there should be no special rules for special people, whether those Ispecial rules' are tougher or more lenient. POST SCRIPT #1. Should Applicant arrive at the hearing with more information, the question may be raised - why not just remand the application for reconsideration by PC or TC? First, the power of remand is not mentioned in Sec. 18.108.110, so that would require I rewriting' the law. Second, that will send a message to all potential planning applications that if they face difficult facts, they should conceal them in the hope they will not be discovered. If discovered, they will know that they will just be required to face the facts in the same planning action. Finally, a remand will demonstrate the City'S lack of support for its planning staff and citizen commissions. These groups have limited time available to them (the staff in particular appears to be overworked) and are required to rely on an applicant's information. Mr. Molnar wisely emphasized that he was relying on Applicant's experts here, but he should not have been placed in a position of issuing a report based on false information. Instead of the Council effectively telling him and the other staffers to Iget back to work' on this application, the Council should create a deterrent to make sure it won't happen again. Following the law as written would do just that. POST SCRIPT #2. Applicant has repeatedly represented that it must be allowed to build exactly to the sidewalk line under Downtown Design Standards, thus dooming the Alder. Yet, right across Main Street, the Sprague Realty building is angled diagonally from the street. A similar angle for the Shasta Building would complement this and serve as a better, more balanced welcoming into downtown's entrance. This would be consistent with the Downtown Standards which aim to '..guide new...proposals to be in the contex.t with their historic surroundings' and to create 'coordinated...rhythm of buildings.' Further, there are plenty of exceptions in the Downtown Setback Standard, although none were ever hinted at in the Application. These include exceptions for I arcades, alcoves and other recessed features' (Std. VI- B1) or due to the 'unique or unusual aspect of the :site' (Std. VI-K1). Standard VI-K2 also allows an exception where an alternative design 'accomplishes the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan...' Surely, the impact of a building at the very entrance to downtown is worthy of special focus and consideration. Finally, the project has never been evaluated under the Large Scale Development Standards, which require things like plaza or public spaces. Std. II-C-3b. This project falls under the LSD Standards, since it part of a Idevelopment involving gross floor area in excess of 10,000 feet.' Std. II-C-3. While the Shasta building itself is less than 10,000 feet, it will be on a single tax lot which includes another building. Combined, it is a Idevelopment' far in excess of 10,000 feet. Thus, there are plenty of exceptions available under the law to save the Gateway Alder, if only the will exists to save this magnificent tree. RANDALL HOPKINS 1 ' ity of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE . ~ ~ . .' 2 http://www.ashland.or.1JslCcxlePrintasp?CodeID=1534 18.61.200 Tree Protection rTree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. 1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit. 2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removt~d on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewE~r, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsiblE! for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. B. Tree Protection Measures Required. 1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree pl~otection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. 2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. 4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, includling, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materic~ls and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. . 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except II 1 3/29/04 1:02 PM :ty of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrintasp?CodeID=1534 . installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) -- . . 2 3129/04 1:02 PM II ~ of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE . . --7 http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrintasp?CodeID= 1522 18.61.020 Definitions A. Arborist means a person who has met the criteria for certification from the International Society of Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists, and maintains his or her accreditation. B. Caliper Inch refers to a manner of expressing the diameter inches of a tree as calculated by measuring the tree's circumference and dividing by Pi (approxinlately 3.14159). Specially calibrated "diameter tapes" or "calipers" are used to determine caliper inches. C. Dead Tree means a tree is lifeless. Such evidence of lifelessness may include unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle dry branches, or lack of any growth durinl~ the growing season. ~ D. Diameter at breast height or DBH means the diameter of the think, at its maximum cross section, measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above mean ground level at the base of the trunk. rE. Dripline means an imaginary vertical line extending downward from the L outermost tips of a tree's branches to the ground. F. Heritage Tree means any tree listed on the official City of Ashland Heritage Tree list adopted by the City Council. G. Immediate danger of collapse means that the tree may already be leaning, with the; surrounding soil heaving, and/or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be obtained through the non-. emergency process. "Immediate danger of collapse" does not include hazardous conditions that can be alleviated by pruning or treatment. H. Person means any individual or legal entity. 1. Removal means to cut down a tree, or remove 500/0 or more of the crown, trunk, or root system of a tree; or to damage a tree so as to cause the tree to decline and/or die. "Removal" includes topping. "Removal" includes but is not limited to damlage inflicted upon a root system by application of toxic substances, operation of equipment and vehicles, storage of materials, change of natural grade due to unapproved excavation or filling, or unapproved alteration of natural physical conditions. "Removal" does not include normal trimming or pruning of trees. J. Significant Tree means a "tree" having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). K. Staff Advisor means the Planning Director or the Planning Director's designee. L. Topping means the severe cutting back of a tree's limbs to stubs 3 inches or larger in diameter within the tree's crown to such a degree so as to remove the natural canopy and disfigure the tree. Topping does not include the practice of "pollarding" when conducted in accordance with the standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture. . M. Tree means any woody plant having a trunk six caliper inches or larger in ----7 2 3/29/04 1:02 PM 1 I "y of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrintasp?CodeID=667 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required . [1Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the following activities: --?- A. Development, as defined in 18.62.030.0, in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint land. B. Tree removal, as defined in 18.62.030.RT., in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land and Riparian Preserve. C. Commercial logging, in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint Land. D. Tree removal, in areas identified as Hillside Land and Severe Constraint Land, except that a permit need not be obtained for tree removal that is not associated with development, and done for the purposes of wildfire management and carried out in accord with a Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the Fire Chief. E. If a development is part of a Site Review, Performance Standards Developlllent, Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision, Partition, or other Planning Action, then the Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the Planning Action. F. If a development is exclusive of any other Planning Action, as noted in Subsection B, then the Physical Constraints Review shall be processed as a Staff Permit. G. Where it appears that the proposal is part of a more extensive development that would require a master site plan, or other planning action, the Staff Advisor shall require that all necessary applications be filed simultaneously. IT. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development requiring ".... a Physical Constraints Review: 1. The plans shall contain the following: a. Project name. b. Vicinity map. c. Scale (the scale shall be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger) utilizing the largest scale that fits on 22" x 34" paper. Multiple plans or layers shall be prepared at the same scale, excluding detail drawings. d. North arrow. e. Date. f. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the boundary of the proposed development. g. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines. h. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences and structurE~S within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be removed. i. Location and size of all public utilities affected by the proposed development. j. Location of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to the proposed development. Location of all other easements. A topographic map of the site at a contour interval of not less than two feet nor greater than five feet. The topographic map shall also include a slope analysis,. indicating buildable areas, as shown in the graphic. . -7 I. Location of all parking areas and spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and on-site circulation. m Accurate locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, all trees as required in 18.62.080.D.1, including those of a caliper equal to or greater than six inches d.b.h., native shrub masses with a diameter of ten feet or greater, natural drainage, swales, wetlands, ponds, springs, or creeks on the site, and outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Natural features on adjacent properties potentially impact1ed by the proposed development shall also be included, such as trees with driplines extending across property lines. In forested areas, it is necessary to identify only those trees . 3/29/04 1:02 PM ~ of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE http://www .ashland.or. U1s/CodePrintasp?CodeID= 1522 . diameter at breast height (DBH). If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 4.5 feet, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree if greater than six inches DBH. Plants commonly planted as shrubs, including but not limited to English laurel, photinia, arborvitae, poison! oak, Eng Iish holly, and Eng Iish ivy shall not be considered a "tree". Trees specifica lIy planted and maintained as a hedge shall also not be considered a "tree". N. Tree Account means an account established by resolution of the Council for the receipt of funds to be utilized for future tree purposes, as outlined in the resolution. O. Tree Removal Permit means written authorization from the City for a tree removal to proceed as described in an application, such authorization having been given in accordance with this chapter. D. Tree Protection Zone means the area reserved around a tree or group olF trees in --7 which no grading, access, stockpiling or other construction activity shall occur as determined by the Staff Advisor based on review of the tree and site conditions. CORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) -- . . 2 3/29/04 1:02 PM '-'H)' VJ /'l~1llanU -lVIUNILIPAL CODE http://www.ashland.or.usICodePrint.asp?CodeID= 1. , > [18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit . ~ . ~ . '2 An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for ,a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants rem,oval. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be reloc:ated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear publiC safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. r;. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree l that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the develoRment to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application;~ 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing winclbreaks; @J ri Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree L densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements sh.all be.a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) 3/29/04 1:03 PM 11 ty of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE . . . http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrintasp?CodeID=667 which will be affected or removed by the proposed development. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural feature. n. The proposed method of erosion control, water runoff control, and tree protection for the development as required by this chapter. o. Building envelopes for all existing and proposed new parcels that contain only buildable area, as defined by this Chapter. p. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation lines. q. Location of all areas of land disturbance, including cuts, fills, driveways, building sites, and other construction areas. Indicate total area of disturbance, total percentage of project site proposed for disturbance, and maximum depthS and heights of cuts and fi II. r. Location for storage or disposal of all excess materials resulting from cuts associated with the proposed development. s. Applicant name, firm preparing plans, person responsible for plan preparation, and plan preparation dates shall be indicated on all plans. t. Proposed timeline for development based on estimated date of approval, including completion dates for specific tasks. 2. Additional plans and studies as required in Sections 18.62.070, 18.62.080, 1.8.62.090 and 18.62.100 of this Chapter. 1. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused bY' the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted developme~nt permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 Sl, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) -- 3/29/04 1:02 PM 11 i~ of Ashland - MUNICIPAL CODE http://www.ashland.or.lls/CodePrintasp?CodeID=1527 . ----7- ~ . 18.61.050 Plans Required A. An application for all Tree Removal and Tree Topping Permits shall be rnade upon forms prescribed by the City. The application for a Tree Removal Permits shall contain: a. The number, size, species and location of the trees proposed to be removed or topped on a site plan of the property. b. The anticipated date of removal or topping. c. A statement of the reason for removal or topping. d. Information concerning proposed landscaping or planting of new trees to replace the trees to be removed, and e. Evidence that the trees proposed for removal or topped have been clearly identified on the property for visual inspection. f. Any other information reasonably required by the City. B. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the application complies with the criteria for approval of the applicable class of permit. If the application is for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit, the applicant shall submit specific written findings and evidence addressing the criteria in section 18.61.080 for issuance of a Tree Removal-Staff Permit. C. Misrepresentation of any fact necessary for the City's determination for ,granting a tree removal permit shall invalidate the permit. The City may at any time, including after a removal has occurred, independently verify facts related to a tree removal request and, if found to be false or misleading, may invalidate the permit and process the removal as a violation. Such misrepresentation may relate to matters including, without limitation, tree size, location, health or hazard condition, justification for issuance of permit, or owner's authorized signature. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) -- 3/29/04 1:03 PM 11 . . . "~"Il I n I~j' ~! I dh · i 'Ii I g !~~ i i c ,." n ~ N r-> C:J C:J "'" rn 1>>1: ~ . i ~ rn , Ii:i! .., : ~ > . ~-= .~ . Sc:: ' ~ g :z 2 ~ 11 1'" \ \ \ " ; 8'1 "'J II !H'IP ~ ~I ~j il] Iflfl'f 'll,!' In. f Iii" ll~I'J f!iiil h i!JIU,il I !1111! r. l!, IU!!',,! 1., I '1111t :iii11d Ji' d= ~ iL:! )1 ~ J 'Ill, iill:' 'I 'I IJ' ': 'i Ii {lllli/!11 I! H ill ! tl ill J I! I ilil II II " II I h t~ iq JI~ ii : tlil i' 1! Ii!t U fill l I · I Ii' II I r. ]1 III. If j! ~ i JIi! ~ Ii !I I' '/lib! :: il I II! P h Pt il I,ll! II Ii . j i ih ;1 III I, i. t "Hi l! I i hi II Ii H I - !1 I 11 -II ~ I: : I, f Ii. J \ " - I ~4to~ II 1- I _I E ~I" . Ii' .. ..... .~ il 'i I~~. ' : ..? ...~! it . ~~ : ~ ~r~ ~ ~~ -., ; i~I.: . ~ ~ ) I el h P ij ~"_ ~ ~ .. a _ ~~. ~ ~ = !... (EXHIBIT 3 ) 18 "- . . ~--~- ~....":-j1: ..- -:::- ~--:;:.. _....~ .",..-,.... -"';"'- ;;..-- --;:/ .-?- .-~ .....-......... --..... ~~~\'=--==-=I'!.1 ~ ~ I I I I I --- \ ----- \ -~---- -~-\ -', ""',--" EXISTINe:!;. \ SUI L.DI NcSS \ . '",- '----." '\, '-.., " " ..... ....., '.''-.... ....." "-." '\, "".", -''''., -'. ~~--....-....... .. -.......-....-- '-'~. ,.~~~~~=:=--=--- '......... 11 ..---------- -----=:=-:--. ----------- - -------------=:. QJ' __ f/ -~( "-'v:~L_ . ..-- \ \ /,J/ ,,// // -------- ---- ---- o \ \ ...\ '\\. \. \, ~ " '..... ""'-, '. ............ ------ --- -~--=---- ~.~...... j' . - \ ... TREE ~ATIOH P.veolcpller'lt ~to ..Jcm 6clIt:l"'c:llItl, (So4l) "o-1"~ ~~ '::~~~~Q~~rJ,~~-:' '=-":~: eJ.~r~~O;" ;:<-PI<<l. ~.~==~~.~~::~e~~~~~~w.. ~,~ ~t~=-en~~~CIit"~::'-:'~~~~r~t ~~~ eC\"~ c:rt'Iw. en .~ IN ~ ~t ,""II c:one&IIt IOItIl .~lcn c:.cr.cn.c~ ~c:l T~ No ~~Ion _tlVl~ Cll'llj .or'!: Ihc:lll ~ roIthin the er.. pr".nHt1c:ln UW'W, \'lc:1IIClfng. I:M non :'~~cl~~: ~ of matMIG. MIdI .. bJlk:llt'.g ~U... ..,U. __~. .",~. . ~ j)f tr_ =t.~~~=:-~:;~.~~~I~~ c:kwelq:lt'lWt't. ~ ~~'::.~~t':;~~_~~~=~~~~r- Jld.of_ tor- tlw f'I"'OJeU. ~ ~1aI~1 The tr_ ~t1C1n _Ihc:ll r_'" ft'_ of dlem"~:II~ tl).rlcow ~Q. cn:l r~_.1dI c:. ~~~~~~~. petno.... ~ta. cild ~ or dr'l; _II ~_. Tre. ~Qtlon Pr~. s.f~ ~Ql of Q"I! .&'nIe~ or pf_ A"OWlCl ."1niIM3 ~ to reII'lCIIn. IN ~ ""'~h~t ,""II l:le f>CIt,"-d to ....&'nIet u.. ~toI" CWlCl ~ ~ en ~ ~ << tr_ ~CItlon Q"CUlcl ~m~:.--. The ~ N'cN:-t Ihc:lll ~.... Ir 1I'lCI'IICl1. f'OCIt ptVI""JI IhcMcll:llll CION 1:lIIlf~ UN&'nIetlcm 1:le9N. ~~ f'olo g-cadIJ ~ "'A:I ~ "Ith... tlw '*1:' I.... 01 ...1Khg tre.. to r."Qn. ~ of T,..... """"J tr.. ~ ~ ~_&'nIetlClfl~ or t'-.cl "Jthclut Q G./ty or.....1<<>d ClF'P"OVecl permit WIlli be"held Eo city or Mftlci-dt:~.4~~ le.6/~ P_ItIes. T,... Mlllgatloft . MII/QQtlon 'of CI 1:1"_ CIf .""Ie:r- cN:rclc.:- -.riel occ.t' "" .tt. ca.. to 1naH/<:.Ient ~ Otl ffIe &c> ~t ~ l..-4t/Ctl Por "'1tkJCIC1CII'I pla'lthgl to be c1eCMlft~ ~GOI+eO""1'JON5 ~ 0Pft ~ 0Pft ~ _booCIr'd 0Pft ~ _bOOCIr'd 0Pft ~ 0Pft ~ 0Pft ~ 0Pft ~ 0Pft ~ 0Pft ~ I:.CIrilI\.m 0Pft ~ 0Pft ~ 0Pft ~ 0Pft !ltt. 0Pft !ltt. Of'ft ~ lk>ocI Of'ft ~ Of'ft !ltt. 0Pft !ltt. Of'ft ~ Of'tl ~ , , ~, ~ ~ t ~) I"llAtHn.onk ~t .. The ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ CIf'. ~_ to ~.. tnc:Ir'J roota _ poulbla " TREE PROTECTIVE 1"ENC1N6 EXISTlN6 ~ TO ~AJN EXISTlN6 TREE TO BE REMOVED e.xJSTlH6 n::teE TO REMAIN E- ORlF'Llr-e · exiSTING> TREE (TY'P ) r P'ROTECTTVE TREE FENCIN6 GONTlMJOI.lS. ARa.N:> TREE - sef NOTES n-ll$ ~ ,.~ MA~_ o SEe. TION - TREE PROrrEe.TIVE FENCIN6 s..G,-, 1/2'. r-o' ......'.,....-.e 11 ~~\:~\l a: A.s:!b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ (/ ,. .. ~q,/r.cT1 . "~,, 0AIl.BRAlIlI a: ASSOCJlIJES.lNC. LANDSCAPE ARClIlTECTS SITE PLANNERS OIU!OON LICENSE No. %54 (CA,:l9IO) 143 S. BOLLY Sl., SlJIJ'E A MEDFORD. OREGON 97501 TEI.: 541- 'T7Il-1964 FAX: 541-T70.jl64 ~G\5'l'e~~ ~v () .\ b ~;ti · ~t '1- ~ ~ ()& Ot/f1't~ ,~ C>-tl'E ,.i-C~ SHASTA BUlILDING '03 ASHLAND, OREGON REVlSIaG : ~. TREE PRES ER VA nON JOB Na: 15SUI! :DAm DRAWlfBY: UVJEW!I) Br. Jal SI.t.IUS: .. ~ ."., . DEe 1 2 2003 ~, -rrr I -/1 0)1 t- - a1 - :E: >< W "\ I::: ... . ...... :l~ tC /i? (~~; :;;;. 1//' ~.u . ~ " . --- F . _. "'- '- /'/ // /' /' / /' ~ ;' c, ~ // \~ .~ ,~ "-- PROPOSED SRID6E -~ . ;;".t .I~ " '"' . ~ ~ ~ "" ~~ ...-- ~ \,..,.... FF<.OF05ED SlJ I LD I N<!7 EXI5TINc:;, SUI LD I N<!75 I I -, ~. I I Al.D~ I -,- . ~ <~\ I .J- - ---\ *- I -'--, \, G ------- , . / -----....... + -:-:-;:-..... .. .. . .",,---............. " , , \ \ L \ , ,....'-- .'--- /' '" \ ( // )... 9 " ./-1 /'-. ./ - '0< - , , 11 I: F ~I jlil H lh" ~ !-"5~ · hi i u.. i ~~g i ~~i .. . . II!I ~:; f!..i .:': I t" . 1 ;ll~ .. , .. i I I I J ~s I I i I !!~ . i I i I ~ J I~ I I I . >" ~ ~ il il II '.'.'fi, i I . I 111"''''1 , ! s I I ;t I I J j f , I II I J . I . ~ J J I . J J C/) ~ j!il ~ C:~ > ~ = ~r! ~ !Iii /Il ' : i !!! C/) , :i ~ ~ . > I:i n ~ e= ~~I ~ 0 c...~ ~ r: -I '=' 0 '2 7- 2 C') I'; Rf '!il1l~fll~l!mfl;!i!:iJ u H 11 II n i ~ jl ~d !l~ hIll H~ Jjl ~iJ tv nil u it {il 11~2l(ii .ri~I'1 ]11 ~,IIJI!l~~ii . . . . . . '. ........~, 'f II t Ill!' .Ii 1, r ~ '!i nn: If I om I, l' II : Ilil h ~ll ~ liil 1:'11 ~! I ]'t il~ j~ l~ilh Ii ~rll p. j!!~ Hill H i 'It .11 ~ ~I il ,f S f JI If :: (I I I 11 fM Va I~[ f Ii 'I i! Ill' U , 'i Ii! j M i! il! illl! !i!I!!1 I}' ~I P III II n If! II i It! j1i= : H \ 1 "'1 . ,I d ..;~ .. ~ ~ e~. ~~. .J!.... i. 5U ~/, ~. ~,.~.,..!llr ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -. '" U!l"~ -'. ~ ~, .. if In i~1 '~. . "'" J 3,; '.. 20 11 . Page 1 TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES [EXHIBIT ~ Prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc. For Shasta Building '03 January 29, 2004 ~b\Sf~ . 254 · ~~G~ ~ OREGON . ~ ~ 0Wl189 ~ OtPE ~".X GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Contrary to popular belief: the root systems of trees are not deep taproots in form. Instead most tree roots grow in the top 12 - 18" from the soil surface and are horizontally oriented, extending far beyond the tree's drip line or canopy. See tree and root section drawing Figure 1. A rule of thumb is that a healthy tree may tolerate removal of approximately one third of its roots, and "A healthy, vigorous tree may withstand removal of up to 50 percent of its roots without dying."l If roots on one side of a tree are . I severed, it may become unstable and a hazard. Old and mature trees are less tolerant of constructiion impacts than l younger, more vigorous trees, and trees in a grove or forest stands are best retained in those groups. ./ The species tolerances for trees to be retained within the Shasta Building project are as follows: RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF SELEcrED SPECIES TO DEVELOP:MENT IMP ACTS2 RELA1lVE <DMMONNAME &::nNImCNAME 10lERANCE <DMMENIS BigleafMaple Acei' macrophyllum Poor Declines following the addition of fill Alder Alnus sp. Poor Intolerant of root injury Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia Moderate Moderately tolerant of root pruning. i The size of the tree protection zone, the area protective fencing is shown on the Tree Protection Plan, is calculated by species tolerance and tree age category which selects a distance factor from the trunk of the tree. . I Matheny, N. & Clark, J. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. p. 72. 2 Ibid. Appendix B selections, p. 165 - 178. fEB 1 3 2004 Galbraith & Associates, Inc. 11 Landscape Architects & Site Planners 21 Page 2 GUIDELINES FOR OPTIMAL TREE PRESERVATION ZONES3 SPEClESTOlERANCE Good 1REEAGE D5fANCEFROMlRUNK idl1l\d(~ . Poor Young (<20% life expectancy) Matme (200/0-80% life expectancy) Over mature (>80% life e Y Otmg Mature Over matme Young Mature Overmature .5' 0.75' Moderate 1.0' 0.75' 1.0' 125' 1.0' 1.25' 1.5' ~~~ .'f' .J:'\f.U1(r((~~ Figure ] Drawing used by permission of Dr. Gary Watson, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois. Note: This document and the ideas incorporated herein, as an instrument of profe:ssional service, is the property of Galbraith & Associates, Inc. and is not to be used, modHied, or changed in whole or in part, for any other purpose without the express written authorization of John Galbraith, Landscape Architect. 3 Ibid., p. 74. FES 1 3 2004 Galbraith & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architect!) & Site Planners 11 Agendas and Minutes / / http://www.ashland.or.us/AgendasResul ts.asp? AMID: 1585 . PLANNING ACTION 2004-001 is a request for Outline Plan approval and a Tree Removal Permit for a ten-unit residential subdivision under the Performance Standards Option for the 2.4 acre property located at 940 Clay Stre!et (east side of Clay Street, south of Siskiyou Boulevard). Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 11: 14 CB; Tax Lots: 600. APPLICANT: Cota Homes, LLC Staff and the Commission reviewed the proposed plans. The lclndscape and irrigation plan will be reviewed at the time of the Final Plan application. John Galbraith, Landscape Consultant and George Cota, Applicant were present for any questions. After some discussion, the Commission recommended the following: Landscape Plan to be reviewed with Final Plan application. Trees to be preserved shall have fencing around the dripline and ideally the root zone. Tree protection measures noted in ALUO 18.61.200 shall be implemente1d prior to any site disturbance. All associated tree protection fencing shall be flush with the grade and fencing posts shall not penetrate into the root zone. PLANNING ACTION 2004-002 is a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 square foot mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Aoodplain Corridor. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-l-0; Assessor's Map #: 39 if: 09 BS; Tax Lot: 9800. APPLICANT: Lloyd Haines . ~ Staff and the Commission reviewed the proposed plans. Staff noted the project would be heard by the Planning Commission in February due to f100ljplain issues. [Staff noted that the large White Alder Tree is proposed to be remc)ved and the three multiple-trunk trees (Acer) near the floodplain are proposed to be saved. John Galbraith, Landscape Consultant and Uoyd Haines, Applicant were present. Mr. Haines noted his desire to retain the large Alder tree, but due te) its location, the arborists' report and the City's Main Street Design Standards, he is asking for the tree's removal. He expressed his desire to make some form of sculpture or public art from the tree. After much discussion, the Commission recommended the following: Tree protection measures as noted in ALUO 18.61.200 shall be imple!mented prior to any site disturbance for trees along creek. All associated tree protection fencing shall be flush with the grade and fencing posts shall not penE~trate into the root zone. Tree protection signs, as noted in ALUO 18.61.200, shall be installed and visible from the construction zone. Avoid compaction in root zone and use plywood or wood chips. Mitigate loss of large White Alder within adjacent State right-of-way. Mitigate with large specimen tree listed in the Rec:ommended Street Tree List. Consider State right-of-way as "gateway" for future publiC art. Commission suggests that the Public Arts Commission, applicant, City staff and ODOT work with Tree Commission to create a plan for that area that is safe while restoring and enhancing this "gateway." PLANNING ACTION 2004-003 is a request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to authorize the conversion of a non-conforming structure into a studio apartment for the property located 987 Siskiyou Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map ~~: 39 lE 10 C8; Tax Lot 6600. . APPLICANT: Marc and Aaron Heller 22 3/22/04 12: 16 PM 11 . ., , . ': . EXH. 23 _ f: APPLICANT'S CANTILEVERED PROTUBERANCE O~~ THE BACK OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING REACHING TC~ ASHLAND CREEK. THIS DRAWING IS FROM APPLICANT'S DEC:EMBER 2003 SITE PLAN. THE PROTUBERANCE, WHICH IS [)IRECTLV OVER THE MAPLE, APPEARS NUMEROUS TIMES OIN THE SITE PLAN/ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS, BUT NOT ON THE 'TREE PLAN . 1 I . I i - ------- tIlO'05'3lI"E 71.04' ^ _ .__. __ ._ .._u _~ NEW RESTAURANT DINING ROOM tin NI;f.A: ~"'!G:": ~=-. .. · jP~ c ....... : . ~~ .. ..~I~~I./V /r/ /V/ ~ ~ ')( Ii' 'r .. ~v ., I .... ..~. -, . I j' 1....8 L : " , - .. 'u - ~ --?;J- , ~~~- I.-__~ 0 ~~ MEN "-II' II I V I \ I I ~' 10. fT I f\ f'\ \. ,_/ " 1'-' I~ ~iQ--Q -n --- KITCHEN Nfl' MfA, 421." 50. f'T. 1t70.06 sa. FT.. MAIN BUl.DING ENCl.OSUAE 199.~ SQ. FT. . DECK & QACUlATION .......'^- : ]] r - -1- - -, :1 ~ I ELEVATOI ~ ~ I f--........... I .... "----, ^ L- ........~ _ · ::r:]] foe -, . I . I I -----:-...--------.11--=.10 ~ ~~I_ , 111111'Th I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I, ILl> .:' ~.. !!III:l P1 I'I7T' - ~ ~~ ,- _ _. 'u... ..... ...1... ... A I .- · .....- ::nJ : .x x X ./y:. ~ Y..:/Y.... .,' x'.-~x,>:, '>~_y..)(.).:/x-.y..)(,.,:'.x../x/x..)<../ -'- ,'-. -'. ~ . . ,'" ~'. - . . - -'-. :' . .., z.... "., /",......, >'" ;,_j~. ',:;< >.: ~--:_ ,:< >~ J',' ,"'~ ~. /' ....~srt~~~y..~~~,..,.. OUTDOORDlNlNG8aow · :' ... " "'.. .. ... ~ c~ I ~(~~ S;<,.;:~~',~~,~~:,::<~':(~ ~. /~x,'.x'/"'/.// /,/// "'/1 ~ . ., BOTH THE FLOOR PLANS SUBMITTED IN DEC. ~!003 AND FEB. 2004 SHOW THE PROTUBERANCE THAT WOULD BE BUILT DIRECTLY OVER THE TRIPLE MAPLE AS THE DASHED EXTENTION SHOWN ON THE RUGHT HAND OF THIS PLAN. BUT THE TREE BLOCKING PROTUBERANCE NE~VER MADE IT TO THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN. E:KH. 24 . II . . . 2 3 4 . 1t12.sl io ----ml:5rlML " " " " " APr - THIRD LEVEL " 1:1 ltllC1.5D ---nlIlIlUVEL RAMP. SECOND LEVEL .......- LDII. I _. ~ ~~ . " " : i RECEPTION I DINING DECK . :: FIRST LEVEL " t i HERE THE CANTILEVERED PROTUBERANCE: APPEARS ON THE FEB. 2004 BUILDING SEC"TIONS OF APPLICANT'S ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE BASIE OF THE TRIPLE MAPLE IS MARKED WITH AN 'X' EXIH. 25 11 .' CRAIG A. 3TONE & ASSOCi.<\TES,LTD. Consultants in Urban Planning and Development 708 Cardley Avenue. Medford, Oregon 97504-6124 Telephone: (541) 779-0569 . Fax: (541) 779-0114 . E-mail: estone@estoneassociates.eom May 21, 2003 MR. JOHN McLAUGHLIN Planning Director City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: REQUEST FOR PRE-APPLlCA TION CONFERENCE Shasta Building No.3: Lloyd Haines, Applicant Dear Mr. McLaughlin: Enclosed are preliminary plans which depict the intentions of my client, Lloyd Haines regarding th,e construction of improvements on land that he owns in downtown Ashland, adjacent to Ashland Creek. In addition to minor improvements, the plans contemplate: . Construction of a new building on Tax Lot 9800 (39-1 E-9BB). . Removal of an existing wood deck and replacement with concrete decks. . Removal of an existing bridge and replacement with a new drawbridge in a slightly different location. Also contemplated (but not shown on the plans) are landscaping improvements beneath Lithia \Vaywithin the public right-of-way and the removal of a tree on Tax Lot 9800. . Applicant would appreciate information and feedback regarding the land use applications that will need to be obtained and the relevant substantive approval criteria for each. Applicant would also appreciate your opinions regarding these plans. Please advise of the date/time/place for the pre-application conference. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $100 to cover the conference costs. Also enclosed are the following plans: 1. One copy of a full set of design drawings. 2. One 24 x 36 sheet which illustrates existing from proposed improvements in plan view 3. One 8-~ x II of the above #2 plan Please advise if additional information or materials are needed. Very truly yours, CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. . Enclosures ce. Lloyd Haines 26 II . ~ ~ ~/ J\ 1 2 <;" If' oj ~ ~ ~ '"1 Z i, .." ~ - ~ .. ,- c ~ V' f1' " 3 ~ }~ ~ S .% .. ~ . :I .. 0 "' ., ~ ... . lI' ! i !I . '" / . ~ z: ~ s . '0_ TW )( ~ z " .~ -i TiI 1/ __YIlaIllN SHASTA. BUILDING 't3 A.I8l.\Ml, - r r twri ..... ".,... -~~ ~.;;~ . IIIII1111 ,_u, ~ ~ March 8, 2004 City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Shasta Building '03 / Lloyd Haines To Whom It May Concern: A revised tree protection plan is being submitted with the following adjustments and clarifications. . 1.) It IS my professional opinion that the Acer Macrophyllum mentioned previously as three separate trees (#22, 23 and 24 on the tree protection plan) is actually one tree. This has been corroborated by Tom Myers, certified Arborist vvith Upper Limb-it Tree Service. 2.) The tree protection plan has been modified and is being re-submitted to reflect one tree with three trunks. One trunk will be shortened to allow for 1he proposed building (see plan). It will no~ be taken completely out so that it can be observed for deterioration (see Tom Myers' letter). Minor pruning will need to be performed on the two remaining trunks. 3.) It is my professional opinion that the required pruning will remove le:ss than 50% of the tree's canopy. 4.) . Tree protection fencing has been added to the ODOT property contiguous to the northwest property line. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. J:~ John Galbraith, ASLA Landscape Architect . 27 145 S. Holly STREET, Suire A · MEdfoRd, OR 97501 · (541) 770-7964 · FAX (541) '770-5164 UctNsEd . BO'lded . INsuREd . lANdSCApE BusINESS #6661 . lANdSCApE CONtRACTOR 1l2~96 . C'>€NERAl CONlRAClOR 110074 . lANdscApE ~:zdti1(CT OR4254. CA-I2980 www.galbraithandassociates.com.contact@galbraithandassociates.com . . . I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I AP~JMENTS · THIRD LEVEL I I I I OFFICE · SECOND LEVEL . I I I I I I _ ..LL .., _______....J APPRox. NEW GRADE BELOW BULDlNG SOIL MATERIAL REMOVED FROM FLOOD PlAIN ALLOWING ADDITIONAl. STORM WATER STORAGE MEA . WHILE THE CREEKSIDE PROTUBERANCE HAS NOW BE~EN REMOVED FROM THE PLANS, THIS MARCH 2004 BUILDING SECTION DRAWING SHOWS THAT THE 2ND/3RD LEVELS STILL EXTEND BEYOND THE FIRST FLOOR. THIS EXTEI~TION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOOTPRINT LABELED "PROPOSED BUILDING" ON THE TREE PLAN, INSTEAD APPEARING ,AS THE UNDEFINED DASHED LINE ON THE REAR PART Of' THE FOOTPRINT EXtt 28 c c _~AUaUIT ......110OII IIrT /IiIIIBt< ..... .. n. ~ B B 1 I 1 :01 ~ . I . I . I ~ . I I . I C __:IJl : . I I I A A IOTCIIEII NET II/IIPtI ... .. n. 1t1O.ClI1Q. fT,. MIolN IUI..DING I!NCUlIURE __sa. Ff, -OICK & ClIlCUl.ATIOH -, I I I fi~m{@~!i LOWER FLOOR 9 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN .'RESTAURANT ,.. . ,..v TOTAL........ ~_ LOWER F\OOIl ENCU:E>1IItfk -1.... IF IMIN ft.OOft INCl.OIED IRk - 2MU7. =====:~ NllD"llnO"'E 7I.D4' c , I 'I I , , I ~. I I' " -J- , , lLr . I , I I B ", , A A AIHLAIID CIIIIK MIl & GIIILI. ounooa ..... . U . FLOOR AIIILUID CM8( MIl & ..u 9 DlanNG LEVEL FLOOR,PLAN . ASHLAND CREEK BAR & GRILL LE\fEL 111"'- -r.cr 2 3 PROTUBERANCE OVER MAPLES 29 i 9 ~ Q i3 ~ 13 B "'" "'" '-.. -- ........ ~ ~ ~. i3 "'"" --.. """ '"'" ........ ~ ~ . ~ ~ u ! ~ cl 0 ~ ~ .... ~ ~ :l ........ . .t ~ Ul iiii C C '- ""' " ....... '- '- ~ -- ~ '-W ~ .. '* ~ - r, ~ ~ ~ ~ r L1- 3 ~ r ~ II I ~ :'t :\ :'\ ~ ~ :\ { ~ ~ r ~ (\ ~ ,. ~ ~ f \ \ \ ~ f ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ t ~ t !- ~ t '" ~ ~ f ... ie ~ ) ~ ~ ~ f ~ t ~ ~. , ~ ~ t . ;. j ~ . . ~ , ~ ~ ~ . I ! fi i , a .. 5 . I t I . ! f t J t. ~ 5 I ~ t ia t I ~~ j , . : ~ z ~ ~ 5 . ~ ~ i . ~ ~ I . l ~ !l ~ ~~ ~ t ~ t ~ ~ t ). } t ~ ~~ ~ ~ t r i- ~ . ~r .. .. ~ l ~ ~ ~ -. ;..- ~l :. J :,.4 ~ ~ t" ~ '\ ~ i i .. i i f ; . !f i ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ t . ~ ~ ) .. "" : l .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ " " G ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ q q ij ~ ~ tt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u: ~ \ ~ l). ~ l:t: i~ ~ . . . . . f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~, I ~ ~ t ~ ~ t ~ ~ i - ~ l[lt 8' ! 1 l~ !! l &. 8- 8- 8. & 2. & ; 8. & a 8. J R B. 3. 8. & R. ;~ a , I i ~ l a- ~ ~ ~ I ,- I I i f i ! I . D. I 8 ii =i ~ ~ " t .. ~ ~ f l i I f I a ~ ~: ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ 0' ~ ~ 0 ~ ~, .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !~ ~ ~ ~, ;I, J: 3' I i f ., ! ~, f I f ~ ~ ~ ; U! I ~ f f . '" ~ It) i ... .. .. i ~ r ~ ~ i ;~ ~.. .... !t ~ S f ii. J: ~ . ~ , .... .... .... 0 3 I I I THE 'GOOD' TREES BEFORE THEY WERE TARGETS 30 II tJi I I GI i J {~ f ~ t ! (:. l I j(,. I ! i I ! i::') ~ i to i I I 0' j . I I } ,.,. I I i I :~. I i i j "~. ! I I I ~() ; i i I~ 1 I I 1 if)" I I . ! ! t I I '"" t '''\ 1 j f i I l I '1 ! I i i I 1 1 , . . ',; . , THE.TREESFORMERLY KNOWN AS 'GOOI)' 31 . '. "''' ::z '\... '" ~..Jw.lr~"t\i~~ It'< . ~ ~ ."" f g'~' j~ '1~~~ "" '. G ~ ~ ~~JO ~., 'lit 0 '\, . 'Z. ., .oL- ()" ~ " JJ glt\ . . ~ . . . , .~ . II, 0' ~'~ '" 0.. . ., ~ ~~ ~~ ~-:: D - .-., O'-!) ~ '11 . -,at\) , 8 :1 .,9- f) ,~O :J. 0 _og.,. C; 0' 3 ., ptl. f. Co' f': 'c.I . ~ z .. ; .. 30' ""f'I'\ rT\ to ~ .~' f'.) , c:> c:> .p. n~ 1 I' .. .~I 10 ~Il z II, " ~I ca II RANDALL A. HOPKINS 735 S. Mountain Ave Ashland, OR 9752 May 13, 2004 TO: Mayor DeBoer and the Ashland City Council: After this brief was printed, I was told that the City was going to allow the Applicant to skip the excavation under the building. I have no expertise in flood matters, let me make that real clear. Throughout this project, however, the excavation effort was described as ,an important one from a flood control standpoint. The concern was, as I understand it, that a large building like Shasta, that extends into the flood plain, might serve to block up flood waters raging down the Creek. As late as two weeks ago, the Planning Staff explained to me that the excavation under the building was designed to allow water storage in the event of a flood, which would help with the situation. Now, just like that, it appears that the excavation concept may be jettisoned. Is it really unnecessary, or is it just an effort to push the project through now that the downside of the excavation have been put at issue? I don't know the answer, but I do think the Council should give this some careful focus. Additionally, as shown on the Planning Staff's drawing of the flood plain (Exh. 32), the FEMA flood plain extends to 1872' and well into the building footprint. There is even reference in the Staff Report to another flood plain (called the Ashland Flood Plain Corridor) that goes almost to the front of the building at 1875.5. Yet, as I read them, the FEMA flood plain drawings submitted by Applicelnt in March do not correctly identify the FEMA flood plain, or the higher Ashland Flood Plain Corridor for that matter. Instead, the FEMA floodplain is identified as a blue patch stopping at a thick red line at the edge of the Creek, which is approximately 1862' per an lJT AK drawing also in the file. This thick red line at 1862' is even labeled as the "City of Ashland Flood Corridor,' even though it is a long way from 1875.5. Thus, the drawings se!em to show the flood plain stopping well short of the building, and certainly well short 01: the FEMA flood plain shown on the Staff's drawing. If true, this is consistent with the Applicant's Tree Plans, which incorrectly showed the trees stopping short of the building. Again, I am no expert on flood control (or even reading floodplain documents) and I don't know if we are creating problems for ourselves here. But are we sure? Because when flood waters begin to rage, it will be too late to find out. So, I paraphrase the question that was posed in the cover letter to this brief - do we really want to gamble on the safety of the Plaza on the basis of the kind of planning action described in these pages? Randall Hopkins II