Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0601 Council Mtg PacketCouncil Meeting Pkt. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN CITY RECORDER CITY OF SHLAND II .'j~fi6'rtant:?Any~. citiZen::.affendin~l~:!~fifiiai'.~eetings', may.speal(~,on~ny!item'.On .the agenda~,~!Unlessl it [l',iS::~'~:SabjeC~t of'a.pfi'lsiic:h~ad~§~i~~been:~c~.~d~).The~P..~i~i~:~m.m~i~:th~time~;t~speak.on..: ~fig~a~!!f~0''u'wi~h {(~;.:,~'~ak;:!;i~'i;~'~?~li''but,th6:$~e~'ker.~Req'uest ~, II ~.:,f0~'~:i~ted'~:h~ar~he :efitm'n~a'~'~{~'~{~:~o'un~il~'Cha~m~'~fi~¢hai~::Will reCOgniZe you,,and ,. 'inf6~'you as to th~'amOUnt Of time:.'al[Offed .to you.:'~..The':tim~:'gmnted~ ~11 be'dependent to Some ' e~e~t'O'n the nature"of the item"undeB'discussi°n,.the "number.:of people Who ~sh .to.be. heard, and the length of the agenda.....' '.' . ..~.~.:.'~:..':'~':~ ~'... '.:......'. ':' . ' ,... "" AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 1, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, '1175 E. Main Street I1. III. IV. Vi VI. VII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes .of May 18, 2004. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: 1~ Pr~e, seR~~map to the City of Ashland by Russ Dale. ~,,2'~une 14, 2004 as Flag Day in the City of Ashland. June 17, 2004 as Methamphetamine Awareness Day. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Diane Williams, and reappointments of David Bernard and Madlyn Hanna to the Hospital Board for term.,; to expire June 30, 2008. 3. Liquor License Application from Quinn Courtright dba Alex's Plaza Restaurant & Bar at 35 North Main Street. 4. Ambulance License Renewal. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a Land Use Appeal. All headngs must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting.) 1. Continuation of Appeal of Planning Action No. 2004-02, a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 sq. ft. mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Applicant: Lloyd Haines. 2. Public Hearing to consider adoption of 2004-2005 Budget. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.U'S VIII. IX. Xl Xl. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ~. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2003-118 Approving a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the Purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on Land Zoned R-1-7.5, Classified as Hillside Lands and Within a Residential Histodc District in Ashland, Oregon. Applicant: Sidney and Karen DeBoer 2. Quarterly Financial Report-- Jan - March, 2004. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Summary of Council Goals for FY 2004-2005 and Timeline. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS ANDCO_NT~CTS: V3. Second reading by title only of~_Ordinance-_~"reating a Prohibition Against Public Nudity "~_______ ~, i~ir~t rea_d_ing by title only of "An Ordinance of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, ~'~egen,.~orizing the Issuance of Bonds to Finance the Ashland Fiber Network." 3~F~st readin.o~ title only of "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for pedod July 1,2004 to and including June 30, 2005, such taxes in the sum of $8,483,000 upon all the Real and Personal Property subject to Assessment and Levy within the Corporate Limits of ,./the City of Ashland, Jacks~regon." ~. Reading by title only of ~A' Reso[u~.t_i0nA~opting the Annual Budget and Making , /Appropriations." ',.~_ ...... ~ Reading by title OIr'lly of ~ Res_ol~ ~l, eclaring City's election to receive State .s~eevenues-'' eading by title only of "~ Res__olutio__rLCettifying City provides sufficient municipal rvices to qualify' for Sta~-S-~bve'~tionS." OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL XlI. LIAISONS: ADJOURNMENT: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (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 I). COtJNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.[JS ASHLAND CITY COUNCIl.. MEETING MAY 18, 2004 - Page 1 of 7 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASIILAND CITY COUNCIL May 18, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Heam were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 4, 2004 were approved als presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Proclamahon of May 16 - 22, 2004 as National Emergency Medical Services Week was read out loud. Mayor DeBoer noted a Proclamation that was done in regards to "National Hospital Week." CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement No. 21397 -- Crosswalk Maintenance Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transportation. 3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Consider the Vacation of an Alley Stretching between Oregon and Madrone Streets." Councilor Morrison/Hearn m/s to approve Consent Agenda items and R~olution//2004-12. Roll call Vote: Laws, Jackson,' Morrison, Hearn, Hartzell and Amarotico, YES. 1VIotion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Planning Action No. 2004-02, a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 sq. ft. mixed use'building at 88 North ]Main Street. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. AppliCant: Lloyd Haines. Mayor DeBoer explained the public hearing process and called the Public Hearing to order at 7:15 p.m. ABSTENTIONS~ CONFLICTS~ EX PARTE CONTACTS Councilor Jackson reported ex parte contacts as attending the January 2004 Tree Commission meeting and conducting a site visit, which resulted in an encounter with the applicant. Councilor Hartzell reported ex parte contact as receiving a booklet regarding the project from the January 2004 Tree Commission meeting, and also had a discussion with applicant in regards to designs and standards. Councilor Morrison reported ex parte contacts as attending the Historic Commission meeting and conducting a site visit. Councilor Amarotico reported a site visit and he has read the emails that are part of the public record. Councilor Heam reported reading the emails sent to the Council and conducted a site visit. Mayor DeBoer reported reading the emails and newspaper article, and also made a site visit. STAFF REPORT Community Development Director John McLaughlin and Senior Planner Bill Molnar noted the location of the proposed structure in relation to the Ashland Flood Plain and its intended use. The first floor would be the location of a restaurant, the second floor as being retail space and a professional office suite, and the third floor would house two residences. Due to the buildings proposed location, this project is subject to a Detail Site ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 18, 2004 - Page 2 of 7 Review. It was noted a small iportion of this project lies within the Ashland Flood Plain and therefore any development will require a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit. The final component of this Planning Action involves a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of a large Alder tree located at the building site. Staff stated there has been much discussion about a Maple Tree located on the property, and clarified it is expected to be maintained, with the exception of one of the upper trunks. Mr. Molnar noted the Historic, Tree and Planning Commissions' recommendations, which are included in the Staff Report. He also relayed the appellants' five issues as grounds for appeal, and Staff's response to those claims. Mr. Molnar stated there has been new information submitted by the applicant since the Planning Commissions meeting. In regards to the Maple tree, the lowest level has been retracted 18" in order to provide additional space, and the applicants have also indicated that they may modify their grading plan immediately beneath the tree to reduce disturbance to the root zone. Additional changes include an increase in size to the three floors of approximately 3,00 sq. ii., and a mechanical basement of 900 sq. ft. has been added below the lowest floor. There has also been a change in the location of the proposed bridge. After reviewing the new information and the concerns raised by the appellant, Staff supports the Planning Commissions' decision, which found that the project complies with the applicable ordinance requirements. Staff recommends that Council approve the request with the attached conditions as stated on pages 71-78 of the record. Mr. McLaughlin noted the new information was submitted after the close of the Planning Commissions' hearing, and therefore could not be considered in their decision. Assistant Attorney Mike Franell explained the circumstances for considering an exception to the zero setback rule. He also clarified the Stat,: Statute, which indicates that the City has 30 days to notify the applicant if information is missing from their application. If the City does not notify the applicant, than the application is deemed complete. If the applicants are notified within 30 days, then they have the opportunity to respond. Staff clarified where a structure could be built in relation to the flood plain elevation, and noted that the engineering firm OTAK, Inc. had concluded the proposed structure would result in an improvement of flood conveyance and storage capacity. Council noted the conflicting ]provisions within the Design Standards and Tree ordinances. Mr. Franell clarified the Tree Protection Ordinance ~only applies, to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the other, provisions of the code. Mr. McLaughlin clarified that Staff can issue a revocation of the permit if it is determined that the information provided by the applicant is incorrect. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Alan Harper/71;/Murphy Rd./Representing the Applicant/Noted the applicant had not made their final determination on the location of the bridge, however they feel it would be best to move the proposed bridge completely out of the flood plain. Mr. Harper noted additional documents had been added to the record and opened the floor to Council questions. Mr. Harper noted the existing bridge is below the flood plain level, and they believe their design will eliminate problems and dramatically improve the creek. John Galbert/Landscape ArChitect/Stated the driplines were not accurately drawn on plans. He clarified .how it was overlooked, explaining their initial focus was regarding the critical root zone and health of the trees. They have since corrected this information and it is included in the packet provided to the Council. It was clarified that the applicant had redesigned the excavation area, reduced the size of the deck by 18 inches, and pulled the building back by 10 feet, all in an attempt to save the Maple tree. Mr. Galbert explained that one of the trees is leaning on the fence and ~hould be removed immediately, and another tree is severely ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 18, 2004 - Page 3 of 7 damaged due to poor pruning. He stated there is only one tree, aside fi.om the Alder, that will need to be removed entirely. He also clarified that one of the minks of the Maple tree will need to be removed due to its impact on the project. Tom Myers' Arborist Report was noted, which states that the proposed building will have only minimal impacts on the trees. IN FAVOR OF APPLICANT J. Ellen Austin/625 A Street/Spoke in favor of the proposed project and supported the proposed public art on the property. Jim Young/Il02 Holton Rd., Talent/Shared how he is involved in public art, and supports the applicant's intention of making the Alder tree an art sculpture for the public to respect. Mr. Young stated he is in favor of this project because of the respect that has been given to the trees. Russell Beebe/4735 Coleman Crk, Talent/Noted his artistic abilities and how he has been taught to respect all living things. Mr. Beebe presented a preliminary art design for the Alder tree, and stated the artwork will last for generations. Agnes Baker-Pilgrim/369 Shan Crk, Grants Pass/Noted her Indian descent and the possibility of allowing this tree to live through the honor of American Natives'. Commented on concerns regarding safety if the tree is not removed. Shared her appreciation that the applicant was willing to honor American Natives this way, and stated the carving will outlast the Alder as it stands today. Joan Van Lehn/310 Holly St./Voiced support of the project which she feels will clean up the areas where currently there are problems associated with patrons of the Ashland Creek Bar & Grill. Ms. Van Lehn commented that the applicant cares greatly for the environment and urged the council to support the project. James Kolker/1030 Morton St./Spoke as a current business owner in the area. and how the proposed project would improve the area through beautification. 'Mr. Kolker noted the areas that will be improved and explained that there are current problems with loitering, vagrancy, littering, etc. Mr. Kolker stated this project would not take away the ambiance of outside dining, and commented that holding up this project to save one tree would be a detriment to the community. Jack Hardesty/575 Dogwood Way/Spoke in favor of the project and commented on how this project would be an improvement to the area. Skip Andrews/216 Scenic Drive/Voiced support for this project and shared how he has appreciated the park like settings that the applicant has developed. Mr. Andrews commented on his love of trees and his concern Whenever trees are to be removed. He stated he supports the decision to remove the Alder tree given its lifeline, and noted the applicant has considered the environment in every development he has completed. Andrew Chester/320 Wimer St/Stated the applicant is very aware of the flood issues, and noted how this project could add to the tourism element. Mr. Chester spoke in favor of the downtown area becoming an area that attracts tourists, even if it means the removal of a tree. He also believes 'that the applicant is concerned with environment. Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99S/Stated that, Alder trees grow fast and die first, and as they .grow. old they become hazards. Mr. Roth commented that if the Alder tree on the project '.property were to die, it would become a hazard to the public. He also noted the difference between Alder ~md Maple trees, stating that the Maple tree on the property is tough and can be saved. Mr. Roth urged the council to deny the appeal and to approve this project. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 18, 2004 - Page 4 of 7 Evan Archerd/120 N 2nd St/Shared his involvement with the Tree ordinance, and stated it's intent was to provide an additional layer to ikeep city beautiful, not to tromp development. Mr. Arched noted how the residents love the Alder tree, but that it is important to look at the history of our town. He commented on the trees that have been removed over the years, and feels that this building will be a beautiful addition to our downtown. Colin Swales/461 Alison Street/Commented on building design, and noted the large-scale development requirements. Mr. Swales explained that any building in excess 10,000 sq. f~ is subject to 10% of lot being used for public amenities, and fbels that this building would be subject to this requirement. Mr. Swales cited the Assistant Attorney's interpretation, and stated that he disagrees. Mr. Swales commented that allowing developers to build small portions at a time allows them to get away fi.om the 10% public amenity requirement. Ted Loftus/295 Beach Street/Chairman of Tree Commission/Stated that he is disappointed that this had been appealed to the council and noted the experts that are members of the Tree Commission. Mr. Loftus expressed his frustration with the process. He stated that it was difficult for the Tree Commission to give permission for the permit, but given the information provided, they did so. He also noted the undersized circles on the plans caused an enormous amount of work for the commission. In the future, he suggests that the commission is given additional staff support and expressed the need for the staff liaison to fully understand the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Loftus also asked the Council to consider the addition of an urban forester to offer support in helping the commission make better decisions. OPPOSED TO APPLICANT Randall Hopkins/735 S Mounlain Avenue/Stated the importance of enforcing the law as written, commented that all should be treated equally', and questioned if the Council would vote differently if he were the applicant. Mr. Hopkins challenged whether the planning application provided the necessary requirements, and noted the applicant did not sign the Certificate of Truth. He explained how if you remove one trunk of a multi-tmnked tree, you put the entire tree in jeopardy, and if you remove one tree fi.om a grove you put the entire grove at risk. He also expressed concerned that the ODOT trees are now being called hazardous, but when analyzed by the Tree Commission they were listed as "good trees". Mr. Hopkins commented on the trimming of the Maple tree and stated the applicants are proposing to remove 40°A, and it will look ridiculous. Mr. Hopkins explained that he has also looked into the flood plain issues, and asked that the Council pay close attention to this aspect. He stated the applicants' plans do not accurately represent the facts of the two flood plains, and spoke regarding the FEMA ilood plain and the Ashland flood plain corridor. Mr. Hopkins concluded by asking the Council to carefully consider the impact of this project on basic public safety. Mr. Hopkins clad_fled for Council that the application does not accurately reflect the flood plain and explained that he came to this determination by analyzing the map with a magnifying glass. He also noted document #106 from the Planning staff, which indicates that the FEMA flood plain extends into a comer of the proposed building. Mr. Hopkins clarified[ he is withdrawing the conflict of interest claim as one of his objections.., Public Hearing will be continued at the June 1st Council Meeting due to the requirement that Public Hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. PUBLIC FORUM None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Appointment of Michael Dawkins to the Planning Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2008. Councilor Morrison/Amarotico m/s to appoint Michael, Dawkings to the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jacks;on, Morrison and Hearn, YES; Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1. ASHI..AND CITY COU.'NCIL MEETING MAY 18, 2004 - Page 5 of 7 2. The Grove. Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained the three options available for proceeding with The Grove. She explained that Option 1, which consists of a two-phase process, had been recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee. The other two options are for an independent contractor to nm The Grove as a teen center, or to have the Parks and Recreation Commission operate The Grove for both teen and community use. Ms. Seltzer noted that-despite which option Council chooses, an adjustment to the budget 'will be necessary. Kathleen Mackris/549 Allison Street/Read aloud a letter from her son Sam Groveman, and submitted it into the record. Joe Charter/1568 Windsor, Medford/Spoke regarding the "Boys to Men" program and explained how the program worked. Mr. Charter requested that they be given the option for reserving the use of The Grove for this program. Parks & Recreation Director Don Robertson explained the use of The Grove has been limited to staff and internal customers until the Council provides further direction on its intended use. A sample budget was submitted to the Council and briefly explained by Mr. Robertson. It was noted that the Parks Commission had the opportunity to discuss The Grove at their last meeting, and the commissioners spoke favorably in regards to the possible uses of The Grove. Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to extend meeting Until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Mr. Robertson commented that he supports the idea of sharing the burden and allowing community organizations to move forward with their programs. He explained that the Parks and Recreation Commission is not interested in being the sole provider of social services, and noted that his staff does not possess the skills to deal with areas such as drug and alcohol addiction. Mr. Robertson stated that both Options 1 and 3 have merit, however they are positioned to move forward with Phase 1 of Option 1 at this time. Mr. Robertson clarified that if they schedule very structured teen activities ii would lessen thek ability to rent the facility for financial means. Councilor Laws m/s to table this issue until the next Council Meeting. Motion withdrawn. Council agreed to continue the discussion at the June 1 st Council Meeting. NEW ~ MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Quarterly Financial Report -- Jan - March, 2004. Moved to June 1 st Council Meeting due to time constraints. 2. Ashland Forest Resiliency Project. Fire Chief Keith Woodley introduced Steve Jensen, Chair of Ashland Forest Lands Commission. Mr. Woodley explained the Healthy Forest Restoration Act was designed to reduce tmdergrowth and vegetation that promotes wildfire and insect destruction of forest communities. The three alternatives being considered by the United States Forest Service CLISFS) for this Restoration Act are 1) no action, 2) a USFS preferred alternative, and 3) a community alternative submitted as "Community Wildfire Protection Plan". A group consisting of various local organizations and the Ashland Forest Lands Con, mission have been working to prepare this community alternative, and have submitted a draft to the USFS. Additional information on this project has been requested by the USFS, and Staff is before the Council seeking their endorsement of this effort before they continue forward. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 18, 2004 - Page 6 of 7 Mr. Jensen stated their work translates directly to clean abundant water, and a healthy fire resilient watershed. It was noted the deadline for submitting this alternative is October 1 st, 2004. The Ashland Forest Lands Commissions requests that the Ashland City Council formally designate the Ashland Forest Lands Commission as the official Ashland Community Liaison with the Forest Service for this particular Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The commissions' charge would be to coordinate and document the CWPP altemate plan to the USFS and act in general as the representative of the City of Ashland in all matters pertaining to this particular issue. Erik Navickas/711 Faith Ave/Displayed a picture of the Ashland Watershed, with an overlay of the fuel breaks that have been established over the years. Mr. Navickas stated there has been significant under-burning and commercial logging in the watershed, and commented that the community group working on this project are proposing 1/2 mile wide fuel breaks that would include 60% canopy removal. Mr. Navickas noted where the proposed fuels breaks would be located. Council expressed the need to ensure the process is a collaboration and that the project honors the equity of those involved. It was noted that this is an unpresidented opportunity and the Forest Lands Commission is aware of the challenges. Council expressed their confidence and agreed that the commission is moving in the right direction. Councilor Lawsfltearn m/s to endorse the "Ashland Community Wildfire Protection Plan" process as the community "third" alternative in the USFS Ashland Forest Resiliency Project. Voice Vote: aH AYES. Motion passed. Council continued their discussion regarding the use of The Grove. Councilor Laws/Itearn m/s to allow the Parks and Recreation Department to rent out The Grove for a period of three months. Voice Vote: ail AYES. Motion passed. 3. Approval of Agreement No. 21139 -- Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Project Ashland, Street Paving bel.ween the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Councilor MorrisolffLaws m/s to approve Agreement No. 21139. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending the Definition of Gross Revenues to Exclude Rev_enue from Cable Modems under the Telecommunications Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code." Councilor Jackson/Amarotico m/s to approve Ordinance #2907. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Jackson, Laws, Hearn, Amarotico and Morrison, YES. Motion passed. 2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Creating a Prohibition Against Public Nudity." Moved to June 1 st Council Meeting due to time constraints. 3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution authorizing the Adoption of a Fire Protection Plans Review and Inspection Fee Schedule." Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve Resolution #2004-16. Roll Call Vote: Morrison, Amarotico, Hearn, Jackson, Laws and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. 4. Reading by title only of '"A Resolution revising Rates for Electric Service Pursuant to Ashland ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 18, 2004 - Page 7 of 7 Municipal Code Section 14.16.030 and Repealing Resolution 2003-12." Councilor Amarofico/Hearn m/s to approve Resolution #2004-14. DISCUSSION: Council expressed concern that all three resolutions are scheduled to take effect in utility billing Cycle 7, and questioned if it should be staggered. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained staff is following the process that was established two years ago, which implements rates every other cycle so that they start throughout the month. It was clarified the government electric rates are higher than the commercial electric rates because the government does not have to pay the 25% utility tax. Mr. Tuneberg clarified the increase in eleclric rates will help to cover operational costs as well as restore some of the fund balance. Councilor Hartzell clarified this is not raising rates in order to refurbish the electric fund for what was borrowed fbr AFN. Mr. Tuneberg added that electric costs have increased $1.3 million in the past two years, and this increase will help to offset those costs. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Morrison, Laws, Amarotico, Hearn and Jackson, YES. Motion passed. 5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution revising Rates for Water Service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.04.030 and Repealing Resolution 2003-13#" Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2004-15. Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Morrison, Jackson, Hearn, Hartzell and Laws, YES. Motion passed. 6. Reading by title only of "A Resolution revising Rates for Wastewater Service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.035 and Repealing Resolution 96-19." Councilor Jackson/Amarofico m/s to approve Resolution #2004-13. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Hartzell, Morrison, Amarotico, Laws and Jackson, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor - PROCLAMATION · By act of Congress of the United States dated June 14, 1777', the first official flag of the United States was adopted. · By act of Congress dated August 3, 1949, "National Flag Day" was designated each year as June 14. · The Congress has requested the President to issue annually a proclamation designating the week in which June 14 occurs as National Flag Week. Flag Day celebrates our nation's symbol of unity, a democracy in a republic, and stands for our country's devotion to freedom, to the rule of all, and to equal rights for all. · The year 2004 commemorates the 59th and 29th year anniw:rsafies of the ending of World War II and the Vietnam War. · We pay our respect to all of the many veterans who have served the armed forces of their country. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim June 14, 2004, as .Flag Day in the City of Ashland and urge all citizens of Ashland to join in with the Ashland Elks Lodge Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag and Nation, at 4:00 p.m., at the Ashland downtown Plaza. Dated this 1 st day of June, 2004. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder PROCLAMATION' Methamphetamine (meth) use and production is growing in epidemic proportions in the City of Ashland, and is a highly addictive, synthetic stimulant made fi.om a mixture of easily acquired chemicals. In one way or another, the methamphetamine epidemic has a direct impact on every citizen of this City; increased costs associated with drug use, addiction, chemical clean up, increased work for law enforcement and social workers, overcrowded jails, increased domestic violence and physical abuse, shattered marriages, lost jobs, and devastated and neglected children. Southern Oregon Drug Awareness has invited leading national experts to help the community address the problems of the use and abuse of methamphetamines, and is presenting a one-day Methamphetamine Awareness Conference June 17th, 2004, at the Smullin Center, Oregon. SODA has already gained the support and sponsorship fi.om many local, state and national organizations and businesses: Drugs Don't Work Here: Airport Chevrolet; American Society of Safety Engineers of Southern Oregon; Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association; ACCBO/Addiction Certification Board of Oregon; Genesis Recovery; Medford Fabrication; Oregon Medical Laboratories Drug Free; Boise; Wal-Mart and many others. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim June 17, 2004 as: ME THAMPHE TAMINE AWARENESS DA Y- and urge all citizens to join Southern Oregon Drug Awareness (SODA) in increasing awareness of this hazardous and often times deadly drag by educating themselves on methamphetamines. Dated this 1 st day of June, 2004. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder CITY OF SHLAND Draft ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes May 5, 2004 Community Development/Engineering Services Building- 51 Winburn Way- Siskiyou Room Historic Commissioners Present: Keith Swink, Tom Giordano (left at 9:20), Alex Krach, Joanne Krippaehne, Rob Saladoff, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford, and Jay Leighton (who arrived at 8:50 and left at 9:15). Absent Members: Dale Shostrom Council Liaison: John Morrison (absent) Hi.qh School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary $onja Akerman CALL TO ORDER At 7:05 p.m., Vice Chair Skibby called the meeting to order. COMMISSION TRAINING This has been postponed until the June 2 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Whitford moved to approve the April 7, 2004 minutes as submitted. With a second by Saladoff, the motion was approved with all voting aye. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Action 2004-018 Site Review 322 Pioneer Street Al and Sandra Carlson All members had site visits; none had ex parte Contacts. Knox explained that although this application had been advertised as a public headng, it was heard informally last month due to issues that Staff had on parking. As a result, the application was delayed one month so the issues coUld be worked out. The most recently submitted design consists of a 1,130 square foot addition that has no upper story and no deck; instead, it has a clerestory on top that has the potential to eventually accommodate a full second story. The commercial storefront includes three sections that can either be entrances or windows. Knox stated Staff would like to see at least one of these areas recessed more. Parking will be around the perimeter of the lot on Oak and "A" Streets and three off-street parking spaces will be provided off "A" Street at the rear of the property. Staff is supporting this application with Historic Commission recommendations incorporated into the Findings. Gary Capema, 2908 Hillcrest Drive in Medford, stated he represents the design team for Batzer, Inc. for this project. He then explained the changes made since the last Historic Commission meeting. The addition now consists of three equal volumes. Each of the bays is one large volume. These volumes give the proposed addition an appropriate presence on "A" Street. By eliminating the upper story apartment, the parking requirements fit with the proposal. Skibby asked about the extedor lighting and Capema replied the light will be Ashland Histodc Commission Minutes May 5, 2004 CiTY OF SHLAND behind a narrow flat steel sheet and will project downward. He added the color scheme of the building will be subdued; the CMU block will be a dark oak color. He then explained the three entry sections will be recessed 24 inches and the canopy extends four feet, so there will be a six foot protected entry. Caperna explained he wanted to design the building with longevity in mind, thus the potential for three separate openings. It will be built, however, with only one opening at the beginning. The canopy will be continuous. The middle portion of the alcoves can be either doors or windows; the rhythm would remain the same. The bronze anodized windows in the clerestory will be non-operable and are the same as used in the existing building and the "A" Street Marketplace across the street. He cladfied the ceilings will be 16 feet high and the addition will be built to accommodate a second floor in the future. The CMU block is 8" x 16" and the grout will be the same color. The base of the building will be fluted, and then the building will go into common bond on split face block. On top, the cornice will be smooth block. Knox stated he would like to see at least one of the alcoves (middle would be best) further recessed to help clarify the main entry. The door(s) will open onto the sidewalk and pedestrians walking by would have to be careful. As there was no one in the audience who wanted to speak, Skibby closed the public hearing. Whitford stated he feels Knox's point about recessing the center bay is important for the look of the building and for safety issues. Krippaehne and Saladoff both stated it would be difficult to identify the main entry, as it could eventually change. Giordano remarked the flexibility would be taken away if one entry were to be designated now. Ideally, all three bays would be recessed at least three feet. Knox responded the space is actually quite small and the middle bay is the most likely one to be the main entry. The addition will likely accommodate only one or two businesses. Giordano stated he would like to recommend all three be recessed. Capema offered to set up the return walls in the entdes (alcoves) so if the space is used for a window, it can be forward and if used for a doorway, it could be recessed more. This would still allow for flexibility of the use. He would comply with a condition of approval stating doors would need to be recessed and windows could remain with a 24-inch setback. In discussing this further, Capema and owner Al Carlson, agreed to recess all three alcoves, noting more square footage could be added in the rear to make up for the loss of space. The Commission concurred this would be the best solution. Giordano moved to recommend approval of this application with the condition all three openings on "A' Street be recessed a minimum of three feet. Krippaehne seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote. Planning Action 2004-049 Conditional Use Permit/Transfer of Ownership 115 North Main Street Jessica and Bruce Capp All members had site visits; none had ex parte contacts. Knox explained this application is for a Transfer of Ownership for a previously approved Bed & Breakfast. Although there are rarely complaints, he clarified this process gives neighbors a chance to voice concems when a traveler's' accommodation changes ownership. There are no interior or exterior changes proposed. There was no one k~ the audience who wished to speak regarding this application. .. Whitford moved to recommend approval of this application and Swink seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes May 5, 2004 Planning Action 2004-043 Conditional Use Permit 530 Catalina Drive Dr. William Rodden CITY OF -ASHLAND All members had site visits; none had ex parte contacts, although Skibby stated that while he was taking pictures of the property, a neighbor offered his personal opposition to the proposed use because of the deer. Knox reported this application is for the construction of a temporary parking lot across from Ashland Community Hospital. The lot is currently vacant and would provide parking for the owner's patients and staff dudng the remodel of the Catalina Medical Building and upgrading of the existing parking lot. (Dr. Rodden owns both properties.) Knox explained a Conditional Use Permit is required because a parking lot should not be the predominant feature on a street. The proposal is to use the temporary lot for a two-year period, at which time the use will be reevaluated. The lot will be gravel with 16 spaces, a locked gate and perimeter landscaping, which will incorporate a bioswale at the rear of the property to capture and retain storm water runoff pdor to pumping the excess water with a sump pump up to Catalina Ddve. In addition, Knox related the existing tree is proposed to be saved while the property is a parking lot, but will most likely be removed when the lot .is developed in the future. Staff is supportive of this temporary two-year use. Designer Mark Reitinger (385 Vista Street), representing the applicant, stated this is a straightforward application. The property is zoned Health Care. He referred to the letter from Dr. Fried opposing the use and stated there is no real cdteda for setting up a temporary parking lot so there is no clear cdteda. After he received a copy of the letter, Reitinger submitted a letter to the Planning Department mitigating most all the points in the letter that could be contentious. The dust will be alleviated with the use of a biodegradable solution that will provide a temporary coating to the lot throughout the summer months, then would dissipate in the winter. He said they are hoping the bioswale and sump pump will take care of most of the drainage problems, since historically, the property drains downslope to the rear. Reitinger acknowledged there probably could be nothing that will alleviate the glare from windshields; however, landscaping the perimeter will help. Kdppaehne questioned the parking configuration being in such close proximity to the tree and Reitinger responded that while the site plan shows parking tight against the tree, it will most likely be reconfigured to keep cars away from the ddp edge of the tree. They may lose a couple parking spaces. He added that landscaping is only required against residential properties bordering parking lots. Although adjacent properties to the north and south are not residences, these borders will also be landscaped. Krach asked if Reitinger had talked with Dr. Fded and he responded he had not talked with her but had addressed her concems. Krach then questioned what the eventual use of the property would be. Reitinger said Dr. Rodden owns both pieces of property and may decide to build another medical office or he may decide to sell the proposed parking lot property. Rodden does not want to limit any future use of the vacant property. His intent is to use the temporary lot while construction is taking place on his existing office and parking lot. Reitinger also noted the hospital currently has major construction taking place and parking spaces are at a premium in the area. Skibby asked about the temporary fill at the rear of the property. Reitinger said he suspects that that area would be filled no matter what the future use will be. Swink asked who would most likely use the lot and Reitinger replied half of the first year would be used mainly by staff for the Catalina Medical Building. When the existing parking lot is being brought up to current standards, the temporary lot would likely be used for valet parking because most of Dr. Roddenls patients are geriatric. When asked by Saladoff if the Catalina entrance is the only access to the lot, Reitinger responded it is. Saladoff said the bottom three spaces will be difficult to use and Reitinger agreed, stating they will probably lose them in the reconfiguration. He added there is an existing curb cut that will be used, but staff may require it be mOVed when the lot is developed in the future because of its nearness to Dr. Fded's property. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes May 5, 2004 CiTY OF : SHLAND Krippaehne wondered why the applicant is making such an effort to save the tree when probably in two years, a tree permit will be submitted to remove it for development. She stated the tree has not been maintained and looks like a mess. She could understand the efforts if it was a good specimen and didn't impede the development of the property. Skibby closed the public hearing as there was no one who wished to speak. Skibby stated there was a similar application a few years ago for the lot on the comer of Catalina and Maple pdor to the construction of the now existing medical building. He sees the same process in the development of this property and commented a building on the site will impact both the lot and the tree. It is inevitable. Kdppaehne stated she personally feels it would be beneficial to make the most efficient use of the property and that includes mitigating for the possible loss of the tree. Kdppaehne then moved to recommend approval of this application with the recommendation that IF the tree presents an impediment to the most effective use of the temporary parking lot, the Historic Commission supports its removal and if that is the case, that the removal of the tree be mitigated elsewhere. Giordano seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote. OLD BUSINESS Review Board - Following is the May schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: May 6th May 13th May 20th May 27th Skibby and Giordano Skibby, Kdppaehne and Swink Skibby, Whifford and Krach Skibby, Swink and Saladoff Project Assiqnments for Planninq Actions PA #2000-120 485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier) Shostrom PA #2002-100 142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods) Leighton PA #2003-005 35 S. Second Street (Winchester Inn) Kdppaehne PA #2003-092 124 Alida Street (Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov) Krippaehne PA #2004-017 364 Hargadine Street (Ken Kolar) Krach PA #2004-026 81 Central Avenue (Wes & Lucinda Vail) Giordano PA #2004-018 322 Pioneer Street (Al & Sandra Cadson) Swink PA #2004-043 246 Catalina Ddve (Dr. William Rodden) Krach Articles for City Source - Krach volunteered to write an article about historic preservation. National Histodc Preservation Week - Knox encouraged all members to attend the award ceremony on Friday. He also pointed out there would be three more walking tours - Thursday, Fdday and Saturday. Possible National Reqister Nomination for Lithia Spdn,qs Property - The tour that was held on April 22nd was discussed, as well as the Parks Commission decision to study the Gun Club proposal and impacts the lease renewal would have on the site. Skibby stated one of the Parks Commissioners is still under the impression the. Lithia Springs Property is listed as "surplus" and could be sold. He requested that someone notify the Parks Commission that it has been removed from the surplus list. Carne.qie Library Restoration - There was nothing new to report. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes May 5, 2004 CiTY OF SHLAND ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA Kdppaehne related she had two items to discuss with the Commission. The Conservation Commission (of which she is also a member) quarterly sponsors educational events. Looking ahead to next winter, she would like the Histodc Commission to co-sponsor a workshop on how to build storm windows for histodc windows. She feels this is a good topic to mesh the interests of the two commissions. North Mountain Park Nature Center hosts these events and also advertises them in the newsletter. The Histodc Commission agreed this is a good idea and is willing to be a co-sponsor. Kdppaehne stated she lives on Terrace Street, which is on a ddge where there are old orchards. There are still small histodc farmhouses standing but they are in jeopardy. A house dating back to 1865 just sold on the street and there are several other lots for sale in the vicinity. She wondered if there are ways the Histodc Commission could appeal to the buyers to save these homes. The pressure for people to have large homes threatens the existence of the small histodc houses with demolition or abuse because thE; buyers are paying a huge amount of money for the property. Giordano stated both he and Shostrom are on the Demolition Board and they carefully scrutinize these applications. Kdppaehne said that to her, it seems too easy to meet the economic justification cdteda in order to receive approval for demolition. Knox said tl~e applicant needs to prove it would cost more to tear down a house and construct a similar one (including size) than to renovate it. The Demolition Board tdes hard to look at the preservation of buildings as the most viable option, but he agreed that histodc houses outside the Histodc Districts are in jeopardy. He suggested the significant historic homes be documented as eligible for National Register status. Kdppaehne commented there ought to be a way to do some outreach to educate the purchasers of these properties on the value of historic homes. She would like the Histodc Commission to brainstorm ways to accomplish this without relying on more regulations, but' appealing to their interest. (Leighton arrived at this time.) Giordano stated owners would need to be notified prior to the sale of historic homes, but it would be tough to convince them. Kdppaehne asked about the process of creating a list of structures outside the District. Knox responded someone would be hired to go through the City's resources; however, Council approval would be required first. Krippaehne moved for development of a memo to the City Council to request authorization for a multiple listing survey to place structures outside the existing four historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places. Krach seconded the motion with the stipulation the memo be reviewed by the Commission prior to submitting it to the Council. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Leighton announced she would like to see the Histodc Commission members at the Oregon Heritage Conference and encouraged them to attend. She noted daily fees were $20 for Thursday and $25 each for Fdday and Saturday. She also stated she had a limited number of free passes to Governor Kulongoski's speech. (She left at 9:15 p.m.) Designer Bill Emerson presented proposed plans for an addition to the Unitarian Church on Fourth Street. Giordano stated he is working with Emerson on this project and felt it would be inappropriate for him to participate, therefore, he left the meeting at .9:20 p.m. Emerson stated the existing church will remain as it is, including the pinkish vertical block. The existing basement portion with a one-story shed will be removed on the north side of the building and replaced with a larger addition. He showed elevations of the proposed addition from all sides. Kdppaehne said that while the design is a competent one that is a traditional style, she personally thinks it would be a mistake to add something that is reminiscent of a house. She would like to get away from re- imagining the past because it doesn't reflect the culture of our time and it robs the building of meaning. She does not feel new buildings should be made to look old. Whitford stated that while he doesn't always agree Ashland Historic Commission Minutes May 5, 2004 CiTY OF SHLAND with Kdppaehne., he does with this. He doesn't think the addition is in harmony with the existing church and said he feels the, two should be more similar. Emerson said his intention is to have both buildings look separate, even though they will be connected. He also noted he used elements of modern architecture in the design. Saladoff remarked this is not just about the style. There is a hierarchy of what is the use and what is needed in the neighborhood. The features on the proposed addition are residential in nature and the design fits into the neighborhood. Other options would be to match the existing building that was constructed in the 1960s or to make the design more contemporary. Whitford commented there are two churches that come to his mind. The historic Trinity Episcopal Church has a recent addition that matches the existing church. The Methodist Church on North Main Street has a separate building in the back that is a completely different style. They don't match, but they harmonize. Skibby related he likes the proposed design. Swink and Krach said they could go either way with the design. Krippaehne pointed out she is not advocating mimicry with the new addition, rather a more contemporary design. Krach added this is a tough site and a tough call. He advised Emerson to gather the opinions of the Historic Commission members and then go with his heart, as he doesn't feel the members will see eye-to- eye on this project. Saladoff invited Emerson to come to the Review Board no matter which way the design goes. Saladoff presented preliminary plans for his own house, which will be located at 150 Church Street. He stated the house is proposed to be larger than the maximum house size by 10% so it will be coming back to the Commission as a planning action. Before he goes further with the design, however, he requested input from the Commission. Saladoff said he thought it was important to design the house to fit the street as well as the needs of his family. (At 10:00, Krfppaehne moved and Swink seconded to extend the meeting until 10:15. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.) In discussing the, design, the Commission felt Saladoff should basically proceed with his proposed design. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Kriippaehne and second by Whitford, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes May 5, 2004 City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Apd126, 2004 ATTENBANCE Present: Absent: Commissioners Amarotico, Eggers, Gardiner, Lewis, Rosenthal; Director Robertson; Superintendent Gies; City Council Uaison Hartzell None CALL TO ORDER Chair Gardiner called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM at Coundl Chambers, 1175 E. Main. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Reflular Meeting - March 22 Under Items From Commissioners, Vice-Chair Eggers dadfied that she is a regular voting member of the Forest Lands Commission. MOTION Commissioner Rosenthal moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Amarotico seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by consensus. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPEN FORUM - None ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA- None UNFINISHED BUSINESS ASHLAND GUN CLUB AGREEMENT Director Robertson reminded'Commissioners about the request from the Ashland Gun Club for a 20-year lease extension past the current lease's expiration date of 2009. The extension would make the dub eligible for additional grants through the State Department of. R sh.~and Wildlife and the National Rifle Assodation. He reported that the Commission, along with members of the Historic Commi.~ion, toured the gun club property on Apn'122, 2(X)4. Public Comment Terry Skibby, 611 Beach Street, a member of the Ashland Historic Commission, toured the gun dub' property on Apdl 22 and took photographs to better capture its historic elements. He shan~ those photos with the Commissioners. Mr. Skibby expressed that the site is historically, naturally, and possibly archeologica!ly important and that some historic elements have deteriorated, and he spoke in favor of nominating the site for placement on the National Register of Histodc Places. Finally, Ihe stressed the importance of preserving the histodc components at the site and questioned the compatibili[ty of conducting a gun club at such an histodc location. Keith Swink, 231 Gresham Street, a member of the Historic Commission, also toured the site on April 22 and was impressed by the beauty of the location. Mr. Swink spoke favorably of the care provided by the gun club, and he voiced the shared concern of other Historic Commissioners about the long-term compatibility / use of the property by the dub, considering the current growth levels in Ashland. He asked Parks Commissioners to postpone a derision on the matter, pending, their further consideration and additional input from the dtizens of Ashland. Page 2 of 4 Regular Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2004 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission UNFINISHED BUSINESS ASHLAND GUN CLUB AGREEMENT, Cont'd. Aaron Benjamin, 740 Emigrant Creek Road, lives directly across from the gun club site. He spoke of his concern about lead seeping into the ground and contaminating the water table, as he shares the same aquifer as the gun club: He requested that a scientific study [on the possible lead pollution level] be conducted before extending the lease. He also expressed concem about noise pollution caused by the gun club and indicated that evening, early morning, and weekend noise levels can sometimes cause sleep disturbanoesl He asked for consideration by the gun dub of the rights of the residents in the area. Dale Shostrom, 1240 Tolman Creek Road, Ashland Historic Commission Chair, thanked the gun club for the April 22 tour, which he found useful, and .praised them for their care of the property. He recommended further study and consideration of the impact of the club at the site before making a determination about a lease extension. Ed Pentkowski, 436 Monte Vista Drive, is a retired City of Ashland Electric Department employee and a longstanding member of the gun club. He spoke of the care given to the site and of the gun safety education classes that the club provides to the community, espedally for young people. He strongly urged the Commission to extend the lease to the gun club, to allow their good works to continue for many years into the future. Discussion Among Commissioners Commissioners asked for clarification on the role of the Parks commission with respect to the site. Director Robertson stated that the City of Ashland owns the property and that Ashland Parks and Recreation manages the lease contract with the gun dub, but the property is not a dedicated park. Chair Gardiner suggested conducting a study session for the purpose of 'combing through the lease" to incorporate some of this public testimony. He expressed his desire for both entities [gun dub and Historic Commission] to share the use of the site. V'~.~Chair Eggers thanked Mr. Bill Longiotti for the document he compiled in which members of the gun dub explained how they use the facility and talked about how their organizations find value from the club. Eggers also thanked the Historic Commission, espedally Nan Hannon, who prepared a document outlining the historic qualities of the site. Finally, she expressed her desire for the Commission to further consider all of the relevant information before making a derision about the lease extension. The commission directed Staff to research issues that could be affected by a lease extension, including: gun dub impacts on the National Historic Register status; Native American site considerations; Lithia water impacts; potential lead content in the soils and water, as well as any potential cleanups; the need for wetlands delineation;flora and fauna considerations; potential site usage conflicts; Greenway impacts; and the impact on the Ashland Police Department (and other groups using the club) if the lease were not extended. The commission agreed to conduct a study session in several months to review the current lease and to' consider possible modifications, with the goal of ensuring protection of these resources. Further discussion was tabled, to provide Staff with an opportunity to research these matters. NEW BUSINESS - None SUB.COMMITTEE and STAFF REPORTS Quarterly Budget Update Director Robertson directed Commissioners' attention to the brief budget summary provided in their packets, showing budgeted amounts, projected amounts, and year-to-date amounts. He stated that, for the quarter ending March 30, 2004, which represents the third quarter of the 2003-2004 fiscal year, the Department was on track for revenues and projected expenditures. Page 3 of 4 Regular Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2004 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission SUB-COMMi! ! EE and STAFF REPORTS, COnt'd. Quarterly Project Update Superintendent Gies reported on the status of the Depadment~s projects, referencing* the memo in the Commission, packets. Quarterly projects included the Greenway Park node, the North Mountain Park knoll, improvements in water quality at Lithia Park ponds, the Calle Guanajuato stairway project, the BMX Bike Park Project, and the work of the Trail Master Plan Committee. Some of the projects are complete while others are nearing completion or are well underway. Calle Stairway Bids Report Director Robertson and Superintendent Gies reported that the stairway project was a~warded to Meza Construction, although their bid came in at approximately 21% over the budgeted amount. According to' Commission por~cy, staff can approve bids under $100,000 and over budget by not more than 25%, as long as they explain their reasoning and identify the source of the extra funds. The project will commence soon, and should be completed in the summer of 2(X)4, with final landscaping occurring, in the winter of 2004-2005. Trail Master Plan Committee Report Commissioner Lewis updated the Commission on the work of this committee. He reported that the first public meeting is set for Monday, June 7, 6:30 PM, at The Grove, 1195 East Main Street. At that time, small easement connections will be identified, using the adopted Open Space map and plan as the starting point. [The group will work on fleshing out that map and plan.] The public meeting will be advertised in the City Source newsletter and in other local publications. The next regular meeting of the committee will be held on Thursday, May 20. Cross Country Running Study Session Subcommittee Report Director Robertson reported on the meeting with Mr. Phil Selby, a dtizen concemed about the impacts and dangers of cross country running in Lithia Park. Other meeting attendees included Chair Gardiner, Commissioner Lewis, Officer Bon Stewart, Mr. Grier Gatlin, and Mr. Bob Julian, Jr., ~.~ SOU and AHS Cross Country coaches, respectively. The coaches volunteered to post signs warning park patrons of runners in the park, and they agreed to encourage and reinforce 'practice etiquette' with their team members. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Amarotico requested that the Commission consider stronger measures to discourage or prevent park patrons from feeding the ducks at the Lithia Park ponds. Suggestions included posting signs educating people about the dangers of feeding ducks, as well as the imposition of fines. Commissioner Rosenthal spoke with appreciation of the Earth Day celebration at North Mountain Park and thanked Staff for their efforts. He also reco(jnized the work of Parks Staff in creating the new summer- recreation guide. City Council Liaison Hartzell reported that the City Council is in the process of appointing a Charter Review Committee and that the Parks Commission will be informed about upcoming meeting details. Vice-Chair Eggers reported that the Forest Lands Commission is working on a community altemative to the Forest Service's proposed Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, of which the major intent-ils to reduce fire hazard in the larger watershed. Vice-Chair Eggers asked Staff to discourage Lithia Park patrons from parking on lawns, especially near the ponderosa pine treesl during this year's Fourth of July activities. She specifically requested that vehicles drive only on designated roadways. Director Robert.son agreed to speak to the Chamber of Commerce about this matter. Page 4 of 4 Regular Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2004 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission UPCOMING MEEliNG DATE(S) and PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS · Study session set for. 7:00 PM May 17, 2004, Parks Department Office, 340 S. Pioneer. · Trail Master Plan Committee Meeting set for 1:00 PM May 20, 2004, Parks Department Office, 340 S. Pioneer. · Regular meeting set for 7:00 PM May 24, 2004, Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main. ADJOURNMENT -By consensus, with no further business, Chair Gardiner adjoumed the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Susan Dyssegard Ashland Parks and Recreation Office of the Mayor Alan DeBoer MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: May 25, 2004 City Council Members Mayor Alan DeBoer ~ Appointment/Reappointments to Hospital Board June 1~ 2004 City Council Meeting Please confirm the reappointments David Bernard and Marilyn Hanna, and appointment ,of Diane C. Williams, M.D. to the Hospital Board for terms to expire June 30, 2008. Hospital Bylaws state that directors who have served on the Board for two full continuous terms are not eligible for appointment to a subsequent term, thus Jean Keevil, M.D., who has served on the Hospital Board for two full four-year terms, will not be reappointed for a further terrn. Attached is the letter of interest from Diane C. Williams, M.D. Attachment: City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street ° Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 · Emaih awdb@aol.com Ashland Pediatrics, P. C. 251 Maple St. Ashland, OR 97520 MAY Z 0 2004 By May 17, 2004 Mayor Alan DeBoer 20 East Main St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Mayor DeBoer, I have been asked by the Ashland Community Hospital Board Development Committee to consider accepting their nomination to the hospital Board. After due consideration I would like to be considered for this position--a designated M. D. position held most recently by Dr. Jean A. Keevil. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Diane C. Williams, M. D. Cc: Dr. Jean Keevil CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: submitted By: Approved By: Liquor License Application from Quinn Courtright dba Alex's Plaza Restaurant & Bar at 35 North Main Street City Recorder/Treasurer }f.JBune 1, 2004 arbara Chfistens(~ ) Gino Grimaldi Synopsis: Application process of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC. Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing of this application. Background Information: Application for liquor license is for a change in ownership. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chpt. 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chpt. 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license. applications. CITY OF ,-ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: Ambulance License Renewal Ashland Fire & Rescue June 1,2004 ~(~ Keith E. Wo°dley, Fire Chief Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator~'~ Paul Nolte, City Attorney Synopsis: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 6.40.110 requires ambulance service providers operating within the City of Ashland to apply annually for an ambulance operator's license. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request by Ashland Fire & Rescue for renewal of their ambulance operator's license. Background Information: AMC Chapter 6.40.110 requires ambulance service providers operating within the city limits to apply annually for an operator's license. The issued license shall be valid from the date of issuance, to ~the next following thirtieth day of June, commencing on the first day of July.by ordinance. AMC Chapter 6.40.100 sets forth license requirements, all of which have been met by the applicant. CiTY OF - SHLAND Merno TO: FROM: DEPT: RE: Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief ~ Ashland Fire & Rescue Annual Ambulance Service License Renewal DATE: Ju~ne 1,2004 In compliance with AMC 6.40.120, an inspection and test of all ambulance service vehicles, equipment and 'fixed facilities has been completed incident to the renewal of the ambulance service operator's license of Ashland Fire & Rescue. All vehicles, equipment and facilities associated with the provision of ambulance services to the City of Ashland have been found to be in compliance with ordinance requirements. Ashland Fire & Rescue Tel: 541-482-2770 ~455 Sis kiyou B Ivd Fax: 541-488-5318 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR AMBULANCE OPERATOR LICENSE AMC Ch. 6.6.40 Applicant's Name: CITY OF ASHLAND Trade Name, if any: ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE Address: 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland OR 97520 Telephone number: (541) 482-2770 Ambulance descriptions Manufacturer Vin # License # 1. 1985 BRAUN BRAUN 1FDJE3OL8FHA49888 EXEMPT 2. 1992 FORD WHEELED 1FDJS34M4NHA34394 EXEMPT COACH 3. 1992 FORD LIFELINE 1FDKE30M7PHAO5945 EXEMPT 4. 1996 FORD LIFELINE 1FDKE30F8THA48282 EXEMPT 5. 1999 FORD LIFELINE 1FDXE40F2XHA00469 EXEMPT 6. 2002 FORD LIFELINE 1FDXF47F63EA10341 EXEMPT Attach information showing that every proposed driver, attendant and driver- attendant is qualified as required in Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 6.40 and as required by the laws of the State of Oregon. Enclose with the application, the initial license fee of $300 plus $100 per ambulance. Enclose a performance bond in the amount of $500,000. Enclose an insurance policy meeting the requirements of AMC §6.40.110.7. Attach additional pages as necessary. Explain any box not checked. Submit your application and required enclosures to Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520. I certify that each ambulance listed above is adequate and safe for the purposes for which it is to be used and that it is equipped as required by Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 6.40 and the laws of the State of Oregon. Signature: Print name: Title: ,/~ ~.~ Date: H:~mbulance~APPLICA.FLE~2003~MBAPP.doc May 16, 2003 AMBULANCE SERVICE PERSONNEL ROSTER Service: ASHLAND FIRE AND RESCUE (1501) Last Name First Name MI Level Cert # Expires DL # EmpI Stat Anders, Walt L. EMT-Basic 112485 06/30/2005 1955034 PFT Beck Todd E. EMT-Paramedic 124333 06/30/2005 5837326 PFT Borosund La,rs F. EMT-Paramedic 127032 06/30/2005 8716517!PFT Boyersmith Steven P. ~EMT-Paramedic 120378 06/30/2005 4545965 PFT .~.urns ~-~.ll~~W' EMT-Paramedic 120248 06~30~2005 5207865 PFT ' Case Greg I. EMT-Paramedic 113788 06/30/2005 3254941 PFT !Clayton Todd M. EMT-Paramedic 123797 06130/2005 4836726 PFT Cockell II Rolgert C. EMT-Paramedic 123943 06/30/2005 6109120 PFT Fogarty Sean A. EMT-Basic 129083 06/30/2005 8582283 PFT Formolo Curt J. EMT-Paramedic 118901 06/30/2005 3738940 PFT Freiheit Matthew E. EMT-Paramedic 121237 06/30/2005 4927105 PFT Hadden Jennifer A. EMT-Paramedic 124336 06/30/2005 3535298 PFT Hall Christopher D. EMT-Paramedic 123164 06/30/2005 4656782 PFT Hanstein ~David ~C. EMT~Paramedic 111814 06/30/2005 2524064 PFT Hard David K. EMT-Paramedic 127938 06/30/2005 8581745 PFT I Hickman Margueritte LR EMT-Basic 128889 06/30/2005 3676587 PFT Hollingsworth Scott M. EMT-Paramedic 113607 06/30/2005 2830146'PFT Jones Gregory Rees EMT-Basic 110972 06/30/2005 1423603'PFT LaCoste Rod T. ~EMT-Paramedic 127119 06/30/2005 4322818 PFT Martin Richard F. EMT-Paramedic 130001 06/30/2005 8543648 PFT Menold [Lance W. EMT-Basic 125954~ 06/30/2005 6022'755.PFT Rasor Marshall G. EMT-Paramedic 126969 06/30/2005 5067632 PFT Rogers Allan S. EMT-Paramedic 125456 06/30/2005 4777892'PFT Rosenlund Derek A. EMT-Paramedic 121067 06/30/2005 5541498 PFT Sallee Dana S. EMT-Paramedic 116336 06/30/2005 3654752 PFT Sharkey Brent D. EMT-Paramedic 127124 06/30/2005 6110613 PFT Shepherd Davird G. EMT-Paramedic 123197 06/30/2005 3667291 PFT · Stepheds Robert W. EMT-Paramedic 123787 06/30/2005 5856509 PFT Stidham Ryan [E. EMT-Paramedic 127950 06/30/2005 5182683!PFT Sto¥ JOhn ~Trent EMT-Paramedic 118911 06/30/2005 4856227 PFT 'THE COVERA~£ DOCUMENT THIS "~:~ ....... ' ~LTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDL:D BY TI~E COVERA T AMEND, .E~_ND OR ~-~ GE DOCUMENTS Ub-FED HL~I:UF. IN ' CompAnIES ,,r~ro~e COV£~.G~ NAMED PARTICIPANT COMPANY A- City Counb/Insurance Servi,c~(CClS) CI~ of' Ashland 20 East Main Street COh~°AHY B- Fidelity and Deposi! of Ma~and 1 Ashland0 OR 9752o COMJ~ANY C - NLC M~Jtua! - . ~11~ Is to certify that caver~e documenLs lis~ed herein hn,,e been issued to the Named P~rticipenc herein for the Cover,ge'l~trkx:l indicated. Not v4~hs~.nding ID(~IT~qlC, tel'TT1 Or cO¢ldJ£Jorl ¢~r ,ny con~racc or other ~ent v4Ch real.-ct to which cbc certificate may bc isSued or m~y per~nin. ~he coverage effatded by r. he average c[ocuments listed herein is subject ra ~!( the ~ecms, candlUons ~ncl ezdusfons o!r such cav~"a~e documents. O Type of Coverage Certificate # 'R Effective Date Ez;plrador~ Date Li I.-II i I It.~1 i · General Liability 03LASH ' 7/I/2003 6/30/20CH General Aggregace None  Commercial Genefa~ Liability Ea~l Occurrence $1,000,'000 X I Public Ot'flc~Ls Liability -- '---------- X~ Eml~loyment Practlc~ '----'- ~ Occurrence . AUtO Liability 03LASH 7/1/2003 6/30/2004 G~nera! Aggregate .None ~.heduted AUtOs Each Occurrerlce ~1,0O0~O00 · Auto Physical Damage 03APDASH 7/1/2003 6/30/2004 I X / Proper~'y 03PATH 7/1/Z003 6/30/2004 Per Filed . Boiler ~ncl/a,~:hlnery 03BASH 7/~/2003 6/30/200~ ~Per Fi[ecl ¥~lues ~ F.~¢ess Crime : 3 E~cess ~rt~qu~ke Excess Flood . Workers' Comp~nsadon ii'noN: ICATE HOLDER CA~CF_LL~TIOI~ Should a~ Jackson Coun~ :~~Lc~l~;:~.r:~t~. ~n COS. 1~ ~flU or re~sen~tiva~ or ~ Issuer 1105 East Main Street Medford, OR 97504 .~ ~~ : EMERGENCY MEDICAL oERVICE oEC. T ION - AMBULANCE LIC. ENoE,J ~ Z ( ~ b t -E222273 ~80.00 ~ .., ,.~:.u:~~ ~ 6ROUND : 2002 FORD TYPE I LICENSE NO E22'~273 ~ JUN 30 05 City o¢ Ashl ' .... I EMERGENCY ME~[OaL SERVICE SECTION - aMBUt, aNCE ~999 FORD TYPE JUN 30 05 I Keith E. Woodl,ey, Ch ie¢ A!)ivnNi:Yi'qATOR 455 S i ski you E'I vd Slate Health Division I ~ ...... Ashland OR 97520 .' ........ MUST BE POSTED IN A CONSPtCUOU~ PLACE - NOT DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OREGON STATE HEAL'TH DIVISION ^ubrr NO. 1501 -E 19568'.-'.~ ~ -' GROUND 1992 FL3RD TYPE I I LICENSE NO. E19.5689 $80. O0 f-~ .C 'f f,/I E I',4'? JUN :30 05 C:ity o¢ Ashl~r,d 455 Sisk'iyou Bivd Ii ..... Ash l~r,d OR 97520 . 04/15/4 869? .4hZ ,~1001 ~ 0 MUST BE POSTED iH A Cf')F~f;~'tCtJOUS PI.;,C:~; - NOTM TRAf.~SF'E:RAE~L ~':. 996 FORD TYPE III LIC:ENSE NO. E198560 JUN 30 05 City of` Ashl Li ~''~e ' i th E. Wood ley, C:h i e~ . . ~sh ~ and CIR 97520 , ,:=:.~;. ., EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE SECT 1501 - E 17097'F c E RT. NO GROUND 1985 FORD TYPE III LICENSE NO. E170977 $80.00 J UN '~ ' · ;,~ 05 City c,¢ Ashland Ke i th E. Wood I ey, C:h i ef` ADM.Ni:.:~i'RATOR t 455 S i sk J you B I vd St~t~ He~,,ith Division ~ Ash) ~r,d OR 97520 .... ; 04115/4 ~'~° ~b y~. 462 31 O01 0 MUST BE POSTED IN A OONSPICUOUS PLACE - NOT TRANSFERABLE . .~ ~ AiJDi] DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE;S OREGON STATE t_EALTh DIVISION ..~.~NCY .~c^~ s~.v~c. S.OT~ON - ^.~U~^NC~ ~C.:NS. 3 9 2 7 5 2 1501 -E 186951 C; P, l N() GROUND 1992: FORD TYPE III LIC:ENSE NO. E186.951 JUN 30 05 City of Ashland ~ Keith E,, Woodley, Chief' ' ,..~,..~;,:,.-:~;,;,,.~>,, ~ Ii ! ~,~, ~,,.r,,-~ OR s,'r.-_,';'o : ....... iii ...... 0411514 8700 46';" 3t001 I ' -E_'; ~ ~ 0 AMBULANCE SERVICE PERSONNEL ROSTER Service: ASHLAND FIRE AND RESCUE (1501) Last Name First Name MI Level Cert # Expires DL # IEmpI Stat Anders, Walt L. EMT-Basic 112485 06/30/2005 1955034 PFT Beck Todd E. EMT-Paramedic 124333 06/30/2005 5837326 PFT Borosund Lars F. EMT-Paramedic 127032 06/30/2005 8716517 PFT Boyersmith !Steven P. EMT-Paramedic 120378 06/30/2005 4545965 PFT Burns K~!!Y ............................ w. EMT-Paramedic 120248 06/30/2005 5207865 PFT Case Greg '1. 'EMT-Paramedic '113788 06/30/2005 "' 3254941 PFT ...... Clayton Todd M. EMT-Paramedic 123797 06~30/2005 4836726 PFT Cockell II Robert C. EMT-Paramedic 123943 06/30/2005 6109120 PFT Fogarty Sean A. EMT-,19'as~/I~,~.,129083 06/30/2005 8582283 PFT Formolo Curt J. EMT-Paramedic 118901 06/30/2005 3738940 PFT !Freiheit Matthew -. EMT-Paramedic 121237 06/30/2005 4927105, PFT Hadden Jennifer A. EMT-Paramedic 124336 06/30/2005 3535298 PFT Hall Christopher D. EMT-Paramedic 123164 06/30/2005 4656782 iPFT Hanstein David C. ,EMT-Paramedic 111814 06/30/2005 2524064 PFT Hard David K. EMT-Paramedic 127938 06/30/2005 8581745 PFT Hickman Margueritte LR EMT-Basic 128889 06/30/2005 3676587PFT Hollingsworth Scott M. EMT-Paramedic 113607 06/30/2005 2830146:PFT Jones Gregory Rees EMT-Basic 110972 06/30/2005 1423603 PFT LaCoste Rod T. EMT-Paramedic 127119 06/30/2005 4322818 PFT Martin Richard F. EMT-Paramedic 130001 06/30/2005 8543648 PFT Menold Lance ' W. EMT-[I~¢~ I~/IM/,1/~¢..125954 06/30/2005' 6022'755 PFT Rasor Marshall G. EMT-Paramedic 126969 06/30/2005 5067632. PFT Rogers Allan S. EMT-Paramedic 125456 06/30/2005 4777892 PFT Rosenlund Derek A. EMT-Paramedic 121067 06/30/2005 5541498 PFT Sallee Dana S. EMT-Paramedic 116336 06/30/2005 3654752 PFT ~,?,h~ar',~c~,'_~rcnt u. ,-,v,,-~a,,-,,,J~U,~, 127;-,.. 06/30/2005 6~ ,ur ,o r'r I Shepherd David g. EMT-Paramedic 123197 06/30/2005 3667291 PFT i . !Stephens ~Robert W. EMT-Paramedic 123787 06/30/2005 5856509 PFT Stidham Ryan E. EMT-Paramedic 127950 06/30/2005 5182683 PFT Sto¥ John Trent EMT-Paramedic 118911 06/30/2005 4856227 PFT Department of Human Services- Health Services EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR !)7232. (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Walt LAnders 23 Wilson iRoad Ashland, OR 97520-9102 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-B certification card which .expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to.'--Emergency Medical Serv/ces, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected ce~ficate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee orS 10.00. Please be aware that yoU are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www.dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always fmd the latest information fi.om this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool fi'equentl3/. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates fi.om the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), c .urrent articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Award. s Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in our office for different programs. ....... Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES STATE ~E.QREGON EM E R G E N. -OY_;'i~:E--_ ~_i'~ ~' ·~ ~ CHNICIAN CERT. # 112485 ,.;~'~E:X.P...'t:RE, $~.,0,6/30/2005-~--'" '""' '"~'~'" ~::;' %~-,-'..:,~:.~-':.': :-~ ,,;-:., ¢. :.. :,:~:.:~:' .,:. Walt L ^ndcr~';:%¢:~:~¥(!.'.%5;~i:~,~ · ~;:¢ '?'--,'% ':' :. 23 Wdson RO,'pS,~-/..; ,,:.. ?-:! .... ..,;..' :-~.:; %':, Ashland, ORii ~ Oi~:l: 0 ~7:':': '. ':., 5 ",*":': :'¢.~¢5'..; '::...', . /:... The individual named ab. ove:and'deSt~rlbed on;the,reverse of this card has completed the requiremeri'tS sSt~:fC.fl}3?i.~5:.'bhS:882,'8~ see. and is certified as an Emer[lency Medical Tec'li~ii'i¢ia'h~il' }h'c;;Jevel i~/'dicated'. EMERGENCY MEDICAL ,.~,~:~J~ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS · IDEATION HT: 6' 2" "" ' wr: ~98 ~~:lh'::.. ? '~..;i~, ['::~.' ...... ": ' ~;:., . ', .& ,~ ;f. ' Department of Human Services- Health' Services ( gon EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Kelly W Bums 2717 Clay Creek Way Ashland, OR 97520 cOngratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires '06/30/2005. Please review your.Certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name remm your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: '__Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for.a fee of-$10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative roles pertaining to your certification. These roles are available on our web site under roles and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/Publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there 'other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list Of available classes from the mobile.training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS', hot topics, Awards Banquet information,. EMS for Children, and a list of Stat'yoU can contact in our office for .different programs, Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES STATE_Q.E__O8 EGON · Ashland, OR[~2~ .... '~,.'7,';'; '"7}~/* lbo inOMdual namo~ abov~::'and'~'~ oh lbo tOverso of this cato has an Emergency Medical Tecfiniciah;~l ~n~qbvel indicated, j ~~ ~~ [ Signature ~cate Holder 57877 ~ Semices a~ m~t ~ su~nd*r~ by ~ holder ~ de~. . Department of Human Services- Health SerVices ( on EMeRGENCY.MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 9:7232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Steven P Boyersmith PO Box 4514 Medford, OR 97501 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name remm your certificate immediately to our office with the'corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected' certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can. be issued for a fee~of$10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rqles pertaining to your certification. These rules-are available on our web site under rules and'. statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office On the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently.--Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of aVailable classes from the mobile: training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list ofstaffyou can contact in.our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. '[- STATE OF OREGON ~ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES STATE _QO F_~Q._REGON E GE ~-r, ............ '"' '. I /;;' !~ ~;,'., ~/6/30/2005 PO Box 4514t: ;.",~.';'.:.":,.ol. ~.~, :.-'..~{I;X¥~':i '.~, ':'. ', '.~', ;.v :;:~,?'-.?r::'p/- ,'/" Tho individual named a"'l:lov~nO'c[~'i~;d, o.h.~the,)(~verse of this card has completed the requirements s6?:f&rt~>'ll~;~i~)][:lS:~82:~t seq, and is certified as an Emergency Medical Tec~i¢i~'",t.:~][i~veH~icated, Department of Human Services- Health Services EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 'Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Lars F Borosund 2190 Fernwood'Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ( egon Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card Which expires 06/3.0/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon adrrfinistrative ~'ules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. 'You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates fi'om the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile :training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs,. current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of intereSt, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in our office for different programs. ' - Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE QE_QBEGON EMERGEN~-Y_;~i~¥ ............ ~ CHNII N L~s F 2190 Femwo~¢i~ '.:.,. ,': ,.?..".". ~.::?.'.;:,-.?,., ...;.' ....:?' The individua named above and'de'~ribed on the r~vorse of thi~ card has completed Ihe requirements an Emergency Medical Techmcian at lho level ind~calod. Department of Human Services- Health Services C on EMERGENCY' MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (5.03) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Todd E Beck 21 Anna LaUra Dr Jacksonville;, OR 97530 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected cenSficate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. ';Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under roles and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find'the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all' levels of EMTs, current EMS' Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE OE.DREGON /?:, ,<: ':?;7~;., · %':\ -5., :.-~...'.:~L ~,~'.. Todd E Beck/: .... ,.':~.0,%.-:'~:~.¢/? '".~2~<' '~.".. ~{.. '.:¢ :' ~*,. "'~' ..'.t;?;.;;;;:'--:;," .. ~?' The individ,~al named above':.gnS'da~r[bed on the reverse of this card has completed the requiremeht~ se~'.,f6~ In"oas tiff2 ~¢~. and is cedified as an Emergency Medical Tech'~'i~[ah~t l~e",t~eFi~dicated. STATE OF OREGON- DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~.~.:~ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS I D EI~" "~1 .'~TION ~. ..,:.. ,~.~,.,'-"~;. ~ · .. ~ " Todd E BccR.'~-...:'.?~...'.r.~.::~ · ": '.~..:2 '.' .; .?:2....¢ ..',..: .'i,'!:' .' '. "~r~-~ ._, ?:" ~ ' Sig:m!ure 8P¢'~ftificate Holder 'Department of Human Services- Health Services ( on EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 -Portland; OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 ° Fax (503) 731-407'7 June 2, 2003 Sean A Fogarty 2035 SE 24th Ave Portland, OR 97214 .1 Congratulations on.your recertification! Below is your new EMT-B certification card which expires 06/3'0/2005. .. Please review your certificate carefully.. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0.450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. 'Please be aware that you are. required to be familiar with the Oregon adrrfinistrative rules pertaining to your certification.. These rules are available, on our web site under.rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information fi.om this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff'you can contact in our offiCe for different programs. .'4 Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS.. sTATE ~.F..O~EGON -I STATE OF OREGON- DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ' ; :', :.' ~.. >.., ~'"'.,x. IDE~~ON Tho indivOua named i~ov~:'~na"d~;~{;~>~h'{~e /~vers. of this card has completed the requirements set f~rt~ i'h O~S '682 ~l~ and is cedified as '~ ' ' an Eme rgen~ Medical Technici~h~t the"]~vel, in'dica!ed. Signatur~ ~~te Holder Department of Human Services- Health Services EMERGENCY' MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Robert C Cockell II 455 Jeffrey Dr Ashland, OR 97520 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card Which expires 06/30/2005. Please.review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Sersdces, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will'be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that You are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to YOur certification. These rules are available on our web site under roles artd statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from'this office on the web ~ite. We encourage you to use this tool frequently, Some items you will find there other than the. Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current: EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in our office .for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. I 4"~ · ? -~'-- -'~,~.c.*~."..'~ :~-."x~ ".'.,. ~6/30/2005 I . IDE~I~_ TION / .,',~.,......r..~x,... ., .k,,.~:'~',..~.~,,. · , : 455 JeffreyDf~;,['~(:~:';.~;~.....:.,',.:::':-::,¢:~,~ .~ RobenC .,, , Ashland, OR ~'.'" ~"~' ¢ ....... ~:~. ,~O~ .g . lbo individual named agov,~'an~'d~cn~q oh,~ho .r~vomo of lhi~ card has completed the requlremenls ,.'l.l,,Ih' 16"0,S 882 ,.. and is c.~ified 8. J~ an Emergency Medical Techmoiah .~l Iho'~vel iodicaled. Department of Human Services- Health Services' ( gon EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Todd M. Clayton 2144 Springbrook Rd Medford, OR 97504 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0,450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon adrrfinistrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of availabl[e classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsle.tter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of stafl:' you can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE O..E.O. REGON · EMERGE NG-Y::I~'.. _ _]~ ~ '.'~CI ~i,"~,' HNICIAN CERT. # 123797 /~A~~PIRES 06/30/2005 Todd M Clay[on . · .' 2144 Spnng~0~g~ Medford, O~ -. ': -. '." .:.'{~;~.":?::'U'~ ' .'~ · ?:' :"':' Tho individual named ~hOv~'.and de~J~jed;h..the (~verse of this card has completed the requiremefits an Emergency Medical Tech'hiciah.$i'ih~l~veH'fibicated. STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL ,,~,~,~ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS IOEI~'~/t~TION ' ,i '..' ..... ,.. Signature ~i!i~iiicate Holder Department of Human Services- Health Services ( on EMERGENCY' MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, . OR 97232, (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Greg I Case,, 816 Voris _Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT~P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please reviexv your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates cam be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or, us/publichealth/ems. You will' always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates.from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, .continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current: EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot .topics, AWard,'; Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE OF..QREGON CERT,, # 1~:~ . ~6/30/2005 Greg I Case 816 Voris Av.~f~l~'? )'}'..'.~,::¢ . Ashland, OR;;975;20' '"" The individual named !bov~' a"nd ,d,~'s'r~ed. oh ,he,.r'verse of this card has completed the requirements,se~ f0,rt}~'in':'ORS 682;~t seo. and is certified as an Emergency Medical Tecl~'nlcia~ ~i '~e;:lbvel:i~'dicated'. STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~,~..V..!.I.~ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS IDEI~~TION .~%, . .~.~ .. ~¥~ Cr~ ~ c,~}. :':' 5;. 2'.~'. .?' .. . :'~ '..:',:~:':.. HT: 5' 9" ~AIR;'park.¢rcwn WT: 180 .. EYES: · . '--" Signature ~:~t"i~icate Holder This certificate i$ tho orot)erfv of the D¢n~rtm,,,*t ar~. L, LUUff O'LLI~I¥1 ~, 030 r, I/t I - ii . i . Depar ent of Human Services- Health Services EMI~RGENC~ MF. DICAL SERVICES $ 800 NE Oregon Street Sm. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 April 1, 2004 Sear A Fogarty 170 Central Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Congratulations on becoming an Oregon-certified EMT-P arid a member of Oregon's professional prehospital emergency medical care team! Your passing score on the' written examination was 88 %. , Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. DuPlicates ear be issued f_or ~ fe_e of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon adrrfirfistrative roles pertaining to your certification. These roles are available on our web site under rutes md statutes at: www_,dhs, state_.or.us/publiehealtlgems.. You will always find the latest haformation from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Admlnistrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile train/ag unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet infonmQon, EMS for Children, and a list of stat~you ear contact in our office for different programs. Again, welcome to the team. STATE OF OREeON --}~'~E 6F OREGON- DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY' MEDICAL TECHNICIAN CWT. # 1290113 P/kR~ _IY~DIC EXPIRES 0fi/30~005 ~land, OR 97{20 , ' ~e I~Md~l n~ a~e ~fl~ ~bed on ~e t~ of o~pleted ~ ~ulmmsnl..~ fO~ · ~6 682 at ~q. ~ an Eme~enov Medical ~¢h~lan ~ ~e Jell EMERGENCY MEDICAL ,.'ff. RVIOE8 ii TRAUMA SYSTEMS IDEN¥IFIOATION , ~VlT-P CgRT; ~ S~n A Fo~ · , I'IT: 6' 2" ' HAI~ Dark Brown WT: 175 "tP/!t. ,9: Brown I I STATE ~_..EGON 0/2005(;=E I ! CERT. # 1 A~'~..';::~::~'"':~?:-::;:'~'..;(~"?,., · ' U" ' ~'*. ...... '. ' · '. '~': i . 1883 Valley ~'i'.:~:.;.'.?t':~,~ .-~;~.:-~,:;:~ :~:t;~,¢~',~ ' The individual named ~l.~ov~;";,~na:d~ii~-[~e i~verse of this card has completed Ibc requireme~ils set.i6r~h iff.'D[:l's 682 e.l seq. and is certified as an Emergency Medical Technicia~,~l !he~)~vel indicaled Director of EMS & Trauma Systems State Public Health Officer HT: 6' l',.i ~ Signa~ure ,~ This certificate is the properly of the Department of Human Sen/ices and must be surrendered by the holder on demand. ~ES'& TRAUMA SYSTEMS ~!~'r[o~ ' ' ~~~ ft.: . ."', ~ a~de r 57834. Department of Human Services- Health Services EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICF_3 · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 July 8, 2003 Matthew E Freiheit PO Box 535 Ashland, OR 97520 ( gon Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/200'5. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0.450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required t° be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under roles and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently..Some items you will find there; other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training trait, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter.), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of'staff you can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. - -- .... '~TZO~F.._--~O~- ...... i---S~TE---O-C'OR--Ee---ON---- D'-~PA---'FIT'--~E--~T--~F'-~U'-'~A'-'~ SE--'-RVI%-~S- EMERGEN..O¥::i~.~E~..C.'_'~JJI~HNICIAN I EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~:~ES &TRAUMA SYSTEMS CERT. # 121237 ,.,~..~.,,R~'~~P....IRES 06/30/2005 I , IDEN~r~,~TION :9:; ';,..:-'.:.. ,y':. :.:..:3:,:~ :" 'L'...-:-~ ::v, ,~..:., ' ,.~, i~'~':.:,~ ,. ...... i:',;'.? ~i'.!-:-'.,'.,:: 4. - - .....A;. ,tt,.,,t. . ~ _ ,,.i,_~.~,,,~.{,,~2.,q.~., ;,:..- ,:.:;:....,.'.;"... % '." ';."'~.' ". "*'; .'.-'4--" ,:r.:'~,-~,.~ -- .~., ,. .~;~.'.. ,~,,.:'~:,:.'.,..,,' ~ t'u t~ox >~ .,.., ...... .~:~.:.~.,~. ..... . ...... ~_. :-~,.,.. t,~ .,, I,, Matthew E'F.'~..o!!~ff ...... ... .... ..: ..... Ashland, OR;i'i~i~0'..-~-;,i.*i..":(}:~;'-;~'i-~-ii::.i~:'::' .??' i~ "'":~.'.',~-."?!!"...:"".:( ~:".'"' :~ ":, '. '. ;':~:?t!~'YS': ':(:' '://..':;' '/ , ,- HT: 6 0 ,%: '~-..:}tA R."Blo'ritlc · '. : "~: "".'>:'(':5' 3~:~-:'/ , ~" . .... ~ o ',, .... ~ . ":: ... '~; .' ', ' The individual namod a§.ov~~ 6n~J'-de~dhed'*ob. ti~e:t"~verse of this card has , ~ WT: 180 '! ,: ;:5? :!'B?t'.'S~I.~e":. -. completed the requiremerits.sO"f::fGdfi..."!di'OP~S::'~82..'e't sea. and is certified as lye : :..~:'-.': ' !:'.!'. "!.' '",!.'. '" an Emergency Medical Tech~i¢ip~n-!~i'i~6~I~v.el::ih'dicated. I '"' :'.: '.' .: ' .... ' ':- ':'.' ..... /I I ..;-,.:~.;;,~+. / .,~ ,, q d : ~. ' Signature 8f~,,~ii'cato Holder Department of Human Services - Health Services EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 - June 4, 2003 Jennifer A Hadden 1313 Mill Pond Rd Ashland, OR 97520-7321 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to. you. Keep-your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates c~m be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements forall levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE ~.F.:.:O..:B_EG ON ER E O:~ ~C C I The individual named ';~r~:::O':'~'~';~': ,~',~'~;~J~:::"d~>';~'1':'~; /~'".'c',e of this card has completed :the requireme"'J.; ~,i..; h};:,~ :n ~liS ~'~81: l,l i~'~! and is ceHified as an Emergeacy Medical ~.2. :; iu' ql O[e ]f;'.'c' ',' :.: .':a:9:: STATE OF OREGON-DEPARTMENT'OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL .,~:.~.,~ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS EMT-P Jennifer A~,~_ ?i~'~'~- "' :~"[':;d Department of Human Services- Health Services EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE~ · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503)'731-4077 July 8, 2003 Christopher D Hall 3189 Cheltenham Way Medford, OR 97504 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate' immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be iSsued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These.rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the 'latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there: other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes · from the mobile training trait, continuing education requirements for all levels of 'EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet:information, EMS for Children, and a list of staffyou can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE O_E.D_REGON EM S R G E~(~Y:'i~<~.~_'~T, ECH NICIAN CERT. # 123164 ,.,.,~~~~~!RES 06/30/2005 /~ Christopher ~?~ji?~-,:::::~;.~;~-~ ?'~-,;. The individual named abzv~:..a~. completed the requiremenls sol fomi an Emergency Medical Tocl'n,cm',~ ................... I--S-~AT-~-O~RE-G--o-~'---~E~AR~N~-~F HUMAN SERVICES I EMERGENCY MEDICAL q~ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS [ IDE~'~TION ' ',. ''. ,' . This certificate is Department of Human Services- Health Services EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Scott M Hoilingsworth 3077 E Main Ashland, OR 97520 Congratulations'on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. · . Please revieW Your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued 'for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertain~[ng to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: .www.dhs.state.or. us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list'of staff you can contact in our office for different programs'.. .- .. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. ST.ATE~_O_?.08 EGON Scott M Holli~~~.~!'::}}5'~::5¢~':~,,_._. ,,,_ ... ' . 3077. E Main/?'gT~iii:::)?~.:;'", Ashland, OR,~_~.;2..~.. :' , , , ,, ... ¢,,¢'.:;. 2'¢.'. ¢ ,. ..- .. · ,.. .;, The indMdual named a'bov~;:i~n~'-c[~'~.;:~ :.fl';'::" ti':.'.' [~... c.:'.*c, of this card has completed the requiremehts s~i':f~l~. ~. :.);-~ ;:0:,~ .".' '..',' ', ,',nd is certified 'as · an Emergency Medical Toc~i:n'i¢ia.[~t [h¢'~v. ebin.d~cated. STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL SFJ."~ ~,[t~, ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS IDEI~.~ ~I~T'ION ~ · ~ ...~i~ :.? :~:~,~" · HT: 6' 2" .~.'~'jj · .......,~... .... ,..~;~... .., ,,, ..., ........ ~ ,a~:~q.~'.~:-'~- ~.. Signalure ~'d }'rlJficate Holder ~e~icos and must bo ,~tlrr~d~r~d STATE O.E.QR..EGON (, .::,.. %*(.: ',"';'~;¢¢r.,/.., .¢:z :7' ~o i.divid.al .a.od a~OVO:,~.~fi~,e~ oh ,he ~'"S' of this card has ~mploted the requireme~iS.,s~¢.f~6b' id'.O~8 682 ~%8~ and is cedified as Director of EMS & Trauma Systems Stats Public Health Officer STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICALly!ES &.TRAUMA SYSTEMS IDEN~'FI~TION EMT-BCE - . "., Margueri HT:' 5' 5" WT: 165 ~ e ~pro;~ignat~re ~cate H°lder This c Rificate ' erty Of the Department of Human Sen/ices and must be surrendered by the holder on demand. 58274 Department of Human Services - Health Services EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 David K Hard 671 Spring ,Creek Dr Ashland, OR 97520 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name remm your certificate immediately to our Office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates caa~ be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules.are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing eduCation requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Updatet,~' ....... w ~' ..... ~t~),' ctm-entat-uccel-"-'--m-"'mt~:~L, ..... mv~"' '" hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staffyou can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for' your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE ~F. JD. REGON EM GEN M · /z-' .-~ ~..: :. ~-,' ...~'~ - ;-.~ .' .'., .-. % .'.. "-; ,,~.,',. . · .:/. 67] Spnng Ashland, ORi,')9'7,5~0 ..... ' · lhe individual named ,~'~,c.:~"'~:' g ;I.½~;~G).>':,r', ,.i'2o ~;........,.-.~. of this card has completecl the requirem..'."'!,., .,'.c.l ~..:.~:h ,,; OD.S ,.'!!!;2 '~i '.';% ..nd is certified as an Emergency Medica: :e;:,'c,,,; ~.:,' ;~.! p'¢; ~c.',..::' ":': ",,'~.';:.:.' .g EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~ IDE~ ' '.'.' ;': ;~ J:":~.-' ~, David K Itli~.'-"~:::....¢~)...,, ..:.~ ...?.%;~¢g{~,...!, ,; , ".':~,"~'-:':.5':, t;;,: WT: ' '.:"" ,:.i;:.. ',:':; Signaluro 6f STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS TION ~ :~i: '.'.':: ! :'~';;'-.: ,....' ',~' ~. :7,r:.'.',', . "'~..2,'.','. ,, __ ~~_... ~le Holder Department of Human Services- Health Services EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 David C Hanstein 1516 Larkspur Medford, OR 97504 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to:'Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place.. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that. you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always f'md the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available', classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements .for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS .hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staffyou can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES STATE O.E..Q.R EGON {, ~ .......: ~.~'~ ...~....~..~:~.;~. ~ , ::~ ~ .. The individual named ~bpv~: ~n~'.d~r~{'oh,~:the../;verse of this card has completod the requiremeh'tS s~f:f~g~ .ifi;'O~S:~82;:~t see. and is cedified as an Emergency Medical Tec~n'ici~:.~i~.~'~l~eFih~icated. EMERGENCY MEDICAL ";, tES&TRAUM. AS YSTEMS I DE&~[TION EMT-P CE : ':..'.~¢~'¢',:; ..~ ./.,..; '.';~. ' I ,, "~?;2" ' ~ · ' ' ~ '. u~: ~ ~ · ?.;~~r~..~,o~,-~. ~,., .,.: .....,~.,. ~..~ ~:,.:...-..r . . ....-.:.:.2 '.... ~...," .'..' ~~~" ....,.. ,,.i;..... '~'~ ' . '. Signature ;~ CS~i~ic~t~G;7 ....... STATE OF ORFGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS EM ERG_EN~D. iC:~ "-I~,.~ECHNIClAN' · :.i. CERT. //130001 P~~$ 06/30/2005 ~ ' .:~.~ ..... ~" -, . ~e individual ~~~.~¢,~h the reveme of this ~rd has comF~~dh in ORS 823.010 ~ ~ aha ,s ce.,fie~ ~~e~eaica, rech.,c,~n the ' level indicated. Jmat~inY ~ W. John~ Director of EMS & Trauma S~tems Administrator, O.P.H.~. I I STATE OF OREGON EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN HT: 6'"0' WT: ATTACH, PHOTO HERE 54184 This certificate is the properly of the Department of Human Services and must be su .r~'endered by the holder on demand. i~ National Registry EMERGENCY lVI~_~ICAL TF--,CmCIANS ;,:~.., ,..,,. ,,,~ , here~, certifies that i ~,~''~'''''' ,* ~.*~'*~*"~ ....... ~.~?~ t,~,,~ , ,.~ , ,,~ NAVlNG FULFILLED ~E PRESCRIBED REQUlREMEN~ AND " SA~SFACTORILY PA~NG ~E WR~ AND PRA~CAL ~NA~ON IS DULY REGI~ERED AS AN E~RGENCY ~DIC~ ~C~C~ IN ~E C~SlRCA~ON U~D ~ELOW USE THIS NUMBER ON ~t Department of Human Services- Health Services EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077' June 4, 2003 Rod Lacoste PO Box 146 Jacksonvill'e, OR. 97530 (. on Congratulations on your'recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification' card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate 'to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon adrrdnistrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or, us/publichealth/ems. You will always fmd the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there; other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of availabl, e classes. from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE ~E..Q~EGON EM ER O EN GY~I~TECHNIClAN CERT. It 127119 ,:;e~~g~..~,'.:~P, IRES 06/30/2005 ,'.'7' ~.' ..' ". ' ,' "~'~: z ; .'.~. :'. :'. ,~.' ' Rod Lacostc ,,~, '7.,.;-..'--....'. ::: ~:~,~,~::~ ..;.~,,.-..~. ,'. PO Box 146 ;~ ,,: .':, Tho indMdUal named above: ~hd'de~'riB'ed" oh '[he i~verse of this card has completed the requiremenls set fodh in' ORS 682 ~[ fig.~ and Is certified as an Emergency Medical Tochr'ician 'at lbo,level indicated. STATE OF OREGON-DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~J~ ~ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS tcoo 1,acost~ :: :;.,.:-'?'..,.~-:~;.. ;"..,'.';.'~'~c,',':;:~.. ..... ' .,:,..,? i,'.'[ :': ~ . ?,¥' '., .,p' .... 5'" ,::";~iX"i R WT: 175 ~ ':. 8' '. · '" ':i: i~;'." ,'. '.;.2 S,g~atu,e ~{' ' ' - i~'~rti(icate Holder Department ,of Human Services- Health Services EMERG~CY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Gregory R Jones 107 N Wi ghtrnan Ashland, OR 97520 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-B certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate .to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place.. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of' $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contactin ouz-o ffice~-fm'-different program'.s:- Thank you fo]: your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE OF OREGON EMERGENCY'MEDICAL TECHNICIAN CERT. # 110972 BASICEXPIRES:O6/$0/2005 Gregory R Jones.:. '"' ' .... · . .. 107 N Wightman · '. Ashland, OR.: 97520. .i .: The individual named above, and .des~bed on. the reverse of this card has completed the requirements set forth in ORS 682 et se~ and is certified as an Emergency Medical Technician .at the level ihdicated. /..4 STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICE'. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS IDENTIFICATION . EMT-B CERT. # 110972 Gregory R Jones ' ' - HT: 6' 0" ' HAIRi Dark Brown WT: 180 · EYES: Hazel - ~ign~re~Ce-rtific~te Holder Department of Human Services- Health Services EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 12, 2003 Derek A Rosenlund 642 Wilson Road Ashland, OR 97520-9324 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with'the corrections. Send the; certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland,' OR 97293-0,450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon a~ainistrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, Continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards'Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff yq.u can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement'in Oregon EMS. STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN. SERVICES STATE OEOREGON CERT. # ~2~ ~ ~6/30/2005 I 642 Wilson R',~'/~..::'/: " : .'~: .. '. ~.'.:~.?...~'::?C;.(; . ~ Ashland, 0~5'9~'~~-?~:::'~¢?.: :' ?~':':;~: ~ ~ EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~J;~.V,,I.GES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS IDEN'I~I~)'QA, TION, , , .:' '~>' ,'"~'i .. ~'= EMT-P CEJI;T,..# .1 ;~ 106~.,): .~..'..",;:-'.".' .:.~I.,~,.,. , ,',~.~ . .,',.-; '~.,¥o.. Derek A R0'geiil.~'ll~!/, '~'..";.. ;..,ii.,':..':!.;.'. '.. .... : :::..i~":' ':~ ..i" :..-.:;' .... ~T: 6'~" .....:'"': :~l~r~: ~'~'¢.~.' ': '"' ~':':":.:: ;'?:/" '"": '" '~- WT: 202' .'~;:~/ES:.'Bhii'" The individual named above and d~;'c:iii~ed'oh the ~:~verse of this card has ' completed the requirements, set forth in ORS 682 et see. and is certified as [~_ --~'"' '., .. ' an Emergency Medical Techl3ician :ltl the'4[,vel:tndicated. ~-"~'~ J'~-'- ~i~ · J Thiscertificateisthepr°perty°ftheDe'artment°fHuman ......... e.~.,, ,..,.; ........ Sen/ices and must be surrendered bv the holder on 'demand. Departmen[t of Human Services- Health SerVices ( on EMERGENCY' MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 20013 Allan S Rogers 2578 Rabun Way Central Point, OR 97502 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name remm your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued, for a fee of $1.0.00. Please be awm:e that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative roles pertaining to your certification. These roles are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or, us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile .training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update .(newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in our or~t'ce -,oi ut,.~,;,-cm iJ.o~,~-:t,~. · .. ..: .. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE Allan S Roger,~ 2578 Rabun ~ tit0 Central Poin }i~i The individual named ab~, completed the requireme~ii an Emergency Medical Tecfihl~;j ATE.~O~E,.O. BEGON ~~mls~6,30,2005 · ~ .. . . . ~ .~..,., e~n0,~g'~r'.'..c.d c- t~c, r0'.'cr~r, of this card has i,s~l; ~:~-(2~ (J~2 <:.: ~'~',1 and is cedified as ' g~l tAeq~vel;indicated. STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS ~ ID EN~...~I~I~ATIO N WT: 175 .... .... -.,.: ........... Holder Si~tur~ifica~e Department of HUman Services- Health SerVices EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland,. OR 97232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Marshall G Rasor 6407 Harlan Drive Klamath Falls, OR 97603 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card Which expires 06/30/2005. .... . Please review your certificate Carefully. If there is an error in your name retum your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the; certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-(],450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required.to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site Under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web si'.te. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes - fi'om the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list ofstaffyou can Contact in om' office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. ['-- ...... %~A'ATE'~..O_.F_%R%G'~-- ...... --S'~AT-~-OTOR---EGON--- D%PARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENGY~':~"~'T--.ECHNIC_I_AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~ER~I~ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS CERT. # 1269~9 ,-::pAR~Eq!~.,<g~IRE$ 06/30/2005 ' - 6407 H~I~ P~Wq..:,~.' ~?.,r ..~ ,....: ,"~'~,',' ,~ ~: Marshall O;R~or,,.~...... ... .... '. · 1"": 9 60 ........... · ....... .~ ,. I ~ · ....... .. Klamath Fal s30~ 7 ' 3'. : .~'~""~,:.~--' ~3'7'--3.,.~-':.'~g'{~ ~ .:~,~.O · .'' · ' .. .' ,,, .... ',--::,~,:::~:~;~.:~;:::~:~:' :,;, :?' %' ~ ~ HT: 5 9 .. ..', HAIR: D~rk. Brown . ...:. ~,....~ ~. ,- ~ . ._. ~ . J~ WT. 22 .. EY.~S. Br0wn · . '-.:. <- :;{,.. z;'.j.. ~ ,v ,7 ~ ' 0 ' ' ' "''~ :~ · ' ' ": ' lhe ndvldual named abc'.,r nm, ,...,.,en~c, c~ h,e rh',., v~., of thcs card has ~ . .' .... ' '. ...... completed the requirome,";:s s~'. Ic,'::~ ,:: C::S ~fi2 ~'l 2~l. and is cedified as ~ "~: ~.. '. . ' .' ?' an Emergency Medical i~::..., ::..'~:. ,',' ~.,~: :c'..:.. ,m:.::,'g~.~d j .~~ I rhisce~ificateistheprope~yoftheOepa~mentofHuman Department of Human Services- Health Services EMERGENCY MEDIC~ SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97'232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 March 16, 2004 Lance W Menold 7138 Hwy 66 Ashland, OR 97520 ( on Congratulations on becoming an Oregon-certified EMT-P and a member of Oregon's professional prehospital emergency medical care team! Your passing score on the 'written examination was 83 %. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is. an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergenc, y Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued fora fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon.administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www.dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will alWays find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find them other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, curre~tt EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in om' office for different programs. Again, welcome to the team. STATE OF OREGON EMERGENCY' MEDICAL TECHNICIAN CERT. # 125954 :-.,.P~MEDIC:-EXPIRES 06/30/2005 Lance W Menold 7138 Hwy 66 Ashland, OR 971520 Tho inclividual named above and described on the reverse of this card has completed the requirements set forth In', ORS 682 et sea. and is certified as an Emergency Medical Technician at the' level'indicated. STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~E,~JCES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS ID EN~'I[O~ATION WT: 165 ~sign~~i~i~lder ~is codifica,o is tho p~. of the Depa~mont of Human ~ 0 ~ ~0 ~ Department of Human ServiCes- Health Services. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232. · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 David G Shepherd 3775 Coleman Creek Rd Medford, OR 97501 ( gon Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card Which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These roles are available on our web site under rules and. statutes at: www. dhs.state.or, us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information fi'om this office on the web site. We encourage you to .use this tool freqUently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of · EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in our office for different progr~ns. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE QF._Q.REGON E RGEN~ '~:'~?"ii'¥''':''':>:-' .. I IAN J 3775 Colem~'~,~'~fl~}~' · .~'..'5.~}~""',:,C'5}~ ,~ . .... :.-:,.~;..., ;5:~;~,.-~t; ~ 5?".. The individual n,.. ,~d ,~ ,: ,...,~:, .... , ..... I, ,.~ ~...... se ct th~s card has completed lbo ,c'~.;-e,m?'h, ,..,..' %'".;. 4: C~:.; ~.E2 ,~[ [",,"h and is ce~ifiod as an Emergency M~ ,: ,';ti' ;(~,';" .,.,: ,,... ~' q.,,, .i; ./,t ,:~ !,, ,.~,, :! STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~,~ ¥~ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS IDE~;:,~I~TION DavidGS~, t', ! -~ '"i,~ ' HT: 6' 0" WT:I .... "'; ' ' ....'~' ':~':" , ~ ~..". EYfi5~ Cn"~a'2". . ,. ...-~,¢,..~~ Thi~ certifin~t~ i.q th~ nrnn~dv nf th~ ~nn~m~nt ~t ~,~m~n ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ Department of Human Services -Health Services ( on EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 97232. (503) 731-4011 · Fax'(503) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Dana S Sallee 170 Brierwood Dr Talent, OR 97540-8618 Congratulat~[ons on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which.expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office ·with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected ceztificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of $10.00. Please be aware that you are required, to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules mad statutes at: www.dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can contact in our office for different programs. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE O.E..QREGON ER E ~-~i'"'~i'd~"t:~---''-- '"., . ~ ....... The individual named a, ovS. ;n~' ~;"¢}lb;'d";; fhe i~vo.se of this card has completed tho requiremonts sot fod~ in ORS $82 ~l ~9~. and is certified as an Emergency Medical ~echnicmh ~t the'l~vel mdmated STATE OF OREGON- DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL ~:ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS EMT-P CE. '~,. :':,'.'i ' Dana S SalllJ~:..'.::.~.".;'":'":'.',5'"i.,' (.i:;:,,'..'.,::.:'..-..' .;::'.:.:.-. . ,.,..,.!.?: v,-,.:,,,,,?,-... ::, '.;'..i',. '.'[ ' · :.: :,,~;.;.;./., ...,:.?,..:. · HT: 6' 0" · WT: 200 : .'::.':"':gV.~.Sf,'g!(~'¢.?':", ' .,:" .'. .,.-' ....; ~.-'~,; .i....'..- · ' ,,)'~,.." :.,.., .,.;. ..... · · ,. · .,.. . Signature 0'f,~cate Holder -Department of Human Ser .ces Health Services" EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVIC[:;S o 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR 9'7232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax'(5()3) 731-4077 June 4, 2003 Robert W Stephens 100 Alder Street Phoenix, OR 97535-7721 Congratulations on your recertification! Below is your new EMT-P certification card which: expires..06/30/2005. .. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and a corrected certificate will b'e issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates 'can be issued fora fbe of $. 10.00. Please 'be aware that you are 'required to be familiar with the Oregon administrative rules pertaining to :your certification. These rules are available on our web site under, rules and statutes at: w~v.dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You Will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the AdminiStrative Rules are.: Updates from the Director,.a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for ail1 levels of EMTs, Current. EMS Update (newSletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of staff you can .... contac. L/n.our_officeX'ord~fferent prag~_'ams ~ .............. ~. ....................... . .................. Thank you for your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS. STATE OF OREGON Robert W Stephens 100 Alder Street Phoenix, OR 97535-7721 'The tr',dlvidua; named above and oesorlbed on the reverse .:,f .'.his card has comp~etect the requiremen,:s set forth in ORS 682 e..t .3.~q, and is certifieo as ao Ec'~erflency Medical Technician at the level indical~d. ':"?: .... r-' '~- '~<' ?,.'"'~ ,STATE OF OREGON- DEPARTMENT OF [ILIMAN SE~,V EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES & TRAUMA SYSTE IDENTIFICATION EMT-P CERT. # 123787' Robert W StePhe'as ' ,. 6' o" iR: HT: HA ~I Brown . WT: 219 EYES:. Brown , :,.. ~' : ~ .l lC" 0 O'C 2' Director of ;EMS &. ~raum. s SVSt~,.m...e. ~:lt,:e PubqC H~a!tl', Ollice, *-v.A~ , ~.~..-~*~* ~ ~,-- :,.~.- ~, -~- ........................................................................................ . .............................. . ............................ Department of Human Services- Health SerVices C on EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES · 800 NE Oregon Street Ste. 607 Portland, OR !)7232 · (503) 731-4011 · Fax (503) 731-4077 June 4, 20(}3 Ryan E Stidham 220 W Rapp Rd #99 Talent, OR 97540 Congratulations on your recertification! 'Below is your new EMT-P certification card Which expires 06/30/2005. Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in Your name return your certificate immediately to our office with the corrections. Send the certificate to: Emergency Medical Services, PO Box 14450, Portland, OR 97293-0450 and.a corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your certificate in a secure place. Duplicates can be issued for a fee of$10.00: Please be aware that you are required to be familiar, with the. Oregon administrative rules pertaining to your certification. These rules are available on our web site under rules and statutes at: www. dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ems. You will always find the latest information from this office on the web site. We encourage you to use this tool frequently. Some items you will find there other than the Administrative'Rules are: Updates from the Director, a list of available classes from the mobile training unit, continuing education requirements for all levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, and a list of' staffyou can · contact in o,ur office for different.programs .... Thank you for your continual support and. involvement in Oregon EMS. .... EM E R G E N G~'.'i~'"::~' E..-.__ :A[I~.~EOHINIClA" /.-"'"~?!.;r:'*.,':,?.'::~'~ ?',?%?'?, · :'~.~::i_~;. :': ' ,r~-'~'"~-- :'~--'q,~::,5:' v:::.= ~d:~'.~ > Talent, OR 9::/Mo~ .... :~' .'"7--".!~:~~ ~ .... . ., ,., .~ ;,.~...~,. :~. :'¥.,../~ ~- .~.. ;. ..::. ~ :.' ~:~,~.',~ '.",:. .,.,,, ..~ The individual named aBove:snO'd~s'Odbed o~ 1he ~wrso of this card has completed tho requirements sol ~rtfi ~ ~RS ~82 ~[ ~. and is corfifisd as an Emergency Medical :ocl"nicmh ~t Ihe.level indicated STATE Of OREGON- DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN S~ERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL '~ ~:~J~:ES & TRAUMA SYSTEMs ,DE~ ~TION ,.,~, ~,, ~:,, ~ 2:?.~[',~r:'~ --~)':. :' .",'.,.:' · · ~.' .. ~.:>'. '? ;~ ~7;:' .i:r;~i:.' T 0 ' ' 'I?::L":" '' I'Ik" '" :..i.; .,,,. ., W :19 ':':¢"...:,BS~s:"~a~d::- .,;i:ii.:h.,..,.,.,i,.,..,~?:..,......: .[ :,~F. ~ . ~' ,; · s~gmu~o ~'[6~;,;I ;.~&A ...... Th/s ce~/f/cate /s the orooe~v of th~ D~n~.t ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ Del..,,t t nent of Human ,.: ces .He.a. ltt ices [~iX4'ERG ENCY MEL' ~' 3 IC,' Z~.L "'7 ICES ~ SLRV 80() NE ()rego1~ Sired Sic. 6()7 Portland. OR. 97232. (503) 731-4()I 1 ~, Fax (503)731-4077 June 4, 2003 John T Stoy 955 Grandview Dr Ashland, OR. 97520 Cong, ratulations on your recertification! card which expires 06/30/2005. Below is your new EMT-P certification Please review your certificate carefully. If there is an error in. yoUr name tel,urn your Certificate immediately to'our office with the corrections. Send the certificate tO:'Emergency Medical ServiCes, PO Box: 14450, portland, OR 97293~0450 anda corrected certificate will be issued to you. Keep your:certificate in a secure place. D~upli .ca. tes can be issued.for'a fee of $10.00. Please .be aware that you..are required to be'familiar with the Oregon'administrative rules Pertai~fing to your certification. These rules-are available on.our web site under rules and. statutes at.: www..dhs...state,.o..r.us/publichealth/ems. You' will always.fi~d the latest, infOrmation from .this office co the Web site. we encoUrage you to use. this tool'frequently. Some items you will fred there other than the:: Administrative Rules are: Updates from',the.Director, a list Of available classes fromthe mobile trainin.g unit,' continuing 'education requirements, for all' levels of EMTs, current EMS Update (newsletter), current.articles of interest, EMS hot topics, Awards Banquet information, EMS for Children, . and a list Of staff you can contact in. our office for dit."fbrent programs. Thank-you lbr your continual support and involvement in Oregon EMS.' S'fAi'E OF OREGON ST,*,'FE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SE~.tVICE.'_-.' EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN CERT. # ! 1}19'11 PARAMEDIC EXPIRES 0613012005 John '1' Sloy 955 Orandview Dr Ashland, ()R 975211 EMER(-~EN(;Y MEDICAL SERVICES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS IDENTIFICATION EMT-P CERI', ':~'!lggl 1 .:!:; Jolm I' Stoy' .". ' '~' HT: 6' I" HAl. Ri Dark Brown ? WT: 195 - EYES:'Blue ... STATE OF OREGON EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN CERT. # 1t30277 INTERMEDIATE EXPIRES 06/30/2005 Todd C Stubbs 711 Palm St Medford, OR 97501 The individual named above and described on the reverse of this card has completed tile requirements set forth in ORS 682 et se(]. and is certified as an Emerger,cy Medical Technician at the level indicated. Jonath'arrChin,' Grant Higginson Director of EMS & Trauma Systems State Public Health Officer I I STATE OF OREGON - DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES EMERGENCY MEDICAL :SERVICES & TRAUMA SYSTEMS IDENTIFICATION EMT-I CERT. # 130277 Todd C Stubbs HT: 6' 2" HAIR: Light Brown WT: 200 EYES: Green ~e Holder ThiscertificateisthepropertyoftheDepartmentofHuman 57 542 Sen/ices and must be surrendered by the holder on demand. City of Ashland Journal Voucher All documentation must be attached. JE#: DATE: 7/1/04 Description: Annual Licensing Fee for Ambulance Service Type Descd.otion (B.R.E) Licenses E Business License R PREPARED BY/Date: ENTERED BY/Date: REVIEVVED BY: POSTED BY: DATE REVIEVVED/POSTED: Account Number 110.07.13.00.605700 110.410600 Debit 900.00 Credit 900.00 CITY OF kSHL, AND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Public Hearing to Consider Adopting the Annual Budget Finance Department June 1, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator SynoPsis: The.third phase of the annual budget process is the City Council holding a public hearing and adopting the budget as approved by the Budget Committee with or without further adjustments by' Council. Oregon Budget law allows the elected body to increase expenditures by $5,000 or 10% (whichever the greater) of any fund without further review and approval by the Committee. Council cmmot increase the tax rate without referring the change back to the committee for approval. Changes to any fund belyond the 10% requires re-publishing the amended budget and a second hearing to be held prior to July 1. Enclosed within the packet are four actions requiring Council approval to complete this phase and "set" the budget for FY 2004-05: 1. A resolution certifying Ashland qualifies for State subventions. 2. A resolution declaring the City's election to receive State subvention revenue. 3. A resolution adopting the annual budget and making appropriations. 4. An Ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the accompanying three resolutions and first reading of the ordinance. Fiscal Impact: Establishes the budget, levies taxes and authorizes state subvention revenues to be received for FY ' 2004-05. Background: The Budget committee and/or Budget Sub Committee met numerous times this Winter and Spring and thoroughly reviewed this budget. On May 13, 2004, the Budget Committee met and approved the budget and recommended it for adoption. The Council must take action as proscribed above to establish the FY 2004-05 budget. The Committee approved changes are reflected within the attached memo and table. Memo CiTY OF SHLAND DATE: June 1, 2004 TO: Ashland City Council ~ FROM: Lee,, Tuneberg, Budget Officer ~-- RE: Fiscal Year 2004-05 Budget Message Addendum Overview I am pleased to submit the approved Fiscal year 2004-05 Budget in the amount of $93,458,790. The approved budget differs from that proposed in total by $261,138. A detailed accounting of the changes to the expenditure classifications follows this :narrative. Please note that any further changes made by Council must be done as an amendment to the resolution that establishes appropriations. Such changes will be reflected in the final budget document in the attached table under the second column for revisions. General Fund Police, Fire and Rescue and Community Development departments' Personal Services were reduced a total of $43,333 utilizing a portion of the amount saved from the increase to health care premiums coming in at half the anticipated amount. These departments have the largest Personal Services costs budgeted in this fund thus savings to be realized are large enough to support the proposed transfer for landscape maintenance. This amount is shown as an increase in Transfers to Parks and Recreation recognizing the commitment of the City to landscape maintenance for Ashland School District school grounds. The General Fund total budget and Ending Fund Balance remain unchanged however the amount set aside for future PERS costs :may be reduced by this change. Wastewater Fund Ending Fund Balantce is increased by $50,000 to correct for a Transfer from Parks and Recreation. Wastewater Fund's. total is increased over the Proposed Budget by this amount. Parks and Recreation Fund Ending Fund Balance is reduced $261,138 to $965,822 recognizing several adjustments including a correction of the estimated carry forward from FY 2003-04. The correction is a $347,804 reduction in Resources (Carry Forward) offset by recognizing $43,333 in Resources (Transfer from the General Fund) and another $43,333 to be received from Ashland School District to maintain school, grounds. Parks will absorb the final third of the cost to maintain the grounds for another year. Parks Capital Improvements Fund Ending Fund Balance is reduced $50,000 to reflect the correction of the transfer from Parks and Recreation to the Wastewater Fund as depicted above. This is the third and final payment from Parks to the City for flood damage repair work cost overages that was paid.for by the Wastewater Fund. There were no changes to the Property Tax levies proposed by the Budget Committee. Budget Committee Recommendations and Council Action FY 2004-05 Proposed Revisions Approved Revisions Adopted GENERAL FUND Administration Administration - Senior Program Finance - Municipal Court Finance - Social Services Grants Finance - Economic & Cultural Grants Finance- Miscellaneous Finance - Band Police Department Fire and Rescue Department: Public Works - Cemetery Division Community Development- Planning Division Community Development- Building Division Transfers Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL GENERAL FUND 109600 115,545 297,426 110 000 445 600 25000 57 490 4,395,015 4,804,478 298,260 1,031,660 702,980 500 339,636 936,568 13,669,758 (19,185) (16,371) . (4,605) (3,172) 43,333 - 109,600 115,545 297,426 110,000 445,600 25,000 57,490 4,375,830 4,788,107 298,260 1,027,055 699,808 43,833 339,636 936,568 - 13,669,758 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL CDBG FUND 31,000 490,978 521,978 31,000 490,978 - 521,978 STREET FUND Public Works - Street Operations Public Works - Storm Water Operations Public Works - Transportation SDC's Public Works - Storm Water SDC's Public Works - Local Improvement Districts Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL STREET FUND 2,351,755 702,380 348,050 258,050 220,355 142,000 1,976,046 5,998,636 2,351,755 702,380 348,050 258,050 220,355 142,000 1,976,046 - 5,998,636 AIRPORT FUND Materials and Services Capital Outlay Debt Services Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 95,000 778,650 35,072 5,000 42,315 956,037 95,000 778,650 35,072 5,000 42,315 - 956,037 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay Transfers Ending Fund Balance TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 157,210 351,230 389,839 898,279 - 157,210 - 351,230 - 389,839 898,279 DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Service Ending Fund Balance TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,046,802 695,484 1,742,286 1,046,802 695,484 - 1,742,286 109,600 115,545 297,426 110,000 445,600 25,000 57,490 4,375,830 4,788,107 298,260 1,027,055 699,808 43,833 339,636 936,568 13,669,758 31,000 490,978 521,978 2,351,755 7O2,380 348,050 258,050 220,355 142,000 1,976,046 5,998,636 95,000 778,650 35,072 5,000 42,315 956,037 157,210 351,230 389,839 898,279 1,046,802 695,484 1,742,286 Budget Committee Recommendations and Council Action FY 2004-05 Proposed Revisions Approved Revisions Adopted WATER FUND Electdc Department- Conservation Division Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division Public Works - Water Supply Public Works - Water Treatment Public Works - Water Distribution Public Works - Supply SDC's Public Works - Distribution SDC's Debt Services Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL WATER FUND WASTEWATER FUND - Public Works - Wastewater Collection Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Public Works - Collection SDC's Debt Services Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL WASTEWATER FU ND 154,430 154,430 396,500 396,500 442,530 442,530 839,951 - 839,951 2,324,465 2,324,465 762,500. 762,500 420,250 - 420,250 677,651 - 677,651 180,000 - 180,000 3,524,870 - 3,524,870 154,430 396,500 442,530 839,951 2,324,465 762,500 420,250 677,651 180,000 3,524,870 9,723,147 - 9,723,147 - 9,723,147 1,438,460 - 1,438,460 1,337,450 - 1,337,450 308,500 - 308,500 1,802,670 - 1,802,670 154,000 - 154,000 4,413,795 50,000 4,463,795 9,454,875 50,000 9,504,875 ELECTRIC FUND Electdc - Conservation Division 411,410 411,410 Electric - Supply 6,160,715 - 6,160,715 Electdc- Distribution · 4,470,973 - 4,470,973 Electric - Transmissio~n 935,443 - 935,443 Contingency 350,000 - 350,000 Ending Fund Balance 1,812,094 1,812,094 TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 14,140,635 - 14,140,635 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND Electric - Customer Relations\Promotions Electric - Operations Debt Services Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND 1,438,460 1,337,450 308,500 1,802,670 154,000 4,463,795 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND Administration Department Finance Department City Recorder Division Public Works - Administration and Engineering Public Works - Facilities and Safety Division Electdc - Computer Services Division Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 9,504,875 411,410 6,160,715 4,470,973 935,443 350,000 1,812,094 - 14,140,635 222,032 - 222,032 2,415,165 - 2,415,165 14,402,000 - 14,402,000 75,000 - 75,000 954,723 - 954,723 222,032 2,415,165 14,402,000 75,000 954,723 18,068,920 18,068,920 18,068,920 1,149,855 1,149,855 1,626,724 1,626,724 172,375 172,375 1,274,200 - 1,274,200 491,780 - 491,780 772,620 - 772,620 147,382 - 147,382 113,758 - 113,758 1,149,855 1,626,724 172,375 1,274,200 491,780 772,620 147,382 113,758 5,748,694 - 5,748,694 - 5,748,694 Budget Committee Recommendations and Council Action FY 2004-05 Proposed Revisions Approved Revisions Adopted INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Materials and Services Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND EQUIPMENT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 646,530 - 646,530 - 646,530 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 471,538 - 471,538 - 471,538 1,218,068 1,218,068 1,218,068 242,900 - 242,900 242,900 451,435 - 451,435 451,435 688,085 - 688,085 688,085 175,000 - 175,000 175,000 965,561 965,561 965,561 2,522,98t - 2,522,981 - 2,522,981 CEMETERY TRUST FUND Transfers Ending Fund Balance TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND 12,360 12,360 12,360 681,408 681,408 - 681,408 693,768 - 693,768 - 693,768 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks Division Recreation Division Golf Division · Debt Service Transfers Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 3,673,075 3,673,075 - 3,673,075 363,700 - 363,700 - 363,700 373,000 - 373,000 - 373,000 30,000 - 30,000 - 30,000 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 35,000 - 35,000 - 35,000 1,226,960 (261,138) 965,822 - 965,822 5,801,735 (261,138) 5,540,597 - 5,540,597 YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Ending Fund Balance TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay Ending Fund Balance TOTAL PARKS ClP FUND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 89,000 - 89,000 - 89,000 2,006,000 - 2,006,000 - 2,006,000 2,166 - 2,166 - 2,166 2,097,166 - 2,097,166 - 2,097,166 -- 243,000 - 243,000 243,000 219,965 (50,000) 169,965 169,965 462,965 (50,000) 412,965 - 412,965 93,719,928 (261,138) 93,458,790 - 93,458,790 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Revenues Taxes Intergovernmental Revenues Charges for Service Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Transfers In City of Ashland Park Budget Proposed Budget City Proposed Parks Budget Corrected 2005 2005 2005 Budget 2005 Proposed Differences Proposed Corrections Proposed Committee ApProved $ 3,152,000 $ 3,152,000 $ 3,152,000 $ 3,152,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 795,375 795,375 795,375 43,333 838,708 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 133,000 133,000 (133,000) .- 43,333 43,333 4,090,375 133,000 4,223,375 (133,000) 4,090,375 86,666 4,177,041 Total Revenues Expenditures Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Debt Service Transfers Out Contingency Total Expenditures 3,673,075 1,059,775 2,613,300 (66,500) 2,546,800 66,500 2,613,300 363,700 (1,165,775) 1,529,475 (66,500) 1,462,975 66,500 1,529,475 373,000 113,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 30,000 (7,000) 37,000 37,000 37,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 35,000 35,000 35,00(;1 35,000 4,574,775 - 4,574,775 (133,000) 4,441,775 133,000 4,574,775 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures (484,400) 133,000 (351,400) (351,400). (46,334) (397,734) Working Capital Carryover Ending Fund Balance 1,711,360 (347,804)] ¥..~,7!,363,556 $ 1,226,960 $ (214,804) $ 1,012,156 J . .. 11363,556 . =...~..,.1,363,556. $ 1,012,156 $ (46,334) $ 965,822 Budget Fund Balance Policy Requiremen Fund Balance and Contingency Excess (deficiency) 799,000 799,000 775,000 799,000 1,261,960 1,047,156 1,047,156 1,000,822 462,960 248,156 -272,156 201,822 Note: $133,000 transfer was not funded by the General Fund. Parks budget recap 5 25 04 5/25/2004, 10:02 AM CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Continued Hearing on the Appeal of Planning Action 2004-002, a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 sq. fi. mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Applicant: Lloyd Haines Planning Department June 1, 2004 ~ John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: On May 18, 2004, the City Council opened the public hearing on this planning action, and heard from the Staff, applicant and applicant's representatives, members of the public in favor of the: application, and the appellant. The hearing is still open to allow testimony from members of the publ[ic in opposition to the application, additional comments from Staff, and applicant rebuttal. Since the end of the previous meeting, the appellant, Randall A. Hopkins, has submitted a 21-page supplemental brief to support his appeal of the action. The applicant's representatives have submitted eight pages of information to support thei[r oral rebuttal which will be delivered at the end of the public testimony portion of the hearing. Staffhas presented a three-page memo with three pages of maps to clarify floodplain corridor issues, and to respond to other issues raised during the previous public testimony. Recommendation: After review of the newly submitted information, and review of the testimony and exhibiits presented at the previous hearing, Staff still supports the decision of the Planning Commission and recommends the Council approve the request with the attached conditions as stated in the findings on pages 71-78 of the record. The Council may wish to attach other conditions that they deem relevant to the criteria for approval. Attachments: The supplemental packet information is attached. RANDALL A. HOPKINS 735 S. Mountain Ave Ashland, OR 97520 541-488-0265 521-488-2823 (fax) 5 25 2004 TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF ASHLAND: Please accept this Supplemental Brief in support of my appeal of Planning Action 2004-002, the Shasta Building Project. Thanks, Ho Randall ' 1. IT'S NOT JUST A SIGNATURE. Under Sec. 18.108.017A, a 'complete and signed application form' is required to initiate a planning action, which 'must' be signed by one or more property owners or their authorized agents. The Application ' shall' also include' [a]ll the required information for the specific action requested.' Exhibit 40. This involves more than simply signing a meaningless line. Under Ashland's planning form, the Applicant or Property Owner must sign twice. The first signature certifies the 'truth and correctness 'in all respects' of the application' s information, including drawings and required findings of facts. This section also alerts the Applicant to his burdens in the event of a contest. It warns that failures regarding the certification and burdens will 'result most likely' in the request being set aside. The second signature line confirms that the ''~ property Owner' has read and understood the complete application and its consequences. -As noted at the hearing, neither Applicant nor his Urban Planner, who holds a power of attorney, signed either the certification of truth or the acknowledgment of consequences. The Urban Planner was aware of the second page of the Application, having used a power of attorney to sign other planning applications. Compare Exhibits 41 and 42. Yet, as of today, neither have been signed. The Application should be denied on the basis of a failure to properly sign and certify the Application, either by the filing date (December 12,2003) or as of the 'deemed complete' date (February 18, 2004). Such a construction of Sec. 18.108.017 and the Application form is consistent with the express language of the rules and is clearly consistent with the purpose and underlying policy of proper planning. The Applicant already benefits from Planning Dept. counseling in a pre-application conference and, if the deemed complete date is chosen, further staff assistance during the period leading up to 'deemed' completion and triggering of the 120 day rule. Even after that point, the Applicant is protected from overzealousness application of the. 'truth' requirement by the 'materiality' standard described by City Counsel at the May 18th hearing. But just as planning applicants need protection, so to does the City and public under a fair and balanced procesS · Once an action begins to flow like a flood through planning process and the Applicant gains advantage of the 120 day rule, it is vital that true and correct information be provided to everybody that deals with these matters. This, in turn, allows issues to be identified and resolved during the process, so that only fully articulated 'and critical matters arrive at the Council. A construction that treats the certification of truth as meaningless (or as something to be pinned on the document as it heads out the door to LUBA) only invites the kind of chaos seen and suffered in this PA. It substitutes a clear and Objective standard, for a subjective approach that will likely hinge on the identity of the particular applicant. Planning applicants in general will know that requirements imposed by Planning Staff during pre-app conferences, like identification of floodplains as part of the application in this case, have no teeth behind them. Citizen commissions, with limited time and energy available to them, will make recommendations on the basis of conflicting, erroneous information. Here, not one, but two Tree Commission meetings proceeded on the basis of materially incorrect tree plans (and the second, hearing wasn't even noticed to the public). Just like here, critical issues will not be identified for the Planning Commission, the body best suited to winnow out the extraneous from the important. Citizens like this Opponent who dredge out the facts will find portions of the planning process denied to them, being swept 'along by the force of the 120 day rule. Finally, just like here, appeals will arrive at the Council with an every growing mass of documents that raise more issues than they resolve. Inefficiency and confusion will be the order of the day, all to the prejudice of the rights not only of this Opponent, but of everyone. Without a certification of truth and the incentive for compliance tha~ the application form provides, how can the City safely and reasonably determine compliance with~_~y applicable approval standards? Truth and correctness is not just procedural. In determining compliance with planning criterion, truth and correctness are the most substantive requirements of all. LUBA grants substantial deference to a City's construction of its own statutes and will set it aside only if 'clearly wrong.' Surely, enforcing the important laws as written will find safe harbor under this standard. It will not even be invoking new planning criteria or standards, since the Application form itself warns that consequences of failures to carry out its burdens will 'result most likely' in planning requests being set aside. If the City enforces that warning in this case, it will serve as a powerful incentive for all future .. applicants to get things right. Every planning action, including the buildings that result'from these actions, will be the better for it. After all, we're going to have to live with these buildings for a long time. 2. APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO FULFI?~ HIS BURDEN OF PROOF/PERSUASI'ON o In reviewing a substantial evidence challenge, the LUBA standard of review is whether the evidence the City relied on is the kind of evidence that a reasonable person would rely on. In this case, the Applicant not only failed to certify his application and its truth and correctness, but had filed on his behalf at least 3 or 4 tree plans with materially incorrect information and 13 different maps which create the misleading appearance that the striking lines marked on the drawings as FEMA 100 year flood !plain and Ashland Floodplain were at 1872' and 1875.5' respectively, when in fact they were drawn in at about 1863. Exhibit 43. While the staff provided its own drawing of the 100 year floodplain (Exh. 44), to date, neither the applicant nor staff has provided a map showing the accurate Ashland Floodplain Corridor (a limit based .on actual events, rather than an hydraulic study), as required as part of the original application by the Staff's Pre-Application conference report. Exh 45. And there is more! One major change in the project announced by Applicant at the Council' s first'~ 'hearing was the alleged reduction in the amount of excavation around the Triple Maple. There was only one document showing a revised excavation scheme in the materials included in the Council packet. And that drawing (A-29) showed that not only was the amount of excavation around the tree N0~ being reduced, it was being increased! Compare Exhibits 46 and 47. Indeed, the area of reduced excavation only begins about where the Maple's dripline ends, meaning that the only apparent effect of reduced excavation will be to (a) reduce the cost of excavation to Applicant and (b) reduce the floodwater storage capacity, a capacity that was made the basis of OTAK's flood studies submitted as part of this application. At best, this is yet another instance (like that of the Protuberance), where the Applicant and his experts are unaware of what their own plans provide. At some point, a reasonable person is entitled to say enough is enough. The untrue, incorrect and misleading documents, combined with Applicant' s apparent confusion over his own project, more than justifies the reasonableness of a finding that, in this application, the Applicant and his experts have failed to be persuasive. And that is their burden under the rules. At LUBA, Applicant's burden to overturn a denial would not be satisfied by a showing that reasonable people would reach different conclusions. He would have to show that no reasonable~'person could rely on the evidence the City relied on. Given all the problems with his own information, how could anyone conclude the Council was being unreasonable is denying the application, especially since the incorrect information now extends into a major public safety issue like flooding? Exhibits 48-49,. 3. A DE NOVO EVIDENTIARY HEARING CANNOT SAVE THE APPLICANT. Sec. 18.108.110 provides that appeal to this Council shall be a 'de novo evidentiary hearing.' But 'evidentiary' of what? With respect to the non-certified application, the de novo evidence should relate to tlhe issue of whether the Applicant fulfilled his burden-to sign and certify the Application, either in December or by the February 18th deemed complete date. To treat a de novo evidentiary hearing as allowing a signature to wander in now, would be to create a conflict between regulations where one need not exist, then construe them in such a way that the requirement of truth certification is all but written out of the rules. It is fundamental that when different ~rules can be read in a matter that gives them both meaning, that is preferred. Allowing the existence of an evidentiary proceeding to trump a previously expired legal deadline would effectively strike the important legal deadline from the rules, thereby deleting the .clear and objective standard. But treating the evidentiary hearing as an opportunity to determine if the deadline was met will mean that both the legal deadline and de novo evidentiary rules would have meaning. The planning process would be advanced, not rendered ludicrous and chaotic. Nor does the opportunity to provide more information allow Applicant to fulfill his proof burden. What tars the persuasiveness of this application is all the untruths, inaccuracies and uncertainties that went before it, even infecting new materials submitted in the Council's original (~md hefty) packet. The likelihood that any new information will be submitted AFTER Opponent has completed his presentation, only helps render that information safer from analysis, but it doesn' t make it persuasive. 4. OBJECTIONS TO 'ADDED EVIDENCE" Opponent obviously does not know what added information will be submitted by Applicant. But given the fact that erroneous or misleading information implicates several new documents included by Applicant in the Council's 5-18 packet (documents A-25 and A-27 with confusing flOodplain designations, and A-29 which conflicts with claims about a revised excavation plan), such added information should at least be viewed with a healthy degree of suspicion. The fact that Opponent's presentation time has now expired, however, restricts Opponent' s ability to respond to any late appearing material. Opponent therefore objects -to further evidence as denying the ability to respond. For similar reasons, Opponent objects to any further Staff Report not filed at least 7 days before the hearing on 6-1 and invokes his rights under Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 14 Or LUBA 335, 339 (1986), rev'd, on other grounds, 8,0 Or App 176 (1986) (petitioner may be prejudiced by last minute staff comments presented after the close of public testimony that are both evidentiary and prejudicial ). 18.108.017 Applications A. [n order to ilnitiate a planning action, three copies of a complete application shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 1. Complete applications shall Include: a. All of the required Information for the specific action requested, b. Written findings of fact, c. Complete arid signed application form. The application must be signed by' one or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, or their authorized agents. The application shall not be considered complete unless it is accompanied by the appropriate application fee. 2. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. The City will inform the applicant of deficiencies within 30 days of application. The applicant then has 31 days in which to provide a complete application. When the application is deemed complete, or at the end of the 31 day period, the City will begin the appropriate application procedure. B. All applicantts for Types I, II and III planning actions shall have completed a pre-application conference for the project within a 6-month time period preceding the filing of the application. This requirement may be waived by the Staff Advisor if in the Staff Advisor's opinion the Information to be gathered in a pre-application conference already exists in the final application. £ 1 $/18/04 1:;53 PM hereby certify that the statements. .t information contained in this api~ ~tion, including the enclosed ~rawings and the required findings o~~ fact, are in all respects true and correct. I understand that all )roperty pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon site inspection. In the event the pins are ]ot shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findingS of fact fumished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. ~ailure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in any structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at. my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to ,,seek competent professional advice and assistance, Applicants's Signature Date . As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. Property Owner's Signature Date NOTICE: Section 15.04.240 of the.4shland Municipal Code prohibits the occupancy of a building OrCa release of'. utilities prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division.AND the completion of all zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satisfactory performance bond has been posted to ensure completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection of utilities. Dave Richardson John Galbraith 1105 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland OR 97520 145 S. Holly Street, Suite A Medford OR Architect 97501 Landscape Architect ~ereby cerSfy that the statemenL~ "~d information contained in this ar" '~cation, including the enclosed ~wlngs and the required findin~. - fact, are in all'respects true and ~ ~ct~ I understand.that att 'operty pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon site Inspection. In the event the pins are ~ ~own or theirlocetion found to be Incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. ~urther undere~nd that ff ~s request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establlsh: that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hea#ng to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies ~ granting of ~he mques~; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or Improvements are prope#y located on the ground. ~llure in this regard will result most #ke!y in not only the requestbeing set aside, but also. possibly in any ructures being built in reliance thereon .being required ~o be remoVed.at'my expense. If ! have any ~ub~s, I am advised to seek competent professional advfce and ass/stance; · . : ot~..er of the property Involved in this request, I have read and understood the complet, a application and ~uences to .me as a properly., owner. the t.v. vuan~ of a This Planning. Application Form from PA 2004-015 shows that current Applicant's Urban Planner has signed certifications in other actions using his power of attorney. Why, not here? 42 25' DL~', 43 I- el ,¢ =E STORB WATER OFLNNAGE: Provide drainage plan for all paved areas at lime of building permits. ELECTRIC SERVICE: See attached comments. Contact Scott Johnson of the Electric Departnent for further information -. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: Given the limited discu~n of the proposal in the pre-applica~on submittal materials, Staff has the identified the following primary issues surrounding the proposal: 1. Development within Floodplain Corridor or Flood prone areas. The application needs to identify the Ashland Floodplain Corridor, as well as to elevation of a 100-year flood event (i.e. 3100 cfs) based upon the OTAK 1998 study (see Engineering Division comments). The flood, event should consider the removal of in-stream obstructions. Staff would recommend that no development be proposed within the 100-year flood area. In addition, Staff would recommend the establishment of creek side vegetation in a 10-15 foot wide area. between the active stream channel and any proposed buildings or structures. The.establishment of vegetation and trees may incorporate flood control structures as recently completed along the Calle Guanaquato area. The cum~nt proposal appears to place the proposed improvements too close to the stream channel, potentially restricting the conveyance of flood waters and prohibiting the establishment of.natural streamside vegetation. 2. . Tree Removal. The proposal appears to propose the removal of two, large existing trees. The burden is upon the applicant.to demonstrate that the removal of the trees is appropriated based.upon .the approval .criteria .established under the Tree Removal Ordinance (Chapter 1.8:61): The establishment of a .natural bank.(1.O-1 feet in w4dth) along with creek side vegetation may be.seen.as a. form of mitigation. Site Review. The proposed building is subject to compliance with City Site Design and Use Standards, specifically those that apply to new, downtown buildings. The preliminary building design appears consistent with these standards. The :. Historic Commission's initial comments appear favorable.. Staff recommends that the appllicant meet with the full Historic Commission to discuss the design prior to filing the land use application. ;; II II II II II II II II AP~ENT8. THIRD LEVEL WP - SECOND LEVEL '! I II , I,, II II II ',~ II , OFFICE - 8EGOND LEVEL i i I I i i ),F~ EX~ On),OE -- t873,10 ASH Cl mmmm/~ rhis crosssection (enlarged from page 119 of the gity Council packot) shows the original e:xcava- !ion plan running from tho ba~o of tho Tripl~ · aple al-most to the Street. This area is circled-~ ........ ~or clarity. It appears that under this plan almost ~11 below building grade would be at FEMA 100 ~ear Floodplain of 1872. rhis drawing is now obsolete. I The New Excavation Plan, as included at A-29 of the City Council Packet. Applicant claims the new plan reduces ex- cavation in tl~e critical root zone of the Triple Maple. But this drawing, the only one to show the actual plan, shows that excavation from the base of the tree thru its dripline (marked as area A) is the same. And a new 10' excavation falling at the northeast corner of the building and within the driPline has been added (marked as area B). So excavation around the Maple is INCREASED. , The reduction of excavation begins about where the dripline ends and extends toward the street (marked as C). Compare this to the original excavation plan. This will not do the Maple much good. In fact, .instead of having all below building grade at or below the FEMA 100 year floodplain, the front ' half of the building (toward the street) will be much higher. Yet, the fuller excavation was used in the OTAK studies of the flood impact of this building. Thus, the new plan not only fails to save the Maple, but undermines 'the validity of OTAK work. Are Applicant and his experts aware of what their own drawin.s provide? ~'~ / ! I II II \ II/ ",, Il Il I II I' , I II II ! I I I /I I ,,,/,,,/ I II / / / I This is page A-27, submitted by Applicant in the packet for the 5-28-04 hearing. The document erroneously describes the FEMA 100 yr floodplain as 1870, whereas it is 18'72. See circled A. Both the topo lines for 1872 and 1870 (the maximum allow- able encroachment areas for the 100 year floodplains) extend further into the building than shown on other documents, or even the small little triangle that is labeled as 'grade area of building encroachment into floodplain' identified on this document. Even at this late date, Applicant's 'drawings remain at leaSt ambiguous regarding the floodplain locations, even though the Staff's pre-application conference report required them to identify the floodplains as part of the Application. 48 25.10.03(:) Findings of Fact A. The flood hazard areas of Ashland are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruptions of commerce and governmental seuvices,~ ex~raordi-nary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all' of-which adversely affect the public health, safety and' general welfar~ B. These flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flOod' hazards-which-increas~ft0od' fletghts and velocities, and when inadequately anchored, damage uses in other areas. Uses that are inadequately flood-proofed, elevated, or otherwise protected from flood damage also contribute to the flood Ios:s. 49 ,f 1 5/16/04 5:38 PM CRAIG' A. STONE & ASSOCIATES., I_,TD. Consultants in Urban Planning and Development 708 Cardley Avenue · Medford, Oregon 97504-6124 Telephone: (541) 779-0569 · Fax: (541) 779-0114 · E-mail: estone~cstoneassoci~tes.com May 26, 2004 MAYOR AND CH~' COUNCIL cio Ashland Planning Department 51 Winbum Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action 2004-002; Lloyd Haines: Applicant Dear Mayor and Council: Together with attorney Alan Harper, this fwm represents applicant Lloyd Haines ga the above captioned matter. The following constitutes applicant's rebuttal testimony and will supplement applicant's oral rebuttal to be delivered during the continued public hearing on June 1, 2004. To begin, there remain three principal issues: 1) flood plain, 2) tree removal and protection, and 3) applicability of the city's Large Scale Development standards. These are addressed in rebuttal below. Flood Plain Issues Architect Dave Richardson worked closely with applicant's engineers at OTAK in producing the design of this building. Attached is a letter from Mr. Richardson that responds to the floodplain objections raised during the Council's public hearing of May 18, 2004. To summarize: The Ashland Flood Corridor and FEMA Floodway are accurately depicted on the plans prepared by. Architect Richardson. In plan view, the building is clearly shown to be outs/de both the Ashland Flood Corridor and FEMA Floodway. (P. ecord p. A-2S) . There are two 100-year flood plain maps and two flood plain elevations- FEMA's and Ashland's- and these have been adopted by Ashland. Applicant commissioned OTAK engineers to undertake additional detailed flood analysis which verified the accuracy of the FEMA flood plain elevation. There exists a discrepancy between the flood plain lines (both Ashland's and FEMA's) and the respective flood plain elevations. However, the evidence makes clear that the proposed building's fu~t finished floor of the building is at an elevation of 1,877, which is 1.5 feet above tho Ashland flood elevation and 5 feet above the FEMA elevation. (P.~x~ni p. A-~:) . With respect to flood plain elevations, both are accurately represented on the elevations for the building and show that the building's first fmished floor is at or above both Ashland's and FEMA's base flood elevations. (P.~ord ~. A-2S) In fact, the building is permitted by Ashland regulations to be two feet below the base flood elevation. This is along the :mine lines as Councilperson Jackson's last comments when the public hearing was continued at 9:30 p.m. . Because the opposite bank of Ashland Creek is lower than the flood plain elevation, before the flood level can rise to a level that would affect this building, it will spill out on the other side of the creek, running through the paved parking area and down Water Street and the :mine has been attested to by OTAK engineers. Record ~. ~99-200 5. The proposed permanent bridge location is at or above the Ashland Creek flood elevation and will be anchored to the building. Craig A. Stone & Asaociates, Ltd. Mayor and City Council . Mr. Richardson has offered stipulations with respect to flooding and riparian enhancement and I hereby offer the same pursuant to my of-record Power of Attorney: 1) that applicant will enhance the riparian area beneath both the existing and proposed bridges subject to city approval of enhancement plans, and 2) applicant will eliminate the bridge support pier in Ashland Creek flood corridor' and instead anchor the bridge to the building deck. Tree Removal and Protection While applicant acknowledged that errors existed in applicant's original tree protection plan, their nature and the circumstances that led to them were explained during the public hearing and will not be further discussed. Recent plans and information concerning trees are now accurate and provide a basis for decision, making. Tree issues concern: 1) the alder tree near the property frontage, 2) the triple- trunk maple in Ashland Creek, 3) the grove of trees on #DOT's property, and 4) the alder tree on the opposite side of the creek. le Alder Tree (#1). Under Ashland's Site Design/Use Standards (ASDUS) buildings are to be built from side lot line to side lot line and (other than arcades, alcoves and other recessed features) must front upon or be no further than 20 feet from the sidewalk. This tree is approximately 8 feet from the No~ Main Street sidewalk. ~e~ra p. A-26) The evidence from applicant's arborist is: "If construction is to occur closer than 20 feet from the trunk, it is very unlikely that the Alder would survive." (Record p. ~) This leaves only the notion that a building could be built 20 feet from the Alder (28 feet from the sidewalk) and be connected to the street with some type of "recessed feature." The testimony of record has been that a building designed in this way to accommodate the Alder will produce an unattractive tradeoff that may not be able to comply with other design regulations and that the building will be on the site far longer than the tree. The city should not be saddled with a building made unattractive and incompatible to preserve a tree that has, at this stage, a limited life. Moreover, applicant has agreed to: 1) plant trees on the adjacent #DOT property or other specified location, 2) produce community sculpture from the removed Alder which, 3) might be located in an art park applicant desires to create on nearby land. (Record p. 17~) Finally Applicant agrees with the opinion of the Assistant City Attorney that Ashland's tree regulations do not tromp its design/development standards. 2~ Triple-Trunk Maple (#22). Based upon a request from the Ashland Tree Commission, applicant has taken steps to preserve this tree. However, its preservation requires the removal of one of the three t~mks and pruning of the other two. During the Council public hearing on May 18, 2004, applicant's landscape architect testified that less than 50 percent of the tree canopy will be removed and therefore the pruning does not constitute "removal" under the ordinance. Applicant's arb#fist testified in writing that the tree will survive this pruning. ~ecofd p. ~.6~) One opponent testified that it might as well be removed as it would be unamaetive following pruning. Applicant disagrees and believes the tree will recover from the pruning (as trees normally do) and will exi:~ in the future as an important site feature. e #DOT Trees (02-20). The canopy of these trees is primarily on #DOT's property and the same is accurately shown on the current tree protection plan. The only tree in this grove to be removed by applicant is: 1) the #5 a tree less than 6-inches DBH, (~econlv. A-16 mt A-30) 2) that is a demonstrable hazard tree, (~ecord ~. A-30) 3) which is not regulated by Ashland Tree Ordinance, (ALU# 18.61.0~S(D)and (E)) and 4) separated from the subject property by a concrete retaining wall. (Record p. A-22) According to applicant's arborist, the #DOT trees have been neglected and that pruning and construction of the proposed building will produce minimal impact. ~ p. A-22) Despite one opponent's testimony that the trees will be leR as, "mere wooden toothpicks extending in the air," as the tree protection plan shows, the vast majority of the grove's canopy will not be touched. Page 2 of 4 Craig A. Stone & Associatea, Ltd. Mayor and City Council May 26, 2004 (Recoil p. A-30 and A-22) Finally, based upon the testimony of Applicant's Landscape tLrchitect, the removal of Tree #5 on ODOT's property will not adversely affect the ODOT grove of trees. e Alder On Other Side of Creek (#27). One opponent testified that this tree would be harmed if the area near it were used for construction staging. During the public hearing, applic~mt's attorney placed into evidence, a map showing the edge of paving on land near this tree. It shows that construction staging will occur on a paved area near the tree. Alternatively, applic~mt noted that his nearby paved parking lot could also be used for staging. Finally, the parking lane on Main Street may be used. None of these alternative staging areas will affect any tree. Large Scale Project Standards Some opponents assert the ASDUS standards for "Large Scale Projects" apply here. The standard is: "Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying to the ~a~dards for Basic and Detail Site review, shall conform to the following standards:" Applicant asserts the following are alternative permissible ways to address this standard: le This project comprises less than 10,000 square feet and building frontage less flhan 100 feet. 0~ora p. A-2~) While the existlng building on this tax lot (over 100 years old) could be combined to produce more than 10,000 square feet, the "development" in this instance involves only the building now proposed. The term "development" in this standard is ambiguous and requires interpretation. The City Council can and should interpret this provision to mean that this building .does not constitute a development involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet nor a building having frontage in excess of 100 feet in length. Based upon this interpretation, the large scale development standards simply don't apply. + If the Council determines this project must meet the large scale development standa~ the standard can be met, but will require the Council .to impose conditions that: 1) requh'e the building share a common wall with the existing building, where the common wall may include structural elements needed for seismic stability, and 2) the proposed bridge be widened to accommodate seating. During the public hearing, applicant's attorney placed into evidence a spreadsheet prepared by applicant's architect which demonstrates that sufficient amounts of "public spaces" can be provided to comply with the relevant requirements of the ASDUS. Finally, one opponent testified that the absence of a signature on thc application form was used as license for applicant's agents to purposely misrepresent the facts. This is simply untrue. The lack of signature by Mr. Haines or myself (,pursuant to my Power of Attorney) was a simple oversight, The basis of the errors in the tree protection plans were explained in detail in Landscape Architect Galbraith's submittal of May 12, 2004. Record p. A-12 through A-21. Applicant Haines has since signed the application form and noted on it his certification that all current amended ,documents are tree and correct. However, I will note that applicant's original proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not as yet updated to reflect the amended plans and any other issues or conditions that may arise during this proceeding, ff this application is approved, applicant will produce appropriate and up-to-date Findings of Fact and' Conclusions of Law in :support of the affirmative decision applicant urges the Council to reach. Pa~e 3 of 4 Craig A. Stone & ^ssociates, Ltd. Mayor and City Council May 26, 2004 Very truly yours, CRAIG A. STONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ~~ljrban Planner CAS/m c:~:,:u~ms ~o SETTINGStCRAIG STONF_CRAIG~MY DOCAJMENTS~WS~IAINE~ET 3.DO~ Enclosures cc. LloYd Haines Alan H, aper File Pag~ 4 of 4 Architectural Design Works 1105 Siskiyou Blvd. P.O. Box 1348 Ashland, Oregon 97520 David Richardson AIA Architect Jac Nickels AIA CSI Architect Date: 5/21/04 To: City Council City of Ashland From: W. David Richardson, Jr. Architectural Design Works, Inc. Re: Haines Shasta Building Project In reSPonse to some objections put forth by Randal Hopkins, regarding the Haines Shasta Building Project at the Public Meeting at the City Council Meeting of 18 MaY 2004, I offer the following responses: 1. Mr. Hopkins;' stated that the "FEMA" Flood Plain Data shown on our Drawings sheets A-101, A-102, A-103, A-104 and A-105 was incorrect. He is incorrect in his assertion. The data shown is a downloaded electronic file from the City of Ashland of the official FEMA map of the area. Architectural Design Works, Inc. (ADW) visually confirmed this by comparing it to a printed map acquired from the City of Ashland, and Kevin Timmins, PE, a water resources engineer from Otak, also visually confirmed the location from an official FEMA'map they had in their office. 2. Mr. Hopkins stated that the Ashland Flood Corridor and FEMA Flood Way is incorrect. This assertion is also incorrect. An electronic copy of the Ashland Flood Corridor and FEMA Flood Way map was downloaded from the City of Ashland and visually confirmed by a printed map we received from the City of Ashland. These maps are accurate as set forth on our drawings. No portion of the building is to be constructed in either the Ashland Flood Corridor or the FEMA Flood Way. 3. The FEMA official "Base Floor Elevation" at this area is 1872.0. Mr. Haines had Otak provide some additional studies, of which you have copies, to confirm that the FEMA Base Flood Elevation(BFE) is correct. Since the opposite bank has a Iow area around 1872.1, in an actual flood event, as witnessed by the 1997 flood, the flood waters will spill over the bank at the Iow point and not reach much above the 1872 point on the building site. 5/24/04 Phone: 541-488-0719 fax: 5411488-1336 e-mail: info@ADWarchitect.com web: www. ADWamhitect.com Page ! of 2 4. Even though the official FEMA map shows the building site out of the flood plain, ADW has used the existing 1872 grade elevation as the basis for BFE in designing the building. This is shown on the "Basement Floor Plan/Site Plan" on Sheet A-107. 5. Even though the Ashland Flood Corridor BFE is shown at an unrealistic: 1875.5, ADW has set the first floor elevation at 1877 or 18" above this Ashland BFE. 6. Mr. Hopkins' contention, that in his opinion, the building is unsafe frorn flooding is completel.y unfounded. See item #5 above. He also contended that given a choice of removing the tree or having flood safety he would remove the tree. I would agree with this, but it is unnecessary to remove the tree. The only difference in what we are proposing in limiting excavating at the existing Maple tree Critical Root lviass is that the extra water storage is less than we had preViously. We are still proposing to excavate a considerable amount more than required to make up for the mass of the piers we are adding be, low the 1872 grade elevation. In response to the City Staff's concern with the relocation of the new bridge, please take into consJ!deration the following facts: 7. The proposed new bridge elevation is at the 1877 floor elevation in lieu of the 1873.19 elevation previously proposed for the "draw bridge". The bottom of this proposed bridge would be above the 1872 FEMA BFE. The higher bridge location will allow more light to filter dov~ to the bank area under the bridge. Moreover, applicant will agree to stipulate to providi[ng appropriate riparian enhancement beneath the existing bridge to be removed and the new bridge, with said enhancement plans made subject to review and approval by the City. 8. We are: showing one bridge support Pier at the building side located within the Ashland Flood Corridor. Applicant will agree to stipulate to eliminate that pier and attach the end of the bridge directly to the building' deck beam. 9. The new building side bank area covered by the "Existing Bridge" is approximately 41 Square Feet (SF). The original proposed "Draw Bridge" was 35 SF and the new proposed "Fixed Bridge" is net (including deck reduction) 52 Square Feet. The additional area of bank coverage from the existing to the current proposal is 11 SF. We feel this difference is minim~fl and that this current proposal is much superior in design and circulation. If the City staff still feels this is too large a difference, we can create an opening: in the new "Fixed Bridge" of 9 SF reducing the area to 43 SF. Thank you and feel free to contact me for any additional questions you may have. Si~n~erel ' W. David Richardson, AIA Architect 5/24/2004 Page 2 of 2 _C'~'Y OF ASHLAND PLANNINC \PPLICATION Date Received Type I~[IL[O~ File No. ~O0~-O0'Z Filing Fee Zoning Comp Plan Designation Receipt # il 5f3Z. · APPLICATIONIS FOR: [] Minor Land Partition [] Variance [] Conditional Use Permit U! Boundary Line Adjustment [] Outline Plan (# Units I"1 Final Plan lq Site Review [] Annexation IDyl Zone Change Comp Plan Change StaffPermit · [] .Solar Waiver APPLICANT 'Name Address . Application pertains to 18.62 and 18.72 chapter, section, subpart of the Ashland Municipal ,Code. Lloyd M. Haines Phone' 51 Water Street Ashland OR 97520 Suite 222 PROPERTY OWNER Name 88 North Main, LLC Phone Address 51 Water street suite 222 Ashland OR 97520 SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDS.CAPE ARCHITI~C? (may need to use backpage) Name Craig A. Stone & Associates Ltd. J%qent Phone 779-0569 Address 708 Cardley Ave Medford OR 97504 · DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 88 Nnr~-.h I~a{h .q~'r~,~,~' Assessor's Map No. 39 1E 09BB · Tax Lot(s) 9800 When was the above described property acquired by owner? On a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, conditions or restn'ctions concerning use of property or improvements contemplated, as Well as yard set-back and area or height requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision tract developers. Give date said rest~ctions expire. FINDINGS OF FACT Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another Sheet(s) of paper and enclose it with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of. factual statements or findings of fact ..and suRported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence which supl:,orts it. I hereby certify that the statements '.1 information contained in this ap[~ ition, including the enclosed' drawings and the required findings o'r fact, are in all respects true and correct. ! understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawingsand visible upon site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden wiTI be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; that the. findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of'the request; that the, findings of fact fumished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in any structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at'my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised' to seek competent professional advice and assistance, "Applicants% sign-at~e -**~' Date As owner of the property involved in.this request, I have read and understood the complete application and . its consequences to me as a property owner. NOTICE: Section 15.1)4.240 of the/tshland Municipal Code prohibits the occupancy ora building OrCa release.of:' utilities prior to the iss'uance of a Certificate of Occup.a:ncy by the Building Division.AND the completion of all zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satisfactory performance bond has been posted to ensure completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection, of utilities. ,. Dave Richardson 1105 'Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland OR. 97520 Architect John Galbraith 145 S. Holly Street, Suite A Medford OR 97501 Landscape Architect The certification I have made relates to all documents that were originally filed in this matter as amended, modified'and corrected by .subsequent filings. CilFY OF /kSHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 1, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council ~ John McLaughlin, Director of Community Developmen Staff Response - PA2004-002 - Haines Mr. Hopkins, during his presentation to the Council, has raised concerns regarding the application of the City's Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands to this project, including doubts over the accuracy of the site plan with respect to the elevation of the 100-year flood and the location of Ashland's Floodplain Corridor boundary. Staff has provided some clarification to the issues raised by Idr. Hopkins, as we understand those concerns to be. The Ashland Creek Floodplain Corridor as depicted on the proposal's site plan. The Ashland Creek Floodplain Corridor boundary is accurately represented on the applicant's site plan. The project architect obtained the information fi.om City of Ashland electronic data files. The As'.hland Floodplain Corridor is similar to a zoning overlay, where additional development standards beyond the general requirements identified under the zoning district (i.e. C-l-D) are applied to lands within the corridor. As shown in 18.62.050, for this application, the key issues for definition of Floodplain Corridor Lands are: All land contained within the 100 year flood plain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management: Agency (FEMA), in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 2. All land within the area defined as Flood plan Corridor land in maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060. The Ashland Floodplain Corridor is essentially a zoning line, and encompasses the area within the lines shown on Map A-103. This is an overlay zone, where the standards of the P&E ordinance apply. This line was drawn by the City based upon photos and evidence of historic flooding within the Ashland Creek area, and represents the horizontal extent of flooding. It was not based on detailed topographic analysis or a hydrologic flood model. As seen by the angular nature of the line, it doesn't necessarily follow the topography exactly, but rather is a general depiction of the extent of historic flooding. This boundary is far wider and more encompassing than the FEMA boundary alone. An elevation is assigned to this Floodplain Corridor area (in this instance 1875.5') to ensure that whatever is constructed within these boundaries is done so at an elevation safely above the flood level. The elevation is not used to establish the boundary (such as is done with the FEMA boundary) but rather as a regulatory tool for establishing floor levels for development within this corridor. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us While the project is outside the Ashland Creek Floodplain Corridor mapped .boundaries, portions of the proposed structure are clearly within the FEMA 100-year floodplain, as shown on attached map A-101. The location of the approximate FEMA 100-year flood is based upon the plotting of base :flood elevations (BFE's) derived frOm the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Ashland (December 1980). Standard hydrologic and hydraulic study methods were used to determine the flood data found in the 1980 Flood Insurance Study. Consequently, the approximate location of the 100-year flood elevation is based upon a mathematical computer modeling of the Ashland Creek basin, while the Ashland Floodplain Corridor boundary is a generalized zoning overlay not derived through an engineered model of a potential flood event. Since the project was located on a portion of the lands identified as FEMA 100-year floodplain, it was subject to the P&E ordinance and the floodplain corridor standards. ' Additionally, to ensure accuracy, the applicant was requested to provide additional hydrologic flood modeling information. That information was provided by OTAK and is included in the record. It essentially confirms the FEMA flood elevation, and the use of 1875.5 as a safe elevation for the floor elevation of the new structure. In the case of the Haine's project, FEMA estimates the 100-year flood elevation at 1872 feet. While FEMA's Model Ordinance would require commercial structures to be flood proofed up to or one foot above the elevation of the estimated 100-year flood elevation (i.e. 1872), Ashland's elevation of 1875.5 requires that the required flood proofing measures be incorporated upon the structure an additional 2.5 feet to 3.5 feet above the 100-yeew flood elevation. Flood proofing refers to protection measures made to a building to ensure that floodwaters do not damage it. This includes certifying that structural components of the structure are designed to re:Sist hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy encountered during a flood event. In general, this area behind the culvert under the Lithia Way viaduct is a pooling area during a flood event. The elevation oftlhe pool during such an event is modeled to be approximately 1872 fbet. Should the pool elevation exceed that height, it will spill over into the parking lot and paved area under the viaduct, and ultimately return to the creek channel. Since the parking area is lower than 1872, it will take the overflow, and the "uphill" side that is proposed for the Haines development will not be at risk to flood damage. Further, as shown on the attached sheet A-103, the main constriction for the creek is between the Siskiyou Brew Pub building and the existing Ashland Creek Bar and Grill building. The new structure is located in the pooling area, ~md will not impact any areas of active or dynamic flood flows. Staff notes on documents within the record of the application. Mr. Hopkins makes reference to Staffnotes found in the margins of OTAK's "Flood Hazard Assessment for Shasta Building '03" (original Exhibit 6 - 12.12.04). These were unofficial notes based upon an initial reading of the document. Specifically, Staff believed the Floodway boundary (not Floodplain) was inaccurately represented on the original site plan. In order to evaluate and address Staff's concern, the applicant voluntarily postponed the Planning Commission's review of the application that was scheduled for January 2004. OTAK provided a formal determination of the Floodway location on February 13, 2004 (Exhibit 7c - page, 205), with the revised Floodway boundaries shown on a revised supplemental drawing (Exhibit A-103 - page 211). Based upon information contained with the 1980 City of Ashland Flood DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us Insurance Study and the separate engineering analysis provided by OTAK Engineers, Staff believes the Floodway boundary is accurately shown on the site plan. Supplemental Brief Submitted by Hopkins Item 1. The applicant has submitted a signed application. Hopkins Concern of FEMA floodplain - 1872' elevation - (Exhibit 48) in Supplemental Brief. Mr. Hopkins raised a concern in his supplemental brief regarding the location of the FEMA floodplain based on topographic information submitted by the applicant. Hopkins claims that the document erroneously describes the FEMA 100 year floodplain. In Hopkins' Exhibit 48, the highlighted elevations refer to the site after final grading. The existing grades (shown by the dashed lines) show the elevations in the same locations as have been indicated on the previous submittals by the applicant. The grading will not occur in the shaded area identified as the tree protection zone for the maple. The grading will increase the pool storage under the building during flood events. Review of the information clearly shows that there is no change in the existing grade information as previously submitted, nor any change in the area of encroachment. Hopkins Objection to new staff report Hopkins objects to the submission of any staff report less than seven days prior to the hearing. ORS 197.763(4)(b) provides: (b) Any staff report used at the hearing shall be available at lea;~t seven days prior to the hearing. If additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the local government may allow a continuance or leave the record open to allow.the parties a reasonable opportunity to respond. Any continuance or extension of the record requested by an applicant shall result in a corresponding extension of the time limitations of ORS 215.427 or 227.178 and ORS 215.429 or 227.179. While the general rule is that the staff report should be available at least seven days prior to the hearing, the statute does allow for new documents and evidence to be produced by _an_.y party. In the event they are, and the .Council determines the new evidence warrants a response from other parties, the Council may either leave the record open for a reasonable time or continue the hearing. Should the Council choose the leave the record open, we would recommend that the record not be lef~ open past June 8. That would allow a Council decision on June 15, and adoption of the findings on June 16 with a mailing of the decision on June 17th or_ 18th. The 120 day time period expires June 18. Conclusions An evaluation of potential impacts from the project upon neighboring properties during a flood event is of paramount concern. The project's engineering faro, OTAK, has presented a revised flood hazard assessment of the project, including a determination of the estimated 100-year flood elevation and Floodway boundary. The updated documents., Exhibits 7b, 7c and 7d, are found on pages 199 through 221 of the record. OTAK concludes that the all floor levels of the building are above the estimated 100-year water smSace elevation and that improvements associated with the proposal will increase flood storage volume to tiffs location of Ashland Creek. Additionally, survey data indicates that the right bank of Ashland Creek at ~this location is lower than the estimateq 100-year water surface elevation. Consequently, flood flows would probably overflow the right bank and escape the main channel of Ashland Creek well before reaching the elevation of the lowest floor level of' the proposed building on the left bank.. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, O~,gon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us "'"'t ~'ti!It Iil-I-Fl-l-I-'l'l'].l I "' l l,'ljlll lil-I-I-I-I~.l.l.l.I I ii! Memo to Mayor and Council May 31, 2004 From Councilor Jackson Subject: Appeal of 2004-002, Lloyd Haines Planning Action, Shasta Building I have the following observations to make about this appeal at this point in time. First, I have no issues with the building design vis a vis the site design standards. I am not decided whether public space should be required and if so, whether off-site is acceptable, per tlhe proposals that Mr. Haines has included in his application. Normally I would not consider the new deck public unless .it is open to the public, not just restaurant customers. Where I have concerns are how the floodplain, riparian protection and tree protection proposals come together at the rear of the- building. At present, we have versions of drawings from November 2004 with revisions in December, February, March and May. We have findings approved by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2004 and newer drawings with additional revisions. Without a clear set of drawings that show all the necessa:~y setbacks and clearly overlay together into a single whole, it is challenging for anyone to know that the approved design meets all three standards noted above. Has the 20 foot. riparian setback been met? What is the Base Flood Elevation that best protects this section of the Ashland Creek Corridor? How does one resolve the conflict between the ]Landscape Plan that notes: no grading allowed in the dripline of protected trees and the architectural drawings that propose excavation of that same area for backwater storage? I do not propose that these questions cannot be addressed in a satisfactory way. There is commonly much sequential adaptation of plans between engineers, architects and landscape managers to finalize project plans. Nevertheless, these plans do not yet meet the standards. In my mind, Council has two options.: 1) Deny the application without prejudice and allow a 'clean' project to come through planning, and Commissions again, or 2) Approve tt~e application with conditions to provide a suitable set of drawings for final approval. I would suggest the following conditions for an approval: 1) Start with Planning Commission approved conditions. 2) Seek staff input on Condition #1: this condition should not include conclusions cited by the applicant throughout the application as implying Council's agreement. 3) Seek additional input on Condition #3: is armoring desirable, why is it proposed? 4) Submit complete new set of drawings, with engineer's stamp on architect's drawing (or equivalent) to demonstrate that the flood storage calculations fit the design shown, and acknowledge the tree protection requirements. Accurate floodplain and riparian setbacks must be shown. Accurate figures for calculation of storage volume must tie to actual areas, number of piers, etc. 5) An engineer is required to stamp the design and flood compliance of any creek crOssing. 6) Restolre the FEMA elevation certificate requirement at the higher elevation (#14 from pg 104). 7) Correct #13: FEMA flood elevation plus one foot is 1873 not 1773 feet. 8) Plans and documents shall be reviewed and agreed to by Public Works for compliance with City's strictest flood damage protection rules. 9) Utility and storm water plans shall reflect tree protection measures to the greatest extent possible. 10) Applicant to pursue Art Park concept with ODOT and the City of Ashland (Parks, Public Art Commission, Planning, etC.). If not possible in Preferred location, mitigate tree loss elsewhere on public land[. 11) Tree Commission to be consulted prior to issuance of building permit for revised comments and mitigation plans under Conditions #16 and~#lT. Councilor Kate Jackson Comments on Record of PA 2004-002 Page 2 of 4 12) Stipulation #9, page 173, of applicants' submittal be brought forward and extended beyond toxic materials to any materials that would reduce the flood storage volume beneath the building. Below, I describe my observations made from review of the record that led me to the above proposal. I have made no ex parte contacts of any kind since the May 18 hearing date. To deal with the Alder at the beginning, the Tree Ordinance is secondary [18.61.080(B) (1)]to the Site Design Standards, thus the removal of the alder is permissible but requires mitigation. It was fascinating to hear that the Native Americans consider carving the tree a tribute to. its existence, while others are commenting that removal of a large canopy is an insult or a curse. I am persuaded by the Native American view, and support Mr. Haines' stated intention to make sculpture(s) from the tree. The creation and donation of the resulting sculptures to the City of Ashland should be a condition of approval. I cannot get a complete picture of the concerns at the rear of the building because the drawings have changed so recently. The landscape drawing describes treatment of soil in the.~vicinity of the trees-to-remain (Figure LI.1, page A-30 appeal file). The notes say no grading can occur with the drip line of protected trees. I cannot tell what version of A-301 (page A-29, dated 5/119/04 and page 213 dated 12/8/03) the engineer's calculation of backwater storage relies upon in his revised letter dated 2/11/04. Can excavation take place more than 17 feet from the root protection zone or not at all in the dripline. Note there is a large dripline from Tree No. 27 that overlaps the maple and covers the entire riparian area along the creek at the building site. You cannot simultaneously excavate for storage volume and preserve soil rooted to the spot by tree growth. Do the engineer's calculations include the area of the mo~e recent 890 square feet of mechanical room? The letter does state, on page 219, the assumption that the ~Lower Floor, ..., will all ]De entirely above both the FEMA BFE and the City of Ashland BFE." On pages 74 to 78, one finds the Pl'anning Commissions conditions of approval, dated 4/13/04. The findings of fact, on page 76, refer only to the FEMA Base Flood Elevation of 1872 feet, no mention is Councilor Kate Jackson Comments on Record of PA 2004-002 Page 3 of 4 made of the Ashland Flood Corridor elevation of 1875.5 feet. Yet the applicants drawings and the OTAK engineer's letters show and address concerns about this higher base flood elevation. On page 104, the staff report'proposed condition #14 that the ~lowest habitable floor level shall be,,, two feet above the FEMA BFE or above the City of Ashland Flood Plain Corridor, whichever is greater". (underline added). This condition is removed in the approved findings. Not only does this appear to be backtracking on the elevation requirements, but it implies that an Elevation Certificate is not required prior to occupancy. Unless the FEMA rules have changed, a Certificate is a requirement of the FEMA program. The architectural drawings show the lowest finished floor elevation as 1877: is this an intentional design to address the higher flood' risk established by the City's own experience of flood damage? By this logic, it seems to me the botto~ of the lowest floor should be at 1875.5 feet (it looks very close) and flood-proofed. The purpose would be to not intrude into the potential high water level of a serious flood. The need for excavation to provide storage volume would decrease or perhaps disappear by keeping the building floor out of the water storage area. The question of interfering with the riparian habitat and established rooting patterns under the building becomes moot. Finally, I disagree that the project meets floodplain development standards, as written on page 75-76 of the record. The City code (18.62.050) requires a 20-foot setback for riparian preservation. Examining the latest drawings for setbacks for riparian protection raises more questions than answers. For example, Drawing A-107, page A-27 of the record, Basement Floor Plan/Site Plan: the FEMA 100 yr flood is shown at 1870, where it is stated elsewhere as 1872, the creek edge is.not shown, setback of foundation elements of 20 feet from creek edge cannot be deduced. The text of the staff report, on page 96, reduces the 20-foot setback to 10 feet. (I want to acknowledge.the fact that staff are protecting the maple and a riparian area by requesting removal of cantilevered 2nd.and 3rd floors, which has been done). Is this an acceptable decision with or without a variance? The applicants' findings on page 146 address the standards but do not refer to the 20 feet: trees must remain, minimal grading, ~retain general topography". Do both the floodplain and the riparian standards allow intrusion into the 20 feet if the building is elevated on piers? The old deck may be at the creek and the new deck is better at 10 feet, but does not the riparian preservation area extend 20 feet? Councilor Kate Jackson Comments on Record of PA 2004-002 Pa~e 4 of 4 I apologize for the length of these comments and for not delivering them to all parties sooner. I had my own time demands to deal with in reviewing the materials in depth. Councilor Kate Jackson Comments on Record of PA 2004-002 Page 5 of 4 CITY' OF ,-ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Recommendation: Background: Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2003-118 Approving a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the Purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on Land Zoned R-1-7.5, Classified as Hillside Lands and Within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon APPLICANTS: Sidney and Karen DeBoer Department of Community Development Planning Division 1, 2004 JJ~ McLaughlin, Director ofComm~y Development ~ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator 34~ On November 12, 2003, the Planning Commission Hearings Board approved the Physical Constraints permit for this property. A timely appeal was filed and the City Council held a public hearing on April 6, 2004, and continued the heating to April 8, 2004 at which time they upheld the decision of the Planning Commission Heatings Board and approved the request, with conditions. The findings supporting that decision are attached to this communication. The findings were prepared by the applicants' agent and reviewed by City staff. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the findings as presented. The record supporting the decision of the Council is available fox' review at the Planning Department. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND STATE OF OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ) FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW ) PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ) CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY ) DWELLING ON LAND ZONED R-1-7.5, ) CLASSIFIED AS HILLSIDE LANDS AND ) WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC ) DISTRICT IN ASHLAND, OREGON ) ) ) Sidney and Karen DeBoer: Applicants FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Planning Action 2003-118 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION; PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Sidney DeBoer and Karen DeBoer ("Applicants") propose to construct a single family dwelling on land zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5). The property is designated Hillside Lands pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) Chapter 18.62 and is within a Residentiial Historic district. This proposal also requires the demolition of an existing dwelling which was applied for under a separate application which was approved and not appealed.~ This application was filed and received by the City of Ashland ("the city") on September 2, 2003. On October l0th, 2003, the application was deemed complete by staff. Following public notice in accordance with law, on November 12, 2003 the application was heard by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board '("Hearings Board" or "Board") in an~ Q,pe~n public heasing. During the hearing, all parties were afforded an opportunity to present evidence and make arguments. Following the public hearing the record was kept open for seven (7) days to allow opponents to submit additional evidence, and for an additional seven (7) days fox' Applicants' final rebuttal. Following the conclusion of public testimony, the public hearing and record were closed and the Board deliberated to a decision. The Board conditionality approved the application on a 3 to 0 vote. Following the Board's adoption of a final order on this matter the same was appealed to the City Council ("Council"). Following public notice in accordance with law, the Council' conducted a public hearing on April 6, 2004. The hearing was continued to April 8, 2004 and Applicants intend to retain the existing accessory garage structure. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 1 City of Ashland, Oregon at the conclusion of public testimony, the public hearing and record were closed and the Council deliberated on the matter. ' The Council heard the matter de novo and received new evidence and testimony from Appellants/opponents and Applicants, as well as the entire record from the Board hearing. Following close of public testimony and deliberation, and upon a motion duly made and seconded, the application was conditionally approved on a 5 to 1 vote.2 These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are in support of the Council's de~cision in this matter. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD AND CITY COUNCIl.. The following evidence was before the Hearings Board and City Council: Record Page 12-9-03 Staff Report Addendum 1-3 11-25-03 Applicant's Final Rebuttal 4-19 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Colin Swales) 20-58 11-19-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (Bryan Holley) 59-63 11-19-03 OpPonent's Additional Testimony (Bill Street) 64-68 11-17-03 Opponent's Additional Testimony (George Kramer) 69-70 11-12-03 Hearings Board Hearing' s Board (PCHB) Minutes 71-78 11-12-03 Opponent's Exhibits from November 12, 2003 PCHB Meeting 79-85 11-12-03 Applicant's Exhibits from November 12, 2003 PCHB Meeting 86-99 11-06-03 Tree Commission Comments/Minutes 97 11-5-03 Historic Commission Minutes 98-103 11-12-03 Letter from Claudia Everett 104 11-12-03 Letter from Charles and Margaret Howe 105 11-10-03 Letter from Bill and Shirley Patton 106 11-05-03 Email Correspondence from David Sidman signed by Phyllis Wetzel 107 11-12-03 Letter Requesting Withdrawal from Public Hearing 10~t (B.G. Hicks & Paula Daystor) dated November 10, 2003 Ashland Mayor Alan DeBoer recused himself fi.om this matter and did not participate in the proceedings. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2(X)3-118 Page 2 City of Ashland, Oregon 10-27-03 10-22-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 10-20-03 11-03-03 10-16-03 10-28-03 10-10-03 10-10-03 9-2-03 9-2-03 12-9-03 1-7-04 2-10-04 3-15-04 3-10-04 4-6-04 Exhibit CC.-1 Exhibit CC..2 Exhibit CC.-3 Exhibit CC..4 Corrected Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners within 200 feet and published in Daily Tidings) Notice of Public Hearing and Applicable Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners within 200 feet and published in Daily Tidings) Request for Public Hearing (B.G. Hicks & Paula Daystor) Request for Public Hearing (Gayle Titus) dated October 18, 2003 Request for Public Hearing (Joyce Cowan) dated October 18, 2003 Letter from Ken Ogden Authorizing Plans to be Copied Fax from Ken Ogden regarding Copyright Email Correspondence from Colin Swales dated October 28, 2003, October 27, 2003 and October 15, 2003 Planning Staff Approval Public Notice and Applicable Criteria (mailed to neighboring property owners within 100 feet) Findings & Order (Bill Molnar, Senior Planner) Applicant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit prepared by Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd. Applicants Application Form Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board Minutes 30 day Extension granted by the Applicant 30 day Extension granted by the Applicant Notice of Land Use Appeal Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order Council Communication Appeal of Planning Action 2003-118 Communication to City Council 'Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.108.110 Appeal to Council Letter of Objection by Gary Peterson, Attorney Dated April 6, 2004 Letter to City Attorney Paul Nolte by Gary Peterson, Attorney Dated April 6, 2004 Topographic Map Illustrating Cross Section Slope 109-110 111-112 113 114 115 116 117-120 121-124 125-126 127-129 130-257 258-259 260-261 262 263 264 272-331 332-334 335-336 337 338 339-341 342 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 3 City of Ashland, Oregon Exhibit CC-5 Exhibit CC-6 Exhibit CC-7 Exhibit CC-8 Exhibit CC-9 Exhibit CC- 10 Exhibit CC- 11 Exhibit CC- 12 Exhibit CC- 13 Exhibit CC- 14 Exhibit CC- 15 Exhibit CC- 16 Exhibit CC- 17 Exhibit CC- 18 Exhibit CC- 19 Exhibit CC-20 Exhibit CC-21 Exhibit CC-22 Exhibit CC-23 Exhibit CC-24 Exhibit CC-25 Exhibit CC-26 Exhibit CC-27 Exhibit CC-28 Exhibit CC-29 Exhibit CC-30 Exhibit CC-31 Exhibit CC-32 Exhibit CC-33 Exhibit CC-34 Topographic Map Illustrating Building Envelope Slope Letter from C.P. dated April 6, 2004 Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Topographic Map Illustrating Cross Section Slope Topographic Map Illustrating Building Envelope Slope Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos of Nearby Existing Development Photos from Glenview of Subject Property Photo from Vista of Subject Property Photo from Glenview of Existing Vegetation Photo of Subject Property This Exhibit Number was Skipped Proposed Structure Body, Roof, and Trim Color Supplemental Packet Email Received after 4-6-04 AD HOC Committee for Hillside Development Minutes Letter in Opposition from Paul Copeland dated April 8, 2004 Photo of Glenview Land PartitiOn Survey of Subject Property Letter in Opposition from Janice B. Robertson Neighborhood Flyer Letter in Opposition "Reasons to Deny" Half Story Definition Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2(X)3-118 343 344-345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364-406 407-580 581 582 583 584-585 586-587 588-590 591-596 P~e4 City' of Ashland, Oregon Exhibit CC..35 Letter regarding Wildfire Land, Definition of Dwelling, Front Yard Setback Exhibit CC..36 Letter in Opposition from Larry G. Kellogg Exhibit CC-.37 Letter in Opposition from Elizabeth Udall dated April 8, 2004 Exhibit CC-.38Letter in Opposition from Eric Navickas Exhibit CC-.39 Letter in Opposition Regarding Trees in Wildfire Lands by Stephen Jensen dated April 6, 2004 Exhibit CC-.40 Letter in Opposition by Regina Ayrs Exhibit CC-.41 Power Point Presentation by Colin Swales and Bryan Holley Exhibit CC-42 Emails to the City from Various Opponents Exhibit CC-.43 Architects ' Rendering of Proposed Dwelling Letter in Opposition by Philip C. Lang Additional Information by Opponent Colin Swales City Council Minutes for April 6 and 8, 2004 Letter of Extension of the Statutory Deadlines dated April 9, 2004 11-12-03 Transcript of Hearings Board Public Hearing of November 12, 2003 597-599 600-605 606 607 608 609-610 611-656 657-691 692 693-698 699-710 711-723 724 1-18 11-6-04 Transcript of City Council Public Heating of April 6 & 8, 2004 1-89 III RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The City Council and earlier the Hearings Board determined that the following constitute all of the relevant substantive criteria which are. prerequisite to approval of the proposed Physical and Environmental Constraints Review land use application on land designated Hillside La, ads and within a Residential Historic district. The following standards and criteria of the City of Ashland Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance are cited verbatim below. In Section V, each relevant standard and criterion (or groups of standards and criteria) are followed by the conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions of the City Council. The conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based upon the findings of fact in Section p~r and the evidence enumerated in Section II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 5 City of Ashland, Oregon PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)) ALUO Chapter 18.62, Physical Constraints Review Permit ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains 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. 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 Hearings Board shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permi!ted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. ALUO 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in HillsidE; Lands. . All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. 3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than o~r equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. . b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, * B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillsidE: shall provide plans conforming with the following items: 1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 P~e6 City of Ashland, Oregon . . , Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use'of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 7 City of Ashland, Oregon b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. . c. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. . a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. b. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control .measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance.perio(J if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against .erosion. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. b. Avoid hazaidous or unstable portions of thee site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount' of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kepl: in the natural state of the original slope. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 P~e8 City of Ashland, Oregon C, Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Sudace and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following standards: D. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to dived surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. go Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. TreE; Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. 2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 P~e9 City of Ashland, Oregon . authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: a.. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 10 City of Ashland, Oregon , Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter 'Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a .site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in 'Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal .of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) .a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, seWer, or other public utility easement. ,ri. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. 'Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998) Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 11 City of Ashland, Oregon Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of ap,praised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be used. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards ..... All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an: engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accc,mmodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. A. Tree Protection Plan Required. . , 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. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a [)lan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed 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 sewer, irri~lation, 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; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2(X)3-118 Page 12 City of AshlanCl, Oregon 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. 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. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection 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. . 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. . 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. . No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials 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 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. IV FINDINGS OF FACT The City Council reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this matter: A. SUBJECT PROPERTY Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-i 18 Page 13 City of Ashland, Oregon Property DescriPtion; Acreage; Ownership: The subject property is described in the records of the Jackson County Assessor aS Tax Lots 7200 and 7400 (39-1E-09BC). Tax Lot 7200 is 0.09 acres and Tax Lot 7400 is 0.88 acre. Applicant proposes to adjust the boundary common to both parcels. There is a pending application to adjust the parcel boundaries. This project concerns the proposed adjusted Tax LOt 7200. As originally proposed, Tax LOt 7200 (the subject property of this application) would have had 0.52 acres following the boundary line adjustments. However, pursuant to stipulation of Applicants' agent and conditions of approval, the subject property will have less than 0.50 acres following the boundary line adjustments. The property is owned by Sidney B. De Boer,'Trustee FBO the Sidney B. DeBoer Trust. 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zoning: The subject property is designated Single Family Residential on the comprehensive plan map. The property is zoned R-1-7.5. . Existing Land Use: Tax LOt 7200 is presently developed with a single-family dwelling. A lot line adjustment has been proposed between Tax Lot 7200 and 7400. The lot line adjustment can be approved because the resulting parcels comply with all relevant substantive provisions of the ALUO. Tax Lot 7400 is currently developed w:ith a single- family residence and two accessory structures (garages). If the lot line adjustment is approved, the property boundary will be relocated so that one single-family residence and the existing 576 square foot garage will be located on Tax Lot 7400 and the existing 3,618 square foot two-story garage and the proposed new single-family dwe~tling will be located on Tax LOt 7200. Applicants' plans show the property in its adjusted configuration (subject to minor future adjustments to reduce the subject property below 0.50 acres). . Nature of the Proposed Use: The proposed develoPment will require the demolition of the existing single-family residence on What is now Tax Lot 7200 to allow for the construction of the proposed single-family residence. The city has approved a Demolition Permit for this single-family residence. Although sOme plans show the location of a proposed future swimming pool, that amenity is not part of this application. . Special Considerations: The subject property is identified on the Physical Constraints map as Hillside Lands and has areas where the slope exceeds 25 percent. The subject property is within a Residential Historic District. 6. Timeline for Development: See, Record p. 254 . Building Envelope: Various standards in the ALUO require the delineation of a building envelope and the same is shown on the plan at Record p. 169 wherein it its called the "Setback Line." Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 14 City of Ashland, Oregon B. HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL LANDS The following findings of fact relate to the designation of the property as Hillside Residential Lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080: le Protected Hillside Areas: Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.050(C)(1) the reconfigured subject property is included on the Physical Constraints Overlay Map. As established in Record p. 253 and 255, the subject property has an original average slope of 28 percent. Portions of the reconfigured subject property have slopes which are greater and less than 25 percent. Portions of the property with slopes of 25 percent or greater are shown on Record p. 163 and 253 and these are the areas of the property subject to the special regulations for hillside protection. e Slope: The proposed development will occur on poi'tions of the property which have between 22 and 35 percent slopes. Based upon Record p. 255, a letter from Applicants' registered land surveyor, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc., the average slope of the subject property is 28 percent. The average cross-section slope of the building site is 27 percent (see Record p. 349). The footprint of the building is within slope contours of less than 35 percent (see Record p. 350). ® Driveway: Based upon Record p. 163, 165, 191, 193, and 253, no portion of the driveway to serve the new dwelling is on land greater than 35 percent slope for a distance of more,, than 100 feet. ® Grading, Fill and Erosion Control: Grading and erosion control has been designed by applicants licensed Geotechnical Engineer in Record p. 223-248 (Site Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report). This geotechnical report (Record p. 223-248) establislaes the geotechnical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by Applicants' civil'engineers, Hardey & Associates, Inc. to prepare the civil engineering plans for this project. As demonstrated by Applicants' plans (Record p. 163, 164, 164A) the potential for erosion has been mitigated through the planned installation of retaining walls which will minimize the erosion of solid matter in the disturbed areas on the site. Grading cuts have been limited ~to only the extent needed to accommodate the proposed dwelling and protected to the extent possible to protect the area from erosion. Se Cuts: The only cuts to be made on the property are those necessary to accommodate the dwelling footprint and driveway. Cuts for the dwelling will be retained by its foundation walls. Cuts for the driveway are proposed to be retained by engineered masonry walls. The materials in which the cuts will be made are established in Record p. 223-248. On Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 15 City of Ashland, Oregon portions of the property where terracing is proposed, no terraced section exceeds a height of five feet, or is separated by more than three feet. The total maximum vertical height of the cut slopes is not greater than fifteen feet. See, Record p. 163 and 164. All cut slope terraces are intended to be landscaped with plant materials which are suitable and appropriate for the stabilization of cut banks. The planting plan for this property was developed by Kerry KenCaim, applicants Landscape Architect, licensed in Oregon. See, Record p. 195-197. e Retention in Natural State: The subject property (reconfigured parcel 7200 after the proposed lot line will be less than 0.50 acres. Therefore, the requirement set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(B)(3) does not apply. ® Revegetation: Revegetation of the subject property is proposed pursuant to the Record p. 195-197 Landscape Plans and the same are consistent with the requirements for revegetation as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(B)(4)(c). 8. Public Facilities, Services and Utilities: The subject property is served with the following public facilities, services and utilities: a. Water: There is an existing 6-inch water line within the right-of-way of Glenview Drive and Vista Street along the south and northeast frontages of the subject property. b. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 6-inch sewer line within the rigl~tt-of-way of Glenview Drive and Vista Street along the south and northeast frontages of the subject property. c. Transportation/Access: The adjusted subject property fronts upon Vista Street and Glenview Drive. Actual access to the property is from Glenview Drive. de Electricity; Natural Gas: According to representatives for the City of Ashland Electric Department, the existing residence presently receives electric power and power will be available for the proposed residence. Electric power will be used for cooling and lighting of proposed residence. Heat for the dwelling will be supplied by natural gas. e. Urban Storm Drainage: An 8-inch underground storm drain e~dsts at the intersection of Vista Street and Glenview Drive. C. SOLAR ACCESS: The proposed dwelling observes the solar access standards of the City of Ashland in ALUO 18.70 and the same is evidenced by Record p. 165. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 16 City of Ashland,, Oregon D. TREE PROTECTION; REMOVAL; REPLACEMENT le Tree Removal Permit: Single-family residential zones which are occupied by a single- family detached dwelling and their associated accessory structures, are exempt from the requirement to obtain a tree removal permit. However, lands subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance are further regulated by Chapter 18.62 and 18.61.200. 2. Tree Removal: The removal of trees from the reconfigured property falls under four categories as follows: ae Trees Already Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: Based upon mistaken advice given Applicants by the Ashland Planning Department, Applicants removed five trees within the Protected Hillside Area. See, p. 16 Transcript of Board Public Hem'ing of November 12, 2003, and p. 63 and 64 of the transcript of the City Council Public Hearing of April 8, 2004. Applicants propose to mitigate the removal of these trees by agreeing to stipulate to planting 10 trees within a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. See, Section VI. b. Trees Already Removed which are not Regulated: Applicants removed two trees on that portion of the subject property which is not within the Protected Hillside Area. c. Trees to be Removed within Protected Hillside Areas: As shown on Record p. 197, two additional trees are proposed to be removed within the protected area. d. Trees to be Removed which are not regulated. As shown on Record p. 197, seven additional trees are proposed to be removed within the non-protected portion of the reconfigured subject property. ® Tree Protection: Applicants licensed landscape architect has proposed the methods by which existing trees (to be preserved) will be protected and the same is shown on Record p. 197. The methods .of tree protection are consistent with the requirements for protection as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(D)(4). e Tree Replacement: In addition to the ten trees Applicants have agreed to supply for planting; on public lands located elsewhere: 1) the 6-inch caliper Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) will be replaced (on-site) with a 10-foot tall Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), and 2) the 12-inch Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) will be replaced (on-site) with a 2-inch caliper Japanese Pagoda Tree (Sophora japonica). Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 17 City of Ashland, Oregon E. WILDFIRE LANDS Pursuant to ALUO 18.62.090, the Hearings Board found and the City Council afl'nmos that the reconfigured subject property is included on the Physical Constraints Overlay Map as Wildfire Lands. F. SURROUNDING IMPACT AREA The Hearings Board found and the City Council affirms that the surrounding impact area is defined as that area entitled to notice of this application. The notice area is any parcel which is located within 200 feet from the boundaries of the subject property. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The City Council reaches the following conclusions of law for each of the relevant substantive criteria. These are preceded by the criterion or criteria to which they relate and are supported by findings of fact as set forth in Section IV herein above and by the evidence enumerated in Section II. In setting forth its conclusions of law for this application, the Council observes that there are a great many standards and approval criteria, many of which are related. The Council has not attempted to identify all of the linkages among the standards and criteria, although in some instances, it. has explicitly incorporated by reference and adopted the conclusioris of law for one criterion and applied the same to another. The Council['s intention, however, and it so hereby declares, is that the conclusions of law for each criterion is incorporated and adopted for all of the other individual criteria. Additionally, while this document refers to each of the standards and criteria as Criterion 1 through Criterion 30, in fact, only Criterion 1 through 3 function as actual approval criteria; those labeled as Criterion 4 through 30 are development standards. The approval criteria and-standards are recited verbatim below and followed by the .conclusions of law of the City Council: PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18) ALUO CHAPTER 62 PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ALUO 18.62.040(I) Criteria for Approval. A Physical Constrains Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 18 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion I 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. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council alfa'ms that the, "development standards of this chapter," are the standards in ALUO 18.62.80. These standards address the preservation of natural areas (portions of the property which are in a "natural state"), erosion control and tree protection. Potential impacts to the property and nearby areas are addressed in detail below. The Council rejects opponents' argument that Applicants have improperly limited the scope of the impact analysis by limiting it to the notice area. They argue that the prominent location of the subject property re, quires the Council to consider the impacts to the entire city. They support their argument by citing the definition of "impact area" found in ALUO 18.104.020 which, for purposes of conditional use permits, requires the city to consider impacts to the area immediately surrounding a use, including land within the applicable notice area and "...any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use..." The Council finds the definition of "impact area" in ALUO 18.104.020 is irrelevant to this application.. Since the phrase "impact area" is defined, it would have been easy for the City Council, in adopting ALUO 18.62, to use that phrase and "import" its defined meaning into the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review process. That the city did not do so is evidence that the expanded definition of "impact area" for conditionally permitted uses was not intended to apply to cases such as this. Applicants' proposed use is one permitted outright in the zone, subject only to Physical and Environmental Constraints Review. This distinguishes the application from those ALUO 18.104 uses which may only be conditionally permitted in city zoning districts and which may require an expanded impact area analysis. While the ]3oard found and concluded and the Council aff'u'ms the phrase "impact area" as defined in ALUO 18.104 is not relevant to ALUO 18.62 applications, ALUO 18.62.050(I) does require consideration of impacts to "...the property and nearby areas..." In this instance, the evidence shows that all physical and environmental impacts governed by ALUO 18.62.080 or 18.62.090 will be limited to the boundaries of the subject property and do not reach other nearby lands which could be entitled to public notice of this proceeding. The evidence further shows that the site will be completely stabilized following construction. See, Record p. 86A. Therefore, the Board concluded and the Council affirms that the potential impact area does not need to, be expanded beyond the area entitled to notice of this proceeding; that "nearby areas" includes and is limited to property lying within the prescribed notice area as required by ALUO 18.1.08.080. Findings of tact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 19 City of Ashland, Oregon Some opponents (including opponent Swales) also argue that the impacts of this project include those related to elements of "identity, aesthetic quality and visual character," all elements recited in the purpose statement for ALUO 18.62.080 which are therein set forth as follows: It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city. Opponents attempt to bootstrap from the general language in this purpose statement, to arguments that relate to issues of visual and historical impact which the He,rings Board concluded and the Council affirms are not matters of consideration in this application. For reasons discussed more fully below, the Board concluded and the Council affirms the purpose statement of ALUO Chapter 18.62.080 does not contain independent approval criteria and even if it did, the' language in the purpose statement does not permit the Council to decide this application based upon elements of historic and visual compatibility as urged by these opponents. The purpose statement in ALUO 18.62.080 deals with matters related to identity, -character and the aesthetic value of lands, but these are in the context of protecting Ashland hillsides, not its historic, elements. Moreover, the Council believes it is only entitled to apply the purpose statement of an ordinance to resolve ambiguities in the identifi.ed approval criteria. The Council concludes that the language of Criterion 1 is clear and unambiguous. Therefore there is no need for the Council to refer to elements of the purpose statement in order to resolve ambiguities in the ordinance. The Council finds that the subject property ~ has already been developed with a dwelling, garage, driveway, swimming pool, pedestrian walkways, ornamental landscaping, and other site improvements. As such, this application involves the redevelopment of a previously developed property. From the evidence the Board concluded and the Council affirms, that no significant portions of this property can fairly be characterized as natural areas or areas which are in a natural state; and Applicants cannot be made to preserve that which does not exist. Regarding the control of erosion, Applicants have engaged qualified experts in geotechnical and civil engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture in the design of this project. From the evidence, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that a[ll reasonable and appropriate measures have been employed and all standards and requirements of the City of Ashland have been incorporated into Applicants' design/development plans. The evidence also shows that, following the redevelopment of the property, all areas potentially subject to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 20 City of Ashland, Oregon erosion will be stabilized with retaining walls and plantings such that all potential impacts have been addressed and carefully minimized and mitigated. See, Record p. 86A and 223-248. The Hearin~gs Board considered the potential impacts to nearby areas, and concluded that this project wiIl not produce any impacts beyond the boundaries of the subject property and the Council affirms. With respect to tree protection, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affn'ms: o While some trees on the property were removed without benefit of public review, applicants have proposed to replace these at a rate that is consistent with and exceeds the requirements of the ALUO m a ratio of two replacement trees for each removed tree. 2. Although some additional trees (within the regulated hillside area) are proposed to be removed, they will be replaced at a ratio of one replacement tree for each removed tree. 3. All trees outside the construction/development area are protected with measures required by the ALUO and which have been dealt with by Applicants' expert landscape architect. During the proceeding, opponent Colin Swales argued in Record p. 36 through 41 that several ambiguities may exist in the three approval criteria in ALUO 18.62.040(1) m Criterion 1 through 3 herein ~ and these should be resolved pursuant to ALUO 18.108.160.5 In support, he cites several passages of what appears to be plan text and various comprehensive plan goals ;md policies which deal with issues of urban forestry, visual resources and historic sites/structures. These objections have also been dealt with at the end of these conclusions of 5 ALUO 18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations. A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. The ,opinion of the City Attorney. B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the Commission who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. Findings of F~ct and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 21 City of Ashland, Oregon law under the heading, "Objections Deemed to be Unrelated to the Relevant Substantive Approval Criteria" and the same are herewith incorporated and adopted. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Criterion 1 is neither unclear nor ambiguous in ways that require the Board to interpret its provisions by relying on the comprehensive plan or purpose statements in ALUO 18.62. The examples of potential ambiguity that this opponent cites are, "potential impacts," "nearby areas," "minimized," "mitigate," "reasonable steps," "shall be considered more seriously," and "shall consider ... surrounding area." While some of these words and phrases (from Criterion 1-3) may not have a precise meaning when used generally, they are clear and unambiguous when used in the context of this criteria. These phrases do not require "interpretation," they only require that the Council apply the facts of this application to them. Contending the ordinance is ambiguous, Mr. Swales then argues that language from the Comprehensive Plan must be consulted in order to resolve the ambiguities and arrive at a proper interpretation of the ordinance itself. Even if the Council found any of the cited passages to be ambiguous, nowhere does Mr. Swales explain how any of the cited plan provisions or purpose statements would be helpful in resolving such ambiguities. The Board concluded and the Council affirms they would not be helpful. Based upon the plan provisions cited by appellant, he appears to urge this Council to apply standards of historic preservation to an application that does not regard such standards. Pursuant to ORS 197.763, opponents are required to raise issues with accompanying statements or evidence that is sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue. The way this opponent has raised issues here, does not permit the Council to understand how the various cited plan provisions or purpose statements would aid the Council in the interpretation of provisions which the Council has found are not ambiguous.. During the proceeding, nearby property owners Charles and Margaret Howe, 'testified that during the 1996-97 flood, portions of the roadside fill slid off the roadbed of decomposed granite causing the fill to backup against one of their buildings on tax lot 6300. '*the flooding was caused by a plugged storm drain at Vista and Hillcrest. This came at a time when two houses across Vista to the south were raised and fill was added to reach a new level and contour.'" Mr. and Mrs. Howe express their concern as a question, inquiring if there is more fill on the subject property, will there be any changes in the movement of underground water? During the public heating, Ashland Planning Department's Mark Knox observed that during the 1997 flood, "there were failures everywhere in town." The Board did not find a tangible connection between the slippage of roadside fill well below the subject property (and during a major flood event) and the construction of this dwelling, and neither does this Council. The expert testimony of Applicants' geotechnical engineer establishes that the subject property will be completely stabilized after the dwelling is completed. See, Record p. 86A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 22 City of Ashland, Oregon During the Council proceeding (Record p. 365) opponent Ken Lindsay argued that by removing the large trees without proper permit may have affected slope stability and applicants have not taken into consideration the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas and have not minimized adverse impacts. The Council concludes that evidence from Applicants' expert geotechnical engineer, Mark Amrhein (Record p. 223-248 and 86A) shows that following construction, the subject property will be completely stabilized and the Council concludes this will be the case. During the Council proceeding opponent Janice B. Robertson argued (Record p. 584) that the environment and ecology of the whole property are influenced by the size and kind of home to be built anti that a mansion on Vista Street is an affront to the ecology and environment of this hillside, wooded and historical street. The Council concludes that this objection is simply a statement ,of opinion and, as an objection, is too general to permit the Council to give it specific co~nsideration. The Council finds that this proposal is a redevelopment of an already disturbed and developed property within designated Hillside Lands. The Council has found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the site will be fully stabilized following construction. (Record p. 86A) Aspects of this objection that go to the streets' historical status or setting are irrelevant. During the Council proceeding, opponent Debbie Miller (Record p. 658) contends the application does not meet the Physical Constraints requirements because it does not have minimal impacts on the property itself and nearby areas, minimal impact on existing structure[s] in the surrounding area and as few adverse impacts to the enviromnent as possible. Opponent Miller goes on to state that the city should maintain its commitment to reduce the environmental and visual impacts of construction on the hillsides and valley floor. The Council finds that this opponent cites no evidence in support of her position. The Council concludes that evidence from Applicants' expert geotechnical engineer, Mark Amrhein (Record p. 223-248 and 86A) shows that following construction, the subject ~' "' Property will be completely stabilized and the Council concludes this will be the case. On. the basis of ttfis expert evidence, the Council concludes that the adverse impacts will be minimized ]pursuant to Criterion 1. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application has considered the variety of potential impacts to the property and nearby areas, and that the adverse impacts have been minimized. Criterion 2 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. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Actio~ 2003-118 Page 23 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affums th~Lt applicants have evidenced their consideration of the potential hazards (that this development might create) in the conduct of detailed geotechnical investigations. The Hearings Board also concluded and the Council affu'ms that Applicants have properly evidenced the implementation of mitigation measures by incorporating the geotechnical investigations into the architectural, .engineering and landscape plans of record, and in the stipulations Applicants agreed to in tendering this application. At Record p. 21, opponent Colin Swales contended that the application did not show volumes of cut and fill, whether any material will be imported to or exported from the site or the nature/type of material to be used. Mr. Swales further argued that the fill to be u,,;ed for lawn will be retained only with a rubble wall, putting owners below the wall in danger of liquefaction of the fill material during flood conditions. As to these objections, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms: There is no requirement under the ALUO to show volumes of cut and fill or whether material will be imported or exported from the site, and this opponent cites nothing to support his position. . As to rubble retaining walls, applicant's agent testified at Record p. 5 that Applicants have not proposed rubble retaining walls. Applicants agent further testified there that in the geotechnical report by applicants expert geotechnical engineer, some of the retaining walls are recommended to be "rockeries" (stacked rock walls with drainage provisions) and these are to face stable slopes and protect them from erosion or sloughing. There are other rockeries intended as part of Applicants' ornamental landscaping artd these are effective in preventing erosion or sloughing. Other portions of the site are to be retained with engineered structural retaining walls, including the wall used to retain the lawn area. e As to the potential for liquefaction, there is nothing in Ashland's comprehensive plan nor the ALUO that suggests liquefaction poses any threat in Ashland and this opponent cites nothing to support his contention that liquefaction is a' hazard. The Board further concluded and the Council affirms that this property is not subject to flooding as no streams exist in the area. The record shows that Applicants engaged qualified civil, structural and geotechnical engineers, architects and landscape architects to design this project. The Board concluded and the Council affu'ms from the evidence that Applicants' consultants are all qualified experts and that this project has been designed and engineered in ways which ensure that all applicable requirements of the ALUO's Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter were been appropriately addressed, including the potential effects of drainage, erosion and sloughing. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland' Planning Action 2003-118 Page 24 City of Ashland, Oregon Therefore and based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with Criterion 2. Criterion 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 Hearings Board shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. Conclusions of Law: The potential for adverse impacts upon the environment include erosion, Mass movement, the loss of natural areas including trees and tree canopies, and the loss of wildlife habitat. Based upon the evidence, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants have undertaken the following reasonable steps to. reduce adverse impacts upon the environment: 1. Applicants have engaged qualified experts who have offered recommendations as to the best methods to accommodate the proposed new dwelling. , Applicants' design professionals have incorporated all environmental mitigation recommendations into the design and construction plans for the reconfigured subject property. 3. Applicants have considered existing development of the surrounding area and have taken steps to reduce any adverse impacts on these areas. 4. Applicants have agreed to stipulate to the tree mitigation plan recommended by the Ashland Tree Commission. At Record p. 21, opponent Colin Swales contended that hillside impacts from massive cutting of native significant trees is irreversible and needs to be mitigated by replanting close to the area of impact to stabilize the site and restore the gap in the tree canopy. The Heari~tgs Board concluded and the Council affu'ms that Applicants have agreed to the tree mitigation plan recommended by Ashland's Tree CommissiOn, which requires replanting both on and off the subject property. There is nothing in the ALUO to suggest that mitigation must occur' close to the same area where trees were mistakenly removed2 Moreover, the 6 The record makes clear that trees which were removed on the subject property before this application was filed, were removed based upon erroneous advice from the Ashland Planning Department. The Hearings Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 25 City of Ashland, Oregon evidence shows that following construction, this property will be completely stabilized with vegetation, landscaping, rockeries and engineered retaining walls. See, Record p. 86A. At Record p. 69, opponent George Kramer contended that Applicants too narrowly defined the surrounding area and if it was more accurately described, this proposal would be inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. Mr. Kramer further argued that few if any neighborhood structures are as tall, large in volume or are built upon the steepest portion of a lot and that the proposed dwelling does not nestle into the neighborhood as do other dwellings and it will be visible from the valley floor and downtown. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the objections of this opponent, are aimed at the application of historic/architectural standards and criteria that do not apply in this instance, in his letter of November 17, 2003, this opponent argues that the application should be denied as inconsistent with the surrounding development pursuant to Criterion 3. The only basis to consider existing development of the surrounding area, is in the context of Criterion 3, and it states only that the Board must consider the same and the maximum permitted development under the ALUO. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms this requires only' that, in determining the adverse environmental impacts;, the Board must consider existing development in the 'surrounding area and, for vacant or underdeveloped properties, the Board must consider the environmental impact:; as if these lands were developed to the maximum levels permitted by the ALUO. This language does not provide a basis for the Board to consider historic or architectural impacts, nor ixnpacts of a nature not covered by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance -- ALUO 18.62. During the public hearing before the Board (p. 11 of Transcript of Hearings Board Public Hearing of November 12, 2003) opponent Bryan Holley, argued that he would like the Hearings Board to give the Historic Commission greater consideration since the, property is within a Historic District and is a Historic Commission matter. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that while the Historic Commission reviewedi this project and tendered a recommendation to the Board, the recommendation was not based upon the approval criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. Instead, the Historic Commission based its recommendations on considerations of historic and architectural compatibility that are unrelated to the approval criteria for this application. As such, the Hearings Board and this Council must accord little weight, to the Historic C. ommission's recommendation. Bryan Holley also argued (at p. 11 of the Transcript of the Hearings Board PublJic Hearing of November 12, 2003), that sometimes we are told to stick just to the criteria but in other cases Board and this Council believe that Applicants acted in good faith based upon advice they received from the Planning Department. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 26 City of Ashland, Oregon we're told not to not stick to the criteria. As an example, Mr. Holley cited the Historic Commission's review of this application. The Hearings-Board believed that Mr. Holley's point is that the Historic Commission did not utilize any approval criteria in its consideration of this matter. The Hearings Board found that while the Historic Commission might have employed the approval criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to this application, it chose instead to offer only general comments concerning aspects of the project that are urrrelated to the relevant substantive approval criteria upon which the Board and this Council are required to render a decision. There are simply no historic or architectural standards or criteria applicable to this application, other than those which relate to the physical constraints for hillside and wildfu'e lands. Also during the public heating (p. 11 of the Transcript of the Hearings Board Public Heari'ng of Noveml:er 12, 2003) opponent Holley further argued that, "since some of the important trees that might have stopped the project in its tracks were illegally removed I guess that's sort ~of a catch 22 then." The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this statement is inaccurate. There is no provision in the ALUO which would necessarily have prevented removal of the trees, mistakenly removed, as part of this application. During the public hearing (p. 21 of the Transcript of the Hearings Board Public Hearing of November 12, 2003) opponent Colin Swales argued that the cutting of significant native trees is irreversible and that the adverse impacts should be mitigated by the planting of trees near the area wbere the trees were cut down in order to stabilize the site and restore the gap in the tree. canopy. The Hearings Board' concluded and the Council affirms that nothing in the ALUO requires trees to be replanted in the same locations as those Which were mistakenly removed. Furthermore, from the evidence, the Board concluded and the Council affn'ms, that the trees need not be replaced in these locations in order to stabilize the site; the site will be fully stabilized after construction with the dwelling, retaining walls and landscaping proposed by Applicants. See Record p. 86A. As to restoration of the original tree canopy, there is also nothing in the ALUO which requires canopy restoration. As we earlier concluded, the trees that were mistakenly removed could have been permissibly removed under the terms of the ALU©. In their consideration of this application, the Heatings Board and this Council have examined the surrounding area and the development that now exists in that area, and have considered the maximum development in the surrounding area which would be permitted by the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 3. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Actio~ 2003-118 Page 27 City of Ashland, Oregon ALUO 18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Criterion 4 A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater tlhan 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18.62.080.H. a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit. b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided or partitioned. Conclusions of Law: Based upon Record p. 253, 255, 349, and 350 (topographic maps of the property and a letter from Applicants' surveyor, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Inc.) the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affh'ms that the original natural slope of this property is 28 percent. No portion of the property, in its original state, exceeded a slope of 35 percent. While this site was altered to accommodate the existing dwelling, landscaping and landscape features (including terracing) the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the altered grades are not an appropriate consideration in this application. Ninety degree cuts made earlier to accommodate the existing dwelling, retaining walls and other built elements on this site proposed for redevelopment, are not a part of the natural topography and the Board concluded and the CounCil affirms that it would be unfair and inappropriate to measure topography by using these features. Instead, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the original natural terrain is the appropriate measure of slope for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the development standards for hillside lands pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080. Information supplied by Applicants' surveyor at Record p. 349 and 350 indicate that the average natural slope taken through three cross-sections of the building .site is 27 percent and that the entire building site is situated on lands with less than 35 percent natural slope. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4. Also see the Board's and Council's conclusions of law for Criterion 5. During both public hearings (p. 10 of the Heatings Board and p. 28 of the Council Transcript), opponent Colin Swales argued that the ALUO does not mention the term "average slope" except to establish the amount of land to be set aside for natural areas. The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the term "slope" is defined in ALUO 18.62.030(R) which provision references a graphic that illustrates how topographic mapping is to be done for the purpose of submitting a complete application. A topographic map consistent with this standard is required in ALUO 18.62.040(H)(1)(k) and the mapping supplied by Applicants (at Record p. 253 and 350) was done in conformance with this Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 28 City of Ashland, Oregon topographic: mapping standard. The Council notes that in order to comply with these -mapping standards, Applicants are required to calculate natural slope between contour lines, and to place their building site within an area where the slope between contour lines does not exceed thirty-five percent. Therefore the Council concludes that all slope calculations required by the ordinance are, realistically, calculations of natural slope between two designated points. At Record iP. 22 opponent Colin Swales argued that the submittals he had entered into the record before the Hearings Board (Record p. 79-83) include city survey data which indicates the proposed site has slopes of greater than 35 percent and is unbuildable and that other portions of the site are available. During the Council proceeding, opponent Swales, renewed these objections and further argued that ordinance doesn't use the term original, future or existing slope, it just says slope. He stated that the surveyor was manipulating the slope calculation by averaging to lower the slope percentage. At Record p. 652, Opponent Swales further argued that there is no topographic survey of current slope in the application. The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Mr. Swales' statement that he had provided city survey data, is simply not accurate; the city has not in fact surveyed the subject. property. }lis submittals in Record p. 79-83 include only aerial topographic maps and cross- sections superimposed upon them which were created by Mr. Swales, the submittals do not include actual survey data. As to Mr. Swales evidence in Record p. 79-83 and 611-655, the Council contcludes: 1. There is no dispute that this property is subject to the Hillside ordinance (ALUO 18.62.080). . In determining the slope of property for purposes of developing land under the Hillside Ordinance, the natural grade of the property (i.e., the grade before manmade disturbance) must be: used. This is because hillside lands which have already been disturbed by manmade activities often contain terraces, retaining walls, and other built site features which, if measured in their existing state, would produce grades that differ significantly from the original natural grades which the Hillside Ordinance was designed to protect. Using e:rdsting manmade features to determine average slope would make application of and compliance with the Hillside Ordinance infeasible on many properties, including the subject property. To the extent that the issue of whether to use the natural grade or existing manmade grades to determine slope under the Hillside Ordinance could be considered ambiguous, that issue would require interpretation. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance (expressed in ALUO 18.62.080) is useful in determining whether an existing built grade or natural grade should be used. The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance expressed in that section provide,,; in pertinent part: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Plannin!; Action 2003-118 Page 29 City of Ashland, Oregon "It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to * * * protect the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas * * *" If the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to protect the natural and topographic character of hillside lands, it makes no sense to construe the ordinance in such a way as to require the protection of slopes which were artificially created by previous development. 'Therefore, the Council interprets the term natural grade to mean the topography and terrain in its natural state, before it was altered by human activity. o The topographic map (containing slope crossections and calculations) supplied by opponent Swales, contain no data to establish whether the purported grades are natural or man-made and no scale from which to establish the correctness of the measurements. The Council believes that this map was from city aerial topography flown in 1998 and, as such, is based upon existing "built" conditions which bear no relationship to the original natural grades. Record p. 253, 255, 349 and 350 from Applicants' land surveyor, establish the original natural grades based upon a 1978 aerial topographic map and on-.site survey work, and are evidence of what the actual historical ground elevations and natural topographic character are or once were. The Board found and Council affn'ms that Applicants' surveyor is a qualified expert registered in Oregon. From the evidence, the Board believed and concluded and the Council affu-ms, that Mr. Huck undertook the survey on this property using sound and standard surveying practices, and his work is appropriate in form and content to enable our evaluation of this application under the approval standards and criteria. 4. The only data appearing on opponent Swales' submittals are his own and no't those of a qualified expert. .. The architects" cross-section drawing (Record p. 649) was not submitted by Applicants to establish the slope of the building site. Those calculations were made by surveyor Darrell Huck and are found at Record p. 253, 255, 349, and 350. . Based upon the evidence, including topographic surveys by Applicants' registered professional land surveyor, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms Applicants' topographic survey work was undertaken in accordance with Ashland standards. The proposed building site has an average natural slope of approximately 27 percent and no portion of the proposed building site has slopes which equal or exceed 35 percent. See Record p. 349 and 350. Therefore Council concludes that tlae proposed building site is buildable and in conformance with the ALUO. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 3O City o! Ashland, Oregon During the Hearings Board public hearing, opponent Swales also submitted circa 1910 photographs of Glenview Drive (Record p. 80) which he admits do not depict the subject property but he nonetheless argued that these photographs show the topography in the "vicinity" of the subject property, as exceeding the maximum slope permitted by the ordinance. In rebuttal, Applicants' agents argued that the photographs do not show the subject property and were actually taken approximately one-quarter mile from the subject property ont the west-facing slope of the ridge above Lithia Park. Applicants' agents further argued that there is a distinct difference in slope contours between the different faces of the ridge that Glenview Drive is built on and that it would be unreasonable to associate the slope characteristics of two areas so distant from one another. There are also dimension lines superimposed on one of the photographs which seek to demonstrate some calculation of slope. This photograph is without scale; it is not possible to lay a ruler on a photograph and measure distance with any degree of accuracy. This is simply drawing lines in the air based upon a photograph that does not even depict the subject property or its slope. The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the photographs of Glenview Drive do not depict the subject property or its slope, and are therefore irrelevant. During the Council proceedings, Opponent Swales (Record p. 641-651) renewed his objection that the structure will be on land that has slopes greater than 35 percent. In his presentation in Microsoft PowerPoint, he contends that the architect's working drawings (Record p. 649) show an existing average slope in cross-section which illustrates a slope of greater than 35 percent beneath the proposed dwelling. As explained above, this evidence is excerpted fi:om architectural drawings and not from the survey work used to determine slope for the building site. It is immaterial whether the line drawn on the plans is actually at 26 degrees (as argued by Opponent Swales) or 26 percent. It is also material whether or not the architects' reference to percentage should have been a reference to degrees. The purpose of the architects' reference to existing slope is simply to inform contractors of the approximate grade to be found under one portion of the building site. In this area, the natural grade has been altered by earlier development and the architects' drawing merely shows this altered (but not natural) topography. This architectural drawing was not submitted into the record for purposes of calculating natural slope. That work was performed by the Applicants' expert land surveyor. Moreover, the Council concludes that the actual topography beneath the proposed dwelling is not preservable natural terrain but the manufactured slopes which were created by earlier development on the property. As explained above, the Hillside Ordinance is for the purpose of preserving the natural terrain, not terrain that has been produced by past construction activities. During the Council proceedings, Opponent Swales argued that the slope calculation needs to be actual slope of where the building is to go --the building footprint -- and not some larger Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 31 City of Ashland, Oregon area on the property. The Council concludes from the evidence that whether topography is measured for the entire buildable area or only the building footprint, the topography of this site is less than 35 percent and is buildable. During the Council proceeding, Opponent Swales contends: 1) the City GIS map should be the benchmark to determine whether or not a parcel is buildable, and 2) if more detail is needed, then the slope should be measured accurately. The Council concludes that the ordinance does not require an applicant to rely upon the city's GIS map. The evidence in the record indicates that the city's topographic mapping which is based upon aerial plhotography, lacks the accuracy of actual, on-site survey work. In this instance, a high degree of accuracy for natural slopes was achieved by Applicants' expert land surveyor and the Council concludes that this is the evidence most appropriate for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the city's Hillside Ordinance. During the Council proceeding opponent Jane Street argued that excavation for retaining walls and landscaping and paving (of the driveway to connect to Glenview Street) will occur on slopes in excess of 35 percent . The Council concludes ALUO 18.62.030(C) defines "buildable area" to be: "Buildable area - That portion of an existing or proposed lot that is free of building restrictions. For the purpose of this ordinance, a buildable area cannot contain any setback areas, easements, and similar building restrictions, and cannot contain any land that is identified as Flood plain con'idor lands, or any land that is greater than 35% slope." Made clear by the above ALUO 18.62.030(C), the Hillside Ordinance governs portions of existing or proposed lots. A lot does not include land within an adjacent right-of-way. To the extent that driveway slopes are governed, ALUO 18.62.080(A)(3)(b) provides: "The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet." The above ALUO 18.62.080(A)(3)(b) permits driveways on lands greater than 35 percent slope if that portion of the driveway does not exceed a length of 100 feet. Based upon the evidence, any portion of the proposed driveway which may be located on lands greater than 35 percent slope (if any) is not longer than 100 feet. Moreover, the evidence also shows that substantial portions of the driveway now exist and the proposed driveway improvements will reduce its slope. Criterion 5 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 32 City of Ashland, Oregon 2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35% or less. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affh'ms that Criterion 5 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not include the creation of any new lot by subdivision or partition. While a lot boundary adjustment has been proposed, the adjustment of property boundaries is neither a subdivision nor partition because it does not result in the creation of a new land parcel. However, pursuant to Criterion 4, development on this land must occur on land having slopes of 35 percent or less. Further, the Council finds that there is a building envelope shown at Record p. 169 (indicated as 'setback line') and that this envelope does not include any lands in excess of 35 percent natural slope. At Record p. 22 Opponent Colin Swales argued that even though not created by subdivision or partition, the reconfiguration of the subject property (by lot boundary adjustment) falls under the meaning of Criterion 5 which requires a building envelope with slopes of 35 percent or less. The Council finds that the Applicants are required under Criterion 4 to observe the 35 percent slope rule, and that there is a building envelope shown at Record p. 169 (indicated as 'setback line') and that this envelope does not include any lands of excess of 35 percent natural slope. The proposed building site does not violate the 35 percent standard and is buildable, whether analyzed under Criterion 4 or 5. Criterion 6 3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions: a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications. b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that a driveway to serve the proposed dwelling already exists. The record shows that Applicants intend to re- grade and resurface the driveway, and to slightly alter its configuration, but not to substantially change its present location. The record also shows that Applicants intend to use permeable grasscrete and brick for the driveWay surface. At Record p. 23 Opponent Colin Swales argued that the driveway is more than 100 feet long, and is to be moved from its current location and relocated to land which includes slopes of more than :35 percent, and which will produce a resulting loss of more trees. The Council finds that the standards set forth in subsection 3(b) merely regulates the portion of driveways which are on land with slopes more than 35 percent, it does not prevent building driveways on Findings of ~ract and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 33 City of Ashland, Oregon land greater than 35 percent slope so long as that portion of the driveway does not exceed 100 feet in length. From the evidence, the Board concluded and the Council affum~_s that the proposed driveway now largely exists and in no case will any portion of it exceed a slope of 35 percent for more than 100 feet. See Record p. 163, 165, 191, 193, and 253. As to this Opponent's contention that the driveway will result in more lost trees, the same is not relevant under Criterion 6. While the Council does not believe this is a "new driveway" under Criterion 6, the Board concluded and the Council affu'ms that based upon the evidence in the record cited above, no portion of the existing or altered driveway will exceed a slope of 35 percent for more than 100 feet, and therefore the application is consistent with Criterion 6. Criterion 7 4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, * * * Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms thru Criterion 7 is inapplicable by reason that this application does not involve either a subdivision or partition. However, Applicants have undertaken a detailed geotechnical study of the property. See Record p. 225-248. Criterion 8 B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: . All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall cOnform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms, based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, Applicants engaged a qualified geotechnical engineer who conducted a geotechnical investigation which was used by Applicants' civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. See Record p. 225-248. The engineer's report establishes the geotechnical parameters for design with respect to grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans, which was used by Applicants' civil engineers in the preparation of the engineering construction plans. Based upon Record p. 225-248 and Record p. 191 and 192, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the proposed cuts, grading and fills will conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 34 City of Ashland, Oregon Code. The Hearings Board also concluded and the Council affirms, based upon the same evidence, tlhat erosion control measures proposed for this development site, will minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. At Record p. 23 Opponent Swales argued that a rubble wall proposed to retain 5 feet of additional fill will be unsafe during floods. In its consideration of Criterion 2, the CoUncil found that .Applicants' agent testified at Record p. 5 that Applicants have not proposed rubble retaining walls. Applicants' agent further testified there that in the geotechnical report by Applicants" expert geotechnical engineer, some of the retaining walls are recommended to be "rockeries':' (stacked rock walls with drainage provisions) and these are to face stable slopes and protect them from erosion or sloughing. There are other rockeries intended as part of Applicants' ornamental landscaping and these are effective in preventing erosion or sloughing. Other portions of the site are to be retained with engineered structural retaining walls, including the wall used to retain the lawn area which will be planted on the additional fill Mr. Swales is concerned about. Additionally, this property is not near any stream and is not subject to flooding, and there is no substantial evidence to the contrary. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 8.. Criterion 9 2. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May I date may be made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals. Conclusions of Law: At Record p. 24 and during the public hearing, Opponent Swales argued that Applicants have stated their intention to use the building as a corporate hospitality center and they have not complied with provisions of the ALUO that govern such use. At Record p. 377, opponent Eric Navickas argued that this is not a single-family dwelling but is in fact designed for entertainment with multiple kitchens and banquet halls. Other opponents raised concern with off-street parking associated with entertaining by the applicants. During the heating, staff indicated that plan review would insure that the house met all applicable requirements to constitute a single family residence. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the proposed use is a single family dwelling, permitted in the zone in which this property is located. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 35 City of Ashland, Oregon Opponent Swales also argued under Criterion 9, that Applicants' construction tin~ frame was not received by the city until after the Board hearing, making the application incomplete, and arguing that it should therefore not have been accepted. Opponent Swales also argued that the time frame schedule shows construction during the wet months. The Council finds that Criterion 9 has nothing to do with application filing requirements or any other objection raised here by Opponent Swales. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affn'ms that Criterion 9 is inapplicable by reason that this application concerns a single family ihome on an individual lot which is expressly exempt from this standard. Criterion 1'0 Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and sub,divisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage.figure of the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent. For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state. The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged. Conclusions of Law: This application does not involve a partition or subdivision. A condition of approval is that the reconfigured subject property will have less than 0.50 acre. Therefore, the Council concludes that Criterion 10 does not apply to this application. Criterion 11 4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following standards shall apply: a, Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of 'which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equiwalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and revegetated. b, Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See Graphic) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 36 City of Ashland, Oregon Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction to topsoil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush- type plantings and cascading vine-type plantings may be appropriate. Conclusions of Law: Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV and Record p. 164, 169, 191, 192 and 196 the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affu'ms that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. At Record p. 25 and under Criterion 11, Opponent Swales argued that remoVed trees must be replaced in their original locations. As earlier concluded by this Council, there is nothing in the ordinance to require removed trees to be planted in their original locations. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that the methods proposed by Applicants and endorsed by the Ashland Tree Commission to deal with the replanting of removed trees, produces similar resource walue to the trees that were removed, is appropriate and is consistent with the ALUO. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirrns that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 11. Criterion 12 5. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply: a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line.(Ord 2834 $6, 1998) b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. C. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas. Findings of .Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 37 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affn'ms as l~ollows: o Regarding Subsection (a) and based upon Record p. 164, no fill slopes exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet and no fill slope toes (not proposed to be retained by structural means) are six or more feet from the nearest property line. . Regarding Subsection (b) and based upon Record p. 190, all fill slopes will be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent as specified by Applicants' civil engineer in Record p. 190. 3. Regarding Subsection (c) and based upon Record p. 163-222 no planned utilities are to be located or installed on or in fill slopes. . Regarding Subsection (d) and based upon Record p. 195-197, the revegetation of fill slopes has utilized vegetation similar in resource value to that of native vegetation and which, according to Applicants' expert landscape architect, will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation has been provided to all fill areas (to be landscaped) which will ensure proper growth. . At Record p. 26, opponent Swales argued that the proposed lawn is not "native vegetation" nor "vegetation similar in resource value" and will not stabilize the surface in the event of flood conditions. The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affn'ms that Criterion 12 requires "fill slopes" to utilize native vegetation or vegetatic,n of similar resource value. While the proposed lawn is to be placed on fill, it i~ not a "fill slope" because the lawn is to be on level terrain. The proposed lawn will simply replace an existing lawn, so it has the same resource value as the lawn it will replace As. to flooding, the Council has earlier held that this property is not near any stream or watercourse and there is no substantial evidence that this property is subject to flooding. . Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the He~ngs Board concluded and the COuncil afl.mm that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 12. Criterion 13 . Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 38 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: Applicants stipulate that they will install all~ required revegetation of cut and fill slopes in accord with the ALUO, and the same has been made a condition of this aPProval. ]During the Board proceeding, Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 26 argued that the Board should require revegetation with native species of the tree canopy that was removed. The Board concluded and the Council affn'ms: 1) There is nothing in the ordinance that requires the use of native species. 2) Applicants' landscaping plans show that all cut and fill slopes will be revegetated and that compliance with Criterion 13 has been promised, can be me~I and will be ensured with the city's required approval of future plans and the carrying out of conditions attached to the approval of this application. The Board also concluded and the Council affn'ms that Applicants' landscaping plans provide suitable and appropriate:, revegetation with landscaping materials which meet all requirements of the ALUO. Therefore, the Board concluded and the Council affn'ms that this application is consistent with Criterion 13. Criterion 14 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures. a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The-applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures. b. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized against erosion. Conclusions of Law: The Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Criterion 14 does not operate as an approval standard, but rather establishes methods to ensure that erosion mitigation is guaranteed (in accordance with the ALUO) and faithfully maintained, measures to which Applicants have stipulated, and which have been incorporated as approval conditions. During the proceeding, Opponent Colin Swales argued at Record p. 27, that "erosion mitigation" caused by the tree removal should require replacement of trees rather than development activity. To this objection, Applicants argued and the Board agreed that this is not an objection per se, but a recomn~ndation from this opponent that has nothing to do with the standards expressed in Criterion 14. Moreover, Criterion 14 deals with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 39 City of Ashland, Oregon proper maintenance of long-term erosion control measures and requires Applicants to post appropriate security to ensure the faithful maintenance of erosion control measures, all of which Applicants have agreed to stipulate to (and the same have been adopted as approval conditions). The Board concluded and the Council affirms that Criterion 14 has nothing to do with tree removal and, as to tree replacement, Applicants have stipulated (and the Council has required as a condition to approval), that Applicants perform the tree mitigation plan recommended by Ashland's Tree Commission. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affu'rns that the. application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 14. Criterion 15 8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors: a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access to the pad. b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834,S2 1998) c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. do Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should, be kept in the natural state of the original slope. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms as follows: 1. Based upon Record p. 163-222, terracing has only been proposed to establish a level building pad and to provide appropriate vehicular access to the pad. 2. Based upon Record p. 225-248, the reconfigured subject property does not include any areas which are hazardous or unstable. . Based upon Record p. 169 the building pad for this dwelling has been minimized in size to be approximately one-quarter of the dwelling's total square footage. ,tis such, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirrns that the proposed building pad is of a minimum size to accommodate the planned structure, and will produce minimal impacts to the existing site conditions. 4. At Record p. 28 Opponent Colin Swales testified that he was unable to find evidence that prior development on this site and at 300 Vista conformed to ALUO 18.62. He further Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 40 City of Ashland, Oregon . argued under Criterion 15, that the stability of the steep slope has been compromised by tree removal and needs to be replanted. Mr. Swales also reiterated here his contention that the', proposed building site is or was in a natural state. Applicants argued that the existing: home, terracing, pool construction, lawn, and other manmade landscaping referreq to by Mr. Swales, were all installed before adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance (a part of the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance) -- ALUO 18.62.080.s As to this opponent's argument that the steep slope should be replaced with planting, the evidence shows that this will occur. See, Exhibit Record p. 195-197. Regarding the proposed building site being in a "natural state," the Council herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 1 and 3. The ontinance requires (in permissive terms) that, "as much of the remaining lot area as possibk: should be kept in the natural state of the original slope." The original slope was the slope of the property before it was originally developed Based upon the Applicants' plans (Record p. 163-222) and the expert evidence submitted by Applicants with their application, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affh'ms that the building pad for the dwelling has been minimized to accommodate the structure proposed and a reasonable amount of yard space. The Board also concluded and the Council affirms that even tl~ough there are plans for a future swimming pool, the same is not part of this application and is not necessarily prohibited by the ALUO. If a pool is proposed in the future :it will have to meet all applicable criteria at that time. As to the ordinance discouragement of large lawns, the Board concluded and the Council aff'n'rns that the lawn shown iin the plans is not overly large, and is not prohibited by the ordinance. Based upon the fOregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 15. Criterion 16 o Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Conclusions of Law: Criterion 16 does not operate as an approval standard. Instead Criterion 16 serves to put Applicants on notice that a final geotechnical report must be 8 The Hillside Ordinance was adopted in 1997 while the dwelling and other improvements were installed in 1988. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 41 City of Ashland, Oregon submitted which ensures that all approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections required by the ALUO were conducted by Applicants' geotechnical expert -- matters to which Applicants have agreed to stipulate. See, Section VI. Criterion 17 C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands-shall conform to the following 'standards: 1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and according to the following requirements: a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other imperVious surfaces, and roof drainage systems. b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to devellopment. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carat any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point. f. Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties. g. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official. Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, Opponent Colin Swales testified at Record p. 29 that "existing erosion" of Glenview Street makes that street insufficient for Applicants' proposed uses which he alleges include valet parking for fund-raising events. Mr. Swales further argued that the massive cutting and terracing of Glenview will not improve erosion that has caused damage to neighbors on Vista Street. The methods proposed by Applicants to handle storm water is in the engineering plans. See, Record p. 192, designed by Applicants' expert civil engineer. In rebuttal at Record p. 9-10, Applicants' agent argued, as to erosion, that the only evidence of any erosion on Glenview, is a photograph which shows some minor erosion at the intersection of Vista Drive and Glenview Street. They further argued, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 42 City of Ashland, Oregon Council agrees, that Glenview. (including its intersection with Vista Drive) is at a higher elevation than the subject property and, therefore, Applicants' project cannot produce further adverse aflbct in this area. The project will not affect, positively or negatively, erosion that may occur' on Glenview at its intersection with Vista. Applicants' agents also argued, contrary to, Opponent Swales' contention that there will be "massive" cutting and terracing of Glenview Street (ostensibly to accommodate the driveway) that the driveway already exists and that any alteration of the driveway will in fact stabilize the site with the installation of engineered retaining walls which have been designed by Applicants' expert structural engineer. The issue of valet parking is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with surface and groundwater drainage or any other aspect of the project controlled by Criterion 17. However, during the Historic Commission proceeding, Applicants testified that when they entertain larger groups, their invited guests will park elsewhere and be shuttled to the subject property, or will walk to it. Based upon Record p. 192, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affu'ms that storm water and erosion control has been accommodated in Applicants' plan in compliance with all the requirements of Criterion 17 and the same will be ensured through the required pre- construction meeting, agreed to stipulations of Applicants and other conditions attached to this approval by the Board. Regarding Criterion 17, Mr. Swales also testified during the public hearing, that access from Glenview Street is insufficient for the proposed use. On this point, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affLrms that this objection does not go to this or any other approval standard which governs the building of a single family dwelling on hillside regulated land or elsewhere in the city. Do Criterion 18 Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 43 City of Ashland, Oregon Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the inventory. Conclusions of Law: The inventory of existing trees is in Record p. 197. Criterion 18 is, in fact, not an approval standard, but simply operates as a filing requirement 'with which Applicants have complied. During the proceeding, Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 29 argued under Criterion 18, that the tree inventory shows numerous regulated trees that have been removed and additional trees proposed for removal. Mr. Swales further argued that evidence he had earlier submitted, shows inaccuracies in the survey regarding l:rees in the right-of-way which are listed as unregulated (but which are regulated); and trees on slopes greater than 35 percent (that are listed as being on lesser slopes). In rebuttal (Record p. 10) Applicants' agent argued and the Hearings Board agreed, that Criterion 18 requires an inventory of existing trees and operates as a filing require~nent (which was met) and not an approval standard. The inventory (Record p. 197) does show regulated trees that Were mistakenly removed earlier (and identifies them as such). There are no additional regulated trees to be removed at this time as part of this application. Trees within the public right-of-way are subj~t to ,a future municipal permit, which Applicants would be required to obtain before removing any trees in the city right-of-way. Regarding alleged inaccuracies in 'the tree inventory (with respect to trees in the right-of-way) the inventory was based upon a professional land survey and the Council has no basis for doubting its accuracy. During the Council proceeding, Opponent Jane Street testified that protected stre, et trees will be removed to accommodate construction of the driveway. On this point, the Council concludes that the trees referred to by this opponent are three trees located with/tn the public right-of-way of Glenview Street. Trees within the public right-of-way are regulated by separate ordinance and are not a part of this application. Removal of these trees will be considered at such time that Applicants seek to further improve the existing driveway to Glenview Street. If these trees need to be removed, Applicants will be required to comply with all applicable regulations. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of.law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affmm that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 18. Criterion 19 . Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 44 City of Ashland, Oregon a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees. b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to resUlt in damage to people and property. c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment. d. Potential longevity. e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees. Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, Opponent Colin Swales objected at Record p. 29 that this criterion was not addressed. In rebuttal, Applicants' agent (Record p. 10-11) acknowledged that the submitted application package did not address Criterion 19 with proposed conclusions of law. However, Applicants' agent argued, the record is complete with facts and evidence sufficient to demonstrate compliance. Applicants' agent further argued that part of Applicants' plans (Record p. 195-197) and the supporting text m all prepared by Applicants' expert landscape architect (and including the matters required under Criterion 19) were all addressed. Moreover, the Hearings Board found and the Council affn'ms that: Criterion 19 does not operate as an approval standard, but as a filing requirement and the same was met. Criterion 20 3. Tree, Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h, or greater conifers and 1' d.b.h, or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. b, Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas. Conclusions of Law: During the Board proceeding, Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 30, argued that: there are numerous trees within the "Protected Hillside Area" on this property, that the property is within Ashland's Wildfn'e Lands area and is a wildfn'e hazard,~ and that previous planting on this and adjacent lots is illegal under ALUO 18.68.010. Other opponents have made similar objections. At Record p.' 11-12, Applicants' agent argued, based upon the plans at Record p. 197, that there are no significant trees to be removed within the Protected Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 45 City of Ashland, Oregon Hillside Area as a part of this project and that the maximum number of tn:es on the reconfigured subject property and within the constrains of this project, have been preserved. Based upon Record p. 197, the Council concludes that there are no significant trees within the regulated hillside area to be removed because of this project. Despite that subsection 'a' of Criterion 20 says, "existing trees," this language is subordinate to the prefatory language in Criterion 20, which makes clear that the provisions of Criterion 20 deal only with "significant trees" g trees 2 feet or larger d.b.h. (diameter at breast height) or greater conifers and 1 foot d.b.h, or greater broadleaf. As to the property being within Ashland's Wildfire Lands, the Council agrees. However, Opponent's objections under this standard suggest only that previous planting on the property was (or has grown) to be illegal under an unrelated section of the ALUO which, deals with fences, walls, hedges and screen planting and are irrelevant to this application. The standards for the development of wildfire lands is governed by ALUO 18.62.090:9 ALUO 18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands. B. Requirements for construction of all structures. 1. All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an existing s~tructure, shall have a "fuel break" as defined below. 2. A "fuel break" is defined as an area which is free of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast-burning species sufficiently thinned so that there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation. Where necessary for' erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow-burning species. Establishment of a fuel break does not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks" may include structures, and shall not limit distance between structures and residences beyond that required by other sections of this title. 3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is less, in all directions .around structures, excluding fences, on the property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will produce flame lengths in excess of one foot. Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet for each 10% increase, in slope over 10%. Adjacent prope~Xy owners are encouraged to cooperate on the development of primary fuel breaks. 4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under the control of the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce fuels so that the overall intensity of any wildfire is reduced through fuels control. 5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All re-roofing of existing 9 ALUO 18.62.090(A) contains provisions that govern Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, or Partitions. This application concerns none of these. ALUO 18.62.090(B) concerns the subject application. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 46 City of Ashland, Oregon structures in the Wildfire Lands area for which at least 50% of the roofing area requires re- roofing shall be done under approval of a zoning permit. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product material or other combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's building code. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope Failure Lands shall be included in the erosion control measures outlined in section 18.62.080. Implementation. . For land which have been subdivided and required to comply with A. (6) above, all requirements of the Plan shall be complied with prior to the commencement of construction with combustible materials. For all other structures, the vegetation control requirements of section (B) above shall be complied with before the commencement of construction with combustible materials on the lot. (Ord. 2657, 1991) As of November 1, 1994, existing residences in subdivisions developed outside of the Wildfire Lands Zone, but later included due to amendments to the zone boundaries shall be exempt fi.om the requirements of this zone, with the exception of section 18.62.090 B.5. above. All new residences shall comply with all standards for new construction in section 18.62.090 B. 4. Subdivisions developed outside of the wildfire lands zone prior to November 1, 1994, but later included as part of the zone boundary amendment, shall not be required to prepare or implement Fire Prevention and Control Plans outlined in section 18.62.090 A. Conclusions of Law (Continued): The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affnTns that the significance of this property being within Ashland's Wildfire Lands is nil, as this property has been and will be developed as an urban homesite with irrigated ornamental landscaping. No dead or dying vegetation exists on the property, nor is any such vegetation/landscaping planned for the property. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms from the evidence that the proposed landscaping for, this property will not produce a fire hazard under ALUO 18.62.090. However, there are small groups of trees which technically form an "interlocking canopy." The Board concluded and the Council affirms that these trees can either be removed or can be thinned to comply with ALUO 18.62.090. As shown in the Record p. 179, roofing is to be concrete tile; no wooden roofing is proposed. As to previous plantings on the subject and adjacent lots, ALUO 18.68.010 is an ordinance which has nothing to do with a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. If some of the vegetation that occurs on this property does not comply with the requirements of ALUO 18.68.010, this is a matter to be considered separately by the city as an enforcement action. However, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms, that plantings on the property which may not conform to ALUO Chapter 18.62, in all likelihood, were planted before adoption of that ordinance in 1994. While Applicants should examine these plantings to be certain they do not violate the ordinance, the same is not relevant here. As to whether this application is consistent with the wildfire standards in ALUO 18.62.090, the Board Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 47 City of Ashland, Oregon concluded and the Council affh'ms that Applicants can and must comply with these standards; and the pre-construction meeting required by the ALUO, and inspections of the property which occur with the issuance of building permits, will ensure that the standards in ALUO 18.62.090 are properly observed. As to Opponent Swales argument that the driveWay and building footprint are, located to produce the most damage to tree protection areas, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affLrms that the term "tree protection areas" is not a term of art in the ALUO. The requirement under Criterion 20 is that a maximum number of existing (significant) trees are preserved. From Applicants' plans and the testimony of their agents, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants have sought to design the dwelling to preserve the significant madrone trees located east of the dwelling. Although the driveway may cause the removal of some oak trees, the record shows that these have been historically compromised by improper pruning practices and are located within the right-of-way of Glenview Street. The possible removal of some existing oaks was addressed by Ashland's Tree Commission in its decision to permit the removal of these trees (subject to submittal of a tree removal permit) and their replacement as part of the overall mitigation strategy for the property..The replacement plan offered by Applicants has been presented and accepted, although the same leaves open the possibility of further discussions regarding where best to plant the replacement trees. Also during the public hearing and in Record p. 59-63, Opponent Bryan Holley argued that Applicants' removal of the "mixed oak and Madrone native forest" had the legal result of removing the legal constraints of the Hillside Ordinance which would have re~:luired their home to keep the native, forested hillside intact. Mr. Holly also argued that: "By cutting the trees, Applicants prepared a no exit legal strategy for themselves that removed them fi.om the stringent requirements of the Hillside Ordinance and also eliminated them fi.om artything other than a mitigation discussion with the Tree Commission ¢vhich reduced the I-Iistofic Commissioners to the legal position of simply forwarding an unenforceable opinion." The Hearings Board finds that the tree conservation provisions of ALUO 18.62.080 are in Subsection "D" which provide: 1. An inventory of existing trees over six inches d.b.h. (diameter at breast height). 2. An evaluation of the characteristics of inventoried trees. 3. A requirement to conserve significant trees -- conifers larger than 2 feet d.b.h, and broadleaf trees larger than 1-foot d.b.h. 4. The use of certain methods to protect trees during construction. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Pege 48 City of Ashland, Oregon . A requirement to preserve the maximum number of trees provided that development follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. And wlhen, justified by findings of fact, the Hearings Board can approve the removal of trees under one or more of five conditions. Among the five conditions are that the trees are witlain a building envelope, a proposed street, driveway or parking area. 6. Trees to be removed must be replaced based upon a plan. 7. Enforcement provisions. Applicants have undertaken the required inventory and assessment of trees on the property and have proposed to protect significant trees which presently exist. Within the constraints of this property and the size of the dwelling (which the Board has found should not be subject to this ordinance) and based upon Applicants' plans and the expert opinions of their landscape architect and the action of.the Ashland Tree Commission, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council aff'u-ms, for ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3): As concluded above, all provisions of 18.62.080(D), including its subsections, refer to trees are to "significant trees." Even if Subsections 'a' and 'b' did apply to all trees (which it does not) the Hearings Board:concluded and the Council affirrns that the trees which now exist on the property have been incorporated into the project design whenever possible. This is evidenced by Record p. 197 which shows the planned improvements in relation to trees already removed by mistake, additional trees proposed for removal (and approved by the Ashland Tree. Commission) and other trees Applicants intend to preserve. The Council also takes note that provisions of ALUO 18.62.080(E)(2)(b) requires (for non-historic district lands) that buildings be cut into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk. While this property is within a municipal historic district (and therefore exempt from this as a requirement) the Board and Council are sensitive to this concept as there has been rrmch testimony and evidence which go to the visual size and bulk of this structure. The Board found and the Council affirms that the dwelling would appear substantially larger if placed further north on the property where it could not be cut into the hillside. From the evidence, the Board concluded and the Council affirms, that the dwelling itself, as designed, will appropriately retain the slopes occurring on the site. Based upon Record p. 197 and 257, the Board concluded and the Council afl.ams that any trees which may be removed within the right-of-way of Glenview Street to accommodate new portions of the driveway must conform to city ordinances then in effect. A condition has also been added than arty construction work within the Glenview Drive right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Department. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planniing Action 2(X)3-118 Page 49 City of Ashland, Oregon With respect to ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3)(a) and (b) the requirement to preserve trees is subject to the provision: "while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands." As earlier described, this property is designated as Wildfire Lands on the official maps adopted with ALUO 18.62. As earlier cited, ALUO 18.62.090 requires all new construction to have a "fuel break." That ordinance requires native trees to be sufficiently thinned or pruned to prevent an interlocking canopy. As shown in Record p. 197, the trees that were mistaker, lly removed had an interlocking canopy which may have required thinning or pruning. During the Council proceeding (Record p. 371)' Opponent Stephen Jensen testified that he is a member of the Ashland Forest Lands Commission and that the mature Madrone trees (which were removed) should not be characterized as "fast burning trees?, that the possibility of a canopy fire in this grove of mature Madrone trees is remote and that Madrone trees have a favorable fire performance rating and are recormr~ended for urban/forest interface planting. The Council concludes that this testimony bears on the amount of thinning or pruning which may have been required if the trees that were mistakenly removed were still on the property. . As to whether the mistaken removal of trees has a bearing on this application, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants removed the trees after consultation with the Planning Department, which incorrectly believed at the time that removal of trees from this property was not regulated under ALUO 18.62. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that both the Planning Depaa'tment and Applicants acted in good faith, albeit in error, in the removal of these trees. Provisions for enforcing violations of ALUO 18.62.080(D) are set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(D)(7). The City of Ashland may later determine what penalties, if any, are appropriate under the ALUO for the trees which were already removed from the property. However, as concluded above, the trees removed by mistake may have had to be thinned or pruned to satisfy the requirements of ALUO 18.62.090. As to ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3)(c), the Hearings Board concluded and the Co~ancil affirms from Record p. 190-194, that the layout of the project site utility and grading plan have avoided disturbance of areas where trees are proposed to be protected. The Council finds that all the significant trees on the property at the time of the application have been preserved, and the maximum number of all trees on the reconfigured property (and within the constraints of this project and ALUO 18.62.090) have been protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Therefore the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affu'ms that the application is consistent with Criterion 20. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 50 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 21 4. TreE: Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their' location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see graphic) b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas: C. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professi,onal, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter Conclusions of Law: During the proceeding, Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 31 and under Criterion 21, argued that according to the Tree Commission, the proposal will cause · undue stress to the remaining Madrone trees on 300 Vista and result in the removal of other significant trees. In rebuttal, Applicants' agent argued in Record p. 13 that the recornmenqation of the Tree Commission clearly inferred,- by the following language, that the madrone trees will be protected if the plan prepared by Applicants' expert landscape architect is followed:: "It is essential that the remaining madrones be protected. The tree protection plan as presented by the Landscape Architect should be fully implemented to protect these trees. And in addition a structural footinlg should be designed by the Architect in conjunction with the Landscape Architect that will ensure the utmost protection of the rootzone." The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Record p. 197 contains a tree protection plan, prepared by Applicant's' landscape architect, which incorporates the requirements for tree protection which are established in the above Criterion 21. Therefore, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council aff'n'ms that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 21. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 51 City of Ashland, Oregon Criterion 22 Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998) a. The tree is located within the building envelope. b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area. c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement. d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it ,constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.D.2. e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affmms that the reconfigured subject property is designated as Wildfire Lands and has several native trees, most of which form a canopy on portions of the property. As earlier found, this project has maximized the conservation/preservation of significant trees (and, if applicable all trees on the property) pursuant to Criterion 20. Trees to be removed are those located within the building envelope and proposed driveway and other site features (as shown on Record p. 169 and 197). The Council also herewith incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 20.' In these, the Board described the various components of Ashland's tree protection program as set forth in ALUO 18.62.080(D). The requirements of Criterion 22- ALUO 18.62.080(D)(5)- are to establish the circumstances under which trees can be removed. Here, the Council will concern itself with existing trees proposed for removal and not trees earlier removed by applicants by mistake. Criterion 22 begins by stating that, "[d]evelopment shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site." This requirement is similar to Criterion 20 which states that "significant trees shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. Under Criterion 20, the Board concluded that the only protected trees under that subsection are significant trees as defined. However, the Board also set forth its. conclusions of law if Criterion 20 applied to all trees on the property and these findings of fact and conclusions of law relate more closely to Criterion 22 which appears to produce something of a "double test" for the removal of trees; the first test is under Criterion 20 and the second under Criterion 22. However, like Criterion 20, Criterion 22 provides that, "[t]he development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 52 City of Ashland, Oregon Wildfire Lands." Criterion 22 then goes on to list the circumstances under which trees can be approved far removal, when justified by appropriate findings of fact. For the sarne reasons concluded under Criterion 20 that all existing trees have been protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this development has been designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on the subject property. The conclusions for Criterion 20 and here rely, in part, on the fact that this land is designated as Wildfire Lands and made subject to ALUO 18.62.090, which requires the establishment and maintenance of a fuel break and the same requires tree removal or thinning to prevent an interlocking canopy of native trees. The Hearings Board further concluded and the Council affirms that the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 20, justify the approval by this Council for the removal of trees (pursuant to Criterion 22 subsections 'a' and 'b') which are located either within the building envelope (shown at Record p. 169 as the "setback line") for the proposed development (including the proposed swimming pool) or within the proposed driveway/parking area shown on applicants plans. See Exhibit Record p. 196. During the proceeding, Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 31, testified under Criterion 22 that Applicants' landscape architect had indicated that trees were removed in anticipation of the adoption of the tree ordinance and staff admitted that if the trees had not been removed, this development would have to be denied. In Record p. 13, Applicants' agent acknowledged the testimony of Applicants' landscape architect, but argued that this is irrelevant, l0 As to this opponent's, contention that the city staff indicated the application would have to be denied if the trees had not been removed, Applicants' agents contend in Record p. 13 that this is untrue and exists as unsupported heresay. Moreover, they argued, the notion that had the trees not be removed, this application would have to be denied, is wrong as a matter of law. The Board concluded and the Council affirms there is nothing in the ALUO that prevents the removal of' trees when necessary to accommodate a homesite or driveway or to deal with the fuel break requirements for Wildfire Lands in ALUO 18.62.090, provided sufficient findings and evidence are supplied to justify the tree removals. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that trees proposed and approved for removal have been appropriately justified here and under Criterion 20 with appropriate facts and evidence.- Applicants have observed all requirements for tree preservation and protection; trees that are proposed to be permissibly removed pursuant to recommendations by the Tree Commission, are being replaced in greater numbers (both on and off site) than is required by the ALUO. The tree ordinance referred to here is in ALUO 18.61 and not the tree protection requirements in ALUO 18.62.080(D). Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Pege 53 City of Ashland, Oregon Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 22. Criterion 23 Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards: Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998) Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope 'stability. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact 6n the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-specific evidence and testimony. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that: die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998) Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affn'ms as tbllows: 1. The proposed replacement trees to be planted on the property are shown on Record p. 196. e As evidenced by Record p. 196, the proposed replacement trees will, in time, result in canopy greater than the tree canopy of the existing trees to be removed. However, the trees to be replanted on the subject property are. not the only trees proposed by Applicants to mitigate the removal of trees. Applicants have stipulated, and the Council has required as a condition of approval, that Applicants will provide ten trees having a caliper not less than 2 inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. These mitigation measures ensure that the tree canopy once provided by existing trees on the property, will be replaced. o Applicants have stipulated, and the Council has required as a condition of approval, that all replacement trees will be continuously maintained in a healthy manner as part of the overall 'landscape. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 54 City of Ashland, Oregon . o During the proceeding, Opponent Colin Swales, at Record p. 32 and under Criterion 23 argued,, that Applicants' landscape architect stated that proposed use of the property precludes on-site mitigation and during the public hearing argued that the trees should be replacecl from the locations they were removed. Applicants argued in Record p. 13 that the evidence shows that appropriate tree mitigation is being accommodated on-site, additional off-site tree mitigation has been agreed to and Ashland's Tree Commission has accepted the mitigation plan proposed by Applicants. Nothing in the ALUO requires trees to be re, placed on the same property from which the original trees were removed or at their original locations. Based iapon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Heatings Board concluded and the Council affirms that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 23. Criterion 24 7. Enforcement a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of'the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher 'of the two values shall be used. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirrns that Criterion 24 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead functions to put property owners on notice of the city's requirements for the removal of or damage to replacement trees. During the proceeding, there was much testimony and evidence on the matter of trees mistakenly removed earlier by Applicants. Colin Swales argued at Record p. 32 that Applicants did not appraise the value of the mistakenly removed trees and the city has not determined culpability or penalties. Also during the public hearing, Bryan Holley argued the project should be denied and Applicants should be required to resubmit a new 'proposal and this procedure would allow the city's legal counsel to consider what fines should be imposed for the removal of the trees and what mitigation should be required. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 55 City of Ashland, Oregon The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affn'ms that Criterion 24 provides that no designated trees can be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland. Made clear by the testimony of Ashland Planning Department representative, Mark Knox, during the public hearing (and at Record p. 256, a narrative by Applicants' landscape architect) is that he had made an honest mistake in advising Applicants that the trees could be removed. Moreover, Criterion 24 does not require the city to appraise the value of remow:d trees nor assess fines, it only provides that fines may be levied. To date, the city has not elected to impose fines and appropriate mitigation for the removed trees has been reconunended by Ashland's Tree Commission and Applicants have agreed to stipulate to these recommendations and the same have been made conditions of this approval. Criterion 25 E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards * * * Conclusions of Law: While Opponent Colin Swales seemed to argue at Record p. 33 and during the public hearing that the extended provisions of Criterion 25 -- ALUO 18.62.080(E) m apply, Hearings Board concluded and the Council affn'ms otherwise.' Ma.de clear by subsections 1 and 2 of ALUO 18.62.080(E) is that these regulations apply, in the case of Subsection 1, only to, "newly created lots, either by subdivision or partition," and., in the case of Subsection 2, do not apply to lands within the designated Historic District. Criterion 25 is inapplicable by reason that the subject property is not a new lot created by either subdivision or partition and because the subject property is within a designated Historic District. Criterion 26 Fo All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed by an engineer. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affn;rns that the fOundation for this dwelling was designed by Applicants' expert structural engineer, based upon the recommendations of Applicants' expert geotechnical engineer in compliance with Criterion 26. Criterion 27 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 56 City of Ashlana~, Oregon Go All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lets that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes. Conclusions of Law: The Council incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 4. Based upon these, the findings of fact in Section IV and Record p. 253 and 255, no portion of the reconfigured property or land within the building envelope (shown at Record p. 169 as the (setback line") exceeds a slope of 35 percent. TherefOre, the Heatings Board concluded and the Council afl*ams that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 27. Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 33 renews his objections concerning slope and its measurement here. The Council again here reaffirms its conClusions in Criterion 4 and finds again that the survey work performed by Applicants' surveyor is appropriate in form, content and methodology. Mr. Swales also argued at Record p. 33 and during the public hearing, that the submitted topographic map (the Hearings Board believes Mr. Swales is referring to Record p. 253) fails to give a complete survey of the original slope of the southwest comer of the lot. On this point, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council afl*urns that no detailed survey of this portion of the site is necessary, as it includes only land devoted to the existing garage and driveway, Ix>th elements that are intended to remain on the property after construction of this project. This portion of the property also includes the existing dwelling (planned to be removed) ~md in which no new construction is proposed. However, other drawings prepared by Applicants' architects and others show the topographic contours in this area of the site. See, Record p. 163 for example. The evidence of Applicants' surveyor is in the record at pages 52, 55, 349, and 350. The testimony of Applicants' surveyor is also found at pages 14 and 15 of the Hearings Board Transcript, and pages 74 and 75 of the City Council Hearing Transcript. This evidence and testimony ¢:stablish that the average natural slope of the ground through the proposed building site is approximately 27-28 percent. Record p. 253, 349, and 350 are survey maps showing the historic natural slopes within the building site area. The building envelope is shown on Record p. 169 and the same is called the "setback line" on that plan. The evidence shows that no part of the building envelope has slopes greater than 35 percent. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that the proposed dwelling can be accommodated within the building envelope in accord with the ALUO. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council afl*mm that the methods used by Applicants' registered surveyor were done in accordance with the standard practices of professional land surveyors, and the content of the topographic survey work was done in accordance with the ALUO. Opponent Swales cites no evidence to call into question the professional work done Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 57 City of Ashland, Oregon by Applicants' surveyor, Darrell Huck. Furthermore, there is no evidence that even if a six- inch difference existed, that it would invalidate Mr. Huck's work. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirrns that the application is consistent in all respects, with the requirements of Criterion 27. ******************** TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION ALUO 18.61.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. Criterion 28 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 removed 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 sewer, 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. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 58 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: Criterion 28 does not function as an approval standard, but instead enumerates the requirements for tree inventory and protection plan which have been submitted with this application pursuant to this standard and similar standards in ALUO '18.62.080(D). However, the Council herein incorporates and adopts its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 4. During the proceeding, Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 34 and under Criterion 28 argued that landscape architect's drawings show contour lines at variance with the existing topography as shown on the city's GIS map which Mr. Swales submitted during the public hearing (Record p. 79). In rebuttal, Applicants' agents explained, and the Board and Council agree, that Applicants' landscape architect used the contour lines which were established by Applicants' land surveyor and which, as earlier described, more accurately depict actual slope on the property than those shown on Ashland's GIS map which are derived solely by aerial topographi:c mapping. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affn'ms that this application was submitted with information and evidence which satisfies the requirements of Criterion 28. Criterion 29 B. Tree Protection Measures Required. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection 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. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shalll 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 beir~g developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. . 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. o No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to durnping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or rn-off. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 59 City of Ashland, Oregon 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council afl. ns that the various protection measures set forth in Criterion 29 are not approval standards, but standards to be observed during construction to ensure that trees to be preserved are adequately protected. These measures have been incorporated into Applicants' plans and the same are evidenced by Record p. 197. During the proceeding Colin Swales reiterated hiis argument (addressed earlier under Criterion 21) that the proposed dwelling poses a severe risk to the long-term survival of the remaining large Madrone trees. While the Council finds the objection here to be irrelevant, the Council herewith incorporates its findings of fact and conclusions of law for Criterion 21, which demonstrates that adequate measures have been employed to protect the madrone trees. Moreover, Applicants are required by the ALUO (and herewith adopted approval conditions) to have a pre-construction meeting with city officials to go over the terms of construction. These steps ensure compliance with Criterion 29 and other substantive requirements of the ALUO. While this opponent is entitled to express his views as to the future health and well-being of certain trees, the Board is without evidence that qualifies this opponent as an expert in matters of landscaping and horticulture and the Board concluded and the Council affLrms that he is not. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that this application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 29. Criterion 30 C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except 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, Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that like Criterion 29, Criterion 30 does not operate as an approval standard, but instead simply states as law, that no applicant may proceed with construction prior to approval of tree protection measures and issuance of a building and/or grading permit. To this, Applicants :stipulate and the Council has imposed the same as a condition of this approval. Opponent Colin Swales at Record p. 35 and under Criterion 30 argues that Applicants proceeded too early with construction activity by preemptively removing regulated trees. On this point, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affn'ms that it has no enforcement authority, although the city, if it chose, could seek to impose penalties for the mistaken removal of trees which was based upon permission given by the Planning Department. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 60 City of Ashland, Oregon OBJECTIONS DEEMED TO BE UNRELATED TO THE RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA Objection:: Colin Swales at Record p. 36-40 argued that Applicants did not address the purpose statement in ALUO 18.62.080. Additionally, the last six pages of this opponent's submittal addresses interpretation of the ALUO generally. These appear t° be arguments which urge the Council: 1. Pursuant to ALUO 18.108.160, to use the comprehensive plan to interpret ambiguous provisions of the ALUO. . To consider numerous passages, goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to support Opponent's contentions that the Board and Council should consider adverse impacts to Ashland's viewshed, that trees, vegetation and'historic resources are important assets, and that the purpose statements for ALUO Chapter 18.62 and 18.62.080 should operate as approval standards. In support .of these arguments, Swales submitted excerpts from the city's comprehensive plan, its goals and policies, and various provisions of the ALUO, including the "purpose and intent" provisions of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter (18.62.010) and the "purpose" statement from the Development Standards for Hillside Lands (18.62.080). During the Council proceeding Opponent George Kramer testified that the Hearings Board findings, when determining the adverse environmental impacts, must consider existing development in the surrounding area. Opponent Kramer further contends that the goal and intent of the Hillside Ordinance was to protect Ashland's viewshed. As stated in the purpose statement, "it is the intent of the development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city". According to Mr. Kramer natural and visual are two separate areas of concern and should be given equal weight. Conclusions of Law: The Board concluded and the Council afl'ri'ms that Opponent Swales submitted excerpts from the city's comprehensive plan its goals, policies and various provisions of the ALUO, including the "Purpose and Intent" provisions of the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter (18.62.010) and the "Purpose" statement from the development standards for hillside lands (18.62.080). During the Council proceeding, Opponent George Kramer testified that the Hearings Board Findings at page 21, when determining the adverse environmental impacts, must consider existing development in the surrounding area. Opponent 'Kramer contends that the goal and intent of the Hillside Ordinance 'was to protect Ashland's viewshed. As stated in the purpose statement, "it is the intent of the development standards to encourage a sensitive form of development and to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 61 City of Ashland, Orego~ allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city". Natural and visual are two separate areas of concern and should be given equal weiight. It is well settled Oregon law, that generally worded statements of purpose and intent that express the motivation for adopting a regulation, or the general goals or policies that the local government hopes to achieve by adopting the regulation, do not operate as approval criteria. Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or. LUBA 450, 456, aff'd 96 Or. App. 645 (1989.); Stotter v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. LUBA 135, 157 (1989); Becky. City of Tillamook, 20 Or. LUBA 178 (1990), aff'd 105 Or. App. 276 (1991), reversed on other grounds 313 Or. 148 (1992). While the stated purpose and intent of an ordinance may assist in interpreting ambiguous provisions in the approval criteria, they do not operate as independent approwd standards unless their express language indicates they are to be used as independent criteria. None of the policies, goals or purpose and intent statements cited by Opponents purport to apply independent approval standards. They are all generally worded expressions of the City's motivation for adopting the regulations, or of the overall goals which the City hoped to achieve. They do not impose any aff'umative obligations, or set forth any identifiable standards that could act as criteria for approval. Freeland v. City of Bend, (LUBA No. 2003- 59, August 5, 2003). When a purpose statement reflects only general policy and ,does not act as an independent approval standard, the City should ignore evidence that the proposal before it does not comply with that purpose statement. Beck, 20 Or. LUBA 178; Moorefield v. City of Corvallis, 18 Or. LUBA 95, 119 (1989). The only approval criteria relevant to this application are found in ALUO 18.62.040(1) subsections (1), (2) and (3). Opponent Swales attempts to create ambiguity in these criteria by extracting individual words or phrases, such as "minimized", "potential impacts", or "nearby areas", and then asserting that these individual words or phrases, standing alone, "might be" examples of ambiguity. He does not even attempt to state an actual ambiguity. He merely theorizes that there "might be" an ambiguity if these words or phrases are lifted out of their context, and considered without reference to the overall ordinance. Applicants contend and the Council agrees, that when the approval criteria for this application are read in context, there is no ambiguity. Applicants' experts have testifie, d that, with application of sound engineering standards and adherence to the conditions of approval, all potential adverse impacts or haZards on both the subject property and in all nearby areas will be eliminated. There will be no adverse impacts to the environment either on or off the site. In his written arguments, Opponent Colin Swales contends Applicants have faik:d to address all relevant approval criteria. Specifically, he contends certain words and phrases in ALUO 18.62.040(I) are, or might be, ambiguous. He then argues that, consistent with ALUO 18.108.160, the Council should resolve such ambiguities by referring to various sections of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 62 City of Ashland, Oregon the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Purpose Statement of Chapter 18.62, Physical and EnvironmeJ~tal Constraints Review. The Council finds that the phrases "potential impacts, .... potential hazards," and "adverse impacts on the environment" as used in ALUO 18.62.040(1) are not ambiguous. ALUO Chapter 18.62 is a comprehensive chapter of the ordinance requiring Applicants for certain uses to address specified natural features and conditions occurring upon land and any impacts the development may have on the environment. The requirements of Chapter 18.62 are exacting and exhaustive, and the Council finds no support for the suggestion that the lengthy list of features, conditions and environmental facts is incomplete, ambiguous, or requiring construction in any way. Assuming, without deciding, the words and phrases cited by Mr. Swales are ambiguous and require construction by resort to the Comprehensive Plan or other ordinance provisions, Mr. Swales has not cited any provision of the Comprehensive Plan with which ALUO 18.62 is in conflict, nor has he directed the Council to any provisions of the Comprehensive Plan or any purpose statements which, either because of the text or context, indicate they were intended to function as approval criteria for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review. Determining whether particular plan provisions or purpose statements are approval criteria applicable to land use permit decisions depends upon the language and context of' the particular plan provisions or purpose statements, and their relationship to particular land use regulations. It is not sufficient for opponents of a land use permit to quote random language from the Comprehensive Plan or purpose statements in the ordinance, and then argue that applicants for a land use permit must construct arguments showing the intent of the language is met by a particular application. Rather, it must appear from relevant plan and. ordinance language that the city intended something more in the way of review in this case, beyond addressing the provisions of Chapter 18.62 is necessary in order to obtain a land use permit. In this case, Mr. Swales contends Goal 9 of the Comprehensive Plan element entitled Urban Forestry should be considered as an approval criterion. He also relies on Plan language in the element dealing with Historic Sites and Structures. Goal 9 of the Urban Forestry element simply requires all new residential development to be "...designed and landscaped to a high standard to complement the proposed site and surrounding area." The Council finds the language of Urban Forestry Goal 9 adds nothing to the specific requirements contained in ALUO 18.62. Moreover, rather than explaining any ambiguity in the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review process, resorting to the Plan language would actually cloud the process because it begs the question "what is meant by "high standard" and "complement?" Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 63 City of Ashland, Oregon The same is true with respect to Plan language in the Historic Sites and Structures element. The Council finds the provisions cited by Mr. Swales do not clarify any ambiguity in ALUO 18.62, but simply reflect the aspirations of the City to identify and protect important historic sites and structures. In this case, the manner in which that protection is afforded is through application of the specific review requirements of ALUO 18.62 not by attempting to transpose general Plan language into approval (iriteria. Put differently, the Council finds ALUO Chapter 18.62 contains the specific procedures and development standarqs necessary to assist in the implementation of both the Urban Forestry and Historic Sites and Structures elements of the Comprehensive Plan. No responsive findings are required when plan goals and policies are expressed not as regulatory requirements, but as aspirational objectives. Ellison v. Clackamas County, 28 Or LUBA 521,525 (1995); Wissusik v. Yamhill County, 20 Or LUBA 246, 254-55 (1990); McCoy v. Tillamook County, 14 Or LUBA 108, 118 (1985).. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants, having addressed the specific requirements of ALUO 18.62, have complied with all relevant approval criteria. Objection: During the public hearing, Opponent Colin Swales testified regarding; the removal of trees that are within the public right-of-way, stating: "which is also on hillside constrained lands which seems to me should also be subject to a the hillside constraints permit: seeing as 25 feet of this land which is going to be developed actually sits in a public right of way." Conclusions of Law: The Council finds it difficult to understand this objection., but believes that Mr. Swales is arguing that the removal of trees within the public right-of-way should not be exempt from the standards of ALUO 18.62.080(D) which govern tree conservation and removal. The Board concluded and the Council affu'ms that this application seeks approval for the removal of trees, including those within the public right-of-way of Glenview Street, and the same were addressed appropriately above. Additionally, the Council is aware that the City will be required to grant its consent to removal of three trees within the right-of-way. However, this Council lacks authority to grant such approval and the same is not required for the Council to act on this application, including the removal of trees pursuant to ALUO 18.62.080(D). Objection: During the public hearing, Opponent Colin Swales, testified that paving surrounding the home which is on the National Registry, will be replaced with non-historic type paving in order to comply with the lot coverage requirements.~ Mr. Swales further argued that the removal of some impermeable paving which surrounds the historic home to make the lot coverage requirement, is a major modification to the National Registry Historic property. ~ Paving proposed by applicants are paver blocks, the centers of which are hollow to accommodate ground cover and provide permeability for drainage. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 P~ge 64 City of Ashland,, Oregon Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms neither objection goes to any of the relevant substantive approval criteria. Objection: During the public hearing and in email correspondence with city officials, Opponents Colin Swales and Bryan Holley both argued that "the application was incomplete due to unfair restrictions made on the public obtaining copies of submittal." Conclusions of Law: Applicants have acknowledged that their architect placed copyright protections on the plans submitted with this application. These plans were detailed working drawings, not simply design drawings, and Applicants' agent stated it was customary for architects to copyright working drawings. When opponents asked for copies of the plans, the Planning Department was advised by the city attorney that federal copyright law "trumps" ORS 197.763, and the Planning Department was advised not to make copies for opponents. Upon being notified of this issue, Applicants' attorney took immediate steps to have the copyright protection lifted so that all opponents could obtain copies of the plans. Applicants' architect authorized release of the plans on November 3, 2003 (nine days prior to the initial public hearing). See, Record p. 116. The delay of a few short days did not prejudice the substantial fights of opponents because: (i) the plans were always available for inspection at city offices, even during the period that no copies were provided; (ii) the Hearings Board afforded opponents an additional seven (7) days after close of public testimony to submit any new evidence and argument into the record; and (iii) the City Council hearing in this matter was held de novo, and opponents were allowed to submit new evidence into the record for the Council to consider. Opponents therefore had a full five months to review copies of the plans in their possession prior to the Council hearing. Objection: During the proceeding, Bryan Holley at Record p. 59 argued that this matter should be referred to the full Planning Commission because of the publicity it has received. Conclusions of Law: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 2.14.040 states: '~I'he Hearings Board or Staff Advisor may refer any matter before the Board or Advisor to the Planning Commission when it becomes apparent, that the matter inVOlves major policy concern or potential serious impacts on surrounding areas." This is an application for a land use permit to build one single-family dwelling under Ashland's Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance. While this application may be important to some because of the size of the house and issues concerning the historic district, it does not present a major policy issue for the city generally nor, based upon the evidence, will approval of the application produce any serious impacts upon the surrounding area. The Council has heard this matter in a de novo proceeding, affording the citizens of Ashland all the protection of a full Planning Commission hearing. Findings of F~ct and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Pege 65 City of Ashland, Oregon Objection: During the proceeding, Bryan Holley at Record p. 60 argued that the Planning Commission should follow the Historic Commission's recommendation to deny this application. Conclusions of Law: The Board concluded and the Council affirrns that all parties seem to agree that review of this application by the Historic Commission was not based upon the criteria the Historic Commission typically applies. In fact, the Historic Commission acknowledged in its action that it was not operating under any approval criteria mad made no effort to apply the city's hillside development standards. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that it should not and will not be bound by a recommendation not based upon the applicable approval criteria. Objection: During the proceeding George Kramer at Record p. 69 argued that the proposal exploits Ashland's regulations by seeking the maximum levels possible under the various applicable standards. Conclusions of Law: A city's standards cannot be exploited by observing them. Objection: During the proceeding George Kramer at Record p. 70 argued that the application should be denied because does not,provide any community benefit whatsoever and Applicants should not be given beneficial interpretation of the ordinance unless the, y can prove the same is appropriate. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that: community benefit is not an approval standard for the application and permits being sought. The Board also concluded and the Council affirms that appropriateness, as urged by this opponent, should be given weight only in context of the rules of construction which the Council believes it has observed in-its consideration of this application. Objection: During the proceeding George Kramer at Record p. 70 argued that rejecting this application is consistent with the community's best interest and can be accomplished under the Hillside Ordinance as in effect at the time of submittal. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the CounCil afl~ that a determination of what is in the community's best interest is a matter of opinion and not a relevant substantive approval criterion. Whether this application "might" be deni,ed under the Ashland's Hillside Ordinance is irrelevant if the application, with the imposition of conditions, "can" be approved. The Council is required by law to approve an application if it can, thorough the imposition of conditions, determine that the applicable criteria has been met. The Council has found that if it imposes reasonable conditions, along with the stipulations of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 66 City of Ashland,, Oregon the Applicants, this application can and does meet all of Ashland's applicable standards and criteria, and should therefore be approved. Objection: During the proceeding, Bill Street at Record p. 64-65 argued that Applicants should honor the intent and purpose of the Hillside Ordinance by restoring the trees removed from their property and by resubmitting their plans and building their house in the historically appropriate., location of the two Vista Street houses they demolished previously. Conclusions of Law: This objection does not go to any approval criteria and is irrelevant. The Hearings Board has concluded and the Council affirms that these and any applicants are entitled by law to a decision based on the standards and criteria that existed on the date a complete application was first received. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearings Board has concluded and this Council affirms that this application is consistent with the applicable criteria and standards. Objection: During the proceeding, opponent Swales submitted an informational article (Record p. 57). Conclusions of Law: The article is not an objection per se, but an account of a landslide event callecl, 'q~he Aberfan Disaster" that occurred in South Wales in 1966. This event concerned a landslide of mining waste in South Wales. The Hearings Board concluded and the Council. affirms that this piece of evidence has no relevance to this application. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent submitted a photo (Record p. 56) taken from Ashland downtown towards the subject property. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that this photograph, is also not an objection per se, but simply a phOto that allegedly depicts the proposed dwelling. The Board concluded and the Council affn'ms that this photograph appears as an attempt to document historic/architectural issues and the same are not relevant. 'Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence, email correspondence from one of the Applicants (Karen DeBoer) to "pearcer@ashland. or.us" and the same is at Record p. 68. Conclusions of Law: The Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirrns that this is also not an objection per se, but an email communication from Karen DeBoer that expresses her fondness of trees and affront at being told what she can and cannot do with trees in her own garden. The Council finds and the Council affu'ms that this email correspondence exists as an honest expression of Applicant Karen DeBoer's opinions at that time and is not relevant to this application. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 67 City of Ashland, Oregon Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence at Record p. 52, a letter · dated November 12, 1997 from Robert Taber to then Mayor Golden and City Council. Conclusions of Law: The Council again finds that this is not an objection per se, but a 1997 letter that supported adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance. The Board concluded an.d the Council affu'ms that the letter is irrelevant to this application. Objection: During the proceeding, an opponent placed into evidence at Record p. 49 and 50, a timeline containing the various meetings that led to adoption of Ashland's Hillside Ordinance and a Table of Contents which appears to be a list of exhibits for 1997 Hillside Ordinance adoption. During the Council proceeding, Opponent Swales placed into evidence (Record Pages 407 - 580 and 700-723) information concerning the work of the city's Ad Hoc Hillside Ordinance Committee and minutes from City Council of the April 6, 2004 City Council public hearing. While not stated, this evidence is ostensibly to show that the application of the hillside standards urged by Applicants are at odds with the legislative history of the Hillside Ordinance. The Board concluded and the Council affu'ms that legislative history is only-useful in interpreting provisions of the ordinance that are unclear or ambiguous. Nowhere does this opponent explain how the legislative history submitted is useful in interpreting ambiguous passages of the ordinance and the Council concludes that the ordinance is not ambiguous in areas other than those areas where the Council has provided its interpretation in these findings. In those instances, the Council concludes that the legislative history is not useful in clarifying the ambiguous passages. Conclusions of Law: The Council again finds these not to be objection per se',, but public information regarding the consideration and ultimate adoption Ashland's Hillside Ordinance -- ALUO 18.62.080. The Board concluded and the Council affirms that these are irrelevant to this application. Objection: At Record p. 365, Opponent Ken Lindsay contends the proposed house should be built on property of at least three or four acres to be landscaped aesthetically in proper proportion to the size of the structures. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that this is not an objection per se , but a statement of opinion that does not go to any of the approval criteria. Objection: At Record p. 366, Opponent Mary Rexford contends the size of the home is out of keeping with the neighborhood and hillside development.' Conclusions of Law: As to whether this home is "in keeping" with the neighborhood, the Council concludes that the same is not an approval standard. Regarding whethe]~' the home is Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Actio~ 2003-118 Page68 City of Ashland,, Oregon "in keeping;" with hillside development, the Council concludes that opponents are required to express their objections with sufficient clarity to afford the Council an opportunity to respond; this objection is so general as not to afford the Council an opportunity to properly respond and, as such, it is irrelevant. Objection: At Record p. 367, opponent Lynn Blanche argued that the creation of a compound through the acquisition of adjacent properties goes against the true nature and valuable characteristics of the Historic District. The ordinance limiting the size of buildings in the Historic: District supports the true nature of the area and the Council should remember the reason for the building ordinance. Conclusions of Law: As earlier, the Council concludes that provisions of the ALUO which deal with the historic area and historic properties, and the city's ordinance which governs home size qo not apply to this application. Objections'.: During the Council proceeding, several opponents argued that the size and other aspects of the proposed dwelling would produce various impacts of a nature that do not go to the app~owal criteria for dwellings under Ashland's Hillside Ordinance. These objections include: At Record p. 368, opponent Ann M. Magill argues that a structure of this size violates the housing standards of the neighborhood and establishes a precedent that continues to place the COl~anunity out of reach to families. At Record p. 381, opponent Susan Shaffer argues that every new structure, especially those built by people with the money to do it right, should conform, to the prevailing aesthetics of the town. The proposed villa is not going to be remote; rather it is very near the center of town, and in fact will loom over it and affect everyone. At Record p. 387, opponent Su Rolle opposes the demolition of the existing residence and contends that the 11,000 square foot home seems out of place in an older neighborhood where the average size is closer to 2,500 square feet. At Record p. 581, opponent Paul Copeland would like the Applicants to accept the will of the con~unity for construction standards in the historic hillside neighborhood. It would be a disastrous change in the character of the city if we had many homes on the scale of the plan~ned home in that neighborhood. The Applicants are asking the city to make an exception for him, since no other home of that scale will be allowed in that area in the future. Why should the applicant be the only one allowed to skirt the new rules? Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2(X)3-118 · Page 69 City of Ashland, Oregon · At Record p. 610, Regina Ayars believes the construction will prevent her and others from enjoying the serenity and pleasure of leisurely walks in the neighborhood. At Record p. 665, Opponent Jay Preskenis wants the application denied becm~se the size negatively impacts the historic district and the spirit and letter of the maximum house size ordinance and the hillside ordinance should be imposed. At Record p. 667, Opponent Stan Druben contends that what the DeBoers desire is bad for the fabric which is the lifeblood of Ashland, or any town. Given the DeBoers' prominence in our community, I very much hope they will see this reality. If not, then it becomes the Council's duty to deny them their desire for an inappropriate structure in a historic district, a project which violates the sense, now law, of the community. · Opponents contend that the size violates every spirit of the size rule the city has adopted. During the Council proceeding (Record p. 373) opponent Gayle Titus argued that the traffic and dust caused by years of construction and curious people would have an adverse impact to the neighborhood. · At Record p. 685, Opponent Paul Copeland contends that the house is grotesquely out of scale to the downtown hillside location. · Opponent Jane Street argued that inappropriate use of a residential home in a residential neighborhood. · Opponent Jane Street argued that noise due to buses, cars traveling through a residential area and should be downtown where it is more appropriate. · Opponent Jane Street argued that she does not want to give up nighttime quiet. At Record p. 365, opponent Ken Lindsay objects to the odor of toxic substances, like pesticides, which can be smelled overwhelmingly for a great distance demonstrates that the applicant doesn't have much regard for people downstream and downwind who may be sensitive to such substances. · Opponent Malena Marvin argued that the council should (but is not) considering this matter in global terms and this is a misuse of valuable natural resources. Opponent Pam Vavra argued that the comprehensive plan depicts what the community thinks is important. One of those things is a small'town atmosphere. If this project is permitted it goes against that concept. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 70 City of Ashland, Oregon Opponent Pam Vavra argued that there are laws which prohibit large commercial and large multifamily structures within the historic district in anticipation of their use. The intended use of the proposed structure goes beyond what we consider traditional single family. It is a convention center or training center. Opponent Pam Vavra argued that when the city takes in an application they should look at the broader standards rather than the letter of the law and consider what the community vision is. · Various opponents 'argued that applicants are acting within the letter of the law but not within the spirit of the law regarding maximum lot coverage. -Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the matters raised above by opponents do not go to any of the approval criteria or standards in the ALUO which govern the development of this dwelling. Therefore, the objections are irrelevant. Objection:: At Record p. 597-599 one opponent (no name or address provided) address issues of fuelbreak, number of kitchens, and front and rear yard setback and possibly discrepancies in file PA 2003-118 (at page 10) and Hearings Board Findings (at page 11). Conclusions of Law: As to issues of the number of kitchens, the Council has determined that they are not relevant to the criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit, although City staff will review the same at such time that a building permit is sought. As to issues of fuelbreak, the Council has dealt.with these above. As to discrepancies in the file cited by this opponent, the Council observes that it is common for proposals to be modified or the basis on which they are approved to change from an applicant's original proposal to the reasoning used by the city after all testimony and evidence is received. The Council knows of no discrepancy material to its decision or which requires further discussion. As to front and rear yard setbacks, the Council concludes that these are not applicable to Ashland's Hillside Ordinance, although city staff will review the same at such time that building permits are sought. If the dwelling as proposed (and approved) is later determined to violate front or rear setbacks, it must be changed to comply. The Council concludes that reducing setbacks, if required, will not change this application in ways that affect its compliance with the Hillside Ordinance. However, the Council concludes that all setbacks are properly observed. While the architects' drawing at Record p. 169 shows a rear yard setback of only 19 feet, the Council observes that this is measured from the rear property line to the eave line of the proposed dwelling but should, instead, be measured to the building wall. When measured properly from the building Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 71 City of Ashland, Oregon wall, the actual rear yard setback exceeds the required 20 feet for the second story. The rear yard setback for the half-story is required to be 25 feet and the plans show that ~Lhis setback has also been properly observed.~2 Objection: At Record p. 621, Opponent Swales argued that Applicants did not address the 4th criteria for approval of thiS application. (see Planning Commission final order October 10, 2003 at record page 128) Conclusions of Law: As was explained by the Planning Director during, the Council proceeding (and the Council agrees), the fourth criterion cited by this opponent was removed from the ordinance and does not exist as an approval criterion for this application. Objection: At Record p. 622, Opponent Swales argued that the proposed dwelling exceeds the 30 foot height limit for land within an historic district. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the building height applicable to the proposed dwellings is 35 feet and not 30 fe6t. The 30-foot standard (which was part of the Large Dwelling Ordinance) was adopted after this application was submitted and does not apply. The Council also concludes that building height is not applicable to Ashland's Hillside Ordinance, although city staff will review the same at such time that building permits are sought. If the dwelling is determined to exceed 35 feet, it must be reduced. The Council concludes that reducing the height of the dwelling, if required, will not change this application in ways that affect its compliance with the Hillside Ordinance. Objection: The findings supporting the initial decision were approved by the Heatings Board without discussion and affording opponents an opportunity to comment. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes that the public heating before the Hearings Board had been closed, and opponents are not entitled to comment on the adoption of findings. Objection: During the Council proceeding, opponent Jane Street inquired as to how will the city will enforce the constraints proposed by the applicant. ~2 ALUO 18.20.040(D) provides in pertinent part: "* * * rear yard, 10 feet plus 10 feet for each story in excess of one story." Ashland has consistently interpreted this provision to apply to individual stories separately rather than collectively as a stepped setback, such that independent setback measurements are taken for each story (or half-story) individually. In this instance, the first "story" is the second level because the lowest level is a below-grade basement and it requires a setback of 10 feet. The second story (third level) must be setback an additional 10 feet (20 feet total). The upper-most half-story must be setback an additional 5 feet, a total of 25 feet for the half-story. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 72 City of Ashland, Oregon Conclusions of Law: First, 'the Council concludes that this objection is irrelevant to 'the criteria for approval. Objection: During the Council proceeding, opponent Jane Street argued that development of the driveway will preclude sidewalks, curb and gutter, and other street improvements on the down slope side which is contrary to city policy. Conclusions of Law: The Council is aware that despite any improvements made by any property owner (which are within the public right-of-way) the same can be removed or altered by the city as necessary to make public improvements to its public infrastructure. Objection: During the Council proceeding, Opponent Swales argued that certain architectural drawings indicate the upper-most level of the home does not meet the definition of a half- story based upon certain measurements of the height of interior walls. Conclusioas of Law: The Council concludes that this objection is not relevant to the criteria for approwal of a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit and is a matter to be addressed when plans are reviewed for the purpose of issuing building. Objection: During the Council proceeding, Jane Street argued that the existing fence and illegal cypress and terracing 25 feet into the public right-of-way are in violation of 18.28.010 (fence ordinance) and in violation of wildfire lands and recommended street tree list. Conclusions of Law: The ALUO citation in this objection is in error and should be ALUO 18.68.010. The Council concludes that the fence, cypress and terracing are existing conditions which are not properly considered by the Council in the context of this application. Objection: At Record p. 588 to 590, Opponent Swales argues, in summary, that the application should be denied for the following reasons: 1. The structure is over 35 feet 2. The structure is a 3 stories in height 3. Evidence submitted by the architect is degrees and not slope, therefore the building envelope is on unbuildable land. 4. Surveyor's topo is based on guesswork and cannot be relied upon. No detailed evidence of methodology was used. 5. Key required documents, topo map and Gantt chart were not provided before application was deemed complete and staff decision given. Findings of ,Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planni,ng Action 2003-118 Page 73 City of Ashland, Oregon . 10. '11. 6. Applicants' findings re-interpreted city ordinances regarding Hillside and wildfire to the benefit of the Applicants and contrary to Council interpretation as supported by the Record. 7. Findings and city attorney opinion on "Fair Use" of copyrighted documents is plainly wrong. 8. Rear setback is 19 feet from Glenview is less than the 25 feet required for a 2 1/2 story building. Grading for the driveway is contrary to 18.62.080(B)(8)(b). Does not comply with 18.62.080(D)(3)(a-c) Tree Conservation design. Design does not comply with 18.62.080(A)(3), Development Standards for Hillside Lands (Natural State requirements). 12. Applicants are responsible for illegal tree removal 8.62.080(D)(4)(e). 13. The proposal is not a single family dwelling (drawings clearly show 2 kitchens). 14. Penalties, 18.62.130 in addition to the enforcement actions that may be taken and penalties which may be imposed in Chapter 18.112 for violation of this chapter. Conclusions of Law: The Council concludes as follows with respect to each of the above 14 points: This objection has been addressed above. The structure does not exceed 35 l~et in height, measured in ways required by the ALUO. This objection is not relevant to the criteria for approval of a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit. . This objection has been addressed above. The structure is two and one-half (2-Y2) stories pursuant to the ALUO.. This objection is not relevant to the criteria for approval of a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit. . This objection has been addressed above. Topographic information from Applicants' expert surveyor and architect are consistent as to the natural slope of the subject property and it is less than 35 percent and buildable. . This objection has been addressed above. The record shows that the surveyor's work was based upon historic topographic surveys and on-site analysis using the stumps of trees to ascertain the original natural slope before the same was disturbed by earlier construction on the property. The record also shows that Applicants' surveyor undertook: work on the property using standard surveyor practices that are accepted within the survey profession. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 74 City of Ashland, Oregon o This objection has been addressed above with respect to the Gantt chart (which shows the prospective time frame for constructing the proposed dwelling). Nowhere has this opponent argued that his substantial rights were diminished as a result of the Gantt chart not being furnished at the time the application was accepted by the city and the Council concludes that his rights were not diminished.~3 Regarding topographic maps, the Council concludes that these were submitted at the time the application was filed with the city. That it 'was later found missing from city files does not mean that it was not submitted and the missing topographic map was replaced in advance of the Hearings Board public hearing. This opponent has had ample opportunity to review and comment on Applicants' topographic information and the record shows that his comments on that topic are extensive during both the Hearings Board and Council proceedings. , Applicants urged interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the ALUO in ways that the Councill deems logical and appropriate. Opponent's contention that the same are contrary to Council's interpretations is wrong. The Council has not been asked nor has it interpreted ambiguous ALUO provisions differently than it has in the past and neither this or any other opponent has cited any example to the contrary. . The issue of copyright protection of the architects' plans has been addressed above. As to whether or not the City Attorney's opinion on the dissemination of copyrighted material was coax.ct, that issue is irrelevant. Nowhere does this or any other opponent cite any evidence to support a conclusion that their substantial rights were damaged as a result of not being able to obtain copies of the plans for a few short days during November of 2003. Copies of the plans were available to opponents for five months prior to the City Council public heating. . This ob. jection has been addressed above. All building setbacks observe the requirements of the ALUO.. This objection is not relevant to the criteria for approval of a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit. . This objection has been addressed above. ALUO 18.62.080(B)(8)(b) requires (when grading a site on Hillside Lands) to, "avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site." The eviidence shows that major portions of the driveway already exist and grading to accommodate the new driveway configuration can occur without destabilizing the site in ways that violate or threaten to violate substantive provisions of the Hillside Ordinance. 10. This objection has been addressed above and the application has been shown to comply with ALUO 18.62.080(D)(3)(a-c) which governs tree conservation in the design of projects; under the Hillside Ordinance. 13 The Gantt ,:hart was submitted in advance of the public hearing. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Plannin~g Action 2003-118 Page 75 City of Ashland, Oregon 11. This objection has been addressed above. The Natural State requirement,,; in ALUO 18.62.080(A)(3) apply only to parcels in excess of 0.50 acre. Based upon Applicants' stipulation during the Council proceedings and conditions of approval, the adjusted boundaries of the subject property will have less than 0.50 acre. Therefore, ALUO 18.62.080(A)(3) simply does not apply to this application. 12. This objection has been addressed above. As vetted at great length during the proceeding, Applicants proceeded to remove trees after consultation with city staff. All parties now know that the advice from city staff was in error. Moreover, Applicants have agreed and the Board and Council have required trees to replace those which were mistakenly removed. Finally, that the trees were removed in violation of the Hillside Ordinance is not a matter of consideration in this application. 13. This objection has been addressed above. This structure is and will operate,, as a single family dwelling. That there is an' additional kitchen which will be used for entertaining is a matter that will be reviewed when the applicant seeks a building permit. 14. This objection has been addressed above and is similar to #12 above which deals with enforcement (for the mistaken removal of trees). VI CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a Geotechnical Expert be retained until the project is completed and a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the. applicant shall present to the staff advisor a copy of the Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. Such inspection schedule shall identify the Geotechnical Expert's final approval for all measurers noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. 4) That all recommendations listed in the Amrhein Associates Geologic Evaluation and Geotechnical Engineering Report (July 20th, 2003) be implemented during the construction of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 76 City of Ashland, Oregon the home. Such recommendations will need to be identified in the final Geotechnical Expert's Inspection Schedule. 5) That prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant, Geotechnical Expert, Building Official and Planning Staff Advisor meet on site in order to review the City's Hillside Development requirements. 6) That prior to final Certificate of Occupancy, the mitigation proposal for the replacement trees as noted in the applicants' findings shall be met. 7) That all proposed construction work within the Glenview Drive right-of-way be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Engineering Department. 8) That an encroachment permit be obtained from the Ashland Engineering Department for the existing; fence along Glenview Drive. 9) That a separate Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit be approved for the removal of the trees by the future pool house (Trees #9-13). In addition to the nine conditions which the Council incorporates and adopts, the Council also incorporates and adopts as conditions of this approval, the following stipulations agreed to by Applicants: Stipulation 1. Applicants will construct the proposed dwelling and other site improvements in accordance with the approved plans, as amended by reasonable conditions imposed by the Council. Stipulation 2. Where required by this chapter, aH required revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. Revegetation !8.62.080(B)(6) Stipulation 3. 'Applicants will continuously maintain all replacement trees in a healthy manner as part of the overall landscape of the project area. Stipulation 4. Applicants will not proceed with any construction activity, except 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. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 77 City of Ashland, Oregon Stipulation 5. Applicants will perpetually maintain all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including vegetative cover, rock walls, landscaping, and all areas which have been disturbed, including public rights- of-way. Stipulation 6. Following approval of the Erosion Control Plan by the city (and prior to construction) Applicants will provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Stipulation 7. Before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Applicants' l,~eotechnical expert will provide a final report which indicates that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per ALUO 18.62.080(A)(4)(j) were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. Stipulation 8. Applicants will provide ten (10) trees having a caliper not less than two (2) inches to be planted in a public location to be determined by the Ashland Tree Commission. Stipulation 9. Applicants will install all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes and the same will occur before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Stipulation 10. Applicants' lot line adjustment will result in the subject property having less than 0.50 acre. Stipulation 11. Applicants' final plans and construction will not cover the subject Property with impermeable surfaces above the forty-five percent (45%) maximum allowed under ALUO. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council hereby affu'ms the Hearings Board decision and concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of ALUO 18.62.080 and 18.62.090 and all related standards with respect to development on regulated hillside and wildfire lands. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 78 City of Ashland, Oregon Dated: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL By: Cate Hartzell Council Chairperson Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Ashland Planning Action 2003-118 Page 79 CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication TITLE! DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Quarterly financial report: January- March, 2004 Finance Department June 1, 2004 (held over from May 18, 2_004) Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Attached is the City of Ashland financial report for the nine-month period ended March 31, 2004. The report includes: 1. Summary of Cash and Investments as of March 31 for the last two years (page 1) 2. Combined Statement of Financial Position City-wide(page 2) 3. Schedule of Resources by Fund comparison for the last two years (page 3) 4. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution #2003-42 (pages 4 - 7) The reports are intended to present interim information in summary formats consistent with the information provided in the adopted FY 2003-2004 budget document as amended by Council action and the manner in which it will be shown in the end of year financial report. Financial numbers for the third quarter are l~he basis for more accurate estimates of the current budget year and necessary adjustments to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law. At this time departments are reviewing operations and capital projects to recommend to Finance what changes they think will be necessary by June 30. Despite increased health care costs joined with overtime and other premium pay requirements (such as employees temporarily working above normal pay grades) the over-all Personal Services budget is just. under the budget at the 75% mark. Savings fi.om the delay in filling vacant positions helps in this area. Some expenses like debt service, capital outlay, construction costs and annualized expenses such as dues, grants and insurances do not follow an even distribution of costs throughout the year. Thus, certain categories that include such items may exceed 75% as of March 31 and not necessarily represent a problem area. The numbers presented are unaudited and unadjusted. Summary of Cash and Investments provides an understanding of changes in the City's cash position across funds and investment types. Please note that the city-wide cash balance has increased $1.4 million dollars between years but decreased $774,000 during the last quarter. During the year the City Recorder/Treasurer maintains reports on investment activities, the distribution of investments and trends that are available upon request. The Combined Statement of Financial Position is similar to presentations provided in the annual financial report. It is intended to provide the reader an overall sense of the City's financial position at the present time. At the three-quarter mark, Ending Fund Balance is $8.1 million over budget. Last quarter the amount over budget was $9.3 million indicating a trend toward the targeted fund balances. Changes in fund balance may not be a good indicator of where the City will be at year's end due to seasonal influences on operations and revenue as well as construction timelines. Revenues and Budgetary Resources at March 31, 2004 total $55,639,926, as compared to total year-to- date requirements of $54,311,675 which results in a $1.3 million increase to Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance. The City budgeted $8.1 million more in requirements than resources and that would reduce overall reserves for the ensuing year however, year-to-date Revenues are 2% ahead of budget and Expenses (especially Materials & Services) are less than projected for the first nine months. This trend will help the City to make up for the smaller carry forward from FY 2002-03 than was anticipated. Taxes, Systems Development Charges, Fines and Forfeitures and Miscellaneous Revenues are ahead of the budget at the three-quarter mark due to their increased related activity to date. Licenses & Permi[ts, Intergovernmental Revenues and Charges for Services are slightly off the three- quarter mark but :should meet target by end of year due to normal end-of-year activity. Assessment Payments are less than budgeted due to pay-offs by land owners of the lien on their property as favorable refinancing was done last year. Intergovernmental Revenues are low at this point since those revenues are received later in the year. Interest earnings continue to be a smaller portion of total revenue as compared to prior years. Budgetary Resources including operational loans and transfers have been recorded as necessary. Total Requirements are in keeping with the first nine months of activities and requirements showing a 70.52% level. Personal Services is less than 75% and staff will watch closely for overruns due to benefits and changes in personnel for necessary adjustments. Debt Service, Interfund Loans and Operating Transfers have schedules of their own that do not adhereto a.straight pro-rata (75%) measurement but are consistent with the budget. Necessary transfers from Contingency will occur in the next few months but a substantial portion of Contingency will be carried forward into the next year as part of Resources. The Schedule of Revenues by Fund provides an overview of all resources year-to-date as compared to the prior fiscal year. In most cases, collections are ahead of FY 2003 however, variations due to construction and related financing and transfers can affect these percentages and consistency between years. Fund Balances carded forward into FY 2003-04 and recognized in July account for many funds' resources posting a percentage above 75%. The 136% of budget posted in the Insurance Services Fund was caused by the receipt of contributions from all other funds related to payroll in anticipation of larger payments to PERS becoming necessary in coming fiscal year's. The amount set aside here will minimize the impact of court cases requiring PERS to higher amounts to retirees. The Schedule of Budgetary Compliance is intended to present expenditures on a budget basis by fund consistent with the resolution adopting appropriation levels in the budget compliance section of the document. Seasonal and construction changes will affect the percentage spent year-to-date but some,, assumptions can be applied providing a measure of compliance on a budget basis. All things being equal, a 75% or lower level of expenditure can be used to assess budget compliance performance year-to--date. This information.helps to identify areas requiring further review and provides the basis for projecting necessary transfers of appropriation or supplemental budgets prior to'June 30. General Fund- Total expenditures are 67% with Grants and Transfers exceeding 75% as normal due to required activity. Necessary changes will be dealt with via a transfer of appropriations or supplemental budget by June 30. CDBG Fund- Expenditures are consistent with activity. Street Fund- Expenditures at 79% and a review and adjustment for SDC construction is scheduled. Operations will require a transfer of appropriation from Contingency for project costs. Airport Fund- Expenditures are consistent with activity. Capital Improvements Fund- Expenditures are at 50% of budget reflecting limited capital project costs. Materials & Services may require a transfer by year end. Debt Service Fund - Expenditures are consistent with actiVity. Water Fund - Expenditures are within budget at 61% but re-budgeting of Some projects !is required for FY 2004-05. Interfund loan is at 100%. Wastewater Fund - Expenditures are within budget at 73% with some projects completed early or deferred. Interfund loan is at 100%. Electric Fund- Total expenditures are slightly above 75% and the department is scaling back on some expenses to stay within the budget. Telecommunications Fund - Expenses are consistent with the business plan but not the budget. Excluding Debt Service, operational costs are at 72.8% of budget and the department is watching its expenses closely. A budget adjustment may be prudent to protect against a budget law violation being realized in July when accruals are completed. Central Services Fund - All departments are below 75% except the City Recorder that has added bank charges due to increased credit card activities to absorb. This will require a transfer from Contingency. Insurance Services Fund - Costs are within the 75% mark and consistent with activity. Equipment Fund- Expenditures are consistent with activity. A correction is needed in ~dlocating personnel costs, Cemetery_ Trust Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity. Parks and Recreation Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity and well below the 75% mark. Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity. Parks Capital Improvements Fund- Recorded Capital outlay well under budget but consistent with activity.. Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports and fund statements are available for your review in the Finance Department office should you require any additional information. Recommendation: Staff recommends acceptance of this report. Fiscal Impact: No impact. This is an update on FY 2003-04 operational activity as compared to budget. Background: There 'are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted. A transfer of appropriations decreases an approPriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a City council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund fi)llows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public heating. Staff is reviewing the need for transfers of appropriation or a supplemental budget adjustment necessary by end of year per either item 2 or 3, above. City of Ashland Summary of Cash and Investments March 31, 2004 Held By: General Fund Community Block Grant Fund Street Fund Airport Fund Capital Improvements Fund Debt Sen/ice Fund Water Fund Wastewater Fund Electric Fund Telecommunications Fund Central Sen/ices Fund Insurance Sen/ices Fund Equipment Fund Cemetery Trust Fund Ski Ashland Agency Fund Parks & Recreation Agency Fund Total Cash Distribution Manner of Investment Pe~ Cash General Banking Accounts Local Govemment Inv, Pool City Investments Total Cash and Investments Increase(Decrease) Balance Balance Difference Current Quarter March 31, 2004 March 31, 2003 (2004-2003) $ 205,317$ 2,609,785 69,130 47,715 (846,968) 1,492,353 429,026. 394,371 157,962 303,641 46,206 578,792 93,752 4,867,810 507,724 1,846,619 374,538 523,716 (183,870) 48,269 (239,664) 981,948 118,361 1,281,157 (111,271) 1,117,870 1,218 684,232 621,461 16,778,278 156,366 501,230 (1,551,799) 3,096,040 (1,395,433) 3,597,270 $ (773,972) $ 20,375,548 $ 200 $ 1,910 (5,077,698) 534,013 4,803,526 16,392,402 (500,000) 3,447,223 $ (773,972) $ 20,375,548 $ 2,045,349 (66,460) 2,158,609 (82,697) 1,678,424 492,467 1,439,624 2,978,631 599,209 820,714 1,114,456 897,929 1,141,042 677,017 15,894,314 412,138 2,640,134 3,O52,272 $ 18,946,586 564,436 114,175 (666,256) 477,068 (1,374,783) 86,325 3,428,186 (1,132,012) (75,493) (772,445) (132,508) 383,228 (23,172) 7,215. 883,964 89,092 455,906 544,998 $ 1,428,962 1,710 $ 20,526 12,306,868 6,617,482 18,946,586 $ 200 513,487 4,085,534 (3,170,259) 1,428,962 Distribution of Dollars Ski Ashland, Parks and Recreation All Other (General Funds Govemment) 18% 30% Central Services, Insurance and Equipment Funds 17% Enterprise 35% t~alanc=elemlg~lnandel S~ 200"~,mh P~.F~andal Repot Man:h 0~ FY 2004 12:59 PM City ,of Ashland Combined Statement of Financial Position City Wide For the nine months ended March 31,2004 .. RESOURCE SUMMARY' Revenues: Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovemmental Revenues Charges for Services System Development Charges Fines and Forfeitures Assessment Payments Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Revenues Total Revenues Budgetary Resources: Other Financing Sources Operating Transfers In Total Budgetary Resources Total Resources Fiscal Year 2004 Percent Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2004 Collected ~ Actuals Adopted~.mended Expended $ 13,123,157 $ 15,346,933 85.51% 860,808 1,505,000 57.20% 2,308,972 3,704,115 62.34% 22,762,006 31,169,928 73.03% 1,152,475 1,299,000 88.72% 88,298 115,000 76.78% 145,330 210,000 69.20% 225,093 428,200 52.57% 1,348,517 761,560 177.07% 42,014,656 54,539,736 77.03% 13,175,000 13,811,900 95.39% 450,270 567,500 79.34% 13,625,270 14,379,400 94.76% 55,639,926 68,919,136 80.73% REQUIREMENTS BY CLASSIFICATION Personal Services Materials and Services Debt Service Total Operating Expenditures Balance $ (2,223,776) (644,192) (1,395,143) (8,407,922) (146,525) (26,702) (64,670) (203,107) 586,957 (12,525,080) (636,900) (117,230) (754,130) (13,279,210) Fiscal Year 2003 Year-To-Date Actuals $ 12,105,676 1,006,929 1,897,048 20,907,946 864,747 79,143 168,562 421,168 275,454 37,726,673 12,921,875 1,260,171 14,182,046 51,908,719 13,817,768 .18,837,392 73.35% 5,019,624 13,199,544 19,040,766 27,801,757 68.49% 8,760,991 18,211,387 9,066,877 11,147,419 81.34% 2,080,542 9,507,495 41,925,411 57,786,568 72.55% 15,861,157 40,918,426 Capital Construction Capital Outlay 5,035,994 9,996,925 50.38% Interfund Loans 6,900,000 6,950,000 99.28% Operating Transfers 450,270 567,500 79.34% Contingencies - 1,713,000 0.00% Total Budgetary Requirements 7,350,270 9,230,500 79.63% Total Requirements 54,311,675 77,013,993 70.52% Excess (Deficiency) of Resources over Requirements 1,328,251 (8,094,857) -16.41% Working Capital Carryover 18,199,959 19,519,629 93.24% 4,960,931 50,000 117,230 1,713,000 1,880,230 22,702,318 9,423,108 (1,319,670) $ 8,103,438 Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance $ 19,528,210 $ 11,424,772 170.93% 11,551,007 5,900,000 1,260,171 . 7,160,171 59,629,604 (7,720,885) 25,205,231 $ 17,484,346 ~Vlnance~:ctg~nandal Statements~:lnmx:tals 2002~'tatement of Operatdonsof09.FInancial Refxxt March of FY 2004 5/24/2004 ~ 12:59 PM 2 City of Ashland Schedule of Revenues By Fund For the nine months ended March 31, 2004 REVENUES BY FUND Fiscal Year 2004 Year-To- Fiscal Year Date Actuals 2004 Adopted % i i City General Fund $ 8,894,209 $ 11,960,393 74.36% Community Block Grant Fund 152,689 656,815 23.25% Street Fund 3,170,718 3,772,900 84.04% Airport Fund 450,851 830,600 54.28% Capital Improvements Fund 819,993 1,274,600 64.33% Debt Service Fund 952,879 1,098,900 86.71% Water Fund 5,450,217 6,682,800 81.56% Wastewater Fund 7,033,637 8,064,000 87.22% Electric Fund 9,178,804 11,768,400 78.00% Telecommunications Fund 8,653,623 9,275,000 93.30% Central Services Fund 3,352,102 5,035,600 66.57% Insurance Services Fund 1,044,668 771,000 135.50% Equipment Fund 1,072,658 1,545,200 69.42% Cemetery Trust Fund 10,345 29,500 35.07% Total City Components 50,237,393 62,765,708 80.04% Parks and Recreation Component Parks and Recreation Fund Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund Parks Capital Imp Fund Total Parks Components 5,402,533 6,153,428 Total City $ 55,639,926 $ 68,919,136 Balance (3,066,164) (504,126) (602,182) (379,749) (454,607) (146,021) (1,232,583) (1,030,363) (2,589,596) (621,377) (1,683,498) 273,668 (472,542) (19,155) (12,528,3'15) 3,540,601 4,024,228 87.98% (483,627) 1,858,899 1,957,200 94.98% (98,301) · 3,033 172,000 1.76% (168,967) 87.80% (750,895) 80.73% $ (13,279,2'10) Fiscal Year 2003 Year-T(> Date Actuals $ 8,280,143 . 3,019,082 113,090 2,218,453 848,859 5,020,832 5,210,677 8,507,443 7,330,245 3,526,775 522,859 1,485,931 614,927 46,699,3'16 3,444,872 1,760,356 4,175 5,209,403 $ 51,908,7'19 ~nanc, e~acctg~nancial Statements~nandals 2002~Fund Revenuesof09.Rna,'x~al Repro1 March of FY 2004 ~4r~o4 e ~2:59 ~ 3 City of Ashland Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2003 -42 For the nine months ended March 31,2004 GENERAL FUND Administrative Services Administrative Services - Municipal Court Administrative Services - Senior Program. Finance - Social Servic. es Grants Finance - Economic & ,Cultural Grants Finance - Miscellaneous Finance - Band Police Department Fire and Rescue Department Public Works - Cemetery Division Community Development - Planning Division Community Development - Building Division Transfers Contingency TOTAL GENFRAL FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL COMIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND STREET FUND Public Works - Street Operations Public Works - Storm Water Operations Public Works - Transportation SDC's Public Works - Storm Water SDC's Public Works - Local Irnprovement Districts Contingency TOTAL STREET FUND AIRPORT FUND Materials and Services Capital Outlay Contingency TOTAL AIRPORT FUND Fiscal Year 2004 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent Date Actuals 2004 Adopted Used 45,357 $ 97,00046.76% 217,511 296,000 73.48% 84,328 117,135 71.99% 118,619 132,400 89.59% 318,182 436~900 72.83% 3,746 25,660 14.60% 31,157 56,750 54.90% 2,797,324 4,284,470 65.29% 3,145,020 4,500,404 69.88% 207,057 296,890 69.74% 649,020 976,040 66.50% 527,499 744,375 70.86% 133,500 133,500 100.00% - 345,000 0.00% 8,278,320 12,442,524 66.53% Balance 51,643 78,489 32,807 13,781 118,718 21,914 25,593 1,487,146 1,355,384 89,833' 327,020 216,876 345,000 4,164,204 34,314 45,300 75.75% 10,986 41,036 611,515 6.71% 570,479 75,350 656,815 11.47% 581,465 3,247,674 3,399,560 95.53% 151,886 612,140 786,250 77.86% 174,110 333,839 481,400 69.35% 147,561 61,762 92,400 66.64% 30,638 205,704 730,700 28.15% 524,996 142,000 0.00% 142,000 4,461,119 5,632,310 79.21% 1,171,191 76,840 114,550 67.08% 37,710 13,746 720,000 1.91% 706,254 - 5,000. 0.00% 5,000 90,586 '839,550 10.79% 748,964 ~,~nance~:~g~nandal Statements~nar~als 2002~udgetary Complianceof~.Rnancial Report March of FY 2004 5/24/2004 {~ 12:59 PM 4 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2003-4;? For the nine months ended March 31, 2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Fiscal Year 2004 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent Date Actuals 2004 Adopted Used Balance TOTAL CAPITALIMPROVEMENTS FUND 611,128 1,228,600 49.74% 617,472 DEBT SERVICEFUND DebtService TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 657,149 1,178,000 55.79% 520,851 657,149 1,178,000 55.79% 520,851 WATER FUND Electdc- Conservation Division Public Works -Forest Lands Management Division Public Works -Supply Division Public Works -Treatment Division Public Works -Distribution Division Public Works - Supply SDC's Public Works -Treatment SDC's Public Works -Distribution SDC's Debt Service Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) Contingency TOTAL WATER FUND 124,745 169,015 73.81% 44,270 179,552 507,500 35.38% 327,948 164,873 423,600 38.92% 258,727 421,051 725,350 58.05% 304,299- 1,364,390 2,834,510 48.13% 1,470,120 442 112,500 0.00% 112,058 142,000 0.00% 142,000 16,839 469,100 3.59% 452,261 645,910 662,100 97.55% 16,190 2,275,000 2,275,000 100.00% 180,000 0.00% 180,000 5,192,802 8,500,675 61.09% 3,307,873 WASTEWATER FUND Public Works - Collection Division Public Works - Treatment Division Public Works -Collection SDC's Public Works -Treatment SDC's Debt Service Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) Contingency TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 838,978 1,366,580 61.39% 527,602 970,433 1,319,450 73.55% 349,017 17,801 324,500 5.49% 306,699 - 265,000. 0.00% 265,000 846,020 1,807,219 46.81% 961,199 4,275,000 4,275,000 100.00% - - 154,000 0.00% 154,000 '6,948,232 9,511,749 73.05% 2,563,517 ELECTRIC FUND Electric- Conservation Division Electric - Supply Division Electric.- Distribution Division Electric - Transmission Division Debt Service Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) Contingency TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 219,115 455,500 48.10% 236,385 4,846,492 6,071,300 79.83% 1,224,808 3,273,434 4,259,413 76.85% 985,979 747,336 1,031,324 72.46% 283,988 22,337 26,100 85.58% 3,763 350,000 400,000 87.50% 50,000 - 350,000 0.00% 350,000 9,458,714 12,593,637 75.11% 3,134,923 ~,~nancetacctg~nandal ~nts~nandals 2002~Budgetary OomplianceolOg. Finandai Rep~xt March of FY 2004 5/24/2004 @ 12:59 PM 5 44,142 58,300 '75.72% 14,158 255,986 829,300 '30.87% 573,314 311,000 341,000 91.20% 30,000 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2003-42 For the nine months ended March 31,2004 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND Electric -' Customer Relations\Promotions Electric - Operations Debt Services Contingency TOTAL TELFCOMMUNICATIONS FUND Fiscal Year 2004 Year-To- Fiscal year Percent Date Actuals 2004 Adopted Used Balance 79,291 147,490 ' 53.76% 68,199 ' 1,861,126 2,441,600 76.23% 580,474 6,889,663 7,202,000 95.66% 312,337 75,000 0.00% 75,000 8,830,080 9,866,090 89.50% 1,036,010 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND Administration Department Finance Department City Recorder Division Public Works - Administration and Engineering Public Works -Facilities and Safety Division ' Electric - Computer Services Division Contingency TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Contingency TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND EQUIPMENT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Contingency TOTAL EQUIIPMENT FUND 809,670 1,131,131 71.58% 321,461 1,040,738 1,541,355 67.52% 500,617 122,056 159,735 76.41% 37,679 871,307 1,220,700 71.38% 349,393 336,497 460,850 73.02% 124,353 470,096 773,005 60.81% 302,909 - 140,000 0.00% 140,000 3,650,364 5,426,776 67.27% 1,776,412 - 1,000 0.00% 1,000 605,966 743,500 81.50% 137,534 - 112,000 0.00% 112,000 605,966 856,500 70.75% 250,534 185,830 244,900 75.88% 59,070 318,617 500,560 63.65% 181,943 602,713 796,000 75.72% 193,287 - 175,000 0.00% 175,000 1,107,160 1,716,460 64.50% 609,300 ~nance~acctg~nancial Staternents~Cirtancials 2002~udgetary Complianceof09.Financial Rep(xt March of FY 2004 5/24/2004 {~ 12:59 PM 6 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2003-4,'_ For the nine months ended March 31,2004 CEMETERY TRUST FUND Transfers TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks Division Recreation Division Golf Division Debt Service Transfers Contingency TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Fiscal Year 2004 Year-To- FiScal Year Percent Date Actuals 2004 Adopted Used Balance 5,770 23,000 25.09% 17,230 5,770 23,000 25.09% 17,230 3,528,182 66.35% 1,187,141 289,000 54.76% 130,740 341,925 65.20% 118,986 32,000 18.12% 26,203 70,000 0.00% 70,000 35,000 0.00% 35,000 2,341,041 158,260 222,939 5,797 2,728,037 4,296,107 63.50% 1,568,070 30,127 87,000 34.63% 56,873 1,480,703 1,888,200 78.42% 407,497 1,510,830 1,975,200 76.49% 464,370 100,068 270,000 37.06% 169,932 $ 54,311,675 $ 77,013,993 70.52% $ 22,702,318 ~linancet~.,ctg~Finandal Staternents~Finandals 2002~Budgeta~/CompliaaceofOg. Financial Refx~t Ma~ch of FY 2004 City of Ashland Schedule of Expenditures By Fund For the nine months ended March 31,2004 REQUIREMENTS BY FUND City General Fund Community Block Grant Fund Street Fund Airport Fund Capital Improvements Fund Debt Service Fund Water Fund Wastewater Fund Electric Fund Telecommunications Fund Central Services Fund Insurance Services Fund Equipment Fu'nd Cemetery Trust Fund Total City Components Parks and Recreation Component Parks and Recreation Fund Ashland Youth ActMties Levy Fund Parks Capital Imp Fund Total Parks Components Total City Fiscal Year 2004 Year-To- Fiscal Year Percent Date Actuals 2004 Adopted Expended $ 8,278,320 $ 12,442,524 66.53% 75,350 656,815 11.47% 4,461,119 5,632,310 79.21% 90,586 839,550 10.79% 611,128 1,228,600 49.74% 657,149 1,178,000 '55.79% 5,192,802 8,500,675 61.09% 6,948,232 9,511,749 73.05% 9,458,714 12,593,637 75.11% 8,830,080 9,866,090 89.50% 3,650,364 5,426,776 67.27% 605,966 856,500 70.75% 1,107,160 1,716,460 64.50% 5,770 23,000 25.09% 49,972,740 70,472,686 70.91% 2,728,037 4,296,107 63.50% 1,510,830 1,975,200 76.49% 100,068 270,000 37,06% 4,338,935 6,541,307 66.33% $ 54,311,675 $ 77,013,993 70.52% Balance $ 4,164,204 581 465 1,171 191 748 964 617 472 520 851 3,3O7 873 2,563 517 3,134 923 1,036 010 1,776 412 250 534 609 300 17 230 20,499 946 1,568,070 464,370 169,932 2,202,372 $ 22,702,318 Fiscal Year 2003 Year-To- Date Actuals $ 8,173,386 33,701 3,832,041. 150 017 3,637 334 499 708 ,5,237 981 11,398 710 8,563 208 8,379 507 3,638 249 538 239 1,151 335 10 671 55,244 087 2,355,817 1,680,394 24,307 4,060,5t8 $ 59,304,605 t~nance~3cct0~inandal Staternents~nancials 2002~J:und Sun~f09.Rnandal Rep(xt March of FY 2004 5/24/2004 {~ 12:59 PM 8 CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Summary of Council Goals for FY 2004-2005 and Timeline. Administration ~ June 1, 2004 ' Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: Attached is a summary and timeline of the 2004-2005 Council Goals. Recommendation: Council approval of the summary and timeline of the 2004-2005 Council Goals. Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impacts of the various goals have been included in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2004- 2005. Background: On January 9 and 10, 2004, the Mayor, Council and staff met to develop goals for the next fiscal year (2004-2005). The City Council reviewed the 2003-2004 goals and considered new goals for the next 24 months. At the City Council meeting of March 2, 2004 council approved the goals and based on the document entitled 2004-2005 Goals of the City of Ashland, a summary has been prepared which identifies the responsible department and anticipated schedule for addressing these goals. The approval of the summary and timeline of the 2004-2005 Council Goals establishes the priorities for the organization over the next two years. In the Community Development Department, affordable housing continues to be a top priority with the assignment of a staff person to assist with this effort. There have been some setbacks due to turnover within the department. Several vacancies have been filled and the Housing Coordinator position will now be able to move forward with Council Goals related to affordable housing. Other priorities in the Community Development Department include the development of the riparian ordinance, completion of the Update of the downtown plan, and designing the implementation of an economic development program based on the comprehensive plan. It is proposed that these Council goals be completed giving top priority to work' on the riparian ordinance, followed by completion of the downtown plan and the economic development program.. It should be noted that two Council Goals assigned to the Community Development Department have been moved out one year from what was previously present to the Mayor and City Council. They are the development of ma urban forestry plan and master planning for the Railroad Property and the Croman Property. The summary and timeline also established priorities for other departments. Please refer to the attached summary for those priorities. The proposed sumrnary and timeline also indicates the need for Council Study Sessions regarding several Council Goals. Council Study Sessions allow the Mayor and City Council provide input and direction in the early stages of staff work on a Council Goal or at important decision points during the completion of a Council Goal. Feedback from the Mayor and Council regarding the planned study sessions would assist staff in establishing a schedule for study sessions. Attachments: · Summary of C, ouncil Goals for FY 2004-2005. Summary of Council Goals For FY 2004-2005 And update of schedule as of May 25, 2004 The following goals were developed by the city council during workshops held on January 9 and 10, 2004. The council identified a list of new goals that should be addressed during the next 18-24 months and a list of goals, which had been previously identified but were to be continued. COMMUNITY VALUES STATEMENT The citizens of Ashland value a City government that helps create an environrr ent within which they are able to live happy and produc- tive lives. This includes a healthy and sustainable environment; an opportunit) to acquire the basic necessities of life; a sound infra- structure that meets our common needs for transportation, energy, information and communications, health care, water and waste man- agement; and a variety of social, recreational, business and cultural opportunity,es. The citizens want their government to respect our diverse people, natural enVirOnment, and rich heritage and culture; and to promote citizen involvement, initiative, innovation and a strong sense of community. ~ III. IV. VI VI. VII. IX. Xl ELEMENTS Citizen participation and involvement- The City recognizes the value of citizen involvement and the wealth of information and resources that the citizens of Ashland possess. The City is committed to a high level of communication with the public. Environmental Resources - Ashland seeks to retain its natural beauty as it continues to grow and further develop. The City seeks to strike a balance between urbanization and the natural environment by providing protection for soils, small creeks & wet- lands, urban forest, clean air and peace & quiet. Housing- The City has a responsibility to ensure that proper amounts of land are set aside to accommodate the various housing needs in the City, and that its land development ordinances are broad enough to allow for variation in housing type, cost and den- sity. Economic Strategy- The City encourages a variety of economic activities in the City, while continuing to reaffirm the economic 'goals of Ashland citizens and existing businesses. Economic development in Ashland should serve the purpose of maintaining and improving the local quality of life. Public Services - The City will provide a full range of public services that meet the needs of existing and future citizens. The City Council values and supports city staff and the work they do on behalf of the community. The City strives to create a produc- tive work environment for city employees. Transportation and Transit- To retain Ashland's small-town character while it grows, the City must proactively plan for a trans- portation system that is integrated into the community and enhances the livability, character and natural environment. Energy, Air and Water Resources- Ashland seeks to be a regional leader in the areas of energy, air and water conservation. The City seeks to continue this leadership role in further development of goals, policies and programs that encourage citizens to conserve natural resources. The City also desires to continue to provide electrical service to consumers at as Iow a cost as pos- sible. Parks, Open Space and Aesthetics - Ashland's character is intimately linked to its aesthetic resources, including its vistas, trees, parks, open space lands, and public art. The City seeks to develop programs that preserve important open space and parkland, while accommodating continuing urbanization. Urbanization- The City seeks to ensure an orderly transition of land from rural to urban uses. Historical Sites and Structures- Ashland seeks to preserve its rich history through the preservation ,of its historical buildings and places. Xl. Regional Strategies- Ashland seeks to develop unique partnerships with governments, non-profits and the private sector to en- sure that regional issues of importance to the City and the region are addressed in a collaborative and effective way. XlI. Financial Management- The City will be an accountable and effective steward of the public t~rust and public re- sources. The City will provide equitable and efficient services to the public through the efficient use of assets and re- sources. Social and Human Services- To ensure that all people in Ashland live in a safe, strong, and caring community, the City seeks to enhance the quality of life and promote self-reliance, growth and development of people. To these ends, the City will strive to provide resources and services to meet basic human needs. GOALS 2004- 2005 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities 1. Continue to help commissions and Administration/ Ongoing throughout - City Recorder's Office will continue to provide committees become more effective throughCity Recorder fiscal year. member notebooks to each commis- resources and training opportunities; de- sion/committee member. velop training program for commission vol- June '04 · City Recorder's office will work with Legal to unteers in meeting management, goal set- develop an instructional session on protocol, ting, group dynamics, and ethics, government standards and practices and any legal instruction 1:hat pertains to each commis- sion/committee. ,City Recorder's office and Legal have met with RVTV to schedule taping of educational video for all new commission members. Sept '04 · Recorder/Legal plan to attend the first meeting of each commission following new appts. Training video will be viewed and questions answered. 2. Adopt a process to meet LCDC Goal 1 Comm Dev/Plan- May'04 · Study session with Planning Commission- Participation goal requirement, ning new Citizen Involvement Committee and pro- posed citizen outreach process (done). June '04- Aug '04 · Final Adoption and Implementation. 3. Complete Charter review and update Admin May '04 - Evaluate the formation of a Charter Review process. Committee (done). June '04 · Select Committee. July '04 · Develop work plan and timeline. 4. Develop Riparian Ordinance. Comm Bev/Plan- July '04 · Complete riparian and wetland inventory. ning July '04 · Planning Commission Study Session July '04- Oct '04 · Public Involvement/Ordinance drafting. Nov '04 · Planning Commission public hearing. Jan '05 · Ordinance Adoption/Public Hearings. 5. Pursue water quality and temperature Public Works April '04 ,, Complete SWMP (done April '04) improvements through an active storm wa- June '04 (ongoing) · Allocated funding and develop projects ter management program including Jan- June '04 - Define and adopt Engineering Standards bioswales, storm-ceptors, maintenance April- Sept '04 · BMP development and training programs, tree planting, link to the riparian Jul- Dec '04 (ongoing) · Riparian improvements zones, erosion control programs and "creek clean-ups." 6. Develop Urban Forestry Plan. Corem Bev/Plan- Nov- Bec '05 · Joint Study Session and Discussion of project ning to determine priority for budgeting. 7. Establish a stronger, formalized roleAdministration/FireJan '05 · Pursue opportunities to collaborate with Forest for the City in the stewardship of entire Department Service on future timber sales on City-owned Ashland Watershed. forest lands and assist with project planning. · Pursue ways to speed up forest fuels reduction work in the watershed (mu- nicipal and federal). · Improve the overall management of Oct '04 · Forest Commission is completing their resto- the Ashland Watershed by working ration plan and implementation process. Initi- with the Forest Service and continue ate the development of objectives and a work efforts to reduce the wildfire threat in plan for treatments prescribed for the Winburn the watershed. Parcel. · Implement the Ashland Forest Lands restoration plan for watershed im- provement by a) completing Phase II; and, b) developing Phase III work plan for restoration work on Winburn Par- cel. · Map water capacity and its sources in June-Aug '04 · Liaison with the Forest Service to determine the watershed and enhance protection their current information on a watershed basis. of it. In partnership, implement an en- June- Oct'04 · Identify water ways and define mapping. hanced monitoring program (begin Aug- Feb '05 · Determine monitoring protocols with Forest monitoring) Service. Spring '05 · Begin monitoring and ana'lysis. 8. Derive a specific list of '04 action items Corn Dev/Planning July '04 · Council Study Session regarding Housing from the Housing Action Plan and Needs Action Plan Land Use changes. Analysis with reasonable, measurable July '04 · Develop implementation Program for Housing marks of progress. Action Plan. · Consider the land use changes listed Aug'04 · MFR Ordinance Amendment. in the Housing Action Plan (council to June '04 · Joint Housing Commission/Planning Commis- approve action steps) sion Study Session regarding mixed family · Adopt strategies to limit allowing sin- zoning. gle-family residential development in Aug '04 · Planning Commission Public Hearing. mixed-family residential zoning dis- Sept '04 · Council adoption. tricts. · Provide in-kind support to ACLT to further affordable housing for Ashland. 9. Design implementation of local Eco- Comm Aug '04 · Planning Commission/Council Study Session. nomic Development program, based on Bev/Planning Sept- Dec '04 · Prepare Implementation Plan based on input current Comprehensive Plan, Policy 3. from Study Session. Jan-Mar'05 · Adopt program. 10. Continue master planning of large Comm Railroad Property: undeveloped properties. Bev/Planning Mar- Apr '05 " Staff Plan Prepa,ration and Review. May '05 · Railroad Property study session - review past planning efforts/plan. Jun- Jul '05 · Additional public meetings. Aug '05 " Final Plan Preparation. Sept- Oct '05 · Adoption of Railroad Property Plan. Croman Property: Sept '04 · Council Study Session to discuss approach. 11. Develop planning framework for future Comm Jun '05 · Study Session on area with Planning Corn- development of North Normal area. Bev/Planning mission/neighborhood/citizens. Aug- Sept '05 - Development of priorities and workplan. 12. Evaluate and create plan for remodelPublic Works Summer '04 ,, Determine need for assistance from an archi- of Council Chamber (meet various con- tect. cerns: seating, sound, design, web ac- Fall/Winter '04 · Begin remodel. cess). 13. Enhance revenue and services from Electric July '04 · Implement 5 initiatives designed to sell addi- AFN to strengthen its viability, tional service to existing customers. Aug'04 · Implement 4 initiatives designed to improve the marketing of AFN. Sept'04 · Implement 6 initiatives designed to improve AFN operations. Oct'04 · Improve financial reporting. Jan '05 · Implement 5 initiatives designed to obtain new customers. 14. Enhance water supply and conserva- Public Works tion by: · Developing a citywide focus "the right Ongoing · Conservation, water reuse and irrigation. water for the right use." · Exploring and potentially developing a Summer'04- Spring '05 · Need to evaluate the possibility with TID; three-year plan to improve and extend evaluate costs and implementation process. our current TID system. · Negotiating for other water supply April- Dec'04 · Working with TID/BOR and Corps of Engi- options, neers for future water supply · Supporting an effluent reuse option for April- Dec '04 · Evaluate reuse options (Billings/TID, etc.) the WWTP effluent. · Completing pre-design plan for future Sept '04 · Complete TAP pre-design and take to council extension of TAP water line, including for review/decisions. Purchase or develop a priority for conservation, agreements for FlOW 15. Develop a five-year plan to identify, Public Works/GIS July/Aug '04 · Identify the various information technology fund and full integrate all information tech- functions within the organization, determine nology functions within the organization, their current status, general compatibility and including upgrades to LaserFiche, GIS, need for integration. utility billing software, web interface mod- Oct '04 · Identify the changes that will need to be made ules and more (Invest in and utilize the to allow for integration and the options avail- most appropriate software to maintain, im- able to accomplish that task. prove and enhance internal work perform- Dec '04 · Prioritize the integration tasks relative to ance thereby providing the best possible hardware/software availability and compatibil- service to Ashland citizens) ity, current needs, available skillsets and ac- cess requirements. Jan '05 · City Council study session. Feb '05 · Develop a funding schedule for implementa- tion over a five-year period. 16. Complete a communications coverage Fire Department Sept '04 Conduct a radio wave strength study, identify po- study for fire department radio communica- tential repeater sites, develop required communi- tions, cations equipment list, order equipment and install · Conduct a radio wave strength and equipment, conduct acceptance field tests and final coverage study, approval of installation and equipment. · Determine need for additional radio repeater/receiver sites. · Identify and purchase necessary radio communications equipment. 17. Establish a Public Safety Advisory Police/Fire De- Nov '04 · Develop program goals, objectives and iden- Committee to provide public input on police partments tify key functions for the Public Safety Advi- and fire issues, sory Committee. Jan '05 · Advertise for interested citizens to staff the Committee. Select members. Feb '05 · Provide orientations. 18. Develop strategy to educate residents Fire & Police De- Oct '04 · Develop the capability to communicate effec- about City's emergency procedures in thepartments tively with citizens via an AM emergency Advi- event of wildfire (Fire, Police and Public sory Radio Broadcast System. Review Ash- Works Departments: evacuate, relocate, land Emergency Evacuation Plan. Review shelter, communications with the public). Red Cross Shelter Agreements. 19. Improve safety of existing at grade RR Public Works Feb '04 · Complete the evaluation of all at grade cross- crossings and develop a plan to improve ings (done Feb '04) the Hersey Street/N. Laurel Street crossing. July '04 · Develop priorities with Council (Study Session July '04) Fall '04 · Identify funding sources. Winter/Spring '05 · Design improvernents for E. Main & Lau- rel/Hersey crossings. FY'06 · Implement improvements. FY '06 · Evaluate closure and new crossings. FY '06 · Develop plan for other crossing improvements ('06-08) 20. Improve pedestrian and traffic safety Public Works Feb '06 · Phase I improvernents for Wimer and N. Main based on the 3-Es - Education, Enforce- July '06 · Continue to evaluate long term improvements ment and Engineering at Wimer Street and (ODOT STIP) North Main. July '07 · Construction STIP 07/08 21. Measurably improve traffic safety inPublic Works/ Jan '04 · Prioritize specific neighborhoods and evaluate neighborhoods (Pedestrians, auto, bicycle, Engineering/Traffic traffic volumes and safety. sidewalks, school zones, speed limits, Safety Comm Spring/Summer '04 · Gather information on safety improvements crosswalk safety), and impacts. Prepare report. June '04 · Prepare and distribute safety information (education). July '04 · Develop a plan to implement engineering solutions. Sept '05 · Measure results over 12-18 months. FY 05/06 · Continue to evaluate long-term improvements. 22. Evaluate TI'PC Plan and develop ac- Com Dev/Public Mar '05 · Mayor reappoints Ad Hoc Transportation tion plan for items adopted. Works/Planning Committee. · Explore RVTD service options. April- Jun '05 · Committee Meeting/Project understanding July '05 · Plan Update/Plan Preparation Aug '05 · Public Meetings/Plan Adoption. Dec '05 · Develop priority for continued service and funding mechanisms. Feb '06 · Develop priority for expanded service area and funding mechanisms. Feb '06 · Gain council approval and funding resources. Ongoing · Continue to eval~ate long-term improvements. 23. Identify and acquire land for transit Comm Spring '05 · Develop need statement. station. Dev/Planning/ Spring/Summer '05 · Identify land options. Public Works Summer '05 · Identify ROW and costs. Summer/Fall '05 · Prepare design and evaluate funding options. Fall '05 · Develop construction schedule. 24. Improve public trail system by devel- Comm Dev/Plan- April- June '04 · Coordinate with Parks on Dog Park - North oping a comprehensive trails master planning with Parks Mountain Park Greenway extension. which addresses minimizing public/private Commission and Mar '04 - Sept '04 · Identify properties for easements and/or ac- conflicts. Plan should include the Bear AWTA quisition. Creek Greenway (Dog Park to Mountain Sept- Dec '04 · Prepare strategy for acquisition of ease- Ave. Park). (Plan should discuss range of ments/land.. tools to obtain access and ways to estimate construction costs and costs to obtain easements) 25. Adopt Dark Sky Ordinance that re- Comm Mar '05 · Study Session with Planning Commission. duces light pollution throughout the City on Dev/Planning Apr- Jul '05 · Ordinance Preparation and Public Involve- public and private property, ment. Aug- Oct '05 · Ordinance Adoption. 26. Continue to provide information to the Admin/Com Dev (The Planning Division will continue to coordinate community and foster discussion on growth with Admin/Ann Seltzer on providing information to and planning issues, with an emphasis on the public on planning issues. The Planning Com- historic preservation, annexation require- mission has appointed a sub-committee which is ments, State land use law, infill policy and working on providing additional opportunities for impacts related to density, rate of growth, information distributior~.) development standards, and processes. Ongoing · Develop materials about issues for use as handouts in City racks in Council Chambers, City Hall and Community Dev. Lobby and post same information on City's Web site. Ongoing " Solicit copy from Historic Comm on historic properties in Ashland and preservation. In- clude related copy in City Source. 27. Develop performance measures pro- Finance Jan '05 · Inventory existing and survey desired meas- gram for all city departments, ures. Jan '05 · Evaluate and adopt desired measures that are "ready." Jan-March '05 · Develop reporting process (monthly, quarterly, annual) Apr-Jun '05 ,, Establish process for desired measures "not ready." July-Oct '05 · Annual follow-up and changes. 28. Review and adjust target fund hal- Finance March '05 · Complete review. ances to respond to current operations. 29. Review and consider strategies in the Admin June '04 · Draft charge of Flealth and Human Services health and human services plan. committee for council approval. · Identify and implement no-cost and July '04 · Appoint committee. Iow-cost strategies within the Health and Human Services Plan in partner- ship with service providers that aid in the delivery of services to people most in need. 30. Complete the update of the downtown Comm Dev. June '04 · Study Session t¢, discuss process and plan plan. approach. July-Aug '04 · Public outreach .. draft plan. Sept '04 · Public Hearing. Oct '04 · Plan development and revisions. Nov '04 · Draft plan presentation- public outreach. Dec '04 · Plan adoption. CITY OF kSHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved by: Approved by: Synopsis: An Ordinance Creating a Prohibition Against Public Nudity Ashland Police June 1, 2004 Michael Bianca, Chief of Police I/.d/- Michael Franell, Assistant City Attor~d/~ /,~/~ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator[J/{/[ [ Police department requests a city ordinance to address uncivil behavior occurring in past summers of adult persons going without clothes in public areas of town. Recommendation: Adopt second reading by title only of the ordinance. Fiscal Impact: Violators could be fined up to $250 in Ashland Municipal Court. Background: No state law specifically bans public nudity. Situations of naked people in public are generally awkward for police to address but become problematic when the person is not intoxicated, delusional or violent. Such behavior is very upsetting to community sensibilities. Ordinance gives authority for police to stop and detain violators and to give a lawful order to 'cover up'. Attachments: - Proposed Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING A PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC NUDITY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1,, A new section 10.44.012 of the Ashland Municipal Code is adopted to read: 10.44.012 Public Nudity. It is unlawful for any person to expose his or her genitalia while in a public place or place visible from a public place, if the public place is open or available to persons of the opposite sex. This provision is not intended to apply to a person who is prepubescent or who has taken steps to create an envelope of privacy upon their own property and the nudity occurs within that envelope. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C)of the City Charter on the ~ day of ,2004, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this__ day of ,, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. /~~.~~(ed as to ~orm: ~aul Nolte, City Attorney Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor G:\LEGAL\OFFICE\ORD\P\PUBLIC NUDITY - FINAL.DOC Page - 1 Page 1 of 2 Subj: Date: From: To: CC: Letter for Reading at City Counsil Meeting 5/31/04 11:09:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time trevo rz49 @ h otmai I. com Awdb@aol.com trevorz49@hotmail.com Hello Mayor DeBoer, Thank you so much for being willing to read my letter concerning the proposed anti-nudity ordinance at the City Council meeting. I have pasted my letter below. Please let me know if you have any problems accessing the text. Thank you again, Trevor Gamble Trevor Gamble 37 Alida St. #6 Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 552-1565 In opposition to the proposed ordinance prohibiting public nudity: Hello everyone, I appreciate this opportunity to share my perspective I have regarding public nudity. As a resident of Ashland, I am aware of the appreciation this community has for the arts and how valued the expression of cultural diversity is. During a war protest last year in which some demonstrators appeared naked, a policeman said that this was just "garden variety nudity," distinct from indecent exposure. And indeed, mere nudity, as opposed to lewd behavior, is in no serious way disrupting of our community. Rather, the few times it has occurred, it has been in the spirit of lighthearted fun, creative art, or thoughtful political expression. Never has anyone been harmed or seriously offended for any length of time. The proposed anti-nudity ordinance was requested by the recently appointed chief of police and NOT by the citizens themselves. In a message to the city council, the police chief said, "Such behavior is very upsetting to community sensibilities." However, the Daily Tidings claims to have received "no letters to the editor bewailing the sordid state of affairs, no frantic calls from parents whose children's lives have been ruined by a glimpse of skin on the Plaza." It is not up to the police department to define what the "community sensibilities" are, and laws are not passed to make easier the lives of police people such as when they are in the "awkward situation" of talking to a naked person in public. Tuesday, June 01, 2004 America Online: Awdb Page 2 of 2 It is a very small number of people who have a negative reaction to public nudity. When I was lying out nude in a public park recently, between 25 and 30 people passed by during my time there - male and female, babies up to seniors. One person had a negative reaction. All of the rest of the passersby did not seem phased by the site; some smiled, and many of the kids waived. The vast majority of the people of Ashland, in my experience, have been open and accepting. Not many people are offended by public nudity, and we do not need to pass laws to placate the few. Some people seem to be concerned about the welfare of younger people in relation to exposure to public nudity. I can understand the desire to want the best for our children, and that is why I looked into what effect exposure to nudity has on them. Dr. Paul Okami, a prominent psychology professor at UCLA, has gone further in studying this relationship than anyone else. He thoroughly reviewed all of the research in the area as well as run his own 18-year longitudinal study. There were NO studies showing nudity to be harmful to kids, and a few actually showed benefits. The naked body is not offensive, disgusting or shameful. Its how we came into this world. Being naked is about celebrating our humanity. I do not want our natural appearance to cause fear, shame, disgust, prejudice or persecution. The state of Oregon itself has seen no need to implement a ban on simple nudity. In a time of increasingly severe erosion to the liberties of individuals, does the City of Ashland really need to be leading the way in stripping away more personal freedoms? I strongly urge you to reject this anti-nudity ordinance. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Trevor Gamble Learn to simplify your finances and your life in Streamline Your Life from MSN Money. http://speciai.msn.com/money/0405streamline.armx Tuesday, June 01, 2004 America Online: Awdb CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved by: Synopsis: Recommendation: Fiscal Impact: Background: Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of Bonds to Finance the Ashland Fiber Network Finance Department ~ June 1, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator On May 4, 2004, Ashland City Council authorized the Finance Director to proceed with reviewing alternatives to financing AFN's existing bank loans and internal borrowing and to bring such a proposal back to Council within 30 days. Research and consultation with bond counsel and financial advisors have resulted in a proposal to issue revenue bonds with a full faith and credit backing via a non- emergency ordinance. If passed, the proposed ordinance will require a second reading on June 15, 2004. A thirty day referral period begins upon the second reading. Staff will submit a resolution at the June 15 that conforms with the Uniform Revenue Bond Act detailing the process, limitations and authority necessary to issue bonds in late July. If the bond issue is referred to the voters; by 10% of the electors signing a petition, bonds would not be sold until passed by a vote of the citizens. Council adopt the ordinance and authorize the Finance Director to submit to Council a resolution to issue taxable revenue bOnds at the June 1:5, 2004 meeting. Any restructuring of the internal debt will most likely cost the City more in the way of interest over the life of the debt since internal borrowings from other City funds is normally at a lower rate than a financial institution would offer. Depending on the rate and issuance costs compared to the current low rate used for internal financing, the differential over twenty years could be over $2,000,000. As interest rates change this amount may be limited however, the City reserves and cash demands preclude the continued internal borrowing in the near future without difficulty in meeting operational and capital needs in other funds. AFN's debt load is expected to be over $14.0 million in FY 2004-05 and includes $9 million in capital outlay and construction and $5 million in operating costs and interest beyond the $7 million in operating revenues earned since charges for service began in 2001. Total debt is projected to remain in that neighborhood for the next five years as revenues continue to increase and soon become greater than operating costs. The explanation for this is that annual Debt Service on existing loans exceeds any operating income and result in additional internal borrowings beyond the principle amount paid to banks. Discussions with bond counsel and financial advisors have identified that the city could continue the current practice of borrowing internally, paying it back the next year and re-borrowing the needed amount for the ensuing year. However, projections show the future need for intemal borrowing eventually exceeding $9.0 million and staff is concerned that there will not be enough funds available during the time frame it may be needed. Instead of the status quo, discussions consid, ered revenue bonds, general obligation bonds, additional bank loans, taxes and/or subsidies to replace part or all of the existing debt or to meet annual debt service. Each alternative has many issues but the most promising is a "taxable" revenue bond issue restructuring all internal and external loans. The reasoning behind revenue bonds (especially ones that are not tax exempt per the IRS Code) are as follows: 1. The intent remains that debt service will be paid by revenues. 2. Revenue bonds normally have a 20 year life and that better matches the near future cash flow projections. 3. Taxable status gives the city maximum flexibility for construction and operations financing. 4. Covenants can be constructed pledging AFN and Electric Fund revenues first before looking to other city resources. 5. The market is still relatively good for this type of issue. Additionally, a refinancing of the internal debt will restore other funds' balances reducing confusion on the total budget and the mechanics of borrowing internally. Both the Water and Wastewater funds will receive this benefit and will reduce public perception that a subsidy is being provided or that rates are unnecessarily being raised to build cash balances for AFN's sake. It should be remembered that internal borrowing could be less attractive in the near future if interest rates rise and the opportunity for restructuring passes the city by. Bonds cannot be .sold without: 1. Council approval of an ordinance and a second reading AND 2. Council approval of a resolution establishing limits and authority at the June 15 meeting AND 3.. the'referral period ending'with no requirement for a public vote. An ordinance authorizing up to $16,000,000 in revenue bonds is attached. As is customary, a higher amount is authorized to allow adjustments in the total amount during the bond sale to incorporate' any issue costs or other payments that could save the City money over the life of the debt. The actual bond sale amount is expected to be under $15.5 million. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS TO FINANCE THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK. The people of the City of Ashland do ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds: A. The City is authorized to issue revenue bonds for any public purpose under Oregon's Uniform Revenue Bond Act (ORS 288.805.to 288.945 or the "Act"). Revenue bonds issued under the Act may be payable from all or any portion of the "revenues" of the City, as defined in the Act. The Act defines "revenues" to include all fees, tolls, taxes, and other income available to the City. B. The Act permits the City to authorize revenue bonds by enacting a nonemergency ordinance. The City may not sell those revenue bonds for thirty days after the nonemergency ordinance is enacted. If the nonemergency ordinance is referred to a vote during tha't thirty day period, the City may not sell the revenue bonds described in that ordinance unless the voters approve the ordinance. C. The City enacts this nonemergency ordinance to authorize the issuance of up to $16,000,000 of bonds to finance the Ashland Fiber Network. D. The City will cause a plan to be prepared showing that the estimated revenues that are pledged to pay the bonds will be sufficient to pay those bonds. Section 2. Revenue Bonds Authorized. The City hereby authorizes the issuance of not more than Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000,000) in aggregate principal amount of revenue bonds under the Act to finance costs of. the Ashland Fiber Network, including costs of refinancing existing bank loans and interfund loans for the Ashland Fiber Network, and costs of issuing the revenue bonds. The bonds shall be payable from the revenues of the Ashland Fiber Network, and the City may pledge those revenues, the revenues of the City's electric system, and any other "revenues" (as defined in the Act) to pay the bonds authorized by this ordinance. Prior to selling the bonds the City Council shall adopt a resolution or ordinance establishing the terms and conditions of the bonds pursuant to ORS 288.520, or delegating the authority to establish those terms and conditions. Section 3. No Additional Taxes Authorized; Bonds Payable Solely from Revenues. Neither the authorization nor the issuance of the bonds described in Section 2 of this ordinance shall authorize the City to levy any additional taxes. Section 4. Procedure. The'bonds described in Section 2 of this ordinance shall not be sold until the period of referral of this nonemergency ordinance has expired. If'this ordinance is referred, the City maynot sell the bonds described in Section 2 of this ordinance unless the voters approve this ordinance. Page 1 of 2 The foregoing ordinance was first READ by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 1st day of June, 2004, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2.004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2004. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Paul Nolte, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 CITY OF :&SHI. AND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: An ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2004 to and including June 30, 2005. Finance Department June 1, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: An Ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2004 to and including June 30, 2005. Such taxes in the sum of $8,483,000 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. The levy consists ot' three parts: (1) a permanent rate supporting the General and Parks Funds of $3.5647, totaling $5,696,000 (2) a local option levy supporting Ashland Youth Activities Fund at a rate of $1.3800, totaling $2,1205,000, and (3) four bonded debt levies totaling $582,000 with a combined rate of $0.3642. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of' the attached Ordinance. Fiscal Impact: Enables the City to levy a property tax rate and receive revenue as authorized by the budget committee. Background: The estimated total tax rate is expected to decrease over last fiscal year due to a slight reduction in bonded debt levies. This Ordinance is consistent with the Budget Committee's recommendation. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCF LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2004 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2005, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $8,483,000 UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby levies the taxes provided for in the adopted budget in the permanent rate of $:3.5647 per thousand an amount estimated to be $5,696,000, voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $1.3800 per tl~ousand an amount estimated to be $2,205,000, as well as $582,000 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1,2004, on all taxable property within the City. Section 2. That the City Council hereby declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following funds: General Fund Parks and Recreation Fund Youth Activities Levy 1982 Water Bond Levy 1992 Water Bond Levy 1997 Flood Restoration Bond Levy 2000 Flood and Fire Station Bonds Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt Per $1,000 $ 2,352,000 1.4719 3,344,000 2.0928 $ 2,205,000 1.3800 83,000 84,000 105,000 310,000 $ 5~696~000 $ 2,205~000 $ 582~000 The foregoing ordinance was first READ by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the: 1st day of June, 2004, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2004. Barbara Christensen,, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day ofJune, 2004. R ed a o, for · P olte, City A'ttor'~'y Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor CITY OF 4kSHI, AND. Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: A Resolution Adopting the Annual Budget and Making Appropriations. Finance Department June 1, 2004 m,A/~] Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis'. The fiscal year 2004-05 budget is submitted to the City Council for adoption along with the required appropriations for the fiscal year. Since the time that the Budget Committee approved the budget there has been additional, discussion of the public use and funding of "The Grove." The Approved Budget does not include appropriations to maintain The Grove nor does it recognize potential revenue such as rental income. The ,discussions have revolved around providing some level of temporary support for FY 2004-05 until details of a more finite plan can be established. One method to accomplish this task is for Council to appropriate maintenance dollars up, to the estimated revenues, providing some monies to go toward operations and maintenance until a more complete ' program is developed. This would provide additional time for a more complete plan for funding the level of operations to be identified. Any shortfall in revenues as compared to operational costs would require Council action during FY 2004-05 in the way of transfers of appropriation from Contingency or other programs that are under spent. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution with or without adjustment. An a~mendment of $35,000 for maintenance and operations of The Grove will raise the total of the General Fund to $13,704,758 and the Resolution's total to $93,493,790. Fiscal Impact: Establishes appropriations and unappropriated ending fund balances for FY 2004-05. Background: The Budget Committ6e and/or Budget Sub.Committee met numerous times this winter and spring and thoroughly reviewed this budget. On May 13, 2004, the Budget Committee approved the budget and · recommended it for adoption. The combined total appropriation for all funds is $75,292,838. This number does not include the unappropriated balance of $18,165,952. These amounts may be adjUsted as determined by Council within the guidelines established by Oregon Budget Law. Currently, the one change that is awaiting Council direction is the increase of appropriations in the General Fund, Finance- Miscellaneous Division to budget and account for expenses for The Grove. Estimates on expenses and revenues vary and depend greatly upon what activities do occur and their propensity to generate income in the way of fees or rental income. Preliminary costs range from $42,000 to $100,000 depending upon activities with only $35,000 as estimated rental revenue. Funding options remain as: 1. Raise fees or charges or finding a new revenue source 2. Cut other programs or staff 3. Reduce fired balance It is difficult to recommend any of the above, especially either #2 or #3, at this time given the uncertainty of what programs will be offered and what their related costs coUld be. Rather than estimate high on expenses and revenue as they relate to unidentified activities, it may be best to estimate small and anticipate a breakeven program until'better information is obtained. An off-setting revenue would be added to Miscellaneous Revenues for rental income thus minimizing the impact on fund balance until specifics are identified. Any shortfall would need to be funded through a reduction in costs or a transfer of appropriation. RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS The City of Ashland resolves that the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year Budget, now on file in the office of the City Recorder is adopted. The amounts for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2004, and for the purposes shown below are hereby appropriated as follows: GENERAL FUND Administration Administration - Senior Program Finance - Municipal Court Finance - Social Services Grants Finance - Economic & Cultural Grants Finance - Miscellaneous Finance - Band Police Department Fire and Rescue Department Public Works - Cemetery Division Community Development - Planning Division Community Development- Building Division Transfers Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL CDBG FUND STREET FUND Public Works - Street Operations Public Works - Storm Water Operations Public Works - Transportation SDC's Public Works - Storm Water SDC's Public Works - Local Improvement Districts Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL STREET FUND AIRPORT FUND Materials and Services Capital Outlay Debt Services Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL AIRPORT FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay Transfers Ending Fund Balance TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 109,600 115,545 297,426 110,000 445,600 25,000 57,490 4,375,83O 4,788,107 298,260 1,027,055 699,808 43,833 339,636 936,568 13,669,758 31,000 49O,978 521,978 2,351,755 702,380 348,050 258,050 220,355 142,000 1,976,046 5,998,636 95,000 778,650 35,072 5,000 42,315 956,037 157,210 351,230 389,839 898,279 DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Service Ending Fund Balance TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND WATER FUND Electric Department - Conservation Division Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division Public Works - Water Supply Public Works - Water Treatment Public Works - Water Distribution Public Works - Supply SDC's Public Works - Distribution SDC's Debt Services Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL WATER FUND WASTEWATER FUND Public Works - Wastewater Collection Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Public Works - Collection SDC's Debt Services Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND ELECTRIC FUND Electric - Conservation Division Electric - Supply Electric - Distribution Electric - Transmission Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND Electric - Customer Relations\Promotions Electric - Operations Debt Services Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND CENTRAL SERVICES FUND Administration Department Finance Department City Recorder Division Public Works - Administration and Engineering Public Works - Facilities and Safety Division Electric - Computer Services Division Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Materials and Services Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 1,046,802 695,484 1,742,286 154,430 396,500 442,530 839,951 2,324,465 762,500 420,250 677,651 180,000 3,524,870 9,723,147 1,438,460 1,337,450 308,500 1,802,670 154,000 4,463,795 9,504,875 411,410 6,160,715 4,470,973 935,443 350,000 1,812,094 14,140,635 222,032 2,415,165 14,402,000 75,000 954,723 18,068,920 1,149,855 1,626,724 172,375 1,274,200 491,780 772,620 147,382 113,758 5,748,694 646,530 100,000 471,538 ~,218,068 EQUIPMENT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND CEMETERY TRUST FUND . Transfers Ending'Fund Balance TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks Division Recreation Division Golf Division Debt Service Transfers Contingency Ending Fund Balance TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Ending Fund Balance TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay Ending Fund Balance TOTAL PARKS ClP FUND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 242,900 451,435 688,085 175,000 965,561 2,522,981 12,360 681,408 693,768 3,673,075 363,700 373,00O 30,000 100,000 35,000 965,822 5,540,597 89,000 2,006,000 2,166 2,097,166 243,000 169,965 412,965 $ 93,458,790 This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was READ BY TITLE ONLY and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on this ~ day of June, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Signed and Approved on this day of June, 2004. Approved as to form: Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Paul Nolte, City Attorney CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: A Resolution Declaring the City's Election to Receive State Revenue. Finance Department June 1, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: The fiscal year 2004-2005 budget includes revenue and disbursements of funds form the State. In order to receive and disburse monies the City Council must elect to receive State revenue. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: Enables the City to receive and disburse State monies like gas and cigare(te tax revenue,, Background: Council annually adopts a resolution electing to receive an apportionment of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services General Fund revenues derived fi'om tax imposed on the sale of liquor as part of State Revenue Sharing. RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES RECITALS: The City must annually adopt a resolution electing to receive an apportionment of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services General Fund revenues derived from tax imposed on the sale of liquor as part of State Revenue Sharing. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Pursuant to ORS 221.770, the City elects to receive state revenues for fiscal year 2004-2005. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only and duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of th~._. City of Ashland on this __ day of June, 2004. Barbara Chri:stensen, City Recorder SIGNED AN[) APPROVED this 'day of June, 2004. Reviewed as to form: Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Paul Nolte, City Attorney A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES I certify that a public hearing before the Budget Committee was held on May 13, 2004 and a public hearing before the city Council was held on June 1,2004, giving citizens an opportunity to comment on use of State Revenue Sharing. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: A Resolution Certifying City Qualifies for State Subventions. Finance Department June 1, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director ~7~/ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator .fi~ Synopsis: The fiscal year 2004-2005 budget includes revenue and disbursements of funds from the State. In order to receive and disburse monies the City Council must certify to the State that it qualifies based upon the services rendered. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: Enables the City to receive and disburse State monies like gas and cigarette tax revenue. Background'. Council certifies this activity by resolution each year prior to adopting a second resolution that elects to receive state funds. This is a necessary step in the 2004-2005 budget process. RESOLUTION 2004- RI=.SOLUTION CERTIFYING CITY PROVIDES SUFFICIENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO QUALIFY FOR STATE SUBVENTIONS RECITALS: A. ORS ;).21.760 provides the City of Ashland may disburse funds from the State if the City provides four or more of the following services: . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Police Protection Fire Protection Street construction, maintenance, lighting Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Planning, zoning and subdivision control One or more utility services B. .City officials recognize the desirability of assisting the state officer.responsible for determining tlhe eligibility of cities to receive such funds in accordance with 221.760. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS .FOLLOWS: The City of Ashland certifies that it provides the following municipal services enumerated in ORS 221.760(1 ): 1. Police Protection 2. Fire Protection 3. Street construction, maintenance, lighting 4. Sanitary Sewer 5. Storm Sewer 6. Planning 7. Electric Distribution 8. Water This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was READ BY TITLE ONLY and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the __ day of June, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AN[) APPROVED this day of June, 2004. Reviewed as to form: Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Paul Nolte, City Attorney