The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-0320 Council Mtg Packet CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject ofa public hearing and the record is closed. Except for public hearings, there is no absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public participation. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair wiUrecognize you and inform you as tothe amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 20, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES V. PPROVAL OF MINUTES [5 minutes} ~. Regular Council meeting minutes of March 6, 2007 . Executive Session Council meeting minutes of March 7, 2007 3. Special Meeting minutes of March 7, 2007 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. RVCOG Year End Review Presentation 2. ACCESS Year End Review Presentation V3. Mayor's Proclamation of March 22, 2007 as, "World Water Day" VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes} 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees 2. Citizen Advisory Committee Interchange Area Management Plan 3. Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 Underground Cable Pulling Trailer 4. Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 12-Yard Dump Trucks - Two (2) LEach yi'5. Cable Television Contract Addendum 6. Declaration and Authorization to Dispose of Surplus Property Cable TV - Digital Set Top Boxes 7. Liquor License Application - Russell Bjerka dba Downtown Poker Club COUNCIL MEEl [NGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.AS1ILAND.OR.US VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC ~2.04.040}) None. 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.) [15 minutes maximum] U FINISHED B Reading of a 'A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ashland Reiterating its olicy of Relating the Expenditure of Monies for Economic and Cultural Development to the Hotel/Motel (Transient Occupancy) Tax and Repealing 4 ~~~~~~i~~/~~:,~;~ t~~:/71u~e:1nutes] ,(~M ~ 3. OSF Paving (''The Bricks") item from Philip Lang [15 Minutes] NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Restaurant Grading System item from John Jory [15 Minutes] ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance Titled "An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected puicials" vi \second Re~itle only of an Ordinance Titled "An Ordinance Amending Sections 10.30.005, 10.30.020 A. and 10.30.03'0 A. of the Ashland Municipal Code . tdoor Burning and Requirements for Permitted Fires" dReading itle only of an Ordinance Titled "An Ordinance Amending As an unlclpal Code Chapter 9.24 to Require Removal and Disposal of Non- Certified Wood stoves and Fireplace Inserts Upon Conveyance of Real Property, J Requiring Disci nd Removal Certification" V 4. Reading of Resolution tit e "A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing for Assesments to e arge Against Lots Within the Nevada Street Local Improvement District No. 85" v{ OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Tripartite Housing Committee Report 2. Request for Council to appeal PA #2006-02354 (as outlined by AMC 18.108.110) 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). COUNC1LME!-:TINGS ARE BROAf)C';\ST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 V1SIT 'TIlE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE: AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 6. ::007 PAGE I oJ7 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 6, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES Mayor Morrison made the following announcements: I) the deadline for submitting recommendations for the James M. Ragland Award is Friday, March 9, 2) the deadline for applications for the annual commission and committee appointment process is Friday, March 16, and 3) the Mayor and City Council will be hosting a public open house and reception in honor of City volunteers on Monday, March 12. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Executive Session Council Meeting of February 20, 2007 and the Regular Council Meeting of February 20,2007 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees. 2. Liquor License Application - Billy Harto dba Thai Pepper. 3. Request for Approval of Y AL Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment. Councilor Jackson/Hardesty mls to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Capital Improvement Plan Program (CIP) and Long Range Financing. Public Works Director Paula Brown presented the staff report and noted the information contained in the packet materials. She stated her presentation would focus on FY08 projects, unless the Council has specific questions about FY07 projects. Ms. Brown provided a presentation on the FY08 proposed CIP, which covered the following topics: · Preliminary process for the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) · CIP Planning Factors · CIP Impacts for FY07 and Goals · CIP Highlights for FY07 · FY08 Proposed CIP · CIP Highlights for FY08 Ms. Brown also presented project descriptions and costs for the FY08-13 Capital Improvement Plans for Transportation, LIDs, Storm Drains, Airport, Water, Wastewater, Electric, AFN/Telecommunications, Technology & City Facilities and Parks. ASHLAND CiTY COUNCiL A1EETlNG MARCH 6. :;007 PAGE 2 oJ7 Ms. Brown clarified the purpose of the Street Financing Task Force is to find ways to sustain long term funding and financing. She stated it is not specific to any fiscal year and will help to bring a recommendation to Council on the levels of improvement, alternative financing options, and ways to increase the amount of funding for transportation projects. Ms. Brown noted the Council has scheduled a meeting in April to discuss the LID process and stated staff is looking for policy direction from Council in order to determine priority on the proposed LID projects. Councilor Hartzell requested North Main Street in regards to bicycle and pedestrian safety be placed on the list for consideration for future projects. Ms. Brown commented that distribution reservoirs allow the system to balance itself. She stated the reservoirs will allow every sector of the system to have the pressure, flow, and turnover that is needed. Ms. Brown clarified staff does not anticipate spending the $925,000 allocated for Loop Road Reservoir and Crowson II in FY08 and noted staff is looking into better options to provide water at the higher elevations. Electric Director Dick Wanderscheid commented on the Electric CIP projects and clarified the three undergrounding projects are Oak Knoll, Greenmeadows, and Quiet Village subdivisions. He stated all three projects involve moving the direct buried underground lines into conduit. Mr. Wanderscheid explained this is necessary because some of the wire is 40 years old, and it is starting to fail and could cause extended outages. He noted it is more cost effective to fix the lines now before the entire system fails. Ms. Brown clarified the AFNrrelecommunication CIP follows the AFN Business Plan. IT Director Joe Franell explained the underground machine in this CIP is different from equipment used by the Public Works Department. He stated this equipment would allow his staff to hook up to two ends of a piece of fiber, either underground or aerially, and identify where a break or fault in the fiber is. Ms. Brown noted the significant increase in the cost of construction, particularly in metal products. She stated construction costs itself has gone up anywhere from 25%-40% and these significant cost increases in the past 2-3 years has pushed up the cost of construction. She also noted it is difficult for staff to accurately project construction costs each year due to these fluctuations. Councilor Hardesty questioned if these projects would increase utility fees. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg stated there would be an impact utility rates, but the amount is not yet known. He estimated the increase would be approximately 1 %. Public Hearin2 Open: 8:41 p.m. Public Hearin2 Closed: 8:41 p.m. Councilors Chapman and Jackson voiced support for the CIP as presented. Councilor Hardesty offered the following suggestions: 1) move the Laurel Street sidewalk project up, especially if the City is able to obtain grant funding, 2) prioritize the Miscellaneous Sidewalk Improvement Projects in such a way that sidewalks used by children walking to school are moved up the schedule, 3) move the Sheridan/Schofield, Plaza, and Beach Street LIDs back to FY09, and 4) include Fire Station #2 in the facility planning for space needs for the police parking lot and the police station remodel. Councilor Hardesty suggested is may be possible for the police station and fire station to share some common facilities. Councilor Navickas noted the library funding issue and suggested they consider deferring some of the projects in order to keep fees from increasing. He proposed deferring the repaving of B Street, consolidating the STP/MPO funds, and funding the A Street project. He also requested staff come up with a better plan for use ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL A1EETING ii/ARCH 6, ::007 PAGE 3 of7 of the CMAQ funds. Councilor Navickas stated he does not support purchasing water rights from another drainage and suggested the City implement stronger conservation methods instead. Ms. Brown commented on the suggestions offered by Council. She stated the Council would need to make a policy decision regarding the use of the CMAQ funds, and in regards to deferring the B Street project, staff will need to do analysis and make sure the A and B Street funds from the MPO can be combined. She also stated she could move the Laurel Street project into the FY08 budget. Councilor Hartzell suggested differing any significant building changes or improvements that are budgeted for this year until a space needs plan has been completed. She also suggested staff re-examine the computer replacement schedule. She voiced her support for moving the Laurel Street project up and thanked Ms. Brown for adding a N. Main Street project to the list. Ms. Brown noted the N. Main Street bike and pedestrian improvements would come back to Council as part of the TSPF. She noted at the earliest, they would see this included in next years CIP discussion. Ms. Brown summarized the suggestions offered by Council and stated the one tangible suggestion is moving the Laurel Street project up one year to the FY08 budget. City Administrator Martha Bennett noted they would also move the police station remodel and parking lot off to an out year. Ms. Brown noted they would need to have discussion and make a decision for the A and B Street projects and stated staff will bring back information prior to the budget meeting. Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve the CIP as presented with a modification that the facility improvement for police station and parking lot be held until the completion of the space needs study; that staff examine other ways to fund the Laurel Street sidewalks project in FY07/08; and that staff return to the Council prior to the Budget Committee with options for alternatives to paving A & B Streets. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas voiced his concern that the changes would increase the CIP budget for next year. Staff clarified they would be looking into a grant for the Laurel Street sidewalk project. Comment was made voicing support for having the facilities study completed before they start putting off important needs. Additional comment was made noting that each individual LID will still come before Council to receive approval before moving forward. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty, Chapman and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. Mr. Tuneberg noted staff would provide a council communication that addresses the affects of these changes as well as the issue of rate increases and what financing will be required for the CIP projects. PUBLIC FORUM Ambuja Rosen/Stated there is a lot of compassion in Ashland for homeless people, but not for animals left out in the cold. She stated the proposed anti-tethering ordinance gives animals the ability to drink when they are thirsty, includes a requirement for a tip proof water supply, a tethering and crating limit, and gives them the ability to sleep on material that shields them from the cold. Ms. Rosen noted that three of the councilors have indicated they are opposed to the ordinance. She noted the thousands of residents who have signed her petition asking the City to heavily restrict the tethering of animals at their home and requested the Council consider this petition in their decision. Pam Vavra/2800 Dead Indian Memorial Road/Noted the senate bill to mandate fluoridation that would prohibit cities from enforcing resolutions to the contrary, died in committee. She also commented on HB2761 regarding Instant Runoff Voting, which is supported by State Representative Peter Buckley, and requested the City send a letter in support of this bill. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL A1EETING MARCH 6, ;;007 PAGE 40/7 Art Bullock/Claimed the Records Request Form the City is using is illegal and stated that under ORS 192 the City lacks authority to ask the questions on the form. He also stated the copyright agreement on the back of the form is also inappropriate. Mr. Bullock requested the Council put this issue on their agenda and make a policy decision to stop the use of this form. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Proposed Revised Charter Language. City Administrator Martha Bennett explained if the Council wishes to move toward placing the charter on the May ballot, they will need to pass two resolutions adopting the ballot titles at tonight's meeting. She noted at this point in the process, the Council could add language to the charter only if it is consistent with the question, statement, and summary that was previously adopted. Ms. Bennett stated the language from the current charter regarding Lithia Park could be included at this point; however the changes proposed by Councilor Hartzell could not be added and still make the May ballot. She further explained any language not in the existing charter would require a change to the ballot title and would result in missing the May election. Ms. Bennett stated Council has three options: 1) consider the Lithia Park change, adopt the two resolutions, and proceed to the May ballot, 2) decide they want all of the issues in the packet to be vetted and place the charter on a different election, or 3) decide they do not want to move forward with the charter at all. Ms. Bennett did not recommend the Council consider Option 3, and requested if Option 2 is chosen, that they identifY an election date. She also suggested if Option 2 is chosen that they request members of the Charter Review Committee to provide a citizen review of the language. Ms. Bennett clarified the City received a legal challenge to the language of both ballot titles. She stated this matter should be adjudicated fairly rapidly, but does not know that it will be resolved prior to the March 15 deadline. City Attorney Mike Franell commented that he does not recall the Charter Review Committee discussing whether the restriction on disposing Lithia Park should be removed. Because of this, he has recommended this provision be included in the proposed charter, and stated in doing so, they should also include the language from the existing charter that permits the City to lease to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. He noted he has also recommending adding a sentence in Section 48( d), which provides the City will provide for the continued management of the city parks. Councilor Navickas expressed his concern that they are making significant changes at the last minute that could be legally challenged and stated it is in their best interest to postpone this to the November ballot. He added there are items in the charter that still need to be clarified, including the issues raised by Councilor Hartzell. Councilor Hartzell noted the memo she had submitted and questioned ifher suggestion for the water language would be considered a significant change. Mr. Franell clarified the language implementing a restriction on the number of gallons is a significant change. John Enders/367 Bridge Street/Co-chair of the Charter Review Committee/Stated the Committee worked very hard to keep individual political agendas out of the charter; however since this has come to Council that has fallen by the wayside. Mr. Enders stated so many of the Committee's proposed amendments have been ignored that the current proposed charter is not what the Committee proposed. He stated they may be rushing things and recommended the Council not force this through at the last minute. Mr. Enders added that reconstituting the Charter Review Committee would be difficult. Susan Rust/42 North Wightman Street/Noted she has followed and participated in the charter review process and stated the process worked well and the Charter Review Committee reported back to the Council in good faith. She noted this issue was shelved once it reached the Council and it was a new Council by the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL AIEETING itfARCH 6, 2007 PAGE 5 of7 time they started discussing it. She stated the whole process has gotten off track and hopes there is a way to somehow salvage this. Pam Vavra12800 Dead Indian Memorial Road/Concurred that the Charter Review Committee put an enormous amount on work into this and stated it is a shame that the charter has not gone forward as they intended. Ms. Vavra assured the Council that her interest is not whether the charter and amendment passes, but rather that the voters are adequately informed through the ballot statement, caption, questions and summary as to the content of the measures on which they are voting. Art Bullock/Stated the charter is not ready for the ballot and questioned how the Council could consider changing language when this is now under the Courts jurisdiction. Mr. Bullock stated the ballot title language that has already been submitted to the City's Election Officer is very different from the change proposed by staff. He stated there is not enough time to make these substantial changes and stated this issue deserves the best that the Council can produce. Mr. Franell clarified the City has published the ballot titles, and the title for the city manager amendment indicates that it would be applicable to either the revised charter or the existing charter. Because of this, they have to take them both forward or neither forward. Councilor Jackson/Chapman mls to move forward with both resolutions and the proposed language as adopted at the February 20, 2007 Council Meeting. Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas shared his concern that this version of the revised charter will not be approved by the voters. Councilor Silbiger shared his concern with postponing this to a subsequent election and noted the November ballot will likely have less voter turn out. He voiced support for moving forward with the May election and suggested that the individuals who challenged the language will continue to do so if they do not get everything they want. Councilor Hartzell stated the charter deserves more attention than they have been able to give it. She noted the suggestions she brought forward and stated more work needs to be done on the charter. Councilor Hardesty voiced support for having the Charter Review Committee review the current draft. She voiced her disappointment in having to put this off, but stated it may be necessary to gain approval by the voters. Mr. Franell clarified under state law, there are strict restrictions about the disposal of park land. Mayor Morrison voiced his support for the proposed charter and noted the arguments that have come forward are over the ballot language, not the document itself. He voiced his support in the voters to be able to determine whether the proposed charter adequately serves as a guiding document for the community and suggested the Council move this ahead. Mr. Franell clarified the two resolutions do not need to be read in full, but can be read by title only. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Jackson, and Chapman, YES. Councilor Navickas, Hardesty, and Hartzell, NO. Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3. Councilor Jackson/Chapman mls to approve a Resolution titled "A Resolution ofthe City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, Proposing and submitting to the voters ofthe City of Ashland the adoption of a charter amendment to change the form of government from a mayor/council form of government to a council/manager form of government and calling for an election." [Resolution 2007-06J Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger, and Chapman, YES. Councilor Navickas, Hardesty, and Hartzell, NO. Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3. ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL MEET/NG MARCH 6. ::007 PAGE 6017 Councilor Silbiger/Chapman mls to approve a Resolution titled "A Resolution ofthe City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, Proposing and submitting to the voters ofthe City of Ashland the adoption of a revised charter and calling for an election." [Resolution 2007-07J Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, and Jackson, YES. Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty, and Navickas, NO. Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3. 2. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ashland Reiterating its Policy of Relating the Expenditure of Monies for Economic and Cultural Development to the Hotel/Motel (Transient Occupancy) Tax and Repealing Resolution 2004-32." Item delayed due to time constraints. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. OSF Paving (the bricks) item from Philip Lang. Item delayed due to time constraints. 2. Discussion of Reallocation of Unused Portion of Economic and Cultural Development Grant in FY 2006-2007. Item delayed due to time constraints. 3. Emergency Shelter Policy. Item delayed due to time constraints. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance Titled "An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected Officials". Item delayed due to time constraints. 2. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance Titled "An Ordinance Amending Sections 10.30.005, 10.30.020 A. and 10.30.030 A. of the Ashland Municipal Code Addressing Outdoor Burning and Requirements for Permitted Fires". Councilor JacksonlNavickas mls to approve first reading of ordinance and move to second reading to prohibit open burning in the City of Ashland using Option #1 as proposed by staff. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman stated he could not support the motion and stated they need to include only the wildfire hazard zone and should also make it difficult to obtain a burning permit in the other zones. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Navickas, Hardesty, Jackson, and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1. 3. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance Titled "An Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 9.24 to Require Removal and Disposal of Non-Certified Woodstoves and Fireplace Inserts Upon Conveyance of Real Property, Requiring Disclosure and Removal Certification". Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to approve first reading of ordinance with staff Option #1 and move to second reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger, Navickas, Chapman, and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor Morrison noted Councilor Jackson has requested permission to visit Washington, D.C. in April to lobby on behalf of the City of Ashland and the Ashland United Front. Councilor Hartzell requested they look at the Council budget and how this opportunity has been distributed over the years. Councilor Hardesty stated she would like to discuss a possible change to the Affordable Housing project. Councilor Jackson noted she ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 6. 2007 PAGE 70f7 would welcome Hardesty's input prior to her trip. City Administrator Martha Bennett noted they could discuss Councilor's Hartzell request when the Council discusses the Mayor/Council budget at their next Study Session. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, March 7, 2007 Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meting to order at 6:59 p.m. Councilors Hartzell, Silbiger, Jackson, Navickas and Jackson were present. Councilor Chapman was not present. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Discussion of Executive Session decision. Councilors Hartzell/Hardesty mls to approve the negotiation team with Mt. Ashland Association as City Administrator Martha Bennett, Mayor John Morrison, Legal Counsel Jens Schmidt, Councilor Hartzell and Council Jackson. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor CiTY COUNCiL STUDY SESSION MARCH 5, 2007 PAGE J of3 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 5, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Council Chair Silbiger called the Study Session to order at 5:20 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger, and Chapman were present. Councilor Hartzell arrived at 5:25 p.m. Mayor Morrison was absent. 1. Look Ahead Review. City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Look Ahead and noted this document is constantly changing. She noted the Green Fleet and Mayor/Council Budget will be presented at the March 19 Study Session; and the March 20 Council Meeting with include the year end reports from Rogue Valley Council of Governments and Access Inc., appointments to the ODOT Citizen Advisory Committee, the restaurant grading system, a report from Community Development Director David Stalheim on priorities and the Zucker Report work, expansion of sewer service to Willow Winds, and a resolution setting the date for the final assessment of the Nevada Street LID. 2. Discussion of a Proposed Bear Creek TMDL. Public Works Director Paula Brown introduced Bill Meyers with the Department of Environmental Quality. Ms. Brown noted the three primary impacts of the TMDL for Ashland are: 1) temperature limitations for the wastewater treatment plant, 2) non-point source bacteria in Ashland Creek, and 3) sediment to Reeder Reservoir. Mr. Meyers provided a presentation to the Council on the Bear Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and its impacts on Ashland. The following are the key points from his presentation: · Current data indicates over 300 miles of creeks within the Bear Creek Watershed do not meet the water quality standards. · In Ashland, the focus is temperature, bacteria, and sedimentation. · The temperature standards that apply are 180 Celsius from May 16 to October 14, and 130 Celsius from October 15 to May 15. · The temperature issues for Ashland include: 1) increasing riparian shade, 2) the treatment plant discharge temperatures are too high during the summer months, and 3) developing a water quality implementation plan. · The implementation plan should include detail methods to prevent bacteria loading in local creeks. · The sedimentation standard that applies is "no significant increased delivery of sediment to Reeder Reservoir above that which would occur naturalIy is allowed". · The Bear Creek TMDL process is currently at the 60 day public comment period, which ends Friday, March 9, 2007. · The City will be required to submit their implementation plan within 18 months after the EP A approves the TMDL. CfTY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION .MARCH 5, 2007 PAGE 2 (~n Mr. Meyers noted that it is difficult to pin point the exact sources of bacteria in the watershed. He commented that the TMDL is a shared responsibility and noted the other jurisdictions in the Bear Creek Watershed are either in the process of writing plans, will need to write plans, or have already submitted plans. Councilor Navickas noted the Montgomery Study and briefly noted his concerns with the Ski Area's treatment plant. Ms. Brown clarified that staff provided initial comments during the internal review period and, pending Council discussion, had not planned on submitting additional comments. 3. Discussion of Proposed Electric Rate Increase & BP A Surchar2e Elimination. Electric Director Dick Wanderscheid provided a brief history on why the City has a BPA surcharge. He noted staff had previously recommended that the electric rates be raised, however after review, staff is now recommending no change be made to the electric rates or the BP A surcharge for this fiscal year. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg submitted an Electric Fund spreadsheet to the Council and commented on the assumptions that were used. He noted they are meeting the target fund balance for this fund and will come close to meeting the revenue stream as long as customers continue to consume energy as normal. Mr. Tuneberg noted the general fund already has a higher amount than the target and it is not necessary to raise rates to benefit the electric fund. Mr. Wanderscheid commented on the three mechanisms BPA might utilize during the next three year period if they need more revenue, which include a CRAC, a NFB Charge, or an Emergency Fish Surcharge. He stated that with all three mechanisms, the City would have advance warning and would have time adjust rates or spending practices if need be. Mr. Wanderscheid stated that staff would continue to analyze numbers and stated he is optimistic that the City can postpone raising rates for another year or two. 4. Review of Re2ular Meetin2 A2enda for March 6. 2007. City Administrator Martha Bennett asked each councilor to identify which agenda items they have questions on, and to list those questions for staff so that they can be prepared to provide answers at tomorrow night's meeting. Councilor Hartzell stated she has questions regarding the Charter situation, Councilor Navickas stated he has questions on the Transient Occupancy Tax and the Capital Improvement Plan, and Councilor Chapman noted he has a question about the Open Burning Ordinance. City Charter Language Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello noted staff had received a ballot title challenge that was filed in Circuit Court. He explained the Court will review the language for compliance and noted the Judge could decide to write his own version of the language. He clarified the City will be summoned to court within the next day or two and this should not have an impact with the timing of the measure. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified if the Council decided to change the language that was adopted at their last meeting, there would not be sufficient time to re-notice and have the language placed on the May ballot. Open Burning Ordinance Councilor Chapman requested staff clarify at tomorrow's meeting where the inaccessible acres mentioned in the staff memo are located. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION !vfARCH 5, 2007 PAGE 3 of3 Transient Occupancy Tax Councilor Navickas requested clarification on the minimum amount that is required to be spent on tourism. City Administrator Martha Bennett directed the Council to the TOT Grant Allocation Worksheet and the Economic and Cultural Grant Allocation information included in their packet materials. She clarified $218,000 is the minimum amount needed to be spent on tourism and $22,500 of that amount needs to be spent by the other grantees. Comment was made that it would be helpful for the Council to know what other communities have done to allocate these monies. Capital Improvement Plan Councilor Navickas questioned if the PMS STP/MPO transportation projects could be consolidated. Public Works Director Paula Brown clarified the City could aggregate the funds to one and reapply on the second project. She added this could be done fairly easily for the A and B Street projects. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:00p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 2007 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: RICHARD HENDRICKSON, PAUL WESTERMAN, BOB SKINNER, TOM BRADLEY, RUSS SILBIGER, LINCOLN ZEVE, BILL SKILLMAN, GOA LOBAUGH STAFF: DAWN LAMB MEMBERS ABSENT: ALAN DEBOER Visitors: Kyle Hopkins, Glen Ward, Kirby Mills, Burl Brim and Joanne Krippaehne 1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 9,2007, minutes approved as written. 3. Public Forum: 4. OLD BUSINESS: A. Burl Brim Development Burl Brim addressed the commission on the recent proposals he has submitted to the commission. The parking lot to fulfill the planning requirement proposed last meeting is still a contention. He is unagreeable with the 90 day eviction clause to remove the parking lot if a bonafide offer to build on that footprint is received. If someone is going to build there is one remaining lot on the end of the row and there would still be a need for parking. This lot would meet the planning requirements for the end lot as wellas Brim's lot. Since the lots have been available in the current state for nearly ten years and no one has built, this could be a delayed decision for quite a long time. Brim also felt that by reducing the parking lot to half the size creates a hardship for his business. He needs area to be able to park some of his larger equipment near the maintenance hangar. There will also be training for short haul and fire training. Brim feels strongly about having customer parking adjacent to the building. Skinner said that the concern for the original 22 spaces being added to a parking lot off the taxiway would be the increase of vehicles on a taxiway and the increasing conflicts between the vehicles and aircraft. The inclusion of parking was not the problem as long as the employees and people using the parking lot were aircraft savvy. Skinner would like to encourage any non-essential drivers to park at the FBO office parking lot. Zeve commented that the area is a prime development area for the airport and one of the few that is build ready. If Brim wants to build the parking lot, he is willing to pay for the entire footprint as at the going lease rate. In the future there are plans for more parking and the missing piece is the trigger for making the parking lot a reality. There needs to be a clear plan for what and when the parking area will need to be constructed. The logical timing would be with the addition of commercial development to the north of the Sky Research hangar. To save the available building sites the commission felt the 90 day removal clause was a safety net to continue development. Bradley felt that in all practicality, the planning process would be much longer than 90 days and would give Brim more time to work with the potential developer. There may be a way to work a refundable deposit for the parking lot. Brim estimates that the costs will be about $40,000 for the parking lot and he would want to build it to City standards. Brim would want to own the parking lot and would want to be under the higher lease rate. The lease would amortorize for 25 years then revert to the city. This would make the cost pencil out for Brim. Hendrickson still feels strongly about the need to protect the taxiway from the vehicle incursions. The idea of traffic increasing on the taxiway does not fit well with him. He is very apprehensive about agreeing to the parking lot. Brim's employees have been very gracious and conscientious to the aircraft C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Feb 6 2007 AC.doc 1 on the taxiway. They have been great neighbors. Kirby Mills addressed the commission about changes on the sizes of the hangars and on the parking area. Zeve thought about the time when the Skinner parking between the maintenance hangar and the Sky Research hangar will no longer be available. If that happens prior to the building of any commercial parking lots then he sees a good reason to build the parking lot. As long as it is understood that it is temporary and could be temporary for a long time, it could be a needed necessity. The temporary could last for years at the rate of development at the airport. Bradley restated that the continuing goal is to keep the vehicular access and the aircraft patterns separated. The master plan calls out for a change to the Airport Road to redirect it to the planned parking lot. Brim talked to Jim Olson about the dirt area next to the new T -hangars and the area behind his existing hangar. Brim would like to excavate the area behind the hangar to add some additional parking. Olson said if Brim can excavate the dirt to the taxiway standard it would be helpful to the City. Brim will pave the area next to the T -hangars and will ensure that the cars are kept 39 feet from the taxiway centerline. Skillman was agreeable to this idea. Bradley was confident a substitution clause in the lease could be useful to help with the parking lot. Zeve agreed that when the new parking lot is constructed this parking lot could be reconsidered for its usefulness. The need for parking is one that will be brought up with each new proposed development. If the commission can be agreeable to this addition as temporary there may be other developers who are saved a lot of hassle. Could a compromise to handle the traffic incursions be met to support this development. Brim understood the concern the commission had regarding the increase of the incursions. Zeve is supportive of the addition for Brim. Hendrickson felt he could support the new parking if the eight new spots were created behind the hangar and over by the new hangars and the proposed parking lot is cut in half. Lobaugh asked if there was anyway to do an access road down from the Airport Road. The slope is too steep to make it a viable road connection. Krippaehne asked for one other item to be addressed. There is a new building code which requires the distance from a radiant heat source at the ceiling level be equal to the distance from the floor to the top of the wing of an aircraft. To accommodate the helicopter the height of the hangar would need to be 24 feet. The problem with this is that the existing Airport Overlay Zone from the planning department does not allow a structure to be over 20 feet high which is four feet short of meeting the building code requirement. There will need to be another variance and this is something to be addressed during the variance drafting. Action: Bradley motioned to enter into lease negotiations to build the proposed hangar and parking lot subject to aircraft and traffic mitigation plan and substitution clause triggered by traffic conflicts. Seconded by Hendrickson and vote passed unanimously. Bradley motioned for the commission acknowledging support of the 4 foot addition to the 20 foot high hangar to meet the building code. Seconded by Hendrickson and the vote passed unanimously. B. Lindler Development Update References are being called on from other airports that have worked with Lindler. Lindler was contacted by email to see ifhe had any information he wanted included in today's meeting. Directions and clear communication will help to ensure that the project is completed smoothly and equitably. To keep the development moving, it may be wise to consider limiting the development area. For a developer, the cost is up front to install all the infrastructure needed to develop the marketable portions of the development. The Commission is familiar with the cost and the excavation that will be necessary to put in the taxiway to accommodate the hangars. Action: Bradley motioned for a subcommittee be formed to study look at the potential of hangar development with Alan DeBoer as acting chair. While the commission supported the idea, the funding is not available for the City to complete their own development. We are currently paying down debt service for the T- C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Feb 6 2007 AC.doc 2 hangars that were constructed. There could be some marketing put together to advertise the areas available for other developers. Hendrickson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Strategic Plan Assignments Item will be removed from agenda until further actions are assigned. 4. NEW BUSINESS: A. Review of Call Procedure for Hangar Waiting List The Commissioners discussed options to help Skinner staff expedite the procedure for contacting potential hangar occupants. Below is the current policy from Skinner staff: Our current procedure for the hangar waiting list is that there is a $50 deposit to be put on the waiting list. If at any time the person decides to be removed from the list, $35 is refunded to them. When a person gets a hangar, $45 of the deposit is applied toward the first month's rent. Each person on the waiting list gets 2 refusals before they are moved to the bottom of the list. People are called according to either the date they paid their deposit, or the date of their second refusal. Currently, there are 8 people on the "Either" waiting list (meaning they will consider both open and closed hangars) and 27 people on the "Closed Only" waiting list. I believe at this time that only one person on the "Either" list would even consider taking any kind of hangar. As for the "Closed Only" waiting list, there are 13 people who have refused hangars multiple times in the past 3 years and I don't think they will take a hangar in the near future. Some of these people have been on the waiting list for over 10 years. Each time I have an available hangar, I have to call each person on the list, in order. Some of these people ask me why I'm calling them because they simply don't recall being on the waiting list. I ask each time I call them whether they would like to continue to be on the waiting list, or if they would like a refund of their money. Most respond by stating that they'll stay on the list "just in case" their situation changes. Filling a hangar can take weeks because I have to wait to hear back from some people I leave messages for. I call each person twice if I don't reach them, and give them 48 hours to return my call. While I'm waiting to hear from them, I cannot call anyone below them on the list in the off chance they decide to take the hangar. What I propose to remedy this situation is to make the $50 deposit non-refundable and good for only two refusals. Once the person has refused a hangar twice, they lose their deposit and have to pay $50 again to be put at the bottom of the list. The only time there is a refund given is when the person rents a hangar, and then it is applied to the first month's rent. This would save a lot of time and perhaps keep only those serious about wanting a hangar on the list. It would also make accounting easier for both Skinner Aviation and the City of Ashland, as we would not be passing money back and forth when the funds are received and again when they are refunded to people. Currently, Skinner Aviation keeps only $5 of the deposit, and often times the accounting time is worth much more than that. We also propose that the hangar waiting list portion of the monthly report be removed and Skinner Aviation will maintain the waiting list. Skinner keeps the $50 deposit when it is received, and the City receives their $45 portion of that deposit when a hangar is rented. Please discuss this with the Airport Commission and let me know what your decision is. I will then send a letter to each person on the waiting list advising them of the changes to the policy. Please call me should you have any questions. Discussion: Lobaugh suggested that after two refusals for an open hangar, they be removed from the list and that the fee for being on the list be increased to $100 to $200 that is credited to their first month's rent. Zeve agreed that people that have been on the list for years and keep refusing a hangar are taking advantage. The cost to contact them, and then to wait for their response back which could take days is unfair to someone who truly is ready and wants the hangar. The process is taking too much time for the Skinner staff and costing money in long distance calls and costing rent income while it remains open. Zeve suggested putting out announcements on the website or by email. Lobaugh felt that somehow the responsibility should be on the person on the list. Skillman commented that turnover for the hangars are sometimes slow. The maintenance is on Skinner and if a reasonable attempt is made and a reasonable amount of time has passed you move onto the next person. If not available when called then there C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Feb 62007 AC.doc 3 shouldn't be hard feelings when the opportunity is missed. Skinner feels that ten days is long time for contacting ten people. There is typically a thirty day notice that someone is planning to vacate. A notice could be sent out at that time or posted on the website. The people could then contact back to Skinner Aviation that they are interested and if they are the senior person on the list out of all the respondents, they get the hangar. Then a phone call could also be made, but after that point a reasonable attempt has been made twice. Hendrickson said that people who have been on the list for years and years need to either remove themselves or take a hangar. Action: Hendrickson motioned to adopt the policy presented by Skinner Aviation for the person on the waiting list to receive two calls before they are removed from the list; if they voluntarily remove themselves from the list, they receive a refund. Lobaugh wanted to be sure people already on the list had a chance to either stay on the list but have to pay the new rate. Renee McCoy's time is worth lots and this is a revenue generator when it is done expediently. Silbiger amended the motion to increase the reservation fee from $50 to $100 with no grandfather clause. This will clean up the list to reflect people serious about being in a hangar. One email is considered a call and two emails with no response is the same as two calls. Then the person is removed from the list. Keep the open hangar and the closed hangars on separate lists and make sure the website is updated. The commission also asked for the new policy to be written out on the reservation form. Seconded by Lobaugh. Skinner will write up policy and have it reviewed by the Commission. Vote passed unanimously. B. Draft E-l Planning Requirement - Draft Variance Need for subcommittee set up date. Lamb has been scouring the internet to find other examples of airport overlays to use for comparison. Lamb would like to have a set of guidelines for the committee. 5. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORTIFBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION: A. Status of Airport, Financial Report, Review of Safety Reports The weather has been inclement and the activity has been slow. There was a robbery at the FBO office that has been resolved. B. Maintenance Updates - Tree trimming will be going out to bid in the next month. 6. OTHER: 1. Glen Ward, adjacent property owner, asked for the commission to establish more control over the helicopter operations at the airport. The FBO office has been aware of most activity and does discourage flights from taking place in front of Ward's house. The operations have been getting close to his fence and he calls the FBO office for help. Skinner will continue to have some due diligence in keeping the flights away from Ward's property. As a public airport, the FAA will not prohibit helicopters from operating and the office does turn in pilots who are operating unsafely. They will continue to work with Ward to keep situations to a minimum. 2. Hendrickson wanted to be sure if the Oak Knoll Golf Course is turned into low income housing as it has been discussed in the paper, then they must be aware they are in the noise overlay zone. A letter could be drafted from Commission to the Housing commission stating the concern. 7. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 61\ 2007, 9:30 AM ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11 :30 AM C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Feb 62007 AC.doc 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - Chair Faye Weisler called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present SOU Liaison Faye Weisler, Chair Sunny Lindley, absent BillS treet Jennifer Henderson Aaron Beniamin Council Liaison Liz Peck Cate Hartzell, present Don Mackin Steve Hauck Carol Voisin Staff Present Absent Members Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist No absent members APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Peck/Street m/s to approve the minutes of the October 16,2006 meeting. The minutes were approved. PUBLIC FORUM ALAN DEBOER, 2265 Morada Lane, said ICCA is scheduled to open on December 1, 2006 at the old Handyman Store on Ashland Street, near Bi-Mart. It has always been DeBoer's hope that the proceeds of the sale of the City owned Strawberry Lane property would be given to the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) for purchase of the Handyman site to provide a permanent home for ICCA. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS 117 Garfield Street. Condominium Conversion Peck recused herself from the review. Hauck noted that he works for a non-profit and Tom Giordano is the architect on one of their projects. He is not recusing himself, but noting it for the record. TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, agent for the applicant introduced Bill Koenigsberg, 1395 Ponderosa. Giordano said this is a ten- unit apartment complex built in 1972. They are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to convert the units to condominiums. Three units will be affordable. They have not had a pre-application conference with the planning staff, but have proposed minimal upgrades in order to keep the project affordable. Koenigsberg said he is doing the conversion in order to keep his options open. Ifhe sells the units, he would expect to sell them between $150,000 and $200,000. Giordano added, if the units are sold, they will first be offered to the residents. REPORTS AND UPDATES SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Pre-Application Review Board - Mackin, Benjamin and Street reviewed met and reviewed two pre-apps. The owners of Faith Tabernacle on Faith Avenue were considering a zone change from R-l to R-3 in order to gain more density. They were planning to remove the church in order to develop housing on the property. The review board strongly recommended that the applicants talk to a non-profit organization to gain from their experience in terms of design, layout, financing, etc. on how this project should be presented. Land Use - Mackin, Henderson and Peck met twice to discuss annexation proposals for changes to the ordinance and looked at options for items for consideration by the Housing Commission. They are trying to find a balance between setting the bar high enough for annexations but not setting it too high. Goldman announced a joint study session of the Planning Commission and Housing Commission on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. The topics will include: 1) Housing Authority and 2) Annexation Ordinance. Goldman will notify the City Council of the meeting. Education - Street reported they completed the hour long television program featuring Goldman, Hartzell, Street and Rick Kirshner, talking about the roles, actions and plans of the Housing Commission. Goldman will try to have it put on the City's wehsite and also have copies made Benjamin recommended another show that would include the non-profits. PROJECT UPDATES Rental Needs Analysis - A copy of the proposal is included in the packet from Ferrarini and Associates who were selected from the three proposals submitted. They will begin the analysis in December. The consultants will contact up to 500 households in order to get a sampling of about 250 renters along with doing a market analysis. The Commissioners discussed the consultant's presentation and thought they should consider a presentation of their final report to both the Housing Commission and City Councilor Planning Commission because those meetings are televised and it would be a way for more citizens to hear and understand the results of the analysis. Housing Trust Fund Revenue Sources - Goldman reported that no responses were received from the Request for Qualifications that was sent out. They might want isolate the request to look at the municipal financing side and clarify how much can be put into a housing trust fund through incremental tax increases, document recording fees and other avenues that might be at the City's disposal. COMMISSION OPERATIONS Resignations: Weisler resigned effective December 31, 2006 resulting in the need to elect a new Chair. Henderson will be moving to Cincinnati and her resignation is effective immediately. Election of Chair and Vice Chair - Henderson/V oisin m/s to nominate Bill Street for Chair, effective January I, 2007. Street was elected unanimously. Voisin/Mackin m/s to nominate Liz Peck for Vice Chair. Peck was elected unanimously. SUBCOMMITTEE STRUCTURE Two things are needed for more effective structuring of the subcommittees: 1) Responsible person for making sure the subcommittees meet and 2) Accountability. Chair assignments are needed to make sure the above two items get done. The subcommittees are as follows: [(*) denotes Chair] It was suggested the subcommittees use the last eight minutes of their one hour meetings to recap what the report back to the Housing Commission will be. Finance Steve Hauck * Cate Hartzell Carol Voisin Education Bill Street * Aaron Benjamin Second Monday 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. Next meeting: December 11th Land Use Liz Peck * Don Mackin First Wednesday 5:15 p.m. Next meeting: December 6th Liaisons Cate Hartzell Council Bill Street School Board Aaron Benjamin Planning Steve Hauck Parks Don Mackin Chamber Reminder: A Liaison is not authorized to speak on behalf of the Housing Commission without the approval or vote of the Housing Commission. Second Thursday Noon to 1 :30 p.m. Next meeting: December 14th Pre.Application Review Board. First Thursday. 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Steve Hauck December through February Aaron Benjamin December through January Bill Street December ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by. Sue Yates. Executive Secretary ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2006 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 18, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order by Chair Faye Weisler at 6:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present SOU Liaison Faye Weisler, Chair Sunny Lindley, absent Bill Street Carol Voisin Aaron Benjamin Council Liaison Liz Peck Cate Hartzell, absent Steve Hauck Liz Peck, arrive at 6:55 p.m. Absent Members Staff Present Don Mackin Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The November 20,2006 minutes will be reviewed at the January meeting. PUBLIC FORUM William B Smith, Associate Vice President Resident Education and Services at SOU will speak under New Business. NEW BUSINESS Southern OreQon University Student HousinQ - No report due to Lindley's absence. SOU Master Plan - Goldman said the City and SOU's adopted Masterplan 2010 that identifies some future housing opportunities. A map has been provided in the packet. Ruth Stoddard, Director of Residential Life at SOU, said the University went through a recent internal process of adopting a master plan, however, due to a change in administrators, the document hasn't moved forward. Smith and Stoddard said there are 100 people on the waiting list for family housing. The University is designed to house 1000 students. They usually have about 900 residents. There are the single students to consider and the family housing students _ they have a different set of needs. Nothing is planned for family housing at this time. Smith said he had done a market housing study. Benjamin talked about opportunities for workforce housing. For example, Sky Research, a local company, has talked about mingling a residential and educational opportunity on campus. Some of their technical people could be made available to teach on campus. Stoddard was not aware of Sky Research's interest. Voisin will get the information to Smith and Stoddard. Peck arrived at 6:55 p.m. REPORTS AND UPDATES Subcommittee/Liaison Updates Pre-app Review Board - Two condo conversions were reviewed: 780 VanNess (five units) and 880 Ventura Circle. (four units). The VanNess owner is intending to stay on the property and is going to refinance her property. The Ventura Circle owners asked that in the event they convert all four units to condominiums, is there a mechanism that would allow them to donate the land under the affordable program to the Land Trust? Goldman will follow this to see the steps the developer takes. Land Use - There is a written report in the packet. Finance - There is a written report in the packet. Add Carol Voisin to the Finance Committee as this is Weisler's last meeting. Education - There is a written report in the packet. They are organizing another TV show to take place in February focusing on local non-profits. Liaison Reports Housing Alliance - Goldman reported the Housing Alliance established priority goals for the next legislative session. They will be going forth with a request for a document recording fee ($15 per document) that should generate up to $60 million every two years. They would divide the revenue up primarily for the construction of rental housing with nine percent going to ownership housing. Also, Goldman, Oregon Action, and Jackson County Housing Coalition requested that inclusionary zoning remain on the agenda as it had been previously. Tripartite Group - Street reported that members from School BoardlParks Commission/City Council (referred to as Tripartite Group) will be meeting in January to talk about housing with the idea of keeping the three groups apprised of events and to keep moving forward. Parks - No report. Street shared comments from his phone conversation with Sunny Lindley, SOU Liaison. In general, there seems to be a lack of focus and communication between departments. There is nowhere where those in charge are given any information as to the student's needs with regard to housing. Lindley was not aware of the survey of students. Other Business from Housing Commission Members Two applications have been received by the City Recorder's office. The Mayor could appoint the two new members as early as January 2nd. NEW BUSINESS Annexation Ordinance Development There was recently a joint study session with the Planning Commission focusing on annexations. There were a number of issues raised, three of which are listed here: 1) Occupant qualification - Should different weight be given between rental and ownership? What is the balance we are looking for? 2) Percentage of affordability - What mix (rentaVownership) do we want to establish? The Rental Needs Analysis should help focus. The idea would be to provide a menu of options. Goldman was hoping to invite some developers to the next meeting to talk about the issues of construction phasing and unit type standards. 3) Period of affordability - Private developers have asked about a limited equity appreciation. For example, as a unit increases in value and if it sells at market rate, then the non-profit (or the City) gets their percentage of equity and the purchaser gets their percentage of equity. Different cities have various periods of affordability. There has to be an incentive for buyers too. There will be further discussion on the annexation ordinance at next month's meeting. COMMISSION COORDINATION Reschedule reaular meetina due to holidav conflicts in January and February It was decided the new permanent time for the Housing Commission meeting will be the fourth Wednesday of each month from 5:30 to 7:30 p.rn. at the Council Chambers. Pre-app Review January - Benjamin February and March - Hauck January through March - Peck Future Meetina Aaenda Items Street requested an agenda item for next month: Brainstorm with the Housing Commission the possibility of arranging a joint meeting with the Parks Commission to discuss the possible use of all or part of the golf course land for housing. As preparation, he would ask the Commissioners all read the article about Breckinridge. Other Voisin thanked Weisler for being our leader for the last years. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 18, 2006 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2007 CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Street called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present Bill Street, Chair Liz Peck Carol Voisin Aaron Benjamin Steve Hauck Regina Ayers, new member Richard Billin, new member Absent Members No absent members SOU liaison Sunny Lindley, absent Council liaison Cate Hartzell, absent Staff Present Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist David Stalheim, Community Development Director 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the November 20,2006 meeting and the December 18,2006 meeting were approved. 2. COMMISSIONER WELCOME Street introduced the two newest members of the Housing Commission, Regina Ayars and Richard Billin. He also introduced David Stalheim, Community Development Director. 3. PUBLIC FORUM Anyone wishing to speak concerning the Oak Knoll Golf Course may do so when that item comes up on the agenda. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Annexation Ordinance Development Goldman explained the oversights from the previous annexation ordinance. The revised version should allow for more flexibility concerning the following: a. Flexibility within the income standards b. Construction standards (square footage of affordable housing units) c. Construction timing (when affordable units are developed) d. Percentage of built-out market rate units allowed e. Scattered or clustered development Darcy Strahan, Regional Advisor to the Director Oregon Housing & Community Services was available for questions. She is willing to meet with the Housing Commission when needed. Public Comment: Mark DiRienzo, 320 E. Main, Suite 202, Ashland, land planner and real estate developer made the following points: a. Qualifying applicants - He would like to see the City take an aggressive role in handling the qualification paths. It is daunting for developers. b. Percentage of affordability - Encourage developers with a density bonus. c. He would encourage scattered affordable housing. d. Period of affordability - rental or "for purchase" - don't complicate it. e. Timing of construction - It can be burdensome. f. Cash in lieu of built affordable housing. Goldman will draft ordinance language and bring it back to the Housing Commission for further discussion. The Commission agreed to extend the meeting to 8:00 p.rn. Street finished the other agenda items before going back to Agenda Item 5. 6. REPORTS AND UPDATES - The Reports and Updates are included in the packet. 7. COMMISSION COORDINATION - Street reviewed and there were no comments. 8. FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS - Contact Street if there is anything to add. 5. NEW BUSINESS Discuss potential redevelopment of Oak Knoll Golf Course as "Lithia Park East" and mix of market rate and workforce housing. (Street) At last month's meeting, Street proposed the Commission have a brief discussion about the potential of using the Oak Knoll golf course property for affordable housing and recommended to the Parks Department and City Council that they look at that possibility. This is an idea that has come up a few times over the last couple of years. The Commission reviewed information about Oak Knoll produced by Rich Rosenthal, Chair of the Parks Commission. Rosenthal's report is available on the City's website. Street said a portion of the land could be used for market rate housing, affordable housing and a park. In order to finance such a project, it would take local, state, federal and private funding. This is just one of several properties the Housing Commission is considering. PUBLIC INPUT N = Neutral o = Opposed P = Proponent Ron Roth, 6950 Old Highway 99 S. (N) Suzanne Frey, 1042 Oak Knoll Drive (0) Allen Baker, 1042 Oak Knoll Drive (0) Ron Tracy, 1138 Augusta Court (0) Ronald Corallo, 805 Indiana (0) Dottye D. Nahirny, 2880 Wedgewood lane (0) Jms. Renteria, 614 Oak Knoll Drive (0) Allen Walters, 775 St. Andrews (0) Joanne Johns, 790 Acorn Circle (0) Alice Hardesty, 575 Dogwood Way (P) David Wilkerson, 1120 Barrington Circle (0) Eric Campbell, 768 Park Street (0) Mike Morrison, 737 N. laurel (0) Christina Bagi, 929 Cypress Point loop (0) Tom O'Rourke, 742 Fairway Court (0) George Cota, 4300 Highway 66 (0) Greg lemhouse, 2850 Wedgewood lane (0) Earle Sloan, 816 Roca (0) Jerry Hauck, 847 Garden Way (0) COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION The Commissioners expressed their thanks to those who spoke. The discussion was valuable. Though the neighbors expressed things they were against, there was also an expression of those things they were in favor of such as alternate sites and alternate projects. They heard criticisms of the existing facility as well. The neighbors were encouraged to stay involved. If this item is discussed further, it will be done at a public meeting. No action was taken. Respectfully submitted by. Susan Yates. Executive Secretary ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2007 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - Commissioner Mike Morris called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.rn. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: Mike Morris Tom Dimitre Pam Marsh (stepped down for PA2006- 01548) Melanie Mindlin (for PA2006-01548 only Absent Members: None Council liaison: Kate Jackson, (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner Derek Severson, Associate Planner Angela Barry, Assistant Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary Marsh was present for the Type I Planning Actions. She stepped down and did not participate in the Reconsideration, P A2006-0 1548, 1651 Ashland Street. Mindlin, because she was in attendance at the last meeting, stepped in for the Reconsideration only, PA2006- 01548, 1651 Ashland Street, but did not participate in the Type I Planning Actions. ANNOUNCEMENT - Morris announced that P A-2006-20 14, 531 Lakota Way, had been called up for a public hearing and will not be heard today. And, PA2006-01999 has been postponed and will not be heard today. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Dimitre/Morris m/s to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2006 Hearings Board. Voice Vote: Approved. (Marsh did not vote as she was not present at the meeting of October 10, 2006.) TYPE I PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION #2006-01553 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 280 MAPLE ST. AND 560 CATALINA DR. THE PROPOSAL INVOLVES THE INSTALLATION OF FOUR NEW SIGNS TO REPLACE SIX EXISTING EXTERIOR GROUND SIGNS, RESULTING IN A NET REDUCTION IN THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIGNAGE. THE SIGNS ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE DIRECTIONS TO THE PARKING AND ENTRIES. APPLICANT: ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION #2006-01786 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL SITE AND BUILDING (FORMERLY TRINITY LANES BOWLING ALLEY) LOCATED WITHIN THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE AT 1505 SISKIYOU BLVD. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION WOULD INCLUDE EXTERIOR UPGRADES TO THE EXISTING BUILDING, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING, AND WOULD CREATE FIVE RETAIL TENANT SPACES AND ONE RESTAURANT TENANT SPACE. THE DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO DETAIL SITE REVIEW AND LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. APPLICANT: MEISTER The Commissioners discussed the deferral of the sidewalk improvement. They were concerned that it might not ever get improved if a new building isn't built on the site. Harris said if the sidewalk improvement is deferred, there would be an opportunity to design the sidewalk around the new building and perhaps locate a public space or plaza space in front of a potential new building. Dimitre moved to call this action up for a public hearing as he did not feel the burden of proof had been met by the applicant with regard to the Site Design issues. The motion died for lack of a second. This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02017 REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE REVIEW AT 180 CLEAR CREEK DR. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE. THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL ALLOWED CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING BELOW, AND INCLUDED AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) LIMIT IS TYPICALLY 0.50 AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE ALLOWED AN FAR OF 0.66. THE MODIFICATION PROPOSED HERE WOULD RECONFIGURE THE INTERIOR SPACE TO ALLOW THREE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS WHERE ONLY TWO WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, AND MINOR EXTERIOR CHANGES WOULD BE MADE TO ENTRIES, DOORS AND WINDOWS TO REFLECT THE INTERIOR RECONFIGURATION. NO INCREASE IN THE BUILDING SIZE OR FLOOR AREA IS PROPOSED WITH THIS MODIFICATION. APPLICANT: NEAL KINZIEIWEST VISTA COMMUNICATIONS Harris noted an e-mail that the Commission received from Colin Swales. This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION #2006-01507 REQUEST FORA MINOR LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO SINGLE-FAMILY PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 805 HILLVIEW DR. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED SEVEN FOOT PARKROW BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET ON THE HILLVIEW DR. PROPERTY FRONTAGE. APPLICANT: LARRY KELLEMS/GARY SMITH This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02014 REQUEST FORA MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATION AT 531 LAKOTA WAY. THE BUILDING ENVELOPE MODIFICATION REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE FROM 20 FEET TO 10 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DRIVEWAY LOCATION. APPLICANT: RON MARCHETTI/STERLING GATE DESIGN This action was called up for a public hearing by a neighbor. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02025 REQUEST FOR A FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN 11-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION, CHAPTER 18.88 LOCATED AT 31 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. APPLICANT: ARCHERD & DRESNER LLC This action stands approved. RECONSIDERATION OF A PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 2006-01548 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REACHED AT THE OCTOBER 10, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MEETING ON A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE REVIEW (PA2005-01673) FOR A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1651 ASHLAND ST., WITHIN THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONSIDER THE AFFORDABILlTY REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO NON-MANDATORY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. APPLICANT: KIRT MEYER Marsh left the meeting and Mindlin stepped up to participate. STAFF REPORT Severson reminded the Commissioners that during the last month's meeting, the applicant agreed to provide four affordable units, two units to be subject to the affordability requirements under the current standard and two under the previous standard that was in affect under their initial approval in December, 2005. After the meeting, the applicant met with the City's Housing Specialist and determined that he did not believe that those affordable requirements would serve the project and would probably threaten the liability of the project. After talking to the applicant, Staff felt it would be a more efficient use of staff time and potentially the Council, if this group would be willing to reconsider their decision from the last meeting. The applicant has provided a written request for reconsideration. It was noticed as a public hearing. The Hearings Board is not required to re-visit this. The Assistant City Attorney believes the bases have ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES 2 been covered as far as noticing. The Commission can opt to reconsider and open the public hearing, or they can opt not to reconsider, but still open the public hearing and give the public an opportunity to speak. Staff feels the Commission needs to look at the possibility of whether requiring the applicant to provide those two additional affordable units will jeopardize the project and cost the two affordable units that are required by ordinance. RICHARD APPICELLO, Assistant City Attorney, said the Hearings Board made a tentative oral decision at the last meeting. They will be asked to make a final written decision today. Between the oral decision and the final decision, they received information asking for a reconsideration. The meeting was advertised in order to give an opportunity for rebuttal. MORRIS RE.OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING Ex Parte Contacts - Dimitre, Morris and Mindlin stated that he read through all the information in the packet and read the e-mail from Swales. PUBLIC HEARING KIRT MEYER, said he did a feasibility study based upon today's market as opposed to last year when the project was approved. He handed it out to the Hearings Board members. The housing market has taken a sharp decline in the last year. They are showing about a $50,000 decrease in projected income per unit. He believes anyone who would qualify for a $242,000 loan wouldn't be interested in investing in an affordable unit because it is based on the appreciation of the median income in Oregon (typically three percent) and secondly it is locked into affordability for 30 years. COLIN MULANE, 133 Wagner Butte Avenue, Talent, projected a higher sales price on the original development. There is a downward pressure on the final sales price specifically on condominiums in Ashland. There are number of different projects that are on the market. Most notably and comparable homes are located on McCall Drive. There has not been a single sale sold or pending. He believes this trend could continue for the next 18 months. Meyer said if they build this, the interest will be about $30,000 per month. Mindlin said basically what Meyer is saying is that no one would want to be under the equity limitation program when it's only going to cost $8,000 more than what he'd sell the affordable units for. Meyer agreed and said that a buyer would not be bound for 30 years when for $8000 more you can do whatever you want. Meyer is proposing eliminating the two additional affordable units and asking that they be sold on the open market like all the rest of them and only do the two required affordable units. COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, thought a reconsideration would take place in a more timely manner. He would like to discourage the reconsideration because he feels it undermines a very circumscribed process. His concern is that anyone involved in real estate isn't guaranteed to make a profit on a project. It's a risky market and shouldn't be a reason to approve a reconsideration. This project is in a C-l zone and it meets the bare minimum square footage for commercial (65%). Appicello said Swales is correct in stating that the reconsideration is not clear. The code needs to be amended stating under what circumstances a reconsideration can occur. The ability to reconsider should be narrowed. Appicello stated that when the applicant made representation at the first approval and stated what they would agree to do, they are bound by that. The Hearings Board can amend it. Rebuttal- MuIane said statistics are compared from one month to one month (comparing October 2005 and October 2006, not October 2005 through October 2006). Meyer said if the project is not feasible for him to do, instead of having four affordable units for Ashland, there might be zero affordable units on a bare piece of land. MORRIS CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING Mindlin said this is thorny because the ordinance doesn't require it. Because it is a commercial zone, the applicant has the option to appeal or reapply. She is leaning toward letting their last decision hold. Dimitre doesn't see the housing market as a reason to change their decision. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES 3 Morris said this seems to be what happens when the Planning Commission proposes solutions. It was his feeling that at the first meeting the two additional units were proposed in order to gain approval. He wonders if the housing part of this project will subsidize the commercial. He doesn't want to lose the two required units. Dimitre/Mindlin m/s to adopt the Findings as proposed. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by. Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Olena Black John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Kate Jackson (Council Liaison, does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Interim Planning Director Maria Harris, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Dotterrer had a meeting with the subcommittee on commissions within the City. He gave them an update of the Planning Commission Roles and Duties and how it might fit into what they are working on. The subcommittee encouraged them to continue moving forward with their work on Roles and Duties. MINUTES AND FINDINGS DawkinsIBlack m/s to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2006 Regular Planning Commission meeting. Voice Vote: Approved. There were no findings to be approved. PUBLIC FORUM BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison, using Billings Ranch Subdivision as an example, thought the Land Use Ordinance Review Committee should look at having open space areas graded flat, shrinking the building footprint for large houses, allowing the houses to be two to two and one-half stories in order conserve land, increase the setback from six feet to eight feet to allow more flexibility in remodels, particularly in existing neighborhoods. He also believes the Fire Station should consider building up and not wasting land. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION #2006-00612 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF GENERAL OFFICE SPACE AND SIX RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 160 HELMAN ST. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE TWO TREES ON SITE THAT ARE SIZED SIX INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AND GREATER. APPLICANT: SISKIYOU LLC/JAMES BATZER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Dotterrer and Fields were not present at the last meeting but watched the video and read the packet and will participate at tonight's hearing. Black had another site visit, noticing that there is a two-story vintage house across the street that would provide some balance to the bulk and scale of the proposed building. Dimitre had a site visit and noticed the site is steep. Morris and Marsh had site visits. Dawkins, Stromberg and Mindlin had no ex parte contacts or site visits. STAFF REPORT Molnar explained that this action is continued from last month. The two areas of concern were: 1) The ground floor elevation of the building and how it relates to the adjoining sidewalk and 2) the physical or visual buffering of Building 2 (comer building) from the street - how much, if any, landscape buffering should be introduced between the sidewalk and the building fa<;ade. The applicant has made some changes since last month (applicant's Addendum Option A) showing the building raised slightly over a foot keeping the entry level elevation flush with the sidewalk, eliminating the need for any steps. Staff believes this change has made a significant difference in the design. In Option A, the sidewalk has been reduced from eight feet to five feet, similar to those in the neighborhood, creating a three foot space between the building and the sidewalk. The building footprint in Option A remains unchanged. Staff would still like to see a landscape strip between the building and the sidewalk that takes the surrounding neighborhood into consideration. The three foot strip does not do a lot and does not leave very much room for plant material. The applicant's addendum mentions they considered going to six feet but the increase by three would diminish the overall design of the building. There were no elevations identifying what those undesirable changes to the building design would be so the Historic Commission was unable to evaluate how the changes would look. The applicant presented one alternative at the Tree Commission meeting in order to address the concern about introducing more landscaping between the sidewalk and the building. However, Staff believes the context of the neighborhood is created by a planting strip, a sidewalk and another planting rather than a curbside sidewalk. The footprint of building 2 is taking up a good portion of the lot area PUBLIC HEARING MARK KNOX, 320 E. Main Street, stated that they were able to raise the building enough to reach the Helman Street grade and were able to lower the building height. When looking at the landscape buffer between the building and the sidewalk, they found that the whole building changes. They went back to the Historic Commission who did not feel the change to the building was appropriate and they came up with the meandering sidewalk. It creates a gateway to match the building across the street on VanNess. The Tree Commission thought it was a good idea too. There would be a five and one-half foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb and nine and one-half feet from the sidewalk to the building and the building design would not have to change. MCKECHNIE showed two landscape plans and explained how the sidewalk and buffering would work. There will be bike parking in two places. The utility pole at the comer will be buried. JOHN DUFFIE, 711 E. Main Street, Medford, OR 97504 said there were several architectural issues they had to take into consideration in making changes requested regarding the three foot strip, but they believe they have offered an ample landscape buffer. He said the setback for Option A is six feet and the setback for Option B is three feet. KERRY KENCAIRN, 147 Central Street, said that she is not opposed to the project in general. On Helman, across from the project site, it is historic residential with sidewalks and setbacks. She does not believe, in this instance, that the curbside sidewalk is appropriate. ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, believes the building does not meet the code for setback. How does the fayade of the proposed building relate to the other buildings on Helman? Currently, it is close to the sidewalk with a very heavy look and feel and out of scale with the historic residential homes on Helman. The application should be denied until the setback issue is resolved. Bullock said the calculation issue in E-l and use of the parking area has still not been resolved since the last meeting. Also, the Commission was given pictures that the public did not see along with items handed out at the last moment and the public has not had an opportunity to review and respond to the recent changes. Lastly, a curbside sidewalk is inappropriate on this project. He strongly agrees with the Planning Department that this project needs a parkrow, a standard sidewalk and a setback that is compatible with the rest of the street. RON DAVIES, 6795 Rapp Lane, Talent, owns two houses at 159 and 171 Helman, across the street from the proposed development. A three story building across the street from a one and two story neighborhood will dwarf the neighborhood. It would set a questionable precedent if this three-story building is granted approval. Molnar announced the photographs are available if the public wishes to view them. JOANNE HADDAD, 6795 Rapp Lane, Talent, OR, owner of 175 Helman Street, said she objects to the size of the proposed building. Her neighborhood is smaller and older. She lives on a 50 by 100 foot lot. They will lose the sunlight in the morning. ERIC NAVICKAS, 363 % Iowa, believes the interpretations that are being used for this proposed development are undermining the E-l zoning and their purpose. E-l is supposed to provide square footage for employment in our community. In this project, an E-l zone is turning into condominium zones. The issue is the gross floor area for permitted uses. Sixty-five percent of the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES gross floor area of the ground floor must be used for employment or 50 percent of the total area of the lot relative to the square footage of the building if using multiple buildings. Is this one building or is it two? Navickas believes this project has multiple buildings as established in the Northlight project. He would argue that the only way it can meet the 50 percent requirement is to allow parking to be included as a permitted use in an E-l zone. This means we would be allowing parking to fulfill what should have been employment square footage. Stromberg asked Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney, ifit is a problem when we get new materials, typically from the applicant, at the very last minute and the public has not had an opportunity to view it. Appicello said it is not uncommon to have evidence submitted at a public hearing. Getting a written document is not that much different than hearing testimony for the first time. However, if anything is submitted in writing, especially items that are complicated, at the public hearing, there is a risk that someone will ask for a continuance or to leave the record open. Stromberg remembered Mike Franell, City Attorney, making an interpretation for looking at the criteria for multiple buildings. Molnar said Franell gave the Planning Commission options. He believed the parking required for the commercial space was accessory use to the permitted use. Rebuttal · Gross floor area calculations - Knox said they calculated the square footage/lot coverage two ways. He explained how they made their calculations and concluded they meet the requirement whether using the 65 percent or the 50 percent. · Building setback - Knox argued for a balance of the historic area with a predominant landscape strip by using a meandering sidewalk. · Bulk and scale - Knox said the E-l zone allows for buildings 40 feet in height. Dealing with the shape and grade of the property, they have tried to create square footage and mass so it is less impacting to the R-3 neighborhood across the street. Fields closed the public hearing. Art Bullock requested, and the Planning Commission granted the record be left open for seven days. The written record will close no sooner than seven days from today (November 22, 2006 at 5:00 p.m.). The applicant expressed a desire to submit final written argument before November 29,2006 at 5:00 p.rn. The applicant agreed to an extension to the 120 days of 14 days. Final deliberations will occur on December 12, 2006 at 7:00 p.rn. at the Council Chambers. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION #2006-01663 REQUEST FOR AN ANNEXATION AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP CHANGE FROM JACKSON COUNTY ZONING RR-5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO CITY OF ASHLAND ZONING R-2 (LOW-DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), R-1-3.5 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) AND R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR AN 11.64-ACRE SITE COMPRISED OF FIVE PARCELS LOCATED AT 87 W. NEVADA ST. AND 811 HELMAN ST. (ASHLAND GREENHOUSES). THE ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP IDENTIFIES THE SITE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (R-1 ZONING). AS A RESULT" THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGE TO MODIFY THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) AND SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-1-3.5 ZONING) DESIGNATIONS. THE PROPOSAL REQUIRES OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS A 78-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS CHAPTER 18.88. THE PROPOSAL REQUIRES SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR MULTI- FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE A 36-INCH DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OAK TREE. EXCEPTIONS TO THE STREET STANDARDS ARE REQUESTED TO INSTALL A CURBSIDE SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF ONE OF THE PROPOSED STREETS, FOR NOT LOCATING A STREET ADJACENT TO NATURAL FEATURES AND FOR NOT CONNECTING TWO OF THE PROPOSED STREETS. VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE ON-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM 78 TO 38 SPACES, TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR SIX OF THE TOWNHOMES IN THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE SITE FROM 20 FEET TO 12, 14 AND 16 FEET, AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR THE 27 con AGES IN THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE SITE. AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO HAVE THE PRIMARY ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH RATHER THAN THE STREET AS REQUIRED. ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: (CURRENT) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO (PROPOSED) MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL & SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ASHLAND ZONING: (CURRENT) R-1 TO (PROPOSED) R-2, R-1-3.5 & R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 4B; TAX LOTS: 800 & 1100 AND ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 4BB; TAX LOTS: 700, 800, & 900. APPLICANT: GREG & VALRI WILLIAMS Site Visits Ex Parte Contacts ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES 3 Morris, Dotterrer, Dimitre, Dawkins, Marsh and Stromberg are familiar with the physical characteristics of the site as they currently exist. Dawkins has known the Williams family his whole life and shopped at the greenhouse for years. Black had a site visit and noticed the bank had been part of a dredging operation in the past and she is curious about when it was dredged. She heard noise from the freeway. Fields and Mindlin had neither site visit nor ex parte contact. STAFF REPORT Harris reported there are eight different approval criteria connected with this application as outlined in the staff report. She gave a detailed review of the project. The positive aspects of the project are the provision for building energy and water conserving housing as well as the park dedication and the multi-use path. Overall, Staff believes the project has a lot of potential, but is recommending a continuance because there are some inconsistencies with the approval criteria as well as some clarifications and additional information that are needed before the Planning Commission should make a decision. Staff is recommending they focus on four major issues. 1. Zone Change - Staff's believes the R-2 designation has been requested in order to take advantage of using the east/west solar orientation. More flexibility of the standards is allowed in the R-2 zone. Not all streets are required to be public, dedicated streets, whereas in R-l development, all the accesses have to be public streets. Staff believes since the R-I-3.5 request follows a traditional layout, it could also be achieved under the already targeted designated R-l zone. It seems the main reason this zone change is being pursued is that is because there is less R-I-3.5 land supply available than R-lland. The current buildable lands inventory shows an adequate supply of land. In terms of street layout, lot layout and density, the development is much more comparable to an R-l single family designation. The approval criteria require compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The plan addresses all the other requirements for a Comp Plan and Zone Change and though it concentrates on the energy and water savings, it does not address the Comp Plan policies such as: 2. Transition to Existing Neighborhoods - Staff is recommending the project layout be situated on the south and west side of the project that reflects the existing neighborhood development pattern (traditional single family lots with traditional front and rear yards). Specifically, Staff's concerns relate to the two parking areas that are situated in close proximity to some yard areas which is not typical of a single family development style. No information has been provided on how many stories the perimeter units will be. Outline Plan requires that around the perimeter of a subdivision, that a standard setback of the zone be maintained. 3. Street System & Connectivity - The Street Standards outline specific inner connectivity of streets. There are two dead end streets proposed. There does not appear to be a reason why the streets cannot be connected. The Exception in the Street Standards is only for the purpose of natural features. The Street Standards are based on Comp Plan policies that talk about making a modified grid system that produces multiple route options, that disperses traffic, increases safety and increases the possibility of bicycle/pedestrian trips. There are two dead end streets proposed. Access to the existing dog park path is by way of a multi-use driveway that curves into the Greenway path. The new path shown along Ashland Creek ends at the driveway. Staff recommends taking another look at the new path and considering a re-route of the existing path. Whatever facility is put in should be as safe, direct and navigable as the existing path. 4. Setback from the Ashland Creek Corridor - The applicant has identified top of bank in the application, however, all but three of nine homes are closer than 20 feet to top of bank. Staff believes there should be a 20 foot setback from that area. Harris showed photos of homes around Ashland that have been built very close to top of bank. Staffs experience has been when homes are built near top of bank, there is degradation of the creek corridor and bank area, both by the building of the home and the intrusion of the foundation, etc. People tend to build outdoor spaces well into the floodplain area. Dimitre asked if there is a guarantee the affordable housing will be built at some point. Harris said there is a provision under the annexation criteria that allows the land to be dedicated to a non-profit. She suggested a Condition that the property be deed restricted for affordable housing under the City's program. The applicants are asking there not be a timing requirement. Molnar said if the Commission wishes to provide guidance to the Council, they could require the affordable housing be constructed at a certain time during the development. Harris has not had an opportunity to review the parking update that was received late today. Appicello noted there were a couple letters that came in and have been entered into the record. Fields explained the public hearing process. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES 4 PUBLIC HEARING GREG WILLIAMS, 744 Helman Street, property owner, said they want to build energy efficient smaller homes, making wise use of resources, including water, natural landscaping, and sustainable building products as well as being a model for the City, the state and the region. GALEN OHMART, SOLARC Architecture and Engineering, Inc., 233 W.121h Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, talked about the sustainable homes they have planned for this project. They are looking at having homes that will be net zero energy ready and it begins with how homes being oriented in an east/west direction on the site. They hope to take advantage of the rain and wind too. ALEX FORRESTER, Forrester & Forrester, 545 A Street, Suite 1, said they want to provide a variety of unit types. The owners wanted to run this project with three different market types (communities) - cottage, single family and townhomes - and set an example for the different types. They want to use a Certified Sustainable Development Practice and can be done through Earth Advantage. The cottages and townhomes will range in size from 800 to 1200 square feet. The single family homes will be no larger than 2500 square feet. They want to work with natural forces on the site first and mechanical systems second. They are giving the land and infrastructure to Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) in Phase I. They are reluctant to tie themselves to a timeline. Forrester explained the street design. Forrester said the townhomes are in the northwest corner with the highest density they could fit in the smallest space. They will have park land immediately adjacent to lessen the burden of the density on the inhabitants. The cottages have no garages. The larger homes have attached garages. Driveways and garages are not sustainable but they have to meet the demand too. They are at 88 percent of base density for their annexation. They are requesting a Variance for one sidewalk at the corner setback at Sander. The parkrow will be on the other side of the bios wales. They are requesting a Variance for the townhome rear yard setback. They are asking for side separations of the cottage not in the north/south direction. They are asking that Canine and Sander Way not be connected. There is no need because there are pathways from all the residential that will provide the bike and residential connectivity. They feel that extra, unneeded asphalt is not a sustainable practice. Fields asked that the applicants to turn in their base density calculations. Forrester said they turned in a parking design but are two spaces short for the on-street parking requirement. He said they are showing the sidewalks on Nevada Street on the revised sheet S-l. Forrester showed slides of the creek setback. They are not in the floodway/floodplain. All of the vegetation is in the low bank area. Some fill has been added but it is limited to near the end of the greenhouse. Williams said their plan is to install a minimum 3K photovoltaic panel on all the units. Forrester explained the building envelope is being drawn and they are getting the design with the proper orientation. Without that, they don't have a chance to do this project. It's all a package. Stromberg asked Forrester if they are depending on any of these energy characteristics to apply the criteria. Forrester affirmed because climate change, peak oil, and environmental concerns have created an urgent need for net zero energy sustainable housing. They are not providing density as much as there is a need for this type of housing. Forrester offered to do a performance standard listing the standards the homes will have to meet to achieve occupancy as a guarantee that they are going to do what they are promising. Mindlin believes it does not look like they have good solar access in the affordable housing building. Ohrnart said they want the photovoltaic and the solar thermal on the roof. Forrester interjected that the primary goal for the townhomes is that it is affordable housing. There are some agencies that have some money for affordable green housing. Dotterrer/Black m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. PAM LOTT, 796 Oak Street, said she lives in an off the grid passive solar home. She supports this project because it is time for a project like this to move forward. The plan is pointing out some of the challenges of moving forward. She is looking to this body to point out how to promote this type of development for this community because it is critical to have the backing of this community. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES RISA BUCK, 796 Oak Street, emphasized that this project is what she has in her mind for our whole community. It works, makes sense and is a great opportunity to bring together to create "Where Green Becomes Mainstream." This is an ideal we need to strive toward. JUDY BEYER, 825 Faith Avenue, stated that she runs a group home for developmentally disabled adults at 135 Almeda Drive. The proposed development seems too dense. They've been on a cul-de-sac and the bus that picks up their clients will be loading on a main street now. Their bedrooms overlook the property. She believes all the houses along Yoris are going to be impacted. Fields read comments in support of the application by SUSAN POWELL, 180 Nutley. MELISSA SCHWEISGUTH, 305 Luna Vista, said she supports the project, particularly in the face of growth and natural resource limitations. RON DEMELE, Executive Director of Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation, 495 Chestnut #4, said The Williams' have made it possible for them to entertain the idea of building solar homes that are affordable. It would be a first. They could partner with The Enterprise Foundation that has brand new green initiatives, a funding source to work with private developers and non-profits to do affordable sustainable housing. The homes would be put into the land trust to have affordable housing in perpetuity. He sees the site for affordable housing lending itself to a higher degree oflivability for low income families. Williams said they are donating the land with all the affordable housing to be built in one place in the development. Demele said it is in RYCDC's best interest to build the land out as quickly as possible and not let it sit vacant. He said they are required to build the units for families at 80 percent or less of median income. JENNIFER BACON, 602 Fairview Street, supports this project for the reasons already stated by the other speakers. She has been interested in building a green, energy efficient home, but doing it on her own would be overwhelming. She feels like she can jump into a project like this without being overwhelmed. JOHN FISHER SMITH, 945 Oak Street, lives in a solar home he designed. He is excited that we may finally be waking up to start doing sustainable, green and solar. He feels like he has come home to the Promised Land and it's Ashland. He believes in these principles. Let's help the applicants make it work. MIKE GARDNER, 349 Orange Street, said he supports the project. He is currently on the Parks Commission. The Williams' and Forrester came to the Parks Commission and talked about their project and the possibility of a land swap. The Parks Commission is excited about the possibility of incorporating not only the dog park but utilizing some land and getting some creek frontage, a continuation of their goal to have a passageway along Ashland Creek - it helps achieve what they want to get in the way of connectivity. STEVE JENSEN, 355 Otis Street, believes this is a worthy project. This project will require a significant amount of trust, therefore, implored the Commission not to drag this project unnecessarily through knotholes. Please be open and courageous. Trust is essential for this project. If this becomes too difficult, it is his sense it could go away. He asked the Commission to approve the project. DAVID BERNARD, 378 Terrace Street, addressed concerns raised in The Tidings in last night's paper. The development is three- quarters of a mile from town and relatively flat. This seems like the type of development the city in general wants, but then make almost impossible to create. The land both in the City and that proposed to be annexed is proposed for single family homes on very large lots. The applicants are trying to do energy conservation on a neighborhood scale and yet it doesn't quite fit nicely into our current rules. It seems if we want to be out front in energy conservation and want to do more than give lip service to the idea of affordable housing, the City is going to have to start giving a little to make it happen. Annexing the land, approving the few minor variances and allowing the applicant to move forward with this development would be a great step in that direction. RYAN LANGMEYER, 1700 E. Nevada, lives in a sustainable home. He wouldn't want to live any other way. He supports the Williams and their project. He believes the Planning Commission needs to educate themselves, be courageous and look beyond the limits of our current ordinances. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES 6 COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, said the criteria have to be addressed. He is not certain it is appropriate for the applicants to be asking for a re-zone to R-2. He understands the land exchange is the City trading some of their buildable land for some unbuildable land owned by the property owner. This will be a liability to the City. The City will be responsible for picking up the tab for flood clean-up. The City does not have to have the creek frontage owned by the City in order to control it. He is not sure why there has to be an exchange. He noticed none of the Conditions or Staff Report mentions green development. He believes this needs to be made clear in the Conditions. He is concerned that putting all the affordable housing together will create an affordable unit ghetto. Dotterrer/Black m/s to extend the meeting to 11 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, stated there are a lot of positive aspects to this project. However, he doesn't see how they will satisfy the criteria. Global warming is not a criteria. He agrees there is not adequate information to approve the project. He thinks there is geothermal water on the site but did not hear it mentioned. He agrees with the Staff Report concerning bike and pedestrian access. How would bike access connect to the Greenway? Bullock requested the record be left open for seven days. Forrester stated he would like rebuttal time next month. The applicant agrees to continue the action. Fields said the entire public hearing process will be left open. Submittals to the Planning Department will need to be made at least ten days prior to the December meeting. Harris noted Staff will do their best to review any new information before the next meeting. She clarified a misconception that it was clear from the beginning of this application (pre-app) that the applicant wanted to be on the earliest available date before the Planning Commission. Dotterrer/Morris m/s to continue this hearing to the December 12,2006 meeting at 7:00 p.m. at this location. Voice Vote: Unanimous. OTHER There will be a joint study session with the Planning Commission and Housing Commission on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. to evaluate the annexation criteria with respect to housing issues. Ultimately, there will be a similar discussion with Conservation to make conservation requirements clearer in our annexation ordinance. We can use the annexation approval process for issues of broader interest Study Session - There will not be a study session in December. Roles & Duties - Dotterrer hopes to bring this back to the January study session. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES 7 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - Commissioner Mike Morris called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.rn. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Mike Morris Tom Dimitre Pam Marsh Council Liaison: Kate Jackson, (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) Absent Members: None Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner Derek Severson, Associate Planner Angela Barry, Assistant Planner Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Morris made a correction to the November 14, 2006 Hearings Board minutes. Swales was a party for P A2006-020 17, 180 Clear Creek Drive, not the action at 1651 Ashland Street. The minutes were approved with the correction. Marsh did not vote as she was only present for the Type I hearings. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION #2006-01959 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A THREE-UNIT TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION (INCLUDING THE OWNER'S UNIT) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 144 SECOND ST. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE TWO TREES, AND TWO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING, NON-CONFORMING GARAGE TO HABITABLE SPACE, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA FOR THE LOT BY 506 SQUARE FEET, OR 21 PERCENT. APPLICANT: MARY E. NELKE This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02014 REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATION AT 531 LAKOTA WAY. THE BUILDING ENVELOPE MODIFICATION REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE FROM 20 FEET TO 15 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DRIVEWAY LOCATION. APPLICANT: RON MARCHETTI/STERLING GATE DESIGN This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02194 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT THREE EXISTING APARTMENTS TO THREE CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 180-184 VAN NESS STREET. APPLICANT: MEREDITH LOWRY This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02241 REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF A SITE REVIEW OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FOR BRAMMO MOTORSPORTS FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON JEFFERSON AVE. THE PROPOSAL IS TO DIVIDE THE SINGLE 41,024 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING INTO TWO BUILDINGS, RESULTING IN AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS AND ADDITIONAL PARKING DUE TO ADDITIONAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOT AGE. APPLICANT: CRAIG BRAMSCHER This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02225 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TWO-UNIT (INCLUDES OWNER'S QUARTERS) TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 639 N MAIN ST. APPLICANT: JOYCE CHASE JARVIS This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02160 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT FOUR EXISTING APARTMENTS INTO FOUR CONDOMINIUMS AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO REDUCE THE WIDTH A FLAG POLE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM 20 FEET TO 8 FEET FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 220-226 VAN NESS AVE. 1601. APPLICANT: CARL M.WRIGHT Dimitre expressed an interested in calling this up for a public hearing because he felt under the Procedures Chapter this is more than three units. Harris said they have always interpreted it to mean "existing structures" and have not required a Type II hearing. No one made a motion. This action stands approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION #2006-01999 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 1,000 SQUARE FOOT THIRD-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR USE AS A RESTAURANT WITH A ROOF-TOP PATIO DINING AREA. IN ADDITION, THE REQUEST INCLUDES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE 40-FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 N MAIN ST. APPLICANT: ASHLAND HOLDINGS LP/ALLAN SANDLER This action was postponed. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02239 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 221 OAK STREET. A VARIANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW A 15-FOOT DRIVEWAY TO SERVE MORE THAN SEVEN PARKING SPACES WHERE A 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED. THE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED IN ORDER TO SAVE TWO MATURE TREES. APPLICANT: KOKOPELLI PROPERTIES LLC Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Marsh had a site visit. Morris did not make a site visit but he is familiar with the property. When the previous owner owned the property he may have called Morris up about it. Dimitre did not have a site visit. STAFF REPORT Severson explained the request as outlined in the Staff Report. Access to the parcel is currently by way of a shared driveway. The applicant does not propose any tree removal or construction to the seven mature trees on site. An arborist's report and tree removal plan have been provided as well as building envelopes on the proposed parcel. The proposed flag configuration is odd because there is not enough lot width between the house and the property line to accommodate the required flag drive width and the required setback from the property line. The controlled access standards do not allow driveways within 75 feet of each other. The applicant's proposal wants to create the paper flag drive to meet the setback requirements and continue to utilize the existing shared drive for functional access to the parcel. With the creation of the additional lot, they will be adding at least three additional parking spaces to the current seven spaces. The applicant has requested that in order to preserve two trees, to continue a 15 foot wide driveway along with measures to mitigate that impact. They would run the utilities within the north side of the driveway in order to benefit the trees. They would restrict parking in the front yard, restrict the improvement of the flag drive, and require fire sprinklers to the rear of the property . Staff believes the requirements for a flag partition have been adequately met. The primary basis for the required width pertains to fire apparatus access and with adequate circulation onto and off the property. Staff believes those concerns have been met, ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2006 and would recommend approval. The applicants are proposing to widen the driveway a foot in one direction and another two feet in another direction, creating a 15 foot improved width with a 20 foot clear width. Severson suggested adding one additional condition that the carport proposed for removal is removed prior to signature of the final plat. The carport straddles the property line. PUBLIC HEARING MARK KNOX, Urban Development Services, LLC, 320 E. Main Street, Suite 202. DALLAS HYMANS, Kokopelli Properties, 725 Terrace Street. ERIC LARSON, 46 Union Street. KNOX said the idea of having the flagpole on the south side of the property is to demonstrate that the application meets the flag lot dimensional requirements. A 15 foot wide flagpole is required plus a six foot setback from the new property line. When multiple lots are requested the flagpole gets widened. The actual proposal is to utilize the existing driveway to preserve traffic and transportation impacts on a collector street. It also minimizes curb cuts. Oak Street has become less residential and more commercial. They could meet the access requirements by removing trees, but they would rather not remove the two larger trees. They looked at all alternatives. The proposal today is the most sensitive to the historic streetscape and the neighbors. They have tried to address the Fire Department requirements with sprinklers in each unit and have minimized parking in the front between the trees and the house. The flag area will have a deed restriction stating the flag drive cannot be utilized for auto access. They could propose a Use Benefit Easement, giving the right of the front lot full use of the flag drive area. There would be a flag drive on paper, however, in reality it looks the same as it does now. The goal of their application is to minimize the width of the driveway and any disturbance to the site. HYMANS said they've been in contact with the owners of239 Oak Street, Sue and John Blaze and have tried to involve them in the process and the Blazes' have been supportive. He feels what they are trying to do will benefit the entire neighborhood. Knox said their goal has been to minimize the Variances. They could put the flagpole where the driveway is now as a Condition of approval. Harris said if they add another Variance, the application would have to be amended and the action re- noticed. Kno?, encouraged the Commission to move ahead with the ahead the Use Access Easement. JOHN BLAZE, 239 Oak Street, is the owner and operator of Oak Street Station Bed and Breakfast. He has met and discussed with the owners what they plan on doing with the project. In the past, the house next door has had a lot of transient traffic from college kids to families. At times, it has been a problem. He'd rather have someone own the property that would take care of it. Putting another driveway in would probably cause more traffic and congestion. He is hoping the application is approved as submitted. Staff Response - Severson said this application has gone through two to three pre-applications in the last year. Each application had some Variance component that Staff had issues with. This was the applicant's attempt to get to something that avoided Variances to the greatest extent possible. The issue with the trees came up after they got through a pre-application where there were no Variances and Staff supported the application as proposed. Rebuttal- There was no rebuttal. Morris closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Marsh said the proposal to use the existing driveway is very sound. Minimizing curb cuts especially in the historic parts of town is desirable. She supports the Variances. We do, however, have a responsibility to create lots that make some sense. If we are going to create a flag lot that uses the driveway, it doesn't make any sense to use a "ghost" driveway on the south side of the parcel. It is ripe for conflict between neighbors when there is confusion over who controls it, maintains it, etc. The Hearings Board could deed use of the land to the front parcel or make it much more straightforward and make the lots reflect in reality what they appear to reflect in the actual use. That would require another Variance. She would support the applicants coming back with that adjustment to the application, winding up with a front lot with integrity, giving the owner plenty of outdoor space, not foreseeing conflict, and reflecting what's on the ground. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2006 Dimitre agrees that he would favor Variances to reflect what is really happening. it doesn't make sense to have an abandoned driveway. He appreciates saving the trees, but we need to have an approval that is realistic. The Commissioners said they could attend the January meeting to review and make a decision on the revised application. Morris re-opened public hearing. Knox agreed to the continuance and to come back with a revised application so Staff can notice for the second Variance. Knox agreed to a 60 day extension to the 120 day rule. Morris closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Marsh/Dimitre m/s to continue to the January 9, 2007 Hearings Board with an extension of 60 days and request for the second Variance. The motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by. Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2006 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - Commissioner Mike Morris called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.rn. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Mike Morris, stepped down for P A2006-0 1999 Tom Dimitre Pam Marsh Dave Dotterrer, stepped in for PA2006-01999 Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Kate Jackson, (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner Derek Severson, Associate Planner Angela Barry, Assistant Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MarshlDimitre m/s to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2007 Hearings Board meeting. Voice Vote: Approved. TYPE I PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION #2006-02350 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONVERT AN APPROXIMATELY 500 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING TO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ARU) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATION AT 180 MEADE STREET. APPLICANT: JANE & BILL STREET Morris would like to see a consistent methodology used throughout the application and said there was no definition in the Land Use Ordinance of how to determine gross habitable floor area. The Commissioners agreed there is a problem with the definition of gross habitable floor area that needs to be solved outside of this application. The action stands approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION #2006-02239 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 221 OAK STREET. TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS ARE ALSO INCLUDED TO ALLOW A 15-FOOT DRIVEWAY TO SERVE MORE THAN SEVEN PARKING SPACES WHERE A 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED, AND TO ALLOW A THREE-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK BETWEEN THE EXISTING HOME AND THE PROPOSED FLAG DRIVEWAY WHERE SIX-FEET WOULD TYPICALLY BE REQUIRED. APPLICANT: KOKIPELLI PROPERTIES LLC Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Everyone drove by the property. Dimitre said he noticed the trees by the driveway. STAFF REPORT Severson said the applicant modified the proposal, placing the flag drive along the north property line with the required 15 foot width. The angle of the house puts the property line five feet from the comer of the house at the rear, narrowing at the front comer to three feet. The second variance required is a fifty percent variance to the side yard setback. There will be no functional change to the property other than the driveway location and minor changes to the lot sizes. The Conditions were modified accordingly. PUBLIC HEARING MARK KNOX, 320 E. Main Street, Suite 202, believes this configuration will make a much more intact application. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Marsh/Dimitre m/s to approve PA2006..02239. Roll Call: The action was unanimously approved. Morris left the meeting and Dotterrer stepped in for Morris. PLANNING ACTION #2006.01999 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 1,000 SQUARE FOOT THIRD.STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR USE AS A RESTAURANT WITH A ROOF-TOP PATIO DINING AREA. IN ADDITION, THE REQUEST INCLUDES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE 40.FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 N MAIN ST APPLICANT: ASHLAND HOLDINGS LP/ALLAN SANDLER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Everyone had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Barry showed the proposed buildIng elevations. The applicant is proposing about a 1000 square foot restaurant addition and the addition extends over the three story portion of the building toward the Calle Guanajuato about 23 feet. The height of the proposed addition at the top of the parapet is 49 feet, nine inches. The addition is set back about 17 feet from the existing face of the building. The height of the proposed roof deck is about 40 '12 feet to the top of the rail or about two and one-half feet taller than the existing parapet. The application did not include any findings addressing the need for an Exception. Staff is recommending that the building meet the standard and that windows be installed that are primarily oriented vertically. Other than the window, the building appears to meet the applicable design standards. The Historic Commission has recommended approval with two Conditions. They would like to see 1) stucco, not bead board, and 2) brick and stucco color samples prior to the building permit being issued. Those Conditions have been included in the Staff Report. The Conditional Use Permit criteria that applies most closely to this application is whether the bulk and scale is compatible with the surrounding area or whether the proposal is architecturally compatible. Barry showed photos to compare. The existing building is the only three -story building in the immediate area and the addition will add to the bulk and scale somewhat as viewed from the Calle, but the design does try to mitigate this affect by stepping it back and utilizing the upper area for outdoor seating. Staff believes the Hearings Board should ask itself whether or not the third story addition meets the criteria for no greater adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood in terms of similarity in bulk, scale and architectural compatibility. Conditions are attached to the Staff Report. Dotterrer asked about Condition 11 (windows not tinted). He thought no tinting of windows was for the ground floor. Harris said the Condition can be re-worded to better explain that it applies to prohibiting glare to surrounding residences. PUBLIC HEARING ALLAN SANDLER, 1260 Prospect, said the City master plan encourages the patios over walkways. The windows will not have a glare. They will go along with the vertical windows. They have reduced the scale of the addition. They will replace the building on top and it will be about half the existing size. MARK MCKECHNIE, 4406 San Juan Drive, Medford, OR 97504, explained the design. He said they are taking away the mansard and creating a deck. There will be a new parapet. SHAWN BRANAUGH, Fire Inspector, Ashland Fire and Rescue, 455 Siskiyou Boulevard, said the Fire Dept. is concerned about the proposed exiting system. They believe that having only one exit would create an overcrowding situation. Business management would probably have a difficult time of maintaining occupant load of no more that 49 persons, especially when the floor space appears to hold upwards of 100 people. Staff Response - There was no Staff response. Rebuttal - McKechnie said the exiting system is a building code issue. It is very easy to control the people because they are allowed to have only a maximum number of seats. There is one exit from the room and two exits from the building. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Harris said exiting is a building code issue and the Building Official will make the final judgment. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 2 Harris said the Hearings Board could strike Condition 12 (vertical windows). When the Historic Commission reviewed it, it was questionable whether the windows could be seen at all. Dimitre has a concern about whether the applicant has met the burden of proof for the height criteria. He is concerned about incrementally exceeding the height and adding more bulk that is over 40 feet. How does that meet the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit? Marsh realizes there is nothing they can do about the exiting/fire issue, but she believes it is virtually impossible to limit occupancy. Secondly, she is ready to support the planning action. The existing far;ade is not all that beautiful. The third balcony should improve the visual impact. She is not concerned by the bulk. We need to approach the height limitation carefully. The front of the building is already a three story building. The extension will incorporate a little more square footage and take care of some of the fairly ugly visual impacts of the equipment that's up on the roof. Dotterrer concurred. This is not a variance but a Conditional Use Permit. They will be using the building and space the way the zoning was intended. Marsh agreed that Condition 12 can be eliminated but not because we want to avoid the Downtown Design Standards, but because the mullions break up what is a very large window into what appears to be vertical panes. Harris changed the wording to Condition 11 to: That the windows shall not be tinted so as to produce glare on neighboring properties. Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA2006.01999 with the elimination of Condition 12 and the re.wording of Condition 11 (Harris' wording). Roll Call: The motion carried with Marsh and Dotterrer voting "yes" and Dimitre voting "no." ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by Susan Yates. Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 9, 2007 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Olena Black John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Kate Jackson (Council Liaison, does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Maria Harris, Senior Planner Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS - Fields introduced and welcomed David Stalheim, the City's new Community Development Director. There will be a study session on January 23,2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. Bob Parker, ECONorthwest will review the draft Economic Opportunities Analysis. The Council will be invited to attend. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Dawkins moved to approve the minutes of the December 12,2006 Regular Planning Commission meeting. Black asked for a correction on page 2, paragraph 4. The third sentence should read: She doesn't feel the bulk and scale against the sidewalk is out of character with other historic examples in Ashland and in southern Oregon. Stromberg seconded the motion. Voice Vote: The minutes were approved as corrected. PUBLIC FORUM ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, gave the Commission an update on the current court case concerning the Park Street apartments converting to condominiums. With regard to the Commission's process, he said that there has been considerable ambiguity surrounding the request for a continuance of a planning action. He thought the findings should be approved at the same meeting at which the action is approved. COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, said he recalled some time back the subject of the findings was discussed by the Commission. He thought the previous Planning Director had said that findings could be written that were straightforward and referred back to the record and videotape of the findings. RICHARD APPICELLO, Assistant City Attorney, corrected some of the statements concerning requests for a continuance and further explained how an extension to the 120 day limit is requested and granted. Fields announced that PA2006-01787, 479 Russell Street, has been postponed. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2006- 2006-01784 REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE WRIGHTS CREEK FLOODPLAIN AND RIPARIAN PRESERVATION AREA FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND WIDENING OF A PORTION OF AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY, RE-GRADING OF A PORTION OF GRANDVIEW DRIVE AND THE EXTENSION OF UTLlITIES TO SERVE A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCTED AT 720 GRANDVIEW DRIVE. APPLICANT: LYNN AND BILL MCDONALD Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Black had a site visit and used the Jackson County Front Counter web site to look at all the county lands located to the west of the property. She understood the County is going through a process to extend their driveway ordinances for fire upgrades. Dotterrer had a site visit and just looked at the driveway portion. Dawkins and Morris had a site visit. Stromberg, Fields, Mindlin, Dimitre and Marsh did not have a site visit. ST AFF REPORT Harris noted three items were handed out tonight to the Commissioners: A request for a continuance dated January 5th, a memo from Bonnie Broderson and letter from Thornton Engineering both dated January 9,2007. The request for continuance also included a request to leave the record open for seven days. Staff is recommending leaving the record open for seven days. Harris gave a history of this action as outlined in the Staff Report beginning with a request for a building permit The applicant is trying to address alleged assignments of error that were brought up in the appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) through a local process. If there are questions on elements other than the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit, the Commissioners should wait until they deliberate to discuss them. Harris described the proposal also outlined in the Staff Report. The Physical Constraints Permit covers development in the Wright's Creek Floodplain Corridor land. There are four things happening in the protected area: 1) The re-grading of Grandview Drive to come in line with the new paved driveway, 2) the paving of the existing driveway, widened to meet a fire apparatus access road requirement of 15 feet where shared and 12 feet where it splits into the two distinct pieces, 3) build a utility corridor to connect the new single family home to the existing utilities farther up Grandview Drive, and 4) a private storm drain for storm drainage from the house that enters the Wright's Creek Floodplain as well as an energy dissipater at the end (rocks to slow the water). In this proposal most of the driveway and the single family home are not located in the Floodplain. Staff believes the application meets the approval criteria for a Physical Constraints Permit. The proposal minimizes the impact because they have located the driveway in the location of the existing driveway. They are trying to stay within the area that's already been disturbed and the same for the utility corridor connection. PUBLIC HEARING MARK BARTHOLOMEW, 717 Murphy Road, Medford, OR 97504, represents the applicant. They do not object to leaving the record open for seven days. They would like to have seven days to respond, and reserve time for oral rebuttal at tonight's meeting. They agreed to a voluntary remand because there was some question as to whether there was a discretionary element in how the length of the driveway was measured. By having a public hearing remedies one of the assignments of error. They have done everything they can to mitigate any adverse impacts in the area by the plan they submitted. They are following the existing driveway, using pervious asphalt to minimize runoff and will obtain an easement from a neighbor to allow the applicant to traverse the neighbor's property in order to stay as far away from the creek and top of bank as possible. They are going to be placing rock outfall to slow down the water and prevent erosion. The Staff Report and Bartholomew covered the Assignments of Error. TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way and MIKE THORNTON, Thornton Engineering, 1236 Disk Drive, Medford, OR 97504 spoke. Thornton referred the Commissioners to Sheet 1 that showed the changes on his drawing. He said FEMA doesn't map these creeks. The City's 1989 Floodplain Corridor doesn't map the streams either. They have proposed the improvements will be at grade. All the work they have done is within the existing gravel roadways. Mindlin asked if the utility trenches could be moved farther from the top of bank. Thornton thought that would be possible. NANCY LOUIE, 507 Grandview Drive, lives nearby in the county. The driveway is a single lane gravel driveway. It cuts through her lot, and the fork of Wright's Creek goes onto her property. They just need to take care of the creek and she is confident the Planning Commission will be able to figure it out. LLOYD HAINES, 96 N. MAIN STREET, owns the lot abutting the McDonald's lot. He does not oppose the application and believes it will be an asset to the community. It will not adversely impact his lot or the other lots in that area. LYNN MCDONALD, 8621 Oak Branch Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93311, said they want to build on this lot and move to Ashland. They are willing to comply with all the regulations and would like the Commission to approve the application. BONNIE BRODERSON, 635 Wright's Creek Drive, disagreed with Bartholomew that the Assignments of Error have been addressed. She did not receive an official notice that has occurred. The only thing officially noticed to the public was the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 Physical Constraints Review Permit. The Staff Report states there are approximately 280 square feet of widening and paving of the driveway outside the existing driveway surface, located mostly in the Grandview Drive right-of-way. She requested the LUBA record be made a part of this record. Broderson explained that the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance was not finalized correctly by the City with DLCD. She said the Safe Harbor rule applies to the proposal. Chapter 18.62.070M has no provision for placing a driveway in the floodplain corridor or extending a driveway. A private storm drain line and an outlet energy dissipater in a protected area violate the ordinance. Certain information that is required has not been provided on the topographic map. The proposed development will degrade and destroy the riparian area. The proposal violates Ashland's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of Goal 5 resources. Broderson is concerned with the amount of paving there will be. JAMES HULSE, 416 Wimer Street, said his parents divided many of the lots in this area. He was here during two floods. The part of the road and the driveway included in this proposal were not affected by the floods. Fields noted that there are certain impacts we allow to happen in a riparian area. Staff looks at the impacts and whether or not they can be mitigated. Molnar said the Assignments of Error are included in the Staff Report in order to have it part of the record but it is not part of tonight's review. The drainage system was discussed. There is a perforated subsurface drain pipe under the driveway. There is a drainage ditch on the east side of the driveway area. Fields asked if anyone from the public who participated would like to rebut. No one came forward. Applicant's Rebuttal- Giordano said the impact of the drainage is from a single family resident on the riparian area. They are trying to take steps to minimize the impacts by using a perforated pipe, rock for erosion control and enhancing the vegetation. They are impacting 280 square feet. Thornton said they can pull the improvements back farther than 20 feet from top of bank. In order provide emergency access to meet the code requirements, they are doing some improvements within 20 feet of the bank where there are no floodwaters and no riparian vegetation. With regard to the drainage, they are taking it within 20 feet from top of bank so they don't discharge it uphill from the neighbor. They are mitigating any disturbance. Bartholomew said a notice is not in error as long as there is no any prejudice. Since Broderson wrote the Assignments of Error and agreed to the voluntary remand, there is no surprise they are being considered and therefore no prejudice. Fields closed the public hearing and announced there will be no public testimony taken at the next meeting. The record will remain open for seven days until 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, on January 17th. Then the applicant will have seven days to submit written arguments. This action is continued to the February 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to be held at the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02354 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE VACANT PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF N. MAIN ST. AND GLENN ST. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW A 10-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE A 20.FOOT FRONT YARD FOR PROPERTIES ABUTTING ARTERIAL STREETS IS REQUIRED. AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A CURBSIDE SIDEWALK ON GLENN ST. APPLICANT: RAYMOND J. KISTLER ARCHITECTURE Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - The Commissioners all had a site visit. Black noticed a large, historic granite rock at the site. STAFF REPORT Harris noted this application is looking for three approvals: 1) Exception to Street Standards: Staff feels the Exception to Street Standards is justified and meets the approval criteria because the Glenn Street frontage is relatively short and the opportunity for a parkrow is limited to about 50 feet between the comer and the proposed driveway apron. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 3 2) Site Review: The basic standards have been met. Staff has issues with the north elevation in terms of the Historic District Standards (mass, roof shape and rhythm of openings). The Glenn Street side will be very visible. The mass and roof are fairly continuous planes that are not broken up. The Historic Commission's recommendations are in the packet. 3) Variance to the Special Setback: They are requesting the building to be located ten feet from the front property line. Staff believes the intent of the ordinance was to accommodate street widening projects. The applicant has submitted a letter from ODOT stating they don't see there would be any reason to widen the street in that location. The applicant states the unusual circumstance is the historic fatyade line of the neighboring area. Staff felt the more unusual circumstance is the dimensions of the lot, particularly the depth from front to back. There are two issues with regard to the benefit of the proposal compared to the negative impacts: complementing the historic front fatyade line that contributes to the historic streetscape and enclosing the street and making it more pedestrian oriented calls for front facades to be located close to the street and at the same plane. With regard to transportation, the Engineering Department did not anticipate anything being taken out along the front property line. Staff is recommending a continuance of the application based on the design issues and the Historic Commission's recommendation to continue the application to allow those items to be addressed. Stromberg said he wants to be careful about accepting the building and the building placement as a given and then starting to talk about Variances because "there is a problem." He's looking for a different reason for characterizing why there is a unique circumstance. Harris clarified the lot dimension is the unusual circumstance. PUBLIC HEARING TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way, and RAY KISTLER, 2025 Butler Creek Road spoke. Giordano addressed the setback issue and read from the Historic Design Guidelines concerning maintaining historic fatyade lines. He said they provided an aerial photo and topographic map showing the historic fatyade line. The state has no plans to improve the state highway. Placing the building closer to the street creates a much friendlier pedestrian environment. Kistler discussed the setback along North Main Street. If the building was smaller, it still couldn't be moved back farther because of the parking lot, the required five foot landscape strip, and the distance of the parking lot to the building. The distance from the back of the building to the eastern property line, the dimensions are all City standard minimums. If the building is moved back and ten feet is taken off, it won't meet the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Kistler showed the building material samples. He added a gable to the mass, lowered the saddle and took away steel supports on the Glenn Street elevation. He defended his original design. The Historic Commission has not seen the new color drawings trying to address their recommendations. Mindlin liked Kistler's original design and believes the new design is quite a compromise. Kistler explained the pieces he likes better in the new design and those he likes better in his original design. Kistler referred the Commissioners to the landscape plan in the packets. The street trees will be placed on the inward side of the sidewalk, instead of the parkrow. JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, spoke in favor of the proposal. With regard to street widening, there has been a long history of acknowledging that North Main doesn't have a problem with capacity according to the Transportation System Plan (TSP) from 1998. There are buildings all around this building that don't conform. As far as affording better light and air, if ten feet of the front of the building is cut off, it would be 2000 square feet or 30 percent FAR (in violation). White liked the first design. This is not a big building. COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison, said he was surprised that Kistler was unaware ofthe arterial setback. Secondly, Giordano recused himself from the beginning of last Historic Commission meeting because he was representing a client, returned to the meeting, where Kistler presented this application. He feels that was inappropriate since he is now representing Kistler for monetary gain. Swales argued that the setback along North Main is needed in the event it is ever necessary to widen it. He stated that he is a Traffic Safety Commissioner. ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, requested the record be kept open for seven days as he has not sent the new materials that have been brought forward. With regard to the Variance, this site does not have an unusual physical circumstance that can't be worked around - the lot does not have unusual lot dimensions, the neighborhood fatyade is not an unusual ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 4 circumstance on the site, and how can reducing the setback make a street more pedestrian friendly. Setbacks are for air, light and space. In addition, the City might want a right-of-way for a turn lane. Curbside sidewalks are dangerous for pedestrians. PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street, said Ruth Miller has given her testimony time to him. Lang's written submittal in opposition to the project is in the record. Dotterrer/Black m/s to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. The motion was approved. Morris/Dotterrer m/s to continue the public hearing, leaving the record open to February 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at Council Chambers. Voice Vote: All favored. Fields announced the public hearing will be continued on February 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Dawkins/Black m/s to extend the meeting unti/11 :30 p.rn. to work through the next action. The motion was approved. PLANNING ACTION #2006-02357 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SEVEN-LOT SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 165 L1THIA WAY AND 123 N. FIRST ST. SITE REVIEW APPROVAL IS REQUESTED FOR THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT AND PERIMETER LANDSCAPING. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE FOUR TREES SIX INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AND GREATER IN SIZE APPLICANT: ARCHERD & DRESNER, LLC Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Dawkins, Dotterrer, Stromberg, Dimitre and Marsh had site visits and no ex parte contacts. Mindlin had no site visit but is familiar with the site. Fields just completed a project at 180 Lithia Way for Evan Archerd and believes he can be unbiased and impartial. Morris did work for Archerd on a different project but said he is not biased. Bullock requested that whatever information is in the Northlight record and the Commissioners learned about the site should be included in this record. Upon Appicello's recommendation, Stromberg/Dotterrer m/s to incorporate all the minutes from all the Northlight meetings into the record for this action to represent the ex parte influences upon all of the Commissioners who were are part of that process. Voice Vote: Approved. STAFF REPORT Molnar reviewed the project as outlined in the Staff Report. He said the applicant has presented a project asking for approval under the Performance Standards Option because the City's standard subdivision code sets specific dimensions for lots. The applicant has said the Performance Standard doesn't require minimum lots sizes and their preference is to configure the lots to be more consistent with the lot sizes in the downtown. They will form a homeowners' association. Dawkins wondered ifit would be appropriate to add a Condition 22 emphasizing there is a 20 foot setback on Lithia Way. Molnar said the applicants have stated in their application that they are aware of the setback. They could also make it clear in the Planning Commission Findings. Stromberg asked how this can be a Performance Standards Option (PSO) application when the ordinance (l8.88.070D) states the minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standard subdivision shall be three. It seems with a Performance Standards Option the buildings are specified to some degree. He also noted the separation between buildings. What would stop the applicants or future buyers from purchasing the lots and consolidating them? Molnar said they first came to the Planning Department with a Subdivision and because of the need for flexibility in lot configuration, Staff suggested the PSO might be a better approach. Stromberg wondered if a PSO is designed for residential subdivisions, is there a way that has intellectual and legal integrity to use the PSO in a more creative way to create a mixed use subdivision. Molnar is not certain how much latitude we have. The PSO approach allows for common areas and landscaping building as one within a homeowner's association. It is generally a better product over a long term than having them maintained by individual owners. Black mentioned a letter received from Kay Spierings requesting one of the bioswales be moved. PUBLIC HEARING MARK KNOX, 276 W. Nevada Street, said the site is almost 100 percent asphalted over. The engineered plans could easily be revised to collect the water and send it over to the bioswale. The applicant is willing to work with the neighbors. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 5 Knox said they were concerned about processing this application under the PSG. A commercial subdivision doesn't allow flexibility. They are trying to look at this property long-term that accommodates a number of issues that were expressed during the original application such as: mass and scale, architectural creativity, contextual compatibility with the downtown and at the same time, not to play with the 20 foot setback. Knox submitted a letter to the Commission changing two Conditions and adding a Condition in order to provide clarity. Proposed Condition 22 - They want to recognize that a total of 43 units are allowed to be spread evenly throughout the subdivision. Revise Condition 14 - That all the improvements are done before anything is built. Defer the pedestrian easement until construction occurs on Lot 3. Revised Condition 19 - Allocate the existing parking on the unbuildable lot to specific units so that parking will belong to them, but the parking allocation shall not limit the amount of parking they can have if an owner can find a way of doing it when ultimately developing the lot. EVAN ARCHERD, 550 E. Main Street, said he heard from the previous applicant that the Commission wants smaller buildings developed over time. That is the concept behind this action. They plan to build buildings over a ten year period by using different designers and owners over a period of time. They used the PSG because they thought the minimum lot width would work better than under the Subdivision. Knox said they could come back under the Subdivision ordinance but they'd have to ask for a Variance. With regard to distance between buildings, the ordinance requires building from lot line to lot line. Knox believes they can guarantee a three unit minimum. Black/Dawkins m/s to continue until midnight. Seven Commissioners reluctantly approved and two opposed. Dawkins asked if we are assuming that Lithia Way is going to develop a new Ashland downtown. That was the hope that we could develop a downtown plan to address this. Mindlin/Dimitre m/s to withdraw the continuance of the meeting until midnight and adjourn and continue the public hearing until February 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by Susan Yates. Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2007 6 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION JANUARY 23,2007 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Olena Black John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Kate Jackson, Council Liaison Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Maria Harris, Senior Planner Council Members Present: Kate Jackson, Council Liaison to the Planning Commission Cate Hartzell Eric Navickas Russ Silbiger David Chapman Alice Hardesty II. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS PRESENT AnON by Bob Parker Bob Parker gave his presentation of the draft Economic Opportunities Analysis. The Planning Commission and city Council members in attendance had questions regarding the Economic Opportunities Analysis. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS 1. Black: Isn't tourism an industry? Why isn't that emphasized more, along with fine arts? 2. Stromberg: What benefit will industry provide to Ashland's economy? 3. Navickas: Shouldn't the City protect our employment zones? The city allows parking and residential uses, which diminishes the actual employment gains. 4. Dawkins: Is rail, freight and passenger part of the future? 5. Dotterrer: Is proximity to 1-5 an advantage compared to other cities in the county? 6. Jackson: There is a growing emphasis in the MPO to look at passenger rail. Central Point and other areas in Jackson County are looked at as the best rail freight location for industry. 7. Black: How much is there in home based businesses that take advantage of the internet? 8. Mindlin: Ashland has a much higher percentage of employment to population compared to other areas. Why is that? 9. Dawkins: Explain what is meant by certification of property for industry. 10. Silbiger: Can we get some information on seasonality of employment? 11. Hartzell: Are there examples of industries that are focused around sustainability? Co-location of these industries. 12. Dotterrer: Asked for further explanation about the role of SOu. 13. Black: SOU is starting to focus on fine arts and environmental science. 14. Jackson: Are we capable of maintaining businesses if they want to expand? What size sites (how large) do we need? 15. Stromberg: It doesn't sound like we're talking about economic impact, just development. Businesses that feed off SPU would have a positive impact. Downtown plan would talk about the mix of businesses. Keep the benefits within the community. 16. Hartzell: Advantages that we have is that labor force has a higher level of education. 17. Black: What is the down side of us being part of a regional economy? 18. Mindlin: Is it low-skilled people that commute here or high-skilled? 19. Colin Swales: Look at live-work. Look at incentives for incubators. 20. Navickas: Look at incentives. Would these be low or higher paying jobs? What about residential uses in industrial overlays? 21. Fields: Home based business growing out of their home. Start-up is linked to the internet. How does office park relate to employment growth? 22. Hartzell: Some people don't think Ashland will use industrial zone. 23. Stromberg: We need to also look at attracting investment capital. 24. Mindlin: Some of the assumptions she questions in the report. Ifthere is a projection of2,000 employees and only 1,500 population, something doesn't seem right. 25. Hartzell: People want employment that lives here. 26. Rebecca Reid: Economic development doesn't have to be synonymous with new jobs. It can mean increasing the standard of living. What are the strategies to tap high skill workers? 27. Dotterrer: We need to address the role of SOU in strategies. III. RIPARIAN ORDINANCE UPDATE Bill provided a work plan, calendar and update on the riparian ordinance. IV. SPECIAL MEETING A special meeting has been called for February 8th to begin discussion about Planning goals and work plan. V. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION JANUARY 23, 2007 MINUTES 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2007 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER - Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Olena Black John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Tom Dimitre Council Liaison: Kate Jackson, outgoing Planning Commission Liaison Cate Hartzell, incoming Planning Commission Liaison Absent Members: Dave Dotterrer Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Maria Harris, Senior Planner Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney Sue Yates, Executive Secretary Fields introduced David Stalheim, Community Development Director. OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTATION by David Stalheim Stalheim gave a PowerPoint presentation (attached to the minutes), reporting his observations of the planning process in Ashland. Discussion by the Commissioners followed with agreement on Stalheim's five key recommendations. The Commissioners prioritized the items from the short-term "mud bucket." [00:44:00} DISCUSSION POINTS AND COMMENTS 1. Materials need to be sent out in well in advance of the meeting. 2. Polarizing groupslissues - Bring developers and residents together. Bring newcomers and old-timers together. How? Through planning. 3. Planning Commission is always in emergency mode. Looking forward to making timelines and following through. 4. How much time will be expected of the Commissioners? After determining what the Commission wishes to accomplish, Stalheim wants to work with staff on a cohesive work plan. What are out outcomes and what process will we use to get there? He mentioned the Disappearing Task Force (forming committees that meet and finish their appointed task and then go away rather than going on and on forever). 5. Need a vision before we look at the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Shift from an addiction to process to an addiction to outcomes. 7. Planning study sessions in advance. 8. Key to efficiencies is good preparation. 9. Conduct at meetings. 10. Excitement/concern about ambitiousness of plans but where to find time to meet our goals. 11. Planning Commission needs structure. 12. What is the Commission's mission? Stalheim reminded the Commission that Commissioner Dotterrer has been working on clarifying roles and responsibilities and his work will be coming before the Commission at the February Study Session. PUBLIC INPUT PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street, discussed the importance of balancing competing interests (policy interests vs. development issues and values in theory and values in practice). AARON BENJAMIN, 740 Emigrant Creek Road, said we are lacking a vision of where we are going. He believes we are missing a closer analysis between the economic/industrial development that flows into the question of re-zoning and annexing into implementation to guide economic/industrial development. This relates to the question of infill vs. expansion. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2007 MINUTES 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD FEBRUARY 13, 2007 MINUTES (Note: The approximate time will be shown in brackets throughout the minutes in order to enable the reader to follow along with the video version of the meeting.) CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Tom Dimitre Olena Black Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, absent Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Senior Planner Derek Severson, Associate Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary [0:00] TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION: 2007-00090 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 630 Siskiyou Blvd. OWNER/APPLICANT: Bruce & Trudy Duncan DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a two-unit Travelers Accommodation (owners' unit and one guest unit). [0:25] This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION: 2006-02327 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 117 Garfield St OWNER/APPLICANT: William Koenigsberg DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert ten existing apartments to ten condominium units. [0:38] Black is concerned that the Comprehensive Plan has a requirement to provide apartment housing as one of the housing types. What system do we have to provide apartment rental stock? Harris said one of the goals of the Housing Element of the Comp Plan is to "insure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of Ashland's population... " [8:25] Dimitre does not believe this action meets the Conditional Use Permit criteria under the livability standard. In all probability, those making minimum wage will not be able to live in the converted condominiums. Therefore, that creates a negative impact on the livability for those who can't afford to buy condominiums and will force them to move. [10:00] Fields believes the livability issue is much broader than the net impact of this application. This is just a symptom rather than a way to modify and control it. [25:00] Black did not argue that these types of applications meet the criteria. Stalheim agreed and asserted that Black is raising a policy issue about housing and explained the larger policy issue cannot be implemented on a case by case basis. [28:00] Dimitre/Black m/s to call this action up for a public hearing before the full Commission. Roll Call: The motion carried with Dimitre and Black voting "yes" and Fields voting "no." PLANNING ACTION: 2007-00004 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 570 Siskiyou Blvd. OWNER/APPLICANT: Ronna Smith-Hillman DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the Transfer of Ownership of an existing Traveler's Accommodation (The Shrew's House). [28:30] This action stands approved. PLANNING ACTION: 2006-02346 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1880 Ventura Circle OWNER/APPLICANT: Barbara Allen DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert four existing apartments into four condominiums. [28:40] BlacklDimitre m/s to call this action up for a public hearing before the full Commission. Roll Call: The motion carried with Dimitre and Black voting "yes" and Fields voting "no." [29:00] PLANNING ACTION: 2007-00086 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1420 East Main St OWNER/APPLICANT: Oregon Military Department DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the installation of a governmental agency ground sign that does not conform to the City of Ashland sign code standard requirements. This action stands approved. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 2007 MINUTES (Note: The approximate time will be shown in brackets [ ] throughout the minutes in order to enable the reader to follow along with the video version of the meeting.) roo:OO:OOl CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins OIena Black Tom Dimitre John Stromberg Pam Marsh Dave Dotterrer Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Absent Members: No absent members Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, absent Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Maria Harris, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS - There were no announcements. rOO:01 :201 APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS January 9,2007 Hearings Board Minutes: MarshlDimitre m/s to approve. Voice Vote: The minutes were approved. Morris commented that he is concerned that an accessory residential unit was approved at the Hearings Board but the gross habitable floor area was calculated a different way for the main house than it was for the accessory residential unit. Will this set a precedent? January 9, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes and Findings: MarshlDimitre m/s to approve. Voice Vote: The minutes were approved. January 23, 2007 Study Session: Dotterrer/Dimitre m/s to approve. Black added to Questions & Comments 13. "...and environmental science." Voice Vote: The minutes were approved as corrected. rOO:09:001 PUBLIC FORUM Philip Lang, 758 B Street, discussed the condominium conversion ordinance. The ordinance has nothing to do with public policy, but market forces. Lang submitted his written comments. rOO:12:001 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: 2006-01784 (CONTINUED) SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandview Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Lynn & Bill McDonald DESCRIPTION: Request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the improvement and widening of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading of a portion of Grandview Drive and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. Fields announced the public hearing has been closed on this action. STAFF REPORT Harris said Staff has reviewed the materials that have been submitted and still believes the decision for the Commission is the Physical Constraints Review Permit outlined in the original Staff Report for the driveway and utility changes. The bulk of the information received is the supporting documentation to the City Attorney's memo on the legality of the lot. It was submitted to make the record complete. [00:17:00] Harris read the four Conditions. 1. All proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval. 2. That an access easement for the portion of the driveway on the property to the east shall be recorded and submitted prior issuance of a building permit. 3. That the area of disturbance for the private storm drain trench shall be landscaped to prevent erosion and shall be addressed in the landscape plan submitted with the building permit submittals. 4. That a landscape and irrigation plan to re-vegetate the area between the driveway and the top of the bank shall be submitted with the building permit. The landscaping shall be installed and irrigated prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. That the storm drainage from the roof and driveway shall be directed to a retention and water quality treatment system including but not limited to a planter box, vegetative swale or a filter strip. The retention and water quality treatment system shall be reviewed and approved the Ashland Engineering and Building Divisions. [00:29:00] 6. That the public utilities shall be moved more than 20 feet from the top of bank from Wright's Creek Drive. 7. That an encroachment permit is obtained for work in the right-of-way. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Dawkins/Morris m/s to approve PA2006.01784 with the seven Conditions as outlined. Roll Call: Dawkins, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Marsh, Morris, Dimitre, Stromberg and Fields voted "yes" and Black voted "no." The motion carried. [00:31:00] PLANNING ACTION: 2006-02354 (CONTINUED) SUBJECT PROPERTY: N. Main Street & Glenn Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the vacant parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection of N. Main Sf. and Glenn St. A Variance is requested to allow a 10-foot front yard setback where a 20-foot front yard for properties abutting arterial streets is required. An Exception to the Street Standards is required to provide a curbside sidewalk on Glenn Sf. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Since the last meeting Stromberg, Black and Morris had another site visit. Morris called Ray Kistler after the last meeting and apologized to Kistler for the lack of civility he was afforded at the last meeting. They did not talk about the planning action. No other Commissioners reported a site visit this month. [00:35:00] STAFF REPORT Harris reported this action is continued from the January 9,2007 Planning Commission meeting. After reviewing the applicant's request, she suggested the Commission focus on the Variance to the Special Setback Requirement. Staff believes the site design standards have been met. She showed the alternate site plan that changed the footprint of the building. The Historic Commission's original concerns have been remedied. Their list ofrecommendations is in the packet. They recommended approval of the revised proposal with the ten foot setback, but because they did not have enough design details, also recommended a condition that the plans with architectural details are submitted for review of the full Historic Commission prior to submission of the building permit application. [00:43:00] Harris explained the Variance. [00:50:00] Harris said if the Commission is moving toward approval, Staff is suggesting 19 Conditions with two added Conditions. 20. That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 21. That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and fire hydrant flow requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. [01 :00:00] The Commissioners asked Staff questions. PUBLIC HEARING [01:10:00] ART BULLOCK, 91 Glendower, said he believes the alternate plan satisfies the code and the fact the revised plan exists means the Variance is self-imposed. The 12 percent grade is not a unique circumstance. The negative impact is that with a ten foot setback, this will diminish the light, air and space, landscaping and pedestrian friendliness. The Variance would set a precedent. He is supportive of the Historic Commission review of the details. [01:16:00] JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, read from the LCDC rnfill Redevelopment Handbook regarding variance criteria under Review Procedures. He spoke about how applicants are required to maintain the historic fal;ade line of streetscapes. The Commission has to balance several issues. He also read from The Pattern Language concerning building fronts, and light and air. He showed the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 2 various building setbacks along North Main and ifthere is a 20 foot setback along North Main, seven buildings would have to be clipped and if there was a ten foot setback, only two buildings would have to be clipped if the street is ever widened. [01 :23:00] COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, believes the question is whether or not the ordinance should be obeyed. He referred to the Historic Commission minutes stating that additional right-of-way for turning lanes at Wimer and North Main Streets might be needed someday. He believes White took The Pattern Language discussion oflight and air out of context. [01 :27:00] PHILIP LANG, 715 B Street, handed out his comments. He believes the ordinance needs to be fixed and enforced. Most of the buildings along North Main meet the 20 foot setback. He would recommend they only approve this application if it meets the code. Rebuttal [01 :34:00] RAY KISTLER, 2025 Butler Creek Road, said the 20 foot setback on arterials has only recently come up. The unique circumstance is this is a lot in the Historic District on North Main Street and somehow a 20 foot setback is being applied that came up in the 1960's but not used to his knowledge for building along Main Street. He would ask the Planning Commission make a determination on what kind of setbacks they would like to see on Main Street and Lithia Way as they reflect the community values. [01 :38:00] COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION MarshlMindlin mls to approve the application (the revised plan that has been submitted, not the alternative plan) for Site Design, Variance to Street Standards, and Variance to the setback. Marsh is satisfied the rendition presented is both high quality and satisfies the historical criteria imposed on the site. She particularly likes the way the application treats the comer by opening up that area. It is important this go back to the Historic Commission to let them look at the details. With regard to the Variance to Street Standards and curbside sidewalks, this neighborhood has curbside sidewalks and it would not be appropriate to do anything else. Concerning the Variance to the setback, variances are a matter of judgment. There are variances because we want to be able to accommodate peculiarities of every site. Marsh addressed each criteria. 1) Unusual circumstances -The historical overlay is significant and on a prominent comer and the design needs to relate to that. The slope and the importance of access to the site from the back is an unusual circumstance. 2) Negative impacts on adjacent uses - There are no negative impacts to surrounding uses because there is an historical pattern documented in the maps. And, she believes having the buildings closer to the sidewalk is better for pedestrians, giving them a sense of safety. It also mimics the historical pattern of the street. 3) Is it self-imposed? The criteria does not say you have to prove you can't do it another way. We are looking for a way to accommodate good design and a way for the site to be able to relate to all the circumstances on the site. Dawkins has a concern with the setback on North Main. The historic houses were always along the west side of North Main and commercial development on the east side. As a pedestrian, biker and runner, North Main is very unsafe. A bike lane on either side of the road is essential for safety reasons for those that are trying to commute from other places (from the rest of the valley). Dimitre agreed and believes the criteria for granting a Variance is a much higher standard than given in the motion as well as the building being too big for the lot. Mindlin sees a conflict in the rules. There is a rule that there is supposed to be a 20 foot setback and there is a rule that says the application has to meet the historic fa<;ade. Either way, a Variance will be needed. The applicant has been guided by the Historic Commission and perhaps by Staff in determining that the historic fa<;ade line is at ten feet and that's how the building should be designed. Fields believes North Main can't be widened anyway, the 20 foot setback becomes a stumbling block, and therefore, the decision has already been made by the other buildings and the existing street width. The historic compatibility and integrity is better served by making the building deeper front to back than it is wide. It's a balancing act. Stromberg noted that a 20 foot setback is required. There was a prior ruling by the City Attorney that the setback takes precedence over the historic design standard. Nevertheless, the design standards are in place as an expression of something the community has decided and part of something the Commission is supposed to apply. [02:02:00] Roll Call: Marsh, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Fields, Morris voted "yes" and Stromberg, Dawkins, Dimitre and Black voted "no." PA.2006.01787, 479 Russell Street has been postponed until March 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. The Commission took a five minute recess. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 3 [02:12:00] PLANNING ACTION: 2007-00091 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Lithia Way & 123 N First Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Archerd & Dresner LLC & Redco Development LLC DESCRIPTION: Request for Subdivision approval of an eight-lot subdivision consisting of seven lots for future development and an eighth commonly-owned lot to accommodate landscaping, parking and circulation, for the properties located at 165 Lithia Way and 123 North First St. Site Review approval is requested for the proposed parking lot and perimeter landscaping. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove four trees six-inches in diameter at breast height and greater in size. [Note: This application is similar to a proposal under the Performance Standards Options chapter 18.88 on last month's agenda, but a new application has been submitted for consideration under the Subdivision chapter 18.80.J Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Stromberg, Dimitre, Dawkins and Fields had a site visit. Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris and Mindlin had no change from last month's site visits. Black took measurements on the site. [02:14:00] STAFF REPORT Severson said the applicants withdrew their application from last month and are now requesting a Subdivision. The changes are outlined in the Staff Report. Staff is recommending approval with the 20 attached Conditions. Molnar said forty-three units are based on a large amount of common area and distributing density throughout the seven lots. Continuing through the standards, if the total number of residential units exceeds ten, then the affordability criteria comes into play. Staffs feeling is if the applicants are going to compute density based on the entire lot area and use the common area, if the density exceeds ten units, then they should be required to provide a proportionate amount of affordable housing. He suggested a Condition should be added that there needs to be some kind oflegal instrument prepared by the applicant's legal counsel, prior to recording the subdivision plat that would make allowances as to where the affordable units would be provided and how they would be phased in. Severson said the maximum build out of the lots will be determined by parking available at Site Review. The applicants could build underground parking if they choose to do so. The applicants are looking to preserve their options for development down the line. Stalheim said most often Variance criteria are applied to lots or circumstances that were created prior to the establishment of the standards. In this case, clearly the standards for parking and other things are in place. He does not think there is any way the Variance criteria could be met or have any support for approval. Molnar said if the applicants wanted to pull the lot line closer to First Street and still meet the setback, Staff would not be opposed. PUBLIC HEARING [02:36:00] MARK KNOX, 320 East Main Street, Suite 202, said 43 units is what the density allows, however, they believe because of parking demands they will probably build between 20 and 25 units with approximately three to four to a lot -- they want to have flexibility. They are trying to set up a situation where there are many lots with individual owners that will end up reflecting what happened in downtown naturally without all these code requirements. They are not asking for any exceptions. Stromberg asked if the applicants would be willing to accept a Condition that would prohibit combining lots. Knox thought the applicants would be willing. He added there is no intention to make one monolithic lot. With regard to the affordable housing issue, Knox doesn't know of any other subdivision requiring affordable housing. How will they allocate them? Knox said walkways will extend in multiple directions through the property. They are not proposing underground parking. Dawkins hoped the applicants would find a way to develop within each of these buildings small studio apartments -like the type of studios that used to be in the downtown. Marsh asked if they had been in contact with the neighbor (K. Spierings) who is concerned about the fence. Knox said the wall and fence are non-conforming and they plan to leave it alone. Marsh wondered if Knox had addressed any possible parking conflicts. Knox said the parking will presumably be signed. He is hoping, however, the parking will be utilized to its full potential all the time. Marsh asked if it was necessary to lock the alley that ends on Lithia Way that cuts through the buildings. Knox understands they've had a lot of problems with the walkway next to Gold and Gems on the Plaza and it seems safer to lock it. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 4 Stromberg asked if it will be possible for residential units and parking spaces to be able to be bought and sold between the owners of the different properties as long as the total numbers stay the same. Knox expected that would happen depending on the different uses and demands. They want the buildings to recycle to whatever the market is demanding at a particular time. [02:57:00] Dotterrer suggested adding wording to Condition 18: That the CC&R's shall describe responsibility for maintenance of both common areas and the reallocation of parking spaces between lots. Knox recommended changing Condition 21 after "eight spaces each." Add: Parking may be transferred from one lot to another. [03:00:00J Dawkins/Fields m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. Molnar read from 18.32.025 D5. It states if the number of residential units exceeds ten, then at least ten percent of the residential units shall be affordable. This seems open to interpretation. Ifno one does subsurface parking, there would be 15 to 20 units because parking will be the limiting factor. [03:08:00] COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, believes this project is more in keeping with the Historic District and downtown than the last project proposed for this site. He believes the easement through the parking lot would have to be renegotiated with the City. He would like to see the easement between the two lots (alleyway) kept open because it creates a nice shortcut. The buildings could be quite large. The units can be anything from a studio to a large penthouse condominium. He would like a Condition that buildings be developed as individual units. He doesn't want to see someone buying the whole lot and building one monolithic building. He'd like a Condition that each of these units has separate utilities to it so they remain individual buildings. [03:13:00] RON ROTH, 6950 Old 99 South, has seen a lot of the downtown affordable rental units lost due to gentrification. He thinks underground parking should be revisited, perhaps through a public/private partnership. He would like to see the setback issue settled on the entire north side of Lithia Way. [03:20:00] Staff Comments Severson stated the Tree Commission's recommendations are in the packet. He proposed adding wording to Condition 14: That revised Landscaping and Irrigation Plan "and Tree Protection Plan" shall be submitted...survey plat. Molnar suggested wording for Condition 25: That a legal instrument binding the subdivision to the residential requirements set forth in 18.32.025(D)5 shall be prepared by the applicant's legal counsel for review by the Staff Advisor and approval by the City Attorney. The agreement shall be recorded with the subdivision plat specifying how the applicant's obligations under 18.32.025(D)5 shall be guaranteed and fulfilled. Stromberg asked ifthere was a way to condition the project to prevent the lots from being re-combined into one big lot. Molnar said lot consolidation is an option for any owner, however, any building will be subject to Site Review. The applicant could so stipulate. [03:28:00] Rebuttal Knox reminded the Commission that every project will come back in front of the Planning Commission for Site Review. He believes the mass and scale will be limited by widths being applied to the lots. He believes it is a stretch to say the property owners are now subject to affordable housing. EVAN ARCHERD said he believes there is a much simpler solution for the affordable housing and that is: If any of these property owners build more than four units of residential housing on anyone of these lots, they will guarantee at least one will be affordable. [03:33:00] Fields closed the public hearing. Dawkins/Marsh m/s to extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION [03:33:00] BlackJ Dotterrer m/s to accept project PA2007-00091 with the addition of the language for Condition 14 adding "Tree Protection Plan," the addition of Condition 25 with Molnar's wording, and Condition 21 regarding transfer of parking. The Commissioners discussed Condition 21. With regard to the entire project, Morris believes this project as an inefficient use of this property. We are driving ourselves the wrong way. By breaking this parcel up into several parcels, we'll have a bunch of small buildings. [03:49:00] Black clarified that the motion is to have Condition 21 written by Assistant City Attorney, Richard Appicello clearing up any ambiguity by stating that the parking is flexible in how it is allocated, in accordance with the ordinance discussing joint use of facilities. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 5 [03:51 :00] Harris said the parking issue is most critical when the project is initially built out. The applicant should be responsible for coming up with and managing the parking before the plat is signed and that information communicated to property owners. She thought a simpler Condition 21 would be: That a parking management and allocation plan be submitted for review and approval for Staff before signature of the final survey plat and recorded with the plat. Then, that plan is communicated to property owners who buy the properties. Appicello agreed with Harris' wording. He said if the code changes, new property owners will develop in accordance with the code that is in place at the time they develop. This should be included in the Findings. [03:57:00] Dotterrer/Marsh m/s to accept Harris' wording to Condition 21. Voice Vote: Unanimous. The Commissioners discussed Conditions 24 and 25 concerning affordable housing. Appicello said none of the residential standard (18.32.025(D)5 will come into play until the lots are developed. This is a subdivision. He's not sure it can be applied to the whole property. Applying affordable housing would come with the subsequent approval and not at this time. [04:10:00] Stromberg/Black m/s to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. The Commissioners decided to take the applicant's offer for affordable units (anything more than four residential units, the fifth will be affordable). Molnar said Appicello was providing an option that would allow the applicants to take an individual lot and through an owner's agreement, apportion one-seventh of the common area for the purpose of determining residential density. Marsh said if we eliminate Condition 24, then the affordable issue is moot. The affordability was triggered because they were allocating residential density ahead of time. Stalheim said the applicants proposed that if there are more than four residential units on a lot, the fifth will be affordable. If so, it can fall under Condition 1, that all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval. Appicello said Condition 24 can be deleted and then accept the applicant's proposal. Condition 24: The Commission is asking Staff to wordsmith it with the intended goal to not leave a vested interest of amount but make it clear that they want an allocation over the entire site for whatever the allowable density is to be distributed at the time of building. [04:17:00] Severson suggested adding wording to the first sentence of Condition 24 at the end of the sentence: "subject to density regulations at the time of development." In other words, we can allocate now as long as the applicants are aware it is subject to density regulations at the time of development. Dotterrer/Black m/s to accept Severson's language. Voice Vote: Unanimous. Marsh reiterated that she would like to see the alleyway kept open all the time. It is a great transition between downtown and the neighborhood. It's very visual and until there is some indication from the police that there is a problem, she believes it is a mistake to cut off our byways. This project has the possibility for changing the way people move around downtown. Stromberg/Black m/s to call for the question. Voice Vote: Approved. Roll Call: Unanimous. ro4:23:001 ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11 :25 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2007 6 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 27,2007 CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Olena Black Tom Dimitre John Stromberg Pam Marsh Dave Dotterrer Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Absent Members: No absent members Council Liaison: Cate Hattzell, present Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney Sue Yates, Executive Secretary I. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Commission open house will be held March 12, 2007 from 4 to 6 p.m. at The Grove. II. POWERS AND DUTIES. Dotterrer went through the consensus/majority points and positions relating to the Roles and Responsibilities of the Planning Commission. This is a culmination of several months of meetings both with the Planning Commission and individual meetings Dotterrer has had with Planning Commissioners. He is soliciting help for writing these up in a final draft ordinance language and then will take it to the Assistant City Attorney for his revisions. It will come back to the Planning Commission again before moving it on to the Council. Discussion Points 1. Write an introduction or preamble. 2. Include environmental stewardship in the next draft (potential #13). 3. The Comprehensive Plan is the foundation of what the Planning Commission does, therefore, it is developed, maintained and nurtured. 4 Citizen involvement - Stalheim, Molnar, Harris and Goldman are working on this piece. 5. There are many facets within the Commissions' roles and responsibilities. 6. Question about inclusion of urban renewal agency. Stalheim wanted to investigate further. 7. Be sure the list of items that the Commission is not including as their responsibility goes to the Council so they can see where to the holes are. 8. Commissioners want to see draft Roles and Responsibilities a week in advance of the meeting. 9. Are the items on the list consensus or majority? Some of the items left off the list had a majority, but they are not on the list. Transportation and Sustainability are Council responsibilities. 10. The Commission's core functions make up the list. It does not mean the Commission won't be involved in transportation or sustainability or other things. 11. Put the housing issue back on the list to discuss at the next meeting. (# 11) 12. Guidance before the next meeting as to the difference between a goal and Roles and Responsibilities. Function vs. goal. 13. Housing has two components: a) affordability (Housing Commission) and b) all zones are suitable for a particular type of housing (Planning Commission). III. PROPOSED CITY ETHICS ORDINANCE The purpose of this ordinance is to make sure the Commissioners understand the ethics and the ramifications of violating this ordinance. The Commissioners reviewed the ordinance. Stalheim made electronic changes as they moved through the ordinance. This is scheduled to go before the Council on March 6th. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION RULES Stalheim said they will only be discussing the rules tonight. They will not be making a final decision until it comes back to them at the next study session. Stalheim made electronic changes as they moved through the rules. V. REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING UPDATE Due to lack of time, Kate Jackson will come to the next study session to give the update. VI. STUDY SESSION LOOK AHEAD April 4, 2007 (Special Meeting) - Everyone agreed to this meeting. The May nod meeting has been changed to Tuesdav. Mav 29th at the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.rn. VII. RETREAT The suggested date of May 19th did not work for everyone. The Commissioners said they would be available to have the retreat on June 2, 2007. Stalheim asked them to send him ideas of what they would like to do on that day. VIII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was decided to defer the election of officers to the May regular Planning Commission meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.rn. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2007 2 Council Communication Citizen Advisory Committee Interchange Area Management Plan Meeting Date: March 20, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer .t Department: Administration Ann@ashland.or.us Contributing Dep,art nts: Secondary Staff Contact: Approval: Estimated I CITY OF ASHLAND nt agenda Statement: Confirmation by the Council of the Mayor's appointment of the following members to serve on the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Interchange Area Management Plan Citizen Advisory Committee (CAe). 1. Mike Gardiner 2. Doris Mannion 3. Dave Dotterer 4. Ken Khosroabade 5. Gordon Sievers 6. Victor Chang 7. David Newton 8. Karen Smith 9. Steve Jensen 10. Dave Gildersleeve Oak Harbor Freight Traffic Safety Commission Planning Commission Ashland Texaco Bear Creek Animal Clinic Lives near Exit 14, carpools daily to Medford using both Exit 19 and 14 Resident of Oaks of Ashland, nominated to volunteer for CAC by Homeowners Association Uses Exit 19 daily, is involved with the Bear Creek Greenway and has experience working with ODOT At large At large Background: ODOT is preparing to replace and expand the 1-5 overpasses at Exit 19 (Valley View) and Exit 14 (Highway 66) in 2008 and will be preparing an Interchange Area Management Plan (lAMP) for each of the interchanges. The plans will examine and make recommendations regarding the configuration of the interchanges, land uses around the interchanges and traffic management. The Oregon Department of Transportation asked the City of Ashland to assist in recruiting Ashland citizens to serve on the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAe) for the lAMP. In addition to the lO-member Ashland committee, the County will form a 5-member committee with county residents. The CAC is the primary citizen-involvement body and represents interested stakeholders of the project, including community members, property owners, business representatives and others who have an interest in the project. The CAC provides input and policy guidance, andin a sense, serves as a litmus test for the proposed improvements. There will be six three-hour meetings over a five-month period beginning in March 2007. ODOT will attend and facilitate the meetings. The City included information about the opportunity to apply for the CAC in the February issue of City Source, placed display ads in the Mail Tribune and Daily Tidings, mailed letters to; the Bike and Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Commissions, businesses on Highway 66, Culver Lane and Washington Street and Jefferson Street. In addition, staff contacted the Executive Director of DUDE (Disabled United in Direct Empowerment) who offered to "spread the word" to the disabled community. Twenty three letters of interest were received. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointment to the CAC Potential Motions: Council moves to approve the members of the Citizen Advisory Committee to ODOT. Council moves to deny or recommend changes to the membership of the Citizen Advisory Committee to ODOT 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: March 20, 2007 Department: Public Works ~ Contributing Departments: Fi~nnce rasing; Electric Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: Consent Ag Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 UNDERGROUND CABLE PULLING TRAILER Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown; 552-2411 '4# E-mail: brownp@ashland.or.uslff- Secondary Staff Contact: Mike Morrison Jr. E-mail: morrisom@ashland.or.us Statement: This action is to request approval from the City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, to enter into a public contract with Terex Utilities for the purchase of a new Underground Cable Pulling Trailer with a water cooled Diesel engine at a cost of $93,573.00. Delivery is scheduled to be 90-120 days after receipt of order. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the public contract be awarded to Terex Utilities - the lowest responsible and responsive bidder - for the Underground Cable Pulling Trailer. Background: Under the Ashland Municipal Code, if there are no exemptions or special circumstances, a formal competitive selection process is required to enter into a public contract for goods and services greater than $75,000. A Competitive Sealed Bid (Invitation to Bid) is the sourcing method for this public contract. The Invitation to Bid #2007-102 was sent to five (5) potential suppliers and two (2) suppliers responded to the bid. Underground Cable Pulling Trailer Underground Cable Pulling Trailer Delivery Bidders (After receipt with a water cooled Diesel engine with a water cooled Gas engine of order) Carlson Sales No Bid Highline Equipment No Bid Nelson Trucking No Bid Sherman Reilly $94,937.00 Gas engine not available 90 Days Terex Utilities $93,573.00 $96,204.00 90-120 Days The amount budgeted this fiscal year for the Underground Cable Pulling Trailer is $80,000.00. The increase in the actual bids is attributed to an increase in the cost of raw materials rA' Related City Policies: The maximum threshold for an Intermediate Procurement is $75,000; therefore, a contract greater than $75,000 requires a formal competitive process per the following: AMC 2.50.010 Definitions F. Intermediate Procurement. A procurement of goods or service between $5,000 and $75,000. Under the AMC, if there are no exemptions or special circumstances, a formal competitive selection process is the sourcing method per the following: AMC 2.50.070 Procedures for Competitive Bids All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Bidding pursuant to ORS 279A - 279C and the Attorney General Model Rules, OAR Chapter 137 Divisions 46 - 49, except for the following: The contract is greater than $75,000; therefore it requires the approval of the Local Contract Review Board per the following: AMC 2.50.020 Public Contracting Officer's Authority A. Authority to Execute Contracts Without Prior Council Approval. The Public Contracting Officer may execute without prior Council approval contracts that satisfy all of the following: i. The contract has a total value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) or less; Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the award of the public contract or decline to approve the award of the public contract. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to award the public contract to Terex Utilities. Attachments: Contract rA' CITY OF ASHLAND CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT Contract made this 21 st day of March Terex Utilities , 2007, between the City of Ashland ("City") and ("Contractor"). City and Contractor agree: 1. Contract Documents: This contract is made as a result of an Invitation to Bid issued by City entitled "INVITATION TO BID" for UNDERGROUND CABLE PULLING TRAILER, Bid No. #2007-102, Contractor was awarded the bid as the lowest responsible bidder on 03/21/2007 . In the event of any inconsistencies in the terms of this contract, the contract documents defined in the invitation to bid and Contractor's bid, this contract shall take precedence over the contract documents which shall take precedence over the bid. 2. Scope: Contractor shall produce and deliver the equipment described in the contract documents within the time prescribed in the contract documents. The following exceptions, alterations or modifications to the contract documents are incorporated into this contract: 3. Price and Payment: City shall pay Contractor the sum of $93,573.00 for the new equipment. OPTION #2 - Underaround Cable Pullina Trailer with a Water Cooled Diesel Enaine Delivery shall be 90-120 days after receipt of order. CORPORATE OFFICER CITY OF ASHLAND BY Signature BY Lee Tuneberg Finance Director Print Name Title: REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT: BY Department Head Fed 10 # Date Coding Purchase Order (for city use only) PAGEl of I-CONTRACT CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000 12-YARD DUMP TRUCKS - TWO (2) EACH Meeting Date: March 20, 2007 Department: Public Works Contributing Departments: Fin~nce- ~haSing; Electric Approval: Martha Bennett 1 Estimated Time: Consent Ag 'Jy/ I J' Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown; 552-2411 Ot E-mail: brownp@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Mike Morrison Jr. E-mail: morrisom@ashland.or.us Statement: This action is to request approval from the City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, to enter into a public contract with Northwest Volvo Trucks, Inc. for the purchase of two (2) new 12- Yard Dump Trucks at a cost of $261,388.08. One of the 12-yard dump trucks will be equipped with a square box style bed, and the other will be equipped with an elliptical tub style bed. Delivery is scheduled to be 120 days after receipt of order. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the public contract be awarded to Northwest Volvo Trucks, Inc. - the lowest responsible and responsive bidder - for the two (2) 12-Yard Dump Trucks. Background: Under the Ashland Municipal Code, if there are no exemptions or special circumstances, a formal competitive selection process is required to enter into a public contract for goods and services greater than $75,000. A Competitive Sealed Bid (Invitation to Bid) is the sourcing method for this public contract. The Invitation to Bid #2007-101 was sent to six (6) potential suppliers and three (3) suppliers responded to the bid. Witham Truck Center submitted two bids, Bid #1 did not meet the City's specifications, and Bid #2 met the City's specifications, but it was not the lowest bid submitted. Northwest Volvo Trucks is the lowest bidder on both trucks. Bidders Square Box Style Bed Elliptical Tub Style Bed Delivery (After receipt of order) DSU Peterbilt & GMC No Bid Nelson Truckinq No Bid Northwest Volvo Trucks, Inc. $127,322.54 $134,065.54 120 Days Stertz, Mike No Bid Webfoot Truck & Equipment $137,075.64 $143,818.64 120 Davs Witham Truck Center Bid #1 - $125,555.00 Bid #1 - $132,298.00 150 Days Bid #2 - $127,805.00 Bid #2 - $134,548.00 150 Days The amount budgeted this fiscal year for each truck is $135,000.00, for a total of $270,000.00 for two (2) each 12- Yard Dump Trucks. r~' Related City Policies: The maximum threshold for an Intermediate Procurement is $75,000; therefore, a contract greater than $75,000 requires a formal competitive process per the following: AMC 2.50.010 Definitions F. Intermediate Procurement. A procurement of goods or service between $5,000 and $75,000. Under the AMC, if there are no exemptions or special circumstances, a formal competitive selection process is the sourcing method per the following: AMC 2.50.070 Procedures for Competitive Bids All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Bidding pursuant to ORS 279A - 279C and the Attorney General Model Rules, OAR Chapter 137 Divisions 46 - 49, except for the following: The contract is greater than $75,000; therefore it requires the approval of the Local Contract Review Board per the following: AMC 2.50.020 Public Contracting Officer's Authority A. Authority to Execute Contracts Without Prior Council Approval. The Public Contracting Officer may execute without prior Council approval contracts that satisfy all of the following: i. The contract has a total value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) or less; Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the award of the public contract or decline to approve the award of the public contract. '\ Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to award the public contract to Northwest Volvo Trucks, Inc. Attachments: Contract ~~, CITY OF ASHLAND CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT Contract made this 21 st day of March Northwest Volvo Trucks. Inc. , 2007, between the City of Ashland ("City") and ("Contractor"). City and Contractor agree: 1. Contract Documents: This contract is made as a result of an Invitation to Bid issued by City entitled "INVITATION TO BID" for 12-YARD DUMP TRUCKS - TWO EACH, Bid No. #2007-101, Contractor was awarded the bid as the lowest responsible bidder on 03/21/2007 . In the event of any inconsistencies in the terms of this contract, the contract documents defined in the invitation to bid and Contractor's bid, this contract shall take precedence over the contract documents which shall take precedence over the bid. 2. Scope: Contractor shall produce and deliver the equipment described in the contract documents within the time prescribed in the contract documents. The following exceptions, alterations or modifications to the contract documents are incorporated into this contract: 3. Price and Payment: City shall pay Contractor the sum of $261.388.08 for the new equipment. TRUCK #1 -12-Yard Dump Truck equipped with square box stvle bed Amount for "new" equipment: Amount in dollar form: $127,322.54 TRUCK #2 -12-Yard Dump Truck equipped with elliptical tub stvle bed Amount for "new" equipment: Amount in dollar form: $134,065.54 Delivery shall be 120 days after receipt of order. CORPORATE OFFICER CITY OF ASHLAND BY BY Signature Lee Tuneberg Finance Director Print Name Title: REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT: BY Department Head Fed ID # Date Coding Purchase Order (for city use only) PAGEl of I-CONTRACT CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Cable Television Contract Addendum Meeting Date: March 20, 2007 Department: Informatio Technology Contributing Departments: Legal Approval: City Administ ,ity Attorney Primary Staff Contact: Joseph Franell E-mail: franellj@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: N/A Estimated Time: Consent Statement: Attached is a proposed Addendum to the contract the City made with Ashland Home Net (AHN) - Gary Nelson to provide cable television services in the City of Ashland. This addendum clarifies both the language in the original contract that references the original request for proposal and also the intent of the City Council in reference to the service provided. Background: On September 19, 2006, the City Council approved a contract with Ashland Home Net - Gary Nelson to provide cable television services in the City of Ashland. Paragraph six of that contract states, "Contractor shall provide services to AFN that are described in the RFP and the proposal." While the RFP stated that, "The City is seeking a qualified individual, team, or company to lease the City of Ashland, Cable TV Headend and associated equipment to provide Cable TV services within the City of Ashland utilizing 450 MHz WAN bandwidth provided by and through the Ashland Fiber Network's HFC network", the intent was to describe the analog system, not limit Ashland Home Net's ability to provide the content/channels relevant to the citizens of Ashland. This addendum clarifies the language in the contract to allow Ashland Home Net (AHN) full use of the capabilities of the analog video headend they are leasing. Related City Policies: None Council Options: Approve the addendum as presented or disapprove the addendum. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the addendum to the public contract with Ashland Home Net be approved. Potential Motions: Local Contract Review Board moves to approve the addendum to the public contract. Attachments: Addendum to the City of Ashland Contract for Cable Television Services r., FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY OF ASHLAND CONTRACT FOR CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASHLAND AND ASHLAND HOME NET CORP. Whereas, on July 31, 2006, the City of Ashland, acting by and through Ashland Fiber Network Cable Division, entered into a Cable Television Services Contract with Ashland Home Net Corp to provided cable television services (hereinafter "Agreement"); and Whereas, the contract intended to make Ashland Home Net Corp. solely responsible for content of programming; and Whereas, the parties wish to clarify with this amendment the intent of the parties; NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is herby amended to clarify the following: 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The Request for Proposals, (RFP), incorporated into the contract by numbered paragraph 6 of the Agreement states: The City is seeking a qualified individual, team, or company to lease the City of Ashland, Cable TV Headend and associated equipment to provide Cable TV services within the City of Ashland utilizing 450 MHz WAN bandwidth provided by and through the Ashland Fiber Network's HFC network. 3. The 450 MHz WAN bandwidth reference phrase used in the above-quoted RFP language is a descriptor of an analog cable system and is in no way intended nor shall it operate or be construed as a limitation of the service. 4. Pursuant to the Agreement, Contractor shall provide a diverse channel offering, relevant to the citizens of Ashland and City does not intend to engage in programmmg. 5. All other provisions of the Agreement not inconsistent with the above referenced clarification remain in full force and effect. CONTRACTOR CITY OF ASHLAND BY By Fed. ill # REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT BY Director of Information Technology DATE: REVIEWED AS TO FORM BY City Legal Council DATE: CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Declaration and Authorization to Dispose of Surplus Property CABLE TV - DIGITAL SET TOP BOXES Meeting Date: March 20, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Joseph Franell Department: Information Technol E-mail: franelli@ashland.or.us Contributing Departments: Fi;i1nanc Secondary Staff Contact: N/A Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent A a Statement: This action is to request approval from the City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, to declare the potentially 2,440 digital cable television set top boxes as "Surplus Property", and to authorize a public sale (Invitation to Bid) be held to dispose of the property declared as surplus. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that a public sale be held to dispose of the surplus digital cable television set top boxes. Background: The Ashland Fiber Network ceased its cable TV service on October 20, 2006 when Ashland Home Net's lease of AFN's former cable television services became effective. Ashland Home Net does not offer digital CATV products or services to its customers; therefore, all digital set top boxes were collected and disabled ("turned off) by AFN. Currently AFN has approximately 2,200 Set Tops shrink wrapped on pallets in the warehouse and the remaining 200 Set Tops are trickling in from former customer homes. MAKE/MODEL Quantitv Motorola OCT 1200 200 Motorola OCT 2000 2240 Pending FCC deadlines (July 1, 2007) that affect deployability of non-cable card ready set top boxes make the timing of the sale important. Through a series of orders, the FCC determined that in order to insure commercial availability of set tops (allowing for consumer choice), it was required to separate the "conditional access" functions of a Set Top. "Conditional access" means the signal security codes in a set top that block or enable access to encrypted programming. The FCC's Integration Ban, prohibits the deployment of digital Set Top Boxes with integrated conditional access functions after July 1,2007. Exceptions - The Integration Ban does not apply to: Set Top Boxes that a cable operator has deployed before July 1, 2007. Set Top Boxes that have received a waiver from the FCC. This means that unless the FCC grants a waiver for a particular box, any new boxes deployed after July 1,2007, must be Cable CARD-compatible. As AFN currently has no functioning Set Tops deployed in customer's homes that would be granted "grandfather exception", our current inventory of warehoused Set Tops represent no future business potential or value for the r., City. AFN staff recommends the surplus selling of approximately 2,440 Set Tops (a handful of returned boxes may be non-functioning or "broken"). A value of between $75 and $100 for the 2,240 "DCT 2000 Model set tops" and between $50 and $75 for the "DCT 1200 Model Set Tops", Staff estimates the surplus value of these set tops at between $150,000 and $239,000. Staff is seeking Council approval to sell the Set Tops following the City's surplus equipment procedures. Related City Policies: Council authorization is required prior to disposing of surplus property having a residual value of more than $10,000, per the following: AMC 2.50.115, Disposal of Surplus and Abandoned Property, the City of Ashland Finance transfer to other departments, direct transfer or sale to political subdivisions, state agencies, or non-profit organizations, sale, trade, auction, or destruction; provided however, that disposal of surplus property having residual value of more than $10,000 shall be subject to authorization by the City of Ashland, Local Contract Review Board. Staff recommends the surplus digital set top boxes be offered in a public sale, after considering the other disposal methods as follows: AMC 2.50 EXHIBIT "B" Prior to offering Surplus Property for Public Sale (1) Prior to offering surplus property for public sale, the Surplus Property may be made available bydirect transfer or direct sale to the following: (a) Other City departments (b) Political Subdivisions (c) State Agencies (d) Any non-profit organization determined to be eligible by the Purchasing Agent. (2) Surplus Property acquired by political subdivisions, state agencies, or qualified not-far-profit organizations through direct sales or transfers must be used only in the conduct of their official public programs. (3) Surplus Property must not be acquired through warehouse floor sales or direct transfer for any use or purpose other than conduct of their official public programs, and not for resale or distribution unless otherwise pre-approved by the Purchasing Agent. (4) Non-qualifying private entities and private citizens, separately or combined, must not be eligible to acquire surplus property except at public sales. The disposal method for this public sale would be an Invitation to Bid which is defined as follows: 5) "Invitation to Bid" means a competitive Offer to bid on Surplus Property available for public sale and is also known as a bid advertisement. Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can declare the set top boxes as "Surplus Property" and authorize a public sale to dispose of the property declared as surplus, or decline to declare the set top boxes as surplus property. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to declare the digital cable television set top boxes as surplus property and authorizes a public sale (Invitation to Bid) be held to dispose of the property declared as surplus property. Attachments: None rA' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Liquor License Application Meeting Date: Department: Approval: March 20, 2007 City Recorder Martha Bennett Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated time: Consent Agenda Statement: Liquor License Application from Russell Bjerke dba Downtown Poker Club at 255 E Main Street (Elks Lodge building downstairs). Background: Application for liquor license is for a limited new outlet.. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 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 Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. Council Options: Approve or disapprove Liquor License application. Staff Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location ofthis 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. Potential Motions: Motion to approve Liquor License application. Attachments: None r., CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ashland Reiterating its Policy of Relating the Expenditure of Monies for Economic and Cultural Development to the Hotel/Motel (Transient Occupancy) Tax and Repealing Resolution 2004-32 Meeting Date: March 6, 2007 Department: Administrative Servi es Contributing Departments: N Approval: Martha Benne Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg frI'.~ E-mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: NA E-mail: Estimated Time: 45 minutes Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council either approve the attached resolution, re-establishing current allocations of transient occupancy tax revenues or change the allocations to begin the grant process for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. Statement: Goals and allocation of revenue is currently identified in Resolution 2004-32, which was passed in September 2004 with a sunset clause for the second paraqraph of Section 3 after three years. Effectively, the budget process for FY 2007-2008 requires direction in how funds will be allocated in general, and specifically on how much is to be granted to the Chamber of Commerce and Oregon Shakespeare Festival, and for what purposes. At the February 6,2007, meeting Council asked staff to bring back additional information on changes to the existing resolution in regards to goals for the tax revenue and allocations to the Chamber of Commerce, Oregon Shakespeare Festival and small grantees. As directed on February 6, staff will bring back a separate item within two months to allow Council consideration of raising the TOT rate. Council was reluctant to change the tax rate unless there was a plan for how the money would be used and still remain compliant with state guidelines. An increase in the tax rate will require a new ordinance to make that change. Background: Attached are the Council Communications from the study session on October 12, 2006, and Council meeting on February 6, 2007, which provide historical and financial information of this tax revenue and the granting process and history. City Council, grant applicants and the Budget Committee have asked for clarification over time and this is an opportunity to consider how tax revenue is allocated and what outcomes are desired. If Council wishes to increase the current tax rate of 7%, an ordinance process would need to be followed because Ordinance 2674 does not provide for changes to the rate by resolution. In February staff suggested the following expanded goals to assist in identifying what is meant in promotion in the three expenditure categories: r~' Tourism: · Attract someone who travels to Ashland from more than 50 miles away to attend an event · Attract someone who stays the night in Ashland to attend an event Economic Development · Promote increased number, variety and size of employers · Encourage wages at or above median wage · Promote businesses that employ 5 to 100 people or is locally owned · Encourage use of local resources · Work with Southern Oregon University, especially for international commerce · Discourage businesses that need water, that emit air pollution, or that create toxic waste Cultural Development Proposed · Increase the number, variety and size of cultural opportunities in Ashland · Support diversification of the local economy · Showcases local talent · Work with Southern Oregon University on cultural programs Attached is a draft resolution that incorporates the above changes and maintains the allocation of budgeted revenue each fiscal year as follows: General Fund general revenues General Fund E&C Grants: With and and and 66.7% of anticipated revenues 33.3% of anticipated revenues A set dollar amount to OSF for tourism A set dollar amount to Chamber of Commerce (Coe) for tourism A set dollar amount to CoC for Economic Development The remainder of the 33.3% being given to specific programs as applied for per the resolution Additionally, staff attempted to be more specific on the use of grant funds in the Ashland Community and strengthened reporting requirements. Staff recommends Council increase the minimum amount to be granted from $1,000 to $2,500. Reporting is relaxed for that size of grant if the purpose for the money was not a Tourism requirement. No report would be required under those conditions unless the applicant was asking for money in a following year. In effect, this means a one-time, non-tourism grant applicant for a small amount will not have to report and staff will not have to maintain the files. The above numbers and percentages are calculated and adjusted per the resolution in accordance with the State of Oregon Chapter 818. Council has already directed staff to change grant applications and final reports to be more specific on their requests for tourism grants and qualifying uses to ensure sufficient documentation is maintained to prove compliance with Chapter 818 and the state definition of tourism. A worksheet is provided for Council Members to develop their own strategies on allocating the grant portion of the revenue generated by the 7% tax to facilitate preparation for the meeting. The form identifies the target amount to grant using 1/3 of the budgeted revenue as in the past and 14.23% for tourism as determined in 2004. rj.' ALTERNATIVE: If Council so chooses, the above allocations and goals that are based upon prior resolutions could be changed, however, use of TOT revenues for tourism must be maintained at the appropriate levels established in 2004. The estimated amount to be spent on tourism in FY 2007-2008 is $218,715 (given an average of 4% increase in TOT revenues). A "blank" resolution form is provided. Spaces have been inserted into the resolution for Council Members to consider other amounts and to identify how allocated amounts could change between years where the City has discretion. (For example, do allocations to OSF and Chamber change, increase/decrease by inflation or growth/reduction of the budgeted tax revenue on an annual basis?) TAX INCREASE Staff is still working on a proposal for how additional revenue raised by a TOT rate increase would be allocated. Research shows that some communities use money to pay for a local conference center (Seaside is an example) while others may leave that to a county, a private coalition or joint governmental effort. If Council should raise the tax rate, 70% of the additional TOT revenue generated must also go toward tourism as defined in the attachments but some of the new money may go toward supporting a convention center in Ashland, leaving 30% of the new money for discretionary purposes. In doing so, Council could identify targets or outcomes of the increased revenue outside of the historical allocations identified above. Examples are using the additional 70% to promote tourism during the "shoulder season (October-November and January-April) and the discretionary 30% could be used for programs such as helping to retire AFN debt, offsetting shortfalls in Community Development revenues that are construction permit reliant or to assist with funding the library or other specific services. The target to spend on tourism would be approximately $372,415 in FY 2007-2008 if the tax is raised to 8%. The target to spend on tourism at 9% tax rate would be approximately $526,115. Council Options: Council can: 1. Approve the attached resolution, repealing 2004-32 but keeping the allocations the same. 2. Approve the attached resolution with changes in goals and/or allocations per discussion. 3. Direct staff to bring to a future Council meeting a revised resolution that addresses items discussed in this meeting, which may be done in conjunction with an ordinance increasing the tax rate. Potential Motions: 1. Council moves to accept the staff recommendation, approving the resolution as presented. 2. Council moves to approve the resolution as amended. 3. Council directs staff to bring back a different resolution or ordinance changing the terms or tax rate. Attachments: Resolution Resolution draft (with blanks) TOT Grant Allocation Worksheet Economic and Cultural Grant Allocation with Tourism Calculation - FY 2008 Council Communication - February 6,2007, meeting Council Communication - October 12, 2006, study session ~~, RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND REITERATING ITS POLICY OF RELATING THE EXPENDITURE OF MONIES EOR ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE HOTEL/MOTEL (Transient Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2004-32 THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council recognizes that the source of monies for the Economic and Cultural Development Grant program is the Hotel/Motel Tax. SECTION 2. The following are the goals which the Budget Committee is attempting to meet by granting money to applicants for: a) Tourism Promotion: 1. Attract someone who travels to Ashland from more than 50 miles away to attend an event. 2. Attract someone who stays the night in Ashland to attend an event. b) Economic Development: 1. Promote increased number, variety and size of employers. 2. Encourage wages at or above median wage. 3. Promote businesses that employ 5 to 100 people or is locally owned. 4. Encourage use of local resources. 5. Work with Southern Oregon University, especially for international commerce. 6. Discourage businesses that need water, that emit air pollution, or that create toxic waste. c) Cultural Development: 1. Increase the number, variety and size of cultural opportunities in Ashland 2. Support diversification of the local economy 3. Showcases local talent 4. Work with Southern Oregon University on cultural programs SECTION 3. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2007/2008, the City Council will appropriate thirty-three and one-third percent (33.3%) of the anticipated Hotel/Motel tax monies for Economic and Cultural Development. The City of Ashland has determined that as of July 1, 2003, $186,657 or 14.23% of total Hotel/Motel tax revenues were expended on tourism promotion, as defined in Chapter 818 of the 2003 Oregon Laws, and will continue to be spent on tourism promotion increased or decreased annually consistent with the estimated TOT revenues budgeted. The minimum amount to be spent on tourism in FY 1- 2007 TOT Expenditure Resolution Repealing 2004-32 2007-2008 is $218,715. The amount to be allocated annually to Ashland Chamber of Commerce (COC) and Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) for promoting tourism per the state definition shall be $85,330 and $116,700, respectively, adjusted each year by the am()Unt-of inflation or deflation established in the Budget process. An additional amount of $169,740, adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation (increase or decrease in budgeted TOT revenue) established in the Budget process, will be granted annually to COC for economic development projects in cooperation with City staff. Any additional amount for tourism required by Chapter 818 shall be allocated to COC, OSF or other group during the budget process specifically for that purpose. The remainder of the monies budgeted for these grants may be allocated to grantees for activities fitting in any of the three categories set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution. By January 31 of each year each recipient of a grant greater than $2,500 for non- tourism programs or any amount specifically intended for tourism per this resolution shall submit a report to the city council setting forth how the grant funds received were expended in furtherance of the goals set forth in Section 2. Grant recipients of $2,500 or less for non-tourism programs are required to report its use only when requesting additional money in a subsequent year. SECTION 4. The following guidelines and criteria are established for the Economic and Cultural Development Grants: a) Grantee shall be a 501 (c) non-profit agency. b) Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency. c) Grantee shall promote livability for the citizens of Ashland. d) The minimum grant proposal will be $2,500. e) The grant will benefit Ashland in regards to enrichment and activities of an economic nature. f) Grantee shall serve the population in Ashland but may encompass other venues in the Rogue Valley. Monies granted are intended to be used for programs or service performed or provided within the City of Ashland or immediate areas. SECTION 5. Resolution 2004-32 is repealed upon passage of this resolution. SECTION 6. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder 2- 2007 TOT Expenditure Resolution Repealing 2004-32 SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Michael W. Franell, City Attorney 3- 2007 TOT Expenditure Resolution Repealing 2004-32 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- ~L A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND REITERATING ITS POLICY OF RELATING THE EXPENDITURE OF MONIES FOR-EE0NOMle-AN-n-CULfURAL DEVELOPMENTTO THE HOTEL/MOTEL (Transient Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2004-]] THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the city council recognizes that the source of monies for the Economic and Cultural Development Grant program is the HotellMotel Tax. SECTION 2. The following are the goals which the Economic and Cultural Development Committee is attempting to meet by granting money to applicants: a) Tourism Promotion. b) Economic Development by: ]) Responding to general inquiries about business in the city; 2) Providing assistance to existing small businesses; 3) Providing technical and financial assistance for the expansion of existing businesses; 4) Providing technical and financial assistance for the development of new businesses; or 5) Providing such other services and support to business as the city council may deem beneficial. c) Cultural Development. SECTION 3. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2004/2005, the city council will appropriate thiI1y- three and one-third percent (33.3%) of the anticipated HotellMotel tax monies for Economic and Cultural Development. The City of Ashland has determined that as of July], 2003, $186,657 or 14.23% of total HotellMotel tax revenues were expended on tourism promotion, as defined in Chapter 818 of the 2003 Oregon Laws, and will continue to be spent on tourism promotion increased or decreased annually consistent with the estimated TOT revenues budgeted. The amount to be allocated annually to Ashland Chamber of Commerce (COC) and Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) for promoting tourism per the state definition shall be $80,432 and $110,000, respectively, adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation established in the Budget process. An additional amount of $160,000, adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation established in the Budget process, will be granted annually to COC for economic development projects in cooperation with City staff. The allocations in this paragraph shall sunset after three years. Any additional amount for tourism required by Chapter 8] 8 shall be allocated to COC, OSF or other group during the budget process. The remainder of the monies budgeted for these grants may be allocated to grantees for activities fitting in any of the three categories set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution. TOT Resolution 9/07/04 page I of2 By January 3 I of each year each recipient of grants under this resolution shall submit a report to the city council setting forth how the grant funds received were expended in furtherance of the goals set forth in Section 2. SEcn ON 4,_ Th~fujlQWing-8Uidelil1€-&-ana-eritef"-ia-are-estabtTshetliOn1fe-Econom i c and Cultural Development Grants: a) Grantee shall be a 50 I (c) non-profit agency. b) Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency. c) Grantee shall promote livability for the citizens of Ashland. d) The minimum grant proposal will be $ 1,000. e) The grant will benefit Ashland in regards to enrichment and activities of an economic nature. D Grantee shall serve the population in Ashland but may encompass other venues in the Rogue Valley. g) Irrespective of sub-paragraph 'b', the City of Ashland Public Arts Commission may apply for and receive funds. SECTION 5. Resolution 2004-] I is repealed upon passage of this resolution. SECTION 6. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.04.090 duly ~(* ~~ PArTED~2004 Barbara Christensen, City Recorder nu~~ ~ SIGNED and APPROVED this~day ~~ 2004: ./ ~~~ Alan DeBoer, Mayor TOT Resolution 9/07/04 page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND REITERATING ITS POLICY OF RELATING THE FXPENOITt IRi= OEMONIES FOR ECONOMICAND CUL TURAL- DEVELOPMENT TO THE HOTEL/MOTEL (Transient Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2004-32 THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council recognizes that the source of monies for the Economic and Cultural Development Grant program is the Hotel/Motel Tax. SECTION 2. The following are the goals which the Budget Committee is attempting to meet by granting money to applicants for: a) Tourism Promotion: 1. Attract someone who travels to Ashland from more than 50 miles away to attend an event. 2. Attract someone who stays the night in Ashland to attend an event. b)' Economic Development: 1. Promote increased number, varietyahd size of employers. 2. Encourage wag,es ator above median W~g~. . 3; Promote businesses that employ 5 to. 100 peoplE! or is locally owned. 4. Encourage use of local resources. , 5. Work with Southern Oregon University, especially for international commerce. 6. Discour~ge businesses that need water, that emit air pollution, or that create toxic waste, c)Cultu'ral. Development: 1. Increase the number, variety and size of cultural opportunities in Ashland 2. . Support diversification of the local economy 3. Showcases local talent 4.,V\for)<:',wlth SoutheinOregon University on cultural programs .;,.. S~dliQ'NY3.,:/: " .^ ..: H, ",:." '. ......." .' " .. H' '. ",.." B~ginhing)~A'':lscar Y;ear 2oo1i20~~ltheClty,'GQunCilwjll;~ppr~p.rjat~. th~rty-three and 6D~:-\hi.rdp~rcel1t,(33iP.%) Of th~ .aJ:lticipate~. H.ote'l~otettaxm~ni.~~l f()rEconomic and .CtOt4ral~ DegeJ0prn~'nt:The,t:;.ity6f Asiilaridha~;detetmiiH~athaKa:s,.bf:,~luIY ~, 2003, $i1:il~~6,$7o('t4.236Iobftoti.iIHot~i/Mot~1 tax revenues were expeftded on tourism pfqmdfi6Ji;a$<d~fjned in Chapter8.18 of the.2003 Oregon laws, and will continue to be sp~dl~.i?Ftt~bi:is.rriprml}btion increased ordecrea$ed annuallycQnsi$tent with the estimi3te(ffdTf~vemies bUdgeted. The minimum amount to be spent on tourism in FY 1- 2007 Draft TOT Expenditure Resolution Repealing 2004-32 2007-2008 is $218,715. The amount to b.e '~J1o~;:ited annually to Ashland Chamber of Commerce (COC) and Qr,egonShake$pearef.~stival(OSF) for pr6moting tourism per the state definition shall be $ . . <. .. <, arlo'S , respectively, adjusted each year by the amount of (inflation or deflation, increasear decrease in J;JUdgeted TOTreveiw~);established in the Budget process. An additional amount of $ , , ~djusted each year by the amount of (inflation or deftation, increaSe or decrease in budgeted TOT revenue) established in the Budget process, Will be granted annually to COC for economic development projects in cooperation with City staff. Any additional amount for tourism required by Chapter 818 shall be allocated to COC, OSF or other group during the budget process specifically for that purpose. The remainder of the monies budgeted for these grants may be allocated to grantees for activities fitting in any of the three categories set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution. By Jahuary 31.ofeach year each recipient of a grant greater than $2,500 for non- tourism programs or any amount specifically intended for tourism per this resolution shall submit.a report to. the city council setting forth how thegn::mt-funds received were e~pendedinJurtheran~e.of tile, goals set forth in Section 2.Gr~nt recipients of$2,500 o'r less for non':'tourism,programs are required to report its use only when requesting additional mqneyina.subsequent year. SECTION 4. The following guidelines and criteria are established for the Economic and Cultural Development Grants: a) Grantee shall be a 501(c) non-profit agency. b) Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency. c)<3f~Qtee$I")an! pr,pmote livability for the citizens of Ashland. '(j);f~~ ij)in.iti)jJrr1:gt~J)t:,prop()sal will be $2 ;500.. ' " , e) ThegranfVilUybenefifAsHlariq in regards to en rich memt anq activities'of an , ."economic natore., , . .. " ,. .... . ~f} 'Gr~rite~:$ti~Jtf,~~r\ie:lheip6pulation,tri A~hland.butm~yenc.ompa~$'other venues in " ' 'ttl~,tf{~g~~,'9~U,€y>,:)~~h!~S9.ranted'are: int~nded::fo?b~" g.~~d:fo(prt?g,rams,..bJ s.erV{c~;;~p~'[f()'ttQ~~ of p.rovided within the Glty of Asnlanch:>( immediate areas. 1... ' .:. .~v' ," .. '. v's' ~~..- ." _.': . ;<.- , , .',"',': ,,"', " ".< SECTlotfs: Resolution 2004-32 is repealed upon passageofthis resolution. .<- ,', ' ' ,: " -, .:) ,{ :.> ~.. ::~1 , ':' :, ',:",;-' u~ . S~b!I~'~:~~~',',i~i~'resOliJtiQn takes effect upon signing by the mayor. , ;',< ':-- ,,", TJ1is:te~QI~~OD;~a~re;3d by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090;'duly:PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2007. ;-,,:,: .:, '~'..: :":;::"~',:-<~"'. . ;';, " . ~ . '.... ., , ',-. 2- 2007 Draft TOT Expenditure Resolution Repealing 2004-32 ~arbara Chri$tensen, City Recorder ~IG~:E[)al1l'J. APPROVED this _ day of ,2007. Reviewed as to form : Jonn W. Morrison, Mayor MichaelVV.F ranell, . (j'ity Attorney 3- 2007 Draft TOT Expenditure Resolution Repealing 2004-32 ..J c: <{ .2 b~ ... Q) ~ l/) ~ ... o 3: r:: o :;:; lU U o <( .. ~I c: e Olel E Q. ~ 21 Ol III o'E III ... ~I ... r:: lU ... C> t- o t- .. :51 c: ~ Ol e Eel Q. o ~ 21 0111 "~ ~ E jl "~ .91 ...... ::I.!!! o'C 1-- .!!? l/) lU m ]1 o l() l() "- l() N '" o "- o l() l() N '" I l() "'<t CD "- "'<t N '" o Ol C') "- '" ]1 o CD ~. CD 00 '" o C') C') l() 00 '" I l() "'<t ~ N 00 '" Ql o ~ Ql E E o u - o ~ Ql .c E III .l: U o C') 00 "- o o "- CD ~ ~ o o C') C') o C') ~ "- o o f'o- CD ~ o o C') C') ~ III > +:l Ul Ql u.. Ql ~ III Ql ~ Ul Ql .l<: III .l: l/) c: o Cl Ql o N o Ol CD C') N ll) ci '<t f'o- C') C') ll) 0> co o. to '<t 0>. to '<t co C') '<t to co co 0. to C') 0>. to C') co C') '<t to ll) N f'o-. '<t ll) co "'- CD ~ o f'o- ll). N N .l!l c: CIl .!:! a. ~ <l - c: CIl ... Cl ... (l) .l: o N co N N ~ ll) '" N co N N ..J c: <{ .2 I-iii ----.0 ;;:: I- .... N co N. N ll) .... 0> co o .. ~I c: e Olel E Q. ~ 21 Ol.!!! O'C III ... ~I to .... '<t 0>. to .... '<t co C') '<t CD c Q) a. Ul -0 c: m -0 Q) C ~ Ol !!' .. ~I ~ e Eel Q. o & ~_~I "~ E jl .... co f'o- '<to N C') N '" C') ll) "'- C') N .... E Ul .C ::J E .9 c ::J o E III E ::J E :~ E Q) :S C') co Ol N N .... Q) ::J c: Q) > i!' ll) f'o- co ~ N .~ en .c m ~ g> ~b .2 Ol 0 Ul (1) ~ ro ~8 c ~~ ~ co>- ~ ?f2.LL >. ~ ~ ; m w .~ g ~ "0 "0 Ul Q) .2:?a> co m.c U :5- g g~ co ~o 2 N"O c COc m ~ m U NU Ul :00 c ....u 6 'OE E ~~?f2.~ o 0("") m EEiiig CUm a. cQ)~c. ~:Siii:: OlUlEc m ~ ~ ~ C:Q)Q)el ~ ~.~ Q; :)coC:5 -g .c .2 0 tJ)UcoQJ CtJO'+=.r::. CDzEI- l/) Q) > :0:: lU r:: ... Q) ... <( .... ll) f'o- co N .... U l- I ll) f'o-. to ~ N .... ]1 I ]1 .... "" .... (l) o ... Ql E E o u - o ... (l) .0 E III .r::. U III > +:l Ul Q) u.. Ql ~ III Ql ~ Ul Ql .l<: III .l: l/) c: o Cl ~ o Ul - c: CIl ,g ~ ~ <l - c: III ... Cl .... (l) .l: o .... .... .... V> V> V> V> V> .... V> V> V> N co N N .... II) '" N co N N .... '" N CO ~ N .... II) .... '" .... '" '" '" .... ." .... t--_ co .... N '" ." .... t-- cO .... N '" ." .... t-- cO .... N '" .l!l CD Cl "- III I- N co N N ~ V> N co N N V> N to N N ~ "" V> "" '" '" '" V> c E c ;:: CD -0 2l ~ UI CD .r::. - ~ CD C- C ::> o E lU E .~ ::> o - CD ;; C> -= -0 C CD C- UI .!!? - CD ~ lU f- -0 CD ~ "::; C'" ~ ;>. c: o CD .r::. f- LO f'o- co ~ V> LO f'o- co ~ '" LO .... f'o- co ~ ~ V> Q) U C Q) ~ is City of Ashland Economic and Cultural Grant Allocation With Tourism Calculation Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue (4% growth) 2008 Proposed $ 1,537,000 Tourism Payment per month Per Resolution 2004-32 14.23% Minimum amount needed for Tourism $ 218,715 $ 218,715 1/3 of the proposed revenue Additional Carryover from Prior Year' $ 512,282 T atal amount budgeted $ 512,282 Amount Allocated: Per Resolution 2004-32 (3% inflation) Chamber to promote tourism Chamber for economic development OSF to promote tourism $ 82,845 $ 164,800 113,300 $ 360,945 $ 82,845 $ 6,904.00 13,733.00 113,300 196,145 $ $ 9,441.67 20,637 $ 9,441.67 Other Grants $ 151,337 $ 22,570 $ 218,715 . Please note that the City Council determined that any grant monies not awarded or returned from a grantee are rebudgeted for expenditure in the next fiscal year. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Discussion of Transient Occupancy Tax Use Meeting Date: February 6, 2007 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Bennett Primary Staff Contact: Lee T uneberg E-mail: tuneber1@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: NA E-mail: Estimated Time: 30 minutes Staff Requests: Staff requests Council provide direction on what changes are desired for the revenue generated by City of Ashland's Transient Occupancy Tax, the rate charged and the allocation of funds generated by the tax. Statement: At the November study session Council asked staff to bring back tentative goals for the use of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues and potential options for changing the amount (rate) charged. Background: The City of Ashland has a 7% TOT tax rate. This revenue stream is sometimes referred to as a Hotel/Motel or Bed Tax. It is collected by hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts and hostels. In FY 2005-06 this tax generated $1,414,160 in revenue to the General Fund and was used as follows: Tourism Grants Economic Grants General Fund resources $205,197 $274,989 $933,974 Please note that the tourism amount and grant allocations are based upon the adopted budget and actual revenue will vary from that amount. In 2004 the State of Oregon passed legislation that restricted the use of these funds and established guidelines on what happens to any additional amount of revenue generated if the tax rate is raised. Basically, the city is required to spend a similar prorate share on tourism as was in place prior to 2004 and must dedicate 70% of any new revenue streams from an increased tax rate on tourism.. Resolution 2004-32 was adopted to deal with the new State laws. The resolution established what portion was dedicated toward tourism as defined by the State. The resolution also carried forward other goals established by the City for grants given to the Chamber of Commerce, Oregon Shakespeare Festival and smaller grantees relating to tourism and economic development. Attached is a list of grants provided in the recent past. Council asked for comparative information relating to the TOT rate in Ashland and other communities. Below is a comparison table of other city's Transient Occupancy Tax rates. r~' City Rate Portland Bend Medford Astoria Grants Pass Klamath Falls Salem Seaside Roseburg Cannon Beach Eugene Springfield 115% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 8.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.5% 4.5% As can be seen, Ashland is less than most, falling between the rates charged by other tourist locales, Canon Beach and Seaside. It would appear that Eugene and Springfield are "deadlocked" at 4.5%, neither forcing tourists to stay in the other's boundaries simply through a higher tax rate. If Ashland were to raise its rate, each additional 1 % would generate over $151,000 to be spent on tourism per the State's definition and about $65,000 in revenue to be used for any other programs. The following table illustrates how an increase from a 7% tax to 8% would affect the estimated overall revenue, the amount required to go toward tourism and what additional amount would be generated for other use per ORS 305.824(5)(b). TOT Revenue Current 7% Increase to 8% Total $ 1,514,100 $ 216,186 $1,730,286 Portion of increase to Tourism (70%) Portion available for other uses (30%) 151,330 64,856 This means that 70% of the revenue generated by an increase ($151,330) will need to be added to the budgeted $215,456 already going toward tourism, of which the largest portion goes to the Chamber of Commerce for visitors and convention services. Approximately $65,000 would be generated for City services not tourism based. Goals included in the grant resolution have been similar in wording for many years but interpretation and application has shifted over time. Some Council members and budget Committee members have recalled unwritten goals to use the money as "seed" money to get small groups and/or new programs started. The resolution has provided money for ongoing programs including and beyond the work done by the Chamber and OSF. Many smaller grant applicants have received annual allocations per the attached table. Council requested staff provide potential changes to the resolution and goals to assist in determining how the City can best use funds generated, supporting tourism and economic development yet remaining compliant. More specific goals in the three categories will assist the awarding of grants to applicants and reporting by them on how the money was used. Examples of more specific goals are: Tourism: · Someone who travels to Ashland from more than 50 miles away to attend an event · Someone who stays the night in Ashland to attend an event r~' Economic Development · Increase number, variety and size of employers · Wages at or above median wage · Employ 5 to 100 people or locally owned · Encourage local resources · Work with Southern Oregon University, especially for international · Discourage businesses that need water, that emit air pollution, or that create toxic waste Cultural Development Proposed · Increase number, variety and size of cultural opportunity · Support diversification of local economy · Showcase local talent · Work with Southern Oregon University Staff offers the following information to assist the discussion on what could be done different with the use of the funds providing additional monies for specific City programs: 1. Raise the tax by 1 % to 8% resulting in a total commitment to tourism expenditures of $366,786 ($215,456 + $151,330). 2. Allocate the same portion to Oregon Shakespeare Festival as currently provided which is approximately $112,200 3. Allocate the remainder of tourism dollars required ($366,786 - $112,200 = $254,586) to the Chamber of Commerce for Visitor Convention Bureau. 4. Allocate $150,000 to grantees for economic development or cultural development per applications to maintain a consistent total level of support. 5. Allocate $950,000 to General Fund as general revenues to maintain a consistent total level of support. 6. Allocate the remainder of total TOT revenues to go toward specific General Fund programs including other economic development work, AFN support or debt, social programs, etc. 2007 Allocation Proposed Allocation per Budget with 1 % increase New Dollar Allocated $1,514,100 $1,730,286 By Category Tourism Chamber of Commerce $ 82,845 $ 170,641 $ 253,486 Oregon Shakespeare Festival 113,300 113,300 Other Grantees 19,311 (19,311) Total $ 215,456 $ 151,330 $ 366,786 Economic and Cultural Development Chamber of Commerce $ 164,800 $ (164,800) ,$ Other Grantees 124,394 25,606 150,000 Total $ 289,194 $ (139,194) $ 150,000 General Fund Resources Non Specific $ 1,009,450 $ $ 1,009,450 Specific Programs 204,050 204,050 Total $ 1,009,450 $ 204,050 $ 1,213,500 r~' Council Options: Council can ask staff to: 1. Bring to Council a resolution that mirrors the existing 2004-32 for renewal. 2. Bring to a future Council meeting a revised resolution that addresses items discussed in this study session. 3. Work with identified individuals (Council members, staff or others) to create a new resolution that manages and/or allocates the TOT revenue collection and distribution differently per State guidelines and City goals. Potential Motions: 1. Council accepts staff recommendation as presented 2. Council amends recommendation 3. Council directs staff to bring back more information for discussion Attachments: Resolution 2004-32, 2004-11, 2000-25, 1998-02, and 1993-12 Economic and Cultural Development Grant Allocation with Tourism Calculation Small Grants Tourism Allocation Economic and Cultural Development Grant History ~~, City of Ashland Economic and Cultural Grant Allocation With Tourism Calculation Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue (5% growth) 2007 Adopted $ 1,514,100 Tourism Payment per month Per Resolution 2004-32 1423% Minimum amount needed for Tourism $ 215,456 $ 215,456 1/3 of the proposed revenue Additional Carryover from Prior Year* $ 504,650 5,000 Total amount budgeted $ 509,650 Amount Allocated: Per Resolution 2004-32 (3% infiation) Chamber to promote tourism Chamber for economic development OSF to promote tourism $ 82,845 $ 164,800 113,300 $ 360,945 $ 82,845 $ 6,90400 13,733.00 113,300 196,145 $ $ 9,441.67 20,637 $ 9,441. 67 Other Grants $ 148,705 $ 19,311 $ 215,456 * Please note that the City Council determined that any grant monies not awarded or returned from a grantee are rebudgeted for expenditure in the next fiscal year. City of Ashland FY 2006-07 Economic and Cultural Development Grant Applicants Small Grants Tourism Allocation Adopted Tourism Allocated to Organization Requested Amount Amount Percentage Tourism Ashland Independent Film Festival $ 30,000 $ 16,000 $ 20,000 0.67 10,667 Rogue Valley Symphony 14,750 8,000 1,622 0.11 880 Nuwandart 5,500 1,500 1,100 0.20 300 Ashland Gallery Association 33,200 16,000 19,400 0.58 9,349 Community Works 10,000 2,500 0.00 SI. Clair Productions 6,000 4,000 2,400 0.40 1,600 Arts Council 12,500 5,000 7,500 0.60 3,000 Multi Cultural Association 10,000 10,000 0.00 The Jefferson Center for Religion 10,000 7,000 0.70 Lithia Arts Guild 15,431 9,000 3,086 0.20 1,800 Youth Symphony of Southern Oregon 5,500 5,000 0.00 Second Street Musicians 3,250 2,000 0.62 Dancing People Company 7,000 700 0.10 ScienceWorks 20,303 16,000 5,076 0.25 4,000 Konaway Nika Tillicum 5,000 5,000 2,500 0.50 2,500 Chautauqua Poets & Writers Board 5,000 5,000 0.00 SOWAC 8,000 8,000 0.00 Thrive 11,000 11,000 1,100 0.10 1,100 Children's Musical Theatre of Ashland 25,000 625 0.03 ArtNow 1,500 1,205 300 0.20 241 Rogue Opera 12,000 7,000 0.00 S. Oregon Repertory Singers 7,500 2,500 4,100 0.55 1,367 Peace House 9,766 0.00 Oregon Stage Works 51,000 5,000 20,400 0.40 2,000 Siskiyou Singers 7,000 5,000 300 0.04 214 Ballet Rogue 10,000 6,000 5,000 0.50 3,000 $ 336,200 $ 148,705 $ 98,909 38,804 Amount Available $ 148,705 Tourism Minimum $ 19,311 3/1/2007 c: '" t5 "0 c: c: Q) .!!![ .c 0 "'-.; <( > o~ ~;; u~ " u <> 'E o c: o <> w ~ .s .!!! :J: .... "0 '" Q) cb"E '" '" ~ ~ u..<{ "00 '" Q) 0 ab"E~ ~ ~... .... "0 '" Q) '"0 ... ~ '" '" ~ ~ u..<{ o "'"00 '" Q) '" M "E N '" '" ~ ~ u..<{ o M"OO OCD~ N"E '" '" ~ ~ u..<{ N "0 9 Q) "E '" '" ~ ~ u..<{ "0 '" Q) o"E '" '" ~: '" "0 '" Q) '"0 en ~ en '" ~ ~ u..<{ en "0 en Q) ca"E en '" ~ ~ u..<{ 00 "0 en Q) , "0 r- ~ en '" ~ ~ u..<{ Q) E '" z E l! '" e "- "0 c: '" >- <> c: Q) '" <{ '" 0 00 '" 0 '", 0000 0000 000 l.l') u:iwLric-.i o o o 0-; 00 o 0 '" 0 c5u-i o o '" o 0 o 0 o '" u) oq. 0000 0000 u)Ol.l')~ M ~-N""'" 000 000 oc!.o M"-.::tN ... 0000 0<:)00 00 U") 0 M -.q. N u) 0000 0000 lD...,OCO MMu->r--- o o o 0-; 00 o 0 '" ill r---- o o '" 0-; o 0 o 0 00 N":;:- o N 00. c o Q) Q) ~ c:: Gro.Q E~~ 1?~g ::; ~ tI] o c: <( ~o E ?:- EJ1? u 0 rn cU!.? 133:5-g-g ~OUrnctl rozV):E::C 1:::"Ctv)U') <(<(<(<(<( o o a. o '" W 'E ~ "" '" Qj o 0.. Q) '" => => gg 0:: '" ];?~ ro.c; CD U o o o '" 00 00 o 0 r---M o o o <Xi o o '"'- o o q '" o o q ~ E o 0 ~& ~c .~ ~ E!.? E Q) O.c; Uf- c .c; 0 '5~ -5'-0 S'o 2 ~ :Q ~~~ .f:~~ aUi<( NO'" "g -g :s I ~ .~ o o q " o o A. m o o o '" o o o " 00 o 0 0'" c:i - o o q o o o N o o "'. :g 19 c: .Q V) .~ ~~-o o~wo8 ~~m~~ ro a(:I Q) Q) ~-o gm ~~U5o... -gg6~ ~ ~ ~ ~ zOOo.. ro 'Vi .2 ~3 '" Eo; .3~ o o q '" o o o cD 00000 00000 l.C:l.OOl.l')or-- M ..q.r--- N M o 0 o 0 <D N N~- o 0 o 0 "'- '" NO-; E '" 0, o 0: W <Ii Q) .c; f- C Q) Q) t- >- c: 2 a. E >0 <fJ '" ~ >- ~ Q) ~ 0 8-~~ Q) Q) 0 => => C 0>0>Q) o 0 '0 0::0::<fJ 00000 00000 00000 r--" 00. to vi ::::- 0000 l.l') 0000....,. I,() 0 0 0,...... ill r---- lfi u) to 00000 00000 ooo..-t.(') u::i cD N.....,.- u::i 0000 OOOlO l.l') l() U')."""'o N-M o 0 '" 0 NO M ~- o o o N o o o o o '" N o o '" ~ o ~ o 0.. W Q) ~~ 0::-' ~~ c ~ ~.~ ~ roW 0, ~:ct c 0 Q)~ Ero 0.0 00 ~ ci Q) 0 00; ~.~ ~ Q) 0 _ 0> c: c .!:: 0 0 CfJ~~ 5o::n:: ~OO !!J ci 0 <fl <fJ <fJ o o o. '" o o o <D o 0 0 o 0 0 '" 0 0 N cO "'<:t* o o a. ..-, o 0 o 0 0'" ....,.- r---- o 0 o 0 o '" o)M o o '" N 8~ '" cON o 0 o 0 '" 0 cri "'4"- o o C> ..-, " 0 - 0 .... 0 u"iN o o o N o o a. ..-, o 0 - 0 r--. o. o o o M o 0 o 0 o 0 u-i ........- 0000 0000 01.00....,. t.Drvi..--r--- o o C> o o o '" o o o '" o o o '" ro ~ <ll u.. .E u: C Q) -0 C <ll a. <ll -0 E -0 c: '" :c~V) ~ .Q? ~ -0 c: ~~~c55U5 ::J:> 'g ~ ~ U5 coO <fJ 'C ~ ~E.s,~g 'cU:U::r:o:::: Q) c C c E 0 0 0 0 <( gg:?~ "~ 0 0 0 0 ~~~~~~ ~ ..c: ..c: ...c :; ~ 6~g~60 (J)<fJCf)(fJ(f)Cf) '" c '" ,Q (I) ~~~ -g (3 .~ n:~~ "fij S; :v (3)70 U5~~ o '" "'. o o o '" o o o '" o '" 00 o '" <D o 0) ~ ot:;t"- l.{)- ..n 0> o o a. <") o o o N o '" N M o o " M o o q <") o o "'. <") o " "'. c o 0> <ll o a'" >oc c: m ~(9 0.-0 E <ll ~~ .c;.Q "'50; o c: >-=> .... "" r- cO ... .... ... r- cO 00 0 N " "'0 N N .... " '" "" 0 <D 0 U') ro ui N ... ..-, N o '" "" cO ... '" '" "l. en ... '" '" <D ~ '" "" <'!. ;:; N n; B D => tI) en " w .... ;';, '" N '" " '" N ':1 c:i " '" o o " c:i ..-, '" c; ....- N ro !;;C. " .... o o A. w en 0000, -0:1" 00 "l:t r-- l.() 0 N .......- M - N~ ..-, ~ N ?:- ~ wI ~~ En; ~z 0'0 a E Q; ~ D '" E => "'~ B~ ",z ~J? :c 'u '" '" <(Cl. n; '0 15 " rotl) -'" -;;; <ll u.. <J) ro <ll 5} 11 m .c; <fJ c: o 0> l" o o .... o '" ..-, en M-ci - <D - M 8:; N " 0i"": .... M ON OM o ... o' 0,- - .... - M N N <") .... ..-, " 0i ""'$'~ - .... - M o '" <D .n- o '" <D ~ v. .... v .... o o <D or) v v o '" '"'- " o '" o .... m ::? " o o <D ~ o o <D '" " " C) 0 0 0, CIo 0 0 0, (7) m O'l 0, tD tD t.D 0 C) MOM V " " 0"" " ... 1.0_ ""'$'_ ro o ... - M CIo 0 0 0 CIo000 ~ ~ ;::. q 00 ro ro ,., ..-, ..-, 0'" o '" <D '" .......-00 OM ~ M '" .... " .... m 0> u-lf"i ;?~ w " ..-, ~ <D ~ 'cO l!:l 0'" 0'" ro 00 NoO .... N N .... o o o ~ 00 ,., .,., '" v N .... ,., v .... ~ o o o o <D '" o .,., ,., M ,., '" n; '0 I- o <=> 0_ " co ..-, o o <0 <D 00 <") <=> o o ::? '" o o o c:i <D '" <=> en 00 c:i U') '" Q) '" "0 ::l lD "0 Q) "0 c: Q) E <{ o o o -.i" 00 ..-, '" '" " N .... ..-, .... <Xi ro N o o o c:i <D N o U') <") M ..-, '" "0 Q) "0 c: Q) a. )( W <D ro -.i" .... ... a . ~ ~ " ~ ;::: o '" '" .... :! ..; ~ .... M ~ ~ '" '" .... ,..: 'E => o E <{ '" c: c .;; E Q) '" r- o o '" 5' ;;; I ~ i5 ~ ~ 1 o ] -,; u o ~ ] f I ~ ~ ~ i5 > . o ~ -,; o & 00 0> en Q) "0 c: .;; E Q) a:: -0 <ll -0 C .2 -0 c vi '" Q) c -in => .0 S OJ Q) c: .Q o z " ~ ~ ~ (; CITY Or ASHLAND Council Communication Study Session - Goals for Transient Occupancy Tax Use Meeting Date: October 12, 2006 Department: Administrative Services Contributing Departments: NA Approval: Martha Bennett Primary Staff Contact: Lee T uneberg E-mail: tuneber1@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: NA E-mail: Estimated Time: 60 minutes Staff Requests: Staff requests that Council discuss what outcomes are desired from the use of the General Fund revenue generated by the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) in conjunction with State requirements and the needs of the City. Statement: This is a study session. The discussion should provide a better understanding for Council and staff on the history of this tax, and its uses, and may be the basis for subsequent changes in the tax or the City's goal(s) in the use of the revenue generated. In the past there has been significant discussion by Council and the Budget Committee regarding the use of the TOT revenue and the grant process for distributing the funding. Suggestions range from additional changes on how much is awarded to whom, better criteria for awarding grants to applicants, different requirements for applying and different reporting requirements needed for the use of granted monies. More specifically, areas of concern have included: 1. How much do we get each year? 2. What percent of TOT revenue does Council want to go to the General Fund and what percent go toward economic development and visitors and convention services (per state statute the minimum to be spent on tourism in FY 2006-07 is $215,456)? 3. How could we increase funding for visitor services or economic development? 4. What other activities should or could the City fund with these revenues? 5. Can we raise the TOT rate above 7%? What happens to the added revenue? 6. How can we give better direction to the budget committee in awarding grants? 7. Should CoC and OSF do an annual application for the amount they need for that year's activities or should they each receive a fixed amount? 8. Should someone or group other than the budget committee award the grants? 9. How do we ensure that the money granted is used as intended and effectively? 10. Should we do two year grant awards like the City does for social grants? 11. Should we have a more streamlined application process and/or reporting for very small grants (ie - under $2,500)? r~' 12. Do we have particular goals for visitors services that would change the application process? This may not be a comprehensive list. Background: The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) was first passed by Ordinance #1907 in 1977. The Ordinance states that each transient who rents a room, house, or similar structure for less than 30 days will be charged a 7% tax on the room rate. Each establishment is allowed to retain 5% of those taxes collected for administering the tax and the remainder goes to the City's General Fund. It is estimated that in FY 2006-2007, the operator(s) will receive almost $79,000 in total for collecting the tax, and the General Fund will receive $1.5 million in TOT funds. Currently, there are six establishments that report monthly and sixty-six that report quarterly. It is estimated the staff spends one hour per quarter on collections. The City allocates the TOT revenue generated by the ordinance in the General Fund The latest Resolution is 2004-32 and it was adopted on September 21, 2004, effective for FY 2004-2005. The provisions of the resolution sunset three years from adoption (September 21,2007, and FY 2006-2007) and thus a replacement resolution will need to be implemented this year in preparation for the FY 2007-2008 budget. Below is a table that shows siqnificant chanqes in the qrant process over the years. There have been some clarifying or correcting resolutions in between those presented but they are immaterial to this discussion. Action #93.12 Increase in #98-02 60% to COC #2004-11 Comply #2004.32 Include Grant Amount & 28% to OSF with ORS Tourism Arts Commission Awarded by: Application Per resolution Per resolution Per resolution Grant Award CoC Per Application $156,000 $240,432 $240,432 (same year) Grant Award OSF Per Application $72,800 $110,000 $110,000 Basis for Increase General Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Inflation/Deflation Inflation/Deflation Revenue Growth Revenue Growth Grant Report Not specified Next FY - Jan. 31 Next FY - Jan. 31 Next FY - Jan. 31 The allocation of the TOT revenue per the resolution for FY 2006-2007 and calculation of the tourism amount per the state definition is attached. Please note that in every process many grantees and budget subcommittee members have struggled with several issues. Followinq is a list of issues relatinq to most of the applicants: A. The resolution guidelines are general in nature to allow creativity but that can also lead to confusion when evaluating and comparing applications, their perceived benefit and the appropriate amount to grant. B. The subcommittee may be asked to grant to an applicant for a worthy activity who has only a preliminary approval letter from the IRS. C. The application, award and subsequent reporting processes may be discouraging to grant applicants requesting small amounts. A significant recent change has been r~' requiring the 501(c) applicant to provide their most current 990 report to the IRS regardless of how small the City's grant may be, especially when compared to the applicant's other revenue streams. D. The City could be spending more money administering and pursuing information on small amounts granted to a one-time event than the amount awarded to the applicant. E. The state requirement for tourism is benchmarked on "spending." Measures on the effectiveness of spending may be difficult to quantify, especially for smaller activities. Single event grants are somewhat easier for reporting as long as the event happens early in the Fiscal Year (FY) such as July - February. For ongoing activities (Chamber, OSF, and many small amount applicants) and those that happen after the new application process has started, there are added problems as listed below: A. Chamber and OSF were exempted from the annual application process with Resolution #98-02 which has caused concern with the contract award process regarding what the community is getting for the amount awarded. B. A repeat grantee could be applying for a second year grant before completing the prior year's activities. C. In many cases, a second year grant will have to be awarded (if approved during the budget process) before the first year's report can be generated. D. A grantee's first year activity may not relate to a second year activity, thus success or failure on a previous awarded activity may not be a good indicator of a subsequent grant's potential success. There is considerable interest in dealing with these issues. Changes in the processes for applying, awarding, utilization or reporting can be significant and may require an appropriate lead time for compliance. At best it will require input from participants and the public that may not fit well if held to the budget or contract approval process. A process to change the resolution will need to begin early enough to be completed in time for revisions to the grant application, directions and forms that are done in February. This would help to make the FY 2007 -2008 grant and budget schedule smoother. The amount received in the General Fund is allocated by current Resolution 2004-32 that states the City Council will appropriate thirty three and one third percent of the anticipated Transient Occupancy Tax monies for Economic and Cultural Development with the remaining sixty six and two thirds percent allocated to the General Fund to fund Police, Fire and Community Development costs. A change in the allocation guidelines established in the current resolution will impact operations and funding of General Fund services. Reducing the portion that goes for general support will require additional reliance on other revenue streams such as property taxes in the General Fund departments. An example of such an impact for FY 2006-2007 follows. ~~, TOT Revenue Portion to General Fund TOT Percentage of Total Revenue to the General Fund 2007 Adopted Current 7% $ 1,514,100 1,009,450 6% Portion to Grantees 504,650 Property Tax Rate Permanent Rate Limit Unlevied Portion available 3.9747 4.2865 03118 Tax rate increase to maintain $1 million for General Fund costs 05920 Rate shortfall Revenue shortfall $ 0.2802 477,000 Property taxes alone will not be sufficient to maintain the General Fund at the approximate $1 million level the TOT funds have provided in the past. A significant portion of the revenues generated by the TOT continues as a need in the General Fund. Related City Policies: The TOT could be increased to provide additional revenue to be dedicated towards tourism. In FY 2003-2004, the following revised statute was passed regarding TOT. ORS.305.824 S11 (3) A unit of local government that imposed a local transient lodging tax on July 1, 2003, may not decrease the percentage of total local transient lodging tax revenues that are actually expended to fund tourism promotion or tourism-related facilities on or after July 2, 2003. (5) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply to a new or increased local transient lodging tax if all of the net revenue from the new or increased tax.... is used consistently with subsection (6) of this section to: (a) Fund tourism promotion or tourism related facilities; (b) Fund city or county services; or (c) Finance or refinance the debt of tourism-related facilities.... (6) At least 70 percent of net revenue from a new or increased local transient lodging tax shall be used for the purposes described in subsection (5) (a) or (c) of this section. No more than 30 percent of net revenue from a new or increased local transient lodging tax may be used for the purpose described in subsection (5) (b) of this section. (7) 'Tourism promotion' means any of the following activities: (a) Advertising, publicizing or distributing information for the purpose of attracting and welcoming tourists; (b) Conducting strategic planning and research necessary to stimulate future tourism development; (c) Operating tourism promotion agencies; and (d) Marketing special events and festivals designed to attract tourists. (9) 'Tourism-related facility': (a) Means a conference center, convention center or visitor information center; and (b) Means other improved real property that has a useful life of 10 or more years and has a substantial purpose of supporting tourism or accommodating tourist activities. Tourism is defined as someone who travels 50 miles or more or who spends the night in Ashland to attend an event. rA1 The following table illustrates how an increase from a 7% tax to 8% would affect the amount required to go toward tourism and what additional amount would be generated for other use per ORS 305.824(5)(b). Current 7% Increase to 8% Total TOT Revenue $ 1,514,100 $ 216,186 $1,730,286 Portion of increase to Tourism (70%) 151,330 Portion of increase to Economic Development (30%) 64,856 This means that 70% of the revenue generated by an increase ($151,330) will need to be added to the amount already going toward tourism ($235,000), of which the largest portion goes to CofC for visitors and convention services. Only $64,856 would be generated for City services not tourism based. Staff is asking for direction to set up the budget and granting process for the coming year(s). Does Council want to: 1. Change the percentage of TOT that goes to VCB, economic development or other grants? 2. Increase funding for VCB or economic development by increasing the TOT rate? 3. Require CoC or OSF to apply for grant monies like other grant applicants? 4. Set a fixed allocation for CoC or OSF? 5. Change or set specific criteria or goals for the grants as in previous resolutions? 6. Allow for a multi-year allocation? 7. Make the application and reporting process easier for the little grants? 8. Change how the applications are reviewed ( and how allocations are made)? Council Options: Council can ask staff to: 1. Bring to Council a resolution that mirrors the existing 2004-32 for renewal. 2. Bring to a future Council meeting a revised resolution that addresses items discussed in this study session. 3. Work with identified individuals (Council members, staff or others) to create a new resolution that manages and/or allocates the TOT revenue collection and distribution differently per State guidelines and City goals. Potential Motions: This is a study session so no formal decision can be made at this time. Attachments: Resolution 2004-32, 2004-11, 2000-25, 1998-02, and 1993-12 Economic and Cultural Development Grant Allocation with Tourism Calculation Small Grants Tourism Allocation Economic and Cultural Development Grant History ~~1I .,-~ RESOLUTION NO. 2004- bL A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND REITERATING ITS POLICY OF RELATING THE EXPENDITURE OF MONIES FOR ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE HOTELIMOTEL (Transient Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2004-11 THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the city council recognizes that the source of monies for the Economic and Cultural Development Grant program is the HotellMotel Tax. SECTION 2. The following are the goals which the Economic and Cultural Development Committee is attempting to meet by granting money to applicants: a) Tourism Promotion. b) Economic Development by: )) Responding to general inquiries about business in the city; 2) Providing assistance to existing small businesses; 3) Providing technical and financial assistance for the expansion of existing businesses; 4) Providing technical and financial assistance for the development of new businesses; or 5) Providing such other services and support to business as the city council may deem beneficial. c) Cultural Development. SECTION 3. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2004/2005, the city council will appropriate thirty- three and one-third percent (33.3%) of the anticipated Hotel/Motel tax monies for Economic and Cultural Development. The City of Ashland has determined that as of July], 2003, $) 86,657 or ) 4.23% of total Hotel/Motel tax revenues were expended on tourism promotion, as defined in Chapter 8) 8 of the 2003 Oregon Laws, and will continue to be spent on tourism promotion increased or decreased annually consistent with the estimated TOT revenues budgeted. The amount to be allocated annually to Ashland Chamber of Commerce (COC) and Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) for promoting tourism per the state definition shall be $80,432 and $) ) 0,000, respectively, adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation established in the Budget process. An additional amount of $) 60,000, adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation established in the Budget process, will be granted annually to COC for economic development projects in cooperation with City staff. The allocations in this paragraph shall sunset after three years. Any additional amount for tourism required by Chapter 818 shall be allocated to COC, OSF or other group during the budget process. The remainder of the monies budgeted for these grants may be allocated to grantees for activities fitting in any of the three categories set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution. TOT Resolution 9/07/04 page I of 2 By January 31 of each year each recipient of grants under this resolution shall submit a report to the city council setting forth how the grant funds received were expended in furtherance of the goals set forth in Section 2. SECTION 4. The following guidelines and criteria are established for the Economic and Cultural Development Grants: a) Grantee shall be a 50 I (c) non-profit agency. b) Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency. c) Grantee shall promote livability for the citizens of Ashland. d) The minimum grant proposal will be $1,000. e) The grant will benefit Ashland in regards to enrichment and activities of an economic nature. f) Grantee shall serve the population in Ashland but may encompass other venues in the Rogue Valley. g) Irrespective of sub-paragraph 'b', the City of Ashland Public Arts Commission may apply for and receive funds. SEcn ON 5. Resolution 2004-11 is repealed upon passage of this resolution. SEcn ON 6. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Sect ion 2.04.090 duly ~(* ~~ PA~TEI~2004 . Barbara Christensen, City Recorder tf-/ M-'1!f ~ SIGNED and APPROVED thisM'day ~s'1St 2004: ./ ~/~~ Alan DeBoer, Mayor TOT Resolution 9/07/04 page 2 of2 c0 RESOLUTION NO. 2004- / J A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND REITERATING ITS POLICY OF RELATING THE EXPENDITURE OF MONIES FOR ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE HOTEL/MOTEL (Transient Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2000-25 THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS. SECTION 1. That the city council recognizes that the source of monies for the Economic and Cultural Development Grant program is the Hotel/Motel Tax. SECTION 2. The following are the goals which the Economic and Cultural Development Committee is attempting to meet by granting money to applicants: a) Tourism Promotion. b) Economic Development by: 1) Responding to general inquiries about business in the city; 2) Providing assistance to existing small businesses; 3) Providing technical and financial assistance for the expansion of existing businesses; 4) Providing technical and financial assistance for the development of new businesses; or 5) Providing such other services and support to business as the city council may deem beneficial. c) Cultural Development. SECTION 3. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2004/2005, the city council will appropriate thirty-three and one-third percent (33.3%) of the anticipated Hotel/Motel tax monies for Economic and Cultural Development. The City of Ashland has determined that as of July 1, 2003, $186,657 or 14.23% of total Hotel/Motel tax revenues were expended on tourism promotion, as defined in Chapter 818 of the 2003 Oregon laws, and will continue to be spent on tourism promotion increased or decreased annually consistent with the estimated TOT revenues budgeted. The amount to be allocated annually to Ashland Chamber of Commerce (COG) and Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) for promoting tourism per the state definition shall be $80,432 and $110,000, respectively, adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation established in the Budget process. An additional amount of $160,000, adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation established in the Budget 1- 2004 TOT final resolution process, will be granted annually to COC for economic development projects in cooperation with City staff. The allocations in this paragraph shall sunset after three years. Any additional amount for tourism required by Chapter 818 shall be allocated to cae, OSF or other group during the budget process The remainder of the monies budgeted for these grants may be allocated to grantees for activities fitting in any of the three categories set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution. By January 31 of each year each recipient of grants under this resolution shall submit a report to the city council setting forth how the grant funds received were expended in furtherance of the goals set forth in Section 2. SECTION 4. The following guidelines and criteria are established for the Economic and Cultural Development Grants: a) Grantee shall be a 501 (c) non-profit agency. b) Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency. c) Grantee shall promote livability for the citizens of Ashland. d) The minimum grant proposal will be $-1,000. e) The grant will benefit Ashland in regards to enrichment and activities of an economic nature. f) Grantee shall serve the population in Ashland but may encompass other venues in the Rogue Valley. SECTION 5. Resolution 2000-25 is repealed upon passage of this resolution. SECTION 6. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accorda~ with AS~ Municipal Code 52.0 - 90 duly PASS D and ADOPTED this day of , 0/ ' 2004. ) ~ arbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of IY) 1-1 Y ,2004. ~~~ R~ Paul Nolte, City Attorney 2- 2004 TOT final resolution Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor ~ [0 RESOLUTION NO. ~ -d6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND REITERATING ITS POLICY OF RELATING THE EXPENDITURE OF MONIES FOR ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE HOTEL/MOTEL (Transient Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 98-23. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council recognizes that the source of monies for the Economic and Cultural Development Grant program is the Hotel/Motel Tax. SECTION 2. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2001/2002, the City Council will appropriate thirty three and one-third percent (33.3%) of the anticipated Hotel/Motel tax monies for Economic and Cultural Development. Sixty percent (60%) of these funds will be allocated to the Ashland Chamber of Commerce; twenty eight percent (28%) will be allocated to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival; and twelve percent (12%) will be granted to local organizations which promote Economic and Cultural Development. The anticipated budget for subsequent fiscal years shall be based on the previous year's actual receipts. Actual receipts which exceed the anticipated amounts will rema in in the General Fund. By January 31 of each year the Chamber of Commerce and the Shakespeare Festival shall make a report to the City Council regarding meeting the goals in Section 3. SECTION 3. The following are the goals which the Economic and Cultural Development Committee is attempting to meet by granting money to applicants. a) To respond to general inquiries about business in the City_ b) To promote tourism. c) To provide assistance to existing small businesses. d) To provide technical and financial assistance for the expansion of existing businesses. e) To provide technical and financial assistance for the development of new businesses. f) To provide information and financial assistance to small cultural organizations to: 1) attract tourists with emphasis on the off-season; 2) create a greater diversity of cultural opportunities for our citizens. SECTION 4. The following guidelines and criteria are established for the Economic and Cultural Development Grants. a) Grantee shall be a 501(c) non-profit agency. b) Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency. c) Grantee shall promote livability for the citizens of Ashland. d) The minimum grant proposal will be $1,000. G:\city-admin\admin\Administration\Reso-Hotel Motel tax 2000 e) The grant will benefit Ashland in regards to enrichment and activities of an economic nature. f) Grantee shall serve the population in Ashland but may encompass other venues in the Rogue Valley. SECTION 5. Resolution 98-23 is repealed upon passage of this resolution. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Sec. 2.04 90 duly PASSE a d ADOPTED this fl day o~~ooo arbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this;Ztj day of ~. ,2000. ~~ Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor G:\city-adrnin\admin\Administration\Reso-Hotel Motel tax 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 98- O~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND REITERATING ITS POLICY OF RELATING THE EXPENDITURE OF MONIES FOR ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE HOTEUMOTEL (Transient Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 93-12. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council recognizes that the source of monies for the Economic and Cultural Development Grant program is the Hotel/Motel Tax. SECTION 2. That the City Council will appropriale thirty three and one-third perce~ (33.3%) of the anticipated Hotel/Motel tax monies for Economic and Cultural Development. Sixty percent (60%) of these funds will be allocated to the Ashland Chamber of Commerce; twenty eight percent (28%) will be allocated to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival; and twelve percent (12%) will be granted to local organizations which promote Economic and Cultural Development. Effective with the 1999-2000 Budget, and annually thereafter, the allocations to the Shakespeare Festival and the Chamber of Commerce shall be adjusted by an amount equal to their respective shares of the actual tax collection in the previous fiscal year. By January 31 of each year the Chamber of Commerce and the Shakespeare Festival shall make a report to a joint meeting of the City Council and the Budget Committee regarding meeting the goals in Section 3. SECTION 3. The following are the goals which the Economic and Cultural Development Committee is attempting to meet by gr~nting money to applicants. a. To respond to general inquiries about business in the City b. To promote tourism c. To provide assistance to existing small businesses d. To provide technical and financial assistance for the expansion of existing businesses e. To provide technical and financial assistance for the development of new businesses f. To provide information and financial assistance to small cultural organizations to: 1) attract tourists with emphasis on the off-season; 2) create a greater diversity of cultural opportunities for our citizens SECTION 4. The following guidelines and criteria are established for the Economic and Cultural Development Grants. a. Grantee shall be a 501 (c) non-profit agency b. Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency c. Grantee shall promote livability for the Citizens of Ashland d. The minimum grant proposal will be $1,000 e. The grant will benefit Ashland in regards to enrichment and activities of an economic nature f. Grantee shall serve the population in Ashland but may encompass other venues in the Rogue Valley SECTION 4. Resolution 93-12 is repealed upon passage of this resolution. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this /7' day of 1~~ ,1998. /.l / (/~-h~~;1~ Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Reviewed as to form: p~ Paul Nolte, City Attorney Revised: 02/13/98 ( G:\budgel\economic\reso98) RESOLUTION NO. 93- / Z A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, REITERATING ITS POLICY OF RELATING THE EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO THE HOTEL/MOTEL (TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY) TAX. RECITALS: A. The maintenance and development of tourism is directly interrelated to the health of the entertainment, food, and lodging industries in Ashland. B. In 1979, a formula was implemented which allocated a percentage of the Hotel/Motel Tax revenues to promote and enhance tourism and other economic development strategies. C. The Citizens Budget Committee and City Council have determined that funding for economic development activities should henceforth be tied to the annual growth or reduction of current general fund revenues. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ' That the Council hereby restates its recognition that the source of funding for economic development activities continues to be the Hotel/Motel Tax. SECTION 2. That the Council is committed to maintaining its historic support for economic development activities as a whole, but cannot limit the citizens Budget Committee or future City Councils to specific appropriations for programs which have been funded in the past. The foregoing Resolution was READ by title re9~ar meeting Of~~Y Council of the & - day of , 1993. ~t.,f{~ Nan E/ Franklin City Recorder only and DULY ADOPTED at a City of Ashland on the SIGNED and APPROVED this Jz-d day of ~ , 1993. AP~ as to form: ~~f { Paul Nolte .. city Attorney (d:lecoodev. Res) ~~J~~ Catherine M. Golde Mayor ~ City of Ashland Economic and Cultural Grant Allocation With Tourism Calculation Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue (5% growth) 2007 Adopted $ 1,514,100 Tourism Payment per month Per Resolution 2004-32 1423% Minimum amount needed for Tourism $ 215,456 $ 215,456 1/3 of the proposed revenue Additional Carryover from Prior Year' $ 504,650 5,000 Total amount budgeted $ 509,650 Amount Allocated Per Resolution 2004-32 (3% inflation) Chamber to promote tourism Chamber for economic development OSF to promote tourism $ 82,845 $ 82,845 $ 6,90400 164,800 13,73300 113,300 113,300 $ 9,441.67 $ 360,945 $ 196,145 $ 20,637 $ 9,441.67 Other Grants $ 148,705 $ 19,311 $ 215,456 * Please note that the City Council determined that any grant monies not awarded or returned from a grantee are rebudgeted for expenditure in the next fiscal year. City of Ashland FY 2006-07 Economic and Cultural Development Grant Applicants Small Grants Tourism Allocation Adopted Tourism Allocated to Organization Requested Amount Amount Percentage Tourism Ashland Independent Film Festival $ 30,000 $ 16,000 $ 20,000 0.67 10,667 Rogue Valley Symphony 14,7 50 8,000 1,622 0.11 880 Nuwandart 5,500 1,500 1,100 0.20 300 Ashland Gallery ASSOCiation 33,200 16,000 19,400 0.58 9,349 Community Works 10,000 2,500 0.00 SI. Clair Productions 6,000 4,000 2,400 040 1,600 Arts Council 12,500 5,000 7,500 060 3,000 Multi Cultural Association 10,000 10,000 0.00 The Jefferson Center for Religion 10,000 7,000 0.70 Lithia Arts Guild 15,431 9,000 3,086 0.20 1,800 Youth Symphony of Southern Oregon 5,500 5,000 0.00 Second Street Musicians 3,250 2,000 0.62 Dancing People Company 7,000 700 010 ScienceWorks 20,303 16,000 5,076 0.25 4,000 Konaway Nika Tillicum 5,000 5,000 2,500 0.50 2,500 Chautauqua Poets & Writers Board 5,000 5,000 0.00 SOWAC 8,000 8,000 000 Thrive 11,000 11,000 1,100 0.10 1,100 Children's Musical Theatre of Ashland 25,000 625 0.03 ArtNow 1,500 1,205 300 020 241 Rogue Opera 12,000 7,000 0.00 S. Oregon Repertory Singers 7,500 2,500 4,100 055 1,367 Peace House 9,766 0.00 Oregon Stage Works 51,000 5,000 20,400 040 2,000 Siskiyou Singers 7,000 5,000 300 0.04 214 Ballet Rogue 10,000 6,000 5,000 0.50 3,000 $ 336,200 $ 148,705 $ 98,909 38,804 Amount Available $ 148,705 Tourism Minimum $ 19,311 2/1/2007 c: -0 CD ~ K ~.2 ~ ~ 00 En; u~ ::> L> u 'E o c o u UJ .... -0 o CD J,"E ~ ~ u... u)"OO <> CD 0 ~ 1: ~ >- ~ ~ u... on "0 <> CD . -0 ... ~ o ... r ~ u. .. o ... "0 0 o CD U") M"E 0-l o ... r ~ u. .. o M"O 0 o CD 0 ~"E >- ~ u... c=- o .; :J: N -0 <> CD . -0 ~ ~ <> ... r ~ u... c: ~ C) oii: 6"E ~ ~ u... <> -0 <> CD . -0 0> ~ 0> ... r ~ u.<( 0> -0 0> CD . "'0 '" ~ 0> ... >- ~ u.<( '" -0 0> CD . -0 .... ~ 0> ... r ~ u.<( CD E ... z E :! "" o n. -0 ~ >- u c: CD "" .. u c => u ~ 0 ~ 0 <..) rn :z U) 1::1::1:: <( .. <( U") co o co ~~ ~ '" 0000 0000 oqollJ I.Cll..Oo.r)r--i co co co '""' co 0 ~8 o.n co co '" 00 00 ~~ '" "" 0000 0000 lO. o. U") ~ M GO.." co 0 0 co 0 co oc::o. M GO 0<::>0 <::) 0000 q ~~ o. C"") ~ 0.l UJ 0000 CJooo lO.""<j'OCO Mmu-) co co co '""' 00 co 0 U") .... co ~ '""' 00 00 ~q GO ~ 00 c: o '" Q) :::' c V') GroQ 2 ~~~ ~ .c~~ ~ S -=- V) V} Oc<( w ~E~ 6: E = Q) ru o C'O ~ =:I U0 enD' ~~~~ ~~~~ <(<(mU o o o 6 o o o .n 00 00 0.0. .... M o o o 00 ~ ~ E o 0 ~(l ~ c: 'c :E E0 E <1> o .c C)t- o o o ai 00 00 au") 6 o o o .n 00000 00000 oqo.qq r---- co t.D U"') o o o .n o o o <D OOOOUJ OOOOv ~qo_o.r-- <.Qf'--lf1U")u:) o o o .." 00000 00000 000 ~ c.DlD - ill 00000 00000 ~C!.q~o.r-- M '" M o :=E o o o 0000 ~- ~ ~ ~ '"" M o o o o o o N 00 U") 0 ~o. M ... o o o o ~ 00 00 <D GO N-<:r- 00 00 U") '" N...) o o o .." ~ 0, o 0: Q; <ii 2! !2 t- .S c 19 <1> Q U) ~ E ~ ~~-o ~ ~~~ ~j~~iro~:.? _~~0 -_~L:~~roQ)~o .c fJ) Uj roroU5~8~~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 6 6 ~ ~ ~ g .c E -s ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~-~ ::J.3~:ZOOa::crlXtf) c: .c 0 S g .;?<'5 ~~ 8-g :r:", o o o N o o o o o '" GO o o U"). 3' ~ o 0.. W <1> 2~ IY--' ~~ c: ~ o .Ql E :~ E ro rn w 0 ~:ct c: 0 Q) --= E ro 0. 0 OC) ~ ci. <1> 0 OQj ~ ~ ~ <1> 0 D> c: C .S a 0 U) u u "'ww OIY'" ~~~ U) U) U) o o o U") o o o <D o o o M 00 8. ~ .." o o U") '"" OM 0.." ~N o o o M o o o N o o o M o o o M o 0 o 0 o 0 .n 0000 ~~g~ U")M..----f'-.-- o o o ro .'" Vi <D LL ~ LL C <1> -0 c: <D 0. <1> " c: " c: ro :cc~ :2 .~ CD - U c: :i10>-OeJ) '-o_:~WU)c ....:> g ~ 0 U)<>c'1U)L:~ ~E~~~ g~U:::Ia: Q) c C c c E 0 000 <i~~~~ Q) '- '- '- '- .'" 0 0 0 0 ni c c c c 2~~~~ =:l "3 ~ S ::; o 0 000 UJ U) UJ VJ UJ 000 000 lJ') 0 O. "'00 00 00 au") me-) 00 00 U") 0 cO ~+ o o ...;~ o o 1'-. c: o o o U") o o o <0 o o C> U") ~ c: ro ~ -C ~ :::l (3"3 -guw n:-5~ <..i ro 5 W ~u><ii S5liJ~! o ~ o o o o o o ,n ~5 ~ ~ (~~ ,.-- U")~ o o o ,..., o o o ''''' o ~~ ,.-; o ';i ''-; o o o ''-; o ~ ';i '" c: o D> <1> <'5 O~ >-c: c: ro 225 d." E <1> ~~ .c.2 3m o c: >-::0 .,., ;:'. '" ... ~ '" ::: ~ ~ ...- ~ ~ :g on ... C> C> <> .D ... <> <> .,., ~ <> <> "'!. N M <> <> ~ ;::; ;;; ro <5 15 ::> U) U") .." cD .... .." '" v '" <0 .." GO GO ':] ~ o o OC> GO ~ o ';i ~ o .... = .... .." .." .... o o o u:i U") 0000 ~ oo-.;t I'-U?q"!. ~r") E c o Vi wI u W ~ E <ii 8z 0"0 "0 E v ~ .D Vl E '" ro:;; 6~ "z c: u c ~ ~ g :t.~o o on 0... ~~ ::~ o ~:: ~ ON OM 0.... 00 ~ '"" N M .... M .... '"" ... ~ 0'" .." ... ~ -.;t. = O~ o C> 0<> LO. q b~ '"" .,., ~~ ~~ <D M <D '" ~ o C> 2g ~~ .. <5 15 => roU) '" Vi <1> LL <1> :0 Q) ~ ~ ~ U) = ::;: m = ""' <C> 00 ~- ""<F = = <C> .,-; ""<F "<t = = =- <C> = ""<F = = = ,..: ~ = = = ~ ""' ':;: ~ ~ ~- DO 00 '"" = ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"" -;;; <5 I- o U") <D .." o U") f? a> ~ .." o o cD .n .." "" o o a> u:i M .." o o o = ~ o o o .." ~ o o <D <D 00 M o o o U") .... GO o o o ~ ~ 6 ~ CD "" -0 ::> m -0 CD -0 c: CD E .. cD <XJ .." .... ... o o <D <f) .." .." o o a> <D ';i o o o .... <XJ M o o o .." <XJ M U") '01 ~ ;; .... .... 00 M ~ :=. o o o 6 ~ ~ ~ M ,...... ~ -0 CD -0 c: CD a. >< UJ <> <:> ~ on ... ~. " ... '" .... .... o .,., o '" "'. '" M ~ o = 1'; '" " " o E <{ 0> .~ E E CD '" ~ = = '" i5 ;;; j' ~ i5 c [ 1 o 00 en en ~ '3 u ~ ] 1; " j' ~ ~ ~ i5 :;; -0 C .~ cr " <1> 1? .2 g '" ~ <1> C ~ D <: Q; g' .2 o :z ~ , u ~ <.') o ~ ] . o Council Communication CITY OF ASHLAND Emergency Shelter Policy Meeting Date: Department: Contributing Approval: Estimate March 6, 2007 A inistration ents: Legal, Fire, Police and Parks Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer ~ Ann@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Statement: The City of Ashland does not have a policy on providing shelter during extreme weather. City staff was asked to research the issue, identify opportunities and challenges of providing a shelter and to bring to the city council a draft policy. The attached resolution was developed based on requirements from the city's insurance company, guidelines used by the Congregational Church and input from police, fire, parks and legal. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed resolution., Background: Ashland does not have a site identified as an emergency shelter during extreme weather. When possible, the Congregational Church has provided shelter during extreme weather conditions but is not always able to do so. In January, the city was asked to provide shelter space and the church offered to provide shelter staff. Pioneer Hall served as the shelter and volunteer shelter staff reported that the location worked well for the people who used the shelter. Council Options: · Approve the draft resolution. · Approve the draft resolution with changes. · Provide new direction to staff. Attachments: · Draft Weather Related Emergency Shelter Resolution 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH POLICIES AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ASHLAND WILL PROVIDE EXTREME WEATHER RELATED EMERGENCY SHELTER HOUSING Recitals: A. Ashland is located in an area that has four distinct seasons and the winter season can have weather extremes that can be hazardous to persons without adequate shelter. B. The City of Ashland desires to set forth the conditions under which it will provide emergency shelter housing and the policies related to those staffing or utilizing such emergency shelter. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. Provision of Emerqency Shelter. Ashland will provide emergency shelter under the terms and conditions set forth herein during times of extreme weather conditions. For purposes herein, weather conditions shall be considered extreme when outside temperatures are 20. F. or below or a combination of weather conditions, in the discretion of the city administrator, make conditions hazardous to human life without adequate shelter. SECTION 2. Terms and Conditions. 1) In the event of the need for an emergency shelter during extreme weather, the use of Pioneer Hall or other available city-owned building may be used. Previously booked groups in those locations may be subject to cancellation. 2) The shelter will be staffed by volunteers from nonprofit organizations or other organizations in the business of providing for the needs of persons. The city's insurance company requires organizations providing volunteers to provide a letter to the City of Ashland stating that all shelter volunteers have received appropriate training to staff a shelter and have passed criminal background checks. 3) Shelter(s) will open at 8:00 p.m. Doors will be locked at 9:00 p.m. Guests may leave the shelter but not re-enter after 9:00 p.m. Guests arriving at the shelter after 9:00 p.m. will not be admitted unless brought to the shelter by a police officer. All guests must vacate the shelter no later than 8:00 a.m. the following morning. 4) Insurance requires that separate sleeping space be designated for single men, single women and families. Appropriate signage must be displayed that warns against H:\Recent\Admin\Martha stuff\shelters\2 28 07 Emergency Shelter resolution.doc Page - 1 children being left alone. Buildings must have separate restrooms for men and women. 5) The shelter will contain an emergency box containing a first aid kit. Pioneer Hall does not have a telephone and shelter volunteers should bring their own cell phone in case of an emergency. SECTION 3. Emerqency Shelter Activation. Provisions for emergency shelter will be activated as follows: 1) City Administrator or designee determines that weather conditions constitute "extreme" and when he/she makes such determination they will contact the City's CERT Coordinator. 2) The CERT Coordinator will contact the Parks and Recreation to determine which facility or facilities will be used as emergency shelter. 3) The CERT Coordinator will contacts designated representatives from volunteer organizations to arrange for staff volunteers at the shelter. 4) Volunteers and guests are responsible for following the same cleaning requirements as other groups. SECTION 4. Emerqency Shelter Policies. Operation of the emergency shelters shall, to the greatest extent feasible, comply with the following policy guidelines: 1) Shelter services must be provided with dignity, care, and concern for the individuals involved. 2) The buildings used as a shelter will comply with City, County and State Building, Fire and Health Codes, unless exemptions have been obtained from the appropriate agencies, and must be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition at all times, 3) In all Shelters, there should be adequate separation of families and singles, and adequate separation of single women. 4) No drugs, alcohol, or weapons will be allowed in shelter property at any time. 5) No disorderly conduct will be tolerated. 6) No threatening nor abusive language will be tolerated. 7) No excessive noise will be tolerated, e.g. loud radios etc. 8) Smoking will be restricted to the outdoors in designated areas. H:\Recent\Admin\Martha stuff\shelters\2 28 07 Emergency Shelter resolution.doc Page - 2 9) All guests should maintain their own area in an orderly condition and may be assigned other responsibilities or tasks at the shelter. 1 O)There should be definitive arrival, check-in/check-out times, and restrictions on staying in the area of the Shelter. 11 )There should be at least two shelter volunteers on-site at all times when guests are there. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code S2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of ,2007. Reviewed as to form: John W. Morrison, Mayor Michael W. Franell, City Attorney H:\Recent\Admin\Martha stuff\shelters\2 28 07 Emergency Shelter resolution.doc Page - 3 RUTfI M. MILLER PillLIP C. lANG, LC8W ~ ~ @ ~ 0 \V7 ~ ~I W JAN 292001 I~ 758 B 6lreel · Ashland, Ore8on 975'20 Residence · 48'2-8659 Office/fcc,,: · 482-5387 E-mail · phiIip@imind.nel · rulh@mind.nel By January 28, 2007 FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF February 6, 2007 To: Mayor/City Council/City Administrator/City Attorney Re.: OSF Paving ("The Bricks") This presentation to Council is occasioned by two events: 1) The "non-event" of 1JSF doing nothing to cure the serious hazard on its "campus" despite many (broken) promise~:~. 2) The sad spectacle of watching several people slip and fall on OSF paving on tuesday, January 16th - the day of the heavy snowfall. The history with respect to Council is detailed in the attached mate~~al, which includes a presentation I made to Council on February 11, 2004, and supporting exhibits, attached. At the February 11, 2004 meeting, the then c~ty attorney - Pau~ Nolte, averred that insofar as the lease agreement had a "hold ha,rmlep~" clause, the City was not at financial risk. After close questioning by Council he admitted that the City could be sued by a patron injured on the bricks, since the City (Parks) owned the land, and we were the "deep pockets". Part of the history are my efforts to have OSF Cure th~s problem. At its March 2005 board meet~ng, OSF committed to fixing the bricks, which were illegal - as well as dangerous - from the beg~nning, I was personally reassured by a telephone conversation initiated by Mr Chuck Butler, immediate past-president of OSF, that with the end of the 2005 season, an architect/designer would be hired and the paving replaced/corrected. (See letter to Nancy Tait-3/l4/05). The paving has never been corrected. We now approach a new OSF season with paving that has deteriorated even further after a hard winter. The record of this matter .being brought. to .the atCent ion ofOSF management by their own staff, as well as myself, and to the Council, is ample. This is a disaster (compensatory and punitive damage lawsuit) waiting to happen. City Council - re: OSF Paving - 1/28/07 - p. 2 We need to have a concern for citizens and visitors who may be seriously injured by the dangerous and deteriorating bricks. I have treated such people in my practice - and calls to 911 to "pick people up off the bricks" are matters of record. We secondarily need to.protect citizens/taxpayers legally from what can incredibly exp n ive lawsuits. cc: Paul Nicholson, Executive Director OSF Robert Plain - DT attachments RUTH t\. t\ILLER PHILIP C. LANG. LCSw . \..;- _ ,.;"t.-:-.......:.-:-..l~ . ,. "I 758 B Street . Ashland, Ore~on 97520 Residence 541 · 482-8659 Office/Fax 541 . 482-5387 February 11,2004 To: The Mayor and City Council Re: AMC Title 13.4.030 (Paving) Agenda Item at 2/17/04 Council Meeting I raised this issue at the 2/3/04 Council meeting in a four page presentation. A copy of that is attached as part of this expanded presentation. This submission covers the history, the violations previously cited, the failure of enforcement, and the legal issues involved. AMC TITLE 13.04.030, the governing law, is attached as Exhibit A. THE VIOLATIONS 1. Oregon Shakespeare Festival The existing "bricks" on the west side of Pioneer Street were installed with the building of the Bowmer Theater in 1970-1971, thus post-dating the adoption ofthe code in 1967. There is no definable 5' wide cement sidewalk as required by law; the bricks run from the edges of the various buildings to the curb. The building of the New Theater on the east side of Pioneer Street was appealed. One of the few concessions made, included in the "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" (Condition #14, p.84) was inserted in response to the issue of the dangerous brick paving proposed for the new site as well. Condition #14 states in part that "all paving and reconstruction within the public right of way be done to the standards of the City of Ashland. . ." (Exhibit B) Nevertheless, the same bricks (as well as aggregate) were used. The paving in front of Carpenter Hall is aggregate. This was presumably put in after 1975 (and therefore post adoption ofthe Code) since OSF purchased the building for cash in that year. Philip C. Lang Page 1 2/11/2004 2. The City's Planning/Public Works Building The installation of four two-foot wide bands of glazed ceramic tile running from the building's edge to the curb is a blatant violation of Code. Since installation, the grout has failed, creating crevices and cracks that can catch heels, and the tiles themselves have cracked. Staff have front row views of slips and falls on the street from their office windows. 3. The DeBoer Residence on Vista Street The owner has copied the same wire-cut clay bricks used by OSF in his sidewalk at the front of the steps and extended the sidewalk in aggregate for many feet on either side of the bricks. THE LEGAL ISSUES AMC Title 13.04.030 sets forth paving specifications and standards @xhibit A). It is clear that the pavement must be made of Portland cement and conform to stated dimensions and locations. The word "shall" is used with reference to both construction and location. AMC Title 1.04.010 provides defmitions of terms used in the Code. Sections H. states "must and shall are each mandatory". (Exhibit C) It is clear and absolute that such materials as aggregates, bricks, or ceramic tiles, substituted at the ~iscretion of the Planning or Public Works departments or the property owner are prohibited. The primary legal issue, then, is the enforcement of a clear and mandatory statute in the face of obvious violations. The violations cited here are those of a private citizen, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and the City itself at its newest building. There are probably others. There is a second legal issue. While the standards may be said to apply only to the five foot wide pavement specified in AMC 13.04.030, there are instances in which paving in other areas that is not concrete constitutes a public nuisance. Such is the case with the OSF "bricks". As stated in the description of the violations above, there is no actual sidewalk in the OSF developments on either side of Pioneer Street. These areas are covered in wire-cut, slick surface bricks which were dangerous at the outset. With weathering and aging, the deterioration of the bricks including cracking, pieces breaking off and settling, has created a dangerous situation - a public nuisance. This is one of the most traversed areas in the entire City. If, as OSF claims, it sells almost 400,000 seats, then there are at least 400,000 trips over this paving during the season, not including the usual year-round traffic of employees, visitors, etc. There is a legal remedy in place to abate both the sidewalk paving violations and the creation of a public nuisance. Section AMC 18.112.080, "Violations - Nuisance" states Philip C. Lang Page 2 2/11/2004 in part that "any use of land, building, or premises. . . maintained contrary to the provisions of this Title, shall be and the same is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance, and the City Attorney of the City may, or upon order of the City Council shall immediately commence action or proceedings for the abatement and removal and enjoinment thereof in the manner provided by law, and may take such other steps and apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to grant relief as will abate. . ." (Emphasis added) (Exhibit D) ACTIVE NON-ENFORCEMENT: ANALYSIS AND EVIDENCE Initial Overview Despite the existence of an Enforcement Officer, there is no systematic, pro-active code enforcement. The detection and reporting of violations is left to citizens who must "inform" on their neighbors. There is a strong disincentive to do so in a small town... They are likely to believe such structures were certainly done to code (viz. the OSF and Public WorkslPlanning buildings). Such structures are seen less regularly than, say, a neighbor's house so people do not notice, or do not remember, or do not bother to report violations even if they are knowledgeable enough to recognize them. What's worse in Ashland is the determined resistance of the designated officials, including the Code Enforcement Officer, to take actions when notified that a clear violation oflaw has been identified. A Deeper Analysis Active non-enforcement is not an issue of personalities or personal agendas, beyond the fact that the leader of a department sets the tone for subordinate personnel, The structural issues are far more important and determining. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky developed their theory of "manufacturing consent" in their analysis of media control and bias during the Vietnam War. They merely formalized and explicated the structural determinants of their observed outcomes. Their analysis applies to the control and shaping of "information" - in this case, decisions and interpretations of planning ordinances. First is the overriding "mission", overt or unspoken. In this case "development" is the real mission of the Planning Department. New and "exciting" developments sprouting up all over town are a credit to the Planning Director and his department. They are bragged about at conferences. They get approval and support from elected officials. Former mayor Shaw once opined that we could have all the development that was wanted and maintain our "small town feel". Patently false, of course, but the message, passed along from the downtown and development interests, is not missed by officials in charge of applying laws that might hinder "development". There is an interlocking "directorate" of City Council, City commissions,-leading businesses and business persons, and developers that creates a consensus for development and for approving and allowing projects to go forward without too much attention to . major procedural and code requirements that might force revision or abandonment. A few examples: The mayor is a major businessman and developer. Council members are Philip C. Lang Page 3 2/11/2004 II' I directly or indirectly involved with developers (vide Councilor Hearn's involvement with land use issues as an attorney and his representation the Ashland Springs Hotel). One former president of the OSF Board is also a major business person and large property developer in town. Another major businessperson, who was a major mover in the development of two buildings on the SOU campus, is also on the OSF Board and was a moving force behind its new theater development. It is an unwritten but well-known rule that getting on the Planning Commission, which has enormous executive power, is a ticket to success in the architecture, design, contracting, real estate business, etc. A review of Commission members and their pre- and post-membership professional successes attests to this. Then, too, there is agreement by affiliation. The Planning Department staff sees builders and developers repeatedly, many times a year, over the years. The latter's influence therefore grows on all levels. The individual homeowner going for a new home or remodel approval is a one-time contact, and thus of lesser influence and importance. Again, leading business persons, organizations, and developers are constantly together through memberships, as in chambers of commerce, service clubs, charitable and social events and other contacts where their common interests and mutual support are reinforced. None ofthis implies overt coercion or influence peddling in the interpretation of ordinances, or the outright breaking of them. It simply points out that the interpretation, application, and enforcement of rules is filtered through the social values and interests of economically and socially prominent business persons, businesses, and developers. Through their interlocking directorates and contacts their interests and wishes are defined, reinforced and conveyed through many channels to officials who apply, interpret and enforce "the rules". "Well", one might say, "this goes on everywhere, in all cities and towns." That's true, but (1) it is more dangerous in Ashland because its existence is denied; (2) it should not be tolerated anywhere; and (3) in this instance and many others, it leads to outright violation of laws and refusals to enforce them, even when officials are made aware of violations. THE EVIDENCE. April 28, 2000 - Follow-up letter to Jim Olson (Exhibit E) A follow-up to a telephone conversation of 4/24/00, copies to Public Work and Planning Directors. I pointed out the problems with the OSF "bricks" and plans for the new theater. Although there may have been response, I have no record of it. August 16, 2000 - Series of e-mails between Jim Olson and Colin Swales (Exhibit F) In this exchange Mr. Olson: 1) Disallows the use of brick or brick pavers as not permitted. 2) Affirms that "light broom finish" is the only one allowed. 3) States that "the OSF project did get specific council approval". Obviously he is ignorant of the appeal and Condition #14 of the Findings. 4) Curiously he asks "Are YOU aware of any problems with the walks there?" This after our lengthy conversation and my letter of April 28! Philip C. Lang Page 4 2/11/2004 September 22, 2000 - Letter in response to phone conversation with Adam Hanks mxhibit G) Mr. Hanks reply states: 1) Broomed concrete is the standard. 2) OSF old "bricks" "were installed some time ago and no information is available as to their approval by the City. 3) "The bricks in the courtyard are not required to meet this standard." 4) My concerns will be forwarded to our Risk Management Department. 5) "The brickwork done in the public right-of-way in front ofthe stairway at 234 Vista (the Sidney DeBoer residence) does not meet the standard and was not noticed by the Department of Public Works at the time of its construction." 6) "The use of an alternative material, while not included in standards at the time of its construction does provide a visual emphasis. . ." 7) "The remainder of the sidewalk in front of234 and 300 Vista are indeed finished with exposed aggregate. Exposed aggregate is not specified in the sidewalk standard." (Emphasis added). In order of the points numbered above: 1) Yes! Broomed concrete is the standard. 2) If the old "bricks were installed sometime ago. . ." this dribbles off into nothingness. If they are in violation, and if they are a public nuisance, they need correction, on either or both counts. 3) See comments throughout this report on public nuisance and public liability. 4) Was anything forwarded to Risk Management? 5) What Mr. I:Ianks is saying is: "yes, DeBoer's paving is illegal and nothing will be done about it." 6) Here Mr. Hanks transitions from allowing that the paving is illegal to it being a superior material, which one would presume would be desirable for all of us to use, if only we were wealthy enough. . . .! 7) Now Mr. Hanks gets back to the fact that bricks and exposed aggregate are illegal! September 27, 2000 - Reply to Mr. Hanks 9/22/00 Letter (Exhibit H) This letter points out how my questions and concerns have gone unanswered: 1) No action re: OSF bricks. 2) Liabilities to City/public involved. 3) Pointing out the word-bending involved in his making aggregate the equal of (or superior to) broomed concrete and therefore, somehow, "legal". September 28, 2000 - Reply by Mr. Hanks to my 9/27/00 Letter (Exhibit I) Mr. Hanks' response states: 1) The old OSF bricks preceded the Code. FACT: they did not as indicated elsewhere in this report. 2) Mr. Hanks now evades the issue of enforcement by stating that the standards are about to be changed. a) The standards have not been changed since 9/28/00. Indeed, they have been in place, as stated by Public Works "for eons" (since 1967). Philip C. Lang Page 5 2/11/2004 b) Even if the standards had been changed, are we to allow for "retrospective legalization"? That is, can a change make violations of the prior law in force at the time of construction legal? 3) Mr. Hanks refers to the "entry walkway". The new theater sidewalk was under discussion. It was and is in fact part of the public right of way. The law, and Condition #14 of the Findings, was subsequently violated. October 2, 2000 - Reply to Adam Hanks (Exhibit J) 1) Reiterating that the Code preceded the old "bricks". 2) Pointing out the curious notion of retrospective legalization by proposed "changes" (that never came about). 3) Comments on the lack of enforcement, selective enforcement, dereliction of officials. January 26,2002 _ Letter to Mr. McLoughlin re: New Theater Paving Violation (Exhibit K) Reviews the history, with attachments of prior correspondence and points out the Condition # 14 of the Findings has not been met. This letter once again raises the issue of danger to the public and injuries on the OSF bricks, but was written to especially point out that paving at the new theater was illegal and violation of Condition #14 of the fmdings. Appropriate action was requested. February 7, 2002 _ Reply by Mr. McLoughlin to my 9/26/02 Letter (Exhibit L) Along with the old "OSF private campus" arguments, he states that the new theater paving is not in violation (although it is aggregate and brick), now shunting the responsibility to Public Works. He says, in effect, that despite what Condition # 14 and the law say, Public Works some how approved non-approved paving. Yet Mr. Hanks, in and undated letter (following) indicates that "Currently, the Ashland Municipal Code specifically states in Chapter 13.04.030 that sidewalks are to be constructed using poured concrete. No mention is made as to the ability of staff to allow variances to this code requirement." (Emphasis added) So, Mr. McLoughlin claims that Public Works approved the paving (contra Condition #14 and the law) but Mr. Hanks indicates that staff cannot allow variances to this code requirement! Who's lying? Undated Letter from Mr. Hanks (Exhibit M) This letter is referred to above and supports the comments made on the 2/7/02 letter. February 12,2002 - Response to Mr. McLoughlin (Exhibit N) January 26,2004 _ FAX to Mark Knox re: Conversation that A.M. (Exhibit 0) Philip C. Lang Page 6 2/11/2004 THE NEED FOR ACTION The need for action is obvious and compelling: 1) Public Danger. All during the OSF season there are frequent 911 calls to pick up people who have fallen and been injured on OSF's bricks. This is a matter of public record. This paving constitutes a public nuisance. 2) Publicrraxpayer Liability. At some point someone will sue OSF and the City not only for compensatory , but punitive damages, since this problem has been known and reported to OSF management and City staff for years. o SF' s campus is on leased City-owned land. The Planning/Public Works building requires no comment on liabilities. The City could also be sued by someone injuring themselves on the DeBoer paving insofar as it is a violation known and therefore permitted de facto by the City. 3) "Government is a teacher" said Justice Louis Brandies of the U.S. Supreme Court. He meant that government models law abiding/respecting behavior - or its opposite. The paving in front of these structures, particularly the Planning/Public Warks building, is a brazen violation that gives a message to individuals and builders about our building ordinances and municipal codes. THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN 1) The City should make a clear policy statement that its building codes, AMC Title 13.03.030 in particular, are to be enforced uniformly by City employees. 2) Action should be taken in the three instances cited to force correction of the violations and conformity to the AMC, including both the paving per se and the extended nuisances the illegal paving materials have created. Philip C. Lang Page 7 2/11/2004 SECTION 13.04.030 Standards and Specifications. [,tftPJ,T,A Page 1 of 1 ~ CHAPTER 13.04 CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND ALTERA.TION OF SIDEWALKS SECTION 13.04.030 Standards and Specifications. A. Sidewalks shall be constructed of Portland cement concrete; shall be not less than five (5) feet in width, and shall be located one (1) foot from the property line extending toward the curb, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. B. The City Administrator shall establish supplemental standards and specifications for sidewalk construction, repair, or alteration to provide durable and practical sidewalks at a suitable grade- determined by the City Administrator to be in accordance with the system of the City street grades. C. The City Administrator shall report to the City Council changes in sidewalk standards and specifications and shall keep a copy On file in the City offices for the use of the public. D. Sidewalks shall be constructed, repaired, or altered in accordance with the standards and specifications established under this section. (Ord. 1515 S3, 1967) -~~. http://www.ashland.or.us/Municipal CodelTITLE _13/04/030.html 9/26/00 Gtfhfjrr-B to mean tOl/clung. I f the parking structure and theatre do not louch, they are not contiguous and do not violate ALUa 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 and the City Council concludes that they do not and cannot based upon conditions the Council has attached to this approval. 14. Inadequate Design for Turning Movements: During the proceeding some opponents argued that there is "inadequate turning provision at the NE corner of the parking structure to allow safe 2 way traffic" and the impact of traffic and the loading dock on Hargadine Street has not been addressed under the CUP criteria. At Record p. 57 applicant testified that in working out the design of the project, applicant's expert architect and civil engineer determined that there is adequate space for garbage and fire vehicles based upon data they collected on turning radii. 'The driveway width complies with provisions of the ALVa which require driveways to be 20 feet wide. The driveway cited by opponents is 20 feet in width. The City Council believes the testimony of applicant's experts and concludes that the driveway and its turning radii are adequate and safe and fully comply with the requirements of the City. 15. Buildings Straddle Property Lines: During the proceeding some opponents argued that the proposed buildings impermissibly straddle property lines. The City Council finds and concludes that the applicant agreed to stipulate (and the City Council has incorporated as a condition) that the property lines be adjusted or properties consolidated in ways that are sufficient to avoid buildings that straddle property lines or otherwise violate provisions of the ALVa or ASDUS. 16. Design Violates the Book: Alexander's Pattern Language: During the proceeding some opponents arguefl that the proposed proj ect design violates the "Site Repair" idea of Alexander's Pattern Language which requires that the worst part of a site be developed while the best is reserved for views and sunlight. The City Council concludes that the "Site Repair" idea of Alexander's Pattern Language, is not an approval criter:ion and, therefore, is irrelevant. 17. Employment and Wage Issues: During the proceeding one opponent raised issues connected with employment and fair wages and argued that applicant Oregon Shakespeare Festival did not pay its employees a living wage. This opponent did not explain how the issues he raised related to the relevant substantive criteria and the City Council concludes that they do not. 18. Alternative Sites: During the proceeding some opponents argued that- applicant had failed to consider alternative sites, especially sites that it now owns. It was not explained by these opponents how the issue of alternative sites relate to the relevant substantive criteria and the City Council concludes that applicant is not required under any approval criteria to identify or examine alternatives sites. 19. Sidewalk Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way. During the proceeding, some opponents argued that the proposed pedestrian improvements within the public .right of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 81 {f"'..' b .- Planning Action 2000-074 City of Ashland. Oregon way were not in accord with the CIty'S standards for sidewalk construction The City Council attaches condition ]4, clarifying that all sidewalk work done within the public right-of-way shall be done to city standards, and under pemlit and approval of the Publ1c Works Department. VI CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE APPROVAL In addition to the thirteen (13) conditions imposed on these applications by the Ashland Planning Commission and which were contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Planning Commission (dated August 22, 2000), the City Council herewith imposes Conditions 14 and 15 and hereby Orders that all of the below fifteen (15) conditions are attached and made a part of this approval: - 1. That the project shall be constructed consistent with the plan and specifications submitted as part of the record, except that these may be modified by conditions attached by these conditions of approvaL . 2. That prior to the issuance of building permits, all parcels, which have buildings that straddle or otherwise infringe on parcel boundary lines, or building setbacks will be consolidated or the parcel boundaries will be appropriately adjusted. The configuration of the adjusted parcels will be with the City's consent and prior approvaL 3. That all proposed refuse areas be screened with either a solid wood fence or masonry walL Proposed screening to be provided for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. That at the time qf planting and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, not less than two inches of mulch shall be added in all non-turf landscaped areas after the installation of living plant materials. 5. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the irrigation system plan shall be reviewed by the Tree Commission, with final approval by the Staff Advisor. The irrigation system plan shall be consistent with ALUO 18.82.060(T) and the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards. 6. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, all Tree Commission re~ommendations consistent with City Site Design and Use Standards shall be incorporated into the final landscaping plans and reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor. 7. That temporary fencing shall be installed around the drip lines trees identified for retention prior to issuance of a building pemlit, grading, grubbing, notice to proceed with construction or other site improvements. In addition, the following measures shall Findings of Fact and ConClusions of Law Page 82 ~b Plannmg Action 2000-074 City of Ashland. Oregon be incorporated and maintained in place during the project's development and until authorization from the Staff Advisor. a. Fill within drip line to be limited to six inches in depth. Fill to consist of a sandy composition, rather than clay, to enhance drainage. b. No cuts permitted within the drip line except as noted on the engineered construction drawings. c. No fill shall be placed around the trunk/crown root. d. No storage of equipment or materials shall occur within the drip lines. 8. That a utility, storm drainage and grading plan be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for review and approval by the Engineering and Planning Division. The Ashland Engineering Division Staff Advisor shall approve the design of the public alley, specifica,lly with regards to the length and percent slope of alley landing and approach adjoining Hargadine Street. 9. That all new trees installed within perimeter plaza areas shall be no less that two inches in diameter at breast height. 10. That all modifications to and construction within adjoining City right-of-way, including bt!,t not limited to curb extensions and the location of s!eel bollard light fixtures along South Pioneer, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. That the proposed Gothic light fixture and post be substituted with the light standard and fixture installed within the downtown plaza and adjacent to the creek along the Winburn Bridge (not the globe fixture). The staff Advisor shall review and approve the proposed light standard fixture prior to issuance of a building pernlit. 12. That the structure be constructed to provide additional shading for the center parking spaces on the top level of the parking structure. Such structure to allow for shading through the use of vine plantings or other permeable, non-reflecting, shading material. Landscape planter to have a minimum soil depth of one and one-half feet (1' -6"), with plant material to consist of "Akebia" vines or similar planting. The structure shall result in the shading of the fully length of the center aisle parking spaces, and -a width of 20' (10' each side). 13. That tree grates be installed on all trees located within the public plaza areas, and that tree cages be used in the high traffic areas to protect the trees during the first years of growth after planting. Tree grate and cage designs to be approved by the Staff Advisor prior to installation. ~~ Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 83 q1 Planning Action 2000~74 Cily of Ashland. Oregon 14. That all sidewalk construction and reconstruction within the publIc right of way be done to the standards oflhe City of Ashland, wIth all work done under peml11 and approval of the Public Works Department. 15. That, as necessary to meet fire safety codes, there shall be a fire wall which pem1its a physical separation between the theatre building and parking structure. The two buildings shaIl be separated and not touch one another. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and evidence contained in the whole record, the City Council finds and concludes that the application for Site Design and Use Review have satisfied all of the relevant substantive standards and criteria contained within the Ashland Municipal Code and the Ashland Sjte Design and Use Standards. The City Council also finds and concludes that the application for a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of exceeding the height limitations of the C-l-D zoning district, are compliant with all the relevant substantive criteria as the same have been enumerated and addressed hereinabove. The City Council ultimately concludes, based upon the foregoing and the conditions that it herewith attaches, both of the subject land use applications (Site Design and Use Review and Conditional Use Permit) comply with all requirements of the City of Ashland and of the State of Oregon. Therefore, the City Council herewith upholds the decision of the Ashland Planning Commission approves with conditions both quasi-judicial land use applications and attaches all of the conditions set forth hereinabove in Section. VI. ~ CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON ~~.;;1~~) By: Catherine M. Shaw Mayor Dated: November 7, 2000 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 84 Planning Action 2000-074 '>.~* \'l """"-k, \\ Section 1.04.010 Definitions. ~'1h8tT i:elOf2 Chapter 1.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS - Section 1.04.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases whenever used in this code shall be construed as defined in this section unless from the context a different meaning is intended or unless a different meaning is specifically defined and more particularly directed to the use of such words or phrases. A. City means the City of Ashland, Oregon, or the area within the territorial limits of the City of Ashland, Oregon, and such territory outside of the City over which the City has jurisdiction or control by virtue of any constitutional or statutory provision. B. Computation of time means the time within which the act is to be done. It shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last day; and if the last day be Sunday or a legal holiday, that day shall be excluded. C. Council means the City Council of the City of Ashland, Oregon. All its members or all councilors means the total number of councilors provided by the general laws of the State of Oregon. D. County means the County of Jackson, Oregon. E. Law denotes applicable federal law, the constitution and statutes of the State of Oregon, the ordinances of the City of Ashland, and when appropriate, any and all rules and regulations which may be promulgated thereunder. F. May is permissive. G. Month means a calendar month. H. Must and shall are each mandatory. 1. Oath includes an affirmation or declaration in all cases in which, by law, an affirmation may be substituted for an oath, and in such cases the words swear and sworn shall be equivalent to the words affirm ana affirmed. . 1. Ordinance means a law of the City; provided that a temporary. or special law, administrative action, order or directive, may be in the form of a resolution. K. Owner, applied to a building or land, includes any part owner, joint owner, tenant in c~mmon, joint tenant or tenant by the entirety, of the whole or a part of such building or land. L. Person means natural person, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association, club, company, corporation, business, trust, organization, or the manager, "lessee, agent, servant, officer or employee of any of them. M. Personal property includes money, goods, chattels, things in action and evidences of debt. N. Preceding and following mean next before and next after, respectively. O. Property includes real and personal property. P. Real property includes lands, tenements and hereditaments,. , Q. Sidewalk means that portion of a street between the curb line and the adjacent property line intended for the use of pedestrians. R. State means the State of Oregon. S. Street includes all streets, highways, avenues, lanes, alleys, courts, places, squares, curbs, or other public ways in the City which have been or may hereafter be dedicated and open.to public use, or such other public property so designated in any law of this state. . 1. Tenant and occupant, applied to a building or land, includes any person who 'occupies whole or a part of such building or land, whether alone or with others. U. Title of Office. Use of the title of any officer, employee, board or commission means that officer, employee, department, board or commission of the City. ." V. Written includes printed, typewritten, mimeographed or multi-graphed. 'I f-" http://www.ashland.or.us/MunicipaICode/Title_1/04/010.html 9/30/00 Section 1.04.010 Definitions. Page 2 ofi W. Year means a calendar year. X. All words and phrases shall be construed and understood according to the common and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning. y. When an act is required by an ordinance the same being such that it may be done as well by an agent as by the principal, such requirement shall be construed as to include all such acts performed by an authorized agent. (Ord. 1810 (part), 1974) , :;, '=-H http://www.ashland.or.usfMunicipaICode/Title_1/04/010.htm! 9/30/00 / " ;, ~1f1~, (J) Page I of] - SECTION 18.112.080 Violations--nuisance. ,>- CHAPTER 18.112 ENFORCEMENT SECTION 18.112.080 Violations--nuisance. Any building or structure set up, erected, constructed, altered, enlarged, converted, moved or maintained contrary to the provisions oftrus Title, and any use of land, building, or premise established, conducted, operated, or maintained contrary to the provisions oftrus Title, shall be and the same is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance, and the City Attorney of the City may, or upon order of the City Council shall, immediately commence action or proceedings for the abatement and removal and enjoinment thereof in the manner provided by law, and may take such other steps and apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate and remove such buildings or prevent any person from setting up, erecting, building, maintaining, or using any such building or structure or using property contrary to the provisions of this Title. The remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. ri ,-",\) http://www.ashland.or.us/MunicipaICode/TITLE _18/l12/080.html 9/30/00 RUTH 1'\. t\ILLER bl./ha,T E.. 'iJ-~ Pt1ILlP C. LANG. LCS'w' 758 f> Streel · Ashldnd. Oregon 97520 Office 54 t . 482-8659 OffjcelFa."'{ 54 t . 482-')j87 April 28, 2000 To: Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Project Manager Re.: Brick paving-aSF Dear r1r.. Olson: Pursuant to our c~ation last week, August 24th, here is my follow-up memo summarizing the issues: 1) The bricks at the asp "campus" are slippery and dangerous. This can be confirmed by: a) simple obserY-ation. b) consult.ing staff who have constantly reported the problem to management. c) reviewing incident/accident reports which ~ am sure OSF is required to keep by law/their insurers d) callinq Ashland Hospital and reviewing the 911 calls to pick people up off the bricks. e) If you wish I can put you in touch with staff people/clients who have had direct experience of this problem. 2) Nevertheless, OSF's plans for its new theater call for extending the bricks across the street. 3) It is city policy that only broomed concrete be allowed on public walkways. 4) The potential liabilities to asp - and subsequently to the next "deep pockets II .- the City, have thus far been ignored. The reason is that a) the public perception is that aSF is a Sol (c) (3) non-profit, most of which are known to always be in financial difficulties with few or no_ assets, and, b) No onle wants to "hurt" OSF, or "make a fuss" Nevertheless, some day, sometime this will become a very big issue.. I suggest that: a) Current plans for paving for the new theater .be scrutinized and a change in paving be required. b) past l~xperience be. reviewed with an eye to having OSF re-pave the entire area, on both sides of the street, as part of their proposed project. Jim Olson - Public Works - ~!28/00 - p. 2 In raising this issue I believe that I am looking out for the interests of aSF patrons, fellow citizens, and City taxpayers. I would appreciate a progress follow-up from you. Sincerely, PHILIP C. LAJ:-.JG cc: Building Department - attn.: Director Paula Brown-Public Works Director Page 1 ot ~~ ~B;rF Colin Swales From: To: Sent: Subject: Again, the only approved finish is a "light broom finish", however we may be able to get a staff approval for your exposed agg. finish. The OSF project did receive specific council approval. Are you aware of any problems with the walks there? "Jim Olson" <Jimo@ashland.or.us> <colin@mind.net> Wednesday, August 16, 2000 7:55 AM Re: Sidewalk >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> 08/167:41 AM >>> ."'Oif' :': Jim, thanks for your clarification...... j; How does OSF get away with their hard slippery bricks on a steep street such as Pioneer? I was thinking of using them on a level surface..... How abc:>ut concrete with an exposed aggregate finish? Colin _____ Original Message ----- From: "Jim Olson" <Jimo@ashland.or.us> To: <colin@mind.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 20007:28 AM Subject: Re: Sidewalk ,I Colin... Sorry for the late reply. I was enjoying a few days of vacation. Unfortunately the use of brick paver for sidewalk is not permitted by AMC. The only surface approved is concrete. Any other surface is subject to site specific council approval. If you wish to proceed with the repairs in concrete you may pick up a permit from our office at your convenience. >>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> 08/11 12:26 PM >>> Jim, I am wanting to replace a cracked and tree-root damaged section of sidewalk in front of my home. I would like to replace the brittle concrete with small unit brick pavers similar to those used ( and proposed for the new OSF theater plaza/sidewalk) for the "Bricks" alongside Pioneer Street. Could you confirm that this is acceptable and if you have a tech sheet with required specs. if any exist. thanks Colin Swales 8/17/00 , , . ~- , City of Ashland Department of Community Development 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 ~JT~... ~ J ~ ,0.'" f AS """" ~ 0 ..Hg ~ "-'- a; u~::".. ...... :0 Adam Hanks Code Compliance Phone 541-552-2046 Fax 541-488-5311 adam@ashland.or.us September 22,2000 Philip Lang 758 B St Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Lang: This letter is in response to our conversations this past week regarding your request to replace the existing poured concrete sidewalk abutting the front property line of your residence on B Street with a sidewalk constructed with brick pavers. As you noted in your letter of April 28 to Jim Olson, it is City policy that sidewalks in the public right- of-way are to be constructed using poured concrete with a broomed finish. The intent of this standard is two-fold, Broomed concrete ensures a uniform surface that, when in ,good repair, meets ADA standards for a pedestrian surface. Broomed concrete, as opposed to other surfaces, asphalt, decomposed granite, individual bricks, etc. require less long term maintenance due to the unified nature of concrete. Additionally, compliance to a standard provides an aesthetic visual connection throughout the neighborhood. You noted two deviations from the right-of-way standard explained in the above paragraph are worth explanation. The bricks in the right-of-way on the west side of South Pioneer Street were installed some time ago and no information is available as to their approval by the City. The bricks in the courtyard area are not required to meet this standard, as the standard applies to sidewalks in the public right-of-way only. The safety concerns regarding the courtyard area will be forwarded to our Risk Management Department. The brickwork done in the public right-of-way in front ofthe stairway to 234 Vista does not meet the standard and was not noticed by the Department of Public Works at the time of its construction. The use of an alternate material, while not included in standards at the time of its construction, does provide a visual emphasis for both the pedestrian and vehicle intersections with the sidewalk. The remainder of the sidewalk in front of234 and 300 Vista are indeed finished with exposed aggregate. Exposed aggregate is not specified in the sidewalk standard, as it is more expensive than the broomed finish, but nonetheless meets the material standard of a poured concrete finish. The use of an exposed aggregate finish does not decrease the expected life of the surface, nor does it violate the required standards for an ADA approved sidewalk. RUTH 1'\. 1'\ILLER &Wf1BIT If: ;::1' PHILIP C. LANG. LC5W' , ~~;tpl"'" 7 5t5 I) Street · Ashland. Oregofl 975:20 Office 541 ' 4t5:2-t5659 Office/Fax 541 ' 4t5:2.5)67 September 27, 2000 Mr. Adam Hanks, Code Compliance Planning Dept. 20 Eas t Main Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re.: Sidewalk ("public right of way") paving Dear Mr. Hanks (Adam): I have recieved your curious letter of September 22, 2000. Your letter does not answer major questions I raised, ergo I am sending this one, with copies to the same people you copied. I will anxiously await a reply. If none is forthcoming, I will assume that that is the answer, and will add a note to that effect to the file for future-reference. 1. Your letter {~9l:22) acknowledges what we have obviously known all along. The bricks in the right-of-way outside OSF are not in conformity with the code. My question: Are you going to do anything about it? 2. Relevant to #1: "The bricks in the courtyard area are not required to meet this standard". Are you aware of the fact that the OSF development, including the courtyard, is on land leased from the City? In a city where landlords are made responsible for the behavior of their tenants after a number of police calls toa given address, the notion that the lessor - the City ~ has no responsibility, and by inference, is not at risk for injuries sustained when a paving is in violation of code, seems rather curious - and dangerous. 3. Re.: the brickwork in front of 234 and 300 Vista: The comment that it "was not noticed by the Department of public Works at the time of its construction" is rather droll. If, a permit is required it is clear that one was not applied for nor issued. It is also evident that the work was done by a professional under contract - not the homeowner. That professional probably knew of the need for a permit, and did not seek one, going ahead with unapproved materials. This work was done recently. My question: what, if anything do you intend to -do about this (and possibly other 'location) violations? 4. As a follow-up to #3. You state, in para. #2 of your letter that "no mention is made as to the ability of staff to allow variances to this code requirement". This makes it all the more clear that '''V'iolations whether at 234 or 300 Vista or elsewhere, are clear violatiolls of the Code. 5. Current OSF Fourth Theater plans show the same bricks extended across the street - .sidewalk and entry walkway. Will this be approved as proposed? Adam Hanks - Planning Dept. - September 27, 2000 - p. 2 The issue of code enforcement in this matter, for which you are responsible, presents no problems, if you enforce the code in an equal-handed, straight- forward manner. If you choose not to, then you (including the Planning Dept.) face some tricky going. I will proceed, as planned, with paving my sidewalk in the walkway bricks, of which you have a sample. I w.ill apply for a permit to do so. If I am denied one, I will go ahead anyway. If I am then cited, we will get into a discussion of enforcement vis-a-vis my project, vs. non-enforcement vis-a-vis others' projects. Incidentally, your domments regarding exposed aggregate being equal to poured concrete in walkability and lifespan (p. 1, last para.) are incorrect. Any competent professional could tell you what I am about to tell you. At my Oakland Home, I had an exposed aggregate entry patio and steps installed in 1980. It was done by a highly experienced professional, who did it lithe right way" - which is to totally bury the aggregate, then use water pressure to expose'_l it, rather than "seed" the concrete surface. The former guarantees minimal loss - "popping out" of the aggregate. The exposed aggregate concrete I have is protected under a wide roof canopy. It has also been maintained over the years with multiple coatings of "Thoroglaze" - a professional sealer/glaze. Nevertheless, I have had noticeable loss of aggregates, leaving a pocky surface with multiple small holes where the stones have exfoliated - excellent traps for womens' heels, for example. I look forward to specific answers to these questions a~ your earliest convenience. cc: Paula Brown, Director of public Works John McLaughlin, Director of Community Developnent Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Proj ect t-1anager Sharlene Stephens, Risk Management ~I.:c City of Ashland Department of Community Development 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 - Adam Hanks Code Compliance Phone 541-552-2046 Fax 541-488-5311 adam@ashland.or.us Philip Lang 758 B St Ashland, OR 97520 September 28, 2000 Dear Mr. Lang: Per your request, the following is an attempt to answer your questions posed in your correspondence of September 17,2000. 1. The bricks in the OSF courtyard extend out into the public right-of-way, which is not in compliance with current City standards. However, that work was done prior to the currently established standards and can be classified as a legal non-conforming surface. No enforcement action will take place. 2. The bricks in the OSF courtyard are not required to meet the sidewalk standard, as they are not within the public right-of-way. I realize that the land is under the ownership of the City of Ashland, but that has no relevance in the enforcement of sidewalk standards. As I mentioned in my last letter to you, I will forward your concerns with the courtyard surface to our Risk Management Department for review. 3. The brickwork in front of234 and 300 Vista was done without a Public Works permit. It is irrelevant who did the work, the homeowner or a professional. As I mentioned in my letter, the sidewalk standards are being redrafted and will most likely include exceptions that allow alternate materials emphasizing the pedestrian and vehicle crossings through the sidewalk. I do not see the value in requiring the property owner to replace the materials that have been installed to meet a standard that will soon be modified to permit the very material that we require to be replaced. No enforcement action will be taken, unless dictated by the Director of Public Works or the City Administrator. 4. Answered in statement #3. 5. I have noted your concerns with the materials proposed for the sidewalk and entry walkway in the file and have also communicated these concerns directly willi: Bill Molnar, Senior !~~ Planner. To reiterate, the entry walkway will most likely not be required to meet the standards being discussed here because it is not a part of the public right-of-way. The suggestions from my last correspondence still hold true. A permit is required for the replacement or construction of a sidewalk in the public right-of-way. Failure to comply with the permit requirement will result in enforcement action. Sincerely, ~ Adam Hanks Code Compliance C: Paula.Brown, Director of Public Works John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Project Manager Paul Nolte, City Attorney RUTH 1'\. MILLER &I.+na\TJ' - . T PIiIUP C. LANG. LCSW' 7'585 Street · Ashlill\d. Oregon 97520 Office 541 '462.8659 Office/Fax '541 . 462-5)67 October 2, 2000 Adam Hanks, Code Compliance City of Ashland-Planning Dept. 20 East Main Ashland, Oregon 9aS20 Re.: Paving/Paving Ordinance Dear Mr / Hanks: Such a speedy reply - thank you! It deserves an equally speedy response from me, which follows.. 1. Re.: Right-of-way (viz. sidewalk) and courtyard bricks at OSF: In reviewing the copy of the ordinance, I note that it has a date of 1967. The ordinance, then, preceded the construction of 'the Bowmer and the surrounding courtyard. In other words, the sidewalk and courtyard were constructed post ordinance and failed to conform to it. It seems to me that this puts an entirely different cast on the need to enforce the rules. And remember-people are being injured- all the time. 2. Re.; 234 & 300 Vista. Your comment is curious, implying that the changes that will be made to the ordinance have somehow already been decided, and will make the ordinance conform to what someone has done in violation of the current ordinance (your item #3). 3. Your comment under 5, avoids the issue. The plans for the OSF Fourth theater call for a sidewalk (jargon translation: "public right of way") that is the same as that existing on the other side of Pioneer. This is in violation of the code. Please respond - or have Mr. Molnar respond to ~lis concern, since he is the one responsible for plan review. 4. As Alice says 'in Through The Looking Glass: "things are getting curiouser and curioser" (sic). Your final paragraph informs me that I need a permit to replace my sidewalk and that my failoure to comply with the current ordinance "will result in enforcement action". This after your item 3., in which you concede that a sidewalk was constructed reeently without permit and in violation of the standard and that "no enforcement action will be taken...." Adam Hanks - 10/2/00 - p. 2 A . building code is not a code if it i. s: (1) not enforced, and (2) n-- enforced equally and fairly. If it is not enforced, either through neglect of enforcement, or selective enforcement based on political expediency, it is not a code, but a sham. Selective or non-enforce~ ~_ encourages disrespect for government, arid encourages further viola Ii!( of law. It is also a dereliction of duty by officials paid by the citizens to uphold laws and codes for the benefit and protection of - .~ This matter is far from closed. ce.: Paula Brown, Director of Public Works John McLaughlin, Planning Director Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Project Manager Paul Nolte, City Attorney H" I RUTH t\. t\ILLER ~fI76rr K.. PHILIP C. LANG. LC.SW' c~ t..c~:' -~.. , -:: - "I 758 B Street Ashland, OreE:lon 97520 Residence 541 . 482-8659 Office/Fax 541 . 482-5387 January 26, 2002 John MacLoughlin, Director Ashland Community Development & Planning 20 East Hain Ashland, Oregon 97520 HAND DELIVERED January 28, 2002 Re.: Planning Action #2000-074 (New OSF Theater) One of the few concessions made to the legal and design crticisms of the new OSF theater concerned the plaza and street paving. I have extensive correspondence with your department,. and with Jim Olson, City Project Manager (with cc. to Paula Brown, Public Works Director) in my files. Your own department has refused to do anything about other violations of Section 13..04.030 Standards and Specifications (viz. letter attached to me from Adam Hanks, 9/22/00.; and my 9/27/00 reply). The issue is summarized quickly as follows: OSF has used wire-cut clay bricks, neither meant for paving, nor suitable as such, on its plaza. They were also used on the public right-of-way (sidewalk' area). The two areas are indistinguishable, both being paved continuously with said bricks. The City ordinance prohibits the use of this material. Indeed, it calls for "broomed concrete~'. It~is_a' matter of public record that many, many injuries have occurred to citizens and patrons because of falls on this inappropriate surnace. Management of OSF has been notified by staff and by injured parties that a dangerous condition exists. Sooner or later someone will realize that OSF is not a struggling non-profit, that it has failed to correct this problem despite endless warnings, and in their just anger will file - and win a lawsuit, not just for damages, but for punitive damages. Insofar as the OSF complex is located on leased City land - we - the citizens, will be named as well as "deep pockets". This goes for both the old and the new OSF facility. Your official excuse for inaction, rendered by Mr. Adam Hanks has been that (I) the bricks are on the "OSF Campus" and that enforcement can only apply to the actual public right-of-way (sidewalk). What I have said previously negates this argument:-The City will be held responsible, MacLoughlin - re.: Bricks/aSP - 1/25/02 - p. 2 and therefore has a right and a responsibility to enforce safety standards. Your second line of refusal was based on Mr. Hank's statement in his letter of 9/28 (attached) under 1. that the bricks on the courtyard were done prior to the currently established standards, and thus are "legal non-conforming"~ This is not true. The Bowmer and associated plaza/courtyard paving were done in 1970-1971 with construction of the Bowmer. The standards were adopted, as the record shows, in 1967, before the Bowmer (and associated plaza/courtyard (re) construction were ever thought of. So much for history. The cqrrent 'problem is that plans for paving for the new OSF theater called for the same brick. This was contested at the public hearing(s) and appeal. Under Fino.ipgs of Fact and Conclusions of Law,.::p. .81~. . Section 19, it states :"During the proceeding, some opponents argued ~at .the proposed pedestrian improvements wi~hin the public right of way were not in accord with the city's standards for sidewalk construc- tion. The City Council attached condition 14, clarifying that all sidwalk work done within the public right-of-way shall be done to city standards...." Page 84, under Condition 14 states: "That all sidewallk construction and ~econstruction within the public right of way be done to the standards 0:2 tne City of Ashland...." This requirement has not been obeyed. On the north side (old plaza/ courtyard), the paved area has been jogged out to constrict the street. Additional identical bricks have been added both behind and beyond the paving which is presumably the "public right of way". This "right of way" is done in aggregate -not broomed concrete as required by City standards. Ahd the rest of the paving in front of the new theater is, in violat:i6n-~:'-: of any concern for public safety and past history - the same slick, wire cut clay bricks, and concrete aggregate. -Sectrcon.13. 04.03.0 stai:es under D. "Sid~,,:,~J:ks. shall be constructed, repaired, or ~ltered inacco~danc~ with the standard~ and specifications established uner this section":.. :.'Chapter 18.112.080 entitled "Violations-Nuisance" covers the current problem and calls for action using the word "shall". Chapter 1.04.010 "Definitions" under H. says "Must and shall are each mandatory" . I am requesting that you take appropriate action immediately, as required by law and in recognition of the fact that heavy use of these areas will commence at the end of February. Attached: List of attachments and ccs. Copies to: Mayor Alan DeBoer Councilperson Cate Hartzell Planning Commissioner Colin SWales Attachments Chapter 13.04.030 (Standards and Specifications) Pp. 81, 82, 84 of Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - Planning Action 2000-074 Letter from Lang to Olson - 4/28/00 Letter from Hanks to Lang - 9/22/00 Letter from Lang to Hanks - 9/27/00 Letter from Hanks to Lang - 9/28/00 Letter from Lang to Hanks - 10/2/00 Letter from Hanks to Lang - undated Eit-tJ.SJI L- CITY OF ASHLAND February 7, 2002 Mr. Philip C. Lang 758 B Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Your letter dated January 26, 2002 - OSF/Pioneer Street Crossing Dear Philip, The sidewalk and street crossing work done on Pioneer Street in association with the new OSF Theater was done under permit of the Ashland Public Works Department, and was deemed to be in conformance with the City's requirements. The plaza area in front of the new theater is not located on city right-of- way and is the responsibility of OSF. They have made the choice to use brick pavers in this area. The new sidewalk located on the east side of Pioneer is concrete. The adjoining sections of existing sidewalk were aggregate and the new sidewalk was approved as aggregate for a continuous, compatible surface. The new bump-out area on the west side of Pioneer is predominantly concrete for the ADA tactile are~, with a very limited new brick area. This was approved as part of the permit process with Public Works. The remainder of the sidewalk area on the west side is existing brick that was in place prior to the new theater approval. We have found that the condition established for OSF regarding the new sidewalk and crossing have been met and the Department of Community Development will not be taking any further action regarding this issue. I hope this answers your questions. C: Mayor DeBoer Greg Scoles, City Administrator Paul Nolte, City Attorney Paul Nicho,lson, OSF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 East Main Street Ashland. Oregon 97520 www.ashland.oLus " Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 r~' City of Ashland Department of Community Development f4~BJr~.,,_.,., ,0 of ASH "" ~"4. "_' ~ ~-V ui:'- w...' a 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 Adam Hanks Code Compliance Phone 541-552-2046 Fax 541-488-5311 adam@ashland.or.us The concrete brick material you have requested for the replacement of the sidewalk in front of your residence may initially meet the intent ofthe surface standards, but has a higher likelihood of creating an uneven and unsafe surface over a short period of time. Currently, the Ashland Municipal Code specifically states in Chapter 13 .04.030 that sidewalks are to be constructed using poured concrete. No mention is made as to the ability of staff to allow variances to this code requirement. As we discussed several weeks ago, the Engineering Division of our Public Works Department is in the process of revising many of our public right-of-way standards, including sidewalks. In discussions with Engineering, it seems appropriate to develop language in the new 'standards that would provide property owners with the opportunity to enhance the standard construction specifications by using alternate materials in areas where the pedestrian walkway or driveway approach intersects with the sidewalk. Because this is not yet an approved City standard, the Engineering Division would not yet be able to issue a permit for sidewalk work with the alternate materials. I would suggest that, if you are interested in pursuing the use of alternate materials, you delay the project until the standards have been revised and approved. Otherwise, the only permit that could be issued would not allow anything other than a poured concrete sidewalk. If you have any questions regarding the Council request process, please feel free to contact Paula Brown, Director of Public Works or Greg Scoles, City Administrator. Sincerely, ~ Adam Hanks Code Compliance c: Paula Brown, Director of Public Works John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Jim Olson, City Surveyor/ Project Manager Sharlene Stephens, Risk Management Enc: Sidewalk Standard Document Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 13 RUTH fl. flILLER tA~~(1 M ~5V - , -~ :1]':'- 758 B Street Residence Office/Fax Ashland. Orcflon 541 . 482-8659 541 . 482-5387 97520 February 12, 2002 John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development City of Ashland 20 East Hain Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re.: Your letter of 2/2/02 I have received your letter of 2/2/02. I guess that it is some sort of victory(!?), That is, insofar as you ha~e foregone ~he usual specious, circular, casuistical gobbledygook justifying allowing the paving. perhaps the history and documentation was too damning. Instead, you simply inform me that you (and Public Works) have made an ex cathedra decision that regardless of what the code.~ requires (interesting that you make no reference to it)you have determined that what OSF has done is perfectly o.k. The violation of basic codes and laws~under which we have all presumably agreed to live, by officials in favor of the rich and powerful individuals and institutions, and at the expense of the rest of us citizens, is the very definition of corruption. When we built our home and paved the sidewalk in front, we followed the rules, having been informed that the brick pavers we wanted to use were prohibi ted by the code. As expected, the concrete was crackEld:~fJy tree roots, and, as expected not in the place where we seamed the concrete. I know better now. In the Spring, I will be removing the concrete and replacing it with the same brick pavers I have used at the front and rear wa-rkw~ys of our campus. PHILIP C. LANG cc: Mayor Deboer Clouncilperson Hartzell Commissioner Swales , i i ! i / ! I f I \'r - RUTI1 M. MILLER b{.lhBila .""""'" Ptlll,IP C. Li\J'iG. LCoW 758 B 0lreet · Ashland. Ore8on 975'20 Residence 541 · 48'2-8659 Office/fa;'( 541 · 48'2-5387 January 26, 2004 To: Mark Knox Re.: Our exchange this A.M. re: sidewalk paying FAXed to: (541) 488-6006 As promised, this is my written, FAX follow-up to our conversation this A.M. in the foyer of the Planning/public Works building. I asked you if, from the~vantage point of your office window, you h~d seen people slip and fall on the tiles that constitute the paving in front of the building. You said: "I have seen people slip - I have slipped myself". We then launched into a discussion of violations of the paying ordinance by a prominent citizen, OSF, and the Planning Dept itself. It has been my position, stated as recently as the appeal hearing on the Bemis project, that Planning does not follow the laws and ordinances when it comes to the special interests of prominent/ricg individuals, organizations, and even its own buildings. This is evident in the violations of the sidewalk paving ordinance - most especially, (hot limited t6)the Planning/public Works Deptartments' own building. W1l.ri1tend to ask the City Council to instruct the City Attorney and the Planning and Public Works Departments (as well as the Code, Enforcement Officer) to enforce this ordinance. I hope they will. If not, I will file a lawsuit in which I hope to compel them to do so. In case the latter comes to pass, I will want to subpoena you (and others who have observed the danger~. So I wanted you to remE::1!ber - and have a written record of 0 r oonversatia today. 12 UTli M. MILLE12 ~ltIf!JrJ P ~ PtlILlP C. L\NC, LC&W 758 B ,stred ~ Ashland, Oregon 97520 Residence 541 · 48'2-8659 Oaice!fax 541 Q 482-5387 March 14, 2005 }w. Nancy Tate, President-elect OSF Box 158 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Ms. Tate: I am writing to you regarding "the bricks". I would like this letter copied and given to the Board at its next meeting (presumably the beginning of June). I am also sending copies to city officials, for reasons that will become obvious. I want to congratulate and praise the OSF Board for its decision, announced at the annual meeting, to redo "the bricks". They have been a problem for a long time. The possibility of serious injuries that might produce lawsuits for compensatory - or even punitive damages - has existed for a long time. The commitment to providing safety as well as improved comfort on "the bricks" is welcome. I am writing to provide you with some historical/legal background that I hope will help frame the project. I trust that the following will also be shared with whatever architect/designer(s) you choose for the redo. HISTORY "The bricks" consist of slick, wire-cut clay bricks that have been dangerous since the first. With aging over the past thirty-four or so years, they have cracked, heaved, and become ever more dangerous. Although formal records were not kept for much of this time, there are now several year's worth of "9Il-at hhe OSF bricks" calls to document falls. I have personally worked with clients referred as a result of falls on the bricks. The use of these bricks was in violation of law frOm the outset. The bricks were part of the building of the Bowmer Theater in 1970-1971. The City of Ashland passed an ordinance long before then (1967), dictating materials and specifications for sidewalks (see attached copy of Chapter 13.04.030: "Construction, Repair and Alteration of Sidewalks") The section is clear: only broomed concrete is an acceptable surface. Subsequent and repeat contacts with Mr. Jim Olson of Pub1llicWorks confirms that aggregate is not acceptable. Nancy Tate & OSF Board - 3/14/05 - p. 2 As,a citizen, health care practitioner and long-time OSF member; I have pointed out the ptoblems~with the brick surface for many year~ even going so far as to bring the matter to the City Council at their meeting of February 17, 2004. At that meeting Council agreed to notify OSF of the issue and the discussion. I assume that that was done. Of supreme .importance was the admis9ion by-the then city attorney that in fact the City could be sued in case of an accident on "the bricksfl and in turn would have to sue OSFfor recovery. This problem comes up because the sidewalk ordinance is interpreted to mean "the public right of wayfl which, in the case of the usual sidewalk is of limited width, in front of a structure. In this case, however, the entire "bricks" constitutes a t1right of way" for the entire public. The City's liability stems from the fact that OSF's "campus" is leased from the city - it is essentially Lithia Park land. It would seem both prudent and legal for the entire area of "the bricks" to have the same. legally required surface on a1111walkways. I hope that this background information will be helpful to OSF in planning the remodeling and resurfacing of the area. 'I have a complete file on this issue which I would be happy to share with you. You have my sincere appreciation for your decision and my best wishes for a successful project. PHILIP :Hember cc: Mayor City Council City Administrator City Attorney Planning Director Code enforcement officer attachment: City of AsHland Chapter 13.04 Construction, Repair and Alteration:: of Sidewalks. rt/~;:f /i~U~:, ~. Jl"'" /J!tr tbr : v v' ~1-J~. ~ t . . .; ,/~ /'v:ij;~/ {~/~-, .1 /I r CITY OF ASHLAND t /,_.. . / ..r.~#.,': { , Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Discussion of Sidewalk Improvement Standards- Letters from Philip C. Lang Department of Community Development February 17,2004 John McLaughlin, Director of comm,nit Development Paula Brown, Director of Public Wor ity Enginee;;t~ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: Mr. Lang appeared before the Council on February 3,2004 and submitted a letter outlining his concerns regarding the City's sidewalk improvement standards, and enforcement of those standards. The Council requested that this item be placed on the agenda for the February 17, 2004 council meeting. Fiscal Impact: Replacement of the decorative tile in the front of the Community Development and Public Works Engineering Building located at 51 Winburn Way. The cost of this replacement is estimated at $3,200.00. No other direct fiscal impact is anticipated by the City. Background: Mr. Lang submitted approximately 35 pages of additional information regarding his concerns (attached). From his original letter, he lists four major areas where he believes that either the public is at risk from unsafe walking surfaces, or where he believes that the City erred in allowing specific sidewalk improvements. The four examples are: 1. "The Bricks" in front of the Bowmer Theater on the Oregon Shakespeare Festival campus. 2. The New Theater on the Oregon Shakespeare Festival campus. 3. The Community DevelopmentlPublic Works Building at 51 Winburn Way. 4. The Sid and Karen DeBoer residence on Vista Street. Staff Response Item 1. - "The Bricks" are an area that was developed with the construction of the Bowmer Theater in the 1970's. The area does not constitute an area governed by the City's sidewalk standards. The area is also the responsibility of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF). Any modifications to that area are the responsibility of OSF. Liability for any injuries in this area is also the responsibility of OSF. Given that.. these bricks have been in place for approximately 30 years and are the responsibility of an entity other than the City, we have not seen any reason to pursue changes to this surface. No claims regarding injuries associated with this area have been file with the City. Unless directed by the Council, Staff will not be pursuing any changes to this surface. \\COMP AQ 1 \DATA \GOV\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\CC Lang Sidewalk Concern 2 11 04 .doc Page 1 of 3 ~~, Item 2. - The sidewalk area, within the right-of-way, in front ofthe New Theater was required to be done to the standards of the City of Ashland, with all work done under permit and approval of the Public Works Department. Mr. Lang questioned if this was actually done, and informed the Planning Department of his concerns in a letter dated January 28,2002. Director McLaugWin responded to Mr. Lang with the following letter (excerpt): "The sidewalk and street crossing work done on Pioneer Street in association with the new OSF theater was done under permit of the Ashland Public Works Department, and was deemed to be in conformance with the City's requirements. The plaza area in front of the new theater is not located on city right-of-way and is the responsibiiity ofOSF. They have made the choice to use brick pavers in this area. The new sidewalk located on the east side of Pioneer is concrete. The adjoining sections of existing sidewalk were aggregate and the new sidewalk was approved as aggregate for a continuous, compatible surface. The new bump-out area on the west side of Pioneer is predominantly concrete for the ADA tactile area, with a very limited new brick area. This was approved as part of the permit process with Public Works. The remainder of the sidewalk area on the west side is existing brick that was in place prior to the new theater approval. "We have found that the condition established for OSF regarding the new sidewalk and crossing have been met and the Department of Community Development will not be taking any further action regarding this issue." Mr. Lang has taken exception to the staff decision to accept the improvements. He has stated that an aggregate surface violates our codes. However, the City's ordinance requires that sidewalks be constructed of concrete, but does not specify the surface treatment. It is Public Works policy that sidewalks have a smooth "broomed" surface. However, if deemed appropriate, a different concrete surface may better fit the area. In this instance, existing sidewalks along Pioneer are of an exposed aggregate surface and it was determined that continuation of that surface would be most appropriate for neighborhood compatibility. The exposed aggregate surface here is not "illegal." There are several areas throughout town that have exposed aggregate; downtown sidewalks have a mix of aggregate and broom finish as well as some stamped concrete and even some inlaid wood spacers. The City has authorized compatible concrete finishes, including aggregate, when it is appropriate. As part of the traffic calming improvements on Pioneer between the two theaters, Public Works requested the bump out to slow vehicular traffic. The bump out on the west side of the street does contain a small amount of new bricks to maintain the compatibility and connectivity with the existing brick plaza area. These improvements were carefully reviewed at the time of installation by both the Public Works Director and Planning Director and it was found that the new improvements involving the bricks were not part of the general sidewalk area and that the improvement did not pose a safety hazard. The sidewalk along the west side was not being repaired, replaced or improved as a part of the New Theater project. The bump out was the only new work on that side of the street. Staff did not feel it was necessary to have aSF replace the entire length of the sidewalk on the west side of the street. Item 3 - The tile sections in the sidewalk areas in front of the Community DevelopmentlPublic Works Building were specified by the architect as part of the original construction. This was an architectural detail to break up the solid concrete areas and was not specifically denoted as a part of the sidewalk surface. Staff did not call this out as a sidewalk area and therefore we missed that detail. We concur with Mr. Lang that the tiles are breaking and the grout is loosened. A contract has been initiated to \\COMPAQI\DATA\GOV\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\CC Lang Sidewalk Concern 217 04.doc Page 2 on rA1 remove the tile areas and grout, and replace them with scored colored concrete. This will be done in the immediate future. Once completed, all areas in front of the building will be improved with concrete. Item 4 - Sid and Karen DeBoer installed a new sidewalk in front of their properties along Vista Street when they were remodeling their home and constructing a new home. They were not required to construct the sidewalk as part of any planning action, but rather they desired to have a sidewalk along their frontage. They were not aware that a separate permit was necessary for a sidewalk improvement. They constructed the sidewalk out of concrete, in accord with the ordinance, but utilized an aggregate surface rather than a broomed concrete surface. Given that there were no other sidewalks in the neighborhood to establish a pattern, it was determined that the aggregate surface was allowable and met ADA requirements. A short section of bricks set in concrete were installed where the walkway to the home intersects with the sidewalk. Again, it was determined that this did not pose a specific problem, was coordinated with their walkway and was allowed to remain. Should the Council find that either the exposed aggregate sidewalk or brick area in front of the DeBoer home are inappropriate for this area, the Council can direct Staff to contact the owners to remove the improvements and replace them with broomed surface concrete. Recommendation: Staff concurs that the sidewalk standards listed in ordinance 13.04.030 are somewhat rigid and should be modified to allow for additional flexibility at the discretion of the Director of Public Works. The Public Works Department has looked at revising this ordinance, and referencing specific improvement standards that would be under the purview of Public Works. There have been different sidewalk surfaces, including asphalt sections approved by the Council (Cooper) and sidewalk sections that are narrower than the specified 5 foot width. Perhaps now is the time to look at revisions to the code to allow sidewalk surface [mish discretion, allow for public art, and at the same time, meet the ADA requirements. '. As for the examples cited by Mr. Lang, staff recommends the following: 1. No further action required regarding "The Bricks" at OSF. If council feels strongly that the sidewalk along the west side of Pioneer is inappropriate in brick and wants that section (150-200 feet) replaced in concrete, then it would be appropriate for an LID to be formed and the City share the costs with OSF for an appropriate concrete (likely exposed aggregate) sidewalk. The estimate for this work is $8,500 and the City's share for standard sidewalk LIDs is 60% or $5,100.00. 2. No changes required to the improvements constructed as part of the New Theater project. 3. Complete the scheduled replacement of the tile area in front of the Community DevelopmentfPublic Works Building with concrete, and no further action is necessary. 4. The improvements on Vista in front of the DeBoer property have been found by Public Works to be acceptable, however, if the Council wishes to have these improvements replaced, Staff can contact the owners and initiate the process. Staff would not anticipate a City cost share for these individual, residential improvements. Attachments: Packet oflnfonnation from Philip Lang to Council dated February 11, 2004 Letter from Philip Lang to Council dated February 3, 2004 Letter from Adam Hanks to Philip Lang dated September 22, 2000 Letter from Adam Hanks to Philip Lang dated September 28, 2000 Letter from John McLaughlin to Philip Lang dated February 7, 2002 \\COMP AQ I\DA T A \GOV\pub-wrks\adrnin\PB Council\CC Lang Sidewalk Concern 2 17 04.doc Page 3 of 3 ~A' RUTll M. MILLER PtlILIP C. Lt\NG. LC6W .L:;t -~:"J""-' c. .1iP. 758 l) olreel · ^shllind, Ore,son 975'20 Residence 541 · 48'2-8659 Ofiice!fa'( 541 · 48'2-5387 February 3, 2004 To: The Mayor/City Council Re.: Ashland Municipal Code - Title 13.04.030 (Paving standards and specifications I am bringing to your attention the problem of non-enforcement of the City's paving standards and specifications. It is a good time to bring this issue forward since last week you upheld an appeal based on the wishes of the majority of citizens and on the laws and ordinances affecting the proposed development. This does not happen often enough. Often the ordinances, codes and rules are enforced for we "little people" but waived, abrogaqed and violated on behalf of rLch' and powerful individuals and organizations and even, as in this case, by the government on its own behalf. I call your attention to the attachment to this statement: a copy of AMC Title 13/04/030 which specifie~ standards and specifications for paving. I checked with the Public Works Department since this ordinance dates from 1967. I was informed that: "it hasn't changed for eons". Nevertheless, it has been abrogated creating significant pnysicaiL i::.isks'to 1,. individuals and liabilities for the taxpaying citizens. I have called these violations to the attention of the Planning Department and Public Works (I have substantial correspondence dating back four years), but nothing has :been done. I am sure that there are other major violations - but here are some ~lltstaodiqg and particularly danger~ ones: 1) Oregon Shakespeare Festival - "The bricks". The existing old bricks on the north side are wire cut/Slick surface bricks. As they have aged they have become even more treacherous. Sp~c:ri16llS: :arguments hav.e been made defending this: a) "The Bricks" preceded the code. They did not - the paving was done when the Bowmer was built in 1970-1971. The Code was put in place in 1967. b) "Its the OSF campus and thus private property". The OSF "campus" is leased from the City. We are the "deep pockets''when the lawsuits happen. c) "The ordinance only applies to the public right of way- not the entire "Bricks". Even if this is so - the public right of way is also bricks. In fact, when the New Theater was buirt, the "bump out" sidewalk was also allowed to be done in the same bricks. City Council - 2/3/04 - ?p'ying Oxdin~nce ~ p, 2 2) Oregon Shakespeare Festival - New Theater. Thi~ WaS appealed to the City Council from Planning. The "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" included a condition (.#14 - p. 84) that"all paving and reconstruction within the public right of way be done to the standards Df the City of Ashland...." Once again, the paving is bricks and aggregate - neithe.r of which is allowed. I so informed the Planning Director in a letter dated 1/26/02. His response, dated 2/7/02 was that the condition had been met, and no action would be taken. 3) The City's Planning/Public Works Building. This building has four (!) two-foot-wide bands of glazed and slippery ceramic tile from the building's edge out to the curb - a blatant violation of the code. Moreover, weathering and heavy traffic have loosened the grout; some tiles are ~~, increasing the hazard. Staff~}offices: 'looking out on the street have allowed staff to see people slipping and falling. Nevertheless, department staff blame the architect, the contractor, the Public Works Department - but no correction has been made. 4) The DeBoer residence on Vista. The owner has copied the same wire-cut, &laybricks used by OSF in his sidewalk at the front of the steps, and extended the sidewalk In aggregate for many feet on either side. When notified, code enforcement allowed as the work was not approved inspected, or done to code, but that nothing would be done. (Letter from Adam Hanks - 9/28/00) . It is vital that something must be done for the following reasons: 1) Public danger. All during the season (and before and after) there are 911 calls to pick people up off the bricks. This is easily verified. I have treated people with significant injuries sustained on liThe Bricks .': People have slipped and fallen in front of the Planning Dept. building. 2) Public/taxpayer liability. At some point someone will sue OSF and/or the City (we are the "deep pockets"). Since these problems have been known to OSF and the City for a long time, the possibility of punitive as well as compensatory damages exists. 3) Justice Louis Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court said: "government is a teacher". He meant that the behavior of governments is a model to citizens. The Paving in front of the Planning Dept. building is a brazen and "in your face" violation that gives a message to individuals and builders about how and by whom the laws can be broken with impunity. Ashland Municipal Code Title 18/112/080 regarding "violations-nuisance" states that violations of this sort "are declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance, and the City Attorney of the City may, or upon order of the City Council shall immediately commence action or proceedings for abatement, and removal and enjoinment...and may take such other steps...to grant relief." City Council - 2/3/04 - Paving Ordinance - p. 3 I am asking you to take action to correct these violations of law, and dangers to the public PUTII M. MILL'EQ Gr'1 J.-c:, ~ Q C. q'l~. PIHLIP C. lANG. lCc!)\v 758 l) e.lrcel · i\5hland. OrcRon 975'20 ,-. Residence )41 . 482-8659 Olke/fa.\ 541 · 481-')387 . -- February 3,2004 To: The Mayor/City COWlcil Re.: Ashland MUnicipal Code - Title 13.04.030 (Paving standards and specification! I am bringing to your attention the problem of non-enforcement of the City' s paving standards and specifications. It is a good time to bring this issue forWard ~ince last. week you upheld an appeal based on the wishes of the ~ ajority of citizens and on the laws and ordinances affectin~ the proposed development. - Thi~ does not happen often enough. Often the ordinances, codes and rules are enforced for we "little people~ but waived, abrogaqed and violated on behalf of r.hch: arid powerful individuals and organizations and even, as in this c~se, by the government on its own behalf. I call your attention to the attaclunent to this statement: a copy of AMC Title l3/04/030.which specifie~ standards and specifications for .paving. I checked with the Public Works DePartment since this ordinance dates .:fran 1967. I was informed that: "it hasn't changed for eons". Nevertheless, it has been abrogated creating significant pnysicail :i:'.isk-s.:to .1.-' individuals and liabilities for the taxpaying citizens. I have called .these violations to 'the attention of the Planning Department and Public Works (1 have substantial correspondence datiJlg back f~ur years), but nothing has :been done. 1 am sure that there are other major violations - but here are some outstandiJ}g and particularly dangerOUS ones: - '1) Oregon Shakespeare Festival - "The bricks". The existing old bricks on the north side are wire cut/slick surface bricks. As they have aged they have become even JDOre treacherous. S.PEJahOl1S: :arguments hav.e been made defending this: a) "The Bricks" preceded the code. They did not - the paving.was done when the Bowmer was built in 1970-1911. The Code was put in place in 1967 . b) "Its the OSF campus and thus private property". The OSF "campus II is leased from the City. We are the "deep pockets ''when the lawsuits happen. .c) "The ordinance only applies to the public right of way- not the entire "Bricks". Even if this is so - the public right of way is also bricks. In fact, when the New 'i'heater was built, the "bwnp out" sidewalk was also allowed to be done in the same bricks. , J City Council - 2/3/04 - PAy~g Ordin~ce ~ p. 2 2) Oregon Shakespeare Festival - New Theater. Thi15 ~~s appealed t.o the City Council from Planning. The nFinding~ of Fact and Conclusi~ns of LAw" included a condition Uf14 - p. 84) that"all paYing and reconstX"Uction wi thin the public right of way be done to the standards 'tf the City of Ashland...." Once again, the paving is b:ricks and ,aggregate - neithex of which is allowed. I so informed the Planning Director in a letter dated 1/26/02. His response, dated 2/7/Q2 was that the condition had been met, and no action would be taken. 3) The City's Planning/public Works Building. This building has four (n two-foot-wide bands of gla~ed and slipperY ceramic tile from the building's edge out to the curb- a blatant violation of the code. Moreover, weathering and heavy traffic have loosened the grout; some tiles are~, increasing the hazard. S,t.;a.ffoofficesnlOoking out on the street have allowed staff to see people slipping, and falling . Nevertheless, department staff blame the architect, the contractor, the Public Works DepaXtment - but no correction has been made. 4) The DeBoer residence on Vista~ The owner has copied the same wire-cut, ctla:y,:bricks used by OSp'in his sidewal . at the front of the steps, and extended the sidewalk in aggregate for many feet on either side. When notified, code enforcement allowed as' the work was not approved inspected, or done to, code, but that nothing would be done. (Letter from Adam Hanks -' 9/28/00) . It is vi tal that something must be done for the following reasons: " 1) Public danqer. All during the season (and before and after) there are 9ll'calls to pick people up off the bricks. This is easily verified. I have treated people with significant injuries sustained on "The ~ricks.", People have sli:pped and fallen in front of the Planning Dept. building. 2) Public/taxpayer liability. At some point someone will sue OSP and/or the City (we are the "deep pockets"). Since these problems have been known to OSP and the City for a long time, the possibili..ty of punitive as ,well as compensatory damages exists. 3) Justice Louis Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme COurt said:. "government is a , teacher". He meant that the behavior of governments is a model to citizens. The Paving in front of the Planninq Dept. building is a brazen and "in your face" violation that qives a messaqe ,t~ individuals~d builders about how and by whom the laws can be broken with impunity. Ashland Municipal Code Title 18/112/080 regardinq "violations-nuisance" ,states that violations of this sort "are declared to be unlawful and a public nuisanoe, and the City Attorney.of the City may, or upon order of the City COuncil shall immediately coamenoe action or prooeedings for abatement, and removal and enjoinment...and may take such other ste9s. .,.to grant relief." City Council - 2/3/04 - Paving Ordinance - p. 3 action to correct these violations of law, and CITY OF ASHLAND February 5, 2004 Mr. Philip C. Lang 758 B Street Ashland,~egon 97520 RE: Your letter dated January 26, 2002 - OSF/Pioneer Street Crossing Dear Philip, The sidewalk and street crossing work done on Pioneer Street in association with the new OSF Theater was done under pennit of the Ashland Public Works Department, and was deemed to be in conformance with the City's requirements. The plaza area in front of the new theater is not located on city right-of- way and is the responsibility ofOSF. They have made the choice to use brick pavers in this area. The new sidewalk located on the east side of Pioneer is concrete. The adjoining sections of existing sidewalk were aggregate and the new sidewalk was approved as aggregate for a continuous, compatible surface. The new bump-out area on the west side of Pioneer is predominantly concrete for the ADA tactile area, with a very limited new brick area. This was approved as part of the permit process with Public Works. The remainder of the sidewalk area on the west side is existing brick that was in place prior to the new theater approval. We have found that the condition established for OSF regarding the new sidewalk and crossing have been met and the Department of Community Development will not be taking any further action regarding this issue. I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, John McLaughlin Director of Community Development C: Mayor DeBoer Greg Scoles, City Administrator Paul Nolte, City Attorney Paul Nicholson, OSF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVElOPMENT 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.OI..us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 r~' City of Ashland Department of Community Development 20 East Main Street. Ashland OR 97520 Adam Hanks Code Compliance Phone 541-552-2046 Fax 541-488-5311 - adam@ashland.or.us September 22, 2000 Philip Lang 758 B St Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Lang: Ths letter is in response to our conversations this past week regarding your request to replace the existing poured concrete sidewalk abutting the front property line of your residence on B Street with a sidewalk constructed with brick pavers. As you noted in your letter of April 28 to Jim Olson, it is City policy that sidewalks in the public right- of-way are to be constructed using poured concrete with a broomed fInish. The intent of this standard is two-fold. Broomed concrete ensures a uniform surface that, when in good repair, meets ADA standards for a pedestrian surface. Broomed concrete, as opposed to other surfaces, asphalt, decomposed granite, individual bricks, etc. require less long term maintenance due to the unifIed nature of concrete. Additionally, compliance to a standard provides an aesthetic visual connection throughout the neighborhood. You noted two deviations from the right-of-way standard explained in the above paragraph are worth explanation. The bricks in the right-of-way on the west side of South Pioneer Street were installed some time ago and no information is available as to their approval by the City. The bricks in the courtyard area are not required to meet this standard, as the standard applies to sidewalks in the public right-of-way only. The safety concerns regarding the courtyard area will be forwarded to our Risk Management Department. The brickwork done in the public right-of-way in front of the stairway to 234 Vista does not meet the standard and was not noticed by the Department of Public Works at the time of its construction. The use of an alternate material, while not included in standards at the time of its construction, does provide a visual emphasis for both the pedestrian and vehicle intersections with the sidewalk. The remainder of the sidewalk in front of234 and 300 Vista are indeed fInished with exposed aggregate. Exposed aggregate is not specified in the sidewalk standard, as it is more expensive than the broomed finish, but nonetheless meets the material standard of a poured concrete fInish. The use of an exposed aggregate fInish does not decrease the expected life of the surface, nor does it violate the required standards for an ADA approved sidewalk. City of Ashland Department of Community Development 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 Adam Hanks Code Compliance Phone 541-552-2046 Fax 541-488-5311 - adam@ashland.or.us The concrete brick material you have requested for the replacement of the sidewalk in front of your residence may initially meet the intent of the surface standards, but has a higher likelihood of creating an uneven and unsafe surface over a short period of time. Currently, the Ashland Municipal Code specifically states in Chapter 13.04.030 that sidewalks are to be constructed using poured concrete. No mention is made as to the ability of staff to allow variances to . this code requirement. As we discussed several weeks ago, the Engineering Division of our Public Works Department is in the process of revising many of our public right-of-way standards, including sidewalks. In discussions with Engineering, it seems appropriate to develop language in the new standards that would provide property owners with the opportunity to enhance the standard construction specifications by using alternate materials in areas where the pedestrian walkway or driveway approach intersects with the sidewalk. Because this is not yet an approved City standard, the Engineering Division would not yet be able to issue a permit for sidewalk work with the alternate materials. I would suggest that, if you are interested in pursuing the use of alternate materials, you delay the project until the standards have been revised and approved. Otherwise, the only permit that could be issued would not allow anything other than a poured concrete sidewalk. If you have any questions regarding the Council request process, please feel free to contact Paula Brown, Director of Public Works or Greg Scoles, City Administrator. Sincerely, Adam Hanks Code Compliance e: Paula Brown, Director of Public Works John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Jim Olson, City Surveyor/ Project Manager Sharlene Stephens, Risk Management Ene: Sidewalk Standard Document Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 13 City of Ashland Department of Community Development 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 Adam Hanks Code Compliance Phone 54 I -552-2046 Fax 541-488-5311 - adam@ashIand.or.us September 28, 2000 Philip Lang 758 B St Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Lang: Per your request, the following is an attempt to answer your questions posed in your correspondence of September 17, 2000. 1. The bricks in the OSF courtyard extend out into the public right-of-way, which is not in compliance with current City standards. However, that work was done prior to the currently established standards and can be classified as a legal non-conforming surface. No enforcement action will take place. 2. The bricks in the OSF courtyard are not required to meet the sidewalk standard, as they are not within the public right-of-way. I realize that the land is under the ownership of the City of Ashland, but that has no relevance in the enforcement of sidewalk standards. As I mentioned in my last letter to you, I will forward your concerns with the courtyard surface to our Risk Management Departtnent for review. 3. The brickwork in front of234 and 300 Vista was done without a Public Works permit. It is irrelevant who did the work, the homeowner or a professional. As I mentioned in my letter, the sidewalk standards are being redrafted and will most likely include exceptions that allow . alternate materials emphasizing the pedestrian and vehicle crossings through the sidewalk. I do not see the value in requiring the property owner to replace the materials that have been installed to meet a standard that will soon be modified to permit the very material that we require to be replaced. No enforcement action will be taken, unless dictated by the Director of Public Works or the City Administrator. 4. Answered in statement #3. I have noted your concerns with the materials proposed for the sidewalk and entry walkway in the file and have also communicated these concerns directly with Bill Molnar, Senior City of Ashland Department of Community Development 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 Adam Hanks Code Compliance Phone 541-552-2046 Fax 541-488-5311 - adam@asWand.or.us Planner. To reiterate, the entry walkway will most likely not be required to meet the standards being discussed here because it is not a part of the public right-of-way. The suggestions from my last correspondence still hold true. A permit is required for the replacement or construction of a sidewalk in the public right-of-way. Failure to comply with the permit requirement will result in enforcement action. Sincerely, Adam Hanks Code Compliance C: Paula Brown, Director of Public Works John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Project Manager Paul Nolte, City Attorney RUTI1 ['vI. ~IlLLr=R ,,~~ ..,.....::-..:-.--~~... ...,-~:..:.....~~ "::'~~.:~: ~ ~ ..,;....... _. -..~. ......-..;.~~ .....".;-i::...a~....':. ..... . ::::'s.-? .' ..,..:r-' i ....o:r~ j-w." ~.' ~. ~i~ "; ;.. ~ 1:~":-- I -~..."\I'I'.& _____.--.,~..:I..~......I..... -.... .."'" t' ';'~;'''f';''~~f'' I j . '.' ..' '1 :.7,':J ., ! i ,"~":'~?;~~-~;::i-~ jt;~ Ptll1IP C. Li\1\iG. LC<3W 758 B Stred · L\shhlnd. Orq)on 975'20 ResIdence 541 · 48'2-8659 O!f1ce/fQ.\. 5{1 . 48'2-5387 February 13, 2004 To: Mayor & city Council Attached are two additional pieces of evidence with respect to paving problems and the Planning Department's relation therefo. They are EaheJJJ:ell. Exhibi t P and Exhibit Q respectively. Rpprovem.::'Minutes and TranscriptdJon of Audiotape of 10/17/00 Council Meeting Approved minutes: Minutes 1 O/17/0ttouncil meeting http://www.ashland.or.us/A<1endasResults.asp? AMID=233 _.McLaughlin stated that in the appeDant's 65-page presentation, many of the issues raised, had been heard previousl)' and addressed. He lllso noted the following new issues that had not pre~iously raised: 1) A proposal for bricks in the sidewalk, and sidewalk standards for poured concrete. McLaughlin noted that staff had added a condition requiring tbat the sidewalk work be done under the permit and approval of Public Works. 2) Building size requirements. McLaughlin explained that the numbers quoted were based on the arcbitect's building plan, which is measured from the outside of the building. He further explained that, as is written in city ordinance, the measurements are mllde from tbe inside of the walls, and tbe 44,000 sq. ft building is within the 45,000 sq. ft limit. 3) Building sep.iration, and firewalls. McLaughlin stated that one solution is to attach the theatl'r to lhl' parking structure, which would alle\iate a few huiltling code issues, hut would also l'xceed lhe square footage requirement. An alternath"e solution, would be to create a fire" all, wbich H as oIls" considered h~" the an:hitect.~ in the huihling department. St.-iff recommended adding a cnnditiun ensuring that the huildings are nuncontiguuus..... From audiotape (The videotape has been destroyed) what follows is a verbatim transcript of that pa~t Of the 10/l7/00 meeting that covers MJi. McLoughlin"s remarks on item #1, ~receding. Empha,sis, commas, etc. are included to try to replicate the exact cadence ~nd intonation of his remarks. [McLaughlin] Urn, there's a couple of points, urn, one involves the, er, proposal for bricks in the courtyard area, and that includes, urn, the way it's proposed, is there'd be some bricks within the er, right of way or sidewalk area. And, er, Mr. Lang is correct that you do have a standard that requires that that be done to urn, our sidewalk standard, which is a Portland cement. And so we would just recommend you, er there's a um, cond;t;on number ten I believe that, urn involves urn. improvements of the er, bu/b-out area that's proposed, it's in this drawing, right here you can see that crossing area. We just have a condition in there that that work all be done under permit and ,,," . I approval of Public Works and just add on that the sidewalk um, comply with the City standards for sidewalk construction and also continue under review and approval by Public Works. And I think it addresses, that point. Exhibit P U" I Oregon $hakespeare Festival - 1999-2003 Long Range Plan Goal #2 of the 1999-2003 Long Range Plan (attached) states that: "We will provide a work environment for all company members that is dynamic, supportive, safe, and creauvely inspiring". It also states: "In order to accomplish this goal, we plan to implement the following action programs: 7. Examine how we can make the brick courtyard less hazardous during wet weather~. Further on, Goal #14 (attached) states, sub ll.b.: "Examine how we can improve the safety of the Bricks by providing a non-slip surface and installing steps in front of the box office." Other, far more grandiose goals stated in this plan have been achieved, including construction of the New Theater, and increasing the endowment by another $10,000,000. This one has not. Patron and staff safety still goes a-begging. It is now 2004 - 5 years later, and, presumably, time for a new four year plan. _ .. Exhibit Q Goal #2: .\Ve will provide a work environment for all company members that is dynamic, supportive, safe and creatively inspiring. Background Analysis: In the last five years we have significantly upgraded working conditions for many of our staff including the costume shop, artistic staff, design, stage operations, box office, development, marketing and communication, education, publications and information services. These improvements have made a huge difference in company morale and our capacity to provide the best work By the end of 1998 with the renovation of the Bowmer Theatre basement area we will have expanded dressing space by 30%, improved stage manager and stage operations offices, provided better sOlmd, lighting and costume construction space, and doubled the green room area. The company increasingly believes that management is really making an effort to listen to everyone. The Manager's Workshops and diversity training and an improved evaluation process increasingly enhance communication and management responsiveness. At the same time, it is very difficult to make art where outside labor forces, such as federal and state laws, apply pressure on us to be more bureaucratic and institutional. Although we have made concerted efforts to ensure our wages are competitive with other theatres, it is difficult for many company members to live in this increasingly expensive city. Although the longevity of our company gives us remarkable stability and knowledge, the financial and time demands of raising families can create dissatisfaction among some company members over what the Festival can offer. There appears to be a class system developing within the Festival relating to different pay scales and education levels, where people come from, and hierarchical position, and this could jeopardize company morale in the future. Although a lot of effort has been made to include everyone in the company through invitation to Show Intra's, task-oriented training, diversity training, improvements in Company Relations meetings, and the introduction of the Company Council, we will need to focus on providing continued opportunities for the company to stay connected. We want to make the Festival one of the best companies in the U.S. in which to work. In order to accomplish this goal, we plan to implement the following action programs: 1. Examine work loads throughout the Festival. ADIED 2000 Dir of Pers 2. Provide vacation time/pay for all company members ADIED 1999-2003 $35,000 - who work more than 20 weeks per season. Dir of Pers $70,000 per year 3. Examine the costs and benefits of increasing the match ED 2000 $42,000 on our retirement plan from 4% to 5%. Dir of Pers per year 4. Increase training and tuition reimbursement budgets. ADIED 2000-2003 $10,000 Dir of Pers per year 18 5. Ensure that we offer a competitive compensation and ADfED 1999-2000 benefits package that attracts and retains the people we Dir of Pers want; engage a compensation consultant to assist the process. 6. Examine the implication of creating a system that Prdn Mgr 2000 rewards company members who save the Festival Dir OfF&A money through cost reductions, material savings, and Dir of Pers time efficiency. All managers 7. Examine how we can make the brick courtyard less Dir of Pers 2000 $5,000 hazardous during wet weather. Dir OfFac. 8. Upgrade the Green Show performance deck, ensuring AD 2000 $15,000 that it is designed to fit harmoniously into the Assoc Prd courtyard. Prdn Mgr 9. Continue to offer management and company members Dir of Pers 1999-2000 training in cornmlUlication and diversity. Assoc. AD 10. Maintain the Company Council as a vital ADfED 1999-2000 communication between company members and OSF Cmpany Cnel leadership. 19 Goal # 14: We will analyze our space and facilities challenges and as our resources permit, carefully implement changes that address the high priority needs. Background Analysis: We made major improvements in the costume shop with the move to the Pioneer building in 1997. Once the old costume shop space in the Angus Bowmer Theatre basement is converted, we will have more surtable space for actors' Green Room, dressing rooms, sotmd and light departments, stage operations, and stage managers. While all of our theatres are in good condition, we do have limitations in load-in facilities and lighting, vocal and movement coach space, and in the size of our rehearsal halls. Our mailing facilities are inadequate and information services staff are working in crowded conditions. We often turn away groups requesting education services because we are tmable to find space. In addition, some of the spaces we use are inadequate for work with students. Dedicated space would enable us to significantly expand our education offerings. In order to accomplish this goal, we plan to implement the following action programs: 1. Create a master plan for space needs and establish a ADIED 1999 task force for examining and implementing the master Prdn Mgr space plan. Assoc Prd Board 2. hnprove access of large scenic elements into the theatres Prdn Mgr 1999 $20,000 by replacing load-in doors as appropriate. 3. Purchase additional suitable, affordable housing units as Dir ofF&A 1999-2003 $??? they become available to provide more control over CmpanyMgr company housing. 4. Examine how we can increase the size of our rehearsal Assoc AD 2000 halls. Assoc Prd Dir ofFac 5. Provide dedicated spaces for voice, movement and ADIED 1999-2001 $25,000 warm up activities close to the dressing rooms in each theatre. 6. Explore the use of spaces off campus for activities and ED 1999-2002 functions that do not need to be close to the theatres. 7. Examine how we can improve wheelchair seating in the ED 2000 Angus Bowmer Theatre; implement as appropriate. Res. Des. 41 8. Upgrade the Sennheiser Hearing System in our theatres Dir ofM&C 2000 $15,000 where necessary. Prein Mgr Aud Serv Mgr 9. Work with the business community and City of Ashland ED 2000-2003 on creating additional parking for company members Dir OfF&C and Festival patrons. Dir Of M&C 10. Seek to provide dedicated classroom and workshop Dir Of Ed. 1999-2003 ??? spaces for our education activities. 11. Improve wheechair access to our theatres: a. Examine the possibilities of providing a wheelchair Dir ofF&A 2001 $15,000 loading zone next to the bricks. b. Examine how we can improve the safety of the Dir ofF&A 2000 $10,000 Bricks by providing a non-slip surface and installing steps in front of the Box Office. Examine ways of providing wheelchair access to Dir of M&C c. Dir ofFac the Angus Bowmer Theatre booth and Backstage 2000 Tour areas. Res. Des. 42 F{)tl. OSP ~C'<5 \ ,tr:r'\. LEASE THIS LEASE is entered into this ~O day of 1.14 ~ ,2000, between THE CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its Council and the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission (the "City") and the OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, an Oregon corporation ("OSF"). RECITALS A. In 1969 the City obtained a grant of funds from the Economic Development Administration of the Department of Commerce of the United States, and OSF contributed certain real property to the City, together with funds equal in amount to the grant, for the purpose of construction and expansion of the Shakespeare Theatre facilities in the City of Ashland for the use and benefit of the City and OSF. B. On August 29, 1969, the City and OSF entered into a Lease (the "1969 Lease") of the real property described in the attached Exhibit A (the "Original Property"), which included the facilities referred to in Recital A. The term of such lease has been extended to 2019. C. In 1991 OSF constructed the Allan Pavilion of the Elizabethan Theatre as a leasehold improvement to the Original Property. In 1994 OSF constructed an addition to the Angus Bowmer Theatre (the "Bowmer Theatre") on the Original Property for patron restrooms. D. OSF has proposed to construct, at its expense, an additional theatre and a two-to-three level parking facility on the existing City parking lot described in the attached Exhibit B (the "Additional Property"), and the City has agreed to make such real property available to OSF for such purposes. The Additional Property is divided into two parts, the "Parking Facility Property" and the "Theatre Property" which includes the space in the Parking Facility Property used for theatre HVAC equipment. E. It is in the interest of this community that during such periods as the Bowmer Theatre and the facility known as Carpenter Hall located between the Original Property and the Additional Property ("Carpenter Hall") are not required or in use by OSF, use of such facilities be granted to civic groups, conventions and other organizations at such times and for such purposes as the City and OSF may approve. F. The City and OSF now wish to amend and replace the 1969 Lease of the Original Property and to incorporate the Additional Property into a new lease of both properties effective upon the execution of this Lease. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Lease shall consist of a period which shall begin on the date of the execution of this agreement and end on the date seventy-five (75) years thereafter. 2. PROPERTY. The City does hereby lease to OSF the Original Property and the Additional Property (collectively, the "Property"), together with all improvements thereon except for the parking facility, whether in existence at this time or placed thereon during the term of this Lease or any renewal thereof together with all fixtures and equipment owned by the City and now or hereafter placed upon the Property which may be required or incident to use and operation of the facilities on the Property by OSF, subject; however, to the City's reservation of the air space above the parking facility described in Section 13 below. 3. USE OF PROPERTY. Except as otherwise provided in Section 13, OSF shall have sole and exclusive possession and use of the Property and all improvements, facilities and equipment thereon during the term of this Lease, and any renewal of such term, for theatrical productions or such other theater-related or community uses which are generally consistent with its Corporate Charter. The parties understand that except for the Parking Facility, OSF may set policies at its sole discretion regarding use of the Property. It is further understood and agreed that OSF shall grant to civic groups, professional organizations or governmental agencies temporary use of Bowmer Theatre and Carpenter Hall when the OSF theatres are not in use, if such use, at OSF's sole determination, will not interfere with the operation of the activities of OSF, provided however, that OSF receives payment of a reasonable rental based upon the cost of maintenance, operation and services rendered or incurred by OSF in connection with such use. 4. DEVELOPMENT OF PARKING. OSF shall construct a multi-level parking structure on the Additional Property providing approximately 140 parking spaces for the public. This structure shall be completed and open for use on or before the completion of the theater to be built upon the Additional Property. OSF shall not remove any existing public parking on the Additional Property (existing as of the date this lease is effective between the parties) until it has received all necessary approvals and permits to construct the theater and parking facility. Upon the removal of any existing public parking, OSF shall commence construction of the parking facility and shall prosecute it to completion with diligence. 5. CONSIDERATION. In addition to the covenants of OSF contained in this Lease, OSF has provided the following consideration for this Lease: (a) Conveyance of the Original Property to the City; (b) Contribution by OSF of a portion of the funds for construction of the facilities on the Original Property; (c) Construction by OSF of the additional improvements to the Original Property as described in Recital C above; and 2 (d) Construction by OSF of the theatre and parking facilities on the Additional property. 6. TITLE TO IMPROVEMENTS AND FIXTURES. All structures and improvements of whatever kind and nature erected or made to the Original Property by OSF during the term of the 1969 Lease or this Lease, together with any and all additions, alterations and permanent fixtures now or hereafter installed upon the Original Property, shall be the property of the City, except that the City shall have no ownership, title or interest in any machinery, equipment, appurtenances or fixtures placed by OSF in or upon the Original Property which is not actually so affixed as to become an integral part of the buildings or facilities. All structures and improvements of whatever kind and nature erected or made to the Additional Property by OSF during the term of this Lease, together with any and all additions, alterations and permanent fixtures now or hereafter installed upon the Additional Property, shall be the property of OSF during the term of this Lease. All structures and improvements of whatever kind and nature erected on or made to the Parking Facility Property by OSF shall be the property of the City. Upon termination of this Lease, all structures and improvements on the Additional Property, together with any and all additions, alterations and permanent fixtures thereon, shall become the property of the City, except that the City shall have no ownership, title or interest in any machinery, equipment, appurtenances or fixtures placed by OSF in or upon the Additional Property which is not actually so affixed as to become an integral part of the buildings or facilities. 7 . ALTERATIONS. OSF shall have the right to make changes to and alterations of the Property, subject to the following conditions: (a) Except as herein provided, OSF may at OSF's expense make such alterations, improvements, additions and changes to the Property as it may deem necessary or expedient in the operation of the Property, provided OSF, without the written consent of the City, shall not tear down or materially demolish any of the improvements upon the Property or make any material change or alteration in such improvements, which, when completed, would substantially diminish the value or substantially alter the use of the Property. (b) At all times when any change or alteration is in progress, there shall be maintained, at OSF's expense, worker's compensation insurance in accordance with law covering all persons employed in connection with the change or alteration, and general liability insurance for the mutual benefit of OSF and the City expressly covering the additional hazards due to the change or alteration. 8. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. OSF shall not cause or permit any waste, damage or injury to the Property. OSF, at its sole expense shall keep the Property as now or hereafter constituted with all improvements made thereto and the adjoining sidewalks, curbs, walls and landscaping clean and in good condition (reasonable wear and tear excepted) and shall make all repairs, replacements and renewals, whether ordinary or extraordinary, seen or unforeseen, including all structural repairs, necessary 3 to maintain the Property. All repairs, replacements, and renewals shall be at least equal in quality of materials and workmanship to that originally existing in the Property. The City shall in no event be required to make any repair, alteration, or improvement to the Property. Any fixture, equipment or materials replaced by OSF shall belong to OSF, and all proceeds from the disposition thereof may be retained by OSF. The City, at its sole expense, shall keep the Parking Facility Property as now or hereafter constituted with all improvements made thereto and the adjoining sidewalks, curbs, walls and landscaping clean and in good condition (reasonable wear and tear excepted) and shall make all repairs, replacements and renewals, whether ordinary or extraordinary, seen or unforeseen, including all structural repairs, necessary to maintain the Property. OSF shall defend and indemnify the City against all costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, suits, claims and demands because of OSF's failure to comply with the foregoing, and OSF shall not call upon the City for any disbursement or outlay whatsoever in connection therewith, and hereby expressly releases and discharges the City of and from all liability therefor. 9. UTILITIES. OSF shall pay all charges for janitorial, garbage removal, gas, electricity, light, heat, power, telephone and domestic water service used, rendered or supplied upon or in connection with the Property and the facilities thereon. The City agrees to supply irrigation water at its cost. 10. FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE. OSF covenants and agrees to keep the Property insured against loss by fire with extended coverage endorsement, including risk of loss resulting from collapse of the structures, lightning, vandalism and malicious mischief. Such insurance policies shall at all times be maintained in force in an amount equal to the full insurable replacement value of the premises and properties insured. Certificates evidencing such insurance and bearing endorsements requiring thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to any change or cancellation shall be furnished to the City. It is a condition of payment of such insurance premiums by OSF that the proceeds of any such insurance shall be applied to the repairing or restoration of the property damage to the Property whether the loss is partial or total. The City of Ashland shall be named as an additional insured on such policy. 11. LIABILITY INSURANCE. OSF shall procure, and during the term of this * Lease shall continue in force, the following policies of insurance at OSF's cost: Public liability and property damage in a responsible company with limits of not less than $250,000.00 for injury to one person, $500,000.00 for injury to two or more persons in one occurrence, and $100,000.00 each occurrence for damage to property. City may require OSF to increase these limits in the event of any change in the provisions of ORS 30.270, or in the event these limits are found to be not totally applicable to a city. Such insurance shall cover all risks arising directly or indirectly out of OSF's activities on or as a result of the condition of the Property and shall protect the City and OSF against all claims of third persons. Certificates evidencing such insurance and bearing endorsements requiring thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to any change or cancellation shall be furnished to the City. It is agreed that the City shall not be liable to any third persons as a result of the use of the Property by OSF, its employees or agents, 4 and OSF covenants and agrees to defend and indemnify the City from the claims of said third persons by reason of the use of the Property by OSF herein. 12. REAL PROPERTY TAXES. If any portion of the property shall be assessed for property taxes, such taxes shall be paid by OSF as due. OSF shall pay as due all taxes on its personal property located on the Property and any special assessments levied against the Property. As used in this paragraph, property taxes include any fees or charges relating to the ownership, use, or rental of the Property, other than taxes on the net income of OSF, if any. 13. AIR SPACE. City has all rights to the air space over the parking facility. OSF will ensure that the parking facility has the engineering capacity of supporting two additional levels of standard construction and the City reserves the right to approve plans and specifications to ensure future use can be made of its air space. The City shall give due consideration to, and shall seek to minimize, the impact on OSF of any planned air space development (whether by City or any assignee), including but not limited to theater operations, architectural compatibility and parking availability. If the City wishes to assign or transfer all or any portion of these air space development rights to a third party, any such assignment or transfer shall be subject to this restriction. In addition, at least six (6) months prior to any such proposed assignment or transfer the City shall give OSF the right to make a proposal for its own development of a project of equal or greater community benefit, and the City shall give due and good faith consideration to such proposal.. The City shall be responsible for all costs of constructing, maintaining and operating any such facilities constructed by the City. 14. COST REIMBURSEMENT. The City will reimburse OSF for the additional cost it incurs in constructing the intermediate level of parking and for strengthening columns, footings and walls to enable subsequent construction above the Parking Facility, including interest on such costs accrued at seven percent (7%) per annum. 15. COMPLIANCE WITH ADA. Except for the Parking Facility Property, OSF shall be solely responsible for any improvements, alterations or repairs to the Property required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), whether or not the ADA imposes such requirements on the City as owner of the Property. OSF shall provide all services, programs or activities conducted by it on the Property in compliance with the ADA, whether or not such compliance is imposed by the AQA upon the City. OSF shall defend and indemnify and hold entirely free and harmless City from and against all ADA-related claims, judgments, damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities, or losses which arise during or after the lease term and which are imposed on, or paid by or asserted against City by reason improvements, alterations or repairs to the Property or services, programs or activities conducted on the Property by OSF. 16. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. As used is this paragraph, the term "hazardous material" means any hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste, including, but not limited to, those substances, materials, and wastes listed in the United States Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49 5 C.F.R. 9 172.101) or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous substances (40 C.F.R. Part 302) and any amendments, ORS 466.567, 466.205,466.640 and 468.790 and regulations of the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality, petroleum products and their derivatives, and such other substances, materials and wastes as become regulated or subject to cleanup authority under any environmental laws. Environmental laws mean those laws cited in this paragraph. OSF shall cause the Property and all operations conducted on the Property (including operations by any subtenants) to comply with all environmental laws. OSF shall not use or allow any agents, contractors or subtenants to use the leased property to generate, manufacture, refine, transport, treat, store, handle, recycle, release or dispose of any hazardous materials, other than at reasonably necessary for the operation of OSF's activities as contemplated under this lease. OSF agrees to defend (with counsel approved by City), fully indemnify, and hold entirely free and harmless City from and against all claims, judgments, damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities, or losses (including, without limitation, diminution in value of the premises, damages for the loss or restriction on the use of rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the premises, damages arising from any adverse impact on marketing of space, sums paid in settlement of claims, attorneys' fees, consultant fees, and expert fees) which arise during or after the lease term and which are imposed on, or paid by or asserted against City by reason or on account of, or in connection with, or arising out of OSF's generation, manufacture, use, transportation, refinement, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials, or any release of hazardous materials as a result of OSF's use or activities, or of OSF's agents, contractors, or subtenants. 17. TERMINATION OF PRIOR LEASE. The 1969 lease between City and OSF is terminated. 18. DEFAULT OR BREACH. If OSF commits any default or breach of any of the terms or conditions of this Lease and fails or neglects to correct the same within six (6) months after notice thereof by the City, then in such event, the City shall have the right to immediately expel OSF from the Property and declare this Lease terminated. If OSF fails to conduct the annual Shakespeare Festival for a period of three (3) consecutive years, except for war, catastrophe or other circumstances beyond the control of OSF, the City shall have the right to immediately terminate this Lease unless otherwise agreed by the parties. 6 CITY OF ASHLAND Common Council OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION BY~~ Byfl~~~ cit~k Secretary ~/ Date: 9-/; -00 By Date: h - ~(). 0-0 ASHLAND PARK COMMISSION ~~.~.. rY7fV ~b..r- Byqt:i~ Secretary Date: ~ - I ~ - c...o~ \;) NOTE: This lease was executed on behalf of the City of Ashland and the Ashland Park Commission subject to the condition that the lease is not effective until the Oregon Shakespeare Festival Association has obtained all land use approvals for the proposed theater and public parking facility referred to in Recital Paragraph D. For further information, see the minutes of the June 20, 2000, Ashland City Council meeting. 7 EXHIBIT A Tracts A. B, C, D Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot 1 in Block 9 of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official 1888 map of said city; thence, South 55018' East along the northeasterly line of said Lot 1 74.80 feet; thence, South 35028' West 108.70 feet; thence, North 55018' West 8.36 feet; thence, South 35002' West 61.60 feet; thence, North 55018' West 66.0 feet to the northwesterly line of said Lot 1; thence, North 35002' East along said line 170.30 feet to the point of beginning. Tract E: Beginning at a point which lies East 115.70 feet from the Southeast corner of Lot 9 of Block NO.1 in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon; thence, continue East 19.0 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 1 of Block NO.2 in said City; thence, South 68030' East 23.16 feet; thence, East 30.89 feet; thence, North 21030' East 4.20 feet; thence, East 31.80 feet to the Westerly line of Lot 3 of Block NO.2 in said City of Ashland; thence, South 21030' West 23.0 feet; thence, South 56019' East 36.50 feet to a point on the north line of an alley 10 feet in width, thence, South 16015' West 10.40 feet to the south line of said alley; thence, South 56019' East along said south line of alley 139.20 feet to the westerly line of South Pioneer Street in said City; thence, along said west line South 35002' West 170.60 feet to an angle point; thence, continue along said westerly line of street South 29021' West 200.0 feet; thence, North 60039' West 83.0 feet; thence, North 29021' East along the Westerly line of a walkway and a fence line 97.0 feet to a point which lines North 60039' West 83.0 feet from the westerly line of the aforesaid South Pioneer Street; said point being also 5 feet southerly from the southerly side of the concrete wall which surrounds the Shakespearean Amphitheater; thence, on a curved line in a northwesterly direction at a distance of 5 feet southwesterly from said wall a distance of 117.0 feet more or less to the most westerly projection of the Shakespearean Theatre Building; thence, continue northerly on a curve which lies 10 feet westerly from the aforesaid wall 18 feet more or less to the southerly side of concrete steps leading from the rear of said theatre to the duck pond, thence, along said step line 31.0 feet to a point which lies South 21030' West 230.0 feet from the point of beginning; thence, North 21030' East 230.0 feet to the point of beginning. Tract F: Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly line of Main Street with the Westerly line of First Avenue (formerly known as Hargadine Avenue) in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon; thence, South 35002' West, along the Westerly line of said First Avenue, 100.0 feet to the Northerly side-line of alley as described in Volume 56, Page 150 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon; thence, North 56019" West, along said line, 30.0 feet; thence, North 35002' East 100.0 feet to the Southerly line of said Main Street; thence, South 56019' East, along said line, 30.0 feet to the point of beginning. 8 SUBJECT TO: 1. The right of access to the properties adjoining the alley from Pioneer Street along a portion of the northerly side of the above-described Tract E. 2. The interest of the legal titleholders, William H. Briggs and Dorothy Briggs, husband and wife, to a portion of the above-described Tract E over which said legal titleholders have granted to the City of Ashland a perpetual easement for landscaping and walkway purposes. 3. Party wall rights, contained in instruments recorded in Volume 69, Page 565 and Volume 77, Page 2 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. (Affects Westerly line of Tract F.) 4. Restrictive conditions set forth in Deed dated October 29, 1962, and recorded November 14, 1962, in Volume 536, Page 336 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. (Affects Tract F.) 9 H" I EXHIBIT B LEASE DESCRIPTION OREGON SHAKESPEAREAN FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 9 in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official map of said City, adopted by the City Council on November 5, 1888; thence South 350 02' West, along the Northwesterly boundary of said Lot 2, 108.7 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 550 18' East, 8.36 feet to the Northwesterly boundary of that parcel of land described in Document No. 92-18504 of the Jackson County Deed Records; thence South 350 02' West, along said boundary 21.30 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence South 550 18' East, 57.64 feet to the southeasterly boundary of Lot 2; thence South 350 02' West along the southeasterly boundary of said lot, 20.0 feet; thence South 550 18' East, 192 feet more or less to the Northwesterly boundary of an alley; thence South 350 02' West along said alley, 180 feet more or less to the North right of way line of Hargadine Street; thence North 540 41' West, along said North right of way line, 258 feet more or less to the Northwesterly boundary of Lot 2, thence North 350 02' East, along said boundary 221.3 feet to the point of beginning. LOTS 391 E9BC 300, 400, 800, 901 CITY OF ASHLAND, ENGINEERING DIVISION JUNE 2, 2000 ~ ~ . "WI REGISTERED "\ PROFESSIONAL L.!'.!'E~~ Z;TE ~ od ?-- rrrJA- - '0' RE G o-~T I AUGUST 22, 1975 I JAMES H. OlSON I No. 1036 _ J ~~. rz.I?>Ilo6 G:Dawn\Engineer\Surveyor\ 391 E9BC 300, 400, 800, 901 Exhibit A.doc , , , , ',,- '",- ~. ~. , ~"',,,' , " , ' ,,-' : ,~", " ,,'. "-'; i,': ' , " "- , ~ " ~ > 8/~ /.. u IiQ' , h'" " / "V '0J. 8 ~L <' j::'/, /( - ~~ ~, .', / ,', . " l:S / ~;; " ~ ,/:;:;,d 0/' <'.., // . ':~' I >: '\ / " , / .,' /" .' 8/ ... );ft';!; ,/ " , / x...Cp: 't':~" ,/1 /,:Jt.. ,'", / ;~\/ . ''0. . '> . '/ ."J / / / / / I "< '....., ' ',,- " ""', "'-, "- '~', ~" .,'.> ", ':--.., ~ ~~ ~~ ,. '.'> ,;': t' ~ , '""',:,,,, " .........",'-.... ~", '", ""'" , , , , "', , , , " " " " , / / ' L / // ,---- , " " " , " " "'''-'-,- , " ~-6 o~ ~~ ;;p~, "J',p ,. , /P" //,' -- /// s.' 0",' ,..'. ~' ' "tf '," ~ ."J " , , "", ", , " " ". ~' o '" o " o ' " ,/' / , & " & . .) ", '.)6: ~o ", '0<2 ~ tt-'" <::' . ....... . <27 700> ", '.)0' .,>, " & ..) ~O ~q" '<20' "'''-,- ",' , " ", ',- "'-"'" "'" , '''-''' "-, "'" "' , '''-'' """" ", " .'......"..., '-''-' .., ", '''., c..n "', 8 II / I ' / / . N // 8, / , I ^\, /1 ""'" " , , """" . , '- .........'.. ,~ " . ',,- . " " '"" """"-""'" " - '-, , "- , , , , " " , , , , , '" , , ~ ) ::r:: /// , o ," ~ ~ //. ,,' ~~~/ ,; , ' / , , " N o ~ , '>- " , " , , , , , " " ", , -+z , "-'" ~"" . , :',{ r,~~~:, , , , ; ~""", >;~ '. ".... tn ". ./&~ ,,;. ~i< ~< ',()':/!' ;:'.' ~. '\J~' , . '. . , ',' '.... , .. -,""" J , ~~ " ,~ ''0 ~, '" " " " , " ~". " " ," \t / / L ~ ~ ~I - II ~ ?i;() ~ " . CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Restaurant Grading System Meeting Date: March 20, 2007 Department: Administration Contributing Departments: _~ j J 1 Approval: Martha Benne:;;yyc, Primary Staff Contact: Martha Bennett, 552-2103 E-mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: none Estimated Time: 15 minutes Statement: At your February 6,2007 regular meeting, Council heard a presentation from Mr. John Jory suggesting that the City of Ashland adopt a grading system for restaurants. There was not sufficient time to discuss Mr. Jory's proposal. Staff Recommendation: Staff has no recommendation on the proposal at this time. If Council wishes to consider the proposal, staff recommends further analysis of the proposal, including discussion of potential costs. Staff also recommends that Council conduct targeted outreach with restaurant owners and detailed discussions with Jackson County. Background: In discussing this proposal with Mr. Jory, he told me that he has provided each of you with a packet of information about his proposal. I have not duplicated this information for the packet. Staff will not be making a substantive presentation. Instead, staff recommends that the Council hear Mr. Jory's proposal, ask any questions, and decide whether you wish to pursue it further. If Council would like to consider implementing a system like the one Mr. Jory proposes, we would take the following steps: 1. Review and further understand what Oregon Law currently requires and any legal limitations on additional local regulations of restaurants. 2. Analyze the various options and major policy choices for implementing a new grading system. 3. Analyze the costs and potential challenges, particularly administration and enforcement. 4. Discuss how we would work with Jackson County in administering such a program. 5. Recommend targeted outreach to restaurant owners to facilitate smooth implementation of such a program. Related City Policies If such a system were to be created, it would need to be coordinated with our food and beverage tax administration and our business license program. Council Options: Council may . Direct staff to analyze the options for implementing a restaurant grading system. . Decide not to implement such a system. r~' K Medford, OR A 304 S. Holly Street 97501 (541) 772-5807 S Fax: (541) 618-7389 Kas & Associates, Inc. ENGINEERING SERVICES . CIVIL. . STRUCTURAL. PLANNING. Grants Pass, OR A 700 Ramsey Ave., Suite 201, 97527 (541) 479-5801 Fax: (541) 479-5987 March 16, 2007 Dr. Philip Lang 758 "B" Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Shakespearean Festival Plaza Area at 15 South Pioneer Street, Ashland, Oregon Dear Dr. Lang: On March 13, I observed the condition of the Plaza Area near the Box Office and the Plaza Area in front of the new theatre across the street, as well and the sidewalks adjacent to the street. I also took some measurements with our Smart level and took some photographs with our digital camera. The photographs are attached for your use. Based upon my site observations, personal experience and the slope measurements taken at the site, I have the foHowing observations and comments: 1. Some of the clay tile bricks are deteriorating, broken and chipped and other areas have settled, have non-uniform slopes and are uneven. 2. There are many areas with excessive grades that are unsuitable for comfortable and safe walking. The grade leading from Pioneer Street directly down to the Box Office was measured at 18.2% and one area leading to the Box Office directly perpendicular to the ticket windows was measured at 18.3%. 3. The longitudinal slope of the sidewalk area adjacent to Pioneer Street was measured at 12.5%. The sidewalk area on the west side of Pioneer Street is constructed of clay brick pavers and exposed aggregate concrete and the sidewalk on the east side in the area of the new theatre is constructed of exposed aggregate concrete. 4. The plaza area in front of the new theatre is constructed of clay brick pavers and has been built with much more suitable slopes than the original plaza area. I have no issues with the new theatre plaza area. 5. It is my professional opinion that the plaza area in front of the Box Office is hazardous to walk on due to the extreme slopes and the smooth surface of the brick pavers. This condition only gets worse and more dangerous when the surface is wet and especially when icy. Current codes for public use spaces outside of the right-of-way dictates that slopes of over 5% require handrails on both sides of walkways and the maximum longitudinal slope for ADA access is 8.33% with a 2% cross-slope. I realize that this facility was constructed before the ADA requirements and current codes became effective, however this gives a good benchmark for comparing the extreme slopes of the existing plaza area. 6. The longitudinal slope of the sidewalk areas within the Pioneer Street right-of- way are exempt from ADA requirements, however, the cross-slope may not exceed 2% and the City of Ashland Standards and Specifications, Section 2 OFFICES IN SOUTHERN OREGON TO SERVE You 13.04.030 states that "Sidewalks shall be constructed of Portland cement concrete, . ., unless otherwise approved by the City Council". The standards also allow "alteration to provide durable and practical sidewalks at a suitable grade" at the discretion of the City Administrator. I believe that many areas within the Box Office plaza have grades that are unsuitable for comfortable and safe walking conditions. 7. Exposed aggregate finishes on sidewalks can trap moisture and water more readily than a typical broom finish surface and therefore can make then quite slippery in wet and icy weather. The Shakespearean Festival Plaza Area could and should be re-designed by a qualified Landscape Architect to provide adequate and safe movement of pedestrians and patrons of the arts in a manner that meets accessibility requirements, the needs of the Festival and the safety of the public. If you have any questions or need further assistance or consultation, please give me a call. Sincerely; o '/ Au$ ~/~~I Scott D. Pingle, P.E., S.E. 07033Letl U"'l'=''''':c:' .';~~~~(1a-J '\ j ....- 1._ ..}, -.....~.._2 -~~. ......._..-~~_._...,.,....~..-..--n ,. r S:\0-SHARE\0-KAS\2007\07 -033 SOP Lang, Shakespeare Festival\Photos 3-13-07\ . -..:-.: " -t....... '/""".'" h~'::";,.~ ~~" -" ..~"'% , '](JJNIil ' ~ ~~ ii ' ---- Iii ,-" ....,>. CIMG6476.JPG _1' L , Dr I:; ~ ~um:'11, - -,' Ii" -"r--, 1iII' '- iii -..,.. . ll~~,,_,~t.>*, ~~".."."~ ~~, ~-~.f~ ~- ' ,,(~ ".. ,.> ~ " ;: CIMG6477.JPG --- I J I I I ,- f i .. / j / ~ f I f .J. 1 J J L. { ----, r C ~~ , :/. \ -I I r 0.' '- 'f ----7' CIMG6478.JPG Page 1 CIMG6479,JPG I /-i .., t r-. / .tf J,.., -.-,--........ _.~- - S:\0-SHARE\0-KAS\2007\07-033 SOP Lang, Shakespeare Festival\Photos 3-13-07\ . J I - I ,"" _~. t L<'il...-l ..1.._\ .J _ -L------r- L.J _- r ~\- 'r -\. ~-. ~ _/o.~ ,l..--,J r \ , -1- 1 -J 1 ~~. p'.-\~ : I \, -\ ~ ~ r ~- fr \ . CIMG6480,JPG { ~-:J , r--"-- '- -. .J -.~ - I r-' ----1 ---- ""\ ~ .-~ .' _J ._--' _ A ;- , .. :..:..~-'" -- - 1, -I ---I .. J~~~-=.~i/I!;- . - CIMG6482,JPG ,...- \ Page 2 - r CIMG6481.JPG \ \ ...... \ \. , .A t " " P~1?',~fl'~W-~ '. ' '~;t~~ ~.tr """ "'1:' I f.f< '!7_-..~ ~ \-;m,u~- -4 ii' , -- ---,. !' CIMG6483,JPG rr r S:\O-SHARE\O-KAS\2007\07-033 SDP Lang, Shakespeare Festival\Photos 3-13-07\ CIMG6484.JPG .... CIMG6486.JPG Page 3 Jlr , I ...~ \' ~..~. ; _Y J'llP' ...~ ~- ....~ ! - .... "1 ~'.i.,,", CIMG6485.JPG CIMG6487,JPG S:\0-SHARE\0-KAS\2007\07 -033 SOP Lang, Shakespeare Festival\Photos 3-13-07\ / i CIMG6488,JPG .. -~ Page 4 SURVEY FORM 3: EXTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES Page 1 of 4 SURVEY FORM 3: EXTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES Use with the Minimum Requirements Summary Sheets and ADAAG. Facility Name: See Minimum Requirements Summary Sheets I and J for special requirements and exceptions which may be allowed in alterations and historic preservation. See also ADAAG 4.1.6 and 4.1. 7. Accessible Route to be Surveyed: From: To: Section Item Technical Requirements Comments Yes No 4.1.2 Accessible Route Site Is there an accessible route within the boundary of the (1) - site linking an accessible building entrance with the 4.3.2 Public Transportation: following, if provided: public transportation stops; (1) passenger loading zones; public streets and sidewalks? Route for General Does the accessible route generally coincide with the Public: route for the general public, to the maximum extent feasible? 4.1.2 Buildings Connected: Is there an accessible route connecting accessible (2) buildings, facilities, elements and spaces on the same 4.3.2 site? (2) 4.3.3 Accessible Route Size Is the accessible route at least 36 inches wide except at - Width: doorways or gates? U-Turn Where the accessible route makes a U-turn around an obstacle less than 48 inches wide, is the pathway width at least 42 inches on approaches and 48 inches in the turn? (See Figure 7(b)) 4.3.4 Passing Spaces If the accessible route is less than 60 inches wide, are there passing spaces at least 60 inches wide and 60 inches long or intersecting walks allowing passing at reasonable intervals not exceeding 200 feet? 4.3.5 Provisions for Persons Is there at least 80 inches clear head room on an 4.4.2 Who Are Blind - Head accessible route? Room: 4.4.2 Cane Detectable If there is less than 80 inches clear head room in an area Barrier Where Head adjoining an accessible route, is there a cane detectable Room is Less Than 80 barrier within 27 inches of the floor? (See Figure 8(c-1)) Inches: 4.4.1 Protruding Objects: If objects mounted to the wall have leading edges between 27 and 80 inches from the floor, do they project less than 4 inches into the pathway? (Wall mounted objects with leading edges at or below 27 inches may project any amount so long as the required clear width of an accessible route is not reduced.) http://www.access-board.gov /adaag/ checklistlExteriorAccessibleRoutes.html 3/18/2007 SURVEY FORM 3: EXTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES Page 2 of 4 Do free standing objects mounted on posts with leading edges between 27 and 80 inches high (such as a sign or telephone) project less than 12 inches into the perpendicular route of travel? Is there an accessible path at least 36 inches clear .... alongside the protruding object? 4.3.7 Slopes - Cross Slope Is the cross slope of the accessible route no greater than 1:50? Walkway Slope: Is the slope of the accessible route no greater than 1: 20? 4.8.1 Where the slope is greater than 1:20, does it comply with the requirements for ramps? (Use Form 7: Ramps) 4.3.8 Changes in Level: When walkway levels change, is the vertical difference 4.5.2 between them less than 1/4 inch? OR Are changes in level between 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch beveled with a slope no greater than 1: 2? Are curb ramps, ramps, or elevators used for changes in level greater than 1/2 inch? (Lifts may only be used in certain limited situations in new construction. See Minimum Requirements Summary Sheet Band ADAAG 4.1.3(5)) Does the curb ramp, ramp, or elevator comply with 4.7, 4.8, or 4.10? (Use Form 4: Curb Ramps; Form 7: Ramps; or Form 13: Elevators) 4.3.6 Surface: Are accessible route surfaces stable, firm and slip- 4.5.1 resistant? - 4.5.4 Grates: Is the smaller dimension of grate openings no more than 1/2 inch, and are long dimensions of rectangular gaps placed perpendicular to the usual direction of travel? 4.1.2 Directional and Do signs which provide direction to, or information about, (7) Informational Signs: functional spaces of the building, comply with 4.30.2, 4.30.1 4.30.3, and 4.30.5? (Use Form 19: Signage) 4.1.2 Room Identification Do signs which designate permanent rooms and spaces (7) Signs: comply with 4.30.4, 4.30.5, and 4.30.6? (Use Form 19: 4.30.1 Signage) 4.1.2 Symbols: If provided, are the following elements identified by the (7) International Symbol of Accessibility? 4.30.7 (a) accessible parking spaces; (b) accessible passenger loading zones; (c) accessible entrances when not all are accessible; (d) accessible toilet and bathing facilities when not all are accessible 4.1.3 Directions to When not all entrances are accessible, is there directional (8)(d) Accessible Entrance: signage indicating the accessible route to an accessible entrance? http://www.access-board.gov /adaag/ checklist/ExteriorAccessibleRoutes.html 3/18/2007 SURVEY FORM 3: EXTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES Page 3 of 4 4.29.5 Hazardous Vehicular Areas -Detectable Warnings: If a walk crosses or adjoins a vehicular way, and the walking surfaces are not separated by curbs, railings, or other elements between the pedestrian areas and vehicular areas, is the boundary between the areas defined by a continuous detectable warning at least 36 inches wide complying with 4.29.2? (Use Form 21: Detectable Warnings) r ! ! \:' Ei ~ +-- .---- ~-~, ..-ami" . NO fE..: Dimensions shown apply when !I < 48 in 11220 mm). Figure 7(b) Accessible Route Turns around an Obstruction A U-turn around an obstruction less than 48 inches (1220 mm) wide may be made if the passage width is a minimum of 42 inches (1065 mm) and the base of the U-turn space is a minimum of 48 inches (1220 mm) wide. *** protect shaded area from cross-lratrlc -"\ " ,,~) /' /-- / ~ ...... ..."\ C\l1~ I Figure 8c-l Protruding Objects Overhead Hazards Overhead Hazards. As an example, the diagram illustrates a stair whose underside descends across a pathway. http://www.access-board.gov /adaag/checklist/ExteriorAccessibleRoutes.html 3/18/2007 SURVEY FORM 3: EXTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES Page 4 of 4 Where the headroom is less than 80 inches, protection is offered by a railing (2030 mm) which can be no higher than 27 inches (685 mm) to ensure detectability. Back to Accessibility Guidelines Checklist for Building and Facilities http://www .access-board.gov /adaag/ checklistlExteriorAccessibleRoutes.html 3/1812007 1" , Amencans wnn 1JISaOllltleS ACt ACCeSS1DllUY umGel1nes CheCklIst ror tlUllamgs Ana raclllt1es Page 1 ot l) Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) Checklist for Buildings and Facilities October 1992 Notice This checklist has been prepared to assist individuals and entities with rights or duties under Title II, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in applying the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to buildings and facilities subject to the law. The checklist presents information in summary form on the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations implementing the ADA. The checklist must be used with the DOT and DOJ regulations and ADAAG to ensure accuracy. This checklist is intended for technical assistance purposes only. Individuals who use this checklist should be aware that the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, not the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board, are responSible for the enforcement of Titles II and III of the ADA. Use of this checklist does not constitute a determination of your legal rights or responsibilities under the ADA, and it is not binding on the Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, or the Access Board. Use of this checklist is voluntary. Individuals who use this checklist are not required to send the survey forms to DOJ, DOT, or the Access Board. While ADAAG may be amended in the future, this checklist is based on ADAAG as published on July 26, 1991 (sections 1 through 4.35 and special application sections 5 through 9) and September 6, 1991 (section 10). See 56 FR 35408 (July 26, 1991) and 56 FR 45500 (September 6, 1991) as corrected at 57 FR 1393 (January 14, 1992). Table of Contents INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 1 Purpose N_ew C()IJ~trlJction AIt;ex_~t:iQn~ tfj~t:9ric Preserva1;i.()1'1 Barrier Removal in Existing Facilities Key Stations Wh2l.1:_A.rJ~_"PI2lc;_eSQf Pqblic Acc_Omm9da_Uon,,_ c;lnd "Commercjal F2Ic;:ilitJes." How the Checklist is Organized to Assist YOll tfow Differences in Requirements fQr New Construction, Alterations, and Historic Properties are Addres.s~g SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 6 Approach to Surveying Preparing to Survey Step 1: J;dentifythe Type of Facility or Building Use Step 2: Determine MinimumJ~.equirements Step 3: Copy and Assemble the Survey Forms Step 4: Survey BUll-PING IDENT;IF:rCAI:tQN_4ND OAT ASHJ:fT http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/checklist/a 16.html 3/18/2007 ,. r Amencans wltn lJISaOllltleS Act ACCeSSlOlllty umoel1nes CheCKlIst tor tlU1l0mgs AnO tacl11t1es Page L ot Y MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND SUMMARY SHEETS A: Parking and Passenger Loading Zones ~:SJt~ A.c::cessible_RQllt_e$ and Ele:m~nf:~ C~ I:nt:r~n~e~ D: Building Accessib!~ Route E: Rooms ancl Space$ (Including Assembly Areas and Dressing and Fitting Rooms) F:TQil~tJ~oQm~al"ig~atl:trQom!;t G: Special Features -- Signage,A.larms, Detectable Warnings, and Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) H: Special Types of Facilities I: Accessible 6uildings -- Additions and Alterations J: Accessible Buildings -- Historic Preservation TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS SURVEY FORMS General Requirements -- Sl.Irvey Form 1: Parking Survey Form ~: Passenger Loading Zone Survey Form 3: Exterior Accessible Routes Survey Form 4: Curb Ramps Survey Form 5: Drinking Fountains Survey Form 6: Telephones Survey Form 7: Ramps Survey Form 8: Stairs Survey Form 9: Platform lifts Survey Form 10: ~ntrances and Exits (Areas of Rescue Assistance) Survey Form U.: Doors and Gates Survey Form 12: Building Lobbies and Corridors (Interior Accessible Route) Survey Form 13: Elevators Survey Form 14: Rooms_and Spaces Survey Form 15: Assembly Areas Survey Form 16: Toilet Rooms anci Bathrooms Sl..Irvey Form 17: Bathtubs and Showers Survey Form :1.8: Dressing and Fitting Rooms Survey Form 19: Signage Survey Form 20: Alarms Survey Form 21: Detectable Warnings Survey Form 2~: Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) Special Facility Types -- Survey Form ~3: Restaurants and Cafeterias Survey Form 24: Medical Care Facilities Survey Form 25: Mercantile Facilities Survey Form 26: Libraries Survey_FQrmn27: Il"ansient Lodging -.. Hotels, Motels, Inns, Boarding HOlises,Dormitories, an.dnSimiJarF:>.la~~$ Survey Form 28: Transient Lodging in Homeless Shelters, HalfwCiY Houses, Transient GrollP Homes,an(j Other Social Services Establishments Surv~y Form 29a: Transportation Facilities --Bus Stops Survey Form 29b: TransPQrtation Facilities -- Fixeci Facilities, Terminals and Stations Survey Form ~9c: Transportation Facilities -- Airports INTRODUCTION http://www.access-board.gov/ adaag/ checklistla 16 .html 3/18/2007 1" r Affiencans wun lJlSaOlllUeS ACt ACCeSSIDllUY \JUlaenneS L,neCKllst ror tlUllamgs Ana raCllmes rage j or 'j Purpose The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), signed by President Bush on July 26, 1990, is landmark legislation to extend civil rights protection to people with disabilities. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government services, public transportation, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and telecommunications. The ADA required the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) to supplement its Minimum Guidelines and Requirements for Accessible Design to serve as the basis for regulations to be issued by the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation under Title II and Title III of the Act. On July 26, 1991, the Access Board published its ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG). These gUidelines were amended and supplemented with provisions for transportation facilities on September 6, 1991. ADAAG is applicable to buildings and facilities covered by Title II and Title III of the ADA to the extent required by regulations issued by the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation under the ADA. The purpose of this checklist is to enable people to survey places of publiC accommodation, commercial facilities, and transportation facilities for compliance with the new construction and alterations requirements of Title II, Subtitle B (Public Transportation) and Title III of the ADA. It can also be used to identify barriers in existing buildings. No special training is needed to use this checklist. It can be used by businesses, building owners and managers, State and local governments, design professionals, or concerned citizens. The checklist must be used in conjunction with the Department of Justice's regulations in 28 CFR Part 36, the Department of Transportation's regulations in 49 CFR Part 37, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines which are reprinted in the appendices to those regulations. Appendix A of the Department of Transportation's regulations includes section 10 of ADAAG, which specifies additional provisions for transportation facilities. Buildings and facilities constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of State and local governments covered by Title II, Subtitle A of the ADA, (other than transportation facilities covered by the Department of Transportation's regulation), are allowed by 28 CFR 35.151 to follow either ADAAG without the elevator exception or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). A similar checklist, the UFAS Accessibility Checklist, is available from the Access Board. New Construction Places of publiC accommodation and commercial facilities covered by Title III of the ADA are required by 28 CFR 36.401 and 36.406 to comply with ADAAG if the facilities are designed and constructed for first occupancy after January 26, 1993. This requirement applies only if: (1) the last application for a building permit or permit extension for the facility is certified to be completed by a State, county, or local government after January 26, 1992 and (2) the first certificate of occupancy for the facility is issued after January 26, 1993. Full compliance with the new construction requirements is not required where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable. The exception for structural impracticability, a very narrow one, is discussed in 28 CFR 36.401(c) and ADAAG 4.1.1(5)(a). Other exceptions for certain temporary structures, specific building areas and features (including elevators) are discussed in ADAAG 4.1.1(4), 4.1.1(5)(b) and 4.1.3(5) and, where applicable, on the Minimum Requirements Summary Sheets or the Technical Requirements Survey Forms. Transportation facilities covered by Title II, Subtitle B of the ADA are required by 49 CFR 37.9 and 37.41 to comply with ADAAG, including section 10, if a notice to proceed is issued after January 25, 1992, for bus, light rail or rapid rail facilities; or after October 7, 1991, for intercity or commuter rail stations. Employee Work Areas Areas that are used only by employees as work areas must be designed and constructed so that individuals with disabilities can approach, enter, and exit the areas as required in ADAAG 4.1.1(3). The gUidelines do not require that any areas used only by employees as work areas be constructed to permit maneuvering within the work area or be constructed or equipped (Le., with racks or shelves) to be accessible. http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/checklist/a16.html 3/1812007 Amencans wnn UlSaOllltleS Act ACCeSS101l1ty Uillaelmes cneclCllst 1:' or tlilllamgs Ana 1:' aC1l1tles Page 4 ot y Equivalent Facilitation Departures from the ADAAG technical and scoping provisions are permitted where the alternative designs and technologies used will provide substantially equivalent or greater access to and usability of the facility. See ADAAG 2.2 and other sections referenced in Appendix A2.2 of ADAAG for specific examples of equivalent facilitation. For transportation facilities covered by Title II, Subtitle B of the ADA, a determination of equivalent facilitation must be made by the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration or the Federal Railroad Administration, as applicable. The specific procedure for applying for such a determination is included in 49 CFR 37.9(d). Alterations Alterations to a place of public accommodation or commercial facility covered by Title III of the ADA that are undertaken after January 26, 1992 are required by 28 CFR 36.402 and 36.406 to be done in a manner so as to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility comply with ADAAG. For transportation facilities covered by Title II, Subtitle B of the ADA, 49 CFR 37.9 and 37.4 require that alterations must follow ADAAG if a notice to proceed or work order is issued after January 25, 1992, for bus, light or rapid rail facilities; or after October 7, 1991, for intercity or commuter rail stations. In general, alterations of specific elements or portions of a facility must be completed in compliance with the requirements for new construction. However, full compliance with the alterations requirements is not required where it is technically infeasible. The exception for technical infeasibility is discussed in ADAAG 4.1.6(1)(j). This and other special provisions and exceptions for alterations contained in ADAAG 4.1.6 are discussed on the Minimum Requirements Summary Sheet I: Accessible Buildings - Additions and Alterations. Additional special provisions and exceptions for alterations for special facility types are found in ADAAG 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 and on the Technical Requirements Survey Forms for the special faCility types. If an alteration affects or could affect the usability of or access to an area of a facility that contains a "primary function," an accessible path of travel must be provided to the altered area. In addition, restrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area must also be made accessible to the extent that the cost is not "disproportionate" to the cost of the overall alteration. Disproportionality is defined in 28 CFR 36.403 (f) and 49 CFR 37.43(e) as a sum not to exceed 20% of the cost of the alteration to the primary function area. Historic Preservation Alterations to a qualified historic building or facility must comply with ADAAG unless it is determined in accordance with procedures described in ADAAG 4.1. 7(2) that compliance with certain requirements would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building or facility. In such a case, alternative requirements may be used. The alternative requirements are discussed in 28 CFR 36.405 and ADAAG 4.1. 7(3) and on the Minimum Requirements Summary Sheet J: Accessible Buildings - Historic Preservation. Barrier Removal in Existing Facilities Public accommodations covered by Title III of the ADA must remove architectural barriers in existing facilities, including communication barriers that are structural in nature, where such removal is readily achievable. The ADA generally defines readily achievable as "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense." The requirement to remove architectural barriers where readily achievable is discussed in 28 CFR 36.304. Measures taken to comply with readily achievable barrier removal must comply with ADAAG unless it would not be readily achievable. Then, other readily achievable measures that do not fully comply with ADAAG may be taken. However, no measure shall be taken that poses a significant risk to the health or safety of individuals with disabilities or others. Key Stations Existing rapid rail, light rail, and commuter rail transportation systems covered by Title II, Subtitle B of the ADA http://www .access-board.gov/adaag/ checklistJa 16.html 3/18/2007 Amencans wnn UIsabllltles Act AcCeSSIbIlIty UUlClelmes Cneckllst tor .tSUlIClmgs AnCl tacllltles .Page ) ot Y must identify "key stations", in accordance with requirements of 49 CFR 37.47 and 37.51. Generally, "key stations" must comply with ADAAG 10.3.2. Under some conditions, previously altered elements which conform to UFAS (when done by a public entity) or ANSI A1l7.1-1980 (when done by a private entity without Federal funds) may meet the key station requirements. This "grandfather" provision applies only to "key stations" and is discussed in 49 CFR 37.9(b) and the corresponding explanatory material in Appendix D to the Department of Transportation's regulations. All existing intercity rail stations must comply with ADAAG 10.3.2. The timeframes for making "key stations" and existing intercity rail stations accessible are specified in the Department of Transportation's regulations at 49 CFR 37.47,37.51, and 37.55. What Are "Places of Public Accommodation" and "Commercial Facilities"? ADAAG applies to new construction and alterations of "places of publiC accommodation and commercial facilities." A "place of publiC accommodation" is a facility, operated by a private entity, whose operations affect commerce and which falls within at least one of the twelve categories listed below: 1. An inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of the establishment as the residence of the proprietor; 2. A restaurant, bar or other establishment serving food or drink; 3. A motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment; 4. An auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of publiC gathering; 5. A bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment; 6. A laundromat, dry cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment; 7. A terminal, depot, or other station used for speCified publiC transportation; 8. A museum, library, gallery, or other place of publiC display or collection; 9. A park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation; 10. A nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education; 11. A day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; 12. A gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation. "Commercial facilities" are facilities whose operations will affect commerce and that are intended for nonresidential use by a private entity (e.g., factories and warehouses). "Commercial facilities" do not include facilities that are covered or expressly exempted from coverage under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended; aircraft; and certain railroad equipment listed in 28 CFR 36.104. How the Checklist is Organized to Assist You This checklist presents the minimum scoping and technical requirements contained in ADAAG for newly constructed facilities in the logical progression of traveling to and through a building. The Minimum Requirements Summary Sheets tell you what to survey, such as an accessible route, an entry, or a bathroom. The Technical Requirements Survey Forms give you the specific features those elements must have. There are 29 survey forms to represent elements on the site and in the building. Many of ADAAG's general requirements are repeated on different forms because they apply to more than one element. Some survey forms may refer you to others for detailed provisions. In general, the Minimum Requirements Summary Sheets and the Technical Requirements Survey Forms contain the ADAAG requirements for new construction. In alterations one must first attempt to meet the requirements for new construction unless it is technically infeasible or special provisions apply. The survey process moves through a parallel structure in three steps using the following sheets and forms: Step 1: Building/Facility Identification and Data Sheet http://www.access-board.gov /adaag/ checklistla 16 .html 3/18/2007 Amencans WIth lJlsabll1t1es Act Accessibility Guidelines Checklist For Buildings And Facilities Page 6 of9 Step 2: Minimum Requirements Summary Sheets Sheet A: Parking and Passenger Loading Zones Sheet B: Site Accessible Routes and Elements Sheet C: Entrances Sheet D: Building Accessible Route Sheet E: Rooms and Spaces (Including Assembly Areas and Dressing and Fitting Rooms) Sheet F: Toilet Rooms and Bathrooms Sheet G: Special Features - Signage, Alarms, Detectable Warnings, and Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) Sheet H: Special Types of Facilities Sheet I: Accessible Buildings - Additions and Alterations Sheet J: Accessible Buildings - Historic Preservation Step 3: Technical Requirements Survey Forms Form l:Parking Form 2: Passenger Loading Zones Form 3: Exterior Accessible Routes Form 4:Curb Ramps Form 5:Drinking Fountains Form 6:Telephones Form 7:Ramps Form 8:Stairs Form 9: Platform Lifts Form 10: Entrances and Exits (Areas of Rescue Assistance) Form 11: Doors and Gates Form 12:Building Lobbies and Corridors (Interior Accessible Route) Form 13: Elevators Form 14:Rooms and Spaces Form 15 :Assembly Areas Form 16:Toilet Rooms and Bathrooms Form 17: Bathtubs and Showers Form 18: Dressing and Fitting Rooms Form 19: Signage Form 20: Alarms Form 21: Detectable Warnings Form 22: Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) Special Facility Types -- Form 23: Restaurants and Cafeterias Form 24:Medical Care Facilities Form 25: Mercantile Facilities Form 26:Libraries Form 27: Transient Lodging (Hotels, Motels, Inns, Boarding Houses, Dormitories, and Other Similar Places) Form 28: Transient Lodging in Homeless Shelters, Halfway Houses, Transient Group Homes, and Other Social Service Establishments Form 29:Transportation Facilities How Differences in Requirements for New Construction, Alterations, and Historic Properties are Addressed Special provisions and exceptions allowed in alterations of buildings, including historic properties, are addressed in Minimum Requirements Summary http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/ checklistla16.html 3/18/2007 Amencans WIth DIsabIlItIes Act AccessIbll1ty liuidelines Checklist For Buildings And Facilities Page 7of9 Sheet I: Accessible Buildings - Additions and Alterations, and Sheet J: Accessible Buildings - Historic Preservation. Special provisions and exceptions allowed in special facility types such as hotels, motels, hospitals, mercantile facilities, libraries, restaurants and cafeterias are addressed in Survey Forms 23 through 29. SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS Approach to Surveying This checklist is designed to be used in full or in part, depending on the facility and your available time. If you are surveying a facility with which you are familiar, you may already know what the general access problems are and will want to use specific survey forms to check the details. If you are unfamiliar with the facility, it is helpful to make an initial tour through the building to orient yourself and to obtain information to help you compile your survey document. Although this checklist is structured for use on site, it can also be used by architects, facility managers or others to review architectural plans. Preparing to Survey Make contact with the building management and advise them that you will be surveying the building and that you will be glad to share your information with them. If you do not have a building plan, ask the management if they can provide you with one. A plan can be very helpful, particularly if you are surveying a large facility. You can assign numbers to areas or elements on the plan and use the same numbers to correlate the Survey Forms. Take a copy of ADAAG with you when you do the survey. Since the questions in this checklist are fairly brief, it is helpful to have ADAAG with you to gain a thorough understanding of the full requirements of the Guidelines. Also, not every illustration in the ADAAG has been included in this survey. Illustrations are provided in the checklist only for those survey questions which cannot easily be stated or understood using words alone. Step 1: Identify the Type of Facility or Building Use Complete the Building Identification and Data Sheet to document the name and address of the facility, dates of construction and alteration, type of facility or building use, number of stories and size of each, name of surveyor and date of survey. Before surveying the facility it is essential to determine whether the provisions of ADAAG apply to the facility or portion of the facility and to identify certain attributes about the facility which might trigger or disallow certain exceptions contained in ADAAG. To determine which provisions of ADAAG apply, you must consult the Department of Justice regulations or Department of Transportation regulations as explained in the introduction. To determine the exceptions that apply you must also consult the DOJ or DOT regulations. Exceptions within ADAAG are noted on the Technical Requirements Survey Forms. An example of an exception is the elevator exemption contained in ADAAG 4.1.3(5) Exception 1. Elevators are not required in places of public accommodation and commercial facilities that are less than three stories or that have less than 3,000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center or mall, the professional office of a health care provider, or a transportation facility. Step 2: Determine Minimum Requirements The Minimum Requirements Summary Sheets tell you which elements are required to be accessible, such as a toilet room or an accessible route between the entrance and parking. Use the Summary Sheets to identify the specific elements of your facility which must be accessible. With the Summary Sheets in hand, take a quick tour of the facility and/or look at the building plans. As you go through the facility, complete each Summary Sheet in the order in which it is presented. The Summary Sheets will http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/checklist/a 16.html 3/18/2007 1" T Amencans With Ulsabll1ties Act AccessibIlity Umdelines Checklist For Buildings And Facilities Page g 01"9 ask you to inventory the elements of your facility which must be accessible. The principle of an "accessible route" is key to the Summary Sheets. An "accessible route" is simply a path of travel which a person in a wheelchair, an elderly person, or someone with another mobility limitation would find safe and easy to use. (See ADAAG 3.5 Definitions.) The Summary Sheets define where these accessible routes must be. Step 3: Copy and Assemble the Survey Forms Return to your workplace with the completed Summary Sheets. Using the completed Summary Sheets you can determine how many copies to make of each Technical Requirements Survey Form. Some forms will be needed more than once, others will not be needed at all. Some forms will reference other forms. Two forms that are referenced quite often are Form 11: Doors and Gates and Form 12: Building Lobbies and Corridors. Where forms are cross referenced you will always need to have a copy of the form for reference. In some multi-story buildings, you will find that certain elements required to be accessible are duplicated in the details of installation and you may be able to develop a "shorthand" method of surveying these elements. For instance, you might find that accessible drinking fountains are installed in the same location in a corridor and in the same way on the first through the tenth floor of a ten story building. It may be sufficient to use only one form (Form 5: Drinking Fountains) to assess compliance in detail for a typical fountain on the first floor, and then note that each fountain on the second through the tenth floor is the same. All elevators are required to be accessible but where there are three elevators in a bank, you will often find that the three elevators are the same. If this is true, you may be able to use a single form (Form 13: Elevators) to survey three elevators in the same bank. Copy the necessary Survey Forms and attach them to the Summary Sheet which called for them. When you are finished, you will have a series of Survey Forms which progress logically through the facility and are divided by the Minimum Requirements Summary Sheets. If you are working with a team, you can give team members a complete section covered by a Summary Sheet. Cover the entire package with the Building Identification and Data Sheet. If you are surveying an alteration to a facility or an alteration which falls under historic preservation provisions, you will also need those Summary Sheets. Step 4: Survey Bring a copy of ADAAG, a clipboard, a pencil or a pen, a flexible measuring tape, and a stick of chalk for marking distances on surfaces. You may also want a line level or other device to measure ramp slopes, and a fish scale for determining door pull force. Each Survey Form has a title block which allows you to identify the specific element you are inspecting. Be sure to fill in the location of the element and the facility name on each Survey Form. Each survey question or series of questions has an ADAAG section number. Some questions have more than one ADAAG section number. If you do not understand the question, look up the section(s) in ADAAG. Illustrations referenced in the survey forms are printed on subsequent pages. If you have a question about a term, refer to ADAAG 3.5 (Definitions). Check off whether the element complies or not. If you cannot determine whether or not it complies, put a question mark in the box. Do not leave blank boxes because it will confuse someone who later reviews the forms. If the element does not exist, write "N/A" (Not Applicable). Each Survey Form has boxes for you to check for each question, either "yes" or "no." Please also notice that extra space is provided for you to elaborate where a simple "yes" or "no" is insufficient. You should note as precisely as possible what the problem is; for example, "clear opening width only 29 inches," "hand rail diameter 4 inches," or "ramp slope 1: 10." This information will assist those using the survey at a later date to make modifications to evaluate which changes might be more critical in providing access. http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/checklist/a16.html 3/18/2007 QUTfI ~1. lYIILU:Q PInUP C. L'\NG. LC,\)\\ 7'18 ]) 01 f,,'cl · .\.~ldilj]( L ~)f('~L'll l)7"1'2C I-,)c"ldel1l:l' . 48'2-86)l) C)!Hcc/fu\ · 48'2-))87 E-nkii! · phtllp((~ 111111c1 lIel . rulh(u I11l1llLnd Harch 6, 2007 SUHMARY PRESENTATION ON "OSF BRICKS" (Note: supporting documentation is contained in 56 page submission contained in Council packet). INTRODUCTION As I wrote this presentation I realized that it sounded like the opening statement of an attorney in a compensatory/punitive damage suit. I hope you will take action to prevent such a disaster. The occasion of this presentation was the observation on tuesday, 1/16- the day of heavy snowfall of several people slipping and falling on "the bricks" when approaching the box office. BRIEF HISTORY AMC 13.04.030 - "construction, repair and alteration of sidewalks" was enacted in 1967. The Bowmer theater was built and the bricks installed in 1970-1971- thus post dating the ordinancei:and being in violation from the outset. When the New Theater was built one of the few concessions in the "Findings <lif Fact and Conclusions of Law" \-laS the requirement that "all paving and reconstruction within the public right of way be done to the standards of the City of Ashland". This was violated. This problem has repeatedly been brought to the attention of city officials: Engineering insists that the code is in toice and will be enforced. Planning - both enforcement and the prior director have resorted to both lies and casuistical arguments to avoid.; taking action. OSF has acknowledged the problem and promised correction in a series of "5 year plans" extending back over many years. An example is in your packet, promising correction by the year 2000. In 2005 a commitment was made to me by Chuck Butler, to which I responded with a follow-up letter to Nancy Tate, OSF President. The board had voted to initiate re-design and rebuilding of "the bricks" when the 2005 season closed. OSF has done nothing, while repeatedly acknowledging the problem _ and thus implied liability, SUl'frlARY PRESENTATION ON "OSF BRICKS" - 3/6/07 - p. 2 Meanwhile - the bricks deteriorate the terrain gets more dangerous OSF patrons get older and thus are at increasing risk. 911 gets multiple calls during the season to deal with slips and falls. LIABILITIES The Festival is on park - viz. city land. Regardless of "hold harmless" clause in the lea-se-, the City is the "deep pockets" to which an injured party will have legal recourse. This was confirmed by City Attorney Nolte at the 2/17/04 Council meeting. The City is self-insured for up to $50,000 liability. Above that it has insurance of $1 million/event - $3 million in aggregate. This would be totally insufficient for the potential lawsuit we can envision. CORRECTIVE ACTION Enforce AI1C 13.04.030. with respect to the public right-of-way. Insist that corrective action be taken with respect to paving in front of the New Theater to conform to Condition #14 (p.84) of the "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" that constituted approval for construction of the New Theater. If necessary invoke AMC 18.112.080 - the "violations-nuisance" section which empowers the city attorney to declare the bricks "unlawful and a public nuisance" and "immediately commence action for the abatement, removal and enjoinnent. .and such other steps.. .as will abate.... "etc. If the City insists on continuing its grant of over $100K/year out of the hotel/motel tax to OSF perhaps it could be earmarked for correction of "the bricks". CONCLUSION The accidents have been 'happening - causing pain and injury. lfuat has yet to happen is a legal/fiscal disaster for OSF and the City - which means we taxpayers. The argument that OSF is a leaseholder with a "hold harmless" clause in their lease will not protect us. In fact, OSF is a leaseholder that is using the property in violation of law and public safety. If you continue to fail to act you will bear the strame and guilt for these injuries. We - citizens and taxpayers - will bear the cost. "If it be nOvJ-'tis not to come; If it be not to come, it will be now; It if be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all. ,. (Hamlet - V.2.) ~Vi :OIiILIP C. ~ LeE'.';' 7SE L\ 5~r.2::_~~ \:)r~'Q,0n 97:,'2C, QC~ldC'rl:~ I ~8 2-86~~' I-mail I- ::YHce,L': ~ ":'3'2-';387 mLll(.:.:l;.=~t f :~l.Lh~ 3,'11l11lG.net OBLlGATlONS/ACTlONS in re: OSF BRICKS WHAT ARE YOUR OBLIGATIONS? You have a moral obligation to prevent future injuries to citizens and OSF patrons. You have a legal obligation to enforce conditions of the lease requiring ADA conformity and repair and maintenance. You have a fiscal obligation to prevent enormous liabilities to the citizens and taxpayers. WHAT IS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR YOUR ACTION(S)? The AMC AMC. 13.04.030 provides requirements for sidwalks. (It is in your packet) AMC 18.112.080 is a "violation-nuisance" section whichempo,we-crs the City Attorney to declare the bricks "unlawful and a public nuisance" and "immediately commence action for the abatement, removal and enjointment... and such other steps...as will abate...." The Lease OSF is using the leased premises in multiple violations of law-both AMC and ADA. Section 8 of the lease titled Repair and Maintenance includes "adjoining sidewalks, curbs, walls and landscaping". They are to be kept "clean and in good condition': and OSF "shall make all repairs, replacements... necessary to maintain the property". Section 15 of the current lease requires conformity with ADA requirements. Section 18 of the lease - Default or Breach - such as the breach of Section 8 on repair and maintenance or Section 15 on ADA requirements states that failure to make corrections after 6 months notice results in termination of the lease. ADA Requirements OSF is not meeting ADA requirements with respect to the sidewalk and bricks. For the City to allow this to continues on the face of these facts implies acceptance and approval and further establishes future liabilities. WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR CORRECTION? 1) Insist that OSF make the necessary repairs to its leasehold property- a) in conformance to laws, and b) by a specific deadline. '" r OBLIGATIONS/ACTIONS - 3/20/07 - p. 2 2) Use the hotel/motel tax income usually granted to OSF for repairs by the City. 3) Withhold the hotel/motel tax grant until OSF finishes repairs. You have the facts, the documentation. If you do not take action, you will be subjecting the citizens, the taxpayers, OSF and its patrons to future pain and injury and the increasing likelihood of a major, unmanageable compensatory and punitive lawsuit. PHILIP C. LANG , o Oregon Shakespeare Festival P.OBOX1S8 15 South Pioneer Street Ashland, OR 97520 541 482 2111 541482 0446 fax 541 482 4331 box office March 20,2007 www.osfashland.org Mayor and City Council City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: OSF Brick Courtyard Dear Mayor and City Councilors: This letter is in response to Mr. Philip Lang's memo to you dated January 28, 2007 in which he expresses the view that OSF has done nothing to address his concerns about the brick courtyard. I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring you up to date with what we have been doing in this area. In June 2005, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival began working with Covey Pardee Landscape Designers for the redevelopment of the brick courtyard. Since then, we have had several in-depth meetings with Covey Pardee to define the design parameters and to identify the key issues associated with improving a public space that has eleven different thresholds. We contracted with Polaris Surveying to develop a comprehensive survey of the entire area. This survey was used as the basis for the development for conceptual designs. Early in the design process, we recognized that the courtyard site had significant time and space constraints. It became clear that the redevelopment of the Bricks had the potential to be highly disruptive to our operation. Accordingly, we determined that we could only redevelop the courtyard during the November to January period. This is a very tight time frame for such a complex project. An additional complication is that the Festival had committed to replacing a severely outdated HVAC system in the Angus Bowmer Theater. These two major projects could not be undertaken at the same time because of the need to use the courtyard as a staging area for the HV AC system replacement. The new HVAC system was installed at the end of the 2006 season. Covey Pardee completed the schematic design for the redevelopment in May 2006 and presented their schematic to the OSF Board in June 2006. The Board approved moving into the next phase of design development which has now been completed. We have held meetings with Paula Brown, Public Works Director, Jim Olson, Engineering Services . Engineering Services Manager, Bill Molnar, Planning Manager and Mike Broomfield, Building Official, to ensure that all appropriate access, public safety and design issues are taken into account. Covey Pardee presented their findings from the design development phase, together with a preliminary cost estimate, at the Board meeting held on Friday, March 9th. At that meeting the Board approved moving into the construction documents phase with the goal of beginning construction at the end of the 2007 season. However, because of various timing reasons it is possible that we may have to delay the construction to the fall of 2008. So far we have spent more than $24,000 on design costs. The Board approved spending a further $60,000 on the construction document phase, including $20,000 for civil engineering. We anticipate the total project cost will exceed $500,000. I will keep you informed of our progress as we move forward with this highly complicated project. Yours sincerely, Oregon Shakespeare Festival l~~ Paul Nicholson Executive Director SOUTHERN OREC;ON UNIVERSITY March 6. 2007 Sandra Slattery Executiw Director Ashland Chamber of Commerce II () East rVlain Street .\shlamL ()R 97520 Ih."dr :-;~mdra. I 1\ <lilted [(1 1\ rite: a letter oj appreciati"ll 1\)1. all of the uut::;tal1ding 1\ 'lrk that) llU and) liUl team arl' accomplishing at the /\shland Chamber of Commerce. The SOl J School of Business is fortunate to have such a terrific partner ill the community. Your positive impact on the Ashland community is far reaching. I have received calls from across the United States about the outstanding Global Conference you organized. think the conference next year will draw even a greater national audience. Companies in Asia are expressing interest in participating at future conferences. Your strategic vision has given Ashland a great opportunity to be recognized as a leader in the international arena. It is terrific that you are providing a forum for companies in the Rogue Valley to network with Asian firms. [am also deeply appreciative of the "Destination Ashland" DVD. Your hard work and dedication to this project has certainly produced a top quality product to showcase our community. Thank you for partnering with Southern Oregon University on this project. I cel1ainly look forward to working with you on future projects. Your positive impact on the region is quite amazing. Thank you. Sincerely, David J. Harris. DealJ Schon I of Business Sch:!ul u{ nl!,'.,~iru:'s~: ! '~r::.(} ~-;isi-;.'_i ~1, ,l~ D{ lldl'\.n '_-; /\shLl,!dj lJr'_'/~llrll)iS2(j-~~U~1-!:; lef rlL~ j -Lr:; l_il~!-q r-.:,; l~~'IL_~~",,'_". ASHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOAR!) OF DIRECTORS o .JlLl [)I CHIRO Superinkndenl RUTH ALEXANDER AMY AMRHEIN MAT MARR HElD! PARKER AMY PATTON PAMELA LlIC\S Business Manager SAMUEL BOGDANOVE Director' of Student Services Students, Parents, Community, and District Staff working together to ensure each other's success March 6, 2007 Dear Ashland City Council, I am writing this letter in support of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and the wonderful job that they do to promote Ashland as a family friendly city that is a great place to raise children. I have been very impressed \vith the work that the Chamber has done to redesign their marketing materials with this focus in mind. Their newly produced DVD is a great example of this emphasis. I had the opportunity to be intcrvie\ved for this presentation. and I was able to tout our wonderful schools as a draw for businesses that may be considering relocating to Ashland. This DVD also featured .'\shland's natural beauty. vultural amenities. and all that we all low ahout li\ing hcrL'. But I ,vas particularly struck by the education theme that ran through the productic1n. The Chamber has also worked hard to redesign its website \vith this same family emphasis, The DVD will provide streaming video on this site so that visitors can access even more in depth information about their areas of interest. The '"Vour Life" portal already provides links to all of our schools as well as background information about the school district. And the photos that are included really highlight our city as being attractive to families from diverse backgrounds. The '"Living and Doing Business Guide" is a third example of these same themes. For many businesses considering a move to Ashland, this is their first introduction to our city. The Guide gives them the information that they need while providing stunning visuals of the Ashland Community. Again, the education sector is prominently featured. Although the enrollment in our schools continues to decrease as our demographics change, it is heartening to me to have the Chamber as a supportive partner in our efforts to attract more students. As you consider the allocation of the Transient Occupancy Tax, I urge you to continue the same level of support for Chamber activities. It is rare that a Chamber is so involved in supporting K-] 2 education, and I greatly appreciate and value this partnership. With hope and commitment. Juli Oi Chiro, Superintendent ADi\lINISTRATlON BlilLDING 885 SISKI\OlI BOlILEVARIl ASIIL\ND, OREGON 97520 5.H--lRZ.28 I I F.\.\ S~I-'tS2-2185 Ambuja Rosen's speech in public forum. 3/20/07 A number of people have criticized me for speaking at so many Council meetings. They say I shouldn't be taking up so much Council time. Some say I'll irritate the Council. I'll give you one reason ta/hy I come so much. Our society values the left brain more than the right brain. It values logic and reason over emotion. When someone is emotional about their cause, they often get discredited. So I've approached you using reason. I've given you one logical reason after another why you should pass this law. Tonight I'll let my hair dOtllO a little. I'll shotll you the emotional side of my campaigning. A number of times before and during this campaign, I've sobbed my heart out for the animals. On January 2, the ordinance failed to pass. The next day, I went ice skating at the Darex Rink. I was alone. No one was watching, so I let my sadness come out. I sobbed heavily for the Chow on Cambridge Street who's been tied continuously for at least five years. I so much wanted to set him free by reporting him once the ordinance passed. I think I wasn't just crying for him, but for all the animals in Ashland who lost out on January 2. Some of you might (A/onder tl/hy I cry over animals I don't even knotl/. I'll explain. Most people have a gift. Some can paint beautiful pictures. Some can write inspiring poems. One of my gifts is that I can feel intense compassion for animals, even animals I don't know. That's what makes me an animal activist. [Hold up sign.] Compassion. The dictionary says it means suffering with. It's feeling someone's suffering along with him. Part of me is out there living on a chain. Part of me is out there, stuck in a tiny travel crate all day, unable to poop or urinate. Part of me is crammed into an outdoor kennel most of my life, tl/ith too many other dogs or cats. All three of these situations happen to animals in Ash land. I think most people can feel intense compassion for their own cats or dogs. And some people really care about their neighbor's animal--one they pet and talk to sometimes. But not that many people have the ability to care intensely about the dogs and other animals in Ashland who are forced to live on chains. Or for the cats or dogs who are forced to live in travel crates or overcrowded outdoor kennels. To help you understand why I keep coming to meetings to plead for these animals, I ask that you visualize something right now. Picture your own animal--and if you don't have one, imagine you do. Imagine your OtllO animal is chained to a tree in Ashland, unable to get free. Or picture him stuck in a travel crate for much of his life. Would you not come here to meeting after meeting, begging Ashland's Council to set your animal free? If you wouldn't, I think most people here tl/ould tl/onder hOtll much you love your animal. The only difference with me is that I care about all animals as much as many people care about their otl/n animals. I'm doing the same thing II I I you ....'ould be doing if this ....'as your o....m family member. These animals are family members to me, in the senSe that they're my spiritua.l brothers and sisters. My sense of brotherhood extends beyond the huma.n race and embraces animals, too. When my brothers and sisters are suffering on a chain or in a crate or overcrowded kennel, I'll never be truly happy. Thank you. II ..1 C:: ; i) i J 't:: :::;) ::;: ':.~~, J ; ~ ~; ~ I ,i J ~ i , I.;:; ".) I I .1 i " t ( I '.. ,.~, i I I ~..;,., I"J tit ~,:Jllt '. iH ~..) <::,1,/'1'-" I I f 'I J t. .." J !,,~,.... j -:1 t'" 1 , j '~~"'iti;'~.l tH~Jf~'H' j __ ~ ,.:,...i ;::; i .;.::: j iU C;; , i j 1 I f..": j j .'1 '--'. ::;: j J '::o~' ;;" itl". J III lie..., il'! i If" I; i' I ! ;# iI, ~- t ~ , t I Ii' 0, j II .. : ',,,' ~ I '.:" J ~ I l " '7:) J <<;; I "" )', ;'" '" ,... ~.;: j". I I I :,":'0/ j t tJ' ') .::. i '~'"l ;:;; ., :':'0:"'1 '11 I I . , co, 1 ""rilll"....'" 1'.,.1 pI,,:: I" I J:. ll'-Ilt!t-I '~~d i)il'I~~'-.' ',fl), j '1"1 :~: I :::..~ i r:: .,. I f~:,., I J j 1 ~ I f J j t .. ~;; f;: t':ii.i"l:. ....~.:> \t: IlJlp~~? l'lilt: L> lb 1 1't::il,'IIJ ii I il i t::,J t: l'f,.o.. ,UI t i'~-:".,.'}', !J~: ':~~ It: I ., ( ) r.-; ! 'l 1 I i lot :.:. ( J' ; :::,~ ' , t~.., l , ..i 'iJ. \C!t ~~~) ~~i~~2t~~~ ~it;) ~~~~rJ Ci~ ~ f+e~ ttre ~/O fYl()~ 14'te a.9b~ ~ 1"0 AetVJi[lj tt3fv\& ~ ~''Vj ~ oJ! O-Y1lmalsl So ~r)3 ~S-~ Iia-OC. ~teJ ~1 o. . Wi t\ '2 'V \~.Q CO-i\}Q. ~ w VuLi ~ ~ OJ ~I~ . . . ~~ (Nh# Dea~ Councilo~s and Mayo~: I'm concerned about the animals in Ashland who are tied up at their homes fo~ excessive pe~iods. They suffe~ loneliness. f~ust~ation and bo~edom. They also ~un the ~isk of st~angling to death, getting abused by kids o~ adults, getting attacked by animals, o~ dying of heatst~oke. Jackson County allows animals to be tied fo~ their enti~e lives on sha~t chains. This is not a life that anyone in Ashland, including pets, should have to endure. Please pass a law to make this kind of animal abuse illegal. Please heavily ~estrict the tethe~ing of dogs and ather animals at th,=~it" homes. also help people. Chained likely to bite eORle ... , a barking dog'::; a ~e . M1-iZ t' ,.,v I b <) l1l/1 f r( 1'< ltA 1\/ (? 8ex- 4b 13 /77€d 0 c;f2 97S:-o 1+;/...11I-{'I ~ . :1. _ JZ I'd f... 15M'f..@; ~ bt I'-\e'l") ..(. u,v-. / ~_)/) L /L;J' C it/.(l..tJ ,1;)(:nA VI{ '17fU} ~ ' c.. f'\. ~/lt 101 S/0/ D, cl<i ~ ~ -NeW\.eC ~ ~\ 0\(\~ ~Ov \~G\. Q UII ~~Llt,.? 11-1 RU550 _~~~_k~____~ ~eM-S ~ ~ ", G(C\: ~A/<-t.~;/ t~ / ~.' y ?~ .V ~/ ,'/ "/ j. ! _ t' i ../ ;..,.,'. ,~.':r~. :~~_ .'.ti~t ~:~f~~~.~;f';(!- - ~. ~~(~ -r- ~J\'0\c\ 4:&0 ole ~(. ~ . <;. T~ Ii S t\ LAN)) . ~_ 6:; v/I)O! eLJ uf2V ..4S/I(,rId . 1- ~.-,:, -,.,..,... '_J~F-- . .----.--/-~-7:.~ 6*-,f --------- ..- I I I I / r'.7 (/.(0) , ('. t..l 3-~"~7 "3 .. f.d -07 fill 3-to '-07 .. ,nes ",'tl.-'. (/" - pC ~ ~ (J//r/( 5,_ "j) /) _S(;l/\ ./4..s~ C"-cf"' 1.f!.1'''-fl' (f ( e '':>-7 ,,~ ) -c. '( -.4.__ .~ ....... a.r / {t, 1(' ().. f.J' UJl f 0 n e s 3-7-07- o? 7 .AC k-'f:A W?-Pr ::::"-7- - (f--1. "\ QV4 ~ ~~{Y -~~,~0~-----J5D<._/ I JI~~~~-~_",j . Dear Councilors and Mayor: I'm concerned about the animals in Ashland who are tied up at their homes for excessive periods. They suffer loneliness, frustration and boredom. They also run the risk of strangling to death, getting abused by kids or adults, getting attacked by animals, OT dying of heatstroke. Jackson County allows animals to be tied for their entire lives on short chains. This is not a life that anyone in Ashland, including pets, should have to endure. Please pass a law to make this kind of animal abuse illegal. Please heavily restrict the tethering of dogs and other animals a t the:! i r homes. By doing this, you D nu i sa nce. They'" ' re '~1-~. also help people. Chained likely to bite eORle ... often a barking dogs are. I d{:'fV1on oK ,J ~~ t-\-e.-V'v- y Sc--l"Z MGl-Y\r1 { S '1/1- ,..; c: ~ 7 '-l/t t ; c ,oJ f\ ',! / t \ 'J ~\i" [v, Iv ~'n'~ ~)!k ~:i. \~ ~JI~::'~ ~;~~ 1;.~~,lf,1.~:: '" II I S~l Gl K, '/Ie:: \..( 5"" t ,,(<;l., I"'~ 0 Il ( ,~/~ , i \ 4A<:; { r7~'i' (~O a \.' ~'\ s+. 1S~)Qv1 J. O~ ~ d ? <-I 'S/s K." ~Q \r\ .0:; J 1 {1 ,>i.{ " 2ro I(~U ~~ Rd, - J1' A~t ~-z- As~, fal'1tA Df<?:, qt~.J-O UJ\-cA o~ 41b d--.~O l-to--r~G\ L Lf 0 i f~>'\, l Vl.A- " L 7 " f~ .L. '. "---:)' C r ~flJ /' 1/ ILL Y>/l .72 '-f C ~'\\ .\\ A~' ---- '... .' l \. / 'Ll t \t " .lc_Z_I.:1....;.~. A :f {.-=- _. r -r: \i1)C ( r<:\i IL( .~. ') t .-- . '-.=t:-~.~1LlrLbill. " ' l- -'f.:' - '.>'\ ",~ \C .-<y" ~ .........., "; ": ~ ~- - .~..'r. .,. y.) *,.,. :;-.~ '-'~2~~;"-- . ...-.------~"._-.....-~,...---:--.---n- )--- ..1 . \'v\J\\A. ~..i, f\\v{k1 (\/\12."'-- - ~_I ~ ,,/ /~. ~ -:/ --!:.-'-,<{ t"l. t~ ( L' HI<l5 i{/HV &v [<t..O(~"'(1-- ~ (-\~ V\-", V 0 tl ~-e_/~ )~ ~/. ~". '. \?j ." (lcl\/,:I} ,\ '- \l .j...L , ./ -" '/ '~~ // ;/ __ - --~~ C---/./ --, /../ f. -;6-J .<, ') H'\. . ~' ' . . _. Pc t \ tJ_ C:':\ f Ir'~j J (J '\ I I :; .~ 'J \\.). LA<-v22L -) /L' C(. (~ C:~ 1__ L"i I..,:,) l \ .~C.; IV 2,-'.........."-1 _' #~ U ~ V\.D. "" , , . ... ~ I 'L - Vi l<-"j 1 r/,+ >rrl.-t=.c-r- ~ 1:-5" ~ +T.... ~J {', /l.... ~ _{ ,)...-O/, J'- {:; -0 J' .- 12 '- ~'=t- 3.\2..C'1 ~ -('2 -c) 1- ''Sfl 0 7- .~ ~, <-)( !~ ..~) 3 Lj. J/- ,;2 I ( ( l " _' 'I /"-, rSJ J-;'" " (.-1 (; -s t-: cA I \ .~'~ r 'c \,,\ (,.\ I ,\ (. I i ). I I . "-.. '-1. '\. ,- ---....--r" ;::,..-.21"'!'''''........,.. ....'_..,,~,..,... , - '-:>, \j , I \ _______J~t;~~ . )) . J 'j / .,/ ( :.;)II(,,/) ,.Id /1".. )/ j '1"'( ,'\;;/, (/ ,..'-~) 3 )' Dear Councilors and Mayor: I'm concerned about the animals in Ashland who are tied up at their homes fer excessive periods. They suffer loneliness. frustration and boredom. They also run the risk of strangling to death, getting abused by kids or adults, getting attacked by animals, aT dying of heatstroke. Jackson County allows animals to be tied for their entire lives on short chains. This is not a life that anyone in Ashland, including pets, should have to endure. Please pass a law to make this kind of animal abuse illegal. Please heavily restrict the tethering of dogs and other animals at their homes. By doing this, you -1'"7 _ ~1U i sa nee. ~:t.-~- also help people. Chained dogs are often a barking likely to bite eORle than oth ~ dogs are. , . " ;:l.e /-'r7J ~:ZE L-~ '\)- --;7" /J, /0' . OC) L/ /c-t.'/N /-//V/5:.;5 l....-L/"ZCLC :/ LA Ai I)t ViS' Ct)",C 5 t""?l\A.IC \E ";I , ;. ),tLu ,.~, Len~:f( /J' r (-- f'; lA.lL"f\"'o ~.Lt.. Lt.."'> Ii" 1ft/ t (/; ~"J'l, I A 5); /tif1!rv'- / /\ I L1 /-'1 /If .. . ) l:;"'A , I ,... . l'..A-- ,'"\ - . '1(', i ;;0 .I C', r, lt Ice .fRr:tr l.-fl-- ';)' '} l-t'~ I1L -A )>-_:i) I (:' ~ 7/._/ / /';;1 ;~J.J 4 I J J 'J -' ...., 'L/..! .\ / l( : j/I.;/ i Y \ \ ~ l.L.~ ~) <t'. 1 '5- z<~, 1 <,,'7.) ~ L,., ' L lv' t- ~';~~~..:'f!:~:'..t;~:? '~ ' \:- (:..~-'- ~- ","' r _ He \ j'j :; j LU i\;('" " ( - .. Ie" ~ .. '~ C ...-) / .' / . I .I ,~ ,I 'Lf ( C ft; L "!r -I':"'~' ( c'-- '41' ',1./1 ( II ).,~ 1,( '.'.',.1 lIJt.. i, /,' -;7\ .. . I ' l\ I ~ " l " '~1 . , L,~__~,: ). .'.'_~~>~: }~/"!{"iL.'-.,~--'---_, "t" . ..,... \ :,,, ,.,~,:..' . " . < ' I ; I" l U C, L\ l.. 1,/, <;: ~,........ II III . I I , ::-' ..,. ,'l ..' '..,' .,.7 (,., f,O , I, l. f~l. .--f :,.,~ ~? ),1 2 ,~ . ') , , 5 -- (:) -c , ' "\ \ .: -/.-; -- () r / I( ( ,. \" /fJ';'!t .';' ii r- ;, '-.." '" f , ,"/ 'l'~ L- ~.~ 3--/~ ,~ -iJ--67 ~~. 1? d 1 L.:> j' J'lv f..: r: O,c--.' CO. . { {..../i N _.,{ , . . 101 n l"-.J ~L [,1. P 975~(p 3 -I J -o~) I 0 7- c1 [; C\ '5 t M C{~ f' \ t ~ g -1).0; e;1f32L~ ~{ii{.l LUA'-'''' LtR 7'~ ..- -"'\ <:.. y) :..).Q... ,)~t L \~"'v'e ':) (fJr;1-1 {.- c5,6fl' (1, >>1/1/1 ('{VU)i\N -\ ,+ ' V' \.. , "d 1 .v " . e. \f e.- C- ~1 f-'\~ ~Jj ^~ \:J l C V\ RoSt,lQ it,d ~1nd\.C 2. -.Sd elC . I cl d R\ > ,~ .;-) -.L /\e~ d~r /--e rer.~~c:i~ ]) A c/ ';) D ~/ .<:l/2,'7Z; 'J.. \0 \ ,M. vQ') {~ '-l , .~ .~ ___ . C \';\6,,~. b.. ~\ ~_ / I 11- { ~,t (UA~ (', t~Ll(-c .t I ' tJ lr\';',\ ~\\.;,,'t~ T'"-._~ ~~..~""""",,~.,..,,,",~~.", ~ _ s' .../~u A 8'10 - (;':f- 3 '2- C V~,t'1-v-....A-- . ~-2 " l' ~......., t' I!'k H-, (\ h V ~l" J) I ~ r l ,.,,7"' :' -r' " 'C:..1;;T~:' l/ $ Dear Councilors and Mayor: I'm concerned about the animals in Ashland who are tied up at their homes for e:<cessive periods. They suffer loneliness. frustration and boredom. They also run the risk of strangling to death,'get~ing abused by kids or adults, getting attacked by animals, o~ dying of heatstroke. Jackson County allows animals to be tied for their entire lives on short chains. This is not a life that anyone in Ashland, including pets, should have to endure. Please pass a law to make this kind of animal abuse illegal. Please heavily restrict the tethering of dogs and other animals at their homes. By doing this, you -1")~.:;.f1uisance. Thev're ~~ .~" also help people. Chained dogs are often a barking likely to bite peaRle than oth ~ dogs are. -, , . ~((",-Jl ~V\O,J'l-)i\fL ~ ~ l:;' :Sb~.q f _ ~r:' ~ r ~ C' u. (-1 )<~u "- "'< C.b.....\l..$ ._.:r . ../\\.) t{1~ o t\.v. IlclR ("(..1 1,-<...... q -i 5-t 0 :) \(~ ULiYt r ~{d-t 0} () , c~ l } .S l\:.h brClv-il \ .~ <\ G .. ("~..) i.t. ~ i=t-s h i (Ln-.'" IJ Q r'r I vI -::> iJ.) \ r{/ , (, l C\ 7S ~s.~ 0u ~lv\8.fj Hi(~, i)r( fit'- L\t ~.it \\ - C l.,! (' ~,6) NuT t;;'{).l \ ,( .J " \. t ( I ~')( f I '2.?!. ; I \ .A\1'c \.JI(:* ,3GI9t.t(<:.t I L -.~,\ t,c.';.p.t.~ i'!..~/C~ , t - ''"'7 .,..., . ......~ A.~hU.t"'J, OYL.- , ..-~. / C 7') ." '}~ ':.; 1 h'f....J \'i:.t; C, ~,l ~t, . --. . - ..--- I ,/1~..-.:. / . '71/" __"'-::"~/IC. r..--'- ,'/-//IP rv)Vl ~ ! ) /' /'.' J . (.),; X l/k') _. /~j)l' (:\ . ( , r \~' t I .l,,-'~' . ',.',.".' ,/<...";';;;,,,' ",..'.,;",.' .,' -,>,,'l-l.o.r... ,_~ "TO_ .l-k4 _" ,-,#,", '(~.~ J.. ~,,<.:i. fjr1."" ,\. , Q I 'J ~_\.!il\.i\l ..tC,-:, ..,' C- Lot} iJ;\\ '.ol,iY-st A L,.o ~~lirp~ I' ..~_.;;, -<.t~~~ . . _. _. II III . I I t~1" .. 'f6~- 9Z3fJ t~ . \ ,~ C\ S" \ " <s ~VJ P~J?tJ 7 7 c~ I" ,... ~ ~ C( s A\"""oV\ ~ (~~) . Z2M) As~'~ (X~. l~~ ~ s (S K.\ " Ness ~ e. U~ J~. \LO. ,d..o \J e \a. L9...c'>t'.~ ~,,:,. _ fvt\CK O\LE~fC-~ __k~CJ' ~~k..-" _ Dear Councilors and Mayor: I'm concerned about the animals in Ashland 'Ih~ are tied up at their homes for e:<cessive periods. They suffer loneliness~ frustration and boredom. They also run the risk of strangling to death, getting abused by kids or adults, getting attacked by animals, o~ dying of heatstroke. Jackson County allows animals to be tied for their entire lives on short chains. This is not a life that anyone in Ashland, including pets, should have to endure. Please pass a law to make this kind of animal abuse illegal. Please heavily restrict the tethering of dogs and other animals at their homes. also help people. Chained likely to bite eORie ~ often a barking r: dogs are. By doing this, you ~~~uisance. Thev're ~-:L~ '. Jt,,~ 24 ~.. . l(l.,~S (~ f17I - f G "LLI (Q1~ r- 'c ,,,, 1,'" c~) s'~~\ ,C; E. ~tJ..&. L~ l~ .")'-\-. o-r<C l ~ ~<2Q, '-'- S (i) l",o ~ t-t-"<l\ ~ l. (' C 1M ~~llt. ~ /!K~- k~.ll~.. uI{~/._C_L>~~ If>1 ~ ~ ta~~ II III III 'N ~ll\"t'\ At.iJ<JC, b _ ,,'" 1 e.. @ If\. a h...\<<.; f. <:0 M... - C)' I ( ,3J ( (' I a t1 A SLd (J"JI~ ()~ B ~ ~ _\ !:~ (" l..p \ 1)\ I, :.- '. -- _,.... (\ c~ \' L \ ]J' ) I r" 'r", r . _' J VJ t... f-'~ v; 1. ( " \ ,,) r ~ \.;,;' v Ii) I " \ ('~> Je7~L S~e, ..J , , .-'1 11 t:/+ 'i )} "...,.u._.... ._~"""'....,. .... '.. ',.' ....._...... . Dear Councilors and Mayor: I'm concerned about the animals in Ashland ~"ho are tied up at their homes far e:<:.=ess i....e periods. They suffer lonel iness, frustra t ion .and boredom. They also run the risk of strangling to death, getting abused by kids or adults, getting attacked by animals, aT dying of heatstroke. Jackson County allows animals to be tied for their entire lives on short chains. This is not a life that anyone in Ashland, including pets, should ha....e to endure. Please pass a law to make this kind of animal abuse illegal. Please heavily restrict the tethering of dogs and other animals a t the i r homes. By doing this, you ~~~uisance. Thex're ~1-~.- l) also help people. Chained likely to bite eORle ..., , often a bar-king r dogs are. ( J~D ~ }-li(~ Wi- t-rE 5.0,L{. /250 SiS- )30i fmva. S., ~ 0 I O.,~d (;.() ~ I) j2'f-;C.1{t-/ ~ 9lS2~ /~Jt k-d JJAr1 G U1 ~4C~ C/7~~ ~ 7', IktA'I')1) /lit. 7 h '~Y..::.~ ((::) h~o-l' O.r " v< E.?-<-,-,,- '-\. ( f\i -- ') ';J: <..::> ( i i,-j ^-" / / ~ . } h t.. "IIL If ',J..; {)((.' (f//I/; " ,J ,~ .....-", t ~ .' .\ '~i:~...4,q ~" ,"";'lII!"""'.. <!r."""'i.~,,, '.., . ". .., "" :"l!II!f ..."','. ""r~ :"",':)0, . . 4. ..,.... ..'__. j\;:) _..........".,':>. -1' }. . \.. ''-1---/( &' ~.~ ; \, Q 1,;\ ~,,\. -v'-l. '\. L -f f_i . "1<';)' I . , . fdl '~J-":".'J [:".'. " i '. l j _ ': '. ,",' ..", .-,F. l.\..,.{.....--1.- i\-t,. I.,.l~_,j .-~" '~.~--...~.. ,,!,. -~._..~~.,J_..;:....~-l'...- ;.: ~ ._~ _.~-::-~---~~--~~-".'7 -~._~-~ .lio,.~;,' .' '. __ . II III I . I.. I I I I rrO(J1~ . f3 .)1'rn5J<J ~g Y' .~ - }'RtlJ'/'rJ-tJ1 '. '-:J (/(7;)(,,.'1/1/1 ~ \~ C' , ~ Q?S'b~ ~~/'>J60?-1F '~5 rvo ~O 9J5(' )/ ,.J f' ~-,. ) l'j., fl' '\' h .1 , \ (/, 1+' , ""<YO 'rrlS'! 'VaJf-S 9 6?9 "\ txs<\ t;., ,~'6 aYdtr ~s Q\ <1. OJ _\ \-."-b pO f' v,? <o"-)d / ~L' au C\! ~ ' "''.1J ,r .-' II c..:SLb I" J.~(1'()'1cL L ()"e Y ~ 8 ,'"). J ) l ) ) '~}u~,;'c~~. :/ b --''H S"n, f/C: 1"" / v // J~ II I L9 iL/~" /2,. ,; <2 t} I \./ ::J" 1'" /' .r: () 1 J1At/,'-r3C7(' /-./1/;j t_ )) ..F '\ ~l' ",)/. 1 1 } ).{ /,' 'I; t J i, , -- .. ,- r' t1 ,)) ',J!'C_. 'J q../J:Jl(' 1 1.:i?A.-"fJ;>1/ 1..,,'7"/...,. ):n/J;1:::1 ,Z ("'1/ 'h-"'1 7:;:;1~) Y .,",. I""""~ ~.!f. . . ~.."""'" ... VI ~{' v......Jb /VIL?\Orrr . ,- y-!,?/ " ''17 -, -",' f -/J--'-:> ( -' .. '0'" . , -/ ~ ' (j -~,:>.' .-.=--- ,511<) :/) 535. ~'r7 .~t~'f' Lt)-[/--- Cc --~V'Jl";'~?~J p"r,7 y -, DD7tq~ -' 1" L.r'':1'/f-;J~7J'~1 ;;>1(;1 V\t ( Q - L , - c.: Deal" Counci lors and Mayor; I'm concerned about the animals in Ashland talho aT'e tied UP at their homes for e:<cessi....e periods. They suffer lonel iness. frustration and boredom. They also run the risk of strangling to death, getting abused by kids or adults, getting attacked by animals, OT dying of heatstroke. Jackson County allows animals to be tied for their entire lives on short chains. This is not a life that anyone in Ashland, including pets, should ha....e to endure. Please pass a law to make this kind of animal abuse illegal. Please hea....ily restrict the tethering of dogs and other animals at their homes. also help people. Chained likely to bite '" often a barking r dogs are. I.c. q D----L\I'\ it: n 0 (54-I) 3 c. I - Z '5' I -, 7 f> r-~:x!. tt m~i-d,"1 .... A~ Dj'~ IKJ_ r..l ~ f') J -A~~ k-lMl {.\ t<. ~. f~-J..6 ~'E:' ( Q:y'-" ~)~l<.t\~ v.Z '1 7 - lv ~ If".,A At d .tJr.d-O <P ,/ II III . II ~0 ~, ,-,- - ...... '-- ,- ! - ,- I "'"\ lN~ M.. ".' "\i 1/1_- ..:JL./. 'V-,'rA 1...1 ^.'"b.. 1" ,. ._ - l'vo..:~~" Dear Councilors and Mayor: I'm concerned about the animals in Ashland ....'ho are tied up at their homes for e:<cessive periods. They suffer loneliness, frustration and boredom. They also run the risk of strangling to death, getting abused by kids or adults, getting attacked by animals, o~ dying of heatstroke. Jackson County allows animals to be tied for their entire lives on short chains. This is not a life that anyone in Ashland, including pets, should have to endure. Please pass a law to make this kind of animal abuse illegal. Please heavily restrict the tethering of dogs and other animals at their homes. By doing this, you quisance. help people. Chained dogs are often a barking likely to bite eop.le than oth r dogs are. \:t~~ ~- ~ l r~~ f$ \ G\.Je, :Y'4t\+:,d\~t L/ ..s..-S:e I ffJl-r- h J li C).I'a /"l a ,'r e, 4.100. ctJn-.. 5 v.~ 1.J<-~~c- " S:~- 5Z) ~ . (J) IY\ or to ,", ~t- ~~ ~ ~ E. ~$~:~A{\ ~ , ~ 4 l - 1, 1- \or .' f/iJ .~ Q.rngJO _ -(C<-0c~~'(t0v}J -:-Lvrw ,1 J'tl\ 6(1 -ZZ~ Dr A<;'hWi~ c-K..: tA-3 tV. .~ /J~7~~ :J- ~ )- ~; l h\~ ~r ,~')- ~ {.., ~, ~ l,'rV. \ I~ rJv ( C,l :)",1 A ,\\ . ,\" I' t't II III . I.. ~~ ~ntwl ~f,Rt-\~ OC~rOl')l fVlv S~ Q...;~~ S Q..c::..~,.....~ '<:.. r ~~ -=- ~ ~ ~ --r-. .<.. ;'2 ~ T-r....., .0 ~ <;:;;;.rr fa r~ ^/ II .!I R '12'3 ~t{z;v YJv. ~/~ tYr-,. 17'-617/ 6~/~6'1 L( , 2)~'_ I ( - ~(;i5l~.. ~cZ-7 ~c. c~v~~ rrY'..ft~( t~ 17'Z..-tCf 1110 l ~hW' ,~ u-rz. tf1~~ '5J..s C .'> t- A'>~ hMJ c:>R (;t 15 J-O e .s:: ~ \...~-.... ~ ~ ~)~ ~""'~~ .~ ~. __ "i:>. <:;::.:- - '=> "i.._ O\..,-=:::.~ ' " ~ ....., ~ Dear Councilors and Mayor: I'm concerned about the animals in Ashland who are tied up at their homes for excessive periods. They suffer loneliness~ frustration and boredom. They also run the risk of strangling to death, getting abused by kids or adults, getting attacked by animals, OT dying of heatstroke. Jackson County allows animals to be tied for their entire lives on short chains. This is not a life that anyone in Ashland, including pets, should have to endure. Please pass a law to make this kind of animal abuse illegal. Please heavily restrict the tethering of dogs and other animals at their homes. also likely barking are. '\)~., YJ t; "" Jl" II ",,( f .c7" '7 ~~ t- $4, ?~\lt i '16 'ID A6Qf f::e-~ ~c Jt:rr,,, b~'fl d-5C31 C;i~' ( rf)/vd. ~J LID 7 i-!&{ (' r 1'5 cJ'/7/ It5 t I ~td .yO '7 ~r-iS cJ'v1 <-~ tt Ic~ .~ ~\l.'i \'> of! :- it '/J (I:t \1"'-- '::;' , I ( tA I.,)) ~I ,-). zre..c \.J;~ .c~';-- <-('~ (~ )1'-'" ) I I (' '*.' it .\:'''7r~ ! ~. -f ...) ~~ ~.- J 1,7'1 CIa fJr.. u L. ... ~ I , ~ c I", ( Ii . "\ .....1 II III . . I.. II G (t ci , d./" . (,Q /r--LJ~ 0-;j-; c:' 775"'2-<.> . , l d- 2 Jl( ,I ~/ IU}tVt)vL~ /C{)) 1?jJJ1/;~ <;4. 7'{ ~ ~~ l(f~ D,S tla Sf > o Di\.. 2 ~~ fV1t?a.tV d~1.L- ~~l{"I -(ko~ tAlc ~7r~ )J; r3 SA. ct7~ f-.(~ ql SO \ I I , f 1. ~Ol Sf~S~~v'v\ \:>\"0\' A-r; ,./ 5 ~I <I f-{ U >j(/2I}( /<-f) LO bc=-L::: tl It 1/ > :LH t(, ~ 4-~). -I): '1 1 ~ . r-t<m~ /2- ~ V ~0 ~ Ad-UUJl () 1<:. ! 2L(O ~. Zr ;bd~ cvJ ...~~ . i~ "V-c~ As+f~~'l) '~7~~ .'^ '7t17tl 't\Ic1nc! (=1. f\ <;h \ C\n C'(j q'l.fZ,- Dear Councllors and Mayor: I'm concerned about the anima Is in Ashland ...,ho are tied up iLt thei r homes for excessive periods. They suffer loneliness. frustration and boredom. They also run the risk of stranqling to deiLth, getting abused by kids or adults, getting attacked by animals, o~ dying of heatstroke. Jackson County allows animals to be tied for their entire lives on short chains. This is not a life that anyone in Ashland, including pets, should have to endure. Please pass a law to make this kind of animal abuse illegal. Please heavily restrict the tethering of dogs and other animals at their homes. By doing this, you '1uisance. also help likely often a. barking r dogs a.re. AJO~L C}-ttT1~Lt~ BGLXftlvll'.5 lfhAtll~ 4-6l-ro~1- ZG )-'}}-y 7> 15'v ., - r ~k \<-c.'-9\.) ;:: ( ( ( ( 6[''L +-CJ2E" Sf A~t( L-I~ N 0 ;; c-(7 '7>'t( di- 17Dc "7. I '._~/", /.t---'l..,h~,,-:L--- (:~) -1.. ./I -v--"~j"'':; J ,~'.<; /.J..r.~-~ .~/;~ J I ;' 1 pi /, ./ (77';)-:k. II III . II i , - (J ( 3 -- ~rol vC!) 6)~'-,et~c:~ 'C' '- - ,} ~ , ;-:t} , dl~ ,,,2Cui ~tv'\JTSt/t:;s u(( Ci1S~ I ?~,,7. ." c L.~ ;~'i. c'c. ~tA~,J Po r~ c S7J ")&-5 K)2.,rt-Sf- AS&llc.lVla e'K ,.r.;7'S2</..> I ~- g,.sy- -tflt IL 5-1-, hhcII1c;((;?C c; )2)LC rJ 5c~ r ; y"y\ 8s-s- C:S ~-,- 5do "4/rt?~GJ4/ (17~20 'bc'?r'l F?a9 en hi~t: -l~.c:.o""" (. Sl\~ IQ~ (;~ ~ ,\ I I ~ s.~ ~ ((n I!. Z, ""V1eM1 a VI Yl !ittLltt{ tltll J (5 r ~'rI ~ do ~< __ t-: 3r-S-:;~p .t A-s~ WJ (f12 97J2Q · ( ~ l \. Z v"(', <~t /tsh (d V'-c\ , \ \ \~ ill \ l~o~c..) ~ Do y~ ~. I . :;? L. \ ~'X:/ <= L -Ll... Council Talk: Tethering Ordinance I wasn't going to address the council again concerning the tethering ordinance because my experience in the past was too upsetting and frustrating. But then I saw the film Amazing Grace. In the early nineteenth century, William Wilberforce continually beseeched the British parliament to abolish the slave trade. He developed a serious case of colitis probably because he was laughed at, jeered at, and maligned. These were the reactions to his detailed testimonies about the horrific condition of slaves, treated as mere cargo aboard slave ships. The member of parliament from the port city of Liverpool made the effective case that it would be detrimental to the shipping industry and the country's entire economy if the slave trade was abolished. Wilberforce was seen as a nuisance - the country had more pressing issues. He gave up for awhile. You may wonder how the British parliament could be so callous about the suffering of fellow humans. The members probably didn't think of the Africans as humans or that they suffered - it simply wasn't convenient to think about either. While watching the film Amazing Grace I noted some curious parallels with the tethering issue: a brave individual has been jeered at and maligned and council members have seemed oblivious to the suffering of animals - as if animals are merely chattel, people's possessions. The parliament's response to the plight of slaves bound on those ships seems so painfully familiar. A repentant slave ship captain wrote, "I was blind, but now I see." I hope all of you start seeing as well. The "seeing" I refer to is the recognition that animals' suffer and that to ameliorate their condition we should have a truly humane ordinance. I'm not surprised that Wilberforce was also a well known advocate for animals. He didn't limit his compassion. Thank you, Hillary Tiefer II III The Power To Sell Lithia Park art bullock, March 20, 2007 Article XIX. Section 1. . II Ambuja Rosen's speech in public forum~ 3/20/0; A number of people have criticized me for speaking at so many Council meetings. They say I shouldn't be taking up so much Council time. Some say I'll irritate the Council. I'll give you one reason why I come so much. Our society values the left brain more than the right brain. It values logic and reason over emotion. When someone is emotional about their cause, they often get discredited. So I've approached you using reason. I've given you one logical reason after another why you should pass this law. Tonight I'll let my hair down a little. I'll show you the emotional side of my campaigning. A number of times before and during this campaign, I've sobbed my heart out for the animals. On January 2, the ordinance failed to pass. The next day, I went ice skating at the Darex Rink. I was alone. No one was watching, so I let my sadness come out. I sobbed heavily for the Chow on Cambridge Street who's been tied continuously for at least five years. I so much wanted to set him free by reporting him once the ordinance passed. I think I wasn't just crying for him, but for all the animals in Ashland who lost out on January 2. Some of you might wonder why I cry over animals I don't even know. I'll explain. Most people have a gift. Some can paint beautiful pictures. Some can write inspiring poems. One of my gifts is that I can feel intense compassion for animals, even animals I don't know. That's what makes me an animal activist. [Hold up sign.] Compassion. The dictionary says it means suffering ...,ith. It's feeling someone's suffering along ta,ith him. Part of me is out there living on a chain. Part of me is out there, stuck in a tiny travel crate all day, unable to poop or urinate. Part of me is crammed into an outdoor kennel most of my life, with too many other dogs or cats. All three of these situations happen to animals in Ashland. I think most people can feel intense compassion for their own cats or dogs. And some people really care about their neighbor's animal--one they pet and talk to sometimes. But not that many people have the ability to care intensely about the dogs and other animals in Ashland who are forced to live on chains. Or for the cats or dogs who are forced to live in travel crates or overcrowded outdoor kennels. To help you understand why I keep coming to meetings to plead for these animals, I ask that you visualize something right now. Picture your own animal--and if you don't have one, imagine you do. Imagine your 01.>/0 animal is chained to a tree in Ashland, unable to get free. Or picture him stuck in a travel crate for much of his life. Would you not come here to meeting after meeting, begging Ashland's Council to set your animal free? If you wouldn't, I think most people here t./ould I.>/onder hal.>' much you love your animal. The only difference with me is that I care about all animals as much as many people care about their ol.>,n animals. I'm doing the same thing you would be doing if this was your own family member. These animals are family members to me, in the sense that they're my spiritual brothers and sisters. My sense of brotherhood extends beyond the human race and embraces animals, too. When my brothers and sisters are suffering on a chain or in a crate or overcrowded kennel, I'll never be truly happy. Thank you.