HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0902 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 2,2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
6:00 p.m. Executive Session to consult with legal council regarding pending litigation pursuant to ORS
192.660(2)(h)
6:45 p.m. Annual General Meeting for Hospital Board and City Council
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. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes]
1. Executive Session of August 4,2008
2. Study Session of August 4,2008
3. Executive Session of August 5, 2008
4. Regular Council of August 5,2008
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Ap'plication from Paul Maurer dba
Harper's at 36 S. 2nd Street?
3. Should the Council tentatively deny the Measure 49 claim for approximately 2i25 acres of W-
R zoned land located at the end of Hitt Road and notify DLCD and the claimants of the
tentative decision?
4. Should the Council delay the discussion of the Transient Occupancy Tax revenue distribution
to the October 6,2008, Study Session to allow the Finance Director to be in attendance?
5. Will Council approve a personal services contract with Hardey Engineering and Associates,
Inc. in the amount of $33,750.00 to design, develop, and implement the Ashland Creek Trunk
Sewer Rehabilitation Project No. 2007 -16?
VIII. 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 92.04.040})
None.
COUNCIL IvlEETINGS ARE BROADCAST L.IVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT 'TIlE CITY OF ASHLAND'S vVEB SITE AT\VvV\V .ASHLAND.OR.US
IX. 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]
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Will the Council approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo Engineers PC and the City of
Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a location for the Talent
Booster Pump Station? [15 Minutes]
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Council accept the recommendations of the Downtown Task Force relating to
employee parking restrictions in the downtown area, proposed changes to the City's sign code
and permissible use of public sidewalk area, and direct City staff to prepare ordinance
language for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council, as
necessary? [30 Minutes]
2. Will the Council direct staff to prepare and transmit a written communication opposing
RVTD's proposed Route 10 modifications significantly limiting the hours that the bus will
complete the East Main Loop? [15 Minutes]
3. Does the Council approve the proposed contract with the Chamber of Commerce for FY
2008-2009 in the amount of $305,OOO? [30 Minutes]
4. Does the Council wish to make an appointment to the Audit Committee of a Budget
Committee member and Council Member/Mayor member for a term to expire April 30, 2009?
[15 Minutes]
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance relating to criminal records information, requiring review of criminal record
information for applicants of employment, volunteers, personal service contractors of the City,
and declaring emergency" and move the ordinance to be passed by emergency? [5 Minutes]
2. Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance relating to parking regulations, allowing use of immobilizing device, authorizing
towing, removing downtown parking limitations, updating and correcting parking processes
and procedures, amending AMC Sections 11.08.080, 11.28.060, 11.28.080, 11.28.090, and
11.28.110, and repealing AMC chapter 11.30 AMC Section 2.28.215" and move the ordinance
on to Second Reading? [5 Minutes]
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
None
XW. 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 (ITY 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).
COUNCILJ\1EETINGS ARE BROADCAS'T LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S \\TEB SITE AI' \VvVW.ASHLAND.OR.US
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 4,2008
Page 1 of3
MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Monday, August 4, 2008
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.
Councilors Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Jackson, and Silbiger were present. Councilor Chapman was absent.
1. Does Council have any questions about the status of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS)
Process or any specific concerns about the draft participant's agreement?
Director of Community Development Bill Molnar provided a general overview of the Participant's
Agreement and its key components. He introduced John Renz, the Southern Oregon Representative of the
DLCD and Michael Quilty, the Chair for the RVMPO.
The overview included:
. Participants' Agreement
. Implementation Techniques
. RPS & Participants' Agreement - Approval Process
. Regional Problem Solving - Next Steps
It was explained that the County will probably not make an exception to increase the standard 50 acres to
100 acres in the Minor Plan Amendment because the 50 acres is a threshold between the Minor and Major
Plan Amendments in the County's Land Use Plan.
City Attorney Richard Appicello explained that the Participants' Agreement is not adopting the plan, only
agreeing to run it through the appropriate Land Use course. It is a perspective Land Use decision that the
County will analyze during their review process.
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained that Council would most likely take the initial action of
resolution and commit to send the agreement through the process. The next step would be to adopt the
Participants' Agreement.
Council discussed and questioned how the population allocation was determined. Mr. Renz explained that
the County has complete discretion on population allocation. Mr. Quilty noted that one of the statements
in the Participants' Agreement is that the County will abide by the proportional allocation of population
within the RPS plan and would make corrections with the next updated population element.
Mr. Quilty further explained that the County would adopt the entire regional plan. Cities would have to
comply with the County Comprehensive Plan that would involve the ongoing monitoring process and
mechanisms that are in place for the appeal process. Monitoring and compliance was kept general for
feasibility. Mr. Quilty said that land use and transportation would take place at the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) level because they meet on a regular basis and update the Regional
Transportation Plan every three years. The technical and policy committees from the RPS will meet as
needed.
2. Does the Council wish to endorse the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative?
Fire Chief Keith Woodley provided an overview on the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project explaining the
Federal Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) chapter review was a special government-to-government
review period. He introduced Tony Kerwin, the Chair of the Ashland Forest Lands Commission, Marty
Main, Ashland City Consulting Forester, Darren Borgias, Staff Ecologist for the Nature Conservancy and
Linda Duffy, District Ranger for the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District.
---m---r ---
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 4, 2008
Page 2 of3
Mr. Kerwin provided an overview of the Ashland Forest Lands Commission Recommendations for
Modification of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Preferred Alternative.
The six recommendations are as follows:
1. Silvicultural Treatments within the Research Natural Area
Explanation on the significant difference of proposed treated acres.
2. Addition of Roadside Treatments Adjacent to US Forest Road 2060
Three options were made available to the City. (1): to endorse the Forest Service Alternative,
(2): endorse the Preferred Alternative with modifications recommended by the Ashland Forest Lands
Commission and (3): endorse the unchanged Community Alternative. A fourth option was proposed
that Council be able to suggest modifications at the August 5, 2008 meeting based on other input that
does not reflect the original compromises.
3. Removal of Diameter Limits in the Roadless Area
It was clarified that the Nature conservancy does not have an official stance on commercial extractions
in roadless areas.
4. Locations and Types of Treatments in Roadless Area
It was explained that fuel breaks on the ridge in roadless areas will not look like regular fuel breaks.
The project allowed the Forest Service to prepare for the maintenance in the original prescription and
to design prescriptions to minimize the amount of maintenance required. There are currently 9.5 miles
of fuel breaks existing above the city. There are approximately 23 miles being treated within the entire
area along the ridgeline.
Concern was voiced regarding the Forest Service's long-term objective in the watershed. It was
explained that the project falls under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and that the community is
highly prone to large-scale catastrophic wild fire.
5. Addition of Strategic Ridgeline Treatments & Canopy Closure
It was explained the plan was to cut fewer trees on the strategic ridgelines, and employ the Community
treatments on other areas and monitor the effect.
6. Sedimentation Issue and DEQ TMDL Standards
An extensive monitoring plan was developed for the whole forum covering each treatment area. A
detailed implementation strategy and monitoring plan will be developed one the project is approved.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Terrence Stenson/172 Alida/Spoke about the toxic effect of large woody debris rotting in the water. That
over time, it will break down into a lethal toxic growth and form bacteria requiring harmful chemicals and
water cannons to correct. He noted the Forest Services concerns regarding catastrophic fire but added they
had not restored water tables in the watershed.
3. Update on status of Reeder Reservoir
Public Works Director Mike Faught and Dr. Jacob Kann from the Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences, LLC.
provided an overview on the current Reeder Reservoir algae bloom.
The overview included:
. Algae type: Blue-green or Cyanobacterial algal species: Anabaena flos-aquae
. Geosmin and 2-methylisobomeiol or MIB
. Chemical Treatment
Staff stated they would provide an update on the algae problem when test results are received.
----nr- T --
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 4, 2008
Page 3 of3
4. Review of regular meeting agenda for August 5, 2008
Consent Agenda Item #2 regarding the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of
Medford, Oregon, for the transfer of ownership of surplus mesh (public safety) communications
equipment.
Information Technology Director Joe Franell explained the moving costs would not exceed $5,000.00, and
they could use in-house labor and the staff Electrician with installation occurring as needed without
affecting the current budget.
New and Miscellaneous Business Item #4 regarding the contract for $15,000 between Carollo
Engineers PC and the City of Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a
location for the Talent Booster Pump Stations.
Public Works Director Mike Faught explained the next steps required in purchasing and setting up a new a
booster station.
5. Look Ahead Review moved to end of agenda
City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Council Look Ahead.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
~~ ~__~u_______ -~ nr ~ T-
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL lHEETlNG
August 5,2008
PAGE J oI8
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 5, 2008
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, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES (None)
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Executive Session of July 15, 2008 and Regular Council of July 15,2008 were approved as
presented. Councilor Jackson abstained, as she was not in attendance at these meetings.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
The Mayor's Proclamation of August 6 and 9 as Hiroshima and Nagasaki Days were read aloud.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement (lGA) with the City of
Medford, Oregon, for the transfer of ownership of surplus mesh (public safety) communications
equipment?
3. Will Council approve an agreement between ODOT and the City of Ashland to fund the
improvement of Plaza Avenue under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
program?
4. Will Council approve an agreement between Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Inc. (CORP)
and the City of Ashland authorizing construction within the railroad right of way at the East Main
Street railroad crossing?
5. Will the City Council approve Amendment 2, Additional Services for Siskiyou Boulevard
Pedestrian Safety Review to be added as a part of the HDR Contract for the Transportation System
Plan (TSP) Update?
6. Will Council approve a contract amendment with Copeland Construction, LLC to expand the scope
of work and increase the contract amount by $43,346.00 or 860/0 over the original contract for the
2007 Miscellaneous Concrete Construction Project No. 2006-34?
7. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to entering in to a public
contract for $81,066.45 with Pathways Enterprises, a Qualified Rehabilitation Facility (QRF), to
provide Citywide janitorial services for the fiscal year 2008-2009?
8. Should Council approve a resolution adjusting the FY 2008-2009 Budget to create appropriations
and authorize expenditure of asset forfeiture revenues received in conjunction with the City's
participation in the regional drug enforcement program and a grant for firefighter protective
clothing?
9. Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational
expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law?
10. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Special Procurement for a
class of services - WTP, EP A Mandated Water Quality Testing and WWTP, DEQ Mandated Waste
Water Effluent Testing - for a period of three (3) years beginning July 1,2008 to June 30, 2012?
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL l\4EETlNG
August 5, 2008
PAGE 2 of8
Councilor Hartzell requested that Consent Agenda item #8 be pulled for discussion.
Councilors Chapman/Jackson mls to approve Consent Agenda items #1-#7 and #9 and #10. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed.
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg clarified the memo regarding appropriations for the Regional
Drug Enforcement Program that referred to protective clothing and not the CER T Grant.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to approve Consent Agenda item #8. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Will Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a quitclaim deed to relinquish a public
pedestrian walkway easement at 99 Granite Street?
City Engineer Jim Olson presented the staff report that included the background on the pedestrian walkway
easement. He explained that the lots were created in 1993 and he presented the findings that explained the
creation of the easement and the supporting evidence in favor of the request to terminate it.
Public Hearing Open: 7:14 p.m.
Mark Knox/485 W NevadalExplained he was there to answer questions and reaffirmed the staff report and
the Council Communication.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:15 p.m.
Councilor Jackson/Chapman mls to approve quitclaim deed. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Silbiger,
Hartzell, Chapman, Navickas, Hardesty and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.
2. Will the Council approve increases to the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges and approve a
Resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting Miscellaneous Fees for Service Where Necessary"?
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report and explained the proposed fees. It
was clarified that the fees presented by the City Recorder's Office were not an increase, but reflected current
fees.
Public Hearing Open: 7:19 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:19 p.m.
Councilor Chapman/Silbiger mls to approve Resolution #2008-29. Roll Call Vote: Councilors
Chapman, Hardesty, Navickas, Jackson, Hartzell and Silbiger YES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
Ambuja Rosen/Spoke regarding tethering laws and the time limits associated with them. She made
suggestions on how dog owners can obtain affordable fencing.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Does the Council wish to approve an order authorizing a lease of real property to the Ashland Gun
Club?
Councilor Chapman/Silbiger mls to approve an order to City Council authorizing a lease of property to
the Ashland Gun Club.
DISCUSSION: City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified that the Environmental Professional hired by the
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCiL lUEETlNG
August 5, 2008
PAGE 30[8
, City will conduct the assessment and will create the Management Plan for the property. He further explained
that the City would produce a Request for Proposal (RFP) and define contract criteria for the Environmental
Consultant.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas mls to amend motion by adding the following to Section 4.5(4): "for clean
up to residential standards" following sentence "developing feasible remediation options."
DISCUSSION: It was suggested that the lease be more specific regarding clean up and that it should meet
residential standards. It was considered unrealistic to require residential clean up standards throughout the life
of the lease but feasible at termination.
Councilor Hartzell withdrew the motion with consent by Councilor Navickas.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas mls to amend motion by adding into Section 12.3(1) the following: "for
residential properties" in first sentence following "in excess of permissible levels."
DISCUSSION: It was discussed whether requiring residential clean up standards at termination was feasible.
There was concern that Council was turning the lease into an environmental assessment document while others
thought it was reasonable to have clean up expectations at the termination of the lease.
City Attorney Richard Appicello explained that the property zoning was part forest and open space reserve.
Tl).e CitY has not sought a zone change to residential property and the current language stating permissible
levels were based on other restrictions on the property. Changing the zone to residential would allow one house
on the 66-acre property. He stated that it would be legal to require the residential clean up standard at the
termination of the lease.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell, Navickas, Hardesty and Silbiger, YES: Councilors Chapman and
Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Continued discussion on amended motion: It was suggested to add "financial necessity" to Article 1,
Definitions, under item 6, Emergency. City Attorney Richard Appicello explained that using the word
"necessity" would be hard to define and offered examples of when the emergency clause could be used and
joined with Financial Loss. Financial loss would apply if the City were fined. The word "contamination" in
the lease would cover circumstances where the City incurred total clean up costs.
It was suggested to add "and complete within a maximum time period of 5 years with specific time frame to be
defined by the Environmental Assessment," to the sentence, "Lessee shall begin an initial lead removal
operation on the Premises within the first eighteen (18) months of lease signing" in Section 4.3.
Councilor Navickas/Jackson m/s to amend motion to include into Section 4.3 the following: "complete
within a maximum time period of five years with a specified time frame to be defined by the
Environmental Assessment" under Section 4.5. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell, Chapman,
Navickas, Jackson, Hardesty and Silbiger YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Hardesty/Hartzell m/s to amend motion to move "as approved by Council" from the end of
the sentence to follow "timelines of the management plan." Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell,
Chapman, Navickas, Jackson, Hardesty and Silbiger YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Hardesty/Hartzell m/s to amend motion to include the following: "including 3-5 year clean up
intervals." Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell, Navickas and Hardesty YES, Councilors Chapman,
Jackson and Silbiger NO. Mayor Morrison, NO. Motion fails 4-3.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL l'vlEETlNG
August 5, 2008
PAGE 4 oI8
Councilor Hardesty/ mls to amend motion to include into Section 4.3 the following: "3-5 year clean up
intervals as a minimum."
DISCUSSION: City Attorney Richard Appicello explained that the language in the motion was similar to
what was currently in the lease. City Administrator Martha Bennett offered the following alternative language:
"at intervals of at least every five years."
Councilor Hardesty withdrew motion.
Councilor Hardesty/Navickas mls to amend motion to include into Section 4.3 the following: After
EP A's Best Practices, "including clean up at intervals of at least every five years."
DISCUSSION: It was suggested to add "including clean up" prior to "at intervals of at least every five years."
Councilor Hardesty agreed to add "including clean up" to the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell, Chapman, Navickas, Jackson, Hardesty and Silbiger YES. Motion
passed.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to amend motion to include into Section 4.5, #4 the following: "a
. management plan" between developing and feasible and add "prevention" between remediation and
options.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman noted that the four points in Section 4.5 are the minimal points to
consider when doing an environmental assessment and that the management plan follows the environmental
assessment and is separate from the plan. Councilor Hartzell agreed to withdraw the motion if language was
added that specifically stated that the City would be responsible for developing a management plan. Councilor
Jackson voiced concern that Council was over defining the terms and that it might make the lease harder to
enforce.
Councilor Hartzell withdrew the motion with consent by Councilor Jackson.
Councilor Hartzell motioned to amend motion to include into Section 4.5, #3 the following: Add a
period after "notifying Lessor and the appropriate regulatory body as required." New sentence to read:
"The City will develop and adopt a management plan with feasible remediation and prevention options
that includes timeframes, costs, ongoing monitoring and removal from entire property." Strike the
following language: "The management plan must be approved by Council."
Motion dies for lack of second.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to amend motion to include into Section 4.3, paragraph 2, line 5, the
following: "The City will develop and adopt a management plan that at a minimum identifies
remediation, prevention and control strategies."
DISCUSSION: It was suggested to add "at a minimum," following, "management plan". Councilor Hartzell
agreed to add the language to the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell, Chapman, Navickas, Jackson, Hardesty and Silbiger YES. Motion
passed.
Councilor Chapman/Hartzell mls to adopt the revised legal property description of August 4, 2008.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell suggested adding that the Gun Club is accountable for any contamination
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 5, 2008
PAGE 5 of8
that may have occurred in the Riparian Corridor due to Club activity and exclude the Riparian Corridor from
the lease after the clean up, if needed, occurred.
Assistant City Attorney Megan Thornton said that adding the Riparian Corridor in Exhibit D to Article 1.
Definitions, 11) Premises, would allow the City to maintain control over those areas.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman and Hardesty YES: Councilor
Hartzell NO. Motion passed 5-1.
City Attorney Richard Appicello suggested adding the following to Section 4.5 at the end of the paragraph:
"After clean up of the Riparian area or earlier, upon written request of the City, the Riparian area will be
removed from the lease premises by formal amendment."
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to amend motion and add the following: "After clean up of the
Riparian area or earlier, upon written request of the City, the Riparian area will be removed from the
lease premises by formal amendment." Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell,
Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman YES. Motion passed.
Councilor JacksonlNavickas m/s to amend motion and change the location of the following sentence:
"If lead is discovered in the Riparian zones, then a plan will be developed to be approved by the
Community Development Department Director that will address lead removal, disposal, and restoration
of the Riparian zones," to the next to the last sentence in the paragraph under Section 4.5. Roll Call
Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to amend motion and add the following sentence: "a maximum to
four times per year," to "The Ashland Police Department may utilize the shooting ranges outside of the
standard hours of operation for specialized training." Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas,
Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman YES: Councilors Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman NO. Mayor
Morrison broke the tie vote with a NO. Motion fails 4-3.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to amend motion and change the last sentence in Section 4.3 as
follows: "It is the intention of the Lessor and Lessee that compliance with the management plan during
the term of the agreement will make posting of financial security unnecessary."
DISCUSSION: City Attorney Richard Appicello explained that the original sentence was a summary of the
paragraph and not necessary.
Council Hartzell withdrew the motion with consent by Councilor Jackson.
Councilor ChapmanlSilbiger m/s to approve an order to City Council authorizing a lease of property to
the Ashland Gun Club as amended. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Navickas, Jackson, Hardesty
and Silbiger YES: Councilor Hartzell NO. Motion passed 5-1.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Will the Council reject the initiated measure which requires food establishments post grade based
on health services and submit the initiated measure to the voters on November 4, 2008?
City Recorder Barbara Christensen presented the staff report on the proposed initiated measure and explained
that the measure had met all the required election laws and that the Chief Petitioner had presented the required
number of signatures to place it before the Council for their consideration. She stated that the Council options
were to either accept or reject the initiated measure. That accepting the measure would mean adoption of the
first reading of an ordinance and by rejecting it, would place it before the voters at the next election which is
the November 2008 General Election. She stated that staff was not making a recommendation as this was a
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 5, 2008
PAGE 6 oI8
decision that needed to be made by the Council.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
John Jory/188 Sunnyview/Explained that administration costs would be minimal after the inspection with
fewer than 250 grade cards distributed per year. He suggested passive enforcement and explained that only
10% of Ashland restaurants receive low grades. He spoke of a daily fine that the City could act on when
financially feasible. Restaurants could request a new inspection within a couple of weeks for $250-$350 to
change the grade sooner than waiting for the next scheduled inspection.
Drew Bailey/455 N Laurel/Explained he was the Regional Representative for the Restaurant Association.
He reminded Council that they had previously opposed a similar proposal two years ago. He affirmed that the
restaurant community strongly opposed the initiative. He concluded that as an Ashland taxpayer, he would
rather see his money go to hiring more police officers or fund a fire station. He requested the initiative go to
the voters.
Michelle Glass/212 E Main Street/Explained that she was the Food and Beverage Director at the Ashland
Springs Hotel. She stated one issue with the initiative was the cost to the City of Ashland and Ashland
taxpayers to duplicate an already existing, fully transparent and funded system. Another issue was that the
grading system would not protect the public from food born illness. A low score may not pertain to food born
related illnesses and a high score facility could have significant food handling problems. Ashland's restaurant
community would support a system that ensures food safety but the proposed measure did not provide that.
She requested that the initiative go to the voters.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to reject the citizens measure in order to place it before the voters.
DISCUSSION: Council shared support for the measure to go to the voters. Mayor voiced his opposition to
the measure as having logistical drawbacks. It would cost the City money in materials, ensuring correct grades
were posted, and might require hiring additional staff. It would also put the City between Jackson County
Food Inspectors and restaurant owners with the City having little control over County rules.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Silbiger, Hardesty, Jackson and Chapman YES: Councilors Hartzel and
Navickas NO. Motion passed 4-2.
2. Which four legislative priorities would the City Council select as the top priorities for the League of
Oregon Cities (LOC) during the 2009 session of the Oregon Legislature?
Mayor Morrison explained that Council needed to prioritize four items from a list of 24 issues for the Oregon
League of Cities to address in the upcoming Legislative session.
Councilor m/s to select Item E, Item G, Item Q, and Item U as top priorities for the LOC during the
2009 legislature.
No action was taken on the motion due to time constraints.
3. Does the Council wish to endorse the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) Project Preferred
Alternative?
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Tony Kerwin/350 W Nevada/Explained he was the Chair of the Ashland Forest Lands Commission and
provided an overview on the six differences doucmented in the Ashland Forest Lands Commission
Recommedations for the Modification of the AFR Project Preferred Alternative.
Darren Borgias/503 Strawberry Lane/Explained he was the Staff Ecologist for the Nature Conservancy. He
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL l\4EETlNG
August 5, 2008
PAGE 70f8
said the watershed is threatened by potentially large fires because it has not had a fire for a century. The APR
Project would reduce the imminent threat of severe fire and help protect the natural values of the watershed
functions by carefully removing young trees in strategic sites. He encouraged Council to endorse the plan.
Chris Chambers/590 Elizabeth Ave/Explained he was a member of the Ashland Forest Resiliency
Community Alternative Technical (APRCA T) team. He noted that the Community Alternative focuses more
on forest health than forest services. He added there was no road building associated with the project even
though there would be treatments in roadless areas and possible commercial extraction. He clarified that the
number of helipads would be far less than the 31 discussed at the Study Session. He encouraged Council to
endorse the plan.
Marty Main/2779 Camp Baker, Medford/Commented on the collaborative effort that had gone into the
project and how they had tried to adhere to the Community Alternatives as much as possible and did not feel
the original intent had been changed in a significant way.
Terrence Stenson/172 Alida/Noted that the report did not include water table restoration in the drought
stricken watershed. The restoration of riparian water tables in the tributary streams of the watershed should be
the primary goal of the Forest Services response to the danger of catastrophic fire in the watershed. He
explained the toxic hazards that occur when wood is put into streams and noted that 4 times in Chapter 8 ofthe
APRCA report; there is mention of putting woody materials into streams. He stressed that the entire watershed
will turn anaerobic if the report is implemented.
Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to endorse the US Forest Service Preferred Alternative for the AFR
project and encourage the Forest Service to consider the modifications proposed by the Ashland Forest
Lands Commission and to continue to engage our community members as the plan moves forward.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to amend the motion with the recommendations of the Forest Lands
Commission to retain the Community Alternatives recommendation for non-commercial under story
treatment in the roadless area with 7-inch diameter base limit. In recommendation #3, to hold the
Community Alternatives recommendation for diameter limits in the roadless area.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty expressed concern regarding the time frame to make a decision when
Council still had questions they wanted to discuss. Councilor Jackson suggested moving the motion forward
with the knowledge that Council could come back with comments and questions later. Councilor Silbiger said
he did not want to second-guess the Forest Land Commissions recommendations. Councilor Chapman stated
he would not support the amendment. Councilor Navickas urged the Council to table the amendment and
motion for further discussion.
Councilor Hartzell/N avickas m/s to table the amendment.
No action was taken on the motion due to time constraints.
4. Will the Council approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo Engineers PC and the City of
Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a location for the Talent Booster
Pump Station?
No action due to time constraints.
ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 10.46, Prohibiting Camping, Revising Penalties, Clarifying and Amending
Timeframes and Procedures, and Other Requirements" and move the ordinance on to second
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL l1,lEETlNG
August 5, 2008
PAGE 8 0.f8
reading?
No action due to time constraints.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
-----------
/--"
'-;J
/"/
ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION
July 1,2008
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: RICHARD HENDRICKSON, RUSS SILBIGER, LINCOLN ZEVE, DAVID
WOLSKE, ALAN DEBOER, TOM BRADLEY, BILL SKILLMAN, GOA LOBAUGH
STAFF: SCOTT FLEURY
MEMBERS ABSENT: BRITTANY WISE, BOB SKINNER
Visitors: Larry Graves
1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 6, 2008, minutes approved as written.
3. Public Forum: No Public Forum comments
4. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Fuel Flowage Surcharge: Commission still interested in raising fuel flowage surcharge in order to
help pay of fuel tank debt. Fleury to check on remaining balance for fuel tanks along with a history of
the monthly fuel consumption at the Airport.
B. Noise Sensitive Area Map: No known problems or issues came up to Council regarding the map and
newspaper article in the Tidings. Fleury reports the map is ready to be printed and will work with Lea
Light from the City G.I.S. Department to print map out to correct size and folding pattern. After
printing is complete Fleury to work on getting .pdf version of map uploaded onto City Commission
webpage for downloading. Commission would also like Skinner to add blurb into monthly bill when
new map is available.
C. West Jackson St.: No new complaint issues have developed and Commission considers this issue
over.
D. AlP Project List: Commission has a concern over Grant application deadlines for projects and would
like Fleury to research dates and monies available for Airport improvements. The previous parking lot
reconstruction and SuperAwos project is complete and The City of Ashland has received money for
the project. The next set of projects for AlP include runway overlay, new taxiway and PAPI's to
replace existing V ASI lights. Also Commission would like to have a yellow taxi-way stripe laid
down: Fleury to research and work with street crew to stripe taxi-ways.
E. Tregg Scott commission application: Scott had interview with Mayor and is awaiting Council
approval to become newest member of Airport Commission.
5. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Lease Development Update: Lindner Lease was written by Legal and reviewed by Lindner.
Airport Commission to receive and review Lease Documents at next meeting. Legal is currently
working on the Burl Brim Lease and will then move onto the Skinner Lease.
B. Airport Day Review: Airport Day was a success but safety is a concern due to a taxi-way
incursion between a parked aircraft and a moving aircraft. Commission agreed that safety is a
priority and needs to be addressed before the next Airport Appreciation Day. Hendrickson would
like the Commission to put together a subcommittee to outline safety precautions for the next
Airport Day. Wolske mentions that each aircraft with a spinning prop should have a marshal
watching it and controlling the crowd in the vicinity.
C. Meteorlogix Weather System: Final bill of 318.00 has been paid and service with Meteorlogix
has been terminated.
D. Stand Alone Computer System: Commission members who have used the new system for
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\July 1 2008.doc 1
---nr--T-
weather reports state that it works fine and are pleased with it. Icons are set on desktop for
various weather related sites.
6. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION:
A. Status of Airport. Financial Report. Review of Safety Reports
B. Maintenance Updates - Peters installed first hanger number on DeBoer Hanger. Commission to
review initial number sign and approve or recommend changes at next meeting.
7. OTHER:
The meeting of the JC airport commission is the third Monday of the month at 12:00 PM.
8. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 5, 2008, 9:30 AM
ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 10:45 AM
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\July 1 2008.doc
2
Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission
June 19th, 2008 Regular Minutes
Roll Call:
Chair David Young, Vice Chair Julia Sommer,
Secretary Jim Olney, Steve Ryan, Tom Burnham (absent)
Council Liaison:
Kate Jackson and David Chapman
Staff:
Rachel Teige, Parks Department Recreation Superintendent
Steve McLennan, Police Officer
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
RVTD liaisons:
Paige Townsend, RVTD Senior Planner (absent)
High school liaison: Vacant
SOU liaison:
Eve Woods
Call to Order
Chair Young called the meeting to order at 5: 16 p.m.
Approval of Minutes - Mav 15th, 2008
The minutes were approved as presented.
Introductions
City Councilor Kate Jackson, the new City Council liaison to the Commission was introduced.
Jenna Stanke, Jackson County's new Special Projects Coordinator, was also introduced. It was
noted that Stanke replaces Karen Smith, and is staffing the County's Bicycle Advisory
Committee. Stanke explained that she was formerly with the Rogue Valley Council of
Governments and worked extensively on the extension of the Greenway from Central Point to
Grants Pass. Stanke briefly discussed the Bicycle Advisory Committee, her work on the
Greenway to extend the trail along the Rogue River, the status of the Barnett Road crossing, and
her hope to work more closely with the Commission in the future.
Public Forum
Dr. Gary McGraw/423 Lit Way discussed his recent accident on the Greenway and noted his
concern with the use ofbollards as a way to restrict motor vehicle access. He emphasized that he
wanted to bring awareness to this topic as a risk management issue, and added that it is even
more of a concern for night commuters due to lack of lighting on the bikepath. He noted that in
Chico, California, an experienced rider hit a bollard and is now paralyzed. He added that he
hopes this will be considered in future Greenway work, including that associated with Verde
Village. He urged the Commission to consider a safer bollard design, other means to restrict
motor vehicle access, and better signage. He suggested that bollard could be removed and
signage could have the same effect. Stanke suggested considering some form of rumble strip in
advance of the bollards.
2008-0619 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 1 of3
Subcommittee & Liaison Reports
Woods discussed her efforts tabling at the University's Raider Day, where she spoke to more
than 100 students about bicycle and pedestrian safety. She noted that the Traffic Safety
Commission staff had generously provided great brochures to assist with this effort, and she
discussed the Ad Hoc Siskiyou Safety Committee. She indicated that she was working to have
an orientation program on campus safety.
Severson provided a staff update on the Ad Hoc Siskiyou Safety Commission, the Transit Open
House, and the Wheeldon Memorial.
Sommer discussed the effectiveness of the rumble strips on Siskiyou Boulevard and suggested
that more might be useful. Ryan discussed pedestrian behavior and the need to increase bus
service to address evenings and weekends.
Severson noted that Egon Dubois of the BT A had made a request that the Commission express
its support to the Parks Foundation to reimburse "Kidical Mass" printing costs. It was explained
that the Kidical Mass event is an extension of the bicycle safety education program in local
schools that gives children and their parents and opportunity to ride together in traffic, and that
Dubois has been paying the printing cost for promotional materials out of his own pocket since
the event began in April. After consideration, members expressed their support for reimbursing
this expense out of Bike Swap bicycle safety education funds through the Parks Foundation.
Ryan discussed Car Free Day planning, noting that the planning at this stage included a two
week-long bike commute challenge, with an Oak Street event and street closure from 4:00 to
7:00 on Monday and street cafe by Standing Stone. He noted that there would be live music, and
that the event planning was moving ahead. Severson noted that the City Administrator had
approved the recommendation that the City be the sponsor for this event, and that Ryan's role
was as Commission liaison. Severson added that the event planning would not be a regular
agenda item, but that Ryan could provide updates as liaison or bring requests back to the
Commission as needed.
Rachel Teige, Parks Department Recreation Superintendent and Tracy Harding, Bike Swap
Coordinator, gave a debriefing of this year's Bike Swap event. Teige noted that Harding had
coordinated this year's event, and noted that the event was the most successful in the four years
that the Parks Department has been involved, with 207 pieces of equipment sold and sales of
approximately $18,000. Attendance was up by more than 100, there were twice as many
vendors, and 75 volunteers. This generated roughly $3,100 to the Bike Swap fund for bicycle
safety education, and Teige noted that with carryover the fund balance was approximately
$11,000. Severson noted that there would be a request for payment coming shortly from the
BT A for this year's bicycle safety education classes which would significantly reduce that
balance. Teige stated that they will be ordering more lights, helmets and pedometers as all sold
well at the event. It was noted that there may be a minimum charge per bike next year as there
were a lot of lower quality bikes sold this year, and the event may be shortened by one hour.
Teige and Harding discussed the promotion, noting that a new staff person in Parks and the
Coordinator position helped with outreach efforts. It was noted that the Safety Chicken had been
on hand for the event, as at Earth Day. Harding explained that left-over bikes went to Goodwill,
2008-0619 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 2 of3
---nr~--.
the Ashland Community Bike Program, Migrant HeadStart, or were sold as scrap metal
depending on their type and condition. Teige concluded with a recommendation that at least
$2,000 be retained in the Bike Swap fund to cover the coordinator salary, promotion, and the
cost of helmets, lights and pedometers.
Transportation Commission
Members discussed the possible creation of a Transportation Commission, noting that the details
of the transition from two Commissions (Bicycle & Pedestrian and Traffic Safety) to one
(Transportation) needed to be clearly addressed. Chapman emphasized the need to clearly
address transit as a priority, and suggested that the Commission's relationship to the Planning
Commission and planning process needed to be clear. He also suggested formalizing a liaison
relationship with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Severson explained that it was
staff s intent to have the Commission involved in the planning process at the pre-application
level - this would provide advanced notice of actions which the Commission might have
concerns with and provide opportunity to comment while not tying up each meeting with land
use hearings. Jackson noted that the 120-day rule, which requires a final decision from the city
within 120-days of the submission of a complete land use application, drives the planning
process and dictates the timeframe allowed for commission participation in decisions. She added
that after considering this, the Housing Commission recently determined that the pre-application
process was the most appropriate place to be involved in the process. Members expressed
unanimous support for the creation of a Transportation Commission, noting the importance to
maintain support for the established bicycle safety education program and partnership with the
Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BT A).
New Business
None.
Aaenda Items for Next Month
Members noted the need to further discuss bollards on the Greenway.
Adiournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
2008-0619 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 3 of3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
June 10, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Dotterrer called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg
Dave Dotterrer
Michael Church
Staff Present:
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Hearings Board Minutes of May 13, 2008 will be approved at June 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00741
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 135 Susan Lane
APPLICANT: Milo Shubat
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 21 % square foot addition to an existing
residence located at 135 Susan Lane and to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area for a single-family
dwelling in the Historic District by approximately 20 percent. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-
Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 05 DO; TAX LOT: 8102
No discussion. Action stands as approved.
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00731
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 358 High Street/60 Wimer Street
APPLICANT: Mark and Elizabeth Schoenleber
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a three-unit (includes owner's quarters) Traveler's
Accommodation for the property located at 358 High Street and 60 Wimer Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2 ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 05 DO; TAX
LOTS: 3700 & 3800
No discussion. Action stands as approved.
C. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00594
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 954 Siskiyou Blvd.
APPLICANT: Gregory Adams
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for an office use in and R-2 zone,
with an apartment upstairs for the property located at 954 Siskiyou Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2 ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 09 DO; TAX
LOT: 100
No discussion. Action stands as approved.
Page 1 of 2
D. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00813
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Water Street Bridge/Overpass
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Governmental Sign Conditional Use Permit for the installation of artwork on the
underside of the Oregon Dept of Transportation bridge/overpass located within the right of way between the
properties addressed as 51 Water St and 96 North Main St. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial ZONING: C-1 ASSESSOR'S MAP#: TAX LOT: N/A - Located within ODOT Public right of way
No discussion. Action stands as approved.
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks reminded the commissioners that this was the last Hearings Board Meeting prior to the
amended Land Use Ordinance taking effect. He clarified the Hearings Board would be convened only as needed from this
point forward.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 1 :35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JULY 8, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Dotterrer called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg
Michael Dawkins
Michael Church
Staff Present:
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Stromberg announced the June 10, 2008 Hearings Board minu~es would be approved at tonight's Planning Commission
meeting.
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00762
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 146 & 156 Clear Creek
OWNER/APPLICANT: BSR LLC
DESCRIPTION: Site Review approval for two, attached wall 3-story mixed-use commercial and residential
buildings. The two buildings comprise approximately 5,500 square feet. The ground floor of each building will
be office and the upper two floors residential space. Two residential units are proposed in the development.
The site is located in the Detail Site Review Zone, and is subject to the Detail Site Review Standards.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 09BA; TAX
LOTS: 14704 & 14705
No discussion. Action stands as approved.
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00654
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 508 Tucker
APPLICANT: David Oas & Lyn Owens
DESCRIPTION: Request for a two-lot Minor Land Partition approval for the property located at 508 Tucker. The
new parcel will front on Thornton Way.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39
1 E 05BD; TAX LOTS: 1801
No discussion. Action stands as approved.
C. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00596
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 W Fork Street
APPLICANT: Ashley Jensen
DESCRIPTION: Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of hillside lands
including severe constraints land. The proposal is to construct a new single-family residential home, the
associated excavation for utility installations and driveway construction. The application also includes an
Administrative Variance for the height of the retaining wall along the north property line to exceed the allowed
five-foot height limit. Property is located at 165 W. Fork.
Page 1 of 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39
1E 09BC; TAX LOTS: 3600
Assistant Planner Amy Anderson requested the Board review the Historic Commission recommendations. She explained
applying these recommendations could cause significant changes to the application and therefore affect staff's approval. Ms.
Anderson noted the applicant's planner and architect have not had the opportunity to review the recommendations submitted
by the Historic Commission.
Church noted he has questions regarding the retaining wall issue and commented that this lot is almost un-developable. He
suggested this item come back before the Hearings Board as a Type II application, which would allow the applicant and their
architect time to review the Historic Commission's recommendations and work with staff. Stromberg noted this lot was
grandfathered in and voiced support for having the applicant go back and work with staff.
Commissioners Church/Dawkins m1s for this application come back to the Hearings Board as a Type II application on
the next. available agenda. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Church and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 3-0.
D. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00925
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 872 B Street
APPLICANT: Dan Heller and Mary Beth Burton
DESCRIPTION: Site Review approval for a 390 square foot addition to the second story of an existing residence
that is part of a multi-family development located at 872 B Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-
Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2 ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 09AC; TAX LOTS: 200'
No discussion. Action stands as approved.
E. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00907
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 33 Morse Street
APPLICANT: Polly Hodges
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit intensification of use of an existing non-conforming
garage located at 33 Morse. The proposal is to convert the garage into an addition to the existing home.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S
MAP #: 39 1 E 09AD; TAX LOTS: 5800
Assistant Planner Amy Anderson noted the Historic Commission's recommendations for this application should not be difficult
for the applicant to meet and would not affect any other code requirements. She clarified the applicant was present at the
Historic Commission meeting and is aware of the recommendations.
Action stands as approved.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00910
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 303 & 323 Oak Street
APPLICANT: Barry Peckham
DESCRIPTION: Minor land partition to divide the property at 303 Oak Street into two lots with one lot being a
flag lot. The flag lot would share a driveway with the property at 323 Oak Street. The application includes a
Variance request to reduce the required setback from 20 feet to 13 feet, a Variance request to reduce the
required parking from 5 spaces to 3 spaces, and a Variance request to not pave the flag driveway. The applicant
includes a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for one parking space to encroach into
the area designated as Flood Plain Corridor by the Land Use Ordinance. The application also includes a Tree
Removal Permit for the removal of 3 trees, a 15-inch diameter-at-breast-height walnut tree, a 6-inch diameter-at-
breast-height cherry tree, and a 6-inch diameter-at-breast-height mimosa tree.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S
MAP #: 391E 04CC; TAX LOTS: 5900 & 6000
Church read aloud the public hearing procedure for land use hearings.
Page 2 of 3
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Stromberg indicated he performed a site visit, but had no ex parte contact. Church stated he went past the site, but has not
been on the property. Dawkins stated he is familiar with the site.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Angela Barry presented the staff report. She stated the property is approximately 12,000 sq. ft in size, it is
zoned R-2, and is located in the Railroad Historic District and the Riparian Protection Zone. Ms. Barry explained the applicant
is requesting a minor land partition to divide the property into two lots, with one being a flag lot. She stated the flag lot would
share a driveway with the property at 323 Oak Street and the application includes the following variance requests:
1) Reduce the required setback from 20 ft. to 13 ft. in order to shift the building envelope away from the riparian area at the
back of the property and maintain the historic property in the front.
2) Reduce the required parking from 5 spaces to 3 spaces. Ms. Barry clarified the proposal would still be an improvement
over the current parking situation.
3) A variance request to not pave the flag driveway, which would allow them to preserve the tree.
Ms. Barry noted the applicant is also requesting a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit to remove three trees on the
lot. She indicated staff is recommending approval with the proposed conditions.
Applicants Presentation
Mark Knox/700 Mistletoe Rd, Suite 204lStated this application is not as complex as it sounds. He explained the applicant
does not want to damage the historic integrity of the site and commented on a few of the elements of the application. Mr. Knox
spoke to the current parking situation and stated this proposal would solve that problem. He also commented on the paving
variance for the flag driveway, and explained this would save the Cedar tree located between the two houses.
Barry Peckham/303 Oak Street/Stated that he is the applicant and has owned this property for 30 years. Mr. Peckham noted
that he has collaborated with his neighbor on this project and stated he intends to build his last home on this property. He
clarified it would be a one-story home and would be as energy efficient as possible.
Public Testimonv
None
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Church/Dawkins m/s to approve PA 2008-00910 with the conditions proposed by staff. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Church, Dawkins, and Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 3-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
July 8, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East
Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Debbie Miller
Michael Church
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Assistant Planner Angela Barry
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer, excused
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, arrived at 8:20 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioners Miller/Dimitre m/s to approve agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes.
2. June 24, 2008 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes.
Commissioners Church/Dimitre m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00359
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 265 North Main Street
APPLICANT: Lithia Arts Guild
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a portion of the former Briscoe Elementary
School building and the surrounding grounds to be used for individual artists' workspaces and community
events. The application requests permanent approval for a yearly event that was previously approved on a
temporary basis. The applicant is requesting to host 11 additional events per year in addition to the previously
approved event. The application also includes a Type II Variance to parking to allow the parking for events to be
off-site in the adjacent neighborhood. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family
Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 05 DO; TAX LOT: 2500
Stromberg read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Page 1 of 4
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Miller, Morris, Marsh, Dimitre, Church, Mindlin, Dawkins and Stromberg all reported no ex parte contact.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Angela Barry provided a brief overview of the application and clarified the applicant has requested the public
hearing be re-opened in order to submit new conditions that respond to the concerns expressed at the last hearing. The new
conditions submitted by the applicant were summarized as the following:
1) The annual outdoor events would be limited to the Midsummers Dream event, the First Nations Day event, and a
maximum of two other one-day events.
2) The Midsummers Dream event would be permitted between the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturday, and 11 a.m. to
5 p.m. on Sunday. Sound amplification at this event will not exceed 95 decibels between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., and 75
decibels between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. A sound technician will be required to be present to ensure the event complies with
these requirements.
3) Sound amplification at the First Nations Day will be limited to single speakers and will not be audible more than 250 ft.
from the site. There will be no amplification of music or drumming.
4) The two, one-cfay events will be limited to a maximum of 350 attendees, the events will conclude at 6 p.m., and there will
be no sound amplification or drumming permitted.
5) Indoor events open to the public will be limited to a maximum of 5 weekend events and 12 evening events per year.
6) The Guild will deliver notice to each residence within two blocks of the site 60 days prior to the Midsummer s Dream and
First Nations Day events, along with notice that the Guild will provide traffic barricades, upon request, to those residents
who wish to protect the parking spaces in front of their homes.
7) The Guild will arrange for traffic and parking direction during the Midsummers Dream and First Nations Day events.
Ms. Barry recommended Condition 6 proposed by the applicant be amended to read "The Guild will provide traffic barricades,
upon request, to residents who wish to protect their driveway entrances. Barricades shall not be used to block on-street
parking." She also recommended the following language be added to Condition 7, "The applicant shall submit a traffic
control plan for review and approval by the Ashland Engineering Department prior to implementing any traffic control
measures on City of Ashland public right-of-ways. All traffic control measures are subject to City of Ashland
standards and must be according to the approved traffic control plan." Ms. Barry noted the applicant has requested
permanent approval, and if the Commission feels this is appropriate, they should strike Condition 9. Mr. Molnar clarified if they
are granted permanent approval, and the applicant wished to add an event, that would be considered a modification to the
CUP and it would have to come back before the Planning Commission.
. Applicants Presentation
Jim Young/1102 Holton Rd, Talent/Chair of the Lithia Arts Guild/Commented on the work that was done following the
public hearing to reach an agreement with the concerned neighbors. He commented on their relationship with the Methodist
Church and clarified the church has not expressed any concerns with them starting at 11 a.m. on Sundays. Mr. Young noted
the condition regulating decibel levels and explained these were determined after observing the levels at this year's
Midsummers Dream event. He commented briefly on possible traffic control measures and gave an example of how fencing is
used at the Saturday markets in Eugene. Mr. Young noted their request for permanent approval and stated they would prefer
to not have to come back annually. He reminded the Commission of the Guild's relationships with the School Board and the
Methodist Church, and recommended they not be required to draw up a formal parking agreement with the church.
Public Testimonv
Bev Thurston/103 S. Laurel/Noted she lives directly across the street from the site and stated they have worked very hard to
reach this agreement and find solutions that will work for the whole neighborhood. She noted they were able to gather decibel
measurements at the recent Midsummers Dream event and explained the sound technician used a meter to gather this
information. Ms. Thurston commented on the 60 day noticing requirement and stated this would provide neighbors adequate
notice if they wished to go out of town. She stated a traffic control plan is a wonderful idea and voiced her support for granting
permanent approval, so long as the applicant complies with the conditions.
Rebuttal bv the Applicant
Jim Young/Stated they are willing to develop the traffic control plan recommended by staff, and thanked the Briscoe
neighborhood for hosting these events.
Page 2 of 4
Stromberg announced the public hearing and the record were now closed.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Church/Dawkins m/s to approve PA 2008-00359, 265 North Main Street, with the staff recommended
condition corrections. DISCUSSION: Dawkins suggested modifying Condition 10 to state if the church issues a complaint
about the parking situation, this would trigger a violation of the CUP. Stromberg questioned to how to structure the condition to
make this enforceable. Marsh noted there is letter of cooperation in the record from the church, and suggested the condition
state "should the church rescind their letter of cooperation, it will trigger a review of the application" or something similar.
Mindlin recommended they eliminate Condition 9 regarding periodic review of the CUP. Marsh suggested they strike Condition
13 and rewrite Condition 6 to read, IThe Guild will deliver a notice to each residence within the parking impact area, at least 30
days prior to the Midsummers Dream event and at least 30 days prior to the First Nations Day event. . ." Morris asked if the
Guild could distribute an annual events calendar to the neighborhood to satisfy this condition. Comment was made voicing
support for the 60 day notification timeline brought forward by the applicant. The Commission briefly discussed the remainder
of Condition 6 which addresses traffic barricades. Suggestion was made to amend this language to read, II.. . the Guild will
provide traffic barricades, upon request, to residents within 2 blocks of the site..." Dawkins questioned Condition 11 regarding
the placement of temporary fencing. Staff clarified the Commission could eliminate the language addressing the placement of
the fencing and rely on the traffic control plan listed in Condition 7. Ms. Barry summarized the changes recommended by the
Commission and clarified the conditions would be amended as follows:
1) Condition 6 will read, liThe Guild will deliver a notice to each residence within the parking impact area, at least 30
days prior to the Midsummers Dream event and at least 30 days prior to the First Nations Day event, of the days and
hours of such event, together with a notice that the Guild will provide traffic barricades, upon request, to residents
within 2 block of the site who wish to protect their driveway entrances. Barricades shall not be used to block on-street
parking. "
2) Condition 9 will be eliminated.
3) Condition 10 will read, IIlfthe Methodists Church revokes its agreement to cooperate with The Guild to share its
parking area, the application will be subject to review. "
4) Condition 11 will read, "If the temporary fencing proposed by the applicant as a pedestrian safety measure is used, it
shall be installed not more than 24 hours prior to the event and be removed within 24 hours of the end of the event."
5) Condition 13 will be eliminated.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Mindlin, Church, Miller, Morris, Dimitre, Stromberg and Marsh, all AYES.
Motion passed 8-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Update on Water Resources Ordinance: Field Trips and Responses to Issues.
Stromberg noted some of the commissioners attended the field trip organized by staff and stated the group visited several
sites that would be impacted by the Water Resources Ordinance. He asked those that attended the field trip to share their
thoughts and observations.
Dawkins commented that a building envelope as close 10 ft. could be problematic, and observed that the TID was responsible
for the creeks at the Peachy Street and Tolman Creek properties they visited. He expressed concern with not allowing people
to mechanically weed their property and voiced his appreciation to owners who have enhanced their creekside areas.
Mindlin noted that some of the improvements they observed would not be allowed under the proposed ordinance. She
commented on the plants at the Helman and Paradise properties and noted these owners tried to work with native plants for a
long time before switching to other plants.
Church stated he received conflicting data on whether native plants would work. He commented that a 10ft. setback from the
bank was too small and stated there are conflicting standards between what private parties can do compared to public
agencies. He stated the public agencies will have to live by the same rules or no one will take this ordinance seriously.
Miller commented on the need to educate people on what the problem is and why the ordinance is necessary.
Council Liaison Hartzell arrived at 8:20 p.m.
Page 3 of 4
Stromberg noted one of the property owner's suggestion to measure from the center of the stream, rather than top of bank. He
questioned how this ordinance would be enforced and how to apply the regulations to everyone. He added the Commission
will need to consider how this ordinance will affect properties such as the Water Street Inn and Lithia Parle
B. Sustainability Planning: Initial Steps
Stromberg noted Mindlin, Dawkins, Dimitre and himself have been talking about formulating an agenda item for the next Study
Session. He recommended they start this process by establishing an inventory of what is going on with sustainability in the
community. Marsh recommended they check with the League of Cities to see if they have some of this information. Stromberg
requested the commissioners submit any ideas or information they have to him.
C. Update on Water Resources Ordinance: Field Trips and Responses to Issues. (Continued)
Comment was made questioning where the Commission was in this process and what the next steps are. Mr. Molnar stated
the Water Resources Ordinance would likely come back to the Commission at the July Study Session. He noted the
Commission has not had the opportunity to really discuss the proposed ordinance and stated staff would like the Commission
to move into more formal deliberations.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
July 22,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Commission Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E
Main Street.
Commissioners Present::
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Michael Church
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
Debbie Miller, excused
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Stromberg added Public Forum to the agenda and moved adoption of the Lithia Arts Guild findings to the top of the agenda.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning
Commission has been tentatively scheduled for August 27, 2008. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Croman Mill
Redevelopment Plan, review the options, and identify a preferred alternative.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Adoption of Findings - PA 2008-00359, Lithia Arts Guild. .
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners. Mr. Molnar noted revised Findings had been passed out to the
Commission and noted the correction to Condition #10.
Commissioners Marsh/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings as presented. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Church,
Dawkins, Mindlin, Dimitre, Morris, Stromberg and Marsh, YES. Commissioner Dotterrer abstained. Motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Water Resources Protection Zones Ordinance.
Stromberg commented on the best way to proceed with this item and recommended they take public comment and keep the
public hearing open until the end of their discussions in case they want to ask questions. Support was voiced by the
Commission for this process.
Terrence Stenson/172 Alida/Commented on the early civilization that occupied this valley and explained how the stream
beds were altered. Mr. Stenson noted the materials he had previously submitted to the Commission and requested they
include language in the ordinance that addresses the preservation and protection of the water tables.
Page 1 of 4
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Maria Harris provided a presentation on the draft ordinance. She reviewed the public hearings the Planning
Commission has had to date, and provided a timeline and project schedule.
Stromberg noted the email submitted by Royce Duncan and summarized his comments. Stromberg clarified this
correspondence would be included in the record.
Ms. Harris continued her presentation and reviewed why this ordinance is necessary. She noted the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan goals, as well as the City Council goals. Harris provided an explanation of State Planning Goal 5 and clarified the City is
required to identify significant wetland and riparian corridors and adopt provisions protecting these lands. Comment was made
questioning the level of requirement imposed by the State. Harris commented on the safe harbor approach and clarified the
City would need to create findings and make their argument to the State if they deviate from the prescribed path.
Hartzell commented briefly on tree canopies and how shade could assist in meeting the DEQ water temperature requirements.
Ms. Harris continued with her presentation and provided explanations of the following key issues:
1) Local native plant species requirement.
· Allow 15% to be planted in non-native vegetation.
· Allow outdoor use area of up to 150 sq. ft.
2) Landscape maintenance in water resource protection zones.
· Exempt removing non-native, noxious and invasive vegetation with hand-held equipment.
· Prohibit removing native vegetation, trees greater than 6"dbh or soil disturbance.
· Define hand-held equipment (100 Ibs or less).
3) Nonconforming structures and activities.
· Exempt replacement of primary structures destroyed by fire or natural hazard.
· Planning approval required to replace non-exempt structures.
· Primary structure definition.
4) Nonconforming driveways and building envelopes.
· Exempt construction of new driveways if approved prior to the ordinance.
· Exempt construction of new structures on vacant lots in building envelopes if approved prior to ordinance.
5) Top of bank definition.
· Amend definition to make more measurable.
Ms. Harris noted the staff recommendation listed in the packet materials and requested the Commission move into
deliberations and provide specific feedback on what their issues and concerns are. She clarified staff is scheduled to provide
an update to Council in August and they need to know if they are on the right track.
Top of Bank Definition
Harris clarified this language was pulled from Portland's ordinance and asked if the Commission was comfortable with this
definition. Mindlin noted Rick Landt's recommendation to measure top of bank from the center of the stream. Comment was
made suggesting they compromise and keep the proposed method for fish bearing streams, but consider using the center line
measurement for intermittent and local streams. Several commissioners voiced support for having separate measurements for
small and large streams. Stromberg voiced concern with making the ordinance too complex and questioned if they should
hear from a knowledgeable scientist on the possible risks before going with separate measurements. Dimitre agreed and
stated he would like more information from a specialist to help them get a handle on this issue.
Outdoor Use Area
Marsh questioned the 150 sq. ft. figure and asked if they should consider using a percentage instead. Staff confirmed that a
percentage could be used, but cautioned this could allow for some significant sized areas on larger lots. Several comments
were made voicing support for the 150 sq. ft. limitation.
Local Native Plant Species
Hartzell commented that streams transfer seeds and roots into other areas and stated this is where the non-native plant
requirement stems from. Dotterrer expressed concern with the 15% figure and felt this was too small. He voiced support for
allowing some non-native species and questioned if this would have an impact on the water quality. Church clarified these
Page 2 of 4
requirements would only apply to something new or if the owner needed to replace it. Stromberg stated he would like a
scientist to verify that using all native plants achieves something. Dawkins commented that different scientists will give
different opinions and feels they are making this more complex than it needs to be. He recommended they use a list of locally
identified plants (both native and non-native) that are compatible with what they are trying to achieve. He added that he is also
in favor of allowing food production within the protection zone. Mindlin agreed with Dawkins and voiced support for a list of
plants, but questioned who would put the list together. She agreed that food production should be permitted, but questioned
how they would address the fencing requirement. Dotterrer questioned how staff would measure the 15% limitation and felt
using a percentage might make this too complicated. Dimitre commented that the ordinance needs to be enforceable and
agreed that the 15% figure would be difficult to measure and hard to enforce. He stated he is not in favor of non-native
species in the protection zone, but is open to hearing more from someone who is knowledgeable on this subject. Hartzell
commented that native plants attract native species and feels this needs to be maintained. She added if they allow gardens
there is a possibility people will clear the space to allow for more sunlight, rather than maintaining the shade. Morris voiced his
opposition to allowing gardens and agreed that native plants were preferred. He also voiced concern with making the
ordinance too complicated and stated it has to be clear and enforceable.
Stromberg requested the commissioners share their final thoughts on this issue. Dimitre voiced opposition to non-native
species within the protection zone and felt the 15% figure was unenforceable. Dotterrer stated he does not have any issues
with allowing both native and non-native species and felt property owners should be allowed to landscape to a certain extent.
He added he does not think gardens are a good idea in the riparian zone. Church stated he does not think they should allow a
mix of native and non-native plants and felt they should get these areas back to a natural state. Dawkins restated his support
for a list of allowable native and non-native species. Mindlin stated she is not in favor of the all native approach and would like
to see a list of suitable plants. Marsh noted the staff report provides a convincing argument for requiring all native plants, but
stated she is supportive of vegetable gardens.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Church m/s to extend meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Landscape Maintenance
Stromberg voiced support for the proposed parameters regarding landscape maintenance. Church commented on a situation
where equipment had to be brought in to remove a large amount of blackberries. Staff clarified the proposed ordinance would
not prohibit this type of removal, but it would trigger a review. The commission voiced general consensus for the proposed
landscape maintenance requirements.
Nonconforming Structures
Comment was made questioning how this would affect the Plaza businesses. Staff clarified these areas could be rebuilt, but
the ordinance would trigger a review before this is allowed. It was questioned if the ordinance could distinguish between
commercial and residential. Morris commented if they wanted to take this approach, they would have to break it out by zone.
Staff clarified the ordinance states the primary structure can be rebuilt, what would require planning approval are other
structures, such as decks. City Attorney Richard Appicello commented that for commercial businesses there are other things
that are required, such as parking areas, and suggested they include language that allows for the replacement of all structures
that are essential for the continuation of the business. Comment was made questioning how this provision would affect Lithia
Park. Mr. Molnar explained if Lithia Park were damaged by a flood, the Parks Department would be required to obtain a city
permit to replace any structures. He clarified bridges are allowed to be constructed; however they are required to withstand a
1 DO-year flood. Dimitre commented that they should require structures to be built outside the riparian zone if this is available.
Church agreed and stated they should make it possible to remove the nonconformities over time. Dawkins stated he is not in
favor of replacing nonconforming structures and made a distinction between structures and houses. Morris expressed concern
with how this would affect the Water Street Inn. Marsh voiced support for staffs recommendation and felt it was a good
compromise. She noted it would only be a Type I permit process to replace the nonconforming structures. Stromberg
expressed concern with how this provision might affect the downtown businesses and stated there is a difference between
placing a burden on a residential owner and placing a burden on a business that is part of the City's economic process.
Church questioned if it would be possible to make the downtown zone exempt. Mindlin stated if there is room to move the
structure out of the protected area it should be moved, but if not, people should be allowed to have the same amount of use
as before.
Page 3 of 4
---rTrI
Nonconforming Driveways & Building Envelopes
Morris commented on the Bud's Dairy project and questioned how this would be affected by the ordinance. It was clarified this
site it located within the protection zone and the affordable housing has not been built yet. City Attorney Richard Appicello
suggested they include language that establishes a "drop dead date."
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to extend to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Dimitre voiced support for a time limit as suggested by Mr. Appicello. Mr. Molnar commented on the Bud's Dairy issue and
clarified this is a unique situation and staff would have to look into how this ordinance would affect th?t project and the
conditions of the planning approval. Several comments were made voicing support for including a timeline in this provision.
Ms. Harris stated staff would need direction on how much time they would want to specify. She clarified there is a very limited
set of properties that would be affected by a time limit. Dawkins voiced hesitation over whether this was necessary. Stromberg
recommended they not make a decision at this time and come back to it.
Stromberg recommended the commissioners submit any additional comments or concerns they may have.
Stromberg announced the hearing would be continued to September 9, 2008. No objection was voiced by the commission.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Factoring Sustainability into the Comprehensive Plan.
Stromberg commented on whether the Planning Commission should begin a process to incorporate sustainability into the
planning process. He suggested they take an inventory of what is currently being done in the community and then bring a
proposal before the Council for their approval. He stated they would need to incorporate all those who have some ownership
of this issue and would need to make this a joint process.
Stromberg asked the commissioners whether they should proceed with this task. Dotterrer expressed concern with how this
project would affect staff and stated he does not think staff has enough time to work on this. Morris questioned how they
would merge sustainability into the Comprehensive Plan and questioned if it was appropriate for the Commission to be
undertaking this action. Marsh voiced support for getting the conversation started and noted there are other entities who may
also want to get involved. Dawkins voiced his support for this item and stated it was appropriate for the Commission to do this.
Hartzell voiced her support for the Commission moving forward. She stated the Council has expressed consistent interest in
this topic and felt there were a lot of things the Commission could do with this issue.
Commission reached a general consensus to take this proposal before the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Liquor License Application
September 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
City Recorder E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Barbara Christensen
christeb@ashland.or.us
None
Consent Agenda
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Paul Maurer dba Harper's at 36
S. 2nd Street?
Staff Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use
requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if
applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this
application.
Background:
Application is for a change in ownership.
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).
Related City Policies:
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license
applications.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Potential Motions:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Attachments:
None
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Measure 49 Claim: 27.25 acres off Hitt Road
September 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Martha Bennett
City Administrator E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us
Administration Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Should the City Council tentatively deny the Measure 49 claim for approximately 27.25 acres ofW-R
zoned land located at the end ofHitt Road (Tax Map/Lot T39SRIE, Section 8DB, Lot 200) and notify
DLCD and the claimants of the tentative decision?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council tentatively deny the Measure 49 claim as presented.
Background:
A claim under Section 9 and 10 of Measure 49 was filed with the City on February 20,2008. This
claim is based on a previously file Measure 37 claim dating back to November 2006. Measure 49
requires the City to make a tentative decision within 120 days of submission of the claim as to whether
the claim meets the standards of Section 9 for relief (up to ten single family residential units). Under
the Measure, the claimants are notified of the tentative decision and given 15 days to submit argument
or evidence in response. The City must consider the argument and evidence and make a final decision
on the claim within 180 days of the filing (approximately November 20,2008).
Proposed findings are attached for review by the Council. The complete Record of this proceeding is
available for review in the City Administrator's office. In short, the tentative decision finds the claim
is disqualified from relief under Section 9, Measure 49 because the claimants did not submit a
qualifying appraisal under the Act within the time provided. On the merits, the failure to submit the
required appraisal also makes it impossible to determine if the claimants are eligible for relief under
the Act.
Related City Policies:
Measure 49, W-R Zoning District, Physical/Environmental Constraints Overlay for Hillside Lands
Council Options:
(1) Tentatively deny the Measure 49 claim and notify claimants and DLCD.
(2) Postpone consideration to September 16, 2008 City Council meeting.
Potential Motions:
Motion to tentatively deny Measure 49 claim and notify claimants and DLCD of the tentative decision.
Attachments:
Proposed Findings
Maps
09-02-08 M 49 claim Page 1 of 1
r~'
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
September 2, 2008
In the Matter of Tentative Decision on a Ballot Measure 49 Claim, )
pursuant to Section 9 of the Act, requesting the right to permit, )
without limitation, the creation, division, development, and/or ) FINDINGS OF FACT
subsequent sale of 10 (two acre) legal lots with a single family ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
dwelling on each lot, located on real property within the city limits) AND ORDER
of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon more particularly)
described as Tax Map/Lot T39SRIE, Section 8DB, Lot 200, )
a/k/a 766 Strawberry Lane, consisting of approximately 27.25 )
acres of land. )
)
)
)
Applicant: George Harshman, Virginia Wilt, Wilt Family
and Tri- W Group L.P.
I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a tentative decision on a
Ballot Measure 49 claim, under Section 9 and 10 of the Act. The applicants will be advised of
the tentative decision and given 15 calendar days to submit evidence and arguments in response
to this tentative decision. Thereafter the City shall issue a final determination on or before
November 20, 2008.
On November 29,2006 a Measure 37 claim was submitted by Attorney William Cox on behalf
of "George and Patsy Harshman". On February 16,2007 City Administrator Martha Bennett
mailed a letter to Attorney Cox indicating the application was incomplete, including failure to
include all owners, (noting the omission of an application from "Tri- W Group" listed as owner of
50% undivided interest of the parcel). Mr. Cox responded on February 29,2006 by submitting
evidence that the City Planning Department signed for receipt of the Tri- W Group application on
November 29,2006. The City received another copy of the Tri-W claim on March 12,2007 as
well as materials to address the completeness of the Harshman claim. On July 5, 2007 City
Administrator Martha Bennett sent a letter to Attorney Cox notifying him of the extension of
time granted by the Oregon Legislature for consideration of Measure 37 claims; the letter also
notified Attorney Cox that the application for Tri- W Group was also incomplete. Oregon Voters
enacted Ballot Measure 49 in November 2007, effective December 2007. The Act essentially
abolished Measure 37; however, it provided a process for applicants with pending Measure 37
claims to determine if they had rights under Measure 49.
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -1-
Section 10(2) of the Act provides that if a City has not made a decision on a Measure 37 claim
before December 2007, the City must notify the applicant within 90 days after the effective date
of Measure 49 that the applicant is entitled to seek relief under Section 9. On February 27,2008,
the City Administrator notified Attorney Cox of the right to apply for relief under Measure 49
within 120 days; the notice complied with the statutory notice requirements and included a claim
form developed expressly for the purpose of directing the claimant to submit necessary
information for the Section 9 claim. The notice also reserved the right to question the eligibility
of the claimants (due to incomplete M37 applications). Attorney Cox filed a claim for "George
Harshman, Virginia Wilt, Wilt Family and Tri- W Group" on May 20, 2008. The City claim form
developed for this single City M49 claim was completed only by stating "see attached" in
numerous places referencing the M37 claim materials attached. No qualifying appraisal
complying with Section 9, subsection 6 of the Act was submitted with the claim. The
Attorney's cover letter indicates "claimants have been unable to retain a certified appraiser. . ."
As discussed more fully below, failure to follow the guidance of the claim form to submit the
required information has resulted in fatal errors in the application. Specifically, Section 1 0 (3) of
the Act provides that failure to file the notice and required information with the public entity
within 120 days after the date the public entity mails the notice, essentially disqualifies the claim
and the claimant is not entitled to relief under Section 9 of Measure 49.
Pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Act the City has until approximately September 20,2008 to
make a tentative decision. (Note: A tentative decision is scheduled for September 2, 2008 but
can be postponed to September 16, 2008 if necessary.) The claimants and DLCD will be
provided notice of the tentative decision and will have 15 calendar days to submit written
evidence or arguments in response to the tentative decision. The City must make a final
determination on or before November 20, 2008.
Based upon the evidence in the Record, said Record being specifically incorporated herein by
this reference, the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Nature of Proceedings findings set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
2) The applicant [claimant] is listed on the application as George Harshman, Virginia Wilt,
Wilt Family, and Tri-W Group LP. Claimants are represented by Attorney William C. Cox 0244
S.W. California Street, Portland, Oregon 97219 [phone (503) 246-5499].
3) The subject of this Measure 49 claim is real property located within the City of Ashland
("City"), and described in Jackson County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax Map/Lot T39SRIE,
Section 8DB, Lot 200, consisting of approximately 27.25 acres of land. (hereinafter "Property").
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -2-
4) The same claimants apparently own or owned adjacent property Tax Map/Lot T39SRIE,
Section 8DB, Lot 600, outside the City of Ashland. This adjacent parcel was the subject of a
May 3,2007 Jackson County Order # 280-07, regarding a Measure 37 claim.
5) The property is vacant and is accessed off the end ofHitt Road, which at this point is an
undeveloped right-of-way.
6) The property is entirely located within the City limits of the City of Ashland and is
within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary.
7) The property has an Ashland Comprehensive Plan map designation of Woodland
Residential. The property is also zoned WR - Woodland Residential.
8) Woodland Residential Zoning (W-R), adopted in 1982, provides for the following:
18.14 W-R Woodland Residential District
18.14.010 Purpose
The purpose of the W-R district is to stabilize and protect the steep and forested areas within the City. Application of
the zone will ensure that the forest, environmental erosion control and scenic values of these areas are protected from
incompatible development which could result in a degradation of their values.
18.14.020 Permitted uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Single family dwellings.
B. Agriculture and farm uses, except animal sales yards and feed yards, hog farms and any animal fed garbage.
C. Parks and recreation facilities.
D. Home occupations.
18.14.030 Conditional Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.104,
Conditional Use Permits:
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses, but not including corporation, storage or repair yards,
warehouses and similar uses.
C. Private recreational uses and facilities, provided that the forested character of the area is not disturbed.
D. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
E. Schools, both public and private.
F. Daycare centers.
G. Homes for the elderly and nursing homes.
H. Disc antenna for commercial use.
I. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090.
J. Temporary uses.
K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section
18.72.180.
18.14.040 General Regulations
A. Minimum lot area. The minimum lot area in the W-R zone is determined by the chart below:
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -3-
Slope
Less than 40%
40 to 50%
50 to 600/,0
Over 60%
Outside UGB
Min. Lot Size
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
20.0
DU/Acre
.5
.4
.2
.1
.05
B. Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be seven (7%) percent.
C. Minimum lot width. All lots shall be at least one hundred (100) feet in width.
D. Minimum lot depth. All lots shall be at least one hundred-fifty (150) feet in depth.
E. Standard yard requirements.
1. Minimum front yard - There shall be a front yard of at least twenty (20) feet.
2. Minimum side yard - There shall be a minimum side yard of six (6) feet, except ten (10) feet along a
side yard facing the street on a comer lot.
3. Minimum rear yard - There shall be a minimum rear yard of ten (10) feet plus ten (10) feet for each
story in excess of one (1) story.
4. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Section 18.70 of this Title which provides for solar access.
F. Maximum building height. No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories
in height, whichever is less.
G. Aggregate removal prohibited. There shall be no mining of granite for aggregate, quarry rock or other open
pit mining in this zone.
H. Limits on density transfer. All developments, with the exception of partitioning, must be developed under
the Performance Standards, Chapter 18.88. No more than twenty-five (25%) percent of the density allowed
in a Woodland Residential zone may be transferred to a higher density zone in a Performance Standard
development.
9) The vast majority of the property contains slopes over 35%, these areas are denominated
as "severe constraints" on the maps in the Record (see Attachments B & C). Only a small
portion of the total site contains 0%-15% slopes and 16% -250/0 slopes.
10) The Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter, AMC 18.62 (adopted May 19,
1987, and replaced with Ordinance 2528 on July 7, 1989) established regulations by land
classification. Hillside Lands, identified on the Physical Constraints Overlay map are those
areas which have a slope of 25 percent or greater, are subject to additional public safety
regulations. Such lands are identified as subject to damage from erosion and slope failure.
The AMC 18.62.080 Hillside regulations are attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Attachment A.
III. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CRITERIA
11) The Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or
referenced in Section 9 and 10 of Measure 49. Also implicated in this decision are ALUO
criteria for W-R Zoning and Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit Requirements,
specifically Hillside Lands.
12) The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a tentative decision.
13) The Council finds and determines that this proposal to develop 10 unit single-family
residential subdivision pursuant to Section 9 and 10 of Measure 49, does not meet all applicable
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -4-
criteria for approval of a Measure 49 claim. This finding is supported by the detailed findings set
forth herein as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole Record.
14) Criterion: [Section 9(1)]
(1) A claimant thatfiled a claim under ORS 197.352 on or before the date of
adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-Fourth Legislative
Assembly for property located, in whole or in part, within an urban growth
boundary may establish one to 10 single-family dwellings on the portion of the
property located within the urban growth boundary.
Adjournment sine die of the 2007 Oregon legislature occurred on June 28, 2007. A Measure 37
claim was filed with the Community Development Department on November 29,2008 for
George and Patsy Harshman. (The claim should have been directed to the City Administrator
per City Ordinance). The application was deemed incomplete on February 16, 2007 when City
Administrator Martha Bennett mailed a letter to Attorney Cox, notifying him, among other
things, of a failure to include all owners, (noting the omission of an application from Tri- W
Group owner of 50% of the parcel). Mr. Cox responded by submitting evidence that the City
Planning Department signed for receipt of the Tri-W Group application on November 29,2006.
The City received a copy of the Tri- W claim on March 12,2007 with additional information on
the Harshman claim. This claim application was also deemed incomplete by the City
Administrator on July 5, 2007.
The City of Ashland Measure 37 claims procedure ordinance, then in effect, provided as follows:
B. Demands for just compensation shall be submitted to the City Administrator. No demand for
just compensation shall be deemed submitted until all materials required by this section have been
provided to the City Administrator by the current owner. A notice of submission shall be sent to
the current owner at the time the City Administrator determines the current owner's demand for
just compensation has been deemed submitted.
c. Notwithstanding a claimant's failure to provide all of the information and/or the application
processing fee required by subsection (A) of this section, the city may review and act on a claim.
The claimant wrote N/ A next to "deemed complete" on the M49 application. The code language
above indicates that a claim is not deemed submitted until all materials are provided. The City
Administrator requested in her February 16, 2007 letter to Attorney Cox if the applicant intended
to supplement the submittal or whether the applicant intended to have the submittal deemed
complete (i.e. no intention to supplement). In the subsequent March submittal by Attorney Cox,
the Attorney submitted missing material (including the Tri-W materials) and it is apparent that
the Attorney contemplated the claim would be processed, as is, unless the City would notify the
attorney if additional materials were required. The Administrator did not make a determination
on the resubmission until after the adjournment of the legislative session. Council finds and
determines that a claim by both Harshman and Tri- W was filed with the City prior to 2007
adjournment, despite the fact that the applications were not deemed submitted under the City
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -5-
ordinance because they were found to be incomplete. Under Measure 37, the applicant arguably
had the right to proceed with the claim in Court despite the local determination of whether the
materials submitted were sufficient to process the claim.
The actual timing of the second application (Tri-W Group) is also important. Section 10(5) of
the Act states that if a Measure 37 claim is submitted after December 4,2006, it must include a
denial of a final land use decision or it is ineligible for relief under Section 9 of the Act. The
Council finds and determines that the proof of mailing and receipt by the Planning Department
on November 29,2006 is enough to satisfy the requirement to submit the claim prior to
December 4,2006. The City has no evidence to refute the Attorney's claim and postal receipt
that the materials were signed for at the Planning Department and later misplaced. Accordingly,
this first threshold requirement (eligibility to file) is met. Note: The omission of Mrs.
Harshman on the paperwork for the M49 claim is not seen as significant.
15) Criterion: [Section 9(2)]
(2) The number of single-family dwellings that may be established on the portion of
the property located within the urban growth boundary under this section may not
exceed the lesser of:
(a) The number ... described in the claim filed with ... a city...;
The original claim was for $3,750,000 to $8,902,000 based on development of:
"as many lots as could be serviced by on site sewer. with community water each lot
could have been 20,000 square feet."
The property is 27.25 acres. Accordingly, the number of single family residential lots in
the claim far exceeds 10.
(b) 10, .... ; or
As noted below, the claim is amended to claim ten (10) single family lots and units.
(c) The number of single family dwelling that total value of which represents just
compensation for the reduction in fair market value caused by the enactment
I
of one or more land use regulations that were the basis for the claim, set forth in
subsection (6) of this section.
NOTE: Section 9, Subsection 6 of the Act provides:
6. The reduction in the fair market value of the property caused by the enactment
of one or more land use regulations that were the basis of the claim is equal to the
decrease, if any, in the fair market value of the property from the date that is one
year before the enactment of the land use regulation to the date that is one year
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -6-
after the enactment, plus interest. If the claim is based on the enactment of more
than one land use regulation enacted on different dates, the reduction in the fair
market value of the property caused by each regulation shall be determined
separately and the values added together to calculate the total reduction in fair
market value. The reduction in fair market value shall be adjusted by any ad
valorem property taxes not paid as a result of any special assessment of the
property under ORS 308A.050 to 308.A.128, 321.257 to 321.390, 321.700 to
321.754 or 321.805 to 321.855, plus interest, offset by any severance taxes paid by
the claimant and by any recapture of potential additional tax liability that the
claimant has paid or will pay for the property if the property is disqualified from
special assessment under ORS 308A. 703. Interest shall be computed under this
subsection using the average interest rate for a one-year United States
Government Treasury Bill on December 31 of each year of the period between the
date the land use regulation was enacted and the date the claim was filed,
compounded annually on January 1 of each year of the period.
The City's M49 application form clearly states:
"Applicant must complete the following and submit supporting documentation concerning
( a) (b) and (c) below and note the lesser of ( a) (b) and (c) here: "
The claimant only wrote "See attached - 10 now requested"
No analysis on the form and no supporting documentation or information concerning the
required analysis under subsection (c) "reduction of fair market value" meeting the standards
established in Section 9, subsection (6) was provided with the application. The Applicant
appears to assume ten (10) single family dwelling lots and units can be applied for under Section
9; however, it is clear that the applicant must demonstrate eligibility of the lesser of: (a) the
claim (b) 10 or (c) the number of units equal to the value of the reduction in fair market value as
calculated by Section 9, Subsection (6) of the Act. Accordingly, as a consequence of the failure
to submit an appraisal under Subsection (6), the Council further finds and determines that
application is fatally flawed and disqualified from relief under Section 9 of Measure 49. As
noted above, Section 10 (3) of the Act provides that failure to file the notice and required
information with the public entity within 120 days after the date the public entity mails the
notice, precludes relief under Section 9 of Measure 49. As a practical matter, in addition to the
disqualification, this failure makes it impossible for the claimant to demonstrate that ten (10)
lots/units is the appropriate number of lots/units (i.e. the lesser of) to be awarded under section 9
as the reduction in value calculation has not been and cannot be performed.
As discussed more fully below, if the reduction in value calculation had actually been
performed, it is not inconceivable that the reduction in value calculation would result in a
value equal to less than ten units. This is because the majority of the land development
regulations the claimant identifies (e.g. W-R Zoning) are likely "exempt" land
development regulations as they are essentially "restricting or prohibiting activities for the
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -7-
protection of public health and safety" including specifically "landslides" "pollution
control regulations" as well as nuisance regulation - e.g. erosion control).
(3) if the number of single-family dwellings described in ... a claim filed with ... a city
... is more than 10, the claimant may amend the claim to reduce the number to no
more than 10 by filing a notice of the amendment with the information required by
Section 10 of this Act.
The May 20, 2008 filing indicates:
"Claimants elect to amend their Measure 37 claims. Claimants seek relief pursuant to Measure
49, Section 9 and 10. Claimants seek the right to permit, without limitation, the creation,
division, development, and/or subsequent sale of 10 (two acre) legal lots with a single family
dwelling on each lot."
(4) If multiple claims were filed for the same property, the number of single family
dwellings that may be established for purposes of subsection (2)(a) of this section is
The number in the most recent claim filed with... a city... but not more than
lOin any case.
The multiple claims (by different ownership interests) have now been consolidated into
one joint application requesting ten (10) residential lots and units.
16) Criterion: [Section 9(5)]
(5) To qualify for relief provided by this section, the claimant must have filed a
claim for the property with the city or county in which the property is located. In
addition, regardless of whether a waiver was issued by Metro, a city or a county
before the effective date of this 2007 Act, to qualify for relief under this section, the
claimant must establish that:
(a) The claimant is an owner of the property;
Claimants George Harshman and Tri-W Group L.P are the legal owners of the
property as tenants in common.
(b) All owners of the property have consented in writing to the claim;
The Record reflects Attorney William Cox is authorized to file the application on
behalf of all owners.
(c) The property is located, in whole or in part, within an urban growth
boundary;
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -8-
The property is located entirely within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary.
(d) On claimant's acquisition date, the claimant lawfully was permitted to
establish at least the number of dwellings on the property that are authorized
under this section;
The current owners have different acquisition dates, although as members of
different legal entities their involvement in the property can be traced to 1965.
George Harshman formally acquired a 50% undivided interest in the property by
deed in 1979. Tri-W Group L.P. formally acquired an undivided interest in the
property in 1998. While the claimant George Harshman argues for a 1965
acquisition date based on "confirmation" of an undivided 500/0 interest in the
property in 1970 from then owner Continental Construction Company Inc., this is
not supported by deed records. Similarly, although Virginia Wilt may have been
involved in a corporation acquiring ownership in 1965, the property was owned by a
corporate entity, and was subsequently conveyed, several times. For purposes of
this joint M 49 application the earliest formal date of acquisition by a current owner,
(May 3, 1979 acquisition date of George Harshman) is used. The City Council
expressly rejects the implication by the claimants that it must find a 1965 acquisition
date because Jackson County, in an M 37 Order now voided by Measure 49,
concerning an adjacent parcel owned by the same claimants was found by the
County to have a 1965 acquisition date.
( e) The property is zoned for residential use;
The property is zoned W-R, a residential zone. Single family residential use is a
permitted use in the zone, subject to lot size requirements.
(f) One or more land use regulations prohibit establishing the single-family
dwellings;
Under this criterion, the application only notes, "see M37 claim file."
The City's M49 claim form notes the revised definition of land development regulations, as
follows:
(14) "Land use regulation" means: (a) A statute that establishes a minimum lot or
parcel size; (b) A provision in ORS 227.030 to 227.300, 227.350, 227.400,
227.450 or 227.500 or in ORS chapter 215 that restricts the residential use of
private real property; (c) A provision of a city comprehensive plan, zoning
ordinance or land division ordinance that restricts the residential use of private
real property zoned for residential use; (d) A provision of a county comprehensive
plan, zoning ordinance or land division ordinance that restricts the residential use
of private real property; (e) A provision of the Oregon Forest Practices Act or an
administrative rule of the State Board of Forestry that regulates a forest practice
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -9-
and that implements the Oregon Forest Practices Act; (f) ORS 561.191, a
provision ofORS 568.900 to 568.933 or an administrative rule of the State
Department of Agriculture that implements ORS 561.191 or 568.900 to 568.933;
(g) An administrative rule or goal of the Land Conservation and Development
Commission; or (h) A provision of a Metro functional plan that restricts the
residential use of private real property.
(22) "Zoned for residential use" means zoning that has as its primary purpose
single- family residential use
The text of Section 9, Measure 49, calls for identification of "land use regulations" which
"prohibit" establishment of residential dwellings; this prohibition (if pursuant to a non-
exempt regulation) and the associated reduction in value per Section (9)(2)(c) and
subsection( 6) is "compensated" with an award of single family residential lots and units in
an amount which is the lesser of (a) the number set forth in the M37 claim (b) 10 or (c) the
number of units represented by the reduction in value due to non-exempt regulations
prohibiting the residential use. By contrast, the text of Measure 37 more generally
concerned land use regulations that restrict uses permitted on the real property; and the
restriction imposed by the land use regulation has the effect of causing a reduction in the
fair market value of the real property. The standard is different and thus claimant's
reference to "see M37 claim file" is inadequate.
The November 2006 M37 claim itself was extremely generic in regard to identification of
regulations. While the "Woodland Residential District" was specifically mentioned,
otherwise the claim simply referenced the Ashland Community Development Code as well
as "each and every" land development regulation which restricts the use of the claimants
property. The W-R Zoning District does not prohibit residential uses; the District only
restricts residential uses based on an increasing minimum parcel size that corresponds with
increases in property slope. For example, the W-R Zone's general regulations provide:
A. Minimum lot area. The minimum lot area in the W-R zone is determined by the chart below:
Slope
Less than 40%
40 to 50%
50 to 60%
Over 60%
Outside UGB
Min. Lot Size
2.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
20.0
DU/Acre
.5
.4
.2
.1
.05
The subject property would have a minimum lot size of 2.0 to 1 0.0 acres depending upon
the exact determination of slope on the subject 27.25 acres. While the applicant has not
prepared an application, the City staff estimates up to eight (8) units might be permitted
based on zoning alone.
Unlike the W-R District, the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter,
specifically the overlay for Hillside Lands, land classification does prohibit residential uses on
severe slopes, with an exemption allowing one residential unit on a lot of record. This overlay is
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -10-
however, clearly within the exempt regulation definition of 197.352(3) (now renumbered).
(g) The establishment of the single -family dwellings is not permitted by a land
use regulation described in ORS 197.352(3) [i.e. an exempt regulation];
Under this criterion, the application also notes, "see M37 claim file." The
application makes no attempt to address the clarified definition of exempt
regulations under Measure 49, as opposed to Measure 37. The City's M49 claim
form notes the clarification of exempt regulations:
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to land use regulations that were
enacted prior to the claimant's acquisition date or to land use regulations:
(a) Restricting or prohibiting activities commonly and historically recognized as
public nuisances under common law;
(b) Restricting or prohibiting activities for the protection of public health and
safety; [( 18) "Protection of public health and safety" means a law, rule, ordinance,
order, policy, permit or other governmental authorization that restricts a use of
property in order to reduce the risk or consequence of fire, earthquake, landslide,
flood, storm, pollution, disease, crime or other natural or human disaster or threat
to persons or property including, but not limited to, building and fire codes, health
and sanitation regulations, solid or hazardous waste regulations and pollution
control regulations.]
(c) To the extent the land use regulation is required to comply with federal law; or
[ (6) "Federal law" means: (a) A statute, regulation, order, decree or policy
enacted by a federal entity or by a state entity acting under authority delegated by
the federal government; (b) A requirement contained in a plan or rule enacted by a
compact entity; or (c) A requirement contained in a permit issued by a federal or
state agency pursuant to a federal statute or regulation.]
(d) Restricting or prohibiting the use of a property for the purpose of selling
pornography or performing nude dancing.
The regulations identified above are clearly exempt land development regulations.
The W-R Zone is established as a public safety regulation, specifically the district
recognizes landslides and erosion control are primary purposes of the regulation (to a
lesser degree aesthetics is also implicated). The W-R Zone's purposes statement
states:
The purpose of the W-R district is to stabilize and protect the steep and forested
areas within the City. Application of the zone will ensure that the forest,
environmental erosion control and scenic values of these areas are protected from
incompatible development which could result in a degradation of their values.
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -11-
III .."------
Similarly, the regulations contained in the Physical and Environmental Constraints
Chapter Overlay, specifically regulations for Hillside Lands (set forth in Attachment
A) are clearly exempt regulations. Damage to adjacent properties by uncontrolled
runoff and erosion concerns a commonly and historically recognized public
nuisance. Similarly, the overlay's regulations to control erosion of property and to
minimize risks or minimize consequences of landslides and wildfires are clearly
contemplated within Measure 49's definition of exempt regulations. Accordingly,
reduction in value calculations - had they been performed, cannot include reduction
based on these exempt regulations.
(h) The land use regulation described in paragraph (f) of this subsection was
enacted after the date the property, or any portion of the property, was
brought into the urban growth boundary;
The property has been part of the City and the urban growth boundary since the
UGB was established. Accordingly, the regulations were enacted after inclusion in
the UGB.
(i) [applicable only to Metro]
(j) If the property is within a City, the land use regulation that is the basis for
the claim was enacted after the date the property was annexed to the city; and
The property has been part of the City limits for several decades. Accordingly, the
regulations were enacted after inclusion in the City limits.
(k) The enactment of one or more land use regulations, other than land use
re2ulations described in ORS 197.352(3), that are the basis for the claim caused
a reduction in the fair market value of the property, as determined under
subsection (6) of this section, that is equal to or greater than the fair market
value of the single family dwellings that may be established on the property
under subsection (2) of this section. (emphasis added)
See findings located elsewhere in this document concerning claimant's failure to
submit a qualifying appraisal, and the exempt status of the identified regulations,
said findings ,being incorporated herein by this reference.
(6) The reduction in the fair market value of the property caused by the enactment
of one or more land use regulations that were the basis of the claim is equal to the
decrease, if any, in the fair market value of the property from the date that is one
year before the enactment of the land use regulation to the date that is one year after
the enactment, plus interest. If the claim is based on the enactment of more than one
land use regulation enacted on different dates, the reduction in the fair market value
of the property caused by each regulation shall be determined separately and the
values added together to calculate the total reduction in fair market value. The
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -12-
reduction in fair market value shall be adjusted by any ad valorem property taxes
not paid as a result of any special assessment of the property under ORS 308A.050 to
308.A.128, 321.257 to 321.390, 321.700 to 321.754 or 321.805 to 321.855, plus interest,
offsetby any severance taxes paid by the claimant and by any recapture of potential
additional tax liability that the claimant has paid or will pay for the property if the
property is disqualified from special assessment under ORS 308A.703. Interest shall
be computed under this subsection using the average interest rate for a one-year
United States Government Treasury Bill on December 31 of each year of the period
between the date the land use regulation was enacted and the date the claim was filed,
compounded annually on January 1 of each year of the period.
(7) For purposes of subsection (6) of this section, a claimant must provide an
appraisal showing the fair market value of the property one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation that was the basis for the claim and the fair
market value of the property one year after the enactment. The appraisal also must
show the fair market value of each single-family dwelling to which the claimant is
entitled under subsection (2) of this section, along with evidence of any ad valorem
property taxes not paid, any severance taxes paid and any recapture of additional tax
liability that the owner has paid or will pay for the property if the property is
disquialified from special assessment under ORS 308A.703. The actual and
reasonable cost of preparing the claim, including the cost of the appraisal, not to
exceed $5000, may be added to the calculation of the reduction in fair market valuwe
under Section 7 (6) of this 2007 Act. The appraisal must:
(a) Be prepared by a person certified under ORS chapter 674 or a person registered
under ORS chapter 308;
(b) Comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as
authorized by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of
1989; and
(c) Expressly determine the highest and best use of the property at the time the land
use regulation was enacted.
(8) Relief may not be granted under this section if the highest and best use of the
property was not residential use at the time the land use regulation was enacted.
(9) When Metro, a city or county has issued a final decision authorizing one or more
single family dwellings under this section on the portion of the property located
within the urban growth boundary, the claimant may seek other governmental
authorizations required by law for that use, and the land use regulation enacted by a
public entity that has the effect of prohibiting the use does not apply to the review of
the authorizations, except as provided in section 11 of this 2007 Act. If Metro is
reviewing ... [N/A]
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -13-
(10) The only types of land use that are authorized by this section are the
subdivisions or partition of land for one or more single-family dwellings, or the
establishment of one or more single-family dwellings on land on which the dwellings
would not otherwise be allowed.
As noted above, no qualifying appraisal complying with Section 9, subsection 6 - 8 of the Act
was submitted with the claim. The Attorney's cover letter indicates "claimants have been
unable to retain a certified appraiser..." Failure to follow the guidance of the City M 49 claim
form to submit the required information within the time provided by the Act has resulted in
disqualification of the claim. Specifically, Section 10 (3) of the Act provides specifically that if
the claimant fails to file the notice and required information with the public entity within 120
days after the date the public entity mails the notice, the claimant is not entitled to relief under
Section 9 of Measure 49. In addition, the failure to file the required information (appraisal)
makes determination of compliance with the standards for relief, impossible. Finally, the
primary regulations controlling development of this property are exempt regulations under
Measure 49. Accordingly, the claimant is not entitled to relief under Measure 49.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and based upon the
evidence in the whole Record, the City Council hereby TENA TIVEL Y DENIES the claim by
George Harshman and Tri-W Group, et. al., under Section 9 and 10 of Measure 49 requesting
"ten (10) (two acre) legal lots with a single family dwelling on each lot" and concerning 27.25
acres of land located at Tax Map/Lot T39SRIE, Section 8DB, Lot 200. The claim is tentatively
denied for the reasons set forth above, included but not limited to the fact that the claim is
disqualified for failure to submit required information (specifically a qualifying appraisal) within
120 days of the City's notice and for failure to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
Section 9 of the Act, specifically failure to demonstrate a reduction in value caused by non-
exempt regulations prohibiting residential use.
Ashland City Council
Mayor John W. Morrison
Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this _ day of September, 2008
Approved as to form:
Date:
Ashland City Attorney
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -14-
----rrr-r"--- -
Attachment A.
18.62.080 Development Standardsfor Hillside Lands
It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations to
underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character
and identity of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public
health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes,
slide damage, jlooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards to
encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that complements the natural and visual
character of the city.
A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside Lands:
1. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35%
shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be granted to this requirement only
as provided in section 18.62.080.H.
a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be considered
buildable for one unit.
b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be subdivided
or partitioned.
2. All newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a slope of 35%
or less.
3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or equal to 35% slope with
the following exceptions:
a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications.
b. The portion of the street,jlag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does not exceed a
length of 1 00 feet.
4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions, the
following additional information is required:
A geotechnical study prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use
and development. The study shall include the following information:
a. Index map.
b. Project description to include location, topography, drainage, vegetation, discussion of previous
work and discussion of field exploration methods.
c. Site geology, based on a surficial survey, to include site geologic maps, description of bedrock and
surficial materials, including artificial fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc..., and structural data
including bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure.
d. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential hazard to the site, or that
may be affected by on-site development.
e. Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint.
f Specific recommendations for cut and fill slope stability, seepage and drainage control or other
design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards.
g. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether an area to be affected by the
proposed development is stable, additional studies and supportive data shall include cross-sections
showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with subsurface exploration, results of laboratory test
and references.
h. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist.
i. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site.
j. Inspection schedule for the project as required in 18. 62. 080.B.9.
k. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation pipelines.
B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans
conforming with the following items:
J. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands
shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to the International
Building Code_and be consistent with the provisions of this Title. Erosion control measures on the
development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas.
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -15-
2. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading, drainage improvements, or
other land disturbances shall only occur from May 1 to October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the
remaining wet months of the year. Erosion control measures shall be installed and Junctional by October 31.
Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be made
by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical
expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum necessary, based upon evidence provided by the
applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals.
3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and subdivisions, and
existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to 25% oJthe total project area, plus the
percentage figure oj the average slope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to
be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction
fencing or the Junctional equivalent.
For example, on a 25,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of29%, 25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall
be retained in a natural state.
The retention in a natural state oj areas greater than the minimum percentage required here is encouraged.
4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the Jollowing standards shall apply:
a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type oj materials oj which they are
composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut
slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional equivalent to control erosion
and provide slope stability when necessary. Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1: 1 or less
steep), the slope shall be protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per
manuJacturers specifications, and revegetated.
b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those Jor streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven
feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum height of
five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum oj three Jeet to allow Jor the introduction oj vegetation for
erosion control. Total cut slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height oj 15 feet. (See Graphic)
Cut 5 10 pea n d
F ill 5 10 P e
Requirements
1 20'
Maxi............
Fill SloOpe
H_i.ht
~71
-...",..,~~ -
Not t 0 Sea Ie
For IlIu 5 t rat io nOn Iy
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -16-
Reduce Effective Visua
Bulk by Utilizing
Stepped Foundations
The top of cut slopes not utilizing structural retaining walls shall be located a minimum setback of one-
half the height of the cut slope from the nearest property line.
Cut slopes for structure foundations encouraging the reduction of effective visual bulk, such as split pad
or steppedfootings shall be exempted from the height limitations of this section. (See Graphic)
c. Revegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan, introduction of top
soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be
native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut
slope, and assist in providing long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading
vine-type plantings may be appropriate.
5. Grading - fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following standards shall apply:
a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not
utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest property line. (Ord 2834 S6,
1998)
b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional equivalent.
Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch such as straw or wood
fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil so that erosion does not
occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with
manufacturer's recommendations.
c. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill slopes. When
determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall be designed by a
geotechnical expert.
d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in resource value and
which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary.
Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of
erosion control on disturbed areas.
6. Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation of cut and fill slopes
shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, signature oj a required survey plat, or
other time as determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be
substantially established within one year of installation.
7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures.
a. Maintenance. All measures installed Jor the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but
not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -17-
III
areas which have been disturbed, including public rights-ofway. The applicant shall provide evidence
indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance of measures.
b. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion Control
Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a
performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the erosion
control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial guarantee instrument proposed other
than a performance bond shall be approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument
shall be in effect for a period of at least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and
Public Works Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the
security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one year
maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not been sufficiently stabilized
against erosion.
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering the following factors:
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building pad and for
providing vehicular access to the pad.
b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site. (Ord 2834,S2 1998)
c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a reasonable amount
of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of
the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of the original slope.
9. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of the final
survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project
geotechnical expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion
control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per
1 8. 62.080.A.4j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project.
C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following
standards:
1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed on the site and
according to the following requirements:
a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street construction,
facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces,
and roof drainage systems.
b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the greatest extent
feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site.
c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping
surfaces of a fill.
d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their natural state,
recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage..
e. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used where
practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility
shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any overflow water to an
acceptable disposal point.
f Stormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid
erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties.
g. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach fields, shall be
designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City' s Public Works
Department or City Building Official.
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -18-
D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the
following requirements:
1. Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan shall be prepared, which
locates all trees greater than six inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy.
In addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or
diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i. e. those within five feet of each other)
may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average
diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name, signature,
and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree
survey.
Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not be included in the
inventory.
2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of existing trees shall also be
identified as to their suitability for conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation
shall be conducted by a landscape professional. Factors included in this determination shall include:
a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-vigorous trees.
b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result in damage
to people and property.
c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their environment.
d. Potential longevity.
e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages.
f Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and shade than smaller trees.
3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h. or greater conifers and l' d.b.h. or greater
broadleaf) shall be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible.
a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances shall be located
such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are preserved, while recognizing and
following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands.
Sit e Planning
..-:~....:~. ~ Responsive. t 0
i.... ,'..:: <". Tree Locat Ions
. ~, " Existing Site
\ ~;. . wit h significant
. : . . trees
L_~~':."~.:J
S ensit ive develoment
opt ion for propert y
b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of trees on site
while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in
Wildfire Lands.
c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree protection areas.
4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of
development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards:
a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start
of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground
elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in
the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to
grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff
Advisor. (see 18.61.200)
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -19-
b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction
and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas.
c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be permitted
within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as
approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or construction is approved within the
dripline, a landscape professional may be required to be present during grading operations, and shall
have authority to require protective measures to protect the roots.
d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be minimized.
Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees
designated for conservation.
e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable damage, as
determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be revised to compensate for the
loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance with the
provisions of this chapter.
5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of trees on a site. The
development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands.
When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of
the following conditions: (Ord 2834 S3, 1998)
a. The tree is located within the building envelope.
b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area.
c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility easement.
d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it constitutes an
unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards in 18. 62. 080.D.2.
e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed threatening to the life
of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional.
6. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed because they were
determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards:
a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan shall include
all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting details. (Ord 2834 S4, 1998)
b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees will in time result in canopy equal to or
greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be designed
to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce surface erosion and increase slope
stability.. Replacement tree locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan.
The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based
upon site-specific evidence and testimony.
Tree Plant ing
Guideline
3- mulch kept
6- from trunk
5t ake only if t,.. ts UMI bfe
to stand on its awn.
and st aka .. low n possible
wit h . non-met .Iie st ak.
Cultivated plenting .r.. should b.3-5
t im.. t he size of t h. root ban, and only
natWe soil should ba uaed for f.
Mound slightly to conhin ...ter
s. top of root brill at ground In.
Fr.. burlap from I funk, and
keep beklw V' ad.
Set Ir.. on sound ground
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -20-
c. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Required
replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first
five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new five year replacement period
shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30 days of notification unless otherwise noted. (Ord 2834 S5,
1998)
7. Enforcement.
a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and replacement plan. No
trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland.
b. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been designated for
conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current appraised value of the
replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market value, as established
by a professional arborist, whichever is greater.
c. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated for protection
and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional
arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to determine the extent of the
damage. Should the damage result in loss of appraised value greater than determined above, the higher
of the two values shall be used.
E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed for Hillside Lands
shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following standards:
1. Building Envelopes. All newly created lots, either by subdivision or partition, shall contain building
envelopes conforming to the following standards:
a. The building envelope shall contain a buildable area with a slope of 35% or less.
r? l~ LrNe~ -_.._~
-... · f.i<~:':;;-:l~-lc!
IZ."'.....;;Z.. e.l)j"'l)",&l.~ I
..,......11:.0. 4i.:.. p.,1C.._ t- rc~UIJ/..'iOJ:>
C......Te>iJ<.) I r ----l ti, '<Aft.D
~ ' ' l
- - l,~ '" ,'" ~~~ &UIl.-DING.
_ ~~f ~ ~.~ CbV<<~<<
I r 6' -_._.)-1~~~ "/:
F-It$:>r:-J',- I ~ ,~
y....oot.c> Y"'~D L.rN.~ r i
C~6r~-"G"") . (~tl"~t<. L.J"'~) I ~~Ull:.e:D
I I _ . I FI20NT v....lI-.r.>
~-.~-- L!..-:'_~_ ~ ~-:I-~ h_
. ST I<-E. E"T ~.O.\/v'.
-----------...--- ------
b. Building envelopes and lot design shall address the retention of a percentage of the lot in a natural
state as required in 18. 62. 080.B. 3.
c. Building envelopes shall be designed and located to maximize tree conservation as required in
18. 62.080.D.3. while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the development is
located in Wildfire Lands
d. It is recommended that building envelope locations should be located to avoid ridgeline exposures,
and designed such that the roofline of a building within the envelope does. not project above the
ridgeline.
Rtati01 d tillside
chcrcd ET ad net lJ"a
slq:e ~ 8\ddrYJ
ridJ:jine
locat icns
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -21-
2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive design techniques,
buildings on Hillside Lands, excepting those lands within the designated Historic District, shall incorporate
the following into the building design and indicate features on required building permits:
a. Hillside Building Height. The height of all structures shall be measured vertically from the natural
grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge or peak, wall, parapet, mansard, or other feature
perpendicular to that grade. Maximum Hillside Building Height shall be 35 feet. (graphics available
on original ordinance)
b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk.
(1). Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow the structure to
more closely follow the slope.
(2). Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope.
c. A building stepback shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than 20 feet in height,
as measured above natural grade. Stepbacks shall be a minimum of six feet. No vertical walls on the
downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade. (see
graphic)
d. Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet. Planes
longer than 36 feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet. (graphic available on original ordinance)
e. It is recommended that roof forms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a series of
smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding hillside. Long, linear
unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Large gable ends on downhill elevations should be avoided,
however smaller gables may be permitted. (graphic available on original ordinance)
f It is recommended that roofs of lower floor levels be used to provide deck or outdoor space for
upper floor levels. The use of overhanging decks with vertical supports in excess of 12 feet on downhill
elevations should be avoided.
g. It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant
colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural
environment
F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by an engineer or architect
with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer, as defined, shall not complete working drawings
without having foundations designed by an engineer.
G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a building envelope on all lots
that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the
underlying zone, unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes.
H. Administrative Variance From Development Standards for Hillside Lands - 18.62.080. A variance under this
section is not subject to the variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the
development standards for Hillside Lands if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site;
2. The variance will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this
chapter;
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Physical and Environmental
Constraints Chapter and section 18.62.080.
Appeals of decisions involving administrative variances shall be processed as outlined in 18.108.070.
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -22-
Attachment B. (Slope Map)
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -23-
----- -----------nr J
Attachment C. (Topographic map)
COUNCIL TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -24-
~
~ - -
CD rn rn
"C "C
a. c: c:
en .!!! .!!!
0 CD G) G)
'- a. "C "C
D.. rn 0 '0 "0
~ - :c :c
U) CD
~ rn :J Q. - -
- t) 10 10
0 0 0 10
>< :J CD ii) <r- N ('t') ('t') 10
J:; I I I ('t')
~ t! " I co co <r-
en -- 0 <r- N ('t') ^
en
0:: -
-
I- --
%:
...
Q)
Q)
LL
0
N
N
0
~
~
LO
LO
~ 0
o
It)
o
\)
.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Staff Request to Delay Study Session to Discuss the Distribution of the Transient
Occupancy Tax Revenue
September 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Administrative Services E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Lee Tuneberg
tuneberl@ashland.or.us
None
Consent
Question:
Should the City Council delay the discussion of the Transient Occupancy Tax revenue distribution to
the October 6,2008, Study Session to allow the Finance Director to be in attendance?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve the delay for the stated reason.
Background:
In July Council chose to delay distribution of future TOT revenue until a study session could be
scheduled to allow sufficient time to consider options and implications from the distribution. Council
chose to discuss this subject on September 15, 2008. The Administrative Services/Finance Director is
scheduled to attend fiscal stability and financial projection training in Sacramento at that same time
and would not be available to answer questions and provide support to Council. This is important
training and cancelling it would be costly to the city.
Staff feels the Finance Director should be in attendance when Council discusses this subject.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
a. Choose to delay the TOT discussion as proposed.
b. Choose to not delay and have the discussion on September 15.
Potential Motions:
I make a motion to delay the TOT revenue distribution discussion until October 6, 2008, so that the
Finance Director can be in attendance.
Attachments:
None
Page 1 of 1
090208 TOT delay.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Approval of a Contract for Engineering Services for the Ashland Creek Trunk
Sewer Rehabilitation Project No. 2007-16
September 2,2008 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson, 552-2412
Public Works / Engineering E-Mail: olsoniaV.ashland.or.us
Finance Secondary Contact: Michael R. Faught
Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will Council approve a personal services contract with Hardey Engineering and Associates, Inc. in the
amount of$33,750.00 to design, develop and implement the Ashland Creek Trunk Sewer
Rehabilitation Project No. 2007-16?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached personal services contract with Hardey Engineering and
Associates, Inc. in the amount of$33,750.00 to design, develop and implement the Ashland Creek
Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Project No. 2007-16.
Background:
Preface
The Public Works Department recommends the reconstruction or rehabilitation of the aging Ashland
Creek Trunk Sewer which runs along the west bank of Ashland Creek from Hersey Street northerly
approximately 1,700 feet to the point where the sewer line enters the Helman Street right of way. The
proposed sewer project offers a number of construction challenges:
· Construction is adjacent to or within the Ashland Creek Riparian Corridor.
· Access from adjacent streets is limited.
· Access along the existing easement is limited.
· The easement crosses through the backyards of 15 different residences along Helman Street,
many of which are extensively landscaped.
To help address these challenges, Hardey Engineering and Associates, Inc. (HEA) was hired to
conduct a feasibility study to determine the least disruptive method of rehabilitating this sewer line.
This study was recently completed at a cost of $19,000 and resulted in a recommendation to
rehabilitate the existing pipeline using a new Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) that would be installed within
the existing pipeline.
The Public Works Department is now prepared to enter into the second or design phase of the project.
HEA has proposed to complete this work for an additional $33,750 for a total project design cost of
$52,750. As the second phase of this work is considered an integral part of the whole project, Council
authorization of the contract is required as the total cost for engineering services exceeds $50,000.
Page 1 of 4
090208 Hardey Eng Contract.CC.doc
rj.'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Proiect Description
The existing Ashland Creek Sanitary Sewer was constructed in 1905. This 21 inch clay pipeline was
constructed parallel to the west bank of Ashland Creek and extends from Hersey Street northerly
approximately 1,700 feet. Much of the easement for this pipeline was granted by Abel Helman, one of
Ashland's original pioneers.
This project offers a number of challenges which will require close cooperation between the City, the
adjacent property owners and other regulatory agencies. One of the most difficult obstacles is the lack
of access along the existing sewer line. Because of the age of the sewer line, numerous large trees have
grown up along and in some cases over the sewer line. The sewer line crosses through the backyards of
15 different properties, most of which have established impressively landscaped yards over and along
the sewer line. It is not possible to get a maintenance vehicle into many of the manholes along the
sewer line and it is even difficult to walk along the entire course of the easement.
The close proximity to Ashland Creek adds additional difficulty to refurbishing this old sewer line. An
option to reconstruct the sewer using conventional methods of construction was briefly considered, but
discarded due to the large scale disruption to landscaped areas, large numbers of tree removals and
possible negative impacts to Ashland Creek. Hardey Engineering was charged with researching
alternative, trenchless methods of reconstruction and recommending a viable solution which would
meet the City's needs to limit disturbance along the area. The options considered included:
1. Relocating the pipeline within existing street rights-of-way;
2. Sliplining the existing pipe to provide additional structural strength;
3. Pipe bursting to increase the size of the pipe.
4. Insituform Cured-ln-~lace-~ipe (CIPP).
Option #1 was discarded due to the necessity of installing two major pump stations plus the need to
continually operate a pipeline in a similar location to receive the gravity sewer flow from the 15
residences along Helman Street.
Option #2, slip lining, is a method of pulling a flexible HDPE pipeliner through the old pipeline. This
process provides additional structural strength, but decreases the size of the pipe. It also requires that
numerous "pull pits" be dug to accommodate the process. This option was discarded due to the
excavation needed and the decrease in pipe size.
Option #3, pipe bursting, is the process of internally enlarging the pipe by fracturing the old pipe while
pulling a new pipe into place. This process will basically construct a new pipeline within the area of
the old pipe. Unfortunately this process again requires multiple dig-ups and the cover over the pipe is
not sufficient to effectively conduct that operation. This option was also discarded.
The engineering staff, along with engineers from Hardey Engineering, has determined that a pipe
rehabilitation technique referred to as "Insituform Cured In Place Pipe" (Option #4) offers the best
alternative to standard open trench construction. It is a jointless, seamless pipe liner that is forced into
the existing pipe using air or water. The liner is then cured in place using steam or hot water forming a
strong water tight lining within the old pipe. The advantages of using the "Insituform CIPP" include:
Page 2 of 4
090208 Hardey Eng Contract.CC.doc
rA1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. minimal disruption to the area
. increase in the capacity of the existing sewer without increasing pipe size
. complete elimination of pipe joints where leaks often occur
. restoration of the structural integrity of the old pipe.
The pipe lining is inserted within existing manholes so digging is not necessary, which allows for a
quicker rehabilitation with less inconvenience to property owners and less effects on sensitive areas
along the creek.
Proi ect Funding
This project is listed in the current CIP under "Wastewater Line Replacement: Ashland Creek Main
Line" with an allocation in FY 09 of $100,000. It is anticipated that this amount will be for preliminary
engineering and easement acquisition only, FY 10 has an allocation of $150,000 which is insufficient
to fully fund the construction (Phase 4) of the project. It will be necessary to allocate a minimum of
$300,000 in FY 10 to proceed with construction of this project. A more exact cost estimate is a
required element of the proposed Hardey Engineering contract.
The current $100,000 budget allocation contains a 25% SDC commitment to accommodate future
growth. The account number for the SDC fund for this project is 675.08.39.00.704200. The reminder
to be funded through the wastewater collections funds in the contracted projects category, Account No.
675.08.17.00.704200.
Proi ect Goals
The wastewater collection division has developed a very effective method of maintaining the City's
110 miles of sewer pipelines. The maintenance schedule includes inspection of all pipelines using
video cameras and periodic cleaning using high pressure water jetting. To effectively complete this
maintenance it is necessary that equipment be able to reach each manhole in the system. Many of the
City's main trunk sewers are located, not within public street rights of ways, but on easements over
private properties. The maintenance of these sewers offers special challenges and to facilitate this work
the City has purchased a miniature maintenance machine. This machine is only three feet wide, but is
capable of carrying 700 feet of high pressure water hose. This "easement machine" allows a
maintenance crew to be able to reach manholes previously unavailable to a large truck.
The goal of the Ashland Creek Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Project is to establish six to eight foot wide
access corridors along the length of the easement from access points off Helman Street. The creation of
these narrow corridors would take into consideration existing trees and significant landscape features
and would strive to limit the disruption to existing landscaped yards.
Next Steps
Within the next few months staffwill begin working with the property owners along the Ashland
Creek Trunk Sewer pipeline to define and reclaim the existing sewer easement. It may be necessary, in
some instances, to acquire additional easements to provide access from Helman Street.
Summary
The Ashland Creek Trunk Sewer pipeline is over 100 years old and should be rehabilitated as soon as
possible. This project is vital to the health of the citizens along Ashland Creek. The Public Works
Page 3 of 4
090208 Hardey Eng Contract.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Department has committed to accomplishing this work with a minimum of disruption to effected
properties.
Although CIPP technology is not new, it has not previously been used in Ashland on larger pipelines.
The technology has a proven track record and is in common use by Rogue Valley Sewer Services and
numerous other sewer districts. This method of rehabilitation offers the least disruptive alternative to
traditional open trench type construction.
Related City Policies:
Under current City of Ashland purchasing and contracting rules (AMC 2.52), the Council shall review
all personal services contracts in excess of $50,000 and all contract amendments in excess of 250/0
above the current contract amount.
Council Options:
1) The Council, acting as the local contract review board, may choose to approve this personal
services contract with Hardey Engineering and Associates, Inc. to include design and
development of the Ashland Creek Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Project No. 2007-16 (Phase 2);
2) Council may decline to approve the contract.
Potential Motions:
1) Move to approve the Personal Services Contract with Hardey Engineering and Associates, Inc.
in the amount of$33,750.00 for the design and development of the Ashland Creek Trunk
Sewer Rehabilitation Project No. 2007-16 (Phase 2);
2) Move to deny the Personal Services Contract with Hardey Engineering and Associates, Inc. in
the amount of$33,750.00 for the design and development of the Ashland Creek Trunk Sewer
Rehabilitation Project No. 2007-16 (Phase 2).
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Sewer System Map
Photos
Contract
Page 4 of 4
090208 Hardey Eng Contract.CC.doc
r~'
- - ----nr T
000
"'z~
o<~
>-.J~
... .,. >
_.....t:
UtJ)~
.q:s:
~z
zo
;:>......
~f-4\O
f-4<C-'
~t:~
tIJ...J8
tIJQ:iN
~ <: .
U::x:o
~~3
<C^""o
~~g:
el)t.tJ
<CeI)
()
c::>
i~i.
<:!So"
si.. 1<
"''''0::1\
<~;tC:
~~il>
t:~~~
ui~i
I
S$UM
U4Cn!LU
Mf~
, &
t
j~~Jt
. M)t$
Gl
l C .T.... -0'. _mWNwww,m,
~~~~~
If"'_
- -.... ..--
391E
04 CD
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~!
I
I
I
~ I
-Wt I
a-Q01
~?m
,. I
(;3
,,'
, --
,~
, "
" ~-IIH
\. O.04CO"025
.. SO/OJ
.
.
.
,
,
cJtA~. I
411/02 f 0 { SS'IIH
I I QM.~~
! I
I I
I : I
~~j
'*~/,
1/
I'I!
l/
j. /
II
!..~.,'
"j
I SS-C~/I ,.
04CA- ,
I 50/12 · /
;' ~/ "r
. / ~/
'~~ /!$
'--....., ''-J~!
''\ 01
/ ~~~1J~
" 1/ /' 50/08
/1/
CITY O.
ASHLAND
SANITARY SEWER.
F AcnnY MAP
P vi:'J
· f I _ -
I I '
I~ 1: = = = : = - - - - - ~
; /'~. .. :
~ ~
I.' i .
_..~. . '---
~~~2 : ....,~lEEPY --~~t'~..
~ I: r -----~--
D ~~m r I
ll~~ )
'r~/
. ; ( b
/ ~i:'
fi
I
/
I /
~~~f'; /
sore . .
. I
. /
i: I
I /
! i
/1
I' ,I
, I
I !
-~'---'-;''1A~-cc-_-f--i ~~ .-:~-
50/1. I ~4~~__~"._,~ ,'.
f( 0 i
I $S-IIH i
I 04CO'OJl I "
I SO/llI I r
'- '- /, /
~~/ 10../
, SO'" () "'I
I. /
.
__-9
OR
ss-v
tl 04-CA-
0' $S-
.~~O
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
· SS-~
~ MCA-Ola
Q 50/ Z2
.
.
· O~A~7
o SO/Ol
-.',
l
55 -IIH ....
0408-02.3
62/1&
~
~
---
55-CO
04CtHOl
SS.;.... 9-~ llVJ2
.,. M.c;,D,;V ,~IJII S1:
~ t-._ ,...
:::::r: -- w-= .,..,..
~........ .. ~ .........
___ .1lIUIII
.-....,
391E
04CA
Ashland Creek Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Project No. 2007-16
MANHOLE AT BEGINNING OF PROJECT AT HERSEY STREET
G ;\pub-wrks'cog\dept-admifl\ENGIN EERPROJ Ecr'l00 1.07 -16 CC Approval of Hardey Eng Contract 9 02 08 Photos.doc
LARGE COTIONWOOD GROWING OVER THE SEWER LINE
.
MANHOLE AT THE BASE OF LARGE COTTONWOOD
G:\pub-wrks\-eng;dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEC1\20(n.o7-16 CC Approval of Hardey Eng Contract 90208 Photos.doc
SEWER LINE THROUGH THE CREEK VIEW TERRACES PARKING LOT
SEWER LINE THROUGH LANDSCAPING
G:'pub-wrks\cog'dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT2007'-07-16 CC Approval of Hardey Eng Contract 9 02 08 Photos.doc
- ---- --nr T
CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
CITY Of
ASHLAND
20 East Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
Telephone: 541/488-6002
Fax: 541/488-5311
DATE AGREEMENT PREPARED: 7/24/08
BEGINNING DATE: August 6.2008 COMPLETION DATE: June 30.2011
COMPENSATION: Not to exceed $33.750.00 per attached proposal dated June 23. 2008.
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: Provide preliminary and construction engineering services to develop and implement
the Ashland ereek Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Project No. 2007-16. This work will constitute the second phase of this
project, the first having been completed on June 30,2008. Services to be provided shall be in accordance with the
attached proposal.
ADDITIONAL TERMS:
FINDINGS:
Pursuant to AMC 2.52.040E and AMC 2.52.060, after reasonable inquiry and evaluation, the undersigned Department
Head finds and determines that: (1) the services to be acquired are personal services; (2) the City does not have
adequate personnel nor resources to perform the services; (3) the statement of work represents the department's plan for
utilization of such personal services; (4) the undersigned consultant has specialized experience, education, training and
capability suffICient to perform the quality, quantity and type of work requested in the scope of work within the time and
financial constraints prOVided; (5) the consultant's proposal will best serve the needs of the City; and (6) the
compensation negotiated herein is fair and reasonable.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the CITY AND CONSULTANT AGREE as
follows:
1. Finding. I Recitations. The findings and recitations set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein
by this reference.
2. All Coats by Conaultant: Consultant shall, at its own risk and expense, perform the personal services described
above and, unless otherwise specified, furnish all labor, equipment and materials required for the proper performance
of such service.
3. Qualified Work: Consultant has represented, and by entering into this contract now represents, that all personnel
assigned to the work required under this contract are fully qualified to perform the service to which they will be
assigned in a skilled and worker4ike manner and, if required to be registered, licensed or bonded by the State of
Oregon, are so registered, licensed and bonded.
4. Completion Date: Consultant shall start performing the service under this contract by the beginning date indicated
above and complete the service by the completion date indicated above.
5. Compenaatlon: City shall pay Consultant for service performed, including costs and expenses, the sum specified
above. Once work commences, invOices shalt be prepared and submitted by the tenth of the month for work
completed in the prior month, Payments shall be made within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Should the contract
be prematurely terminated, payments will be made for work completed and accepted to date of termination.
6. Own....hlp of Docum....ts: All documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this contract shall be the property of
City.
7. Statutory Requirements: ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.53O are made part of this contract.
8. Living Wage Requirements: If the amount of this contract is $18,088 or more, eonsultant is required to comply with
chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees .
performing work under this contract and to any Subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under
this contract. Consultant is also required to post the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B predominantly in areas where
it wilt be seen by all employees.
9. IndM'lntflcatlon: Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and save City. its OffICerS, empfoyees and agents harmless
from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from
injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of
whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of this contract by Consultant (including but not
limited to, Consultant's employees, agents. and others designated by Consultant to perform work or services
attendant to this contract). Consultant shall not be hefd responsible for any losses. expenses, claims, subrogations,
actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, safely, and proximatety caused by the negligence of City.
CONSULTANT: Hardey Engineering & Associates, Inc.
CONTACT: Jim Higday
ADDRESS: POBox 1625. Medford OR 97501
TELEPHONE: (541) 772-6880
FAX: (541) 772-9573
10. Termination:
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2007\07-16 Hardey Contract Ash Crk 55 trunk.doc, Page 1 of 9
10. Termination:
a. Mutual Consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties.
b. Citv's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in writing
and delivered by certified mail or in person.
c. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part. effective upon delivery of
written notice to Consultant. or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following
conditions:
i. If City funding from federal. state. county or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels
suff"lCient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services;
ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way
that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchas~ under this contract or are
no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or
iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be hefd by Consultant to provide the
services required by this contract is for any reason denied. revoked. suspended. or not renewed.
d. For Default or Breach.
i. Either City or Consultant may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by
the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party
written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. tf the party committing the breach has not
entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice. or within such other period as
the party giving the notice may authorize or require. then the contract may be terminated at any
time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice.
ii. Time is of the essence for ConsuItant.s performance of each and every obligation and duty under
this contract. City by written notice to Consultant of default or breach may at any time terminate
the whole or any part of this contract If Consultant fails to provide services caUed for by this
contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof.
iii. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (d) are not exclusive and are in
addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract.
e. OblioationlLiablitv of Parties. Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections a. b. or
c above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such
termination or modification. However. upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is
given pursuant to subsections a, b. cord of this section, Consultant shall immediatefy cease all activities under
this contract. unless expressly directed otherwise by City in the notice of termination. Further. upon termination.
Consultant shall deliver to City aU contract documents, information. works-in-progress and other property that are
or would be defiverables had the contract been completed. City shan pay Consultant for work performed prior to
the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract.
11. Independent Contractor Status: Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City.
Consultant shall have the complete responsibBity for the performance of this contract. Consultant shall provide
workers. compensation coverage as required in ORS Ch 656 for all persons employed to perform work pursuant to
this contract. Consultant is a subject employer that wll comply with ORS 656.017.
12. Assignment and Subcontracta: Consultant shaD not assign this contract or subcontract any portion of the work
without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without written consent of City shall be
void. Consultant shaH be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or Subcontractors and of all
persons employed by them. and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any
contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City.
13. Default. The Consultant shall be in default of this agreement if Consultant: commits any material breach or default
of any covenant. warranty, certification. or obligation it owes under the Contract; its QRF status pursuant to the QRF
Rules or loses any license. certificate or certification that is required to perform the Services or to qualify as a QRF if
consultant has qualified as a QRF for this agreement; institutes an action for relief in bankruptcy or has instituted
against it an action for insolvency; makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing business
on a regular basis of the type identified in its obligations under the Contract; or attempts to assign rights in, or
delegate duties under. the Contract.
14. Insurance. Consultarit shall at its own expense provide the following insurance:
a. Worke(s Comoensation insurance in compliance with ORS 658.017. which requires subject employers to
provide Oregon workers. compensation coverage for all their subject workers
b. Professional Liabilitv insurance with a combined single limit., or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one:
$200,000, $500,000, 11.000.000, $2.000,000 or Not Applicable for each claim, incident or occurrence. This is to
cover damages caused by error, omission or negligent acts related to the professional services to be provided
under this contract.
c. General Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one:
$200,000, $500.000, $1.000.000. $2,000.000 or Not Applicable for each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property
Dam . It shall include contractualliabili cover for the indemn" ovided under this contract.
""'.\_...L.. ..-1...._,___'..__6 _~_t_,~. tr"l_,,..,-,,,...,t t__J__ " _ .
d. Automobile Liabilitv insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one:
$200,000, $500,000, $1.000.000. or Not Applicable for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage,
induding coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable.
e. Notice of cancellation or chanae. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or
intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days' written notice from the Consultant or its insurer(s) to
the City.
f. AdditionallnsuredlCertifacates of Insurance. Consultant shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its
elected offICials, officers and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies required herein but only
with respect to Consultant's services to be provided under this Contract. As evidence of the insurance coverages
required by this Contract. the Consultant shall furnish acceptable insurance certifICates prior to commencing work
under this contract The certificate will specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies
or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies; trust
agreements, etc. shaH be provided to the eity. The Consultant shall be financially responsible for all pertinent
deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self-insurance.
15. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or
proceeding (collectively, 'he claim.) between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and
the Consultant that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within
the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, ho\vever, the claim must be brought in a federal
forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States Disbict Court for the
District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Consultant, by the signature herein of its authorized
representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be
construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity. based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United
States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction.
16. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BElWEEN THE
PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHAlL
BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT,
MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR
THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS. AGREEMENTS, OR
REPRESENTATIONS, ORAl.. OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT.
CONSULTANT, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND
CONDITIONS.
17. NonapproprlatJons Claus.. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and
authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Consultant
understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work perfonned after the
last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority suffICient to allow
City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In
the event City has Insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this
contract without penalty or liabHity to City. effective upon the delivery of written notice to Consultant, with no further
liability to Consultant.
Certification. Consultant shall s n the certifICation attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incor
CONSULTANT CITY OF ASHLAND:
~c:~
.JAM. -SignaIIn (
Pm Name
BY
BY
ANANCE DIRECTOR
TITLE
~/Jtje~r
DATE
7 - 2-r,t:::) 8
DATE
CONTRACT AWAAD AND ANOINGS DETERMINED BY:
By:
Federal lOt
r...l113/78~
City Department Head
~ed as to
form by legal:
ACCOUNT ,
Date:
(For City purposes only)
.CompIeted W9 form must be submitted with contract
PURCHASE ORDER I
d. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent. of not less than Enter one:
$200,000. $500.000, $1.000.000. or Not Applicable for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage,
induding coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles. as applicable.
e. Notice of cancellation or chanae. There shall be no cancellation. material change, reduction of limits or
intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days' written notice from the Consultant or its insurer(s) to
the City.
f. AdditionallnsuredlCertiflCates of Insurance. Consultant shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its
elected offICials, offlCef'S and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies required herein but only
with respect to Consultant's services to be provided under this Contract. As evidence of the insurance coverages
required by this Contrad, the Consultant shall furnish acceptable insurance certifICates prior to commencing work
under this contract. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies
or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies; trust
agreements, etc. shan be provided to the eity. The Consultant shall be financially responsible for all pertinent
deductibles, self-insured retentions andlor self-insurance.
15. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or
proceeding (collectively, ,he claim.) between the City (andlor any other or department of the State of Oregon) and
the Consultant that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted soleJy and exdusively within
the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal
forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon rded in Jackson County, Oregon. Consultant, by the signature herein of its authorized
representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be
construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United
States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction.
16. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BE1WEEN THE
PARTIES. NO WAIVER. CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL
BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER. CONSENT,
MOOIFICA TION OR CHANGE, IF MADE. SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR
THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS. AGREEMENTS, OR
REPRESENTATIONS. ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT.
CONSULTANT, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND
CONDITIONS.
17. NonapproprlatJons Clause. Funds AvaUable and Authorized: City has suffICient funds currently available and
authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget Consultant
understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the
last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority SuffICient to allow
City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In
the event City has InsuffICient appropriations. limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this
contract without penalty or liabHity to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Consultant. with no further
liability to Consultant.
Certification. Consultant shall s n the certifICation attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incor
CONSULTANT CITY OF ASHLAND:
BY ()~~~ ~ t=" ~ BY
~ Signatln ANANCE DIRECTOR
.JAM. - . (
Pmt Name
TIllE
~(/Je;4/r
DATE
DATE
7 - Z.S-,o B
CONTRACT AWAAD AND ANDlNGS DETERMINED BY:
By:
FederallDl
City Department Head
~OYed as to
form by legal:
ACCOUNT ,
Date:
(Foe City purposes only)
*Completed W9 form must be slbnitted with contract
PURCHASE ORDER ,
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATION: i. Contractor. under penalty of perjury, certifies that (a) the
number shown on the attached W-Q form i~ its correct taxpayer 10 (or is waiting for the number to be
issued to it and (b) Contractor is not subjt : t to backup withholding because (i) it is exempt from
backup withholding or (ii) it has not been ! rtified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it is
subject to backup withholding as a result · f a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS
has notified it that it is no longer subject te backup withholding. Contractor further represents and
warrants to City that (a) it has the power Slid authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the
Contract. when executed and delivered. st all be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor
enforceable in accordance with its terms, (t~) the \YOrk under the Contract shall be performed in
accordance with the highest professional st andards. and (d) Contractor is qualified. professionally
competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury
that its business is not in violation of any Or ~gon tax laws, and it is a corporation authorized to act on
behalf of the entity designated above and a! rthorized to do business in Oregon or Is an independent
Contractor as defined in the contract docurr 9nts. and has checked four or more of the following
criteria:
v
v
............
, ./""
'-"""'"
v"
(1) I carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a
specifIC portion of my residence. s ,t aside as the location of the business.
(2) Commercial advertising or busi less cards or a trade associ~tion membership are
purchased for the business.
(3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing.
(4) Labor or services are perfonne<. only pursuant to written contracts.
(5) Labor or services are perfonnec f~r two or more different persons within a period of one
year.
(6) I assume financial responsibilit} for defective workmanship or for service not provided
as evidenced by the ownership of p. rfonnance bonds. warranties, errors and omission
insurance or liability insurance relatir 9 to the labor or services to be provided.
Contractor ~ t
~. ? -U-D8
(Date)
F_ W-g
~eor, 0c:klIw 2007)
l~Mt"'''' (,of lht r,..-y
......'... ft~.~ se....~1'
Request for Taxpayer
Identification Number and Certification
0IVit form to 1M
..quester. Do not
..net to the IRS.
fIWM (M enown an '101 incaM tax tftmt
WM.,t)C..'t €..t<b II'< U a..U( Cot ~ 1650e..l A TU , r( c..
SulWIeM NIM, l difJlWtnC 6'CIft abowe
Check ~apria" boa: 0 ~ ptepIeear Cotpor_. 0 Pwtlwatip
o L.maId 1abIity~. ENIr the _dlIMIIca1lon .,....egerd......,. C ~~Itiof" P~Itipt. ""_"
o 0Ifw 11M ""~cnt; ~
~ ......, ..... Mid IPl fII .. no.)
P.O. ~ ox 1t,)..5 ~ 2970 ~~_f!._S f-tl J:>I2..,y L-.
CIty. ..... IN ZF cOde
Hte.~o~ it
I.iet KCllUI'II ~ hire (cpIclNt
('II
.
r
5
!i
iJi
i
J
Identification tlImber
I c &empt
pIIy ..
R.eque.w'. twne end lid.... (opti~
Enter yaw TIN In .... .pprOSlriata box, The TIN provided "... match 1M nMW given on Line 1 to aYOid
bIdcup with,',oldno. For ind~. ... it your IOdII MCUrIty nuTIber (SSN). HoweWI'. kJr a ~
lien. .. propMtor. or -eoerdtd 1I'IIfty, 1M 1M PIft , InIfruc1i<lM on pagt 3. For oItw ..... It I.
Y'O'6 ernpIO)W IdIrIIIftcatkln runbet (EJN). If JClU do not have . ~. ... How to g<<. TrN on ~ 3.
NoIe. I the acca.n .. In m<<e than eM ........ ... 1M dwt en P9 4 .or ~ on ~
nunber to enter, '
I....~~
or
Certllcation
Under peneItiM or ptIjury. I <*lily that:
1 . TN runbar Ihown on 1M form It my carrec:t tup.,. idenIItlcdon runbIt (or 11m w8iIing for . nunber to be iaued to me}. 8nd
2. I am not ~ to a.cIcup wtUl."loIdIO becaM: (a) I.,. _~t from bec:Icup wIhhokIng. 01 (I)) I have not been notIted by the Ir1IemIII
Re~ ~ IF'Elt..... 11m ~ to ~ ~ at . rMUIt or . ..... to report II Int.... cr cI~, or (0) thalRS hat
notIfIecI me that 11m no Iongtr ~ to badoJp ~dng, 8nd
3. 11m. U.S. citizen or oIMr U.S. p.-.on (deIned btIow).
C......Clft 1MIrucIone. You mJtl croll out itIm 2 Ibove If you have bMn noIifted by the IRS f1et you are ClJTWIIIy abjed to badcup
wItthokIilg ~ you haw r.iItd to rtpClrt II Inter_ Ind d....... on your tax NlUn.. For I'MI .....t. ~. Itam 2 doee not appty.
For rncwtgege Ir'hr_ plld. ecqUtIIIon or ...4..~.~ of lec:untd propw1y. caallda. of debt, CCll"l1J'tbuao to 1I'11nc1**-, retnment
wrIIlgtfMnt ~.Ind ~. peyrnenta OCher' tNn lnI... Ind cI\4dendI. you .. naI raqUred to lign the Cel1Iftc:dor.. but you .......
provide ycu CClrTWCt TW. 8M the 6MtNdIona on p.ge 4.
~I =:~ R~ 1J~"., ~ 4-
General Instructions
Section r.f.--=- .. to tha Int.. Rev..... Code un...
ottwwtM noted.
Purpose of Form
It. person who .. reqt.*8d to 118 an lrIarmation return 'Nth the
IRS fB.IIt obtain ytM correct tupayw Id8ntIfCalIon ,..,.. (TIN)
to report. fa ~. I1c<IrrW paid to you. r.' _..
t,.nsactlons, mortgage Irt.... you paid, acquldion Of
abaudoll",_ of SlCU'ed property. canceIItIon of debt. or
contrWIons you made to 1ft IRA.
UM Form W-9 Of'ii/ if you .. I US. perllCln (including a
r8lliden a_rt. to pew. yow CO'Tect TIN to Ihlt J*SOrt
reqlMSting I (the request.) and. when applcabll. to:
,. Certify tNII the TIN you .. giving is correct (a you ..
waiting for a number to be iSSUed).
2. Certify thai you .. not subject to backup wlhhdding. or
3. Claim .~ from backup wlhhokting r you are a U S.
eX8f1'1)t payee. If appIeabIe. you... also certitytng that as a
U,S. petSCln. '10(1 allocable".. of atrf partnership ilcom8 from
a U.S. tra<>> a businns is not subject to the wlhholding tall on
for.tgn pa'tIW1' snare of effecftvetf connected incOme,
Not.. If a request. gjvft YOU. form other than Form W-9 to
request ,/eu TIN. you n1dt use the request.', Jam If . IS
substanttally slrnillf to ttis Form W-9.
o.e... 0' ,~ ""oof
01...... of . u.& penan. For f..., tax PU-poseI. you .e
COftItdered . U.S. peflOn r you .e:
. AI1lndtvidual who is. U.S. clan or U.S. r8Sident alien.
. It. partrwsNp. COI'pOf'ItIOn. COf'f1:I8"y. << aaoclatlon created <<
aganiud In the United Stat_ ar l.I'ld8r the laws of the UnA"
Stat...
. Nt _at. (dher' than a foreign estat.), Of
. A dclmIStk: trust (as defned in Regulations section
301. n01-1).
SpedaI ruin for 1NI't.....-'~ Pwtnerthtps that conduct a
trade cr business in the United stat.. .. generaly requi'ed to
pay a withholding t. on any foreign partners' share of Inc:ome
from sud't ~, Fu1hIr. In certain cases where a Fam W~9
has not been received. a ~ is reqt.*ed to prtSUl1lllhat
. paltner is a faelgn person. and pay the wlhhoktlng tax.
Tlwefcn. r you ... a U.S, p<<son thalls a partJw In a
plltrwshlp conducting a trade or bUstn8sS In the United Stat...
provide Fam W-9 to the ~IWShlp to estabfilh yOtl U.S,
sIaIus and avOId wlt'lhok2ing on YfU share d partnership
incOmI.
The person who gIVes F<<m W-9 to the partnerShip f<<
PU-posM of establwq Is U.S. status and avoiding wlhholding
on Is aIocabll shar. d net inc::omlt from the partnersNp
conducting a trade or busanessin the Unled States is in the
fCllowing cases:
. The U,S. owner of a diS'eg..-ded entity and not the emly.
Cat. No. 10231X fClllft W-8 ~. 11).2007)
r".\_...... ......L.,.,\4I'"lo__,......._" _...._:_'~IID\ICVf"'\D\U__.._.. ~.._ __. ~__ ..:_.-:_\,..-vnft . ._~_. 4 ". ~_ ._. . ^ _ _.!... _ _ "" _ _. _ .. ^ A.... .
ForM WoO ".,. 10-20(7)
P92
. The U,S. ~or or ~her owner c:I a grartOf trust and not the
trust. and
. The U S. trust (dhlr than a graNa trust) and not the
benlfteawieS of tn. trust.
FONIon penon. If you .. a foreign pertcn. do not use Fam
W-9. Insteed, u. the appropiat. Fam W-8 (see Publcatton
515, Wlt'mkJ1ng ~ Tax on Norresident AINU" and Fore6gn
E~IM).
NonN...... ..... who becomH . ,....... ...... Genera..,..
only a norr-'dent ,"n tndMdUII nwy UM the terms ~ a tax
truty to reduce a eliTftM U.S. tax on certain typM ~ InCome,
Howw.... mast tax treaties contain I proWion known as a
.saving clause.. ~ spedied in tM saving claUM rT'IiIY
per'" an ex<<f1)t1on tam tax to c:ontnue fa' certain typel of
Inc::orrw even after tM par.. hD dherwiSe bec::onw a U.S.
resident alien for tax pwpoM&
If you are I U.S. rM6dent...., Who is ,...,.tng on an ucept60n
contaJneclln the saving ctaUM d I tax treaty to clliTl .,
...,..xion from U.S. tax on certain typea of Income. you rruJt
attach a stlll<<nant to Fam W-g that specIles the following fiv.
lems:
1, The treaty ~. Gen8rdf. thls ITUIt be the IMW treaty
W1der wNch you ellinld ~ from t. ., I norrnldent
den.
2. The treaty article Iddr_ng the 1ncomI.
3. The 8ItidI number (ar lc:ICIiion) in the t. treIty tlwt
contan the saving ctaUM and Its exceptions.
~. n. type and ~ of lr1cofM that quaIfiM for the
e~ from tu.
5. &lnclllnt facts to justify the ~ from tax ooder the
t.ma of the treBly ..lea
EJrampI& .frtIde 20 d the U.S.-Ctina i1comt tax treaty aIows
an ~ from t. for schoIarstlIp InccIfne receMcl bV a
CN,.. stud<<C ~1Iy praenlln the UnIed States. Under
U.S. taw. ttlll student d ~ a r...... IItn for tax
pu'poeM I hII ar tw ..~ In the ~ Stat.. txCMdS 5
caMnc:t.- y.... HoweY..., J*vaph 2 ~ the firtt Protocol to the
U.S.-Chna treaty (dated AprI30. '1984) aloft the prcw~ d
Miele 20 to codI... to apply ~ after the ChIIwM lludefW
becclmIe a r8lklent den ot the United st.... A C.....
stucMnt who qudIM for this exception {under J*aIIJaph 2 ~
the ...st protocolt and Is ratjlng on thill exception to ctUn an
eXlN'l1'tIon from tax on his ar her schollnhlp a ftlowshlp
~ W<:'dd attach to Farm W-O a statamtnt that Includes the
infornWltton de8crlbed above to IUppcrt that ~Ion.
If you .. I nonrtsldart 11M ar I fcnIgn ....ay not aJbfIct to
bectwp wlhhoIdJng. give the req~<< the approprlat.
canp.ted Form W.e.
WIMII Is badwp ........." PerIonI nwIclng certai1 paynwa
to you fft.IIt &RMr ~ c:ondIlcnI wItIhokt Ind pIrf to the
IRS 28" ~ such ~.. Thill .. caIed .backup wlhhoading.-
Paynwa thBt fNY be subIId to becIcUp wlhhoIdlng Include
Int.... *...~ 1111.... cINIdends. bra. and berter
exchange Irar..cUon.. rents. rC7f...... ~ pay. and
c<<1aln paynwIts ..om ftINng boll operators. AMI ......
tl'1lm8dlons .. nee IUbjIct to bedwp wltlhoId.
You wi' not be ~ to backup wlhhotd'ng on payments
you recelv. r you gIYa the req&.Mtw 'f04I correct TlN. naka the
proP'l' C<<tItcations. 1M repott d yOU' taxable irWeIl and
dlVkMnds on Y046 talC 1'''''''
.,......... you ...ceiw wII be ~ to e.dcup
wlth."loIcII... It
1. You do not fil'nish YCAJI TlN to the request..
2. You do nee e<<tify you TlN wt.1 required (see the Pert II
lnstndions on page 3 far detais).
3, The IRS tels the requester that you flmlshed an Incar.a
TIN.
. The IRS tlls you that you are subj<<t to b8ckup
wlhhc:llding because you did net report all 'leu Int... and
dividends on you ta retll'ft (for reportable i~er_ and
dividends ~. or
5. You do not etrtly to the reqUMter that YCIJ If. not subfec:t
to backup wlhhokting under .. abot. (far reportable It.... and
dividend accoura opened aft... 1983 ontt).
c.tain pay... and pay""'" .. .xe"llt from backup
wthhokIk1g. s.. the instructionS beloW and the MplJat.
Instructions for the Requester of Form W-9.
Also see SpecIIIJ fU_ for pll/fntII'sNps on page 1.
Penalties
F..... to turnIItt 11H. If you ra. to fwnbh yow correa llN to a
requelW. you.e subjId to a perraly of $SO for each such
faille unIMs yov faIu'. is du. to reasonable cawe and not to
wWut ~
awl ......., tor .... Wormdan wilt ....ct to
.....allll... If you mike a fa... stat...".,. wIh no reuonable
basis that reIUIs ~ no backup wlth)tdlng. you are eubflct to a
$500 pIRIIy.
CirIrI*UII peAIlIfty for fII~ lnIonIIiIIIan. WilluIi falsfying
certiftcallcn or aft~1ons may SUbject you to ~
penaIIIM ~ fines trdIor in1WIsonrnaN.
MIluM of TIN&. If the request. dlsca. or ~ llNs In
vIOlatIOn d feder'll taw. the req~. may be IUbject to cMI and
ctt"*-l ~
Specific Instructions
Name
tf you .. an Indlvldlal. you rTUSt gerwdf ..... the ..me
shawn on yaw IncomI tax retwn. ~. If you haVe ehlnged
'1CU IaIt rwrw. for Instance. due to nwrlage without Infarmlng
the Saclll SecU'Iy AdminlltJ'lltlon of the name change, n<<
'ICU firIIt ..me. the last name shown on yew 80dat secwly
c.d, and ycu MW last name.
If the IlCCOWC .. In joi" narr.. 1st tk'1l. .., then ~cte. the
name d the penon Of entIy whoM rurtIer you ...arid in Pw11
d the fOrm.
Sola ........ Enter "Icu IndIVidual naml as Ihown on y04I
Income tax reUn on thl .NamI. ..... You may enter you
buR-. tr8de. Of .doIng busNss as ~.. r\an. on the
-euu.. ,.,.. line.
unt.ed ....., compII\ly J,LQ. Check the .LiTited IiabIIly
~ box ~ and ...ar thl appropriate code for the tax
cIaaIIcatIcn (.0- tor d.egarded .,tly. .C. fa corporation, .p-
fa- partnIrsNp) In thl epece provided.
For a 1Ing....1nIft'lber LLC ~ I foreign LLC wlh .
dor'nMJc owner) thai .. dilngwded as an nay ...... from
Is CMMr under Regulationl MCticn 301.7701-3. ....... the
ownw's ,.,.,. on the .Name. line. E~. the UC'I I'IIIIN on the
.~ ,.,.. line.
For an LLC c:IIsshd as I f*tnersNp or I corporatiOn. ...<<
the UCs namI on the .N.... line and IIfY ~, trade. Of
C8A ,.,.,. on the .eusinal ".".. I...
0IIw........ Erhr 'f04I bUsinMs name IS shown on requred
fecWal tax docWTWntl on thl .NamI- Int. ThtI r\an. IhouId
matctI the ,... shOWn on the chart<< Of oCher legal documInt
CNating the entIy. You rrtII1 ent. any bu:Wless, ~. or DBA
name on the "BusIness ~. line.
No... You.. requested to chick the apprOJrille box for ycu
status (lndivkhaVsoCe proprietor. corporation. lite}
Exempt Payee
If you .. e~ from backup withholding. .,tew Yf:AI nama as
des::rbtd abcwe and check the appropriate box far you st.us.
then check thl .~ pay... bOk in the line folowtng tM
business name. sign and date the tam
~'\ntlh-wrk~\Ann\t1Ant-=utminl~IIR~VnR\~~rrlAv ~lIn_v ~An""Ar\i:VnA L-J........._, ~....,,^.. ~"'...n,...,. f"__._... ~ no ~-- n___ ~ _I^
FOff'ft w.e f'w. 10-2007)
P8g.3
Generatj. indlvlduaJs (Inch,ding 80M propletorst.. not utftl)t
from backup wlhhOlding. COrpaatlOns .. .tmpt from backup
wlhhokfing for certain paynwtta. such as n... and dividends.
Nota. If you .. .~ from backup wlhhokting, you should
st. ~. this form to IYOid possitM erraneous badcup
wlhholdlng.
The folowing pay.., .. .8f'I1)t from backup wlhhoIdlng:
1, An organillllian oxempt from tax lMld8' Mellon 501.. a~
IRA. 01 a custodial 8C::CQ,ft &nMf MCtion 403(b)(7) r the account
.tlStlel the requlr......ws d lICtion 401(1)(2).
2. 1M Unled states a- I"f d Is ag.ndes or
1nstn.I'fWnta.....
3. A st... the Obtrtct of CokI1'i)ia. I p-:Tll1flOn 01 the United
st.es. or any d theW poIlk:aJ subctMsi:lns or Instr\meN.a...
.. A 'onlign oov-nnwnt or II'tf of Is pollical subdlYtskn.
agencils. or lnstrurnlriallils. or
5. An ...ndonII organization or anv of as agenc_ 01
ntnmIntaIliM.
0Ihtr pay... thai rrey be .empt "om backup wlhholdlng
Include:
6. A corpaatlon.
7. A fa. ~ bMk 01 ....
8. A __ In 1tC,,11eI or CCJnYI'1OdIIM ntq~ to reotst<< In
the UnIed St8Iet, the CMstrlct of CoIu1i:Ha. or a II Olllstlon 01
the United Stat...
9. A hi". '-'oIt,.,1iMkIn merchant reg....ed wIh the
ComnodIty F'*r_ Tradtng Cvt'.''''''1,
1 O. A r.. .... lrNesll'lWll trust.
11. "" eltlty r~<<ed at 1111 tlINS d"lng the tu 'I_ under
the InYtttmInI CorI1*Yf M d 1940,
12. A common W... fund op.rated bV . bank LI1der Mellon
584(1).
13. A flnanclallNltllAlon,
14. A mlddlenwt Ienown In the inYestmIrt conY'f"Iftty as a
nom".. 01 cUltodlan. or
15. A trutt MMI'1lt from tax under MCtJon 8&4 01' deecrlbed In
sectiOn 4947.
The chaft below shows typel of payments !Nt mB'/ be
~ from bIctCup wlhholdlng. The chlrt apples to the
.~ pay.. listed abov., 1 ttwough 15.
F the .-vmentla tor . . . THEN ChI pqmenals ....-..pC
tor...
Int__ Ind dvldlnd ~ M uempt .,.yeee excapI
tort
Brok. ~ Extmpt pay.-1 ~ 13.
/It.o, . pereon ~ '"*
.. hlllMlmenl Ad... N4 of
1140 who ~ IdS _ .
brok.
Extmpt payMe 1 hough 5
BarW uClhlnge IrW1I1dklne
Ind pU'om.ge cltAdIndI
PIyments O\W seoo reqlJr.cl
to be reported Ind ciNc:t
.... OWl $5,000'
GInnIy. ~t~
1ttYough7
'.. Fcrm 1011--MBC.'''; Rti~ Nlome,... -. ~
'How... ... taIoMnt ~ ".. to. carpcntJon ~ .0.
prcaede ... tit __ ......, .... ....... ~. .... . .. .ncm.y . .
ccrparlllclnt... rtpGrtiItIte an FOIIII 1C>>I-MSC .. nat...... from
baeIq) .~ ~ Ind.... C8M ~.IIIIDM/8' ..... ...
pa~ far ..... p-'d bf ........ ..... ...,-cy.
Part I. Taxpayer Identification
Number (TIN)
Enter vow TIN In ... ......... box. If you .. . resideri
alMtn and you do not have and ... not eIglbIe to get an SSH.
'fOAl T1N is yc:u IRS MNidual tupay.,.Identf'1C8tion nuni;)er
(mH)o Ert.,. t In the IOCilI seewly I'UTt>er box. If '/CXI do not
hay. In mH. SiN How to gat . TIN btiow.
If you .. a SOle proprllta and you have 111 EIN. '/CXI tnIy
ent...". you SSN a EIN. HcMev... tM IRS prefers that 'Iou
use 'leu $$N.
If you .. a ~ LlC thllt Is d.eg.ded as an
entity MptnI. from Is own<< (see Umiled IabIIty 00ITJ*fY
..,.C) on page 2), n. the owner', SSH (a EIN. r the 01/,..
has 0Mt. 00 net en. the d.egarclecl enlly's EIN. If the LLC II
clullied as a ccrporllion or .,..nershlp. ..... the entIy'. ElN.
N.. See the dwt on P9 .. fOf fwttw cllrflcatkMl d ,..,.
and T1N con1:HnMlons.
How to get a 11M. If you do not h8M . l1N. appfy for one
Imntdllltly. To apply for an SSN. g<< Fam 8$-6. AppIeatIon
for a SocIal SecwIy c.d. from '/fU IocaJ Social Secwly
AdninilhUon omc. cw get the form online at www.IM.QIO~. You
Ny alto get this form by eallng 1-800-772-1213. U. Fam
W-7, Appbdlan for IRS IndMdUIII Taxpay. ldentfleatlon
N~. to apply for an ITlN. or Form SS-4. AppIcation for
E~ IOtwlllltatian ~. to IppIy fOl' an EIN. You can
apptf fer 1ft eN online by ~IQ the IRS websIe at
\INW.n..p'''''''' and clcldng on E~ kMntnc.1on
Nwrmer (fIN) ~ stilting a BusInta. You can sa<< Fa".. W-7
and SS.... from the IRS by viIIing www.n..gcw or by caIing
1-800- TAX-FORM (100800-829-3676).
If you .. asMd to COf'I1MC. Fam W-9 bIA do not have . llN.
wrle -ApplIed Fcw- In the tpaC8 '01' the llN. sfgn and date the
form. and glv. . to the request.. Fa ...... and dividend
payl'l'lllts. and oer18In paynwra n'8de wlh respect to I"MdIf
hdabee ~., ~ you will have eo dap.to get a
TIN and ew. It to the rtqUIII. before you .. subi8d to beckup
wl~ on ~.. n. 8O-day rule does not apply to
atlw types d ~mII'II.. You wll be IUbjrIct to backup
wltIhoIc*tg on III'SUCh pay""". ....1 you prcwlde yow l1N to
the requllt<<.
NoIe. EnIerIna -ApplIed Fora mtanI that you r.ve ld'eady
applld fa . llN a- thlll you InItnd to appty for one 100ft.
CalIIIcft A .~d8d domeItk; ently th. ,.,. . inrVn ovtnII
nut elM b ~ Fotm w-a.
Part II. Certification
To eGbIIt\ to the wlhholdlng agltrt that you ... . U.S. person.
01' r.... II"'" sign Form YJ-9. You may be requested to Sign
by the WIhhoIdIng agent even If lema ,. .t. and 6 below Indlcllt.
~.
Fa a joIrt account. ori/t the person whoM llH II shown In
Part , .tIouId .. (When reqt*td). EMfY1lt pay.... see &enp
Pa)W on pege 2-
........ .............. ~ the certl'lc3t1on as Indicaed
In 1 through 5 below.
1. ........... dividend, ... ... _ctwage 8CCOUIItS
opened bttoN ... ... ........ tICCGUIIb OCMIiIIdered ...
...... 1113. You ":..'/fU correct TlN. bIA you do not
have to sign the cet1
2. ......... ct........ taraIr.ef, ... berW .x.cMnge
....... opened ..... 1t83 ... "ok<< IIOCOUIlts CGnIIdINd
........... 1tI3. You nut sign the certifICation 01' backup
wlhhaIdIng w. apply. If you ...1Ubject to backup wlhhotding
and you ... nw8tf prOliding you correct TIN to the requester.
you nust cross ~ Iern 2 in the ec1ificaUon bcffae signing the
form.
n.\......... ,...&,....\^....,..,....^~. .....A......:...\~. IO\'C:Vr\O'U_~_.. r-. __ ._.. t' __ ~___''''~^ft I f__~_.. ^. .- -- ,... - .
FGf'" w-e ft... t~71
3. ANI ...... ~ You I'1'USt sign the certification.
You rrey crass ot.t Item 2 d the OIftifIcSton.
4. caw pavmIIIts. You ITI.ISt gtve Y04l cared TIN. W you
do not have to sign the certlfic:8tlon u... you h8v. been
nottfted thlt you hIVe prwtoustf gilt." ., Incorrect TIN. -other
paynwnb- InctucIe plYnwU made In the CCUM of the
request.'s trade ex buIIneIs for ra.. royaIttIs. goods (other
than bIIs for "*dwId_~ medical and hNfth ear..vlces
(indUding parl"ndS to caporatlc:lnst, payments to a
nc::M-.~ for ..w:.. payn"lfts to certain fiItq bolt crfM
~ InCS ftshInnIn. and gross prOCMds patd to ~orneys
(lndudlng paymn' to caporatlClnS).
I. MoI1a. ........ p8Id by rou. lIoqul*. or
.....lfIftIIII 0II1eC1UNd propertr. ~ It ---'1aft 01 cWIC.
quailed tuition program ......... .... MCtIan &2tlt.1RA.
Caw'" ESA. NcMr MIA 01' HSA CCII'IIdIuIoM or
dl*blllans. and ....... dIatrIbuIIanL You mat fii. you'
ccrrec:t TIN. W you do not have to sign the certIIcation.
What Name MCI Nun. To CUVe the RequesW
,. .... ... ., ........e:
,. hIWIuII
2. 1Wo Gf .....e ....... fc*lI
~
(1M.... ~... et
"Ihe ...........
'the ..... ~ cI ... -=orM'II 06.
If ClCIIfttlInM .... .. ...
~_...~.
.... IMw ·
J, cunodIIIn eGC:iOlft cI a IMw
~ QIft lit MIa. ~
... .. The UNI r.caWa ..,.
w.t .__ .. -.0 tlWIMt
b. ao.c.IM hit ~ ... .. 'the ..... ~.
not . ...., 01 vtId ~ ~
.... ...
5. .. pr+~........ fit .....dId .... ..... ·
.. CMnICI ~ an ~
,..... .... .,......e: QM ~ ~.. III:
e. ~... MIl..... ~ __ 'the ClIiMW'
~
7, A-*'........ CII'..... NIt L.... .., .
.. COIpcnte 06 u.e ...... "Ihe CllMpCnIon
~ __ an FOIftl_
.. AModdan. ... ....-.
charItIt:lIe. ecIucaIIonII. . ..
_....... 40_ lu r ,
10, PInwINp fit ~ u.c "Ihe ,.".,....
1,. A bralcer fit ........ .....,. 'the trcAr ar ,......
12. Acccutt....... ~ f1I "Ihe ~ __
~.In .. name cia P'bIc
...- tu:h _ a ... ar ....
.,.....,..,.., __ dntct, ar
,.... ..,...... .......
pqIWft ~
'1.I. .. .., atda ... _ 01 .. I*UiIl wew:. 1UIt_ 'jIO.I........ r ~ one PIRO't
on. jaint ar:COIIl"- ... SIH. ... ......... tUllfW Ill. be .......,
· Cwt'- .. monar'l r_ ..., t.nnh N "'lftO""a $8N
'YOU ""-* ~ 'JCU ~ _...., ya.I mar -.0... ~ ~ ~ 'D8A"
ntrM en "" ~ n.... 'M. You ~ .,.. ..... yo.s 88N Of EIfof IJ/ you ".,. lINt.
bit .. IRa enecu.. yoau I) ~ 'JCU 6SN.
· uac Ira, .., ordt N n... 01 fie .,.. ..... 01 1>eI'*OII'" \DO ftU __1ft .. nN
r:J .. ~1Clnllf .lOilWlllllW a .,.... liIIIM ,. _ """ ,... is l'IO( ~ In
.. 8tcQll'll '''1 JNo _ ~ Mw lOt ~ en r-oe 1
..-. If no ..".. is Ci'ded when mae than one name is 1Ist4Mt.
the nutTH' w. be conSider" to tie that 01 the tnI nam. 1st...
'the p.-...... .
-n. Of'.......
P.ge4
Secure YOW' Tax Records from Identity Theft
Iderily theft cc<:... when someone u.s yov ~
Wornwtlon such 3S yow name, 9OC8I ~Iy rurt>>tr (SSN). ex
ather idenrv~ lr'tcrmttlon, wlhoUt 'f04I J*rmstcn. to cornn1t
fr8Ud or othIr c:rirTws. An ldeltly ttW may use yaw SSN to get
a job ex ~ fie . tax retll'n using yov SSN to r80lNe a rlllM.
To reduce yov rtstc
. Protect yo&I' SSN.
. eran yov ~ Is protecting yov SSN. and
. Be c:arefli when choosing . tax preP8'_.
ca. the IRS . 1-800-829-1040 W you tf*1k yo46 IcMrCIy has
been used il"lllPPopiat~ for tax JM.I~.
VIctims 0I1dM1ty thCIft who .. expertencIng economc harm
ex a system probltm, or are tMIdng ~ In rMOMng tM
probttnW thlt haw not been rMOlVed ttl'ough I'lOI'mIt chaMlll.
n'8Y be tllgtble for Taxp8'/. Mvoc:8te Setva (TAS) ~.
You can r.-ch TAB ~ cdIng the TAS tol-fr.. CUI traM line
at 1-877-777-.778 or TTYITOD 1-aoo-829...cosg.
ProIeclI ,..... hm "nr1c1ow ...... 01' phIsNno
Ic:IIeInH. PhIshIng is the cr..1an and use d ..,..1 .-.d
wet*t.. deltgned to rrUric ~ bull,.. emaII and
w.beI_ ,... mDIt ccrnnon Kt Ie Mt"lding an emd to . UMr
fa"'" clUring to be an _lbIlshed ~.,.. ....prtM In an
att.".,. to scam the Wet' no SI61'endertng private Inforrration
that wi! be u.d for Id4ttdy t~.
"T'he IRS dole net 1nI.... cantads wlh taxpay.. va 1HT1lII.
AIIo. the IRS dole not reqUMt ,...... detailed Wamltlcn
through..,... Clf' .. ~ for the PIN 1U1t>erS. paswads.
ex slmIIIr -=ret IlCCISI WorrT1lllon far ther ad card. bank. or
ather fNncilll ac:courU.
If you receive an ..-otIcled ..,..1 claJmlng to be from the IRS,
forward this ,..... to philhttgO#rl.gov. You mIY also report
rRIUM d the IRS name. logo. or othlr IRS penonal property to
the Treuwy Insp<<tex Generat for Tax Adn'intIIratlon .
1-aoo.366-44&4. You can forwa-d IUIpk::ious ..,.... to the
FederII Trade CQ~.~lIMIcln a: ~go" cr conIact them at
WWW.c:cnawneI..fIO.IlldtheIt ex 1-877 -IOlliEFT{~4338).
VIsIt the IRS webslte at www.n.gov to ...n mere abocA
IcIenUty theft and how to reduce '1041 risk.
Privacy Act Nota
8ecIan etot cI h ~ ~ Code ...... yaa lit PAM. 'fGII caract lW lit ...-- who I\'lUIIt . InIanna*ln ,tUN .tth h AI to,.port........
dMdenda. ... c.-..n aIw NclMe JMIid 11:1 YeN. "."..... '*'-' you .... ... ~ 01 ~~ cI HOnd praperty. ~ cI cMbt. 01
~ 'ICU made. __ RA. or ,... MIA fit ~ 1ha AS __ .......... tor kM ..~..~ . ~ and 11:1 MIp .." .. accuacy cI 'fOV .. ,.un.
n. .. IMW -.0 plOlriIM tiI ........... . ... ~ of ~ .. chi ... ainWIIltigIIIon. ..... lit dtIat. ......, hi 0IMrid 01 CcUnIIIa. ..... U.I,
po....rCIN.1CMf'/ NthIir......, Wa~ .-ocladoMtiI rtbwl~1It oIMr~"" am.... .,..,.......... egenciMtD ....ce-..,.,
nantIIX c:riniNt ..... ar. ......... ....__ ... ~ ~ to ant.! tImlriML
Ycu ,.. prcMde 'f06 ~ wNIw Gf nat you .. '......1It . a _ ,4IUr\ ~ I\'lUIIt ~ .....,... 21" cI tIllIitH ,.,.... cfiwid4ncl. Ind c.wn Cllfw
~ to. peyee who ~ nGt ... ~ to. JMIW.. Cer1J6n...... ~ ~~.
.... _..___\~-._. _..I_~_\'""t.r-t"P-'\J"P"\'I'__"_...."'.._._~."'__.t___'t-\.,^^..__~_._^.._._. ",,__.!___ ""__A___&^"'^ -'__ "___ n _1ft
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
EXHIBIT B
City of Ashland
LIVING
,.,
I!IJIp.r hour effective June 30. 2008
(IReNa.... annually every June 30 b, the
Consumer PrIce Index)
Employees must be paid a
living wage:
> For an hours worked lIlder a
service contract between their
employer and the City of
Ashland if the contract
exceeds $18,088 or more.
> For all hours worked in a
mon1h if the employee spends
50% or more of the
employee's time in that month
working on a project or
portion of business of their
employer, if the employer has
ten or more employees, and
has received financial
assistance for the project or
business from the City of
Ashland in excess of $18,088.
> If their employer is the City of
Ashland including the Parks
and Recreation Department.
~ In calculating the living wage,
employers may add the value
of health care, retirement,
401K and IRS eligible
cafeteria plans (inclucfmg
childcare) benefits to the
amooot of wages received by
the employee.
> Note: -Employee- does not
include temporary or part-time
employees hired lor less than
1040 hours in any twelve-
mon1h period. For more
details on appIicabiUty of this
policy, please see Ashland
Municipal Code Section
3.12.020.
For additional information:
Call the Ashland City Administrator's offICe at 541-488-6002 or write to the City Administrator, City Hall,
20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 or visit the city's website at www.ashland.or.us.
Notice to Employers: This notice must be posted predominantty in areas where it can be seen by aU
employees. C I T Y 0 f
ASHLAND
G:\pub-WI1<s\eng\dept-admin\SURVEYOR\Hardey Survey Services\FY08 Hardey Survey Services Contract 6 08.doc
. Page 9 0'9
Hardey Engineering and Assoclat IS, Inc.
.
t'ROPOSALFOR PROFE SSIONAL SERVICES
CONTRACT FO t SERVICES
P.O. .. 182
Medford. OR 9750
541.772.888CJ..t4
541.m.8&13-fa
~ Ine.cor
June 23. 2001
Jim Olson
City Surveyorl Project Manager
20 E. Main St.
Ashland. OR 97520
Phone: 541-488-5347
Fax: 541-488-6006
Afta:
Mr. JI. OIIoa
Sabjed:
As....Dd Creek TnaDk Sewer Reeoutn. tioa PUle 1
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK: We at Hardey Engil1et ring would like to thank you for the
opportunity to submit this Proposal for Services. The scope of work as we see it at this time is to provide
civil engineering services for the above mentioned project. fhe work is more specifICally as follows:
SURVEY
t. Provide legal descriptions for easement requisitio s for three properties.
Total allQ
1. Provide all necessary construction staking and ref.. 'tReing of existing property markers.
Total $16.000
S.rvey Total Sll..7SO
CIVIL
I. Attend two design meetings with city staff.
%. Provide 60 and 90 percent plants for review byeit)
J. Provide complete plans. specifICations and bid docu nents.
4. Attend pre-bid conference.
5. Respond to requests for clarifICations and interpretat ens from prospective bidders.
6. Provide limited project inspection to suppl~nt cit} inspections.
7. Provide proj~t submittal reviews and respond to cor tractors request for interpretations of plans
and specifaarions.
8. Provide as-built dbCumentation including mylar plan: showing any changed conditions.
Civil Total 512.000
Graad Total SJJ.7SO
This proposal does not include any structural design for retaining walls. If deemed necessary. survey crew
will tie-in needed properly pins for proposed easements on a hourly rate part of Phase II.
The above mentioned work will be performed on a time and material basis, ...sI.... ad..ted ...0...
ofW.7SO in accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule -A- and our Standard Contract Provisions
attac~ which are normally associated with. project of this nature and does not include any fees for
permit applications. tiling. etc. that may be required by government agencies.
If we anticipate our fees to exceed the estimate, we will notify you with an explanation as to why the
excess is anticipated. We will not exceed the budgeted amount without your prior approval.
Upon acceptance of this contract and deciding on a constnaction method, a price for phase II will be
negotiated with the City of Ashland.
If this proposal meets with your approval, please have an authorized representative or owner sign, date and
return one copy to this offICe along with a SO retainer. By signing, both Hardey Engineering cl
Assoc~ and the owner will be bound to the other party to this agreement and to the partners,
s~ executors, administrators and legal representatives of such other party in respect of all
covenants. agreements and obligations of this agreement. We will proceed with work upon receipt of the
signed Contract For Services and retainer. The estimated fees are subject to receiving written acceptance
within 30 days and completion within one year.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this Proposal For Services. We are looking forward to the
opportunity to serve you on this project. If you have any questions., please don't hesitate to call.
ENGINEER
ACCEPTED
HARDEY ENGINEERING It ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:r~
C~ipNIme
By:
AuthorUlcd SipMuIe
Title: Proiect Mana2er
Title:
Date: ,-:1.~..0 ,
Date:
WARRANTY OF AUTHORIZATION.. The person signing this authorization. accepting this proposal,
warrants helshe has authority ~ or on behalf of, the Client, Owner. Partnenhip, or Corporation for whom
or for whose benefit Hardey Engineering & Associates. Inc. Would render service. Said person agrees that
he/she is personally liable for all breaches of the agreement and that in any action against himlher for
breach of such warranty, a reasonable attorney's fee shall be included in any judgment rendered.
Attachments: Standard Fee Schedule · A. cl Standard Contract Provisions.
W :\PROPOSAL \AshlandCreekTrunkSewerReconphase2.doc
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of a Contract for Design and Engineering Services
to Identify a Location for the Talent Booster Pump Station
Meeting Date: September 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught
Department: PW/Engineering - Water E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
Question:
Will the City Council approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo Engineers PC and the City of
Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a location for the Talent Booster
Pump Station?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council approve a contract for $15,000 with Carollo Engineering for
design and engineering services required to identify a location for the Talent Booster Pump Station.
Background:
On May 6,2008 the City Council did not approve staffs recommendation to award a $699,299
contract to Carollo Engineers PC for the Talent Ashland Phoenix intertie (TAP) final design and
engineering services. The question before the City Council is whether or not to continue other elements
of the TAP project in order to connect to the TAP water source-sometime in the future. To that end,
this council communication provides a history of the TAP project and provides a recommendation to
proceed with engineering services that would locate the Talent Booster Pump Station previously
discussed and approved by the Council on July 20, 1999 and January 15, 2008.
Previous Council Actions (as represented in their respective City Council minutes):
December 15, 1998
The City Council held a Public Hearing regarding the City's long-term water supply.
Following the public hearing, the City Council approved staffs recommendation to
participate in oversizing the intertie pipeline from 18" to 24" to Talent only, purchase 450
MG of Lost Creek water rights, and to pursue other short-term water supply options (i.e.
Talent Co-op, TID Co-op, etc.).
July 20, 1999
The City Council approved a motion to purchase property jointly with the Cities of Talent
and Phoenix for the purpose of placing the regional pump station for the TAP Intertie
Project and authorizing the City Administrator to negotiate the final purchase price, sign the
purchase agreement and authorize payment of the earnest money for the property.
Page 1 of6
090208 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
September 5,2000
The City Council approved a Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix (TAP) Intertie construction
contract and authorized the City Administrator to sign the contract with James W. Fowler
for $1,107,000.
February 5, 2002
Public Works Director Paula Brown recommended that the City Council direct staff to
bring back funding options to connect the City's water distribution system to TAP by 2008.
The City Council then approved a motion to move ahead with a preliminary plan that
included conservation, engineering, and funding.
March 4, 2003
Following a TAP presentation by Paula Brown, the City Council discussed the project and
noted the following issues as represented in the March 4,2003 Council minutes:
. Timeline: The water need is 2016, but the line could be connected by 2008
. Continued and consistent water conservation is imperative
. Brown should continue to bring updates to the council
. Removing water rights from the Imperatrice property would devalue the property
. An alternative emergency source of treated water is a need
The Council then approved a motion to accept staff recommendations to do the preliminary
engineering study.
February 17,2004
The City Council reviewed draft Council goals that included the following:
. Develop a citywide focus: "the right water for the right use"
. Explore and potentially develop a three-year plan to improve and extend out the
current TID system
. Negotiate for other water supply options
. Support effluent reuse for the WWTP
. Complete pre-design plan for future extension of TAP water line including priority
for conservation
February 21,2006
The City Council approved a motion to direct the Public Works Director to complete
preliminary design and cost estimates for the shortened TAP line.
January 15, 2008
The City Council approved a motion to approve the current TAP schedule and direct staff
to proceed with Step #1: Booster Pump Station Site Acquisition, and Step #2: Final Design
and Cost Benefit Analysis.
Page 2 of6
090208 Pump Station.CC.doc
r.,
III
CITY OF-
ASHLAND
May 6,2008
The City Council denied staff s recommendation to approve a contract with Carollo
Engineers PC for final design and engineering of the Talent, Ashland and Phoenix (TAP)
water line.
In 1998, the City hired Carollo Engineers to update Ashland's Comprehensive Water Supply Study.
The scope of work evaluated current water usage and demand patterns to determine future water needs
through 2050 or projected build out. The scope of work also included an update of available water
supply options to augment the City's existing water sources.
The Water Advisory Group (WAG) was formed to participate in the evaluation of potential long term
water supply recommendations. The WAG group members included:
Jim Moore
Debbie Whit all (Hydrologist)
Ashley Henry
Cate Hartzell
JoAnne Eggers
John Fields
Ron Roth
Ken Hagen
Paula Brown
Dick Wanderscheid
Greg Scoles
Wetland Coalition
US Forest Service
Oregon Trout
Citizen / Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance
Citizen / Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance
Planning Commission
Citizen /Agriculture User
Council Liaison
Public Works Director
Conservation Director
Assistant City Administrator
Carollo identified several areas of concern related to Ashland's ability to provide drinking water during
severe drought conditions and projected water demands to meet 2050 growth demands. The following
table (*) represents projected population (1.4 % annual growth rate based on the Comprehensive Plan)
and water demand through 2050:
Year
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2050
Population
19,350
20,743
22,237
23,838
25,554
35,065
Yearly Water Demand (MG)
1,069
1,178
1,263
1,353
1,451
1,991
* (Carollo Technical memo/Oct 1998)
The study indicated that the yearly water demand for the City of Ashland ranged from 1451 million
gallons by 2020 to 1991 million gallons by 2050. The demand estimates incorporated an adjustment
for a proposed conservation plan that included a 20% reduction during summer months and an
additional 10% voluntary curtailment during drought years.
The WAG group reviewed the initial Carollo water supply report and ultimately developed seven
feasible water supply options: They included:
Page 3 of6
090208 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
-----nr.- .--
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. Wastewater reclamation
. Ground Water from wells and springs
. Pipeline supply from Talent Irrigation District in lieu of existing canal
. Connection to the Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix (TAP) Pipeline
. Additional reservoir storage
. Cooperative water supply projects with TID
. Increased snow pack in Ashland Creek Watershed
Each of these alternatives was then thoroughly evaluated by Carollo who ultimately identified the TAP
project as the only "stand alone" option that would meet the community water supply needs through
2050. The final Carollo Technical Report #3 (January 1999) recommended the following plan of
action:
. Buy-in to the TAP project but do not extend the pipeline to Ashland
. Purchase 450 mg or 1380 acre-feet water rights from Lost Creek Lake
. Pursue water supply by reclamation or co-op projects
Based on the findings outlined in the Carollo Technical Report #3 (January 1999), the City expended
$2,456,000 on the TAP intertie as its solution to future growth/drought related water supply demand
needs to the year 2050. The first phase of the project extended the TAP pipeline to Talent by
constructing a 24-inch pipeline from Medford to Talent, constructing a regional pump station at
Belknap and Highway 99 and purchasing 920 acre-feet of Lost Creek water rights.
It is important to note that, with the exception of purchasing land for the Talent Booster Pump Station
and purchasing the remaining 250/0 of Lost Creek Water Rights, the first phase of the TAP (extending
the TAP project from Medford to Talent) project is complete as recommended in the 1999 Water
Supply Technical Memorandum; Carollo Engineers.
The second phase of the project, extending the TAP pipeline from Talent to Ashland, was not slated to
be completed until 2016 based on growth, drought, water storage and conservation. However, at the
February 2,2002 City Council meeting former Public Works Director Paula Brown recommended that
the final phase of the TAP project be completed by 2008. This recommendation was not based on
growth, but was specifically meant to address the impacts of the 2001 drought.
The Council supported Ms. Brown's suggestion and moved to authorize staff to proceed with a
preliminary plan that included conservation, engineering and funding. The Council supported the 2008
construction date again at their March 4,2004 City Council meeting. At the February 2,2005 City
Council meeting Ms. Brown adjusted the projected TAP pipeline project (Talent to Ashland) timeline
as follows:
. Design the remaining section of the TAP project in 2008-09
. Construct the new TAP pipeline in 2009-2010
In the 1998 Carollo Water Supply Study, population and annual water usage projections proved to be
very accurate. The actual 2005 population was 20,880 as compared to the Carollo population
projection of20,743. As you can see the Carollo population projections were lower than the actual
Page 4 of6
090208 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
.11. .--.---
CITY OF
ASHLAND
population increases even with their projected 1.4% annual population increase estimates. As indicated
by the chart below, the water usage was substantially higher than projected in 2000; however, the
usage not only dropped in 2005 but has held constant through 2008 (1,218 MG).
Year
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2050
Proj ected
Population
19,350
20,743
22,237
23,838
25,554
35,065
Actual
19,610
20,880
Proj ected
Water Demand (MG)
1,099
1,178
1,263
1,353
1,451
1,991
Actual
Water Usage (MG)
1,301
1,220
While the study did not implicitly recommend a new water supply evaluation once the first phase of
the TAP project was complete, a new water supply study is a reasonable next step given that 10 years
have elapsed since the water study. A new water supply study is estimated to cost approximately
$200,000 and would re-evaluate all potential raw water sources available based on the most current
information. The study would also consider and include the "right water right use" data that was not
available in 1998 and look at emergency raw water sources that meet Ashland's needs in the event ofa
catastrophic incident (Watershed Wild Fire, Water Plant Failure, etc.).
While a new water supply study is the appropriate next-step at this point, completing additional
elements of the TAP project, purchasing land in Talent for the Talent Booster Pump Station and
purchasing the final 25% of Lost Creek Water Rights, should continue to be a high priority.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code
Comprehensive Water Master Plan 1991; R. W. Beck and Associates Engineering Consultants
Comprehensive Water Supply Plan Technical Memo No.1, Estimated Water Demand & Supply, 1998;
Carollo Engineers
Comprehensive Water Supply Plan Technical Memo No. 2, Water Supply Alternatives, 1998; Carollo
Engineers
Comprehensive Water Supply Plan Technical Memo No.3, Findings and Recommendations, 1999;
Carollo Engineers
Budget Documents including the CIP
Council Options:
1. The City Council could approve staffs recommendation to award a contract for $15,000
between Carollo Engineers PC and the City of Ashland for design and engineering services
required to identify a location for the Talent Booster Pump Station.
2. The City Council could decide not to approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo
Engineers PC and the City of Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify
a location for the Talent Booster Pump Station.
Page 5 of6
090208 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
3. The City Council could decide to modify staffs recommendation.
Potential Motions:
1. Move to approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo Engineers PC and the City of
Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a location for the Talent
Booster Pump Station.
2. Move to deny staffs recommendation to approve a contract for $15,000 between Carollo
Engineers PC and the City of Ashland for design and engineering services required to identify a
location for the Talent Booster Pump Station.
3. Move to modify (
) staff s recommendations.
Attachments:
Comprehensive Water Supply Plan Technical Memorandum No.3, January, 1999
Page 6 of6
090208 Pump Station.CC.doc
r~'
.11 -,----
-----
G:\W0\4676AOO\TM3COV.wpd
r s
CITY OF ASHlAND
COMPREHENSIVE WATER
SUPPLY PLAN
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
January 1999
III
CITY OF ASHLAND
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
No.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1
WATER ADVISORY GROUP ............................................. 3-1
SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1
FINDINGS ............................................................ 3-2
RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-2
WATER CONSERVATION AND CURTAILMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-3
G:\WO\4676AOO\TM3_FN-1.WPD
TOC-1,
Technical Memorandum No.3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The City of Ashland has identified a need to augment its water supply to meet the
projected future demands. The purpose of this study is to develop a master plan for
water supply improvements which will provide for the City's future needs.
The approach to work for this study is to develop planning concepts in a series of
technical memorandums (TM). An evaluation of the projected future water demands and
available supply was completed in TM 1. Potential water supply alternatives were
identified in TM 2. These two memorandums provide the technical basis for this
planning effort.
The purpose of this document is to present the findings of this study, and recommend a
project alternative that will serve as the basis of the City's long term water supply
planning.
WATER ADVISORY GROUP
The City of Ashland has historically encouraged public participation in the planning
process. Accordingly, the approach to work for this master RJan included a focused
publiC participation and review of the planning concepts. The public participation was
facilitated by the City's Water Advisory Group rNAG), which was comprised of several
citizens and City staff.
The primary objective of the WAG was to identify issues related to implementation of the
City's long range water plan. Working jointly with Carollo Engineers, the WAG provided
review and input throughout the development of the technical information developed in
TMs 1 and 2. For example, for TM 1 the WAG helped to identify planning assumptions
related to future conservation and usage curtailment, which helped set the basis for
projecting the future demands. For TM 2, the WAG helped to identify possible water
supply project alternatives. The WAG also developed several criteria which were used to
evaluate and compare the supply alternatives, as discussed below.
SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
The projected maximum annual deficit in the 2050 planning year is approximately 450
MG. This projected deficit includes demands from all account types in the City system,
including the irrigation customers. Of the total projected drought year deficit up to 250
MG could be offset by providing an alternative irrigation supply. Depending on the
amount of alternative irrigation supply, the amount of new supply for domestic use would
range from 200 to 450 MG.
G:\W0\4676AOO\TM3_FN-1.WPD
3-2
January 7, 1999
Four water supply project concepts were identified as potential alternative water supply
sources for the City:
· Reclamation
· TAP Pipeline
· TID Pipeline
· Cooperative Water Supply with TID
Of these four project concepts, the TAP pipeline is the only viable "stand alone"
alternative that can provide all of the City's projected water supply needs. The remaining
project concepts can, however, be combined to form other project alternatives that can
meet the projected domestic and irrigation supply needs in 2050. The combined
alternatives, which were developed after review and input from the City's WAG, are
summarized below:
.1) ,Reclamation with TlD Co-op.
2) TlD Pipeline with TID Co-op.
3) TlD Pipeline with TID Co-op and Reclamation.
4) TAP Pipeline: Buy-in and Use.
5) TAP Pipeline: Buy-in and Use with TID Co-op.
6) TAP Pipeline: Buy-in Only with TID Co-op.
Of the six project alternatives, only two (Alternatives 5 and 5) would provide supply for
domestic use only. The other four alternatives (Alternatives 1 , 2, 3, and 6) would provide
both irrigation and domestic supply. The relative benefits and drawbacks of each
alternative are broadly summarized in Table 1. Costs for these alternatives are
summarized in Table 2.
FINDINGS
Each of the combined project alternatives can potentially solve the City's water supply
needs. However, each alternative has a unique set of benefits and drawbacks that must
be considered and addressed before a preferred alternative can be implemented.
Ukewise, there is a range of costs for each project alternative which also may influence
the City's ability to implement one or more of the alternatives.
Several working meetings were held with the WAG to discuss the costs of the alternatives,
benefrts and drawbacks, and other genera) issues related to long range planning and
implementation. The relative merits of the water supply alternatives were compared
against four primary criteria developed by the WAG: environmental bias, cost,
risk/reliability of supply, and ease of implementation. Using these criteria as the basis for
evaluation the WAG made the two general findings:
1) Projects including reclamation and/or co-operative supply are preferred with respect
to environmental benefit.
2) Projects including supply from the TAP pipeline are preferred with respect to cost,
ease of implementation, and reliability.
The WAG found that all of the projects all of the projects are viable, although there was no
consensus on a single preferred alternative.
G:\WO\4676AOO\TM3_FN-1.WPD
3-3
January 7, 1999
RECOMMENDATIONS
If the City's water supply project alternatives were ranked only on basic engineering
criteria of cost and reliability of supply, Carollo would recommend alternative 4, TAP
pipeline buy-in and use (Le., extend the pipeline to Ashland and purchase enough water
rights to meet the estimated deficit of 450 MG).
However, it is clear from the input provided from the WAG during the planning process
the there is a strong preference to implement an alternative that is environmentally
beneficial in addition to providing the needed water supply. Environmental benefits can
be measured in many ways. In the context of this planning effort, the WAG identified a
primary environmental benefit (objective) as the ability to maximize the use of the existing
water supply sources. Reclamation and the co--operative water supply projects both
provide this benefit.
As identified above, there are a number of alternatives that include reclamation, co--
operative supply or both. We agree with the WAG's finding that these projects are viable.
Given the City's preference to provide environmental benefit through maximum use of the
existing supplies, the following actions are recommended:
. Buy-in to the TAP Project but do not extend to Ashland. This will require that the
City pay to upsize the pipeline between Phoenix and Talent. The City will still have
the option to extend the pipeline if needed in the future.
. Purchase Water Rights to 450 MG from Lost Creek Lake. The amount of firm
supply available from reclamation or co-operative projects has not yet been
identified. Purchase of rights to 450 MG will ensure that, if needed, the City could
eventually meet its projected deficit with water supplied from the TAP pipeline.
. Pursue Water Supply by Reclamation or Co-op Projects. The City can only
benefit in the long run if additional water supply can be provided by one or more of
these project concepts. These projects can provide additional supply capacity for
the future, and can provide "insurance" against future drought conditions that are
more severe than identified in this study.
The reclamation and co-operative water supply projects appear to have merit, but there
are uncertainties regarding their overall feasibility. Issues related to cost, water supply
capacity (i.e., available supply during drought) and use of the water under current water
right constraints (i.e., limitations on point of use, restrictions on use for irrigation versus
municipal supply, etc.) will need to be resolved before these alternatives can be
implemented as long term water supply alternatives for the City.
It is recommend that the City pursue the cooPerative supply projects with TID over the
next several years, and continue to examine the details and limitations regarding
implementation. .If the various implementation issues can be resolved, the City should
further develop the projects, either alone or in combination with supply provided by the
TAP pipeline.
G:\WO\4676AOO\TM3_FN-1.WPD
3-4
January 7,1999
WATER CONSERVATION AND CURTAILMENT
The success of this plan's recommendations in meeting the water supply needs of the
City of Ashland is greatly dependent upon the City implementing additional conservation
measures. The water demand projections presented in TM 1 assume the City will
implement new conservation programs to achieve a 20 percent reduction of peak
summertime demands. Therefore, it is recommended the City review their existing water
conservation program and identify how best to achieve this aggressive goal.
G:\W0\4676A00\TM3_FN-1.WPD
3-5
January 7, 1999
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Downtown Task Force - Summary Report
September 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Community Development E-Mail: molnarb@ashland.or.us
Administration Secondary Contact: Adam Hanks
Martha Benn Estimated Time: 30 minutes
Question:
Should the City Council accept the recommendations of the Downtown Task Force relating to
employee parking restrictions in the downtown, proposed changes to the City's sign code and
permissible use of public sidewalk area, and direct City staff to prepare ordinance language for review
and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council as necessary?
Staff Recommendation:
The Downtown Task Force has developed a summary document of the discussions and
recommendations that took place over a five week meeting period in July and August. The Summary
Report is organized around nine issues, each accompanied by a recommendation and supporting
reasoning. Some of the issues can stand alone and are independent of others, but many are indirectly
connected and become more complicated when compared against each other.
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the summary document and provide staff with any
feedback with regards to the acceptable scope and prioritization of issues. Staff can then provide
additional research and analysis and draft specific code language to achieve the desired results.
Background:
In early July 2008, Mayor Morrison appointed a Downtown Task Force made up of downtown
merchants, members of the Planning and Public Arts Commission, Chamber of Commerce
representatives, as well as citizens at large to review and make recommendations directed to address
several concerns affecting downtown merchants. The issues included the existing restrictions on
downtown employee parking, City sign code provisions and the use of public sidewalk space for
private use, as well as for the placement of certain elements considered to be amenities or serve a
utilitarian function.
The meetings occurred each Monday afternoon beginning on July 14t\ with the last of the meetings
concluding on August 11 tho Public testimony was taken at each meeting to provide the Task Force with
input from merchants who were specifically impacted by current compliance activities being
conducted by the Community Development Department.
Throughout the process, City staff provided the Task Force background information in the form of
memos that outlined issues and incorporated possible options for consideration. The attached
document provides the Council with a summary of the issues and the recommendations of the Task
Force on each issue. Additionally, the Task Force summary includes some more general
Page 1 of2
090208 Downtown Taskforce Summary.CC.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
recommendations on items that produced significant discussion, but in the end were believed to fall
outside the immediate charge of the group.
Related City Policies:
AMC 6.44 Sidewalk Cafe's
AMC 10.64 Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways
AMC 11.30 Downtown Parking District
AMC 13.02 Public Rights of Way
AMC 18.96 Sign Code
1988 Downtown Plan
Council Options:
The Council can accept the recommendations of the Downtown Task Force and provide immediate
direction to Staff to proceed with development of a work plan and time line for drafting code language
that implement the recommendations of the Task Force.
The Council can also accept the recommendations and schedule time on a future agenda to discuss the
issues and recommendations prior to providing any specific direction to Staff for further action.
Potential Motions:
Accept the recommendations of the Downtown Task Force and direct staff to develop a work plan and
time line for developing implanting ordinance language that addresses Task Force recommendations.
Accept the recommendations of the Downtown Task Force and request Staff to create a future agenda
item to discuss in more detail how the Council would like to proceed with the recommendations of the
Task Force.
Attachments:
Downtown Task Force Summary Document
Downtown Task Force Meeting Agendas and Minutes
Page 2 of2
090208 Downtown Taskforce Summary.CC.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
August21,2008
At the initiation of Mayor John Morrison and in conjunction with the Ashland
Chamber of Commerce, a Downtown Task Force was created and charged with
reviewing and providing remedies to address the following issues affecting
downtown merchants:
. The current policy on parking restrictions within the downtown area;
. A review of the City sign provisions related to the requirements for
temporary signs and the use of three-dimensional representations as sign
structures and education of business merchants and community with
respect to city sign code requirements; and
. Permissible encroachment upon downtown public sidewalk.
At the first of what turned into five consecutive Monday afternoon meetings in
July and August, Mayor Morrison explained his view on the charge of the Task
Force, and encouraged the members to focus on immediate concerns that can
be addressed within a "fast track" timeline.
At the request of Task Force members, City Staff presented a list of issues for
discussion and potential options to consider that may resolve or at least alleviate
impacts associated with each particular issue. Over the course of the five
meetings, the Task Force solicited public input, received information and
potential options from City staff, discussed the variety of options and ultimately
voted on a recommendation for each issue.
The following summary is divided into two pieces. The first piece includes
immediate fixes to some of the most visible and controversial issues. This has
been presented in the format of an issue statement, Task Force recommendation
and supporting reasoning. In the second piece, the summary report identifies
two issues that the Task Force recommended warranted additional review by
City staff. These items were believed to be outside the initial charge of the Task
Force, as well as beyond the expedited time table set for addressing the three
immediate issues affecting downtown merchants.
Suggested Immediate Solutions
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
Issue #1
Particularly in the Downtown area, the current limitation of two exempt signs per
business, with each sign not exceeding a size of two square feet, does not seem
to meet the needs of many local merchants.
Recommendation: Increase the number of exempt signs from two to three in the
Downtown Area. The allowable area of the third sign would
be increased to three square feet, rather than the current two
square feet allowed for the other two signs
Reasoning:
The additional exempt sign will permit businesses increased
flexibility in how they allocate signage, providing an
opportunity for a merchant to adapt when there are changes
in services and/or merchandise offered. Additionally, the
change would address specific concerns raised by
restaurant owners regarding the need for increased flexibility
with respect to posted "menu" signs.
Issue #2
The Sign Code currently prohibits three dimensional statues, caricatures or
representations of persons, animals or merchandise from being used as a sign or
incorporated into a sign structure.
Recommendation: For properties within the Downtown or one of Ashland's four
Historic Districts, allow one of the three exempt signs to be
three-dimensional. Accordingly, the 3-D sign would be
limited to a maximum size or volume of 3 cubic feet.
Recommendation: Allow an additional exempt 3-D sign for properties outside
the Historic Districts with a volumetric maximum (for
example, 20 cubic feet). This would create an additional sign
category and sign area in addition to the total sign area
allotment under the current code. The three-dimensional
sign would be required to be setback from the public street,
and standards would be established for sign placement,
size, height, surface detailing, illumination, materials and
construction methods to assure any such sign would be of
durable materials and quality construction consistent with
Ashland's existing sign standards.
Reasoning: The removal of the prohibition of three dimensional objects
for signage provides unique and creative options for
Downtown Task Force 2
Summary Report
businesses to connect with their customers and the
community. Through the sign code amendment process,
additional limitations could be placed upon the 3-D signs in
order to ensure that the community is adequately protected
from an emergence of 3-D objects that are out of scale with
the building or that create too large of a visual distraction.
Issue #3
Some businesses, by virtue of their physical location and entrances, such as
smaller side streets and alleys, have limited signage opportunities along the main
streets within the downtown area.
Recommendation: Increase the maximum distance that a sign can project from
the building face from the current 18 inches, to 24 inches
from the building face. Existing State Building Code
addresses the minimum height above grade (sidewalk level)
needed for any structure or sign to project over the public
right of way or sidewalk.
Reasoning: Increasing the amount of projection may provide better
angles of visibility for businesses located on side streets or
public alleyways. The increased projection provides an
opportunity for the sign to function as an architectural
element of a building while still having a scale that is not
disproportionate and overpowering to a business frontage.
Issue #4
Sign Code compliance efforts have included enforcing the current prohibition on
off-premise signs, generally consisting of the placement of temporary, movable
signs (i.e. sandwich boards) upon the public sidewalk or other public property.
Some merchants feel that due to specific characteristics associated with location
of their business frontage they lack adequate exposure. Off-premise signage is
one means of drawing attention to the business location.
Recommendation: Create a set of policies and implementing guidelines for the
placement of informational/directional signs by the City in the
right of way or other publicly controlled property. The
guidelines should specify standards for the signage, which
may include maximum size, color, font, content (name,
arrow, type of business, etc), materials and location. For
example, an informational sign could be installed at the
entrance to an alley with the words "more shops" or
Downtown Task Force 3
Summary Report
"restaurants" or "galleries". In situations where physical site
constraints limit visibility from the primary public right of way,
an option for integrating a specific business name as an
element of the City informational signage could be included
into the guidelines.
Reasoning:
This is in recognition of the fact that there exist unusual
situations where, through no fault of a business owner, the
location and exposure of a particular business frontage may
be uniquely constrained.
Issue #5
The use of the public right of way for private commercial use is limited by the
Municipal Code to Sidewalk Cafe's (AMC 6.44), which may not be the most
equitable method for allocation of our limited public resource, downtown public
sidewalks.
Recommendation: Amend the Sidewalk Cafe ordinance to allow any abutting
property (within a commercial or employment district) the
opportunity to obtain a permit for private use of a portion of
the public sidewalk, as long as specific public safety and
access standards have been met. The permit fee would
consist of a base charge and an additional charge for each
square foot of public sidewalk space being privately utilized.
Reasoning: In the absence of some compelling issue related to the
public interest, there should be an equitable allowance for
use of public sidewalks for private use. The broader issue is
one of fairness and, specifically, whether or not restaurants
should be the only business with use of public sidewalk
space.
Issue #6
The business community has noted that there is inconsistency within the
encroachment permit process, which does not have clear standards for what
types of functional objects are encouraged, allowed or legal for placement upon a
city sidewalk or within the public right of way
Recommendation: Create an ordinance or other appropriate approval process
by which specific functional items (planter boxes, benches,
trash cans, safety items, etc) may be established upon the
City sidewalk. This would be contingent upon the items
meeting city specifications, as well as retaining minimum
Downtown Task Force 4
Summary Report
Reasoning:
Issue #7
clearance, public safety and placement standards. Individual
permits for items meeting such standards would not be
required, while items that do not conform to the standards
could be eligible for some sort of review and permit
procedure. Additionally, the Task Force recommended that
the City Council direct staff to explore an exemption to have
free use of the shy zone, the area along the sidewalk within
12 to 18 inches of the building face, for placement of such
amenities as flower boxes, door stops, spittoons, etc.
The Task Force was very intent on solving this issue in a
way that encouraged the "right stuff" to be able to be placed
upon public sidewalks to help beautify the streetscape,
increase pedestrian comfort and also allow some individual
expression within the constraints of public safety and access
considerations. Creating a list of the types of "functional
objects" that would be permitted, accompanied by minimum
standards and specifications to assure quality, would
eliminate the need for individual permit requirements that
could easily result in discouraging businesses from
enhancing the streetscape.
The proliferation of newspaper and other miscellaneous publication racks within
the downtown is creating a variety of problems, both functional and aesthetic.
Recommendation: Create an ordinance specific to installation of newspaper
and other publication racks. Standards could be included
related to rack placement, maximum size and dimensions,
allowance for grouping of racks, distance between
groupings, etc. The ordinance would also address aesthetic
standards such as materials, maintenance and use to
ensure durability and public safety, as well as to eliminate
ongoing problems of litter, abandonment and use of racks for
displaying materials not qualifying for placement upon the
public right of way.
Reasoning: It was unanimously agreed that the proliferation of newspaper racks
in the downtown area has reached a point where regulation on use and
placement is critical. The current lack of regulation and oversight has led to
somewhat of an "anything goes" situation, and City staff has minimal ability to
address the issue.
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
5
Issue #8
Downtown business owner and employees are frustrated with the seemingly
inconsistent enforcement of the do~ntown employee parking ban and also have
expressed concern over its potential overreaching effect of limiting owner and
employee access to the downtown area while not at work.
Recommendation: Remove the existing seasonal ban on employee parking in
the Downtown Area.
Reasoning:
The conclusion of the group was that the ordinance was put
in place primarily at the request and benefit of the business
community. If local merchants believe the employee parking
ban is cumbersome and difficult to effectively enforce, it
would be reasonable to remove it and leave the matter to the
business owners to self regulate through informing their
employees.
Issue #9
The City has several parking management items that need to be resolved to
more efficiently administer the downtown parking program.
Recommendation: Create ordinance language that allows the City to tow
vehicles that have either five unpaid parking tickets or a total
unpaid parking ticket balance of $250. Additionally, the 'City
should develop a final, very visible, warning placard to be
placed upon a vehicle at least 24 hours prior to the vehicle
being towed. The Task Force does not recommend the use
of a booting/immobilization device over the option of towing
the vehicle.
Reasoning: While this aspect of the parking issues downtown wasn't
specifically part of the charge of the Task Force, the
recommendation for the removal of the employee parking
boundary created the need to address related parking issues
so the Task Force added their recommendations in these
areas as well.
The Task Force believes the City needs effective tools to
assist with the collection of unpaid parking fines from flagrant
parking violators. The use of a boot or other immobilization
technique, however, is a very noticeable means of deterring
violations and may not send the appropriate type of
message to members of the community as well as visitors.
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
6
Additionally, the boot/immobilization renders the parking
space unusable until the operator contacts the City and pays
the fine due or until it gets towed, which most likely results in
a 12 to 24 hour time period.
Additional Suggested Considerations
Before concluding their charge, the Task Force identified two issues where
additional follow-up work would be necessary. The following items for Council
consideration were believed to be outside the initial charge of the Task Force, as
well as beyond the expedited time table set for addressing the three issues
immediately affecting downtown merchants. Nevertheless, the Task Force
recommended that the Council allocate staff resources to conduct follow-up work
in these areas.
Recommendation for Two-Year Review of Sign Code Amendments
The Task Force recommended that any amendments to the sign code be
reviewed and evaluated after two years. This would provide an opportunity to
assess the effectiveness and implications associated with the committee's
proposed changes.
Recommendation to Exempt Public Art from City Sign Code
The Task Force recommended that the City sign code should be amended to
include an exemption for Public Art once an appropriate process is adopted for
reviewing and approving the installation of public art. The proposed change to
the sign code would be completed simultaneously with the adoption of a public
art ordinance, which establishes processes and criteria for the acquisition and
location of public art within the city limits.
Recommendation for Sign Code Review/Education
While the Task Force supports the intent of the existing sign code and
appreciates the positive impact it has had on downtown Ashland, there was
general agreement that, as currently written, is difficult for the business
community to understand, leading to unintentional non-compliance as "sign
creep" over time. The Task Force recommended a possible review of the code
to simplify its design and, at a minimum, consider developing illustrated
educational materials. Additionally, city staff would be available at a merchant's
request for on-site review in order to increase awareness and reduce future
violations.
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
7
DOWNTOVVN 7:LSK FORCE.. ,MEETING #/
JULY 14, 2008
PA GE I (~l4
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 14, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
Pam Hammond and Mayor Morrison welcomed the group and each member introduced themselves.
PURPOSE & GOALS OF TASK FORCE
Mayor Morrison commented briefly on what prompted the creation of this task force and noted issues
have been raised regarding the City's sign code, use of the public right of way, and the downtown
employee parking ban. He stated the Downtown Task Force would be meeting for three weeks and
encouraged them to focus on addressing the immediate concerns.
OVERVIEW OF TASK FORCE SCHEDULE
Hammond briefly reviewed the meeting agenda. She indicated their second meeting would include a staff
presentation of options and committee discussion; and hopes they can have deliberations and come to a
recommendation by their third meeting.
OVERVIEW OF THREE ISSUES
Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented an overview of the City's sign code, use of
public right-of-way, and downtown employee parking restrictions.
Sign Code
Mr. Molnar stated the 1966 Central Area Plan called for the development of a sign program and the City's
sign ordinance was officially adopted in 1968. He stated there have been several updates to this section of
the code over the years and noted the 1988 Downtown Plan acknowledged the success of the sign code.
Mr. Molnar provided the definitions of "signs", "exempted signs", and "prohibited signs" and listed the
main compliance issues the City deals with.
Use of the Public Right of Way
Mr. Molnar noted there are many competing interests within the sidewalks and stated the City has
regulations regarding the outdoor display of merchandise. He explained the Ashland Municipal Code
prohibits using the street or public sidewalk for selling, storing or displaying merchandise or equipment;
DOWNTOH/N 1:.1SK FORCE ...... A4EETlNG #1
JULY 14,2008
PAGE 2 {~l4
and businesses within the City's commercial zones are required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP)
for the outdoor storage of merchandise on private property. Mr. Molnar noted the City has a sidewalk cafe
ordinance and it is administered by the Public Works Department.
Downtown Employee Parking Ban
Mr. Molnar explained the ban was first adopted in 1985 at the request of the Chamber of Commerce and
the seasonal restrictions were made permanent in 1986. He explained the ban restricts downtown
employee parking in the downtown parking district between 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., May through
September; and listed some of the issues that have been raised by the affected businesses and their
employees.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Tom, Pasta Piatti & Tabu/Shared his concerns regarding the newspaper racks.
Nola, Renaissance Rose/Noted she had been cited by the City and requested clarification on the
ordinance governing the outdoor display of merchandise. She noted the sale of merchandise on
Guanajuato Way and asked about the City's CUP process.
Steve, Soundpeacel Asked if there was a way for current businesses to be "grandfathered in" and require
anyone new to receive approval for the display of items. He agreed with the concerns expressed by the
previous speaker regarding newspaper boxes and suggested there be a maintenance requirement for these.
Steve noted the sign age in Boulder, Colorado and suggested the Task Force review the Boulder sign code
for comparison. He also commented on the employee parking ban and noted employees are being issued
tickets when visiting downtown businesses on their days off.
Julie, Wiley's Pasta/Noted her business is not located downtown and stated they use their "Alfredo"
statue to show customers that they are open for business.
Lenny, CD or not CD/Stated there is a small space in front of his store that he would be interested in
obtaining a CUP for. He commented on the height of his sign and suggested they allow businesses to sell
merchandise outdoors on weekends only. He stated it is possible to have attractive sandwich signs,
newspaper boxes, and neon signs; and suggested the City form a review board to determine what is
aesthetically pleasing.
Dave, Endless Massage/Noted that his is a newer business and commented on the use of sandwich
boards to attract business. He stated his board did obstruct people walking and stated it made a big
difference in bringing people into his business.
Susan, Pilaf/Questioned why people dressed as the Statue of Liberty or dressed in sandwich boards does
not go against the sign code. She stated that parking is one of her major stressors and explained that she
often has to come and go several times a day from her business.
Kate, Earth Friendly Kids/Stated being unable to put merchandise out in front of her store has made
them struggle financially and believes the City is hurting the vitality of the town by making such strict
rules.
Ramona, B Ella/Noted her store has no back entrance and all of their supplies have to come through the
front door. She questioned the fairness of the parking situation and asked if downtown employees who
work at night are being ticketing as well.
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE...... MEET/NG #/
JULY J 4, 20()8
PAGE 3 (~l4
Jimmy, Blue Giraffe Spa/Noted their building is set back from Water Street, behind the parking lot and
customers cannot see his sign from the street. He stated he receives a lot of complaints from clients
because they cannot find his store. He suggested the City have some sort of hearings process to deal with
unique situations like his own. He also questioned putting up a small sign similar to Pilaf s or Iris Inn's
SIgnS.
Don, Ashland Springs Hotel & Larks/Stated he was cited for placing the building's origina1.sandwich
board in front of the hotel and noted the challenge of educating guests on what they offer. He stated that
inadequate parking in Ashland is a big issue and noted the parking garage is consistently full.
Mike Morris, Planning CommissionerlRecommended the sign ordinance be removed from the Land
Use section of the Municipal Code and recommended they set criteria for a variance. He suggested
different requirements be set for areas outside of downtown (at least until these areas become more
populated be pedestrians) and recommended they establish maintenance requirements for newspaper
boxes.
Pam Turner, Ashland Municipal Judge/Noted that she handles the City's parking violations and stated
the intention of the employee downtown parking ban is not to prohibit employees from visiting businesses
on their time off. She encouraged everyone to read this section of the code (AMC 11.30.020).
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified 950/0 of the businesses have complied with the City's
requirements and stated she would like to continue to work cooperatively with the businesses while this
process IS gOIng on.
City Attorney Richard Appicello commented briefly on the concept of grandfathering. He clarified the
City is required to treat everyone equally and does not believe grandfathering is an option.
Mayor Morrison clarified that public testimony will be included in this process and encouraged the
businesses and members of the public to submit their information to the Task Force.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
City Administrator Martha Bennett indicated staff would be preparing white papers and submitting them
to the group within the next few days. She recommended they inform staff if they are in need to additional
information or if there are options they are leaning toward. She agreed that parking in Ashland was a
valid concern, but recommended they limit their discussion to the employee parking issue.
Clarification was requested on the process of obtaining a conditional use permit to display merchandise
on private property. Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks stated this is a Type I land use action and the
fee is currently $882. He stated the City has seen this type of CUP for larger scale uses, such as the
hardware store, but noted the approval criteria are fairly general.
Mr. Hanks clarified the Iris Inn's sign was obtained through ODOT, not the City.
Sandra Slattery commented that these requirements were put in place for good reasons; however they
need to ensure that Ashland businesses can be successful and stated it is time to look at these regulations
with the current view of the community in mind.
City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the issue of placing 3-D objects in front of businesses
and clarified they can only limit the time, place, manner and size of these objects, not the content. George
Kramer added they could also control the materials they are made of and can require the object to be
maintained.
DOWNTOH/N lASK FORCE ...... A4EETlNG #/
JULY 14,2008
PAGE 4 (~l4
Ms. Bennett noted the City would be bringing forward options regarding sidewalk cafes, including
options for permitting, regulating, and leasing public right of ways. She clarified the vendors along Calle
Guanajuato lease this space from the City and stated the Task Force could consider creating a similar
provision for individual business to display merchandise in front of their stores.
Don Laws requested the City Attorney prepare a memo that cites the court cases and laws that deal with
grandfathering and the equality of treatment. He stated he would like to know what is legal and whether
the City could make changes. Mr. Laws provided some history of the sign code and stated its intent was
to make Ashland businesses more appealing. He commented on how the sign code has contributed to the
overall success of businesses in Ashland and recommended they be careful about making changes.
Dave Dotterrer suggested the sign code differentiate between private property and public right of way.
Ms. Bennett voiced her support for this suggestion. Mr. Appicello clarified the City could permit larger 3-
D objects on private property than on public right of way.
Dana Bussell commented on the Public Arts Commission's master plan and noted the plan did speak to
some of these issues. She clarified one of the goals of the plan was to change the sign ordinance to allow
for murals. She also commented briefly on the public art jury process the commission utilizes, and
clarified people affected by the object are represented on the jury.
Sandra Slattery noted that there are other communities, such as Carmel, California, that have very
pleasing signage and suggested the group take a look at how other communities deal with this issue. Ms.
Bennett requested the group clarify which cities' sign codes they are interested in. Staff was directed to
look into the sign codes for Carmel, California and Boulder, Colorado, particularly for small, directional
signs. Ms. Slattery noted she would also try to gather information and obtain samples from other
communities that are attractive, high visitor destinations.
Mayor Morrison requested information on newspaper boxes, including what governs their installation,
maintenance, and removal. Additional request was made for how many spaces a publication can have and
whether the boxes interfere with pedestrian and vehicle safety. It was also questioned if the City could
designate certain areas where the boxes would be permitted.
Ms. Bennett indicated staff would gather the information requested by the group and stated materials for
the next meeting would be sent out later this week. She noted the next Downtown Task Force meeting is
scheduled for next Monday, July 21 at 2 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
III
DOfFNTOf+'N F4SK FORCEm MEETiNG #2
JUr Y 2/, ::008
PAGE! 0(4
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 21, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Absent Members:
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
STAFF PRESENTATION OF OPTIONS
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks briefly reviewed the nine key issues and options listed in the staff
report.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ron Roth, Geppetto's/Shared his concerns over what he felt was an overzealous Code Enforcement
Officer and recommended more direct supervision of this City employee.
Graham Lewis, United Methodist Church/Noted the church is located on the comer of Laurel and N.
Main, but they are only allowed signage on one of the streets. He stated signage on both frontages would
be helpful.
Steve, Soundpeace/Questioned if he would be permitted to place a prayer flag in the garden in the
. morning and take it in at night. Regarding the parking situation, he thought this was always voluntary and
not necessarily enforced.
Julie, Wiley's World/Stated she does not view her Alfredo statute as a sign, but rather a piece of art; and
stated the statue needs to be able to come in at night to avoid potential theft or vandalism. She voiced her
support for removing the 3D object prohibition from the Sign Code.
Melissa Markell, Chair of the Public Arts CommissionN oiced her support for Option #4 regarding the
three dimensional sign issue, which would create an exemption for 2D or 3D public art.
Susan, Black Sheep/Submitted signature petitions supporting the placement of the lion statue in front of
the Black Sheep's entrance. She stated if they remove the lion it would result in an unsafe doorway and
stated this is a historical building and the entrance cannot be changed.
.~-----
DOfYNTOfFN T4SK FORCEu. MEE'7JNG #2
JUL Y .2/. .;008
PAGE:: 0(4
Lee, Downtown Employee/Stated she received a ticket a few years ago, without warning, after parking in
the same block twice. She stated this is a silly rule and the City should at least put up a sign warning
employees.
Pam Turner, Ashland Municipal Judge/Noted all parking appeals come to her and voiced her support
for repealing or revising the downtown employee parking ban. She stated the ban is very difficult to
enforce and felt the language was over broad.
Lance Pugh, Ashland ResidentIV oiced concern with what he felt was staff running the meeting and
directing the focus.
Brent Thompson, Ashland ResidentN oiced his support for the option permitting one additional exempt
sign. Regarding the parking issue, he suggested diagonal parking could be used to create more spaces in
certain downtown areas.
Donna, Webster's/Stated if they change the sign code, they need to make sure it can be universally
applied. She commented briefly on the sidewalk issue and noted they are heavily congested in the middle
of the season.
Mike Morris, Ashland Planning Commissioner/Asked how they would feel if every building had
something out in front of it, and questioned where the limits are.
Ramona, B Ella/Stated if they are going to enforce the parking ban, it needs to be applied to everyone.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION & DIRECTION TO STAFF
Downtown Employee Parking Ban
Hammond voiced support for Option #1, which would eliminate the employee parking ban from the
Ashland Municipal Code. She stated the City could still send out a letter each year asking the downtown
businesses to voluntarily comply with the seasonal parking limitations. The Task Force voiced unanimous
consent for this option.
Unpaid Parking Tickets
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained how the City currently handles unpaid parking citations and
stated the City's current enforcement tools are very weak. She stated booting or towing vehicles that have
an excessive amount of unpaid parking violations is one option the group should consider.
The group discussed the option presented by staff. Stromberg voiced his concerns with booting vehicles
and felt towing was a better alternative. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified due process would
occur before anyone was booted and the individual would receive proper notice before this action
occurred. Ms. Bennett listed the outstanding parking citation figures for the group. Laws voiced his
support for booting, and stated this type of action is needed if they have people who simply do not care.
Greenblatt agreed that this needs to have some "teeth." Kramer voiced his support for the towing option.
Compton agreed, but questioned what the outstanding ticket amount would have to before this action was
taken.
Hammond recommended they move onto the next issue and look at this option further at their next
meeting.
III
DOI'VNTOfFN T4SK FORCE ..... MEETiNG #2
JUL Y 2 J, ::f)08
PAGE 3 ol4
Amount of Signage Permitted
Hammond listed the two options for Issue #1. She stated they could modify the Sign Code to allow for
one additional exempt sign or they could choose to modify the Code to allow the existing exempt signs to
be a maximum of 3 sq. ft.
The group discussed the two options. Shostrom suggested modifying the requirement to allow for two
signs at 2 sq. ft. or less, and one additional sign at 3 sq. ft or less. Kramer recommended they not limit this
to the C-I-D zone, but permit the additional signage in the entire commercial district. Compton noted that
being able to display menus is not only a benefit for the restaurants, but also the pedestrians. Kramer
suggested they increase the total amount of signage permitted (based on the linear footage of the
building's frontage) and allow businesses to allocate the space as they choose. Compton suggested they
establish two different parameters; one for inside the downtown area and one for outside this area.
Mr. Hanks clarified the current provision which allows businesses to use up to 20% of their window
space for changeable copy. He also provided a brief explanation of how businesses with no windows or
those located on second and third stories are accommodated.
Staff was directed to return at the next meeting with information on the new options presented by
Shostrom and Kramer.
3-Dimensional Signs/Representations of Merchandise
Hammond listed the options for Issue #2 outlined in the staff report. Kramer and Compton voiced their
support for Option 2, which would allow 3D representations as a sign type. Laws expressed concern with
permitting 3D objects, though supported the ones we currently have. He questioned if there was a way to
exempt those that exist today. Slattery voiced her confidence that businesses would do everything
possible to make their business attractive and is not concerned that Option 2 would result in a surge of
undesirable objects.
Hammond conducted a straw vote and the majority of the group supported Option 2.
The Task Force agreed to continue with the meeting until4:30 p.m.
Limited Signage Access due to Location
Hammond listed the options for Issue #3 outlined in the staff report. Kramer suggested businesses, such
as the Blue Giraffe, with no frontage on a public street be allowed one offsite sign as part of their sign
allocation; however include a provision that this sign could not be placed on public right of way. The
group briefly discussed these options and agreed to come back to this issue at their next meeting.
Use of Right-of-Way for Commercial Use
Hammond listed the options in the staff report. Laws noted when the Sidewalk Cafe ordinance was
passed, its intent was not to benefit the restaurant specifically, but to enhance the ambiance in town. He
felt opening up the use of sidewalks for merchandise was unacceptable and would destroy the Ashland's
appearance. City Attorney Richard Appicello briefly commented on the legal issues surrounding this
matter. Slattery commented that sidewalk dining is something the public loves, and suggested they look at
other communities and how they deal with this issue. Kramer noted that selling flowers, fruit or
vegetables on the sidewalk could also add character.
City Administrator Martha Bennett commented on Option 2, which would allow the City to lease
sidewalk space to businesses, and questioned how much merchandise that business would need to sell to
make this worthwhile to them. Comment was made that this would be for the individual business to
decide. Greenblatt noted Greenleaf was the first restaurant to have outdoor seating on the Calle and
DOf;fNTOf,VN T,45,'f{ FORCE uu MEETING #2
JUL Y 21. ]{j{)8
PAGE 4 0(4
voiced support for allowing the City to rent the public right of way, so long as the parameters are
followed. Ms. Bennett clarified the sidewalk space would be only leased to the adjacent business.
Hammond conducted a straw vote and the majority of the group were interested in a combination of
Options 2 and 3.
Ms. Bennett indicated staff would do more flushing out of the details on the input provided by the group.
She noted they would pick up where they left off at the next meeting and encouraged interested citizens
and business owners to submit their comments and cbncerns to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
DorVNTOH/N D1SK FORCEHH ,A.1EETlNG #3
JULY 28, 2008
PAGE I (~l3
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 28, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way. Hammond noted several of the members attended a tour of downtown sign issues,
which was conducted prior to the meeting.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Absent Members:
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
PUBLIC COMMENT
JudylShakespeare and Co. Bookstore/Stated she is in a difficult situation because her business is
located down an alley. She explained sales have dropped 60% since the City has prohibited her from
placing the wagon at the alley's entrance and explained that she is doing her best to keep the bookstore
open.
Jeff/ Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory/Commented that the proposed changes are insufficient and
felt more change was needed. He stated businesses can't stay in business if they cannot have something
that lets customers know they are there. He stated customers will not visit a store if that business does
anything "too tacky" and he does not understand what the task force is afraid of.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Issue #3 - Downtown Businesses with Limited Signage Opportunity.
Hammond read and the issue and the options aloud. She voiced her support for Option 1, which would
change the sign limitation to 24" from the wall and would provide greater visibility for businesses on side
streets/alleys/pedestrian access ways. Mr. Hanks used Shakespeare and Co. as an example and explained
how Option 1 would allow them to place a sign at the entrance to the alley that would project out from the
comer.
Greenblatt/Compton mls to accept Option 1 for Issue #3. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Issue #5 - Placing Signage in the Public Right-of-Way.
Hammond read the issue and options aloud. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified if Option 2 were
selected, the City would have to establish a program and identify the parameters for a temporary sign
permit process. Slattery suggested they consider City owned signs that don't include business names, but
III
DOWNTOH'';V 1:1SK FORCEuu A4EET/NG #3
JULY 28, 2008
PAGE 2 (~l3
rather indicate "lodging" or "dining" and directional arrows. She stated these could be artistically done
and may encourage people to walk. Ms. Bennett commented that another option would be for the City to
install signs and allow businesses to purchase a spot on that sign. She stated this option would help with
the Blue Giraffe's signage situation and noted a City sign could be placed in the Water Street parking lot.
Comment was made voicing support for a combination that would allow for generic directional
information signs as well as City signs that list specific business information.
ComptonIDotterrer mls to accept Option 1 for Issue #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Laws/Kramer mls to reject Option 2 for Issue #5. DISCUSSION: Kramer stated he is interested in
looking at encroachment opportunities that pertain to all businesses and voiced opposition to creating a
separate authority in this area. Laws felt it would be a mistake to allow temporary signs in addition to
directional signs. Compton commented that if the City decided not to place a directional sign, Option 2
would provide the business owner an opportunity to apply for a permit. It was questioned if the City could
stipulate that this option would only be available if the City does not do Option 1. Ms. Bennett voiced her
hesitations with Option 2. Suggestion was made for the group to table the motion and come back to this
after they have dealt with the encroachment issue. Motion was tabled.
Issue #7 - Encroachment Permit Process.
Hammond read the issue and the options aloud. Kramer voiced support for a list of approved items that
could be placed in the City right of way. He stated this list of allowable items should be separate from the
items the City would require a permit for. City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the legality of
this issue and recommended a process where items would be donated and accepted by the City; and the
City would then decide where the item is placed. He stated the City would only accept items that met
generic durability standards and the individual would need to sign a maintenance and hold harmless
agreement. Ms. Bennett questioned if the City already owned these items and she stated it was her
understanding that if someone places an item in the City right of way, they are essentially donating it to
the City. Laws commented that it would be difficult to come up with a list of approved items and stated
the list would have to be regularly amended. He added that he does not feel a list of approved items would
solve the problem and voiced his support for Option 1. Kramer voiced concern that requiring a permit and
the donation process would stop these types of objects from being placed. Hammond noted that there are
also safety measures to be considered, such as the Black Sheep's lion. Suggestion was made for a two part
process that includes a list of general items that the City endorses and requiring the placement of all other
items to go through a permit process.
Ms. Bennett summarized the group's deliberation and stated they would like to allow for the placement of
functional items and recognize that these will be owned by the City; they are willing to let staff evaluate
whether to establish a donation process or include a general acceptance provision in the code. Ms. Bennett
stated staff could also look into a 3D allowance for functional objects designed to address safety issues
and noted there will need to be criteria established for how to decide on the placement of these objects.
StromberglLaws mls to approve the staff direction as outlined by Ms. Bennett. DISCUSSION: It
was clarified this is not a final decision and this issue would be returning to the group at their next
meeting. Stromberg commented that he views this as enabling certain uses, not prohibiting everything
else. Bussell noted that if someone wanted to donate art there is already an approval process for that. Mr.
Appicello clarified the two processes would work together. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Issue #6 - Newspaper/Misc. Publication Racks.
Hammond read the issue and the options aloud. Comment was made questioning if the City could
completely remove the racks. Mr. Appicello clarified he does not believe completely banning them is
appropriate.
DOWNTOH/N 7ASK FORCE mm ,~IEETlNG #3
JULY 28, 2008
PAGE 3 ql'3
Kramer/Greenblatt m/s to combine Options 1 and 2 and direct staff to inventory all downtown
newspaper/publication racks and prepare a recommendation. DISCUSSION: Recommendation was
made for the inventory study to indicate their preferences and for it to be referred directly to the City
Council. Kramer and Greenblatt agreed to include this amendment in the motion. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
Issue #9 - Administering the Downtown Parking Program.
Ms. Bennett noted the draft ordinance that was submitted to the group and indicated staff needs clarity on
the towing vs. booting then towing options. She clarified the City is not proposing to boot the vehicle and
leave it there until the owner pays, but rather boot the vehicle and have it towed after 24 hours if payment
is not received.
Support was voiced for towing and not booting vehicles. Hammond questioned the dollar amount owed
before the City would take action and suggested raising it from $250 to $500. Ms. Bennett commented on
why the $250 amount was chosen and cautioned them about raising this too high. Greenblatt noted the
provision in the ordinance that states the individual will be noticed 10 days in advance before any action
is taken. Stromberg supported the towing option and stated booted vehicles could take away from the
City's ambiance.
Mayor Morrison left the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
Ashland Municipal Judge Pam Turner commented on the 10 day notice period and shared a few situations
where individuals might not receive the notification. Comment was made suggesting the City affix a
colored placard to the vehicle prior to it being towed.
DotterrerlGreenblatt m/s to recommend the Ordinance as drafted with the exception of removing
the booting provision. DISCUSSION: Mr. Appicello suggested the notification period be changed to 14
days. Consensus was voiced for including this modification. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
DISCUSS POSSIBLE AUGUST 4 MEETING
Hammond stated it will be necessary for the group to meet again and asked for the members' preference
on meeting dates. She noted the group could meet next Monday, or meet two weeks from today. Mr.
Appicello indicated he would likely need more than one week to prepare the draft right-of-way ordinance.
The Task Force reached consensus to meet on August 4th and August 11 tho
Ms. Bennett clarified the Task Force's final report is scheduled to go before the City Council on
September 2, 2008. She noted recommended changes to the Sign Code will have to go to the Planning
Commission; however, the Council could enact the rest of their recommendations. She added the group
will need to complete their work by August 19th in order to make the September packet deadline.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
DOWNTOWN 7>18/( FOf?CI.' ...... MEE"TlNG #-1
At/GUST 4, 2008
V4GE / qj'3
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 4,2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Morrison, Mayor
Hammond clarified the group would be discussing Issues #1 and #2 today, which deal primarily with sign
square footage and how it relates to 3D items on private property. She noted they would be addressing the
right-of-way issues at their final meeting next week.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks provided a presentation to group which reviewed current sign code
allocation examples, exempt sign options, examples of 3D signs, and options for 3D objects and
representations of merchandise.
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified there are three types of signs: permanent, exempt, and
temporary. Mr. Hank's clarified businesses are required to go through a permitting process for permanent
signage and commented on how the allocation of signage is determined for business located on second and
third stories.
Comment was made questioning if the 200/0 temporary signage allocation was "on the table" for possible
revision. Staff indicated yes, and clarified businesses have to change their signs once a week in order for
them to qualify as temporary signage. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the purpose
of the exempt category is to provide businesses with additional flexibility. He noted they are unable to
separate the display of menus from other signage and stated this starts to get into the content issue. Mr.
Hanks noted most businesses can achieve their signage goals and still work within the City's sign code. He
added a lot of this depends on how the business decides to divvy up their signage allotment. He clarified
"dead space" does count towards the total sign square footage, and noted they would normally draw a
rectangle around the wording/image and determine the square footage based on that.
Mr. Hanks asked how the group would like to proceed with exempt signs. Compton questioned if they could
remove the limitations from displaying signage in windows. Laws commented that this would drastically
change the sign code. Mr. Molnar clarified this is an option; however, it would create conflicts with other
sections of the Ashland Municipal Code and could cause a domino effect. Stromberg commented that it
DOWNTOWN lAS'K FORCE ..... MEE'T/NG #--i
AUGUST 4. 2008
P.4GE 2 (<13
seems they are drifting away from their original assignment, which was to recommend some common sense,
minor adjustments to relieve some of the businesses current issues. Shostrom stated that it is difficult to
picture what is legal and what it not, and stated a before and after picture would help determine which is
preferred.
Hammond suggested they come up with a blanket, square footage signage allotment, based on the size of the
building, and allow businesses to use if for whatever they want. She stated removing the exempt and
temporary categories would make things much simpler and easier to understand. Bussell suggested cutting
the sign categories down to two: temporary and permanent. Stromberg commented that simplifying is an
attractive option, but it presumes that the existing code was not created through a thoughtful process with lots
of expertise. Hammond commented that what they have now is not very enforceable and causes confusion
for the merchants. Stromberg recommended they make modest changes to the existing code and then
recommend that the Council direct the Planning Commission to look into more extensive changes.
Hammond reviewed Issue #1 and listed the four options for the group. She noted the Task Force tentatively
selected Option 4 at their last meeting, which is to allow one of the exempt signs to be three dimensional, and
asked if they would like to proceed with this recommendation. Kramer clarified Option 4 would create the
opportunity for one, small 3D sign to be placed on private property. Laws questioned how businesses could
create a meaningful 3D sign that fits into the Ixlx2 sign limitation and voiced concern with business owners
trying to protect what they have instead of thinking of the streetscape as a whole. Comment was made
questioning if this option would apply to just the downtown area or the entire City. Stromberg suggested staff
refine the permitted size and scale of 3D objects to allow for more flexibility. He recommended a cubic
dimension with minimums and maximums. Shostrom voiced his support for Option 4 with three exempt
signs. Greenblatt noted this option would leave some of the cited merchants out of compliance and
questioned if this would really solve the problem.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Susan, Black SheeplNoted the issues she has faced with signage and stated she has needed each sign that
has been put up. She asked for examples of signage that is permitted and samples of what compliance looks
like.
Art Bullock, Ashland Resident/Stated there are two primary public interests that the group has not
addressed: 1) the public does not want so much signage that windows look cluttered, and 2) the public does
not want so much signage that you cannot see into the business. He stated he does not think the Task Force
can make small tweaks and be able to address these public interests and stated a more fundamental rewrite is
necessary.
Garrett, Duex Chats/Asked for examples of approved signage and questioned the placement of signs on
multiple entrances.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS (Continued)
Hammond clarified this exempt sign discussion is in relation to the downtown area only. She aclmowledged
that Option 4 is not much more than a band-aid and agreed that they should recommend to the Council that
these issues be looked at in depth. Slattery commented that she did not realize the temporary signage
allocation was as flexible as it is. Hammond commented on the possible formation of a group (either through
the Chamber of Commerce or the City) that helps merchants deal with their signage.
StromberglKramer mls to approve Option 4 with 3 exempt signs. DISCUSSION: Stromberg clarified
this motion includes the understanding that they will recommend this be further evaluated by the Planning
Commission. Laws commented on the point of this group coming together, and stated it was not to change
the whole spirit of the sign code. Compton questioned if this option would provide enough relief to the
DOWNTOlVN lASK PORCEu AfEET/NG #.f
AUGUST 4, 2008
P,ilGE 3 of3
merchants. Ms. Bennett commented on the complexity of the entire issue and commented on who this
specific option would address. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously.
Kramer commented that the recommendation to the Planning Commission should be a global
recommendation that comes at the end of their work.
Hammond introduced Issue #2 and the related options. Bussell provided some background on Option 3 and
stated Ashland is unique in that it considers art to be a sign. She noted any type of representational structure
is not allowed and wall graphics are also not permitted. Bussell explained the Public Art Master Plan
recommended modifying the sign code to allow for certain types of public art. Ms. Bennett commented on
the rules that govern Oregon and stated Ashland is not the first community to experience problems in this
area. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified if art is owned (donated) to the City and properly place, it is
exempt from the sign code. Ms. Bennett noted this issues still needs to go through the Public Arts
Commission.
Kramer clarified Issue #2 deals with issues like Wiley's Alfredo statue. Bussell questioned if they are talking
about the entire City. She stated this won't be too much a concern for downtown, since there is not much
space, but noted the areas outside downtown are most likely to have national chains. Kramer felt size and
material limitations would address these concerns. Staff clarified they do not consider sandwich boards 3D
signs. Ms. Bennett clarified Option 4 would not work for Wiley's Pasta because Alfredo comes in every
night. Stromberg suggested they deal with sandwich boards and items like the Alfredo statue separately. Staff
clarified the problems with sandwich boards is more of a right of way issue, which will be addressed next
week. Kramer suggested creating an additional exempt sign opportunity outside the Downtown Design
Overlay Zone that includes allowable material types and size limitations. The group briefly discussed
possible objects this sugge~tion may open the door to.
Bussell recommended they add a public art exemption for city owned facilities/city property. City Attorney
Richard Appicello was asked to bring back options at the next meeting to address Bussell's concerns
regarding public art.
Stromberg/Compton mls to create a category for movable 3D signs, that 1) are not measured as part of
the total sign allotment, 2) meet certain material and construction standards (to be determined by
staft), 3) fit within a volumetric maximum, and 4) this category would apply to areas outside the
Downtown Design Zone and the Historic Districts.
Stromberg/Compton mls to amend motion to add a setback from the public right-of-way (for staff to
determine). DISCUSSION: It was clarified this amendment would be added to the original motion.
Voice Vote on motion as amended: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Kramer, Shostrom and
Laws, YES. Shostrom and Bussell, NO. Motion passed 7-2.
Staff clarified the Task Force would be dealing with Issue #4 and the remaining right-of-way issues at their
final meeting next week.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Smith - 2008-0811 Downtown Task Force MIN.doc
Pa
DOWNTOFVN TASK FORCE ;\JEETlNCi #5
AUGUST 11.2008
PAGE 1 of 4-
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 11, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way. She announced this is the sixth and final meeting of the Downtown Task Force.
Members Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair
John Morrison, Mayor
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate
Factory
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
City Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development
Director
Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
PUBLIC COMMENT
Art Bullock/Submitted written comments to the group and draft sign code language he prepared. He
commented on the public interests which he feels are not represented in the sign code and explained the two
primary interests are: 1) overwhelming visual clutter, and 2) business window transparency.
Melissa MarkelllPublic Arts Commission/Questioned if the Task Force would be addressing public art on
private property.
Hammond noted the staff memo distributed on July 17 by City Administrator Martha Bennett and stated the
memo outlined the process for how this issue would be handled. City Attorney Richard Appicello noted they
were going to recognize that art accepted by the City is not subject to the code, and the sign code would be
amended to make this clear. Bussell expressed concern with the lack of discussion on this issue and felt this
recommendation should be further debated by the Task Force.
Kevin Christman/Expressed concern with the prohibitions against displaying art and stated the current sign
code does not permit the display of art to any capacity.
Mr. Appicello explained this issue would be included with the public art policies and procedures that will go
before the City Council in September. Stromberg stated this issue would be debated by the Planning
Commission and the Council, but not this Task Force.
Lloyd Haines/Commented on public art and recommended any language that comes from this group include
an expansive statement so that it does not get construed when it gets to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
J. Ellen Austin/Asked if she was in violation for having art displayed outside her gallery, which is located
Dana Smith - 2008-0811 Downtown Task Force MIN.doc
Pa e2
DO~VNT()l'VN T1SK FORCE /\JEETlNG #5
AUGUST J 1.2008
PAGE2of4
in a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Appicello stated residential zones need to be addressed in the sign code; however he does not feel it is
appropriate for the Task Force to handle this issue.
Bussell/Stromberg m/s for the recommendations to the City Council to include a recommendation to
exempt public art from the sign code and to have its own process developed at a future date.
DISCUSSION: It was noted these two actions will need to be concurrently. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion
passed.
RIGHT-OF-WAY DISCUSSION
Mr. Appicello addressed the proposed ordinance amending regulations concerning use of City sidewalks. He
explained the ordinance does not distinguish between residential and commercial use and would allow
individuals to pay the designated rate for use of the sidewalk. He clarified he did not include a list of what
items would be acceptable and stated he only addressed "who" can lease the space, not "what" can be placed
there.
Stromberg summarized the Task Force's previous discussions on this issue and stated there were three main
points:
1) The City would have to broaden the sidewalk cafe restrictions in order to allow for other uses, and
the City would apply a market rate charge for use of the sidewalk.
2) Some of the objects placed by merchants in front of their stores were in the public interest (planter
boxes, etc.), and these objects would have to be donated to the City. The City would establish
criteria for this, and there would be no charge.
3) They would allow certain 3D objects that fit within certain size parameters that had some functional
use.
Mr. Appicello stated the public arts ordinance would address the process on how to accept art and stated he
did not see the need to write a regulation on how the City would regulate the placement of items. He stated
there is no obligation on the part of the City to have to accept an item and stated the City can accept
donations and place items where ever they feel is appropriate.
Kramer commented that the intent of this was to allow merchants to beautify their areas. He expressed
concern with the proposed ordinance and stated he does not know why they are creating more rigmarole.
Hammond agreed and stated the ordinance does not accurately reflect the Task Force's desires. Mr.
Appicello shared his concerns with designating "what" in the ordinance and noted a case that will be argued
in front of the Supreme Court on this issue. Stromberg questioned if there was a way to apply market rates
for part of the sidewalk, by low rates for the "shy zone." Mr. Appicello stated he understands the group
wants free use of the shy zone for amenities and will try to incorporate this, however he is not certain this is
permissible. Stromberg suggested they make a formal motion in include this piece as part of their
recommendation and ask the Council to direct staff to keep working on this.
Laws/Stromberg m/s to recommend that the City Council direct staff to explore an exemption to have
free use of the shy zone for amenities (such as flower boxes, door stops, spittoons, etc.) Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
ISSUES RECAP
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks asked the group to clarify their preferences on a few of their previous
recommendations. The group issued the following clarifications:
1) The additional exempt sign would be applicable to the Downtown area or within one of the four
Historic Districts.
Smith - 2008-0811 Downtown Task Force MIN.doc
p
DOWNTO/'VN TiSK FORCE' /VfEETilVCi #5
AUGfiST j 1,2008
PAC/E 3 of .f.
2) The larger 3D sign would be in addition to the existing sign numbers for wall or ground signs.
3) The additional 3D sign would be allowed only in commercial zones outside Historic Districts.
4) The 3D sign will have a specific separate size in addition to the current total square footage.
Kramer summarized within the "historic core," merchants are allowed 3 exempts signs, one of which can be
a small 3D sign. Outside the historic core, merchants are allowed 3 exempt signs, plus one larger 3D sign
that meets criteria yet to be developed.
Mr. Hanks commented on a possible provision regulating the amount of flat surface permitted on 3D objects
before it starts to count against the permitted signage amount. Kramer suggested a possible limit of2 sq. ft.
Stromberg recommended they forward this provision back to staff for refining.
Hammond noted the proposed ordinance still includes the booting provision and stated this is not what the
Task Force wanted. Mr. Appicello clarified no changes were made to the ordinance since the group's last
meeting and affirmed that he understands what their recommendations were.
Kramer/Stromberg m/s that despite the language of the proposed ordinance, the Downtown Task
Force recommends eliminating booting in favor or towing with adequate notice before hand.
DISCUSSION: Laws suggested including language that notifies the vehicle owner that additional costs will
be incurred by towing and storage. Municipal Judge Pam Turner expressed concern with the provision that
requires vehicles to be moved to a different block in order to avoid a citation. Mr. Hanks agreed that the City
needs better signage on this. Mr. Appicello clarified his staffhas met with the Judge and are working to
flush out some of these practical problems. Slattery noted the importance of placing a large orange sign on
the vehicles 24 hours in advance of the towing. Mr. Appicello clarified this was included in the ordinance.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Mayor Morrison left the meeting at 3: 15 p.m.
Kramer asked if they could discuss Issue 7, Encroachment Permit Process, and stated sandwich boards on
public right of ways have not been addressed. Hammond stated sandwich boards should not be permitted on
public right of way, only in alcoves which are private property. Mr. Hanks clarified sandwich boards are not
addressed in the sign code and therefore are not currently permitted.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar asked if the group had concerns about opening up the
sidewalks for other uses besides sidewalk cafes. Mr. Appicello added he and Mr. Molnar have been working
on trying to make a distinction to see if limiting the use of sidewalks to sidewalk dining was possible.
Stromberg stated staff previously informed them they could not limit the use of sidewalks to just cafes and
this is the premise they have been working under. He expressed concern that this option was not presented to
the committee sooner. Kramer agreed and stated he did not know this was a possibility. He added he does
not have concerns about rampant selling of merchandise on the sidewalk and stated the City could deal with
that problem when and if it ever arises. Stromberg agreed and felt they should go with what they have for
now. Laws disagreed and stated if they have a choice, they should only allow restaurant tables. He stated he
does not think Ashland would have a desirable appearance if they start allowing these other uses. Mr.
Appicello clarified the Council would likely ask about this option, and staff was merely doing their best to
be prepared for the Council discussion.
Laws noted the email submitted by Brent Thompson and asked why a building can't have signs on more than
two sides. Mr. Molnar stated there are very few businesses in town that have four public streets bounding it
and noted the elements that need to be considered when establishing a business frontage. He commented on
the concerns behind this provision and gave the example of someone calling a loading doc a public entrance.
-nr-T---
a Smith - 2008-0811 Downtown Task Force MIN.doc
Pa e4
~
DOWNTOl1/N riSK FORCE Ii/EETING #5
AUG{!Sr 11.2008
PAGE 4 of.f
Compton expressed her concerns with whether this group has really solved the problems. Bussell noted they
cannot solve every merchant's problems and stated these businesses are out of compliance for different
reasons. She added this group has been successful in providing additional options to these businesses. Laws
stated the purpose of this committee was not to bring everyone into compliance. Slattery suggested the Task
Force include a detailed statement to the Council that describes the "whys" behind their recommendations.
Hammond proposed forming a small subgroup of the Task Force to form this narrative. Greenblatt stated
this statement needs to be understandable to lay people and stated the community has a misunderstanding
about what these meeting are about.
Stromberg noted they have not found a solution to the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory bear, and stated
the bear is symbolic of this whole process. Compton acknowledged that there is no way to allow the bear
and not allow worse things elsewhere. She noted the bench and the bear are located in the shy zone and the
only way to keep it would be to purchase an encroachment permit, which would cost $50-$100 a month. Mr.
Appicello noted staff is attempting to create an exemption in the shy zone for public elements, which would
include the bench, but not the bear. Laws stated he hopes staffwill continue to look at a way to grandfather
in objects that were placed after the law went into effect.
Comment was made from the audience suggesting the Task Force remove the minimum square footage
provision and allow merchants free use of the shy space.
Greenblatt questioned if the sign code could be revisited at a later date. Stromberg noted this would
eventually come to the Planning Commission and perhaps they could build in some kind of review process.
Stromberg voiced his support reducing the minimum square footage and stated they should include this as
part of the package that goes to the Council. He noted if the Council has misgivings, they can request
additional information from staff and make a final determination.
Kramer/Laws m/s to revise the Si~ewalk Cafe Ordinance to have no minimum rental provision, but
rather a processing fee and a per square foot charge. V oice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Bussell/Stromberg m/s for the alterations in the sign code to be reviewed after it has been in effect for
2 years. Voice Vote: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Bussell, Stromberg, Kramer, and
\ Shostrom, YES. Laws, NO. Motion passed.
WRAP UP DISCUSSION
Slattery commented that there is a huge education element that goes along with this and they need to find a
way to let people know their options. Hammond suggested a statement in the City Source newsletter that
identifies someone in the City that could assist businesses with their signage questions.
Greenblatt questioned if the Task Force would be given the opportunity to tweak the final report before it
goes to Council. Mr. Appicello clarified staff would send out the report to the Task Force members and they
will be given the opportunity to submit comments to staff. He cited Oregon's Public Meeting Law and stated
the members must avoid back and forth dialogue through email and should not be submitting their comments
to each other. Stromberg asked about forming a small subcommittee to prepare a statement to the Council
that captures the reasoning behind their recommendations. It was agreed that Hammond would be able to
form a subcommittee if she feels it is necessary and staff would ensure this was properly noticed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
.11 .
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) Proposed Route 10 Modifications
Meeting Date: September 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught
Department: Public Works Depa E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: Ann Seltzer
Approval: Martha B Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Will the City Council direct staff to prepare and transmit a written communication opposing RVTD's
proposed Route 10 modifications significantly limiting the hours that the bus will complete the East
Main Loop?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare and transmit a written communication to
RVTD indicating the City's opposition to the proposed Route 10 modifications that would
significantly limit the hours that the bus will complete the East Main Loop.
Background:
On August 1, 2008 staff learned that R VTD was proposing to modify Route 10 by reducing the
frequency of the East Main Loop. The East Main Loop incorporates lower Tolman Creek Road with a
stop at Albertsons, a stop across from the residential neighborhood of Chautaugua Trace, turns right
onto East Main, right onto Highway 66 with a stop at Ashland Hills Inn and eventually turns left up
Tolman Creek from Ashland Street. (See attached map.) The proposed change eliminates that section
of Route 10 and has the bus turning right onto Tolman Creek from Highway 66.
The information came via an email from Councilor Silbiger who in turn learned of the proposed
changes from a local resident. The proposed Route 10 modifications would limit service to the East
Main loop area to the following times:
5:52 am to 8:56 am
2:22 pm to 12:56 pm
5:22 pm to 7:26 pm
Staff immediately contacted Julie Brown, RVTD General Manager, to determine the rational for the
proposed Route 10 modifications and to express the City's frustration that RVTD had not contacted the
City of Ashland prior to proposing the modifications. Ms. Brown apologized for not notifYing the City
of Ashland in advance, but explained that the action was proposed because of operational issues that
prevented the Route 10 bus from meeting and keeping its designated schedule. Specifically, RVTD
was not able to maintain the Route 10 two (2) hour route time line from the Medford Transfer Station to
Ashland and back to Medford due to construction delays, additional wheel chair riders, etc. As a
result, Ms. Brown indicated that people were/are missing their transfers at the Medford Transfer
Station and then waiting an additional 30 minutes for the next bus. For these reasons and that fact that
Page 1 of 3
090208 RVTD Proposed Route.CC.doc
r~'
-nr-.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
the ridership was relatively low on the Route 10 East Main Loop, RVTD proposed reducing the
frequency of service offered to the East Main Loop.
Staff expressed the City's concerns that RVTD would consider reducing any part of Route 10 since
Route 10 has the highest ridership of all the RVTD routes. Staff requested RVTD increase its outreach
to current riders notifYing them of the proposed change and inviting their input. In addition, staff
requested RVTD delay its decision until the City and Ashland riders had an opportunity to respond.
To better understand the concerns expressed by Ms. Brown, on August 8, 2008 Mike Faught, Public
Works Director, and Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst, rode Route 10 from Ashland to the Medford
Transfer Station and back again beginning at 12:00 pm. It took two (2) hours and seven (7) minutes
for the Route lObus to make the complete route and staff was just barely able to make the transfer in
Medford. Then on August 18,2008, Faught, Julie Brown, RVTD General Manager, and the RVTD's
Operations Supervisor boarded the Route 10 bus at the Plaza at 2:30 pm. This time it took two (2)
hours and 40 minutes to complete the route. Clearly construction, increased ridership (lots of
boardings at most bus stops), congestion and emergency vehicles played a part in delaYing the bus.
About 15 minutes of the delay was due to the fact that we missed the transfer in Medford - one of the
stated reasons for RVTD to propose changing Route 10.
The City of Ashland's goal is to encourage and increase ridership within the City. In order to meet that
objective the City of Ashland has entered into an agreement with RVTD to pay down the fixed route
fairs from $2.00 to $.50 and reduce the Valley Lift paratransit fares within the City from $4.00 to $1.00
(for an annual cost not to exceed $217,500). This objective can be compromised when routes are
changed, service levels are reduced or the system becomes generally inconvenient to riders.
It is easy to rationalize the proposed reduction of service in East Main Route because ridership is
currently low in that area. However, if the City hopes to build ridership and encourage those in that
area to ride the bus, it is important to leave the route in place. Therefore, staff is recommending that the
City oppose the proposed changes to Route 10.
On March 4,2008 the City Council authorized a contract change order to the Transportation System
Plan (TSP) and subsequent Transportation Capital Improvement Project (CIP). The consultant, HDR,
is studYing transit service and proposed transit alternatives with options to meet existing and future
transit needs in Ashland. HDR hired Nelson-Nygaard as a sub-consultant to complete the transit
portion of the work.
While, the Nelson-Nygaard transit study work is substantially complete, further conversations and
impacts of route modifications enacted by RVTD can be explored during the scheduled TSP,
Transportation SDC and Transit Study Session on October 10, 2008.
Council Options:
1) The City Council could direct staff to prepare and transmit a written communication
opposing RVTD's proposed Route 10 modifications limiting the hours that the bus will
complete the East Main Loop.
Page 2 of3
090208 RVTD Proposed Route.CC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2) The City Council could decide to endorse RVTD's proposed Route 10 modifications
significantly limiting the hours that the bus will complete the East Main Loop.
3) The City Council could decide to modify staffs recommendation ( ) regarding
RVTD's proposed Route 10 modifications limiting the hours that the bus will complete the
East Main Loop.
Potential Motions:
1) Move to direct staff to prepare and transmit a written communication opposing RVTD's
proposed Route 10 modifications limiting the hours that the bus will complete the East
Main Loop.
2) Move to direct staff to prepare and transmit a written communication endorsing RVTD's
proposed Route 10 modifications limiting the hours that the bus will complete the East
Main Loop.
3) Move to modify staff recommendation ( ) regarding RVTD's proposed Route 10
modifications limiting the hours that the bus will complete the East Main Loop.
Attachments:
R VTD Current Route 10 Ashland Map
R VTD Current Entire Route 10 Map
RVTD East Main Loop with stop activity depicted
R VTD East Main Loop boarding and de-boarding statistics
Page 3 of3
090208 RVTD Proposed Route.CC.doc
r~'
....
~
N
Route 10 Ashland
To Ashland
:00/:30
:061:36
:091:39
:121:42
:18/:48
:261:56
:351:05
:401:10
:55/:25
N
-#1ft--=:
..;:_..-.."..J--....-.-. .-~~~.:.~~12~~~,~~_. " '.
.;~\ J SUNCRE T RD
.~ / ~ ----.. ._--'"
'\~/-.
/\
,J \~
eOl VE.R RD < J "~"
-"---'~;-'T. -'~J '\ '\\"
~')j.C.. ..W.J.tl.:_Er~'~ R~
':'V&';~.~." . "" f' ''':~.
roSs Rir"?<'m', '>/'..t . '\~ ).
--'-- --t',::' ".~. ~/~ "''''''''
;#.t-:..L ,y I /....".. ~
r4~-....-~~-t.'?"-<l .... . .,.. "<
i I. ! '\,~ . Ijc
! I '.?O' ',. ....:'ft--
......~1 } v.JJ I'
m I ...-tJ .... .:J j <,a
~I ~I ~v':./.,
u, ~ .
.~ ao.J~~"O
~ 10T.... ~
\'\.<J. 01-.. ---..----....-
",~ . a:!
~.:::~#2 Ra11110
~..;<1'A .~...................r............... .....
"~
~~,."... '.. /
'\ '
, ,/
.. ---- ". '<~:~ l/
,,~
"~
'~" --.~
a_...._.-.......~.~~.;-,;::.::...:-r. ~."EY.'."- _. ....
Jr1 . "'\;;~~~~ E-~
~~ "~ ...- r"
~ "'~ (
C'~ e'Jt- '\'~ +/
0'9 ~~ ~
,. ~
'\~'t-
',',
'\~'"
~
N
\ J .
r \
I .
. 'j
~t<' c.... \.~.... .
'V '~~V(J .
r< '1._'
''-~\ ?
/')''; 1 y.
______.1 r UJl
r 1 "1-
\ \';.
V \~
\ i,..
I 1<6
I " ~
! \~
Shown in this map is passenger data
taken over the past 6 months. Each
bus stop is represented by a yellow
dot. The size of the dot represents
the number of passengers using the
stop per day. The results are based
on random sampling, and therefore
do not necessarily represent true
ridership figures.
'''',
'"
,.'"
East Ashland Loop
Entire Route 1 0
(Includes East Ashland Loop)
East Ashland Loop
(Does NOllndude Albertson's)
Stop Stop Desct1ptlon Acivtty
2350 Hwy 99 - Jackson Well Springs 21
2360 IHwy 99 - EI T apatio 18
2370 Hwv 99 - Spine & Pain Center 3
2380 N. Main - S. of Ashland Mine Rd. 7
2390 N. Main - N. of Grant 8
2400 N. Main - S. of Maple St 18
2410 N. Main - S. of Wimer St. 36
2420 N. Main - S. of Laurel St. 18
1210 Ashland Plaza 106
1220 E. Main - Ashland Springs Hotel 34
1230 E.. Main - library 55
1240 Siskiyou - Safeway 34
1250 Siskiyou - N. of liberty st. 8
1260 Siskiyou - Ashland High School 45
1270 Siskiyou - S. of University Way . 50
1280 Siskiyou - S. of Avery hwv 6Ei sign 36
2430 hWV 66 - E. of Sikiyou blvd 38
2440 hwy 66 - E. of Walker - Beanery 60
2450 hwy 66 - E. of Lit Way 16
2460 hWV 66 - E. of Park St. 26
2470 hwv 66 - Pizza Hut 47
2480 Tolman Creek Rd - Albertsons 90
2485 Tolman Crk Rd. School Bus Stop 13
2490 Tolman Crk Rd - SHELTER @ 4
2500 E. Main - Hwy 66 - FLAG STOP 4
2510 Windmill in @ Ashland Hills 13
2520 Hwv 66 - Wild Goose Resturaunt 12
2530 Tolman Crk Rd - Bi-mart 59
2540 Tolman Crk Rd. ' S. of Grizzly Dr. 7
2545 Tolman Crk Rd. - S. of Diane 8
2550 Tolman Crk Rd. - S. of Barbara 12
2560 Tolman Crk Rd. - Ashland Forge 15
2570 Siskiyou - N. of Bellview 34
2580 Siskiyou - S. of Glendale 39
2590 Siskiyou - N. of Faith 43
2600 Siskiyou - S. of Normal 15
2610 Siskiyou - N. of Harmony, 36
2620 Siskiyou - S. of 66, Omar's 53
1140 Siskiyou - N. of Bridge St. (SOU) 45
1145 Siskiyou - Pool @ Palm motel 46
1160 Siskiyou - Ashland High School 48
1170 Siskiyou - S. of Morton 12
1180 Siskiyou - Sateway 52
1190 Lithia Way - Ashland Physical Th. 65
1200 Litha Way - N. of Oak - SHEL TER 53
2630 N. Main - N of Central. (Big Tree) 24
2640 N. Main - S. at Glen, AI's Diner 25
2650 N. Main - N. of Maple (Hospital) 26
East Ashland
Loop -+
2350
2360
2370
2380
2390
2400
2410
2420
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
1200
1270
1280
2430
2440
2450
2460
2470
2480
[ 2485
2490
2500
2510
2520
2530
2!j.4()
2545
2550
2560
2570
2sea
2590
2600
2610
2620
1140
1145
1160
1170
1190
1190
1200
2630
2640
2650
2660
-m'T
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
2008-2009 Grant Agreement with the Chamber of Commerce
Meeting Date: September 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Martha J. Bennett
Department: Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept. : Finance/Admin. Secondary Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Approval: Martha J. Benn Estimated Time: 30 minutes
Question:
Does the Council approve the proposed contract with the Chamber of Commerce for FY 2008-2009 in
the amount of $305,000?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached contract.
Background:
The City has relied on the Chamber of Commerce to provide visitor and convention bureau services
and certain economic development services for many years. During discussions this spring related to
the increase in the transient occupancy tax (TOT) rate adopted by Council, the Council has adjusted
the amount awarded to the Chamber for economic development and visitors and convention bureau
(VCB) services. The proposed contract outlines the specific tasks and outcomes that the City hopes to
achieve. The City will be contracting for $225,000 for the promotion of tourism that meets the state
definition and $80,000 for specific economic development activities. The contract has been adjusted to
reflect this change in the funding. In particular, additional requirements are made for the increase in
VCB funds.
Staff recommends the following changes in the contract from last year.
. Deleting the requirement that the Chamber assist the City with public involvement for a potential
increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax rate.
. Adding a requirement that the VCB develop specific marketing campaigns targeted at attracting
visitors in the shoulder and winter season and at extending the length of stays of visitors in the
summer months.
. Adding a requirement that the VCB develop an electronic marketing campaign that encourages
return visits and assists in developing a more accurate profile of the types of people who visit
Ashland and of the types of activities, events, campaigns, or festivals that would encourage
expansion and diversification of the visitor base.
. Adding a request that the Chamber develop a method for tracking occupancy rates.
The additions proposed by staff are all on page #3 of the contract and are highlighted.
Staff recommends that the following items be maintained:
. Including Chamber participation in the City's Economic Development Strategy development
. Increasing VCB activities related to promoting outdoor recreation.
090208 Chamber contract.cC.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. Increasing VCB activities and events for shoulder season and for visits of families with school-age
and young children.
. Coordination with SOREDI, Job Council, State of Oregon, Thrive and other economic
development agencies that work in the City of Ashland.
. Including data reporting that will lead to Performance Measures to track progress, such as'
o Job creation
o Increased lodging visits (TOT revenues) in first and fourth quarters
Staffhas gone over these changes with the Chamber of Commerce, and they agree that these are ta~ks
that can and should be performed under the contract.
This contract is for one year.
Related City Policies:
This contract implements part of the economic element (Chapter 7) of the comprehensive plan
Council Options:
Council can approve this grant agreement with the Chamber.
Council can provide additional direction to staff for amendments to the grant agreement
Potential Motions:
. I move to approve the grant agreement for FY 2008-2009 with the Ashland Chamber of
Commerce.
. I move to approve the grant agreement with the following amendments (list them)
. I move to direct staff to revise the agreement in the following ways (list them) and bring it back
for consideration by the Council. As part of this motion, the Council is authorizing staff to
continue to make monthly paYments to the Chamber until the contract is adopted.
Attachments:
Draft contract
090208 Chamber contract.cC.doc
r~'
.11
Proposed
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Agreement for Services
Between
City of Ashland
And
Ashland Chamber of Commerce
Agreement between the City of Ashland (City), the Ashland Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) and the
Ashland Visitor and Convention bureau (VCB) for fiscal year 2008-09.
Recitals
A. The VCB shall receive $225,000 for promoting tourism in Ashland based upon Ashland City
Council Resolution motion of June 16,2008 Expenditures of these funds must meet the
requirement of ORS 320.300 through ORS 320.350.
B. The Chamber shall receive $80,000 for the purpose of economic development in Ashland based
upon Ashland City Council motion of June 16, 2008.
C. The City, Chamber and VCB now enter into this Agreement.
Purpose
The City grants funds to the VCB to promote Ashland to visitors traveling from more than 50 miles to
Ashland and to visitors who stay overnight in Ashland. Promotion includes advertising, publicizing,
distribution of printed materials, marketing special events and festivals, conducting strategic planning,
visitor center management and research necessary to stimulate tourism development.
The City of Ashland shares responsibility with the Chamber to handle economic development functions.
Currently the Chamber provides the following kinds of services with funds granted by the City:
coordinated marketing, rapid response team to inquiries, relocation services, point-of-contact
management and information services, general inquiries, training for local business and coordination
with the Small Business Administration.
The City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document for all development within the
community. The plan incorporates ten specific elements related to development. The economic
development element is identified in Chapter 7.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
In conducting the work under this grant, the Chamber will emphasize in its economic development
activities:
. The importance of maintaining Ashland's small-town feel
. Ashland as a family friendly community that supports its schools and values high quality
education.
. Ashland's commitment to environmentally sustainable business practices
. The high quality of Ashland's workforce and the community's desire for businesses that offer
family-wage jobs.
rA'
-----rn-'T
Proposed
. The rich cultural, social, and intellectual traditions of the community.
. The importance of Southern Oregon University.
. The high value Ashland places on diversity
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASKS
1. Work with the City of Ashland to create an economic development strategy and action plan for the
community that includes establishing goals, strategies, objectives, and actions. This strategy will
also clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies working on business
retention, expansion, and recruitment in Ashland.
2. Assist the City in reaching out to a broad spectrum of the community in developing the economic
development strategy.
3. Continue efforts to retain and expand existing businesses, particularly businesses that are non-
tourism related, with an emphasis on additional family wage jobs. The strategies should be based
on research on the needs and growth potential of existing businesses.
4. Continue efforts to recruit new businesses to Ashland. As with the business retention and
expansion plan, the Chamber should focus on non-tourism related businesses that provide family
wage jobs.
5. Develop and provide accurate and timely information to assist businesses interested in locating,
expanding, or remaining in Ashland.
6. Provide advice and information to existing businesses that may wish to remain or expand in
Ashland. Coordinate with appropriate other agencies, governments, and non profits to assist in
business retention and expansion.
7. Provide advice, information, and technical assistance to businesses interested in relocating in
Ashland. Coordinate with appropriate other agencies, governments, and non profits to assist in
business location decisions.
8. Develop and maintain strong working relationships with agencies and governments that provide
financial and technical assistance or training to business.
9. Engage a cross-section of people and organizations in the work supported through this contract.
VISITOR AND CONVENTION SERVICES
In conducting the work under this grant, the Chamber will emphasize in its Visitor and Convention
Bureau (VCB) activities:
. Ashland as a high quality destination in the winter, spring, and fall as well as the summer.
. Ashland as a destination for people of all ages, including families with young and school-aged
children
. Ashland as a center for cultural, social, and intellectual pursuits
. Ashland as a center for high quality outdoor recreational opportunities
VISITOR AND CONVENTION SERVICES TASKS:
1. The VCB will develop and implement a strategy to maintain current levels of tourism in the summer
months and increase tourism in fall, winter, and spring. This strategy should rely on the best
available research into visitor behavior and best practices in the VCB industry.
2. The VCB should help the City leverage its investment into cultural and economic development
grants by promoting the events and performances of groups that receive small grants from the City.
2
r~'
.11--.----.------
Proposed
3. The VCS should provide accurate and timely information to potential visitors and on-site information
about the community to people who are vacationing.
4. The VCS should have an active marketing campaign to encourage and promote visits to Ashland
that reinforce the strengths of the community.
5. The VCS should market and promote festivals and events in the fall and early spring, especially
those provided bother re<;ipients of cultural and economic develo ment rants from the City.
REQUIRED REPORTING
The Chamber shall provide an annual report to the Ashland City Council no later than January 31 on its
previous year's activities. The report should include:
1. A summary and analysis of the specific steps taken to perform the tasks in this contract for both
economic development and VCS activities.
Performance Measures. The Chamber shall include data that measures its success in both
economic development and in tourism promotion in its report. At a minimum, the Chamber will
include data that describes the total number of jobs within Ashland, by major sector (e.g., retail,
wholesale, government, etc.) and data that measures the total collection of both transient
occupancy tax and food and beverage tax, by quarter, in the grant year over the previous year. The
City will assist in providing this data to the Chamber. The report should analyze and describe how
tasks identified in this rant a reement affected total 'obs and TOT and F&S tax collections.
3. A summary report of Ashland businesses that received direct assistance from the Chamber for
business retention or expansion. This report should include the total number of businesses that
contacted the Chamber or that were contacted by the Chamber.
4. A summary report of prospective businesses the Chamber talked with about relocating or opening
in Ashland. This report should include the total number of businesses that contacted the Chamber
or that were contacted by the Chamber.
5. A report on the variety of specific promotion activities executed for the purpose of attracting visitors
to Ashland. Include samples of advertising, which include family, quality of life and educational
opportunities. The report should include a description of the specific promotion activities targeted at
attracting visitors to Ashland during the fall, winter and spring. Include samples of advertising,
which include family, quality of life and educational opportunities.
6. A report about the VCS's analysis of the viability of new festivals and events for supporting
additional tourism in the fall and spring, including efforts the VCS made to coordinate with other
recipients of cultural and economic grants from the City.
3
r~'
. ----.-.r-r
Proposed
7. A summary report of outreach efforts made by the Chamber to other organizations, businesses, and
people to support the work of this contract.
General Provisions
1. Amount of Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, the City agrees to provide
funds in the amount specified above.
2. Use of Grant Funds. The use of grant funds is expressly limited to the objectives identified in this
agreement.
3. Unexpended Funds. Any grant funds held by the Grantee remaining after the purpose for which the
grant is awarded or this agreement is terminated shall be returned to the City within 30 days of
completion or termination.
4. Financial Records and Inspection. Grantee includes in the annual report to the City a) copies of
501@ letter, IRS non-profit status and corporate bylaws; b) list of Board members, their
occupations, and years on the Board; c) financial statements showing previous year expenses and
revenues; d) current and projected budgets (total organization and individual program's funded by
this grant). Grantee's report should show the relative share of City funds expended compared to
overall project funds.
5. Living Wage Requirements. If the amount of this agreement is $17,342.00 or more, and if the
Grantee has ten or more employees, then Grantee is required to pay a living wage, as defined in
Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 3.12, to all employees and subcontractors who spend 500/0 or
more of their time within a month performing work under this agreement. Grantees required to pay
a living wage are also required to post the attached notice predominantly in areas where it will be
seen by all employees.
6. Default. If Grantee fails to remedy any material breach of any of Grantee's obligations under the
terms of this agreements within 30 days of receipt of written notice from the City of the breach, or if
Grantee fails to expend the grant funds or enter into binding legal agreements to expend the grant
funds within twelve months of the date of this agreement, the City, by written notice of default to the
Grantee, may terminate the whole or any part of this agreement and may pursue any remedies
available at law or in equity. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to, termination of the
agreement, stop payment on or return of the grant funds, payment of interest earned on grant funds
or declaration of ineligibility for the receipt of future grant awards.
7. Amendments. The terms of this agreement will not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented, or
amended in any manner except by written instrument signed by the parties. Such written
modification will be made a part of this agreement and subject to all other agreement provisions.
8. Indemnity. Grantee agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents
harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogation's, or
other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death,) or damage
(including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the
performance of this agreement by Grantee (including but not limited to, Grantee's employees,
agents, and others designated by Grantee to perform work or services relating to Grantee's
obligation under the terms of this agreement). Grantee shall not be held responsible for damages
caused by the negligence of City or anyone acting in behalf of City.
4
r~'
. ----- -I1IT -
Proposed
9. Insurance. Grantee shall, at its own expense, at all times for twelve months from the date of this
agreement, maintain in force a comprehensive general liability policy. The liability under such
policy shall be a minimum of $500,000 per occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and
property damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $100,000 per occurrence
for property damage. Liability coverage shall be provided on an "occurrence" not "claims" basis.
The City of Ashland, its officers, employees and agents shall be named as additional insures.
Certificates of insurance acceptable to the City shall be filed with the City Risk Manager or Finance
Director prior to the expenditure of any grant funds.
10. Merger. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There are no
understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified in this agreement
regarding this agreement. Grantee, by the signature below of its authorized representative,
acknowledges that it has read this agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms
and conditions.
11. Dispute Resolution. In the event of any dispute between the parties relating to this agreement, the
parties shall attempt alternative dispute resolution (mediation or arbitration) prior to filing any formal
legal action.
12. Notices and Representatives. All notices, certificates, or communications shall be delivered or
mailed postage prepaid to the parties at their respective places of business as set forth below or at
a place designated hereafter in writing by the parties.
City of Ashland
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
20 East Main
Ashland, OR 97520
Ashland Chamber of Commerce:
Sandra Slattery, Executive Director
110 East Main
Ashland, OR 97520
This Agreement constitutes the Entire Agreement between the parties. There are no understandings,
agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement. No
amendment, consent, or waiver or terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and
signed by all parties. Any such amendment, consent or waiver shall be effective only in the specific
instance and for the specific purpose given. The parties, by the signature below or their authorized
representatives, acknowledge having read and understood the Agreement and the parties agree to be
bound by its terms and conditions.
City of Ashland
By
Title
Date
Ashland Chamber of Commerce and Visitor and Convention Bureau
5
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Criminal Record Information Ordinance
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
September 2, 2008
City Attorney's Office
Ashland Police
Martha Benne
Primary Staff Contact:
E- Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Richard Appicello
Appicelr@ashland.or.us
Megan Thornton
5 minutes
Question:
Should the City Council conduct and approve First and Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance Relating to Criminal Records Information, Requiring Review of Criminal Record
Information for Applicants of EmploYment, Volunteers, Personal Service Contractors of the City, and
Declaring Emergency" and move the ordinance on to be passed by emergency?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approval of First Reading in full and Second Reading by Title only to allow
the ordinance to be passed as an emergency.
Background:
On May 28, 2008, the Oregon Department of State Police (OSP) completed an audit of the Police
Department's Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS) use. LEDS is a program that allows the police
department access to criminal record information for Oregon, other states, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Due to the confidential nature of the information that can be accessed through LEDS
there are numerous policies and procedures that must be followed for users of LEDS to maintain
access.
After the audit was completed, the Police Department was notified that continued use of the LEDS
system would require adoption of an ordinance meeting LEDS regulatory standards. In short, Oregon
law requires the City Council to pass an ordinance providing the Police Department with the authority
to conduct certain kinds of criminal history checks and restricting the use of the information received.
The proposed ordinance clarifies that the Human Resources Department can request criminal history
checks for potential employees, volunteers, and city contractors. The ordinance also specifies that the
complete results of the criminal history check will not be released to the Human Resources
Department, and it specifies how the information will be evaluated by staff. This ordinance has an
emergency clause because the ordinance is necessary to satisfy LEDS requirements and will bring the
Ashland Police Department fully into compliance with state laws and regulations.
Related City Policies:
City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption provisions
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve First and Second Reading and pass the ordinance by emergency.
(2) Move to approve First Reading and continue the matter to September 16, 2008 for Second Reading.
Page 1
09-02-08 Criminal Record Information Ordinance
!'Al
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
Staff: [Read ordinance in full, then by Title only.] Council: Motion to declare an emergency; Motion
to approve First and Second Reading and adopt the ordinance as an emergency enactment.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance
Page 2
09-02-08 Criminal Record Information Ordinance
!'Al
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CRIMINAL RECORD INFORMATION,
REQUIRING REVIEW OF CRIMINAL RECORD INFORMATION FOR
APPLICANTS OF EMPLOYMENT, VOLUNTEERS, PERSONAL SERVICE
CONTRACTORS OF THE CITY, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Annotated to show deletions and "additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold . and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, ORS 181.555(1) and OAR 257-010-0025 allow local agencies to
access criminal offender information possessed by the Oregon State Police (OSP)
through The Law Enforcement Data System (LEOS), and
WHEREAS, OAR 257 -015-0060(2)(a) allows agencies authorized by OSP to
access Computerized Criminal History records via LEOS, and
WHEREAS, The Ashland City Council finds that it is in the public interest and safety
that the City access criminal conviction records through the LEOS database for
applicants of employment, volunteers, personal service contractors of the City, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in order for city departments to have access
to criminal offender information the City must adopt an Ordinance under OAR 257-
010-0025 that expressly refers to criminal conduct and contains requirements or
exclusions expressly based on such conduct to allow access to criminal conviction
records by local agencies.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Sections 2.42.010 [Purpose] through 2.42.020 [Procedure] are hereby
added to read as follows:
2.42.010. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to authorize the City of
Ashland Police Department to access Oreaon State Police (OSP) criminal
offender information throuah the Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS) for
potential employees. volunteers. and city contractors in accordance with
applicable state laws. Criminal history information is necessary to make
informed hirina decisions and to reduce the risk of claims aaainst the City of
Ashland. for nealiaent hirina. amona other claims.
2.42.020. Procedure.
A. All potential employees, volunteers, and city contractors shall be
required to authorize the City to conduct a criminal offender
information check throuah the OSP LEOS system.
LEDS Ordinance No. _ 09-02-08 First Reading
Page 1 of3
B. The Ashland Police Department will conduct the check on potential
emplovees. volunteers. or city contractors and report to the Human
Resources Department that the applicant either has a criminal history
or does not have a criminal history. Use of the LEDS system shall be
subiect to the City's aareement with the OSP for such use and such
other purposes and in accordance with the terms and conditions
imposed bv statutes. rules. or reaulations. Information obtained from
the LEDS system shall be deemed personal and private information.
which shall be kept confidential and destroyed at such time as the
other application materials are destroyed in accordance with public
records law.
C. If the applicant has a criminal history. the Human Resources
Department may request a written criminal history from the OSP
Identification Services Section after pavina the applicable fee. The
Human Resources Department shall make the written criminal history
record available to the selectina official for his/her consideration when
determinina whether to hire the applicant. For purposes of this
ordinance the "selectina official" is the City officer or emplovee
makina the hirina. contractina or volunteer use decision who is not
disqualified from examinina confidential LEDS material.
D. Potential emplovees. volunteers. or city contractors that have felonv
convictions. or misdemeanor convictions for crimes of moral turpitude
will be closelv examined bv the selectina department heads or other
city officials to determine if the applicant possesses the required
dearee of public trust and confidence. However. each selection will be
made on an individual case bv case basis. takina into account the:
1) Applicant's Qualifications.
2) Requirements of the position.
3) Public sensitivity of the position under consideration. and
4) Results of the criminal history check. such as the applicant's
aae at the time of the offense. date of the offense. type of
offense. and any subsequent rehabilitation.
E. The criminal history record of applicants that are hired or selected will
become a part of the confidential personnel file of that person. Access
to confidential personnel files is limited to authorized persons who
have an official need to access such files as allowed bv law or
reaulation.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of
this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph,
or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections,
paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Emergency. The City Council of the City of Ashland finds that the
health, safety and welfare of the City of Ashland, including the need for the City to
LEDS Ordinance No. _ 09-02-08 First Reading
Page 2 of3
make informed hiring, volunteer and contracting decisions, requires this ordinance
to have immediate effect. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist by
unanimous vote of the Council, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from the time of its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the
City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section",
"chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered,
or re-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate
provisions (Le. Sections 3-5) need not be codified and the City Recorder is
authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read in full and then by title at a single meeting of
the Ashland City Council in accordance with Article X, Section 2(8) and Section
2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2008, and duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2008.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2008.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
LEDS Ordinance No. _ 09-02-08 First Reading
Page 3 of3
.11 I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Appointment of Budget Committee Member and Council Member/Mayor as
Liaison to Audit Committee
September 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
City Recorder E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Berm Estimated Time:
Barbara Christensen
christeb@ashland.or.us
None
15 Minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to make an appointment to the Audit Committee of a Budget Committee
member and Council Member/Mayor member for a term to expire April 30, 2009?
Staff Recommendation:
None.
Background:
The Audit Committee consists of one member of the Budget Committee, one Council member or the
Mayor and two citizens at-large.
A request was sent out to the current Budget Committee members on July 24, 2008 asking if anyone
was interested in volunteering for this appointment. The following members responded that they were
willing to serve in this capacity: Dermis Slattery, Dee Anne Everson and Roberta Stebbins.
The Audit Committee meets about twice a year to analyze and report to the Council on the annual audit
of the City and Parks & Recreation. This committee also recommends to the council an independent
firm of certified public accountants to perform the annual audit of the City.
The committee is normally scheduled to meet in September 2008 as the Audit of the City has already
begun and should be completed and ready for draft presentation to the committee at that time.
Related City Policies:
City Council approved Resolution #2008-24 clarifYing the duties of the Audit Committee.
Council Options:
Choose one of the following as the liaison to the Audit Committee for a term to expire April 30, 2009:
Dennis Slattery, Dee Anne Everson or Roberta Stebbins.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve appointment of
2009.
to the Audit Committee for a term to expire April 30,
Page 1 of2
090208 Appt of Audit comm.cC.doc
r~'
Motion to approve appointment of Council Member/Mayor
term to expire April 30, 2009
Attachments:
Resolution #2008-24
Page 2 of2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
to the Audit Committee for a
090208 Appt of Audit comm.cC.doc
r~'
I II r----- ----
RESOLUTION NO.
.J.OOf.,11
A RESOLUTION CLARIFYING THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
MUNICIPAL AUDIT COMMITTEE AND MAKING THE CITY RECORDER AN EX
OFFICIO MEMBER AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2003-07.
RECITALS:
A. The role and responsibilities of the Municipal Audit Committee were established in
June 1991 pursuant to Resolution 91-16. The committee was re-established in 1995
with modified objectives and responsibilities as set forth in Resolution 95-24, 98-06 and
2003-07. Recent changes in audit requirements and internal operations create a need
to adjust the responsibilities of the committee and its members.
B. The city council desires to reaffirm the expectations and composition of the
committee, making the city recorder a non-voting member and allowing the mayor to
serve as a voting member.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Committee Established. The Municipal Audit Committee is established and'
shall consist of four voting members. The committee may request the presence of any
city official at its meetings.
SECTION 2. Terms. Qualifications. Vacancies.
A. Four voting members shall be appointed by the City Council and shall
consist of one council member or mayor, one budget committee member,
and two citizens at large. The fifth member shall be the city recorder, a
non-voting member. The terms of the council member or mayor and
budget committee member shall be for one year each expiring on April 30
of each year; and the terms for the citizens at large shall be for three-year
terms, expiring on April 30, or until their respective successors are
appointed and qualified. In such a case as both at large positions are
filled simultaneously the terms shall be staggered for two and three years.
B. In making the appointments, the council shall give preference to persons
with accounting or auditing experience, background or expertise.
C. Any committee member, other than the city recorder, who is absent,
without prior permission from the chair, from two or more meetings in a
one-year period shall be considered no longer active and the position
vacant, and a new person shall be appointed to complete the term.
SECTION 3. Quorum and Rules. Three voting members shall constitute a quorum. The
committee shall establish rules for its meetings and shall meet at least semi-annually
111.-------- -
(once prior to the onsite audit and once to receive the annual report) and at such other
times as may be necessary.
SECTION 4. ResDonsibilities. The committee shall be responsible to:
A. Recommend to the council an independent firm of certified public
accountants, qualified to perform the annual audit of the city.
B. Analyze and report to the council significant findings in the annual audit
report and make recommendations regarding such findings.
C. Make recommendations, if any, to the council regarding the following
financial documents:
1. Annual financial statements,
2. Management letter submitted by the independent auditor,
3. Response to management letter submitted by city staff, and
4. Financial Management Policies.
D. Review component unit information as necessary in relation to the city's
annual financial report and recommendation(s) to be made to council.
E. Perform similar duties for the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission
as authorized by the Commission.
SECTION 5. ReDorts. The committee shall submit copies of minutes of its meetings to
the council. Reports or recommendations of the committee shall be considered advisory
in nature and shall not be binding on the mayor or city council or Parks Commission.
SECTION 6. ReDeal. Resolution No. 2003-07 is repealed.
This re lution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this --L day of
,200 and t kes effect signing by the Mayor.
#7.
arbara Christensen, City Recorder
f
,2008.
SIGNED and APPROVED this
,
~
.11 .-------
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Parking Ordinance Amendments
September 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
City Attorney's Office E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Richard Appicello
Appicelr({~ashland. or. us
Megan Thornton
5 minutes
Question:
Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Relating to Parking Regulations, Allowing Use of Immobilizing Device, Authorizing Towing,
Removing Downtown Parking Limitations, Updating and Correcting Parking Processes and
Procedures, Amending AMC Sections 11.08.080, 11.28.060, 11.28.080, 11.28.090, and 11.28.110, and
Repealing AMC Chapter 11.30 and AMC Section 2.28.215" and move the ordinance on to Second
Reading?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approval of First Reading by title only and move the Ordinance on to
Second Reading set for September 16,2008.
Background:
The finance department requested review of the parking ordinance to determine if the process of
collecting parking fees was an efficient means of collecting paYments. While the ordinance was under
review the City formed a Downtown Task Force to evaluate a number of concerns in the downtown
district. During those meetings, employee parking was also discussed. Some of the changes which
arose out of the legal department's review and the downtown task meetings include:
· Both Ashland Municipal Court and Diamond Parking have authority to send past due fines to
a collection agency (See 11.24.100),
· Timelines for valid appeals are stated (See 11.24.100).
· An exemption was added for vehicles of state agencies and vehicles with valid delivery or
construction permits (See 11.24.090),
· Use of an immobilization device and towing is authorized (See 11.24.110), and
· Issuance of a warning letter is possible before a show cause order is issued (See 11.24.110).
Related City Policies:
City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption provisions
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve First Reading and continue the matter to September 16, 2008 for Second Reading.
(2) Postpone consideration.
Page 1: 09-02-08 Parking ordinance
1Ir..
.11
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
Staff: [Conduct First Reading of Ordinance by Title only]
Council: Motion to approve First Reading and set Second Reading for September 16, 2008.
Attachments:
1) Proposed ordinance
2) Repealed sections
Page 2: 09-02-08 Parking ordinance
1Ir~.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Parking Ordinance Amendments
September 2, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
City Attorney's Office E-Mail:
None Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Richard Appicello
Appicelr((vashland. or .us
Megan Thornton
5 minutes
Question:
Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Relating to Parking Regulations, Allowing Use of Immobilizing Device, Authorizing Towing,
Removing Downtown Parking Limitations, Updating and Correcting Parking Processes and
Procedures, Amending AMC Sections 11.08.080, 11.28.060, 11.28.080, 11.28.090, and 11.28.110, and
Repealing AMC Chapter 11.30 and AMC Section 2.28.215" and move the ordinance on to Second
Reading?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approval of First Reading by title only and move the Ordinance on to
Second Reading set for September 16,2008.
Background:
The finance department requested review of the parking ordinance to determine if the process of
collecting parking fees was an efficient means of collecting paYments. While the ordinance was under
review the City formed a Downtown Task Force to evaluate a number of concerns in the downtown
district. During those meetings, employee parking was also discussed. Some of the changes which
arose out of the legal department's review and the downtown task meetings include:
· Both Ashland Municipal Court and Diamond Parking have authority to send past due fines to
a collection agency (See 11.24.100),
· Timelines for valid appeals are stated (See 11.24.100).
· An exemption was added for vehicles of state agencies and vehicles with valid delivery or
construction permits (See 11.24.090),
· Use of an immobilization device and towing is authorized (See 11.24.110), and
· Issuance of a warning letter is possible before a show cause order is issued (See 11.24.110).
Related City Policies:
City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption provisions
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve First Reading and continue the matter to September 16,2008 for Second Reading.
(2) Postpone consideration.
Page 1: 09-02-08 Parking ordinance
1r~1I
m T
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
Staff: [Conduct First Reading of Ordinance by Title only]
Council: Motion to approve First Reading and set Second Readingfor September 16,2008.
Attachments:
1) Proposed ordinance
2) Repealed sections
Page 2: 09-02-08 Parking ordinance
irA.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PARKING REGULATIONS, ALLOWING USE
OF IMMOBILIZING DEVICE, AUTHORIZING TOWING, REMOVING
DOWNTOWN PARKING LIMITATIONS, UPDATING AND CORRECTING
PARKING PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES, AMENDING AMC SECTIONS
11.08.080, 11.28.060, 11.28.080, 11.28.090, AND 11.28.110, AND REPEALING
AMC CHAPTER 11.30 AND AMC SECTION 2.28.215.
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold . and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, City processes and procedures concerning parking regulations are in need of
clarification; and
WHEREAS, the City would like to remove downtown employee parking restrictions in lieu of
voluntary parking measures by downtown employers relative to their employees; and
WHEREAS, the City would like to authorize the installation of an immobilizing device on
vehicles and towing of vehicles in certain circumstances for persons with specified levels of
unpaid parking violations, and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide more process and procedures before resulting to
issuance of a warrant in the case of parking violations.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.28.215 [Municipal Judge - Parking Violations] is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. Chapter 11.30[Downtown Parking District] is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. Section 11.08.080 [Block] is hereby amended to read as follows:
11.08.080 Block
A seament of a street bounded by consecutive cross streets or intersectina
streets and includina its buildinas and inhabitants, The land surrounded by
streets and other right of '/Jay other than an alley, or land which is designated
as a block on any recorded subdivision map.
SECTION 4. Section 11.24.100 [Collections; Enhanced Penalties; Appeals] is hereby
added to read as follows:
11.24.100 Collections: Enhanced Penalties: Appeals.
The Municipal Judae or City contracted parkina enforcement provider is
authorized to assian any and all unpaid parkina violations to a collection
aaency or aaencies for collection of the penalty provided for such violations.
The penalties for parkina violations as provided in the Ashland Municipal
Ordinance Amending AMC Parking Regulations: First Reading 09-02-08
Page 1 of6
Code shall be enhanced in each case when the defendant fails to appear or
post bail within the time reauired by the citation as follows:
A.When the defendant fails to appear or post bail within ten (10) days of
the due date thereof. the penalty shall increase by Ten Dollars ($10.00l.
B. When the defendant fails to appear or post bail within thirty (30) days
of the due date thereof. the penalty shall increase by Thirty Dollars
($30.00l.
C. When the defendant fails to appear or post bail within fifty (50) days of
the due date thereof. the penalty shall increase by Fifty Dollars
($50.00).
A defendant who fails to appear or post bail within the time reauired by the
parkina citation or penalty enhancement waives any obiection. and cannot
contest or appeal the initial parkina violation or penalty enhancement
previously imposed. Any fines or penalty enhancements that have not been
paid to the contracted parkina enforcement provider shall be deemed a debt
owed by the defendant to the city. Any person that continues to owe money to
the city for more than 50 days under the provisions of this chapter may be
submitted to a collection aaency by the contracted parkina enforcement
provider. Notwithstandina any other remedy provided in this code. includina
immobilization. towina or warrant. a default iudament may be taken by the
Court followina any failure to appear or penalty enhancement and the matter
referred to a collection aaency.
SECTION 5. Section 11.24.090 [Exemption] is hereby amended to read as follows:
11.24.090 Exemption
The provisions of this chapter Chapters 11.24 and 11.28 regulating the parking or
standing of vehicles shall not apply to a vehicle of a State Aaencv, City department
or public utility necessarily in use for construction or repair work, or to a vehicle
with a Special Permit for Delivery. Maintenance or Construction or to a vehicle
owned by the United States while in use for the collection, transportation, or delivery
of the United States mail.
SECTION 6. Section 11.24.095 [Special Permit for Delivery, Maintenance or Construction]
is hereby added to read as follows:
11.24.095 Special Permit for Delivery. Maintenance or Construction
A. Loadina and unloadina of vehicles shall be permitted as provided in the
Ashland Municipal Code.
B. A Special Permit may be aranted by the City Administrator. or desianee.
when substantial evidence is submitted that demonstrates that an exemption
from the two or four hour time limits for parkina is necessary based on the
size or complexity of a delivery or for the safe and convenient placement of
construction. repair or maintenance vehicles adiacent to a construction.
proiect or iob site.
Ordinance Amending AMC Parking Regulations: First Reading 09-02-08
Page 2 of6
C. The Special Permit must be prominentlv displaved in the vehicle while
parked in the restricted Darkina area. Vehicles disDlavina the SDecial Permit
shall be exempt from the Drovisions of Section 11.24 and 11.28 concernina
two or four hour parkina limitations. but must abide bv all other traffic and
Darkina reaulations. includina loadina zone Darkina time limits.
SECTION 7. Section 11.28.080 [Violation - Penalties] is hereby amended to read as
follows:
11.28.080 Parkina Violation - Prohibition Penalties
A Darkina infraction violation is a violation of any parkina prohibition. limitation or
reaulation of the City of Ashland. A vehicle parked in violation of this chapter shall
have a notice of violation attached to the vehicle and the owner or operator of the vehicle
shall be subject to the penalties provided in Section 1.08.020 and this chapter, and may
be subject to the impounding of such vehicle as provided in Chapter 11.36. A Derson
who commits a parkina infraction violation may not suffer any disabilitv or leaal
disadvantaae based upon conviction of a crime.
SECTION 8. Section 11.28.110 [Fines for parking infractions and warrants of arrest] is
hereby amended to read as follows:
11.28.110 FiRes Penalties for parking infractions violations: immobilization.
towina. and show cause and warrants of arrest
It. parking infraction is a violation of any parking prohibition, limitation or
regulation of the City of Ashland. It.. person ...:ho commits a parking infraction
may not suffer any disability or legal disad'Jantage based upon conviction of 3
crime, and, the penalty shall be limited to a fine not to exceed $150. Provided,
hOlJ:e'Jer, a person '::ho commits three or four parking infractions in any
calendar year shall pay an additional fine of $25 and a person v:ho commits
five or more parking infractions in any calendar year shall pay an additional
fine of $50. In the trial of a person charged '-'"lith a parking infraction, neither
the defendant nor the City of J\shland shall be entitled to trial by jury. If a
person cited for a parking infraction fails to appear any time fixed by the
Court, a ,-"arrant for the arrest of such person may be issued.
A. Fine. Fines shall include the oriainal ticketed amount as well as any
enhanced penalties. In addition. a person who commits three or four
parkina violations in any calendar year shall pav an additional fine of $25.
and a person who commits five or more Darkina violations in any calendar
year shall Dav an additional fine of $50 for each five Darkina violations they
receive in that year.
B. Immobilizer (boot) Installation and lor Towina.
(1) When a driver. reaistered owner. or Derson in charae of a motor
vehicle has either (1) five or more outstandina unpaid City of
Ashland parkina violations on any number of motor vehicles. or (2)
Ordinance Amending AMC Parking Regulations: First Reading 09-02-08
Page 3 of6
a City of Ashland parkino violation. or any number of such
violations. with a total unpaid balance that exceeds $250.
reQardless of the number of motor vehicles involved. then any
police or parkino enforcement officer. or contracted parkinQ
enforcement provider of the City is authorized. directed and
empowered to immobilize such a motor vehicle or vehicles found
upon a public street or city off-street parkino lot bv installino on or
attachino to the motor vehicle a device desioned to restrict the
normal movement of the vehicle. In the alternative. or in addition to
immobilization. after 24 hours has elapsed. any police or Darkino
enforcement officer or contracted Darkino enforcement provider of
the City is authorized. directed and empowered to order such
vehicle towed. bva licensed tow comDanv under contract with the
City or the City's contracted Darkino enforcement service Drovider.
as aDPlicable.
(2) For Durposes of this section. bail or fine shall be outstandino on a
citation when the citation is issued and shall remain outstandino
until the bail is posted or the fine is paid.
(3) Ten days before immobilizino or towino a vehicle accordino to the
Drovisions of this section. the City. or the City's contracted Darkino
enforcement service provider shall Dlace a notice on the vehicle or
mail a notice bv certified mail. return receiDt reQuested. to the
reQistered owner of such vehicle as shown bv the records of the
Oreoon Motor Vehicles Division notifyinQ the owner that the motor
vehicle or vehicles may be immobilized andlor towed ten days after
the date of mailino the notice herein for failure to pav outstandinQ
Darkino bail or fines.
(4) If the vehicle is so immobilized. the person who installs or attaches
the device shall consDicuouslv affix to the vehicle a written notice
on a form approved bv the city. advisino the owner. driver. or
Derson in charoe of the vehicle that it has been immobilized
pursuant to this section and that release of the vehicle may be
obtained upon full payment of the outstandino balance owed to the
contracted parkino enforcement service Drovider. The notice shall
also sDecify that the vehicle is subiect to tow.
(5) In the event the vehicle is towed. the person who orders the tow.
shall send bv certified mail. return receiDt reQuested. a notice
advisino the reoistered owner of the vehicle that it has been towed
Dursuant to this section and that release of the vehicle may be
obtained upon receipt bv the towino comDanv of full payment of
the outstandino balance owed.
(6) A vehicle towed and impounded Dursuant to this section shall be
held at the eXDense of the owner or person entitled to possession
of the vehicle. Personnel. eQuipment and facilities of Drivate tow
companies under contract with the City or the contracted Darkino
enforcement service Drovider may be used for the removal and
storaQe of the vehicle.
C. Warnino Letter. Show Cause. and Warrants.
Ordinance Amending AMC Parking Regulations: First Reading 09-02-08
Page 4 of6
----nr-T
(1) Warnino Letter. The Ashland Municipal Court may choose to send
a warnino letter bv first class mail informina the defendant they
have outstandinQ parkino tickets and that their attendance is
necessary at a Dreliminary hearino before issuinQ a show cause
order and warrant.
(2) Show Cause. The Ashland MuniciDal Court may issue an order that
reQuires the defendant to aPDear and show cause why the
defendant should not be held in contemDt of court. includinQ
contempt for failure to appear as ordered or failure to complv. The
show cause order shall be mailed to the defendant bv certified mail.
return receiDt reQuested. no less than ten days Drior to the
aPDearance date: alternativelv service may be made bv any other
recoQnized method. such as personal service accordino to the
same timeframe..
(3) Warrant. If the defendant is served and fails to aDPear at the time
specified in the show cause order. the court may issue an arrest
warrant for the defendant for the DurDose of brinaino the defendant
before the court.
SECTION 9. Section 11.28.060 [City Parking Lot] is hereby amended to read as follows:
11.28.060 City Parking Lot
Parking in the parking lot owned by the City immediately adjacent to the public
library, which is on the southwest corner of Gresham Street and East Main Street, is
limited to two hours except that employees of the public library may park for a
longer period of time in the spaces presently designated as employee parking
spaces.
SECTION 10. Section 11.28.120 [Parking Fine Surcharge] is hereby added to read as
follows:
11.28.120 Parkino Fine Surcharoe
There shall be a surcharoe of four-dollars ($4.00) on all Darkino citations
issued within the City of Ashland. All revenues received shall be seoreoated
and used onlv for meetino debt service on bonds issued for Darkino
imDrovements. leases. andlor future parkino imDrovements and studies.
SECTION 11. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this
ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause
shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 12. Savinos. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in
existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall
remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during
the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies
the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions
Ordinance Amending AMC Parking Regulations: First Reading 09-02-08
Page 5 of6
commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally
filed.
SECTION 13. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City
Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter" or
another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-Iettered,
provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (Le. Sections 11-13)
need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references
and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2008,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2008.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2008.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Ordinance Amending AMC Parking Regulations: First Reading 09-02-08
Page 60f6
Sections Repealed By Parking Ordinance
2.28.215 Municipal Judge--Parking Violations
The Municipal Judge is authorized to assign any and all parking violations issued to persons residing
outside the City limits of Ashland to a collection agency or agencies for collection of the penalty
provided for such violations. The penalties for parking violations as provided in the Ashland
Municipal Code shall be enhanced in each case when the defendant fails to appear or post bail within
the time required by the citation as follows:
A. When the defendant fails to appear or post bail within seven (7) days of the due date thereof, the
penalty shall increase by Ten Dollars ($10.00).
B. When the defendant fails to appear or post bail within thirty (30) days of the due date thereof, the
penalty shall increase by Thirty Dollars ($30.00).
C. When the defendant fails to appear or post bail within. fifty (50) days of the due date thereof, the
penalty shall increase by Fifty Dollars ($50.00). (Ord. 2047, 1979)
11.30 Downtown Parking District
11.30.010 Downtown Parking District - Established
A Downtown Parking District which shall encompass the shaded areas depicted on the attached map
marked Exhibit :A: and all on-street timed parking spaces and public timed parking facilities within
the Downtown Commercial District, Zoned C-I-D. (Ord 2460 S4, 1988; Ord 2519 SI & S2, 1989;
2684, 1992)
11.30.020 Duration and Effect
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, no person shall, while at such person's place
of employment, educational or non-profit institution, cause any motor vehicle owned, operated or
controlled by that person to be parked in anyone or more parking spaces upon a public street or
timed off-street parking facility within the Downtown Parking District, described in Section
11.30.010, between the dates of May 1 and September 30, and between the hours of8:30 a.m. and
5:30 p.m. on any day except Sunday and legal holidays. Motorcycles parked in designated parking
spaces shall be exempted from this Title.
B. Subsection A of this section shall not apply to any person parking in the Hargardine Parking
Facility.
11.30.030 Special Permits for Loading, Unloading, and Delivery
A. Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be permitted as provided in the Ashland Municipal Code.
B. A Special Vehicle Permit may be granted by the City Administrator when substantial evidence is
submitted that shows that the permit is necessary for frequent delivery and pick-up which is vital to
the normal operation of the business, education, or non-profit institution. In the case of real estate
offices, up to four (4) such permits may be issued to the office for use by the broker or the licensed
090208 Parking Ordinance.atchl.doc
Page 1 of2
sales persons. In no case shall more permits than the number of sales persons on the largest shift be
issued.
C. The Special Vehicle Permit must be prominently displayed in the vehicle while parked in the
Downtown Parking District. Vehicles displaying the Special Vehicle Permit shall be exempt from the
provisions of Section 11.30.020, but must abide by all other traffic and parking regulations, including
parking time limits.
D. The Special Vehicle Permit shall not be valid on North Main Street or East Main Street in the
Downtown Parking District. (Ord 2507 S2, 1989)
11.30.040 Downtown Parking Utility Fee
A. There is hereby imposed a fee on all users of City electric utilities in the Downtown Parking
District. Such fee shall be one dollar ($1.00) each month for each parking space required by the
utility user, but not provided on private property.
B. Uses shall not be considered vacant unless the electric service is disconnected.
C. Estimates of parking requirements shall be determined by the data and procedures contained in the
Off-Street Parking Chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Section 18.92, regardless of whether
the zoning of a particular lot requires off street parking be provided.
D. In the case of private parking shared among several users, and in the absence of written
agreements to the contrary, private parking shall be allocated on a pro-rata basis to the users of the
parking.
E. All revenues received from said fee shall be segregated and be used only for meeting debt service
on bonds issued for parking improvements, leases, and/or future parking improvements and studies.
(Ord 2496, 1989 - Effective June 1, 1989, Terminate Jan. 1,2000)
11.30.045 Parking Fine Surcharge
There shall be a surcharge of two dollars ($2.00) on all parking citations issued within the Downtown
Parking District. All revenues received shall be segregated and used only for meeting debt service on
bonds issued for parking improvements, leases, and/or future parking improvements and studies.
(Ord 2507 S3, 1989)
11.30.050 Violation - Penalties
Any person parking in violation of the provisions of this Chapter shall receive a written warning for
the first violation. Each violation and conviction thereafter, shall carry a fine of not more than
twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for the first conviction, nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for the
second conviction, and not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the third conviction and
every conviction thereafter. Any person, business, or institution affected by this Chapter who fails to
comply with the requirements herein, shall be guilty of an infraction and punished as provided in
Chapter 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code. (Ord 2377, 1986)
090208 Parking Ordinance.atchl.doc
Page 2 of2