Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0120 Documents Submitted at Meeting 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON fit ~({3'l)ofbl 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97204 · (503) 497-1000. fax (503) 223-0073 .www.friends.org Southern Oregon Office. P.O. Box 2442. Grants Pass, OR 975~8. (541) 474-1155. fax (541) 474-9389 Willamette Valley Office. 189 Liberty Street NE, Suite 307A. Salem, OR 97301 · (503) 371-7261 · fax (503) 371-7596 Central Oregon Office · P.O. Box 1380. Bend, OR 97709. (541) 382-7557. fax (541) 317-9129 January 20, 2009 Mayor Stromberg Ashland City Councilors 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: Regional Problem Solving Process Participants' Agreement Dear Mayor Stromberg and members of the Ashland City Council: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. As you may know, 1000 Friends of Oregon has been participating in the Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving project almost since its inception. I have personally attended nearly every public meeting that has. been held since late 2002. We have put this effort into this project because we believe that regionally coordinated planning holds out the best hope for addressing many of the complex problems communities face today. We have been advocating for several years that the RPS Plan be put out for public hearings at the cities and the, county, and still believe that this is the time for those hearings. However, we have some concerns about the process that you are being asked to sign onto tonight. Notable among those concerns is that a critically important and statutorily required step is missing from the process. I will address this issue below, after clearing up the very important question of whether or not this Agreement is required in order for the RPS process to move forward. Q: Is this Agreement required before the project can move to public hearings? A: No. In a briefing just last week, Richard Whitman, Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), made the following statement to members of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC): I don't believe the statute requires, that, and I think we've expressed this informally to the RPS participants, I don't think believe the statute requires that the agreement be signed at this stage. I think this is a practical problem in terms of assessing risk of, urn, people participating and then deciding they don't want to be part of it at the end, and then that making the whole thing fall apart. I don't know how to deal with that dynamic-it's built into the statute. ---'-'-----------'---------------,-----------,-----------,----,._----". ---,.yr '. City of Ashland January 20,,2009 Page 2 of3 Q: What is missing from the process? A: There is no step for all participants to come back to the table after all the public hearings and say "we agree (or do not agree) with the final plan." Regional Problem Solving is possible because of a special statute (ORS 197.652 - 197.658). That statute allows participating jurisdictions some flexibility in meeting the letter of some of the state's land use regulations. In exchange for that flexibility, the statute requires that plan amendments or new local land use regulations be based on agreements reached by all participants. Neither Ashland nor any other city or the county have had public hearings on this plan-you simply don't know at this point whether you agree or not. Because this is a regional plan, you have the right and the responsibility to consider the entire plan-not just the parts that apply within Ashland, but whether or not concerns like those expressed in your November 15, 2007 letter have been adequately addressed. Signing this Agreement now is premature. - Q: Didn't LCDC vote to sign the Agreement? A: Yes, but not before they added language creating an explicit statement retaining their ability to review the final plan before approving it. Before LCDC would sign the Agreement, they added the following language to Section II (lines 15- 19): LCDC retains its full discretion and authority with respect to its review of the adopted Plan, or any amendments to the adopted Plan, and with respect to its review of the amendments to comprehensive plans and land use regulations that the Implementing Signatory Jurisdictions adopt to implement the adopted Plan. There is no such language in the Agreement or explicit step in the pro~ess being adopted by the Agreement where a city can exercise the same discretion prior to the plan being sent to LCDC for approval. Q: What does the Agreement say about what happens if a city does not agree with the final plan? A: Very little-and that is the problem. Because there is no process in the Agreement for what might happen if a city does not agree with the final. plan, it appears that the only available options are under Section XII-Termination of Participation. Under that provision, the city can petition to withdraw from the process-which is unlikely to be approved since that would end the RPS process-or it can simply terminate its participation. That option makes the city "subject to the Disincentives in Section VII and applicable legal and legislative repercussions." The question of whether there were other options came up at the Planning Commission meeting last week. Your city attorney mentioned one other option: the City could file an appeal. You are all aware of how expensive and time-consuming that option can be. City of Ashland January 20, 2009 Page 3 of3 Q: Why is all of this important to Ashland? A: Ashland is a part of the region and is affected by decisions made by others. On November 15, 2007, the Ashland City Council sent a letter to the RPS Policy Committee expressing concerns with the plan, including the efficient use of existing lands, transportation planning and implementation, loss of high value agricultural lands, the lack of a regional approach to housing and economic development, and the population that had been allocated to Ashland. The Project responded to your concerns in a letter, but made virtually no changes to the plan to address your concerns. Under the process proposed in the Agreement, if the final plan does not address your concerns to your satisfaction, you have little choice but to appeal or withdraw and face the consequences. Q: If Ashland does not sign the Agreement now, do we lose our seat at the table and our chance to influence the final plan? A: No. At least, not if the project is to continue under RPS. Polk County v. Department of Land Conservation and Development made it clear that ALL participants must remain in the process to the end. "Participant" was clearly defined as all parties who had been involved since the inception of the process. Ashland, Jacksonville, and all the other cities and the county are included in that list. You cannot be removed from the process if the process is to continue. Q: Can the process move forward to the public hearing stage without everyone signing the Agreement at this time? A: Yes. There is nothing preventing the public hearings going on as scheduled without all of the signatures on the Agreement, should the Project decide to do so. At the end of that process, if everyone agrees to the result, the plan can be sent to the State for approval. I want to conclude by making it clear that we are NOT advocating that Ashland withdraw from the RPS process. On the contrary, we believe it is important for all of the participants to continue on into the public hearings process and the hard work of agreeing to a final plan. However, we urge you to consider carefully the wisdom of signing an agreement at this time that does not provide you with good options should you not find the final plan acceptable-particularly when none of us knows what that final plan will look like. eration of our testimony, .. ' Or g Holmes Southern Oregon Planning Advocate _.,--'-_.~-.-_..__._---------_._--_._-------------_."-"----------- fH RPS '/zoftJ1 TO: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FROM: MARY-KAY MICHELSEN DATE: JANUARY 20,2009 RE: REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT The framers of Oregon's Statewide Planning goals and Guidelines believed that citizen involvement was so important that they established it as the first of the 1 9 goals. Goal 1: "To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." That sounds unequivical. The RPS plan is still in draft form, and, neither the county nor any city has had a public hearing on the draft plan. To ask participating jurisdictions to sign on to an agreement before the plan is in final form, and before there have been formal public land use hearings for citizen input, seems to fly in the face of Goal 1 and to invite an appeal. All phases means all phases, not just the beginning and then approve the final product. During some early presentations, informal public comment was accepted and there was significant con-cern that too much good farm land was included, that there was no plan to reduce miles driven, a requirement, and that alternative transportation, global warming and peak oil had been ignored. The present draft continues to ignore these very important issues. If one were cynical, one might conclude that the up-coming public hearings are simply pro forma and there is no intention of incorporating any public opinion in the final draft. I hope this is not the case. More important, from a municipal point of view, is the generally accepted admonition not to sign anything until you have read tbe bottom line and the fine print. Well, the fine print has not been written yet, so how can it be wise to bind yourself, at this time, to H______ 'm T an agreement to sign later. A preliminary agreement is NOT required by the RPS Statute at this stage of the process. What is required is an agreement, and a sign on by all parties, to the final version of the plan. If there are those who disagree with this statement, I would certainly appreciate a citation. I participated informally in the Citizens Involvement Committee for several years, during the early stages of Reg.ional Problem Solving, and was very supportive of the process. While I think it is important for Ashland to continue to participate in RPS, I would , urge you NOT to sign on to the binding agreement which you have been presented with. When you are given a final plan, and if it acknowledges and responds to the issues which the public broug'ht forward, that would be a very good time to sign on. The decision is yours. Mary-Kay Michelsen 281 0 Diane St Ashland OR 97520 488-7841 tps pI/- . ,/')0(0'1 January 20, 2009 Cate Hartzell 881 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland Mayor and City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mayor and Councilors, I would like to bring to your attention some outstanding issues relative to the decision you are being asked to make on the Regional Problem Solving Agreement tonight. It is important to separate out our support for a region~ planning process from substantive and procedural issues that work against citizen access to land use processes and against the original goals of this project. I urge you to continue to participate in the RPS 'process but don't sign this Agreement/Contract at this time. SO much is tied to this plan that the time to sign off on it is after public hearings are held and there is a final plan. At that point, if you are comfortable that the city's interests have been adequately addressed, then sign the agreement. As you know, the City Council decided in October 2007 at a special meeting on this topic to send a letter to theRPS highlighting concerns it had. I will review those in this letter, but would like to fIrst emphasize a couple of points about your decision tonight. 1. There is NO requirement in State law that requires this agreement/contract to be signed now; the ONL Y requirement is that participants agree with the FINAL plan. 2. This Workplan (Exhibit B) does NOT include a point at which participating cities have an' opportunity to agree or disagree with the rmal plan, which is the "agreement" required in the statute. You are being asked to make a legislative land use decision on a land use plan that has not been through a required public process. 3. Since this is your only option to say you agree or disagree, page 15 in the Agreement/contract states that Ashland has two options ifwe don't agree with the final plan: a. Ask to be let out of the process. RPS is not likely to consent to withdrawal, since case law indicates that the RPS would cease to exist if it did. b. Withdraw, which makes Ashland subject to the disincentives listed on page 10. These include constraints on Ashland's ability to compete for transportation project funding, revision of our population allocation, challenges regarding failure to implement our Comprehensive Plan and legal and legislative repercussions. 4. Before LCDC signed the Agreement, LCDC wrote in language that allows them to disagree with the Cmal plan. (Section II, page 3) In its letter to the RPS in November 2007, the Council identified problems in the draft plan and asked for concrete changes (listed below) to the draft plan based on Ashland's experience and commitment to sustainable development. While the RPS Executive Committee sent a letter back, their failure to address Ashland's observations or incorporate changes into the draft plan is problematic. Approval of the Agreement/contract means that the Council consents to the current draft plan, since there is no guarantee that the final plan will incorporate Ashland's or citizens' suggestions. A. Efficient Use of Existing Lands a. RPS' s emphasis on size and location of urban reserves resulted in less attention to protecting resource lands, transportation planning, and affordable housing. b. Plan should direct jurisdictions to enact incentives to achieve greater densities within UGBs in order to reduce development in urban reserves. B. Transportation Planning & Implementation a. RPS should prioritize alternative forms of transportation (transit, high-occupancy travel); b. Plan should include location, type and time frame for necessary road improvements; c. Plan should explicitly encourage and reward jurisdictions that plan alternative transportation and ensure funding equity for jurisdictions reducing vehicle trips; d. Plan and Agreement/contract must contain incentives for developing to densities that support fixed-route transit service prior to developing urban reserves. c. Loss of High Value Agricultural Lands a. Despite the goal to preserve the land, 77% of acres put into urban reserves is Exclusive Farm Use, with 18% deemed critical to the region's commercial ag land base. The removal of a few hundred acres at the direction of the State leaves in the majority ag land and 1200 acres of critical to the commercial ag land base; b. Amend Plan to prolong the need to extend UGB into ag land by encouraging higher densities inside existing UGBs and thereby reduce need for urban reserve acreage. D. Regional Approach to Housing and Economic Development a. Include in Plan timeline for creation of regional strategies for range of housing types b. Develop coordinated policy objectives in affordable housing, transportation, economic development, and smart growth practices. E. Coordinated Population Allocations a. Amend Stakeholder Agreement to recognize Ashland's concern over the accuracy of future population projections; b. Remove the population projection for Ashland so that it's not adopted as a conclusion in RPS plan; c. Revisit population projections and secure agreement by all jurisdictions before Periodic Review. I believe that the project's goals are contradicted by making the preservation of Critical Open Space Areas (COSA) optional: COSA strategies can be "refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit " (page 6). I would ask whether Ashland is an "implementing signatory." (page 9) Ashland will increasingly rely on the county's ag land, public transit, and compact cities that this process was intended to produce; these services save taxpayers money and are critical to economic development. As Ashland moves towards a vision and strategic plan that responds to the global changes in the future in a sustainable and responsible way, we must have a regional plan built on similar principles. It is important to collaborate with other jurisdictions in a way that protects Ashland's interests. This is about doing everything we can to ensure that our county's cities sustain not only livability but our life support systems. In the worst case, it's about ensuring that Ashland has the legal and fmancial ability to plan and implement systems that are susta.irulble, even if other jurisdictions decide to do otherwise. There is no legal need to surrender Ashland's review of the final plan before it has been through the public process. Respect for the public process means allowing for the possibility that it might result in modifications. If it doesn't, then this is not the plan that sets a foundation for Ashland or the Valley to meet the needs of the future. I appreciate your attention to this input. Respectfully, Cate Hartzell Comments in favor of Ashland approving an intergovernmental agreement" the Greater Bear Creek V alley Regional Problem Solving Agreement. 1<P5 fH- 'bo/D 1 Ashland is a significant anchor at the southern end of a 15-20 mile long development corridoridor that runs along I -5. I would assume that in 10 years there will be substantial development along this corridor, including residential, commercial and industrial improvement. Note that the Agreement requires a review in 10 years. Each of the communities involved in the RPS now has its own unique character and at present serv~s a particular function : Ashland is a cultural, educational, and tourism center; Talent is a bedroom community Phoenix is a bedroom community Medford is a regional shopping and commercial center Central Point is a bedroom community Eagle Point is a bedroom community Jacksonville is an historic and tourism center At present, Ashland has opted for a policy of in fill, wisely in my view, in contrast to expanding its urban Growth Boundary , and is not interested, for the time being, in Urban Reserves. However, this does not mean that conditions might not change in the future that would warrant such changes. As Counselor Kate Jackson pointed out at the Planning Commission hearing, changes in the UGB would require a change in the Comprehensive Plan and establishing an Urban Reserve would also require another complicated procedure. To paraphrase some of the important reasons for Ashland's entering into this Agreement that were cited in Kate Jackson's Dec. 12, 2,008 memo to the Planning Commission: "The RPS provides a planning mechanism which will enable the communities in this important growth corridor to establish flexible, long term growth boundaries; would link land use planning to transportation planning, respecting the cities' individuality, while coordinating jobs, housing and transportation needs. Ashland should continue to be involved in the Regional Planning Process and keep its seat at the table , in order to have influence on the regional planning process." F or all of these reasons, I strongly urge that the Council approve the RPS ordinance. January 20, 2,009 Aaron Benjamin -'~.'~'- ,.~ ~'''',,- ' ",' ,.""'" / A""'" /'''' ".-I. /./" .//' /",""" ~ ,,/ 7' I . ,...." '-.--/" CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY' 13, 2009 ~ fS P t+ 1/')lJ /0 I [EXCERPT FROM DRAFT MINUTES] PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01984 DESCRIPTION: Consideration of the City of Ashland entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement, the "Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement", (the "Agreement"), for the Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Program, which provides for the participants to implement the Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. Mr. Molnar explained the task before the Planning Commission tonight is to determine whether the Agreement is consistent with the RPS statute, and issue a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not they should sign the Agreement. He provided a brief overview of the Regional Problem Solving process and noted five of the other communities involved have already signed the Agreement. He clarified that by signing, the City is not adopting the Regional Plan, but rather is agreeing to send the Plan through Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Mr. Molnar noted a recommendation from the Planning Commission is required because this is a land use decision and therefore needs to go through the City's normal process, which includes a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Molnar provided a brief overview of the elements in the Agreement and stated it is Staff's opinion that the Agreement is consistent with the RPS statute. He noted the City did not identify any urban reserve areas and instead plans to accommodate increased population by utilizing existing lands within its Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Molnar commented on his experience with the Ashland Planning Department over the last 20 years and noted the importance of Ashland ,being a participant in regional planning. He commented that Ashland's approach to planning has often been viewed as different from that used by the rest of the valley, and noted at times there has been frustration within the community when the City's accomplishments are diluted by other actions occurring in the region. He stated this is Ashland's opportunity to not just influence change within our community, but also among the other jurisdictions in the valley. Mr. Molnar stated the Agreement represents the City's solidarity with the other participants in letting the Plan go through the County's process. He added there would be an opportunity for the City and the other participants to present comments and concerns during the County's land use process. Mr. Molnar introduced City Councilor Kate Jackson, who is also the Chair of the RPS Policy Committee. Councilor Jackson elaborated on her involvement with regional planning and expressed her hope for the City to continue its current level of regional involvement. Jackson explained tonight's decision is whether the City should sign the Agreement and remain a participant with the project. She noted the Regional Plan will need to go through the County's land use adoption process, and individual cities that have identified urban reserves will need to take those changes through their own Comprehensive Plan amendment processes. Jackson clarified this Agreement would coordinate these land use changes into a standard timeframe. The Commission opened the discussion and shared their preferences and concerns regarding the signing of the Agreement. Miller applauded Councilor Jackson for her efforts, but expressed concern with the wording "agree to abide by a Plan" which is contained on page 3 of the Agreement. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the Agreement for consistency with the RPS statute. He stated the Agreement does not adopt the Draft Plan, but it does agree to submit it through the County's land use process and agrees that Ashland will abide by and make consistent Comprehensive Plan amendments to what is adopted by the County. Jackson added that any group or City can testify for or against the elements of the Plan at the County's public hearings. If the adopted Regional Plan is found to be unsatisfactory to a particular City or group, they can appeal the County's decision under the standard land use law. Page 1 of 3 - ----""--"-"-------" Tr-T - ~ _ -L~---I i Council Liaison Navickas noted the comments that were submitted by the City Council in November 2007 and expressed his disappointment that they have not received a response. Councilor Jackson indicated the Council's comments were addressed and are available for review on the Rogue Valley Council of Governments website. Dawkins questioned what would happen if Council signs the agreement and the City end up disagrees with the outcome. Mr. Appicello clarified the City has not designated any urban reserves, and signing the Agreement empowers the City to have a place at the table and a say in the process. He stated if the City signs the Agreement, we will need to participate in the public hearings in order to protect our rights. He added participation in this process is the only way the City will be able to influence what is going on in the other jurisdictions. Dimitre noted "Section XII : Termination of Participation" on page 15 of the Agreement. He stated the City of Jacksonville decided not to sign the Agreement and asked for clarification of that decision. Councilor Jackson indicated the .City of Jacksonville took the position that the Agreement did not need to be signed until after the Regional Plan is adopted. She provided a brief overview of how the Agreement was developed and stated a signed Agreement is necessary at this point to identify which groups are participating. She added it is her belief that this is the best way to submit the Plan to a public process and to make further adjustments. Comment was made that because Ashland did not identify any reserves, they have nothing to lose, and the other jurisdictions have no real power over Ashland. Navickas disagreed and stated if the City ever wanted to expand its Urban Growth Boundary, they could not do so without going through an amendment process. Miller noted the Council has already expressed their support and asked if there was any legal reason why this Agreement had to be signed prior to the Plan being developed. Trish Bowcockl705 East C Street, Jacksonville/She stated she does not oppose Regional Problem Solving or the draft version of the Plan, but opposes the process. Ms. Bowcock said the City is being asked to sign a legally binding contract and at this point nobody knows what the Final Plan will be. She stated if they do sign the Agreement and are unsatisfied with the Final Plan, the only way to avoid implementing it is to abide by Section XII, which subjects the City to strong disincentives. Ms. Bowcock claimed the statue does not suggest that this Agreement needs to be reached before the Plan is finalized, but rather is only needed prior to the adoption of the Plan by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. She added if a Participants Agreement is needed at this stage in the process, a much simpler agreement should be drafted. Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Expressed concern with the City signing the Agreement and questioned what they were agreeing to. He disagreed with the inevitable doubling of population and stated the Agreement before the City is too vague. Mr. Roth voiced his appreciation for Staff's optimism that Ashland's values would rub off on the rest of the County, but does not think this will happen. He stated regional planning is conceptually a good idea, but does not believe it is a good idea for Ashland to sign the Agreement. Brent Thompson/582 Allison StreetlAlloGated his time to Greg Holmes. Greg Holmes/235 NW 6th Street, Jacksonville/1,000 Friends of Oregon/Expressed concern with the process and the Agreement itself. Mr. Holmes voiced his objections to agreeing to the outcome of a process that has not been completed yet, and noted once the Agreement is signed, they would not be able to remove themselves from the process without sanctions being imposed. He noted two other RPS processes in Oregon that made it farther along in the process than they are now, and neither one had an agreement in place before they started their hearings. He indicated there is nothing in the statute that states the Agreement needs to be signed at this point in the process, and stated they can go forward, with the regional planning process without this agreement in place. Mr. Holmes stated there are significant flaws in the Agreement and. feels that it incorporates the Regional Plan. He stated the goal is not to try and stop RPS, but rather for the public hearings to be held before the participants agree to abide by what is ultimately decided. Mr. Holmes clarified his belief that the statue indicates agreement needs to be reached by the participants prior to the Plan being adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. He also claimed some of the cities who have already PtJge 2 of 3 signed the Agreement did so because they would be getting things out of this Plan that they would not get from the normal process. Councilor Jackson disagreed with Mr. Holmes assessment that the Agreement does not need to be signed until the Plan is ready for adoption by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. She clarified this Agreement sets forth the "how" and the structure for implementation and the details of the Plan will be decided through the County's land use process. She added any City can and likely will appeal the County's decision if they do not find it satisfactory. Commission Chair Dawkins closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. Comment was made questioning when the Policy Committee anticipated individual cities would hold their public hearings. Mr. Appicello clarified the official process is the County's land use process, and the City could hold hearings at any time to decide what they want to say at the County hearing. Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris m/s to recommend the City Council approve the RPS Participants Agreement. DISCUSSION: Dotterrer clarified the Regional Plan will only address the three problems that have been identified. Miller expressed her concern that the Agreement is too binding on the individual jurisdictions and feels the Plan should be finalized before they agree to it. Dotterrer commented that this is a two-way street, and voiced his support for the City being involved in this process. He stated he agrees with the intent of the Agreement, and noted the need to have general consensus before you enter a planning process. Marsh voiced her support for regional planning and although there is some risk, she stated Councilor Jackson's involvement with this process provides her a level of comfort. She recommended if the Council approves the Agreement, that they schedule a public hearing in order to gather input on the Plan, and that they insert into the regional process an affirmation by the participants at the end. Dawkins noted his opposition to the draft Plan in regards to the City of Central Point. Church noted that each city is giving up some level of autonomy and stated it makes sense to have this type of agreement in place at this point in the process. He added the process needs to have some momentum going forward and thinks this process would self destruct at the end if they all waited until the Final Plan was completed before they agreed to participate. If the Agreement is signed, Morris encouraged the City to push their concepts, otherwise Ashland will be stuck with what everyone else decides. Dimitre stated he has a problem agreeing to this because it is not clear what they are agreeing to. He stated he is not against the idea and the process, but feels this Agreement is premature. Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer mls to amend motion to include recommendation that the City Council hold a public hearing on the substance of Plan in order to prepare input for County's planning process, and that the Council recommend to the Regional Planning Process that they incorporate a process for explicit affirmation by the participants at the end of the process. DISCUSSION: Marsh clarified the public hearing would be for citizens to provide input 'on the substance of the Plan itself. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Dawkins, Morris, Church and Marsh, YES. Commissioners Mindlin, Dimitre and Miller, NO. Motion passed 5-3. Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris and Church, YES. Commissioners Miller, Dimitre, Mindlin, and Dawkins, NO. Motion failed 4-4. Commissioners Dimitre/Mindlin mls to recommend the City Council not sign the RPS Participants Agreement. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Dimitre, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Church, Dotterrer, Marsh and Morris, NO. Motion failed 4-4. Page 3 of 3 - ---------n-rr-T I (1/2()/20Q9) Barbara chri.stensen - [Comment_to_the_council] OLCV Supports Public Input Into Land Use Plans From: To: Date: Subject: "Mat Marr" <mat@olcv.org> <com ment_ to_the _ council@list.ashland.or. us> 1/20/2009 11 :27 AM [Comment_to_the_council] OLCV Supports Public Input Into Land Use Plans Dear Mr. Mayor, The Jackson County steering committee of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters asked me to request that you have the letter below read into the record at the appropriate time at your meeting this evening. We are so impressed that you will all be working in public service on this night of joyous celebration. Thank you very much, Mat Marr Jackson County Organizer, Oregon League of Conservation Voters 541-324-3592 January 20th, 2009 Dear City Councilors and Mayor, The Oregon League of Conservation Voters is the non-partisan political voice of Oregon's environmental community. Our Jackson County Chapter is managed by a steering committee of local volunteers. The Oregon League of Conservation Voters produces environmental scorecards on the State Legislature and local jurisdictions. We are impressed with the work and discussion that many people have put into the Greater Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Process so far. As a conservation group The Oregon League of Conservation Voter believes that public input into the land use process is an important part of the protection of our land. We share the concerns expressed by the League of Women Voters Rogue Valley and a 1000 Friends of Oregon in their December letters about the ability of the public and local governments to have influence over the final regional plan under the current process. A successful regional land use plan would be a major step forward for Jackson County. A successful plan will only be achieved from a vigorous public input process. Please encourage meaningful public input into the final regional plan. Thank you for your hard work and service, Page 1 I f<fS Prr - I}W/Di rr T I (1/20/2009) Barbara christensen - [Comment_to_the__council] OLCV Supports Public Input Into Land Use Plans Gaia Perinchief Carney, Ashland and Diane Beukema, Medford Co-Chairs Jackson County Steering Committee, Oregon League of Conservation Voters. Comment_to_the_council mailing list Comment_to _the _ cou ncil@list.ashland.or. us http://list.ashland.or.us/mailman/listinfo/comment_to _the_council Page 2 I (1/20/2009) Barbara christensen - Re: ODOT rest area - information for Jan 20 council meeting Page 1 I ifS fit \ 1-DI01 From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Bill Molnar christensen, Barbara Appicello, Richard; Bennett, Martha; Holderness, Terry; Lucas, April 1/20/2009 10:50 AM Re: ODOT rest area - information for Jan 20 council meeting Hi Barbara This is a request Martha and I received for staff to make copies of a report for distribution to the Council for this evening's meeting (welcome center). This is not a land use hearing, so other than including a copy of the email in the record would not the responsibility fall to the citizen to bring copies for distribution?? Bill Molnar Community Development Director City of Ashland, OR Tel: (541) 552-2042 Fax: (541) 552-2050 molnarb@ashland.or.us This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. >>> "David Wilkerson" <da . @orwarch.com> 01/16/09 3:29 PM >>> Martha an'd Bill - Attached is some information that I would like to have distributed to the Council and included in the public record for next Tuesday's council meeting, regarding ODOT's proposed rest area and welcome center. I live at just oft Crowson Road at 1120 Barrington Circle, on a block with six children under 10 years old. The larger Oak Knoll subdivision next to us also has a number of families with small children, as well as vulnerable elderly residents. Although I support the need for both a rest area and a welcome center, I have grave concerns about the extreme safety hazard that the proposed location poses to nearby residents. There is a tremendous amount of data showing that rest areas are havens for criminal activities after hours, when the welcome center will be closed and the facility is unmanned. The Hiahwav Safetv Desk Book published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, describes this problem: Law enforcement agencies throughout the country are plagued with rest area crimes. These crimes irritate and annoy the public, make them fearful, and freauentlv harm tourism. ... Crimes occurring in rest areas include prostitution, homosexual activity, vandalism, thefts of abandoned vehicles, open-air drug markets, panhandling, vagrancy, car jacking, and car-clouting. You can access this section of the report, which includes more detail on the pernicious criminal activity at rest areas, here: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html#RCIRA. You can access the full report at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html. I also have attached one section of the report as a Word document. I have specific concerns about the gated access along Crowson Road, which will essentially provide a shortcut to the rest area. It is unlikely that these gates will remain locked at all times, as employees, contract workers, and tourism volunteers come and go. Since the state has such limited resources to patrol, staff, and maintain the rest area and welcome center, it is likely that the security barrier will be compromised, allowing transients and criminals to leave the rest area and enter the community - our community. Although OOOT has completed a cursory review of other sites they deemed unsuitable, it appears that they have not seriously considered locating this project at the Port of Entry. This location would allow truckers to access the rest area, provide easy tourist access into Ashland (with stunning views of the city), without compromising residents' safety. As an alternate to this approach, the Welcome Center could be located at exit 19 (where it was previously proposed) or exit 14, leaving the rest area at the Port of Entry. I urge the Council to review OOOT's proposal carefully before deciding whether or not to extend limited utility services to this site at the sake of our residents' safety. Respectfully, j. david wilkerson II, aia principalLEEO accredited professional ---rr-T \ (1/20/2009) Barbara christensen - Re: ODOT rest area - information for Jan 20 council meeting Page 2 I OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture AlA 2950 east barnett road medford, oregon 97504 541 779.5237 x.20 (t) 541 772.8472 (f)www.ORWarchitecture.com -- --rr-T f::; !?:e~~er Gi7 (;v~J ~fS PH- tfzo / /)4 From: Murdock LaChance Subject: Note for reading on Jan. 20 The ODOTPplans for a rest center north of our ci7y boundar~~re View~~s bad for the residentia1 quality of Ashland. Others have enumerated valid reasonS why, Our ci ty nov enjoys a national reputa_ tion as a prime reidency and cultural center. Why risk it? We already accomodate a large tourist in flux which puts stress on public services. A good example of what a large tourist influx I~n CiI1 can have is lo"Rasadena Where I lived for 35 years. ,1 For weeks br4J.C~eting Jan. 1st, Pasadena vas invaded by'-~: b (\ Gte )rer,." 9 touris~S to celebrate the Tournament of Roses. The impact '\~. ~ j"' on life of ordinary citizens vas very great. The public services, such as police, fire, ambulane, hospital, .~ \~ .eo! and other city services were stretc~to the 1imit. In a word,th~ city was under sieg~. ~~ ~rr:.T;'~ beneficiarxscGf the Tournament? The~US~nyess W'/M{!..l> reaped mi11~ons. The who1e mess. wGt,.s;' fr:t)fflh1fieJ: 15y "-, officials of the Tournament . It vas gov~rn..J!n,'.. of business, by business and for business. I hope that the Ashland City Council will rule in favor of Government of th~ people, by the peop1e and fOI,':t1tJ.e peop1e on this issue~, which is veiy>~~tefu1 at ,r;,ad enconomic time. _.P: - L . q)O ~rf1'lS f~i"J..l"F Re: Proposed ODOT Rest Area Sn~~ pt-f- LWMYxt 1/2D1 bq January 20, 2008 Dear Ashland City Council, I would like to express opposition to the proposed ODOT rest area for 1-5 near Ashland. The county will decide the basic question of whether to allow changes in land use for an area designated open farmland. But the city of Ashland must decide what our involvement should be, and how it impacts our resources and the residents of Ashland. Can this plan realistically achieve the goal to benefit tourism and will it be sustainable? REST AREA vs WELCOME CENTER: First we need to make a distinction between a "welcome center" and a "rest area." A rest area alone will not provide a benefit to our business community. Matter-of-fact, it will probably detract from businesses at exit 14 & 19, where traveling motorists would otherwise stop. This proposal is for a rest area with a "possible" welcome center, but the latter is only hypothetical at this time. There has been no funding secured for the welcome center part and ODOT cannot finance it. FUNDING: Is the old proposal financially sound? Cities and states are struggling with declining revenues and there are serious doubts that funding will be available to build or maintain this. We should not be committing city resources to a rest area that has no provision for continued maintenance, no funding for a welcome center, and that does not provide a substantial benefit to the residents of Ashland. LOCATION: The proposed location of this rest area is not safe. It is at the bottom of a very steep grade after many of the larger trucks' brakes have been compromised. Furthermore, the proximity to Ashland neighborhoods increases crime risk in these neighborhoods, and the increased costs associated with it. CITY WATER & SEWER In terms of supplying city water and sewer, the question is not whether we have enough water to supply this project today. The sustainability question is whether we can supply this project today and still have sufficient capacity to supply water and sewer for desirable future developments within the Ashland city limits as well - developments such as Verde Village, the Clay Street project, and other not-yet-realized projects. Perhaps our public works department feels we can handle it today, but that is not enough. Even without new projects, there are signs that our water and sewer services are at times strained. Consider that we were in violation of DEQ requirements for discharge into Bear Creek over three years and were just fined in March 2008. Consider past watering restrictions, and the problem with algae blooms last year. As recent as July 2007, the summer heat wave caused increased water use and residents were asked to reduce outside water use or risk mandatory restrictions. Reservoirs run low in the summer, just when demand is rising and more people are traveling on summer vacations. Are we going to be able to limit water in the summer to a rest area if we run low again and citizens are called upon to restrict their water use? Ashland citizens are concerned about wise stewardship of our water resources and I hope your actions will reflect that degree of concern. SUST AINABILITY With regards to financial sustainability, it is well known that rest areas are subject to extensive vandalism, wear and tear -- this is readily apparent at any Oregon rest area, with graffiti, broken toilets, bars around vending machines, etc. Dwindling public revenues and high maintenance costs have recently forced many states to close rest areas. Have both acquisition and maintenance costs been secured for this project? Who is responsible for providing additional public safety and fIre services to this project outside the city limits, and are they equipped to handle the additional responsibility? Another sustainability inquiry asks whether we can alter something we already have and recycle it to a new use rather than build a totally new structure. Perhaps a highly visible, attractive welcome center could be built (without a rest area!) by modifying an existing structure near exit 14 or 19. There are benefits to hosting a welcome center in a location that already has police & fire protection, is compatible with surrounding businesses, and offers excellent visibility from the freeway, minus the high vandalism and maintenance concerns of a rest area. FRESH EYES Finally, thank you for being willing to look at this proposal "with fresh eyes." Just because this rest area was proposed in 1997 and a lot of work has been done, that does not automatically mean that this is a good idea today or deserves to be rubber-stamped. Much has changed. This proposal should stand on the basis of its merits today, with a keen eye towards its implications for the future. Why do this the old way? Let's do it the right way instead. Let's choose a location that is easily maintained, one that is economically feasible and truly welcoming. Let's use green principles and sustainable technology such as solar panels as well. This could be a model for economic, environmental and social sustainability if we have the courage to rethink what it could be. Thank you for your consideration and for taking to heart the best interests of our community and our residents. Best Wishes, Suzanne Frey 1042 Oak Knoll Drive Ashland, OR 97520 488-5867 ~tlve!t +r~ J~/ ~.. ~~~ d7r ~~.~dd-~~., ~~ ~~ j -wL..., ~ ~h~~,;eL.~;. ~. d~. ;J-rnnr: * ~..~~~~~~.~. ~.~~.d:y}-~.~ ~A~.. jh-~ ~~, ~ ~~J ~.~~ r ~(q .- /. /7~__~ -~... -::rr (/ ~ "', --.~,~ J..~ ~~ ''''''-0 l) ar- o-~ ~ ' , ~~~Ab~t<-- ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~u~ ~~.. .. ~~ .~4d ~..~ A~~~. /.~~~ ~ ~~~ 0\-- w1;i ~ $v JA .~ {- 1 tl-. -/ fAL ~ "~ . J-, -t tJ),,'J t'r p~f'fr"'~ ~L~., ~ ~!f /1'1 ..;;J ;S . -":"" ,-- , ,.. a,. ~~~ ,,, ./)~- /f5' ~~ AVL--. a-. ~.~.d-j/ ~#- 1{1.oID9 , k-~ .~~._. r ~f~~ C6lo 2/t/lMJ/I!t/1rt /( /J. . /1' ptf- il1k1~ /0 flfp;? I1c7)tf1J 77J (AJ~~ E2!ottlcJ /t1(~ ~Er( y CJ ~ 77f L Tu-v ^' rs7 (/lJ h c/S 17 ;f-7 ~fT/U?ir!~. ,~t!/cJ4/{C ~rsfJL~4t?hV; LOSS tff... > tf-PFY/ (~~ (#[.b T t1-e-Lf ~,u~ / 1- 1--vc 07)(z cCJv~<; S7?f72~ IS f/ ~tJtVS 0 (tltJ 7j-/S L~. , 1i-/c. b(C ~ /118 b tf>>l /! ~ S#fu LOp ~ G; R1r;lWS :/ /1(17r y ~7PJ U);71fZ/1/T Q tJ~7J rJ;J f We- 1k hrsCJSsIAJ( ~~/I-J~I fJU&~ ff. JL) ~ oYJ tV C d c$u fJ(~;J V; (I/-Yl/ C:1-) ~I(>C:; (i~ttJ4fe:AJV ;tidy &tJs{b~- -r~' /-Ie fir /0 f ~/kA:3-pt/L Ll t/ / ~ ~ I AJ O;()~( S i) J ~ k/zfvt1& l 1lfe-' Lv <;;5 ~ ! ;J~" ~ ., f~oY ~,>>f, V7, / /!z r/8" 7D J~ Pu (,uV- ~ /h?t//t7j? () ;t/, tf~ ofk~t2~ [I s ~A./-ctJ 7a ~: /v iftJ ~ f:::-7f-~ d ~~/ SI/ ~ H ? , I~ ftese- ? TJ ,uctG (,,(J -ruf-A/l-77 tJ ~ It IV J Sri If-t&' C I 77 2--z!; A) 5 tJ ifV ~. 5J~Y Il5 ~~r/cff I btJ ct- P~( L L l/[-~/' / ~177&J (2) 13 0 7J-(, a I & />>M..; '~ PIlV1J lPd Keriran Pft- wd~M~ The Highway Safety Desk Book l/JO I 0'1 Acknowledgements This publication was made possible through the generous financial contribution of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Advisory Committee on Highway Safety of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) also acknowledges the hard work and creativity of the following people and their staffs who contributed articles or information for this deskbook: We thank Commissioner Maurice J. Hannigan (retired) and Commissioner Dwight O. Helmick, California Highway Patrol; Director Richard L. Cade (retired) and Chief Legal Counsel Margaret P. White, Idaho Department of Law Enforcement; Superintendent Thomas'J. C"onstantine (retired) and Superintendent James W. McMahon, New York State Police; Director Earl M. Sweeney, New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council; Colonel Charles M. Robinson (retired), Virginia State Police; Ted Schelenski, 3-M Corporation; Carl Spurgeon, the Motorcycle Safety Found~ti~n; Lt. Colonel Larry N. Thompson (retire,d), Arizona Department of Public Safety; William Franey~ the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances~SI; Major Ronald'P. ~iner (retired) and Officer Robert Wall, Fairfax County, Virginia, Police'Department; Lt. Colonel Richard N. Curtis (retired), ,Ohio State Highway Patrol; J. Michael Sheehan, Chief, Police Traffic Services Division, NHTSA; Director Russell M. Arend of the Institute for Police Technology and Management; Captain Douglas Hancock and Lieutenant Barry L. Peck, Delaware State Police; Colonel Charles W. Henderson, Massachusetts State Police; Major Robert J. Huss (deceased), Lieutenant Richard J. Phillips and Trooper William W. Messing, Washington State Patrol; Roy Lucke and Robert L. Reeder, The Traffic Institute, Northwestern University; the California Department of Trans- portation; and many other contributors. We also express our appreciation to former Director Ron Sostkowski, Jack Grant, Chuck Peltier, E.J. Kelley, and Carolyn Cockroft of the IACP Division of State and Provincial Police for their work in editing, proofreading, and otherwise bringing this project to fruition; and to the members of the Advisory Committee on Highway Safety whose advice was invaluable at all times during the project. Introduction This book is intended for police leaders. After all, that's what you are-whether you call yourselves commanders, administrators, executives, or supervisors, you are, first and foremost, leaders. It is intended as a quick and practical compendium of information to assist you in asserting your leadership in one of policing's most important functions, Police Traffic Services.It has been fashionable for some time to emblazon the fenders and doors of police vehicles with slogans calling attention to such aspects of law enforcement as SERVICE and PROTECTION. But how often do we, as leaders, stop and think about how to serve and protect most effectively? Over 188 million motor vehicles and more than 170 million licensed drivers travel over two trillion miles a year on our streets and highways. Hazardous materials in sufficient quantities to blow a small country off the map if stored, transported, or handled improperly pass our doorsteps every day. More people are killed in crashes on our streets and highways in a single year than in the pation's last major war. In today's mobile society the motor vehicle is the primary tool used by criminals to reach the scene of the crime, alld to elude the police. Carjacking, motor vehicle theft, drive-by shootings, drug deals, burglaries, and armed robberies-all involve the use of a motor vehicle. Our entire nation 'is, indeed, a "nation on wheels," and traffic backups and delays during rush hour result in millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of productive hours lost to the economy and unnecessary environmental pollution each year. As drivers, citizens are more likely to have direct contact with a police officer than in any other aspect of their lives, and those contacts, both pleasant and unpleasant, shape the community's view of the police, one by one. All of this adds up to the fact that few areas exist in law enforcement that affect the quality of life for our citizens as significantly as in the rendering of quality police traffic services. The authors of this deskbook, all members or special consultants to the IACP Advisory Committee on Highway Safety, know from firsthand experience just how confusing and difficult are the problems you face. The many acronyms that describe various traffic safety programs, the myriad of federal agencies that set standards in this area, and the need to devise new and effective means of stretching your limited patrol resources-all add up to headaches for the new police leader as well as the veteran. We hope that this deskbook, in looseleaf form to facilitate,periodic updating, will provide you with a ready source of ideas and information as you go about your duties. Part Twelve: Roadway Management through Engineering and Enforcement Reducing Crime in Rest Areas The first step in attacking the problem is to determine the crime problem, its location, and extent and to identify or profile the people causing these crimes. Developing, a Plan To develop a plan to eliminate rest area crime, law enforcement must coordinate efforts with other agencies, such as the DOT or the Department of Parks and Resources, that manage the rest areas. It is important to elicit the opinions and support of the officers on patrol and the personnel of these other agencies. We should consider multiple ~oncepts to eliminate crime, including the installation of signs, rest area maintenance, officer and citizen awareness campaigns, and enforcement. Goals and objectives , should be for and should c()rrespond with'the mission and Establishing Operational Procedures When a plan has been devised, the departinent needs to establish the operational procedures to carry it out. One of the first steps is to set up a covert surveillance in order to determine the extent of the problem and the specific behavior to be targeted. Typically, a covert surveillance will reveal such problems as an extraordinary number of men cruising in cars or on foot and seeking sex with other men. Often these men will be openly drinking or using narcotics in the toilet areas with and cuttin holes in toilet walls. Once information is obtained from covert surveillance, it is best to solicit volunteer officers to perform an undercover enforcement operation. Planning should go into such areas as the type of clothing undercover officers will wear; the number and location of backup officers and when they will be deployed; various communications signals and emergency signals; the role of the supervisor; tactics to be used in contacting subjects, arrest procedures including bookings, transportation, and issuing citations; providing undercover officers with false identification, tactics and strategies; notification of patrol commanders and working units that an undercover operation is in progress; subtle identification means undercover officers can use to identify themselves to on-duty officers; and any necessary equipment for the operation. -rrr-r . -_. Training Requirements The most important step prior to implementing a rest area enforcement operation is training all the persons involved. This training should focus on the laws to be enforced (elements of the crime), descriptions/profiles of targeted individuals, areas, and crimes, communications procedures, equipment use, and guidelines for arrest, supervision, and operational procedures. Implementing the Operation Immediately prior to beginning the operation, all involved officers should be gathered for a thorough briefing and be identified to one another. Any equipment, such as a surveillance van and video,. should be checked to ensure it is in proper working condition. The laws of arrest and entrapment and preferred methods of making an arrest while out of uniform should be reviewed. Typically, arrests will be made for such offenses as patronizing a prostitute, public indecency, possession of a controlled substance, minors in possession of alcohol, possession of drug paraphernalia, open containers of alcohol in a motor vehicle, Dill, and other traffic offenses. Critique Procedures Following each shift and at the conclusion of the operation, a critique should be held for not only the officers and their supervisors but also other agencies involved, such as the DOT and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Participants should brainstorm on how the operation worked and how it can be improved. All participants should have an opportunity to ~xpress their ideas. Collection and Analysis of Data Reporting procedures should be established at the beginning of the operation and carefully followed. Data should be input and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the operation and to defend against possible later public criticism. Monitoring Rest Areas for Further Problems Once covert operations have ceased, officers on routine patrol, as well as DOT employees and others, should be impressed with the necessity for continued monitoring of the rest areas and notifying supervisors if illegal activities reappear. A brief, intensive period of enforcement will have a "halo" effect for a few weeks or months, but unless the operation is repeated from time to time, the problems will reappear. What Departments Have Learned Some departments, such as the Washington State Patrol, have had great success in implementing rest area enforcement operations. A great deal can be learned from the experience of these agencies. Some of the things that the Washington State Patrol identified include the following: . More than six hours of training is required to prepare officers adequately for this type of operation. r II ' T m__'_ m . Not everyone can play the role of decoy. Troopers who have worked their entire careers in uniform and in marked cars may find it difficult pretending to be a male prostitute; few can play this role effectively. Most are uncomfortable, especially when they must listen to men talk about sexual experiences, likes and dislikes. Nobody likes working the toilets, looking for open sex acts or men exposing themselves. In addition, they are sometimes subjected to ridicule and joking by their peers. Officers can become burned out very quickly; for this reason, all officers assigned to these programs must be volunteers and be rotated as frequently as necessary. . By beginning the program with undercover surveillance before arrests are made, you will learn that certain times, much more than others, are productive for working rest areas. . Men seeking sex will be found at the rest areas both day and night. Sometimes, there will be so many that it is over-powering for the officers. Suspects are easily spooked, but they come back. A rest area can be cleaned out, but thirty minutes later it will be full again. Some persons seeking male prostitutes will parade the sidewalks, while others will hang around picnic table areas or cruise the woods. Open sex acts may occur in both these locations. Other people will loiter or sit in the toilets for long periods ~f time, and open masturbation and oral sex' acts can be observed. All males seeking sex at rest areas seem to park their cars at the rest areas for very long periods of time, some for hours. Very few will be willing to pay money for sex. . The most common forms of vandalism are spray painting mirrors; scratching phone numbers on the walls, mirrors, and toilet stalls; placing graffiti and phone numbers on walls with black grease markers; and cutting holes in the walls of stalls. An inexpensive solution to the latter problem is to have DOT place stainless steel panels over walls to prevent the holes from being cut. . Vandalism to the rest area grounds will include holes cut in chain link fencing, trees broken off, trails through brush which disturb vegetation, and littering the area with beer cans and bottles, used condoms, needles and syringes, used toilet tissue, and pornographic magazines. . Alcohol and narcotics use will consist of drinking in public, personal use of marijuana, and the use of harder drugs. . Problems with vagrants and homeless people will include people living in their cars in the rest areas and attempting to beg money, food and drinks from rest area patrons. Some of these people are frightening in appearance and tend to scare away tourists. Because of First Amendment considerations, it is generally recommended that prosecutors or departmental legal advisors be involved in the planning stages of the operation to determine to what extent homeless people can be removed from the rest area. . Moving traffic violations are abundant an~ may occur so often that there will not be enough officers to contact all violators. These offenses include improper or unsafe backing (usually by a lone male driver looking for a better place to sit) and driving the wrong way (usually involving a lone male looking for a partner). When the rest area is so full of vehicles with lone male drivers, incoming drivers must turn and go the wrong way in order to find a place to park on the travel trailer side of the rest area. Because of the open container and drinking-in-public violations, officers should also look for DUls. Parking violations are usually caused by over- full rest areas or by people looking for places to park where they won't be bothered by men seeking sex. . Because of the multitude of problems which appear, it is best to enforce all violations occurring at rest areas. In this way, the maximum deterrent effect is realized. ---rrr--r---- - Organizing the Detail In a busy rest area, it is advisable to have as many as six officers on an assignment, set up in teams, with each team assigned with a decoy and surveillance person. The surveillance person is responsible for keeping all of the members aware of the decoy's whereabouts and activities at all times. A marked unit, if available, would be assigned to the program to provide transportation to jail for those arrested. If an extra marked unit is not available, then nearby officers should be notified of the operation, and a marked unit called to assist in booking suspects. Because of the wide use of police radio scanners, officers must be extremely circumspect in radio transmissions affecting the operation. With a six-person team, one officer is given the assignment of being a decoy and allowing men to approach him and discuss sex, while three additional officers, a detective, and a supervisor provide surveillance and look for other crimes. The decoy, during his conversation with suspects, tells them that he charges for his services-that he only "plays for pay." When an offer of a specific sex act with an agreement for a fee is reached, the suspect is arrested for prostitution. The decoy mayor may not allow the suspect to touch him, and, if he does so, only the arm, shoulder, or leg area should be touched. Officers playing the role of decoy should not allow themselves to be touched in the area of the groin or buttocks. Decoys should tell suspects who try to touch them that th~y do not allow themselves to be touched prior to payment. If touched in the groin area, they should immediately tell the suspect to stop. If the suspect continues, he, should be arrested for assault or a similar offense that prohibits unprivileged physical contact. Unit members not playing the role of.decoy should be told to arrest anyone who touches them in the groin area or anywhere they do not want to be touched, especially ~hile using the toilet facilities or .areas where it is known that sexual practices occur. Supervisors should review each arrest and determine whether or not the officer has probable cause to book the suspect or issue a citation and release the individual on a written promise to appear. Information on arrests should be logged into a computerized program, and as a suspect goes through the court system, the arresting officer should be notified of the case disposition, which is then added to the computer file. Each officer assigned to surveil a decoy should be equipped with a portable radio that communicates with the other officers and the command post. Each decoy should have a'pre-arranged signal to alert the surveillance officer and others when an arrest is to be made. The surveillance officer is responsible for keeping super-visors and others aware of the decoy's whereabouts at all times. Media Coverage Departments should not overlook the advantages to be gained by effective media coverage of efforts to clean up rest areas. At the same time, a department contemplating such a program must be aware it is absolutely essential to conduct it in such a manner that does not penalize persons for lifestyle choices but, rather, focuses on illegal sexual behavior that is harmful to the community. -rrr--ru'---- - ~ r:-- ~ 4D Q ~ c.I i < > ,. o > .. 0'" Z % "If- On :I III )I ~ z- ~ ! ::In III > == o - z. =4 ~ z " c" . ::I -t 0 .. C III .. ::I ~ ~ " 0 III .. ~ -4 > % z III o . . .. III ~ -4 ~ III III 0 ~ 'II :Dn z > III ,. o - ... -4 0 o :II ... ! x > .. ~ .z ... " ~ i III 11-4 o ~ ~ ~ o 1'1 o Z "II ... :DO III .. Q- - ... ~ . :II . > C ... .. - .. o .. z z ... !!! o 0 ::I~ 'V::a a ... o < ... 0 ... n . > ! ... o - z 0 > Z ,. 0 ",>> Z " i III III ::D . \of 10) \of . '" ~ . ... '" z (f.. ) ~ . --~ -- ~--...w.u //;:;:: "I:'-;--~ > /:./~i<-~~ '~I ) ~:~.-;; ;~:'. ';~~~\S\ \ ," .' '\ -;. .. ~., -... \.---' \ ,-.. \ ~ , .,- J:. ~.. '_ . ~; , ~ '::.: '~ . ;\~~ '~~ ~ . ~2! '\~~ ~\~.' :.~il . '-:-"~-~0~ . -----:-; ~ \ - lZr"' .,.en O~ :0... ,,'" :Um 00 ...> 1'I:a =0 00 Z'" >:u rl'1 I'IQ z- C1~ -:0 Z> 1'1-1 fII- :00 CAZ ... :t en ~ =i z PI en (I) o c :u :t > Z o > z o en 1'1 > r- Z -I :J: III (I) ~ 111 o "'II " n :! > ~ C r- "'II 111 0 Q :u 1"1 Z en - n 1- o )> z Z "'11 C PI _ :u (I) ;U III 111 Z tJ ... Z =t (J) r )> 111 _ C o -4 n 0 o >- o i PI r -4 X I'll :u Q :J: -C en )> z o -t :I: c > -< 0 o : "'11 ;j .,. ~ n ~ ~ '" ~z ~ to ~ N CO ~ - - ~ (J) > ." rrt ~ -< 111 Z Q ... Z J11 fTI ::u - z (i) 1) ::0 o " fTI (f) (f)- .......(ft O~ Z~ z )> ~ ra '" o 1T1~ z> G) ....... Z IT1 IT1 ;0 C- O en IT1 -0 :J: " ::0 IT1 o fTI ::0 - o ^ -I - r en o z ... o -4 :I: 1'1 ,. :u o < U; o Z eft o "'II n X >-1 ~:c 111 en :0_ ~U>> · -4 00 <0 -'" !!!:u 0-1 Z- .... ~-< 0'" ...:r: -I> :r:-f 11111 c: m:a cen cnc -> Zz ~-t cn > z c -a :u o ..... PI (ft (I) (5 z en o o o PI fH- fAJJ~ ~ tfv;f() 1 .-. ~l Jf2~ tl~~ - "'. Zz ~; 11 .,,(1) o~ ;:0-1 -orrt ;:Om 00 ~)> rrt:::o me - 00 ZIJ )>::0 rrrt rrtG) z- (;)(1) --I z:::O rrt~ rrt- ;:00 IDZ StQppblg< · EeCalclllafioD ?f~m~~~~;=.~~~:=~~of~~and be dr~lessfor"'tt.x:y ,oroDy sui'f8ces. For manyeusting ma, the c:oefficaent oflduedc . . . · n on a dry road sUrface. may approaCbO'.8if tbebraJcing is not so prolonged as to cause tire melting. "VO _ ..~ F = f.Lmg d _I'~ II" ~ .f"*' . . ............... . . ~ stopping dis~is given by: v2 V:; '15 ~I'~ d = . . 0 DeveIopexpression 2:l1g RNGw h Up:1 /h yperp hysics. ph y-as tr. gs u. ed u/H basel c rstp. h tml#c2 Geo...,.c9 Sr,g-re University -1-. . ~.i. '{ . Y: · C I · " ,/""" (/ Index Work.energy principle fo Back Stopping DiSbmee Calculation ~r=~:!Za===?E:;~and K:tion OD a dry road surface may approach 0.1 if the braking is not so prokmgedM to cause tire melting. .vo 4--.. F = IJ;mg d III' ~ II.. ~ r . .~ . . ~ stopping m~is given 'by: RNi/IW h Up ://hyperp hysics. p hy-astr. gs u. ed u/H basel c rstp. h tml#c2 Geor3i8 St~-re U.,iye t"S it)' .- 4 ~7 )- V /" I Index Work.eoer.gv principle ~F -.----lTi-.-- Source: OOOT Report Ashland POE 1-5 NB 2007 ASHLAND POE 1-5 NB Inspections 3104 Driver Out of Service 774 250/0 Vehicle InsDections 2411 Vehicle Out of Service 639 26.00/0 Violations 6177 Ashland POE 2006 ASHLAND POE 1-5 NB Inspections 2723 Driver Out of Service 587 220/0 Vehicle Inspections 1873 Vehicle Out of Service 623 330/0 Violations 5426 Refgt'~ ~ /q /? EXHIBIT 3 < < <: < ~b~ (!Ju-,6 S t~ fH- ~ (!w-if '/71)(0/ CITY OF ASHLAND July 27, 200J Dear Water User: As you know, we are in a drought water year and have been asking Ashland citizens to voluntarily reduce water consumption for many months. The City's goal is to make sure that th~re is enough water to last until the autumn rains begin typically sometime in October. Our current efforts have focused on reducing water waste and water conservation. AIlhough this is helping, this alone is not expected to solve the City's dwindling water supply needs through October. Therefore, it is likely that in the near future the City will implement the Water Curtailment Ordinance defined in the City's Municipal Code Section 14.06. Water curtailment limits the amount of water used per account. Accounts that use more than the allotment will be billed four times the amount of the excess water used. On the back of this letter is a chart, which details the water allotment for each stage of the curtai Iment and for each account type under the City's Water Curtailment Ordinance. OUf current water use records show that the amount of water used on your latest bill was in excess of the amount of water allowed under cunailmenl. This Jetter is to give you advanced notice that once the curtailment ordinance stages are.in effect you will be billed at the higher rate if over the allotted amount. Reduce water use now to avoid paying the penalty! Please keep in mind, that the objective of the current water conservation efforts and future water curtailment limitations is"to ensure that the City has enough water for all of Ashland through [his drought year and into October or even November if need be. 'fhis will also help to ensure that there is enough water for fire fighting purposes should there be a need.. If you have any questions about your water account, please don't hesitate to call Customer Service at 488-5304. Sincerely, ~ C. Brown Public Works Director I City Engineer EXHlGIT :3-6 PACit:.-/--OF 2- City Hal Tet: 20 E.. MaIn Fa: Ashland, OR 17520 Tn: ......h...d.OI.UI St 1..t11-1OO2 541.Q1.5311 '1OO-735-~ ~.w ~-~ PRlrllFO ,1'1 qfC,'l:lfO ;>:.,prp ~'\t11-- . ---rTI".r --- Water Curtailment Allocation Table (in cubic feet) Note: There are 1.48 gallons per cubic fool. Most households have just one water meter, ~owever some households and some businesses have two meters: one for irrigation only and one for other water use. The following table shows water allotments for both irrigation meters and regular meters. For example: Residential meters (most households) will be allowed a total of 3,600 cubic feet (cO of water-approximately 26,930 gallons of water per month (that is almost 900 gallons per day!). Note: on an average, people consume or use approximately 100 gallons of water per day. If you also have a separate irrigation meter you will be allowed an additional 1800 cf of water per month-approximately 13,460 gallons of water. Accounts that use more than the allotment will be charged the excess use at four times the amount. Category Meter Size Sta2e I Sta2e 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Residential Regular all sizes 3,600 2,700 1,800 900 Residential Irrigation all sizes 1,800 600 100 0 Co~rcial Regular 3/4 11 6,400 4,800 3,200 1,600 Commercial Regular In 12,200 9,200 6,100 3,100 Commerc ial Regular 1.5 " 20,900 15,600 10,400 5,200 Commercial Regular 2" 30,400 22,800 15,200 7,600 Commercial Regular 3" 60,800 45,600 30,400 15,200 Commercial Regular 4" 96,200 72,200 48,100 24,100 Commercial Regular 6" 186,400 139.800 93,200 46,600 Commercial Regular 8" 304,,400 228,300 152,200 76,100 Commercial Irrigation 3/4 " 3,200 1,100 100 0 Commercial Irrigalion I" 6,100 2,100 200 0 Commercial Irrigation 1.5" 10,400 3,700 400 0 Commercial Inigation 2" 15,,200 5,300 500 0 Commercial Irrigalion )" 30,400 10,600 1,100 0 Condo All all sizes 2,100 2,000 1,300 700 TID Irrigation 4" 48,100 16,800 1,100 0 Example: A household with a regular water use meter is allocated 3600 cf of water per month. If the household uses 5000 cf of water, the difference will be charged 1400 cf x $.08080 = $113.12 which will be added to the monthly bill. . ,c9i- 0 ~~q:,~~ ~0 0' ~c8J~~qt ,CO? ~~ ~ ?-\~b~ r ,'-' ~\ ' .. . '. 3 ~ " _.... '/ .".."J .~. <I. ~,. 1 )'agt,~ I c~ 1 l'jlt P ;// \\ \\;\V ,nlai Itr! bunt' .C()Jllh:l,ppS,/pbcs.dl.I/nlisc?url=:/nlisc/galII IngZll'Lhtll'll&print~;~y I t.~i nlg ::',.httpt~"'i,3 /\ n ;~)2... 12:'~~,,~ i::(}(}X