The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-1101 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda,unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting,the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak,please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you,it any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion,the number of people who wish to speak,and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 1, 2011 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 111. ROLL CALL _ IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? [5 minutes] 1. Study Session of October 17, 2011 2. Executive Session of October 18, 2011 3. Regular Meeting of October 18, 2011 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None VII. CONSENT AGENDA 15 minutes] 1. Does Council wish to approve already submitted applications and matching funds for two Assistance Firefighter Grant including one for an aerial ladder truck totaling $900,000 of which a $90,000 match would be required from the City and $161,316 for personal protection equipment and radiation monitoring of which $16,131 is required as matching funds from the City? 2. Will Council approve the appointment of Russ Silbiger as the Council Liaison to the Ashland Community Hospital Board? 3. Does Council have any questions regarding the results of sale of General Obligation bonds to fund the Fire Station #2 construction? 4. Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law? 5. Does Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Kevin Dikes dba Cebolla Bar and Grill, LLC, 1951 Ashland Street? COIINC;II \11:1 IIN'CiS ARF RROADC AS'l I ,IVI. ON GIIANNGL9 VISI l IHE CI"1'l' OF,AS11LAlvD'S b!'E.13 $II I?. ;1'I A��\l'N�.AtiI IC,ANI,�.(:)R.tiS VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC §2.04.050)) 1. Will Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code"and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? [30 Minutes] 2. Will Council approve first reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, and move them on to second reading? [30 Minutes] IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.)[15 minutes maximum] Please note: Comments or questions from the public that are of a defamatory nature, such as statements directed at individual Councilors'character, intentions, etc., are out of order because they interfere with the work of the Council. The Council will not answer questions posed during public forum but may direct staff to answer such questions later. X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Will Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to Adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as Supporting Documentation to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? [10 Minutes] Please note: The public hearing on this item has been closed. No additional input will be accepted. 2. Will Council approve a resolution replacing the annual budget process with a biennial (or two-year) approach, beginning with the budget for July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015, and for each biennium thereafter until this resolution is repealed? [10 Minutes] XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Will Council approve a contract with JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. to conduct additional soil and groundwater sampling, testing and monitoring at the Lithia Springs property? [30 Minutes] 2. Who will Council designate as the Council Liaison to the Mount Ashland Association Board of Directors? [5 Minutes] 3. Should Council accept the Quarterly Report as presented? [5 Minutes) XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS None. XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Does the Council have direction related to a request from Councilor Silbiger for guidelines for Commissions and Committees to sponsor events. XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at(541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COl+\CII still F1'I1\(a ;\RE: ISROAUC;Ati'1 LIVL ON C1IANN61- 9 VISIT 'HIE. CI I'Y OF ASHLAND'S \\'E13 S11 I A"I \ \1'VV.A$H1.:1ND.OR.US C17-Y COUNCIL STUDY SESSION October 17, 2011 Page I of MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 17, 2011 Siskiyou Room,51 Winburn Way 5:30 p.m. Study Session Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse, Chapman, and Voisin were present. Councilor Moms was absent. 1. Look Ahead Review . City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 2. What feedback does the Council have on the proposed revisions of the City's economic, cultural,and Sustainability grant program? City Administrator Martha Bennett explained in the current fiscal year, 19.8%, or 37,450 of grant funds went to Economic Development activities, 13%, or $25,288 went to Sustainability activities with the remaining 67% to Cultural with both ScienceWorks and the Ashland Independent Film Festival (AIFF) receiving approximately 14% each. Tourism was a major component in the Economic Development Strategy and some Cultural grants had tourism. Additionally, the Economic Development Strategy and State Law defined tourism. Ms. Bennett created bonus points for all grants if they assisted the City in meeting State tourism requirements. Council and staff discussed whether to have a separate category for tourism. Having three categories with a point scoring system and another attribute that ran through them was an issue. Tourism could be separate or points built throughout the categories for tourism. The intent with the scoring system was to create flexibility. Ms. Bennett suggested removing the bonus points, retain the tourism category, and increase the non-bonus points. She provided background on the 2003 State law that required municipalities to calculate the current amount spent on tourism as a percentage of the total tax and not let it drop below that amount. If that amount increased, 73%of the increased amount would to go to tourism. She went on to explain a previous Council removed the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) from the general competitive grant program because they took competition away from the other grantees. Council applied a specific percentage that inflated annually according to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). In 2007 the amount allocated went up substantially while the TOT experienced a reduction due to the economic down fall that would have dramatically increased the amounts OSF and the Chamber received leaving very little for small grantees. In response,Council began to award direct dollar amounts based on the prior year's number and TOT projections. The Chamber received more than OSF because it provided general marketing for the entire business community. In turn, the City provided grant money to OSF because they market beyond 50 miles for people to attend their theater and that benefited the community. Some of Council supported the bonus point strategy while others disagreed. Council and staff then discussed allocation splits for Economic Development, Cultural Development, and Sustainability grants. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION October 17, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Splits varied with one suggestion to fold sustainability and its criteria into Economic Development and Cultural and eliminate it as a category. Ms. Bennett noted Council could have tourism as its own category. Alternately, they could decide to eliminate the split, score it instead, and retain Sustainability as its own category. Council discussed minimum grant amounts, whether to keep it at $2,500 or raise it to $5,000. Council majority was interested in exploring raising the minimum grant award to $5,000 while others thought smaller amounts allowed for more diverse and innovative organizations to apply. Ms. Bennett clarified Council would initially score and rank the grants then allocate funds. Budget Committee member Doug Gentry favored a lower amount for grants. He noted Council did not address the Budget Committee's recommendation to establish a middle category for organizations like OSF and ScienceWorks. Ms. Bennett did not create this category purposely because it would require an overhaul of the grant process and she had not received clear direction from Council. Budget Committee member Lynn Thompson was concerned there were significant policy shifts from Cultural towards Economic Development and the criteria might not provide enough flexibility.to make the best decision. Budget Committee member David Runkel noted Ashland was the only municipality in Oregon that went through a grant process. Most other jurisdictions had Council devise a set plan on allocating money. Additionally,the Budget Committee spent an enormous amount of time on grants. Ms. Bennett would write a preamble to reflect Council's intention regarding grants, adjust the weights for Sustainability, develop Tourism as its own category for scoring, and balance the criteria. Councilor Chapman suggested using percentages instead of numbers. 3. Does Council have direction for staff related to working capital that carried over in the General Fund and Parks & Recreation Fund from the prior fiscal year that exceeded the amount that was included in the adopted budget? City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified if the excess funds went towards the Water and Wastewater funds it would reduce the rates for one year but not eliminate the need to raise them the following year. Interim City Administrator Lee Tuneberg added there was a Water Fund and Wastewater Fund adjustment during the Budget Process that paid $290,000 to the General Fund as franchise payments. Ms. Bennett explained there was enough money to fund the firefighter and police officer positions for five years. The Parks and Recreation Commission strongly supported using the Ending Fund Balance excess to address deferred maintenance issues in the Parks and Recreation Department that added up to approximately$3,000,000. Budget Committee member's suggestions varied. Some thought the reserves were adequate and the City should give back to the taxpayers. Another did not support applying it to the franchise fee. This was a one-year windfall. It may reduce the impact on water rates but could create a larger catch-up the following year. Another favored reallocating money to the public safety positions, some into the reserve fund and possibly into the future AFN debt payment to relieve pressure on the General Fund. Eventually the City would have to address the$2.09 Parks tax. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION October 17, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Mr. Tuneberg referenced a meeting with Moody's that rated the City AA3 but was not impressed with City reserves compared to similar municipalities. A larger reserve and Ending Fund Balance would help the City with loans. Council supported transferring money into the reserve, designating money to hire the public safety positions the following year, and doing nothing with the remainder. Other suggestions included waiting for the budget process to proceed. Staff would bring forward a proposed transfer from the General Fund into Reserves with an option to create but not fund two public safety positions. Mayor Stromberg suggested eventually creating a Joint Committee that would prioritize what goes into Parks and Recreation and the General Fund. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 18, 2011 Page I of 8 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL October 18,2011 Council Chambers 1175 E.Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse,Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg noted an upcoming community meeting where the Ashland Community Hospital would discuss the process they were going through. He then announced openings for various City Commissions and went on to add an item to the end of the agenda regarding reporting on the recent League of Oregon Cities Conference. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the Joint Study Session of October 3, 2011,the Executive Session of October 4, 2011, and the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2011 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Forest Resource Specialist Chris Chambers provided a presentation submitted into the record on the Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project. Kerry Metlen from The Nature Conservancy, Marko Bey from the Lomakatsi Restoration Project, Don Boucher from the U.S. Forest Service, and City Contracted Forester Marty Main spoke as well. Mayor Stromberg recognized former City of Ashland Fire Chief Keith Woodley and past Ashland Forest Service District Ranger Linda Duffy for their roles in moving the Ashland Forest Resiliency Program forward. The Mayor's proclamation regarding October 16 - 22 as National Friends of the Library Week was read aloud. Mayor Stromberg acknowledged the Library Board. Mayor Stromberg, Council, and former Councilor Eric Navickas expressed their appreciation of City Administrator Martha Bennett's efforts and contributions to the City and wished her well in her new endeavor. Mayor Stromberg presented Ms. Bennett with a plaque recognizing her service to the City of Ashland. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Will Council accept the minutes of the Boards, Commissions and Committees? 2. Does Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from John Bohn dba Northwest Pizza at 1585 Siskiyou Blvd.? 3. Does Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Man Yu dba Panda Garden at 1747 Ashland Street? 4. Does Council wish to ratify the new Labor Agreement between the City of Ashland and the IBEW Electrical Union Local No.659? 5. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a contract amendment exceeding 25% of the original contract amount to modify the scope of services and exercise ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 18, 2011 Page 2 of 8 the triple guarantee clause in the original contract for professional recruitment services for a not to exceed amount of$15,000? 6. Does Council wish to confirm the appointment of Larry Patterson as Interim City Administrator? 7. Does Council have questions regarding the first quarterly update on the implementation of the Economic Development Strategy? 8. Does Council have any questions or directions for the Administration Services/Finance Department Customer Service Division regarding management of discount or assistance programs in place to aid customers in paying their utility bills? 9. Should Council approve a telecommunications franchise for Sprint Communications? 10. Will Council approve an extension of the existing contract for legal services with Douglas McGeary,not to exceed $45,000? Councilor Lemhouse pulled Consent Agenda item #7, Councilor Silbiger pulled item 49, and Councilor Voisin pulled items#5 and#6 for further discussion. Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #144, #8 and #10. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Human Resource Manager Tina Gray explained the total recruitment fees for the Assistant City Administrator and City Administrator positions would most likely be less than the $36,500 estimate. The City received a discount on the Assistant City Administrator position when the former IT Director left within the first two years of employment. That amount was $8,750 for professional fees. With expenses factored in, staff rounded the amount to $15,000 to avoid additional contract amendments. The recruitment fee to replace the City Administrator was$21,500. City Administrator Martha Bennett explained the employment contract with the Interim City Administrator Larry Patterson included a $2,000 a month housing allowance because he would still maintain his primary residence and rent in Ashland during his stay. The actual amount would most likely be less. Project Manager Adam Hanks and Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Economic Development Implementation Plan focused primarily on the following Priority One items: 1) Conduct a Business Retention & Expansion Survey 2) Designate City Staff"point of contact', 3) Formalize relationships and roles for Strategy implementation among major partners 4) Maximize impact of existing City Economic Development, Cultural and Sustainability grant process 5) Evaluate the use of Urban Renewal Districts 6) Improve the land use development process Mr. Hanks noted the implementation was going as planned. Councilor Silbiger wanted to postpone approving the Sprint Franchise agreement until Council was able to review the actual contract. Interim Assistant City Attorney Doug McGeary explained the Sprint Franchise contract was standard and began October 1, 2011. Delaying the contract further would postpone payment from Sprint. Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s to approve Consent Agenda items#5,#6,#7 and #9. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 18, 2011 Page 3 of 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Will Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to Adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as Supporting Documentation to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation that included: • Purpose: The purposed of conducting an update of the "Buildable Lands Inventory" (BLI) is to quantify the amount of vacant and underdeveloped land available within the political boundaries of the City of Ashland. • Uses • Current Planning-Annexation/Zone Change application evaluations. • Long Range Planning — Comprehensive Planning to address housing, commercial, and parks land needs. • Transportation System Plan — Modeling for future traffic generation and transit demand based on potential future development. • Capital Improvement Plan Development • Water Master Plan—future water demand by area(capacity and line sizing). • Fire safety—weed abatement and hydrant testing prioritization. • Land Availability Map • Land Availability & Summary,—Acreage by Comprehensive Plan Designation(Full UBG)Chart • Land Supply—Dwelling Unit Potential(Full UGB)Chart • Demographics—Ashland's Aging population 2000-2010 Chart • Land Supply—Residential Lands Chart o Dwelling Unit Capacity—City Limits= 1,883 and UGB—2,853 • Land Supply—Commercial Lands • City Limits= 125 net buildable acres(C-1, C-1-D, E-1, M-1, & CM). • UGB & city Limits = 199 net buildable acres suitable for commercial development (exclusive of SOU and Airport lands). • The current supply of developable commercial lands is consistent with the Economic Opportunities Analysis(EOA)projected land need of 123.4 net acres by the year 2027. • Next Steps o 2011-2012 Housing Needs Analysis o Regular BLI updates to reflect Buildable and Land Use changes. Staff will have an ordinance prepared for First Reading at a future City Council meeting. Public Hearing Open: 8:17 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 8:17 p.m. PUBLIC FORUM Raven Playfaire/445 Jennifer Street/Questioned why there were no homeless individuals on the Ad Hoc Homelessness Steering Committee and shared her personal experiences. She supported a homeless shelter in town. Aaron Fletcher/Shared his support for a homeless shelter. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEET/NC October 18, 2011 Page 4 of 8 Ruth Coulthard/566 Faith Avenue/Explained the winter Emergency Shelter at the Presbyterian Church would open Sundays from November to February when temperatures dropped to 20 degrees or below. She described her experiences working at the shelter. She found it difficult to interface with the Ad Hoc Homelessness Steering Committee. Lisa Maltsberger/276 B Street/Shared her recent experience helping a homeless individual and supported the idea of a homeless shelter. Keith Haxton/110 7'h Street/Requested Council add a person who had experienced homelessness to the Ad Hoc Homeless Steering Committee. Deb Van Poolen/78 41h Street/Explained her experience working outdoors year round gave her perspective that homeless people left a smaller carbon footprint. Eric Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Commented on issues he had with the meeting agenda, excluding public input and thought Council should come prepared to make motions. The Ashland Fire Resiliency Program would include logging in the riparian areas, research natural areas, roadless areas and log large diameter trees. This was not a project environmental stewards should support. It was a large scale logging project with up to 30 logging helicopter pads and 20 miles of fuel breaks. He suggested Council display a map of the watershed in chambers to depict the affect humanity has had on the area. Elise Thiel/321 Clay Street/Reminded everyone how close people were to living under a bridge. The economy was failing and community needed to help the homeless and each other. She suggested adding a homeless person to the Ad Hoc Homelessness Steering Committee and providing the homeless with a designated place to camp. Michael Tysoe/Shared his personal experience with the current camping ban that he thought Council should reverse. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Will Council approve the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Homelessness Steering Committee? Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to accept the staff recommendation to place one portable toilet at the Calle location on a trial basis for the Fiscal Year 2012. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery thought this would help offset the lack of public restroom services after 4:00 p.m. Councilor Lemhouse supported the idea on a trial basis. He was concerned patrons leaving the bars at night would damage them. Councilor Voisin referenced the letter from the Ad Hoc Homelessness Steering Committee (HSC) that recommended three toilets at the minimum. Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to amend the motion by adding two toilets located on the north and sound end of town to be determined by staff working with the Parks and Recreation Department. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin stressed the need to have portable toilets available to everyone and three was enough to do a study. Councilor Slattery agreed to having three portable toilets, the issue was locating an area for two of them. Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained if vandalism occurred the City would remove the portable toilet immediately. Ad Hoc Homelessness Steering Committee Chair Heidi Parker added in the event of vandalism, they could move the portable toilets to another location. Councilor Chapman disagreed with the idea of portable toilet. Councilor Voisin reiterated the need for three portable toilets. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, YES; Councilor Slattery, Silbiger, Chapman,Morris,and Lemhouse,NO. Motion failed 1-5. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 18, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Additional discussion on main motion: City Administrator Martha Bennett explained the City would have to rent the ADA accessible portable toilet and it could come from a General Fund source. Councilor Morris-did not think portable toilets would offer a solution to any of the problems and would not support the motion. Councilor Voisin thought funding could come from the difference the City would save in Ms. Bennett's salary and Council's travel fund. Councilor Chapman would not support the motion. The portable toilet would incur vandalism and its location was next to an existing facility. There should be a way to keep the established restroom open instead. Councilor Silbiger added it was a visual distraction. Ms. Parker explained it would cost an additional $8,000 to keep one bathroom open 24 hours a day with an insurance deductible of$10,000. Ms. Seltzer added another concern was security. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Voisin, Silbiger, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Chapman and Morris,NO. Motion passed 4-2. Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to accept the concept of having a day use center and give instructions to staff to look at places where the Salvation Army may find a suitable place and if not to work with community groups and churches to create a day use center. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin explained a day use center would provide basic human services. Councilor Silbiger supported a day use center but was unsure on funding. Councilor Lemhouse was concerned finding a building set a precedent the City currently does not do for other groups and provided examples. Councilor Slattery supported the idea but agreed with Councilor Lemhouse on setting a precedent. Councilor Chapman was not in favor of sending staff out to locate rental property. Mayor Stromberg described urban rest stops, what they provided and noted their value. However, the motion included the Salvation Army and they had specific needs the City could not meet. Councilor Voisin withdrew her motion with Councilor Slattery's consent. Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s that Council support the concept of a day use center in Ashland. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Voisin, Silbiger, Chapman, Morris, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to accept staff suggestion to select a location for placement of one donation box. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse thought donation boxes were one of the better ideas because donations would come directly from the community. Councilor Morris saw it as additional funding for projects the HSC might do in the future. Councilor Slattery added it was worth trying but questioned why staff recommended one box instead of the four. Ms. Seltzer responded staff s recommendation was placing one box in a location where aggressive panhandling occurred in an effort to help mitigate that behavior. Additionally it was determined a feasibility study could be conducted on one box as well. Councilor Slattery thought placing the donation box in an area of aggressive panhandling might make donators uncomfortable and suggested placing it in a more convenient area. Ms. Seltzer noted another location discussed was in front of City Hall. Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the motion that there be a minimum of four boxes placed in and around the downtown area and that the language, the signage, and the education around the donation boxes be in consultation with the Homelessness Steering Committee. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Continued discussion on main motion: Police Chief Terry Holdemess shared research on donation boxes in Laguna Beach, CA and Denver, CO and was not sure one box was enough for a feasibility study. He recommended using a box that accepted paper bills instead of the parking meters the cities of Laguna and Denver used. Ms. Seltzer responded they were looking at using boxes similar to the Parking Ticket Payment boxes. Chef Holderness added that Denver had signage that indicated what specific donation amounts could purchase for a homeless individual. Councilor Silbiger thought it made more sense to ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 18, 2011 Page 6 of 8 have several donation boxes strategically placed. Councilor Lemhouse would support multiple boxes. Mayor Stromberg thought there should be at least three in the downtown area and not be characterized as an instrument to counter aggressive pan handling. Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to place four boxes and that the wording be vetted through the Ad Hoc Homeless Steering Community. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman supported the multiple boxes. He wanted the proposal to be specific on where the money would go, who would manage it and who would replace the boxes if vandalism occurred. Ms. Bennett clarified the City would have the Chamber of Commerce identify the non-profit partner, both the Chamber and the non-profit organization would jointly identify the locations and the City would evaluate the choices to ensure it complied with the pedestrian clearance map. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Voisin, Silbiger, Chapman, Morris, and Lemhouse,YES.Motion passed. Voice vote on amended main motion: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to extend the Ad Hoc Homeless Steering Committee to one year. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin explained the Committee would meet twice a month to address all the proposals from the community. Councilor Lemhouse was hesitant to extend the Committee at this early stage and was skeptical they would be able to meet twice a month for a year, possibly the next six months. He would support extending it March 2012 when the Committee produced results. Councilor Chapman agreed with Councilor Lemhouse. Councilor Slattery understood Council's reluctance to extend it at this time. He wanted the Committee to add one or two individuals who were homeless as members. Mayor Stromberg thought the Committee was doing important work but extending now was premature. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, and Voisin, YES; Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Morris, and Lemhouse,NO.Motion failed 2-4. ORDINANCES,RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Related to Meeting Quorum Requirements for City Appointed Boards and Commissions"? Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #3050. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin asked whether there was a solution for Commissions that need to reduce their member number. City Administrator Martha Bennett explained Council approved a Council Goals process April 2011 that addressed that and Council Liaisons could work with staff to change member amounts. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Voisin, Slattery, Morris, Silbiger, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-continued 2. Will the Council clarify its direction on the conditions of the Reserve Amount of$700,000 in the agreement that was approved by the City Council on October 4 related to relinquishing the SUP and conveying assets for the Mount Ashland Ski Area? City Attorney Dave Lohman removed himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest and Attorney Bob Steringer from Harrang, Long, Gary, Rudnick P.C.joined the meeting in his place via telephone. City Administrator Martha Bennett explained the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) had questions regarding the reserve amount Council set at the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting. Did the $700,000 intend to include or exclude the amount the U.S. Forest Service would set for restorations in the Special Use Permit(SUP)? If it was $700,000 for the City in addition to the restoration sum required by the U.S. Forest Service, it would tie up more than $1,000,000 of MAA's $1,600,000 assets and they would be unable to bond the expansion project. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 18, 2011 Page 7 of 8 Councilor Silbiger explained his original intent was that $700,000 was a minimum reserve. The actual restoration removal of equipment would far exceed the$700,000. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s that the intention of the City Council was to include the amount the U.S. Forest Service will require in the SUP as part of the $700,000 reserve amount and this is not a cumulative amount and direct staff to draft the paragraph as written in paragraph 1. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery thought it was important for Ashland to transfer the SUP and did not understand why Council would not accept the number the U.S. Forest Service would determine. Councilor Silbiger responded the primary reason was the U.S. Forest Service set an incorrect figure the first time. They provided documentation in 1991 that stated the removal of the equipment would cost $750,000. Having that amount unencumbered was proper stewardship and getting the right value for City assets. Councilor Slattery was uncertain having $700,000 of unencumbered assets when the amount from the U.S. Forest Service would grow with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Another concern was if the $700,000 would eventually devalue. Councilor Silbiger thought it was a separate dollar amount from whatever the U.S. Forest Service set. Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to suspend Council rules. Voice Vote: Councilor Slattery,Morris, Lemhouse,and Chapman,YES; Councilor Voisin and Silbiger,NO. Motion passed 4-2. MAA President and Board of Directors Chair Tom Mayer researched other ski resorts and no other ski resort on public land was required to have the reserve amount the City was requesting. The amount also exceeded what the U.S. Forest Service determined for MAA. Councilor Chapman shared his understanding that MAA had the assets on the mountain worth $700,000 that MAA would not use for anything else. That amount.would cover the reserve and require no additional money from MAA. Mr. Mayer replied it would tie up assets MAA could use as collateral for loans. In addition, the original $700,000 was for dismantling the ski area and restoration was separate. U.S. Forest Service District Ranger Donna Mickley explained the SUP required a Reclamation Bond and to her knowledge, Mt. Ashland Ski Resort was the only ski area permit in the nation with such a clause. Reclamation Bonds occur when a ski area is going under and will need to remove the lifts and that happened in 1991. It was a standard clause in all permits. The U.S. Forest maintains the bond and would determine a new amount if they reissued the SUP. Currently the U.S. Forest Service could provide realistic estimates to dismantle a ski area and Ms. Mickley did not think it would cost$700,000. Ms. Bennett explained the original proposal identified as Option 3, would take the number the U.S. Forest Service determined in the SUP and then apply the CPI to it. Councilor Chapman/Silbiger to resume the Council Rules. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse,Voisin,Silbiger,and Chapman,YES. Motion passed. Continued discussion on main motion: Councilor Voisin agreed with Councilor Silbiger on having at least $700,000 for a reserve and that it should be more. The 1991 document stated it would cost $700,000 for removal in the event the ski area went bankrupt and the 2007 document had an appraisal of $1,300,000. Councilor Lemhouse thought it was important to move forward with an agreement that put the City in a better position than it presently was. He preferred the option that would accept the U.S. Forest Service's numbers because it would strengthen the City's position. Councilor Morris understood both sides and was doubtful the $700,000 and $1,300,000 figures quoted in the earlier documents were still valid. Councilor Slattery thought the City was in a better position without the SUP. It would give the City a seat on the board and add quality control teams. Councilor Voisin reiterated $700,000 was the amount the City would need should MAA go bankrupt. If ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 18, 2011 Page 8 of 8 not, the taxpayers would pay the restoration costs. Councilor Chapman wanted an agreement and suggested MAA have $700,000 in reserves until the U.S. Forest Service set the amount in the SUP. Councilor Morris noted the risk staying at the $200,000 and restated the $700,000 and $1,300,000 were most likely no longer valid. Councilor Silbiger clarified the $750,000 in the 1991 document was for the removal of everything, burning down the building, removing the lifts. He doubted that figure had decreased over time and clarified there was a restoration amount and a removal amount. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, and Voisin,YES; Councilor Chapman, Slattery, Lemhouse,and Morris,NO. Motion failed 2-4. Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to accept staff Option 3, the original paragraph taking the U.S. Forest Service number plus CPI. DISCUSSION: Council Voisin thought it put citizens at risk for paying for the removal. It was irresponsible not to have adequate funds in reserve as security. Additionally, MAA should not borrow on the assets the City gave to them for nothing in return. Councilor Silbiger agreed Ashland would have to pay for the removal but if the City gave MAA the assets, they were no longer the City's responsibility to remove. In addition, requesting an amount greater than $700,000 would have better protected the public. However, Option 3 even without that reserve afforded many protections for the City and would allow Council and the City to speak out. He referenced an earlier statement by MAA General Manager Kim Clark that MAA would not borrow against the assets that Mr. Mayer contradicted during this meeting. Losing the restriction on speaking out was enough for him to support the motion. Councilor Voisin added if MAA went bankrupt, the City received the assets, and the U.S. Forest Service decided to decommission the mountain as a ski area, the City would be fully responsible for cleaning up the ski area. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse,and Morris,YES; Councilor Voisin,NO. Motion passed 5-1. 3. Will Council approve a resolution replacing the annual budget process with a biennial (or two- year) approach, beginning with the budget for July 1,2013 through June 30,2015, and for each biennium thereafter until this resolution is repealed? Delayed due to time constraints. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS(None) OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Does the Council have direction related to a request from Councilor Silbiger for guidelines for Commissions and Committees to sponsor events? Delayed due to time constraints. 2. Discussion on how reports would be submitted from those that attended League of Oregon Cities Conference. Delayed due to time constraints. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Assistance to Firefighters Grant Application 2011 Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: John Kams Department: farry e E-Mail: karnsj @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: ne Secondary Contact: Margueritte Hickman Approval: Patterson Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does the Council wish to approve already submitted applications and matching funds for two Assistance Firefighters Grants including one for an aerial ladder truck totaling $900,000 of which a $90,000 match would be required from the City and $161,316 for personal protection equipment and radiation monitoring of which $16,131 is required as matching funds from the City? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the receipt of this grant if offered in order to meet the operational response and safety needs in the City of Ashland. Background: The first grant is in the amount of$900,000 for the purchase of an aerial apparatus (ladder truck). The City of Ashland would be required to provide a 10% match totaling $90,000 towards this purchase if the grant were awarded. The maximum height immediate response engines in our city can effectively reach today is 30 feet. Therefore, access to multiple story floors or roofs and physical rescues on anything above a second floor is not possible until an aerial apparatus can be summoned from another fire department in the region. The other aerial apparatus in the region are not regularly staffed and assuming an on duty crew can be assigned, the aerial response time is over 30 minutes and could approach a 50 minute response to Ashland. A citywide study identified nearly 200 target hazard buildings with roofs that were inaccessible by the department's tallest ground ladders. A survey of nine Oregon cities comparable to Ashland revealed that Ashland represents the only community with a similar number of target hazards not possessing an aerial apparatus within its fire department. Buildings inaccessible by ground ladders include the nine- story Ashland Springs Hotel built in 1924 and ten Southern Oregon University dormitories that are four stories or greater. Many of the historic buildings do not have sprinkler systems and are at high risk because of their prominent fire exposures. The second grant totals $139,257 to replace Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA's) which no longer meet the NFPA 1981 standard and the acquisition of radiation detection equipment and training totaling $22,059. The match, which would be required from the City of Ashland for this grant, totals $16,131. The recent Tsunami in Japan, during which radiation was released into the atmosphere, and Oregon experienced trace levels of radiation, brought to Ashland Fire & Rescue's attention the need for equipment to monitor radiation levels or to allow responders to determine if an incident scene is safe to occupy. Page ] of 2 11FALA CITY OF ASHLAND Both of these grant applications have been submitted prior to approval due to the short time-frame given from announcement to closing. Related City Policies: The Public Safety Bond Committee has unanimously supported the acquisition of an aerial truck. Council Options: • Approve the application and matching funds for the grant applications. • Reject the staff recommendation. Potential Motions: move to approve the Assistance to Firefighter Grant applications and the matching funds if received to better meet the operational needs of the City's fire department. Attachments: None Page 2 of 2 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment of Council Liaison to the Ashland Community Hospital Board Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Diana Shiplet Department: ministration E-Mail: shipletd @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.:' one Secondary Contact: Larry Patterson Approval: Larry Patterson Estimated Time: • Consent Question: Will Council approve the appointment of Russ Silbiger as the Council Liaison to the Ashland Community Hospital Board? Staff Recommendation: N/A Background: As part of the Articles of Incorporation for Ashland Community Hospital (ACH) a Council Liaison is required to be appointed to the Board of Directors. The appointment of a liaison was discussed at the August 2, 2011 joint Council/ACH meeting. Related City Policies: N/A Council Options: Approve a Council Liaison to the Ashland Community Hospital Board of Directors. Potential Motions: I move to appoint Russ Silbiger as the Council Liaison to the Ashland Community Hospital Board of Directors. Attachments: Agreement between ACH and CoA Page I of 1 �r, FILED APR - 81996 Secretary of Stat( ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION of ASHLAND COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE SERVICES ARTICLE I NAME The name of the corporation (the "Corporation") shall be Ashland Community Healthcare Services. This Corporation is a public benefit corporation. ARTICLE 11 DURATION The Corporation shall have perpetual existence. ARTICLE III PURPOSES The Corporation is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), including without limitation the ownership and operation of an acute care hospital, provision of other healthcare services, arrangement for the provision of medical services, and conduct of such other activities as may be deemed advisable for the advancement of health care and the betterment of the general health of the residents of Ashland and the surrounding geographic service area (collectively, the "Area"). PAGE 1 - ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION ARTICLE IV POWERS The Corporation shall have the power to engage in any lawful activity for which corporations may be organized under the Oregon Nonprofit Corporation Act, provided that such activities: (a) have been authorized by the Corporation's Board of Directors; (b) are consistent with the purposes described in Article III hereof; (c) are not inconsistent with the provisions of these Articles of Incorporation; and (d) shall at all times comply with the requirements of Sections 501(c)(3) and 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. ARTICLE V PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES A. The Corporation shall not: 1. Have or issue shares of stock; 2. Make any disbursement of income to its member, directors or officers; 3. Loan money or credit to its member, officers or directors; 4. Engage in any other activity which is prohibited under the Oregon Nonprofit Corporation Act, as it may be amended from time to time; or 5. Engage in any activity which would cause the Corporation to be defined as a private foundation within the meaning of Section 509(a) of the Code. B. No part of the net earnings of the Corporation shall inure to the private benefit of any person, except that the Corporation shall be authorized and empowered. to reimburse the expenses of its directors, officers and employees in accordance with the Bylaws of the Corporation and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the.purposes of the Corporation, subject to the limitations of this Article V. C. No substantial part of the activities of the Corporation shall be devoted to attempting to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise. Further, the Corporation shall not participate or intervene, directly or indirectly (including the publication or distribution of statements) in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. PAGE 2 - ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION D. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Articles of Incorporation, the Corporation shall not carry on any activities not permitted to be carried on (a)by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, or (b) by a corporation to which contributions given are deductible under Section 170(c)(2) of the Code. ARTICLE VI REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT The addresses of the Corporation's principal office and registered office shall be as provided in the Corporation's Bylaws from time to time. The street address of the initial registered office of the Corporation shall be as follows: 280 Maple Street Ashland, OR 97520 The name of the initial registered agent of the Corporation at the above address shall be James R. Watson. The initial corporate mailing address for the principal office of the Corporation shall be: P.O. Box 98 Ashland, OR 97520 ARTICLE VII INCORPORATOR The name and address of the incorporator of the Corporation is as follows: City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 PAGE 3•- ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION ARTICLE VIII MEMBER A. The sole member (the "Member") of the Corporation shall be the City of Ashland, an Oregon municipal corporation. B. Authority and responsibility shall be vested in the Member to perform the following duties: 1. To appoint the Corporation's directors, based on the criteria set forth in Article IX hereof and, after appointment of the initial Board, in accordance with the timetable specified in the Board's Bylaws; to remove one or more of such directors only for cause; and to appoint a liaison representative to serve as an ex- officio non-voting member of the Board; 2. To approve or disapprove amendments to these Articles of Incorporation which have been proposed or concurred in by the Corporation's Board of Directors. 3. In the Member's sole discretion, to dissolve this Corporation in the event this Corporation is in breach of the facilities lease to which Member and this Corporation are parties and has failed to timely cure the breach as provided therein, and in such event to distribute any remaining assets of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of Article XH hereof. 4. To convene and conduct an annual membership 'meeting at the time and place of the first meeting of Member's City Council to be convened during the month of July each year, and to convene and conduct such special membership meetings as it may from time to time deem necessary or advisable to carry out its duties, at such time and place as it shall determine. ARTICLE IX DIRECTORS A. The Corporation shall be governed by a Board of Directors (the "Board") consisting of not less than ten (10) nor more than twelve (12) directors. The Corporation's Member shall select and appoint Directors of the Corporation from among persons who are residents of the Area, based on the following criteria: 1. An interest in and involvement with the Ashland community. PAGE 4 - ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 2. Interest in and knowledge of healthcare. 3. Willingness to participate in continuing education and Board self-evaluation, in accordance with Board policies. 4. Willingness and ability to attend Board meetings. 5. Leadership experience and effectiveness. 6. Possession of skills that contribute to effective governance. 7. Ability to think and communicate clearly. 8. Ability to work cooperatively with others. B. Collectively, the Directors selected shall be broadly reflective of the Area's residents. Further, no more than twenty (20) percent of the total number of Directors holding office at any time shall concurrently be members of the medical staff of the Corporation's hospital, and no Director shall concurrently serve as a member of the Ashland City Council. C. All authority and responsibility not specifically reserved in these Articles of Incorporation to the Corporation's Member shall be vested in the Corporation's Board. ARTICLE X BYLAWS At its first official meeting, the Board shall adopt bylaws for managing and regulating the affairs of the Corporation, the provisions of which shall not be inconsistent with law or these Articles of Incorporation. Such bylaws may thereafter be amended from time to time by the affirmative action of a majority of the Corporation's directors. ARTICLE XI LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS To the fullest extent the limitation or elimination of such liability is permitted by the Oregon Nonprofit Corporation Act, as it presently exists or may hereafter be amended, the Corporation's PAGE 5 - ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION Member, directors and uncompensated officers shall not be personally liable to this Corporation for monetary damages for conduct as a Member, director or uncompensated officer occurring after the effective date of this Article. Any subsequent amendments to or repeal of this Article or the Oregon Nonprofit Corporation Act shall not adversely affect any right or protection of such Member, directors or uncompensated officers for or with respect to any of their acts or omissions as Member, directors or uncompensated officers occurring prior to such amendment or repeal. ARTICLE XII INDEMNIFICATION To the fullest extent not prohibited by law, the Corporation: (a) shall indemnify any person who is made, or threatened to be made, a party to an action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, investigative, or otherwise (including an action, suit or proceeding by or in the right of this Corporation), by reason of the fact that the person is or was a Member, director or uncompensated officer of this Corporation; and (b) may indemnify any person who is made, or threatened to be made, a party to an action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, investigative, or otherwise (including an action, suit or proceeding by or in the right of this Corporation) by reason of the fact that the person is or was a compensated officer, employee or agent of this Corporation, or a fiduciary (within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), with respect to any employee benefit plan of this Corporation, or who serves or served at the request of this Corporation as a director or officer of, or as a fiduciary (as defined above) of any employee benefit plan of, another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise. This Article shall not be deemed exclusive of any other provisions for the indemnification of such Member, directors, officers, employees, or agents that may be included in any statute, bylaw, agreement, resolution of the Corporation's Member or directors or otherwise, both as to action in any official capacity and action in any other capacity while holding office, or while an employee or agent of this Corporation. ARTICLE XIII DISTRIBUTION UPON DISSOLUTION Upon the dissolution of the Corporation, all of its assets remaining after payment of creditors shall be distributed to the City of Ashland, Oregon or another nonprofit corporation selected by the Member which is then exempt from federal income tax pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. Any such assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Oregon, exclusively for such purposes or to such exempt organization or organizations as such Court shall determine. PAGE 6 - ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION ARTICLE XIV NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY The Corporation shall conduct its affairs in a manner that does not discriminate with regard to race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation or marital status. ARTICLE XV AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES These articles of incorporation may be altered, amended, repealed, replaced or restated upon the affirmative action of the Corporation's Member provided that such alteration, amendment, repeal, replacement or restatement has been proposed or concurred in by a majority of the Corporation's directors at a Board meeting called for that purpose. DATED: This a0 day of 1996. ASHLAND COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE SERVICES THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, its Incorporator By /LG ✓�c —� h/� Its Mayor By Its City Recorder 85903.01 PAGE 7 - ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Report on General Obligation Bond Sale for Fire Station#2 Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: A ministrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: ne Secondary Contact: None Approval: arry Patterson Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does Council have any questions regarding the results of sale of General Obligation bonds to fund the Fire Station #2 construction? Staff Recommendation: None. This is a report on the results of the bond sale. Background: The City was successful on October 25, 2011, in issuing bonds to provide $3,000,000 to rebuild Fire Station #2. The market conditions were such that the City sold the bonds at a premium, generating enough in proceeds to pay for all issuance costs, to provide adequate funds for the project and to reduce the par value of the bonds to $2,960,000. The bond issue was authorized by a vote of the electorate on May 17'h, authorizing debt service to be paid through property taxes. The average annual debt service is estimated at $207,590 since the true interest cost of the bonds is 2.99%. With issuance costs the all-in rate is 3.20%. The City used the competitive bid process, rather than a negotiated sale, and the market was very good to us even though there were only 3 bidders. The True Interest Costs of the bids ranged from 2.998446%to 3.321474%. The lowest bid of 2.998446% came from BOAC, Incorporated, of Dallas, Texas, a subsidiary of the Bank of Oklahoma. This was the successful bidder in October of 2010 when the City refinanced the DEQ loan on the wastewater treatment plant. The bonds carry a Moody's rating of Aa3. This is a good rating for a city of Ashland's size and its moderate debt load in a difficult economy. It is equivalent to the City's underlying rating from years ago, before times got more difficult in the municipal bond market. Moody's also reaffirmed the ratings on the other outstanding issues. The bond sale will close on November 1, 2011. Related City Policies: None Page 1 of 2 �I r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: Council may ask questions, request more information or provide direction to staff if desired. Potential Motions: No action is required of Council, this is only an update. Attachments: None Page 2 of 2 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication A Resolution Transferring Appropriations within the FY 2011-2012 Budget Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Finance E-Mail: tuneberl @ash]and.or.us Secondary Dept.: one Secondary Contact: None Approval: arry Patterson Estimated Time: Consent Question: Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution to transfer appropriations within specified funds for stated reasons. Background: There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted. 1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. This process includes a notice in the paper prior to Council taking action. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing prior to the council taking action. A transfer of appropriations (Item 41 above) is needed to adjust the FY 2011-2012 budget for the following reasons: • The General Fund finances rebounded in FY 2010-2011 sufficient enough to restore several positions eliminated in December 2008. At the Study Session held October 17, 2011, Council indicated the need to restore, but not fill, the positions in this fiscal year by appropriation transfer. Additionally, Council showed interest in transferring $150,000 into the Reserve Fund for future use. This action, if approved, will recreate one officer and one firefighter position and set aside monies for future Budget Committee consideration. This is the FIRST transfer of appropriations request for FY 2011-2012. Attached is a resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after each request and in the accompanying departmental memoranda. Related City Policies: None. Pagel of 2 �r, C I T Y OF -ASH LAN D Council Options: Council may accept this transfer of appropriations as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification. Potential Motions: Council moves to adopt the transfer of appropriations resolution, amending the FY 2011-2012 budget. Attachments: Resolution transferring appropriations within the 2011-2012 Budget Page 2 of 2 �r, RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2011-2012 BUDGET THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to transfer appropriations as follows: General Fund To: Police Department $45,000 Fire and Rescue Department $48,000 Operating Transfers - Out $150,000 From: Contingency $ 243,000 To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Police Department to restore the police officer position that was eliminated in December 2008. This amount is intended to cover half a year of salaries. The position will not be filled until this change is reviewed during the coming budget process. To Transfer appropriations from Contingency to Fire Department to restore the firefighter position that was eliminated in December 2008. This amount is intended to cover half a year of salaries. The position will not be filled until this change is reviewed during the coming budget process. To Transfer appropriations from General Fund Contingency to Operating Transfers— Out, intended to go to the Reserve Fund. This is being done to set aside a portion of an Ending Fund Balance higher than originally budgeted. TOTAL To: Division Appropriations 243 0 From: Contingency 243 000 SECTION 2. This resolution was duly PASSED and•ADOPTED this day of November, 2011 and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of November, 2011: John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Liquor License Application Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: ity Recorder E-Mail: christebkashland.or.us Secondary Dept.' None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Larry Patterson Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Kevin Dikes dba Cebolla Bar and Grill, LLC at 1951 Ashland 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 new application. 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 Page I of I C I T Y OF ASHLAND Council Communication First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 Meeting Date: ovember 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Department: ommunity Development E-Mail: molnarb(a�ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.• None Secondary Contact: Maria Hams Approval: Larry Patterson . Estimated Time: 30 minutes Question: Will the City Council approve the first reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code" and move the ordinance to second reading? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of an ordinance amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180, and scheduling the second reading of the ordinance for a future Council meeting. Background: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 11, 2011 on the proposed amendments to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities, and recommended approval of the ordinance. The amendments address the City Council's interpretation and application of the collocation provisions included in the decision on the appeal of the application to install rooftop wireless communication facilities at 1644 Ashland Street (PA #2009-01244). The amendments include revisions to address the three items the Council interpreted in the findings including defining "feasible," clarifying that the Preferred Designs section is a stepped hierarchy, and specifying the collocation study requirements. The Council's decision served as a specific interpretation of the Development Standards, and found the Preferred Design section is intended "to be more rigorously applied to regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities in a manner which minimizes visual an aesthetic impacts to the greatest extent possible in keeping with the declared purpose and intent describe in ALUO 18.72.180.A, while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the serves that these facilities support." The proposed amendments are intended to maintain the balance expressed in the Council's decision between aesthetic impacts and providing residents the ability to use wireless communication facilities. In addition to the amendments addressing the Council's decision, for applications that do not propose to collocate facilities, the proposed ordinance includes a section requiring a third party professional analysis of the applicant's reasons for rejecting collocation (page 6 of attached ordinance, 18.72.180.D.3.b). The requirement for a third party analysis was suggested by citizens who participated in the Planning Commission study sessions and testified at the public hearing on the amendments. Page ] 42 C I T Y OF ASHLAND Related City Policies: Ashland Comprehensive Plan: ChapterVll The Economy, Chapter IX Public Services Council Options: The Council may approve, approve with modifications, or take no action on the first reading of an ordinance amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180. Potential Motions: 1. Move to approve first reading of an Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance, and move to request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on November 15, 2011. 2. Move to approve first reading of an Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance with proposed amendments as noted, and move to request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on November 15, 2011. Attachments: • An Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance • Record of Planning Action #2011-01175 Page 2 of 2 �r, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN 18.72.180 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold hned4hfeagh and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1. of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the .above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland City Council found AMC 18.72.180.0.2 to be ambiguous on its face, and interpreted this standard in the final decision on November 2, 2010 for the appeal of a Planning Action 2009-01244, a request to install rooftop wireless communications facilities on the existing building located at 1644 Ashland Street; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances based on the final decision of the City Council on Planning Action 2009-01244 at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments unanimously; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the Pagel of 8 comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.72.180 [Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. A. Purpose and Intent - The purpose of this section is to establish standards that regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities, while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support. Because of the physical characteristics of wireless communication facilities, the impact imposed by these facilities affect not only the neighboring residents, but the community as a whole. The standards are intended to ensure that the visual and aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facilities are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, especially in or near residential areas. B. Applicability. 1. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subiect to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subiect to the following approval process: Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones CUP Prohibited . Prohibited CC=1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Page 2 of 8 Historic District CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM-MU CUP CUP CUP CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited 2. Additional Provisions. a. In residential zoning districts, wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section, existing structures shall include the replacement of existing pole, mast or tower structures (such as stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of their previous use and wireless communication facilities. b. In the Downtown Commercial zoning district (C-1-1)), wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet. C. With the exception of the C-1-1) zoning district as described above, wireless communication facilities are prohibited in the Historic Districts, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Exemptions. Replacement of previously approved wireless communication facility components are permitted outright with an approved building permit, and are allowed without a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit as specified in the preceding subsection, provided that these actions: a. Do not create an increase in the height of the facility more than ten feet; and b. Conforms with the conditions of the previously approved planning action; and c. Do not cause the facility to go out of conformance with the standards of Section 18.72.180.D. R C. Submittals - In addition to the submittals required in sSection 18.72.060, the following items shall be provided as part of the application for a wireless communication facility. 1. A photo of each of the major components of a similar installation, including a photo montage of the overall facility as proposed. 2. Exterior elevations of the proposed wireless communication facility (min 1"=10'). 3. A set of manufacturers specifications of the support structure, antennas, and accessory buildings with a listing of materials being proposed including colors of the exterior materials. 4. A site plan indicating all structures, land uses and zoning designation within 150 feet of the site boundaries, or 300 feet if the height of the structure is greater than 80 feet. 5. A map that includes the following information: a. the coverage area of the proposed wireless communication facility; and Page 3 of 8 b_A map showing the existing and approved wireless communication facility sites operated by the applicant, and all other wireless communication facilities within a 5 mile radius of the proposed site. 6. Details and specifications for exterior lighting. 6 7.A collocation feasibility study that adequately indientes ealleention efforts were M and states the reasons °°"eentio • eon or cannot oeeu-addressing the Collocation Standards in Section 18.72.180.D.3. 8. For applications not involving collocation, a third party professional verification analysis providing an independent evaluation of the applicant's data, engineering analysis, and collocation study. Prior to commencement of work on the third party verification analysis, the Community Development Director shall approve either the firm or consultant responsible for preparing the professional verification analysis, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7 9.A copy of the lease agreement for the proposed site showing that the agreement does not preclude collocation. 8 IO.Documentation detailing the general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate. 9 11.Any other documentation the applicant feels is relevant to comply with the applicable design standards. 4-0 12.Documentation that the applicant has held a local community meeting to inform members of the surrounding area of the proposed wireless communication facility. Documentation to include: a. a copy of the mailing list to properties within 300' of the proposed facility. b. a copy of the notice of community meeting, mailed one week prior to the meeting. c. a copy of the newspaper ad placed in a local paper one week prior to the meeting. d. a summary of issues raised during the meeting. 13. Findings addressing the design standards in Section 18.72.180.D. E D. Design Standards - All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 1. General Provisions a. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. At the time of building permit application, written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Aeronautics Section of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communication Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency, or that the facility is exempt from regulation. b. All associated transmittal equipment must be housed in a building, above or below ground level, which must be designed and landscaped to achieve minimal visual impact with the surrounding environment. c. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zoning district. d. MIC F Wireless communication facilities shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its intended use. A submittal verifying the proposed height and mass shall be prepared by a licensed engineer. Page 4 of 8 e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. e f. Signage for wireless communication facilities shall consist of a maximum of two non- illuminated signs, with a maximum of two square feet each stating the name of the facility operator and a contact phone number. f g.Applicant is required to remove all equipment and structures from the site and return the site to its original condition, or condition as approved by the Staff Advisor, if the facility is abandoned for a period greater than six months. Removal and restoration must occur within 90 days of the end of the six month period. h. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. 2. Preferred Designs. The following preferred designs are a stepped hierarchy, and the standards shall be applied in succession from subsection a to e, with the previous standard exhausted before moving to the following design alterative. For the purpose of Section 18.72.180, feasible is defined as capable of being done, executed or effected; possible of realization. A demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished. a. Collocation. Where possible, the use of existing WC-F sites for new installation shall be enectur-aged. Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the preferred option. Where technically feasible, collocate new facilities on pre- existing structures with wireless communication facilities in place, or on pre- existing towers. b. Attached to Existing Structure. If (a) above is not feasible, WC wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. c. Alternative Structure. If(a) or(b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed WIF wireless communication facilities. d. Freestanding Support Structure. If(a), (b), or (c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached antenna design is not feasible. e. Latfiee tower-s tire prohibited as freestanding wireless eemmuniention supper struetures. 3. Collocation Standards. a. The collocation feasibility study shall: 1) document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable; 2) demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that meet the applicant's service coverage area needs; and 3) document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. b. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approving authority, upon submittal of a third party professional verification analysis of the applicant's data or engineering evaluation that demonstrates collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following conditions exist: Page 5 of 8 i. a significant service gap in coverage area ii. sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers iii. structural support requirements cannot be met iv. collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction or other radio frequency interference c. Prior to commencement of work on the third party verification I analysis, the Community Development Director shall approve either the firm or consultant responsible for preparing the professional verification analysis, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 3 4.1-andscaping. The following standards apply to all •'G wireless communication facilities with any primary or accessory equipment located on the ground and visible from a residential use or the public right-of-way. a. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. b. The perimeter of the MIC wireless communication facilities shall be enclosed with a security fence or wall. Such barriers shall be landscaped in a manner that provides a natural sight obscuring screen around the barrier to a minimum height of six feet. c. The outer perimeter of the MIC wireless communication facilities shall have a 10 foot landscaped buffer zone. d. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. e. One tree shall be required per 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone to provide a continuous canopy around the perimeter of the " wireless communication facilities. Each tree shall have a caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. 4 S.Visual Impacts a. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall be integrated into the existing building architecturally and, to the greatest extent possible, shall not exceed the height of the pre-existing or alternative structure. b. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the area of minimal visual impact within the site which will allow the facility to function consistent with its purpose. c. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall have a non- reflective finish and color that blends with the color and design of the structure to which it is attached. d. MIC F Wireless communication facilities, in any zone, must be set back from any residential zone a distance equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement may be reduced if, as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated through findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject to the setback requirement. e. Exterior lighting for a WC wireless communication facility is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. Page 6 of 8 f. All wireless communication support structures must have a non-reflective finish and color that will mitigate visual impact, unless otherwise required by other government agencies. g. Should it be deemed necessary by the Hearing Authority for the mitigation of visual impact of the WC wireless communication facility, additional design measures may be required. These may include, but are not limited to: additional camouflage materials and designs, facades, specific colors and materials, masking, shielding techniques. a. Eneh addition of an antenna to an existing MICF requires a building permit, unless the additional antenna inereases the height of the Neilify moire than ten feet b. Addotion of antennas to an existing WGF that inereases the everall height of the fneili", more than ten feet is subjeet to a site review. D. All installation of wireless eommuniention systems shall be subjeet to the require mO–A.s � Seetfin-H ifl- addition to all applienble Site Design and Use Standards and are subjeet to the following approval proeess, Zoning Designation Affnehed to Alter-native Freestand*n Existi" StruetureS suppor Strnetures Strnetures Residenfial Ze- C44-P Prohibited Prohibited C-4 CU CAP Prohibited (2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited WP Site Review Site 4 ('Site Review Site Review M4 Site Review Site Review CUP S" Site COT COT NAI (North Mountain grohiiTbiited Prohibited Prohibited Historie m CVPp Prohibited Prohibited A 1 (Airport Overlay) CO"r COT CUP HC.� (Health Care) CU-lEt Prohibited Prohibited CM NC CUP CAP CUP CM OE Site Review Site Review CUP GM Cj Site Revie w Site Review CUP CM MU CUP CUP CU-P 01114 Os Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Page 7 of 8 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. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code. and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 22-23) 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 12011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of '12011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 8 of 8 CITY OF ASHLAND RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION #2011-01175 PLANNING ACTION: #2010-01175 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance including Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in Chapter 18.72. The proposed code amendments are intended to reflect the Council's interpretation and application of collocation provisions reflected in their decision of a wireless communication facility in November 2010(PA#2009-01244). DATE ITEM PAGE# 10/25/11 Planning Commission's Recommendation 14 10/13111 Newspaper Notice of Council Hearing 5 10/11/11 Planning Commission Minutes 6-10 10111/11 Exhibit#1 submitted at Oct. 11 Public Hearing 11 10111/11 Speaker Request Forms 12-13 10111/11 Planning Commission Packet Agenda 14 -Staff Report 15-19 Proposed Ordinance Amendments 20-28- -City Council Findings for PA#2009-01244 2946 Respect Ashland Coalition submittal 47-51 -Sep. 13,2011 Planning Commission Minutes 52-53 Aug.23,2011 Planning Commission Minutes 54-56 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION City of Ashland,Jackson County,Oregon October 11,2011 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION#2011-01175,A REQUEST TO ) AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS ) COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN 18.72.180 OF THE ) ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE(ALUO)TO ADDRESS THE ) CITY COUNCIL'S INTEPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF )RECOMMENDATION COLLOCATION PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN THEIR DECISION ) IN NOVEMBER 2010(PA#2009-01244). ) APPLICANT: City of Ashland ) RECITALS: 1) The application is to amend the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the ALUO. The proposed code amendments are intended to address the City Council's interpretation and application of the collocation provisions included in their decision on PA#2009-01244 in November 2010. 2) The requirements for a Legislative Amendment are described in 18.108.170 and 18.08.345 as follows: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions.A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B.A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission,or by application of a property owner or resident of the City.The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval,or modification of the proposed amendment. C.An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered.The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment,the Commission shall hold a public hearing.After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission,the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. PA 42011-01175 Development standards for Wireless Communication Facilities Amendments October 11,2011 Page 1 1 E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request,except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. SECTION 18.08.345. Legislative amendment. An amendment to the text of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the zoning map,comprehensive plan maps or other official maps including the street dedication map described in section 18.82.050,for land involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships. 3) The Planning Commission,following proper public notice,held a public hearing on October 11,2011,at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission held their deliberations and recommended to the City Council approval of the proposed amendments to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the ALUO. Now,therefore,The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland recommends as follows: SECTION 1.EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to this recommendation, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony.will be used. SECTION 2.RECOMMENDATION 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a recommendation based on the Staff Report,public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. The' public hearing at the Planning Commission on October 11, 2011 was noticed in the newspaper as required in 18.108.170.D. 2.2 The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) preserves state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions for personal wireless service facilities,but sets forth limitations on that authority. Specifically, a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services,may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,must act on applications within a reasonable period of time, and must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency(RF) emissions,assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules. Within the local authority over zoning and land use decisions provided for in the Act,the proposed ordinance revisions have been drafted to provide amendments consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the ordinance to "establish standards that regulate.the placement, PA#2011-01175 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities Amendments October 11,2011 Page 2 I 2 i appearance and impact of wireless communication facility while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support." 2.3 The November 2010 City Council findings relating to the denial of the application for a wireless facility identified a number of code provisions that could be further clarified. Specifically,the Council found the Preferred Designs section is intended "to be more rigorously applied to regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities in a manner which minimizes visual an aesthetic impacts to the greatest extent possible in keeping with the declared purpose and intent describe in ALUO 18.72.180.A,while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the serves that these facilities support." The Preferred Designs section was found to be intended to outline a stepped hierarchy in which an application must demonstrate the first collocation standard is not feasible before moving on to the next design option. The-Council went on to define"feasible", and said that a demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing that a design option is not capable of being done, rather than an applicant simply saying it would be difficult to make use of an alternative. Finally, the Council found that the collocation study submitted with an application must demonstrate the applicant made a reasonable effort to locate other potential collocation sites that meet the applicant's service objections and clearly identify why those sites are also not feasible. The Planning Commission finds the proposed ordinance amendments address each of these areas to provide greater clarity to ensure future applications for wireless facilities provide an adequate collocation study and recognize that the Preferred Design standards in Chapter 18.72.180 are rigorously applied to establish a stepped hierarchy regulating placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities. 2.4 The Planning received comments at the public hearing regarding the proposed amendment that would require a third party professional verification analysis to be approved by the Community Development Director in 18.72.180.C.8 on page 4 of the draft ordinance. The testimony indicated a concern that this approach did not create enough separation between the third party professional and the applicant, and that the City "should pay the bill" to maintain impartiality in the third party professional analysis. The Commission expressed concern, and asked that this item be noted. SECTION 3.DECISION ° 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Action#2011-01175 which includes the amendments to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the ALUO to address the City Council's interpretation and application of collocation provision included in their decision in November 2010 (PA 42009-01244). PA 42011-01175 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities Amendments October 11,2011 Page 3 3 Planning Commission Approval Date PA#2011-01175 Development S6mdards for Wireless Communication Facilities Amendments October 11,2011 Page 4 4 ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE On November 1,2011,the Ashland City Council will hold a public hearing regarding PA-201 I- 01175,a proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance including Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in Chapter 18.72 and Chapter 18.108 Procedures. The public hearing will be held on November 1, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center Council Chambers located at 1175 E. Main St., Ashland, OR. The purpose of the hearing is to take public testimony and for the City Council to discuss and deliberate the proposed ordinance revisions. The proposed ordinance amendments are available for review on file at the City of Ashland Department of Community Development located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Copies of the ordinance and file information are available for purchase if requested. For additional information concerning this ordinance call the Ashland Planning Department at 541-488-5305. Oral and written public testimony regarding this matter will be accepted at the public hearing on November 1,2011.Written statements are encouraged and may be submitted prior to the hearing date. Mail written comments to Maria Harris,Planning Manager, City of Ashland Department of Community Development,20 E.Main St.,Ashland OR 97520,via FAX at 541-552-2050, or via E-mail at harrism(aIashland.or.us. Failure to raise an issue in person or in writing prior to the close of the public hearing with sufficient specificity to provide the reviewing bodies opportunity to respond to the issue may preclude your opportunity for appeal on that issue. By the order of Bill Molnar,Community Development Director In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,if you need special assistance to participate In this meeting,please contact the City Administrator's office at(541)488-6002(TTY.phone number 1-800-735-2900).NotifIcaflon 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessiblllty to the meeting(28 CFR . 35.102-35.104 ADA Tlde I). Publish: Friday, October 21 E-mailed: October 13, 2011 Purchase Order: #91386 5 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 11,2011 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Eric Heesacker Maria Harris, Planning Manager Pam Marsh Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner- Debbie Miller April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mick Church Russ Silbiger,absent ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the.City Council has passed first reading on an ordinance that clarifies commission quorum requirements. He stated second reading with happen on October 18 and the ordinance will go into effect on November 18. Mr.Molnar explained the Council has determined a"quorum"to mean more than half of the total authorized members.To this end,the Planning Commission will need a minimum of 5 members present to hold a meeting once the ordinance goes into effect. - It was noted that the Commission had previously discussed changing its membership from 9 to 7 members.The Commission . discussed their preferences and Commissioner Dawkins was appointed to speak with the Mayor and find out what they need to do to make the change to-7 members. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes.. 1. September 13,2011 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to approve the Consent Agenda.Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion pa ssed 4.0.(Marsh abstained) PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION:#2011.01174 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the zoning map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance(ALUO)to create a Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone and accompanying ordinance amendments designed to support and build unique neighborhood character by promoting concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to support more walking;bicycling and transit use. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation on the Pedestrian Places project. She explained the goal is to encourage the development of small,walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage walking,cycling, and transit use.She stated this project looked at how we can improve the land use Ashland Planning Commission October 1 t, 2011 Page 1 of 5 6 ordinance to support the development of these places and also what kinds of transportation projects are necessary. She stated the Transportation System Plan(TSP) Update is looking at the transportation component,and the focus of the Planning Commission has been on revisions to the zoning and land use ordinance. She stated the consultants conducted a review of the Ashland land use code and found the existing design standards are largely supportive of transit oriented development and are pedestrian oriented; however they did have some recommendations including creating a pedestrian places overlay and to amend the land use ordinance in five key areas: 1)increase the allowable Floor to Area Ratio(FAR), 2)decrease the maximum building setback, 3)require a minimum building heig ht,4)revise the landscape requirements,and 5)reduce the parking requirements. Ms. Harris stated the packet contains four ordinances that break down these pieces and stated the three locations chosen for this project are: 1)North Mountain and East Main, 2)Walker and Ashland, and 3),Tolman Creek and Ashland. She added these areas were chosen in part because they all have development or redevelopment potential and clarified if the community would like to apply this concept in other areas of town the overlay ordinance can be tailored to accommodate this. Ms.Harris reviewed the overlay map and proposed land use code amendments. She commented on the concept plans and clarified the circulation opportunity maps are not proposed to be adopted in this'package and are being coordinated through the TSP process. Ms:Harris provided a recap of the actions and outreach that have led up to this public hearing and stated tonight staff is as king the Planning Commission to make their final recommendation to the City Council. Public Testimony Commissioner Marsh noted the letter submitted by CSA Planning anc!'Ms. Harris wa' asked to provide a brief summary of the issues raised. Don Blaser11800 Rogue River Dr, Eagle Point/Stated he represents Summit Investments,who own a collection of properties including BiMart and Shop'n Kart. He stated the owners are in the process of determining whether to undertake a major revitalization project and a big part of that decision will depend on whether they can sustain a working relationship with the City. He stated they have engaged CSA Planning to assure their future revitalization project will be consistent with Ashland's plans. He noted CSA Planning has submitted comments into the record and hopes the items listed will be addressed. Jay Harland/4497 Brownridge.Terrace,Medford/CSA Planning/Spoke regarding the issues raised in his letter, including: Street Cross Sections—Mr. Harland recommended eliminating the street cross-sections in the concept illustrations and recommended inserting a reference to the applicable TSP section.instead. Maximum Setback—Mr. Harland stated th_ey,do not object to the,policy objective but believe a 5-foot setback is overly aggressive and could create conflicts with Public Utility Easements. He suggested a 10-foot setback was more appropriate and would still accomplish the"policy objective. Floor Area Ratio—Mr.Harland stated their main question is"what is a shadow plan?"and recommended they better describe what this is and the intent. Parking Management Strategy—Recommended the Transit Facility parking credit connect to the TSP and not be tied to RVTD's service frequency. Contiguous Parking Areas—Stated property measuring a third of an acre for a site plan could be challenging and recommended they use the language from Section II (C-2c)of the Detail Design Standards which has a clearer way of addressing the same design objective.- Overall, Mr. Harland stated they are supportive of the proposed changes and stated the reorganization makes it much more readable and usable. Chris Hearn/5115 E Main Street/Stated he is speaking on behalf of IPCO and the Brombacher family. Mr.Hearn noted he has expressed their concerns at previous meetings and agreed with the issues raised by the previous speaker. Mr.Hearn noted most of the Brombacher's property has been removed from the proposed overlay, and understands the road connections will be addressed during the TSP process. He staled their remaining concerns are: 1)how will the new standards impact the DMV building and it's tenants should they want to expand in the future,and 2)asked whether a strip of the Brombacher's land is included in the overlay zone or whether the overlay map line matches up with the property line. Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission October 11. 2011 Page 2 of 5 7 Ms. Harris commented on the questions raised by Mr. Hearn. In terms of the DMV property, she explained this land is already inside the Detail Site Review Zone and therefore is already subject to those standards. She stated the DMV office is considered a nonconforming building and if an expansion takes places,whatever percentage the building is increased, an equal percentage of the site must be brought into conformance with the current standards. Regarding the IPCO property, staff clarified the final plan shows tax lot 500 outside of the pedestrian overlay. Commissioner Marsh noted the email submitted into the record from Janet Rueger and summarized her comments. Deliberations &Decisions Commissioner Marsh recommended they make a list of the items they wish to discuss. Parking Lot Size,Transit Service issue, Defining a Shadow Plan,and Setbacks were identified for discussion. Divide Parking Areas Ms.Harris clarified this language comes from the State's model code and requires:parking lots that are larger than 50 spaces to be broken up and listed ways this could be accomplished. No objections were Voiced to the language as proposed. Transit Facilities Credit Ms. Harris explained a more frequent level of transit service could warrant a reduction in required parking spaces,and inversely if you have infrequent transit service customers will likely drive to the location and therefore sufficient parking should be provided. She stated if the Commission does not agree with this concept they have the ability to modify or remove this language.Commissioner Marsh questioned whether they want to allow transit services to be built in lieu of parking in locations where there isn't some minimal transit service to begin with. CommissionerHeesacker commented that he does not support eliminating parking based on some aspiration of future,potential service. Staff clarified this'is a maximum 10%reduction, so a 20-space requirement could be reduced to 18 spaces.The Commission discussed what would happen if transit services are decreased after an application is submitted. It was agreed that.the intent is that if an application is submitted at a time when the transit is provided then the applicant should not be penalized if this changes during the processing of their application. Shadow Plans and FARs Suggestion was made to add clarifying language that better'ecplains the intent of a shadow plan is to show that the proposed development will not prevent.the full build out of the lot.Commissioner Marsh questioned if they should outright require.5 FAR,instead of allowing de've'lopment that does not meet a .5 FAR initially,which is how the language is currently written. Recommendation was made to require vacant lots to be built to the .5 FAR standard, but allow existing properties to develop over time as long as they,are moving`more tow ards'confo'king General support was voiced to this concept. Setbacks The Commission discussed whether'a.5-foot setback is too narrow. Staff clarified this is the distance between the sidewalk and the front of the building,not the distance between the building and the street.Commissioner Dawkins voiced his preference to either increase the setback or have no setback at all. He added 5 feet is not enough room to accommodate plantings. Commissioner Marsh staled their goal is to encourage pedestrians and to do this you need to be able to see inside windows and feel the protection of the building. Final Comments Commissioner Dawkins explained why he believes the Tolman Creek/Ashland intersection should be removed from the Pedestrian Places project.He staled this is not an appropriate location for a pedestrian place because it is so close to the freeway and stated this area will continue to be auto-centric simply because of its location. Comment was made that if the Croman property develops as planned this will further impact the truck traffic into that area. Commissioner Heesacker questioned removing this area from the plan this late in the process and asked if there would be backlash from the neighbors. Commissioner Marsh disagreed with removing this area from the plan and stated there is tremendous potential for this area and noted the huge residential areas surrounding this intersection; however in order to move this forward,she suggested they compromise and include the properties on the west side of the intersection only. Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2011 Page 3 of 5 8 Commissioners Miller/Mindlin mis amend the Tolman CreeklAshland concept drawings to include only the properties on the west side of Tolman Creek.DISCUSSION: Ms. Harris asked them to consider how people will move from north to south, and east to west. She explained this project is not just about land use but about the circulation of that intersection as a whole.Commissioner Marsh suggested including the intersection in the plan so that the public improvements can still take place.Commissioners Miller/Mindlin mis to amend motion to include the four corners of the intersection.Roll Call Vote on motion as amended:Commissioners Dawkins,Heesacker,Miller,Mindlin,and Marsh,YES. Motion passed 5.0. Commissioners Mindlin/Miller mis to recommend adoption of the Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone and four ordinances with the change to the Tolman Creek/Ashland intersection plan and the amendment to the FAR requirement to state on vacant lots with new development there is a.5 FAR standard,and on redevelopment projects that are nonconforming there is a shadow plan requirement showing that the.5 FAR can be met over time.Roll Call Vote:Commissioners Miller,Heesacker,Dawkins,Mindlin,and Marsh,YES.Motion passed 5.0. B. PLANNING ACTION:#2011.01175 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance including Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in Chapter 18.72.The proposedjcode amendments are intended to reflect the Council's interpretation and application of collocation provisions reflected in their decision of a wireless communication facility in November 2010(PA#2009.01244).' Planning Manager Maria Harris stated the ordinance before the Commission amends AMC Chapter 18.72 to solidify the Council's decision that: 1)the Preferred Designs section is intended to outline a stepped hierarchy in which an application must demonstrate the collocation standard is not feasible before moving on'tolhe next design option,2)feasibility is defined to mean a substantial showing that a design option is not capable of being done, rather than an applicant stating it would be difficult to make use of an alternative,and 3)the collocation study submitted with the application must demonstrate the applicant made a reasonable effort to locate other potential collocation sites that meet the applicant's service objectives and clearly identifies why alternate sites are not feasible. In addition, Ms. Harris stated in response to the proposals put forward by Rod Newton and James Fong,the ordinance includes a submittal requirement for a third party analysis if the applicant is asking to not collocate, and the personor agency conducting this analysis must be approved by the Community Development Director. Public Testimony James Fong/759 Leonard and'Rod.NewtoN1651 Siskiyou BIJd/Mr. Fong and Mr. Newton voiced support for the proposed ordinance, but recommended amending Section 18.72.180.D(3_i)to'read"a significant service gap in coverage sufficient enough to prevent the City from meeting its requirements under the 1996 Telecommunications Act."Mr. Fong stated inserting this language'adds clarity and believes it would add protection to the City. In addition, Mr. Fong stated he supports the language regarding the third party analysis but voiced concern with whether this creates sufficient separation since the applicant would be paying the consultant.Other than these two items,support was voiced for the proposed ordinance and Mr. Fong and Mr. Newton thanked staff and the Commission for their work on this. Deliberations& Decisions Staff was asked to comment on why they did not tie the ordinance to the Federal Communications act. Ms. Harris explained staff consulted with the City Attorney and the primary reasons for not doing this are: 1)it would necessitate everyone involved with the action(applicant, staff;Planning Commission, neighbors)to be familiar with the act,2)the City's standards should be clear and objective; putting them'back on a Federal Act could be confusing for the applicants and those involved in the process,and 3)the Telecommunications Act is vague and is a moving bar tied to recent case law. Mr. Molnar stated the Council will likely grapple with this issue, and for this hearing staff wanted to stay within the charge they were given by the Council. The Commission asked staff to"red Flag"the concern about impartiality and how the third party is chosen,and agreed to let the City Council and City Attorney work through this item. Ashland Planning Commission October 1i, 2011 Page 4 of 5 9 Commissioners Miller/Dawkins mis to recommend approval of the ordinance and to red flag the professional third party verification requirement for the Council's discussion.Roll Call Vote:Commissioners Dawkins,Heesacker, Miller,Mindlin,and Marsh,YES.Motion passed 5.0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission October 11. 2071 Page 5 of 5 10 City of Ashland Planning Exhibit Updating Ashland's Cellular Antennae Installation Laws Exica„ .I PA#711V1- 11"15 Background o4,e1 l'-11-11 s'"rrA1� The Planning Commission is now in the process of updating the previous city ordinance so that it will be in alignment with the City Council's actions from November 1, 2010. These "housekeeping" updates are anticipated to come to the City Council for review and action in the coming weeks. Ordinance Enhancement Rationale 8 Proposal The Respect Ashland coalition of citizens request that the Planning Commission augment the Planning Department proposed updates with one additional phrase, "sufficient enough to prevent the city from meeting its requirements under the 1996 Telecommunications Act" after"because one or more of the following conditions exist" in section 3.b.1-IV of the code. Rationale The 1996 Telecom Act is complicated and fear of lawsuit based on the Act was an important consideration by the previous city attorney. Inserting the phrase "sufficient enough to prevent the city from meeting its.requirements under the 1996 Telecommunications Act' after"because one or more of the following conditions exist" should preclude the carrier from suing based on the city not complying with the act.The city would be, by definition, in compliance with the Act. It would also shift the burden of proof to the applicant to show that the city is not compliance with the Act. This gives the city as much latitude and discretion as possible under the law. Consequences of Inaction If the Planning Commission chooses not to seize this "opportunity moment," the risks and potential costs to the City of Ashland could substantial. Cellular providers are facing ever-increasing demand to increase their service capacity and are actively seeking new antennae location sites within the City.The citizens of Ashland will continue to demand that public officials use every available avenue to balance the broad array of public need for cell tower placement with property value rights and all other legitimate concerns related to cell antennae placements. If the Planning Commission chooses not to act, the following consequences are likely: 6 The city remains vulnerable to lawsuit under the 1996 Telecom Act,thus diverting the City's i valuable time and financial resources from other important priorities. Cellular phone companies will be less certain what to expect in their application process. Citizens will continue to express concern and mount significant opposition to cell antennae placements. If detrimentally impacted, affected property owners will likely sue the City. Recommended Action Step That the Ashland Planning Commission initiate a process that will expeditiously put in place the ordinance update and enhancement recommended above. Respect Ashland Contact Information: Jim Fong 541.482.43811 Rod Newton 541.482.0670 I RESPECT ASHLAND • Cell Antennae Installation Code Update 1 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1)Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2)Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3)State your name and address for the record. 4)Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5)If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6)You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7)Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name _(please print) Address(no P.O.Box) 7 5/ L ti A( ybb S.77 X75/��G Pkone V. y�t•1{3ol Email 1bMt/P fan��lwlu.fi Tonight's Meeting Date I/ Regular Meeting Agenda item number ` ^ OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member(planning commissioner)with a conflict of interest or bias,please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful ofthe proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak a-participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and nray constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 12 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1)Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3)State your name and address for the record. 4)Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5)If you present written materials,please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6)You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7)Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name.. -F06 IJ� C�N (Please print) A dd ress(no P.O.Box) //...; .. �'��...$K`.i Email Tonight's Meeting Date 7e�1 f /l I 1/ Regular Meeting Agenda item number '/. 3. OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member(planning commissioner)with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meelings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda itenns and during public forunn on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or.participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. - 13 Note: Anyone wishing to speal, any Planning Commission meeting Is encoura.,, to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and,after you have been recognized by the Chair,give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 11,2011 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. September 13, 2011 Regular Meeting IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01174 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the zoning map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to create a Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone and accompanying ordinance amendments designed to support and build unique neighborhood character by promoting concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to support more walking, bicycling and transit use. B. PLANNING ACTION:#2011-01175 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Including Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in Chapter 18.72. The proposed code amendments are intended to reflect the Council's Interpretation and application of collocation provisions reflected In their decision of a wireless communication facility in November 2010(PA#2009-01244) VI. ADJOURNMENT C I T Y OF ASHLAND Ate, In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305(TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1). 14 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT October 11, 2011 PLANNING ACTION: 2011-001175 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ZONE DESIGNATION: Legislative Ordinance Amendment COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Legislative Ordinance Amendment ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Chapter 18.72.180 Site Design Review Development Standards for Wireless Communication REQUEST: To amend the development standards and submittal requirements for wireless communication facilities in Chapters 18.72.180 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance(ALUO). I. Relevant Facts A. Background Proiect History On November 2, 2010 the City Council made a final decision regarding a planning application to install rooftop wireless communication facilities at 1644 Ashland Street by Goodman Networks, Inc. for AT& T Wireless, LLC (PA 2009-01244). Upon review of the application and applicable development standards the Council found the standards to be ambiguous, and interpreted the Preferred Designs section (I 8.72.040C2) to be intended to outline a stepped hierarchy in which an application must demonstrate the first collocation standard is not feasible before moving on to the next design option. The Council went on to define "feasible", and said that a demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing that a design option is not capable of being done, rather than an applicant simply saying it would be difficult to make use of an alternative. Finally, the Council found that the collocation study submitted with an application must demonstrate the applicant made a reasonable effort to locate other potential collocation sites that meet the applicant's service objections and clearly identify why those sites are also not feasible. The Planning Commission held a study session on August 23, 2011 to review proposed ordinance amendments to Chapter 18.72, and continued their discussion to the regular Commission meeting on September 13, 2011. Public testimony was provided at the study session and is reflected in the attached minutes. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) preserves state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions for personal wireless service facilities, but sets forth specific limitations on that authority. Specifically, a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, may not Planning Action PA#2011-01175 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 5 15 regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, must act on applications within a reasonable period of time, and must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules. Within the local authority over zoning and land use decisions provided for in the Act, the proposed ordinance revisions have been drafted to provide amendments consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the ordinance to "establish standards that regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facility while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support". Such amendments will help ensure applicant submittals contain sufficient information to make a finding of compliance with the City's Development Standards for Wireless Facilities in compliance with the TCA of 1996. B. Description of the Proposal The November 2, 2010 findings relating to the denial of the application for a wireless facility identified a number of code provisions that could be further clarified in keeping with the declared purpose and intent described in ALUO 18.72.180.A. The ordinance amendments proposed address each of these areas to provide greater clarity to applicants to ensure future applications for wireless facilities provide an adequate collocation study and recognize that the Preferred Design standards in Chapter 18.72.180 are rigorously applied to establish a stepped hierarchy regulating placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities. Feasibility The development standards outlined in Chapter 18.72.180 include a Preferred Design section. This section includes the word "feasible"but this term is not explicitly defined within the ALUO. In their review of the above referenced planning action for a wireless facility the City Council defined feasible as being "capable of being done, executed or effected;possible of realization"Further the Council determined that in order to evaluate the feasibility of collocation sites an that an application shall demonstrate that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished. These definitions are incorporated into the proposed ordinance amendments in section 18.72.180.D.2. Collocation Study Co-location refers to the situation in which the operator of an existing wireless facility (e.g., tower) leases space on the facility to allow another carrier to add new cell attachments. Consistent with the Council's determination that an applicant shall demonstrate that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished a collocation feasibility study is required to ensure opportunities for collocation have been thoroughly examined before a new wireless facility can'be located within the City. The proposed ordinance expands the submittal requirements for a collocation feasibility study to more explicitly state what a collocation study shall contain (I 8.72.180D.3 as proposed). Review of a collocation study's findings and verifying that the determination that a "significant gap" in coverage exists requires technical expertise. As such expertise may Planning Action PA#2011-01175 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 5 16 not exist on staff with the City, the new ordinance language also provides for professional third party verification of the provider's data. The third party professional verification is subject to City approval prior to the commencement of the work. Miscellaneous Amendments In revising the ordinance to address the Council directives Staff has taken the opportunity to re-order the ordinance sections, correct for past scribers errors, and add minor provisions to maintain consistency within the ALUO. Such changes have not been presented to introduce new requirements. These changes include the following: The"Applicability" section (I8.72.180.B.I as proposed) has been relocated to immediately follow the Purpose and Intent section (I 8.72.180.A) for clarity. The specific requirements applicable to each zone either prohibiting installation of a wireless communication system, requiring a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) or requiring Site Review, have not been changed. The "Additional Provisions" section (18.72.180.B.2. as proposed) was a section of code that had been included in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance prior to adoption of Ord. 2951 effective 7/1/08. Prior to that ordinance amendment these "Additional Provisions" were originally included as footnotes to the table provided in 18.72.108.B.I- The footnote references were retained in the table itself, however the provisions themselves were inadvertently omitted from the final text. As proposed the ordinance amendment re- inserts these provisions as a specific section of code. These Additional Provisions include needed protections to ensure that the installation of wireless communication facilities is limited to only existing structures with a height exceeding 45'in residential zones (including replacement of existing poles, stadium lights,and towers), and upon buildings with a height of 50' in the downtown commercial zone. Without such provisions wireless communication facilities could potentially be located on any existing . structure regardless of height. The"Exemptions Section" (18.72.180133 as proposed) is effectively new language in the ordinance although it was drafted to replace the preexisting Collocation Standards 18.72.040.D.5 which were stricken. This existing provision established that additions to existing wireless facilities that increased the height of the facility by more than ten were subject to site review. Inversely, additions to existing wireless facilities that do not create an increase in height of the facility more than ten feet have been considered exempt form site review, and the new section more explicitly clarifies this provision. Further this new section now contains explicit language affirming that prior conditions of approval applicable to the existing wireless facility remain valid. II. Project Impact Providing greater clarity within the ordinance should function to better guide applicants through preparation of submittal information and as such streamline the Planning Application process. Collocation studies that adequately respond to the question of the feasibility of alternatives, with the data verified by a City approved third party, will better enable the Planning Commission and or City Council to determine whether applicable Planning Action PA#2011-01175 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report' Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 5 17 standards are met when reviewing future wireless communication facility proposals- Approval of the ordinance amendments to Ch 18.72.180 as proposed will have no financial impact to the City. Statewide Planning Program Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 —Land Use Planning, as well as Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statues requires a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land. Specifically, plans and implementation measures such as ordinances controlling the use and construction are permitted as measures for carrying out Comprehensive Plans. III. Procedural — Required Burden of Proof 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or_make - other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions.A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. ' B.A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission,or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing.After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. SECTION 18.08.345. Legislative amendment. An amendment to the text of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the zoning map,comprehensive plan maps or other official maps including the street dedication map described in section 18.82.050, for land involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships. Planning Action PA#2011-01175 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 5 18 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed revisions to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in Chapter 18.72 are based on the November 2, 2010 decision of City Council. The changes are limited in scope to specifically remedy deficiencies in the clarity of the ordinance that were exposed during the review of Planning Action 2009-01244. It is understood that the wireless communication industry is rapidly changing as is the technology utilized to provide such services. In the future, as technological changes continue to alter the methods by which wireless services are provided, the City may need to further explore revisions to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication to respond to such a change in conditions. Although the Planning Commission has received public testimony requesting an expansion of the scope of the amendments at this time, to more comprehensively reevaluate the ordinance in total, the proposed changes are limited to those amendments necessary to enact the Council's prior decision. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on November 1, 2011 to review the proposed ordinance amendments. Staff recommends approval and that the Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of revisions to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.72.180 ) as attached. Attachments: 18.72.108 Draft ordinance amendments Planning Commission Minutes 8/23/2011 and 9/13/2011 City Council PA#2009-01244 Findings dated Nov. 2, 2010 Respect Ashland coalition letter dated 9/13/2011 Planning Action PA 112011-01175 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 5 19 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN 18.72.180 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE Annotated to show deletiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold #ned4hfough and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as. though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Assn of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland City Council found AMC 18.72.180.C.2 to be ambiguous on its face, and interpreted this standard in the final decision on November 2, 2010 for the appeal of a Planning Action 2009-01244, a request to install rooftop wireless communications facilities on the existing building located at 1644 Ashland Street; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above- referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances based on the final decision of the City Council on Planning Action 2009-01244 at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments unanimously; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 1 20 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.72.180 [Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities]is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. A. Purpose and Intent - The purpose of this section is to establish standards that regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities, while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support. Because of the physical characteristics of wireless communication facilities, the impact imposed by these facilities affect not only the neighboring residents, but the community as a whole. The standards are intended to ensure that the visual and aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facilities are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, especially in or near residential areas. B. Applicability. 1. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of this section in.addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 2 21 M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM-MU CUP CUP CUP CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited 2. Additional Provisions. a. In residential zoning districts, wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section, existing structures shall include the replacement of existing Dole, mast or tower structures (such as stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of their previous use and wireless communication facilities. b. In the Downtown Commercial zoning district (C-1-D), wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet. c. With the exception of the C-1-D zoning district as described above, wireless communication facilities are prohibited in the Historic Districts, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Exemptions. Replacement of previously approved wireless communication facility components are permitted outright with an approved building permit, and are allowed without a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit as specified in the preceding subsection, provided that these actions: a. Do not create an increase in the height of the facility more than ten feet: and b. Conforms with the conditions of the previously approved planning actions and c. Do not cause the facility to no out of conformance with the standards of Section 18.72.180.D. U C. Submittals - In addition to the submittals required,in sSection 18.72.060, the following items shall be provided as part of the application for a wireless communication facility. 1. A photo of each of the major components of a similar installation, including a photo montage of the overall facility as proposed. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 3 22 2. Exterior elevations of the proposed wireless communication facility (min 3. A set of manufacturers specifications of the support structure, antennas, and accessory buildings with a listing of materials being proposed including colors of the exterior materials. 4. A site plan indicating all structures, land uses and zoning designation within 150 feet of the site boundaries, or 300 feet if the height of the structure is greater than 80 feet. 5. A map that includes the following information: a. the coverage area of the proposed wireless communication facility: and b_A map showing the existing and approved wireless communication facility sites operated by the applicant, and all other wireless communication facilities within a 5 mile radius of the proposed site. 6. Details and specifications for exterior lighting. 6 7.A collocation feasibility study that adequately indiGates GelleGatien efforts were madp and states the reasons GGlIeG2t*nn nan nF s;inpM essaraddressing the Collocation Standards in Section 18.72.180.D.3. 8. For applications not involving collocation, a third party professional verification analysis providing an independent evaluation of the applicant's data, engineering analysis, and collocation study. Prior to commencement of work on the third party verification analysis. the Community Development Director shall approve either the firm or consultant responsible for preparing the professional verification analysis 7 9.A copy of the lease agreement for the proposed site showing that the agreement does not preclude collocation. 8 10.Documentation detailing the general capacity of the tower in terms of. the number and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate. 9 11.Any other documentation the applicant feels is relevant to comply with the applicable design standards. 48 12.Documentation that the applicant has held a local community meeting to inform members of the surrounding area of the proposed wireless communication facility. Documentation to include: a. a copy of the mailing list to properties within 300' of the proposed facility. b. a copy of the notice of community meeting, mailed one week prior to the meeting. c. a copy of the newspaper ad placed in a local paper one week prior to the meeting. d. a summary of issues raised during the meeting. 13.Findings addressing the design standards in Section 18.72.180.D. G D. Design Standards - All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 1. General Provisions An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 4 23 a. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. At the time of'building permit application, written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Aeronautics Section of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communication Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency, or that the facility is exempt from regulation. b. All associated transmittal equipment must be housed in a building, above or below ground level, which must be designed and landscaped to achieve minimal visual impact with the surrounding environment. c. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zoning district. d. WCF Wireless communication facilities shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its intended use. A submittal verifying the proposed height and mass shall be prepared by a licensed engineer. e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. ef.Signage for wireless communication facilities shall consist of a maximum of two non-illuminated signs, with a maximum of two square feet each stating the name of the facility operator and a contact phone number. #q.Applicant is required to remove all equipment and structures from the site and return the site to its original condition, or condition as approved by the Staff Advisor, if the facility is abandoned for a period greater than six months. Removal and restoration must occur within 90 days of the end of the six month period. h. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. 2. Preferred Designs. The following preferred designs are a stepped hierarchy, and the standards shall be applied in succession from subsection a to e, with the previous standard exhausted before moving to the following design alterative. For the purpose of Section 18.72.180, feasible is defined as capable of being done, executed or effected: possible of realization. A demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished. a. Collocation. WheFe pessi ble, the use of existing WCF sites for "^•'^�° °h^" h^ ^ ^a Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the preferred option. Where technically feasible, collocate new facilities on pre-existing structures with wireless communication facilities in place, or on pre-existing towers. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 5 24 b. Attached to Existing Structure. If (a) above is not feasible, WCF wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. c. Alternative Structure. If (a) or (b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed WCF wireless communication facilities. d. Freestanding Support Structure. If (a), (b),,or (c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached antenna design is not feasible. e. 6att;a—tewers aFe prohibited as freestanding wireless 3. Collocation Standards. a. The collocation feasibility study shall: 1) document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable: 2) demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that meet the applicant's service coverage area needs: and 3) document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. b. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approving authority, upon submittal of a third Party professional verification analysis of the applicant's data or engineering evaluation that demonstrates collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following conditions exist: i. a significant service gap in coverage area ii. sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers iii. structural support requirements cannot be met iv. collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction or other radio frequency interference c. Prior to commencement of work on the third party verification analysis, the Community Development Director shall approve either the firm or consultant responsible for preparing the professional verification analysis. 3 4.1-andscaping. The following standards apply to all WCF wireless communication facilities with any primary or accessory equipment located on the ground and visible from a residential use or the public right-of-way. a. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. b. The perimeter of the WCF wireless communication facilities shall be enclosed with a security fence or wall. Such barriers shall be landscaped in a manner that provides a natural sight obscuring screen around the barrier to.a minimum height of six feet. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 6 25 c. The outer perimeter of the WGF wireless communication facilities shall have a 10 foot landscaped buffer zone. d. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. e. One tree shall be required per 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone to provide a continuous canopy around the perimeter of the WGF wireless communication facilities. Each tree shall have a caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. 4 5.Visual Impacts a. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall be integrated into the existing building architecturally and, to the greatest extent possible, shall not exceed the height of the pre-existing or alternative structure. b. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the area of minimal visual impact within the site which will allow the facility to function consistent with its purpose. c. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall have a non-reflective finish and color that blends with the color and design of the structure to which it is attached. d. WCF Wireless communication facilities, in any zone, must be set back from any residential zone a distance equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement may be reduced if, as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated through findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject to the setback requirement. e. Exterior lighting for a WCF wireless communication facility is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. f. All wireless communication support structures must have a non- reflective finish and color that will mitigate visual impact, unless otherwise required by other government agencies. g. Should it be deemed necessary by the Hearing Authority for the mitigation of visual impact of the WCF wireless communication facili , additional design measures may be required. These may include, but are not limited to: additional camouflage materials and designs, facades, specific colors and materials, masking, shielding techniques. building height of the faG-lity FneFe than ten feet la. Additinn of antpnna,; to an existing I.A.I[Cr. that the , unless the additional antenna the eveFall height of the faisil:t y mere than ten feet : ubjeGt to a site- - ivP--V r'PuIRF the reqUiFeme-nts; of this sen-tion in addition to all app"Gable Site Design An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 7 26 ttaehed to AlteFnatove FFeestandn AExisting St-UG`H-^6 Zoning esignati an Suppert StFU6t W es SStFUGtUFeS Rpskipniffial 7......sm Cu-P PF ted PFehibited G4 CUP GUP Prohibited CUP Prohibited Prohibited Slte-Rpvapm Site--RevieW CUP €-4 Site Review Site Review CUP M-4 S+te Rw4piA Soto Review CUP SAU Site Review CUP CUP PFohibited Prohibited Prohibited ) QJP PFGhib*ted PFGh1ibited A1 ( CUR CUP CUP WG (Health-Gage) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM GE Site Review Site RevieVM 6UP GIVI Gi Site Re a Q:1vrtc-rRevffie CUP M C1Y1 CUP CUP CUP CM AS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited 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. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 22- 23) 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 2011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12011. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 8 27 Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _day of 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 9 28 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND November 2nd,2010 -IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL ON THE RECORD OF THE PLANNING ) COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING ACTION#2009-01244,A REQUEST ) FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ) ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF ) ROOFTOP WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ON THE EXISTING ) ASHLAND STREET CINEMA BUILDING LOCATED AT 1644 ASHLAND STREET ) FINAL AND AN ASSOCIATED GROUND-MOUNTED ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT ) DECISION STRUCTURE. ) ) APPLICANTS: Goodman Networks, Inc. for AT&T Wireless, LLC ) This matter came before the City Council as an appeal on the record pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO, or AMC, Ashland Municipal Code) 18.108.110. The Planning Commission approved a request for Site Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Administrative Variance to the Site Design & Use Standards to allow the installation of rooftop wireless communication facilities on the existing Ashland Street Cinema building on July 13, 2010. An appeal request was timely received on July 28, 2010 from Christian E. Beam, attorney for the appellant Roderick J.Newton. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL: ALUO 18.108.11 O.A.2 requires that each appeal set forth "a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity." The four clearly and distinctly identified grounds for appeal in this case were: 1) Failure to provide a collocation study and meet the design standards criteria showing how collocation cannot occur(ALUO 18.72.180.13, and 18.72.180.C.2); 2)Failure to demonstrate that the application meets a Conditional Use Permit Criterion pertaining to adverse material effects on livability within the impact area when compared to the target use (ALUO 18.104.050.C); 3) Failure to provide a lease with the application (ALUO 18.72.180.B); and 4) Failure to meet the criteria for Administrative Variance to the required landscape buffer for the ground mounted WCF equipment structure(ALUO 18.72.090). The appellant also proposed to incorporate several other unspecified additional issues detailed in 28 pages of the nine sub-exhibits provided with the appeal. The Council finds that this attempt to incorporate additional appeal issues by reference to other documents is not a sufficiently clear and distinct identification of the grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity as required in the code, and as such any additional issues from. these sub-exhibits were not included as identified grounds for appeal. The Council finds that consideration of this appeal is therefore limited to the four appeal issues which were clearly and distinctly identified in the appeal request. I 100118275; 1 IPA#2009-01244 November 2,2010 Page 1 29 i A. OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION, RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA and COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS: 1) The subject property-is identified as Tax lot #6800 of Map 39 ]E 15 AB, located at 1644 Ashland Street and is zoned Commercial Retail (C-1). 2) The applicants requested Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to install rooftop wireless communications facilities (WCF) on the existing Ashland Street Cinema building located at 1644 Ashland Street, and to construct an associated ground-mounted accessory equipment structure. The proposed installation consists of 12 architecturally-integrated panel antennas. The application includes a request for an Administrative Variance from the Site Design and Use Standards' required landscape buffer for the ground-mounted accessory equipment structure. The subject property is located within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Ashland Boulevard Corridor, and the existing building is also subject to Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) Ile criteria for Site Review approval are described in Chapter 18.72.070 as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. A All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of This Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right- of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) 4) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in 18.104.050 as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property". C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target of the zone. When evaluating the effect of.the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the 100118275; 1 SPA P2009-01244 November 2,2010 Page 2 1 30 target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. ' Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. -Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of fatuities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 5) The Development Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities are described in AMC 18.72.180.0 as follows: 1. General Provisions - - - a. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. At the time of building permit application, written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the ' Aeronautics Section of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communication Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency, or that the facility is exempt from regulation. b. All associated transmittal equipment must be housed in a building, above or below ground level, which must be designed and landscaped to achieve'minimal visual impact with the surrounding environment. c. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zoning district. d. WCF shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its intended use. A submittal verifying the proposed height and mass shall be prepared by a licensed engineer. e. Signage for wireless communication facilities shall consist of a maximum of two non-illuminated signs, with a maximum of two square feet each stating the name of the facility operator and a contact phone number. f. Applicant is required to remove all equipment and structures from the site and return the site to its original condition, or condition as approved by the Staff Advisor, if the facility is abandoned for a period greater than six months. Removal and restoration must occur within 90 days of the end of the six month period. i ;001isz75;1 )PA#2009-01244 November 2,2010 Page 3 31 2. Preferred Designs a. Where possible, the use of existing WCF sites for new installations shall be encouraged. Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the preferred option. b. If(a) above is not feasible, WCF shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. C. If (a) or (b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with 'design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed WCF. d. If(a), (b), or (c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached antenna design is not feasible. e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. 3. Landscaping. The following standards apply to all WCF with any primary or accessory equipment located on the ground and visible from a residential use or the public right-of- way a. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. b. The perimeter of the WCF shall be enclosed with a security fence or wall. Such barriers shall be landscaped in a manner that provides a natural sight obscuring screen around the barrier to a minimum height ofsix feet. C. The outer perimeter of the WCF shall have a 10 foot landscaped buffer zone. d. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. e. One tree shall be required per 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone to provide a continuous canopy around the perimeter of the WCF. Each tree shall have a caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. 4. Visuallmpacts a. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall be integrated into the existing building architecturally and, to the greatest extent possible, shall not exceed the height of the pre-existing or alternative structure. b. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the area of minimal visual impact within the site which will allow the facility to junction consistent with its purpose. c: Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall have a non- reflective finish and color that blends with the color and design of the structure to which it is attached. 10011e275;i )PA#2009-01244 November 2,2010 Page 4 32 I d. WCF, in any zone, must be set back from any residential zone a distance equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement may be reduced if, as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated through findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject to the setback requirement. e. Exterior lighting for a WCF is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. f All wireless communication support structures'must have a non-reflective finish and color that will mitigate visual impact, unless otherwise required by other government agencies. g. Should it be deemed necessary by the Hearing Authority for the mitigation of visual impact of the WCF, additional design measures may be required. These may include, but are not limited to: additional camouflage materials and designs, facades, specific colors and materials, masking, shielding techniques. . 5. Collocation standards a. Each addition of an antenna to an existing WCF requires a building permit, unless the additional antenna increases the height of the facility more than ten feet. b. Addition of antennas to an existing WCF that increases the overall height of the facility more than ten feet is subject to a site review."(ORD 2802, S3 1997) 6) The criteria for an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards are described in AMC 18.72.090 as follows: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. 7) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on October 5`h, 2010 to consider the appeal,. at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Deliberations for the action were continued until the next regular meeting of the Council on October 19'h, 2010. At its regular meeting on October 19`h, 2010 the City Council upheld the appeal on one of the four identified appeal grounds. Council overturned the Planning Commission's approval, and denied the application for Site Review, Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Variance to install rooftop wireless communications facilities and an associated ground-mounted equipment structure. {00118275; 1 )PA #2009-01244 November 2, 2010 Page 5 i 33 As detailed more fully below, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission erred in its int6rpretation of the Development Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities in AMC 18.72.180.C.2.a, that the standards were substantially more rigorous than they had been interpreted to be in the Planning Commission's decision, and that the applicants failed to meet their burden of proof as to the design standards criteria with respect to collocation. References to the Planning Commission Record will be described herein by page number, preceded by the abbreviation"PCRec". B. COUNCIL FINDINGS ON APPEAL 1. Procedural matters, a. Timeliness of applicant's submittal in response to appeal. The Council finds that written arguments were to have been submitted not less than ten days prior to the October 5'h hearing, which in this case would have been no later than.Monday, September 271h, 2010,when calculated according to the methodology of ORS 174.210. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the applicant's representative has asserted that, despite timely mailing of notices by the City,they did not receive a copy of the appeal notice until Friday, September 24'h, 2010. As a result, the applicant was not able to submit written arguments until Wednesday, September 29`h, 2010. In light of the applicant's substantial interest in the proceedings and the fact that the applicant did not receive the mailed notice until very near the submittal deadline, the Council finds that it would result in fundamental unfairness to exclude these written arguments on a mere technical violation and that acceptance of these written arguments does not prejudice the substantive rights of other parties. The Council therefore accepts the applicant's September 291h argument submittals. b. Asserted bias of Council members. During the Council hearing, a citizen asserted that Council members could be biased based on whether they were customers of the applicant AT&T for their cellular telephone service, and on whether as a result they perceived that in fact there were problems with poor cell phone coverage in the area subject to this application. During Council deliberations, each Council member stated for the record that their individual cell phone service would not be a basis for their decision, and that they were capable of and in fact would decide this application on its merits and were free from any asserted bias. 2. Telecommunications Law Standards. In addition to the specific standards in the AMC, Council notes the application of two standards of federal law with respect to applications to site WCF. First, the Council recognizes that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expressly preempts local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply t00nsrts; i )PA#2009-01244 November 2, 2010 Page 6 34 with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions [47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)]. The Council finds that perceived health impacts are included within this prohibition. The Council therefore concludes that testimony and evidence in this case concerning the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions are not a basis upon which Council can make a decision; as such, Council specifically declines to consider all such evidence in evaluating this application. Second, the City Council further finds that the application as detailed in the whole record is intended to supplement or enhance the applicant's own service network, which provides services already within the City of Ashland. Nothing within the record indicates that the applicants are seeking to address a significant service gap; in fact, the applicants explicitly acknowledged in the appeal hearing that they do not have a significant service gap in the area. 3. Findings with respect to AMC criteria. a. Collocation standards. As noted above, there are four specific grounds for appeal in this case. The first appeal ground asserts both that the applicant failed to provide a sufficient application in the first instance, violating AMC 18.72.180.B.6, and that to the extent the applicant's later submissions attempted to cure this defect, they were insufficient to meet the applicant's burden of proof under this criterion. The Council notes at the outset that the purpose of the application submittal requirement is to ensure that the application is sufficient in substance in order to allow for the evaluation of the application against the substantive criteria. AMC 18.72.180.B's application submittal requirements are not stated as jurisdictional requirements. As such, the Council may not use these requirements as independent approval criteria against which the application must be measured. The applicant's initial submittal in this case was found to be insufficient by City staff, and was supplemented during the course of staffs review of the application. (PCRec 511, 769 and 1299, and pages immediately following each of these page numbers). Taken together, while as shown below the. Council determines that the submittals are insufficient to meet the applicant's burden of proof on the applicable approval criteria, the submittals are sufficient to allow for review of the application against those standards. The substantive standards relevant to this appeal ground are found at AMC 18.72.180.C.2, "Preferred Designs". As articulated more fully below, Council finds that this standard is ambiguous on its face, and that it must therefore be interpreted by the Council using its text, context and apparent purpose. The City Council finds that with regard to the primary ground for appeal, "Failure to provide collocation study and to meet the design standards criteria for collocation," the Planning Commission erred in its interpretation and application of the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities contained in ALUO 18.72.180.C. More specifically, the City 100119275;1 1PA#2009-01244 November 2,2010 Page 7 35 Council finds that the "Preferred Designs" are intended to provide a significantly more rigorous standard of review than was applied by the Planning Commission. The Council finds that the Preferred Designs standards of ALUO 18.72.180.0 are intended to be viewed within a broader context as a ladder or stepped hierarchy, and that these standards are to be more rigorously applied to regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless'communication facilities in a manner which minimizes visual and aesthetic impacts to the greatest extent possible in keeping with their declared purpose and intent described in ALUO 18.72.180.A, while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support. The Council finds that the application of these standards proceeds on a determination of feasibility, and that "feasible" is not explicitly defined within Ashland's Land Use Ordinance. The Council therefore finds that "feasible" shall be defined as "capable of being done, executed or effected;. possible of realization." The Council further finds that a demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing, and that an applicant cannot deem an alternative, such as a collocation site, to be not feasible simply because it would be difficult for the applicant to make use of that alternative. As such, an application must first provide,a collocation feasibility study as required in ALUO 18.72.180.B.6 which "adequately indicates collocation efforts were made and states the reasons collocation can or cannot occur." When considered within the hierarchy of preferred designs in ALUO 18.72.180.0 this study and other materials within the record must demonstrate not merely that the preferred option of collocation in ALUO 18.72.180.C.2.a is not ideal in meeting the applicants' objectives, but that collocation at the site is not feasible— as defined above - before the applicant may proceed to the next available option of placement on a pre-existing structure. The study also must demonstrate that the applicant made a reasonable effort to locate other potential collocation sites that would meet the applicant's service objections and clearly identify why those sites also are not feasible. The City Council finds that when viewed in light of this more rigorous application of the standards, the application as contained in the whole record fails to meet the burden of proof in demonstrating that collocation is not feasible. The Council, finds that while the applicants attempted to better address the feasibility of collocation with incremental submittals.through the application review and hearing process, the application materials provided are on the whole weak and contradictory; fail to clearly identify a consistent service objective and provide clear analysis of the feasibility of collocation proceeding from that objective; and flatly put are simply inadequate to demonstrate that collocation is not feasible. Early submittals by the applicants note that the Holiday Inn collocation site is "a reasonable location according to the search map. It is also possible to add false architectural elements to screen an installation at the Holiday Inn" (PCRec 1299)but remove it from consideration as.the, "slight increase in ground elevation, would make the projected signal coverage area of the Cinema installation larger and more efficient, potentially serving more customers. Further, when evaluating locations for radio equipment at the Holiday in, we discovered that the length of the coax run from the radio to the antennas would be much greater than the run designed for the loorla275;t-)PA#2009-01244 November 2, 2010 Page 8 36 Cinema. This additional length would result in an additional loss of signal, adding to the inefficiency of a possible Holiday Inn installation" (PCRec 1300). Later submittals state that "The collocation on the Holiday An Express could work purely from an RF perspective." (PCRec 769) but go on to indicate the site was rejected due to access difficulties likely to be encountered with the anticipated placement of the accessory equipment cabinet. The applicants final submittal notes that the Cinema installation "will provide a stronger RF signal that will cover more area.... will offoad more traffic than a site at the hotel.... [and] is predicted to provide in-building coverage" to both the Southern Oregon University campus and the 1-5 corridor, noting that the "cinema location meets these goals significantly better than the hotel location" (PCRec 515). The Council finds that while the applicants have demonstrated a number of justifications for their preference for the Cinema site, they have failed to adequately demonstrate that collocation on the existing Holiday Inn Express wireless communication facility installation on Clover Lane is not feasible, and have in fact indicated that this location is reasonable according to their search map and could work from a radio frequency standpoint. The Council finds that collocation is the preferred option under ALUO 18.72.180.C.2.a, that the hierarchy in preference of design options stated in the standards is essential in minimizing to the greatest extent possible the visual and aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facility installations in Ashland, and that without an adequate demonstration that collocation is not feasible as required in ALUO 18:72.180.C.2.b., this installation on a pre-existing structure cannot be approved. As a result of the findings above as to the first asserted ground for appeal, the Council therefore concludes that the appeal should be granted on this ground, resulting in reversal of the approval and denial of the application. b. Conditional Use Permit Criterion: Adverse Material Effects The second ground for appeal asserted by the appellant was that the application failed to meet AMC 18.104.050.C, requiring that the proposed use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. The Planning Commission found that this was a "comparison standard" that requires the City to contrast specific impacts resulting from the proposed use to the impacts if the site were developed to the target use for its C-1 zoning, which is retail use built to a floor area ratio of 0.35. The appellant does not disagree with this interpretation of the code,but rather argues that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's findings that the proposed use will not have a greater impact than if the site is developed for the target use. The Council finds that the Commission's findings extensively analyze each of the criteria listed in the code section and evaluate the impact of the proposed wireless communication facility as compared with development of the site for commercial retail use. (PCRec 467-472). The Council finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission, and hereby adopts the identified Planning Commission findings in their entirety. Those findings are appended to this Final Decision as Appendix A. 100nsn5;1 )PA#2009-01244 November 2,2010 Page 9 37 The Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied.I[PJBl1 c. Application submittal requirements The City Council finds that with regard to the third ground for appeal, "Failure to Provide a Lease with Application," the appellant argues that the applicant included neither a lease nor a collocation study which are required under ALUO 18.72.180.B. The Council finds that to the extent that the Commission findings address this issue, they conclude that the identified documents are submittal requirements rather than approval criteria. Therefore, whether or not they were provided with the original application, submittals cannot serve as grounds for a denial of the application. The Council finds that the code requires applicants to provide this information in order for the City to make a determination whether the application meets applicable approval criteria; however, the submittal requirements are not approval criteria in and of themselves. The Council further finds that the applicants did ultimately provide a copy of a lease that did not explicitly preclude collocation, although it placed a number of preconditions on collocation which the Commission found questionable (PCRec 463-64). Similarly, the Council finds that-the applicant provided materials to address collocation-which'the Commission initially found inadequate, and which the applicant subsequently supplemented during the hearing process (PCRec 462-63). The Council finds that by the time the Commission reached its decision, the study, as supplemented, provided the Commission with adequate information to determine compliance with the criteria. The Council therefore finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support a finding that the required items were submitted. As a result, the Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with regard to this appeal ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied. d. Administrative Variance: landscape buffering standards. The City Council finds that with regard to the final ground for appeal, "Failure to meet criteria for Administrative Variance to the landscape buffering standards for ground-mounted accessory equipment," the appellant argues that there is not substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission. The Council finds that the Commission's findings include a detailed discussion of the accessory equipment structure and why it meets the criteria for an Administrative Variance to the landscape buffering standards (PC Rec 474-76). In particular, the Commission found that the ten-foot landscape buffer required by the standards "would extend into the required clear width of'the alley, impeding vehicular circulation,fire access and service corridor access for loading [and] unloading." The Council hereby adopts the findings of the Planning Commission as to this appeal ground, which findings are appended to this Final Decision as Appendix B. The Council finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission on this matter. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied. I[PSe21 . 1oo118275;1 )PA#2009-01244 November 2,2010 Page 10 38 C. DECISION Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, and on the findings set forth above, the City Council concludes that the Planning Commission erred in its interpretation and application of the Development Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities in ALUO 18.72.180.C.2.a, that these standards are substantially more rigorous than they were applied in the Planning Commission's decision, and that the applicants have failed to meet their burden of proof in providing an adequate collocation study to satisfy the design standards criteria for collocation in ALUO 18.72.180.C. The City Council therefore grants the appeal as to the first appeal ground, denies the appeal as to the remaining three appeal grounds, and overturns the Planning Commission's approval for Site Review, Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Variance to install a rooftop wireless communications facilities. The application is denied. November 2, 2010 Wo Stromberg,Mayor Date r 'of Ashland 10ons275; 1 )PA#2009-01244 November 2,2010 Page 11 39 APPENDIX A Planning Commission Findings Regarding Conditional Use Permit Criteria Concerning`.`No Greater Adverse Effect on Livability"(PCRec 467-72) 9) AMC 18.104 C [No Greater Adverse Effect on Livability]: C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale,bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light,and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. Under the Ashland Municipal Code a Wireless Communications Facility is a conditional use; the existing development of the Ashland Shopping Center, some of which was accomplished before current regulations is primarily developed with permitted uses (e.g. the existing theater is a permitted use. AMC 18.32.020 D.). Only the addition of the WCF is currently before the Commission. This criterion [AMC 18.104 C] requires the proposed conditional use to have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than [as compared to] development of the subject property with the target use of the zone. The impact area is considered to be the adjacent properties and the notice area. [See description under III above]. The target use of the zone is commercial. Specifically, in C-1 target use is defined in AMC 18.104.020.13.4 as: B. "Target Use" -The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. 4. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity of.35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. AMC 18.32.020 B. provides: X00116275;1 )PA#2O09-01244 November 2,2010 Page 12 40 18.32.020 Permitted Uses The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: B. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, such as a department store, antique shop, artists supply store, and including a regional shopping center or element of such center, such as a major department store. Note: impacts of other permitted uses such as nightclubs and bars, AMC 18.32.020 K., mortuaries and crematoriums, AMC 18.32.020 F. are not used for the comparison. The livability criterion is simply a comparison of the impact s of the proposed use (wireless communications facility)relative to the impacts of the target use(retail commercial sales and services). The Commission, consistent with prior City Council decisions, expressly finds and determines that this criterion is not a "no adverse impact' standard. That is, contrary to assertions by opponents, the standard is not a standard requiring the reduction, minimization or mitigation of all adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Compare, the above target use comparison standard of"no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area" to the standard for an administrative variance, i.e. "Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties." The Commission expressly rejects assertions of a no adverse impact standard. The target use of the zone will [and does] have adverse impacts on livability to properties in the impact area, including architectural compatibility, noise, odor, light, glare, obstruction of views, dust, traffic, and other impacts typically associated with commercial use; the conditional use, which is also commercial and consists of a WCF installation [12 architecturally-integrated panel antennas) may have no greater adverse material effect than the target use. Accordingly, AMC 18.104.C. is a comparison standard. The proposed use is the addition of 12 architecturally integrated panel antennas into the Ashland Street Cinema structure in a penthouse element over the entry. The penthouse element raises the height of the roof peak at its highest point by approximately ten feet while complying with the forty-foot height requirements of the C-1 Zoning District. A small enclosure in the rear of the theater on the alley will house WCF equipment. Placement of architecturally integrated wireless communications facilities on the existing building and construction of an associated ground mounted accessory equipment structure at the rear of the building will have little or no adverse material effect on factors of livability as discussed below. Accordingly, the Commission finds and determines that the proposed conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than would development to the target commercial use of the zone. This criterion is met. Factors of livability are enumerated and compliance with the criterion is analyzed below: I 1. Scale,Bulk, and Coverage. The proposed use is the addition of 12 architecturally integrated panel antennas into the Ashland Street Cinema structure in a penthouse element over the entry. The penthouse element raises the height of the roof peak at its {00118275; 1 )PA 112009-01244 November 2,2010 Page 13 41 highest point by approximately ten feet while complying with the forty-foot height requirements of the C-1. A small-enclosure in the rear of the theater on the alley will house WCF equipment. The proposed architectural element is in compliance with setbacks and the maximum height permitted in the C-1 Zone. In terms of the target use, the proposed height, bulk, scale and coverage of the improvement is no greater than would be allowed for the target commercial retail use of the zone. Any obstruction of views is the same whether or not antennas are contained within the architectural feature. The proposal, as modified by Condition 13, is appropriate for the target use and is architecturally compatible with the bulk, scale, coverage and general commercial development patterns generally found in the target use. The findings of compliance under General Provision Lb. and 1.d. above are incorporated herein by this reference. Opponents argue the project (which increases the height of the existing building) is not similar in bulk and scale and must be denied. However, the criterion is not "the project must be similar in bulk and scale" the criterion involves a comparison of the bulk and scale of the proposed use in relation with the target use of the zone. The target use, also commercial, allows buildings 40 feet in height in accordance with the same setbacks as proposed here. Accordingly the proposed use and the target use have equal impacts on the impact area. The Planning Commission finds and determines that this criterion is met; the proposed use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than the development of the subject property with the target use of the zone. 2. Generation of Traffic and Effects on Surrounding Streets The proposed use is the addition of 12 architecturally integrated panel antennas into the Ashland Street Cinema structure in a penthouse element over the entry. A small enclosure in the rear of the theater on the alley will house WCF equipment. The WCF use does not require daily traffic trips by employees or customers and therefore will have negligible traffic impact on the surrounding transportafion system as compared to the target commercial retail use of the zone. The Planning Commission finds that wireless communications facilities and their associated accessory equipment will have essentially no traffic impact, including no associated parking demand, and no parking spaces are lost with the proposed installation. A condition has been added to require that adequate fire apparatus access be maintained in a manner consistent with city alley standards, and with condition 10, the Commission finds that the proposed installation will have no associated traffic impacts to surrounding streets. The Planning Commission finds and determines that this criterion is met; the proposed use will have nogreater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than the development of the subject property with the target use of the zone. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. .The findings set forth under Bulk, Scald, and Coverage above are incorporated herein by this reference as they relate to architectural compatibility. The Planning Commission finds and determines that this criterion is met; the proposed use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than the development of the subject property with the target use of the zone. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors,or other environmental pollution. The proposed use is the addition of 12 architecturally integrated panel antennas into the Ashland Street Cinema structure in a penthouse element over the entry. A small enclosure in the rear of the theater on the alley will house 100118275; 1 )PA#2009-01244 November 2, 2010 Page 14 42 WCF equipment. The proposed use vvill have virtually no generation of dust, odors or impact on air quality but certainly will have less environmental impact than the target commercial retail use of the zone (e.g. compare proposed use with impacts from parking lot traffic, air quality and odors from delivery vehicles, customer vehicles and employee traffic typically generated in commercial retail uses). The Planning Commission finds and determines that this criterion is met; the proposed use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than the development of the subject property with the target use of the zone. Finally, to the extent radio frequency emissions are considered by numerous opponents as "other environmental pollution"to be considered in the impact on livability comparison to the impacts from the target use of the zone, the Planning Commission expressly rejects consideration of RF emissions as part of this decision. The Planning Commission finds that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expressly preempts local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of alleged environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. The City may only ensure that such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions [47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)]. Accordingly, the Commission has imposed a condition that the applicants demonstrate compliance with FCC regulations at the time a building permit application is submitted, as required in AMC 18.72.180.C.1.a. The Planning Commission will not, as urged by some opponents, knowingly disregard limitations on local government authority contained in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. S. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The proposed use is the addition of 12 architecturally integrated panel antennas into the Ashland Street Cinema structure in a penthouse element over the entry. A small enclosure in the rear of the theater on the alley will house WCF equipment. The proposed use is architecturally compatible with the existing building and condition 5 requires that the proposed penthouse element and accessory equipment structure be painted and textured in a non- reflective finish and color. The proposed use will have virtually no generation of noise, light or glare and certainly will have less than the target commercial retail use of the zone (e.g. compare proposed use with impacts from parking lot lights, headlights and noise from delivery vehicles, customer vehicles and employee traffic typically generated in commercial retail uses). The Planning Commission finds and determines that this criterion is met; the proposed use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than the development of the subject property with the target use of the zone. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is the addition of 12 architecturally integrated panel antennas into the Ashland Street Cinema structure in a penthouse element over the entry. A small enclosure in the rear of the theater on the alley will house WCF equipment. The proposed use will have virtually no impact on the commercial development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use does not physically preclude or obstruct future development of permitted uses in the C-1 zoning district which fully implement the comprehensive plan. See list of permitted uses in AMC 18.32.020. The proposed use would appear to have much less impact on development of adjacent properties (less access and traffic generation conflicts), than development of the target use. (e.g. compare proposed use with impacts typically generated in commercial retail uses). To the extent opponents allege the impacts of the proposed use adversely impact the existing Holistic {00118275; 1 )PA#2009-01244 November 2,2010 Page 15 43 wellness uses in the impact area, the findings under 7 below (other factors) are incorporated herein by this reference. The Commission finds this conditional use will have no greater adverse affect on the livability of the impact area in terms of development of the adjacent properties than would full development of the site to its target commercial use. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The proposed use is the addition of 12 architecturally integrated panel antennas into the Ashland Street Cinema structure in a penthouse element over the entry. A small enclosure in the rear of the theater on the alley will house WCF equipment. Opponents urge adverse economic impact to adjacent properties as a factor under this approval criterion. The argument is that the proposed WCF use will have greater adverse material effect on the livability (economic losses to existing businesses in the impact area) when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target C-1 use of the zone. An example of this kind of adverse economic impact would be a conditional use which competed with impact area uses to a greater extent than target.0-1 uses would compete with impact area uses. However, as noted earlier, the standard is not - no adverse impact (economic or otherwise) on adjacent properties. The Commission recognizes that there is a specific cluster of existing land uses in place in the impact area which relate to holistic wellness. The Commission further finds that a significant, if not overwhelming, amount of the testimony provided by patrons, owners and employees of these businesses expressed opposition to the proposed conditional use based on perceived health impacts and environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions from wireless communications facilities. The patrons, owners and employees also expressed opposition to the proposed use because the natural consequence of the health and environmental concerns expressed over RF emissions is a loss of patronage of the holistic wellness businesses. The Commission considered the arguments by Opponents and finds and determines that the concern over economic impacts on the adjacent businesses is, in fact, inseparable from the concerns expressed over the health and environmental effects of Radio Frequency emissions. Stated another way, the adverse economic impact argument does not exist separate and apart from the prohibited consideration of impacts of RF emissions. As such, the argument cannot be considered due to the limitations imposed under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, (discussed above) and the Commission is compelled to decline to consider the economic impact argument under this criterion. i In sum, the Planning Commission expressly finds and determines that the proposed WCF use will not have any greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than the development of the property with the target commercial use of the zone. Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Applicant, the findings and responses in the Staff reports specifically incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission finds and determines that this criterion is met, or can be met with the imposition of conditions. 100118275;1 )PA 42009-01244 November 2, 2010 Page 16 44 APPENDIX B Planning Commission Findings Regarding Administrative Variance Criteria(PCRec 474-76) 11) The criteria for an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards are described in AMC 18.72.090 as follows: f A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the above referenced approval criterion for an Administrative Variance to Site Design and Use Standards, specifically for landscaping required in AMC 18.72.180C.3. are met in that the proposed use causes demonstrable difficulty in meeting the requirement, the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties,the variance is consistent with the purposes of the Chapter and the variance is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the demonstrable difficulty. The above finding is based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings and responses in the Staff reports and those findings and responses in support provided by the Applicant, specifically incorporated herein by this reference,as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record. The Planning Commission finds and determines that there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the Site Design and Use Standards landscaping requirements due to the unique and unusual aspect of the proposed use of the site. The proposed use requires ground mounted WCF equipment to support the WCF use which under AMC 18.72.180 C.3 above must be landscaped. The Commission finds that there is demonstrable difficulty in placement of such required.ground mounted WCF facilities and landscaping on a site adequate area for additional landscape buffering. The proposed use on the south side of the Ashland Street Cinema building off of a driveway that functions as an alley service corridor rather than as a primary circulation route for shopping center users is the area most suited for the essential ground placement of the equipment. There are similar structures already in place along this corridor, no parking spaces are lost with the proposed placement, and the location is better situated to mitigate any visual impacts to residents of the adjacent nonconforming Pines Trailer Park. (see below). The Commission further finds that the placement off of this alley precludes landscape buffering for the proposed accessory equipment structure because the required ten-foot width landscaping buffer would extend into the required clear width of the alley, impeding vehicular circulation, fire access and service corridor access for loading, unloading.. The Commission finds and determines that there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the landscaping requirement due to the proposed use. This criterion is met. The Commission finds and determines that approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties. The findings in the paragraph above, as well as General Provisions lb, are incorporated herein by this reference. The proposed structure mimics similar storage structures already in place on the south {o0nsns;1 )PA#2009-01244 November 2, 2010 Page 17 I 45. side of the building while maintaining the functionality of alley access, and that approval of the requested Administrative Variance would not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties due to the existing substantial landscaping in the form of large mature trees and shrubs located on the sloped area immediately south of the alley, which already effectively buffer views of the backside of the Ashland Street Cinema building. The Commission farther finds that the,view from the public right-of-way appears to be entirely screened by the existing buildings and landscaping in place to the south of the alley, and while the proposed accessory structure would potentially be visible from the residential units in the adjacent Pines Trailer Court, the spatial buffer provided, fencing in place between the properties, and design, color, materials and placement to match the existing storage structures all effectively mitigate visual impacts and amount to architectural integration of the accessory,equipment structure into the existing building in a manner in keeping with the purpose and intent of the standards. This criterion is met. The purposes of the Site Design and Use Chapter include reducing adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public, creation of a safe and comfortable business environment, energy conservation, enhancement of the environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use, and ensuring high quality development throughout the City. [See AMC 18.72.010]. 'This criterion is met based orf the specific findings of compliance with conditional use criteria set forth above, as well as the design standards and general standards set forth above and incorporated herein by this reference. Finally, the requested variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. The landscaping is unnecessary in this location..and the applicant has requested no more relief than is necessary to effectuate construction of the proposed use. The above finding is based on the detailed findings set ,forth herein, the detailed findings and responses in the Staff reports and those findings and responses in support provided by the Applicant, specifically incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record. I 100119275;1 )PA#2009-01244 November 2, 2010 Page 18 I 46 Updating Ashland's Cellular Antennae Installation Laws RECEIVED SEP 1 31011 Background In 2010, AT&T sought to place a new cell phone tower atop the Ashland Cinema complex on Highway 66. A significant number of Ashland citizen raised concern and opposition to this proposed installation at the Ashland Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission initially approved this application, only after considerable contention and concern over the appropriate interpretation of federal and local laws. Public concern coalesced into the Respect Ashland coalition, an effort spearheaded by Rod and Brooks Newton, proprietors of the Hidden Springs Wellness Center and appellant in the land use decision rendered by the Planning Commission. Upon appeal,the City Council ruled in favor of the appellant and clarified its interpretation of the co- location requirements in the existing ordinance and clearly articulated a definition for "feasibility"to match the definition as interpreted by the State of Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), overturning the previous Planning Commission decision to approve the application. The Planning Commission is now in the process of updating the previous city ordinance so that it will be in alignment with the City Council's actions from November 1, 2010. These "housekeeping" updates are anticipated to come to the City Council for review and action in the coming weeks. At its August 23rd Study Session meeting, the Planning Commission also deferred to the City Council for any decision on additionally requested enhancements to this ordinance update. Ordinance Enhancement Rationale Et Proposal The Respect Ashland coalition of citizens request that the City Council augment these proposed updates with an additional ordinance enhancement that will create greater clarity, predictability and appropriate accommodation that balances the need for cell tower placements with the values and interest of the citizens of Ashland. Timely action is critical, since cellular providers are actively seeking locations for new installations within the City. Rationale Through these enhancements, we believe that it is possible to create a pragmatic and reasonable framework that balances to currently conflicting interests and achieves the following: • Accommodate the need for additional cell phone tower placements to serve the citizens of Ashland. • Create clarity and predictability for cellular antennae applicants. • Respect and represent the legitimate concerns of the citizens of Ashland with regard to the appropriate placement of cell phone towers. • Work within the confines of federal law which prohibits the use of health concerns as a parameter in limiting the location of cell phone towers. • Protect the rights and property values of Ashland residents. • Protect the City of Ashland and its citizens from potential litigation from both cellular phone companies and property owners. • Save the City of Ashland and its citizens from the undue expense related to the costs associated with objectively determining the technical feasibility of co-locating cell antennae, as required under.Ashland City ordinance. i RESPECT ASHLANI?7• Cell Antennae Installation Code Update I 1 Proposal A. Update'the Ashland Municipal Code to reflect the City Council's interpretation of co-location and feasibility, using LUBA's definition of feasible. This update is already working its way through the Planning Commission and is anticipated to be brought for review and decision by the City Council in the coming weeks. B. Include, as part of this update, a requirement that the applicant deposit a fee that can be used by the city for an independent consultant and expert review of the application. Since cities lack the expertise to evaluate the technical engineering aspects of cell installation applications, it is becoming an emerging best practice for cities across the nation to enact laws that require an applicant fee/deposit to be used for independent consultants. Wireless industry groups have not objected to this requirement. We have contacted three cities with such provisions in their laws: Clifton Park, New York, Hempstead, New York and Cabot, Vermont. None of these cities have had any legal challenges in requiring the fee/deposit or using it. Appendix A provides details from this research.Josephine County is also drafting a revision to their law that includes this provision. Consequences of Inaction If the City Council chooses not to seize this "opportunity moment," the risks and potential costs to the City of Ashland are substantial. Cellular providers are facing ever-increasing demand to increase their service capacity and are actively seeking new antennae location sites within the City.The citizens of Ashland will continue to demand that public officials use every available avenue to balance the broad array of public need for cell tower placement with property value rights and all other legitimate concerns related to cell antennae placements. If the City Council chooses not to act,the following consequences are likely: • Cellular phone companies will be uncertain what to expect in their application process. • Citizens will continue to express concern and mount significant opposition to cell antennae placements. • If detrimentally impacted, affected property owners will likely sue the City, thus diverting the City's valuable time and financial resources from other important priorities. Other Future Considerations At a future date, Respect Ashland organizers will bring forward additional ordinance enhancements to more completely address the issue of cellular antennae site location. The improvements proposed above are short-term and a stop-gap measure. Ultimately, a more comprehensive framework is required- as technology continues to advance, demand continues to rise, and long-term placement issues have the potential to impact more and more citizens and property owners. Recommended Action Step That the Ashland City Council initiate a process that will expeditiously put in place the ordinance update and enhancement recommended above. Respect Ashland Contact Information: Jim Fong 541.482.4381 1 Rod Newton 541.482.0670 RESPECT ASHLW • Cell Antennae Installation Code Update 2 Appendix A Attached below are notes from the phone conversations with other cities along with the excerpted section of their laws. These cities operate under similar 120 day response requirements to land use applications as we do in Oregon. Clifton Park, New York Called 1/6/11-Talked with Planning Director-John Scavo.Their law has had no challenges and has become a model in NY State. They have received feedback from attorneys for cell companies who haven't challenged the deposit for independent consultants. http://www.cnweekly.com/articles/2008/09/19/top stories/20080919- a rch ive0.txt?viewmod a=fu I Istory http://www.ecode360.com/?custld=CL1051 Fees. At the time that a person or entity submits an application fee for a special use permit for a new communications tower, such person or entity shall pay a single, nonrefundable application fee of $5,000. If the application is for a special use permit for co-locating on an existing communications tower or tall structure, where no increase in height of the tower or structure is required,the application fee shall be $2,000,which is nonrefundable. Such fee shall be paid to the Planning Department, which shall maintain records of payment in consultation with the Town Comptroller. I ll In addition to the application fee described in Subsection G(1) above, applicants shall deposit a separate review fee in the amount of$7,500,which shall be utilized for all reasonable costs of consultants and expert reviews of any application, including, where applicable, preapproval evaluation as well as during construction or modification of sites, once permitted. Such experts and consultants as shall be reasonably required by the Town shall be made available to the appropriate reviewing board. The Town shall maintain a separate escrow account for such review fee funds and shall return the unused portion of any such funds to the applicant within 60 days of any final action on any application or formal withdrawal of same. If at any time during the review process this escrow has a balance less than $2,000,the applicant shall immediately, upon notification by the Town, replenish said escrow account so that the balance shall be at least $5,000. Such additional escrow funds shall be deposited with the Town before any further action is taken on the application. The escrow amount for review fees shall apply to both new communications tower applications and those for colocations and shall be paid to the Planning Department, which shall maintain a separate accounting of the fees and disbursements from said escrow, for each application, in consultation with the Town Comptroller. I I RESPECT ASHLAN%• Cell Antennae Installation Code Update 3 Hempstead, New York Called 1/6/11 Lauren Birch planner 516-538-7100 sending packet. http://www.toh.li/content/home/news/telecomlaw.htmI § 142-13. Retention of Expert Assistance; and Establishment of Town Escrow Funds for Reimbursement by Applicant.A.The Town may hire any Consultant and/or expert necessary to assist the Town or any of its Departments in reviewing and evaluating the Application, including the construction and modification of the site, once permitted, and any site inspections. DOB. An Applicant shall deposit with the Town Comptroller escrow funds sufficient to reimburse the Town for all reasonable costs of the Town's Consultant in providing expert evaluation and consultation to any agency of the Town in connection with the review of any Application, including any expert consultation services deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Buildings or the Board of Appeals.The initial deposit shall be$8,500.00.The placement of the$8,500.00 with the Town Comptroller shall precede the pre-application meeting, or at such later time as the Commissioner of Buildings may direct.The Town Comptroller will maintain a separate escrow account for all such funds. The Town's Consultants/experts shall invoice the Town Department employing its services related to the Application. O DC. If at any time during the process this escrow account has a balance less than $2,500.00,the Applicant shall immediately, upon notification by the Town or Consultant, replenish said escrow account so that it has a balance of at least$5,000.00. Such additional escrow funds shall be deposited with the Town before any further action or consideration is taken on the Application. In the event that the amount held in escrow by the Town is more than the amount of the actual invoicing at the conclusion of the project,the remaining balance shall, upon request of the Applicant, be promptly refunded to the Applicant. DOD. When notified by the Town that additional escrow is required,the Applicant may request copies of invoices paid to Consultants and/or experts. If the Applicant finds errors in those invoices,Applicant may ask the Town to audit those specific items for reasonableness, and may request relief therefrom. DOE.The total amount of the funds needed as set forth in subsection (B) of this section may vary with the scope and complexity of the project, the completeness of the Application, and other information as may be needed to complete the necessary review, analysis and inspection of any construction or modification. ODF. There shall be a fee cap as to the total . consultant fees to be charged to applicant, which shall be the greater of$17,000.00 or ten percent of the highest annual lease payment to be made by Applicant to the owner of the property under the lease authorizing placement of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities at a given site. However,the fee cap shall not apply as to any fees which the Commissioner of Buildings determines to be attributable to the dilatory or otherwise bad faith actions of Applicant in providing a complete application or in proceeding with a public hearing. RESPECT ASHLAR • Cell Antennae Installation Code Update 4 Cabot. Vermont ❑Called 1/6/11 Two towers have been built under the new law, one was in litigation,the town people sued AT&T. The$10.000,deposit was used for legal fees for city to litigate on behalf of the citizens.Their application fee is$5,000. Section 7.11 Fee Schedule and Bonding (A) Application Fees. Upon submission of a signed application that meets all of the criteria herein described, including all supporting documents and maps, an application fee shall be submitted to the Town in the amount of$5,000.00. (B) Financial Surety. As a condition of approval of a conditional use permit,the applicant shall provide a separate Demolition Bond in an amount determined and approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The bond shall be for a duration and in a form and manner of surety as determined by the Board, with provision for inspection and town removal of facilities in the event of failure to perform by the responsible parties as defined in Section 7.13. (C) Performance Bonds. The Board will require additional performance bonding, payable at the time of application, as deemed necessary to protect facility building site(s) during construction; and to hire independent consultants to review applications and monitor facilities. (D) Independent Consultant Fees. At the time of application, the Board may require a separate escrow fund, in an amount to be determined,to cover independent consultant fees. i I I RESPECT ASHLAR Cell Antennae Installation Code Update 5 I Commissioner Dawkins commented on rezoning the north side of Lithia Way and asked what they would need to do to covert this area to high density residential. Mr.Goldman stated the City is nea ring completion of the Housing Needs Analysis,which will provide data on what housing types are needed over the next 20-40 years. He stated once they have this data they could hold an informed discussion on whether additional high density residential land is needed. Public Testimony Colin Swales1143 Eighth StreetlCommented on the Buildable Lands Inventory being used as a justification for annexation when there is not a real need.He commented on residential being looked at more holistically; and also stated some of the so-called buildable land is physically constrained and not really developable. Lastly, he noted the assessed values in Jackson County had been trending upward, however the newest assessment coming out this fall shows 25%of Jackson County properties have a real market value less than the assessed value, and questioned how this will impact the BLI's determination of redevelopable land. Commissioner Mindlin closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Deliberations &Decisions Mr. Goldman commented on the concern expressed in public testimony regarding the redevelopable calculation. He agreed that using assessed values can fluctuate the figures wildly,which is why Ashland uses a partially-vacant calculation instead. He clarified instead of an assessment based on value,Ashland uses an assessment based on zoning and how much of the land is buildable. Mr.Goldman also clarified staff did subtract out steep slopes and floodplains in order to get the most accurate numbers possible. Support was voiced for adopting the Buildable Lands Inventory as presented. Commissioners Dawkins/Miller mis to approve PA#2011.01001.Roll Call Vote:Commissioners Dawkins,Heesacker,Miller and Mindlin,YES.Motion passed 4.0. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Revisions to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. Planning Manager Maria Harris stated this is a continuation of their agenda item from the last meeting and no new information has been presented. Jim Fong/759 Leonard Street and Rod Newton11196 Timberline Terrace addressed the Commission a nd presented the following questions and suggestions regarding the proposed ordinance changes: • AMC 18.72.180.B:Asked what changes were made to the applicability chart;what the difference between the three categories are;and whether all wireless installations could be required to go through a CUP process regardless of the zone. • AMC 18.72.180.D(1.e):Asked for clarification on whether wireless facilities are allowed in residential zones. • AMC 18.72.180.D(2.a):Requested language be added to subsection(i)that clarifies a"significant service gap"exists when the City fails to meet its legal requirements under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Mr.Fong clarified the City should better define"infeasible",and stated the City is required to make services available but they are not required to accommodate every provider's individual service needs. In regards to subsection(iii),they asked that language be added that clarifies it must not be physically possible to add to an existing structure(not that there are no limitations, but that those limitations cannot be overcome).And regarding subsection (v),asked that language be added that elaborates that some interference obstruction can occur as long as the City can meet its requirements under the 1996 law. Mr. Fong concluded their testimony by asking the Planning Commission to include a recommendation for an independent technical analysis fee with their recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Harris clarified no changes were made to the applicability table; in terms of flow staff felt it was better to move it to its proposed location.She added this chart has been in the ordinance since it was originally adopted and explained what the three table headings meant. Regarding 18.72.180.D(1.e),Ms. Harris stated this is not new language and clarified wireless facilities are allowed in residential zones if they are attached to existing structures, but the structure has to be over 45 ft in height. She added the maximum building height in a residential zone is 35 ft;and this language could allow for facilities on structures such as the university or high school's stadium light towers. Ashland Planning Commission Seplember 73, 2011 Page 2 of 3 52 Ms. Harris explained staffs intention was to incorporate the Council's decision but not change the other existing language in the ordinance. She stated the language in 18.72.180.D(2.a)is mostly new, and stated staff can look into the suggestions about tying this to the standards in the Federal Communications Act. Mr. Newton recommended the City also look into what it means to have coverage in an area and to seek legal guidance on whether they are required to accommodate a company's desire for higher levels of data reception. The Commission voiced support for looking into whether the City is required to allow every provider to have coverage within the City, and whether cellular telephone service constitutes coverage,or if they need to accommodate data streaming. B. Pedestrian Places Proposed Code Amendments. Ms. Harris noted staff provided an update on this item at their last meeting and stated this is the Commission's opportunity to discuss any outstanding issues before this comes back as a public hearing. Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Questioned why these code amendments would go before the Council separate from the TSP update. Mr. Swales also commented on the arterial setback requirements and voiced concern with some of the wording. He stated he does not believe it is un-conducive to pedestrian places to have small plazas on the street. He stated there is no public plaza space requirement in the ordinance and expressed concern with all new buildings being built to the minimum setback. Ms. Harris clarified the Pedestrian Places project is a subset of the TSP Upd ate. She explained Planning staff had submitted a separate grant application for this project; however the State contacted the City and agreed to fold this into the TSP Update in order to receive the grant award.She staled it was always conceived as a separate project, and Public Works and the consultants have no problems with moving this ahead since the land use changes proposed do not impact how the main street network functions. Ms. Harris also clarified there is a public patio space requirement for large scale projects and this is an existing requirement in the detail site review zone. She commented on providing some flexibility in the code on where to locate that space and stated sometimes a plaza off the side street or on the side of a building is more desirable and conducive to a functioning pedestrian place; and commented on allowing the design professionals to design a plaza space that works for that particular building and location. Correction was noted to 18.56.040.E(3)and E(4). Staff clarified these two items should have been combined and indicated this would be corrected. UPDATE A. Grant Application for Unified Land Use Ordinance. Ms. Harris announced the City Council has authorized staff to apply for a Technical Assistance Grant to create a unified land use ordinance. She stated creating a more user-friendly land use code was a recommendation of the Siegel Report, and if awarded this project would: 1)incorporate the various standards documents into the land use code, 2)make the code more approachable by improving the organization, formatting and graphics,3) integrate a form-based approach where feasible, and 4) incorporate some of the green code updates.She clarified this project is not focused on policy changes, but rather repackaging the land use code to make it more user friendly. Colin Swales/143 Eighth StreetlSlated the first stage of the Siegel recommendation resulted in major changes to the code and stated the idea of streamlining the code worries him. He gave examples of previous streamlining that caused problems and recommended they not tinker with the code if it is working.Mr. Swales also spoke to the Commission quorum issue that has come up at recent City Council meetings and stated it is worrisome when major issues are decided by so few people. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission Seplombo,13, 2011 Page 3 of 3 53 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES August 23,2011 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Maria Harris,Planning Manager Eric Heesacker Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mick Church Russ Silbiger,absent Melanie Mindlin DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Pedestrian Places Proposed Code Amendments. Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief background of the Pedestrian Places project and explained new code language has been drafted to address the five key recommendations that came out of the final Pedestrian Places report. She noted the five recommendations were to: 1)increase the allowable Floor area ratio(FAR), 2)establish a maximum building setback,3)establish a minimum building height,4) revise the landscaped area requirements,and 5)reduce the parking standards. In addition,some "housekeeping"updates are included in the amendment package, including language to codify the Council's decision regarding telecommunication facilities.Ms. Harris reviewed the proposed code amendments for AMC sections 18.72, 18.92, 18.68, 18.108, the Ashland Site Design 8 Use Standards, and the Ashland Street Standards. She also provided a review of the proposed new chapter titled 18.56 Overlay Zones. PUBLIC INPUT Colin Swalesl143 Eighth Street/Noted Southern Oregon University's plans to construct dorms on the north side of Siskiyou Blvd. and commented on providing adequate crossings and pedestrian areas for students. He recommended public art installation be a requirement for new buildings in the detail review zone,and also voiced support for solar photovoltaic parking lot shading. Regarding arterial setbacks, Mr.Swales suggested mini-plazas be incorporated to avoid a continuous facade of buildings. Cate HartzeIV892 Garden Way/Questioned what was driving this process and expressed concern with the proposed change to AMC 18.72.090 regarding administrative variances to the Site Design and Use Standards. She stated that while creative ideas are good, property owners need to be given some assurance of what might be developed. Ms.Hartzell also recommended examples be provided that show what a development might look like under the current code,and what it could look like under the revised standards. Jay Harland/4497 Brownridge Terrace,Medford/Stated he is speaking on behalf of Rogue Federal Credit Union and agreed with the concerns raised by the previous speaker in regards to the variance issue.Mr. Harland recommended the Commission incorporate a provision for floor area ratios to be dealt with on a project basis, instead of lot by lot. He also spoke to the setback issue and stated a 5 foot setback is really tight; and questioned if utility easements.might create problems with a setback this narrow. Chris Hearn/5115 East Main Street/Stated he is speaking on behalf of IPCO and the Brombacher family. Mr. Hearn stated the initial Pedestrian Places plan showed a road through his client's property,and while he did not see this on the current version of the plan, asked if this would come up again. He stated the Brombacher's property is zoned E-1 and encouraged the Commission to promote Ashland Planning Commission .August 23, 2011 Page 7 of 3 54 this area and not overly regulate it. He also raised issue with delivery vehicles that serve the E-1 businesses and questioned if they should be increasing pedestrians in these areas. Ms. Harris commented on the road issue and clarified there was a circulation plan that showed various street connections, including one on the Brombacher's property.She stated staff has met with Mr. Brombacher and Mr. Hearn and are recommended they delay the adoption of these circulation maps until the TSP Plan is complete. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman commented that this connection issue is much bigger than the Pedestrian Places project, and noted this issue also came up with the Interchange Area Management Plan, Zach Brombacher11370 Tolman Creek Dr/Stated he has been here for 40 years and resents that the City wants to provide a connection through his property to benefit someone else. He stated it is the City's fault f or not acquiring the right connects to Washington Street and this should have been considered before it was annexed. Mr. Brombacher stated he has plans to do more things and bring more jobs to Ashland,and every square foot of his property is needed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Marsh recommended they frame their discussion by addressing each issue one at a time. Floor Area Ratio—It was clarified the proposed language would increase the minimum FAR from .35 to.50,and delete the maximum FAR. Several comments were made voicing support for the proposed increase to.50. Maximum Setbacks—Comment was made voicing support for a slightly deeper setback; perhaps 10 ft instead of 5 ft. Ms. Harris commented on the issue raised during public testimony regarding utility easements and stated she does not anticipate this being a problem.She added the proposed change would keep buildings from being pushed too far back, unless the extra space is used for plaza and outdoor seating areas. Staff was asked to take another look at the utility easement issue and make sure this is not problematic. Green Parking—Ms. Harris clarified this requirement would apply to all parking areas with more than 7 spaces. Several commissioners expressed interest in solar panels to create shade and generate power. It was questioned if there is anything in the code that would prohibit this, and whether there are ways they can encourage this type of treatment.Comment was mad e questioning if enough tree shade can be generated in 5 years to meet the requirement;and whether 10 years might be more appropriate. Residential Overlay Zone—Ms. Harris clarified staff used Eugene's code as a basis, and stated if is a common approach in land use codes to have one chapter that addresses'all of the oveday zones within a community. Commissioner Marsh asked if anyone was opposed to a residential overlay, and asked if staff had modeled this to ensure it would work.Comment was made questioning why schools were proposed to be excluded in this zone. Ms. Harris clarified this recommendation had come from the consultant; however staff is not recommending any change in uses. Administrative Variance—Ms. Harris clarified this recommendation came from the Siegel Report and allows applicants to receive a variance without proving demonstrable difficultly so long as it results in a design that equally or better achieves the purpose of the Site Design&Use Standards.Comment was made questioning if they should exclude Type I's(staff decisions)from this revision. Statement was made that this change would broaden the discretion of staff and the Planning Commission,and a public hearing should be required. Ms.Harris explained the code is a living document and if the new language does not achieve the desired result they can always change it back. Comment was made voicing support for the concept of more creative designs, however the downside is reduced predictability. Wireless Cell Phone Towers—Ms. Harris provided an overview of why this code change is recommended. She explained last fall the City Council held an appeal hearing on the Planning Commission's decision of the AT&T application,and in their ruling made an interpretation of AMC 18.72.180.D.2 to mean a step ped hierarchy of the list of preferred designs. She stated based on that decision, and because we are in the process of revising this same chapter, it seemed appropriate to include the Council's interpretation at this time. Ashiana Planning Commission August 23, 2011 Page 2 of 3 55 James Fong1759 Leonard/Commented briefly on solar parking shading and recommended they contact a local associate. Mr. Fong also spoke to the cell tower decision and codifying the Council's decision in the land use code. He stated he has met with City staff regarding this and warned they are nearing the one year anniversary of the decision date.Mr. Fong stated they initially discussed this element coming forward with the next"housekeeping"ordinance, but since that was delayed they are now asking this gel codified with the other changes they are considering for this chapter. He added AT&T will be able to come back and resubmit an application after the year is up and urged the Commission to adopt this language. He also commented on determining "feasibility",and recommended the City require applicants to provide a fee that the City could use to hire consultants to perform an independent analysis. Comment was made questioning if staff and the Council had considered adding this fee. Ms. Harris explained staff is looking into this and fell at a minimum we needed to get the Council's interpretation into the ordinance since we are nearing the year anniversary. She stated in the mean time staff will be looking into the suggestion to charge an independent analysis fee.She added this is more of a policy decision and the City's Finance and Legal departments will need to be consulted to flush out how this fee would be collected and returned. Cate HartzeIV892 Garden Way/Voiced her appreciation for getting the Council's decision into the code as quickly as possible, however she would like to see the fee adopted as well. Ms. Hartzell stated the current proposal is bare bones and would like to have a larger discussion as a community about how they want to handle these types of applications. Staff clarified that a fee for independent review would need to be charged up front,and if any money remains after the analysis is complete it would be returned to the applicant. Commissioner Marsh voiced her opinion that the Commission should define their role as narrowly as the wording in front of them, and stated the Commission does not have the authority to enact new fees. No objections were voiced to the code amendments as presented,and it was agreed that the public hearing on the code changes would be held on October 11,2011.Comment was made that the addition of a fee should be researched by staff and brought before the City Council for discussion. B. North Normal Avenue Neighborhood Grant Senior Planner Brandon Goldman announced the City of Ashland has received a grant for the Normal Street project. He stated the City Council voted to move forward and gave their direction for an Intergovernmental Agreement. Mr. Goldman stated the next steps will be drafting the project scope and selecting a consultant, and staff expects this project to start at the beginning of the year. C. Buildable Lands Inventory Update Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a brief presentation on the Buildable Lands Inventory Update. He reviewed the purpose, land availability,demographics and land supply figures. Colin Swalesl143 Eighth Street/Voiced concern that partially vacant land is not accounted for and hopes this can be updated. Mr. Swales stated there is already plenty of R-2 and R-3 land within the City that is underdeveloped(often a single family home on a large lot) and no rezoning is required or needed. He added he would like to see more emphasis placed on infill and not annexing. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission Augusl 23. 2011 Page 3 or 3 56 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Pedestrian Places Project Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Department: Community Development E-Mail: molnarbgashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: one Secondary Contact: Maria Harris Approval: Larry Patterson Estimated Time: 30 minutes Question: Will the City Council approve the first reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, and move them on to second reading? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, and scheduling the second reading of the ordinance for a future Council meeting. Background: The objective of the Pedestrian Places Project is to encourage concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use. The project tasks included identifying the qualities of successful pedestrian places, developing vision statements and illustrations of what this type of development could look like in each location, and reviewing the zoning and land use ordinance for improvements that would support the development of pedestrian places. The review determined the existing zoning, densities and design standards to be largely supportive of creating pedestrian places, but the final report did recommended several revisions to the zoning map and ordinance to further support the development of pedestrian places. The proposed amendments address those recommended revisions by providing more flexibility in building uses and site planning, clarifying requirements for on-site circulation, and providing voluntary measures for decreasing the amount of area used for surface parking. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 11, 2011 on the proposed amendments to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, and recommended approval of the ordinances with three recommended revisions as described below. 1. Pedestrian Place Overlay for Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St. The Planning Commission recommended reducing the Pedestrian Place Overlay in the Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St. area to exclude the area between Tolman Creek Rd. and the interchange because "the Commission believes the area between Tolman Creek Rd. and the interchange, including businesses such as Albertsons, Rite-Aid, Les Schwab and Super 8 Motel, is and will continue to be developed in a highway orientation, has limited development or redevelopment potential, and is and will continue to be an environment that is not conducive to pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel." The attached map shows the original overlay, and the recommended reduced overlay area. This revision has not been made to the attached ordinances, and staff needs.direction as whether to proceed with this amendment. Page I of 3 �`, CITY OF -ASHLAND Staff's recommendation is to maintain the boundary as originally proposed for several reasons. First, Ashland Street sery es as a gateway to the community given the location of the interchange and traffic entering the community from Interstate 5. Prior to the interchange construction project, a committee comprised of local residents and business owners worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation to develop an attractive bridge design which would serve as an entrance into Ashland. A similar sentiment is included in the Ashland Boulevard Corridor standards in which the introduction says "...the City of Ashland desires to develop this area according to standards which will create an environment reflective of Ashland's community image." Additionally, the eastern portion of Ashland surrounding the Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St. intersection includes a significant amount of vacant that accommodate community's housing and employment growth over the next 20 years (see attached Buildable Land Inventory map). Participants in the public workshops identified a desire to be able to access the commercial area in the proposed Pedestrian Places Overlay from existing surrounding residential neighborhoods, and in the future have "something that will draw people from the adjacent residential neighborhoods." Finally, one of the project objectives is to encourage "transit-oriented development", and bus service and bus stops currently exist on the section of Ashland Street from Tolman Creek Road to the interchange (see attached Transit Routes and Stops map). 2. Shadow Plan The Planning Commission recommended adding a definition of the term shadow plan. The definition of shadow plan has been added to 18.08, and a sample shadow plan graphic added to Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones and to the Detail Site Review Standard. 3. Shadow Plan Allowance The Planning Commission recommended limiting the shadow plan allowance in Chapter 18.56 and the Detail Site Review Standards to redevelopment projects. This provision allows an applicant to submit a shadow plan to demonstrate how a development could be intensified over time to meet the minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement,of.50. As currently written, the shadow plan provision would be permitted for all projects in the Pedestrian Place Overlay and in the Detail Site Review Zone. However, the Planning Commission felt that while flexibility is needed for larger sites that may have buildings in place that are developed at a lower intensity than is required, that vacant properties should be required to meet the minimum .50 FAR. The following language has been drafted to reflect the Planning Commissions.recommended revision. This revision has not been made to the attached ordinances, and staff needs direction as whether to proceed with this amendment. 18.56.040.D.3 Development Standards b. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of.50. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum FAR. The development Developments involving redevelopment of properties including existing buildings, or involving vacant parcels of a half an acre or greater in size shall achieve the required minimum FAR, or provide a shadow plan (see graphic) that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR. Detail Site Review Standards II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale Page 2 of 3 �r, CITY OF -ASH LAN D 1. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio FAR of .50.' all not ,l a fnaximuffi FI Area Ratio C 5 C all areas the Historic Distriet. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum rleof Area Ratia F( AR). Developments involvinE redevelopment of properties including existing buildings, or involving vacant parcels of a half an acre or greater in size shall achieve the required minimum FAR, or provide a shadow plan (see graphic) that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR. Related City Policies: The Economy, Housing, and Transportation Elements of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan, and the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. Council Options: The Council may approve, approve with modifications, or take no action on the first reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project. Potential Motions: 1. Move to approve first reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, and move to request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on November 15, 2011. 2. Move to approve the first reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project with proposed amendments as noted, and move to request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on November 15, 2011. w� Attachments: � 1. Proposed Ordinances e 41 An Ordinance Amendin the City of Ashland Zoning Map to Add a Pedestrian Places Overlay VOISIn� �&,1faCJC-r-- #2 An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Creating a New Ch pter 18.5 *th Overlay Zones, Including the Residential Overlay an Airport Overlay #3 An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design att Use Standards It nti �� yr ' 4, 444- Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project �j_ qr VV An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.08.651, 18.11020, 18.68.050, 18.720030, 18.72.080, 18.72.090, 18088, 18.88.080, 18.92, 18.108.060 AND 18.108.080 of the Ashland Municipal �5 Code and Land Use Ordinance Implementing t e Reco tion of tthePedestrian Places Project — T C- O'G . — CL_ _Q„ 2. Map - Planning Commission Recommendation: Relocated Eastern Boundary 3. Map - Tolman Cr. Rd. Pedestrian Place Overlay Area and Buildable Lands Inventory 4. Map - Transit Routes and Stops 5. Record of Planning Action 32011-01174 (available on-line only) Page 3 of 3 11FALIA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND ZONING MAP TO ADD A PEDESTRIAN PLACE OVERLAY Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters. Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving(RPS) planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on- . line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location; and An Ordinance Adding Pedestrian Place Overlay Page 1 WHEREAS, the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Zoning Map at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Zoning Map in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning Map, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, is hereby amended to add a Pedestrian Place (PP) Overlay designation to approximately 72 acres of land within the City limits, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning Map, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference. 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. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, and amendments — including map amendments, combined, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions and text descriptions of the map amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 2-8, 9-10) 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, An Ordinance Adding Pedestrian Place Overlay Page 2 Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Adding Pedestrian Place Overlay Page 3 I ■ } - ^� n 3 _ lilt t■1�111rW•■1 11111 == I■tii s��i' iil:►' 1 eisa�■snsr 1!1!!1. 111 t° also log mail .� �■ ■E Iii1L' ■ e 'M " !L't: :. .. . son Man ■ � ` � ■�■ r w r" ■It !!1 - 1■111 ■ �j■ .. . . ■ �i ■ii�I■■ �lilii 1■ ' �/j —T/ :�■� 11' 1 w �. :■ "', �1` ;J 1i■■11!11!■ . . f ff " WE R111"Hom i _�g ■ ■io es — _ its li■m ■dill■■till so son tost b• uw ®11 ' ��•""'�� • ®g's■■Ifal..�tnmm■� ■!11111 _ �■ u■I� ■ �'' m ri=fer '�f�[I ellll.!,�IIL:� .■11 ■■ ■Irl�' � i■ '.:, fiL 11111111 'llillh`' uss __ .��_��■■ � ■■■��■ •�� it � ,�►� ® d��1 ea — .�lil 111!111 ffl1�■11 !1 1■1� 1 1111 ;;rll�� ON J, mill -Mill : 1 ■ - i1i1�111 II 1 1111■�,,��i�1�L� � /o �® �, �■e� �: '■■� �.� 1 III If1_II i■■■ � . ■■� � . �Qip� ,p �, ` Yf■sssv� � � iR■■ '�'�■ �. 1 1 � 1j■. ■a�1■■■�� •�® • p �Offf,� =b�. 'a' i%••.,e, .� i . ■ .� �� ■■tip ■ sitt►s� ►'�® . Mill ,ej _ 1•JIIIv1 " II�w. ■■■� ►�� h► ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.56 OVERLAY ZONES, INCLUDING THE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY AND AIRPORT OVERLAY Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the Citv The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and.2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing=: outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on- line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location; and An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 1 WHEREAS, the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised.public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011; and following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. A new Chapter 18.56 of the Ashland Municipal Code creating an overlay zones chapter [OVERLAY ZONES] set forth in full codified form on the attached Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this reference, is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal Code. SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.40.030.E [E-1 Employment District - Special Permitted Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.40.030 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section, including all requirements of 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A. Bottling plants, cleaning and dyeing establishments, laundries and creameries. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located to the greatest extend feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging 'objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 2 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B. Wholesale storage and distribution establishments. Provided, however, that for the uses specified in subsection A and B above, no deliveries or shipments shall be made from 9pm to lam where the property on which the use is located is within 200 feet of any residential district. C. Recycling depots, provided the use is not located within 200 feet of a residential district. D. Kennels and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use is not located within 200 feet of a residential district. E. Residential uses. As indicated as R-Overlay on the official zoning map, and in conformance with the Overlay Zones chapter 18.56. 1. At least 650 of the total gross floor area of the g nd floor- or at lenst 500/_ of the total lot oren if there a multiple buildings shall be designated f...- permitted o residential;speeial permitted uses, exeiuding 2. Residential deiiskies sh011 Hot exeeed 15 dwelling units per- Here. For the purpose &f density 3. Residential uses shall be subjeet to the safne e units of iess than 500 square feet of giross habitable floof! nren standards as for per-mitted uses in the E 1 Distriet. s landseaping, and design A Residentin' uses shall only be 1oent..d in those tureas indie ftted .... D n..,..d..y Within the E 1 Distriet, and shown oft the offleial zoning map. G• number if the of it sidential units a !1 f .. .... eed 1 then ..t least 100,10 of the .ddti AI unuts shall be affordable for moderate ineeme per-sons in neeerd with the standards in the .. seluti.... The n ...6...- of units required to be affordable shall be .. .nde do,Am to the nearest whole unot. F. Cabinet, carpentry, machine, and heating shops, if such uses are located greater than 200' from the nearest residential district. G. Manufacture of food products, but not including the rendering of fats or oils. For any manufacture of food products with 200' of a residential district: 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. Odors which are in violation of this section include but are not limited to the following: a. Odors from solvents, chemicals or toxic substances. b. Odors from fermenting food products. c. Odors from decaying organic substances or human or animal waste. 2. Mechanical equipment shall be located on the roof or the side of a building with the least exposure to residential districts. Provided, however, that it may be located at any other location on or within the structure or lot where the noise emanating from the equipment is no louder, as measured from the nearest residential district, than if located on the side of the building with least exposure to residential districts. Mechanical equipment shall be fully screened and buffered. An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 3 H. Cold Storage Plants, if such uses are located greater than 200' from the nearest residential district. 1. Automobile and truck repair facilities, excluding auto body repair and paint shops. All cars and trucks associated with the use must be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a total sight obscuring fence. Facilities of 3 bays or larger shall not be located within 200' of a residential district. SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 18.60 [Airport Overlay Zone] is hereby deleted as follows: CHAPTER� - 60 AIRPORT OVER&kV ZONE SECTIONS! 18.60.010 Purpose. 18.020 A 1 Overlay Zone. !8.60.030 General Provisions. SECTION 18.60.010 Purpose. This ever-lay zone is intended to be applied to properties whieh lie within elose py-oximity to the Ashland Airport where air-er-aft are likely to be flying at relatively low elevations. Fui4her, the zone is intended to prevent the establishment of airspnee obstr-uetions 611 areas through height restrietions find other land use eentrels. Appliention of the zone does not alteir the requirements of the parent zone exeept as speeffleally Provided herein. ...d... zone is ..6...,.n on the Zoning Arta SECTION 1 Q 60 020 A 1 Overlay Zone A. Permitted uses shall not Oneiude residential uses unless appr-oved under- the proeedur. outfined for eonditional uses. B. Maximum height of struetures, trees or- other airspoee obstruetions shall be twenty (211071 nZT C. All planning setions will require, ns a eendition or approval, that the appliennt sign an agreement with the City agreeing thnt Mirport neise is likely to inerense in the future and that the), waive all rights to eemplain nbout nir-pert noose. SECTION 18.60.030 Gener-al Pr-ovisions. A. The City mey top on), free whieh iq in P*eess Fif those max---mlfflm— heoghts listed in Seetion 18.60.020, or leente appropriate lights or- mar-keirs on these trees as a war"ing to the BR. NO use shal-I be made of land or witter within any of this zone in sueh a manner it others, result in of pilots using the airport, impnor visibilky in th-e vieinity of the airport, or other-wise ereate a hazard whieh may in anyway endtinger- An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 4 SECTION 5. 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 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1- 4) 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 12011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 5 CHAPTER 18.56 Overlay Zones SECTIONS: 18.56.010 Purpose. 18.56.020 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance. 18.56.030 A-1 Airport Overlay. 18.56.040 Pedestrian Place Overlay. 18.56.050 Residential Overlay. SECTION 18.56.010 Purpose. Overlay zones are intended to provide special regulations and standards that supplement the base zoning district and standards. SECTION 18.56.020 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance. Development located within an overlay zone is required to meet all other applicable sections of the Land Use Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. SECTION 18.56.030 A Airport Overlay. A. Purpose. This overlay zone is intended to be applied to properties which lie within close proximity to the Ashland Airport where aircraft are likely to be flying at relatively low elevations. Further, the zone is intended to prevent the establishment of airspace obstructions in such areas through height restrictions and other land use controls. Application of the overlay zone does not alter the requirements of the parent zone except as specifically provided herein. The Airport Overlay applies to all property where A is indicated on the Ashland Zoning Map. B. A Airport Overlay. 1. Permitted uses shall not include residential uses unless approved under the procedure outlined for conditional uses. 2. Maximum height of structures, trees or other airspace obstructions shall be twenty (20) feet. 3. All planning actions will require, as a condition or approval that the applicant sign an agreement with the City agreeing that airport noise is likely to increase in the future and that they waive all rights to complain about airport noise. C. General Provisions. 1. The City may top any tree which is in excess of those maximum heights listed in Section 18.60.020, or locate appropriate lights or markers on those trees as a warning to the operators of aircraft. 2. No use shall be made of land or water within any of this zone in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communication between airport and aircraft, make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or otherwise create a hazard which may in any way endanger the landing, takeoff, or maneuvering of aircraft using the airport. Page 1 SECTION 18.56.040 PP Pedestrian Place Overlay. A. Purpose of Pedestrian Place Overlay. The Pedestrian Place Overlay is intended to direct and encourage development of small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of gathering places, housing, businesses and pedestrian amenities situated and designed in a way to encourage more walking, bicycling and transit use. B. Applicability. 1. Location. The Pedestrian Place Overlay applies to all property where PP is indicated on the Ashland Zoning Map. 2. Planning Actions. The Pedestrian Place Overlay requirements apply to proposed development located in the Pedestrian Place Overlay that requires a planning application approval, and involves development of new structures or additions other than single-family dwellings and associate accessory structures and uses. 3. Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance. The provisions of the Pedestrian Place Overlay supplement those-of the applicable base zoning district and applicable Chapter 18 requirements. Where the provisions of this Chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance or regulation, the provisions of the Pedestrian Place Overlay shall apply. C. Pedestrian Place Concept Plans. Concept plans (i.e. site plan, development summary and building illustrations) are for the purpose of providing an example of development that conforms to the standards, and do not constitute independent approval criteria. Concept plans are attached to the end of this chapter. D. Residential Zoning Districts within Pedestrian Place Overlay. 1. Special Permitted Uses. In addition to the permitted uses in the base residential zoning district, the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section and the requirement of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. a. Professional, financial, business and medical .offices, and personal service establishments. b. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services. c. Restaurants. 2. Limitations. a. The maximum gross floor area occupied by a special permitted use shall be 2,500 square feet. b. Special permitted uses shall be allowed in a building or in a group of buildings including a mixture of businesses and housing. At least 50% of the total gross floor area of a building or of multiple buildings shall be designated for housing. c. The development shall meet the minimum housing density requirements of the base zoning district. 3. Development Standards. a. A building shall be setback not more than five feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. b. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .50. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum FAR. The development shall achieve the required minimum FAR, or provide a shadow plan (see graphic) that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR. Page 2 I l �f I Shadow plan 4. Mixed-Use Buildings in Residential Zones. Mixed-use buildings in a residential base zoning district require Site Review approval in accordance with Chapter 18.72, and are subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.72 and the following Site Design and Use Standards. a. Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development(section II-C-1) b. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards (section D) c. Street Tree Standards (section E) d. Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards, 18.72.090 E. Development, Standards. In addition to the requirements of the base zoning district, the following standards shall apply. 1. Building Setbacks. The solar access setback in Chapter 18.70 Solar Access applies only to those lots abutting a residential zone to the north. 2. Plazas and Landscaping Ratio. Outdoor seating areas, plazas and other useable paved surfaces may be applied toward meeting the landscaping area requirements in Section18.72.110, but shall not constitute more than 50% of the required area. SECTION 18.56.050 R Residential Overlay. The Residential Overlay applies to all property where R is indicated on the Ashland Zoning Map. The Residential Overlay requirements are as follows. A. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. B. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. C. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the E-1 District. E. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by Page 3 resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. Page 4 Potential for growth as a neighborhood center with civic,educational and arts uses plus affordable in-foil housing. City of Ashland TSP Update N . Mountain Avenue and E . Main Street Pedestrian Place oa March 2011 Revised October2011 Gatf with E: Ft 2--y City of Ashland,TSP Update Concept Plan. This conceptual development plan provides a hypothetical example thatserves to illustrate how a property could develop to balance resi- dential and commercial uses through implementing the Pedestrian Places building blocks. Development Summary Building A:2-Story Apartment Building • 8 Apartments Building B:2-Story Mixed-use Building General Retail Space—1-2 shops (2500sq.ft each) • 16 Apartments Building C:2-Story Mixed-use Building General Retail Space— 1-2 shops (2500sq.ft each) • 16 Apartments Historic Home as Potential Studio/Gallery Space Flexible Parking Standards • Various parking credit options Achievable Density • 22—24 duelling units / acre(With preservation of historic home • FAR=0.66:1 Arts, Education and Affordability • Adaptive re-use of buildings to support local art Outdoor spaces for installation of public art • Modestly sized,affordable apartments Civic and educational uses nearby Transportation and Streetscape Improvements • Enhanced sidewalks and intersection • Opportunities for additional neighborhood connectivity • Transit-supportive densities for restoring bus service • Reduced parking areas • Pedestrian-friendly building design • Transportation and Streetscape Improvements Streetscape and Public Art I. Z �I s ^ I E aE $ S; a a N Sidewalk Place Im €I'gv U13 I I zgl 0 E "= 8E1 AeI �gnl I II Parkrow —7'— tt rZ Sidewalk I Parkrow L Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain Travel Lanes Future Right-of-Way Approximately 70' N.Mountain Avenue Future Improvements Section A- Looking North 6' Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone 9' Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain x Parkrow Sidewalk 7' — 7' 81— Place J ti I \ `o C a " I a I 0 n Travel lanes Bike Facility Parkrow ewalk 6' 7' Sid6' — Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone Future Right-of-Way E.Main Street Future Improvements Section B- Looking West Public Art Pedestrian Place Streetscape Features City of Ashland,TSP Update Y 3 Storm WaterTreatment 4 1 City of Ashland,TSP Update F- Bicycle Lane I Furnishing,Parkrow, and Storm I Sidewalk 6' Water Treatment Zone 6' 7 Public Realm Features Primary streetscape character elements are the Green Street design with flow-through stormwater planters and building articulations with ground floor windows for the shops located near the intersection and residential units located near mid-block. The residential units could be artist live/work spaces with ground floor galleries visible from street.Near the intersection a paved sidewalk furnishing zone accommodates a bus shelter,bike racks and outdoor seating across from a revitalized Arts Academy. Designing the Public Realm Weather protection (Rain or Sun) Street Furnishing Zone(Bus Shelter,Bike Rack etc.) Display Windows Potential to become a_university district neighborhood hub. City of Ashland TSP Update Walker Avenue and Ashland Street Pedestrian Place oa March 2011 Revised October 2011 mail o- J7 �rw Parking 12 my Z�=' wo vv, 'I�;GfIII;fm z Iff ILJ NearTerm Concept Plan Shared Space for Pedestrians and Cars Restaurant/Video °cS Rental 000 . 00 o �0 \S.y °00. Existing Buildings Future improvements contingent upon site redevelopment Potential Pedestri Walkway(See Note Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Creating a University Hub • Potential to complement SOU long-term master plan • Plaza space for food carts and vendors • Festival street for public gathering Transportation and Streetscape Improvements • Enhanced sidewalks and intersection Improved interior pedestrian and vehicle circulation • Enhanced connectivity and street crossings • Pedestrian-friendly street corners • Shared driveway access and parking Proposed Crossing Enhancement for Stormwater Planters 1111 • u�i'• .?iii'•' I_ �,I�Ilr�r :iar.r • r�. , .'+ ,• ,. 4. s• ''+ •'� '"' jr 1 4i • it / Ir It `2 0 �q._ a� °o 0 by c� °C �000c)( oo °o Y Potential SOU Building and Plaza,Complementary to Festival Street Special Intersection Pavement Carts or Booths Potential Outdoor Space, Complementary to the Festival Street Shared Space forTruck Delivery and Occasional Festivals(See Note 1) Walker Avenue Festival Street with Flush Curbs Current Property Lines (Typical) Potential for Future Existing building with redevelopment potential Wall Note 1: Location of vendors,carts or booths coordinated with delivery schedules of market.Truck ingress and egress from Walker Street. � f Note 2: Scenario assumes re-development and re- configuration of all parking to promote new pedestrian connections City of Ashland,TSP Update 3 Im -3 Ell K I L I z E = 0 — o E V w o N I I N � Sidewalk Parkrow _B 7'— Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone N K Flush Pedestrian Only I Shared Space Street Design to meet City Street Standards 4 City of Ashland,TSP Update Future Right-of-Way Approximately 64= Walker Avenue Future Improvements Section A— Looking South Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain Travel Lanes Future Right-of-Way Approximately 1 M Ashland Street Future Improvements Section B—Looking West I� VIQ T QI3 L � K` E �I$ I 5 e o � E I IN I N � Sidewalk Parkrow _B 7'— Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone N K Flush Pedestrian Only I Shared Space Street Design to meet City Street Standards 4 City of Ashland,TSP Update Future Right-of-Way Approximately 64= Walker Avenue Future Improvements Section A— Looking South Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain Travel Lanes Future Right-of-Way Approximately 1 M Ashland Street Future Improvements Section B—Looking West Pedestrian Only IA �I v �Ic K I ao > .` I 13 I I nr Parkrow Sidewalk — 7 81— Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone Festival Street and Intersection Design Features Festival Street Pedestrian Place Streetscape Features I� -3 VIQ I K` 5 =.V o � I IN I Pedestrian Only IA �I v �Ic K I ao > .` I 13 I I nr Parkrow Sidewalk — 7 81— Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone Festival Street and Intersection Design Features Festival Street Pedestrian Place Streetscape Features Creating a pedestrian-friendly environment requires improved pedestrian connectivity,and a balance between residential and commercial uses. City of Ashland TSP Update Tol-man Creek Road and Ashland Street Pedestrian Place im March 2011 Revised October 2011 rs Concept Plan This conceptual development plan provides a hypothetical example that serves to illustrate how a property could develop through implementing the Pedestrian Places building blocks. Development Summary Building A:2-Story Apartment Building • 60 Apartments Building B: 2-Story Mixed-use Building • General Retail Space—6-10 shops (15,000 so • Office Space— 15,000 sf. Flexible Parking Standards • Various parking credit options Achievable Density • 25—30 duelling units / acre • FAR= 0.67:1 Balancing Residential and Commercial Uses • Expand housing choices in core area and connectivity to existing residential neighborhoods Office and retail complementary to existing commercial uses • Modestly sized,affordable apartments Transportation and Streetscape Improvements Enhanced sidewalks and intersection • Opportunities for additional neighborhood connectivity • Transit-supportive densities for frequent service • Reduced parking areas • Pedestrian-friendly building design Green Street and Intersection Design Features IA ;16 I a ~ v_ E Y 2 A a A Sidewalk Parkrow, Blke Fay — B' 7 6' Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone 21' K 1 Sidewalk Furnish Zone Bike 8• 7 Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone 21' I� �19 c UI� O av 15 � x Y O n Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain Travel Lanes Bike Facilityl Parkrow I Sidewalk 6• 1 7• B•_ Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone 21' Future Right-of-Way Approximately 74' Tolman Creek Road Future Improvements Section A— Looking North Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain Travel Lanes Future Right-of-Way Approximately 100' Ashland Street Future Improvements Section B— Looking West Special Intersection Pavement IA gl$ rc 2 I:L 0 T I:y a E s ° A cillty Furnish ZOne Sidewalk 7• B•— Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone 21' Stormwater Planter Street Furnishings Area Bicycle Parking— Corner Entry Stormwater Planter with On-street Parking P m -,09 7 Pedestrian Scale Street Special Intersection Pavement Street Designs to meet City Street Standards ] ' J I 1 —1 r'",R Pedestrian Place Streetscape Features L City of Ashland,TSP Update c �I Uic K\ W Q Sidewalk Parkrow, Blke Fay — B' 7 6' Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone 21' K 1 Sidewalk Furnish Zone Bike 8• 7 Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone 21' I� �19 c UI� O av 15 � x Y O n Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain Travel Lanes Bike Facilityl Parkrow I Sidewalk 6• 1 7• B•_ Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone 21' Future Right-of-Way Approximately 74' Tolman Creek Road Future Improvements Section A— Looking North Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain Travel Lanes Future Right-of-Way Approximately 100' Ashland Street Future Improvements Section B— Looking West Special Intersection Pavement IA gl$ rc 2 I:L 0 T I:y a E s ° A cillty Furnish ZOne Sidewalk 7• B•— Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone 21' Stormwater Planter Street Furnishings Area Bicycle Parking— Corner Entry Stormwater Planter with On-street Parking P m -,09 7 Pedestrian Scale Street Special Intersection Pavement Street Designs to meet City Street Standards ] ' J I 1 —1 r'",R Pedestrian Place Streetscape Features L City of Ashland,TSP Update Corner Architectural Treatment Weather Protection (Rain or Sun) Corner Entry Corner Plaza 4 City of Ash land,TSP Update 10'Allowable Setback for Seating/ Display 10'Allowable Setback and Pedestrian Through Zone Furnishing and Storm Water Corner Plaza 8' Treatment Zone 7' Public Realm Features Primary streetscape character elements are the Green Street design with flow-through stormwater planters,ornamental street fights with banners and a paved sidewalk furnishing zone near the intersection to accommodate bus shelters,bike racks and outdoor seating.The corner entry and building setback, building articulations and large ground floor windows help create a more comfortable pedestrian environment alongside an inhospitable street. Designing the Public Realm Pedestrian Scaled Street Light -Per City Standard Streeetscape Character Elements Storm WaterTreament(Starts at 40'From Intersection) Street Furnishing Zone(Bus Shelter,Bike Rack etc.) Cycle Lane ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.72.080 SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PEDESTRIAN PLACES PROJECT Annotated to show deletion and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined4hfouo and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section I of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 7:34 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of_ - accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to.balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on- line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location; and An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 1 WHEREAS, the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011 and, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT— 11-C-1 BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS] is hereby amended to read as follows: II-C-lc) Landscaping 1. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years. 2. Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. 3. Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District and Detail Site Review Zone. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 4. Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. 5. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 2 SECTION 3. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT— II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW.STANDARDS] is hereby amended to read as follows: II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale I. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of.5033 and shall not exeeed a maximum Floor Ar-ea Ratio of .5 for fill areas ou the Historic Dist . Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ra FAR. The development shall achieve the required minimum FAR, or provide a shadow plan (see Graphic) that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR. ' I Shadow plan 2. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building fagade. 3. Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. 4. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. 5. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. 6. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 3 II-C-2b) Streetscape 1. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above. 2. A building shall be setback not more than 5 29 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 5 20 feet of the sidewalk. (Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance # 2900) 11 C 2e) Parking and On site Cireulation 1. Proteeted raised walkways shnil be installed through parking areas of 5 or Fnere spoees or more than 100 feet in average width or depth. 2. Parking lots With 50 spnees or- more shfill be divided into separate areft and divided by landseaped areas or- walkways at least 10 feet in width-,-or- of buildings. 3. Developinen�tqs aof�-ine aneree nar more must provide a pedestrian and bieyele ,ilation plan r,._ the .act,, n.... ..:t.. pedestrian ..u,..,....s must be lighted to a level where the system ean be used at night by employees-, residents and eusta....a...a. Pedestrian walkways shall be dire tly link. t.. entranees and to the internal eir-eulation of the building. II-C-2dLe)Buffering and Screening 1. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist or either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. 2. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. 11 C 2e) Lighting Lighting shall include ndequate lights that are sealed for pedestrians by ineluding light stfindards or ploeentents of ne greater- than 14 feet in heigh II-C-Md)Building Materials 1. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior wall area. 2. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 4 SECTION 4. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT— II-C-3 ADDITIONAL STANDAREDS FOR LARGE SCAEL PROJECTS) is hereby amended to read as follows: II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale I. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. 2. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform to the following standards: (Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance # 2900) a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a -building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside of the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet or a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including roof top parking, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas locate within the building foot print and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any. floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. 3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation shall be 60 feet. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 5 • I des e dam..f sidewalks, pedestrian seal.. light standards and street • u trees: SECTION 5. Site Design and Use Standards [SECTION VIII CROMAN MILL DISTRICT STANDARDS — B. DESIGN STANDARDS ] is hereby amended to read as follows: VIII-B-2 Parking Areas and On-site Circulation 1. Primary parking areas shall be located behind buildings with limited parking on one side of the building. 2. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screened from non-residential uses. 3. Parking areas shall meet the Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of Section 11-D of the Site Design and Use Standards. Additional Parking Area and On-site Circulation Standards for Developments Adjacent to Active Edge Streets, or Within NC, MU and OE Overlays: 4. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings. G Droteeted r ,.d walkways shall be C....t..11ed through parking ing areas of 50 or than 100 feet in average width or- de th 6 P 10 _ 1 ith 50 spnees or more shall be divided into separate areas and divide by landseaped areas arwalleways at least ten feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. 7. Developments of one nere or more must provide a pedestrian and bieyele eireulation plait for the site. On site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a Ievell ii,here the system ean be used at night by employees, residents and eustomers. Pedestrian walkways shfkll be direetly linked to enty-anees and to the internal eireulatien of the building VIII-B-3 Automobile Parking With the exception of the standards described below, automobile parking shall be provided in accordance with the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92, Section VI11-C Croman Mill District Green Development Standards, and Section II—D Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. 1. Credit for Automobile redueed by not more than . The amount of required off street par-Iiing shall be u ft. On Street Creditt One off street par-ldng spnee er-edit for- eve", on sty-eet spnee. Demand Management (TDAI) plan that demonstrates n reduetion of long term. parking demand by a pereentikge equal to the eredit requested. e. Mixed Use Credit! Through a mixed use parldng arrangement tha d.....onstr-ates the . enk parking demands a offset The eredCt shall reduce the- off street par-king requireme ge equal to the offset in parkin demand. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 6 i areas,d. Shared Parking Credit; One off street parking spoee eredit for- every spnee eonstrueted in designated off 9-te shared par-idng in lien of or- through-payinen" parking parking upon establishment of a parking management strategy for the Creman Mill Distriet. 11 Maximum On-Site Surface Parking. After a parking management strategy for the Croman Mill District is in place, a maximum of 50% of the required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking on any development site. The remaining parking requirement can be met through one or a combination of the credits for automobile parking in VIII-B 3(4) 18.92.025. SECTION 6. Site Design and Use Standards [SECTION Vlll CROMAN MILL DISTRICT STANDARDS —B. GREEN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ] is hereby amended to read as follows: VIII-C-4 Design Green Surface Parking A maximum of 25% of the project area shall be used for surface parking Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. All parking areas shall meet th following standards, and shall comply with the with the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92, with Section VIII-13 Croman Mill Design Standards, and Section II—D Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. I. Use a maximum of 250% of the projeet area for- surfaee parking; 2. 1-ke at lefist one of the foliowing strategies for- the surfaee parking area, or put 501% of parking under-ground. a. Use light eolered paving mat .0 solar- refleetanee (Solar- Refleetive Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduee heat absorption for- a minimum of 50%6 o the par-icing area surNee; b. Provide per-ous solid sur-faei *d pavement system that is at least 0 for- 0 e D..oAde at least 500,1 shade f....m tree eanopy ever the .. ..f^^^ lot.. within fi f.. ..t .. VIII-C-S Manage and Reuse of Stormwater Run-Off Reduce the public infrastructure costs and adverse environmental effects of stormwater run- off by managing run-off from building roofs, driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and other hard surfaces through implementation of the following standards. 1. Design grading and site plans to capture and slow runoff. 2. Design parking lots and other hard surfuee areas in a way that eaptur-es and treats X 2.Use pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate the soil. 4.3.Direct discharge storm water runoff into a designated green street and neighborhood storm water treatment facilities. 5•-.4.Retain rainfall on-site through infiltration, evapotranspiration or through capture and reuse techniques. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 7 SECTION 7. 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 8. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1- 4) 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 12011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 8 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.08, 18.12.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.0809 18.72.090, 18.88, 18.88.080, 18.92, 18.108.0409 18.108.060 AND 18.108.080 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PEDESTRIAN PLACES PROJECT Annotated to show aele fie s and additions to the.code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined-through and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers riot inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess, all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shon 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland.Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving(RPS) planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on- line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.118 Page 1 successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location; and WHEREAS, the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 18.08.651 Setbaek, Speeial. The distanee between the eenter fine of a street and the speeial base line setbnek ccaccr-rtne SECTION 18.08.655 Shadow Plan A schematic or conceptual design for future land development when a lot could be developed at a higher intensity. A shadow plan demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required building intensity standards (i.e. Floor Area Ratio), and that the proposed development has been planned to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated development. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 2 SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.12.020 [Classification of Districts] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.12.020 Classification of Districts. For the purpose of this Title, the City is divided into zoning districts designated as follows: r Zoning Districts and Overlays Map Symbol and Abbreviated Designation Airport Overlay A Residential - Rural RR Residential - Single Family R-1 Residential - Low Density Multiple Family R-2 Residential - High Density Multiple Family R-3 Commercial C-1 Commercial - Downtown C-1-13 Employment E-1 Industrial M-1 Woodland Residential WR SOU - Southern Oregon University SOU Performance Standards EP}-_Options Overlay PSO Pedestrian Place Overlay PP Detail Site Review Zone DSR Health Care Services Zone HC North Mountain Neighborhood NM Croman Mill District Zone CM Residential Overlay R Freeway Sign Overlay F SECTION 4. AMC Section 18.68.050 [Arterial Street Setback Requirements] is hereby deleted as follows: streets,SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Seffinek Requirements. T-e permit or- alUrd better- light, air- and vision on mere heavily tr-fiveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to pr-oteet arterial widening ef hereinafter named and to per-mit the even streets, > shall be measured f.oin the s ial base line sett eke listed below instead of the Wt 1:.... separating the lot fr-ofn the street. Street- Setbaek l - 33 feet 1 66) between 1 65 feet City limits and Sisldyou ll�ettlevar An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 3 Also, fr-ont yar-ds for pr-opet4ies abutting all arterial streets qhA'1 he no less than.PA,ent), (24) feet, with the exeeption of the CA4 find C 1 D distriets and proper-ties abuttiHg Lithin Way in the C 1 distiriet SECTION 5. AMC Chapter 18.72.030 [Applicability] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.030 Applicability. Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below. A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses: a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC, CM and M-1 zones. b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings, schools, churches, etc.). c. Mixed-use structures or developments containing commercial and residential uses in residential zoning districts within the Pedestrian Places Overlay. e d.Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. d e.Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which alters or affects circulation on adjacent property or a public right-of-way. e f. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. Eg.Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined b the zoning regulations of this Code. g h.Any exterior change to a structure which.is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. h L Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). j. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. 2. Residential uses: a. Two or more residential units on a single lot. b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row . houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). d. Any exterior change to a structure individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 4 e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). (Ord 2984, amended, 05/19/2009; Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord 3036, amended, 08/17/2010) f. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and procedure requirements provided that the development complies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter. 1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses. 2. Land divisions regulated by the following chapters: Partitioning (18.76), Subdivisions (18.80), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance Standards (18.88). 3. The following mechanical equipment: a. Private, non-commercial radio and television antennas not exceeding a height of seventy (70) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure, whichever height is greater and provided no part of such antenna shall be within the yards required by this Title. A building permit shall be required for any antenna mast, or tower over fifty (50) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure when the same is constructed on the roof of the structure. b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas, each under one (1) meter in diameter, on any one lot or dwelling unit. c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts, with the exception of Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. Installation of mechanical equipment not exempted by (a, b, c) above or (e) below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property and consistent with other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and setback requirements of Section 18.68.140(c). e. Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment in all zones. (Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 6. AMC Chapter 18.72.080 [Site Design Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.080 Site Design Standards. A. The Council may adopt standards by ordinance for site design and use. These standards may contain: 1. Additional approval criteria for developments affected by this Chapter. 2. Information and recommendations regarding project and unit design and layout, landscaping, energy use and conservation, and other considerations regarding the site design. 3. Interpretations of the intent and purpose of this Chapter applied to specific examples. 4. Other information or educational materials the Council deems advisable. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 5 B. Before the Council may adopt or amend the guidelines standards, a public hearing must be held by the Planning Commission and a recommendation and summary of the hearing forwarded to the Council for its consideration. C. The Site Design and Use Standards adopted by Ordinance No's. 2690, 2800, 2825, 2900 and 3031, shall be applied as follows: 1. The Multi-family Residential Development Standards in Section 11.13 shall be applied to the construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.). 2. The Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Development standards in Section II.C. shall be applied to non-residential development (e.g. public buildings, schools, etc.) SECTION 7. AMC Chapter 18.72.090 [Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.090 Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards. An administrittove varianee exception to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18072.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties, and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; or B. Appr-eval of the variance will not substantially negatively impaet adjf1een C. and �. B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. SECTION 8. AMC Chapter 18.72.120 [Controlled access] is hereby deleted as follows: SECTION 18.72.120 Controlled neeess. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 6 , 1. , 1. eentrolled neeess standards set fe...al. below. if e.....l:e...61.. .. ....5 access easements shall be required so that neeess to all propeAies created by the !an mi-kinn pan he made from one or- more pointsz R Street d d its R 2, R 3, G 1 E 1 or M_1 shall be limited zone to the. fell. � r , feet;1. Distanee between driveways. On arterial streets 100 on eolleetor streets 75 feet;on residential streets 50 feet. 2. D-stanee from intersections. On arter-in! streets 100 feet; on eolleeter streets 50 feet; ON Fes streets 35 feet. C. Street and d ints in the C1%4 zone are subjeet to the req ir-ements of the Greman Mill Di 'ee4 Standards (Ord 3036, added, 08/17/2010) D. keeess Requirements for Multi family Developmentsw I. A 11 muliti fafflib, developments whieh will have automobile trip generation in exeeiss of 250 .,eh*e'e trips per day shall provide at least two driveway neeess points to th development. Trip generation shall be deter-mined by the methods established by the institute of Transportntion Engineers. 2. Creating an obstrueted street, as defined in 18.88.020.6, is SECTION 9. AMC Section 18.88 [Sections] is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 18.88 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS SECTIONS: 18.88.010 Purpose and Intent. 18.88.020 Definitions. 18.88.030 Procedure for Approval. 18.88.040 Performance Standards for Residential Developments. 18.88.050 Street Standards. 18.88.060 Parking Standards. 18.88.070 Setbacks. 18.88.080 PSO-Overlay Zone. 18.88.090 Performance Standards Guidelines. 18.88.100 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Development Ordinance. SECTION ]0. AMC Section 18.8 8.080 [Sections] is hereby amended to.read as follows: An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 7 SECTION 18.88.080 PSO-Overlay-pone. A. The purpose of the PSO-overlay zone is to distinguish between those areas which have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, topography, vegetation, or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. B. All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, or development of individual living units, in the PSO-overlay areas, shall be processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoning districts shall be three. (Ord 3036, amended, 08/18/10). C. In a PSO-overlay area, the granting of the application shall be considered an outright permitted use, subject to review by the Commission for compliance with the standards set forth in this Ordinance and the guidelines adopted by the Council. D. If a parcel is not in a PSO-overlay area, then development under this Chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width; or 2. That development under this Chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact; or — 3. The property is zoned R-2, R-3 or CM. SECTION 11. AMC Chapter 18.92 [Off-Street Parking] is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 18.92 OFD PARKING, ACCESS AND CIRCULATION SECTIONS: 18.92.010 Generally Purpose. 18.92.020 Applicability. 18.92.028030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required. 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parkins Places. 18.92.023050 Credit for On stVeet Automobil° Parking Management Strategies. 18.92.030 Disabled Per-son Parking Pinees. 18.92.040060 Bicycle Parking. 18.92.050 Compoet Car Parking-. 18.92.053070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. 18.92.060 Limitations,Loention, Use of Facilities-. 18.92.078080 Parking, Access and Circulation Design Requirements. 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. 18.92.088100 Construction. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 8 18.92.990110 Alterations and Enlargements. 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities. SECTION 18.92.010 General! Purpose. enjo ged, or the use is ehanged, off street parking shall be provided as set forth in thi Chapter The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards for development of vehicle and bicycle parking and to ensure developments provide safe and effective access and circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. SECTION 18.92.020 Applicability. In all districts except those specifically exempted, whenever any building is erected or enlarged parking or access is reconfigured or the use is changed, parking, access and circulation shall-be provided as set forth in this chapter. The City may require a study prepared by a qualified professional to determine offsets in parking demand access circulation and other transportation impacts. SECTION 18.92.029030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required. Uses and standards are as follows: A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1.. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for accessory residential units: a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit. b. I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units --1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units -- 2.00 spaces/unit. 2. Multi-family dwellings. a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit. b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger-- 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units -- 2.00 spaces/unit. e. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater -- One space per unit. 3. Clubs fraternity and sorority houses, rooming and boarding houses, dormitories. Two spaces for each three guest rooms; in dormitories, 100 square feet shall be equivalent to a guest room. 4. Hotels and motels. One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner or manager. 5. Manufactured housing g evelopments. Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.84. 6. Performance Standards Developments. Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.88. B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 9 I. Auto boat or trailer sales retail nurseries and other open-space uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of the first 10,000 square feet of gross land area; plus one space per 5,000 square feet for the excess over 10,000 square feet of gross land area; and one per two employees. 2. Bowling Alleys. Three spaces per alley, plus additional spaces for auxiliary activities set forth in this section. 3. Business, general retail, person services. General - one space for 350 square feet of gross floor area. Furniture and appliances - one space per 750 square feet of gross floor area. 4. Chapels and mortuaries. One space per four fixed seats in the main chapel. 5. Offices. Medical and dental - one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. General - one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. (Ord 3034, amended, 08/17/10) 6. Restaurants, bars, ice cream parlors and similar uses. One space per four seats or one space per 100 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area, whichever is less. 7. Skating rinks. One space per 350 sq. ft. of gross building area. 8. Theaters, auditoriums, stadiums, gymnasiums and similar uses. One space per four seats. C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Industrial and Warehousing uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees, whichever is less, plus one space per company vehicle. 2. Public utilities (gas, water, telephone, etc.), not including business offices. One space per two employees on the largest shift, plus one space per company vehicle; a minimum of two spaces is required. (Ord 3034, amended, 08/17/10) D. Institutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Child care centers having 13 or more children. One space per two employees; a minimum of two spaces is required. 2. Churches. One space per four seats. 3. Golf courses, except miniature. Eight spaces per hole, plus additional spaces for auxiliary uses set forth in this section. Miniature golf courses -four spaces per hole. 4. Hospitals. Two spaces per patient bed. 5. Nursing and convalescent homes. One space per three patient beds. 6. Rest homes, homes for the aged, or assisted living; One space per two patient beds or one space per apartment unit. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 10 7. Schools, elementary and junior high. One and one-half space per classroom, or the requirements for public assembly areas as set forth herein, whichever is greater. 8. High schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per 10 students the school is designed to accommodate, or the requirements for public assembly as set forth herein, whichever is greater. 9. Colleges, universities and trade schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per five students the school is designed to accommodate, plus requirements for on-campus student housing. E. Unspecified Uses. Where automobile parking requirements for any use .are not specifically defined in this section, such requirements shall be determined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data. F. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the required number of spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces provided on-street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable spaces. SECTION 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parking Places. The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following: Total in Parking Lot Required Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces_--, 1 to 25 _ 1_ 26 to 50 _ 2 51 to 75 3 76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 -- ----- 201 to 300 7� 301 to 400 8 401 to 500 9 One in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, must be van accessible. A van accessible parking space is required to be at least nine feet wide and have an adjacent access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. Required Disabled Person Parking spaces shall be designed in accord with all requirements of the State of Oregon, including minimum widths, adjacent aisles, and permanent markings. Disabled Person Parking space designs are included at the end of this chapter. SECTION 18.92.033050 Credit for On street Automobil Parking Management Strategies. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page I 1 The amount of required off-street parking may be reduced up to 50% through the application of the following credits. A. On-Street Parking Credit, The amount of off-street parking required shall be reduced by the following credit provided for on-street parking: one off-street parking space credit for every twoone on-street spnees up to four eredits, thereafter for eneh on street parking space. BA.Dimensions. On-street parking shall.follow the established configuration of existing on- street parking, except that 45 degree diagonal parking may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director, taking into account traffic flows and street design, with the parking spaces designed in accord with the standards on file with the Public Works Department. The following shall constitute an on-street parking space: Ia.Parallel parking, each 24 22 feet of uninterrupted curb. 2=b 45 degree diagonal, each 13 12 feet of uninterrupted curb. 2. Location. Ga.Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the parking. D-.b.Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any comer or intersection of an alley or street, nor any other parking configuration that violates any law or standard of the City or State. l.c.Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if the arterial or collector is greater in width than the minimums established by the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 514, 1999) F.d.Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 200 feet of a C-1-D or SO zone. G3.Availibility. On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be used exclusively by that use, but shall be available for general public use at all times. No signage or actions limiting general public use of on-street spaces shall be permitted. B. Alternative Vehicle Parking. Alternative vehicle parking facilities may be substituted for up to 25 percent of the required parking space on site. 1. Motorcycle or scooter parking. One off-street parking space credit for four motorcycle or scooter parking spaces. 2. Bicycle parking. One off-street parking space credit for five additional, non- required bicycle parking spaces. C. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the requirements for the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking demands are offset. In such case, the mixed-use credit shall reduce the off-street parking requirement by a percentage equal to the reduced parking demand. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 12 D. Joint Use of Facilities. Required parkin? facilities of 2 or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used iointly, to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators that the need for the facilities does not materially overlap (e.g., uses primarily of a daytime vs. nighttime nature) and provided that such right of joint use is evidenced by a deed, lease, contract, or similar written instrument establishing such joint use. E. Shared Parking. One off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in designated off-site shared parking areas, or through payment of in-lieu-of-parking fees for a common parkin?. F. TDM Plan Credit. Through implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested. G. Transit Facilities Credit. Sites where at least 20 spaces are required, and where at least one lot line abuts a street with transit service may substitute transit-supportive plazas for required parking as follows. 1. Pedestrian and transit supportive plazas may be substituted for up to ten percent of the required parking spaces on site. 2. A street with transit service shall have a minimum of 30-minute peak period transit service frequency. 3. Existing parkinp areas may be converted to take advantage of these provisions. 4. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. If there is a bus stop along the site's frontage, the plaza must be adjacent to the bus stop. 5. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area and be shaped so that a ten foot by ten foot square will fit entirely in the plaza. 6. The plaza must include all of the following elements: a. A plaza that is open to the public. The owner must record a public access easement that allows public access to the plaza; b. A bench or other sitting area with at least five linear feet of seating; c. A shelter or other weather protection. The shelter must cover at least 20 square feet and the plaza must be landscaped. This landscaping is in addition to any other landscaping or screening required for parking areas by the Code. The totni number- of disabled per-son par-hing spsee ilh the following! Total in parkilig L�t of A-eeesmbte __.--__-_--j 4 26 to 50 2 —51 to 75 3 76 to 100 4 4544e-200- 6 An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 13 4^ 0- 7 �1-te-400- 8 1-te -- 9 Required Disabled Per-son Parking spnees shall b e designed in neeord with an requirements markings. Disabled Per-son Parking spnee designs are ineluded at the end of this ehapter-. SECTION 18.92.040060 Bicycle Parking. A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C-I-D zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces. B. Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a garage, shall provide bicycle parking spaces as follows: Multi-Family Residential:One sheltered space per studio and 1-bedroom unit 1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit 2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit Senior Housine: One sheltered space per 8 units (80%of the occupants are 55 or older) C. In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically noted, shall provide one bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking spaces. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifty percent of the bicycle parking spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather. All spaces shall be located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve. (Ord 2697 S1, 1993) D. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a minimum of one bicycle parking space for every five auto parking spaces. E. Elementary, Junior High, Middle and High Schools shall provide one sheltered bicycle parking space for every five students. F. Colleges, universities, and trade schools shall provide one bicycle parking space for every five required auto parking spaces, of which one half is to be sheltered. G. No bicycle parking spaces required by this standard shall be rented or leased, however, a refundable deposit fee may be charged. This does not preclude a bike parking rental business. H. The required bicycle parking facilities shall be constructed when an existing residential building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of dwelling units, or when a non-residential use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity, or change in use. I. Bicycle Parking Design Standards An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 14 I. The salient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to cyclists and that it provides sufficient security from theft and damage. 2. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways: a. Providing a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers, or racks inside the building. b. Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure, underneath an awning or marquee, or outside the main building. c. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way. This must be approved by City of Ashland Public Works Department. d. Providing secure storage space inside the building. 3. All required exterior bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of well-used entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right-of-way and to the main entrance of the principal use. For facilities with multiple buildings, building entrances or parking lots (such as a college), exterior bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience for bicyclists. 4. Required bicycle-parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible enough to provide security. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent walkways or motor vehicle parking lots during all hours of use. Bicycle parking shall be at least as well lit as automobile parking. 5. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained between each row of bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be designed in accord with the illustrations used for the implementation of this chapter. 6. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. 7. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. 8. Parking spaces configured as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter meet all requirements of this chapter and is the preferred design. Commercial bike lockers are acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications. A bicycle parking space located inside of a building for employee bike parking shall be a minimum of six feet long by 3 feet wide by 4 feet high, unless adequate room is provided to allow configuration as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter. 9. Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation and must include the minimum protection coverages shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. 10. Bicycle parking shall be located to minimize the possibility of accidental damage to either bicycles or racks. Where needed, barriers shall be installed. 11. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. They shall not be located so as to violate vision clearance standards. Bicycle parking facilities should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design of street furniture. J. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards. 1. All required bicycle parking racks installed shall meet the individual rack specifications shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. Single and multiple rack installations shall conform with the minimum clearance standards shown in the figures at the end of this chapter. Alternatives to the above standard may be approved after review by the Bieyele Transportation Commission and approval by the Staff Advisor. Alternatives shall An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 15 conform with all other applicable standards of this section. Bicycle parking racks or lockers shall be anchored securely. 2. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure that required bicycle racks are designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage. a. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by means of the frame. The frame shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall to one side in a manner that will damage the wheels. b. Bicycle racks shall accommodate: i. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high-security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front wheel; and ii. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both wheels on the bicycle; and iii. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable not longer than 6 feet without removal of the front wheel. c. Paving and Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced in the same manner as the automobile parking area or with a minimum of two inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or similar material) and shall be relatively level. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well- drained condition. SECTION 18.92.050 Compoet Car- Parking. .Up to 0 of the total automobile parking spnees in a parking lot MR), be designfited eompaet ears. Minimum dimensions for eampoet spsees shall be 8 x 16 feet. Sueh spoees shall be signed or- the spnee painted with thewor-ds "Compnet n SECTION 18.92.03070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. In order to preserve existing structures within the Ashland Historic District, while permitting the redevelopment of property to its highest commercial use, a variance of up to 50% of the required automobile parking may be granted to commercial uses within the Ashland Historic District as a Type I Variance. It is the intent of this clause to provide as much off-street parking as practical while preserving existing structures and allowing them to develop to their full commercial potential. Additionally, to identify redevelopment of existing commercial and residential buildings for commercial use within the Ashland Historic District as an exceptional circumstance and unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a variance. SECTION 18.92.060 Limitations, Leeation, Use of A. Leentien. Exeept for single� and two family dwellings, required automobile parld" foeilities may be loented on another par-eel of land, provided said pareel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to ser-ve. The distnnee &om the parking lot to the use shall from the nearest parking spsee to an neep,;q tA the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other- pedestrian p " . .. I m street traffie. Sueh right to use the off site parking must be evideneed by a deed, 'ease, easement, or- similar wr-itten instrument establishing such use, for the duration of the . An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 16 B. Exeept as allowed On 18.92.060.F and exeept in the A4 industrial Distriet, required automobile parking shall not be loented in a required ffont and side yard setbaek area E. Mixed Uses. in the event that several users single of etuaa. or pa.ael of huff l, the total requirements for off street automobile ' ....1.ng shall be the sum of the requirements for- the several uses eomputed separate!), unless it ean be shown that the peak parking demands are offiet. in sueh ease the Staff Adviser nui), reduee the tetal requirements neeordingly, but not by more than 35,116. D 1e*nt Use of Fneil:t:.... Required ....,ddng foeil:ties of 2 or more uses, struetur.,d__.�r ptireels of land may be sntisfied by the same parking fneilities used jointly, to the extent that it .. n be shown by owner-s or operators that theneed for the fneilitips .lops not materially over-lap •, uses primar-ily of a daytime .,. nighttime nature) and provid deed,that sueh right of joint use is evideneed by a lease, , or oraan.aa written instrument establishing sueh joint use E Availability ..f Fneil:ti.... All automobile and 6:.....J.. .,..long shall, be available to E. parking of residents, .st...ner-.. and employees on b,,6., nd shall not be used for- the storage or display of vehieles or materials. C in all r-esidentin' zones, all off street ..long of automobiles, t... eke trailers and reereational vehieles in the front yard shall be limited to a eontiguous area whieh is no more than 950/_ of nren of the front yard or a ntt.y....us fire.. 25 feet wide and the depth of the front yard, ..hieh .. .... is greater-. Sine. parking in violation of this seetion i� oeeasional in nature, and is ineidental to the prime", use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this seetion a not ....6:....t to the proteetion of the violation shall be provided prior to the issunnee of a eitation to appear in Alunieipa Court, and it shnil be r-ebuttably presumed that the vehiele Was parked with peFmiss-*Ofl of the person in eentrol of the proper-ty. Subsequent violations shall not require a , n 24 hour- warning notiee of SECTION 18.92.0-7A080 Automobile Parking, Access and Circulation Design Requirements. A. Parkins Location. 1. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile parkins facilities may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. The distance from the parkins lot to the use shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest parking space to an access to the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other pedestrian path separated from street traffic. Such right to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by a deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use, for the duration of the use. 2. Except as allowed in the subsection below, automobile parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street,except alleys. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.]8 Page 17 3. In all residential zones, all off-street parking of automobiles, trucks, trailers and recreational vehicles in the front yard shall be limited to a contiguous area which is no more than 25% of the area of the front yard, or a contiguous area 25 feet wide and the depth of the front yard, whichever is greater. Since parking in violation of this section is occasional in nature, and is incidental to the primary use of the site no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this section are not subject to the protection of the nonconforming use sections of this ordinance. However, a 24- hour warning notice of violation shall be provided prior to the issuance of a citation to appear in Municipal Court, and it shall be rebuttable presumed that the vehicle was parked with permission of the person in control of the property. Subsequent violations shall not require a warning notice. A-.B.Size nnd keeessParkinp Area Design. All rRequired parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the following standards and dimensions. 1. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet, exeept that 500% of the spnees may be eompnet spsees in neeord with 18.92.05-0. 2. Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." 3_Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space no less than twenty-two (22) feet, except w_ here parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. 4. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas. Parking areas may be divided into separate areas by a building or group of buildings, landscape areas with walkways at least 10 feet in width, plazas; streets or driveways with street-like features. Street-like features, for the purpose of this section, means a raised sidewalk of at least five feet in width, six-inch curb, accessible curb ramps, street trees in planters or tree wells and pedestrian-oriented lighting. 5. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall meet the following standards. a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50% of parking underground. i Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50%pervious for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. iii. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project occupancy. iv. Provide at least 50% shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis structures over the parking area surface. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 18 b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. The intent of this section is to manage access to land uses and on-site circulation, and to preserve the transportation system in terms of safety, capacity and function. 1. Applicability. This section applies to all public streets within the City of Ashland and to all properties that abut these streets. The standards apply when developments are subject to a planning action (e.g. Site Review, Conditional Use Permit, Land Partition, Performance Standards Subdivision). 2. Site Circulation. New development shall be required to provide a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate street-like features as described in Section 18.92.090.A.3.c. Pedestrian connections on the site, including connections through large sites, and connections between sites and adiacent sidewalks must conform to the provisions of Section 18.92.090. 3. Intersection and Driveway Separation. The distance from a street intersection to a driveway, or from a driveway to another driveway shall meet the minimum spacing requirements for the street's classification in the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. b. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access io all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. c. .Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet• on collector streets - 75 feet; on residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 50 feet; on residential streets - 35 feet: d. Street and driveway access points in the CM zone are subject to the requirements of the Croman Mill District Standards. (Ord 3036, added, 08/17/2010) e. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. L All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 19 ii. Creating an obstructed street as defined in Section 18.88.020.G is prohibited. 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements. Where necessary from traffic safety and access management purposes, the City may require joint access and/or shared driveways in the following situations. L For shared parking areas; ii. For adiacent developments, where access onto an arterial is limited, and iii For multi-family developments, and developments on multiple lots. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering Division. c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage. 11.D.Driveways and Turn-Arounds Design. Driveways and tum-arounds providing access to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions: 1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet. 2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner. 3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12 feet in width. subdivision,4. Shared Use of Dr-iveways and Curb Cuts. a. Developments subjeet to a planning setion or- divisions of property, either by minor land partition or-inter-seetions with streets by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots- In no ease shall driveways be ..1....,... than 24 fee as ,mensured from the vvaamu of the existing or proposed apr-en wings of the drivewn b. Plans fer property being partitioned or subdivided or for multi famil) developments shall indiente how driveway interseetiens with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indieste all neeessar £Mews easements ..,..a...:j :j.t.rvua.uw not shown to be neeessa", for existing ifflpFovements e the proposed development. Cuts and appy-enehes shall he Y-eplaeed with standard- permit of the Engineering Division; f gutter or- sidewalk as appropriate. All repliteement shall be done under G4Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6" for their entire length and width. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.]8 Page 20 I}S.Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in Section 18.68.020. E. Parkin¢ and Access Construction Develepmeut-and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, tum-arounds and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic, pervious paving, or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. 3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. 6. Walls and Hedges. a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two, feet from the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians. b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like institutions, a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge not less than five feet, nor more than six feet high shall be provided on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within 10 feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from being damaged by vehicles using said parking areas. 7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 21 8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property. (Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. A. Site Layout and Design. To ensure safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian circulation, all developments, except single-family dwellings on individual lots and accessory uses and structures, shall provide a continuous walkway system. The walkway system shall be based on the standards in subsections 1-4, below: 1. Continuous Walkway System. Extend the walkway system throughout the development site and connect to all future phases of development, and to existing or planned off-site adjacent sidewalks, trails, public parks, and open space areas to the greatest extent practicable. The developer may also be required to connect or stub walkway(s) to adjacent streets and to private property for this purpose. 2. Safe, Direct, and Convenient. Provide safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkwaV connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets, based on the following definitions: a. Reasonably direct. A route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not involve a significant amount of out-of- direction travel for likelV users. b. Safe and convenient. Routes that are reasonably free from hazards and provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations. C. "Primary entrance" for commercial, industrial, mixed use, public, and institutional buildings is the main public entrance to the building. In the case where no public entrance exists, street connections shall be provided to the main employee entrance. d. "Primary entrance" for residential buildings is the front door (i.e. facing the street): For multifamily buildings in which each unit does not have its own exterior entrance, the"primary entrance" may be a lobby, courtyard, or breezeway which serves as a common entrance for more than one dwelling. 3. Connections within Development. Walkways within developments shall be provide connections as required in subsections a -c, below: a. Connect all building entrances to one another to the extent practicable, as generally shown in Figure 1, b. Connect all on-site parking areas, recreational facilities and common areas, and connect off-site adjacent uses to the site to the extent practicable. Topographic or existing development constraints may be cause for not making certain walkway connections, as eenerally shown in Figure 1; and. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 22 Figure 1 Pedestrian Pathway System (Typical) Pebtic 5'�dewet7� n - , Peary Walkww" tatemel S�dewallrs . (Caovcmaf) l , Pod 4RO Cemai¢g=9 Pin=IlLwa Ply Am Between Padmg and BuDdwB, Pain W t.am c. Install protected raised walkways through parking areas of 50 or more spaces, or of more than 100 feet in average width or depth. B. Walkway Design and Construction. Walkways shall conform to all of the standards in subsections 1-4, as generally illustrated in Figure 2: 1. Vehicle/Walkway Separation. Except for crosswalks (subsection 2),where a walkway abuts a driveway or street, it shall be raised six inches and curbed along the edge of the driveway/street. Alternatively, the decision body may approve a walkway abutting a driveway at the same grade as the driveway if the walkway is protected from all vehicle maneuvering areas. An example of such protection is a row of decorative metal or concrete bollards designed to withstand a vehicle's impact,with adequate minimum spacing between them to protect pedestrians. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 23 2. Crosswalks. Where walkways cross a parking area or driveway, clearly mark crosswalks with contrasting paving materials (e.E., light-color concrete inlay between asphalt),which may be part of a raised/hump crossing area. Painted or thermo-plastic striping and similar types of non-permanent applications Figure 2 Pedestrian Walkway Detail may be approved for crosswalks not (Typical) exceeding 24 feet in length. 3. Walkway Surface and Width. Walkway surfaces shall be concrete, asphalt, brick/masonry pavers, or other durable surface, f and at least five feet wide. Multi- use paths (i.e. for bicycles and pedestrians) shall be concrete or 7� asphalt, and at least 10 feet wide in accordance with the Ashland } Street Standards in Section 18.88.020.x. AM Ramp t= Landscape �_Pedesbian Crossing 4. Accessible routes. Walkways stands Break up shall comply with applicable Parking Pews DAWhee'ch*Ramp Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State of Oregon 4tmr�yi requirements. The ends of all Ra raised walkways,where the walkway intersects a driveway or street shall provide ramps that are ADA accessible, and walkways shall provide direct routes to primary building entrances. 5. Provide pedestrian scale lighting no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian facilities. SECTION 18.92.080100 Construction. The required parking, access and circulations facilities, ineluding design standards shall be installed prior to a release of a certificate of use and occupancy or a release of utilities, and shall be permanently maintained as a condition of use. However, the Building Official may, unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission or Staff Advisor, release a temporary certificate of use and occupancy and a temporary release of utilities before the installation of said facilities provided: (1} there is proof that the owner has entered into a contract with a reputable installer for the completion of the parking, including design standards, with a specified time, and that there remains nothing for the owner to do prior to installation; or (2) the owner has posted a An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 24 satisfactory performance bond to ensure the installation of said parking facilities within a specified time. SECTION 18.92.110 Alterations and Enlargements. The required parking, access and circulation facilities shall be constructed when an existing building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of guest rooms or dwelling units, or when a use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity, or change in use.(Ord 2659, 1991; Ord 2777, 1996) SECTION 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities. Required parking, access and circulation shall be available for use by residents, customers and employees only, and shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles or materials. SECTION 12. AMC Section 18.108.040 [Type I Procedure—Actions Included] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.040 Type I Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Procedure: 1. Site Design Review. The following developments that are subject to the Site Design Review Standards outlined in 18.72 shall follow the Type I permit procedures. a. Downtown Design Standards Zone. Any development which is less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever is less. b. Detail Site Review. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone, as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant Chapter 18.72, which is less than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area. c. Commercial, Industrial and Non-residential Uses. i. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones, not within the Downtown Design Standards zone, that do not require new building area in excess of 20% of an existing building' s square footage or 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is less. ii. All new structures or additions less than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area in the CM zoning district. (Ord 3036, added, 08/17/10) iii. Mixed-use buildings and developments containing commercial and residential uses in residential zoning district with the Pedestrian Place Overlay. iii: iv.Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less iv. v.Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which alters circulation affecting adjacent property or public right- of-way. v. viAny change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 25 vi, viiAny change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code. v4h viiiAny exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. ix. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030.B. x. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. d.Residential. i. Two or more residential units on a single lot. ii. All new structures or additions less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, other than single-family homes or accessory uses on individual lots iii. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. iv. Off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). v. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030.B. vii.Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. 2. Miscellaneous Actions. a. Amendments or modification to conditions of approval for Type I planning actions. b. Amendment or modification to conditions of approval for Type Il actions where the modification involves only changes to tree removal and/or building envelopes. planningnetiens. c. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permits as allowed in Chapter 18.62. d. Tree removal permits as required by Section 18.61.042(D). e. Limited Activities and Use permits as allowed in Chapter 18.63. f Water Resource Protection Zone Reductions of up to 25% as allowed in Chapter 18.63. 3. Conditional Use Permits. The following conditional use permits are subject to Type I review procedures: a. Conditional use permits involving existing structures or additions to existing structures, and not involving more than three (3) residential dwelling units. b. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. b-. c.Temporary uses. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 26 e: d.Enlargement, expansion, etc. of nonconforming structures in accordance with Section 18.68.090(2). d-. e.Government signs per Section 18.96.150. e: f.The following uses in Residential zones: i. Accessory residential units ii. Daycare centers. iii. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses less than 2,500 square feet in building footprint and disturbs less than 7,500 square feet of land. iv. Structures in excess of 35 feet in R-3 zone. v. All new structures, additions or expansions that exceed MPFA in historic district up to 25%, but the addition is no larger than 300 s.f. or 10% of the existing floor area, whichever is less. vi. Hostels. vii.Public Parking Lots in the NM-C zone. viii. Community Services in the NM-R15 zone. g.The following uses in Commercial or Industrial zones: i. Electrical substations ii. Outdoor storage of commodities. g. h.The following uses in the Health Care Services Zone: i. Limited personal service providers in the home, such as beauticians and masseurs. ii. Professional offices for an accountant, architect, attorney, designer, engineer, insurance agent or adjuster, investment or management counselor or surveyor. iii. Any medically-related use, located on City-owned property that is not specifically allowed by the Ashland Community Hospital Master Facility Plan. h7 i.Conditional uses in the Southern Oregon University District. 4. Variances for: a. Sign placement. b. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in Section 18.96.130.D. c. Up to 50% reduction of standard yard i requirements. d. Parking in setback areas. e. Up to 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. f. Up to 10%reduction in the required minimum lot area. g. Up to 10% increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage. h. Up to 20%reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements. i. Up to 50% reduction for parking requirements in Ashland's Historic District as described in Section 18.92.055. j. Up to 10% variance on height, width, depth, length or other dimension not otherwise listed in this section. k. Site Design and Use Standards as provided in Section 18.72.090. 5. Partitions and Land Divisions. a. Partitions which require no variances or only variances subject to Type I procedures. b. Creation of a private way, as allowed in Section 18.80.030.B. c. Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivisions. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 27 6. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure. 7. Prior to the Staff Advisor providing notice of application and making a decision, applicants or the Staff Advisor may request planning actions subject to a Type I procedure be heard by the Commission or Hearings Board. In such case, the Staff Advisor shall not make a decision and shall schedule a hearing before the Commission or Hearings Board to be heard as provided in Section 18.108.050. SECTION 13. AMC Section 18.108.060 [Type III Procedures] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.060 Type 111 Procedures. A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type 111 Procedure: 1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 3. Annexations. 4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions. 1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following: a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in Section 18.106.030(G); or e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in Section 18.106.030(G). The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not apply to An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 28 council initiated actions. C. Type III Procedure. 1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be process as follows: a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of the application. b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in Section 18.108.080. c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in Section 18.108.100. 2. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2, the Commission shall have the authority to take such action as is necessary to make the amendments to maps and zones as a result of the decision without further action from the Council unless the decision is appealed. The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the Council as provided in Section 18.108.110. 3. For planning actions described in Section 18.108.060.A.3 and 2 4, the Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45 days of the public hearing. a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in Section 18.108.100. Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in Section 18.108.080. b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. SECTION 14. AMC Section 18.108.080 [Public Hearing Notice] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.080 Public Hearing Notice. Public notice for hearings before the Staff Advisor, Hearings Board or Commission for planning actions shall be given as follows: A. Notices shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the hearing to: 1. The applicant or authorized agent, 2. The subject property owner, and 3. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll within 200 feet of the subject property. B. Mailed notices shall contain the following information, provided, however, that notices for hearings before the Council shall not contain the statements specified in paragraphs 8 and 9: 1. Explanation of the nature of the application and the proposed use or uses which could be authorized. 2. List of the applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan that apply to the application at issue. 3. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property. 4. The name of a local government representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 29 5. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost. 6. The date, time and location of the hearing or of the meeting, if no hearing is involved. 7. A statement that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on that issue. 8. A statement that if additional documents or evidence is provided in support of the application, any party shall be entitled to a continuance of the hearing. 9. A statement that unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. C. Posted Notice. A notice, as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject property by the city in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-way at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. Failure by the city to post a notice, or post in clear view from a public right-of-way shall be considered an incomplete application. The city shall certify, for the record of the hearing, that the posting was accomplished. The failure of the posted notice to remain on the property shall not invalidate the proceedings. The posted notice shall only contain the following information: planning action number, brief description of the proposal, phone number and address for contact at Ashland Planning Department. D. Additional Requirements for Type 11 and Ill Public Notice. In addition to the notice specified in section 18.108.080.A, B and C, notice for Type II and III procedures shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least. 10 days prior to the date of the hearing before the Commission. E. The failure of a property owner to receive notice as provided in this section shall not invalidate such proceedings if the City can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was mailed. The failure to receive notice shall not invalidate the decision after the action is final if a good faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to receive notice. F. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: 1. The city did not mail the notice required in §18.108; 2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's substantial rights; and 3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person knew of should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule a hearing for the next regular Commission or Hearings Board meeting allowing adequate time to comply with the notice requirements of Section 18.108.080. The public hearing shall be conducted as provided in §18.108.100. If a hearing is conducted under this section, the decision of the Commission or Hearings Board shall supersede the previous decision. G. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 30 I. The city did not comply with the notice requirements in §18.108.080.A through E; 2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's substantial rights; and 3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person knew or should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule a hearing before the Board, Commission or Council that heard or would have heard the matter involving the defective notice. a. The Staff Advisor shall notify by mail all persons who previously appeared in the matter and all persons who were entitled to mailed notice but were not mailed such notice. b. The hearing shall be conducted as provided in §18.108.100 if it is a hearing before the Board or Commission, except that the record of the previous hearing shall be reviewed and considered by the Board or Commission. If it is an appeal before the Council, the Council may hear such matters as are permitted in §18.108.110. A decision made after the hearing shall supersede the previous decision. H. Notwithstanding the period specified in subsections F.3 and G.3 of this section, the period for a hearing or appeal shall not exceed three years after the date of the initial decision. SECTION 15. 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 16. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 22-23) 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 '12011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of , 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 31 j JILL III I rCLq.Y_ST CLAY_ST D Or < - ._ - a 0• ci m ; ] =� m :z D 1 / YjwCA- '— ' --- ------ TOLMAN REEK RD– D fD Z O n 0 C p (O .. — 7 CL m O� Q :3 3 I' o. WASHIN:T_ON_ST :3 P.EFFERSQN_AY J _ c: F _ IIF-I1FFA�RII �; " � GLENOALE AV L` m O � ' — H N ao u i G� 4�: A" o' T_LAY ST /--�CUIV ST CD yET OD4 �n J ENG"LE$T (r m .19.QUELYN$i -a^ J � 'CII I �..I Lh I I 'tl� RU(j �wR.c n YMCAWye" ({ G O TOLMAN EEK RD _ A� q� N W ' N WA$HIN \ JEFFERSOWAV �u4a%" altll \a' yag5 A O / O O T CID A O � syM / �1��H IVEH LN v � o � oao W W a CL _ �. Oc. o . < d Z. ' CL 0 CL N ffi g n m V r m ! �L / � rte-- - •, .� > . . _ d - cn o IMI I - f I I r` �1 ZO Ri T Co V a 1 0 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Buildable Lands Inventory Meeting Date: November 1,2011 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman Department: mmunity Development E-Mail: goldmanb @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: one Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar Approval: Larry Patterson Estimated Time: 10 Minutes Question: Will Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to Adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as Supporting Documentation to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Recommendations: The Planning Commission reviewed the draft Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) at a study session on August 24`h 2011, held a public hearing on September 13, 2011, and following public testimony and deliberations the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance and adoption of the Buildable Lands Inventory. Staff recommends the Council adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as a supporting technical document to Chapter XII of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Background: The City Council held a public hearing on this topic at the October 18, 2011 regular meeting. The public hearing on-his item is now closed. The purpose of updating the "Buildable Lands Inventory" (BLI) is to quantify the amount of vacant and underdeveloped land in the City of Ashland. The updated BLI and associated Geographic Information System (GIS) database provide a detailed inventory of residential, commercial and employment lands. The BLI consists of a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database that quantifies buildable areas for all tax lots within the City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The attached technical report and associated BLI GIS Database describe: • the aggregate buildable area of parcels within each comprehensive plan designation; • allowable base densities by zone or comprehensive plan designation; • projected population growth and household size; • the size and locational characteristics of each parcel within the City's UGB; • the capacity of each parcel to accommodate future dwellings; and • the cumulative buildable acreage by zoning and comprehensive plan designation. The information assembled and presented in the BLI provides geographically based information regarding the capacity of potential future development locations. This BLI information is integrated into a number of City plans and functions including: • Provides a factual basis to assist in evaluating land use applications relating to annexation and or zone changes;. Pagel of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND • Provides information useful to implementing economic development strategies (Economic Opportunities Analysis forecasting, business land searches, etc); • Provides necessary information to compare land availability with projected land needs in a Housing Needs Analysis; • Provides a basis for modeling future traffic generation and transit opportunities (Transportation System Plan and individual traffic studies); • Informs the Water Master Plan, and utility installation efforts to ensure new facilities are sized to accommodate future growth at installation; • Assists the Fire Department in weed abatement and hydrant testing prioritization efforts; • Informs Parks Master Planning efforts to identify future growth areas and neighborhood parks and greenway opportunities. In 1999, the City of Ashland prepared a Buildable Lands Inventory. In January 2005, the BLI was updated. The attached 2011 BLI has been updated to reflect all land availability for both residential and commercial lands current as of July 2011. In order to allow the Buildable Lands Inventory GIS database to be more regularly updated the ordinance presented for consideration includes a provision allowing future updates of the BLI to be approved by Resolution of the City Council. This provision will enable staff to more readily update the BLI and present the revised technical document to the City Council reflecting consumption of buildable land by development, and redevelopment, through the issuance of building permits as well as to make modifications to reflect any changes in residential development potential due to land use or zone changes as approved by ordinance by the City Council Related City Policies: Comprehensive Plan Chapter XII of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Appendix A entitled "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents" Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter ALUO 18.108.170—Procedure for Legislative Amendments. Council Options: Approve the proposed ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the BLI as a supporting technical document, or recommend specific modifications to the ordinance or document to be presented at second reading. Potential Motions: Move to approve first reading of the ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive plan to adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as a supporting document, and schedule second reading. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Exhibit A -Buildable Lands Inventory Exhibit B—Comprehensive Plan Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents PA#201 1-01001 Application Page 2 of 2 I`, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY AS A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan contains policies regarding the urbanization of land within the urban growth boundary which are based upon the available inventories of specific land classifications. WHEREAS, in 1999, the City of Ashland passed Resolution 1999-058 which adopted the 1998- 99 Buildable Lands Inventory as the official inventory in support of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and established the methodology for conducting an inventory of available land. WHEREAS, the Buildable Lands Inventory adopted in 1999, and updated in 2005, does not reflect development that has occurred subsequent to its adoption date. WHEREAS, the Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) reflects the supply of developable land within the Ashland City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary based upon specific land classification and constraints to development current as of April 1, 2011. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan at a duly advertised public Page 1 of 3 hearing on September 13, 2011 and, following deliberations, unanimously recommended approval of the amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents" is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B. Previously added support documents are acknowledged on this Appendix. SECTION 3. The document entitled "The City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory, (2011)," attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference is hereby added to the above-referenced Appendix to support Chapter XII, [URBANIZATION] the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 4. The document entitled "The City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory,"maybe updated by Resolution of the City Council to account for consumption of buildable land by development, and re-development, as reflected in the issuance of Building Permits by the City. SECTION 5. 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 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word,and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. Page 2 of 3 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 12011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _day of 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 Exhibit B Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents City of Ashland, Oregon Comprehensive Plan Periodically,the City may choose to conduct studies and prepare technical reports to adopt by reference within the Comprehensive Plan to make available for review by the general public.These studies and reports shall not serve the purpose of creating new city policy, but rather the information,data and findings contained within the documents may constitute part of the basis on which new policies may be formulated or existing policy amended. In addition, adopted studies and reports provide a source of information that may be used to assist the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions. Chapter Il, Introduction and Definitions The following reports are adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Il, Introduction and Definitions. 1. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan(2008) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17,2010 Chapter IV, Environmental Resources The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IV, Environmental Resources. 1. City of Ashland Local Wetland Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory(2005/2007) by Ordinance 2999 on December 15,2009. Chapter VII, Economy The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII, The Economy. 1. City of Ashland: Economic Opportunities Analysis(April 2007)by Ordinance 3030 on August 17,2010 Chapter XII, Urbanization The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter XII,Urbanization. 1 City of Ashland: Buildable Lands Inventory(2011)by Ordinance on Cl T Y OF ,ASHLAND Planning Application Application for approval of an ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) as a supporting technical document to be included in the Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents". DATE: 7/19/2011 Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner 541-552-2076 or brand on.goldman @ashland.or.us Purpose The purpose of conducting an update of the "Buildable Lands Inventory' (BLI) is to quantify the amount vacant and underdeveloped land presently available within the political boundaries of the City of Ashland (City Limts, Urban Growth Boundary, and specific zones). A BLI ultimately assists the City in determining whether or not there exists an adequate supply of buildable land to accommodate future housing and business development. The Buildable Land Inventory (2011), and proposed Ordinance, are provided as attachments for the Planning Commission and City Council's consideration. As proposed the Ordinance would adopt the current BLI and would allow future updates of the Buildable Lands Inventory to be approved by Resolution of the City Council.Upon adoption the updated BLI becomes a supporting technical document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and as such would provide a factual basis for future legislative and quasijudicial land-use decisions relating to available land supply. Background In 1999, the City of Ashland prepared a Buildable Lands Inventory which provided a complete inventory of vacant and redevelopable residential lands h the City's existing UGB. In January 2005, the BLI was updated to account for changes that had taken place on residential landssubsequent to 1999, and to further assess vacant and partially vacant employment and commercial lands. In 2007 the City began an evaluation of its economic land needs as the basis for the 2007 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), which was adopted by the City Council in 2010. The EOA provided information regarding future commercial and employment land needs based on projected economic conditions. In 2007 a Rental Needs Analysis was completed to assess the needed rental housing types based on demographic information on households including size, age, and incomes. This Rental Needs Analysis supplemented information in a Housing Needs Analysis which was completed for the City in 2002. All of these studies project future land needs relative tothe existing supply of land suitable for development. Beginning with the adoption of the City's local wetland inventory in 2009 the City approved the creation of an appendix to the Comprehensive Ran (Appendix A) as a systematic means of incorporating Department of Community Development Tel:541-488-5305 51 Wnbum Way Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.wshland.orms various technical reports and supporting documents into the plan that may be used to assist the community in evaluating policy and local land use decisions. The appendix was expanded in 2010 to include the Croman Mill Plan and Economic Opportunities Analysis.The ordinance presented for consideration adopting the BLI also amends Appendix A to include the BLI by reference as a support document of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan's chapter on Urbanization (Chapter XII). The updated BLI document, and associated Geographic Information System (GIS)database, provides a detailed inventory of the supply of residential, commercial and employment lands. Methodology The development of the BLI, and subsequent analysis of land use, were completed using a geographic information system (GIS)database. A taxlot-level database containing all tax-lot records within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary was assembled using Jackson County GIS and Assessor's data, the City of Ashland Building Permit data, and the GIS data from the 1999 and 2005 Buildable Lands Inventories completed by the City. Each record included such data as property size, ownership, zoning, Comprehensive Plan designation, real market value, and development type. The data was then supplemented with aerial photos taken for Jackson County in June 2010. City of Ashland building permit data and land use data was evaluated to ensure that current development activity was captured in the inventory. Based on the type and extent of development on each taxlot, and using definitions of vacant and redevelopable land from OAR 660-008-005 (residential lands)and 660- 009-005 (economic lands), a development status was assigned to every taxlot(e.g. vacant,partially vacant or redevelopable). Staff was then able to refine this assessment by evaluating constraints to future development such as the presence of floodplains,steep slopes and/or existing development patterns to determine the percentage of each site that retains development potential. By determining the amount of developable land on a given lot Staff was able to estimate the number of dwelling units that could be accommodated on each developable property and thus include this figure in the BLI database. For the purposes of estimating dwelling unit potential Staff assumed that buildable lands would develop according to the densities specified for the existing underlying zone for properties within the City limits, or comprehensive plan designation for properties outside the City Limits yet within the UGB. Through these methods the BLI as presented summarizes the amount of vacant residential and commercial lands available. Further, the potential number of dwelling units that could be accommodated on available lands,given allowable densities, is quantified for all tax lots within the existing UGB by zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. Results The full Buildable Lands Inventory is attached as a technical document. Information has been presented to show buildable lands and dwelling unit potential both within the existing City Limits, and within the UGB by zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. The 2011 BLI provides a moment-in-time snapshot of Ashland's available land inventory current as of April 1, 2011. The GIS based database created to conduct the inventory can be updated on a regular basis to reflect consumption of land through development (issuance of building permits). Upon adoption the updated BLI becomes a supporting technical document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and as such will provide a basis for future legislative and quasi-judicial land-use decisions relating to available land supply. Attached: 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory Update Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the BLI as a technical supporting document Department of Community Development Tel:541488-5305 51 Wnbum Way Fax:541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www ivshland or u5 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication A Resolution to Adopt the Biennial Budget for the City of Ashland Beginning with Fiscal Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: F'n ance E-Mail: tuneberl @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: one Secondary Contact: None Approval: Larry Patterson Estimated Time: 10 Minutes Question: Will the Council approve a resolution replacing the annual budget process with a biennial (or two- year) approach, beginning with the budget for July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015, and for each biennium thereafter until this resolution is repealed? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution. Background: Council's stated goal was to implement a biennial budget for FY 2012-2013. This action will meet Council's goal one year later. Council held a study session on this topic on September 19, 2011. Concerns identified during the session included: • Timing in relation to the State's biennium, PERS rate changes for employers, and Ashland's social service grant allocations (all done for two years). • Timing in conjunction with replacing the City Administrator. • Operational issues in the two years that revenues or expenses must change. After significant discussion, staff offered to bring a resolution adopting a biennial budget approach beginning with the two fiscal years starting July 1, 2013, to Council for consideration. Staff will also take the opportunity to model the two-year format during the coming single-year budget preparation for FY 2012-2013, to help address questions and provide a better understanding for Council and the Budget Committee. The attached resolution adopts, and delays, the biennial budget process for the above reasons. The City and Budget Committee will begin the next budget process in early calendar year 2012, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012 and ending June 30, 2013. Unless Council takes ancillary action, fiscal year ending June 30, 2013, will be the last single-year budget. Related City Policies: None Pagel of 2 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: 1. Approve the resolution as presented, establishing a biennial format as standard, beginning with fiscal years 2013-2015. 2. Approve a revised resolution as desired 3. Take no action, maintaining the single-year budget process. Potential Motions: I move to approve a resolution adopting the standard of a biennial budget for the City of Ashland beginning July 1, 2013. Attachments: Draft Resolution Page 2 of 2 �r, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BIENNIAL BUDGET PROCESS FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, EFFECTIVE WITH THE TWO FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING JULY 19 2013 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015, AND THEREAFTER UNTIL THIS RESOLUTION IS AMENDED OR REPEALLED THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City of Ashland follows the Oregon Local Budget Laws ORS 294 in preparing its budget. ORS 294.311 provides for Oregon municipalities to adopt a biennium (or two year) budget. The governing body(elected board) decides on whether a biennial budget is prepared. Absent such a decision, ORS requires a one-year budget. Adopting a two year budget process and a biennial budget for the City is thought to provide: • Savings in time and effort by eliminating the formal budget process every other year • Opportunities for better fiscal planning and review in the "second year" • Better control by considering twenty-four months when projecting revenues, expenditures, capital improvements and reserves SECTION 1. Council has set moving to a biennial budget, effective for the FY 2013-2015 period, as a goal. SECTION 2. The City Charter and the Ashland Municipal Code do not prohibit the City from using a biennial budget. SECTION 3. With this resolution, Council directs staff to take the necessary steps to prepare, approve and adopt biennial budgets for the City of Ashland, beginning with the budget for the period of Julyl, 2013, through June 30, 2015. SECTION 4. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only, in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of October, 2011. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 201 1. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page I of I CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Contract for Additional Soil and Groundwater Testing and Monitoring at the Lithia Springs Property Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson Depart ment: P lic Works E-Mail: olsonj @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: gal Secondary Contact: Michael Faught Approval: angry Patterson Estimated Time: 30 minutes Question: Will the Council approve a contract with JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. to conduct additional soil and groundwater sampling, testing and monitoring at the Lithia Springs property? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a contract in the amount of$49,080 to JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. to conduct additional soil and groundwater sampling, testing and monitoring at the Lithia Springs property. Background: On May 19, 2009 the Council approved a contract with Brown and Caldwell (B & C), a well-known nationwide engineering firm, to conduct an ecological risk assessment of the Lithia Springs property in preparation for the renewal of the Ashland Gun Club lease. The risk assessment was completed and submitted to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for review in 2010. DEQ ruled that while much of the B & C report was well substantiated there were several significant data gaps that should be addressed. JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. was commissioned to work with DEQ to prepare a work plan which would outline the additional work needed to adequately complete an assessment of the environmental conditions on the site. The work plan was completed.and submitted to the City and to DEQ on June 21, 2011 and has subsequently been approved by DEQ. On August 8, 2011, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was advertised, statewide, to complete the additional sampling and testing as outlined in the work plan. On September 8, 2011,proposals were received from the following consultants: 1. JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2. Landau Associates, Inc. 3. B B & A Environmental The three proposals were independently reviewed and scored in accordance with the criteria set forth in the RFP. The results of the scoring are as follows: 1. JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. 270 points 2. Landau Associates, Inc. 235 points 3. B B & A Environmental 212 points It is recommended that a contract for the work be awarded to JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. for $49,080. Page I of 5 Ir, CITY OF ASHLAND Histor The Lithia Springs property has been owned by the City of Ashland since 1930. In the 80 years since, the City has leased the property or allowed use of the property for several different activities including a dry ice manufacturing plant, a motorcycle race track and from 1968 to present, a shooting range. Prior tol930 the property was developed as a mineral springs resort. This resort failed a short time later, however, remains of the attempted resort remain to this day. Along with the resort remains, artifacts from the dry ice manufacturing plant are also present on the property. In preparation for a discussion of a long term lease of the Lithia Springs property by the Ashland Gun Club, the Council asked staff to conduct a risk assessment study of the property. This study was completed by B & C and the results of the report showed that the impact on species and habitat found on the property was within acceptable limits. This report, which was submitted to DEQ, raised concerns about lead on the property and its potential impact to the neighboring creek, groundwater and surface water. DEQ generally agreed with the findings of the Ecological Risk Assessment conducted by B & C with regards to the habitat and species, however DEQ recommended further study to fully characterize the site. The B & C report was thorough in regard to species and habitat; it was not complete in regard to lead distribution on the property. Further study, including soil and water sampling, testing and monitoring will be necessary to fully understand the impact that current and past activities have had on the property. An area of concern identified by DEQ is the shotgun range. The B & C study focused primarily on the impact to plants and animals, not to the distribution of lead on the property. As a result the number of samples taken and the location of these samples were inadequate to fully assess the lead disbursement on the site. DEQ recommends that a systematic method of sampling be conducted in the entire shot fall zone on the shotgun range. Previously only one sample had been taken and it was taken short of the primary shot fall zone, in the area of the highest accumulation of clay targets. When this systematic approach has been completed, we should have the necessary information to fully understand the extent of the lead distribution on the property. Work Plan Following DEQ's review of the B & C assessment it became clear that some additional environmental site characterization would be required to gain a full and complete understanding of the environmental and ecological impact of the Gun Club on the site. JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. was hired to work with DEQ to review the B & C assessment and to develop a work plan to fill in the data gaps identified by DEQ. JBR is a well-known environmental consulting firm with headquarters in Utah but with offices in Washington and Oregon including a branch office in White City. They have had extensive experience in gun range testing including contracts with Jackson County at the White City shooting facility. JBR is also conducting the `B' Street soil remediation project for the City. While the `B' Street project deals primarily with gasoline and diesel contamination, much of the sampling and monitoring techniques are the same as for lead contamination. The site characterization work plan is a joint effort between the City of Ashland, DEQ, and JBR and outlines the tasks necessary to complete the assessment including: Page 2 of 5 �`, CITY OF ASHLAND TASK 1. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan A site-specific health and safety plan (HASP) will be prepared in accordance with the OSHA Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 1910.120 TASK 2. Monitoring Well Installation Seven groundwater monitoring wells will be installed at the site and on adjacent property to the north. The monitoring wells will be located in order to provide an assessment of groundwater quality data at the site and downgradient from the site as shown on Figure 3 of the work plan. TASK 3. Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Quarterly groundwater monitoring will be required as outlined in the plan. TASK 4. Soil Sampling Soil sampling activities will include grid based and biased sampling in the various ranges and shotfall areas as indicated in Table ] of the work plan. TASK 5. Equipment Decontamination Procedures To ensure reliable and correct results all reusable sampling and other equipment shall be decontaminated as outlined in section 3.5 of the work plan. TASK 6. Laboratory Analyses Soil and groundwater samples collected for laboratory analysis will be shipped to Apex Laboratories, LLC in Tigard, Oregon: TASK 7. Wetland Delineation (completed) A wetland delineation was completed in May/June 2011 by JBR Inc. to define the limits of the wetlands within the Lithia Springs property. The Delineation report has been submitted for agency review and will be available at a later date. In summary the work involves the installation of seven groundwater monitoring wells with seven quarterly rounds of water sampling and testing so the process will require almost two years to complete. Soil sampling for lead will be at multiple locations but can be completed within a few weeks. Consultant Selection The three proposals that were received all met the general requirements of the RFP and all three were independently reviewed and scored according to the following criteria: 1. Specialized experience of the proposer in the type of work to be performed 10 points 2. Qualifications and experience of the staff assigned to perform the services 10 points 3. Description and understanding of the services to be performed 25 points 4. References 20 points 5. Cost of services 35 points Total 100 points Page 3 of 5 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND Although the cost of services weighed heavily in the scoring totals it was ultimately not the final deciding element, in fact B B & A, Inc. submitted the lowest of the three costs at $39,182.75. Landau Associates, Inc. submitted the highest cost at $56,571.00 with JBR in the middle at $49,080.00. Other considerations, while not part of the scoring criteria, but which help to reinforce the decision to select JBR include: 1. Proximity to the Site It is much more efficient to deal with a local firm as meetings and communications can happen on a very short notice and without additional costs. JBR's local staff has an excellent reputation and have served the City well on several previous contracts. 2. Project Continuity JBR has been extensively involved with the Gun Club issues for the past year and has gained a rapport with City staff, DEQ, and members of the Gun Club leadership team. They have a first hand knowledge of the operations of the Gun Club, of the requirements of DEQ, and of the existing site conditions. No time will be lost in reviewing past actions and conditions at the site. 3. Proven Budget.Control On the previous work plan project and the wetland delineation project, JBR has established a pattern of completing each contract on time and under budget. In these times of economic hardship it is common to see existing personal service providers try to account for, and recoup even very minor expenditures. JBR has done an excellent job of anticipating problems and adjusting costsat the beginning of the contract rather than asking for numerous contract adjustments as the project develops. Impact to Adjacent Property Four of the seven monitoring wells and several soil sampling areas are on an adjacent property located north of the City owned Lithia Springs property owned by James Miller. The City has secured an agreement with Mr. Miller to permit the sampling and groundwater monitoring as specified in the work plan. Related City Policies: AMC Section 2.50.120 defines the requirements for approval of personal services contracts. This contract falls under the requirements of an Intermediate Procurement and does not specifically require approval by the local contract review board (council). However, due to the nature of this contract and the desire to be open and transparent in all matters dealing with the Ashland Gun Club it was determined that this matter should be addressed by the Council. Council Options: • Council may approve the contract with JBR to complete additional soil and groundwater sampling, testing and monitoring at the Lithia Springs property. • Council may decline to approve a contract with JBR. Potential Motions: • Move to approve the contract with JBR to complete additional soil and groundwater sampling, testing and monitoring at the Lithia Springs property. • Move to award no contract for additional soil and groundwater sampling, testing and monitoring at the Lithia Springs property. Page 4 of 5 CITY OF -ASH LAN D Attachments: Copy of JBR proposal Page 5 of 5 R r5. ✓ -E. b t � �_i �'- _ PRESENTED TO: ILI s 4 Y 4 j' i '1" {' C I T Y O r ASHLAND t 'a 'a; #$� ``hid► .. 'x 'x t+ 04!k _ yrF k vt r � p dr��„ t F�.z.. a i a• fi�� . 3 y'� PRESENTED BY: �: 0 ,t SEPTEMBER 8,2011 creating solutions for today's environment - I - - ,t h :g i x ♦ f r i f� c¢ating solullaus fcr totizV's mrvhanrnznt September 8,2011 City of Ashland Engineering Office 51 Winburn Way ' Ashland,OR 97520 - Attn: Mr.Jim Olson, Engineering Services Manager Mr.Mike Morrison,Public Works Superintendent RE: Proposal for Professional Services to Conduct Soil&Groundwater Sampling,Testing,&Monitoring at 555 Emigrant Creek Road(Project No.2009-07) . Dearjim and Mike, t JBR Environmental Consultants,Inc.(JBR)appreciates the opportunity to submit our qualifications to the City of Ashland (City)to continue providing environmental investigation services as an extension of the Ashland Gun Club Site Characterization Work Plan(Work Plan)we prepared in June 2011.We believe that retaining JBR to complete the site characterization work at the Gun Club property will be a benefit to the City for the following reasons: °- We provide consistency.Since JBR developed the strategy for the Work Plan,we have a thorough understanding of the City's goals to maintain the current Gun Club lease and mitigate costly environmental cleanup while addressing possible human health and environmental concerns.Additionally,the City is already aware of the quality of work that will be received from JBR and has worked with members of our proposed project team. '• We have established relationships with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)and the City.Our staff has established excellent rapport and trust with DEQ's project manager for this site,Mr.Geoff Brown,as well as a strong working relationship with City staff. We are located close to Ashland.JBR has highly qualified staff in our Medford,Oregon office that will be i available to work on this project,including meeting with the City and City Council,as needed.Our Medford presence allows for minimal travel time to and from the project site providing additional cost savings to the City. `- We are successful.JBR accomplished the goal we set for the Work Plan in obtaining expeditious approval from DEC.We negotiated a reasonable Work Plan approach to address site conditions and the scope of services required to respond to data gaps identified by DEQ.JBR was able to accomplish this without going through DEC's typical site characterization process for site cleanup and within the time frame needed by the City to make a decision on the Gun Club lease renewal. We are prepared to start work on this project immediately.As a result of our knowledge and prior experience at the Gun Club site,JBR is capable of beginning project work immediately upon the City's approval to proceed.The City will benefit from continuing to use JBR's services by minimizing project costs and schedule delays as a result of avoiding a learning-curve and project down-time required by other consultants who are unfamiliar with the Gun Club property and site conditions,as well as City staff,policies, and procedures. i )BR Emfi;onm2ns_al Consultants,Inc. Rebekah Brooks, our proposed project manager for this contract,is currently managing the City's 'B'Street Site Assessment project.She was also senior reviewer,and worked closely with JBR's project manager,for the Gun Club Site Characterization Work Plan.Rebekah participated in meetings-with the City and DEO and provided input on developing the strategy for quick response City Council meetings.As a result of this experience,she is thoroughly familiar with the City's Gun Club project needs and goals and has an established relationship with City staff. Additionally,Rebekah manages JBR staff in our Oregon and Washington offices and is in Medford on a regular basis, making her available to the City for project meetings as needed. - We look forward to continuing to demonstrate our responsiveness and capabilities on the Gun Club project.If you have questions or would like additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me at rbrookspjbrenv.com or 425.977.4994,Ext 101. Thank you for your consideration. ' Warn Regards, .- Rebekah Brooks,RG Northwest Division Manager/Senior Hydrogeologist . JCtfthitvlrvr,�enirJEtn,a;an?:;,Inc, 8484 Crater take Hwy. Miile City,Oregon 97503 !P]541.170.6911 f 1)541.770.7019 vaww.jbtenv.corn j0R 6,vimrilmital Consultants,lnr. R As'hltnd Gun C'iuh Property Groundwater Sampling, Testing;&Monitoring SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE Get1'rRtlltNti'i 8;aF1 JBR Environmental Consultants,Inc.OBR)is a known environmental consulting entity to the City of Ashland(City).Through our previous experience providing services to the City on the planning phase and wetland delineation for the Ashland Gun Club(Gun Club)Site Characterization WorkP/an(Work Plan),as well as the V Street Site Assessment project,we have had the pleasure of successfully assisting the City with creative strategies for solving environmental issues so the City's objectives for these properties can be achieved.JBR's capable staff in our Pacific Northwest offices,including staff in our Medford,Oregon office, is comprised of hydrogeologists/geologists,engineers,environmental specialists, and GIS/AutoCAD specialists that are experienced with performing environmental assessment activities and working with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)to reasonably comply with regulatory requirements.Our proposed project staff includes Oregon-registered geologists with extensive experience providing soil and groundwater sampling,testing, and monitoring services on a wide variety of projects ranging from simple Phase I Due Diligence/Environmental Site Assessment(ESA)projects to Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies(RI/FS)projects. Our innovative"environmental business consulting"approach to solving our clients' technical problems sets us apart from our competitors.This approach was specifically demonstrated by our ability to prepare,expeditiously negotiate,-and obtain approval from DEO for the Gun Club Work Plan,prepared on behalf of the City.Through this process,JBR successfully negotiated a reasonable scope of work for assessing soil and groundwater conditions at the Gun Club property with DEQ.JBR used creative regulatory strategy and early interaction with DEQ to negotiate for cost-effective environmental solutions that minimized data collection(e.g.,removed collection of surface water samples until groundwater impacts were demonstrated)but maximized the information necessary to allow for the property leasing agreement between the City and Gun Club to move forward.Additionally,JBR assisted the City in presenting the objectives and plans for assessment of the property to the City Council,which helped the City during the lease renewal decision- making.Ultimately,we believe JBR's strategies for problem solving will provide the City with valid technical solutions that incorporate creative business strategies which consider financial risk,liability,and indemnification management to conserve and support the City's short-and long-term project and business objectives for the Gun Club property. As demonstrated by our past experience working on the Gun Club project,City staff knowjBR has a thorough understanding of DEQ's risk-based regulations and guidance by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)and ITRC (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council) for assessment of environmental conditions associated with shooting ranges.As a result of our understanding of the applicable regulations and compliance requirements,we have the ability to quickly assess the environmental conditions of the Gun Club property to evaluate potential liabilities and long-term commitments.Our proposed project manager,Rebekah Brooks,has an intimate knowledge of the current and specific environmental conditions of the project site as well as the City's project needs and goal of mitigating costly environmental cleanup. Rebekah has an excellent rapport with DEQ staff,including Mr.Geoff Brown,DEQ's.project manager for the Gun Club project,and will continue to be a strong advocate for the City throughout implementation of site characterization activities.Rebekah will be supported by JBR's highly qualified staff in our Medford office who will perform field activities and are available to assist with local meetings or other requests by the City,as necessary. fRP+3 e Awn JBR is a growing environmental consulting firm of approximately 120 employees with 10 offices in the western U.S.JBR provides expertise in site investigations,remediation system designs and installations,risk assessments, fate and transport modeling,and regulatory and multi-party negotiations under DEQ and other state and federal regulations.Our personnel have designed site characterization programs for numerous properties in the state of Oregon that have served as commercial and industrial sites,state orphan sites,agricultural properties,mining lands, undeveloped land,former gasoline service stations,and Brownfields.In the past 10 years,we have completed environmental investigations at over ISO facilities in Oregon.Many of these site characterizations have involved defining or identifying sources of potential BR �., �L Ashland Gun Club Propert y rV7;IIiLAND Groundwater sampling Testing; &Monitorfig contaminants in soil and groundwater.Each project is designed with respect to site-specific characteristics and questions that need to be answered,allowing for efficient sample collection and cost-effective assessments. ' JBR's geologists and hydrogeologists are meticulous in executing these investigations and have the necessary skills to evaluate the results of these investigations and communicate the findings in a concise,organized manner and make - prudent recommendations based on the data collected.JBR has utilized DEC's risk-based decision making process to close more than 40 sites in Oregon in the past 10 years.Our presence in Medford coupled with our knowledge of the Gun Club's site-specific conditions and ability to assess sites in a timely,cost-effect manner provides a crucial combination of skills and knowledge for completing this project. fG:•t?'7 GC'r J3L•±"1 c It The following project examples represent JBR's experience providing services similar to those required for the Gun Club project to the City and other Oregon-based government clients.Additional project examples and information can be provided upon request. Ashland Gun Club Site Characterization Work Plan;Ashland, OR - City of Ashland JBR prepared the Site Characterization Work Plan for the Gun Club property,located at 555 Emigrant Creek Road, in response to DEC's comments on Brown and Caldwell's levelllscreening level Ecological Risk Assessment Report.JBR's Work Plan addressed data gaps and additional characterization,as identified in DEC's comments,required to assess potential impacts to human health and the environment as well as to establish effective Best Management Practices (BMPs)for long-term maintenance of the site as a shooting range.During development of the Work Plan,JBR negotiated with DEG to focus the scope on necessary site characterization tasks for an active shooting range and received expedited approval from DEO on the Wo&Plan to meet the City's short- and long-term objectives for the property.Additionally, JBR provided assistance to the City for a City Council meeting where the work plan approach was presented,which ultimately led to the City's preferred goal of making a decision to renew the lease for the Gun Club. Ashland Gun Club Wetland Delineation;Ashland, OR City of Ashland In the spring 201 t,JBR completed a wetland delineation and surface water drainage assessment in accordance with the Oregon Department of State Lands'(DSL)wetland delineation rules and technical guidance and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)protocols.The purpose of the wetland delineation was to determine whether jurisdictional waters of the U.S.exist in the shotfall zone of the Gun Club's shotgun and skeet range.JBR's environmental scientist evaluated surface waters found at the property to determine status as traditionally navigable waters(TNW)or relatively permanent waters(RPW)using the Oregon Streamflow Duration Assessment Method and accompanying assessment data forms.Our project manager also served as the liaison with USACE and DSL during wetland delineation activities.JBR identified six interconnected and two potentially isolated wetlands on the Gun Club property and adjacent property to the north.The delineation is one phase of the Work Plan prepared for the City and was completed under a separate contract from future soil-and groundwater-related activities to be conducted at the site as the wetland delineation work is seasonally controlled. 2 lw �} 1sh1and Gun Club P;operty ASS It'..�ND � Groundwater Sampling, resting AA400iroring 'B' Street Site Assessment;Ashland, OR City of Ashland JBR was recently contracted by the City of Ashland to provide environmental services for the City's 1097'B'Street Site Assessment project which is currently listed as a DEQ leaking underground storage tank(LUST)site.JBR's services are being provided in an effort to define the magnitude and extent of contamination and to collect sufficient data to request I a No Further Action (NFA)determination from DEQ.The site assessment will evaluate the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination associated with former USTs that existed at a maintenance and storage yard owned by the City.Activities include monitoring installation of four groundwater monitoring wells,soil borings,soil and groundwater sample collection,well decommissioning,and field screening for the presence of volatile organic compounds(VOCs); quarterly groundwater monitoring and reporting; identification and comparison to applicable risk-based concentrations; and development of a Risk-Based Corrective Action Plan (RBCAP)that will include soil and groundwater investigation re4ults,abbreviated conceptual site model(CSM),quarterly groundwater event data,groundwater elevation and flow direction figures,and contaminant distribution figures.The CSM will focus on identification of-applicable human and/or ecological exposure pathways for assessment of potential risk based on an abbreviated groundwater beneficial use survey(BUS)and land use designation at the site. Jackson County Shooting Range Soil Assessment; Eagle, OR Jackson County Parks Department JBR conducted a soil assessment,for Jackson County's Large Bore Shooting Range to define the magnitude and extent of lead contamination in soil and to evaluate the potential risks posed to human health and the environment.We also conducted a beneficial water use survey to evaluate groundwater use within '/z-mile of the primary impact berm at the shooting range,and identified a range of remedial action(RA)options and approximate costs to assist the County in evaluating redevelopment options. L Street Compound Characterization & Remediation; Grants Pass, OR U.S.Dept.of Agriculture(USDA)Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest District JBR was contracted to characterize and remediate environmental impacts to soil at the 1'Street Compound,a USDA Forest Service facility.Work involved the investigation of potential release of petroleum hydrocarbons from an underground hoist and an aboveground storage tank(AST) used for heating oil,remediation of a release from the AST, characterization of impacts to shallow soil caused by lead-based paint(LBP)chips around five buildings,and reporting. Additional contract modification work included preparation of an expedited groundwater BUS to identify domestic wells proximal to the site that could be impacted by lead leaching from shallow soil into groundwater.Results of the BUS were used to identify potential exposure pathways and to develop site-specific remediation goals. Bus Maintenance Facility Groundwater Investigation;Salem,OR Salem Area Mass Transit District(SAMTD) JBR personnel conducted a hydrogeological investigation at this SAMTD bus maintenance facility to identify potential impacts to groundwater quality from activities on the property or from a regional trichloroethylene(TCE)groundwater plume.Project responsibilities included determining groundwater concentrations at upgradient and downgradient locations from the property,installing onsite monitoring wells,collecting groundwater and soil vapor samples for a source evaluation,comparing onsite groundwater data to DEQ risk-based values and to regional groundwater flow patterns,and negotiating with DEQ on the appropriate level of effort.Through data collection efforts,JBR was able to convince DEQ that the source of contamination may exist offsite,thereby reducing the level of effort required of the client. 3 Ashland Gun Club Proper(y ,�5t iiriNp Groundwater Sampling, TPStinh? &Monitoring OUALIFICATtON5 EXPERIENCE OF PROPOSED STAFF JBR's team of highly qualified personnel is fully capable of performing the site characterization services required to address the data gaps identified by DEG and respond to the City's needs for this project.We believe our innovative approach and staff's thorough familiarity of the project site,combined with our experience working with the City and DEG,will allow for the most cost competitive and technically competent solution to meet the requirements of the project.Our authorized representative for contract negotiations which may result from this proposal is Robert Bayer,JBR's Chief Executive Officer. Complete resumes summarizing our key personnel's areas of expertise,proposed role and percentage of availability for this project,and examples of previous project experience are provided in Appendix A. . PRO_f ECT DESCRIPTION Er UNDERSTANDING OF SERVICES TO 13E PERFORMED rl :?J;ii°i;2C'iis�-r. i'aSlii9idt; Since 1968,the Gun Club has continuously leased approximately 32 acres of property from the City for a shooting range located at 555 Emigrant Creek Road,Ashland,Oregon (site).The site currently includes six rifle and pistol ranges,one archery range,and one shotgun and skeet range.The City plans to retain the property under its current use as a shooting range and recently renegotiated the property lease with the Gun Club. In response to citizen concerns regarding environmental impacts from the shooting range activities,the City proactively began to assess environmental conditions at the property.In 2009, Brown and Caldwell performed Level I and Level II Ecological Risk Assessments to address these concerns.However,DEG review of these documents,as detailed in DEG's File Review Memorandum (Memo),dated January 20,2011,indicated that data gaps existed and additional characterization activities were necessary at the site to determine the potential risk to human and/or ecological receptors.At that time,the Gun Club's lease for continued use of the City's property was up for renewal.At this time, the City was looking to assess the potential for any contamination at the site prior to renewing the lease in order to address citizen concerns and any Gun Club activities that may have impacted the adjacent,privately-owned property to the north of the site.The City then contracted with JBR to prepare the Work Plan to address DEG's comments. Two elements of the site characterization scope were recently completed by JBR for the Gun Club project:a wetland delineation and a surface water drainage assessment.The Wetland Delineation Report,which included the surface water drainage assessment,was submitted to DSL and USACE.The report indicated that six interconnected and two potentially isolated wetlands on the site and adjacent property to the north were defined as jurisdictional waters of the U.S.The source of the wetlands is primarily Lithia Springs recharging a shallow water table perched above a mineral-cemented gravel hardpan.This is supplemented seasonally by precipitation and in some areas by proximity to Emigrant Creek. The BMP task involves development of an Environmental Stewardship Plan that will establish BMPs for the site and minimize impacts to human or ecological receptors.This task will be conducted following completion of other site characterization tasks,as described in the Work Plan.Implementation of BMPS would be completer) by the City working in conjunction with a shooting range designer and would require coordination of JBR with the shooting range designer to ensure the potential for future human and ecological exposures are within acceptable levels. JBR's project approach for completion of site characterization activities includes the methodology used to complete the remainder of the tasks identified indhe Work Plan.The focus of the Work Plan is to address DEG's concerns regarding data gaps and additional site characterization activities needed to assess potential impacts to human and ecological receptors. Additional site information,requested by DEG,but not included in the Work Plan,will be collected,if necessary,based on the results of the initial data collection effort.The site characterization tasks and methodologies are defined in detail in the 4 AAsh/and Gun Club Property r\Sil LA ptD Groundwater sampling, Testing &Monitoring Work Plan and will not be repeated in this proposal.However,scope elements we believe need to be modified based on our work conducted at the property to date,or more recent knowledge of project conditions,are discussed below. TASK 1:SITE-SPECIFIC HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN(HASP) A site-specific HASP has already been prepared by JBR for the wetland delineation.The HASP will require some modification to incorporate the necessary information for drilling and soil and groundwater sample collection.JBR's estimated cost to complete Task 1 is$237. TASK 2:MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION Seven monitoring wells are planned for installation at the project site.The objective of these wells is to provide an assessment of groundwater quality data at,and downgradient from, the site.The City and JBR have already negotiated with and received approval from DEQ on the objectives and locations of these wells.Four of the wells will be located on the private property directly adjacent to the north and presumably in a downgradient location from shooting range areas.JBR understands the City is already in negotiation with this property owner to obtain access for completing this work.The access agreement is necessary before beginning monitoring well installation and will need to extend for at least one year to allow for four quarters of groundwater monitoring to be conducted. The methodology described in the Work Plan will be used to install the monitoring wells with one exception:based on JBR's observations of soil conditions during the wetland delineation,we now know that using a hand auger to collect shallow soil samples at the well locations is likely not feasible.This is due to the presence of mineral-cemented hardpan potentially located at the surface.In this case,we recommend that a backhoe(or power auger)be used to dig shallow test pits at each of the proposed well locations for the three shallower samples(0-0.5 It below ground surface [bgs],0.5- 1 It bgs,and 2-3 it bgs). The soil sample from the capillary fringe depth will be collected by the drill rig used to install the wells.Using this methodology will reduce the time required for JBR soil sample collection,and provide a cost savings to the City.JBR understands that the City can provide a backhoe and operator for conducting the shallow soil sampling for this task.We will coordinate the soil sampling efforts for the monitoring wells with biased and discrete soil sampling to limit the number of days the City will need to provide backhoe assistance.JBR's estimated cost to complete Task 2 is $2,733.An additional$14,631 is expected for the drilling contractor,for a total estimated cost of$17,364.The cost for the equipment decontamination task has been incorporated under Tasks 2, 3,and 4. TASK 3:QUARTERLY GROUNDWATER MONITORING As described in the Work Plan,quarterly groundwater monitoring will be conducted at each of the seven wells.If the wells are installed in September 2011,quarterly sampling events will be conducted in September 2011,December 201 I, March 2012,and June 2012.The Work Plan inadvertently indicates that seven monitoring events will be conducted; however,only four events should be necessary to demonstrate whether an environmental impact is observed.In the event an environmental impact is observed,additional monitoring events may be necessary.JBR's estimated cost to complete Task 3 is$5,864. TASK 4:SOIL SAMPLING Soil sampling activities will include grid based and biased sampling in the maximum shotfall zone in the shotgun and skeet shooting range,discrete sampling in the long-range rifle range area and beyond the maximum shotfall area in the skeet and shotgun range,discrete sampling in the presumed wetland near the shotgun and skeet shooting range,and discrete sampling within the rifle and pistol range berms.Soil sampling activities will occur as specified in the Work Plan, with one exception.At a cost savings to the City,these shallow soil samples will also be conducted using a backhoe provided by the City because of the hardpan soil conditions.JBR's estimated cost to complete Task 4 is$6,035. 5 WAAshland Gun Club Property r�tiFit'.ANn Groundwater Samptling Testing: &Monitoring TASK S:LABORATORY ANALYSES Soil and groundwater samples collected for laboratory analysis for this project will be shipped to Apex Laboratories, LLC (APEX)in Tigard,Oregon.The analyses will mainly be limited to total and dissolved lead concentrations and other metals, as necessary,and are described in detail in the Work Plan.The laboratory costs for the project are$3,929. TASK 6:REPORTING A Site Characterization Reportwill be prepared at completion of the site characterization activities and will include the elements specified in the Work Plan,such as a CSM and comparison to applicable DEO risk-based screening levels. Quarterly groundwater monitoring reports will also be submitted to DEO,in accordance with the specifications and schedule provided in the Work Plan.)BR's estimated cost to complete Task 6 is $10,340. TASK 7:PROJECT MANAGEMENT/MEETINGS JBR will provide project management services,including communications and meetings with the City, scheduling of JBR staff and subcontractors,invoicing,and budget tracking.Our project manager, Rebekah Brooks,will be assisted by Antonela Vadan as task manager for the soil and groundwater sampling activities and report preparation,Steve McCray for field activities,and Jonathan Williams for senior review of reports.JBR's estimated cast to complete Task 7 is$5,312. REFERENCES JBR's excellent reputation is based on our responsiveness to clients, accountability,consistent technical quality,and ability to understand our clients'concerns to ensure their project needs and expectations are met.Clients trust us to resolve their environmental issues because of our extensive and diverse experience,as evidenced by the amount of repeat business we routinely receive.As requested by the City,.below are references from two Oregon-based government clients: Pete)ones, RG, CEG, Project Manager Allan Pollock, General Manager USDA Forest Service SAMTD 645 Washington St 925 Commercial St SE,Ste 100 Ashland,OR 97528 Salem,OR 97302 541.858.2362 503.588.2424 pajones @fs.fecLus pollocka @cherriots.org CosT of SERVICES A spreadsheet of JBR's costs for the tasks defined in the Work Plan and outlined in the Project Approach section of this proposal is provided in Appendix B.Our total cost estimate for these tasks is $49,080.These costs assume that this is a not-to-exceed value and costs will be billed on a time and materials basis. SCHEDULE OF SERVICES._._„____—__—.—. JBR is prepared to begin work on this project immediately upon the City's approval to proceed. The Site Characterization Reportwill be submitted to DEQ within eight weeks of receiving final analytical results for the first quarterly groundwater sampling event.The first quarterly groundwater sampling results will be submitted with the Site Characterization Report. The additional groundwater monitoring reports will be submitted to DEO within four weeks or upon receiving final analytical results. 6 / > 9 Rebekah Brooks, RG, Senior Flydrogeologist J Northwest Division Managaer Role: Project uganaq--i / Senior Hydiogeologist Proposed Time Commitment 3096 Rebekah is a project manager and hydrogeologist with over 25 years of experience in environmental consulting. Her areas of expertise include site EXPERTISE investigations and remediation, Phase I and II ESAs, hydrogeological ✓ Due Diligence/Phase I&II ESAs investigations, and regulatory compliance for numerous government, ✓Soil Surveying/Sampling industrial, and commercial clients. Rebekah's experience includes ✓ Groundwater Sampling& management of upland investigations of soil and groundwater Monitoring contamination, ranging from simple site assessments to complex remedial ✓ Soil&Hazardous Waste investigations; human health risk assessments (HHRAs); remedial design (RD) Monitoring under DEQ'.s-Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Hazardous Substance ✓ Contaminated Site Investigation Cleanup Regulations; Comprehensive Environmental Response, &Remediation Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Toxic Substances Control Act ✓ Geologic&Hydrogeologic (TSCA); and other state cleanup programs will) individual project budgets Investigations ranging from $20K to over $10 million. Rebekah specializes in cleanup and ✓Well Drilling risk-based closures of contaminated sites within Oregon and Washington and ✓Stormwater Management negotiation with regulatory agencies, including DEQ. Additionally, she is very ✓ AST/LIST Services familiar with City of Ashland staff, policies, and procedures through her ✓ Brownfields/Site experience serving as project manager and principal reviewer on recent City Redevelopment projects. Rebekah has a thorough understanding of the City's goals and ✓ Statistical Compliance needs for the continuation of the Gun Club project as a result of her ✓ Health&Safety Plans involvement preparing the Site Characterization Work Plan. Rebekah wi//be ✓ Regulatory Agency Negotiation responsible for oversight of project activities, senior technical assistance, ✓ Litigation Support review of a0 deliverables, and management of discussions between the City and DEQ. EDUCATION REL 3)fiLwlr 71RO,iF.C7:;;PIE?I[fdrt2 M.S.,Geology,Hydrogeology Emphasis,University of Montana, Ashland Gun Club Site Characterization Work Plan; Ashland,OR, 1988 Rebekah served as senior reviewer for preparation of the Gun Club Work Plan, B.S.,Geology,Georgia Southern She helped to prepare,expeditiously negotiate,and obtain approval for the University,1580 Work Plan from DEQ on behalf of the City.Rebekah.and otherjBR staff used creative regulatory strategy with DEQ to negotiate for cost-effective LICENSES environmental solutions for the property that minimized data collection(e.g., Registered Geologist,OR removed collection of surface water samples until groundwater impacts were Licensed Geologist,WA demonstrated)but maximized the information necessary to allow a leasing Licensed Hydrogeologist,WA agreement between the City and the Gun Club to move forward. Additionally,Rebekah assisted with strategizing the objectives and plans for CERTIFICATION&TRAINING assessment of the property to the City Council,which allowed the City to make the decision to move forward with renewal of the lease with the Gun Coaching: A Strategic Tool for Club. Effective Leadership Hazardous Waste Supervisor 'B' Street Site Assessment;Ashland, OR.Rebekah is the project manager for Fundamentals of Health&Safety at this site assessment intended to evaluate the nature and extent of soil and Hazardous Waste Sites groundwater contamination associated with former USTs that existed at a maintenance and storage yard owned by the City.Activities to date include installation of four groundwater monitoring wells,soil borings and soil sample collection, quarterly groundwater monitoring and reporting,and identification and comparison to applicable risk-based concentrations.Future REBEKAH BROOKS,RG tasks will include development of a RECAP that will include soil and groundwater investigation results, conceptual site model CSM,quarterly groundwater event data,groundwater elevation and flow direction figures, and contaminant distribution figures. Bus Maintenance Facility Groundwater Investigation;Salem,OR.As project manager and senior hydrogeologist,Rebekah provided oversight of Phase II ESA and hydrogeologic investigation services on behalf of the Salem Area Mass Transit District(SAMTD).The purpose of the investigation was to identify potential impacts to groundwater quality from activities on the property or from a regional TCE ground- water plume.Project activities included determining groundwater concentrations at upgradient and . downgradient locations from the property, installing onsite monitoring wells and collecting groundwater and soil vapor samples for source evaluation, comparing onsite groundwater data.to regional ground- water flow patterns,and negotiating with DEQ on the appropriate level of effort.Through data collection efforts, Rebekah was able to convince DEQ that the source of contamination may exist offsite, thereby reducing the level of cleanup effort required of the client. Former High Tech Diesel Facility; Klamath Falls,OR. As project manager,Rebekah is responsible for providing ongoing site characterization and remediation services for the High Tech Diesel Facility on behalf of Sky Lakes Medical Center.To date, site characterization has included data gap analysis,development of a DEQ-approved work plan,installation of soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells,soil and groundwater sample collection,a ground penetrating radar(GPR)survey,free-product recovery system,decommissioning of four USTs,and excavation and disposal of approximately 120 cubic yards of petroleum-contaminated soil(PCS). Ongoing site characterization activities will include additional soil borings and groundwater monitoring well installation,quarterly groundwater sampling,and completion of reporting required to obtain a NFA - determination from DEQ. Northwest Terminal Cleanup; Portland, OR. Rebekah has been project manager for TOC Holdings Co.since 1996 for an ongoing phased RI/FS under DEC's Voluntary Cleanup Program(VCP)at a former petroleum storage facility and wood treatment chemical blending facility.Project responsibilities have included developing/ implementing a phased RI for a tidally influenced aquifer system;implementing interim remedial actions for soil and groundwater using in situchemical oxidation technology,soil removal,and passive product recovery; characterizing the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination;developing/implementing a multi- year groundwater monitoring program;planning and implementing tank farm demolition and soil removal action, preparing and updating the facility's Stormwater Pollution Control Plan, managing compliance for the stormwater and wastewater permits,and conducting a source control evaluation under the EPA/DEQ Joint Source Control Strategy,including fate and transport modeling to justify use of monitored natural attenuation as a petroleum remediation technique. NFA status was received from DEQ for a 23-acre portion of the property for purposes of redevelopment. Former Aladdin Plating Facility, Brownfields Site Redevelopment;Tacoma,WA. Rebekah served as project manager for this Phase II ESA to evaluate metal concentrations in groundwater that originated from a historical electroplating facility at a Washington State Department of Ecology Orphan Site under Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA)for the purpose of site redevelopment.Responsibilities included design/installation of monitoring wells on and off the property, negotiation with the City of Tacoma for obtaining drilling permits in the City's right-of- way,design/implementation of a groundwater monitoring program to determine whether groundwater contamination had migrated off the property,determination of the relevant cleanup levels under MTCA,and determination of the most effective strategy for future remediation. pR Jonathan Williams, RG, Senior Hydrogeologist Role: Senior Reviewer Proposed Time Commitment-10 Jonathan has extensive experience providing senior technical review on -- -- numerous projects, including site investigations and assessments. His EXPERTISE experience includes negotiating with state and federal regulatory agencies, ✓ Due Diligence/Phase I&11 ESAs supervising drilling activities, overseeing aquifer testing, analyzing and ✓ Soil Surveying/Sampling interpreting hydrogeologic data, preparing and reviewing ESAs, developing ✓Groundwater Sampling, sampling and analysis plans, preparing reports, and managing budgets. Monitoring,&Modeling Jonathan has an excellent understanding of the physical and chemical Field Sampling,Surveys,& processes, both in theory and in practical application, which control Analysis groundwater flow and contaminant transport in both alluvial and fractured Soil&Hazardous Waste rock systems. He has led numerous hydrogeologic investigations and Monitoring groundwater modeling efforts in support of RI/FS tasks, RDs/RAs, landfill liner ✓ Fate&Transport Evaluations design, remedial well field design, evaluation of remediation system ✓ Contaminated Site Investigation performance, evaluation of proportional contribution of contaminants from &Remediation multiple potentially responsible parties (PRPs), and water supply systems' ✓ Geologic&Hydrogeologic design.Additionally, he has applied his knowledge of natural attenuation (i.e., Investigations advection, dispersion, retardation, and degradation) to groundwater ✓ Well Drilling modeling projects involving the following compounds of concern:petroleum ✓ Spill Cleanup hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, chlorinated phenolic compounds, ✓ Stormwater Management dioxins, explosives, fluoride, cyanide, various dissolved metals, and common AST/UST Services ions.Jonathan will provide senior review and hydrogeologic support services ✓ Biological&Ecological Studies to the City oTAshland. ✓ Environmental Permitting& .T. r . Compliance �•._LVA:';i Vr.OJL_I Ur%.-1iL;lCE ✓ Health&Safety Plans Jackson County Shooting Range Soil Assessment; Eagle,OR.Jonathan was - �° Litigation Support - the project manager for soil and groundwater sampling services provided to the jackson County Parks Department to determine the extent of EDUCATION contamination of lead-impacted soils on the County's Shooting Range B.S.,Geology,Duke University,1587 property.He oversaw a soil assessment to define the magnitude and extent of lead in the soil and to evaluate the potential risks posed by lead to human LICENSES health and the environment by comparing results to generic risk-based Registered Geologist,OR concentrations developed by DEO.Jonathan also conducted a beneficial water use survey(BUS)to evaluate groundwater use within '/z-mile of the CERTIFICATION&TRAINING primary impact berm to evaluate potential risks to human health that lead- Masters Coursework:Geosciences& impacted soil may pose.He provided the County with several remediation Hydrology options and recommendations for mitigating costly cleanup and expediting a Natural Attenuation Short Courses NFA determination from DEO. Applying the NEPA Process& L Street Compound Characterization &Remediation;Grants Pass, OR. Writing Effective NEPA JBR was contracted to characterize and remediate environmental impacts to Documents soil at the L Street Compound,a USDA Forest Service- Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest District facility.Jonathan served as project manager for the investigation of potential release of petroleum hydrocarbons from an underground hoist and an above ground heating oil tank,remediation of a release from the above ground heating oil tank,characterization of impacts to shallow soil caused by LBP chips around five buildings,sample and data collection,and reporting.Additional contract modification work included JONATHAN WILLIAMs,RG . preparation of an expedited groundwater BUS to identify domestic wells proximal to the site that might be impacted by lead leaching from shallow soil into groundwater.Results of the BUS were used to identify potential exposure pathways and to develop site-specific remediation goals. Junction Forest Service Road Soil Sampling& Disposal Measures;Wonder, OR.As project manager,Jonathan met with a Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest District engineer from the USDA Forest Service to observe the location where 10 cubic yards of PCS stockpile were illegally dumped.Following a brief safety meeting with equipment operators, the PCS was removed using an excavator and dump truck.To account for possible contaminant leaching into the road material located beneath the PCS,Jonathan coordinated and oversaw removal of an additional six inches of original road material(approximately 2.5 cubic yards of the project area) beneath the PCS stockpile and disposed of it along with the stockpile material.A composite soil sample was collected from the remaining road material beneath the former PCS stockpile and submitted for analysis of total petroleum hydrocarbons(TPH)to confirm the PCS removal was thorough and complete. Bus Maintenance Facility Groundwater Investigation;Salem, OR.Jonathan served as principal reviewer for Phase If ESA and hydrogeologic investigation services for this facility owned by SAMTD.The purpose of the investigation was to identify potential impacts to groundwater quality from activities on the property or from a regional TCE groundwater plume.Project elements included determining groundwater concentrations at upgradient and downgradient locations from the property, installing onsite monitoring wells and collecting groundwater and soil vapor samples for a source evaluation,and comparing onsite groundwater data to regional groundwater flow patterns. Former High Tech Diesel Facility; Klamath Falls, OR.Jonathan provided principal review and project management support services for this ongoing site characterization and remediation project.Responsibilities have included assisting with development of the project scope and principal review of the geophysical survey report.To date,site characterization has included data gap analysis,development of a DEQ-approved work plan, installation of soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells,soil and groundwater sample collection,GPR survey,free-product recovery system,decommissioning of four USTs,and excavation and disposal of approximately 120 cubic yards of PCS.Ongoing site characterization activities will include additional soil borings and groundwater monitoring well installation,quarterly groundwater sampling, and completion of reporting required to obtain a NFA determination from DEQ. Northwest Terminal Cleanup; Portland,OR.Jonathan is providing ongoing hydrogeology and environmental cleanup services to TOC Holdings under DEC's VCP.He has assessed the groundwater CSM with regard to the potential for monitored natural attenuation(MNA), provided oversight in the collection of MNA monitoring parameters during groundwater monitoring events,and planning for a MNA groundwater model update.The MNA modeling results will be incorporated into a revised Source Control Evaluation Report for review/approval by DEQ and EPA. Forest Products Facility, RI/FS& RD/RA;Springfield, OR.Jonathan managed this multimillion-dollar RI/FS and RD/RA project at a forest products facility.Project oversight tasks included Consent Order and Consent Decree - negotiations with DEC,as well as negotiations with EPA.Reporting tasks included preparation of RI/FS reports, RD/RA work plan,quarterly and annual reports,and multiple ecological and HHRA reports.These tasks required oversight of drilling activities,running and evaluating the data from a five-day constant discharge aquifer test, oversight of ongoing groundwater sampling,and evaluation of potentially applicable remediation technologies. �P Buz Antonela Vadan, Staff Geologist / Environmental Specialist Role: asl< Manager / Project Geologisi Proposed Time Commitment:40 Antonela has extensive experience providing environmental services for EXPERTISE- SE - - - - residential, commercial, and industrial sites. Her specific experience includes soil and groundwater sampling, subsurface soil and groundwater ✓ Due Diligence/Phase I ESAs investigations, coordination of drilling projects, groundwater monitoring well ✓field Sampling,Surveys,& installation, ESAs and site characterization, lithologic characterization, Analysis hydrologic interpretations, interpretation of analytical data, coordination of ✓ Geologic&Hydrogeologic the remediation process, preparation of reports in compliance with state Investigations regulations, and implementation of various remediation technologies and ✓ Groundwater Sampling& methods. Antonela's specific experience with subsurface investigations Monitoring involves completion of over 100 such projects and obtaining several NFA ✓ Subsurface Investigation& determination letters from state regulatory 'agencies. She has also been Remediation involved in ro ect management, field ✓ p � g program coordination and Soil&Hazardous Waste implementation, field data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, and Monitoring report preparation. Antonela will serve as task manager for soil and ✓Well Drilling groundwater sampling and provide additional field support as needed to the ✓ AST/UST Services City of Ashland ✓ Spill Cleanup ✓Geoprobe t_i;%IA).:T PROJECT EXP=YiE;JCE Indoor Air Quality Investigations 'B'Street Site Assessment;Ashland, OR.Antonela is providing field support ✓ Asbestos/Lead Investigations as project geologist for this City of Ashland project.Her responsibilities on ✓ Environmental Permitting& this project have included conducting groundwater monitoring events and Compliance preparation of the site assessment report,including evaluation of the nature ✓ Health&Safety Plans and extent of soil and groundwater contamination associated with former USTs that existed historically at a maintenance and storage yard owned by EDUCATION the City.Antonela will also assist with well decommissioning and future B.S.,Earth&Environmental, quarterly groundwater monitoring and reporting. _ Sciences,University of Illinois, soot Former High Tech Diesel Facility; Klamath Falls, OR.Antonela served as Undergraduate Studies,Geology- task manager for this ongoing site characterization and remediation project. Mineralogy,Babes Bolyal Her responsibilities included'groundwater sampling and field coordination. University(Romania),1999 Future site characterization activities will include additional soil borings and groundwater monitoring well installation,quarterly groundwater sampling, LICENSES and completion of reporting required to obtain a NFA determination from Licensed Professional Geologist,IL DEC. IDPH Licensed: Northwest Terminal Cleanup; Portland, OR.Antonela is a task manager and Asbestos Building Inspector project geologist for providing and environmental cleanup services being Project Manger provided to TOC Holdings under DEO's VCP.Her responsibilities have Air Sampling Professional included drilling and laboratory coordination for the drilling of soil borings using the direct-push technique to assess the extent of soil contamination associated with a historical tank farm loading rack area. Retail Storage& Distribution Facility Site Investigation; Park City, IL. this property was leased by Coca-Cola for the storage and distribution of Coca-Cola products and consisted of two parcels:one containing two warehouses and parking area and one vacant parcel.The vacant parcel was planned to be transformed into a parking area to accommodate Coca-Cola FINTONELA VA9AN distribution trucks.The vacant area was historically used as an auto junk yard in the 1960s and later covered with four to eight feet of fill material.Antonela conducted a subsurface investigation,including groundwater monitoring well installation,soil and groundwater sampling,a CPR survey,and a geolechnical survey.Chemicals of concern included polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs)and inorganics.A NFA determination was issued for this facility within one year of beginning the site investigation. Blackhawk Development Phase I ESA;Chicago, IL. Structured Development purchased an industrial site in a highly desirable residential area with plans to demolish all structures,rezone the property to commercial status, and build a British School,multi-commercial building,and multi-level parking structure.The property was previously occupied by True Value for the manufacturing,storing,and distribution of paints and associated products.Antonela performed the site visit to assess potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) present.The property consisted of seven buildings with an industrial history of over 90 years.Approximately 20 ASTs were removed prior to this survey and 16 USTs were determined to exist onsite.Based on findings from the Phase I ESA,Antonela recommended extensive subsurface soil and groundwater investigations,as well as the decommissioning and removal of all USTs. Kedzie Street Site Investigation;Chicago, IL.This former industrial property was planned to be redeveloped and transformed into a school and leased to the Chicago Public School district.The site survey and the subsequent subsurface investigation were conducted by Antonela.The soil analytical data indicated VOC contaminants and metals.Antonela oversaw the removal of a UST found on the property as well as removal of PCS.A NFA determination was received in less than one year. Lake Mill Plaza, Phase I ESA;Addison, IL.Antonela conducted a Phase I ESA at a shopping mall for a perspective purchaser.The historical data indicated that one of the units formerly operated as a dry cleaner. Due to these findings,the client was able to negotiate and obtain a large escrow account from the seller to be used for the remediation of the site. McHenry Farm Land Phase I ESA; McHenry County, IL. Prior to the Archdiocese of Chicago's purchase of a large farm property,Antonela prepared a Phase I ESA report.She performed the site visit and inspected all structures present on site as well as the agricultural land and the adjacent wooded parcel.Based on the historical data obtained,the property had always been used for farm/agricultural purposes and, therefore,the recommendations included subsurface investigations for analysis of pesticides. L�\ ISR Steve McCray, Field Technician Role: Field Technician Proposed Time Commitment 3096 Steve has extensive experience providing field oversight for a variety of site _ _ _. .. .. .. investigation and remediation and waste management projects involving soil ExporrisE and groundwater monitoring, sampling, and reporting activities. He has • Due Diligence/Phase I&11 ESAs experience performing groundwater and soil sampling for site investigations, • Groundwater Sampling& Phase II ESAs, site remediation projects, and stormwater sampling associated Monitoring with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit • Field Sampling,Surveys,& compliance monitoring. Steve is also experienced in stormwater modeling, Analysis AutoCAD, and supporting civil engineering design, as well as providing ✓ Soil&Hazardous Waste COA,& Construction Quality Assurance (COA) related to landfill composite liner Monitoring systems and composite cover systems. Prior to joining JBR, Steve assisted ✓ Contaminated Site Investigation various municipalities with civil engineering projects including site surveys, &Remediation roadway design and installation oversight, adapting storm sewer systems to ✓ UST Decommissioning an interactive geographic information system (GIS) database, and numerous • Construction Monitoring spreadsheet and graphic assignments. Steve has conducted asbestos and • Spill Cleanup lead-based paint inspections for public, commercial, and residential facilities, • GIS Mapping&Analysis and groundwater monitoring and treatment services for numerous public • AutoCAD Drafting and private entities throughout the west coast.He has also conducted many • stormwater Management bioremediation treatment applications at PCS sites in Oregon and ✓ Asbestos&Lead-Based Paint - Washington. Steve will be responsible for providing oversight of all field- Inspection related activities. ✓ Health&Safety Plans ? EVA)J P10)ECT 7_:(r17`lEAC1 EDUCATION 'B' Street Site Assessment;Ashland, OR.Steve is the field technician for the A.A.S.,Civil Engineering Technology, City of Ashland's 'B' Street Site Assessment project.The site assessment is Portland Community College, currently evaluating the nature and extent of soil and groundwater 1994 contamination associated with former USTs that existed at a maintenance and storage yard owned by the City.Steve's responsibilities include soil and LICENSES groundwater sample collection,installation of soil borings,oversight of UST Supervisor: drilling activities,quarterly groundwater monitoring and reporting,well Soil Matrix Cleanup,OR decommissioning,and field screening for the presence of VOCs. Decommissioning,OR Heating Oil Tanks,OR Jackson County Shooting Range Soil Assessment; Eagle, OR. Lead-Based Pain[Risk Assessor,OR Steve provided oversight of soil and groundwater sampling services for the Lead Abatement Inspector,OR Jackson County Parks Department to determine the extent of contamination of lead-impacted Soils at the Sports Park Large Bore Shooting Range. His responsibilities included coordinating with homeowners for property access CERTIFICATION&TRAINING for the purpose of evaluating groundwater use within 1/2-mile of the primary Certified Erosion&Sediment impact berm,quality control oversight for soil and groundwater sampling and Control Lead disposal planning, preparing site figures,and assisting the project manager Soil Matrix Cleanup Supervisor,OR with determining soil remediation and removal options available to the UST Decommissioning,OR County for expediting a NFA determination from DEQ. Asbestos Abatement Worker,OR Bus Maintenance Facility Groundwater Investigation;Salem, OR. Asbestos Awareness Class Steve conducted supplemental ESA activities for localized TCE impacts to Intro to ArcGIS 9:Env Appl of GIS groundwater to support SAMTD's ongoing negotiations with DEQ and EPA. Assessment activities included advancement of several direct-push soil STrVE MCCRAV borings,installation of temporary well points for collection and analysis of soil and groundwater samples.Steve also provided drilling oversight and collected split samples of soil and groundwater with EPA's consultant. L Street Compound Characterization &Remediation;Grants Pass, OR.As field technician,Steve provided oversight of all field work including preparation for sampling and removal of LBP contaminated soil.The project involved investigation of potential release of petroleum hydrocarbons from an underground hoist and an above ground beating oil tank,remediation of a release from the above ground heating oil tank,characterization of impacts to shallow soil caused by LBP chips around five buildings,sample and data collection,and reporting. Additional contract modification work included preparation of an expedited groundwater BUS to identify domestic wells proximal to the site that might be impacted by lead leaching from shallow soil into groundwater. Results of the BUS were used to identify potential exposure pathways and to develop site-specific remediation goals.Steve assisted with preparation of the HASP, soil sample and inventory preparation,field observation, LBP chip sampling and reporting for all applicable buildings on the property, interpretation of analytical data, disposal permit coordination,preparation of report figures,and reviewed the final report. junction Forest Service Road Soil Sampling& Disposal Measures;Wonder,OR.JBR was contracted to supervise excavation and disposal of 10 cubic yards of illegally dumped PCS stockpile on USDA Forest Service property.To account for possible contaminant leaching into the road material located beneath the PCS,Steve supervised removal of an additional six inches of original road material(approximately 2.5 cubic yards of the project area)beneath the PCS stockpile and disposed of it along with the stockpile material.A composite soil sample was collected from the remaining road material beneath the former PCS stockpile and submitted for analysis of TPH to confirm the PCS removal was thorough and complete.Steve also assisted with preparation of the HASP,field work and stockpile sample preparation,soil sampling and removal,PCS disposal evaluation and coordination,preparation of report figures,and reviewed the final report. Former High Tech Diesel Facility; Klamath Falls, OR. As field technician for this ongoing site characterization and remediation project,Steve assisted with surge and survey preparation;conducted groundwater monitoring, sampling,and reporting;decommissioned four USTs;provided oversight for installation of soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells,and excavation and disposal of approximately 120 cubic yards of PCS;and prepared site maps and figures for the final report.Ongoing site characterization activities include installation of additional soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells,quarterly groundwater sampling,and completion of reporting required to obtain a NFA determination from DEO. Northwest Terminal Cleanup;Portland, OR.Steve provided construction oversight during the demolition and removal of a tank farm and associated structures and evaluated environmental impacts resulting from the demolition at TOC Holdings facility.Steve was lead COA monitor during the terminal's derolition activities that included demolition of 33 ASTs and removal of associated product piping at three tank farm areas.He monitored contractor quality control procedures,sampled materials and debris from site demolition,and provided environmental,erosion,and sediment control oversight.Steve was also responsible for photo- documentation and preparation of daily field reports for submission to TOC Holdings and jBR's project manager, Rebekah Brooks. He sampled soil front 90 direct-push soil probes across 30-acres of the site for delineating petroleum impacts to shallow soil in preparation for a soil removal action.Additionally,Steve provided construction oversight during the subsequent soil removal action and conducted daily erosion and sediment control inspections.He is also responsible for performing ongoing quarterly groundwater sampling events and environmental compliance monitoring for the stormwater and wastewater discharge permits. i 1� K pp °• O ^ O m b �O tit N O ao N t1 m O O. rvf M O H o u N � v 3 o V O eo O � C i �° • r y r � p w V C 0. ..- 'O 9 �.°. t O u w d V 0I� O N M •p/r V N � O D U U -O U O a U U 10 N b t•t N'C M a U N Q u G ° p ovr 0 v _ y y ada 5 !x] m A o EL u a o Z v 'E'D 4.. .5 c O tO+ T y F. N U 6yi �'1` O •O U U U C.'� 0 m ° m eos U � v a .9 .9 .9 . � 9 o e A N 5 N u v y $ V xxd� aia o u ucic� 88uu: r`i ..i e r .6 r oo a 9 a a CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment of Council Liaison to the Mt. Ashland Association Board Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Diana Shiplet Department: ministration E-Mail: shipletd @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: one Secondary Contact: Larry Patterson Approval: Larry Patterson Estimated Time: 5 Minutes Question: Who will Council designate as the Council Liaison to the Mount Ashland Association Board of Directors? Staff Recommendation: N/A Background: At the October 18, 2011 regular Council meeting Council approved an agreement with the Mount Ashland Association (MAA) and on October 24, 2011 the MAA board agreed to the term of the Agreement. In the agreement, Section 4, paragraph a reads, "The City shall have the right annually to appoint one person to serve as a non-voting liaison to the Board of Directors of the MAA. The City's liaison will be provided with all information provided to directors, except that the City's liaison will not participate in personnel or legal matters." Related City Policies: N/A Council Options: Select a Council Liaison to the Mount Ashland Association Board of Directors. Potential Motions: I move to approve as the Council Liaison to the Mount Ashland Association Board of Directors. Attachments: Agreement between MAA and CoA Page 1 of I 11FAW, AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Ashland, as lessor("the City"), and the Mt. Ashland Association, as lessee ("the MAA"), on or about July 9, 1992, entered into the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Lease ("the Lease")a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit"1'; WHEREAS, the City desires to surrender to the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Special Use Permit("the Permit")as described in the Lease if a comparable permit is issued to MAX and the MAA desires to have the Permit or a comparable permit issued to it; WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain improvements in and on that certain real property located on Mt. Ashland in Jackson County, Oregon, which is described in and is subject to the Permit ("the Permit Property"); WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain personal property, fixtures, furnishings,inventory and items of equipment used in connection with the operation of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area and/or located on the Permit Property including but not limited those items described in the Lease and identified in Exhibit `B" to the Lease(the "Equipment"); and WHEREAS, the City has determined that it would improve MAA's ability to provide winter recreation to the Rogue Valley,which is beneficial to the economy of the region if MAA became the holder of the Permit and the owner of the property; and WHEREAS, the City has further determined that it would reduce the potential legal and financial liability of the City to convey the Permit and property to MAA; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that conveying the Permit Property and Equipment to the MAA would further the public interest and the MAA desires to receive the Permit Property and the Equipment to use in the operation of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area; Based on the foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the City and the MAA shall as soon thereafter as practicable accomplish the following: 1. The City will surrender the Permit to the Forest Service, and the MAA will apply for issuance of the Permit. The City agrees to assist reasonably the MAA in the process of issuing the Permit or a comparable permit to the MAA. 2. The City shall convey whatever interest it has, or by rights should have, in and to the Permit Property and the Equipment to the MAA by execution of a bill of sale for personal property and a statutory quitclaim deed for real property. 3. Upon issuance of the Permit or a comparable permit to the MAA, the provisions of the Lease shall have no further force or effect whatsoever, except that MAA will remain responsible for any amounts the City is required to pay pursuant to the Permit as a result of the City's surrender of the Permit. Page 1 of 4 4. The parties further agree that: a) The City shall have the right annually to appoint one person to serve as a non- voting liaison to the Board of Directors of the MAA. The City's liaison will be provided with all information provided to directors, except that the City's liaison will not participate in personnel or legal matters. b) MAA will provide the City with copies of all architectural, engineering, construction and logging plans, including without limitation any related environmental impact studies, relating to any improvements contemplated by MAA within the Permit Property, now or in the future. MAA will deliver such plans to the City no less than thirty(30) days prior to the commencement of any construction, earth movement or logging. Within 30 days of receiving the plans from the MAA, the City may but is not required to conduct a technical review of MAA's plans with respect to its impact on water quality, including without limitation erosion, sedimentation,stormwater, revegetation, watershed restoration,wetlands, and spill control. MAA agrees to confer with the City in good faith on any matters raised in a technical review relating to water quality. The City of Ashland may appoint a representative to provide daily on-site monitoring and inspection during any earth movement, logging or construction, and MAA agrees to provide access to the City's representative. MAA and the City will confer with the USDA Forest Service and any affected regulatory agencies if issues are identified during construction as ones that will affect water quality, erosion, sedimentation, and spill control. C) MAA agrees to comply with any obligations imposed with respect to sedimentation in Reeder Reservoir in the July 2007 Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) document prepared by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to meet the requirements of Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. d) 'The Permit or a comparable permit will require MAA to maintain a"Restoration Amount,"which shall mean and refer to the maintenance of available funds or assets by the MAA to cover area restoration in the unlikely event of the ski area closure. MAA agrees to increase the amount it maintains as the Restoration Amount on July 15 of every year by a percentage equal to the percentage increase of the US Department of Labor: Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average, CPI—All Items("standard reference base period" 1982-84 = 100) in the previous twelve (12) calendar months. MAA further agrees that it shall at all times maintain the Restoration Amount (as increased pursuant to this paragraph) in unencumbered funds or assets, i.e., readily transferable assets subject to no lien. MAA shall ensure that any security interest in its assets that it has granted or may in the future grant excludes the funds maintained for the Restoration Amount. C) The MAA agrees that it will not proceed with any logging, earth movement, or construction activities related to the portion of the expansion identified as Phase 1 until MAA has received a combination of cash contributions, binding financial commitments, and performance bonding necessary to cover the entire cost of the Phase I improvements. The final details of the projects included in Phase I will be defined by permits issued by the USDA Forest Service, but Phase I can generally be described as the Ski Run Settlement Sale, a chairlift with new lower intermediate and novice runs, a warming dditional parking spaces, the widening of several existing runs, and 23 watershed restoration prcjec It C, Page 2 of 4 f) The MAA agrees not to amend its articles of incorporation, without the express written consent of the City, in any way that would impair its current provision that, in the event the MAA dissolves, all of its assets which remain after MAA's creditor claims and other obligations are satisfied shall be distributed to the City. g) The MAA agrees that in the event it dissolves, that none of its assets shall be distributed to a director, officer or other private person or private entity. h) MAA agrees that it will not, without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld: (1) transfer or convey to another person or entity the Permit or the comparable permit issued to MAA as contemplated in this Agreement; or(2) enter into an agreement with any other person or entity whereby the rights and obligations under the Permit or the comparable permit issued to MAA as contemplated in this Agreement would be assumed by any other person or entity. i) MAA will reimburse the City for the City's reasonable attorney fees and any other out-of-pocket expenses up to $7,500 incurred in connection with the negotiation and performance of this Agreement through the date the Forest Service issues the Permit or a comparable permit to MAA as contemplated in this Agreement or declines to issue such a permit. The City will provide MAA with a complete accounting of its attorney fees and out-of-pocket expenses within thirty(30) days after the Forest Service issues the Permit or a comparable permit to MAA as contemplated in this Agreement or declines to issue such a permit. MAA will pay the amount owed under this paragraph within ten (10) business days after the City delivers its accounting of those fees and expenses. 5. This Agreement is conditioned on the Forest Service issuing to MAA the Permit or a comparable permit and, with the exception of Paragraphs 3 and 4(i), shall be of no force or effect if that condition is not met on or before December 31, 2012. 6. Miscellaneous: a) There are no oral agreements or representations between the parties hereto which affect this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, warranties, representations and understandings, if any, between the parties. b) The paragraph headings set forth in this Agreement are set forth for convenience purposes only, and do not in any way define, limit or construe the contents of this Agreement. C) If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be void by any courtt of competent jurisdiction, then that determination shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement, and all such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. d) It is the intention of the parties that if any provision of this Agreement is capable of two constructions, only one of which would render the provision valid, then the provision shall have the meaning which renders it valid. Page 3 of 4 e) If suit or action is instituted in connection with any controversy arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party in that suitor action or any appeal there from shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other relief,the sum which the court may judge to be reasonable attorney fees. f) Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given and delivered when personally delivered or when deposited in the United States mail, as certified mail,postage prepaid, and addressed to the last-known address of the party being provided with the notice. g) The MAA may not assign its interest in this Agreement to any third party without the express written consent of the City. This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the City and any penmitted successors and assigns of MAA. h) This Agreement is being executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and both of which shall constitute a single instrument,when signed by both of the parties. i) Waiver by either party of strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not be a waiver of, and shall not prejudice the party's right to subsequently require strict performance of, the same provision or any other provision. j) The consent or approval of either party to any act by the other party of a nature requiring consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent to or approval of any subsequent similar act. k) This Agreement shall be governed and performed in accordance with the laws of the state of Oregon. 1) In the event of a dispute pertaining to this Agreement, the parties agree to attempt to negotiate in good faith an acceptable resolution prior to commencing litigation. If a resolution cannot be negotiated, then the parties agree to submit the dispute to voluntary non-binding mediation before commencing litigation. Each of the parties hereby irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of Jackson County, Oregon, and agrees that any legal proceedings with respect to this Agreement shall be filed and hea d in the appropriate court in Jackson County, Oregon. Date: Date: Od -J g C-9-0// MT.ASHLAND ASSOCIATION-LESSEE CITY OF ASHLAND,OREGON—LESSOR By: \lalA& By: Title: . ]e: Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Fiscal Year 2011-12 First Quarter Financial Report: July - September 2011 Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: ministrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: ne Secondary Contact: None Approval: arry Patterson Estimated Time: 5 Minutes Question: Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council accept the quarterly report as presented. Background: The Administrative Services Department reports to Council on a quarterly basis about budget compliance and for comparative purposes throughout the year. Information can be provided in differing formats and timetables.at Council's request. Financial numbers for the first three months are always difficult to present and subject to change. With only three months to report on, it is difficult to evaluate the City's current financial position as compared to the adopted annual budget or to project our position at year end. The City pays many annualized amounts, and several departments have seasonal activities like construction, peak visitor demand, or utility consumption. Staff cannot adjust these reports for all such deviations. The reports are intended to present information in formats consistent with the department, fund and business activity presentations included in the adopted FY 2011-12 budget document and the manner in which it will be shown in the end of year report. Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available for your review in the Administrative Service Department office should you require any additional information. Overview The City experienced declining balances in cash for various reasons during the last decade, endangering its financial position since the total unrestricted amount was often below established target minimums during each year. In the last few years we have been successful at generating sufficient revenues and holding down expenditures to reverse the trend of cash reductions and to hold balances steady. In FY 2009-10 most target cash balances were improved. The total balance at September 30, 2011, is $20,484,422. This is $3.3 million more than this time last year but over half of it ($10 million) is restricted in use. Total Ending Fund Balance at the end of this quarter is also $20.4 million, about $3 million more than the prior year and the amount budgeted for the end of this fiscal year. As with the increased cash Page 1 of 2 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND balances, the improved EFB reflects management's effort to generate sufficient revenue for operations while holding costs down. The balance will surely change and probably reduce by June 30, 2011. Related City Policies: City of Ashland Financial Management Policies, Budget Document Appendix Council Options: Council may accept this report as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification. Potential Motions: A.. Council moves to accept the financial report as presented. B. Council moves to accept the report as modified by discussion. C. Council takes no action pending further information or clarification. Attachments: Attached is the City of Ashland financial report for the period ended September 30, 2011. This report includes: 1. Financial Narrative 2. Summary of Cash and Investments as of September 30 for the last two years 3. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures—City Wide 4. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution 42011-18 5. Schedule(s) of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance—All Funds The numbers presented are unaudited and unadjusted. Page 2 of 2 I`, FINANCIAL NARRATIVE Summary of Cash and Investments provides an understanding of changes in the City's cash position across funds and investment types. The city-wide cash balance has decreased $1,629,081 between fiscal years at the end of the first quarter to $18,855,340, primarily from increased capital projects in the Capital Improvements Fund. City—wide cash balance has decreased by $4,291,197 this first quarter of.2012. Cash balances tend to decrease in the first quarter when operations funded by property taxes continue, in advance of property tax proceeds to be received in November. First Quarter Cash Balances $25,000,000 $18,855,340 $23,146,537 $20,484,421 $21,758,621 $19,389,300 $20,000,000 $17,225,130 $15,000,000 19%Cash 6%Cash 11%Cash $10,000,000 Balance Balance Balance Decrease Decrease Decrease $5,000,000 $4,291,197 $1,274,200 $2,164,170 $0 913012011 613012011 913012010 613012010 913012009 613012009 First Quarter Changes in Cash Balances by Fund 1st Qtr FY 2012 1st Qtr FY 2011 General Fund $ (1,332,881) $ (1,053,529) CDBG Fund 19,787 17,069 Reserve Fund 350,282 414 Street Fund (369,696) (56,242) Airport Fund 9,092 8,106 Capital Improvement Fund (1,203,857) 256,306 Debt Service Fund (632,051) (134,248) Water Fund 191,514 (127,866) Wastewater Fund 389,259 344,090 Electric Fund 36,770 760,160 Telecommunications Fund (72,796) (612,745) Central Services Fund 25,091 (29,302) Insurance Fund (200,216) (118,912) Equipment Fund (155,529) 214,836 Cemetery Trust Fund 14,780 6,891 Total City $ (2,930,451) $ (524,972) Parks (1,360,746) (749,227) Total City-Wide $ (4,291,197) $ (1,274,199) Major changes in cash for the first quarter of this fiscal year compared to last fiscal year are in the Reserve Fund, Street Fund, Capital Improvements Fund, Debt Service Fund, Enterprise Funds, and the Page 1 of 6 Equipment Fund. The Reserve Fund received a transfer of$349,000 from Parks. The Street Fund paid down street construction payables in the first quarter. The Capital Improvement Fund worked on more projects. The Debt Service Fund received a larger internal payment for AFN debt from the Telecommunications Fund than it did in the first quarter of the prior year, while the AFN debt payment remained consistent. The Water Fund cash balance improved as a result of a rate increase. Electric Fund cash balance decreased in relation to the drop in kilowatt hours sold the first quarter of this year compared to last year. The Equipment Fund purchased an ambulance and utility billing software in the first quarter of 2011-12. The distribution of cash and investment balances shows an increase in the amount held in the Local Government Investment Pool of$5.2 million and a $6.2 million decrease in other city investments, according to investment policies. Cash held on-hand in general banking accounts has increased 45 % in keeping with cash flow needs. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures — City-Wide is similar to presentations in the annual financial report. It is intended to provide the reader an overall sense of the City's financial activity for the periods of time covered and the fund balances at the end of those periods. The first quarter of the fiscal year 2011-12 has increases in both revenues and expenditures. Decreases in taxes and charges for services were offset by increases in capital improvement grant revenues in the first quarter of 2012 compared to last year for a net increase in revenues of$19,271. An increase in operating expenditures of$114,102 is primarily in the personal services, which increased 2% over the prior year. First Quarter Changes in Deficency of Revenue and Operating Expenditures $16,000,000 $15,000,000 —&-Expenditures $14,000,000 - Revenues $13,000,000 Deficiency $12,000,000 of Rev& Exp 1st quarter FY 2012 1st quarter FY 2011 Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance (EFB) is $21 million. This is 23%more than what has been budgeted for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012. Budgeted EFB is predicated upon certain levels of revenue yet to be received such as property taxes and proceeds from financing, such as bond proceeds. The EFB in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011-12 increased by 3% or$667,620 from this time last year. Although the first quarter net resources are a deficit, the EFB is higher this quarter over last year resulting from the EFB at 6/30/2011 being higher than the prior year carry forward. Page 2 of 6 First Quarter Changes in Ending Fund Balances $21,086,801 $23,588,737 $24,000,000 $22,307,271 $22,000,000 $20,419,181 $19,935,262 $20,000,000 $18,066,611 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 11% 8% 9% $14,000,000 Decrease Decrease Decrease $2,501,936 $1,88,090 $1,868,651 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 9/30/2011 6/30/2011 9/30/2010 6/30/2010 9/30/2009 6/3012009 The Schedule of Budgetary Compliance is intended to present expenditures on a budget basis by fund, consistent with the resolution adopting appropriation levels for the year. Unless indicated otherwise, all appropriations are as adopted. Total city-wide expenditures in aggregate are below the anticipated 25% level for the first quarter. The specific funds with expenditures above the 25% level are the Debt Service Fund, the Insurance Fund, and the Equipment Fund. It is normal for the Debt Service Fund to have expenditures over the prorated appropriation level because 100% of the AFN principal and interest is paid at the beginning of the year. The Insurance Fund has expenditures over the prorated appropriation level because the insurance premiums are paid at the beginning of the year. The Equipment Fund purchased expensive items (an Ambulance and UB software) in the first quarter of this year causing the fund to be at 32.6%of appropriations. Other equipment purchases are expected later in the year, but remaining below total appropriations. Highlights of Financial Activity Utility Revenue from rates makes up about 55% of the city-wide revenue (not including internal revenue or borrowings). Utility revenue increased 3% between fiscal years at the end of the first quarter. Electric sales in dollars and units are 2% less than the first quarter of the prior year. Water sales in dollars are 7% higher than the first quarter of the prior year even though units of water sold are 5% less for the same period. Temperatures remained constant between first quarters of each year and precipitation was lower by one inch this quarter over last year. Units sold for electricity is Kilo Watt Hours (kWh) and units sold for water are Cubic Feet (cf). Page 3 of 6 �r, First Quarter Comparison of Electric and Water Sales $6,000,000 Water Sales 60,000,000 Avg Temp Degree F: $5,000,000 50,000,000 1st Qtr 2012 89 Electric Sales 1st Qtr2011 88 $4,000,000 40,000,000 Total Rainfall $3,000,000 30,000,000 1st Qtr2012 .63 $2,000,000 - 20,000,000 1st Qtr2011 1.65 $1,000,000 10,000,000 111 1st Qtr 2012 $_ 1st Qtr 2011 Revenue kWh Revenue cf Units Sold Sold Sold Tax Revenue makes up about 30% of the city-wide revenue budgeted (not including internal revenue or borrowings). City-wide tax revenues decreased by I%or$128,016 lower than the prior year. General Fund Taxes are displayed in the chart below. It's too early to do any projections since substantive TOT and property tax revenues do not occur until the second quarter. First Quarter Comparison of General Fund Taxes $700,000 Down -2% Down -14% $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 UP 1% $200,000 Up 6% Down -20% $100,000 $_ Property Electric Franchise, Hotel Taxes Licenses Taxes Utility Taxes Taxes ■1st Qtr 2012 1st Qtr 2011 Page 4 of 6 �r, Food and Beverage Taxes increased by 2% in the whole fiscal year 2011 over fiscal year 2010. Collections in the first quarter of fiscal year 2012 are up by 17% from first quarter of fiscal year 2011. Substantive F&B tax revenue is not received until the second quarter. First Quarter Comparison of Food & Beverage Taxes $98,413 $84,310 $100,000 ❑Central Services Fund $80,000 ■Capital Improvement Fund $60,000 ■Wastewater Fund $40,000 $20,000 1st Qtr 2012 1st Qtr 2011 Capital Outlay Expenditures have more than doubled in the first quarter of the current year compared to last year. The capital outlay for this first quarter of 2012 is $983,806 as compared to $433,673 for the first quarter of last year. The allocations of capital outlay among the funds are shown in the following chart. First Quarter of 2012 Capital expenditures by Fund General Fund, Equipment Fund $S,279,>3% Street Fund, $378,020,38% I $323,564,33% CIP Fund, $78,132, 8% Water Fund, Telecomm Fund, $48,963,S% $64,420,7% MElectricd, Wastewater Fund, $77,395,8% $8,043,1% Capital Outlay Expenditures by Fund. Capital expenditures in the General Fund were for architectural services for the Police Department and for various types of fire equipment. Street Fund capital expenditures were for street projects, such as Jefferson Avenue, Laurel Street, Hersey realignment, street slurry seal, and the Belleview pathway. Capital expenditures in the Capital Improvements Fund were for Fire Station No. 2 and the airport. The Water Fund capital expenditures were primarily for SDC projects. The Electric Fund expended capital on internal projects such as transformers, pole and line upgrades. The Telecommunications Fund capital expenditures were for the City's network and server. The Equipment Fund capital expenditures were primarily for the new ambulance for the fire department and new software for Utility Billing. Page 5 of 6 OVER Interfund Transfers for the first quarter of this fiscal year totaled $370,829, compared to the prior first quarter transfers of$81,220. Parks transferred $349,000 to the Reserve Fund. The Capital Improvements Fund transferred open space debt service payments in the amount of$20,462 to the Debt Service Fund. The Cemetery transferred $1,367 in interest payments to the General Fund. Ending Fund Balances as of June 30, 2011, compared to the projected ending fund balances, are shown in the following table. Some highlights are: The General Fund carry forward is higher because property, franchise, and hotel taxes came in 5% more than projected. The Street Fund came in lower because of additional capital projects. The Equipment Fund carry forward came in higher than projected because only 40% of the anticipated equipment was purchased and 70% of the anticipated loan from the Equipment Fund to the Water Fund was made. Actual and Projected EFB Carry Forward Comparisons by Fund Projected Actual Carry Carry Forward Forward into into FY 2011-2012 FY 2011- 2012 Difference General Fund $ 2,938,556 $ 2,518,066 $ 20,490 CBDG Fund 34,424 0 34,424 Reserve Fund 509,502 510,172 (670) Street Fund 2,236,300 2,545,596 (309,296) Airport Fund $60,083 42,573 17,510 Capital Improvement Fund 2,132,661 2,050,612 82,049 Debt Service Fund $809,248 894,697 (85,449) Water Fund 2,212,401 2,033,088 179,313 Wastewater Fund 3,250,111 3,116,654 133,457 Electric Fund 2,476,294 2,290,459 185,835 Telecommunications Fund 517,916 453,183 64,733 Central Services Fund 491,546 301,659 189,887 Insurance Fund 605,943 783,477 (177,534) Equipment Fund 1,858,969 650,551 1,208,418 Cemetery Fund 831,602 830,297 1,305 Parks&Rec Fund 2,214,031 1,991,310 222,721 Parks YAL 9,899 0 9,899 Parks CIP 432,866 228,504 204,362 Total $ 23,622,352 $ 21,240,898 $ 2,381,454 Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenue and expenditure reports, and fund statements are available for your review in the Administrative Services Department office at City Hall should you require any additional information. Page 6 of 6 City of Ashland Summary of Cash and Investments September 30, 2011 Balance Balance Change From Fund September 30,2011 September 30,2010 FY 2011 General Fund $ 1,672,479 $ 1,480,247 - $ 192,232 Community Black Grant Fund 20,215 28,335 (8,120) Reserve Fund 859,963 148,665 711,298 Street Fund 2,155,042 2,839,260 (684,218) Airport Fund 50,835 31,984 18,851 ,Capital Improvements Fund 890,337 2,289,842 (1,399,505) Debt Service Fund 172,582 623,399 (450,817) Water Fund 2,011,075 1,613,268 397,807 Wastewater Fund 3,140,893 3,391,589 (250,696) Electric Fund 1,863,480 2,091,021 (227,541) Telecommunications Fund 289,193 243,388 45,805 Central Services Fund 851,807 586,592 265,215 Insurance Services Fund 760,898 848,424 (87,526) Equipment Fund - 1,773,508 1,989,145 (215,637) Cemetery Trust Fund 846,528 814,240 32,288 $ 17,358,836 $ 19,019,399 $ (1,660,563) Parks 8 Recreation Agency Fund 1,496,504 1,465,021 31,483 1,496,504 - 1,465,021 31,483 Total Cash Distribution $ 18,855,340 $ 20,484,421 S (1,629,081) Manner of Investment General Banking Accounts $ 1,494,272 932,850 $ 561,422 Local Government Inv.Pool 16,361,069 12,538,704 3,822,365 City Investments - 1,000,000 7,012,867 (6,012,867) Total Cash and Investments S 18,855,340 $ 20,484,421 S (1,629,081) Doilar Distribution Cash Balance Distribution Parks and Cendzl Series. Recleadan Funds AG Other lGenard Insurance and �98 Gdv35% Claims Equipment antls 358 - Trust. $847468 18% SDC's, Judgments, ,4% $5,740,960, $400,000,201 Unassigned, 30% $7787,143, .. 3 41% Debt Rese ud ., $1,805,281, Asset Fodeited 10% $129,510,1% Business Type Other Rese d, Funds $1.986,06 39% 11% TOT Tourism , 100,563,1% a.saa M2Flnama Rapondax - 1 IM500u City of Ashland Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - City Wide For the third month ended September 30, 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2012 Collected I Year-To-Date Resource Summary Actuals Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Revenues Taxes $ 1,602,359 $ 19,433,650 8.2% $ (17,831,291) $ 1,694,730 Licenses and Permits 110,132 482,750 22.8% (372,618) 134,915 Intergovernmental Revenues 871,728 5,972,025 14.6% (5,100,297) 459,698 Charges for Services-Rate&Internal 9,807,124 37,552,541 26.1% (27,745,417) 10,013,420 Charges for Services-Misc.Service fees 137,812 437,181 31.5% (299,369) 147,841 System Development Charges 74,569 202,000 36.9% (127,431) 123,374 Fines and Forfeitures 47,795 165,000 29.0°/ (117,205) 46,696 Assessment Payments - 1,249 5,000 25,0% (3,751) 10,610 Interest on Investments 39,184 257,200 15.2% (218,016) 65,400 Miscellaneous Revenues 125,971 484,602 26.0% (358,631) 101,970 Total Revenues 12,817,925 64,991,949 19.7% (52,174,026) 12,798,654 Budgetary Resources: Other Financing Sources - 7,437,200 0.0% (7,437,200) - InterfundLoans - 408,000 0.0% (408,000) - Transfers In 370,829 491,482 75.5% (120,653) 81,220 Total Budgetary Resources 370,829 8,336,682 4.4% (7,965,853) 81,220 Total Resources 13,188,755 73,328,631 18.0% (60,139,879) 12,879,874 Requirements by Classification Personal Services 5,760,626 24,344,430 23.7% 18,583,804 5,636,746 Materials and Services 7,536,470 31,304,307 24,1% 23,767,837 7,527,884 Debt Service 1,070,072 4,695,628 22.8% 3,625,556 1,088,439 Total Operating Expenditures 14,367,171 60,344,365 23.8% 45,977,197 14,253,069 Capital Construction Capital Outlay 986,306 - 14,286,760 6.9% 13,300,454 433,673 Intedund Loans - 408,000 0.0% 408,000 - Transfers Out 370,829 491,482 75.5% 120,653 81,220 Contingencies - 1,926,000 0.0°% 1,926,000 Total Budgetary Requirements 370,829 2,825,482 13.1% 2,454,653 81,220 Total Requirements 15,724,306 77,456,607 20.3% 61,732,304 14,767,964 Excess(Deficiency)of Resources over Requirements (2,535,551) (4,127,976) 38.6% 1,592,425 (1,888,090) Working Capital Carryover 23,622,352 21,240,898 111.2°/ 2,381,454 22,307,271 Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance $ 21,086,801 S 17,112,922 123.2% $ 3,973,879 $ 20,419,181 3 SepI 4Y 12 F-A Rep iAsm 2 10/15/1011 City of Ashland Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2011-18 For the third month ended September 30, 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Actuals Adopted Used Balance General Fund Administration $ 30,764 $ 258,829 11.9% $ 228,065 Administration-Library 91,446 376,720 24.3% 285,274 Administration-Municipal Court 113,281 452,123 25.1% 338,842 Administrative Services-Social Services Grants 117,678 122,710 95.9% 5,032 Administrative Services-Economic 8 Cultural Grants 299,923 626,078 47.9% 326,155 Administrative Services-Miscellaneous 17,593 127,546 13.8% 109,953 Administrative Services-Band 31,056 58,500 53.1% 27,444 Police Department 1,357,063 5,518,481 24.6% 4,161,418 Fire and Rescue Department 1,357,886 5,480,533 24.8% 4,122,647 Public Works-Cemetery Division 97,752 321,125 30.4% 223,373 Community Development-Planning Division 273,942 1,153,310 23.8% 879,368 Community Development-Building Division 150,030 612,533 24.5% 462,503 Transfers - 500 0.0% 500 - Contingency - 500,000 0.0% 500,000 Total General Fund 3,938,415 15,608,988 25.2% 11,670,573 Community Development Block Grant Fund Personal Services 19,457 44,300 43.9% 24,843 Materials and Services 4,328 221,845 2.0% 217,517 Total Community Development Grant Fund 23,785 266,145 8.9% 242,360 Street Fund Public Works-Street Operations 791,600 5,040,020 15.7% 4,248,420 Public Works-Storm Water Operations 135,249 713,551 19.0% 578,302 Public Works-TransportationSDC's 1,297 401,110 0.3% 399,813 Public Works-Storm Water SDC's - 146,850 0.00/1 146,850 Public Works-Local Improvement Districts 360 391,140 0.1% 390,780 - Contingency - 100,000 0.0% 100,000 Total Street Fund 928,506 6,792,671 13.7% 5,864,165 Airport Fund Materials and Services 13,168 64,950 20.3% 51,782 Debt Service - 43,536 0.0% 43,536 Contingency - 5,000 0.0% 5,000 Total Airport Fund 13,168 113,486 11.6% 100,318 15ep1 FYI21`m..l R.wi do �onslian 3 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2011-18 For the third month ended September 30, 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Actuals Adopted Used Balance Capital Improvements Fund PublicWorks-Facilities 196,650 4,269,180 4.6% 4,072,530 Administrative Services-SDC(Parks) - 121,350 0.0% 121,350 Administrative Services-Open Space(Parks) 14,431 1,785,650 0.8% 1,771,219 Transfers 20,462 121,982 16.8% 101,520 Other Financing Uses(Interfund Loan) 208,000 0.0% 208,000 Contingency 50,000 0.0% 50,000 Total Capital Improvements Fund 231,543 6,556,162 3.5% 6,3241619 Debt Service Fund Debt Service 1,070,072 2,248,574 47.6% 1,178,502 Total Debt Service Fund 1,070,072 2,248,574 47.6% 1,178,502 Water Fund Electric-Conservation 37,717 171,526 22.0% 1331809 Public Works-Forest Lands Management Division 121,565 1,843,458 6.6% 1,721,893 Public Works-Water Supply 48,870 620,922 7.9% 572,052 Public Works-Water Treatment 255,834 1,056,289 24.2% 800,455 Public Works-Water Division 571,082 2,347,519 .24.3% 1,776,437 Public Works-Reimbursement SDC's 127 110,000 0.1% 109,873 Public Works-Improvement SDC's 33,739 250,000 13.5% 216,261 Public Works-Debt SDC's - 124,860 0.0% 124,860 Debt Service 560,298 0.0% 560,298 Other Financing Uses(Interfund Loan) 200,000 0.0% 200,000 Contingency - 194,000 0.0% 194,000 Total Water Fund 1,068,934 7,478,872 14.3% 6,409,938 WasteWater Fund Public Works-Wastewater Collection - 444,720 1,937,482 23.0% 1,492,762 Public Works-Wastewater Treatment 505,397 2,478,433 20.4% 1,973,036 Public Works-Reimbursements SDC's 625 21,250 2.9% 20,625 Public Works-Improvements SDC's 9,343 351,912 2.7% 342,569 Debt Service - 1,670,573 0.0% 1,670,573 Contingency - 160,000 0.0% 160,000 Total Wastewater Fund 960,085 6,619,650 14.5% 5,659,565 Electric Fund Electric-Conservation Division 141,757 509,841 27.8% 368,084 Electric-Supply 1,281,826 7,095,300 18.1% 5,813,474 Electric-Distribution 1,327,847 6,164,617 21.5% 4,836,770 Electric-Transmission 211,955 953,000 22.2% 741,045 Debt Service - 24,565 0.0% 24,565 Contingency - 425,000 0.0% 425,000 Total Electric Fund 2,963,385 15,172,323 19.5% 12,208,938 3,Sepi FY12 Fin a 4Repm tax im¢ 011 4 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2011-18 For the third month ended September 30, 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Year-To-Dale Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Actuals Adopted Used Balance Telecommunications Fund IT-Internet " 386,913 1,668,219 23.2% 1,281,306 Debt-To Debt Service Fund" 209,000 409,000 51.1% 200,000 Contingency - 100,000 0.0% 100,000 Total-Telecommunications Fund 595,913 2,177,219 27.4% 1,581,306 "Note:In Internet appropriation Central Services Fund Administration Department 293,200 1,364,801 21.5% 1,071,601 IT-Computer Services Division 321,082 1,188,042 27.0% 866,960 Administrative Services Department 378,165 1,736,601 21.8% 1,358,436 City Recorder 83,885 310,756 27.0% 226,871 Public Works-Administration and Engineering 345,688 1,390,453 24.9% 1,044,765 Contingency 145,000 0.0% 145,000 Total Central Services Fund 1,422,020 6,135,653 23.2% 4,713,633 Insurance Services Fund Personal Services 20,016 79,580 25.2% 59,564 Materials and Services 275,209 676,500 40.7% 401,291 Contingency - 150,000 0.0% 150,000 Total Insurance Services Fund 295,225 906,080 32.6% 610,855 Equipment Fund Public Works-Maintenance 219,962 988,614 22.2% 768,652 Public Works-Purchasing and Acquisition 378,020 800,000 47.3% 421,980 Contingency - 47,000 0.0% 47,000 Total Equipment Fund 597,982 1,835,614 32.6% 1,237,632 Cemetery Trust Fund Transfers 1,367 20,000 6.8% 18,633 Total Cemetery Trust Fund 1,367- 20,000 6.8% 18,633 3.Sept rY11 Enna al Repvl.aln tORS/1011 5 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2011-18 For the third month ended September 30, 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Actuals Adopted Used Balance Parks and Recreation Fund Parks Division 868,387 3,500,240 24.8% 2,631,853 Recreation Division 289,881 1,103,040 26.3% 813,159 Golf Division 106,637 432,890 24.6% 326,253 Transfers 349,000 349,000 100.0% - Contingency - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 Total Parks and Recreation Fund 1,613,905 5,435,170 29.7% 3,821,265 Youth Activities Levy Fund Materials and Services - 20,000 0.0% 20,000 Total Youth Activities Levy Fund - 20,000 0.0% 20,000 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Capital Outlay - 70,000 0.0% 70,000 Total Parks Capital Improvement Fund 70,000 0.0% 70,000 Total Appropriations $ 15,724,306 $ 77,456,607 20.3% $ 61,732,301 a.SW M2 F.w Waep A. 6 oa rzon City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 _ Fiscal Year2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Dale Fiscal Year Collected) Year-To-Dale End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuate Actuate 110 General Fund Taxes . $ 1,439,162 11,908,650 12.1% $ (10,469,488) S 1,544,373 $ 12,121,415 Licenses and Permits 110,132 482,750 228% (372,618) 134,915 482,275 Intergovernmental 151,497 690,600 21.9% (539,103) 146,906 655,817 Charges for Services 357,250 1,450,510 24.6% (1,093,260) 392,597 1,489.665 Fines 47.795 165,000 29.0% (117,205) 46,696 183,239 Interest on Investments 4,265 40,000 10.7% (35,735) 6,703 19,619 Miscellaneous 30,992 62,600 49.5% (31,608) 14,861 157,334 Transfer In(Cemetery Fund) 1,367 20,000 6.8% (18,633) 2,456 5,298 Total Revenues and Other Sources 2,142,460 14,820,110 14.5% (12,677,650) 2,289,507 15,114,663 Administration 30,764 258,829 11.9% 228,065 48,601 182,883 Administaton-Library 91,446 376.720 24.3% 285,274 88,783 355,132 Administraton-Municipal Court 113,281 452,123 25.1% 338,842 106,501 432.486 Finance-Social Services Grants 117,678 122,710 959% 5,032 - 115,664 118,568 Finance-Economic B Cultural Grants 299,923 626,078 479% 326,155 262,080 . 571455 Finance-Miscellaneous 17,593 127,546 118% 109,953 11,701 61,012 Finance-Band 31.056 58,500 53.1% 27,444 32,955 56,214 Police Department 1,357,063 5,518,481 24.6% 4,161,418 1,312,708 5,232,383 Fire and Rescue Depart rent 1,357,886 5,480,533 24.8% 4,122,647 1,285,735 5,251;735 Public Works-Cemetery Division 97,752 321,125 30.4% 223,373 82,285 297,274 Community Development-Planning Division 273,942 1,153,310 23.8% 879,368 275,271 1,141,351 Community Development-Building Division 150,030 612,533 24.5% 462,503 137,483 589,185 Transfers(Cemetery and Reserve Fund) - 500 0.0% 500 - 361,000 Contingency 500,000 0.0% 500,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 3,938,415 15,608,988 25.2% 11,670,573 3,759,767 14,650,678 Excess(Defidency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (1,795,955) (788,878) -1277% (1,007,077). (1,470,260) 463,985 Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 2,938,556 2,518,066 116.7% 420,490 2,474,570 2,474,570 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 1.142.601 $ 1,729,188 66.1% $ (586,587) $ 1,004,312 S 2,938,556 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 572,404 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 570,197 ).Sp FYI?fryulpgvlrm FwxwNFI 7 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected) Year-TO-Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 250 Community Development Block Fund Intergovernmental $ 3,574 $ 266,145 1.3% S (262,571) S 14,930 $ 238,794 Total Revenues and Other Sources 3,574 266,145 13% (262,571) 14,930 238,794 Personal Services 19,457 44,300 43.9% 24,843 - 88 41,556 Materials and Services 4,328 221,845 2.0% 217,517 17,975 200,238 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 23,785 266,145 8,9% 242,360 18,053 241,794 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (20,211) - N/A (20,211) (3,133) (3,000) Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 34,424 N/A 34,424 37.424 37,424 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 14,213 $ NIA $ 14.213 $ 34 291 E 34 424 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 14,213 Unassigned Fund Balance E f.5yVY4 PmrcH Pymnn ,vrvro,� 8 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year2011 Fiscal Year2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected Year-Tc,Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 255 Reserve Fund Interest on Investments $ 1,282 $ 10,000 12.8% $ (8,718) E 414 $ 930 Transfer In(Parks General Fund) 349,000 349,000 100.0% 360,500 Total Revenues and Other Sources 350,282 359,000 97.6% ' - 414 361,430 Total Expenditures and Other Uses N/A Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 350,282 359,000 97.6% - (8,718) 414 361.430 Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 509,502 510,172 99.9% (670) 148,072 148,072 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 859,784 $ 869,172 98.9% $ (9,388) $ 148,486 $ 509 502 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 859,784 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 3.sons F. vmu 9 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected) Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 260 Street Fund Taxes $ - $ 50,000 0.0% $ (50,000) $ 3,290 $ 52,848 Intergovernmental 613,057 3,007495 20.4% (2,394,438) 233,773 1,319,244 Charges for Services-Rates - 471,775 2,015,800 23.4% (1,544,025) 470,766 1,890,667 Charges for Services-Misc.Service Fees 3,537 10,200 34.7% (6,663) 2,813 17,789 System Development Charges 19,851 40,000 49.6% (20,149) 15,315 80,061 Assessments -1,249 5,000 25.0% - (3,751) 10,610 17,867 Interest on Investments 3,683 19,000 19.4% (15,317) 8,595 17,900 Miscellaneous - 5,000 0.0% (5,000) 1,086 5,101 Other Financing Sources - 1,300,000 0.0% (1,300,000) Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,113,153 6,452,495 17.3% (5,339,342) 746,247 3,401,477 Public Works-Steel Operations 791,600 5,040,020 15.7% 4,248,420 535,368 2,986,071 ' Public Works-Storm Water Operatons 135,249 713,551 19.0% 578,302 131,163 586,524 Public Works-Transportation SDC's 1,297 401,110 0.3% 399,813 14,389 196,484 Public Works-Stan Water SDC's - 146,850 0.0% 146,850 - 41,289 Public Works-Local Improvement Districts 360 391,140 0.1% 390,780 62,382 175,326 Contingency 100,000 0.0% 100,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 928,506 6,792,671 13.7% 5,864,165 743,302 3,985,694 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other - Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 184,647 (340,176) 1541%. 524,823 2,945 (584,217) Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 2,236,300 2,545,596 87.8% (309,296) 2,820 517 2,820,517 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 E 2,420,947 $ 2,205,420 109.8% $ 215,527 $ 2,823,463 $ 2,236,300 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: - Resbicled and Committed Funds 1,980,292 Unassigned Fund Balance S -440,655 x.xpmxnw aFmm - immou 10 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 - Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected) Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals - 2012 Adapted Expended Balance Actuals . Actuals 280 Airport Fund - ChargesforServices-Rates $ 18,391 $ 115,000 16.0% $ (96,609) $ 27,487 $ 125,835 Interest on Investments 74 . 300 24.5% (226) 88 219 Total Revenues and Other Sources 18,465 115,300 16.0% (96,835) 27,575 - 126,054 Materials and Services 13,168 64,950 203% 51,782 10,263 59,595 Debt Service - 43,536 0,0% 43,536 19,268 38,536 Contingency - 5,000 0.0% 5,000 - TotalExpendituresandOtherUses 13,168 113,486 11.6% 100,318 29,531 98,131 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 5,297 1,814 292.0% 3.483 (1,955) 27,923. Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 60,083 42,573 141.1% 17,510 32,160 32,160 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 65,380 $ 44,387 147.3% $ 20,993 $ 30,205 $ 60,083 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 65,380 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) �sarvnr,.a�ymm �mxoi, 1 t City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected Year-To-Date End-ol-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 410 Capital Improvements Fund Tares $ 18,074 $ 432,000 4.2% $ (413,926) $ 16,301 $ 398,224 Intergovernmental 33,069 175,000 18.9% (141,931) 4,734 1,428,253 Charges for Services-Internal 232,157 930,000 25.0% (697,843) 276,381 1,105,526 Charges for Services-Misc.Service Fees 27,801 80,000 34.8% (52,199) 30,523 58,345 System Development Charges 6,644 22,000 30.2% (15,356) 8,791 22,701 Interest on Investments 2,562 24,000 10.7% (21,438) 6,479 14,784 Miscellaneous 595 1,000 59.5% (405) 96 81,077 Other Financing Sources 4,670,000 O.D% (4,670000) Total Revenues and Other Sources 320,902 6,334,000 5.1% (6,013,098) 343 306 3,108,910 Public Works-Facilities 196,650 4,269,180 4.6% 4,072,530 129,121 2,222,865 Administrative Services-SOD(Parks) - 121,350 0.0% 121,350 Administrative Services-Open Space(Parks) 14,431 1.785,650 08% 1,771,219 - 52,509 Transfers(Debt Service Fund) 20,462 121,982 16.8% 101,520 78,764 631,051 Interfund Loan(Equipment Fund) - 208,000 0.0% 208,000 - 208,000 Contingency - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 - TotalFxpendituresandOtherUSes 231,543 6,556,162 15% 6,066,619 . 207,884 3,114,425 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 89,360 (222,162) 140.2% 311,522 135,422 (5,515) Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 2,132,661 2,050612 104.0% 82,049 2,138,176 2,138,176 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 2,222,021 $ 1,828,450 121.5% $ 393,571 $ 2,273,597 $ 2,132,661 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds - 842,739 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 1,379,281 iaiir r..diwe.,m 12 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements,and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected Year-To-Date End-of-Veer Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 530 Debt Services Taxes $ 5,833 $ 989,750 0.6% $ (983,917) $ 5,401 $ 405,655 Charges for Services-Internal 395,325 1,153,878 34.3% (758,553) 831,000 1,430,000 Charges for Services-Misc.Service Fees 18,628 74,511 25.0% (55,883) 18,628 72,081 Interest on Investments 368 5,000 7,4% (4,633) 704 3,312 Miscellaneous - 29,302 0.0% (29,302) - 29,302 Transfer In(CIP) 20,462 121,982 168% (101,520) 78,764 631,051 Total Revenues and Other Sources 440,615 2,374,423 18.6% (1,933,808) 934,497 2,571,401 Debt Service 1,070,072 2,248,574 47.6% 1,178,502 1,069,171 2,524,351 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,070,072 2,248,574 47.6% 1,178,502 1,069,171 2,524,351 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (629,457) 125,849 -500.2% (755,306) (134,674) 47,050 Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 809,248 894,697 90.4% (85,449) 762,199 762,199 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 S 179,791 $ 1,020,546 17.6% $ (840,755) 8 627,525 809,248 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 179,791 Unassigned Fund Balance $ vmoi� 13 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements,and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 670 Water Fund Taxes S 9 $ 50 18.5% $ (41) $ 9 $ 45 Intergovernmental 49,039 1,669,965 2.9% (1,620,926) 56.535 344,396 Charges for Services-Rates 1,790,253 4,738,430 37.8% (2,948,177) 1,677,778 4,230,879 Charges for Services-Misc.Service Fees 11,842 14,470 81.8% (2,628) 2,660 19,376 System Development Charges 36,698 100,000 36.7% (63,302) 71,128 180,604 Interest on Investments 3,080 13,200 23.3% (10,120) 4,822 10,006 Miscellaneous 5,332 31,200 17.1% (25,868) 3,506 21,297 Interfund Loan(Equipment Fund) NIA 550,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,896,254 6,567,315 28.9% (4,671,061) 1,816,436 5,356,603 Electric-Conservation 37,717 171,526 22.0% 133,809 42,256 175,495 Public Works-Forest Lands Management 121,565 1,843,458 6.6% 1,721,893 54,668 369.116 Public Works-Water Supply 48,870 620,922 7.9% 572,052 60,290 299,099 Public Works-Water Treatment 255,834 1,056,289 24.2% 800,455 253,537 993,703 Public Works-Water Operations 571,082 2,347,519 24.3% 1,776,437 637,303 2,284,546 Public Works-Reimbursement SDC's 127 110,000 0.1% 109,873 177 113,549 Public Works-Improvement SDC's 33,739 250,000 13.5% 216,261 43,342 48,783 Public Works-Debt Service SDC's - 124,860 0.0% 124,860 - 124,992 Debt Service - 560,298 0.0% 560,298 - 586,805 Other Financing Uses(Interfund Loan) - 200,000 0.0% 200,000 - - Contingency - 194,000 0.0% 194,000 - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,068,934 7,478,872 14.3% 6,409,938 1,091,613 4,996,087 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 827,320 (911,557) 190.8% 1,738,877 724,825 360,516. Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 2,212,401 2,033,088 108.8% 179,313 1,851 885 1,851,885 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 3,039,721 $ 1,121,531 271.0% $ 1,918,190 $ 2,576,708 $ 2,212,401 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: - Restricted and Committed Funds 2,121,306 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 918,415 a s4�rrn rn:w a.pm.ia ronvon 14 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements,and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year2012 Percent Fiscal Year201t Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected) Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 675 Wastewater Fund Taxes $ 72,296 $ 1,728,000 4.2% $ (1,655,704) $ 65,205 $ 1,592,897 Charges for Services-Rates 943,367 3,558,000 26.5% (2,614,633) 892,313 3,373,748 Charges for Services-Misc.Service Fees 1.435 12,000 12,0% (10,565) 3,OD0 12,000 System Development Charges 11,376 40,000 28.4% (28,624) 28,140 68,956 . Interest on Investments 4.774 30,000 15.9% (25,226) 9,901 22.476 Other Financing Sources 467,200 - 0.0% (467,200) 324,400 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,033,249 5,835,200 17.7% (4,801,951) 998,558 5,394 477 Public Works-Wastewater Collection 444,720 1,937,482 23.0% 1,492,762 370,275 1,552,808 Public Works-Wastewater Treatment. 505,397 2478,433 20.4% 1,973,036 513,656 1,954120 Public Works-Reimbursements SDC's 625 21,250 2.9% 20,625 105 2,606 Public Works-Improvements SDC's 9,343 351,912 2.7% 342,559 30,908 210,606 , Debt Service - 1,670,573 0.0% 1,670,573 - 1,920,235 Contingency - 160,000 0.0% 160,000 - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 960,085 6,619,650 14.5% 5,659,565 914,945 5,640,375 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other ' Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 73,164 (784,450) 109.3% 857,614 83,613 (245,898) Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 3,250,111 3,116,654 104.3% 133,457 3,496,009 3,496,009 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 3,323,275 $ 2,332,204 142.5% $ 991,071 $ 3,579,622 $ 3,250,111 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,704,399 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 618,876 S SplfYl]fnvGlap4b lonvmll 15 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements,and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-TO-Dale Fiscal Year Collected Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 690 Electric Fund Intergovernmental $ 21,492 $ 145,000 14.8% $ (123,508) $ - $ 187,436 Charges for Services-Rates 2,791,199 12,548 455 22.2% (9,757,257) 2,855,623 12,126,401 Charges for Services-N$sc.Service Fees 19,435 115,000 W9% (95,566) 32,579 112,315 Interest on Investments 3,039 19,500 15.6% (16,461) 4.743 10,817 Miscellaneous 41,068 145,500 28,2% (104,433) 36,485 154,772 Other Financing Sources 1,000,000 N/A (1000000) Total Revenues and Other Sources 2,876,231 13,973,455 20.6% (11,097,224) 2,929,430 12,591,741 Electric-Conservation Division - 141,757 509,841 27.8% 368,084 149,378 547,421 Electric-Supply 1,281,826 7,095,300 18.1% 5,813,474 1,247,215 5,573,812 Electnc-Distribution 1,327,847 6,164,617 21.5% 4,836770 1,244,572 5,210,098 Electnc-Transmission 211,955 953,000 22.2% 741,045 223,341 814,013 Debt Service - - 24,565 0.0% 24,565 - 24,836 Contingency - 425,000 0.0% 425,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 2,963,385 15,172,323 19.5% 12,208,938 2,864,506 12,170,180 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (87,154) (1,198,868) 92.7% 1,111,714 64,924 421,561 Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 2,476,294 2,290,459 108.1% 185,835 2,054,733 2,054,733 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 2,389,140 $ 1,091,591 218.9% $ 1,297,549 $ 2,119,657 $ 2,476,294 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 2,389,140 aswrvirruynm. City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance . September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuate 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuate Actuals 691 Telecommunications Fund Charges for Services-Rates $ 509,423 $ 2,056,000 24.8% $ (1,546,577) $ 403,708 .8 1,944,758 Interest on Investments - 425 5,000 8.5% (4,575) 1,648 2,348 Miscellaneous 2,500 0.0% (2,500) 12,481 Total Revenues and Other Sources 509,847 2,063,500 24.7% (1,553,653) -405,356 1,959,587 IT-Internet 386,913 1,668,219 23.2% 1,281,306 404,568 1,694,986 Debt-Transfer to Debt Service Fund 209,000 409.000 511% 200,000 656,000 700,000 Contingency - 100,000 D.D% 100,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 595,913 2,177,219 27.4% - 1,581,306 1,060,568 2,394,986 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (86,066) (113,719) 24.3% 27,653 (655,212) (435,399) Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 517,916 453,183 1143% 64,733 953,315 953,315 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 431,850 $ 339,464 127.2% 8 92,386 $ 298,104 $ 517,916 Reconciliation of Fund Balancer Restricted and Committed Funds 200,000 - Unassigned Fund Balance $ 231,850 17 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements,and Changes in Fund Balance- - September 30,2011 Fiscal Year2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 710 Central Service Fund Taxes $ 8,043 $ 42,000 19.1% $ (33,957) $ 2,804 $ 56,534 Intergovernmental - 2,820 0.0% (2,820) 2,820 2,820 Charges for Services-Intemal 1,403,200 5,613,200 25.0% (4,210,000) 1,361,976 5,447,906 Charges for Services -Misc.Service Fees 25,642 81,000 31.7% (55,358) 39,745 146,591 Interest on Investments 1,265 5,000 25.3% (3,735) 1,598 3,685 Miscellaneous 29,043 100,000 29.0% (70957) 21,396 84,796 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1 467,193 5,844,020 25.1% (4,376,827) 1,430,340 5,742,332 Administration Department 293,200 1,364,801 215% 1,071,601 312,394 1,194,059 IT-Computer Services Division 321,082 1,188,042 27.0% 866,960 256,061 1,110,765 Administabve Services Department 378,165 1,736,601 21.8% 1,358,435 402,843 1,616,191 City Recorder DIvision 83,885 310,756 27.0% 226,871 72,050 300,356 Public Works-Administration and Engineering 345,688 1,390453 24.9% 1,044,765 309,911 1,296,235 Conbngency - 145,000 0.0% 145,000 - - - TotalExpendituresandOtherUses 1422,020 6,135,653 232% 4,713,633 1,353,259 5,517,606 Excess(Defidency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 45,173 (291,633) 115.5% 336,806 77,081 224,726 Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 _ 491,546 301,659 162.9% 189,887 266,819 266,820 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 536,719 $ 10,026 5353.3% $ 526,693 $ 343,900 $ 491,546 Reconciliation of Fund Balance:. Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 536,719 1.e 1112 1- 18 ioasxir City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected) Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 720 Insurance Service Fund Charges lot Services-Internal $ 185,061 $ 729,705 25.4% $ (544,644) $ 162,065 $ 635,747 Interest on Investments 1,256 9,200 13.7% (7,944) 2,739 5,770 Miscellaneous 7,259 30,000 24.2% (22,741) 13,245 21,992 Total Revenues and Other Sources 193,576 768,905 25.2% (575,329) 178,049 663,509 Personal Services 20,016 79,580 252% 59,564 19,228 77,134 Materials and Services 275,209 676,500 40.7% 401,291 237,235 620,542 Contingency - 150,000 0.0% 150,000 - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 295,225 906,080 32.6% 610,855 256,463 697,676 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (101,649) (137,175) 25.9% 35,526 (78414) (34,167) Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 605,943 783,477 77.3% (177,534) 640,109 640,110 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 504,294 $ 646,302 78.0% $ (142,008) S 561,695 $ 605,943 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Reslncted and Committed Funds 400,000 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 104,294 . '.sa rnr r .i vQnm . orssrmu 19 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements,and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,7011 Fiscal Year2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected Year-To-Date End-of-Year Acluals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Acluals Actuate 730 Equipment Fund Intergovernmental $ - #Dli $ - $ 26,264 Charges for Services-Internal $ 440,391 $ 1,761,563 25.0% $ (1,321,172) $ 407,653 $ 1,838,688 Charges for Services -Misc.Service Fees 29,493 50,000 59.0% (20,507) 17,893 64,042 Interest on Investments 8,787 35,000 25.1% (26,213) 8,714 24,055 Miscellaneous 1,526 55,000 2.8% (53,475) 21 11,271 Other Financing Sources 408,000 0.0% (408,000) 208,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 480,197 2,309,563 20.8% (1,829,366) 434,280 2,172,320 Public Works-Maintenance 219,962 988,614 22.2% 768,652 229,792 983,346 Public Works-Purchasing and Acquisition. 378,020 800,000 47.3% 421,980 1,422 540,310 Contingency - 47,000 0.0% 47,000 - 550,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 597,982 1,835,614 32.6% 1,237,632 231,214 2,073,656 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (117,785) 473,949 -24.9% (591,734) 203,066 98,664 Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 1,858,969 650,551 285.8% 1,208,418 1,760,305 1,760,305 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 1741,184 $ 1,124,500 154.8% $ 616,684 $ 1,963,372 $ 1,858,969 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 1,741,184 sawn n.waexm �vs„ 20 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected) Year-TO-Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 810 Cemetery Fund Charges for Services $ 16,629 $ 22,000 75,6% $ (5,372) $ 8,693 $ 23,305 Interest on Investments 605 20,000 3.0% (19,396) 2.456 5,298 Transfer(General Fund) 500 0.0% (500) 500 Total Revenues and Other Sources 17,233 42,500 40.5% (25,267) 11,149 29,103 Transfers 1,367 20,000 6.8% 18,633 2,456 5,298 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,367 20,000 6.8% 18,633 2,456 5,298 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 15,866 22,500 70.5% (6,634) 8,693 23,805 Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 831,602 830,297 100.2% 1,305 807,797 807,797 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 847,468 $ 852,797 99,4% $ (5,329) $ 816,490 S 831,602 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 847,468 i s.gmrr��.�en a.�n.n i�sx,i 21 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected I Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 211 Parks and Recreation Fund Taxes $ 53,420 $ 4,263,200 1.3% S (4,209,780) $ 51,222 $ 4,192,178 Intergovernmental - 15,000 00% (15,000) - 21,139 Charges for Services 252,704 827,000 301% (574,296) 245,378 879,023 Interest on Investments 2,947 20,000 14.7% (17,053) 5,022 14,441 Miscellaneous 10,158 22,500 451% (12,342) 11,275 47,888 Total Revenues and Otter Sources 319,228 5,147,700 6.2% (4,828,472) 312,897 5,154,669 Parks Division 868,387 3,500,240 24.8% 2,631,853 754,809 3,372,135 Recreation Division 289,881 1,103,040 26.3% 813,159 283,976 1,050,140 Gat Division 106,637 432,890 24.6% 326,253 126,437 306,146 Other Financing Uses-Transfers 349,000 349,000 100.0% - Contingency 50,000 0.0% 50,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,613,905 5,435,170 297% 3,821,265 1,165,221 4,728421 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (1,294,677) (287,470) -350.4% (1,007,207) (852,324) 426,248 Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 2,214,031 1,991,310 1112% 222,721 1,787,781 1,787,781 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 919,354 $ 1,703,840 54.0% $ (784,486) $ 935,456 S 2,214,031 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 919,354 sp rYn r� vmu .22 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements,-and Changes in Fund Balance September 30,2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year collected Year-To-Date End-of-Year ' Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 221 Youth Activities Levy Fund Taxes $ 5,523 $ 20,000 27.6% $ (14,477) $ 6,124 $ 18,141 Total Revenues and Other Sources 5,523 20,000 27.6% (14,477) 6,124 18,141 Materials and Services - 20,000 0.0% 20,000 - 30,776 Total Expenditures and Other Uses - 20,000 0.0% 20,000 - 30,776 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 5,523 - 0.0% 5,523 6,124 (12,635) Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 9,899 0.0% (9,899) 22,534 22,534 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 $ 15,422 $ 0.0% $ (4,376) $ 28.658 $ 9,899 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 15,422 Unassigned Fund Balance $ ).SF NCI rLaasix4s�M imsmu 23 City of Ashland. Statement of Resources, Requirements,and Changes in Fund Balance September 70,2011 - Fiscal Year 2012 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year2011 Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Collected/ Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals 2012 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 411 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Charges for Services $ - E 33,000 0.0% $ (33,000) 5 - $ 222,335 Interest on Investments 774 2,000 38.7% (1,226) 775 1,655 Miscellaneous NIA Total Revenues and Other Sources 774 35,000 2.2% (34,226) 775 223990 Capital Outlay - 70,000 0.0% 70,000 - 43,987 Total Expenditures and Other Uses - 70,000 0.0% 70,000 - 43,987 Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 774 (35,000) 102.2% 35,774 775 180,003 Fund Balance,Jul 1,2011 432,866 228,504 189.4% 204,362 252,864 252,864 Fund Balance,Sep 30,2011 E 433,640 $ 193,504 224.1% 6 240,136 t 253,639 $ 432,866 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 265,000 Unassgned Fund Balance E 168,640 � rrn r,..dsymm 24 F The Climate Reality Project • S: J telrn�' ; I/ Q, p b h I a 6��, As nc/ � 40Z o Street Ashy a a o d' O� e'voAq � � MO �O OLearn About Climate O No Host Wine and Change Impacts In Beer The Rogue Valley O To Take Live Web O Local Action Presentations from Boulder,CO Q City of Ashland &Victoria, BC Energy And Water Rebates and OSustainable Incentives Business Presentations Q Complimentary Q Exhibits For All Ages Finger Food& Beverages OFree Prizes Sponsored by the Ashland Conservation Commission Venue, Food, Beverages, poster design and Prizes Graciously Supplied By: 1 t , Science CYCLe ;Historic; 116 M=EQN WVrkS SPORT MAX ne xt GMC Ashland Food to-op For more information Please contact: climatechangerv@gmail.com or 541.488.5938 MINUTES 6-8 p.m. —August 24, 2011 Community Development Building CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Hartman called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm. Attendees: Risa Buck, Thomas Beam, Sheri Cellini, Stuart Corns, Cat Gould, Jim Hartman, Jim McGinnis, and David Runkel were present. City Council Liaison: Carol Voisin, Staff Representative: Lee Tuneberg, Larry Giardina, Robbin Pearce, and Mary McClary. INTRODUCTION OF RECOLOGY INTERN Kye Mihaljevich,an energy management major at Lane Community College,will be doing an intern with Recology for approximately a month. He gave the Commissioner a brief background and the Commission introduced themselves to Kye. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Hartman asked for approval of the minutes for July 27, 2011. Chairperson Hartman wanted a statement added to explain we believe the City will not have to pay Tier II power rates for approximately one year. Commissioner Buck corrected the spelling of Chico. Commissioner Buck made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected and Commissioner McGinnis seconded the motion. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. PUBLIC FORUM No one present. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Commission meeting will be Sept 27,2011. Commissioner Buck announced Recology is collecting old running shoes to help Nike with their recycling efforts. Chairperson Hartman went over the agenda and timeline for the meeting. NEW BUSINNESS Item B. from New Business: Rain Water Harvesting Policy—Robbin reported Rick Hackstock, the City of Ashland's building inspector, is working on a policy and procedures for rainwater harvesting. Robbin and Rick will both present the policies and procedures for the Jackson County rain barrel class on September 14, 2011. The event has been listed in the Ashland City Source. Grey Water---The end of August is the deadline for DEC, and she believed they have moved the deadline to November, but does not have that confirmed. She will keep the Commission posted. Local Source for Local Bags—Robbin has not yet contacted Tracy Harding regarding a proposal for mass production of the bags and what they would cost. She would like to see them used as a give-away for Earth Day. Update on Water Master Plan—Robbin updated the Commission about the Ashland Water Advisory Committee last meeting, where they discussed storage and pumping capacity options. The two main solution options are: 1) Mini Tap-tying into Talent Water 2) New Water Treatment plant for drinking A. Additional Classes for Worm Set aside B. Name change for the Commission Also Item E: Sustainability Planning Goal Commissioner McGinnis and Corns went over a memo they sent to the other Commissioners and asked the Commission to meet from 4-6 hours on a weekend in October to develop a Sustainability Commission Charter and goals to be presented to the City Council. On December 2010 the Conservation Commission recommendations to the City Council with regards to Sustainability Planning were Adopt a goal to develop a concise Ashland City and Community Sustainability Action Plan The recommendation to implement the plan would be for the City to appoint a citizen ad-hoc committee or task force. In January 2011,the City Council adopted the goal: "Develop a concise sustainability plan for the community and for City operation". In their April working group meeting,the City Council notes reported: "Council majority did not support an ad hoc committee and was interested in the Conservation Commission taking on o form ofsustainability planning. The Conservation Commission would involve the Planning, Transportation, Budget, and Airport Commissions as needed. Council saw sustainability as two plans, one for the City and the other for the community". Related to providing City support for the Sustainability Planning Goal adopted by City Council,in May at a Budget meeting,Martha Bennett recommended that the City Council approve a Deputy City Administrator position and a Conservation Division Manager position. The budget committee approved the deputy position, but voted 7-7(thus a no)against funding the Conservation Division Manager position.. Subsequently,Conservation Commissioners met with all but one City Councilor to argue in favor of getting them to approve funding the Conservation Manager Position at next city Council meeting.We heard from the majority of City Counselors that they did not wish to go against the budget committee recommendations. They would like to see a full time Conservation Manager who could dedicate a 25%minimum toward supporting sustainability planning,building the Conservation Division programs. Commissioner Corns is strongly in favor of having a separate retreat meeting, so they can come together as a group to develop their goals and straggles for the future rather than adopt or take ownership of other people's ideas. The members discussed the possibility of an October retreat and how they would approach a sustainability committee/commission. Councilor Voisin pointed out by coming up with a plan and presenting it to the Council, showed support and leadership towards the Council goal. Commissioner Runkel believed it was important to use the retreat to develop a sustainable action plan,and not so much re-create the charter. Commissioner Buck believed before they construct and commit to constructing plans,the Commission needs to be connected with their political leaders and not make assumptions. She would like to see a letter of intent drafted and sent to the Council. Commissioner McGinnis believes the Charter, if approved, by Council would then address these issues. Commissioner Beam questioned if any portion of Conservation would be left out and reminded the Commission he is comfortable working for Conservation, but a Sustainable Commission is a much larger project. Commissioner Beam made a motion that the Conservation Commission sends a letter to be read at the Council meeting, September le,prior to the Commission retreat in October, and in regards their goal to change into the Sustainability Commission. The members discussed this item placed on the consent agenda and also just having members discuss this issue with some of the Councilors. Commissioner Gould wondered what would be different between the Conservation Commission and the Sustainability Commission. Larry Giardina summed up the present duties of the Commission is to advise over energy and water conservation activities, and what they would be asking the Council to do is give the Commissioner a broader authority to allow them to advise over many Commission's activities in many fields other than energy and water. Commissioner Cellini feels the Council does not necessarily take this Commission seriously because AWAC did not include anyone from the Conservation Commission and fell they should have been a voting member with this committee. She feels the Commission needed to be involved. Commissioner Beam suggested he may not be the right person to move from the Conservation Commission to a Sustainable Commission but supports creating a charter, action plan and feels there should be more regional involvement. Commissioner Beam made a motion to add a 1P meeting this year. Commissioner Beam withdrew both motions. Commissioner Runkel was in favor of drafting out a plan, then asking Council for endorsement. Commissioner McGinnis was in favor of speaking to different councilors and postponing a retreat to November. The Commissioners talked about what would be the best approach to accomplish this goal, including a retreat, drafting a letter, goals, City Council goals, and/or forming a subcommittee. Chairperson Hartman would like to see a retreat that would be focused, organized and able to move forward with an action plan and charter. Commissioner McGinnis made a motion that the Commission meet on October 22 for 4-6 hours to define our mission and charter as a sustainability Commission to fit with the City Council goals and any other sustainability area that were relevant. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Runkel Motion withdrew, second withdrew. Commissioner Cellini moved the Commissioner move the September meeting from September 2e to September 2r, focusing the entire meeting on a draft outline for the sustainability Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Beam. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. The members formed a subcommittee to meet ahead of time to do some prep work on constructing a letter to the Council. (Jim McGinnis, Stuart Corns, Cal Gould and Sheri Cellini will meet.) Lbe Tuneberg spoke to the Commission regarding the structure of a letter to the Council. Item F Budget Prepaid Leaf Bags Commissioner Buck gave the history of this project and the Commission participation. She announced Recology will be holding 3 free leaf drop off days. Public Works Department contributes $500.The members discussed different options. Larry Giardina reported to the Commission regarding the LED winter light project they discussed in past meetings. The Festival of Lights event is paid for by the Chamber of Commerce, approximately$20,000 a year. They do have a plan to change all the lights to LED lighting and have created a standard. Other options include funding snowflakes or a lantern at approx. cost of$250.00 a lantern. Commissioner McGinnis made a motion to contribute $300.00 to the Leaf Bag Program. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cellini. Voice Vote:All Ayes except Commissioner Buck who did not vote. The motion passed with a majority vote. Old Business, Item B North Main Road Diet Commissioner Runkel spoke to the Commission about concerns regarding the project and the environment. He would like to see an environmental study be proposed to the City Council, to determine the consequences of converting the mile and one-half of North Main Street. He doesn't believe anyone has looked at that aspect, and as a Conservation Commission,they should address any energy usage, and potential environmental problems. The commissioners discussed different aspects of the project, including safety, property values, businesses, different areas in the city, sustainability aspects and making changes without knowing the outcome. Commissioner Runkel made a motion the Conservation Commission urges the City Council to do an environmental and energy impact study concerning the "Road Diet". The motion was seconded by Commissioner McGinnis. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Chairperson Hartman will draft a letter for the Commission to review. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the Commission would be willing to sponsor his event on September 24'". He asked for 3 posters that would highlight the goals and conservation measures. Commissioner McGinnis made a motion that the Conservation Commission officially becomes a sponsor of the Climate Change Reality presentation on September 24, 2011, at the Ashland Armory. Commissioner Gould seconded the motion. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Quarterly Liaison Report Recology--postponed COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA Set aside ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Hartman adjourned the meeting at 8:10 pm. Respectfully submitted by: Mary McClary Administrative Assistant for Electric, Telecommunication - and the Conservation Departments. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the Community Development office at 541 4188-5305(TTY phone number is 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 Titlel). CITY OF ASHLAND ily WA, CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 6-8 p.m.—September 27, 2011 Community Development Building---To be approved at the October 261h, Commission meeting CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Hartman called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm. Attendees: Risa Buck, Thomas Beam, Sheri Cellini, Stuart Corns, Cat Gould, Jim Hartman, Jim McGinnis, and David Runkel were present. City Council Liaison: Carol Voisin, Staff Representative: Lee Tuneberg, Larry Giardina,and Mary McClary. INTRODUCTION OF GUEST Mark Weir from Strawjet Corporation attended the meeting to better understand the Commission and what they accomplish. The members introduced themselves and Mark spoke of this background. Strawjet Corporation, based in Talent, Oregon builds alternative wood products primarily for east Africa, and Indonesia. His background included:environmental sustainability, Clean Development-Mechanism projects throughout the world, and they are gold standard certified. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .. Chairperson Hartman asked for approval of the minutes for August 24, 2011. Commissioner Corns made a motion to approve the minutes as stated and Commissioner Runkel seconded the motion. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. PUBLIC FORUM ' No one present to speak. Chairperson Hartman reminded the Commission at the August 241h meeting they passed a motion to spend the entire meeting on the Sustainability letter to be brought in front of the City Council, but Commissioner McGinnis was present at that time, so he went on to other business. Chairperson Hartman went over the agenda and timeline for the meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Set aside to end of meeting. The next Commission meeting will be October 26,2011. NEW BUSINNESS Item B. from New Business Removed Item C from New Business Removed Item A.from New Business: Sustainability Commission Draft Outline Waiting for Commissioner McGinnis Item A. from Old Business: Will be covered with Item A from New Business Item C. from Old Business: 4`"of July Planning Set aside until next meeting. Chairperson Hartman spoke to the Commission about the refurbishing of the compost area at the Recycling area, and the members supported their efforts. Item B'from Old Business: Road Diet Commissioner Runkel put together a letter from discussions from the last meeting,to be submitted to the City Council asking for an environmental impact study to be performed in relationship to the upcoming project. The members discussed the letter content and any changes they would like to add. Councilor Voisin spoke to the Commission about the estimated cost of an environmental impact study and the members then looked at different ways to obtain the information they requested, possibly from other cities. She stated the purpose of the Road Diet was for safety and to encourage multi forms of transportation. The members discussed how this project would fit nicely with a Suslainability Commission. Commissioner Runkel pointed out this Commission would be primarily concerned with the environmental impact and without additional information, the City does not know if it impacts the area or not. They discussed the pros and cons. Chairperson Hartman asked to change the intent to an environmental assessment, instead of impact, and also to research what other cities have learned. Commissioner Buck pointed out if the re-alignment of Hersey and Wimer was done first, then the Road Diet would have been a second step. Commissioner Runkel will take the changes and rewrite the letter to be presented to the Commission at the next meeting that would include additional issues, including environmental issues,without a huge expense. Commissioner Beam suggested keeping in mind the successes of the Road Diet that could be used as a platform in other areas of the City. Commissioner Buck announced that they are putting up signs at the Recycling center: "Kindly turn off your engine while unloading, we thank-you with every breath we take." Items D, E, and F from Old Business: Grey Water Update Local Source for local Bags Update on Water Master Plan Larry Giardina went over the memo Robbin Pierce sent to the Commission dated 09/27/11 regarding Rainwater Harvesting Policy, Greywater, Cloth bags for Earth Day giveaway,AWAC and Green Business. The Commissioner took some time to read over the memo: Rainwater Harvesting Policy—Rick Hackstock, Plumbing Inspector has submitted a draft to Mike Grubbs, Building Official and Bill Molnar, Planning Director for review. Here is a link for the details which we can discuss at a future meeting. . http://www.deg.state.or.ustwq/reuse/graywater.htm (Ongoing) Greywater—DEO issued its ruling and the resulting policy and procedure is available for viewing at the ruling is strict and will result in a slow measured implementation. (Ongoing) Cloth bags for Earth Day giveaway—I have been in contact with a local vendor and will be receiving a bid (Ongoing) AWAC—The next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow September 281". This group has not met since your last meeting. (Ongoing) Green Biz—I gave an update to the Parks Commission last month. I am working to certify Noble Coffee and New Age Cleaners. (Ongoing) Councilor Voisin relayed information she received from the Mayor of Central Point,who stated Medford does not have a water conservation policy of any kind and either does Central Point. She remarked the City of Ashland may be a pioneer in establishing policies for conservation and supporting a Conservation Commission. Item A from New Business: Sustainability Commission Draft Outline Item A from Old Business: Member's reflection of Goal summaries/Reconstruction/Reheat Lee Tuneberg explained the agenda for the City Council meeting on October 4'"has already been finalized, so if this letter receives approval from this Commission, the soonest it could be placed on the Council's agenda is October 18'". He also explained the difference between a consent agenda and new business in regards to the Council meetings. Commissioner McGinnis arrived and the Commission discussed the letter that was drafted by the sustainability subcommittee on August 30`", 2011. They reviewed sustainability mission statements and statements of purpose: Sausalito, CA, Flagstaff, AZ, Bloomington, IN, Benicia, CA, Lincoln City, OR, Red Wing, MN, Sedona,AZ, Dunwoody, GA, Carbondale, IL, Eugene, OR, and Portland, OR. They discussed the pros and cons of what a Sustainability Commission mission and purpose would consist of based on Ashland's specific unique character and circumstances. DRAFT The Conservation Commission recommends that the Conservation Commission be re-chartered as the Sustainability Commission. We think that a Sustainability Commission will better support the City Council in meeting current and future sustainability,related Council goals, as well as support sustainability on a citywide basis. The new Sustainability Commission will broaden the current scope of the Conservation Commission, and will regularly work together with other City Commissions and Committees in areas related to sustainability. It is our assessment that the current Conservation Commission has been doing excellent work within our current scope of operations. However, since the original chartering of the commission in 1995, a more comprehensive understanding and acceptance of sustainability(which includes the current Conservation Commission scope)has emerged and has become broadly accepted by the general citizenry. We anticipate that the re-chartering of the new Sustainability Commission will involve disbanding the current Conservation Commission, and initiate a new Sustainability Commission application process. If the City Council concurs with our re-chartering proposal, the Conservation Commission will convene a 4-6 hour session in October to Flesh out a new Sustainability Commission charter, draft goals and objectives for City Council deliberation and approval in November. Below is our recommendation for the mission and purpose of the new commission: DRAFT Sustainability Commission Mission: To enhance environmental, social, and economic sustainability, the Sustainability Commission shall advise the City Council regarding policies,programs, regulations and strategies that will guide city operations,public awareness and action, toward best practices with measurable outcomes. Sustainability Commission Purpose: The commission is charged with the following roles and responsibilities: a. Develop and implement outreach and education programs that inform, engage, and promote sustainable practices. b. Review and propose sustainability related policies:Evaluate and make recommendations to Council regarding existing and potential new Council goals, regulations, incentive programs and policy documents to further promote sustainability. c. Advise on policy matters related to sustainable practices and climate change adaptationlmitigation including: • Energy(demand, supply) • Air(quality) • Water(consumption, supply, quality, wastewater, grey water, water policy, education) • Waste(composting, reuse, recycle) • Green Infrastructure (parks, open space) • Built Environment(green zoning land building codes, building design) The members were highly disappointed different city projects do not include the Conservation Commission when establishing these projects, for example,A WACK and the Road Diet. The members discussed different ideas and changes to the letter, sustainability responsibilities, establishing a charter, impact on the city and city staff, costs and finances, educational processes, frame work, liaisons for other commissions, clear goals, received guidance from Council, budget committee, different departments within the city, directions or mandates, policies, member qualifications, understandable definition of sustainability, UN definition of sustainability, Valdez principles, existing comprehensive plan and specific changes they want to make to the letter Itself. Commissioner Beam made a motion to adopt the letter to the Council regarding changing the Conservation Commission to a Sustainability Commission with stated changes. Commissioner Buck seconded the motion. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Revised letter: September 27, 2011 Final Draft Dear Council Members, In response to the request from City Council to"Develop a concise sustainability plan for the community and for City operations" (per Jan. 2011 Council minutes), and the interest from-City Council majority in the"Conservation Commission taking on a form of sustainability planning" (per Apr. 2011 Council working group notes), the Conservation Commission recommends that it be re-chartered as the Sustainability Commission. The Conservation Commission was originally chartered in 1995. It does not include the more contemporary aspects of sustainability issues,as currently accepted by the Council and general citizenry. The Conservation Commission anticipates that the re-chartering of the new Sustainability Commission will involve disbanding the current Conservation Commission, and initiate a new Sustainability Commission application process. A Sustainability Commission will better support the City Council in meeting current and future sustainability related Council goals, as well as support sustainability on a citywide basis. This new Commission will work in a research and advisory role with other city commissions and committees, and include aspects of sustainability as outlined in our proposed Mission and Purpose below. If the City Council concurs with this re-chartering proposal,the Conservation Commission will convene a 4-6 hour session in October/November 2011 to flesh out a new Sustainability Commission charter,draft goals and objectives for City Council deliberation and approval in November/December 2011. Definition of Sustainability: The Conservation Commission July 28, 2010 letter to the Mayor and City Council defined sustainability as "Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs;including protecting the environment, developing a healthy economy, and ensuring social equality'(follows 1987 UN WECD definition of sustainability). Below is our recommendation for the mission and purpose of the Sustainability Commission": RECOMMENDED MISSION AND PURPOSE Sustainability Commission Mission: To enhance environmental, social, and economic sustainability,the Sustainability Commission shall advise the City Council regarding policies, programs, regulations and strategies that will guide city operations, public awareness and action, toward best practices with measurable outcomes. Sustainability Commission Purpose: The Sustainability Commission is charged with the following roles and responsibilities: a. Develop and implement outreach and education programs that inform, engage, and promote sustainable practices. b. Via liaison with other City Commissions and Committees, review and propose sustainability related policies: Evaluate and make recommendations to Council regarding existing and potential new Council goals and the Comprehensive Plan, regulations, incentive programs and policy documents to further promote sustainability. c. Advise on policy matters related to sustainable practices and climate change adaptation/mitigation including: • Energy(demand, supply)e.g. supporting 2011-2012 City Council goal: "Develop a strategy to use conservation and local renewable sources to meet Tier 2 power demands. • Air(quality)e.g. dust abatement, noise pollution, greenhouse gas reduction. • Water(consumption, supply, quality,wastewater, grey water,water policy, education) • Waste Prevention and Diversion (reduce, reuse, recycle, compost) • Green Infrastructure(parks, open space)e.g. native planting to reduce water requirements and reduce fire hazard. • Sustainable Building Practices (green zoning and building codes, building design) e.g. Rice Park • Transportation (transit, bike, pedestrian, vehicle) • Businesses that produce/promote sustainable products and services; eco-tourism (e.g Standing Stone • Agriculture/Food Security e.g, farms, community gardens, farmers markets, farm-to-school • Other related issues that directly affect sustainability efforts considered by Council. d. Advise Council on possible partnerships to implement citywide and regional sustainability programs. Lee explained about the Council Communication that would accompany the letter to the City Council. Quarterly Liaison Report Recology—postponed until October meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA Set aside ANNOUNCEMENTS (Set aside to end of meeting). The next Commission meeting will be October 26,2011. Bear Creek Festival will be held on October 1,2011. The members talked of possible dates for a retreat, October 22,29", November 5th or 12th, or 19th". Commissioner Buck announced the annual plastic round up , held October 14, and 15'"at the Armory from 9-4pm. Commissioner McGinnis reported the Climate Change Reality Presentation Event was attended by 160 people and he felt the event met their expectations. He asked the Commission for reimbursement of funds for a technician ($125.00)and Flyers($130.00). The Commission set aside budget requests until their next meeting. II Commissioner Beam----------- Commissioner McGinnis announce a informal pot luck at his home for people who helped with his event,either on the 9""or 12 from 5-7pm. Councilor Voisin announced October 13'"is the deer census, deerashland @gmail.com to volunteer. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Hartman adjourned the meeting at 8:10 pm. Respectfully submitted by: Mary McClary Administrative Assistant for Electric, Telecommunication and the Conservation Departments. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 54IA88-5305(TTY phone number is 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 Titlel). CITY OF ASHLAND 1FAIN