Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1005 Council Mtg PACKET 2. Request from Wayne Cooper, 300 Clay Street, for permission to connect property outside of City limits to City sewer system. 3. Water Filter Plant facilities report regarding cost of elevators. l- IX. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 3 min. per speaker and 15 min. total) X. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: 1. Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement between the City of Forest Grove, Springfield Utility Board, Canby Utility Board, City of Ashland, City of Milton- Freewater, City of Monmouth, and City of Bandon, authorizing joint operation as the Oregon Municipal Energy and conservation Agency. XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XII. ADJOURNMENT (Reminder: Joint meeting with Cable Access Commission at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 6, at Cable Access Office, Media Center, top floor of SOSC Library building.) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Catherine M. Golden called the meeting to order and led the pledge of allegiance at 7 : 30pm in the Council Chambers. Councilors Arnold, Laws, Hauck, and Reid were present. Councilor Acklin was absent. Councilor Winthrop arrived at 7 : 35pm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 7 , 1993 were accepted as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor Golden was presented an award from the Ashland High School chapter of the National Forensic League as "Communicator of the Year" for her participation in the school tax levy last year. The award was presented by instructor John Tredway and students Andrew Tredway and Laurie Straus. 1. Presentation of Historic Painting of Lithia Mill to City by Reverend B.J. Holland. Councilor Laws presented the painting to the City at the request of Reverend B.J. Holland and suggested it be placed in the Civic Center foyer with an appropriate plaque. 2 . Proclamation: October 3, 1993 as "Crop Walk Day in Ashland". 3 . Proclamation: October, 1993 as "National Arts and Humanities Month". 4 . Proclamation: October 3-11, 1993 as "Mental Illness Awareness Week". CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Reid requested item #6be removed from Consent Agenda and reviewed separately. Arnold moved to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees; 2 . Monthly Departmental Reports — August, 1993; 3. Liquor license application: Pizza Hut, 2220 Hwy 66 (change of ownership) ;4. Quarterly report from Southern Oregon Regional Economic Development, Inc. (SOREDI) ; S. Appointment of Rob Winthrop as alternate voting delegate for L.O.C. annual meeting in Eugene; 7. Quarterly financial report by Director of Finance for period ending June 30, 1993; 8. Report from Director of Public Works on progress of implementing odor control measures; 9 . Memo from Rob Winthrop regarding support for Soda Mountain Wilderness Council; 10. Liquor license application: Thomas and Roselyn Cantwell dba/Cantwell's Market, 310 Oak Street, Ashland (new business) . Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - September 21, 1993 - 1 6. Letter to Lowell and Pamela Jones regarding affordable housing provisions. Pamela Jones (140 Alida Street) read statement requesting. resale restriction agreement and option to purchase agreement be waived from Ashland Affordable Housing Program until further study by City. Barbran. Jones (107) spoke in support of request from Pamela Jones. Final draft would be approved by City Attorney within next two weeks without Council. Hauck moved to continue resale restriction agreement and option to purchase agreement. Winthrop seconded. Voice vote all AYES. Laws moved to advise City Attorney to reaffirm policy and continue in the direction headed. Winthrop seconded. Roll call: Reid no; Laws, Hauck, Winthrop, Arnold yes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Additional goal to be added to Ashland Wastewater Facilities Plan relative to eliminating odors from WWTP. Don Wade, resident, requested problem be solved within 2-3 years. Arnold suggested add "to the maximum extent practicable" to goals #1, 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 . Strike "and within the constraints of the first four goals" . Gary Schrodt (681 Liberty. Street) , of Ashland Wetlands Coalition, requested to delete "to the maximum extent practicable" . Arnold moved to adopt revised version of proposed fifth goal. Hauck seconded. Voice vote all AYES. Nancy Abell (850 Cambridge) asked Council when sludge would stop being moved to Billings property. Council advised information was in memorandum from Steve Hall. Copies will . be mailed to her by staff. 2 . Adoption of Findings,' Conclusion and Order .for P.A. No. 90- 067 (Al Tietelbaum, applicant) . John McLaughlin reviewed request. Arnold moved to adopt findings. Reid seconded. Roll call vote - Arnold abstained, all AYES. NEW 6 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Presentation of draft intergovernmental agreement concerning joint conservation bonding by Ed Grosswiler, consultant to Oregon Municipal Utilities Association. Dick Wanderscheid, Conservation Manager, previewed agreement. Ed Grosswiler; OMUA, seeking approval for joint conservation program by intergovernmental cooperation agreement which would allow City to continue our current conservation programs and accelerate these programs within Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - September 21, 1993 - 2 the City. Agreement to be drafted by City Attorney and presented to Council on October 5. 2 . Request for easement at Nutley Street near Lithia Park. Gordon Miller, representing Mrs. Barnthouse, presented the request for easement. Laws moved to accept option 1 with . stipulations conditional on agreement of new property owners. Reid seconded. Voice vote all AYES. 3 . Letter from Cable Access Commission requesting joint study session with City Council to discuss 3-channel options and future plans for Cable Access. Date will be set by staff. 4 . Letter from Chamber Music Concerts requesting banner fee waiver. Arnold moved to deny request. Laws seconded. Voice vote all AYES. 5 . Jere Hudson, Strawberry Lane, requested City reimbursement of all or part of money lost by him through donation of land to City. Council requested more information from City Attorney at October 5 meeting. PUBLIC FORUM Marie Moorhead, 310 N. Mountain, requested WP Natural relocate gas regulator across Mountain Avenue on city property adjacent to driveway area for parks land. Reid moved to place this on October 5 or have staff handle without being on agenda. Winthrop seconded. Voice vote all AYES. Daniel Reuff, citizen, requested help for homeless/poor in Ashland. Request police to stop arresting them and help them help themselves. Elizabeth, citizen, requested help from others in developing funded program for homeless shelter. Tom Quinn, resident of Jacksonville, disappointed with homeless situation in Ashland. Stewart Smith, 267 Sixth Street, has spent last month getting to know the homeless/transients in town and has begun donating food he has prepared to the homeless-sponsored barbecues. Councilor Reid left meeting at 10: 00pm. Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - September 21, 1993 - 3 ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: 1 . Second reading by title only of "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 2 .25 AND 13 . 16 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE IN THESE CHAPTERS TO REFLECT ACTUAL FUNCTIONS OF THE TREE COMMISSION AND TO ADOPT NEW TREE STANDARDS". Arnold moved to accept second reading. Winthrop seconded. Roll call all AYES. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Memo from Winthrop/Arnold regarding site review on Macaroni's Restaurant. Winthrop moved/Arnold seconded to place on agenda October 5. Voice vote all AYES. Arnold moved/Winthrop seconded to appeal PA 93-090. Roll call vote all AYES. Arnold presented CHAS document that will be reviewed publicly for 30 days prior to adoption. Public hearing will be set for October 19 . Arnold request letter from Mayor to Mayor and Council of Klamath Falls to aid in earthquake relief. Hauck reported that he has just received the information on domestic partnerships from Multnomah County and will present it to Council for their review soon. Winthrop suggested Brian do a self-evaluation and state his goals for Council to use in their evaluation of him. Council suggested Brian could choose either type of evaluation. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10: 20pm. Nan E. Franklin Catherine M. Golden City Recorder Mayor Regular Meeting - Ashland City council - September 21, 1993 - 4 7. ......... A WHEREAS, the City of Ashland and the State of Oregon are represented by one of the finest breweries in the country; and WHEREAS, the Rogue Brewery is popular in Ashland and the industry is an imporatnt part of the business community; and WHEREAS, the Rogue Brewery has an outstanding reputation nationwide and attracts positive attention to Ashland and the Pacific Northwest; and N,. WHEREAS, this festive week is dedicated to informing and educating discriminating beer enthusiasts of micro brews that are specially crafted in Ashland, Oregon and that are available nationally; and 4� WHEREAS, the Community of Ashland and the Rogue Brewery present the first annual Micro-Brewery Week. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Catherine Golden, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, do ,l ' 1 hereby proclaim October 25 through October 30, 1993 to be: ILI "MICRO BREWERY WEEK" ry Dated this day of 1993. "g! �z Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder H1 ILL, "ILL A 4..................... ..... .I......... AA T WHEREAS, in recognition of nine years of programming excellence, Chamber Music .Zt:RJV I Concerts has been chosen by Chamber Music America as one of only six i chamber music presenters in the nation to be awarded a grant through their inaugural Presenter Expansion Program. This award is made possible by a major grant from the National Endowmnent for the Arts Challenge Program. Chamber Music Concerts has been acknowledged as one of this country's outstanding chamber music services and; I 4! WHEREAS, the award is not only an honor for Chamber Music Concerts, but for the j community which has fostered it. Chamber Music Concerts is primarily staffed by community volunteers and; WHEREAS, Chamber Music Concerts is a prominent performing arts program and its reputation of excellence has been recognized nationally and; WHEREAS, over the past nine years, Chamber Music Concerts has brought Rogue Valley audiences some of the world's finest chamber musicians and Fx recitalists and; WHEREAS, Chamber Music Concerts organization is celebrating its tenth season of concerts being held at Southern Oregon State College Music Building ...... Recital Hall beginning November 19, 1993 and concluding on Thursday, April 14, 1994 with a gala celebratory concert. If, NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Catherine Golden, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, do hereby proclaim November.1 through 8, 1993 as: "CHAMBER M USIC CONCERTS WEEK" I Dated this day of 1 1993. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor D)"Z Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder Inadatnatwn I. J n /=\ t'1', I l.y _ i.\, I,� _I/J,,;1'. \ I _>••\ :l�. ..�., ,�'-'y/I!(t�\C\e .L � ,� sf „ WHEREAS, More than 4,000 lives are lost each year from fire in the United States; and WHEREAS; Some 80% of all U.S. fire fatalities occur in our homes; and WHEREAS, Planning ahead and practicing a fire escape plan can greatly enhance our ability .-1.' =:- r�t;:' to get out unharmed; and P.'i WHEREAS. Every escape plan should include knowing two ways out of each room and HF.I itili[ ?' having a meeting place outside; and WHEREAS, Fire escape plans should be developed and drills practiced at home, at work, and at school; and "II WHEREAS, Everyone should know that once they are safely outside, they must not re-enter '-I=e, I I1I the burning building; and .>, .; WHEREAS, The Ashland Fire Department is dedicated to the safety of life and property from illli ;l the devastating effects of fire; and lji r r WHEREAS, Those members of the Ashland Fire Department are joined by other concerned citizens of Ashland as well as business, schools, service clubs and organizations ,,. in their fire safety efforts; and NOW, THEREFORE, I, Catherine Golden, Mayor of the City of Ashland, do hereby proclaim the week of October 3-9, 1993, as: I" j NATIONAL FIRE PREVENTION WEEK \ ` A,, ! and call upon the people of Ashland to participate in fire prevention activities at home, work and school, and to remember, as the 1993 National Fire Prevention Week suggests: "GET OUT, !lf1,'%fl STAY OUT: YOUR FIRE SAFE RESPONSE" This week commemorates the great Chicago Fire of i„ f ..; 1871 which killed 250 persons, left 100,000 homeless, and destroyed more than 17,400 buildings J (; Dated this day of October; 1993 Ml I j, Catherine Golden, Mayor c. YM mkl Nan Franklin, City Recorder { ell fll' 1111 ,III 3 1�1 1,�! \ \�ql.. . ,t. , / p , / / 1 >t \ [ / A �./n lll'� 111 /I 11\ 111 . ---------- -IVY WHEREAS, the United States of America has prided itself on advancing the civil rights of individuals and guaranteeing liberty a nd justice for all since its founding and central to the philosophy of our democratic form of government are the precepts of equality and individual dignity, the value of self reliance and the basic right of all citizens to live full, independent and productive lives; and WHEREAS, in keeping with that proud tradition, the United States Congress in 1990 enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act. This landmark civil rights legislation prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, public accommodations, transportation and telecommunications; and WHEREAS, by joint resolution, the Congress has designated October of each year as "National Disability Employment Awareness Month", and has called upon II state and local governments to join in the national observance; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland strongly supports this resolution and the spirit as well as ... ....... P the letter of the law to assure that all citizens with disabilities are fully included in our social, cultural and economic mainstream; and 1. WHEREAS, people with disabilities represent a large, untapped pool of talent in the City of Ashland, by the power invested in me as Mayor, I do hereby proclaim October as Disability Employment Awareness month and urge its observance by all of our citizens. I further declare it to be the official policy of my administration to help promote full and equal employment opportunities for our fellow citizens with disabilities. .. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that as the world's leading champion of civil rights, RM the United States of America should lead in efforts to promote equal opportunities for people with disabilities; and be it further resolved that all citizens of Ashland are encouraged to declare fidelity to the principles on which this Republic was founded by observance and participation in events and activities scheduled during Disability Employment Awareness month. 4 A'U;�E� P Dated this day of October, 1993. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder MINUTES ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL. OF GOVERNMENTS Central Point City Hall August 25, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER/ATTENDANCE The meeting was called to order at 12:00 noon by Vice Chair Margaret Bradford. Attendance was as follows and constituted a quorum: Members Present Member Absent Margaret Bradford Sue Kupillas Fred Borngasser Phil Rivers Elizabeth Anderson Alvin Thompson Linda Casey Jim Sullivan Otto Caster Linda Town Miles Hill Walt Barker Associate Member Present Jan Fish Lu Anthony Don Russell Jim Lewis Ed Lunsford Merlin McDaniel for Willie Wassum Steve Hauck for Rob Winthrop - Staff Present Others Present Mary DeLaMare-Schaefer Gordon Safley, SOREDI Don Bruland Ric Holt, Commissioner Gary Shaff Mary O'Keefe, Job Council Marc Prevost Jack Walker, candidate for Kevin Wallace county commissioner Arnold Waters Bill Campbell, So. Or. Kristen McLaughlin Public Television Tina McCollum Jim Otay, So. Or. Public Karim Yousuf Television Jon Deason Molly Owens Stevens, RCC `,T IL INTRODUCTIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Mary announced that Mark Sawyer, coordinator for the Illinois Basin project, has left RVCOG to go to a new position in Wyoming. The project is in flux and a new direction is being considered. She also announced that Lori Cooper has left RVCOG for a new position in Wisconsin. She introduced Jon Deason, who will take Lori's place in moving the mobility management project along. Marc introduced Kristen McLaughlin, fulkime volunteer and graduate student who will be working on the GIS during the upcoming months. Mary reminded of the upcoming RVCOG Goal Setting session on September 8 and urged everyone to participate. III. COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS/PUBLIC There were no comments. IV. BOARD DISCUSSION A. Potential Funding from the Clinton Plan Fred, Ric, and Gordon had attended the recent meeting in Eugene concerning the Clinton Plan. Each gave their impressions concerning the meeting: Although the procedures are.not yet established, it appears that the state will be looking for projects to fund that are ready to proceed. Fred offered a contact in Greg Sachel, OEDD, 373-1200. Marc reported on a meeting he attended in Umpqua County recently regarding the Clinton Plan. He said Umpqua COG has been appointed as the regional one-stop shop for all their projects, which they are getting ready to go. He expressed concern that our region be ready with our projects the same way, as funds will be limited and competitive and as time frames will be , very close. He said the message appears to be the better collaborative regional effort we show toward ready-to-go projects focusing on jobs, the better chance we will have to access Clinton Plan money. Marc said the state also has a process through the benchmark program where money is available to the Rogue Basin and Coast areas. It is going through Martha Paegel's office now and they are planning to set up a region--.! office in Grants Pass and dictate to us how to manage water resources. He said we need to move immediately toward regional coordination. Jack suggested a plan to get federal subsidy dollars for unemployed timber workers to work at Walmart, for example, to supplement wages there. Ric asked him to write a proposal and give it to Mary or him; Fred asked him to submit it to the Job Council as something similar is already being developed. Following discussion, it was the consensus to involve the Job Council, SOREDI, SOED, and RVCOG all working together in a forum to get ready for Clinton Plan funds. Margaret said a time and place for the forum will be established and everyone will be notified. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Consent Calendar Items 2 and 3 were removed from the Consent Calendar. Jim moved to approve the Consent Calendar, consisting of the Minutes of the July 28, 1993 RVCOG Board meeting. B. Other Business 1. Marc explained an incident at north Emmigrant Lake three months ago in which the Bureau of Reclamation shut down the Greensprings power plant and the bypass valve was down, sending water down Tyler Creek and causing a lot of damage. After discussion, Jim moved to authorize staff to contract out for a qualified engineering geologist, or engineering hydrologist, to assess the erosion damages done by the Bureau of Reclamation to Tyler and Emmigrant Creeks. The cost of this assessment shall not exceed $1,000 plus expenses and must be paid for out of current funding within the water resources budget and/or from outside funds acquired specific to this project. Walt seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was adjourned at 1:15 P.M. Minutes prepared by Tina McCollum, RVCOG Administrative Secretary (MIN) RVCOGAUG.93 / * �SHLA��� P3LICE DEPARTME�T COMMUNITY SERV�CE �OLUNTEER PR�GRA� FOR STAFF i}SE ONLY TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 1993 NUMBER OF V[}LUNTEEGS REPORTING 83 DAYS WoRKED 432 KIDUTC W3RKED 1391 �-/61 � ` ��rec�cr of �co'�unity S��r� icss ^ ' � CITY OF ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT OF ACTIVITIES DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST 1993 , THE CSV DIVISION HAD 84 ACTIVE VOLUNTEERS WHO WORKED A TOTAL OF 454 DAYS FOR A TOTAL OF 1, 472 HOURS. IN ADDITION, THIS OFFICE ALSO CHECKED THE HOMES OF 32 CITIZENS WHO WERE AWAY, PROCESSED 28 IDENTIFICATION CARDS, (2 FIRE, 11 RESERVES, 14 ELECTRIC, AND 1 POLICE) ; PHOTOGRAPHED 13 APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES (1 SOLICITOR, 7 LIQUOR, 5 TAXI) AND ISSUED 6 ID CARDS. WE ALSO PROCESSED AND ASSIGNED FOR WORK DETAIL 5 SUBJECTS REFERRED TO THIS DEPARTMENT BY THE COURTS TO PERFORM COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR A TOTAL OF 193 HOURS. WE PROCESSED 7 APPLICATIONS FOR THE YMCA, 15 FOR THE BLOCK HOME PROGRAM, AND 5 ADULT CROSSING GUARDS. WE ALSO ANSWERED PHONE CALLS REFERRED TO US BY CITY HALL AND DISPATCH AS TO WHAT AGENCY TO CALL FOR ASSISTANCE, SUCH AS WHO TO CALL TO GIVE AID TO THE HOMELESS, A BAKERY WANTED TO KNOW IS THERE WERE SOMEPLACE THEY COULD DISPOSE OF THEIR DAY OLD GOODS (I SUGGESTED THE LOAVES & FISHES PROGRAM) , WHO TO CALL TO HAVE FIREWOOD PICKED UP FOR THE NEEDY, ETC. THIS RELIEVES DISPATCH FROM TYING UP THEIR TIME AND PHONE LINES. IN THE PAST, WE HAVE NOT KEPT TRACK HOWEVER WE WILL FROM NOW ON. FRANK D'ENTREMONT DIRECTOR CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 121LAR 1�rING M ITVLIZ'ES August 30, 1993 Chair Adams called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. at 340 S. Pioneer Street. ATTENDANCE: Present: Pat Adams, Al Alsing„ Laurie MacGraw, Teri Coppedge, Wes Reynolds, Ken Mickelsen Absent: None I. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA A discussion.of the North Mountain Park site was moved to the end of the meeting tinder "Old Business" in response to a request from Commissioner Reynolds. II. APPROVAL, OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting - July 13, 1993 Commissioner Alsing made a recommendation that the words "interviewed three annli.cants" should be pl.ar,ed in the "C" section on Page 3 under describing "Recommendations to Ci.t_y Council on Appointment to Commission". Commissioner Coppedge made an additional. recommendation that the word "trail" be included in the first paragraph of "Items from Commissioners" in the sentence for maintaining the T.I.D. ditch trail.. . . ". , The other Commissioners concurred. Motion: Commissioner Alsing made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 1.3, 1993 Regular Meeting as corrected . Commissioner Reynolds seconded. The vote was: 4 _ties - 0 no. Commissioner MacGraw abstained . This was her first meeting as a commissioner. She was not at the July 13, 1993 meeting. III. BILLS AND FINANCES A. Approval of Previous Months Disbursements Motion: Commissioner Alsing made a motion to approve the previous month's disbursements as reflected by Payab.les checks #k8026 through #k8178 in the amount of $93,772.18 and Payroll checks #16455 through #k6513 in the amount of $24,270.39. Commissioner Revnolds seconded. The vote was: 5 ves - 0 no IV. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ON THE AGENDA None V. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION NOT ON THE AGENDA None VT. OLD BUSINESS A . Discussion. of North Mountain Park Site Director Mir_kelsen brought the Commissioners un-to-date with the rough, preliminary drawing of where the sub-station is to be located on the 2.2 acres set aside for it . He also discussed possible facilities that could be included on the park site, and the combining of park and sub- station parking lots into one lot . Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 2 Regular Meeting - July 13, 1993 Discussion of North Mountain Park Site - continued Director Mickelsen stated that the Commission needs to work with Bonneville on how the park should be designed in relationship to parking and how this would affect the overall plan for the park. Commissioner MacGraw felt that the parking lot should be larger than proposed in order to create a broader buffer. zone. Director Mickelsen would like to insure that any parking lot design comply with all. the city's resolutions on minimum and maximum decibel levels. Commissioner Adams stated that some decisions would have to be made as to which sport fields should be eliminated if the parking lot should have to be relocated, i .e. the Commission will have to prioritize which sport fields, in general , should be constructed at the proposed park site. Director Mickelsen remarked that the overall, theme of the North Mountain park - blending natural areas with active areas - should be taken into consideration when designing the joint parking lot. He will contact Midge Maurer, of Brian Mostue Architects, so that she can prepare a "new" rough design for the proposed parking lot. North Mountain resident, Marie Morehead, 310 North Mountain .Avenue, attended the Commission meeting and requested that she' be contacted whenever any derision, or neighborhood meeting was planned. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Bids for Riding Mower and Trucks Park Superintendent Gies briefed the Commission on new truck bids. He recommended that both the 1986 and 1973 trucks be replaced with two full-sized trucks from Crater Lake Pord since Crater was the low bidder and could provide the best, vehicles for the nrice. Director Mickelsen reminded the Commission that the truck replacements resulted from a Safety Committee, recommendation, and from weather constraints, i.e. the 4X4 purchase was prompted by parks crews being unable to access various areas during winter months . Motion: Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to accept Crater Lakes' bid of $16,852 for replacement of the 1986 and 1973 trucks with a new 1/2-ton full-size 4X4 pickup truck and a new 1/2 full-size pickup truck. . .the price includes trade-ins on the- old trucks. Commissioner Alsing seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission - Page 3 Regular Meeting - July 13, 1993 NEW BUSINESS • continued Approval of Bid on Riding Mower. . . - continued Park Superintendent Gies recommended that the Commission not accept either bid for the riding mower. He said that the 1993 specs and mower were the same as that of 1992, however, the price had increased considerably. Due to this, he felt that the department should do . further research as to "whv" the mower price had increased so' drastically, and then determine the new type of mower for re-bidding. Motion: Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to accept the re-bidding of a new type riding mower. Commissioner MacGraw seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no VITT. CORRESPONDENCE, COMMUNICATIONS, DIRECTOR'S REPORT Project Coordinator Gardiner reported to the Commission that a letter had been sent to Peace House regarding the conclusion of pool shower passes (for the 1993 pool season) for Youth in Transition, and the future use of Hunter Park for the Y.T.T. "Uncle Food's Diner". She referred to a letter received from Peace House providing information on youths served to date (through the hot meals program) and the total cost of the food. The average number of youths served ranged from 20-21 with 35 the highest and .seven (7) the lrnae;t. The food cost from March through July was $348. Director Mickelsen reported on the four (4) Catalpa trees that were uprooted in. the front of Lithia Park due to a "freak" wind storm. He said clean-up had already taken place and that the department was looking into replrring the destroyed trees with an Autumn Purple .Ash species. Park horticulturist, Donn Todt, provided the Commission with information regarding the new replacement species. Director Mickelsen discussed the raw results received from the Youth Works ' Teen Survey. Commissioner Coppedge felt that the information received from the survey should be acted upon in the near future. Commission Adams suggested that all of the commissioners should write down their ideas on the feasibility of items identified in the survey results. She felt this was a good opportunity for the Commission to do something, even if, initially, it was in only a small way. Both Commtissioners MacGraw and Alsing saw the results of the teen survey as being extremely timely, and felt that it would be easy to take the existing survey list and mark the ones which the Commission could possibly do. Commissioner Reynolds would like to have public input and suggested a public meeting perhaps in October. It was mentioned, by Director Mickelsen, .t,hat teens are currently helping with various projects in the Hamilton Creek area, i. .e. Job Council teens are working on the Toothpick Trail and doing burn piling at the Hamilton Creek site. Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 4 Regular. Meeting — July 13, 1993 IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Alsing suggested that some type of historical record be kept., for future commissioners, on the Lithia Park Upper Granite Street Reservoir Project. He feels that references should be made to the following items: 1) how the project came to be 2) what the costs were 3) how the Tayler Fund assisted 4) how the project ended up 5) how many people used the new park 6) and how many days the new park operated during the first yenr.' Commi.ssioner Coppedge remarked that it might be appropriate to do an end—of—year wrap up on the Upper. Granite Street Reservoir Park. . .which would include photos and an article in The Dail.v tiding. Commissioner Adams spoke on the new proposed golf course site. She said that it was the responsibility of the Commission to educate the populace on the i.ssue. . .that the proposed site should be of interest and concern, but that it shouldn 't he misconstrued to be a controversial issue. The golf course is too positive a project to let that happen. She recommended that neighborhood meetings be conducted with the same format as those which were used to develop the Open Space Plan. Director Mickelsen remarked that it would be good to involve the Commission and the City Council. in these meetings so that the neighborhood people receive the correct information. Commissioner Reynolds felt that there should also he a series of progress reports as these are perfect opportunities for feedback. Commissioner Reynolds suggested that Railroad Park neighborhood meetings should be handled in t_he same manner as those of the proposed golf. course. Director Mickelsen said that Bill. Emerson, the- architect awarded the Railroad Park conceptual design project, would be attending all neighborhood meetings. Mr. Emerson lives in the Railroad district and personally knows many of the Loral residents. Director Mickelsen informed the Commission that the sub—rommkttee on Railroad Park would be meeting on Wednesday, September 22, 1993 with Rill Emerson to begin the conceptual design planning prncess for the park. X. NEXT MONTHS AGENDA The next Regular Meeting was scheduled for Monday. September 27, 1993, XI. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chair Adams adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Stella Gardiner, Project Coordinator Ashland Parks and Recreation Department ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION Minutes 1 September 1993 CALLED TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at noon. Those Commissioners in attendance were Katzen, Jones, Insley, Lyle Smith, Mills, Yeamans, and DeBoer. Pam Barlow and Steve Hall represented the City of Ashland Staff. Audience in attendance was Shafer and Lee. Minutes were corrected to read "airport budget is $8,000 to $9,000; not $18,000 to $19,000". Lyle was at the last meeting. HANGER CONSTRUCTION UPDATE Shafer reported siding should be in within two (2) weeks. He believes they'll be able to move in on the Ist of October. Asphalt, curb, and drain costs are coming in higher than expected. Believes the cost will be $25,000. DeBoer said $25,00 worth of asphalt has been put in at no cost to the City and needs xeriscaping. There is a fire hydrant in the middle of the taxiway. Volunteered to supply a load of multibark for unpaved/unlandscaped area. FAA GRANT APPLICATION UPDATE Hall reported a $5,000 grant from the State of Oregon is going before ODOT in September for approval. City will try to use the local, private improvements as a match. REVIEW OF SAFETY REPORTS Skinner reported Dale checked the extinguisher and the mowing is done. However, the north wind cone is ragged. He will try to get a new.one from the supplier, plus a spare. No unusual occurrences in the safety area to report. Users group project: Bathroom door lock. The code for the lock will be familiar to local pilots. DeBoer got lock for restrooms. Lock will be used after hours only. Dead Indian fencing: action tabled, project is included in '94 grant. Parking lot weeds are a problem. They are pretty bad on ramp and the rains will start them growing again. Skinner will check for herbicide leftover and Insley volunteered to get a crew together to spray. AIRPORT BUDGET REPORT Hall gave the financial report. Portland CPI is 4.3. The national is 2.8 Insley suggested Portland CPI be used in all forms. DeBoer volunteers its not worth talking about until May. Should be put on the May agenda. Hall stated several years ago the council directed staff to put in automatic inflation factors in all fees with five (5) year review. Hall's memo regarding Duties was reviewed. REPORT FROM THE AIRPORT USERS GROUP DeBoer reported $250 donated to purchase lock for the,bathroom and Skinner installed the lock. Hall requested a written report from the users group. Insley and the Commission supported the idea. STATUS OF AIRPORT Good, but slow. Ground school will start September. There are 7 to 8 students at this time. Insley asked if this was being done in conjunction with the College? The answer is no. Will the class be offered more than once a year. The answer is yes. Insley recommended going through Continuing Education. Barlow has experience with CE and volunteered to assist with contact. There were 2 fly-ins in August. In September there will be a fly-in on Labor Day (San Jose Physicians). Many Portland area pilots are coming in, but IFR only flights are making rentals to the North difficult. Fuel prices have not changed and the FOB feels his prices are competitive. Hanger list changeover was reviewed and is going very smoothly. ADJOURNMENT 12:50 p.m. Submitted by Pain Barlow PB:rs\.imo., ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT Monthly Activities For August, 1993 PATROL A high number of staff hours were spent by Patrol in the Downtown/Plaza/Lithia Park areas tending to the local transient population and a few "problem people" Likewise, all three shifts were very active with case work and foot patrol and it should be noted that Patrol did an excellent job of keeping things under control. August - HOMELESS ISSUE We have received numerous comments from the public of praise in the noticeable change since aggressive action has been taken to solve the problem. Thanks to all staff! Continued foot patrol and bicycle patrol along with the park patrol presence is needed. Lt. Clements noted that a new meal provider is hosting dinners for people in the park on a weekly basis and has been doing so for approximately six weeks. He also encourages Police to stop by and mingle. August 7 - Pursuit On Saturday August 7, 1993 at 7 P.M. the Ashland Police Department was alerted by Oregon State Police of a vehicle pursuit in progress on Interstate Five near milepost 9. The pursuit involved a motorcycle and a single OSP vehicle. That motorcycle and the OSP vehicle entered the City at Tolman Creek Rd and Siskiyou BI and continued northbound on Siskryou BI entering the residential area around Terra Av. The motorcycle was travelling north when it struck a southbound Ashland police car which was in the area to assist OSP. The operator of the motorcycle was transported to Providence Hospital by ambulance and released. The APD officer was not injured. TRAINING • Craig Hooper attended a two day seminar presented by MICRO DYNAMICS . The class gave instruction in the use of Word Perfect 5.1 which is currently in use within the department. • Al Mireles attended a Gang Seminar in Grants Pass, Oregon • Officers Randy Snow and Loren Deffenbaugh attended a three day field training and evaluation class presented in White City. • r • Linda Hoggatt attended a seminar on Managing Multiple Projects which was presented in Medford. • Officer Brooks, Selby and Reserve DeSilva attended an officer safety class in Portland. • Officer Janet Bailey attended a Resource Officer school presented in Monmouth. • Officer Thomas assisted in instructing a High Risk Traffic Stop Class at BPSST. Officer Thomas will be instructing Ashland Police Department on this class along with Defensive Driving Instruction. • Sgt Pryor presented a bike safety/operation class to Sgt Bianca, Sgt Hooper, Lt Clements, Communications Supervisor Hoggatt. o Barbara Hanson attended a one day BASIC SUPERVISION class in Medford. RESERVES Volunteer Hours: 217 Patrol 109.5 Training 94.5 Special Assignment Total Hours 217 This was a slow month for the Reserve Program with the summer winding down. The main activity was the annual qualification. There was a good turn out with everyone passing. Top qualifiers were Rich Walsh, John Glassy and Will Blair. The new Reserves will be trained in the use of their service revolver the 11th and 12th of September. The next department shoot will be a night/combat shoot in October. September will see the addition of a new Captain and Lieutenant, as well as continued training for all: COMMUNITY SERVICE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM Number of Days Worked 22 total to date 453 Numbers of Hours Worked 81 total to date 1467 During the month of August 1993, the CSV division had 84 active volunteers who worked a total of 454 days for a total of 1,472 hours. 2 In addition, this office also checked the homes of 32 citizens who were away, processed 28 identification cards, (2 fire, 11 reserves, 14 electric, and I police);photographed 13 applications for licenses (1 solicitor, 7 liquor, 5 taxi) and issued 6 id cards. We also processed and assigned for work detail 5 subjects referred to this department by the courts to perform community service for a total of 193 hours. We processed 7 applications for the ymca, 15 for the block home program, and 5 adult crossing guards. We also answered phone calls referred to us by city hall and dispatch as to what agency to call for assistance, such as who to;call to give aid to the homeless, a bakery wanted to know is there were someplace they could dispose of their day old goods (i suggested the loaves &fishes program), who to call to have firewood picked up for the needy, etc. COMMUNICATIONS/RECORDS The Communications division received 3911 phone calls, 656 were 911 calls. Calls For Service 813 Medical Runs 68 Fire Runs 20 ALS Runs 50 Auto Aid 2 DEPARTMENT PHONES: Swing Shift: 1404 calls Day Shift: 920 calls Grave Shift: 827 calls Total calls 7062 calls with 3911 being related to Police/Fire/Medical and 3151 related to other business. 3 The Communications Division's 91 1 Community Education program has been expanded to include more contact on a day to day basis with the general public. To accomplish this, Barb Hansson makes phone contact with parents of children who have dialed 91 1. An invitations is extended for the family to come to the Department for a tour and a brief showing of a 9 I I film. Barb further explains the program to the family, offers them program hand-outs and takes the child's picture. The child is given an award for becoming a "91 1 Pal" The child's photo is also placed on a bulletin board in the front of the Department. This part of the program will be offered to anyone regardless of age, who is referred to Barb as a candidate for the " Circle of Friends'% " 911 Pal"programs. Gary Brown Chief of Police GEB:bh Attachment 4 � �YT Y'.�jy,e o-yyn. � 'ate x.d� .pa Y.° � k �t•< Yx t*k 4�x�` �n rY �' a Y �+•. * M1E�4 lai� fye �'h 7 1. t1 f 'r ur ♦t br "'� r .bC. u ,te? xii� rah t8 i r•P it ��d �7t �y`;`' r���++� iii JJ �t1'f' rn 4rCV'"k 4S tPka'� dux T r a'Lvigr n• sou, , �+ , �+W�- , [ '� �� +, f wy�:•a` -lnz�ix �5•rw v { '� f y",T,¢ v t � 'r��h.''�' ,q ��,Lr. S. �.t "W�1 t y."4 t•+. r J{ 2'�fi+Frtlii WV $ �ri {l e A6HLAND POLICE ➢EPARTMENT ` �� 5� ot 1'ar # may,,;^ePLCI091R M Z 5 ,A,r,' + 4 i x I. f a5 r f...s *yr },c >. SCREATED yr x y r N1ry , CONS➢ I➢ATEuD INCI➢ENT7REFORT f 4l17/9a 13 5 :28 r i; a ti K ,r {AUBt15T y> �1993�t,� # y CLASSIFICATION + f}° REPORTED OFFENSES fit" 1� CASEakCLEAREDRf t{ CLEARENCE PATES bf tyNNO AR ST3CNAR6ES OF OFFENSES ACTUAL.ACTUAL ACTUAL % CHANGE THIS -`THIS 'LAST YEAR TO _� THIS ,. THIS LAST THIS -.THIS-"LAST x" '}THIS YMONTH. _ + YEAR�TO DATE MONTH YTD ,; YTD tDATE =7 MONTH YTD ' YTO MONTH "YTO YTO , n'3UV ADULT TOTAL ` . 7UV ADULT � f xr PART I U * CRIMINAL HOMICIDE t„• }, a c , t w, MURDER f .:.._ MANSLAUGHTER RAPE 4 6' - :•33.3 X 1 3 2a'0% '<50 OX ROBBERY 5 .19 -44.5,X 4 3 80 01 33 3X t. 7 AGGRAVATED ASLT 1 '6, 16 62:5 t 1 5 9 100.0% " BURGLARY RE IDENCE =6 465 153 13.21 X i 4 CMS 3x 4 4X f7 SX rraA7 e � �� r '. LARtCENYRTNEFTNCE ,ii 3n y33{� r�,r6�1 X,t ;�� 3` { 1nF � 9 7rr3 ; 3T hq }yj `fjf ` � sgir. yk,?, )%T s, Y� ,.�k t ti .'a'.:-.r s ' � Y < w yk _ �? c,�t�'��t'S�15t r' _1`� r{ x•12 lt., 92x �f77,a _ . SHOPLIFTING 12,4'i 110 =. .9b + ;14.-6 % .16. + 43 .;.. 86 THEFT FROM MV !9 _ 78 72 + B.3 1 i 1 4% -� MV PARTS-ACCESS 11 58 31 + 87.1. X" 2 1 r 3 4X ;3.2 X BICYCLE THEFT 11 : .53 ., bl ' ,43.`4 %! 3 •- ' 4'9% ^+ THEFT FROM BLDG 5 %31 55 43.6 X 2 10 6.5%-* ,L8.2X OTHER THEFTS 25 18B 129 + 45.7 % 15 .12 .` 8 QX '"9 3X MOTOR VEH THEFT 2 24 34 29.4 X 6 7 25!0% ' 20"6% T 7. M• ARSON 6 8 25.0 % 2 4 33.3%-,,50:0% 2 PART I TOTAL 94 641 .3 138 3 144 11.7% - y .� a x Y` ✓. W .i PART II ' rx' q to ._ ., a __ r .. ,, ' ' 'm . tI SIMPLE ASSAULTS 4 Sb " 8 33 1 %%s` 8 -'t 33` b3 BB°9x62 FORGE COUNTERFEIT § 4j28 r,4 92; 69'6,X� bcF ' ° 38' g a 21 4X 4�413X Syr '` E t ;, ti 1397 FRAUD �• z' t 4xXrt ." i = ` : ' t`r'1.F 5 msx CHECKS y ; X38 e 1197. L b0 8_X 3 8 i` 43� " CREDIT CARDS s 1 A. 4�t 7 42'4 X 3 5 t >s 7. 0%r OTHER FRAUD 4 55! 30 + 7D 0 %� 3 8 b 33 3% MI5 7X 20 OXfi o .' , EMBEZZLEMENT - :,. 3>•r 4.::.;11 -`-72,7 1 "1..e.:::.., r..?'-. 51,? �'..=.sz�ts'sr'�a�'.•ti'456 5X ki' .wy^.k�i,`�-'�..�ie`':4�,-�on--N'�r�g:ry�`e`::.`• t3,•. ':i.^hs:. BTOLN PRDFERTY 3 21 •`I t2000A X 2 ! 65.7.1 42.90 vAq7'Ai icil 37 273 c91. -2.9 X r 31 41 c0 On 11 4X 14 bX 5 6 11 13 45 LWEAPONS PROSTI NTOI➢NEHS2S,,5rE3 410050=%X'N 10 w 1F ;y }• s ry � �J {a y x4 n 7n4i S a -r '9 S o f i �'TS SEX CRIMcS 7 P I l t ;k1 a:58 3Xari35 SXf t t' � 4' 3'. 13 2 C.. `T`- 5 ,y 'K 3T W t `t. urF » � - NARCOTIC!➢RUGS' !c 52 95 + '48.6 X 31' 48 28 9-1;7%' 1 13 14 17 50 •GAMBLING x, t OFF.AGNST FAMILY 2 8 12 33 3 X 1 1 4 1 250 OX` 12 SXr 8 3X1hr>!y ';;f 1, . DRIV UNDER INFLNC 12 y 82 82 rr 3:; 1S . t80 x,80 ;100 OX� 97 6X 47 6X �y'ea12 X12 Urk, ,• 811 A LIQUOR LAN3, ,, 5 t iO3 151 2,% 5, t85 "44 ,100 0X A� 2 5X r84`7XJ a 5 12� w 17; f"24n' 13ep>a It -.DISUR➢E4 CON➢tlCT' i5 '142vj 136� 1p44:X3 ' , 30' ' '31h' 20`OX 21IX '22`781L ` F`;'bs KIUNAP,r f w r �ap� t ��`li{�1DD Oj X��e�e a ` ��a.a � � ��100 DXt .,`Yi '"•, T' '3.;$;�S',�., a t ,aF +'r p�'� . TRESPASS s, t f 24,E ibl y�,lSSxt �3 9 �S z � 34 35 448�rr1 Xn 21 7X }�31 OX x r�3 y x3 ,�t,12i � 50� ; 41 ALL OTHER 45 .3155 328 „u 4 03:X_ '21 ; , 11 ys70` 46 7X `35 2s X 2I 3X THFEATSs�- 12F .9 +r33 3 % 1,c, 3• d } STO 0%,•;2�OX n-t1n 1%z* u .' "�s1- + 1 ry MRUNANAY�r7UVF � ,��v4}z.s� 40tY �;34?s 1+�j*176��� r�,H�i y;�y i5�t'�,;12�1°k85 a'1X��< CUHFEH/LOITER 3�xy fi' t10004T 71%f "�7};BXjrf 12d � l2rY y*,43jr` ,�aa�ART�lHTDTAL,,��r' 1B7�'�,1444�,'1570b L"B�OpX�,�,88?;� 555���,bQ�Aa�.47�1X3B� 38�5X�n� 9' i15 28�4,, "a"734� t * ART Iz6ARI 1Pr 2r O051�13y�Yi41 `4b93 Y48 2 ¢2%1 3. 4%+ry 89 1 8 38� A�B 2 v q`r`7!_`.Frav�'3;t.yt`+t'�Y N•' ���+,�`R��'bribe„ r�i-ti�`5 �'^�? t�' � �ya �, v z �.s' xrr� tq } �, �,n � aG='F• -' w .r� {i��Sny fa A, , X+F rF;tr ar.x•^�i-' f� ,'Y. esc M4 "A Vi'\s" -5� J. �­Az,�-H: ri DEPARTMENT,��,7 -,�FISHL KIM d H6f lkgPQR 'l'dnJ* ILCfT 11 fad ttJ,^y t- 'w,,pLUfQULIb`# _03C iV I w, AUGUST - -lt, 4 �N &, - qv 'CASES CLEARED 4: -*'-,CLEARE E.,�RATES ENSES NC R S tj:l' *'l- % YEAR TO THIS,�'�JHIS LAST -'`JH I S THIS LAST "THIS r'M➢NTR "YEAR'TO DATE MONTH-YTD YTD DATE MONTH: YTD YTD YTD YTD•�MONTH ADULT 'TOTAL -JUV tADULT,-�'- ,PART III TRAFFIC CRIME 14 Z, III T,.& RUN , 4: :,",46 122 62.3 1 6 11. 25.0% :13.0% .7.0% 6 SS 5 - 5.0% 60.0% 1 _RECKKLES DRIV _4 0 1 4 50.0% 75 a I I ELUDING.*. 3 - 100.0 2 66.7% DR. WHILE SUSP '1 9 _15 - 40.0 1 8 14 100.0% 88.9% 73.3% 3 3 FT DiSF ➢6 100.0% TRAFF AEC.-FATAL 57 64.9 1 4 - 5.0% 7,0%� - - )y TRAFF-ACC-.�:INJUI a%,92 I50 -7 X 433 `T TRAFF,ACC z, ............ 5, ,VIOCATION ILLESAL"ALIEN ,.CUSTODY a 50.0% 32 21 52.4 X 1 11 20 100.0% 76.?,% 75 MV F.ECVRD-'GTHER 4 25.0% PROP-'lRECVRb--OTMER .4 1 25.0% FUGITIVES It 5'5 42 + 31'0 11 55 41 10V-.0- 100.0% 97.6, c 11 13 7 MISSING PERSONS 2 2 SUDDEN DEATH/BODY - �,I_ - 7 42.9 1 1 14.3% 'SUICIDE-ATMPT 1 ,11.1 % M -OTHER ACCIDENTS ANIMA!�ROBLEMS�o 5 _W +;E-PROPERTYILYFJC ig�,, �,2 1-3j% -AUTO 203 ARANDONEDi -IMPOUNVAUTO, 50 0 % ASSIST�JENOEREDJ 'Itfy 618 640 3% 43 �.;16 t32.8 % INSECURE PREMISES 8 59 1 34.2,% 7,!m T, 4,1 5 10 9 % R 7% "TRAFFIC/ROADS " 4i .t 31 323 1.2 % 6 .1 1 VEH.DIS-POPI TIC ALARMS�,SOUNDING .0 % -1 3`8 tRuLll fc,q OTHERe, SUBPOENAS� zo: C 119 I-C S MA Cl 1�4 4SSLUAVOFF,ICE A 1�Vj IOTA[ I 4.4k .1raltil '3.ev u I yj oev f "A • i. Monthly Building Activity Report: 08/93 Page 1 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY It TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Building: ADDITION 42, 000 DECK 3 ,000 FENCE 1,500 FOUNDATION 4, 000 GAZEBO 2,500 MANUFACT HOME + GARAGE 1 43 ,360 MASONRY HEATER 4,000 MOBILE HOME INSTALLATION 0 POOL 13 ,000 REBUILD DECK 3 ,000 REMODEL 17,000 REMODEL & ADDITION 81,000 REOPEN SFR PERMIT 0 REROOF 8,839 RETAINING WALL 1, 000 REVISION - PERMIT 9302002 0 SFR 12 1, 102, 399 SPECIAL INSPECTION 125 Subtotal: $ 1, 326,723 Electrical: 1 BR CIR FOR SPA HOOKUP 200 1 BRANCH CIRCUIT 750 1 BRANCH CIRCUIT FOR A/C 200 100 A SERVICE 450 2 BRANCH CIRCUITS 100 200A SERVICE 11050 BR CIR FOR GAS FURNACE 150 BRANCH CIR FOR FURNACE 100 ELECTRIC 750 SECURITY SYSTEM 2 ,866 SERVICE & FEEDER 1,500 SERVICE + 2 BR CIR 1, 000 SERVICE CHANGE 1, 050 SERVICE CHANGE & FEEDER 15,000 TEMP POWER POLE 100 Subtotal: $ 25,266 Mechanical: FURNACE & DUCT WORK 1 3 , 100 Monthly Building Activity Report: 08/93 Page 2 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Mechanical: GAS FIREPLACE 2 3,686 GAS FURN & 1 BR CIR 1 4,275 GAS FURN & A/C 1 5,739 GAS FURN + 1 BR CIR 1 2 ,130 GAS FURNACE & A/C 1 3,294 GAS FURNACE & LINE 1 2, 154 GAS FURNANCE & A/C 1 4,887 GAS LINE & WATER HEATER 2 900 GAS RANGE 1 1,500 GAS WALL FURNACE 1 1,500 GAS WATER HTR + 1 BR CIR 1 500 GFAU + H2O HTR +1 BR CIR 1 5, 000 GFAU VENT 1 6,020 GFAU/AC 1 3 ,727 POOL HEATER 350 SPACE HEATER 2 2, 100 WATER HEATER 1 600 Subtotal: $ 51,462 Plumbing: AUTO SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1,500 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYST 1,600 CHANGE SHWR + H2O HTR 300 REPL WASHER & HEATER 850 REPLACE FIXTURES 400 SEWER LINE 2 ,800 SEWER LINE & HOSE BIBB 150 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 300 VOIDED ON 09/07/93 500 WATER HEATER 1,850 WATER LINE 400 Subtotal: $ 10,650 ***Total: $ 1, 414, 101 COMMERCIAL: Building: CAR WASH REMODEL 112,000 COMMERCIAL BLDG-RETAIL 177,498 'f Monthly Building Activity Report: 08/93 Page 3 # Units Value COMMERCIAL: Building: FIRE 'SPRINKLER SYSTEM 19,741 REMODEL 5,000 REMODEL MUSIC ROOM 5,000 REROOF 35,728 REROOF AND ROOF DRAINS 13 , 640 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS 8,000 UPSTAIRS REMODEL 70,000 Subtotal: $ 446,607 Electrical: 16 EA SERVICE CHANGE 4, 000 2 BRANCH CIRCUITS 1, 000 ALARM SYSTEM 3 ,400 EMERGENCY GENERATOR 20,000 SECURITY SYSTEM 3, 120 ' Subtotal: $ 31,520 Mechanical: GFAU VENT 5, 184 Subtotal: $ . 5, 184 Plumbing: GAS LINE 11500 Subtotal: $ 1,500 ***Total: $ 484, 811 , Monthly Building Activity Report: 08/93 Page 4 Total this month: 113 $ 1, 898,912 Total this month last year: ill $ 1, 394, 046 Total year to date: 199 $ 3 , 274 , 025 Total last year: 202 $. 2 , 677,634 This month This month This year last year Total Fees: 27, 395 18, 752 46,836 Total Inspections: 610 454 1099 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 8/93 RESIDENTIAL PAGE NO. 1 . 09/13/93 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** MANUFACT HOME + GARAGE 960 JAQUELYN ST JONES, RAY - BACKHOE 43360. 00 ** Subtotal ** 43360. 00 ** SFR 858 CYPRESS POINT LP TONEY, JERRY CONST. INC. 101758. 00 135 SUSAN LN ROSS HOMES 205405. 00 1321 EVAN LN MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 65110. 00 1311 EVAN LN MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 69200.00 730 HELMAN ST OWNER 122366. 00 1330 EVAN LN MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 54200. 00 1360 EVAN LN MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 60000. 00 1265 KIRK LN CIRCLE T CONSTRUCTION 95000. 00 1285 KIRK LN CIRCLE T CONSTRUCTION 95000. 00 635 THORNTON WY TURRELL, JON CONSTRUCTION 149672 . 00 440 HELMAN ST OWNER 30188. 16 1332 MILL POND RD MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 54500.00 ** Subtotal ** *** Total *** 1102399 . 16 1145759. 16 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 8/93 COMMERCIAL PAGE NO. 1 09/13/93 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** GAZEBO 486 SISKIYOU BV. BOB MEISER 2500. 00 ** Subtotal ** 2500. 00 ** COMMERCIAL BLDG-RETAIL 325 AST GOLDEN/FIELDS 177498. 00 CONSTRUCTION ** Subtotal' ** 177498. 00 *** Total *** 179998. 00 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes September 8, 1993 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:40 p.m. Members present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, H.L. Wood, Dana Johnson, Keith Chambers, Steve Ennis and Chloe Winston. Also present was Secretary Sonja Akerman. Le Hook was absent and Nan Hannon is resigning. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Skibby moved and Johnson seconded the Minutes of the August 4, 1993 meeting be approved as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. STAFF REPORTS PA 93-093 Site Review Northwest Corner of Fifth and "A" Streets J. Ellen Austin Lewis explained this proposal is for a commercial building containing three apartments. It came before the Commission two months ago, then was withdrawn because the owner was having difficulty obtaining a loan. Also, she was requested to modify the design of the building in order to reflect the actual layout and elevations. She is now requesting to construct a building which will accommodate three apartments (35% of the building) and commercial space (65%). J. Ellen Austin, when asked, confirmed she will occupy one of the apartments. Jerome White, her architect, explained the changes from the previously submitted drawings. Skibby said the style is reminiscent of the depot, which stood on the same site for many years. The Commission agreed the design has greatly improved since it was first submitted. Chambers commended the owner and designer, then moved to recommend approval of this action to the Planning Commission. Wood seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. �I PA 93-116 Conditional Use Permit 117 North Main Street Blanche Chick Lewis explained this application is for a three unit traveller's accommodation. In reading the Staff Report, he said there were five concerns, two of which are the internal square footage of the house and the inadequate evidence of easement access to the alley. Steve Jannusch, Planning Consultant for the owner, stated he was only apprised that day of Staff concerns. The property is located in the middle of two other traveller's accommodations that use the alleys for access. The owner has an easement for the use of the privately owned portion of the alley and they are working on the documentation now. Access will be via Church Street, and departure will be out High Street. Guests will be informed of the one-way alley usage. Nothing on the exterior will change in the near future. If approval is granted, the owner will submit plans for a French door in the rear of the house. That would be the only change. The house has 1,800 square feet. A floor plan will be submitted for the Planning Commission meeting. Each unit will contain 400 square feet, which will leave the owner's unit with 600 square feet. Ennis questioned if everything which is now lacking will be submitted before the Tuesday Planning Commission meeting or if it would be heard again in October. Jannusch said everything will be in prior to the 14th. Ennis then inquired about interior changes. Bob McGuire, 310 York Street, answered the wiring will be brought up to code, and two bathrooms will be added upstairs. Skibby asked about the landscaping. Jannusch explained which trees will be removed and said three parking stalls will be created, using brick pavers. McGuire added the willow tree which will be removed is only four years old, and the cedar tree is being choked because of previous paving. Johnson inquired if the house were for sale. Blanche Chick said yes, it was. Jannusch asserted if the house sold to someone that wanted to retain it as a B & B, it would come through again as a Conditional Use Permit for transfer of ownership. Chick explained the house has been for sale for four years, and that she has lived in it for 18 years. Winston questioned the zoning and density. Jannusch explained he initially addressed the property in terms of a triplex because of density bonuses, but Staff has said it needs to be addressed as a duplex because that is the target use. Skibby said that in looking at the area, it is a similar use with surrounding properties on North Main Street. Jannusch agreed and said the type of proposed use lends well with the area. McGuire added all the other houses in close proximity were run down and broken up Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 8, 1993 page 2 into little apartments until the 1980s. As they were sold, they were restored and converted toB & Bs. Ennis said it is hard to conceive a four unit B & B as having little impact on the area when it is twice the number of units as a duplex. Jannusch said the units are double, but parking for a duplex would require four spaces, and six would be required for a triplex. The proposed use requires five spaces. He also addressed the fact that the impact of the traffic would be less because of the use. Ennis said guests also create traffic. Jannusch remarked it is necessary to use the closest comparison in the traffic studies, which would be motel usage. Johnson wondered if any residences would be directly affected by the increased traffic. Lewis said there were no letters submitted, then added that as a B & B owner, he will attest to the fact that guests do not use cars as much as renters. He would personally rather live next door to a B & B than a duplex. Jannusch agreed and said the B & B would be owner- occupied and there is pride of ownership, so the property would be kept up. Skibby contended there are unique circumstances with this site. It is surrounded by like uses. Lewis asked if the owner would consider fewer units. Jannusch said they decided on three because that is what they felt the site would accommodate. When Chambers questioned the economics in the consideration of decreasing the number of units, McGuire said it would be a problem and it can accommodate that many. Chambers said the Commission takes a lot of guidance from Staff, and if Staff has concerns, all five should be carefully considered, including the removal of the three trees. Jannusch said he recognizes the issues that need to be addressed, but feels they are Planning Commission matters. If all concerns can be met, he asked the Commission members if they would support the proposal. The Commission agreed it would rather list factors for and against it. Lewis said there seems to be less damage to older homes if fixed up and used for traveller's accommodations. Also, the upkeep is better. Chambers maintained he would like to see the trees saved. Jannusch interjected the site has 8,900 square feet. If it had 9,000 square feet, a triplex would be a permitted use on the lot. The Redwing B & B (which is located on one side of the property), has three units and the lot size is identical. Skibby stated he felt this would be a better use than a duplex or a triplex. Chambers said Ashland is a wonderful place for trees, and every time one is cut down, there is a great loss. Jannusch said he understood about the tree loss, but can't see any other way. The owners are sensitive about it. The cedar will not last long even though they plan on using brick pavers. Chambers listed the negative aspects: 1) over density for R-2 zone, 2) loss of three trees, 3) increased activity on the alley, and 4) widening of the alley will have an impact on the neighborhood. Jannusch said they are trying to keep one of the almond trees. The Fire Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 8, 1993 Page 3 Department will require more room for fire trucks, and the parking area will need to be expanded; therefore, some trees will have to be removed. The larger trees, however, will remain. Lewis agreed and added even if the owner were to go for the target use (duplex) this would happen. Positive aspects include: 1) a B & B would be a better use than a duplex or triplex, 2) there would be less impact on the house, 3) it would promote the historic integrity of the house, and 4) it would be a compatible use with the area. Lewis added the distance to the arterial is a Planning Commission matter. Skibby moved to pass this on to the Planning Commission noting the positive and negative aspects as stated above. Chambers seconded the motion, and it passed with all voting aye except Ennis, who voted nay PA 93-112 Conditional Use Permit 124 Nob Hill Street Christine Edner Lewis related this application is for the approval to replace and expand the existing carport, which is non-conforming. As noted in the Findings, the only neighbor who will be affected has expressed approval of the proposal. Johnson moved and Winston seconded to recommend approval of this application. The motion passed unanimously. PA 93-100 Variance and Physical Constraints Review 201 Glenview Drive Mark Hill Lewis said there were no new plans turned in for this application and it was understood by Staff the owner wanted to build the house as submitted. The Commission voiced concern about the design and would like the owner to look at a style that would minimize the impact on the steep hillside. Ennis moved to recommend denial of the application on the same grounds as last month and encourage the owner to rework the design as per Staffs hillside development recommendation so it is more in line with the contour of the property, thereby making it less obtrusive and visible. Skibby seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. TOM FRANTZ - 233 FOURTH STREET Tom Frantz stated he is seeking permission to demolish the structure located at 233 Fourth Street and presented plans of what he would like to replace it with. The original structure, Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September S, 1993 Page 4 he informed the Commission, was built in 1889. In 1961 there was a fire that caused quite extensive damage, and it was remodelled in 1962. It was built with mixed materials. After he bought it, he hired structural engineers to see if the building could be saved. It, however, is doomed. The termite damage is immense. Frantz explained he will maximize parking,while still requesting a 50%Variance to preserve the historic integrity of the area. He is working closely with Crissy Barnett, owner of the Peerless Rooms, which is adjacent to this property. He would like to have an apartment upstairs and a commercial space downstairs. The proposed new structure will have the same footprint, with the exception of the added bay windows. He then explained the elevations and noted he proposes a metal roof on the building. The Commission agreed Frantz is on the right track and appreciated all he has done in coming to the Review Board meetings and full Commission meeting. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of August follow: 237 Almond Street Juli Schwartz Deck 135 Susan Lane Susan Brook SFR 14 Beach Avenue A] Gray Retaining Wall 310 Oak Street Lance Pugh/Tim Cusick Car Wash Remodel 116 High Street Joyce Conley Re-Roof 208 Oak Street Lance Pugh/Tim Cusick Re-Roof/Roof Drains 19 Gresham Street Dave Werschkul Remodel/Addition 266 Gresham Street Dick Strellman Rebuild Deck 348 Iowa Street Eva Cooley Addition 325 "A" Street John Fields Commercial Building 486 Siskiyou Boulevard Shirley Grega Gazebo 76 Dewey Street Scott & Martha Honeywell Remodel/Addition 130 East Main Street Patricia Sprague Sign 310 Oak Street Tom Cantwell Sign 302 North Pioneer Street Adams' Chiropractic Sign 208 Oak Street Old Ashland Armory Sign 561 Rock Street Rock Garden Inn Sign 258 "A" Street Lithia Sourdough Sign REVIEW BOARD Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday at least from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: September 9 Winston and Skibby Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 8, 1993 Page 5 September 16 Wood, Johnson, Lewis and Sldbby September 23 Wood, Ennis, Chambers and Sldbby September 30 Lewis, Winston, Chambers and Sldbby OLD BUSINESS Relocation of Community Development It was agreed the members would lobby the City Council against the moving of Community Development. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Chambers and second by Ennis, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September S, 1993 Page 6 September 30, 1993 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Brian L. Almquist, City Administratx( SUBJECT: Monthly Report - September 1993 The following is a report of my principal activities for the past month, and a status report on the various City projects and Council goals for 1993-94 . I . PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES: 1 . Attended luncheon meeting with Councillors Acklin and Winthrop, Medford Councillors Winkelman and Ferguson and City Manager Anderson regarding membership on Regional Rate Committee. 2 . Met with member of Hospital Committee to review City management compensation plan. 3 . Appeared at the Ashland Board of Realtors at their request to respond to an earlier presentation by Brent Thompson on the addition at the Civic Center. As a result, they voted to take no position. 4 . Met with John Billings to update him on progress on lease of property for municipal golf course. 5. Met with Ron Cantwell, Lance Pugh and Char Neismith regarding proposed LID for Oak Block. The LID as now proposed will include underground utilities, street trees and street lights. They will do sidewalks by private contract. 6. Met with architect Gary Afseth on three occasions to discuss details of construction plans for office addition at Civic Center. 7 . Met with Chair Tim Bewley, Mark Chilcoat and Pete Belecastro of Ashland Cable Access to discuss issues for upcoming joint study session between City Council and Cable Commission. 1 8 . Attended goal setting retreat in White City for Rogue Valley Council of Governments. 9 . Attended regular meeting of Ashland Cable Access Commission. 10. Attended Study Session of Medford City Council at which they discussed the structure of the Regional Rate Committee and possible changes to the ORS 190 agreement. Ashland's participation was also discussed. I invited them to our meeting with State agency officials on September 29 . 11 . As requested at the September 21 Council meeting, I met with Lou Benjamin of WP Gas and Ken Mickelson regarding relocation of their N. Mountain pressure reducing station, its effect on the future substation/Park development, and concerns expressed by Marie Morehead, an adjacent property owner. Ken and Lou will meet with Morehead before the next Council meeting to attempt to reach a solution. 12 . Met with Wayne Breeze of New York Life regarding the possible formation of an HMO to serve the medical insurance needs of the City, Hospital and School District. 13 . Attended monthly breakfast meeting of the Chamber Board of Directors. 14 . Participated in Ashland Town Hall program on Cable Access with Mayor Golden. 15. Met with Sandra Slattery of Chamber of Commerce to discuss their plans for the Festival of Lights and future participation in Ashland Cable Access. 16 . All City Department heads and I attended a session entitled "Gays and Lesbians in the Workplace" sponsored by the Ashland League of Women Voters. Oregon Judge English was the speaker. 17 . Attended luncheon with Rep. Nancy Peterson and Mayor Golden to review Legislative session and to discuss issues affecting the City. 18 . Met again with developers of possible new hydro project below Greensprings power plant to discuss their proposals for City involvement and possible BPA exchange agreement. Based on the most current information, the price per KWH is too high to meet BPA guidelines. 19 . Attended annual Chamber of Commerce dinner along with Mayor Golden and Councillor Acklin. 2 20 . Attended 5-day annual conference of the International City Management Association in Nashville, TN. 21 . Met with Dr. Steve Reno and other College officials to discuss the future of Cable Access and funding opportunities. 22 . Met with Tom O'Connor of Oregon Municipal Utilities to review proposed ORS 190 agreement to enable a joint bond issue for conservation funding through BPA. 23 . Met with OEDD State officials regarding progress on Lottery-funded project at Old Ashland Armory. 24 . Attended dinner meeting and study session along with Council and staff to discuss regional approach to WWTP upgrade. STATUS OF VARIOUS CITY PROJECTS : 1 . Electric Substation. The public comment period on the FONSI for the Environmental Assessment is now closed with no adverse comments received. BPA surveyors have completed their property survey and we should be paid for the 2 . 2 acre site shortly. I believe the amount will be around $150, 000. A meeting was also held between Parks and BPA to coordinate design and minimize potential. impacts. 2 . Downtown Project. Completed. 3 . Northwest Water Project. Construction on the reservoir on Hitt Road is nearly complete. The paving of Hitt Road should begin soon. Completion is still expected by the end of the year. 4 . Open Space Program. Curtis Hayden of the "Sneak Preview" and merchant Richard Hansen were successful in their petition drive to ask the voters to repeal their previous decision. If the voters were to repeal the 1% for parks, we would have to find some way of paying for the Hodgins property which we have purchased, and would be required to levy the assessments on the Railroad Park. The Council has voted to place a competing measure on the ballot on August 17 to reduce the tax to 1% if the statewide sales tax passes in November. 5. Digester Roof. Completed. 6. Tolman Traffic Signal. Completed. 7 . Wetlands Study. The final report by Woodward-Clyde will be presented to the Council on October 5 . The DEQ is committed to facilitating a basinwide solution once the City commits itself to an option acceptable to DEQ. A meeting with State officials was held on September 29. 3 8 . Forest Fire Management Project. Parks has completed its work for this year. Additional work is scheduled for next Winter which will complete the recommended project list from McCormick and Associates. Following completion, the park land will be dedicated to the Parks Commission for maintenance. We have submitted a grant request under Clinton's new program to complete all the projects in the Forest Plan. 9 . Capital Improvement Plan. The draft plan was reviewed in study session in January. Copies have been placed in all the libraries and I am making myself available to speak to groups about the plan. We should probably place this on the Council agenda soon for adoption. 10. Office Addition at Civic Center. Working drawings and specifications have been completed, and we are scheduled to present a site review to the Planning Commission at their October meeting. Plans are to go to bid some time after January 1. III . STATUS OF COUNCIL GOALS: 1 . Amend the Fair Housing Ordinance. Completed on May 18 . 2 . Modify all municipal buildings to make them fully handicapped accessible. Study of all facilities to be completed by a consultant we have hired. He will be in Ashland on October 14 and 15 to do the field review. Also, I now have some cost estimates for a wheelchair lift at City Hall which are in the range of $18-20, 000 . 3 . Deal more effectively with public/media issues. The City Council agreed to become more active in writing guest editorials and in responding to letters to the editor during the coming year. 4 . Review personnel policy effectiveness. The Council directed a review of our present employee evaluation process, training, and overall personnel policies. A committee of middle management personnel has been reviewing the last issue, and I hope to report to the Council on this in the Fall. 5. Give consideration to affordable housing policies whenever other growth management or utility policies are changed. There has been no proposal to date which relates to this goal. The Water and Sewer rate studies this Fall do relate to this goal . I will continue to monitor. 6 . Take a proactive role in opposing proposals to upzone secondary lands adjacent to the city's Urban Growth Boundary. Planning Director McLaughlin and Mayor Golden have written a joint letter to the County expressing our views. 4 Both have appeared at the Ashland area hearings to reiterate our opposition, particularly in the interface areas. The County' s latest proposal seems to add only three new parcels. rian L. Almqui City Administr to BA: ba 5 9yPmorttn �fnm , of OREeo September 16, 1993 Z D. Brian Almquist, City Administrator W rum: Steven Hall, Public Works Director UDjPt Strawberry Lane Sanitary Sewer LID ACTION REQUESTED City Council conduct public hearing on proposed LID. City Council form LID byadopting the attached resolution and preliminary assessment roll as presented or modified by the City Council BACKGROUND On July 20, 1993 the Council adopted a resolution declaring the intent of the City to form the proposed LID. The hearing was scheduled for September 7, 1993. The Council also directed staff to send a form to all participants asking them to note that they understand that the constriction of the sewers does not meet all of the requirements for developing their property. During the secretarial staff turn-over in city hall, the notice of the hearing did not get sent out to the participants. At the September 7, 1993 Council meeting staff requested Council to delay the hearing to October 5, 1993 so proper notice"could be sent to all participants. The proper notice was made. Because of the unusual shape of the lots, staff is proposing the assessment be made on a 50% area and 50% trot foot basis. This is felt to be the most equitable considering the odd size and shapes of the lots. The details of the proposed project are in Jim Olson's memorandum attached to this memorandum. REMONSTRANCES As of 9/16/93 I have received two renhonstrances which are attached. They are from Jere Hudson and Margaret Brown. The two remonstrances include 33.28% of the total LID. Jim Olson and I have spoken to Margaret Brown and explained that her homesite and the portion of the large parcel across from the home site that abuts the sewer line she had constructed are not in the LID. That remaining portion of tlhe site assessed in the LID will need the sanitary sewer for future development. 1 Sewer LID Page 2 STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING RESPONSE The following have returned the form: NAME ADDRESS LOT IN LID Jere & Roberta Hudson 395 Strawberry Lane Tax Lot 100, 39-1E-8AC Ashland, Oregon 97520 Paul Hwochinsky 443 Strawberry Lane Tax Lot 101, 39-1E-8AC Ashland, Oregon 97520 Howard Strom 3411 La Falda Place Tax Lot 300, 39-1E-8AC Los Angeles, CA 90068 Margaret Brown 385 Strawberry Lane Tax Lot 500, 39-1E-8AC Ashland, Oregon 97520 A second request will be sent to those who haven't responded to this point in time. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the formation of the Strawberry Lane Sanitary Sewer Sewer Local Improvement District. The assessment roll is adjustable based on City Council decision on remonstrances. cc: Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Dennis Barms, Water Quality Superintendent All participants encl: LID Resolution w/ Exhibit "A" Olson Memo (6/29/93) Statements of Understanding (4) Hudson Remonstrance Brown Remonstrance AMC 13.20.050 i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT BY CONSTRUCTING SANITARY SEWERS IN STRAWBERRY LANE FROM DITCHLINE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1350 FEET WESTERLY IN ASHLAND, OREGON AND AUTHORIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE,COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST PROPERTY TO BE BENEFITED AND PROVIDING THAT WARRANTS ISSUED FOR THE COSTS OF THE IMPROVEMENT BE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND. RECITALS: A. The Council has declared by Resolution its intention to construct the improvements described in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications and to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the improvement as provided by the Charter of the City of Ashland; and B. Notice of such intention has been duly given and published as provided by the Charter and a public hearing was held and it appears to the Council that such improvements are of material benefit to the City and all property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is ordered that the sanitary sewers be constructed in Strawberry Lane from Ditchline Road approximately 1350 feet westerly in substantial conformance with the plans and specifications adopted and on file in the office of the Director of Public Works and that the cost be assessed upon each lot or portion of lot benefited by such improvment as provided by the Charter of the City of Ashland. SECTION 2. Warrants for the construction of the improvement shall bear interest at the prevailing rates and shall constitute general obligations of the City of Ashland and the warrants shall be issued pursuant to and on the terms and conditions in ORS 287.502 to 287.510 inclusive. SECTION 3. The final assessments for the kcal improvement district will be in substantial conformance with those listed on attached Exhibit "A". The foregoing resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the 5th day of October, 1993. Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of October, 1993. t Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Dear In July I forwarded the attached form for your consideration as requested by the City Council . To date, I have not received your response. I am sending another copy of the "Statement of Understanding" in case you did not receive the first copy or have misplaced it. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is included for your convenience. You should have received notice of the public hearing on the proposed Strawberry Lane Sanitary Sewer Local Improvement District by now noting that the hearing is set for October 5 , 1993 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Steven M. Hall, P. E. Public Works Director cc: Brian Almquist, City Administrator Mayor and City Council encl: Statement of Understanding SASE Envelope CITY OF ASHLAND STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING STRAWBERRY LANE SANITARY SEWER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT September, 1993 If the City Council approves the proposed sanitary sewer local improvement district (LID) , (I, we) understand that all of the City requirements for further development, subdivision or partitioning of our property have not been met. With the completion of the N.W. Water Project, adequate water facilities will be available. Completion is scheduled for the end of 1994 . With the completion of this sanitary sewer LID, adequate sanitary facilities will be available. Public street access and storm drainage does not meet current standards of the City of Ashland and must be provided to City standards prior to further development, subdivision or partition of the property in (my, our] ownership within the proposed local improvement district. Ownership: Signature Signature Property: Map No. and Tax Lot: 39-1E-8AC XXX Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 90-057 REQUEST FOR STREET REVISIONS AND APPROVAL OF OUTLINE PLAN FOR A FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION. APPLICANTS: GARY AND DIANE SEITZ BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 5, 1993 Notice Map and criteria for approval 10/5/1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 18% Street Grade Option Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 15% Street Grade Option Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Published notice of Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Affadavit of Notice 9/23/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Planning Dept. Staff Report 10/5/93 . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Letter from Dennis and Linda Friend 9/25/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Memo from Steve Hall to John McLaughlin 7/19/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . City Council Minutes 3/16/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Letter from Carl Oates/John Sully 3/15/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 -- Letter from Granite Street Neighbors 3/8/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - Letter from Douglass H. Schmor 3/4/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - City Council Minutes 3/2/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Notice Map and criteria for approval 3/2/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Memorandum from City Attorney 2/25/1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Letter from Sully, Floyd, Oates, Friend, VanDyke to City Council 2/12/1993 30 Letter from Doug Schmor to John McLaughlin 1/11/1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Letter from Paul Nolte to Doug Schmor 12/22/1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 -- Memorandum from John McLaughlin to Paul Nolte 12/22/1992 . . . . . . . . 35 Letter from Doug Schmor to Paul Nolte 12/10/1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 36 -- LUBA Decision on LUBA No. 92-135 12/4/1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Letter from Gary Seitz to Council members 8/17/1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Council Decision 7/15/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 City Council meeting minutes 7/7/1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 -- Notice Map to surrounding property owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Criteria for approval of Outline Plan sent with notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 - Memo from Paul Nolte to City Council 6/30/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 - Planning Department Staff Report Addendum III . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Letter from surrounding neighbors to City Council 6/6/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Letter from Douglass H. Schmor to Paul Nolte 5/29/92 . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . 66 Letter from Paul Nolte to Doug Schmor and Dan Thorndike 5/21/92 . . . . 68 LUBA Decision on LUBA No. 90-144 3/12/92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Notice is herebygiven that PUBLIC HEARING on the following request respect an dpyof thlecribcation,avdocumenaandtionatnocoeduponbyeheapdidat g q p and applicable criaiia are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the reasonable cost if requested. A copy of the Buff report will be available for ASHLAND CITYCOUNCILontheSthDAYOF inspection seven days priwm the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost. 8 requested. All materials am available at the Ashland Planning Department city OCTOBER, 1993 AT 7:30 P.M.atthe ASHLAND Hall.20 Ent Main,Ashlad.OR 97520. CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,Ashland, During the Public Hearing,dwMayorfhall allow testimony tromdne applicant and Oregon. those in attendance oor terningthis request The Mayor shall have rite right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application me on the reverse of this notice. Oregon law states that failure w raise an objection concerning this application, If you have any questions or comments concerning this request pkase feel free to either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the contact Sum Yates atthe Ashland Planting Department City Hall,at 488-5305. decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(CUBA)on that issuc failure ts specify which ordinance criterion the objection Is based on also precludes your right of - appeal to LUBA on that criterion. T c'Zy, s�Wit. \ r ------------= I , I , ` - GRANITE ST The Ashland City Council will reconsider its March 2, 1993 decision to deny the filing of an amended application in PLANNING ACTION 90-057, a request for street revisions and approval for Outline Plan of a five-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option, located on Granite Street near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. If the Council allows the filing of an amended application, the Council will immediately conduct a public hearing on the application. The amended application involves relocation and change in street length to less than 500' for the new street, from Granite to the end of the cul-de-sac. Applicable ordinances and criteria in effect at the time of the original application shall still apply. Testimony and review shall be limited to the issue of street length and other revisions, if any, in the amended application, and how the criteria apply to the change in street length or other revisions: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential, Rural Residential, Woodland Residential; ZONING: R-1-10, RR-.5-P, WR; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 8DD; TAX LOT: 900. APPLICANTS: Gary and Diane Seitz t d Y CRITERIA FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAI, The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: 1) That the development is consistent with City plans and with the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Development Ordinance. 2 ) That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and common areas. 3 ) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect. on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered in the design of the development. 4 ) That adequate public facilities can be provided, including, but not limited to, water; sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. 5) That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area; nor will the potential develd'pment of adjacent lands be impeded. 6) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. 7) That the . total energy needs of the development have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical. 8 ) That all other applicable City Ordinances will be -met by the proposal. ...."Ok caA41 f:AC�ME • 1 CQM a� 4fQN s0r v F rn. 299 S- 0. \ fir Z t .r s ., '✓ y osv a la LQ r r . _ oy i-r•7__ 77•!09 SO r I 246 er 2 1 sorr C7` 39.7 'f 2710 - 1_ 9SOF. , i " 20901 < �E.n• �47.7T __ "—' � - HIV .20' EASEMENT-/ PROWD 20 '/ -c -1' 50 AFT NT s . 4 n �` VC (SpE /^ 2060 +Gy G, / __y eL=o°".-r_`�i °"Qe•..••'a :• c '. og 2 e'_� a=ES�' °�. FOR:,^ CRAZ. t or tj on �a H R �g go g ° avc eT D I _ ___ __ .. .. ._I •: 2020 i t CAT CN Mpfi i ,C pa NT i I '( / Ex -- GRANITE-STREET ;—� sr // � 4C>P+o N 3 00r 3 I ?s COT 2 '. 0 2 SO FT 60g,SOFT Lo F Jy SO.Fr. 40 EASEMENT 1 E � ra pwA� I Jz CEO,.- _ �y 2E'' OtIT(SP�.I _ " q .A! I+ n4 j JaV� F`�/�� FC l ; C _. APP y AT� CA C SEEri Tq , i CHESS a T; _ GRANITE-STREET a _ { f of 9 .. FATyj. si rE P �lq NE- SCALE. ,•, AN L ^ NE NI ! 200000,AT7NS.R 50 A P AN D NI h�UBQ ® GRAN/T E TO U � / /v�i e s MoNU I5 E�OPA4 TRffr I ° ' 7dA r E.; t DOUGLASS H SCHMOR DALE HOFER P 0 BOX -45$7 12 c- P 0 BOX 490 MEDFORD OR 97501 MEDFORD OR 97501 '* CARL & ROSALIE OATES RICHARD THIEROLF 776 GLENDALE AV- P 0 BOX 128 y 4.s 7 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97501 DAVID SCHIEBER Q�/ _ ASHLAND OR D97520 q C q 7 -2 Taxlot XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Taxlot XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX 99999 Taxlot 391E08DD 900 Taxlot 391EOSDD 1000 SEITZ GARY K/DIANE 8 REICHENSHAMMER C/T 1136 RIL CIR 391 GRANITE ST ANCHORAGE AK 99504 ASHLAND OR 97520 Taxlot 391E08DD 905 Taxlot 391EOBDD 90' LA VINE BRADLEY E- JR/CAROL SULLY JOHN M/JEAN 381 GRANITE ST. 365 GRANITE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 Taxlot 391EOBDD 904 Taxlot 391EOBDD 902 THORNDIKE DANIEL C/JOAN E FRIEND DENNIS K/LINDA S 369 GRANITE ST 355 GRANITE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 Tar,lot 391EOBDD 901 Taxlot 391EOSDD 800 FLOYD ROGER M/LINDA 0 TERRILE JAMES L 4729 S PACIFIC HWY #46 21009 SNAG ISLAND DR PHOENIX OR 97535 SUMNER WA 98390 Taxlot 391EOBDD .'703 Taxlot 391E17AA 2100 VAN DYKE MARCIA TRUSTEE FPO KENNEDY JAMES P/JUDITH 0 333 GRANITE STREET 506 GRANITE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 Taxlot 391E17AA .100 Taxlot 391E17AA 200 JACOBY JUDITH L DUDLEY G W/C R STEINBRONER 1016 CELESTIAL WAY 395 GRANITE YUBA CITY CA 95991 ASHLAND OR 97520 Taxlot 391E17AA 300 THOMAS THEODORE F Taxi of 1300 415 GRANITE ST ASHLAND O CITY OF ASHLAND OR 97520 0 Taxlot 391E09 10 JJJ Taxlot 391E17AB 100 ASHLAND CITY IF LITHIA HOMES OF ASHLAND INC CITY HALL 3909 SHERBROOK DR ASHLAND OR 97520 SANTA ROSA CA 95405 . y NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ashland City Council will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, October 5, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street to discuss the following subject: Reconsideration of the Council's March 2, 1993 decision to deny the filing of an amended application in Planning Action 90-057, a request for street revisions and approval for Outline Plan of a five-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option, located on Granite Street near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. If the Council allows the filing of an amended application, the Council will immediately conduct a public hearing on the application. The amended application involves relocation and change in street length to less than 500' for the new street, from Granite to the end of the cul- de-sac. Applicable ordinances and criteria in effect at the time of the original application shall still apply. Testimony and review shall be limited to the issue of street length and other revisions, if any, in the amended application, and how the criteria apply to the change in street length or other revisions. APPLICANTS: Gary and Diane Seitz Nan E. Franklin City Recorder PUBLISH: Daily Tidings September 25, 1993 T t AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE . On September 23 , 1993, the attached notice was mailed by the Ashland Planning Division to the attached mailing list for Planning Action 90-057 The total number of notices mailed was 19 BY Sue. Nancy and Sonja DATE September 23, 1993 Notice checked by: Mac Planner Date: September 23. 1993 Property Owner Notified X Applicant Notified X ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM IV October 5, 1993 PLANNING ACTION: 90-057 APPLICANT: Gary and Diane Seitz LOCATION: Granite Street near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. REQUEST: The Ashland City Council will reconsider its March 2, 1993 decision to deny the filing of an amended application in a request for street revisions and approval for Outline Plan of a five-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option, located on Granite Street near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. If the Council allows the filing of an amended application, the Council will immediately conduct a public hearing on the application. The amended application involves relocation and change in street length to less than 500' for the new street, from Granite to the end of the cul-de-sac. Applicable ordinances and criteria in effect at the time of the original application shall still apply. Testimony and review shall be limited to the issue of street length and other revisions, if any, in the amended application, and how the criteria apply to the change in street length or other revisions. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: This application has a very long history. The application was first presented to the Planning Commission in April, 1990, however, the applicant requested a one-month delay to address additional staff concerns. A public hearing was held in May 1990, at which time the Planning Commission approved the request, with several conditions modifying the subdivision design. The applicant requested a delay in the adoption of the findings to allow for an alternative plan to be developed, encompassing the Planning Commissions conditions, but resulting in a more efficient design. The Planning Commission reviewed the modified design'in a public hearing in July, 1990, and adopted findings of approval in August, 1990. The approved application was appealed by several surrounding property owners and was heard by the City Council in September, 1990. The Council approved the application essentially in the same form as approved by the Planning Commission. Findings of the approval were adopted in October, 1990. 8 ` The action was then appealed to LUBA, where in January, 1991, the LUBA referees determined that they did not have jurisdiction over this application, since it involved a subdivision request. Under Oregon Revised Statutes in effect at the time, the definition of a land use decision reviewable by LUBA excluded subdivisions. Due to the decision, the case was transferred to Jackson County Circuit Court. In February, 1991, the Oregon Court of Appeals determined that LUBA must review all challenged decisions appealed to them to determine if they were made "consistent with land use standards." If the decision was found to comply with,standards, then LUBA would not have jurisdiction, and the application would be transferred to a circuit court. If it were not made consistent with the standards, then LUBA would rule on the action. Based on this Court of Appeals decision, the Jackson County Circuit Court referred this case to the Oregon Court of Appeals for a determination of jurisdiction. In October 1991, the Court of Appeals determined that the case would be transferred back to LUBA for review. In March, 1992, LUBA reversed the decision of the City, stating that the City erred in determining the length of the street, basically saying that the length of the street will include the cul-de-sac turn-around area. An opinion by the previous City Attorney stated that the length of the street did not include the turn-around portion. The LUBA decision only addressed the issue of cul-de-sac length and no other issues of the subdivision. In July, 1992, the City Council was requested to review an amended application, addressing the concerns raised in the LUBA reversal. The Council decided that no further review of the application was warranted, based upon the reversal of the previous decision by LUBA. This action was summarized in the findings, which stated: "the Council will not further consider this case or the amendment to the application submitted by the applicants. The effect of LUBA's decision is to deny the original application." The Council's decision of July, 1992 was appealed by the Seitz's to LUBA, and in December, 1992, LUBA remanded the City's decision, finding that City could not deny the application, or choose not to accept a revised application, based upon the reversal by LUBA. The Council must decide whether or not to allow an amended application, and then base their ultimate decision on the subdivision on the evidence allowed into the record. PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report — Addendum IV Gary and Diane Seitz October 5, 1993 Page 2 1 L On March 2, 1993, the Council accepted testimony on whether or not to allow an amended application to be submitted. Testimony ranged from fire issues, street grade, driveway grades, to street cuts and erosion control. The Council ultimately decided not to allow the applicant to submit a revised application, and then denied the entire application based upon the originally submitted application, with a cul-de-sac in excess of the allowable length-�/ On March 16, 1993, the Council voted to reconsider its previous decision not to allow a revised plan. The reconsideration was based upon a request by the applicants, stating that issues were raised and discussed that they were not informed about prior to the hearing, and were not prepared to • address at the hearing. Prior to scheduling the next hearing to decide on the reconsideration, the Planning Department proposed that the parties attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation. Meetings and discussions were held over the next several months, with the City participating and paying David.Schieber to serve as mediator. A tentative agreement was reached not long after the initial mediation sessions. However, due to several factors, a final agreement could not be reached, and the City chose to withdraw from,the mediation process since it did not appear that an agreement could be reached, and the costs of the mediation were mounting. As an aside, issues discussed during the mediation were done under an agreement of confidentiality. Further, Oregon State Law states that issues discussed during mediation remain confidential. Therefore, the discussions, arguments, agreements, and other interactions between all of the parties are not part of the record for this hearing, and cannot be discussed during this process. That essentially places the process back to where the Council agreed to reconsider their denial of the submittal of an amended application, back in mid-March, 1993. 2) ACCEPTANCE OF AN AMENDED APPLICATION The decision of the City whether to accept an amended application, to address the length of cul-de-sac problem that was the basis of the LUBA reversal, appears to be of the greatest importance in this request. To summarize the history, the applicant prepared an application as per the direction of the City (including an interpretation regarding street length by the then-City Attorney),.thl application was approved by the Planning Commission, and ultimately.approved on appeal by the City.Council. PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report -- Addendum IV Gary and Diane Seitz October 5, 1993 Page 3 LUBA then said that the City erred in its interpretation of the length of the street and said that the application could not be approved as designed. In previous applications where this is a deficiency in the application, or an error in the design, the applicants have always been given the opportunity to submit a corrected application if they chose. Just recently, the City Council allowed an applicant (Al Teitelbaum) the opportunity to redesign the layout of an apartment complex after it had been denied by the Planning Commission. In this recent example, the applicant agreed to meet the City requirements, and the Council granted the opportunity. In this application, the applicant has agreed (and did so after the March 1992 LUBA decision) to modify the street length to comply with the ordinance interpretation as required by LUBA. Normally, this would have been accepted by the City and the previous approval by the Council would then have been in conformance with the street length definition as interpreted by LUBA. But since this has been such a long process, the City has made amendments to the Land Use Ordinance regarding street and driveway grades and fire control plans for new subdivisions. The neighbors have encouraged the City not to allow the amended application, requiring a denial of the previously submitted design, and forcing the applicant to resubmit under the amended ordinances. Oregon state law requires that cities review land use applications under the ordinances in place at the time the application was filed, which would have been back in 1990. And if the City follows its normal process of allowing amendments to applications to ensure conformance with the requirements of the ordinance, then the application is still active based on the 1990 application date. Regarding fire control plans, the applicant has stipulated to prepare a fire prevention and control plan as required under our current ordinances as part of Final Plan for this subdivision. Further, the applicant has agreed to provide residential sprinkler systems in all residences constructed. Regarding street grades, 18% for 200' was an allowable grade at the time this subdivision was initially approved. That standard has since be reduced • down to 15%. The applicant has provided two options that are very similar in design, except that one has a street with the 18% grade as per the original application, and the other maintains the street grade at 15%. The Fire Chief has reviewed these plans, and has stated that there is essentially PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report -- Addendum IV Gary and Diane Seitz October 5, 1993 �I Page 4 r no difference in response time between the 18% option and the 15% option. It is Staffs opinion that the 18% option provides the better design, keeping the street further away from the neighboring properties, while resulting in smaller cuts into the hillside. However, the applicant has provided the 15% option, meeting the current ordinance requirements. Should the Council believe that 18% is inappropriate, then we would recommend you accept the 15% option rather than not allowing an amended application. Given that all other issues associated with this subdivision request were addressed and approved at the time of the original Council approval in September, 1990 with the exception of street length, and the applicant has provided a revised design meeting the street length requirement, Staff recommends.that the Council allow the amended application to be submitted. Not only does this follow with what the City has done procedurally in other applications, it also recognizes the other issues in the previous approval as resolved. Further, the applicant has agreed to meet the fire issues that have arisen as part of ordinance amendments, as well as providing an option for the street construction to meet the street grade. From another point of view, the acceptance of the revised plans maintains the open space dedication to the City, which is a substantial benefit in protecting the upper hillside area. This area, approximately 13 acres, could conceivably become a separate buildable parcel, with a long private drive access. The dedication of this area to the city's open space plan is great protection for an area important to our viewshed. Under a new application, the applicant would not be required to dedicate this land to the City. This is a 'willing donation" as part of the original application. Further, it is not our belief that requiring the applicant to resubmit a new application will result in a substantially better subdivision. The main issues that have been of concern in this application process are addressed in the amendments proposed. To require the applicant to begin the process from square one only lengthens the time involved for all involved without providing a great benefit. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Council allow the amended application to be submitted, addressing the concerns raised by the LUBA. 2) AMENDED APPLICATION Should the Council choose to accept the amended application, Staff would recommend that the Council approve the design with the 18% grade for no PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report -- Addendum IV Gary and Diane Seitz October 5, 1993 I� Page 5 more than 200'. Not only was this the design approved as part of the original application without dispute by LUBA, but it is a design that results in a lesser impact on neighboring properties, as well as less cuts into the hillside. The applicant has adjusted the street somewhat, providing a "wow" in the corner going up the hill, pulling the street somewhat further away from neighboring properties. The street has been designed shorter, complying with the 500' limitation as interpreted by LUBA. Other than this change, the design is essentially the same, with 5-lots accessing from this .cul-de-sac. As was discussed above, the applicant has agreed to provide a fire prevention control plan as part of Final Plan, as well as require residential sprinkler systems in all homes. Should the Council believe that the 18% grade is too steep, the applicant has provided an alternate street design complying with the current 15% requirement. This forces the street to be located closer to the neighboring properties, and results in somewhat greater cuts on the property. We believe that this design is acceptable, however, it is not as desirable as the 18% design for the neighborhood. H. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria are those that were in effect at the time of the original approval and are as follows: a) That the development is consistent with City plans and with the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. b) That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and common areas. c) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered in the design of the development. d) That adequate public facilities can be provided including, but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. e) That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded. PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report -- Addendum IV Gary and Diane Seitz . October 5, 1993 1 Page 6 f) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. g) That the total energy needs of the development have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical h) That all other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the proposal IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the revised application for the 18% grade option with the following conditions: 1) That a 10' wide pedestrian easement be dedicated to the City of Ashland along the irrigation ditch. Pedestrian easement to be shown on Final Plan and recorded on-the survey plat. 2) That building envelopes be presented on the Final Plan. 3) That all requirements of the Fire Department concerning hydrant improvements be met. 4) That a final erosion control plan be submitted at the time of Final Plan, addressing the interim and permanent measures associated with the development of the new street, driveways and home construction. Plan to include the use of terracing and rock walls on cut slopes and netting and re-vegetation on the fill slopes, with provisions for irrigation and maintenance. 5) That a final tree management plan be submitted at the time of Final Plan, addressing the removal of trees during street construction, driveway construction, and home building. All trees outside the street right-of-way and building envelopes shall be clearly marked on a map and on site for review and approval by the Staff Advisor and Tree Commission. Consideration shall be given to erosion control and wildfire potential. 6) That all new structures have non-combustible roofing material and comply with the wildfire land requirements of 18.62.090. Such requirements to be included in the CC&R's. PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report -- Addendum IV Gary and Diane Seitz October 5, 1993 Page 7 'q 7) That all requirements of the Electric Department be met, including locating a transformer, if required. 8) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and slopes be provided as required by the City of Ashland. 9) That a drainage plan be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department, specifically addressing the storm water drainage. 10) That the City will accept, without compensation, the donation of 13.3 acres above the common open space area as part of the City's Open Space Plan. 11) That the applicant grant the City an easement to the 13.3 acres through the development in the vicinity of the boundary between lots 3 and 4 for maintenance purposes only. 12) That a street plug be maintained along the north side of the new street where it abuts private property. 13) That no driveway exceed a slope of 20 percent or that stipulated by the building code, whichever is more restrictive. 14) That the finished street grade shall be consistent with the requirements of ALUO subsection 18.88.050(B). The Ashland Public Works Department shall examine the engineering construction plans for the project to determine that finished street grades are consistent with the cited standards. The grades will also be checked and certified by the department on the site following rough grading of the road. Costs incurred by the City to check street grades shall be paid by the applicant. 15) That the proposed street name be unique within the City of Ashland and not readily confused with another street existing within the City. Such proposed street name to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director prior to signature of the final survey plat of the subdivision by the City of Ashland. 16) That the applicant provide a Fire Prevention and Control Plan as outlined in 18.62.090 of the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance as part of the final plan application. 17) That residential sprinkler systems be installed in each of the 5 residential homes proposed for the subdivision. Systems to be reviewed at the time of building permit issuance. PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report -- Addendum IV Gary and Diane Seitz October 5, 1993 ISPage 8 Dennis. and Linda Friend September 25, 1993 355 Granite Street Ashland, OR Mayor Catherine Golden 886 Oak Street Ashland, OR Dear Mayor Golden, After talking to Susan Reid today regarding the enclosed Public Hearing Notice, it is apparent that the City Council has not been made aware that the mediation between citizens on Granite Street and Gary and Diane Seitz has been terminated by the City. There was no written agreement at the conclusion of the mediation meetings on 6/23/93_ We believe this was an error in the mediation procedure. It allowed second thoughts, modifications, revisions, misunderstandings, and long distance horse trading to undo what had been painstakingly negotiated in good faith, face to face with the Seitz's. The only response to our enclosed 8/22/93 letter and rough draft mediation agreement was John McLaughlin's 9/21/93 letter telling us that the City was withdrawing and no longer continuing with the mediation_ On behalf of all signatories of the 8/22/93 letter to John McLaughlin, we urge you to vote to uphold the City Council 's 3/2/93 decision to deny the filing of an amended application in Planning Action 90-057. It is in the best interests of our neighborhood and the City as a whole, to require a new subdivision application. We are not opposed .to development of the property, if it is done in legal compliance with the land use ordinances now in effect, and with a thorough review of the application by the Planning Department. We believe to achieve this the applicant must be required to submit a new application to the Ashland City Planning Department and the Planning Commission. Sincerely, D nnis Friend Linda. Friend cc: John and Jean Sully Carl and Rosalie Oates Rodger and Linda Floyd Marcia Van Dyke Dan and Joan Thorndike Brad and Carol Lavine Susan Reid ✓John McLaughlin Rob Winthrop Phil Arnold Cathy Golden Don' Laws I ..-------- Pmaran > itm '.�Re 0 July 19, 1993 John McLaughlin, Planning Director (29 XIItt[: Steven Hall, Public Works Director��,��•� p$Uhje& Seitz Subdivision Water Supply Attached is a letter report on the effect of connecting die 8" water main serving the Seitz Subdivision on Granite Street. Based on that report, the subdivision will be connected to the 24" transmission line. The developer will be required to pay for the model analysis by R.W. Beck. In addition, the developer will be required to install a pressure reducing station in the line at their cost. The station will be included in the engineering drawings for the subdivision and must meet all state and city requirements. This exception to the normal rule for connections to transmission lines will not be considered a precedent for future connections. Each request will have to be evaluated individually. S M H:nn\W atc r%SeitzSub.,n W 1 cc: Dennis Bamts, Water Quality Superintendent Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Mike Morrison, Water Quality Supervisor encl: Beck letter R.W. BECK AND AS :. ' tt' ! 2101 Fourth A,cnuc, Suite 600 a Seattle.Wash inbKOn 93 237SA `}.' Telephone(206)441.7500■Fax(206)441- 2 1({93 3 WW-1354-DAI-AE `�`Ut�7U 8, 1993 3101 -' -- Mr. Steven Hall, P.E. City Engineer City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Dear.Steve: Subject: System Analysis of 24-Inch Waterline Tap You asked me to study the pressure fluctuations that could occur at a tap of the new 24- inch line in the area of Pioneer Road. This tap would serve a new five unit development up the hill from Granite Avenue. From the topography developed for the 24-inch waterline design, it appears that the tap would occur at about Elev. 2020. You said that the development will be about 60 feet above that. Specifically, you wanted to know if there would be significant pressure changes when the new pump station started or if there were to be a fire demand in the Northwest Area. I ran the KYPIPE model to investigate both these conditions and found that neither condition would cause significant pressure changes in the area discussed. With the pump station off, the pressure at the proposed tap would be about 166 psi. With the pump station on line, pumping 500 gpm, the pressure at the tap would be about 165 psi. Finally, with the pump station on line and a fire flow of 1000 gpm in the Northwest Area, the pressure at.the tap would be 163 psi. Thus, I do not think that you have a problem with pressure fluctuations if you were to tap the 24-inch line to provide flow to the new development. However, as we discussed this morning, you will need to install a pressure reducing station on the line to the new development. Very truly yours, R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES Wilson V. Binger Principal Engineer WVB/ato Enclosure (wvB.t8s) &uton.MA a Coluoibus.NI*•I)co.'er,CO•Indianapolis,IN•Minnca,,lis,MN Nashville,"rN•Orl:oulo,FL a Phocnk,AZ•Sacr:unernw.CA•Seattle,NA Grant. McLaughlin reviewed his memo included in the packet. He said the final deadline for grant applications is June 1, 1993 , and Dick Wanderscheid is completing the pre-application form. McLaughlin will report back with the Oregon Economic Development Department's comments at the next meeting. Acklin asked that Staff keep an eye on Federal programs and participate in available training opportunities. Winthrop asked that the Affordable Housing Committee be re- established, and Arnold said the problem of staff time still remains. Acklin does not feel there is enough activity to re-activate the committee but knowledgeable citizens can be consulted if necessary. Economic Development Subcommittee Responsibilities. Acklin moved to refer Riordan's recommendations to the Budget Committee, Arnold seconded, all AYES on voice vote. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: Pavement Cut Request -293 Fourth St.. Hall said staff recommends approval of the request. Arnold moved to approve with conditions indicated by staff, Acklin seconded, all AYES on voice vote_ Fand o Reconsider Council Decision - P.A. 90-057 (Seitz) . Nolte ncil has the power to reconsider their previous decision to w the applicants to file an .amended plan, but is not required . . Arnold said procedural issues should not be left undecided d to reconsider, Winthrop seconded. The motion passed sly on, voice vote. It was agreed to hold the public hearing 6th. Findings - P.A. 90-057 (Seitz) . Not adopte d due to above action. Demolition Request - 267 8th St. A memo was read from the Historic -Commission recommending approval. Acklin moved to approve the request, Arnold seconded, all AYES on voice vote. N. Mountain Ave. Paving Discussion. Robert Johnson, 955 N. Mountain Ave. , said the last section of N. Mountain Ave. from Hersey St. to the top of the hill needs paving. Almquist said. a sewer district was recently approved -in this area and paving may be required in the subdivision process. Acklin said it is not the policy to pave streets with City funds, however the. City participated in the paving of Hersey Street because of safety issues, and it was designated a collector . street. No action taken. Wastewater Treatment Funding. Arnold submitted a memo requesting authority for the City Admin. to write to Sen. Hatfield, Packwood, and Congressman Smith and to notify them of Ashland's support for the public works portion of Clinton's economic recovery program, and of ' our need for the sewage treatment plant upgrade. All agreed. Golden said if the citizens vote yes on 15-1 we may have better chance of getting Federal funding. Regular Meeting Ashland City Council - March 16, 1993 - P. 2 March 15. 1993 Dear Mayor Golden: We regret that our appointment to meet with you. at 10:30 today was cancelled by your office. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the letter from the Seitz's attorney requesting a rehearing on the issue of an amended vs. new application. We hoped to meet with you before the regular Tuesday night City Council meeting. We believe that the issue should not be brought up at the meeting as that would be a procedural error. In Lieu of a meeting with you before the regular meeting of the City . Council, we are attaching the following points we intended to discuss. Please weigh the points carefully in light of the impact the Seitz subdivision will have on the future of the Ashland Watershed and the Forest Interface if the plan does not comply with the new or Jna1ces._ Carl Oates John Su I March 8, 1993 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Seitz Land Use appeal of Tuesday, March 2, 1993 LUBA No. 92-135 Dear Mayor Golden and Council Members: There were no procedural errors in the manner in which the March 2, 1993, hearing was conducted. All parties were notified in advance that the first issue to be decided was whether the Council would allow an amended application to be filed, i.e., to be judged under the "old" standards. To decide this issue, it was certainly relevant to consider what the "old" standards were, and to compare these with the "new" standards. This is all that Mr. Friend did. Mr. Seitz's failure to address these concerns do not qualify as a procedural error justifying yet another rehearing of this matter. Very Truly Yours John and Jean Sully Dennis and Linda Friend ��,,.vuci Carl and Rosalie Oates Roger.and Linda Floyd Marcia Van Dyke �(�c��� %`r'`� C.C. Douglas Schmor Mayor Catherine Golden r Council Members: Pat Ackl in Phil Arnold Steve Hauck Don Laws Susan Reid Rob Winthrop BROPHY, MILLS, SCHMOR GERKING & BROPHY ATTORNEYS AT LAW " OF COUNSEL CARL M. BROPHY. P.C. 201 WEST MAIN • P. O. BOX 128 H. DEWEY WILSON LEE A. MILLS M EDFOR D. OR 97501 DOUGLASS H. SCHMOR TIMOTHY C. GERKING TELEVNONE w 15031772-7123 Y TIMOTHY E. BROPHY March , 1993 TELECOPIER STEVEN L. PATTERSON 15031772-7269 TODD B. MADDO% IN REPLY REFER TO The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Seitz Land Use A^^"al of Tuesday, March 2 . 1993 rr--- LUBA No. 92-135 On behalf of our clients Mr. and Mrs . Gary and Diane Seitz, we are writing to request that the Ashland City Council reconsider its decision of March 2 , 1993 denying Mr. and Mrs . Seitz the opportunity to file an amended application for their pending land use application. We make this request because of what we believe to be procedural errors in the manner in which Tuesday night's hearing was conducted. Initially the parties were told that arguments were to be confined to the question of whether or not the counsel should apply the new standards or the old standards to the land use application. Mr. Seitz made a presentation confined to this issue, and did not discuss the merits or physical characteristics of the amended application. Mr. Seitz 's engineer, Dale Hofer, P.E. of Marquess & Associates, was present at the counsel hearing and had blue prints, diagrams and other information pertinent to the effect of the revised application. After Mr. Seitz spoke, the Council then permitted Mr. Friend, an opponent of the application, to raise the issue of fire protection and street grades, rather than the issue of whether new or old standards should be applied. The Council then appeared to debate the issue based primarily on assu ^pticns about street length, fire protection, and cuts and fills which might be required if new standards were applied, without giving Mr. Hofer as an engineer for the applicant the opportunity to present accurate factual data concerning the application. As a result, the opponents were allowed to present arguments as to the merits of the project while the proponents were not allowed to do so. We believe . all members participating in the decision recognized that the issues were of serious importance to the City and our clients, and as such we would request an opportunity to present expert testimony by Mr. Hofer regarding. the engineering, and fire safety issues associated with the application, at the next Council meeting. The Council could then decide whether to reverse or affirm its decision of March 2, 1993 after a full consideration • 1 . March 4 , 1993 Page 2 of the relevant factors involved. We appreciate your consideration in this regard. Very Truly Yours, BROPHY, MILLS, SCHMOR GERKING & BROPHY Douglass H. Schmor DHS:ca cc: Ashland City Planning Department Mr. and Mrs . Gary Seitz Mr. Dale Hofer Mr. Craig Stone Ms . Marcia VanDyke Mr. and Mrs. Dennis and Linda Friend Mr. and Mrs . Carl and Rosalie Oates Mr. and Mrs . Roger and Linda Floyd Mr. and Mrs. John and Jean Sully ?3 q ` MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MARCH 2, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Catherine Golden called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:35 P.M. on the above date in the Council Chambers. Laws, Reid, Hauck, Acklin, Winthrop, and Arnold were present. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: Marge Ellsworth. Wayor Golden presented Marge Ellsworth with a Proclamation of Appreciation for the many hours she'has worked at the Senior Program Office as a volunteer, and the numerous other ways in which she has assisted Ashland's senior citizens. A Proclamation was read declaring March 1993 as Women's History Month. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 16, 1993 were accepted as presented. CONSENT AGENDA: Acklin moved approval as follows: 1) Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees; 2) Departmental Reports; 3) Memo from Fire Chief on fire facilities study and approval of study committee; 4) Memo from Dir. of Finance regarding process for selection of financial consultant.for future bond issues; and 5) Memo from Police Chief regarding motorcycle traffic enforcement program. Hauck seconded, all AYES on voice vote. VHEARINGS: P.A. 92-057, 5-lot Subdivision on Granite St. (Gary & Diane Seitz, nts). Paul Nolte, City Attorney, explained the background of the case, and said may either accept the amended application and hold a public hearing taking ny on the street length only;. or deny the application. Arnold said Council should hear guments on whether or not the amended application will be accepted or a new one . Gary Seitz, applicant, 1136 Ril Circle, Anchorage, AK, said he has owned the for 20 years, and began the procedure to develop it four years ago. He has to reduce the lots from 7 to 5, provide 3 acres of common area, increase property s to 30 ft., donate 13.3 acres to the open space program, and provide an easement for a trail. He is submitting an amendment concerning the street length which has been recommended for approval by the Planning Dept. Doug Schmorr, attorney for applicant; said Seitz has followed the City's guidelines and the issue at hand is one of fairness. Dennis Friend, 355 Granite St., read a letter from area neighbors (included in the record) which expressed their concern about fire danger and asked that Council require a new plan which meets-current standards. He distributed photographs of the aftermath of the Oakland conflagration. On Winthrop's request, Acting Planning Dir. McLaughlin said the application would need to be amended as follows to bring it up to current standards: street grade of not more than 15%, driveway lengths greater than 50 ft. would need a grade of not greater than 15% with variances allowed up to 18%, and submission of a fire control plan for subdivisions. On a question from Acklin, Nolte said Council may require submission of fire control plan as Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - March 2, 1993 - P. 1 f . condition of approval, however the published criteria states that testimony will be taken on the street length only. Schmorr said his client is willing to submit an updated fire control plan. Golden asked about emergency vehicle response time, and Fire Chief Woodley said a 15% grade is a workable standard, and, under current standards, if 200 ft. at 18% is allowed as a variance, residential sprinkler systems are required. Winthrop said the amended application should be accepted if Seitz submits and adheres to the currently required fire control plan. Reid said the plan should meet the new standards, and Arnold agreed. Acklin said new fire safety standards can be applied and the street length issue should be heard. Acklin moved to open the public hearing and.Winthrop seconded. Laws said the fairness issue is important. Hauck said Seitz should submit a new application, as this is an important forest interface area. The motion was tied on roll call vote as follows: Law, Acklin, and Winthrop, YES; Reid, Hauck and.Arnold, NO; Mayor Golden broke the tie with a NO vote. Acklin noted that the previous action on this application included a motion by Arnold to waive the one-year re-application period. She asked Nolte about Council's ability to waive the application fee and Winthrop moved to instruct staff to waive further application fees, if possible, and deny the application without prejudice. Hauck seconded the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. Nolte said the Council needs to deny the original application on basis that it does not meet standards and the street is too long. Arnold so moved, Reid seconded, all YES roll call vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Capital Improvement Program - Set Study Session. All agreed on March 11th at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS. Affordable Housing Ombudsperson. Larry Medinger, Planning Commissioner, said one of thdt group's yearly priorities was to revitalize the Affordable Housing Committee, and hire a part-time person to work with the Community Development Corporation. Winthrop said Conservation Coordinator Dick Wanderscheid has a limited amount of staff time available. The committee could: 1) evaluate the progress and effectiveness of current policies; 2) consider new approaches to link more closely affordable housing and economic development; and 3) give Council guidance on how to spend the money in the affordable housing trust fund. Sharon Goddard, Affordable Housing Coordinator for the Community Development Corp., requested more city staff time to aid in securing and administering community development block grants. Acklin asked that Winthrop work with staff to address this request in the budget. Madeline Hill supports the request. Reid said requests for staff time to administer grants should be presented to City Council and Arnold agreed. Winthrop will meet with staff in the next 2 weeks and bring back suggestions on how to proceed. . City.Administrator's Monthly Report - February 1993. Reid asked that item 19 concerning Economic Development Subcommittee responsibilities be placed on the next agenda. Economic Dev. Subcommittee - Policy Direction. Reid asked that Council set policy/guidelines for economic development grant money expenditures i.e., business facilitation, tourist promotion. She said economic development ties in.with the planning Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - March 2, 1993 - P. 2 96 Notice is hereby given that PUBLIC HEARING on A copy of the application,all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant the following request with respect to the ASHLAND and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided a, LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the reasonable cost, it requested. A copy of the staff report will be available for ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on the 2ND DAY inspecdonseven days prior to the hearing and will beprovided at reasonable cost• if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department.City OFMARCH, 1993 AT7:30 P.M.atthe ASHLAND Hall,20 East Main.Ashland.Oft 97520. CIVICCENTER, I175 East Main Street,Ashland, During the Public Hearing,the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and Oregon.. those in attendance concerning this request The Mayor shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable The ordinance criteria app licable to this application are on the reverse of this notice. criteria. Oregon law states that failure m raise an objection concerning this application. If you have any questions or comments concerning this request,please feel free to either in person or by letter,or failure so provide suffident specificity to afford the conactSusan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 488.5305. decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on dust issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of aDDeal to LUBA on that criterion. - I ar usaatrat . u.us aw tm a ua�m LOT 2 tsaran dart. LOT 3 aa.ossss start LOT t r}$ aMraaa Brut _1 4 . s ntPK tala(y1a•ISYb Wa LOT 4 e,o, M./14Y.K fMSlar .aasrau svt oosnmt.a u un a a etas oma § uaosnc4osauartmraar wtr' ' 4' _ - - sas stoat aunt s tss stw ts: i I va — _ Wl ArtaaaN fY f»Iat .. . as Uff .. d, .tan.ace mot a tow ♦ V t V:��o'y•' pralaq nus a ' 9 • {. ��. � � su otcowtauna:. PLANNING ACTION 90-057 is a request for street revisions and approval for Outline Plan of a five-lot subdIvislon under the Performance Standards Option, located on Granite Street near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. Revision involve's change in street length of less than 500' for the new street, from Granite to end of cul-de-sac. Pursuant to the Land Use Board of Appeals decision in Seitz v. City of Ashland, LUBA No. 92-135, the first issue to be decided by the Council will be to determine whether it will allow an amended application to be filed. If an amended application is accepted for filing then the applicable drdinances and criteria in effect at the time of the original application shall still apply. Testimony and review shall be limited to the issue of street length and how the criteria apply to the change in street length. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential, Rural Residential, Woodland Residential; Zoning: R-1-10, RR-.5P, WR; Assessor's Map #: 8DD; Tax Lot: 900. APPLICANTS: Gary and Diane Seitz aL CRITERIA FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAI, The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: 1 ) That the development is consistent' with City plans and with the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Development Ordinance. 2 ) That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and common areas. 3 ) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered in .the design of the development. 4 ) That adequate public facilities can be provided, including, . but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. 5) That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of . adjacent lands be impeded. 6) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of .open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. 7) That the total energy needs of the development have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical. 8 ) That all other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the proposal. City Attorney City of Ashland (503) 482-3211, Ext. 59 MEMORANDUM February 25, 1993 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Paul Nolte SUBJECT: Hearing on amended application by Gary and Diane Seitz for five lot subdivision on Granite Street The applicants have requested a hearing before the council on their amended outline plan. This matter has previously been before the council and has been appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) twice. LUBA reversed the decision of the council in the case of Sully v. City of Ashland (March 12, 1992) holding that the city's interpretation of the land use ordinance was erroneous as to how the length of a street is to be measured. The council determined at a hearing regarding the LUBA reversal (July 15, 1992) that since LUBA reversed, but did not remand, the determination regarding street measurement, the effect of the LUBA decision was a denial of the application. The second LUBA decision regarding this matter (Seitz v. City of Ashland, December 4, 1992) held that LUBA's previous reversal did not preclude the City from accepting an amended application. LUBA remanded the matter back to the city so that the city "may determine whether it will allow an amended application or require a new application." That remand, and the applicants' request that you approve an amended application, has resulted in the hearing scheduled for this coming Tuesday, March 2, 1993. Two footnotes in the latest LUBA opinion concisely summarize the issues before the council. In footnote 4, LUBA states: we see no reason why the city could not allow petitioners to amend the original application to correct the deficiency identified in our decision in Sully. In that event, ORS 227.178(3) would entitle petitioners to a decision on the amended permit application based on the criteria that were in effect when the original application was submitted." ' Memorandum to Mayor and Council February 25, 1993 Page 2 In footnote 6, LUBA states: ". . . we are aware of no local criteria governing the city's decision concerning which of these options (allow an amended application or require a new application) to pursue. However, if there are such criteria, they must be complied with." The council must deliberate and decide first whether or not it will allow an amended application. If the council decides not to allow an amended application then the council does not get to the second issue of whether or not to approve the amended application. There are no criteria in the land use ordinance as to whether or not amended applications are allowed. The applicants have requested and received information from the city as to what the city's practice has been regarding amended applications. That information is in your packet. The council should allow the parties to present arguments on this issue before a decision is made. (P;Plenning�cn-seitz.me2) February 12. 1993 T0: Members of the Ashland City Council Seitz vs. City of Ashland, LUBA No. 92-135; (Planning Action 90- 057) The case of Gary Seitz and Diane Seitz vs. the City of Ashland: LUBA No. 92-135 will be brought before the Ashland City Council for a decision as to whether the old planning action can be amended under the land use ordinances in effect at the time it was first appealed to LUBA in October of 1990, or whether the ordinances and criteria now in effect may be applied to the proposed developement. The LUBA ruling (No. 92-135) remands the citys decision so that it may determine whether it will allow an amended application or require a new application. This choice is clearly left up to the City Council. Nearly.three years have passed since Planning Action 90-057 was introduced to the Ashland Planning Commission for approval. Fire danger in the forest interface and danger to the Ashland Creek watershed have ncreased enormously since then. As an example, the-catastrophic Bend fire resulted in millions of dollars in losses and so did the Oakland, California fire. Both of these began at the forest interface (or in the case of the Oakland fire, to be more precise, the chaparral interface). Both locations are in wildfire areas. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance and criteria for approval of subdivisions have been revised to protect the citizens of Ashland as a result of recommendations made by Fire Chief Woodley. Recently we received an educational package from the Ashland Fire Department. In the package was a brochure entitled:.HAS THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST DROUGHT EXPOSED YOUR HOME TO FIRE? One of the pages in the brochure was entitled: CAN FIRE FIGHTERS REACH YOUR HOME? Several statements follow the question. The first statement is: You should know at least two exit routes from your neighborhood in case of emergency evacuation. The second statement is: Make sure any road leading to your house allows two-way traffic, is not too steep, and does not have curves too sharp to accommodate large emergency vehicles. The fourth 30 - 2 statement is: make sure dead-end roads and long driveways have turnaround areas that are wide enough for emergency vehicles. These questions apply directly to the Seitz' application and their proposed amended application that has already been prepared. The applicants' attorney wrote (letter to Mr. Gary Seitz dated 3/19/91 with carbon copy to John McLaughlin, City of Ashland),"If the court finds in favor of petitioners (viz. Sully, et. al.) the project can be redesigned and constructed as originally planned, but the parking areas will be steeper and more dangerous to public safety, and earth removal and excavation will be more severe." Fire Chief Woodley unsuccessfully attempted to get the maximum grade of city streets reduced to 12%. In the educational material given to us by the Ashland Fire Department there is a statement on page 11 of the booklet "BEFORE WILDFIRE HITS YOUR HOME" subtitled "HOME PROTECTION GUIDE": C. Roads should not be excessively.steep. Fire equipment moves with difficulty on grades steeper than 10 percent. _The decision the City Council will make in this case will affect not only Granite Street, but the entire city of Ashland for a very long time. In the City Council meeting of 7/7/92, Council person Susan Reid introduced a motion not to act on the amended application 90-057, but (and we quote) "to take the opportunity to make this subdivision conform to the new ordinances and new current standards". This would be accomplished by requiring a new application. As a result of our review of the video tape of the City Council meeting of July 7, it is our impression the motion introduced by Susan Reid implied that she believed the City of Ashland had a choice. The LUBA decision (N0. 92-135) supports the conclusion that the City has a choice. The tone of her discussion was to the effect: here is an opportunity for the City Council to demonstrate its commitment to the safety of Ashland citizens as embodied in.the new Land Use Ordinance. The motion passed with very little discussion. We strongly support that decision. We believe it was a good decision because it considered the welfare of the City as a whole not just the narrow 3 interest of the developers. We believe the City Council should now unanimously vote again to require the developers to submit a new application under the new ordinances and the new criteria. The conclusion must be drawn that the City Council believes that the new ordinance and the new criteria provide more opportunity for fire protection, especially in the forest interface and in the Ashland Creek Watershed.. The tools are provided by the new ordinances and criteria for the Ashland fire Department to fight wildfire in the forest interface, in the watershed and to protect those that live in Ashland as a whole. The City Council should choose an action that will have a long term benefit for all Ashland citizens We, the undersigned. urge the City Council to sustain its motion of July 7, 1992, and require the applicant to submit a new outline plan under the new ordinances and the new criteria. To do this will have a long term benefit for all the citizens of Ashland. 351 aczav 7t( Glem.ldle 4ve. BROPHY, MILLS, SCHMOR GERKING & BROPHY ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL CARL M. BROPHY. P.C. 201 WEST MAIN • P. O. BOX 128 H. DEWEY WILSON LEE A. MILLS MEDFORD. OR 97501 WM. E. DUHAIME . DOUGLASS H. SCHMOR TIMOTHY C. GERKING TELEPHONE 15031 772-7123 TIMOTHY E. BROPHY January 11, 1993 S TEL2, STEVEN L. PATT ERSON 15031 772-7 772-7249 TODD B. MADDO% IN REPLY REFER TO Mr. John McLaughlin Acting Planning Director City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Application of Gary and Diane Seitz vs . City of Ashland LUBA No. 92-135 Dear John: It appears that none of the patties to the Seitz vs. Ashland LUBA . case have appealed the LUBA decision. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Seitz we would request that a hearing be scheduled before the City Council to consider the amended application of Mr. and Mrs. Seitz . It is my understanding that all of the documents required of the applicant were previously submitted to the Planning Department, but if there are any additional documents or materials which are required to submit this matter to the Council, please let us know and we will see that they are prepared and filed with you promptly. We would also appreciate it if you could advise us as soon as possible as to when the new hearing will be scheduled. Very Truly Yours, BROPHY, MILLS, SCHMOR GERKING & BROPHY Douglas H. Schmor DHS:ca cc: Mr. Paul Nolte Mr. and Mrs. Gary Seitz 33 C1 'TY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL ASHLAND;OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503(482-3211 December 22, 1992 Douglass H. Schmor Brophy, Mills, SChMor, Gerking & Brophy Attorneys at Law 201 West Main P.O. Box 128 Medford, OR 97501 RE: Application of Gary Seitz and Diane Seitz v. City of Ashland LUBA No. 92-135 In response to your letter dated December 10, 1992, I have met with the Planning Department regarding the practice of our city in permitting amendments to land use applications. Attached is a copy of a memorandum from our Planning Department, which addresses this issue. Should you need any additional information from my office, please advise. Paul Nolte City Attorney Attachment cc: John McLaughlin, Acting Planning Director Daniel Thorndike, Attorney (plus attachment and copy of Schmor's 12-10-92 letter) (Oschrnonl.lu) V 34 4 �F AS{,`°'L AEmorandnm _ �RECO December 22, 1992 D: Paul Nolte, City Attorney ram John McLaughlin, Acting Planning Director p�12�IjEtf: Allowing amendments to land use applications The City, both at the Planning Commission and City Council levels, has . regularly allowed for the amendment of a land use application during the review process, if it appears likely that the amendment would result in the application meeting all applicable criteria. Amendments have been accepted providing additional findings addressing the criteria, and to amend outline plan designs for subdivision applications. In fact, it has been a very common practice at the Planning Commission level to allow for amendments based on concerns raised by surrounding property owners or Commission members. Some subdivision applications take two or three Planning Commission meetings to fully address the issues raised. An example would be that if an application were submitted that depicted a dead-end street in excess of that allowed by ordinance, but met all other applicable criteria, the City would generally allow amendment of the application, if requested by the applicant, to conform with the code requirements. I cannot personally remember an instance where the City has denied an applicant an opportunity to provide revised or additional information when it appeared that that information would provide a remedy for a concern raised during the review process. is A BROPHY, MILLS, SCHMOR GERKING & BROPHY ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COYN6EL CARL M. BROPHY. P.C. 201 WEST MAIN • P. O. BOX 128 H. DEWEY WILSON LEE A. MILLS - MEDFORD. OR 97501 WM. E. DUHAIME DOUGLASS H. SCHMOR TIMOTHY C GERKING TELEI.ONE 15031 772-7123 TIMOTHY E. BROPHY December 10, 1992 TELECOPIER STEVEN L. PATTERSON 15031772.7249 TODD B. MADDOX R IN REPLY REFER TO Mr. Paul Nolte Ashland City Attorney 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Application of Gary Seitz and Diane Seitz vs . City of . Ashland; LUBA No. 92-135 Dear Paul : As you know, we have represented Gary and Diane Seitz in connection with the land use actions associated with their efforts to construct a . five lot subdivision on their property in Ashland. The recent decision from LUBA concerning their case states that the City may permit Petitioners to amend their original application to correct the deficiency identified in LUBA's first decision. At the next proceeding before the Council involving this application, we would like to introduce into the record evidence of the past practice of the City which we understand has been to permit applicants to amend land use applications when their, initial application is rejected for failure to comply with a requirement of the Ashland City Ordinances. We would request that your office review this matter with the Planning staff and prepare a brief report for the record reflecting the practice of the City in permitting amendments to land use applications . It would be extremely helpful to know your findings in this regard prior to December 28, 1992 , which is the last. date our client may appeal the current LUBA decision. Very Truly Yours, BROPHY, MILLS, SCHMOR GERKING & BROPHY Douglass/H.. Schmor DHS :ca cc.: Mr. and Mrs . Gary Seitz �IJLD U(' r':. i LS 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 CC OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 4 ' GARY SEITZ and DIANE SEITZ, . ) 5 ) 6 Petitioners, ) 7 8 Vs. . . ) 9 ) 10 CITY OF ASHLAND, ) 11 ) LUBA No. 92-135. 12 Respondent, ) . 13 ) FINAL OPINION 14 and ) AND ORDER 15 ) 16 JOHN SULLY, , JEAN SULLY, CARL ) 17 OATES, ROASALIE OATES, DENNIS 18 FRIEND, and LINDA FRIEND, 19 ) 20 Intervenors-Respondent. 22 23 Appeal from City of Ashland. 24 25, Douglass H. Schmor, Medford, filed the petition for review 26 and argued on behalf of petitioners . -With him on the brief was 27 Brophy, Mills, Schmor, Gerking & Brophy. 28 29 No appearance by respondent. 30 31 Daniel C. Thorndike, Medford, filed a response. brief and 32 argued on behalf _ of intervenors-respondent. With him on the 33 brief was Blackhurst, Hornecker, Hassen & Thorndike & Ervin B: 34 Hogan. _ 35 36 HOLSTUN, Referee; SHERTON, Chief Referee; KELLINGTON, 37. Referee, participated in the decision. 38 39 REMANDED 12/04/92 40 41 You are entitled to judicial review -of this Order. 42 - Judicial review is governed by the provisions df ORS 197.850. Page 1 3� 1 Opinion by Holstun. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioners . seek review of . a city decision denying their 4 request for approval of a revised application for subdivision 5 outline plan approval . 6 MOTION TO INTERVENE 7 John Sully, Jean Sully, Carl Oates, Roasalie Oates, Dennis 8 Friend and Linda Friend move to intervene on the side of 9 respondent in this matter. There is no 'objection to the motion, 10 and it is allowed. 11 FACTS 12 In Sully v y of Ashland, Or .LUBA (LUBA No. 13 . 90-144, March 12, 1992) , we reversed a prior city decision 14 granting subdivision -outline plan approval for property owned by 15 petitioners . We held the city incorrectly construed city 16 requirements limiting the permissible length of cul-de-sac 17 - streets within .subdivisions. _ Because 'the cul-de-sac proposed in 18 . .the application originally submitted by petitioners was longer, 19 'than permitted under city requirements,-: we. reversed . the city's 20 decision. 21 Following our decision, petitioners submitted an amended 22 application.- . The cul-de=sac proposed in-the amended application 23 was shortened to comply . with city requirements . Petitioners ' 24 took the position below that the city was required to allow the 25 original application . to be amended and that the standards in i 26 effect when the original application was first submitted govern Page 2 1 the amended application as well . Intervenors argued below that 2 our decision in Sully had the effect of denying the - initial 3 application and that a new application is therefore required. 4 Intervenors further argue the new application must comply with 5 the current standards governing subdivision outline plan 6 approval.l 7 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 8 Petitioners argue in the first assignment of error that 9 under ORS 227 . 173 (1) , they are entitled to have their 10 application approved or denied based on criteria set forth in 11 the . city comprehensive plan and applicable city development 12 ordinances .2 Moreover, petitioners argue they are 'entitled 13 under ORS 227.178 (3) to have a decision from the city on their 14 application based on the city criteria in effect on the date the i5 application was first submitted.3 1The standards governing subdivision outline plan approval at the time the original application in this matter was submitted subsequently were amended. 20RS 227.173(1) provides as follows: "Approval or denial of a discretionary permit. application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application,-to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole." 30RS 227.178(3) provides as follows: "If -the 'application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits the requested additional information within - 180 days of the date the application was first submitted and the 'city has a comprehensive plan and land use regulations Page 3 3t 1 With regard to the original application, petitioners ' 2 understanding of their rights under ORS 227 . 173 (1) and 3 ORS 227 . 178 (3) is correct . The first question presented under 4 this assignment of error is whether ORS 227 .178 (3) recmirPs both 5 that the city allow petitioners to amend their original 6 application and that the city apply the criteria in existence 7 when the original application was submitted to the amended _ 8 application . For the reasons explained below, we conclude that 9 ORS 227 . 178 (3) does not impose such a requirement . The second 10 question presented under this assignment of error is whether. our 11 reversal in SuI I v precl iid s the city from (1) allowing 12 petitioners to submit an amended application, and (2) reviewing 13 that amended application under the city criteria in existence at 14 the time the original application was submitted. For the 15 reasons explained below, we conclude the city erroneously reads 16 our decision in Sil y to preclude it from selecting this option. 17 r _ A . Reversal vs . Remand 18 As an initial point, intervenors assign particular 19 significance to the fact that our decision in sully reversed 20 rather than -remanded the city's decision. With regard. to the 21 issues presented in' _this `appeal, the distinction between a 22 reversal and..remand is not_ dispositive. , A reversal . of a land 23 use decision by this Board, unlike a remand, means that a local acknowledged under ORS ..197.251, . approval or denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was . first submitted." Page 4 7V 1 government will not be able to correct all of the identified 2 errors by adopting new findings, by accepting additional 3 . evidence, or both. In other words, reversal of a land use 4 decision approving a application for permit approval simply 5 means the subject application, as submitted, cannot be approved 6 under the applicable criteria, as a matter of law. This means . 7 that an amended or a new application is required to correct at 8 least one of the allegations of error sustained in the Board's 9 final opinion reversing the decision . A reversal does not 10 Preclude a local government from accepting an amended 11 application. . 12 33 . ORS 227. 178 (3) 13 ORS 227 .178 (3) , geg n 3 zmp_rg, assures permit applicants 14 that a .city cannot .change the applicable approval standards 15, -.after. an. application for 4 . permit is submitted. . Saa Ki rpa 16 Light S; -sang v Drniglas Co unty, 96 Or App 207, 212, 772 P2d 17 944, modified 97 Or App 614, rev den 308 Or 382 (1989) . 18 Petitioners attempt to extend this rule regarding the applicable 19 approval criteria much further than 'the statute provides . 20. Petitioners essentially argue that because the city's decision 21 approving the original application was based on an erroneous 22 construction of its cul—de—sac length criteria, following remand 23 ..of -that decision, the statute guarantees the applicant a right 24 to amend its application so that it may again be reviewed by the 25 city based on a correct interpretation of the criteria. 26 Whatever policy arguments there might" be. in favor of Page 5 y/ T I petitioners ' position, ORS 227 .178 (3) simply does not impose 2 such a requirement on the city. When the city reviewed the 3 original application and granted approval, albeit based in part 4 on an erroneous construction of the city's criteria restricting 5 the length of cul-de-sacs, petitioners . received everything they 6 were entitled to. under ORS 227 . 178 (3) , with regard to the 7 original application .' ORS 227 . 178 (3) entitles petitioners to a 8 decision on their permit application based on the criteria that 9 were in . effect when the application was submitted. This 10 . particular statutory provision does not guarantee petitioners a 11 decision, based on those criteria, that correctly interprets and 12 applies those criteria.s 13 ,:. .;: In summary, - ORS 227 .178 (3) identifies the criteria that 14 must. be applied. to a. permit application. ORS 227 . 178 (3) has Il4 15 _ bearing on whether. the city must, following .reversal or remand 16_. of a .permit -.decision by this Board,:- (1) - accept an amended 17 -application - (and. review._that ' amended ' application against the 18 criteria in effect when 'the original application was submitted) , 19 or .-.(2) :.require a new ` application -(and '-review that new 4As explained later in this opinion, we see no reason why.the city could . :.not allow petitioners to. amend the original application to correct the deficiency identified in our decision in Sul ly. In that event; ' ORS 227.178(3) _;would entitle petitioners: to a .decision on the amended permit application based on the criteria that were in effect when the original application was .submitted. 7--_'' Sof course other statutes entitle petitioners, as well as. other parties to the local'proceedings, to appellate review of such decision, and to reversal or remand. of suc ecis on if it rc er y ,cons rues the applicable law. Page 6 — I. application against the criteria in effect when the new 2 application is submitted) . 3 C . Discretion to Allow Modification 14 While ORS 227 .178 (3) does not require that the city allow 5 petitioners to modify their original application, and thereafter 6 review that application based on the standards in effect when 7 the original . application was submitted, neither does 8 ORS 227 .178 (3) or any other statutory provision or authority we 9 are aware of, 8 crP .i�,dl the city from doing so. Petitioners 10 argue, incorrectly, that our decision .-in Wentland v. City of 11 Portland, Or LUBA (LUBA. No. 92-015, June 3, 1992) , 12 requires the city, after reversal or remand, to (1) allow the 13 original permit.. applicat ion to be amended, and (2) apply the 14 . .. criteria. that_ governed_the_original application. Wentland holds 15 that the city ; m.my .do so, absent local, requirements . to the 16 contrary; it -does . not hold that the city mnst do so. We 17 explained as follows: . ,. 18 "We * * * conclude the city did not err . in failing to 19 require that a new application be filed. This 20 conclusion is consistent with our prior cases 21 considering the effect of amendments to a permit 22 application prior to the local government's initial 23 decision on the application. In that context we have 24 held that the local government need not,. in all cases, 25 require that amendments to the permit application be 26 treated as, new permit_ applications. .Bonn v. ity of - 27 Portland, 11 Or- LUBA 40, 60 (1980) ; see Billington v. 28 Polk county, 13 Or LUBA 125, 135-36. (1985) . -We see no 29 reason why a different rule should apply where the 30 modification to the permit application occurs 31 following remand 'of the initial permit decision by 32 this Board. " Wentland, supra, slip op at 7-8. _ 33 Turning to the city's decision in this matter, we conclude Page 7 V3 1 the city erroneously interpreted our decision in Sn17v to 2 preclude it from allowing petitioners to submit an amended 3 application and reviewing that application under the criteria in 4 existence when the original application was submitted. 5 The city' s decision concludes as follows : 6 "The council, having heard the arguments by the 7 parties regarding the status of this case as a result 8 of the LUBA decision, enters this order: 9 "Because LUBA reversed this council ' s previous 10 decision, approving the outline plan, the council will 11 not further consider this case or the amendment to the 12 application submitted by the applicants . The effect 13 of '. LUBA Is decision = is to deny the original 14 application. If the applicants wish to proceed, they 15 must submit a new application. " Record 1. 16 ___Reading the second of the above quoted paragraphs as a 17 whole, we believe it concludes the city cannot 'allow a amended 18 application and approve -that application if it 'meets the. 19 criteria in effect when the original application was submitted. 20 Because that conclusion is erroneous, we sustain the first 21 assignment of error, in part, and remand the city's deci.s.ion_s-o 22 that -it ....may* determine -whether- it will allow an amended 23 application or require a new application_ • 4 The first assignment of error is sustained in part . 25 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 26 "-The _:.City :' of -Ashland's •- decision is flawed by 27 procedural., errors' that prejudice the substantial 28 -.rights of petitioners." .. .: 6As noted earlier in -this, opinion, we are aware of no local criteria governing the city's decision concerning which of these options to pursue. However, if there are such criteria, they must be complied with. �' Page 8 _ I Under this assignment of error, petitioners allege the 2 notice of the city council's July 7, 1992 public- hearing failed 3 to adequately advise them that the legal effect. of this Board's 4 decision in Sully would be decided by the city council. 5 The alleged errors in the notice are procedural errors and 6 would only provide a basis for . reversal or remand if 7 petitioners ' substantial rights were • prejudiced . 8 ORS 197 .835 (7) (a) (B) . Although this case must be remanded in -9 any event,- we agree with intervenors that petitioners fail to 10 demonstrate that their substantial rights to . present arguments 11 concerning the legal effect of our decision in Sully were 12 prejudiced in any way by the alleged defects in the notice of 13 public hearing. 14 The second assignment of error is denied. 15 The city's decision is remanded. 16 Page 9 1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 2 3 4 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Final Opinion 5 and Order for LUBA No. 92-135, on December 4, 1992, by mailing 6 to said parties or their attorney a true copy thereof contained 7 in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid addressed to said 8 parties or their attorney as follows: 9 10 • Douglass H. Schmor 11 Brophy, Mills, et al 12 201 West Main 13 Medford, OR 97501 . 14 15 Paul Nolte . 16 Ashland City Attorney 17 20 E . Main Street 18 Ashland, OR 97520 19 20 Daniel C. Thorndike 21 Blackhurst, Hornecker, et al 22 129 North Oakdale 23 Medford, OR :.97501 -- _ 24 25 26 Dated this 4th day of December, 1992 . 27 28 29 30 31 32 JpV Zwem] 33 def ice Manager 34 I 1136 Ril Circle Anchorage, AK 99504 August 17, 1992 Ashland Planning Department City of Ashland City Hall Ashland, Oregon 97520 Attn: John McLaughlin Re: Ashland Decision File #87-183 The attached letter has been sent to Mayor Catherine Golden and all members of the Ashland City Council. A copy is.enclosed for your information. Sincerely yours, Gary Seitz y� 1136 Ril Circle Anchorage, AK 99504 August 7, 1992 Mayor Catherine Golden 886 Oak St. I 1 Ashland, Oregon Re: Ashland Decision File #87-183 This letter is in response to the Ashland City Council's decision of July 7, 1992, to deny the approval of our application for an outline plan for a five-lot subdivision off of Granite Street. We have owned this property for 18 years and plan to build a home and live in Ashland upon retirement. Our application has been delayed again and again because the adjoining lot owners wish our property to continue as their private backyard. This property is zoned residential and is within the urban growth area of Ashland. We have asked for no variances from the City design standards. We have worked closely with the Ashland Planning Department over the last four years and voluntarily incorporated additional features into the design. These include: (1) A reduction in the number of lots from 7 to 5 to lower the density. The lots are now one-half acre or larger. (2) An open space of 3 acres to be held as a common area for the subdivision to further reduce the lot density and enhance the development. (3) An agreement to increase the property set-back line from the City standard of 10 feet to 30 feet to provide more privacy for existing homes. (4) Generously agreed to donate approximately 14 acres to the City of Ashland for their open space program. (5) Agreed to to give the City an easement for a recreation trail through the property. ya Through the years we have had a good working relationship with . the Ashland Planning Department. The staff has been supportive and helped us with our plans to make this a very nice small subdivision. -Yet at the July 7th meeting the Council ignored the advice of both the Planning Department and the Ashland city attorney and issued a decision that ignored the stated purpose of the hearing. We are disappointed and disturbed that after making the trip to Ashland for the July hearing we were not allowed to speak before the Council. Living .so far away has been a disadvantage in working on this project and travelling from Alaska for repetitive hearings is expensive. Please remember that we, too, have been taxpayers in your City for many years and as such deserve fair and impartial consideration. Sincerely yours, �127 Gary Seitz Diane Seitz Letter also sent to members of the Ashland City Council: Patricia Acklin 332 Bridge St. Ashland, OR Susan Reid 171 Granite St. Ashland, OR Greg Williams 744 Helman Ashland, OR Rob Winthrop 347 Gutherie Ashland,OR Philip Arnold 300 E. Main Ashland, OR Don Laws 968 Hillview Dr. Ashland, OR So BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON . GARY SEITZ AND DIANE SEITZ, ) ) Petitioners, ) LUBA NO. 92-135 VS. ) ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION 87-183 CITY OF ASHLAND., ) Respondent. ) RECORD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST FOR ) FILE NO. 87-183 STREET REVISIONS AND APPROVAL OF ) OUTLINE PLAN FOR A FIVE-LOT SUB- ) CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL DIVISION BY GARY AND DIANE SEITZ ) ORDER ON REVERSAL BY LUBA This matter came before the City Council on July 7, 1492 for public hearing on street revisions and request for approval of a revised outline plan by the applicants. Previously the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") reversed the City's decision approving. the outline plan on the basis that the City's interpretation of its. ordinance as to the length of a street was erroneous. See Sully V. City of Ashland, Or, LUBA (LUBA No. 90-144 , (March 12, 1992) . The council, having heard the arguments by the parties regarding the status of this case as a result of the LUBA decision, enters this order: Because LUBA reversed this council's previous decision approving thg outline plan, the council will not further consider this case or the amendment to the application submitted by the applicants. The effect of LUBA's decision is to deny the original application. If the applicants wish to proceed, they must submit a new application. SIGNED this �s day of � 1992 . f Catherine M. Golden, Mayor PAGE 1-FINAL ORDER (p:p(anning\cn-seitz.Ord) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL July 7, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Golden called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance at 7-: 30 P.M. on the above date in the Council Chambers. Laws, Reid, Acklin, Winthrop and Arnold were present. Williams was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Laws moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 16, 1992 , Arnold seconded, all AYES on voice vote. CONSENT AGENDA: Reid asked that the Hospital Board minutes be pulled for discussion. Winthrop moved to approve the remaining items as follows: 1) Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees; 2) Liquor license application for Papa D's, 1448 Ashland St. ; 3) Liquor license application for Senor Sams, 1634 Ashland St. Laws seconded, all AYES on voice vote. On a question from Reid, City Attorney Nolte said all real property acquisition and sales by the Hospital Board must come before the Council for approval. Winthrop moved acceptance of Hospital Board minutes, Laws seconded, all AYES on voice vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS: P.A. 90-057, Street revisions & Outline Plan approval of five-lot subdivision on Granite Street. (Gary & Diane Seitz; Applicants) On a question from Laws, Nolte urged Council to hear the parties on the street length issue prior to a decision on holding the public hearing. Doug Schmor, Attorney for the Applicants, said LUBA's decision on this issue stated that Council incorrectly interpreted the Ashland Land-Use ordinance relative to the length of the cul-de-sac; and the criteria in effect when the application was filed should be applied. The applicant can meet the criteria by shortening the street. Dennis Friend, 355 Granite St. , read a statement into the record signed by the following Appellants: Dennis & Linda Friend, Carl & Rosalie Oates, and Jean & John Sully; in which they feel that LUBA reversed the Council's approval of P.A. 90-057 , and a new application should be filed meeting current standards. Reid said this is an opportunity to apply current standards to this development, and moved to not review the application or hold the public hearing. Winthrop seconded the motion which passed as follows on roll call vote: Reid, Winthrop, and Arnold, YES; Laws and Acklin, NO. Arnold moved to instruct the City Attorney to research Council' s authority to waive the one-year re-application period, and take that action if possible. Winthrop. seconded the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. P.A. 92-033, Land-Use Ordinance amendments re: E-1/C-1 zones. Planning Dir. Fregonese reviewed the proposed changes which include a new Section 18: 32 . 025 for Special Permitted Uses .which formerly were conditional uses. on a question from Acklin, Fregonese said public parking lots are conditional uses due to impacts on traffic, air pollution, etc. Regarding Section 18 . 40. 030A. , Golden said many bakeries make deliveries in the early hours and Winthrop asked that Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council —July 7 , 1992 - P. 1 FASHLAND given that a PU BLIC HEARING on ol,yO(WcappliCalion,vlldo uincn andc�idencerelieduponbythea, applicable uraena arc available for mspeMoa al no cost and will M p quest with respect co the ASHLAND ,mo,ablccost.ifrequested ACOpyof dmsla ffreportwillbeavaiiablc for � RDINANCE will be held before the s,wndays priertothe hearing and will beprovidedatreuonablecost ifrequea ITY COUNCIL on the 7TH DAY matt^^4mea97520eat the Ashland Planning DCP�nten,City Halt 20Fia,\ 2 AT 7:30 P.M. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1 175 East Main Street,Ashland, During an�ab eH,^�i getni rwn�°.nxChaur�u�ther;gh(tolimtth, Oregon. 1.0 of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable eritctia: pA Y¢il eYSL O{ uestiems or comments concerning this request Please feel free to -=-Bons noti«.Oregon eo you have any q t,City Hall,at 488-5305. The ordinance mteria applicablelothis appliwtronare-^^ �� contact Susan Yates al du Ashland Planning Department, law states that failure to mise an objectionconcemingthis apPlicanon,either in n or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker in oppoeunily to respond to llm issue,precludes your right of appeal to the land the Boeid of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your ri ght ofappeal to LUBA on that criterion 1 I ad rASD�roa taaa a . t ma i wvwm (pi 2 r asaaras soft r LoT S a.aes.aa LOT 1 Ilk• a�aaau varL . t raa'aac xocx wy acan� :: rani u'n'"`°E'°t LOT 4 5. ice': �'D nm a 30=�� . sasa2U tarL , �� �. �x,RQT 100) 1'O`%' _ 1.AA CaJnE K s sax Fraw WE x `\ aOT 5�/� i rw visor r �sra o,00etUw t: f � PLANNING ACTION 90-057 is a request for street revisions and approval for Outline Plan of a five-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option, located on Granite Street near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. Revision involves change in street length to less than 500' for the new street, from Granite to end of cul-de-sac. Applicable ordinances and criteria in effect at the time of the original application shall still apply. Testimony and review shall be limited to the issue of street length and how the criteria apply to the'chahge in street length. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential, Rural Residential, Woodland Residential; Zoning: R-1-10, RR-.5-P, WR; Assessor's Map #: SDD; Tax Lot: 900. -- __. --A n;,r,P Seitz df%& - CRITERIA FOR OUTLINE . PLAN APPROVAL The Planning Commission shall approve the outline finds the following criteria have been met: plan when it l � That the development the .stated purpose of is consistent with City plans and with Development Ordinance. this Chapter of the Land Use 2) That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the plan of the development and important ' features utilized for. open space and common areas. 3 ) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered in the design of the development. 4 ) That adequate public facilities can be provided, including, but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm . drainage. 51 That the development of the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded. 6) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as . proposed in the entire. ' 7) That the .total energy needs of the development h considered and are as efficient ' ave been as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical. 8 ) That all other applicable proposal. City Ordinances will be met by the i, SS City Attorney City of Ashland (503) 482-3211 , ext. 20 MEMORANDUM June 30, 1992 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Paul Nolte SUBJECT: Land use hearing scheduled for July 7, 1992 Legal status of Sully v. City of Ashland On March 12,1992 the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) reversed the decision of the city, which granted outline plan approval for a five-lot residential subdivision. The reversal' by LUBA, rather than a remand, raises an issue as to the status of the case and the criteria to be applied. The council has been requested to review additional information submitted by the applicant as a result of the LUBA decision. There are at least three resolutions to the issues presented by a LUBA reversal as opposed to a remand by LUBA. Neither the statutes nor LUBA rules define the effect of a reversal. The three resolutions are as follows: 1. The case is ended and there is nothing for the council to consider. The applicant must submit a new application in order for this subdivision to be considered by the cW. 2. The case is before the council as if the council has made no decision. The reversal does not operate as a denial of the subdivision because there has been no decision of denial supported by findings. 3. The revised plan is before the council as a supplementation to the application in response to LUBA's definition of the length of a cul-de-sac. I have advised the planning staff to use the criteria in existence at the time this application was initially filed in evaluating the additional information submitted by the applicant as a result of the LUBA opinion. The parties to this action have the right and obligation to raise other issues they believe pertinent. ' LUBA rules provide that LUBA shall reverse a land use decision when "the decision violates a provision of applicable law and is prohibited as a matter of law. " OAR 661-10-071(1) (c) . The holding in this case was that the city's interpretation of the length of a cul-de-sac street violated the city's ordinance. Z . AMC §18. 108 . 140 requires that a denied application is. not eligible for resubmission "for one year from date of said denial. ". slot ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM III July 7, 1992 PLANNING ACTION: 90-057 APPLICANT: Gary and Diane Seitz LOCATION: Granite Street near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. REQUEST: Street revisions and approval for outline Plan of a five-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option, located on Granite Street near the intersection of Granite and South Pioneer Streets. Revision involves change in street length to,less than 500' for the new street, from Granite to end of cul-de-sac. Applicable ordinancCs and criteria in effect at the time of the original application shall still apply. Testimony and review shall be limited to the issue of street length and how the criteria apply to the change in street length. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: This application has a very long history. The application was first presented to the Planning Commission in April, 1990, however, the applicant requested a one-month delay to address additional staff concerns. A public hearing was held in May 1990, at which time the Planning Commission approved the request, with several conditions modifying the subdivision design. The applicant requested a delay in the adoption of the findings to allow for an alternative plan to be developed, encompassing the Planning Commissions conditions, but resulting in a more efficient design. The Planning Commission reviewed the modified design in a public hearing in July, 1990, and adopted findings of approval in August, 1990. The approved application was appealed by several surrounding property owners and was heard by the City Council in September, 1990. The Council approved the application essentially in the same form as approved by the Planning Commission. Findings of the approval were adopted in October, 1990. The action was then appealed to LUBA, where in January, 1991, the LUBA referees determined that they did not have jurisdiction over this application, since it involved a subdivision request. Under Oregon Revised Statutes in effect at the time, the definition of a land use decision S7 ` reviewable by LUBA excluded subdivisions. Due to the decision, the case was transferred to Jackson County Circuit Court. In February, 1991, the Oregon Court of Appeals determined that LUBA must review all challenged decisions appealed to them to determine if they were made "consistent with land use standards." If the decision was found to comply with standards, then LUBA would not have jurisdiction, and the application would be transferred to a circuit court. If it were not made consistent with the standards, then LUBA would rule on the action. Based.on this Court of Appeals decision, the Jackson County Circuit Court referred this case to the Oregon Court of Appeals for a determination of jurisdiction. In October 1991, the Court of Appeals determined that the case would be transferred back to LUBA for review. In March, 1992, LUBA reversed the decision of the City, statirig that the City erred in determining the length of the street, basically saying that the length, of the street will include the cul-de-sac turn-around area. An opinion by the previous City Attorney stated that the length of the street did not include the turn-around portion. The LUBA decision only addressed the issue of.cul-de-sac length and no other issues of the subdivision. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The application involves a 9.58 acre parcel, which is divided by three zoning districts. The flag drive portion of the property nearest Granite Street is zoned R-1-10, while the area proposed for development below the ditch is zoned RR-.5. The remainder of the property is zoned WR, Woodland Resource. The applicant is proposing a modification to the previous City approval, which involved a 5 lot subdivision with common open space, and a dedication to the City's open space plan of the remainder of the property (3.86 acres) as well as the adjoining tax lot, also owned by the applicants. (9.10 acres). This action is being brought back before the City Council, with the applicant providing a revised plan addressing the recent LUBA decision. On the revised plan, the new street length is shown to be 490.95', from the edge of the Granite Street right-of-way to the farthest point of the cul-de- sac right-of-way. The lots have had some slight redesign to adjust to the PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report -- Addendum III Gary and Diane Seitz July 7, 1992 S8Page 2 modified street location, but essentially are in almost the same locations. The driveway accesses have also been slightly modified 10 adapt to the new grade changes associated with the street relocation. The most dramatic change in the new street design is in the location of the cul-de-sac. In order to accommodate the cul-de-sac.for the shorter street, and maintain the grade requirements, the cul-de-sac was relocated_ slightly further down the hill, closer to the easterly property line of the development. II. Project Impact In this portion of the history of this application, the impact review is limited to the changes associated with the new street design. The other impact issues have been determined to be addressed under the previous hearings and decisions. The new location for the cul-de-sac results in it being somewhat closer to the eastern property line of the development, and therefore closer to the existing residences on the property between the development and Granite Street. This new location, along with the shortened length, results in less excavation and fill for the street than would have been required before. The main change is for the driveways off of the end of the cul-de-sac, which had to be modified due to the changes in grade. Overall, the new design will have a lesser.impact on the site in terms of excavation and fill. The moving of the street somewhat closer to the eastern property line will have little effect, due to the small number of homes accessing off of it, and therefore very limited traffic. We believe that this modification complies with the interpretation.advanced by LUBA, while remaining in compliance with the criteria for approval established at the time of the original approval by the City Council. M. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria are those that were in effect at the time of the original approval and are as follows: a) That the development is consistent with City plans and with the stated purpose of this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report — Addendum III Gary and Diane Seitz July 7, 1992 . Page 3 b) That the existing and natural features of the land have been considered in the plan of the development and important features utilized for open space and common areas. c) That the development design minimizes any adverse effect on the areas beyond the project site and that the character of the neighborhood be considered in the design of the development. d) That adequate public facilities can be provided including, but not limited to, water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, and urban storm drainage. e) That the development of.the land and provision of services will not cause shortages of a necessary public facility in the surrounding area, nor will the potential development of adjacent lands be impeded. f) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire. g) That the total energy needs of the development have been considered and are as efficient as is economically feasible, and the maximum use is made of renewable energy sources, including solar, where practical. h) That all other applicable City Ordinances will be met by the proposal. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends approval-of the revised application will the following conditions from the original.approval: 1) That a 10' wide pedestrian easement be dedicated to the City of Ashland along the irrigation ditch. Pedestrian easement to be shown on Final Plan and recorded on the survey plat. 2) That building envelopes be presented on the Final Plan. 3) That all requirements of the Fire Department concerning hydrant improvements be met. 4) - That a final erosion control.plan be submitted at.the time of Final Plan, addressing the interim and permanent measures associated with the.development PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report -- Addendum 111 Gary and Diane Seitz July 7, 1992 �O Page 4 of the new street, driveways'and home construction. Plan to include the use of terracing and rock walls on cut slopes and netting and re-vegetation on the fill slopes, with provisions for irrigation and maintenance. 5) That a final tree management plan be submitted at the time of Final Plan, addressing the removal of.trees during street construction, driveway construction, and home building. All trees outside the street right-of-way and building envelopes shall be clearly marked on a map and on site for review and approval by the Staff Advisor and Tree Commission. Consideration shall be given to erosion control and wildfirE potential. 6) That all new structures have non-combustible roofing material and comply with the wildfire land requirements of 18.62.090. Such requirements to be included in the CC&R's. 7) That all requirements of the Electric Department be met, includirrg locating a transformer, if required. 8) That all easements for sewer; water, electric, and slopes be provided as required by the City of Ashland. 9) That a drainage plan be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department, specifically addressing the storm water drainage. 10) That the 13.3 acres above the common open space area be dedicated to the City of Ashland. 11) That the applicant grant the City an easement to the 13.3 acres through the development in the vicinity of the boundary between lots 3 and 4 for maintenance purposes only. 12) That a street plug be maintained along the north side of the new street where it abuts private property. 13) That no driveway exceed a slope of 20 percent or that stipulated by the building code, whichever is more restrictive. 14) That the finished street grade shall be consistent with the requirements of ALUO subsection 18.88.050(B). The Ashland Public Works Department shall examine the engineering construction plans for the project to determine that finished street grades are consistent with the cited standards. The grades will also be checked and certified by the department on the site following rough grading of PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report -- Addendum III Gary and Diane Seitz July 7, 1992 Page 5 the road. Costs incurred by the City to check street grades shall be paid by the applicant. 15) That the proposed street name be unique within the City of Ashland and not readily confused with another street existing within the City. Such proposed street name to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director prior to signature of the final survey plat of the subdivision by the City of Ashland. PA90-057 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report -- Addendum III Gary and Diane Seitz July 7, 1992 I_ Page 6 �p June b, 1990 File Ref . : PA .90-057 Seitz Susan Reid .171 Granite Street . Ashland , OR 97520 Honorable Councilman Reid : On October 299 1990 final approval was granted by the Ashland City Council for Outline Plan . for a five-Lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located near the intersection of Granite Street and south Pioneer Street - Planning Action 90-057, Seitz . That action was appealed by the undersigned to LUBA. LUBA reversed the decision of the Ashland City Council on 03/12/92. Recent correspondence (copy attached ) from . tfle City Attorney' s Office leads us to believe the Planning Actioh will again be brought before the City Council . The following is our position on the issue. All oCkrZQ _ L' ��`( Covtilet' a6RS'oNS rn I l I1 N ` IRYaR CA- ���1 00(4EI I Statement of Facts Concerning Proposed Actions by City Council With Regard to Petition by Seitz, et .., al . - Planning Action 90- 057 . LUBA No. 90-144 FINAL OPINION AND ORDER states in its closing : 'We agree with petitioners . . . The assignment of error is sustained . THE CITY"S DECISION IS REVERSED . " (emphasis added ) . . the City Council approved the action by the Planning Commission on appeal . The reversal of an approval is a denial , as used in this context . It is. NOT a remand by LUBA to the Ashland City Council for further action . This means that approval of Planning. Action 90-057, Outlihe Plan approval of a five-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards . Option , has been reversed/denied . The planning action is dead , no longer exists ; the same as it would have been if the City Council had denied - it . Planning Action 90-057 should not be before the City Council at all . If the Intervenors-Respondents ( the Seitz and their attorney) did not agree with the LUBA decision they were entitled to judicial review of the decision . They have not exercised that right . PL 90-057 is a Type II Planning Action as used. in Section 18 . 108. 050 . - Paragraph A. subparagraph 3 (AMC 18 . 88) . In the section on appeals : 18 . 108 . 070, paragraph A, sub . 3, "The decision of the .City Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals of all planning. actions subject to the Type II Planning Procedure . " 18 . 108 . 070 does not say that the City Council will hear and approve planning actions denied by LUBA. 90-057 is dead . Not to recognize that fact is a defiance of the LUBA ruling. The Seitz, for that reason , must reapply for a new planning action , Outline Plan Approval , after one year from the date of the ruling by LUBA. Such an application should come under the new ordinances and new criteria; not the old . What the Seitzs ' attorney, is asking is that the old criteria should apply, EXCEPT for the change made for their benefit in 18 . 88 . 050, sub . 6 : Street Standards . Dead End . This is new . In addition, it is in conflict with other parts of the land use ordinance regarding street design and dead end streets by the City Attorney 's own admission . They cannot have it both. ways : the new, ordinance for the cul-de-sac and the old ordinances for wildfire areas. and street grades ./ f (2 ) Starting over (a new application) means refiling with the Planning Department with review by all City Departments, especially the Fire Department, notification of all the neighbors , a hearing before the Planning Commission . It does not mean asking the City Council to approve the Planning Action now before it . If this action is approved by the City Council , WE CAN ASSURE YOU , THE CITY COUNCIL, THE ACTION . WILL BE APPEALED TO LUBA ! ! ! ! ! ! Al C `s / BROPHY. DUHAIME. MILLS. SCHMOR GERKING & BROPHY ATTORNEYS AT LAW . CARL M RROPHY PC 201 WEST MAIN - P O BOA 120 OEwEY WILSON LEE A MILLS E MILLS E PC ' MEDEORD OR 97501 " LE � . 1 DOUGLASS H SCHMOR IS O JI 772 T2J " TIMOTHY C GERKING TIMOTHY E BROPHY May 29 , 1992':`, : ,zo„ ]]_ •_,v STEVEN L PATTERSON �. . •I •r•I. TODD MADDOX I�,1 JUN - ' i917 Mr. Paul Nolte, City Attorney City of Ashland I11I Ashland City Hall i Ashland OR 97520 Re: Gary and Dianne Seitz Dear Paul : We are in receipt of your letter dated May 21 , 1992 . We are concerned that your letter seems to reflect some confusion on Lhe part of the city as to which criteria govern the application after LUBA ' s recent decision. We agree you made the correct decision in advising the planning staff to use the criteria in existence at the time the original application was filed. Because the original application was complete when originally filed and acted upon by the city, the Seitz have a right to rely on certainty of approval standards as guaranteed by ORS 227 . 178 ( 3 ) . Even though the city ordinance as to the length of cul=de-sacs has been effectively changed due to LUBA' s interpretation, the city cannot require the Seitz to submit a, new application, and must apply the criteria for approval in existence when their original application was submitted. Kirpal Light Satsang v Douglas County, 96 Or App 207, . 212, modified on reconsideration 97 Or Ap 614 rev den 308 Or 382 ( 1989) (construing ORS 215.428 (3) , analog to ORS 227 . 178 ( 3) applicable to counties) . At most, the Seitz ' revised plan should be considered as a supplementation or submittal of additional information in response to LUBA's differing interpretation of the city ordinance. Had the city properly interpreted the ordinance relating .to cul-de-sacs, the Seitz ' original application would have reflected the allowable cul-de-sac length. Because LUBA : ruled that the city erred the Seitz have submitted additional information to conform to LUBA' s view of the. requirements of the ordinance. Even though additional information was effectively required and has been submitted, the city is still bound to apply the approval criteria in existence at the outset. Kirpal Light Satsang v Douglas County, supra. In your letter you also suggested that the opponents may cite ALUO 518 . 108 . 140 and argue that the Seitz may not have their application recons-idered for a year. Such an argument would be ill advised for two reasons . First , the ordinance on its Lace applies only' to w applications "denied by the Commission or denied on appeal by the Council" . The City of Ashland approved the application, and only through an error in interpreting its own ordinance was the city approval reversed. There is nothing in the ALUO to prevent or restrict a revision or supplementation of an already approved application in response to. a reversal on appeal by LUBA, especially when such appeal addressed only one very narrow issue in the overall application_ Secondly, even if the LUBA reversal could be construed as a denial within the terms of the ordinance, the ordinance provides that applications can be resubmitted where "evidence is submitted that conditions, the application or the project design have changed to an extent that further consideration is warranted" . LUBA' s differing interpretation of the ordinance created a situation where further consideration of the Seitz ' application is warranted. We are sending the authorities cited in this letter to contirm your decision to advise the planning staff to use the criteria in existence at the time the Seitz filed their application. Very truly yours , BROPHY, DUHA.IME, MILLS, SCHMOR GERKING & BROPHY Douglass H. Schmor . DHS : jmj cc : Dan Thorndike Gary and Dianne Seitz Dale Hofer Ai\ CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 t*I@Pt M(M"503)482-3211 May 21, 1992 Douglass H. SchZME,BROPHY, DU LLS, SCHMOR GERKING BROPHY 201 W. M ' Medfor OR 97501 Da cl C. Thorndikc CKHURST, HORNECKER, HASSEN & THORNDIKE & ERVIN B. HOGAN. 129 N. Oakdale, Suite 1 Medford, OR 97501 As you know LUBA on March 12, 1992, reversed the decision of the Ashland City Council in the case of Sully v. City of Ashland, LUBA No. 90.144.'On May 5, 11x12, Gary and Dime Seitz submitted a revised outline plan representing that the revised plan conforms with the LUBA decision. A public hearing before the City Council will be scheduled to determine the appropriate action to be taken by the City as a result of the LUBA decision and the filing of the revised outline plan. Because LUBA chose to reverse the decision of the council, rather than remand, the criteria for approval of the revised plan are in dispute. I anticipate that the applicant will maintain that the criteria for this decision are the same as those for the initial application, as applied only to those limited changes indicated in the revised outline plan. I anticipate that the opponents will maintain that this is a new application and therefor the criteria in existence at the time the revised plan was submitted apply. In addition,.thc opponents may maintain that the revision may not be riled-at this time because ALUO §18.108.140 requires that a denied application is not eligible for resubmission 'for one year from date of said denial' 1 am surc.othcr issues will be raised by both sides as well. In order to get this matter at issue so that the council is in a position to make a decision, 1 have advised the planning staff to use the criteria in existence at the time the original application was filed as the applicable criteria for the hearing to be scheduled before the council. When the hearing date is determined, all parties will be formally notified of the hearing and the criteria. Paul Nolte City'Altorncy John MacLaughlin . `s SSE E ,hD or !1"rf-QLS 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON Mk° 9 27 G 192 3 4 JOHN SULLY; JEAN SULLY, CARL ) 5 OATES, ROASALIE OATES, DENNIS ) 6 FRIEND, LINDA FRIEND, BRAD . ) 7 LAVINE and CAROL LAVINE, ) 8 ) 9 Petitioners, ) LUBA No. 90144 10 ) 11 vs. ) FINAL OPINION 12 ) AND ORDER 13 CITY OF ASHLAND, ) 14 ) 15 Respondent, ) 16 ) 17 and ) 18 ) 19 GARY SEITZ and DIANE SEITZ, ) 20 ) 21 Intervenors-Respondent.) 22 23 24. Appeal. from.City of Ashland. 25 26. Daniel C. Thorndike, Medford, filed the petition for review 27 and argued on behalf of petitioner. With him on the brief was 28 Blackhurst, Hornecker., . Hassen .& Thorndike. & Ervin B. Hogan. . 29 30 No appearance by respondent. 31 32 'Douglas H. Schmor, Medford, _ filed the response brief and 33 argued on behalf of intervenors-respondent. With him on the 34 brief was Brophy, Duhaime- , Mills,rSchmor, Gerking & Brophy. 35 36 HOLSTUN, Chief Referee; SHERTON, ' Referee; KELLINGTON, . 37 Referee, participated in the decision. 38 39 REVERSED 03/,12/92 40 41 You are entitled. to judicial review of this ,Order. 42 Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 197.850. Page 1 (Dot I Opinion by Holstun . 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioners appeal a city . decision granting outline plan 4 approval for a five-lot residential subdivision located within 5 the city's acknowledged urban growth boundary. 6 MOTION TO INTERVENE 7 Gary Seitz and Diane Seitz, the applicants below, move. to 8 intervene on the side of respondent . There is no opposition to 9 the motion, and it is allowed. 10 JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 11 In ,Silly v Cjty of Ashland, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 12 90-144, January 31, 1991) (Siilly ) , we determined that because 13 the challenged decision granting subdivision outline plan 14 approval simply applies existing land use regulations and does 15 not amend the plan or land use regulations or-grant variances or 16 approval for other actions modifying or amending standards 17 governing the subdivision approval decision, we lacked 18 jurisdiction under former ORS 197 .015 (10). (b) (B) In accordance TORS 197.825(1) limits our jurisdiction to "land use decisions." prior to its amendment in 1991, ORS 197.015(10) (b) (B) provided that land use decisions do not include local government decisions which approve. or deny "a subdivision * * * located within an urban growth boundary where the aecision i.9 consistent with land use standard, ( . )" (Emphasis -added.) Prior to our decision in Slilly I, we had construed the emphasized language in ORS 197.015(10) (b) (B) not to require that we review a challenged urban land division on the merits for consistency with land use standards to determine whether we have jurisdiction: Instead, we interpreted that language to limit our jurisdiction to cases where the applicable plan or land use regulations were being amended or modified in some way: - Se.e Bartels v'� City iif Portland, -Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 90-111, December 3, 19-9%; Soup hi:ood Homeowners hs8nn- v_ City of Ph41omath, _ Or LUBA (LUBA' No. 90-109, November 15, 1990) , rev'd 106 Or App 21 (1991) ; Hoffman Page 2 70 1 with ORS 19 .230 and OAR 661-10-075 (10) , we transferred this 2 appeal .to the Jackson County Circuit Court. on January 31, 1991 . 3 On February 21, 1991, in Sont-bwood HnmenwnerG jr , rity 4 roUn .i1 of L lnmath, 106 Or App 21, 806 P2d 162 (1991) , the 5 Court of Appeals determined this Board incorrectly interpreted 6 former ORS 197 . 015 (10) (b) (B) and that LUBA must review 7 challenges of urban land division decisions on the merits* to 8 make the jurisdictional determination, jam. , whether- the 9 challenged decision was . made "consistent with land use 10 standards. " In Southwood, the Court of Appeals determined that 11 if we conclude the challenged decision is not consistent with 12 land use standards we are to reverse or remand the decision; if i3 we determine the challenged decision is consistent with land use 14 standards, we are to transfer the .decision to circuit court 15 pursuant to ORS 19.230.. ' 16 On July 12, 1991, the. Jackson County Circuit Court referred 17 this case to the Court of Appeals for a determination of 18 .Jurisdiction'pursuant to ORS 19.230 (5) . On October 2, 1991, the 19 Court of Appeals determined that the circuit court had authority 20 to transfer this case back to LUBA to determine whether the 21 decision is consistent with .land use standards . The circuit 22 court transferred the record to LUBA on November 22, 1991 and 23 oral .argument was held -February '6. 1992.-. v iry of Lake oaV=Q Or LUBA (LUBA 'No. 90-067, September 26, 1990); Mendowbrook 'D ypl apTuant v_ (ti t:. of c aaidp Or LUBA -(LUBA No. 90-060, September 18, 1990) ; Parmenter v Wallowa Co nt , 19 Or LUBA 271 (1990) . Page-3 1 For the reason explained below, the challenged decision is 2 inconsistent with applicable land use standards _and, therefore, 3 subject to our jurisdiction. 4 FACTS . 5 The subdivision challenged in this appeal creates, a new 6 cul-de-sac street, Diane ' s Hill Street .2 The Diane's Hill 7 Street right of way begins at .Granite Street, which provides the 8 only ,access to Diane 's Hill Street . The sole dispute in this 9 appeal is whether Diane' s Hill; Street exceeds the 500 foot 10 length limitation imposed by Ashland Land Use ordinance-. (ALUO) 11 18 . 80.. 020 (11) and 18 .88 .050 (A) (6) If those AI,UO provisions 12 require that the turnaround portion of cul-de-sacs be included 13 for purposes of calculating the length of the cul-de-sacs, as 14 petitioners argue, Diane's Hill Street. is longer than 500 feet. 15 • However, if, as the city found, the turnaround portion of a 16 cul-de-sac is excluded for purposes of computing the length of . 17 the cul-de-sac, Diane's Hill Street is less than 500 feet long.3 2A cul-de-sac is a deadend street with a vehicular turnaround at the end of the street. 3The city found that the consequence of shortening the cul-de-sac so that it would comply with the 500 foot length limitation (regardless of how the relevant ALUO sections are correctly interpreted) would be that the turnaround. portion of the street would be located on much steeper 'slopes, making construction more. difficult, expensive and potentially more environmentally damaging. Petitioners do not dispute the accuracy of. that finding. However, they point out that the difficulty, expense and potential environmental problems of complying with the relevant ALUO provisions does not provide a basis for violating those ALUO provisions if petitioners' interpretation of those provisions is correct. Petitioners contend a variance is required if the city wishes to approve a cul-de-sac violating the requirements of ALUO 18.80.020(11) and 18.88.050 (A) (6) . Page. 4 I ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 2 "The City of Ashland erred in determining that the 3 proposed street does not exceed the 500 feet maximum 4 length under (ALUO) 18 . 80 . 020 (Al ) and 5 18.88 .050 (A) (6) . " 6 ALUO 18 .08. 700 defines cul-de-sac street as " [a] short 7 . dead-end street terminated by a vehicle turnaround . " 8 ALUO 18 . 80 . 020 (11) provides the following limit on the 9 permissible length of cul-de-sacs: 10 "A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall 11 have a maximum length of five hundred feet. All 12. cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a circular turnaround 13 unless alternate designs for turning and reve£s:`ng 14 direction are approved by the Planning Commission . " 15 The parties' agree the challenged subdivision was properly 16 considered under the performance standards applicable to planned 17 unit developments under ALUO chapter 18. 88 . ALUO 18 .88 .050 18 , establishes the following street standards " for planned unit 19. developments: 20 "A. Street Types 21 .1* 22 "6. Dead End. Only lanes may be dead end 23 roads. No dead end road shall exceed 500 24 feet in length. Dead end roads must 25 . terminate in an improved turnaround as 26 defined in the Performance Standards 27 guidelines as provided in Section 28 18 .88.090. 29 30 ALUO 18.88.090(A) provides that the. city council may adopt 31 guidelines for PUDs including " [m]inimum standards for 32 turnaround and other street standards * * * . ^ Intervenors- Page 5 73 r 4 1 respondent attach to their brief minimum turnaround standards, 2 which apparently have been adopted by the city pursuant to 3 ALUO 18 .88 .090 (A) . Under those standards a cul-de-sac may be 4 terminated in a hammerhead shaped turnaround (resulting in a . 5 cul-de-sac that resembles a croquet mallet) , a conventional 6 circular turnaround (resulting in a cul-de-sac that resembles a 7 tennis racquet) or a rectangular turnaround at a right angle to 8 the .cul-de-sac (resulting , in a cul-de-sac that resembles a golf 9 club or a hockey stick, depending on the length of the 10 rectangular turnaround) .4 ; 11 As an .initial . point, we are aware of no statutory, 12 administrative rule or statewide planning goal requirement that 13 cul-de-sacs be limited to 500 feet or that the city impose any 14 limitation on the length of cul-de-sacs. Therefore, if the city 15 wishes to impose a limitation on the length of cul-de-sacs, it 16 is also within the city's discretion to establish in its land 17 use regulations how the limitation is to be calculated. If the 18 city. explicitly provides in its code where to begin and where to 19 stop measuring the length 'of 'a cul-de-sac, this Board likely 20 would be bound to give effect to such provisions .5 However, 4Both the circular and rectangular turnarounds may have parking spaces in the center of the turnaround. As ye understand the city's. minimum standards, there: is no maximum limitation on the length of the parking area included within a. rectangular turnaround, so the effective total length of such a Cul-de-sac (including the turnaround) could significantly exceed 500 feet from the beginning of the cul-de-sac. 51n fact, after the decision challenged in this appeal was adopted and appealed to this Board, the city apparently amended ALUO. 18.E8.050 (A) (6) , but not ALUO 18. 80.020 (11)., . to explicitly provide that the turnaround Page 6 `7M ' I I where, as here, the applicable land use regulations do not 2 explicitly provide how to measure the length of a cul-de-sac, 3 we, like the city, must make that determination applying the' 4 land use regulations as they are written and applying the plain 5 and ordinary meaning of the operative term "length. ' 6 M. City Of 7 -)�P Wawa 106 Or A � Sart, App 594, 597, 809 P2d 701 (1991) 7 In reaching its conclusion that the allowable length of a 8 deadend street is measured under the ALUO by excluding the 9 turnaround portion of the deadend street, the city relied on an 1.0 opinion of the city attorney. That opinion first observes that 11 the question is properly decided by the language of the ALUO 12 rather than by "previous decisions of LUBA or the Courts . " 13 Intervenors-Respondent ' s Brief Appendix C. For the reasons 14 explained above, we agree with that observation: The opinion 15 then quotes ALUO 18 . 80.020 (11) , and concludes that the language 16 of that section, viewed by itself, suggests that the 500 foot 17 limit ;ncl „dpG the turnaround. As explained, below, we agree portion of a cul-de-sac is excluded in applying the 500 foot limitation. If, at the time the subject application was filed Provided that in calculating the 500 foot cul-de-sac�lene ALUO explicitly turnaround is not considered, the city, gth li mitation the However, the ALUO provisions applicable to the schallenq d decision are those that were in effect when the subject application was filed, not . subsequently amended ALUO provisions. ORS 227.178(3) ; Royal i ' ht S is y_ Dn L a4 C0 r.k pp 614, 616-17 77 , 97 Or A �--�� (1989) . � 6 P2d 1312, rev den 308 Or 382 Intervernors-respondent attach to their brief code sections from other jurisdictions that take different approaches in measuring the length" of cul-de-sacs. Although none of those code sections explicitly provide that in measuring the length of a cul-de-sac the turnaround portion of the cul-de-sac is to be 'excluded, we see no reason why a local government could not explicitly provide that the length*be calculated in that manner. Page 7 75 1 with that conclusion as well. The opinion then notes that while 2 ALUO 18 . 80 . 020 (11) was adopted in 1980, the .standards for 3 turnarounds adopted by the city pursuant to ALU0 18.88.090 were 4 not adopted until 1989 . In view of these separately and 5 subsequently adopted. standards for cul-de-sac turnarounds, the 6 opinion concludes cul=de-sacs terminate at the beginning of the 7 turnaround and do not include the turnaround for purposes of 8 applying the .500 foot length limitation imposed, by ALUO 9 . 18 . 80 . 020 (11) and 18 . 88 .050 (A) (6) . The city adopted this 10 interpretation in the challenged decision. 11 Petitioners argue there is simply no sufficient basis in 12. the relevant ALUO language for excluding the turnaround portion 13 of a cul-de-sac from the 500 foot length limitation, and contend 14 the city erred in .doing so in this case. Petitioners, argument 15 . is strengthened in our view by the fact that the turnaround is 16 certainly part of the e - cul-de-sac right of way, .and nothing in 17 the ALUO explicitly provides that the portion of the right of 18 way occupied by ;the turnaround is to be treated differently from 19 the rest of the right :of. way. Again, while we see no reason why 20 the city may not amend the ALUO specifically to provide that the 21 turnaround portion of a , cul-de-sac right of way is to be 22 excluded from the length limitation, the question is whether the . 23 applicable ALUO provisions do so as written. 24 It is possible . to construe the language in ALUO 18.08.700 25 defining cul-de-sac as a road "terminated by- ..a' vehicle 26 turnaround" as providing it is the turnaround that terminates Pagt 8 7 � I (i . e . ends) the cul-de-sac for purposes of measuring the 500 2 foot limitation. To the extent such a construction is possible, 3 it supports the city's interpretation. However, the city did 4 not base its decision on"this language of ALU0 18 .08 .700, . and 5 the limitation imposed by ALUO 18 .80 .020 (11) and 18 .88 .050 (A) (6) 6 suggests a contrary conclusion . ALUO 18 . 80 .020(11) requires 7 that cul-de-sacs "shall terminate with a circular turnaround 8 unless alternate designs * * * are - approved" and ALUO 9 18 . 88 . 050 (A) (6) requires that deadend roads "terminate iu an 10 improved turnaround '* * * . " We believe that in determiriing the 11 length of a .street that terminates "with" or terminates "in" a 12 turnaround, the turnaround portion of the street must be 13 included. . 14 The city's contrary decision relies on the city attorney's 15 opinion, which assigns determinative. weight to the fact adoption 16 of the minimum standards for turnarounds postdated the 500 foot 17 limit on cul-de-sacs provided by ALUO 18 . 80 . 020 (11) and 18 18. 88 .050 (A) (6) . We fail to see how the timing of the city's 19 adoption of such minimum standards for turnarounds is relevant, 20 much less determinative. Presumably, prior to adoption of these 21 standards, circular, hammerhead and rectangular turnarounds all 22 were-permissible, and the dimensions of the turnaround were not 23 directly limited. As we understand petitioners ' argument, prior. 24 to the city's adoption of minimum standards for turnarounds, a 25 cul-de-sac could employ a turnaround of whatever shape or 26 dimension a developer wished, so long as the 500 'foot total Page, 9. 77 rT 1 length limitation, on the street right of way was not exceeded. 2 We understand petitioners to argue the same is true under the 3 minimum turnaround standards adopted pursuant to ALUO 18 .88.090, 4 except that in addition to the' 500 foot total cul-de-sac 5 limitation,_ the minimum turnaround dimensions must be ,observed i 6 and included within the 500 foot total cul-de-sac limitation.6 7 We agree with petitioners that under the relevant ALUO 8 provisions, excluding the turnaround portion of a cul-de-sac 9 right of way from the 500 foot length limitation is unreasonable 10 and .incorrect . The language of the ALUO provides no basis for 11 making such h - a distinction, and the city's decision to the 12 contrary is erroneous . The city may amend the ALUO to achieve 13 that result, but it may not do so by interpreting the relevant 14. code language in a manner contrary to its plain and ordinary 15 meaning. A cul-de-sac street is generally understood to 16 continue to the end of whatever turnaround is provided; it is 17 not generally understood to end at the point the .right of way 18 begins to widen to accommodate' the .turnaround. 19 The assignment of error is sustained. 20 The city' s decision is reversed. 21 6As 'noted above at n 5, ALUO 18.88.050(A) (6) was .amended after the subject application was filed, and we express' no position. concerning the correct manner of measuring the length of cul-de-sacs in planned unit developments under current ALUO provisions. Page, 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I certify that on August 10, 1992 , I served a true and correct copy of this Record of Proceedings by first class mail on the following persons: Douglass H. Schmor, Attorney Brophy, Mills, Schmor, Gerking & Brophy .Attorneys at Law 201 West Main P.O. Box 128 Medford, OR 97501 John and Jean Sully Dennis and Linda Friend Carl and Rosalie Oates c/o Carl and Rosalie Oates 776 Glendale Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Dated August 10, 1992 l �j azz- Paul Nolte, OSB 69129 City Attorney City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 (503) 482-2441 , Ext. 59 (s:\seizz.cos) 79 - emorttudum GREGO� September 30, 1993 Brian Almquist, City Administrator r- (29 ram: Steven Hall, Public Works Director LI�IjECt: Facility Plan, Wetlands Option ACTION REOUESTED: City Council: 1. Conduct public hearing on the attached letter amendment to the draft wetlands option report dated June, 1993 prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 2. Accept or direct consultauit to make conections/clarifications to the proposed wetlands option report. 3. Delay decision on preferred facility plan option until discussions with state agencies are completed. DISCUSSION: John Davis of Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Bob Gearheart of Hydro Resources International will present the draft wetlands facility plan at the public hearing. The draft report amendment was prepared with all consultants involvement, Rob Winthrop, Klaas Van de Pol and myself. At the tune of selection of the preferred facilities plan alternative by Council, Brown and Caldwell will fold the information from the Woodward-Clyde wetlands option report into a final document in concert with Woodward- Clyde. Staff is recommending that no action be taken on the overall facility plan until the completion of discussions with the governor's office, DEQ, ODFW,,OWR, ODA and the local.2050 eon rnittee are completed. It is hoped that these interagency discussions will provide for a better platform to evaluate die proposed options because of the integration of point source, non point source, and water quantity issues. Please bring the original draft facilities plan for your reference. ICI RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is as proposed for Council action with no alterations to the proposal. Q:\sewer\minds\weUrv.menp cc: John Davis, Woodward-Clyde Consultants Bob Gearheart, Hydro Resources International John Yarnall, Westech Engineering John Holroyd, Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers Klaas Van de Pol, Citizen Representative Greg Williams, Citizen Representative Gary Schrodt, Ashland Wetland Coalition Nancy Abell, Ashland Clean Air Coalition encl: W-C Report (9/23/93) Woodward-Clyde W Consultants Engineering a sciences applied to the earth s its environment September 23, 1993 Mr. Steve Hall Public Works Director City of Ashland 20 Main Street Ashland, Oregon Subject: Additional analysis of wastewater management alternatives for, Ashland. Dear Steve: As directed by you at our meeting in Eugene on the 19th of August, the WCC team has performed additional facility planning-level analysis of four wastewater management alternatives. A fifth alternative was added at the request of Rob Winthrop during a telephone conversation on the 20th of August. This letter report contains our findings. To put this letter report in context, I thought it would be worthwhile to describe the evolution of the alternatives over the last few months. As you know, we prepared a report for you in June which evaluated several wastewater management alternatives that included large wetlands, up to 25 acres, as part of the treatment process. In that report we recommended that the City select an alternative, Wetland Alternative B-1,that would meet all DEQ-imposed effluent limits except the limit for phosphorus. At the time, we had reason to believe that DEQ might allow non-compliance with the phosphorus limit in order to retain year-round discharge to Bear Creek. Year-round wastewater discharge is important for the stream because there are times in the summer when the wastewater discharge represents most of the stream flow. Since that time, a couple of events occured that affect the alternatives. DEQ wrote you a letter indicating that the City's wastewater discharge would have to meet all effluent limits and that the issue of maintaining a certain minimum flow in Bear Creek would be dealt with independently. This made our recommendation that the City select Alternative B-1 obsolete. In addition, the City Council requested that an alternative including a very large wetland (75 acres or more) be analysed. At our August .19th meeting in Eugene, we agreed that we would examine a number of alternatives, some new and some old. The old alternatives include Alternative 3A-2 and Wetland Alternative A-1 which were addressed in the June report. The new alternatives are Wetland Alternative B-3 which includes a 75-acre wetland and two alternatives that include a component not previously analysed in detail--a soil treatment system. A soil treatment system was proposed by our subcontractor, Bob Gearheart of HRI, as a way of meeting the discharge limits for phosphorus. Soil treatment systems, sometimes refered to as rapid infiltration systems, use soil to filter out and adsorb contaminants in wastewater. The ®b fl a© 111 S.W.Columbia,Suite 990 Portland,Oregon 97201 • (503)222-7200 • Fax:(503)222-4292 Woodward-Clyde s Consultants Engineering a sciences applied to the earth s its environment alternatives that include soil treatment systems are Wetland Alternative B-IA and Alternative 3A-4. 1. Alternatives analysed Each of the alternatives analysed is described below. All of the large wetlands are assumed to be located at the Hamby Springs site on the east side of Interstate 5. It was agreed at the Eugene meeting that we would use Hamby Springs site, father than the Wrights Creek or Butler Creek sites, because of doubts about the availability of sufficient land at the latter. Alternative 3A-2 This alternative was developed by Brown and Caldwell in the original draft facilities plan. It involves a major upgrade of the treatment plant to provide a filtered and nitrified effluent. A 3-acre constructed wetland would be built, adjacent to the treatment plant, to control effluent temperature. During the winter, effluent would be discharged to Bear Creek via the 3-acre wetland. Because the effluent would not meet phosphorus limits applicable in the summer, it would be disposed of to a 560-acre City-owned pasture irrigation area. This alternative would allow year-round compliance with state standards. Wetland Alternative A-1 This alternative would be similar to 3A-2 in that it would involve a major plant upgrade, would produce a nitrified and filtered effluent, and would dispose of effluent by irrigation of City-owned pastureland in the summer. The 3-acre wetland in Alternative 3A-2 would be replaced by a 25-acre wetland at the Hamby Springs site. During the winter, effluent would pumped to the 25-acre wetland and then returned to the treatment plant for disinfection and discharge to Bear Creek. This alternative would allow year-round compliance with state standards. Wetland Alternative B-IA This alternative would be similar to Alternative B-1 that was considered in the report submitted in June, but with the addition of a soil treatment system. It would include a major treatment plant upgrade to produce a nitrified and filtered effluent, a 25-acre constructed wetland and a soil treatment system. The constructed wetland and the soil treatment system would be located at the Hamby Springs site. The soil treatment system would be used only in the summer to meet the then-applicable phosphorus standards. Effluent would be returned to the treatment plant for disinfection and discharged year-round to Bear Creek. This alternative would allow year-round compliance with state standards. Wetland Alternative B-3 Analysis of this alternative was requested by the City Council. Alternative B-3 would include a plant upgrade to produce a partially-nitrified effluent and a 75-acre constructed wetland at the Hamby Springs site. Effluent would be returned to the treatment plant for disinfection and discharged year-round to Bear Creek. This alternative would probably comply fully with state standards for a few months each year. It would be out of compliance with the phosphorus and possibly the ammonia standards for varying periods each year. 415 �aa p0 111 S.W.Columbia,Suite 990 • Portland,Oregon 97201 (503)222-7200 Fax:(503)222-4292 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Alternative 3A-4 This alternative would be the same as Alternative 3A-2 except that the irrigation system would be replaced with a soil treatment system close to the existing treatment plant. The soil treatment system would be used in the summer months to remove phosphorus from the effluent. The 3-acre wetland would be retained to provide some storage upstream of the soil treatment system, so that the latter could be sized for average rather than peak flow. It would also provide a means of temperature control in the winter months. A pump station would be needed to return the effluent from the soil treatment system to the treatment plant for disinfection. Discharge to Bear Creek would occur year-round. This alternative would allow year-round compliance with state standards. 2. Characteristics and performance of soil treatment system The important new element in the alternatives described above is the soil treatment system. that is a part of Wetland Alternative B-1A and Alternative 3A-4. The purpose of the soil treatment system is to take advantage of the fact that certain types of soil can absorb phosphorus. HRI developed a conceptual design for a soil treatment system, a sketch of which is shown in Figure 1. The soil treatment system would consist of a constructed earth basin filled with selected soil. It would be fitted with an impermeable liner and filled with a shallow layer of gravel covered by about 5 feet of selected clay soil. Laboratory tests performed at Humboldt State University, under the direction of Bob Gearheart of HRI, have shown that Carney soils, found in the Ashland area, can absorb 0.16 mg of phosphorus per gram of soil. (394,000,000 mg per acre-foot of soil). HRI notes that actual in-field absortion rates reported in the technical literature are two to five times greater than the results measured in the laboratory. The size of the soil treatment system, needed depends on the capacity of the soil to absorb phosphorus,the loading rate applied to the system, the rate at which wastewater will percolate through the soil and the desired frequency of soil media replacement. Soil media would need to be replaced when its phosphorus absorption capacity is exhausted. Tests by HRI indicate that the permeability of the soil is not a limiting factor. Thus, with the absorption capacity of the soil known, the size of the facility and the frequency of soil replacement will depend on the phosphorus loading rate. The phosphorus loading rate applied to the soil treatment system will depend on the effectiveness of future source control measures and the upstream treatment system in reducing the phosphorus content of wastewater. Alternative phosphorus loading rates were considered for Wetland Alternative B-lA and Alternative 3A-4. They were labeled most favorable case and less favorable case in the following discussion. Pertinent information on the performance of the soil treatment system is summarized in Table 1 and discussed below. The overall performance of the alternatives with respect to effluent quality is shown in Tables 2 and 3. Oiy �Q(7 it Woodward-Clyde Consultants Wetland Alternative B-IA---most favorable case. This case assumes that both the future source control efforts and the planned upstream treatment system improvements would be very effective in removing phosphorus and limiting the load applied to the soil treatment system. Furthermore, it assumes that future water conservation efforts would limit average daily flow in 2015 to 2 mgd, and that the average daily flow applied to the soil treatment system during the 180-day summer season would be 1.5 mgd. This is because 0.5 mgd of the effluent from the conventional treatment system would be used for golf course irrigation. It is assumed that source control efforts and the upgraded treatment system would reduce the phosphorus content of Ashland's effluent, downstream of the treatment plant,from its present value of 4.3 mg/l to 2.0 mg/l. The phosphorus content of the effluent would be further reduced by 1.5 mg/l in the constructed wetland. The phosphorus content of the effluent applied to the soil treatment system would thus be 0.5 mg/l, and the seasonal load would be 513,000,000 mg, assuming a 180-day application season and an average daily applied flow of 1.5 mgd.. Under these most favorable conditions a six-acre soil treatment system containing five feet of soil would absorb the applied phosphorus load for a period of 23 years. Wetland Alternative B-lA---less favorable case. This case is similar to the "most favorable case", except that it does not assume optimum performance of all elements of the system. It assumes that source control and conventional treatment would lower effluent phosphorus content from the present value of 4.3 mg/l to 4.0 mg/l. A further 1.0 mg/l is assumed to be removed in the constructed wetland. The phosphorus content of effluent applied to the soil treatment system would be 3.0 mg/l. At a flow rate of 2 mgd applied to the soil treatment system the seasonal load would be 4,100,000,000 mg. This assumes that future water conservation measures would effectively limit Ashland's average daily wastewater flow in 2015 to 2 mgd and that none would be diverted upstream of the soil treatment system for golf course irrigation. Based on this set of assumptions, a six-acre soil treatment system, five feet deep, would absorb the applied phosphorus for about three years. Alternative 3A-4---most favorable case. This case assumes that source control and treatment would reduce the phosphorus content of effluent, downstream of the treatment plant, to 2.0 mg/l and that the flow to the system would be 1.5 mgd. A six-acre soil treatment system, five feet deep, would remove the applied phosphorus for six years. Alternative 3A-4---less favorable case. In this case it was assumed that the phosphorus content of Ashland's effluent downstream of the treatment plant would be reduced by source control to 4.0 mg/l and the average flow would be 2 mgd. A six-acre soil treatment system would remove phosphorus for about two years. 3.Estimated costs of soil treatment system Westech Engineering developed a layout and estimated the construction cost for a 6-acre.soil treatment system based on design concepts developed by HRI. The estimated cost of the G4 tM a Woodward-Clyde Consultants system, net of contractor indirect costs, engineering and contingencies, is $851,000. With these factors included it is $1,348,000. The frequency of soil replacement would depend on the phosphorus load applied to the system. Westech estimates the cost of soil replacement at $600,000, including contractor indirect cost and contingencies. Little or no engineering would be necessary. The estimate is based on the assumption that soil borrow and disposal sites are directly adjacent to the treatment system and that trucks and scrapers would not need . to use public road rights-of-way. It is further assumed that there will be no special disposal requirements for spent soil media. 4.Estimated cost of alternatives The estimated costs of all the alternatives described above are shown in Table 4. The present worth estimates for the two alternatives that include a soil treatment system are expressed as a range. The ends of the range correspond with the two cases analysed for Alternatives B-lA and 3A-4. The present worth costs take account of initial capital cost, annual operation and maintanence costs, and the cost of periodic soil replacement, if it is needed. The cost estimates assume a 20-year life for all system components except the soil treatment system media, which would need to be periodically replaced in some cases. A discount rate, or real interest rate, of 4% is assumed. 5.Conclusions Of the five alternatives analysed, only four have the potential to reliably meet DEQ-imposed discharge standards. For this reason, and because of its cost, Alternative B-3 is less advantageous than the others. Alternatives 3A-2, B-IA and 3A-4 would meet the standards at similar present worth costs. The other alternative, Alternative A-1 would be considerably more expensive. Alternatives B-lA and 3A-4 provide the environmental benefit of continued summertime discharge to Bear Creek. Alternative B-IA offers the additional environmental benefits associated with a large wetland. Up to this point in the analysis the three members of the WCC team are all in general agreement. However the views of WCC and Westech Engineering diverge from those of HRI on two related points; the uncertainty associated with the use of a soil treatment system and the need for pilot-scale studies to demonstrate its effectiveness and practicality. Different levels of risk or uncertainty are associated with different wastewater treatment technologies. Adoption of new technologies involves the acceptance of some risk of failure, that the technology may not be able to meet applicable standards and may need to be replaced, or that it proves costly to operate. The longer a technology has been in widespread application the more predictable and less uncertain it becomes. Some of the technologies employed in the alternatives analysed here have been more widely applied than others. The treatment and irrigation elements of the alternatives have been in use for decades. Treatment wetlands are being built at an accelerating rate and have been in service in some locations Ob �a po Woodward-Clyde Consultants for 15 years. However soil treatment systems are an emerging technology, particularly of the type considered here, and have not been widely applied, although this may be because past regulatory requirements have not made them necessary. There are no similar systems operating in Oregon. Although removal of phosphorus to the levels required by DEQ's effluent limits is theoretically possible, only a few of the soil treatment systems described in the technical literature actually do so. Accordingly, WCC and Westech Engineering believe that, if the city chooses an alternative that includes a soil treatment system, it will be assuming a higher degree of risk than if it were to choose a more conventional technology. This view is reflected in Table 5, which summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the five alternatives analysed. The difference in risk between an emerging technology and conventional technology could be reduced, but not eliminated by various testing programs. WCC and Westech believe that if the City chooses an alternative including a soil treatment system, its feasibility and effectiveness will need to be demonstrated in advance of final design, and in order to obtain regulatory approval. Accordingly we would favor additional testing to confirm HRI's findings with respect to soil properties. The soil testing would determine the variability of soil properties in the area from which the media would be obtained, and confirm its permeability and phosphorus absorption capacity. Also we believe that the use of a pilot plant will be necessary to confirm that phosphorus levels can be reduced sufficiently to meet the applicable effluent limits and to establish site-specific design criteria. HRI, believes that there is sufficient evidence of the effectiveness of soil treatment systems and that they should be regarded as no more risky than conventional treatment systems. Also that there is enough information available already to proceed to design without pilot-scale studies. Sincerely, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS a 6hn A. Davis, P.E. OS5 �a ti© Influent i Distribution System i VT LL N s m� (O� N m 3-acre cell- 3-acre cell 'Soil Soil A Media� Media A 1— I Access Collection Road System -- - -- --- - - - - - - -- - -- - --- --- � t � t t t �--► To WWTP Plan it Roadway Soil Media 8' Liner Geotextile Layer Gravel Partial Section A-A Project# CITY OF ASHLAND Figure Fi 92CO806A Sketch of 9 Woodward-Clyde Ashland Constructed Wetlands Soil Treatment System Consultants TABLE 1 LIFE OF SOIL TREATMENT SYSTEM UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS Average Flow Phosphorus Load Life of Media Alternative Case mgd mg11 mg/season years B-IA Most favor 1.5 0.5 5.13 x 108 23 B-IA Less favor 2.0 3.0 4.10 x 10' 3 3A4 Most favor 1.5 2.0 2.05 x 10' 6 3A4 Less favor 2.0 4.0 5.47 x 10' 2 2 ) k q « / \ § k � 7 } e ; § t 7 § Q \ `/ \ � � § � � \ \ \} \ 2 a - a y ) 7 . k CE ) ( \ 0 @d I ) / k } n n \ § ! {] @ 2 2 / B E + r / ) ) ! ( .e a ( ? 2\ § § / \ \ ) ) ) ) } ] ) / TABLE 3 ESTIMATED DISCHARGED EFFLUENT QUALITY IN SUMMER Allowable Effluent Quality (mg1lY Effluent Concentration Wetland Wetland Constituent (mg/1) Alternative Alternative Alternative Present B-lA B-3 3A4 Total Phosphorus 0.08 4.3 <0.08 0.5 - 3.0 <0.08 Carbonaceous BOD 3.00 12.0 2.0 3.0 20 Carbonaceous BOD and Nitrogenous BOD 6.75 92.5 .4.2 15.9 4.2 Ammonia 0.55 18.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 Residual Chlorine 0.025 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Non-compliance with standards is shown in bold characters " Compliance depends on some BOD removed in soil system during summer. 9200806AV'ABIM3 TABLE 4 ESTIMATED COST OF ALTERNATIVES ($ x 106) 3A-2 A-1 B-1A B-3 3A-4 Wastewater Treatment 4.19 4.19 4.00 3.93 4.19 Solids Handling 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 Effluent Irrigation 3.46 3.46 - - - Wetlands 0.29 3.33 3.33 6.53 0.29 Soil Treatment - - 0.94 - 1.24 SUBTOTAL 11.34 14.37 11.66 13.85 9.11 Contingency 2.27 2.87 2.33 2.77 1.82 SUBTOTAL 13.81 17.24 13.99 16.62 10.93 Engineering 2.72 3.45 2.79 3.32 2.19 SUBTOTAL 16.33 20.68 16.78 19.94 13.12 Land 0.90 0.96 0.12 0.15 0.15 Total Capital Cost 17.23 21.64 16.90 20.09 14.27 Annual O&M 0.82 0.93 0.82 0.84 0.76 Av. Ann. Soil Replacement 0 0 0-0.2 0 0.1-0.3 Present Value 27.5 33.3 27.9-30.6 31.3 25.8-28.4 a Assumes all capital costs depreciate over a 20-year life with no salvage value except for land which is assumed to retain its value. A discount rate of 4% was assumed. The discount rate is an estimate of the "real" interest rate, that is the actual cost of money minus the inflation rate. TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Present Worth Meets DEQ Environmental Technological (millions) Effluent Limits Benefits Uncertainty Alternative 3A-2 27.5 Yes 3-acre wetland Low Wetland 33.3 Yes 25-acre wetland Low Alternative A-1 Welland 27.9-30.6 Yes 25-acre wetland. Moderate Alternative B-IA Year-round discharge to Bear Creek Wetland 31.3 No 75-acre wetland. Low Alternative B-3 Year-round discharge to Bear Creek Alternative 3A4 25.8-28.4 Yes 3-acre wetland. Moderate Year-round discharge to Bear Creek Assumes pilot plant testing in advance of final design. Technological uncertainty would be . rated"high" without pilot-plant tests. 92CM&AU"LE05 1. '+GF Aso. °' Aemorandum '.OREGO� 28 September 1993 Council; Cathy Golden, Mayor; and Steve Hall, Public Works Director rIIm: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer)e Ubj9d.- Boundary Line Agreement Mr. Duane Smith has initiated a boundary line adjustment procedure for his lot at 601/611 Siskiyou Boulevard. The property is bounded on the north by the Mountain View Cemetery. Due to the nature of the ancient boundary description of the cemetery, it is impossible to accurately resurvey the boundary between Duane Smith's property and the City's Cemetery. The most equitable solution to this problem is for the City and Duane Smith to agree upon the actual line of occupation which in this case is the fence line. A boundary line agreement form has been prepared and approved by City Attorney Nolte; whereby, the common boundary is monumented and described and each party will adhere to this common boundary. Attached is a copy of the agreement to be signed by the Mayor and Recorder. Also attached is a map of the area showing the location of the boundary agreement line. REQUEST Acquire Council approval of boundary agreement document and authorization for the Mayor and Recorder to sign same. JHO:rs\.mm cc: John McLaughlin Paul Nolte Nan Franklin 7i ` SMITH/CITY BOUNDARY ' Z 20 / 9 AGREEMENT '90" / 91p 8090 81 x ' / g2 / 9°" / / / s ENGINEERING DIVISION 5 18 /f 7/ e 19 13/I 4 X15 16 /17"18 / SEPT. 28, 1993 9L' so " 1 9 20 21 2' RAIN -- - _ - --- �0, r.o '✓ 1g Q9;0-) 0/ 2 /2. , 21 2 / 10 1 1 1 112 812600 �T E Er 1�oa 2g:r— ez47 . 3 040046 105w 45 225 yt a MOUNTAIN VIEW W ;� :'6-- 43 Z4 �{ C E M E T E R Y : 7 W 10799 42 - - - - ° CITY PROPERTY 9 W BLK 241 25 �, JZ2Q(L 40 10 39 26 i a 11 71j _38 BOUNDARY TO BE AGREED UPON 17. 37 ' ,40 \ 131 11100 36 i 1 35 'a •> 1 2181—� 34 15—a 16 33 12800 s 11300 32 34 s _ _ - = SMITH PROPERTY 21 'r s is =° 3'% 31 ! � ' .�.,✓, 1 ♦. a: f I4( J , 29 - - 00° 137 - - _!o 18 '- 21 �s pg 4115Ac °'a, q� 12900 23 3* IF600 115II4 0.12A;- , `e <l°y .i 170022 u701 W -- 27- \7Zoe, In 1 �3� — — — 30 J I 13500 13000 ` 0 23 Q 26 . t a x 13400 SAL, 29 t,'s qo :.. , 4,_ tr,,,,,S L A I N E,..........Y,,,,,.,.S G O 28 13200. 1J ��j /� ".•�` ' .ys'1.. 13100 26 .. SCALE 1° = 100' - 1 25 ASHL 1 ., ... BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of 199 , by and between the City of Ashland, Oregon, an incorporated municipality, hereinafter called City, and Duane F. Smith. WHEREAS, the City owns the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, which is hereinafter called City Property; and WHEREAS, Duane F. Smith is the owner of the real property described�.in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein, which is hereinafter called Smith property; and WHEREAS, there is some doubt as to the actual and legal boundary line between the City Property and the Smith Property; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties hereto to resolve this doubt and clearly establish such boundary line for future reference; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the City does hereby grant, convey, release, remise, and quitclaim to Duane F. Smith, his heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, all of that portion of the City Property which may lie on the Southerly side of the boundary line described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein; and Duane F. Smith does hereby grant, convey, remise, release, and quitclaim to the City, its successors and assigns, all of that portion of the Smith Property which may lie on the Northerly side of the boundary line described in Exhibit "C", thereby establishing said boundary line as the line of division between the two respective properties for all future interests and purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF ASHLAND By Mayor City Recorder Page 1 - BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT 9 AUG- Dudrie . Smith STATE OF OREGON ) > ss. County of Jackson ) 199 Personally appeared before me and who, being duly sworn, each for himself and not one for the other, did say that the former is the Mayor and that the latter is the City Recorder of the City of Ashland, an incorporated municipality, and that the seal affixed to the fore- going instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation and that said instrument was' signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and each of them acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act and deed. Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: STATE OF OREGON ) )xx. County of Jackson Personally appeared before me the above named Duane F. Smith, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed. CGL/ Notary lic for Oregon S JA N. AKERMAN MY commission expires: NOTA2Y PUBLIC -��OREG. O�N My Commission Expires__ , Page 2 — BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT • EXHIBIT "A" Beginning at a yellow pine twenty inches diameter ten chains West of the Southeast corner of South. boundary of Donation Claim No. 42, Township 39, South of Range one ast Willamette Meridian thence West 625 links set post for corner on South boundary of Land Claim No. 42, thence South 8.80 West 696 links set post for corner from which a black oak 10 inches diameter bears South 43 East 43 links, Black Oak 12 inches in diameter bears North 44 East 55 links thence South 8.82 East 625 links to a point from which a white oak 14 inches diameter bears South 553 East 62 links white oak 12 inches diameter bears 61 West 112 links thence North 8 East 790 to place of beginning. Containing 4 64/100 acres. .. EXHIBIT "B" Commencing at a 5/8" iron pin on the Northerly line of Siskiyou Boulevard from which the Southwesterly corner of Lot 32 of HUNSAKER ADDITION in the City of Ashland, Jackson Count, Oregon bears North 56 02'17" West, 12.33 feet (record North 56 13' West), ' said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Westerly line of that tract doscribe$ in volume 154, Page 268, Jackson County Deed Records, North 8 2634" East, 130.63 feet to a 3/4" iron pipe at the Northwesterly eornar of said tract; thence along the Northerly prolongation of said Westerly line, North 8 26'34" East , 31.46 f8ot to a5/8". iron pin witness corner; thence continue North 8 26'34" East, 1.00 foot; thence South 81 11'48" East, 142.88 feet to a 5/8" inch iron pin on the Boundary Agreement Line, or the Northerly prolongation thereof, ' described in Document No. 71-03326 said Official Rocords; thence along South 8849'52" West) tona,5/8 " Iron5pin'; thenceSSouth foot 45r35"rd West, 54.12 test record South 8 49'52" West) to a 5/8 " iron pin; thence South 0 10522" East, 22.64 foot (record South 0000'53" East, 22.63 feet) to a 5/3" inch iron pin on the Northerly line of a 16 foot wide alley also being on the Northerly prolongation of that Boundary Agreement Line described in Document No. 76-04363, said Official Records; thence along said Agreement line and its Northerly prolongation, South 33 52'21" West, 134.27 feet (record 134.00 feet) to the Northerly line 8f Siskiyou Boulevard; thence along said Northerly line North 56 02'18" West, 97.81 feet (record North 56 13' West f to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 24293 square feet, more or less. EXHIBIT "C" Commencing at a 5/8" iron pin on tho Northerly line of Siskiyou Boulevard from which the Southwesterly corner of Lot 32 of HUNSAKER ADDITION in the City of Ashland, Jackson Count Oregon bears North 36 02' 17" West 12.33 feet (record North 5613' West); thence along the Westerly fins of that tract descri ed in Volume 154, Page 268, Jackson County Dead Records North 8826'34" East, 130.63 feet to a 3/4" iron pipe at the Northwesterly corner of said tract; thence along the Northerly prolongation of said Westerly line, North 8 26'34" East 31 46 feet to a 5/8" iron pin witness corner; thence continue North 8626'34" East, 1.00 feet to the T Li rue point of 128innine of the horoaftar doscribed Agreement ne• thence a ongl said Agreement Lino, South 81 11'48" East, 142.88 feet to a 5/8" inch iron pin on the Boundary Agreement Line, or the Northerly prolongation thereof, described in Document No. 77-03326, Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon and there terminating. Cemetarl Proposed 00und*ry line Agreement 1.00 �1 5.07••-. Mft.cor• . . - � m i u \ Darcel B \ Ex et.• \ m8 \Blog- 107.78 jOBB N 7 20 03 3� ee � •67 � ^ Alley '. arcel 2126.02 _ �e ^ EBldg. 'Z .. • � O ry r �0 O J . — 8 18.+Y 0 � LEGEND S�skiyov rL. ry �3522;.N \ ewl�'hand _ PARKING INGRESS/ ' � ' EGRESS .. GF0.f/y4ti Inn Pmarttn � nm . . G4EGO 29 September 1993 �{Q: Mayor Golden, City Council, Steve Hall ruV_m: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer p�1tD;Ptt: Sewer Connection to Property Outside of City Limits REQUEST We have received a request from John Wayne Cooper to connect his home at 300 Clay Street to the City's sanitary sewer system (see attached letter of 21 September 1993). The property, referred to as tax lot 39-1E-11CB-1100, is comprised of 4.78 acres and is contiguous to the City limits along the easterly boundary; however, there is a large 9 acre parcel situated between the Cooper property and the City limits to the south. An immediate annexation of the Cooper property would create an island of unincorporated land to the south. The existing septic system in use on the property is failing and Jackson County Planning & Development has issued a violation notice. Mr. Cooper is able to meet all of the requirements for connection to City sewer facilities as outlined in section 14.08.030. A summary of conditions is as follows: a. Applicant will pay a connection fee of $1,055.00 plus a system development fee of$264.26 upon approval by Council. b. There is an existing sanitary sewer along the west side of Clay Street. C. The applicant has furnished a signed consent to annexation which will be recorded upon Council approval of the applicant's request. d. The land is within the urban growth boundary e. Since the lot is currently smaller than the County zoning (RR-5) would allow, a deed restriction on further subdividing would not be required unless the Council so directs. CONCLUSION The Public Works Department is in support of this request and recommends approval by the Council for connection of the home at 300 Clay Street to the existing City sewer system. JHO:rs\.owRw cc: Dennis Barnts, and John McLaughlin SW. 1/4, SECTION 11, T39S., R.I E.,W.M. IMHUHIANI J`..! M i M3 THIS MAP FOR ASSESSMENT JACKSON COUNTY d TAXATION PURPOSES MAR 2 A SCALE I"• 100 - SEE MAP 391E 11 - EAST.,;r ... .; • MAIN :300 'STREET• coR wv.c•or• 200 I •una aa.oaaw 203 ftI O3Aa I` � • xco•vx ua.• i 034U 600 0}4K •' F �I i 034 5.8 c i 800 F5 034 Ac } l 900 .. 900 uPu .... ..>. . a.a.1 1000 422 .U1.A1 UII AC — ' • ��.� leoo A07m x111100 "oo,Aa � . .. •f;l'I600 " k 1, LOCATION OF. SEWER LINE . Mnn ' �•waw.a�«.H.1 qyY 1• •1-�—a--r-. t .- —a- r—•—�--a-w � .-_a..-. _•.-.—•.—�..tit_. � - I. 'I NeK I .«u 1300 'a �'PROPERTY TO BE SERVED 1P-24001 ■ __,. iP162tl1 1200 RR•5 . . •�J}64 1' � � � 1 I �1' r. `a u.a wa aoa• - VI6 CO R--'. R.�• .•', F"Al REDUCED SCALE b FF 'ttpd� P. O. Box 948 ' ! 5ept���Y`1.1qq�� , 199 Novato, CA 94948-0948 (415)892-0947 Attn: City Council City of Ashland City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Dear City Council Members: I respectfully ask that this letter be placed on the agenda of your next City Council meeting. My bother, Glen Allen Cooper, and I own the property located at 300 Clay Street which is situated on the urban growth boundary of the City of Ashland. The property has been in our family since the mid-1930's. Recently I was noted by the Department of Planning & Development that inadequate sanitation conditions existed on the property. In order to rectify the situation, we are seeking your approval of our request to connect our single-family home with the City sewer system. It is our understanding that we can be supplied with main line to curb line service provided we receive City Council approval, pay connection cost to the City sewer system, and sign a consent to the annexation of the land. We are willing to provide by these provisions. Although I am signing the consent to annexation, we currently are not seeking annexation of our property. Enclosed are the copy of the warning of violation issued by the Department of Planning & Development and the signed and notarized consent for annexation. We hope you will look favorably on request. Sincerely yours, WO),'A C ohn Wayne Cooper JWC:hph Enclosures cc: James H. Olson Todd Miller IRREVOCABLE CONSENT TO ANNEXATION The undersigned, referred to in this document as "Owner" whether singular or plural, owns or is the purchaser under a recorded land sale contract of real property in Jackson County, Oregon, described below and referred to in this document as "the property": See attached Exhibit 'A'. (39-1E-11CB, 1100) In consideration of the City of Ashland permitting the connection of Owner's building sewer from the residence on the property to the sewer system of the City of Ashland, Owner declares and agrees that the property shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions, which shall constitute covenants running with the land and shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the property or any part, their heirs, successors and assigns: Whenever a proposal to annex the property is initiated by the City of Ashland or otherwise, Owner shall consent and does consent to the annexation of the property to the City of Ashland. Owner agrees this consent to annexation is irrevocable. DATED 2 y3 SIGNATUR �( Printed .Nam ohn Wayne Cooper State of 0FEl@6n County of Jain J a Z-,w This instrument was acknowledged before me on �—,2zl-- 1993, by W ! . QPW PHCOMM #953363 E [Z Notary PublioCalifotnia z /MARIN COUNTY NOtB fOr comm.expires FES 03,1996 My commission expires: _ (� Wpi—nin0\ennex.cns) re:ennex.cne - ' WARNING OF VIOLATION Le gal DesGcription:) 7 Address 3 / -- �`� � �( CL7 Owner ef O� �E2 The Jackson County Department of Planning and Development finds the following violation(s)to exist on your property: Failure to Obtain: Other Violations: F1 Building Permit El Woodstove Permit Zoning Mob a Home Permit Sign Permit Build' eptic Permit E) Site Plan Review anitation E] Plumbing Permit El Conditional Use Permit E]Solid Waste Electrical Permit E] Expired Permit [] Non Permitted Use FAILURE TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION MAY RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OFA FORMAL CITATION OR CIVIL ACTION. IF A CITATION IS ISSUED, COUNTY ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT PERMIT FEES BE DOUBLED, IN ADDITION/TO ANY FINE IMPOSED BY THE COURT. Remarks _� Ef-t-%SI l'1f�S 'CI O SA N• t l R�l �c-A 1=A G1 Lt-% IE 5 trJr4T'rcIL tSLV14lL prJ `�'20.�-1 SJ2FAC� Department of Planning & Development Compliance Officer Data LM' edford,South Oakdale Oregon 97501 r7/ LL�fL. -374��3) 776-7554 Y- C I T Y O F A S H L AN D C I T Y H A L L ASHIANO,OREGON 97520 t"Ip"On*(code SM)182-3211 10 September 1993 Mr. Wayne Cooper P. O. Box 948 Novato, CA 94948-0948 Re: Sewer Connection Request- Outside City Limits Dear Mr. Cooper: Attached is a copy of the Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.030 pertaining to sewer service to properties outside the corporate city limits. As we discussed by phone yesterday, your first course of action in the process is to draft a letter to the City Council requesting connection to the City sewer system. Please address as many of the requirements as possible in your letter. Also, enclose a copy of your correspondence with the County Health Office regarding the failing septic system. Attached for your review is the "Consent to Annexation" form which you will be required to sign if the Council approves your request. However, since your property is contiguous to the present city limits, the Council may instead require an immediate annexation. If your property were to be annexed immediately, an island of unincorporated land would be created to the south of you which is not very desirable and the Council may wish to avoid this. The estimated cost for connection to the City sewer systems is: Connection fee $1,055.00 System Development fee 264.26 TOTAL $1,319.26 The current monthly service fee for sewer service is $24.60 for single family homes outside the city limits. - The City Council meets on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month. To be placed on the agenda for any Council meeting, the request must be received one week prior to the Council meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to call at 503-488-5347. Sincerely, amen H. Olson Assistant City Engineer JHO:rs\.w. Enclosures cc: Steve Hall l Dennis Barnts Rosemary Harvey ORDINANCE NO'. c'Jp AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14.08.030 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWER CONNECTIONS INSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 14. 08.031 PROVIDING FOR SEWER SERVICE CONNECTIONS OUTSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH -BOUNDARY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLILND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 14 .08 .030 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read: Sections: 14 .08. 030 Connections - Outside city, inside urban growth boundary. 14 . 08. 031 Connections - Outside urban growth boundary. . 14 . 08 . 030 Connection - Outside CitV, inside urban Growth boundary. Premises located outside the City of Ashland and inside the urban growth boundary may be connected to the Ashland sewer system when such connection is determined by the Ashland City Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's sewage facilities. Such connection shall be made only upon the following conditions: A. The applicant for sewer service pay the sewer connection fee and the systems development charges established by the City Council. (Ord. 1954 S3, 1978; Ord. 2019 S3 , 1979; Ord. 2092 S3 , 1980; Ord. 2147 S1, S2, 1981; Ord. 2263 S3 , 1983 ; Ord. 2316 S3, 1984; Ord. 2322 S1, 1984; Ord. 2449 S3 , 1988) B. In the event dwellings or buildings connected to the sewer system are subsequently replaced for any reason, then the replacement building or dwelling may continue to be connected to the sewer system of the City as long as the .use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by . the Director of Public Works. C. There is an existing Ashland sewer main or. line to which the premises can be connected. D. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the land, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of the land. E. The applicant shall provide for the payment to the City by the owners, at the time of annexation, an amount equal to the current assessment for liabilities and indebtedness previously contracted by a public service district,- such as Jackson County Fire_ District No. 5, multiplied by the number of years remaining on such indebtedness, so that the land may be withdrawn from such public service districts in accord with ORS 222.520 at no present or_future expense to the City. (Ord. 1820, 1974; Ord. 2147 S2, 1981; Ord. 2314 S2, 1984; Ord. 2322 S1; 1984) F. The owner shall execute a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the City. G. The land is within the Urban Growth Boundary. (Ord. 2322 S2 , 1984) Pmarandum DREG September 29, 1993 �Q- Brian Almquist, City Administrator ram: Steven Hall, Public Works Director AxV4 �$ +- UbjPCt: Filter Plant Facilities Plan-Handicap Access ACTION REQUESTED City Council direct staff to include or not include the elevators in the plans for handicap access to plant buildings. BACKGROUND On July 20, 1993, the City Council held a public hearing on the Filter Plant Facilities Plan prepared by CHZM- Hill. The Council approved the facilities plan with a recommendation from Phil Arnold that a "brief addenda on handicapped access" be prepared. Attached is the proposed addenda to the facilities plan. As noted in the addenda, if two elevators were to be added, the estimated cost would be$175,500, and significant physical layout problems would be created. It should be noted that ADA and UBC Accessibility Guidelines do not require elevators in this type of facility.The main portions of the building would be handicap accessible for public tours. RECOMTTENDATION That due to physical constraints in the pipe gallery and adjacent to die chlorine building, as well as the cost, that handicap access be provided to the upper floor of the filter building only. SAIH:rm\Natcr\PltrP1n.hdc cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent Daryl McVey, Filter Plant Supervisor encl: Berg letter w/attachments 1 Mr. Steve Hall Page 2 August 18, 1993 CVO34654.A0.10 3. ADA 4.1.6(l)(d) and UBC 3112(a)4B state that alterations to existing buildings shall not impose greater requirements of accessibility than those required for new buildings, so that the exceptions noted above are again applicable. 4. ADA 4.1.6(1)(k) states that elevators are not required in altered buildings with less than three stories or less than 3,000 square feet.in area, unless the buildings are shopping centers, shopping malls, or professional offices of health care providers. Drawings IA and 2A show an elevator incorporated into the layouts of the proposed-Opera- tions Building. Although the modification is relatively straightforward, we do have a concern in that the existing gallery (basement) with its narrow elevated catwalk, crowded piping, and scattered pumps and valves present a far from friendly environment for handicapped persons and would require extensive modification if operator accessibility was desired. Drawing 5A shows an elevator incorporated into the layouts of the proposed Chemical Build- ing. A concern with this modification is that the staircase enclosure would encroach into what is already an extremely narrow paved area between the basins and canyon wall, thus reducing parking, unloading, and general vehicular areas. We estimate that these modifications to the original layouts would cost an additional $78,000 for the Operations Building and $97,500 for the Chemical Building (these values include 30 percent for contingencies, engineering, and administration). Detailed estimates are attached. Costs for any modifications to the existing gallery catwalk, piping, and equipment are unquantifiable at this time. In summary, we believe that handicapped access and elevators to the lower levels can be pro- vided with little impact on the original layouts but that the additional costs, restricted access to equipment in the pipe gallery, and potential impact on any already crowded site would encourage further consideration. Please review these issues and let us know your decision on the inclusion of elevator access in this project. Sincerely, CKIM HILL Paul Berg, P. . pw/CVOR353/028.51 cc: Daryl McVey, City of Ashland John Cave, CH2M HILL Attachments a ..0e 0 � G A M (7 0 �y M rpO tyy z r�yy • tJ a �6'. on qw 6 CR� y � 8 •/,9! �' az� �aS » Qia n rn �• �-y9 �A'! � y °_ °• 6- 7y 0�-0+ �"" P CEO, to, 051 CA ftl GO 0 °z rwwww rwwr ww r 00, r r r w . . . 's] w "+7 'z7 w '+7 '�7 w w w w ^, p 0 0 U H S O O t O O S O S O S O S 0888 O O r O S '0 ON a O A O O app w u S O O O O O S O O O O O O O O O S O O O C O O S S O O S S p K g 0000 on () � nno 0G0 G0G0G 0G0G0 G oo izuu � o 0 0 0 0 S O ° 000 U w 00 N A 00 OD O O O n C. ° p n • y • ro w 0 �-n • N A A c ^ A O •" O pp W s _ ooso c. 3 8 c. c r ? o �r _ EP A S. y o 5 't7 �^ a r S ro m O O w O O S J S O o cat. O' P _ � H O p✓+ PPP p td W b7 w R w 0000 d d d d o 0 0 0 0 nO b CO N J O O O O y ro N Up O p' �a ro oc N O N ar) 0C ° � w o � v: :1 0' ,CroC � t n Z7 p C. Fn c O p w 9' _ o 7y N N N N F to 1t''1Q y m VJ H p °z r0W w w rV Ar !/ CA N N O\ O O O vAi O O O O O O O O O O O O r p N r pNp � O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O H 0 to O O O O O N 7 . O O O O O O ON N e f� 000 089 (Do X000 . utC uu GpGpCo a uou 0 r 00 V°i W 0o N A O°D W 000 R. O p on O ro m w 0 N t C A Q A �3G Ao tri U.U � � � _ co wo o m � � K m ri t3 �' g pap. g r r r. rAv, v, rA - men r P m @ t'A fA to m m m m m Vi CL �0... e O p pp pO. .may tT y p O O w O O S w O O O �• F �"Fd 6 s"". r ON U Np 7�h yp� �;jpy5. P• p� in twig � S w tz w w w w O O d b d b d N 0 b b b b 000 V O O O O O N 'w N U O O A 0. ro m 00 m N O N 2 n � tL Js< 1 2p a, d IL d 3 Z fit J 'o Q a r � IL � z � w O_ N � r � X 3 � a� w0 - - — — 211 I - ( . �um 3 } � p I < I � I z ID o d � I � 3 I i ?r►i to g I I Q r' z d I vi LLW4 � I 3 Llil I o I Q o ° bl o I 3 Q 100 I -oo 2 0 41 m � �I to 11 IL At �]' UI�� 11C1� -Id�IW3ti'� �o� �cto�d--� J.�t1{`tlWl"13z1� I J n �.Qnls -LNd-id jai-its �IaLdM vNd�Hsd �o 'k N�G"ld 1N'�W'�S`d9 iNawasv� sV vnaOny 7NISV8 N011V,(1�70"td bN1181XH in ,"MVdr Inv .lalYn,S /t3-1� _ Smsvv 17V1NOo 7Hd 40-1v wool! 4L V"3Lad-A^NoJ %1' �/'In�Y 3aia1S 1 'OI` 1 - SNISd4 WOov l No11V-Lrl-Qvw32G 321o.LS I tJNtl.S l x 3 0 0 all 8 r---'f Ld� t adwn� 4dwnd sraaaad nano 1 1 vw wniv vcos Joo, 1 - I 1 1 i '9dld b+lLVf,� 71 a11AW 7N19a1f11 Z1HrIW MV]I 95 9S MnN MHN VIdVI! �y Or— IF f 1►� 1� - g�l Nd'ld �001� N1dW r NMOd i 'l1YafVrNN I 111� 1-- � �t`IIQ"'lln9 a1f.1,VdMe�a' ni Nndo ,n 3n1�o-ittJ '�?JOlS l/y1 �N 91" I `9NISd8 �rn.as Ixa pf9) I i � �Vltvo7 0l Wooer NN`dl I H1al9nt-lo, -n Vd wn-1 V - S tvlsb'9 >1ttiL J.a/IM,C i 91xIVd .NW10,75 � 41X'3 ,lmeLLde ((11---Jl L:==f MON 2laddoH � IM II'ff9/,L�4 'p•iNO.7 ' 1LnV TId W0021 .. ayLMy1 I . 1d�IWaH7 VoO mj ' s~4 9YI4 vafd i 1 2)3G9a1j I vmd %�,w I „Vd �IOW�l41 }-y r Emssj VCOy ' D,NO11VJt U �sl� SNVJ 'waad led w'71r1.s V3ad Q �LVt+.bNVw�led wnlcsvled U10 — . �J pp VI � z ?m vF K f m u' � j J of IL IL OL u u 2 Jrh IL X IL IL F 2 gyp � Q X ] VI Aevc e 2 IL 3 L _ Ems ILL I IL . .4 W O 3 � o W y -f 1 X .X w L 2 W N U � / 2 _ i w 0 / 203 ( I I � p 2 NU W 0 ; 3 1HM8V7 u I 3 i � © i ID 0 4- I Od FL i I I � I d I2= I I — j I Y L l a I ' o � � g din I r u � I o ►� 3 m I u d V U. IL siava 4- _ c F I ° J 3 d ki T IL IF � 41 I OI a i - -.00 n to Lo � of 3 a I 2 } QO( U I I UU v- - - - - - - - - - - - �F T!1 HMI kDM Q„n< WlaH-D Z10=1 -Lclo�d-, J.Qn1s N'v"ld ll�l'�W 3Sb'Q ' 1N3W 35Y9 SV C�S0��21 ' S NISV9 N011V'1nv00"ld hN1151X3` ' adld \V 313�Ibd5 21M >INd1 do J.�lzlcrtS SNISVg 1'7�/1N0� �b'd �1NV.L tNOO21 - 1 4l Q�1213ANO' �o Wn�d '32IO1S i - SNI5r1� �1` I N011`d1t`I'3 W ICf 3S WooZl tjNllSiX� 321o1S T ii ' � ❑ 00 11 adwnd sdwnd xanaa3d Aano I I r V3ad Q33d NS`.' 21004 I I I od'd wnnv boos 2ioo-Id L_-_.I. .12J'a1�b� I I + I 1 f 1 I -s.JW 21'3LVM balsw -.?N14bn.L 2MAIW MV721 9^i MHN - MON Cldba! '�7 � n y -11k721VfiUH hNIQ'IIC7Q 219djvd Or 3�`1t-do�F10 I l SNISb� rjN11SIK� ��” �H91xO19) I V1NO� 01 WoozJ >lr4vy i 312ial�NO� [M) w NMOQ > - St`IISH4'l `alaxlw � .NWIpgS �INVL J.aams j �r'aa'IbO1'^ I - h1X3 i ! 1 217vvV"1 T �.N1nX+HM � .—. .—.—. doHS>1�lOM AvM�nvrvl . 'k/NOLLdO I O �� MON 2}9440}{ � SLx1Vd �NW.'�al-igb HSV WoS �e��.J// M Ya89�41�5 'IOxLLNOJ 1/V0021 Jv1M I LSnV 7Vd ❑ 21000 ZIVdTNYtlL 1`d71W�H7 boo-I.d Svsad i xo� Man I xl3vaad i Ttbd I �13WJ. OO LA 11dc7 1 u LIli vssd �ZI� SNV7 'V1219d 1od ' W'3.LSJ.S Q39d 3i-11N.•SoNbwa�sd wMSSY.LOd j ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING THE CREATION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ENTITY KNOWN AS THE OREGON MUNICIPAL ENERGY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . Pursuant to ORS 190. 085, the governing body of the City of Ashland ratifies the creation of an intergovernmental entity, to be known as the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency (the "OMEGA, " by an Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement (the "Agreement") with the City of Forest Grove, the City of Milton-Freewater, the Springfield Utility Board, the City of Monmouth, the Canby Utility Board, and the City of Bandon. Section 2 . The agreement shall be effective upon execution of all parties. Section 3 . The public purposes for which the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency is created are pursuant to ORS Chapter 190 to provide for cooperation in the management, acquisition and operation of Conservation Projects through a single, centralized entity which can issue non-recourse revenue bonds and coordinate conservation activities. It is intended that OMECA will issue tax-exempt revenue bonds for Conservation Projects payable solely from revenues received from BPA under the Conservation Project Acquisition Agreement. Section 4 . The powers, duties and functions of the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency are specifically set forth in Section 4 of the Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of 1993 , and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1993 . Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1993 . Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1-OREGON MUNICIPAL ENERGY AND CONSERVATION ORDINANCE(p:\o,&0MecA.om) EXHIBIT A INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGRFIA ENT BETWEEN CITY OF FOREST GROVE, SPRINGFIELD UTII=BOARD, CANBY UTILITY BOARD, CITY OF ASHLAND, CITY OF MILTON-FREEWATER, CITY OF MONMOUTH, AND CITY OF BANDON, AUTHORIZING JOINT OPERATION AS THE OREGON MUNICIPAL ENERGY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY. This Agreement is made and entered into by and among City of Forest Grove, Springfield Utility Board, Canby Utility Board, City of Ashland, City of Milton-Freewater, City of Monmouth and City of Bandon all Oregon municipal corporations (jointly referred to herein as the "Member Utilities"). RECITALS A. The Member Utilities desire to enter into this Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement (the "Agreement") to provide for the creation of an intergovernmental entity to be known as the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency. B. .The Member. Utilities acknowledge that they have authority to execute this Agreement pursuant to the powers of their respective municipal charters and pursuant to ORS 225.250 and ORS 190.010. C. City of Forest Grove has adopted Ordinance No. _, Springfield Utility Board has adopted Ordinance No. _, Canby Utility Board has adopted Ordinance No. _, City of Ashland has adopted Ordinance No. _, City of Milton-Freewater has adopted Ordinance No. _, City of Monmouth has adopted Ordinance No. _and City of Bandon has adopted Ordinance No. _, which ratify the creation of the intergovernmental entity described herein. These ordinances are attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is.agreed by.and between the Member Utilities hereto as follows: 1. Establishment and Duration. Pursuant to ORS Chapter 190, an intergovernmental entity to be known as the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency ("OMECA") is hereby established in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be perpetual unless terminated pursuant to Section 16 hereof. 2. Definitions. Words, terms and phrases which are not specifically defined in this Agreement shall have the ordinary meaning ascribed to them in the municipal utility context unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the plural number include the singular, and words in the singular include the plural. The word "shall" is mandatory and not merely directory. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following words, terms and phrases shall mean: PAGE 1 - Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement "Agreement" means this Intergovermnental Cooperation Agreement entered into by the Member Utilities. "Board" means the:Board of'Directors of OMECA appointed pursuant to Section 5 hereof. . "Bond Resolution" means the Bond Resolution, if any, of OMECA pursuant to which OMECA authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds payable solely from revenues received from EPA. "BPA" means the United States of America Department of Energy acting by and through the Bonneville Power Administration. "Conservation Project Acquisition Agreement" means the Conservation Project Acquisition Agreement, if any, pursuant to which OMECA agrees to implement certain Conservation Projects and EPA agrees to acquire certain energy savings from OMECA and to pay all debt service on any revenue bonds. "Conservation Projects" means increases in efficiency in electric use, production or distribution, or the direct application of a renewable resource, which is expected to result in load reduction. "Member Utilities" means the municipal utilities set forth on page 1 of this Agreement. "OMECA" means the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency created pursuant to ORS Chapter 190 and this Agreement. "TAC" means the Technical Advisory Committee created pursuant to Section 7 hereof. 3. Declaration of Public Purpose. This Agreement is entered into by the Member Utilities pursuant to ORS Chapter 190 to provide for cooperation in the management, acquisition and operation of Conservation Projects. This Agreement is designed for the public purpose of providing a single, centralized entity which can issue non-recourse revenue bonds and coordinate conservation activities. In particular,-this Agreement is entered into to provide for the creation of OMECA, an intergovernmental entity. It-is intended that OMECA will issue tax-exempt revenue bonds for Conservation Projects payable solely from revenues received from EPA under the Conservation Project Acquisition Agreement. To the extent that the Member Utilities desire to expand the purposes of OMECA to include other projects, this Agreement must be specifically amended pursuant to Section 15 hereof. 4. Powers. OMECA.shall have the following powers: a. To purchase, construct, or acquire Conservation,Projects, or any interest therein; PAGE 2 - Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement b. To establish a Board for the acquisition, construction, operation, management, and control of matters referred to herein; c. To adopt bylaws to govern its internal management; d. To issue, sell or otherwise dispose of bonds, securities, or other forms of indebtedness for the purpose of carrying out any of the matters permitted by these powers and to finance all costs of issuance related thereto; and e. To perform pursuant to ORS 190.003-190.250(the "Act") all powers pursuant to the Act, applicable charters, ordinances, and state or federal laws, which are necessary to efficiently operate, maintain, and expand its conservation projects, including the power to issue revenue bonds under ORS 288.805 to 288.945. 5. Board Membership. The Board shall consist of one representative from each Member Utility. 6. Terms of Office. Upon the execution of this Agreement, each Member Utility shall appoint one Board member.,. The initial term of such Board members shall expire January 1, 1996. Thereafter, each new Board member shall be appointed by each Member Utility for a term of two (2). years. Board members may be reappointed to succeeding terms. 7. Technical and -Advisory Committee. There is hereby created a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the review and recommendation of activities, policies, financial and operational requirements and staffing communications with others and governmental regulation of OMECA. The TAC membership shall consist of one representative from each Member Utility. Upon the execution of this Agreement, each Member Utility shall appoint one TAC member. The initial term of such TAC member shall expire January 1, 1996. Thereafter, each new TAC member shall be appointed by each Member Utility for a term of two (2) years. TAC members may be reappointed for succeeding terms. 8. Vacancies and Substitution. Each Member Utility shall have unilateral authority to fill a vacancy or substitute another person for such Member Utility's Board member or TAC member position. Any person appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the unexpired term. Persons appointed pursuant to this Section 8 may be appointed for a regular term pursuant to Section 6 hereof. 9. Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary-Treasurer. At the fast meeting of the Board, the Board shall elect a Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary-Treasurer to serve until January 1, 1996. Thereafter, a Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary-Treasurer shall be elected for a term of two (2) years. - a PAGE 3 - Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement J 10. . Conflict of Interest Board and TAC,members shall be public officials subject to the provisions of ORS Chapter 244. No person shall serve as a member of the Board if a business with which that person is associated, as defined in ORS 244:020(2), has any interest in conservation projects to.be undertaken by the OMECA. 11. Meetings/Ouorum.. Regular meetings of the Board shall be conducted at such times as the Board may designate in accordance with Section 17 hereof. The Chair upon his or her own motion, may, or at the request of two,(2) members of the Board, shall, by giving notice to members of the Board, call a previously unannounced special meeting of the Board for a time not earlier than twenty-four (24) hours after the notice ig given, unless an emergency exists. In cases of an emergency, notice reasonable under the circumstances shall be given. Two-thirds (2/3) of the Board shall constitute a quorum. No action will be taken by the Board unless a majority of the Board approves such action. 12. Description of Assets. There are currently no assets of OMECA. It is contemplated that OMECA will acquire assets in the form of revenues received from a bond financing pursuant to a Conservation Project Acquisition Agreement with BPA and a Bond Resolution. 13. Debts of OMECA.. No debts of OMECA shall be incurred without the approval of the governing bodies of each of the Member Utilities. There are currently no debts of OMECA. It is anticipated that OMECA will not incur any debts or liabilities under the Conservation Project Acquisition Agreement or the Bond Resolution with BPA and that BPA will be solely responsible for the debt service payments on any bonds issued by OMECA. 14. Expenditures. No funds of OMECA shall be expended except upon the vote of the Board and in furtherance of the purposes of OMECA; provided, however, that expenditures within the limitations of the Board approved budget may be made by the Secretary-Treasurer. Additional authorized signatures shall include the Chair or Vice Chair, in the event the Secretary-Treasurer is unable to perform. The Board shall institute a system to assure compliance with Local Budget Law., 15. Withdrawal/Amendment Provisions. . The terms of this Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the governing bodies of the Member Utilities for any purpose including, without limitation, the addition or deletion of Member Utilities, and the provision of renewable generation facilities and energy delivery services. Any such amendment shall be in writing and shall refer specifically to this Agreement and shall be executed by the governing bodies of the Member Utilities.. 16. Termination and Dissolution. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by a unanimous vote of all Member Utilities. Upon approval of termination by the Member Utilities, the Chair of the Board shall direct that an accounting of assets and liabilities be conducted and presented to the Board and to the governing bodies of the respective Member Utilities. The Member Utilities shall thereafter meet and agree upon an equitable distribution PAGE 4 - Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement _.of any assets and liabilities;i which'may-include a reserve account-for.contingent, unliquidated or unforseen liabilities or obligation: If.the Member Utilities"aaze Enable to agree on the division of assets and liabilities, the Circuit Court of Marion County shall have jurisdiction to decide the issue. 17. Public Records and Meetings. OMECA shall comply with all applicable requirements of ORS 192 concerning public records and public meetings. 18. Compensation. expenses. The members of.the Board and TAC shall receive no compensation for services provided as Board or TAC members except for reimbursement of actual and necessary travel and other expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. 19. Effective Date: This Agreement shall be effective immediately upon execution. 20. Written Notice Addresses. All written notices required under this Agreement shall be sent to: City of Forest Grove City of Milton-Freewater P.O. Box 326 P.O. Box 6 Forest Grove, OR 97116 Milton-Freewater, OR 97862 Springfield Utility Board City of Monmouth P.O. Box 300 151 W. Main Springfield, OR 97477 Monmouth, OR 97361 Canby Utility Board City of Bandon P.O. Box 1070 P.O. Box 67 Canby, OR 97013 Bandon, OR 97411 City of Ashland OMECA 20 E. Main Street 1286 Court Street NE Ashland, OR 97520 Salem, OR- 97301 21. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement, but this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions had never been contained herein. 22. Modification. No modification of this Agreement shall be invalid unless in writing and signed by the parties hereto. PAGE 5 - Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement J 23. Governing Law. . Thise Agreement shall..be�construed in accordance;with and governed by the laws,of the State of,Oregon. : Any action regarding this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby shall,be brought in an appropriate court in the County of Marion, Oregon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands as of the _ day of 1993. CITY OF FOREST GROVE CITY OF MILTON-FREEWATER By: By: Title: Title: SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BOARD CITY OF MONMOUTH By: By: Title: Title: CANBY uTnxrY BOARD CITY OF BANDON By: By. Title: Title: CITY OF ASHLAND By: Title: PAGE 6 - Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement a,N•,,,y City of Ashland < ° OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 20 E. Main 5treet Ashland, OR 97520 I RE60� •' CATHY GOLDEN - - MAYOR (503)482-5211 September 27, 1993 Mr. Robert T. Jacobs Interagency SETS Team Leader Bureau of Land Management P.O. Box 3623 Portland OR 97208 RE: Soda Mountain Wilderness Area Dear Mr. Jacobs: The Ashland City,Council, at its regular meeting on September 21, 1993, voted unanimously to restate its long-standing support for the establishment and continued protection of the Soda Mountain Wilderness Area near Ashland. In 1985, and again in 1986, the City Council wrote letters to BLM requesting such a designation for the 32,000 acre area we endorsed to be set aside as a Wilderness Area. The BLM eventually designated a portion of this larger tract as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA). In addition, the Ashland City Council supports the changes to Option 9 recommended by the Soda Mountain Wilderness Council Board, which recommends that this area should be designated as an LS/OGI ecologically significant area with boundaries as described in Option 1. The Reserve Area should also reflect the management prescription as described under Option 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Catherine M. Golden Mayor - Go1Jrn�UAL.Iv Office of the City Attorney City of Ashland (503) 482-3211, Ext. 59 MEMORANDUM October 5, 1993 TO: The Mayor and City Councilors FROM: Paul Nolte SUBJECT: Activity Report for September 1993 The following is a summary of the major activities I was involved in during the month of September. Your feedback is welcomed. Administration: ♦ Sent letter to attorney for Ski Ashland advising him of the DEQ requirements regarding the leak detection equipment at Mt. Ashland ski facility, which must be installed by December 22, 1993. ♦ Reviewed and commented on latest draft of employee handbook. ♦ Met with staff regarding several employee problems. City Recorder: ♦ Sent letter regarding a delinquent assessment. Council: ♦ Drafted fifth goal for WWTP alternatives to reduce odor to the greatest extent practicable (exercising fiscal responsibility). ♦ Prepared an evaluation format for evaluating city recorder. Finance: ♦ Reviewed Oregon Paging Contracts for Purchasing. ♦ Reviewed revised version of Liberty Northwest/Helmsman contract. Parks: ♦ Worked on draft of lease for use of Billings' property for golf course. Planning: ♦ Reviewed as to form the electronic mail communication network agreement between Building and Duane Hussey &.Associates. ♦ Reviewed final intergovernmental agreement concerning joint conservation bonding (Oregon Municipal Utilities Association). ♦ Worked with staff on.affordable housing agreement. Police: ♦ Met with CSO regarding an illegal Bed and Breakfast. Report to Mayor and City Councilors October 5, 1993 Page 2 Public Works: ♦ Sent letter to Rodda Paint making a demand for $11,652.50, the city's actual out-of-pocket costs to remove the paint originally applied to curbs. (Paint did not adhere properly.) ♦ Met with staff/counsel to discuss broken water line problem on property containing deed from the 1890s. ♦ Prepared new contract with Brown & Caldwell for services for odor control project at the WWTP. ♦ Provided council with options pertaining to easement at Nutley Street near park. Pending Litigation: ♦ Furnish v. City of Ashland - Involved a teenager who jumped off a railroad embankment back in 1988. Before Presiding Judge Deits and Judges Riggs and Durham the Court of Appeals on September 21, 1993, affirmed the trial court decision in our favor without opinion in this matter. The city was allowed costs totaling $229.60. ♦ Strait v. City of Ashland - Settlement conference was rescheduled for October 14, 1993, in Jackson County Circuit Court. Depositions/interviews from several employees/council members were held last week. Municipal Court Cases with Attorney Representation: ♦ Seven criminal cases this month involved preparation by my office in order to prosecute. One was continued to October, one was resolved through plea negotiations, two were resolved through diversion, two cases went to trial, and one case was a "no show" resulting in a warrant for defendant's arrest. Other Related Activities: ♦ Attended 'Writing to Win - The Secrets of Successful Legal Writing" video replay. WORKS IN PROGRESS: ♦ Amend Woodward-Clyde contract per recent proposal. ♦ Provide Public Works with interpretation on water service outside city limits. W\counciAreport.993) COMPARISON OF ANNUAL ELECTRIC UTILITY COST & PROPERTY TAXES AS OF 10-1-93 ELECTRIC CITY TAX LEVY 1992 1000 KWH 92-93 $100,000 GRAND RANK POP. CITY UTILITY MONTHLY ANNUAL RATE VALUE TOTAL ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 17,910 ROSEBURG PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 8.76 876.00 1,536.84 2 15,150 COOS BAY PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 8.48 848.00 1,508.84 3 7,515 COTTAGE GROVE PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 8.23 823.00 1,483.84 4 9,945 ASTORIA PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 8.22 822.00 1,482.84 5 34,125 ALBANY PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 7.98 798.00 1,458.84 6 111,575 SALEM PGE 53.33 639.96 8.14 814.00 1,453.96 7 7,055 SWEET HOME PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 7.88 788.00 1,448.84 8 15,395 PENDELTON PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 7.60 760.00 1,420.84 9 18,085 KLAMATH FALLS PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 7.53 753.00 1,413.84 10 458,275 PORTLAND* PACIFICORP/PGE 56.91 682.92 6.97 697.00 1,379.92 11 118,370 EUGENE CITY OWNED 45.28 543.36 8.33 833.00 1,376.36 12 11,890 LAGRANDE OTS * 51.40 616.80 7.46 746.00 1,362.80 13 10,145 HERMISTON PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 7.01 701.00 1,361.84 14 6,090 LINCOLN CITY PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 6.93 693.00 1,353.84 15 8,365 REDMOND PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 6.91 691.00 1,351.84 16 6,050 SILVERTON PGE 53.33 639.96 7.03 703.00 1,342.96 17 45,470 CORVALLIS PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 6.72 672.00 1,332.84 18 11,110 LEBANON PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 6.72 672.00 1,332.84 19 8,675 NEWPORT CLPUD 56.72 680.64 6.44 644.00 1,324.64 20 16,810 OREGON CITY PGE 53.33 639.96 6.49 649.00 1,288.96 21 19,550 MILWAUKIE PGE 53.33 639.96 6.42 642.00 1,281.96 22 9,760 NORTH BEND PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 6.12 612.00 1,272.84 23 9,555 ONTARIO IDAHO 48.10 577.20 6.93 693.00 1,270.20 24 11,370 THE DALLES PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 5.98 598.00 1,258.84 25 14,005 WOODBURN PGE 53.33 639.96 6.18 618.00 1,257.96 26 9,300 BAKER CITY OTS 51.40 616.80 6.30 630.00 1,246.80 27 10,950 GLADSTONE PGE 53.33 639.96 5.85 585.00 1,224.96 AVERAGE 52.23 626.76 5.86 585.76 1.212.52 28 8,790 TROUTDALE PGE 53.33 639.96 5.64 564.00 1,203.96 29 9,730 DALLAS PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 5.30 530.00 1,190.84 30 45,765 SPRINGFIELD CITY OWNED 44.35 532.20 6.46 646.00 1,178.20 31 8,195 CENTRAL POINT PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 5.08 508.00 1,168.84 32 49,900 MEDFORD PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 5.01 501.00 1,161.84 33 31,885 LAKE OSWEGO PGE 53.33 639.96 4.89 489.00 1,128.96 34 72,210 GRESHAM PGE 53.33 639.96 4.44 444.00 1,083.96 35 18,120 GRANTS PASS PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 4.11 411.00 1,071.84 36 40,350 HILLSBORO PGE 53.33 639.96 4.09 409.00 1,048.96 37 58,785 BEAVERTON PGE 53.33 639.96 4.06 406.00 1,045.96 38 16,640 TUALATIN PGE 53.33 639.96 4.05 405.00 1,044.96 39 17,670 WEST LINN PGE 53.33 639.96 3.80 380.00 1,019.96 40 5,625 PRINEVILLE - PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 3.55 355.00 1,015.84 41 5,480 SEASIDE PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 3.41 341.00 1,001.84 42 24,715 BEND PACIFICORP 55.07 660.84 3.24 324.00 984.84 43 19,175 MCMINNVILLE (1) CITY OWNED 30.26 363.12 6.10 610.00 973.12 44 17,320 ASHLAND* CITY OWNED 57.60 691.20 2.60 260.00 951.20 45 9,565 CANBY (1) CITY OWNED 42.12 505.44 4.36 436.00 941.44 46 14,010 FOREST GROVE CITY OWNED 39.45 473.40 4.44 444.00 917.40 47 6,635 MONMOUTH CITY OWNED 37.50 450.00 4.10 410.00 860.00 48 7,700 ST. HELENS PGE 53.33 639.96 1.84 184.00 823.96 49 5,630 MILTON-FREEWATER CITY OWNED 40.00 480.00 2.84 284.00 764.00 ASHLAND IN RELATION TO AVERAGE +10.288 -55,618 -21.55% --Includes Utility Users Tax l-Increase anticipated after 10/1/93;undetermined at this time. 0-1- lcbwft 1) l SOSC ED-NET TEL :503-552-6628 Oct 05 93 15 :34 No .001 P .01 ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL ASHLAND CABLE ACCESS COMMISSION Study Session Wednesday, October 6, 1993 SOSC Library 7:00 8:30 pm PROPOSED AGENDA 7:00 - 7:05 pm - Welcome & Introductions Mayor Cathy Golden Commission Chair Tim Bewley 7:05 - 7: 30 pm - Presentation of National Award Plaque from Alliance for Community Media by Pete Belcastro 7:08 - 7: 30 pm - PARTNER OVERVIEW (Brief) Chair Report, Tim Bewley City Administrator's Comments, Brian Almquist SOSC Report, Mark Chilcoat & Kevin Talbert Ashland Comm. Hospital, Peggy Cockrell Ashland Public Schools, Eric Jorgenson Chamber of Commerce, Public Representative, Suzy Aufderheide DISCUSSION ITEMS 7: 30 - 8: 15 pm NEW CHANNEL ALIGNMENTS Channels 9, 30, 31r 32 TCI CABLEVISION - A Changing Relationship Contract Compliance Master Control Requirements & Changes PEG Access Fee Corporate Responsibility REGIONAL STRATEGIES Jackson County Commissioners Commission Regional Cable Regulatory Interconnect Channel Intergovernmental Agreement City of Medford KSYS Public Television BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS Operating Budget Engineering Requirements 8: 15 - 8: 28 Council Feedback Post-It" brand tax transmittal memo 7671 #nt ws"' 8: 28 _ ???? Action Items T, ^ Fran i 1v i 8:30 Adjournment C1 " SOSG Dept, ptwm R FBI R J Faa R ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL ORDER 93-16 TO: All Personnel FROM: Chief Gary E. Brown RE: Sergeant. Promotion DATE: October 4 , 1993 I am pleased to announce that effective October 11, Officer Lisa Brooks is promoted to the rank of Sergeant. Lisa was highly recommended for promotion by. the independent panel as result of the recent testing process. The police management team welcomes Sergeant Brooks as its newest member. The panelists commended Lisa for her communication skills, being a quick thinker, her personal development, being totally prepared, enthusiastic, people skills and her overall presentation of herself, among other attributes. Wish Sergeant Brooks well with her promotion and please provide her the necessary support in her new role for her and the organization to be successful. Thank you. Gary E. Brown Police Chief cc: Mayor/City Council City Administrator Personnel' File(s) ``,'Of AdH�Q � Pmarttn � ixm '•.�4E0��.•' October 5, 1993 �Q- Brian Almquist, City Administrator r 1 ' \ ram: Steven Hall, Public Works Director ,$ubjErt: 1993 Water Year, General Update Vv V ACTION REQUESTED None, just good news!!!!! Or, maybe, the same order for next year. INFORMATION This has been a gnat year for our water supply! I have attached the now famous (or infamous) water graphs for Ashland Creek and Reeder Reservoir through the end of September. We have starW supplying Ashland Creek water rights with Reeder Reservoir water and, as of September 30, we are at about 88% full while under maximum drawdown we would be about 55% full. Ashland Creek seems to be leveling out just a wee bit below the 17-yeas average flow at the end of September. October and November will give us a good indication of the amount of groundwater recharge in the watershed. Right now, I would say I was a little pessimistic about groundwater recharge. This fall and winter, the Water Department crew hopes to repair some leaks in the East and West Fork Dams and complete the last two small sections of the 30" line from the Forks to Hosler Darn. Activities in other areas have kept them from completing the 30" line. In addition, they have installed new decking on Hosler Dam and are in the process of installing new guardrail. The decking is expanded steel and should provide for a much safer work area on top of the dam. cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent encl: Reeder Graph Ashland Creek Graph (r:Water\93Rcpo.mem) C REEDER RESERVOIR VOLUME MARCH 1993 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%- : 90%-.?............................... .............. ................ ............------------------- .............. ...................................................... ........... 80%-4 -------- ------------ ................. ......... .................... ............................................................. - ----- ........................... .. ............................................... ............. LL60%.. ................... ...... ...... ............................................................................ .. .................... ------ .................................... ................ 50%--i...............-....... . .........................-------- ....................... ............... .............. ....... ----------------------------........................ rr40%-. ........................ ................................................................................................. ............ ............................................. ................ Lu 0%- . ................... .................................. ...................... ................................... a_ 3 . ............... ........... ............................. ......... .................---------------------------- -------------------------- ........................... ----------.................. ........ ...... .............. 10%- .. . ....... ............................ ........................................ ....................... .......................................... ---....... 0%- 03/01 04/10 5/30 07/20 69/10 110/301 2/'2'0 02/10 DATE --m— Theoretical Actual CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND CREEK FLOWS Q 25 0 20 .......................... ............................. ..................... z O J15-............................................... . ............................................................................................................................................. .... C7 z O10 ........ .................. ...................... ........................!........................... ............. . ........................ _ .............................. _ ..................... J J_ - z5 ...... ..... ....... O J LL 0 JAN MAR MAY JUL . SEP NOV DATE _F AVG 1976-1993 + 1993 - 1992 i