Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0805 Council Mtg PACKETCouncil Meeting Pkt. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN CITY RECORDER CITY OF dkSHLAND II. IlL IV. V= VI. VII. VIII. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 5, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2003, and Executive Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2003. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: 1. Mayor's Declaration to Commemorate Hiroshima Day (August 6) and Nagasaki Day (August 7). CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Approval of Oregon Department of Aviation Intergovernmental Agreement Ashland Municipal Airport 2003 Statewide Airport Pavement Maintenance Program. 3. Termination of a Portionofa Public Utility Easement at 531Scenic Ddve. 4. Liquor License Application from Beasy Bob, Inc., dba Beasy's on the Creek. 5. Interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Regarding Ddve-up Uses. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject ora Land Use Appeal. All headngs must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting.) 1. Public Headng regarding an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance - Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and Amending Section I1-C-3a(2) of the Site Design and Use Standards. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) COUNCIL MEFJINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US IX. XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Public Art Placeholders in the Gateway Island. 2. Mount Ashland Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 3. Informing Public About Forest Fires near Ashland. 4. Quarterly Financial Report. 5. Ashland Fiber Network Quarterly Report. ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and Amending Section II-C-3a(2) of the Site Design and Use Standards." OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS: Xll. ADJOURNMENT: 11 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this ~ meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- II 2900). Notification 72 hours pdor to the meeting w#l enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIl_ MEETINGS ARI:' BR( AD(AS] I.I~, 1-, ON CIIANNEI, 9 VIS1T TItE CITY OF ASItLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHI,AND.OR.tJS MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL July 15, 2003 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:26 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 17, 2003 were approved with one correction: Page 3, the last sentence under Sandra Slattery - removal of "(approx. $30,000)". SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Ross Finney to the Conservation Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2005. 3. Liquor License Application from Karen Stacy dba Jazbo's Lounge. 4. Termination of Three Water Pipeline Easements in Oak Knoll Meadows Phase III. 5. Memorandum regarding Fireworks Use Within the City of Ashland June 23 through July 6, 2003. 6. Approval of Easement Agreement for Delsmans' Irrigation Access to Ashland Flume. 7. City of Ashland/Benjamin Stott Land Exchange. Councilor Hartzell requested that Consent Items #1, 4 and 5 be removed for discussion and clarification. Councilor Hearn requested that Consent Item #7 be removed for discussion. Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #2, 3 and 6. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Hartzell posed a liason question in regards to the Historic Commission minutes, asking the Mayor if there was going to be a separate contract for the facing on the library remodel. Mayor DeBoer clarified that it will be a separate contract. The City Administrator will start working on that soon, including preparing costs and making a presentation to the Historic Commission. Councilor Hartzell also pointed out that there are going to be meetings to discuss the goals and future direction of the airport, and asked that the citizens be notified of this information. Councilor Hartzell/Morrions m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #1. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. In reference to Consent Item #4, Paula Brown clarified for the council that this easement was started in 1915, and a change in property owners promted this old easement to be terminated. Councilor Hartzell/Amaroticom/s to approve Consent Agenda item #4. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Fire Chief Keith Woodley reported on the incidents that took place on the 4~ of July. He relayed that they were busier this year than last, and that 2 of the fires that broke out had the potential to take homes. He also stated that it costs approximately $250 each time a fire engine responds. Unrelated to the 4th of July activities, John Schuyler, Acting District Ranger, clarified that the Horn Gap fire appeared to have been started by a lightening strike. Councilor Hearn/Laws m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Barry Katzen/29 Scenic Drive/Spoke regarding Consent Agenda item #7. He feels that his personal safety is in jeopardy when acccessing and leaving his property. He is concerned that the developers are requesting this land swap to further develop their driveway, which in his opinion would create signifigant safety concerns. Public Works Director Paula Brown stated that this land swap is necessary for the City to create a new right of way line that is an extension of the existing right of way to the East. She clarified that the approval of this consent item would not automatically allow the developers any driveway access, and any requests from the developer will still have to be approved by the Planning Commission. It was noted that Katzen would have the opportunity to voice his concerns with the Planning Commission, and now that the Council was aware of his concerns, any requests to develop the driveway will be closely evaluated. Councilor Morrison/Jackson mis to approve Consent Agenda item #7. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS (None) PUBLIC FORUM William Mansfield/408 S. Oakdale, MedfordE, poke as a representative for Wes Brain who was arrested on charges regarding his participation in a recent protest. He stated the Police Dept. came to Mr. Brain's place of business three days after an incident took place, and arrested him without a search warrant. Mr. Mansfield questioned the City's policy of arresting people when it is not necessary. He stated that there are three reasons as to why an individual should be taken into custody: 1) an arrest warrant has been issued, 2) the arrest is needed to remove an immediate danger, or 3) the person is a serious risk of flight. He stated that his client was none of these, and respectfully asked that attention to be given to this issue. Wes Brain/298 Garfield/Spoke about his wrongful arrest and the embarrassment sustained as a result. He stated that the charges placed on him were dropped after 3 V: months in court, and the video taken the day of the incident proved his innocence. He stated that this video would be televised on July 16th at 6 p.m. on channel 9. He challenged the council to put themselves in his shoes, and asked how they would feel if they had been wrongfully arrested at their place of business and slandered in the local newspaper. He requested a public apology, and to tell our police force to not harass him any further. Paul Copeland/462 Jennifer/Spoke on issues regarding treatment of homeless, youth, etc. by the City Police Department. He feels that it is necessary to have a policy or guidelines for how arrests are being handled, especially during demonstrations. He also suggested a review of the policy of when to take people into custody. Fred Caruso/Spoke regarding health care services and how much the Oregon Health Plan had been cut. He questioned whether the City would consider participating in providing health care services. He felt that it would be a benefit to local businesses and low-income households. He also suggested a warning device on non-motorized vehicles for safety issues. Erie Naviekas/711 Faith Avenue/Stated that if you don't like Ashland, you should leave. Made several statements regarding the destruction of icons. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. An Ordinance Correcting a Clerical Error in the Ordinance Levying Property Taxes (Ordinance No. 2897) and Declaring an Emergency. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained that this is a proposed ordinance to correct a typing error on the previous approved Ordinance #2897. Ordinance was read in full for first reading. Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve moving ordinance to second reading. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES. Motion Passed. Ordinance was read again for the second reading by title only. Councilor Laws/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance # 2899 under emergency conditons. Roll Call vote: Hearn, Morrison, Jackson, Hartzell, Amarotico and Laws, YES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal Code Section 6.28.035 by revising Regulations Applicable to Pedicabs." Amendments to the ordinance were read aloud by Paul Nolte, City Attorney. Councilor Amarotieo/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance # 2898. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Hearn, Morrison and Jackson, YES. Motion Passed. 2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution setting Public Hearings for Assessments to be charged against Lots within Three Local Improvement Districts: I) Central Avenue Local Improvement District No. 80; 2) Penny Drive/Palmer Road Local Improvement District No. 81; and 3) Helman Street Sidewalk Local Improvement District No. 82." It was clarified that this resolution will set the final hearing date, and will also set the final cost for the three LIDs. The question was asked as to whether LID's normally take this long to complete. Mayor DeBoer pointed out that there was supporting information regarding the timeline of this project in the packet provided. Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution # 2003-27. Roll Call Vote: Jackson, Morrison, Hearn, Hartzell, Amarotico and Laws, YES. Motion Passed. 3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Amending Resolutions 2003-12 and 2003-13 Delaying the Start Date of the Utility Rate Increases from Cycle 1 to Cycle 3." It was noted that on the resolution under Section 1 at the end of the sentence, the "3" was missing after Cycle. Councilor Morrison/Hearn m/s to approve Resolution # 2003-28 with correction as noted. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Morrison, Amarotico, Jackson, Laws and Hearn, YES. Motion Passed. 4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan to the Telecommunications Fund." Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 S/Spoke regarding the interfund loan. He feels that if the council approves this loan it would be a violation of the state law stating: a debt service fund cannot allow interfund lending. He also questioned the amount of money being spent for AFN. Finance Director clarified that the Wastewater Fund is an enterprise fund not a debt service fund, and does not violate state law according the Oregon Budget Law. He stated that AFN is paying offcurrent loans and that this issue will be revisited again in 90 days. Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2003-26. Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Morrison, Laws, Jackson, Hearn and Hartzell, YES. Motion Passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS It was noted that City Administrator Gino Grimaldi was absent due to his attendance of the City Manager/Administrator Conference. Councilor Jackson commented on two projects the Public Arts Commission would like to pursue. Also commented on the requests she had received from citizens on the speeding violations observed. Suggestion was made to use a reader board to slow traffic. Councilor Morrison commented on the speeding being done by the large construction trucks on Helman and Wimer Street. Morrison also relayed that he had received several compliments on how nice Ashland Street looks. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Office of the Mayor Alan ~. DeBoer August 5, 2003 City Council Meeting Mayor's Declaration to Commemorate Hiroshima Day (August 6th) and Nagasaki Day (August 7th) Every year on August 6, the city of Hiroshima holds a Peace Memorial Ceremony to pray for the peaceful repose of the victims, for the abolition of nuclear weapons, and for lasting world peace. During that ceremony, the mayor issues a Peace Declaration directed toward the world at large. As long as the need persists, Hiroshima's mayor will continue to issue these declarations calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. This is part of Hiroshima's effort to build a world of genuine and lasting world peace where no population will ever again experience the cruel devastation suffered by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let us hope that the horrors inflicted on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, 58 years ago, will never again be visited upon future generations. Every person can move the world in the direction of peace through their daily nonviolent choices. Ashland, as a member city of the Mayors for Peace, continues to promote peace and strive for a wodd without nuclear weapons. The annual Peace Vigil, organized through Peace House, is being held on the downtown Plaza from 11 a.m. on Wednesday, August 6th until noon on Saturday, August 9th. Alan DeBoer Mayor of Ashland City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street · Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 · Email: awdb@aol com ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 12:07 p.m. ATTENDANCE City Council: Laws, Hartzeil and Jackson were present; Amarotico, Morrison and Hearn w~re absent. Staff.' John McLaughlin, Community Development Director and Ann Seltzer, Communication Manager. I. Economic Development Action Plan Community Development Director John McLaughlin briefly explained that the information provided will assist the council in the development of a process for the creation of the Action Plan. McLaughlin presented to the Council a plan reflecting how to proceed with the Economic Development element. He suggested: t) contract a consulting firm to update socioeconomic data necessary for decision-making, 2) appoint a broad-based committee to review data and information, 3) utilize the committee to develop an action plan for addressing strategies, including the allocation of the Transient Occupancy Tax revenues, 4) Appoint Transient Occupancy Tax Committee to review current allocation and recommend modifications as part of the 2004-05 Budget Process, and 5) Update the Economic Element of the Comprehensive Plan. McLaughlin mentioned that there use to be an Economic Commission that was active in the mid-80s, bringing businesses to town. But due to political changes, the commission was disbanded. The funds were primarily appropriated to the Chamber of Commerce and it has been that way ever since. McLaughlin also relayed that Ashland has developed a reputation for not being open to business. He mentioned Ashland's high standards, and said it was a difficult process with no incentives. He did however say that despite our reputation, Ashland has a healthy economic base. McLaughlin explained that ECONNorthwest would be made aware of our needs when responding to a Request for Proposal (RFP) in order to meet the analysis requirement. He stated that this firm has worked on other projects in the community and would be familiar with our economy. Jackson stated that she would like to see work on implementation policies and that she liked the shorter schedule. She questioned whether there should be more of a marketing element. She also said that she did not want to impose on the Planning Dept, but was hoping the Council would take the lead, and focus on supporting our local economy. McLaughlin clarified that there is no set timeline, and there is no pressure from the state to complete the statistical update. Updating the background data would only be for the Councils' benefit. Hartzell said she would be satisfied with updating and bringing the updated information to the element. She stated that the goal should be to revise the element, and questioned how successful we've been with the element so far. McLaughlin commented that he felt that the element has been successful thus far, and the City is growing in a way that brings more people to the valley. He did question whether we have produced the right mix of jobs, stating that the majority was created in the service industry. Hartzell commented that #5 "the recommendation of the committee would go to,~c,~s~Z~ first", may n~edm I to be modified. ~t~L ~ Laws commented that he was anxious to see the updated data, and to see if any new trends have developed. He said he was completely opposed to any aggressive marketing with the exception of AFN. He doesn't feel that this is what Ashland needs or wants, as jobs are being created without aggressive marketing. He said the efforts to market have usually not been successful. Stating that the only successful incidents have been because they were able to offer subsidies, which in the long nm did not pay off. Laws said he would like to continue to help businesses already established in town to be successful. He noted that part of the concern to update the element came out of the Transient Occupancy Tax allocation. He stated that the Chamber is doing something now, but we don't know what exactly they are doing, or if it is successful. He would like to see something measurable on what the Chamber is doing and how it is being perceived. Jackson expressed a need for someone to assist new businesses through the process and that we should not discriminate against non-locals who wanted to start a business here in Ashland. She sees this timeline as being workable, and notes the need to have the updated data before the TOT is discussed. Ashland City Council Study Session Page 1 of 2 July 16, 2003 It was noted that the cost for the study would be approximately $10,000-$15,000. Mayor DeBoer noted that the new Housing Coordinator could be helpful in gathering certain information when working on the update to the Comprehensive Plan. As council liaison to the Chamber, he would try to bring more information forward to the Council. He explained how he would prefer putting this project off for two years, noting several large projects including Affordable Housing and the Charter Review. He feels that there are things that the City can do now that would not require additional expenses and excessive time. He expressed the need to utilize our current staffto assist in answering questions and portraying the right image to potential businesses. He supported the TOT proposal presented by Councilors Laws and Hartzell, and reinforced that Council is taking on too many new things without first completing some of the other projects. Jackson requested that more specifics be provided before putting this off. She expressed the need to have a balance between jobs and housing in Ashland. She does not support the idea of utilizing the Housing Coordinator to head up the investigation to gather economic data. Jackson would like to have a specific implementation plan, and stated she would still like to know more specifics about what the Chamber is doing on this issue. She expressed the need to see the dollars from the TOT spent on something besides tourism and for a certain amount of information gathered before the TOT allocation can be updated. Hartzell acknowledged the need to be aware of staff workload, but feels the Council could move forward with issue without putting a huge strain on the Planning ConmUssiun. She noted what she feels is a strong relationship between the Affordable Housing Project and the Economic Development Plan. She also expressed the need to develop target goals with the Chamber of Commerce relating to how their TOT dollars should be spent. Hartzell would feel much more comfortable having an expertise group or ad-hoc committee formed instead of passing it on to everyone else. She feels that we can accomplish this goal without spending a huge amount of money, and feels that some of the money from the TOT could be used to fund this proposed cormmttee. Mayor DeBoer acknowledged Hartzell's comments, but posed the question "after the final report has been produced, are we willing to provide funding to assist businesses coming to town?" He expressed the need for a warm, productive environment that will accept new businesses, but he does not think the taxpayers want the Council to give new businesses a tax break. DeBoer mentioned the only thing that he would change is having a team of individuals, or someone on staff that will help carry prospective businesses through the process, and wants to see a different attitude from the Planning Department. Jackson expressed that Ashland does not have the room or the desire for big businesses that would be seeking tax breaks. She would like to grow small businesses in our community, and feels the study is necessary to identify what some of these businesses are. Laws stated that he is not worried about SOREDI, as they are akeady working on bringing in new businesses. He supports waiting for one year and leaving the TOT as is. He suggests that a sit down be scheduled with OSF, Chamber, and SOREDI to reach a consensus on which direction to head. He agrees that the element needs to be redone first before developing a strategy and TOT, but feels that the Council may be rushing things. Jackson supports using a broad based committee to develop ideas, and would like the updated information to be used for implementation strategies. Hartzell stated that the Council would need to review the existing plan, obtain new information, and update their understandings. She supported the assembly of a diverse Ad Hoc Committee. Hartzell offered to head up developing a proposed makeup for a committee and present it to the Council. Mayor stated he had no problem developing a comnnttee for the TOT tax, but that the Economic Development Plan should be a separate issue. Mayor expressed that looking at the Charter Review is a more important issue than the Economic Development Plan. Laws commented that if the Council withholds funds from OSF and the Chamber, their relationship with these primary organizations could be damaged. Council agreed that this is a discussion that needs to be revisited when the entire Council can attend. Meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Ashland City Council Study Session Page 2 of 2 July 16, 2003 ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION June 9, 2003 4:30 - 6:00 PM MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Absent: Staff Present: Frank Betlejewski, Richard Brock, Stephen Jensen (Chair), Anthony Kerwin, Bill Robertson Elizabeth Crosson, Jo Anne Eggers Pieter Smeenk, Chris Chambers, Kieth Woodley, Marty Main (Consultant) I. CALL TO ORDER AT 4:38 PM II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 28, 2003 minutes approved as submitted. Commission would like more abbreviated minutes in the future. m. PUBLIC FORUM: No comments. IV. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: The following items were discussed in order A. Inclusion of new wording based on Public Input as listed on the to-do list handout. 1. Prescription Fire Section (Frank): 1N PROGRESS, WILL PROVIDE TO NANCY... Remaining questions: Maximum size 4" vs. 6". Main recommended 6". Cost impacts: Woodley suggested $500-$600/acre 2. Increase the percentage of untreated areas for wildlife (Tony) IN PROGRESS,... Tony indicated description would be general, not unit by unit. Description would be areas to be used for retention. 3. Amount of DWM (Richard) IN PROGRESS Jensen sought two different paragraphs to be inserted in different places. Main suggested one describing the Historic and Current conditions and a second paragraph describing the "Desired Conditions." 4. Incorporate Howard Heiner's goal (Steve) IN PROGRESS The wording needed is clear and would be inserted in "Goals" on page 5. 5. Tie this proposal in with the Forest Plan (Frank) IN PROGRESS Costs are outdated and need to be updated. He planned to include a description of differences in goals, for example regarding fuelbreaks and removal of the quarry. 6. Fuel breaks (Tony) 1N PROGRESS 7. USFS coordination (Liz) IN PROGRESS B. Discussion on Separation of the Lower Parcel from the Winbum Parcel Motion (Brock): Concentrate on the Lower Watershed to expedite action this year. Put Winbum Parcel on hold until a prospectus is created that can lead to a bid. C:\WINDOWS\TEMp~IUN 9.doc Second: none. Discussion: Bill & Frank felt that planning work on both areas at the same time would not impede implementation in the fall. Main expressed concerns about rapidly disappearing opportunities in the lower watershed. Opinions varied from other commissioners. Clarifying Motion (Jensen): Retain Winbum Parcel in the Planning scope of work until such time as it is determined that both areas cannot be accomplished before next fall. Planning work would continue on both the Lower Watershed Parcel and the Winburn Parcel in parallel, but the implementation phase work could be separated or phased if it is determined that inclusion of the Winbum Parcel work would impede progress on the Lower Watershed implementation this fall. Second (Frank). All voted in favor C. Bill Hick's Contract Update - Woodley Woodley indicated that a contract for $10,000 has been signed and work is underway to assess the slopes behind the Water Treatment Plant. Brock requested that the slope risks be reevaluated based on the fact that the Water Transmission line between the dam & the water treatment plant has been scheduled for relocation in the roadway in the near future. Woodley confirmed that this was underway. D. 2003 Phase II Fund Availability - Chris Chambers Chambers indicated that $113,000 out of $115,000 of this year's budget has been expended to date. Next year's budget has been verbally approved but is subject to federal budget approval and relies on receiving grants that have yet to been formally approved. E. Forest Commission Budget Update - Woodley Woodley reviewed & summarized budget handout (attached) F. Commission Sponsored 4th of July Booth Commission decided to forgo separate booth this year but possibly include some commission materials in the AFD booth instead. Woodley indicated that space could be made available. V. OTHER BUSINESS None. VI. REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING A. Next scheduled meeting was set for Wednesday, June 25, 2003. VII. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:05 PM C:\WINDOWS\TEM pUUN 9.doc ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION June 25, 2003 4:30 - 6:00 PM MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Absent: Staff Present: Frank Betlejewski, Elizabeth Crosson (Vice Chair), Stephen Jensen (Chair), Bill Robertson Richard Brock, Jo Anne Eggers, Anthony Kerwin Nancy Slocum, Pieter Smeenk, Keith Woodley, Marty Main (Consultant) I. CALL TO ORDER AT 4:32 PM II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 9, 2003 minutes were not available for approval. In. PUBLIC FORUM: Bill Gates, a new resident on Morton Street, introduced himself and wanted to observe a meeting. IV. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Public Hike Update - Robertson reported that ten very diverse members of the public hiked to Units H, J and D1. Betlejewski estimated that 10-15% of the Douglas Fir in these areas has died. Motion: Robertson moved that the Chair contact the City Administer and City Councilors to personally invite them on a hiking tour. Crosson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Woodley meet with John Schuler, acting Forest Ranger beginning July 7. He suggested inviting him as well. He will email the commission a bio. The outreach subcommittee will meet immediately following the meeting. Crosson asked Slocum to submit hike information to Jeffnet's calendar of events. Discussion and Vote on Inclusions to the City Forest Lands Restoration Project Draft - Jensen reviewed the commissioner submissions to date. The commission commented on Betlejewski's submission on prescribed fire. Robertson would like the sections personalized as "we the commission." Crosson commented that there needs to be a sentence clarifying terms such as "underbuming" and "prescribed bum." Crosson would also like to clarify that pretreatment is needed before prescribed C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~JUN 25.doc underbuming. Commission discussed burning 7" branches versus using an on-site mill. Jensen encouraged the commission to have all drafts ready by the next meeting. He wondered what's next. Woodley said the City Council would be expecting economics of the project to be addressed. Main said that after the prescription is finished on each unit, he needs to develop a cost for helicopter logging and come up with a cost per unit. He is optimistic that he could have this by the end of summer or beginning of fall. Jensen asked if staff had enough time and money to work with the commission on finishing the proposal. Woodley said yes, but he was unsure about implementation of the proposal. Woodley spoke to the City Administrator about the project. The feedback was the project must be rational, reasonable, incorporate community's values and be economically feasible. Woodley acknowledged the commission's sense of urgency, but stated there were many difficult and complex hurdles to overcome before implementation began. V. OTHER BUSINESS None VI. REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING A. Next scheduled meeting was set for Wednesday, July 9, 2003. VII. MEETiNG ADJOURNED AT 5:50 PM C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~3UN 25.doc Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission June 19th, 2003 Regular Meeting Minutes Roll Call Knickerbocker, Rewcastle, Beaudoin, Catron, Baxter, and Chapman were present. Nutter arrived at 6:00 p.m. Dan Masi from the Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and Steve MacLennan of the Ashland Police Department (APD) were also present. Call to Order Chapman called the meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. Approval of Minutes The minutes of May 15th, 2003 were approved as presented. Public Forum None. Chapman introduced new members Brad Knickerbocker and Lexi Rewcastle. Knickerbocker noted that he had been an Ashland resident since 1989. He added that he is a journalist and frequent traveler and that he walks and bicycles daily. Rewcastle discussed her past service on the commission, noting that she had left to complete her master's degree. She added that she had organized the recent Bike Swap. Members introduced themselves to the new appointees. Start Time & Attendance Catron noted that he valued his time and he would appreciate it if meetings could start promptly. He emphasized that members should make an effort to be on time, but the meetings should start on time in any case. He suggested that if making it by 5:00 were too difficult, members should consider changing the meeting start time to 5:15 p.m. After discussion noting that several members were unable to arrive by 5:00 due to work schedules, it was generally agreed that 5:15 p.m. would be a better option. Catron/Beaudoin m/s to change future meeting start times to 5:15 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Hanis asked if members would prefer to designate an end time as well. Chapman explained that the general understanding has been that the meetings are to be two hours. There was discussion of the history of past meetings, and it was agreed that no set meeting end time was necessary. Rewcastle/Beaudoin m/s to remove the time allotments for each agenda item from the agenda. Voice vote: Ail AYES. Motion passed. Crosswalk Enforcement APD Officer Steve MacLennan noted that there had been 34 stops and 18 citations generated from the last crosswalk enforcement effort. He added that 2 of these had been dismissed at~er review of the tapes. He also pointed out that there had been 22 citations issued for failure to yield for the month, and 177 speeding violations and 27 crashes. Chapman asked about increasing the use of volunteers to lessen APD staffing requirements. MacLennan responded that the needed staffing is to have officers to make stops. Chapman offered to help more if possible. Chapman discussed his experience volunteering for the enforcement effort last month. Catron questioned how fines are used, and MacLennan explained that they are split between the city, the county and the state. MacLennan pointed out that the overtime costs for these enforcement operations are paid by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Bike Swap Rewcastle reported that the profit from this year's event was approximately $1500, and she pointed that this was about half of the amount earned in previous years. She added that the event seemed fairly well-attended, and that she was in the process of reviewing things with the accountant. 2003-0515_Bike Min.doc Page I of 5 Rewcastle noted that she hoped to prepare a manual for conducting the event by next September, assuming that the comnmssion will have some role. She noted that there were questions around how to handle things financially and legally, and she questioned whether it might be worthwhile to create a non-profit entity to handle the event. She also raised the questions of where to hold the event in the future and what the goal of the event was to be. She noted that many people were disappointed that boats weren't included in the event this year. She concluded that she would like to hold a meeting in September to look at the next event. Catron suggested that the use of the word "swap" may confuse some people and asked that some way to clarify this be considered. He also stated that he would like to see better control of access at the entrances and exits. Catron commended Rewcastle on her efforts. Baxter emphasized that he was very happy with a $1500 profit given the timeframe that was involved. He reiterated that this was a smaller scale event and that $1500 profit was huge. He indicated that future events with more time to plan could be expected to earn much more. Catron added that in addition to the profit, the event put bikes in the hands of those who could otherwise not afford them. Chapman agreed that the event was important to the community, but he stated that he would like to distance the event from the city. Hams suggested that it may be more appropriate to prepare a separate non-profit to conduct the event due to the advisory role of the commission. She emphasized that fundraising is outside of the scope of the comrrassion's charter. She added that another reason is the potential conflict with Oregon budget law. Harris noted that the fundraising issue had become a problem for the Historic Commission with the Lincoln statue. She added that the city's involvement in fundraising can tend to confuse people. She suggested that from a legal and a marketing standpoint, a non-profit foundation would be justified. Hams also pointed out that the commission cannot enter into contracts or appropriate funds, and that the commission's role is set as an advisory body to the council. She also explained that city staffing levels do not accommodate the necessary accounting to handle events such as the Bike Swap. She provided examples of the Heritage Foundation arising out of the Historic Commission and the Ashland Schools Foundation being created from the School Board as examples of similar situations. She suggested that the commissioners consider forming a separate non-profit entity, and she noted the need for separate liability insurance. Baxter noted that Bike Swap funds could be mn through the Ashland Schools Foundation to get the money back into the school programs. Rewcastle noted that Susan Bacon would be a good contact person with whom to discuss this possibility. Baxter suggested that Siskiyou Velo might also be interested in being involved. Hams pointed out that the commission could still serve as an event sponsor and provide some assistance with advertising costs, but there would need to be a separation for involvement beyond that level. Catron suggested that mom advanced planning would help. Chapman questioned how the Oregon budget law issues would apply to the commtssion acting as, or hiring, a fun(kaiser for the BTA program. Hams emphasized that the comrmssion could not hire anyone or enter into contracts. There was discussion of how to separate from the commission and form a non-profit, and it was noted that the non-profit could not be a function of or tied to the city. Catron suggested forming a subcommittee. Harris clarified that members could look at this issue informally, but the formation of the non-profit could not be "commission work" and could not be a commission decision or occur on commission time. She reiterated issues of Oregon budget law, that the commtssion cannot enter into contracts, and that any non-profit formed would need to carry its own liability coverage. Rewcastle reported that she had returned the petty cash used to make change at the Bike Swap to the city, and added that she had spent $209 in city funds from those allocated as part of sponsorship by the commission. Baxter suggested that the meeting in September be a volunteer meeting to discuss how to move ahead from here. Rewcastle stated that she would contact the Schools Foundation to gauge their interest in being involved. Bike Lanes on North Mountain Avenue Chapman explained that the Traffic Safety Commtssion (TSC) had decided to move ahead with these bike lanes at the request of a citizen. He noted that some parking would be lost on one side of the street, but he also pointed out that neighbors were notified of the 2003-05IS_Bike Min.doc Page 2of5 upcoming change and no one had objected. Chapman pointed out that the intersection of East Main Street and North Mountain Avenue is three lanes and will not accommodate the bike lane. He added that City Engineer Jim Olson was proposing m merge bikes into the sidewalks due to the number of children riding in the area. Harris and Chapman questioned the wisdom of diverting bikes to the sidewalk, and Chapman suggested that Hams speak to Olson about current state standards for these situations. Rewcastle suggested, and both Baxter and Beaudoin agreed, that the conmUssion express support of the state guidelines and avoiding the use of the sidewalks at this intersection. Beaudoin/Baxter m/s to direct staff to forward the recommendation to the Traffic Safety Commission that they follow Oregon state guidelines for the bike lane design at North Mountain Avenue and East Main. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Commission Vacancies & Combininfl Commissions Chapman noted that the commission is now full, and there are two additional applications on file for people who have expressed an interest in serving on the commission. Harris recounted the recent history of the discussion of combining with the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) for new members and those who may have missed a meeting. Harris explained that she had a few proposed dates for a joint meeting with the TSC, and she asked whether 7:00 p.m. on June 300` or July 7a worked better for members. Harris asked members if they were interested in pursuing these discussions further, and reminded members that the final decision to combine the commissions would be up to the city council. She suggested that if there is interest, members of both groups should get together for discussion based on their experiences and opinions in order to prepare a recommendation to council. She concluded that staff would draft ordinance changes for council consideration based on the meeting outcome. Rewcastle asked that the agendas of both commissions be looked at closely. Catron agreed and suggested that he thought the combined comrmssion's agenda could be cumbersome. Harris noted the similar missions of these two cormmssions' missions in the charter and municipal code and emphasized that the long term plan of the city is to develop a multimodal transportation plan. She added that staffing efficiencies could be gained through combining that would allow items to move forward more quickly. She explained that the TSC has some more power to get concrete things done, such as the bike lanes on North Mountain Avenue, and she suggested that this might even improve if any overlap between the two commissions were eliminated: Beaudoin referred members to the previous staffmemo outlining the benefits and concerns related to combining commtssions. Harris added that the council had briefly discussed this at a recent meeting and there seemed to be some interest. After some discussion, members expressed a general preference for a meeting at 7:00 p.m. on June 30th, with July 7th as a possible, but not preferred, alternative. Chapman added that another option would be to seek greater power for the Bicycle & Pedestrian comn:Ussion. Rewcastle questioned when Chapman was planning to leave the commission. He responded that this commission's role is to encourage bicycling and walking, and his interests are more oriented toward the TSC except that the TSC does not consider bicycles and pedestrians as much as he would like. He explained that this is why he would prefer to combine commissions, and he added that if the two did not combine service on both comrmssions would get to be too much for him. Catron pointed out that this group had helped get the pedestrian enforcement actions underway, and he suggested that this was an important accomplishment. Bike Safety Education/Safe Routes to School Chapman pointed out that this has been an ongoing agenda item for at least two years. Harris directed members to the letter received from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA), and she reminded members that the commission had approved $1250 for the BTA to teach bicycle safety in three local schools. She added that this was matched by the TSC. She explained that with staff changes in the BTA, the program was only being presented in one school. She questioned if members wanted to pay the same amount as was agreed upon for three schools. She pointed out that the BTA was requesting full payment, and noted that she needed to know with the approaching end of the fiscal year. 2003-0515_Bike Min. doc Page 3of5 Catron asked whether the work done was worth the full amount. Chapman explained that the commission had become involved in the program again due to the failure of BTA, and that after the commission came up with the funds to get the program back under way the BTA has not fulfilled its obligations. Chapman clarified that the BTA has done one third of the work and continues to request full payment. Catron suggested that perhaps only one third of the funding is deserved, but he asked what this would mean for next year. Harris reminded members that the Middle School may be interested in a stand-alone program, which is what the program was originally designed to be. Catron suggested that money seems to be the only issue now. Harris added that she did not feel that the commission could pull all funding at this point. Catron/Reweastle m/s to give one third of the funds to the BTA and to communicate the reasoning behind this decision to them in a letter. Discussion: It was noted that the Bike Swap funds were dedicated to bike safety, but that this was not necessarily earmarked for BTA. Harris clarified for Beaudoin that no payment has been made to BTA yet. Knickerbocker questioned whether this recommendation was to be directed to the Community Development Director or the TSC. Harris stated that the TSC was currently unaware of the situation, but she added that she would pass on background information along with the commission's recommendation. Baxter noted that funding for the fall cannot come at this time. Rewcastle recognized the need for a discussion of the future of the program. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Beaudoin noted that communication with Lynn Reynolds was needed to determine what had been discussed with Ashland Middle School. Beaudoin added that he feels the Middle School is the best site for classes and he also feels there is interest on the part of the school. He suggested that the Middle School just does not want to have the program micro-managed by BTA. Chapman recommended that a commission member take the lead on getting this program in place at the Middle School, and he questioned the status of Reynolds's membership given her absence from recent meetings. At Baxter's request, Dan Masi from RVTD noted that they have an interactive bus education program for K-6 and Middle School students, and he suggested that the bicycle safety classes could be combined in as a component of this program. He added that RVTD has already established good working relationships with valley schools, and he recommended combining the programs for an all-day event combining a bicycle class and a bus class. Masi noted that Doug Staples is the instructor, and he added that he also contracts for the BTA. Masi added that he could request a memo addressing the possibility of combining the programs from Matthew Barnes. Rewcastle stated that splitting the presentation into two classes would address concerns over class size and was a good idea. Nutter asked how often each school is visited. Rewcastle noted that she found the Middle School to be the easiest target to reach the most students, but she added that it was also the least effective in terms of changing habits and attitudes. She explained that younger students were more impressionable and more likely to take what they learn to their parents. Masi pointed out how enthusiastic students are about the interactive bus. Catron questioned whether the intent was to have something in place by this September, and he indicated that a decision would be needed by the next meeting. Chapman noted that Vice Principal O'Malley was the person to approach at the Middle School. Baxter asked what RVTD is doing and what they are proposing. Nutter questioned how many visits there would be in Ashland. He also asked how many classes were involved and how long they would be. Catron suggested that this should be a big item on the next agenda. Nutter suggested calling Reynolds to find out what she had done. Chapman pointed out that the Middle School could support a program itself, whereas an elementary school's P.E. class could not support it. Nutter noted that Siskiyou Velo might be able to provide a story in their magazine to encourage volunteers. Carton suggested starting the program in the Middle School and trying to work down into the elementary schools once the program was established. Beaudoin concurred with the need to get the program started in one place first. 2003-0515_Bilce Min.doc Page 4of 5 Nut, er questioned if the commission could help by funding someone. Harris clarified that the commission could not be involved in funding, but she added that a private source could. Rewcastle noted that Miles Murphy had expressed an interest in providing information to the public through the Mail Tribune and Daily Tidings. Chapman noted that he had been involved in the program at the Middle School and Lincoln School last year. Nutter noted that the Velo may be willing to provide funds. At Carton's request, Chapman agreed to contact Reynolds about her efforts and her continuing interest in the program. Catron suggested that this be a major item on the next agenda, with at least one and a half hours dedicated to the discussion. ODOT 25 Year Plan Update Chapman explained that this is a plan for traffic safety, and he added that as they are seeing success they are looking to update the plan. He noted that there had been a meeting in Grants Pass, with ten representatives from the Rogue Valley. He added that input can also be submitted via the intemet. July Meeting - City Talk Show Harris noted that Telecommunications and Marketing Manager Arm Seltzer wants to highlight the commission for a one hour chat and call-in session in July. She explained that the show would be at 5:30, and that attendees would need to be there at 5:00. She discussed the shows format, which is to include Seltzer, Harris, Chapman and one other comnUssion member. There was discussion of how to handle the July meeting in light of the concurrent television filming and several members and staff being unavailable. Beaudoin/Catron ntis to schedule the July meeting for the 24th at 5:15 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. New Business Rewcastle agreed to approach Vice Principal O'Malley at the Middle School. Beaudoin expressed interest in being a liaison to the gym teachers. He also indicated an interest in appearing on the city talk show broadcast. Harris stated that Seltzer would contact members to arrange details. Nutter asked that staff inquire about street sweeper coverage of Crowson Road, and he asked to emphasize the need to sweep the bike lane. Masi noted that RVTD is giving a Transportation Hero Award and asked for nominations from commission members. A.qenda Items for Next Meeting Bike Safety Program. Adiournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 P.M. Next Meeting 5:15 p.m. on July 24TM, 2003 200$-0515_Bike Min. doc Page 5of5 CITY OF ,ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Approval of Oregon Department of Aviation Intergovernmental Agreement Ashland Municipal Airport 2003 Statewide Airport Pavement Maintenance Program Public Works Department August 6, 2003~ Paula Brown ~ Paul Nolte ~ Gino Grimaldi Synopsis: The attached Intergovemmental Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Aviation is for the 2003 Airport Pavement Maintenance Program at the Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field. The Statewide Airport Pavement Maintenance Program is a state funded program to assist airport in completing pavement maintenance projects. This Oregon Department of Aviation program protects Oregon's airport investments consistent with the goals of the 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan. The ODA hired W&H Pacific as the engineering fu'm to review and evaluate the needs at the Ashland Airport. Staff and representatives of the ODA and W&H Pacific met at the airport to evaluate the necessary improvements including crack seal, slurry seal and a few areas of asphalt patching. The entire length of the runway and taxiway has been evaluated for maintenance treatments as show on the attached drawing. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council approve the attached Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Aviation for the 2003 Airport Pavement Maintenance Program at the Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field. Fiscal Impact: The 2003 Airport Pavement Maintenance Program funds are a grant to the City from the Oregon Department of Aviation with a requirement to fund 10% as matching funds. The current estimate for the maintenance work, engineering and a 10% contingency is $158,596.50. The City is required to provide 10% or $15,859.65; half to be provided prior to the start of the project at ODA's request, and the remaining funds at project completion. The City must further ensure that all funds will go to support only those areas that are for public use. Background: ODA has been collecting pavement data since the mid-1980s and has spent considerable amounts of time evaluating pavement condition for the Ashland Airport. This agreement allows the City to receive a significant amount of pavement improvements with shared costs with ODA. CC Approval of ODA Agreement SAug03 -O e-gon Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor July 21, 2003 JUL 2 2003 L ._Cll-¥ OF ASHLAND 3040 25th Street, SE Salem, OR 97302-1125 Phone: (503) 378~t880 Toll Free: (800)874-0102 FAX: (503) 373-1688 Ms. Paula C. Brown Ashland Public Works Director 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520-1814 Subject: Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) 2003 Airport Pavement Maintenance Program Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field/City of Ashland Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed for your review and signature are three copies of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Oregon Department of Aviation and the City of Ashland for the 2003 Pavement Maintenance Program work that will be completed at the Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field this summer. Please sign and return all the documents. One fully executed IGA will be returned for your records. Also enclosed is a layout of the proposed work and an Exhibit A to the IGA that provides a detail of the bid items, quantities, and estimated project cost. The Exhibit A is a preliminary opinion of probable construction cost based on the engineering work completed to date by W&H Pacific. Please also sign each copy of the Exhibit A. The preliminary estimate for the total project is $158,596.50 with a local match required of 10% or $15,859.65. Construction bids will be opened on July 31 and a Revised Exhibit A will be sent to you the week of August 4. If you have any questions concerning the IGA, Exhibit A, or the layout of proposed work, please contact me at 800 874-0102. Sincerely, Teddie A. Baker, OPMA Aviation Project Specialist Enclosures INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Ashland Municipal Airport- Sumner Parker Field 2003 Statewide Airport Pavement Maintenance Program The parties to this Agreement arc THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Aviation, hereinafter rcferred to as !'ODA", and the City of Ashland, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referrcd to as "City". II. PURPOSE: The Statewide Airport Pavement Maintenance Program is a state-funded program to assist airports in undertaking pavement maintenance. This program will protect Oregon's airport investments by prcserving airport pavement consistent with the goals of the 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan. RECITALS: A. Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field is a public use airport owned and operated by the City of Ashland. By the authority granted in ORS 190.110, state agencies may enter into agrcements with units of local government for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agrcement, its officers, or agents have the authority to perform. ODA may exercise this power jointly with any municipalities or agencies of the state government, other states or their municipalities, or the United States, by authority granted in ORS 836.040. ORS 836.072 provides ODA 'the authority to establish and fund a program to maintain and prcserve the pavements used for runways, taxiways, and aircraft parking arcas at public use airports in this state. Eo City desircs pavement maintenance work for the airport as further described in the attached Exhibit A, hereinafter the "Project", The Project may be subject to minor amendments after final contract documents arc prepared. F. The Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field is in the core system of airports identified by the 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan. G. The City and/or controlling jurisdiction has established airport oveday zoning and is implementing OAR 660-013, Airport Planning. IGA - ODA/City of Ashland I July 21, 2003 2003 PMP Program III. TERMS OF AGREEMENT: A. ODA Obligations 1. ODA shall develop all contract specifications and bid documents for the Project through the Department of Administrative Services, When bid amount and Project are confirmed with contract specifications, ODA will send a revised Exhibit A, if necessary, to Airport, and request that Airport initial and return the final Exhibit A. 2. ODA shall advertise for construction bids. Construction contract shall be awarded based on the lowest responsible bid received. ODA's contracted engineer will inspect projects to ensure conformity with specifications and to vedfy quantities for contract payments. 4. ODA will invoice City for matching funds based on initial and final construction costs. B. City Obligations: 1. City will review initial and return to ODA the revised Exhibit A, confirming its acceptance of the Project and the Project cost. = City must contribute ten percent (10%) in local matching funds toward the total Project cost. Prior to the start date of the Project upon request from ODA, City shall deliver fifty percent (50%) of the estimated local match to ODA. At the termination of the project, City shall deliver the remaining fifty percent (50%) of local matching funds to ODA immediately after receiving an invoice from ODA. City has established and shall maintain a documented airport pavement maintenance program on a 3-year inspection cycle in accordance with the ODA pavement inspection cycle. o In consideration for receipt of program funds, City agrees to keep the airport open for public use for a minimum of 20 years from the date of this Agreement. 5. The Project shall not provide pavement maintenance for any areas of airport that are private or exclusive use areas. 6. City shall communicate through ODA with the contractor regarding contract administration and scope of the Project. IGA - ODA/City of Ashland 2 July 21, 2003 2003 PMP Pi~3gram 7. City agrees that, if problems with the contractor arise during construction, it shall communicate these concerns to ODA, which shall be responsible for resolving these concerns. 8. City shall, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and .the~Oregon Tort Claims Act, hold ODA harmless from liability for any costs, fees or expenses that may be incurred in the performance of this agreement. City shall ensure an airport representative will be available on arrival of contractor work crews to meet with project inspector to review work to be completed and to ensure appropriate NOTAM's (Notice to Airmen) have been issued prior to commencement of work. C. General Provisions: This Agreement shall become effective on the date signed by all of the parties, and shall continue in effect until the improvements described in Exhibit A (as amended) are completed and Airport has delivered the required matching funds, or two years from the date of this Agreement whichever occurs first. Covenants of City made herein shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 2. The Project will be completed in accordance with applicable FAA and state design standards and regulations. In performing or completing the Project, ODA shall assure compliance with all the regulations of the United States Department of Transportation relative to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs. Further, ODA will not allow discrimination on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex in the performance and completion of the Project. The parties to this agreement will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work including, but not limited to, the provisions of ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316, 279.320, and 279.555, incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this agreement. All employers, including City, that employ subject workers who work under this Contract in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage, unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. City shall ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements. IGA - ODA/City of Ashland 3 July 21, 2003 2003 PMP Program 6. This agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both parties. ODA may, at its sole discretion, terminate this agreement, in whole or in part, upon thirty days written notice to City. ODA may terminate, in whole or in part, immediately upon notice to City, or at such later date as ODA may establish in such notice, upon the occurrence of any of the following events: If City fails to provide services or funds called for by this agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof; If City fails to perform any of the other provisions of this agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of wdtten notice from ODA fails to correct such failures within 10 days or such longer period as ODA may authorize; If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that the work · under this agreement is prohibited; Any termination of this agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination; THIS AGREEMENT constitutes the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of ODA to enfome any provision of this agreement shall not constitute a waiver by ODA of that or any other provision. IGA - ODA/City of Ashland 4 July 21, 2003 2003 PMP Program The City of Ashland, with the approval of its City Council, has authorized the approval and execution of this agreement on behalf of Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field. The Director of the Department of Aviation is authorized to act on behalf of the Department of Aviation in approving and executing this agreement, State of Oregon, by and through its Department of Aviation By: Date: Ann B. Crook, Director Oregon Department of Aviation City of Ashland By: Date: Reviewed for Legal Sufficiency for ODA By: Date: Approved for the City of Ashland as to Legal Sufficiency IGA - ODA/Ci~y of Ashland 5 July 21, 2003 2003 PMP Program Exhibit A Pavement Maintenance Program ~ 2003 Oregon Department of Aviation Schedule A: Ashland Price ! Extended Price AC Skin Patching 637 SY $ 6.50 $ 4,140.50 AC Patching 29 SY $ 100.00 $ 2,850.00 Crack Seal less than 3/8" 1116 LF $ 1.25 $ 1,395.00 Crack Seal 3/8" to 1" 700 LF $ 1.50 $ 1,050.00 Crack Seal more than 1" 500 LF $ 6.00 $ 3,000.00 Fill Existing Cracks 5294 LF $ 2.00 $ 10,588.00 Slurry Seal, Type 1 40473 SY $ 1.50 $ 60,709.50 Pavement Marking 11339 SF $ 0.60 $ 6,803.10 Restdpe Pavement Marking 11339 SF $ 0.50 $ 5,669.25 Remove Existing Markings 7016 SF $ 2.00 $ 14,032.00 Mobilization 1 LS $ 10,609.69 $ 10,609.69 Subtotal ~ $ 120,847.04 Contingency 1 LS $ 12,084.70 $ 12,084.70 Engineering 1 LS $ 25,665 $ 25,664.76 IT°tal I I $ 158,596.50 10% Prepared by / Date: Approved by / Date: Local match $15,859.65 10% Status: Bid Documents 100% Complete Note: This is the Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost based on the engineering work completed to date. Unit prices are based on bids for similar projects. Exhibit A - PMP 2003.xls / Exhibit A (updated 06-27-03) 7/21/2003 10:58 AM CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Termination of a Portion of a Public Utility Easement at 531 Scenic Drive Public Works Department August 5, 2003 Paula Brown Paul Nolte ~ Gino Grimaldi Approval of the attached quitclaim deed would terminate the City's interest in a 30 square foot portion of the public utility easement acquired over the property located at 531 Scenic Drive (391E5DB 2602). Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council approve a motion to authorize the Mayor's signature on the attached quitclaim deed terminating the City's interest in a three foot wide by 10 foot long portion of a public utility easement across 531 Scenic Drive. Background: Mr. Casey Bright, who resides at 531 Scenic Drive wishes to build an addition onto the front of his garage. In 1992 the City acquired a7 to 10 foot wide public utility easement which was located very close to the garage. Along the north side of the garage the easement was only seven feet wide. At the front of the garage (east side) the easement widened to ten feet. Mr. Bright hopes to extend the garage approximately ten feet to the east and asks that the City terminate a three foot wide by ten foot long portion of the easement. Inquiries have been sent to all utilities who might have an interest in this easement. No objections were received from any of the utilities contacted. It was determined that the loss of a three foot by 10 foot section of the existing easement would have no adverse impact on the use of the remaining easement. G:Xpub-wrks~admin~B Council~Strcct Easement Terminations\CC 531 Scenic Bright PUE Termination 8 03.doc PROPOSED EASEMENT TERMINATION EXISTING EASEMENT 543 SCENIC DR. 7' WIDE 10' WIDE PORTION OF EASEMENT TO BE TERMINATED (3' x 1o3 531 SCENIC DR. SCALE: 1" = 40' Return Document to: True and Actual Consideration: Send Tax Statements to: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 $0 Not Applicable QUITCLAIM DEED City of Ashland, Oregon, Grantor, releases and quitclaims to Casey Bright and Jennifer Bright, all right, title and interest in and to the following described real property: A portion of that public utility easement granted to the City of Ashland and recorded as instrument no. 92-33388 of the Records of Jackson County, Oregon and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Parcel 3 of Partition Plat No. P-102-1990 as filed for record October 2, 1990 in Volume 1 Page 102 of the records of Partition Plats of Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 0° 26' 58" East, 10.00 feet to a point lying on the west right-of-way of Scenic Drive and on the southerly boundary of that aforementioned public utility easement; thence leaving said right of way North 89° 48' 56" West, 40.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence continue North 89° 48' 56" West, 10.00 feet; thence North 00° 26' 58" West; 3.00 feet; thence South 89° 48' 56" East, 10.00 feet; thence South 00° 26' 58" East, 3.00 feet to the point of beginning. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true consideration for this conveyance is $1.00 plus other property or value which may be a part of the consideration. Dated this day of ,2003. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder State of Oregon County of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on ., 2003, by Alan DeBoer as Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, and by Barbara Christensen as Recorder of the City of Ashland, Oregon. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: G:~pub-wrks\eng~lept-admin\ENGINEER\EASEMENT~531 Scenic Bdght quitclaim deed.doc CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: Liquor License Application from Beasy Bob, Inc. dba Beasy's on the Creek. City Recorder/Treasurer .August 5, 2003 Barbara Christe~J~n Gino Grimaldi J~ Application process of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC. Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing of this application. Background Information: Application for liquor license is for off-premises sales. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chpt. 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chpt. 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Recommendation: Fiscal Impact: Background: Interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance regarding Drive-Up Uses Department of Community Development August 5, 2003 ~) ~ John McLaughlin, Director of CommuniJ~/l~evelopmentk..~.~ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ~ On June 10, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.108.160 of the land use ordinance, the Planning Commission interpreted that a conveyor car wash system did not constitute a "drive up use" as used in the Section 18.32.025. Staffrecommends that the City Council adopt the interpretation of the Planning Commission that a conveyor car wash system is not a drive up use. The interpretation does not have to be adopted by ordinance or resolution. The Council may modify the Commission's interpretation if they deem it necessary. None. The Findings and StaffReport for this action are attached. The property owner at 2371 Ashland Street, recently approved for a remodel as a Mobil Service Station, requested site review approval to install a "conveyor car wash system." Since a patron of the car wash would receive service while sitting in their vehicle as it was transported through the car wash, a question arose as to whether such a car wash constituted a drive up use. After analysis, Staffrecommended to the Planning Commission that a conveyor car wash did not constitute a drive up use. The basis for the recommendation was that the car wash was related to servicing the auto, as opposed to fast food restaurants, pharmacies, or banks where the service is provided to the individual, and can be provided by alternate means, such as walking into the restaurant. By comparison, the conveyor car wash was more similar to a service station or oil change facility where auto service is provided, but the owner may sit in their car during the service. The Planning Commission concurred with the Staff interpretation, and in accord with Section 18.108.160 of the land use ordinance, that recommendation has been forwarded to the Council. Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on June 10, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on June 5, 2003 in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way at 5:00p.m. PLANNING ACTION 2003-040 is a request for Site Review approval for the construction of a "conveyor car wash system" (i.e. drive-thru) at the Mobil Service Station located at 2371 Ashland Street. The application includes a request for the Planning Commission to make an interpretation that the proposed conveyor car wash system is not a "Drive-Up Use" as defined In the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-1; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 11 D; Tax Lot: 1202. APPLICANT: Ken Khosroabadi/Ashland Mobil BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8~, 2003 .FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2003-040, A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (MODIFICATION) AND SITE REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A '~ONVEYOR CAR WASH SYSTEM" (I.E. DRIVE-THRU) AT THE MOBIL STATION LOCATED AT 2371 ASHLAND STREET. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE AN INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONVEYOR CAR WASH SYSTEM IS NOT A "DRIVE-UP USE" AS DEFINED IN THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE. APPLICANT: KEN KHOSROABADI / ASHLAND MOBIL ) ) FINDtNOS, ) CONCLUSIONS ) AND ORDERS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 1202 of 391E 1 ID is located at 2371 Ashland Streot and zoned C-I; Commercial. 2) The applicant is requeaing an approval for a Conditional Use Permit (modification) and Site Review Permit for the construction of a "e°nveyor ear wash system" (i.e. drive-thru) at the Mobil Service Station ' ., .' located at 2371 AsMand Street. The application includes a request for the Planning Commission to make an interpretation that the proposed conveyor car wash system is not a "Drive-Up Use" as defined in the . Ashland Land Use Ordln.nce. Plans ~re on file at the Depmauent of Commllllity Development. · 3) The cxiteria for a Conditional Use Permit approval areldescribed in 18.104 and are as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the 'use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. PA2003-040 Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders APPLICANT: Ken Khosroabadi I Ashland Mobil July 8th, 2003 Page C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on ihe livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1) Similarity in scale, bullq and coverage. 2) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3) Architectural compatibility with the impact area 4) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5) Generation of ncise, light, and glare. 6) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing ~luthority for review of the proposed use. 4) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72 as follows: ~1.' All applicable City ordinance# have been met or will be met by the ~roposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. · That adequate capacity of CiO'facilities for water, sewer, pa~ed access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation ean and will be provided to and through the subject property: 5) The Planmng Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on June 10 , 2003, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Pl~nnlng Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertnini~lg to the appropriate development and use of the site. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: PA2003-040 Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders APPLICANT: Ken Khosroabadi I Ashland Mobil July '8th, 2003 Page 2 SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an 'S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an · · Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINOS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it hs.~ received all information necessary to make a decision based on the StaffReport, pubho hearing testimony and the exhibits received. Z2 The Planning Commi~ion finds that the prOposal for a Conditional Use P~mfit and Site Review .Pea-fait for the construction of a 'conveyor car wash system" (i.e. drive-thru) at the Mobil Service Station located at 2371 A~hland Street meets all applicable criteria described in the Conditional Use Permit Chanter 18.104 and Site Design and Use Chapter 18,72. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application meets all of the nceer, sary Site Design and Use · - Standard requirements for landscaping, ~regning.ofparking; sidewalk improvements and refuse screening. . 2.4 The Planning Commi~ion finds that the prOposal to operate a ,conveyor car wash system'! at · . 2371 Ashland Street will not have any adverse ira?acts on the livability of the impact area when compared to the target use of thc zone. With thc attached conditions, the proposal has mitigated any · ": 'potential impacts to the surrounding neighbors. . . ' 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that there is the neoessary infrastructure to service the site and · proposed ear wash. All City serdces are available within Ashland StreeL · 2.6 The Commission finds that the design of the building is eompatible with the surrounding commercial buildings. The proposed building is behind the service station building and will be virtually ssreened from Ashland Street. 2.7 The Plmming Commission finds that the prOposed "eonveyor ear wash system" is not a "Drive- PA2003-040 Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders APPLICANT: Ken Khosroabadi I Ashland Mobil July 8th, 2003 Page 3 Up Use7 as defined in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance because the vehicle is being serviced and not the individual in the vehicle. The Planning Commission concludes that drive.up uses are typically fast food restaurants, banking teller services, prescription medication drive-ups, espresso services, etc. The Planning Commission concludes that drive-up uses are'not car wash services, gas stations, oil change services or auto mechanic'services. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit (modification) and Site Review Permit for the construction of a "conveyor car wash system" (i.e. drive.thru) at the Mobil Service Station located at 2371 Ashland Street is supported by evidence within the record. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the proposed conveyor ear wash system is not a "Drive-Up Use" as defined in the Ashland I_amd Use Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action # 20034)40. Further, if any one or more of tho conditions below are found to 1~. invalid, for any reason whatsoe~er, then Planning Action #2003-040 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: · 1 ) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the plans submitted at the time of a building permit be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. That if thc City Council interprets thc proposed ear wash system is a "Drive-Up Use", Planning Action 2003-040 shall be void unless thc applicant obtains a"Drive.Up Use Permit" and meets all of thc standards noted in 18.32.025 of the Ashland Land Usc Ordinance. That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commi~ion be incorporated into the final landscaping and irrigl~tion plans; Plans shall be submitted and reviewed at tho time of building l~mit submittal. The landscaping and inigafion plan shall be installed in accordsnco with the approved landscaping plan and inigatiun plan prior to the issuance ora ceflificate of occupancy. Date ' PA2003-040 Commission Findings, Conclusions and Orders APPLICANT: Ken Khosroabadi / Ashland Mobil July 8th, 2003 Page 4 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT June 10th, 2003 PLKNNING ACTION: 2003-040 APPLICANT: Ken Khosroabadi / Ashland Mobile LOCATION: 2371 Ashland Street ZONE DESIGNATION: C-1 COMPREHE~NSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.32 18.72 18.108 Commercial Site Design & Use Standards Procedures REQUEST: A request for Site Review and Conditional Use P~mfit (modification) approval for the eoustruetion ora "conveyor car wash system" (i.e. drive-thru) at the Mobil Service Station located at 2371 Ashland Street. The application includes a request for the Planning Commission to make an interpretation that the proposed conveyor car wash system is not a "Drive-Up Use" as defined in the Ashland I. and Use Ordinance. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In 2002 the Planning Commission approved a Site Review Permit for the renovation of the existing service station (PA2002-009). There are no other actions of record for this site. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: Site Description: The property is located at 2371 Ashland Street, adjacent to the I- 5 southbound offramp and across the street from the AM/PM Service Station. To the west of the property are the Wild Goose Caf6 and Knight's Inn Motel. Behind the property is a vacant parcel ot~en used as overflow parking for the restaurant and the hotel. PA2003-040 Ken Khosroabadi / Ashland Mobile Ashland PlannIng Department - Staff Report June 10a, 2003 Page 1 The site is cmxently a Mobile Gas and Service Station. Over the years the station has often switched ownership and petroleum brands. The present owner recently purchased the property and remodeled the site and the building. The site was improved with added landscaping to help minimize the site's asphalt. The sidewalk along the fi-ontage was widened and street trees were installed. The old canopy over the pumps was removed and replaced. Tall cobra style light fixtures were eliminated and replaced by under canopy lighting, one of the large freeway sign pylons was removed and a new sign added and supported by the single remaining pylon. A large propane tank was removed and replaced with a customer picnic table under a small roof structure (ldosk) for shade. Lastly, a new fence was added at the rear of the property in order to minimize visibility of the restaurant's refuse and parking area. .Proposal: Site Review & Conditional Use Permit (modification) The applicant is proposing to construct a 20' wide by 47' long car wash bay at the rear of the building. The car wash will be setup with a conveyor belt that will pull a vehicle from one cod of the bayto the other, washing and drying, as the vehicle sits in neutral. The cars will coter from the left side (west) and exit from the right (east). Small and large vehicles will be able to continue to maneuver around the back of the building via the existing circular driveway. The plans show the new building to be separated from thc existing retail/service bay building by approximately four feet. The new building has been placed behind the existing building and but for a couple of differcot viewing angles will be screened from AsMand Street. Since thc property slightly slopes to the north, the new building also steps down from the new building. The building is to be made of vertical metal siding painted white with a blue bellyband to tie into the existing building's colors. The height of the building will be 13' and designed with a fiat r{~ofto match the existing service center building. The applicant is proposing additional site improvements that include removing the utility pole along the property's west property line and undergrounding theft power service under Ashland Street. In addition, three small raised planter beds are to be added to the site; one will be installed along the property's northwest comer and the other two will be installed at thc entrance and exit of the bay. Based upon the applicant's plan submittals, it is cxpected the water consumption and water waste will be minimal. The car wash bay is basically a module that systematically washes a vehicle, sends the waste water through a filtering system (reclaim pit) and recycles the dean water back through the car wash system. Renmant waste builds in the reclaim pit and is periodically pumped out by a PA2003-040 Ken Khosroabadi / Ashland Mobile Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report June I0ta, 2003 Page 2 II* private waste disposal service. The applicant intends to operate the car wash during the winter months (November, December, January and Februa~) from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. during the rest of the year. Proposal: Drive-Up Use Interpretation The applicant is also 'requesting an interpretation that the proposed conveyor car wash system is not a "Drive-Up Use" as defined in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Overall, staff concurs with the applicant's assessment the proposed car wash is not a "drive-up use" based upon staff's interpretation and based upon past land use decisions. History: The City of Ashland adopted an ordinance regulating drive-up uses in 1984. This ordinance defined drive-up uses, set standards for their development, and limited the total number allowed in the city based on population. In 1992 the ordinance was emended to limit the total number of drive-up uses allowed in the City to the 12 in existence on July 1, 1984. The original ordinance adopted in 1984 defined a drive-up use as "any establishment which by design, physical facilities, service, or by packaging pmcodures encourages or permits customers to receive services, obtain goods, or be entertained while remaining in their motor vehicles." Unfortunately, this language was not included in the amendments made in 1992, but nevertheless provides the guidance for drive-up uses today. In the applicant's case as well as many other uses in town, it is staff's opinion there is aa important distinction between who and what is receiving a service. Is it the vehicle or is it the person in the vehicle? Traditional drive-up window businesses for fast food restaurants, ba~king teller services, prescription medications, espresso services, etc., all service the customer in the vehicle - not the vehicle itself. In contrast, businesses such as a car wash, gas station, oil change sen, ice, or auto mechanics bay all service the vehicle and not the customer. These uses, new and old, are spread over the community with the understanding by staff that the vehicle is receiving the service and not the driver. Pro]ect Impact The request for a Site Review and Conditional Use Permit (modification) are relatively straightforward in that most of the site's improvements were completed with the station's remodel in 2002. By being at the rear of the property and behind the existing service center building, the car wash will likely have a limited impact when compared to the property's current use. The on-site circulation system PA2003-040 Ken Khosroabadi / Ashland Mobile Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report June l0th, 2003 Page 3 works well and the ingress and egress to Ashland Street does not appear to be a problem. The applicant has also attempted to minimize off site disturbances such as noise by choosing to not have a segregated vacuuming/detailing area. This type of service area is often difficult for management to supervise, as some customers tend to play music beyond the City's noise limitations while cleaning their vehicles. In addition, the applicant has stated that if any auto detailing is to occur, it would be within the building and that in no case will equipment such as towels, buckets or cleaning materials be visible from the right-of-way. The applicant's request to not Interpret the proposed conveyor car wash system as a "Drive-Up Use" is consistent with the many businesses around town that offer similar automobile services. These Include the automatic car wash on Lithia Way (Texaco / Oil Stop), the many gas stations in the community, a few mechanic shops and the new quick lube businesses on Ashland Street (Oil Stop). IH. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described in the Site Design and Use Standards Chapter 18.72 and are as follows: All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104 and are as follows: That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. PA2003-040 Ken Khosroabadi / Ashland Mobile Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report June l0th, 2003 Page 4 B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following.factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1) Similarity in scale, bull; and coverage. 2) Generation of tra. ffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3) Architectural compatibility with the impact area 4) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5) Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations With the incorporation of the attached conditions, staffbelieves the application for a conveyor car wash system at 2371 Ashland Street meets the Site Review and Conditional Use Permit criteria. Over the last year, the applicant has been committed to upgrade the site and maintain a clean and inviting sevdce station. In staffs opinion, the conveyor car wash system will be another service for the community. However, the applicant's request to not interpret the car wash as a "Drive~Up Use" is understandable as the investment is significant. As such, staffrecommends the following two actions by the Planning Commission: First, approve the Site Review and Conditional Use Permit (modification) application PA2003-040 Ken Khosroabadi / Ashland Mobile Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report June 10th, 2003 Page 5 with the noted conditions below and secondly, forward a recommendation to the City Council that the proposed conveyor car wash system is not a "Drive-Up Use" as defined in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the plans submitted at the time of a building permit be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. 3) That if the City Council interprets the proposed car wash system is a "Drive-Up Use", Planning Action 2003-040 shall be void unless the applicant obtains a "Drive-Up Use Permit" and meets all of the standards noted in 18.32.025 of the Ashland land Use Ordinance. 4) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission be incorporated into the final landscaping and irrigation plans. Plans shall be submitted and reviewed at the tirne of build'rog permit submittal. The landscaping and irrigation plan shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan and irrigation plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. PA2003-040 Ken Khosroabadi / Ashland Mobile Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report June I0ta, 2003 Page 6 CiTY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Recommendation: Background: Public Hearing and First Reading of and Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and Amending Sections II-C-3a)2), II-C-la) and II-C- 2b)2 of the Site Design and Use Standards. Department of Community Development Planning Division August 5, 2003 John McLaughlin, Director of Con~ty Development ~) Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ~ The City Council has directed the Staffto make modifications to the "Big Box Ordinance" to clarify specific issues raised during the approval of the OSF New Theater. The attached ordinance, after several modifications made after many meetings, represents that effort. The proposed ordinance specifically limits building size to 45,000 sq. fl. of gross floor area, rather than footprint, and the option for larger buildings if affordable housing was provided was deleted. Further, specific changes were made regarding development in the downtown, addressing the unique nature of that area. Staff recommends that the Council approve first reading of the attached ordinance. In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific limitations on the size of the buildings in the Detail Site Review zone. A limitation of 45,000 sq. ft. was imposed. These standards were developed through an intense and highly publicized public process. In 2000, the City Council approved an application by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival that ended up interpreting the 45,000 sq. ft. limit of the ordinance as applying only to the footprint cfa structure, and not to the gross floor area square footage. After that decision, the City Council directed staffto modify the ordinance language to clearly reflect their interpretation. A heating was held in front of the Planning Commission on August 14, 2001 at which time revised language was presented regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. footprint, that the measurements were made inside the exterior walls, and that the size limitations did not apply to the Downtown Design Standards overlay zone. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the changes, based on the direction from the City Council. On September 4, 2001, a hearing was held in front of the City Council where the proposed changes as recommended by the Planning Commission were presented. The Council, after taking public testimony, determined that additional review and public comment was necessary. After difficulty in finding a suitable date for a study session, one was finally scheduled for June 25, 2002. At that meeting, the Council directed staffto prepare ordinance amendments addressing the following items: the ordinance. 2. 3. Clarification as to how to measure the 45,000 sq. ft. limit referenced by How to clarify the definition of a contiguous building. How the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the downtown commercial area. Another study session was held with Planning Commission on August 27, 2002 at which time proposed ordinance amendments were presented. An option for larger buildings if affordable housing was provided was also included. These amendments were generally well received, with recommendations to clarify some of the language. A final study session was held on September 24, 2002 to bring back the final versions of the ordinance based on the input from the August meeting. A public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission for review of the ordinance amendments on January 14, 2003. However, due to a full agenda, the item was continued to the February 11, 2003 meeting. At the February meeting, the Planning Commission took testimony on the proposed amendments and ended up recommending that no amendments to the ordinance be adopted. Further, they recommended that the Council change their interpretation regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. limit from applying to footprint. Rather, they recommended that the Council re-interpret the ordinance such that the 45,000 sq. ft. applies to the gross floor area of the entire structure. On May 7, 2003, a Study Session was held with the City Council to present the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to gain direction as to the next steps of the process. Staffpresented a revised ordinance amendments addressing concerns raised during the Planning Commission process, and which clarified the ordinance. The Council directed the Staffto bring back the revised ordinance for a public hearing in front of the City Council. Contents of Record Planning Action 2001-069 "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and Amending Sections II-C-3a)2), II-C-1 a) and II-C-2b)2 of the Site Design and Use Standards." Recommended Ordinance City Council Minutes 05/07/03 Council Communication 05/07/03 Study Session Planning Commission Minutes 02/11/03 Staff Report Addendum 1 01/14/03 Memo to Planning Commission 09/24/02 Memo to Planning Commission 08/27/02 Memo to Council and Planning Commission 06/25/02 Minutes of Joint Study Session 06/25/02 Newsweek Article on Big Boxes Council Communication 04/16/02 City Council Minutes 02/05/02 Council Communication 02/05/02 City Council Minutes 09/04/01 Council Communication 09/04/01 Proposed Ordinance 09/04/01 Planning Commission Minutes 08/14/01 Staff Report w/Exhibits 08/14/01 Letter from Brent Thompson 10/22/01 Existing Downtown Design Standards Charlotte Observer article on Big Boxes 1 4 7 11 15 21 23 27 31 35 37 39 41 42 44 45 46 48 57 59 69 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.72 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE STANDARDS FOR LARGE BUILDINGS, AND AMENDING SECTION II-C-3a)2) OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS . THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is replaced in its entirety as follows: 18.72.050.C. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with the following standards: a. Buildings shadng a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the extedor walls. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area. d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building footprint area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall not be subject to any vadance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. 2. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., with the following exceptions: a. Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count toward the total gross floor area. b. Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area. SECTION 2. Section II-C-$a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is replaced in its entirety as follows: Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with the following standards: a. Buildings shadng a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the extedor walls. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area. d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building footprint area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall not be subject to any vadance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., with the following exceptions: a. Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count toward the total gross floor area. b. Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area. SECTION 3. Section II-C-la) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to read as follows: 1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are located on a corner lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Buildings shall be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable. 2) Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback results in an improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, where this standard is met by other buildings. Automobile circulation or parking shall not be allowed between the building and the ' - r~,,;~;.~ ,k~+ ...... ;,k;~ ~n ~., ~ ,~ r, ght of-way ......... ~ .............................. ctrcct intcricr. This entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, a~ractive and fun~ional, and shall be open to the public dudng all business hours. 3) These requirements maybe '.':aivcd modified if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service stations c.",d *,irc ctcrcc. SECTION 4. Section II-C-2b)2 of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to read as follows: 2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. The foregoing ordinance was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ,2003. day of Barbara Chdstensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2003. Alan DeBoer, Mayor 3 Page 1 of 3 ~ITY O[ ,ASHLAND Wednesday, July 30, 2003 Minutes City Council 0510712003 ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Wednesday, May 7, 2003 at 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m. ATTENDANCE City Council: Mayor DeBoer and Councilor Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Mordson and Hearn. Staff: City Administrator Gino Grimaldi, Community Development Director John McLaughlin and City Planner Mark Knox. 1. Discussion regarding Big Box Ordinance Changes. McLaughlin gave brief a synopsis on the history of the adopted Commercial Development Standards, which included specific limitations on the size of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone. He commented on the approved application by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival which interpreted the 45,000 sq. ft. limit of the ordinance as applying only to the footprint of a structure, and not to the gross floor area square footage. He explained that the Council had directed staff to clarify how to measure the 45,000 sq. ft. limit referenced by the ordinance, how to dar[fy the definition of a contiguous building and how the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the downtown commercial area. Staff is looking for direction from the Council on how to address these issues. McLaughlin stated the goal is to keep things in a size and scale that is appropriate for our community. He shared the discussion by the Planning Commission who recommended that no amendments to the ordinance be adopted and that the Council changes their interpretation regarding the 45,000-sq. ft. limit from applying to footprint. The Commission recommended that the Council re-interpret the ordinance where the 45,000-sq. ft. applies to gross floor area of the entire structure. Council discussed the variable building sizes in the downtown area and that there was no intent to allow the 45,000-sq. ft. in the downtown area. Discussion and comments followed regarding ceiling heights, mixed use, parking facility, affordable downtown housing, fear of unintended consequences, required parking for large structures, availability of modern http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID=122~&Agenda=True 7/30/03 Page 2 of 3 shopping, environmental and transit issues, and referring to adopted ordinances by other cities in order to avoid any unintended consequences. McLaughlin explained that the number of parking space requirements, are based on maximum size, as to not limit the parking area. If the parking area were within the footprint of the building, it would not be counted as part of the total gross floor area. Comments were made regarding the need for downtown residential housing and how it would benefit the downtown area. Ron Demele/165 Crocker/Spoke regarding the benefit of affordable housing in the downtown area. He urged the council to create a process that would be pro-active in encouraging affordable housing in the downtown area. He commented on a project that would allow a large-scale tax credit in the downtown area. Bryan Holley/324 Liberty St/Voiced concern regarding citizen participation when scheduling a meeting for this discussion at a noon time which he felt is inconvenient for many. He commented that he did not feel there should be requirements involving affordable housing in this proposal and was glad to see this removed from the language. He encouraged the Council to visit currently built large-scale buildings in order to get a "feeling" of just how large these buildings are. He requested that the Council consider a smaller number than 45,000-sq. ft. footprint and questioned where, in our community, additional 45,000-sq. ft. buildings would be built, Doug Neuman/953 Emigrant Creek Road/Commented that the design, etc. of the building is more important than the size of the building and that flexibility needs to be allowed, especially in the downtown area. Suggested that current building owners who could be affected by this ordinance get together with Planning staff to discuss these changes. Bill Street/180 Mead/Spoke regarding the historical pattern for building footprints and how to preserve these historical patterns. Requested that the Council considers the need to persuade and educated the community on the vision of our community to preserve rather than develop the downtown area. Questioned how citizen participation was going to be enceureged. Suggested looking at various building heights, considering how citizens outside the downtown area want to look, affordable housing and the proposed footprint size. Urged the council to be careful when defining residential uses and how to prevent unsightly parking garages. Zach Brombacher/640 Tolman Creek Rd/Commented on how the community has changed since 1967. He felt that there is a slim chance that a large business such as Walmart would come into our area, but that there is a need to bring new businesses to our community. He felt that the probability of any new businesses coming into our area would be smaller in footprint than what is being proposed. He shared how this proposed amendment would affect his property ownership. Requested that the Council be considerate of needs that property owners and business owners may have in the future. Colin Swales/461 Allison Street/Commented that economic viability for our community is based on tourism and that people will not come to our community if the downtown area becomes "ugly." Raised the need to keep buildings contiguous in the downtown area and suggested a more useful definition for "contiguous." He encouraged continued historic pattern for the downtown area. Larry Medinger/Voiced concern that using strict square footage criteria would not allow flexibility when needed. Noted that there are Design Standards that can be relied upon and to not rely on one specific criteria. Commented that the RailRoad District area, which is in an E1 Zone, could be an area that would accommodate a 45,000-ft. sq. building. Supported residential housing in the downtown area. http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID= 1224&Agenda=True 7/30/03 Page 3 of 3 Clarification on how this proposed amendment would affect E1 zones and the need to diversify our economic needs for our community. It was commented that the Design Standards are not going to be regulated, but that size and scale could be. McLaughlin stated that staff is currently working on a recommendation regarding the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) as directed by the Planning Commission. He explained that FAR is a design standard and is different. Comments regarding exceptions for affordable residential uses and the comfort level by the community on the 45,000-sq. ft. or above buildings. It was noted that conditional uses should be allowed in order to allow flexibility for the Planning Commission. Council voiced support of the Planning Commission recommendation of a 45,000-sq. ft. footprint and exceptions for affordable housing in the downtown area. Commented on appropriateness of building height limits and parking in the building footprint. Further discussion was requested on the issues regarding contiguity. Staff was directed to bring this back to the Council for a public hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Chdstensen City Recorder http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID= 1224&Agenda=Tree 7/30/03 CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Study Session- Discussion of Big Box Ordinance Amendments Department of Community Development Planning Division May 7, 2003 ,,~ John McLaughlin, Director of Commj~f~[y Development Gino orimaldi, City Administrator In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific limitations on the size of the buildings in the Detail Site Review zone. A limitation of 45,000 sq. ft. was imposed. These standards were developed through an intense and highly publicized public process. In 2000, the City Council approved an application bythe Oregon Shakespeare Festival that ended up interpreting the 45,000 sq. iL limit of the o~inance as applying only to the footprint of a structure, and not to the gross floor area square footage. After that decision, the City Council directed staff to modify the ordinance language to dearly reflect their interpretation. A hearing was held in front of the Planning Commission on August 14, 2001 at which time revised language was presented regarding the 45,000 sq. ft. footprint, that the measurements were made inside the exterior walls, and that the size llmitatiolls did not apply to the Downtown Design Standards overlay zone. The planning Commission recommended adoption of the changes, based on the direction from the City Council. On September 4, 2001, a hearing was held in front of the City Council where the proposed changes as recommended by the Planning Commission were presented. The Council, after taking public testimony, determined that additional review and public comment was noc~sary. After difficulty in finding a suitable date for a study session, one was finally scheduled for June 25, 2002. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare ordinance amendments addressing the following items: 1. Clarification as to how to measure the 45,000 sq. ft. limit referenced by thc ordinance. 2. How to clarify thc definition of a contiguous building. 3. How the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the downtown commercial area. Discussion: Recommendatioll: Another study session Was held with Planning Commission on August 27, 2002 at which time proposed ordinance amendments were presented. Aa option for larger buildings if affordable housing was provided was also included. These amendments were generally well received, with recommendations to clarify some of the language. A final study session was held on September 24, 2002 to bring back the final versions of the ordinance based on the input from the August meeting. -: A public hearing was sehednled with the Planning Commission for review of the ordinance amendments on 3anuary 14, 2003. However, due to a' full agenda, the item was continued to the February 11, 2003 meeting. At the February meeting, the Planning Commission took t~-~imony on the proposed amendments and ended up recommending that no amendments to the ordinance be adopted. Further, they recommended that the Council change their interpretation regarding the 45,000 sq. iL limit from applying to footprint. Rather, they recommended that the Council r~-interpret the ordinance such that the 45,000 sq. iL applies to the gross floor area of the entire structure. (Minutes of 2/11 meeting attached) Thc Planning Commi~ion's recommendation provides direction for how the 45,000 sq. fL limit should be applied. However, it fails to address the other issues requested by the Council. Specifically, issues related to contiguous buildings remains unclear, and how the size limits relate to downtown, Further, other issues related to site design associated with the detail site review zone also came up during this process and were not addressed as well Staff is looting for direction fiom the City Council as to how best to address the initial issues raised by the Coundl, while also bringing forward the recommendation of the p]annlng Commie. sion l~:ling the 45,000 sq. iL limit. While Staff is looking for direction, we believe that from thc past meetings and disoassions, we can provide some recommendations: Thc ordinance still needs to be modified to clarify existing language. Merely interpreting the ordinance as requested by the Planning Commlssi6n is only part of the answer. It appears that the proposal for buildings larger than 45,000 sq. iL if affordable housing was provided was not necessarily well received by the public or thc commission. Therefore, we recemmend that the conditional usc process proposed to allow buildings up to 75,000 sq. ft. be scrapped. However, without ehanges to the ordinance, confusion regarding application of the ordinance is still likely. Given that the Co~mission recommended that the limit be 45,000 SCl. ft of gross floor area, we believe thc ordinanc~ should be specifically modified to clarify that limit. We would recommend the following language addressing contiguous buildings, and the downtown design standards overlay zone: 18.72.050.C. (proposed replacement for existing section) 1. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with the following standards: a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above gr~d_ ..e shell bo considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square fee( as measured outside the exterior walls. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under- structure parking, shell net count toward the total gross floor area. d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feel e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence In 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building footprint area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this sectio~ shall not be subject to any variance authorized In the Land Use Ordinance. 2. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expanslens of existing buildings shall not exceed .a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. fL, with the following excepUons: a. Gross floor area assoolated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count toward the total gross floor area. b. Automobile parking areas located within the buildin~ footprint, such as rooftop perking and under- structure parking, shell net count toward the total gross floor area. These changes address the specific concerns raised bythe Council, plus also address the issues raised bythe planning Commi.~sion regarding setting the maximum building size at 45,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. 'In addition, the following site design standards regarding Orientation and Scale are recommended as well: Section II-C-la10fientation and Scale t) Buildings shall have thek primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a pubile sidewalk. Where buildings.are located on a comer lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot comer at the Intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Buildings shall be located as close to the Intersection comer as practicable. 2) Building entrances shall be located within 10 feet of the public fight of way to which they ara required to be Oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic oonstraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback results In an Improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centem, where this standard Is met by other buildings. D...~:..~ ~., ..... ~,~ ~n ,^^, ~, ,.~ ~,.^^, ~.~,, ~ ........ , ..... · .... ~,-~-~ ...... , ............................ ~, ...... for. This entrance shell be designed to be clearly visible, attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all buslnass houm. II-C-2b~J Streetscaee 2) A building shall be setback not moro than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area Is used for pedestrian autivltios such as plazas or outside eating areas, This standard shall apply to both street frontages on comer lots, If more than one strnoturo Is proposed for a site, at least 35% 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. ? These modifications are intended to ensure that new buildings on comer lots are oriented toward.:, the street on both frontages, and that an entrance is oriented to the major street or to the intersection., Conclusion: The proposed amendments specifically addresses the maximum size of buildings (45,000 sq. fi. of gross floor area), addresses the provision of housing in the downtown, and underground or rooftop parking. Specifically, if the 45,000 sq. iL standard is applied without consideration of housil!g, there will be no opportunity for an additional level of housing on the existing parking structure downtown. This should be carefully considered by the Council. Some discussion has been raised about reducing the maximum size (45,000 sq. f~.), especially in the downtown. Given the existing development patterns, emxently adopted design standards, we believe that.the downtown is adequately covered by regulations. Further, no variances are allowed for any structures larger than 45,000 sq. iL If a smaller size is considered, there will likely be instances where a larger building is warranted. The most reeem example outside of the downtown was the YMCA expansiom Stafflooks forward to thc Council's commellls. CITY OF ,-ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REOULAR MEETING FEBRUARY tt, 2003 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Russ Cbapn~n at 7:05 p.m. Other Commi~ioners pte~nt were lV[~e Mon'Ls, Marilyn Briggs, Ray Kistler, Kerry KenCaim, Jolm Fields, Colin Swales, and newly appointed Commissioner Cameron Hanson. Dave Dotten-er was absent. Staffprescot were John McLaughlin~ Bill Molnar, Mafia Harris, Brandon Go~dman~ and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Swales moved to approve tho planning Commi~ion minqte~ Of t~¢ January 14, 2003 mating. Brig, s ~conded the motion and tho mlnut~ V~ approved. plnnnin_.~ Action 2002-062 F'mdings - 631 Clay SWeet- Kis~e~ moved to approve, the motion was seconded and thc Findings pi=nflin~ Action 2002-153 Fi~4;-gs - 648 North Main Street - KenCaim moved to approve, tho motion was seco~cled nad the Fi~ngs were PUBLIC FORUM - Non one came forth to speak. TY~E Iff PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2002-134 REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDNIG CHAPTER ¶8.72 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE (LAND USE ORDINANCE) AND · THE CITYOF .*~HLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS RELATING TO MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT, MAX]MUM GROSS FLObR AREA AND BUILDING ORIENTATION AND SCALE REQUIREMENTS. APPUCANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT McLau_~lifl said this ordinnnce (big box o~;-ance) was ori~t~lly dewloped in 1992. It began with citizens' concerns that new developments could occur in ~A ~hlanrl that would not be ia scale with ~he community. Specifically, Wal-Mart sad factory outlet store~ were loolcl,g at ¢x~;ng into the Eo~e Valley, Prior to 1992, the~ ~ no m~cimum building size limitS. Tho May~' appointod a commiffee that did im e~eosive amount of v~rk and came up with a ~I~ ~ ~o~ for - larger buila~ in.os but no~ excessively large bui~ai~s ia the community. The orain*~e has wod~ed well since 1992. However, the City Couacil dLrected Staffto prelx~re ameodmeats ~o the orai~nce ai~x their decision on the new Sl~l~espeare theater. The Couacil asla~d Sutff to clarify how to measure 45,000 square feet and clear u~ any ambi&uity. Seoo~dly, clarify ~he me~nlng of contiguous buildings, and thirdly, clarify how ~ ordlmmee would apply in the downtown. The Council'~ cur~nt i~t~pretation for the maximum area is to apply it ~o the footprint of the building; not the total floor area. The I~n~ge do~s not say into'lot floor space. I~ the cas~ of tho Shake~p~ar~ space, the 45,000 square foot limit only applied to the foo~prinL With ~at interpretation, someone could build a 45,000 square foot building on the fi~t floor and also build second Contained within the Site Dcsiga and Use Standards are Large Scale Development Standards. Large scale development is anytNlng with a gross floor nre~ in excess of 10,000 square feet, building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length and developed within tho Detailed Site Review Zone. McLaughlin showed several slides showing eynm.nle~ of various building sizes. He noted, for exsmple., that the Plaza block consists of contiguous groups of buildings, each slmoturally separate. The ground floor area of tho Plaza block is 37,000 square foet and ~he total floor area is 70,000 square feet. Do wo want to separate buildiags in the downtown when the histoiio pattern is a connected typo of look~ The new Shakespeare ~heater is over.12,000 square foot on tho g~md floor and the parking structure next door is 1~,000 square feet separated by a walkway. The Council found ~hese are two separate buildings. II The proposed amendments addressing Contiguous buildings outside the downtown would read: Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching, at or above grade, shall he considered as one building. With r~gard to siz~ limits, the language would read that the footprint won't exceed 45,000 square feet. All int~ior floor space and outdoor r~tail and storage areas that arc linked to the usc of thc building shall not exceed 45,000 squar~ feet. Non-ground level residential docs not Count so apartments above would bo allowed. Auto parking, either rooftop or underneath the footprint of the buildin~ would not count toward total square footage. Staff is hying to look at innovative wnys that may address affordable housing and a provision has been made in the proposed amendment. Another 30,000 square feet could be added, but for each 1500 square fcct beyond the hasc 45,000 square feet, an affordable housing unit would have to bo provided on-site. The maximum footprint size still applies, ff someone wantcd to build a 75,000 squnrc foot building, they would have to provide 20 affordable housing units un'site. An additional amendment concerns orientation of the entrance on a oomer lot. The enlrancc would bc toward the higher order Street Or to tile Corner. Elltrancc~ shall be located close to the street. Buildings shall orient close to both s~rects (frame the s~rcct with thc stmctarc). Multiple building sites shall have the majority of thc building frontage up on thc sheet. McLaughlin said thc Commission can recommend approval of the amendments, modify the amcndments, recommend dc~ial of the amendments, or modify the process to allow a wider scope. I~IBLIC ?~I'IMOh'Y MORT sMrrH, 129 Fifth Strcct, wondct~l if a thc Corn mi.~sion has figured out how to kecp affordablc housing affordable. He believes the affordable housing should bc impt separate from huge scale dcvelopment. What advantage is it to Ashland to have 45,000 square foot buBdlnEs? He is coucerned the larger bulldln~ would chsn_.oc the character of the COrn m~lliy. Hc is ooncemed about "oontiguous~ buildings. It sounds ~ you could have a very large bul!a!n~ and as long as there is a wall~y between it, there could end up beiag a 90,000 squsrc foot buildln2. McLau~ohlin clarified that outside the downtown, buil,tlngs have to be separated bnscd on the height of the structure. ~ CARUSO, 102 Garfield, #15, believes quality is more impoOant th~, quantity. He doc~ not see a uced for a 45,000 square foot building; however, in a particular situation if it is neccssa~r and important for th~ health of thc community, perhaps it is something we should have. Hc favors affordable housing. However, would the propo~d housing option mean that we are ' going to start lmt~i-~ housing in betwe~n taverns? He believes cach ucighborhood should be looked a~ individually. 'SUSAN MARSDElq, 1617 Pasker Street, said thcm is another Ashland-out Ar, hland Strect with lha mall. thc cinema and Alhe~son's. To shiflthis sobulldi.~ nsbigas 75,000 squsrc fceicanbcbuilt outlhcro, weascc~e~fing"theburbs'. Thc IRl~ldln? IlOW I1~ built ia the ooate~t of n~.,hbothood lionizing alld ~lild~n~o8 of sol~]ler $(~le. gh~ do~ll't V/~llt to ~ th~ b~lsncc. She believes tl~t 45,000 squn~ feet should be thc limit. SlI~ I~pl~Ci_~t_~_ lhat cl~l~t/~ wayg being looked at for affoldablo housing, but soea this us a separate issue. It is dangcimis to uso affordable housing as a wedg~ issuc to croatc blgldla? aslarge as ?$,000 square fcct. BRYAN HOLLHY, 324 Libc~ Slreeg said hc recommended thi.ldng outsklc Ibc box and tsldng this to a wider group lhrough MARY-KAY MICHELSElq, 2810 Diane Strect, believes 45,000 squnrc fe~t is excessive and out of scale with thc community. She ~ thc clarification of Section I B. She is 8.S,~m mln~ S~tion I C 2 is OOnsistcllt with the ~ of the City. hi Scction I C 3, lbe 75,000 square fcct is much too large for a small tov,~. Low cost housing is unroiated to lhls ordirmnl'~. She said rcmovlng Section I C 3 would negate the necessity for Section I C 4. ERIC NAVICKAS~ 711 Faith Aveauc, asked how far Staff is taldag this away from the initial requczt from thc Council. ff ,ghskespearo were to go fol~rd with another project, it could stir be appealed under this ordinancc. Thc propuscd amendment is not addressing the issues that began these changes. This exemption mskes thc ol~lirmncc completely ambiguous. It states under the first exemption that gross floor area associated with on.~'ound level rc~idential ~scs do not count toward thc total gross floor area. We are already saying a building can be 75,000 square but residantial above tho ground floor doc~'t count towards lhat anyway so that could bc extcndcd indcfmitcly with uc limit. Thc second exemption rciating to automobile parting means a paring garage could beoome tndcfiultely large. Thc affordable housing exemption seems to be an after- thought The chenge~ at, completely-,aecessary. The ordinance ofiginslly was perfectly ulcas, strictly Iimltiug a gross ~,Sat~0 Ral~Hel0 CO~S~t 2 FEBRU.~,Y 11, 2003 r4uare footage of 45,000 square feet. He helieve~ the 45,000 squa~ foot limit should be reduced in the downtown. If anything, we need to send the Council a decision that the original ordinance is well-written. Chapman noted that outside the downtown there are parking requirements and height requirements. Swalez said the only areas we are discussing are the areas of high vis~ility. McLauEhlln said there are some areas that arc cxcluded. Chapman read a letter from Start Druben, 125 Brooks Lane. BILL STREET, 180 Mead Street, said the Council mado the inteipretation that would allow a 45,000 square foot footprint plus a s~ond floor of 45,000 square feet, plus a third floor of 45,000 square feet in the downtown. That would he a total of 135,000 square feet in the downtown~ Everyone here tonight agre~ that is too big. Sh-eet sald it oonfitses the matter when the Plaza is talked about as one building, People a~ not drawn to that area thinkingit i~ One building. They ~ee lots of little buildings with very short fronts. That is much different than the 300 foot llmiL Street refen~d to the Addendum l StaffP-,eport, page l, staling300 feet is the length llmlt. Thatis 100yards. Howcooldlhat be a limit'/ It sounds more li~ an invitation to a builder. He asked the Commi~iollet~ to re~)nsider that limit. With reference to page 3,//4 (no bu/Idlng should exceed 75,000 square feet), moat people feel that is too big. Outside tho downtown, you can have a 75,000 square foot bnl~ai~ coasisfing ofoommereinl space and then you could add up to four storiez with a 45,000 squa~ foot fooqnlat with tezidential units. 'Chis would he 180,000 square feet. Street believea we need to n~dify gRs proce~s and open it up wlde~. 3'henumhers areincre&'blylarge for thistown. Thereis some urg~-'y. Bythe Council's inteal~tatio~ we are allowing 135,000 square feet. What doe~ Ihe Commit-sion want this town to look liked in 20 to 40 years'/ He propor, ed 150 foot length for downtown and a tolal maximum gross floor area of 30,000 square feet and a 10,000 square foot footprint. 'l'he ELks building has a 7,000 square foot footprint. Chapman v~l an e-mail from WENDY EPPINGI~ CHUCKLAUP~SON, 607 Fore~ Sine,t, thought we needed to spend more time tsltdng about the way we think' abolit otlr comm,mity~value~ A key value he hea~ people tnlldng about is acz~tefic value. CX}MMI$.RIONER~' DI.~U,~ON AND MOTDN S~ ~ foHo~ cl~ly ~ ~ ~ of ~ p~ ~ ~ ~ p~ ~.g~ ~ ~ fl~go ~). ' ~ fl~r ~ of~ ~ding ~n~ ~ ~ ~ ~lf ~ ~ f~e R si~ Om ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ H~ f~ ~ F~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of~ ~o~ ~t ~. S~ ~ ~ ~t ~p~Hc ~ ~I~ ~ ~~ ~of~ p~ ~ ~ p~ of~ ~t ~ ~sl~y~ ~. It ~ ~ of Fic~ ~d ~ ~ ~wl~ h ~ o~! ~ ~ g6 ~ ~ ~ ~ It ~k ~-y ho~ of~mmi~ ~ ~o ~mm]~ ~ [ ~t o~t ~ a bt ~ ~ ~ ~i,~ ~ ~& 45,~ ~ f~ He ~ how ~ ~ a of~ ~ lot ~ i~ ~e d~i~ ~ pa~ He ~ ~t at ~ ~e, ~ bl~k ~m F~ to S~M 8~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~b~w. R~o~W. ~d~ad~n~d~~*0~dP~oF~ U~e~tplnnnlnEo~!nn~, b~d~ ~'t ~ b~t ~ ~o ~d D~ ~t w~ ~~ ~ ~'t ~y 1o~ h ~ do~ ~t ~uld ~ow for 45,~ ~ f~ ~d fl~r. ~ ~ ~mo ~ ~& a ~t n~ for &e douwe? Wi& ~g~ to . affo~le he~, it ~ ~ 45,~ llmlt on ~e ~d fl~r ~d ~mm~ sh~d ~ ~t ~d ff ~hlnE h O~ 45,~, it neeth to be residential with a certain percentage affordable. Kistler agrees that be does not want to see "big box" stores coming into Ashland. However, he is not as fearful of what might happcnazbeisofwhatwcmightlosc. He usea thc YMCA a fcwtimcs awcelc It secms th¢ commanity uses the larger projects the most He sees his ncighbors and lliends at Bi-Matt and Shop 'N Kart~ What is thc harm to thc community with these projects? Morris probably disagrees with the affordable housing piece. He would like to see affordable housing, but doubts from an economic standpoint that it would be built. With regard to square footage, 75,000 seems excessive. Forty-five thousand doc~ not sound like that much. Three hundred fect is a long distance, but hc believes thc Design Standards would rcquLre breaking up of ~hat length, Hanson did not see any reason to change the ora!-snce in the first place. He said "footprint" was thrown in to the get tbe project approved. Seventy-five thousand square feet ofbuildlnE is atrocious. He believes the proposed ordinance is a waste of iim~. He do~not sec anylhinglntherengcof45,000 square feet happoning in the downtova~ 'P~ere areplace~ onAshland Sireet and in that area wbere larger buildinL, s can ho p~ He do~n't see having to regulate a 45,000 square foot footprint dowutowu or ill anyplace in tho Site Review ZOla. He believes it should be what tho o '[lgillal Orclinan~e said--45,000 ~ltlare f~t greys. Briggs lik~ what Swal~ said abooi tying it into the FAR. Shoneveragrecdthatgresssquare footage meant footprint, Sheis willln~ to stay with thai. As much as she wants affordable housing, she would not want to see any~hln~ get any bigger 45,000 square fecC Sbecanaenwheroparldn~do~m'tnecessarilyhavetooountifitisuadc~r~,tmd. ffitisontbe~oofthe~ would have to be parapet wails, cto. sad that could clumge it Hamon asked McLa~al;. why wo arc put in the pusifion of having to change the ordinance. Is it because thosc on thc Council (Hanson includcd) madcthat dcfmilion of square footage? McLau2hlin said the only reason it is hofore thc Commission is because the Counoil has said it~y want th~ ordins~ce clarified explicitly so there wouldn't just 1~ an Fiel& said there are timcs when we want buil~;-? more than 45,000 square feet How do you create a conditional usc permit bas~ on who you llke and whai you need? You can't hold the YMCA or Shakespeare to a differant standard t~n Wal-Maxt ' 'fhere may bca time when 30,000 square fect of affoniablc housing would work. l-I~n~on agreed thc~ is a place for it, KenCaLm believ~ ~ in some cases the larger buildings with affordable housing are sppmpriate in tl~ Delailed Site Review Zone. Yoowanithat densityofhovslngtobeamongtho~euses. Allowingit to be ouiside does setapthe suburbia issue. ~n s~id ho do~ not b~llove lla:~o is an emesgency to this issue. Our orgifl-snce has done a good job of protecting us fiom Ihe as~g,~ to locally owaod business.. He would lil~ to get tho opiulon of thosa in commen~ial/reiail busiaeasa~ Heis p~..n~_~ Commission, and have mo~c discussion before ,,~t4ng a decisiou. Swales angge~tcd msld.g a mellon for Council to intcipret the ordinance'to say that gross sqvare footage means I~oss floor arca, not footprint At least that givc~ us a placeholder until we can hash out the McLau~otfli~ said he would check with the City Attorney and he will fol~vard the recommendatiom Swales moved that the ptsnni.~ Commi~-siou recommelld that the Codicil intoipret the oxis~ "big box" Oralnsnce with the 45,000 squa~ foot gross square foolnge to mean gross floor area of all spaces. KanCaim seconded the molion and it carried ImSnimously.. · I~UTr~ FEBI~ARY 1t,~00~ ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT pLANNING ACTION: 2001-069 ADDENDUM I January 14, 2003 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments REQUEST: Amendment of Chapter 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Section H-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards regarding sta~dsrds for large buildings. I. Relevant Facts I) Background - History of Application: In 1992, the City adopted new Commercial Development Standards including specific ' limitations on the size of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone. A limitation of 45,000 sq. fa wns imposed. In 2000, the City approved an application by the Oregon Shakeq~ear~ Fcz~ival that involved a new theater and parking structure in downtown Ashland. Queaions arose about the application of the building size standards adopted in 1992. Specifically, questions arose as to/he application of the 45,000 gl. fl- standard and how it is measured, · and is it appropriate to apply the standards downtown since so many buildln~ are . contiguous and possibly exceeding the standards already. ' The Council ultimately Interpreted the 45,000 gl. i~. requirement as applying to the building footprint, malclng the following finding: Concluslens of Law:, The City Council condudes as follows: § Regarding fi2 above and hased upon Drawing Sheat Al.0 at Record p. 192, the proposed building has a gross floor area square footage, less than 45,000 and a contiguous length of less than 300 feel During the proceeding some opponents argued that the paridng structure is 46,800 square feet In gross floor area and·thus violates ALUO 18.72.050(C) and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (ASDUS) II-C-3-a-2 which both provide In pertinent part: Pionnigg ApPlication 2001-069 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Plapnlng Department- gtaffReport Sanuary 14, 2003 PaRe 1 I¢ No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. The C, itv Council doe~ pot Intemret "~ress square f0olaqe of 45,000 square feet" to mean =oss floor area s~uare feetaoe. This ouoted phrase is to be interoreted as meanlna 45.000 s(3uam feet fopl~print. It Is to be distinguished from those provisions of the land use ordinance that specifically refer to gross floor area such as in section II-C-3 of the Site Design and Use Standards ("Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet...' Emphasis added.) The City Council finds that the parking stnJeture does'~t exceed a footprint of 45,000 square feet. Even if the limitation were to be interpreted to mean "gross floor area' the parking structure does not exceed the maximum allowed. During the City Council public hearing, Ashland Planning Director John Mcl_aughlin tesitr~d that his staff had carefully computed the gross floor area square footage of ~ building and found it to be less than 45,000 grOSs floor area square feet. Mr. Md_aughiin attributed the deviation to measurements taken by opponents from the exterior limits of the building rather than the interior limb. He further tostJt'~.~d that lhe City always computes building gross floor area square featage based upon the interior size of a building and emphasized that even without subtracting the planter areas along Hargadino Street, that the building floors were less than 45~000 square feet. The City Council accepts and adopts the findings of Its Planning Director and ccodudee that the partdng structure does not violate the provlslens of etihor ALUO 18.72.0,50(C) or ASOUS II.C-3-a-Z, As to v/nathor the proposed buildings exceed a length of 300 feet in violation of the same provisloes, the City Council ccodudea that conditions It has placed on these approvals require the buildings to be separated and for the parking stradaJre to have a "fire wall" sufrK~nt to meeting building codes for the wall of the parking structure that faces the theatre. The City Council concludes that the condition e~sures that the buildings will net be connected and ~n'll not, therefore, violate provisions of ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 that prohibit building or contiguous groups of buildings from exceeding 300 fee{ in length. The City Council also ceedudos that the subject buildings are not a Council constnms contJgum~ to mean touching. If the pan~ stnmlum and theatre do not touch, they are not contiguous and do not violate ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 and the City ' Council eenoludos that they do noL Moreover, based upan conditions the Council has attached to Aflor the OSP application, the Council dimetcd the Staff to prepare amendmmts to the oralnanee . that would rcflcof thcir intorpretation of the O~rlin~nce, alld to address the isslie of the application . of the size standards within the downtown area. Staff prepared those chsnEes, but concerns wore raised that more discussion with the corem.unity was necessary to ca.sum that the ~ proposed were in the best intorest of future development alld commtlllity values. A sttldy session was hcld with thc pbnnln~o COmmisSion alld City Council on lune 25, 2002, That meeting provided the parameters for thc ordinance amendments. The issues to be addressed wore: 1. Clarification as to how to measure the 45,000 scl. i~ reforenced by the ordinance. 2. How to clarify the definition ora contiguous buildin~ $. How the ordinance amendments would be applied and impact the downtown commorcial area. Pla~nlng Application 2001-069 Applicaut: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Dapartment- StaffRaport January 14, 2003 Page 2 t& Proposed ordinance amendments were prepared and presented to the Planning Commission at a study session on August 27, which included an option for larger buildings if affordable housing was included. The proposed change~ were g~n~dly well received, with recommendations for clarifying somo of tho language. Another study session was hddon S~pt~mb~r 24, 2002 to bring back tho final versions based on tho r~comm~ldatiotls from the previous study se~siom The proposed ordii/anee amendments pr~ented in this report are based upon the previous meetings. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The existing ordinance reads as follows: 8eciion 18.72.050.C. ofthe Ashland Land Use Ordinance: · No new buildings er contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed lhese limitations, which were In existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% In area or length beyond their 1992 area er length. Neither the gross square footage or combined contiguous building length as set forlh in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized 18.72.050.C. (proposed replacement for existing section) 1. Oulaide lhe Downt°Wn Design Standarfls Zono, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings -.in the Detail Site Rovlaw Zone shall co~orm with the following standards: a. Buildings shadng a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered a! one building. b. Bulidings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured c. Bulldinge shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feel including all interior 1) Gross tloor area assodated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count toward the total gross floor area. 2) Automobile parking areas located within lhe building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-structure paridng, shall not count toward the total.gruss floor area. 3) Buildings larger than 45,000 sq. fL but not excei~ding 75,000 sq. ft may be approved through Ihe Conditional Use Permit process, ixovtded that in addition to complying with the criteria for approval of a CUP, fo~ each 1,500 sq. fL of additional gross floor area beyond 45,000, a residential unit is provided on-sEe for affordable housing at 80% median Income in compliance with the City's affordable housing requirements. 4) No building shall exceed 75,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, excluding non-ground level residential square footage. d. Buildings shall not exo~t a combined contiguous building length of 300 feel e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exoeed these limitations,.whlch were In existence In 1992, may expand up to 15% In area or length beyond their '1992 area or length. The · building footprint area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth In this section Plonnlng Application 2001-069 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report APplicant: City of Ashland January 14, 2003 Page 3 I? shall not be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. 2. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. fl. er a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. It. Section 1 is se~ up to provide for specific standar& for maximum buildin~ sizes outside of the Downtown Design Standards zone, explicitly defines what constitutes c~ntignous buildings, defines that measurements for 45,000 sq. fl~.footpdnt am from outside the. exterior walls, sets the maximum gross floor arm of 45,000 sq. it. with the exceptions for residential and parking areas. A Conditional Use Process is provided for larger buildings up to 75,000 sq. IL, but still with only a 45,000 sq. ft. footprint, but only if affordable housin~ is provided on site. The affordable housing provision is included here as an option for developers. It is not mandatory, but is provided under the reasoning that should someone want to construct a larger building than normally allowed within Ashland, affordable honsing should be provided for the · additional employees/workers that will be generated by tho use. · Section 2 applies only to the Downtown Design Standards Zone, and limits buildings to 45,000 sq. IL, but does not require that the buildings be separated. They may continue to follow the -pattern esta~bllshed of common walYtouching wall buildin~ throughout downtown. Sectioo II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards ctwrently reads: No now I~uildings or contiguous groups of shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet er a exceed these limitations, and which were in existence in t992, may expand up to 15% in area or length The. pwposed changes to this standard is as follows: SeCtiOn I1-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is proposed to be replaced as follows: Outside the Dov~tov~ Deslg~ Standards Zoo, new bulklings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform ~ the following standards: a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having wails touching at er above grade shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feat as measured °utslde the exterior walls. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feat, Including all Interior floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exceptions: 1 ) Gross floor area associated 'with non-ground.level residential uses shall not count toward the total gross floor area. 2) Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parldng and under-structure parking, shell not count toward the total gross floor area, 3) Buildings larger than 45,000 sq. ft. but not exceeding 75,000 sq. ft may be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process, provided that in addition to complying with the Planning Application 2001-069 Ashland Planning DePaxtment- Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland lanuary 14, 2003 Page 4 criteria for approval of a CUP, for each 1,500 sq. ft. of additional gross floor area beyond 45,000, a ' residential unit is provided on-sEe for affordable housing at 80% median income in compliance with the City's affordable housing requirements. 4) No building shall exceed 75,000 sq. fL of gross floor area, excluding non-ground level residential square footage. d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed thes~e Jimitations, which were in existence in 19c:)2, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building footprint area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall not be subject to any vartance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. Inside the Downtov~ De. sign Standards Zone, new buddings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. fL or a gross tioor area of 45,000 sq. ff. The'lan~.ge proposed for the Site Design and Use Standards is essentially the same as proposed in the new ordinance to ~ oon 'tancy. And additional ~han§e to the Site Design and Use Standards is proposed x~arding the location of buildings on comer lots. Section II-C-!a) Orientation and Scale 1) Buildings shall have thelr primary orlentatio~ toward the street rather than the paridng area. ' Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. :Where buildings are located on a comer lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street erie the lot comer atthe Intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. 2) '- Building entrances shall be located within t 0 feet of the public right of way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographlo constraints, lot configuration, designs wbem a greater setback results In an Improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, where this standard is met by other buildings. tc .'J-~ ...~:".din~ .~:-.tc,"~-. This entrance shell be designed to be cloerly visible, attractive and functional, end shall be ope~ to the public during all business hours. II-C,.2b~ Streetsceoe 2) A building shell be sethac~ not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian ad. ivltios such as pl~:,-~s or outside eating areas. This standard shall apply to both street fron~agea on comer lots. If more than one structure Is proposed for a site, at least 25% 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. These modifications are intended to ensure that new buildings on comer lots are oriented towards the street on both frontages, and that an entrance is oriented to the major street or to the intersection.. Harming Application 2001-069 APplicant: City of Ashland , Ashland Pl,nning D~pat haent- StaffReport January 14. 2003 Page 5 I? II. .Proiect Impact The impact of these changes is to amend the ordinance to be consistent with the direction given to staff through the study sessions on this topic. We believe that these changes will clarify the issues involved with the implementation of the large scale development standards with new large buildings. It also darifi~athe role of the ordinances in addressing devdopment in the downtown, ensuring that new structures are compatible with the existing development pattern. Further, we have provided an option for larger buildings as a conditional use, ff affordable housing is provided concurrently with the development of the commeroial building. As stated in the ordinance, for each 1500 sq. fL of floor area in excc~ of 45,000 sq. iL, an.affordable homing unit on-site would be required Should the Commission determine that no buildings should be allowed within Ashland's Detail Site Review Zone larger than 45,000 sq. fo, this portion of the code can be easily modified. m, procedural - Required Burden of Proof Chapter 18.108.140 of the Procedures Chapter regarding Legislative Amendments states the following:. It may be necezsary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to co~fo~m with the comprehens~'e p~an er.to meet other changes In circumstances ~ind condRions. A legislative amendment is a legislative ac~ solely within tho a~ority of ~ne Cours~l. The City Council h~s directed the st/affto PrOvide amendments to the ordinance to clarify the specific issues related to big box development IV. .Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends appr6val of the ordinance amendments as presented. Planning Application 2001-069 · Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Pl~ning Department - 8taft Repo~ ~anuary 14, 2003 Page 6' CITY OF -ASHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RB: September 24, 2002 Planning Commissioners $ohn McLaugtflin, Direet0r of Community Development Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Big BOX Ordinance Based upon discussions at lite August 27 study ~ion, we have p~paz~ amendments to the proposed change~ in the Big Box ordinance: 18.72.050.0. (proposed replaoement for existing section) 1. Outside the DoWntown Design Standards Zone, new ~ilcr.~gs or expansims of existing:buildings In the Detail Site Review Zo~, cx..'~c'~.-.;;I th._.: ................. ,, .......... onv, shall conform with tho following standards: a. Buik3rmgs shadng a common wall or having Walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one Ix/Iding.- b. Bt/kfa~ signet exceed a t~ding foolix~ area of 45,000 square foot as moasur/~d outside .... the exterior wal~. o. Builcflngs slmJl not exceed a gross floor orea of 45,000 Square feet, includ'u~g all Intodor floor 1) Gross floor area nssociated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count toward the total gross floor area. 2) Automobile parldng areas located within the building footpflnt, such as rooftop parking and under-structure pa~lng, shall not count toward the total gross floor area. 3) . Buitd~gs lacier ~ 45,000 sq. ft. but not exceeding 75,000 ~1. it may be approved a CUP, for each !,500 sq. it. Of addiUonal, gross aoor area beyond 45,000, a ro~ unit Is provided on-s~e · . 4) No building ~ exceed 75,000 sq. It. of gross floor area, exgl~:ling non-ground level" resldenitalsqu~re, footago. · cE Bulk:lings shall not exoood a combined cooflg, uous'bullding length of 300 feet. existon~e In 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Tho butidlng ,foolprlnt .ama, gross floor area, or combined oontiguous bullcr,~g length as sot forth In th!s section shall not bo. · subject tO e~.y variance authorized In the Land Uso Ordinance; .. 2:' . ' ' Inside the Downtown Design Standards """'~'-"~ ~'' .~.. Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing ........ ~ ....... .................. ; ...... .? -'o .... hall not exceed a buildlne foob3rlnt area of 45,000 se. fL or a oross floor' Section H-C-la) Orientation and Scale 1) Buildings shall have their prima./orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are located on a comer lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street orto the lot comer at the Intereectlon of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. 2) Building entrances shall be located within 10 feet of the public right 6fway to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topogrephio constraints, lot configu~ation, designs where a greater setback results In an Improved access, or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers where this standard Is met by other buildings D..;,.~;~..~ ,~o ..... .~,~ ~n ~.~. ^, o~^ ~,,~. '~'~"" ....... * ..... '"' ""~^"*'~"""' ""'"""""^"' '"^ "~*"'""* *" ~" ~"'"'~="" !ntcdcr. This entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, attractive end furtctional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. ,Conclusion: It is Staff's opinion that the proposed'modifications to the ordinance addr~s ~ issu~ that have b~en raised previously regarding the big box ordinance. * It maint~in~ a maxinl-m footprint of 45,000 sq. ft. "Conliguo~" has been replaced by common wall or walls that touch · ~ Downtown, the "A' Street area, and other areas in the future that will have specific design standards have been excluded from the separation between buildings requirement, to ensure compatibility of new structm~'with thc historic p~ems. s An op~on for affordable housing has been provided. CITY OF SHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: August 27, 2002 Planning Commi~ioners John McLaughli~ Director of C~mm.nity Development Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Big Box Ordinance Based upon comments from the initial meeting rcgardin~ ~ topic on June 25, 8taffhas prepared ~ome proposed ord!nan~ce amendments for the Commlnsion to consider. While we believe that these address . the concerns raised, they are pre~sented here in the hopes of generating discussion as well as solutions to the concerns of the commllnity. 1. How to measure the size of a building subject to L~rge Scale Development standards? 18.72.050.C. (proposed replacement for existing section) 1. 'New buildings or expansions of ~ng buildings in the Detail Site R~ Zone, excepting the a. Buildings sharing a common wall shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shail not exceed a building' footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measur~ed inslde the exterior walls. c. Eluildingg shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, Including all interior floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exceptions: 1) Gross floor ;area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not Count toward th~ total gross floor area. 2) Buildings larger than 45,000 sq. tL but not exceeding 75,1)00 SCl. ft may be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process, provided that In addition to complying vAth the cffierla for approval ' of a C~UP, for each t,600 sq. ft.' of additicoal gross floor area beyond 45,000, a residential unit is provided o~-slte for a.ordable housing at 80% median income in compliance ,6qth the City's affordable housing requirements.", 3) No building shall exceed 75,000 SCl. fL of gross floor area, exoleding non-ground level residential square footage. d. Buildings shall not exceed a Combined contiguous building length of 300 feeL Any building~or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in exisJenoe in 1992, may expand up fo 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building footprint area, gross fl°or ama, or combined cootiguous building length as set forth in this section shall not be subject to any variance authorized In the Land Use Ordinar~e. 2. New buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Downtown Design Standards Zone shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. fL or a gross flour area of 45,000 sq. fL DEPARndEIfi' OF COIdlltlNl~' I~cVELOPlaENT ~ lYe~lon T~: S45488..~3~5 . 20 East Idaln I~a'eo( F~c ~11488-5311 2,.3 As shown, we are proposing a two-step approach in addressing this issue. We believe that there needs to be a footprint standard that sets the maximum size of a single' story building, and a gross floor area standard that sets the maximum size of a multi-story building, but with a couple of twists.' While thc standard limit on gross floor area would.be 45,000 scI. fi., it could be increased, up to '/5,000 sq. fi. if affordable housing is also provided. This would be done through a conditional use permit process. ---7 · As a maximum example, if an applicant proposed a 45,000 sq. ft. footprint building, but wanted to add 30,000 sq. ft. of second floor are~, they would have to provide 20 affordable units on site (1 unit/1500 sq. fi. added beyond 45,000). Assuming that the.residential units averaged 750 sq. fi., an additional 15,000 sq. fi. of area could be added to the building. This could end up being a 90,000 sq. fi. building, or a two-story 45,000 sq. ft. building, Of course, the applicant could provide the affordable housing in a separate building on the property, limiting the total size of the larger structure. section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards would be modified to be consistent with the ordinance amendment proposecL 2. Contiguous buildings. We've attempted to rgmove the ambiguity associated with "contiguous buildings" by explicitly saying that buildings oonuected by a common wall shall be considelx~ as one building. Therefore, any common wall buildings shall be weighed agalna all the standards as if they were one building. Further, the staadardxequiring that buildings be separated by the height of the tallest building or 60 feet is recommended to not apply in the Downtov~ 8e~don II-C-3a)3) oftbe Site Design and Use Standards: For the purposes of this standard, buildings c~nnected by a common wall shall be considered one building. Buildings .-.ct ccn,-.-'~:'.~'2 by 6 =c.m.m.c.-. ?:.--_~! shall be sepamtecl by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet In lenglh, the seperatio~ shall be 60 feet. This standard shall not apply to new or existing str~ctures In the Downtown Design Standards Zone. 3. Additional Changes Staff has recommended that thc standard rogardlnE orientation be modified to clarify the standard if thc development.is occuning on a comer lot, Thc intent of this standard was to get new buildings to have their entrances toward thc street, In staff's opinion, when there is a comer lot, thc cnlrance should b~ oriented tow; thc higher order street (arterial or collector) rather than a lower order side street, or that thc entrance be orient, toward the comer of the lot at thc intersection, I)EPARTIIENT OF COMMUNI/Y DEVELOC~IIIENT 20 Ea~Mah Sfmet F~c ~1-48~311 Section ~I-C-la) Orientation and Scale 1) BuiUings shall have their primal/orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall be Oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are located on a comer Iof, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot comer at the Intersection of the streets. Publi9 sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. 2) Building entrances shall be located within .10 feet of the public right of-way. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints or for sites vdth multiple buildthgs, such as shopping centers, where this standard is met by other buildings. D,...~;...~ ..~, ..... ,~. ~ ,^.., ..,..~ .~.^.., ~..., ~. ........ , .... ,^. "^'~^'*~'~ '~:'"""" ~" ~ ~"~* '^ '"^ ~";"~;~" "'^~"' This entrance shall be designed to be attraclive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. ~ommission Discussion Points: I. Maximum Building Size: A. Staffis proposing 45,000 sq. fL footprint. Is this appropriate? 'Staff is proposing 45,000 sq. It. of gross floor area, with the possibility to expand ~o 75,000 sq. t~ [ affordable housing is provided. Is this the appropriate approach? The Commlgsion may wish to consider the concept of expanding gross floor area with an incentive for affordable housing further. C. Maintaining the 300 foot length limit for the face of a building. Is this still considered an ~" apprepriate limit? D. The Downtown area is specifically ~n~ted in the standards, with limits on building footprint (45,000 sq. fL) and groes floor a~a (45,000 ~q. iL). It is exempt from the requirements for separation of buildings, encouraging a pattem'slmilar to what hx~ been e~ablished historically. Th proposed ordinance for the Downtown do~n't allow for the b~ildin~ larger than 45,000 sq. fL of gross floor area, even with residential incentives. Is this an appropriate' approach? IL Contiguous Buildings "' ~. We have explicitly stated that buildings connected by a common wall will be considered as one · building, except in the Downtown~ Is th;.~ appropriate? III. Orientation A. Staff is proPOsing to clarify issues related to building orientation based upon ambiguities diseovere in past applications. We are reeommendlng that if the development is occurring on a comer lot, that th entrance be located on the higher order street Further, we're proposing that the ordinance explicitly state that entrances be located within 10' of the right of w~y, unless there are substantial reasons to the contrary. Is this appropriate? DEPAR~fl~qi' OF COMMUNITY PbnMng IlMsbn Td: ~0 E~ I,~b 8~;ee{ F~x:541-488Z311 CITY OF 4kSHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 25, 2002 Honorable Mayor, City Council membel~, and Planning Commissioners John McLaugblln~ Director of Community Development Initial Meeting - Big Box Ordlnanco Amendment Process Enclosed you will find a packet of information on the City's current o~in~nces regulating commercial · development, and more specifically.large scale development (commonly known as the "big box" ordinance). The joint study session scheduled for June 25 is the kickoff meeting for the revision of this ordinance based on cone. ems raised during the OSF New Theater/Pm-king Structure applieatiom BACKGROUND: In 1992, thc City adopted revised commcrejnl develoPment standards for all levels of commei-clal development, from' small light industrial buildings to large retail commercial outlets. Part of thc impetUS for thi.~ proe~ Was concern over informal proposals for a. new Wal-Mart and a factory outlet shopping center. As part of that process, specific standards were developed for large scale development. Large scale development is defined as development greater *ban 10,000 sq. ii. in ~ or is longer than 100~ in length or width, and located in the Detail Site Review Zone. Further, the ordinance provided the following max'imum limit: ,No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the I~il Site Review Zone shall exceed s gross square footage of.45,000 square foot or a combined contiguous buildln0 length ora00 foot. Any building or centiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in t992, may expand up to t6% in area or length beyond their t992. area or length. Neither the gross square, footage or combined contiguous building length as set forth In this section shall be subject to any variance suth.orized in the Land Use Ordinance." Several issues arose during the OSF application regarding the application of the ord[n~nM.' Item 1. How is the 45,000 sq. iL maximum mesm~d? The current ordinanc~ refers to "gross square footage" but does not define the term. Thc City Council interpreted that Lsng~_~ge to mean "footprint" and not greas floor area of a structure as part o.f the OSF approval. That interpretation hm been questioned by comm~lity members and by newer members of the Council that were hot part of that decision. DEPN~.I'BE~ OF COUMU~IaY DEVELO~BEKI' ~ DMslon T~ ~41-48~305 20 E~{~ ~ Fax:~t-48~311 · ~.~d,~O ITY: ~ Item 2. What does "contiguous groups of buildings" mean? The word "contiguous" was discussed during the OSF application, and there was some confusion over the word. The City C9. unoil ultimately interpreted it to mean "touching", which is a common definition The first definition for contiguous in Webaers New Riverside University is: 1. Sharing a boundary or edge: touching. This is the definition that Staffhas used since adoption of the ordinance. Item 3. Does the ordiaance apply in the Downtown Overlay district? The standards were applied to the OSF application, since the ordinance didn't exclude the' Downtown area. However, it was Staff's opinion that the original ordinance intended to exclud0 the downtown, since it is made up of large "contiguous groups of buildings" that sometimes exceed the current standar& (the contiguous Plaza buildings exceed 300' in length, for example) and could therefore be determined to be non-conforming. Further, it was Staff's opinion that the specific Downtown Design Standards, which are applied ia addition to the Insic and detail site design standards provide specific requirements for new development that will ensure appr6priate scale and style of developmeat. Alter.the OSF application approval, the City CounFfl members in office at thc time directed Staffto br~ back ordln_nnce am~dments which clarified that the 45,000 SCl. iL limit applied to a building footprint, and thn~ the large scale development standards didn't apply in the Downtown Design Standards zen~. The Plimning Commi~ion held a public hearing and recommended approval of the chnngea at their August 14, 2001 meeting. The Council started the himring process in September, 2001, but delayed to consider 0ther testimony. That has lead to the cunent process. 8taffRec0mmendafion: At the joint study session on June 25, 2002, Staff will have a presentation on the current Site Design and Use Standards and how they are and have been applied to pwjects within r Ashland. Also, we will explain the uspec!s related to large scale development. We recommend that afl~ the preseniafion, the Council and Phmnlng Commi~ion cousider the following iterm: 1. Are the size limits of the current ordin.nce appropriate? Footprint vs. gross floor area? 2.' Do the design ~andard~. address the relevant and important issues associated with commemial and industrial development? 3. 8houid the maxlmmn size limits apply within the downtown design standards zone? 4. Are there other items that should be considered as part of this process? Ptu~ DMskn Te~ S41-,l~-~O5 ~0 FAst I,~it Glr~( ~ F,,c ~4t.4~G~311 CITY OF -ASHLAND JOINT STUDY SESSION ASHLAND PtANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 25, 2002 CALL TO ORDER - ?~amtbtg Comm;~siou C]udr ]v[Jke Gardl~- cai]cd thc meeting to order ~ 7:i0 p.m. Otber Commissioners p~=t were }~dke Morris, Ray Kistl~, Russ (Taapman, Kerry Kc~C~m, Alex Amaro~co, Ma.,Uy~ ~r~=gs, CoU~ Swales, and .~dm F~elds. Mayor AJan DcBocr was pre.~mt ~do~g with CotmcUo~ Don Laws, Susan Rdd, Ctu~s Hea_~ Zohn Mowiso~, Katc ~ackson and Cate Hat/zell. There were no absent members. Staff present were ~ohn McLaughlin, Bill Molnar, Mark Knox, Maria Harris and Sue Yates. PROPOSED AMENOUENT8 TO THE 81G BOX ORDINANCE- lvfcLauEhlin said after reviewing the OSF application, the Council directed Staff to come back with some ordinance amendments to clarify the ordinance to match up with what the Council had . as their intc~on. When it got back to the Council there were some conccams raised that needed to be looked at more in' depth. has outlined the precis in ~e ~ of ~ ~t W ~c ~mmi~iOn ~d ~Cd. ~ h ~e f~ m~ McLaughl~n gave a Power Point prc~mtatl~m show/ng various photos ofbo/]dlng~ reflect/ng how the words in the Site Design and Use Standards apply to what gets built on the ground. He gave square fcotnges of buDdings to help the Commlnsion and Council visualize 1he size of buDding. Mcl~ugM;- said currently thc ordinance~ that apply are prlm,rily in thc Site Design and Use Standards governing new commercial and light industrial developsnant There are basic Site Review standards/hat apply to all development. Thc Detailed Site Review standards apply Within specific Detailed Site Review Zoncz~ 'lhe zones are primarily along the comm~c,:al coiridors and the r/~ilroad propcW/. It is a hightn' level ofrevicw gouerally with boildlag design and orientation and layout. The next level is Large Scale Development Standards. Therc is also a large sccfion of the Site Design and Use Standards.outlying specific standards to the Downtown. The key ~ of thc big box ordinance reads: "No new boildin~ or couliguous ~oups of buildings in the ~ Site Review Zone shall exceed u gross square footngo of 45;000 square feet or combined cot~guous b~ldlng ~ of 300 foot". Neithcr What is gross square footage? The Council has interpreted flint to mcan the footprint of the builaing, Gross floor area is the sum of the different floors Of the budding. The pla.~ builah~? from the Patkview building to thc lower end of the Plaza are contiguous; they are tou~[ng, Thc ,Council intapreted that contiguous means "touchi%~/. Those buildings have 37,000 square feet of footpt'int There ~s about 70,000 square fcct of floor area. Under toda}t's standards, ~ would be allowable because it would be under 45,000 square feet. Thc frontage, however, is 370 feet so it is longer than allowed. * * Most cities u.~ gro~s floor area es a measurement. Some measure outdoor storage too. In some communities they were looking at bulk end scale. How docs it rdatc to the urban fabric eround it~ McLaughtin said thc 45,000 square feet seems to be · big que~on: footprint or gross flour area. Is there some other limit that should apply? Are there additional standards necessary'/ What about the downtown? His recollection from talks several years ago is that the downtown was excluded. He belicve~ we have adcquatc standards throughout the downtown to handle new develOpmonL Iacks°n asked what th6 height limitations arc. McLaughlin said 40 feet in cormnercial and 35 feet in the downtown~ Gardiner asked how height relat~ to slope. McLan~li~ said it's the average grade. Swales wondered what the difference would be if a properly is in thc Historic DisttlcL McLaugldin said the floor area ratios sre a minimum of.35 in a corem ~.reial zone and a maximum of .$ except in the Historic Dis~ct because the pattern tends to be more intense in the Historic District. McLaughlin reiterated the Council has interpreted contiguous to mean touching. The ordinance requires that contiguous buildings can be 45,000 square feet. If they are not contiguous, you have to be separated by the height of thc tallest building. If the front of the building is 240 feet, it is separated by at least 60 feet The idea is that you create buildings with a rhythm that is Similar to what you see in commercial blocks. Hnrtzell asked about the Staff Exltibit 8-2, page 22, Staff Draft # 1. lvicLa~hlin said ~ was'the dra/t of the original. Some changes were made to iL He inserted this because he wanted to show the Council that they were except/ag the C-I-D standards originally. He thinks excepting C-I-D was inadvertently dropped during the revisions that took place~ Reid confirmed lvlcLanghlln's memory. After workin~ on ~ for over a year, everyone knew they weren't talking about ~he downtown because the downtown plan was thc guiding principle for the downtown. This ordinance was for those commercial areas outside the downtown. ~ackson thought if we don't exclude the downtown from the footprint square foot limit, we won't have thc flem'oility downtown that we want. KonCalm said that one of the questions they are being asked is if we are going to do tht~ according to footprint or accurdlng te gross area. ffyon combine the fooqxSnts of the New Their and the parking sma~tore, it is le~ thn. 45,000 square feet. Why wns there a requlremunt to put in ihe walkway'/ Was it becanse it was undeflned whether R was fon~printorgrnssarea? Is Staff now sugge~ing it should be footprint? Md.an~lin said it was the-Council's inteqxetation. ~H said vdmt if, for e~tnml~le~ there is a square block. How deep could the I;nxildings be if there ~ an ope~ space in the middle'and still Stay w~hin 45,000 sq~re feet? Ar~_rotico said 45 feet. It could probably be ~ree stodes~igh. · Bdggs believes the ability to expand 15 percent in area or length beyond 1992, is language that leaves it wide open. lvi¢; ~._~hlin said fltat i~n~Hage was ill beeanso of Bi-lviatL ~ was o~r local b~iness we all liked. We dida't wunt to preclude them ~o~ being able to do a little to bit in order to maintain thek position in the cc.~-,mity and their competitive spot. A imilding can expand 15 percent beyond their 1992 area or len~nh. They only get that. · Laws'- inclination is to go along ~ the intent of the big box ordinance ~._t was to apply to other titan the downtown. Refine · it as appropriate for the areas untside the dowutown. A recond step we mlght waut to do is to/eview the site patterns thet apply for downtown only and see if there is anything in our big box ordinance ~ we have developed that we would want to add to ~he site review for downtown. We may also want to review tightening up the variance procedure. ~ said ilxe kind of projects.that people think of discouraging seem to require a sea ofpadrino The design standards that ' ~e ourently in effect downtown~ coupled ~ith the necessity of the sea of parting; m~e it tm.oo~le to do a reprehensible The problem Swule~ has is with the new pa~ng s~rueture in the downtown. It was exempt from any downtown de~igu standards and nut classified as a parking lot and got away from the landscaping requirements, paddng sh'uetures can be as big as one i/kcs. Now we want to exempt them from any size limits providing/hey meet/he requirements of bulk and scale. It seems like a hole in the ordinance. PUBUC PARTICIPATION DAVID LA_NE said he was very much a part of the discussions in working on the culront ordinance in 1991 and 1992. At/hat time,/here was a strong intent to maintsin a hermony of development within Ashhnd. There was a great deal of concern Wal- Mart would come here. The term "gross square footage-", to the beast of his memory, did in fact refer not to/he footprint but to /he total of the floor areas. That would seem to be in keeping with the other communities. He said if/he Commission and Council use/he term "footprint", it makes it difficult to decide what is part of the building and what is not. Lane believes with regard to measuring interior space vs. exterior space, it is easier to measure ex~erior space. d0110' b'Ba)Y ~'~0N 2 ERIC NAVIKAS noticed that McLaughlln consistently avoided the term ~gruss square footage" in his presentation and inserted the word "toter'. The ordinance is very clear. It states "gross square footage". This shows we are clearly trying to manipulate language to distort the ordinance to promote larger scale development.in the city. He believes this ordinance allows ~Rlild!n..~.~ tO be COll~RIons. The downtowll is tho most ~ in considering overscaled buildln~.~. OSF ret a precedent that we will accept patldn~ garages, l.~ge scale parldng garages and hotels can destroy the eharaoter of the downtown because they become the dominant building type. He believes ~ ordinance preve~ts that. It hies to wod~ toward small-scale buildings. PHILIP LAN(i, 758 B Street, said there has been n violation of the ordinances by the phnn~g Commission and City Council. The ordinance clearly stutes 45,000 square feet is allowed for new buildings, not footprints. When OSF was built, there was a reinterpretation of the ordinance. It is a clear ordinance and a good ordinance/hat needs enforcemenL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL AND COMMISSION Reid again stated thc big box ordinance was not intended to apply to the downtown. She would like to separate thc downtown from thc rest the erdinances; unc for the downtown and one for thc rest of the community. 8wales agre~ with Reid. It seemz that even tho%oh the big box ordinance is not thc way to deal with tho downtown, to exempt it~e downtown fxom 45,000 square feet scorns completely insane. It seems that many of the downtown design standords and rite big box ordinance apply to the downtown. · Fields wondered what this ordinance even means. Ho believes it has been basically ovemfled since it was brought before them. KenCaim raid if you calculate a footprint and calculate a gross floor area, then the problem is solved. Y, nox ~inks.every block in the downtown now wo~fld bo somewhat non-cenforming. What ff,a,~hland Camera wanted to add a second story? Do we want to prsoludo that? Don't forget to look ut thc Dowutown Design Staadards adopted a few years ago. Buildin~ designed from lot line to lot line require n lut of vertical and horizontal doviatinm very similar to the o~er buildin? in the'downtown~ ]d[¢L~tfL, hli6:~aid'gte downtown standards are almoet entixcly focused on ~-eafing a storefront look and designed around retail and socond story spacos. What do yOU do whan yon comc up with a us~ Such as a theatcr? You don't mnke a theater look like a store. You have to have a relief valve. Some ~hln~ don't fit, but is important in the mix of the downtown, pa~lcin~ is an im,nottant issue in the downtown. The city has taken on the burden of pmviaing for our downtown so we can get a good .ceremonial environment along our ~ All the standards don't apply perfectly. As KcnC~im said, do we look at gross floor area, dowe lookata fontptint, or iookut acombination. What do yonwantto accomplish? Someuses wiilrequire lcoklng at a fooqxint. Grocery stores aresingle leveluses and thcy arc important to our community. Thateis abnlnncewhere · Laws suggested leer'tn ~ at aH the bufldln~, gatt have conformed. There are far more that have conformed titan have gotten exceptions. We need to get down to the basic issue~ of what we wa~t for thc future of ~,~hlnnd. Let's draw up changes in the stnndards ns cle~' an unequtvocel ns puss~le with cle~'.gutdolines. ~qmt do we mcen by Contiguous builtlin?? DO we want contiguous buildin~s? DO we want them in the downtown?. DO we want to stick with 45,000 square feet? DO we want to count the fontlx'int or square footage of the whole buil,li~? DO we want to apply both to the downtown and other zones? Swales said there has been a lot of confusion with contiguous gronl~ ofbui]dln~ with regard to downtown. Ail we need to sort this out is where it says "no new I~uildln~ or contiguous buiMin~s", to make it especially clear by saying "no new buildings or new contiguous groups of buildln~'. That would get around the fact that the downtown .buildings un.der separate ownership built et different times aren't contiguous b~ildin? but separate bo[Mings. The o~y other thing is tO redefine gross square footage es gross floor area at 45,000 square feel That can be done either in a smaller footprint on multi,stories or a large 45,000 footprint on one story. McLaughfin said Staff can put something together from thc comments tonight for the next meeting. Ho understands the varisty of issuez. JOINT ~TUDY SF-~$10N ASHLAND I~ANNINO COMMISSION ASllLAND Crrt' COUNCIL IAmUl'E8 JULYg, 2902 3 Fields said he thinlcs We need a redo of what ou~ parking s~ucture solutions are going to be.. ~ONE CHANGE AND AHNEXATiO~ CHANGES RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING - Md, nar said the Housing Commi~ion has, over (he past sevcrul months, been looklnE ~changes to thc approval standards that cuneatly apply to zone changes md annexatious. Tho stimulus camo frona (ho roq~test to reZOllO/ho Cromall mill site (65 ac. industrial site). There was a zone change roqusst that would rezone about 60 pcromt residential. Tho applicant moO with (ho Housing Commi~ion a nunlber of ~imes to discuss an intor~ of providing affordable housing h the project There was a difference in opinion what Staff and Housing Commission felt affordable housing meant for the project versus what the applicant thought it meant. It seemed there was a necessity to ¢[arify that in the ordinance. The housing needs analysis was recently complooecL Tho study solidified what was felt to be an affordable housing crisis in Ashland. Tho Action Plan is duo to be completed in September of 2002. Tonight we are looking at a land use strategy or code provisious flint encourage developers to produce affordable housing. Oeoetully, the provisions are vulunta~. The state legis!a~,~ about three years ago passed a role proin'biting inclusionary The ordinance focuse~ on zone changes. The intemled results of the proposed ameudmants would make the public need for . affordable housing explicit in (he zone ,,ha%~c criteria. Currently, it is fairly subjective, ffan applicant is spccifically requesting a zone change based on providing affordable hous' .rog, let's define wtmt that is. It would make it easier for an ~t~pUcant to receive approval for an appUcation for a zone change that has a positive impact on affordable housing. It sets specific affordable ta~goos for applicatlous. A new provision is that the affordable housing that is provided is required to be guaranteed by a deed rastrictlon for a period of 60 years. Where would ~hese amendmeats apply? A zone change application involving an increa~se in residential density from one ~:~l~ntlal zonin~ d~i~tlon to another. It would apply in certain commercial zon~.through the provision of a residential overlay. Molnar gave thc exampic Tara Labe~ as part of (heir application to build their building on Clover Lane, a zone change for a residential overlay so they could anticipate building around six or sevan units.at the back of the property potentially for employees and increased security at n!~oht. Where are the code language spcclfic~ Twenty-five percent of the units would be available to rcater~ or buyer~ at 80 percent 0fthe median ~ea income. It allows the development to obtain.a density bonus for the provision of affordable housing but not to exceed an inoreuse beyond 15 pexcent of the maximum allowable dcmity. Another provision for mee~nE the affordable housing is to build 15 percent of (he units for buyers or vmtcr~ with household income~ that do not exceed 60 percent of the median area income. The Housing Commission has grappled ~ the tldrd provisie~. A d~vcloper could dcdLca~t~ an amount of.had to a non-profit housing dovelopmeot or comparable dcvelopmant co~ for the pmpuse of complying with ~hc amendments above. 'llzer~ is cod~ language that ¢ .ffcoos the commet~al prop~ties that ~rc ~ to do re?ide~xfia], development in colxjonooinfi', with commercial. ' The lXOViStons above wonld remain ~e seine. In addition, they wonld have to demonstrate that the zone 'alton ge would not negatively impact the city's invetltory of commercial and industrial land. The Planning Commission will review these chang~ at the July meeting. As Staff has thought about the~e changes, there could be some potential tminteadcd consequsnces oftho ch~ges. Arc households we are targeting too iow at 60 to 80 percent? Given some oftlze fivdln~ from (he Needs Analysis, there is a fairly large gap in thc 75 to 125 percent of area mediam. Could (he changc~ disc, om'age smallc/mixed-use projects? Low-income housing is more difficult to accommodate in ~nallor market rate projects, lviolnar referred to Tara Labs'proj~ct again. Could (he proposed ch~nEes be a deterrent? We already have a lot of policies in place that encourage mixed use. The main changez to tho annexation oritoria.is whatever affordable housing target levels we e,~abllsh for zone change~ would be conshtent in the anneXation criteria. ASlU.~,N0 PI.A~NIN~ 3¥ 4 ra~c~.to~-~a.m:~s~low- it focamh is . .e~iag. 8omc of mo m- zir~ of the d~,~-'s t~lcal Onm~ wareho~- of,,, im~uUion that ta~ igar ,, blg roi~i~ ~ .. julia ~It be a'~com t'~e~ .- u tOOt KtWSW£rlC :87 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsb: Recommendatioll: Update on"Big Box" Ordinance Amendment Process ' Department of Community Development April 16, 2002 JOhn i~[CL~U_.ohlln; Director of Comm.nRy Development G-reg Seoles, City' Admlni.~rator The City Council.haz requczted that staffprovide revisions to the "Big Box" ordinance-Chapter 18.72 ofthe land use ordinance. Specifically, the Coun~l requested that the orain,nce be revised to address the issue~ raised in the recent OSF lqew Theater applicafiom ' Recommended changes were proposed by S~affin September, 2001, and further discussed in Feb--', 2002. The changes proposed were deemed to not 1~ comprehensive enough in their scope, and tho Council requested the Staff conduct a more involved proc~ for the ordinance amendments. A revised pr6cess is proposed here, with several meetings and review points. It is e~imated that if the process begins in June, we can have adoption by the City CouacH h, December, with thc new standards becoming effective in January, 2003. This process was not included in the Strategic Plan ~oals recently adopted by the City Council, nor included in the timeline for the completion of the new goals for 2002-2003. It i~ expected that thi.~ pro~e~ will im.n~ the flmelineS for the Riparian Ordinance process, and with the completion of the plnnnlnE effofls for the l~.ilroad Property and the Downtown. ~., Staffha$ rggommgnded that the following process be utilized for modification of Chapter 18.72 regarding "Big Boxes:" Joint gtudv Session- Plsnnln~ Commission/CRv Council - June 25, 2002 This see. sion woulct bo used to provido the scope of the project, identify the areas of the ordnance to be modified, and discuss the nature of the process. Staff'Research and Ordinance Draft - · Based on the scope of thc project, giaff~vould prepare the appropriate. ordinance amendments to meet the desires of the City Council/Planning C. ommlgsion and the commuRRy. ]Public Work. shoo/Study Session - August 27, 2002 Presentation of the draft ordinance and proposed changes. Opportunity for comments, mod!fications, and suggesiions. Staff Redraft based on public comments ~oint Study Session ~- Plannin~ Commission/City Council - September 24, 2002 Public work session on drai~ changes, Pl~mning Commission Public Heo_ring- November 12, -City Council Public Hearing- December 17, 2002 Fisc~l Impact: Background: Ordioance research and drafl~g will be done by Staff. No consultant time is proposed for this project. The previous Council Commtmications have been included for background informa~ion~ Idontson asked for cla'ir~tion on the m~ons for swit~l.8 to ~he Housing Committee f~ ~i~. tlarris explained that the l-lo~a~ Commlgsion is more up ~ speed wlth Federal re~lafions, ts likolyto ~ a m~ ml~t ~ and have a better understanding of~e CDBG progrm~ 'l~blk Hearing OPEN: 7'.M p.m. Public H~aring CLOSED: '/'.30 p.m. ' Couacilors HartzeWReid m/s to add the following language for the all°c~t~on of CDBG Funds as, ~75% for preferably ones and not more than two projects, funded through the eompe, titlve grant process..". D~"~dSSION: Reid noted ~hat ~Mnile sh~ Is n~ in oppos~°n she wanted to make R clear that by h~g ~o ~ s~'eo~ld ~e b~k and say the eo~t of admlnt~0n is greater than 20% which wo~l reduce the amount ofmon~ available to give to tire community, ldorrisofl stated his undctstw~!~is that there are preseatlymore thru two project3 md while we should remain sensitlve to keeping s~lmJnlq~tlve costs down, he believes Jt ~ n~ ~ a ~1~. Heam clarified tl:e bnguege of the motion to show that the preference Js for one project unless there Js best_antficant, voicevote: alIAYES. Motioapassed. - PUBLIC~.FORUM Eric Havb'L'*OTll Faitb/S1Mkz i~u ~';-s ~ fo~ i~'ttlag up public'lx~ in Oae dewatowa ~ He felt that'one · m g g est ed thc C~mmbez' of C~i~rce and the ncw l,H~aty as potcntial iocatlons for ncw kiosks, Zaae Jone02~3 W Hersey/3poke nbo~ tl~ isles of specd limit cnforcemmt nnd right-of-wey law h ~e downtown arc~ md czpressed disoppo~.hmt that the IssUe was not on tMs meeth~s agmda. He encouraged Immediate action Wil Thomson/~9 Walnu~/~Peke regarding fl~e nM~ei~nnent of S~sldyou Boulevard and safety issu~ forbic~lists and pede~ian~ He ~ t~ing tho traff~ signals on MMn ~voet md felt tlmt h~talllng addMonal slgnal lights wa~id obstruct tiro flow of trafl~ He en~ouFaged thc usc of d~mght ~ lnndsceplng m thc Boulevar~ In tetxns of I,~my access. Brut Thompson/S82 ~.kon,~eo~ lwo~ .'.~ Affordable Housing ja~Ju~fi,g acces~'y dwelling~ land trusts, nad Meyor commc~cd that sdditional kioeh sro e v~d f~e nd will pe~ the klce ea to staf~ tic voiced the support of tt~ ~x~II for enfotclng traff~ safety and noted t~at m~u~s at~ moving forward to agldre, ss thc ~ Discussion of.amendments to the Big Box" oFdiaance - Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland L~nd Use ) Hart~[l~_ tlds Item be placed on a Study ~c.,slon s~Etle In lvlarch tn ~der to allow ~¢ ~ ~ ~ various Issues. Commonly l~'velopment Director John McLeugb]in gave a~orlef beckground o~ ~hc rcc~.ldstoty of thc ~Bi~ Box~ ordinence, and noted that it could result in · change in fooq~nt Jntet33mati~ns. Ar~ Godard/396 Bridge Street ~',~Suppofledthe cutr~t 'big box" ordinance md voiced her concern with the changes that have already ~d~m phce in Ibc conunun~ty. She feels th~ lerge buildings chan~o the "fceF' of the community and 0ne~ It ts impoflant to keep thc buildings small. Brcnt Thompson/S82 Allison/Felt that we need to keep the current ordinnnce in pltce in order t6 melntafn Ashlend*s '~nlll town" atmosphere. He ~d thet~ 45,000 squerc foot fooq~mt Is beyond thc sc~k for a small town con~nunlty. Cily Cout~il MccOng 2-05-~2 Page 2 of $ 3? He tn'ged the council to consider red~:in~ ~he foot~t limit to 30,000 to 40,000 sq. fl. and encourage budding ~o · exp~d upward inst~d of out. Bm Stree~tSO lV~ad Street/Commented on ~ cho~ to live h at"sm~ town" a~mosph=e and qu~t~oned how to keep it thh way. He felt that there are few ways to control growth, and ttmt the cmTent ~oig box' ordlnsnee ~ · toolto heipw~_a.e grow~ Heurgedthe counciltosefiouslyconslder tl~sizeofthe footer. He l~quested that adequate time be allowed for public input snd that an cycling discussion meeting be scheduled. 'Eric Navickas/7 ~ ! Fattb/Comm~thet the Ma~k An~0ay building (cuncntly AsMand~S_prin~s) has a 43,000 sque~ fo~t ~*oss size, and u~ed c~sklcratioa oftbat whe~ L_ _ _~e~n~_ allowable foci'iht ~ ' He ¢itedthe ldo Jo Caf~ as ~ cxample of a good size for downtown butldln~, '"Start Druben/12~ Brooks Lune/SU~i ~ · now intalxctati<mofthe %18 box" ordinance would mean major changes kqmt and stressed the ~ of ~ the c~mmnlty on the consequences of the proposed .'~.*es. He suggested tlmt guidelines need to be betternot bigger, and that a 45,000-sq. ft gross ~ h a ~ ~ ~ing ~ a 45,000-sq, ~ footprint bup,4in~ and bow design standards are ·or being followed with cmTcnt i~ccts. He suggested ~gh._~mln~* design standards. suplx~t ofthe current wordin~ of the ordinmoe and dld not see the need t~ make ~*~. l~olte clarified that what ts en~ tc~ for new ISles; and 3) Inltj~__~_ · m4x'~orium ~a cc~yfng new J~Ps until July 2003. Staff rceomMestdati~n is option 3. Comtellore Hamon/Mo.rdsoa m/s to accept staff ttcommendatkm and the Oty temporarily llmR the total number .o[ AFiq ISPs ~ MSCUSSION: Staff was dit~..~ to measure thc t~tukcmc~t~ and l~hc~n of ~he ~ ISPs m~er . r~_~Z s~*w agrccments wJ~ Review of Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) lntertie Pipeline Decisions and Future C~nstrUcti~of~o ~c ~ Council of Oovccmneats 'Public Wosks Director Paul· ~ ~avc a b~cf overview of staff actions based on the Counc11'$'1998 direction, inclod!~ review of 1 ) Lost ~ Water P, lghts: Ev~,_,~t_e tho strate~, for the purchase of these, vattcr rlF~ts; thnln~ quentity, crc.; 2) Eov~ew the proce~ of changing the City's Tslcnt lrr~atioa Dlstrict (TID) water rlshts from ~e (Xty's City Council Meeting 2-05-02 Paso 3 CITY OF ,SHLAND Council Communication DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Recommendation: Fise~d Impact: Ba~viid: Discussion of amendments to the"big box" ordinance, ~i~apfer 18.72 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance De, pat hiient of Comm~lity Development February 5, 2002 ' John McLaughlin, Director of Comm~ty Development ~ Cn~ S~oles, City Adm!nL~'ator The City Council held a hearing on the proposed changes to the "big box" ordlhnnce on September 4, 2001. At that time, the C6unc'fl delayed the adopfio~ of the changes to allow for Rtp scheduling of a study session to discuss the issues. Due to difficulties in finding an open evening study session date for the entire Council, the item was delayed to mln poin~ NO regommendation This is an Rem for discussion, and ultimate direction to The previous Council Communication from September 4 and the supporting information bas been included in ~hi.~ packet, as well as the mimRes from both the Plonning Commission meeting and City Council meeting. In addition, a new StnffExhibit, S-5, has been included which appears to clarify · when the C-I-D reference was dwpped from lbo ordinance. This exhibit is astaff recommentln~on during the proce~ of ori~oz! adoption of th~ big box standards that shows the current lang-%oe IH-.A2 with a possible modi.fication that ended .,up dropping the C-I-D reference. The explana~on of the ~aff suggestion in the '- .memo _,h~l~es no mention of the C-I -D zone. While ihL~ iS axelafivcly re!nor i~ue, it represents ~$ unde~ancHng of the hi~tory 0fth~ ordinance and how it came about. · Also included in the packet.are the adopted Downtowa Design Standards. The Council asked for information regarding.the extent that the Downtown ~ ~egulated beyond other commercial are~. All commercial and employment zones are subject to.the Basle Site Review Standards, while other areas are also subject · to the Detail Site Review Standards. The Downtown is included in these areas. Further, the specific Downtown Design Standards also apply, Providing a progressively rigorous design standard process for applicants to follow in the Downtown. q'/ MINUTES FOR ~ REGULAR ME~TING- ASHLAND O~r¥ COUNCIL September 4, 2001 Civic Center C~mndl C~unbe~ 117S E. M&ln S~eet PLEDGg OF ALLF~IANCE l~yo~ Dd{~ c~llcd thc m~iug to on~ kt 7~0 p~ in ~c Coaxil CMm~ ROLL CALL Couticilafl Laws, Re/d, ~ Hamon, Moff~on and Hearn were pf~ent. City Co~flcll Mcc~g 9.04-01 ' Vdi~ Pag~ l DeSble Miller/160 Normal Avenue/Commented on hcr pc~ccl~ion of how this ordinance mi_~ht advctscly affcct ~c cha~ctcr of R~c city. She urged consideration of ibc ntmific~tiom of~ bi~ bvil, ti-~, what the future holds, and what kind of city we mu~ to b~. ordim~e ss it q~pUcs to thc downtown m. He urges public education mxl invoh,~v'rit. PUBLIC HEARING CLOI~,D: 7'.57 p.m. Mcl. a~.h!in clarified ~ Ihe p~ ordin~n~ change shoal be Ct~. ~' 18.72, not Cl~apt~ ! 8.62. He also noted lx~w ~e Io~al sqna~ footage of a bio~ is cale,_d_._~d_ mt how ~asi calcula~m se~ves N mn~'"~n ~e ~b ~ ~"~ Coundlors Hsmon/Harizdl m/s to dday first FeadJng of ordinance unffi ihe first eou~tl meeting in .O~tober to : ". albw lmbl~ Input. Voice Vole: oil AYES. Motion passed. Elinbeth Breiko/1372 Ore, on Street/Gave her 0x~h~ on Car F~e Day and how .s~e feels ~ ~y ~ ~ naich c~r lrafli¢ and ~at ~ds traffic deiracis f~om lhe c~,~Ity feel of ~he city. Enoola-ages eveoone to walk or rkle blk~. Mcntioncd"Women Who Move Mountatn~," and the next ~ on Scpt_,~-l~r_ 11, in Tr~nflEl~ par~ ~D BUSINESS (None) ~w ~m) Mxsc~t;~us.~n~ss l. Update on ~ter ~ 2 CITY OF - SHLAND Council Communication DEPT: DATE: · SUBMITrF. D BY: APPROVED BY: ' Synopsis: Fiscal Im.naCt: Background: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and'Amendin~ Section 1I-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards. Pl.nnlqg Department .September 4, 2001 John MeLau~hlln: Dkector of Comm~uity Development C,-r~g Stoles, City Aam~nL~ator After approval of the new theater and parking structure for the Ox~gon Shakespeare Festival, the City Council directed the staff tO prepare amendments tO the City's ordillance regarglng sitO design standards for large buildings, clarifying that the 45,000 sq. fi. limilation applies to the buildinE footprint are~ and not to the gross floor area of the entire building, and that the standards not apply within the downtOwn area. The attached ordifi~qce provides the clarifications requested. The Planning CommL'~'ion held a heating on *'his item at their August 14, 2001 meefing~ and recommended approval of the proposed ehan~e~. None. Smffrecommends that the City Council approve the first reading:of, the ord~nance as presented. The staff mpoxt and background information is available in the attached packet. ORDINANCE NO. AN oRDINANCE AMENDING'CHAPTER 18.72 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL. CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE DETAIL SITE REVIE-qN ZONE STANDARDS FOR LARGE BUILDINGS, AND AMENDING SECTION* I1-C-3a)2) OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE ST.~-NDARDS . THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is amended to reed: (deletions in =L~,~cc'.~., additions in bold) No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall ex. cd ........... · au ..... ~. ....... .~v buildingfootprintamaof45,000squarefeetas ~, measured Inside the exterior Walls, or a combined contigUous building length of 300 feel The footprint area does not Include any areas with walls but no roof. Any building or contiguous group of buildings whtch ex.cd these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up. to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the ~ building footprint area or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall 'be subject to any variance at~thorized in the Land Use Ordinance. These provisions shall not apply to new or eX]sting structures in the Downtown Design standards Zone. SECTION ,2. Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to read: No new buildings Or contiguous groups of shall exceed a ~ building footprint area 6f 45,000 Square feet as.measured inside the exterior walls, or a combined contiguous budding length of 300 feeL The footprint area does not Include any areas with walls but no roof. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, and which were in existence in 1.992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. These ~. ~ provisions shall not apply to new or existing structures in .the Downtown Design Standards' Zone. The foregoing ordinance was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this .2002. dayof Barbara Chdstensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this __ day of ,·2002. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Coaditkmal U~e Pcmllt, they are going to turn 180 degrees and have a facility they eau be comfortable with. His is not willing to take that leap. KenC. alm agrees with C~apman but s~e does not believe that they have ~at option because they already have the approval for Conditional Use Pe~nit. Gardiner believes, cvea though he agtzes with a couple of Cl~on~n's misgivings, that with the Conditions that apply to this ' aplwoval, and that wi~ some ntodif'~tions tha~ will appease the noighbor~ and by moving to .~ I~Vel of maintaining the property, keepin& it cle~n and having a local contact will remedy problems existing now. He se~ how the applicants have set, ponded to be Commission's coacems voiced ~ d~e July meeting. Morr~ moved to approve Planning Acllon 2001-059 with the attached 14 Conditions and amended Condition 12. Amanxico seconded the motion and it cm~ed ~ Chapman vot~g "no". TYPE Itl PLANNING ACTION PLANNING AGTION k~01-069 REQUF.6T FOR AN ORDINAONE AMENDMENT - OL.ARIRCATION OF 45,~0 SQUARE FOOT MAXIUMUM BUILDING FOOTPRINT IN THE DETAIL 8rfE REVIEW ZONE. APPLICANT: OITY OF ASHLAND ~Th~ Molx~xl a modif~4~ to the ordinance ~ su~s: "No new buildings or contiguons groups of buildings in the DSR shall ex _ _,_"ee~__ _ · building foo~ area of 45,000 square feet as measured inside the exterior waHs.~ "The fon~ area doc~ z~o~ include any m'eas wi~h wa~ b~ no roof." McLanghlia sa~d they came up wi~ examples of a~eas that ~ ~ ~ ~lly MC~ughUn ~id for ~ pu~ of~bl~h~& pa~ing d~mand ~d for a~ ~GU~R M~NG AUGUST ~4. ~ that has been calculated. The impact is going to be rain!mai. Fields added Ihat il. depends on thc massing of Ibc building and .might makc a diffe~nce ofonly one to two percent, but yon mi&hr be losing exterior, detaiL Fields is not sure what "contiguous'' means. Mountain View Retirement exceeded ~ massing and 1~ resolved k by rezoning it. With Shakespeare, because there is no parking requirement, you can say this is parking for downtown, no~ for Shakespeare. McLaugldin said in terms of contiguous, they are onnsidered one building and the 45,000 square foot rule ~pplies. If they are not confignnus, they have tobe separated by at least 60 feet or some relationship to the height of thebuilding. Once you get to buildings of that size and scale, they te~ to take on the scale of a city bloc~ Then you would want to separate the buildings by · right-of-way width to get the rhytlnn that starts happening in city blocks. He believed · variance was granted for Shakespeare. in the downtown~ McLaughlin said the Detailed Site Review zones ~re the more commercial ~-idors such ns dovmtown, Ashland Stn~ commercial area, and A Street and the recently redone railroad property. ' and too oastly. Hedoem'tseethepressurerlghtnowtobuiidanythingthisbt&. lledoem'tseewhat.thenetresultwiHbein Md--angMin saki they could see this osed in redevelotxnent changes. Kistler sees this rule as · lost opportunity for some great lhings suc~ as · community building. PHILIP LANG, 758 B Sueot said the problem is simple. An ordinance is pas._~.d, it is not enforced, or it is'violated at will on behalf of important people or insti'"'"'"'"'~ons. If someone calls it, it is repealed. In 1997, ha fonnd the ~ ordinance was nevc~ Fe~tlval padr, Jng loL The buildlng and the pa~ln~, lot ~ onntlgunns and so gtis was clearly in vlola~ion ofthe v~hole iment of Ih~ urdinaace. It was an ordinance to lwoteot us t~,ninat ~,.actly what has hapt~ned nnd now tbut k has happened~ we don't need tbe ordinance any more. Ne is oplx~sed to the amonclment. 'Long said it is not the same. Fields saki all of our other plannin& doctmleots encourage density in the downtown. Evez~h~ we ure doing in the downtoxvn is creating more'density to ha a wise use of hod. '~, Klstler asked if Lan& ~ any exampk~ of a public good for the community wberu It vrOuld be olay to have · building over 4$,000scF~are feel What abuet the YMCA having the poul? It woald seem he is more a&ainst.~e use than the slze based on -his p~vious testimony. Long said maybe both the use sad the size. No one ever determined there was n public benefit in turning over our paddng lot to · $60 million a.ssot private corporatio~ Yes, there is · valid issu~ with regard to public benefit. lr~lds moved to approve Planning Action 2001..069. KenCaim seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER - Next month the Hearings Board changes. KenCaim volontecred to take C~ris Heam's spot on the September, October November, December Hearings Board.. AD~JOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES ' AUGUST 14,200t 6 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PLANNING ACTION: 2001-069 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments REQD'F~T: Amendment of Chaptex 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ord~oance and Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site DeMgn and Use Standards regarding standards for large buildings. L Relevant Facts ' ' 1) Background - Hi-~tory of Application: In 1992, the City adopted new Commc'~'ial Development Standards including specific limitations o1~ the size of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone. A limitation of · 45,000 sq. fL was imposecL In 2000, the City approved an appllcation.by the Oregon shakespear Festival that involved a new thcate~ and parldng structure in downtown Ashland. Que~ions arose · about the application ofthe building size standards adopted in 1992. Specifically, · questions arose as to the application of the 45,000 sq. fL standard and how it is measured, · and is it appropriate to apply the .s}aadards downtown since so many buildings are COntiguous and pozsibly exceedln~ the standards already. The Counc'fl ultimately interpreted the 45,000 scI. fl..requirement as applying tO the building fOO~rint, m~tdng the following finding: Conclusions of La~ The City Council concludes as follows: § Regarding ti2 above and based upon Drawing Sheet Al.0 at Record p. 192, the proposed building has a gross floor area square footage less than 45,000.and a contiguous length of less than 300 feet. During the.proceeding some opponents argued that the parking structure Is 46,800 square feet in gross floor area and thus violates ALUO 18.72.050(C) and Ashland Site Design and Use Standards (ASDUS) II-C-3-a-2 which both provide in peflinent par[: Planning Application 2001-069 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Dcpartment - Staff Report August 14, 2001 · Page I No new buildings or con~guous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length Of 300 feel The City Council does not interpret".qmss square fc~ota.qe of 45,000 square feet" to mean gross tloor area square foota.qe. This quoted phrase is to be interpreted as'meanin.q 45,000 .square foot footprint. It is to be distinguished from those provisions of the land use ordinance that specifically refer to gross floor area such as in section II-C-3 of the Site Design and Use Standards* ("Developments (1) involving a gross floor ama in excess of 10,000 square feet..." Emphasis added.) The City Council finds that the parking structure does not exceed a footprint of 45,000 square feet. Even if the limitation were to be inteq~reted to mean ,grOSs floor area" the peddng structure does not exceed the maximum allowed. During the City Council public heating, Ashland Planning Director John McLaughlin testified that his staff had carefully computed the gross floor area square footage of the building and found it to be less than 45,000 gross tleor area 'square feet. *MI'. Mc:Laughlin attributed the deviation to measurements taken by opponents fi'om the exterior Emits of the building ia~her than the interior Emits. He further testified that Ute City always computes bu~ing gross floor area square footage based upon the Interior size of a the findings of its Planning Director end concludes that the parking structure does no{ violate the provisions of either ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2. As to whelher the proposed buildings exceed a length of 300 feet in V'K)lation of the same provisions, the .City Council con<dudes that conditions it has placed on these approvals require the buildings to be separated and for the parking strac~re to have a 'fire wall" sufficleat to meeting building codes.for am wall of :easures that the buildings will not be conne(~ed and va'Il not, therefore, violate provisions of ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3-a-2 that prohibit building or contiguous groups of buildings from exceeding 300 feet in length. The Cit~.Coundl elso concludes that thesubjec~ bta'ldings are not a ccxltiguous groups of buildings because they am not contiguous. During am proceeding, there was some recognized ambiguity regarding the meaning of the te~T~ contiguous and the City .Council construes cof~tiguous to mean touching. If am parking structure and lhea .t~e do not touqh, amy am not contiguous and do not vleiate ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS II-C-3,a-2 and the City After thcOSF aPPllcafioa, the Couacll dL,~cted the Staff to. p~pare'mn~admants to the ora~naqce 'ttmt would reflect their inte~on of the ordinance, and to addrc~ the issue of the application · of the si~ standards svi~in thc downtown area~ 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The proposed ordinanc~ chalages at~ as follows: Section 18.72,050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is anmnded to read: (deletions in ct~cc'..~ additions in bold) No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings In the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed agm:: -~q'-'=m footcgc building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured Inside the exterior walls, or a cqmblned contiguous.btJllding length of 300 feel The footprint area does not include any areas with walls but no roof. :Any building or contiguou,s group of bul!dings whl,ch exceed, these I!rnltations, Plannlhg Application 2001-4:)69 Applicant: City of Ashland · Ashland planning Department- StaffICeport August 14, 2001 ,, Page 2, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the ;mc: cq'-'crc fcc~go building footprint area or combined contiguous building length as set fodh in this section shall be subject to any vaflan~e authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. These provisions shall not apply to*new, or existing structures in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. Section II-C-3a)2) Of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to read: (deletions in st~keeut, additions in bold) No new buildings or cooliguous groups of shall exceed a ~ building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured Inside the exterior walls, or a combined contiguous building.length of 300 feet. The footprint area does not Include any areas with Walls but no roof. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, and which were in existence iq 1992, may expand'up to t5% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. These proyisions shall not apply to new or existing structures In the Downtown Design Standards Zone. The specific I~.~ouage. in the Site Design and Use Standards is slightly different tha~ that of the land ~ ordinance. The overall intent is exactly the same. II. project Impact The impact of thes~ changes is to amend the ordinance to be consistent with the City Council's interpretation of their own ordinanbe in the OSF application. Further, in mviewh~& the file regarding the original adoption of the commercial development standards, it was found that there · was comparative information on other buildings in Ashland that was used by the committee in dctermlnlng the 45,000 sq. fL limitation. As seen on StaffExhibit S-l, these measurements refer .to the "ground floor" in several instances, leading one to believe that it was the intent of the ordinance to regulate building footprint (and thereby bullai~g scale) end not gross floor area within several flOOrs of a bui3dlng_ Regarding the .a~plication of the ~.e standards within the downtown, also in reviewing the original file, it was found that the s~ffdrafts of the Site Design and Use Standants, exclusions were proposed for the C-I-D zone (see Staff Exhibit S-2 and S-3). It appears that us the ~ ordinaace version was'prop amd (based on Stn~ Drafltt2 - Exhibit S-3) deleting the opportunity for conditional ~ approval for buildings larger th~n 45,000 sq. fl., the language~regarding the exclusion of the C-I -D zone was inadvertently also deleted. The size and scale of downtown Ashland is based on historical development patterns. The application of the size limits imposed by this'ordinance would result in a development pattern not in keeping with the design that has proven so successful for our community. m. . procedural - Required Burden of proof Chapter 18.108.140 of the Procedures Chapter regarding Legislative Amendments states th~. followins: Plnnnlng Application 2001-069 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Pla~nln§ Dep,~'anent- S~ffReport August 14, 2001 Page 3 It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text Oflhe Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. In this instance, it is necessary to amend the ordinance to COnform with the Circumstances ch. at led the Council to Interpret the ordl-ance to mean a 45,000 sq. ~c fcotprint, and to correct the error of deleting the exclusion of the application of this section of the ordinance in thc downtown IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 8f~a.ffrecommellds appwval of thc ordinance amendments as predated. PlannlnE Application 2001-069 Applicant: City of Ashland . Ashland PlannlnE Department- Staff Raport A~gust 14, 2001 Pag? 4. and Frontage Distances for Selected Buildings and groups of Buildings artment of Motor Vehicles (Maximum Building Frontage) Reid/Hanna Office Building (Maximum Building Frontage} 3,108 60' 3,996 110' (Ground'~Floor) Yerba Prima (Maximum Building Frontage} 14,388 100' Churchill Hall (MaximumBuilding Frontage) 13,660 240' (Ground Floor) Safeway (HaximumB~lldingFron~age) ~i-Rite Shopping Center .(MaximumB~ildingFrontage} 26,000 180' 28,000 350' Bi-Rite Shopping Center '(New Proposal) 48,872 Bi-Hart/Shop&Kart Stores (MaximumBuilding. Frontage) A1 hertson, s (Hew) (MaN, mum Building Frontage) Downtown Plaza Buildkngs (Maximum Building Frontage) ~nder' s Block (between 1st and 2nd) - (N~ximum Building Frontage) 60,000 380' 44,000 240' 37,000 (Ground Floor) 370' 29,.000 (GroUnd Floor) 300' Sentry (Ashlend Shopping. Center) (Maximum Building Frontage) ~1,000 240" · A~hlandShopping Center Buildings (Star, Thrifty's, to D.J.'s, etc.) (Maximum Building Frontage} 'MarkAntony Hotel' SOSC Library (currently)' s0S~ Library (Proposed} 52,800 400' 43,000 65,000 108,000 A~hland Hills Inn 123,'000 E) Lightinv: Lighting shall include adequate lights that are sealed for pedes~ians by including light standards or placements of no ~eat~r than 14 feet in height along pedes~an path Ir) Building Materials: i) Buildings shall include chahge~ in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestrafi~ fluted masomy, for at least 15% o£'tho extedor wall are~ '. 2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensiviy to attract attention to the bund- ing or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majodty of building skin. LEVEL III Approval Standards: Any meat tha~ Area Plan is not subject to a Level review. Devdopments (1) involving agross floor areain excess o.f 10,000 square feet or - a building frontage in exce~s of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the De. Jail Site Review Zone, and (3) not in conformance wilh aSpeclal AreaPlan shall, ia addidoato '- complying with the standards estab~ in LevelI and Level 1[, conform to ~ho follow- in~. A) Orientation and Scale: 1) Dovelopments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes inbuilding mass or direction, shd- taring roofs, a disdnct pattern of divisions seale lighting. .'- 2) lqo building'or group o£buiidings connected by commnn walls shall exceed a gross square fcotage of 45,000 square feet, except in the C-1-D zone. 3) No building frontage or coo. tigu- ous building frontages cconnected by a com- ~ wall shall exceed a l~gth of 300 feet, except in the C-I-D zone. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be sepa: rated by a distance equal to theheight of the tallest building. If more than a 100 foot' overlap exists between buildings, than the separation shall be 60 feet. Page 22 Scarf Dra~#1 11'-F~2) Bright or n~on paint colors used extensivly to attract attention to the :. building or .uso aro prohibited. Buildings - ' may not incorporate glass as a majority of : th~ building ski~ i11. ,Additional Standards for'Large Scale Projects · Developments (1) iavolviag.a gross' floo~ are~in excess of I 0,000 square feeg or abut'ldLqg frentage in excess of 100 feet ia Review Zone, dudl, ia additioa to comply= iag to the standards for Basic and Detail Site rev/ew, ~ conform to the following A) Orientation and Scale: m-Al) Developments shall divide largebuildiag masses iato heights and sizes thatrelato to human scale by iaootporating dumg~inbuiMingmas~ orc~mc~en, shel- ted~ roofs, a dis~iact p~em of divisk~ on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. exceed a gross ~quare footage of 45,000 square feet 0~' a length of 300 feet must be .reviewed through tho Conditional Use Per- mit (AMC. 18.100), except ia the C-I-D zoae. · ~.. -A3) Buildiags nbt coenected by a tenco equal to the. heigh~.of the'tallest buildia~-..If buildiags'~e more than 240 feet h lengt~ the separation shall be 60 feet IH-A4). All oa-site cir~,!a_:tion sys- tems shal~. ~ a street~ whic~ includes cudas, sidewalks, pe&~Uian scale 'B) PUblic.Spaces 11T-B 1) One' square foot of plaza, or public spa~e shall be required for every 10 square feei ot'gro~s ttoor are~ Page 24 S~aff Draft #2 Additional modificatiom to the Site Design and Use Standards (STAFF PROPOSALS) There are a couple of areas where additional modifications have been suggested by the' staff regarding the new standards. These involve modifications of existing.buildings, or integated groups of buildings, greater than 300' in length; and for modifications of existing buildings that non-eonforming landscaping. Modifications to the following sections ~e indicated in ~ text. (new section in L Basic Site Review Standard~) G) E~ansions of Existing Buildings or Integrated Groups of .Buildings - LandscaPing Improvements Required: I4J1) For aires with non-conforming or aubstandard landscaping, a percentage of the required iands(ltped area of a 8ite, whicll ~ eqllal to theliercentage of the eXpan~on of the building shall be improved to thc current standards of ~hi~ chapter and included az part of tho site review request. This change would affect older buildlng.q and developments with Etfle or no landscaping. Should the request involve a 20% increase in building size, then 20% of the area required to be landscaped must be brought up to current Standards, including tree~, ground cover, etc... (current section - page 24) Any building or group of buildlng.~ conn'eeted by COmmon ~ which exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square feet or a length of 300 feet must be reviewed through the Conditional Use Permit (AMC 18.100), except in the C-1-D zone. (possible modification) ______ <~"~-' I~-A2)' No new buildings or groups of buildings connected by common wails shall exceed a gross square footage of 45,000 square · feet or a length of 300 feet. Modifications or expansions of existing stmctures~in excess of ~he. above limitations may be allowed under the Conditional Use Permit process (AMC 18.!04). ~ 60 '" '" /J./Z- 3,,. is modification has been suggested based upon statements made at the l.ast meeting at the City Council may institute a building size limitation, and ~e 'p!~nn,ng . remission may wish to consider a ehango that would .allow modifieattons or expansions ting structures without making them non-confomung. 22 OCtober' 2001 Ashland' City Council Ashland Planning Commission 20 East Main Ashland, Or 97520 Brent Thompson 'P.O. Box 201 Ashland, Or 97520 Re: Big Box Ordinance Dear members o.f the Council and Planning Commission, -.The purpose of Ashland's..'Big BoX' ordinance should be to limit the footprint of buildings not their square footage. But height limitations already in place in conjunction with footprint limitations would result in restricting the total squarelootage of buildings too. Currently the.footprint of buildings can exceed one acre, or almost a city block. That is inoonsistent with the vision, of preserving Ashland's small town feel and inconsistent with building to a scale comfortable for'people possessed with sensitivity to their surroundings. The maximum footprint size should be reduced.to 40,000 square feet. W~h two stories such a building could be 80,000 squar~ feet and with.two and one half stories · more than 100,000 square feet. Too often the council talks of preserving Ashland's small town leel*and then votes in such a manner so as to undonnine that vision. A case in point is the approval o! a new Shakespeare th *.e9,. tar potentially 21/2 times the size of the former Black Swan Theater. The festival has grown beyond the scale appropriate tora small town, yet only Councillors Laws and Fine were in tune with this issue, councillor Reid and Councillor Hansen were not. A further potential undermining o! the vision of keeping Ashland a small town is the absence of discussion about the ultimate size of SOU and the acreage of the campus Itself. We need that discussion as well as a discussion as to what the maximum city .size should be both in terms of square mileage covered and in terms of the maximum population to be accommodated. With the 'Big Box" ordinance the Council hasan opportunity.to adjust the size of buildings to COnform with a small town, not a town of 50,000 people. A small town- simply should not have a proliferation of buildings with footprints.in excess ol 1 acre. In the case.of busineSSes SOU and the hospital, many functions in those operations can be 'kicked upstairs' to provide, for example, more production space or more bed or patient treatment space on the first level. Businesses, SOU, and the hospital do not need to continue to sprawl out on their campuses to meet their needs or the needs of the community. Ashland's density is 3000 people per square mile or less, but alternative forms of transportation can only be truly viable if the density exceeds 5000~_eople per .square mile. Thus, although many of us do not want more growth, we must try to accommodate thegrowth we are forced to accept by staying within our current city limits, and that forces us to .'go up and not'out" in all projects including City sponsored projects. To do otherwise indicates a willingn .e.~s to encroach on even more farm and forest land, to destroy even more wildlife habitat, and to contribute to more exponential traffic increases. A dear, enforceable "Big BoX' ordinance limiting footprints to less than bne acre. is an Important piece of holding the line on sprawl and o! preserving what is left of Ashland's small town feel. Ordinances and policies to Increase density.are not desirable but ordinances and policies that yield sprawl are worse. Sincerely, * Brent Thompson SITE 'DEsigN AND USE STANDARD5 SECTION ¥1 Downtown Design Standards The pucpose of the Downtow~ Design Standards ia to respect the D°wntow~ area's uniqUe heritage and'to enhance the appearance and livaHlity of the area as it develoFs and changes. Dar~ upon common features found In the &~, the stamLards provide a foundation for FrosFective aFFlioants, citizens, and community decision make, re to &irect change In a Positive and tanglHe way. It is not the Irrl~nt of the Design Srr, andatds to ~re'~ze time and halt progress or restrict an individual Frol~r~ owt~.~r'e creativity, but rather to guide new development or r~evelol~men.t to be within the cont~-xt of their historic surroundings. Personal choice should be and can be ~xFressed within'the framework of the standards. While many communities across Amerioa are attempting to "create" or 're-create' an-urban downtown of their own, the Dowrrtown Design f~rlcandards are an atte~lFl; .to Freserve what Ashland alre~ady has; a 'main street" historical district .with diverse individual buildings that, collectively . creat~ an organized, coordinated and ageless rhythm of buildings. As a collective group, the ~lowntown can retain its 'sense of place," its economic ha. se, its history and its citizens? vision. Undor the procedures .of the Caty's und~t, al~ ratable ca, aries must, d~mo~r, rat~ tl~ proposal m~-ts all tJ~ ~l~igr~.standards In or~r for ~ obj~W a~ ~u~ eubj~y. Th~ D°Wrd;°wn DeSign ~l~andards adop~a the following etandards that shall be used as par~ of the land use approval'process. VI-A) Height 1) Building height shall vary from adjacent buildings, using either " sf~pp~l' parape~a or sllght(y dissimilar, overall height to maintain the tmaditlonal 'staggered" street ~cape appearance. An exception to this standard would be having a building that have a dist/nctive vert/caldivision/facade treatment that ~i~ually' se?arates It from adjacent buildings (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10; Avoid 3). 2) Multi-story develo?ment is encouraged in the downtown (Illustration: ~eoommend I, 5, 6 & I0). VI-D) Set~aack Except for arcades, alcoves and other reo~.r~-~ features, buildings ~1 ~in~in a ~m ~e ~lk or p~ li~ (ltlu~n:.~m~ ~ ~ & 10). ~e~ or ~lml~r ~s~ ~nd~on~ ~11 ~ ~m~ ~m ~i~ s~rd. Ground level ente/e~ are e~,ou~ged to be reoessed from th.e public eight-of ~vay to create a ~~ense ofentr~' either theough des/gn or u~e of mater/als (Illustration: P, ecomrnend 2, 5, 6 & 10; Avord 3). ~) l~,e.c, eseed or projecting balconies, verandas or other u,~ab/e spac~ above the ground level RECOMMENDED 1) The width ora building shall extend from sid~ Io~ line to side lot; li, e (Illustration: lCecommend ~). An ~C~Y~o, ~o this standard wou~l be an area epecific, al(y des/gned as p/aza s?a~e, courtyard o?ace, dining space or rear access for punic, pedestrian walkways. 2) Lot~ greater than/~:7~ in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area by incorporating a rhythmic d/v/s/on of the facade in the building's design (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 10). · VI-D) Openings .1) Ground level elevations facing a stre~ shall maintain a consistent, proportion of transparency (Lc. windoma) c, ompat4'H~ with ~ parc~rn found in the ~ ar~a (Illustration: r. e4;omra~nd ~,~,6,&~O). and proportion, of altered or added bulldir~ ed~ra~'rt, o, ~,uoh a~ the size and relation~hl? of newwindow,a, d~ra, entrances, columns and other building fe~.tures shall be Hsual~ compatible with or/~Ittal aroh/'~Gl~ral Gh~t~u-J;er of ~ building (lllustr~tiorl: P.~commend ff & 6; Avoid 4 & .D ,~ Upp~rfloor window oriv,~tion shall primaH(y I~ vertical (heigh~ gr~a~r than width ) (Illustration: le~c~mmend 1, ~ & ~, Avoid ~). 4) Exc~p~ for transom window~, window~ shall not br~k the ~on~ plane o~ tite building (Illustration: ' P~c~mmend ,~) (~round/evel entry doors shall be p-/marfly transparent (Illustration: Recommend 1~ Avoid 6) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians such as decoFat/ve c~olumns ordecoratire corbeling shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk (Illustration: P. ecommend 1 & B: Avoid 4 & Blank walls adjaoent to a publio sidewalk arq ?rohiblte~l. VI-E) Horizontal P-,. hythms 1) F'romlr~rr~ hoHzon~l IIn~ at elmllar levels along the etrv~'e otr~nt sl~ll be malntai, ed Ollustratlom P, ecommend 1, B, 6 & lO;, Avoid 4 & ~5). c/ear visual divislon shall be maintained between ground level floor and uFFerflooro (Illustration: le~ecommend 1, 5, 6 & ~ 15u//dings shall provide a foundation o~ bare, typically from ground to the bottom of the lower ~ndow sills, with changes In volume or.material, In order to g/ye the building ~ *sense of strength" ' (Illustration: P, ecomrn~nd 1, B, & 10; Avoid 4, & 8). ~;I-F) Vertical Rhyi~hms 1) New conetructlon ors .torefront remodels shall reflect a verti~at ortentatton, either through actua/ volumes or the use of sutface details ?o divide/arg~ walls, ~o as to r~flect the underlying hlstorfc p'vp~r~ lines (Illustration: le,,ecom~ B & ~,, Avoid ~5)~ - · KECOMMEHDED ~ 2) Dtorefront r~modeling or u?per'~tow addir, lona .shall reflect the t~aditional stru~;Ural of the volume by maf~hin~ the spacing and rl~m of histori~ openings and surface detailing *(Illustration: ~,~ommend ~,, Avoid 4 & 9). Vl-G) Roof Forms 0 Sloped or residential s~.y/e roof forms are discouraged in the. downtown area. unless visually screened f~om the right, of-way by either a ?akapet or a fals~ front. The fal~e front shall incorporate a well defined cornice line or "caF" along all ?Hmar~ e/evat/ons (lllustrati°n: Recommend 1. 5 & 1~ Avoid'7). VI-H) Materials 1) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the'downtown · area Including blo~l~ brir~ ?a. lnted wood, smooth stucco or natural stone (Illustration: Avoid 4 & 2) In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex 'paneled' exter/ors with columns, framed ba~a, t~ansoms and windows to create multiple sun'ace levels (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10; Avoid 7, ~ &9). l) Awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proport/onate to the building and shall not obscure the building's .arr_~ttectural details. If mezzanine or transom windows exist, awnin~ la~ shall be belowthe mezzanine or transom windows where feasib/e Ollustration: ReCOmmend 1, 5, 6 &'10; Avoid 4 & 9). Except for marque, eimilar pedoetdan shelters such as awnings shall be placed between I~laste, rs (Illustration: Recommend 1 & 5: Avoid 9). ~) ~ f;oro'fronts with promlr~r~ horizontal lines at, slmitar I~,als along t,~ etreeffrorrr, shall maintain a c, onsiet~tg horizontal rl~hm by their rc~pactiv~ sidewa!~ coverlng~ (Illustration: l~ommend 5; Avoid ~). ~l-J) Ot~er · .. 1.) Non,tract or alle~facing el.evat/ons are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and sidewalls of buildings 'may therefore be fa/dy simple, e.g., wood, bloal~ brick, stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, w/th or without windows. 2) V/sual inte_~jHty of the original building.shall be maintained when altering or adding building elements. This shall include such features as the vertical lines.of column~, Fiery, the horizontal .defin!rdon of ~pandrela and cornices, and other ?Hma~ structural and decorative elements (llluot~tlon.: Re.c, ommend ~,, Avoid 4 & 0). rgmo~al of cornice / arr~lf.~-t, ural .on-~om?atJbl¢ finish AVOID ~i~l d~n demen~ ~t ~re ~ue~ rem~, r~del~ or ~er~ over (lllu~on: ~mmen~ ~ Avoid 4 & 9). '" 4) Pa~ng Io~adja~nt ~ ~ ~es~n pa~ are p~hibi~ (R~er ~ ~i~ Pes~n and U~ ~n~rds~ 5~on Il-D, for Pa~ing ~ ~nd~aping a~ 5cr~ning 5~ndards), An ~on ~ ~ ~andard wou~ be pa~s ~uir~ for handicap~ a~ssib]lity. ILLU~TRATIOJ:L~ RECOMMENDED ~i) Pe, destHan amen/t/es such aa broad sldewalk~, surface details on sldewalk~, arcades, alcoves, c~lonnade~, i~ortlcoes, awnings, and sidewalk ~a~lng shall b~ provided wher~ ?osslHe and 7 6) iJses ~h/ch are exclusively automotive such as service stations, dr/ye-up ~/ndows, auto sales, and t/re stores are discouraged in the dswnto~n. The city shall use its discretionacv/~wers, ~uch as Conditisnal Use Perm/ts, to deny n~v uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. VI-K) Excel~tion to Standards: An exception to ~the Downtown Pesign Standards is not subjeot to the Variance requirements of Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal C~de and may.be gFanted ~/th respect to the Downtown Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: 1) There is demopstcable d/tT/culty in meeting the ~l~cific requirements ~f this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the s/ts, an ex/~/ng structure Dc pre?~d Use ~f the.site; 2) There Is demonstrable ~/dence that the alternative design acc~mplisl~ the puqa~se of the · 1~ Design ~anda~ls and I~k~wnt~vn Plan In a mannerthat ~a e~ual or su?er~rto a F~ject designed pursuant t~ this standard or historical precedent: (Refer to Illustration 11) The e~epti~n, requested i~ the minimum necea~ar~ to alleviate the dit~ulty of meeting the Pc~vnto~n Design ~tandards. 8 walls and/or ~ade: A ~e~ passag~ ~ a ~s ~ open a~hwa~ ~ on~ ~ b~ sides. A~ing: A ligh~ight, ~Hor ~-Iike shoe D~ 1. A repro vestal eub~i~el~ ~an ~r fac~ ~ bo d~n~ ~ various m~ans, d~n~ ~ rep~e ~lumns or arches. ~et 5~ A m~re ~ e~ne ~i~ or ~men~, us~lly emb~ in a ma~ ~ moor, ~men~ ~lumn: A slender, .v~cal ~lement '~el: 1. A ho~n~l ma~n~ ba~ ~ ~n~nuous or in~rmit~nt ~ls. ~ A s~pp~ po~on ~a ma~n~ wall; ~ s~ps ~y be on ~P or on ~e b~m. ~ment: A d~ festoon on Facade: Any ~ ~e ~or fa~s ~ a bui~lng. False F~nt: Abui~ingfacade~at~sab~e~e~orb~ond~es~ewallsinord~r~give ~e Im~ession ~ a larger e~ure. based on the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Marquee: A permanent roof-like shelter over an entrance to a .buildingi flat in shape. Me.~_~nine: A partial intermediate floor between two main levels, especially directly above the ground floo~, often has a lower ceiling height than the other levels. Ivle~nlne Window. A window with a greater width than height, especially when used to provide light to an intermediate floor. Orientation: The directional expression ofthe front facade cfa building: i.e., facing the street, facing north, facing south. Panel: ^ ~mall plane surface eurround~ by moldings or depressed b~low or raised above the adjacent surfac~,, t,dpically recl~ngular bu'c rn~ be any geometric ~I~F~; may be ornamented.. Parapet: A Iow guarding wall that above the roof line. Pien A member, usually in the form of a thickened section; which forms an integral part, of a wall; u~ually placed at intervals along the wall to provide lateral support, otto take concentrated vertical loads. rilasT~n An engaged pier or pillar, often with capital and base: may be constructed as a projection of the wall itself. Plaza: An open public space. R~habllitatlon: F.~fer to Section IV-^ for ~n~on a~ 5~ ~-D 1-11 for apFIicaHe ~el: ~ ~ 5~on ~-A for d~n~ a~ 5~ IWD 1-11 for a~l~o ~on: ~r ~ ~on ~-A for d~n~on. ~pa~l~: ~ area. ~hl~ ~ngular in shape, Incl~ b~n ~o ~ad~e~ ~ adjoining a~hes a~ a line app~ ~nne~ng ~lr T~nsom ~ndo~ A glaz~ or clear ~nlng p~e a ~r or ~ndow. Transparen~ A ciear opening or ~ndo~ clear enough ~ $~ ~ugh. Veranda: An open-side, rais~ siting area ~ ~ln columns ~at suppo~ i~ ~ typically ~ along an entre wall, or ~aps a~q~ a ~mer. The fi~t on big-box blight Posted on eton, 3un. 17, 2002 IL¸ Page 1 of 3 The fight on big-box blight .$C01T DODD ~taff Writer Charlotte's new warning to big-box developers: If you build it, you might have to pay so we can tear it down someday. City planners say that anyone who wants to build a giant discount store such as a Wal-Mart or Target -- a staple of Charlotte suburbs for decades -- mUst also provide the means for the city to destroy the building if the store doses and remains empty. The new policy also requires big boxes to be part Of larger, mixed-use developments that Include other stores, offices, even apartments -- and meet higher architectural standards than the usual windowless shells that give the buildings their name. 'We're not going to accept SOme corporate, logo-stamped design," .said Charlotte Planning Director Harfln Cramton. If the popular chains -- which typically build identical models all over the country -- obJect to the policy and threaten to move outside the count);, 'Ny attitude Is, let them go someplace else,' Cramton said. The City Coundl has not been presented with the policy yet, but membem Lynn Wheeler and Don · Lochman said they're skeptical of the Idea of. requiring e bond for potentially demolishing new big-box stores because it could mean too much govemment interference. 'I think there are other Ways that we can encourage developers to redevelop the vacant big boxes without Imposing stringent measures on them,' said Wheeler, chairman of the council's Economic 'Development and Plannlng Committee. '! Just think that at some point, we need to let the market .decide.' Both Wheeler and Lochman said they supported tougher design and architectural requirements for big 'boxes. The new requirements, which planners quietly have begun to enforce with recent zoning applicants, would make It difficult to build the type of single-anchor shopping center that has proliferated across the country for two decades. Cramton and the planning staff don~t make the ulUmate dedslon, however. ;The Planning Commission ht~p.~www~chad~e~c~m/m~d/~bs~rver~n~ws/~c~/3~4745~htm?t~mp~at~.c~nt~nLM~dt~ 06/18/2002 The fight on big-box blight Pa~e 2 of 3 makes a recommendation to the City Council, which has the final say on a developers rezonlng~ application. Builders -- in some cases the anchor store, in others a developer -- usually need to rezone property before creating a new shopping center, and they negotiate with planners to get their endorsement. So Cramton has some authority to enforce his new direction. Builders who don't follow the guidelines would get a thumbs down from the planning staff -- which often leads to a "no" vote from City Council. 'The only way you will have staff support," Cramton said, "is if you agree to these conditions." Planners see the proliferation of big boxes as a threat to the dty's continuing vitality. Charlotte has allowed dozens to be built on dty corridors. But they often have a short life span -- usually 10 to 15 years -- before they dose and the tenants move farther out In the suburbs. For two years now~ db/planners have wrestled with the problem~ and several City Council members have said they want to see a change. More than 30 empty big boxes were 'identified In a recent report, the first of Its kind. City leaders and real estate professionals agreed that number was a problem. When the stores move, they leave behind empty husks surrounded by hundreds of parking spaces. Though big boxes are Increasingly being built as stand-alone stores, older ones often have shops around them that close when the anchor stores are no' longer there to draw shoppers. ,It's an economic domino,' city councilwoman Nancy Carter said last year when discussing the high number of empty boxes in her east charlotte district. "It hurts the economy. It hurts the neighbors. It scares people away." Last year~ the Charlotte-Hecldenbutll Planning Commission studied the problem and proposed several possible reforms. One of them was t~luldng developers to put up a bend or place money in escrow when they build a big box.. David Anderson, who was then chairman of the planning commission, came up with the Idea along with a real-estate Professional he won't name~ If the store closes and stays empty long enough, the dty could use that money to demolish It and redevelop the site. Cramton said planners are now using that approach with two current developers who want to build big- box stores and will do so In the future. .The amount of money the developers would have to put up Is still being negotiated, like many other details of their proposals. Developers and planning staff routinely negotiate design, parking and other elements of projects. - http'J/www, charlott¢.com/mld/observer/news/local/3494745.htm?templato=contentModules 06/18/2002 ~either~developer has filed a rezoning application yet. One wants to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter at Sardis Road North and Monroe Road, The other has plans for big-box stores near a proposed regional mall In north Charlotte off Interstate 77. Cramton said requiring big boxes to be part of a mixed-use development with a workable street system Is just as Important as a demolition bond, because it allows Old shopping centers to be more easily redeveloped. - Developers have countered that the chains that stamp out big boxes will simply move outside the county limits If they can't build what they want within ChaHotte's planning jurisdiction, which includes much of the unincorporated part of the county. They point to Concord Mills and the glut of stores around it just across the county line in Cabarrus as an example. But Cramton said the city's planning bound.aries are so large -- 380 square miles -- and th~ Charlotte market so desirable that the city can apply some muscle to the chain stores and force change. 'We need to hold the line," he said; otherwise, too much of the city could one day look like the empty stretches along Zndependence Boulevard and Freedom Drive. STAFF WPd I bR RICHARD RUBIN CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ARTICLE. -- SCOTT DODD: (704) 358-5i 68; SDODD(~CHARL071 L-OBSERVER. COAl ht~p~www~har~tte~m~m~d~bs~rver~newd~a~34~4~45~htm?temp~ate=o~ntentM~du~es 06/18/2002 CITY OF kSHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Synopsis: Public Art Placeholders in the Gateway Island Administration August 5, 2003 /'~ Ann Seltzer, Communications Manager The Public Arts Commission (PAC) requests approval of four "placeholders" for public art: in the center of the island between the Library and the Fire Station, at the proposed bump out at the comer of Gresham Street and Siskiyou Boulevard, the vertical retaining wall in front of the Library and finally the area surrounding the Astro Gas station "Welcome Ashland" sign. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the placeholders as detailed in the attached request. Fiscal Impact: The removal and replanting of the three trees in the center island will cost approximately $1000. Eliminating the two trees for the bump out at Gresham and Siskiyou Boulevard will cost the Siskiyou Boulevard project about $300 as the trees have already been purchased. Background: In spring 2002, Council approved the final design of the improvements to Siskiyou Boulevard. During the two-year design process there was much discussion about placing public art in a variety of locations including the center island gateway, new bus shelters and more. However, at that time, the Public Art Commission had not yet been formed and there was not an obvious group to take on that element of the design. The Public Arts Commission was formed in January of this year. At the request of the PAC, Paula Brown addressed the group at their regular meeting in late June. Paula indicated some potential locations for consideration for the placement of visual art including but not limited to the placeholders requested by PAC in the attached petition. She explained that she could not modify the council-approved Siskiyou Boulevard Plan and advised the group to make a formal request to Council. August 5, 2003 City of Ashland Public Arts Commission The City of Ashland Public Art Commission (PAC) formally requests that the City Council approve four sites for public art on Siskiyou Boulevard in front of the Library in the area referred to as the Gateway. While the Commission is not yet ready to solicit or fund art for these sites, identifying them as placeholders now will facilitate the placement of visual art without having to remove maturing trees at a later date. A recent diagram of the section of Siskiyou Boulevard reconstruction project that this request addresses is shown here: The Fire Station is seen in the upper right comer and the downtown business district is located to the left. The PAC has identified four locations within this site plan for consideration in placing public works of art. These locations are: 1) The large circular earth filled space in the triangular portion of the median plaza. 2) The plant filled space in the bump out on the comer of Gresham and East Main street. 3) The vertical surface of the retaining wall in front of the Library. 4) The "Welcome to Ashland" sign facing the fire station (#40 on this drawing). (Note, the sign is private property and PAC will be speaking directly with the owners.) PAC asks Council to approve these locations as placeholders for public art. Specific characteristics of each of these locations are described here in the order listed above: Currently the large circular space on the triangular median island is planted with low shrubs and three small trees. If council approves this location as a ptaceholder for public art, PAC asks that Council approve the removal of three small trees (under 18" in height) that were planted in June in the center of the island area. PAC recommends that the trees be removed now before they start to mature and planted elsewhere so that they don't have to be removed later when they are larger. Construction on the bump-out of the curb at the comer of East Main and Gresham street is about to begin and will result in the closing off of the exit from that parking lot onto Gresham. The site development plan currently calls for placing a pair of large trees (#52 on the plan) in that location along with some shrubs and groundcover. We believe that the placement of the trees would inhibit the use of that space from hosting public art. If council approves this location as a placeholder for public art, the PAC asks that council strike the trees from the plan and not plant anything other than the shrubs and ground cover. The vertical wall in from of the library is currently a dull gray textured surface, which offers an excellent opportunity for public art. We believe that a very subtle architectural addition to this wall (like the stone wall in lower Lithia Park and the wall in front of the Schneider Museum) could significantly enhance the beauty of the entire Gateway. The City Attorney has advised the PAC that the City owns all improvements to the Library and is responsible for all exterior spaces. As noted above, the "Welcome to Ashland" sign and surrounding area currently planted with shrubs is private property. The PAC has spoken with the property owners and they are willing to consider allowing us to modify the sign and the area around it. We are considering developing a proposal that may make some modifications to the sign. We are aware that the sign serves a dual purpose of providing a greeting as well as providing a safety barrier for the gas station. Any proposal we consider would retain this functionality. The PAC believes that all of these locations are appropriate for developing a proposal for the placement of some form of public art and requests that the City Council approves these locations as placeholders for public art. The sites identified in this request are not exclusive of other potential locations for public art either on the Gateway Island or elsewhere in Ashland. Design elements such as stone or tile might be considered to tie-in the overall look of areas identified above, such as the area with the bench and drinking fountain, as well as other sites not yet identified. In addition, the PAC intends to contact the Ashland Hospital Foundation and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival to discuss artistic elements that might be associated with the Lights for Life tree and the OSF sign, both located on the Gateway Island. Respectfully submitted, City of Ashland Public Arts Commission Bruce Bayard Sharon Dvora Arnold Kriegle Kip Todd Richard Benson Inger Jorgensen Ron Demele August5,2003 Ashland City Council Ashland City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: ASHLAND WATERSHED FIRE PLANNING Dear Councilors, The United States Forest Service (USFS) has neglected fire planning in the Ashland Watershed in favor of development at the Mount Ashland ski area. Instead of a fire management and fuel reduction plan for the watershed, the agency gave us an incendiary plan to expand the industrial playground at the source of our drinking water. The newest ski area proposal promises to stoke social conflict at the very moment the Forest Service needs community goodwill to proceed with more important wildfire planning. The agency's prioritization of recreational development over protection of public health and safety is scandalous. This letter describes the current fire management situation in the Ashland Watershed. As a student of fire ecology with a research interest in this place, I raise issues relevant to protection of the City's drinking water and question the planning priorities of the United States Forest Service (USFS), which manages almost all land in the watershed. As a preface, I call your attention to the attached Cooperative Agreement for the Purpose of Conserving and Protecting the Water Supply of the City of Ashland, Oregon, which binds the USFS to give full consideration "to any requirements the City of Ashtand may desire to impose as necessary for the safeguarding of the water supply." The Council invoked this Agreement in a letter to the Ashland District Ranger that recommended actions in the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (AWPP). The USFS carried those recommendations forward into federal policy. That letter is also attached. Fire hi, wry Fire is the primary natural disturbance agent in the Ashland Watershed, influencing forest structure, species composition, soil properties, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat, hydrology, and many other ecosystem processes (Agee 1993, USDA 1995). Native plant and animal species and communities evolved with fire and many are adapte~d to, if not dependent on, fire's periodic occurrence (Martin 1997). Ecologists propose that the Klamath-Siskiyou region's globally outstanding biological diversity is due in part to its natural disturbance regimes, and to fire in particular (DellaSala and others 1999, Martin and Sapsis 1992). Organized efforts at fire suppression began in the Ashland Watershed in 1902 (USDA 1995), but did not become effective in these rugged and inaccessible mountains until the 4$)land Watershed fire planning, I 1950s, when fire fighters could access the watershed via roads and surplus military aimraft (Frost and Sweeny 2000, McKinley and Frank 1995). Major fires occurred in the watershed in 1910, 1917, 1924, I959 and 1973 (USDA 1995). Wildfires are less frequent during the period of effective suppression (Atzet and Martin 1991, Frost and Sweeny 2000). Fires that ignite during extreme weather now account for the vast majority of acres burned, whereas in the past, more small- and moderate-sized fires burned across a wider range of weather and fuel conditions (Frost and Sweeny 2000, Stephens 1998, Taylor and Skinner 1998). Contemporary fires of any significant size now ignite simultaneously with others, and together they overwhelm suppression resources (Odion and others in press, USDA 1994). In other words, fire suppression is effective about 98 percent of the time. The two percent of ignitions that escape initial attack burn under the worst conditions when they are impossible to control. Such fires can be very large, and may cause severe ecological changes, although many large fires in the Klamath region over the past 15 years have displayed severity patterns consistent with historical fires (Odion and others in press, Taylor and Skinner 1998, USDA 2002). The ubiquitous risk of a large, uncontrollable wildfire challenges the ability of the USFS to protect the Ashland Watershed from socially undesirable (even if ecologically beneficial) tire effects. Fire management The USFS fire management objective for the Ashland Watershed is total fire exclusion, despite its recognition that "continued fire exclusion will lead to increased [tree] mortality and increased risk of large-scale, stand-replacing fires" (USDA 1996 p. 48). Any wildfire in the watershed receives a "Level 1" suppression response, which can include use of heavy equipment like bulldozers and helicopters (USDA 2001). Fire fighting tactics can cause significant adverse effects on the environment, including soil displacement and compaction from the construction of fire lines and helicopter landings, incineration of large areas of forest habitat and soils in "back burn" operations designed to consume all available fuel, and soil erosion and sediment pollution of streams (Ingalsbee 2003). "Level 1" fire fighting tactics also include aerial application of fire retardant chemicals. Such chemicals have been associated with contamination of water and major die-offs of fish and amphibians from overspray and runoff. When released into the aquatic environment, these products are subjected to photolytic processes by natural sunlight that may alter their chemical characteristics and increase their toxicity (Little and Calfey 2000). The chemicals tested in the study cited here have a high probability of local use because they are so common. Moreover, fire suppression is incredibly expensive. The Associated Press reported today that the USFS exhausted its $420 million tire-fighting budget for this fiscal year, and will now draw money from other accounts (such as fire prevention) to cover suppression Ashland Watershed fire planning, 2 costs. The agency spent more than $1.4 billion fighting fires in 2002. The financial costs of America's unwinnable war against wildfire will continue to escalate until our cultural and institutional relationships with fire fundamentally change. Fire planning To minimize the impact and cost of suppression and promote the ecological benefits of fire, the Federal Wildland Fire Policy requires fire management plans (FMP) for every acre of burnable vegetation on federal land. FMPs are strategic documents that address fire fighter safety, appropriate suppression responses, fire prevention, use of fire, and priorities for fuel reduction. These plans are critical for cost-effective and intelligent fire management at a local level. The Ashland Watershed's FMP is outdated and badly flawed. It does not consider alternatives to full suppression. That is irrational because prevailing weather and fuel conditions at certain times can warrant a more appropriately scaled suppression response. In contrast, the FMP for Beaver Creek on the south side of Mount Ashland recognizes that "the importance of an ecosystem response to fire is the intensity of the fire, not the area covered," and it allows use of fire and modified suppression strategies that can improve fire fighter safety, reduce costs, and contribute to ecosystem restoration (USDA 1996 Appendix D). In addition, the Ashland FMP contains no information about locally unique landscape features that Incident Commanders should take into account when attacking a wildfire. For example, it does not identify active landslides that emergency roads or fire lines should avoid. Nor does it locate wetlands or other sensitive sites that may benefit from interactions with fire, but could suffer badly from uninformed suppression operations. USFS priorities The USFS is now producing its "Upper Bear Creek Ecosystem Assessment," which updates information about vegetation in the Ashland Watershed for the purpose of prioritizing areas for hazardous fuel reduction. The "Business Plan" for the assessment is attached. It indicates that the assessment is almost one year behind schedule. No additional fuel reduction will proceed in the watershed beyond what is happening now until the assessment is completed. Note that fuels work without this assessment could result in misplaced, ineffective and needlessly expensive action. According to the Ashland District ranger, work on an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Mount Ashland ski area expansion drew resources and stafftime away from work on the Bear Assessment for several months (L. Duffy, pers. comm.). This happened because the forest supervisor decided to prioritize completion of the ski area EIS over completion of the Bear Assessment. It is not the first time that wintertime entertainment has slowed fire planning. The ranger told a public meeting on July 19, 2000, that the previous ski area EIS delayed work on the AWPP by nine months. Ashland I'gatershed fire planning, 3 The Council's role The City Council can invoke its Cooperative Agreement with the USFS to compel a shift in the federal agency's planning priorities for the Ashland Watershed. Fire management and fuel reduction are far more important to the health and safety of the community and the security of our municipal water supply than playground enlargement. The Council should request the expeditious completion of all needed fire planning by the USFS, even if it requires delaying other projects. Currently, the USFS plans to complete a final EIS for the ski area by the spring of 2004. It may initiate work on a draft ElS for fuel reduction, based on the Bear Assessment, by the end of 2004. The Council must decide if the agency's work plans are acceptable. If they are not, the Council should ask the forest supervisor, Scott Conroy, to change his planning priorities. Sincerely, Jay Lininger Conservation Fellow University of Montana 1253 Tolman Creek Road Ashland, OR 97520 pyrolysis~ziplip.com CC~ Mayor Alan DeBoer City Administrator Gino Grimaldi 3 att. Ashland Watershed fire planning, 4 REFERENCES Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Atzet, T., and R,E. Martin. 1991. Natural disturbance regimes in the Klamath Province. Pp. 1231-1235 in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Biodiversity of Northwestern California. Oct 28- 31: Santa Rosa, CA. DellaSala, D.A., S.B. Reid, T.J. Frest, J.R. Strittholt and D.M. Olson. 1999. A global perspective on the biodiversity of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion. Natural Areas Journal 19(4): 300-319. Frost, E.J. and R. Sweeny. 2000. Fire Regimes, Fire History and Forest Conditions in the Klamath-Siskiyou Region: An Overview and Synthesis of Knowledge. World Wildlife Fund, Ashland, OR. Website: http://www.worldwildlife.org/forests/attachments/fire_report.pdf Ingalsbee, T. 2003. Casualties of War: Environmental Impacts of Fire Fighting. Western Fire Ecology Center, Eugene, OR. Website: http://www,fire-ecology.org/research.html Little, E.E. and R.D. Calfee, 2000. The Effects of UVB Radiation on the Toxicity of Fire- Fighting Chemicals, Final Report. USDA Forest Service, Wildland Fire Chemical Systems. Missoula, MT. Martin, R.E. 1997. Fire as an integral component of Siskiyou ecology. Pp. 86-89 in: Proceedings of the Conference on Siskiyou Ecology. May 30-June 1: Kerby, OR. Siskiyou Regional Education Project, Cave Junction, OR. McKinley, G. and D. Frank. 1995. Stories on the Land: An Environmental History of the Applegate and Upper Illinois Valleys. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Medford District. Medford, OR. Odion, D.C., J.R. Strittholt, H. Jiang, E.J. Frost and D.A. DellaSala. Inpress. Fire history and severity patterns and forest management in the Klamath National Forest, northwestern California, USA. Invited paper for Conservation Biology. Stephens, S.L. 1998. Evaluation of the effects of silvicultural and fuels treatments on potential fire behavior in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management 105:21 35. Taylor, A.H. and C.N. Skinner. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management ! 11: 285 -301. USDA Forest Service. 2002. Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Report, Biscuit Fire. SiskiyouNational Forest· Website: http://www.biscuitfire.com · 2001. Ashland Watershed Protection Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Rogue River National Forest. Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/siskiyouJplanning/awpp/ awpp.html Ashland Watershed fire planning, 5 __. 1996. Mt. ,qshland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. Rogue River National Forest. Medford, OR. · 1995. Bear ~atershedAnalysis. Rogue River National Forest. Medford, OR. · 1994. Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA. USDA F, orest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Federal ~ildlandFire Policy. Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/wdfire ~..~shland Watershed fire planning, 6 CX}IIBIT ~ UNITED STA~S D£?ARTMENT OF ACRICULTURE Office of ~he ~ecre~ar~ COOPERATIVE AC~EEMEI~ POR THE PURPOSE O? CO~SE~ViNG AND PROTECTIN~ THE WATER SUPPLY OF THE CI~ OF ASHLAND, ORECON This ACREEMENT made and entered into this 2!s~ d~y of August , cae thousand, aine hundred and twenty nine blt and between the City of Ashland, State of Ore,on, through J. Ed~. Thornton , its Mayor, and the United States DeDar%-ment of Agriculture, through R.~W. Dun!a~ , Act!n~ , ~ecretary of Agriculture, WIT~ESSETH ~hat, ~EREAS, the fol!owin~ described lan~s: all ~ational forest lands in townships 39 and ~0 shouth, ranges 1 west and 1 eas~, W.M. within the watershed of Ashland C~eek, compr~sin~ apDz~oXimateIZ 11,~32 acres, within the boundaries of Crater ~ational ~orest, are within ~he watershed from which the water supply o~ the City of Ashland is obtaln,d: NOW, TIIE~FORE, for the pux~pose of conserv[n~ and protecting: the water s~p~ly of said city, it is agreed: 1. Tha~ befor~ en~erinK Into any K~ement for ~he cuttln~ of T~mber or remcval of other forest products from national forest lanes within the area, ~he officials of the City of Ashland will be consulted and full consideration will be ~iven to ~ny.~equiPemenZs ~he City of 53 EXHIBIT I (CONT.) Kshland may desire to impose as necessary fo~ ~he of the water supDly. 2. That in pe~mittin~ the use of said lands fop timber oP other purposes, ~ull consideration sall be liven to the of the volume and Duri~y of the city wateP suDply, and if the State or federal a~ancies shall deters, ina, after due s~dy and inves~i- Eation, that the City wa~eP supgly is bein~ oP will be demiaished, contaminatede o~ polluted th~ouKh pacified o9e=ations uDon said lands, and ~he~o is uo orhe~ mo~e p~acticable memedy fo~ the situation. The Sec=et~, so fa~ as he has legal authority to do so, will cause ~uch ~e~i~Ted operations To ~ restricted, aodif!ed, o~ discontinued. 3. Grazln$ of livestock on national fo~ lands in the watershed will no~ ~ authorized by The Forest Service excep~ with The consen~ of ~he officials of the City of Asked. ~nv fencin5 or o~he~ ment~ found necessa~ to effectively exclude llves~ock fT~ the watershed o~ ~o aid tn safeEuar~nZ the water sugply will be ~d zafntained by the Ci~ under sDectal use' pe~i~ to be issued ~he Forest Supe~isor. these l~ds by seed [nC and ~lantin~, and by the ~ost apD~oved of ~i!=~cul%u~e and fomes~ man.{~ement. 5. The FoFesr Sa~vlce will a~inisr~u and p~ot~c! the ~a in connectio~ ~h ad~oin~nF national forest lands. Should tku City 5~ EXMI3IT I (CONT.) Ashlaud deslre auy ~eclal protective measures uot provided by the regular ~o~est Service administration, they may be obtained at the expense of the City of Ashland by the appointment of additional em- ployees to be appointed by and to be directly res~onsfb!e to the ' Forest Supervisor of the Crater Mational Vo%~est, but their compen- sation will ~e paid by the ~aid City the same rate a~ men emploTed by the For~t gory[ce on similar duties. 8. Both pa~tfes reserve ~he right to resinate this at any time on no~ice to ~he other p~y, Wrovided m tha~ all ob!i~a~ions under the agre~ent uD to the date of the terminati~ have ~en me~. The ~ndersigned a~ee to the above prooos]tions and E to ca~ them out ~o far as they have official ~oweP and CITY OF ASI!LAND /~/ ,1. ~dw. Thornton Mayor Attest: SertruCe Biwe~ Recorde? gigned . ~. W.. Dunlap . . Acting Secretary of Agriculture 55 CITY OF ASHLAND Ashland City Council 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520 (City Hall) (541)488-5311 -Fax September 18, 2000 Linda Duffy District Ranger U.S. Forest Service 645 Washington Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ad Hoc Committee Watershed Protection Plan AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ASHLAND WATERSHED PROTECTION PROJECT I. PREFACE The ad hoc committee was appointed by the Mayor of Ashland to provide recommendations to the City Council on the U.S. Forest Service's forthcoming final Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project (AWPP). Pursuant to a 1929 Memorandum of Understanding, the City of Ashland may set conditions on management of federal lands in the watershed to protect the City's domestic water supply. All members of the ad hoc committee participated in regular public meetings of the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance (AWSA). In keeping with the goals and principles of the AWSA, the ad hoc committee "searched conscientiously for methods to incorporate all values of ecosystem health (e.g., water quality, late-successional forest habitat, etc.) in the context of fire hazard reduction practices" (AWSA 1999). We have observed a tendency among the public to view the AWPP as a solution to the high fire hazard in portions of the watershed. We do not believe that this project is a stand-alone solution to fire hazard. The treatment of approximately 10 percent of the watershed over a number of years can only buy time to develop a more comprehensive watershed management plan that addresses the other 90 percent. Such a plan should incorporate the principles of aquatic conservation, conservation biology, protection of soils and productivity, as well as social and economic objectives. II. INTRODUCTION The Ashland Creek watershed is important to the people of the City of Ashland and surrounding areas for its high quality water supply, its critical wildlife corridors and late-successional forest habitat, its scenic appeal, its aesthetic and spiritual attractions, its recreational opportunities, and the many other products and services that are supported by the watershed. Fire hazard reduction, if not performed conscientiously, could easily degrade any or all of these important features of the watershed. We considered recommendations that will help the Forest Service design the AWPP to achieve ,..puthentic fire hazard reduction in a financially efficient manner, while maintaining or improving the Linda Duffy Ad Hoc Committee Report on the Ashland Watershed Protection Project Page 2 of 7 September 18, 2000 ecological health of the watershed. The stated goal of the project is to "reduce the potential for wildfire and prescribed fire to spread into and through the canopies of trees," which can result in stand replacement (USDA 2000, p.1). The desired outcome would be a fire-resilient forest where natural fires would burn at Iow to moderate intensities and restore essential forest ecological processes. Alternative 6, which the final ElS will fully analyze, should address and resolve the significant issues identified by the Forest Service in the draft ElS while encouraging practical and innovative methods of contracting, cooperative public-private funding partnerships, and marketing of the project's by-products. III. DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION The draft ElS defined the desired future condition for the AWPP project area as a forest that is relatively "fire safe" (USDA 1999, p. I-11). We suggest ways to broaden and further develop the desired future condition for the project area in the final ElS. Specifically, the health and integrity of the watershed's ecosystems should be maintained or enhanced by the project. The desired future condition for the project area should be a forest that is relatively fire-resilient, as opposed to "fire safe." The latter suggests that continued fire suppression is a desirable management goal. Moreover, the late-successional forest habitats (as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan) in the watershed should be faithfully protected from degradation. A. Ecosystem health and inteqrity Few of us can fully imagine or appreciate the grandeur and intricacies of the watershed that existed when indigenous people and the first European settlers encountered it. This rich landscape and the high quality water it produces are changing before our eyes as the impacts of 20th century management become more visible. We are blessed with many natural legacies within our watershed that can direct us to shift our focus toward the restoration of areas most affected by fire exclusion and multiple-use management. The community must embark on a long term restoration effort that requires a high degree of care and commitment, rather than a quick fix. The watershed does not possess all the pieces that it once had. We are humbled by the realization that we simply do not know enough about its ecosystem, nor are we yet able to modify our lifestyles and land use habits to recreate those historical conditions. We are committed to sustaining the watershed's plants and wildlife, as well as their ability to live well within our shared domain. Over time, we will discover new approaches and techniques that cannot be implemented, or even imagined, today. We should move forward with great respect. B. Fire-resilient forest ecosystems A fire-resilient forest in the Ashland Creek watershed would feature the following attributes: 1. An organic fuel profile consistent with the natural frequency and intensity of fire disturbances to which the landscape is uniquely adapted. 2. Biological diversity consistent with the watershed's natural range, including a diversity of plant species, sizes, and structure. Linda Duff,/ Ad Hoc Committee Report on the Ashland Watershed Protection Project Page 3 of 7 September 18, 2000 3. Tree density across all age classes consistent with natural plant associations. To achieve the desired future condition of a fire-resilient forest, management of the watershed must include: A management plan that includes Iow intensity wildfire and prescribed burning among its objectives and practices. This would facilitate natural watershed conditions and reduce the risk of a stand replacement fire, which could jeopardize Ashland's water supply. 1. A monitoring plan to assist in the development of fire hazard reduction guidelines, as required by the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 2. Interaction among community members to support broad understanding and appreciation for a healthy and dynamic watershed. 3. Cooperation among property owners to reduce fire risk and hazard in the urban/wildland interface area, in partnership with public agencies. 4. If these practices are incorporated into the AWPP and future management plans, the desired future condition of a fire-resilient forest ecosystem should be realized. C. Late-successional forest habitat The desired future condition for the entire municipal watershed is to maintain the structures, features, and processes critical to functioning late-successional forest ecosystems, including multi-storied canopies, large trees, snags, mistletoe brooms, down logs, soil structure and organisms, and varied plant associations (AWSA 1999, pp. 40-43). The functions of existing late-successional habitat must not be degraded by any actions taken to reduce fire hazard. Furthermore, there is a need for additional study and careful monitoring of the site-specific ecology of late-successional forest ecosystems in the watershed. Late-successional forests in the Ashland Creek watershed evolved with fire. Late-successional forests have relatively Iow ground temperatures, high humidity, and are protected by their closed canopies from direct solar radiation and wind, reducing the potential for high intensity fire (Agee 1993). Moreover, late- successional forests in the watershed are at lower risk of fire ignition than forests in the urban/wildland interface, where natural and human-ignited fires historically start and then spread upslope into the watershed (USDA 1995, pp. 22-26). IV. DECISION TO BE MADE In this section, we discuss recommendations for key elements of the Ashland District Ranger's decision (see USDA 1999, p. 1-20). Those elements include the extent of the project area that should be treated, the methods of fire hazard reduction treatments, and the schedule of project implementation. We did not discuss mitigation measures. A. Area to be treated The AWPP should be implemented in phases, beginning with areas where high fire hazard and risk converge. Area-wide treatments should first be carried out in the urban/wildland interface zone in T39S, RIE, sections 17, 19, 20, 21, 27 and 28. The areas to be treated are generally close to roads, homes, and areas of heavy recreational use, which the Bear Watershed Analysis identifies as being at the greatest risk of high intensity wildfire (USDA 1995, p. 22). Linda Duffy Ad Hoc Committee Report on the Ashland Watershed Protection Project Page 4 of 7 September 18, 2000 B. Treatment methods 1. Density manaqement The Forest Service has indicated that Alternative 6 will rely on "density management" techniques to perform the area-wide fire hazard reduction treatments. To maintain or enhance fire-resilient forest ecosystems, the agency must determine appropriate stand density indexes on a site-by- site basis. A thorough discussion of the criteria and standards for density management is absolutely critical prior to writing site-specific treatment prescriptions. The rationale supporting density management prescriptions must be well-defined in order to ensure that the public is well informed, decisions are transparent, and desired future conditions are realized. Large tree cuttinq and removal We appreciate the effort of Ashland Ranger District staff to articulate the general conditions under which cutting of larger trees in excess of 17 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) might be considered. However, explicit guidelines should be developed which take into account the desired future conditions stated herein, the values stated in the AWSA's comment on the draft EIS, as well as the specific ecological needs of each site. Specific factors to consider include: site-level fuel profile, fire hazard and risk; alternatives such as pruning; soil stability and productivity; wildlife habitat needs; riparian habitat protection; and site-level snag and down woody material densities. C. Implementation schedule We recommend deferring area-wide treatments in T39S, R1E, sections 28, 32 and 33, and in T40S, RIE, sections 4 and 5. Those areas are closer to Winburn Ridge, where the risk of ignition is much lower than in the urban/wildland interface. Area-wide treatments on that portion of the landscape which meet the desired future conditions described above for late-successional forests require much more site-specific information than is currently available. We do, however, recommend maintenance of existing fuel breaks (i.e., removal of underbrush, but not overstory trees) on Winburn Ridge, where such action may be necessary to reduce fire hazard. V. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Many significant points of detail regarding the design of Alternative 6 remain to be worked out. This section describes specific recommendations which the committee hopes will be used by the Forest Service to address and resolve significant issues identified in the draft ElS and the AWSA comment document. Monitorinq Monitoring is critical to proper implementation of the AWPP, or any forest management project. To create a successful monitoring program, we recommend the following: A high level of institutional and community commitment and adequate funding. The monitoring program for the AWPP should be adequately funded before action to reduce fire hazard is undertaken in the watershed. Linda Duffy Ad Hoc Committee Report on the Ashland Watershed Protection Project Page 5 of 7 September 18, 2000 Employment of the "Ecosystem Monitoring Handbook" (USDA 1997), developed by the Rogue River National Forest, as the basis for a monitoring program in the Ashland watershed. Design and implement the monitoring program specific to the watershed's unique ecosystem. 4. Informational gaps and assumptions in planning documents must be identified and addressed, followed by a monitoring and analysis plan to fill those gaps and test assumptions. The monitoring program should include detection (baseline assessments of forest conditions and wildlife species of concern before ground disturbing activities begin), implementation (of marking and initial treatment), effectiveness (did the treatments work), and validation (are the outcomes what we planned for) monitoring for each specific area treated. The community, with its government and educational institutions, should be involved with the gathering, analysis, and interpretation of watershed data. The establishment of a watershed monitoring committee may facilitate this. 7. Data should be secured and stored where all interested members of the community may access it, such as a website and a reference shelf in the public library. Specific information gaps should be targeted within the monitoring program to facilitate informed decision making and effective fire hazard reduction that meets the desired future conditions described above. Key information gaps include: 1. Criteria for acceptable wildfire behavior, developed for specific sites and vegetative associations. 2. Stand exam and ecoplot data. 3. Site-specific soil maps. Ashland watershed-specific and general wildlife information including: watershed-scale forest habitat connectivity and fragmentation; distribution of forest serai stages and plant associations; use of dwarf mistletoe brooms; density and distribution of snags and coarse woody material; and wildlife sensitivity to prescribed burning in different seasons. B. Cuttinq guidelines The rationale for each decision to cut a tree >17" dbh must be totally transparent. The Forest Service should prepare additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation in the form of an environmental assessment, tiered to the final EtS, which describes the cutting guidelines and the specific sites where cutting is proposed. The public should have an opportunity to review and comment on the cutting guidelines before any such action is taken. C. Project funding In the wake of this year's severe fire season, the federal government will appropriate record amounts of money to pay for projects that reduce fire hazard in the urban/wildland interface. The administration is most interested in funding projects that reduce brush and small trees which Linda Duffy Ad Hoc Committee Report on the Ashland Watershed Protection Project Page 6 of 7 September 18, 2000 have accumulated as a result of effective fire suppression. It will prioritize projects where communities are most at-risk. It will also encourage public participation and emphasize local decision making. Furthermore, if the administration's budget request is fully funded, money will be made available to hire local labor and monitor project implementation (CEQ 2000). Due to the watershed's historically frequent fire intervals, a long process of community involvement, and Ashland Creek's importance as a municipal watershed, the AWPP appears to be at or near the top of the national priority list of fuel reduction projects. Other appropriated funds could be available to implement the AWPP. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency allocates money to projects that protect clean water supplies. Reeder Reservoir is on the EPA's 303(d) list as "water quality limited" for sediment pollution. Given the obvious potential danger of a high intensity wildfire degrading Ashland's sole municipal water source, the AWPP should be very competitive for such funds. D. Economic analysis Given the revamped economic and financial analysis being conducted for ail alternatives (1-6) in the final EIS, Issue #5 (Analysis Indicators/Decision criteria) should be changed to reflect the new analysis format. New indicators should include (1) treatment costs, (2) treatment benefits, (3) losses foregone, costs avoided and resource losses avoided, (4) total revenues, (5) economic cost-plus-loss (treatment costs plus losses foregone), and (6) treatment costs minus revenues. Also, it would be helpful if the tabular results, as displayed in the draft ElS on page IV-43, were revised to include figures for each major line items (subheadings) of the spreadsheet analysis format. Full documentation of the economic and financial analysis in the appendices to the final ElS would be helpful. Some discussion regarding the reliability of the cost and revenue data would be helpful for appraising future funding needs and financing requirements. Vlo EPILOGUE In this report, we have addressed those points which are central to the decisions being made in the final ElS and the Record of Decision (ROD) for the AWPP, as required by NEPA. The key points include (1) watershed values important to the community, (2) desired future conditions that should describe how watershed ecosystems will flow following fuel reduction treatments, and (3) the ad hoc committee's recommendations regarding the decisions to be made by the Forest Service in formulating Alternative 6 in the final ElS. Although we have covered a lot of ground in this process, much remains to be done to realize the fire-resilient and healthy late- successional forest ecosystems envisioned in this report. Following completion of the NEPA process, the AWPP moves into its implementation phase. The City expects to participate fully with the Forest Service in developing the specific projects that will bring the decisions made in the final ElS and ROD to an on-the-ground reality. One important issue to be covered in the implementation phase, on which the City expects to participate with the Forest Service, is developing contract options for the work to be done, Options include service contracts with salvage rights, fee-for-service contracts, administrative use programs,among others. Another important issue is project funding, which may include Forest Service money, other federal agency funding, and possibly contributions from the City of Ashland and other non-governmental sources. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with the Forest Service in the development and Linda Duffy Ad Hoc Committee Report on the Ashland Watershed Protection Project Page 7 of 7 September 18, 2000 implementation of these fire hazard reduction projects on National Forest lands, in coordination with the similar efforts currently underway on City of Ashland municipal watershed lands. Ad hoc committee members: John DeVilbiss JoAnne Eggers William Fleeger Howard Heiner Jay Lininger Laurel Rueben Jeff Fields Carole Wheeldon Richard Hart REFERENCES: Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance. 1999. Draft comment and proposal for the Ashland Ranger District and interested citizens in response to the Ashland Watershed Protection Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpubl. Council on Environmental Quality. 2000. Reducing the impact of wildfires on forests and communities, http:flwww.fs.fed.us. September 11. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Draft memo to ad hoc committee members on Alternative 6 of the AWPP. July 26. · 1999. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project. Ashland Ranger District. · 1997. Ecosystem Monitoring Handbook. Version 1.3. Rogue River NationalForest Integrated Ecosystem Monitoring Framework. Pacific Northwest Region. · 1995. Bear Watershed Analysis. Ashland Ranger District. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT UPPER BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT December 2001 The Ashland Ranger District proposes to initiate a non- NEPA ecosystem assessment process that will gather and analyze existing and new information, identify desired future conditions, develop management plans, and make recommendations for future actions to reach identified objectives in the area identified as the Upper Bear Creek Watershed. CONCEPT The overall goal of this process is to complete analysis and documentation of an identified landscape to be known as the "Upper Bear Creek Watershed." The forthcoming document and process will: [2 Incorporate information from existing assessments (e.g., Bear Watershed Analysis, Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, etc.), as well as additional data from monitoring. This process may also conduct additional inventories for important resoume areas or critical data gaps; Be a dynamic/living document; it will acknowledge the fact that ecosystem conditions will change, as well as our knowledge and understanding; [] Address the maintenance and restoration of processes under which the identified watersheds evolved; Involve the community in a collaborative process that explores desired future conditions and management options; Tier to and/or incorporate current land management direction for federal lands in the identified watersheds (i.e., process will not propose change to land allocations). This process may identify the administrative need for Forest Plan Amendments or identify potential changes to current Standards and Guidelines associated with the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; Be reader friendly with understandable terms, concepts, and graphics done in a professional manner. It will be designed as an iterative, interactive document that can be added to as a loose leaf, three-ring binder; rn Include current condition information on all lands within the assessment area (including other federal agencies, City of Ashland, and private); it will focus on and provide analysis and recommendations only for National Forest System Lands managed by the USDA Forest Service; and it [] Will NOT be conducted as a decision making process under the National Environmental Policy Act (it will identify opportunities for future projects that would be designed to attain identified desired conditions and objectives that would require analysis under NEPA. CONTEXT (ANALYSIS AREA} The analysis area for the Upper Bear Creek Watershed Ecosystem Assessment will include all lands within the Ashland Creek, Nell Creek, Tolman Creek, Hamilton Creek, and Horn Gulch Creek in an area collectively termed "Upper Bear Creek." This area is the same as that analyzed in the 1995 Bear Watershed Analysis. The analysis area is a logical set of sub-watersheds that have similar conditions, objectives and human values. As noted, the process will include current condition information on all lands within the identified watersheds (including other federal agencies, City of Ashland, and private); its focus will be on lands managed by the USDA Forest Service. The process will coordinate with other landowners and land managers within the Upper Bear Creek wildland and urban interface area and adjacent areas tbr current and future opportunities. Upper Bear Creek Watershed Ecosystem Assessment Business Plan - Page 1 EXPECTED~PRODUCTS The results of this analysis process is expected to be a living, dynamic learning document that provides guidance tbr future project development in the assessment area. Analysis will be documented in a single binder format that will be made available to all interested parties. The product may also be provided on the lnternet or in other formats to facilitate learning. Key components of this document include: ~ Introduction = Background .~ Integrated Current Conditions and Key Findings Integrated Desired Future Conditions for 5, 10, and 50 years = Integrated and Prioritized Opportunities = Integrated Monitoring Framework Plan The document will also include "chapters" on specific resource or management plan components that will focus on, organize, and update current conditions, key questions and findings, desired future conditions, and gaps in data. These chapters may be a continuation of previously documented analysis, currently identified needs, or are required under current policy. These chapters will not be integrated or prioritized, but will provide the basis for the integrated conditions and opportunities previously noted, and provide the basis for cumulative effects analysis for future projects analyzed under NEPA. Subsections or sub-products identified at this time include: ~ Fire Management Analysis (to provide the basis of future development of Fire Management Plan decision) Update to Bear Watershed Analysis (second iteration per Northwest Forest Plan) Update to Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (North Zone portion; second iteration per Northwest Forest Plan) Roads Analysis (per National Policy for furore decision involving classified roads) Recreation Analysis (local need for planning and integration) Research Natural Area Plan Update (local area need, per Pacific Northwest Region) ROLES. RESPONSIBILITIES. COMMUNITY OUTREACH Community involvement and collaboration is crucial to this process. The community will be involved in the design and direction of this analysis process. This project is designed to he managed by the Forest Service. The Project Leader and resource specialists will primarily be provided by the Forest Service. The Forest Service will provide community coordination and liaison. The project will be managed by the District Ranger of the Ashland Ranger District. TIMEFRAME This analysis is scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2002. Actual project analysis under NEPA is planned to begin in fiscal 2003; the type of projects and the level of NEPA analysis required will be dependent on the nature and priority of potential projects that have been identified in the Ecosystem Assessment. Upper Bear Creek Watershed Ecosystem Assessment Business Plan - Page 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Informing the Public about forest fires near Ashland Administration/Fire and Rescue August 5, 2003 t/j-J Keith Woodley~'Fire Chief/Ann S'61tzer, Communications Manager Synopsis: Staff has been exploring ways in which the community can be apprised of fires that occur in the Ashland vicinity Ashland that could potentially cause concern for Ashland residents. Of particular concern is how to get the word out should a fire occur over a weekend, as was the case with the Horn Gap Fire. The following practices are either currently in place and utilized or will be created. 1) Staff receives an electronic copy of any press release from the managing jurisdiction and posts it on the City's web page. Should a fire occur on the weekend, Ashland Fire Chief or designee will contact city staff at home, provide them with the information and staff will post the information on the City's web site. 2) Staff sends information to RVTV to post on the reader board on channel 31. Should a fire occur on the weekend, staff will notify RVTV staff via a phone tree and provide them with the information, which will then be posted by RVTV staff. 3) Staffwill create a Fire Information phone number, which can be programmed with information regarding the fire. Once the phone number is created, the phone number will be advertised in a variety of ways so that the public is aware that it exists. Citizens can call the phone number to hear current information about the fire. The information will be as current as the most recent information received from the managing jurisdiction. The above is used in non-emergency situations and does not include evacuation procedures. If the fire poses an emergency, standard emergency operations procedures will be followed and implemented. Should an evacuation of at-risk areas become necessary, it will be carried out according to procedures set forth in the Ashland Emergency Plan and under the direction of the Police Department with the assistance of community C.E.R.T. volunteers. Recommendation: None Fiscal Impact: None Background: When the Horn Gap Fire occurred on the weekend of July 12, some citizens expressed concern to some councilors that the City did not provide information to the community about the fire. The Horn Gap Fire occurred on US Forest Service land and thus was managed by the US Forest Service including information provided to the public. While the fire posed no danger to Ashland, people were understandably concerned because of the stream of smoke visible from town. Ashland Fire and Rescue received numerous phone calls about the fire. As a result of those concerns, city staff met to determine what information efforts beyond what the managing jurisdiction provides--could be made. Rogue River National Forest USDA Forest Service Sisklyou National Forest Pacific Northwest Region Horn Gap Fire July 2003 Typical burned area Rogue River National Forest USDA Forest Service Sisklyou National Forest Pacific Northwest Region Horn Gap Fire July 2003 Example of existing fuels CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Mount Ashland Draft Environmental Im,,~pact Statement. Administration August 5, 2003 Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: The Forest Service has released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion. The DEIS is available for a 60-day comment period that began on July 25, 2003. Representatives of the Forest Service will make a presentation regarding the process that will ultimately result in a Final ElS and final decision by the Forest Service regarding the selection of a preferred alternative. They will also provide a brief overview of the DEIS. Staff is not seeking a discussion and/or endorsement of the alternatives presented in the DEIS. Staff is seeking guidance on how to provide substantive comments regarding the DEIS. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council direct staffto review the DEIS to determine if the document accurately reflects the impact that each alternative will have on water quality. Fiscal Impact: None. Background: Attached is a memorandum dated May 1, 2000 from Paula Brown to the Mayor and City Council. The memorandum provides a history of the discussions regarding the expansion of Mt. Ashland and the city's role in the ski area. The memorandum also provides substantive comments regarding the Draft EIS that was released in 2000. The Forest Service is seeking substantive comments to the DEIS. A substantive comment has been defined as "A review comment.., that offers a concern with factual basis that may have a bearing on the decision being made." According the DEIS, "substantive comments are more valuable to the Forest Service because they act to: · Provide new information pertaining to any alternative · Identify a new relevant issue or expand upon an existing issue · Identify a different way (alternative) and/or modify existing alternatives considered · Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously considered to meet the underlying need · Identify a specific flaw in the analysis to assist the Forest Service in making factual corrections, and/or supplement, improve or modify the analysis · Ask a specific relevant question that can be meaningfully answered or referenced · Identify an additional source of credible research, which if utilized, could result in different effects Staff is able to provide substantive comments regarding the impact that each alternative will have on water quality. Attachments: · Memorandum from Paula Brown, Public Works Director, dated May 1,2000 regarding comments on the draft environmental impact statement Mt. Ashland expansion (Exhibit A) · Transmittal letter for the DEIS (Exhibit B) · DEIS Abstract (Exhibit C) · DEIS Executive Summary (Exhibit D) · Memorandum from Paul Nolte, City Attorney, dated June 27, 2002 regarding the role of the city in Mt. Ashland expansion (Exhibit E) · Mt. Ashland Ski Area Lease (Exhibit F) City'ofAs and Public works Department: Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Cc: Mike Freeman From: Paula Brown Date: May 1, 2000 Re: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA EXPANSION The Mount Ashland Ski Area is an existing winter sports recreation area located within the Siskiyou Mountains on National Forest Service Lands. The City of Ashland with significant community support, bought the ski area in 1992 and holds a special use permit for lhe Mt. Ashland Ski Area which is managed by the Rogme River National Forest, Ashland Ranger District. The City leases the Mt. Ashland Ski Area to the Mount Ashland Association as a publicly-owned nonprofit corporation. The ski area is 7 miles from the City of Ashland and is located primarily within the Ashland Watershed. The Ashland Watershed drains to Ashland Creek and into Reeder Reservoir, which serves as the primary drinking water source for the City. Skiing has been a winter recreation sport on Mount Ashland since the 1960s. Skiing and other winter sports have grown in popularity on the Mountain over the years. The 1991 decision to allow expansion and the recent request to implement the expansion project required an environmental impact statement. The dratt EIS is open to public comment prior to the Forest Service decision to allow the expansion to move forward. Them were several alternatives evaluated, and several criteria evaluated for each of the alternatives. My comments are limited to water quality impacts. My evaluation of the draft EIS is as a result of reviewing the DEIS, physically observing the site, knowing the current status and impacts to the City's water treatment plant and Reeder Reservoir, and basic knowledge of the soil conditions, listening to concerns voiced by community members, and having many conversations with the technical team that wrote determinations for the DEIS. Chapters III, Affected Environment, and W, Environmental Consequences, are thc primary focuses of all environmental impacts of each of the alternatives. The Ashland Watershed has a lot ofgranitics and decomposed granitic material in its make-up. This material lends itself to being unstable and has localized history of naturally occurring debris landslides. The Forest Service · Page 1 Exhibit A mapped the ski area, including the proposed expansion area, in 1998 after the 1997 flood, and found no new or active debris landslides. ~ne Forest Service's 1989 mapping sho~ved eight active slides, five of which are located along the east and west forks of Ashland Creek, but outside the ski area boundaries. The City completed similar landslide mapping and found several new or active debris slides in the east and west forks above and below the water treatment plant. It is generally agreed that these localized landslides can become active or are likely to become active with saturation and significant snowmelt or rain-on-snow events. One recommendation is to ensure annual physical evaluation of these landslide areas to ensure they are not increasingly active due to additional snowmelt or rain events. Tree plantings or other erosion control measures can help to stabilize these potential debris landslide events. This may need to be a shared Forest Service, Mount Ashland, and City of Ashland responsibility. As stated in the DEIS, if the soils are disturbed, sediment yield potential is high. However, it is also pointed out that undisturbed weathering and sediment yield is also high. Native vegetation and duff layers help to lower the erosion potential. Over the years there have been varying degrees of success with different revegetation eflbrts. My recommendation is that this be a primary focus of the entire ski area and the watershed as a whole. Correct evaluation, monitoring and continued native revegetation could significantly reduce naturally occurring erosion in the ski area and the overall watershed. Again, this is most likely a shared responsibility, especially outside of the ski area. The City of Ashland currently treats up to 3 million gallons of water a day in the wintertime and up to 7 or 8 million gallons of water on a peak day in the summer. As Ashland continues to brow, so will the demand for water. The plant is designed to treat up to 12 million gallons of water a day. The mw water in Ashland Creek is generally very good. It is cold but relatively clear and has good taste. Recently (the past two years) the cold winters have experienced a very cold somewhat glacial mn-offcondition that makes the water more difficult to treat. For a two-week period in January/February 1999, the City was unable to meet the water demand during a hard freeze due in part to the turbidity in the very cold water, and due in part to breaks and frozen water pipes which drove the demand for water up. Although it is unclear what portion was attributed to the glacial turbidity and cold water, there is some concern about the frequency in which the City will have to treat water that has this type of conditions, and whether the ski area expansion might add to that burden in any way. The chapter on environmental consequences is well written. It provides technical simplicity to a very complex analysis. It is difficult to limit my comments just to the ski area and the proposed expansion area, however, that is what is being evaluated for the expansion proposal and the DEIS. The comment is made (page 1V 15 top of page) "There has been no evidence of accelerated slope instability during over 30 years of ski area operation; therefore, no adverse cumulative effects from implementation of either action alternatives are anticipated." Technically tree, but as these are unstable soils subject to natural instability, I would like to see more monitoring and mitigation of naturally occurring unstable areas. In item 7 (page IV - 15) there is a discussion regarding impacts to soils, erosion, sediment production and delivery to waterways. With these naturally erosive soils, any construction activities will have an impact. I concur thai disturbed soils that are stabilized, naturally or through · Page 2 managed erosion control measures are less likely to impact water quality. It is imperative in my estimation, that throughout the construction period and at least the first 5 years following construction, there must be very active erosion control, mitigation, management and revegetation eftbrts. Relying on past observations is not enough. Construction eflbrts can be managed correctly and significantly reduce erosion potential, even for short-term effects. It is noted that the short-term effects of erosion are high (page IV 18). It is further noted (page IV 19) that "by utilizing the appropriate construction methods and mitigation measures to minimize disturbance, the potentialJbr sediment delivery wouM be reduced to moderate, and water quality wouM be maintained over the long term." I fully agree, but a strong active program must be developed. If these impacts are not addressed on site and further, if they are not monitored below the ski area (and expansion site) then there is a potential of missing the compounded impacts of this highly erosive soil and sediment transport capability. Again it is a very active monitoring program, not passive observation and merely "adequate" techniques. Overall, I maintain my original statement regarding expansion of the ski area. If done correctly, the long term impacts will be negligible. However, to correctly implement the total project, it is important to fully establish an ongoing observation, monitoring, and means of corrective action. This means resources (dollars and technical people) must be dedicated to the project and to making corrections to the watershed. This means that there must be a fully developed plan before construction begins. This also means that we should be collecting background data now on stream (even the seasonal water flows) impacts, sediment loading, runoff, and seasonal variability. Page 3 United States Forest Department of Service Agriculture Rogue River National Forest Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office 333 W. 8th Street P.O. Box 520 Medford, OR 97501-0209 File Code: 1950 NEPA Date: July 14, 2003 Dear Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Participant: As you have requested, enclosed is the full text (or Summary) of the Draft Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion (July 2003) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prepared by the Ashland Ranger District, Rogue River National Forest. In July of 1991, the Forest Service decided that expanding the Mt. Ashland Ski Area was an appropriate use of National Forest Systems Land, and documented that decision for a programmatic Master Plan in a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. As a step toward implementing that decision, a site-specific Draft EIS addressing ski area expansion was released in February 2000, documenting detailed analysis of three alternatives including No- Action. This 2000 Draft EIS analyzed proposed expansion alternatives exclusively within the western portion of the Special Use Permit area. Extraordinary public response on that Draft ElS caused the Forest Service to conduct additional analysis resulting in a new Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This new Draft ElS provides an analysis that reflects active citizen participation and expands the range of alternatives considered in detail. This is a continuation of the ongoing environmental analysis and all input previously received has been utilized in the formulation of this new 2003 Draft EIS. The 2003 Purpose and Need is modified and expanded from the February 2000 Draft EIS. The Proposed Action, based on an updated proposal received from the proponent (the Mt. Ashland Association; March 2002), has also been modified, including refinements that would ftmher reduce environmental effects when compared to the expansion proposal addressed in the 2000 DEIS. As the two Forest Supervisors with responsibility to make the final decision on expansion, we have tentatively identified Alternative 6 as our Preferred Alternative because of how well the Significant Issues are addressed and elements of Purpose are met. However, the final decision (following development of the Final EIS) may be some combination of Draft ElS alternatives considered in detail. This DE1S is made available for a 60-day Comment Period, under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508), and Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities, (36 CFR 215). The Forest Service will accept written, electronic and oral comments as provided in §215.6(a)(4), beginning on the day following the date of publication of the notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. This day is scheduled to be July 25~h, 2003. The Forest Service will respond to substantive comments received in an appendix to the Final EIS. Commenters must submit substantive comments (see §215.2) in order to have standing to appeal the forthcoming decision. Comments received will be reviewed and sorted into two categories: substantive and non-substantive. Every comment submitted will be read, reviewed, and considered, regardless of whether it was one comment repeated many times by many people, or a comment submitted by only one person. Additionally, emphasis will be placed on the substantive content of comments, rather than on the number of times a comment was received (or the number of signatures on petition or form letter response). For this review, a substantive comment is defined as: "A review comment made by a respondent with a valid signature that offers a concern with factual basis that may have bearing on the decision being made" (USFS Public Participation Handbook). Substantive comments are more valuable to the Forest Service because they act to: -Provide new information pertaining to any alternative -Identify a new relevant issue or expand upon an existing issue -Identify a different way (alternative) and/or modify existing alternatives considered -Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously considered to meet the underlying need -Identify a specific flaw in the analysis to assist us in making factual corrections, and/or supplement, improve or modify our analysis -Ask a specific relevant question that can be meaningfully answered or referenced -Identify an additional source of credible research, which if utilized, could result in different effects Caring for the Land and Serving People Exhibit B Page 2 In contrast, non-substantive comments include those that: -Primarily focus on personal values or opinion, or simply provide or identify a preference (vote) for an alternative considered -Restate existing management direction, laws, policies, or information that was documented in the DEIS (or provide personal interpretation of such) -Provide comment that is considered outside the scope of the analysis (not in compliance with current laws and policies, is not relevant to the specific project proposal, or is outside of the Responsible Officials decision space) -Are composed of general or vague statements not supported by real data or research, or lack sufficient specificity to support a change in the analysis or permit a meaningful response Thank you for your participation and involvement in this project, which is a demonstration of your commitment to a better future for our ski area and communi[y. We value your time and your effort. If you have questions or would like additional information about Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, please let us know. Contact Steve Johnson, Forest Service Project Leader, or John Schuyler, Acting District Ranger, at (541) 482-3333. Y Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests Enclosure: Draft ElS or Summary Klamath National Forest I ! I I I I I I I I PUBLIC REVIEW EVENTS Fieldtrips to Mt. Ashland Ski Ama Each trip may be a day long event of moderate to arduous hiking to see and discuss expansion alternatives. Participants should wear appropriate clothing and fooiwear, and bring food and water needed for the day. August 23, 27, 30, and September 3:9:00 am to approximately 3:30 pm Meet at Mt. Ashland Ski Area parking lot Fieldthp organizer: Steve Johnson (541) 482-3333 Open House A day to informally discuss with Forest Sen/ice spedalists different aspects of the project (for which you may have questions or need more information). September. Exact date not yet determined. Approximately 10:00 am to 3:00 pm. Location not yet determined. Public Hearing Formal time to give verbar comment about ski area expansion alternatives. This hearing will be structured and facilitated. September. Same date as Open House: Approximately 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Location will be same as Open House. Open House and Public Hearing date and location will be announced in print and broadcast media. t I I I I I I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Ashland Ranger District Rogue River National Forest Jackson County, Oregon Scott River Ranger District Klamath National Forest Jackson County, Oregon July 2003 Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Rogue River National Forest Responsible Officials: Scott D. Conrey Forest Supervisor Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests Margaret J. Boland Forest Supervisor Klamath National Forest For Further Information Contact: John Schuyler, Acting District Ranger, or Steve Johnson; Project Leader Ashland Ranger Distdct 645 Washington Street Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: (541) 482-3333 Abstract: In July of 1991, the Forest Service decided that expanding the Mt. Ashland Ski Area was an appropdate use of National Forest Systems Land (NFSL), and documented its decision for a programmatic Master Plan in a Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement (ELS). A site-specitic Draft ElS addressing ski area expansion was released in February 2000, documenting detailed analysis of three altemstives including Ne-Action. The 2000 DEIS analyzed proposed expansion alternatives exclusively within the western podion of the Special Uso Permit area. Extraordinary public response on that Draft ElS has caused the Forest Service to conduct additional analysis that has resulted in a new Environmental Impact Statement. This new ElS results in an analysis that reflects active citizen participation and expands the range of altemstives considered in detail. This process is designed as a continuation of the ongoing environmental analysis and all input previously received has been utilized in the formulation of the new ElS. The stated Purpose and Need is modified and expanded from the February 2000 DEIS. The Proposed Actico, based on an updated proposal received from the proponent (the Mt. Ashland Association; March 2002), has also been modified, including retinements that would further reduce environmental effects when compared to the expansion addressod in the 2000 DEIS. The Mt. Ashland Ski Area (MASA) is an existing winter sports recreation area located within the Siskiyou Mountains in Southern Oregon on National Forest System Lands, and is operated under special uso authedzation issued by the Rogue River National Forest, Ashland Ranger District. A small podion of the ski area is located on the Klamath National Forest. MASA is located about 7 air miles south of the City of Ashland, pdmadly within the Ashland Creek Watershed. The Mt. Ashland Assodation currently leases the ski area from the City of Ashland, holder of a Forest Service Special Use Permit for the MASA. The Mt. Ashland Association operates the ski area for the City of Ashland as a publicly-owned nonprofit corporation. The Forest Service overall Purpose and Need focusos on maintaining and/or enhancing environmental resources and providing the public quality recreational opportunities in an outdoor natural sotting on NFSL. The basis for accomplishing this is contained in Federal laws and Forest Service policy directives, the Forest Plans, and the Special Use Permit. This direction also provides the Forest Service the authority for ski area management on National Forest System Lands. Therefore, the underlying Forest Service Need is to respond to a proposal by the Mt. Ashland Association that would expand factiities at this time, within the designated Special Use Permit area, and in accordance with the programmatic Master Plan approval made by the 1991 Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Exhibit C The proponent, Mt. Ashland Association, has designed and submitted a proposal for action that would provide those facilities necessary for enjoyable skiing and a diverse and safe recreation experience. Mt. Ashland Association believes that operations and economic viability at the MASA would be enhanced by construction of proposed new facilities, which am intended to bdng the ski area up to date relative to ski industry terrain and safety standards. The Proposed Action would accomplish this by addressing existing shodcomings at MASA to meet current skier and future use expectations for a quality recreation experience, and would position MASA to take advantage of potential future growth in lhe local and regional skier market. This, in rum, would allow the ski resed to remain competitively viable within their market niche into the future. The Forest Service agrees that this proposal holds medt for meeting the stated objectives and has agreed to consider additional options for meeting them. Under the Proposed Action (described and analyzed as Alternative 2 in the Draft ElS) the Forest Service would authorize Mt. Ashland Association to construct two chairlifts, two surface lifts, and approximately 71 acres of associated new ski terrain primarily within the western half (the East Fork of Ashland Creek or "Middle Fork' area) of the MASA Special Use Permit area. There would be an additional 4 acres of cleadng for lift corridors and staging areas. In addition, expanded features would include a tubing facility in the southern portion of the permit area; three guest services buildings, a yurt, additional night lighting; additional maintenance access read segments; additional power, water lines and storage tanks, sewer lines; and additional parking areas resulting in an increase in vehicle parking by 200 spaces. Watershed restoration projects would be implemented, including structural storm water control, and non- structural controls. Six alternatives are considered in detail including No-Action. Three action alternatives considered in detail that are primarily based on a site-specific analysis of a current proposal received from the proponent to develop a portion of the Master Plan in the Middle Fork area. Two additional alternatives are analyzed in detail that would expand the ski area predominately in areas other than Middle Fork, within the Special Use Permit area as authorized for consideration in the 1991 Final ElS and Record of Decision. The Significant Issues studied in this Draft ElS include: Effects on Soils, Effects on Watershed Resoumes, Effects on Water Quality, Effects to Engelmann Spruce, Effects to Mt. Ashland Lupine and Henderson's Horkelia, Effects Associated with Human Social Values, and effects Associated with Economics. Beyond these seven Significant Issues, other issues are also analyzed. Alii issues are based upon public and agency comments received dudng the on-going sceping process or are related to satisfying Federal, State, and local requirements and standards. Comments: This DEIS is made available for a 6(Fray Comment Peded, under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500- 1508), and Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities, (36 CFR 215). The Forest Service will accept written, electronic and oral comments as provided in §215.6(a)(4), beginning on the day following date of publication of the notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. This day is scheduled to be July 25% 2003. The Forest Service will respond to substantive comments received in an appendix to the Final ElS. Commenters must submit substantive comments (see {}215.2) in order to have standing to appeal the forthcoming decision. Mail responses to: John Schuyler, Acting District Ranger Ashland Ranger District 645 Washington Street Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: (541) 482-3333 FAX: (541) 858-2402 email responses to: comments-pacificnorthwest-rogueriver-ashiand@fs.fed.us Important Notice: Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, v~ll be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and whl be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously w~ll be accepted and considered; however, those who only submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27 (d), any person may request the agency to ~4thhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limltad cimumatances, such as to protect trade secrets. Reviewers should provide the Forest Service ,~,ith their comments dudng the review pefied of the draft ElS. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final ElS, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Envimnmentst Policy Act process se that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the revlewer's position and contentions; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft ElS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final ElS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Anqoce v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9~h Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Hedtaqes, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft ElS should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the medts of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT JULY 2003 MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA EXPANSION This Executive Summary is intended as a brief overview of the site-specific analysis for ski area expansion at Mt. Ashland, It does not present the depth of analysis contained within the complete text of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; please consult the complete text for further detailed information, including large scale maps of the Alternatives Considered in Detail. INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), documents analysis of a site- specific project proposal to expand a portion of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. This proposal and analysis is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and its Record of Decision (ROD)for Mt Ashland SkiArea, released in July of 1991. The focus of this analysis will be on a current (March 2002) proposal to develop a portion of the ski area programmatically approved in the 1991 "Master Plan". Analysis of the current proposal also considers new information and changed circumstances since the programmatic 1991 decision on the Master Plan was made, i. e., the current conditions in 2003 (see Affected Environment, DEIS Chapter III). Additional discussion includes Forest Plan Amendments to adjust the acreage within management area allocation boundaries for the 1990 Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, (RRNF LRMP) as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, and area within allocation boundaries for the 1995 Klamath National Forest (KNF) LRMP. This Draft ElS will not re-open the decision approving expansion based on the 1991 Master Plan that has already been made. This Draft EIS will analyze options for authorizing expansion activities at this time, including the No-Action option. A Draft ElS addressing ski area expansion was released in February 2000, documenting detailed analysis of three alternatives including No-Action. The 2000 DEIS analyzed proposed expansion altematives exclusively within the western portion of the Special Use Permit area. Extraordinary public response on that Draft EIS has caused the Forest Service to conduct additional analysis that has resulted in a new Environmental Impact Statement. This new ElS results in an analysis that reflects active citizen participation and expands the range of alternatives considered in detail. This process is designed as a continuation of the ongoing environmental analysis and all input previously received has been utilized in the formulation of the new ElS. The stated Purpose and Need is modified and expanded from the February 2000 DEIS. The Proposed Action, based on an updated proposal received from the proponent (the Mt. Ashland Association; March 2002), has also been modified, including refinements that would fin-ther reduce environmental effects when compared to the expansion addressed in the 2000 DEIS. Draft ElS ES - 1 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Exhibit D BACKGROUND The Mount Ashland Ski Area (MASA) is an existing winter sports recreation area located within the Siskiyou Mountains in Southern Oregon on National Forest System Lands, and is operated under special use authorization issued by the Rogue River National Forest, Ashland Ranger District. A small portion of the ski area is located on the Klamath National Forest. MASA is located about 7 air miles south of the City of Ashland, primarily within the Ashland Creek Watershed. This municipal watershed serves as the source of drinking water for the City of Ashland. Ski area construction began in 1963. The currently existing ski area development consists of a day lodge, a ski rental shop building, ancillary structures, four chairliRs, and approximately 123 acres of ski runs. A parking lot for approximately 550-600 vehicles is located south of the lodge along Forest Road 20. The legal location description for all actions being considered is T. 40 S., R. 1 E., within portions of sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 22, W.M., Jackson County, Oregon. The Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) currently leases the ski area from the City of Ashland, holder of a Forest Service Special Use Permit (SUP) for the MASA. MAA operates the ski area for the City of Ashland as a publicly-owned nonprofit corporation. MAA is proposing this expansion, and is therefore the "proponent". MAA is responsible for all financial aspects of construction of improvements related to proposed ski area expansion. The role of the USDA Forest Service is to analyze a Proposed Action as it would affect National Forest System Lands (NFSL) and to consider authorization of MAA to implement actions. The Forest Service has not invested public funds to propose and design an expanded ski area; the responsibility for this lies with the proponent. The Forest Service has the responsibility (and obligation) to analyze a proposal for an action on Federally managed lands and to conduct analysis under NEPA, that would determine the appropriateness of authorizing action. PURPOSE AND NEED AND PROPOSED ACTION The Forest Service overall Purpose and Need focuses on maintaining and/or enhancing environmental resources and providing the public quality recreational opportunities in an outdoor natural setting on NFSL. The basis for accomplishing this is contained in Federal laws and Forest Service policy directives, the Forest Plans, and the Special Use Permit. This direction also provides the Forest Service the authority for ski area management on National Forest System Lands. Therefore, the underlying Forest Service Need is: To respond to a proposal by MAA that would expand facilities at this time, within the designated Special Use Permit area, and in accordance with the programmatic Master Plan approval made by the 1991 ROD/FEIS. The proponent, MAA, has designed and submitted a proposal for action that would provide those facilities necessary for enjoyable skiing and a diverse and safe recreation experience. MAA, believes that: Operations and economic viability at the MASA wotfid be enhanced by construction of proposed new facilities, which are intended to bring the ski area up to date relative to ski industry terrain and safety standards. Draft ElS ES - 2 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion The Proposed Action would accomplish this by addressing existing shortcomings at MASA to meet current skier and future use expectations for a quality recreation experience, and would position MASA to take advantage of potential future growth in the local and regional skier market. This, in tum, would allow the ski resort to remain competitively viable within their market niche into the future. The Forest Service agrees that this proposal holds merit for meeting the stated objectives and has agreed to consider additional options for meeting them. Although the Forest Service and MAA have separate needs and objectives for the Proposed Action, they are connected through a committed long-term SUP partnership to provide quality recreation opportunities on NFSL. By satisfying current and future visitors, MASA would remain a healthy and competitive ski resort. This would help fulfill Forest Service policy, objectives, and direction for ski area management in the respective Forest Plans. The Forest Service and MAA have cooperatively determined six specific Purpose elements for ski area expansion at the MASA at this time. The Proposed Action includes various elements to address Forest Plan consistency, opportunities for watershed recovery, and the shortcomings at MASA. These Purposes are presented and discussed in this Executive Summary with a comparison of response of the Alternatives Considered in Detail. Under the Proposed Action (described and analyzed as Alternative 2 in the DEIS) the Forest Service would authorize MAA to construct two chairlifts, two surface lifts, and approximately 71 acres of associated new ski terrain primarily within the western half (the East Fork of Ashland Creek or "Middle Fork" area) of the MASA SUP area. There would be an additional 4 acres of clearing for lift corridom and staging areas. In addition, expanded features would include a tubing facility in the southern portion of the permit area; three guest services buildings, a yurt, additional night lighting; additional maintenance access road segments; additional power, water lines and storage tanks, sewer lines; and additional parking areas resulting in an increase in vehicle parking by 200 spaces. Watershed restoration projects would be implemented, including structural storm water control, and non-structural controls, such as the placement of woody material. DECISION FRAMEWORK The Draft EIS is not a decision document. Its main purpose is to disclose and allow public comment on the consequences that could result from implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives to that action. Should an action alternative be selected, certain decisions will be documented in a forthcoming ROD. Accordingly, the Draft EIS focuses on providing analysis sufficient to ultimately make the following Federal decisions: · Which, if any, of the proposed ski ama expansion improvements will the Forest Service authorize and allow, and under what conditions? · What mitigation and monitoring measures will be required if an action altemative is selected? The Responsible Officials (the Decision Makers) for this analysis and forthcoming decision are the Forest Supervisors of the Rogue River National Forest and the Klamath National Forest. The RRNF is the lead unit for this l/EPA analysis and the Ashland District Ranger under delegated authority from the RRNF Forest Supervisor has led the analysis, guided the interdisciplinary team and coordinated the public involvement process (see DEIS Appendix A). Draft ElS ES - 3 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion MANAGEMENT DIRECTION AND OTHER RELA TED STUDIES In evaluating and deciding upon MAA's proposal for expansion, the Forest Service is required to ensure that management direction has been addressed for proposed actions and project areas and that actions are in the public interest. There are a variety of laws and regulations that call for the agency to work with private industry to provide needed recreational facilities, including downhill ski areas, on suitable NFSL. Special Use Permits are to be administered for public recreational uses that promote public health and safety and protect the environment. The major laws include the Organic Administrative Act of 1897, the Weeks Act of 1911, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986. The Forest Service is authorized to provide recreational opportunities on NFSL funded through private enterprise (16 United States Code [USC] 497). Special Use Permits are to be administered for recreation uses that serve the public, promote public health and safety, and protect the environment. Skiing is an important component of the recreational opportunities offered by the National Forests. Forest Service policy also encourages year-round recreation opportunities at ski areas to serve the public, provide economic stability to local co~nmunities, and promote economic commercial ventures. The Recreation Agenda (USDA FS 2000) details the Forest Service role in increasing outdoor recreation on NFSL through partnerships with other public and private entities (e. g. state agencies, the ski industry, and non-profit organizations). Forest Service policy encourages year-round recreation opportunities at ski areas to serve the public, provide economic stability to local communities, and promote economic commercial ventures (FSM 2342.1). Rogue River and Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans Pursuant to CEQ 1502.20, this Draft EIS is tiered to the FEIS and ROD for the RRNF LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994). The Proposed Action and alternatives are located on lands allocated to Administratively Withdrawn under the Northwest Forest Plan. This Draft EIS is also tiered to the FEIS and ROD for the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Klamath National Forest (KNF LRMP 1995). Of the 960 acres within the SUP area, 888 acres are located on the RRNF and 72 acres are on the KNF. · 1991 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Master Plan RODIFEIS The 1991 ROD/FEIS authorized the programmatic Master Plan that currently controls development at MASA. This Master Plan programmatically authorizes MASA to expand (as described in the ROD, page 13) in accordance with Altemative 7. This Selected Altemative, "would expand MASA's capacity to 4,795 PANT, served by a total of eight liRs. Skiable terrain would be increased to 197 acres. One mile of cross-country trail would be groomed on Road 20. Nq permanent facilities would alter the character of the south side of Mount Ashland. A transport lift would connect the existing lodge to a new facility at the Knoll. MASA's permit area would be expanded to enclose a total of 1,180 acresr, primarily including areas north of the Bowl and the Knoll. Parking capacity would be increased to accommodate just over 1,900 vehicles. Summer uses would be developed." I Recent analysis, based on transferring the SUP ama boundary area to current mapping, using mare technically precise computer mapping methods, has calculated the area within the permit boundary to be approximately 960 acres, in addition to more precise technology, this magnitude of change may be due to an enor in the assemplions for calculating or estimating the area during the 1991 FEIS analysis (the 199t planning ama was much larger than the cumsnt perm/t area). There is no change to the location of the boundary associated with the decision made in 1091, only to the catcu[ation of the area contained w~thin it, Draft ElS ES - 4 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion AL TERNA TIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIl This Chapter in the Draft EIS identifies and compares a range of actions and alternatives to address, in varying degrees, the Purpose and Need for future expansion of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area (MASA). Six altematlves are considered in detail including No-Action. Three action alternatives considered in detail that are primarily based on a site-specific analysis of a current proposal received from the proponent to develop a portion of the Master Plan in the Middle Fork area2. Two additional alternatives are analyzed in detail that would expand the ski area predominately in areas other than Middle Fork, within the SUP area and in accordance with the programmatic Master Plan approval made bythe 1991 Record of Decision and Final Environmental lmpact Statement. The following brief descriptions of the Alternatives Considered in Detail in the Draft ElS are presented in this Summary. The complete text of the DEIS contains 11 by 17 inch map foldouts in color, with contours, based on orthographic photos, corresponding to all six alternatives (Draft EIS Chapter II). Alternative 1 (No-Action) Alternative 1 identifies and describes the baseline conditions of the physical, biological, social and economic environments within the present Mt. Ashland Ski Area. The term 'No-Action" means no change to present conditions; the current set of recreation and resource management activities would continue but no additional expansion or modification of existing facilities would be authorized at this time. Alternative 1 does not address the stated Purpose and Need. Action Altematives are options that were considered by Forest Service Responsible Officials, as alternatives that propose some form of ski area expansion and development. Five Action Alternatives are analyzed in detail in this Draft EIS. For purposes of this documentation under NEPA, the Proposed Action being analyzed is contained in Alternative 2. Additional action alternatives were developed to consider alternative ways to attain the stated Needs and the specific Purposes identified in Chapter 1 of the DEIS. This alternative range is also designed to address the significant resource and social issues identified during scoping as being associated with ski area expansion and/or Alternative 2. All Action Altematives incorporate proposed design and facilities based on extensive professional study of the existing facility and SUP area, as well as agency and public comment received on the February 2000 DEIS, and scoping in 2002. All Action Altematives also incorporate improvements based on extensive public dialogue and recent developments in the snow sports business (such as the increase in snowboard use, and the advent of terrain parks and tubing areas). 2 V~thin the overall 960 acre SUP area, there are thre~ somewhat distinct sub-areas that iog~atly no~spond to g~gr~hic ~ns of potential exp~sion activities, and ere associated ~ith the Alternatives Considered in Detail. In this analysis, refemnno is made to these throe areas in order to provide c~a~y of geo~raphic reference. The "current facility", is bcated in the central and southern portion of the SUP area where ski area developments currently exist. The "Middle Fork" area is the area associated with the r~rthwest porlion of the SUP area and the Middle Fork of the East Fork of Ashland Creek and Chairlift LC- 6. The "Knoll" b the ama in and around the northeast potion of the SUP area associat~ with the ~e~re~hic feature known as the Knoll. Draft ElS ES - $ M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Function Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), the Forest Service would authorize MAA to implement a variety of facilities improvements. Projects being proposed include: construction ora new chairlift and associated skiing terrain within the western portion (the Middle Fork area) of the Special Use Permit area, additional skier service facilities, a surface lilt providing novice access to the proposed runs, a short chairlift in the vicinity of the Base Area to better utilize existing terrain, a snow tubing area, additional parking, necessary supporting infrastructure, and watershed restoration projects. Description Under Forest Service authorization, MAA would construct two chairlifts, two surface lifts, and approximately 71 acres of associated new ski run terrain primarily within the western half of the SUP area (the Middle Fork area), including widening of existing runs. There would be approximately 4 acres of clearing for lift corridors, and staging areas. In addition, this alternative would include a 4-acre tubing facility in the southern portion of the SUP area; three guest services buildings, a yurt, additional night lighting; additional maintenance access road segments; additional power, water lines and storage tanks, sewer lines; an additional snow fence, and un increase in parking by 200 spaces. Watershed restoration projects would be implemented, including structural storm water control, and non-structural controls, such as the placement of woody material. This alternative would result in the addition of approximately 71 acres of new beginner to expert skill level skiing terrain. Constituting an approximately 57 percent increase, the proposed terrain enlargement would combine with 125 acres of existing ski hms to provide approximately 196 acres of total terrain at MASA. In total, ski run development would require approximately 68 acres of tree removal. Alternative 3 Function Alternative 3 is designed to address the Purpose and Need identified in Chapter I of the DEIS, with less resulting consequence in regard to factors associated with the identified Significant Issues. Specifically, Alternative 3 is primarily based on Altemative 2, with modifications that would not develop skiing terrain west of the proposed LC-6 Chairlift. This alternative functions to address the Significant Issues in comparison to Alternative 2, by avoiding direct effects to Engelmann spruce, reducing direct effects to wetlands and Riparian Reserves, reducing effects to water quality, and reducing effects on Mt. Ashland Lupine and Henderson's horkelia. It would also reduce effects associated with the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless area over Altemative 2. Description Under Forest Service authorization, MAA would construct two chairlit~s, one surface lift, and approximately 42 acres of associated new ski run terrain primarily within the western half of the SUP area, including widening of nine existing hms. There would be an additional 2 acres of clearing for lift corridors and staging areas, and approximately 51 acres of gladed skiing terrain. In addition, a 4-acre tubing facility in the southern portion of the SUP area; three guest services buildings, a yurt, additional night lighting; additional maintenance access road segments; additional power, water lines and storage tanks, sewer lines; an additional snow fence, and an increase in parking by 160 spaces. Watershed restoration projects would be implemented, including structural storm water control, and non-structural controls, such as the placement of woody material. Draft ElS ES - 6 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion This alternative would result in the addition of approximately 42 acres of new beginner to expert skill level skiing terrain. In addition, 51 acres of terrain would be gladed. Not including glading, this constitutes an approximately 34 percent increase in terrain and would combine with 125 acres of existing ski runs to provide approximately 167 acres of total terrain at MASA. In total, ski run development would require approximately 42 acres of tree removal. Alternative 4 Function Alternative 4 is designed to address the Purpose and Need identified in Chapter ! of the DEIS, with less resulting consequence with regard to some of the identified Significant Issues. Specifically, Alternative 4 would develop skiing terrain at this time in the eastern portion of the SUP, in and around the "Knoll" area. Development in this area was analyzed as part of the Master development Plan and was programmatically authorized in the 1991 ROD/FEIS. This alternative functions to address the Significant Issues by avoiding effects to Engelmann spruce, reducing effects to wetlands and Riparian Reserves, reducing effects to water quality, and avoiding effects on Mt. Ashland Lupine and Henderson's horkelia. Description Under Forest Service authorization, MA.& would construct five chairlifts, and approximately 66 acres of associated new ski run terrain primarily within the eastern portion of the SUP area, including widening of existing runs. In addition, there would be approximately 4 acres of clearing for lift corridors and staging areas. Additional facilities include a Knoll area lodge, a vehicle/lift, shop, maintenance access road segments, additional power, water lines and storage tanks, sewer lines; an additional snow fence, and a new parking lot providing 328 spaces. Watershed restoration projects would be implemented, including structural storm water control, and non-structural controls, such as the placement of woody material. This alternative would result in the addition of approximately 66 acres of new beginner to expert skill level skiing terrain. Constituting an approximately 52 percent increase, the proposed terrain enlargement would combine with 125 acres of existing ski runs to provide approximately 191 acres of total terrain at MASA. In total, ski nm development would require approximately 57 acres of tree removal. Alternative 5 Function Alternative 5 is designed to address the Needs and Purposes identified in Chapter I of the DEIS, with less adverse consequences with regard to some of the identified Significant Issues. Specifically, Alternative 5 would develop skiing terrain primarily within the currently developed portions of the SUP area. Many of the components being proposed under this alternative for development in this area were not specifically analyzed in the 1991 ROD/FEIS. This alternative is primarily designed to be responsive to public comments received on the 2000 Draft EIS, and scoping in 2002. While many people commented on development of the current ski area, this alternative also functions to address the Significant Issues by avoiding effects to Engelmann spruce, reducing effects to wetlands and Riparian Reserves, reducing effects to water quality, reducing the effects on Mt. Ashland Lupine and Henderson's horkelia, and avoiding additional effects on the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area, as compared to Alternative 2. Draft ElS ES - 7 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Description Under Forest Service authorization, MAA would construct three chairlifts (including replacement of Ariel), two surface lifts, and approximately 20 acres of associated new ski run terrain within the central portion of the SUP area, including widening of eight existing runs. There would be approximately 2 acres of clearing for lift corridors and staging areas, an additional 44 acres of gladed terrain. In addition, this alternative includes a 4-acre tubing facility in the southern portion of the SUP area; three guest services buildings, a yurt, additional night lighting; additional maintenance access road segments; additional power, water lines and storage tanks, sewer lines; an additional snow fence, and an increase in parking by 160 spaces. Watershed restoration projects would be implemented, including structural storm water control, and non-structural controls, such as the placement of woody material. This alternative would result in the addition of approximately 23 acres of new beginner to expert skill level skiing terrain. In addition, 44 acres of terrain would be gladed. Not including glading, this constitutes an approximately 18 percent increase in terrain and would combine with 125 acres of existing ski runs to provide approximately 148 acres of total terrain at MASA. In total, ski run development would require approximately 17 acres of tree removal. Alternative 6 (Preferred Alternative) Function Alternative 6 is designed to address thc Purpose and Need identified in Chapter I of thc DEIS, with less consequence in regard to factors associated with the identified Significant Issues. Specifically, Alternative 6 is primarily based on Alternative 2, with environmental modifications that would reduce effects, but would not reduce skiing terrain as much as is proposed under Alternative 3. This altcmativc functions to address the Significant Issues by reducing effects to Engelmann spruce, reducing effects to wetlands and Riparian Reserves, reducing effects to water quality, and reducing effects on Mt. Ashland Lupine and Henderson's horkelia. It is also designed to provide an adequate range of altematives, including considerations for economic issues. Alternative 6 is somewhat of a blending of expansion components being considered within the Middle Fork area. Description Under Forest Service authorization, MAA would construct two chairlifts, two surface lifts, and approximately 65 acres of associated new ski run terrain primarily within the western half of the SUP area, including widening of six existing rans. There would be approximately 5 acres of clearing for lift corridors and staging areas. This alternative also includes a 4-acre tubing facility in the southern portion of the SUP area; three guest services buildings, a yurt, additional night lighting; additional maintenance access road segments; additional power, water lines and storage tanks, sewer lines; an additional snow fence, and an increase in parking by 200 spaces. Watershed restoration projects would be implemented, including structural storm water control, and non-structural controls, such as the placement of woody material.. Under Alternative 6, the use of an excavator for run cleating (and other excavation work associated with clearing for lifts; lift towers and creek crossings) would be restricted to a lightweight, low ground pressure machine (e. g., a "spider"). This relatively light (16,000 pound) excavator can be air lifted in and out of construction sites if necessary. Under Alternative 6, the specified crossing of Lower Run 12 would be a log stringer bridge with log footings, as opposed to a steel structure with concrete footings. This alternative would result in the addition of approximately 65 acres of new beginner to expert skill level skiing terrain. Constituting an approximately 52 percent increase, the proposed terrain enlargement would combine with 125 acres of existing ski runs to provide approximately 190 acres of total terrain at MASA. In total, ski nm development would require approximately 65 acres of tree removal. Draft ElS ES - 8 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion MITIGA TION MEASURES AND MONITORING Project specific mitigation measures have been developed for all Action Alternatives analyzed in detail. ~hese include appropriate measures a defined by NEPA Regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(I3 and 1508.20. Additional measures incorporated into this Draft ElS emphasize applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (for the RRNF and KNF). These mitigation measures would be carried out under all Action Altematives to reduce, rectify, avoid, eliminate, and/or compensate the potential resource impacts identified in the Draft EIS Chapter IV as required by 40 CFR 1508.20. Details on specific mitigation measures are described in Chapter Il of the Draft ElS; a Monitoring Plan Framework is contained in DEIS Appendix M. COMPARISON OF AL. TERNA TIVES RESPONSE TO PURPOSE AND NEED This section of the Summary provides a comparative response to the alternatives considered in detail to the stated Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action. These elements of Purpose are designed to delineate the range of altematives considered and to provide indicators for the altemative's degree of attainment of Purpose and Need. These elements are further elaborated below. This section utilizes a graphical presentation of the alternatives response to an element of Purpose, portrayed on a Each alternative considered in detail is portrayed by its corresponding nuber (1-6), on a line representing the "least" and "best meets" established as the poles or ends. For each Purpose element, the alternative that results in the least attainment of Purpose is on the left pole, and the alternative that results in the best attainment of Purpose is on the right pole. The other alternatives are then plotted between these poles, based on a relative assessment of attainment in a comparative analysis. While the analysis is often based on specific indicators with resultant numbers, this continuum does not imply precision in its placement of the ranking of alternatives; it is done for a relative comparison only. When more than one alternative (represented by an oval on the line) and alternative numbers occur under the line, it implies that these alternatives are essentially the same. The indicator or unit of measure(s) used for each continuum is found in the tables at the end of this Executive Summary. Terrain Balance and Diversity I I I I I Balance Of Terrain By Ability Level: A specific Purpose of sM area expansion is to develop additional Novice to Intermediate level skiing and snowboarding terrain in order to address the current deficit, and to better meet the public demand for Novice and Intermediate level terrain, as expressed by industry standards. Least Best Meets Draft ElS ES - 9 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Suitable Terrain For Beginners: A specific Purpose of sM area expansion is to develop Beginner terrain with more appropriate slope gradients. Least © © t 6 Best Meets Accessibility of Existing Lower Level Terrain: A specific Purpose of ski area expansion is to provide appropriate access to the existing lower level terrain at MAS.4 by eliminating the requirement for lower level skiers to navigate higher level slopes. Least Best Meets © 0 '14 236 5 Terrain for Special Programs and Competitions at MASA: A specific Purpose of ski area expansion is to increase total available terrain at MAS,I, thereby allowing additional opportunities for special programs and competitions while maintaining adequate skiing opportunities for the general public. Least Best Meets 0 0 0 CC) 0 t 5 3 64 2 Diversity of Non-traditional Terrain at MASA: A specific Purpose of ski area expansion is to increase the total acreage of available terrain, thereby allowing MAS/I to provide additional non-traditional attractions such as terrain parks, half pipes, and gladed terrain. Least Best Meets 0 o 0 0 '1 246 5 3 Draft ElS ES - 10 M, Ashland Ski Area Expansion Recreational Opportunities for Non-skiers: A specific Purpose of sM area expansion is to provide non-skiing recreational opportunities at M,4SA to meet the current demands of the non-sMing public. Least Best Meets t4 2356 Guest Access and Circulation Lift Access: .4 specific Purpose of ski area expansion is to enhance lift access to the western portion of MAS,4, thereby improving guest circulation and partially eliminating depeudency on the ,4riel Chairlift as the only access to the western portion of the ski area. Least Best Meets © t4 3 256 Skier Density and Access to Facilities: .4 speciJCtc Purpose of ski area expansion is to improve guest access to the terrain associated with the ,4riel Chairlift and to provide easier access from the ,4riel Chairlift area to skier service facilities. Least Best Meets © © 256 Update and Balance Guest Services and Facilities Proportionately Sized and Efficient Skier Service Facilities: A specific Purpose of sM area expansion is to enhance the guest experieuce by updating the quali~y of the ex. isting skier services facilities (e. g., food service, toilets, and parking) and by increasing the quantiO~ of services provided at MASA, to better balance with the capaciO~ of the existing and proposed lifts and runs. Least Best Meets © © © 3 45 26 Draft ElS ES - 11 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Accessibility of Skier Service Facilities: .4 specific Purpose of ski area expansion is to provide additional guest services facilities at M`4S,4 to reduce crowding in the ext'sting Base ,4rea, to reduce the cross-mountain sMer traffic, and to reduce the distance from the ski terrain to guest facilities. Least Best Meets 0 0 0 0 t 4 3 256 Skier Safety I I I I I I A concurrent Purpose of ski area expansion at this time is to euact improvements that willprovidefor and improve user safe(y. Least Best Meets 0 ~ ,-...-r-" 0 t 35 46 2 I ! I Economic Viability and Longevity Augment and Modernize MASA Facilities: A spec/ftc Purpose of sM area expansion is to augment attd modernize existing MASA facilities, titus ensuring the provision of an economically viable and stable ski area with a competitive and quality recreation experience. Least Best Meets 0 0 0 0 t 34 5 6 2 Customer Awareness and Regional Competition: .4 specific Purpose of sM area expansion i* to provide facili(g improvements at M,45,4 itt order to appeal to the broadest spectrum of the skiing and snowboarding market place, thus ensuring its economic viability and longevity. Least © 1 Best Meets I I I I I I Draft ElS ES - 12 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Maintain and Improve Trend of Watershed Recovery A concurrent Purpose of sM area expansion is to maintain or improve the trend of continued recovery of watersheds associated with the MASA SUP area. Least Best Meets © 23456 COMPARISON OF AL TERNA TIVES RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES NEPA requires Federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation on the significant issues related to a Proposed Action. The interdisciplinary team with Responsible Official involvement and approval, has identified the following as Significant Issues associated with the Proposed Action presented in this analysis. While the Draft EIS and this Executive Summary focus on the Significant Issues, all relevant issues identified through scoping are considered and documented in the various resource analyses in the complete Draft EIS (approximately 42 other or non-significant issues are analyzed). DEIS Appendix B identifies issues that were determined to be out of scope. This section of the Summary provides a comparative response to the alternatives considered in detail to the stated Significant Issues. These elements am designed to delineate the range of alternatives considered and to provide indicators for the alternative's degree of effect in regard to the Signficant Issues. These elements are further elaborated below. This section also utilizes a graphical presentation of the alternatives response to an element of Purpose, portrayed on a "continuum". Each alternative considered in detail is portrayed by its corresponding nuber (1-6), on a line representing the "most effect" and "least effect" established as the poles or ends. For each Significant Issue element, the alternative that results in the most effect regarding an issue indicator is on the left pole, and the alternative that results in the least effect is on the right pole. The other alternatives are then plotted between these poles, based on a relative assessment of effect consequences in a arative analysis. While the analysis is ot~en based on specific indicators with resultant numbers, this continuum does not imply precision in its placement of the ranking of alternatives; it is done for a relative comparison only. When more than one alternative (represented by an oval on the line) and alternative numbers occur under the line, it implies that these alternatives are essentially the same. Draft ElS ES - 13 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Effects on Soils Direct Effects of Erosion: The removal of vegetation and ground disturbance associated with cleating for ski runs and lites could displace and create direct soil erosion effects within the SUP area. Background sediment level is 243 cubic yards per year at the Site Scale. The largest increase in erosion would be 246 cubic yards per year for the first two years, before returning to background levels in year three. Most Effect Least Effect C!~ 0 0 0 0 326 4 51 Indirect Effects of Sedimentation: Ski expansion activities could increase sediment production and indirectly, affect sediment delivery to streams in the Ashland Creek and/or Nell Creek Watersheds on the RRNF, and in the Cottonwood Creek and Grouse Creek Watersheds on the KNF. The No-Action Alternative has the most effect because all Action Alternatives include watershed restoration projects that reduce sedimentation.. These restoration projects could be processed under a separate and additional decision process under the INEPA if Alternative 1 (No Action) is selected. Most Effect Least Effect 6 4 5 Effects on Site Productivity: Implementation of ski expansion activities could affect site productivity and/or creme detrimental soil conditions (through erosion, compaction and displacement) as a result of the operation of heavy equipment, removal of vegetatinn and woody material. The most compaction that would result is 15.8 acres under Alternative 2 within the 1,469-acre Site Scale Analysis Area. Most Effect Least Effect 23 46 5 '1 Effects on Watershed Resources Effects to Streams and Wetlands: The removal of vegetation and ground disturbance associated with cleating for ski runs and lifts could directly and/or indirectly affect streams within the four watersheds associated with the SUP area. The proximity of ski runs associated with the ski expansion activities could also affect wetland functions. There are 42.5 acres of wetlands at the Site Scale and 384 acres at the Watershed Scale. The most effect would be 0.83 acres under Alternative 2. Most Effect Least Effect 0 0 0 O0 0 26 4 53t Draft ElS ES - 14 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Effects to Riparian Conditions: Ski expansion activities, such as ski lift and ran development may occur within and could affect Riparian Reserves. There are 219 acres of forested cover within Riparian Reserves at the Site Scale. Alternative 2 would reduce that by 3.5 percent. At the Watershed Scale, there are 4, 942 acres within Riparian Reserves. Most Effect Least Effect 6 435t Effects on Water Quality Effects on Water Chemistry: The removal of vegetation and ground disturbance associated with cleating for ski runs and lifts within or near streams could change pH, increase water temperatures, introduce bacteria, and/or introduce petrochemical pollutants, particularly in the Ashland Creek Watershed, a municipal watershed. All Action Alternatives have the same effect, very Iow to immeasurable changes on water chemistry. Most Effect Least Effect © 23456 I Cumulative Watershed Effects: Implementation of the ski expansion activities may have the potential to contribute to an increased risk for adverse cumulative watershed effects, considering this and other foreseeable actions in the Upper Ashland Creek Watershed, the Upper Nell Creek watershed, the Upper Cottonwood Creek watershed, and the Grouse Creek watershed. None of the Action Alternatives would increase the risk ratio value more than an estimated 5% (Alternative 2), and no watershed would exceed any threshold level. Most Effect Least Effect Effects to Engelmann Spruce Direct Effects and Stand Health: Ski expansion activities could directly affect a locally rare stand of Engelmann spruce. Although not listed or protected by law or policy, this stand is at the extreme and of its range and may represent a unique component of biodiversity. Ski expansion activities, such as cleating, could affect Engelmann spruce by creating an "edge effect", potentially changing stand health conditions and resistance to disease. The most effect to spruce within the SUP area (18.2 acres) would be 1.8 acres or 10%, under Alternative 2. Engelmann spruce occupies roughly 6.1 miles of stream reaches in the East Fork Ashland Creek Watershed. Draft ElS ES - 15 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Most Effect Least Effect 2 6 1345 Effects to Mt. Ashland Lupine and Henderson's Horkelia I I I I Direct and Indirect Effects and Long Term Viability: The implementation of ski expansion activities, particularly in the area of the West Ridge (on the summit between the National Weather Bureau radar site and the area locally known as the "Rabbit Ears" rock outcrop) may affect two rare vascular plant species listed by the Forest Service as Sensitive: Mt. Ashland Lupine (Lupin,s lepidus var. Ashlandensis), and Henderson's horkelia (Horkelia henderosonii). Construction of snow fence under all Action Alternatives would affect less than 0.02 acres of habitat. The Mt. Ashland Lupine population covers roughly 43 acres and has about 36,000 individuals. Most Effect Least Effect 2356 14 i I I I I Effects Associated with Human Social Values Effects to Inventoried Roadless Area: Although allocated to Developed Recreation as an existing ski area (RRNF LRMP 1990), and as decided in the 1991 Master Plan ROD/FEIS, ski expansion activities could affect the McDonald Peak IRA and could affect the current unroaded character and value, primitive recreation, as well as the potential value for additional future Wilderness. Under Alternative 2, 41 acres (0.44%) of the 9,425 acre IRA would be directly affected. Most Effect Least Effect 2 6 34 15 Effects to Undeveloped Areas: Ski expansion activities could affect other undeveloped areas adjacent to the McDonald Peak IRA (but not inventoried as Roadless), currently possessing roadless characteristics, and similarly affect values and opportunity for primitive recreation. Of the 280 acres outside the IRA that have undeveloped character within the SUP area, 18 acres would be affected under Alternative 2. Most Effect Least Effect I I I I I I I I Draft ElS ES - 16 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Effects to Spiritual Values: Removal of large or old-growth trees and changes to late-successional ecosystems associated with ski expansion activities may conflict with human spiritual values that people place on large trees, and the natural environment. Alternative 4 would reduce late-successional forest by 37 acres (of 570 acres of current late-successional forest within the Site Scale). Most Effect I.~a~t ~ 4 26 3 5 1 Effects Related to Skier Demand: There is a concem that skier demand is insufficient to establish and support the need for expansion. The projected increase in demand ranges from 0.5% to 1.7% in the short term. Least Demand Most Demand I 5 2346 Long-term Operational Ski Area Feasibility: As an economic concern, the proposal may affect the long-term operational economic feasibility (i. e., economic viability during drought years, competition commitment, etc.) from other ski resorts given the extent of expansion of MASA. Consequences are based on "medium" visitation trend. Unfavorable Favorable 45 236 Draft ElS ES - 17 M. Ashland Ski Area Expansion I I i I I I I I I I I I I I 0 'C 0 0 I I I I I I '~' I Ii' ! c CITY OF -ASHLAND Memo DATE: June 27, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Paul Nolte ~ RE: Role of City in Mt. Ashland Expansion The council has requested an analysis of the city's role as lessor to the Mt. Ashland Association in the proposed expansion of the Mt. Ashland ski area. 1. In July 1992, the City obtained a Forest Service Use Permit to operate the ski area until July 4, 2017. Prior to this time the ski area was operated by Ski Ashland, Inc., a Washington corporation, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Stevens Pass, Inc. - Ski Ashland, Inc., obtained its permit in 1986. The City paid Ski Ashland, Inc., $1.3 million for the ski lodge, lifts, equipment, etc., $500,000 of which was from a OEDD Regional Strategies Fund grant and a Strategic Reserve Fund grant. The remainder of the funds came from community donations. 2. The city's permit from the Forest Service contains a multitude of provisions comprehensively addressing access, improvements, conditions of operation and maintenance, insurance, fees, payments, liability, etc. For instance, paragraph I.G of the permit addresses the requirements for compliance with the Master Development Plan: "G. Master Development Plan. In consideration of the privileges authorized by this permit, the ho/der agrees to prepare and submit changes in the Master Development Plan encompassing the entire winter sports resort presently eevisioned for development in connection with the National Forest lands authorized by this permit, and in a form acceptable to the Forest Service. Additional construction beyond maintenance of existing improvements shall not be authorized until this plan has been amended. Planning should encompass all the area authorized for use by this permit. The accepted Master Development Plan shall become a part of this permit. For planning purposes, a capacity for the ski area in people-at~one time shall be established in the Master Development Plan and appropriate National Environmental Poficy Act (NEPA) document. LEGAL DEPARTMENT 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 www,ashland.cr.us Tel: (541)488-5350 Fax: (541)488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 noltep~ashtand.or.us ~ephens~,,ashland.or.us F~ Exhibit E Memoto Mayor and Council Page 2 June 27, 2002 The overall development shall not exceed that capacity without further environmental analysis documentation through appropriate NEPA process." Other provisions require protection of habitat for endangered and threatened species with protection being the responsibility of the permit holder (the city) as directed by the Regional Forester. (Paragraph IX.M) 3. Simultaneously with, or immediately after, the city acquired the assets and the use permit, the city leased the assets, use permit (with consent of the Forest Service) and ski area to Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) which is an Oregon nonprofit corporation formed solely for the purpose of operating the ski area. During the campaign to raise funds to "save" Mt. Ashland, there was much discussion on how the ski area should be operated and what the city's role should be. From my perspective and recollection, however, it was felt that the city did not want to be in the ski business. The city was quite willing, however, to be the vehicle that would drive and coordinate the purchase and ensure that the ski area would survive. After several tries at deciding what kind of "partnership" the city should enter into with the operator, a decision was made to use the relationship between Oregon Shakespeare Festival and the city as a model. This relationship is more or less a simple landlord-tenant relationship. The city owns many of the Shakespeare improvements and much of the property upon which the improvements are located, but has no say on the operation of OSF. 4. The MAA lease terms include: An expiration date at the same time the Forest Service use permit expires (year 2017 - unless extended). Assumption by MAA of all responsibility for the Forest Service use permit requirements. MAP, is required to hold the city harmless from any liability for payment or performance under the permit. MAA has the "sole and exclusive possession and use" of the ski area "for the purpose of constructing, improving, maintaining and operating year-round educational and/or recreational facilities for the benefit of the general public (including but not limited to a ski area and/or winter sports resort)." MAA has the right to make changes and improvements to the leased property without seeking consent of the city. MAA is required to operate the ski area, keep all the equipment and buildings repaired, maintained and insured and pay all utilities, taxes, etc. These provisions are common to "triple-net" leases and are as close as one can come to where the city incurs no costs, liabilities or responsibilities for the property. LEGAL DEPARTMENT 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 www.ashland.or, us Tel: (541) 488-5350 Fax: (541)488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 goltep~,ashland.or.us s tephens~,ashland.or.us Memoto Mayorand Council Page 3 June 27, 2002 5. Thero is one unique aspect to the MAA lease. An effort was made to determine what the city's ultimate liability and responsibility would be if MAA folded or otherwise defaulted on the lease. If the city chose at that time to discontinue the operation of the ski area. then, under the Forest Service permit, the city is required to remove the improvements and restore the property. The lease provides that a trust fund be established to ensure that a "minimum liquidation value" be maintained by MAA. This value is intended to be sufficient to make the city whole should the city incur costs to remove the improvements and restore the property. 6. The Forest Service required that the city obtain Forest Service approval before the city entered into the lease with MAA. The Forest Service gave such approval. As such, the Forest Service works directly with MAA in all aspects of the ski operation since MAA has all of the responsibility of the city under the permit. LEGAL DEPARTMENT 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 www.ashland.or, us Tel: (541) 488-5350 Fax: (541)488-5311 TTy: 800-735-2900 noltep~,,ashland.or .us s tephensC, ashland.or.us MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE This Lease Agreement is m.ade and entered into this ~ day of ~,J""-,{~ , 1992 (hereinafter the "effective date of this Agreement"),'by and between t~'crrY OF ASHLAND ("Lessor') and the MT ASHLAND ASSOCIATION, an Oregon ~lbt-for-profit corporation ('Lessee"). In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the Lessor and Lessee agree as follows: 1. Term. The Initia~ term of this Lease shall begin on the.date indicated above and shell terminate on June 30, 2017. At any time on or before June 30, 2017, Lessee shall have the right, if the Lease has not theretofore been terminated by eifJ3er party and if Lessee is not then in default with respect to any obligation under ~ Agreement, to notify Lessor in writing that the term of the Lease shall be e ,x~en~l, ed for an additional twenty-f'Ne (25) years, until June 30, 2042, in which case the Lea~e term shall be so extended. Notwithstanding the two preceding sentences, Lessee's leasehold rights under this Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration or other termination of Lessor's dghts under the Permit. 2. Definitions: Descriotion of Leased Property: Permit: and Lease Agreement. 2.1. Definitions: Desoriotion of Leased Property. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall heve the indicated meanings: 2.1.1. 'Permit" shall mean and refer to that certain United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Special Use Permit which is attached to this Agreement es Exhibit "A', and any subsequent permit which may be issued as a replacement or renewal of the permit attached hereto as Exhibit 'A". 2.1.2. "Permit Property' shall mean and refer to that certain real property located on Mt. Ashland, In Jackson County, Oregon which Is described in and is subject to the Permit, together with all improvements owned by Lessor and now or hereafter constructed or existing thereon. 2.1.3. "Equipment" shall mean and refer to all personal property, fixtures, furnishings, inventory and items of equipment owned by Lessor which are now attached to or located on or about the Permit Property, including but not limited to the items of personal property identified on Exhibit 'B" attached hereto. As soon as practicable sfter the execution of this Agreement, Lessor and Lessee shall cause to be taken a physical inventory of all personal property, fixtures, furnishings, inventory and items of equipment owned by Lessor which are now attached to or located on or about the Permit Property, and shall amend Exhibit "B" to conform with that physical inventory, it being the intention of the parties that this Agreement apply only to those items of personal property verified by the physical inventory and listed on Exhibit "B" as so amended. PAGE 1-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE Exhibit F 2.1.4. 'Leased Property" shell mean and refer to the Permit Property and the Equipment. 2.1.5. "Index" shall refer to the following index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor: Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average, CPI--All Items ("standard reference base period" 1982-84 = 100). "Base CPI Index Figure" shall refer to the Index number indicated for the month of January, 1992, and the "CPI Index Flgure" for any other month shall refer to the Index number for that month. If the "Index" is no longer being published as of a particular date, then the "CPI Index Figure" for that date shall be the figure reported in the U.S, Department of Labor's most recent comprehensive official index then in use and most nearly answering the description of the Index (or, if the U.S. Depa[t~.ent of Labor is not then publishing any such similar index, shall be determined under another comparable, authoritative, generally recognized index to be selected by mutual agreement of Lessor and Lessee). If the Index is calcoli~te,d from a base different from the base 1982-84 = 100, then the figures to be used in calbulating any adJt~i, ment mandated under this Agreement first shall be converted ('~ possible, under a formula supplied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor) to account for that difference, 2.1.6. For purposes of this Agreement, the 'Minimum Uquldatlon Value' for the Leased Property with respect to any particular calendar year shall be determined as follows: 2.1.6.1. With respect to the 1992 calendar year, the 'Minimum Liquidation Value" shall be $200,000.00. 2.1.6.2. With respect to the 1993 calendar year and each subsequent calendar year throughout the Lease term, the 'Minimum Uquidation Value' for a particular calendar year shall be determined by multiplying $200,000.00 by a fraction, the numerator of which is the CPI Index F~ure for the month of January of that subject calendar year, and the denominator of which Is the Base CPI Index Figure. To Illustrate the preceding sentence, the "Minimum Liquidation Value" for the 1998 calendar year will be equal to the product determined by multiplying $200,000.00 by a fraction, the numerator of which is the CPI Index Figure for the month of January, 1998, and the denominator of which is the Base CPI Index Figure. 2.1.6.3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 2.1.6.2, the Minimum Liquidation Value of the Leased Property shell never decrease, regardless of any decline in the Index. 2.1.7. 'Ski Area Trust Fund' shall mean and refer to a segregated trust fund which shall be held, invested and maintained by the City of Ashland, as trustee, and shall be administered and distributed for the benefit of the Lessee and the Lessor in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement; The initial principal of the Ski Area Trust Fund shall be contributed to the Fund by the City of Ashland on the PAGE 2-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE effective date of this Agreement, and shall consist of those assets which are identified on Exhibit "C" attached to this Agreement. 2.2. Permit. The terms, covenants, provisions and conditions of the Permit are incorporated into this Lease and Lessee assumes responsibility for payment and performance of all obligations of the City of Ashland under the Permit. Lessee agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify Lessor from and against any loss, claim or liability suffered by or asserted against Lessor as a result of Lessee's failure to fully pay and perform the obligations of the Permit. 2.3. L~L~9~. Lessor hereby leases the Leased Property to Lessee, and Lessee leases the Leased Property from Lessor, subject to all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. 2.3.1. Lessee is thoroughly familiar with the Leased Property and its condition and state of repair, and agrees to take the Leased Property in its ~re'sant condition, and specifically agrees that all of the Leased Property is in an acceptable condition for the purpose for which leased. Lessor makes no warranty of merchantability or fitnese of the Leased Property for any purpose. Neither Lessor nor its agents have made any representations with respect to the Leased Property except as expressly set forth in this Lease, and no rights are acquired by Lessee by Implication In fact or in law, or otherwise, except as expressly set forth in t~is Lease. Taking possession of the Leased Property shall be conckJslve evidence that Lessee accepts the Leased Property 'as is' and 'with any and all faults'. 3. Use of Leased Prooertv. Lessee shall have sole and exclusive possession and use of the Leased Property during the entire term of this Lease for the purpose of constructing, improving, maintaining and operating year-round educational and/or recreational facilities for the benefit of the general public (including but not limited to a ski area and/or winter sports resort). 4. Consideration. Lessee is a not-for-profit corporation, all assets of which will devolve to Lessor in the event of Lessee's dissolution and liquidation. In addition, Lessee has assisted Lessor in obtaining the funds necessary to purchase the Leased Property. Under these circumstances the parties have determined that a lease payment of $1.00 per year is full and adequate consideration for this Lease. 5. T'~e to Assets. Throughout the entire Lease term the Permit Property and the Equipment shall be and remain the property of the Lessor. 5.1. All buildings, structures, facilities and improvements of whatever kind and nature ereoied upon or made to the Permit Property by Lessee during the term of this Lease, together with any and all additions or alterations thereto and any permanent fixtures now or hereafter affixed or attached thereto, shall upon termination of this Lease become the property of Lessor. PAGE 3-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:deity~sklash\maa-ffd.l~e) 5.2 Lessor shall not acquire any ownership, title or interest in any machinery, equipment, appurtenance or fixture hereinafter placed by Lessee in or upon the Permit Propert~ which is not so affixed as to become an integral part of the buildings structures, facilities or improvements located on the Permit Property; provided, however, that if any machinery, equipment, appurtenance or fixture replaces a portion of the Permit Property or the Equipment or serves a similar function to the Permit Property or the Equipment, or is necessary to preserve the value specified in. Paragraph 7.1, then such machinery, equipment, appurtenance or fixture shall become and remain the property of the Lessor. 6. Ait~rctions. Lessee shall have the right to make changes to and alterations of the Leased Property, subject to the following conditions: 6.1. Except as herein provided, Lessee may at Lessee's expense make such alterations, improvements, additions and changes to the Leased Property as it, may deem necessary or expedient in the operation of the Leased Property, prov~de~ that Lessee, without the written consent of Lessor (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld) shall not tear down or materially demolish any of the improvements upon the Permit Property or make any matedal change or alteration in such improvements, which, when completed, would substantially diminish the value or substantially alter the use of the Leased Property. 6.2. At all times when any change or alteration is in progress, there shall be maintained, at Lessee's expense, workers' compensation Insurance in accordance with laws covedng all persons employed in connection with the change or alteration, and general liability insurance in accordance with laws covedng all persons employed in connection with the change or alteration, and general liability insurance for the mutual benefit of Lessee and Lessor expressly covedng the additional hazards due to the change or alteration. 7. Reoair and M{~intenance. Lessee shall not cause or permit any waste, damage or injury to the Leased Property. Lessee, at its sole expense shall keep the Leased Property as now or hereafter constituted (with all improvements made thereto) clean and in good condition (reasonable wear and tear excepted) and shall make all repairs, including all structural repairs, necessary to maintain the Leased Property. All repairs, replacements, and renewals shall be at least equal in quality of materials and workmanship to that originally existing in the Leased Property. Lessor shall in no event be required to make any repair, alteration, or improvement to the Leased Property. Any fixture, equipment or materials replaced by Lessee shall belong to Lessor, and all proceeds from the disposition thereof shall belong to Lessor. Lessee shall indem.nify Lessor against all costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, suits, claims and demands because of Lessee's failure to comply with the requirements of this Paragraph 7, and Lessee shall not call upon Lessor for any disbursement or outlay whatsoever in connection therewith, and hereby expressly releases and discharges Lessor of and from all liability therefor. PAGE 4-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:dally\~ia~h\m~-ffd.l~e) 7.1. Lessee shall perform its obligations for maintenance and repair, shall make improvements to the Permit Property, and shall replace portions of the Equipment, as required to ensure that the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property is not less than the Minimum Liquidation Value of the Leased Property. 7.1.1. Lessee shall not be required under this Paragraph 7.1 to replace any portions of the Equipment which are not needed in Lessee's operations, except that this provision shall not operate as a waiver of Lessee's obligation to maintain the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property at a level not less than the Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property. ff for any mason the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property declines below the Minimum Liquidation Value of the Leased Property, then Lessee shall depose into the Ski Area Trust Fund a sum of money ("the Restoration Sum") equal to the difference between the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property and the Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property. The Restoration Sum shall be so deposited within ninety days after delivery to. Lessee from Les~or'~f written demand therefor. If Lessee disputes the Lassor's determination of deficiency, then Lessor shall proceed as provided in Paragraph 7.1.3, Except as provided in Paragraph 7.1.2 or as otherwise agreed in writing by Lessor and Lessee, amounts deposited by Lessee into the Ski Area Trust Fund pursuant to this Paragraph shall be used only for costs of restoration of the Permit Property as required under the Permit, and the trustee shall not use or permit the use of the assets of the Ski Area Trust Fund for any other purpose. 7.1.2. In recognition and support of Lessee's intention to provide educational and recreational programs to residents of the City of Ashland and to operate the Leased Property in a manner which will stimulate the economy of the City, and in recognition of Lassee's inability to commence ski area operations for the 1992 - 1993 ski season without financial support from the City, Lessor authorizes the trustee to pay and distribute to Lessee, within 30 days after the effective date of this Agrasmant~ the entire principal of the Ski Area Trust Fund. During 1993 and all subsequent years throughout the Lease term, the trustee shall distribute to Lessee, promptly upon demand from Lessee, all amounts of principal theretofore deposited by the Lessee to the Ski Area Trust Fund pursuant to Paragraph 7.1.1, but only if and to the extent that the sum of the value of the assets remaining in the Ski Area Trust Fund (after making that withdrawal) plus the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property at that time exceeds the Minimum Liquidation Value of the Leased Property at that time. Lessee shall not under any circumstances be entitled to receive any income earned with respect to the Ski Area Trust Fund. All income earned with ras ~p~'t to the Ski Area Trust Fund shall be c~edited to (and shall be deemed for all purposes to have been earned by) the City of Ashland, but shall be held and retained by the trustee in the Ski Area Trust Fund for use in connection with the eventual restoration of the Permit Property. All income and principal remaining in the Ski Area Trust Fund upon termination of the Lease shall be distributed by the trustee to the City of Ashland. PAGE 5-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:d~lly\skiash\maa-fld.lse) 7.1.3. Whenever Lessor reasonably determines that the sum of the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property plus the amounts then held by the City of Ashland in the Ski Area Trust Fund is less than the Minimum Liquidation Value of the Leased Property, Lessor may request an appraisal of the Leased Property by an independent qualified appraiser chosen by Lessee from a list of not fewer than three submitted by Lessor in conjunction with the request. If Lessee does not make the choice within five days, Lessor may do so. The appraiser shall have access to all of Lessee's records as necessary for the appraisal and shall take such steps as the appraiser deems necessary to make a competent appraisal. The appraiser shall report to the parties within 30 days after being chosen. The report shall be final and binding upon both parties. The cost of the appraisal shall be borne by the Lessee if the sum of the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property plus the amounts then held by the City of Ashland in the Ski Area Trust Fund is less than 110% of the Minimum Liquidation Value of the Leased Property. Otherwise the c?t .of the appraisal shall be bome by the Lessor. ' 7.2. Lessee shall be solely responsible for any improvements, alterations or repairs to the Leased Property required pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 8. Utilities. Lessee shall be responsible for, and shall pay ail charges for janitorial services, garbage removal, gas, electricity, light, heat, power, telephone, sewage disposal and domestic water used, rendered or supplied upon or In connection with the Leased Property. 9. Fire and casualty insurance. Lessee covenants and agrees to keep the Leased Property insured against loss by fire with extended coverage endorsement, Including risk of loss resulting from collapse of the structures, lightning, vandalism and malicious mischief. Such insurance policies shall at all times be maintained in force in an amount equal to the full insurable replacement value of the premises and properties insured. It is a condition o'f payment of such insurance premiums by Lessee that the proceeds of any such insurance shall be applied to the repairing or restoration of the property damaged whether the loss is partial or total. The City of Ashland shall be named as an additional insured on such policies. 10. I~. Lessee shall procure, and dudng the term of this Lease shall continue in force, at Lessee's cost, public liability and property damage insurance, including ski operators liability coverage, issued by a responsible company with limits of not less than $500,000 per occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $100,000 per occurre~nce for property damage. Such insurance shall cover all dsks arising directly or indirectly out of Lessee's activities on, or as a result of the condition of, the Leased Property and shall protect Lessor and Lessee against ail claims of third persons. Certificates evidencing such insurance and bearing endorsements requiring 30 days written notice to Lessor pdor to any change or cancellation shall be furnished to Lessor. It is agreed that the Lessor shall not be liable to any third persons as a result of the use of the Leased Property by the Lessee, its employees or agents, and PAGE 6-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE the Lessee covenants and agrees to save the Lessor harmless from the claims of said third persons by reason of the use of said premises by the Lessee herein. 11. E~. In the event any property subject to this Lease shall be assessed for property taxes, such taxes shall be paid by the Lessee on or before the 15th day of November of the taxable year. 12. Default or bre~. In the event the Lessee commits any default or breaci~ of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement and fails or neglects to correct the same within six months after notice thereof by the Lessor, then and in such event, the Lessor shall have the right to immediately expel the Lessee from the Leased Property and declare this Lease terminated. In the event the Lessee fails to operate the Leased Property as a ski area and/or winter recreation resort at any time during a period of twelve consecutive months, except for war, catastrophe, natural causes ('mciuding but not limited to lack of sufficient snow for reasonably profitable operations), or other circumstances beyond the control of the Lessee, the Lessor shall have the ~lgflt to immediately terminate this Lease. 13. Lessee Compliance with Environmental Laws. 13.1. Definition of "hazardous material". As used Is this Paragraph, the term 'hazardous material' means any hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste, inciudlng, but not limited to, those substances, materials, and wastes listed in the United States Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49 C.F.R. § 172.101) or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous substances (40 C.F.R. Part 302) and any amendments, ORS 466.567, 466.205, 466.640 and 468.790 and regulations of the Oregon State Department of Environmontal Quality, petroleum products and their derivatives, and such other substances, materials and wastes as become regulated or subject to cleanup authority under any environmental laws. Environmental laws means those laws cited in tAis subparagraph. 13.2. Lessee's cornoliance with laws and oermits. Lessee shall cause the Leased Property and all operations conducted on the Leased Property (including operations by any subtenants) to comply with all environmental laws. 13.3. Umitation on uses of hazardous materials. Lessee shall not use or allow any agents, contractors or subtenants to use the Leased Property to generate, manufacture, refine, transport, treat, store, handle, recycle, release or dispose of any I'mTRrdous materials, other than es reasonably necessary for the operation of Lessee's activities as~contemplated under this Agreement. 13.4. Lessor's Riahts. Lessor shall have the right to conduct reasonable inspections and investigations of the Leased Property and the operations conducted on the Leased Property at any time and from time to time, and Lessee shall cooperate fully with Lessor during such inspections and investigations. PAGE 7-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:dal~Ja~h\maa,.ffdJse) 13.5. Indemnification. Lessee agrees to defend (with counsel approved by Lessor), fully indemnify, and hold entirely free and harmless Lessor from and against all claims, judgments, damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilitias, or losses (including, without limitation, diminution in value of the Leased Property, damages for the loss or restriction on the use of rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the Leased Property, damages arising from any adverse impact on marketing of space, sums paid in settlement of claims, attorney fees, consultant fees, and expert fees) which ~rise during or after the lease term and which are imposed on, or paid by or asserted against Lessor by reason or on account of, or in connection with, or adsing out of Lassse's generation, manufacture, use, transportation, refinement, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials, or any release of hazardous materials as a result of Lessee's use or activities, or of Lessee's agents, contractors, or subtenants. 14. Umitafion On Assionment Or Sublease Bv Lessee. Lessee shall not assign this Lease or sublease any portion of the Leased Property without obtaining in each instance the written consent in advance of Lessor, which consent shall not ~)e ~ithheld unreasonably, and which consent shall be deemed for all purposes to have been given by Lessor if not expressly given or withheld within thirty (30) days after receipt by Lessor of Lessee's written request for that consent. In determining whether consent is reasonable, Lessor may consider any and all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the finanoial stability of the proposed sublessee or assignee and the extent to which the public interest is affected by the sublease or the assignment. Consent by Lessor in any one instance shall not constitute a waiver or consent to any subsequent instance. 15. Miscellaneous. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create between the parties hereto, or shall be relied upon by any other person as creating, any relationship of partnership, association, joint venture, principal and agent, or otherwise. The sole relationship of the parties hereto shall be that of landlord and tenant. Them are no oral agreements or representations between the parties hereto whlch affect this Agreement, end this Agreement supersedes and cancels any end all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements, warranties, representations and understandings, if any, between the parties. The paragraph headings set forth in this Agreement are set forth for convenience purposes only, and do not in any way define, limit or construe the contents of this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be void by any court of competent jurisdiction, then that determination shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement, and all such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. It is the intention of the parties that if any provision of this Agreement is capable of two constructions, only one of which would render the provision valid, then the provision shall have the meaning which rend@rs it valid. If suit or action is instituted in connection with any controversy arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party in that suit or action or any appeal therefrom shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other relief, the sum which the court may judge to be reasonable attorney fees. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given and delivered when personally delivered or when deposited in the United States mail, as certified mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the last-known address of the party being PAGE 8-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (.o:dafly~klash\maa-ffd.lse) provided with the notice. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the successors, assigns, heirs and personal representatives of Lessor and Lessee. This Lease Agreement is being executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and both of which shall constitute a single instrument, when signed by both of the parties. Waiver by either party of strict performance .of any of the provisions of this Agreement shell not be a waiver of, and shall not prejudice the party's right to subsequently require strict performance of, the same provision or any other provision. The consent or approval of either party to any act by the otl~er party of a nature requiring consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent to or approval of any subsequent similar act. This lease shall be governed and pedormed in accordance with the laws of the state of Oregon. Each of the parties hereby irrevocably submits to the Jurisdiction of the courts of Jackson County, Oregon, and agrees that any legal proceedings with respect to this Agreement shall be filed and heard in the appropriate court in Jackson County, Oregon. 16. Nondiscrimination. In connection with any operations of Lessee under this lease, Lessee shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. Lessee shall not discriminate by segregation or otherwise against any person on the basis or race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability by curtailing or refusing to furnish accommodations, facilities, services, or use privileges offered to the public generally. Lessee: MT, ASHLAND ASSOCIATION BY Its Lessor: CITY OF ASHLAND Nan Franklin, City Recorder PAGE 9-MT, ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:dlily\llda~h\rnl~a.fld.lse) CiTY OF SHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Quarterly financial report: May - June, 2003 Finance Department August 5, 2003 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director tn'[[]) Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Attached is the City of Ashland financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003. The preliminary end-of-year report includes: 1. Summary of Cash and Investments as of June 30 for the last two years (page 1) 2. Combined Statement of Financial Position (page 2) 3. Schedule of Revenues by Fund (page 3) 4. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution #2002-14 Amended (pages 4-7) The reports are intended to present preliminary end-of-year information in formats consistent with the department, fund and business activity presentations included in the adopted FY 2002-2003 budget document and the manner in which it will be shown in the end of year report. Many of these numbers will change before the audit is complete and the final report is issued. Summary of Cash and Investments provides an understanding of changes in the city's cash position across funds and investment types. Please note that the city-wide cash balance has decreased $5.6 million dollars between years. Last quarter the amount down was $10.2 year to date however that amount was improved with the June Water Revenue Bond sale and other revenues exceeding a lower level of expenditures as the end of the year neared. The Combined Statement of Financial Position is similar to presentations provided in the annual financial report. It is intended to provide the reader an overall sense of the City's financial position at the present time. The Ending Ftmd Balance is $9.7 million over the revised 2002-03 budget but is currently only $1.4 million over the amount projected to start FY 2003-04. This reinforces previous discussions explkining that larger than budgeted ending fund balances equate to increased carry forwards that are recognized as an added resource for budgeting in the following year. Revenues and Budgetary Resources at June 30, 2003 total $70,141,862, as compared to total year-to- date requirements of $74,881,054 which results in a $4.7 million decrease to Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance. This is $8.2 million better than the City's revised budget which included a $12.9 million reduction in ending fund balance. Part of the improvement is the Working Capital Carryover from FY 2001-2002 of $25.2 million or 6.3% above the budgeted amount, spending $3.5 million less than budgeted and not using $1.1 million of the Contingency. On a city-wide basis Licenses and Permits, Assessment Payments and Miscellaneous Revenues exceeded the total budgeted amounts indicating greater activity in those areas than anticipated. Taxes, Charges for Services and Fines and Forfeitures are less than projected yet at or above the 95% mark. These are still within the acceptable range for operations and the level of activity observed. Intergovernmental Revenues is at 78% awaiting further end-of-year adjustments and Interest earnings continue to be a smaller portion of total revenue as compared to prior years. Budgetary Resources including operational loans and transfers have been recorded as necessary. Total Requirements are within the budget showing a 90% level. Personal Services is 96% indicating most positions being filled throughout the year and benefit costs coming in a little less than projections. Materials & Services is at the 93.5% mark with expenses still being accrued. Debt Service, Capital Outlay, Interfund Loans and Operating Transfers are all under budget. With necessary transfers fi.om Contingency completed in June, the budgeted amount decreased fi.om $1.918 million to $1.161 million. The Schedule of Revenues by Fund provides an overview of all resources year-to-date. In most cases, collections exceeded budget however, variations due to construction and related financing and transfers can affect these percentages and consistency between years. Fund Balances carried forward into FY 2002-03 and recognized in July account for most funds' resources posting a pementage above 100%. Late receipt or recognition of Intergovernmental revenue for grants, capital improvements and operations account for the revenue shortfalls in CDBG, Street, Airport and Capital Improvement funds. Finalization of those resources will occur as part of the annual audit. The Wastewater Fund shows reduced amounts of interest earnings and systems development charges to record 92% of revenues budgeted. The Telecommunications Fund borrowed less than the amount authorized and had a lower amount of sales than budgeted. The Schedule of Budgetary Compliance is intended to present expenditures on a budget basis by fund consistent with the resolution adopting appropriation levels in the budget compliance section of the document. · Staff continues to review accounts and transactions to ensure proper coding. This will continue through the audit to ensure accurate reporting within the comprehensive annual report. General Fund - Total expenditures are 92% with $328,000 in Contingency unused. CDBG Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity but only 16% of the budget amount. Street Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity showing less project work in SDC and LID programs. Airport Fund - Expenditures are consistent with budget. Capital Improvements Fund - Expenditures above 90% with $100,000 in Contingency being carded forward. A small part of the Fire Station project work and related costs shifted to the next year. Debt Service Fund ~ Expenditures are consistent with budgeted activity. Water Fund - Total fund expenditures are 93.4% of budget. Several divisions are just above the 100% mark and are being reviewed to ensure accurate coding and proration of costs. Wastewater Fund - The fund is at 93.4% of budget with a small portion of Contingency being left over. Electric Fund - Total expenditures are at 93% with $200,000 in Contingency remaining. Expenses are consistent with activity showing Supply, Distribution and Transmission expenditures above 93%. Telecommunications Fund - Expenditures are at 88% of the revised budget (revised by a supplemental budget for the June 2002 loan proceeds for construction) with Contingency unused. Central Services Fund - Expenditures are at 90% with $30,000 in Contingency unused. Insurance Services Fund- Costs are within the 91% mark and consistent with activity. Equipment Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity at 75% with $200,000 in Contingency unused. Cemetery Trust Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity. Parks and Recreation Fund - Expenditures are consistent with activity at 87% and $35,000 in unused Contingency. Ashland Youth activities Levy Fund - Expenditures are consistent with budget. Parks Capital Improvements Fund - Recorded Capital outlay well under budget but consistent with activity. Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports and fund statements are available for your review in the Finance Department office should you require any additional information. Recommendation: Staff recommends acceptance of this report. Fiscal Impact: No impact. This is an update on FY 2002-2003 operational activity as compared to budget. Background: The Finance Department submits the above reports to Council on a quarterly basis to provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparativ? purposes throughout the year. Information can be provided in differing formats and timetable at Council's request. There were two transfers of appropriations and a supplemental budget this fiscal year Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available for your review in the Finance Department office should you require any additional information. This information, updated and audited for end-of-year accruals and adjustments will be presented to the Audit Committee in late October or November. With the audit Committee's concurrence, Council will be presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in late November or December. City of Ashland Summary of Cash and Investments June 30, 2003 Held By: General Fund Community Block Grant Fund Street Fund Aiq~ort Fund Capital Improvements Fund Debt Servica Fund Water Fund Wastewatar Fund Electric Fund Telecommunications Fund Central Services Fund Insurance Services Fund Equipment Fund Cemetery Trust Fund Ski Ashland Agency Fund Parks & Recreation Agency Fund Total Cash Dis~bution Manner of Investment Petty Cash General Banking Accounts Local Government Inv. Pool City Investments Total Cash and Investments Balance June 30, 2002 2003 Increase (Decrease) 2,080,407 $ 2,061,857 $ (t8,550) (22,538) (76,314) (53,776) 2,801,120 2,822,223 21,103 13,018 37,413 24,395 3,692,584 339,850 (3,352,714) 123,033 261,410 138,377 1,496,365 4,518,276 3,021,911 7,845,302 1,787,408 (6,057,894) 638,878 871,222 232,344 1,723,377 433,262 (1,290,115) 1,189,052 1,272,302 83,250 931,583 851,640 (79,943) 843,817 1,259,391 415,574 72,761 679,657 606,896 23,428,739 17,119,597 (6,309,142) 842,599 228,249 (114,350) 1,496,531 2,293,670 797,139 1,839,130 2,521,919 682,789 25,267,869 $ 19,641,516 $ (5,626,353) 1,360 $ 1,710 $ 350 267,096 841,420 374,324 22,395,556 12,469,822 (9,925,734) 2,603,857 6,528,564 3,924,707 ._$ 25,267,869 $ 19,641,516 $ (5,626,353) Distribution of Dollars 17% NI O~ (Genera Government) 31% City of Ashland Combined Statement of Financial Position For the twelve months ended June 30, 2003 RESOURCE SUMMARY Revenues: Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovemmental Revenues Charges for Services Fines and Fodeitures Assessment Payments Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Revenues Total Revenues Budgetary Resources: Other Financing Sources Operating Trar~fers In Total Resources TOTAL RESOURCES 2003 Adopted Year-To-Date Actuals Variance Percent Collec~d t Expended 14,654,244 $ 13,942,016 $ (712,228) 95.14% 1,203,100 1,570,803 367,703 130.56% 5,228,900 4,086,251 (1,142,649) 78.15% 29,603,355 29,296,272 (307,083) 98.96% 108,000 105,837 (2,163) 98.00% 150,200 214,606 64,406 142.88% 909,400 535,816 (373,584) 58.92% 430,125 512,278 82,153 119,10% 52,287,324 50,263,879 (2,023,445) 96,13% 16,743,000 18,871,875 2,128,875 112.72% 1,066,000 1,006,108 (59,892) 94.38% 17,809,000 19,877,983 2,068,983 111.62% 70,096,324 70,141,862 45,538 100.06% 17,033,684 699,281 96.06% 23,934,160 1,669,328 93.48% 11,049,449 1,163,371 90.47% 52,917,293 3,531,980 93.64% REQUIREMENTS BY CLASSIFICATION Personal Services 17,732,965 Materiab and Servk:es 25,603,488 Debt Sen'ice 12,212,820 Total Operating Expenditures 55,549,273 15,957,653 2,967,561 84.32% Capital Constmcgon Capital Outlay 18,925,214 5,900,000 425,000 1,006,108 59,892 1,161,000 6,906,108 1,645,892 74,881,054 8,145,433 (4,739,192) 8,190,971 25,205,231 1,482,041 $ 10,793,027 $ 20,466,039 $ 9,673,012 Interfund Loans 6,325,000 OperalJng Transfem 1,066,000 Co~tJr~endes 1,161,000 Total Budgetary Requirements 8,552,000 Total Requirements 83,026,487 Excess (Deficiency) of Resoumes over Requirements (12,930,163) Working Capital Cum/over 23,723,190 Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance 93.28% 94.38% 0.00% 80.75% 90.19% 36,65% 106.25% 189.62% 2 City of Ashland Schedule of Revenues By Fund For the bNelve months ended June 30, 2003 REVENUES BY FUND Percent Year-To-Date Collected I 2003 Adopted Actuals Variance Expended city GeneraIFund $ 11,144,300 $ 10,730,171 (414,129) 96.28% Community Block Grant Fund 500,000 40,245 (459,755) 8.05% Street Fund 5,822,400 5,249,388 (573,012) 90.16% Airport Fund 218,650 160,969 (57,681) 73.62% Capital Improvements Fund 2,421,300 2,279,148 (142,152) 94.13% Debt Service Fund 890,000 949,804 59,804 106.72% Water Fund 9,057,980 11,605,865 2,547,885 128.13% Wastewater Fund 6,700,300 6,166,616 (533,684} 92.03% Electric Fund 10,809,700 11,156,712 347,012 103.21% Telecommunications Fund 8,740,000 7,881,360 (858,640) 90.18% Central Services Fund 4,495,900 4,846,455 350,555 107.80% Insurance Services Fund 602,500 617,326 14,826 102.46% Equipment Fund 1,847,250 1,868,936 21,686 101.17% Cemetery Trust Fund 629,000 618,504 (10,496) 98~33% Total City Components 63,879,280 64,1TI,499 292,219 100.46% Parks and Recreation Component Parks and Recreation Fund 4,137,044 3,943,858 (193,186) 95.33% Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund 1,888,000 1,859,667 (28,333) 98.50% Parks Capital imp Fund 182,000 166,838 (15,162) 91.67% Total Parks Components 6,207,044 5,970,363 (236,681) 96.19% Total City $ 70,086,324 $ 70,141,862 $ 55,538 100.08% City of Ashland Schedule of Budgetary Compliance For the twelve months ended June 30, 2003 GENERAL FUND Administrative Services Administrative Services - Municipal Court Administrative Services - Senior Program Finance - Social Services Grants Finance - Economic & Cultural Grants Finance - Miscellaneous Finance - Band Potice Department Fire and Rescue Department Public Works - Miscellaneous Division Public Works - Cemetery Division Community Development - Planning Division Community Development- Building Division Transfers Contingency TOTAL GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND STREET FUND Public Works - Street Operations Public Works - Storm Water Operations Public Works - Transportation SDC's Public Works - Storm Water SDC's Pubtic Works - Local improvement Districts Contingency TOTAL STREET FUND AIRPORT FUND Materials and Services Capital Outlay Contingency TOTAL AIRPORT FUND Budget Actual Variance Percent Used 94,000 $ 93,162 $ 838 99.11% 271,300 254,649 16,651 93.86% 115,200 111,906 3,294 97.14% 111,000 101,521 9,479 91.46% 388,000 387,000 1,000 99.74% 8,000 4,303 3,697 53.79% 59,225 51,777 7,448 87.42% 4,244,566 3,933,339 311,227 92.67% 4,056,845 3,890,505 166,340 95.90% 0 0.00% 302,350 280,911 21,439 92.91% 858,900 762,435 96,465 88.77% 692,100 666,850 25,250 96.35% 201,000 200,500 500 99.75% 328,000 328,000 0.00% 11,730,486 10,738,858 991,628 91.55% 41,100 41,099 458,900 40,674 1 100.00% 418,226 8.86% 500,000 81,773 418,227 16.35% 5,076,010 4,719,149 1,021,850 744,953 267,900 61,276 171,900 138,404 145,000 101,343 20,000 356,861 92.97% 276,897 72.90% 206,624 22.87% 33,496 80.51% 43,657 69.89% 20,000 0.00% 6,702,660 5,765,125 937,535 86.01% 77,150 69,753 145,000 136,525 5,000 227,150 206,278 7,397 90.41% 8,475 94.16% 5,000 0.00% 20,872 90.81% 4 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance For the twelve months ended June 30, 2003 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Contingency TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND DEBT SERVICEFUND Debt Service Tmns~rs TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND WATER FUND Electric - Conservation Division Public Works -Forest Lands Management Division Public Works -Supply Division Public Works -Treatment Division Public Works -Distribution Division Public Works -Treatment SDC's Public Works -Distribution SDC's Debt Service Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) Contingency TOTAL WATER FUND WASTEWATER FUND Public Works - Collection Division Public Works - Treatment Division Public Works -Construction Public Works -Collection SDC's Public Works -Treatment SDC's Debt Service Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) Contingency TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND ELECTRIC FUND Electi*ic - Conservation Division Electric - Supply Division Elec~c - Distribution Division Electric - Transmission Division Debt Service Contingency TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND Bud~let Actual Percent Variance Used 1,000 91,000 48,385 4,920,000 4,594,767 459,000 429,000 100,000 1,000 0.00% 42,615 53.17% 325,233 93.39% 30,000 93.46% 100,000 0.00% 5,571,000 5,072,152 498,848 91.05% 782,000 779,527 40,000 40,000 822,000 819,527 2,473 99.68% 100.00% 2,473 99.70% 139,500 139,874 241,000 211,592 268,500 224,072 800,950 682,873 1,932,830 1,939,803 0 329,000 273,837 838,520 716,519 2,000,000 1,950,000 0 (374) 100.27% 29,408 87.80% 64,428 77.67% 118,077 85.26% (6,973) 100.36% 0.00% 55,163 83.23% 122,001 85.45% 50,000 97.50% 0.00% 6,570,300 6,138,570 431,730 93.43% 1,391,020 1,252,222 1,211,980 1,030,513 3,800,000 3,683,650 148,000 42,628 0 3,351,500 3,349,236 4,325,000 3,950,000 18,000 14,245,500 13,308,249 138,798 90.02% 181,467 85.03% 116,350 96.94% 105,372 28.80% 0.00% 2,264 99.93% 375,000 91.33% 18,000 0.00% 937,251 93.42% 587,105 445,437 5,779,088 5,611,817 3,933,964 3,691,926 970,510 926,959 85,600 75,560 200,000 11,556,267 10,751,699 5 141,668 75.87% 167,271 97.11% 242,038 93.85% 43,551 95.51% 10,040 88.27% 200,000 0,00% 804,568 93.04% Schedule of Budgetary Compliance For the twelve months ended June 30, 2003 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND Electric - Customer Relations\Promotions Electdc o Operations Debt Services Contingency TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND Bud~]et Actual Percent Variance Used 144,664 117,104 27,560 80.95% 4,285,775 3,174,234 1,111,541 74.06% 6,144,700 6,107,424 37,276 99.39% 75,000 75,000 0.00% 10,650,139 9,398,762 1,251,377 88.25% CENTRAL SERVICES FUND Administration Department Administrative Services Department Finance Department City Recorder Division Public Works - Administration and Engineering Public Works - Facilities and Safety Division Electric o Computer Services Division Transfers Contingency TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL iNSURANCE SERVICES FUND EQUIPMENT FUND Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outiay Contingency TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND CEMETERY TRUST FUND Transfers TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks Division Recreation Division Golf Division Debt Sen/ice Transfers Contingency TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 710,200 630,118 80,082 88.72% 362,150 261,630 I00,520 72.24% 1,480,585 1,317,231 163,364 88.97% 162,I90 149,399 12,791 92.11% 1,107,030 1,030,878 76,152 93.12% 432,920 399,456 33,464 92.27% 750,150 699,132 51,018 93.20% 206,000 205,000 100.00% 30,000 30,000 0.00% 5,240,225 4,692,844 547,381 89.55% 1,000 1,000 0.00% 723,000 660,999 62,001 91.42% 724,000 660,999 63,001 91.30% 225,500 224,953 647 99.76% 448,110 410,371 37,739 91.58% 1,171,000 892,223 278,777 76.19% 200,000 200,000 0.00% 2,044,610 1,527,547 517,063 74.71% 41,000 11,608 29,392 28.31% 41,000 11,608 29,392 28.31% 3,456,400 3,123,115 333,285 90.36% 290,750 224,462 66,288 77.20% 344,000 322,144 21,856 93.65% 32,000 21,183 10,817 66.20% 120,000 50,000 70,000 41.67% 35,000 35,000 0.00% 4,278,150 3,740,904 837,246 6 87.44% Schedule of Budgetary Compliance For the twelve months ended June 30, 2003 ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND Personal Services Materials and Services TOTAL ASHLAND YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Bud~let Actual Variance Percent Used 87,000 86,940 1,812,000 1,799,775 60 99.93% 12,225 99.33% 1,899,000 1,886,715 12,285 99.35% 224,000 79,442 144,558 35.47% 83,026,487 $ 74,881,052 $ 8,145,435 90.19% CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Recommendation: Fiscal Impact: Background: AFN Quarterly Report Electric & Telecommunication August 5, 2003 Dick Wanderscheid Gino Gr'nnaldi This is the Fourth Quarter Report for FY 2002-03. It covers the period of April 1, 2003 through June 30, 2003. This report is for informational purposes only and no council action is required. There is no fiscal impact. As part of the work done by the AFN Advisory Cormnittee, a quarterly report format was developed. The first report was completed in November 2001. While we continue to exceed Business Plan projections for Residential CATV, Residential Cable Modems and Bulk CATV accounts, the High Speed Data Accounts are not meeting plan targets. The worldwide high tech recessions has also effected Ashland and at last count over 13 businesses that were high speed data customers of AFN have either totally ceased to exist or have closed their Ashland operation. The reduction in revenue, because of the shortfall in Data Accounts, equals nearly $13,000/month or $156,000 per year. Total revenue for the entire year is $1,981,360 or $130,980 less than the plan projection of $2,112,340. Cable TV and Intemet rates were increased May-June 2003 and this increase alone should increase yearly revenue by $175,000, given current subscriber counts. Staffis in the process of revising the business plan based on FY2002-03 £mancial information and additional information supported by 2 years of experience operating AFN. Staffhopes to have this revision done by mid-August for presentation to the Council, Budget Committee and the AFN Advisory Committee. Electric~Telecommunication Dept. Dick Wanderscheid, Director 90 N. Mountain Ave Phone: (541) 488-5357 Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: (541) 552-2436 2002-2003 Fourth Quarter Report AFN Cable Connec- tions in the business plan are projected to be 2,914 by June 30, 2003. As of June 30, there were 2,961 connections, which ex- ceeds the plan goal by 47. Actual Target AFN Net Cable Connections by Month FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year $) EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 2499 2517 2550 2597 2722 2764 2817 2860 2906 2404244724892532 2574 2617 2659 2702 2744 Mar Apr May Jun 2956 2992 2997 2961 2787 2829 2872 2914 AFN Residential Cable Modem Service as of June 30, 2003 was 3,040 which exceeds the June target of 2,883 by 204.. Page 1 Actual Target AFN Net Residential ISP Customem FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year 5) EOY Jul AUg Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct 2323 24052415 2514 2625 2373 24162458 2501 2543 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2654 2724 2836 3042 2898 2978 2975 3040 2586 2628 2671 2713 2756 2798 2841 2883 AFN High Speed Data accounts are projected to be 52, Using the currem rate of $65 l/month total data revenues produces 37.4 equivalent accounts, Because the business plan assumes a $710/month equivalem rate in 02-03 the revenue breaks down into 33.73 accounts which is 18.3 short of plan projections. AFN High Speed Data Connections FY 2002-2003 (plan Year 5) EOY Actual 40.24 Target 42 Jul Aug 36.9 36.9 42.8 43.7 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 37.46 36.32 36.89 34.29 34.29 34.29 33.73 33.73 33.73 33.73 44.5 45.3 46.2 47.0 47.8 48.7 49.5 50.3 51.2 52.0 AFN Bulk Service Contracts (hotels and motels) are projected by the plan to be at 100 equivalems by July 2003. AFN is curremly 140 bulk service equivalems, which ex- ceeds the July target. AFN Bulk Services Billed By Month FY 2002-2003 (Plan Year $) ~lActual per Billing EOY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Actual 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 140.3 140.3 140.3 Target 76.7 78.6 80.6 82.5 84.5 86.4 88.3 90.3 92.2 94.2 96.1 98.00 100 Page 2 Business Plan Revenues and Expenses. This graph presents estimated montMy revenues totaling to the annual amount included in the base plan. The projected revenue potential for each 25o.ooo month is compared to actual 200,000 revenues posted. The actual 15o.ooo revenue was $1,981,360. The projected revenue was a oo,ooo $2,112,340. This means actual 5o,ooo revenue is $130,980 less than o projected revenue. AFN Actual to Projected Monthly Revenues - 2002-2003 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun I lllActual Revenues -- --Plan Revenues Actual Plan Jul 145,195 149,000 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 151,991 168,406 155,063 157,602 162,719 161,567 160,125 167,576 183,506 182,807 184,802 153,470 158,074 162,816 167,701 172,732 177,914 183,251 188,749 194,411 200,244 203,979 Actual expenses are pro- jected at $282,077 per month for the entire year. This includes $92,000+ month in debt services and depreciation which are a fixed cost for AFN. Actual expenses equaled $3,547,486 which if com- pared to the projected to- tal of $3,384,927 for the year, means AFN's ex- penses are $162,539 above the plan estimates. 450,000 400.000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 AFN Actual to Projected Monthly Expenses - 2002-2003 Using the Plan's Depreciation and Budgeted Interest Expense Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun IIActual Expenses -- --Plan Expenses ] Actual Plan Jul Aug Sep Oct 162,432 317,631 421,876 306,702 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma3' Jun 290,010 289,017 299,238 273,956 318,972 287,757 263,682 316,214 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 282,077 Page 3 Construction [ pdate The Ashland Fiber Network's construction was being completed by our own in house crew from, July, 2002 through December 2002. In January, we brought one outside contractor crew back to help our own in house crew. From April through June a total of over 12,000 feet of underground plant was completed and services made available in these areas. We now estimate only between 200- 215 service addresses are still unable to get AFN. Construction on AF2q has stopped as of July 1, 2003. The vast majority of the remaining customers who don't have service, do not qualify for services under the City's Franchise Agree- ment with AFN. Competition Charter's intemet service 'Pipeline' now is o~red at a different level of service. Their least expensive level of service is priced at $39.95, (less $10.00 if you have ca- ble TV) and runs a 256 kb of download speeds and 128kb of upload speeds. This is much slower than the speeds offered by AFN. This service is offered everywhere in Jackson County except in Ashland where they are providing much higher speeds to compete with AFN. Even with our recently approved rate increase our ISP retail rates are still below Charter's rates. Charter's published rate for expanded basic CATV is now $34.81. AFN's tier 3 rate is priced at $30.60. Charter however has given a number of special rates well below their published rates under 12 month service commitment contracts. P~e4