Loading...
Agenda - 11/24/2008CITY O F W OO D B U R N WALTER NICHOLS,T000NCG OR WARD l RICHARD BJELLANO, COUNCILOR WARD II CITY GOUNCI L AGENDA PETER MCCALLUM, COUNCILOR WARD III JAMES COX, COUNCILOR WARD IV I~ Q FRANK LONERGAN, COUNCILOR WARD V NOVEMBER Z4, ZOOS ~ 7.00 P.M. ELIDA SIFUENTEZ, COUNCILOR WARD VI CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 270 MONTGOMERY STREET 1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2. ROIL CALL 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. There will be a Public Hearing on December 8th regarding the Vacation of a Permanent Easement located at 1274 5th Street. B. The Councilor Elects will be sworn in during the December 8th meeting. C. City Hall will be closed on November 27th and 28th for the Thanksgiving Holiday. The Aquatic Center will be closed on the 27th and will reopen for open swim from 1:00 to 3:30 pm on Friday the 28th. They will resume normal business hours on Saturday the 29th. The Library will be closed on Thanksgiving day but will be open during normal business hours on Friday the 28th. Appointments: None 4. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: None Presentations: A. Walmart Presentation '•xabra interpretes aisponib~es Para aque~~as personas que no 17ja6~an Ing[es~ previo acuerao. Comuniquese a~ 1503) 980-2485... November 24, 2008 Council Agenda Page i 5. 6. 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS None COMMUNICATIONS None BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC -This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda. 8. CONSENT AGENDA -Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and maybe enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A. Woodburn City Council regular and executive minutes of November 10, 2006 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. B. Community Services Department Statistics Recommended Action: Accept the report. C. Crime Statistics for October 2008 Recommended Action: Accept the report. D. Code Enforcement Statistics for October 2008 Recommended Action: Accept the report. E. October Claims Recommended Action: Accept the report. F. Appointment of City Administrator to Woodburn Chamber of Commerce Board Recommended Action: Appoint City Administrator to the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce Board. 9. TABLED BUSINESS None. November 24, 2008 Council Agenda Page ii J 1 15 16 21 22 28 R 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 11. GENERAL BUSINESS -Members of the public wishing to comment on items of general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City Recorder prior to commencing this portion of the Council's agenda. Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative. A. Council Bill No. 2755 - An Ordinance designating public parking 29 on the Oregon Department of Transportation property near the Woodburn I-5 interchange; providing for civil enforcement, and declaring an emergency. Recommended Action: Adopt the Ordinance. B. Council Bill No. 2756 - A Resolution granting application DR 35 2008-03; Adopting Findings and Conclusions; and imposing an additional condition with findings. Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution. C. Authorize the City Administrator to enter into an Oregon Public b5 Works Emergency Response Mutual Aid Agreement Recommended Action: 8y motion, authorize the City Administrator to enter into an Oregon Public Works Emergency Response Mutual Aid Agreement sponsored by the Oregon Department of Transportation ~ODOT). D. Award of Construction Contract for the North Front Street 74 Improvements (Phase 1). Recommended Action: That the City Council award the construction contract for Phase 1 of the North Front Street Improvements in the amount of $848,906.13. E. Acceptance of Public Utility Easement 76 Recommended Action: Accept the Public Utility Easement granted by Chemeketa Community College. F. Appoint Kevin Kenagy to the Woodburn P{anning Commission. Recommended Action: November 24, 2008 Council Agenda Page iii A 12. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS -These are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that may be called up by the City Council. None 13. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 14. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION A. To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the person whose performance is being reviewed and evaluated requests an open hearing pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(1). 16. ADJOURNMENT November 24, 2008 Council Agenda Page iv COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, NOVEMBER 10, 2008. CONVENED. The meeting convened at ?:OS p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. Mayor Figley took a few minutes to thank all those who individuals who have served or are currently serving in the armed forces and to acknowledge the sacrifices and the devotion of these individuals in serving our country. She called for a moment of silence to remember those who have lost their lives while in the service of our country, to think of those that are in harms way, and to remember the network of loved ones and friends who share the sacrifice and share the service. 0104 ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bjelland Absent Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor McCallum Absent Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, Asst. City Administrator Stevens, Public Works Director Brown, Police Captain Tennant, Community Services Director Row, Finance Director Gillespie, Recorder Tennant O1 SO ANNOUNC MENTS. A) City Offices and the Library will be closed on Tuesday, November 11, 2008, for observance of Veteran's Day. The Aquatic Center will be open normal business hours. 0189 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Don Judson, Executive Director, stated that the Crystal Apple Awards event was held last week with a report on the event and list of awazd winners published in lastweek's Woodburn Independent. Scheduled for Wednesday, November 12`", is the monthly Chamber Forum at Cascade Pazk, 12:00 noon, with the guest speaker being City Administrator Scott Derickson. He stated that the Chamber is ready, able, and excited to partner with the City on Economic Development. 0240 WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT Walt Blomberg, Superintentdent, stated that the schools will also be closed for Veterans Day. Celebrations of this event were held at the schools and some students were given the opportunity to interview residents at Cascade Park who served in the service as far Page 1 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING back as World War II. The students made a DVD of their interviews and showed it to the student body during an assembly. In regazds to the general election, he stated that it had a huge impact on their school district with one statewide issue being on Measure 58 which would have limited their choices on how to serve English language learners and the other being Measure 56 which would allow for passage of a property tax measure by majority vote in the May and November elections. With the defeat of Measure 58, the School District can continue with their language programs and with the passage of Measure 56, the District can begin working on finalizing a bond measure package to submit to the voters at the May 2009 election. The District is organizing a Facilities Planning Team with the first meeting on November 13, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.. There are about 20 individuals committed to working on this team and he hoped to add another 5 individuals to the team. He encouraged anyone interested in being a part of the team to contact the School District office. Administrator Derickson stated that he did make a commitment to the School District that the City would assist in any way possible to helping them to identify future sites and to help incorporate those sites in the City's future planning. 0537 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the City Council minutes of October 27, 2008; B) receive the Community Development Building Activity Report for October 2008; and C) receive the Annual System Development Charge (SDC) Report. COX/LONERGAN... adopt the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 0578 TABLED BUSINESS: COUNCIL BILL N0.2735 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADJUSTED RATE SCHEDULE AND FUEL RECOVERY FEE SURCHARGE FOR UNITED DISPOSAL SERVICE INC.• SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE: AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 1833 AND 1843 Scott Derickson stated that he has been in contact with Robin Murbach and he anticipates this item coming up for Council discussion within the near future. Mayor Figley stated that this item will remain on the table. 0600 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY COUNCIL CALL-UP OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IN CASE DESIGN REVIEW NUMBER DR 2008-3 (Highway 214 and -Curve . Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:13 p.m.. Councilor Cox excused himself from Council participation on this issue due to a conflict of interest since he will be presenting testimony during the hearing. Brief discussion was held regarding the ability to continue with the hearing since there are only three members of the Council left at the bench with Councilor Cox excusing himself from participating. City Attorney stated that the Council started the meeting with a Page 2 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 2 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING quorum and during the meeting a Councilor can excuse themself on one matter and the Council can still maintain a quorum for the purpose of the meeting. Other than driving by the location, no other potential conflicts of interests, ex-parte contacts, or challenges were heard or declared by the Mayor or Councilors. Recorder Tennant read the land use statement as required under ORS Chapter 197. Associate Planner Brennecke stated that property the is located on Highway 214 at the S- curve and encompasses 1.04 acres which is zoned commercial office. The proposed medical /professional office building is proposed to be a single-story 7,992 square foot L-shaped building with 32 parking spaces. ODOT has given their approval on the application filed by the developer for a State Highway approach with mitigation. She reviewed some of the features of this project which include a 6-foot buffer wall along the north and east property lines, two on-site storm water detention basins, a 10-foot wide Natural Gas easement, and aright-in and aright-out only driveway onto Highway 214. In regards to the landscape plan, the applicant did not meet the landscape requirements so this plan but the landscape plan will be altered when the developer comes in for building permits. She also stated that the WDO does require a solid brick or architectural wall of at least 6 feet but not mare than ?feet in height when a commercial development abuts a single family residential zone. In this proposal, the developer has proposed a 6 foot high buffer wall which was agreed to by the Planning Commission. Joe Consani, applicant, stated that he would be able to answer questions regarding the buffer wall height and any other concerns that the Council may have. He stated that the buffer wall will be very expensive in that it will cost approximately $42,000 for the 6-foot height. To add another foot in height for the full length of the wall, the bid received will increase by $9,750 plus additional fees for the building permit and engineering / re- design. He stated that the request was that the wall be at a 7-foot height in the open area along the north and east property lines but the wall around the building would be only 6- foot in height. He was unclear as to where the request for the additional height is coming from but can understand the concern about aesthetics and the line of site issue. He also understood that there was concern about the noise but was not sure if a 7-foot wall versus a 6-foot wall would make a significant impact on the reduction of noise. A study done by the State did call fora 12-foot wall for sound abatement if the road was widened. He stated that the building is aloes-volume use building that would not add to the traffic problem on Highway 214 which is why ODOT approved their application for access onto Highway 214. The development will be very attractive and improve the area which is currently vacant land. Councilor Lonergan questioned if the wall is planned to be built on the property line and if there aze any fences that need to be removed when the wall is installed. Mr. Consani stated that the wall is planned to be on the property line as long as there are no problems with easements in the area. The reason for the stone wall is to provide a sound barrier whereas they had looked into installing a fiberglass wall for about half the price but it would not provide the aesthetic value or provide a sound buffer. Page 3 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2048 3 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING Jim Cox, 1530 Rainier Rd, spoke in opposition to the buffer wall only being 6-foot in height. His property abuts the parking lot of the proposed development and his 6-foot cedaz fence will be removed when the masonry wall is installed. At this time, there is no landscaping planned adjacent to the fence since the developer has parking space limitations and no one has figured out a way to plant landscaping in the area without losing some of the required parking spaces. He stated that he has lived at this location since 1989 and he knows that the property is bound to be developed, however, it is a difficult site to develop because of its dimension, location adjacent to a major highway, and small building pad that would be available. He stated that the present S-curve was realigned by ODOT in the 1960's and this property has been zoned as a commercial site since the realignment. He stated that he is not opposed to the design of the building but he does oppose the height of the wall. Since1989, there has been more and more traffic traveling on Highway 214 and this traffic has become very frequent and obtrusive and it is getting worse. Except for ODOT funding, the proposals that have been put forward by ODOT are ready to go which would then widen the highway by an additional lane each direction and move the highway further back. As a result, the Commission has added an additional setback requirement on this development to allow for potential future widening of the highway. When that does occur, the residents abutting this property will all be further impacted by the traffic noise which will further decrease the value of their property. To further explain the decreasing value of property, he stated that residential property on King Way which abuts I-5 is only protected from I-5 noise by a huge hedge and for yeazs houses along King Way have been slow to sell due to the I-5 noise level and the selling price of these property have been affected. He stated that the property owners near this proposed development feel that they need to have as much protection as the City can give them from that at a relatively small cost to the developer in terms of the total project cost. Based on information provided by the applicant, the cost to increase the height of the wall to 7-feet would be approximately $9,700. He stated that they aze only asking for the height to 7-foot in the open azea since the building will also serve as a sound barrier. In regards to why the developer should protect the abutting properties from highway noise, Mr. Cox referred to the Environmental Impact Study of 2005 for the Woodburn Interchange project. The final approved report in dealing with this particular area provided fora 12-foot sound barrier wall all along Highway214 between Country Club Road and Astor Way. Under rules in which ODOT operates, they are required to provide for sound barrier walls when freeway construction, widening, or improvement projects abuts residential neighborhoods. When the ODOT plan is eventually implemented, the S-curve will not have a 12-foot because once a commercial building is built on this property and a wall is in place between the commercial and residential property, ODOT will not be required to install the 12-foot wall since the residential property no longer abuts the highway. Therefore, whatever is built now is all they will ever get since the building is a barrier between their homes. He stated that he would like to get a 12-foot wall as a sound barrier but knows that it is not realistic and feels that they Page 4 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 4 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING should at least get a 7-foot wall which is all they can ask for under current ordinance. Additionally, the City's ordinance says that the buffer wall shall be at least 6-feet but not more than 7-feet high and the City has power to use their own good judgment to determine the height of the wall. He urged the Council in this particular case to require a 7-foot wall which will make an appreciable difference in terms of minimizing the visual and sound impact from both the developed site and the additional impact of highway traffic as traffic increases on Highway 214 and after Highway 214 is widened and moved closer to their homes. He stated that he did not think the Planning Commission had all of the information that needed to be before them when they made their decision and he has tried to give the Council the information they need to make a decision on the height of the wall. He reiterated that they are only asking for an additional 1-foot in height on the buffer wall. He entered into the record a petition signed by 25 people who either have property abutting the development or live in close proximity to the development. He also entered into the record the Woodburn Interchange Project Environmental Assessment Report dated July 2005 which addresses the 12-foot wall height. Councilor Lonergan requested clarification on the ODOT report relating to the installation of the 12-foot wall along Highway 214 and if the 12-foot wall would installed along the property lines of the residential property which do not directly abut the highway if the property is not developed. Additionally, he questioned how many signers on the petition are abutting property owners. Mr. Cox stated that if the commercial building is not built, then the wall would be installed along the residential property lines from Country Club Road to Astor Way. He stated that some of the signers are in the neighborhood and was unsure as to how many actually abut the proposed development since he was not in town when the petition was circulated. Councilor Nichols stated that there are approximately 16 homes that abut the property proposed to be developed. Councilor Lonergan questioned if Mr. Cox envisioned any noise impact from the professional building. Mr. Cox stated that there will be some noise and visual impact from people coming to use the building but his main concern is the highway noise since the neighbors thought they would be getting a 12-foot wall when Highway 214 is widened but if the property is developed prior to the highway widening they will not be able to get the 12-foot buffer wall. As residents, they understand that they will not get the higher wall if the commercial building is built but they also feel that the City should require the 7-foot wall. 2888 Richard Jennings, Planning Commission member, stated that the concerns of the citizens from that particular area had been expressed verbally to the former Community Development Director and it was his understanding that those individuals and the developer had reached a verbal agreement that the staff report would show a 7-foot wall. However, the staff report did not recommend a 7-foot wall. At the night of the Page 5 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 5 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING Commission's public hearing, there was no opposition to this development since the residents were of the understanding that there would be a 7-foot wall while the Planning Commission assumed that the 6-foot wall was acceptable. He expressed his opinion that the developer has a good proposal but agrees with Mr. Cox that a 7-foot wall height should be required. In his opinion, if the Planning Commission had obtained all of the information from the former Community Development Director, then they would have required the 7-foot wall. Councilor Nichols questioned if the property values would change based on a 6-foot wall versus a 7-foot wall and if the property owners who abut wall would be willing to help with the cost of the additional foot to maintain or increase their property value. Mr. Jennings felt that having a 6-foot wall would probably decrease property values of abutting property and that the 7-foot wall should be borne by the developer since he did not feel that the property owners would gain anything financially from a 7-foot wall. In regazds to helping to pay for the cost of the extra 1-foot wall height, he did not want to answer for the property owners but if he were a property owner he would not want to contribute to the cost since the City has the authority to require a 7-foot wall height. Laurie Cox stated that her property abuts the proposed development and the vacated street. Her first concern is the wall in that ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration clearly stated in their report that a 12-foot buffer wall would be installed between the highway and residential property. With the construction of a commercial building, ODOT will no longer be required to construct a 12-foot wall along the property lines of this development since there will be a commercial building on the development site which abuts the highway. In a recent appraisal of her property, she was informed that there will be a reduction of $5,000 to $14,000 in her property with the expansion of a the highway from 2-lanes to a 4-lanes. Since this decrease would apply to all abutting properties, the total property value decrease is substantially more than what it would cost the developer to pay for the additional 1-foot buffer wall height. Additionally, tall plantings would be of benefit to also improve the visual impact between the residential properties and the highway. She stated that she has lived at that location since 2004 and they have cleaned out the water basin at the rear of the property several times during the course of the winter months and it is possible that the basins are not even working properly for the developer to connect to the basins. Her third concern is that the vacated road adjacent to her property has a 15-foot easement on her neighbor's side of the road which currently has a Northwest Natural gas line that also runs behind her home. She has been trying to get information from utility companies as to how far these easements should be from each other and if the 15-foot easement is sufficient to add water and sewer utility lines. The right-in /right-out access given by ODOT to the developer will be right behind her property and the 7-foot wall will reduce the noise and visual impact created by this development. In reference to the petition presented to the Council, approximately 12 property owners abutting the proposed development signed the petition. Page 6 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 6 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING 3668 Joe Consani, applicant, stated that their application was submitted in 2006 and it provided fora 6-foot wall and he believes that he had a brief conversation with Mr. Cox previously that if the 7-foot wall was a negligible cost, they did nat mind building a 7-foot buffer wall. However, that was before he had checked with the architect and was provided an estimate of the additional cost. He also questioned what difference the extra foot will provide for sound abatement since the noise there now is from existing conditions. He also stated that the 12-foot wall was originally proposed to be along the highway and not along the triangular backside of the property and he was curious as to why ODOT would not still want to do a 12-foot wall along either side of the building. He stated that they are certainly open to adding an extra 1-foot to the wall height if the neighbors want to participate in the added costs for the extra foot plus related fees. He also stated that it was his understanding that it was up to the builder to decide if the wall height would be 6 or 7 foot rather than the City. Councilor Lonergan questioned the building height. Associate Planner Brennecke stated that 18 feet is the approximate height of the building which is the medium of the highest roof pitch. Councilor Sifuentez questioned if at any time there was discussion in the Planning Commission meeting regazding abutting property owners being asked to help pay for the additional 1 foot of wall height. Associate Planner Brennecke stated that she would have to look at the Planning Commission minutes since she could not recall any discussion on cost share. Laurie Cox stated that many of the property owners are on a fixed income and a higher wall will help to abate some of the property value loss that will result when a commercial building is built on the property. City Attorney Shields stated that he agreed with the staff report and it is a discretionary call for the Council on whether the wall is 6 or 7 feet under the WDO but any height over 6 feet needs to be explained in the findings. 4174 Mayor Figley declared the hearing closed at 8:05 p.m.. Councilor Nichols stated that his responsibility is to his constituents and he realizes that adding the extra foot to the wall will be a cost to the developer however, he would agree to the7- foot wall since property owners should not lose value to their homes when someone else gains value. Councilor Lonergan expressed his belief that the building will be a buffer but also feels that a 7-foot high wall will be a better buffer for abutting property owners. He felt that this will be a good project for this property. In hearing from a Planning Commission member, it appeazs that some discussion was missed at that meeting but felt that it was the Council's responsibility to listen to what the Planning Commission member said at this meeting. Councilor Sifuentez agreed with comments made by Councilor Lonergan. She stated that a medical building will bring in some traffic and the building will provide a good buffer to the residential property owners who have property behind the building. Page 7 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 7 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING Mayor Figley stated that she understands the concerns of the neighbors and is reluctant to possibly correct a situation that is not of their making. The visual guide of how low a 6- foot wall is compared to a 7-foot wall where there is no building was very helpful. 4666 LONERGAN/SIFUENTEZ ...adopt the Planning Commission findings in DR 2008-03 located on Highway 214 at the S-Curve with the change in the wall height from 6-foot to7-foot along the entire length of the wall for aesthetics. The motion passed unanimously. Councilor Cox returned to his seat at the Council bench. 4833 COUNCIL BILL N0.2753 -RESOLUTION INITIATING CONSIDERATION OF A LEGISLATIVE LAND USE DECISION TO ADOPT THE WOODBURN PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2753. Recorder Tennant read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2753 duly passed. 4933 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2754 -RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE VACATION OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT. A TRIANGULAR SECTION IN NORTHEAST CORNER OF 1274 FIFTH STREET, AND DIRECTING THE CITY RECORDER TO GIVE NOTICE. Council Bill No. 2754 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2754 duly passed. 5019 LIQUOR LICENSE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP /FULL ON-PREMISE SALES: CASA MAROUEZ MEXICAN GRILL, 553 N. Front Street. A change of ownership full on-premise sales liquor license application was submitted by Enrique Marquez DBA: Casa Marquez Mexican Grill. The applicant is purchasing the restaurant formerly known as Restaurante Los Cantaros which currently has a full on- premise sales license. COX/LONERGAN... recommend to OLCC a change of ownership application for Casa Marquez Mexican Grill. The motion passed 3-1 with Councilor Nichols voting nay. 5084 COUNCIL UPDATE ON MIDGE FLY PRESENCE IN THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM. Public Works Director Brown stated that the staff report in the agenda packet provides a status update regarding the most recent incident of an observed presence of midge flies in the water distribution system. A press release has also been prepared communicating the same observations to the public. He suggested that this would be a good time for discussion and an opportunity for staff to obtain Council direction on how Public Warks Page 8 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 8 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING should proceed with addressing this particulaz problem. Since his tenure with the City earlier this year, the Water Department has flushed 4.7 million gallons of water through the City's water system to address this particulaz situation at a cost of $10,500 to generate the water and another $7,000 in staff time to perform the work. The greater value in doing the flushing is the reputation of the City's water system which is a state of the art high quality water system for the City. He stated that staff is concerned and disappointed that they are not able to eradicate this particulaz micro-organism. He stated that chlorination of the water by itself will not solve the midge fly problem but it will allow the City to get the situation under control and it will provide a level of safeguard from other sources of contamination. Bio-film in the water system is a median in which the midge fly survives. There is no public health issue associated with midge fly or copepod which are the two micro-organisms that they know of that aze in the City's water supply system. However, when they become pOrevalent in the water system it is a matter of concern and distress for the citizens who observe these micro-organisms. City Administrator Derickson stated that another benefit of chlorination is that it does provide disinfection capacity in case of an emergency when lines may be broken and surface water infiltrates into the lines. Councilor Cox stated that when the new water treatment plant first went on line, the City had a-coli in the system which was eventually eradicated. At that time, there was some talk about chlorination and this same disinfection method is now being discussed because of the micro-organisms. The current problem is not a health issue but is an aesthetic issue. He stated that the City has healthy wells and he was not anxious to incur a big expense at this time primarily because the City would then be giving up on the idea that the system could be a good healthy system without chlorination. He stated that if there is no real public health reason for chlorination he did not want to make any changes. Councilor Nichols questioned how many time staff has flushed the lines. Director Brown stated that staff has flushed the system three times since February but they have been flushing more water through the system than what is typically required for just maintenance. He agreed that this is not a health issue with the presence of these micro-organisms. He has reviewed the staff s prior dialogue with the Council on chlorination and feels that the one area not talked about much relates to the City having 98 miles of water lines with the condition of the water lines being unknown in many areas. Water that goes into the distribution lines is disinfected at the treatment plant but the problem with that process is that it has no residual capacity to take care of the water once it leaves the plant to keep the micro-organisms from growing once it gets into the system. The advantage of chlorine is that it provides a residual buffer of the water that is in the distribution system which provides protection from certain levels of contamination and the ability to monitor if there is contamination. For that reason, most municipalities chlorinate their water. Councilor Lonergan questioned how chlorination affects the taste of water. Director Brown stated that if residual is monitored, the taste of the water is not nuisance. Page 9 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 9 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING In his opinion, many communities over chlorinate or do not have their system dialed in as tightly as they could. If the residuals aze at the proper levels, there should be no odor. He stated that there is a lot of community concern about the safety of chlorination and the preferred system used by cities is where generation of chlorination is done by breaking salt down on site which makes it a less concentrated chlorine solution. Councilor Lonergan questioned what the cost impact would be on the utility bill if chlorination becomes part of the disinfecting process used by the City. Director Brown stated that he would like look at the impact and report back to the Council. However, his initial thought was that the cost would be fairly neutral because same of the potassium permanganate would be shifted to chlorination and potassium permanganate would only be used to remove undesirable metals and elements with the chlorine to disinfect the water supply. Mayor Figley stated that some people are sensitive or allergic to chlorine and questioned if filtering the water at their tap is possible. Director Brown stated that de-chlorinating at the tap is possible but he did not know how much it would cost to de-chlorinate at the tap. Tape 2 Mayor Figley stated that she is concern about the possibility of having another boil-water order and she felt that at some point the Council should have the information to make an informed decision. She is also concerned about chronically having water that is not quite right. Councilor Cox stated that it was his understanding that the midge fly is very resistant to being removed by chlorination since the whole water distribution system may have bio- film in the lines that the midge fly will eat, however, chlorination may help to reduce the midge fly in the system since chlorination will reduce the bio-film. Director Brown stated that chlorination would be one step to help the City get the problem under control and reiterated that it would not get rid of the midge fly in the system since other methods will need to be used to eradicate the midge fly. Staff has prior consultant work available that deals with chlorination of the system since the City's system was originally designed for chlorination. A decision was made to not use chlorination and potassium permanganate was used to remove the high concentrations of iron, magnesium, and, to a certain degree, arsenic in the water supply system. 0254 Administrator Derickson stated that he would like to get some direction from the Council as to what, if any, next step is needed. If the next step is taken, he will be asking Director Brown to look at the existing data of information to make an assessment, update information to current status, and look at cost consideration. Mayor Figley stated that she had been told that the system was designed to work without chlorination. Director Brawn stated that the community may not want to chlorinate but he believes that the City is at a position in which they need to cazefully re-assess that need to chlorinate. Page 10 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 10 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING Mayor Figley stated that the Council needs more information for discussion purposes before any decision is made. Councilor Cox concurred that more information would make sense provided that the initial steps do not involve a consultant and he will reserve judgement on chlorination once he has been able to review the information. If it is necessary to chlorinate and the costs are reasonable, he stated that he is willing to change his mind. Richard Jennings stated that his wife is very allergic to chlorine and stated that if the water is chlorinated she would not be able to drink it or be anywhere neaz the smell of chlorine. In his opinion, the Council should explore the issue of chlorination and hold public hearings for residents to be given the opportunity to express their opinions on this issue before any final action is taken by the Council. 0559 PROPOSED CITY /CHAMBER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION / WORKING GROUP. Administrator Derickson stated that he has had some discussion with the Chamber on Economic Development and it appears that there has not been the coordination between the Chamber and the City on this issue. Out of this discussion came a proposal to form a joint working informal committee that would look at current ongoing development activities with the overall goal being to discuss and develop a community partnership for coordinating existing economic development efforts, identify potential stakeholders, new economic development opportunities, and to define roles, establish expectations, and create an economic development partnership that makes real sense. He requested that a City Councilor be appointed to this group and, following group meetings, a proposal will be presented to the City Council. Mayor Figley felt that it was a good idea and if it needs to be formalized then it can be done at a later date. She suggested that Councilor Lonergan serve on this committee and he agreed to be a member. 0688 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A} Administrator Derickson stated that the Community Development Director interviews will be held on Friday, November 14, 2008 and a public Meet and Greet program will be held on Saturday, November 15`x', between ] 0:00 am and 12:00 noon at the Chamber Loft. He urged members of the public to attend this program and talk to the candidates about their philosophy around growth, customer service in the Planning Department, and any other topic that maybe important that relates to Community Development. B) Administrator Derickson stated that the City's web page now includes postings for Qpen Houses and meetings. On November 13`x, a Wastewater Facility Plan Clean Water Back to Nature Open House will be held from 5:00 pm until 8:00 p.m. at the Police Community Room. Additionally, the web page has information on sign-ups for youth basketball which will be taken through December 31, 2008. Page 11 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 11 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING C) Administrator Derickson also stated that he has been reviewing revenue forecasts and reports on how some of the City's funds have been performing. This has led him to have some concerns around where the General Fund revenue and some of the fee-driven funding will be at mid-year. Staff is working on this issue but he wanted to share with the Council that the change in the economy may be catching up with the City. To date, the City is ahead in the collection rate of property taxes because of the number of foreclosures that have occurred in and around the area that has lenders and others paying back taxes which has further ahead in collections. He stated that this is not a good sign but he will be doing additional work on this issue and more information will be provided at the mid-year budget review meeting. 872 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS Councilor Nichols thanked those electors in his Ward who did vote for him in the recent election. He expressed his appreciation to his constituents for the last 8 years of service plus the nine plus yeazs previous to that on the City Council. He wished the new Council the very best and hoped that the antagonism that had developed before he was elected this last time does not develop again. He also congratulated the Mayor on her re-election to office. Councilor Lonergan thanked Councilors Nichols, Sifuentez, and Bjelland for their service over the years. Councilor Sifuentez stated that she will wait until the last meeting to make any comments. Councilor Cox expressed his appreciation to Councilors Nichols, Sifuentez ,and Bjelland for their many yeazs of loyal and dedicated service to the community. He also thanked the Council for their decision on the buffer wall height following the public hearing. Mayor Figley stated that this last election was very moving whereby people were very enthusiastic about voting at the local and national levels. She extended her thanks to Councilor Nichols and Sifuentez for all of their time on the Council. 1104 EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor Figley entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session under the statutory authority of ORS 192.6b0(2)(f) and ORS 192.660(2)(h). COX/LONERGAN.... adjourn into executive session under the statutory authority cited by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously. The Council adjourned to executive session at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m.. 1126 Mayor Figley stated that no action was taken by the Council as a result of items discussed in executive session. Page 12 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 12 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING 1136 ADJOURNMENT. NICHOL5/LONERGAN ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m.. APPROVED. ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR Page 13 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 13 Executive Session COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2008 DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, NOVEMBER 10, 2008. CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 8:54 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bjelland Absent Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor McCallum Absent Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, City Recorder Tennant Mayor Figley reminded the Councilors and staff that information discussed in executive session is not to be discussed with the public. The executive session was called pursuant the following statutory authority: (1) ORS 192.660(2}(h) to consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed; and (2) ORS 192.660(2)(f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. ADJOURNMENT. The executive session adjourned at 8:59 p.m.. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 -Executive Session, Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 1A COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT STATISTICS OCTOBER 2008 Recreation Services Division Oct-07 Oct-08 2007 YTD 2008 YTD Revenue: $8,319.00 $6,228.13 $40,560.72 $42,155.98 Expenditures: $23,860.65 $26,526.00 $139,533.82 $107,248.88 Prooram Attendance: Youth Sports: 238 234 476 486 Adult Sports: 16 168 1,265 376 Youth Programs: 0 4 1,610 419 Adult Programs: 0 30 5 127 Teen Programs: 712 802 1,927 2,334 After School Club: 2,482 2,554 5,178 4,981 Special Events: 0 150 9,500 2,583 TOTAL: 3,448 3,942 19,961 11,305 Aquatics Division Oct-07 Oct-08 2007 YTD 2008 YTD Revenue: $5,745.59 $8,573.82 $60,341.52 $76,522.68 Expenditures: $46,418.02 $48,770.89 $194,559.45 $215,637.59 Cost Recovery: 12% 18% 31 % 35% Attendance: 2,491 4,381 18,397 21,381 Lesson Enrollment: Group: 71 100 594 596 Adults: 0 0 8 4 Private: 5 3 27 40 4th Grade: 80 84 152 121 TOTAL: 156 187 781 761 Library Division Oct-07 Oct-08 2007 YTD 2008 YTD Revenue: $1,711.60 $6,573.34 $22,535.43 $28,080.59 Expenditures: $82,559.68 $94,295.59 $311,515.77 $337,391.54 Library Attendance: 15,724 17,369 63,292 70,943 Library Circulation: 11,416 12,858 46,255 49,575 Adult Program Count: 2 11 10 20 Adult Attendance: 110 475 3,700 3,815 Youth Service Program Count: 30 24 97 75 Youth Service Attendance: 484 556 2,144 2,661 Database Usage: 322 1,449 2,104 10,194 Adult Computer Usage: 4,762 4,579 17,966 17,247 Youth Services Computer Usage: 847 906 3,505 4,132 Room Reservations 6 5 15 26 New Adds: 504 4 1 2 2,058 1,627 Volunteer Hours Worked: QCTOB o t ER 20071 400 427 15 PAGE 1 Woodburn Police Dept. pL6860 DATE: 11/20/2008 TIME: 13:04:33 MONTHLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR JANUARY THRU OCTOBER 2908 SCOTTRU ORI~: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL OFFENSES DATE USED: OFFENSE DATE CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT TOTAL AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 4 2 3 S 4 6 3 4 3 1 9 35 I AGGRAVATED MURDER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 fi 1 5 2 43 ANIMAL ORDINANCES 4 2 2 3 4 7 0 2 9 ARSON 0 0 12 3 14 0 13 3 18 0 B 0 8 1 11 12 5 116 ASSAULT SIMPLE 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 ATTEMPTED MURDER 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 20 BURGLARY - BUSINESS 3 1 3 0 3 2 4 3 3 25 BURGLARY - OTHER STRUCTURE 1 1 0 4 5 3 2 3 B 8 60 BURGLARY - RESIDENCE 8 8 2 13 4 2 5 2 1 1 7 CHILD NEGLECT 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 5 2 1 15 CITY ORDINANCE 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 9 17 16 156 CRIME DAMAGE-NO VANDALISM OR ARSON 16 20 7 15 22 18 6 4 1 24 ~g~ 0 4 1 0 1 1 7 5 0 1 2 CUSTODIAL INTERPERENCE 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 16 CUSTODY - DETOX 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 15 CUSTODY - MENTAL 2 1 3 1 3 1 1. 1 8 3 1 as DISORDERLY CONDUCT 6 5 3 6 8 2 2 0 4 DOCUMENTATION 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 4 DRINKING IN PUBLIC 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 15 0 15 0 15 1 13 6 122 DRSVING UNDER INFLUENCE 13 12 14 9 15 12 121 DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS 12 24 3 7 13 6 17 12 1 1 DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 28 DW9/REVOKED-MISDEMEANOR 1 6 5 1 2 1 2 1 7 8 ELUDE 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 EMBEZZLEMENT 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 ESCAPE FROM YOUR CUSTODY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 26 FAIL TO DISPLAY OPERATORS LICENSE 3 1 3 1 3 2 9 5 0 1 FAMILY-OTHER 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 PORCIBLE RAPE 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 6 4 63 FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING 6 9 1 1 8 9 4 5 2 PRAUD ~ ACCOUNT CLOSED CHECK 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 FRAUD - BY DECEPTION/FALSE PRfiTEN SES 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 20 PRAUD - CREDIT CARD/AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE 1 3 2 2 1 0 3 3 3 2 30 FRAUD - IMPERSONATION 2 6 2 4 1 2 5 2 2 4 2 FRAUD - NOT SUFFICIENT FUNDS CHECK 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 10 FRAUD OF SERVICES/PALSE PRETENSES 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 260 PUGITIVE ARREST FOR ANOTHER AGENCY 35 33 29 29 21 22 23 23 23 22 29 FURNISHING 0 0 2 0 0 0 9 3 11 0 10 GARBAGE LITTERING 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 0 1 1 5 HZT AND RUN FELONY 1 1 0 0 5 1 16 1 18 0 19 0 12 0 13 1 13 131 HIT AND RUN~MISDEMEANOR 10 9 11 1 0 0 3 ILLEGAL ALIEN - INS HOLD 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 INTIMIDATION /OTHER CRIMINAL THREAT 3 2 2 1 0 2 2 7 9 2 4 KIDNAP - FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PURPOSE 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 KIDNAP - FOR RANSOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 LICENSING ORDINANCES 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 3 LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 51 MINOR IN POSSESSION 2 3 7 4 3 9 8 9 9 2 MISCELLANEOUS 7 9 b 4 7 7 2 4 8 5 59 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 6 6 9 5 7 3 7 5 11 6 60 95 OTHER 12 12 7 12 14 11 9 6 8 4 16 Woodburn Police Dep[. DATE: 11/20/2008 TIME: 13:04:33 MONTHLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR JANUARY THRU OCTOBER 2008 ORIff: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL OFFENSES DATE USED: OFFENSE DATE CHARGE DESCRIPTION PROPERTY - POUND LOST MISLAID PROPERTY RECOVER FOR OTHER AGBNCY PROSTITUTION - ENGAGE IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAPETY ORDINANCES RECKLESS DRIVING ROBBERY - BUSINESS ROBBERY - CAR JACKING ROBBERY - CONV.STORE ROBBERY - OTHER ROBBERY - RESIDENCE ROBBERY - SERVICE STATION RUNAWAY SEX CRIME CONTRIBUTE TO SEX DELINQUENCY SEX CAIME - EXPOSER SEX CRIME - FORCIBLE SODOMY SHX CRIME - MOLBST (PHYSICAL) SEX CRIME - OTHER SEX CRIME - PORNOGRAPHY/OBSCENE MATERIAL SEX CRIME - SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH AN OBJECT STALKER STOLEN PROPERTY - RECBIVING,BUYING,POSSESSING SUICIDE THEFT BICYCLE THEFT - BUILDING THEFT - FROM MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS/ACCESSORIES THEFT - OTHER THEFT - PICKPOCKET THEFT - PURSE SNATCH THEFT - SHOPLIFT TRAFFIC ORDINANCES TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS TRESPASS VANDALISM VEHICLE RECOVERD POR OTHER AGENCY WEAPON - CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON - OTHER WEAPON - POSSESS ILLEGAL WILLFUL MURDER 20NING ORDINANCE TOTAL: PAGE 2 PL6B60 SCOTTRU JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT TOTAL 6 it 15 8 10 10 10 10 16 it 107 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 11 4 1 1 0 3 24 1 2 4 2 1 3 2 1 7 1 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 S 5 6 2 4 6 6 6 48 o a o 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 e 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 3 2 3 2 2 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 4 4 0 20 2 0 4 4 6 1 1 7 6 1 32 23 27 15 9 20 26 10 9 11 14 169 3 0 1 2 0 2 2 9 2 1 22 15 19 6 10 19 25 16 18 3 19 150 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 11 30 8 7 11 12 9 6 6 7 13 89 1 2 0 1 3 9 1 0 0 0 17 12 18 9 9 18 26 18 36 17 8 171 9 6 5 5 5 0 4 11 6 4 50 39 33 65 45 44 40 54 59 36 44 459 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 2 12 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 312 355 286 290 361 330 329 384 352 278 3x77 2008 TOTAL: 312 355 286 290 361 330 329 384 352 278 0 0 3277 2007 TOTAL: 389 417 494 328 361 400 388 431 388 326 0 0 3922 2006 TOTAL: 445 432 499 464 412 379 428 350 323 368 0 0 4100 17 PAGE 1 Woodburn Police Dept. PL6850 DATE: 11/20/2008 TIME: 13=04:17 MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU OCTOBER 2008 SCOTTRU GRIN: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT TOTAL AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 4 5 3 5 5 6 1 3 3 0 35 0 AGGRAVATED MURDER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 ANIMAL ORDINANCES 3 2 2 3 4 7 7 7 4 2 0 ARSON 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 6 0 8 0 14 0 4 111 ASSAULT SIMPLE 20 14 11 12 15 ATTEMPTED MURDER 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 BOMB THREAT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRIBERY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BURGLARY - BUSINESS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 BURGLARY ~ OTHER STRUCTURE 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 2 0 0 9 13 BURGLARY - RESIDENCE 1 0 0 6 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 CHILD ADBANDOMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 CHILD NEGLECT 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 CITY ORDINANCfi 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 8 20 CRIME DAMAGE-NO VANDALISM OR ARSON 2 1 2 3 1 0 2 3 4 2 CURFEW 0 7 3 0 1 1 11 6 7 1 37 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 16 CUSTODY - DETO% 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 3 2 4 15 CUSTODY - MENTAL 3 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 CUSTODY - PROTECITVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 10 8 3 9 14 6 2 18 5 1 DOCUMHNTATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DRINKING IN PUBLIC 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 121 DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE 13 12 14 9 10 15 15 15 13 5 128 DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS 16 23 3 8 9 7 23 14 15 10 DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DWS/REVOKED FELONY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DWS/REVOKED-MISDEMEANOR 1 6 5 1 2 1 2 1 7 2 28 ELUDE 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 9 EMBEZZLEMENT 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ESCAPE FROM YOUR CUSTODY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 EXTORTION/BLACKMAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FAIL TO DISPLAY OPERATORS LICHNSE 3 1 3 1 3 2 4 5 2 2 26 FAMILY-OTHER D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FORCIBLE RAPE 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING 6 5 0 1 7 3 5 10 5 5 47 FRAUD - ACCOUNT CLOSED CHECK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FRAUD - BY DECEPTION/FALSE PRETENSHS D 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 FRAUD CREDIT CARD/AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 FRAUD - IMPERSONATION 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 2 0 8 FRAUD - NOT SUFFICIENT FUNDS CHECK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FRAUD - OP SERVICES/FALSE PRETENSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 FRAUD ~ WIRfi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FRAUD OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FUGITIVE ARREST FOA ANOTHER AGENCY 36 32 32 28 22 22 24 25 22 1B 261 FURNISHING 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 3 11 0 20 GAMBLING - GAMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GAMBLING - OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GARBAGE LITTERING 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 12 HIT AND RUN FELONY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 HIT AND RUN-MISDEMEANOR 1 0 1 0 3 4 3 4 4 1 21 ILLEGAL ALIEN - INS HOLD 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 18 Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE 2 DATE: 11/20/2008 pL6850 TIME: 13:04:17 MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OPFENSE POR JANUARY THRU OCTOBER 2008 SCOTTRU ORIM: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT TOTAL INTIMIDATION /OTHER CRIMINAL THREAT 3 4 4 0 2 1 1 5 7 2 29 JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KIDNAP - FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PURPOSH 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 KIDNAP - FOR RANSOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KIDNAP - HI-JACK,TERRORIST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KIDNAP - HOSTAGE/SHIELD OR REMOVAL/DELAY WITNESS 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 LICENSING ORDINANCHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 LIQUOR LAW-OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 MINOR IN POSSHSSION 2 3 17 5 4 12 B 14 21 2 H8 MINOR ON PREMISES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D MOTOR VEHICLfi THEFT 2 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 1 0 30 NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE - TRAFFIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON CRIMINAL DOMBSTIC DISTURBANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER 11 9 6 12 12 3 5 4 5 4 71 PROPERTY - FOUND LOST MISLAID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROPERTY RECOVER FOR OTHER AGENCY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROSTITUTION COMPEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROSTITUTION - ENGAGE IN 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 PROSTITUTION - PROMOTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ORDINANCES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RECKLESS DRIVING 2 2 5 1 1 4 2 0 7 1 25 ROBBERY - BANK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROBBHRY - BUSINESS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROBBERY - CAR JACKING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROBBERY - CONV.STORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROBBERY - HIGHWAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROBBERY - OTHER 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 ROBBERY - RESIDhTTCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROBBERY - SERVICH STATION 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 RUNAWAY 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 10 SEX CRIME - CONTRIBUTE TO SEX DELINQUENCY 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 SEX CRIME - EXPOS HR 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 SEX CRIME - FORCIBLfi SODOMY 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 SEX CRIME - INCEST 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SEX CRIME - MOLEST (PHYSICAL) 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 15 SEX CRIME - NON FORCE SODOMY 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SEX CR ZME - NON-FORCE RAPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 SEX CRIME - OBSCHNH PHONE CALL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEX CRIME - OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 SEX CRIME - PORNOGRAPHY/OBSCENE MATERIAL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I SEX CRIME - SHXUAL ASSAULT WITH AN OBJECT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 STALKER 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 STOLEN PROPERTY - RECEIVING,BUYING, POSSESSING 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 SUICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THEFT - BICYCLE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 THEPT - BUILDING 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 THEFT - COIN OP MACHINE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THHFT - FROM MOTOR VEHICLE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 THEFT - MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS/ACCESSORIES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Woodbuzn Police Dep[. PAGE 3 DATE: 11/20/2008 PL6850 TIME: 13:09:17 MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU OCTOBER 2008 SCOTTRU ORIM: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FO R ALL CHARGES CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN PEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT TOTAL THEFT OTHER 0 4 0 0 3 1 2 9 1 4 24 THEFT - PICKPOCKET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THEFT -~ PURSE SNATCH 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 THEFT - SHOPLIFT 7 5 8 7 13 9 30 8 3 13 83 TRAPFIC ORDINANCES 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS 21 32 19 17 29 24 21 37 18 8 226 TRESPASS 6 6 4 7 6 0 1 12 6 2 50 VANDALISM 1 4 3 13 0 0 4 6 3 4 38 VEHICLE RECOVERD FOR OTHER AGENCY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 WARRANT ARREST FOR OUR AGENCY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WEAPON - CARRY CONCEALED 0 1 I 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 WEAPON - EX FELON IN POSSESSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WEAPON - OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 WEAPON - POSSESS ILLEGAL 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 WEAPON - SHOOTING IN PROHIBITED AREA 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WILLFUL MURDER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZONING ORDINANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 2008 TOTAL: 195 207 169 172 185 144 187 249 213 117 0 0 1833 2007 TOTAL: 194 213 291 201 205 235 242 252 159 169 0 0 2161 2006 TOTAL: 213 218 322 253 223 226 267 226 192 248 0 0 2388 20 WPD~ Monthly Code Enforcement Statisitcs October 2008 Incident Type Total Abandon Vehicles 15 Abate Nusiance 13 Animal Complaints 65 Business License Check 5 Tail Grass 0 Ordinance Violation 99 Area Check 17 Foot Patrol 5 FIR (Pedestrian Check) 46 Park Violations 3 Grafitti Abate 9 Other 20 Total of All Incidents 297 21 WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y O F W O O D B U R N PAGE 1 DATE 11 /21/08 AP0460 TIME 10 :08:59 CHECX REGISTER VEEOT CHECK N ~ CHECK PATE PAYEE NAME .... . y= STATUS STATUS DATE . . UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFPERENCE ~ A/P BANK ACCOUNT IIZiz"ACCOUn[s Payable a. .__....- . ~ .... ....... ....:.a.. a.~==~.____.___ .>_....::.:........: ..............: 95058 10/03/2008 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 1{45 RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 825.63 825.63 .00 95059 10/03/2008 AMAZON.COM CREDIT RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 421.71 421.71 .00 95060 10/03/2008 AMERICAN WATERNORKS ASSN RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 974.00 479.00 .00 95061 10/03/2008 ANNA STAVINOHA RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 36.97 38.97 .00 95062 30/03/2008 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE I RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 382.29 382.29 .00 95063 10/03/2008 ASSOCIATID BUSINESS SYSTE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 193.38 193.38 .00 95064 30/03/2008 AT i T RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 104.77 104.77 .00 95065 10/03/2008 BI-MART CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 204.05 204.05 .00 95066 10/03/2008 BOBCAT OF NILLAMETTE VALL RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 570.00 570.00 .00 95067 10/03/2008 BOTACH TACTICAL RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 295.00 295.00 .00 95068 10/03/2008 CANBY TELECOM RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 19.95 19.95 .00 95069 10/03/2008 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 32.95 32.45 .00 95070 10/03/2008 CASCADE POOLS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 51.97 51.97 .00 95071 10/03/2008 CENTER POINT LARGE PRINT RECONCILED 11/07/2006 YES 35.99 35.94 .00 95072 10/03/2008 COOKE STATIONERY COMPANY RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 718.15 718.15 .00 95073 10/03/2008 CREATIVE SERVICES OF N.E. RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 305.95 305.95 .00 95074 10/03/2008 CTL CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 970.00 970.00 .00 95075 10/03/2008 DEBBIE WADLEIGH RBCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 190.08 190.08 .00 95077 10/03/2008 DEMCO INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,584.41 1,584.41 .00 95078 10/03/2008 DP NORTHWEST INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 715.00 715.00 .00 95079 10/03/2008 ELASTEC INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 3,900.00 3,900.00 .00 95080 10/03/2008 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP RECONCILED 11/07/2006 YES 302.29 302.29 .00 95081 10/03/2008 GALE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 121.25 121.25 .00 95082 10/03/2008 GRAINGER INC RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 176.00 176.00 .00 95083 10/03/2008 GRAINGER INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 254.34 254.34 .00 95084 10/03/2006 GREY HOUSE PUBLISHING RECONCILED 11/07/2006 YES 178.50 178.50 .00 95085 10/03/2008 HACH CHEMICAL CO RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 634.95 639.95 .00 95086 10/03/2008 HILLYER'S MID CITY FORD RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 1,290.66 1,290.66 .00 95087 10/03/2008 HUGGINS INSURANCB AGENCY RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 4,072.50 4,072.50 .00 95088 10/03/2008 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 403.85 403.85 .00 95089 10/03/2008 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES RECONCILED 11/07/2000 YES 1,244.13 1,244.13 .00 95090 10/03/2008 ITT FLYGT CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 406.20 406.20 .00 95091 10/03/2008 JEANNIE ROGERS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 26.70 26.70 .00 95092 10/03/2008 KATHY WILLCOX RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 104.50 104.50 .00 95093 10/03/2008 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 132.80 132.80 .00 95094 10/03/2008 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 522.05 522.05 .00 95095 10/03/2008 M i M AUTO WRECKING INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 327.00 327.00 .00 95096 10/03/2008 MARION COUNTY CLERK RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 16.00 16.00 .00 95097 10/03/2008 MID-VALLEY CYCLES LLC RBCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 567.00 567.00 .00 95098 10/03/2008 NEOPOST INC RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 180.00 180.00 .00 95099 10/03/2008 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 958.x2 958.42 .00 95100 10/03/2008 NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 520.10 520.10 .00 95101 10/03/2008 OR STATE POLICE ID SERVIC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 12.00 12.00 .00 95103 10/03/2008 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 35,519.50 35,514.50 00 95104 10/03/2008 QWEST RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 128.02 128.02 . .00 95105 10/03/2008 SALVADORS BAKERY RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 147.00 147.00 00 95106 10/03/2008 6ANDRA KINNEY RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 27.13 27.13 . .00 95107 10/03/2008 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRING RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 272.73 272.73 00 95106 10/03/2008 SPECIAL OCCASIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 99.50 99.50 . 00 95109 10/03/2006 TAYLOR HONDA RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 629.99 629.99 . 00 95110 10/03/2008 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 257.71 257.71 . 00 95111 10/03/2008 U.S. BANK RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 6,589.92 6,589.92 . .00 22 WOODBURN LIVfi C I T Y O F W O O D B U R N PAGE 2 DATE 11/21/08 AP0460 TIME 10 :08:59 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT CHECK Y CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS STATUS DATE UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIPPERENCB 95112 10 03 2008 VALLEY PACIFIC FLORAL RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 207.80 207.80 .00 95113 10/03/2008 WAV8 BROADBAND RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 317.23 317.23 .00 95114 10/03/2008 WILLAMETTE VALLEY SOCCER RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 500.00 500.00 .00 95115 10/03/2008 WOODBURN INDEPENDENT RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 305.52 305.52 .00 95116 10/31/2008 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 6.65 6.65 .00 95117 10/31/2005 PETTY GSH RECONCILED 11/07/2005 YES 155.67 155.67 .00 95118 10/09/2008 AARON N DEVOE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 79.99 79.99 .00 95119 10/09/2008 ABBY'S PIZZA INN RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 64.85 64.85 .00 95120 10/09/2008 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES N45 RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,361.55 1,361.55 .00 95121 30/09/2008 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORXS ASS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 65.00 65.00 .00 95122 10/09/2008 ANNE ROSALES RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 218.40 218.40 .00 95123 10/09/2008 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE I RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 107.12 107.12 .00 95124 30/09/2008 ASAP SOFTWARE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 122.76 122.76 .00 95125 10/09/2008 ATLAS SUPPLY INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 413.40 413.40 .00 95126 10/09/2008 AWARDS AND ATHLETICS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 315.90 315.90 .00 95127 10/09/2008 BARK BOYS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YHS 216.00 216.00 .00 95128 10/09/2008 BLI1l03NT'HAL UNIFORM 4 EQUI RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 1,911.36 1,911.36 .00 95129 10/09/2008 BROOKS PRODUCTS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YHS 211.42 211.42 .00 95130 10/09/2008 C W RENTS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 44.00 44.00 .00 95131 10/09/2008 GROLINA URRELA DE HESS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YHS 380.00 380.00 .00 95132 10/09/2008 CARQUBST AUTO PARTS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 6.99 6.49 .00 95133 10/09/2008 CDW GOVHRNMENT INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,094.93 1,094.93 .00 95134 10/09/2008 COASTWID6 LABORATORIES RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 165.52 165.52 .00 95135 10/09/2008 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 160.00 160.00 .00 95136 10/09/2008 CRISIS CHAPLAINCY SERVICE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 375.00 375.00 .00 95137 10/09/2008 CUSTOM LOW VOLTAGE/LARRY RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,620.00 1,620.00 .00 95138 10/09/2008 DATAVISION COMMUNIGTIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 298.28 298.28 .00 95139 10/09/2008 DELL MARKETING LP RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YHS 2,205.04 2,205.04 .00 95140 10/09/2008 OR DEPT OF CONSUMHR AND B RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,632.93 1,632.93 .00 95141 10/09/2008 EMERALD POOL i PATIO RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 299.97 299.97 .00 95142 10/09/2008 EXQUISITE AUTO DETAIL RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 70.00 70.00 .00 95143 10/09/2008 WILSONVILLS FAMILY PUN CT RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 575.55 578.55 .00 95144 10/09/2008 FIRST STUDENT INC RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 1,023.90 1,023.90 .00 95195 10/09/2008 PIRNOOD DESIGN GROUP LLC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 2,854.56 2,854.56 .00 95146 10/09/2008 PRY'S fiLECTRONICS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 197.89 197.89 .00 95147 10/09/2008 G.K. MACHINE INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 187.63 187.63 .00 95148 10/09/2005 G.W. HARDWARB CENTER RHCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 20.19 20.19 .00 95149 10/09/2008 GALE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 111.84 111.84 .00 95150 10/09/2008 GALL'S INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 324.70 324.70 .00 95151 10/09/2008 GRAINGER INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 45.72 45.72 .00 95152 10/09/2008 GAHAT WHSTSRN SWEEPING IN RHCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 10,322.38 10,322.38 .00 95154 10/09/2008 H.D. FOWLHR CO INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 2,916.56 2,916.56 .00 95155 10/09/2008 HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 21.99 24.99 00 95156 10/09/2008 INDUSTRIAL MACH FAB INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 2,995.00 2,995.00 . .00 95157 10/09/2008 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,377.70 1,377.70 .00 95158 10/09/2008 INORAM LIBRARY SERVICES RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 284.33 284.33 .00 95159 10/09/2008 ISOLUTIONS CONSULTING LLC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,156.27 1,156.27 .00 95160 10/09/2005 J. THAYER COMPANY RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 472.70 472.70 .00 95161 10/09/2008 JOSE GRLOS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 200.00 200.00 00 95162 30/D9/2008 KARDWELL INTERNATIONAL RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 447.00 447.00 . .00 95163 10/09/2008 LARD 4 ASSOCIATES INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 183.60 183.60 .00 95164 30/09/2005 LYNN PEAVEY CORPORATION RECONCILHD 11/07/2008 YES 135.30 135 30 00 95165 10/09/2008 MARION COUNTY ELECTIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 25.00 . 25.00 . .00 23 NOODBURN LIVE C I T Y O F W O O D B U R N PAGE 3 DATE 11/ 21/08 AP0460 VHEOT TIME 10: 08:59 CHECK REGISTER CHECK p CHECK DRTE PAYEfi NAME STATUS STATUS DATE _~ . UPDATED ~~.~~.~~ CHECK AMOUNT ~~__z~ i• RECONCILED AMT -:._..~~~:..=~a `6S DIFFERENCE ..~.:.~.~._~... ass=~... 95166 .:~=z~~~~o~,..~.~~::sa:..~~__..a.=:..~_ 10/09/2008 MIGUEL SALINAS ..__~.:.~.:~s RECONCILED a_oe.»~==_ . 11/07/2008 YES 300 OO 300.00 .00 95167 10/09/2008 MOLALLA COMMUNICATIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 149.70 149.70 .00 95168 IO/09/2008 MUFFLERS, HITCHES 6 MORE RRCONCZLED 11/07/2009 YES 25.00 25.00 .00 95169 10/09/2008 MUY INTERESANTE RECONCILHD 11/07/2008 YES 19.95 19.95 .00 95170 10/09/2008 NEOPOST LEASING RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 52.99 52.94 .00 95171 10/09/2008 NHT ASSETS CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 480.00 480.00 .00 95172 10/09/2008 NOMARCO CONSTRUCTION INC RECONCILED 11(07(2008 YHS 14,535.00 14,535.00 .00 95173 10/09/2008 NORTHNEST NATURAL GAS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 2,376.85 2,376.85 .00 95174 10/09/2008 OFFICE DEPOT RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 57.33 57.33 .00 95175 10/09/2008 OR ASSOC OP HATER UTZLITI RECONCILED 11/07/2006 YES 860.00 860.00 .00 95177 10(09(2008 OR DHPT OP Ai1MINISTRATIVH RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 1,981.64 1,981.64 .00 95178 10/09/2008 OR DEPT OP MOTOR VEHICLE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1.50 1.50 .00 95179 10/09/2008 OREGON CITY TRAVEL INC RECONCILED 11(07/2008 YES 472.00 472.00 .00 95180 10/09/2008 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION RHCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 77.89 77.89 .00 95181 10(09(2008 PARRER NORTHNEST PAVING RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 215,158.14 215,158.14 .00 95182 10/09/2008 PAUL'S POKER EQUIPMHNT 6 RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 422.63 422.63 .00 95183 10/09/2008 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 373.65 373.65 .00 95189 10/09/2008 PETROCARD RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 4,991.63 4,491.63 .00 95185 10/09/2008 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 2b,744.48 26,744.48 •00 95186 10/09/2008 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 8,767.86 8,767.86 .00 95187 10/09/2008 PUBLIC WORAS SUPPLY INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 168.00 168.00 .00 95188 10/09/2008 QWEST RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 206.31 206.31 .00 95189 10/09/2008 QNES? RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 2,221.90 2,221.90 .00 95190 10/09/2008 RADIX CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 204.00 204.00 .00 95191 10/09/2008 SALEM INSTALLATION SUPPLI RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YHS 35.99 35.49 -00 95192 10/09/2008 SHOP N BART RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 45.99 45.99 .00 95193 10/09/2008 SILVERFLEET SYSTEMS RHCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 3,277.11 3,277.11 .00 95194 10/09/2008 SITEIMPROVE INC RECONCILED 11(07/2008 YES 1,251.00 1,251.00 .00 95195 10/09/2008 STANLEY CONVERGENT SECURI RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 110.00 110.00 .00 95196 10/09/2008 TIM'S DIESEL TRUCK REPAIR RECONCILED 11/07(2008 YES 42.88 42.88 .00 95197 10/09/2008 USA MOHILITY WIRELESS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 124.92 124.92 .00 95198 10/09/2008 NEST PAYMENT CENTER RHCONCILED 11(07/2008 YES 381.42 381.92 .00 95199 10/09/2008 WOODHURN AUTOMOTIVE REPAI RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YHS 605.83 605.83 ~00 95200 10/09/2008 WOODHURN SCHOOL DIST 103C RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 3,363.31 3,363.31 .00 95201 10/09/2008 XEROX CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 249.89 244.89 .00 95202 10/09/2008 YES GRAPHICS RHCONCILED 11(07/2008 YES 164.60 164.60 .00 95203 10/16/2008 AMHRICAN PUBLIC NORKS ASS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 400.00 400.00 .00 95204 10/16/2008 AMERICAN EQUIFMIIIT CO INC RECONCILED 11(07/2008 YES 70.00 70.00 .00 95205 30/16/2008 ASAP SOFTWARE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 951.45 951.45 .00 95206 10/16(2008 AWARDS AND ATHLETICS RHCONCILED 11(07/2008 YES 209.42 209.42 .DO 95207 10/16/2008 HATTERIHS WHOLESALE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 436.55 436.55 .00 95208 10/16/2008 BEST WESTERN AGATE BEACH RECONCILED 1iI07/2008 YES 167.96 167.96 .00 95209 10/16/2008 BOLDT, CARLISLE 6 SMITH L RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 12,135.00 12,135.00 .00 95210 SO/16(2008 BROOKS PRODUCTS RHCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 296.58 296.58 .00 95211 10/16/2008 CDN GOVERNMENT INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 383.98 383.98 .00 952]3 10(16/2008 CH2M-HILL INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 36,800.48 36,800.48 .00 95219 10/16/2008 CODH 4 PUBLIC SAFETY EDUC RHCONCILED 11/07/2008 YHS 188.00 188.00 .00 95215 10/16(2008 COMPLETE WIRELESS SOLUTNS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 60.00 60.00 .00 95216 10/16/2008 COOKE STATIONERY COMPANX RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 166.96 166.96 .00 95217 10/16/2008 CRIMINAL INFORMATION SERV RECONCILBD 11/07/2008 YES 146.00 146.00 .00 95218 10/16/2008 DAVID M COREY PHD PC RECONCILED 11/07(2008 YES 485.00 485.00 .00 95219 10/16/2008 DELL MARKETING LP RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 2,343.80 2,343.80 .00 95220 10/16/2008 OR DHPT OF CONSUMER AND B RECONCILHD 11/07/2008 YHS 195.00 195.00 .00 24 WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y O P W O O D H U R N PAGfi 4 DATE 11/21/08 AP0460 TIME 10 :08:59 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT CHECK N CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS STATUS DATE UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE 95221 10 16 2008 DON SCHUETZ RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 27.00 27.00 .00 95222 10/16/2008 ELBNA E BOGDANOVICH PH.D RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 100.10 100.10 .00 95223 10/16/2008 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 352.83 352.83 .00 95225 10/16/2008 GABINO ESGLONA RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 40.00 40.00 .00 95226 10/16/2008 GERALD RADEMAKER RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 65.00 65.00 .00 95227 10/16/2008 GROUP MACKENZIE ENGR INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 2,720.25 2,720.25 .00 95228 10/16/2008 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 327.83 327.83 .00 95229 10/16/2008 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES RECONCILBD 11/07/2008 YHS 1,033.92 1,033.92 .00 95230 10/16/2008 JASON MILLICAN RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 142.60 142.60 .00 95232 30/16/2008 JERRY JANSZEN RBCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 13.00 13.00 .00 95239 10/16/2008 JONATHAN STUART RHCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 21.28 21.28 -00 95235 10/16/2008 KEITH'S SPORTING GOODS RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 190.75 190.75 .00 95236 10/16/2008 LANGUAGE LINH SERVICES RBCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 195.11 195.11 .OD 95237 10/16/2008 LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES RHOONCILHD 11/07/2008 YES 215.00 215.00 .00 95238 10/16/2008 LEYIIS E SEAGRAVES P.E. RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 712.32 712.32 .00 95239 10/16/2008 LOWE'S RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,003.60 1,003.60 .00 95240 10/16/2008 LOWE'S TROPHY RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 13.00 13.00 .00 95242 10/16/2008 MARY TENNANT RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 191.85 191.85 .00 95293 10/16/2008 MAURO PIN20N RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 80.00 80.00 .00 95244 10/16/2008 MELBA HENDERSON RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 18.00 18.00 .00 95245 10/16/2008 MICHELE ROBERTS RHCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 138.89 138.89 .00 95246 30/16/2008 MONIQUE HULLING-ADAMS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 29.00 29.00 .00 95247 10/16/2008 MSI GROUP ZNC RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 900.00 400.00 .00 95248 10/16/2008 NORCOM RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 26,374.09 26,374.09 .00 95219 10/16/2008 NORLIFT OF OREGON INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 200.53 200.53 .00 95250 10/16/2008 OFPICE DEPOT RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 669.75 669.75 .00 95251 10/16/2008 ONB CALL CONCEPTS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 99.75 99.75 .00 95252 10/16/2008 OR DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 9,677.25 4,677.25 .00 95255 10/16/2008 POLEN DEVELOPMENT LLC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 39,458.28 39,458.28 .00 95256 10/16/2008 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 18,364.94 18,364.94 .00 95257 10/16/2008 PRIMA RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 350.00 350.00 .00 95258 10/16/2008 PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLY INC RHCONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 257.40 257.40 .00 95259 10/16/2008 R.A. DORAN 4 ASSOCIATES RBCONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 315.00 315.00 .00 95260 30/16/2008 S.O.S. LOCK SERVICE RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 6.05 6.05 .00 95261 10/16/2008 CRYSTAL AND SIBRRA SPRING RHC'ONCILfi'D 11/07/2008 YES 40.14 40.19 .00 95262 10/16/2008 SILKE COMMUNIGTIONS INC RBCONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 36.50 36.50 .00 95263 10/16/2008 SILVERTON HOSPITAL RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 298.00 298.00 .00 95264 10/16/2008 SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOC O RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 25.00 25.00 .00 95265 10/16/2008 SPBCIAL OCGSIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 211.40 211.40 .00 95266 10/16/2008 3PRINT RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 338.87 338.87 .00 95267 10/16/2008 STU SPENCE RBCONCILBD 11/07/2008 YES 93.50 93.50 .00 95268 10/16/2008 T-MOBILE RECONCIL® 11/07/2008 YES 249.95 249.95 .00 95271 10/16/2008 TESTAMERIG LABORATORIES RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,026.68 1,026.68 .00 95272 10/16/2008 UNION PACIPIC RAILROAD CO RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 3,800.31 3,800.31 .00 95273 10/16/2008 UNITED PIPH b SUPPLY CO RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,472.00 1,472.00 .00 95274 10/16/2008 NILCO PARMERS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 400.52 400.52 .00 95275 10/16/2008 WILLAMETTE VALLEY SECURIT RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 59.85 59.85 .00 95276 10/16/2008 WOODBURN INDEPENDENT RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 148.12 148.12 .00 95277 10/16/2008 XEROX CORPORATION RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 372.28 372.28 .00 95278 10/16/2008 YBS GRAPHICS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YSS 70.00 70.00 .00 95279 10/16/2008 ZEP SALES 6 SERVICE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 146.75 116.75 .00 95280 10/31/2008 PETTY GSH RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 142.61 142.61 .00 95281 30/31/2008 VALLHY MAILING SERVICB IN RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,663.20 1,663.20 .00 25 WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y O F W O O D B U R N PAGE 5 DATE 11/21/08 AP0460 TIME 10: 08:59 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT CHECK M CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS STATUS DATE UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILID AMT DIFFERENCE 95282 10/31/2008 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN RECONCILED 11 07 2008 YES 673.20 673.20 .00 95283 10/24/2008 ADVANCED fiDUCATIONAL PROD RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 138.95 138.95 .00 95285 10/24/2008 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASS RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 650.00 650.00 .00 95286 10/24/2008 AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 230.00 230.00 .00 95287 10/24/2008 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE I RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 76.52 76.52 .00 95288 10/24/2008 ASAP SOFTWARE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 198.04 198.04 .00 95289 10/24/2008 AT i T RHCONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 104.77 104.77 .00 95291 10/24/2008 AWARDS AND ATHLETICS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 3,675.58 3,675.58 .00 95292 10/24/2008 BLACKSTONfi AUDIOHOOKS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 97.35 97.35 .00 95293 10/24/2008 HOLI TECHNICAL RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 500-00 500.00 .00 95290 10/24/2008 BOLI THCHNICAL RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 250.00 250.00 .00 95295 10/24/2008 BRINKS HONE SECURITY RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 32.99 32.99 .00 95296 10/24/2008 CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT! RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 340.00 340.00 .00 95297 10/29/2008 CDW GOVERNMENT INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 995.85 995.85 .00 95299 10/24/2008 DOLLAR TREE STORE INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 100.00 100.00 .00 95300 10/24/7008 FEHNAUGHTY MACHINERY CO RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 98.95 98.45 .00 95301 10/24/2008 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,979.97 1,479.97 .00 95302 10/24/2008 PIRWOOD DHSIGN GROUP LLC RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 695.00 695.00 .00 95304 10/29/2008 OALH RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 109.44 109.44 .00 95305 10/29/2008 GRAINGER INC RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 119.10 119.10 .00 95306 10/29/2008 H.W. WILSON COMPANY LOCKB RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 182.00 182.00 .00 95307 10/24/2008 HOME DEPOT GECF RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 69.25 69.25 .00 95308 10/24/2008 J. THAYER COMPANY RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 2,725.36 2,725.36 .00 95309 10/21/2008 JOBS AVAILABLE RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 567.00 567.00 .00 95311 10/24/2008 KATIE A ENGLUND RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 14.80 14.80 .00 95313 10/24/2008 LAZERQUICK INC RECONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 828.62 828.62 .00 95314 10/24/2008 MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 176-29 176-29 .00 95315 10/24/2008 MILLER FARM HOME OWNERS A RHCONCI LHD 11/07/2008 YES 500.00 500.00 .00 95316 10/24/2008 NATIONAL CHARRETTE INSTIT RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 35.00 35.00 .oo 95317 10/24/2008 NEXTfiL COMMUNICATIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 2,009.69 2,004.69 .00 95318 10/24/2008 NORTHNEST GEOTECN INC RfiCONCILID 11/07/2008 YES 2,686.05 2,686.05 .00 95320 10/24/2008 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 294.30 294.30 .00 95321 10/24/2008 PATRICIA 6WING RHCONCILSD 11/07/2008 YES 15.00 15.00 .00 95323 10/24/2008 PETROCARD RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 3,365.66 3,365.66 .00 95325 10/24/2008 QWES? RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 462.76 462.76 .00 95326 10/24/2008 RANDY 6 DIANH CRISHLL RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 90.00 90.00 .00 95327 10/24/2008 RUSSELL b JANICE BAGLIEN RECONCZLID 11/07/2008 YES 265.00 265.00 .00 95330 10/24/2008 SHOOT OUT TEAM SPORTSPLEX RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 500.00 500.00 00 95331 10/24/2008 SILXE COMMUNICATIONS INC RECONCILHD 11/07/2008 YES 136.57 138.57 . 00 95332 10/24/2008 SPRINT (AIRLINK) RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 700.00 700.00 . 00 95333 10/24/2008 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAG RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 316.16 316.16 . .00 95334 10/24/2008 SUSAN K SAUSE, P.C. RECONCILED 11/07/2006 YES 1,385.00 1,385.00 00 95335 10/24/2008 WALL STREET JOURNAL RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 299.00 299.00 . 00 95336 10/24/2008 YES GRAPHICS RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 316.00 316.00 . 00 95338 10/31/2008 PETTY CASH RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 157.35 157.35 . 00 95339 10/31/2008 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 526.24 526.24 . .00 95384 10/31/2008 GARY THOMPSON RECONCILED 11/07/2008 YES 1,750 00 1,750.00 00 BANK AP TOTAL: 258 CHECKS ____ _ . _______ ___ . ______________ 594,536.86 594,536.86 .00 RECONCILED 258 CHECKS 594,536 .86 NOT RECON CILED CHECKS .00 VOIDID CHHCKS .00 26 NOODBURN LIVE DATE 11/21/08 TIME 10:08:59 C I T Y O F N O O D B U R N CHECK REGISTER PAGE 6 AP0460 VEEOT CHECK M CHECX DATfi PAYEE NAME STATUS STATUS DATE UPDATID CHECX AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE ._=s~~~~~~~s~s~~ ~~s~~~~~._~~e~.•" •°~'~~~`__'=~==.e__~z»aa__.aaa~~:z::~»~_~.so~.=:.~s~.~s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UPDATED aja 258~CHECXS+'~~ ~ 594,536.86 NOT UPDATED CHECKS -00 27 ~~ ~( ''T~ ~ `]~j DBURj~ )rr; Jr, ~ ,rl l i~ IF.~4 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Derickson, City Administrator November 24, 2008 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO WOODBURN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECOMMENDATION: It is being recommended that the City Administrator be appointed as the City of Woodburn's official liaison to the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce. BACKGROUND: The Chamber of Commerce has historically held a position of City Liaison that participates in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors. Former City Administrator John Brown fulfilled this role. The Chamber of Commerce is now asking that a new City Liaison be appointed by the City Council. DISCUSSION: Traditionally, the City Administrator has served in the capacity of City Liaison to the Chamber of Commerce. The duty of the liaison position includes participation in Chamber Board meetings and Chamber function as a representative of the City. The role is intended to provide coordination between the business community, City government and the City Council. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No budgetary impact is anticipated at this time. Agenda Item Review: 28 1! ~ _ ~ % ~~~{~ ~ ,. W 1 DBUR j~j 1 q/ Jr1.~ rJ l: rl 1 4Y ~/ November 24, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Dan Brown, Public Works Director SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY ON OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROPERTY NEAR THE WOODBURN I-5 INTERCHANGE RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached ordinance designating the ODOT property located near the I-5 Interchange as public parking and authorizing the City Administrator to finalize an agreement with Woodburn Company Stores for reimbursement of the Public Works special services. BACKGROUND: The proposed site is currently vacant property that ODOT has acquired as right of way for the future interchange improvements and a transit facility. The property is currently vacant and marginally maintained. The Public Works Department has just recently cleaned up the site due to citizen complaints regarding the unsightly appearance of the property and its proximity to one of the main highway accesses to our community. Woodburn Company Stores approached the City and requested assistance in coping with the large number of shoppers participating in their holiday shopping special event which is held starting at 11:00 pm Thanksgiving night and runs through 9:00 am Friday morning. The number of shoppers exceeds parking available in the vicinity of the Company Stores. This involves more than a private business issue because last year there were serious public safety problems created by shoppers parking in inappropriate areas. Traffic was lined up and some motorists were parked on I-5 itself. The City has a significant public interest in partnering with ODOT and the Company Stores in order to attempt to avoid similar traffic problems this year. DISCUSSIQN: Public Works has obtained a permit from ODOT to operate and maintain a Agenda Item Review: City Administrator _~~ City Attorney L ^> Finance 9 Honorable Mayor and City Council November 24, 2008 Page 2 temporary public parking facility on the future transit facility site and is in the process of preparing the site. Providing overflow parking at the future transit facility site is intended to provide off-site parking to improve the traffic flow during the holiday shopping season. This temporary public parking would also encourage patrons to use alternative routes, such as OR 99E and OR 214 from the east. The City would provide public transportation for this event on a special services reimbursement basis from Company Stores. The City does not have a formal agreement for reimbursement from the Company Stores, but work had to be started in anticipation such an agreement would be forthcoming. The Company Stores is a beneficiary of this action by the City and understands that reimbursement for special services provided is appropriate. Public Works has provided the Company Stores with an estimate for special services provided of $4,200 for parking lot improvements, signage, and temporary lighting. Public Works estimates the cost of providing public transportation is $1,560. Public Works has reached an understanding with the Company Stores as to the nature of an agreement. The authority to finalize and execute this agreement, however, is delegated to the City Administrator under the proposed Ordinance. The City's response to this event is driven first and foremost by public safety. Traffic congestion, inappropriate parking, and the risk to pedestrians navigating a heavily congested interchange at night dictates a response to provide additional public services. An emergency clause was added to the ordinance so that it can take immediate effect. The ordinance expires on January 10, 2009. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City intends to obtain from the Company Stores reimbursement for special public services provided this sales event. 30 COUNCIL BILL N0.2755 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING PUBLIC PARKING ON THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROPERTY NEAR THE WOODBURN I-5 INTERCHANGE; PROVIDING ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the State of Oregon through the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") owns a property near the Woodburn I-5 Interchange that ODOT plans to use for a future Park-and-Ride facility; and WHEREAS, the City has acquired a temporary permit from ODOT to use the Property for public parking from November 14, 2008 until January 9, 2009; and WHEREAS, there is a public need for the City to designate the property for public parking on a temporary basis in order to avoid traffic congestion that has occurred in the past; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. A. The Ci#y Council finds that last year during the holiday season, and particularly during the Woodburn Company Stores special shopping event, which is held beginning at 11:00 pm Thanksgiving night and through 9:00 am Friday morning, there were serious public safety problems created by shoppers parking in illegal and inappropriate areas. 6. The City finds that it is necessary to proactively respond by providing additional public services so that last year's situation of traffic congestion, inappropriate and illegal parking, and the risk to pedestrians navigating a heavily congested interchange at night is mitigated. C. The City finds that the City has a significant public interest in partnering with ODOT and the Company Stores in order to attempt to avoid traffic problems this year. D. The City finds that it has authority under the Woodburn City Charter and the temporary permit issued by ODOT to pass this Ordinance. Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2755 ORDINANCE NO. 31 Section 2. Definitions. In addition to those definitions contained in the Oregon Vehicle Code, the following definitions apply: A. "Administrator" shall mean the Woodburn City Administrator or designee. B. "Public Parking Space" shall mean every public way, road, street, thoroughfare, and place open, used or intended for use by the general public for parking motor vehicles. C. "ODOT Parking Lot" shall mean the property depicted by Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance (Tax Lots 052W 12AC04304, 052W 12AC04500, 052W 12AC04600, 052W 12AC04800, 052W 12AC04900, and 052W 12AC05000). Section 3. General Provisions. A. The ODOT Parking Lot is designated by the City as public parking. B. In addition to any applicable sections of the Oregon Vehicle Code, motor vehicles shall park in marked spaces, subject to compliance with any authorized signs in the ODOT Parking Lot placing other restrictions on parking. Section 4. Administration. The Administrator shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of applicable parking signs and for the enforcement of this Ordinance. Section 5. Additional City Bus Service. Additional bus service is authorized to be provided by the City from the ODOT parking lot to the Woodburn Company Stores. Because the Woodburn Company Stores will receive some benefit by this action, the City Administrator is authorized to execute a Reimbursement Agreement for Special Services with the Woodburn Company Stores in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Section 6. Civil Infraction Assessment. A violation of any provision of this Ordinance constitutes a Class 5 civil infraction and shall be dealt with according to the procedures established by Ordinance 1998. Section 7. Towing and Storage. A. Any motor vehicle violating the provisions of this Ordinance constitutes a hazard to public safety and may be towed and stored at the registered owner's expense if left unattended. The registered owner shall Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2755 ORDINANCE NO. 32 be liable for the cost of towing and storage, even if the vehicle was parked by another person. B. Towing and storage of any motor vehicle pursuant to this Ordinance does not preclude the issuance of a citation for violation of any provision of this Ordinance. Section 8. Disuosal of Motor Vehicle. After a motor vehicle is towed under the authority of this ordinance, it shall be disposed of in the manner provided by ORS Chapter 819. Section 9. Severability. If any section, clause, or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any statute, is determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance or its application. Section 10. Emers;tencv Clause. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation for the public peace, health, and safety so that additional public parking is available without delay, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage and approval by the Mayor. Section 11. Expiration. This Ordinance shall expire and cease to be legally effective on January 10, 2009. Approved as to form: City Attorney Da e Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2755 ORDINANCE NO. 33 EXHIBR ~~ --~- °f ---~-- 34 ~E [ .~_ ~1 ~I ODBURj~j ln~orprruitA ~dR4 November 24, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator VIA: Natalie Labossiere, Interim Community Development Director FROM: Carrie Brennecke, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Adoption of a resolution regarding the City Council Call-up Of Planning Commission Decision In Case Design Review Number DR 2008-3 (Highway 214 & S-curve) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution approving the land use application. BACKGROUND: The applicant requested a Design Review for a new 7,992 square foot single story medical/professional office building in the Commercial Office (CO) zone. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved the final order on September 11, 2008. The project was called up by City Council on September 22, 2008 to review the height of the required buffer wall along the north and east property lines. The City Council conducted a de novo public hearing on November 10, 2008. The Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision with the exception of imposing the following condition, "The property owner shall install a solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface 7 feet in height, along the entire length of the north and east property lines, in accordance with Table 2.1.7." DISCUSSION: The resolution reaffirms all conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission. The resolution imposes an additional condition that the Council directed staff to draft requiring the applicant to provide a 7 foot high buffer wall along the entire length of the north and east property lines. Agenda Item Review: City Admi Attorney j "'--~ Financ Honorable Mayor and City Council November 24, 2008 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT: This decision is anticipated to have no public sector financial impact. 36 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2756 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPLICATION DR 2008-03; ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; AND IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION WITH FINDINGS WHEREAS, a request was made by Joe Consani, applicant, on behalf of Rod Johnson and Joe Consani, property owners, for a design review fora 7,992 square foot medical/professional building (case DR 2008-03) and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the case at its meeting of September 11, 2008 and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved case number DR 2008-03 subject to conditions of approval, and; WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council called up the decision for review on its own motion at its meeting of September 22, 2008, pursuant to WDO 4.1O1.10.C.; and WHEREAS, the Council held a de novo public hearing on the case at its meeting of November 10, 2008, and; WHEREAS, the Council considered the written and oral testimony presented by staff, the applicant and Woodburn residents; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The application in case DR 2008-03 is granted subject to this Resolution. Section 2. This decision is based upon evidence in the record before the Woodburn City Council and is justified by the Findings and Conclusions which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference are incorporated herein. Section 3. Approval of the application is subject to the conditions attached as Exhibit "B", which were previously approved by the Planning Commission. Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2756 RESOLUTION NO. 37 Section 4. Approval of the applicotion is subject to the following additional condition imposed by the Woodburn City Council after conducting the de novo Public Hearing: "The property owner shall install a solid brick or architectural wall with anti- graffiti surface 7 feet in height, along the entire length of the north and east property lines, in accordance with Table 2.1.7." This additional condition is justified by the Findings and Conclusions for Additional Conditions which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and by this reference incorporated herein. Approved as to form: ~• ~`~--~ ~~ Z ~ Za~~ City Attorney Dat Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2- COUNCIL BILL NO. 2756 RESOLUTION NO. 38 ~ "EXHIBIT A" 3 WDO 2.101 General Provisions s The provisions of the WDO shall be considered the minimum regulations adopted to 6 promote the public health, safety and general welfare; and shall apply uniformly to ~ each case or kind of use, structure or Land unless varied or otherwise conditioned as s allowed in the WDO. [WDO 1.101.02.A] 9 All officials, departments, employees (including contractor-officials), of the City io vested with authority to issue permits or grant approvals shall adhere to and i ~ require conformance with the WDO, and shall issue no permit or grant approval for iz any development or use which violates or fails to comply with conditions or 13 standards imposed to carry out the WDO. [WDO 1.101.04] is Findin s: The Woodburn Planning Commission are officials of the City and are is collectively vested with authority to grant approvals. The planning division staff is ib employees of the City and is vested with authority to issue permits or grant approvals. i~ Conclusion: The Woodburn Planning Commission and planning division staff must i s adhere to and require conformance with the WDO, and must not grant approval for any i9 development or use which violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards zo imposed to carry out the WDO. TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE Section Decision I II III IV V A eal 5.103.02 Design Review for All Structures 1000/2000 Sq. Ft. OR MORE • zi zz The Woodburn Planning Commission shall render all Type III decisions. A Type z3 IIl is appealable to the City Council. [WDO 4.1O1.10.CJ za All City decision-making bodies have the authority to impose conditions of approval zs reasonably related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that zb all applicable approval standards are, or can be, met on Type II, III and IV z~ decisions EXCEPT annexation. All conditions of approval shall be clear and za objective or if the condition requires discretion shall provide for a subsequent z9 opportunity for a public hearing. [WDO 4.101.15.AJ 3o FindinQS: Design Reviews for "all structures 1000/2000 square feet or more" are Type III 3 i decisions. The Woodburn Planning Commission is the City decision-maker with 3z authority to render Type III decisions. 33 Conclusion: The Woodburn Planning Commission has "the authority to impose 34 conditions of approval reasonably related to impacts caused by the development." 35 36 C:ID000ME-1lbobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 39 I WDO 2.105 Commercia[ Office (CO) District Standards 3 The following uses, when developed under the applicable development standards of a the WDO, are permitted in the CO zone ...Ambulatory Health Services (621) [WDO s 2.105.O1.I.1] 6 Findings: The applicant is proposing amedical/professional building. ~ Conclusion: The proposed use of the property is permitted in the CO district. e Lots in a CO zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1.8. [WDO l0 2.105.O5.A] TABLE 2.1.8 Lot Standards in a CO Zone A. In a CO zone the lot area for anon-residential use shall be adequate to contain all structures within the required setbacks. There shall be no minimum width or depth. I i Findings: The lot area of the property is adequate to contain the medical/professional Iz building within the required setbacks 13 Conclusion: The proposed development meets the requirement of WDO 2.1 OS.OS.A. 14 I s The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. [WDO 2.105.05.B] 16 Finding: The submitted application packet contained architectural elevation drawings that I~ showed a height of approximately 18 feet for the proposed office building. la Conclusion: The submitted building height elevation drawings proposed by the applicant 19 would comply with WDO 2. l 05.O5.B. The maximum height of any building shall not zo exceed 35 feet in accordance with WDO 2.l 05.O5.B. zl z2 The minimum setback abutting a street shall be 15 feet plus any Special Setback, z3 Section 3.103.05. [WDO 2.105.06.C.1.a.1] za Findings: Pursuant to WDO 3.103.05, Highway 214 is classified in the WTSP as a Major zs Arterial with a 50 foot special setback. The site plan shows all portions of the proposed zb building to be greater than b5 feet from the centerline of Highway 214 and greater than z~ 20 feet from the property line. zs Conclusion: The proposed medical professional building as submitted would meet z9 setback standards as defined in the WDO 3.103.05 and WDO 2.1 OS.OS.C.I.a.l. 30 31 Off street parking, maneuvering and storage shall be prohibited within a required 3z setback EXCEPT for parking, maneuvering and storage adjacent to a wall. [WDO 33 2.105.O5.C.l.b.1] 3a Findings: The minimum setback abutting Highway 214 is 20 feet from the property line. 3s The site plan shows no off-street parking or storage located within the required yard or 36 special setback. C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-11Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHISIT A Council 2.doc 2 40 - Conclusion: The proposed development meets the requirements of WDO z 2.105.O5.C.l.b.1. 3 The entrance to a garage shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet for the closest edge a of a shared driveway and 20 feet from the street right of way line. [WDO s 2.105.05.C.1.b.2] b Fi dingy: No garages are proposed in conjunction with the medical/professional building. ~ Conclusion: The development meets the requirements of WDO 2.l 05.O5.C.l.b.2. s 9 Development in a CO zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements -o of Table 2.1.9. [WDO 2.105.O5.C.2.a] -- TABLE 2.1.9 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for Non- Residential Uses in CO Zones Abuttin Pro Landsca 'n Wall Interior Setback R3, R13, or RM zone All interior yards shall be Solid brick or architectural 10 it. fully landscaped subject to wall with anti-graffiti Section 3.106. surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. -z Findin s: The abutting property to the north and east aze single family homes in Senior -3 Estates and are zoned Retirement Community Single Family Residential (RIS). Table -a 2.1.9 requires interior setback of 10 feet and a solid brick or architectural wall, no less -s than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. The proposed building is setback 10 feet from -6 the abutting property lines. The site plan shows 6' masonry buffer walls along the north -~ and east property lines. Solid brick or architectural walls would be required to mitigate -a adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. -9 Conclusion: The City Council imposed an additional condition as follows: zo z- "The property owner shall install a solid brick or azchitectural wall with anti- zz graffiti surface 7 feet in height, along the entire length of the north and east z3 property lines, in accordance with Table 2.1.7." za zs Common refuse collection facilities shall be screened on all sides by an architectural zb block wall and solid gate, both with an anti-graffiti surface, a minimum of six feet, z~ and a maximum of seven feet in height. [WDO 2.105.06.F.3] zs Findin :The site plan shows a trash enclosure will be located near the eastern side of the z9 proposed building. The proposed enclosure will be 6 feet in height, and would be 3o designed and constructed with an architectural block wall and screened on all sides. A 3- detailed construction drawing depicting the layout and construction materials for the trash 3z enclosure was submitted as part of this application. 33 Conclusion: The development complies with WDO 2.110.07.F.3. 34 35 C:\DOCUME-1\dianetr\LOCALS-11Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 3 41 WDO 3.102 Utilities and Easements 3 Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities shall be installed to a applicable Public Works Department and state standards. [WDO 3.102.01] 6 Findings: The applicant submitted a utility plan showing the water, sanitary sewer, and ~ storm drainage facilities. The plan was reviewed by Woodburn Public Works staff. 9 Conclusion: Compliance with applicable standards will be verified by the Public Works io Department. i~ 12 13 All permanent utility service to development shall be underground EXCEPT where ~a overhead high-voltage electric facilities exist and for partitioned lots that are is currently served by overhead wires or cables. [WDO 3.102.02] 16 i~ Findings: The site plan shows proposed underground utilities. is Conclusion: The proposed development would comply with WDO 3.102.02. The 19 property owner shall install underground utilities for the proposed development. zo zi Public streets abutting development shall be illuminated with street lights installed zz to the standards of the Public Works Department and the electric utility. [WDO z3 3,102.03] za zs Findings: The abutting public street is Newberg Highway. The utility plan submitted by z6 the applicant does not include street lights. z~ Conclusion: The Newberg Highway is a state facility regulated by the Oregon zs Department of Transportation (ODOT). 29 3o The Public Works Department shall require dedication of specific easements for the 31 construction and maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage 3z facilities located on private property shall be required in accordance with the Public 33 Works Department standards. (WDO 3.102.04.A] 34 3s Findin :The dedication of the required easements will be coordinated by the Public 36 Works Department in conjunction with the establishment of any necessary facilities on 37 private property. 3s Conclusion: The property owner shall dedicate easements for the construction and 39 maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities, in accordance ao with WDO 3.102.04.A. a~ az Five foot wide public utility easements (i.e., easements for natural gas lines and for a3 electric and telecommunications wire or cable service) shall be dedicated along each as lot line abutting a public street. [WDO 3.102.04.B] 45 C:\DOCUME-1\dianetrlLOCALS-1\TempV(Pgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 4 42 i Findings: The dedication of the required easements will be coordinated by the Public z Works Department. Additional right-of--way will be acquired by ODOT for the widening 3 of Highway 214. a Conclusions: The property owner shall dedicate a public utility easement along the s property line abutting a public street, in accordance with WDO 3.102.04.B. The property 6 owner shall coordinate the location of the easements with the Woodbum Public Works ~ Department. 8 9 WDO 3.103 Setback Open Space & Lots io i i Special Street Setbacks by street classification are established in Table 3.1.1 ~2 The special setback shall apply to streets within the City of Woodburn as l3 functionally classified in the Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan (WTSP). is [WDO 3.103.OS.D] is ib TABLE 3.1.1: SPECIAL SETBACK STANDARDS BY STREET ~~ CLASSIFICATION WTSP Functional Classification Special setback from center line Major Arterial 50 feet 18 i9 Findin : The site plan shows that the special setback will encroach 5 feet into the lot. In zo addition to the special setback requirement of 50 feet, a minimum of 15 feet is required 2 i because it is abutting a street. The proposed medical/professional building and associated zz parking is set back greater than 65 feet from the centerline of Highway 214. Highway 23 214 is classified as a Major Arterial in the WTSP. Za Conclusion: The revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with the standard is of the WDO 3.103.OS.D. 26 2~ Parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback adjacent to a is street, EXCEPT for parking in driveways (WDO 3.103.06] 29 3o Findin :All 32 proposed parking spaces and the one required loading space are located 3i on the site plan outside of the setback adjacent to the street. 32 33 Conclusion: The proposed medical/professional building and parking complies with the 3a WDO 3.103.06. 35 36 A vision clearance area is an area at the intersection of two streets, a street and 37 driveway or a street and alley in which visual obstructions are limited for safety 3s purpose. [WDO 3.103.10] 39 C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\TempUCPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 43 Vision C'le~rance Area: Street to Driveway pr~,petcy liar // curt+ line II I'..•~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 Iz 13 la Is 16 17 Is 19 20 21 zz 23 za zs 26 27 ~i~~ ., I, .~ ~I a 0 e a B 0 0 a Findin : 'The clear vision area for intersection of Highway 214 and the driveway access to the site would comply. No obstructions are shown on the proposed site plan. Conclusion: The applicant demonstrated compliance with the vision clearance area requirements as stipulated under the WDO 3.103.10. WDO 3.104 Access Access to a transportation facility under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) shall be subject to the requirements of OAR 734-051 [WDO 3.104.O1.B.4] Findings: The ingress and egress for the project is proposed to be on Highway 214 which is an ODOT facility. Information was not provided with the application in reference to ODOT approval of access to Highway 214. Conclusion: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in accordance with OAR 734-051 regulates access, street improvement requirements to the Boundary Street, State Highway 214, and Newberg Highway. Paved Two-Way Driveway: 1. With no turn lane: Throat and travel lane width 26 feet minimum, 36 feet maximum. [WDO 3.104.OS.E.l.b.1] Findings: The site plan does not call out the width of the driveway, but the submitted site plan shows it to be approximately 26 feet at the widest point for the throat and travel lane. The width is not uniform the entire length of the driveway. C:\DOCUME-1\bobshlLOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwiselEXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 6 44 i Conclusion: The site plan does not show the travel lane to be 26 feet wide the entire 2 length. The throat and travel lane width of the drive aisle may comply with WDO 3 3.104.OS.E.I.b.l. a s Radius of Curb Flare: 30 feet minimum. (WDO 3.104.05.E.2] 6 Finding: The site plan shows the curb flare to be greater than 30 feet. ~ Conclusion: The development complies with WDO 3.104.OS.E.2. s 9 Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loading io space to the outside edge of right-of--way fora: Major street connection: 50 feet i ~ minimum, greater improvement as may 6e required by the TIA. [WDO ~z 3.104.05.E.4.b( ~ 3 Findin s: The site plan calls out a 50 foot throat length for the proposed driveway. is Conclusion: The site plan complies with WDO 3.104.OS.E.4.b. is ~6 Turn grounds shall be required within the off street parking area(s) and/or as i~ specific circulation features, to Department of Public Works requirements based on i s the review of the Fire District. [WDO 3.104.05.E.5] i9 Findin :The Department of Public Works and the Fire District have provided options to Zo the applicant to eliminate the requirement for the turn around. zi Conclusion: The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with WDO 3.104.OS.E.S or one zz of the alternatives approved by Public Works and the Fire District prior to the issuance of z3 building permits. za zs WDO 3.105 Off Street Parking and Loading 26 z~ Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements. is 1. Off street vehicle, parkutg spaces shall be provided in amounts not less than z9 those set forth in Table 3.1.2. 30 2. Off street vehicle parking spaces shall not exceed 2.0 times the amount 3 i required in Table 3.1.2. [WDO 3.105.02.E] TABLE 3.1.2 Off Street Parking Ratio Standards Parking Ratio -spaces per activity unit or Use square feet of gross floor area (sfgfa) 52. Ambulatory health services 1.0/250 sfgfa [including doctors and dentists] (722) 32 33 Findinfs: The proposed office building contains 7,992 square feet of gross floor area, 3a requiring 32 parking spaces. The site plan shows 32 parking spaces. C:\DOCUME-llbobshlLOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 7 45 ~ Conclusion: The proposed parking spaces for the proposed medicaUprofessional building z meets the requirements of WDO 3.IOS.OI.E.2 and Table 3.1.2. a The number of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shall be provided to the s standards of the state Building Code and applicable federal standards. The number 6 of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shall be included as part of total required ~ vehicle parking spaces. (WDO 3.105.02.E.3] 9 The number of accessible parking spaces shall be: Total Parking In Lot Required Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces 26 to 50 2 ~o [ORS 447.233(2)(a)] i i In addition, one in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall be van iz accessible. [ORS 447.233(2)(b)] 13 Off street parking for disabled persons shall be designed to the standards of the ~a state Building Code and applicable federal standards. [WDO 3.105.O1.H.4.c] is A van accessible parking space shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an ib adjacent access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(b)] i~ Accessible parking spaces shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an adjacent is access aisle that is at least six feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(c)] i9 A sign shall be posted for each accessible parking space. The sign shall be clearly zo visible to a person parking in the space, shall be marked with the International zi Symbol of Access and shall indicate that the spaces are reserved for persons with zz disabled person parking permits. Van accessible parking spaces shall have an z3 additional sign marked "Van Accessible" mounted below the sign. [OR5 za 447.233(2)(e)] zs Findings: For the required 32 total off-street parking spaces, the proposed development zb requires 2 disabled person vehicle parking, including at least one van-accessible space. z~ The site plan shows 2 disabled person vehicle spaces, one of which is van accessible. zs Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3. l 05.O1.E.3, z9 WDO 3. l 05.0 l .H.4.c, Section 1104 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code and ORS 30 447.233. 3l 3z A maximum of 20 percent of the required vehicle parking spaces may be satisfied by 33 compact vehicle parking spaces. [WDO 3.105.02.FJ 3a FindinQS: The proposed medical/professional building requires 32 parking spaces. The 3s site plan shows 22 regular parking spaces, 2 accessible spaces, and 7 compact spaces. 36 Twenty percent of 32 is 6.4 maximum compact spaces. The site plan shows 7 compact 37 spaces. 38 Conclusion: The proposed development would not meet the criteria of WDO 3.105.02.F. 39 C:ID000ME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 8 46 Off street loading spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards and amounts not less than those set forth in Table 3.1.3. [WDO 3.105.02.G.1] TABLE 3.1.3 Loading Space Requirements Minimum Size of S ace Use Minimum No. of Spaces Width Length Height For buildings used entirely for office occupancy (sq. ft. gfa) 2,000-41,999 1 12 feet 20 feet 14 feet 3 Finding: The proposed office building contains 7,992 square feet of gross floor area, a requiring oneloading space. The site plan shows one loading space that meets the s minimum size and space requirements. e Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3.105.02.G.1 and ~ Table 3.1.3. s 9 Off street vehicle parking spaces and maneuvering areas, EXCEPT those for single to family and duplex dwellings and those for disabled persons, within off street I I parking areas shall be designed in compliance with Table 3.1.4. Three or more off Iz street parking spaces provided subject to Table 3.1.4 shall be designed so that no 13 backing or maneuvering within a public street right-of--way is required. [WDO la 3.105.02.H.4.a] IS 16 TABLE 3.1.4 Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions (See Figure 6.10) Aisle Type Width (Measured from the Curb 1-Way 2-Way Stall Depth midpoint of the double Length Aisle Aisle stripe) Width Width (F) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) Standard 8.0 feet 22.5 feet 12.0 feet 24.0 feet 8.0 feet (Parall el) Standard 9.0 feet 9.0 feet 24.0 feet 24.0 feet 19.0 feet Compact 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 22.0 feet 24.0 feet 15.0 feet C:\DOCUME-1lbobsh\LOCALS-1 \Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT ACouncil 2.doc 47 ~ FindinQS: The site plan shows 16 standard 90 degree parking spaces with dimensions of 9 z feet wide and 19 feet deep. The site plan show 7 compact 90 degree parking spaces with 3 dimensions of 7.5 feet wide and 15 feet deep. The site plan also shows 4 parallel a standard parking spaces with dimensions of 8 feet wide and a curb length of 22.5 feet. s The proposed parking spaces include two ADA parking spaces. 6 The site plan shows at least 24-foot wide drive aisles in all places along the circulation ~ pattern of the proposal. There would no backing or maneuvering required within a public s street right-of--way as indicated by the submitted site plan. 9 Conclusion: The development complies with WDO 3.105.02.H.4 and Table 3.1.4. ~o i i Off street parking and maneuvering areas shall have directional markings and signs iz to control vehicle movement. [WDO 3.105.02.H.5] i3 Findinas: The site plan does not show directional markings for traffic/vehicle control is movements proposed for the parking and maneuvering areas. i s Conclusion: The site plan does not show directional markings in accordance with WDO ie 3.105.02.H.5. i~ i s Off street parking spaces shall be delineated by double parallel lines on each side of a9 a space. The total width of the Lines shall delineate a separation of 2 feet. [WDO zo 3.1O5.OZ.H.6] zi Findinas: The proposed parking spaces are delineated by double lines. The site plan zz shows double parallel lines. z3 Conclusion: The site plan complies with WDO 3.105.02.H.6. 2a zs All outdoor lighting shall be designed so as not to shine or reflect into any adjacent zb residentially zoned or used property, and shall not cast a glare onto moving vehicles z~ on any public street. [WDO 3.105.02.H.8] zs All outdoor lighting shall be designed so that: z9 a. Parking areas are evenly illuminated at ground level at one foot candle; 3o b. Entrance and loading areas are illuminated at ground level of two foot 3 i candles; 3z c. Illumination does not shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned 33 or used property; and 34 d. Lighting does not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any public street. 3s [WDO 3.107.06.F.2] 36 Findinas: The site plan is void of a lighting plan for the proposed medical/professional 37 building. The proposal would be required to submit a lighting plan that addresses 38 lighting standards for parking areas and the entrance to the subject property. 39 Conclusion: The site plan or utility plan does not show proposed outdoor lighting. A ao condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to submit a lighting plan a~ demonstrating compliance with the standards of WDO 3.105.02.H.8 and the guidelines az and standards of WDO 3.107.08.B.3. C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 10 48 I z All uses required to provide 10 or more off street parking spaces shall provide a 3 bicycle rack within 50 feet of the main entrance. The number of required rack a spaces shall be one plus one per ten vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 20 s rack spaces. [WDO 3.105.02.H.10] e Findin s: The proposed development requires 32 off-street parking spaces. This yields a ~ requirement of four bicycle rack spaces. The site plan shows 4 bicycle rack spaces. s Conclusion: The proposed development meet the standards of WDO 3.105.02.H.10. -o WDO 3.106 Landscaping Standards -z The provisions of this section shall apply: -3 A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING -a single-family and duplex dwellings and accessory structures; [WDO -s 3.106.01] -~ B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of -~ additions to structures and/or parking areas increases the total area -a covered by structure and parking by 50 percent or more than existed at the -9 date of the WDO adoption. [WDO 3.106.01] zo z- Findin s: This proposal for a new medical/professional building consists of a new zz structure, parking spaces, and accessory structure (trash enclosure). The proposal does z3 not consist ofsingle-family dwellings, and duplexes. The proposed development does not za involve additions to structures and/or parking spaces. The proposal generates a parking zs requirement of 32off-street parking spaces. zb Conclusion: The development is subject to WDO 3.106 under 3.106.O1.A. as the z~ proposed building is a new structure. WDO 3.106.O1.B does not apply as the proposed za medical/professional building is not an addition to a structure. The proposed z9 medical/professional building and related parking is subject to WDO Section 3.106.01. 3o Landscaping and Irrigation Plans Required. Building plans for all uses subject to 3- landscaping requirements shall be accompanied by landscaping and irrigation plans 3z to City standards. (WDO 3.106.02.A] 33 Findings: The submitted Design Review application packet submitted by the applicant 34 contained a landscaping plan. The City of Woodburn planning staff reviewed the 3s landscape plans for compliance with WDO Section 3.106. 36 All required landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated unless a planting plan 37 without Irrigation is submitted by a licensed landscape architect or licensed nursery 38 person demonstrating that the proposed landscaping will thrive without irrigation. 39 [WDO 3.106.02.B] ao Findin :The submitted landscape plan contains notes that the turf and planting beds will a- be fully irrigated. The notes also state that the irrigation system will be designed and az installed by a licensed commercial irrigation contractor. C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 11 49 z Conclusion: A condition of approval would require the applicant to submit an irrigation 3 plan that complies with WDO 3.106.02.B, prior to the issuance of building permits. The a proposal would demonstrate compliance with WDO 3.106.02.B. 6 All shrubs and ground cover shall be of a size upon installation so as to attain 80% ~ of ground coverage within 3 years. [WDO 3.106.02.C] 9 Findin :The applicant provided plantings matrix for the proposed landscaping areas. Io T'he matrix provides information plant sizes and names. Cursory analysis of the proposed I I plants show that the proposal is capable of providing at least 80 percent ground cover in Iz three years. I3 Ia Conclusion: The proposed development would comply with WDO 3.106.02.C. Is I6 Installation of plant materials and irrigation specified in an approved landscaping I~ plan shall occur at the time of development and shall be a conditioned of final Is occupancy. Should the site conditions or seasonal conditions make immediate I9 installation impractical, an acceptable performance guarantee may be approved zo subject to Section 4.102.17 [WDO 3.106.02.D] 21 zz Findin s: The proposal did not provide legal guarantees such as performance bond for z3 when the landscape plants become unhealthy. A performance guarantee or some legal 2a document may be required as part of this code section requirement. 25 zb Conclusion: This criterion is unfulfilled. z~ 2s The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping in good 29 condition so as to present a healthy and orderly appearance. Unhealthy and dead 3o plants shall be removed and replaced in conformance with the original landscape 31 plans. [WDO 3.106.02.D] 32 33 Findings: The submitted landscape plan does not provide information regarding the 3a maintenance of the landscape. 3s 36 Conclusion: Information regarding the maintenance of the landscape was not provided in 37 the application. A condition could be added to the approval requiring the landscaping to 3R be maintain in good condition in compliance with WDO 3.106.02.E. 39 ao Street Trees. Within the public street right-of--way abutting a development, street aI trees shall be planted to City standards prior to final occupancy. a2 a. Acceptable Types of Trees. See Section 6.103 for a description of acceptable a3 and unacceptable trees for this purpose, classified by size and species. as b. Tree Density. Trees shall be planted at the following intervals within the as right-of--way, subject to Clear Vision Area standards, Section 3.103.10 and ab Section 6.103: C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 12 50 i 1) Four (4) small trees per 100 feet of street frontage; z 2) Three (3) medium trees per 100 feet of street frontage; or 3 3) Two (2) large trees per 100 feet of street frontage. [WDO 3.106.03.A.1j a Findings: The submitted site plans does not show proposed street trees in the public right- s of-way. The proposed development has approximately 500 feet of street frontage. 6 ~ Conclusion: The applicant does not meet this criteria, pursuant to WDO Section s 3.106.03.A.1. A condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to 9 provide 20 small trees, 15 medium trees, or 10 large trees, subject to Clear Vision io Standards, Section 3.103.10 and Section 6.103. ii for 1.11~~ R/.~. ~ i/Y1L~A~Ls Yom. R p ~ ~_ r /~ R.tA _ ~ ~ ~~ 6uN..o~rJ6 V u vsrw.~a r ` FICONT ~ •-•_-~-~ ~ Y/~Ia V ~ ~TaI-GR LINK ~.~ ~ ~ ~G.... ~ . IrRONT LOT ~r ~ ~ . . ~ ~~ ~L.... S T R. ~ sir T IZ . O . W Figure 6.3 Setbacks and Yards iz All yards abutting a street, including off street parking and circulation areas shall i 3 be landscaped at a density of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 20 sq. ft. [WDO is 3.106.03.A.2.b.1] is FindinQS: The site plan shows that the front yard contains approximately 33,769 square :e feet. A total of 1,688 (33,769 divided by 20 = 1,688) plant units would be required to ~ ~ achieve a density of 1 plant unit per 20 square feet. Almost the entire lot except the i s building footprint and the azea behind the building is the front yard. There is a proposed i 9 20 wide landscape strip between the property line and the parking area. Two large zo triangular shaped planting areas on the sides of the property between the parking area, zi road, and buffer walls. There are also several small planters in and azound the parking zz area. The submitted landscape plan shows the total proposed plant units for the front z3 yard to be approximately 778 plant units leaving the development short 910 plant units of za the required 1,688 plant units. zs Conclusion: The landscape plans does not show the minimum required plant units. A C:ID000ME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-11TempUCPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 13 51 i condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to provide 1,668 plant z units in the front yard. By providing the required plant units in the front yazd and parking 3 lot landscape areas, the project could meet the standard of WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.1. s All parking areas abutting a street shall provide a 42-inch vertical visual screen e from the abutting street grade. Acceptable design techniques to provide the ~ screening include plant materials; berms; freestanding, architectural walls with an s anti-graffiti finish, depressed grade for the parking area. All screening shall comply 9 with the clear vision standards, Section 3.103.10. [WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.2] ~o Findings: The submitted landscape plan shows a 42-inch vertical visual screen in the i ~ form of a 42-inch grass berm from measured from the parking lot. iz Conclusion: The proposal could comply with WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.2. 13 is Buffer Yards: All buffer yards shall be landscaped at the rate of one (1) plant unit is (PU) per 20 sq. ft. EXCEPT for interior buffer yards abutting a wall which are ib paved and which may be used for parking, site access and vehicular circulation. i~ [WDO 3.106.03.B] is Findings: The adjacent properties are Retirement Community Single Family Residential 19 (RIS) making the area between the structure and the property line buffer yards. Walls are zo proposed between the structure and the property line. The buffer yard would not be zi required to be landscaped if it is paved. The site plan does not call out the proposed z2 surface material for the buffer yards. z3 Conclusion: The site plan does not identify the surface material for the buffer yards. The za applicant shall pave or landscape the buffer yards in accordance with WDO 3.103.03.B. zs zb All unpaved land within off street parking areas, and within 20 feet of the paved z~ edge of off street parking and/or circulation improvements, shall be landscaped in zs the following proportions: CO zones: Landscaped area(s) equivalent to 20% of the z9 paved surface area for off street parking and circulation. [WDO 3.106.03.C.1.a] 3o Findin s: The total area for parking and circulation is 15,175 square feet, with twenty 3i percent of paved parking azea being 3,035 square feet. The submitted landscape plan 3z show the area landscaping in and within 20 feet of the pazking area to be greater than 33 5,000 square feet. 3a Conclusion: The applicant submitted a landscape plan that addresses landscaping within 3s the parking and circulation areas. The proposal meets WDO 3.106.03.C.1.a. 36 37 The density of landscaping required in and adjacent to off-street parking and 38 circulation facilities, EXCLUDING required trees, shall be one (1) plant unit per 20 39 square feet. [WDO 3.106.03.C.2] ao Findings: The submittal contained a landscape plan and a matrix for plant species. The a~ minimum plant units required is 607 plant units excluding the required trees. The az submitted landscape plan does not show the minimum required plant units. C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1 \TempUCPgrpwise\EXHIBIT ACouncil 2.doc 14 52 i Conclusion: The landscape plan does not show the required plan units for off-street z parking and circulation facilities. A condition could be added to the permit requiring the 3 applicant to submit a landscaping plan demonstrating conformance with WDO a 3.106.03.C.2. 6 Trees, Section 6.103, shall be planted within and abutting off street parking facilities ~ in a pattern that is in proportion to the distribution of the parking spaces, at the s following densities: 9 a. 1 small tree per 5 parking spaces; i o b. 1 medium tree per 10 parking spaces; or i i c. 1 large tree per 14 parking spaces. [WDO 3.106.03.C.3] iz Multi-Purpose Landscaping. Trees and other required landscaping located on i3 private property within a required setback abutting a street or an interior lot line is that is within 20 feet of the paved surface of off street parking and circulation i s facilities, may also be counted in calculating required landscaping for off street ib parking and circulation areas. [WDO 3.106.03.C.4] i~ FindinQS: The development requires 32 off-street pazking spaces. The submittal is landscape plan shows 4 medium trees within 20 feet of the paved surface. i9 Conclusion: The proposal meets the criteria of WDO 3.106.03.C.4. zo zi The entire yard area of a property, EXCLUDING areas subject to more intensive zz landscaping requirements shall be landscaped to a standard of at least one (1) plant z3 unit (PU) per 50 square feet prior to final occupancy. [WDO 3.106.03.E] za Findings: The entire property is structure, front yard, or buffer yard. zs Conclusion: There are no areas on the site that fall under this criterion. The proposed zb development complies with the WDO3.106.3.E z~ zs Landscaped areas that are not covered by plant materials shall be covered by a z9 layer of bark mulch or decorative rock, EXCLUDING ordinary crushed gravel, a 3o minimum of 2 inches in depth. [WDO 3.106.OS.B] 3i Findina: The submitted landscaped plan does not show that the applicant will cover non- 32 vegetated areas with mulch. 33 Conclusion: The site plan does not show mulch covering non-vegetated areas. A 3a condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to submit a plan showing 3s mulch covering non-vegetated areas compiling with WDO 3.106.OS.B. 36 37 A six-inch concrete curb shall be provided between a landscaped area and a parking 3s area or access way. [WDO 3.106.05.C] 39 Findina: The submitted site plan indicates that the project would provide a six inch curb ao between landscaped azeas and the parking spaces. Virtually all the landscape areas a i depicted on the landscape plan have a 6-inch curb wedged between the vegetation and the az parking spaces. C:\DOCUME-1\bobshlLOCALS-1\TempU(Pgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 15 53 i Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3.106.OS.C. a WDO 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards 6 The following design guidelines shall be applicable to all non-residential structures ~ and buildings in the RS, R1S, RM, CO, CG and P zones. [WDO 3.107.06.A] a Finding: The proposed would be anon-residential retail structure in the CO zone. The 9 submitted application packet contained architectural elevation drawings to enable staff io review. i i Conclusion: The proposed development is subject to the Architectural Design Guidelines iz and Standards of WDO 3.107. The criteria would be met. {3 ~a Building facades visible from streets and public parking areas should be articulated ~s in order to avoid the appearance of box-like structures with unbroken wall surfaces. ib (WDO 3.107.06.B.1.a] i ~ Finding: The proposed building would be oriented towards Highway 214. The submitted i s application packet contained architectural elevation drawings and renderings depicting i9 how the design would comply with the WDO. The proposed building facade shows a zo projecting entry, different building materials and textures, and an overall L shape to break zi up the box-like appearance of the proposed building. zz Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.1.a. 23 za The appearance of exterior walls should be enhanced by incorporating three zs dimensional design features, including the following: zb 1) Public doorways and/or passage ways through the building. z~ 2) Wall offsets and/or projections. za 3) Variation in building materials and/or textures. z9 4) Arcades, awnings, canopies and/or porches. [WDO 3.107.06.B.1.b] 3o Findings: The proposed exterior wall facing the street is varied with a projecting porch 3 i entry and an L shape that from different angles can appear as a wall off-set. It also 3z contains variations in building materials including windows, cultured stone veneer and 33 cement stucco. The north and east facing wall abut the proposed 6 ft. wall and will not be 3a visible from the right of way or adjacent properties. 35 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.1.b. 36 37 Building exteriors should exhibit finishes and textures that reduce the visual 3a monotony of bulky structures and large structural spaces; enhance visual interest of 39 wall surfaces and harmonize with the structural design. (WDO 3.107.06.B.2.a] ao Findings: The submitted architectural elevation drawings show exterior wall featuring use ai of windows along Highway 214. The exterior would have stucco finish on the upper C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\TemplXPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 16 54 i portion of the structure and a cultured stone veneer on the lower portion of the structure. z The exterior is enhanced with a projected entry. 3 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.2.a. s The appearance of exterior surfaces should be enhanced by incorporating the 6 following: ~ 1) At least 30% of the wall surface abutting a street should be glass. a 2) All walls visible from a street or public parking area should be surfaced 9 with wood, brick, stone, designer block, or stucco or with siding that has the io appearance of wood lap siding. i i 3) The use of plain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, plywood, iz T-111 and sheet composite siding as exterior finish materials for walls i 3 visible from s street or parking area should be avoided. i a 4) The color of at least 90 percent of the wall, roof, and awning surface visible i s from a street or public parking area should be an "earth tone" color i 6 containing 10 parts or more of brown or a "tinted" color containing 10 i ~ parts or more white. Fluorescent, "day-glo," or any similar bright color ~ a should not be used on the building exterior. [WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b] i9 Findings: The submitted site plan shows the main entrance elevation from Highway 214. zo The elevation drawings show: z i 1. The facade facing Mt. Hood Avenue contains windows which appear to total zz approximately 420 square feet, or approximately 30% of the facade area. No z3 calculations were provided on the plans. za 2. All buildings facades are finished with stucco and cultured stone veneer. zs 3. The facades do not contain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, ze plywood, T-111 and sheet composite siding. z~ 4. No information was provided on the color of the stucco. The submittal mention by za the applicant was for a canceled land use application. The drawings are not on z9 file with the Community Development Department and the applicant did not 3o resubmit the drawing. 3 i Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guidelines of WDO 3z 3.107.06.B.2.b (2) and (3); and could meet the guidelines of WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b (1) 33 and (4). 34 3s Multi-planed Roof Guidelines. 36 a. The roof line at the top of a structure should establish a distinctive top to 37 the building. 3a b. The roof line should not be flat or hold the same roof line over extended 39 distances. Rather the roof line should incorporate variations, such as: an 1) Offsets and/or jogs in the plane of the roof. C:\D000ME-1\bobshlLOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 17 55 ~ 2) Changes in the height of the exterior wall for flat roof buildings, z including parapet walls with variations in elevation and/or cornices. 3 [WDO 3.107.06.8.3] a Findings: The submitted site plan shows the main entrance elevation. It shows a gabled s entry and hipped roofline which provides off sets in the plane of the roof. 6 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.8.3. a All roof mounted equipment, EXCEPT solar collectors, should be screened from e view from streets abutting the building site. [WDO 3.107.06.8.4] io Findin :The applicant stated that no roof-mounted equipment is proposed and none is ~ i shown of the submitted building elevations. iz Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.8.4. 13 is All building faces abutting a street or a public parking area should provide weather is protection for pedestrians. [WDO 3.107.06.8.5] ib Findings: The proposed building elevation plans show an overhang over the front i~ walkways of the building adjacent to the parking lot. It also shows the a covered gabled i a entry. ie Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.8.5. zo zi The landscaping required by the standards of the WDO should be augmented to zz address site specific visual impacts of abutting uses and the visual character of the z3 surrounding area. [WDO 3.107.06.8.6] za Findin :The applicant submitted a landscape plan. The applicant is proposing a single zs story structure and 6 foot high buffer walls between the structure and the abutting uses. zb The entire site, excluding the structures, paved parking and access, is required to be zz landscaped at the rate of one plant unit per 20 square feet. The submitted landscape plan zs does meet the requirements for the minimum plant units. z9 Conclusion: The proposed development does not meet the guideline of WDO 30 3.107.06.8.6. 31 32 Buffer Wall. A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less 33 than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height: 3a a. Should be constructed on the perimeter property line of non-residential 35 development to mitigate adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the 36 abutting use when no comparable buffer exists, and 37 b. Shall be constructed where the standards of the underlying zone require 3a such a wall for anon-residential use in, or abutting, a RS, R1S, or RM 39 zoning district. WDO 3.107.06.8.8] ao Findings: The abutting properties are zoned R1S, and developed with single family ai homes. A 6 foot high masonry wall is proposed to be constructed along the property lines az to the north and east where the property is abutting the residential use. 43 C:\DOCUME-1lbobsh\LOCALS'1 \TemplXPgrpwise\EXHIBIT ACouncil 2.doc 18 56 i Conclusion: The proposed development does meet with the guidelines of WDO 2 3.107.06.B.8. a Obstruction of existing solar collectors on abutting properties by site development s should be mitigated. [WDO 3.107.06.8.10] 6 Findin s: A site inspection showed no existing solar collectors on abutting properties. ~ Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.10. 9 Site and Building Access Guidelines. io 1. Access to and from the site and circulation within the site should separate ~ i facilities for cars, trucks and transit from those for bicycles and pedestrians. ~z 2. Site access in compliance with Section 3.104 should be augmented by the i3 following considerations: is a. Vehicle Access. i s 1) Vehicle access points should be identified by accentuated ie landscaped areas, by entrance throats designed to control access » from abutting parking and by monument type entrance signs. i s b. Pedestrian Access and Circulation. i 9 1) The buildings should be linked to the sidewalks on abutting 20 streets by internal pedestrian ways. Such pedestrian ways z i should be either raised or delineated by distinctive pavers. 22 2) Parking areas should be designed in multiples of no more than z3 50 spaces separated by landscaped buffers or raised pedestrian 2a ways in order to minimize negative visual impacts associated zs with expansive parking. [WDO 3.107.06.C] 26 2~ Findinas: The site plan shows a separate pedestrian access path from the sidewalk to the za entrance of the proposed building delineated with enhanced paving where it crosses the i9 internal drives and raised sidewalks adjacent to the building. The parking area contains 30 less than 50 spaces. The site plan show vehicular access with a 50 foot long throat. No 31 signs have been proposed in the application. 3i Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.C. 33 3a Within the prescribed setbacks, building location and orientation should 3s compliment abutting uses and development patterns. [WDO 3.107.Ob.D.1] 36 Findinas: The abutting uses are single family residential structures along Highway 214. 37 The site plan shows the building footprint to be located out of the setbacks, leaving a 3a large front yard area with landscaping and pazking abutting Highway 214. 39 Conclusion: The building is located outside of the prescribed setbacks. The project ao conforms with WD0.3.107.06.D.1. at C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-11TempUCPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 19 57 I Off street parking between the architectural front of a building and the setback line z abutting street should be limited to a depth of not more than 130 feet. [WDO 3 3.107.06.EJ a Findings: The site plan shows approximately 87 between the setback line abutting the s street and the architectural front of the proposed building. 6 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.E. s Outdoor Lighting Standards. All outdoor Lighting shall be designed so that: v a. Parking areas are evenly illuminated at ground level at one foot candle; to b. Entrance and loading areas are illuminated at ground level of two foot I ~ candles; IZ c. Illumination does not shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned I3 or used property; and la d. Lighting does not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any public street. Is [WDO 3.107.06.F.2] 16 17 Findings: No outdoor lighting plan was submitted. Is 19 Conclusion: The proposed development does not meet the guideline of WDO zo 3.107.06.F.2. A condition of approval could be added to require the project to comply zl with WDO 3.107.06.F.2. z2 z3 Outdoor storage, when permitted, shall be screened from the view of abutting za streets by a solid brick or architectural block wall not less than 6, nor more than 9 zs feet in height. [WDO 3.107.06.F.1J zb Findin :The site plan shows the trash enclosure as the only proposed outdoor storage. z~ Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.F.1. zs z9 WDO 3.110 Signs 30 3I Section 3.110 states the standards for the number, size, placement, and physical 3z characteristics of signs. This section applies to signs in all zoning districts within the 33 City of Woodburn. Other regulations of the City Code my also apply to signs. 3a [WDO 3.110.02] 35 36 Findings: The applicant did not submit any information regarding proposed signs for the 3'1 development. 38 39 Conclusion: Compliance with WDO 3.110 will be verified as part of the building permit ao process. Any sign on the property will be required to submit for a sign permit and obtain al approval prior to construction. a2 C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\TemplXPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 20 58 1 "EXHIBIT B" 2 3 Design Review 2008-03 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions of 4 approval: 5 6 GENERAL CONDITIONS 7 8 1. The property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions of approval. 9 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance 10 with all provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, 11 conditions of approval, or public hearing. 12 3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans attached 13 hereto as Exhibits "A" though "D," except as modified by these conditions of 14 approval. 15 4. The term "substantial conformity" shall not be interpreted as relieving the 16 property owner from complying with any requirement of the WDO. The term 17 "substantial conformity" shall not be interpreted to mean that City staff has the 18 authority to waive or vary any development standard set forth in the WDO. 19 5. The applicant shall provide a 5 foot wide public utility easement along the 20 property line abutting Newburg Highway. 21 6. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the 22 standards of WDO 3.105.02.H.8 and WDO 3.107.06.F.2. 23 7. The applicant shall provide an irrigation system for all landscape areas improved 24 as part of this project, in accordance with WDO 3.106.02.B. 25 8. All shrubs and ground cover shall be sized so as to attain 80% of ground overage 26 within three years, in accordance with WDO 3.106.OS.A. 27 9. Within the public street right-of--way the applicant shall provide 20 small trees, 15 28 medium trees, or 10 lazge trees, subject to Clear Vision Standards, WDO 3.103.10 29 and 6.103, in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.A.b. 30 10. The applicant shall provide detailed information on the proposed maintenance of 31 all landscaping, in accordance with WDO 3.106.02.E. 32 11. The applicant shall provide at least 1,688 plant units of landscaping in the yard 33 abutting Newberg Highway, in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.A.2.a. 34 12. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 3,035 square feet of landscaped area 35 within 20 feet of the paved edge of off street parking and/or circulation 36 improvements, in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.C.1.a 37 13. The applicant shall provide at least 607 plant units located within 20 feet of the 38 paved edge of the off street parking and/or circulation improvements, in 39 accordance with WDO 3.106.03.C.2. I:1Community DevelopmentlPlanning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve1EXHIBIT B Council.doc 59 1 14. The applicant shall provide bark mulch or decorative rock on all landscaped areas 2 not covered by plant materials, in accordance with WDO 3.106.05.6. 3 15. The applicant shall pave or landscape the buffer yards between the proposed 4 structure and the buffer walls in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.8. 5 16. The applicant shall provide asix-inch concrete curb between all landscaped and 6 improved as part of this project and project areas or access ways, in accordance 7 with WDO 3.106.OS.C. 8 17. Signage shall comply with WDO 3.110. 9 18. All work within the public rights-of--way or easement within city jurisdiction shall 10 require plan approval and permit issuance from the Public Works Department. 11 19. All city maintained facilities located on private property shall require a utility 12 easement to be conveyed to the city. 13 20. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining permits from any state 14 and/or federal agencies, which may require approval and/or permit. 15 21. System Development fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 16 17 The Planning Division recommends that the Commission require compliance with the 18 following guidelines of the WDO. If the Commission exercises its discretion to reduce 19 any condition noted below, the Planning Division requests that it make findings regarding 20 the reduction. 21 22. The wall surface abutting Newberg Highway shall be in glass, as shown on 22 Exhibit "D". 23 23. The color of at least 90 percent of the wall, roof, and awning surface visible from 24 a street or public parking area shall bean "earth tone" color containing 10 parts or 25 more of brown or a "tinted" color containing 10 parts or more white. Fluorescent, 26 "day-glo," or any similar bright color should not be used on the building exterior, 27 in accordance with WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b. 28 24. The landscaping required by the standards of the WDO shall be augmented to 29 address site specific visual impacts of abutting uses and the visual character of the 30 surrounding area, in accordance with WDO 3.107.06.8.6. 31 25. Vehicle access points shall be identified by accentuated landscaped areas, by 32 entrance throats designed to control access from abutting parking and by 33 monument type entrance signs, in accordance with WDO 3.107.06.C. 34 35 26. All outdoor lighting shall be designed in accordance with WDO 3.107.06.F.2. 36 37 STREET AND DRAINAGE: 38 39 27. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in accordance with OAR 734- 40 051 regulates access, street improvement requirements to the Boundary Street, I:\Community DevelopmentlPlanning120081Design Review\Hwy 214 8~ S-Curve\EXHIBIT B Council.doc 60 1 State Highway 214, and Newberg Highway. Newberg Highway is designated as a 2 Major Arterial in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan (WTSP). 3 4 28. The site is currently being served by an ODOT storm sewer system. The City of 5 Woodburn has no storm sewer within Newberg Highway. Contact ODOT for 6 permit requirements. 7 8 WASTEWATER: 9 10 29. The site can be served by the existing city sanitary sewer main within Rainer 11 Road. That portion extended from existing sanitary sewer main to the property in 12 the existing Public Utility Easement within the vacated portion of Princeton Road 13 shall be a city maintained system, and shall comply with Public Works 14 Department requirements, specifications, standazds and permit requirements. 15 16 WATER: 17 18 30. The site can be served by the existing city water main within Rainer Road. That 19 portion extended from the existing water main to the property in the existing 20 Public Utility Easement within the vacated portion of Princeton Road shall be a 21 city maintained system, and shall comply with Public Works Department 22 requirements, specifications, standazds and permit requirements. 23 24 31. Domestic, lawn irrigation and fire sprinkler service shall require the installation of 25 a proper type of backflow preventer. The device and meter shall be located near 26 the city water main within an easement, unless approved otherwise by Public 27 Works. Contact Scott Bergren, City of Woodburn Cross Connection Inspector for 28 proper type and installation requirements of the backflow device at 503-982-5380. 29 30 32. Fire protection requirements shall comply with the Woodburn Fire District 31 standards and requirements. Additional fire hydrants for fire protection if required 32 shall be city maintained system and installed by the applicant. The system shall be 33 placed within the public right of way or public utility easement and constructed in 34 accordance with Public Works Department requirements, specifications, standards 35 and permit requirements. 36 37 Attachments and Exhibits 38 39 Attachment "A" Zoning Map 40 Attachment "B" Comprehensive Plan Map 41 Attachment "C" Building Division comments 42 Attachment "D" ODOT Approval of Application with Mitigation 43 Attachment "E" Applicant's narrative regarding the design review 44 45 Exhibit "A" Proposed Site Plan, date stamped August 14, 2008 46 Exhibit "B" Proposed Utility Plan, date stamped August 14, 2008 I:\Community Development\Planning12008\Design ReviewlHwy 214 & S-CurveIEXHIBIT B Council.doc 61 1 Exhibit "C" Proposed Landscape Plan, date stamped August 14, 2008 2 Exhibit "D" Proposed Building Elevations, date stamped June 5, 2008 I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\EXHIBIT B Council.doc 4 62 EXHIBIT "C" FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact: 1. The abutting property to the north and east are single family homes in Senior Estates and aze zoned Retirement Community Single Family Residential (RIS). 2. Table 2.1.9 of the WDO requires an interior setback of 10 feet and a solid brick or architectural wall, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. 3. The proposed building is setback 10 feet from the abutting property lines. The site plan shows 6 foot masonry buffer walls along the north and east property lines. Solid brick or architectural walls would be required to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 4. The Planning Commission originally concluded that a 6 foot solid brick or architectural wall was sufficient to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 5. The City Council "called up" the application and, at their meeting of November 10, 2008, conducted a de novo hearing specifically focusing on the issue of whether the 6 foot solid brick or architectural wall was sufficient to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 6. The City Council considered testimony from adjacent residents and additional evidence entered into the record by the residents regarding the height of the wall. 7. The Environmental Assessment for the Woodburn Interchange Project at Interstate 5 @ Oregon 214/219 dated July 2005 was entered into the record. The Environmental Assessment states that an area for noise mitigation consideration is the north side of Highway 217 between Oregon Way and Astor Way, which is the location of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment states that a noise barrier 12 feet in height could reduce the traffic noise levels at the homes. The residents that testified in opposition to the project stated that development of the property and the construction of a 6 foot buffer wall would not allow for ODOT to construct the 12 foot noise barrier, therefore, the wall provided by the applicant would be the only noise barrier provided to mitigate the traffic noise from Highway 214. 8. Area residents asked City Council to require a 7 foot wall instead of the 6 foot wall that was proposed by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission. The request for the 7 foot wall was based upon extensive testimony that a 6 foot wall would not be sufficient to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 63 9. Testimony was presented that the proposed development had no landscaping planned adjacent to the wall due to the applicant's parking space limitations given the configuration of the site. 10. Testimony was presented that the proposed development of the site would significantly increase visual and sound impacts. 11. Testimony was presented regarding the additional cost to the applicant fora 7 foot wall instead of the 6 foot wall originally required by the Planning Commission. Conclusions of Law: 1. The City Council concludes that it has legal discretion under the Woodburn Development Ordinance Table 2.1.9. [WDO 2.105.O5.C.2.a] to require a solid brick or architectural wall, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. 2. The City Council further concludes that it should make its determination as to the height of the wall based upon its assessment of what height is sufficient to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 3. The City Council further concludes that the testimony that it considered was at a de novo hearing and its decision is based upon different testimony than the testimony that was considered by the Planning Commission. 4. The City Council further concludes based upon the testimony presented that a 6 foot solid brick or architectural wall is insufficient to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 5. The City Council further concludes based upon the testimony presented that a 7 foot solid brick or architectural wall is necessary to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 6. The City Council further concludes based upon the testimony presented that the additional cost to the applicant of the higher wall is relatively small given the development cost of the entire project and that this additional cost is outweighed by the need to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 64 W N In:,..y:.aitJ 16Y~ November 24, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Dan Brown, Public Works Director SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO AN OREGON PUBLIC WORKS EMERGENCY RESPONSE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION: By motion, authorize the City Administrator to enter into an Oregon Public Works Emergency Response Mutual Aid Agreement sponsored by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). BACKGROUND: ODOT has initiated the agreement based upon advice of the ODOT Local Officials Advisory Committee and the agreement has been reviewed by the Oregon Department of Justice. More than 100 agencies and communities have signed this agreement since it was first offered to local public works agencies in July 1998. The City of Hubbard had inquired as to its desire to establish a public works mutual aid agreement with the City of Woodburn. In researching this request, the Public Works Department identified that by participating in the Oregon Public Works Emergency Response Mutual Aid Agreement, a mutual aid agreement with the City of Hubbard and all other participating agencies would be established. This mutual aid agreement enables public works agencies to support each other during an emergency. It provides the mechanism for immediate response to a requesting agency when the responding agency determines it can provide the needed resources and expertise. Additionally, it sets up the administrative documentation procedures needed to seek maximum reimbursement possible from federal agencies. During the December 2007 storm, some local jurisdictions in Oregon were able to activate the agreement and use resources from other local jurisdictions which Agenda Item Review: City Administrat City Attorney ~~'~`r'~ Finance 65 Honorable Mayor and City Council November 24, 2008 Page 2 were not affected by the storm and were parties to the agreement. FEMA recognized the agreement as an existing contract and reimbursed costs based upon having the agreement in place. DISCUSSION: City participation in the Oregon Public Works Emergency Response Mutual Aid Agreement will allow public works support to smaller local area communities like Hubbard and Aurora. Participation in this mutual aid agreement will also demonstrate immediate and positive action by the City in regard to pre-disaster mitigation planning. The mutual aid agreement requires agencies to assist only if they determine that the resources are available. The responding agency maintains direct control of the resources it provides and the requesting agency coordinates the activities and resources of the responding agency. Attached, as Exhibit 1 to this memorandum, is a copy of the Oregon Public Works Emergency Response Mutual Aid Agreement. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Participation as a responding agency may result in having to use City financial resources until such time reimbursement funds are provided. There is a risk that mutual aid services provided under the agreement may not be reimbursed. 66 EXHIBR Page ~ of _~.._ OREGON PUBLIC WORKS EMERGENCY RESPONSE COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREBMEAiT is between the government agencies (local, county, or state) that have executed the Agreement, as indicated by the signatures at the end of this document. WITNESSETH, WHEREAS, parties to this agreement are responsible for the construction and maintenance of public facilities such as street, road, highway, sewer, water, and related systems during routine and emergency conditions; and WHEREAS, each of the parties owns and maintains equipment, and employs personnel who are trained to provide service in the construction and maintenance of street, road, highway, sewer, water, and related systems and other support; WHEREAS, in the event of a major emergency or disaster as defined in ORS 40 1.025 (4), the parties who have executed this Agreement may need assistance to provide supplemental personnel, equipment, or other support; and WHEREAS, the parties have the necessazy personnel and equipment to provide such services in the event of an emergency; and WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that this Agreement be executed for the exchange of mutual assistance, with the intent to supplement not supplant agency personnel; WHEREAS, an Agreement would help provide documentation needed to seek the maximum reimbursement possible from appropriate federal agencies during emergencies; WHEREAS, ORS Chapter 401.480 provides for Cooperative Assistance Agreement among public and private agencies for reciprocal emergency aid and resources; and WHEREAS, ORS Chapter 190 provides for intergovernmental agreements and the apportionment among the parties of the responsibility for providing funds to pay for expenses incurred in the performance of the agreed upon functions ar activities; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 67 EXHIBR I ` 1. Request If confronted with an emergency situation requiring personnel, equipment or material not available to it, the requesting patty (Requestor) may request assistance from any of the other parties who have executed this Agreement. 2. Response Upon receipt of such request, the party receiving the request (Responder) shall immediately take the following action: A. Determine whether it has the personnel, equipment, or material available to respond to the request. B. Determine what available personnel and equipment should be dispatched and/or what material should be supplied. C. Dispatch available and appropriate personnel and equipment to the location designated by the Requestor. D. Provide appropriate access to the available material. E. Advise the Requestor immediately in the event all or some of the requested personnel, equipment, or material is not available. NOTE: It is understood that the integrity of dedicated funds needs to he protected. Therefore, agencies funded with road funds are limited to providing services for road activities, sewer funds are limited to providing services for sewer activities and so on. 3. Incident Commander The Incident Commander of the emergency shall be designated by the Requestor, and shall be in overall command of the operations under whom the personnel and equipment of the Responder shall serve. The personnel and equipment of the Responder shall be under the immediate control of a supervisor of the Responder. If the Incident Commander specifically requests a supervisor of the Responder to assume command, the Incident Commander shall not, by relinquishing command, relieve the Requestor of responsibility for the incident. 2 68 D(HIBR ~.-~ a 4. Documentation Documentation of hours worked, and equipment or materials used or provided will be maintained on a shift by shift basis by the Responder, and provided to the Requestor as needed. 5. Release of Personnel and Equipment All personnel, equipment, and unused material provided under this Agreement shall be returned to the Responder upon release by the Requestor, or on demand by the Responder. 6. Compensation It is hereby understood that the Responder will be reimbursed (e.g. labor, equipment, materials and other related expenses as applicable, including loss or damage to equipment) at its adopted usual and customary rates. Compensation may include: A. Compensation for workers at the Responder's current pay stnacture, including call back, overtime, and benefits. B. Compensation for equipment at Responder's established rental rate. C. Compensation for materials, at Responder's cost. Materials may be replaced at Requestor's discretion in Lieu of cash payment upon approval by the Responder for such replacement. D. Without prejudice to a Responder's right to indemnification under Section 7.A. herein, compensation for damages to equipment occurring during the emergency incident shall by paid by the Requestor, subject to the following limitations: 1) Maximum liability shall not exceed the cost of repair or cost of replacement, whichever is less. 2) No compensation will be paid for equipment damage or loss attributable to nahtral disasters or acts of God not related to the emergency incident. 3) To the extent of any payment under this section, Requester will have the right of subrogation for all claims against parties other than parties to this agreement who may be responsible in whole or in part for damage to the equipment. 69 gar ~~ m 4) Requestor shall not be liable for damage caused by the neglect of the Responder's operators. Within 30 days after presentation of bills by Responder entitled to compensation under this section, Requestor will either pay or make mutually acceptable arrangements for payment. 7. Indemnification This provision applies to all parties only when a Requestor requests and a Responder provides personnel, equipment, or material under the terms of this Agreement. A Responder's act of withdrawing personnel, equipment, or material provided is not considered a party's activity under this Agreement for purposes of this provision. To the extent permitted by Article XI of the Oregon Constitution and by the Oregon Tort Claims Act, each party shall indemnify, within the limits of the Tort Claims Act, the other parties against Lability for damage to life or property arising from the indemnifying party's own activities under this Agreement, provided that a party will not be required to indemnify another party for any such liability arising out of the wrongful acts of employees or agents of that other party. 8. Workers Compensation Withholdings and Employer Liability Each party shall remain fully responsible as employer for all taxes, assessments, fees, premiums, wages, withholdings, workers compensation and other direct and indirect compensation, benefits, and related obligations with respect to its own employees. Likewise, each party shall insure, self-insure, or both, its own employees as required by Oregon Revised Statutes. 9. Pre-Incident Plans The parties may develop pre-incident plans for the type and locations of problem areas where emergency assistance may be needed, the types of personnel and equipment to be dispatched, and the training to be conducted to ensure efficient operations. Such plans shall take info consideration the proper protection by the Responder of its own geographical azea. 10. The Agreement A. It is understood that all parties may not execute this Agreement at the same time. It is the intention of the parties that any governmental entity in the State of Oregon may enter into this Agreement and that all parties who execute this Agreement will be 4 70 EXHIBfT _ age -~ ~ -~r considered to be equal parties to the Agreement. The individual parties to this Agreement maybe "Requestor" or "Responder's" as referred to in Section 1. and 2. above, to all others who have entered this Agreement. B. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Offence of Maintenance shall maintain the master copy of this Agreement, including a list of all those governmental entities that have executed this Cooperative Assistance Agreement. ODOT will make the list of participants available to any entity that has signed the Agreement. Whenever an entity executes the agreement, ODOT shall notify all others who have executed the Agreement of the new participant. Except as specifically provided in this paragraph, ODOT has no obligations to give notice nor does it have any other or additional obligations than any other party. C. This Agreement shall be effective upon approval by two or more parties and shall remain in effect as to a specific party for five years after the date that party executes this Agreement unless sooner terminated as provided in this paragraph. Any party may terminate its participation in this Agreement prior to expiration as follows: 1) Written notice of intent to terminate this Agreement must be given to all other parties on the master list of parties at least 30 days prior to termination date. This notice shall automatically terminate the Agreement as to the terminating party on the date set out in the notice unless rescinded by that party in writing prior to that date. 2) Termination will not affect a party's obligations for payment arising prior to the termination of this Agreement. 11. Non-exclusive This Agreement is not intended to be exclusive among the parties. Any party may enter into separate cooperative assistance or mutual aid agreements with any other entity. No such separate Agreement shall terminate any responsibility under this Agreement. 12. Parties to This Agreement Participants in this Agreement are indicated on the following pages, one party per page. 71 t~fFItBR t'~9e -~- `~ -~-~_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement for Public Works Cooperative Assistance to be executed by duly authorized representatives as of the date of their signatures. STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,,~~~ /~~-7~'--z7'v... October 23, 2008 Loci Moore Date Maintenance Engineer 72 EXHIBIT' Page ~ of IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement for Public Works Cooperative Assistance to be executed by duly authorized representatives as of the date of their signatures. Agency County, Oregon Authorized Representative Date Designated Primary Contact: Off ce: ontact: Phone Number: Emergency 24 Hour Phone Number: Fax Number: E-mail address (if available): 73 ~~~- ~~~~ W N Inr: ,p:~att,l 189~~ November 24, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator In Capacity as Local Contract Review Board FROM: Dan Brown, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Award of Construction Contract for the North Front Street Improvements (Phase 1). RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award the construction contract for Phase 1 of the North Front Street Improvements in the amount of $848,906.13. BACKGROUND: Bids for the improvement were opened on November 6, 2008. Fourteen responsive qualified bid proposals were received. No: Nome Amount 1 Valley Pacific Construction $848,906.13 2 Alpine Construction $883,423.00 3 Emery 8~ Sons $955,620.00 4 Nutter Corporation $983,983.00 5 Canby Excavation $986,653.00 6 CivilWorks NW, Inc. $993,177.00 7 K&E Excavating, Inc. $1,028,337.00 8 R8~R General Contractors $1,104,956.1 1 9 Kerr Contractors $1,098,907.80 10 Rutan Construction $1,130,563.97 11 Rotschy, Inc. $1,228,032.00 12 Big River Construction $1,284,293.39 13 Ross Bros. 8~ Company, Inc. $1,418,576.03 14 Gelco Construction $1,804,243.50 Engineer's Estimate $1,417,867.88 Agenda Item Review: City Administrat ~"~~ ity Attorney Finance. 74 Honorable Mayor and City Council November 24, 2008 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The project, as approved in the 2008-09 Capitol Improvement Project budget, involves the undergrounding of existing utilities on Front Street between Cleveland Street and Highway 214. The contract award is in conformance with public contracting laws of the State of Oregon as outlined in ORS Chapter 279C and the laws and regulations of the City of Woodburn. Staff is recommending that the contract be awarded. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The project will be funded using approved Streets/Storm CIP Fund (363) as identified in the 08/09 fiscal budget. 75 fx~~ W DBURj~ fncarp; rar.~1 ISR4 November 24, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Dan Brown, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Acceptance of Public Utility Easement RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Public Utility Easement granted by Chemeketa Community College. BACKGROUND: The City intends to underground the existing utilities on Front Street between Highway 214 and Cleveland Street as part of phase one of the North Front Street Improvements Project. In order to accomplish the undergrounding of the existing aerial utilities, PGE needs to install a large Utility vault at the location of the subject utility easement. DISCUSSION: The easement is a parcel measuring 20.04 feet by 25.04 feet and is located on Lincoln Street, just to the east of the railroad right-of-way. It provides a permanent easement and right-of-way for the right to construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain public utilities. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact with the recommended action ATTACHMENTS A copy of the signed easement document is attached. Agenda Item Review: City Administ~ City Attorney - ~" ~J Finan 76 AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Woodburn City f2ecorder City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn. UR 9'/Ol1 CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS (Permanent) CHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, GRANTOR, grants to the CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON, hereinafter called CI7~Y, a permanent easement and right-of- way. including the permanent right to construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain public utilities on the following described land: See attached Exhibit "A"Legal Uescriptior~ of Permanent Easement and attached Exhibit "©" Sketch for legal Description of Pernranerrt Ease-nerlt which are by this refere-tce incorporated herein GRANTOR reserves the right to use the surface of the land for any purpose that will not be inconsistent or interfere with the use of the easement by CJTY. No building or utility shall be placed upon, under, or within the property subject to tine foregoing easement during the term thereof, however, without the written permission of CI ~I~Y. Upon completion of the construction, CITY shall restore the surface of the property to its original condition and shall indemnify and hold GRANTOR harmless against any anti all loss, cost, or damage arising out of the exercise of the rightsyrantecl herein. The tare consideration of this conveyance is One Dollar ($1.00), anti other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged by GRANTOR. GRANTOR covenants to CITY that GRANTOR is lawful{y seized in fee simple of the above-granted premises. free from all encumbrances and that GRAN7"OfZ anti their heirs and personal representatives shall warrant and forever defend the said premises and every part thereof to CITY against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming by, through, or under GRANTOR. DATED this -t-7-- day of ~U cr r'~r Lr r' .. 20 O $ _. Public Utility Easements (Permanent} Page 1 of 4 77 Chemeketa Community Colleye Rebecca Hillyer, irector c~. eyal Resources. CORPORATC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S-GATE OF OREGON, County of _l~~(l~_~y_~Y, ) ss. ~~ ~ y , fhe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _~~ day of N~~~i,~t~~-C~' 2008 by Rebecca H(Ilyer as Director of Legal Services of Chemeketa Community College a corporation and the foregoing instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and each of them acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act and deed. NOTARY PU8LIC FOR OREGON My Commission Expires: ~~~_~j ~ O' ! !C: iPl 5L-AL ~`~`~~ J[AA!P?rE ODLE .~ City of Woodburn "~.~ ~~~~r,~,;v :~.r~.~~ ;c; ~ OREGON 270 Mc~ntyurnery Street '~;~ c,:~rar;: ~;~;Ir;•! ~,cr .rrss~e Woodburn. OR 97071 r_,~ c:~r:::..s ~~:.~' °;.>,. zor r (Grantees Name and address) Accepted front on behalf of the City of Wooclbun- after authorization by its City Council on _ . __ -. . date City Recorder: Mary pennant - - ___ Public Utility Easements (Permanent) Page 2 of 4 78 I~.XII1111~1 n I'agc I of I f\~acsur M;qt Nu. ~ 111 I fir\li llUlrly I:a,~nunt A parcel of land, as shu++•n on attached I?xhihit "li", lyntg ut the Northwest Uoc-Uu;ulcr ul~ the Northeast Onc-Uuartcr ul' Section IR. 'fu++ttship 5 Snuth, Itangc I Wcst, ul the Willcuncllc ~lertchan, ('Uy of 1Voodhurn, Marian Chanty. Oregon, and bang a portion of 1'arccl 1 of 1'arutiun flat Nu. 2004-K0. ~~lariun Chunly Survey Rccordx. said parcel also being a portion of that tract of land as described by Suuutury Uuitcluim I)ccd to \Vilbur-Lillis Company, a California Cunturttiun, recorded Fcbnrtry G, 2UU6 as Kccl 2603 1-agc 464, Marion County Decd Records, said parcel of land beutg more particularly described as fullu+vs: Cumntencin{; at the inlersccUun ol'thc ccntcrlinc ul' Front Street wUh the ccntcrlinc of I.inculn Slrcct, as shu+vn un M('Sli 37263. Marion County Survey Rccurds; I hence S4tt°4S`00"li. along the ccntcrlinc ul' Lmculn SUect, 2,50 Icct to a S!8 inch iron rod in numument hor ut an angle point in said ccntcrlinc; 'I'hencc 545°17'47"I;, along the said ccntcrlinc of I.itxoln Sp•cet, 202.9H feet to a SJR inch iron rnd in nwnuntcnt hox at an angle point in said ccntcrlinc; 'I-hence leaving said centerline NCI I ° 14'Ofi"t?, 31.')9 feet to the must southerly earner of I'arcc) I of P;u tition I'lal Vu. 2004-KQ, Incatcd on the m-rthcrly right-ol'-way lute ul' L.incoln Sh•cct: I'hcnce N7b°49'UI''\1', ;flan}; said northerly right-ol•-way line, 7.52 lief to an angle pants: Thence cuntinuntg ,dung said northerly right-ol=way line Ndi°I Td7"W, Gg.79 Icct to the "f rue Point of 13eginning; 1'hencc continuing along laid northerly right-ul=way line N45°17'47"W, 25.114 feet to the must +vcstcrly confer nl' Parcel 1 of I'a-lition Plat No. 2004-K(1, located un tlx southeasterly right-uf-way line of the Union 1'acilic Ii;-ilrond: Thence leaving said nurtltcrly right-of-.ray line N41°I[i' I 1"1=., along said Union 1'acitie Raih-uad right-uf-way, 2(1.(14 Iccl to a poutl; I'hcncc leaving said Unirnt Pacific Railroad right-of-+vay 515° t 7'd7"l:. 2S.U4 feet to a paint: 1'hcncc S41" 16' I I "\V. 2U.(kl feel to the Point ul' lic};inuink. I'he parcel of land to +vhich this description applies contains 501 square Ieet nu-re or Icss. Iltis tct;al dcscriptiwt, along +vith the basis ul'bcarings thereat', is established ti•om that record of survey recurdrd under Survey )\untbcr MCSIt 37261. Marirnt ('away Survey Records. ` ~ F'ROFES51UNnl . 1~1ND Sl1AVl":YC)~t Hal 'T. f-:~' :, . i.Z ~t ~~~ Public lltilii - basements (f crmanent) Page 3 of 4 79 POINT OF EXHIBIT "8" COMMENCEMENT PAGE 1 OF 1 INTERSECTION OF CENTERLINE NOVEMBER 17, 2008 OF FRONT STREET AND CENTERLINE OF LINCOLN . STREET PER MCSR 37263 ~~'~ / ~ S ~i \ ~ I /S48'45'00"E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r.---- 2.50' ~,~ / ~l~ ~' \ ~ so ~O PARCEL 1 ' PARTITION Pl AT CENTERLINE ANCLE~ sos. MOST WESTERLY ~~ NO. 7.004-80 POINT, FOUND S/8" \~~• CORNER OF PARCEL t REEL 2603 IRON ROD IN MONUMENT ~°~~ ~~ OF PARTITION PLAT ;4' s PAGE 464 80X, (HELD) PER ~ N0. 2004-80 ~o * 9S. MCSR 34633 ~w~,VO \? ~~• / ~ 1 :.~ $41'16'11"W i \ is 20.04' / ' ~O ;. \ N45'1T47"W ~~ TRUE POINT 2s.oa' OF BEGINNING ti ps>>. ~~ i SCALE t"=30' s 8 ~q. O ? \ N76'49'Oi "W ~~ ~ \ 7.52' / ~4. '~~ CENTERLINE ANGLE POINT \ ~°'~°j aD~ FOUND 5/8" IRON ROD IN . ~ / aa` ^~"~ MONUMENT BOX, (HELD) ~~ MOST SOUTHERLY O~ PER MCSR 34632 ~~' f'ARCEi 1 / CORNER OF PARCEL Q- I'A1211 IION t'LAT N0. 1999-84 \ / OF PARTt710N PLAT ~ NO, 2004-80 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR ~ _~-- /~ OREGON ~ ,iwr u, ioo) JOHN T. CAMPBELL 60070 LS LEGEND ExP. t2--31-09 1 ~ T1L1 rr EASEMENT t 50t SO.Fi t Harper HP E N G I N E E R S P LAN N E R S S U R V E Y O R 5 5200 S1V ~Ltrao,t~.1,1~ e~ue, Sucre, su. I'rnrnanlt. ~R 97239 tEa. 503.221.1 l3; www.hhpr.com r,~x 503.221.1 17 i Public Utility k.a cements (Permanent) Page 4 of ~I Houf Peterson Righellis Inc. 80