The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - 06/13/2005CITY OF WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 13, 2005 - 7:00 P.M. KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR WALTER NICHOLS, COUNCILOR WARD 1 RICHARD BJELLAND, COUNCILOR WARD Il PETER McCALLUM, COUNCILOR WARD Ill JAMES Cox, COUNCILOR WARD IV FRANK LONERGAN, COUNCILOR WARD V ELIDA SIFUENTEZ, COUNCILOR WARDVI CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS-- 270 MONTGOMERY STREET CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS ,Announcements: A. Relay for Life will be from 6:00 p.m. on June 24th to noon on Jun'e 25th at Woodburn High School. Proceeds benefit the American Cancer Society. Bo A public hearing on Design Review Case File No. 05-01 and Variance Case File No. 05-05 will be held on June 27, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Independence Day Celebration - July 4th · 6:00 - 10:30 a.m. - a Chuck Wagon Breakfast will be served at Legion Park; · 1:30 p.m. - decorations and organization for the Youth Parade, which will begin at 2:00 p.m. at Settlemier Park and end at Centennial Park; · Activities at Centennial Park include: 3:00 - 8:00 p.m. - youth games and activities 3:00 - 10:00 p.m. - DJ and food concessions 4:00- 5:00 p.m. - Dance Dance Dance 5:00- 6:00 p.m. - Americana Band 6:00- 7:30 p.m. - Joni Harms 7:30- 10 p.m. - Americana Band 10 p.m. (approximately) Fireworks A free shuffle bus will be available from City Hall parking lots to and from Centennial Park · 'Ha~ra int~rpretes i~isponib[es para aqu~[[as personas que .o ~ab{a. I.O[~s~ previo acucri~o. Comuniquese a[ (5o3) 98o-z485." June 13, 2005 Council Agenda Page i e Do In observance of Independence Day, City Hall and the Library will be closed Monday, July 4, 2005. The Aquatic Center will be open from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. with $1 swim. Appointments: None. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTA'nONS Proclamations: A. Tadashi Nagai- Honorary Citizen of Woodburn Presentations: B. Boil Water Incident for May 25-27, 2005 (City Administrator oral report) COMMITTEE REPORTS Aa Chamber of Commerce Woodburn Downtown Association Woodburn School District CO/~U~UNICATIONS None. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - ?his allows the pub/lc to introduce items for Counc# cons/deraffon not a/ready scheduled on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered rouffne and may be enacted by one mot/on. Any item may be removed for discuss/on at the request of a Counc# member. A. Woodbum City Council minutes of May 23, 2005 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. Be Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of May 12, 2005 Recommended Action: Accept the minutes. C. Building Active/for May 2005 Recommended Action: Receive the report. D. Planning Tracking Sheet dated June 6, 2005 Recommended Action: Receive the report. 3 11 17 19 June 13, 2005 Council Agenda Page ii 10. 11. Claims for May 2005 Recommended Action: Receive the report. 23 TABLED BUSINESS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Heating to Consider a Supplemental Budget Recommended Action: Conduct public heating, receive public comment, and instruct staff to return an ordinance reflecting the Council's decision following the hearing. Be Public Heating to Consider the City of Woodbum's 2005-06 Budget Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing, receive public comment, and instruct staff to draft a budget ordinance based on the Budget Committee's recommendation, including allowable budget adjustments that do not change the tax levy requirement. Appeal of Design Review Case File No. 05-01 and Vatiance Case File No. 05-05 located at 1475 Mt. Hood Avenue (Robert Engle, Appellanrs Representative) Recommended Action: Continue the public hearing for Design Review Case File No. 05-01 and Variance Case File No. 05-05 to the City Council meeting of June 27, 2005. GENERAL BUSINESS -Members of the public wishing to comment on items of genera/bus/ness must complete and submit a speaker's card to the C#y £ecorder pr/or to commencing this porffon of the Counc#'s agenda. Comment t/me may be l/re#ed by Mayoral prerogaffve. Ae Periodic Review Deliberations Recommended Action: Instruct staff to prepare an ordinance adopting Legislative Amendment 05-01, subject to the revisions recommended within the Community Development Director's memorandum. Be Hermanson Pond Deed Restrictions Recommended Action: Authorize the City Administrator on behalf of the City to record a document containing the restrictive covenants noted in the staff report against the City- owned property located at Hermanson Pond. 29 31 37 63 June 13, 2005 Council Agenda Page iii 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. NEW BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS - 7'hese ~re P/onn/ng Comm/ssion or Adm/n/sfro#ve Lond Use ocf/on~ tho! moy be coiled up by fhe C/fy Counc#. A. Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use 05-01 and Design Review 05-02 (Police Facility) Be Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review 04-10, Vadance 04-34, Vadance 04-3~, Vadance 05-08 and Property Une Adjustment 05-04 (Cascade Park, 950 North Cascade Dr.) C. Community Development Director's Approval of Parliflon 05-02 (Boones Crossing) CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION Aa 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 pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1)(h). To consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1)(f). Co To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(d). 17. ADJOURNMENT 67 69 71 June 13, 2005 Council Agenda Page iv PROCLAMATION HONORING TADASHI NAGAI AS AN HONORARY CITIZEN OF WOODBURN WHEREAS, Tadashi Nagai attended Woodburn High School as an American Field Service exchange student from August 1960 to July 1961, and graduated with the Woodburn High School Class of ].961; and WH~, Mr. Nagai successfully continued his studies in Japan and began a distinguished career with Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1968; and WI-IE~S, Mr. Nagai's career included assignments in Europe, Australia and Asia, but he chose assignment to Oregon as Consul General of Japan as his final diplomatic assignment due to his fond memories of the City of Woodburn and State of Oregon; and WHEKEAS, Mr. Nagai has enthusiastically and repeatedly expressed his pride at being a graduate of Woodbum High School and adopted Oregonian; and v~rI-IE~, Mr. Nagai is returning to Japan after a successful tenure as Consul General of Japan, and the achievements of this outstanding graduate of Woodburn High School are deserving of recognition; NOW THEREFORE, I, Kathryn Figley, Mayor of the City of Woodburn, proclaim Tadashi Nagai an Honorary Citizen of the City of Woodburn, Oregon. We thank him for his pride in being part of our community and for his contributions toward building a better world. IN.~TrNESS ~,W,H,,,EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the s~~f the City o~Hoodburn to be fixed this 8th day of June 2005. ~Y~ City of Woo~rn THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TAPE READING 000! 0015 006Q 0105 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 23,2005 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, MAY 23, 2005. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bjelland Present Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Absent Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari, Public Works Manager Rob. man, Asst. City Engineer Torgeson, Police Chief Russell, Police Captain Blevins, Community Development Director Mulder, City Recorder Tennant Mayor Figley stated that Councilor Lonergan was out of town attending his son's graduation from West Point Military Academy. ANNOUNCEMENTS. A} In observance of Memorial Day, City Hall will be closed on Monday, May 30, 2005 and the Library will be closed May 29 and 30, 2005. The Aquatic Center will be open on May 30, 2005 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. with a swim fee orS1.00. B) The Library will be closed on Sundays for the summer beginning June 19, 2005 and will re-open on Sunday, September 11, 2005. C) Deliberations will continue on the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review amendments on Monday, June 13, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.. D) Budget hearings before the City Council for fiscal year 2005-06 will be held on June 13, 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. The Urban Renewal Agency will conduct the 2005-06 Urban Renewal budget hearing just prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting. APPOINTMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION POSITION 5. Mayor Figley appointed Larry Grosjacques to the Planning Commission with his term to expire December 31, 2007. She stated that Mr. Grosjacques is a former resident of the City and Planning Commission member but he now lives about 500 feet outside of the City limits. The ordinance allows for one member of the Planning Commission to reside 8A Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 2005 3 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 23,2005 outside of the City limits and, as of this date, all current Commission members live inside the City limits. MCCALLUM/NICHOLS... approve the appointment of Larry Grosjacques to Position 5 of the Planning Commission with his term expiring December 31, 2007. The motion passed unanimously. 0170 PROCLAMATION - BUDDY POPPY WEEK. Mayor Figley declared May 18 - 31, 2005 as Buddy Poppy Week within the City and encouraged local citizens to support this annual Veteran's of Foreign Wars (VFW) fundraiser to support veterans and their families. 0284 PROCLAMATION - RELAY FOR LIFE (American Cancer Society). Mayor Figley declared Woodbum as an official "Relay for Life" City and the month of June 2005 as "Relay for Life" month within our City. It was noted that the City's 4a' Annual Relay for Life fundraising event will be held on June 24 and 25, 2005. 0398 PRESENTATION: INTRODUCTION OF POLICE CAPTAIN BLEVINS. Police Chief Russell introduced newly hired Police Captain Charles Blevins who was most recently employed by the City of Lake Oswego. He stated it was a lengthy search for the right person for the position and he expressed his appreciation to the Council for their support and patience during this recruitment process. Captain Blevins stated that he is impressed with the caliber of Woodburn Police Department employees along with their dedication and loyalty to the Police Department. He expressed his appreciation in being given the opportunity to serve the City. Chief Russell stated that Captain Blevins is commanding the patrol and traffic divisions of the department. 0550 PRESENTATION: SETTLEMIER / HAYES STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS. Assistant City Engineer Torgeson introduced four (4) options for improving the Settlemier Avenue / Hayes Street intersection. He stated that this is the beginning of the process and additional public input and neighborhood meetings will be held before a final report is presented to the Council. Staff anticipates the construction project to begin in the spring or early summer of 2006. Maps of the four options were provided to the Council. Option 1 would leave the intersection as it currently is which is a split roadway on West Hayes Street at the intersection. Staff proposes that some change be made at this intersection in order to (1) reduce motor vehicle conflict going west on Hayes Street, (2) minimize stacking of vehicles on Settlemier Avenue, (3) provide safe school bus movement, (4) provide continuity for pedestrians and bicycles on the north side of the street, (5) to beautify the area where the well house currently sits since it will be Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 2005 4 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 23,2005 2010 demolished once the well is abandoned, and (6) to integrate this improvement with planned future improvements to West Hayes Street from Settlemier Avenue to Evergreen Road. Option 2 will provide minor modifications for bus movement in that the existing roadway on the north side of the well house will be blocked, the well house will be demolished, and traffic is accommodated by increasing the radius at the intersection. West Hayes Street will have 3 travel lanes with one lane going west, an eastbound thru and left turn lane, and an eastbound dedicated right turn lane. It was noted that this option can be completed within existing right-of-way. Option 3 is similar to Option 2 but the main difference is that an additional bike lane has been added on the south side of West Hayes Street. Additionally, this option provides for a dedicated right turn only lane for westbound traffic on East Hayes Street. This option also provides for landscaped area on the north side of West Hayes Street at the intersection. Lastly, Option 4 would close off East Hayes Street at Settlemier Avenue which would then provide for a true right- angle intersection of West Hayes Street with Settlemier Avenue. He stated that further studies still need to be made to determine traffic impacts of each change and which option will best meet the needs of the City and surrounding neighborhood. A traffic study may result in a need to have a 4-way stop at this intersection in order to address traffic congestion issues. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that one of the Council goal's is for Settlemier Avenue to remain as it is to some degree to preserve the old-fashioned look with a lot of trees. However, that intersection generates a lot of traffic since the school is located on West Hayes Street. The water well will eventually be abandoned thereby giving the City an opportunity to improve the intersection. Even though Option 4 is a drastic change, he suggested that it be seriously looked at and evaluated by the Council and residents. If this option is decided upon, then traffic will be moved to either Lincoln or Garfield Streets. If East Hayes Street remains open, then a 4-way stop may be beneficial in order to improve motorist, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety. Mayor Figley stated that she was inclined to favor Option 3 with a 4-way stop to improve traffic movement at the intersection. Councilor Cox stated that there are a number of things in favor of Option 4 but until the traffic counts are completed and impacts known on other neighborhood streets, the true impact will not be known. If Option 4 is not feasible, then he felt that Option 3 would be the best option to proceed with. Councilor Nichols felt that Option 3 would best meet the City's needs. Councilor McCallum suggested that the Council wait until traffic data is provided to see if there are possibilities of doing something other than what is proposed. He did not feel that a water attraction should be part of the landscaped area because of the vandalism that it may draw. He was pleased to see the different options and creativity displayed by staff. Councilor Cox stated Options 2, 3, & 4 involve some additional property beautification and the City will need to have a long term commitment to maintain the area. He is in favor of beautifying the area but reminded the Council that it is a policy Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 2005 5 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 23,2005 TAPE READING decision that the Council needs to be aware of. Director Tiwari stated that staff is more inclined to have low maintenance areas and a water feature is considered as high maintenance. Staff will continue to look at the options and will discuss the options with the Police Department to determine which one may work the best from the emergency service perspective. Councilor Sifuentez reiterated the need to inform the residents within the neighborhood and obtain their input before any final recommendation is made to the Council. Councilor Bjelland expressed his opinion that Option 3 is better than Option 2 but also felt that Option 4 should be considered if traffic counts indicate that it would be a feasible option. 2587 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Bob Rhoades, representing the Chamber Board, stated that the Chamber recently graduated another class of Leadership Youth which included young people from Woodbum and the surrounding communities. Additionally, the Chamber continues to work on their tourism center at the Woodbum Company Stores. 2685 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the Council meeting minutes of May 9, 2005; B) accept the Library Board minutes of May 11, 2005; C) accept the Planning Commission minutes of April 28, 2005; D) accept the Police Department Statistics for April 2005; and E) accept the claims for April 2005. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... adopt the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 2742 PUBLIC HEARING: SALE OF COMMUNITY CENTER PROPERTY. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:44 p.m.. Administrator Brown stated that he had accepted a conditional offer but the purchaser has requested additional time to discuss building use options with the Community Development Department since one of the terms of the sale was that the use of the property would be consistent with uses allowed under a Commercial Office zone. Staff recommended that the hearing be continued until June 27, 2005. BJELLAND/COX... continue thc public hearing until June 27, 2005. The motion passed unanimously. 2807 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2572 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR LEVYING FINAL ASSESSMENT COSTS FOR THE Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 2005 6 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 23,2005 IMPROVEMENT OF BOONES FERRY ROAD FROM GOOSE CREEK TO HAZELNUT DRIVE, Council Bill 2572 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. Recorder Tennant read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Councilor McCallum stated that he lives within this local improvement district and, even though it may not be needed at this time, he declared a conflict of interest and will not participate on this issue. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously (Councilor McCallum did not take part in the discussion or vote). Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2572 duly passed. 2921 ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR PERIODIC REVIEW CONSULTING SERVICES. Administrator Brown recommended that an addendum to the agreement with Winterowd & Brooks, LLC, dba Winterbrook Planning be approved which would provide an additional $15,000 in consulting services to the City for work related to the periodic review tasks through June 30, 2005. He stated that the contract addendum would include a "not to exceed" provision and staff will be proposing at the next regular Council meeting the transfer of General Fund operating contingency funds to the Planning Division to pay for these services. COX/NICHOLS... authorize the City Administrator to execute the Addendum to the Agreement for Consulting Services with Winterowd and Brooks LLC doing business as Winterbrook Planning. The motion passed unanimously. 2962 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT ACCEPTANCE. Staff recommended the acceptance of a $70,000 grant for the pumhase of additional mobile computer terminals to improve interoperable public safety communications. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... authorize City Administrator to sign a grant award conditions and certifications agreement with the Oregon State Office of Homeland Security. The motion passed unanimously. 2996 LIQUOR LICENSE - NEW OUTLET LIMITED ON PREMISE SALES (Country Cottage Restaurant, 2994 Newberg Highway} Staff recommended that Council recommend to OLCC the approval of a new outlet application for Limited On Premise Sales submitted by owner/manager Joyce Fischer. If approved by OLCC, this license would allow for the sale of malt beverages and wine for consumption at the restaurant. BJELLAND/SIFUENTEZ... recommend to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission approval of a new outlet application for Country Cottage. Councilor Cox declared a potential conflict of interest involving another client and this Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 2005 7 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 23,2005 TAPE READING applicant so he will abstain from voting on this issue. Councilor McCallum stated that it is unfortunate that a business needs to exist by adding a liquor license but he understands why it is sometimes necessary to add this type of service to a business. Councilor Nichols stated that he will continue to vote no on liquor license applications due to a personal commitment he had made many years ago. When he was a young child, a neighbor, who consumed a lot of alcohol, had killed his wife then committed suicide. In his teenage years, some of his peers were killed in a automobile accident when the driver of the other vehicle had been under influence of alcohol and he hit their car head on. He stated that he had made a commitment back then to do what he could to eliminate other lives from being taken by someone who was careless of a habit. He realizes that there are many people able to handle alcohol use but there are always those individuals who are not able to handle it. He felt that it was time that he shared with the public his reason for continuing to vote against all liquor license applications. Councilor Sifuentez requested clarification on the impact a denial would have before the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Administrator Brown stated that the Council's recommendation is advisory in nature. He reminded the Council that in a prior instance, the Council had recommended denial of a liquor license application previously but OLCC still approved the license. Councilor McCallum stated that his concern on liquor licenses relates to prevention and safety to motorists and pedestrians. There seems to be a lot of encouragement in the State to keep adding outlets because it is a revenue source rather than looking at the health and safety issues. On roll call vote, the motion passed 3-1 with Councilor Nichols voting nay. For the record, Councilor Cox did not participate in the discussion nor did he vote on the motion. 3428 PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS. A) Planning Commission's approval of Design Review 05-01 and Variance 05-05: Allows for retrofitting an existing structure at 1475 Mt. Hood Avenue for use as an outpatient health service and wellness center and to allow 43 existing parking spaces to remain in the required front yard setback. No action was taken by the Council to bring this land use action up for review. 3460 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Administrator Brown referred back to the agenda item approving the addendum to the Winterbrook Planning contract. He stated that a supplemental budget hearing will be held at the next regular meeting (June 13, 2005) at which time the proposed transfer of operating contingency funds for this contract addendum will be considered along with a few other proposed budget changes. 3544 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 2005 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 23 , 2005 Councilor Nichols reminded the public that property owners need to mow their tall grass and weeds otherwise the City will need to do the mowing and will charge the property owners for this maintenance. He also stated that the Bungelow Theater program he attended last weekend was very enjoyable. Councilor McCallum thanked staff for the informative reports and presentations on city issues. Councilor Bjelland stated that he had met earlier today with the other Chairs of Region II to discuss the situation in which Seaside lost $32 million of highway funds based on their vote against proceeding with the Seaside by-pass proposal. The available funds will now be disbursed throughout the rest of the Region and today's meeting was to recommend to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) how the money should be divided up. Based on a previously agreed upon preliminary contingency meeting and subsequent bid results for a major construction project which will require some additional highway funds, the Region II Chairs are recommending an additional $500,000 for the Woodburn interchange. The Stayton interchange project is close to completion and additional funding is being allocated to this project so that it will be completed sooner than expected. In turn, this will free up future dollars for the next interchange project which will hopefully be the Woodburn interchange. Councilor Sifuentez stated that she has had recent contacts with individuals who have expressed their desire to remain in Woodbum even if it is moving from one location in town to another part of the City. Additionally, people are continuing to buy property in Woodbum even though they may work in the Portland area. In her opinion, the City is doing a good job in maintaining a community that the people want to live in for the future. Councilor Cox stated that he had read the minutes and Council packets from the last two meetings in order to catch up with City issues. He enjoyed traveling but is glad to be back in Woodburn. Mayor Figley stated that an acting company had performed a play at the Bungelow Theater last Friday night which was flee of charge due to the generosity of Wells Fargo Bank and the downtown businesses. It was a very professional and thought provoking performance and she hoped that, as the downtown plaza is developed, more programming of this type will be available. She also shared with the community the positive comments received from organizers and participants in the National Rottweiler show that was held at Legion Park on May 14-15, 2005. This show involved judges and dog owners from all over the United States, Canada, and a few other international locations. The feedback she received all weekend was about the attractiveness of the City parks and cooperation of City staff. At the close of the event, she received a round of applause for the venue, service, and cleanliness of the park. She expressed her appreciation to City staff, local citizens, and businesses for making these visitors very comfortable in our community. Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 2005 9 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 23,2005 437~ ADJOURNMENT. NICHOLS/COX .... meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 2005 l0 8B WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 12, 2005 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lima P Vice Chairperson Bandelow P Commissioner Vancil P Commissioner Grigorieff P Commissioner Hutchison P Commissioner Jennings P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Naomi Zwerdling, Senior Planner Chairperson Lima provided an opening statement for Public Hearing. MINUTES A._=. Woodbum Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of AI~HI 28,2005 Commissioner Jenninfls moved to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Vancil seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A_~. Woodbum City Council Meeting Minutes of A0ril 11. 2004 PUBLIC HEARING A_~. Conditional Use 05-01 and Design Review 05-02, request to construct 30,000 sq. ft. Police Facility at 1060 Mt. Hood Ave., Group MacKenzie. aoolicant. EX-PARTE CONTACTS Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. Staff stated the applicant met all of the applicable standards in the Woodburn Development Ordinance necessary for the approval and recommended approval of the proposed project subject to the conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report. Vice Chairperson Bandelow inquired whether the purpose of the traffic barrier on the drive on the South side is so that there is no connection to the park? Staff replied affirmatively. TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT John Brown, City Administrator, 270 Montgomery St., Woodburn, OR 97071 provided an overview of the project and a bit of historical perspective as to why the Police Facility and why this location. Additionally, he spoke about their specific goals in designing this particular facility on this site. He reported when he came to the City in 1998, the City Council had already decided that there was extreme ovemrowding at the Police Department and they actually made the decision to move a portion of their operations to what is now the East Precinct on the other side of Highway 99E. They were also using a portion of the Planning Commission Meeting - May 12, 2005 Page 1 of 6 11 Wastewater Treatment Plant for secure storage. In 1999, they very quickly went to a situation where they were spread across three different facilities trying to deliver Police services to one or all of those at some point. At that time, they knew it would be a stop gap effort that was not going to meet the long term need as it did not take care of the growth we knew we would see in Staff and space that we would need to house them. Additionally, it did not take care of the department security needs in a post or pre 9-11 environment and it did not have enough storage for evidence and property, which created some command and operational issues they knew they would have to overcome evidentially. Mr. Brown further reported the property selected for the Police facility had been previously looked at by a developer of multi- family housing previously to put a number of apartment units at this site, which ultimately was not approved. There would have been some pretty significant traffic impacts from that site on to the surrounding neighborhood and highways. He further indicated the City purchased the property in 2003 as they felt it was a good opportunity to acquire a piece of property where we could put a lower impact on and one that would also serve the City's needs in to the future not only as a Police facility but potentially as an extension of the park. Much of the justification for selecting that particular piece of property was that it provided the City very affordable land, centrally located, easy direct access to Highway 214, which gave them immediate access to West and East Woodburn without having to worry about delays from the train and it gave them a greater Police presence in the area of Legion Park. The Council found that it was appropriate at that time to begin pre-design work on the facility based on a needs assessment performed by the Police Chief. An RFP was issued at that time and a number of firms were interviewed of which, Group MacKenzie was selected for their expertise in architecture and engineering and design in general but also because of a pretty extensive background in Police facility design. At that point, a steering committee was formed of citizens that had a lot of contacts in the community and had a little something more to offer in terms of helping them make sure they had the right building design for the property. Mr. Brown also mentioned the committee met with neighbors to the East, held public meetings and ultimately delivered this to the City Council. The Council then decided to go forward with the bond measure that was on the 2004 ballot and were successful the first time around. The bond was sold March 2005, which left the City with $6.9 million to spend on the facility and additional design project work management. He pointed out the facility needs to get the construction underway within two years in order to protect the tax exempt status of the bonds and they would have the opportunity to make interest on the money that they have in the bank if they are able to get the facility built within 18 months of having gotten the bond money, which they would be able to utilize to offset what will be cost overruns in some areas. Mr. Brown also reported they expect to break ground on the project in August 2005 and expect completion and moved in by August 2006. That would get them done within the 18 months but more importantly, it gets the Police Department out of the conditions they are currently living in and into a better environment as soon as we can. He outlined the various facility goals that included, adequately size the building to serve the department's needs for 20 years; be expandable beyond 20 years both the structure itself and the ground that it sat on; provide functional and operational efficiency so they could maximize the taxpayer's dollars that are spent on Police services; adequate storage for property, evidence and vehicles; a 'green building' that is sustainable and energy efficient; use energy efficient and recycled materials in its construction, which would lower operational costs as well as reduce impacts on the natural environment; a building that is secure and well illuminated that provided a positive working environment for the men and women of the Police force that was built to withstand and continue to operate during a disaster; one that could serve as a real emergency operating center with a 9-1-1 function located within it; has an attractive design that compliments the land, takes advantage of natural views; serve the City's needs into the future in which the community could be proud of and could be delivered within the $6.9 million. In closing, Mr. Brown stated they are in full agreement on the conditions placed on the project and he encouraged the Commission to accept, without modifications, Staff's recommendation. Scott Russell, Chief of Police, Woodburn Police Department, 270 Montgomery St., Woodburn, OR 97071 said the Police Department are very excited about the project as it has been a labor of love. He appreciated all of the support they received from the community and people that are willing from the very get go jump in, roll up their sleeves and help them to design the very best public safety facility, he thought would be in the entire State of Oregon. The ground work was to make the Police Officers the most efficient and effective when they are doing their job in the new facility. They are not only trying to create a state-of-the-art facility but also to make the campus fit the neighborhood, the community and the park Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 12, 2005 12 and also have a presence on the highway where the City of Woodburn is out front and center within our community. Mr. Russell also commented the building was designed to be expandable, survivable and will be the key piece in a major disaster ability to operate 24-7. The most gratifying thing for him in the project has been the team concept. Additionally, he indicated they had the opportunity to visit other new state-of- the-art facilities. In closing, Mr. Russell stated they have complied with all of the requirements of the code and hoped the Commission liked the design as much as they do. Commissioner Vancil asked if the reduction of square footage would be easily added when the taxpayer's come up with the dollars for future expansion? Scoff Russell replied there was a reduction outside the evidence area right by the motorcycle area. He stated it seems you never could build enough evidence storage and it is a very easy place to expand and is one the areas they looked to reduce. Chairperson Lima inquired what is the size of the current Police facility compared to the new facility? Scott Russell responded they currently have about 11,000 sq. f. total space in three different locations, City Hall, East Precinct and Wastewater. He clarified that includes storage and circulation, therefore, not all of the space is usable. Mr. Russell indicated they are probably very close at 100% of that space. He stated the goal on this project is 20 years, which would foresee a total staff in the building of 80 persons. That figure was based on the projections provided by the Planning Staff on our estimated growth. Mr. Russell commented they felt comfortable with those numbers but they wanted the campus and facility to be able to be expanded should they have the phenomenal growth that they have seen. TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS Katie Fernandez, Planner, Group MacKenzie Architects & Engineers, P.O. Box 69039, Portland, OR 97039 covered a few points regarding the building. She reported they worked very hard to keep the building to the Northeast corner of the site so they are not impacting the environmental areas of the site associated with the creek, the wetland and the floodplain, which happens to be about 20 ft. lower in elevation on the Iow end side of the site. Unfortunately, that brought the building closer to their residential neighbors to the East. Therefore, they decided to go with the 6 ft. split face wall to buffer along that area and will match the materials on the building. She reported minor modifmations have been made to the plan, which would house both the Police and the 9-1-1 Center. The finishes include a multiple combination of brick, windows wherever possible, concrete panels and metal roof; varying roof heights; varying offsets and jogs along the building far,~ade trying to keep the building interesting and visually appealing from the street. Additionally, the front pedestrian entry has a large canopy to protect folks from the rain and sun coming in to the building. They also worked real hard in keeping things environmentally friendly with the materials. Ms. Fernandez also reported the parking area has a total of 97 spaces, 27 on the East side of the building mostly public parking and a larger secure parking area at the rear of the building on the South side of the building. The entire facility is fenced for security reasons with chain link fence through the grassy areas and around the secured parking area with a brick wall along the East side of the parking area, which would match the buffer wall further on to the East side of the site. Moreover, the garbage enclosure would be bricked to match the other brick work and walls on the site; the landscaping plan meets the City's minimum standards for number of plant units required along the street frontage and within the parking areas. In terms of public facilities, ODOT has recommended a left turn lane onto the site and they figured out a way to accommodate that requirement without any additional dedication. Additionally, engineering is also working on appropriate calculations to provide adequate water, sewer and storm water drainage to the site. The storm detention pond was moved completely out of the flood plain elevation and therefore would no longer be an issue or there would be no conflicts with flood storage in the flood plain. In closing, Ms. Fernandez indicated they had no issues with the conditions of approval and they intend to comply with all of the them through the course of the public facilities review, through the building permit review and through the construction of the building. Vice Chairperson Bandelow referred to the landscaping plan and inquired whether the footing level would only be 10 f. to 14 ft. higher than the highway? Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 12, 2005 13 Katie Fernandez replied they have lowered the grade significantly along the front portion of the site so that the building is down closer to the street. She explained it is currently a straight steep hill and you cannot see much of the site. The idea is to bring the grade down and there will be a boulder terrace wail that allows for the landscaping to project down and allows for the building to be seen when you drive along the highway. Commissioner Hutchison asked whether three holding cells would be adequate for future needs? Scott Russell explained holding facilities such as theirs and the one they are proposing to construct are handled by Oregon Law in that they could only hold people for 4 hours and then they have to be transported to the County Jail. Otherwise, they would need to clothe them, allow worship and exercise etc. if they are held for more than 4 hours. This would continue to be a holding facility where they could bring people in, site them, fingerprint and release them or they would arrange for transport if they need to be transported to the County Jail within that 4 hours. The cells are a little bit bigger than what they currently have and there are three where currently they only have two. He felt three cells would be more than adequate for up to 20 years in the future. TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS Herb Mittmann. 365 Ironwood Terrace, Woodburn, OR 97071 reported he worked on the Facilities Committee and he is also the Recreations and Park Board Chairperson. He commented he could not believe that a Police Department could function with the current setup Mr. Mittmann further stated it is very important that we give the people who are supposed to protect and work with the community a facility where they could function without any problem. DISCUSSION Chairperson Lima closed the public hearing and opened up for discussion among the Commissioners. Commissioner Jennings thanked John Brown and Scott Russell for keeping the committee intact and he also commented the MacKenzie Group has been one of the best groups he has ever worked with in all of the years he has been in city politics. The input from City Staff, Police Department and civilians is probably what brought it before the Commission with no variances. Commissioner Jennings further added it has been a cooperative effort for something that we really need badly. Commissioner Vancii complimented both the planning team and staff and stated it is a great project that he would certainly support. Chairperson Lima said this is something we needed and was pleased with the speed the project is moving through. Knowing the project would start and end soon means that the Police Department would have a lot more facility to work with, which they have deserved for a long time. He complimented everyone involved for doing a fantastic job with the limited resources they have. Vice Chairperson Bandelow reiterated her fellow Commissioners comments and added she liked the way the design is set on the property and the fact that it will be visible from the highway because it will put a good face on Woodburn. Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to approve Conditional Use 05-01 and Design Review 05-02 and instructed Staff return with a Final Order and facts and findings. Commissioner JenninRs seconded the motion, which unanimously carded. ITEMS FOR ACTION A__~. Final Order for Design Review 0,5-01 and Variance 05-05, request to change use and renovate the old K-Mart building to a medical facility at 1475 Mt. Hood Ave., Matthew Spicer, applicant. Commissioner Gr .qor eft abstained from voting on the order since she did not attend that meeting. Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 12, 2005 14 Commissioner Jennings moved to approved the Final Order as written. Motion was seconded by Vice Chairperson Bandelow. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Jennings commented for the record that he voted No last week however, he thought he needed to change his vote from last time to make it unanimous in the fact that this Commission stands united in their decisions. DISCUSSION ITEMS Commissioner Jennin(~s felt the large sets of plans that are included in the packets are a waste of time and money because he never looks at them since he is not an architect. He found everything he needed in a good Staff Report and questioned whether it is mandatory that they get the plans. Commissioner Jennings clarified although he was not complaining he felt why include the larger sets of plans if there is no real need to. Staff answered although it is not mandatory that the Commission receive the plans, it is mandatory that the applicant submit full size plans. He indicated applicants are not required to provide booklets and the Commission would normally receive the plans. Staff would provide the Commission with reduced copies of plans on smaller sites. However, in this case, the details on the plans were difficult to read on the reduced version of the plans. Commissioner Vancil commented he favored a Commission policy that they get reduced copies of the plans and to make an appointment with the Planner if they want to see more details on the plan. He indicated that would save time and energy for everybody. Staff further explained the code under the applicant's submittal requirements requires that the applicant submit full size plans at a certain scale and provide enough copies so that we can give them to the Planning Commission. He recalled a comment made recently by a Commissioner regarding reduced plans that could not be read and somebody asked for full sized sets of plans. Staff clarified the burden is on the applicant to prove their case in a land use action and it is in the applicant's interest to provide more rather than less. The applicant is not going to want to be in a position where they are at a disadvantage because the Commission can not read the plans and the Commission decides that they can not make a decision because of that. There was further discussion among the Commission and Staff regarding the exclusion of large sets of plans in the packets. Staff stated he would appreciate it if the Commission would make it a policy because there needs to be clear direction to Staff and in the record so that if a Planning Commissioner later raises the issue that they could not read the plans, it is clear that Staff is only following the direction of the Planning Commission. He indicated he is amiable to however the Commission would like to handle that issue. Commissioner Vancil moved to make a Commission policy that plans be 11~ x 17" unless special circumstances exist that the Staff decides it is important to include in the packets. Commissioner Jennin,qs clarified he favored the motion, however, he did not want to pass a motion that forces the City to start making photocopies of the large drawings. He felt Commissioner Vancil was stating that we do not need all of those types of drawings so do not include them in the packets. A motion was made and seconded that Staff would provide a reduced copy and a note included in the agenda that full size sets of plans are available in the Planning Department. Commissioner Vancil praised Staff for a job well done with the signage enforcement. Commissioner Jennin,qs commented people that are involved in the UGB are confusing the LDS Church, which is involved in the UGB change with the Kingdom Hall church. Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 12, 2005 15 Staff clarified thero were two properties to the East and the property owners of those properties submitted testimony requesting that the City change the Comprehensive Plan designation on the properties because they are already in the UGB also. Therefore, it was not a UGB issue but an issue of Comprehensive Plan designation and they wanted that changed. REPORTS A__. Building Activity for April 2005 B_. Planning Pro_iect Tracking Sheet (revised 5-4-05~ C_. Annual WDO Update Log BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION Commissioner Jenninqs complimented and thanked Planning Staff, Grog Winterowd and Terry Cole on their appearance before City Council and how they answered the tough questions that were asked of them. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Jennin~qs moved to adjourn the meeting. Vice Chairperson Bandelow seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm. APPROVED CLAUDIO LIMA, CHAIRPERSON DATE ATTEST ~oml~U~n~ity Development Director City (~/Woodburn, Oregon Date Planning Commission Meeting - May 12, 2005 16 Page 6 of 6 CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development 8C MEMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5250 Date: To: From: Subject: June 8, 2005 Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Building Division Building Activity for May 2005 2003 2004 2005 Dollar Dollar Dollar No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount New Residence Value 8 $1,315,989 6 $924,738 12 $2,689,099 Multi Family 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Assisted Living Facilities 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Residential Adds & Alts 8 $79,821 8 $24,000 3 $19,448 Industrial 2 $1,150,000 0 $0 0 $0 Commercial Value 5 $262,522 7 $155,000 11 $1,805,142 Signs, Fences, Driveways 2 $13,800 I $3,000 4 $10,800 Manufactured Homes 0 $0 0 $0 I $4,000 TOTALS 25 $2,822,132 22 $1,106,738 31 $4,528,489 Fiscal Year (July 1- $34,650,456 $29,906,809 $25,949,197 June 30) to Date I:'~:ommur~it¥ Developn~ent'~uildingt. Building Activity~BldgAcl-2005'~ldg Activity - Men~,~ctivity. May 2005.wpd THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 18 TRACKING SHEET PAGE 1 ~ECT TRACKING SHEET PAGE 2 PROJECT TRACKING SHEET PAGE 3 LONG RANGE PROJECTS Jim 01/14A~ 01114/05 N~A 0~03/I)5 I 03/10/05 PAGE 4 WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y O F W 0 0 D B U R N PAGE 1 DATE 6/07/05 AP0460 TIME 13:20:04 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT CHECK # CHECK DATE pAYeE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE BANK ACCOUNT AP A/P Accounts Payable 78776 5/31/2005 OREGON P.E.R.S RECONCILED YES 188.53 188,53 78777 5/31/2005 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC RECONCILED YES 317.38 317.38 78778 5/31/2005 BRUCE CHEVROLET RECONCILED YES 13,699.70 13,699.70 78779 5/31/2005 OR DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLE RECONCILED YES 63.50 63.50 78780 5/06/2005 ADVANCED UNDERGROUND EQUI RECX)NCILED YES 223.70 223.70 78781 5/06/2005 AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC RECONCILED YES 450.00 450.00 78782 5/06/2005 AMERICANA pUBLISHING INC RECONCILED YES 31.10 31.10 78783 5/06/2005 APPLE BOOKS RECONCILED YES 514.62 514.62 78784 5/06/2005 AI~RK UNrFORM NATIONAL RECONCILED YES 57.98 57.98 78785 5/06/2005 ;tRACK UNIFORM NATIONAL RECONCILED YES 578.90 578.90 78786 5/06/2005 ARCH WIRELESS RECONCILED YES 43.07 43.07 78788 5/06/2005 AUTO ADDITIONS INC RECONCILED YES 1,124.48 1,124.48 78790 5/06/2005 BAMBA C FOFANA DURA RECONCILED YES 142.56 142.56 78791 5/06/2005 BARKER SURVEYING CORP RECONCILED YES 2,000.00 2,000.00 78792 5/06/2005 BROWN & CALDWELL INC RECONCILED YES 1,649.54 1,649.54 78793 5/06/2005 BUILDING TECH BOOKSTORE RECONCILED YES 145.99 145.99 78794 5/06/2005 CANBY TELEPHONE ASSOC REC~DNCILED YES 19.95 19.95 78795 5/06/2005 CASE AUTOMOTIVE INC RECONCILED YES 1,816.21 1,816.21 78796 5/06/2005 CESSCO INC RECONCILED YES 357.68 357.68 78797 5/06/2005 CINGLrLAR/AT&T WIRELESS RECONCILED YES 578.64 578.64 78798 5/06/2005 CITY OF SALEM RECONCILED YES 69.99 69.99 78799 5/06/2005 CTL CORPORATION RECONCILED YES 1,870.00 1,870.00 78800 5/06/2005 DA/qNER SHOE MFG CO RECONCILED YES 104.00 104.00 78801 5/06/2005 DEX MEDIA EAST RECONCILED YES 28.61 28.61 78802 5/06/2005 DGS GENERAL CONST INC RECONCILED YES 10,440.75 10,440.75 78803 5/06/2005 DORA E VELASCO RECONCILED YES 252.00 252.00 78804 5/06/2005 ENGINEERED CONTROL PROD RECONCILED YES 28.69 28.69 78805 5/06/2005 FARMWORKERS HOUSING DEVEL RECONCILED YES 1,228.50 1,228.50 78806 5/06/2005 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC RECONCILED YES 1,112.55 1,112.55 78807 5/06/2005 GA~E GROUP RECONCILED YES 45.30 45.30 78808 5/06/2005 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL RECONCILED YES 395.16 395.16 78809 5/06/2005 GRAINGER RECONCILED YES 279.90 279.90 78810 5/06/2005 GRAINGER INC RECONCILED YES 1,062.70 1,062.70 78811 5/06/2005 GROUP MACKENZIE ENGR INC RECONCILED YES 27,551.26 27,551.26 78812 5/06/2005 HICKS STRIPING & CURBING RECONCILED YES 1,525.55 1,525.55 78813 5/06/2005 hqJGO NAVA RECONCILED YES 202.05 202.05 78814 5/06/2005 IDEXX L~ORATORIES RECONCILED YES 117.58 117.58 78815 5/06/2005 IN STYLE PROFESSIONAL SER RECONCILED YES 45.00 45.00 78816 5/06/2005 INDUSTRIAL WELDING SUPPLY RECONCILED YES 42.62 42.62 78817 5/06/2005 INGRAM DIST. GROI/P RECONCILED YES 2,125.05 2,125.05 78818 5/06/2005 ISOLUTIONS CONSULTING INC RECONCILED YES 1,500.00 1,500.00 78819 5/06/2005 JF_~ETTE M LAUNER, ATTY RECONCILED YES 148.00 148.00 78820 5/06/2005 JENNIFER ROSENBLAD RECONCILED YES 40.00 40.00 78821 5/06/2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL COMM RECONCILED YES 49.00 49.00 78822 5/06/2005 LEISINGER DESIGNS RECONCILED YES 765.00 765.00 78823 5/06/2005 LEXICON TRAINING SERVICES RECONCILED YES 1,041.00 1,041.00 78824 5/06/2005 MARIA HERNANDEZ RECONCILED YES 84.00 84.00 78825 5/06/2005 M~JIIA IHARRA RECONCILED YES 84.00 84.00 78826 5/06/2005 METROF1/ELING INC. RECONCILED YES 1,143.37 1,14~.~7 78827 5/06/2005 MICRO MARKETING LLC RECONCILED YES 62.75 62.75 78828 5/06/2005 MID-VALLEY INTERPRETER SE RECONCILED YES 53.00 53.00 78829 5/06/2005 MOLALI~ COMMUNICATIONS RECONCILED YES 149.70 149.70 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 pAGE 2 WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y O FW 0 O D B U R N AP0460 VEEOT DATE 6/07/05 CHECK REGISTER TIME 13~20:04 =~ ...........= ........................... ======= ...........==;==;= ......... 1,903.00 1,903.00 .00 78830 5/06/2005 MPH INDUSTRIES INC RECONCILED YES .00 78831 5/06/2005 78832 5/06/2005 78833 5/06/2005 78834 5/06/2005 78836 5/06/2005 78837 5/06/2005 78838 5/06/2005 78839 5/06/2005 78840 5/06/2005 78842 5/06/2005 78843 5/06/2005 78844 5/06/2005 78845 5/06/2005 78846 5/06/2005 78847 5/06/2005 78848 5/06/2005 78849 5/06/2005 78850 5/06/2005 78851 5/06/2005 78852 5/06/2005 78853 5/06/2005 78854 5/06/2005 78855 5/06/2005 78856 5/06/2005 78857 5/06/2005 78858 5/06/2005 78859 5/06/2005 78860 5/06/2005 78861 5/06/2005 78862 5/06/2005 78863 5/06/2005 78864 5/06/2005 78865 5/06/2005 78866 5/06/2005 78867 5/06/2005 78868 5/06/2005 78869 5/06/2005 78870 5/31/2005 78871 5/31/2005 78872 5/31/2005 78874 5/13/2005 78875 5/13/2005 78876 5/13/2005 78877 5/13/2005 78878 5/13/2005 78879 5/13/2005 78880 5/i3/2005 78881 5/13/2005 78882 5/13/2005 78883 5/13/2005 78884 5/11/2005 78885 5/13/2005 MULTI TECH ENG SERV INC NEWSOUND NORTHWEST NATUP~ GAS NURNBERG SCIENTIFIC OR DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLE OR STATE POLICE ID SERVIC PARSLEY ME~OWS PLATT ELECTRIC CO PORTL;LYqD GENE}~J~ ELECTRIC QUALITY OFFICE SYSTEMS IN QWEST QWEST RADIX CORPORATION REGENT BOOK COMPANY REYNA MORENO RIP CITY MAGAZINE SCHOLASTIC LIBRARY PUBLIS SECRETARY OF STATE SIERRA SPRINGS SIGN CRAFTERS OF OREGON I SILVA TECHNOLOGIES SPRINT STATESMAN-JOURNAL NEWSPAP TAMIE RUSCNER UNIVAR USA INC VALLEY PACIFIC FLOP3%L WATERSHED INC WEISS RATINGS INC WEST CIRCLE BOOKS WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR WILLAMETTE VALLEY SECURIT WOODBURN INDEPENDENT WOODBURN YOUTH BALL ASSN WORLD MEDIA EXPRESS XEROX CORPORATION YES GRAPHICS YOLANDA LOPEZ GARRET YATES RON TONKIN CHEVROLET COMP MIKE ARAIZA AMERICAN FIRE PROTECTION AP.~K UNIFORM SERVICE I ARCH WIRELESS ASHLAND BROTHERS i~SCAP AT & T AUTOF~TION DIRECT.COM INC BEN SHEVCT{ENKO BI-MART CORPORATION CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS SU CANBY R~TAL & EQUIPMENT CHEMSF-2~RCH CIS: CITY-CTY INS SERVS RECONCILED YES 6,041.42 6,041.42 RECONCILED YES 20.91 20.91 RECONCILED YES 7,521.49 7,521.49 RECONCILED YES 52.30 52,30 RECONCILED YES 34,50 34.50 RECONCILED YES 12.00 12.00 RECONCILED YES 10.00 10,00 RECONCILED YES 79.02 79.02 RECONCILED YES 36,060.42 36,060.42 RECONCILED YES 20.00 20.00 RECONCILED YES 167.70 167.70 RECONCILED YES 1,319.42 1,319.42 RECONCILED YES 190.05 190.05 RECONCILED YES 13.97 13.97 RECONCILED YES 84.00 84.00 RECONCILED YES 19.95 19.95 RECONCILED YES 339.73 339.7] RECONCILED YES 38.00 38.00 RECONCILED YES 124.00 124.00 RECONCILED YES 65.00 65.00 RECONCILED YES 225.00 225.00 RECONCILED YES 122.63 122.63 RECONCILED YES 167.44 167.44 RECONCILED YES 183.75 183.75 RECONCILED YES 1,330.23 1,330.23 RECONCILED YES 36.85 36.85 RECONCILED YES 458.22 458.22 RECONCILED YES 227.95 227.95 RECONCILED YES 316.53 316.53 RECONCILED YES 224.00 224.00 RECONCILED YES 59.85 59.85 RECONCILED YES 81.00 81.00 RECONCILED YES 5,004.00 5,004.00 RECONCILED YES 292.88 292.88 RECONCILED YES 285.44 285.44 RECONCILED YES 582.14 582.14 RECONCILED YES 18.00 18.00 RECONCILED YES 30.00 30.00 RECONCILED YES 21,978.50 21,978.50 RECONCILED YES 800.00 800.00 RECONCILED YES 10.40 10.40 RECONCILED YES 217.50 217.50 RECONCILED YES 66.92 66.92 RECONCILED YES 299.18 299.18 RECONCILED YES 23.51 23.51 RECONCILED YES 350.00 350.00 RECONCILED YES 89.00 89.00 RECONCILED YES 55.98 55.98 RECONCILED YES 298,80 298.80 RECONCILED YES 480.00 480.00 RECONCILED YES 112.35 112.35 RECONCILED YES 1,324.77 1,324.77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 PAGE 3 C [ T Y O F N O 0 D B U R N AP0460 WOODBURN LIVE VEEOT DATE 6/07/05 CHECK REGISTER TIME 13~20:04E NAMESTATUEUPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILE~ _~_~ K CHECK DATE PAYE .... - .... = ............. 78886 5/13/2005 CITY OF WOODBURN RECONCILED 81 76 81.76 '~ 78887 5/13/2005 COOKE ETATIONER¥ COH~Y RECONCILED ~ES 508.~3 78888 5/15/2005 CORPORATE EXPRESS RECONCILED YES 508.43 78889 5/15/2005 CUES RECONCILED YES 279.84 279.84 .00 78890 5/13/2005 DITCH WITCH ACCT 4424 RECONCILED YES 159.12 159.12 .00 78891 5/13/2005 DORA E VELASCO RECONCILED YES 182.00 182.00 .00 78892 5/13/2005 DP NORTHWEST INC RECONCILED YES 440.00 440.00 .00 78893 5/13/2005 DR. DISC CO LLC RECONCILED YES 330~00 330.00 .00 78894 5/13/2005 ERNIE GRAHAM OIL INC RECONCILED YES 69.15 69.15 .00 78895 5/1~/2005 ESCHELON TELECOM INC RECONCILED YES 230.00 230.00 .00 78896 5/15/2005 EVANGELINE HARRIS RECONCILED YES 24.00 24.00 .00 78897 5/1]/2005 FRANK M MASON RECONCILED YES 195.00 195.00 .00 78898 5/1]/2005 G.K. MACHINE INC RECONCILED YES 37.76 37.76 .00 78899 5/13/2005 GRAINGER INC RECONCILED YES 164.07 164.07 78900 5/13/2005 }{ACH CHEMICAL CO. RECONCILED YES 99.00 99.00 .00 78901 5/13/2005 HIRE CALLING INC RECONCILED YES 2,544.35 2,544.35 .00 78902 5/13/2005 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO. RECONCILED YES 647.88 647.88 78903 5/13/2005 KENTEC HEATING CONTR INC RECONCILED YES 500.00 500.00 .00 78904 5/13/2005 LAWTON PRINTING INC RECONCILED YES 37.95 ]7.95 .00 78905 5/13/2005 MARION COUNTY CLERK RECONCILED YES 32.00 32.00 .00 78906 5/13/2005 METROFUELING INC. RECONCILED YES 2,988.70 2,988.70 .00 78907 5/13/2005 MICRO ~6~RKETING LLC RECONCILED YES 75.30 75.30 .00 78908 5/13/2005 MPH INDUSTRIES INC RECONCILED YES 45.96 45.96 .00 78909 5/13/2005 NATIONAL ASSOC OF POLICE RECONCILED YES 400.00 400-00 .00 78910 5/13/2005 NATIONAL BUSINESS FURNITU RECONCILED YES 588.95 388.95 .00 78911 5/13/2005 NATIONAL WATERWORKS INC RECONCILED YES 5,525.66 5,325.66 .00 78912 5/13/2005 NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS RECONCILED YES 418.02 418.02 .00 78913 5/15/2005 ONE CALL CONCEPTS INC RECONCILED YES 107.10 107.10 .00 78914 5/13/2005 OR DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RECONCILED YES 12.33 12.33 .00 78917 5/13/2005 PORTL~ND GE~EP, AL ELECTRIC RECONCILED YES 21,765.87 21,765.87 .00 RECONCILED YES 1,849.00 1,849.00 .00 .00 78918 5/13/2005 QWEST 80.00 80.00 78919 5/13/2005 RANDY SMITH RECONCILED YES .00 78920 5/13/2005 RECORDED BOOKS INC RECONCILED YES 99.98 99.98 78921 5/13/2005 ROD'S HANDYMAN SERVICE IN RECONCILED YES 1,180.00 1,180.00 .00 78922 5/13/2005 SALEM ROAD & DRIVEWAY RECONCILED YES 22,835.05 22,835.05 .00 78923 5/13/2005 SALEM SIGN CO INC RECONCILED YES 4,999.00 4,999.00 .00 78924 5/13/2005 SC~[ETKY NORTHWEST SALES RECONCILED YES 61.00 61.00 .00 78925 5/13/2005 SIERRA SPRINGS RECONCILED YES 109.99 109.99 .00 78926 5/13/2005 SILVERFLEET SYSTEMS RECONCILED YES 3,297.68 3,297.68 .00 78927 5/13/2005 SIPPEL WELL DRILLING INC. RECONCILED YES 2,100.00 2,100.00 78928 5/13/2005 ELAYDEN CONSTRUCTION INC RECONCILED YES 59,508.65 59,508.65 .00 78929 5/13/2005 TEK SYSTEMS INC RECONCILED YES 1,840.00 1,840.00 78930 5/13/2005 TRANSAMERICAN CONTRACTORS RECONCILED YES 45,046.15 45,046.15 .00 78931 5/13/2005 UNEQUALLED JANITORIAL SVC RECONCILED YES 438.00 438.00 .00 78952 5/13/2005 UNITED DISPOSAL SERVICE RECONCILED YES 1,905.08 1,905.08 ,00 78933 5/13/2005 USA SECURITY RECONCILED YES 74.85 ~4.85 .00 78934 5/13/2005 vICTOR KAMKIN BOOKSTORE RECONCILED YES ]30.72 330.72 .00 78935 5/13/2005 VP CONSULTING INC RECONCILED YES 520.00 520.00 .00 78936 5/13/2005 WBN COMMUNITY ACCESS TV I RECONCILED YES 1,350.00 1,350.00 .00 78937 5/13/2005 WEST CIRCLE BOOKS RECONCILED YES 162.69 162.69 .00 78938 5/13/2005 WILLIAMS ZOGRAFOS & PECK RECONCILED YES 176.00 176.00 .00 78939 5/13/2005 WOODBI/R~ SEW & VAC RECONCILED YES 162.01 162.01 .00 78940 5/13/2005 XEROX CORPORATION RECONCILED YES 66.38 66.38 .00 PAGE 4 WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y O F W O 0 D B U R N AP0460 DATE 6/07/05 VEEOT TIME 13:20:04 CHECK REGISTER CHECK ~CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE 78942 5/13/2005 YES GRAPHICS 7894] 5/31/2005 WALLACE VIDEO 78944 5/]1/2005 STEVEN SLOAM 78945 5/]1/2005 ALEXIS RESTART 78946 5/31/2005 VALLEY WILING SERVICE IN 78947 5/20/2005 AEROTEK INC 78948 5/20/2005 AMER PUBLIC WORKS ASSN 78949 5/20/2005 ARA~K UNIFORM SERVICE I 78951 5/20/2005 AUTO ADDITIONS INC 78952 5/20/2005 BASIC FIRE PROTECTION INC 78953 5/20/2005 BEARS & ROSES HARLEY-DAVI 78954 5/20/2005 CANBY EXCAVATING INC 78955 5/20/2005 CARY J & SARJ~q BRAULT 78956 5/20/2005 CH2M.NILL INC 78957 5/20/2005 COASTAL FARM HOME SUPPLY 78958 5/20/2005 COOKE STATIONERY COMPANY 78959 5/20/2005 CORPORATE EXPRESS 78960 5/20/2005 CRANE & MERSETH INC 78961 5/20/2005 CTL CORPORATION 78962 5/20/2005 DAVID K LEE 78964 5/20/2005 DONALD & JEAN POTE 78965 5/20/2005 DONALD OLIVER 78966 5/20/2005 DP NORTHWEST INC 78967 5/20/2005 EDUCATIONAL MAPS & GLOBES 78969 5/20/2005 C~Y LEE VAUGHN 78970 5/20/2005 GRAINGER INC 78971 5/20/2005 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 78972 5/20/2005 J;~S O HESS 78974 5/20/2005 KARL & ALE~RA ORLOV 78975 5/20/2005 KATIE KROENLEIN 78977 5/20/2005 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 78979 5/20/2005 LEROY MILLER 78980 5/20/2005 LIBRARY ASSOCIATES 78981 5/20/2005 LULU MADISON 78982 5/20/2005 MARION COUNTY BLDG INSPEC 78983 5/20/2005 MARION COUNTY BLDG INSPEC 78985 5/20/2005 MPULSE 78986 5/20/2005 MSI GROUP INC 78988 5/20/2005 NORCOM 78989 5/20/2005 NORLIFT OF OREGON INC 78990 5/20/2005 PAULA GLASER 78992 5/20/2005 RICK HARRIS 78993 5/20/2005 ROTH'S FOODLINER 78994 5/20/2005 RYAN HERCO CO. 78995 5/20/2005 S.O.S. LOCK SERVICE 78996 5/20/2005 SAFEWAY STORES 78998 5/20/2005 SLATER COMMUNICATIONS 79000 5/20/2005 VERIZON WIRELESS 79001 5/20/2005 GOLOVAN VOLODYMRYR 79002 5/20/2005 WE BE CONSTRUCTION 79003 5/20/2005 WILSONVILLE LOCK & SECURI 79004 5/20/2005 WOODBURN INqSEPENDENT RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED YES YES yES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 463.00 100.00 1,000.00 39.00 871.00 995.00 404.00 56.40 337.00 320.00 148.40 95,638.35 27.51 9,656.00 599.95 534.34 58.25 754.00 293.94 18.67 31.61 27.38 2,139.00 255.00 33.27 241.34 168.05 34.67 60.39 10.34 285.66 40.54 493.20 31.13 276.06 2,054.95 1,091.27 400.00 24,420.75 397.64 32.00 23.04 78.17 38.18 77.00 100.00 708.00 80.04 120-00 25.78 555.00 325.00 100.00 1,000.00 39.00 871.00 995.00 404.00 56.40 ]]7.00 320.00 148.40 95,638.35 27.51 9,656.00 599.95 534.34 58.25 754.00 293.94 18.67 31.61 27.38 2,139.00 255.00 33.27 241.34 168.05 34.67 60.39 10.]4 285.66 40.54 493.20 31.13 276.06 2,054.95 1,091.27 400.00 24,420.75 397.64 32.00 23.04 78.17 38.18 77.00 100.00 708.00 80.04 120.00 25.78 555.O0 325.00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 ,00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 PAGE 5 WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y 0 F W O 0 D B U R N AP0460 DATE 6/07/05 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT TIME 13:20:04 CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE 79024 5/27/2005 BRATTAIN INT'L TRUCKS RECONCILED YES 66.00 79026 5/27/2005 CAPITAL PAINT & DECOR3%TIN RECONCILED YES 127.96 127.96 .00 79053 5/27/2005 EPSILON ENGINEERING, INC- RECONCILED YES 4.340.00 4,340.00 .00 79054 5/27/2005 ERNIE GR)%HAM OIL INC RECONCILED YES 371.45 ]71.45 .00 79090 5/27/2005 LOLJ% SPERATOS RECONCILED YES 61.92 61.92 .00 79099 5/27/2005 METROFUELING INC. RECONCILED YES 560.06 560.06 .00 79108 5/2V/2005 NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS RECONCILED YES 434.44 434.44 .00 79119 5/27/2005 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC RECONCILED YES 22.65 22.65 .00 79123 5/27/2005 RENEE SORGEN RECONCILED YES 197.64 197.64 .00 79133 5/27/2005 SONITROL RECONCILED YES 220.00 220.00 .00 79114 5/27/2005 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO. RECONCILED YES 252.30 252.30 .00 .00 BANK AP TOTAL: 223 CHECKS 513,580.66 513,580.66 RECONCILED .... : 223 CHECKS 513,580.66 NOT RECONCILED - · : CHECKS .00 VOIDED ...... : CHECKS UPDATED ..... : 223 CHECKS 513,580.66 NOT UPDATED . . . : CHECKS .00 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 28 ,,,- x, ix WOODBURNI IOA June 9, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Ben Gillespie, Finance Director i%~ Hearing to Consider a Supplemental Budget RECOMMENDATION: Council direct staff to return an ordinance reflecting the Council's decision following the headng. BACKGROUND: In March the City was awarded a grant from the State of Oregon, through the Marion County Juvenile Department, for .$16,482 for Police overtime while working with juvenile probation staff tracking gang offenders on probation. The City also received a $2,800 State Traffic Safety Grant for overtime for traffic safety enforcement. In the Parks Department revenue from recreation fees are expected to be $15,000 over budget at a result of a fee increase authorized by the Council in the fall of 2004. The Recreation Division proposes to use that money to fund additions to the Teen Program, specifically, the purchase of two computers for the drop in centers and additional contract programs. Winterbrook Planning was engaged to provide technical support for the City's comprehensive plan pedodic review. Unexpected tasks, such as challenging Madon County's Growth Management plan and creating GIS mapping for the City's database, have expanded the scope of work. Other work, and the associated costs of completing it, reflects the complexity inherent in the land use process, and the adjustments that must be made to address public input and coordination with county and state agencies. The cost of Winterbrook's additional services will be $15,000. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator-<~//Cih/Attorney ~/t/'~=~ 2g Finance.~ Mayor and City Council June 9, 2005 Page 2 Complications in the Plaza project have added to the cost. The major change has been the necessity of changing the grade to meet the sidewalk on the alley side. Aisc, due to the wet weather the soil conditions were not as expected, and that has slowed the earthwork. Change orders to the contract are expected to be $55,000. Aisc affecting the Plaza project is the fact that hoped for donations to fund landscaping, benches, and trash cans ($16,000) have not come in at the level anticipated. Urban Renewal has paid for the Plaza to this point, but now all of its resources are committed. Staff recommends using General Fund Contingency to fund the amenities. That amount would be transferred from the General Fund to the General ClP Fund, which would record the expenses. DISCUSSION: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed revision increases revenue in the General Fund by $34,282. Appropriations are increased by $65,282, and Contingencies are decreased $31,000, leaving the Contingencies balance at $732,120, which is 8.6% of the expenditure budget. In the General ClP Fund expenses are increased by $71,000, Reimbursement from the Urban Renewal Agency is increased $55,000, and Transfers from General Fund is increased $16,000. That leaves Fund Balance in that fund unchanged. 3O WOODBUgN 10B June 9, 2005 TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Ben Gillespie, Finance DirectoV~'~ SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider the City of Woodburn'S 2005.06 Budget RECOMMENDATION: Upon completion of the hearing before the Council, staff recommends that the COuncil authorize staff to draft a budget ordinance based on the BudgetCom, mittee's recommendation, including allowable budget adjustments that do not change the tax levy requirement. BACKGROUND: on May 21, 2005, the Budget Committee concluded its hearing on the City's 2005-06 budget and unanimously recommended that the budget document be forWarded to the City Council for the next phase of the budget process. As required by Oregon Budget Law, the notice of this hearing date, along with the financial summary, was published in The Woodbum Independent on June 8, 2005. The financial summary documents a City budget totaling $50,830,520. If includes the Committee's recommendation to impose the property tax limit of $6.0534, and to impose a levy of $650,607, for bonded debt, which is exclUded from the statutory limitation. DISCUSSION: Management recommends four changes to the Budget Committee's Recom- mended Budget: The amount of chemicals required to operate the new water treatment plants was underbudgeted in the Recommended Budget. In the Wat~ Fund the Chemicals item should be increased by $t 6,000 and the Contingency should be reduced by that amount. Agenda Item Review: City Administra~ City Attorney Financ~ 31 Mayor and City Council June 9, 2005 Page 2 A donation from the Burlingham Trust was budgeted in 2004-05 for construction of Ball Field 3 at Centennial Park. The work has not been completed and the donation, which is made on a reimbursement basis, has not been received. The work will be done next year. In the Capital CIP Fund for 2005-06 $32,500 should be budgeted for Donations revenue and for Capital-Parks expense. Several Public Works construction contracts will not be completed until JuLy or August. This is not uncommon; the construction season depends on the good weather from March/April through September/October. Completion can be delayed by wet weather like we had this spring. Seven prajects in five funds are affected: Pro~ect Fund Am't to be Fund Carried Fwd Total Downtown Walkwy Revenue Sharing $ 22,000 $ 22,000 N 1st & 2nd Storm Oak Street Storm Street Storm CIP Street Storm CIP 25,000 25,000 50,000 N. 1s~ & 2nd Storm Storm SDC 25,000. 25,000 Alley Pipe Sewer CIP 10,000. 10,000 Greenview Pump St Industrial Pump St Septage Expansion Alley Pipe Sewer Const 165,000 Sewer Const 80,000 Sewer Const 20,000 Sewer Const 10,000, 275,000 In the 2005-06 budget the effect in each fund is to increase Beginning Fund Balance by the amount listed under "Fund Total" and to increase expenditures by a like amount. Oregon local budget law limits the Council's ability to increase budgets above what is recommended by the Budget Committee to 10%. The above changes are within the 10% limitation. However, two projects budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund in 2004-05 will carry over contractor payments greater than 10% of the 2005-06 Recommended budget. These projects are Greenview Pump Station, $124,300, and Industrial Pump Station, $165,000. Staff will bring a supplemental appropriation to the Council in July to provide the 2005-06 budget necessary to complete these contracts. 32 Mayor and City Council June 9, 2005 Page 3 Another project that is affected by the 10% retention is the PLaza. Current estimates of the amount needed to be carried forward are $160,000. Like the Public Works projects, this will be presented to the Cauncil as a supplemental budget early in the next fiscal year. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The effects of these changes on the 2005-06 budget by fund are: Fund Fund No. Title Increase 470 Water $16,000 358 General CIP 32,500 135 Revenue Sharing 22,000 363 Street/Storm ClP 50,000 377 Storm SDC 25,000 461 Sewer ClP 10,000 465 Sewer Construction 275,000 TOTAL $430,500 The total City of Woodburn 2005-06 budget including these changes would be $51,261,020. The proposed budget is consistent with the budget policies adopted by the budget Committee in January 2005. 33 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ~4 10C June 13, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development/~ Appeal of Design Review Case File No. 05-01 and Variance Case File No. 05-05 located at 1475 Mt. Hood Avenue (Robert Engle, Appellant's Representative). RECOMMENDATION: It is recommend that the City Council continue the public hearing for Design Review Case File No. 05-01 and Variance Case File No. 05-05 to the City Council meeting of June 27, 2005. BACKGROUND: On May 12, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a final order approving the applicant's request for administrative design review to retrofit and upgrade the building fagade and site elements at the existing structure located at 1475 Mt. Hood Avenue for use as an outpatient health service and wellness center (Design Review Case File No. 05-01), and variance to allow 43 existing parking spaces to remain in the required front yard setback (Variance Case File No. 05- 05). On May 25, 2005, the appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Design Review 05-01 and Variance 05-05. DISCUSSION: The appellant has requested a continuance of the public hearing for the appeal of Design Review 05-01 and Variance 05-05 from June 13, 2005 to June 27, 2005. To accommodate the continuance, the appellant has granted an extension of the 120-day rule from July 7, 2005 to August 10, 2005. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. Attachments: Exhibit A: Appellant's Request for Continuance dated May 31, 2005. Agenda Item Review: City Administra~'*~' 35 Ci'h/Aftorney Finance est27/26e5 ],4: 2'I 503!1e25~,4 WClO~S~RN P ~ Woodbum Community Dev~lqDmeot ,Director From Applicant(a): Case File No. & Project Neme: DP. 05-01, VAR 0S-05 Wellspring Meclical Center The applicant(a) in the above-entitled land use =ese reque~t~ i continuance of ~e Wc~odbum City Coun=l On June .13, ZO(}5 t~ June ate the contin.?nce, I~e applicant(s) hereby grant~ an land uae application processing rule deadline to August 36 Exhibit "A" Woo ) u N June 13, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council John C. Brown, City Administrator Periodic Review, Legislative Amendment 05-01 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Two staff reports are included in your agenda package related to this item. The first is a report prepared by the Community Development Director. This report was distributed to you approximately 10 days ago, with the various referenced attachments and exhibits. The City Attorney prepared the second report, within the past few days. The City Attorney's report is provided as a supplement to the Director's report, and provides you with an opportunity fo accept additional written material that was submitted after the April 20, 2005 deadline for written testimony, should you choose to accept it. Both the Director and the City Attorney will be available at your June 13, 2005 meeting to discuss their respective reports. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat~'~ City Attorney 37 Finance WOODBURN June 13, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator U~ate) - Staff Resents to ~mmen~ Re~sions ~ Peflodic Review Amendmen~ Plan and Recommended RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare an ordinance adopting Legislative Amendment 05-01, subject ta the revisions recommended within this memorandum. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of March 28, 2005, the City Council received oral and written testimony regarding proposed periodic review amendments and proposed urban growth boundary expansion. The Council closed the hearing for oral testimony and established a deadline of April 20, 2005 to receive additional written testimony. At its meeting of April 25, 2004, the Council began deliberating on the proposed amendments. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of all written testimony received after the Planning Commission deadline for receiving written testimony on February 10, 2005 and before the City Council deadline on April 20, 2005. In addition, the City Council meeting minutes of March 28, 2005 are attached, which contain the oral testimony received at the hearing on this matter. DISCUSSION: To address substantive issues raised in oral and written testimony received in conjunction with fhe public hearing on this matter, staff provides the following responses for Council consideration. Oral Testimony Amanda Dalton: See response to Exhibit B-113~. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator~.]" ? City Attorney Finance 38 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 2 Sid Friedman, 1000 Friends of Ore.qon: See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Terry Cole, ODOT: These comments demonstrate the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) support of the draft Transportation System Plan. Les Sasaki, Marion County: See Attachment D. Kim Ashland: See response to Exhibit B-71. Gene Viiet: These comments pertain to the street improvement requirements of the current Woodburn Development Ordinance 0NDO). The applicability of street improvement requirements is dependent upon the scope of the development In conjunction with a development application. The WDO provides potential relief in the form of an exception or variance from street improvement requirements if a significant hardship is determined to apply to a specific development application or the required improvements are determined to be not feasible. This determination can only be made based on a specific development proposal. Rick Warnick: These comments pertain to property located at 1365 N. Front Street that is currently designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) and zoned CG (Commercial General). Mr. Warnick commented that he would like the CPM and zoning to remain commercial. The Planning Commission recommended changing the CPM to Medium Density Residential and zoning to RM (Medium Density Residential). This property is one of 14 neighboring properties designated to change to multi-family residential use. Of these properties the subject property is the only one that has a commercial use. Tax Assessor information indicates that the existing building on the 0.7-acre parcel was constructed in 1964 and consists of approximately 9,000 square feet. Assessor information also indicates the value of the improvements ($132,000) is slightly more than the value of the land ($126,000) (Parcels where the improvement value is less than the value of the land are typically considered to be under utilized and ripe for redevelopment). This property is recommended for Medium Density Residential for the following reasons: The property's improvement value is not significantly higher than its land value. 2. The property is generally located in the middle of a larger area 39 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 3 · recommended for Medium Density Residential. 3. The property's existing commercial use is not consistent with the adjacent single-family dwellings and Single Family Residential (RS) zoning to the west. 4. Leaving this property as commercial would result in a 0.7-acre commercial properh/ that is isolated from other commercial properties (i.e., 'spot zoning"). 5. The property could be redeveloped with the larger vacant property ta the west, which could potentially provide access from Front Street to First Street and Second Street (First and Second Streets currently are long dead-end streets). This could provide an opportunity ta significantly improve an existing access deficiency in the area. Lolita Carl: See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Kathleen Cad: See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Paul Serres: See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B and Attachment E. Licetin Andrade: These comments support the proposed amendments. Susan Duncan: See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B and Attachment E. Jeff Tross: See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B and Attachment E.. Ruth Thompson: See respanse ta Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B and Attachment E. Mary Grant: See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B and Attachment E. Toni Spencer: See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Kay Peterson: See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Erin Donnelly: These comments generally cancur with the Planning Commission's recommendation to not change the zoning of the area around Second and Third Streets to Commercial Office (CO). 40 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 4 · Ray Clore: These comments support the proposed urban growth boundary expansion and Economic Development Strategy of the City. They support the need for industrial zoned land of sufficient size to attract the types of industries targeted by the Economic Development Strategy. They also provide evidence to counter an assertion that the City has an overabundance of vacant industrial buildings. Dave Christoff: See response to Exhibit B-113. Bob Thelen: See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B and Attachment E. Bob Fessler: These comments support the proposed UGB expansion of the area generally west of Boones Ferry Road and south of Crosby Road. Staff agrees with the comments that the surrounding streets would provide a buffer between urban and rural use and the soils in this area are generally of lower quality than other potential areas that could be designated for Low Density Residential. Martin Rohrer: See response to Exhibit B-95 in Attachment B. Carla Mikkelson: See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Diane Mikkeison: See response to Attachment D. Don Kelley: These comments relate to three main issues: 1) Support of proposed UGB expansion in the Butteville Road area that includes Mr. Baker's property; 2) Request to separate approval of amendments into two phases to allow exception areas to be acknowledged before non-exception areas; 3) Request that potential unintended consequences of implementation of Interchange Management Area (IMA) Oveday District be considered. Regarding the second issue, staff does not believe separating the approval process into different parts or phases is advantageous, ar even feasible, because the justification and supporting documents for the UGB expansion take into account the expansion areas as a whole, both exception and non-exception areas. Breaking the approval process up could jeopardize bringing in the non-exception areas that include the industrial and nodal development areas. In addition, it cannot be assumed that it is any less likely that the non-exception areas will be challenged, because testimony has been received that has specifically challenged the proposed UGB expansion to the Butteville Road area. Regarding the third issue, city staff, ODOT, and the consultants continue to carefully consider potential consequences and have recommended amendments to the draft IMA Overlay District (see Attachment F) to address issues raised in comments received. Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 5 Dan Wells: See response to Erin Donnelly above. Mark Unger: See response to Exhibit B-80 in Attachment B. Dan Osborn: These comments oppose the inclusion of the Woodburn School District property on East Lincoln Road in the proposed UGB. Although, not included in the staff recommended UGB expansion proposal, the Planning Commission recommended including the property. Brian Moore: These comments support the proposed inclusion of the Fessler property (discussed above) in the UGB. Roger Alfred: These comments support the proposed inclusion of the property around the OGA Golf Course in the UGB. Written Testimony Exhibit B-62 (Craig Robinson): These comments support the proposed comprehensive plan change on three adjacent lots at the northwest corner of James Street and Tierra Lynn Drive from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential to be consistent with the existing zoning of the property as RS (Single Family Residential) and use as single family residences. Exhibit B-63 ~Darlene Mahan): See response to Exhibit B-63 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-64 (Klm Ashland): See response to Exhibit B-71. Exhibit B-65 (Martin Rohrer): See response to Exhibit B-95 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-66 (Serres Family): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B and Attachment E. Exhibit B-67 (Keith Woollen): These comments generally concur with the proposed Transportation System Plan, with the exception of the east arterial road. An east arterial is not proposed at this time because no UBG expansion is proposed on the east side of the city which would be necessary to justify a need for it at this time. Exhibit B-68 (DLCD): See Attachment C. 42 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 6 Exhibit B-69 (Marion County): See Attachment D. Exhibit B-70 (Richard Edmonds): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-71 (Klm Ashland): These comments pertain to two properties each approximately 9 acres located on the north side of Mollala Road adjacent to the easterly UGB boundary. These propedies are within the current UGB, but not in the city limits. They both have CPM designations of Commercial. These comments request that the CPM be changed to Low Density Residential. No change is proposed to the subject property, because vacant commercial land is already being constrained by the UGB expansion proposal and removing approximately 18 acres of commercial land from within the current UGB now, will make it difficult to add it back later. This is because commercial UGB expansions are much more difficult to justify as opposed to residential or industrial expansions because it is more feasible ta redevelop commercial uses ta address commercial land needs than industrial or residential uses. Also, these properties represent the largest vacant commercial site on the east side of the city. In addition, Low Density Residential development would not be compatible with the adjacent Maclaren facility to the north, the highway ta the south, commercial land to the west, and farmland to the east. Exhibit B-72 (Mark Unger): See response to Exhibit B-80 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-73 (Rebecca Jordan): These comments pertain to Measure 37 issues as they relate to the proposed amendments. Potential Measure 37 implications were discussed with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did not recommend any changes to the proposed amendments based on its consideration of potential Measure 37 implications. Exhibit B-74 (Les Schwab Tires): See response ta Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-75 (Chucks Auto Parts): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-76 (Bert Jones): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-77 (Serres Family): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B and Attachment E. Exhibit B-78 (Charles Piper): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B. Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 7 Exhibit B-79 (Fins & Feathers Pet Shop): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-80 (Mark Unger): See response to Exhibit B-80 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-81 (Mark Unger): See response to Exhibit B-80 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-82 (Bed Gottsacker): See response to Exhibit B-82 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-83 (PCUN): These comments express support for the amendments, especially those amendments that will lead to development and higher paying jobs In the city. proposed economic Exhibit B-84 (Estelle Watson): See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-85 (Michael Sowa): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-86 (Terry Priser): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-87 (Robed and Nadine Eckhardt): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-88 (Kevin Mayne - Sharabarin): See response to Exhibit B-88 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-89 (Farmworker Housing Dev. Corp.): These comments express support for the proposed amendments, especially those amendments that will lead to economic development and higher paying jobs in the city. Exhibit B-90 (Carla Mikkleson): See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-91 (Lolita Cad): See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-92 (Toni Spencer): See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-93 (Brian Moore); These comments support the proposed expansion af the area generally west of Boones Ferry Road and south of Crosby Road. Staff agrees with the comments that the surrounding streets would provide a buffer between urban and rural use and the soils in this area are generally of lower quality than other potential areas that could be designated for Low Density Residential. Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 8 Exhibit B-94 (Amanda Dalton): See response to Exhibit B-113. Exhibit B-95 (Martin Rohrer): See response to Exhibit B-95 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-96 (1000 Friends of Oregon): See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-97 (Kay Peterson): See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-98 (Kay McEwen): See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-99 0Noodburn School District): See response to Exhibit B-99 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-100 (Kevin Mayne - Krivashein): See response to Exhibit B-100 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-101 (Serres Family): See response to Exhibit B-77 in Attachment B and Attachment E. Exhibit B-102 0Ninco Foods): These comments pertain to concerns regarding implications the proposed Interchange Management Area (IMA) Overlay may have on future expansion and operation of the Winco Foads property. The southerly 19 acres of the 80-acre Winco property are vacant and were included in the proposed IMA. However, information provided by Winco makes it clear that the 19 acres will be held for future expansion of Winco and will nat be available for development by another party. Staff recommends that the 19 acres be removed from the regulatory pravisions of the IMA, because the property is to be held for expansion of an existing use and most of the 80-acre property is developed. In additian, staff recammends that the 19 acres be removed from the SWIR designation and zone to keep the comprehensive plan designation and zoning on the entire praperty consistent. Exhibit B-103 (Oregon Dept. of Agriculture): See response to Exhibit B-103 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-104 (Kevin Mayne - Krivoshein): See response to Exhibit B-100 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-105 (Kathleen Carl): See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. 45 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 9 Exhibit B-106 (Renaissance Development): These comments indicate that the developer of the area around the OGA Golf Course intends to develop the area around the golf course outside of the current UGB. Exhibit B-107 (OPUS Northwest): These comments support the proposed UGB expansion to include the approximately 10Gacre property at the southeast corner of Highway 219 and Butteville Raad. Staff agrees with the comments that the properh/ is ideally situated for immediate industrial develapment with the types of industries targeted in the Economic Opportunities Analysis and Development Strategy. Exhibit B-108 (Brian Moore): These comments support the proposed UGB expansion to include the area generally west of Boanes Ferry Road and south of Crosby Road. Staff agrees with the comments that the surraunding streets would provide a good buffer between urban and rural use and the soils in this area are generally af lower quality than other potential areas that cauld be designated for Low Density Residential. Exhibit B-109 (1000 Friends of Oregon): See response to Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-110 (Bob Lindsey): See response ta Exhibit B-96 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-111 (Oregon Transportation Commission): See response to Exhibit B-111 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-112 (Kevin Mayne - Sharabarin): See response to Exhibit B-88 in Attachment B. Exhibit B-113 (Willamette Valley Realtors Govt. Affairs Committee): These comments pertain to the interchange Management Area (IMA) Overlay. Three major concerns are raised: 1) Negative impact statewide; 2) Ballot Measure 37; and 3) Small development exception. The first concern asks three questions. Is this effectively a pilot program that ODOT wants to extend across Oregon? Will residential development be subjected to the overlay district requirements? Will the district be expanded to encompass even more of Woodburn? The answer to the first question can only be answered by ODOT, but staff's understanding is the Oregon Transportation Commission is moving toward requiring IMAs to receive priority for ODOT funding support for major interchange improvements. The answer to the second question is: residential development is not subject to 46 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 10 the IMA regulations. The answer to the third question is: there is no expectation at this time to expand the IMA. The second stated concern asks several questions regarding potential Measure 37 claims that could result from adoption af the IMA. The adoption of the IMA could potentially result in Measure 37 claims being filed. If the City Council (and possibly ODOT) believes a particular claim is valid it will have the option of waiving the regulation or paying compensation. This decision would be made on a case-by-case basis. The third stated concern requests an exception for smaller developments to be included in the IMA regulations. Staff has reviewed the IMA regulations in further detail and recommends multiple revisions to further refine and clarify them. One revision modifies the applicability section to establish a threshold of 20 peak hour vehicles trips before a development is subject to the IMA. In addition, the table that lists the parcels that are subject to the IMA is revised to include only vacant commercial and industrial parcels that are least one acre in size. Recommended Revisions to Proposed Amendments After consideration of oral and written comments received from DLCD, Marion County and other interested parties and after further staff review and analysis af the proposed amendments, staff has drafted revisions to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, Woodburn Development Ordinance and Public Facilities Plan (see Attachment F). These recommended revisions would replace the respective portions of the original public hearing draft amendment package (Exhibit 'A"). Any necessary revisions to the Transportation System Plan will be made by the consultant after final direction is received from the Council on the recommended revisions discussed in this memorandum. The substantive proposed revisions are summarized as follows: Revisions to Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) and Zonin.q Map: Revise CPM and zoning map to reflect approval of a zone change from RS (Single Family Residential) to RM (Medium Density Residential) for Boones Ferry Place. The City Council recently approved a zone change fram RS to RM on property generally located at the southwest corner of Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road. This change is not currently represented on the proposed CPM and zoning map. It is recommended that the proposed CPM for this property be changed to MDR and the zoning be changed to RM. 47 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 11 Revise the proposed zoning map in the downtown area to retain the existing zoning instead of the proposed Commercial Office (CO) zoning. The Planning Commission and staff recommend this change. Revise the boundary of the Interchange Management Area Overlay on the CPM and zoning map to better reflect the areas that are subject to the overlay. Revise the CPM to change the designation on the exception area at the southeast corner af Carl Road and Highway 99E from Commercial to Medium Density Residential. This corrects a mapping error and makes the map consistent with the existing use of property as a mobile home park. 5. Revise the CPM to remove the easterly portion of the OGA Golf Course fram the proposed UGB expansion to avoid Class I soils. Revise the CPM to relocate the industrial designated 50-acre UGB expansion at the northwest quadrant af I-5 and Butteville Road to a 50- acre parcel located south of the proposed South Arterial. 7, Revise CPM and zoning map to remove SWIR designation and zoning from south end of Winco Foods property. Revisions to Proposed Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies (Volume I): 1. Density ranges on Pages 7 and 32 are revised ta be consistent with proposed lot sizes. 2. Comprehensive Plan change criteria on Page 11 are revised to be consistent with criteria far a plan change in the WDO. Policy Table 3 (Page 22) is revised to address changes in the parcels recommended to be included in the SWIR and to provide a more complete range of parcel sizes consistent with the recommendations of the Economic Opportunities Analysis and Development Strategy. 4. Goal G-2.4 (Page 33) is deleted because the updated TSP will be adopted concurrently with proposed periodic review amendments. 5. Transportation goals (Goal H) are revised to be consistent with the goals 48 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 12 and policies in the draft TSP. Revisions to Proposed Woodburn Development Ordinance 0NDO): The proposed WDO amendments are generally supplemented and revised to provide proper cross referencing to applicable sections of the WDO and to address standards and guidelines af other sections that should apply to the new zoning districts. Also, only those specific subsections of main sections (e.g. Section 2.102 RS zone) that are to be revised are included in these draft amendments whereas the original draft amendments contained all zoning districts whether there were changes proposed or not. The NNC District (Section 2.108) is generally reformatted to be consistent with the format and regulations for commercial zones. Substantive revisions include reducing the maximum size of a NNC District from 15 to 12 acres. The RCWOD District (Section 2.113) is generally reformatted to be consistent with the format far other zoning districts and revised to better reflect the specific language found in the State Administrative Rules regulating wetland and ripadan ordinances. The SWlR District (Section 2.114) is generally reformatted to be consistent with the format and regulations for the IP zone. Table 2.1.22 is revised to address changes in the parcels recommended to be included In the SWIR and to more clearly address recommendations of the Economic Opporfunities Analysis and Development Strategy. The Nodal Overlay Districts (Section 2.115) are generally reformatted to be consistent with the format and regulations for residential zones. Substantive revisions include adjustments to building setbacks. The IMA Overlay District (Section 2.116) is generally reformatted to be consistent with the format far other zoning districts. Substantive revisions include establishing a minimum threshold for applicability of the district, revising Table 2.116.1 to correct errors, and making the section clearer and more concise. 7, Street Standards (Section 3.101), Special Street Setbacks (Section 3.103), Off Street Parking and Loading (Section 3.105), Administration and Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 13 Procedures (Section 4.101), and Type IV Application Requirements (Section 5.104) are revised to incorporate recommended code revisions from the draft TSP. 8. Block standards (Section 3.101.02.G) are revised to remove some exceptions to the maximum 600-foot block standard. Revisions to Proposed Transportation System Plan (TSP): 1. Revise maps and illustrations to show revised urban growth boundary and study area boundary. 2. Revise Figure 7-2 to add a cross section for cul-de-sac streets not exceeding 250 feet in length showing a right-of-way width of 50 feet and a curb-to-curb width of 26 feet (one 12-foot travel lane with 7-foot wide parking an each side). 3. Revise IMA Overlay District boundary to better reflect the areas that are subject to the overlay. Revisions to Proposed Public Facilities Plan (PFP): Revise PFP to address DLCD comments and to provide more up to date information regarding public facility inventories and improvement schedules. In addition, an appendix has been added analyzing the abilily to serve the eight study areas for UGB expansion and an appendix has been added that indicates the infrastructure projects needed and associated costs to serve a short-term supply of industrial land in the Southwest Industrial Reserve. Revisions to Supportin.q Studies and Documents (Volume II): Supporting documents are revised to support the above recommended revisions and to address comments received fram the Council, Planning Cammission, DLCD, Marion County, and other interested parties. UGB Study Area Public Services Analysis becomes an appendix to the Public Facilities Plan. The revised supporting documents will be pravided to the Council with the ordinance to adopt the proposed periodic review amendments after receiving final Council direction. Other Issues 50 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 14 Task 9 of the City's Periodic Review Work Program requires the City to review and update its Urban Growth Boundary Agreement with Madon County for coordinating land use within the Urban Growth Boundary. City staff has worked with County staff in developing an updated Urban Growth Boundary Coordination Agreement. The recommended draft agreement is provided for Council consideration in Attachment H. Task 10 of the City's Periodic Review Work Program requires the City to submit a citizen involvement report to LCDC upon conclusion of periodic review. The Citizen Involvement Report, as of May 27, 21305, is provided in Attachment I. Attachments: Exhibit Exhibit 'B" Draft City of Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update (previously provided to Council under separate cover) Written Testimony and Comments Received After Planning Commission Written Testimony Deadline on 2/10/05 and Before City Council Written Testimony Deadline on 4/20/05: B-62: B-63: B-64: B-65: B-66: B-67: B-68: B-69: B-70: B-71: B-72: B-73: B-74: B-75: B-76: B-77: B-78: B-79: B-80: B-81: B-82: B-83: B-84: Craig Robinson, received 2/22/05 Darlene Mahan, received 2/22/05 Klm Ashland, received 2/24/05 Martin Rohrer, received 3/3/05 Serres Family, received 3/8/05 Keith Woollen, received 3/14/05 DLCD, received 3/18/05 Marion County, received 3/21/05 Richard Edmonds, received 3/22/05 Klm Ashland, received 3/23/05 Mark Unger, received 3/23/05 Rebecca Jordan, received 3/23/05 Les Schwab Tires, received 3/23/05 Shucks Auto Parts, received 3/23/05 Bert Jones, received 3/23/05 Serres Family, received 3/23/05 Charles Piper, received 3/24/05 Fins & Feathers Pet Shop, received 3/24/05 Mark Unger, received 3/24/05 Mark Unger, received 3/24/05 Bert Gottsacker, received 3/24/05 PCUN, received 3/25/05 Estelle Watson, received 3/28/05 51 Honorable Mayor and Cily Council June 13, 2005 Page 15 Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G B-85: B-86: B-87: B-88: B-89: B-90: B-91: B-92: B-93: B-94: B-95: B-96: B-97: B-98: Michael Sowa, received 3/25/05 Tern/Priser, received 3/25/05 Robert and Nadine Eckhardt, received 3/28/05 Kevin Mayne (Sharabarin), received 3/28/05 Farmworker Housing Dev. Corp., received 3/28/05 Carla Mikkleson, received 3/28/05 Lolita Carl, received 3/28/05 Toni Spencer, received 3/28/05 Brian Moore, received 3/28/0,5 Amanda Dalton, received 3/28/05 Martin Rohrer, received 3/28/05 1000 Fflends of Oregon, received 3/31/05 Kay Peterson, received 4/4/05 Kay McEwen, received 4/18/05 Woodburn School District, received 4/19/05 B-100: Kevin Mayne (krivoshein), received 4/19/05 B-101:Serres Family, received 4/19/05 B-102: Winco Foads, received 4/19/05 B-103: Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, received 4/19/05 B-104: Kevin Mayne (Krivoshein), received 4/20/05 B-105: Kathleen Cad, received 4/20/05 B-106: Renaissance Development, received 4/20/05 B- 107: OPUS Northwest, received 4/20/05 B-108: Brian Moore, received 4/20/05 B-109:1000 Friends of Oregon, received 4/20/05 B-110: Bob Undsey, received 4/20/05 B-111: Oregon Transportation Commission, received 4/20/05 B-112: Kevin Mayne (Sharabarin), received 4/20/05 B-113: Willamette Valley Realtors Govt. Affairs Committee, received 4~20~05 City Council Minutes of 3/28/05 Winterbraok's Responses to Comments Draft Response Letter to DLCD Draft Response Letter to Marion County Public Works Dept. Response to Serres Family Comments Recammended Revisions to Proposed Amendment Package (Exhibit "A") including revisions to the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies (Attachment F-l), Waodburn Development Ordinance (Attachment F-2), and the Public Facilities Plan (Attachment F-3) Recommended Map Revisions, dated 6/13/05 52 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 16 Attachment H Attachment I Draft Urban Growth Boundary Coordination Agreement Citizen Involvement Report 5~ DBURN Woo: June 9, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development N. Robert Shields, City Attorney Legislative Amendment 05-01 RECOMMENDATION: Consider whether the City Council wants to reopen the record to receive the additional written information that has been submitted. BACKGROUND: On March 28, 2005, the Council conducted a public hearing in this matter and heard extensive public testimony. The Council then left the record open for the submission of written testimony until April 20, 2005. Although a significant number of documents were submitted by the April 20 deadline, the City has received some information directed to the Council that was submitted after this date. We have also received correspondence from attorneys arguing that their clients should have the opportunity to present this information. DISCUSSION: Memorandum Opinion No. 2005-01 explains the parameters on the receipt of information by the Council. Since the City is involved in an extremely complicated land use process, almost any decision that the Council makes could potentially be raised as a procedural error. However, as stated in the legal opinion, the process is legislative in nature and this affords the Council a wide degree of latitude in deciding what information it will consider. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: Memorandum Opinion No. 2005-01 Letter from Richard Stein dated June 3, 2005 Letter from Roger Alfred dated May 23, 2005 Agenda Item Review: City Administrot City Attorney Finance ..~/~ 54 MEMO DUM OPINION NO. 2005-01 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council John C. Brown, City Administrator Jim Mulder, Community Development Director N. Robert Shields, City Attorney April 25, 2005 Procedural Issues in Periodic Review BACKGROUND The City Council is engaged in the task of finalizing the City's Periodic Review. This involves amendments to the Woodburn Zoning Map and Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO), text and map amendments to the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan, and a proposed Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion. Throughout the course of this process, I have answered many procedural questions in different contexts. Some of these questions are often asked. I thought it would be helpful to summarize all of this information for you in a legal opinion. This opinion is rendered in a question and answer format. PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE CONDUCTED AS IN MOST LAND USE MATTERS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL~ YET THE PROCESS HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS ~'LEG1SLATIVE.' IS IT A LAND USE CASE? EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF PROCEEDING IS THIS? The City Council is completing the state Periodic Review process and is involved in a legislative land use proceeding. The strict notice and procedural requirements for quasi-judicial (site specific) land use hearings do not apply to legislative decisions such as this. However, the state statutes and administrative rules regarding Periodic Review are applicable. 2. WHY WERE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD? The WDO requires public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Additionally, the state administrative rule requires at least one public hearing. 55 City Council John C. Brown Jim Mulder April 25, 2005 Page 2 J WAS BALLOT MEASURE 56 NOTICE GIVEN? WHY.9 Ballot Measure 56 (ORS 197.047) was passed by the voters in 1998 and requires that individual notice be mailed and a public hearing be conducted when any property is "rezoned." Since the current proposal involves changing the zoning designations on a number of specific properties, Ballot Measure 56 notice was legally required. AT THE MARCH 28, 2005 CITY COUNCIL HEARING, ORAL TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN AND THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COUNCIL THEN LEFT THE RECORD OPEN FOR WRITTEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY UNTIL APRIL 20, 2005. CAN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC TESTIMONY BE RECEIVED? No additional public testimony will be received without City Council approval. The Council met the public hearing requirements and provided a full and fair opportunity for both oral and written testimony. The Council has the legal right, as it did, to close the public hearing and set a limit on the submission of written materials from the public. CAN THE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSS THE INVOLVED ISSUES WITH ITS STAFF, HAVE ITS STAFF GENERATE ADDITIONAL MATERIALS, AND CONSIDER INPUT FROM INTERESTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS (I.E., AN ODOT OFFICIAL) AFTER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS CLOSED? Yes. The City Council received public testimony when it conducted the public hearing. However, the Council is acting in a legislative capacity and can consider or have its staff generate additional materials. This could include considering input from interested public officials invited to address the Council. The typical proceeding before the City Council is site specific and quasi-judicial ("like a judge") and in this context, as in a court, numerous procedural rights of the parties are applicable. In contrast, the Council here is acting like a legislature. "Hearings" before legislative bodies do not resemble judicial proceedings. The purpose is not to try a case, but to inform the legislative body. "Interested parties" are often invited to appear before the legislature to make useful comments, but are not asserting their rights as in a trial. Even after hearing and deliberation, the legislature is not bound by the principle of exclusiveness of the record. Legally, it may look beyond the record and rely on the kinds of investigative and extra record materials used by legislative committees. This may include information in its own files and its own knowledge and expertise. The April 20, 2005 deadline applied only to the submission of written testimony by members of the public. It did not apply to the Council itself, to its staff, to 56 City Council April 25, 2005 Page 3 John C. Brown Jim Mulder interested parties the Council invites, or to additional information that the Council requests or solicits. AT A FU'fURE TIME, IF THE CITY COUNCIL CHOOSES~ COULD THE COUNCIL HEAR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC TESTIMONY? ALSO~ COULD THE COUNCIL SET PARAMETERS ON WHAT TESTIMONY IT WILL RECEIVE? Yes. The City Council, at its discretion, could allow for the submission of additional oral or written public testimony in the future. The Council could also set parameters on the nature and scope of the future testimony, if any future testimony is heard. AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL COMPLETES ITS DELIBERATIONS AND CONSIDERS ALL THE TESTIMONY, WHAT WILL HAPPEN? Staff will prepare an ordinance for presentation to the City Council together with the necessary supporting documents. This will be a significant effort. For instance, in the City of North Plains, the ordinance and its supporting documents numbered approximately 130 pages. AFTER THE COUNCIL PASSES ITS ORDINANCE~ WHAT DOES THE REMAINDER OF THE PROCESS INVOLVE.9 After the City Council acts, the Marion County Board of Commissioners must also consider the UGB expansion proposal and conduct its own public hearing. After its hearing and deliberation, the Board then memorializes its position in an ordinance and the proposed Periodic Review/UGB expansion proposal goes to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). LCDC is the state agency that considers these proposals under its "acknowledgement" process. The final LCDC decision is appealable to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which usually hears City land use cases, generally has no jurisdiction in Periodic Review matters. 57 RAMSAY ~ STEnq, P.C. ^TI~I~NEY~ AT LAW WOODBURN CfI'Y ATTORNEY June 3, 2005 Via Fax: (503) 982.5243 Mr. N. Robert Shields Woodburn City Attorney 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 97071 Re: City Council Procedural Error, UGB Expansion Dear Mr. Shields: Thank you for your letter dated June 1, 2005 and the attached legal opinion dated April 25, 2005. I am aware that this is a legislative and not a quasi-judicial land use proceeding. Perhaps the use of the shorthand term "procedural error" confused the issue, but what we are trying to do is remedy a situation where the City Council failed to consider and deal with information necessary to comply with state law. When adopting a post-acknowledgment plan amendment (PAPA), the city must comply with the LCDC goals. The whole purpose of periodic review is to make sure, among other things, that adequate public facilities and services are provided. ORS 197.628(1). LCDC Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 (OAR 660-014-0040) are involved in this case, at a minimum, and because information requested by my clients from the Public Works Department relating to the cost of extending public facilities and services to the study areas outside was provided after the closing of the record date, and because this information clearly shows that the staff analysis previously presented to the City Council was in error, we believe that if the city does not reopen the record to receive this information and consider our clients' analysis, the city will be in violation of these goals. Such an error is reviewable on appeal. ORS 197.620(1); ORS 197.835(6). We are trying to head off a train wreck before it occurs. 1395 LllS~TY ST. $[, S'fi- 1Ol SAIS. M, OR£GON 9730 2 {503) 399-9776 FAX (503) 370- 7909 58 Mr. N. Robert Shields June 3, 2005 Page 2 In going through the PAPA process, LCDC Goals 11 and 14 apply and require, in part, that extensions of public facilities and services to areas being considered for inclusion within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) be "orderly and efficient," meaning cost-effective. OAR 660-011-00000; 660-014-040(3)(d). Rough cost estimates are required for public facility projects, as well as funding mechanisms. OAR 660-011- 0035. The information provided by Public Works staff after the closing date of the record makes it clear that the costs of extending public facilities and services were substantially overstated to the study area where my clients' property is located and understated to other areas. Consequently, even a determination of a "rough estimate" of these costs will be substantially inaccurate. If the City Council does not have this information and analysis, it is violating Goal 11. It can, however, easily remedy the problem by reopening the record for submission of our materials. From a policy standpoint, it also makes eminent good sense to make decisions with large tax dollar consequences on the basis of the best information available. The information in the record as it now stands is simply wrong and the City Council will be making a decision with substantial consequences on future city budgets and taxes on the basis of incorrect information. Again, this is a situation that can be easily remedied by reopening the record and we frankly cannot imagine why the council would want to rush to a decision on the basis of flawed information, when it is so easy to address the problem now. Finally, under OAR 660-025-0080, there is the requirement in periodic review proceedings for "adequate participation" from the standpoint of citizen involvement. My clients have tried to adequately participate, but their participation has been hamstrung by the failure of staffto provide crucial information ina timely masmer. As detailed in rny previous letter to you, the request was made to leave the record open to allow this information to be received and analyzed, but it was not allowed. The administrative rule above contemplates that on an issue as important as the one under discussion, there be a full and complete airing of all facts, analyses, and a maximum amount of input. This has not happened for the above reasons, resulting in a violation of OAR 660-025-0080. We hereby formally request that the Mayor and City Council reopen the record to allow submission of all materials provided by Public Works and the analysis by my clients and their experts. Without this, the City of Woodburn will be erring as detailed above - an error that can be easily resolved at this stage in the proceedings. As you know 59 Mr. N. Robert Shields June 3, 2005 Page 3 in your April 25, 2005 Memorandum Opinion #2005-01 (6), this is something that the Mayor and City Council can do. We strongly believe that it is something that they should do and even that they are required to do to assure compliance with the law, as discussed above. We also formally request written notice from the city of the adoption of any comprehensive plan amendment, pursuant to ORS 197.615. Thank you for yeur anticipated cooperation. We will look forward to your written reply. Sincerely, RAMSAY & STEIN, P.C. Richard C. Stein RCS:jk cc: Ms. Ruth Thompson t50 ~30 N.W.C,~U, ch Street, Tenth RaM ~c~e: SO~7'J'7,3oao www~Qef ktnr, CO~e~rn May23,2005 ,A, REC'O Woodbum Cit~ Council City or Woodhum 2?0 Mont$omet~ Strut Woodbum, OR 9'/07t Re: Renaissance Homes- UGB Expansion MAY 2 3 2005 tlEVELOt~},i~;~F CEPT. Dear Membe~ of thc Council: This office represents Renaissance Homes in the ongoing development of thc Links at Tukwila residential PUD. We have appeared before the City Council with reepect to thc inclusion of the remminder of the OGA golf course property within the Woodbum UGB, and support the Planning Commission's decision to include that property. Since thc closing of thc record last month, we have had discussions with Jim Mulder regarding a potential change in the staff rccommendatlon to tho City Council with r~pcct to thc inclusion of the entire golf course property. If the City Council decides to comidcr changing the boundaries of the proposed UGB expansion du~ to a change in the staff recommendation after the close of the record, it is our undcrstanding that thc City Council will re-open the record ~o that affected pm-tics ma), comment on the ncw proposal. Otherwise, we would bc unfairly prejudiced duo to the denial of an opportunity to provide comments on the n~w proposal during the open record period. R.ogcr A. Alfred RAA:dif cc: Renaissance Homes Mikc Robinson 61 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK WOODBURN June 8, 2005 11B TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator D. Randall Westrick, Recreation and Parks Director ~ Hermanson Pond Deed Restrictions RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Administrator on behalf of the City to record a document containing the restrictive covenants noted in the staff report against the City- owned property located at Hermanson Pond. BACKGROUND: In association with the federal Natural Resources Consewation Service (NRCS) and the Marion Soil and Water Conservation District (MSWCD), the Recreation and Parks Department has developed a plan to make improvements to the Hermanson Pond and surrounding City property. The involved property is shown on the attachment to this report. These plans call for deepening and expanding the existing pond, removing and abating noxious non-native plant materials and restoring natural native habitat. The NRCS and MSWCD have provided technical assistance in putting together these plans and securing funding to complete the project. Project funding is provided through the Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program and the State's Oregon Water Enhancement Board. These improvements will provide several benefits that include: · Abatement of noxious weeds, specifically Reed Canary grass; · increased habitat for wildlife, mostly more diverse nesting birds and water fowl; · Improved water quality in Hermanson Pond - deepening will provide cool water for fish; and · Landscaping with native plant materials will provide a more scenic environment. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator 63 City Attorney Financ~)~ Mayor and City Council June 9, 2005 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Because the project includes significant work within a wetland, permits from the Corps of Engineers and the Department of State Lands (DSL) are required to perform the work. As a final measure before issuing the permit, DSL is requiring the City to place certain restrictions on the property's deed that will ensure that the property remains as a wetland. The proposed deed restrictions are as follows: 1. There shall be no spraying with herbicides in the natural habitat of the Property except to control invasive species. 2. There shall be no agricultural, commercial, or industrial activity undertaken or allowed on the Property. Except for that portion of the property that is currently dedicated as public right-of-way, no right of passage across or upon the Property shall be allowed if that right of passage is associated with agricultural, commercial or industrial activity. Except for the installation of walkways, paths, and City utilities, or for the maintenance of stormwater facilities, there shall be no filling, excavating, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock minerals or other material and no changing of the topography of the Property in any manner. 5. There shall be no construction or placing of buildings, mobile homes, advertising signs, billboards, or other advertising material on the Property. These restrictions were reviewed by Public Works Maintenance and Engineering Divisions and they will not result in extraordinary operational burdens. FINANCIAL IMPACT: An amount of $45,000 is included in the 2005-06 ClP Budget for this project. These funds are provided through WHIP and OWEB as described above. 84 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK /VOODBURN 13A June 13, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development~-// Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use 05-01 Design Review 05-02 and RECOMMENDATION: No action is recommended. This item is placed before the City Council for information purposes in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance. The City Council may call up this item for review if it desires. BACKGROUND: On May 26, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a final order approving Conditional Use 05-01 and Design Review 05-02 to construct a 27,800 square foot police facility at 1060 Mt. Hood Avenue. The subject property can be identified specifically on Marion County Assessor Map TSS, Rl W, Section 08CB, Tax lot#: 4800. The subject property is zoned Public and Semi-Public (P/SP) and designated on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map as Open Space and Parks. The properties located to the west are zoned P/SP, designated as Open Space and Parks and Public Use on the Comprehensive Plan Map and are the location of a City sanitary waste water facility, Mill Creek and a residential dwelling. The property located to the south is zoned P/SP, designated Open Space and Parks and is the location of Legion Park. The properties located to the east are zoned Medium Density Residential (RM), designated Residential Greater Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map and are the location of duplexes and apartments. The property located to the north (across Mt. Hood Avenue) is zoned Light Industrial (IL), designated Industrial on the Comprehensive Plan Map and is the location of a residential dwelling. The City Council and Budget Committee gave staff direction in March of 2003 to begin the pre-design process on the police facility. The City Council appointed a focus group in November of 2003 to work on the pre-design of the police facility. The focus group met weekly until co .repletion of the pre-design project in Agenda Item Review: City Administrat(~'/'/~''' City Attorney W~'~ Finance~ 67 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 2 July of 2004. Two open houses were held in July of 2004 and several meetings with neighbors of the police facility site were held in June and July of 2004. The City Council passed Resolution No. 1763 on July 26, 2004 calling for a Bond Election to be held for the police facility in November of 2004. The Bond Measure Passed on November 2, 2004. The Focus Group started meeting again on January 7, 2005 and has met almost every week since then. Construction is scheduled to begin August 24, 2005 and be completed in August of 2006. The applicant is required to apply for and receive Conditional Use and Design Review approval for the proposed police facility. The Applicant and the Property Owner is the City of Woodburn. DISCUSSION: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. 68 WOODBURN 13B June 13, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Jim MuIder, Director of Community Development ,.....~ // , Planning Commission s Approval of Design Review 04-10, Variance 04-34, Variance 04-35, Variance 05-08 and Property Line Adjustment 05-04 RECOMMENDATION: No action is recommended. This item is placed before the City Council for information purposes in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance. The City Council may call up this item for review if it desires. BACKGROUND: On May 26, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a final order approving Design Review 04-10, Variance 04-34, Variance 04-35, Variance 05-08 and Properly Une Adjustment 05-04 to allow for Design Review approval to construct porte-cocheres (i.e., covered passenger landings) at the building entrances of Cascade Park Retirement Center; Variance approval to waive the boundary and connecting street improvement standard, to allow existing off street parking to remain in required setbacks, to allow existing off street parking to remain in a yard abutting a street in an RM zone, to allow the existing substandard number of off street parking spaces and existing driveway access widths to remain, to allow a 6-foot tall cedar fence in place of a buffer wall abutting the RS-zoned parking lot to the south; and Property Line Adjustment approval to consolidate tax lot #s 1800, 3200 and 3300 into one lot. The subject site is located at 950 North Cascade Drive. The property is identified on Marion County Tax Assessor's Maps as Township 5 South, Range 2 West, Section 12DA, Tax Lots 1800, 3200 and 3300. An assisted living care center, Cascade Park Retirement Center, is located on the subject site. No wetlands are located on the subject site and it is located outside of the 500-year floodplain. The subject property is zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The adjacent property to the north is zoned CO and designated Commercial on the Woodburn Agenda Item Review: City Administrate City Attorney/V'/~..~ Financ 69 Honorable Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Map and the property to the northeast (across Newberg Highway) is zoned CO and designated Commercial on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map. The property located to the south is zoned Single Family Residential (RS), and designated Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Properties abutting the site to the west (across North Cascade Drive) are zoned, north to south: CO, RM, RS, and Retirement Community Single Family Residential (R1S), and are designated north to south: Commercial, Residential More Than 12 Units Per Acre, and Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The abutting properties to the east are zoned RM and R1S and designated Commercial and Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The properties to the north and northeast are occupied by the 'Cascade at 214' commercial office building and vacant. Adjacent properties to the west are, from north to south: in use as the Woodburn Doctor's Office, the Pacific Living Center, Inc. Residential Care Center, vacant, and the location of single-family dwelling units. The adjacent lot to the south of the subject site is occupied by the Woodburn United Methodist Church, and the adjacent site to the east is the location of the Colonial Gardens Residential Care Center. The Applicant is Al Stancikas of Blue Line Concepts. The Property Owner is Woodburn Investment Associates, LTD. DISCUSSION: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. 70 WOODBURN 13C June 13, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development,~p7 Community Development Director's Approval of ~arfition 05-02. RECOMMENDATION: No action is recommended. This item is placed before the City Council for information purposes in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance. The City Council may call up this item for review if it desires. BACKGROUND: On June 3, 2005, the Woodburn Community Development Director approved the applicant's request to partition an existing 33.54 acre parcel into three parcels in the Single Family Residential (RS) zone. The three parcels will divide Phase Ii of the original Boones Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD) into three smaller phases (Phases 4, 5 and 6) of the Boones Crossing PUD. Proposed parcel 1 (phase 4 of the Beeries Crossing PUD) is 9.75 acres in area, proposed parcel 2 (phase 5 of the Boones Crossing PUD) is 12.37 acres in area and proposed parcel 3 (phase 6) is 11.42 acres in area. The subject property is located west of Brown Street, east of South Boones Ferry Road, south of Country Lane and north of the city limits. The subject site is identified specifically on Marion County Tax Assessor's Maps as TSS, Rl W, Section 18C, Tax Lot 1400. The subject property is zoned City of Woodburn "Single Family Residential" (RS), designated Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map, and is vacant. The properties to the west (across S. Boones Ferry Road), east and south of the subject property are zoned Marion County "Urban Transition Farm" (UTF), designated Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map, and are the location of vacant land and single family dwellings. The properties to the north (phases 1,2 and 3 of the Boones Crossing PUD) are zoned RS, designated Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map, and are currently vacant. No wetlands are located on the subject property. The subject site is located outside of the 500 year floodplain. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat City Attorney J~'~ Financ 71 Mayor and City Council June 13, 2005 Page 2 The property owners are Faye E. Zimmer and Nancy K. Bocci. The applicant is Boones Crossing, LLC. DISCUSSION: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. 72 The class of 2005 is the largest graduating class in the history of Woodburn High School; 257 students made their way across the stage last Tuesday evening to receive diplomas. · The class of 2005 earned 143 scholarships, totaling more than $1.3 million. · 17 students achieved the Oregon Certificate of Initial Mastery. · 23 students were inducted into the National Honor Society. · 39 students received the Oregon Honors Diploma. · Pending final test results, 7 graduates will receive International Baccalaureate diplomas, up from 2 recipients last year. · 33 additional students were participants in one or more rigorous International Baccalaureate course during their WHS career. DIVERSE IN CULTURE; UNIFIED IN MISSION DID YOU KNOW? ...Woodbum High School teacher Laurie Cooper was recognized this spring as the 2003-04 Oregon Speech Educator of the Year and the 2004-05 National Federation of High School Associations - Speech, Debate and Theater Coach of theYear. Cooper was head speech coach at WHS for 12 years... ...Lincoln Elementary School's Thinking Cap Quiz Bowl team took first place in the competition, beating out 15 other fifth- and sixth-grade teams from across the state of Oregon. Lincoln's seven stu- dents had to correctly answer as many of the 100 questions as possible Topics included health, politics, science, literature, math, sports, current events and many other areas of interest... ...French Prairie staff and district administrators successfully hired Eric Swenson as the middle school's new principal, filling House Rep. Betty Komp's former position. Swenson is currently Lincoln Elementary School's assistant principal and has received much praise for the year he has spent in that role. He will officially take over at French Prairie July 1, 2005... ...Heritage Elementary Sch i~:.~e featured in a new PBS program called "Becoming Bilingual." The 30-minute show, wh~cN~l~(~regon Public Broadcasting at 12:30 p.m. June 2, is a look at the many kinds of Bili, fi~hnd En~!~h as a Second Language programs being implemented across the ...Woodburn Hi Senior Gates Millenium Scholarship, through graduate school. Gutierrez will ust received word that she will be a recipient of the t "full ride" to the university or her choice - all the way University beginning next fall... ...Seven students, who have been participating in Valor Middle School, visited Senate President Peter violence, equity and human rights. While at the Capitol, Courtney and gave their speeches on the Senate Floor... at their ~ } about non- rotundfi. Sen. ...Nellie Muir Elementary School had a successful first year of working irtment of Education's new Technology Enhanced Student Assessment (TESA) system, fie for students in grades three, four and five, TESA gives students three opportunities to take the state Reading and Math tests. It makes test results known immediately, providing parents with the good news that their children passed, or the information needed to help students improve on their second and third attempts... ...Washington Elementary School students, in collaboration with Artist-in-Residence Sam Bernardi, are constructing a mosaic-tile mural in their entry hall, which will depict both diversity and unity... ...Fifty Success Alternative School students completed internships this year out in Woodburn's business community. In its first year, the partnership between schools and local businesses provided students with an opportunity to gain real-life work experience and earn credit toward high school graduation at the same time... June 8, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Public Works Program Manager Water System E. Coil Information EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On Tuesday May 24 the Water Division received word that of 11 samples submitted the previous day a sample from the Parr Road reservoir had tested positive for E. Coil bacteria~ and a sample from the Country Club reservoir had tested positive for total coliform bacteria2. Water Division immediately Isolated both reservoirs from the distributions system and no water was pumped from either tank. Water division notified Oregon DHS Drinking Water Program of the test results. Drinking Water Program personnel directed the Water Division to take repeat samples. Eight repeat samples were taken and submitted to the laboratory. On Wednesday May 25 the laboratory called and indicated that two of the repeat samples, from the Parr Road Reservoir and the Miller Farm Road sample point had te~ed oositive for total coliform. Note: If the repeat samples take on Tuesday had all shown negative for total coliform they City would have received a total coliform violation which would have required the city to notify water service customers of the violation within 30 days with no other action required. Because of the positive total coliform results from the second day of testing Drinking Water Program personnel were immediately contacted and the City was informed that with the E. coil test from the previous day and the positive total coliform results confirmed a Tier 1 E. coil violation. Drinking Water Program personnel notified Marion County Health Department personnel of the decision. A tier 1 notification would not have been required if all of the second day tests were negative for bacteria. A Tier 1 violation for E. coil required an immediate notification of a boil water advisory in accordance with established regulatory guidelines. This information was provided to the Mayor and City Administrator as soon as it was known that a boil water advisory was required. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator ~ City Attorney ~ Finance Honorable Mayor and City Council June 8, 2005 Page 2 ~' The City prepared the required boll water advisory which was provided to the Drinking Water Program and subsequently approved for distribution. At the same time Water Division personnel began an aggressive line flushing program in the areas around where the positive bocterla results were obtained. The advisory was provided to print and broadcast media outlets for dissemination. Marion County Health was advised and notified health care providers and issued a press release. Marion County provided print Information for food service providers that were reproduced and supplied to applicable businesses by Water Division personnel. Schools were contacted and they provided copies of the notice which were sent home with school children. The Water Division took additional water samples that were submitted to the laboratory. Drinking Water Program personnel visited the city and took eight samples at sample points which represented a cross section of the city and were determined to be representative of the entire city system. The Drinking Water Program samples were taken after flushing was finished. During this time the city was getting a large number of phone calls that overwhelmed the response capability of Public Works personnel and delayed responding to citizens cancerns. There were some calls from residents especially later in the incident that they had not heard about the problem since they did not get a paper and did not listen to radio or television. Water Division personnel were very effective in Isolating the source of the problem and its containment, however the City realizes the notification process could be improved even though the notification effort well exceeded the requirements of drinking water regulatians. On Thursday Water Division personnel continued the flushing program since two of the samples taken still tested positive for total coliform. Results later in the day from the Drinking Water Program samples indicated total coliform present in one of the eight samples. Water Division personnel on Thursday took 13 samples from varlaus points araund the city including the eight points tested by the state Drinking Water Program on Wednesday. On Friday morning results from all 13 samples taken the previous day were reported as negative for total coliform. The City consulted with state Drinking Water Program personnel an the test results. After state Drinking Water Program appraved lifting of the boll water advisory, the City provided this information to the public at 11:15 am on Friday May 27. This information was passed to all braadcast media, schools fire district and know organizational cantact lists such as those at the Chamber of Commerce and Senior Estates. Information on Honorable Mayor and City Council June 8, 2005 Page 3 rescinding of the order and Instructions for food service establishments was again printed and distributed by Water Division personnel. Marion County Health Department again assisted In notifying health care providers and food service businesses. There were three informational mcctings held to provide updated Information on the Incident. A meeting at 2:30 pm on Wednesday May 25 provided details of the violation and action being taken. A meeting at 2:30 pm on Thursday May 26 provided an update on test results, public Information efforts and questions that had been received. The final meeting at 11:15 am on Friday May 27 was to provide the information that the boll water advisory had been lifted. The Mayor and City Council were kept Informed by the City Administrator as the Incident progressed. The following actions will be taken prior to placing reservoirs in service: · The Parr Road reservoir and booster pump piping will be drained, disinfected and tested for coliform bacteria. · The Country Club reservoir will be drained and tested for coliform bacteria. · The radon exhaust ducting will be cleaned and modified to direct exhaust air downward towards the reservoir roof. · The roofs of the reservoirs will be relnspected to make sure that any leaks created by device connections have been sealed. · Any areas of the reservoir roof attractive for bird roasting will be modified to discourage bird activity. An engineering consultant will also examine existing facilities and plans and provide additional recommendations that staff will Implement. The background information portion of this memo starts on the next page and it provides detailed information on the E. call Incident. ~ Fecal coliform bacteria is a subgroup of total co#form bacteria. E. coil is one of the fecal coliforms. It lives in the digestive tracts of warm blooded animals and humans. A Fecal or E. coil violation is a tier one violation that requires notice to water service customers within 24 hours. 2 Total co#forms, often merely called 'co#forms', are very widely distributed in nature. Most coliforms live in the intestinal tract of man and other warm blooded animals. A few of the bacteria in this class are associated with natural plant material and therefore may be found even when fecal coliform is absent. A total coliform violation is a tier 2 violation which requires notice to water service customers within 30 days. Honorable Mayor and City Council June 8, 2005 Page 4 COUFORM BACKGROUND: The following Information is from the Oregon Department of Human Services health effects technical bulletin on coliform bacteria. Microorganisms are widely spread over the earth and throughout the atmosphere. Most microorganisms in the environment and found in water are not harmful, but enough of them are harmful that we try to keep drinking water nearly microorganism free. It is not possible to test drinking water regularly for the presence of disease causing organisms because they exist in very Iow numbers in water, are hard to isolate and detect, and there are so many it would be Impractical and expensive to test for them all. Consequently, water suppliers in this country generally test only for certain kinds of bacteria that are known as ~indlcator organisms". These Indicators do not themselves cause disease, but are markers for fecal pollution that are easier to test for. The most common of these test organisms Is the broad class of bacteria called total collforms. Total coliforms, often merely called 'coliforms*, are very widely distributed in nature. Most coliforms live in the Intestinal tract of man and other warm blooded animals. A few of the bacteria in this class are associated with natural plant material and therefore may be found even when fecal coliform is absent. Colifarms are the most commonly used Indicators of contamination in drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water act utilizes tests for the presence or absence of coliforms as one of the regulated tests for public drinking water in the United States. Fecal coliform bacteria Is a subgroup of total coliform bacteria consisting of those that can grow at a temperature too warm far mast califorms. E. coil is one of the fecal colfforms. It lives In the digestive tracts of warm blooded animals and humans. Water that tests positive for E. coil could contain pathogens and would be risky to drink without adequate disinfection. There are hundreds of different kinds of E. coll. Most are harmless, but some can cause illness. The mast well know pathogenic E. coil is called E. coil O157:H7 and is often linked to undercoaked meat, raw mild and other foods contaminated by cattle feces. Routine water testing methods do not distinguish between pathogenic E. coil and the harmless indicator strains. Water containing any E. coil is risky to drink without water disinfection. Honorable Mayor and City Council June 8, 2005 Page 5 (~ITY COUFORM TESTING: Oregon drinking water regulations require that the city take 25 samples each month plus samples from 9 wells. The City has developed a sampling plan that spreads the required monthly samples all around the distribution system. The sampling plan has been approved by the Oregon DHS Drinking Water Program that administers the federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements in Oregon. The sampling plan spreads the 25 samples out over four weeks of the month to again get a representative sample of water throughout the month with 6 or 7 samples being taken each week. The attached maps shows locations af the sampling points and city well locations. To monitor the City water distribution system more closely the number of water samples collected will be doubled for at least the month of June. Results from these tests will be evaluated with state Drinking Water Program personnel to determine if the expanded testing will be continued. E. COU DETECTION BACKGROUND: M~)ndav May 23: Eleven total coliform samples were taken and submitted to the laboratory for testing. There were eight samples for individual wells, a sample from the Shenandoah Lane sample point and samples from the reservoirs at Country Club Road and Parr Road. Tuesday May 24: At approximately 9:00 am the Water Division was notified by the laboratory that the Parr Road reservoir had a positive E. coil test result and that the Country Club reservoir was positive for total coliform only. All other tests including all eight wells were negative. Water Division personnel Isolated the two reservoirs and allowed no more water to be pumped from the reservoirs. The system reverted to the normal procedure of pumping directly from the wells that had tested negative for califorms to the distribution system bypassing the new treatment plants. Water Division personnel contacted the state Drinking Water Program duty person. The Drinking Water Program duty person requested that eight repeat samples be taken. At Parr Road two samples were taken fram the reservoir and one sample each from sample points at Centennial Park and Parr Road and Settlemier. At Country Club Road two samples were taken from the reservoir and one sample each from sample points at Miller Farm Road and at Country Club Road and Astor Way. In addition to further evaluate the water treated at both reservoir sites the backwash tanks at bath Parr Road and Country Club Road were also sampled. Honorable Mayor and City Council June 8, 2005 Page 6 Wednesday May 26: At approximately 8:45, the laboratory notified the Water Division that two of the samples taken on Tuesday, one of the two Parr Road reservoir samples and the Miller Farm Road sample point were positive for total coliform only. At approximately 9:00 am Public Works management spoke with the state Drinking Water Program Technical Services personnel and it was determined that the pasitlve coliform only results validated the E. coil result and that since the E. coil was a Tier 1 violation immediate notification was required. State Drinking Water Program persannel also directed that 12 additional samples be taken from areas near the two positive sample lacations. Subsequently these samples were taken and Water Division personnel began an aggressive line flushing pragram in the areas where the positive samples were found. Public Works staff obtained the mandatory boll water advisory required for the E. coil violation and added incident specific Information. This advisory was the faxed to the state Drinking Water Program for review and appraval. The state Drinking Water Program personnel contacted the appropriate Marion County Health Department cantacts and provided them with the approved notice. At approximately 11:130 am the City started faxing the boil water notice to area broadcast media. The Marion County Health Department provided a package of infarmaflon specific ta food service providers along with a listing of the food service providers in the City. Copies of the package were made and available Water Division personnel began delivering the package at appraximately 1 pm. State Drinking Water Program personnel arrived in the City at approximately 11:30 am and received a briefing from Public Works Staff on actions taken to that time. The Drinking Water Program personnel wanted to take their own set of eight samples from a series of points that would be representative of the entire city. They met with Water Division personnel and determined the appropriate points. Water Division personnel took the Drinking Water Program technicians to the selected points where they took samples that were taken to the state drinking water labaratory. Public Works and Finance Division were getting an unexpectedly large number of calls. On the boll water advisory the phone number of the Public Works Program Manager was listed. He was deeply involved with coordination and dealing with inquiries fram the broadcast media and did not have sufficient time to take and make calls. At one point on Wednesday afternoon the Public Works Program Manager's voice mall had 116 backlogged messages. The messages were caming in much faster than they could be listened to and responded to. Other Public Works staff also got many calls. At this time twa ather staff Honorable Mayor and City Council June 8, 2005 Page 7 members were assigned to respond to the backlogged calls but there were still significant delays in responding to citizen questions. A meeting with City Staff and Community agencies was held at 3:00 pm and updates and Input from staff and agencies was received. Thursday May 26: At approximately 8:30 am the results of the Wednesday morning samples were received. The results were that 3 of the 12 samples, located at Centennial Park, Miller Farm Road and the Parr Road reservoir, were positive for total coliform only. Water Division personnel were continuing line flushing activles in the area of the positive coliform distribution line locations. Five additional samples were taken at and near where the two distribution line positive coliform only results were obtained. At approximately 2:00 pm the results of the state Drinking Water Program samples were received. Of those eight samples only the sample at Centennial Park test positive for coliform only. The Drinking Water Program sample at Miller Farm Road was negative while the City Water Division sample taken about six hours earlier was positive for coliform only. This Indicated that the City's line flushing program was moving the coliform only water out of the distribution system. State Drinking Water Program personnel directed that the City retake samples from the same eight sites that they had used on Wednesday. These samples were taken and the laboratory stayed open past normal closing and processed the samples so results would be available on Friday morning. Public Works and Finance staff continued to get a large number of calls but the volume was less than that experienced on Wednesday and staff was able to answer messages left an voice mails wffhin approximately two hours of receipt. A meeting with City Staff and Community agencies was held at 3:00 pm and updates and input from staff and agencies was received. Friday MOy 27: At approximately 8:15 am the results from the laboratory of the five samples taken Thursday morning showed that all five were negative for the presence of coliform. At approximately 10:45 am the results from the eight Drinking Water Program directed samples showed that all were also negative far the presence of coliform. The results were then discussed with managers at the state Drinking Water Program and at Just past 11:00 am they agreed that with the negative coliform results that the boll water advisory could be rescinded. Honorable Mayor and Ctty Council June 8, 2005 Page 8 A meeting with City Staff and Community agencies was held at 11:15 am where the Information on rescinding of the boll water advisory was pravided, Immediately following the meeting the notice rescinding the boll water advisory was provided ta the broadcast media. State Drinking Water Program personnel contacted Marion County Health Department who again assisted in notification af health care and foad service providers. Information on rescinding of the order and instructions for food service establishments was printed and distributed by Water Division personnel. LESSONS LEARNED: The city will continue to evaluate lessons learned from this Incident but some areas where improvements in the response could be made have already identified: · Information was passed to the media and there was good response. Information on procedures for restaurants and food service facilities was hand delivered by Water Division Personnel. The School Distriot sent information home with children. While overall the dissemination of Information was goad additional avenues that could have been used have been identified such as a Chamber of Commerce emall system that allows simultaneous messages to be sent to all chamber members and a phone tree that is in place in Senior Estates. The City will work to identify other means of enhancing communicatlan with residents. · The City needs to have a detailed list of media fax and email contact information for radio stations and newspapers. The Portland TV stations were well covered and a more detailed list was compiled as the incident praceeded. The City will work ta develop a more complete list af fax and email addresses for radio stations and update newspaper information. · Request for Information averwhelmed the phone system that was Initially set up to answer calls and most people had to leave messages. Response to citizen questions was often delayed. The City will explore have a message number where a recorded update message available. The City will also explore setting up a phone bank where several employees cauld answer questions. The employees would have a set of scripted respanses to what wauld be 'frequently asked questions" which could be responded to. Questions not on the list of scripted responses could be recarded, the answer obtained and the Individual with the question called back with the respanse. · It appears that some personal views were expressed and became part of the informatian provided to the public In regards to the boll water Honorable Mayor and City Council June 8, 2005 Page 9 , advisory. Compilation of standardized responses and information to questions should reduce this accurrence. The City Emergency Management Plan did not specifically address such a health related situation and the Water Division did not have a prepared Standard Operating Procedure to deal with the situation. There were Informal procedures but nathing was in writing. Action will be taken to resolve this area, possibly by adding a section in the Emergency Management Plan. There was some confusion about what Marion County Health Department was doing to assist the City in the resolution of the incident. Meetings will be held with the Health Department to discuss their response and work to make far a more unified response and to better understand the capabilities of the City and the Health Department. RESULTS OF CITY INVESTIGATION: The Parr Road reservoir was considered substantially complete and ready for disinfectlan on A13ril 8. The tank was disinfected by the tank cantractor an April 11 and closed up after the disinfection was complete. Samples for bacteria testing were planned to be taken from the recirculaflon line that recirculated reservoir water ta provide proper mixing and movement of water in the tank to keep water fresh and from a point at an unused pipe that is in place for use by a third boaster pump in the future. These points were determined to be representative of the water In the reservoir. During the second and third weeks of April the plant contractor was completing disinfection of plant piping and filters to start plant operation. The plant disinfection was campleted on April 25 and initial plant operation was started and during the week af April 25 the reservoir was filled with treated water to overflowing with this process completed on April 29. The reservoir then sat full until the tank contractor took the three samples on May 3. All af the three samples were negative for all bacteria. Subsequently the tank contractor took three samples on May 6. These samples were also negative for the presence of any bacteria. The contractor took more samples than required by the contract and the City accepted the tank for City use. After acceptance of the tank from the tank contractor the City took an additional bacteria test for further assurance that no bacteria were present In the tank. There were subsequently three samples on May 10. Ail of these samples were negative far the presence of total coliform. At this point with a series of all negative samples from three separate tests over a two week period Honorable Mayor and City Council June 8, 2005 Page 10 the City was confident that the tank did not contain bacteria and began an May 13to pump water from the reservoir. A total of approximately 2.8 million gallons of water was pumped from the reservoir into the distribution system before the tank was isolated after the positive test result was received on May 24. The City on the afternoon Wednesday May 25 contacted the laboratory that had processed the one City water sample that had tested positive for E. coil and asked that addffional testing be done to specelate or Identify which of the hundreds of E. coil bacteria which had caused the positive Indication to assist in determining a possible cause but the lab indicated that samples are only maintained for 24 hours and that it had been disposed af that morning. The City feels that retention of this sample by the laboratory for further study could have provided valuable information in determination of a source of the contamination. The City will request that the state Drinking Water Program consider implementing such a procedure for state certified laboratories. A detailed inspection of the roofs of all reservoirs was conducted to determine if contamination could have entered the tank through the roof. All vent bird and insect screening was in place and undamaged. There were some small holes found around some seals and wire entry points for the tanks cathodic protection system. It is unlikely that contaminants entered the tank through these holes but there was some dirt on the roof of the tanks. There was no evidence of any bird droppings near any of these small holes. Heavy rains could have washed small amounts of dirt into the tanks through these holes. Coliform bacteria Is present in dirt and this potentially could have been the source of the coliform found in the tests but cannot be identified specifically as a cause. Water division personnel sealed all of the small holes that were discovered.' As a continuing maintenance activity Water Division will power was the roof annually prior to the winter rain season to remove any accumulated dirt. Another area of concern on the reservoir roofs was the exhaust stack for the radon removal exhaust fan system installed on the tank. This exhaust stack goes straight up and there was some evidence that birds has been sitting on the bird and insect grating at the top of the 5.5 foot exhaust stack and also some bird droppings were present at the bottom of the exhaust stack at Parr Road. The exhaust stack Is approximately 9 fcct from the point where the access point is located an the roof and there is a water drain located at the bottom of the stack so that any rainwater drains out onto the roof and does not flow back towards the tank. There is a very small possibility that when the exhaust fan was nat operating that airflow back into the tank and through the exhaust fan could Honorable Mayor and City Council June 8, 2005 Page 11 have carried small amounts of driecl particles of the bird dropping Into the tank but the chances are very remote and we cannot say that this is the cause of the pasitlve sample. There is enough of a potential for cantamination that the exhaust stack on all reservoirs will be disassembl~, cleaned and mc~Jiflecl so the there is a "U" shaped exhaust ducting that directs airflow from the exhaust fan downward towards the roof of the tank and prevents bird droppings from getting Into the exhaust ductwork. A~I e~ht we~ls were tested at the same time as the reservoirs and they were oil negcrllve far totc~ coliform. The coliform ~oblem inclucling the E. COIl apparently was fram the filtration process or the storage reservoir Itself. As o part of the sampling process Involved ~ the Incident sc~nples were taken fram the I~kw~ tanks at both Parr Road and Country Club Road. The backwasl~ tanks contain filterocl material from the filters and the treated water used to wash the filtered material out of the filter media. If there was a problem with bacteMa formation In the filters there would probably be coliform contamination in the backwash tanks but all tests of the backwasl~ tanks during the Incident were negative for coliform contamincrllon. The City cannot at this time determine definitively where the contamination could have occurred but evaluatian continues. The City will obtain the services of an Independent consultant with expertise in bacterial contamination to Inspect and evaluate the resen/olrs and distribution system. The results of this Investigation will be provided Council when complete. DISINFECI'ION ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION: The City Council has long Indicated the desire to not chlorinate the city drinking water If at all possible. The E. coil Incident has led staff to look again at some alterncrtives thcrt would add chlorine and also at a newer method that would disinfect mc~/not require a chlorine residual. This is a very important Issue and ~11 need further evalucrtlon and will be addressed In future Council presentations. The methads that will be examined by statf are: 1. Conventional 12% scx:llum hypochlorite system for a) residual only, and b) for supplemental oxldcrtlan and residual. 2. Onsite electrolytic chlorination (0.8% sodium hypoclorite) system for a) residual only, and b) for supplementol oxidation and residual. 3. UV System for disinfection in pump station discharge; with chlorine residual. Honorable Mayor and City Council June 8, 2005 Page 12 For chlorination systems, the two alternatives that will be evaluated are on,re electrolytic chlorination systems (0.8% solution) and bulk sodium hypochlorite (12% solution). The onsite systems require delivery of only rock salt bags rather than delivery of concentrated sodium hypochlorite. The onsite systems also do not require secondary containment because the sodium hypochlorite solution is less than a 1.0% solution and therefore not considered hazardous. Maintenance and operations costs for both systems are about the same but the onslte system is somewhat safer. Both of these options require that a chlorine residual be maintained in the system. Another option would be the installation of a pressurized ultraviolet systems on the booster pump station dischorge lines. This would provide a "kill" on any coliform contamination that occurs anywhere in the well, filtration, backwash recovery, or storage tanks but would obviously not provide a distribution system residual. UV for use In drinking water systems continues to gain greater acceptance and it appears feasible to do so In this Instance. A separate chlorine system would have to used to provide the chlorine residual. Staff will continue to evaluate the above mentioned disinfections systems and will bring a more detailed report to Council at a future meeting. SAMPLE POIN'I' , ! WOODBUI N June 13, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council N. Robert Shields, City Attorney Reopening Record for the Submission of Written Materials Legislative Amendment 05-01 RECOMMENDATION: Pass a motion reopening the record for submission of written materials until 5:00 p.m. on June 27, 2005. The written testimony should relate to: (1) changes made by the City to the Periodic Review work tasks, (2) the City's incorporation of the new Goal 14 into its findings, and (3) responding to any written testimony received by the Council on June 13, 2005 submitted after April 20, 2005. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: It has recently come to my attention that the City's planning consultant revised the proposed UGB findings to comply with the "new" version of Goal 14. This is understandable because the new language of the Goal is better for the City's proposal. However, it may have also created an unanticipated procedural problem. On April 28, 2005, LCDC adopted the new Goal 14. However, since it has not yet been filed with the Secretary of State, it is not legally effective. The City Council should take no final action on UGB amendment until the new Goal 14 becomes law. I want to also call to your attention a recent Court of Appeals decision, Mannin.q v. LCDC (copy attached). While the facts of this case are slightly different than the City's present situation, it reinforces the importance of receiving public comment and citizen involvement. This is an additional reason to allow a reasonable period for reopening of the record. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator ~City Attorney_ Finance Page 1 Citation/Title 109 P.3d 376, 198 Or. App. 488, Manning v. Land Conservation and Development Com'n, (Or. App. 2005) *376 109 P.3d 376 198 Or.App. 488 Court of Appeals of Oregon. Ron MANNING and Kelly Manning, Petitioners, V. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Respondent. 02-WKTASK-01447; A120530. Argued and Submitted Sept. 20, 2004. Decided March 23, 2005. Background: Landowners sought review of land conservation and development commission's order that affirmed county ordinance, which designated land for agricultural use. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Wollheim, J., held that: (1) commission's approval of county ordinance violated rule regarding citizen involvement, and (2) approval of ordinance based on incomplete record constituted legal error that required remand. Reversed and remanded. West Headnotes [1] Zoning and Planning ~134.1 414 414II Validity of Zoning Regulations 414II(C) Procedural Requirements 414k134 Notice and Hearing 414k134.1 In General. Land conservation and development commission's approval of county ordinance © 2005 Thomson/West. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. Page 2 109 P.3d 376, 198 Or.App. 488, Manning v. Land Conservation and Development Com'n, (Or. App. 2005) that was adopted by county under a work task as part of the county's periodic review of its comprehensive plans and land use regulations violated administrative rules regarding citizen involvement, where the county provided no opportunity for landowners to comment on ordinance following a remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals and the Department of Land Conservation and Development regarding county's previous adoption of ordinance. OAR 660-025-0080(2) (b). [2] Zoning and Planning ~726 414 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(D) Determination 414k726 Remand. Land conservation and development commission's approval of county ordinance that designated property, which was originally part of an urban growth boundary, as agricultural property based on an incomplete record constituted legal error that required remand, where county failed to provide a hearing prior to adopting ordinance so as to allow landowners to present issues regarding designation of property. West's Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 183.482(8) (a). William C. Cox, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. brief was Gary P. Shepherd. With him on the Jas. Jeffrey Adams, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General. Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM and SCHUMAN, Judges. [198 Or.App. 490] WOLLHEIM, J. Petitioners seek review of a Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) order that affirmed Marion County Ordinance 1160, which the county adopted under a "work task" (FN1) as part of the county's periodic review of its comprehensive plans and land use regulations. ORS 197.628 to 197.650. (FN2) In Ordinance 1160, the county designated petitioners' property for agricultural use. When the property was previously within the City of St. Paul's urban growth boundary (UGB), it bore the planning designation "Urban Transition/Farm." That designation *377 was a Marion County zone that was intended to encourage continued commercial agricultural use in areas planned for future urban development. After the city removed petitioners' property from the UGB, thus returning it to county land use planning jurisdiction, the county designated the property for exclusive farm use (EFU). Petitioners challenge LCDC's approval of that designation. We reverse and remand. © 2005 Thomson/West. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. Page 3 109 P.3d 376, 198 Or.App. 488, Manning v. Land Conservation and Development Com'n, (Or.App. 2005) This controversy was twice before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). See Manning v. Marion County, 42 Or. LUBA 56 (2002) (Manning I ); Manning v. Marion County, 45 Or. LUBA 1 (2003) (Manning II ). In the first case, LUBA considered petitioners' challenge to county Ordinance 1152, which applied a "Primary Agriculture" use designation to their property. Because that zone was intended for property that would be maintained for long-term agricultural production, the change meant that designating petitioners' property for future residential or industrial use was not appropriate. Petitioners pointed out that their property was bordered on [198 Or.App. 491] the north and east by land within the St. Paul city limits and argued that their property should be zoned for rural residential use. LUBA determined that the county's findings were inadequate because the county failed to consider any designation other than Primary Agriculture for petitioners' property. Manning I, 42 Or. LUBA at 68. Shortly after LUBA remanded the county's decision, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) also remanded the same ordinance, which the county had submitted to it pursuant to periodic review. DLCD instructed the county to make the findings required by LUBA and to take other action under periodic review not related to judicial review. Thus, LUBA's and DLCD's remands of the county's ordinance effectively reopened the matter of the appropriate zoning of petitioners' property based on the record already developed. Neither LUBA nor DLCD required the county to reopen the evidentiary record, as petitioners now assert was necessary. LUBA's decision rested on its conclusion that the county failed to consider the appropriate use designation for the property, not that it lacked sufficient evidence to make that determination. See Manning I, 42 Or. LUBA at 68-69. The county responded to the remands by adopting Ordinance 1160, which included findings justifying the Primary Agriculture (FN3) designation and EFU zoning for petitioners' property. The county did not hold a new hearing, nor did it provide petitioners with notice of an opportunity to comment on the revisions before it. Rather, it relied on the record developed in support of Ordinance 1152. Petitioners sought review of Ordinance 1160 before LUBA, which dismissed the matter on the ground that it lacked authority to proceed because the adoption of the ordinance was part of the county's ongoing periodic review process. Manning II, 45 Or. LUBA at 4-5. LUBA stated that "LCDC has exclusive jurisdiction to review the evaluation, work program, and all work program tasks for compliance with the statewide planning [198 Or.App. 492] goals." Id. Petitioners did not seek judicial review of that decision. Petitioners appeared before LCDC on its review of Ordinance 1160 and again asserted that the property should not be designated Primary Agriculture or zoned EFU. They argued that the county committed both substantive and procedural errors in making the designation. LCDC responded to petitioners' substantive concerns by noting the uncontested fact that the property consists of Class II and III soils, which places it within the Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) definition of agricultural land. (FN4) LCDC viewed the goal as *378 automatically © 2005 Thomson/West. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. Page 4 109 P.3d 376, 198 Or. App. 488, Manning v. Land Conservation and Development Com'n, (Or.App. 2005) making Class I through IV soils agricultural land and also including "other lands which are suitable for farm use." The "other lands" portion of the goal definition thus expands rather than limits the definition of agricultural land. For that reason, LCDC rejected petitioners' argument that whether the land is currently farmed is relevant to the designation. It therefore concluded that "the county's decision to zone the land EFU is consistent with the goals." LCDC also rejected petitioners' claim that they were entitled to an exception to the goals to permit nonagricultural use of the land. Goal 2, Part II, provides, in part, that a "local government may adopt an exception to a goal" when certain enumerated conditions and justifications are present. (Emphasis added.) The goal thus permits the local government to make an exception but does not require it to do so. See also ORS 197.732(1) (also providing that a "local government may adopt an exception to a goal" if certain conditions are met). Petitioners also argued that the county failed to follow the appropriate procedure when it performed its work task responsibilities and that it violated petitioners' due [198 Or.App. 493] process rights "by refusing requests for additional evidentiary hearings to contest the untrue and therefore unrevealed information. The untrue information contains intentional mistruths [sic ] about farming activity taking place on the subject property." LCDC also rejected that challenge, explaining that DLCD found no violation of a goal or rule provision. LCDC apparently viewed the substance of petitioners' objection as procedural and concluded that the objection was outside LCDC's review authority "and properly resides with LUBA." Petitioners sought review of LCDC's decision in this court. [1] On review, petitioners argue that the LCDC's approval of the county's work task violates OAR 660-025-0080(2) (b) because the county provided no opportunity for petitioners to comment following the remands from DLCD and LUBA. (FN5) LCDC counters that the proceeding leading to the adoption of Ordinance 1152 provided petitioners a hearing before the county on whether their land should be excepted from Goal 3. It also asserts that LUBA's and DLCD's remands did not contemplate a second hearing because the evidence that was to be the basis for the county's additional findings was already in the record. LCDC does not cite any legal authority supporting its view that the county's hearing before the adoption of Ordinance 1152 was part of, or should be considered to be part of, the county's periodic review effort. The county sought to add the issue of the property removed from the St. Paul UGB to its periodic review work tasks some months after LUBA issued its decision on Ordinance 1152. LCDC also does not argue that it has no responsibility to review local government [198 Or.App. 494] work task efforts for compliance with the Goal 2 requirement that "[o]pportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation ordinances." Indeed, OAR © 2005 Thomson/West. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. Page 5 109 P.3d 376, 198 Or.App. 488, Manning v. Land Conservation and Development Com'n, (Or.App. 2005) 660-025-0080(2) (b), which LCDC adopted to implement Goal 2, requires local governments to provide an opportunity for comment at one or more hearings conducted on work tasks under periodic review. Nothing in the goals, rules, or statutes permits the county to treat a hearing conducted for a separate purpose as fulfilling that requirement. We therefore agree with petitioners that LCDC erred in approving a county work *379 task when the county failed to comply with OAR 660-025-0080(2) (b)- [2] The remaining question is whether LCDC's error requires us to reverse its order and remand the case for reconsideration. We conclude that it does because the county's failure to provide a hearing prevented petitioners from adequately presenting their position on the remaining issues that they raise on judicial review. Although those issues would not in themselves require reversal based on the present record, the lack of a hearing means that the county did not base its decisions on a complete record. As a result, the county has not given the issues that petitioners raise the consideration that the rules require it to give them; LCDC's approval of the county's decision based on an incomplete record was legal error that requires a remand. ORS 183.482(8) (a). We focus our discussion of the second and third assignments of error on those issues that remain for the county to decide. In their second assignment of error, petitioners argue that substantial evidence did not support the county's decision to designate their property as "Primary Agriculture." LCDC treats that assignment as attacking the designation of the property as EFU and notes that, because the land is entirely Class II and III soil types, it meets the Goal 3 definition of agricultural land. However, the county's Primary Agriculture designation is a specific EFU zone that is based on several criteria in addition to soil types. The purpose of the designation is to identify land that is "in large [198 Or.App. 495] comraercial farm units" and that is "intended to be maintained for long term agricultural production." "Primary Agriculture" land is characterized by: "a. Soils that are suitable for agricultural production using accepted farming practices, especially Class I-IV soils. "b. Areas of open land that are relatively free [from] non-farm conflicts. Areas that are still capable of being farmed. "c. Areas that are presently in farm production or are capable of being farmed now or in the future. "d. Those other lands that are necessary to protect farm uses by limiting adjoining non-farm activities." Marion County Comprehensive Land Use Plan 14, quoted in Manning I, 42 Or LUBA at 64-65. The fact that petitioners' property qualifies as EFU land based on its soil types, thus, is only one of the four criteria for determining whether © 2005 Thomson/West. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. Page 6 109 P.3d 376, 198 Or.App. 488, Manning v. Land Conservation and Development Com'n, (Or.App. 2005) the property qualifies as "Primary Agriculture." In finding that petitioners' property satisfied those criteria, the county did not consider evidence of the situation that existed at the time of its decision but, instead, relied on the record made on Ordinance 1152. That record was necessarily based on facts that existed before the remands from LUBA and DLCD and, thus, before the county added the issue of the property to its periodic review work tasks. The county also did not provide a hearing at which petitioners could argue that the existing record did not support the "Primary Agriculture" designation. Those failures prejudiced petitioners and require LCDC to remand that issue to the county. In their third assignment of error, petitioners argue that they are entitled to an exception from the goals for their property. They first assert that there is an existing exception that continued in effect after the city removed the property from the St. Paul UGB. They next assert that, even if there is no existing exception, LCDC erred in affirming the county's denial of their request for a new exception. LCDC dismissed petitioners' arguments rather summarily, stating that petitioners did not "identify any goal or rule provision that the county has violated" and that "the substance of this exception [198 Or.App. 496] is outside the scope of the commission's review authority, and properly resides with LUBA." We disagree with LCDC's characterizations of petitioners' arguments. Petitioners asserted that their property remains subject to an exception that they believe was taken when the land was included in the St. Paul UGB and zoned Urban Transition/Farm. Petitioners' statements and arguments articulate an issue that is within LCDC's jurisdiction. They explained that, "[b]eing within the City of St. Paul's UGB, the Manning property was for decades not *380 considered agricultural land. By law, the property could not have been included in the UGB and zoned urban transitional without having been the subject of an exception. * * * There is no local or state provision allowing the property's status as exception land to be taken away by the government acting to remove the property from the UGB. Status as exception land is a property right belonging to the property owner. Just because St. Paul does not want the property within its UGB does not affect or otherwise delete the status as exception land." The problem with that argument is that petitioners do not point to evidence of any prior proposed exception in the record or suggest that they could provide evidence outside of the record that shows that there was an exception. The mere fact that the property was formerly within the UGB is not evidence that there was an exception from the goals, and petitioners have failed to show that the county erred in finding that there was no existing exception. In its findings supporting Ordinance 1160, the county said that the property was brought into the St. Paul UGB in 1985 as the result of a city-identified need for additional industrial land. It retained, nonetheless, its EFU zoning © 2005 Thomson/West. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. Page 7 109 P.3d 376, 198 Or. App. 488, Manning v. Land Conservation and Development Com'n, (Or.App. 2005) until 1990, when it was rezoned "Urban Transition/Farm." The county stated that there was no evidence that an exception was taken when the property was added to the St. Paul UGB. According to the county, no exception would be required under OAR 660-014-0000 to 660-014-0040 because an exception is not required for the establishment of a UGB around or including portions of an incorporated city. It then found: [198 Or. App. 497] "If an exception were taken, however, it was for industrial land, not residential. Once the property was no longer needed by the city to achieve its industrial goals and was removed from the UGB, any previous goal exception would no longer apply. If no goal exception has been taken, that action would be consistent [with] application of Goal 14 and the administrative rules to not require a goal exception to any establishment of a UGB that is undertaken to meet the requirements of Goal 14. In either case, a goal exception no longer exists for this property and a new one would have to be taken for the property to be designated other than agriculture." The county then went on to reject petitioners' request for a Goal 3 exception for the property with a relatively detailed explanation of why a new exception for the property would not be justified. The fact that petitioners fail to cite any evidence that would support a finding that there was a prior exception for their property makes it unnecessary to decide whether an exception, once taken, may be removed without following the formalities and addressing the criteria associated with granting the exception. That question must await a case that actually presents it. Because there also is no reason to believe that there is additional evidence available outside this record as to that issue, the county's failure to provide a hearing was harmless as to the existence of a prior exception. The county's failure was not harmless, however, as to whether it should grant a new exception. We agree with LCDC that, on the existing record, LCDC was under no obligation to overturn Marion County's rejection of petitioners' request for an exception to Goal 3 for the property. We are aware of no existing authority and see nothing in Goal 2, the rules governing exceptions, or ORS 197.732 that requires a local government to take an exception to a goal. Evidence that an exception may be justified does not require the county to grant an exception. Goal 2 and.ORS 197.732 provide that an exception may be granted on showing certain conditions, not that it must. However, before deciding whether to grant an exception, the county must provide an opportunity for the requesting party to make a complete record and to argue in support of the exception, and the county must consider that [198 Or.App. 498] record and argument in making its decision. Because the county failed to conduct a hearing before adopting Ordinance 1160, the record and argument were not complete. The lack of a hearing thus was error and was not harmless. · 381. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. © 2005 Thomson/West. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. Page 8 109 ?.3d 376, 198 Or.App. 488, Manning v. Land Conservation and Development Com'n, (Or.App. 2005) (FN1.) See ORS 197.629 (discussing the phases of periodic review); ORS 197.633 (same). A "work task" is part of the "work program" that a local planning jurisdiction undertakes in order to bring its comprehensive plan and other land use controls into compliance with statewide land use planning goals. See OAR 660-025-0020. (FN2.) ORS 197.628(1) provides: "It is the policy of the State of Oregon to require the periodic review of comprehensive plans and land use regulations in order to respond to changes in local, regional and state conditions to ensure that the plans and regulations remain in compliance with the statewide planning goals adopted pursuant to ORS 197.230, and to ensure that the plans and regulations make adequate provision for needed housing, employment, transportation and public facilities and services." (FN3.) As we describe below, "Primary Agriculture" is a Marion County land use designation that has specific criteria in addition to the EFU designation. See 198 Or.App. at 488, 109 P.3d at 379. (FN4.) Goal 3 defines agricultural land in western Oregon as land of "predominantly Class I, II, III and IV soils * * * as identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of the United States Soil Conservation Service, and other lands which are suitable for farm use taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land-use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, or accepted farming practices." (FN5.) OAR 660-025-0080(2) provides, in part: "Each local government shall review its citizen involvement program and assure that there is an adequate process for citizen involvement in all phases of the periodic review process. Citizen involvement opportunities shall, at a minimum, include: "(b) Interested persons shall have the opportunity to comment in writing in advance of or at one or more hearings on a periodic review work task. Citizens and other interested persons shall have the opportunity to present comments orally at one or more hearings on a periodic review work task. Citizens and other interested persons shall receive a response to their comments at or following the hearing on a work task." © 2005 Thomson/West. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. CITY OF WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD 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. NAME: A~.ESS: ~ ~~ ~- / FOR. OFFICE USE ONLY: Follow-up: CITY OF WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD Members of the pubfic 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. AGENDA DATE: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Follow-up: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Proposed Amendments to Statewide Planning Goal 14 Draft, Adopted Apri128, 2005 (NOTE: New text is underlined and deleted text is in GOAL 14: URBANIZATION To pr°vide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Part 1: Urban Growth Boundaries Urban growth boundaries shall be established and maintained by cities, counties and regional governments to provide land for urban development needs and to identify and separate urban and urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be a cooperative process among cities, counties and, where applicable, regional governments. An urban growth boundary and amendments to the boundary shall be adopted by all cities within the boundary and by the county or counties within which the boundary is located, consistent with intergovernmental agreements, except for the Metro regional urban growth boundary established pursuant to ORS chapter 268, which shall be adopted or amended by the Metropolitan Service District. Land Need Establishment and change of ~.e urban growth boundaries shall be based ......... ~a,.~,4 .... c th loll wi g c,,,.~ ~-v ..................... on e o n (1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population: gr,~,~,~h ~ consistent with Tr~r~c~ ,.,~o~ o a 20-year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments; and (2) ~e Demonstrated need for land suitable to accommodate housing, employment opportunities, an~ livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space~ or any combination of the need categories in this subsection (2). In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as parcel size, tooogral~hy or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -' 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 development until appropriate public facilities and services are available or planned. Part 2: Unincorporated Communities (No change to this part of the goal) In unincorporated communities outside urban growth boundaries counties may approve uses, public facilities and services more intensive than allowed on rural lands by Goal 11 and 14, either by exception to those goals, or as provided by commission rules which ensure such uses do not adversely affect agricultural and forest operations and interfere with the efficient functioning of urban growth boundaries. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this goal, the commission may by rule provide that this goal does not prohibit the development and use of one single- family dwelling on a lot or parcel that: (a) Was lawfully created; (b) Lies outside any acknowledged urban growth boundary or unincorporated community boundary; (c) Is within an area for which an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 or 4 has been acknowledged; and (d) Is planned and zoned primarily for residential use. GUIDELINES The following text would be added as a new Planning Guideline # 4. All other guidelines wouM be unchanged: 4. Comprehensive plans and implementing measures for land inside urban growth boundaries should encourage the efficient use of land and the development of livable communities. ORS 197 (Comprehensive Planning) Statutes Related to UGB Expansion ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 197.707 Legislative intent. It was the intent of the Legislative Assembly in enacting ORS chapters 195, 196, 197, 215 and 227 not to prohibit, deter, delay or increase the cost of appropriate development, but to enhance economic development and opportunity for the benefit of all citizens. [1983 c.827 § 16] 197.710 [1973 c.482 §3; repealed by 1977 c.665 §24] 197.712 Commission duties; comprehensive plan provisions; public facility plans; state agency coordination plans; compliance deadline; rules. (1) In addition to the findings and Policies set forth in ORS 197.005, 197.010 and 215.243, the Legislative Assembly £mds and declares that, in carrying out statewide comprehensive land use planning, the provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities throughout the state is vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of all the people of the state. (2) By the adoption of new goals or rules, or the application, interpretation or amendment of existing goals or rules, the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall implement all of the following: (a) Comprehensive plans shall include an analysis of the community's economic patterns, potentialities, strengths and deficiencies as they relate to state and national trends. (b) Comprehensive plans shall contain policies concerning the economic development opportunities in the community. (c) Comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations and service levels for industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies. (d) Comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall provide for compatible uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses. (e) A city or county shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons. The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for public projects needed to provide sewer, water and transportation for the land uses contemplated in the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. Project timing and financing provisions of public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions. (f) In accordance with ORS 197.180, state agencies that provide funding for transportation, water supply, sewage and solid waste facilities shall identify in their coordination programs how they will coordinate that funding with other state agencies and with the public facility plans of cities and counties. In addition, state agencies that HOUSING NEED 197.303 "Needed housing" defined. (1) As used in ORS 197.307, until the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan, "needed housing" means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels. On and after the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan, "needed housing" also means: (a) Housing that includes, but is not limited to, attached and detached single- family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; (b) Government assisted housing; (c) Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to 197.490; and (d) Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions. (2) Subsection (1)(a) and (d) of this section shall not apply to: (a) A city with a population of less than 2,500. Co) A county with a population of less than 15,000. (3) A local government may take an exception to subsection (1) of this section in the same manner that an exception may be taken under the goals. [1981 c.884 §6; 1983 c.795 §2; 1989 c.380 §1] 197.296 Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary; analysis and determination of residential housing patterns. (1)(a) The provisions of this section apply to metropolitan service district regional framework plans and local government comprehensive plans for lands within the urban growth boundary ora city that is located outside of a metropolitan service district and has a population of 25,000 or more. (b) The Land Conservation and Development Commission may establish a set of factors under which additional cities are subject to the provisions of this section. In establishing the set of factors required under this paragraph, the commission shall consider the size of the city, the rate of population growth of the city or the proximity of the city to another city with a population of 25,000 or more or to a metropolitan service district. (2) At periodic review pursuant to ORS 197.628 to 197.650 or at any other legislative review of the comprehensive plan or regional plan that concerns the urban growth boundary and requires the application of a statewide planning goal relating to buildable lands for residential use, a local government shall demonstrate that its comprehensive plan or regional plan provides sufficient buildable lands within the urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. The 20-year period shall commence on the date initially scheduled for completion of the periodic or legislative review. (3) In performing the duties under subsection (2) of this section, a local government shall: (a) Inventory the supply of buildable lands within the urban growth boundary housing need than an analysis performed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection. The local government must clearly describe the geographic area, time frame and source of data used in a determination performed under this paragraph. (6),If the housing need determined pursuant to subsection (3)Co) of this section is greater than the housing capacity determined pursuant to subsection (3)(a) of this section, the local government shall take one or more of the following actions to accommodate the additional housing need: (a) Amend its urban growth boundary to include sufficient bufldable lands to accommodate housing needs for the next 20 years. As part of this process, the local government shall consider the effects of measures taken pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection. The amendment shall include sufficient land reasonably necessary to accommodate the siting of new public school facilities. The need and inclusion of lands for new public school facilities shall be a coordinated process between the affected public school districts and the local government that has the authority to approve the urban growth boundary; Co) Amend its comprehensive plan, regional plan, functional plan or land use regulations to include new measures that demonstrably increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at densities sufficient to accommodate housing needs for the next 20 years without expansion of the urban growth boundary. A local government or metropolitan service district that takes this action shall monitor and record the level of development activity and development density by housing type following the date of the adoption of the new measures; or (e) Adopt a combination of the actions deserihed in paragraphs (a) and Co) of this subsection. (7) Using the analysis conducted under subsection (3)(b) of this section, the local government shall determine the overall average density and overall mix of housing types at which residential development of needed housing types must occur in order to meet housing needs over the next 20 years. If that density is greater than the actual density of development determined under subsection (5)(a)(A) of this section, or if that mix is different fi:om the actual mix of housing types determined under subsection (5)(a)(A) of this section, the local government, as part of its periodic review, shall adopt measures that demonstrably increase the likelihood that residential development will occur at the housing types and density and at the mix of housing types required to meet housing needs over the next 20 years. (8)(a) A local government outside a metropolitan service district that takes any acfion~ under gub~eetion (6) or (7) of this section shall demonstrate that the comprehensive plan and land use regulations comply with goals and rules adopted by the commission and implement ORS 197.295 to 197.314. (b) The local government shall determine the density and mix of housing types anticipated as a result of actions taken under subsections (6) and (7) of this section and monitor and record the actual density and mix of housing types achieved. The local government shall compare actual and anticipated density and mix. The local government shall submit its comparison to the commission at the next periodic review or at the next legislative review of its urban growth boundary, whichever comes first. (9) In establishing that actions and measures adopted under subsections (6) or (7) of this section demonstrably increase the likelihood of higher density residential 5 UGB EXPANSION PRIORITIES 197.298 Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary. (1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary except under the following priorities: (a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, rule or metropolitan service district action plan. (b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land. Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710. (c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition). (d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. (2) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current use. (3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons: (a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonal~ly accommodated on higher priority lands; (b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands. [1995 c.547 §5; 1999 c.59 §56] 7 joo.i OOl~ 00~ 0 OOZ (O R E P L S 0 UNITY U RC:E NING MEMO -, NDdM To: File From: Jesse Winterowd Date: April 14, 2004 Re: Soil Types by Study Area This memorandum identifies the types of soil present in each Study Area and descriptions of these soil types as shown in the Soil Survey of Marion County Area (US Depamnent of Agriculture, 1972). Table 1. Soil Types and Study Areas Map Unit Name Map Capability unit High value Study Areas Symbol farmland AMITY SILT LOAM Am IIw-2 Yes 1-8 BASHAW CLAY Ba IVw-2 Yes 2, 6 CONCORD SILT LOAM Co IIIw-2 Yes 1-5, 7-8 DAYTON SILT LOAM Da IVw- 1 Yes 1-3, 5-8 LABISH SILTY CLAY LOAM La IIIw-2 No 2, 3 TERRACE ESCARPMENTS Te IVe-2 No 2, 4, 5 WAPATO SILTY CLAY LOAM Wc IIIw-2 No 2, 3, 8 WOODBURN SILT LOAM WuA, IIw-1, IIe-1, Yes 1-6, 8 WuC, IIIe- 1 WuD Amity Series The Amity series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that have formed in mixed alluvial silts. These soils have slopes of 0 to 2 percent. They occur on broad valley terraces at elevations of 150 to 350 feet. The average annual precipitation is between 40 and 45 inches. The average annual air temperature is 52° to 54° F., and the length of the frost-free season is 190 to 210 days. In areas that are not cultivated, the vegetation is mainly grasses, shrubs, hardwoods, :and scattered, Douglas-firs. Amity soils are associated with Dayton and Concord soils. In a typical profile, the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown silt loam that is mottled in the lower part and is about 17 inches thick. The subsurface layer is mottled dark- gray silt loam about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is A substratum of mottled olive-brown silt loam underlies the subsoil. The Amity soils are used mainly for cereal grains, grass grown for seed, and pasture. When irrigated, areas that are drained can be used for all the crops commonly grown in the survey area. Amity soils are found in all Study Areas. Bashaw Series The Bashaw series consists of poorly drained and very poorly drained soils that have formed in alluvium. These soils are in backwater areas of the flood plains and in ~inmbrook HaflnJ~ }1o SH I:ogrth AVelUC, ~Jit~ 11oo Portbnd, OP, 9'p. o4 .qol. Sz7~ · 5ol.&~74t.qo (~) j~ss~@winm'brookplanflin~.com drainage channels of silty alluvial terraces. They have slopes of 0 to 1 percent. Elevations range from 100 to 400 feet. The average annual precipitation is between 40 and 45 inches, the average annual air temperature is 52° to 54° F., and the length of the frost-free season is 200 to 210 days. In areas that are not cultivated, the vegetation is mainly annual and perennial grasses, wild blackberries, sedges, rushes, willows, and a few ash and oak trees. Bashaw soils are associated with Wapato soils. In a typical profile, the surface layer is about 31 inches thick and consists of mottled very dark gray clay in the uppermost 3 inches and of mottled black clay below. The upper part of the substratum, just beneath the surface layer, is very dark gray clay that extends to a depth of 48 inches. The lower part oft_he substratum is dark grayish- brown clay or sandy clay that extends to a depth of 60 inches or more. The substratum is mottled throughout. The Bashaw soils are used mainly for pasture. Bashaw soils are found in Study Areas 2 and 6, underlying riparian portions of each Study Area. Concord Series The Concord series consists of poorly drained soils that have formed in alluvium of mixed mineralogy. These soils are on broad valley terraces, in slightly concave depressions and in drainageways. They have slopes of 0 to 2 percent. Elevations range flom 125 to 350 feet. The average annual precipitation is 40 to 45 inches, the average annual air temperature is 52° to 54° F., and the length of the flost-free season is 200 to 210 days. In areas that are not cultivated, the vegetation is mainly rushes, sedges, wild blackberry, hazel, annual grasses, and ash trees. Concord soils are associated with Amity and Dayton soils. In a typical profile, the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown silt loam about 6 inches thick. The subsurface layer is mottled dark-gray silt loam about 9 inches thick. Just below the subsurface layer is a layer of mottled gray and dark-gray silty clay about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is about l0 inches thick. It consists of mottled grayish-brown silty clay in the upper part and of mottled dark grayish-brown silty clay in the lower part. The substratum of mottled dark grayish-brown silt loam extends to a depth of 60 inches or more. Concord soils that are neither drained nor irrigated are used mainly for cereal grains, pasture, hay, and grass grown for seed. When irrigated, the drained areas are used mainly for berries and vegetables. Concord soils are found in Study Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Dayton Series The Dayton series consists of soils that are poorly drained. These soils have formed mainly in old mixed alluvium, but their upper layers may have been influenced, to some extent, by loess. The soils are on broad valley terraces, and they occur in drainageways and in shallow depressions. Slopes range fi.om 0 to 2 percent, and elevations range from 125 to 350 feet. The average annual precipitation is 40 to 45 inches, the average annual air temperature is 52° to 54° F., and the length of the frost-flee season is 190 to 210 days. In areas that are not cultivated, the vegetation is mainly annual and perennial grasses, wild rose, and scattered ash trees. Dayton soils are associated with Amity and Concord soils. In a typical profile, the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown silt loam about 7 inches thick. The subsurface layer is mottled dark-gray silt loam about 6 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and consists of a layer of clay about 33 inches thick. It is dark gray in the upper part and is grayish brown in the lower part. The substratum is mottled grayish-brown silty clay loam that extends to a depth of 60 inches or more. The Dayton soils are used mainly for small grains, Winterbrook Planning Page 2 pasture, hay, and grass grown for seed. Daytona Soils are found in Study Areas 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Labish Series The Labish series consists of poorly drained soils that have formed in mixed mineral and organic material. These soils have slopes of 0 to 1 percent. They occur on the bottoms of former shallow lakes at elevations of 150 to 175 feet. The average annual precipitation is between 40 and 45 inches, the average annual air temperature is 53° F., and the length of the fi'ost-free season is 200 to 210 days. In areas that are not cultivated, the vegetation is mainly sedges, tussocks, and. willows. Labish soils are associated with Semiahmoo soils. In a typical profile the surface layer is black and is about 7 inches tick. It consists of silty clay loam in the upper part and of silty clay in the lower part. The next layer is very dark brown silty clay about 9 inches thick. Below this is very dark gray clay that extends to a depth of 60 inches or more. The Labish soils are used mainly for onions, small grains, pasture, and hay. Labish soils are found primarily in Study Area 2, with a small inclusion in Study Area 3. Terrace Escarpments Terrace escarpments (Te) consists of gravelly and silty alluvium that is too variable in characteristics to be classified as soil. It is moderately steep or steep and occurs along the sidewalls of the major streams, on terrace scarps, and on the side slopes bordering channels of intermittent streams. The vegetation is mainly Douglas-fir, maple, hazel, swordfem, brackenfem, poison-oak, tussock, sedges, and grasses. This land type is suitable for pasture and for use as woodland. The short, steep slopes make tillage impracticable. Terrace escarpments are found in Study Areas 2, 4, and 5. Wapato Series The Wapato series consists of poorly drained soils that have formed in mixed alluvium. These soils are nearly level. They occur in depressions and overflow channels on flood plains at elevations of 100 to 650 feet. The average annual precipitation is 40 to 45 inches, the average annual air temperature is about 53° F., and the length of the frost-flee season is 200 to 210 days. In areas that are not cultivated, the vegetation is mainly willow, ash, tussocks, sedges, and grasses. Wapato soils are associated with McBee and Bashaw soils. In a typical profile, the surface layer is mottled very dark brown silty clay loam about 16 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled very dark grayish-brown silty clay loam about 20 inches thick. The substratum is mottled dark-brown silty clay loam that extends to a depth of 60 inches or more. The Wapato soils are used mainly for pasture, hay, small grains, vegetables, and caneberfies. Willamette Series The Willamette series consists of deep, well-drained soils that have formed in silty alluvium. These soils are on low, broad valley terraces. They have slopes of 0 to 12 percent. Elevations range from 150 to 350 feet. The average annual precipitation is 40 to 45 inches, the average annual air temperature is 50° to 54° F., and the length of the frost- free season is 200 to 210 days. In areas that are not cultivated, the vegetation is mainly oatgrass and other native grasses, hazel, blackberry, Oregon white oak, and Douglas-fir. Willamette soils are associated with Woodbum soils. In a typical profile, the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown silt loam about 12 inches thick. A subsurface layer that also consists of very dark grayish-brown silt loam and that is about 5 inches thick is just beneath the surface layer. The upper part of the subsoil is dark-brown silt loam about 7 inches thick; the middle Winterbrook Planning Page 3 part of the subsoil is dark-brown silty clay loam about 14 inches thick; and the lower part is dark-brown silt loam about 16 inches thick. A substratum of dark yellowish-brown silt loam underlies the subsoil, and it extends to a depth of 65 inches or more. The Willamette soils are used mainly for small grains, pasture, hay, orchards, berries, and vegetables. Willamette soils are Class I soils around Woodburn and are found in Study Areas 2, 3, and 8. Woodburn Series The Woodbum series consists of moderately well drained soils that have formed in silty alluvium and loess of mixed mineralogy. These soils are on broad valley terraces. They have slopes of 0 to 20 percent. Elevations range from 150 to 350 feet. The average annual precipitation is 40 to 45 inches, the average annual air temperature is 52° to 54° F., and the length of the frost-free season is 200 to 210 days. In areas that are not cultivated, the vegetation is mainly grass and Douglas-fir. Woodbum soils are associated with Willamette soils. In a typical profile, the surface layer is about 17 inches thick and is very dark brown silt loam in the upper part and dark-brown silt loam in the lower part. The subsoil is about 37 inches thick. It is dark yellowish-brown silty clay loam in the upper part; mottled dark-brown silty clay loam in the middle part; and mottled, dark-brown silt loam in the lower part. The substratum is dark-brown silt loam that extends to a depth of 68 inches or more. The Woodburn soils are used mainly for small grains, pasture, hay, orchards, berries, and vegetables. Woodburn soils range from Class II to 1V and are the predominant soil type in all Study Areas except Study Area 7, which includes substantial portions of Amity and Concord soils. Winterbrook Planning Page 4