Welcome to the
     City of Canyonville                                                   

250 N Main, Canyonville, OR 97417
                               
         541-839-4258 or 541-839-4020
Your Subtitle text

CANYONVILLE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING MINUTES

REGULAR SESSION 7:00 P.M.

Monday, March 23, 2015

 

REGULAR SESSION

 

I.                          CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

 

Mayor Young called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all joined in to the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer.

     

II.        SPECIAL MATTERS

           

            Pam Young from Hometown Insurance showed Council a short video from City County Insurance Services.

 

III.       ROLL CALL:

 

COUNCIL PRESENT:    Mayor Young,Councilors Boye’, Braudt, Coleman, Loomis, Kovachy, and Russ.

COUNCIL ABSENT:      None.

STAFF PRESENT:         Administrator/Recorder Evans, Public Works Superintendent Lakey, and Finance Deputy Recorder Bennett.

STAFF ABSENT:           None.

 

IV.       AGENDA REVIEW AND/OR ADDITIONS:

 

Councilor Kovachy requested adding a discussion on the Park Board to council business as #5.

           

IV.       PUBLIC COMMENT:

 

          None

 

V.        CONSENT CALENDAR:

 

1.      Approval of Regular Session Minutes for 2-17-14

 

Councilor Loomis moved, Councilor Russ seconded a motion to approve the consent calendar. 

All voted “yes”.  The motion carried.

 

Mayor Young moved the Sheriff’s report before the public hearing so Sargent Bean would not have to sit through the public hearings.

 

2.      SHERIFF’S REPORT

 

Sargent Bean reported that they had 124 calls for service which consisted of 6 drug arrests, 6 warrants served, 47 traffic stops, and 21 criminal cases that resulted in 19 arrests.  With more and  more budget cuts they have had to look at restructuring the law enforcement coverage so the county may maximize coverage to all of the Douglas County area.  When Sargent Bean started with the Sheriff’s Department ten years ago there were fourteen deputies and a grave yard shift patroling south county.  Then with cuts they were dropped to ten and no grave yard shift.  Now there are only two deputies after  3:00 am.  With the addition of another deputy (which will be a supervisor) there will be three on duty between 3:00 to 7:00 am. They are adding a grave yard shift for four days out of the week also.

 

VI.       PUBLIC HEARINGS:

           

1.      Falk Estate Comprehensive Plan amendment, zone change, urban growth boundary adjustment and annexation.  Subject property is adjacent to the easterly city limits on Tiller Trail Highway.  Ordinance 631 amending the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan to adopt an Urbanization study, replace portions of a previously adopted urbanization study and enlarge the Canyonville Urban Growth Boundary, Ordinance 632 annexing the property and Ordinance 633 rezoning the property.

 

            City Attorney Darnelle reviewed the procedures for the hearing and explained the process.  Council will      hold a hearing on three ordinances which incorporate the staff report for the application and effect the          approval of the land use action.  The ordinances reflect a quasi judicial action so certain rights apply such         as member of the audience may testify to the ordinances.  Those wishing to testify need to give their name    and address for the record.  If you wish to insure preservation for an appeal before the land use board of     appeals             you must clearly state your concern.  You have the right to request that the record be kept open or           the hearing be continued however; since this is not the first hearing Council does not have to grant the             request. 

 

·        Attorney Darnielle, asked if there were any Councilors who wished to declare exparte contact, conflict of interest or biases regarding the application.

 

Councilor Kovachy stated that he was approached by property owners who may be affected by this annexation and urban growth boundary adjustment.  He basically reviewed the procedures with the propery owners and referred them to the Planning Commission meeting.  Attorney Darnielle asked Councilor Kovachy if he felt he could make an unbiased decision.  He indicated he could.  Attorney Darnielle asked if there was anyone present who wished to challenge the declarations.   No one challenged the issue.

 

If the applicant has any concerns about the conditions of appeal, they need to be raised at this time.

 

Mayor Young asked for the staff report.

·        Contract Planner Jacob Callister presented a Power Point staff report for the City Council and updated them on the outstanding issues:

 

1.  Agreement between Huffman and Wright and Dr. Falk for a buffer zone along the Huffman and Wright property.  This has been completed and Huffman and Wright have withdrawn their objections.  These items have been incorporated into the report as exhibits S & T.

 

2.  The annexation agreements need to be signed by Greg Falk and Marcia Falk and notarized.  This has been completed and incorporated into the report as exhibit P.

 

3.  Authorized signer for the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone applications.  The Falks signed an authorization form appointing Mark Garret as their representative (exhibit O).

 

4.  Annexation agreement has been drafted by the City Attorney, Gary Darnielle and included as exhibit U.

 

5.  Population projections:  the preliminary population projections were issued by Portland State University this week and they project a 2.2% growth rate for Canyonville.  This is actually larger than the projected growth rate of 1.75% used in the application.

 

6.  The following findings were prepared as exhibit B in support of the application:

 

 

 

 

Exhibit B

CANYONVILLE CITY COUNCIL

FINDINGS OF FACT

Falk Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Urban Growth Boundary Expansion) UGB-14-01

 

A. THE CANYONVILLE CITY COUNCIL FINDS THE FOLLOWING:

a. The property owners, Gregory and Marcia Falk, initiated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request in May, 2013. The application was forced complete October 28, 2014.

 

b. Criteria to be met for approval of this action by the City of Canyonville are set forth in Oregon Revised Statutes, the Statewide Planning Goals and the policies of the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan.

 

c. The property owner has submitted evidence, in the form of an urbanization study with findings and conclusions, which supports a need for urban growth expansion, as well as justification for expansion into the area proposed for expansion, zone change and annexation (as described in Exhibit P).

 

d. The Canyonville Planning Commission held a public hearing in accordance with Canyonville Municipal Code Section 18.88.070 after giving the required notice per the same Section, and considered all material relevant to the Comprehensive Plan and associated Zone Change and Annexation that has been submitted by the applicant, staff and the general public regarding this matter. The Planning Commission provided two conditions on their approval recommendation. 1) The positive approval was conditioned on the property owners and the neighbors (Huffman and Wright) reaching a mutual agreement for the mitigation of impacts to the existing industrial site. These impacts were addressed in a mutual agreement (Exhibit S) and Huffman and Wright have rescinded their letter of opposition to the application. 2) The positive approval was conditioned upon both owners signing the plan amendment application or mutually authorizing a representative to do so. Mark Garrett, the applicant’s representative, has provided said authorization.

 

e. The Canyonville City Council held a public hearing in accordance with Canyonville Municipal Code Section 18.88.070 after giving the required notice per the same Section, and considered all material relevant to the Comprehensive Plan and associated Zone Change and Annexation that has been submitted by the applicant, staff and the general public regarding this matter.

 

B. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Canyonville City Council approves of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to expand the Urban Growth Boundary as proposed based on the following Findings of Fact:

 

FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH CITY OF CANYONVILLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES

Criterion 1: Citizen Involvement Policies

1. The City shall, through the Planning Commission (which also serves as the Committee for Citizen Involvement) and the Common Council, allow interested persons to participate in the adoption, review and evaluation of the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan and Implementing measures, amendments and revisions thereto by means of oral or written testimony

2. Written material or other exhibits considered in making land use policy decisions shall be available for public review at City Hall.

 

Finding: Satisfied. Adequate outreach and opportunities for participation and feedback were provided to the community. Public notice of the three applications was provided in the form of mailings (for owners within 500 feet of the subject property) and publication in the Douglas County Mailer. The Planning Commission hearing was postponed twice (from December 10th until January 14th, and from January 14th until February 11th). The original notices and date changes for scheduled hearing(s) were consistent with public hearings notice law. The proposal is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies.

 

Criterion 2: Natural Features Policies:

Natural Features Goal 1 includes policies requiring the City to prevent inappropriate development in natural hazard areas.

Natural Features Goal 2 requires the City to conserve agricultural and forest lands outside of the UGB where feasible. The following policies under Goal 2 provide more detail with particular relevance to the proposed expansion:

1. Preserve all uncommitted agricultural capability Class I and II lands outside the current (1988) city limits for agricultural use.

2. To the extent feasible given urbanization pressures, preserve all uncommitted agricultural Class III and IV land outside the current (1988) city limits for agricultural use.

3. Where appropriate and not in conflict with policies "a" and "b" (above), designate lands rated "good" or '''fair'' for urban development as highest in priority for urbanization.

 

Natural Features Goal 3 requires the City to preserve vegetation, wildlife and water resources.

Finding: Satisfied. The area proposed for inclusion in the UGB does not extend up the surrounding steep slopes. The subject property is not identified in any inventory of areas which have the likely potential to be subjected to natural disasters and hazards. Future development proposals will be subject to strict review and enforcement of buffers. If there is a determination that any form of development is subject to hazard or has potential impacts on resources, mitigating measures will have to be adequately described before approvals are granted. Regardless, it is the obligation of the applicant to ensure that Plan Policies can be feasibly met. It is the Commission’s findings that the proposal is consistent with applicable Natural Resources policies and that these policies can be feasibly met.

 

Criterion 3: Transportation Element

Canyonville's Transportation goals are to (1) "improve traffic flow and increase the safety of the present system," and (2) "promote energy conservation by encouraging alternative forms of transportation."

Finding: Satisfied. The applicant hired Lancaster Engineering to perform a Transportation Analysis in February, 2013. That analysis reviewed the impacts of a zone change and possible associated development. The analysis was performed consistent with the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The Oregon Department of Transportation also reviewed the application and Lancaster Engineering’s report relative to the impacts of the proposal and possible development on the existing transportation system (Appendix D to Exhibit E). The analysis concluded that the impact to the existing infrastructure (traffic flow and safety) created by the proposed annexation, zone change, and eventual development of the subject property are expected to be minimal and there will not be a "significant affect" as defined by the TPR. ODOT has advised the applicant that the proposed land use change will not significantly affect the area’s transportation system, and therefore a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will not be required as a prerequisite to the proposed Plan amendment and zone change as otherwise required by OAR 660-012-060.

Although the applicant has provided a conceptual development plan, the applications do not address development. Questions of “alternative forms of transportation,” (e.g. bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure) must be addressed at the time of development, but the proposal conveys a feasibility for alternative forms of transportation. The applicant’s expansion alternatives analysis provides support for the selection of an area not immediately adjacent to downtown Canyonville. The proposal is consistent with applicable Transportation policies.

 

Criterion 4: Land Use and Urbanization Element

The City's Land Use and Urbanization goal is "to ensure that future development enhances our community's quality of life and proceeds in an orderly manner."

Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.1 directs the City to designate the open land within the City as the area of highest priority for urban development and to encourage infilling already serviced parts of the City.

Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.3 directs the City to develop an overall transportation system which includes pedestrian and bicycle paths linking all existing and proposed residential areas with park and recreation facilities and activity centers, especially the downtown area.

Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.6 directs the City to adhere to development phasing as follows: Phase I – from the present until the City has determined that areas outside the existing City limits can be serviced without placing further burdens on Canyonville residents, new development should occur within the City limits. (Parts of some areas just outside the City which could be serviced from existing lines may also be included in this phase.)

Phase II – direct growth into and service the areas north and west of town, contiguous to existing development, in an area where services are immediately available.

Phase III – areas not developed under Phase II should have the next development and servicing priority, after the Phase II area has been substantially filled out.

Phase IV – Land to the east of the current UGB, along the Tiller Trail Highway, should be considered as potential “Urban Reserve”, for longer-term (through the Year 2040) UGB expansion.

Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.8 notes that any changes to the Urban Growth Boundary shall be based on considerations of the following:

1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals;

2) Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability;

3) Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services;

4) Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area;

5) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences;

6) Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and

7) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities.

 

Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.9 establishes that conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses shall be based on consideration of:

1) Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services;

2) Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to insure choices in the market place;

3) LCDC goals; and,

4) Encouragement of development within urban areas before conversion of urbanizable areas.

 

Finding: Satisfied. Regarding Policy 1.1, Although much of the identified specific need for single family housing could be accommodated on currently buildable acreage in Canyonville, the analysis provided in the study reveals the subject site to the most appropriate location for accommodating the needed housing type (more affordable manufactured housing). The argument centers on lot size and topographic (slope) constraints.

Regarding Policy 1.3, the proposal is not approving any forms of development. When a development permit comes before the City of Canyonville related to the expansion, questions of connectivity will need to be addressed by the applicant.

Regarding Policy 1.6, Phase I of the development phasing was completed in approximately 1982 with the construction of the dam on a fork of Canyon Creek. In 1997, The City conducted an Urban Growth Boundary expansion analysis and expanded the urban growth boundary to include an area on the west end of town. The area was soon after developed as the Knoll Terrace manufactured home park. The extensive study performed by the applicant at that time indicated that other areas to the north were not suitable (or available) to meet residential demands, addressing Phase II and III. The current applicant’s buildable lands analysis and alternatives analysis has drawn the same conclusion.

Building on the conclusions relative to Phases I, II and III and considering that the planning horizon for the applicant’s UGB expansion study is 2014-2034, the proposed expansion (along Tiller Trail Highway) is in keeping with phasing concepts related to Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.6. The applicant has provide the City with findings related to the serviceability of the area (Exhibit M), and the City’s engineer has provided concurrence of the assumptions (Exhibit N).

Policies 1.8 and 1.9 are derived directly from Goal 14 administrative rules (although what used to be seven factors has been reduced to four similar factors). The discussion and conclusions related to Goal 14 within this report provide evidence of consistency with these policies.

The proposal is consistent with applicable Land Use and Urbanization policies.

 

Criterion 5: Community Facilities and Services Policies

Canyonville's Community Facilities and Services goals are to (1) "obtain dependable water supplies for future growth," and (2) "provide the greater community an adequate variety and level of public services."

Community Facilities Policy 2.6. allows new development above the 850-foot contour level, provided that one or more high elevation water reservoirs are constructed to ensure adequate water pressure to higher-elevation building sites.

Community Facilities Policy 2.1 requires new development to be supported by adequate levels of public facilities and services as prescribed in public facilities master plans.

Community Facilities Policy 2.11 prohibits approval of sewer and water connections for undeveloped land until a development application has been submitted.

Findings: Satisfied. There is no current proposal for construction of a reservoir but the applicant has clearly shown the necessity for one, and the City’s engineer has confirmed (Exhibits M & N). The proposal and its associated exhibits convey a feasibility adequate provision of services. An annexation agreement will include provisions related to the assurance of adequate water and sewer before development occurs.

Together, these policies will ensure that new development is provided with the full range of public facilities and services at the time of construction, and that there are no speculative purchases of limited sanitary sewer and water hook-ups. These policies are implemented by new subdivision application standards, which require that public facilities studies be completed prior to submission of subdivision tentative plat applications. The proposal, as enforced through agreements and adherence to these policies at the time of development, is consistent with applicable Community Facilities policies.

 

Criterion 6: Economy Element

The City's Economic Goal is "to increase the economic vitality of the Canyonville area."

Finding: Satisfied. This study supports expansion into the subject property as the best among limited alternatives for accommodating Canyonville’s anticipated growth. The applicant and the owner of property to the south and west have reached a mutual agreement which requires the property owner of the subject property to enact mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to the logging operation, as well as impacts to the future residential neighbors. As mitigated, the proposal limits threats to economic vitality in Canyonville. The proposal is consistent with applicable Economy policies.

 

Criterion 7: Housing Policies

The City's Housing Goals are to (1) "provide housing appropriate to the needs of all members of the community," (2) "conserve the current housing stock of Canyonville," and (3) "promote greater variety and livability in future residential developments." Relevant policies include the following:

Housing Policy 1.3 notes that as a general rule, high density residential uses should be located closest to commercial areas, public facilities, and major streets, with increasingly lower densities radiating away from these activity centers and transportation corridors.

Housing Policy 3.3 Provide buffer zones between residential areas and conflicting land uses (i.e. Industrial, certain kinds of commercial etc.) to protect the overall livability of those areas.

Finding: Satisfied. The Comprehensive Plan requires population growth to be monitored and assessed and requires the City to maintain a corresponding inventory of land sufficient and suitable to house anticipated residents. Accordingly, the applicant’s urbanization study contains a detailed analysis of both population growth and corresponding future housing needs. That analysis shows that at present, Canyonville lacks a sufficient inventory of suitable land to provide for the community's future housing needs. Future development of the property is intended to provide needed housing opportunities for Canyonville's growing population base. This study supports expansion into the subject property as the best among limited alternatives for accommodating Canyonville’s anticipated growth. Documented housing needs cannot occur in areas closer to the City’s commercial areas and major streets. Inclusion of the subject 49.9 acre site within Canyonville UGB will be consistent with the purpose and intent of Canyonville housing policy.

 

CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS

The review and approval process associated with amending the Comprehensive Plan and urban growth boundary requires the City to determine that the amendment will not conflict with any applicable Statewide Planning Goals.

Criterion 1: Goal No.1 - Citizen Involvement

To ensure the opportunity for citizen involvement in all phases of the planning process.

Finding: Satisfied. The City has provided adequate notice and has ensured the opportunity for citizen involvement related to this application. As noted in more detail under Criteria 1 for consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies (Pg. 2), the proposal is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies.

 

Criterion 2: Goal No.2 - Land Use Planning

To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.

Finding: Satisfied. The City of Canyonville has established policies and procedures which require a detailed evaluation of proposals to amend its Comprehensive Plan and UGB. Specific criteria and standards have been set forth against which the applicant's amendment request has been evaluated in the light of relevant Findings of Fact demonstrating compliance with applicable standards and criteria. The City's decision in this matter is based on the weight of those relevant findings. The requested Comprehensive Plan and UGB amendment has been evaluated in a manner that assures full compliance with Statewide Goal No.2.

 

Criterion 3: Goal No.3 - Agricultural Lands

To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.

Finding: Satisfied. The subject property consists principally of agricultural land as that term is defined in Goal 3. According to the official Inventory of Soils for Douglas County, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 44.87 acres, or ninety percent of the subject 49.9 acre site is composed of Class III and IV farm soils, while the remaining five acres, or ten percent, is classified as Class VI non-farm soil. The Urbanization goal requires the applicant to follow the same procedures and standards that are set forth in Goal 2, Land Use Planning, concerning goal exceptions. OAR Chapter 660, Division 4 (Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process) acknowledges that findings pertaining to the seven conversion factors of Goal 14 provide the same information as required by the exception process. OAR 660-004-001 O( 1)( a )(B) specifically states:

". . . findings and reasons in support of an amendment to an established urban growth boundary shall demonstrate compliance with the seven factors for Goal 14 and demonstrate that the following standards are met: ...

(i) Reasons justify why the state policy embedded in the applicable goals should not apply. This factor can be satisfied by compliance with the seven factors of goal 14;"

Findings pertaining to the seven (now four) factors of Goal 14, including Factor No.4 concerning the conversion of agricultural land, are set out on pg. 13 of this document. The proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 3.

 

Criterion 4: Goal No.4 - Forest Lands.

To preserve forest lands for forest use.

Finding: Satisfied. There has previously been a legislative determination by the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan that the subject 49.9 acre site is not forest land. This determination is validated by the fact that there are no forest resources on the property and the site is presently designated and zoned for exclusive farm use. To the south and east, the abutting north facing hillsides are covered with timber and have historically been managed for forest use. The area proposed for inclusion in the UGB does not extend up the surrounding steep slopes, nor does it otherwise encompass any of the adjacent or nearby forest land. The proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 4.

 

Criterion 5: Goal No.5 - Open Space, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources

To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources.

Finding: Satisfied. The applicant has conducted an independent evaluation of the potential impact of the proposed amendment on any Goal 5 resources that may be on the subject property and provided the following statements of fact:

A. Land Needed or Desirable for Open Space

The site has no significant open space values, nor is it otherwise included in any inventory of needed or desirable open space warranting Goal 5 protection. The site has not previously been identified by either the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan or the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan as being needed or desirable for open space.

B. Mineral and Aggregate Resources

No known mineral or aggregate resources have been identified on or in the vicinity of the subject site, nor have such resources been identified on other lands in the general vicinity of the property.

C. Energy Sources

Goal 5 energy resources refers to sites and resources for the generation of energy (i.e. natural gas, oil, coal, hydroelectric, geothermal, uranium, and solar). No known energy sources have been identified on or in the vicinity of the subject site.

D. Fish and Wildlife Areas and Habitat

Other than O'Shea Creek and its adjacent riparian corridor, the balance of the site has not been included in any inventories of sites having significant wildlife habitat, nor has it been identified as one warranting special protection for other Goal 5 resources. This determination, as documented in the Natural Resources Element of the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan, has previously been reviewed and approved by ODFW. Both Douglas County and the City of Canyonville have incorporated specific provisions into their respective land use regulations establishing minimum development setback distances protecting vegetation within the creek's riparian buffer area. Additionally, any proposed development near the creek is subject to review by ODFW to ensure that the resource is not adversely impacted. Regardless, it is the obligation of the applicant to ensure that Statewide Goals can be feasibly met. It is the Commission’s findings that the proposal is consistent with applicable goals and that these goals can be feasibly met.

E. Ecologically and Scientifically Significant Natural Areas

No identified ecologically or scientifically significant natural areas are present on the site, nor have such resources been identified on other lands in the general vicinity of the subject property.

F. Outstanding Scenic Views and Sites. No identified scenic views or sites exist on the subject property. As noted under Open Space, above, the site has so much in common with many other locations in the general area that its scenic value is not considered unique or significant. The site possesses no prominent topographic features or vegetation that would otherwise give it scenic significance.

G. Water Areas, Wetlands, Watersheds, and Groundwater Resources

Because the applicant's property is located downstream from the portion of the O'Shea Creek watershed that supplies Canyonville's water system, future development of the property will not disturb any lands within the watershed itself, or otherwise result in impacts to the quality of the water entering the community's water system. Other than the land lying between the high banks of O'Shea Creek, there are no identified significant water areas, wetlands or groundwater resources on the subject property. The National Wetland Inventory shows no significant wetlands on the property beyond the immediate bounds of O'Shea Creek. All lands within 50 feet of the high banks of O'Shea Creek are subject to regulatory protections currently implemented through the State of Oregon, Douglas County and the City of Canyonville. The proposal and its associated exhibits convey a feasibility for consistency with this goal provision.

H. Wilderness Areas

The subject site is not within, adjacent to, or part of, a designated wilderness area, nor has such a designation been given to other lands or resources in the general vicinity of the property.

I. Historic Areas, Sites, Structures, and Objects

There are no identified or inventoried historic structures or objects on, or adjacent to, the subject property, nor have such resources been identified on other lands in the general vicinity of the site.

J. Cultural Areas

There are no identified or inventoried archaeological or cultural resources on the subject site, nor have such resources been identified on other lands in the general vicinity of the property.

K. Potential and Approved Oregon Recreation Trails

There are no designated or planned recreational trails on or adjacent to the subject site, nor has such a designation been given to other lands or resources in the general vicinity of the property.

L. Wild and Scenic Waterways

The site is not within any designated or planned wild and scenic waterway, nor has such a designation been given to other lauds or resources in the general vicinity of the property.

The proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5.

 

 

 

Criterion 6: Goal No.6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality

To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.

Finding: Satisfied. Both Douglas County and the City of Canyonville have sufficient regulatory measures in place so as to ensure that existing land use activities, as well as any future development on the site will not produce any unanticipated impacts resulting from the proposed UGB amendment and zone change. The proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 6.

 

Goal No.7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards

To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.

Finding: Satisfied. The subject property is not subject to any identified natural disasters and hazards. The applicant intends to develop the site in a manner that will facilitate leaving the steep surrounding forested hillsides as undisturbed open space. All future development activity on the property will be required to comply with applicable standards established under federal, state and local development regulations, thus assuring compliance with Goal 7. Regardless, it is the obligation of the applicant to ensure that Statewide Goals can be feasibly met. It is the Commission’s findings that the proposal is consistent with applicable goal and that this goal can be feasibly met.

 

Criterion 8: Goal No.8 - Recreational Needs

To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state.

Finding: Satisfied. There has been a legislative determination by both Douglas County and the City of Canyonville through their respective comprehensive planning programs that the subject property is not presently needed for recreational facilities or opportunities. Identified recreational needs have been provided for on other sites within and around the Canyonville urban area. The proposed amendment will not conflict with Statewide Goal No. 8.

 

Criterion 9: Goal No.9 - Economy of the State

To diversify and improve the economy of the state.

Finding: Satisfied. The subject site has not been included in any inventory of lands needed or suitable for commercial or industrial use. Both the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan and the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan contain specific policies that are intended to ensure that opportunities for economic development are enhanced in the community. The proposed Plan amendment will not conflict with the Statewide Economic Development Goal.

Criterion 10: Goal No. 10 - Housing

To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.

Finding: Satisfied.

At present, Canyonville lacks a sufficient inventory of suitable land to provide for the community's future housing needs (Table 22 of the Urbanization Study). Future development of the property is intended to provide needed housing opportunities for Canyonville's growing population base. Inclusion of the subject 49.9 acre site within Canyonville UGB will be consistent with the purpose and intent of Statewide Goal No. 10.

 

Criterion 11: Goal No. 11 - Public Facilities and Service.

To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban development within the Canyonville urban area, public facilities and services are provided by the City of Canyonville, Douglas County and several special districts.

Finding: Satisfied. On the basis of the foregoing facts, the City has concluded that the full range of urban services appropriate for the subject property's proposed medium density residential zoning can be provided in a timely, orderly and efficient manner consistent with the purpose and intent of Statewide Goal No. 11. The proposal and its associated exhibits convey a feasibility for adequate provision of services. The City has further concluded that the proposed land use change will not adversely impact the present or future provision of public facilities and services in the surrounding area. This conclusion is based on consideration of the existing public service delivery systems and plans that are presently in place and which are intended to ensure the proper coordination of the types, locations and delivery of the public facilities and services necessary to support existing and proposed land uses in the existing urban area. The proposed amendment will not conflict with Statewide Goal No. 11.

 

 

Goal No. 12 – Transportation

To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.

Finding: Satisfied. A Transportation Analysis Report prepared by Lancaster Engineering, and submitted to the City of Canyonville in conjunction with this UGB Amendment application (Appendix D to Exhibit E) provides technical evidence that the proposed land use change will not significantly affect the area's transportation system. The Department of Transportation has provided referral comments noting the same. The proposed amendment will not conflict with Statewide Goal No. 12.

 

Goal No. 13 - Energy Conservation

To conserve energy.

Finding: Satisfied. The subject site is free of any significant physical constraints that would otherwise require more energy to develop and use the land for residential purposes than would other property within the existing UGB, or other property that might alternatively be included in the UGB (see Alternative Sites Analysis). Major public facilities and services are nearby and can readily be extended to serve the site, thus reducing the energy-related inefficiencies associated with extending such services far beyond the established urban area. Specific energy conservation policies and development standards are included within the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations which ensure that the statewide energy conservation goal is implemented on a site-specific basis at the time of property development.

 

Goal No. 14 - Urbanization

To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.

To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Urban growth boundaries shall be established to identify and separate urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment and change of the boundaries shall be based upon considerations of the following factors:

Goal 14 Need Factor 1: Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population growth, consistent with a 20-year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments.

Goal 14 Need Factor 2: Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space;

Goal 14 Location Factors:

1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;

2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;

3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and

4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.

 

Criterion 14: Goal 14 Need Factor (1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals

Criterion 15: Goal 14 Need Factor 2: Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space

Population Forecast:

Goal 14 OAR 660-024-0030(4)

A city and county may apply one of the safe harbors in subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section, if applicable, in order to develop and adopt a population forecast for an urban area:

(a) If a coordinated population forecast was adopted by a county within the previous 10 years but does not provide a 20-year forecast for an urban area at the time a city initiates an evaluation or amendment of the UGB, a city and county may adopt an updated forecast for the urban area consistent with this section. The updated forecast is deemed to comply with applicable goals and laws regarding population forecasts for purposes of the current UGB evaluation or amendment provided the forecast:

(A) Is adopted by the city and county in accordance with the notice, procedures and requirements described in section (1) of this rule; and

(B) Extends the current urban area forecast to a 20-year period commencing on the date determined under OAR 660-024-0040(2) by using the same growth trend for the urban area assumed in the county's current adopted forecast.

(b) A city and county may adopt a 20-year forecast for an urban area consistent with this section. The forecast is deemed to comply with applicable goals and laws regarding population forecasts for purposes of the current UGB evaluation or amendment provided the forecast:

(A) Is adopted by the city and county in accordance with the notice, procedures and requirements described in section (1) of this rule;

(B) Is based on OEA’s population forecast for the county for a 20-year period commencing on the date determined under OAR 660-024-0040(2); and

(C) Is developed by assuming that the urban area's share of the forecasted county population determined in subsection (B) of this rule will be the same as the urban area's current share of county population based on the most recent certified population estimates from Portland State University and the most recent data for the urban area published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

(c) A city may adopt a revised 20-year forecast for its urban area by following the requirements in ORS 195.034.

Finding: Satisfied. The proposal to expand the UGB to include the subject 49.9 acre site is predicated on a demonstrated need for additional buildable land designated and zoned for medium density residential use. The applicant has conducted a detailed inventory and analysis of the existing supply of developed and vacant residential land within the current boundary. The findings of that analysis are presented in the full application support document. The study reveals a need for additional housing (Table 22) and supports expansion into the subject property as the best among limited alternatives for accommodating Canyonville’s anticipated growth.

Following are the planning commission’s findings specific to the population forecast that the expansion is based on:

1. ORS 195.034 (repealed) allowed a city to adopt a 20–year population forecast if the coordinating body has not adopted a forecast as required by ORS 195.036

2. The City of Canyonville adopted an amended population forecast of an annual growth rate of 1.75 percent on June 15, 2009.

3. In 2009, Douglas County adopted a coordinated population forecast for Douglas County cities and the rural portion of Douglas County. This forecast was noticed to the local governments in the county. The coordinated population forecast used a 1.75 percent growth rate for Canyonville.

4. Douglas County’s coordinated population forecast was appealed to LUBA and remanded. The County has taken no further action on its coordinated population forecast and therefore its action has not been finalized.

5. The 1.75 percent growth rate was incorporated into the City’s Wastewater Facility Plan, a functional plan of the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan, on January 22, 2013.

 

Based on these findings, the Goal 14 Need Factors 1 and 2 criteria are met with the proposal.

 

Criterion 15: (Location Factor 1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;

Finding: Satisfied. The evidence in the applicant's Alternative Sites Analysis demonstrates that the proposed land use change will be consistent with the intent of Location Factor 1.

 

Criterion 16: (Location Factor 2) Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services;

Finding: Satisfied. The applicant has conducted an Alternative Sites Analysis which examines six alternative areas around and adjacent to the current urban growth boundary. The conclusion of those evaluations demonstrate that the full range of urban services appropriate for the subject property's proposed medium density residential zoning can be provided in a timely, orderly and efficient manner consistent with the purpose and intent of Statewide Goal No. 11 and Location Factor 2.

 

Criterion 17: (Location Factor 3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences

Finding: Satisfied. Specific findings that address the consequences identified in Location Factor 3 are addressed within the findings addressing Statewide Goals No.3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 13. The applicant’s urbanization study provides greater discussion of ESEE consequences within each goal as well. The evidence in the applicant's Alternative Sites Analysis demonstrates that the proposed land use change will be consistent with the intent of Location Factor 3.

 

Criterion 18: (Location Factor 4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.

Finding: Satisfied. The subject property consists principally of agricultural land as that term is defined in Goal 3. According to the official Inventory of Soils for Douglas County, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 44.87 acres, or ninety percent of the subject 49.9 acre site is composed of Class III and IV farm soils, while the remaining five acres, or ten percent, is classified as Class VI non-farm soil. The Urbanization goal requires the applicant to follow the same procedures and standards that are set forth in Goal 2, Land Use Planning, concerning goal exceptions.

This study supports expansion into the subject property as the best among limited alternatives for accommodating Canyonville’s anticipated growth. Historically, Canyonville has maintained a very compact urban form, restricting outward development to the few remaining small pockets of low-lying vacant buildable land at the periphery of the urban area. As was revealed by both the 1997 Buildable Lands Inventory and the updated 2014 analysis of the inventory, the subject 49.9 acre site remains as one of the last undeveloped sites adjacent to the urban growth boundary where topographic conditions are conducive to accommodating new urban development, facilitating the extension of city services, promoting a compact urban form, and minimizing conflicts with adjoining and nearby rural resource lands.

The subject 49.9 acre site adjoins other lands to the north, south and east that have been classified as agricultural land pursuant to Statewide Goal No.3. Both the proximity and physical characteristics of the subject site’s interface with surrounding rural lands is representative of the way most of Canyonville’s periphery has historically developed. The community is tightly constrained by adjacent timber lands the south and west, and by active farming and ranching operations to the north and east. The community’s residents have co-existed with the kinds of management practices that have taken place on these adjoining farm and forest lands for many generations, and they understand and accept the realities of living in close proximity to the kinds of resource management activities that occur on these lands.

 

Criterion 20: GOAL 2 EXCEPTION STANDARDS FOR UGB AMENDMENTS

In addition to the four location factors discussed above, Goal 14 (Urbanization) requires that any change in the established boundary separating urbanizable lands from rural lands must follow the procedures and requirements set forth in Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) for goal exceptions. The specific standards relied upon in the application of Goal 2, Part (n), for this amendment to the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary are set forth in OAR 660-04-010(1)(c)(B).

Finding: Satisfied. The applicant has proposed separate conclusions above with respect to Goal 14 which demonstrate that the applicant is not taking an exception to the Urbanization goal. Nevertheless, Goal 14 specifically requires that any amendment to an established UGB be based on the four location factors listed in that goal.

Detailed findings and conclusions addressing the four location factors are presented throughout the applicant’s urbanization study and are incorporated in these findings by reference to demonstrate that the urban growth boundary amendment is consistent with Goal 14. Exception Standard 2 requires findings of fact showing that alternative sites which do not require an exception to the Agricultural Goal cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Such findings should be based on a review of specific alternative sites, including an analysis of site size; reasonable availability of the appropriate level of public facilities and services, including transportation facilities; physical constraints to development such as topography and potential for flooding; proximity to conflicting land uses; and, relevant economic factors (OAR 660-04-020(2)(b)). The Alternative Sites Analysis conducted by the applicant in conjunction with this proposed land use change addresses the requirements of Exception Standard 2 and is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Exception Standard 2.

Exception Standard 3 requires findings demonstrating that the "long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site." Such findings should be based on an evaluation of the characteristics of alternative areas that have been considered by the City, and for which an exception to the Agricultural Land Goal might be taken (OAR 660-04-020 (2)(c). As previously noted, the Alternative Sites Analysis conducted by the applicant generated findings that are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Exception Standard 3.

Exception Standard 4 requires findings demonstrating that "the proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts". This standard requires a description of how the proposed use will be compatible with farm practices on surrounding farm lands. Within the context of this standard, the term "compatible" is not intended as an absolute, meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type. The findings presented in the Alternative Sites Analysis that was conducted by the applicant is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Exception Standard 4.

The proposed amendment will not conflict with Statewide Goal No. 14.

 

CONSISTENCY WITH ORS 197.298 – PRIORITY OF LAND TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY and OAR 660-024-0060 (BOUNDARY LOCATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS).

The boundary location criteria in Goal 14 require a comparative evaluation of potential UGB expansion areas that can reasonably be expected to meet the identified need for additional land. The UGB location factors of Goal 14 are as follows:

5) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;

6) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;

7) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and

8) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.

 

OAR 660-024-0060(1) outlines the steps and considerations that must be followed in a boundary location or alternative sites analysis. The rule provides:

(1) When considering a UGB amendment, a local government must determine which land to add by evaluating alternative boundary locations. This determination must be consistent with the priority of land specified in ORS 197.298 and the boundary location factors of Goal 14, as follows:

a) Beginning with the highest priority of land available, a local government must determine which land in that priority is suitable to accommodate the need deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050.

b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, a local government must apply the location factors of Goal 14 to choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB.

c) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category is not adequate to satisfy the identified need deficiency, a local government must determine which land in the next priority is suitable to accommodate the remaining need, and proceed using the same method specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section until the land need is accommodated.

d) Notwithstanding subsection (a) to (c) of this section, a local government may consider land of lower priority as specified in ORS 197.298(3).

 

Finding: Satisfied. The City of Canyonville conducted an alternative boundary location analysis (alternative sites analysis) which nearly mirrored an analysis performed in 1997. The 1997 alternative sites analysis found that there are relatively few sites adjacent to Canyonville’s UGB that can realistically be considered as candidates for inclusion in the urban area. Canyonville is situated in a narrow river canyon where, principally to the north and west, steep forested hillsides rise abruptly from the valley floor to curtail further urban expansion. Additionally, high value farm lands occupy the broad flood plain of the South Umpqua River to the north and east of the city, thus precluding further urban expansion in that direction as well. Indeed, the only areas where natural topographic conditions are at all conducive to urban development are the half dozen or so small creek valleys that transect the UGB. The updated alternative sites analysis conducted for the applicant in 2012 (and updated in 2014 and 2015) identified essentially the same six geographic study areas that had previously been evaluated during the 1997-98 UGB expansion process, and which are already described in Canyonville’s Comprehensive Plan.

A detailed description and analysis of each of the six alternative boundary expansion sites is set out in the full urbanization study (Exhibit E to the staff report). The identification of Area 4 as the preferred expansion alternative is consistent with ORS 197.298 and OAR 660-024-0060. 17

 

Exhibit B (continued)

CANYONVILLE CITY COUNCIL

FINDINGS OF FACT

Falk Zone Change (ZC-14-01)

 

A. THE CANYONVILLE CITY COUNCIL FINDS THE FOLLOWING:

a. The property owners, Gregory Falk and Marcia Falk, initiated the Zone Change request in May, 2013. The application, associated with a UGB Expansion (UGB-14-01) and Annexation (ANN-14-01) application was forced complete October 28, 2014.

 

b. According to Section 18.88.060(E) of the Canyonville Municipal Code, all territory which is annexed to the city is considered to be in the R-1/B district unless otherwise classified. The site is proposed to be rezoned from the de-facto R-1 zoning to R-2 Mobile Home/Medium Density Residential.

 

c. Criteria to be met for approval of this action by the City of Canyonville are set forth in Oregon Revised Statutes and the policies of the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan and Section 18.88.050.

 

d. The property owner has submitted evidence, in the form of an urbanization study with findings and conclusions related to use and impacts of change in use. The study supports a need for urban growth expansion, as well as justification for expansion into the area proposed for expansion, zone change and annexation (as described in Exhibit P).

 

e. The Canyonville Planning Commission held a public hearing in accordance with Canyonville Municipal Code Section 18.88.070 after giving the required notice per the same Section, and considered all material relevant to the Zone Change and associated Comprehensive Plan and Annexation that has been submitted by the applicant, staff and the general public regarding this matter. The Planning Commission provided one condition on their approval recommendation. The positive approval was conditioned upon both owners signing the zone change application or mutually authorizing a representative to do so. Mark Garrett, the applicant’s representative, has provided said authorization.

 

f. The Canyonville City Council held a public hearing in accordance with Canyonville Municipal Code Section 18.88.070 after giving the required notice per the same Section, and considered all material relevant to the Comprehensive Plan and associated Zone Change and Annexation that has been submitted by the applicant, staff and the general public regarding this matter.

 

B. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Canyonville City Council approve of the Zone Change to rezone newly annexation territory (portions of lot 700 and lot 200 of Section 26 Township 30 South Range 05 West, as described in Exhibit P of the staff report) as proposed based on the following Findings of Fact:

 

CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE CANYONVILLE ZONE CHANGE ORDINANCES

Criterion 1: The Canyonville Comprehensive Plan and State law require that a change to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Maps must be shown to comply with Canyonville Comprehensive Plan policies. As no changes to the zoning ordinance itself are proposed, the application need not show findings for compliance with Statewide Planning Goals.

Finding: Satisfied. The zone change proposed is inextricably connected to both the UGB expansion and annexation. All territory which is annexed to the city is considered to be in the R-1/B district unless otherwise classified. The site is proposed to be rezoned from the de-facto R-1 zoning to R-2 Mobile Home/Medium Density Residential. Affirmative findings for Statewide Planning Goals and Comprehensive Plan Policies relative to the expansion inherently reflect affirmative findings relative to the zone change. These findings follow:

FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH CITY OF CANYONVILLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES

Criterion 1: Citizen Involvement Policies

1. The City shall, through the Planning Commission (which also serves as the Committee for Citizen Involvement) and the Common Council, allow interested persons to participate in the adoption, review and evaluation of the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan and Implementing measures, amendments and revisions thereto by means of oral or written testimony

2. Written material or other exhibits considered in making land use policy decisions shall be available for public review at City Hall.

 

Finding: Satisfied. Adequate outreach and opportunities for participation and feedback were provided to the community. Public notice of the three applications was provided in the form of mailings (for owners within 500 feet of the subject property) and publication in the Douglas County Mailer. The Planning Commission hearing was postponed twice (from December 10th until January 14th, and from January 14th until February 11th). The original notices and date changes for scheduled hearing(s) were consistent with public hearings notice law. The proposal is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies.

 

Criterion 2: Natural Features Policies:

Natural Features Goal 1 includes policies requiring the City to prevent inappropriate development in natural hazard areas. Natural Features Goal 2 requires the City to conserve agricultural and forest lands outside of the UGB where feasible. The following policies under Goal 2 provide more detail with particular relevance to the proposed expansion:

1. Preserve all uncommitted agricultural capability Class I and II lands outside the current (1988) city limits for agricultural use.

2. To the extent feasible given urbanization pressures, preserve all uncommitted agricultural Class III and IV land outside the current (1988) city limits for agricultural use.

3. Where appropriate and not in conflict with policies "a" and "b" (above), designate lands rated "good" or '''fair'' for urban development as highest in priority for urbanization.

 

Natural Features Goal 3 requires the City to preserve vegetation, wildlife and water resources.

Finding: Satisfied. The area proposed for inclusion in the UGB does not extend up the surrounding steep slopes. The subject property is not identified in any inventory of areas which have the likely potential to be subjected to natural disasters and hazards. Future development proposals will be subject to strict review and enforcement of buffers. If there is a determination that any form of development is subject to hazard or has potential impacts on resources, mitigating measures will have to be adequately described before approvals are granted. Regardless, it is the obligation of the applicant to ensure that Plan Policies can be feasibly met. It is the Commission’s findings that the proposal is consistent with applicable Natural Resources policies and that these policies can be feasibly met.

 

Criterion 3: Transportation Element

Canyonville's Transportation goals are to (1) "improve traffic flow and increase the safety of the present system," and (2) "promote energy conservation by encouraging alternative forms of transportation."

Finding: Satisfied. The applicant hired Lancaster Engineering to perform a Transportation Analysis in February, 2013. That analysis reviewed the impacts of a zone change and possible associated development. The analysis was performed consistent with the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The Oregon Department of Transportation also reviewed the application and Lancaster Engineering’s report relative to the impacts of the proposal and possible development on the existing transportation system (Appendix D to Exhibit E). The analysis concluded that the impact to the existing infrastructure (traffic flow and safety) created by the proposed annexation, zone change, and eventual development of the subject property are expected to be minimal and there will not be a "significant affect" as defined by the TPR. ODOT has advised the applicant that the proposed land use change will not significantly affect the area’s transportation system, and therefore a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will not be required as a prerequisite to the proposed Plan amendment and zone change as otherwise required by OAR 660-012-060.

Although the applicant has provided a conceptual development plan, the applications do not address development. Questions of “alternative forms of transportation,” (e.g. bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure) must be addressed at the time of development, but the proposal conveys a feasibility for alternative forms of transportation. The applicant’s expansion alternatives analysis provides support for the selection of an area not immediately adjacent to downtown Canyonville. The proposal is consistent with applicable Transportation policies.

 

Criterion 4: Land Use and Urbanization Element

The City's Land Use and Urbanization goal is "to ensure that future development enhances our community's quality of life and proceeds in an orderly manner."

Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.1 directs the City to designate the open land within the City as the area of highest priority for urban development and to encourage infilling already serviced parts of the City.

Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.3 directs the City to develop an overall transportation system which includes pedestrian and bicycle paths linking all existing and proposed residential areas with park and recreation facilities and activity centers, especially the downtown area.

Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.6 directs the City to adhere to development phasing as follows:

Phase I – from the present until the City has determined that areas outside the existing City limits can be serviced without placing further burdens on Canyonville residents, new development should occur within the City limits. (Parts of some areas just outside the City which could be serviced from existing lines may also be included in this phase.)

Phase II – direct growth into and service the areas north and west of town, contiguous to existing development, in an area where services are immediately available.

Phase III – areas not developed under Phase II should have the next development and servicing priority, after the Phase II area has been substantially filled out.

Phase IV – Land to the east of the current UGB, along the Tiller Trail Highway, should be considered as potential “Urban Reserve”, for longer-term (through the Year 2040) UGB expansion.

Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.8 notes that any changes to the Urban Growth Boundary shall be based on considerations of the following:

1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals;

2) Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability;

3) Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services;

4) Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area;

5) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences;

6) Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and

7) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities.

 

Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.9 establishes that conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses shall be based on consideration of:

1) Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services;

2) Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to insure choices in the market place;

3) LCDC goals; and,

4) Encouragement of development within urban areas before conversion of urbanizable areas.

 

Finding: Satisfied. Regarding Policy 1.1, Although much of the identified specific need for single family housing could be accommodated on currently buildable acreage in Canyonville, the analysis provided in the study reveals the subject site to the most appropriate location for accommodating the needed housing type (more affordable manufactured housing). The argument centers on lot size and topographic (slope) constraints.

Regarding Policy 1.3, the proposal is not approving any forms of development. When a development permit comes before the City of Canyonville related to the expansion, questions of connectivity will need to be addressed by the applicant.

Regarding Policy 1.6, Phase I of the development phasing was completed in approximately 1982 with the construction of the dam on a fork of Canyon Creek. In 1997, The City conducted an Urban Growth Boundary expansion analysis and expanded the urban growth boundary to include an area on the west end of town. The area was soon after developed as the Knoll Terrace manufactured home park. The extensive study performed by the applicant at that time indicated that other areas to the north were not suitable (or available) to meet residential demands, addressing Phase II and III. The current applicant’s buildable lands analysis and alternatives analysis has drawn the same conclusion.

Building on the conclusions relative to Phases I, II and III and considering that the planning horizon for the applicant’s UGB expansion study is 2014-2034, the proposed expansion (along Tiller Trail Highway) is in keeping with phasing concepts related to Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.6. The applicant has provide the City with findings related to the serviceability of the area (Exhibit M), and the City’s engineer has provided concurrence of the assumptions (Exhibit N).

Policies 1.8 and 1.9 are derived directly from Goal 14 administrative rules (although what used to be seven factors has been reduced to four similar factors). The discussion and conclusions related to Goal 14 within this report provide evidence of consistency with these policies.

The proposal is consistent with applicable Land Use and Urbanization policies.

 

Criterion 5: Community Facilities and Services Policies

Canyonville's Community Facilities and Services goals are to (1) "obtain dependable water supplies for future growth," and (2) "provide the greater community an adequate variety and level of public services."

Community Facilities Policy 2.6. allows new development above the 850-foot contour level, provided that one or more high elevation water reservoirs are constructed to ensure adequate water pressure to higher-elevation building sites. Community Facilities Policy 2.1 requires new development to be supported by adequate levels of public facilities and services as prescribed in public facilities master plans.

Community Facilities Policy 2.11 prohibits approval of sewer and water connections for undeveloped land until a development application has been submitted.

Findings: Satisfied. There is no current proposal for construction of a reservoir but the applicant has clearly shown the necessity for one, and the City’s engineer has confirmed (Exhibits M & N). The proposal and its associated exhibits convey a feasibility for adequate provision of services. An annexation agreement will include provisions related to the assurance of adequate water and sewer before development occurs.

Together, these policies will ensure that new development is provided with the full range of public facilities and services at the time of construction, and that there are no speculative purchases of limited sanitary sewer and water hook-ups. These policies are implemented by new subdivision application standards, which require that public facilities studies be completed prior to submission of subdivision tentative plat applications. The proposal, as enforced through agreements and adherence to these policies at the time of development, is consistent with applicable Community Facilities policies.

Criterion 6: Economy Element

The City's Economic Goal is "to increase the economic vitality of the Canyonville area."

Finding: Satisfied. This study supports expansion into the subject property as the best among limited alternatives for accommodating Canyonville’s anticipated growth. The applicant and the owner of property to the south and west have reached a mutual agreement which requires the property owner of the subject property to enact mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to the logging operation, as well as impacts to the future residential neighbors. As mitigated, the proposal limits threats to economic vitality in Canyonville. The proposal is consistent with applicable Economy policies.

 

Criterion 7: Housing Policies

The City's Housing Goals are to (I) "provide housing appropriate to the needs of all members of the community," (2) "conserve the current housing stock of Canyonville," and (3) "promote greater variety and livability in future residential developments." Relevant policies include the following:

Housing Policy 1.3 notes that as a general rule, high density residential uses should be located closest to commercial areas, public facilities, and major streets, with increasingly lower densities radiating away from these activity centers and transportation corridors.

Housing Policy 3.3 Provide buffer zones between residential areas and conflicting land uses (i.e. Industrial, certain kinds of commercial etc.) to protect the overall livability of those areas.

Finding: Satisfied. The Comprehensive Plan requires population growth to be monitored and assessed and requires the City to maintain a corresponding inventory of land sufficient and suitable to house anticipated residents. Accordingly, the applicant’s urbanization study contains a detailed analysis of both population growth and corresponding future housing needs. That analysis shows that at present, Canyonville lacks a sufficient inventory of suitable land to provide for the community's future housing needs. Future development of the property is intended to provide needed housing opportunities for Canyonville's growing population base.

This study supports expansion into the subject property as the best among limited alternatives for accommodating Canyonville’s anticipated growth. Documented housing needs cannot occur in areas closer to the City’s commercial areas and major streets. Inclusion of the subject 49.9 acre site within Canyonville UGB will be consistent with the purpose and intent of Canyonville housing policy.

 

Exhibit B (continued)

CANYONVILLE CITY COUNCIL

FINDINGS OF FACT

Falk Annexation ANN-14-01

 

A. The Canyonville City Council finds the following:

 

a. The property owners, Gregory Falk and Marcia Falk, initiated the Annexation in May, 2013, as authorized by ORS 222 and Section 18.88.050 of the Canyonville Municipal Code.

b. The applicant has submitted the application and annexation petition required by ORS 222.111.

 

c. The subject 49.9 acre site is under the ownership of Dr. Gregory Falk (Parcel 700, and Marcia Falk (Parcel 200) of Section 26 Township 30 South Range 05 West. The parcels are also presently vacant and undeveloped with no registered voters residing within the area proposed to be annexed.

 

d. ORS 222.125 provides that the city need not hold a public hearing on a proposed annexation when all of the owners of the property in the area to be annexed, and not less than 50 percent of the registered voters in the area to be annexed, have given their written consent to the city.

 

e. The Canyonville Planning Commission followed the required procedures for recommending approval of the annexation as contained in ORS 222, Section 18.88.060 of the Canyonville Municipal Code, and applicable policies of the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission provided conditions on their approval recommendation. 1) The positive approval was conditioned on the separate property owners signing the petition for annexation and the annexation application or mutually authorizing a representative to do so. Mark Garrett, the applicant’s representative, has provided said authorization. The other conditions of approval are carried forward (and reflected in the proposed annexation agreement).

 

f. The Canyonville City Council followed the required procedures for approving an annexation contained in ORS 222, Section 18.88.060 of the Canyonville Municipal Code, and applicable policies of the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan.

 

B. Conditions of Approval:

 

1. Prior to development of the site the applicant shall submit a Development Review application and detailed utility plans that further demonstrate how the site will be served by water and that adequate water supply is in place or will be provided concurrently with the development of the property.

 

2. Prior to development of the site the applicant shall submit a Development Review application and detailed sanitary sewer plans that demonstrate adequate sewer treatment and disposal capacity is in place or will be provided concurrently with the development of the property (i.e. new or upgraded wastewater treatment and disposal).

 

3. Prior to development of the site the applicant shall submit a Development Review application with a detailed stormwater plan. All engineered plans relating to storm water discharges shall be submitted to the City’s Engineer for review and comment prior to additional discharges of water into O’Shea Creek.

 

4. All future water, sewer and stormwater facilities on the subject property shall be designed and constructed in a manner that is consistent with Canyonville Public Works Design Standards.

 

5. Prior to future development the applicant shall be responsible for designing and constructing transportation improvements to mitigate transportation impacts in a manner that is consistent with requirements of Douglas County and ODOT.

 

6. An Annexation Agreement shall be signed prior to the effective date of the annexation.

 

C. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Canyonville City Council approves of the annexation and zone change for portions of Tax Lots 700 and 200 on Douglas Assessor’s Map # 26-30-05, described in Exhibit P of the staff report, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed above based on the following findings of fact:

 

CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE CANYONVILLE ANNEXATION PROVISIONS

Canyonville Code Section 18.88.060 outlines the local criteria for annexation:

Annexation may be processed under the procedure set forth in ORS Chapter 222,

the land must be:

 

A. Contiguous with the city limits and within the City’s urban growth boundary as designated in the comprehensive plan;

Finding: Satisfied. The proposed annexation includes the proposal to bring in a section of Tiller Trail Highway contiguous to the City Limits and the subject property (rendering the subject property “contiguous to Canyonville’s existing Urban Growth Boundary.

 

B. Consistent with and promotes the comprehensive plan, this title and other city ordinances and policies;

Finding: Satisfied. The associated application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to expand the Utban Growth Boundary provides adequate evidence that the annexation is consistent with and promotes the comprehensive plan and other city ordinances.

 

C. Compatible with the rational and logical extension of utilities and roads to the surrounding area;

 

D. Such that adequate public facilities and services can reasonably be made available to the annexed property without negatively impacting existing systems and the city’s ability to adequately serve all areas within the existing city limits;

 

Finding: Satisfied. Community Facilities Policy 2.6. allows new development above the 850-foot contour level, provided that one or more high elevation water reservoirs are constructed to ensure adequate water pressure to higher-elevation building sites. In 1997, the council noted that construction of a new high-elevation water reservoir will also help solve the City's dry-weather water storage problem. There is no current proposal for construction of a reservoir but the applicant has clearly shown the necessity for one, and the City’s engineer has confirmed (Exhibits M & N). the applicant must ensure sufficient service provision as development occurs (Conditions 1-4). Provision for adequate transportation improvements (as required by the Canyonville Development Code, Douglas County or ODOT is ensured through Condition 5. An annexation agreement will include provisions related to the provision of adequate public facilities before development occurs. (Condition 6).


E. All territory which may hereafter be annexed to the city shall be considered to be in the R-1/B district until otherwise classified.

Finding: Satisfied. All territory which is annexed to the city is considered to be in the R-1/B district unless otherwise classified. There is a concurrent application for rezone of the site from the de-facto R-1 zoning to R-2 Mobile Home/Medium Density Residential.

 

CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE ANNEXATION STATUTE ORS 222:

ORS 222.111

(1) When a proposal containing the terms of annexation is approved in the manner provided by the charter of the annexing city or by ORS 222.111 (Authority and procedure for annexation) to 222.180 (Effective date of annexation) or 222.840 (Short title) to 222.915 (Application of ORS 222.840 to 222.915), the boundaries of any city may be extended by the annexation of territory that is not within a city and that is contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water. Such territory may lie either wholly or partially within or without the same county in which the city lies.

 

(2) A proposal for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by the legislative body of the city, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed

....

ORS 222.125

Annexation by consent of all owners of land and majority of electors

Proclamation of annexation

 

The legislative body of a city need not call or hold an election in the city or in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed or hold the hearing otherwise required under ORS 222.120 (Procedure without election by city electors) when all of the owners of land in that territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the land in the territory and file a statement of their consent with the legislative body. Upon receiving written consent to annexation by owners and electors under this section, the legislative body of the city, by resolution or ordinance, may set the final boundaries of the area to be annexed by a legal description and proclaim the annexation. [1985 c.702 §3; 1987 c.738 §1]

Finding: Satisfied. The statute provides that a proposal for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by a petition to the city by the owner of the property to be annexed. The subject 49.9 acre property is wholly owned by the applicants, who have signed and submitted a formal Petition for Annexation to the City of Canyonville concurrently with the proposed UGB amendment (Exhibit P). ORS 222.125 further provides that the city need not hold a public hearing on a proposed annexation when all of the owners of the property in the area to be annexed, and not less than 50 percent of the registered voters in the area to be annexed, have given their written consent to the city. The subject 49.9 acre site is under the ownership of Dr. Gregory Falk (Parcel 700), and Marcia Falk (Parcel 200) of Section 26 Township 30 South Range 05 West. The parcels are also presently vacant and undeveloped with no registered voters residing within the area proposed to be annexed. Annexation requirements are met by the applicant’s proposal.

 

Criterion 2: Canyonville Land Use and Urbanization Policy 1.7

1.7 Require a development master plan prior to annexation of large parcels of land (greater than five acres) to the City.

Finding: Satisfied. The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for development (parcelization) on the site (Exhibit Q), and has also submitted accompanying analysis and assumptions relative to utility requirements and service feasibility.

 

Based on the staff report and the conditions in the findings it is staff’s recommendation that the City Council adopt the staff report and findings and recommend approval of the following Ordinances and the Annexation agreement.

 

o   Ordinance 631 amending the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan to adopt an Urbanization study, replace portions of a previously adopted urbanization study, enlarge the Canyonville Urban Growth Boundary.

o   Ordinance 632 approving the annexation of 45 acres of tax lot 200, Assessor’s Map 30S R5W Section 26 and 4.9 acres of tax lot 700.

o   Ordinance 633 amending the Canyonville zoning map to rezone subject property to R-2 Manufactured home park/duplex rediential.

 

Mayor Young called a break at 8:06 pm.

Mayor Young reconvened the meeting at 8:12 pm.

 

            Attorney Darnielle informed Council they do not have to approve the annexation agreement separately, as            it will be approved through ordinance 632.

 

·        Mayor Young asked for testimony from the applicant.

 

The Applicant’s Representative Ron Schofield, Box 509, Roseburg spoke on behalf of the property owner.  Mr. Schofield asked if Council had any questions for him. There were no questions asked so Mr Schofield stated for the record that they are in agreement with the staff report, findings and conditions prepared by staff.

 

·        Mayor Young asked for public testimony.

 

Kit Heisler, Box 794, Canyonville informed the Council that she lives on a small lot                              across from Falk’s property.  She is concerned about the impact to O’Shea Creek.  They                            have water rights for livestock so they are concerned about the quantity and quality of                           O’Shea Creek.  Since the city constructed a dam they have experienced down stream                                  impacts such as low creek level and oil leaks.  When the city flushes the dam it creates a                                 flash flood of water rushing down the creek.  She is concerned that it will be a danger to children

in the development if they play in the creek.  She also had a concern of the impact of a 2.2%

population growth over the 1.75% growth.

 

Planner Callister explained this number is a guess of what the growth of Canyonville maybe

throughout a 20 year spread.

 

Kit also had concerns of how they would be able to fill the spaces in this development when other

developments within the City are unable to fill their spaces.

 

Attorney Darnielle stated that this development is looking at a 20 year growth and it is up to the

owner to get these lots filled.

 

·       Mayor Young closed the hearing to public comment.

 

Mayor Young read Ordinance 631 by Title only – amending the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan to adopt an urbanization study, replace portions of a previously adopted urbanization study, enlarge the Canyonville Urban Growth Boundary.

 

Councilor Loomis moved, Councilor Kovachy seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance 631 by title only.  All voted “yes”. Motion carried.

 

Mayor Young read Ordinance 631 a second time by Title.

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CANYONVILLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT AN URBANIZATION STUDY, REPLACING PORTIONS OF A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED URBANIZATION STUDY, TO ENLARGE THE CANYONVILLE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE A PORTION OF TILLER TRAIL HIGHWAY AND 45 ACRES OF TAX LOT 200, ASSESSORS’S MAP 30S R5W SECTION 26 AND 4.9 ACRES OF TAX LOT 700, ASSESSOR’S MAP 30S R5W SECTION 26 AND 4.9 ACRES OF TAX LOT 700, ASSESSOR’S MAP 30S R5W SECTION 26 AND TO DESIGNATE THIS PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL.

 

Councilor Loomis moved, Councilor Kovachy seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance 631 by title as read.  All voted “yes”. Motion carried.

 

Mayor Young read Ordinance 632 by Title only – approving the annexation of 45 acres of tax lot 200, Assessor’s Map 30S R5W Section 26 and 4.9 acres of tax lot 700.

 

Councilor Braudt questioned if the City has the ability to deliver the quanity of water needed to this development since Douglas County has been declared a drought ridden disaster area?

Administrator Evans explained that the development was part of the water master plan and according to the plan the city will be able to provide the needed water.  When asked Superintendent Lakey said that every year the City has had a surplus of water.  Last year as a precaution staff blended the water from the dam and O’Shea creek to keep from having to ration water.  The City has not utilized the water rights to their full capacity.

 

Councilor Kovachy asked if Heisler would be able to be present at the Falk sub division hearing.  Planner Callister explained that land use notices would be sent out to owners of all adjacent properties.

 

Councilor Braudt expressed concerns about the agreement.  On page 4, section 1.8 lists the requirements of sewer, drainage, roads and park land but does not account for water.  It is Councilor Braudt’s opinion that there should be a section 1.8.5 Water system covering the financial responsibility of the costs.  Attorney Darniell stated that a new agreement could be drafted adding that section and brought back to the Council for approval at the next meeting.  He recommended that the Council add a statement to Ordinance 632 stating it will not be effective until Douglas County Commissioner’s approve the UGB expansion and the City and applicant have signed the appropriate annexation agreement.  .

 

Councilor Loomis moved, Councilor Kovachy seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance 632 as amended by title only.  All voted “yes”. Motion carried.

 

Mayor Young read Ordinance 632 a second time by Title:

 

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF 45 ACRES OF TAX LOT 200 ASSESSOR’S MAP 30S R5W SECTION 26 AND 4.9 ACRES OF TAX LOT 700, ASSESSOR’S MAP 30S R5W SECTION 26

 

Councilor  Braudt  moved, Councilor Loomis  seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance 632 as read with the amendment of Section 3.  All voted “yes”. Motion carried.

 

Mayor Young read Ordinance 633 by Title only – Ordinance 633 amending the Canyonville zoning map to rezone subject property to R-2 Manufactured home park/duplex residential.

 

Councilor Russ moved, Councilor Kovachy seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance 633 by title only.  All voted “yes”. Motion carried.

 

            Mayor Young read Ordinance 633 a second time by Title:

 

            AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CANYONVILLE ZONING MAP TO REZONE A

PROTION OF TILLER TRAIL HIGHWAY AND 45 ACRES OF TAX LOT 200,

ASSESSOR’S MAP 30S R5W SECTION 26 AND 4.9 ACRES OF TAX LOT 700,

ASSESSOR’S MAP 30S R5W SECTION 26 TO R-2 MANUFACTURED HOME

PARK/DUPLEX

 

Councilor Loomis moved, Councilor Kovachy seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance 633 as read.  All voted “yes”. Motion carried.

 

Mayor Young called a break at 9:00 pm.

Mayor Young reconvened the meeting at 9:07 pm.

 

VII.      COUNCIL BUSINESS:

 

1.      Hazard mitigation plan.

 

In 2002 FEMA passed a rule which requires all states and local governments to develop natural hazard mitigation plans in order to be eligible for certain pre- and post disaster Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Programs. The rule also requires the plans to be updated every five years.  The City of Canyonville’s existing Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was completed in 2004 and included in Douglas County’s county-wide NHMP as an addendum. 

 

Administrator Evans explained that there are two options the Council can take.  One option is the City create their own NHMP through Lane County of Government.  The University of Oregon has funding available but if the City contracts with Lane Council of Governments to complete the plan we will only receive 75% of the cost.  The City will have to actually pay 25% of the cost for Lane Council of Government.  The match can not be in kind services.  The other option is to create the minimum plan as an addendum to the Counties plan.  This will still qualify the City for an approved plan it just won’t be as detailed as a plan done just for the City.  Administrator Evans recommended that the City do the addendum with the County’s plan since there are so many projects going on right now. 

 

Councilor Braudt moved, Councilor Coleman seconded a motion to incorporate a minimum NHMP with Douglas County NHMP.  All voted “yes”.  Motion passed.

 

2.      Letter from Jackie Robertson regarding burglaries.

 

Council discussed the letter from business owner Jackie Robertson of Jackies Hair Design regarding the recent burglaries of her business.  Although Council is very sympathetic to the problem there is really not much that can be done.  The Sheriff’s Department is stretched so thin throughout the county that their response time can be delayed hampering the chances of apprending the criminals.  Business owners may need to take steps to secure their  businesses against future break-ins.

 

3.      Appointment to the Planning Commission.

 

The Planning Commission consists of seven members appointed by the City Council.  Norval Weigel is moving back to Grants Pass so he is resigning from the Planning Commission.  We have received two applications for the position.  One is Debra Hopkins who has a background in facility managing and planning for Humboldt State University and the other applicant is Linda Seven Ricker with an accounting and office management background.  Council needs to appoint one of the applicants to fill Norval’s unexpired term which ends 12/31/16.

 

Councilor Coleman moved, Councilor Braudt seconded a motion to appoint Debra Hopkins to the unexpired term ending 12/31/16 on the Planning Commission.  All voted “yes”.  Motion passed.

 

 

 

 

 

4.      Change Order 15 for sewer plant.

 

Administrator Evans removed this Change Order from the agenda until next month due to not receiving the paper work.

 

5.      Park Board Discussion.

 

Councilor Kovachy stated that he missed the last Council meeting where the Park Board was discussed and wondered if the Park Board was relevant anymore.  The deed that established the Park Board only had to do with the south half of the park not the north half which was donated by Huffman and Wright.  The City owns the property and the buildings on it so is there even a need for the Park Board anymore.    Several years ago there was an issue where the Park Board was not legally advertising their meetings and the Attorney recommended that the Mayor not attend the meetings. 

 

City Administrator Evans asked if the City Attorney had done any research regarding the fact that the Park Board was created by the deed and whether or not it could actually be changed?  Mayor Young stated that he thinks we would need a legal opinion.  He does not really see any issue with the Park Board other than that some members need to be updated.

 

It was the consensus of the Council that the City should get an opinion from the attorney regarding whether the deed language is still binding even if they don’t want to change anything.

 

 

VIII.    REPORTS:

 

1.      SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT

 

There was a power surge at the WWTP at 2:34 am on Thursday that shut down the new system.  When James Gettle arrived at the plant all the alarm lights were on, none of the pumps were running, and the head works were covered with sewage.  Staff did not receive notice of a problem at the plant because the alarms did not work.  Upon investigating the problem staff found that the new dedicated phone line had not been completed and the line outside the building was on the ground.  The phone company was contacted with the problem and they responded the same day.  They re-routed the phone line from the auto dialer to the pole.  The pump company was contacted and worked with staff to get the pumps up and running temporarily until they are able to locate the part to fix them perminantly.  For the time being the pumps are working.

 

Reynolds water storage reservoir was inspected on January 26th.  There was corrosion found on the interior ladder and the anchors that hold the float level indicator are gone.  The overall condition of the reservoir is good, although maintenance will be required which will be addressed in the water master plan. 

 

Water Plant received a violation of disinfection by products which required a public notification of all customers.  Changes have been made in the way the water is chlorinated.  The plant is being run fewer hours to allow the treated water in the storage reservoirs to fluctuate to a greater degree to keep the water fresher and decrease the formation of disinfection by-products.  The screen in the intake vault off of Canyon Creek has rusted away and a new stainless screen was constructed.  The screen will be installed in March in conjunction with the release of fish at the impound pond.

 

Heavy rains have kept staff hopping.  The jet truck has been used to flush plugged culverts around the city.  We have begun mowing on the freeway interchanges which is earlier then previous years.

 

Park restrooms are now open for service to the public.

 

 

2.    ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

 

WATER MASTER PLAN:  Staff met with the engineer to review and reduce projects listed on the Capital Improvement Plan.  The focus was on what was absolutely needed to be done versus what we wished could be done.  They were able to substantially reduce the cost of the plan.  Administrator Evans anticipates having a draft version of the plan  for either the April or May meeting

 

CDBG:  Administrator Evans met with the Infrastructure Financing Regional Coordinator Becky Bryant to review the grant administration and the City’s compliance with all the grant requirements.  Everything is in order and after the final costs come in the City will have some grant money left over.  Staff is working hard to figure out what IFA will allow us to use the money for.  Some of the money has been approved to pay for the new electrical hookup at the plant.

 

BUDGET:  First budget meeting is scheduled for May 14, 2015.  Staff is working hard to get the 2015-2016 budget done by May 1, 2015. 

 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION:  Staff received an email from Sam Goldstein, Community Programs Director for Rural Development, saying he wants to get our project funding soon.  All appropriate paperwork and revisions requested on the environmental reports have been completed and submitted.

 

IX.       BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES

 

None.

 

X.        CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION:

1.    Available for Inspection:

a)                Seniors Escorting Seniors – February 2015 Report

 

XI.       ANNOUNCEMENTS:

1.      Planning Commission Regular Session – Wednesday, April 8, 2015 @ 7:00 p.m.

2.      City Council Regular Session  April 20, 2014 @ 7:00 p.m.

 

XII.      ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business Mayor Young adjourned the meeting at 9:48 p.m.

 

Submitted by:                                                                          Approved by:

 

 

______________________________                                          ________________________________

Dawn Bennett, Finance Deputy Recorder                                Jake Young, Mayor                                    

Website Builder