Agenda Packet

AGENDA ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL

Monday, December 7, 2020 7:00 PM 2nd Floor Council Chambers 1095 Duane Street, Astoria OR

Public meetings will be conducted in the Council Chambers with a limited seating arrangement. To adhere to the social distancing recommendation, meetings may now also be audio and video livestreamed. Go to https://www.astoria.or.us/LIVE_STREAM.aspx for connection instructions.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. REPORTS OF COUNCILORS

4. CHANGES TO AGENDA

5. CONSENT CALENDAR The items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be adopted by one motion unless a member of the City Council requests to have any item considered separately. Members of the community may have an item removed if they contact the City Manager by 5:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

5.a City Council Meeting Minutes for October 26, 2020

5.b City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes for October 26, 2020

5.c Parks Advisory Board Minutes October 2020

5.d Authorization to Change Monday Meeting Dates That Fall on a Holiday to the Following Day in 2021

6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS All agenda items are open for public comment following deliberation by the City Council. Rather than asking for public comment after each agenda item, the Mayor asks that audience members raise their hands if they want to speak to the item and they will be recognized. In order to respect everyone’s time, comments will be limited to 3 minutes.

6.a Consideration of Fort Astoria Sign Replacement Language

6.b Public Hearing and First Reading of Amendment A20-02 to Amend the Zoning Map at 6562 Liberty Lane

6.c Resolution to Transfer General Fund Contingency to City Attorney Department # 1800

6.d Trestle Repair Project - Change Order #1

6.e Consideration of Parklet Application for Blaylock's Whiskey Bar

7. NEW BUSINESS & MISCELLANEOUS, PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA)

THIS MEETING IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE DISABLED. AN INTERPRETER FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED MAY BE REQUESTED UNDER THE TERMS OF ORS 192.630 BY CONTACTING THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, 503-325-5824.

DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2020 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2020

CONSENT CALENDAR 5.a City Council Meeting Minutes for October 26, 2020 5.b City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes for October 26, 2020 The minutes of the City Council meeting are enclosed for review. Unless there are any corrections, it is recommended that Council approve these minutes. 5.c Parks Advisory Board Minutes October 2020 The minutes of the Board meeting are enclosed for information purposes only. 5.d Authorization to Change Monday Meeting Dates That Fall on a Holiday to the Following Day in 2021

Astoria City Hall will be closed on Monday, January 18, 2021 for Martin Luther King, Jr., Day; Monday, February 15, 2021 for Presidents’ Day; Monday, July 5, 2021 for Independence Day; and Monday, September 6, 2021 for Labor Day; therefore, the meeting dates will need to be changed. In years prior it has been the tradition to hold City Council meetings on the following day. It is recommended that Council set alternate meeting dates for the holidays noted above.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6.a Consideration of Fort Astoria Sign Replacement Language In the fall of 2018, community members contacted the Parks Department about the content of the Fort Astoria sign as they felt it contained inaccurate and outdated language and did not fully acknowledge its importance and context as a trading location of the tribal people who had controlled the area before the arrival of U.S. and European entrepreneurs. That inquiry triggered further review of the sign structure itself by Parks staff and it was determined that the structure was in need of replacement. Parks staff sought approval from the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) to replace the sign with a completely new structure that would feature some new wording developed in collaboration with City Historian John Goodenberger, while not radically changing the message of the existing text. HLC's jurisdiction included review of the sign's design but not the text of the sign. Following HLC approval of a new design for the sign's

2 structure and composition materials, the Lower Columbia Preservation Society (LCPS) appealed that decision. Parks staff subsequently worked with LCPS and developed a new sign design which all parties could support. That revised design was subsequently approved by the Landmarks Commission and LCPS is participating in the funding of the new sign as the cost is greater than what was originally budgeted by the City. The issue of the outdated language remained a concern for community members and in August 2020, Mayor Jones convened a workgroup to revise and update it to better reflect the site's historical context and its importance as a regional trading nexus. The workgroup, facilitated by City Historian Goodenberger, finalized draft language for the updated sign and then brought it to the Parks Advisory Board for review and feedback. The Parks Board met on November 25, 2020 and supports the attached draft. The final draft is now presented to City Council for their acceptance. The Lower Columbia Preservation Society and Clatsop Community College's Historic Preservation Program hope to install the new replacement sign in spring of 2021. A plaque will also be added explaining the chain of events that led to the sign's changes over the years. It is recommended that the City Council accept the new Fort Astoria sign language as drafted by the Mayor's workgroup. 6.b Public Hearing and First Reading of Amendment A20-02 to Amend the Zoning Map at 6562 Liberty Lane

On October 27, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the request to rezone six acres of the property at 6562 Liberty Lane. The proposal included requests on three acres from S1 (Marine Industrial Shorelands) to S2 (General Development Shorelands) and from S2 (General Development Shorelands) to S1 (Marine Industrial Shorelands) on three acres. The applicant, Clatsop Community College (CCC), would like to change the zoning to acknowledge the existing developed area of their campus. The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council. It is recommended that the Council conduct public hearing and determine if to hold a first reading of the ordinance. 6.c Resolution to Transfer General Fund Contingency to City Attorney Department #1800 Oregon Revised Statute ORS 294.463(2) provides guidance for the transfer of appropriations up to 15%, when authorized by resolution of the governing body. At the time the City Attorney Department budget of the General Fund was prepared amounts budgeted did not anticipate the Hollander appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals and the necessary time requirements for legal preparation and review associated with the appeal. A transfer in the amount of 7,000 from Contingency to Materials & Professional Services is required to provide sufficient appropriations for unanticipated costs related to legal expenses associated with the Hollander land use appeal. This amount is less than .5 % of general fund appropriations. A resolution is attached for consideration and approval. It is recommended that City Council approve

transfer of $ 7,000 from Contingency to Materials & Services within the City Attorney Department # 1800. 6.d Trestle Repair Project - Change Order #1 The Trestle Repair Project addresses critical repair needs on the 6th through 11th Street Trestle, Mill Pond Trestle, 6th Street Park Pier, and the 14th Street Park Pier. City Council authorized a construction contract with Bergemen Construction in July 2020. Work is currently underway with completion scheduled for mid-December 2020. During the course of work, it became apparent that several additional repairs are needed to complete the project. It is recommended that City Council authorize staff to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $25,025.22. 6.e Consideration of Parklet Application for Blaylock's Whiskey Bar The Astoria City Council has established a set of policies to allow Parklets to be established in rights of way. A Parklet applicatoin (PL20-04) was submitted by The Blaylock's Whiskey Bar at 433 13th Street. There is no other Parklet located on the block, as per the requirements. An analysis of the Parklet is included as well as all the submitted application materials. Staff recommends approval, as conditioned.

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2020

TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL

FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 26, 2020

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

The minutes of the City Council meeting are enclosed for review.

RECOMMENDATION:

Unless there are any corrections, it is recommended that Council approve these minutes.

BY: JENNIFER BENOIT, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

ATTACHMENTS: ACC Oct 26 2020 Final.doc

5 CITY OF ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS City Council Chambers October 26, 2020

A regular meeting of the Astoria Common Council was held at the above place at the hour of 1:00 pm.

Councilors Present: Brownson, Rocka, Herman, West, and Mayor Jones.

Councilors Excused: None

Staff Present: City Manager Estes, Parks and Recreation Director Dart-Mclean, Community Development Director Leatherman, Finance Director Brooks, Fire Chief Crutchfield, Police Chief Spalding, Public Works Director Harrington, Library Director Pearson, and City Attorney Henningsgaard. The meeting was live streamed and recorded, and will be transcribed by ABC Transcription Services, Inc.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS

Item 3(a): Amendment #1 to Lap Pool Gutter Replacement contract with Anderson Pool Works

The contract to replace the lap pool's gutter system was approved by City Council on September 8th, 2020 for $87,676 with Anderson Pool Works using budgeted Capital Improvement funds. Work commenced on October 5th and the old gutters have been removed. Once the concrete gutter channels were exposed, the contractor noted extensive corrosion that could lead to leaks and impacts to the pool's water chemistry balance if not addressed. The contractor has provided an additional cost of $12,500 to seal the existing concrete and the new cold joints in concrete poured to support the new gutters. Staff is requesting Council approve an amendment to the contract to include the concrete sealing for a new total not-to-exceed amount of $100,176.

City Council Action: Motion made by Councilor Brownson, seconded by Councilor Rocka, to approve Amendment #1 to the contract with Anderson Pool Works to include the concrete sealing for a new total not-to- exceed amount $100,176. Motion carried unanimously. Ayes: Councilors Brownson, Herman, Rocka, West, and Mayor Jones; Nays: None.

Item 3(b): Hollander Hotel Land Use Board of Appeals Direction

City Manager Estes stated that an appeal of the City Council’s decision on the Hollander Hotel was filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The City Council had denied an extension to permits originally approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission and Design Review Commission.

City Attorney Henningsgaard said it was hard to say what LUBA would do if the City chose not to file an appeal brief. LUBA will do their own research, and while they are competent, his experience had always been that LUBA appreciates hearing arguments and engaging in dialogue with the attorneys. He asked if the City Council wanted to file a brief.

Councilor Herman stated the City had already spent a considerable amount of time and money on this issue and it would only be prudent to file a brief.

The Mayor and each of the Councilors stated they agreed the City should file a brief.

City Attorney Henningsgaard noted that 90 percent of LUBA cases are remanded for further proceeding because LUBA wants additional findings from the policy makers. Once remanded back to the City, the Council can grant the request based on LUBA’s advice or continue to deny the request. That decision would be appealable to LUBA.

NEW BUSINESS & MISCELLANEOUS, PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA)

Page 1 of 3 City Council Journal of Proceedings October 26, 2020 6 City Manager Estes announced that Staff had been working with Clatsop Economic Development Resources (CEDR) on a small business grant program, which would allocate a portion of the City’s CARES Act funds to local businesses. He believed the City could commit about $40,000 to the grant program. He asked if the Council concurred that a small business grant administered by CEDR would be the best use of these funds. If so, Staff would propose a formal agreement on November 2nd. Kevin Leahy of CEDR has identified a need and has stated this grant would fill gaps not covered by other programs. The funds would be directed to businesses with 25 or fewer employees, have received less than $100,000 in federal funding, were forced to temporarily close, and experienced at least a 25 precent drop in revenue during the pandemic.

Kevin Leahy, CEDR, said 213 businesses in Clatsop County applied for $1,169,000 in grant money from the small business grant program. Half of those businesses were from the 97103 zip code. CEDR is trying to get every business funded, so dollars would be allocated specifically for businesses in the City of Astoria.

Councilor West asked if this was a new round of funding that would only be available to businesses who had not applied in previous rounds. She also wanted to know if the threshold for funding already received had been raised.

Mr. Leahy stated CEDR would use the dollars already applied for instead of taking new applications. Only two or three applications had to be turned down because of the threshold for funding already received. However, CEDR is still vetting the information provided by businesses. Businesses that received less than $100,000 in CARES Act funding could apply without penalty. For businesses that did receive more funding, a reduced dollar amount is still available. Specific details were available at ClatsopCC.edu/CEDR. CEDR emailed businesses last week to let them know they hope to have a final answer by Friday. He was optimistic that CEDR would be able to fund businesses throughout the region.

Councilor Herman asked if the $40,000 from the City’s CARES Act funding would go into pool for the county- wide grants.

Mr. Leahy said yes and explained that the funding from Astoria would allocated to businesses located in Astoria. Astoria businesses would also be eligible to receive county-wide funds. He also confirmed for Councilor Herman that sole proprietors were eligible.

Councilor Rocka noted that many businesses in the theatre and arts community have not been able to reopen at all yet, so their needs are great.

Mr. Leahy noted that non-profits also applied for these funds. All funds must be spent by the middle of November and he believed this program was the best way to deal with the shortfall and fill the gap.

Councilor Brownson understood the largest amount granted would be $125,000.

Mr. Leahy responded that 95 percent of the businesses applied for $5,000, but the largest ask was for $28,000. Businesses will be able to use the funds for whatever they like.

Councilor Brownson asked if Mr. Leahy was confident that the City would not be audited for putting it’s money into the County’s fund.

Mr. Leahy said as long as the business relief funding is COVID related, the City would be okay.

City Manager Estes added Staff confirmed with the State and City Attorney Henningsgaard that this is an eligible project. Additionally, Director Brooks participated in a seminar to ensure that all of the City’s agreements with CEDR were drafted appropriately.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:31 pm to convene a City Council Work Session.

ATTEST: APPROVED: Page 2 of 3 City Council Journal of Proceedings October 26, 2020 7 Finance Director City Manager

Page 3 of 3 City Council Journal of Proceedings October 26, 2020 8

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2020

TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL

FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 26, 2020

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

The minutes of the City Council meeting are enclosed for review.

RECOMMENDATION:

Unless there are any corrections, it is recommended that Council approve these minutes.

BY: JENNIFER BENOIT, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

ATTACHMENTS: ACC WS Oct 26 2020 Draftl.doc

9 CITY OF ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS City Council Chambers October 26, 2020

A work session of the Astoria Common Council was held at the above place at the hour of 1:31 pm. [31:15]

Councilors Present: Brownson, Herman, Rocka, West, and Mayor Jones.

Councilors Excused: None

Staff Present: City Manager Estes, Community Development Director Leatherman, Finance Director Brooks, Public Works Director Harrington, Assistant City Engineer Moore, Library Director Pearson, and City Attorney Henningsgaard. The meeting is recorded and will be transcribed by ABC Transcription Services, Inc.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS

Item 3(a): Wastewater Treatment Plant Update and Industrial Pretreatment

City Manager Estes said this was a follow up to the last work session on the City’s sewer treatment facility. This is a challenging issue for the breweries, City Staff, and policy makers. Over the years, breweries and the fermentation cluster, which includes distilleries and cideries, has become an important part of the City’s economy and is highlighted as a target sector in the Astoria Economic Development Strategy. As the number of breweries, distilleries, and cideries has grown, jobs have been developed and underutilized buildings have been redeveloped. The community is now a more vibrant place to live and visit. However, this growth has translated into impacts on the sewer treatment plant. Staff has been working for several years to determine why the plant was having issues, which put the City out of compliance with it’s permit from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Staff has spoken with breweries about their effluent and how the treatment plant worked. Recently, it was determined that the plant’s challenges were triggered by high biological oxygen demand (BOD) levels. Staff needed direction from the Council on how to move forward with a policy to deal with the issues.

Estegenet Belete, Industrial Pretreatment Program Coordinator, DEQ, explained that several cities in Oregon were dealing with brewery wastewater discharge. Cities regulate the large discharges through an industrial pretreatment permit, a waste management plan agreement, or high wastewater and sewer charges. If the City is in violation of the DEQ permit, DEQ might start requiring the City to regulate the wastewater.

Assistant City Engineer Moore gave a Power Point presentation on the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), the discovery process, the existing sewer resolution, and proposals for an industrial pretreatment program, a BOD load allocation strategy, and a permitting strategy. During the presentation, Staff, Consultant Dale Richwine, and Tiffany Brown of DEQ responded to questions and comments from the Council with the following key comments:  The State updates projected populations for every city and county annually. Staff used these projections to determine that certain treatment plant updates could be expected to meet Astoria’s population growth through 2045.  Fish processors are required to obtain a different permit from DEQ, which requires industrial pretreatment at fish processing facilities to reduce the BODs before discharging into the river. If breweries wanted to discharge into the river, they could apply for a DEQ permit as well.  The City has considered other alternatives for removing sludge from the lagoon. However, all options had cons that outweighed the pros and were prohibitively expensive. Each option was described in detail and Staff shared why each option would not work for Astoria.  The headworks project will cost $5 million and Staff hoped to get it done in the next five years. The City budgeted for the design work, which was supposed to begin this year, but those funds had to be reallocated to deal with the effluent issues. Staff is currently discussing loan options with Business Oregon to refund the headworks project.  While the City’s growth projections remain fairly flat. However, those numbers reflect residential and commercial only. The City does have a lot of development in the works that will produce more waste. Commercial establishments have higher BOD loads than residential developments. So, the actual BOD loads are larger than what the population equivalent would be.

Page 1 of 4 City Council Journal of Proceedings October 26, 2020 10  Staff has not done an industrial pretreatment survey to determine what types of facilities would be identified as an industrial user. Potential industrial users could include the automotive industry and painting industry. Water consumption is an indicator of large industrial users.  There are no regional solutions at this time, but the State is aware of the issues and other cities are using the same methods being proposed by Astoria Staff.  Side streaming for both breweries is planned for March, but Fort George wanted to start in January. Side streaming will reduce some of the sludge growth in the pipes. The smaller breweries are contributing to the slime growth as well, but at much lower levels than the big breweries. In the past, the City cleaned the pipes once a year. Now, the pipes must be cleaned monthly to get rid of the sludge.

Mayor Jones called for a recess at 2:39 pm. The meeting reconvened at 2:45 pm.

During the presentation, Staff also posed the following questions for the Council to consider when discussing potential policies: 1. Should the City of Astoria consider construction of a new mechanical wastewater treatment plant? 2. How much of the WWTP’s BOD load capacity should be allocated to current industries, if any, and how much could be allocated to future industries, if any? 3. Does the Council concur that industrial pretreatment permits should be issued to Fort George and Buoy Beer in advance of developing and implementing a program, and adopting a new sewer ordinance? If so, Fort George’s permit would replace the existing conditional use permit on their facility at 70 W. Marine Drive.

The Councilors briefly discussed how to direct Staff. All Councilors agreed that Staff should issue industrial pretreatment permits to Fort George and Buoy Beer.

John Mercer gave a Power Point presentation on Fort George’s new facility on Marine Drive, which included a detailed description of their equipment, the brewing process, facility operations, waste products, side streaming, and discharge. He answered clarifying questions from Staff about the site plan and measuring discharge overflow.

Chris Nemlowill, 478 Kensington, Astoria, said he supported moving ahead with the industrial pretreatment permit process because without that permit, he cannot get a plumbing permit. This was a massive surprise to him. When the brewery was originally designed and permit applications were submitted to the City, there were no side streaming plans. He has opened two breweries in Astoria and had never been told that the required maximum residential load was 250 BODs going into the system. No other breweries in town had ever had this restriction either. He has tried to work with the City, hired a consultant, and asked Buoy Beer to work with them to figure out a solution to the City’s problem. They need time to implement the required systems because this caught everyone off guard. Because of the pandemic, the breweries have fewer resources and reduced revenues. Fort George will spend about $300,000 that they had not originally planned to spend on this system. The data that has been presented was based on a very small number of samples and more time is needed to come up with data. Once the new brewery starts up, he will be able to dial in the process and get great data. The entire fermentation sector is afraid of this fee structure. Breweries have taken over abandoned buildings, reinvested in the community, and created jobs. In 20017, Fort George started with eight employees and were on track to have 200 employees this year. Astoria has flourished because of the fermentation sector. He urged the City to be careful when putting together a fee structure because that could limit growth for everyone. He had plans to expand to Warrenton, but chose not to because he believed Astoria was championing the fermentation sector. He took over vacant dilapidated buildings on the waterfront that would have otherwise sat empty. He believed the City needed to invest in infrastructure. In 2017, Advance Astoria stated the City’s five-year goal was to create 200 high paying jobs. Fort George almost had 200 jobs before COVID, but brewing is a great industry for growing jobs. They offer manufacturing and retail jobs. They also bring tourism dollars into Astoria. The sewage treatment plant was built in 1974 and its never been dredged. The City has not maintained its infrastructure as well as it could have and it is time to reinvest in that. He believed an innovative plan could be developed to get a lot more function out of the existing lagoon system. He looked forward to making beer, selling beer, and being a community asset. The Festival of Dark Arts has an economic impact of almost $3 million each year on Astoria, so the fermentation cluster needs the City’s support.

Dave Kroening, Buoy Beer, stated he had always been able to work closely with the City to tackle grand ideas and figure out what was best for the community. It was a challenge for a small startup trying to take on a 40,000 square foot building on pilings in the river. He was in favor of the phased approach as a good start, but he Page 2 of 4 City Council Journal of Proceedings October 26, 2020 11 wanted to make sure this conversation continued over the next few months. The most common thing for a brewery to do with their wastewater is nothing at all and that is where he started. It was not on anyone’s radar that brewery wastewater would become a big problem. However, he understood the breweries’ role and impact to the system, so the breweries should take this on, especially with some expansions planned. But it is not clear what the next steps will require and what the best path forward will be. The infrastructure of City will have an impact on local businesses that want to grow and businesses that want to come to Astoria. Planning for the next five years is just a Band Aid, so everyone needs to consider creative opportunities to meet the long-term needs.

Mayor Jones noted that Fort George and Buoy Beer are critically important to the community. The City Council has not blamed anyone. The City is wrestling with the current status of the infrastructure while developing industries in the community and is looking for the most practical and equitable ways to move forward. Additionally, all of this has come about in the middle of a pandemic. The City is making a $5 million to $6 million investment in the headworks and the costs will eventually be passed on to the ratepayers. Infrastructure improvements are always a pay as you go and must pay for itself.

Engineer Moore and Mr. Richwine presented, via Power Point, the details of a financial feasibility analysis of the City’s water and sewer rates, which would be required to move forward with an industrial pretreatment program. During the presentation, Staff explained why this analysis was necessary and shared examples of what other jurisdictions have done. In order to prepare a scope of work for a consultant to complete this analysis, Staff needed to know if the Council support creating user classifications for rate payers beyond the industrial users that would be part of the industrial pretreatment program.

The Mayor, Councilors, Staff, and Mr. Richwine discussed a user classification system and how such a system might be implemented. The consensus among the Council was that Staff should move forward with a user classification system.

Engineer Moore provided examples of some cost distribution strategies the City could apply to industrial rates and explained why such strategies are necessary. She asked for the Council’s concurrence on which strategies the consultant should consider in the financial feasibility analysis.

The Council and Staff discussed cost distribution strategies and the potential financial impact on the fermentation cluster. While the fermentation cluster does provide good jobs and other benefits to the community, the Councilors agreed that the industries creating impacts on the City’s infrastructure should be paying for those impacts and a cost distribution strategy should cover the hard costs to the City.

Mr. Richwine added that the Council still had time to think everything over. He and Staff would present a permit to the Council in November, but the financial study would not be authorized until the grant is approved. The permit might have to include placeholders for rates that could be modified in the future. Once the feasibility study is approved in January, the modifications can be made to the permit based on the study before the program is implemented in July.

City Manager Estes asked if the Council wanted to consider a new mechanical plant. The Mayor and Councilors agreed this was not a good time to ask voters to consider a $40 million to $60 million new plant, nor did it make sense to put $12 million into removing sludge from the lagoon. The City should work to keep the current system functional until 2045 as planned.

Engineer Moore shared the next steps necessary to fully implement an industrial pretreatment program.

Mayor Jones called for public comments. There were none.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 pm.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Page 3 of 4 City Council Journal of Proceedings October 26, 2020 12 Finance Director City Manager

Page 4 of 4 City Council Journal of Proceedings October 26, 2020 13

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2020

TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL

FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: PARKS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 2020

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

RECOMMENDATION:

BY: JONAH DART-MCLEAN

ATTACHMENTS: APB Oct 28 2020 Final.pdf

Parks Advisory Board Meeting Minutes October 28, 2020

Chairperson Norma Hernandez called meeting to order at 6:46 am.

Present- Norma Hernandez, Jessica Schleif, Andrew Fick, Jim Holen, Josh Saranpaa, Natalie Osburn, Eric Halverson, and Michele Tompkins.

Absent- Carla Oja.

Staff- Jonah Dart-McLean and Blair Henningsgaard.

Public comments 1. There were none.

Approval of Minutes A. September 2020 minutes were unanimously approved.

President Hernandez A. What do you hear- Jim Holen [inaudible 7:35] heard from someone who was opposed to enhancing the use of Cathedral Tree Trail. Natalie Osburn heard comments about the lack of restrooms along the river trail. People are encouraged to walk the trail but the only restrooms are at the transit center and on Exchange Street. Director Dart-McLean responded that there were three portable restrooms along the Riverwalk, one on 9th Street, and two at People’s Park. Michele Tompkins reported that Friends of Camano Island State Park have a wire netting over the boardwalks to prevent slipping. Director McLean noted that type of material was difficult to transport to and stretch along a trail like Cathedral Tree Trail, so Staff would need to look into other options. Andrew Fick [10:50] heard excitement and gratitude about the flag football program and having the playgrounds open.

Employee and Volunteer Recognition A. Director Dart-McLean recognized Kayla Peachey, Haile Nikkila-Keiner, and Megan Pfeil as the October employees of the month. B. Director Dart-McLean recognized The Lower Columbia Preservation Society (LCPS) and Clatsop Community College's Historic Preservation Program as October Park Partners of the month. Lucien Swerdloff, Clatsop Community College, Historic Preservation Program, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Custom’s House replica, which was done in partnership with LCPS and the Parks Department. He answered questions from Board members about the possibility of partnering with the Master Gardner’s program.

Astoria Parks and Recreation & Community Foundation Update A. Jim Holen reported on the recent fundraiser at Fort George Brewery and noted their 50/50 raffle fundraiser would continue until the end of the month. A group interested in enhancing Cathedral Tree Trail has requested a partnership with the Foundation.

Old Business A. City Attorney Henningsgaard answered questions from Board members about the required protocol for public meetings and advised on best practices.

15 B. Director Dart-McLean gave an update on the Fort Astoria Sign replacement. The Mayor’s workgroup continued to revise the wording for the sign, which should be presented to the Board in November. C. Director Dart-McLean shared details about the lap pool gutter replacement. The Council approved a contract amendment to water seal the concrete channel in the gutters. The project should be complete in one week. D. Director Dart-McLean provided information on the Foundation’s new scholarship program agreement with the City, which was included in the Agenda packet.

Kassia Nye [43:14] shared information about the development of the scholarship program and explained how the program would work.

New Business A. Erik Luysterborghs presented his proposal for a BMX track at Niemi Field, which was included in the Agenda packet. He and Director Dart-McLean answered questions from Board members about the other locations that were considered, USA BMX, track use and size requirements, and the current use of various ballfields in Astoria.

Staff Reports and Upcoming Events A. Staff Reports for October were presented to the Board as part of the agenda packet.

Director Dart-McLean noted that the Astoria School District committee was working on a student engagement project for Halloween. Candy would be handed out at parks from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm on Saturday. The committee worked with the County Health Department and the Astoria Fire Department to ensure social distancing and safe hygiene.

Future Meetings • November 25, 2020 at 6:45 am in City Hall, Council Chambers and livestreamed • December 23, 2020 at 6:45 am in City Hall, Council Chambers and livestreamed

Non-Agenda/Miscellaneous Business 1. President Hernandez recommended that Board members do their due diligence in preparation for a future discussion on a BMX track.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:56 am.

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2020

TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL

FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE MONDAY MEETING DATES THAT FALL ON A HOLIDAY TO THE FOLLOWING DAY IN 2021

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Council set alternate meeting dates for the holidays noted above.

BY: JENNIFER BENOIT, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

ATTACHMENTS:

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2020

TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL

FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FORT ASTORIA SIGN REPLACEMENT LANGUAGE

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

In the fall of 2018, community members contacted the Parks Department about the content of the Fort Astoria sign as they felt it contained inaccurate and outdated language and did not fully acknowledge its importance and context as a trading location of the tribal people who had controlled the area before the arrival of U.S. and European entrepreneurs. That inquiry triggered further review of the sign structure itself by Parks staff and it was determined that the structure was in need of replacement. Parks staff sought approval from the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) to replace the sign with a completely new structure that would feature some new wording developed in collaboration with City Historian John Goodenberger, while not radically changing the message of the existing text. HLC's jurisdiction included review of the sign's design but not the text of the sign. Following HLC approval of a new design for the sign's structure and composition materials, the Lower Columbia Preservation Society (LCPS) appealed that decision. Parks staff subsequently worked with LCPS and developed a new sign design which all parties could support. That revised design was subsequently approved by the Landmarks Commission and LCPS is participating in the funding of the new sign as the cost is greater than what was originally budgeted by the City.

The issue of the outdated language remained a concern for community members and in August 2020, Mayor Jones convened a workgroup with the following members to review the original sign's language and to revise and update it to better reflect the site's historical context and its importance as a regional trading nexus: John Goodenberger, City Historian Chelsea Vaughn, Clatsop County Historical Society Jeff Smith, Columbia River Maritime Museum Rachel Jensen, Lower Columbia Preservation Society Rachel Stokeld, National Park Service Dick Basch, Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes Tony Johnson, Chinook Indian Nation. The workgroup, facilitated by City Historian Goodenberger, finalized draft language for the updated sign and then brought it to the Parks Advisory Board for review and feedback. The Parks Board met on November 25, 2020 and supports the attached draft. The final draft is now presented to City Council for their acceptance. The Lower Columbia Preservation Society and Clatsop Community College's Historic Preservation Program hope to install the

18 new replacement sign in spring of 2021. A plaque will also be added explaining the chain of events that led to the sign's changes over the years.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council accept the new Fort Astoria sign language as drafted by the Mayor's workgroup.

BY: JONAH DART-MCLEAN

ATTACHMENTS: Ft_Astoria_Proposed_Text_11-5-2020.pdf Fort_Astoria_Existing_Language.pdf FORT_ASTORIA_Historical_Marker_HSR_PDF.pdf

19 Fort Astoria Sign

Proposed Text

For thousands of years, the Lower Chinook and Clatsop people guided a vast network of trade from the mouth of the Columbia River. In 1811, New Yorker John Jacob Astor established the fur trading post “Astoria” in competition with British interests. Astor’s workforce included French

Canadians, Hawaiians, African Americans, and Scots, many of whom adopted Chinook jargon to communicate with Native people. Encouraged by Chiefs Comcomly and Coboway, alliances were expanded through intermarriages between Lower Chinook and Clatsop women, and Astor's employees. In 1813, Astoria was transferred to British control and renamed “Fort George.” The

United States claimed joint ownership in 1818, and the British largely abandoned the fort in 1824.

U.S. settlers claimed the land in the 1840s. The citizens of Astoria established this park in 1948 to commemorate its layered history. Today, the Lower Chinook and Clatsop peoples serve as a vital link to this site’s storied past.

20 21

In 1948, a large historical marker was placed at the corner of Fifteenth and Exchange streets in Astoria to mark the former site of Fort Astoria. This document explores the development of the lot, identifies the historical significance of the marker, provides a condition assessment of the current marker, and explores options for the marker’s replacement. LOWER COLUMBIA PRESERVATION SOCIETY March 10, 2020 FORT ASTORIA HISTORICAL MARKER

Historic Structure Report

Table of Contents

Introduction Study Summary Project Data

Part One – Developmental History Historical Background and Context History of Oregon Roadside Historical Markers Original Marker – Photo and Documentary Evidence Comparison between Original and Replacement Markers Evaluation of Significance Condition Assessment of Replacement Marker

Part Two – Treatment and Work Recommendations Historic Preservation Objectives Work Recommendations and Alternatives Requirements for Work

Bibliography

Appendices Email from Chris Bell, ODOT Historic Resource Program Lead Email from Noel Weber Bids from Wood Product Signs

Images

1 23 Introduction

“Historic signs give continuity to public spaces, becoming part of the community memory. They sometimes become landmarks in themselves, almost without regard for the building to which they are attached, or the property on which they stand.”1 – Michael Auer, NPS.

This report was written to provide context for the historical marker at the Fort Astoria National Historic Landmark site and to explore alternatives to replacing the sign with one made of contemporary materials. The historical marker itself has historic significance to the community who installed it over 70 years ago and to residents of and visitors to the National Register Historic District of which it is a part.

Study Summary

Lower Columbia Preservation Society (LCPS) recommends the accurate reconstruction of the 1948 historical marker, identifying on-site that it is a reconstruction.

Project Data

This report was produced by LCPS staff and volunteers. Special thanks to the City of Astoria Parks Department, Jonah Dart-McClean, Clatsop County Historical Society, John Goodenberger, Lucien Swerdloff, Brittany Virgillo, Chris Bell, Laura Wilt, and Clatsop Community College historic preservation department.

Terminology: We have used the term historical marker to describe what is also sometimes referred to as a sign, an interpretive sign, a textboard, and a legend. We denote the difference between the 1948 marker and the circa 1990 marker by using the terms “original marker” and “replacement marker,” respectively.

Areas for research that could assist in providing further historical context include exploring connections between the Fort Astoria blockhouse replica and the fort built at Fort Clatsop, attempts to plan a larger reconstruction of Fort Astoria in 1972, information about the murals that were painted on the back wall of the site, and investigating what happened to the original marker, as well as Beaver Board markers that were located at the Customs House site and Fort Clatsop turn-off on Alt-101. Additional connections between the Oregon historical marker program and programs in other states could also be explored.

1 Michael J. Auer, Preservation Briefs 25: The Preservation of Historic Signs. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance. October 1991.

2 24 Part 1 – Developmental History

Historical Background and Context

In 1935, the Astoria Chamber of Commerce announced that the restoration and proper marking of prominent historical sites around Astoria had become a priority for the chamber.2 The location and history of Fort Astoria were of much public interest in the 1930s. Remnants of fort pickets had been uncovered in 1931, and in 1936 workmen painted white lines in the streets to indicate the location of the original fort site.3 Explanatory signs were also hung at least one street corner that provided a map and key of the old fort site.

In 1940, Clatsop County, who owned the corner lot at 15th and Exchange, decided to turn the property over to the city, hoping that the community would memorialize the site but with the understanding that the city itself was not in the position to financially aid the development of the site. Although several groups showed an interest in creating a permanent marker there, the site remained undeveloped. In 1948, the city received an offer to purchase the lot, to be used as parking. Due to the site’s historical importance, Astoria City Council postponed the sale for 60 days to give those groups interested in preserving the site time to develop a community plan.4

An editorial from the Astoria Budget, in the Spring of 1948, titled “To Save Historic Site?” made a pointed argument for preservation:

Astorians interested in the preservation of historical sites would do well to start some planning for use of the corner lot at 15th and Exchange streets, only remaining publicly-owned portion of the site of the John Jacob Astor party’s Fort Astoria, before the city sells it for a parking lot This lot was set aside at the request of the Kiwanis club some years ago, but no marker has been set up there to show the old fort’s location. We have been taken to task before this for our neglect of historical sites, and with some reason. Visitors will certainly take us to task if we abandon our last possible location for a Fort Astoria marker in favor of a parking lot. If funds could be raised, the lot in question might well be converted into a small park area, containing a suitably marked stone, a small replica of the fort, or some other marker which tourists could see. We all well know that visitors here like to see some evidence of our historic past. When they find historic sites abandoned or turned into parking lots, they are not pleased, and their respect for the people of our community and for the community itself falls sharply.5

2 “Chamber May Restore Old History Sites,” Astoria Budget, September 10, 1935. 3 “Workmen Painting Lines to Indicate Ft. George Site,” Astoria Budget, July 25, 1936. 4 “Fort Astoria Site Marker Studied,” Astoria Budget, April 24, 1948. 5 “To Save Historic Site?” Astoria Budget, Monday, April 5, 1948, reprinted in The Bend Bulletin.

3 25

In April of 1948, Walter Johnson, president of the Clatsop County Historical Society, initiated a program to mark and permanently maintain the site. A group of fifteen civic and patriotic organizations, referred to as the “Fort Astoria Defenders,” met at the Chamber of Commerce “to raise the memory of Fort Astoria from a patch of brambles at Fifteenth and Exchange.” 6 This group included: Astoria Garden Club, Seaside Garden Club, Women’s Club of Seaside, American Association of University Women, Daughters of the American Revolution, American Legion, Astoria Chamber of Commerce, Pacific Grange, Pomona Grange, Astoria Gyro Club, Astoria and Warrenton Lions Clubs, Astoria Kiwanis Club, Seaside and Astoria Elks, and Angora Hiking Club.

In May of 1948, Astoria City Council formally turned over the city-owned lot to the Clatsop County Historical Society for preservation as a Fort Astoria marker.7 Project manager Dr. Walter Hay coordinated several community work parties over the summer. Walter Johnson, president of Clatsop County Historical Society and Ebba Wicks, project architect, developed formal plans for the site. Byers Brothers Construction, City Lumber, Astoria Granite Works and Pacific Power & Light donated substantial site work along with many other groups and members of the community.

The focal point of the completed, landscaped site was the large text-board, with a fort map carved on the reverse, supported by a log frame. Wicks and Wicks Architects designed the large rustic marker. Phil Parrish, chairman of the memorial committee of the Oregon Historical Society, wrote the text for the sign. The Oregon Highway Commission constructed the text board itself and Pacific Power & Light installed the log frame.8

The dedication of the marker was held on September 4, 1948, with a parade through town culminating with speeches and the raising of the American Flag at the site.9

In 1956, the park was further developed to include a replica of the blockhouse constructed of Wolmanized fir. The site was dedicated as a National Historic Landmark in 1962 and was hence automatically included in the National Register of Historic Places when the register was established in 1966. Some discussion occurred in 1972 regarding an effort to reconstruct Astor’s fur-trading fort, led by Deskin Bergey, Rolf Klep and Ebba Wicks Brown.10

History of Roadside Historical Markers in Oregon

The Oregon State Highway Commission began a program to install historical markers around the state in 1937. According to R. H. Baldock, State Highway Engineer in a letter dated

6 “Plans Made to Clear, Mark Site of Historic Fort Here,” Astoria Budget, May 1, 1948. 7 “City Gives Historians Site of Fort,” Astoria Budget, May 15, 1948 8 “Final Plans Made Fix Up Fort Astoria,” Astoria Budget, August 9, 1948. 9 “Fort Astoria Site Opened with Parade,” Astoria Budget, September 6, 1948:1. 10 “First Steps Taken to Reconstruct Astor’s Fur-Trading Fort” Mike Forrester, April 17, 1972.

4 26 September 15, 1949, “We started a rather extensive program in 1940, but our activities were curtailed during the war years and we have but recently renewed this program.”11

In 1949, they had installed roughly 30 signs:

While most of our signs are of the rustic type with log uprights, there are a number of locations where rubble masonry bases might be more appropriate. We have about 30 markers in at the present time and eventually, when sufficient signs have been installed to justify doing so, we contemplate issuing a brochure which will be distributed by out Travel Information Department for parties who might be interested in stopping to visit these historical points on their travels.12

Brochures and travel guides were eventually produced. In 1966, the book Oregon’s Historical Markers by W. M. Scofield was published by Souvenir Publishing Co. of Pleasant Hill, Oregon. The Fort Astoria marker was included in this book of 76 historical markers, the only marker to require two pages, as it included an image of the back of the sign, the fort map. “Hewn in wood these monuments have been erected in all parts of Oregon, recreating for all time these hallowed points which mark our most recent past.”13 At the time of its printing, there were eight markers located in Clatsop County: Fort Astoria, U.S. Custom House, Fort Clatsop, Fort Stevens State Park, Sunset Highway, The Tillamook Burn (Sunset Springs), Ecola, Cannon Beach.

The photo of the Fort Astoria marker included in Scofield’s book is same photo that was provided to us from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) library. It is unclear what happened to the original marker but a replacement version was installed sometime around 1990. Photos from 2001 clearly show the newer sign, as unpainted wood with a red metal frame. Later, the text board was painted black with white lettering and the metal frame was painted white. The map on the back was painted green, gray, and brown, with white lettering.

Original Marker – Photo and Documentary Evidence

According to newspaper accounts, the marker was constructed by the Oregon Highway Commission and was hung from a log frame installed by Pacific Power & Light. ODOT has provided us with a historic photograph of the original sign.

Newspaper accounts state that the textboard was designed by Ebba Wicks, of Wicks and Wicks Architects. This is consistent with the fact that the construction of the sign was quite different than most of Oregon’s historical markers that were made at the time. The Oregon Historical Society confirmed that they do not have these design plans in their Wicks archive.14

11 Letter from R.H. Baldock to W.A. Bugge, September 15, 1949. ODOT library. 12 Ibid. 13 Scofield, Oregon’s Historical Markers, page 3. 14 Email to [email protected] from OHS. 2020.

5 27 The original marker was most likely constructed of cedar. It looks, from historical photos, to have been made of seven pieces of wood joined horizontally with a total size of 5’3” x 7’10”. The edges of the sign were constructed to have a roughhewn, rustic appearance. The height of the horizontal boards, from top to bottom seem to be 16”, 8”, 16”, 8”, 16”, 16” and 14”. The vertical posts appear to be 8” in diameter and approximately 10’ tall (above ground). The top log was 12” diameter with a length of roughly 10’. The edges of the top log were cut to have a rough appearance.

The textboard was hung from the top log by two large metal brackets. Each bracket had three bolts, two of which went through the sign. Metal L-shaped brackets also held the bottom of the sign to the supporting vertical log posts on each side. In one historical photo, there are four spotlights attached to the top log, either illuminating the sign itself or the mural behind it.

The top post and textboard were stained a very dark color, but the textboard itself appears to have also been painted at some early point, as there is photographic evidence of overpainting on the top metal brackets. The lettering, if standard to other historical markers routed by the highway commission, were at minimum 1 1/3” tall and 1/8” deep. Photographic evidence suggests that the letters in the main body of text were between 1.5” and 2” tall. Somewhat surprisingly, two lines on the original sign were routed over the horizontal joints, “FORT ASTORIA” and “AND SHIPBUILDING. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO” although this was not unheard of, as signs for Umatilla County, Bannock War, and Joseph L. Meek all have similar split lines.15 The letters were likely painted and would have been white, or perhaps silver to increase visibility.16

Two decorative symbols were also included on the marker, a stylized star at the top of the sign,- approximately 7” or 8” tall, and a diamond-with-tails on each side at the bottom. Both symbols appear on other Oregon historical markers from the same period but usually in a slightly different combination. “Beaver Boards” generally had the image of a beaver carved on the top and the diamond-with-tails at the bottom, whereas most of the markers that had a star at the top similar to the Fort Astoria marker, also had a smaller star at the bottom. At least two other signs had the same symbol configuration as the Fort Astoria marker in 1966: Willamette Stone State Park and Beacon Rock.

Although we have not located a clear photo of the back of the original Fort Astoria marker, we do have this account from 1948:

Plans and specifications for the textboard have been sent to the Oregon highway commission, which will construct the board. The board will bear the wording on one side and an outline map of the old fort on the other.17

15 Scofield, Oregon’s Historical Markers. 16 Letter from R.H. Baldock to W.A. Bugge, September 15, 1949. ODOT library 17 “Final Plans Made Fix Up Fort Astoria.” Astoria Budget, August 9, 1948.

6 28 Also, an image described as from the back of the board is included in Scofield’s 1966 book, although it is hard to tell if it was carved, painted by hand, stenciled, or a combination of the above.18

It is not clear when the original 1948 marker was retired and if it was damaged, stolen, or lost. At some point between 1989 and 1997, the original sign was replaced.19 This replacement marker, constructed of vertically jointed fir framed in metal, is the marker that was removed from the site and transported to the college shop on January 24, 2020.

Comparison of the Original and Replacement Markers

Physical similarities between the original (1948) marker and the replacement marker (c. 1990) include:

• Material – both markers were made of wood. • Design – both markers included, essentially, the same two symbols. • Scale – both markers were very large, over 5 feet wide and over 7 feet tall. • Supporting structure – both markers used a similar log support structure and were hung using large metal brackets from the top log. • Text – both markers included the same text, including the layout, spacing, and punctuation. The text on both was routed into the wood. • Graphic on reverse – both markers included an image of the fort map. • Location – both markers were installed in essentially the same location on the site.

Physical differences between the original (1948) marker and the replacement marker (c. 1990) include:

• Species of wood – the original marker was most likely cedar, whereas the replacement was constructed of fir. • Font – the original marker used a serif font, whereas the replacement marker’s font was more modern and rounded. • Symbols – the original marker used a four-point star at the top, the replacement marker used a quatrefoil symbol. • Frame – the replacement marker utilized a full metal frame around the entire textboard. The original had its edges exposed with the appearance of being rustic or rough-hewn. • Construction – the original marker board was constructed of large, horizontally joined boards of various widths. The replacement was made with 4” boards, joined vertically. • Size – the replacement marker was roughly the same width but was slightly longer than the original marker.

18 Scofield, page 47. 19 Oregon Historic Sites Inventory Sheets

7 29 • Color – the replacement was left unpainted for some time before it was painted black with white lettering. The original may have started out as stained wood with white or silver lettering but was painted (likely brown) at some later time. • Lighting – small spotlights were installed on the top log of the original sign to either light the sign itself or the mural behind it.

Evaluation of Significance

All of the elements that the two markers share in common are clearly significant. The two elements that are unique to this specific marker within the Oregon historical marker program are the log support structure and the image of the fort map on the reverse.

Having been constructed of wood is significant, as this was a hallmark of the Oregon historical marker program. In addition, wood is the logical choice of material for a sign that evokes the vision of a historic wood fort, where “buildings were of boards tightly covered and roofed with cedar bark.” The marker’s log support structure also provides continuity between the blockhouse reconstruction, the mural in the background and the marker itself.

The two symbols are significant in their association with other Oregon historical markers from the 1940s.

The size and scale are significant in their relationship to other elements at the site. Historically, the marker was not merely an interpretive sign for the blockhouse reconstruction; it predated it by 8 years and was once the main attraction of the site. It has towered over and united the other elements. Over the years, several other markers have come (and some gone) from the park. They include the McTavish gravestone, a DAR marker, the blockhouse reconstruction, and the Ranald MacDonald monument. The large textboard is iconic in itself.

The text is also significant. It educates about the history of the site in a manner fairly typical of 1940s historical markers, but it is also unique in at least two significant ways; it includes the full name of an unmarried woman, Jane Barnes; and it speaks to the development of a modern Astoria upon the decayed ruins of previous development. These things can be tied to other important stories to be told; the role of women in local history (and historical markers) and the role historic preservation has played in Astoria’s identity and development.

Some concerns were raised by a community member in the Spring of 2019 regarding the wording of the text, specifically the use of the phrases “desiring to dominate the areas explored” and “seize the mouth of the Columbia.” If the text remains the same (recommended here), an option for addressing these concerns would be to develop additional interpretation explaining the context of the original marker’s language and identifying inaccuracies and omissions.

The construction of the board itself is the most substantial difference between the two markers. The potential significance of this difference includes why the replacement marker was

8 30 constructed using vertical boards (for what purpose was this decision made). In other respects, it is clear that the erectors of the replacement marker intended to replicate or at least honor the original marker.

The replacement marker, currently at the Clatsop Community College historic preservation shop, is significant in its attempt to recreate the marker originally placed at the site in 1948 as part of the Oregon historical marker program. Repairing and rehanging this replacement marker would be an alternate appropriate treatment to reconstructing the original 1948 marker.

Condition Assessment of the Replacement Marker

This condition assessment is a brief summary of the condition of the replacement marker currently located at the Clatsop Community College historic preservation shop at Alder Hall.

The marker was constructed of 4” fir boards jointed vertically using biscuit joints. It is a sandwich of front and back pieces, glued together with strong adhesive. The boards that make up the front are 1” thick and the back, ¾” for a total thickness of 1 ¾”. The marker is 5’8” wide and 9’10” tall. The paint was tested and does not contain lead.

The front: The front of the marker is weathered, and several boards have warped and bowed. Water has penetrated the joints and seams. The black paint is sluffing off of the surface. There may have been a thin coat of primer under the black paint, but adherence was poor. There is rust around the edges of the marker where it was in contact with the metal frame. Although there is extensive rot in the bottom corners and bottom 1” of the sign, there is only minimal rot in other areas. The largest cause of deterioration was a lack of necessary drainage from the metal frame and the absence of an appropriate protective coating.

The back: The back of the marker is in good-to-excellent condition. The paint has continued to adhere well and there are only limited, small pockets of rot. The back has similar rot in the corners and bottom edge as the front of the marker.

The frame and brackets: The brackets are in fair condition and could likely be refurbished and reused. The metal frame itself has reached the end of its useful life due to extensive rust and corrosion.

9 31 Part 2 – Treatment and Work Recommendations

Historic Preservation Objectives

Reconstruction of the original marker (built in 1948), based on photographic evidence, is recommended; however alterative options are explored.

Benefits of reconstruction: • visual continuity of the streetscape and the historic district • honors the commitment of the community in 1948 to save and mark the site • provides context for the replica as a typical post-WWII roadside historical attraction • provides a basis for additional interpretation, including how newer historical markers may differ from those placed in the 1940s

*It will be imperative that the reconstruction be clearly identified as a contemporary reconstruction of a historic historical marker and that context be provided through further interpretation both onsite and potentially through additional web content or other interpretive material.

Work Recommendations and Alternatives

Reconstruction of the sign would require expertise and resources outside of the scope available in the CCC Historic Preservation shop. We have gathered two bids from potential suppliers of a reconstructed wood sign. Our preferred option would be to hire Noel Weber, of Astoria Design Studio and Classic Design Studio, to recreate the text board.

In this option, LCPS would supply the wood, with efforts being made to acquire appropriate cedar boards from a local mill. Weber and the CCC historic preservation program will construct the marker. Weber will then transport the marker to his shop in Boise, Idaho where he will router the text and map design using a Computerized Numerical Control (CNC) machine. An effort will be made to recreate the appearance of the original marker accurately. An internal support structure of some type will likely be used to prevent the separating of the horizontal joints and to add stability.

The log supports will still need to be constructed on-site and hardware (the large metal brackets from which the sign hangs, will either be refurbished or reconstructed).

Creating accurate vector files for the CNC machine will cost approximately $1,800. Construction of the sign will cost an additional $4,500. There will be additional costs to seal or paint the sign and to paint the lettering, although this part of the project may be something that the CCC students or LCPS staff and volunteers could complete.

The cost of this preferred option is very consistent with bids we received from Wood Product Signs in Colorado, who had provided a previous bid the plastic replacement. Their cost for

10 32 constructing a full-sized, 2” thick, cedar marker, routed on both sides, was around $11,550 (including shipping), although that was not with the specific historical measurements of the individual boards we are hoping to use to recreate the marker.

We recommend that the City of Astoria contract with Noel Weber to recreate the original marker in wood. LCPS will assist with obtaining the wood. We would also like to be involved in the development of an interpretive program for the marker and the park site in general.

This option, to reconstruct the 1948 marker, provides an excellent opportunity to rally the community and those groups who originally organized the marking of the fort site, to contribute financially to the reconstruction. LCPS would be happy to lead a community fundraising effort if this option is chosen and additional funds are necessary.

Estimated cost - $10,000-$15,000 (plus installation)

Alternative One – Repair Existing Marker

The replacement marker could be reused, although it would require extensive refurbishing or reconstruction of the face of the sign. The back can be salvaged. A new metal frame would need to be constructed. The existing brackets could likely be reused. New support posts would need to be installed. Wood Product Signs estimated the log framework cost to be $3,000 plus shipping. The cost of having just the face of the sign reconstructed in wood was estimated at approximately $8,000 through Wood Product Signs.

If this option is chosen, to repair the current marker, Astoria Design Studio or Classic Design Studio could most likely provide a new face for a lower price.

Estimated cost - $11,000 plus installation

Alternative Two - Replacing with the HLC approved plastic sign

The bid received by Astoria Parks and Recreation from Wood Product Signs for the HDPE marker is $7,956.90. This includes shipping.

Estimated cost - $8,000 plus installation.

Cons: This sign, as approved by HLC, is substantially smaller than either the original or the replacement sign, 26 square feet versus 56 square feet. In addition to the reduction in size, which will alter the scale of the log support structure, several other elements outlined in this report as being significant are also proposed to be changed: • material change (wood to plastic) • text change (words removed and punctuation altered) • design - removal of Oregon historical marker symbols • graphic on the reverse would be a digital print on acrylic instead of routed design

11 33

Alternative Three - No Replacement

If a replacement of the 1948 marker is not constructed, it would be appropriate to include a new marker acknowledging the old markers absence. This approach would be consistent with the recommendations of James W. Loewen, author of the book Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong, “Every time a monument comes down or a name gets changed, a historical marker should go up explaining what had been here, when it went up, what it tells about the time it was erected, when it came down, and what its removal signifies. That should result in good history on the landscape.”20

Requirements for Work

A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the Historic Landmarks Commission may be necessary to reconstruct the original 1948 marker. This may be under the discretion of the Historic Preservation Officer or the Community Development Director as Article 6: Historic Properties 6.020.A.3. states, “Restoration or reconstruction of historic signs are encouraged and will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Officer to verify that they are a historic restoration or reconstruction.”

The same archeological conditions that were required for replacement of the sign with a plastic version would be required.

20 Loewen, page 53.

12 34 Bibliography

Allison, David B. ed. Controversial Monuments and Memorials: A Guide for Community Leaders. Lanham: American Association for State and Local History, Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.

Inventory for Astoria Downtown Historic District

Letter from R.H. Baldock, Oregon State Highway Engineer to W.A. Buggee, Director of Highways, Washington. September 15, 1949. ODOT library 5238B.

Loewen, James W. Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong. New York: The New Press, 2019.

Michael J. Auer, Preservation Briefs 25: The Preservation of Historic Signs. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance. October 1991.

National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, Fort Astoria. 1977. Cecil N. McKithan, historian, Historic Sites Survey Division, NPS.

Oregon Historic Sites Inventory Sheets

Oregon Inventory of Historic Properties, Historic Resource Survey Form County: Clatsop 1989/1990.NCLC.

Scofield, W.M. Oregon’s Historical Markers. Pleasant Hill: Souvenir Publishing Co., 1966.

State of Oregon Inventory Historic Sites and Buildings Oregon State Highway Department, Salem, recorded by Stephen Dow Beckham 1 August 1974.

13 35

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2020

TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL

FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF AMENDMENT A20-02 TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP AT 6562 LIBERTY LANE

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

The applicant, Clatsop Community College (CCC), would like to change the zoning to acknowledge the existing developed area of their campus. The overall CCC site is approximately 12.10 acres. Due to the nature of this proposed amendment as a zone swap of three acres in S1 to S2 and a corresponding three acres from S2 to S1, the Traffic Impact Study found there would be no change in traffic trips in addressing the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule reviewed at zone changes. The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council. A copy of the draft ordinance and Planning Commission's findings of facts are attached.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Council conduct public hearing and determine if to hold a first reading of the ordinance.

BY: BARBARA FRYER, PLANNER

ATTACHMENTS: A20-02 Staff Report and Findings FINAL.DOCX 10-27-20_APC min_approved.pdf ORDINANCE_MAP.PDF METES AND BOUNDS FOR ZONE AREA.PDF

36 CITY OF ASTORIA Founded 1811 ● Incorporated 1856 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1095 Duane Street  Astoria, OR 97103  Phone 503-338-5183  www.astoria.or.us  [email protected]

STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS OF FACT

STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2020

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2020

TO: PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM: BARBARA FRYER, CITY PLANNER

SUBJECT: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST (A20-02) BY SHAUN MARTIN, ON BEHALF OF CLATSOP COMMUNITY COLLEGE, TO AMEND THE CITY OF ASTORIA ZONING MAP ON THREE ACRES OF LAND FROM S1 TO S2 AND A RECIPROCATING THREE ACRES OF LAND FROM S2 TO S1 TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEVELOPED AREA AT 6562 LIBERTY LANE

I. SUMMARY

A. Applicant: Shaun Martin Clatsop Community College 1651 Lexington Avenue Astoria, OR 97103

B. Owner: Clatsop Community College 1651 Lexington Avenue Astoria, OR 97103

C. Location: 6562 Liberty Lane (Map T8N-R9W Section 12, Tax Lot 00102; Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 2018-017)

D. Zones: S1 and S2

E. Proposal: To amend the Zoning Map on three acres of land from S1 to S2 and three acres of land from S2 to S1

F: 120 Day Deadline: December 10, 2020

1 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F40E24F8\@[email protected]

37 II. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

A public notice was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet pursuant to §9.020 on October 5, 2020. The Notice was emailed to interested parties and posted on the Web on October 5, 2020. A notice of public hearing was published in The Astorian on October 17, 2020. The site was posted on October 12, 2020. Any comments received will be made available at the Planning Commission meeting. The Department of Land Conservation and Development received the required 35-day notice on September 4, 2020.

EXISTING ZONING S2

2 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F40E24F8\@[email protected]

38 PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENT

Proposed S2 to S1

Proposed S1 to S2

FINDINGS OF FACT

A. 10.020 AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS

An amendment to a zone boundary may only be initiated by the City Council, Planning Commission, the Community Development Director, or the owner or owners of the property for which the change is proposed.

Finding: The proposed zoning map amendment is initiated by the applicant, Shaun Martin, on behalf of the owner, Clatsop Community College.

B. 10.050.B QUASI- JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS.

The following amendment actions are considered quasi-judicial under this Code:

1. A zone change that affects a limited area or a limited number of property owners.

3 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F40E24F8\@[email protected]

39 Finding: This is zone change that affects a limited area of 3 acres and a limited number of property owners.

C. 10.060. PROCEDURES.

Public notice and procedures of zoning amendments shall be in accordance with Article 9.

Finding: All procedures of Article 9 have been followed, see Section II of this staff report.

D. 10.070.B MAP AMENDMENT CRITERIA.

Before an amendment to a zone boundary is approved, findings will be made that the following criteria are satisfied:

1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The amendment will: a. Satisfy land and water use needs; or b. Meet transportation demands. The amendment shall be reviewed to determine whether it significantly affects a transportation facility pursuant to Section -0060 of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). When the City, in consultation with the applicable roadway authority, finds that a proposed amendment would have a significant effect on a transportation facility, the City shall work with the roadway authority and applicant to modify the request or mitigate the impacts in accordance with the TPR and applicable law; or c. Provide community facilities and services. 3. The land is physically suitable for the uses to be allowed, in terms of slope, geologic stability, flood hazard and other relevant considerations. 4. Resource lands, such as wetlands are protected. 5. The amendment is compatible with the land use development pattern in the vicinity of the request.

4 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F40E24F8\@[email protected]

40 10.070B.1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: A. CP.005(5) concerning General Plan Philosophy and Policy Statement states that local comprehensive plans "Shall be regularly reviewed, and, if necessary, revised to keep them consistent with the changing needs and desires of the public they are designed to serve."

Finding: The City finds that the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code establish specific uses allowed in each zone. Additionally, both the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code underwent changes in the last five years to ensure consistency with changing needs and desires of Astorians.

B. CP.090 speaks to the Tongue Point Area “The Tongue Point Area extends from its tip in the Columbia River to the old US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) Basin area in the south, including the area northwest of Mill Creek. The Astoria Coast Guard Base, the Tongue Point Job Corps Center, several large hangars, eight finger piers and paved back-up land, Clatsop Community College Marine Environmental Research Training Station (MERTS), and the Army Corps of Engineers facility constitute the developed portions of Tongue Point. A prominent scenic wooded area, the water areas around the point, the marsh at the mouth of Mill Creek, and the old MARAD Basin are the major natural features.”

Finding: The property in question is a zoning district swap. The MERTS campus includes land designated as S1 and S2. The proposal is to swap 3 acres of S1 for S2 and vice versa. All land is within MERTS control and intends to acknowledge the developed area of the MERTS campus versus the undeveloped area.

C. CP.180.B speaks to the Tongue Point Area Shorelands:

“From north to south, the shorelands of this subarea include the steep, forested slopes of Tongue Point itself, the relatively flat developed area occupied by the Coast Guard station and the former naval base, the sloped area waterward of Highway 30 between Mill Creek and the south Tongue Point peninsula, and the south Tongue Point peninsula. Almost all of the flat lands of this subarea are the result of filling former aquatic areas with dredged material. The flat land on the north Tongue Point peninsula is mostly developed. The developed flat land forming the

5 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F40E24F8\@[email protected]

41 south Tongue Point peninsula consists of a Corps of Engineers field station and access roads. The remainder of this area consists of vegetated shorelands with some nontidal wetland. The boundaries of the nontidal wetland were surveyed by the Corps of Engineers in 1987. Tongue Point proper consists of a steeply sloping hill. The point contains basalt rock. Vegetation on Tongue Point consists of old growth coniferous forest. Wildlife in the subarea include deer and small mammals. As discussed under Aquatic Features, bald eagles utilize the subarea. Although there are currently no active eagle nests in the subarea, a nest tree on Tongue Point was occupied in the early 1970's. The trees at the tip of Tongue Point are used for roosting.”

Finding: This property is under the control of Clatsop Community College. This area is developed and undeveloped flat land adjacent to the Corps of Engineers field station. The proposal is to acknowledge the developed nature of the MERTS campus by swapping an equal amount (3 acres) of S1 for S2 and vice versa.

D. CP.180.F.4 and 5 speaks to the Tongue Point Area Shorelands zones:

“4. The following shoreland areas are designated Water- Dependent Development (S-1): a. The US Coast Guard base. b. The shorelands between Mill Creek and the Job Corps Center. c. The South Tongue Point peninsula shorelands, except for those portions designated General Development. 5. The following shoreland area is designated Development (S- 2): a. The Federal Job Corps Center. b. Portions of South Tongue Point.

E. CP.180.J speaks to Tongue Point Area policies applicable to this proposal:

1. Within the area designated Development Aquatic, all uses permitted under the A-1 and A-2 Zoning Designations are

6 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F40E24F8\@[email protected]

42 authorized by the exceptions to Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 16, Estuarine Resources, except for dredging, fill, shoreline stabilization, flow lane disposal of dredged material, and treated wastewater disposal. 2. Fill of three areas of forested wetlands extending into the upland area is authorized by the exception to Goal 16. Subsequent to being filled, these areas will be redesignated as Water-Dependent Development Shorelands (S-1). 3. Fill and construction of a road connecting North and South Tongue Point to the east of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks is authorized by the exception to Goal 16. 4. All uses and activities permitted under the S-1 Zoning Designation are City of Astoria Comprehensive Plan CP.180 Columbia River Estuary Land and Water Use Section - 42 permitted in the area so designated at South Tongue Point, subject to the appropriate standards in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. All uses and activities permitted under the A-1 and S-2 Zoning Designation are permitted in the area so designated at South Tongue Point, subject to the appropriate standards in the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of certain uses specified in the relevant Zoning Ordinance text. 6. A navigational access channel, not to exceed 300 feet in width and 25 feet in depth at Mean Lower Low Water, and a turning basin, not to exceed 500 feet in width and 25 feet in depth at Mean Lower Low Water, are approved to the east of South Tongue Point. Dredging of this channel and turning basin to maintain the approved depth not to exceed -25 feet MLLW is permitted as a minor navigational improvement in the Conservation Aquatic management unit designation.

Findings:

1. The proposal is zoned Shorelands not Aquatic, so this policy does not apply. 2. This area is not subject to the fill provisions of the forested wetlands. 3. The road has not yet been constructed. 4. A three-acre area is proposed as a swap between S1 and S2 land to acknowledge the already developed area of the MERTS Campus, and will be subject to the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The three-acre zoning swap of land from S2 to S1 and vice versa will be subject to the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The proposal is not within the navigational channel.

7 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F40E24F8\@[email protected]

43 10.070B.2.b Meet Transportation Demands Statewide Planning Goal 12 concerning Transportation requires that cities review transportation related issues when considering land use amendments Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Section 660-012-0060(1) concerning Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) - Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments stated that "Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in Section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. . ." Finding: A traffic impact study has not been submitted. The Applicant states no traffic will be impacted as this is a zone swap of three acres of S1 for S2 zoned land.

10.070B.3. The land is physically suitable for development: Finding: The property has three buildings and parking located on it. The property is physically suitable for development and is serviced by water and other utilities.

Water line to the MERTS Campus

8 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F40E24F8\@[email protected]

44 10.070B.4. Resource lands are protected:

Finding: The property contains Marine Industrial Shorelands (S1) and General Development Shorelands (S2). The proposal is to swap 3 acres of land slated for development from one zone to another to allow the existing development on the site to be permitted. In 2002, the zoning on the site was incorrectly identified as S2 and the development was permitted. However, in the S1 zoning district, the zoning district on the site, the use is not permitted. This proposal is to acknowledge the existing development and to bring it in to compliance with the zoning districts.

10.070B.5. The amendment is compatible with the land use development pattern in the vicinity of the request.

Finding: The proposed amendment is to amend the zoning map of the Astoria Development Code to facilitate the campus setting of the MERTS campus. The existing developed area is within the S1 zone and should be within the S2 zone. In order to facilitate this acknowledgement of developed land, Clatsop Community College requested a swap of S1 for S2 and S2 for S1 of 3 acres. All land will stay within the Shorelands Zoning districts, as required by the Comprehensive Plan.

D. Section 10.070(A)(2) requires that "The amendment will not adversely affect the ability of the City to satisfy land and water use needs."

Finding: The land proposed for the swap, S1 for S2 and vice versa already has services and is developed. The proposal is to acknowledge the development that was permitted in 2002.

9 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F40E24F8\@[email protected]

45 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposal meets the criteria for map amendment as cited above. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council.

Attachments Attachment 1: Map Verification Email Attachment 2: Application Attachment 3: Notice of Public Hearing

10 C:\Users\EASYPD~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@F40E24F8\@[email protected]

46 47 48 49 ORDINANCE NO. 20-____

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASTORIA LAND USE AND ZONING MAP BY SHAUN MARTIN, ON BEHALF OF CLATSOP COMMUNITY COLLEGE, TO AMEND THE CITY OF ASTORIA ZONING MAP ON THREE ACRES FROM S1 (MARINE INDUSTRIAL SHORELANDS) TO S2 (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SHORELANDS) AND A CORRESPONDING THREE ACRES FROM S2 (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SHORELANDS) TO S1 (MARINE INDUSTRIAL SHORELANDS) AT 6562 LIBERTY LANE AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP

THE CITY OF ASTORIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Astoria Land Use and Zoning Map is amended with rezoning three acres of the following property from S1 (Marine Industrial Shorelands) to S2 (General Development Shorelands) and rezoning three acres of the following property from S2 (General Development Shorelands) to S1 (Marine Industrial Shorelands).

Map T8N R9W Section 12, Tax Lot 00102: Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 2018-017. The area to be rezoned is as described in Attachment A.

S2 to S1

S1 to S2

1 C:\Users\mleatherman\Desktop\ORDINANCE_MAP.docx 50 Section 2: Effective Date. This ordinance and its amendment will be effective 30 days following its adoption and enactment by the City Council.

ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL THIS ____ DAY OF ______, 2020.

APPROVED BY THE MAYOR THIS ______DAY OF ______, 2020.

______ATTEST: Mayor

______Brett Estes, City Manager

ROLL CALL ON ADOPTION: YEA NAY ABSENT

Councilor Rocka Brownson Herman West Mayor Jones

2 C:\Users\mleatherman\Desktop\ORDINANCE_MAP.docx 51 Attachment “A”

METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AREA THENCE (1) South 57°28'11" West, 275.07 feet to a point of non-tangency;

THENCE (2) South 39°43'50" East, 229.24 feet to a point of non-tangency;

THENCE (3) North 73°41'10" East, 53.83 feet to a point of non-tangency;

THENCE (4) South 51°14'53" East, 325.56 feet to a point of non-tangency;

THENCE (5) North 57°10'48" East, 193.02 feet to a point of non-tangency;

THENCE (6) North 43°07'30" West, 559.37 feet;

Containing 134,798.64 square feet, (3.09 acres) more or less, is now zoned Marine Industrial Shorelands (S1); and THENCE (1) North 43°07'30" West, 287.48 feet to a point of non-tangency;

THENCE (2) South 57°27'46" West, 478.38 feet to a point of non-tangency;

THENCE (3) South 34°21'35" East, 272.97 feet to a point of non-tangency;

THENCE (4) North 53°54'17" East, 301.82 feet to a point of non-tangency;

THENCE (5) North 64°47'48" East, 223.11 feet;

Containing 132,469.21 square feet, (3.04 ac.) more or less, is now zoned General Development Shorelands (S2).

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2020

TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL

FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY TO CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT # 1800

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

Oregon Revised Statue ORS 294.463(2) provides guidance for the transfer of appropriations up to 15%, when authorized by resolution of the governing body. At the time the City Attorney Department budget of the General Fund was prepared amounts budgeted did not anticipate the Hollander appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals and the necessary time requirements for legal preparation and review associated with the appeal. A transfer in the amount of $ 7,000 from Contingency to Materials & Professional Services is required to provide sufficient appropriations for unanticipated costs related to legal expenses associated with the Hollander Land Use appeal. This amount is less than .5 % of general fund appropriations. A resolution is attached for consideration and approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that City Council approve transfer of $ 7,000 from Contingency to Materials & Services within the City Attorney Department # 1800.

BY: SUSAN BROOKS, FINANCE DIRECTOR

ATTACHMENTS: General Fund Budget Resolution.pdf

53 Resolution No. 20-

A RESOLUTION TRANSFERING AMOUNTS FROM CONTINGENCY TO MATERIALS & SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT # 1800 OF GENERAL FUND # 001. ORS 294.463(2) provides guidance for the transfer of appropriations up to 15%, when authorized by resolution of the governing body, and WHEREAS, a resolution authorizing the transfer of appropriations within the General Fund is required after adoption of the FY 2020-2021 budget.

WHEREAS, the adjusted budgets are on file in the office of the Director of Finance and Administrative Services at City Hall.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASTORIA: Transferring $ 7,000 from Contingency to Materials & Services category of the City Attorney Department # 1800 within the General fund to cover unanticipated expenses due to Hollander land use appeal and associated legal preparation and review associated with the appeal. The total requirements remain the same for this fund.

General Fund # 102 Existing Change Adjusted

City Council $ 15,230 $ 0 $ 15,230 City Manager 462,740 0 462,740 Municipal Court 152,000 0 152,000 Finance 749,935 0 749,935 City Attorney 89,000 7,000 96,000 Community Development 447,910 0 447,910 City Hall 61,015 0 61,015 Fire 2,240,325 0 2,240,325 Police 3,258,420 0 3,258,420 Library 604,994 0 604,994 Contingency 4,736,902 (7,000) 4,729,902 Transfers to Other Funds 1,658,444 0 1,658,444 Transfers to Other Funds 744,425 0 744,425 Total Expenditures $ 15,221,340 $ 0 $ 15,221,340

ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS ______DAY OF ______, 2020.

APPROVED BY THE MAYOR THIS ______DAY OF ______, 2020.

______Mayor ATTEST:

______City Manager

ROLL CALL ON ADOPTION YEA NAY ABSENT Commissioner Herman Brownson Rocka West Mayor Jones

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2020

TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL

FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: TRESTLE REPAIR PROJECT - CHANGE ORDER #1

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

The Trestle Repair Project addresses critical repair needs on the 6th through 11th Street Trestle, Mill Pond Trestle, 6th Street Park Pier, and the 14th Street Park Pier. City Council authorized a construction contract with Bergemen Construction in July 2020. Work is currently underway with completion scheduled for mid-December 2020.

During the course of work, it became apparent that several additional repairs are needed to complete the project. These include the following items. First, multiple joists beneath the 6th Street Park Pier need to be replaced to accommodate the deck board replacement specified in the plans. Second, two additional stringers associated with the 6th to 11th Street trestle need to be replaced. Finally, additional bank stabilization is required to adequately protect an area adjacent to the 11th Street stub. Change Order #1 details the cost of the proposed work and is attached to this memo. Funding for this additional work is available in the Promote Astoria Fund.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that City Council authorize staff to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $25,025.22.

BY: NATHAN CRATER

ATTACHMENTS: Change Order #1.pdf

ENGINEERING DIVISION

CHANGE ORDER #1

DATE: November 20, 2020 PROJECT: Trestle Repair Project CONTRACTOR: Bergeman Construction, Inc.

The purpose of this change order is to document additional repair elements that have been added to the project and modifications to the original scope of work. This change order amount constitutes total compensation for the changes indicated below and their cumulative effects on the project to date.

Item Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost (20) Additional Trestle Stringer Replacement – NEW 1 1 LS $13,315.82 $13,315.82 ITEM (21) Additional Rip-rap Stabilization 11th Street – NEW 2 1 LS $2,885.00 $2,885.00 ITEM 3 (22) 6th Street Joist Replacement – NEW ITEM 1 LS $8,824.40 $8,824.40

Change Order Total = $25,025.22 Previous Contract Amount = $288,999.91 Revised Contract Amount = $314,025.13

This Change Order becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract. The above changes warrant a 20 day time extension. Final completion for this contract is therefore modified to January 7, 2021.

EXPLANATION:

The items above cover costs associated with field modifications to the original contract work. Item 1 addresses the replacement of 2 additional stringers within the project area. Item 2 covers additional work necessary to complete bank stabilization adjacent to the 11th Street stub portion of the project. Item 3 covers additional work necessary to replace deteriorated joists on the 6th Street platform under an area specified for deck board replacement. Additional cost details are attached to this document.

CHANGE ORDER ACCEPTED BY:

______City Engineer Date Public Works Director Date

______City Manager Date Contractor Date

1095 DUANE STREET FAX (503) 338-6538 56 ASTORIA, OREGON 97103 PHONE (503) 338-5173

Bergeman Construction PO Box 1070 Astoria, OR 97103 P. 503-325-4557 F. 503-325-4915 OR - CCB # 149528 WA - BERGEC*933P2 [email protected] www.bergemanconstruction.net

Extra Work

Stringer demo and replacement

Two extra stringers S3 between bent 53 and 54 and S6 between 51 and 52

Unit price per each $5834.91(2)

Temporary work access per location $1646(1)

Total $13,315.82

Bergeman Construction PO Box 1070 Astoria, OR 97103 P. 503-325-4557 F. 503-325-4915 OR - CCB # 149528 WA - BERGEC*933P2 [email protected] www.bergemanconstruction.net

Extra Work

Rip Rap at 11th street

15.35 tons Labor materials and machine and truck time $2885

Bergeman Construction PO Box 1070 Astoria, OR 97103 P. 503-325-4557 F. 503-325-4915 OR - CCB # 149528 WA - BERGEC*933P2 [email protected] www.bergemanconstruction.net

Extra Work

Replace joists at 6th street:

Labor for work $2880.00 Materials (Legacy unit4x12 28 pieces) $2018.40 Temp work access $1646.00 New connection materials $840.00 Labor new connections $1440.00

Total $8824.40

DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2020

TO: MAYOR AND ASTORIA CITY COUNCIL

FROM: BRETT ESTES, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PARKLET APPLICATION FOR BLAYLOCK'S WHISKEY BAR

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:

The Astoria City Council has established a set of policies to allow Parklets to be established in rights of way. A Parklet application (PL20-04) was submitted by The Blaylock's Whiskey Bar at 433 13th Street. There is no other Parklet located on the block, as per the requirements. There are several conditions of approval needed in response to the submitted application materials. The recommended conditions of approval are: 1. The proposed Parklet shall be located in one parking spot and in the parking spot denoted, and referred to in the exhibits, as Spot #2. 2. The width of the Parklet shall not exceed 6 feet, as measured from the outside face of the curb. 3. Prior to construction and utilization, the applicant shall obtain the building owner’s signature on the application form. 4. Prior to construction and utilization, the applicant shall obtain written verifications from the businesses on the block. 5. Prior to construction and utilization, the applicant shall provide proof of insurance to the City. 6. Prior to utilization, the proposed Parklet shall have reflectors installed on the north and south sides of the Parklet fencing. As conditioned, the Parklet meets all of the site dist ance and safety requirements. An analysis of the Parklet is included as well a all the submitted application material. The application has been transmitted to the Astoria Downtown Historic District Association (ADHDA) for comment. A copy of the application materials is included as Exhibit #1 in the Staff Report.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval, with the recommended conditions of approval.

BY: MEG LEATHERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report_PL20-04.pdf

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72