Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Minutes
Tuesday, February 15, 2000

MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 15, 2000
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., in the Civic Center Council Chambers.

ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes from the regular meeting of February 1, 2000 were approved as amended: on page 7, fourth paragraph should read "Hanson stated that he does not want to spray irrigate and stated that the Public Works Director/City Engineer does not need to be here for the council...."

Minutes from the study session were approved as amended to reflect the Councilor Hanson's attendance.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None)

CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Approval of a Quitclaim Deed to exempt Lot 15, Block 1 of Park Estates Subdivision, Phase I, from the Improvement Agreement recorded as Instrument No. 85-04899.
3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Ad Hoc Committee for Transportation and Parking.

Councilor Wheeldon commented that there should be an even broader representation on the Transportation and Parking Committee. The council discussed adding members from neighborhood groups after the initial meetings occur. Shaw stated that the membership could be amended to add two at-large community members per neighborhood on a rotating basis. Shaw expressed her concern with a thirteen-member committee. Wheeldon stated that this has been discussed, but there are groups that must be represented. Laws concurred, as this is a citywide problem requiring wide representation. The council agreed to add a total of six members from the neighborhood groups.

Wheeldon questioned the minutes of the Social and Human Services Committee. Hauck explained that their report is being modeled by the Comprehensive Plan for the format, but it will not be a part of the Comprehensive Plan.

Councilors Hauck/Hanson m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Request for Adoption of the Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan 2000-2010 as a supporting document of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.

Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained that Southern Oregon University (SOU) is a critical component of the community which fills many vital roles and has a great impact on the town. McLaughlin noted that the University must update their Comprehensive Plan every ten years, and under the Oregon Revised Statues, it is required that the planning activities of the City of Ashland and Southern Oregon University be coordinated. He explained that the University has prepared Master Plans which have been adopted by the City as part of the community's Comprehensive Plan for many years. He explained briefly the process leading up to the plan coming before the council, and noted that the ultimate adoption by resolution will make it a supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan.

McLaughlin explained that the Master Plan involves mostly internal changes and that the key issues of the plan that affects the surrounding community are as follows: 1) Convocation/Instructional Center; 2) Greensprings Village Development; 3) A conceptual University District; 4) The only expansion of the University's boundary is the SO zone and Grace Lutheran Church; otherwise, the university boundaries will remain the same.

McLaughlin stated that the only issue that has come about is the issue of a "University District" zoning an overlay, along Siskiyou and down Wightman Street. He emphasized that this is not an expansion, but is more similar to the HC zone around the hospital and that this would expand some permitted uses to support the University. He noted that this would need to go through a zone change procedure, and that this is only a concept at this time which would require council approval.

McLaughlin listed staff concerns regarding campus parking, the closure of Iowa Street between Wightman and Walker, bicycle parking standards and the SO zone boundary change. He explained that the adoption of the SOU master plan is a legislative planning action, with the Council ultimately approving the master plan through the adoption of a resolution.

McLaughlin explained that additional uses in this area, if the zone were changed to a "University District," could include business office and retail use. He noted that they are looking at a full package, with specific design standards, to create a district that has a link both aesthetically and functionally with the University. He explained that R3 zoning is limited because there is no R3 within the urban growth boundary area, and suggested that this may need to be revisited. However, McLaughlin noted that if residential units are converted to another use in the new district, there could be a requirement for replacement so that there would be no net loss of R3 units. McLaughlin noted that staff recommends adoption of the SOU Master Plan.

Shaw noted that the intent of the airport overlays, was to prevent problems with development near the airport, and that the hospital zone was to make it easier to develop business that is relative to hospital care and integrate them into residential areas. Shaw noted that the possibility of lessening a buffer area around the University could be a concern to the neighbors.

Hauck asked that it be made clear that the council value protecting residential uses. McLaughlin stated that requiring replacement of residential units would address this. He agreed with Hauck that there needs to be a recognition of the value of affordable housing within walking distance of the University.

Dr. Stephen Reno, President of SOU, concurred entirely with staff recommendations and noted their appreciation for the opportunity to discuss this with staff and neighbors. Reno clarified for Shaw that the closure of Iowa Street has been taken out of the plan and the next revision of the plan will address the concerns raised regarding bicycle parking and parking issues.

PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:28 p.m.

Phil Selby/1762 Ashland Street/ Voiced his concern regarding the college taking over the area. He would like the college to maintain the names of the streets surrounding the University.

Laws clarified that University Way (formerly Palm Street) is no longer a city street because it was vacated and explained that it is now, technically, a parking lot belonging to the University.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:30 p.m.

Councilors Wheeldon/Hauck m/s to approve adoption of SOU Master Plan. DISCUSSION: Laws stated that he does not believe that his employment at the University creates any conflict of interest. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine, YES. Motion passed.

2. Request to Include Palm Motel (1065 Siskiyou Blvd.) building and pole signs on the Ashland Historic Sign Inventory.

Maria Harris, Associate Planner, explained the city's sign code ordinance and how the ordinance relates to the request to include the Palm Motel sign on the Ashland Historic Sign Inventory. Harris noted that the criteria for approval of designation for historic signs are as follows: all signs for which designation as a Historic Signs is requested will be substantially in existence at the time of the application; shall be displayed in their original location; shall be associated with an important event, person, group, or business in the history of the City of Ashland; and shall be at least 40 years old. She stated that the application failed to establish the age of the signs, and that the pole sign has been changed significantly.

Harris noted that signs must meet one of the following criteria: that the sign is exemplary of technology, craftsmanship or design of the period when it was constructed; that the sign uses historic sign materials or means of illumination, and that the sign is not significantly altered from its historic period. If the sign has been altered, it must be restorable to its historic appearance, and the sign must be integrated into the architecture of the building and must be exemplary of a historically significant architectural style. Harris stated again that the application failed to establish the age of the neon sign, but the design of the pole sign clearly is not even 40 years old. She noted that the Department of the Interior, which regulates historic status nationally, actually has determined the plastic box type sign used to be antithetical to historic status. She noted that the pole sign is not integrated into the building, and noted that the Historic Commission has recommended granting historic status to the neon sign, if the entry remains as is, but denied inclusion of the pole sign.

Harris clarified that the application included a change in the business name and a new sign would be necessary. She also noted that a condition of approval was that the front door remains oriented to Siskiyou Boulevard.

Shaw reiterated that although these types of signs can be pervasive, this is one of the few left in Ashland.

PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:45 p.m.

Roxanne Jones/200 Meade St./ Noted that she is the applicant and a community member; emphasized that the sign is reflective of the 1960's and has great appeal to many local residents. She suggested that the sign serves as a reminder of the old Ashland slogan, "Where the pines and palms meet." She noted that 350 residents (nearly 90% of those questioned) approved of the sign. She questioned the sensibility of the current sign ordinance and spoke briefly on the historic lessons of the 1960's, for which this sign serves as a gentle reminder. She concluded that they are willing to keep the Palm Motel name if they can keep the sign.

Carlos Delgado/324 Avery St./ Noted that he is the architect representing the property owner and is also a neighbor to the motel. He commented on the how successful the sign ordinance has been in eliminating offensive signs but noted that the symbols on the sign are symbolic to Ashland. He stated that there are no clear definition, and little precedent, to make a decision that this sign is not historic.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:50 p.m.

Hanson noted that he favors keeping the sign.

Wheeldon stated that she favors keeping the sign as long as the project is kept as one piece. She stated that she would prefer that the name remain the same. That in some cases of late, there has been a lack of inventiveness within the scope of the sign code.

Fine suggested that the sign adds character and individuality to the community, and noted his disapproval of the way staff is construing the sign ordinance. He stated this could be seen as a historic sign exemplary of the post World War II period, and could be placed on the historic sign inventory.

Hauck explained that the overall context makes a difference to him, as he has lived in the neighborhood since childhood and he has personal memories that are similar in concept. He feels that this is the last example that fits this time period and meets the standards of the historic sign exemption.

Reid noted that the sign does not meet the standards which have been set forth, but feels that the council is the appropriate body to grant an exemption for the sign's value to the community.

Laws stated that he does not necessarily like the look of the sign, but he does like the reader box which announces community activities. He noted his concern with reversing the Historic Commission's decision based on subjective criteria, and warned that making subjective exception to the sign ordinance is not good policy.

Shaw agreed with Laws, but noted that there are now fewer examples of these more modern signs and that the cautions raised by Laws were good ones, but noted that this sign is a unique one.

Hauck agreed with Laws' warnings, but noted that this is only the second time in eight years that the council has made an exception to the sign ordinance. He recognized the need for awareness of exceptions to the sign ordinance, but suggested that he didn't feel this would undercut the ordinance.

Wheeldon appreciated staff's being thorough, but feels that there is an integration of the building with the signs to create a space that works together. She would like to revisit what is being done regarding signage.

Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to approve the request to include the Palm Motel (1065 Siskiyou Boulevard) building and pole signs on the Ashland Historic Sign Inventory. Roll call vote: Wheeldon, Hauck, Laws, Fine, Reid, and Hanson, YES. Motion passed.

PUBLIC FORUM

Eric Navickas/711 Faith Street/ Requested that the council take an official stand regarding President Clinton's Roadless Area Policy, and asked that it be placed on the agenda for discussion. Shaw noted that she had sent a letter endorsing this policy, and noted that each councilor had the option of doing so. Navickas asked that the council do this officially, and noted the difficulty he has had with getting this item on the agenda.

City Administrator Mike Freeman indicated that this policy has no relevance to the current expansion plan for the Mt. Ashland Ski area, and there is no policy in place to react to yet. He stated that the Forest Service had concurred with this assessment, and Freeman therefore believed that it was not yet appropriate to place this on the agenda.

Navickas explained that all cities throughout the Northwest are being asked to endorse the Roadless Area policy, and noted that Eugene, West Linn and Lake Oswego have already given their endorsements.

Shaw noted the need to look at this globally, even if it negatively effects the region. She encouraged the council to look at this. Freeman explained that he expected that there would be a specific policy proposal because there was not much for discussion to be placed on the agenda.

The council indicated that this would be placed on the agenda in the future.

Sophia McDonald/210 California St #A/ Speaking as a representative of the SOU student government she explained the survey conducted at SOU which indicated a willingness on the part of the student body to pay for support of the RVTD ridership program. She also explained an additional survey conducted regarding housing rights and noted that 37% of those surveyed stated that they had been discriminated against because they were college students. She explained that a class will be conducted for future renters and that work is being done on a plan for campus safety. She explained that there will be a meeting regarding a federal student parent child care block grant and mentioned that the student senate meetings are open for attendance by councilors.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Second Quarter 1999/00 Construction and Major Project Activity Summary (#2).

This item moved to the next council meeting.

NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

1. Discussion of off-site wastewater treatment options.

Freeman explained the background behind this item and noted that it is his belief that a number of councilors are considering making a change of course. He stated that he feels it is critical that the council understands all of the issues before making a change and noted that representatives of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) were on hand, and would explain the complex steps and issues involved.

Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that this project has been updated and revised several times in the past several years. She pointed out that the decision made in 1995 was to retain the WWTP facility, take effluent to the creek in winter, spray in summer, and continue to look at wetlands. She explained that the project has been revised several times and that the on-site project is now about 80% complete. She emphasized that staff believes that the Level II reuse off-site, poses no health risk, and staff advises the council not to change course now.

Brown explained that staff has discussed the Land Use Application process with Jackson County. The City is required to file a Land Use Application for a permitted land use, pending a decision from council tonight. The application will be processed by County staff and referred to the hearings officer as a quasi-judicial land use action.

Brown provided budget to date on the current costs for the entire project, including the pump station, wetlands demonstration efforts and the land purchase. She explained that there is agricultural reuse for the type of irrigation water to be used here in 37 of the 50 states, and there are similar reuse programs in Oregon for spray irrigation and land application reuse sites for both treated effluent and bio-solids. She stated that California has hundreds of reuse sites using equivalent Level II water on agricultural sites and emphasized that this site is more than appropriate for the type of use discussed. She stated that production crops are a possibility on this site.

Brown provided water quality information comparing water quality data in streams around the site that were sampled over several summers by the staff of the Rogue Valley Council of Governments.

Brown presented information evaluating Kern County, California's proposed bio-solids ban which was based on the importation of bio-solids into the county. Bio-solids produced in our community do not have such a high metal content because there is no high level of industry in this area. Ashland is proposing to produce a Class B bio-solid which meets the "exceptional quality" test for metal limits.

Brown noted that almost $400,000 has been spent on the wetlands project and the results from the data do not show a viable option to lowering the phosphorous levels to the required 0.08mg/1 limit. She explained that the consultants and staff, agree that a much larger wetlands site would be needed to meet the city's needs, and there are no large parcel available and no viable justification proving that wetlands would meet the city's needs. She suggests that the wetlands project continue for another year in order to continue collecting data for completion of the evaluation.

The council discussed the .08 total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for phosphorous, and Brown stated that DEQ representatives who are present, could address this standard further.

Brown noted the considerable staff time on this project and the professional engineering consultants that support the decisions of the council to provide for a financially and environmentally sound project. She noted that if the council should change direction at this critical juncture, a new plan will have to be developed very soon. She emphasized that the city may face fines from DEQ. Brown explained that if a change is made and the council wants to put effluent into the creek, temperature is still the primary issue and what to do with the bio-solids is still a problem. She emphasized that the current plan works very well, and if a change is to be made, the council will need to provide staff with a clear direction for an alternative.

Brown emphasized that there will be additional design and construction costs if the council chooses to implement tertiary treatment. She suggested that this could be $3.5 to $5 million, and reiterated that there is a need for council direction on how to deal with bio-solids.

Brown provided information on a water recycling and reuse as presented by the Environments Protection Agency (EPA) brochure which suggests several benefits. She introduced John Gassick, Gary Messer and Tom Fisher, to discuss steps and time frames involved, if the council should change directions.

Brown clarified that discussion had been made with DEQ regarding the 0.08mg/1 phosphorous levels relative to the situation with U.S.A. in Tualatin, Oregon and the way they were able to address the phosphorous TMDLs. Brown responded that this was discussed, and that it didn't appear that this would help greatly in Ashland.

Shaw noted that one of the people mentioned in the information presented by Brown is a former planner from Los Gatos, now living in Ashland, and suggested that he might be available to answer some questions.

Gary Messer, Water Quality Manager for the Western Region of DEQ, explained that he deals with 14,000 miles of water quality limited streams in the state and these difficulties are prevalent. He stated that virtually all communities dealing with these issues are looking to get their discharge out of the creeks during low flow months, and many are looking at irrigation systems similar to the one proposed here. He noted that it would be very difficult to find an identical land irrigation project for comparison, as soils, land, climate, wind direction and topography can also have an effect. He recognized the questions and concerns which exist in the community, but noted the amount of time and studies which have gone into reaching the current plan. He noted that he has fielded calls from a number of Ashland citizens, and that on balance, he feels that the land application plan is very sound and has their support. He emphasized that DEQ rules require that discharge options are not even allowed unless it is proven that non-discharge option is not feasible. Messer emphasized that the choice is up to the council, but encouraged the council to think twice before backing away from the land irrigation option.

John Gassick quoted Environmental Quality Commission policy code which encourages the reuse of reclaimed water for beneficial purposes when the environment and the health of those nearby are protected. He pointed out that the California legislature has found reuse of reclaimed water to be safe for public health and is a cost effective, viable method to meet water supply needs.

Gassick noted that section 404 of the Clean Water Act relative to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are relative. He explained that their goal is to eliminate the discharge of pollutants discharged in the water. In section 303, when a body of water does not meet water quality standards, a list is prepared listing the parameters where standards are not being met. He explained that many areas where parameters are not being met in Bear Creek are effected by phosphorous levels. He also discussed temperature standards and habitat modification, bacteria and flow modification issues. He pointed out that Ashland's treatment plant is the single largest source of phosphorous in the creek, and noted the level of phosphorous being put into the creek based on a wintertime survey.

Fine questioned whether DEQ would allow further time to look into alternative methods. Gary Messer felt that there is a chance that DEQ would allow one more extension through the mutual agreement order amendment process, to modify without incurring penalties, but this decision would need to be made at the Director's level.

Gassick presented slides from previous council discussion in 1994 regarding the discharge into Bear Creek during and after an irrigation season. He noted that the city has been working on the required Water Quantity Management Plan as a requirement to the current permit and putting water into the creek during critical times when water is not naturally in the creek and explained historic flow and temperature levels. He noted that EPA is proposing a no mixing/no discharge above 64 degrees, and they are holding firm to meeting all criteria.

Tom Fisher noted looking at the site, and stated that the site is workable based on the climate, soil, and drainage. He noted that the only slopes which would not permit reuse are not part of the proposal.

Hauck asked Messer for clarification that there needs to be no other option before a new discharge permit is issued. Messer explained that this is for a new permit, and noted that non discharge options are given first priority. He suggested that growth in Ashland will eventually require the use of a non discharge option.

Laws stated that previous delays dealt with water quantity, and noted that the discharge of effluent into the creek helps to supplement creek flows. Messer discussed requirement to register water taken from creek, and the need to address low flow periods. He noted that piping to the regional system would not deal with the flow problems, but would comply with phosphorous limitations. Messer stated that DEQ is not in any position to recommend this at the present, and that the matter would need to be taken before the EOC.

Gassick explained that DEQ has had two meetings with the State Health Division, and a third is currently scheduled. He noted that the issue involves use of the big guns, and additional information will be provided to the State Health Division.

John MacDermott/90 Dean Drive, Central Point/ Urged the council to keep the water in the upper basin and commented that the proposed project has the potential of enhancing the fishery and becoming a bird habitat.

Bob Hunter/200 Oregon Terrace, Medford/Staff Attorney for WaterWatch Oregon/ Noted his concern regarding water flow in the Rogue Basin and acknowledged the concerns regarding the discharge of effluent through spray irrigation. He voiced his support of the wetlands project and the importance of water flow after the irrigation season ends. He feels that the city has flexibility through the spray irrigation project to explore additional options as the city grows. He suggested that there is a need to educate the public as to the safety of the project, and find a way to address the neighbor's concerns.

Barbara Bean/510 Terrace St./ Spoke regarding her past experience as a council member in another community and the construction of a sewage facility in that community. She felt that there was a great deal of mis-perception and confusion regarding pollution and phosphorous levels. She feels that there needs to be a better demonstration in order to better inform the community on the issues. She noted that the council does not know the concerns that the State Health Division has and questioned how the council can make a decision at this point.

Lue Anne Cook/710 River Rock/ Voiced her concerns regarding the potential high hazardous risk associated with earthquakes in the area of the spray irrigation site.

Dick Trout/830 Garden Way/ Noted his concerns about the possible abandonment of the treated effluent spray plan. He reminded the council, that the choice of the plan was the result of careful study by the council and others, over a long period of time. He noted the spending of an even larger amount of money on an already expensive project in a time of other large capital expenses. He noted recent unfounded, provocative statements made about this plan. Trout noted that the soil sample tests done on the site uncovered no dangers and that the spraying of treated water is many magnitudes less polluted than any of the creeks around this area.

Alan Erwin/300 Grandview Dr./ Explained that the irrigation to be done will be equivalent to one quarter inch of rain in a twenty-four-hour period, which has to-date, not lead to liquefaction of the hillsides. He also noted that the TID water used to irrigate the university campus is infinitely more polluted than that proposed to be used for irrigation on the hillside.

John Morrison/500 Helman/ Spoke regarding the decision making process and what is best for the community. He felt that when the council has made a decision through due deliberation and public processes, that decision should only be reversed by compelling, substantive information. While he is sensitive to the heartfelt protests of those opposed to this project, he has yet to hear a measured, factual, irrefutable reason to halt this process. He urged the council to stay on course, but keep the public better informed, and to continue to look at the plan for flaws and remain in communication with the community. He asked the council to go back and review the reasons that this decision was made, and to tell the citizens why it was the right one.

Harry Cook/710 River Rock Rd/ Voiced his concern regarding health safety. He felt that the proposed plan is unique as compared to other sites, and explained that this uniqueness involves volume, wind, altitude and the close proximity to houses. He also questioned storage after ultraviolet treatment, as organisms can grow during storage and then be sprayed.

Jim Moore/1217 Park St./ Member of the Women's Coalition. He voiced his support of the wetlands project and the decision not to sign up on the regional system. He stated that the decision to move forward on the spray irrigation is based on factual information and voiced his concern with council members who are moving in a different direction. The decision to move forward on this project was based on good science and fiscal responsibility, and the consideration to reverse the course is based on propaganda. He emphasized that leadership means making a tough decision, and urged the council to continue with the spray irrigation project. He urged that the council bring the DEQ back into the plan and request their approval of the spray irrigation project.

Carol Lunt/145 Manzanita/ Spoke regarding her support of the spray irrigation project and voiced her concern with the redirection of the council members based on a small minority group. She noted the amount of time andenergy that has been involved in this project. She noted the prior years of usage of TID water and how this related to the cleaner water that is being proposed to be discharged as effluent. She urged the council to move ahead with the water irrigation project.

Beverly Pelton/565 Scenic/ Spoke regarding her experience of living through an earthquake in Santa Cruz, California and how it related to the hazard area noted in a map distributed regarding potential earthquakes in our area. She explained that the area that suffered was due to liquefaction.

Myra Erwin/300 Grandview Dr./ Voiced her concern regarding the possibility of council changing course in regards to spray irrigation and asked that the council stay on course with the plan.

Amelia Arapoff/969 E. Nevada St./ Voiced her concern regarding health and safety as she lives next to the proposed spray irrigation area. She pointed out that the spray period is when it is the most windy, and questioned why city effluent is being sprayed outside the city limits.

Brice Farwell/290 W. Nevada St./ Noted that he lives in the area where the smell of the treatment plan has been very noxious. He has walked and picked berries for years along the walkway next to the treatment plant and has not suffered because of it. He requested that he go on record supporting this project.

Councilors Hauck/Hanson m/s to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

Hal Cloer/815 Creek Stone Way/ Voiced his concern that the council base their decision on facts, rather than a level of controversy and noted that he would be interested in hearing what the State Health Division has to say.

Paul Kay/1234 Strawberry Ln./ Explained his experience working with wastewater and agricultural irrigation. He asked that the council evaluate decisions based on other benefits to the city, and noted that there is a riparian ordinance, a lot of water and a piece of land, and suggested that the city look at ways to develop the water as a resource. He questioned what the policy for the riparian corridor would be over time and suggested that wetlands have more benefits than can be seen at this point. He urged the council not to abandon the study of wetlands, and noted that he would like to see broad riparian corridors, and urged that the spray irrigation water be used as a resource to develop an ecosystem rather than merely cropping. He stated that social technologies are at least as important as physical technology, and urged the council to retain Carrollo Engineers. He emphasized that staff and Carollo have been absolutely faithful to the council's direction.

Mary Lou Bayliss/ Noted her support for the council and the need to continue in the direction of the spray irrigation plan.

Richard Hart/83 N. Wightman St./Noted his experience in the study of local creeks and expressed his support for staying on course with spray irrigation. He would like to see the council continue to work with the DEQ.

John McDermott explained further for the council the potential for a bird habitat in this area, noting how various birds use grasslands for nesting.

Councilors Reid/Laws m/s to accept the resolution memo submitted by Councilor Fine. DISCUSSION: Shaw asked that the DEQ representatives come forth to address some of the concerns raised by the speakers. Gasik noted that there was a site specific soil engineering analysis conducted, which was reviewed and signed off by the Division of Dam Safety in Salem. He emphasized that the DEQ would require approval by the State Geologist with the Division of Dam Safety before they would grant approval.

He explained relative to liquefaction, that irrigation would be based on crop consumptive use needs in the ground, to prevent saturation flow conditions.

Fine noted a point of order, requiring that when a motion has been made and seconded, that discussion be limited to members of the assembly.

Laws voiced his confidence in staff and the citizens who have worked with the city. But, he felt that there have been notable changes that raise concerns. The DEQ was required to get a review from the Oregon Health Division, but this review was delayed. Then, when it was finally conducted, it raised issues relative to the aerosol effect and winds. He stated that he does not trust machines, and emphasized that we are talking about pathogens which have been aerosolized. He pointed out that the DEQ wants to measure pathogen levels with Ashland residents as guinea pigs and concluded that he does not feel that the council has the knowledge to feel secure that there is no health risk to the citizens of Ashland, and for that reason he wants to look for another alternative.

Reid stated her belief that the community is obligated to put the water back into the creek.

Hauck noted that the memo before the council was prepared outside regular council procedures. He explained his involvement in the decision making process in arriving at the spray irrigation plan, and emphasized his support for water going back into the creek through natural means rather than chemically treated methods. He stated that he believes the decision to reverse, is not beneficial to the community, and will ultimately mean piping wastewater to Medford for treatment.

Fine explained that the memo being passed out tonight is not based on mass hysteria, but rather directs staff to get the best possible professional advice to assess alternatives other than spray irrigation. He emphasized that the spray irrigation plan has not been satisfactory, and some other alternative must be found. He suggested that, with the help of the Health Division, DEQ, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, that the very best possible choice can be made with regard to environmental values, the well-being of Quiet Village residents, and the health of the community as a whole.

Wheeldon clarified that the memo directs staff to abandon the spray irrigation, and the alternatives are wetlands or sending sewage to Medford.

Councilors Reid/Laws m/s to call the question. DISCUSSION: Shaw asked that the memo be amended to leave the possibility for spray irrigation open. Freeman expressed concern that staff was not being consulted. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hanson, Fine, YES. Hauck and Wheeldon, NO. Motion to call for the question passed 4-2.

Roll call vote on original motion: Laws, Reid, Hanson, Fine, YES. Hauck and Wheeldon, NO. Original motion passed 4-2.

ADJOURNMENT
Shaw noted that the remainder of the agenda would be continued until 12:30 tomorrow, February 15th. Meetingwas adjourned to continued meeting at 10:30 p.m.

Submitted by Barbara Christensen, City Recorder

Ashland 24/7

Pay Your
Utility Bill
Connect
to AFN
Request Conservation
Evaluation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Inspection
Apply for
Building Permits
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2017 City of Ashland, OR | Site by Project A

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

Email Share