Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Council Business Meeting

Minutes
Tuesday, September 03, 2019

MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.]
7:00 p.m.  Regular Meeting
  1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the Business Meeting to order at 7:00 PM
  1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  2. ROLL CALL
  3. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
  4. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
  5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
    1. Study Session of August 19, 2019
    2. Business Meeting of August 20, 2019
Rosenthal/Seffinger moved to approve the minutes.  Discussion:  None.  All Ayes.
  1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
    1. Proclamation for Pain Awareness Month
 
Councilor Seffinger read this proclamation into the record (see attached).
 
  1. Proclamation for Home Inventory Week
Councilor Graham read the proclamation into the record (see attached).
 
  1. MINUTES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
Airport Conservation Forest Lands
Historic Housing and Human Srvs. Parks & Recreation
Planning Public Arts Transportation
Tree Wildfire Mitigation  
  1. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda.
(Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
Robert Kaplan – Ashland – Spoke in support to Rally and Unite for Climate Action.  He read a statement into the record (see attached).  He encouraged Council to work on building a sustainable future.
 
Marion Moore – Ashland – Spoke regarding the Climate Energy Action Plan (CEAP).  She spoke to the importance to ensure education on this topic.
Huelz Gutcheon – Ashland – Spoke regarding electric cars.  He spoke that a Tesla and Chevy Bolt are great cars.  He spoke to the importance of education on how to charge electric cars.
 
  1. CONSENT AGENDA
    1. Invitation to Bid North Mountain Park Nature Play Area Construction Project
    2. Intergovernmental Agreement for TAP Master Plan
 
Slattery pulled this item.  Deputy Public Works Director Scott Fleury gave a Staff report. He explained that Staff is asking to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement Plan to work with Talent and Phoenix to develop a TAP Master Plan.
 
Graham questioned the role of the TAP system.  Fleury explained that if the Reeder Reservoir and TID were diminished that would leave TAP as the emergency supply.
 
  1. Special Procurement of TAP Master Plan Special Procurement
  2. Special Procurement of Rogue to Go Reusable Take Out Boxes
  3. Approval of Personal Services Contract – Water Quality Temperature Trading Program Partnership (2018-21); Phase 2
  4. Special Procurement – Repairs to Pumps, Motors, and Related Equipment
Graham pulled this item.  She asked about the maintenance aspect of this equipment.   Public Works Director Paula Brown spoke that it depends on the needs per each piece of equipment and maintenance would just be done as needed.
Seffinger/Graham moved to approve the Consent Agenda.  Discussion: None.  All Ayes. 
  1. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a “speaker request form” prior to the commencement of the public hearing.  Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.)
    1. Appeal of Housing Authority’s Snowberry Phase II Project
Mayor Stromberg opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 PM.
Mayor Stromberg read a statement into the record (see attached).
Ex Parte Contacts:
Rosenthal explained that he spoke to a contractor and read the statement below into the record “I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant Cod standards to the facts and evidence in the record of the proceeding”.
Slattery explained that he was briefed on this topic from the Housing and Human Services Committee as a Liaison and read the statement below into the record “I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant Cod standards to the facts and evidence in the record of the proceeding”.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Derek Severson gave a Staff report and presented Council with a PowerPoint presentation (see attached). 
Items discussed were:
  • Request to reopen the record.
  • The proposal.
  • Site Plan.
  • Landscape Plan.
  • Phase 1.
  • McCall Drive.
  • Connectivity – Clay to Tolman.
  • Connectivity – McCall & Birchwood.
  • Parking.
  • Grounds for appeal:
    • The Planning Commission erred in approving the application without a permanent locked gate restricting access to McCall Drive to avoid pedestrian conflicts.
    • The Planning Commission erred in approving a parking management strategy which is counter to the General Automobile Parking Requirements and Exceptions in AMC 18.4.3.030.
  • Ground 1 – Staff recommended that the Council make a finding that the Planning Commission did not err in this regard and reject the first ground for appeal.
  • Ground 2 – Staff recommended that the Council move to exclude the second ground for appeal dealing with the parking management strategy from the hearing as it falls outside the allowed “Scope of Appeal Deliberations” because it was not previously raised before the Planning Commission.
Jensen/Seffinger moved to exclude the second ground for appeal dealing with the parking management strategy from the hearing tonight as it falls outside the allowed “Scope of Appeal Deliberations” because it was not previously raised before the Planning Commission”. Discussion: None.  Roll Call Vote:  Slattery, Graham, Akins, Seffinger, Rosenthal and Jensen: YES.  Motion passed unanimously.   
 
Applicant – Sydney Dryer from Jarvis, Dreyer, Glatte & Larsen LLP
Ms. Dryer spoke in agreement of Staffs findings of the 2nd ground of appeal.  She spoke that no authority within the Code allows the Planning Commission or Council to allow encroachments. She spoke that this is a policy decision. 
Appellant – Russ Dale- Ashland
Spoke that there were many procedural errors regarding this issue.  He spoke that he would like a locked gate to stop pedestrian traffic.  He spoke that pedestrian traffic causes issues of noise, litter and graffiti.  He spoke that the streets are too narrow.  He spoke that it is the job of the City Council to represent the citizen’s best interests.  He spoke that if the City does not provide a locked gate he will appeal this project to LUBA.
 
Akins questioned if there was any data of how many pedestrians go through and if there have been issues with pedestrians in that area such as Police Reports.  Mr. Dale spoke that he gets constant complaints from tenants. He suggested this item go back to the Planning Commission for consideration.
 
Parties’ Oral Arguments – Bob Alessandrelli was not present
 
Rebuttal by Applicant
Ms. Dryer objected that there was new evidence submitted into the record regarding tenant complaints. She reiterated that long before this project was considered the appellant was trying to block any connectivity through the project.  She spoke that this is not a good faith appeal.  She spoke that the appellant has been open about his bad faith motives and if he continues to appeal this project the City will lose funding.  She explained that the Council should be considering if the Planning Commission erred in refusing to allow a locked gate and the record is clear they did not.  She encouraged Council to not take this back to the Planning Commission and the record is clear the appeal should be denied.
Mayor Stromberg closed the public hearing at 8:21 PM
 
ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF
City Attorney David Lohman explained to Council that they are voting on whether or not the Planning Commission erred in saying that it does not have authority to decide on the encroachment permit.
Council Deliberation
Slattery/Jensen moved to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, reject the appeal and direct staff to prepare written findings for approval reflecting the original Planning Commission decision from July 23, 2019 for adoption by Council.  Discussion: Mayor Stromberg questioned if the Council would like to adopt the draft Findings included in the packet. Slattery and Jensen agreed to include adopting the draft findings provided in the packet. Roll Call Vote:  Jensen, Rosenthal, Seffinger, Akins, Graham, Slattery: YES.  Motion passed unanimously.
 
  1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
    1. Ashland Canal Piping Project Direction
Public Forum:
Don Morris – Ashland – Spoke to the reasoning’s as to why to pipe the canal. He spoke regarding evaporation rate and the need to have this done as well as possible.  He spoke that a trail could be created elsewhere. 
Sallie Rose Sandler – Ashland – Climate change events in December the ditch is needed to help prepare for climate change. Has a friend who lives outside of the city and that section of pipeline has been enclosed and the volume of her water has doubled. Environmental causes do cost money and have to pay for them.
Dr. Carol Voisin – Ashland – Explained that dozens of Ashlanders have talked to her about concerns of the Ashland Canal. She spoke regarding concerns of cost and E. coli. She read a statement into the record (see attached).  
Jim Falkenstein – Ashland – Urged Council to vote no on the canal project.  
John Hauschild – Ashland – Spoke that there are other ways other than piping the canal. He spoke that there are less expensive ways.  He spoke that shotcrete is less expensive and will last a long time. He suggested for Council and Staff to look into alternatives.
Kacky Hoffman – Ashland – Spoke urging Council to vote no and to come up with a new proposal. She read a statement into the record (see attached).
Julie Bonney-Shanor – Ashland – Read a statement into the record (see attached).
William Shanor – Ashland – Read a statement into the record (see attached). 
Max Lowen - Ashland – Encouraged Council to vote no on this topic. She explained that there had been approximately 100 letters signed in opposition of this Ordinance. She spoke that if approved there will be lawsuits filed.
Helen Perina – Ashland – Spoke against piping the canal and read a statement into the record (see attached).
Rick Kirschner – Ashland – Spoke in opposition of piping the canal. He suggested for Staff to find alternatives.   
Marsha Tokareff – Ashland – Thanked Council for listening and considering Citizens views on this topic.  She spoke to the importance of the canal in case of a fire.
Catie Foryl – Lived in Ashland and now in phoenix – Spoke regarding climate actions and solutions. She suggested for Staff to do more studies on this topic before making a decision.
Beth Martin – Ashland – Spoke that she has lived on the TID for 48 years.  She urged Staff to find an alternative that is less expensive and urged Council to vote no on this topic.
Pat Acklin – Ashland – Spoke that she has served on many Committees in Ashland and 14 years on Ashland Council.  She spoke regarding City Policy. She spoke regarding the importance of water for our future.   
Allan Sandler – Ashland – Spoke regarding evaporation and climate change. He spoke in support of piping the canal.  He thanked Staff. 
Ron Roth – Ashland – Spoke in support of the proposed piping of the canal.  He spoke to the issue of water conservation.  He spoke that piping will conserve water. He spoke regarding cost. He spoke that ongoing maintenance would be less if piped.
Zia Brandstetter – Ashland – Spoke to the importance of nature and spoke against piping the canal.  She spoke that it would affect future generations.
Karen Oppenheim - Ashland – Spoke that she lives near the TID and her family enjoys it.  She spoke that there are more questions to be answered before making this decision.  She urged Council to vote no on this topic.  
Staff  Discussion:
Public Works Director Paula Brown gave a Staff report. She went over background information on this topic. She explained the suggested option will save water. 
Madding explained how Water Fund Utility Fees are solely spent on water.
Council discussed options and next steps.  testimony how the City spends money.
Council discussed E. coli.  
Jensen/Rosenthal moved to direct Staff to proceed with final design on Alternative #1. And to Direct staff to pursue grant opportunities and bring back to council prior to final approval of this project. Discussion:  Jensen read a statement into the record (see attached). Rosenthal spoke that it is difficult to balance priorities and values. He explained that it is Councils job to make decisions that are sometimes unpopular and that this is one is tough decision.  He explained that this decision involves trying to balance the least invasive option at the lowest possible cost. He spoke to the importance of conservation.  He spoke regarding shotcrete and the best long-term plan.  Graham regarding water loss and the best long-term plan. She spoke to the importance of being financially responsible.  She spoke to the importance of conservation.  Seffinger spoke that she would like more research on unintended consequences. She spoke regarding the cost of removing trees.  She suggested to look at the Trails Master Plan and see what affect it will have to pipe the canal. She spoke that she would like to have these items looked at before a decision is made.  Akins agreed with Seffinger and spoke that she cannot support the motion. Slattery spoke in appreciation of all the work done.  He spoke that there is no need to rush this decision and it is 90% away to a good decision.  He suggested more time to get more information from Staff. Jensen Withdrew his motion.  
Council directed Staff to bring this item back to Council. 
Staff suggested Council send all questions to be researched to the Mayor and the City Administrator within two weeks.
 
  1. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
    1. Camera at Velocity
 
Rosenthal/Seffinger moved to approve the activation of the City-owned security camera on the public art know as Velocity:  Discussion: None. All Ayes.  Motion passed unanimously.  
  1. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
  2. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
  3. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
 
The Business Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
 
Respectfully submitted by:
 
____________________________________________
City Recorder Melissa Huhtala
 
 
Attest:
 
____________________________________________
Mayor Stromberg
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900).  Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).

Online City Services

Customer Central Online Payment Center
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Evaluation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Inspection
Building Permit
Applications
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2019 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

twitter facebook Email Share
back to top