Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, January 05, 2016


January 5, 2016
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street

Mayor John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present.
Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to nominate Councilor Rosenthal as Council Chair.  Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Mayor Stromberg announced the second annual State of the City Celebration would occur Monday, January 11, 2016 at the Community Center from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.  He went on to announce vacancies on the Public Arts Commission and the Housing & Human Services Commission.
The minutes of the Study Session of December 14, 2015, Executive Session of December 14, 2015 and Business Meeting of December 15, 2015 were approved as presented.
  1.  Annual Presentation by the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Vice Chair Michael Dawkins acknowledged the Planning Commission members and their longevity on the Commission.  He explained what the Planning Commission did, how they arrived at their decisions, and the role findings played.  The Commission based all deliberations on the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) and recommended policy versus setting policy. 
Accomplishments in 2015 included reviewing AMC Chapter 18, approval of the McNeal auditorium at Southern Oregon University, the start of development for Verde Village, and a project at the corner of Oak Street and B Street that would redevelop current buildings into townhomes and restore two historic buildings.  In the future, the Planning Commission would review the wildfire ordinance and look at infill strategies.
The Mayor’s proclamation of January 9, 2016 as Christmas Tree-Cycle Day in Ashland was read aloud.  Councilor Marsh noted Boy Scout Troop 112 donated Christmas trees that did not sell to the Ashland Emergency Food Bank.  The Food Bank provided 225 meals at Christmas.
Greg Williams/744 Helman Street/Read the City was considering building a new bridge on Nevada Street over Bear Creek.  He was concerned with building a new bridge in that location while the Nevada Street bridge over Ashland Creek was in need of repair.
Dave Helmich/468 Williamson Way/Explained they had canceled the public review of the Nevada Street Bridge scheduled for January 27, 2016.  The Public Works Department would have a public review of two alternatives for the Nevada Street Bridge late winter or early spring.
Public Works Director Mike Faught added the public review would occur February or March and was normal protocol for large projects as a way to provide options and get public input.  The Nevada Street Bridge over Ashland Creek was not on the current Transportation System Plan (TSP) project list for replacement.
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Ashland could not prevent cars or factories but could stop building homes and facilities designed to spew large amounts of carbons for the next hundred years.  It would require an environmental economic impact analysis and cost $100,000 to hire consultants.  Stopping houses from being developed would eliminate 20-40 jobs in the City.  One way to survive economically was bringing in high class brilliant minds whose innovation would attract successful businesses.  This would only happen if Ashland stopped adding more people.
1.   Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2.   Liquor license application for Petra Jung dba Scarpetta
3.   Liquor license application for Andrew Van Slee dba Wiley’s Trattoria
4.   Appointment of Jim Hartman to the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
5.   Endorsement of Soroptimist International of Ashland for the purpose of hanging a banner
6.   Special Procurement of a new Honda Police motorcycle
7.   Special procurement for audio and video equipment upgrades in Council Chambers
8.   Appointment of Shannon Downey to the Forest Lands Commission
Councilor Rosenthal/Seffinger m/s to approve the Consent Agenda.  Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
1.   Recommendation from the Public Art Commission for Gateway Island Public Art
Public Arts Commission Chair Margaret Garrington explained Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.29 Public Art guided the selection process.  Throughout the four-year process for the Gateway Island project, the Public Arts Commission (PAC) held noticed public meetings, outreach endeavors, and shared citizen input with finalist artists.  They presented artistic concepts in two public informational meetings.  A seven member Ashland citizen selection panel separate from the PAC, met to select three concepts.  Per code, the selection panel included art professionals and enthusiasts.  The panel reviewed each concept and which best fulfilled the request for qualifications (RFQ) and came to a consensus recommending Susan Zoccola’s concept “Gather” for the Gateway Site.
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the money for public art came from Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and was restricted.   This money could go towards something other than public art that was permitted by state law.  These other uses already received the majority of tourism funds.  The City could not allocate TOT funds to schools or homeless shelters per state law.  The City specifically set aside 3% or approximately $20,000 of TOT money for public art.  For five years, the PAC allowed this allocation to accumulate for a major public art installation like the one proposed.
City Attorney Dave Lohman addressed local preference in the request for qualifications for public art.  ORS 279A.120 Preference for Oregon goods and services; nonresident bidders stated for the purposes of awarding a public contract the contracting agency would give preference to goods and services manufactured and produced in the state if price, fitness, availability and quality were otherwise equal.  The City had an exemption for public art in the AMC that referred back to Oregon statutes for intermediate contracts. 
Chair Garrington explained AMC 2.29.130(A) Selection Guidelines for Works of Public Art, presented slides of the site and provided history.  The Gateway Island site met the six conditions for public art in AMC 2.29.130 B for visual accessibility, visual enhancement, pedestrian accessibility, circulation, and scale.
Of the eleven guidelines listed in AMC 2.29.130(A) Selection Guidelines for Works of Public Art, six were germane to the discussion, quality, site, history and context, maintenance and durability, public safety, and diversity of public art.  She went on to describe the RFQ and selection process.
Of the $100,000 art piece, the artist was paid $5,000 for final design.  Metal fabrication and costs for materials was $60,000, engineering costs $5,000, transportation was $7,000, installation $13,000 and a 10% contingency fee. 
Chair Garrington showed slides to address scale, color, material, texture, content and social dynamics of the proposed art piece.  Findings determined the art piece was appropriate for site.  She explained how the art piece and site met the guidelines for history and context, public safety, maintenance and durability, and diversity.  The Public Arts Commission recommended Council approve Susan Zoccola’s sculpture Gather for the Gateway Island site.
Rochelle Newman/819 Pavilion Place/Explained she was a working artist and Professor Emerita of the Creative Arts.  She noted everyone was living in strident times ‘no” was louder and seemed to have more power than “yes.”    Was this about egos or issues?  The community was at a unique point in Ashland where they could choose to say yes to this project.  The positive resolution of this issue would have consequences for other projects in the purview of the Public Arts Commission.  She encouraged Council to think of the artistic future of Ashland and not necessarily their personal futures.
Christian Burchard/777 Pompadour Drive/Supported Council making a vote for beauty and a beautiful piece of art that would really make a statement in town.  There was no way to please everyone.
Wendy Eppinger/190 Walker Avenue/Everyone had generational aesthetic values.  She noted the controversy over the Vietnam Memorial that was now one of the most visited places in Washington DC.  Paris ridiculed the Impressionists.  Susan Zoccola was a well known artist throughout the west with public art pieces in Oregon and Washington.  She thought people should step out of their rigid aesthetic comfort zones and see what happened in the decades to come.  The sculpture was not only for the current population.  It was also for the future generations.
David Powell/875 Beswick Way/Thought it was a fatal flaw to have requested a modern art piece in the RFQ.  It did not fit in with the city or the location.  He was concerned with potential lighting that could distract drivers and the lack of involvement by the Parks and Recreation Department.  He urged Council to postpone making a decision.
Arnold Bleicher/520 Herbert Street/Supported the selection of the art piece.  The opposition appeared directed by a few people and noted how it had shifted from issues with scale to discrediting the Public Arts Commission as overly academic.  The opposition tended to bully those that supported the project and used social media to scoff at supporters.  This was not productive.  He encouraged Council to consider the facts and approve the art piece.
Irene Kai/2560 Eagle Creek Lane/Explained she was a professional artist currently teaching at Rogue Community College and shared her training and credentials.  Public art should not be vague.  It was widely displayed for everyone.  She had sent Council a late submission, did not have time to do a presentation, and respectively asked the Mayor and Council to consider her proposal.
John Barton/245 Piedmont Drive/Explained the selection process adhered to code.  The City established the Public Arts Commission in 2006.  He read the Commission’s mission statement, duties, and ran through the timeline for the Gateway Island process and request for qualifications (RFQ).  There was no compelling reason to reject the recommendation from the Public Arts Commission.  He reminded the opposition that the Ashland City government functioned much like the federal government and was not a peer democracy.
Bruce Bayard/621 A Street/Supported Council acquiring “Gather” for the public arts collection.  He noted points regarding scale and genre.  The downtown core had four public art pieces of significant size in line with the size of Gather or possibly taller.  The diversity of opinion whether one public artwork should be of a type illustrated the value of having a vital and diverse public art collection.  He liked the sculpture because it surprised him, changed his mind, referenced a myriad of shapes and objects, and represented different ideas. A great piece of art was a catalyst for dialogue and he thought “Gather” was a great piece of art.
David Wick/2560 Eagle Creek Lane/Encouraged Council to consider the World Peace Flame monument submission they received day before.  This unexpected yet profound offering was an excellent opportunity for the City to be known globally as a city of peace.  Ashland would be the 12th site in the world and the second in the United State to host the flame of hope and peace. 
Richard Benson/670 Siskiyou Boulevard/Shared a story regarding a piece of art he encountered years ago while living in a large city.  He described the sculpture, thought it was horrible and stuck in a small space.  He walked past this artwork daily for two years.   He began noticing other pieces by the same artist throughout the city and eventually understood the artist’s intent.  After a while, he appreciated the sculpture.  It made him look at the world differently.  The affect the sculpture had was a wonderful experience for him and every time he goes back to the city, he makes sure he sees that piece.  He encouraged Council to consider the story and know they had the support of the community.
Susan Yeagley/836 Hillview Drive/Did not like the art piece however, art was subjective.  This was the wrong sculpture for that space.  She suggested Council do something similar to Evergreen Colorado that raised money for artwork throughout the town with maps to help the viewer locate the sites.  It brought people to areas in town they might not have gone to before just to see the art.  It appealed to locals and tourists.  The display rotated once or twice a year.
Keith Swink/524 Granite Street/Read a letter he sent fellow Historic Commissioners regarding the “Gather” sculpture when he was unable to attend a Commission meeting.  The letter outlined concerns he had with the process the Public Arts Commission used and thought the Commission frequently ran at odds with the Historic Commission and that needed to be rectified.  Public art proposed for any historic district area needed approval by the Historic Commission period.  The Public Arts Commission needed to submit intentions to the Historic Commission that affected the historic character or designated historic districts.  The proposed sculpture was completely inappropriate to represent the community in any way.  It was not historically compatible with the downtown streetscape and seemed suited for a contemporary, large open setting.  The Public Arts Commission should have come to the Historic Commission for approval before making unilateral decisions about an important piece of artwork. 
Councilor Rosenthal noted the Public Arts Commission had been working on the Gateway Island project for eleven years and asked how it was the Historic Commission was unaware of the project leading up to this and why this late in the process it had not engaged in the topic.  Commissioner Swink clarified the Commission had heard about the project indirectly and were expecting the Public Arts Commission to attend a Historic Commission meeting as they had with other projects.  He referenced the tiles on the seat wall of the Plaza as an example where the Historic District was involved after the fact.  The Historic Commission was trying to protect the historic character of the town and if they were not included in the discussion, it was difficult to fulfill commission obligations.  The Historic Commission was aware a Historic Commissioner was on the selection panel that recommended “Gather.” This individual served as a private citizen on the panel and not as a commissioner.
Dan Fellman/253 Meadow Drive/The art piece could not physically stand under its own weight let alone the sideways pressure of people climbing on it.  His background was in engineering and he had spoken to another engineer.  It was not appropriate to make a decision using a computer image that had no basis in reality.  He recommended completing the engineering prior to making the decision.  The structure would have to change significantly in appearance to be able to stand on its own weight and withstand people climbing it.  He noted insurance and liability issues. 
Elizabeth Churchill/19 West Hersey Street/Thought the height of “Gather” was reasonable but the sculpture was too wide for the space.  After hearing the controversy regarding the art piece, she urged the Council to postpone a decision and continue the discussion.  She also preferred hiring a local artist.
Cynthia Moscaritolo/175 Wightman Street/Noted the public outcry on social media and the negative connotations.  From what she observed, the art piece would not be well received by the majority of people.  She thought the Public Arts Commission presentation focused on adhering to policy and code and thought that countered art in general.  Art should delight and she was hearing the complete opposite.  She did not think the opposition’s comments were being conveyed.  She preferred seeing art that was loved by the majority for whatever reason.
Councilor Marsh/Voisin m/s that Council award a commission for a site specific piece to Susan Zoccola as described in the RFQ and along with that an allocation of $3,500 to support her to develop a second proposal for consideration.  When that proposal is completed Council will make a final selection between it and “Gather.”  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Marsh reviewed the request for qualification (RFQ) and the process.  The RFQ was successful in finding an artist.  Susan Zoccola was a public artist with impeccable credentials that produced art in several communities.  She thought they should take advantage of her broad experience with public art before making a final selection.  Having two pieces would give everyone time to step back, compare, contrast, think about the value of public art, understand the qualities of each piece and make a good selection.  Council would make the final selection.  It would give everyone a chance to bond with an exceptional public artist and move forward with a piece that would be with the community for 10 to one hundred years.  Councilor Voisin thought democracy was about compromise and this was a realistic compromise.  The Public Arts Commission did a good job in coming forward with this selection.  She thought the process needed review.  The Historic Commission had real concerns.  Councilor Seffinger acknowledged the Public Arts Commission for their work and noted the artist was an excellent choice.  She did not want to divide the community.  Having two options made it more democratic.  Something not considered was what the community did not want.
City Attorney Dave Lohman thought the proposed motion was probably legally permissible. There were ambiguities in the ordinance, the RFQ, and with the process in general.  It was not inconceivable someone might challenge based on those ambiguities.  However, the chance of a successful challenge was minimal.  The RFQ resulted in the choice of an artist who had presented a concept proposal but not a final design.  The RFQ stated it reserved the right to commission another artist using another process altogether if needed. 
Councilor Marsh clarified the original artists were paid $2,500 to develop their proposals.  Increasing it another $1,000 was an expression of the City’s commitment to work with Ms. Zoccola.
Councilor Morris would not support going back and preferred sticking to the process.  Art was always and should be controversial.  Not everyone should have a vote regarding art and art should not be average or mundane.  It should challenge people.  He used the Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s use of modern era as an example.  Council picked the color for the kiosk at the Plaza.  Council set policy and should not select colors.  He would not support the motion but supported going with the existing artwork.
Councilor Lemhouse thanked each commissioner on the Public Arts Commission, noted the expertise the City gained free of charge.  The process would benefit from a review.  He was saddened at the abuse the Public Arts Commission had received from the community.  He approved of respectful disagreement and went on to share some of the extreme negative responses.  He appreciated Councilor Marsh finding a compromise. He supported the motion, and would have supported the original recommendation.  He observed there were people and leaders in the community that sought to split and divide.  When the options came back to Council he hoped people were able to agree or disagree in a respectful manner.    
Councilor Rosenthal would not support the motion.  He did not think the motion would quell the acrimony on the topic.  There was a Public Art Master Plan based on a community survey conducted in 2007 and code depicting the rules of engagement on public art installations and now Council was making up rules spontaneously.  Public art was subjective.  He questioned what would happen when the artist presented a second concept.  People would love one, hate the other, or hate both.  The easiest and most respectful thing to do was vote for or against the proposal and start the process again if the vote was no.  This did not set the right precedent.
Mayor Stromberg was not a fan of metal geometric artwork in that it did not touch him personally the way other artwork did.  He was fully aware that was part of his upbringing and culture.  Art was more than something that created aesthetic pleasure.  He supported the Public Arts Commission, the process and the artist.   The collective accomplishments of the community had paid off for everyone in important ways.  Having significant art in a prominent location would add to the luster and credibility of the community.
Mr. Kanner noted the Public Art Commission did not have $3,500 to pay for the second concept.  He suggested taking $3,500 from the restricted TOT funds allocated for unanticipated projects. 
Mayor Stromberg addressed an earlier decision during a Council meeting to form an ad hoc committee to look into improving the process for selecting public art.  The Mayor decided he would work with staff and personally interview each member of the Historic Commission and George Kramer instead.  He would open the process up for public input via email or letters.  The City Administrator would summarize the suggestions and the Mayor may or may not make recommendations.  This was intended for future projects and not the proposal before Council.  Councilor Lemhouse strongly encouraged the Mayor to create an ad hoc committee with citizen representation due to the contention regarding the process and lack of citizen involvement.  Mayor Stromberg noted Councilor Lemhouse’s comments and would not create an ad hoc committee for the issue.   This was an information gathering process.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Marsh, YES.  Councilor Morris, and Rosenthal, NO.  Motion passed 4-2.
1.   Options to move forward with UPRR and DEQ
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the current deed restriction on the railroad property required cleanup to residential standards for the entire 20-acre parcel.  It would also require residential cleanup standards when the property partialized and each parcel had a development proposal regardless of use.  Council had three options.  The first option would delete the current deed restriction and have the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) require residential cleanup standards for the 20-acre parcel and apply appropriate cleanup standards for subdivided parcels based on use.  Option 2 replaced the current deed restriction with one where DEQ required residential cleanup standards for the entire site, clearly defined cleanup standards appropriate to use once the property subdivided, and ensured adherence to those requirements.  The third option would modify the deed restriction with one that required full site and any subdivided parcels to at least, meet DEQ’s Urban Residential standards. 
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) was interested in cleaning up Bunker C, the most contaminated portion of the property by truck.  UPRR would consider a full site cleanup using railcar and postponed cleaning up the 4-acre area.  UPRR and DEQ preferred Option 1 to delete the current deed restriction, and could work with Option 2 if needed.   Option 3 would limit the marketability of the land and UPRR would have to consider this option carefully and mostly likely would not agree to it now and possibly never.
Full site cleanup would involve two phases.  UPRR and contractors would clean up the worst area in Bunker C, the ponds and an area with hot spots to residential standards then meet DEQ risk base requirements for the entire site.  Some spots would have a higher concentration when finished.   Once the property subdivided, DEQ would require further cleanup standards based on use.
Apart from providing clarity, adopting Option 2 had the same effect as Option 1.  DEQ would consider looking at some wells off site to determine potential contamination.  This would occur when they dealt with the initial cleanup of the entire site.  UPRR would modify the 2013 Remedial Action Plan and Council could suggest modifications but the City had no control regarding the cleanup.  The least amount of cleanup would happen for light manufacturing, or storing materials.  The property was in a prime location and the market would most likely want to have some residential use.  Infrastructure for the 20-acres had not happened yet.  A cleanup plan would go through the Planning Commission, UPRR, and regulatory agencies and there was no guarantee when that would happen.
Councilor Voisin/Seffinger m/s to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a Major Amendment to modify the condition of approval in PA99-048 concerning a certain deed restriction such that the deed restriction conforms to Option 2 as presented in the January 5, 2016 Council Communication titled “Options to Move Forward with UPRR and DEQ, and to negotiate with Union Pacific Railroad to develop an agreement concerning full-site remediation of the rail yard property as soon as possible utilizing railcars for transporting contaminated soils. 
DISCUSSION:  Councilor Voisin thought option 2 provided strong language to protect the City.  Councilor Seffinger added Option 2 made sense and they could accomplish it in a shorter period.  Councilor Rosenthal supported the motion.  It protected citizens and would make sure if it was mitigated it was done using a reasonable, rational approach.   It was a valuable piece of land and good things could happen if the property was developed.   Councilor Lemhouse supported Option 2.  UPRR had shown willingness to compromise.  The City was not in the position to make many demands and could decide to do nothing but no one benefited from that choice.  Councilor Morris preferred Option 1 but could support Option 2.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, Voisin, Rosenthal, Seffinger, and Morris, YES.  Motion passed.
2.   Request to extend City water service outside of City limits
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained West Jackson Properties requested connecting to the City’s Talent-Ashland-Phoenix (TAP) waterline to provide water for a fire suppression system in a residential care facility West Jackson Properties planned to build.  The property was in the urban growth boundary (UGB) and within city limits at the intersection of Highway 99 and Valley View Road.  The Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) provided criteria that allowed extensions but did not clearly state the process.  The AMC required Council approval through a resolution during a public meeting. 
Staff recommended denying the request.  It was predicated as being in the City’s “best interest” because an Alzheimer’s care facility benefited the town.  The best interest question could not be considered in isolation.  The request had to meet codified criteria as well as be in the City’s best interest and this request did not meet codified criteria.  Granting an exception created a “do for one, do for all” situation.  If Council did not think the rules were adequate to the present or future considerations and circumstances they could change the rules.  There was enough volume and pressure in the TAP line to supply a fire suppression system but that did not mean connecting to the TAP line was a good idea.
John Chmelir from West Jackson Properties provided information on the shortage of beds for people with Alzheimer’s. He planned to build a 44-bed residential care facility for Alzheimer’s patients.  He was requesting permission to connect their fire sprinkler system to the City’s fire line that would exist on their property.  Phase 1 of the site plan was the approved TAP Pump Station.  Phase 2 was the Alzheimer’s care facility.  Phase 3 was a tentative project that included a medical building and restaurant.  The request to connect to the fire line was part of Phase 2.  He shared statistics regarding people with Alzheimer’s and described the care facility.  The care center would create 45 new jobs twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
The City would install a fire hydrant across from the proposed facility.  He wanted to connect to the fire line on the hydrant and not to the TAP line.  This was not a complicated engineering issue. The TAP transmission line did not connect to the Granite Reservoir.  It connected to a distribution system that pushed water into the Granite Reservoir.  He did not propose to connect to the pressure side of the pump station.  It was not difficult to connect a tee in the line, add a pressure-reducing valve, and put a distribution line to run parallel with the 32 pressure reducing valves already in the system.
Ellen Waldman/779 Sylvia Street/Explained she was a certified aging life care manager and wrote a column for the Ashland Daily Tidings called Aging Happens.  Ashland had one dedicated facility for memory care that housed 32 residents.  This did not meet the current need nor was the need decreasing.  Assisted living facilities were taking in residents who would be better served in a memory care facility.  Assisted living centers were not secure and not appropriate for those with memory issues.  West Jackson Properties was building a facility to fill the gap and had incorporated some of her suggestions.
Lloyd Matthew Haines/51 Water Street/Recently acquired a building off Highway 99 in the same area as the proposed Alzheimer’s care facility.  Fire suppression for that building was supplied by a well, two storage tanks, and a pumping system.  He expressed concern regarding its reliability.  The care facility would have people locked in the building.  Connecting to the City would provide a hard connection used for emergency purposes only.  The Fire Department would hook into the line anyway.  He noted the potential for human error. 
Larry McLennan/1028 Starlite Place/Continued Mr. Haines testimony regarding facility safety and shared his personal experience with relatives in care centers.  The real concern was fires and evacuating patients.  The Alzheimer’s care facility would need even more assistance in the event of a fire.  He wanted the Fire Department to have all the advantages they could to suppress a fire and give the patients time to get out of the building.
Bruce Roberts/1355 Tolman Creek Road/Shared his personal experience of having parents with Alzheimer’s and the debilitating affect it had on family members and friends.  This situation would only get worse over the next 20 years.  He thought Ashland should take the lead in establishing these facilities in town.  
Steve Shapiro/7122 Hwy 66/Served on the Planning Commission for five years and explained this request would not set a precedent.  This was a place with people locked inside and described a possible scenario where the Fire Department was delayed getting to the center to suppress a fire and the tank ran out of water.  This would not happen with TAP.  He would not want the fact that people burned up because a tank ran out of water on his conscious.  He was also an engineer and Mr. Chmelir was correct, the connection would come from a non-pressurized line.
Heather Hickmadd/41 Birnamwood Road/Described her background and explained she represented the Neuman Hotel Group who supported Council approving the water line extension.
Duane Smith/622 Firwood Drive, Medford, OR/Shared his longevity in Ashland and the buildings he built.  He was no longer involved with the project, and had sold his interest to Mr. Chmelir and Mr. Haines so had nothing to gain.  He explained how they cooperated with the City and built their own intertie to hook up to the city with their own money.  They expected to build a $200,000 turn lane at the intersection and it was almost $500,000.  They worked with the City on the pump station and now were asking for a water backup if needed.  He asked Council to consider the request.  It was a worthwhile thing to do. 
Oscar Zuniga/4118 Hemlock Drive/Explained he was a mechanical, electrical, and fire protection engineer for over for 40 years.  The December 30, 2015 letter from the applicant covered all the technical points in an accurate manner.  The applicant and developers had cooperated with the City to improve the infrastructure that they may not directly benefit from.  The water was for fire suppression only.  The connection to the line was already there and would not affect the hydraulics of the system.  He shared his family history with Alzheimer’s.
Mr. Chmelir continued his presentation and showed slides depicting the fire line set up and the temporary pump they allowed the City to have through an easement.  West Jackson Properties designed their set up to mesh with the City’s set up.  The pipe hydraulics would not change.  He reiterated they did not ask for a distribution line off the pressure line.  They wanted to come off the tee.  If the line could adequately serve the fire hydrant it could do the same for their sprinkler system.  Without the connection, they would have to build a tee 20-foot in diameter and 17-feet tall to store a 40,000-45,000 gallon tank all because they cannot connect to a line that existed on their property.  He described what would happen if a fire broke out in the facility and they did not have a connection to the City line.  This was not a complex engineering issue.   He distributed questions Council should ask the City’s consulting engineer.
Time ran out on the meeting.  The Mayor continued the item to the January 19, 2016 meeting.  Mr. Chmelir would have another 5 minutes at the meeting to complete his presentation.
1.   Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending chapters 18.2.2, 18.2.3, 18.2.5, 18.3.2, 18.3.3, 18.3.5 and 18.6.1 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to the homegrown marijuana cultivation and marijuana-related businesses including production, processing, retail sales, testing, and wholesale and declaring and emergency”
Item delayed due to time constraints.
2.   First reading by title only of and ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending Chapters 10.68.400 and 11/08 and replacing Chapters 11.24, 11.28, 11.32, 11.34 and 11.36 with new Chapter 11.26 to update and unify parking regulations and to authorize City Council to establish presumptive parking violation fines by resolution” and move to second reading
Item delayed due to time constraints.
Item delayed due to time constraints.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
__________________________________    _______________________________
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder     John Stromberg, Mayor          

Online City Services

Pay your bill & more 
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2024 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top