The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-1215 Documents Submitted at Mtg Q~SLGr1n/+'~ ~a•ls IT For presentation at Public Forum, Ashland City Council, December 15, 1015 Presenter: Dave Helmich 468 Williamson Way Ashland, OR Community Discussion is Calendared: January 27, 2016 Gresham Room, Ashland Public Library Opens at 600 pm, Meeting from 630 pm until NLT 900 pm Topic: EAST NEVADA STREET BRIDGE: Genesis and Current Status of the Project Justification - Financial and Other This proposed project has been a part of the capital plans for Ashland for a number of years. The cost originally cited was about $2 million. It is currently priced at between $5 and $10 million dollars. Taxpayers will be paying for the project in its entirety from one funding source or another. Questions have been raised regarding the value of the project compared to its current cost "estimate." The public may not have been made privy to the extent the design has progressed and which would justify the more recent conceptual cost estimates. It is known that some further work must be done and is planned regarding environmental, hydrological and hydraulic studies, most of which would require an actual physical design concept to allow evaluation and to allow for required mitigation and currently unrecognized undocumented added scope. Attendees are encouraged to visit the City's website to review all the documents that have been made public there and to contact Public Works if they see gaps that could help in understanding the proposed proj ect. Finally, the scope of the proposed project is intended to address City needs. It may be possible to implement alternatives that are adequate and which could be implemented at lower cost and perhaps sooner. All interested parties are invited to participate. 5 tt-F4 SL-~;~'reol` l3. •1 s CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION REQUEST Date delivered by license applicant: • - Land Use Compatibility Statement What is a land use compatibility statement (LUCS)? The LUCS is a form used by a state agency and local government to determine whether a land use proposal is consistent with local govern- ment's comprehensive plan and land use regulations. Received by (print): Why is a LUCS required? OLCC and other state agencies with permitting or approval activities that affect land use are required by Oregon law to be consistent with local comprehensive plans and to have a process for determining consistency. Section 34(4)(a) of 2015 Oregon Laws, Chapter 614, Initial: requires OLCC to request and obtain the LUCS and have a positive LUCS prior to issuing a license. When is a LUCS required? A LUCS is required for all proposed marijuana facilities before an OLCC license can be obtained. How to complete a LUCS: • Step 1: Applicant completes Section 1 of this form and submits it to the appropriate city or county planning office. Applicant verifies with local jurisdiction whether additional forms, applications, or permits are required. • Step 2: Local jurisdiction completes Section 2 of this form indicating whether the proposed use is compatible with the acknowl- edged comprehensive plan and land use regulations and returns signed and dated form to the applicant. • Applicant completes payment to local jurisdiction for processing application. • Local iurisdictions are NOT required to begin processing LUCS forms until January 4, 2016 at 8:30 AM. • Step 3: Applicant submits this date-stamped form and any supporting information provided by the city or county to the OLCC with the license application. This form may be submitted while Section 2 is in process with the local governing body. i ~ls i5. IL 7 -5r _LUC'u ~~'l_~_ 1 t Pit tr a - ~U~ ~wN1 G_ L _b~J ~1s,uGu JC.f a ; ri Lo l: Applicant Name: Phone: Mailing Address: Rm/Ste: City: State: E] ZIP: ❑ Site plan of the subject property and proposed development attached? (required) Proposed Premises Address: Rm/Ste: City: County: ZIP: Tax Lot Range/ Latitude: Section*: Township*: Map*: Longitude: Proposed use/permit type sought (A separate LUCS may be necessary for each proposed use even if it is on the same property): ❑ Producer ❑ Wholesaler ❑ Processor ❑ Retailer ❑ Laboratory ❑ Research Certificate Note indoor or List endorse- outdoor below ments below Details of proposed use (note any attachments): Site Location: ❑ Inside city limits ❑ Inside UGB ❑ Outside UGB Name of Jurisdiction: Property Zoning of Proposed Premises: ❑ The proposed land use has been reviewed and is prohibited. ❑ The proposed land use has been reviewed and is not prohibited. If the proposed land use is allowable only as a conditional use, permits are required as noted below. Comments: Name of Reviewing Local Official (print): Title: Date: Email: Phone: Signature: Check this box if there are attachments to this form: ❑ REMINDER 0cal jurisdictions are NOT required begin,processing , i UCs forms unfit January;4,2016 at 8:30 AM -ol ~j[r..t1-tr"~ ~c..atrc, Y9 ~k • GEc,orS ~ EGn.,ti..c.r Testimony of George Kramer, 386 N Laurel, Ashland As presented to the Ashland City Council, 15-December-2015 XI: Recommendation from the Public Art Commission on Gateway Island Proposal Mayor Stromberg and Members of the Council, I'm not going to enumerate the issues with Gather and the reasons why it's inappropriate for Ashland's historic district. I think you know what I think. If you have questions ask them later. Let's talk about process. The process by which we got here tonight. Broken process. Process the Historic Commission stated unanimously didn't work. Process you have already taken steps to rectify. Process that your staff wishfully suggests you shouldn't consider in deciding whether to fund "Gather" and inflict it upon downtown. I appreciate civility. Let's agree, for the sake of civility, that the PAC followed the process correctly. It was still a badly flawed process that Council created and then failed to adequately oversee. The fact that we're here tonight, for the first of two decision hearings after three months of public debate, ought be a clue that something didn't' work. Expertise is great. But you've ceded public arts entirely to "experts" and virtually excluded the public. With the best of intent, you've put the PAC and the City into the position of a scold. Opponents of "Gather" are being told the equivalent of eat your broccoli. We know better. It'll be good for you. You'll like it when it's up. I think you are being overly polite and insufficiently wise. And if you're truly stubborn and foolish enough to put process over the public interest, Gather will surely become an icon: to failed process and your inability to fix it. Because that's what you should do. FIX IT. There's no rush to approve this. Downtown has survived without a monumental icon for 150 years. Take six months. Take a year. Figure out a solution. Figure out a way to allow PAC and the Community to work together to develop a more collaborative process so that our public arts program can be what we all wish and hope it could. It should be amazing; Ashland is a creative, inquisitive town with multiple talents and interest. Our arts program should reflect that. We can start by Testimony of George Kramer, 386 N Laurel, Ashland As presented to the Ashland City Council, 15-December-2015 XI: Recommendation from the Public Art Commission on Gateway Island Proposal fixing this mess. By figuring out a way to prepare broccoli that Ashland will love. That we can be proud of. Give us the chance. I'm sure you'll get a good turnout. If nothing else, the profile of Public Art is at all-time high. And remember the PUBLIC are the ones that are supposed to be benefitting from all of this. And finally, if you really must put polite over wise, if you go forward with this poor choice, if you approve "Gather" and put it where each of us will be reminded of this failed process every time we drive through town, do me a favor. Put up a big sign, with all of your names on it, with all of the PAC's and staffs' names on it. That way, when we gaze at this mistake you have inflicted upon downtown we'll know exactly who was responsible. That would be the polite thing to do. Respectfully Submitted, f George Kramer