HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-0205 Council Mtg MIN it
CITY O F
ASHLAND
DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,February 5,2019
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
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
Councilors Slattery, Graham,Akins, Seffinger,Rosenthal and Jensen were present.
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced the current Commission and Committee vacancies.
Council gave consensus to allow Public Input on Item VII. 3.
V. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
City Administrator Kelly Madding spoke that the City Council has finalized their Goal Setting
and that they will be on the website soon. The Goals will be presented at the
February 13th Study Session.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Study Session of January 14, 2019
2. Business Meeting of January 15,2019
Graham/Rosenthal moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Discussion: None. All
Ayes. Motion passed unanimously.
VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Southern Oregon Regional Economic Development, Inc. (SOREDI)Proclamation
Councilor Slattery read the Proclamation into the record (see attached).
2. Annual Presentation by the Transportation Commission
Deputy Public Works Director Scott Fleury introduced Transportation Commission Chair Sue
Newberry.
Ms.Newberry went over the annual Transportation Commission updates. She discussed the
Commissions goals.
Seffinger questioned bump out sections in roads and suggested to have flashers on all of them.
Mr. Fleury explained bump outs are meant to make it safer for pedestrian crossings.
Rosenthal thanked the Commissioners for their work.
Jensen thanked the Commissioners and questioned when the Transportation Plan will be
updated. Mr. Fleury spoke that it will be budgeted in the next biennium.
Council discussed the importance of having public outreach for the Transportation Update Plan.
3. City Hall—Phase 1 Preliminary Design
Ms. Madding gave a Staff report. She explained that City Hall is 106 years old and gave a brief
background on the prior evaluations regarding City Hall. She explained that no decision has
been made on this topic and all items being discussed are for information only. She also
explained that the rumors going around that utility bills would be going up is not true.
Slattery explained that there is a City Look Ahead and this item has been on it since October 3,
2018. This can be found on the City website.
Public Works Director Paula Brown gave a brief Staff report.
Rosenthal explained that this item was initially supposed to be discussed at a Study Session.
Since he was going to be out of town he suggested this to be moved to the Business Meeting.
ORW Architecture AlA-Principal, Dana Crawford presented Council with a PowerPoint
Presentation (see attached).
Items discussed were:
• Feasibility Study 2016.
• 2018 concept design.
• Site options.
• Imagery.
• Design process.
• Cost Modeling.
• Council input.
• Final Renderings.
• Space needs.
• Rendering examples.
• City Hall Site Plan.
• Briscoe School Site Plan.
• Civic Center Site Plan.
• Cost modeling.
• Decision Criteria.
Ms. Brown spoke that Staff would like feedback from Council and to bring this back to the
March 19th Business Meeting.
Council and Staff discussed the cost of retrofitting the current City Hall.
Council discussed the need of seismic upgrades for other City buildings.
Rosenthal spoke to the importance of due diligence.
Akins spoke in appreciation of the presentation but spoke that she was not in favor of any of
these options.
Graham thanked everyone for their work. She suggested the City to come up with a plan to look
at all City buildings.
Council discussed this coming back with more options which include the retrofit.
Ms. Brown spoke that doing nothing is wrong. She explained that is putting Staff and the
Community at risk.
City Attorney David Lohman spoke to the importance of legal obligations to do something.
Ms. Madding spoke that there will be another Study Session regarding this issue and Staff will
bring back information regarding retrofitting City Hall.
Public Input
George Kramer-Ashland-Spoke regarding City Hall options. He explained that he was part of
the Ad-Hoc Committee and worked on finding an affordable solution. He spoke that work needs
to be done and he recommended Council to upgrade City Hall affordably. He spoke that the
public would support an affordable option.
Ted Hall—Ashland—Thanked Staff and Council for their work. He read a statement into the
record (see attached).
Cathy Shaw-Ashland—Spoke in agreement with Mr. Kramer. She discussed the issues with the
current City Hall. She explained that the City doesn't need a bigger City Hall and suggested
shared offices. She spoke to the importance of having City Hall in the downtown. She spoke
that all 3 suggested buildings are currently not seismically fit.
Staff advised citizens to send their comments to the City Council email address on the City
website.
VIII. MINUTES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS,AND COMMITTEES
Airport Conservation Forest Lands
Historic Housing and Human Srvs. Parks &Recreation
Planning Public Arts Transportation
Tree Wildfire Mitigation
IX. 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]
Julie Norman—Ashland—Thanked Ashland Parks Commission for their work. She read a
statement into the record (see attached).
Kelly Marcotulle—Ashland—Suggested to have a Study Session to analyze 5G. She spoke to
the importance of prevention on this issue. She provided Council with an article regarding this
issue (see attached).
Louise Shawkat—Ashland—Spoke regarding carbon reduction. Set goals have climate energy
action plan. She provided Council with information regarding the issue (see attached).
Ehanuela Gay-Ashland—Spoke regarding affordable housing. She explained that she
submitted a letter to Council regarding this issue a few weeks ago. She spoke in gratitude for
those who responded.
X. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Liquor License Request for Kaarma Distribution Co.,LLC.
2. Council Liaison Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees
3. Request from the Oregon Department of Transportation for a Noise Exemption
Permit for Night Work to Complete Traffic Signal Upgrades
4. Approval of Personal Services Contract for Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities
Assessment and Major Process Component Improvements
Seffinger/Graham moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Discussion: None. All Ayes.
Motion passed unanimously.
XI. 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.)
XII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
XIII. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Annual Appointment to the Citizens' Budget Committee
Slattery/Rosenthal moved to appoint Jim Bachman and Mike Morris to the Citizens'
Budget Committee. Discussion: None. Voice Vote: Slattery, Graham, Seffinger,Rosenthal
and Jensen: YES.Akins: NO. Motion passed 5-1.
(See attached Tally Sheet).
XIV. ORDINANCES,RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal Code 2.13,
Transportation Commission
Ms. Madding gave a Staff report.
Graham/Slattery moved to approve the first reading of an ordinance titled: An Ordinance
Updating Ashland Municipal Code 2.13,Transportation Commission and move to second
reading. Discussion: Graham spoke to the importance of this Ordinance and appreciation of the
work Staff has done. Slattery agreed with Graham. Roll Call Vote: Slattery, Graham,Akins,
Seffinger,Rosethal and Jensen: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously.
2. First Reading of an Ordinance relating to overnight sleeping in vehicles; adding
new AMC Chapter 10.48.
Ms. Madding gave a Staff report.
Graham questioned if other non-profit organizations could be a part of this. She also spoke that
the wording regarding handwashing should include"hand sanitizing". Ms. Madding spoke that
the language would be amended to say"hand cleaning"and the churches would be notified of
the definition. She also explained that if we allowed this on a commercial piece of property it
would necessitate a land use approval. She spoke that Staff wanted to start out small and see
how it works. If it works well Staff could expand to commercial zones.
Seffinger/Slattery approved First Reading of Ordinance No.3171 and advance it to Second
Reading for enactment. Discussion: Seffinger spoke that she thinks it is a good idea to start
small. She spoke to the importance for men,woman and children to feel safe and some may not
feel as safe in a shelter. Slattery thanked Staff for their work on this and the Rogue Valley
Unitarian fellowship. Akins spoke that she is happy that Staff is looking at options and spoke
that she would like to see unsheltered not be ticketed. She spoke in support of the motion. Roll
Call Vote: Slattery, Graham,Akins, Seffinger, Rosethal and Jensen: YES. All Ayes.
Motion passed unanimously.
3. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Ashland Fire Prevention Code
AMC Chapter 15.28
Rosenthal/Jensen moved to approve the second reading of an Ordinance to amend the
Ashland Fire Prevention Code AMC Chapter 15.28. Discussion: Rosenthal thanked Staff
for their work on this. Roll Call Vote: Slattery, Graham,Akins, Seffinger,Rosethal and
Jensen: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously.
4. Second Reading of an Ordinance modifiying the Solid Waste Franchise
Ordinance
Jensen/Seffiner moved to approve the second reading of an Ordinance modifying the Solid
Waste Franchise Ordinance. Discussion: None. Roll Call Vote: Akins,Graham,
Seffinger,Rosenthal, Slattery and Jensen: YES. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously.
5. Second Reading Ordinance No. 3165 Related to Vehicles For Hire, Amending
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 6.28.080 and AMC 6.28.190 and Deleting AMC
6.28.090
Slattery asked for an update as to where we are with TNC companies. Ms. Madding explained
that they are currently not on the map. She spoke that Assistant to the City Administrator Adam
Hanks spoke with a representative and they explained that once changes are made they would be
interested in coming. She explained it is not for sure but it sounds as though they will be
coming.
Jensen/Slattery moved to approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 3165 related to
vehicles for hire amending AMC 6.28.080 and AMC 6.28. Discussion: Jensen spoke that this
has been a long time coming and glad to revise the Ordinance. Seffinger spoke that this will
make a number of people happy. Rosenthal explained that he is not in support of this Ordinance.
He spoke that he is not comfortable sacrificing principals of safety. He suggested to take another
month to get consensus from other communitees and how having these companies is working for
them. Graham spoke that she will be voting against this motion. She explained that she spoke
with the Transporation Commission and what issues they were trying to solve in the initial
Ordinance. She spoke that once these companies are here in this current format we don't get an
option to change the terms. She spoke that we are a moment in time to have some negotiating
power. Akins spoke that she thinks this is what the citizens want and spoke in favor of the
motion. Roll Call Vote: Slattery,Akins, Seffinger and Jensen: YES. Graham and
Rosenthal: NO. Motion passed 4-2.
XV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
XVI. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
The Business Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM
Respectfully submitted by:
City Recorder Melissa Huhtala
Attest:
Ma Strom rg
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).
F7-74` .' h/I, � `of , -1+1,- 1 ;3 � .....1-1 '7 it,
L ,/ 3 .:'-. ice;/ t ,,, ,, r ` ,,t < ' , Li. .4. ._.I , J.,:"
�.._��--.\`�,,itt) .. ..;3 .: • _ .S.., z`I.,.,_. tae3 � rzPkY�,� 3S4t1',t�e1FSjL t."U�y +.
•'4rlgF' , . :::' :
,f
` { r1 I���f
�' I! PROCLAMATION Ki; `�
I. WHEREAS,there are thirteen cities in Jackson and Josephine counties that .. I
" ,;y comprise our region known as Southern Oregon; and t:.,1`
M WHEREAS,the vision of Southern Oregon Regional Economic Development, ;
0 Incorporated (SOREDI) is to unite our 15 jurisdictions in making Southern „
I 1I Oregon the most"Business Friendly"region on the West Coast; and ',......l }�
Ir
10 WHEREAS,these guiding principles define our commitment to being"Business `-.
Friendly", E.
'II% • We recognize the value that businesses contribute to our community
1; through their employees and their families,their payroll that stimulates ., -
1 our local economy, and the taxes they pay that help support our cities, <a
v
! schools, and public safety. � 1
' • We recognize that businesses have choices when it comes to where they
�� locate,balancing what is desirable with what is affordable. We appreciate
. •.;� ,,,
.=1 .. w
�� �! the commitment our businesses have made to live and work in our ,�,
community. I'
54 • We understand that"time is money" in today's business climate and 1
ado
pledge to collaborate with businesses and citizens promptly, with an ;.. �v
7
1
,,,
,,,:y attitude of customer service and a commitment to listen and help solve
II
problems.
•v
We adhere to the ideal that private and public interests are shared and that r-.
I
vie-# in doing so we build a stronger more resilient community. y .
• We agree that Southern Oregon's economic success is dependent on our
'I;?, shared workforce and resources and we join with the other jurisdictions in
. l„ supporting a regional perspective toward economic development. 4
and
4,, NOW,THEREFORE, I, John Stromberg, Mayor of Ashland, Oregon hereby I
t - 3' proclaim that the City of Ashland joins with the other cities and counties in l. SIP
r=
j,, sharing SOREDI's vision for Southern Oregon as the most"Business Friendly" s
'I t
region on the West Coast.
4 a*7— !1 .t?P:3::a&l .,... V`aTF h .t d2.2 'Y _` ti • '' ., , , , , , , , . - ,,,, ,..„, •A.....i..1
....
,....._N. „).,.. ,, , , , , , .,
•
" � 0
i.0 D❑ . � O z, O \\ - u d-- 1,;.i `, , 0 o q °"'y.
_ p , ,jam „ Oro c_,08 O O C
` o , 4U o
Ashland City Hall Concept Design
,� o00 o February 5, 2019
an �' ° ocoo° 00 4' \
n0 a noon 4.,,,Cy�0 ,.,.,
BAISCOE ELEMENTAFY Z-j / o
< 40°�° o oho o Q ` �-
' ° °dp0 (, o C Coo ^ „./ 'ate_ o
�, ( �c ° , ( gip` L s0,_ Od 4 p °
• <\,,o,;.,0 ( \rte a " [-`^ d
°n +" O f �(� 's Q r^ t.. 5( ft�D�O� �f ❑❑ +❑� ^ �� pd(36
� '- o �� °" q b� (i r 00 roc-- ° ❑ —, �a ❑d
3 Q ` ^¢1 °O s �° (0 Q I ...Lit.` 4e !`� Li.:-.:-. , C rOr---0 1 0 r`^ �i�-4 Cr-0.L c". '`'"o _ o ° s 1 d and ❑ QlC3 i-.r te
O ^00° P�4 / / c - cg000 4-170 .3 'roc `C. `-p O y Qc�f°(C LE o� :o ❑_ ° 00
° �`s O ,^ o c HI-1 ,'.»` \� !� - x r" Or ..L oO 0 ....' 0 Ca v c o g °� Cr1:1op
0p° �' 'A: C 1`C 1 ' ` ., `/ C O b �a rFi r r�C %° 0 ff_" ° a t4,
4 •, • "cc', O O g _� o�C " �O CO_ 0 1:..,./c r---, o ❑ o
a p r o c..--la 0${o c [ / ) . r �€ D °fl O a--° or _ .q cc/; 0 0 0 l Id /;\ pa°d ❑
3 °C `I CITY HAL <A ;=d'°o f a q 0 L ., q -_ CI"i_ o o ❑ ¢� ❑❑
3 O r CI O p p �,� ,, !\b CSJ .ob X06 o f C o o f CC r ❑4 j O «� o "t4
° - O �O ` C-1--DA. � `g{� �ggTCa i c Or- ,C,� o orQ fOoL---oar[� I>r c '--i ❑a'F - 1 '`�., . [Dorm=
C !� ,C: r ,-o ra o r r G , Q °° .q o, cam- �00 Ca is o_ �� 8o° 0 _ '`"» ro . .a4°
Qq0 it,- oo S �T' - a _O p0O�g o° o D000 ,o , , 2>�
500 F,, C> C i t ro C, — cam b R ^�q ��g�� U` °�' Q o rt 4 ° C Q� emu+'" �, 47 �'� r �'C:QO th..4. Oea 0 / O a.p r_4°Z K��OCo n O rl (0�1 DO _.CZC00 ~�'.P-r❑. r g0 9I_ onno-i �Or.. oc
/. 0 / C7
/. O o primal CF, r ❑o off° p
%� �.� - �� a erg.."
I CJ
C OD r-, moo❑ ° n fa o
.....,O .,'<, r- C` ° fir^ r-, °�� rot ,� E CIVIC CENTER- i_r
1 ❑ . p 0�¢'_ O �r. O �,/-. �° CCC C p Oa k 67, FL
y � n nn (� o �o '*� o °� o c o❑o ❑ aa _P r m�jpm
0 e f_1 1=`� n " .� �` ° O( /�p0 nLr Ol\ VO °'.." n C U '� ` 9 G i- ' 1 1
., Y d c ,-1 _ s it /r� <� 00 O , ° m0000 �•pl1€ nOdL r 'm c'.
F,.-,r r1..Q/.....F...--;,R.,l}-ia":.......c:.,,St .o.a.,...,.r`.a....,T.a..�.�....°atF:.....r.,..,�,..,_i - _o❑I o❑® r„(--'uu' ARCHITECTURE
Background 2018 Concept Design Process
2016 Feasibility Study: Steering Committee Involvement
Space Needs Site Analysis
3 Site Options Concept Exploration
Massing Explorations Decision Considerations / Criteria
2018 Concept Design: Cost Modeling
Space Needs Update Council Input
3 Sites (Existing + 2 New) Final Rendering
Concept Explorations
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
SPACE NEEDS UPDATE
ORGANIZATION DIAGRAM
■ ASHLAND CITY HALL PROGRAMS
.-„,u fR, ■■ BRISCOE ELEMENTARY&CIVIC
c,J��� CENTER PROGRAMS
00 HIGH PUBLIC ACCESS
INTERACTION
ACCOUNTING — — — MEDIUM PUBLIC ACCESS
ENTRANCE INTERACTION
ADMINISTRATION 5200 GSF
ADMIN SERVICES 4100 GSF
/
/
W.�; / COMMUNITY DEVT -GSF
L':,-,,
t COURTS/COUNCIL -GSF
/ \ PUBLIC WORKS ENG -GSF
/' p
,� COMMON AREAS 5700 GSF
N.-Q4-
TOTAL 15,000 GSF
.ta t O
N c> J v
-, u
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
SPACE NEEDS UPDATE
pNtacT ORGANIZATION DIAGRAM
tc\pN
QOM StP \ / cF, ' ■ ASHLAND CITY HALL PROGRAMS
\ ,% Sep-
� G
tp�9�� ■ ■ BRISCOE ELEMENTARY&CIVIC
\ 0.'\C CENTER PROGRAMS
LHIGH PUBLIC ACCESS
vi INTERACTION
o. � -
ACCOUNTINC' MEDIUM PUBLIC ACCESS
u ENTRANCE INTERACTION
ADMINISTRATION 5200 GSF
ADMIN SERVICES 4100 GSF
// 30 Le
ENGINEER,
/ eY COMMUNITY DEVT 6000 GSF
/ GOMMU�\E
ot.^0 M COURTS/COUNCIL 5900 GSF
4 \ oo 174, qpM/V/s PUBLIC WORKS ENG 4700 GSF
z o \VFW T���
�� G 1poGL c °4• COMMON AREAS 5700 GSF
�e / z Z �� TOTAL 31,600 GSF
/('''k\-
? w \
N., U
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
Rendering Examples
NIP'
x+F`
�,�no represent final c3esi;n.
V r �J ,
� )
`"I 1'�1!`�,
1 . ,. r vl
cv
• r) a,
' 7.1411111" 411. I
`G / y '4F-A +' r
. o 01
o
N r6 .
kik1'tT
�_ . d ,, CITY HALL
ar SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
711111A1 If'W ' '
, Lot Information
iiii.
75.21 ac(3,276,148 SF)
4\ C-1-D Zoning
\`,. • t Building height allowed:40ft-55ft with CUP
\`\`\`� No Setbacks
Building Foot Print
Current:3,967 SF
___— Proposed:4,000 SF** /N lir
• �� Building Area
Current:7,934 SF
PLAZA
4/1SZ_ Proposed:15,500 SF
t. III1IQllllllll t�� '�`
Parking
,. w None Required
_ Proposed:Reduction-1
- CITY HALL f 'A Building Programs for year 2031
� ---� � �i J t Administration iir
• Administration services
! Common Areas
j ., , / _ Ii I I Total:15,500 SF(Approximately)
■ /
) ... ,
•"'-- LITHIA PARK ANGUS BOWMER .� 4' „A°'i t u
THEATRE ;,v•
- .
46..01 N � ,' x`
I i ipndges,ire nceptual. They are for visualizati ; ,- E:I ,•_;;:
only and do not represent final design.
CITY HALL CONTEXT
IMAGES
, ,
► as
$ , ,.,",..03,04
rites}S,„5,,,-., > *
•— ra y r r„,,i,- , , ,....,,. .. -
r� ..... NSW!.
P r a 4� err s =r• t w 1
0,.`
--944„ 4 till : - ,- '1”.
1
Plaza, view looking North City Hall, view looking East
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
CITY HALL CONTEXT
IMAGES
. t %, , - t.. ' .
0111- R9
South side stairs to Theatre West Facade
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
CITY HALL DIAGRAM
NEW CONSTRUCTION
1z
14'
„ PLAZA
e.ptuatae.y. .,'uses
only and do not represent final design.
' 0
la
' t 111 IV At n
4 4, 1
c .
.- 1 li,. ‘ "t o c
MI -- IR - ‘c 4_,-- WO• n,. . ..
'a'ailli‘W'H'''s"-'1114 WMII , 7 76- -c)
n 73
IN IIIIM NI=a ‘L v, c
> ..,:-
ti d
' w
2 (1;
co ,-
ci
_ - ->-
cu ,...
! , 1-- 5,c
I II moor HI r.:, -0
4-,
1 I 1111111 a CL-C3
MI INEL. a ,i, C
0 CIS
C >
— 0 —
U C
W UMW W I=
2 °
N ,r,
NINE M NM
INN& II 11111L 11
w
. E
•111111111111111L all
MEW limillffilalt a isfak
ii 111 i wilt _
a lamas a Musa, .„,,str
1
.„....111Kr:.1 i ' . n■ 'i .. •• . • ••.'""I.' ,: "r. .• 1 - f
I I V- 4,. c . Yiid,:a 1i A
y
..•t
�� ' „A
x a , , •i 9 .• '
d
1 '
1 *"II)„.. -- •"re ."..t . -,..,
i •N
is
1 �(3 r
1 7
11; •
d ••
•
4.m.� a• -W S 1 /
j
•)1t
■ a
a ` *o t T .1
"'4d Yp.o
► " y
4,'' iiiirr : •4.4
'> 1
it
i itic(-.— 'et '
I ii. .. . ,
„. ' • ,„.} fts,,,,,... : •,.•.
.. "• ..... .
, . ..,,..k. , ,
..
, . ,
ie.. / i ,
•
,-4,
, _
., , . ,. : .
.„44,... 4 ,ifitiolt, \
\
t
•
• . s ,
f _
1
• r a'
purposes only and do not represent final desig ,•.,,
s.
■
r , 4 ..--_—......— .._____L__________ ' ''''''' ....---.. 441r
4,041111111111Pc 4■1■111110ENNNINItlinia■•••■•■•• ornmagar; iv '' 1116. k t ' -4 4''.
,,. ,, 4 INN Nil ill a . , . , ,t ... .: ,. .. . .,
- — ‘' r ' .*:4.'' ''' ''''' ''''' .1' ' ----, in -- : r. IMO IR '''-.- • ' ' - -
5 ,.
e
_
.
art
�-r-- rii `f- a X T •Y
ir,r.:.
� a r
, wviou..., ,10 0
If
Li ...
V. 6�� x fi : 1 • i .— y ' 3 �a A A. �� `1' . �. 0 .___
' . . _ , Gr' n:.
}} ■
A IF
. � ' I BRISCOE ELEMENTARY
ti� SCALE: 1'=20'-0"
• '9j Lot Information
tis 3.74 ac(162,914 SF)
* T R-2 Zoning
Ir. "N Proposed:E-1 Zoning or C-1 Zoning
�� , �_ � Building height allowed:40 ft
/ ., AREA //'
\Q 1890 SF it ti 10ft rear and side yard setbacks
j� AREA
.+ �� ��� +6" ' 4,538 SF � Building Footprint
` �� '", w Current:32,000 SF, ..2*.,..,.... N.\ e■
_� a �, � ��: Building Area
,. ,, AREA Current:32,000 SF
�'�� '\� 18.178 SF /
NEW RETAININwC3' > 'e�z ,. 0' - t Parking
y J Y
WALL v. ! \,iZ.+`.`�ti w* r ".Il
� � Current:38 spaces total
,'' �' ,, < Required:64 spaces total
�' � (500 sf: 1 off street parking space)
Proposed:26 off street parking spaces
z°
'� #�� t ) A rtt �� 4 Building Programs for year 2031
dr z Administration
Ve" ,a.w f exv#. I_ Common Areas
�r=' '4 <
Municipal tCouerts Development
1 QJ Public Works Engineering
AREA --../
Total:32,000 SF(Approximately)
I 2,605 SF
4 l�l...,.. EXISTING .A,4* a / c • •
- { PLAYGROUND t 11y . \ �. )11111r/�,/i� ��`' ' 1 at i, r � � ,
yST � f;1 r� `` ,n, 1:i 'ifT
.� 26 04°44. ® ;'
. �.i. is -
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes only and do not represent final design.
POTENTIAL
ORGANIZATION DIAGRAM
PUBLIC BUILDING
ADMINISTRATION
OPEN OFFICES/ COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
'�_ CLOSED OFFICES/
,�-•��,,��1 LARGE CONFERENCE
ram
,t.-'ftccia---1.:1,-.-- -- — :, : . ‘..
...
R — NEW PLAZA
-1 / ENTRANCE & COMMON
'^ AREAS
.Gy
.", COUNCIL CHAMBERS
s'
PUBLIC WORKS/
ENGINEERING
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
BRISCOE CONTEXT
IMAGES
4
J
•
i tf
9
A. t;- .r
d ♦ i
[ -;:., _ , ,4. d FY •
4"
, 17.,..7.:1,..,, ,,,,__ . '‘...,:"....,.1,:s.., ;r , . T.. If-. 7... 1..1,...-- ,_ ''.
r
0
03
0
q
Briscoe Elementary, North Façade, Entrance Looking South West up Laurel Street
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
BRISCOE CONTEXT
IMAGES
1
t
L. • 9 'k •
k r .
s,.
1
/la —T1
Oa
. LZ
-'\ L. i / t
L Va u
Briscoe Elementary, Walk & Learn, Geology park Briscoe Elementary, Park & Playground
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
\_,,,---- -- / 14(2i--.., ),_......
. , ,....
___..._, mit IJ —�
toauriin
• II ill III ."'Illp 141,11111 110"1411141t ,
to . ... «=
=1114204 .4 i 4 141i
NO
M ��� t ,1
I witatio
: . , „
(L ,...., . %ow .......
, ,
! ,
, ii , 4%MO
kS __ 444..0.
. 4o -7 r...... Ili
hid/ ./-c 1 ...,
AJ . w, _ 1 1 II , , `61
---- WIAW , , j
W.
. ° 11. • . 14„ . .......' ., 1111111111. ::-
t
,6 .
+r. �� r�i ct U _ JN _ J/JJ,..,-4 ,
, 1 „.„ ,,
te , .......
III lit
it
I i t
, ,,,----, -- ._,....._.j , :: ,,,,, - ft
"' .___Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes —7—N-
-
0
only and do not represent final design. __.__
...' .
•. . . , ',. .- .,.• es'
---- - ' '
all" ' '.., •' ' At.'•''.- — .'",..''''.."„.■,''..,;;,: • -....'4....;767i4:'.• -<::,:.:..•
t .
• - v... - vv. . .. .
'i: .....
v ,
. .
• -.•-,.. .
. .
„„_ . V. .,. - ,. ..,_ •
.. ...
,, ,.., ,,,
,_,.„----- _e .
-f- ',.•.;-,:::‘-;,,,;,.,,e.,,....
ilk --• _- .--
...- ..-.
,.
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
•
. :� -r" Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization
purposes only and do not represent final design.
tom ..
• i
t
. �( i 4 7
r "i h r.•x .1y*. ,�•r.. • , .
't::"_:r. 3,-'%.-'-. -- ''- a 64....,A,., 1 ,„,
- f, . • Ill 111 -. i Ilt:4131
P
A I
tiL'rt IJR .4'Yr� .1Q'lkr :� i+ , VIM? w _.
�•• ` _art�` - • '` '{ "
....top-- 1.)
_-
y..
i Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization •
purposes only and do not represent final design.
a i z) 1., /
. . 7" o t,,,,
- 4 MOB ._�.aill I b y r .
ASHLAND CITY HALL km, 4 ,
I _
.p .x0.L
._
4.. OM:, . S„ t CIVIC CENTER
-,n — N i, SCALE: 1'=20'-0.,
t; M ` `(�` r7-17-1 ` ' s •• Lot Information
' 2.1 ac(92,070 SF)
{ E-1 Zoning
A - .-I • Building height allowed:40ft I
10 ft.rear and side setbacks
r • .r
I.
/k 1 . T
.,.! • Building Foot Print
Current:5,916 SF
!r \ Proposed: 16,000 SF
144.1, POLICE STAFF PARKING
�.`. d.--w:.
I I � Building Area
Current:5,916 SF
AI ... / �� _ I� �a� Proposed:32,000 SF
. I -- CO _i �C';i iALIll1�iMINI 'rrD111111111.14^MMIIII 41,
Mr `11 CAW Parking
I Current:67 spaces
POLICE PARKING
,111111 Required:60 spaces
��
°�P (500 sf: 1 off street parking space)
i. ' \ \ � �r'ws v1a��r h0 a II Building Programs for year 2031• I Administration
- PANSION PROPOSED 67 PARKING SPACES
���������� ,� �� Common Areas
CIVIC CENTER Community Development lib
Municipal Courts
n I 'j Y►�IV %ramr/ �� THE GROVE
¢) ItiW yr Otis rt+�` �i �� Public Works Engineering
ti.' o oMP vN Total:32,000 SF(Approximately)
POLICE
_. DEPARTMENT
eel, - ,
r (E)MUNICIPAL • s J'' 1
COURTS A1 irI\ . 4r- _',., M4,j�,i
IU L PROPOSED `‘ ��� � wJ4 ,,- �� �'p�^ �p.:$-4
•' la PLAZA . - _- - 'C 'S/0'40'
1` I — .�A"�- r n S lam . I I .
_,...........-------- ----r- . •--- • 4, i 9
. ° "t;e----- ,1:; 'in.. , 74:440•410461r
•
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes only and do not represent final design.
CIVIC CENTER CONTEXT
IMAGES
t•
,gym ... � ,:.
• h ,iE� , L _?rid "_
A `t
lei,
Civic Center, view looking South Civic Center, view looking North
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
CIVIC CENTER CONTEXT
IMAGES
yy�,"V' 1 p s x .1,i ,r .r. y ', .. .•
°%t. ., ,t: 4:,/,-.: ,,,.....- ` 'to.4.41,4..', -
T .o. JS t Y h .,.4 .{,
< •fir„• ip F y •�' 4 .t ir ti�,
,
'.‘..: ;/ I •,-qv 7.A..: , :' -i'''''.,'***A.'" to;/"...: "--2 - '5" " .
fig ----- � k" w r. • --
`r
Ida I I t+: 1
' ,s a: i ..- _.---
4.10,0 .Y
- .
Civic Center, view looking South West Civic Center, view looking West
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design. CIVIC CENTER DIAGRAM
----- THE GROVE
• PROPOSED BUILDING
5'
16'
A
-C /NCrl
P
•
�P�NS�
l
—- . ...., „.,:,:,.:1;,4ui,ii.!:T.,,I:T::1'
' 2 •T t li
,r 1 riir r i r .., if'� I'' +!+'e!tt.',i tr i't+tif 0': ++ 6 9 1 ( ll
I li
r M
f 1.1
_.„. ..,_
i
I 11111 it
, .. .. ..
..
.„,.. 7.■•..,--,_. ,i. `."., ...-
1 -- T _
' %Ill
YOB 1
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
,, :4,4- .cf,:t!rilia . . , ,.. . ,,, ,....., , . , , i,..:',4k, 4,4,4
Images are $1,c I F
,. y
Conceptual. They . ,; 4
are for mr , *E ., f
I
' ' . .
visualization •+1A' • ' >• ,
purposes only ���� "� a
and do not ,.4� i . „ .d. •-
y
represent final wtj
design. r, 1
! i 4:, _..-7---'2.-, ..:- --- --- .-- - -
irt, +-' �i; .., C •r
a-
r
. r• •^/ "'lc •-- ..`�
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
it
�A
k}
- _. _.. .--—__
'0141111W' 1
it
lik
Images are Con -ptual. They are for visualization
purposes only d do not represent final design. •
A
.r r'i ,7.
i
.1 wfi
I
, , Ill
1'.3.
i i. ' 1 • ' ! _,
■
ft -Rilii - -to
- �� ♦.
.... r
so
i
Cost Modeling
Unit Area Build Move Total Construction Solar Cost Project Project Sell ComDev Total Temp Moving Other Soft Other Soft Total Cost Total Cost Cost/SF
See Cost SF Time Time Time Cost (1.5%) Conting'y Conting'y Bldg($) Construct'n Space (out+in) Costs(%) Costs($) 2019 2024 2019
Note Location/Building (mo.) (mo.) (mo.) (%) (5) Cost (rent)
City Hall Site
5-8,10 New City Hall Building $550 15,500 14 2 16 $8,530,000 $131,000 10% $853,000 $9,514,000 $192,000 $20,000 25% $2,379,000 $12,105,000 $15,821,000 $781
9 City Hall Site $40 4,000 0 0 1 $160,000 $0 10% $16,000 $176,000 $0 $0 20% $36,000 $212,000 $278,000
City Hall Totals 16 $9,690,000 $2,415,000 $12,317,001 $16,099,000
Briscoe School Site
11-15 Briscoe School Renovation $340 32,000 12 1 13 $10,880,000 $187,000 15% $1,632,000 -$2,500,000 $10,199,000 $0 $25,000 30% $3,060,000 $13,284,000 $17,362,000
16 Briscoe School Site $80 16,000 0 0 7 $1,280,000 $0 10% $128,000 $1,408,000 $0 $0 20% $282,000 $1,690,000 $2,209,000
17 Briscoe Entry Feature $70 4,000 $280,000 $280,000 $0 $280,000 $366,000
Briscoe School Totals 13 $11,887,000 $3,342,000 $15,254,001 $19,937,000 $477
Civic Center Site
18-22,24 New City Hall Building $475 32,000 15 2 17 $15,200,000 $231,000 10% $1,520,000 -$2,500,000 $14,451,000 $153,000 $29,000 28% $4,047,000 $18,680,000 $24,415,000
23 Civic Center Site $30 6,000 0 0 2 $180,000 $0 10% $18,000 $198,000 $0 $0 20% $40,000 $238,000 $312,000
Civic Center Totals 17 $14,649,000 $4,087,000 $18,918,001 $24,727,000 $591
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
Cost Modeling
Unit Area Build Move Total Construction Solar Cost Project Project Sell ComDev Total
See Cost SF Time Time Time Cost (1.5%) Conting'y Conting'y Bldg($) Construct'n
Note Location/Building (mo.) (mo.) (mo.) (%) ($) Cost
City Hall Site
5-8,10 New City Hall Building $550 15,500 14 2 16 $8,530,000 $131,000 10% $853,000 $9,514,000
9 City Hall Site $40 4,000 0 0 1 $160,000 $0 10% $16,000 $176,000
City Hall Totals 16 $9,690,000
Briscoe School Site
11-15 Briscoe School Renovation $340 32,000 12 1 13 $10,880,000 $187,000 15% $1,632,000 -$2,500,000 $10,199,000
16 Briscoe School Site $80 16,000 0 0 7 $1,280,000 $0 10% $128,000 $1,408,000
17 Briscoe Entry Feature $70 4,000 $280,000 $280,000
Briscoe School Totals 13 $11,887,000
Civic Center Site
18-22,24 New City Hall Building $475 32,000 15 2 17 $15,200,000 $231,000 10% $1,520,000 -$2,500,000 $14,451,000
23 Civic Center Site $30 6,000 0 0 2 $180,000 $0 10% $18,000 $198,000
Civic Center Totals 17 $14,649,000
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
Cost Modeling
Temp Moving Other Soft Other Soft Total Cost Total Cost Cost/SF
See Space (out+in) Costs(%) Costs($) 2019 2024 2019
Note Location/Building (rent)
City Hall Site
5-8,10 New City Hall Building $192,000 $20,000 25% $2,379,000 $12,105,000 $15,821,000 $781
9 City Hall Site $0 $0 20% $36,000 $212,000 $278,000
City Hall Totals $2,415,000 $12,317,001 $16,099,000
Briscoe School Site
11-15 Briscoe School Renovation $0 $25,000 30% $3,060,000 $13,284,000 $17,362,000
16 Briscoe School Site $0 $0 20% $282,000 $1,690,000 $2,209,000
17 Briscoe Entry Feature $0 $280,000 $366,000
Briscoe School Totals $3,342,000 $15,254,001 $19,937,000 $477
Civic Center Site
18-22,24 New City Hall Building $153,000 $29,000 28% $4,047,000 $18,680,000 $24,415,000
23 Civic Center Site $0 $0 20% $40,000 $238,000 $312,000
Civic Center Totals $4,087,000 $18,918,001 $24,727,000 $591
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
DECISION CRITERA
Existing City Hall Civic Center Briscoe School
Level of Consolidation Low High High
Project Cost Highest Higher High
Proximity to Downtown High Low Medium
Images are Conceptual.
Proximity to Public Transit/Bike High Medium/High Future High
They are for
visualization purposes Public Interaction High Low High
only and do not
represent final design.
Sustainable Opportunities High High High
Hosier Dam Inundation Zone Yes No No
Parking Availability Low High Medium
Proximity to Services High Low Medium
Access to Views High Medium Medium
Temporary Relocation Yes/High Yes/Low No
New Building or Renovation New New Renovation
Thank y ou !
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes I
only and do not represent final design. 1 '
ARCHITECTURE
Cost Modeling
HARD COST MODELING ASSUMPTIONS(Construction Costs)
General Notes
1. To reflect level of cost specificity for a Concept Design,building and site costs are rounded.
2. All labor rates based on prevailing wages.
3. All options include quality of materials and performance of systems reasonable for a 50-100 year civic building.
4. Structure is designed to meet code,not to essential facility standards.
City Hall Location
5. City Hall concept is a new building with upsized Mechanical Electrical Plumbing(MEP)services.Mechanical system is Variable Refrigerant Flow(VRF)with Energy Recovery Ventilation(ERV).
6. Electrical is all LED lighting and includes 1.5%Solar.Costs reflect structure as mass timber,with a masonry envelope and wood accents.
7. New building allows options for high sustainable design,sunshades,and less solar area.
8. Smaller building means less economy of scale for costs,small footprint results in higher skin to floor area ratio.Location includes
higher expectation for exterior materials,tight construction site with limited access,potentially results in./-15%higher construction cost.
9. Site costs include higher allowance for demolition due to constrained site and abatement. Includes rebuilding sidewalk/entry feature to curbs.
10. New City Hall costs range from 5500-5600/SF;cost model based on 5550/SF.
Briscoe School Location
11. Briscoe concept renovates existing building.Costs represent most interior walls are replaced(sound insulation,reconfiguration,structural work).
12. New roofing,mechanical(VRF with ERV),electrical(LED,1.5%Solar),plumbing(fixtures,underground services).
13. Costs reflect updating structure to current code,retaining existing masonry exterior,with new doors and windows. Includes new entry features and some new openings.
14. Renovating an existing building is a high sustainable strategy;includes sunshades and large solar area.
15. Renovation costs for significant renovation and repurposing ranges from 5300-$380/SF;cost model based on$340/SF.
16. Site work includes significant plinth feature to accommodate public interaction and accessibility(concrete walls and footings,stairs,railings,lighting,landscape).
Site costs range from$60-$100/SF;cost model based on$80/SF.
17. Entry feature(canopy,sunshades)costs range from 550-$100/SF;cost model based on$70/SF for wood canopy and light gauge steel supports.
Civic Center Location
18. Civic Center concept is a new building. Mechanical system is is VRF with ERV with potential for ground source heat pump.
19. Electrical is all LED lighting,1.5%Solar.Costs reflect structure as mass timber,masonry and metal panel envelope with wood accents.
20. New building allows options for highly sustainable design,sunshades,medium solar area,potential ground source heat pump.
21. Larger consolidated building allows more economy of scale,larger site facilitates better staging and less traffic control.
22. Location offers more design flexibility for concept and materials.May require off-site improvements(left-hand turn lane,etc.)not included in costs.
23.Site costs include lower allowance for demolition and abatement,with modest plaza and landscaping improvements.
Site costs range from 520-540/SF;cost model based on$30/SF.
24. New Civic Center costs range from 5425-$525/SF;cost model based on$475/SF.
SOFT COST MODELING ASSUMPTIONS(Non-Construction Costs)
25. Solar allowance calculated as 1.5%of Construction Subtotal.
26. For temporary facilities,assume$1.5/SF/Month for leased space outside of downtown.
27. Move costs based on professional mover(insured,prevailing wages)of$1.25/SF per move.
28.Other Soft Costs include permits,System Development Charges,design fees,furnishings,survey,geotechnical,and other miscellaneous costs.
When offsetting cost of selling ComDev building,soft costs increase to reflect soft costs based on construction value.
29. Project contingencies generally based on 15%for renovations,10%for new construction and site work.
Contingency is intended to address portions of hard and soft costs,and unforeseen construction conditions.
30. Escalation is currently volatile and difficult to predict over several years.Cost model estimates show escalation over the course of five years
calculated at an average of 5.5%per year(compounded).
Images are Conceptual. They are for visualization purposes
only and do not represent final design.
Ted S Hall PE
210 E. Nevada St. VC(— 3
Ashland, Oregon 97520
2/5/2019
Ashland City Hall Seismic/Safety Project
Request to ADD Baseline Options:
I respectfully request that the City Hall Seismic/Safety Project Design Alternatives be revised to
include the baseline options i-1 and i-2 . (See January 17,2017 City Council Business Meeting minutes)
Alternative i-1:
City Hall:Seismic Retrofit Only of"Current Space"
$5.8** Million( 2019$$)
7,720 SF. $751/SF
Alternative i-2
City Hall : New Construction of"Current Space"
$3.9****Million (2019$$)
7,720 SF $505/SF
Contrasted with Option#1 in today's report (Feb 5,2019)City Council Business Meeting Agenda:
Option#1:
City Hall: New Construction "Expanded Space"
$12.3 Million ( 2019$$)
15,500 SF $793/SF
**$6.5 Million. 1.055. 1.055 De-escalation#
# Reversed the Escalation of 5.5%per year from 2021-2019
****$4.4 Million. = 1.055. — 1.055 De-escalation#
# Reversed the Escalation of 5.5%per year from 2021-2019
( d,yi
J
•
Julie-Nonnan's Testimony to the Ashland City Council — Feb. 5, 2019
My name.is-Julie Norman. I own property and reside at 596 Heiman.- 3I 9-gt7
. First I would like to publicly thank the Ashland Parks Foundation, the Ashland
Parks and Rec Division, and Mr. Jeff Mangin for their integrity and community
spirit in putting their Japanese Garden Renovation Project on hold for a year.
'Last•Monday, a"large number Of local residents Who value the natural-beauty of
Lithia Park went through an unnecessary emotional roller coaster, when the
Parks Commission voted 3 to 2 in favor of a premature proposal from the
Ashland Parks Foundation to upgrade Lithia Park's Japanese Garden. Many
• citizens and.Ashland's Tree Commission had opposed the logging.of two four
foot wide legacy fir trees to make room for a bamboo grove, but were overruled.
This Parks Foundation's proposal was driven by a gift of$1.3 million from a well-
intentioned Board Member, Jeff Mangin, who wanted to build a world-class,
authentic Japanese Garden, in memory of his beloved wife Beatrice.
But all this planning screeched to a halt last Thursday, Jan. 31St, when Parks
Director Michael Black issued this press release:
"The plan for renovating the Japanese Garden in Lithia Park has been -
suspended, at least for the time being. The prospective donor for the
project has concluded it should be deferred and reconsidered. The donor's
concern is that a project, which proponents had envisioned as a
contribution to community harmony and enduring cultural value, has
become a source of,genuine community dissension.
The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission, in a split vote, had
• decided at its regular meeting last Monday, January 28, 2019, to move
forward with the Japanese Garden plans, as proposed by landscape
designer, Toru Tanaka. The most controversial aspect of the proposed
design involved removal of two existing Douglas Fir trees.
APRC Director, Michael A. Black, announced today the project will not-
proceed this year and its future is under review."
•
Had this suspension not been ordered, the Parks-•Cornmissiontwould have
quickly called on the Ashland City Council to approve a Supplemental City
Budget with a new $1.3 million dollar revenue line item for the Parks and Rec
Division to begin building the new garden.
Given the City's hands-off policy toward Parks and Rec management, stemming
from the 1908 Parks Commission Charter, I fear that City Council would have
•
quickly approved the Supplemental Budget, without crucial information about
_ financial risks from the Japanese Garden Project. _
Big expensive projects like this often incur (d) unforeseen expenses during
construction and (b) declining revenues for ongoing maintenance, especially
when large donations from private citizens are earmarked for public
investments. According to the City Attorney, the City of Ashland would ultimately
be liable to cover the Parks and Rec Division should this project go seriously.
into•the red.
One example of a potential construction cost overrun is the excavation of the
existing concrete structures and pouring new concrete to contain a grand
recirculating streamcourse (from top to bottom of the garden), with an 8 foot
waterfall and pond. The garden designer, Mr. Tanaka, had expressed his
1 worries about this problem, especially since a seasonal stream and several
springs underlie the garden, but these concerns were not explored.
One example of a potential revenue problem could be caused by increased •
maintenance costs, which are projected to jump from the current $20,000 per
year, to around $80,000 per year.Although the projects donor volunteered to
donate annual gifts of$60,000 to cover additional maintenance costs, at the
Jan. 24th Listening Session Mr. Mangin clarified that these $60K annual gifts.
would not continue indefinitely. Unfortunately, there is still confusion about this
pledge for maintenance, because the Jan. 24 Parks Commissioner Staff Report
mistakenly claims that Mr. Mangin's annual gifts are "permanent."
4So I would like to see the City Council devote 30 minutes of an upcoming Study .
•'f Session to discuss the pitfalls of accepting large gifts from private citizens,.with
the Japanese Garden Project as a case study. You could also explore how the
City might legally engage in oversight with the Parks Commission within the
Budget Process. [Alternatively, a group could meet with Mayor Stromberg and
Kelly Maddl'son, the City Council's liaisons to the Parks and Rec Division.]
We could start the conversation by examining the January comment letter you
all received from Matt Warshawsky, entitled, "Japanese Garden and using •
private money for public projects."
Name : .Matt Warshawsky
Email : mwarshawsky@azeotech.com
Subject: Japanese garden & using private money for public
projects
Message : I read today the article in the Daily Tidings from
yesterday concerning the Japanese Gardens and the trees
entitled. "protesters vow tb protect trees". It don't really have
-- -? ain opinion b t athe trees®r the-garden in particular, but I am - -
concerned about private money being used to direct public
projects. This issue was brought up,by Mike Faught when I
was on the Transportation Commission years ago with no real
resolution.
With cities strapped for cash,"I can understand The appeal
of a large donation to improve a part of the city, but this is
a very slippery slope, as you are talking about the city
making decisions based on who is giving them the money,
so private individuals can basically use Money to influence
local government to do what they want by dangling a
carrot in front of them. This was demonstrated perfectly in - ..
the article in a quote from Director Black: "He said if the
commission rejects the plan, there?s no guarantee that,the
grant for the remodel will rema i n as is, So, potentially
there could be no new garden if the design is rejected."
This directly implies that the city will only get the money if
the garden is built in a way that appeases the donors. Is
Lithia park for the donors pleasure, or for the public?
While I doubt there is ill will here, I see a very dangerous.
precedent. Let's say that I'm Steve Job's brother and heir
and have a place overlooking Llthia park. Out there are a
couple trees blocking my view. So I donate 5 Million
• dollars to redo the part of Lithia park that contains those
trees, and then I only approve the money if the design
takes those trees down. Sure, 5 mil is a lot to remove a
couple trees, but I've got money to spare,, enough to
convince the government to do what I want. The answer to
this is simple: yes, private individuals can donate money
for public projects, but that money has to be given with no
contingencies, except that it be used for a that project. The
donor gets no design input, and no input on when the
project is actually done, and once committed cannot
change their mind. The city only gets the money if they
actually do the project; and the money only times out after
a very long.period of inactivity (10+ years?). This keeps
the private party from influencing city planning. Matt W.
•
•
ASHLAND PARKS 8c RECREATION COMMISSION
340 S PIONEER STREET • ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
COMMISSIONERS: ■9 RA, Michael A.Black.AICP
Mike Gardiner Director
(4-15Joel Heller - �
Rick Landt ' �C i rr 541.488.5340
AshlandParksandRec.arg
Jim Lewis a nee`. F parkslnfo@ashland,ar.us
Julian Bell
PARKS COMMISSIONER STAFF REPORT bik
TO: Ashland Parks and Recreation Commissioners
FROM: Michael Black,APRC Director
DATE: January 24,2019
SUBJECT: Japanese Garden Project •
•
The Ashland Parks Foundation has proposed a renovation of the existing Japanese Style Garden in order
to create a truly authentic and ADA accessible Japanese Garden for the citizens of Ashland and APRC.
Ste The Foundation presents a'letter that asks the Commissioners to review and approve the plan as it is
currently constituted.The Foundation has also entered into a process of public input that has lasted
since the first scoping meeting in August of 2018,through several garden tours to the current point in
time.The Foundation has also taken the plan to the Historic Commission as well as to the Tree
Commission for their review.The plan was recommended for approval by the Historic Commission and
the plan was recommended for approval with a slight modification by the Tree Commission.
The Tree Commission dissented from the plan slightly due to the proposed removal of two Douglas Fir
trees.The Commission did a visual inspection of the trees and as a result,determined that they were
healthy.Consequently,the Tree Commission could not apply their criteria for removal to the trees and
therefore recommended that the trees remain and be incorporated into the plan.This report was first
given to the Commissioners last week at the APRC study session on January 14,2019.The result was the
desire of the Commissioners for a certified arborist to be engaged to analyze the two trees and prepare
a report on the health and longevity of the trees.
•
Staff did engage an arborist,Mike Oxman.The following is from the his report:
The metabolic condition of the 2 trees is healthy an.sound. The uniform taper of the trunks and
lack of cavities or seams indicates strong wood. The assymetricality of the canopy indicates
mature stand conditions resulting from close spacing of trees. The excavation of the root crown
to inspection confirms soil quality is good,and there is no decay of structural roots.
4e" h' • P A 12345 CV PA (v. 14 'FAR- Ke r
+ry Vey "re 6) Nt z-Am . 2p , za '4
The consequences of removal of the 2 largest trees in the grove could have adverse side effects.
The remaining trees have developed qualities of resisting stress from wind and other conditions
within the protected shelter of Tree#1 and Tree#2. The edge effect of newly exposed trees that
were previously shielded could promote unanticipated bieakage and tree failure.
Trees#1 and#2 have a low risk rating because they do not have such defects, and have a long
life expectancy. The life expectancy of this grove may be at least 20 years.
Cost of the Garden Renovation
The Foundation is prepared to cover up to$1,300,000 of expenses related to the design and renovation,
The grant of$1,300,000 is sufficient to cover the cost of the renovation.APRC staff-will offer support to
the construction with in-kind matches associated with some onsite construction and the use of some of
APRC's equipment.
In addition to the cost of the construction,APRC will also be concerned with the increased cost of
maintenance for the enhanced garden.Currently,the cost of maintenance and materials for the garden
is estimated at$20,000 per year.APRC has budgeted to cover those expenses and we will continue to
do so as part of Lithia Park.
It is anticipated that the cost of maintenance of the garden will increase almost four times,making the
new expense for the garden between$70,000 and$80,000 per year.The Foundation,through a
donation,has obligated$60,000 per year to APRC to cover the increased costs of maintenance for the
park.
In summary,expenses are expected to increase immediately upon the opening of the new Japanese
Garden.Those expenses could grow from$20,000 per year to approximately 675,000 per year.With an
endowment of$60,000 per year from the Foundation,coupled with the$20,000 per year from the APRC
budget.Staff is comfortable that the increase in maintenance will not cause an undue hardship on the
budget due to the endowment,which is permanent.
en—
A
,, II ^ L
Benefits to APRC ��V4 1 t G
The benefits of accepting the gift of the new Japanese Garden could be•condensed into the following
list:
1. By accepting the gift now and moving forward with the renovation,APRC will not have the
financial liability for the improvements that may be needed within the next decade.
2. The garden will be made to be authentic by the renovations,which will satisfy requests by the
Japanese Association of Southern Oregon to correct cultural mistakes in the garden.
3. The garden will be made ADA accessible by the renovations allowing a larger base to visit the
area. •
4. The garden has the potential to generate'revenue through rentals and suggested donations.
5. The tourism base to Lithia Park will be sustained by continuing to provide new and relevant
attractions for the public.
6. One portion of the Lithia Park Master Plan will be accomplished immediately by enriching the
life of the garden through the current century.
Staff's opinion is that there are many benefits to accepting the gift of the garden renovation and that
the pros far outweigh the cons for moving forward. •
Summary
The attached letter details a gift that is being offered to the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission
and Lithia Park.Staff feels that the gift is authentic and although it will require an increase in
maintenance to the Japanese Garden,and endowment has been created to address that concern.As •
mentioned above,there are many benefits to accepting the gift and moving forward with the plan.
The Foundation has made a request that the plan be voted on as it has been presented.Staff is
recommending that the Commissioners review the proposal and make a motion according the way the
plan has been presented.
Possible Motion •
•
I move to(approve or approve with conditions)the design for the Japanese Garden as presented by the
Ashland Parks Foundation and direct staff to begin the process of contracting the project and start
construction at the earliest point intime:
Attachments:Proposed Japanese Garden Design;Topographic Survey of the current Japanese Style
Garden;and, Mike Oxman,Arborist Report
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sk
•
January 23,2019 �o �� -
'4 1< S FO 401/4 0 i l tc dkI
Chair Mike Gardiner
Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission
340 South Pioneer Street
Ashland,OR 97520
Re:Lithia ParkJapanese Garden
Dear Mr.Gardiner,
The Ashland Parks Foundation(APF) has been presented with a gift in the form of funding that will allow
for the transformation of the existing"Japanese Style Garden" in Lithia Park to an authentic Japanese
Garden.APF has worked with Toru Tanaka,a nationally recognized designer,who has prepared the
attached Japanese Garden plan(The `Plan").The Plan is very specific to the space that already exists for
the current garden and includes a modest expansion on both the north and south side of the garden to
accommodate the Plan.
The Plan calls for the reorganization of the garden and the introduction of new elements,such as a koi
pond,moss gardens,sand and stone garden,a significant increase in the number of trees and ADA
accessible walking paths,in order to meet the following goals:
1. Ensure accessibility in the garden for all users
2. Create a design that allows for nodes,alcoves and sitting along paths
3. incorporate authentic elements into the plan
4. Ensure garden is protected from outside elements via appropriate fencing or barrier
5. Create an immersive Japanese Garden experience
6. Honor the history of the garden in the larger Lithia Park
The current garden property is owned by Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission (APRC)and is part
of Lithia Park.The board of directors of the APF are presenting the attached plan for the consideration
of APRC and we recommend that the Commissioners vote on the plan as it is presented.
Background
The design of the Garden began with the Lithia Park Master Plan(LPMP)site analysis process.During
this process the LPMP team reviewed the site and determined that a modest increase in the size of the
Japanese Garden would not be detrimental to the LPMP. In fact, it was commented on by the team that
the addition of the enhanced garden to the park would be a significant element to the longevity and
viability of the park, in general.
When it was determined that the LPMP planning process and the garden design process were not
disadvantageous to each other,the process began to move forward with garden design.Toru Tanaka,a
former director of the Portland Japanese Garden,was selected to complete the design and he began
work on the design in late Summer—early Fall of 2018.While Mr.Tanaka was busy preparing a
• sa9VA "r 1® 51.5I3 tin 3 .
i� .Nbt A a\4j0
. 'suol;daox°omn 441M'paaeldw
' eq mm ueds an;ueoglu8ls a 101 aoueya ou aney ley;uapoeS 8ul4sixa ay;aplsul saa;asoy;Aluo'/un;uaa
;ua.uno ay;;o'He tau jl'Aluofew 34410;isel Ipm ley;5991Aq;leay gym paoe(dal pue panowa eq saw;
0504 44ey;spuawwoaa ddy 04;pue Aylleay;ou ale saw;ay;;o awos'awoa o;op!Suoi a Aofua IIlm
pueAygeay we A;uofew ay;'saa;9504440'uapae8 ay;punwe Bale a;elpewwl ay;pue uapleD;uwina
ay;ul;elxa leyl peploaa wam ley;saw;y0T wam any;pp;ui weld ay;}o Aamns ay;y4m pan2ole;ea
wam 4244 saysnq;ueagluSls pue 5091;;o legwnu a4;we ueid ay;pue ssaaad ay;o;a;ou leinopoed}p I
.way a;eeullap ol;lnog}lp we ley;ueid ay;;o sued asoy;ale;ap seulmelp
payae;;e ayl va;;al sly;0!Il;ueswdal Algegl;sn(gape eq o;paauenu pue a;eauml ow s!ueid 941
•uapoeS ay;;noy8noo4;
sa;nol alglssaaoe goy se Ilam se'sue;1alem;uaulwold wow yllm wed weans pauSllea'puod!o4
ay;se!lam 5e 5991;mau OOZ 40 8ul;ueld pue uol;ezwe81o01 ay;ale ueid ayi}o s;uiod 094214 ay;;o awo5
•sleo8 pauolluawao;e 99;4.0 ne ssappe
11m;ey;uaple8 ayl 0;saZueya;o saps
9a asmogs a , ono}aylu el 941 ' 3
•b! .;). •(alydel8;ua3Bfpe
g;c # 13 aas)uapleS ay;;o,iepunog Sulls!xa ay;
:,.
o ..i ,I ;oylnos ay;o;pue yvouaylo;uolsuedxa
r FJ j :.1
j}'g:;,;� a• ' ;sapow e pue uapleS 94;10 uollood .
;uea!;iu8ls a}o Sul;ueldal pue 8ulpw2a1 ay;
1 ,• 104 glen ueid slyl'maina anoAlo;patinae
'`>,'n 5!pe ;ueda o I
,u,..A' 4 I 41 1leliwls Alan sl yalym
;' ,.;.,".1{;'
;
On the outskirts of the existing Japanese Garden is a grove of twelve significantly sized Douglas Fir trees.
On the leading southern edge of the grove are two of the largest trees of the group that fall within the
proposed boundary of the new Japanese Garden.APF acknowledges that these trees are healthy;
however,their location in the garden is not consistent with the proposed plan.and we recommend that
those two trees be removed.The wood from the trees could potentially be milled to provide materials
for the newJapanese Garden for fencing,benches and so on..The two large trees in question were
• planted with the grove of twelve in 1924 by the Boy Scouts of America.
Recommendation
Attached to this letter,you will find a professionally designed Plan for the renovation of the existing
Japanese Style Garden in Lithia Park.A generous donation has made this design possible and the same
donation will cover the expenses of the construction of the project.The APF wishes to gift this plan to
APRC with the funds to complete the construction.In addition,the donor,through the APF,is also
dedicating a yearly stipend of$60,000 for the increased maintenance cost of the garden.
The APF is very excited to be able to offer this gift to APRC and the citizens of Ashland.We hope that this
letter will solidify the gift that is being proposed and will find favor with the Commissioners.We truly
believe that this gift will be enjoyed for more than a century,just as the original plan for Lithia Park—
including a Japanese garden—has been enjoyed by residents and visitors alike for more than 100 years.
Thank you again for your consideration and partnership in this endeavor.
Your truly,
•
The Ashland Parks Foundation MD 1- S l 1° M t„ C)
lc eR u 'st; ttat � pk, e by
•
•
• •
t
, .
Y
.. � r
{ ' s R
`. •7
�. y.a
:r.„...„,
}
' _ i 4 ~ '� 2 as .• ' � = 3 f• �1 s i L . i i' y r'• ^ 1:, a ! t • , v,.
tj
(j'' [/qty .' r
}44p193 4C .•W 1,tr/ i'y 7
ffk/, � 4
i
\‘,...f2 i L . 4"Cte`�•
r r t a a`B
~ti\ „ � _ a « A'J ci i fi t ato '.-,�
n'e' e.� a 1' `17' C' '�• �`� Sd a °c' M gee. I
\-- 1111111-,44.1,341144:t 1I'(}�. - r} ^ sl � , 8�5..- °3" / %1'
SeY� � ? _t t K Rsh� i . .. 1I�
3 •..d r . r 1
`fit. g i r c. .i m.-• a qA lilt.ti; R 1.
��. . :4 X i... CTC,r vke° e_. aF _ . i :. ;;;yyyyyy .„ =,ti,
‘1—x
r a i Y, ; e'St Bt �,2� ,-.0..$4.5i 6a :+ 1 yti',R-
�K- 4�rl•� Jnf� 4. ? Ri{-F •'$ _ !� -iy n t-v `. 1"� .CS .•
Ap 1 �^ i
sit i :7'i '�9...�h _ j", i-c 1 LY r 2+ 'tY +Y r -
yi .,. d �i•.''S"�.`t� t5-y i- J .S�ii,' '00 .1/4119' . { N " `I i
a F
pt Zn
t & '� ",•/, rte` r... Y
•
•
,
•
I
M �, , , m
;'l'r{tt,� I(d°y'�"` l r��Nlyl5.- 7r -- �h ).7-7..ilR�arty OPOC rI!s.l1RVBY i•
lSSl��4 'i' )� A )h4- G, ".{. +el f ,C SLI4t'''. -
i l }' i u3ru �r Fz �;7 . i'St S�.¢47'Su-4, ,t R,,...+. ; ,iti4n ¢NO... „,
v r'- :1 ,41 ,t1A7is Y 5_�y 't" ,t-( 9 s-a.r �67},,, -6.Cm, s E
i 4Y 1� 5 fyf £ P ti n;:$1 P NtbPnri ]]Otl
' �' '3'L'$3`L� £ i4.�roroFF a I f `l RY S, N iq1 , i fi , F x v xr
`l
=r1==--� — x4i +(F�.ri CSr S aS r +s f 9 w n1 14 r ,-! n :IG a I Imun
I�., —P �. y�, 1^"' ' "i. r `,8r 4 4` •s4°ry y47^.�" 91 -}',.?7 ' vF,!
t���U-- 4i2 !,` ravt••YM.ice ,\ C� xs` 5 i I fit` , , °� r fy■ •
rrw. , 1 „y'A)�4T iR It t 1,,k,....•' ! Y4t l 4"F�4 5' (A [� ^'�c+I a 1,� N•
_ �!®,� � 0� iJ,¢nkEn,�rnC tq" �yy lu} V}a4� E 3Y 4i`^. 3 4 .,iy y.•.0/� "d fF_.Ra
)htk • p �� � a l'va nSJ. w4'yr F�'"Y „.741/4::, �) f(ea` H n} ,.d.,;:�., • I
Y '�}� I,ha�a'rX��.•. „)� T`-y' �c}3"+I� 1 �S' fNa�• tiJ .°,5.,,a�5,.
L &. h :�1 "x' pk � X14 }�' > �+ m F a i 1
. h.. r3 mtr 7 +el.ap .a 6 . ' + U._ d .
l-1"�'i5 �{y��' .��-� S" r S C"4,:::•,.:441t, �W >' IIpl6 IL�Aq �..,.. UM"
'� 'J,„ ..7•„•,e,'� 7:,44;;,‘ s fl>---"" �� 41( .r°- al mz�*...J-Y S,v^v .�r cal -"'''— m
T:F Lr tyd t {• 'm1 _
L; t 11"J VI"' R uc, max +.. iii F _
t- I =� I r SA'f'R 1 "TM ~ eCj k•3 11*.•:2--•S� (} � `, 3 ,••r'S 1y)atll +> b ""' -M
'I p ' 'vl �ti Y i ( dy"
•
T,:�� iif LI�"rsr�-F ��a4 143 .iSJ c*-vnst7 7 I -T ▪ — ..,, ,
_ �.� t;a�"s' ^.+§"i � F`rFo> tt'tatli !�� db`s`-��, 7 +F'la� 4 c "' 7 I I.
•p ;tank•
��' , 1 0 .� ggel P� Y� ;
�' i ; 4 vts 1r V• 1, s kl+hr n 15 ?• -- I•
II-4 IL
�G.ACC 4l °r 3 3�11��yS4(,t NTV"4".�rAJ-�qF 1 !'isi +d + ` `. :."....e.:...-..,...,.w...
Zo
�' f8fq. 11 �ti "� jN Std Y(I r,5 : •1'sYj A =N mw�.ou.anm ors v
�. ]ift:P .i 04.4� ':lw:.k`C.��. ..,r ... �' 1 , 1 (-▪ --� ;.. u.,,,,,, ... ▪ Y•R evamic man: U//.'naeVp%vT °•,••"'•••°°•
r 7 0
0
1
. P
. .
... ,
. .
•
. .
____ .
•
•
. .
Cell tower ato p building SOU OK'd ,
despite opponents warnings
BY JOHN DARLING / FOR THE TIDINGS June 27, 2018
h '
•
A sometimes boisterous crowd pleaded in vain Tuesday for the Ashland Planning Commission to
reverse staff approval of a permit for Verizon to put a cellphone tower atop Southern Oregon
University's Science Building.
Appellants cited a range of ailments they say are caused by overexposure to the devices, with Alan
Rathsam, an engineer, naming tumors, brain and breast cancer, reproductive impairment and bone
loss.
However, Commission Chairman Roger Pearce stated that a 1996 Federal Communication
Commission rule bars local agencies from considering any health or environmental issues in making
decisions about siting of cell towers.
Planners approved the application in May because it met requirements—minimum visual impact,
shielded by walls, generates only 21 to 23 decibels (half the limit), offers a co-location option (more
devices can be mounted at the same spot) and will have a conditional use permit because it's a bit
taller that the 40-foot limit of the building.
Verizon lawyer Mike Connors of Portland called the installation "invisible." When appellants claimed
there was no demonstrated need for it, Connors responded there was no criteria for"need"—and "If
there was no need, my client would not be doing this. We're not in the business of aggravating
neighbors."
Appellants reported many neighbors hadn't been given notice of the tower application, but city
planner Derek Severson said residents within 200 feet had been "noticed," twice the area required
by state law.
N
Appellants complained that SOU students, who comprise the bulk of humans exposed to emissions
daily, had not been notified —and no students attended the Tuesday hearing. Staff said they didn't
know whether students were told. Connors confirmed that notice didn't go out to students. A notice
was posted by the sidewalk in front of the building.
Although city polic encourages co-location for new devices, appellants objected, saying it opens the
door to further health problems. For the same reasons, they also objected to the possibility Verizon
would up the system from 4G to 5G (fifth generation).
"I can't tell you that's never going to happen," Connors said. "It will be a long evolution many years."
Resident TaraShea Ananda told the commission, "5G is an attack on our physiology and
consciousness. It threatens our ability to dream, to meditate, and to feel our connection with each
other. We don't have to roll over because of what the federal government said in 1996."
No one in the standing-room-only crowd spoke in favor of the tower, though a few said the jury is
out, awaiting solid proof of any health dangers. Local physician Amy Monroe said thousands of
studies leave her"very worried." Some 55 percent of the studies, she said, say electromagnetic
radiation is harmful and 45 percent say there's no health effect, so, she told the commission, "the
industry mantra is there's `no conclusive proof of harm."
Resident Darwin Thusius cautioned that an oft-cited article in Scientific American
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/)
actually explores strong findings on both sides.
Commissioner Troy Brown chided appellants for their cheers and applause (not allowed at city
meetings), adding they "call us on the carpet for something we don't have control over" but didn't
show up for an important wildfire prevention hearing, minutes earlier, "over which we have 100
percent control."
An organizer of cell tower opposition, Kelly Marcotulli, said the tower will give off"massive amounts
of radiation"that will kill bee colonies, cost the city a lot of money and "cause depopulation all so that
people can download a movie in 10 seconds instead of 20 and talk to a cousin in Bend while strolling
in Lithia Park."
"We'll fry, right along with bees," she said. "We're guinea pigs for this guy who came in here and
threatens our way of life. This is like cigarettes in the '50s, but here, the effects are inescapable."
Teacher Ivy Ross, another opposition organizer, said she wanted the Planning Commission to hold
off for 90 days so they could educate students and the public.
"SOU hasn't done any community education on this and Verizon pays them only$16,000 a year to
rent the spot,then Verizon is free to rent it to other companies," Ross said. 'We're not going to quit
the fight. We're putting up signage, researching, protesting, showing movies. We see this as a five-
or 10-year process. We're challenging the'96 law and the telecom industry."
The Verizon lawyer cautioned the panel, "Most of this testimony is health-related, not about approval
criteria. You're constrained by federal law. You are not policy makers."
Chairman Dawkins predicted, "This is going to LUBA,"the state Land Use Board of Appeals, a move
that could significantly delay the project. Opponents have 10 days from when notice of a final
decision is mailed to file an appeal to LUBA. That decision is expected to be formalized at the
commission's regular meeting on July 10, followed by mailing of notice of the decision to those to
took part in the hearing.
Since the initial decision was made by staff, the commission's consideration of the appeal is the
city's last word. It can't be appealed a second time to the council.
Commissioners recalled a near-identical brouhaha in 2010, when locals fought AT&T to a standstill
over a proposal for cell antennae atop Ashland Street Cinema and AT&T dropped the idea of placing
them there after the City Council said AT&T had to show they couldn't be co-located with existing
antennae elsewhere.
Marcotulli said in an email to the Tidings late Wednesday opponents plan to file an appeal with
LUBA.
John Darling is an Ashland freelance writer. Reach him at idarlinq(afeffnet.orq.
Story updated June 28 with information about opponents'intent to appeal the decision, correcting
information about how that's done (directly to LUBA, not to the City Council) and clarifying the
outcome of a previous proposal by AT&T.
1
Radiation information sites
https://www.telegra ph.co.uk/news/9619514/Mobile-phones-can-ca use-brain-tumou rs-court-
rules..html
http://www.createhealthvhomes.com/cellphone risks.php#1
http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/cell-towers-health-alerts/
https://www.voutu be.co m/watch?v=HCAvPMVuJ HY
https://www.voutu be.co m/watch?v=HCAvP MVuJ HY
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/citizens-arms-aga inst-5g-wireless-technology-rol l-out-are-
th eir-co ncerns-justifi e
http://mystreetmychoice.com/
https://www.electricsense.com/13826/treating-emf-impact/
https://apos.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DOC-349528A1.pdf
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about ntp/trpanel/2018/march/actions20180328 508.pdf
ht .: ehtrust.or: . contenrIu.loads Scientist-5G-a.peal-2017.pdf
https://ehtrust.org/about/
http://slowd igital.co m/2017/11/21/10-sci a ntists-q u otes-about-ra diation-that-m a ke-you-think/
https://www.quora.com/How-does-radiation-cause-cancer
https://ehtrust.o rg/science/bees-butterflies-wi I d life-research-electro magnet c-fi e l ds-
environment/
https://www.e nga dget.com/2018/01/29/fcc-alit-pa i-gove rn m ent-5g-n etwork/
https://www.sdxce ntra 1.co m articles news new-fcc-rules-may-lower-5g-network-costs-for-
verizon-a n d-att/2018/03/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-wav/2018/05/16/611598361/senate-a pproves-
overturning-fccs-net-neutrality-repeal
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34509513/ns/hea Ith-cancer/t/electrosmog-harming-our-
health/#.WwHZa9Mvx2Y
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/pages/goals.aspx
http://m ieuxprevenir.blogspot.com/2012/11/sa n-diego-state-university-brain-cancer.html
http://stopsmartmeters.org/
https://zero5g.com/
http://www.rense.com/general56/rad.htm
http://www.iiect.orgivol4/sp11/c0046.pdf
Hearing loss site
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13102818.2017.1373033
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-
cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/
- l-2 17.
5G Appeal https://ehtrust.org/wp content/uploads/Scientist 5G appea 0 p df
The danger inflicted by electromagnetic waves of a particular frequency generally
increases with frequency.This is because waves with higher frequencies have greater
penetration capabilities, due to the smaller wavelength.
So, as far as we know, gamma rays are seen to be the most harmful. It would take lead
linings, or blocks (depending on the intensity)to absorb them in a short distance.
But that doesn't make the others harmless.All of them have possible effects on living
tissue,but with lower probabilities of giving you cancer. Generally different ranges of
electromagnetic waves affect different materials(Affect = Have effect on, not necessarily
harmful).This phenomenon is what allows us to see the world around is in all its
beautiful colors.This,is also what causes sunburns,or skin cancer, in the extreme cases.
What actually causes the harm is the power delivered into your body cells by the wave.
Since most electromagnetic waves in the low frequency range have high rates of
absorption/diffusion in things you see around,like trees, earth,water,or any sort of
matter for that matter,what really causes the difference is your proximity to the source,
and the duration of exposure.
https://www.quora.com/W hv-are-radio-waves-more-harmful-than-visi ble-light-even-though-
ra d io-waves-have-lower-frequency
https://www.emfacts.com/2012/07/svm posium-on-tree-damage-by-electromagnetic-
radiation/
5G Sebastopol letter
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Letter-to-Seb-Verizon-SG.pdf
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-effects-of-cell-phones-and-bluetooth-on-nerve-function/
https://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-fcc-regarding.html
http://electro m agn eticsafepl a n et.com/
http://dailvtidi ngs.com/news/government/cell-tower-plan-ca n-proceed-commission-rules
http://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/sb-muni-code/
https://forbiddenknowledgety.net/first-5g-rollout-in-ca-causing-brain-damage-to-firefighters/
https://www.sm o m b i ega te.o rg/b rita i ns-first-Sg-court-case-and-the-people-won/
https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/perilous-5g-network/?utm campaign=news-
network&utm medium=newsletter&utm source=email&utm content=perilous-5g-
network&mpweb=144-7441574-744033473
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-b ig-wi reless-ma de-us-thi n k-that-ce I I-phones-are-safe-
a-speci a l-investigation/
https://www.thelancetcom/journals/lanplh/article/P IIS2542-519 6(18)30221-
3/fulltext7dgcid=raven jbs etoc email&fbclid=lwAR2jRB7rYg8YEW5n2DGn16HC o3z-
LzXSTYzkn-AhC180Usoa71- HxUEzc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9bdU uw2Dc DANA Ashlie
https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-cell-towers-
dangerous/?fbclid=lwAR2ERrJALBRLIIRodASmzl7gyo0cwL69ktXIGfOnmcB3aFCEtl6 -7z0V
718
http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/wi-fi-is-removed-from-schools-a nd.htm I
Oregon Climate Impacts:2019 is The Year for Bold Climate Legislation
JUAN DECLET-BARRETO,CLIMATE SCIENTIST I JANUARY 30,2019,4:46 PM EST
f.. SHORE
In the last decade or so,Oregon has endured destructive wildfires,reductions in snowpack,
and declining fisheries. First responder and resident Oregonian communities alike still
vividly recall the devastation brought by the 2003 B&B Complex wildfire.Although the
Beaver State had a good 2018 ski season,snowpack this winter is more than one-quarter
down from what has in the past been considered'normal'.Ocean acidification is killing
oyster and plankton in farms along the Oregon coast.
Oregon,along with other states in the Pacific Northwest,has enjoyed bountiful resources
like clean air,water,and forests that enable lifestyles built around outdoor recreation like
camping,skiing,and hunting,economies of natural resource extraction like logging,fishing,
and arming,as well as the rich cultural tapestry of Northwest tribes,including Wasco,
Paiute,Umatilla,Athabascans,Chinook,and numerous other idkiigenous peoples.UCS
published a fact sheet,Confronting Climate Change in Oregon,that demonstrates the climate
impacts,future risks,and costs associated with climate change in the state,and also
highlights the actions needed to reduce emissions of global warming pollution.
Oregon's current climate impacts and future risks
With the Pacific Northwest having warmed at least 1.5°F since the first half of the 20th
century,climate change is already being felt in the Beaver State.This warming has led to
• reductions in snow—some of it fell as rain instead—which means less snowpack.
Reductions in snowpack have increased wildfire risks and accelerated the pace of
snowmelt,increasing flood risks. Adding to the web of complex ecological interactions are
the human health,infrastructure,and economic impacts from changes in the climate.Rates
of infectious disease and heat-related illnesses,as well as requests for emergency food
assistance are on the rise.Less snow due to higher temperatures means less winter tourism
dollars;hops and barley production for beer-making are affected by changes in
temperatures,drought,and water.Less plankton means less food for Oregon's delicious
salmon,mackerel,and trout. The smoke and damage from the 2017 wildfires affected
tourism in the Columbia River Gorge,Three Sisters,and Mount Jefferson areas,causing
unhealthy air quality for about 160 days for sensitive groups,sparking a rise in emergency
room visits,canceling major events and closing Interstate 84,and causing job losses.
But there are many other things at risk that can't be measured in lost dollars.For the
Columbia River tribes,for example,salmon is an integral part of their culture–it is not just
a utilitarian resource of protein and wealth.It is also closely tied to their identity as a people
and is an indicator of their own cultural and physical health.It is fascinating to consider
how Salmon(yes-with a capital"5")takes on a human-like existence of his own,has his
own agency in First Nation cultures,and can teach all of us a lot about responsible,
sustainable,and ethical use of natural resources.
As the climate decade looms over us,Oregon needs to step up to drastically reduce heat-
trapping emissions
In confronting climate threats to the livelihoods and wellbeing of Oregonians,the state has
taken action to combat heat-trapping emissions.In 2007,Oregon enacted a renewable
portfolio standard (RPS),followed by ambitious legislative bills:dne;on clean fuels and
another to transition from coal to clean energy. And the state*so t goals of reducing heat-
trapping emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and to at least 75 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050.But although the RPS succeeded in meeting the 2010 emissions
reductions goals,the state is not on track to meet its goals for the decades leading up to the
mid-century. Advocates in Oregon are heeding the scientific international community's
warning that the 2030s—the"climate decade"—is our last chance to make drastic
emissions reductions if we are to avoid catastrophic impacts and that Oregon should adopt
goals for 2035.
Oregon's latest move to strengthen its ongoing commitment to reduce emissions is to pass
strong climate legislation in the 2019 legislative session,such as the Clean Energy Jobs(CEJ)
bill,which is supported by a broad coalition of clean energy and climate advocates,
including UCS.In broad terms,the key elements of strong climate legislation and a CEJ bill
include:
• Placing a declining cap and price on greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions from covered
entities.
• Ensuring that polluters pay the bulk of the costs of allowances,and that low-income
consumers are not adversely impacted.
• Using a market-based approach that ensures the lowest societal cost for achieving the
required greenhouse gas emissions reductions,drives the market for energy
efficiency,and levels the playing field for clean energy.
• Funding climate solutions and a transition to a clean energy economy that improves
livelihoods in underserved communities,including communities of color,tribal
communities,and rural and low-income communities.
But polluters are lobbying hard to"kick down the can"the CEJ bill's commitment to drastic
emissions reductions all the way to 2050—that's 30 years from now that Oregonians and
the planet don't have in order to avoid catastrophic impacts.In addition to the 2050 target,
advocates are also pushing for an interim reduction target in 2035 for inclusion in the draft
CEJ bill.The Sightline Institute's analysis is clear on how important an interim target is:
"Failing to meet the 2035 goal means a lot more unnecessary pollution.In total,[eliminating
the interim target] allows for an extra 106.7 MMT of carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e)
emissions by 2050.This is equivalent to losing out on a more than decade of pollution
reductions."
Oregon lawmakers did not pass the Clean Energy Jobs bill in 2018 but it's important to act
in 2019.Governor Kate Brown,Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Tina
Kotek are all committed to passing a climate bill,so prospects for the bill are good.But we
need to ensure that they confront the reality of climate change in Oregon and work to pass a
bill focused on advancing effective,science-based solutions for clean energy,transportation,
and investments in our communities.
SENATE DISTRICT 3
Senator Jeff Golden
Good for the Economy.
Good for the Environment.
Oregon's Clean Energy Policies
Drive Economic Growth
District 3 Benefits:1 ,559 Clean Energy Jobs*
_` mi ion
Private Investment
in solar and wind energy projects
•O_S.. � Generation Capacity
3. 1 from installed solar and wind energy
STATE
55,179 $6.7 billion 3,230 MW
WIDE total clean solar & wind energy solar & wind
energy jobs project investments energy capacity
BENEFITS 258 million peunebrlic
projects from renewable
M
'Includes jobs in the renewable energy,energy efficiency,grid/storage,and clean vehicles industries
SOURCES
Jobs:2018 U.S.Energy Employment Report,www.usaenergyjobs.org.data current through 2017;
Private Investment&Capacity:Kevala,www.cleanenergyprogress.com,data current through 2016;
Public Revenue:Renewable Northwest Oregon Factsheet,www.renewablenw.org,data current as of the 2016-17 tax year
Created November 2018
CITIZENS' BUDGET COMMITTEE APPOINMENT TALLY SHEET
Councilor Slattery Councilor Graham Councilor Akins Mayor Stromberg Councilor Seffinger Councilor Rosenthal Councilor Jensen Total
Jim Bachman v Sl v ro \e"-.'' V.
Harry David % / I
David Downey \// ✓ z
Paul Fisher / /
Mike Morris V V V.. ✓ ✓ 5
John Olson
1