Public Comments On Riverfront Development

Page 1 of2
You may have received this already ...

Sent from my Windows Phone
LED
From: Lori Lassen AlJG 2 'Hiq
Sent: 8/23/2013 11:50 AM . J ,, 7 LU ;"
CITY or= r'/\1 El\li
To: Warren Bednarz CIT''(
Cc: Anna Peterson; Brad Nanke; Chuck Bennett; Daniel Clem; Diana Dickey; Laura Tesler; Rich Clausen; Sheryl
Ann Thomas
Subject: Riverfront Development
>>>"Lori Lassen" 2013-08-23T12:37:40.219370 >>>
Hello Mr. Bednarz,
As the councilor representing my home in Salem, I am writing to urge you
to vote "no" on Mountain West's tax abatement proposal for the
riverfront property. It is disappointing that this is even being
considered given the current economic climate. Salem, like much of the
country, is just barely starting to recover from the economic downturn.
The last thing we should be considering is a tax advantage for a wealthy
company that can readily afford to foot the cost of development that
will give them great benefit.
I wrote back in June opposing the tax break for Marquis Companies that
is looking to build a rehab facility at this site. As I stated
previovsly, the vacancy rate in nursing homes in the Salem area is
already very high. Marquis is looking to move beds from Silvetion
thereby eliminating needed beds in that area so that they may glut the
market in Salem. By moving the beds, they do not have to go through the
"Cetiificate of Need" process which is in place to discourage
over-growth. It is my understanding that you denied their proposal.
This whole project may be advantageous to Mountain West and, of course,
they can do what they want with their money but I don't think this is
the best use of the land for the majority of Salem. The Rivers
Condominiums sits empty. The Meridian has been very slow to fill up. Why
more apartments now? The developer would not be wanting to build this if
it wasn't profitable so they should proceed without assistance from the
city through tax abatements. Mr. Tokarski has done many benevolent
things for Salem and I believe him to be a reputable businessperson, I
just think he should proceed on his own - accepting both the risks and
the rewards.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6B3EGWCl... 8/27/2013
I am certainly not anti-business or anti-growth. I own a nursing home
and Alzheimer's facility here in Salem and I own two homes in Salem. I
pay my fair share of taxes and I expect others to do the same.
Thank you,
Lori Lassen
Lori R. Lassen, Executive Director/ Attorney
Tierra Rose Senior Living Community
4254 Weathers Street, NE I Salem, Oregon 97301
P: 503.585.46021 F: 503.585.6002llori@tierrarose.com
This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or
otherwise exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or if it appears that you
have received this email in error, please
advise me immediately by reply email, keep the contents confidential,
and immediately delete the message
and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
Page 2 of2
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6B3EGWC1... 8/27/2013
From: Laurel simmons <danlaurel@hotmail.com>
Sent: 8/26/2013 8:50AM
To: Rich Clausen
Subject: FW: River Front Development
>>>
11
Laurel simmons
11
2013-08-26T08:50:49.658062 >>>
Page 1 of 1
DOGUMENTFILED
AUG 2 7 2013
qF SALEM
Cll Y
Councilor Clausen: We urge you to vote no on the river front development proposal that will be
presented tonight. Our river front is a treasure that should be developed with a long term strategly in
mind. Properly developed this area will become an extremely valuable centerpiece in Salem's future.
Notwithstanding the Carousel conflict, access to this resource is a challenge that does not appear to be
carefully thought through. As you know this area is now served by the primary arterial for all East and
West bound traffic going through Salem and already suffers from clog. Shoe homing another
development into the area without proper access will be a regrettable decision in the long term. Salem's
river front will ultimately include a density of condos to serve a huge retirement demographic and
others. So please think big and long term. The shmi cuts taken by the proposal on the table will only
come back to haunt us in the form of the much higher costs that it always takes to correct our mistakes.
This corner cutting proposal shouldn't even be considered to serve as the vanguard for this rare
opportunity and it certainly doesn't warrant your support. Thank you.
Dan and Laurel Simmons
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6E1BGWCl... 8/27/2013
From: Darwin
Sent: 8/26/2013 9:57AM
To: Rich Clausen
Subject: riverfront development
>>>"Darwin" 2013-08-26T09:57:31.007384 >>>
Page 1 of 1
DOCUIVJEI\IT FILED
AlJ(
' 2 7 '1fli1
. J - ~ LJ I,JiJ
S ~ 1 J Y or= SALEM
Cll Y f-1ECOFlDEJ1
I believe this development is for the developer rather than the city. The list of considerations as well as
alterations in the original plan perhaps revolves around dollar signs rather than an opportunity for the
city. The City councilors recognize this through their questioning- discussion of the tax considerations,
the rerouting of railroad. and streets and bringing in more strip mall type shops.
The water front should be expanded to bring in more opportunities such as multiple events or allowing
space to play while events are occurring.
Downtown Salem has multiple unoccupied stores, so why more stores. The waterfront via the railroad
bridge was to linlc the two Salems, to bring them to the waterfront rather to more congestion and
apartments.
The original plan contained a nursing rehab center which would not be suggested by the State of
Oregon's plan to limit growth rather suppmi alternative. Salem has multiple centers to receive this
impmiant service.
The U of 0 provided a great path to the future through their recent study. Was this just an academic
exercise or does this city continue to hold this a part of the plan.
A vision for this property would be link to the waterfront rather than detract from it.
The local farmer markets'- Wed and Saturday are growing and are looking for locations. Bring people
downtown, to shop at the market, to enjoy a ethic meals and performances may better serve the city than
an apartment complex. Cities around the world build their communities around their waterfronts rather
than the city building around an apartment site.
Thanlc you for your work.
Please vote no on this development.
Darwin Franlcenhoff
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6DADGWC... 8/27/2013
From: Roger
Sent: 8/26/2013 9:53AM
To: Rich Clausen
Subject: Mountain West access through the park entrance
>>>"Roger" 2013-08-26T09:53:09.661630 >>>
Page 1 of 1
OOCUIVIEI\IT FILED
AUG 2, 7 2013,
CITY Of= SALEM
CITY
I think that, before you seriously consider allowing the rich developers to burden us with traffic tie-ups,
you should take a closer look at the problems that already ensue during events at Riverfront Park, such
as will occur next Saturday. Try looking at the desperate lane changes by the left-lane drivers on Front
Street (coming from North Commercial St.) that want to enter at the Carousel. If you don't want to risk
joining the traffic from West Salem/Dallas that is heading to South Commercial or Trade St, try
climbing up onto the bridge and watch all of the brake lights when pedestrians actuate the crosswalk
signals. Suddenly, all of the traffic coming down the ramps from the Center Street bridge is backing up,
and the left-laners can't merge right twice in order to immediately nail the brakes for their right turn into
the Carousel entrance. Now envision adding construction traffic or a bunch of senior citizens that would
like to live downtown or visit friends that would be living there. Crunch a few cars there and watch
traffic back up across the bridge, through West Salem, etc.
True, the drivers from the west may not have any vote on the matter, but the horrendous foul-ups will
have resounding effects.
As a former senior permit analyst and speed zone investigator for ODOT, I tend to analyze traffic
patterns. Has ODOT's Region 2 Traffic office had any input?
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6DDAGWC... 8/27/2013
Page 1 of2
DOCUMENT FILED
'HI':!
~ w A t 1 G w 2 ~ l.U l3:
From: <byrne333@comcast.net> CITY OF SALEM
Sent: 8/26/2013 10:00 AM CnY FlECORDEFl
To: Anna Peterson; Brad Nanke; Chuck Bennett; Daniel Clem; Diana Dickey; Laura Tesler; Rich Clausen; Sheryl
Ann Thomas; Warren Bednarz
Subject: proposed easement for Mt West Investment Corporation
>>> "" 2013-08-26T10:00:15.582197 >>>
Hello:
I have been following the articles about the Mt West project. It came as a surprise to read in today's
paper that this issue hasn't generated a lot of public input, and that some council members were still
undecided. So please consider this input.
I am 100% opposed to granting an easement for Mt West. I can only assume you haven't received much
input on this issue because most citizens consider it a bad idea, and expect you to veto this idea for a
number of reasons.
1. The downtown park is crowded enough as it is. I don't want to see more traffic going into that narrow,
congested area. Allowing the development to gain access through the park will only back up traffic
more.
2. The estimated benefits to the city are just that- optimistic projections. There is no guaranty this
project will be successful, or bring in the money they are projecting.
3. Example: They think it will bring in 2.3 million in consumer spending over 10 years. People do not
suddenly get extra disposable income. Whatever spending is done at this location will simply mean that
same amount isn't spent somewhere else, most likely somewhere in Salem. S o what's the benefit?
4. The pedestrian bridge to Minto Brown will generate a lot more traffic in the park. I see the bridge as a
major attraction to the park, which will generate even more traffic and parking needs. We can't afford to
give up any space or allow access for non-park uses. And we all know that if the development gets the
easement, its users will take some of the park's parking spaces.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6D85GWCl... 8/27/2013
Page 2 of2
5. Please keep in mind all the other big ideas that have failed. Chuck Sides was a big developer, but look
at the problems for Keizer now with K eizer Station . How about Sunwest Management, which was once
considered one of the countries premier senior living providers.
6. Mountain West knew or should have known what would be involved in developing the land. The lack
of access was obvious when they purchased the land. The fact that they will now have to come up with
another plan for access is their problem, not the cities. And if the land is no use to them without the
easement, that is also their problem, not the cities.
Please do not be swayed by glowing estimates of financial benefits that may never happen. Instead, look
at the popularity of the park, and the increased use of the park in the future due t o the pedestrian bridge.
Allowing non-park traffic through the area, and the use of the park's parking lot for their over-flow
parking, just doesn't make sense.
Theresa Byrne
1175 Duffield Heights Ave SE
Salem Or 97302
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\521 C6D85GWC 1... 8/27/2013
From: l<ath't' Dalton <kmdalton1@gmail.com>
Sent: 8/26/2013 10:19 AM
To: Rich Clausen
Subject: Carousel parking too narrow for parents: lose 24 inches between cars
>>>"Kathy Dalton" 2013-08-26T10:19:00.529800 >>>
Please vote no to the project as currently proposed.
Problem: Proposed "compact" parking spaces are inadequate due to width of
space.
*Proposed "compact'' parking slots are too small for the majority of
carousel/playground users. A "compact" parking space is 12 inches narrower
than a "regular" parking space.
My observation tells me that the majority of Carousel and Playground users
are parents with young children who are in car seats or infant carriers.
Parents need wider parking spaces to allow room for getting children
in/out of their cars. Compact spaces will narrow the space between cars by
a full2 feet thus making it even more difficult for in/out access for
children.
Other negative impacts:
*There will be too much traffic for the current small access point across
the railroad tracks.
danger for pedestrians due to increased auto traffic from
Development.
*Traffic increase from Development will increasingly interrupt smooth flow
of auto/truck traffic fmm Hwy 22 bridge and Front Street.
*Area is congested now ... future growth means even more backed up
autos/trucks than we currently have.
*Do not provide tax incentive that would allow a 10 year grace period on
property taxes.! am a Salem small business owner. Like every business
owner, the Developer's number one goal is to turn a profit. If they do not
have adequate funds to support their venture, then they need to modify
their project enough to attract the necessary capital from private
investors. That riverfront property is extremely valuable. The right
developers should not have any trouble accessing private funds to support
their project. The City of Salem "holds the cards" for long-term
development of that space. Do not your leverage slip through your fingers.
Thank you.
Kathy Dalton
Page 1 of 1
DOCUIVIENT FILED

AUG 7 LUL}
OF ;:;,1\LEf\/i
CITY HFGOFlD[ri
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6D3FGWCl... 8/27/2013
From: Sara Swan born <s@swanborn.net>
Sent: 8/26/2013 10:40 AM
Page 1 of 1
DQCUMEJ\JT.Ell:.ED
AUG 2. 7 20131
To: Warren Bednarz CIJY OF SALEM
Cl! Y PE(;OFiDFF'
Cc: Brad Nanke; Chuck Bennett; Daniel Clem; Diana Dickey; Laura Tesler; Rich Clausen; Sheryl Ann Tltomas ~
1
Subject: Riverfront Park proposal
>>>"Sara Swanborn" 2013-08-26Tl0:40:33.284446 >>>
Dear Mr. Bednarz,
I read in the newspaper this morning that you haven't heard a lot of strong opinions one way or the other on
the proposed development project that would allow a private development company to reconfigure our
public park to provide access to their site. My husband and I believe strongly that Salem should NOT
accommodate the developer's request, for several reasons.
First and foremost, we believe that the increased traffic past the Carousel, and the alteration of the parking
next to the Carousel, would make the area extremely dangerous for the public, especially the small children
who use the Carousel and the adjacent playground. Anyone who uses that parking lot can tell you that it is
already difficult to navigate even with its current limited use. If it were to become a thoroughfare for
hundreds of vehicles on a daily basis the risk would increase exponentially. It would only take one tragic
accident for everyone to regret that decision.
Second, we believe it is irresponsible to develop so many proposed residences with such limited access over
the railroad crossing. If a train were to become stalled or derailed in that location, it would be extremely
difficult for emergency responders to gain access to the site. The option to use sidewalks for emergency
access presupposes that a stalled train doesn't span the length of the park -- which freight trains often do --
and further endangers the safety of pedestrians in an emergency. If safety vehicles are using the sidewalks,
where do the people go?
The developer argues that this plan will "revitalize" downtown by providing residences and (temporary)
jobs. Perhaps he hasn't noticed that downtown already has an overabundance of high-cost housing both for
rent and for sale, and more on the way -- including the units he proposes to construct on the east side of the
Boise Cascade property. Unlike Portland, Salem doesn't have the kind of urban population to justify the
addition of over 100 new units (let's learn from the Meridian debacle!), nor does it have the urban
infrastructure to accommodate the proposed increase in downtown population. And if the proposed tenants
should exist, the extensive tax breaks that the developer requests would be needed to support an increase in
public services and schools -- increases that the public will eventually be paying for.
Tax issues aside, the citizens of Salem should not have to compromise our safety or our access to public
spaces to help the developer realize a massive return on his investment. There is not a single benefit that this
project represents to the average citizen of Salem, and there are plenty of dangers and drawbacks. We urge
you to vote no on this request.
Sincerely,
Sara and Jeroen Swanborn
3734 Felton St S
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6D03GWCI... 8/27/2013
For the record.
From: Susan Clark
Sent: 8/26/2013 2:05 PM
To: Rich Clausen
Subject: tonight's vote on Riverfront Park project
>>>"Susan Clark" 2013-08-26T14:09:48.658780 >>>
Dear Rich,
I am a voter in Ward 4 and would like you to delay passing this
Page 1 of 1
IJOGUMENI El
plan with Mountain West Development. Of course this family is eager to make money from their
investment.
But please, please make sure this is the best use of this prime real estate. All of us in Salem will be
affected by your decision.
It doesn't sound like enough research has gone into the impact of traffic and parking. I wonder who is
going to want to live there
with trains passing by that closely?
Please take your time with this and make sure it's right before it goes further. We want some thing
wonderful in there,
not some thing we' 11 regret.
Thanks for your consideration,
Susan Clark
2341 Teal Dr. SE
Salem,'OR 97306
scmc 7 06@comcast.net
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6C39GWCl... 8/27/2013
Page 1 of 1
For the record.
DOCUIVIEI\IT FILED
From: Amoreeena <amoreeena@comcast.net>
AUG 7 zan;
Sent: 8/26/2013 3:47PM CITY 01= SALEM
To: Brad Nanke; Chuck Bennett; Daniel Clem; Diana Dickey; Laura Tesler; Rich Clausen;
Warren Bednarz
Subject: Vote NO on Pringle Square's Plan
>>> "Amoreeena" 2013-08-26T15:54:44.957685 >>>
I STRONGLY object to the proposed access via the Carousel Parking lot!
I frequently take my grandchildren to the park and parking, the entrance & exit are all ALREADY a
nightmare!
PLEASE, DO NOT approve this plan until a completely different Access road is available ... preferably
from Commercial St.
Jacqueline Allen
South Salem
Vote NO on Pringle Square's Plan at City Council on August 26th. ! ! ! ! !
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6B01GWC1... 8/27/2013
For the record.
From: John Allen <racercarboy@comcast.net>
Sent: 8/26/2013 3:56PM
Page 1 of 1
DOCUI\IIEI\ff FILED
AUG 2,7 20HJ
CITY OF S/\LEM_
( ~ I T Y FlE.CORDEJl
To: Brad Nanke; Chuck Bennett; Daniel Clem; Diana Dickey; Laura Tesler; Rich Clausen; Sheryl Ann Thomas;
Warren Bednarz
Subject: Vote NO on Pringle Square's Plan
>>>"John Allen" 2013-08-26T15:56:40.703399 >>>
The Apartment Complex access road to this proposed project is a COMPLETE DISASTER!
PLEASE DO NOT approve this plan until a BETTER access road is figured out.
It would be a travesty to move forward with this plan as it is!
Vote NO on Pringle Square's Plan at City Council on August 26th!
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C6B38GWC1... 8/27/2013
Page 1 of 1
For the record.
UiVIENT FILID
From: Jeanine Stice
Sent: 8/26/2013 4:44PM CITY OF SALEM
-:ITY
To: Brad Nanke; Chuck Bennett; Daniel Clem; Diana Dickey:; Laura Tesler; Rich Clausen; Sheryl Ann :.
Bednarz
Subject: Please consider voting YES on Pringle Park Square
>>>"Jeanine Stice" 2013-08-26T16:44:36.611687 >>>
Good Evening Councilors,
I'm writing because this morning I received an unsolicited request to send
you an email to vote against Pringle Square. By this time of the day you've
probably been inundated with folks like me who received an email using fear
tactics mixed with facts to get us to write councilors. I do not agree with
the message and definitely don't agree with stirring up unneeded fear in the
community that ultimately stunts common sense for what is greatly needed
downtown. Unfortunately I'm unable to testify due to my son's soccer
practice.
My husband and I have followed the extensive work that has been vetted by
city staff on proposed use of the Boise site and feel the vision for the
site is a good one that would serve the community well by increasing the
number of people who call downtown home. The opposition in the email I
received today blows the easement issue out of perspective and is overblown.
What p,arent would leave their child unattended at the park, heck isn't the
river a risk itself even without an emergency for a child to play beside?
Please consider common sense rather than fear when you vote tonight, and
realize there are many like me who received unsolicited encouragement to
write you with much less understanding on the issue, except what they
received today in a one sided email drafted by those who are guided by fear
rather than optimism when it comes to progress.
Sincerely,
Jeanine Stice,
Salem Oregon
503-428-1882
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\521 C6A99GWC 1... 8/27/2013
Salem City Council Needs To Hear From You Today Page 1 of2
Kathy Hall - RE: Salem City Council Needs To Hear From You Today
From: Scarlet O'Hara <normousbutler@msn.com>
To: "citycouncil @cityofsalem. net" <citycouncil @cityofsalem. net>
Date: 8/26/2013 7:12PM
DOCUIV\ENT FIL.ED
AUG 2. 7 2nn
Subject: RE: Salem City Council Needs To Hear From You Today
anything to help our economy
G.J.W. Darnall
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:02:01 +0000
From: info@salemchamber.org
Subject: Salem City Council Needs To Hear From You Today
To: normousbutler@msn.com
CITY or :3AU:::fyL
CITY
If you are having trouble viewing this message or would like to share it on a social network, you can
I
Salem's City Council Needs to Hear From You
This past legislative session, Chamber members mobilized as a team to bring real
small business stories to the capitol building over a dozen times. Today, we need your
help in doing the same thing in preparation for tonight's city council meeting on the
redevelopment of the former Boise cascade site.
One of the biggest development projects Is on the verge of losing ground if they do not garner enough votes on
City Council tonight to move forward with their plans. You've seen the press coverage over the past month and
now it's time to take a moment to send personal messages to Salem City Councilors.
To many of us, green lighting this project seems like a no brainer, but there is more political pressure on City
Council in this instance due to the fact that public park land must be reconfigured in order to allow the access to
the former development site. The Issue is minor in scope with a well thought out solution ready to go which keeps
park goers safe while allowing the development to move forward.
We're asking you to take 15 minutes and send a personal message to: citycouncll@cityofsalem.net
We're also asking you to email your circles of influence. City Council needs to hear from your friends, peers, and
family as well.
The economic impact figures are below along with few other talking points that are relevant. Feel free to use them
in your own way.
1) An analysis done by Mountain West Investments shows that the apartment units if developed would fill up
completely within the first year. That means hundreds of new residents living downtown which creates new
demand for higher levels of economic activity in downtown Salem.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521BA888GWC1... 8/27/2013
Salem City Council Needs To Hear From You Today Page 2 of2
2) Salem needs jobs and an economic catalyst. This project is ready to go- all Salem City Council needs to do is say
yes to a $41 million dollar investment and show that we're open to business.
3) Tens of thousands of cars drive by this site every week. If we do nothing this site will continue to send a
message to every commuter driving through Salem. The opposite is also true. If they see investment, construction,
and people working to build Salem, it will be some of the most positive "visual" economic activity we will have
seen in this city in years.
Here are the numbers from the EcoNorthwest economic impact report:
Construction Impact: $41 million and 388 jobs
Ongoing Impact: $17.7 million annually, supporting 190 jobs
TOTAL 10-YEAR IMPACT: Nearly $220 million and 190 jobs annually (plus 388 construction jobs
Property Taxes: $110,000 annually starting in 2023
If these projects do not move forward, we get $77,000 total property taxes for the next ten years- that's $7,700
per year and no jobs, as compared to $220 million and 190 jobs. Now, we recognize that these funds do not flow
into the general fund, but they will continue to flow into the Urban Renewal Agency and be able to be used for
spurring additional economic activity in the South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area.
Thank you for your efforts in moving this project forward.
Copyright 2012
Salem Area Chamber of Commerce
www.salemchamber.org
1110 Commercial St NE
Salem, Oregon, 97301
info@salemchamber.org
Unsubscribe I Update My Profile I Privacy Policy
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521BA888GWC1... 8/27/2013
Kathy Hall - river front park
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"RICHARD VAN ORMAN" <richardvanorman@msn.com>
<citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
8/26/2013 7:16PM
river front park
River Front Park is a gem, one of the best thing Salem has going for it.
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT FiLED
AUG 2.? 2013:
s:;Jry Of= SALFM
... ctr:y FlECOfiDEH
WHY do you want to ruin that natural beauty with another apartment building plus create traffic
problems?
I do not want to pay their taxes with your write off you are giving them, on an apartment I could
not afford to live in ... vote NO
Richard Van Orman
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521BA99FGWC1... 8/27/2013
Kathy Hall - The Boise site project
From: <keizerfire@aol.com>
To: <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 8/26/2013 7:37PM
Subject: The Boise site project
Page 1 of 1
AUG 2. 7 2013
CITY OF SALE::IVI
CITY !:1ECOFlD[FI
Despite the longwinded email cajoling us to support this project, and to contact you with our support, I
absolutely DO NOT support this project, and I do not believe this project should receive a tax credit.
Lisa Richardson
574 Bliler Ave NE
Salem, OR 97301
503-851-7673
kei zerfi re@ao I. com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\521BAE68GWC 1... 8/27/2013
J
Page 1 of 1
Kathy Hall - development of riverfront
From: <sallydore@aol.com>
DOCUMENT 1::1
Date: 8/26/2013 10:13 PM
A I
I G ~ , 2 ~ ) 'lf113
col ~ { 1.-)f
Subject: development of riverfront
I have been a taxpaying citizen of Salem for 20 years now. The further development of Riverfront Park has
dragged its heels and left Salem guessing for too long now. Please allow the development to move ahead. If this
fails it will take another 20 years before something is done and our city will die before then. It's almost dead now.
We are tired of waiting.
Sincerely,
Sally Jasper
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521BD30CGWCl... 8/27/2013
From:
To:
Date:
Ann Watters <ann.sue@icloud.com>
<citycouncil@cityofsalem. net>
8/27/2013 7:52AM
FlLEU
AUG 2 7 2013
Subject:
public vote ..
Riverfront access issue draws fierce debate Public park stays a public park .. Put this to a
Put this on the ballot and cease and desist all this debate. This is for the public to decide not just the city
council. Are you listening? Ann
http://www. statesman jou rna I. com/article/20 130827/8 US IN ESS/308260043/Riverfront -access-issue-draws-
fierce-debate?nclick_ check= 1
Ann Watters RPP,RPE,BCPP
Polarity Center of Salem
1940 Breyman NE
Salem, Or 97301-4352
503-581-6512
Kathy Hall - Boise-Cascade Site Development
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Bailey" <brightroom@comcast.net>
8/27/2013 9:43AM
Boise-Cascade Site Development
Page 1 of 1
UIVIENT Fl LJ
AUG 2, 7 2B13
CITY OF SAL t::t\1
C:ITY FlECOill5r::};
We urge all counselors to vote no at the upcoming Council meeting on the current proposed development plan
for the B-C site. There must be a way other than accessing the portion of the site that lies west of the RR right-
of-way. We realize that the undeveloped and partially dismantled paper mill buildings on the site are an
eyesore and an embarrassment. BUT the city has developed a fabulous River Front Park and complementing
amenities a source of pride and a joy to us all. We should do nothing to denigrate current and future amenities
at the Park. If that portion of B-C site west of the tracks cannot be developed without accessing thru or adjacent
to the Carousel then perhaps at some future time the City will be able to acquire this property and add it to the
River Front Park complex. Encouragedevelopment of that part east of the tracks with access south of the site.
We urge you to vote NO on the present proposal.
Tom and Brada Bailey
2775 Holiday DriveS.
Salem, OR, 97302
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C74CCGWC1... 8/27/2013
Kathy Hall - Boise Cascade Site development
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Smith, Scott (Securitas)" <scott.l.smith@hp.com>
"citycouncil@cityofsalem.net'' <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
8/27/2013 10:35 AM
Boise Cascade Site development
Building "apartments" in that area is a horrible idea.
Page 1 of2
DOCUIVlEI\IT Fl U
Au
(' 2 I:"'J 'Hl1)
1
lJ , ( LlJI

I have been a citizen I resident of Salem for roughly 50 years. My parents and grandparents for at least 80 years
before that.
I remember well, the Boise Cascade location when it was at the height of production. Both what it did "for" the
community and
what it did "to" the community.
I can't say that I'm sad to see it gone, but at the same time I don't like the way the company and all of the
families they employed
suffered from a "death of a thousand cuts" under the heavy hand of liberal, enviro-whacko movement that
ramped up
during the Barbara Roberts governorship, and then continued under the miserable John Kitzhaber.
Since the decimation of the Boise Riverfront Site the city has stepped in and redeveloped a park area that,
though is visually
appealing, has amounted to little more than another "community center" like the Waterfront Park in Portland
where the city's
lowest common denominator can congregate with the single mom I babysitter crowd and their broods.
Point is, the city has taken over these areas and made them virtually useless by repeating existing park lands and
prohibiting
any real commerce without permits, etc. Why should we assume that this project would be any different?
Essentially, apartments do not generate revenue or business in the area, except for the landlord. The city is
already not
developed to handle existing traffic. The construction phase would be an absolute traffic NIGHTMARE. People
living in those
apartments will need somewhere to park their vehicles, adding to the problem. Assuming it is riverfront view
with a public
park below, these apartments will be exclusively priced. Meaning no one but rich dentists and chiropractors and
people with
family money will be able to afford living there. That being the case, those people are NOT going to be shopping
at the
hole in the wall, run down store fronts of downtown Salem. They will not be buying hot dogs and cigarettes and
getting
tattoos at the 3 hepatitis pits around downtown either. These will likely also be a large component of older
people who
hold onto their money, not spending it around town frivolously.
The jobs created by this project will not be sustainable. It will be short term contract work, performed by union
contractors
at overpriced rates, or low bid Hispanic subcontractors who often do sub-par and under the table work.
The only thing worse than apartments would be to build another business office that sits empty for years. Heck,
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C80E5GWC1... 8/27/2013
Page 2 of2
Salem
can't even support enough business to keep the old Lipman's building full.
You want to create jobs and revenue? Try building a center there that supports the kind of business that thrives.
Bid out the opportunity to a big, known corporation like Hard Rock Cafe who could put a big restaurant and
family amusement
center in there. Treat it like Pier 39 in San Francisco.
Scott L Smith
Securitas USA, Inc.
HP Corvallis, OR
541 230-0157
scott.l.sm ith@ h p.com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C80E5GWCl... 8/27/2013
Kathy Hall
From: Phyllis Theodorson <lilyonjordan@yahoo.com>
To: "citycouncil@cityofsalem.net" <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 8/27/2013 12:11 PM
Page 1 of 1
DOCUIVIENT
2, 7 2013
lJY
Y R:CORDEF1
OUR PARl(, and the joy it currently brings to citizens of OUR CITY should not be
redesigned to make space for a large apartment
building at this time. Please look at the huge complexes that are already built and sitting
nearly empty.
Any thing that interfers with the park as is, or the carousel does nothing for our city at
this time.
well it does fatten the pockets of builders and developers.
I urge you to vote NO ON THIS ISSUE. PHyllis Theodorson CITIZEN
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521C9765GWCl... 8/27/2013
Page 1 of 1
Kathy Hall- Re: Yes! Grant an easement across Riverfront Park for the redevelopment of the
Boise Cascade site
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Catherine S. Yao" <cyao@ghrlawyers.com> AUG 2. 7 2013
<citycouncil@cityofsalem.net> C ~ I T Y OF SALEfVi
8/27/2013 1:22PM c:ITY FlECORD!=Fl
Re: Yes! Grant an easement across Riverfront Park for the redevelopment ofthe Boise
Cascade site
Dear City Council Members:
I strongly urge you to a grant an easement across Riverfront Park property for traffic access to the developers of
the Boise Cascade site.
This site is an eye sore. The current plan is the best plan for redeveloping the site for use by Salem residents and
visitors and for increased economic activity in Salem. An analysis done by Mountain West Investments shows
that the apartment units if developed would fill up completely within the first year. That means hundreds of
new residents living downtown, creating new demand for higher levels of economic activity in downtown Salem.
Salem needs jobs and an economic catalyst. This project is ready to go- all Salem City Council needs to do is say
yes to a $41 million dollar investment and show that Salem open for business. Tens of thousands of cars drive
by this site every week. If we do nothing this site will continue to send a message to every commuter driving
through Salem. The opposite is also true. If they see investment, construction, and people working to build
Salem, it will be some of the most positive "visual" economic activity we will have seen in this city in years.
The EcoNorthwest economic impact report found that the proposed development would bring $41 million and
388 jobs by its construction alone. It found the ongoing impact to be $17.7 million annually, supporting 190
jobs. The total10-year impact was found to be nearly $220 million and 190 jobs annually (plus 388 construction
jobs). The property taxes collected from the redevelopment would be $110,000 annually starting in 2023.
Please vote YES and grant the developers of the Boise Cascade site an easement across Riverfront Park
property for traffic access. Salem needs this project to proceed and to be completed so that all of the
economic benefits can be realized.
Sincerely,
Catherine S. Yao
Catherine Schulist Yao
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521CA821GWC1... 8/27/2013
Kathy Hall - Boise Cascade Project -- support for access/tax abatement
From: Shelly Jamieson <shelly.jamieson@hotmail.com>
To:
11
citycouncil @cityofsalem. net
11
<citycou neil @cityofsalem. net>
Date: 8/27/2013 1:44PM
Subject: Boise Cascade Project-- support for access/tax abatement
Page 1 of 1
UI\IIEf\JT Fl LED
AUG 2. 7 2Ul31
CITY or: SALEM
:IT'( rn=cor-iDER
I am writing to express my complete support for the continued development of the Boise Cascade
project Specifically, I would offer my opinion that the access needed for the developer to continue the
process be approved as well as the tax abatement. I look forward to elimination of this eyesore in
downtown Salem and the positive impact of this exciting new development for our community.
Sincerely,
Shelly Jamieson
1415 Ranier Loop NW
Salem, OR 97304
503-559-7051
file:/ /C: \Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\521 CAD 51 G WC 1... 8/27/2013
Page 1 of 1
It is with excitement that I write this to encourage you to allow Larry Tokarski and Mountain West
Development develop this site which will not only bring additional jobs to Salem, but will also have
many other opportunities sich as housing, offices, restaurant facilities to the downtown area.
Salem needs positive development, especially in this area of Salem which has been an eye sore for
many years. Yes, with development comes many other safety concerns, but our city can and will
determine the best way handle the safety issues that surround this big of an issue. AS you
consider the improvements to downtown Salem, I urge you to allow development by these two
groups as it is WHAT IS BEST for Salem!
Leslie Nicholas
Coldwell Banker
Mountain West Real Estate, Inc
503-930-1926
DOCUMENT FILED
AUG 2 8 2013
C)TY OF SALEM
Cl fY FlECORDER
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521D97DCGWC1... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall - Riverfront Park development
From: J Stembridge <stembrij@yahoo.com>
To: city council <Citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 8/28/2013 6:54AM
Subject: Riverfront Park development
Dear Mayor Peterson and City Counselors,
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT Fl LED
AUG 2 8 2013
C ~ I T Y OF:: SALEM
CllYF1ECORDER
I have lived in Salem for 35 years, and love our city. One of the treasures of our city is our
Riverfront Park, with its potential to link Minto Island to downtown and West Salem. I have
often walked and bicycled the three areas and believe any private encroachment onto the
public space will degrade the Riverfront Park and discourage public usage of the established
parks. Please do not approve the project to put high rise condos on the property. I believe
such a development would "cordon off" the view from the public, and create the feel that our
beautiful Riverfront Park (and the soon to be bridge to Minto Island) would simply be the
private domain of the high rise condo owners. Surely Mountain West Development
Corporation can create a less intimidating multi-use project that would not require Riverfront
Park to be "sacrificed". Please vote "NO" on this project.
Thank you for your service to our community, and for your interest in my comments.
Sincerely,
Joan Stembridge
503 569-7968
1695 Winter Street S.E.
Salem, OR 97302
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521D9EBCGWC1 ... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall- Riverfront project
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Karla Spence <spenceld<:arla@gmail.com>
8/28/2013 6:55AM
Riverfront project
City Councilors,
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT Fl D
AUG 2 8 2013
CITY SALEM
C
I take my children and grandchildren to Riverfront Park often. I walk my dog there almost daily,
enjoying the beauty of this wonderful park.
I've also kept track of the issue of what to do with that ugly 13 acre track of land. I wholeheartedly
support Mountain West Investment Corp's vision of developing that track. I think they have more than
adequately addressed EVERY concern raised.
Not only will this project offer mixed use urban development, housing, shops and added beauty to the
park, it will also add jobs and revitalize our downtown core.
I know you've heard all the pros and cons on this subject. I just want you to know that I and my family
fully and enthusiastically support the development project. If not this project, there will be NO
development on this eyesore.
Karla Spence
675 20th St. NE
Salem
503-931-1049
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521D9EE8GWC1... 8/28/2013
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
LA <bentson4@msn.com>
"citycouncil@cityofsalem. net" <citycou ncil@cityofsalem. net>
8/28/2013 7:05 AM
Riverfront project
DOCUMENT FILED
AUG 2 8 2013
CIJY OF Si\LEI\!1
CITY HE:COFlDEJi
> In essence the developers are asking the city of Salem to compromise, to alter a vision and project that
has been evolving very nicely for 10 years now.
> My vote to allow easement at the State street entrance is No.
> But I offer an alternative. Work with the developers to modify the state law that limits crossings at the rr,
cross over at Bellevue. This exception seems like it would be justified. And 12/13 st is a railroad through
town that has unlimited crossings- surely one additional for a project of this merit could be allowed.
> Lee-Anne Bentson
Kathy Hall - Riverfront Park development access
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Ronald G." <rag7 @comcast.net>
8/28/2013 8:38AM
Riverfront Park development access
City of Salem Council Members,
Page 1 of 1
DOCUIVIENr I::ILEIJ
AUG 2 8 20B1
Ci"rY' or: Si\1 EM
CITy'
I respectfully request that you not grant a traffic and fire protection easement across Riverfront Park
property at the State and Front street intersection. Such an easement is both a travesty in terms of
enhancing the danger to public safety and giving a private entity special consideration in the use of
publicly funded areas (Riverfront park land). I wish to make clear that I do think the development as
depicted in renderings provided by the developer will be an enhancement to the area. I am not against
the development itself. I am against the loss of tax dollars from that development and definitely
against granting access to the development at the public's expense. Consider this, the developer
purchased the land several years ago and surely knew that access would be a problem. If that was not
considered a problem because sometime in the future, an easement would be obtained without any
problem, then that is on the developer not the public. Let's not have another Transit Mall fiasco in
Salem. Look at the results of the Statesman Journal survey on Tuesday August 27th. Fifty one percent
(51%) of the respondents did NOT support the development. Please consider the public good and
attend to the public trust that is vested in you as a council member.
Respectfully,
Ronald A. Glaus
Salem, Oregon 97304
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521DB723GWC1... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall - Re: River Front park Development
From: <kmoynihan425@aol.com>
To: <sthomas@cityofsalem.net>, <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 8/28/2013 8:54AM
Subject: Re: River Front park Development
Dear Councilors
Here are my reasons:
Page 1 of 1
DOCUIVIENT Fl D
AUG 2. 8 2011
CIIYOESALEIVI
CITY
1) Access through our park? Is it not congestive enough? Will they not be the useing the limited Park parking by their
friends if not themselves etc?- They need their own entry and exit- We do not need any further congestion in the limited
parking we have period-
2) NO taxes for 10 yrs!!!!!! Are you kidding????????? They will be making a profit or they would not be building and if they
don't than it will be because of their poor planning/concept-. Why are we flipping the bill for them? This is one of the
biggest slaps in the face to the citizens of Salem who pay their taxes- and I might add without making a profit!!!!
This fits pretty well with your statement of "developers using the developers own property for this project." So be than, pay
your taxes developers and follow the rules that the rest of the citizen of Salem adhere to!
3) Why are they being allowed to build beyond the 1 0 ft restriction ??????????? If anything it should be 250 ft restriction-
there should be green spaces- drive around Salem and tell we what looks most pleasing and user friendly- the areas with
no green ways or the ones with? - If you would like I would be happy to drive you around to see what is special about
Salem and what has been poorly planning
Let me know what you think.
Sincerely
Kathleen Moynihan
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheryl Ann Thomas <sthomas@cityofsalem.net>
To: kmoynihan425 <kmoynihan425@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 28, 2013 1:13am
Subject: Re: River Front park Development
Kathleer:,
Please explain why you area agianst this concept and why you disagree with the developers using the developers own
property for this project.
Thanks,
Councilor Thomas
> <kmoynihan425@aol.com> 08/26/13 1 :01 PM >
Regarding the Boise Cascade development
I do not agree with the developers using any of our park( River Front ) for their benefit.
In general I am against the whole concept the developers have put forward regarding use of the Boise Cascade area.
Please decline this development as there is just so much wrong with it.
Remember: Do we want Bedford Fall or Pottersville as our vision of Salem-
Thank You
Kathleen Moynihan
425 Kearney ST SE
Salem Oregon 97302
Please forward this to the Mayors office thank you
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521DBACBGWC... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall- Fwd: Pringle Square development
From: Susan Tribotti <stribotti@gmail.com>
Date: 8/28/2013 9:07AM
Subject: Fwd: Pringle Square development
Dear Council Members,
Page 1 of 1
MENTFI D
AUG 2 8 2013
CITY OF SAU:::tVi
_GIJY [IJ=COBDEFL-,
Below is an email we sent to Brad Nanke several days ago. Based on his vote we read about in today's
paper and his lack of response to us, we are unsure if our concerns were noted so we are forwarding this
email to your website. Thank you very much for your attention.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Susan Tribotti <stribotti@gmail.com>
Date: August 26, 2013 9:16:21 AM PDT
To: bnanke@cityofsalem.net
Subject: Pringle Square development
Dear Mr. Nanke,
We were disturbed after reading in the Statesman Journal today that there was so much
public apathy towards this development. Of course, we've been guilty of that, too, not
realizing how soon this was coming to a City Council vote.
You would be representing our vote on this proposed development if you vote against
it. To have three- and four-story buildings right on the waterfront will mar the openness
and beauty of the area. The traffic will multiply to clog the streets. The park will become
crowded and not accessible to the rest of us who live here. Salem will never be the same.
We moved from California eight years ago because the quality of life became grim there
due to over-development. Please express our concern that this could easily happen in
Salem, too.
Thank you,
Susan and Bob Tribotti
1355.Tiburon Court SE
Salem, OR
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521DBDD8GWC... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall - Boise site
From: "Tom & Verna morrison" <tomverna53@gmail.com>
Date: 8/28/2013 10:08 AM
Subject: Boise site
Page 1 of 1
DOCUIVIENT FILED
AUG 2 8 20131
C l IY 9f SAl_ EM
Cl!)! Rr::COFIQEEL __ _
I am supportive of the proposed plan for the site. It has been an eyesore for too long. Compromise is
essential for the access problems, and no developer can be expected to keep pouring money into a
proposed project indefinitely. There is no perfect answer to the problems presented. Please vote yes. I
am also supportive of the proposed bridge from Riverfront Park to Minto-Brown. This would be a
wonderful addition to the park system. Thomas L Morrison
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521DCC17GWC1... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall - Riverfront apartment complex
From: Todd Silverstein <tsilvers@willamette.edu>
Date: 8/28/2013 10:20 AM
Subject: Riverfront apmiment complex
8/28/13
re: Apt. complex near Riverfront Park
City Councillors:
Page 1 of 1
DOCUI\!IEI\IT FILED
AUG 2 8 20131
CITY or= Sl\LEIVI
CITY
Thank you for allowing time for fmiher comments on the apartment complex near Riverfront Park
proposed by Mountain West Investment Corp. I feel strongly that you should NOT grant approval for
this project at this time. Although I suppmi mixed-use development in downtown Salem, especially the
addition of downtown apmiments, the access issue is simply unworkable as currently configured.
Although the developers have gone to great lengths stressing that the road to the apatiment building will
split off from the road to the carousel parking lot, they MUST merge at the RR crossing. That means
that cars inbound to the apartment building must turn left and cross carousel outbound traffic, and this
must happen quite close to the Commercial St. traffic signal; conversely, cars outbound from the
apartment building must turn right and merge with outbound carousel traffic. This will undoubtedly
produce traffic backups close to the Commercial St. signal, backups that would snarl traffic in the
carousel lot and also on the apatiment access by-pass on days when high traffic special events are in
progress. This access plan is ill-conceived and dangerous and would dramatically degrade a wonderful
city attraction. If the developers wish to go forward with this impmiant project, it is incumbent upon
them to come up with an access plan that is safe and does not degrade traffic flow. So far, they have
come up with the cheapest plan, the one that affords them the most profit. Now it's time for them to
come up with the best plan.
Secondly, why is Mountain West Investment Corp. in such a great hurry to develop this particular parcel
of land? They also own the half-demolished Boise Cascade plant and the parcel of land that it sits upon.
Why don't they attack this long-standing eyesore first, and get started on building much-needed mixed-
use buildings on this plot? Access from Bellevue is easy and safe. My point is that there are many
options open to the developers besides the Riverfront Park project and the carousel parking lot access
route, and what we need at this point is better options.
Todd Silverstein
1945 Saginaw St. S.
Salem 97302
(Professor of Chemistry, Willamette Univ.)
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521DCFOBGWC1... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall - RIVER FRONT DEVELOPMENT
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
john day <jnwday@yahoo.com>
"citycouncil@cityofsalem.net" <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
8/28/2013 10:33 AM
RIVER FRONT DEVELOPMENT
Page 1 of 1
AUG 2 8 20131
C ~ I T Y OF SALEM
CITY HI::COFlDEF!
Has the developer concidered an underpass on Bellevue Street or replacing part of the tressle a half block south
of Bellevue with an underpass? This access does not involve the park and although it is more costly, that is not
a reason for not gaining access at a point that is available.
I also do not support a 10 year tax abatement. Five is ok or a graduated reduction over 10 years.
John Day
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521DD1DDGWC... 8/28/2013
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Laurie Mosey <moseyl@moseypl.com>
<citycouncil@cityofsalem. net>
8/28/2013 10:57 AM
Vote NO on easements
Vote NO on the riverfront easements across Riverfront Park property.
DOCUI\/lENT FILED
AUG 2. 8 2.0131
jTY Of,S,(\LEfYI
lll Y
Page 1 of 1
Kathy Hall - Emergency access to Boise site
DOCUMENT FILED
From: THOMAS L SMITH <northstar 69@msn.com> C!TY CJf SALEI\/i
- Clj:Y f-'FCOF<DFP
To: "ampeterson@cityofsalem.net" <ampeterson@cityofsalem.net>, ' "'
1
Date: 8/28/2013 11:08 AM
Subject: Emergency access to Boise site
Mayor and Councilors,
I am writing to share my views on providing emergency access to the proposed apartment complex on
the Boise site next to Riverfront Pari<. As I read it, if a train is blocking the State Street access, the
proposal is to have emergency vehicles enter from Water Street and drive through the park to the
State Street access. The only problem with that is when both accesses are blocked by a train. I was
caught by a train on that track last night on Hyacinth, just north of Portland Road. As the arms had just
gone down when I arrived at the tracks, I caught the very beginnings of the train. It was at least five
minutes later that the train finally cleared, it was very long. It had to have blocked both Hyacinth and
Cherry and maybe even further west than that. What becomes of the emergency access when Water
is blocked by a train also? From what I understand, some vehicles can access the Union Street RR
bridge but that takes time to get the posts out so it can be crossed and was it retrofitted to allow a
firetruck across? I am all for development but I just see many potiential problems with getting to this
parcel in an emergency, even if the site had it's own crossing into it. Thank you for your time.
Thomas L. Smith
1105C Savage Road NE
Salem OR 97301
503/4d9-4363
northstar 69@msn.com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521DDA19GWCl... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall - Boise site access plan comment
From: "Beth A. Wilson" <Beth.Wilson@humboldt.edu>
Date: 8/28/2013 11:21 AM
Subject: Boise site access plan comment
Page 1 of 1
DOCUIVlENT FILED
AUG 2 8 20131
CITY r ~ SALEM
C ~ ! T Y FlECOnDEFi
Hi, I am not directly impacted by this proposal - and ordinarily I would not bother to comment.
However, I am indirectly affected and I am shocked and disappointed that the City Council is allowing a
small group of vocal dissenters to stand in the way of a development project that would transform the
last of the industrial blight into mixed use development that is consistent with our values.
When I first moved to Salem in 1995, there was industrial blight all along the riverfront (this was pre-
park) and the downtown area was depressed and depressing. The pro-growth and pro-development
stance of the City Council has transformed Salem into a vibrant downtown: There is still work to do, but
Salem is no longer viewed as an awful place to live.
I agree that it would be better to have a separate access to the site, but that does not appear to be
possible. This project cannot be completed without access and allowing this project to fail is not
acceptable - in fact it is irresponsible. You need to approve this for the good of the broader (and less
vocal) community.
Sincerely, Beth Wilson
1970 Juntura Ct S
Salem, OR 97302
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521DDD28GWC1... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall- Boise Cascade project
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Robert Eaton <bobde399@gmail.com>
<Citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
8/28/2013 12:02 PM
Boise Cascade project
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT FILED
AUG 2 8 2013.
[lY Of= SALEM
__ EEL
Kindly get those dollar signs out of you eyes and really think long and hard about what that tax payment
of just over five thousand dollars yearly for a ten year period would accomplish; And remember that
great project that replaced the Senator Hotel.
IF the Boise Cascade proposed plans were approved by the city council, Including the access thru the
River Front park, you will be destroying a jewel that can never be replaced. In addition, increased traffic
is a real hazard to our children as well as to anyone enjoying the park.
I strongly urge a loud and clear vote of the entire Boise Cascade project. Please do not destroy our River
Front park.
I strongly urge a NO vote on the entire Boise Cascade project.
Robert M. Eaton
1950 45th Ave, NE Apt @111
Salem, OR 97305
503 363-8773
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521DE6E8GWCl... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall - Vote Yes for Boise Development Access
From: "Eric W. Jamieson" <ejamieson@ghrlawyers.com>
To: <ampeterson@cityofsalem.net>, <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 8/28/2013 2:54PM
Subject: Vote Yes for Boise Development Access
Mayor Peterson and City Councilors:
Page 1 of 1
FILED
AUG 2 8 2013

t,l fY
Please vote to approve the proposed access for the redevelopment of the former Boise Cascade site. Salem's
waterfront is woefully underutilized. Access to the apartment project is an important first step toward
redeveloping the demolished Boise Cascade plant.
This project creates sustainable jobs in Salem's downtown corridor. This project creates downtown living spaces
that will increase use of Salem's waterfront park and help support the many small businesses located in Salem's
downtown area. This project will help alleviate safety concerns surrounding pedestrian crossing and use of the
carousel. This project is the spark that can help revitalize Salem's economy.
I urge you to support this project to help sustain an environment in Salem that encourages economic
development and creates jobs.
Thank you for your service.
Eric Jamieson
Edc W. Jamieson
Garrett Hemann Robertson P.C.
Willamette Professional Center 1011 Commercial St. NE
Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 749 Salem, Oregon 97308-0749
(503) 581-1501 1-800-581-1501 Fax (503) 581-5891 www.ghrlawyers.com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521EOF16GWCl... 8/28/2013
Page 1 of 1
Ladies and Gentlemen,
If we can land a man on the moon, surely we can figure out how to get a child safely across the
street, and find access for this development. Or for any development for that matter. If this does
not get approved, no developer will ever step forward to improve this property.
Salem deserves to have a vibrant, growing downtown, and most certainly we need the jobs that
will be created by this project.
Please approved this for our future.
Peter L. Rogers
President
Coldwell Banker Mountain West Real Estate, Inc.
615 Commercial Street NE
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: 503.361.7226
Email: PeterRogers@cboregon.com
Coldwell BankerMou ntain West. com
FILED
G
8
'ln13
AU 2 LU ;,
CjJY OF::-:>ALEM
CIIY FiECOFlDETi
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521E1113GWC1S ... 8/28/2013
Kathy Hall - Boise Cascade Development
From: <dobo4892@comcast.net>
To: City Council <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 8/28/2013 6:37PM
Subject: Boise Cascade Development
Page 1 of 1
AUG 2 9 2GH1
OF SALEM
RECORDEFi
I was distressed to read that the Council has not heard from people supporting the mixed-use
development at Riverfront Park. Please consider my husband and me both strong supporters.
We have lived in Salem for 1 0 years and have waited for a development of this caliber. We
understand there are issues. Please do whatever you can to work through these issues and
assist in giving Salem this much, much needed development. Bonnie and David O'Connell
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521E4384GWC1S ... 8/29/2013
From:
To:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
Stephen Brownfield <stephenbrownfield@comcast. net>
Salem City Council <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Hibler Claire <hibler9019@comcast.net>
8/28/2013 7:58 PM
Access Plan for Apartments-Riverfront Park
DOCUMENT Fl LED
AUG 2 9 20131
C. ITY OF SALEM
CITY F ~ E C O R D E R
I would like to urge you to vote no on the proposal to develop a road in Riverfront Park's carousel area for
the purpose of providing access to apartments and business interests to be built on the adjacent Boise
Cascade property. I believe it would be a crying shame to develop a busy road in the carousel area or on
any other part of Riverfront park because of safety concerns and due to detrimental effects on the park
itself in the form of additional traffic and noise.
A fine alternative would be to add the Boise property on the river side of the railroad tracts to Riverfront
Park. This park is often rather crowded in the summer so the addition of this land would provide additional
creek frontage and provide Eco-Earth some space so apartment buildings do not loom over this portion of
the park.
I see no reason why the citizens of Salem should give a private corporation both a ten year tax break and
also save the corporation a bunch of money by providing easy access to their development at the
expense of Riverfront Park itself.
Sincerely,
Stephen Brownfield
Kathy Hall - Boise Cascade
From: Heritage Meadow Apatiments <heritage.meadow.apts@gmail.com>
Date: 8/29/2013 10:06 AM
Subject: Boise Cascade
To whom it may concern,
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMEI\lT Fl LED
AUG 2 9 2013
CITY or:.:
0
~
'''C'Il .. , .. , . _ <)ALEM
'( fiE:CORDE:n
My wife and I would like to voice our opinion about the new construction taking place on Front
Stand Commercial. We are both 22 years old and have found that Salem is lacking in areas
that appeal to our needs as a newly developing family. My understanding is that there is a
project of apattment homes that are being presented to the City of Salem Council and we would
like to say that we are in FULL SUPPORT. I spent the 1st 21 years of my life in Salem and can
see the direction that it has been going. For my generations future, please consider this email
as a guideline for what we want our city to become. Apartments provide housing opportunities
to new families and thus provides more business for all of our local companies that we are so
proud of. Salem's youth (whom I can guarantee would agree with me and my wife) will be in
complete support of this project and would like to see some cooperation from our city ... my
city. I attended Candalaria elementary, Leslie Middle, and South Salem High School. I know
my generation and their desire for what Salem could be. To ignore our request now will have
an extremely negative impact on the future of a city that we will someday be in charge of
maintaining. Thank you for your time and concern on this matter.
Kind Regards,
Brandon & Ashli Morett
503,383.8015
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521F1D 11 GWCl... 8/29/2013
mbe <!&stetlunb's
820 Qtlarmount Jf!mt
rcgon 97304
503-363-1996
To: Salem City Council
Re: Riverfront Park
Dear Council Members,
DOCtJMENT FILED
AUG 2 9 20131
CITY OF SALEM
CITY
The citizens of Salem and people everywhere need to think about
the results of giving up public recreation areas for commercial
development.
In the case of the Riverfront Park issue, apartments along with an
easement across the park will hamper the freedom of movement
and use of the facilities by both children and adults.
This proposal should be absolutely rejected. What will we give the
children?
Sincerely yours,
obert Osterlund
August 27 2013
Dear Mayor Peterson and members of Salem City Council
UOCUMEI\IT FILED
AUG 2 9 2013
CITY OF SALEM
CITY
I am writing in support of the building of the development that Mountain West is doing at the south end of
Riverfront Park.
An article in the newspaper stated that "Salem has a reputation as the city that drags its feet, preferring the ideal plan
instead of the reasonable plan. That is why it took the city 50 years to finally open Riverfront Park." Please don't
make us wait any longer to experience a forward looking concept that incorporates Riverfront Park.
I was so proud that my city, The City of Salem is making it possible by working with the developer to make it
possible. I look forward to being able to poke around the little shops after allowing my grandchildren to play at the
park. Or I can imagine showing off our carousel to my family that comes to visit from out of town, then partaking in
a little snack after running up to my son's apartment to grab him to join us. This project included an apartment
complex that was aimed at the middle income renter. My children were excited that perhaps they could live there
when they were ready to rent their own apartments.
My son is currently attending The Portland Art Institute. He is working toward a degree that he would need a
growing community to be able to work. He would like to be able to come home to Salem, a vibrant and growing
community. He will need a job in his field and if we don't support developments like this and other forward looking
endeavors, I cannot look forward to my grandchildren growing up in my city! It makes me sad to think that my son
may choose to stay in Portland or move to a different city that is alive.
Mountain West's project, according to what I have read, would be adding $15 million in construction payroll and
creating $17.6 million in annual consumer spending, according to an analysis by ECONorthwest. Then, according to
pringlesquaresalem.com website, a second project on an adjoing site would produce another 256 jobs and $9 .l
million in worker wages! That is a lot of contribution to our community.
I understand that access to the area was a concern. Neither I, my family, nor any of my friends have allowed our
young children to be at a city park without a parent or another responsible adult. As I look at the drawings for the
site, I see a fence between the driveway to the apartments and the one that leads to the carousel. Not just a median.
This is no different than having a fence around a playground with a parking lot or road on the other side. The fence
separates the road from the parking lot. Besides, we don't allow our children to run into the driveway that leads into
a busy street!
It is absurd to think that our children would be in danger from an emergency vehicle as the truck may be
approaching the area for an incidence of fire or any other emergency. Sirens would be blaring and heard from a mile
away, not to mention the decibel level as they approach the vicinity. I have never seen an emergency vehicle speed
through a park. They are subject to all laws of the road and cautiously proceed through a congested area, such as at
the state fair.
The Boise Cascade Site is currently a terrible thing to look at, casting an ugly shadow on our beautiful Riverfront.
Mountain west will clean up this "eyesore" and on their payroll, not the city's. The creek would be opened up and
the river would be visible. They would also add thousands of dollars of professional landscaping.
Thank you for hearing my thoughts on this project. I would hate to see this project die and Mountain West take their
business elsewhere. Please approve the access driveway and alternative fire access needed for this great contribution
and improvement to our great city.
Sincerely
Martin Cabrera
1906 Redfox Lane
Salem, Oregon 97306
Kathy Hall - Access Road at Riverfront Park
From: Mickey Nolan <nolanskm@aol.com>
Date: 8/29/2013 10:58 AM
Subject: Access Road at Riverfront Park
Mayor Peterson and Members of the Salem City Council,
Page 1 of2
DOCUMENT FILED
AUG 2 9 20B

My name is Mickey Nolan. I am a third generation Oregonian and have lived in Salem since 1965. My
employment history includes working for the Oregon Legislature, Governor Tom McCall, a lobbyist,
and as assistant to Philip Knight ofNIKE. I also worked closely with my husband in his building and
development company for twenty years. We cmTently own a small apartment complex.
I have been watching with interest the unfolding of the plans for the development of the Boise Cascade
property and, in particular, the apartment complex proposed for that portion of the property west of the
railroad tracks. I also watched a good portion of the City Council meeting on Monday night when the
access road was being considered. I am writing to strongly urge you to deny the requested access road.
One of the presentations at the Council meeting compared the proposed access road to those used at our
public schools, which I find ludicrous. The majority of our schools are not located next to heavily
trafficked thoroughfares, and those access roads are dedicated solely for school ingress and egress. The
majority of those access roads have separate entrances and exits for the safe and orderly flow of traffic
adjacent to the schools. None of those access roads are shared with a major public attraction with only
one point of entry/exit onto a heavily traveled thoroughfare, nor are they bisected by a working railroad
track, nor do they have to deal with traffic coming off the bridge. If the proposed access road for the
apartment complex is approved, the ensuing increase in cars will cause major congestion and safety
issues in and around the Carousel and on Front Street.
I'm not against development if it is done in the right way and in the right place. Heaven knows we are
all sick of looking at the eyesore of the former Boise Cascade property. The developer should build
these apartments, but it should be done as part of the development of the property east of the railroad
tracks y;here access would not be a problem for residents, fire and police and all the other services
required. One of the plot plans in the paper showed a block on the east portion of the property
designated for apartments. If this is Plan B, I strongly suggest that it be adopted by the developer as Plan
A.
The property west of the railroad tracks should be developed as part of Riverfront Park. With the recent
acquisition by the City of the Minto Brown Island property, the vision for a public park extending from
Wallace Marine Park, across the renovated railroad bridge to Riverfront Park and on to Minto Brown
Island by way of the proposed pedestrian bridge would almost be complete. The remaining piece of this
puzzle is the property west of the railroad tracks. If the developer is not willing to sell this property to
the City for a reasonable price, the City should use its powers of eminent domain to acquire it. We are at
a critical point: we can do what is necessary to preserve and complete our city's crown jewel for the
generations to come, or we can allow this development to move forward and forever lose that
opportunity.
Yesterday when I wrote the majority ofthis letter, I thought I had gotten everything off my chest. In this
morning's paper I read that the developer is now saying the whole redevelopment of the Boise Cascade
site is in jeopardy if the access road and apartment complex on the west prope1iy is not approved.
Sounds like the whole project will be held hostage if he doesn't get his way. Please don't let yourselves
be manipulated by these tactics.
The other thing today' s story noted was the lack of interest by the ve1y people these apmiments are
supposed to attract. Hmm- reminds me of two other projects which are still sitting mostly vacant- The
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521F2941GWC1S ... 8/30/2013
Page 2 of2
Meridian and Rivers. Just because they are built doesn't necessarily mean they will come. Do we want
another one bordering on Riverfront Park?
The decision is in your hands. PLEASE deny the request for the access road and stati the ball rolling in
the right direction for the greater benefit of our community. Don't be coerced into making a decision
that will detrimentally affect our city.
Thank you.
Mickey Nolan
3969 Croisan Mountain Dr. S.
Salem, OR 97302
Email: nolanskm@aol.com
Kathy Hall - Riverfront Park and the Proposed Apartments
From: "Russ & Nancy Richards" <rkrichards@comcast.net>
Date: 8/29/2013 1:36PM
Subject: Riverfront Park and the Proposed Apartments
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT FILEL
AUG 2 9 2013
CITY 01= SALEM
CITY RECORDER
Even though I have been removed from the City of Salem Parks Dept. staff for some years now I still watch what
happens in the park and immediatly around it. When we designed the master plan for Riverfront Park, we always
though that the park would be the catalyst for development on the east side of Front Street. That has not
happened! We also thought Maytag, the steel and lumber industrial land to the north of the park would have been
converted to housing with a view of the Willamette River by now. That has not happened! Both would have been
good for Salem and the park.
The proposal now before you, in my opinion, will be devestating to the park and if that parcel is developed into
housing it will be the park's neighbor forever. The proposal is a typical developer's approach," too much
development on too small a space." No matter how they try to sell this project as being good for the city, it is
absolutely not good for the park. I am overwhelmed by how much whitewash they have thrown at this project, but
not surprized. The entrance is wrong and the proposed apartments so close to the property line and the acid ball
will have a forever negative impact. DO NOT LET THEM DO IT!!
The City should have purchased the parcel in question years ago before Boise Cascade made it a marshalling
yard for huge trucks. That use was not a good neighbor to the park either, but pales in comparison to the
proposed development before you. I tried to get the City interested in purchasing that property twenty
years ago, but was not able to. I even designed an adjunct master plan for the site that would have
provided additional picnic shelters, a trail tie to the Civic Center and the Pringle Trail and on through
Willamette's campus. The master plan provided for additional parking at the south end of the park that
we forsaw being needed as Salem grew. Unfortunalely my proposal fell on deaf ears! If we could only
go back!
It's obvious I do not like this proposal. Do not let the developers overwhelm you with promises of "more taxes for
the City" or "starting construction in September." Who cares? This project is a killer for Riverfront Park! DO NOT
LET THEM DO IT!!
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521F4E6AGWC1... 8/30/2013
Kathy Hall - Re: approval of apartments at the Riverfront
From: <ladybozo@comcast.net>
To: <Citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 8/29/2013 2:12PM
Subject: Re: approval of apartments at the Riverfront
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT FILED
AUG 2 9 2013
S::JTY SALEM
Rf:f;QFlDEEL
I can't express how strongly I feel about the apartments at Riverfront Park. If it was just the
apartments being built it would be ok. However, the proposed street would cause havoc to the
visitors and children in the park. We have a diamond in the ruff with this wonderful park and
we cannot let developers have their way when it comes to congestion and safety to our
citizens. Please let the developers find other ways to get to their apartments. Claudia
Huntsinger West Salem
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521F56E6GWCl... 8/30/2013
Kathy Hall - Boise Site
From: Scott Sadler <scott@scottsadlercoach.com>
Date: 8/29/2013 3:22PM
Subject: Boise Site
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT Fl
AUG 2. 9 2013
CITY OF SALEM
. C]ITY
I am in favor and fully support the Former Boise site being developed and ask all of you to resolve the
access issue with the current plan that is on the table.
We will not be doing the community any favors by ignoring this wonderful, rare opportunity to create
such a vital addition to the great work that has already been done on the Riverfront not to mention the
positive economic impacts.
Please do the right thing and support this project for all of us.
Thank you for your service to the city, it is not going unnoticed, or un appreciated!
In gratitude-
Scott A. Sadler
Creative Conflict Solutions
creative-conflict-solutions.com
I check my iubox at 10:30 aud 4:00 Mon-Fri for the U.S. West Coast Time Zone
I 503.851.30671 g: Skype: scott.a.sadler I
This email is intended for the addressee and may contain privileged information. If you are not the addressee, you are not permitted to use or copy this
email or its attachments nor may you disclose the same to any third party. If this has been sent to you in error, please delete the email and notify us by
replying to this email immediately.
Kathy Hall - Riverfront
From: Beverly Adams <beverly_adams@hotmail.com>
Date: 8/29/2013 4:54 PM
Subject: Riverfront
Please vote NO on the access plan.
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT FILED
AUG 2, 9 2013
CITY OF SALEM
CITY FlECORDEF1
Numerous events at the Riverfront Park draw large crowds. Events such as World Beat and the Fourth
of July fireworks display would be much less enjoyable with traffic weaving through the park. Picture
in your mind the tragedy that could occur if a small child darted in front of a car or emergency vehicle
on one of the access roads. Are you willing to accept this responsibility? Parent's may well hesitate to
attend such events with their children.
Sponsors and planners would likely look elsewhere rather than risk the liability involved. This would
result in a loss for the image for the city of Salem and for a loss of business for the community.
Think about it and vote, No.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521F7CC5GWCl... 8/30/2013
Kathy Hall- Boise Cascade Redevelopment Project
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
<rpeters@salemaviation. biz>
8/29/2013 5:28PM
Boise Cascade Redevelopment Project
Dear Councilors;
I urge you to supp01t the Boise Cascade redevelopment project!
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT FILED
AUG 2 9 2013
_OF SALEM
.J ry RECORDEF
1
We need this area to be developed in a way that brings promise and excitement to our city.
It brings a new vitalization to Mill Creek and unveils its beauty as a viable stream in our city center.
The Green Way is enhanced through integration of the river front and nature areas with residential housing
accenting the project; a true melding of family friendly areas, affordable living and open concept recreational
space.
Street access has been well designed to minimize impact to the area and take advantage of existing opp01tunities
through mutual use ports of entry and egress. Safety concerns have been addressed with the road ways being
designed to offer safe reliable passage for pedestrians and vehicles. Families have traditionally been away from
this area and provide not concerns for conflict.
The implementation of the Project will allow us to take transform it into a showpiece of the city.
This Boise Cascade Redevelopment Project will be a much needed stimulus for our community and should be
approved.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Ron
Salem Resident
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\521 F84D8GWC 1... 8/30/2013
Kathy Hall - Written Comment on Proposed Easement at Riverfront Park
From: Doug Lownsbery <douglownsbery@gmail.com>
Date: 8/29/2013 6:06PM
Subject: Written Comment on Proposed Easement at Riverfront Park
CC: <dclem@cityofsalem.net>
Page 1 of 1
DOCUIVIENT FILED
AUG 2 9 2013
PJJY OF SAI_EM
t:l fY m::CORDEFt
The developers and civic proponents of the Residences at Riverfront Park have presented the vehicle easement
across Salem's Riverfront Park as the only possible solution for access to the proposed apartments. First of all,
the proposed vehicle easement is a poor idea that reduces access and safety for the general public at Riverfront
Park. The notion that taking away a significant amount of square footage from the public parking lot and then
angling the parking spaces and adding even more parking spaces will maintain or improve public access and
safety is simply not credible. Second, the proposed vehicle easement does not provide the safest and most
convenient access for the future residents of the 118-unit apartment complex. Think about the implications of a
single access point across functioning railroad tracks and then through a narrow two-lane easement corridor just
to reach your own parking lot. Third, there is another access option that is not even being discussed. The
developer's website, www.pringlesquaresalem.com, states, "The current entrance to Riverfront Park and the
Carousel at State Street must be shared- there is no other access available to the site." The developers and
proponents have set up the argument that there is only one solution, and therefore, the City Council's decision to
grant or deny the easement is a decision to allow the project to proceed, or to stop the project altogether. Not
true. Other options must be investigated in order for the City Council to perform due diligence in protecting public
safety and access. Another option would require a more expensive solution, but would provide for greater access
and safety for both the public at Riverfront Park and the residents at the apartment complex. This option involves
building a vehicle tunnel under the P&WR railroad tracks with access off of Front, Trade, or Commercial Streets.
For example, consider such an access point located along Front Street directly across from Ferry Street. This
option would give apartment residents very convenient access into and out of the development. To be sure, this
option would still require emergency vehicle access through the south end of the Riverfront Park parking lot into
the apartment complex, particularly for large fire trucks. However, this emergency vehicle access would be far
easier to incorporate into the current Riverfront Park lot and be more suitable for large emergency vehicles that
the restrictions created by the proposed easement. In addition, this access would be strictly limited to emergency
vehicles - not an uncommon restriction in urban areas. For passenger and commercial vehicles, and typically for
police a,nd ambulance, access would be through the tunnel under the railroad tracks. Yes, there are challenges
and concerns with this option that need to be addressed, but that is possible. Yes, this is a more expensive
option, but it is long-term solution that warrants thorough investigation. I urge the City of Salem and the project
developers to thoroughly investigate this option before any decision is made about the proposed easement
currently under consideration.
Doug Lownsbery
1520 St Helens St NW
Salem, OR 97304
503.990.1108
douglownsbery@gmail.com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521F8D98GWC1 ... 8/30/2013
Kathy Hall - Riverfront Park/Pringle Square/Boise
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"Kennedy, Anita" <anita.kennedy@countryfinancial.com>
"ampeterson@cityofsalem.net'' <ampeterson@cityofsalem.net>
8/29/2013 6:16PM
Riverfront Park/Pringle Square/Boise
"citycouncil@cityofsalem.net'' <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Mayor Peterson,
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMEHf FILED
AUG 2 9 2013
CITY CW SAU:=.M
R[CORDER
As you know I am new to Salem. As Mr. Withnelllikes to say, it's good to hear from a fresh
pair of eyes ....
I have been blessed to move to a community with such passion! Your downtown is second
to none in my opinion. As a matter of fact I so believe that the downtown is ready to boom
that I recently moved one of my offices into the Capital Center building. I am excited for
COUNTRY Financial to have a presence in the historical and beautiful downtown area.
I see the vision that can be in the place of the Boise building. Mike Mclaran first
introduced me to what it could become last fall. Since then I have followed the progress
and problems.
I have attended events and taken my grandchildren to Riverfront Park and I agree that it is
a treasure. I do believe that it will become more of a treasure to our next generation with
the that are waiting to be implemented with the approval of access near
the carousel.
One of the greatest things about OUR downtown is that it is a treat to walk from one
exciting corner to the other. I have purposely parked distances away so that I can enjoy
discovering all that it has to offer. It isn't about one park or one man's dream, it's about
today and tomorrow and years from now.
Thank you for always listening and thank you for welcoming me into your community,
Anita Kennedy
COUNTRY Financial
503-375-9670
From: <rpeters@salemaviation.biz>
Sent: 8/29/2013 4:45 PM
To: Rich Clausen
Subject: Pringle Project
>>> "" 2013-08-29T16:45:35.335341 >>>
Dear Mr. Clausen,
I urge you to support the Pringle Project!
This city is in vital need of a project like this.
Page 1 of 1
DOClJIVlENTFILED
AUG 2. 9 2013
~ ; f T Y OF SAL.EM
Cl ry Rl::::CORDEFl
It brings vitality to the downtown that allows development to infrastructure, natural resources and the
rejuvenation of a people friendly environment.
The implementation of the Pringle Project will allow us to take what is now a blight on our river front
and transform it into a showpiece. There is great opportunity to revitalize Mill Creek and offer
integrated living with business services to the Down Town core.
The channeling of traffic to and from State Street is strong and well implemented. Safety has been well
thought out; allowing for recreational living to coincide with arts projects, family activities and citizen
enjoyment along the Willamette River greenway .
..
This Pringle Project is a much needed stimulus for our community and should be approved.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Ron Peters
Salem resident since 1989
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521F9323GWC1S... 8/30/2013
Kathy Hall - riverfront park
From: <GwensSand@aol.com>
Date: 8/29/2013 7:08PM
Subject: riverfront park
Dear City of Salem Councilors,
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMEI\JT FILED
AUG 2. 9 2013
CITY 01= SALEM
CITY FlECORDFT1
I watched with great interest the testimony given on Tuesday night regarding the Boise site. I
understand both arguments. However, I feel the City of Salem has more to gain allowing the
easement to the property than it has to lose. The neglected Boise site will become the new
jewel of downtown and bring many jobs and revenue to downtown businesses. We all have
to give and take a little. I think the carousel is a great asset to the park and will continue to
be an asset. I think this is a great opportunity for the mixed-use vision the city has. I have
one other comment. Maybe the carousel would be better situated next to the Gilbert house
and the water park. Keep all the kids safe on one side of the park?
Sincerely,
Gwen Banks
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521F9C39GWCl... 8/30/2013
Kathy Hall - Riverfront access plan
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Deanna White <deannagwhite@gmail.com>
8/29/2013 7:52PM
Riverfront access plan
Page 1 of 1
FILED
AUG 2 9 2013
CITY OF SALEM
CITY F!ECORDFJl
I am for it! I always wonder why Salem moves so very slowly forward on anything progressive.
I moved to Salem 37 years ago and it's taken this long to see the gravel parking lot progress to what we
have today. The bridge to Minto will also be a wonderful addition to our city.
Another intersection would not be the end of the world if the Carousel parking lot is of concern to
citizens as access to the new apartments. We have to access this property in some fashion or it will be a
gravel lot forever.
Deanna White
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\521FA671GWC1... 8/30/2013
Kathy Hall - Boise Cascade Site
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Glen White" <GWhite@co.marion.or.us>
8/30/2013 9:43 AM
Boise Cascade Site
Page 1 of 1
DOCUIVIENT Fll
A
IIG ' ~ u 'Hi".)
u <J LUI,t
For the economic and aesthetic improvement of Salem, the Boise Cascade site must be developed ASAP. Access
must be provided to the proposed apartment complex, and if the current plan to use the State St park access is
the only viable alternative, then so be it. Leaving the site undeveloped is the worst choice.
Glen White
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52206928GWC1S... 8/30/2013
Kathy Hall - pringle proposal
From: <dingeborg@comcast.net>
To: <webmaster@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 8/24/2013 9:36AM
Subject: pringle proposal
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT FILED
AUG ;) 0 2013,
CITY OF SALEM
... C:::lJYBECORDEFi-
Please register our recommendation for a no vote on the proposed Pringle development. It is
interesting to note the absence of the railroad running through the middle of the property.
Again, we urge the council to vote NO on this proposal. Don and Eunice Theriault, 1630
Wallace RD NW #23.
TO EACH AND EVERY SALEM CITY COUNCEL MEMBER.
AND STATESMAN JOURNAL
DOCUMENT FILED
AUG 0 0 2013!
CITY OF SALEIVI
CITY liECORDER
THERE IS ALWAYS ANOTHER WAY. SOME TIMES THAT OTHER WAY IS NOT THE DESIRED WAY, BUT IT IS
ANOTHER WAY. FOLLOWING THE LAST WEEK HEARING, I DROVE DOWN THE ONE BLOCK LONG STREET
THAT LAY BETWEEN THE WOODRYS FURNITURE STORE AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BOISE BUILDING. I
WAS SURPRISED TO FIND THERE ALREADY EXISTS SEVERAL GARAGE DOOR OPENINGS INTO THE SOUTH
SIDE OF THE BOISE BUILDING. I'M SURE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES AND EXITS ARE NOT THE PLANNED USES
FOR THE BUILDING. BUT LANDSCAPING AND A MAJOR UPGRADING OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE
SOUTH END OF THE BUILDING WOULD CHANGE THAT AREA INTO A POSITIVE ENTRANCE. IT WOULD
REDUCE THE PLANNED OCCUPANCY FOR THAT ENTRANCE/EXIT SPACE, BUT IT WOULD TAKE ALL THE
STRESS OFF OF THE CAROSEL AND PARK ENTRANCE. MOUNTAIN WEST INVESTORS ARE TREATENING
THE CITIZENS -TAX PAYERS- OF SALEM THAT IF THEY DON'T GET THEIR FREEBIES AND THEIR WAY
THROUGH THE CARASEL PARKING LOT THEY WILL MAINTAIN THE "BOMBED OUT BUILDING" FOREVER.
FOREVER TAXES ON THAT LOT, UNLESS THE CITY COUNCIL ABATES THOSE TAXES ALSO, REALITY WILL
EVENTUALLY MAKE A NEGATIVE IMPRESSION ON THE INVESTORS. THE DEVELOPERS SHOULD REALIZE
THAT THE PEOPLE THAT MUST USE FRONT STREET WILL BE MAJORLY AFFECTED BY THE SNARLS CAUSED
BY THE ADDED TRAFFIC ALONG FRONT STREET CAUSED BY THE COMING AND GOINING OF THE
HUNDREDS OF CARS IN AND OUT OF THE PARK JUST DO NOT WANT THAT ADDED SITUATION EVERY
TIME THEY ARE DIRECTED TO STAY ON HIWAY 20, FRONT STREET, OR JUST GOING THROUGH TOWN ON
THE BI-PASS. ITS TIME FOR THE COUNCEL TO LOOK OUT FOR THE INTEREST AND THE NEEDS OF SALEM
RESIDENTS AND NOT OF THE WHIMS OF THE DEVELOPERS.
RUSS HICKS 1365 WALLACE RD SALEM OR 97304
..
Kathy Hall - Residences at Riverfront Park
From: Dianne Wood <belzwood@gmail.com>
Date: 8/30/2013 11:42 AM
Subject: Residences at Riverfront Park
CC: <brian@mwinv.com>
August 2 9, 201 3
Dear Salem City Council,
Page 1 of2
DOCUMENT FILED
AUG 3 0 2013
CITY OF SALEM
C ~ I T Y FlECORDER
We are opposed to granting the easement for the apartment development planned for
Riverfront Park for the following reasons:
1. As currently envisioned, the access over the tracks will be a bottleneck with traffic
backed up on Front Street as apartment dwellers and their visitors try to make a left
turn into the apartment driveway across the path of carousel visitors leaving the park.
The intersection already backs up with just the carousel traffic.
Access should not be granted through the carousel driveway.
2. We believe the parking situation at the carousel can only be harmed by this
development. The developer says that their driveway will be separated from the
carousel parking lot by a curb, planted buffer/hedges, and a sidewalk, but will
increase carousel parking by six spaces. How do you take land away from the parking
lot for that easement and end up with more parking spaces? Remove all the other
vegetation, leaving a bare paved lot with a couple more spaces? Does that enhance
the park? The carousel parking lot is already tight and often full. Taking land out of it
for the easement can only make it smaller and with fewer trees.
Don't decrease the area of the carousel parking lot.
3. The apartments will loom over the park. The childrens' playground will appear to
be in the apartment's space. The park sidewalk will be right along the edge of the
apartment space. The scale of the project is too big for the space.
The apartment buildings are too close to the park.
4. Apartments fronting a park are highly desirable but there must be a buffer between
the apartments and the park, such as a road, or else it appears that the park is part of
the apartment complex. With these proposed apartments right on the edge of the
park, will the apartment dwellers start complaining about noise? Will they demand an
earlier end to park events and use? Will they complain about activities in the park? Or
will we effectively be giving part of the park to the apartments when park patrons no
longer visit Pringle Creek sidewalks, the globe, and playground because they feel like
Page 2 of2
they are in the apartment's space?
There isn't room for an adequate buffer between the apartment buildings and the
park.
5. The city should not be giving up park land for private development. Also, there are
two new nearly empty apartment buildings across Front Street from Riverfront Park
with access. Why is it necessary to build another 11 8 units that have no access except
through the park? The developers should provide a serious and qualified market study
to demonstrate that absorption of the proposed units is even possible in this market.
That market study should then be made available for community review.
Please vote NO on the request for easements across Riverfront Park property.
OUR SUGGESTION: We suggest that the developers donate the 3.8 acres proposed for
the apartments to the City of Salem for an addition to Riverfront Pari<. The developers
would get goodwill and a charitable donation tax write-off, the city would get an
addition to Riverfront Park, the conflict with the railroad crossing would not exist and
the patrons of the park would not have added congestion to the carousel entrance.
Or, the south apartments could be built first and a bridge built over Pringle Creek on
the west side of the railroad tracks between the north and south parking lots. On the
plans there appears to be a tunnel under the railroad track to access the south
parking lot. Then there would be no need for an easement through park land for
access to the north parking lot.
Registered Voters,
Dianne and David Wood
1 31 5 Cannon Street SE
Salem, OR 97302
Page 1 of3
Kathy Hall - Monday night council meeting
From: <TOYHOUS@aol.com>
DOCUMENT Flll:D
Date: 8/30/2013 11:25 PM
S
r:f) 0 '3 'lf!P
" t Lu ,,}
Subject: Monday night council meeting
Monday night's city council meeting was impressive! It was the best example of We The People expressing
views to public officials that I have seen in a long time. No one should doubt that Salem is an activist
community!
I have already sent a thank you note to Mayor Peterson for her speech against the tax abatement. The parking
district is underfunded but a developer needs a tax break or else the property they have owned will remain an
eyesore until my preschool-aged grand nieces are in high school? Sounds like propaganda to me.
A friend and I were discussing the Keizer Station shopping center this morning and how it was not well
planned---not exactly walkable, sometimes a "you can't get there from here" problem where someone can see
a store in the distance but can't figure out where to get there. But to listen to the developers, if they were
granted their access permit, no such problems (or traffic clogs, or construction delays, or anything else could
possibly go wrong--do they have a magic wand?) would ever happen. Smells like propaganda to me.
Some friends and I have had conversations about the best ways of teaching writing. Important factors include
target audience, presenting multiple points of view in a persuasive essay (and watching out for bias) and above
all, a catchy opening to attract the reader's attention.
Just now, I read the opening to an SJ story which would be a great topic sentence if this were a persuasive
essay.
"The first portion of a project to realign Market Street, Swegle Road and 45th Avenue NE is complete, making
way for a new traffic route today, according to the City of Salem Public Works department."
Gee! Salem Public Works realigned Market, Swegle, and 45th, but unless the developers who were at the city
council meeting Monday night were given the permits they wanted NOW! then Boise Cascade would be an
eyesore into the indefinite future? There is no creativity possible in this development on the part of developers
or city staff? Sounds like bullying at best and intellectual blackmail at worst.
Call me a skeptic, but in Spring, 2008 I was working for the YMCA and was invited to their annual luncheon. A
developer spoke to the luncheon and had glowing accounts of how they had bought the Boise Cascade
property and were going to make it into a real showplace--and the YMCA would be able to have a brand new
building instead of the old, cramped building which they are in to this day.
So when Councilor Bennett asked the question about "the promises of 5 years ago", that really resonated with
me.
As someone who has lived here long enough to remember old City Hall and who has lived in an apartment on
Owens (the old Metro Arms), a family home, and now Sunnyside Mobile Home Park, and as someone who is
the daughter of a former city employee who worked in Community Development back in the 1970s,
I noticed that the web page for the Neighborhood Enhancement Division includes these words,
"The Neighborhood Enhancement Division focuses on the City Council goals related to quality of life, as well as
public safety through prevention, code compliance, civic involvement, social justice, and strong
neighborhoods."
All those who testified as former Riverfront Park/Carousel volunteers, people who drive in from W. Salem,
people who are concerned by the State Street grade level crossing and the State/Front Street intersection
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\522129FFGWC1S-... 9/3/2013
Page 2 of3
[when someone coming out of the Carousel parking lot wants to turn left and someone heading west is in the
left turn lane of State Street, that is not now a safe intersection in the middle of a weekday afternoon and
should have a left turn arrow instead of LEFT TURN YIELD TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC before there is a major
accident there],and all the people who are concerned about congestion in the parking lot and the possibility of
accidents involving children strike me as the very model of the "civic involvement, social justice, and strong
neighborhoods." which is on the city website.
But some of those arguing against citizen testimony dissed those who had the gall to ask questions. To my
mind, one of the worst was DeHart who made some condescending crack about dissenters looking down on
apartment dwellers. So, someone who was looking for a place to move and rejected an apartment at the end of
a long dead end street with multiple apartment houses rejected that apartment because there was only one
way out (as I did) and wants to live someplace with at least 2 ways in and out is "looking down on apartment
dwellers"? Talk about how to lose friends and alienate people! Or maybe he was so sure he was right he
didn't care who he insulted?
Which leads to a very important question: who is the target population for those apartments? Online comments
on an SJ piece about the debate included sentiments like "yeah, right---young professionals will want to live
walking distance from the night life in downtown Salem which ends about 8pm".
One year in college, I lived just a few blocks from major train tracks. Train horns don't bother me. But is the
target tenant for those apartments someone not bothered by train noises?
Another online comment on an SJ page was "Yeah, right--young professionals really want to live next to a
rehab center".
Exactly how well thought out is the mixed use part of this development? I seldom shop at Keizer Station unless
I happen to be nearby or need to go to a store which is only there. I never shop at Shapka because the few
times I went there right after it opened I wanted to yell at whoever did the traffic engineering.
Yet the pro-development folks would have us believe that anyone who even raised questions (my favorite was
the gentleman who said another try should be made at getting permission for an alternate entrance to the
property, "because with all the permits you still need to get you will have plenty of time to investigate that".) was
anti-progress, wanted an eyesore to remain, wanted Salem to continue being a joke, didn't like apartment
dwellers, etc.
As I drive around town, I see many FOR RENT signs, many on apartment houses. What makes the developers
sure they can rent all those apartments and the other space in the development? I have heard a story that
during the Depression, the owners of the Empire State Building were teased that it should be called the Empty
State Building because it was hard to keep all the floors in the building occupied during tough economic times.
But the developers can see into the future and know all their space will be rented? Is the Meridian full yet?
Seems to me it has better access.
A friend just finished reading a book by Mike Deaver and I said I was a great fan because I agreed with the
Deaver Rule ---that no matter what any public figure says or does, if a perception gets fixed in the minds of
ordinary people, that perception is going to be a more powerful influence than any ads, highly paid consultants,
or anything else the public figure tries to use.
Did I hear one of the well dressed, highly paid developer representatives, near the end of their testimony, say
something like "we don't want to insult you with ... "? Watching the meeting at home, I was doing other things
while watching TV, but that is what it sounded like to me.
My sense was that the people representing the developers were very slick but annoyed at citizens showing up
asking questions. Also, that the pro-development folks were engaged in magical thinking--give them the
approval they need and the unemployment rate in Salem would go down substantially, the entire development
would be built with no problems, there would never be congestion coming out of the parking lot (not even during
construction?) and apparently roadway that close to the river would never accumulate black ice on a day when
the temperature hovers around freezing, because if they got their approvals, no accident would ever clog up
that road. Accidents happen elsewhere but would never happen there?
I have seen more intellectual rigor among secondary students than I saw from some of the development
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\522129FFGWClS-... 9/3/2013
Page 3 of3
proponents Monday night. How DARE anyone ask them tough questions and expect a responsive answer! A
friend and I have been involved in a program called AVID which tutors college prep students to help them
succeed in school. In a conversation today (as much about the Monday council meeting as anything else) I
mentioned a favorite story from the 6th graders we worked with last year. The tutorial question brought by one
of the students was "Define bias and explain how it is used". The consensus definition from that group of 6th
graders was "You know how in a persuasive essay you are supposed to present both sides? Bias is when you
only tell good things about your side and only tell bad things about the other side."
Using that definition, it was my perception that the pro-development folks showed that kind of bias.
Who will be held responsible if things don't work out as expected? And what if ordinary folks say they are
cautious and want anyone taking such a development on faith to remember one name: Chuck Sides?
It seems to me that along the lines of the old saying, "measure twice, cut once", it would be wise to examine all
possible angles now Or, put another way, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
There is a point of view that HOW is at least as important as WHAT. Even in debates about what to do about
the gas attacks in Syria, there are valid questions about the unintended consequences of various forms of
reacting to those attacks.
And yet,.it seemed to me that the pro-development forces implied that if they got their permits there would be
no unintended consequences. The real world is not like that!
Let me close with a story I sent Mayor Peterson which relates to the tax abatement and whether that is a good
idea. There was a story that when Jesse Ventura was elected Gov. of Minnesota, one of the reasons given for
his victory was a debate answer. He was allowed to join the major party candidates in a debate. One of the
questions was about a request for public financing for a major league sports stadium. The 2 major party
candidates gave vague talking point answers about the need for economic development or whatever.
Former wrestler Ventura said he knew a little something about sports financing and had researched the
finances of the team involved. "They have enough resources to pay for their own stadium!", he said.
At a meeting where the financial problems of the parking district were discussed, I was disappointed that a bare
majority of the council voted in favor of the tax abatement. Mayor Peterson made some very good points in her
speech.
Abatements are expenditures and need to be paid for somehow. I do not believe that "tax cuts create jobs"
because I have never seen the data proving that. I've known people hired for a variety of reasons, but "a tax cut
created my job" was never one of them. There are those who believe an increase in customers creates more
jobs than tax cuts.
Although some believe that groups or wealthy individuals control politics, in reality the voters have the final
world. And each individual decides how to use their own free time. Monday night convinced me that people who
were open to citizen input and questions, and those who voted against the tax abatement were worthy of my
support and volunteer time if needed in the next election. Conversely, those who unquestioningly side with
developers and seem to have a problem with citizen input and questions deserve to be defeated in the next
election.
Sincerely,
Liz Toy
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\522129FFGWC1S-... 9/3/2013
Kathy Hall - Proposed Riverfront Apartment Development
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
KJ SIMILA <similand@msn.com>
<citycouncil@cityofSalem.net>
8/31/2013 10:07 AM
Proposed Riverfront Apmiment Development
Dear Councilors:
Page 1 of 1
I urge you to not approve the riverfront apartment development as currently designed. Some reasons follow:
Access: Is there any reason why access to this development can't be from Bellevue Street with the developer
building a bridge across Mill Creek? Certainly Boise Cascade had a bridge across the creek. Can some
accommodation be made with a railroad crossing in the Bellevue Street area for use by apartment residents and
emergency vehicles? An attractive, landscaped entrance road could be constructed enhancing the approach by
apartment residents. Access by emergency vehicles could also be accommodated instead of rebuilding the park
walkways to accommodate emergency vehicles. This would eliminate the issue of private access through a
public park.
Setbacks. The apartments as presently designed would create a four-story wall for an extensive distance along
the park border. There needs to be a substantial setback to avoid isolating the park and for visual attractiveness.
What is proposed by the developer is reconfiguring a public park to accommodate a private development.
Council should not approve this development as currently proposed.
Thank you.
Pat Simila
,.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5221C053GWC1S-... 9/3/2013
Sent from my Windows Phone .
From: Billijean Hill <billijeanh@msn.com>
Sent: 8/30/2013 7:19PM
To: Rich Clausen
Subject: Your vote on Salem's riverfront development
>>> "Billijean Hill" 2013-08-30T19:19:53.659593 >>>
Dear Councilor Clausen,
Page 1 of 1
MEl\lT Fl
Q 3 '11li:ll
,'If r Lll IJ
. C'lr SAU:::M
C1 I'( hl:CClF\DEFl
The current debate about developing the land to the South ofthe City Park and Carousel centers on eight
maJor Issues.
For about five years, the city council has made a priority of encouraging businesses and apartments in
the downtown area. Crossing the railroad tracks to reach this particular development site requires
innovation and a fresh approach. Does the proposed realignment of public parking lot add more parking
spaces for Carousel use? (Yes) Does the current proposal which reduces pedestrian and vehicle conflict
areas within the public parking lot, and separates the parking and
pedestrian entry to the Carousel from the entry road with a landscaped
safety barrier and fence, make it safer for people visiting the park and
carousel 7 (Yes) Does the current proposal remove the eyesore left when Boise Cascade vacated the
property? (Yes) If the Council denies this request, it is possible the land can never
be developed, as the city does not have funds to purchase the land for
park expansion or funds to pay the ongoing maintenance for an expansion
ofthe park. The proposed development would add jobs in the
construction phase; jobs in the added businesses located there, and
bring more people into downtown Salem, which would benefit the entire
Salem business community. It will increase business activity and tax
revenue, which a city park would not do. Many of the
negativ.e comments label the developer as greedy. Actually, the
developer has been a major contributor to many community projects, but
does not toot his own horn. The interest in downtown living is
evident in the rapid sale of all 27 condominiums at 295 CHURCH and the
recent rental of units at The Meridian. This proposed development
allows those who are not in a financial position to purchase a downtown
residence the opportunity to rent in a vibrant downtown area. Each
of you, as a voting member of the city council, will be making an
important decision with your vote that will affect our entire community.
I encourage you to approve this opportunity to enhance the Salem
downtown area.
Sincerely,
Billijean Hill- 503-371-5905
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5221CC83GWC1S... 9/3/2013
From: janice scott <scottqh@msn.com>
Sent: 8/30/2013 3:56PM
To: Rich Clausen
Subject: Proposed road through Riverfront park parking lot
>>>"janice scott" 2013-08-30T15:56:30.360919 >>>
Page 1 of 1
MENTFitEIJ
CITY ClF ; ~ A L E M
CITY liLCOFlDr::Fl
I am extremely opposed to the proposed road though Riverfront Park parking lot. I believe big money is
getting their way. This parking lot is already congested.
J. Scott
Sent from Windows Mail
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5221CC88GWC1S... 9/3/2013
Kathy Hall - Riverfront development
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
john day <jnwday@yahoo.com>
''citycouncil@cityofsalem.net" <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
8/31/2013 11:23 AM
Riverfront development
Page 1 of 1
SEP 0 3 2 0 1 3 ~
CITY OF' SALEI\Ii
CITY Fi[COFlDf+l
My previous email omitted the least expensive underpass to the development and that would an underpass along
the north side of Pringle Creek.
John Day
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5221D223GWC1S-... 9/3/2013
Page 1 of 5
Kathy Hall - Re: Two cents worth on Riverfront development
From: Carole Smith <carole@smithkittleson.com>
<DelanaB@aol.com>
" r ~ p 0 0 'lfl1{\
~ ) t u LU 1.;
To:
Date: 8/31/2013 12:51 PM
CITY OF SALEM
CITY F\E:COFUJEJl
Subject: Re: Two cents worth on Riverfront development
CC: Laurie Dougherty <lauriedougherty@gmail.com>, David Fox <david@foxblue.c ...
About time. Amen.
Carole
On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:48PM, DelanaB@aol.com wrote:
Six points in just trying to keep my thoughts straight:
1. Keeping the downtown viable should be an overriding goal for all of us -- it is our home
and "beating heart."
2. Downtown viability, notwithstanding all we say about urban livability, etc., must begin with
economic viability of downtown businesses.
3. A quality development on the Boise site would be a very good thing for downtown viability.
4. We should actively support a quality development, and not get hung up on personalities and
who is doing the developing.
5. "Greenness" in a dense urban setting emphasizes different points than "greenness" in the
suburbs (or certainly in the countryside) Construction features play a lesser role, and overall site
relationships and urban planning (the people features) become more important.
6. Integrity of Riverfront Park and all its complicated relationships must similarly be an overriding
concern.
BUT:
7. Profitability in some form of the development must also be considered.
Thinking about these points (and welcoming contradictory assumptions) suggests to me that having
all public use and "parkness" west of the railroad tracks makes sense. (Kind of reminds me of
aerial views of the straight line boundary of Central Park, in New York City --all the various people
along it have roughly equal access to go out there.)
At the very least, the issue becomes the use of the so-called gray area as much or more than the
transportation to it.
Finally, I can't decide if it's a blessing or curse that we happen to have a railroad that demands
being dealt with running through it ...
As I said, just some thoughts.
Russ
In a message dated 8/30/2013 1:57:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, lauriedougherty@gmail.com
writes:
I've been trying to find time to finish reading the application for a tax abatement (93 pages)
and view the council meeting on CCTV to be better informed before adding my 2 cents, but
I have to say I agree with David.
Even without special green features, this type of apartment development is inherently more
energy efficient. I've lived in cities that are real cities. I've lived in suburbs that are more
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5221E6DBGWC1S... 9/3/2013
urban than Salem. In real cities people thrive without cars, people walk for blocks and
blocks to work, to do errands, to socialize, to get exercise. City dwellers devise multi-modal
transportation routes: walk or bike to public transit on which they can read books,
newspapers, Kindles, fool with iPods and cell phones; do homework, people watch,
converse. Parks are city-dwellers' backyards and are much loved and used. Is Salem
really a city or not? I can't figure it out.
One issue I haven't seen raised in this discussion is the environmental clean-up.
According to the tax abatement application, the developer will be responsible for that and it
is one of the identified public benefits listed in support of the abatement. If the city were to
acquire that parcel, the city would have to undertake the cleanup of what must be a very
polluted site. Has anyone computed the costs of that?
Laurie
Laurie Dougherty
Like a Cat With Nine Lives http://lauriedoughertyblog.wordpress.com/
Lasting peace and social justice require equitable and sustainable use of resources.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:18PM, David Fox <david@foxblue.com> wrote:
I agree that there seem to be no intentionally "green" elements to the the Riverfront
Apartments, but by nature of it's location, and the fact that it is condensed housing in an
urban setting, it fits some of the most important criteria for sustainable living. With all due
respect to you, Richard, I disagree with you and staff that it is unlikely pedestrians would
walk much further than the onsite retail center. Salemites are just as capable of walking
a few blocks into downtown as citizens of other towns. I'm not sure what the motivation
would be for driving 4 blocks to a coffee shop or restaurant in town if you lived at that
location. Riverfront Apartments wont likely attract sedentary renters .
. Just my thoughts.
dfox
David M. Fox
<PastedGraphic-4.tiff>
On Aug 30, 2013, at 1:07PM, Richard Reid wrote:
Thanks for this resource Laurie. I could be wrong but I don't believe there is
anything in City building code right now stipulating anything "green"
or "sustainable."
A case in point are the 118 apartments envisioned south of Riverfront Park.
Right now there's nothing green or sustainable about them.
To Curt's point, I can't agree that this proposal is pedestrian oriented yet.
As staff points out it is unlikely that pedestrians will walk much further than
the onsite retail center.
Unfortunately much of the tax revenue is abated as of last Monday.
Richard
On Aug 19, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Laurie Dougherty wrote:
Page 2 of 5
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5221E6DBGWCIS ... 9/3/2013
Speaking of Smart Growth America, Kaid Benfield,
Sustainable Cities Director at NRDC and a founder of Smart
Growth America, posted an article recently at
SustainableCitiesCollective reprising principles for sustainable
cities from a number of organizations and initiatives,
including, EPA. Smart Growth America, New Urbanism, plus
his own and others' ideas. Lots of linked information and food
for thought.
httR://sustainablecitiescollective.com/kaidbenfield/170456/still-
searching-sustainable-city-formula?
Laurie
On Aug 18, 2013 6:49 PM, "Curt Fisher"
<curtwfisher@gmail.com> wrote:
i I see the abatement as a separate issue. We can debate
the merits of the policy but the apartments appear to meet
the criteria. FWIW, Smartgrowth America conducted a
study and found that pedestrian oriented developments like
this one yield 10 times more tax revenue per acre than a
sprawl development:
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/building-better-budgets
This one probably doesn't fare that well (because so much
of the site is parking) but it is better than most in Salem.
-Curt
Curt Fisher
680 Leffelle St. SE Salem, OR
curtwfisher@gmail.com
South Central Association of Neighbors
Citizens Advisory On Traffic Commission
Salem Sunday Streets
"What seems indefensible for a current
generation may become indispensable for
future generations." --Donald Shoup, The
High Cost Of Free Parking.
On Aug 18, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Richard Reid wrote:
In response to an earlier email Re: Better
Ways to Manage Parking: New TGM
Guidebook-5/Tokarski development,
Councilor Bennet replied, " ... I'm not aware of
any tax breaks for either of the developments
you mentioned ... " he may be right.
Page 3 of 5
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5221E6DBGWC1 S... 9/3/2013
I need to check my facts. What I recall is
some discussion about tax breaks for these
two projects. The condo developer wanted to
discount property taxes and threatened to pull
out if they weren't forthcoming. I recall the
Meridian asking for similar help.
Unfortunately the SJ reporting on City Hall is
inadequate and it's tough to followup city
business via the website. I assumed since the
projects were built the tax breaks were
approved.
A preponderance of research on the costs of
growth concludes that real estate
development does not pay its share of the
costs of services. I should have said that,
rather than whine about tax breaks.
In the meantime I hope we all get the
information we need about the work
session/hearing Aug 26.
Mea culpa,
Richard
You received this message because you are
subscribed to the Google
Groups "SalemUnited" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
receiving emails from it, send an email to
salemunited+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google Groups "SalemUnited" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to
salemunited+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to salemunited+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt out.
Page 4 of 5
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5221E6DBGWC1S ... 9/3/2013
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
salemunited+unsubscribe@google9IQ!!f2S.com.
For more options, visit https://grouf2s.google.com/groups/opt out.
Page 5 of 5
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5221E6DBGWC1S ... 9/3/2013
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Sandy <colbu rn6998@comcast. net>
"citycou ncil@cityofsalem. net" <citycou ncil@cityofsalem. net>
8/31/2013 1:01PM
APARTMENT FIASCO
Please, don't let them (the developers) ruin our park.
I was really pleased at the tough question that the Mayor posed to that Tokarski son.
Thanks for that. He looked like a jerk.
Sandy Colburn
DOCUMEI\IT FILED
Kathy Hall- ACCESS TO THE BOISE PROPERTY: THE SOLUTION
From:
11
Geoffrey James
11
<geoffreyj ames@comcast.net>
Page 1 of 1

1
.:1
1
r:: 'i
J. I LJJ J
SEP 0 3
Date:
Subject:
8/31/2013 2:21PM
ACCESS To THE BOISE PROPERTY .
. THE SOLUTION SALEM
Cll Y f-lf-.COf1DEF)
CC: <dahughes@statesmanj ournal.com>, <whiteoakridge@juno .com>, <patrice.holt...
1
Attachments: ACCESS TO BOISE PROPERTY.pdf; boise site south access.pdf
City Council:
Attached is a Report on a SOLUTION to the access issue.
The alternative access costs more than re-striping and scaling down the Carousel lot.
But is a better option for the people of Salem.
Also attached is a larger copy of the Map, if you want more detail.
let's NOT violate the park.
Geoff
Geoffrey :James
A.I.A.
gja mesa rch itect@g rna i I. com
50 years International architecture and planning UK US 1963-2013
Mernber: Arnerican Institute of Architects
4676 Commercial St SE Suite #8, Salem, Oregon 97302
Want to always have my latest info?
tel: (503) 931-4120
tel2: (503) 967-0234
fax: (503) 863-3860
mobile: (503) 931-4120
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5221FBF6GWClS-... 9/3/2013
August31, 2013
THE ACCESS REQUEST
Access to the proposed apartments, west of the tracks, has been requested through Riverfront Park.
The public " is outraged at the idea of pushing a private access road through the Carousel parking lot,
reducing these standard 9 x 19 parking spaces to narrow compact car spaces.
CONGESTION
ODOT engineers and knowledgeable people testified that the State Street intersection is dangerous,
congested, and an accident waiting to happen. Adding 400 additional vehicle trips per day from a
private development, that wants to use the park as its entrance, would be irresponsible. These are
small children arriving at the Carousel and the Rotary Playground. It is already a traffic problem.
Adding to the traffic with non-park users, and reducing the parking spaces to small cars makes a bad
situation critically worse.
THE SOLUTION: THE SOUTH ACCESS
Fortunately, there is a good alternative.
The attached aerial photo map shows there is an existing access road to the proposed Slough
Parking, i.e. west of the tracks, from Bellevue St. Councilor Nanke asked about this. Applicant said
they prefer not because (1) it is a longer entrance drive and (2) it requires a bridge, which adds extra
cost. Brad noted that they already show a proposed bridge over Pringle Creek. This idea would either
relocate that proposed bridge, or add another. As far as cost is concerned, it is not like bridging the
Slough. Say the access driveway is 20ft. wide (as was proposed from the north) and we need a
similar 4 ft. sidewalk, that is a 24 ft. wide bridge. That can be accomplished by three semi truck
deliveries. By that I mean three precast concrete "Tee Beams" that are typically 8ft. wide, by say 65
ft. long, and maybe 5 ft. deep in a double tee profile. Each of the three beams would be transported
by flat bed truck, and the beams lifted into position by a mobile crane, in one day, on to concrete
abutments. Yes, it would cheaper to restripe the public park's parking lot, but that would be
irresponsible.
THE PROPOSED ACCESS
The atta'ched aerial map shows the Pringle Square complex entrance to be at Bellevue SE. You turn
right to enter the Mixed Use development of the old mill, with parking at its lower levels, and
commercial leased retail office space above, and residential units above, and added on the south
(Bellevue) side. You drive straight ahead and cross the tracks at that existing railroad crossing and
drive through the Slough parking lot. Location of the proposed bridge (see above) will be where it
needs to connect to the apartment interior parking lots, so maybe close to the tracks. That solves the
Access Issue, and still allows the apartment development to proceed.
THEPROPOSEDLANDSWAP?
As the Mayor pointed out, the previous proposal from the applicant, was to offer to greatly enlarge the
Carousel Parking (.e. the Riverfront Park Parking) by extending the parki9ng lot into the Boise
Property. In answer to questions from the Mayor the applicant said "that is now off the table". The
current proposal adds more apartment units, and into the area that was to be the land swap" or
enlarged park parking. They admitted that the new proposal just adds seven (7) compact car spaces,
in exchange for them violating the park and shrinking down the Carousel spaces.
IS THE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT TOO LARGE FOR ITS SITE?
It was observed that the apartment windows are just 20ft. from the park boundary, e.g. on the west
side. This is standard code buffer requirement for apartments built next to a neighborhood park. But
Geoffrey James A. I.A. Architect 4676 Commercial St. S.E., Suite 8, Salem, Oregon 97302 503-931-4120 gjamesarchitect@gmail.com
August 31, 2013
the Eco Earth and the Pedestrian Bridge entrance needs more park space around it. The solution
would be an increased landscaped buffer, i.e. setting the apartment walls and windows further back
behind a landscaped strip.
WAS THE PROCESS BACKWARDS?
Normally a developer ensures he has ACCESS first, before proceeding with detailed designs. The
"Team" were so anxious to take up council time by talking at length (a series of consultants) about the
detailed design of the apartments. The Mayor was right that the basic question to start with is
ACCESS and explain why the access through the park is claimed to be the only way. However, in this
case, the applicant proceeded with detailed Site Plan Review etc. BEFORE confirming access. They
should have confirmed that a NORTH access was permitted before hiring an expensive team of
consultants to do as detailed design, possibly ready for building permit processing. A very backwards
way of project management, but possibly a high stakes poker game, i.e. having a development
designed and ready to go, assuming the Chamber could help them get a park access anyway. They
did not count on the Public being awake, enlightened, and perceptive. They will not get away with that
ploy. There IS access available, in a way that the Carousel and Riverfront Park is not violated.
THE VIEWS OF THE RIVERFRONT
When the Convention Center was built the Mayor and community leaders remarked that the View of
the Riverfront was very important, and the sooner the old triangular Boise Warehouse was removed,
the better. Well, it WAS removed. However, now replacement buildings are planned, a 3 story wall of
apartments, a nursing home, a high rise office building, and other structures. It's like the Rose Test
Gardens in SW Portland that used to have a view of Mt. Hood. Then the KOIN Center skyscraper was
built, and exactly blocks Mt Hood from those admiring the roses. Same thing here. When a visitor
looks out from the second floor of the Convention Center towards the adjacent Riverfront Park, their
view is now to be blocked by a wall of new buildings. Vistas or visual easements are really the
solution, and our city planners or urban designers should be ensuring these views are protected.
HISTORICAL NOTE
in 197 4, 'Peter Courtney was on the City Council, and the author was on the Planning Commission.
Folks were talking about the possibilities if Boise Cascade ever moved, plus connecting three parks,
a Riverfront Park to Wallace Marine and a Minto-Brown Island. The author created an urban design
plan and rendering called "Riverfront 2000" and was invited to the annual Council Goals Session,
which was focused on transforming the industrial riverfront into a park. The author had just come from
Spokane, where we did the same thing, but using a World's Fair, i.e. Expo 74, to make it happen. The
old industrial buildings were removed. The railroad was actually relocated "around" downtown. Front
Street became a boulevard .. 16 blocks of downtown were connected by the "Skywalk", i.e. sky bridges
and 2nd. Floor route through blocks and buildings, from retail stores, to bank lobbies, and office
buildings. It has become a tourist attraction. Moving to Salem in 1974 the author saw the same
possibilities here, i.e. a Riverfront Park and a Skywalk system, so joined several City committees.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The attached map shows that access to the "west of the tracks" development should be from the
existing access road from the south.
Council should DENY the proposed access through the Carousel lot, for the reason stated
above, i.e. safety, congestion, and adverse impact on the park users.
There is good access to the property (see the map), and the park should be protected, and enhanced
at every opportunity. No violation of our Riverfront Park should be permitted.
Geoffrey James A.I.A. Architect 4676 Commercial St. S.E., Suite 8, Salem, Oregon 97302 503-931-4120 gjarnesarchitect@gmail.com
August31,2013
Geoffrey James A.I.A. Architect 4676 Commercial St. S.E., Suite 8, Salem, Oregon 97302 503-931-4120 gjamesarchitect@gmail.com
Page 1 of6
Kathy Hall - Re: Two cents worth on Riverfront development
DOCUMEI\IT H
From: Richard Reid <richard@bluffhouse.org>
To: Salem United <salemunited@googlegroups.com> SEP 0 3 20131
Date: 8/31/2013 4:33 PM '(OF SALEfvl
Subject: Re: Two cents worth on Riverfront development CITY FlEComx:n
CC: David Fox <david@foxblue.com>, Carole Smith <carole@smithkittleson.com>, ...
On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:48PM, DelanaB@aol.com wrote:
Six points in just trying to keep my thoughts straight:
1. Keeping the downtown viable should be an overriding goal for all of us -- it is our home
and "beating heart."
Exactly. And to attain this goal the public must be not only involved in weighing the costs and benefits
but also enfranchised. Our "beating hemi" should be entitled to make major community decisions
2. Downtown viability, notwithstanding all we say about urban livability, etc., must begin with
economic viability of downtown businesses.
Which comes first ay? Many favor urban livability and consider it an attractant to economic viability.
3. A quality development on the Boise site would be a very good thing for downtown viability.
So the "quality" fork in the road. To some "quality" means "profitability" to others it
means "livability."
4. We should actively support a quality development, and not get hung up on personalities and
who is doing the developing.
This assertion speaks to process including the political process. Some personalities work with the public
and Council others attempt to override them.
5. "Greenness" in a dense urban setting emphasizes different points than "greenness" in the
suburbs (or certainly in the countryside) Construction features play a lesser role, and overall site
relationships and urban planning (the people features) become more important.
Construction features matter to LEEDS and other certified design/construction standards that surpass
most building codes. Site relationships and urban planning are essential for "livability" but less so
for "profitability."
6. Integrity of Riverfront Park and all its complicated relationships must similarly be an overriding
concern.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52221AD3GWC1S... 9/3/2013
Page 2 of6
"Integrity" has been sustained because up to now, advocates for Riverfront Park have managed to fend
off egregious "profitable'' proposals.
BUT:
7. Profitability in some form of the development must also be considered.
Yes "profitability" and "location." The former is difficult to calculate for intrinsic value
(viewscape, safe place to play) and the latter is a critical factor in "value" ie
profitability. Should intrinsic value be sacrificed for the sake of
locational "profitability" ?
Thinking about these points (and welcoming contradictory assumptions) suggests to me that having
all public use and "parkness" west of the railroad tracks makes sense. (Kind of reminds me of
aerial views of the straight line boundary of Central Park, in New York City-- all the various people
along it have roughly equal access to go out there.)
At the very least, the issue becomes the use of the so-called gray area as much or more than the
transportation to it.
Finally, I can't decide if it's a blessing or curse that we happen to have a railroad that demands
being dealt with running through it ...
As I said, just some thoughts.
Russ
And well put! To me the "gray area" is made clear when we consider Francis Hutcheson's Maxim often
quoted when public benefit is weighed against profitability. Hutcheson proposed that we choose
action "which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers."
It is a very simple matter for the developer to yield the "gray area" for now and develop adjacent parcels
that a r ~ more profitable and, by listening to the "beating heati" could also be more livable.
There's really no need to compromise the integrity of the Park or deliberately create traffic problems
around the Carousel. Many would like to see proposals for Front Street and for eliminating the blight
created along Commercial.
Richard
In a message dated 8/30/2013 1:57:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, lauriedougherty@gmail.com
writes:
I've been trying to find time to finish reading the application for a tax abatement (93 pages)
and view the council meeting on CCTV to be better informed before adding my 2 cents, but
I have to say I agree with David.
Even without special green features, this type of apartment development is inherently more
energy efficient. I've lived in cities that are real cities. I've lived in suburbs that are more
urban than Salem. In real cities people thrive without cars, people walk for blocks and
blocks to work, to do errands, to socialize, to get exercise. City dwellers devise multi-modal
transportation routes: walk or bike to public transit on which they can read books,
newspapers, Kindles, fool with iPods and cell phones; do homework, people watch,
converse. Parks are city-dwellers' backyards and are much loved and used. Is Salem
really a city or not? I can't figure it out.
One issue I haven't seen raised in this discussion is the environmental clean-up.
According to the tax abatement application, the developer will be responsible for that and it
is one of the identified public benefits listed in support of the abatement. If the city were to
acquire that parcel, the city would have to undertake the cleanup of what must be a very
polluted site. Has anyone computed the costs of that?
Laurie
Laurie Dougherty
Like a Cat With Nine Lives htttd/lauriedoughertyblog.wordpress.com/
Lasting peace and social justice require equitable and sustainable use of resources.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM, David Fox <david@foxblue.com> wrote:
I agree that there seem to be no intentionally "green" elements to the the Riverfront
Apartments, but by nature of it's location, and the fact that it is condensed housing in an
urban setting, it fits some of the most important criteria for sustainable living. With all due
respect to you, Richard, I disagree with you and staff that it is unlikely pedestrians would
walk much further than the onsite retail center. Salemites are just as capable of walking
a few blocks into downtown as citizens of other towns. I'm not sure what the motivation
would be for driving 4 blocks to a coffee shop or restaurant in town if you lived at that
location. Riverfront Apartments wont likely attract sedentary renters.
Just my thoughts.
dfox
David M. Fox
<PastedGraphic-4.tiff>
Thanks for this resource Laurie. I could be wrong but I don't believe there is
anything in City building code right now stipulating anything "green"
or "sustainable."
A case in point are the 118 apartments envisioned south of Riverfront Park.
Right now there's nothing green or sustainable about them.
To Curt's point, I can't agree that this proposal is pedestrian oriented yet.
As staff points out it is unlikely that pedestrians will walk much further than
the onsite retail center.
Unfortunately much of the tax revenue is abated as of last Monday.
Richard
On Aug 19, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Laurie Dougherty wrote:
Speaking of Smart Growth America, Kaid Benfield,
Sustainable Cities Director at NRDC and a founder of Smart
Growth America, posted an article recently at
SustainableCitiesCollective reprising principles for
Page 3 of6
sustainable cities from a number of organizations and
initiatives, including, EPA. Smart Growth America, New
Urbanism, plus his own and others' ideas. Lots of linked
information and food for thought.
http:l/sustainablecitiescollective.com/kaidbenfield/170456/still-
searching-sustainable-city-formula?
Laurie
On Aug 18, 2013 6:49 PM, "Curt Fisher"
<curtwfisher@gmail.com> wrote:
i I see the abatement as a separate issue. We can debate
I the merits of the policy but the apartments appear to meet
: the criteria. FWIW, Smartgrowth America conducted a
I study and found that pedestrian oriented developments like
: this one yield 10 times more tax revenue per acre than a
' sprawl development:
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/building-better-budgets
This one probably doesn't fare that well (because so much
of the site is parking) but it is better than most in Salem.
-Curt
:Curt Fisher
680 Leffelle St. SE Salem, OR
curtwfisher@gmail.com
South Central Association of Neighbors
Citizens Advisory On Traffic Commission
Salem Sunday Streets
"What seems indefensible for a current
generation may become indispensable for
future generations." --Donald Shoup, The
High Cost Of Free Parking.
In response to an earlier email Re: Better
Ways to Manage Parking: New TGM
Guidebook-5/Tokarski development,
Councilor Bennet replied, " ... I'm not aware of
any tax breaks for either of the developments
you mentioned ... " he may be right.
I need to check my facts. What I recall is
some discussion about tax breaks for these
two projects. The condo developer wanted to
discount property taxes and threatened to pull
Page 4 of6
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52221AD3GWClS... 9/3/2013
out if they weren't forthcoming. I recall the
Meridian asking for similar help.
Unfortunately the SJ reporting on City Hall is
inadequate and it's tough to followup city
business via the website. I assumed since the
projects were built the tax breaks were
approved.
A preponderance of research on the costs of
growth concludes that real estate
development does not pay its share of the
costs of services. I should have said that,
rather than whine about tax breaks.
In the meantime I hope we all get the
information we need about the work
session/hearing Aug 26.
Mea culpa,
Richard
You received this message because you are
subscribed to the Google
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
receiving emails from it, send an email to
salemunited+unsubscribe@goog@groups.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google Groups "SalemUnited" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to salemunited+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Page 5 of6
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52221AD3GWClS... 9/3/2013
For more options, visit htlJ;ls://groups.google.com/groups/opt out.
Page 6 of6
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52221AD3GWCIS... 9/3/2013
Kathy Hall- Access to proposed "Residences" at Boise Site
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
<epwhitehouse@comcast.net>
9/1/2013 4:14PM
Access to proposed "Residences" at Boise Site
<manager@cityofsalem.net>
Dear Councilors:
Page 1 of 1
UMEI\IT r:11
I _d
SEP 0 3 20131
OJ SAU::f\;1
Lll ( lii:COHDEFl
I'd like to briefly explain what I meant by the opportunity cost to the public of the proposed 118
unit apartment complex. "Opportunity cost" is defined by economists as the value of the next-
highest valued alternative use of a resource. In this case, the opportunity cost of building the
apartment complex is the value to the public of instead using the property to expand Riverfront
Park.
Mountain West's statement of estimated project costs included an appraised value of the
property, which was estimated to be $3.2 million as of January 30, 2013 (estimate by Colliers
International). City staff does not have a copy of that property appraisal or any other
appraisals of this property. In my public records request of May 29 2013, I asked for all copies
of any appraisal reports possessed by City staff, and none were provided. I had hoped to read
such appraisal reports to see how the appraiser handled the access issue. This $3.2 million
value may have assumed that Council would provide inexpensive access to the site through
the Carousel parking lot as well as secondary emergency services access through the Park's
pedestrian paths.
Once the concrete is poured, it may be many generations before this site could be considered
for a possible expansion of Riverfront Park.
Respectfully,
Evan White
4553 Brock Loop S.
Salem, OR 97302
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\522367D7GWC1 S-... 9/3/2013
Page 1 of 1
Kathy Hall- Mountain West Boise property access
From: "Dana & Doug Barricklow" <dbarricklow@gmail.com>
DOCUI\I1Ef\IT HLED
To: Salem City Council <Citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 9/1/2013 4:19PM
r>\." Q 3 'lfl1'l I
St "' lJJ IJ
Subject: Mountain West Boise property access
I read, and heartily support, the Geoffrey James, A.I.A. access scheme you received, and hope you do
support it, as well. It is a very elegant solution to the access problem. It completely avoids any violation
of public prope1iy for private, profit-making usage of the Boise property. Geoff James' access scheme
will not violate the park in any way, and is a wonderful solution to the access problem. The City should
have no part in making it possible for a private company to use and profit in any way from public park
property. Your job now is to make sure that the Mountain West apartment scheme's proposed access
through the Riverfront Park is DENIED. Mountain West can access their proposed apartments through
their own existing access routes to their own property, which is as it should be. Respectfully, Douglas
Barricklow
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5223691BGWC1 S-... 9/3/2013
Kathy Hall - Pringle Square access options
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Brian Hines <brianhinesl@gmail.com>
''citycouncil@cityofsalem.net'' <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
9/1/2013 9:43PM
Pringle Square access options
Page 1 of 1
SEP 0 3 2013
C:II y OF: Si\1 Ff\JI'
<: 1-rv nEcc)n751::r':t
Some interesting alternatives to a Carousel parking lot takeover are emerging. Please look them over
carefully.
We're fortunate to have so many creative, caring people in Salem. They love their Riverfront Park, yet
want Boise Cascade re-development to succeed. Here's what they're saying:
httQ ://hinessight. blogs. com/hinessight/2 0 13/09/ salemians-say-pringle-square-dont-mess-with-riverfront-
}2.flrk-.html
--Brian
Brian Hines
Salem, Oregon USA
brianhines1 @gmail.com
httRJltwitter.com/oregonbrian (twitter)
www.brianhines.com (web site)
www.hinesblog.com (blog)
www.churchofthechurchless.com (other blog)
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5223B4F6GWC1 S-... 9/3/2013
Kathy Hall - Riverfront apartments
From: Pat Dixon <patbilldixon@gmail.com>
To:
Date: 9/112013 10:24 PM
Subject: Riverfront apartments
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMEI\\T Fl
rp O
0
'Jfl1?,,
St 0 {,UI,,
z C)F S/\LE.fyl
)Lil
My husband and I support the building of the apatiments by Riverfront Parle. Salem needs new
development and people who will be in the park. We would prefer a smaller number of apartments, but
if that is not possible than urge you to vote for the development.
Thank You,
Pat and Bill Dixon
608 Salem Heights Ave. S.
Salem, OR 97302
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\5223BEACGWC 1... 9/3/2013
Page 1 of2
Kathy Hall- Re: ACCESS TO THE BOISE PROPERTY: THE SOLUTION
To: Salem United <salemunited@googlegroups.com>
Date: 9/2/2013 8:19AM
SEP 0 3 20'131
S b
. R ACCESS TO THE BOISE PRO ' , ~ j T Y OFSAU::i\11
u Ject: e: PERTY: THE SOLUTION r :1
1
y HU:or:)nr::rJ
CC: <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>, Citizenforum Discussion <citizenforum@yah... ' '
1
Surely, before projects are approved both Council and the public ought to consider a range of impacts.
To avoid unnecessary risks, some economic questions need to have numbers attached to them. What are
the City's costs for accommodating a project? What are the anticipated revenues to offset those costs?
Will the City have to increase debt to fund the services expansion? Are there alternatives to a project
that provide adequate profits to the developer and timely repay City costs? When considering
alternatives can we compute opportunity costs? etc
There are questions about the appropriate use of land and space. How will a project affect the
viewscape? Will tenants be comfortable with ambient conditions (noise, trash)? How will tenants' cars
impact local and bridge traffic? etc
There are socio-economic questions. What class of tenants will an apartment complex attract? How will
adding a sizeable transient population impact the area? (Many used to be concerned that building a
pedestrian bridge would invite "undesirables" into Minto Island.) Where will the new population work?
There are environmental questions that deserve consideration too.
Richard
On Sep 2, 2013, at 1:32AM, DelanaB@aol.com wrote:
John
What you say is clearly correct-- the overall costs of infrastructure per unit in a suburban setting
take more resources per unit from scratch. Normally, however, in a "downtown" type of project,
you're dealing with a redevelopment situation where some major expenses need to be faced of a
capital cost nature-- or at least the public sector thinks they do. If the services are simply already
there and need to be hooked up, then you're right. But usually, especially with the need to replace
aging infrastucture, that is not the case -- at least in the practical projects with which I have been
familiar. Clearly, the type of compact development you're referring to is a smarter planning option
for the city in general. In short, however, the "more expensive" phrase was not meant to be in a per
unit sense. It ought to be, but in these days of tight budgets, the large lump-sum capital costs often
frighten city budgeteers, and often is the major reason that getting these types of project underway
is so difficult. (Believe me, I think and hope "sprawlville is an endangered species ... )
In a message dated 9/2/2013 12:05:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gearjm@gmail.com writes:
I dispute this.
Suburban development (aka, single family dwelling sprawl) costs more than compact
development precisely because the unit cost of providing infrastructure to each household
is far less in an urban setting than in sprawlville. More units per acre, more units served
per linear foot of infrastructure (piping, wireline, etc.), less area of asphalt or concrete
needed to service each household, lower costs to deliver public services to each unit
(police/fire/public health).
Where did you come up with the "indisputable fact" that is so readily and plainly disputable?
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52244A25GWC1S-... 9/3/2013
On Sep 1, 2013, at 11:40 PM, DelanaB@aol.com wrote:
Couple this with the indisputable fact that provision of
infrastructure is more expensive in the core,
Page 2 of2
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52244A25GWC1 S-... 9/3/2013
Kathy Hall - Minto View LLC Property Tax Exemption Request
From: Glenn Million <gunslng44@yahoo.com>
To: "citycouncil@cityofsalem.net" <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>, "favilleje ...
Date: 9/2/2013 8:24AM
Subject: Minto View LLC Property Tax Exemption Request
Dear Council and School Board Directors,
Page 1 of 1
UIIJIEI\Ir Fi
'.fry
111

)llDrn
Last Monday the City Staff recommended Council approve a property tax exemption for Minto View,
LLC and to make a request to the Salem-Keizer School District Board to adopt a resolution agreeing to
the exemption.
I strongly encourage you to DENY this request for a property tax exemption. The Salem-Keizer School
District has struggled with budget set backs over the last several years and it's would not be prudent or
fiscally responsible to approve any property tax exemptions.
I furthermore recommend you consider a developers fee be added for this and all future developments to
provide funding for our Salem-Keizer school district who will have to bear the burden of educating the
additional families of new residential projects. Developers Fees are common in other counties and cities
and it's about time we implemented such a program in Salem. Below is an example pulled from the
Sacramento Unified School District located in the state capitol of California:
Current Developer Fee Rates
Residential Construction $3.20 per square foot
Commercial/Industrial Construction $0.51 per square foot
Retail Self-Storage Construction $0.42 per square foot
Best Regards,
Lara L. Million
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52244B45GWC1S-... 9/3/2013
Kathy Hall - no apartments west of the RR tracks, please
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Carel De Winkel <cdewinkel@comcast.net>
9/2/2013 9:42AM
no apartments west of the RR tracks, please
Dear Council Members:
Page 1 of 1
UIVIEl\rT FILEU
SEP 0 3 2013
It has come to our attention that you will soon make a decision on the proposed apartment project by
Mountain West at River Front Park west of the railroad tracks.
My wife and I are strongly AGAINST this proposed project.
The citizens of Salem are proud on how River Front Park has been developed from an ugly place to a
delightful park with many different uses. The demolition of the Boise-Cascade building has (partially)
removed an eyesore and opened up the view to the River Front and Minto Brown Parks (while also
offering the opportunity for fmiher residential and commercial development on the EAST side of the
rail road tracks). The City's plan to connect the Bush/Pringle parks with River Front Park and fmiher to
Minto Brown is exciting. An apartment building doesn't fit in this picture.
A department building near the Carousel would increase traffic around the Carousel and the children's
play ground where lots of children are going back and fmih. Not a good idea.
We are hopeful that you will encourage the developer to take the project to another place in our City
and save this area as a public space.
Thank you for your attention.
,.
Sincerely,
Carel De Winkel and Edna Denton.
1795 Fir Street S
Salem, OR 97302
USA
Page 1 of 1
Kathy Hall- BOISE PROPERTY: Community Impact Model/description
LHVI E 1\IT Fl
To:
Date:
Subject:
Salem United <salemunited@googlegroups.com> SEP 0 3 20\3
1
9/2/2013 11:03 AM CITY cw
BOISE PROPERTY: 'community Impact Model/description CITY FlCCOflDEP
CC: <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>, Citizenforum Discussion <citizenforum@yah ...
Attachments: Fodor CIM_Model_Description.pdf
I think .we can agree that the complexity and impacts of this particular proposal require more time for
community deliberation that includes all pertinent information.
Fortunately Eben Fodor of Fodor and Associates is sharing the analytical tool he created to calculate
community impacts. The handbook that describes the Community Impact Model discusses the multiple
fiscal impacts of development. It's a valuable resource for anyone trying to get a handle on this complex
subject.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5224 707BGWC 1 S-... 9/3/2013

'
Page 1 of 1
Kathy Hall - Boise Cascade Development Fi
From: Irene LONGAKER <irelon@msn.com> ;ITYt11-. ;)ALEI\!l
"citycouncil@cityofsalem.net'' <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>, Hi COfHJEn
9/2/2013 12:55 PM
To:
Date:
Subject: Boise Cascade Development
Please do not approve this plan currently on the table. The City of Salem can not allow a road near the
Carousel. That idea is equal to taking out the Bush Park Rose Gardens to put in additional parking.
That was actually discussed years ago. The City of Salem is grateful that this didn't occur. It came close
and thus "Friends of Bush Gardens" came into being. The City of Salem will look back and be grateful
that a road was not put close the Carousel.
I agree with everything Evan White wrote in his August 25, 2013 on the opinion page in the Statesman
Journal. I would only add the question, "where are all these apartment dwelling children going to go to
school?".
I am behind a new vision for the old Boise Cascade site but this plan is not my vision.
Irene Longaker, 975 High Street S.E., Salem, OR 97302
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52248ABEGWC1S ... 9/3/2013
D U ENT fi ])
s' . ~ f) 0 'H11 3
%t" 3 !UI,j
From: <wallacereed@comcast.net>
<Citycouncil@cityofsalem.net> To:
CC:
Date:
<pferandez@cityofsalem. net>, <mbecktel@cityofsalem. net>, <kkeever@cityof ...
9/2/2013 5:59 PM
Subject: Thoughts on Saving The Carousel
Dear City of Salem Mayor Peterson, City Councilors and Manager Norris:
My interest is in preserving and enhancing the value of Salem's River Front Carousel for the enjoyment of
all of Salem and it's visitors. To save you time in your consideration, my points on the subject follow here.
The argument for each point is discussed in more detail following the points to consider.
POINTS TO CONSIDER-
land
park
The economy is recovering slowly and construction cost increases are not
expected for some time.
Both the originally proposed closing of the State Street railroad crossing
with access to the Carousel via a grade crossing on the Boise development
property. Securing a separate grade crossing for the Boise development is a
very doable option.
The Carousel has proven its benefits to Salem and Salem's downtown businesses.
Travel Salem and others have verified the Carousel's contribution. The contribution
of the proposed Boise property apartments are very speculative and will not be
realized for some time.
As I understand it, the long range plan for River Front Park includes acquiring the
land west of the railroad to be added to the park. If a mix of funding sources can
be put together, now is the time to acquire that land from the developer. And, the
negotiated price what ever it is will be money the developer can use to enhance their
to the east of the tracks.
In the proposed reconfiguration of the Carousel parking lot, has any provision been made for the
likely increase of parking demand to service the proposed Minto Island bridge? Not everyone will
in the north parking lot for River Front Park. Also, with pickup trucks the favored vehicle of many
young parents, how will the increase in compact parking slots proposed for the reconfiguration
accommodate a local contractors pickup full of kids on a Saturday?
DISCUSSION-
INTEREST RATES AND DEVELOPER COSTS- The developer of the Boise property has had the
advantage of a number of years of very low interest rates. Both the Statesman-Journal and the
Oregonian on September 1 and earlier have run stories concerning how slow the national and Oregon
economy are expected to recover. There is no reason to believe that the developer will face rapid
changes in the cost of borrowing and construction in the next 12 months. Thus, those attempting to
provide a viable alternative to the proposed access road should be given a reasonable amount of time to
provide that alternative. They have just found out about the situation, and actually had little or no notice
about the approved site plan for the apartments. Planning Commission actions or City actions on the
Commissions behalf are seldom reported in the Statesman-Journal or the Community Connections.
Short, but reasonable time, is only fair for better solutions to be set in motion.
RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS- ODOT's Rail division approved the closing of the State Street grade
crossing and the opening of another grade crossing within the Boise property to serve both the Carousel
and Boise land. This approval was not acted upon by either the City of the developer. There is no reason
not to believe that requesting that same railroad crossing solution again from ODOT would not again be
approved. Secondly, keeping access via State Street to the Carousel and new bridge to Minto Island and
developing a new grade crossing for the use of the Boise development alone would surely improve safety
over the access road proposal currently before the Council. Oregon law on the subject, ORS 824.202,
204, 210 and 214 is simple. The City would need to demonstrate that neither an over or underpass of
the railroad would be feasible because of the geography of the situation. The parcel to the west of the
tracks is very small and the grade needed for an over or underpasses would be too long to serve the
property sensibly. Secondly, the increased safety of a Boise property grade crossing versus the
proposed access through the Carousel property would be obvious to ODOT. If ODOT denied a new
crossing for Boise, the City can appeal to the Oregon court system, and I am sure would prevail using the
above arguments on geography and safety.
CAROUSEL'S CURRENT CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNTOWN SALEM VERSUS
SPECULATIVE CONTRIBUTION FROM THE PROPOSED APARTMENTS IF
THE CAROUSEL EXPERIENCE IS DEGRADED-
The Carousel has a long record of attracting a steady audience and providing resources to Salem. Travel
Salem and other groups promoting Salem and the Carousel do a wonderful job of encouraging visitors to
enjoy Salem. I have not seen an estimate similar to the developers speculation about the multiplier effect
of their apartments on downtown Salem, but I am sure the multiplier effect of the Carousel on downtown
business is quite large. Businesses should be contacted and asked what would happen if the Carousel
experience is degraded. If the Carousel is closed or seriously affected by proposed construction of the
access road and reconfigured parking lot, that impact will be vivid on the downtown. Losses from the
degrading of the Carousel experience should be subtracted from the supposed benefits of the apartment
development. And, who wants to volunteer for a weaker Carousel?
LONG RANGE PLAN FOR RIVER FRONT PARK AND ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY--
At the August 26th Public Hearing, it was reported that thought has been given to the long term success
of River Front Park. This seemed to include adding the property west of the railroad to the Park. If funds
can be found to purchase that land, those funds could be used by the developer to undertake
development east of the tracks, including the proposed apartments and their impact on downtown Salem.
Federal funds should be available from the Land and Water Conservation Fund program, from Bonneville
Power Administration for fish restoration along Pringle Creek, from Salem's System Development
Charges for a regional park, and from private donations which Salem has proven to be most generous
when City-wide projects are involved. What is needed is a bit of time to pull these sources together in a
sensible fashion. Both the City Staff and citizens have excellent skills in coordinating such fund raising.
Acquiring the property and encouraging the developer to improve east of the tracks is the best solution for
everyone in Salem.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEW BRIDGE TO MINTO ISLAND-
When the new bridge to Minto Island is opened, many users will want to park close to the bridge and the
parking log of the Carousel is the nearest parking. Additional parking spaces will be needed to help the
bridge users enjoy the new resources. Considerably more parking should be planned into any
reconstruction of the Carousel parking area, and it should accommodate pickup trucks easily, as these
are the vehicles of choice for many Carousel and bridge users.
WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO-
From the perspective of downtown businesses, the future looks quite scary. If paid parking is introduced
and the multiplier effect of the Carousel impact is diminished, it looks like downtown is in for quite a bad
patch until all the apartments proposed are fully occupied and everyone is shopping in downtown Salem.
The City has been very generous to the developer in its zoning conditions, its tax abatement vote, and its
encouragement. It is time for the developer to return the favor to Salem either accepting a reasonable
purchase of the land or using one of the available grade crossing options on its own land.
If the City pushes hard either for new railroad crossings or purchase, you avoid significantly damaging
the Carousel experience and its steady multiplier effect. You avoid the National Park Service problems
with controversy. And you let the market determine what the developer can do east of the tracks. When
you add up all the questions that citizens raised in the August 26th public hearing, it certainly looks like a
very bad deal for the people of Salem for the benefit of one developer for whom the City seems to have
been most kind in its zoning and tax abatement and other issues. If the City will not vigorously explore
either of these options, it is throwing away all the hard work of earlier Councils and citizens on creating a
wonderfully productive Carousel which is steadily enjoyed by a large number of Salem's citizens. If the
developer will go east of the tracks, it will be a good deal for Salem. Please do the right thing for the
people of Salem and its visitors.
[citizenforum] Re: ACCESS TO THE BOISE PROPERTY: THE SOLUT Page 1 of3
Kathy Hall- [citizenforum] Re: ACCESS TO THE BOISE PROPERTY: THE SOLUTION
From:
Sus ann Kaltwasser <susann@kaltwasser. com> D C'l f' 1 T Fll f :
<citizenforum@yahoogroups.com>, Salem United <salemunited@googlegr'dtt .. To:
Date:
Subject:
9/2/2013 7:36PM Q ') 'H]fi
[citizenforum] Re: ACCESS TO THE BOISE PROPERTY: THE Ll Lt, '"
<citycouncil@cityofsalem.net> CC:
Since the City Council has already approved a 1 0-year tax break for this Boise development it has been
determined that no matter the real costs of what you describe here, Richard, it has been decided that the
public taxpayer WILL pick up the cost of the impact of this project. No one really wants to determine
the actual costs, because then the public would know how much we are on the hook for.
I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why this project should be approved, let alone given a tax
break.
The complaint that the area is an eyesore and that this will stay that way for 10 years is bogus
speculation. It is reminiscent of the last time the Riverfront was up for development. We were told that
this was a useless piece of property that we should all be thankful that to the developer for saving us
from years of blight.
What is certain is that if the project is built as proposed the Riverfront will be forever blighted with a
large apartment complex and traffic and endless problems. The public investments that we have already
made to the area will be compromised. The opportunity to expand the park will be lost.
Some of the Councilor say that they will listen to more input from the community, but that is just a ruse.
What they really wanted is to appear to be reasonable while not having to take a vote while all the
people were in the room. They are hoping that the next vote will be taken quietly without much notice.
Sadly this is the kind of thing that should have been put to the people in a referendum. Maybe the only
referendum the voters will have now will be at the next election.
Susann Kaltwasser
At 8:19AM -0700 9/2/13, Richard Reid wrote:
Surely, before projects are approved both Council and the public ought to consider a range
of impacts.
To avoid unnecessary risks, some economic questions need to have numbers attached to
them. What are the City's costs for accommodating a project? What are the anticipated
revenues to offset those costs? Will the City have to increase debt to fund the services
expansion? Are there alternatives to a project that provide adequate profits to the developer
and timely repay City costs? When considering alternatives can we compute opportunity
costs? etc
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5224E8AFGWC1S... 9/3/2013
[citizenforum] Re: ACCESS TO THE BOISE PROPERTY: THE SOLUT Page 2 of3
There are questions about the appropriate use of land and space. How will a project affect
the viewscape? Will tenants be comfmiable with ambient conditions (noise, trash)? How
will tenants' cars impact local and bridge traffic? etc
There are socio-economic questions. What class of tenants will an apartment complex
attract? How will adding a sizeable transient population impact the area? (Many used to be
concerned that building a pedestrian bridge would invite "undesirables" into Minto Island.)
Where will the new population work?
There are environmental questions that deserve consideration too.
Richard
On Sep 2, 2013, at 1:32AM, DelanaB@aol.com wrote:
>John
> What you say is clearly correct -- the overall costs of infrastructure per unit in a suburban
setting take more resources per unit from scratch. Normally, however, in a "downtown"
type of project, you're dealing with a redevelopment situation where some major expenses
need to be faced of a capital cost nature-- or at least the public sector thinks they do. If the
services are simply already there and need to be hooked up, then you're right. But usually,
especially with the need to replace aging infrastucture, that is not the case -- at least in the
practical projects with which I have been familiar. Clearly, the type of compact
development you're referring to is a smarter planning option for the city in general. In short,
however, the "more expensive" phrase was not meant to be in a per unit sense. It ought to
be, but in these days of tight budgets, the large lump-sum capital costs often frighten city
budgeteers, and often is the major reason that getting these types of project underway is so
difficult. (Believe me, I think and hope "sprawlville is an endangered species ... )
>
>In a message dated 9/2/2013 12:05:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gearjm@gmail.com
writes:
::;: I dispute this.
>
>Suburban development (aka, single family dwelling sprawl) costs more than compact
development precisely because the unit cost of providing infrastructure to each household is
far less in an urban setting than in sprawlville. More units per acre, more units served per
linear foot of infrastructure (piping, wireline, etc.), less area of asphalt or concrete needed to
service each household, lower costs to deliver public services to each unit (police/fire/public
health).
>
> Where did you come up with the "indisputable fact" that is so readily and plainly
disputable?
>
>
>On Sep 1, 2013, at 11:40 PM, DelanaB@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Couple this with the indisputable fact that provision of infrastructure is more expensive
in the core,
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5224E8AFGWClS... 9/3/2013
[citizenforum] Re: ACCESS TO THE BOISE PROPERTY: THE SOLUT
_._,_._
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this
topic (2)
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest* Unsubscribe*\ Terms of Use* Send us Feedback
_,_._,_
Susann Kaltwasser
Page 3 of3
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5224E8AFGWC1S... 9/3/2013
Kathy Hall - Carousel parking lot access: a summary of concerns
To: Salem United <salemunited@googlegroups.com>
Date: 9/2/2013 7:41PM
Subject: Carousel parking lot access: a summary of concerns
Page 1 of 4
SEP 0 3 2013
en Y CJF SALFfl/1
CITY
CC: <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>, Citizenforum Discussion <citizenforum@yah ...
Attachments: Pringle Soutside Access Flyer print.pdf
Below is one person's opinion about the proposed "thruway" through the Carousel parking lot. It
provides thoughtful questions that should be addressed before access is granted.
At this point any explanation from anybody would be welcome.
Richard
Blog post 1:
08/22/13
Pringle Squareos Alternative Emergency Route lsnDt Safe for Apartment Renters
or Park Visitors
Pringle Square developers say they will widen and enhance the paths inside Riverfront
Park to improve the current alternative emergency route. That means they will will tear
up the current paths inside the park and replace them with street-like surfaces that can
accommodate the immense weight of firetrucks.
There are several problems with this plan:
,.
1. If a train blocks the intersections at State Street and Union Street, and there
is an emergency at the apartments, police cars and ambulances can be
called to come over from West Salem via the pedestrian railroad
bridge. However, firetrucks are too large to cross that bridge, so they could
not use that alternative emergency route
2. The unpredictable nature of people in public spaces would make it
impossible for emergency responders to move with the same speed and
efficiency on the pedestrian bridge and the paths inside the park as they
would on a public street
3. If minutes count when it comes to saving lives and property, you must take
into consideration what could happen if firetrucks had to wait for a train to
pass
If you think having an alternative emergency route that cannot accommodate
firetrucks is a bad idea, please call or email Salem City Council members and ask
them to vote DNoD on access.
Blog Post 2 - 08/27/13
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5224E9EBGWC1S... 9/3/2013
Page 2 of4
Reducing the Size of the Carousel/Playground Parking Lot is a Bad Idea
Even though Pringle Square developers plan to reduce the size of the south parking lot
by 30%, they say they will add seven new spaces and reconfigure it.
Thatos true, but hereos how they plan to do it:
1. They will eliminate the center island which currently serves as a safety refuge and
allows parents to unload strollers, coolers, diaper bags, and other equipment
before unbuckling small children from their car seats.
2. They will designate nearly half of the spaces as ocompacto parking
3. They will add spaces in front of the 1 ,200 square foot retail space next to the
apartments. (Bear in mind the retailer will have the option to post o Reserved o
signs, which would make those spaces off limits to park visitors)
There are numerous reasons this is a bad idea, starting with the fact that parents who
find a parking space on the east side of the parking lot will have to unload everything
onto the pavement and then shepherd their children through two lanes of traffic and
three rows of cars
that are all parked very close together.
If you think reducing the size of the south parking lot at Riverfront Park and
making half of the parking spaces smaller is a bad idea, please call or email Salem
City Council members and ask them to vote ONoo on access.
Slog Post 3 - 08/28/13
Why a Drop Off Zone at the Carousel Parking Lot Doesnot Work
At the City Council meeting on August 26, Pringle Square developers showed photos of
several elementary schools to demonstrate how well drop off zones work. ltos
ludicrous, laughable, and irresponsible to suggest that preschool children can be
dropped off in an area that features a public playground, a Carousel and a large open
space with the same level of safety school-aged children can walk from their parentos
car into a school. What are they thinking?
If you think letting toddlers get out of a car at a drop off zone while parents look
for a parking space is a bad idea, please call or email Salem City Council
members and ask them to vote ONoD on access.
Slog Post 4 - 08/29/13
Who Needs OTraffic Calmingo When You Already Have a OTraffic Funnelo?
Pringle Square developers say their otraffic calming o strategies will prevent vehicles
from speeding on the driveway to their apartments. Who needs rumble strips when you
already have a traffic funnel at the entrance to the Carousel? Unless a pedestrian
pushes the oCrosso button, the light at State and Front Street only lasts about seven
seconds. No turns are allowed on a red light at that intersection, so every car leaving
that area can only go during the short period of time the light is green.
Page 3 of4
If there is no train passing through the intersection, if there are no pedestrians crossing
the street, and if no one has to wait for oncoming traffic in order to turn left, it is possible
for three cars to get through that intersection on one light change - provided everyone is
paying attention and can respond quickly.
If Salemos City Council approves access through the Carousel entrance, Mountain
West should save the money they plan to spend on speed bumps and rumble strips.
Their biggest problem will be figuring out how to speed traffic up- not slow it down.
If you think turning park property into a driveway for an apartment complex is a bad idea,
please call or email Salem City Council members and ask them to vote o No o on
access.
Blog Post #5 08/30/13
Why is There No Guarantee About a Start or Completion Date for Phase 2?
Pringle Square developers say in order to start Phase 2, (the $36 million portion of the
$41 total project) they must first built the apartments on the edge of Riverfront Park and
achieve a 75% occupancy rate. Doesnot that make anyone nervous?
Salemos City Councilors voted to give the developer a $2.3 million dollar tax
abatement. Wouldnot it make sense to tie that abatement to some kind of performance
guarantee that insures the Boise Cascade property east of the railroad will actually get
started and completed? Wouldn Dt it be reasonable to make certain they can finance
the construction of Phase 2, even if the apartments achieve occupancy rates similar to
The Rivers and The Meridian?
If the Salem City Councilors are willing to give a ten year tax abatement to help Pringle
Square build an apartment complex, wouldnot it make sense to make sure the
developers wonot build the apartments and then decide it just isnot financially feasible
to redevelop the rest of the Boise Cascade property?
If you think the City of Salem should ask for a performance bond in exchange for
a $2.3 tax abatement, please call.or email Salemos City Councilors and ask them
to vote ONoO on access.
Blog Post #6, 08/31/13
Will 118 Apartments and 1 ,200 Feet of Retail Space Really Generate 190 Jobs?
At the City Council meeting on August 26, Pringle Square developers said building the
apartment complex on the edge of Riverfront Park will generate 190 jobs. Has anyone
asked to see how they calculated that number?
Granted, there will be a few positions for apartment managers, a handful
of maintenance and landscaping jobs, and a few retail jobs to serve the 1 ,200 square
feet of retail space. But even if every renter hired a housekeeper, itos hard to imagine
how more than 10 full time jobs will result from the construction of the apartments. The
public has a right to know how the developers calculated this figure. What kind of jobs
Page 4 of 4
will be created? What level of skill will be required, and how much will these jobs pay?
If you donot believe 190 permanent jobs will result from building an apartment
complex with 118 units and 1,200 square feet of retail space, please call or email
SalemDs City Councilors and ask them to verify the facts before they grant
access.
**********************
If there is something we can do to help you, please don't hesitate to call.
Thanks,
Elaine
Elaine K Sanchez
Author, Speaker,
Co-founder: CaregiverHelp.com
Phone: 503949-2464
email: Elaine@CaregiverHelp.com
Helping People Find Hope, Humor & Heart in
CaregiverHelpRadio.com
YouTube
I
G D E
ss
S! THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION
WHY SOUTHSIDE ACCESS IS A BETTER WAY
Illustrated above, it provides:
Unobstructed 24/7 access for all emergency vehicles
Maintains safe access and adequate parking
It can be built without changing or shutting down the Carousel
THE BETTER WAY *See Master Plan proposed on other side.
(Fig. 1) Create a Gated Alternative Emergency Route that can be accessed from Bellevue
(Fig. 2) Utilize the already approved (by ODOT Rail) under-the-railroad passageway as a full time
optional entrance/exit & emergency route & build a bridge across Pringle Creek to connect the
Slough Parcel to the Pringle Square Apartments. This Creates the Southside Access.
(Fig. 3) Keep the current main entrance as an alternate route for the apartments
(Fig. 4) Create a new direct main entrance to access the apartments
www. Pring I eS qua reAccess. com
MINTO-SROWN ISJ..AND
G) Gated Alt. Emergency Only Route
@ Under Railroad Fulltime Optional
Entrance/Exit & Emergency Route
A<'
O.oos,
<'o
.. , ....., ' "
..
e
PlAYGROUND
@ Main Entrance/Exit
DOWNTOWN S.Al..EM
y
OT?
C2J SCALE: 1:40
Unofficial Plans - Editorial Mockup
NOT endorsed or created by Pringle Sqaure llC
PRINGLE SQUARE MASTER PLAN
PROPOSED VEHICLE ENTRANCES OPTION "C" [ ACCESS IMPROVEMENT
www.PringleSquareAccess.com
Page 1 of 1
Kathy Hall - FW: Guest Opinion letter
From: Hazel Patton <ptn1363@msn.com> UIV!EN-T Fl
To: Anna Peterson <anna3457@comcast.net>, "citycouncil@cityofsalem.net" <cit...
Date: 9/2/2013 7:56PM SEP 0 3
Subject: FW: Guest Opinion Letter ( ::11 y OF SALE !Vi
;1 D hTi
Dear Mayor and Councilors,
This is a Guest Opinion letter I sent to the Statesman Journal. Just in case they decide not to run it, I am
forwarding a copy to you. Thanks for carefully considering all the issues with this proposed project.
Hazel Patton
From: ptn1363@msn.com
To: letters@statesmanjournal.com
Subject: Guest Opinion Letter
Date: Man, 2 Sep 2013 09:29:11 -0700
There is a Better Way!. Mountain West Developers wish to build a 118 unit three story apartment complex
on the north portion of the old Boise Cascade property. To access their apartments they are proposing using
the State Street entrance right in front of the Carousel, taking part of the parking lot for an access road to
their development. The proposed reconfiguration of the lot impacts not only Carousel users but the
children's play area, Movies in the Park, concerts and all north end activities. Some of the parking spots will
be reduced to compact status and the refuge island in the parking area will be eliminated. The developers
estimate an increase of more than 870 cars per day. Those additional vehicles will pass directly in front of
the sidewalk and entrance doors to the Carousel. With a heavy concentration of very young children coming
to the and no barrier between the busy street and the entrance, the potential for an accident is
huge.
Families and visitors may decide the risk and inconvenience is too great to patronize the Carousel.
If folks choose to no longer come to the Carousel because of safety or access concerns, we could lose our
Carousel. It too employs people and relies on steady financial support from its patrons.
We must protect and preserve this gem we call our Salem's Riverfront Carousel ... created by volunteers for
our community.
We do not want to lose it!!
Yes, there is a Better Way to solve this situation by using the previously approved South entrance with an
alternative route further south which could be used as an optional access and emergency route for fire
trucks and other emergency service vehicles. This plan is illustrated at www.Pringlesquare Access.com.
Please send your concerns and thoughts to your City Council and ask them to vote "NO" on the proposed
access through the Carousel Parking lot. citycouncil@cityofsalem.net
Hazel Patton
1363 Court NE, Salem Or 97301
(503) 581-4939
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5224ED50GWC1S... 9/3/2013
I I
I
--------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------++--
--- ------- --- --
------------------ f----
__ D__Q_C_U ME Fl L=-=-=El"---)
___ S_Ef __ 9 3 2_0_13 _______ _
CITY OF SAL.EM
CITY

---------------------- ---------
""'!"' ' "t ' li
.
' ,rf} / ,/- '\
I t ,,
-----+ -------
----------++------------------------ -------------------- ----------------------------
-------1-------------------------------------------------------------

-------------!-!-------------------------------
--------- --------------
/
'---- ---------
June 25, 2013
statesman Journal
P.o. Box 13009
Salem, OR 97309-1015
Attn: Editor
Gentlemen:
275 Judson st. s.
Salem, OR 97 302
In re:
11
The Boise Puzzle
11
Statesman Journal
SundayJ June 2013
I would suggest thaJt the simplest solution to this puzzle trJoo.ld be for
the developer to donate that part of th6 property that Hes west of the
BN,SF railroad tracks to the City of Salem. The Parks Department could then
it to flesh out the 10 y>lus acre Riverfront Park. As a welcome
gesture by the city it could be named the
11
Larry Tokarski Addition
11
(the
other developer, Da.n Berry no longer being involved). Unfortunately
their (developers) self made dillema could have been avoided by acquiring
only V18Jt part of the -property l.tning between Commercial Street and the
railroad tracks. The tracks are not going anywhere (pun intended) and un=
fortunately cannot now be crossed. This act o.f civic-mindedness would of
course not cost the owner any more expenditure as would the amount nec-
essary for any further development.. (
_/
'The developer could, of course, a,hrays do nothing to this porti.on of iHte;
property.
Glen E. Seidler
Page 1 of2
Kathy Hall- Riverfront Pari{ 6(f) conversion -- 1 to 2 years!
UlVIENT. Fl
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Brian Hines <brianhinesl@gmail.com> CITY OF SALEM
"citycouncil@cityofsalem.net" <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>, Anna t M ~ . ~ lt:COF\DETl
9/3/2013 12:23 PM
Riverfront Park 6(f) conversion-- 1 to 2 years!
"Salemed@StatesmanJournal.com" <Salemed@StatesmanJournal.com>, Michael R. ..
I just had a highly informative phone conversation with Michele Salise, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund grant coordinator with the State Parks and Recreation Department. She would be the
point person for reviewing a 6(f) conversion application for Riverfront Park, should the City Council
approve this process moving forward at next Monday's council meeting.
Here's what she told me, which goes against much of what is being implied-- or outright claimed-- by
people who favor the conversion of the Carousel parking lot into an access road to the Pringle Square
apartment complex.
(1) This would be a "regular" rather than a "small" conversion application, in pa1i because it is
controversial.
(2) A regular 6(f) conversion application of property from public recreational use to a different use
takes at least a year to process. Two years is the average. An application filed in 2010 is still being
processed by the state and National Park Service.
(3) Naturally the developer would not be able to use any part of Riverfront Park for access to Pringle
Square until a 6(f) application is approved by the National Park Service. Again, this would take one to
two years at least.
(4) A fyll NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) environmental assessment would have to be
prepared by the City. For those unfamiliar with NEPA, check out Wikipedia:
b!:ill://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National Environn1ental Policy Act
(5) The assessment would have to describe what alternatives to Carousel parking lot access were
considered, and why those alternatives were rejected (such as a new railroad crossing on Pringle Square
land). This is no simple task. Merely saying "we didn't think this would work" isn't enough.
(6) Cost ofthe NEPA review and other expenses associated with the 6(f) application would be the
responsibility of the City of Salem. This isn't cheap. When I mentioned that a new RR crossing could
cost $500,000, Ms. Salise said "that isn't much." In comparison with the cost of a 6(f) conversion, was
the evident implication.
(7) Appeals of the National Park Service decision on the 6(f) application are possible. Ms. Salise wasn't
sure what this entails. My Googling indicates that federal courts, not surprisingly, are where appeals
end up at some point.
I wanted to get this information out as soon as possible, because it is so cogent to the decision that the
City Council will be making next Monday.
Proponents of the Carousel parking lot access option mistakenly claim that this will allow development
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5225D4AFGWC1S... 9/3/2013
Page 2 of2
of the Pringle Square property to occur almost immediately. Not true. Going this route will take 1-2
years before a decision is made on a 6(f) application. Likely applying for a new public railroad crossing
would be considerably quicker and less expensive.
Food for thought.
-- Brian Hines
Brian Hines
Salem, Oregon USA
bitQ://twitter.com/oregonbrian (twitter)
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5225D4AFGWC1S... 9/3/2013
LHVlEI\lT I.F
Dear City Counselors,
CITY or=
Riverfront apartments are the actual and real Rape of the
expense.
Page 1 of3
I am thoroughly encouraging you mightily to vote and take action action against the Riverfront
apartments, the north access road.
This is a vain hope due to the developers pouring money into the decision.
The jobs offered by the development would last maybe 1-1/2 year, not permanently.
The access road would carry 870 trips per day with more congestion, more accidents and maybe
kids deaths.
The federal government must approve the conversion of use of the parking lot and the
conversion of the sidewalks into roads for emergency vehicles.
It is probable that the developers have not performed this necessary step, which would result
in severe penalties.
N. Penalties for Failure to Comply with Federal Laws and Regulations
Pursuant to 43 CFR Part 12. 83, when the NPS determines a State has violated or
failed to comply with applicable federal law, or the regulations governing this
program with respect to a project, NPS may withhold payment of federal funds to the
State on account of such project, withhold funds for other projects of the State,
withhold approval of further projects of the State, and take such other action deemed
appropriate under the circumstances, including debarment and suspension pursuant
to Executive Order 12549 at 43 CFR 12.100-.510, until compliance or remedial
E!ction has been accomplished by the State to the satisfaction of NPS.
Emergency vehicles do not have clear access to the apartments and sidewalks are to be
converted into roads for this purpose.
The feds would object if the parking lot and sidewalks are converted to private use as roads to
permit tenant and emergency access to the apartments and they have to OK before any
construction started.
Even with this conversion, insurance companies will not likely write renters insurance coverage
for the apartments due to lack of emergency access.
The apartments come within feet of the park and the tenants will use the park as their front yard
for barbecues, probably tearing it up at the city's expense.
Sick, troubled apartments -
The apartments are not a good place for tenants and the place will probably be empty =
no profits .
Rent $800 to $1200 per month for small apartments = no room in the apartments.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5225E6AlGWClS... 9/3/2013
Page 2 of3
People in the parks looking in tenants windows= no privacy.
117 neighbors = no privacy, traffic congestion.
Not enough parking spaces = cars parking in carousel, streets, other
No private space around the outside of the 118 units to speak of= no room, will use park
for their yard.
Apartments don't do anything about the main Boise Cascade crater= blight will remain.
An active main line train line outside the back door = train noise & train vibration 90 cars in
a train, risk oftoxic spill
Have to wait for trains to pass to go shopping = inconvenience, accidents.
Risk of injury from traffic and trains = injury, death, wrongful death suits.
Delay of emergency vehicles access to area= fire, injury, illness, death.
If Riverfront developers could cram more units onto that land than 118 they would.
Dangerous nmih access road -
870 trips per day cause danger to people and kids =too many cars, too small a space, too little time
- possible disaster.
Massive traffic congestion= delay of tenants and others activities.
Maybe even a train wreck= prolonged road closure, possible toxic spill.
e Access from the south to apartments possible by bridging Pringle creek, shown by developers as
Plan B = alternative access.
e Risk of injury from traffic and trains = injury, death, wrongful death suits.
Loss of park value and use - people and festivals and gatherings simply will not use the park with the
apartment's white elephant there= loss ofthe park, loss of money.
Remember to vote against, down and no.
,.
Please do the right thing and choose the park and children instead of money, a road and
development.
The road puts children at a real risk and I'm sure that you wouldn't want to explain things to the
parents of an injured or dead child and face a wrongful death suit.
The following links provide additional information including a South Access to the Apartments.
ACCESS TO BOISE PROPERTY: THE SOLUTION
httg://www.scribd .com/doc/16466244 7 /ACCESS-TO-BOISE-PROPERTY-
THE-SOLUTION
Salemians say: Pringle Square developers, don't mess with Riverfront Park -
HinesSight
http:/lhinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2013/09/salemians-say-pringle-square-
dont-mess-with-riverfront-park-.html
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5225E6AlGWC1S... 9/3/2013
Page 3 of3
Thanks,
Charles Faulk MD
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5225E6Al GWCl S... 9/3/2013
:/:i / /V e EN c./ /1 c C E S .S, f;1.E' /<' CJ u_::f-c;-
o-(f' u 1)1' ,-t.'/11 5 f r T-11'? tJ t( f;; p /-1 (-(' i-<.J Cl
w CJRI-f' t"f /9 -4 r'N c X!-[ kd:>/1/ o ;"? t'/,
<J-{' L-Cv ; o
1
y ;tf.
* 2 C/v rp /1/Vc;.:c;- o-{{ .57'-A ttY
t-: /V rVl! C E.'S.. 'P.,.f C: CJ N j E .s:, .,
+ 1'\
0
lv1. R E 5 I c.-1 e- A/ 7- fA /'I( f I c '
5'o L. '--1. -1 ; 0 /V',
Po ,-1/,.(/-1-E" c? f\ s.ci J. f h 1'3'
F t1 P E''R-1( I t1 t Jl E c /'ly -fa R,
F

R 1-<' P Ax.-- Sio N' of .btt ,:-I d .A..-v
(J! [/ L:{-e jD :"'1 .S'J e:J vc:: 1'?. Tit c fR J.i:.,:-1\(
(R /1 c. ('1
. .:1-- t4 A-1. A- IV rf 7 Cf .C /1 /'if o f cl !'( E':l J
S' /f.-/..;: 41. o //c G- o>{f? /'c L:--f< 0/ l/; ":?I
I--"-"' .
7At f7f/lt,.Lr./';R.._ W'ft1 f<iiNe/
5 /ft.{_/t-/'.ONr. 7 kJo tk/.d /Ve;- Vl::::"f\
CD N st'
0
/ c Ltv/ nc; i',.y o ;vc-- 6'---f'
1 /'l {) .5 F A- F fZ T --u ' .N "/- s-.

_/fr{ Lt: fi L LG./frt .6 s
I 9 .Lf 2 c. t-c c' /( (J't;;l (7-' t\vu
5!'J ' O'tt. 9 '/3 0 y
August 28, 2013
Mayor Anna Peterson
Salem Mayor
555 Liberty St SE, Suite 220
Salem OR, 97301
Dear Madam Mayor,
DOCU\\1\Et\\T FILEU
SEP o 4 2013
CITY OF SALEM
CITY
I want to start off by thanking you for your time and service on the council.
As you know, I am in support of the Pringle Square Project and a yes vote to grant the requested access
(easement). I agree with Councilor Thomas that this project is vital to jump start the downtown growth
and expansion.
During the public testimony the issues of safety and congestion were reoccurring and I thought not
necessary as these issues had already been vetted out.
1. Safety of the Children at the Carousel entrance. The Fire department has vetted out the
easement request along with city staff. They have deemed it safe and easily accessible for
traffic flow and safety. The new configuration of the parking lot along with the new drop off
zone at the Carousel makes the access better and safer. The access road to the APT complex is
separate and a fence will border the Carousel side and a concrete wall will border the track
side. Pedestrians will have a sidewalk on the parking lot side away from the moving vehicles on
the road and the pedestrian crossing will be on the north side of the intersection (as it is
now). Considerations have been made to make the access easier and safer to use than it is
now.
2. Congestion on Front Street. The intersection has been vetted out and deemed more than
adequate for the increased traffic flow. This has been done by city staff, ODOT and the
railway. It was referenced to in the board meeting packet. The light can be re-configured if
necessary, and Cherriots is willing to work on bus/transit connections. The addition of the third
bridge will also help.
The economic prospects of this project are just too big to ignore.
Thank you again for serving!
Barb Hacke Resch
5538 Fern brook CT S
Salem, OR 97306
Ward 7 resident
ENT FILED
SEP o 4 2013
C ~ I T Y OF SALEM
C ~ I T Y FlECOFmEFi
To the Salem City Council,
Billijean Hill
6654 Huntington Cir s E
Salem, Oregon 97306
August 29, 2013
The current debate about developing the land to the South of the City Park and Carousel centers
on eight major issues.
1. For about five years, the city council has made a priority of encouraging businesses and
apartments in the downtown area.
2. Crossing the railroad tracks to reach this particular development site requires innovation
and a fresh approach.
3. Does the proposed realignment of public parking lot add more parking spaces for Carousel
use? (Yes)
4. Does the current proposal which reduces pedestrian and vehicle conflict areas within the
public parking lot, and separates the parking and pedestrian entry to the Carousel from the
entry road with a landscaped safety barrier and fence, make it safer for people visiting the
park and carousel? (Yes)
5. Does the current proposal remove the eyesore left when Boise Cascade vacated the
property? (Yes)
6. If the Council denies this request, It is possible the land can never be developed, as the city
does not have funds to purchase the land for park expansion or funds to pay the ongoing
maintenance for an expansion of the park. The proposed development would add jobs in
the construction phase; jobs in the added businesses located there, and bring more people
into downtown Salem, which would benefit the entire Salem business community. It will
increase business activity and tax revenue, which a city park would not do.
7. Many of the negative comments label the developer as greedy. Actually, the developer has
been a major contributor to many community projects, but does not toot his own horn.
8. The interest in downtown living is evident in the rapid sale of all 27 condominiums at 295
CHURCH and the recent rental of units at The Meridian. This proposed development allows
those who are not in a financial position to purchase a downtown residence the
opportunity to rent in a vibrant downtown area.
Each of you, as a voting member of the city council, will be making an important decision with your
vote that will affect our entire community. I encourage you to approve this opportunity to
enhance the Salem downtown area.
Sincerely,
Billijean Hill
503-371-5905
Kathy Hall - Fwd: Boise Cascade site
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Salem Planning
Amy Dixon
9/3/2013 8:56 AM
Fwd: Boise Cascade site
> <wv64z@q.com> 9/2/2013 2:21PM>
Dear Council Members:
Page 1 of 1
f:l
'H1"3
SEP 0 4
CITY OF SALEJ\/L
CITY
We are concerned about a private firm locating in a very public place like the Salem
river front We would like to see the Carousal parking area to remain as is without the
increase of traffic. If the proposed project is such a great place, as they claim, why
place a burden on the tax payers by allowing for a tax abatement for another possible
white elephant development. What is the vacancy rate of current downtown apartments,
such as the Meridian, The one on Front Street and at Trade & Court?
The council has been known, in the past, as favoring real estate development above
the interest of tax payers. The only way that this project should move forward is to
provide access for it from Commercial Street and paid for by the developers.
Respectfully Submitted,
,.
W. R. & V. L. Zirbes
Continental Circle SE
Salem, OR
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5226E3A9GWC1S... 9/4/2013
Kathy Hall - In favor of BC redevelopment
From: "N. Williams" <mwillie@yahoo.com>
Date: 9/3/2013 9:18PM
Subject: In favor ofBC redevelopment
Hello, and thank you for your service.
Page 1 of 1
SEP o 4 2013
CITY or= SALEM
CITY IC1[COF1DE:H
I'm writing - as the father of 2 young girls that use our wonderful Riverfront Park quite frequently - to
voice absolute support for granting access to the proposed apartments on the former Boise site.
My youngest daughter, Drew, gets so excited when we visit the park. So much so, that she runs ahead of
me at times into traffic. The existing driveway is designed in such a way, that if someone is waiting for a
parking spot - another vehicle can (and they frequently do) zoom around the waiting vehicle. When this
occurs, the driver of the vehicle can't see sufficiently- and I've witnessed many close calls when this
occurs. I like the access as proposed- not only because of the direct short and long term positive
economic impacts it provides the city I love, but because it will make the parking lot more narrow and
provide more order to a "free for all" situation.
Salem Fire, ODOT and City Staff have all sufficiently vetted and approved this access. In the name of
economic vitality and public safety, I implore you to do the same.
In addition, let's not forget the access that exists by parking at Wallace Marine and soon at Bush Pasture
and crossing a footbridge. Please do not take action that is against the vision you have previously
provided in providing these soon to be 2 foot bridges.
Kind Regards,
,.
Nick Williams
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\52265239GWC 1 S-... 9/4/2013
Page 1 of 1
Kathy Hall - NEN opposes easement for access to Pringle Square
From:
To:
. D(IC'I 11\/J
<khall@c1tyofsalem.net>, Anna Peterson-mayor ..
Fl
Date:
Subject:
9/4/2013 7:32AM SEP 0 4 2013
NEN opposes easement for access to Pringle Square
Mayor Peterson and City Councilors,
... -C.IT.'f.()i=: ;;>ALEIVI
CITY F!ECOHDEF!
On September 3, 2013 Northeast Neighbors (NEN) voted unanimously to oppose granting an
easement to Minto View, LLC for access to the Pringle Square development because of traffic
congestion both on Front Street and in the driveway/road/parking lot, problems with
emergency vehicles accessing the site and safety issues for children, as well as vehicles that
might be forced to stop on the RR tracks.
Joan Lloyd, NEN Chair
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5226E204GWC1S-... 9/4/2013
Page 1 of2
Kathy Hall- Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)- Mountain West Proposed Apartment/Retail Project
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"Wes Bouche" <wes.thomas.bouche@gmail.com>
<amperterson@cityofsalem.net>, <crbennett@cityofsalem.net>, "'Warren Bed ...
9/3/2013 12:14 PM
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) - Mountain West Proposed lVI E !\IT F I
<louis. c. torres@odot. state. or. us>, <raildivision@odot. state. or. us>
SEP -o 4 2013
CITY OF SALE:. !Vi
CITY FiiT:OFlDFFI
Mayor, City Councilors:
We respectfully request that you add us to the list of long time Salem
citizens that are concerned about the potential negative impact (traffic
congestion and safety issues) to Riverfront Park if the proposed 118 unit
apartment/retail project is constructed on the planned site connecting it to
our Riverfront Park.
In that you are currently considering issues related to approving use of the
State Street access into the park for this proposed project, may we request
that you ask staff to share with the Public at your September 9th Council
meeting the results of the DKS Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that has been
reviewed and has the approval of the State of Oregon, Department of
Transportation. If this analysis wasn't a city requirement because of the
size of this apartment/retail project, then may we suggest that given the
potential congestion on Highway 22 (our friends living in West Salem are
very concerned about the additional congestion and traffic backups on hwy
22); on State Street and the potential negative impacts to the Salem
Carousel; playground and general parks usage (especially with the
increased demand that will most definitely be created due to the connection
to Minto Brown Park) that it should be done before any further action by the
City Council. Again, if this analysis was done we'd like to know that it took
into account the very real increased usage that will be created by the
increased connectivity and expanding events in the park that will include
bike and runner races along with many other events currently not
considered. In addition I think it would be wise to consider that currently
for the many wonderful events held at the park, those attending take
advantage of the free downtown parking adjacent to the park (in addition to
the meters installed at the north end of the park) and that meters will soon
be installed making it less convenient and expensive for many to attend
these events.
:file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5226F91BGWC1S-... 9/4/2013
Page 2 of2
lastly, we"d like to express our view of your approval of the 10 year tax
abatement for this proposed project. My wife and I cannot understand how
an above market rental apartment/retail project would require this kind of
subsidy to make it economically feasible. We've discussed this with our
friends and they all agree that simply having the opportunity to build such a
project connecting to Riverfront Park, is in itself subsidy enough. The
residences of this apartment complex will have the free, fully
unencumbered view and use of one of the most magnificent community
owned open space parks and waterways in the United States. Talk about
incentive and subsidy! That being said, we know it may be too late to make
any change to your approval, but may we suggest you consider changing
how the tax abatement is calculated. If you truly feel that this developer's
economic risk is at stake and a tax abatement is the only way to make
things work for them, how about having the development pay real estate
taxes equal to 10% the first year and 20% the next and increasing his
payment annually by 1 0% until it reaches the full 100%.
Bn closing, we respect this developer and appreciate his many contributions
to Salem. The Boise Cascade parcel is a major financial commitment and
this development group deserves lots of credit for taking it on in addition to
support from the community. lt"s understandable why the city would want
to encourage the economic benefits of this development or any other for
that matter and we applaud those efforts. We appreciate all your efforts in
identifying and finding the best possible solutions to the traffic; safety and
parking concerns related to this opportunity. Thank you very much for
listening to our concerns,
Respectfully Submitted,
Wes & Doreen Bouche"
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5226F91BGWC1S-... 9/4/2013
Page 1 of 4
Kathy Hall - Testimony regarding Pringle Square access
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Br.ian Hine? . . SEP O 4
"citycouncll@cityofsalem.net" <citycouncll@cityofsalem.net>, Anna Peters..... ,
9/4/2013 2
19 PM UTY CJF S/\LEM
l=u=c:OFlDEH
Testimony regarding Pringle Square access
CC: Kathy Hall <khall@cityofsalem.net>
Dear City of Salem Councillors and Mayor,
I am a long-time Salem-area resident (moved here in 1977) who is a frequent visitor to Riverfront Parle
I am opposed to taking pmi of the Carousel parking lot for an access road to the Pringle Square
apartment complex. My special interest has been in understanding the implications of the required
National Park Service 6(f) conversion process that would be necessary if, next Monday, the Council
were to approve moving forward with this ill-advised proposal.
I confidently say "ill-advised" because both proponents and opponents of the current Pringle Square
development plans should find a lot not to like in the Carousel parking lot access option.
My rationale for saying this is described in detail below. I have attached a message sent to you
yesterday about what I learned from the person at the state Parks and Recreation Depmiment, Michele
Scalise, who is responsible for handling 6(f) conversion applications. I've also included the content of a
blog post I wrote yesterday about the implications of what I learned from Ms. Scalise.
Here's the key takeaways:
(1) If this proposal moves forward, the City will face a lengthy, complex, and contentious 6(f)
application process. This likely would take two years. Perhaps as little as one year, maybe more than
two. Acy appeal could drag the process out even fmiher.
(2) During that time, obviously the Pringle Square developers will not be able to use the proposed
access through what is now the Carousel parking lot.
(3) So-- and this is key-- if the Council were to vote "yes" on the access proposal Monday night, for at
least one to two years (again, could be more) the Pringle Square developers would have no better access
to their property than they have now. In other words, an immediate stmi to construction would be no
more likely after a "yes" vote.
(4) In fact, it could be argued persuasively that moving forward with the Carousel parking lot access
proposal would be the worst thing to happen for the Pringle Square development. Why? Because this
puts on hold the public access question for at least one or two years. Until the National Park Service
approves a 6(f) conversion, no public access through the Carousel parking lot is assured.
(5) However, if the City applies for a new public Ferry/Trade street railroad crossing on the Pringle
Square property, almost certainly this application would be reviewed in much less time than the 6(f)
conversion would take. And keep in mind that the City will be responsible for all of the costs of the 6(f)
conversion process, including an extensive Environmental Impact Statement.
(6) Regarding the EIS, I was told by Ms. Scalise that a key area of this involves showing that alternative
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52274170GWC1 S-... 9/4/2013
Page 2 of4
means of access to the Pringle Square property have been seriously examined and found to be less
desirable than converting part of the Carousel parking lot from a public recreational use into a private
use. This will be difficult to prove. Approval of the conversion application is by no means assured.
Please keep these considerations in mind as you consider how to vote next Monday. There has been talk
about how construction could begin immediately on the Pringle Square property if the Council
votes "yes" at the next meeting. As noted above, this doesn't make sense.
The developer will have no better access to the property for one, two, or even more years following
a "yes" vote. If members of the Council are desirous of moving the Pringle Square development
forward as quickly as possible, attempting to gain access through the Carousel parking lot is a vety poor
way to accomplish this. Other access alternatives could be finalized much more quickly, and likely at
less expense.
Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. Following are the above-mentioned "attachments."
-- Brian Hines
Attachment 1: Content of email message sent to City Council, Mayor, and others on September 23,
2013, titled "Riverfront Park 6(t) conversion-- 1 to 2 years!"
I just had a highly informative phone conversation with Michele Salise, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund grant coordinator with the State Parks and Recreation Department. She would be the
point person for reviewing a 6(f) conversion application for Riverfront Park, should the City Council
approve this process moving forward at next Monday's council meeting.
Here's what she told me, which goes against much of what is being implied -- or outright claimed -- by
people who favor the conversion of the Carousel parking lot into an access road to the Pringle Square
apartment complex.
(1) This would be a "regular" rather than a "small" conversion application, in part because it is
controversial.
(2) A regular 6(f) conversion application ofpropetiy from public recreational use to a different use
takes at least a year to process. Two years is the average. An application filed in 2010 is still being
processed by the state and National Park Service.
(3) Naturally the developer would not be able to use any part of Riverfront Park for access to Pringle
Square until a 6(f) application is approved by the National Park Service. Again, this would take one to
two years at least.
(4) A full NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) environmental assessment would have to be
prepared by the City. For those unfamiliar with NEPA, check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National Enviromnental Policy Act
(5) The assessment would have to describe what alternatives to Carousel parking lot access were
considered, and why those alternatives were rejected (such as a new railroad crossing on Pringle Square
land). This is no simple task. Merely saying "we didn't think this would work" isn't enough.
(6) Cost ofthe NEPA review and other expenses associated with the 6(f) application would be the
responsibility of the City of Salem. This isn't cheap. When I mentioned that a new RR crossing could
cost $500,000, Ms. Salise said "that isn't much." In comparison with the cost of a 6(f) conversion, was
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52274170GWClS-... 9/4/2013
Page 3 of 4
the evident implication.
(7) Appeals of the National Park Service decision on the 6(f) application are possible. Ms. Salise wasn't
sure what this entails. My Googling indicates that federal courts, not surprisingly, are where appeals
end up at some point.
I wanted to get this information out as soon as possible, because it is so cogent to the decision that the
City Council will be making next Monday.
Proponents of the Carousel parking lot access option mistakenly claim that this will allow development
of the Pringle Square property to occur almost immediately. Not true. Going this route will take 1-2
years before a decision is made on a 6(f) application. Likely applying for a new public railroad crossing
would be considerably quicker and less expensive.
Food for thought.
-- Brian Hines
HinesSight blog post (www.hinesblog.com) written September 3, 2013. To avoid duplication, I
have omitted the message above which concluded the post. Title: "Pringle Square development
could be delayed 1-2 years."
At next Monday's City Council meeting, Salem officials have a choice about whether to delay the proposed Pringle
Square downtown riverfront development for one to two years (could be longer), or to allow it to move forward
more expeditiously.
However this is important it is a Yes vote on the developer's access proposal that will result in the delay.
This will surprise proponents of the ill-considered plan being voted on Monday to allow the Pringle Square
developer access via a takeover of part of the Salem Carousel parking lot.
Going that route, which will require National Park Service approval of a 6(f) conversion of Riverfront Park from
the current public recreational use to a private use, will be time-consuming, complex, and expensive.
Other access alternatives, such as those described in a recent blog post, almost certainly would be better both
for Minto View LLC/Mountain West Investment, developers of Pringle Square, and the people of Salem.
If the Statesman Journal publishes a draft editorial by Dick Hughes without making changes in accord with the
facts I've learned, SJ staff should relinquish their Boy Scout Journalism merit badges.
This is part of the draft editorial that is completely off-base:
City staff approved the design review in February and the project site plan in March. Mountain West is
ready to begin construction immediately, pending City Council approval of the access. However, Monday's
hearing was continued until Sept. 9.
The downside: Further delays - whether by postponing approval or placing unreasonable conditions on the
developers -could jeopardize the entire project. Site work must be completed before winter rains arrive.
Furthermore, the current sluggish economy, with its lower construction costs and low-interest rates for
financing, make this an optimal time for the project.
Actually, city approval of the Carousel parking lot access would trigger a one to two year delay in the Pringle
Square project. Below is an email message that I sent recently to City of Salem officials and Statesman Journal
newspaper staff.
Brian Hines
10371 Lake Drive SE
Salem, Oregon USA
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\5227 4170GWC 1 S-... 9/4/2013
http://twitter.com/oregonbrian (twitter)
Page 4 of4
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52274170GWC1S-... 9/4/2013
l.
M6MlS6RS OF TH-6 SAL6M CIT)' COUNCIL
R: "PR.INC1L6 SQ.VLAR.6
DOCUMENT FILED
SEP 0 4 2013
b!:j S.
373-f Tull\,brtolge weLLs ss
oR.
CITY OF SALEM
CITY RECORDER
503-3G2-rg'2G
1 wouL!it Wu to express W-t:J Uwuglttts tltte proposelit t::!pC!rtw..ell\,t liteveLopw..eV\,t Oil\, tltte
B.otse CC!sct::llite propertt:l for t:JOUY
wttltt 50 t:JtClYS tV\, prtvate ClYCittttecturC!L pYC!ctLce, I CCIV\, YeLt::lte to tltte Hw..e, effort t;lll\,li{
expeli\,se tlttt::lt Itt Cis goli\,e 11\,to tlttts project. wttltt t::!LL litue respect to tltte liteveLopers,
C!Yclttttects, Clll\,lit coli\,suLtt::lll\,ts, 1 lttt::lve sertou.s COV\,CeYV\,S Clbout tltte tw..pact tlttt::lt porHoV\,s of
tltte proposelit worl. wtLL lttC!Ve Oil\, tltte pt::!rl. t::lll\,lit tltte cLtt:J. Tltte pari. tool. t::1 Loll\,g Hw..e to
litevelop; tt lttas becow..e t::1 vert:l pt::!rt of tltte cLtt:J t::lll\,lit CIV\,t:Jiitetrtw..ell\,tCIL
slttouL!it be veYt:J.sertouslt:J.
1 guess tltte w..ajor tssue ts "slttoullit tltte
proposelit Clccess to tltte 1.1J? C!pCirtw..ell\,t UV\,tts
be t::1 LLowelit" C! 11\,lit w..C! t:l be tV! Cit ts tltte
tssue tlttC!t CCIV\, be coli\,stliterelit, .s11\,ce tltte
.stt pLC! 11\, lttt::ls recetvelit co lite C!ppYo\ICl L b t:l tltte
cttt:l stt::lff.
"B.ut w..u.st we /ilccept tltte stte /illl\,lit otltter
Lssues Lf tlttere lilre UV\,/ilV\,SWerelit quesHoV\,.s
tlttCit t::llitverseLt:J lilffect tltte pt::!rl.?
Tltte pC!rl. Ls Lw..portCIV\,t to so W-CIV\,t:J people;
tts CIV\,Iit use w..u.st 11\,0t be
C!lit ver.seLt:J (;{ffectelit bt:J
clttt::l 11\,ges.
011\,ce tltte tYees ewe goli\,e- tlttet:J'Ye

6NTR.Y ROAD (AC.C.6SS) TO TitS
:11J? UNIT APARTMGNTC.OMPLGX
The Lot Wlils Iii good
LClr-ge trees C1111-d C!
dowll\, tV!e V\AJddLe betweell\, two rows of
_30 degree elils[j splilces. TV1e
LC! rge trees C! jl\,d ltleli!V[j LClll\,d-
ClLL title Gllst sJde se-reell\,s
title trlle-IQ.s llll\,d ll q "edge"
for title pllr!Q. llll\,d
The proposed to C!LLow ll roCidWC!!j
llLm"'g title 5Clst ltlC!s forc-ed tV!e
Lot to be red ue-ed llll\,d reV\!loved
title Lot, Clll\,d V\!lost of
title trees. TV!e 11\,ew LC!
to trees title Lot
C!111-d ll 1/\,llrrow sepClrCIHII\,g title 11\,ew
Lot JlcoLuV\!lii\,Cir" trees Clll\,d ll 7-
foot waLIQ. froli\ll title etpC!rtV\!lell\,ts. 11\,ever
equaL title exLsHII\,g presell\,t
TV1e pC!rR.LII\,g proposJII\,g
to title 11\,Cirrowed Lot Title
froV\!l Gf? to _32 b[j
title llpC! rtVVlell\,t propert!j
Clll\,d 3G COV\IlpC!e-t C,C!rS. (If I'Ve
e-oull\,ted over of tV\e
AsR. C! V\!lotV!er
C! c.C! r-LoCl d of Clll\,d stroLLers V!ow
sV!e feeLs tV!ese C.OVVlpC!c.t
I'V\Il ll trC!f(ic but tV!e /iluto seeV\!ls to
V\!le tV!Iilt tV!e ol"-L!j ) ev1.tr!j C! setfet!j Tlt!ere wLLL be
joggers, Oil\, C! 11\,d VVlOtV!e rs wLtV! stroLLers to tV!e pC! rR froV\!l tV!e
TV!e pllho Oil\, tV!e f roll\,t of tV!e e-llrouseL llll\, of tV!e
ver!j Clchve Clll\,d llwfuLL!j c-Lose to tV!e rolld. Tlt!ere e-ll !I\, be ver!j V!eCIV!j
wV!ere botV! drLves VVleet- wLtltl exc.Lted RLds Clll\,d 1.1.?? lApC!rtV\1\.ev.-t dweLLers
to get soV\!lewV!ere eLse (C! 11\,d 11\,0t V\!lucV! rooV\!l to sort out).
Tlt!ere !Are just too V\!LCIII\,!j probLeV\!ls- s/AVLII\,g trees,
tV!e pllr!Q.s cn!Ar!Acter llll\,d sllfet!j V!llzllrds for Me-ess to be llpproved.
eMeRyeNGY Vef-t!GLe
eNTRY
TV!e -pvo-posecl Clccess fov
fl-ve truck> V!Cls
to e111-tev tV!e
Clt stveet
Cl 111-cl tve1veL tV!e

tVwougV! tltte
to tV!e
e1-pe1
I
I

0::
<(
Q_
1-
z
0
0::
l.L.
0::
w
>
-
0::
tV!e costs of
tV!e WCl LR Cll/l,cl
fov clo we reClLLt:j WCllJ\,t
fl-ve tvuck> cl tV! roug VI
tV!e becCluse tV!e -pvo-posecl elJ\,tY"tj
voCl cl to tV!e Cl"jJCl vtVVtelJ\,ts,
cleq uClte?
3
'
IS T!-tl7Rl7 ANOT!-tl7R WAY FORAGGI7SS TO TH-17 'PROPOSBD APARTM 17NT GOM"PLI7X
The -pro-posevl vleveLo-pVVcell\,t cl.lll\, becoVVce "l.l goovl to tV!e title vlowll\,towll\,
l.lll\,vl tV!e -pl.lrR., but title -pro-posevll.lccess rol.ltill.lll\,iil revlesLgll\, of tV!e -pl.lrR. l.lrel.l l.lt title st111te
street crossl.ll\,g l.s 11\,0t C!Me-ptl.lbLe. It's just too SVVcC!LL /1111\, l.lrelil for so WciAII\,(j tltll.ll\,gs to
V!l.l-p-pell\,
There ewe otltler -possl.bLe cwcess soLutl.oll\,s, I'Wc sure coll\,sl.vlerevl, but Weill (j be tltle(j sltlouLvl
be "revl.sl.tevl n.
!.
. ', . - . ' ... . ... . . . . -
T1'Je ex.f..shll\,g-oLvl crossf..l/\,0 street- ltlctp-pell\,evl to thl.lt
Title ex.l.stl.ll\,g so foot crossl.ll\,g over the 'ill\,til vll.rec.t l.lcc,ess c V'"'"(
/AII\,vl Froll\,t. streets ltll.ls beell\, u.etil for Wc/1111\,(j (jtlilrs. btJ B.;l.se GC!sc.C!vlt IA!"-'iil Ll.lter
for -pl.lrR.l.ll\,g seVVcl.-trC!l.Lers Oil\, title C!-pC! rtVVcell\,t sl.te. A ll\,otV! er "vevl.sl.t evl l.ssue", but
I'LL bet l.t wouLvl get su-p-port fro We Cl Lot of -peo-pLe o-p-posevl to title currell\,t -pro-posevl
C!cce.s.
2 . A brl.vlge froVVc tV!e "sLougltl" C!rW, wltll.cVI V!C!s Clcce,<;s over Clll\, ex.l..tl.ll\,g
crossl.ll\,g froVVc B.eLLevue?
3. A roC! til Ull\,tiler title lrtl.glrt rlill.Lrotllc{ brl.c{ge 11\,0rtlrt of tV!e c.oll\,c.rete bul.Lc{l.ll\,g, wl.t1
froVVc title NortV! B.Loc. R.?.?
4.

TltlLs. s.Lte ltlcrs. beevt. crpprovec;i bij
stcrff Cis. "covt.fonuLvt.g to coc;ie"
C!vt.c;i tltlerefore off Lvt. tltlese
c;i[s.cus.s.Lovt.s. . lS.ut, becC!us.e of Lt's
LJM.pcrct ovt. title I wouLc;i LLR.e to
vt.ot out of orc;ier.
Title coc;ie !ALLows cr tltlree stort:J
crpcrrtJM.evt.t to be buat zero
propertij L[vt.e sevevt. of title
C!pcrrtWcevt.ts crppeC!r to be ovt. title
propertij LL1"'e; title rest fii!cLvt.g title
crre, li!ccorc;ILvt.g to li! COII\,suLtcrvt.ts repLij
crt title ltle!i!vLvt.g "0 to f? feet
If the fevt.ce ii!Loll\,g title &C!st Clll\,c;i Nortltl
Ls title propertij LLvt.e, titl e exLsHvt.g Lli! rge
trees crLL ii! Lovt.g tV!Cit couLc;i be Lvt.
jeopii!rc;iij of eLtltler bdvt.g s.evereLij
sltlecrrec;i or reWcovec;i. Most of tltleWc
ltltNe foLL!i!ge tltlcrt overhcr vt.gs the fevt.ee
Clvt.Gi Wcos.t LLR.eLij roots Gio too.
It's. GiLfftcuLt to bu[Lr;i ovt. Cl zero
propertij LLvt.e (or evevt. 0-f? feet CIWC!ij)
Lf'ijour vt.eLghbors tree over hC!vt.gs
!jour propertij LLvt.e. The owvt.er VJC!s the
rLgV!t to hC!ve tV!e tree sltleli!revi
&Lther s.hecrrevi or reWcoveGi tV!e resuLt Ls
cr V1elNij LWcpC!ct ovt. tV!e pcrrR. ..
If tV!e trees li!re Lost or evevt. reviucevi,
tV!e tV!ree storij buLLGiLvt.gs. w[LL reii! LLtj
overwV!eLJM. the
SOM50N5 HAV5
CONSID5R5D IMPACT l.{PON
PAR.K, COD5 OR NO COD5.
MORt: S5T1SACK H-AV5
lS55N R5Q.UIR5D FOR A TH-R55
STORYlS.l.{ILDINCi S5T ACiAINST
A Pl.{lSUC PARK.
Kathy Hall - Site Access Approval
From: "Equitable Center" <susan@equitablecenter.corn>
To: <citycouncil@cityofsalern.net>
Date: 9/4/2013 3:30PM
Subject: Site Access Approval
Attachments: irnageOOl.jpg
Dear City Council,
Page 1 of 1
SEP 0 It
CITY OF SALEM
en'( \=n=COFlDI:=:F!
Please vote to approve access to the Boise redevelopment site. The redevelopment of this site provides a
tremendous advantage in the revitalization of our City. It could be years before an opportunity such as this is
placed in front of Council for consideration.
Sincerely,
Susan Miller
Property Manager
530 Center Street, Suite 110
Salem, OR 97301
T. 503-399-1191 F. 503-399-0802
susan@equitablecenter.com
www.equitablecenter.com
file://C:\Docurnents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Ternp\XPgrpwise\522751FFGWC1 S-... 9/4/2013
DOCUMENT FILED
--u; LL_lbi' {i'il f.iN& _tg_-, '=1--
k fiu:', QKLd: 'I l L\_ L9, t2L
cLCCOLLJlt . __ .....
.. . -_ -----
, I> ' '';\'
''

-------1--------.-'-------------------------------------

I r."
.. ------------------------

-----1------------------------------------__________________ _,
-------------------------------
,, '
-- _, ______ __c_ _____________________________ _
+- ---------
----- ------- --- --- -- ----- ----------
s \' '() I o '[\2;
/r---------

------+----6 O)<: Q"'-'

---

Kathy Hall - Pringle Square Access
From: Jason Hoff <locjaw4x4@gmail.com> .. .
To: <crbennett@cityofsalem.net>, <ltesler@cityofsalem.net>, 0 L
Date: 9/3/2013 5:11PM
Subject: Pringle Square Access
Dear Councel Memebers and city officials
I am writing you in reference to the horrific plan to funnel 900+ cars a day thru the riverfront
carousel/city park parking lot for the Pringle Square development
Page 1 of 1
I have been taking my children to the Riverfront Carousel for 1 0 years now, and have been volunteering
as carousel operator on Sundays for over 2 years now.
I am amazed that the City Of Salem has even CONSIDERED this as a viable option for the residents of
the future apartments to gain access to their homes. The current parking lot is a dead end road, and
perfect for people that visit the park/carousel to not worry about their children getting injured by a drunk
driver, or a person that is "late for work". the ONLY people using the current lot are parents and
grandparents that care about the safety of their children and come to this spot specifically for it's safety
advantages.
I invite EVERY ONE OF YOU AND YOUR FAMILY'S to come down to the carousel and ride it. Have
your children ride. Have your grandchildren ride. Come see what this place is really about. Only then
will you understand that this is not the place for traffic flow.( and i would love to discuss this situation
with you ..... i Volunteer on sundays, between 11 am to 3pm)
Come take a ride, see what this place is all about. i think it will change your mind about letting this
happen
As far as i'm concerned the current configuration for the access for the new apartments is
to the safety of the children and family's that make this park what it is.
There are MULTIPLE options, as outlined here .... http://www.pringlesguareaccess.com/
PLEASE VOTE "NO" ON ACCESS
Thank you for taking the time to read this email
Jason Hoff
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\522753A4GWC1S-... 9/4/2013
Kathy Hall- Boise Cascade Project
From: Tom McGirr <McGirrT@columbiabank.com>
To: ''citycouncil@cityofsalem.net" <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 9/4/2013 3:47PM
Subject: Boise Cascade Project
Page 1 of 1
DOCUIVIENT FILED
SEP 0 4 20HI
c;ITY nr= SAL)::M

I am opposed to modifying the Riverfront Park to accommodate the apartment project in the Boise site. It will
add more traffic to the park entrance and does adversely impact the parking lot. The more serious impact
involves the added access for fire and emergency vehicles into the Boise site. Now we have nice walking paths
and lots of greenway. With the proposed changes, we will, in effect, have a roadway wide and enough to
accommodate hook and ladder fire trucks going through the length of the park. We would permanently
impacting the park forever so the developer can make money for himself (remember, the apartment project
does not add more permanent jobs). I simply fail to see why we should negatively impact the park to
accommodate this apartment project.
If the council desires to have more low to mid-cost apartments in downtown, then it should focus on tax
incentives to remodel any number of downtown buildings. This can be done without touching the park in any
way.
My review of the maps would indicate that the commercial (non-apartment) project could proceed without
having to get additional access through the park. The developer should proceed with that portion of the project
and forget the apartments. I do not buy the argument the project would not pencil out without the apartments.
. If that is the case, then the developer should re-design the commercial project to be economically feasible on
its own. To permanently deface the park so a private developer can make more money is not acceptable.
Nor do I appreciate the threat that if he does not get his way with the apartments, he will not proceed with the
other pr.oject. That sounds like blackmail to me. If that is his intention, then please call his bluff. Do not sacrifice
the park.
Tom McGirr
3420 Dogwood Dr S
Salem OR 97302
This message (Including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific Individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not
tl1e Intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or taking of any action based on It, is strictly
prohibited.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52275609GWC1S-... 9/4/2013
City of Salem
555 Liberty St. SE
Salem, Oregon
Attn: City Council
Re: Boise Site Proposal
DOCUIVIENT Fl
SEP 0 4 2013
CITY OF SALEM
CITY
After following the City's actions and viewing the property I am opposed to any
development between the railroad and the river.
Riverfront Park and the Carousal are Salem's pride and joy and should not be tampered
with.
I am further opposed to any access through these facilities for the residents of the
proposal and I or access for emergency vehicles.
There is adequate room for a large development between the Railroad and Commercial
St. with access from Front St. and Bellevue St.
The developer's figures for construction wages and created jobs are only for a short time
during construction. The estimate for the expected return to the City during a 1 0 year
period would depend on the success of the proposal.
The nearby facility of upper scale condos at Commercial and Mission Streets was not a
success as planned. It went bankrupt and is trying to survive as a rental. The new multi-
story facility on Front St. across from the park sets un-complete, for sale and mostly
'empty. These are not good indicators for the success of the proposed development.
If the approval of this development is denied the City should require the developers to
clean up the eyesore they purchased.

l:)at1
Donald L. Trout
1050 Lavona Dr. NW
Salem, OR. 97304
Ph. 503 362 3242
Kathy Hall- Main Riverfront Park Entrance for Park Use Only
From: ANITA OWEN <fundraisingor@msn.com>
To: Salem City Council <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 9/4/2013 8:17PM
Subject: Main Riverfront Park Entrance for Park Use Only
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENTFI
SEP 0 5 0 1 3 ~
5?1TY Of: SALEIVI
Cll Y Hi::COFlDEF<
Dear City Council Members. I hope you are looking out for the majority of park users in Salem. Please dO not give
away a strip of our park to big business and leave the park users with an extremely conjested entry to our Park right where
young families with little kids come to play. There is room to expand morer parking in front for Park users with
only minimal expense for this already busy area. Move the entry for the new apartments to the North of the Park where it
will not interfere with the Park entry. This would be a safer less congestion solution and will help alleviate massive back up
on Front Street. I hope you are listening to us. Respectfully, Anita Owen
Anita Owen, Oregon Fund Raising, 503-463-6733, 1-800-366-2022
"It is not what happens to you .. it's what you do about it that makes a difference."
W. Mitchell
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52279553GWC1 S-... 9/5/2013
Kathy Hall - Pringle Square
From: Paul & Sandy Johnson <paulsandy26@comcast.net>
To: <citycouncil@cityofsalem.net>, <ampeterson@cityofsalem.net>
Date: 9/4/2013 8:55PM
Subject: Pringle Square
Hello all,
Page 1 of 1
Fl
SEP 0 5 2013
LTTY or- SALt:M
c; n '/ 1-:;:: c:oFIDt=r=:
My husband and I grew up here in Salem, left just after we were
married to complete our college educations and then moved on to our
careers which took us to Portland, Monterey, CA and the Bay area, and
last, but not least Hawaii. All beautiful places, indeed ... And we chose
to move "home" to Salem upon our retirement in 2002. We have been
thrilled to see our home town evolve into a progressive, business and
resident focused city before our very eyes - and thank you for all you
have done to support that!
And, we are fortunate to have a business man like Larry Tokarski so
invested in our city, both in his business ventures and in his
philanthropic support of many of the non-profits organizations in our
community. As stated in an editorial in the Statesman Journal, many
many improvements in Salem have been accomplished when private
ente'rprise and city government work shoulder to shoulder. Pringle
Square in another worthy example of that collaboration and how good
things can come to our city.
My husband and I whole-heartedly support the concept of the Pringle
Square development and feel the changes will provide a beautiful
finishing piece to the south end of downtown Salem while bringing jobs
and mid-range living options to our downtown area.
We ask you to please support this important development and help
bring it to its completion by voting "yes" to Pringle Square!!.
Sincerely,
Paul and Sandy Johnson
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52279E41 GWCl S-... 9/5/2013
From: Sandy Walker <sndwalker2@gmail.com>
Sent: 9/4/2013 10:18 PM
To: Rich Clausen
Subject: proposed development
>>>"Sandy Walker" 2013-09-04T22:18:16.630472 >>>
Dear Councilman Clausen, citizen Sandy here.
As I sat in attendance at the work session and City Council meeting
last Monday evening, I was somewhat surprised by the high-powered PR
campaign being waged by the Mountain West developers and associates.
They bordered on rude . Of course it is about money for them, as well
as furthering their careers with something significant. They have
done a good deal of planning and preparations for this apartment
complex already. I have wondered why these many questions, which were
surely know from the start, have not arisen earlier in the process.
Or were they being put off as a strategy? Was the public ever asked
for feedback at an earlier date, since this involves issues that
concern them? ... All of this planning and they still do not have the
fundamental ingredient of access to the property.
These are some of the real issues as I see them. Some have already
been articulated well. Some were not covered at the meeting.
Many people addressed the safety issues. This is most critical. I
challenge you to go stand on the front steps of the Carousel and
realize that actual traffic will be passing by RIGHT THERE (not
parking lot traffic). If you look at the scale site map you will see
there is no room for a tighter left turn there than right at the
front steps. This parking lot has been too small fom the beginning,
as both the Carousel and playground are popular destinations for
families with young children. There are frequent large public and
private events at the Carousel, often in the evenings, and park-wide
events in the summer. It is a very bad idea to take additional space
from it. It is not the place for a road for 200 plus additional
people going in and out daily. This would also rule out adding any
more parking for the south Park forever.
Numerous others also brought up the current traffic issues there
already are on Front Street where the cars turn in. I have personally
had to wait for stopped trains, sitting in the turn lane on Front.
Coming from West Salem can be a problem, and it is difficult to cross
that intersection as a pedestrian. Others raised the issue of
emergency vehicles. Let's be realistic. These are true liability and
safety issues.
Some other practical issues ... It is a fact that the Carousel
operates on a thin margin, to keep itself affordable to all of the
public ANYthing that is a detriment to business there could be a
threat to its viability, even temporary interference such as
Page 1 of2
DOCUIVIEf\IT Fl
S
r,p () 5 'lnn
, 1: Lv "
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52281D22GWC1 S-... 9/5/2013
construction It is also a fact that the Carousel building belongs to
the City, but the Carousel does not. If it could not succeed in the
place it was made for, it might have to move to another location.
That would be an ultimate disgrace to the multitudes of citizens who
worked so hard to create it.
The "spaciousness" portrayed in all of the graphics was just not
reality. Beside the parking, the reality is that this 3 story complex
will be squashed up against the end of the parking lot and playground,
visually dominant .The features of the south end of the Park--
amphitheater, Eco Earth, the proposed foot bridge to Minto Island--
will become the back yard of the apartments rather than inviting more
public use. The view will be blocked. How is that for Park
aesthetics? I even heard them speak of having to move the playground
equipment. I believe the public values this Park far more than a
land-locked apartment complex that only a few may enjoy. Developing
the other side of the tracks with a beautiful path to a beautiful Park
would have much more appeal.
The big picture is that the Carousel is the centerpiece of the
centerpiece of Salem, the beautiful Riverfront Parle It reflects the
heart values of the citizens --young and old alike. It is a hard-won
attraction that symbolizes what the people of Salem can accomplish
that is good for all when they put their creative efforts and hands on
energy into a grand task.
We are not opposed to development... Just not on this parcel.
Respectfully,
Sandy Walker
Page 2 of2
From: Britta Franz <brittafran@aol.com>
Sent: 9/4/2013 10:10 PM
To: Rich Clausen
Page 1
DOCUMENT FHJJJ
SEP
C!JY CJF
;11 Y HECOFlDEFi
Subject:: I fear the hidden costs of the proposed Riverfront apartment project. see details below./please send
on to your list.
>>> "Britta Franz" 2013-09-04T22:10:26.230542 >>>
Hi Rich,
We have not met, and have never corresponded with you directly. I have enjoyed watching you at
council, and urge you to read niy thoughts and this note, plus the bottom one attached.Please know I am
sincerely concerned ! ! ! We are not Thinking strategically far enough Ahead.
awk, sorry it dropped down as I proofed it.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52281DAEGWCl S... 9/5/2013
Page 2
! ! !!
In addition to "Future Think" about which I spoke at Council meeting, I have reason to fear the multiple
hidden costs, those not yet revealed, as well as subsequent ones for the proposed Riverfront apartment
project. I spell them out below.
Please take the time to read on.
THE CITY HAD TO PROVIDE FREE Customer PARKING-- build both Chemeketa and Marion
Parkade to entice Bob Dutcher to build THE SALEM CENTER .... with drastic expensive consequences,
even today. Let me explain:
How fast History is forgotten, when re-written to suit the writer.
I challenge Dick Hughes' editorial today, specifically whoever wrote the section on Salem Center. which
I personally know it is not correctly interpreted .
I was there. ! From 1966, La Pointe's, mine, the largest ofthe stores, and Bishops' Menswear ofthe
Pendelton Woolen Mills Family, Blums of San Francisco, Ernie Savage's Children's Boote1y, Chandlers
Fashion Shoes, and G. office supplies to list a few, all happily existed in a Locally Built and Locally
Privately Financed SALEM PLAZA on the North block. Free customer parking was provided by the
stores: half a block of attached street level parking, drive-in from Marion Street, and half above our
stores accessible with wide on & off ramps, parking on the roofs of the store buildings which faced
Center, for a total circa 250 .. Salem Plaza also held a number of smaller stores at street level, i.e. Salem
Health Foods. Meyer & Franks-now Macy's- with its attached multi level free customer parking garage
prospered across High Street.
Penny's existed happily on its present site, with Sees as neighbor. The Kohls stores were not in the west
coast yet.
Testing Urban Renewal for the first time in Salem, 1977-9, brought Salem taxpayers a partnership with
Portland Promoter Bob Dutcher. Yes, he delivered Nordstum, but in the less favorable Enclosed Mall
system utilizing a whole block. In addition to receiving the land most favorably, He also demanded, and
received, City-provided Free Parking: Both the Chemeketa and then the Marion Parkades. They are
expensive publicly-financed civic projects. He installed the theory that the Public, not the previously
accepted-in-Salem retailers, pay for parking. This drastic change of policy lead us to our present
financing-parking-structures problems, and the envisioned need to install customer-paid parking meters ..
I fear the hidden costs, the true price to our Salem, ofthe proposed Riverfront's apartment complex ... the
access off Front Street is not the only known challenge that faces us .. :.
Add the yet-unmentioned changes and shrinking space to remodel the park's roads for fire and
ambulance access from the north, which will be required, and the yet to be known impacts of the added
bridge and 303 acres.
Please "Future THINK" ... Our Outdoor Future ..... see that discussion below which I spoke about last
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52281DAEGWC1S ... 9/5/2013
week at council. Thanks ... Britta.
503-399-9099
brittafran@aol. com
It is imperative that we FUTURE-THINK
Page 3
1) We are Aletied to the impending increase of volume of Riverfront Park's new users and visitors,
adding economic impacts connected with gatherings of people from near and far, and adding to all of
our quality of life in Salem's region.
2) We Project the attraction of Riverfront Park expansions-- 303 acres courtesy of the Bonneville Power
Adm, --the 9.5 million dollar bridge-- expanded to Minto, combined with the existing new West Salem
connection.
(Long existing multiple city plans always show the "river's edge path" continuing nmih of the Rail
Bridge)
3) We must plan and project for the needs of this avalanche: new users and visitors, prepare for the
upcoming generation's higher use of outdoor activities.
Our City's priority should be:
To acquire the adjacent Boise property nmih of the tracks for future needs, ... envision events, weekly
casual,gatherings, formal athletic competitions, local, regional, national, i.e. running, jogging, bikers,
roller derbies; for kids, add: scooters, long or short boards, new things for teens and be-tweens.
I see space for adjunct services, to set up an emergency first-aid station, a police kiosk, deliver water
supply, food trucks, service tents, registration and judge stations, bike repairs, locker spaces for
participants, backpacks, the list gets longer as you invite others to add to it.plus parking: cars, buses,
motorcycles, bikes, strollers et al.
Salem must envision a whole new "Outdoors" future .....
Please help lead us into the broader-view ahead.
Britta
503-399-9099
brittafran@aol.com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52281DAEGWC1S ... 9/5/2013
Kathy Hall- The Residence at Riverfront Park- Vote Yes
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
To All,
''Management'' <management@sharpcorinc.com>
9/5/2013 7:44AM
The Residence at Riverfront Park - Vote Yes
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENTFI
SEP 0 52GB
c:\rY OF SALE.M
\ ~ f f Y RECOF{Of-i::R
I attended the city council meeting on August 26th as a proponent of the "access issue". First, I would like to express
my true displeasure at how the public hearing portion of the meeting was handled, primarily by the mayor and
Councilor Bennett. I saw Mr. Bennett approach the city attorney, whisper in his ear and shortly thereafter the mayor
pretty much cut off the presentation of the applicant by making sure that no one spoke unless they talked only about
the access issue. They were the applicant and deserved more respect than was given. The city council may have had
earlier meetings and seen tre presentation but I can assure you that those in the audience did not have that
opportunity.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am the President of Sharpcor, Inc., the contractor for this project so I do have a
vested interest in seeing the project move forward. However, I am also a citizen of this city and would like to express
my personal thoughts. We have lived in Salem for 25 years. This is a wonderful city to raise a family. However, I
have discovered over this period of time that nothing really changes. As an example, when we first were brought
here by my husband's employer we came in on McGilchrist Street. At the time he told us that this area was ugly and
run down but would one day be a great thoroughfare to South Salem from east side of the city. Well, as you all know
it is still ugly, run down and largely undeveloped.
My children are now 29 and 27 years old and have nothing nice to say about Salem. When our son finished college
we pretty much forced him to move here to work for us. He lived in one of the few apartments downtown for two
years. He would call every Sunday and ask to come to our home because "nothing much was open on Sunday"
unless you are into shopping. Two years ago, since housing prices were so low he bought a home in South Salem. He
is now !Joing a project for us in Bend and wants to sell his house instead of ever living here again. Our daughter has
lived in San Diego and Seattle and now lives in Bend and also does not want to return here.
This downtown area needs a "shot in the arm" or it will die off much like a lot of cities have when businesses move to
the suburbs. I see the apartment project as a good start in giving the downtown area some life. I realize the
opponents are concerned about the access issue and safety. However, any parking area anywhere is dangerous so
that is an argument I have a hard time swallowing.
Please vote to allow this project to move forward and be the city council that did something to energize the city.
Thanks,
Kathy Sharp
President
Sharpcor, Inc.
503-581-1799
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5228364FGWC1 S-... 9/5/2013
Kathy Hall - Boise Cascade downtown property
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Carl Harbaugh" <carlh@southtownglass.com>
9/5/2013 8:01AM
Boise Cascade downtown property
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT FlLF.U
SEP 0 5 20\3
CITY OF SALEM
C::ITY FlECORDf:::.Fl
I want Salem infill and build up not out. I don't like urban sprawl. Past urban sprawl blight is all over Salem and is
creating a home for unwanted activities. I would like to see a less costly walk bridge and a plan that occupancy
percentages are met as the phases of development moves forward. If we build more living facilities like the ones
we have now that cost more than we are willing to pay we have a problem.
Carl Harbaugh
South Town Glass
2324 12th Street SE
Salem, OR 97302
503-581-5001
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\52283A 70GWC 1 S-... 9/5/2013
Kathy Hall - Boise Cascade Redevelopment and access
From: Dick Brady <dick@bradyfinancialplanners.com>
Date: 9/5/2013 8:10AM
Page 1 of 1
DOCUI\/lENT FILJll
Q 5 'Hl13
.Jt !U I
Subject: Boise Cascade Redevelopment and access
OF SALeM
- -
1

City Council members: I couldn't agree more with the editorial in the Wednesday, Sept. 4th Statesman-Journal,
urging going ahead with the project. Private Sector development is the only way the project will get off the
ground. The willingness of enterpreners to invest their time, money, and vision, is to be commended. Let's get
behind them and support this vision for Salem's future. It means economic growth, jobs, and a re-vitalization of
the downtown core.
PLEASE NOTE: My email address has changed to dick@bradyfinancialplanners.com. Please update your
records. Thank you.
Richard K. Brady, CFP, CLU
Brady Financial Planners
195 Owens StreetS.
Salem, OR 97302
Ph# (503) 581-6029
Fax#(503)581-0886
* & Investment Advisory Services offered through lNG Financial Partners MEMBER SIPC
Brady Financial Planners is not a subsidary of nor controlled by lNG Financial Partners
Please note:
The information contained in this message is priviledged and confidential, and it is intended only for the
use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
reproduction, distribution, or other use of this communication Is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, or if any problems occur with transmission, please notify us by telephone,
(503) 581-6029 and be so kind as to return the original to us by mail.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\52283C93GWC1 S-... 9/5/2013
Page 1 of3
DOCUMENT FILED
Kathy Hall - Applying "Future Think" to Council decisions
9/5/2013 8:45AM
,HTY ~ ~ F SALEM
l,IIY HECOFlDEFi
Date:
Subject: Applying "Future Think" to Council decisions
CC: Salem United <salemunited@googlegroups.com>, Citizenforum Discussion <ci ...
This is about the hidden costs that always attend development decisions. They should be revealed.
Richard
In addition to "Future Think" about which I spoke at Council meeting, I
have reason tofear the multiple hidden costs, those not yet revealed, as
well as subsequent ones for the proposed Riverfront apartment project. I
spell them out below.
Please take the time to read on.
THE CITY HAD TO PROVIDE FREE Customer PARKING -- build both
Chemeketa and Marion Parkade to entice Bob Dutcher to build THE
SALEM CENTER .... with drastic expensive consequences, even
today.
let me explain:
How fast History is forgotten, when re-written to suit the writer.
I challenge Dick Hughes' editorial today, specifically whoever wrote the
section on Salem Center. which I personally know it is not correctly
interpreted .
I was there. ! From 1966, La Pointe's, mine, the largest of the stores,
and Bishops' Menswear of the Pendelton Woolen Mills Family, Slums of
San Francisco, Ernie Savage's Children's Bootery, Chandlers Fashion
Shoes, and G. office supplies to list a few, all happily existed in a Locally
Built and Locally Privately Financed SALEM PLAZA on the North
block. Free customer parking was provided by the stores: half a
block of attached street level parking, drive-in from Marion Street, and
half above our stores accessible with wide on & off ramps, parking on
the roofs of the store buildings which faced Center, for a total circa 250 ..
Salem Plaza also held a number of smaller stores at street level, i.e.
Salem Health Foods. Meyer & Franks-now Macy's- with its attached
multi level free customer parking garage prospered across High Street.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\522844C4GWC 1 S-... 9/5/2013
Page 2 of3
Penny's existed happily on its present site, with Sees as neighbor. The
Kohls stores were not in the west coast yet.
Testing Urban Renewal for the first time in Salem, 1977-9, brought
Salem taxpayers a partnership with Portland Promoter Bob Dutcher.
Yes, he delivered Nordstum, but in the less favorable Enclosed Mall
system utilizing a whole block. In addition to receiving the land most
favorably, He also demanded, and received, City-provided Free
Parking: Both the Chemeketa and then the Marion Parkades . They are
expensive publicly-financed civic projects. He installed the theory that the
Public, not the previously accepted-in-Salem retailers, pay for
parking. This drastic change of policy lead us to our present financing-
parking-structures problems, and the envisioned need to install customer-
paid parking meters ..
I fear the hidden costs, the true price to our Salem, of the proposed
Riverfront apartments. Access off Front Street is not the only known
challenge that faces us .. :.
Add the yet-unmentioned changes and shrinking space to remodel the
Park's paths for fire and ambulance north access, which will be required,
and the yet to be known impacts of the added bridge and 303 acres.
Please "Future THINK" ... Our Outdoor Future ..... see below ... on which I
spoke last week at council. Thanks ... Britta.
503-399-9099
brittafran @aol. com
It is imperative that we FUTURE- THINK
1) We are Alerted to the impending increase of volume of Riverfront
Park's new users and visitors, adding economic impacts connected with
gatherings of people from near and far, and adding to all of our quality of
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\522844C4GWC 1 S-... 9/5/2013
Page 3 of3
life in Salem's region.
2) We Project the attraction of Riverfront Park expansions-- 303
acres courtesy of the Bonneville Power Adm, --the $9.5 million dollar
bridge -- expanded to Minto, combined with the existing new West
Salem connection.
(Long existing multiple city plans always show the "river's edge north
path" continuing north of the Rail Bridge)
3) We must plan and project for the needs of this avalanche: new users
and visitors, prepare for the upcoming generation's higher use of
outdoor activities.
Our City's priority should be:
To acquire the adjacent Boise property north of the tracks for
future needs, ... envision events, weekly casual gatherings,
formal athletic competitions , local, regional, national, i.e. running,
jogging, bikers, roller derbies; for kids, add: scooters, long or short
boards, new things for teens and be-tweens.
I see space for adjunct services, to set up an emergency first-aid station,
a police kiosk, deliver water supply, food trucks, service tents,
registration and judge stations, bike repairs, locker spaces for
participants, backpacks, the list gets longer as you invite others to add to
it. plus parking: cars, buses, motorcycles, bikes, strollers et al.
Salem must envision a whole new "Outdoors" future .....
Please help lead us into the broader-view ahead.
Britta
503-399-9099
brittafran@aol. com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\khall\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\522844C4GWC1S-... 9/5/2013

Public Comments On Riverfront Development

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Public Comments On Riverfront Development

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Page 1 of2

You may have received this already ...

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen