ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
I. CALL TO ORDER:
October 12, 2021
Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
||Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Chair Norton announced the public hearing for PA-T2-2021-00031, 375 & 475 East Nevada Street was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on November 9, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. per the applicant’s request.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Department of Land Conservation and Development awarded the City technical assistance funding for Housing Production Strategy. Staff met with developers interested in purchasing the Croman Mill Site.
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. September 14, 2021 Regular Meeting
Commissioner Verner/Pearce m/s to approve the consent agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. September 28, 2021 Special Meeting
A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2021-00029, 822 Oak Street
Ex Parte Contact
The Commission had no ex parte contact on the matter.
Commissioner Dawkins/Verner m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2021-00029, 822 Oak Street. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS - APPEAL
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00158
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 351 Walker Av/390 Stadium St
OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University/ Smartlink, LLC
on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC/AT&T
APPELLANTS: Kelly Marcotulli & Pamala Joy
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal of the Staff Advisor’s approval of Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permits to install a new Wireless Communication Facility on the Southern Oregon University Campus at 351 Walker Avenue/390 Stadium Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 10CD; TAX LOT: 100.
Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings and opened the continued public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins and Chair Norton declared no ex parte contact but past the site often. Commissioner KenCairn disclosed she had a conversation with an executive at Southern Oregon University (SOU) about previous issues with cell phone tower. It would not affect her ability participate. She frequently passed the site. Commissioner Pearce, Thompson, and Verner declared no ex parte contact and no site visit.
Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached
|• Request & Appeal
• Vicinity Map
• Photo – proposed wireless location
• Telecommunications Act of 1996
• Ashland’s Regulations
• Independent Review
• Third Party Reviewer Caution About Photo Simulations
• Ashland’s Regulations
• Existing Wireless Facilities in Ashland – photos
• Alternate Sites Considered
• Existing Stadium Lights
• Existing Light to be Replaced
• Currently Proposed WCF
• As originally proposed (95-foot height)
• As conditioned (85-foot height)
|• Site Plan
• Ground Equipment Screening
• Proposed Ground Equipment & Screening
• Photo Sim. Location Reference Map
• Applicant Photo Simulation “View 1”
• Applicant Photo Simulation “View 2”
• Applicant Photo Simulation “View 3”
• Applicant Photo Simulation “View 4”
• Applicant Photo Simulation “View 5”
• Appeal Issues
• Appeal Issue #1
• Appeal Issue #2
• Appeal Issue #3
• Staff Recommendation on Appeal
Staff recommended the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the original approval.
Questions of Staff
Kimberly Allen/Wireless Policy Group for AT&T/
The facility was part of the AT&T effort to fortify the network and make it more reliable. They concurred with the staff recommendations and findings. AT&T submitted an analysis with seven alternatives. They submitted alternative sites that were reviewed by the City’s independent third-party expert, William Johnson, who concluded this site was the only viable alternative. The adjacent AT&T sites were at or nearing exhaustion. Capacity function was based on time and number of users. The AT&T justification analysis determined the surrounding sites were becoming unreliable. Capacity site was different from coverage site and more difficult to map. The AT&T radiofrequency (RF) engineers used computer modeling and internal data to determine the site was needed.
She addressed issues raised by the appellants. The lease was not specific on granting colocation on the tower to other providers. They would amend the lease regarding colocation prior to seeking a building permit. The appellants had not provided the study regarding property value issues to the applicant or staff. There were studies in 2004, three years before the advent of the iPhone. The applicants had submitted studies. One showed there was no impact on property values. Alternately, it had become a selling feature. The other study was from 2014 that showed no measurable positive or negative impact was determined regarding property values due to proximity to a cell tower.
The second issue related to aesthetics. The tower would resemble an existing stadium light, just taller. The facility was far from the connecting streets, reducing visual impact. AT&T agreed to reduce the height from 95-feet to 85-feet which would minimize visibility.
The third issue spoke to health concerns. The FCC indicated if a carrier demonstrated a facility will operate within the RF emission limits, decision makers may not consider testimony regarding health effects or environmental impacts related to RF emissions. The record had a report from an AT&T RF engineer stating the proposed facility will operate well within and under the FCC limits for RF emissions.
Kelli Marcotulli explained the 85-foot cell tower would be close to a preschool, an elementary school, and vulnerable populations. Could this application legally be denied based on the evidence?
Yes, there was compelling evidence the application did not meet city code. Could the City of Ashland avoid legal and monetary consequences if the application is denied, and should the City deny this application based on the evidence? She made the following three points:
1. The Ashland ordinance stated the applicant must submit studies showing colocation is not feasible.
The feasibility studies in the application were based on computer generated propagation maps that the FCC recently deemed inadequate without hard data for validation.
2. Ashland code standards stipulated a copy of the lease agreement for the site did not preclude colocation.
There was no specific statement requiring colocation as required by Ashland code 18.104.22.168. Smartlink stated future colocation might require a taller pole for an additional facility and did not preclude future carriers from extending the height of the facility, utilizing other stadium lights or other locations on Southern Oregon University (SOU) campus.
3. A wireless applicant must substantiate current need for a new tower.
The City was not required to provide wireless facilities based on future need.
She addressed the second question on whether the City could avoid legal and monetary consequences if the application was denied. A lawsuit did not mean the City would incur liability. The City would be directed to install the tower without penalties or fines. Wireless companies were not allowed to receive damages, monetary award or legal fees for a City violation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. They could only sue for an injunction for the City to issue a permit.
Regarding her third question on whether the City should deny the application. There were substantial legal grounds for the City to deny the application and no legal consequences for a denial.
Pamala Joy explained she moved to Ashland in the early 1990s because of the livability factors. She founded the Ashland Food Angels in 1995. The Food Angel’s collected and distributed a quarter million pounds of food annually. The cell tower was alarmingly close to her home which the Food Angels worked from. The proximity of the cell tower would lower her property value. If the tower was installed, she would most likely move and close the Food Angels as well. Loss of property value due to a cell tower was well established and could be confirmed by many real estate organizations. Cell towers were eyesores, devalued properties and lowered the selling price of homes. They could discourage renters and impact the tax base of the area. The Wall Street Journal reported that over 90% buyers and renters were negatively affected by the presence of cell towers near a home. The National Institute for Science Law and Public Policy in 2014 showed that 94% of home buyers would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or an antenna. From other sources she reported that cell towers were not allowed at fire stations, schools, or school grounds. Some schools sued to have the towers removed due to their effects on children.
In 2012, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considered cell towers hazards and nuisances. HUD required its appraisers to consider nearby towers to determine home values. HUD prohibited FHA underwriting of mortgages for homes within the engineered fall zone of a cell tower. She quoted a 2017 statement from Burgoyne Appraisal Company that adverse aesthetics had a large impact on property value for homes new cell towers. Per 6409 A of the Middleclass Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, once a cell tower was installed, it could go up to 20-feet higher without community input. According to the Appraisal Journal of 2006, buyers could pay 20% less for properties near cell towers. Her house would fall into that category resulting in a possible difference of $88,000.
She and her renter were both electronically sensitive to EMF radiation. Her renter would move if the cell tower was installed, further affecting Ms. Joy’s financial stability. The Ashland code for Conditional Use Permits included livability as criteria. Property values pertained to that livability factor and so did general wellbeing. The cell tower would have a major effect on the livability of the surrounding areas. A better solution was wired broadband with fiber optics, copper wire and ethernet cables to the premises.
Shared his credentials. For the last 3.5 years, he studied manmade post electromagnetic radiation and legal actions taken by cities to regulate wireless facilities. The cell tower coverage maps in the application were not accurate enough to support credible analysis. They were computer generated and not validated by drive test data in Ashland. He spoke to gaps and inaccuracies using computer generated maps stated in a document he submitted into the record by the FCC, titled Mobility Fund Phase II Coverage Maps Investigation Staff Report.
Did not think the public was sufficiently informed this was a 5G tower installation. He showed a capacity graph from 2019 and explained the capacity was exceeded four times during that year. An updated version from November 19, 2019 through August 20, 2021, showed a peak trend line that dramatically dropped from the prior original. He explained it would not exceed capacity for twelve years. There was one peak capacity point during the 22-month period and the pandemic. He went on to clarify that seven months or 30% were left out of the graph, the period for May to December 2020 and could not be relied upon.
Successfully appealed a cell tower facility installation in 2010 that resulted in him, Jim Fong and Community Development Director Bill Molnar clarifying the ordinance and wireless installations. They worked on the step hierarchy and the definition of feasible. The application did not show that colocation or attaching to an existing structure was not feasible. The application failed to meet Ashland’s wireless code and should be denied.
The application fell short three areas. Their need for a new facility was based on computer generated propagation maps. Based on the FCC report included in the record and titled Mobility Fund Phase II Coverage Maps Investigation Staff Report which showed the accuracy of the propagation maps ranged from 16.2% to 64.3%. This did not meet substantial evidence like a dropped call log or a drive by measurement would. Neither were provided.
Ms. Allen requested the record remain open so they could respond to the technical testimony regarding the FCC no longer accepting propagation maps. This was new information submitted within the last 24-hours. From her initial review of the memo titled Mobility Fund Phase II Coverage Maps Investigation Staff Report she thought there were significant differences. One, it was a staff report from a task force researching whether the propagation maps were adequate to the FCC’s goal of providing nationwide broadband. It also showed where it was and was not. One observation in the report was that maps tended to overestimate the amount of coverage than was on the ground due to different circumstances. They also tried to measure the speed of broadband in these locations. She wanted AT&T engineers to review the article and add technical data in the record. She was not aware of any prohibition by the FCC on using computer generated models. They were the industry standard and accepted by the City’s expert.
With respect to the lease and colocation, the applicants would amend the lease that colocation would be allowed. There was a nine-foot separation required between antennas. AT&T voluntarily reduced the tower height from 95-feet to 85-feet. A future colocation may need to increase or decrease the height.
She did not think the attorneys that spoke on the efficacy of the coverage maps established themselves as experts regarding propagation maps. She wanted to evaluate the real estate studies as well. This was additional testimony to what the appellants had stated in their appeal.
Finally, she addressed the comment on wired broadband as an alternative to wireless. Federal law prohibited communities from dictating which type of technology will provide service to their residents. The carriers needed to be able to design and evaluate their own networks. Alternately, wired broadband on highways, open spaces, or rural areas was not feasible.
Ms. Allen confirmed they wanted the record left open. The record would be left open for three weeks. The first week would allow any party to submit additional evidence or argument. The deadline would be Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. The second week would allow any party to submit evidence or argument in rebuttal only to the materials submitted during the first open record period. The deadline for the second week would be Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. The last week, only the applicant could submit final legal arguments and could waive this period if they chose.
Questions from the Commission
Mr. Severson explained 18.4.10.040.C.2.a
would allow relief from colocation by demonstrating a significant service gap in the coverage area. Commissioner Thompson asked Ms. Allen if the tower would be designed for colocation by another carrier. Ms. Allen explained structurally, they would be able to accommodate more than one carrier. It was not possible to predict the height of any future colocation. Extenders would be included to raise the height up an additional ten feet.
Mr. Johnson explained proposed alternative sites in the applicant’s submittal did not cover the area to draw capacity from the cells currently approaching exhaustion. The proposed site was midway between filling a gap area and all sites were equally spaced. The propagation plots were valid and showed a coverage gap. The capacity chart did not go over the limitation line partly due to the pandemic and there were no events at the stadium. He did not know why the chart was missing data from April 2020 to January 2021. The data was showing more demand as things began to open earlier this year. The change in the slope line discussed by one of the appellants that was pushed out from 3 years to 12 years was due to lack of gatherings during that period. The applicant had sufficient data to support the need for the added capacity. The RF maps were also sufficient and valid. He addressed the staff report from the FCC that discounted the use of propagation plots to build a wireless network. This was a single site and computer-generated maps were what the network was designed upon. He provided history on drive tests, the time involved and costs. Drive tests were rarely used. There was no decision by the FCC to discount propagation maps.
Chair Norton closed the public hearing at 8:44 p.m.
Commissioner KenCairn asked Mr. Johnson to clarify what the fall zone for the cell tower was. Mr. Johnson explained it was a mechanical failure where the tower would fall over. Commissioner Pearce noted the public hearing was closed and the Commission could no longer ask questions. The Commission and staff discussed process. It was determined the Commission could ask the parties involved to include certain information during the first week the record was open.
Commissioner KenCairn wanted study data on the definition of what “near” meant regarding real estate values for properties near cell towers. Chair Norton wanted an explanation on future colocations being able to increase the cell tower height without public input.
VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2021-00159
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 329 Granite St.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Development Services
DESCRIPTION: A request for an interpretation of the land use code that regulates the amount of a driveway that can exceed 15 percent grade. Specifically, the application requests an interpretation of Ashland Municipal Code 18.5.3.060.F, which reads as follows: “F. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances.” The request is to interpret if the code is meant to allow a total of 200’ of driveway length exceeding the maximum slope through an application for a variance, or in the alternative, if multiple sections no longer than 200’ in length exceeding the maximum slope may be applied for with an application for a variance” COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland / Low Density Residential; ZONING: WR / RR-.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 08 DD; TAX LOT: 704
Chair Norton opened the public hearing at 9:06 p.m.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner KenCairn declared a conflict of interest and recused herself from the meeting. She was involved in the project. Commissioner Dawkins had no ex parte contact but knew the site. Commissioner Pearce, Thompson, Verner, and Chair Norton declared no ex parte contact.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided history on the item. The applicant would be resubmitting and including findings relating to a maximum allowed grade for a flag drive and request a variance to that standard. This was not a review of a development proposal. The Commission would clarify how the variance standards for driveway grades greater than fifty feet long could be applied. With the formal interpretation of the existing code, the applicants would address the standard, as interpreted by the Commission, and complete their development proposal. This interpretation by the Commission would not change the code only clarify the meaning as drafted. He proved the following presentation:
• Code Interpretation 18.5.3.060.F – Flag Drive Maximum Grade
• Code Interpretation Options - Interpretation 1
• Code Interpretation Options - Interpretation 2
Staff received an opinion from the City Attorney this afternoon. It concurred with the Planning Division’s prior application where multiple segments where the combined length is not more than 200-feet was plan and clear.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Pearce as if this was a flag lot. Mr. Goldman explained any driveway over 50-feet long was held to the flag drive standards. The future application for the property was not a flag lot. It was a lot with a private drive currently in place.
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services/Medford, OR/
Amy Gunter introduced the team and provided a presentation:
• Request for Interpretation of Specific Statement within 18.5.3.060.F
Chris Hearn/Davis, Hearn, Anderson & Turner Attorneys at Law/Ashland/
• Requested Interpretation
• Comprehensive Plan & Ordinance Compliance
• Fire Chief Finding
• Fire Professional Opinion
Read the criteria under 18.1.5.030 Interpretation Criteria
and explained how the project met 18.1.5.030.A
. The lot was a buildable and not a partition. It was on the comprehensive plan map and zoned for a single-family residence. When 13.5 acres was dedicated for Parks and Recreation land, the remaining parcel would be buildable. They received the opinion of the City Attorney shortly after 4:30 earlier that day. He explained why the Commission should discount the City Attorney’s opinion. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993) sited in the memo was overruled by ORS 174.020 in 2001 and later overruled in part by State v. Gaines. Lastly, he thought the final paragraph stated it was clear in 18.1.2.020 the intent of the ordinance was vague.
Margueritte Hickman/Stage Fire Solutions/Medford, OR/
Had three points on the project. The Fire Department indicated the application met the needs of the Fire Department. The addition of home fire sprinklers, wide turning radii turnout locations on the driveway and defensible fire space made this an acceptable project. Second, adding a new residence improved wildfire protection in the neighborhood through fuels reduction, additional people and the sprinkler system that would slow down fire in the residence. The driveway would provide more access for firefighters. Third, the maximum 200 feet of 15% to 18% grade. Many homes in other areas in the city had added fire sprinkler systems to gain this allowance. When she worked for the City of Ashland, she frequently reviewed fire access for lots with steep driveways. The question on whether this should be an aggregate of 200-feet or individual sections of up to 200-feet for that 15% to 18%. Having the driveway in segments increased safety for fire access and inclement weather. She recommended approving it the way it was applied for. She could not recall if there had been prior applications with more than 200-feet of driveway but thought it may have occurred.
Ms. Gunter clarified the section of code they were seeking interpretation on was not fire apparatus access specific and there were other standards within the flag lot partition criteria required to address driveways longer than fifty feet in length that were specific to fire apparatus access. She could not find anything in the City’s electronic repository prior to 1990 regarding the issue. She addressed Commissioner Dawkins’ question
Regarding the 10% driveway grade. The property had steep hillside constraints and two riparian zones where the driveway entered the site. To retain the grade of the existing driveway, the initial part was less than 10%.
Questions of the Applicants
Commissioner Pearce thought this was coming to the Commission in the abstract and not associated with an application. He asked Mr. Hearn to elaborate on the needed housing ordinance and how it applied to this interpretation. Mr. Hearn explained the needed housing statues required local ordinances to be clear and objective when it involved housing. The code did not provide a clear and objective standard because it did not specify whether the 200-feet was cumulative or if it was segmented in 200-feet or less, sections. The remedy was legislative action by the City Council on whether it should be cumulative over the entire 200-feet or segmented with parameters. If it is unclear, it should default in favor of the applicant.
Mr. Goldman clarified the code interpretation was not site specific. This property was where they discovered an issue. The driveway length necessary to access the property would have multiple segments up to 200-feet in length each. Staff found other issues with the pre-application. One was the driveway grade and the variance standard. Driveway grade considered flag drives shall have no more than 200 feet that is over 15% and less than 18%. Staff concurred with Mr. Hearn that the site was developable with severe constraints in terms of slopes. It was created prior to the hillside ordinance. Development will have to be on slopes greater than 35% or greater than 25% and that was allowable.
Commissioner Pearce was concerned the interpretation would apply citywide. Mr. Goldman clarified the Commission was doing an interpretation of the code, not a modification. Future applications in similar circumstances would look to that interpretation on what constituted 200 feet.
Mr. Goldman confirmed the flag drive standards predated the hillside ordinance. Commissioner Thompson noted the City had interpreted the code as the length of a driveway being a total of 200-feet. The Commission was being asked to change the way a section of the code had been interpreted for thirty years. It was concerning.
Mr. Molnar spoke to Commissioner Pearce’s comment. A code interpretation could have significant citywide policy implications that a staff advisor may bypass procedure and go directly to the Planning Commission and City Council for legislative review and public hearing. Commissioner Thompson was more comfortable treating it like accomplishing new legislation through interpretation.
Joe & Katie Lynch/Ashland/
Explained they purchased the property with the intention of building a home for their family. They recognized this was a challenging lot to build on and appreciated the Planning Commission’s efforts.
Wanted to know the length of the driveway. She had questions on the grade and fire access. Did a buildable lot assume a driveway is possible? She had two properties below that intersected with the drive on 329 Granite. She was also concerned about the access point turnaround for the fire truck. Was there is an easement? She had questions on location, access, driveway length, trees falling, the integrity of the land, and potential mudslides.
Commissioner Dawkins/Verner m/s to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed.
Ms. Gunter did not know the exact length of driveway but thought it would be more than 600 feet in length. The grade of the sections would not be over 18%. The driveway started on the north side of the property where it connected to the existing private driveway. The driveway would not affect existing fire apparatus access or pullouts currently in place. There was no other access to the property. Mr. Hearn was surprised to see this would apply citywide and thought it was unusual. If it applied citywide, he thought there should be legislative notice.
Chair Norton closed the public hearing and the record at 10:00 p.m.
Advice from staff
Mr. Molnar explained staff thought it would be useful to separate the project from the code interpretation. Given that the examples were so lot specific, it might be best to table the interpretation. The applicant could move forward with their application on the site and have it evaluated in the context of the land use code. The other alternative would be starting a legislative process.
Deliberation and Decision
Commissioner Dawkins commented it should be a code change and noticed citywide. Commissioner Thompson thought the language was reasonable and clear. What was being asked was a legislative interpretation. Commissioner Pearce agreed. He thought it violated the needed housing ordinance because it was ambiguous. The ordinance stated variances, not variance, causing two possible interpretations. Both interpretations met the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Verner thought the ordinance was clear as well on the 200 feet of driveway being cumulative over the length of the driveway. The Commissioner further discussed the interpretation. The code needed language specifying whether the driveway was cumulative, or 200 feet was the total length. The variances needed to be addressed as well. Language was suggested that there would be no more than 200-feet for each variance.
Commissioner Pearce/Thompson m/s the Planning Commission decided not to take action on PA-T1-2021-00159 as an interpretation in the abstract that will affect other properties in city and that the statue was open to different interpretations and a legislative fix was more appropriate. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed.
Mr. Goldman explained the applicant could apply before the legislative change and come back to the apply for a variance or variances.
B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031
Commissioner KenCairn/Verner m/s to continue the item to the Planning Commission meeting on November 9, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street
APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for
OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000),
David Young (owner, 475 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots 1100,1200 & 1300)
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Ashland’s Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the UGB’s location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original maps’ scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Ashland’s Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300). PLEASE NOTE: The “1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement” requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners as well. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Reserve & North Mountain; ZONING: RR-.5 & NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04A; TAX LOT #: 1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant