How to Determine if There is Currently a Tsunami Warning in Effect along the Oregon Coast
Tsunami Warnings: Concerns about Response of Local Governments in Lincoln County, Oregon
An excerpt from p. 2 of the 29 September 2004 Conditional Use Permit for the Center states:
"Envisioned as a destination tourist attraction for a variety of regional and national meetings and events, the Expo/Event Center is intended to become a symbol of the City of Newport and its cultural resources for generations to come."
If this is the goal, then the Center needs to be built so that it will last for generations to come. This requires preparing the site and constructing the building to withstand known hazards, which include earthquakes and tsunamis. It is unclear if this will be done or if the City will only build the Center to the minimum standards required and not take voluntary measures to reduce the risk of loss of life from a major earthquake or tsunami.
It is up to the City of Newport to make the Center a positive symbol or a symbol of a city government putting development and money before the safety of its citizens and visitors.
The proposed public assembly building was called the Newport Event Center until the Oct. 15 Public Notice about a hearing for the City of Newport's Conditional Use Permit for its construction. In the Public Notice, it is called "Newport Exposition and Event Center."
In newspaper articles and conversations, it is still often referred to as "Event Center." On this web page, it is referred to as Newport Exposition and Event Center, Event Center, or Center.
An excerpt from p. 2 of the 29 September 2004 Conditional Use Permit application:
"Envisioned as a destination tourist attraction for a variety of regional and national meetings and events, the Expo/Event Center is intended to become a symbol of the City of Newport and its cultural resoures for generations to come. The Expo/Event Center will feature a main exhibit hall, four meeting rooms, a flexible pre-function lobby space, a full commercial kitchen and food service facility and Expo/Event Center offices when opened in January 2006. In addition, the applicant is proposing a large outside area adjacent to the building's northeast side suitable for supporting an expansion tent for special events. The Area and tent will be used as extensions of the Expo/Event Center's interior space on limited occasions and for limited duration. ... Except for major cultural celebrations like the Seafood and Wine Festival, attendance at events is anticipated to range from 20-3,000 persons."
The size will depend on costs, as an excerpt from a 3 November 2004 article states:
"Port commissioner Mark Fisher asked the size of the structure [Event Center]. Sasaki said it would be 41,000 square feet, down from an original 48,000 square feet, due largely to the rising cost of metal. The Seaside convention center, by contrast, has about 25,000 square feet, Sasaki said. 'I was there, we toured the facility, and the problem is it's so chopped up. The original building and the additions,' he said, 'in my opinion do not flow well now.' The planned main hall for the Newport facility, he continued, is to be 14,400 square feet. Seaside, with two halls, can offer a maximum space of about 10,000 square feet."
It has been proposed to be 36.5 ft tall (p. 3 of the 29 September 2004 Conditional Use Permit application). It may have passive solar lighting on the roof, and initial plans and drawings are in 24 March 2004 and 7 April 2004 articles.
The decision to put the Exposition & Event Center near the Port's South Beach Marina was made in December 2003. Previously, the site recommended to the City was the Bunn property west of Highway 101 in South Beach, which the City's subcommittee for locating the Exposition & Event Center reported to not be in a tsunami zone and to have few traffic issues (see 21 November 2001, 4 January 2002, 12 December 2003, and 1 October 2004 articles).
The City was reported to have switched to the site near the South Beach Marina, with the hope that Home Depot would locate a new store on the Bunn property (1 October 2004 article).
On 25 March 2005, the Event Center project is still on hold, see 21 December 2004 update.
The City of Newport has set aside $7.5 million for constructing the Event Center, but the cost estimate available on 8 October 2004 is closer to $9 million (8 October 2004 article). The South Beach Urban Renewal Plan had allocated $5 million, according to a 12 December 2003 article, with additional funding to operate the Center from an increase in the City's transient room tax (see 12 December 2003, 24 September 2004, and 8 October 2004 articles). To get additional funding, the City has applied for a $1 million federal grant (24 September 2004 and 8 October 2004 articles). Because of concerns about Event Center funding, the City Council may also be implementing a 1.5 percent room tax increase on 1 January 2005, rather than in July 2005, as originally planned (17 November 2004 article).
It seems surprising that the City is able to use public funds and to seek a federal grant to build a public assembly building in an earthquake and tsunami hazard area. For example, Oregon's Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group (1994:66) wrote:
"Recommendation 10-4. Prohibit direct public development, grants, loans, or loan guarantees for essential facilities, hazardous facilities, major structures, and special occupancy structures (as defined by ORS 455.477; see Issue 3) in high-hazard areas. Exceptions would be situations where such hazards are fully mitigated by structural or nonstructural means or when the facility cannot be feasibly located outside high-hazard areas (for example, port facilities, marinas, other water-dependent facilities, water and waste treatment facilities, and similar uses). Public subsidies of other types of development in high-hazard areas should generally be discouraged."
Further, the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program recommends on p. 15 of "Designing for Tsunamis: Seven Principles for Planning and Designing for Tsunami Hazards":
"Principle 2: Avoid Development in Tsunami Run-up Areas to Minimize Future Tsunami Losses
"Tsunami risk can be mitigated most effectively by avoiding or minimizing the exposure of people and property through land use planning. Development should be prevented in high-hazard areas wherever possible. Where development cannot be prevented, land use intensity, building value, and occupancy should be kept to a minimum. Where these strategies are not available and development will occur in possible tsunami inundation areas, planners and designers must look to mitigation through site planning techniques as discussed under Principle 3 or building construction techniques as discussed under Principle 4."
The proposed Event Center is a high-occupancy building in a tsunami inundation zone, so it would be a "special occupancy" structure under Oregon Revised Statute 455.447(1)(e)(A). One exception to public funding of building in a hazardous site is if it cannot be located elsewhere, but there are alternate, safer locations for the Newport Exposition and Event Center--it is not water-dependent. The other exception is if the hazard can be fully mitigated by structural or nonstructural methods. The City of Newport has not shown that the Center would be "fully mitigated" for earthquake and tsunami hazards, including the failure of the Yaquina Bay Bridge.
Information about urban renewal programs in Oregon is at Urban Renewal: How Does Urban Renewal Work? by Oregon Department of Revenue (urban renewal funds come from division of Oregon property taxes and special levies) and Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 457: Urban Renewal. Urban renewal seeks to remove "blighted areas," which Oregon Revised Statute 457.010(1) defines as:
" 'Blighted areas' means areas that, by reason of deterioration, faulty planning, inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use or the existence of unsafe structures, or any combination of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of the community."
Some would argue that if the Event Center is constructed in a tsunami and earthquake hazard zone that it seems to be a misuse of urban renewal funds. I telephoned the Oregon Department of Revenue about this on 22 November 2004, and Greg Kramer said that there is nothing in state law to prohibit using urban renewal money to construct a public building in a tsunami and earthquake hazard zone. Greg said that restrictions about what could be funded would be in the local urban renewal plan, which in this case would be the South Beach Urban Renewal Plan. Greg also noted local urban renewal plans are reviewed by the local Planning Commission and City Council are also open to public comments. I have not checked the South Beach Urban Renewal Plan to see if it has any restrictions; if there were any, the restrictions could be readily removed by local government entities that want to build the Event Center using the urban renewal funds that have already been allocated.
In April 2004, the City was searching for a facility management firm to manage the Event Center, and, in May, they agreed to have Compass Facility Management, Inc., of Ames, Iowa do so (7 April 2004 and 19 May 2004 articles). A contract between the City and Compass was agreed upon in November (17 November 2004 article).
An idea of the way that Compass may manage the Event Center can be estimated from November 2004 excerpts from Compass Facility Management, Inc.'s "Action Plan" web page:
"Expense Containment: Compass works with clients to contain and reduce expenses. The two largest expense lines in any facility are labor and utilities. Compass emphasizes efficiency of organization. Compass works to attain the lowest rates possible for such hidden expenses as workers compensation insurance and employee benefits.""Maximum Usage by Breaking the Rules: At Compass, we believe it is time to re-evaluate the facility usage paradigm. It is no longer acceptable to spend tens of millions of tax dollars on a facility that is used only 100 times a year. By working with community leaders, educators, and service organizations, innovative ways can be developed to allow greater citizen usage of public assembly facilities, without endangering the facility, the budget or the participants."
I wonder how many jobs at the Event Center will be capable of supporting a family or if they will mostly be minimum wage jobs with few or no benefits, including no health insurance.
I wonder if Compass Facility Management, Inc. will notify organizations, groups, or individuals before they register at the Exposition & Event Center that they should bring enough supplies to survive 1-2 days if a major earthquake and tsunami occurs because the Exposition & Event Center is located in a hazardous area and would be isolated if the Yaquina Bay Bridge fails. I wonder if Compass will have earthquake and tsunami warning signs throughout the Event Center and give guests brochures about what to do if there is an earthquake. I wonder if Compass will tell guests that they should evacuate immediately after an earthquake as is recommended in a tsunami inundation zone. I wonder if Compass will give tsunami drills. One way to mitigate the earthquake and tsunami risk is for public awareness and drills, but I wonder if Compass will do so because it may hurt first-time and return business.
Some relevant seismic definitions from Natural Hazards Technical Resource Guide Steering Committee (2000:8-5). Planning for Natural Hazards: Seismic TRG [Technical Resource Guide]. Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development and Community Planning Workshop. [This was available at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/hazapdfs/08_seismic.pdf but not on 20 Nov. 2004; it may become available again in the future at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/publications.shtml]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Soil Liquefaction? on University of Washington's "Soil Liquefaction" web site.
"Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction and related phenomena have been responsible for tremendous amounts of damage in historical earthquakes around the world. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the space between individual particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other."What is Soil Liquefaction? Level 2 states:
"The term liquefaction has actually been used to describe a number of related phenomena. Because the phenomena can have similar effects, it can be difficult to distinguish between them. The mechanisms causing them, however, are different. These phenomena can be divided into two main categories: flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility.
"... Flow liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the static equilibrium is destroyed by static or dynamic loads in a soil deposit with low residual strength. Residual strength is the strength of a liquefied soil. Static loading, for example, can be applied by new buildings on a slope that exert additional forces on the soil beneath the foundations. Earthquakes, blasting, and pile driving are all example of dynamic loads that could trigger flow liquefaction. Once triggered, the strength of a soil susceptible to flow liquefaction is no longer sufficient to withstand the static stresses that were acting on the soil before the disturbance.
" ... Cyclic mobility is a liquefaction phenomenon, triggered by cyclic loading, occuring in soil deposits with static shear stresses lower than the soil strength. Deformations due to cyclic mobility develop incrementally because of static and dynamic stresses that exist during an earthquake."
I first learned of this report (Nickels et al. 2004) during the 25 October 2004 hearing, and I first saw it on Nov. 17.
The City did not state during the Oct. 25 hearing that their geotechnical report would be reviewed independently, so it is not certain that other engineers or geologists would agree with the findings of Nickels et al. (2004). Controversies about geotechnical reports sometimes occur as there were several conflicting geological reports and testimony about landslides for the Jump-Off Joe development in Newport, and the City of Newport chose to rely on a geotechnical report by the developer's geologist that ultimately proved to be faulty. Reliance on single geotechnical reports about landslides also resulted in the City of Newport approving some other developments that failed or later had landslide problems (Sayre and Komar 1989). Elsewhere along the Oregon Coast, reliance on overoptimistic geologists' reports led to the landslide problems at The Capes at Oceanside in Tillamook County (Sleeth 1998). A problem with geotechnical hazard reports is discussed by Oregon's Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group (1994:33):
"Geotechnical site reports are inadequate for making decisions on land development and shore protection projects. Site-specific geotechnical reports, prepared in support of land development projects or shore protection proposals, are especially weak in two areas: assessment of shoreline erosion hazards and evaluation of earthquake and tsunami hazards. Because there are no content standards and review criteria, reports are also inconsistent in content and quality and are sometimes difficult to interpret. These problems with geotechnical site reports may result in inappropriate siting decisions, overreliance on structural shore protection for erosion mitigation, ill-conceived capital expenditures for infrastructure, indirect public subsidies of private development, and potentially, the loss of life and property."
The cover letter for the Event Center's geotech report indicates that Nickels is a registered Oregon professional engineer, Maitland a professional engineer, and Fiedorowicz a registered Oregon professional geologist. The cover letter also states that their study and report "fulfills requirements presented in the 1998 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC), Section 1804 for site-specific seismic hazard reports for essential and hazardous facilities, and major and special-occupancy structures."
Nickels et al. (2004:9-10) noted that free-water at the time of their drilling in February 2004 was about 10 ft from the surface and that they anticipate that water level below the site "corresponds closely with sea level."
Nickels et al. (2004:6) write about earthquake amplification at the Event Center project site:
"According to Madin and Wang (1999), the amplification hazard is considered high to medium in the project area due to the relatively thick deposits of sand, silt and clay alluvium. We concur with this assessment based on our SHAKE study."
Actually, Madin and Wang (1999) indicate that the proposed Event Center site is in the highest amplification hazard class (Appendix A). Nickels et al.'s (2004:15) response to designing for this amplification:
"Results of the dynamic soil response analyses suggest that the randomly oriented crustal event or the subduction zone events will generate moderate ground shaking. However, the spectral accelerations at the ground surface for the three postulated events lie within the UBC [Uniform Building Code] envelope, we recommend using the UBC spectrum for design."
I do not know if there is any disagreement among geological experts about these conclusions by Nickels et al.
Madin and Wang (1999) indicate that the proposed Event Center site is in an area with the highest class of liquefaction hazards (Appendix A). Nickels et al.'s (2004:6-7) comments about the seismic liquefaction risk at the Event Center site [boldface added] are:
"The proposed site is underlain by medium dense to very dense, saturated sand to a depth of [plus/minus symbol] 90 feet. Based on our boring information and previous borings completed prior to filling the area (Dames & Moore, 1978), we have estimated the surficial [plus/minus symbol] 10 feet of sand is fill and native dune sand and bay alluvium extend below the fill to a depth of [plus/minus symbol] 101.5 feet, the limits of our exploration.
"SPT [Standard Penetration Test] data obtained during our work and the Dames & Moore study suggest the surficial fill is dense to very dense and the native sand is medium dense to very dense. However, one uncorrected SPT value of 8 was recorded in BH-2 [Bore Hole 2] at a depth of [plus/minus symbol] 25 feet. This value suggests a relatively thin zone of loose sand exists at depth. Although the zone of potentially loose sand is relatively deep and appears to have a limited lateral extent, a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of liquefaction risk and post-liquefaction ground subsidence is provided.
"Numerous SPT values were completed in the three FEI borings and the Dames & Moore and only one was low enough to suggest a liquefaction risk. However, evaluating risk cannot be adequately assessed using one SPT value. Rather, the collective site data needs to be considered and then the relative liquefaction risk evaluated. First, we noted that the horizontal extent of the sand layer in question is limited, since low SPT values were not observed in adjacent borings completed for our study or the Dames & Moore study. The absence of the loose zone in the surrounding borings suggests the zone is not continuous across the site and may be limited to a relatively small area in the vicinity of BH-2. Second, the sand layer is relatively thin and the non-liquefiable confinement layer (medium dense to very dense sand) overlying the loose material is relatively thick. The thickness of the overlying layer required to prevent level-ground liquefaction-related damage for sites subjected to a range of maximum accelerations was estimated using Figure 9.48 (Kramer, 1996). For a 5-foot thick sand layer confined by 20 feet of non-liquefiable soil, subjected to a maximum acceleration of 0.35g to 0.4g, the figure shows that liquefaction induced ground damage is highly unlikely.
"In a quantitative approach, the factor of safety against the triggering of liquefaction is the capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction (expressed in terms of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)) divided by the seismic demand placed on a soil layer (expressed in terms of cyclic stress ratio (CSR)). The latest consensus for quantifying liquefaction susceptibility is summarized in NCEER workshop proceedings (Youd and Idriss, 1996). Procedures presented in the proceedings were used, in part, during this study. The CSR was estimated using uniform average shear stress values and the CRR was estimated using the SPT data. A field SPT value of 8 (corresponding (N1)60 [N with subscripts of 1 and 60] of 13) was recorded in the sand layer or lens. The method using SPT data for evaluating the loose sand indicates that the seismic demand exceeds the resistance which implies the risk for triggering liquefaction is high.
"The relative earthquake hazard maps prepared by Madin and Wang (1999) suggest the site is in an area with a high liquefaction risk. However, the maps are not intended to replace site specific studies.
"The analysis based on one SPT value suggests that there is a risk of liquefaction triggering in the isolated, deep lens of loose sand. Evaluations completed on the remaining strata using SPT data revealed a factor-of-safety of greater than 1 against liquefaction. In addition, the qualitative information presented above also suggests liquefaction is unlikely. Therefore it is our professional opinion that a cyclically induced liquefaction hazard is negligible, and the risk of significant ground subsidence or bearing capacity failure due to liquefaction is also negligible.
"Based on the results of our liquefaction hazard assessment, shallow foundations are recommended to support the structure. In the event the City is still concerned about the liquefaction risk, deep foundations consisting of driven piling are recommended."
I am not an expert, so I cannot evaluate their conclusions about there being a low risk of both flow and cyclic mobility liquefaction. "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential" at the bottom of "Why Does Liquefaction Occur? Level 2" on the University of Washington's "Soil Liquefaction" web site discusses the CRR/CSR ratio test that Nickels et al. used and implies that this test applies to all liquefaction, not just cyclic mobility liquefaction, though I am not sure of this.
Tricia Berg with WBGS Architects (the architects for the Event Center) testified at the Oct. 25 hearing; the official minutes for her testimony about the report (Nickels et al. 2004) stated that "the geo tech report did not find that pilings would be needed." Her testimony is true, but the geotechnical report (see last sentence quoted above) also recommended using pilings as an option to making the building less vulnerable to liquefaction if there was a concern.
Nickels et al. (2004:8) notes that the Event Center site is within a tsunami inundation zone and that Oregon Structural Specialty Codes requires seeking advice from the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). I found nothing in Nickels et al. specifically about constructing or designing for tsunamis.
Starting on their p. 15, they give their very specific building foundation and design recommendations based on their geological findings. I am not an expert and am unable to evaluate their recommendations.
References for This Section
Madin, I. P. and Z. Wang. 1999. Relative earthquake hazard maps for selected urban areas in western Oregon: Newport. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) Interpretive Map Series No. 10 (IMS-10). (See portions of maps in Appendix A.)
Nickels, W. L., J. K. Maitland, and B. K. Fiedorowicz. 2004. Geotechnical investigation and seismic hazard study: Newport Exposition Center. 8 March 2004. Prepared for City of Newport, Newport, Oregon by Foundation Engineering, Inc., 820 NW Cornell Avenue, Corvallis, OR 97330-4517.
Sayre, W. O. and P. D. Komar. 1989. The construction of homes on four active coastal landslides in Newport, Oregon: unbelievable but true! P. 3286-3296 in Vol. 4 of Coastal Zone' 89, Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. American Society of Civil Engineers. (This is at HT391.S935 1989 Vol. 4 at OSU Libraries.)
Sleeth, P. D. 1998. From start, The Capes sat on assumption of safety. P. C1 in February 28 Oregonian (Portland, Oregon newspaper).
Earthquake amplification and liquefaction are defined above.
The site of the proposed Center is in the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries' (DOGAMI) highest earthquake risk category for earthquake amplification, liquefaction, and "relative earthquake hazard" (Appendix A). The City's geotechnical report indicated the amplification hazard risk was high or medium but that the liquefaction risk was negligible. I have no explanation for the differences.
The reasons for earthquake hazards at this site are that it rests on sand dredge spoils and is low-lying. The City's geotechnical report indicates that there is sand and silt down to at least 101 feet below the surface.
The Center would be located in Seismic Zone 4 (the most hazardous zone and which includes all Oregon Coast land west of Range 10 and south of about Otter Rock) according to 1998 Oregon Structural Specialty Codes (State of Oregon 2002a:E-11, Nickels et al. 2004:5).
The timing of a major earthquake is uncertain, since DOGAMI Open File Report 95-67 (see DOGAMI's http://sarvis.dogami.state.or.us/earthquakes/Coastal/Tsumaps.HTM) notes that the estimated chance of a great (Magnitude 8-9) earthquake in the offshore Cascadia subduction zone in the next 50 years "is between 10 and 20 percent, assuming that the recurrence is on the order of 400 ± 200 years and that the last one occurred about 300 years ago." The probability of a great tsunami that strikes the Oregon coast is not included in that estimate. While that probability seems low, recall that U. S. Geological Survey scientists in 1975 predicted that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens "is likely within the next hundred years" (Crandell et al. 1975. Science 187:438-441), and it erupted with loss of life 5 years later.
At the 25 October 2004 Newport Planning Commission meeting for the Event Center's Conditional Use Permit, I gave written and oral testimony about earthquake and tsunami hazards for the proposed Event Center site. I had also written the City of Newport on Sept. 29 and the Port of Newport on Oct. 13 with these concerns, but as of Nov. 22, I have not received a response.
A tsunami may begin as a single wave that evolves into a series of ocean waves that is generated by disturbances from earthquakes, under-water volcanic eruptions, or under-water or above-water landslides (State of Oregon 2002b:T-1). Tsunamis can be categorized as distant or local in origin, with people having hours to evacuate from a distant-origin tsunami but only minutes from a locally originated tsunami (State of Oregon 2002b:T-1).
The proposed Event Center site is in a DOGAMI tsunami evacuation zone (Appendix B) and below DOGAMI's Tsunami Inundation Zone or Boundary (Appendix C). However, mild tsunamis would not inundate the site, and even a moderately low run-up Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 8.6 earthquake is not predicted to affect the Center site (Appendix F). The site would be in danger from a moderately high or high run-up tsunami from a magnitude 9.1 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake (Appendix F) or from very large distant tsunamis.
One of the approval criteria on p. 6 of the 29 September 2004 Conditional Use Permit application for the Event Center is Newport Zoning Ordinance 2-5-3.015(A)(1): "The public facilities can adequately accommodate the proposed use" and the application stated:
"Fire and Emergency Service: Primary and secondary emergency vehicle access is directly available to the site via the existing public street system. ... Based on existing transportation and water facility availability, the proposed use can be properly served by public emergency services."
The last statement is true unless there is an earthquake or tsunami that damages the Yaquina Bay Bridge, so that it is impassable. In a 1997 analysis by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Yaquina Bay Bridge was the number one bridge in Oregon for earthquake preparation because it is vulnerable to a "moderate" earthquake and is part of a "lifeline route" (22 June 2001 article). If the Yaquina Bay Bridge fails, it would cut-off emergency responders and supplies from the Newport side of the Bridge going to the South Beach Event Center and the Port's desired hotel, motel, and/or restaurant. People, who may be lucky to escape from the Event Center after a major earthquake and tsunami with the clothes on their backs, may then find themselves without emergency medical care and supplies, drinking water, blankets, etc. Excerpts from a 16 July 2004 article indicate that the County will not be able to help.
"But, [County Commissioner] Cowan said, 'we can't do everything for everybody. That is why people, families, businesses, should have plans in place. People need to be able to take care of themselves for 24 or 48 hours with water and food [boldface added], and have emergency contacts known,' so they can contact one family member to get word to others without tying up the phone lines. ..."Commissioner Terry Thompson warned 'there are some small areas between the bridges, and when I was on the (American) Red Cross board, about three years ago, we identified some of them. But we did not have any services for it. We do have a plan,' he said, referring to the county and to the Red Cross, 'and some equipment and some shelters. But the areas between the bridges could be cut off [boldface added]. It would be good to have blankets and things' in small communities likely to be isolated by collapsed bridges, he said Wednesday."
The landowner of the proposed Exposition and Event Center site, the Port of Newport, is aware of this problem. In a conversation with Port Manager Don Mann during my 7 October 2004 visit to the Port of Newport office, I discussed my earthquake and tsunami concerns about the proposed Event Center at the Port's South Beach Marina. Don noted that all of South Beach was that way. I mentioned that the Yaquina Bay Bridge is predicted by ODOT to fail in a "moderate" earthquake, and if it does, it would cut off visitors to the Event Center from overland help from Newport and that boats in the bay may be damaged by a tsunami. Don added that he was at a meeting where one of the possibilities if the Bridge fails is that it would collapse and block boats from coming in.
In My Oct. 13 letter to the Port of Newport and at the 25 October 2004 Newport Planning Commission meeting for the Event Center's Conditional Use Permit, I gave testimony about the potential failure of the Yaquina Bay Bridge.
See section B in my 19 March 2005 Letter to Newport Development Commission Legal Counsel and Commissioners.
See section B in my 19 March 2005 Letter to Newport Development Commission Legal Counsel and Commissioners.
See section B-4 in my 19 March 2005 Letter to Newport Development Commission Legal Counsel and Commissioners.
See section B-3 in my 19 March 2005 Letter to Newport Development Commission Legal Counsel and Commissioners.
There was much debate about the Event Center, including whether it would be financially viable; for example, see 4 January 2002, 9 January 2002 and 23 January 2002 articles. Below are recent articles about this subject. To see earlier articles, use "Advanced Search" to search for "event center" in the Newport News-Times newspaper "Archives" for articles older than 14 days.
Predictions are that it will take 6-7 years before the Center breaks even financially, though some think it may take longer (see 4 January 2002 and 23 January 2002 articles).
Concerns that the Port may be hurt financially if the City defaults on the Event Center are discussed in a 18 March 2004 article.
In his Sept. 29 Letter to the Editor, David Allen, who may have been a City Councilor, questions whether the City of Newport can afford to build and operate the Center because
"Today, the city is struggling to maintain current service levels and its budget picture is bleak at best. ... Although the city may be able to fund an event center with taxpayer money, is it now fiscally responsible to do so?"
In her Nov. 5 Letter to the Editor, Fran Recht mentioned that if Event Center revenues are inadequate that the Port and fishermen may have to pay.
See articles after 21 December 2004 for discussion of financial concerns. The main objections to the Center are that it is too financially risky.
During the Oct. 25 hearing, Janet Webster brought up the issue of a loss of dredge spoil sites as a consequence of the Port moving its boat ramp to accommodate the Event Center.
Fran Recht also included this in her Nov. 5 Letter to the Editor, but she did not give oral or written testimony about this at the Oct. 25 hearing, though I emailed her on Oct. 17 about the hearing. However, even if she had brought it up, it would not have been relevant to the Conditional Use Permit because it was not specific to the Event Center location.
APPENDIX A. Color copies of portions for Newport "Relative Amplification Hazard," "Relative Liquefaction Hazard," and "Relative Earthquake Hazard" maps in I. P. Madin and Z. Wang (1999), "Relative earthquake hazard maps for selected urban areas in western Oregon: Newport. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) Interpretive Map Series No. 10 (IMS-10). They show that the South Beach area is in the HIGHEST risk categories. The whole maps and explanatory text for the maps are at http://nwdata.geol.pdx.edu/DOGAMI/IMS-10; each whole map is large (1.8-2.0 Mb).
This 1999 report is described in a DOGAMI press release "Earthquake Hazard Maps Released for Coastal Oregon at http://sarvis.dogami.state.or.us/news&events/archives/18-cstlmaps.htm
Link to Amplification Hazard only for South Beach map portion (ec-newport_amp-d.jpg, 535K)
Link to Liquefaction Hazard only for South Beach map portion (ec-newport_liq-c.jpg, 585K)
Link to Relative Earthquake Hazard only for South Beach map portion (ec-newport_relhaz-c.jpg, 613K)
Link to Evacuation Map only for South Beach map portion (ec-ap-b.jpg, 213K)
APPENDIX C. Color copy of upper portion of DOGAMI's Open File Report O-95-29 (Newport-South) that is available at http://sarvis.dogami.state.or.us/earthquakes/Coastal/Tsumapsbycity.HTM that shows that the Port's South Beach area is below the Tsunami Inundation Boundary. The whole map is large (3.6Mb).
The DOGAMI press release describing these maps is at http://sarvis.dogami.state.or.us/news&events/archives/9611-rel.htm. It indicates that:
"Each map has a line that shows how far inland and uphill a tsunami caused by a magnitude 8.8 undersea earthquake is expected to go. The new maps were developed to implement Oregon Revised Statutes 455.446 and 455.447, a law passed by the 1995 Legislature to restrict construction of certain types of essential facilities and special occupancy structures within the tsunami inundation zone."
Link to Tsunami Inundation Boundary Map of South Beach (ec-ap-c.gif, 397K)
Link to Executive Summary (ec-ap-e.gif , 149K)
This press release also cites another publication about tsunamis at Yaquina Bay entitled "Cascadia Subduction Zone Tsunamis: Hazard Mapping at Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Final Technical Report to the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program," that was released in December 1997 as DOGAMI Open-File Report O-97-34. This also does not appear to be available online.
The map symbols and the map are somewhat confusing, but most of the South Beach area would be inundated from a moderately high or high run-up tsunami from a magnitude 9.1 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake but NOT from a moderately low run-up magnitude 8.6 earthquake.
Link to single image showing predicted South Beach tsunami lines (ec-ap-f.jpg , 418K)
Use "Advanced Search" to search for "earthquake" or "tsunami" in the Newport News-Times newspaper "Archives" for articles older than 14 days. Some of the many articles are linked below. Note that the "date posted" at the top of the article may not be the date published and that the title of the article and perhaps some of the text may be different between the print and web versions (e.g., see "Port Debates..."). My comments are inside of brackets.
"... the Waldport City Council Safety Committee has been working in close cooperation with the Central Oregon Coast Fire and Rescue District to provide a tsunami warming and evacuation program for the City of Waldport. Specific tsunami evaluation routes to high ground have been designated and clearly marked for street signs by Waldport Public Works ... The Waldport Elementary School at high ground on Crestline Drive has been designated as the command center for city government, rescue operations, law enforcement and a shelter for evacuees [boldface added]. The Central Oregon Coast Fire District has printed and widely distributed a "Tsunami Safety and Evacuation" pamphlet for the Waldport area, which includes detailed instructions and an evacuation route map. The City of Waldport has also prepared an "Emergency Operations Plan," which has been filed with the Lincoln County Emergency Services Department. The Waldport City Council and the Central Oregon Coast Fire District have funded the purchase of three tsunami warning sirens for placement in the Waldport flood plan area. We have taken delivery of the first warning siren, and contracted with Central Lincoln People's Utility District for pole mounting and electrical hookup, with remote telephone activation through the 911 emergency system. ... In my view, however, the Waldport City Council, the Central Oregon Coast Fire District, and the Lincoln County Sheriff's Department have made reasonable progress on facing the tsunami threat that impacts the City of Waldport."
"Northwest Natural Gas's tank in the bay and Thompson Timber are both on soils that are 'likely to amplify' a quake, [Nate] Wood added. But as the cellular phone calls came into the conference site after the Olympia quake, Roger Haley of NW Natural Gas said, 'the gas plant manager said he did not feel it.' The reason, according to Doug Schwarm of GeoEngineers, Inc., is that the company had 'fed more sand and crushed rock into the area, then shook it up till it compacted, and drove in more sand and rock.'"[There are ways to reduce earthquake amplification and liquefaction hazards, but they require special site preparation and building construction that would increase costs. Is such site preparation and building construction to reduce earthquake damage going to be done for the Exposition & Event Center? Nate Wood was the chief presenter about Yaquina Bay issues and his thesis has since been completed and may be very relevant to proposed Exposition & Event Center.]
"... Crook began working his way through a list of telephone calls to be made in the event of a 'short-warning event' such as a tsunami. The first priority, he said, is to notify all population centers in low-lying areas. This included places like the Oregon State University Hatfield Marine Science Center, the Oregon Coast Aquarium, South Beach State Park, and Spencer House, a senior assisted-living facility in South Beach." [Note that South Beach is the priority area to warn because it is in a tsunami zone [boldface added].]
"... It took Crook just 20 minutes to makes his contacts following the earthquake, and that included 5 minutes to drive to the fire station because he was on the road at the time. 'If it had been a tsunami event, if it had created something that was a worst-case wave our direction, I think that we probably would be looking at a fairly substantial loss of life, because 10 minutes isn't going to give people enough time to get to high ground,' said Crook [boldface added]."
" 'We've been having tsunami drills twice a year for several years,' said Waldport Middle School Principal Terry Gillies. ... Waldport has three tsunami sirens- one behind Clark's Market, one on Mill Street, and one on the top of the Central Oregon Coast Fire and Rescue hall on Highway 34. The sirens were purchased from the City of Spokane, Wash., and have been tested three times since being installed."
"Approximately 40 local government representatives, business owners, and emergency managers met with scientists and researchers from Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University and Washington State University to carry forward the process they had begun in February - organizing a plan for quake and tsunami preparation for the Yaquina River area. The meeting was chaired by Jim Good of Oregon Sea Grant. Nate Wood, a Ph.D. candidate at OSU in geological sciences, was facilitator. The attendees divided into six groups - emergency services; transportation, utilities, ports and navigation; waterfront users and industry; tourism, lodging, retail and residential; and community planning and environmental issues.[The Port wants to move their office out of the tsunami zone, but the Exposition & Event Center that would attract hundreds to thousands of people to an even worse area for earthquakes and tsunamis. The Port's Newport Bayfront office is much closer to safety, emergency responders, and a hospital than the South Beach site, which many are predicting will be cut-off because the Yaquina Bay Bridge is predicted to fail in even a "moderate" earthquake. The Port also have plans for developing a hotel/motel complex and restaurant near the Exposition & Event Center, which would also attract many people.]
"For land evacuation, this group [the Waterfront Users and Industry group] urged 'hardened storage and assembly areas' and provisioning of 'durable containers' for equipment and nonperishable food 'in safe uplands.' Businesses and homes should prepare and exercise evacuation plans as a drill, they urged. Port of Newport General Manager Don Mann said he hopes to relocate the port office away from its Bayfront site. Other public facilities, from schools to medical offices, should be relocated, if possible, from inundation zones, the group said."
"In addition to being vulnerable to any tsunami that could come up the river channel, [Port of Newport Commissioner Mark] Fisher said, the structure [i.e., the Port office] sits on an area made entirely of sand. In a quake, the building site would 'quiver like jelly' and shake down the port office, Fisher said, adding that in such events, much of the damage comes from fires, and the port building is made of wood. 'Are we ready for a tsunami or quake?' he asked. 'I take home a disk with the documents we process each day,' replied Chief Financial Officer Stan Modzelewski, referring to operations from the north side of the bay. Patti Britton, the South Beach Marina office manager, does the same for the South Beach side of the port operations. 'Our leases are on disks and the paper copies are in the fire safe,' general manager Don Mann said. But he acknowledged that in a fire or flood, 'we could lose critical stuff' [boldface added]."[This indicates that the Port of Newport is clearly aware of and concerned about the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis along the Newport bayfront, but South Beach is even more vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis. Is the potential loss of the Port's lease documents in a tsunami or earthquake more important than the loss of life from locating the Exposition & Event Center on the Port's South Beach property?]
"The City of Depoe Bay has received 1,000 tsunami evacuation maps. The maps are part of a brochure produced by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, and were given to the city free. ... The maps will be available at city hall and at the chamber of commerce. One will be posted at the post office as well."
"Lincoln City leads the way, thanks to the efforts of Sheridan Jones, the 'master of disaster' who has worked on enhancing the city's emergency preparedness plan since 1996. The most recent additions to the plan are tsunami route signage and storing an emergency antenna at the Lincoln City Community Center. ... The community center is a primary emergency shelter for the Lincoln City area. Fowler oversees the storage of blankets, cots, a gas-fired generator, and other items vital to people who must evacuate their homes and seek shelter during an emergency."
"Bob Freitag will speak on "Minimizing Losses from Earthquakes and Tsunamis" at the Greater Newport Chamber of Commerce's noon luncheon Friday at the Embarcadero Resort Hotel and Marina on the Bayfront in Newport."
"The statewide quake-ex exercise Wednesday brought wide participation in Lincoln City, and that helped uncover weaknesses in the city's ability to handle and respond to an offshore earthquake and tsunami. Sheridan Jones, who serves as the city's volunteer emergency plan coordinator, said that kind of information is precisely what the exercise was intended to produce. In Lincoln City, the participants included the North Lincoln Fire & Rescue District fire chief, the police chief, City Manager David Hawker, Mayor Lori Hollingsworth, Lincoln City 9-1-1 dispatch manager Linda Ringer, and members of the city's public works crew. Also present were representatives from Northwest Natural Gas, Pacific Power and Light, Sprint Telephone, Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital, and Pacific West Ambulance. ... Supplies already are stored at Taft High School at the center of town, he [Sheridan Jones] continued. 'But we have to make sure we do not have all the emergency supplies in one place,' he said. 'If something collapses, we'll need backup sites. That will make it harder to track everything, but we need not to have all our eggs in one basket. One spot does not make for a good plan. We've got to re-think that.' "
"If a major quake hits the Northwest from nearby, people won't have the lead time of several hours they had in 1964. They will have 15 or 20 minutes to grab their things and head to high ground. And they should stay there even after the tsunami has struck and the water has started draining back toward the ocean. This is because, almost certainly, there will be a second, third, perhaps fourth, maybe even fifth major wave. ... Not only will multiple waves be likely, but so, too, will multiple shocks. The aftershocks from a major quake could continue for several days, Priest warned, with the worst during the first two days. And those, Priest said, also 'are a really big deal.' ... Information from tide stations and observations made along the Northwest coast after the 1964 Alaskan quake showed some very different local effects. Yaquina Bay, Priest explained, had four big waves on the order of 10-feet tall, plus another smaller one. Of the nine river mouths and bays studied, the data suggested that[The meeting to discuss the results the Quake-ex statewide exercise was at the "Newport Fire Hall."]
"Yaquina Bay, with five significant hits, fared the worst. The sequence of tidal waves was tricky, too. The first was 10-feet high. The second was smaller, but that did not, it turned out, indicate that the third would be even smaller yet. The worst of the big waves, according to the data, was the fifth tidal wave, and it arrived nearly 10 hours after the quake occurred in Alaska, two hours after the first tsunami hit Newport. Altogether, Newport saw four very large waves (10 feet or higher), one medium wave of about four feet, and two other mini-waves, as well, of about a foot.
"Depoe Bay, on the other hand, had one big initial wave, almost eight hours after the Alaska temblor, followed by five much smaller ones.
"The lesson? The size of one wave doesn't necessarily predict the size of the next one."
"Lincoln County was as near the epicenter of the Monday morning off-shore earthquakes one could be without getting onto a boat. And that raises the question of whether we - people and governments - are adequately prepared for the 'Big One' and the tsunami it will likely create. Commissioner Terry Thompson warns that we are not. 'The big problem,' said Lincoln County Emergency Manager Jim Hawley, 'is we have 45,000 people who live here and with the tourists we probably had 100,000 people here, most of them at or near the beach" when the Monday morning quakes hit. If there had been a tsunami generated, said Hawley, 'it would have been a mess. It took three minutes for the people in Palmer, Alaska and in Seattle (where the monitoring stations are) to get the information to us.'"[Is it wise to place an Exposition & Event Center in a known tsunami zone where visitors may not receive enough warning or know where to go to evacuate? If employees follow directions of immediately evacuating [e.g, HMSC employees are told "In case of an earthquake/tsunami evacuation, it is everyone for themselves"], who will direct visitors who may not have received any training about where to go and are disoriented?]
"But, [County Commissioner] Cowan said, "we can't do everything for everybody. That is why people, families, businesses, should have plans in place. People need to be able to take care of themselves for 24 or 48 hours with water and food, and have emergency contacts known," so they can contact one family member to get word to others without tying up the phone lines. ...
"Commissioner Terry Thompson warned "there are some small areas between the bridges, and when I was on the (American) Red Cross board, about three years ago, we identified some of them. But we did not have any services for it. We do have a plan," he said, referring to the county and to the Red Cross, "and some equipment and some shelters. But the areas between the bridges could be cut off [boldface added]. It would be good to have blankets and things" in small communities likely to be isolated by collapsed bridges, he said Wednesday."[One of the areas "between the bridges" is the proposed Exposition & Event Center site. The Yaquina Bay bridge may fail in a "moderate" earthquake. How would the County Commissioners expect visitors to the Exposition & Event Center to take care of themselves for 24-48 hours after a major earthquake or tsunami when all they may have is the clothes they are wearing? They would be cutoff from the Newport emergency services and hospital available on the north side of the bay.]
Use "Advanced Search" to search for "Event Center" in the Newport News-Times newspaper "Archives" for articles older than 14 days. Some of the many articles are linked below. Note that the "date posted" at the top of the article may not be the date published and that the title of the article and perhaps some of the text may be different between the print and web versions (e.g., see "Port Debates..."). My comments are inside of brackets.
"The preferred site is west of U.S. Highway 101, where a drive-in movie was previously located. Rowley said this property is served by three separate entrances and includes 14 acres on the back side and another 10 acres in front. 'It's not in a tsunami zone [boldface added], and it would only need a conditional use permit to build on it,' Rowley said."[So, in choosing a site for the proposed Exposition & Event Center, the City of Newport was aware of tsunami zones in 2001, and one of the positive features for the preferred site was that it was not in a tsunami zone.)
"Responding to questions about what the character of South Beach really is, and whether the plan promotes the area as a tourist destination, South Beach Advisory Committee member Jeff Bertuleit said, 'A developer would have to put in millions for any project, and if the bridge is going to become more congested, you won't find a developer willing to put in that kind of money.' "[Then City Planner Michael Shoberg said that the South Beach Neighborhood Plan would follow "Smart Growth" practices and there was a proposed bike route around South Beach.]
"Don Rowley, chairman of the subcommittee looking at possible locations for the events center complex, explained the selection of the proposed site for such a facility. Rowley put an aerial photograph of the South Beach area on a stand. It showed two possible sites for an events center, one near the Oregon Coast Aquarium, and the other west of Highway 101 in South Beach on land known as the Bunn property. The site near the aquarium, Rowley said, could be accessed three ways from Highway 101, but they all eventually funnel into one street, making for likely traffic headaches and possible accidents [boldface added]. The Bunn property, on the other hand, is already cleared, and it could be accessed several different ways from the highway. The aquarium area site would be in the tsunami zone [boldface added], Rowley added. 'The Bunn property - the old drive-in for those old enough to remember it - would not be.'"[So the City of Newport was aware of the tsunami zone in South Beach in 2002 while considering sites for the Exposition & Event Center, and in spite of knowing of the tsunami and traffic hazards at the site near the Oregon Coast Aquarium, chose the Port's South Beach site in December 2003, which is even farther out on the South Beach Peninsula and even further from safe high ground during a tsunami evacuation.]
There was some concern whether the Center would be financially sustainable; an excerpt
" 'I do not see this as self-sustaining, [Newport Development Commissioner Mary Lou Yeck] said to the chamber representatives. 'The bottom line of it,' replied [Dave] Miller, 'is that it should break even in year six.' "[Dave Miller spoke as a representativeof the Newport Chamber of Commerce.]
"Close to 120 people turned out on a blustery evening Monday to debate the merits of an event center/fairgrounds complex proposed for construction in South Beach. The Newport City Council held a public hearing as part of its regular meeting this week to hear arguments for and against the event center proposal. This meeting took place at the Newport Recreation Center, rather than city hall, because of the large crowd expected. Those supporting the event center may have been in the majority at Monday's meeting, but if so, it was not by much. And after close to three hours of testimony from both sides, the council decided to form a committee to give the matter further study."[Questions about financing the Exposition & Event Center were raised and debated. No mention was made about human safety at the site, but the Port's South Beach site was not chosen until December 2003, so this issue did not have a chance to be discussed at this meeting.]
"The past president of the Lodging Association of Newport questions the figures presented by the Greater Newport Chamber of Commerce Events Center Finance Subcom-mittee that predict an event center would start to turn a profit in seven years."[Questions about the costs to taxpayers of building the Exposition & Event Center, and the projected revenue is questioned as being too optimistic. No mention is made of extra costs for special site preparation and building construction to reduce earthquake risk, but the Port's South Beach site was not chosen until December 2003, so the extra costs would not have been known in 2002.]
"At a 9 a.m. press conference at Newport City Hall, Mayor Mark Jones said the city has reached an agreement with the Port of Newport to locate the new facility on port property at the Newport Marina at South Beach. It will be east of the Rogue Ale Brewery, not far from the port's boat ramp. Since first firming up its plans for a convention center, the city had targeted property in South Beach that is west of U.S. Highway 101, on what is commonly referred to as the Bunn property."[The South Beach Peninsula site for the Exposition & Event Center was not the first choice. It was chosen in December 2003 because it was cheaper to obtain property there and for the view--no mention is made of earthquake or tsunami hazards there, and there is no mention of any public discussion of this site. In looking at City Council meeting minutes for their two meetings in December 2003, there is no mention of the Exposition & Event Center, so I am not sure if the choice of the Port's property for the Event Center was voted on by the City Council.] Another excerpt:
"Regarding the funding for this project, the South Beach Urban Renewal Plan has allocated $5 million. That money, which originally would have gone to purchase the Bunn property, will now be used for building construction as well as infrastructure improvements.
"The balance of the project funding will come from a 1.5 percent increase in the city's transient room tax - already approved by the Newport City Council - which is scheduled to take effect in July 2005. The city already implemented a 1 percent increase in the room tax this year, and that 1 percent has been committed to the Oregon Coast Aquarium to be used for advertising. The city's commitment to assist the aquarium runs until July 2005, at which time that 1 percent room tax will be added to the other 1.5 percent dedicated to the convention center.
"As far as staffing for the center, that has yet to be determined, 'but the preliminary estimates were five to seven employees, full time,' said Jones. He added that the facility will probably not be managed by the city.
" 'We want it managed so it's marketed very well,' he said. 'It will be the largest expo facility on the coast...so we need aggressive marketing and events management, because we expect to have lots of events there.' Jones said the Greater Newport Chamber of Commerce has already started a list of people who have inquired about the possibility of having events there."
"Newport City Manager Sam Sasaki said half of the main entrance side of the event center is proposed to be glass, with passive solar lighting on the roof. ... The building would be oriented toward the bridge, Sasaki said, so that rooms would have a full view of the structure. The architects' plan includes a covered walkway toward the South Beach marina and another covered area in front for people getting into and out of vehicles. Inside would be a waiting area behind the glass front wall. ... When complete, the building will offer about double the space for the Seafood and Wine Festival than does the Rogue Brewery building, formerly known as the Newport Marina at South Beach. It would have a capacity of about 4,000 people, compared to the Brewery's 2,000-person maximum. ... The maximum height, as the design stands, would be 38 feet. While the maximum for structures is 35 feet, Sasaki said the planning department said that "because it's a feature" that will protrude upward, rather than another story, the maximum is 38.5 feet."[Would so much glass shatter and become dangerous projectiles in an earthquake? Would the building protect or hurt people in a major earthquake or tsunami? Also see the following April 7 article.]
"This artist's rendering of the proposed events center in Newport shows the side of the building that would be seen by someone passing over the Yaquina Bay Bridge. The large windows will give people in the building a clear view of the adjacent marina, the bridge, and the bay."[See the web page for a drawing and the March 18 article for more descriptions.]
"The city will contract with Compass Facility Management, Inc., based in Ames, Iowa. That firm manages a number of event/convention center facilities, most of which are located in the Midwest. However, Compass also has the management contract for an event center scheduled to open next month in Kennewick, Wash. Newport City Manager Sam Sasaki put together a committee to interview the two management firms that submitted proposals to the city, and Compass was the top choice of that committee. Sasaki told the city council at its meeting Monday evening the proposal submitted to the city by Compass projected an operational deficit in the first year of $317,000, with that deficit dropping in subsequent years. Compass realizes a major focus of the event center is to bring business to area hotels and motels, Sasaki said, which then generates revenue for the city through room taxes. 'Their whole objective is to fill rooms' [boldface added], he said. At Monday's meeting, the city council authorized Sasaki to negotiate two agreements with Compass. The first would be for services during the design of the event center. Sasaki said the management company's input during the design of the facility will be a considerable help in creating an efficient facility that optimizes the use of space."
Excerpts in November 2004 from Compass Facility Management, Inc.'s "Action Plan" web page:
"Expense Containment: Compass works with clients to contain and reduce expenses. The two largest expense lines in any facility are labor and utilities. Compass emphasizes efficiency of organization. Compass works to attain the lowest rates possible for such hidden expenses as workers compensation insurance and employee benefits."[I wonder if Compass Facility Management, Inc. will notify organizations, groups, or individuals before they register at the Exposition & Event Center that they should bring enough supplies to survive 1-2 days if a major earthquake and tsunami occurs because the Exposition & Event Center is located in a hazardous area. I wonder if Compass will have earthquake and tsunami warning signs throughout the Event Center and give guests brochures about what to do if there is an earthquake and that it is essential that they evacuate immediately. I wonder if Compass will give tsunami drills. One way to mitigate the risk is for public awareness and drills, but I wonder if Compass will do so because it may hurt first-time and return business.]"Maximum Usage by Breaking the Rules: At Compass, we believe it is time to re-evaluate the facility usage paradigm. It is no longer acceptable to spend tens of millions of tax dollars on a facility that is used only 100 times a year. By working with community leaders, educators, and service organizations, innovative ways can be developed to allow greater citizen usage of public assembly facilities, without endangering the facility, the budget or the participants."
"The city has set aside $7.5 million for the event center, slated for construction on Port of Newport property in South Beach. The original design was for a 50,000-square-foot facility, but when a preliminary estimate for the cost was done a few months ago, it was discovered that the $7.5 million will only buy a 40,000-square-foot facility. The cost of a 50,000-square-foot center was then pegged at closer to $9 million.(The City is planning to get a federal grant to build the Exposition & Event Center in a hazardous area.]
"And whether $9 million will even be enough now is a question yet to be answered. 'They (project architects) are going to do another cost estimate, probably in the middle of October,' Sasaki said. 'We'll probably have a better idea.'
"In an effort to come up with additional funding for the project, the city plans to apply for a $1 million federal grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration. But in order to be eligible for this grant, the project must be listed as a top priority for the city, the county, and the region. That is done through a process coordinated by the Cascades West Council of Governments, through the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department.
"But OECDD has been dragging its feet in this process, Sasaki said, and the COG is just now getting the paperwork to compile the needs and issues assessment. 'That's been kind of a frustrating thing,' Sasaki said. 'It (grant application) has been held up at the state, and we have been having discussions with the federal EDA people, and they're just waiting for this process because it has to get done. Time is really running out on us right now.'
"Other funding for the event center will come through a two-and-a-half percent increase in the city's transient room tax. The room tax was increased by one percent in January of 2003, but the revenue generated by that increase has been dedicated to the Oregon Coast Aquarium until July 2005, to help the aquarium with its promotion and advertising effort. After that time, the revenue will go to the event center. Also in July 2005, the room tax is slated to go up another one and a half percent, also dedicated to the event center."
"The Port of Newport board last Friday discussed several aspects of the port's future relationship with the Events Center being developed on port property by the City of Newport. One was the drafting of a new long-term lease for the property, to replace the initial, more sketchy Intergovernmental Agreement upon which the Events Center work is now proceeding. Another was the development potential for the port brought about by having the Events Center on its South Beach property. A third was a need to better understand the changed traffic flow the center will also bring - and the possibility that it may take a master plan to coordinate it all. "The Intergovernmental Agreement we have now," Port Manager Don Mann began, "is enough to go forward on - the infrastructure improvements, the relocation of the launch ramp and parking lot and new rest room. But we do need a new lease." Nobody disputed that, and, Mann continued, beyond that, "We expect to get inquiries because of the development of the Events Center." They might be for a hotel or motel project, or a new restaurant, or something else. Or, Mann noted, "it may not happen. But let's think about the potential" [boldface added]. For example, he said, in an area between C and D docks, a restaurant could go in that would overlook the marina.
"Port chairman David Jincks asked if there is "a master plan for the property? There are people to hire to do this, though I don't like spending lots of money on this." He felt the key concerns are "parking and traffic flow," especially when the salmon or halibut season is on, people with trailer-houses are parked in South Beach, and something attractive is happening at the Events Center. "It takes a professional" to plan through all this, he said. "And we should sit down with the city to discuss it, and make sure we do this plan right." There would be, suggested Goblirsch, "a lot of confusion, especially for people hauling boats." "It could change your traffic flow entirely," said Jincks, "in and out of South Beach." "Is the city doing a traffic study including the Events Center?" asked Port Financial Officer Patti Britton. Mann said he didn't know [boldface added]. A master plan, suggested Jincks, should address four areas of concern: the marina, the parking areas, the Events Center and the boat launch, and seek to coordinate them and their traffic flows. "Everything might be re-arranged," he said, "it could be an opportunity to redevelop everything." "The timing is right to look at a master plan," agreed Mann. But, Mann added, no changes to property or plans are yet anywhere near a decision.[The Port discussed the potential of developing a hotel/motel and restaurant near the Exposition & Event Center. These could bring in even more people to this area, but no mention is made of the earthquake and tsunami hazards at the Port's South Beach site. But the Port wants to move their bayfront office on the north side of Yaquina Bay (which is in a safer location with more available emergency services than the Port's South Beach site) out of the tsunami zone for their personal safety.]
"Today, the city is struggling to maintain current service levels and its budget picture is bleak at best. ... Although the city may be able to fund an event center with taxpayer money, is it now fiscally responsible to do so?"[Allen questions whether the City can financially afford to build and operate the Event Center. A "David Allen" is a Newport City Councillor, but this "David Allen" does not mention if he is or if he is not.]
"The City of Newport has been in discussions with Home Depot about the possibility the home-additions-and-repair-supplies chain store might move into South Beach. There has been no announcement of any agreement with that company about Home Depot coming into Newport. However, Newport officials have discussed the idea, and the city did, in hope of keeping a preferred site available for such a store, switch the site planned for its Events Center from property west of Highway 101, behind Toby Murry Motors, to Port of Newport property near the Rogue Ales brewery [boldface added]."[The moving of the proposed Exposition & Event Center to the South Beach Peninsula was not the original choice (see 21 November 2001, 4 January 2002, and 12 December 2003 articles) but was done in the possible hopes of getting a Home Depot store. In a 20 February 2004 article, Home Depot announced that it was interested in the Bunn property.]
"I have called the City Water Works Department on several occasions this past summer regarding the odiferous odor and muddy appearance. I was told nothing could be done that is just cost too much to fix the problems. The employee said the problems were caused from too much water going through the pipes due to our tourists and fish plant operations. She also suggested I should consider purchasing bottled water or a filter system for my house as so many other residents were doing to combat the problem. Will this be the solution presented to the hotels/motels by city officials when tourism is down due to the noxious water? I know I would certainly not plan another vacation in a town where I had to take a shower in water smelling of a bad septic system."[So, the City is blaming tourists for poor water quality in the summer and is proposing to build an Exposition & Event Center, with the Port planning an associated hotel/motel and/or restaurant to attract even hundreds or thousands more tourists. Is Newport going to tell them to bring their own water? The cost of improving the water system for the increased number of tourists needs to be included with the costs of the proposed Exposition & Event Center.]
"Sasaki told the city council this week that as far as construction of the actual event center itself, there really is no more urban renewal money available. The South Beach District, he said, 'has about a $50 million projected maximum indebtedness that we can incur.' Most of that will be for infrastructure improvements, including the already completed sewer plant.
"The city has set aside $7.5 million for the event center, but the latest cost estimate for the building as originally designed is now closer to $9 million or more. In hopes of coming up with some of the needed additional funding for the project, the city is applying for a $1 million federal grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration. But there is no word yet on whether or not the city will receive that grant.
"Jones said the city should know the results of that grant application - one way or the other - before construction begins early next year. Even without the grant, plans will move forward, he said, even if it means scaling back the project somewhat.
"One thing that has hurt the city in terms of funding for this project, Sasaki said, was the city's decision in December of 2002 to give the Oregon Coast Aquarium one percent of a two-and-a-half percent room tax increase earmarked for event center funding. 'That created some difficulties because we had to shift some resources,' he said.
"The aquarium is slated to continue receiving that one percent in room tax money until July of next year, when the second one-and-a-half percent increase is scheduled to kick in. Sasaki raised the idea of implementing the additional increase early, this coming January, to generate some additional revenue.
"Every project is this size has contingency funds built in, added Sasaki, because they always anticipate cost overruns, 'but we're chewing into those contingencies.' That makes the bid critical, he said. The architects on the project will be doing another bid estimate this month, which will give the city a better idea of where it stands on the funding issue.
"Council member Mike Schulz asked, 'If there is no grant, and the cost is up with this new estimated cost, what's Plan B?' He said he is uncomfortable implementing the room tax earlier than planned without firm numbers for the project cost.
"Jones said a decision on the room tax doesn't need to be made now. They could wait until as late as December. 'It's not decision time. It's just that this is a course of action we need to consider.'
"Sasaki also told the council this week that details of the long-term lease between the city and the port for use of the event center property is being worked out. The financial terms of this lease have not yet been set, and Sasaki was asked if that could cause problems related to the cost of the project. He said he doesn't anticipate that to be a factor because it will be a "nominal fee," such as $1 per year. The city has agreed to make those infrastructure improvements, he said, in lieu of dollar compensation."
"James Bassingthwaite, Newport's community development director, told the planning commission there have been concerns raised regarding potential earthquake and tsunami hazards associated with the event center site. Bassingthwaite said, however, those are building issues, not land use issues, and are 'beyond the scope of what will be decided here tonight.' And whether or not a convention center is an economically viable project for Newport is not a matter before the commission, added Bassingthwaite."Another excerpt:
"Janet Webster, who lives on the Bayfront and works in South Beach, said she has concerns about the event center. One concern has to do with the traffic. She said there are no sidewalks in that area, and a heavier traffic flow will pose an increased hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists using that area."Another excerpt:
"Bartoldus also said, however, if there is a major earthquake or tsunami in Lincoln County, 'I might suggest that there's going to be more things for officials to consider than what's going on at the event center. There's going to be problems up and down the coast. Yes, we have to be concerned about these things, but do we need to be concerned to the point where it paralyzes us and we do nothing?' "[Bartoldus missed the point. The point is that the proposed site has the highest earthquake risk categories for liquefaction and amplification and in a tsunami inundation zone, so it does not seem prudent to locate it there. Yes, the rest of the coast may be affected in a major earthquake, but not as much as the South Beach area. The issue is not whether the Center be built, but that it not be built at the proposed site.] The final excerpt:
"During its deliberation on this issue, members of the planning commission felt the request did meet the four criteria needed for approval. While all agreed the tsunami and earthquake hazards needed to be addressed as well, they were comfortable that would happen during the building permit process."[Earthquake issues can be addressed through building codes, but there is nothing in the building codes that requires buildings be constructed to resist tsunamis; the building codes, Oregon Revised Statutes, and Oregon Administrative Rules only require nonbinding consultation of the developer with the Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries.]
"Port commissioner Mark Fisher asked the size of the structure [Event Center]. Sasaki said it would be 41,000 square feet, down from an original 48,000 square feet, due largely to the rising cost of metal. The Seaside convention center, by contrast, has about 25,000 square feet, Sasaki said. 'I was there, we toured the facility, and the problem is it's so chopped up. The original building and the additions,' he said, 'in my opinion do not flow well now.' The planned main hall for the Newport facility, he continued, is to be 14,400 square feet. Seaside, with two halls, can offer a maximum space of about 10,000 square feet."[Construction is to begin in early to mid-January 2005 and to be completed by January 2006.]
"Approved a request by Sasaki to consider implementing a 1.5-percent room tax increase sooner than previously planned. Sasaki wants that increase to take effect Jan. 1, rather than July 1 of next year, in order for additional revenue to be generated for the event center project. Sasaki will bring a draft ordinance to the council for consideration next month."
We have to say we're a bit relieved. While a term such as "railroading" might be too harsh, there seemed an outright frenzy in the past several weeks to push for approval of both a contract and a lease with the port. And both could cost taxpayers more in the long run.
As the city now steps back from the project to gather additional information, the possibility of asking voters to approve general obligation bonds for the project was raised. Jones said, "Frankly, I think that's a way for the council to hide behind a no, if that's what it chooses to do." The city has promoted the event center project as one needing no new taxes from Newport citizens to build it, the mayor said. And with voters last year approving a bond levy for the Oregon Coast Community College, "I think we would be soundly rejected. That (general obligation bonds) was discussed prior to going to this process we currently have." Council member Bill Bain said trying to shift the bulk of the funding over to general obligation bonds would likely be defeated by voters, but it may be possible to achieve some degree of taxpayer support for the project. "I don't think you should slam that door shut before all the discussion is done on it," he said.
Following council approval of the project in August of 2002, Jones and City Manager Sam Sasaki took the lead on event center planning - right up to and including the frenzied wheeling and dealing in recent weeks to bring down higher-than-expected bids and placate the port with an extra $1.8 million worth of improvements over the next 25 years. While there is general support of the event center in Newport - mainly for economic reasons - we heard more than one person compare these last-minute efforts to a runaway train.
The proposed center has been the mayor's pet project for a number of years. Whether or not this is the right project for Newport at this time is now beside the point. The more glaring issue is Jones' headlong rush to push the project along, letting the chips - in this case dedicated public officials and valuable public opinion - fall where they may.
