19 March 2005
To: Jim Ruggeri, Legal Counsel for Newport Development Commission;
Commissioners Mary Lou Yeck, Rob Thompson, Patrick Hannan, Peter Noah, and Chuck Forinash
Newport City Hall
169 SW Coast HWY
Newport, OR 97365
Re: can the Newport Development Commission legally or ethically allow urban renewal funds be used to build the Newport Event Center in a tsunami inundation zone?
Dear Mr. Ruggeri and Commissioners:
In Hawaii and Alaska, urban renewal funds have been used for relocating buildings and developments from tsunami areas to uplands above the tsunami zone (p. 3-7, 3-8, 3-12, and 3-14 in National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program 2001b). Such a use would also be legal in Oregon, but the Newport Development Commission has been requested by the City of Newport to do the exact opposite: use urban renewal funds to construct a public assembly building in a tsunami inundation zone.
Chapter 457 of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) is about Urban Renewal, and ORS 457.020 indicates that, among other duties, urban renewal is to be used to improve or remove "blighted areas" for "public health, safety and welfare, fire and accident protection ..." "Blighted areas" in ORS 457.010(1) includes 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 safety, health or welfare of the community.
One example of a "blighted area" in ORS 457.010(1)(f) is:
The existence of property or lots or other areas that are subject to inundation by water.
In section B of my January 24 letter to the Development Commission, I pointed out that the Event Center is proposed for a site in a tsunami inundation zone (based on a Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries tsunami evacuation map at http://sarvis.dogami.state.or.us/earthquakes/Coastal/Tsubrochures.htm--also see ec-newport.htm#ap-b) that has the highest category of earthquake hazards (Madin and Wang 1999--see ec-newport.htm#ap-a) and would also likely be isolated after a major earthquake because of failure of the Yaquina Bay Bridge (Anonymous 2001c).
Is it legal or ethical for the Newport Development Commission to approve using urban renewal funds to build the proposed Newport Event Center in a tsunami inundation zone? Doing so would create a "blighted area" because the Event Center would attract many people into a tsunami inundation zone (which is an area "subject to inundation by water") for which the City has not mitigated the hazards (see Appendix A). Doing so would also be a consequence of "faulty planning" as it would violate Statewide Planning Goal 7 (Appendix B-1), the City of Newport does not have a Master Plan for South Beach (Appendix B-2), and the City has also not done the planning necessary to solve pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues (Appendix B-3) or traffic safety issues (Appendix B-4 and B-5) that would be a consequence of the Event Center. The City of Newport has been very careful to technically follow laws relating to tsunamis, and the siting of the Event Center in a tsunami inundation zone is not prohibited in ORS Chapter 457 on Urban Renewal or in ORS 455.446 and 455.447 about construction in a tsunami inundation zone. The City has said in a lawyerly way that tsunami issues will be "addressed" for the Event Center (Card 2004, Haney 2004), but "addressed" only means that the City will do what is legally required, not that the City will include voluntary measures to reduce tsunami risk (Appendix A). Using urban renewal funds to build the Event Center in a tsunami inundation zone may be legal but it is questionable whether it is prudent. Newport citizens have not been allowed to vote on the Event Center, and citizens expect the City to actually solve public safety issues, not create more. If there were no significant unresolved tsunami safety issues along the Pacific Coast why are U.S. Senators Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden from Oregon among the co-sponsors of the Tsunami Preparedness Act, U.S. Senate 50 (American Geological Institute 2005, U.S. Senate 2005)? And why are Oregon legislators for Lincoln County (Representative Alan Brown and Senator Joanne Verger) among the co-sponsors of Oregon House Joint Memorial 10 (Oregon Legislature 2005), a summary of which states:
Urges Congress to enact and President to sign Tsunami Preparedness Act. Urges Congress to continue efforts to further expand and modernize tsunami detection and warning systems for Pacific Ocean.
On one hand, the U.S. Congress may spend millions of tax dollars to improve tsunami safety measures, and on the other hand, the Newport Development Commission may spend millions of urban renewal dollars to increase the number of people at risk to tsunamis without including known ways to reduce the tsunami risk (Appendix A).
Using public money to construct buildings in hazardous areas is not recommended; for instance, Oregon's Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group (1994:66) suggested:
"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."
One of their exceptions to public funding of building in a hazardous site is if it cannot be located elsewhere, but the Event Center is not water-dependent; it could be built elsewhere. Their other exception is if the hazard can be fully mitigated by structural or nonstructural methods, but the City of Newport is not including several known ways to mitigate the risks (see Appendix A).
Will the Development Commission follow ethical as well as legal responsibilities to use urban renewal funds as intended to promote public health and safety as well as economic development? Or will the Development Commission use urban renewal funds to build the Event Center at a site that will create public safety problems from tsunamis as well as safety concerns involving pedestrians and bicyclists (Appendix B-3) and traffic (Appendix B-4 and B-5)?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Range (Richard) Bayer
P.S. Correctly typing web site addresses cited in this letter is tedious, so this letter is also at http://www.orednet.org/~rbayer/lincoln/ec-urban2.htm [all lower case letters].
Appendix A is largely the same as sections C-1 through C-5 of my Jan. 24 letter to the Development Commissioners then. I am repeating it here because Jim Ruggeri and Chuck Forinash did not receive a copy of that letter.
A-1. INTRODUCTION. Small earthquakes and tsunamis would probably not have a significant impact on the proposed Event Center. However, a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake of magnitude 8.0 or greater (i.e., the "Big One") and the subsequent tsunami are of concern. With such an earthquake, extensive damage is predicted to occur from British Columbia to northern California (Roddey 2004), so getting help will be difficult and slow in coming. Such a large earthquake would be the only warning for people in tsunami inundation zones to evacuate, since the first wave of the subsequent tsunami is predicted to arrive at Newport about 20 minutes later and elsewhere along the Oregon Coast 10-30 minutes after the earthquake (Anonymous 2003a, Anonymous 2003b, Roddey 2004, Gallob 2005).
Building in an area vulnerable to earthquake and tsunamis can not be fully mitigated by building construction and design. For example, the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (2001a:15) noted [boldface added]:
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.
and National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (2001b:5-3) adds [boldface added]:
Although good engineering techniques and materials will help a building resist tsunami forces and inundation, in cases of intense tsunamis, they only will reduce losses but not prevent severe damage. The best approach to minimizing or avoiding tsunami losses is to locate buildings beyond the reach of run-up.
A-2. EVENT CENTER CONSTRUCTION TO RESIST EARTHQUAKES BUT NOT TSUNAMIS. The City of Newport is supposed to follow Oregon Building Codes because this is a requirement of the Event Center Conditional Use Permit. Oregon Building Codes (which were based on the Uniform Building Code until October 2004 and are now based on the International Building Code) include provisions to construct buildings to resist earthquake hazards. At the Oct. 25 Newport Planning Commission Public Hearing for the Conditional Use Permit, Tricia Berg, who works for the City's architecture firm for the Event Center, indicated that the Event Center would be built to Seismic Zone 4 (the most hazardous earthquake zone) standards. City Planner James Bassingthwaite and the City's agent Dennis Bartoldus stated at the Hearing that earthquake and tsunami issues would be addressed through the building permit process (Card 2004 and p. 2 and 4-5 of Haney 2004). In reporting the Hearing, Card (2004) wrote:
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.
However, City Planner James Bassingthwaite and the City's agent Dennis Bartoldus did not inform the Planning Commission that Oregon Building Codes do not have any provisions for site preparation or building design for constructing buildings to resist tsunamis. Thus, it is not possible to adequately address tsunami concerns through the building permit process. As the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (2001a:30) states [boldface added]:
Most local building codes used in the Pacific states are based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC) prepared by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). In California, Oregon, and Washington, the state governments mandate code adoption and enforcement at the local level. ... The UBC includes design requirements and standards for fire, wind, floods, and earthquakes, but it does not contain requirements for tsunami-resistant design. While a few communities have adopted tsunami-resistant building design standards, the vast majority of coastal communities have not. The City and County of Honolulu has adopted special requirements for floods and tsunamis as part of its Revised Ordinances. With appropriate modifications to reflect local conditions, these could serve as a general model for other states and municipalities. Guidance for architects and engineers in the design for tsunami forces is included in FEMA's Coastal Construction Manual, also known as FEMA 55 [see Federal Emergency Management Agency 2000]. The manual deals with tsunamis in a manner similar to the Honolulu ordinance but uses more current information.
The only provision specifically for tsunamis in Oregon Structural Specialty Building Code is Section 1802.1.1 that incorporates ORS 455.446 and 455.447. This prohibits (with exceptions) some structures (but not the Event Center) from being built in a tsunami inundation zone. This building code requires consultation with DOGAMI for construction of other structures (including the proposed Event Center) in a tsunami inundation zone (Oregon Structural Specialty Building Code Table 1802.1). However, such "consultation" is not very meaningful as it is "nonbinding" (Oregon Administrative Rule 632-005-0060), so recommendations can be ignored. The City, via the Event Center architect Bill Seider, has had its nonbinding consultation with DOGAMI as required.
The absence of specifications for site preparation and building construction to resist tsunamis in the Oregon Building Code does not mean that are no guidelines for doing so. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000) includes building design recommendations to resist tsunamis, and an excerpt from National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (2001a:31) ("Principle 4: Design and Construct New Buildings to Minimize Tsunami Damage") states:
Where a tsunami hazard study has been prepared to inform local design decisions, the information can be used to decide whether to permit construction at a given site. If construction is to be permitted, the building design must address tsunami-related forces, including water pressure, buoyancy, currents and waves, debris impact, scour, and fire. The analyses will vary depending on location, building size, and type of construction, such as reinforced concrete, wood, light metal, and others.
An excerpt from p. 32 in "Principle 4: Design and Construct New Buildings to Minimize Tsunami Damage" continues:
There are four performance levels that can be considered for buildings: minimum, safety, reoccupancy, and operational levels. ... Buildings constructed to perform at a safety level should withstand water forces, debris and wave-break impacts, earthquake shaking, ground failure, and fire without significant structural damage.
In my written testimony for the Oct. 25 Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing for the Event Center, I recommended including conditions to construct the Event Center to resist tsunamis as suggested in Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000) and National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (2001a). But the City's representative Dennis Bartoldus stated during the Hearing that the City was not required to do so.
A-3. EVENT CENTER AREA IS NOT PROPOSED TO BE TsunamiReady. Several communities along the Oregon coast have areas in tsunami inundation zones. Some of these communities (Cannon Beach, Manzanita, Wheeler, Nehalem, and most recently Lincoln City) have voluntarily become NOAA TsunamiReady (see http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/tsunamiready/tsunamiready.htm) to mitigate tsunami risks for their citizens and visitors. If the Event Center is to be funded with urban renewal funds, the Newport Development Commission could help prevent loss of lives by requiring the City of Newport to make the Event Center area TsunamiReady.
A-4. INADEQUATE TSUNAMI WARNING SIGNAGE IN SOUTH BEACH. Earthquake and tsunami risks at the Event Center potentially could also be partially mitigated through signage and other warnings, but the City of Newport is not required to do so. Education and drills are useful for resident staff, but would not help nonresidents to the Event Center. For Center visitors, signage is critical to alert them what to do in case of an earthquake or tsunami. On p. 7 of the City's Conditional Use Permit application for the Event Center, it is stated:
The applicant notes that Oregon Emergency Management has mapped the subject area and [tsunami] evacuation routes and locations of high ground have been identified for the area. Existing evacuation route signage already exists in the South Beach area and DOGAMI staff confirmed that no additional site specific signage, horns or sirens are required.
Again, the City stresses doing only what is "required." In my written testimony at the Oct. 25 Public Hearing, I pointed out that although Oregon Emergency Management has mapped evacuation routes and assembly points that information is not widely available, particularly to nonresidents. In the event of a major local earthquake, the tsunami is predicted to arrive at Newport 20 minutes later (Anonymous 2003a, Anonymous 2003b, Gallob 2005), so people would not have time to look up these maps on the Internet or to request brochures with the maps, even if power was still available after the earthquake.
The City is only technically correct in stating that evacuation route signage exists in South Beach. The only such signage I have found is at the OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center, which is not along the route to the proposed Event Center. The City and Port have chosen to not put evacuation route signage around the Marina to the Evacuation Assembly Point at the south end of the Yaquina Bay Bridge, so the Hatfield Marine Science Center evacuation route signage ends at the edge of their campus.
There are only two vague tsunami warning signs along routes to and near the Event Center. Incredibly, for northbound Highway 101 traffic turning to go towards the proposed Event Center just before the Yaquina Bay Bridge, a "Leaving Tsunami Hazard Zone" is visible about 0.1 mile just before they turn, so travelers are misled to believe that they leaving a tsunami hazard rather than entering one as they approach the proposed Event Center location. For southbound Highway 101 traffic, there is an "Entering Tsunami Hazard Zone" sign along Highway 101 just after crossing the Yaquina Bay Bridge and just before turning right to go to the Marina. An "Entering Tsunami Hazard Zone" is vague--it does not give any clues to visitors about what they should do. "Tsunami Evacuation Route" with an arrow pointing the direction of the route or "Tsunami Hazard Zone: In Case of Earthquake, Go to High Ground or Inland" signs give not only a warning but also give visitors an idea about what they should do and when they should do it.
DOGAMI has suggested that the City of Newport do more education and work on tsunami evacuation issues for the Event Center in its 18 November 2004 consultation by George Priest. It is unknown if the City will follow these nonbinding suggestions. The best guide to future actions is past actions, and, in the past, the City has done only what is required, not what has been recommended.
A-5. THE CITY IS NOT PLANNING TO PROVIDE AN EMERGENCY SUPPLY DEPOT FOR EVENT CENTER EVACUEES. People, who may be lucky to escape from the Event Center after a major earthquake and the resulting tsunami with the clothes on their backs, may then find themselves without emergency medical care and supplies, drinking water, blankets, etc. and may die later because the City of Newport has not been required to provide such a depot. Emergency help may not be forthcoming to Event Center evacuees because the Yaquina Bay Bridge is vulnerable to a "moderate" earthquake, is part of a "lifeline route," and is the highest priority bridge in Oregon for earthquake preparation (Anonymous 2001c). If this Bridge becomes inoperational, it would cut-off emergency responders and supplies from the Newport side of the Bridge going to South Beach.
Emergency supply depots at Oregon coast tsunami evacuation assembly centers have been recommended. For example, another Oregon coastal community, Rockaway Beach, has voluntarily set up a tsunami evacuation site with a sea cargo container with emergency supplies that are renewed and replenished (State of Oregon 2002:T-11). At the Embarcadero in Newport in February and May 2001, local governmental representatives, business owners, and emergency managers met to discuss Yaquina Bay earthquake and tsunami preparation (Anonymous 2001a, Anonymous 2001b). Recommendations included (Anonymous 2001b):
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.
Since the Port of Newport would like to move its Newport Bayfront office because of the tsunami risk, why put the Event Center in a riskier location that is likely to be isolated from emergency help after a major earthquake?
Lincoln County will not be able to help Event Center evacuees because the County expects individuals and businesses to do their own preparation. For example, Gallob (2004a) reports [boldface added]:
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."
In January 2005, Gallob (2005) reported that Newport Fire Chief Rick Crook (who is in charge of City of Newport disaster preparedness) is concerned that there are no supplies for South Beach people who evacuate to the south end of the Yaquina Bay Bridge (which is where Event Center evacuees would go) or the Newport Airport.
Visitors to the Event Center won't know that they need to carry emergency supplies for 1-2 days, and the City of Newport has not made a commitment to take care of the visitors or to set up emergency depots of supplies in preparation for a major earthquake or tsunami.
Emergency shelter may also be critical during inclement weather after a major earthquake because an emergency depot may not be large enough to provide emergency shelter to thousands of evacuees from the Event Center. Nearby buildings may have collapsed or be unsafe because they were not built to Seismic Zone 4 standards, and the City of Newport is choosing to not design the Event Center to resist a tsunami (Appendix A-2), so it may survive a major earthquake but not the subsequent tsunami waves.
Part of Appendix B-1 was in section A of my Jan. 24 letter to the Development Commissioners, but Appendix sections B-2 (no South Beach Master Plan), B-3 (no plan for pedestrian and bicyclist safety), or B-4 (no plan for traffic safety) were not included in my Jan. 24 letter.
B-1. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 7. Revised Statewide Planning Goal 7 and its amendments became effective on 1 June 2002 (Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development 2002), and they state, in part:
A. NATURAL HAZARD PLANNING
1. Local governments shall adopt comprehensive plans (inventories, policies and implementing measures) to reduce risk to people and property from natural hazards.
2. Natural hazards for purposes of this goal are: floods (coastal and riverine), landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis, coastal erosion, and wildfires. Local governments may identify and plan for other natural hazards.
The City of Newport has not included the 1995 tsunami inundation maps (Priest 1995a, Priest 1995b) nor earthquake hazard maps (Madin and Wang 1999) in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Event Center site at the South Beach Marina is in a tsunami inundation zone [see ec-newport.htm#ap-b] and at a site with the highest category of earthquake risks [see ec-newport.htm#ap-a]. At the 25 October 2004 Newport Planning Commission Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for the Event Center, the City of Newport's representative Dennis Bartoldus stated that the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development had not requested the City of Newport to revise its Comprehensive Plan to include earthquake and tsunami hazards, so the City had not done so (see p. 5 of Haney 2004). I emailed Christine Valentine (Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Floodplain/Natural Hazards Coordinator) about the proposed Event Center in relation to amended Goal 7. On 27 October 2004, she replied in an email:
You raised some concerns about Goal 7. The city's [Newport's] comprehensive plan was reviewed against goal 7 in the past and found to comply. This would have been before goal 7 was amended. To my knowledge, the Department has not required local government review of new hazard info. per Section B. of Goal 7 since the goal was revised. This is partially because other state and federal agencies have not requested that DLCD take action in response to new hazard information. The Department does not really have any programs that would generate new hazard information directly. Another factor is that there is no state funding for goal 7 work by local governments. In terms of all the statewide planning goals, goal 7 is not one that the Legislature has been emphasizing in recent sessions. They have instead directed DLCD to focus its planning work and limited grant $s on other issues.
The earthquake and tsunami hazard maps are available but have not been used by the City of Newport in its Comprehensive Plan. Whether the City of Newport, the Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries, and/or the Oregon Legislature is at fault for the City of Newport not including earthquake and tsunami hazards in its Comprehensive Plan is unknown, but the fact remains that it is faulty planning to not have done so.
B-2. NO MASTER PLAN FOR SOUTH BEACH THOUGH ONE HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE EVENT CENTER AREA. There is not a City Master Plan for South Beach that could guide prudent development to ensure public safety or reduce traffic flow problems (also see B-3 and B-4 below). In September 2004, Port of Newport Commissioners requested such a Master Plan to help with increased traffic congestion associated with the proposed Event Center, since an excerpt from Gallob (2004b) notes [boldface added]:
[Newport] Port chairman David Jincks asked if there is "a master plan for the [Port's South Beach] 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. 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.
In October 2004, the City favored doing a South Beach Master Plan at some unspecified time in the future according to an excerpt from Gallob (2004c):
Newport City Manager Sam Sasaki favors the preparation of a Master Plan for the South Beach area of Newport, Port of Newport manager Don Mann reported to his board of commissioners recently. The port board had supported the idea of such a plan in a recent discussion about possible impacts on port property and businesses in South Beach from the city's planned Events Center. "I spoke with Sam Sasaki regarding a partnership with the city on a master plan for our South Beach marina property," Mann wrote in his report to the port board. "Sam agreed this should be done and said he would seek funding to match any grant funds we can secure. He stressed, as we did," Mann wrote, "the importance of a South Beach master plan. We will start by developing a work scope." Sasaki was not available for comment on the concept.
In December 2004, the Port of Newport proposed to help coordinate a South Beach Master Plan for projects by the "Port, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon Coast Aquarium, Rogue Ales and others" (Gallob 2004d). No vote was taken by the Port Commissioners about action to take, but there was a consensus in favor of a plan (Gallob 2004d).
Clearly, there is no plan for development in the South Beach area, and in Gallob (2004b), the Port of Newport Manager also expresses the desire for a hotel, motel, or a new restaurant to develop in association with the Event Center. If a Master Plan is ever done for South Beach, it appears that it will only be done far after it was really needed.
B-3. NO PLAN BY CITY OF NEWPORT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT EVENT CENTER. In reporting the 25 October 2004 Newport Planning Commission Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for the Event Center, Card (2004) wrote about some of the testimony:
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.
Further, according to p. 3 of Haney (2004), Webster testified that she had concerns about a significant increase in traffic in South Beach and:
It needs to be considered that there are walkers, bicyclists, and joggers who use this area also, and there are no sidewalks. If traffic is increased, there has to be an allowance for a place for walking.
In his reporting of this Hearing, Card (2004) wrote that Attorney Dennis Bartoldus (who represented the City at the Hearing) rebutted the pedestrian issue:
As to pedestrian access, while there are no sidewalks, there is a large area on each side of the road available for pedestrian access, and the dedicated road right-of-way is such that it will allow for expansion and improvements to the roadway in the future.
Card (2004) also reported:
Commissioner Dylan McEntee wondered about adding a condition that either sidewalks or a pedestrian trail be required to be constructed along the roadway. While there was some support for this idea from other commissioners, it was not included as part of the final approval.
My recollection of the Hearing is that one of the Commissioners stated that there was no need for sidewalks because pedestrians could walk alongside the road. He also stated that parking spaces were more important than sidewalks.
What kind of convention center does not include sidewalks? Sidewalks are important everyday for safety, yet the City of Newport has not planned for sidewalks in the Event Center area.
I do not recall Bartoldus addressing concerns about bicyclist safety, and he is also not mentioned as addressing this issue in Haney (2004) or Card (2004).
B-4. NO PLAN BY CITY OF NEWPORT FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY AT EVENT CENTER. Page 6 of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Event Center indicated that traffic would not be a concern [boldface added]:
Transportation: The primary vehicular access to the site from Highway 101 will be from Ferry Slip Road. Additionally, SE Marine Science Drive provides direct access to the existing parking area. Both Ferry Slip Road and SE Marine Science Drive are currently sized and constructed to accommodate the expected traffic generated by the facility. In addition, water taxis from the Bay Front are planned to serve the site for special events, thereby reducing the impact on the existing street network and reducing the overall need for parking at the facility. The applicant is also considering a bus loop system connecting area hotels that could be utilized during larger events such as the Newport Sea Food and Wine Festival.
However, the CUP is optimistic as there are several concerns about traffic at the proposed Event Center, especially for traffic as it enters or leaves Highway 101 en route to or from the Event Center.
B-4-a) The 15 October 2004 memo from the Newport City Engineer Lee Ritzman to City Planner James Bassingthwaite. This memo is Attachment C to the Staff Report of the CUP. This memo does not mention that a traffic flow study has been conducted in South Beach but does indicate that there are traffic issues, especially at Highway 101 intersections [boldface added]:
The traffic impact of the events center will vary according to the time, type, and size of events held at the new facility. ... OSU Drive is capable of handling approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour. However, the capacity at the intersections with Highway 101 would be much less, depending on the traffic on the highway. Another factor that reduces the street capacity is pedestrians desiring to cross OSU Drive. Except for unusual circumstances, the adjacent streets should handle the traffic into and out of the events center as fast as vehicles can enter or leave the parking lot. An example of such an unusual event would be after a concert. Many of the attendees would be crossing OSU Drive to get to the overflow parking areas. At the same time, vehicles exiting the events center lot would be trying to head toward the highway. At these times, patrons leaving the event could experience delays. We recommend that event sponsors be required to provide parking and traffic control plans for such events.
The City Engineer's memo indicates concerns when there are many vehicles going and coming from the Center, particularly when overflow parking is used and pedestrians are crossing traffic to get to their vehicles.
B-4-b) Anonymous (2002a) reports a Newport Chamber of Commerce presentation to the Newport Development Commission about the proposed Event Center. An excerpt [boldface added]:
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. 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, Rowley added. "The Bunn property - the old drive-in for those old enough to remember it - would not be."
Until December 2003, the proposed Event Center site was the Bunn property. The current proposed Center site is at the South Beach Marina, and it would have the same traffic problems as the rejected site near the Aquarium.
B-4-c) In September 2004, some Port of Newport Commissioners were concerned about traffic congestion problems at the proposed Event Center. For instance, an excerpt from Gallob (2004b) reports [boldface added]:
He [David Jincks, Port of Newport chairman] 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. 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.
It is easy to see that there will be traffic congestion problems when there is an event at the Event Center during special fishing seasons such as for salmon or halibut. Then there will also be many slow vehicles pulling boats on trailers that will be trying to access Highway 101, so that traffic over the Yaquina Bay Bridge can be expected to be slow.
B-4-d) Janet Webster testified about traffic congestion problems at the 25 October 2004 Newport Planning Commission Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for the Event Center. Webster works in South Beach (Card 2004), and, according to p. 3 of Haney (2004), Webster's testimony was paraphrased as:
Traffic is one of her concerns. She feels there will be a significant increase in traffic in South Beach, and there are issues in this conditional use permit request that should be addressed. She sees only two ingresses and egresses from that [Event Center] parking lot. There will be people not familiar with the area trying to get to and from this facility causing delays. With the enlargement of the [Rogue] brewery, there will be increased truck traffic as well which maybe has not been addressed.
B-4-e) I have worked at the South Beach Peninsula for over 20 years and have seen traffic problems when there are events with many vehicles. For example, traffic problems occur during the Seafood and Wine Festival in February, and the problems then are somewhat mitigated by police or the Lincoln County Sheriff's Posse directing traffic. But the CUP neither acknowledges such traffic congestion nor provides adequate ways to mitigate such traffic congestion. The goal of the Event Center is to have more big events like the Seafood and Wine Festival and perhaps to even enlarge that Festival, so the congestion problems will increase in number. Sooner or later these events will overlap with peak marina traffic during a brief salmon or halibut season (whose duration may be unpredictable because of reaching quotas), so that traffic can become very congested with consequent accidents.
The City Engineer's report in Appendix B-4-a indicates that OSU Drive can handle 1,000 vehicles per hour, but that is only under ideal conditions, when there are no accidents, no medical emergencies, and all drivers are driving courteously and soberly. The Newport Police Chief reported nine driving-under-the-influence arrests at the 2002 Seafood and Wine Festival (Anonymous 2002b), so not all drivers may be driving soberly. But even sober drivers may panic (e.g., after an earthquake), which could snarl traffic.
P. 6 of the CUP quoted at start of Appendix B-4 indicates that the City of Newport is considering mitigating future Center traffic problems by water taxis and "a bus loop system connecting area hotels." These statements are misleading because these services have already been provided, and there was still traffic congestion. For example, during at least the 2003 and 2004 Seafood and Wine Festivals, there were free shuttles from downtown Newport and many local hotels to the Festival and water taxis were also available; on the Saturday of the 2004 Festival, free shuttle service was also available to and from Depoe Bay (Anonymous 2003c, Anonymous 2004).
B-5. THE CITY OF NEWPORT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY SOLUTIONS TO PREDICTABLE TRAFFIC CONGESTION PROBLEMS AT THE PROPOSED EVENT CENTER. Instead of addressing or planning for traffic congestion problems at the Event Center, the City of Newport has chosen to put the responsibility on others and to hope that the problems will somehow be resolved in the future. For example, the Newport City Engineer's solution to Event Center congestion (see Appendix B-4-a) is:
We recommend that event sponsors be required to provide parking and traffic control plans for such events.
City representative attorney Dennis Bartoldus' testimony at the 25 October 2004 Public Hearing was paraphrased on p. 2 of Haney (2004) as:
The applicant [City of Newport] feels the traffic issue will also be addressed by the event sponsors because they know they have to get along with everyone in that area. Bartoldus said that he does not feel there will be a significant traffic problem as the roads are sized for the traffic.
In addition, p. 4 of Haney (2004) includes the following as part of Bartoldus' rebuttal of traffic concerns:
There probably will be additional traffic down there at times, but certainly no worse than Highway 101 tie-ups around the town in the summer and there will need to be future planning to address traffic within the community.
Card (2004) also reports about Bartoldus' rebuttal during the Oct. 25 Hearing:
Regarding a concern about an increase in traffic in the area as a result of the event center presence, Bartoldus said not all events there will be of the magnitude of the Seafood and Wine Festival. "Most events will be much more modest than that," he said, but he added it doesn't mean there will never be traffic delays there. "Anytime you bring a lot of people together, traffic is not going to be flowing as quickly and as smoothly as when there is nothing going on." ... Regarding the traffic issue, Bartoldus said a number of the event center activities will take place on weekends, when there are no conflicts with normal weekday traffic.
Bartoldus' rebuttal that the streets near the Event Center are adequate for traffic misses the point that significant traffic bottlenecks are at intersections of these streets and at access points of these streets to Highway 101.
Bartoldus' point that not all events will be as large as the Seafood and Wine Festival leads to the question of what then is the purpose of the Event Center, if it is not for large events? Small events could be hosted by local hotels and motels, which are not in tsunami inundation zones and have sidewalks, better traffic access than the Event Center, and housing. Convention centers typically have an associated hotel/motel for the convenience of their patrons, but the Newport Event Center won't even have a sidewalk to the nearest hotel/motel.
Ignoring traffic concerns created by the Event Center will not make them go away.
REFERENCES
American Geological Institute. 2005. Summary of hearings on Tsunami Response and Warning System. American Geological Institute, Government Affairs Program. This is at http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis109/tsunami_hearings.html
Anonymous. 2001a. Quake disrupts tsunami conference. In March 3 Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2001/03/03/general/news.txt
Anonymous. 2001b. Elements identified for quake, tsunami response in Newport. In June 6 Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2001/06/06/general/news-21.txt
Anonymous. 2001c. Local bridge top priority for seismic repairs. In June 22 Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2001/06/22/general/news-01.txt
Anonymous. 2002a. Presentation made for proposed Events Center. In January 4 Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2002/01/04/general/news-10.txt
Anonymous. 2002b. Seafood & wine attendance up. Feb. 27 article in Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2002/02/27/general/news-06.txt
Anonymous. 2003a. Offshore quake could spawn several tidal waves. April 9 newspaper article in Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2003/04/09/general/news-01.txt
Anonymous. 2003b. Tsunami coming: what's a boat owner to do? April 16 newspaper article in Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2003/04/16/general/news-24.txt
Anonymous. 2003c. Seafood and wine festival plans in full swing. Jan. 17 article in Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2003/01/17/community/community-02.txt
Anonymous. 2004. Newport Seafood and Wine fest begins Friday. Feb. 25 article in Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2004/02/25/general/news-02.txt
Card, S. 2004. Convention center clears conditional use hurdle. P. A1 and A2 of Oct. 29 Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/news02.txt
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2000. Coastal construction manual, FEMA 55. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (See contents at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/hazards/nhp_fema55.pdf or http://www.fema.gov/hazards/floods/lib55.shtm; free paper or CD-ROM copies of this are still available as of November 2004 by calling 1-800-480-2520.)
Gallob, J. 2004a. County discusses quake, tsunami preparedness and response capabilities. July 16 newspaper article in Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2004/07/16/news/news04.txt
Gallob, J. 2004b. Port debates Events Center merits and detractions. P. A1 & A7 in September 24 Newport News-Times. His article with a different title is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2004/09/24/news/news03.txt
Gallob, J. 2004c. Master Plan favored for South Beach by Newport City Manager. P. A5 in October 6 Newport News-Times. His article with a different title is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2004/10/06/news/news17.txt
Gallob, J. 2004d. Port to help coordinate South Beach plan. P. A3 in December 31 Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2004/12/31/news/news08.txt
Gallob, J. 2005. Hooley gathers ideas for federal tsunami response. P. A2 in January 19 Newport News-Times. This is at http://www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2005/01/19/news/news09.txt
Haney, W. 2004. Minutes: City of Newport Planning Commission Regular Session, Monday, October 25, 2004. Newport Community Development (Planning) Department, W. Haney, Administrative Secretary. Copy available from Community Development Department, Newport City Hall, 169 SW Coast HWY, Newport, OR 97365.
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). The maps and explanatory text for the maps are at http://nwdata.geol.pdx.edu/DOGAMI/IMS-10. This 1999 report is also 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
National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP). 2001a. Designing for tsunamis: seven principles for planning and designing for tsunami hazards. National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Science Foundation, State of Alaska, State of California, State of Hawaii, State of Oregon, and State of Washington.) This is at http://www.prh.noaa.gov/itic/library/pubs/online_docs/Designing_for_Tsunamis.pdf and "[Tsunami] Preparedness" (http://www.prh.noaa.gov/itic/library/pubs/preparedness/preparedness.html) by International Tsunami Information Center, National Weather Service, NOAA.
National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP). 2001b. Designing for tsunamis: background papers. National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Science Foundation, State of Alaska, State of California, State of Hawaii, State of Oregon, and State of Washington.) This is at Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Tsunami Information, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/tsunami/tsunami.html with individual chapters at
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami-hazard/BackgroundPapersintrochpts1-2.pdf (Chapters 1 and 2),
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami-hazard/BackgroundPaperschpt3.pdf (Chap. 3: Land-use Planning),
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami-hazard/BackgroundPaperschpts4-5.pdf (Chap. 4: Site Planning; Chap. 5: Building Design),
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami-hazard/BackgroundPaperschpts6-7appendix.pdf (Chap. 6: Infrastructure and Critical Facilities; Chap. 7: Vertical Evacuation).
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 632, Division 5: tsunami inundation zone (responsibilities of the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries). This is at http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_632/632_005.html
Oregon's Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group (OCNHPWG). 1994. Improving natural hazards management on the Oregon Coast. Recommendations of the Coastal Natural Hazards Policy Working Group. Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University, ORESU-T-94-002. This is at Oregon Sea Grant's web site: http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/onlinepubs/t94002.html
Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development. 2002. Oregon's statewide planning goals and guidelines. Goal 7: areas subject to natural hazards. Effective June 1, 2002. This is at http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goal7.pdf
Oregon Legislature. 2005. House Joint Memorial 10. 73rd Oregon Legislative Assembly--2005 Regular Session. A summary is at http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/hjm1.dir/hjm0010.intro.html.
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 455: building codes. This is at http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/455.html and http://www.orednet.org/~rbayer/lincoln/ec-newport.htm#ap-d
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 457: urban renewal. This is at http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/457.html
Priest, G. R. 1995a. Tsunami hazard map of the Newport North Quadrangle, Lincoln County, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) Open File Report O-95-28. This is at http://sarvis.dogami.state.or.us/earthquakes/Coastal/Tsumapsbycity.HTM; the DOGAMI press release describing these maps and the source information is at http://sarvis.dogami.state.or.us/news&events/archives/9611-rel.htm.
Priest, G. R. 1995b. Tsunami hazard map of the Newport South Quadrangle, Lincoln County, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) Open File Report O-95-29. This is at http://sarvis.dogami.state.or.us/earthquakes/Coastal/Tsumapsbycity.HTM; the DOGAMI press release describing these maps and the source information is at http://sarvis.dogami.state.or.us/news&events/archives/9611-rel.htm.
Roddey, J. 2004. DOGAMI News Release for immediate release: could a large tsunami strike the Oregon Coast? December 29. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. This is at http://sarvis.dogami.state.or.us/news%26events/TsunamiPR.pdf
State of Oregon. 2002. Tsunami chapter. P. T1-T19 in Part III of State of Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Emergency Management Plan. This is at http://csc.uoregon.edu/pdr_website/projects/state/snhmp_web/part-3/part3_fullpage.htm
U. S. Senate. 2005. The Tsunami Preparedness Act (S. 50), as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee on March 10, 2005. U. S. Senate. This is at http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/markup-s50-tsunamisummary.pdf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .