The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 08/21/1989 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on RDGULAR MEETING AGENDA an agenda item should sign on the STUDY/BUSINESS AGENDA appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet AUGUST 21, 1989 - 6:30 P.M. is available, ask to be recognized by the TIGARD CIVIC CENTER Chair at the beginning of that agenda 13125 SW HALL BLVD. item. Visitor's agenda items are asked to TIGARD, OREGON 97223 be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by con- tacting either the Mayor or the City kh inistrator. 6:30 1. STUDY AGENDA: 1.1 Wasteshed Yard Debris Information/Discussion o C,c¢mnmity Development Staff 1.2 Council Reports (Update on Boards & CM ittees) o Mayor Edwards o Councilor Eadon o Councilor Johnson o Councilor Kasten o Councilor Schwartz 7:30 2. BUSINESS MEETING: 2.1 Call to Order and Roll Call 2.2 Pledge of Allegiance 2.3 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 4. C~JTII~I[FiTION OF PUBLIC Ti13lRING~ - COMP ta=SIVE PLAN AMU1 NT CPA 89-06 ' ASH AVENUE, BURNHAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT; NPO #1 A reccmmYendation by the Planning Ccumnission to amend the Transportation Ccaprehensive Plan Map. Mie Ash Avenue connection to be modified to indicate a connection from the intersection of SW Walnut and Pacific Highway to Scoffins. An option shall be preserved to connect Ash/Hill to the Ac,h Street extension with a "T" intersection. The alignment of SW Burnham will be modified to intersect SW Main street apposite SW Tigard. The realignment of SW Burnham will intersect the existing Burnham right-of-way at a point south of 9185 SW Burnham. Tile realigned portion will replace the existing portion of Pram as the minor collects route. 10CATION: ASH AVENUE M!ENSIC N - between SW Pacific Highway at Walnut and SW Sooffins. (W M 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2AC, 2S1 2CA, 2S1 2DB, 2S1 2AD, & 2S1 2AA) BURMAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT - between SW Main Street at Tigard and the existing right-of-way of-SW Burnham Street at a point south of 9185 SW Burnham (MM 2S1 2AB & 2S1 2AD). o Public Hearing Continued from July 10, 1989 o Staff Report: Coamrnmity Development o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross-Examination o Recommendation by Cmmnmity Development Staff o Council Questions or Cmuents o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 89- COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 21, 1989 - PAGE 1 (Recess, Council Meeting) 5. IIJCAL ODNIRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING 5.1 Call Local Contract Review Board Meeting to Order/Roll Call 5.2 Consider Bid Award: Pfaffle Street Improvements 5.3 Adjourn local contract Review Board Meeting (Reconvene Council Meeting) 6. NON AGENDA ITEMS 7. EECUI'IVE SESSION: Zhe Tigard City Council will go into Executive session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. 8. AQ70U1*TENr cca821 i COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 21, 1989 - PAGE 2 j TICS C= C OUNCLL AC'3NIDA UEDKEE AAUP 21, 1989 1. STUDY AGENDA: 1.1 Wasteshed Yard Debris Information/Discussion o C mmvnity Developarnnt Staff Cloutmi.l reviewed material with B311 Mbrtin, Ftecycluzj Coordinator far Washington County. Ilesolutian zWort'ing Pact rx Plan will be placed an 8/28 Agenda for Council ideration. 1.2 Council Reports (Update on Boards & Committees) None. 2. BUSINESS NEE'TTNG: 2.1 Call to Order and Roll Call - Ka absent 3. VISITOR'S AGED : Brenda Macleod, Qoalition for ibl,e Prison Siting - Nat er al s were submitted to mil. Ms. MarT~ ad asked Council to review materials. Her iZatitai is apposing two Ubslingtan County prison sites identified; noted cities of North Plains, Cornelius, Hill Gym, and the Washington County Board of Corm ss; c !r^~ also apposed. Asked and was granted apoortzmity to appear before Council an 8/28 to answer questions and call for mil resolution. Noted state will be narrowi*g list to five fiT al ist s on 9/1. 4. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-06 ASH AVENUE, B[UU* M/TIGARD REALIGNMENT; NPO #1 A recamnendation by the Planning Cmmnission to amend the Transportation Comprehensive Plan Map. The Ash Avenue connection to be modified to indicate a connection from the intersection of SW Walnut and Pacific Highway to Scoffins. An option shall be preserved to connect Ash/Hill to the Ash Street extension with a "T" intersection. The alignment of SW Burnham will be modified to intersect SW Main Street opposite SW Tigard. The realigrmw& of SW Burnham will intersect the existing Burnham right-of-limy at a point south of 9185 SW Burnham. The realigned portion will replace the existing portion of Burnham as the minor collector route. IACATION`T: ASH AVENUE EX'T'ENSION - between SW Pacific Highway at Walnut and SW Scoffins. (WCH4 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2AC, 2S1 2CA, 2S1 2DB, 2S1 2AD, & 2S1 2AA). BLkd*M/TTGAM REALIGNMENT - between SW Main Street at Tigard and the existing right-of-way of SW Burnham Street at a point south of 9185 SW Burnham (WCIIK 2S1 2AB & 2S1 2AD). o Public Hearing Continued from July 10, 1989 o Consideration by Council: Jo/Ed - UR; Motion to uphold Planning Commission t directing staff to prepare a Final Order for the adoption of the Co~dae~sive Plan Anwxl -s creating the concept of the GIOmut to ' Ash cmx=tian and eventually an through to Hall St. to Buzmiker; and the igardd//Burrimm real; g I ; simltanemsly direct staff to submit with the Final. Order the cost and time estimates far F l iminaTy to determine a x:t details of both of the desl changes. C_ L (Recess Council Meeting) 5. MCAL CUTHLAGT REVIEW BOARD NE;E77NG (LM2B) 5.1 Call LCRB Meeting to Order/Roll Call - Ka absent 5.2 Consider Bid Award: Pfaff le Street Drove meets Sr,/Jo iii; Approyed bid award to lour bic~c3er, ariegon Aspbaltic Paving in the ammint of $236,570. 5.3 Adjourn Local Contract Review Board Meeting (Reconvene Council Meeting) 6. NON-AGENDA ITEM: None STUME S CX11KER Efl: a. Ctowznity Dewla% I Direatae reviewed recent decision by Plazming Conn ssicn affe&UM street olicy. Clarificaticn of polircy to be per g red.,a-j-L.-e -z~ do b. It Eacbn:ed Housing Issm - Cam ity Develc zxmt Dix ecstaw reported on Director's Decision concerning a mobile home on single family lot of record; if appealed, this ;gyp vM be heard by Planl ng aonnissim. 7. E}aXINIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. Q rx aUe 8. ADJOURHMMU: 10:28 p.m. cca821 C L~ 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MMUDG MIWM - AAUP 21, 1989 1. ROLL CUL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Pat Reilly, City Administrator; Ken Elliott, Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Senior Planner; Catherine Wheatley, Deputy Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer._ 2. STUDY SESSICN: a. Wasteshed Yard Debris Information/Discussion Community Development Director introduced Mr. Bill Martin, Recycling Coordinator for Washington County. Mr. Martin reviewed the Yard Debris Recycling Plan developed by representatives of nine cities and Washington county in response to a State requirement that a cost-effective yard debris program be devised and iMlemented. The objective of the program was to assure residents of the Washington County Wasteshed that they would have access to yard debris recycling services. The material submitted to Council was reviewed by Mr. Martin. It was noted the City would need to negotiate rates with franchise haulers. The recycling program will be financed through fees charged to the users of the program, or generally to all garbage collection rate payers. The Department of Rwirormenta1 Quality has been supportive of efforts to date. There was discussion on the number and location of the yard debris depots available within the Tigard area. Five depots were identified; urban area users would be within four miles of a depot. Mr. Martin advised the number of depots does not meet the requirements (there should be 11 depots); however, hours of operation at the depots have been expanded. He noted that northern Tigard and Garden Hoare would only have one-day service within a four mile radius. Mr. Martin advised that an education program, teaching people how to use the system, would be needed. He reviewed the Mmcu'tive &mmiary submitted to Council for their study- Council Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 1 E°T Mr. Martin advised that NE 7M was also developing their program. Councilor Johnson questioned whether once the County had their program in place if MEIRO's program would affect the cities within the County. Mr. Martin said the County has made it clear they are doing their yard debris program independently from MEW. 1 (Councilor Schwartz arrived at 6:54 p.m.) Discussion followed on the fact that this issue came about because DEQ mandated programs for yard debris recycling be implemented. Zhe program under review represented a cooperative effort between the Washington County and the cities therein. A resolution would be presented to Council on the August 28 agenda which would authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement to implement yard debris recycling with Washington County. This agreement would be submitted to the nine cities involved. Mr. Martin left the meeting at 7:01 p.m. ,t b. Agenda Review: Cm muni.ty Develcpnent staff reviewed meeting material submitted to Council for the public hearing on the Coauprehensive Plan Amerrbmrts for the Ash Avenue Extension and the Tigard/Burnham realignment (Agenda Item No. 4). Senior Planner Newton advised she had had contact with residents frcan the O'Mara area who wanted the Ash C connection to go through. Council and staff briefly reviewed the Staff Report submitted in the Council packet. Mayor outlined public hearing procedure noting he would request testimony be limited to 10 minutes per speaker.= Business Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. 3. VIg3!='S AGENM t a. Brenda MacLeod, Coalition for Responsible Prison Siting, advised ' that materials had been submitted to Council just prior to the business meeting. She noted her organization was opposing the two Washington County prison sites identified. She noted the cities of H North Plains, Cornelius, Hillsboro, and the Washington County Board of Coa=ssioners also apposed these sites. The State will be narrowing the list to five finalists on September 1. Council will review, the materials submitted and the issue will be disc~.ssed further at the August 28, 1989, Council meeting. Council Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 2 i 4. C~fl7I1~TIQi OF PUBLIC EMAIUM - COMPMOBENSIVE PIAN AMHKIONP CPA 89-06 ASH AVENUE, LWTMM ; NFO 11 A reocemmerx3ation by the Planning Ccamnission to amend the Transportation Comprehensive Plan Map. The Ash Avenue connection to be modified to indicate a connection from the lion of SW Walnut and Pacific Highway to Scoffins. An option shall be preserved to connect Ash/Hill to the Ash Street extension with a "T" intersection. The alignment of SW Burnham will be modified to intersect SW Main Street opposite SW Tigard. The realignment of SW Burnham will intersect the existing Burnham right-of-way at a point south of 9185 SW Burnham. The realigned portion will replace the existing portion of Burnham as the minor collector route. IDCATTON: ASH AVENUE EnMNSION - between SW Pacific Highway at Walnut and SW Scoffins. (WC1[M 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2AC, 2S1 2CA, 2S1 2DB, 2S1 2AD, & 2S1 2AI BUIUM/TIGARD REALSCN3RT - between SW Main Street at Tigard and the existing right-of-way of SW Burnham Street at a point south of 9185 SW Burnham (WC114 2S1 2AB & 2S1 2AD). a. Public Hearing Continued from July 10, 1989 t. b. Staff review by Senior Planner Newton: She referred to maps on t display which illustrated the proposed street realignments. She described the three facets of the proposal which were the result of transportation planning in the 2-1/2 year process of studying the redevelopment of the City Center. These streets, as proposed, would provide more access points into the city center area without using Pacific Highway or Main Street which were already experiencing capacity difficulty. The new proposals would help to prolong the life of Pacific Highway and help the City establish more of a grid-design traffic system. On August 2, 1989, a joint NPO #1/Neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the Ash Avenue portion of the proposal; and on August 7, 1989, a meeting was held with several persons concerning the Burnham/Tigard realignment. (See August 14, 1989, memorandum from ; Etvard J. Mn:phy to Mayor and Council filed in the Council packet !C which outlines the discussion at these meetings.) Residents in the Ash Avenue area were concerned about problems created by increased traffic. Business owners in the vicinity of the Burnham/Tigard area were concerned about the cloud on the marketability of their property. Senior Planner Newton noted staff was concerned with moving through this process so ideas could progress from the conceptual to the more specific. Questions raised in the meetings bn:cught up other issues which included determining the alignments before amending the maps; reviewing other options besides the three being considered; and leaving the map as is. Out of those options, several sub--options were devised. Council Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 3 The Planning Cmuission reooamnended that the Walnut to H=iker connection be shown as an amendment to the transportation map. On the residential portion of Ash, Planning Commission recoarnmwxled that it not be rewired, but left opened as an option through language included on the Transportation Map. Staff recmxm ded that the Walnut/Hunziker corridor be added to the map and the City proceed as soon as possible with more specific alignment details because of the issue raised over the clouded marketability of property. On the Ash Avenue neighborhood segment, staff reconvmryded to deemphasize that portion and not add the language to the map; this would allow flexibility in addressing development in this area in the future. Staff rnded, for the Burnham/Tigard connection, that the map be amended to show this alignment. C. Public Testimony Proponents o Gary Ott, 9055 S.W. Edge~.Tood, Tigard, Oregon, advised he was a member of NPO #1 representing a minority position. Mr. Ott reviewed the history of the Ash Avenue extension and developtment of the current Comprehensive Plan. He said he believed the proposal modified the route in the Ash Avenue area to the benefit of Tigard by providing access to the downtown area. The proposal would also relieve the pressure on McDonald, O'Mara, and Frewing Streets. The plan was consistent with previous programs and serves the entire NPO planning area. He advised he supported the proposal which would benefit the transportation needs of the entire area. Mr. Ott advised he was concerned with continued growth in the area without addressing transportation issues. He said the Ash Avenue residents needed to share the transportation burden, noting they probably were using the residential streets of O'Mara, McDonald and Frewing. Ile said he could understand the local desire to be on a dead end street, but other areas should not have to carry a larger share of the traffic burden because of this desire. Ash Avenue was now designated as a minor collector and should be part of the circulation pattern. He again urged Council to approve the proposed CPA. Ooporm~ts o Mr. Dan Gott, chanmen of NPO #1, testified the NPO had been reviewing this for some time. On August 2nd, the NPO and City staff held a neighborhood information meeting. (Mr. Gott's testimony to Council was submitted in written form and is filed with the meeting material.) In summary, NPO #1 thinks Council Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 4 the current proposal, should be rejected. A more suitable solution would be a further extension of Main Street's west end to serve undeveloped, vacant land. Such a plan could better utilize the existing Johnson-Pacific Highway stop light, and open up the dowrx*m area without affecting as many people's property and lifestyle. Councilor Johnson asked if the current members of the NPO understand that the traffic eouponent of the Ccaprehensive Plan now calls for the Ash street extension to go straight and over Fanno Creek? Mr. Gott, responded, yes, and that it had been this way for 15 years. o Chuck Woodard, 12490 S.W. Main Street (business), 10215 S.W. Walnut (residence), Tigard, Oregon presented an alternative proposal to council for the Burnham/Tigard street realignment. He distributed maps for Council review. Mr. Woodard noted he " was interested in preserving historic buildings. His proposal included suggestions for stoplights at the railroad intersection and alignment of the street so that it would travel behind the civic center, through the parking lot onto Hall Boulevard. He described a low profile parking area which could be developed at the civic center. He advised that 30 years ago, the County proposed a road extending Walnut Avenue through to Johnson Street. He reviewed a second map -rhich outlined a route which would allow a travel route frcen Murray Road to Hunziker Street. Mr. Woodard noted concern about a lack of opportunity for citizens to suggest changes which were given serious consideration. o Robert Bell, Bill Webber, and Frances Meyer, members of the Tigard United Methodist Church Board of Trustees testified: Mr. Bell advised the Methodist Church had been in its present location for approximately 35 years. This was a growing x church in a growing corn uiity; present membership was approximately 500. Attendance in 1989 was 10% over 1988. Approximately 125 parking spaces were needed to adequately serve their congregation; at this time they have about 100 spaces and were looking to expand their parking area. The connection of Walnut to Ash would, in all likelihood, eliminate a substantial portion of their parking lot. Mr. Bell advised the parking lot was the lifeblood of the functioning of their church. Without adequate parking, they would lose membership. Zile church facility was quite large and a substantial sum of money was needed just to meet ongoing operating expenses; thus, a significant church membership was com-p-il Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 5 required to be able to maintain those ongoing expenses. If they caruiot maintain their mmdm-ship, because of the loss of the parking lot, then sooner or later the Methodist Church would cease to exist. Even the approval of a plan for a connection without any designated alignment would basically put the Church on hold. They were presently in the planning stages for a major improvement to their church. Zile Church was not only a valuable resource to the congregation, but also to the Tigard ccmamity as a whole. Many non-profit civic organizations use the facility. Mr. Bell referred to NPO #11s statement regarding the Walnut/Ash connection: "The City should demonstrate a vital need for such a roadway before imposing any street plan upon the owners and businesses, and search hard for possible alternatives." He said he very much agreed with this statement. There was not, on balance, such a vital need for the city of Tigard. If the church was lost Uy putting in this connection, what would the City gain? At the neighborhood meeting on August 2, the City staff presented a map which showed traffic volumes projected 15 years into the future, assunuu g a Walnut/Ash connection were built. The map showed that, at peak afternoon hours, traffic on Walnut near the intersection with Pacific Highway would be 300 cars per hour; at peak morning hours, traffic would be 200 cars per hour. Mr. Bell advised this was slightly more than three cars per minute - he paused to demonstrate, by timing with his watch, how few this would be. Bill Webber was concerned with longer-range capital improvements to the church. They have had under consideration, in a preliminary manner, how the church could be modified significantly for better use. They would be reluctant to conduct the capital-fund campaign or pay an architect until they know where they will stand in this situation. At present they do not know if the City will take any of their property, a great deal of property, or buy the church from them. Also they do not know if, at some time in the future, the road would be expanded to aceoamodate increased traffic. He said he advocated Coil choosing Mr. Woodard's alignment which was presented. Frances Meyer said the Methodist Church has become a commuLity center. In addition to their own congregation she listed numerous groups which utilized the facility. Also, in October, the church will be the shelter housing for homeless people under the auspices of Neighborshare. She urged the Council to not approve the proposed CPA. C Council Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 6 Councilor Johnson discussed with the church representatives the amount of available vacant land the church could utilize for expansion. Land was limited because of adjacent wetland area. Mr. Webber said they would not want to use parking spaces across the street or on-street parking spaces. Mayor Edwards noted the growth which has occurred around the church. He asked if the church, with all of the activities and expansion of usage, had ever given consideration to relocating to a more accessible location which would also have expansion possibilities. Mr. Webby responded they have been at this location since the mid-501s; the problem would be to find a suitable location. They were further constrained because there were Methodist churches in Tualatin, Sherwood, Newberg, Metzger, Garden Home; so there were not too many places suitable for relocation. Other alternatives might be to expand to two services instead of one. Councilor Johnson thanked the representatives for the cmmmunity service provided by their facility. o Gloria Johnson, 9300 S.W. Hill Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223, read her testimony from her August 21, 1989 letter to Mayor and Council. (Letter is filed with Council packet material.) She noted she felt the proposed CPA would negatively inpact the neighborhood by encouraging increased traffic. o Ken Allison, 11830 S.W. Wildwxood, Tigard, Oregon, advised he owned the Pacific Village Apartments at 9655 S.W. McKenzie. These apartments appeared to him to be in the way of the connection of Walnut and Ash Street. He said he agreed with the church representatives and an alternative alignment should be considered. He advised he attended the NPO meeting and also agreed with the testimony of the NPO Chair. He noted he attended the first Council meeting where he dial not hear one person in favor of the proposal. He questioned whether people in Tigard were ready to spend the wwunt of money necessary to implement the proposal. o Gregg Davidson - declined to testify. o Jeff Graham, 13290 S.W. Ash Drive, Tigard, Oregon, noted the following points: Council directed, at the last public hearing, that a staff /neighborhood meeting be held. He noted, as a general observation, these types of meetings often turn into an adversarial format with two sides presenting their positions. He said he felt that ideas, like those from Chuck Woodard were not being heard; although he said his remarks should be C Council Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 7 tempered somewhat after listening to Senior Planner Newton's ccuments earlier. Y He noted he took offense to Mr. Ott's ccmmoents that residents on Ash Avenue did not care what happened to those residents on awing, O'Mara, and McDonald. He advised that this was not the case. Mr. Graham commented on the process. In response to a question from Mr. Graham, Senior Planner Newton explained the alignments which would evolve as part of the urban renewal process. The two proposed CPA's were contained in the Development Plan in general language. Mr. Graham asked what were the ramifications if the Development Plan and wive Plan were contradictory? R Councilor Johnson noted one or the other had to be changed; the projects could not be implemented if they were not contained in the Comprehensive Plan. These street alignments were proposed in the City Center Development Plan and were in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. This was what triggered the Comprehensive Plan public hearing so it could be detexmined whether these changes should be made. j Senior Planner Newton advised the projects were not considered in direct conflict with the ccuprehensive Plan. Streets were added all of the time to the Transportation Plan when it was decided they were needed. Mr. Graham said he thought the timing may be wrong on this issue. He noted concerns on what would happen to those affected property owners if the tax increment financing issue failed at the election. The projects would not be eoanpleted because of financing, yet the CPA would be shown on the map. Councilor Johnson noted street improvements were identified on the Comprehensive Plan which do not have funding sources. Future street improvements were shown on the Transportation Map to preserve the corridor. Mr. Graham said he understood this, but whenever a future alignment is shown on the map, then someone's party becomes encumbered; he said the City has a moral responsibility to those property owners. o Wayne Kittlesen, Professional Traffic Engineer, Kittleson & Associates, 5152 S.W. Broadway, Portland Oregon 97205 noted his firm assisted the city when they reviewed the traffic circulation in downtown Tigard. He also noted he resided at 9075 S.W. Pinebrook, Tigard, Oregon, and has been a resident for-about 10 years. He said he was not present at the request of the City. He advised that he wanted to impart some of the ~ background and technical bases which would explain how the proposed circulation system evolved. Council Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 8 He noted that several years ago a shopping center was proposed for the area at Pacific Highway and Main Street; the plans called for the extension of Ash Street in accordance with the existing Olive Plan. At that time, it was decided this would not be a good idea. Mr. Kittelson reviewed overhead projector slides which outlined what existing conditions were, what future projected needs were, and a view of the roa! system from a regional perspective. By the year 2005, traffic volume in the downtown area would triple. Additional entry portals m st be provided to handle the volume. The following criteria was established: - At least one more railroad crossing should be developed. The railroad was currently serving as a barrier to traffic moving through the downtown area. Unless there was another crossing of the railroad, all of the traffic would remain focused on 99W and Main Street. Main Street does not have the capacity to handle the traffic. - There was a need to create new entry portals into the downtown area. - Increasing the capacity of Main Street at either terminus should be avoided, because it would create a bottleneck inside the City. Main Street would not have the capacity to handle increased traffic even if it was pushed through the portals. Mr Kittelson advised the Plan represented a system-wide concept which begins to address the distribution patterns which have been experienced and were projected to continue in the fixture. The idea of the Plan was not to reroute regional traffic through the downtown area, but to provide locally destined traffic with an alternative to the regional routes in order to get downtown. With regard to the Ash street connection: 1) The proposed roadway alignment and the operating characteristics of the Walnut to Hunziker extension would not encourage through-traffic use. 2) The proposed roadway design directs traffic away from the residential portion of Ash Street. Council Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 9 3) Numerous alternatives would be available to protect the residential area from additional through traffic. in response to a question from Councilor Schwartz with regard to Mr. Woodard's suggestion for a Jodznson Street alignment, Mr. Kittelson identified the following problems: - This would create a five-legged intersection which presents safety concerns and reduces capacity. - This would eliminate an entry portal to the downtown area (a primary objective). - This would move capacity problems to the interior of the city. d. Reccernmendation by Cmm unity Development Director: He reviewed the necessity for the improvements to assist in the creation of a viable downtown. The City Center Plan Task Force had reviewed the transportation issues extensively with a professional consultant and made this recommendation originally. Community Development Director re=mmnded the Council Uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. In addition, he suggested an analysis be authorized by Council which would determine the exact location of the road alignments. e. Mayor read the following written testimony into the record: - August 16, 1989, letter from Catherine King, 13205 S.W. Ash Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. (Letter is on file with the meeting packet material.) - July 26, 1989, letter from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Steinborn, 9560 S.W. Fl-Wing Court, Tigard, Oregon. (Letter is on file with the meeting packet material.) f. Public Hearing was closed. g. Council c=wnts - Each Council membex noted the need for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the benefit of the community as a whole. Council acknowledged the concerns of business and property owners who would potentially be affected. The need to protect the right-of-way for the future was discussed. Mayor expressed concerns over timing. After lengthy discussion, council consensus was that a detailed design specification should be developed as soon as possible so people in the area would know if, or how, their property would be affected. f Council Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 10 h. Motion by Councilor Jduson, seconded by Mayor Edwards, to uphold E the Planning C =MIW on reccemw1daticn directing staff to prepare a Final Order for the adoption of the C rehensive plan Amendments creating the concept of the Walnut to Ash connection and eventually on through to Hall Street to Hunziker; and the Tigard/Burnham ~ realignment. It was further directed that staff simultarLSly submit with the Final Order, the cost and time estimates for preliminary engineering to determine exact details of both design changes. I The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. Recess Council Meeting Convene Local Contract Review Board 5. WM CONTRACT RWnff BOARD WREM (ICRB) a. Present: President Jerry Edwards; Board Members Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Jdmison, and Jahn Schwartz. b. Bid Award Recommendation for Pffafle street Improvements project- City Engineer noted staff was recce mexrb g bid award to Oregon Asphaltic Paving, Portland, in the amount of $136,570. He advised this amount was within the budget and engineer's estimate. C. Motion by Board member Schwartz, seconded by Board member Johnson, to award the bid to the low bidder, Oregon Asphaltic paving, amount of $136,570 in the The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board present. d. LCRB meeting was adjourned. Council meeting reconvened. 6. NW-AG@IDA Ili: None 7. STUDII SESSICM 17EMS (continued) : a. CCity Develcpnent Director reviewed a recent decision made by the Planning Cotanission which could have the potential of affecting the overall =street improvement policy. (See August 21, 1989, meoorandum from Cmm mity Development Director which has been filed with the Council packet material.) After discussion, Council consensus was that the Planning Coannisslon should be sent a letter outlining their role in deciding on deferments on street imp~rnrettrents. Council Minutes August 21, 1989 - Page 11 b. Ccmwnity Development Director updated Council on an issue dealing with the placement of a mobile home on a single-family lot of record. He reviewed the criteria which must be met. If the Director's Decision was appealed on this issue, the issue would be heard by the Planning Cmmission unless called-W by the Council. 8. E swsmci: Cancelled. 9. : 10:28 p.m. r AppRo BD by the Tigard city council on (/Gty 22 , 1989. ' ~i. t i t: City Recorder - City of Tigard Mayor - City-ee Tigard cw. cc m821 T s f, J S E~ {([Fc l_ Council Minutes - August 21, 1989 - Page 12 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice 7-6336 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising A necell/eD • City of Tigard • 13 Tearsheet Notice UG 18 ~gd9 P. O. Box 23397 C'T/CF • Tigard, OR 97223 • Duplicate Affidavit r~' J AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss- I, Dortha Marty being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the City Council Meeting-- 8/21,189 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and consecutive in the following issues: C August 17, 1989 Subscribed and sworn o before me this 18th of August, 1989 V Notary Public for Oregon My Commissio Expires: 6 / 9 / 9 3 AFFIDAVIT 7f' „ j t5 t Y ~4* fo2lowm S~ 1 liceennc ;a }abashed for _ your u~f9„rmateon Further info nation &:40- thglrr be obtained from€im: , rlty Reco'r'der, 11.25 5.W Halt B~iiilevard ;Tigand~ Oregon 9722~~c'r by deli ''ing 639=171 CITY COL7NCII. REt ~iULAR 1111E66TII~TL1=~UU5Trl,fiI989 f r 6 30:PM•905esiibrf'~h7~311?M:Regular Meeunr ~ .~TIG~CR~ CIVIC sr'Z~N'I~R; TOWN' HAIL 13125;S:,'W 1U'= BfJULE'VARD~TTGARD, QREG() ~,a ~ ' 1n ~ .A M ~ y r h Aid s ~ ~d 5natt ~ub1 Hearn x` r b udtior[ C'PA 89-OC: Ash Avers C zi nh~g~rd;~eah~me~nt1V~~ t , ; ti 7s ✓ t of 0 Ex uhl tvo Si " S o a & ;4to d t,rela n 1 ~ ~ Z y~'F31s'~t ~i4' 1 { ~f.^' 1y. ii✓~E S ~ AGEillt3~T c~'° • iJISIT4R~'~ S yAGENQ A ' DA'i E' ' 8/21/89 ` t _ . please `'(Limited to'`"~2`minute"s~'br' Tess, ) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. i i STAFF CONTACTED NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC ~l s r 'Pro ~os~ ash n g Fo n vnj-4 ren d a AA ;;rL o,4 Pr iso ri i 5 Ka ~-h ~ J V iC - f C. DATE 8/21/89 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: .AGMA ITEM NO. 4 - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING --COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-06 1"ASH AVEN~U~E1 BURNHAM//TTpIGARD REALIGNMENT; NPO #1 ~p ellj A**** Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation / r' -:)o At PQ _ J oO ~Yd s ck~ C i v~~oY-ic..1 J o ns~ 17 c-.\-e Lp _ t 1< ~vh~ n P cw~ ~,sv> . V. Gl ~~i 5~~ ~I v33~ l \ fs 3 ~ ~31~ S \3~IS r. 4 CCtuc k S 4suo V,- _ i r MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator DATE: August 21, 1989 and Members of the City Council FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Street Improvement Policy on August 8th, the Planning Commission approved a 12 unit apartment complex on Durham Road (File No. SDR 89-08). The Planning Commission did not require one- half street improvements be constructed by the developer, as required in the original Director's Decision. Because of the policy implications of that decision, the City Council should be aware of the issue. OWSTION: Should the developer be allowed to defer half-street improvements on Durham Road by signing a waiver of remonstrance? PLANNING CO1WSSION FINDING: 6. Street Improvements Section 18.164.030 of the Community Development Code requires that half street improvements be provided in conjunction with development. However, -Subsection 18.164.030 A. 1. c. allows the acceptance of a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements if specified conditions exist. The Commission finds that in this case, part (vi) of this subsection applies because it appears that additional planning work would be beneficial in defining the design of the street and the small size of the proposed project will contribute an insignificant amount of traffic compared with the present and projected traffic volumes on Durham Road. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS 18.164.030 Streets A. Improvements: 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. a. Streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with this title; b. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an approved street plan shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with this code; and C. The Director may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist: (1) A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve property design standards; (ii) A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; (iii) Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity. (iv) The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; (v) The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or (vi) Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. Staff has the following comments: 1. The Planning Commission should not be the body to decide whether or not "additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards;" nor should they decide if an LID is the appropriate mechanism to use to improve a street. The Planning Commission should only be concerned with the requirements; not whether or not those requirements are deferred because-of design issues, or potential other funding mechanisms, including LID's or government capital improvement programs. 2. In this case, there are enough "non-remonstrances" on both sides of Durham Road to initiate an LID financed improvement. 3. The road improvement is one that could be accomplished by the County, if MSTIP II passes. (It should be noted that the City has not been requiring full improvements either through LID's or developer installed improvements on streets being improved through the street improvement program). Recommendation: The Planning commission decision should stand, i.e., the Council should not call it up. However, the Planning Commission should be sent a letter outlining their role in deciding on deferments to street improvements. The Council should discuss whether or not to initiate an LID after the election on MSTIP II. br/STIP.ksl CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 21, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: August 16, 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Yard Debris Re- PREVIOUS ACTION:none cycling worksho ft- PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: KIPOY ISSUE Should the City Council endorse the Washington County Wasteshed Yard Debris Recycling Plan? Or alternatively, should the City propose amendments to the Plan, or consider implementing the recycling requirements by other methods, including coming up with an individual plan. The Plan being proposed is intended to provide a cost effective yard debris program that will assure residents of the Washington County wasteshed that they will have access to yard debris recycling. This meeting is intended to be a workshop on the plan proposed by representatives from Washington County and the nine cities within Washington County affected by the requirement. The City's representative in this process was Cliff Scott, Field Operations Manager. INFORMATION SUMMARY The material attached (relevant pages from the Plan, plus two letters) gives an overview of the planning process and outlines the proposed program. Bill Martin, the recyling coordinator for Washington County, will be at the Council meeting to review the Plan with the City Council. (A copy of the full text of the Plan is available in Ed Murphy's office). Should the City Council wish to endorse the Plan, a Resolution to that effect will be placed on the Council's August 28th agenda. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Recommend changes to the proposed Plan. 2. Direct staff to start an individual planning process, separate from Washington County's planning process. 3. Endorse the Washington County Plan. FISCAL IMPACT Unknown at this time. The recycling program will be financed through fees charged to the users of the program, or generally to all garbage collection rate payers. The City will need to negotiate rates with its franchised haulers. SUGGESTED ACTION No action is recommended at this time. The workshop is intended for education and discussion only. C- summ.yar IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 3 In the Matter of Adopting ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER "Yard Debris Recycling in ) 4 the Wasteshed" ) NO. 5 It appearing to the Board that the opportunity to recycle 6 yard debris is required under ORS 459.165 and further clarified 7 under Division 60 of the Oregon Administrative Rules; and 8 It appearing to the Board that the County, in a cooperative 9 planning process with the cities of Beaverton, Cornelius, 10 E Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, Tigard, Tualatin and 11 1 Sherwood, also known as the Washington County Wasteshed, has 12 formulated a plan, now known as "Yard Debris Recycling in the 13 Washington County Wasteshed", to provide the opportunity to 14 recycle yard debris to the unincorporated portion of the County 15 inside the Urban Growth Boundary; and 16 It appearing to the Board that said planning was in 17 accordance with the Metropolitan Service District's "Regional 18 Solid Waste Management Plan" collection policy (6.0) that states 19 20 that local governments shall be responsible for assuring that collection of recyclables is conducted in a cost efficient and 21 reliable manner; and 22 It appearing to the Board that the Solid Waste Advisory 23 Committee reviewed the plan on August 16, 1989, and has 24 25 recommended that said plan be approved; and C 26 1 CC:BB/0267c/8/2/89 Page C It appearing to the Board that this matter is before the 1 Board for approval, and having reviewed the record from the 2 Solid Waste Advisory Committee and having afforded the 3 opportunity for argument from interested parties, and the Board 4 being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby 5 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that, in accordance with the 6 recommendation of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, "Yard 7 Debris Recycling in the Washington County Wasteshed," attached 8 as Exhibit "A" and on file with the Clerk of the Board is 9 adopted; and it is further 10 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Board authorize the Chairman 11 to sign for the County a cover sheet for attachment to the plan, 12 as set forth in Exhibit "B" designating the County as a party to 3 the approved plan; and it is further 14 ` RESOLVED AND ORDERED that department staff present said 15 16 approved plan to the State Department of Environmental Quality 17 for State approval. 18 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 19 FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 20 21 22 CHAIRMAN 23 24 RECORDING SECRETARY 25 '.6 2 CC:BB/0267c/8/2/89 Page AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT YARD DEBRIS RECYCLING As members of the Washington County Wasteshed, and required under Oregon Statue to provide the opportunity to recycle yard debris to residents within the wasteshed, the local jurisdictions of Washington County and cities of Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood have, in a cooperative effort, produced the following plan. Each signed signature below represents a separate resolution or order duly approved and on file by the appropriate jurisdiction, adopting this plan. Chairman-Board of Commissioners Mayor - City of Hillsboro Mayor - City of Beaverton Mayor - City of King City Mayor - City of Cornelius Mayor - City of Tigard Mayor - City of Durham Mayor - City of Tualatin I i { Mayor - City of Forest Grove Mayor - City of Sherwood 1 ULt'JiIJ c CC:BB/0268c/8/2/89 ` i I f. I WASHINGTON f' COUNTY, August 7, 1989 ' OREGON } ~ -S, 1. lM1~ To: Washington Co my Wasteshed Planning Committee r From: Bill Marti F. F Subject: Yard Debris Recycling k r Enclosed is the final draft copy of the "Yard Debris Recycling in the Washington County Wasteshed" report and the executive summary. Also enclosed for your information is the letter to DEQ stating that a 2 week time limit for the approval process is to brief and that the Committee has been informed that Sept. 15, 1989 will be the final deadline for submittal. I have provided additionally, a draft copy of the signature insert for each jurisdiction that will be placed into the final printed copy of the plan. There is one master, so I will have to obtain each mayor's signature separately. Lastly, I have provided a copy of the Washington County Board of commissioners resolution order that has been approved by county counsel. You will have to edit this order as we are required to obtain approval from our Solid Waste Advisory Committee before Board action. I can be available for any requests for attendance at any City Council meeting or work session to help present the Committee's report. Call me at 649-8722 if you have such a request and I'll try to schedule to the best of my ability. Thanks for your assistance in putting this plan together. I look forward to working with each of you again in the future. A U G 7 1989 C Community DBmtoPment Department of Health 8 Human Services 265 Southeast Oak Street Hillsboro. Oregon 97123 Phone:503 / 648.8881 WASHINGTON COUNTY, July 28, 1989 OREGON .~4 David K. Rozell Waste Reduction Manager Hazardous and Solid Waste Division Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW Sixth Ave. Portland, Ore. 97204-1390 Dear Mr Rozell: I need to inform you of our current progress to final plan submittal of the Washington County Wasteshed Yard Debris Recycling Plan and to follow-up your letter of July 11, 1989. In conversations with Mr. William Bree, I have expressed concern over the time that is required for formal approval of the plan by the county and nine cities. After meeting with the cities on July 27, 1989, two of the jurisdictions are scheduled for plan approval in the first part of September; Washington County on Sept. 5, 1989 and the City of Forest Grove on Sept. 11, 1989. Therefore, the date of Sept. 15, 1989 will be needed in order that a fully signed plan may be submitted to the Department. The timeline that we will be pursuing is: August 7, 1989 - Final draft plan delivered to the cities. August 15, 1989- Final draft plan delivered to the Department. September 15, 1989 - Submittal of final approved plan to the Department. The county and cities involved understand that the final draft plan submitted for their review in August can not be substantially changed in its base goals in the interval of review and approval. The Planning Committee appreciates the Department's understanding of the time necessary to formally present the final plan to ten different jurisdictions for their approval. If you have any questions concerning this timeline for completion, please call me at 648-8722. Sin re y, ill artin Recycling Coordinator Department of Health & Human Services 265 Southeast Oak Street Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Phone:503 / 648-8881 YARD DEBRIS RECYCLING IN THE WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED August 1989 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY r Introduction: The Washington County Wasteshed consists of the unincorporated areas of Washington County and the Cities of Banks, Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Gaston, Hillsboro, King City, North Plains, Tigard, Tualatin, and Sherwood. This designation is set down in Division 60 of the Oregon Administrative Rules. The State of Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) on September 9, 1988 added yard debris to the list of principal recyclable materials for the Portland Metropolitan area. Effected jurisdictions were required to include a plan for yard debris recycling in the 1988 wasteshed report. The cities of Banks, Gaston, North Plains and portions of unincorporated Washington County, being outside the Urban Growth Boundary and under 4,000 population, are not required by the EQC to develop a plan to assure residents access to yard debris recycling. The Planning Process: The Department of Environmental Quality provides three alternatives to local jurisdictions for planning and implementing yard debris recycling. Local jurisdictions may plan individually, cooperatively with other jurisdictions or allow the Metropolitan Service District to plan for each under a regional plan. On January 5, 1989, representatives from the County and the 9 cities affected met and agreed to establish a cooperative planning process. Intergovernmental agreements were subsequently initiated to formalize this understanding. A 6-month time extension from the original February 15, 1989 deadline was approved by DEQ for plan development and submittal. The time allocated was used by the Washington County Wasteshed Planning Committee to research yard debris recycling alternatives and to recommend a specific program for adoption. Input was provided by two sub-committees made up of representatives of industry, government and the public pertaining to collecting, processing and marketing yard debris. The goal of this plan is to create a cost effective yard debris collection system to complement a regionally based processing and marketing system driven by market demand. This work coincided with the beginning of Metro's regional yard debris planning process. Effort was made to accommodate regional concerns for yard debris collection and disposition and to create a plan that will conform to future Metro yard debris plans. Historical data as well as current programs are evaluated to determine the most appropriate system for recommendation to all jurisdictions involved. Findings are examined within the context of specific goals and objectives determined by the committee. This information is then applied to the Washington County i v Wasteshed and particular recommendations are made for adoption. Section 1 of the plan contains the discussion and analysis of past and present programs for collection, processing and marketing. Programs in the metropolitan region are examined for cost and effectiveness in removing yard debris from the wastestream. Section 2 proposes a program for yard debris recycling in the Washington County Wasteshed and the expected results. The plan outlined addresses all 10 local jurisdictions as an integrated system for collection. Local options and concerns are i accommodated within this systematic approach. Section 3 offers supplemental information to the proposed plan. Included are printouts for each local jurisdictions concerning DEQ requirements. Computer models are also included that assume various scenarios and the effects that each may have on local jurisdictions. Plan Parameters: The plan will offer an integrated system for collection of yard debris in the Washington County Wasteshed. It should be noted that the plan outlined does not meet some detailed specifications as defined by DEQ in the rules. However, this plan meets the intent of the law in providing to the residents of the Washington County Wasteshed the opportunity to recycle. y In relying on the declared policies of the EQC, the plan sets forth an equally effective program that is both more economical to install and operate and more convenient for use by the public. 1. The plan is based on 5 local yard debris recycling depots. Three full service depots open six days per week, year round will be located in Hillsboro, Beaverton and Tualatin. Two limited use depots open Saturdays only from March to November will be located in the Garden Home/Beaverton area and in Forest Grove. 2. An on-call fee for service curbside collection program for source separated yard debris will be initiated by area franchised haulers to compliment the depot system. 3. The City of Durham will initiate a weekly fee for service curbside collection program and the City of Sherwood will continue a quarterly curbside collection program for source separated yard debris. 4. A two part education and promotion program will be instituted. A home composting program will instruct Mi- residents on the advantages of home compost. The other program will educate residents on the advantages and options for yard debris recycling in the wasteshed. These 4 parameters of the plan will allow the Washington County Wasteshed to divert form the landfill an estimated 60% of all yard debris from the wastestream. This will allow the wasteshed to meet DEQ goals till July 1, 1992, when an 80% goal for yard debris recovery takes affect. Each jurisdiction recognizes that curbside collection of yard debris may be required to meet this 80% goal. When market conditions for yard debris compost indicate the established collection depots are inadequate in supplying material to local processors, the Washington County Wasteshed will review the present plan under existing economic conditions and will consider modifications to meet the prevailing market requirements. Additionally, upon plan approval by DEQ, the Washington County Wasteshed Planning Committee will develop needed guidelines for implementation of yard debris recycling. 1. All local jurisdictions will address yard debris collection under their franchising authority to assure that uncontrolled collection does not create public nuisances. 2. All local jurisdictions will address yard debris - collection depots, processing centers and vending centers for the final product in their comprehensive land use plan. 3. The Committee will work with the affected jurisdictions in sighting depots and in mitigating any concerns that may arise. 4. The Committee will develop a plan for ongoing system evaluation that will obtain the necessary information to determine future direction of yard debris recycling in the Washington County Wasteshed. Consideration of the EQC policies on economic viability was instrumental in plan development. 1. The plan relies on funding yard debris recycling through yard debris disposal fees at the area depots. Local franchised haulers providing yard debris curbside collection service will also rely on yard debris disposal fees for funding. 2. A uniform rate for yard debris disposal at local area depots will be established by local jurisdictions to avoid flow control problems. 3. Local and regional rate setting authorities for county landfills and franchised haulers will need to establish a differential rate structure that will encourage yard debris recycling by the public. The plan provides a primary service level that will accommodate augmentation in the future as questions concerning markets and collection are answered. Local Jurisdictions - supplement 1.0 to 1.9 Supplements 1.0 through 1.9 list the plan parameters as they apply to each local jurisdiction making up the Washington County Wasteshed Yard Debris Plan. This sheet covers the proposed plan and how each jurisdiction meets DEQ rule requirements. It should be emphasized that this is a wasteshed plan and the system for collection is based on county wide participation. Local jurisdictional boundaries were not a factor for establishing service areas. Instead, centers of population are emphasized to provide the most efficient system of recycling centers for the public. SUPPLEMENT 1.8 - WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED YARD DEBRIS PLAN City of Tigard Statistics: Population: 27,500 Single Family Residences: 7,612 Outside Backyard Burn Ban: NO Yard Debris Generated: 3,806 Tons Yard Debis Composted: 952 Tons Yard Debris Collectable: 2,855 Tons DEG Yard Debris Plan Parameters: # Potential Participants: 27,500 Participation Rate: 50% Amount to be Recovered: 1,427 Tons Amount to be composted: 952 Tons Percent of Yard Debris Recylced: 63% Processors for Recycling: Grimm's Fuel - Tualatin Present Processor Capacity: 22,880 Tons Collection Standards: Depots Garden Home/Beaverton Depot Open Sat. Only (Mar. - Nov.) Tualatin Depot: Open 6 Days per Week/ yearround Curbside On-call fee for service source separated curbside collection service to be offered by local franchised hauler . i i Computer Financial Analysis - supplement 2.1 In order to understand a systematic approach to yard debris recycling versus individual collection by jurisdictions, a 1 computer model was designed to perform "what if" problems. Supplement 2.1 presents a financial analysis for one scenario. i' The capabilities exist to run any number of options through the model and to adjust the model if assumptions are found to be invalid. is s t r a h fi. { f. I( 4 !p~ f SprG i' C r. t SUPPLEMENT 2.1 - WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED t Estimated Cost of Yard Debris Collection' r. Background: Population 267,500.`. # Single Family Dwellings 75,894 Generation Rate 0.50 tons/SFD/year Yard Debris Generated 27,912 tons/year Recovery Rate 50.00% Annual Collection 13,956 tons Drop Box size 40.00 Cu. Yds. Collection Depots: Tons Collected Hours open per Annual Annually Week Labor Cost Forest Grove 553 8 $1,714 ! Hillsboro 3,485 0 s0 Beaverton 3,932 64 $18,278 Tualatin 4,215 0 s0 Garden Home/Beaverton 1,771 8 $1,714 Facility Disposal Hauling: Hauls Per Year Annual Cost Cost Per Ton Forest Grove to Hillsboro 138 $9,679 $12.00 Beaverton to Tualatin * 328 $22,935 $24.00 Garden Nome/Beav to Tualatin 443 $30,997 $24.00 * compacted load Public Disposal Fee: Disposal Rate: $3.25 per cu. yd. Administration and Promotion: Planning and promotion: $20,108 Flyer $5,000 Display $1,400 Revenue: Disposal Fees: $453,572 Total Revenue: $453,572 Costs: Administration and Promotion: $26,508 Facility Disposal: $286,489 Hauling: 563,611 Labor Cost: $21,706 Insurance $5,000 Taxes $1,250 Capital Costs (10 Year Plan) $27,165 Total Costs: $431,729 NET INCOME (LOSS): $21,843 SUPPLEMENT 2.1 Page 2 Distribution by Jurisdiction: Single Yard Yard Debris Family Debris Burn Ban Debris Composted Home Yard Debris Dwelling Generated Percent Burned Percent Composted Collectable Beaverton: 9,566 4,783 100.00% 0 25% 1,196 3,587 Cornelius: 1,122 561 77.00% 129 10% 56 376 Durham: 264 132 100.00% 0 25% 33 99 Forest Grove: 2,741 1,371 77.00% 315 10% 137 918 Hillsboro: 8,715 4,358 77.00% 1,002 10% 436 2,920 Kind city: 741 371 100.00% 0 25% 93 278 Sherwood: 1,125 563 77.00% 129 10% 56 377 Tigard: 7,612 3,806 100.00% 0 25% 952 2,855 Tualatin: 2,808 1,404 100.00% 0 25% 351 1,053 Washington County: 41,200 20,600 100.00% 0 25% 5,150 15,450 Total: 75,894 37,947 1,576 8,459 27,912 Capital Costs: Beaverton Forest Grove Average Cost per Haul Engineering $20,000 $8,000 $70.00 Construction $40,000 $15,000 $70.00 Drop Boxes $11,000 58,100 $70.00 Compactor $70,000 $0 Fence $6,000 s0 Landscaping $3,000 s0 Sub-total $150,000 $31,100 ` Interest $75,000 $15,550 Total $225,000 $46,650 Amortizied Costs: On 10 Year Schedule $22,500 $4,665 Metro Computer Models - supplement 2.2 Metro's computer model was created to determine cost of curbside collection of yard debris for local jurisdictions. Although this does not fit into the proposed Washington County Wasteshed plan parameters, it is provided here as a basis for comparison for individual jurisdictions. It should be noted that Metro assumptions for the model are listed at the bottom of each sheet. An 80% participation rate is one of the more important assumptions made that effects the numbers provided. METRO CURBSIDE COLLECTION COST MODEL (Once-A-week Collection Program) CITY, City of Tigard POPULATIONS 27,500 DWELLING STRUCTURES, 7,612 TOTAL STREET MILESs 77 DWELLING PER MILEt 99 NUMBER OF ROUTESs 7 served per week RECOVERY RATE, 30,448 per year DISPOSAL/PROCESSING SITES Grimms DISTANCE TO DISPOSAL SITES 15.16 DISPOSAL RATEt $4.00 per cu. yd. Monthly Cost of Collection & Disposal WAGE RATE FOR COLLECTION Items S8/hr S10/hr $12/hr - LABOR-------------------- 2,9S4.01 3,551----42 -----0,172.45 TRUCK 1,778.07 1,778.07 1,778.07 FUEL 290.44 290.44 290.44 DISPOSAL 3,383.11 3,383.11 3,383.11 PROMOTION 0.00 0.00 0.0¢ ADMINISTRATION 166.67 166.67 166.67 PROFIT 954.09 1,013.83 1,075.93 TOTAL COST $9,526.39 $10,183.55 $10,866.6E Cost per Cubic Yard $0.31 $0.33 $0.36 Cost per Dwelling 51.25 $1.34 $1.43 I BASIC ASSUMPTIONS I I 1. Yard Debris Recovery Goal is 80 percent 1 I 2. Unit cost of truck is $7.53 per hour I I 3. Fuel cast per gallon is $1.30 I I 4. Number of routes is based on max. operation hours of 1 8 hrs. per route I 5. Administrative cost is based on number of routes (does not I I include administrative costs for promotion) I 6. Profit margin allowed the hauler is 10 percent I i i Computer Modeling for Curbside Collection-- Supplement 2.6 ~ I Supplement 2.6 proposes that the Washington County Wasteshed phase in curbside collection of yard debris. This is a "what if" exercise to determine if the wasteshed could reach DEQ goals of an 80% recovery rate for yard debris. This models assumes that curbside collection would be phased in by 1993. Exceptions to the implementation of a curbside collection program would be the Cities of Hillsboro, Cornelius, k Sherwood and Forest Grove. These cities lie outside the DEQ backyard burn ban and it is assumed that a curbside program would be difficult to initiate. t Other assumptions critical to this model are that a voluntary C curbside collection program could attain a 75% participation ` rate. This is very optimistic since such a high level of participation has only been obtained through mandatory service. l E4 4 `E i I: . e s r. City of Sherwood j. 350 DEG Requirements f 300 250 7 200 Yard Debris Collected g o ' n s 150 - 100 if curbside implemented c 50 0 + I Yr. 1989 Yr. M .J Yr. 1991 Yr. 1992 Yr. 1993 C. R. City of Tigard 2,500 DEG Requirements 2,000 Yard Debris Collected 7 1,500 0 n s 1,000 - ' if curbside implemented z 500 0 Yr. 1989 Yr. 1990 Yr. 1991 Yr. 1992 Yr. 1993 computer Modeling for Market Demands - Supplement 2.3 - 2.4 This supplement looks further at the various scenarios that are possible for yard debris market demand. The two options are: 1. A moderate growth in market demand 2. A substantial growth in market demand l r C jPPLEMENT 2.3 - WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED YARD DEBRIS RECYCLING Moderate Growth in Market Demand vs. Material Collected Percent of Percent of Grimm's Total Tons Material Available Material Available Total Grimms Wash. Co USA Grabhorn Hillsboro Processing To Material To Material Tons Fuet(Tons) Share Landfilt Landfill Capacity Tualatin to Tuat. Hillsboro to Hilts. Retrieved Yr. 1983 2,427 1,262 400 500 0 2,162 1,262 7% 400 4% 1,662 Yr. 1984 5,885 3,060 400 500 0 3,960 3,060 17% 400 4% 3,460 Yr. 1985 7,294 3,793 400 500 0 4,693 3,793 21% 400 4% 4,193 Yr. 1986 8,725 4,537 400 500 0 5,437 4,537 25% 400 4% 4,937 Yr. 1987 10,800 5,616 400 500 0 6,516 5,616 31% 400 4% 6,016 Yr. 1988 19,300 10,036 400 500 0 10,936 9,223 50% 400 4% 9,623 Yr. 1989 22,000 11,440 400 500 0 12,340 9,223 50% 400 4% 9,623 Yr. 1990 25,000 13,000 800 750 250 14,800 9,223 50% 1,800 19% 11,023 Yr. 1991 28,000 14,560 1,200 1000 500 17,260 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 Yr. 1992 31,000 16,120 2,000 1000 1,000 20,120 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 Yr. 1993 34,100 17,732 3,200 1000 2,000 23,932 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 Yr. 1994 37,510 19,505 5,200 1000 3,000 28,705 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 f { SUPPLEMENT 2.3 M04erate Growth in Market Demand r i i 60,000 I 50,000 E i 40,000 i c T 0 30,000 Market Capacity N S DEG Requirements • , 20,000 10,000 - Collection Rate Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 i' .,UPPLEMENT 2.4 - WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED YARD DEBRIS RECYCLING Substantial Growth in Market Demand vs. Material Collected Percent of Percent of Grimm's Total Tons Material Available Material Available Total Grimm Wash. Co USA Grabhorn Hillsboro Processing To Material To Materaal Tons FueL(Tons) Share Landfill Landfill Capacity Tualatin to Tual. Hillsboro to Hills. Retrieved Yr. 1983 2,427 1,262 400 S00 0 2,162 1,262 7% 400 4% 1,662 Yr. 1984 5,885 3,060 400 500 0 3,960 3,060 17% 400 4% 3,460 Yr. 1985 7,294 3,793 400 500 0 4,693 3,793 21% 400 4% 4,193 Yr. 1986 8,725 4,537 400 500 0 5,437 4,537 25% 400 4% 4,937 Yr. 1987 10,800 5,616 400 500 0 6,516 5,616 31% 400 4% 6,016 Yr. 1988 19,300 10,036 400 500 0 10,936 9,223 50% 400 4% 9,623 Yr. 1989 22,000 11,440 400 500 0 12,340 9,223 50% 400 4% 9,623 Yr. 1990 25,000 13,000 800 750 500 15,050 9,223 50% 2,050 22% 11,273 Yr. 1991 28,000 14,560 1,600 1000 1,000 18,160 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 Yr. 1992 31,000 16,120 3,200 1000 2,000 22,320 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 Yr. 1993 34,100 17,732 6,400 1000 4,000 29,132 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 Yr. 1994 37,510 19,505 9,000 1000 8,000 37,505 9,223 50% 4,656 50% 13,879 SUPPLEMENT 2.4 substantial Growth in Market Demand 60,000 50,000 40,000 T Market Capacity 0 30,000 N S 20,000 DEG Requirements c 10,000 Collection Rate Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 c -T. j (r -J ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~=o ~ '4 i E w ~ ~ 'i 1 t i 5 f , .l ~ r - Y 4 L'~` f LSr.L t~ `i I v ,z , ICI '~f ~ i pU: oPp,l~ ?I~ tG~lf,~lf! r~+p ~~f) ~T+ R! 11! + [ +Lv , r , ! 1 ~ • arrl, ~ I .1 ~ ~ ~ ) ~ 1 h ! f f !f!!=ll~i ~t(,i►IiO,rp.,rrri,,,rrorir,,,,,,srr,L:, L I I C X11 ~ I I ~ } I l) ! 1.111►! I►!1 I,I~Ill~lt+I+I► NOTE: IF THIS MICADFILMED ~ ~ ~ 2 3. ~ . _ ~ . 6_ ~ ~ 8 . 8 0 ►l. _._...1 t, DRANIIG IS LESS CLEAR 1HAN ' I THIS NOTICE, II iS DUE 1D ~ ~ - 1 Tiff QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL ~ i I ' DRAkIMG. ~ a--....... i T 0£ 62~ 8Z !Z 8Z SZ tit ~£Z ZZ IZ OZ 61 8f LI 91 Si -bl E1~~21y-1101 6 -..9.. - _ j 1 9 S 6£ Z 1 i F 'iHI~IIRtIIRI,III~R;I1,U1fN,~N>I{,r _ _ _ _ :.P . ~ - . _ _ _ _ _ ~••..'~4 ~T ~~'~'i. -'y _ .4 _ - JF _ i d ,L~~/ c ~ .i ~ ' ~ ~~vs-.. , . ~ , m _ . ~ _ , ✓ y Y~ ~ ~ , 2 ~b ay ' / i s f. a - ~(/y.~ ~ 1 r`k" 1 - - x ~ , ~ s K ~ a . ~ r ~ a~ t _a ~ } ~ ~ { ~ OPfN '~R ~`a ~ a 3 f S DAYS _ '.f ~ ice,. N, M~ ~ , J,;, r, r ~ ~ _ ' . r'~' I ~ ,.y. r,. 1ii~~~iii Yam 4 t OP£N ti :a e . , ATURDAYS •I,` S ' ~ _ ji-- ~ ONLY ~ ~I u - r rN • COMMERCUaI ~ ONLY COMMERCIAL ;'i° ~ ' ~`l ~ DEPOT 4 I ~ URBAN ! `;,r,`•';~ ~ GROWTH ~ ~ ~--r-. BOUNDARY ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ L. - 1 ~ ` 1 \ 'ej M"lt .a ~ ~ ~ eigaze B L--- ~ I - `~`-.f wa I z ~ 1 _ TUk TIt~",Syt F \ ~:.:Y SY. F' : ~ ~ p 5' 1\`\ 4~ t ` ~ o ~ < ~ - YAM14l CO. ti 3 ~~xy ~,'Z, `a 45 ~K',K`\K. y,: \ \~``\4' A "~.5a- _ f.. ~..•.vq~ ec~.'~M!h5~ ~ fi~Prt+YJ . ,..71~';dcS...SS.'.+m^b .^C',Pn+®!n I fl'(Ii~pNp11 Tigl11 ,pi~~p I~qR! IlgrpTT~1?)14~ Im 111 "tl IR IN 11 „lh ,I !1! Ili I I ! ! ! I I , , - ~ I f I ~ [ f I~~ I ~ ~ [ ~ f ~ [I { I i { 4' !~{apl I T{I I III'gl lil{Ip Ipl{ql III{~pl ql{sl . 1 f l I f P NOTE; IF THIS NICROEILWED I~ - 2 3 4 _ 5 fi. _ 7 8 9 0 it T, DRANIN; IS LESS CLEAR THAN I', " THIS NOTICE, IT IS OIIE TO ' ~ THE QUALITY OP THE ptIGINAL ' j ' DRA1dItxi, _ _ ~ ~ , OtE BZ 8Z LZ 9fZ SZ 4Z EZ ZZ la OZ 6i 91 LI -_9I StT bl 61 Z! II 0! 6 . -8 9...__ S .4 ~ Z ~ ~ fill[DIIIIIIIINN11111111NIIN~IN!{UNMII I i ' ~a I1~ipl a . I A, - - A.. . z: .i a7 If , T: ---.....err-«,,. .~.6.....,...-., 1. , , VISITOR'S AGENDA COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE PRISON SITING (AUGUST 21, 1989) C. i PRESS KIT News Conference August 10, 1989 North Plains, Oregon is prepared by: Coalition for Responsible Prison Siting t Brent Baxter, Chairman Rt. 3, Box 224, Hillsboro, OR 97124 (503) 640-4646 Legal Counsel Charles Merten ti ® Transcript of announcement on challenge to siting criteria ® Fact Sheets outlining reasons why the prison should not be built in Washington County ® Summary of Coalition Organization and Activities r ® List of questions submitted to Department of Corrections through local government leaders ® List of Organizations and People opposed to building a prison in Washington County f r g Now= siting criteria chcIllenge to r c Now i I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON i t f. COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE PRISON ) SITING, INC. an Oregon Non-Profit) Corporation; BRENT SCOTT BAXTER; ) and SANDRA LEIGH FOLSOM, ) Petitioners, ) S. Crt. No. ) Ef DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE ) PETITION FOR REVIEW F. STATE OF OREGON, j Respondent. ) 1. SUMMARY Petitioners are part of the vast general public of this State who are the victims of crime. Governor Neil Goldschmidt and the Oregon Department of Corrections are in the process of 7. choosing a site for a medium security prison, purportedly to 5- protect Petitioners and the general public from convicted E' criminals. Ironically, and tragically, the process chosen by the, s Department is victimizing the victims of crime with governmental arrogance. The rules at issue in this petition estarlish the criteria for siting the prison, which is to house up to 3,000 inmates and to have a staff of 900. The rules were adopted r without any citizen input and without public notice or hearing. F They reflect only the narrow interests of the Department of corrections, and ignore the broader interests, and costs, of the State and community as a whole. The criteria adopted by the 1 - PETITION FOR REVIEW Department shatter Oregon's touted land use planning system - a system which, ironically, was forced upon a substantial minority of citizens and local units of government by the State of Oregon itself. The criteria arbitrarily and unconstitutionally exclude from consideration locations which would pose political risks to elected officials. The criteria make other arbitrary and invalid assumptions. Tragically, the criteria make no effort to preserve Oregon's rapidly diminishing prime farm land and, indeed, encourage its continued conversion to other uses. Finally, the adopted criteria, contrary to law, denigrate and ignore the will, desire, and concerns of both the citizens of this State and of their elected local officials. 2. REQUEST FOR REVIEW Pursuant to Section 10, 1989 Oregon Laws, Chapter 789 Petitioners seek review of OAR 291-9-005 through OAR 291-90-015 under.which Respondent established mandatory and desirable criteria for the siting of a medium security prison. The rules are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Petitioners request that said rules be declared void and of no effect. 3. STANDING Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of Section 10, 1989 Oregon Laws, Chapter 789. Petitioner Coalition for Responsible Prison Siting, Inc. (CRPS) is a non-profit Oregon corporation having approximately 300 members who live or work 2 - PETITION FOR REVIEW within ten miles of the two Washington County, Oregon sites that Respondent is considering for nomination as the prison site. CRPS favors locating prisons in accordance with Oregon's established land use system of comprehensive plans and zoning requirements, and in conformance with the interests of the overall community rather than the narrow interest of the budget of the Department of Corrections. CRPS is adversely affected by Respondent's adoption of the criteria at issue because Respondent failed and refused, in adopting such criteria, to consider the impact of prison siting upon responsible land use planning and development, and improperly relegated the interests of the overall community to a secondary, discretionary concern. The adopted criteria are impediments to the attainment of CRPS' goals for responsible siting of prisons, and have caused and will continue to cause its members to be frustrated, angry, and upset. The affidavit of the Chairman of CRPS is attached as Exhibit B. Petitioners Brent Scott Baxter and Sandra Leigh Folsom each live within sight and sound of one of fourteen sites proposed by the respondents for the medium security prison. Petitioners Brent Scott Baxter and Sandra Leigh Folsom are adversely affected by the adoption of the criteria at issue because said criteria ignore, contradict, and are outside of the regular and deliberative land use process upon which Petitioners have relied in the past and had expected to have in the future. Said land use process protects the way of life they have chosen. Further, the criteria were adopted without notice to them, or to anyone, in 3 - PETITION FOR REVIEW violation of Petitioners' federal and state constitutional and statutory rights. Finally, the threat of the existence of a prison adjacent to their homes has caused and will continue to cause Petitioners worry, upset and stress, as well as economic loss. Their affidavits are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C. 4. TINELY FILING This petition is timely in that 1989 Oregon Laws, Chapter 789 became effective on or about July 24, 1989 and petitioners have until August 14, 1989 to seek review. 5. 1 PARTICIPATION BELOW Respondent did not reject the position of the f Petitioners in adopting the rules in question because it, without C_ justification, need, or desirability, purported to adopt said k rules as temporary rules and, thus, gave no one notice that said rules were being proposed and held no hearing regarding said rules. 6. INVALID ROLES Said rules are invalid, unconstitutional, beyond the authority of Respondent, and/or arbitrary because of one or more of the reasons stated below. 7. ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS a) The rules as a whole are arbitrary and capricious in 4 - PETITION FOR REVIEW violation of the Constitution of the State of Oregon and of the United States and beyond Respondent's statutory authority in that: (i) they do not consider the social, environmental, or economic impacts of siting and operating a medium security prison upon the community as a whole. Rather, they confine themselves to the narrow interests of the Department of Corrections, and thus render Petitioners and the general public, who are purportedly the crime victims to be protected by the construction of a new prison, the victims of governmental arrogance. (ii) they do not consider impacts on comprehensive plans, urban growth boundaries, LCDC Rules and Guidelines, or the planning process mandated by ORS Chapter 197. (iii) they do not consider any issue of public safety or criminal conduct related to the influx of up to 3,000 convicts, 900 staff, and their families and visitors, upon the community as a whole. (iv) they do not contemplate the preservation of farm land or the potential of the prison as a triggering device for the further development of farm land. (v) they do not consider the impact of a prison on nearby property values, economic development, tourism, or any other economic consideration; other than the actual construction and operational costs to the Corrections Department. (vi) they do not consider the burden upon local communities to handle the influx of drugs and drug-related crimes occasioned by a prison populace and its staff. 5 - PETITION FOR REVIEW (vii) they do not consider the ability of either the prison or its providers of water and sewer to meet federal environmental and pollution requirements and standards. (viii) they ignore the opinions and feelings of all citizens other than elected officials. (ix) they ignore the impact of a prison on transportation facilities and service. (x) they ignore the prison's impact on historic sites, cultural sites, sites of geological significance, wildlife, endangered and rare plants and animals, and scenic values. (xi) they were authorized and adopted pursuant to legislation which unconstitutionally delegated, without guidelines, the authority to decide which criteria would be mandatory and which desirable. Further, the choices made by the Department in categorizing the criteria selected are themselves arbitrary, capricious, without foundation or justification, based upon political expediency, and are more intrusive upon the rights of Petitioners and other citizens than is needed to accomplish the goal at hand. b) OAR 291-90-010 (5) is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Constitution of the State of Oregon and of the United States and beyond Respondent's statutory authority in that it mandates that a proposed site must have both electricity and gas as utilities. Electricity is virtually universal in this state; gas is hardly so. Requiring both electricity and gas to be available arbitrarily eliminates substantial portions of the state 6 - PETITION FOR REVIEW as site candidates without any justification. c) OAR 29-90-010(13) is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Constitution of the State of Oregon and of the United States and beyond Respondent's statutory authority in that it excludes from consideration as a prison site residential areas even though the site may meet all other criteria and may be the best site in the entire state. Exclusion of residential areas serves the purposes of politics and elected officials, but gives the citizens of such areas privileges and immunities not made available to citizens not living in exclusive residential areas. This criterion is motivated by political concerns and is arbitrary. d) OAR 291-90-015(1) is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Constitution of the State of Oregon and of the C United States and beyond Respondent's statutory authority in that it conclusively assumes that prison staff would use only nearby colleges rather than obtaining education and training through TV, satellite, conferences, and in-house training. e) OAR 291-90-015(4) is arbitrary and capricious in violation of tie Constitution of the State of Oregon and of the United States and beyond Respondent's statutory authority in that it provides that mere proximity of a school, regardless of available capacity for students, is a desirable criteria for siting a prison. 7 - PETITION FOR REVIEW i F o t 8., NO NOTICE ! OAR 291-90-005 to 291-90-015 was adopted without giving prior notice to the public as required by ORS 183.335(1)(2)(3) and (4). To the extent that Respondent claims that said rules are temporary and do not require prior notice to the public nor a hearing, Respondent failed to prepare or file a statement meeting the requirements of ORS 183.335(5). Specifically: Respondent failed to adequately, or at all, set forth its findings that its failure to act promptly would result in serious prejudice to the public interest or the interest of the parties concerned and the specific reasons for its findings of prejudice; Respondent failed to adequately, or at all, set forth a statement of the need for the rules and how the rules are intended to meet the need; and Respondent failed to identify the location where the public may inspect the principal documents relied upon by Respondent in ff t' adopting the rules. Therefore Respondent has no authority to i. proceed with the criteria adopted under said void rules. Respondent did not and does not ever intend to adopt permanent rules establishing criteria for the siting of the medium security prison, and intends to select the site for said prison prior to 180 days from July 24, 1989. See Affidavit of Karen L. Fink attached hereto as Exhibit D. Respondent's blatant effort to deprive the citizens of Oregon of any input or participation in adopting criteria for selecting a prison housing 3,000 convicts and supported by 900 staff and their families, violates the First 8 - PETITION FOR REVIEW 16 and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States in that it poses an absolute bar to Redress of Grievances, unjustifiedly restricts Freedom of Speech, takes Liberty and Property without Due Process of Law, and deprives citizens of privileges, rights, and opportunities granted to others in similar circumstances. Further, such action grants the State of Oregon rights and privileges not granted others, who seek to site large facilities, in violation of Article I, Sections 1 and 20 of the Oregon Constitution and deprives Petitioners of their rights under Article I, Sections 1 and 33 of the Oregon Constitution. 9. 1987 OREGON LAWS CHAPTER 321 MINIMUM SECURITY CRITLRIA 1989 Oregon Laws Chapter 789 specifically allows the medium security prison to house no less than 1,000 and up to 3,000 inmates on a minimum security basis. This means, in practice, that the new facility will have a dual purpose and a dual population. The proposed facility will by newly constructed. In light of this, the adopted criteria are beyond the authority of the department because they conflict with the intent and purpose of 1987 Oregon Laws Chapter 321, Section 8 (4)(a)(E). Section 8 mandates that the following be considered when siting a facility which will hold minimum security inmates, if the facility will involve new construction: "(E) . . . state-wide land use planning goals that address: 9 - PETITION FOR REVIEW F E (i) Agricultural lands, unless the facility will be substantially devoted to agricultural uses; i (ii) Forest lands, unless the facility will be substantially devoted to forest uses; (iii) Open spaces, scenic and historic areas and natural resources; (iv) Areas subject to natural disasters and hazards; and e (v) Coastal shorelands." C f 10. 1989 OREGON LAWS CHAPTER 789 1989 Oregon Laws Chapter 789 Section 4(1) requires that the interest demonstrated by local cities and counties in having a r prison within their areas be one of the mandatory criterion for E.~ site selection. The rules adopted by Respondent do not make local interest a mandatory criterion; rather, the rules relegate local government interest to a discretionary criterion. Respondent thus has violated 1989 Or L 789, § 4(1).' F€F k: 11. r 1989 OREGON LAWS CHAPTER 262 The legislative authority for the rules in question appears in 1989 Oregon Laws Chapter 262 which reads in relevant part: "To enable the Department of Corrections to commence siting of a new medium security corrections facility, the Department of 10 - PETITION FOR REVIEW l Corrections is authorized to: (1) Establish by rule mandatory and desirable criteria for the AT' location of the facility." The law (1989 Oregon Laws Chapter 262) did not preempt or supersede any other state statute or requirement. In adopting the rules in question, Respondent exceeded its statutory authority in that the adopted rules, contrary to ORS 197.010, 197.180, and 197.250, do not consider: (a) the impact of a prison on comprehensive plans and the planning process mandated by ORS Chapter 197; (b) preservation of farm lance; (c) the impact of a prison on transportation facilities and services; (d) the impact of construction and operation of a prison on wildlife; (e) the impact of construction and operation of a prison on cultural, historic, and scenic values; (f) the impact of construction and operation of a prison on existing and future economic development; (g) the impact of construction and operation of a prison on the police, fire, health, safety, educational, and social services of the affected communities; 11 - PETITION FOR REVIEW EEE% f'. f (h) the impact of a prison and its inmate and staff population on the health, welfare, safety, lives and property of the citizens in 5 the affected areas; (i) the impact of construction of a prison at any given site upon endangered and rare plants s and animals; or (j) any of the requirements of the Goals and A Guidelines of LCDC. On the contrary, the rules adopted by Respondent uniformly speak only to the narrow interests of the Department of Corrections, and thus render Petitioners and the general public, who purportedly are the crime victims to be protected by construction of a new prison, the victims of governmental arrogance. 12. 3 POPULATION WITHIN 30 MILES Rule 291-90-010(12) requires that a proposed site "must have a population base of at least 30,000 people within a 50-mile - radius of the proposed site." This criterion was a substantial F factor in excluding a site in Condon, Oregon even though the City of Condon wanted the prison at the site. See Affidavit of Karen L. Fink, Exhibit D, and "Report of the Siting Coordinator - June 19, 1989," Exhibit E hereto. This criterion is arbitrary and capricious in that it imposes an absolute exclusion, based upon the assumptions of the 12 - PETITION FOR REVIEW Respondent, that sites with less than 30,000 population within 50 miles are neither proper nor desirable for the location of a prison. A site with less population could meet all of Respondent's other criteria, and also could be far more desirable than any of the sites investigated by Respondent. PRAYER Wherefore, Petitioners request this court to void the rules at issue. DATED: August 10, 1989 Respectfully submitted, MERTEN & ASSOCIATES • By ARLES XJ.1MjeVrEN OSB NO. 630 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 13 - PETITION FOR REVIEW Fact Sheet i i Reasons why a prison should not be placed in Washington County c ■ LAND USE i A large prison will destroy prime, irreplaceable farm land. For the past 20 years this valuable resource has been protected by the Urban Growth Boundary and the associated land use laws. Unfortunately, the State's 'Supersiting' Legislation bypasses these important safeguards. This sets a dangerous precedent for the future. - Prison siting is a bad use of prime farm land. It irreversibly destroys a critical natural resource that should be protected by responsible state government. If the government does not do it, who will? - When land use laws are overridden, the protection they afford is diminished. Setting them aside then becomes easier when the State has another unpopular project to site. Citizens are expected to obey the law; what kind of an example is the State setting for us? - The Supersiting bill also moves the site selection process too fast for informed citizen response. This sets another dangerous precedent that conflicts with the Land Conservation and Development Commission's goals for citizen involvement. N COST The State siting criteria do not account for the entire cost of operating a large prison, especially social and financial costs to the surrounding community. Prison operation should 4 be a shared burden borne equally by all Oregonians. - Crime Increase: Studies have shown that introducing a large prison into community life increases drug trafficking and crimes against people and property, all of which require additional law enforcement resources. - Drug Trafficking: Schools become a major target. We have a family oriented culture that will be adversely affected by this kind of activity. - Roads: Major county roads near both proposed sites are already at capacity. Traffic associated with prison operation will require expansion at local taxpayers' expense. - Schools: Local schools are at capacity. Additional classrooms and teachers for children of staff and inmates must be obtained at local taxpayers' expense. - Fire Protection: Local fire fighting facilities are not equipped to deal with fires in a prison. Who will pay for the added equipment, staff and training? - Other Social Services: Families of inmates are often dysfunctional and require a variety of expensive social services. Again, these services will be paid for by the local area taxpayer. The reason the State does not want to put the prison in a sparsely populated area is that it would be necessary to pay all of the costs, not just the direct costs of construction and operation. Shifting local impact costs to the community is only possible in an area where some of the necessary infra-structure is already in place. Do You want a MegamPrison sited in Washington County? If you do not favor a prison in Washington County, write letters in protest immediatplO Although not part of the mandatory siting citeria, community support is part of the desirable criteria. The state wants to site this prison as smoothly and quickly as possible. If a community shows an organized front against a prison, that community stands a much better chance of being removed from the site list. Don't sit by thinking someone else will take care of it, we need y= letters. We have attached a page of ideas that you can draw from. If you don't have time to write a letter, a form letter has been provided. Just copy it, fill in the blanks and mail it to the addresses below. If you don't have time to write to all the addresses below, make sure you at least write to Fred Pearv. and Governor Goldschmidt. Five sites out of the present 13 will be chosen by Fred Pearce by September 1. Time is of the essence! Write today! A few minutes of your time and a few cents in postage isn't much when the future of your home and family is at stake. More form letters will be available from the Coalition for Responsible Prison Siting. Governor KathleutPayn-Pruitt Washington County Neil Goldschmidt 1842 S.E. Terrace Drive Commissioners Office of the Governor Portland, OR 97201 Bonnie Hays, Chairperson State Capitol Building home-222-3612 ofc-222-9115 John Meek Salem, OR 97310 U.S. Representative Steve Lanance 1-378-3111 Les AuCoin Eva M. Killpack Department of Corrections 860 Montgomery Park Roy R. Rogers Fred B. Pearce, Director 2701 N.W. Vaughn Street 150 N. First Street 2575 Center Street N.E. Portland, OR 97210 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Salem, OR 97310 221-2901 648-8611 1-378-2467 State Senators City Mayors Prison Siting Committee Jeanette Hamby Hillsboro Mark Cushing, Chairperson Box 519 Mayor Shirley Huffman 1719 S.E. Locust Hillsboro, OR 97124 205 S.E. 2nd Street Portland, OR 97214 Hillsboro, OR 97123 Joan ofc-221-1440 Dukes 681-6106 Route 2, Box 503 Beaverton Betty Lou Dunlop Astoria, OR 97103 1200 Mira Mar Avenue 1-458-6746 Mayor Larry Cole Medford, OR 97504 P.O. Box 4755 home-1-710-1686 State Representatives Beaverton, OR 97076 Al Young 526-2481 Tom Gonzales 917 N.W. 7th Forest Grove 36 Corvallis, OR 97330 36 N.W. Deer Run Hillsboro, OR 97124 Mayor Clifford Clark home-1-757-6638 ofc-967-0610 BruceHugo P.O. Box 326 32847 N.W. Peak Road Forest Grove, OR 97116 Dennis M. Maloney Scappoose, OR 97056 359-3200 61516 Orion 1-543-7457 Bend, OR 97702 home-1-382-6381 ofc-1-388-6671 Coalition for Responsible Prison Siting • Rt.3, Box 224 Hillsboro, OR 97124 • 6404646 Donations and Volunteers greatly appnlclatedi Concerns to address: O Crime and Public Safety - A 1988 study showed Salem's property crime rate second highest in the state next to Portland. Hillsboro - ranked lowest among major cities. (Sunday Oregonian, May 21,1989) Prison escapes happen daily in Salem bast year 237 inmates escaped from the Department of Corrections. On any given day as many as 700 inmates are freed on early release - A study in Salem of 140 prison parolees and inmates out on temporary release, showed 144 run-ins with law enforcement officials during their first 6 months of freedom. - Size and nature of prison - can be expanded to 3,000 beds, currently planned as medium and minimum security but can be upgraded to maximum security without citizen approval. The largest facility, the Oregon State Penitentiary, now houses only 1800 prisoners. - More police will be needed as crimes against people and property, and drug trafficking increase. This will be j paid for by Washington County taxpayers. ■ Proximity to Dwellings and Schools - Two grade schools are less than 1 X14 mile from a site. Nine other grade schools, 2 junior Highs and 2 High Schools are within a six mile radius of a prison site. - Many residential areas including the towns of North Plains, Hillsboro and Banks and the suburban developments of Rock Creek, Evergreen Estates, Jackson School Development, The meadows and numerous others lie within a five mile radius of a prison site. M Water and Sewer - Current land use laws prohibits extending sewage and water services in unincorporated areas beyond the ` Urban Growth Boundary. The Supersiting bill (HB 2713) passed in the Oregon House and Senate allows the entire land use application and review process to be bypassed for the purpose of siting prisons. All other C prisons in the state were sited under current land use laws. Why not this prison? This sets a dangerous precedent that could eventually render our land use laws ineffective. - The Environmental Quality Commission has mandated that the Tualatin River's phosphorus and ammonia levels be reduced to an acceptable level by June 30,1993. Most of this effluent comes from the Unified Sewerage Agency's sewer treatment facilities. The USA will spend millions to improve their plants resulting in higher monthly user fees. The USA's services should be available for constructive economic development that generate a healthy tax base for services, not a tax-burdening prison. ® Fire Protection - Salem officials point out the size and population capacity of large institutes require special equipment and training. Fire District 2, which would serve either prison sites, is only a volunteer department with two engines, one tanker and one rescue vehicle. They have no ladder or special equipment. Additional fire services would be paid for by local taxpayers. ■ Schools - Local area schools are either at capacity or near capacity. Any new schools will be paid for by local area i taxpayers. i ® Other Social Services - Studies of other communities show we can expect widespread social problems because of families and friends of inmates that move into an area. These families are often dysfunctional and need a variety of special social services. ■ Detrimental to Future Economic Growth - Anticipated devaluation of property values in Western Washington County, especially in the North Plains, r, Helvetia, West Union and Rock Creek areas - Detrimental to attraction of dean, high-tech industries (Sunset Corridor) - The prison would remove up to 400 acres of prime farmland from production, from the local economic base and off the tax roll. ® Other sites have expressed interest in siting this prison in their communities Seven Devil's Road (Coos County) Boardman (both sites) Ej Dear I oppose the siting of a prison on Western Washington County farmland: 1. It irreversibly destroys a needed natural resource that must be protected by responsible state government. 2. The Supersiting Bill does not provide any impact funds to offset the cost of additional services such as police, fire, schools, water, sewer and other social services. This money must be generated from the already overburdened taxpayers of Washington County. 3. The bill establishes a dangerous precedent which usurps the authority of the state Land Conservation and Development Commission, and local land use laws adopted under the LCDC Goals - laws that preserve invaluable farmland and maintain controlled, planned growth that makes Oregon's livability among the highest in the nation. It is contrary to healthy, open, cooperative governmental process. 4. Dedicating finite water and sewer resources to a prison, displaces those resources from industry and housing. Industry and homes that create products, pay taxes and spend money in our communities, thus strengthening not only the economy of Washington County but the State of Oregon. We urge you to act responsibly by eliminating the Washington County sites from the prison siting list. Concerned Citizen, Newsletter Coalition for volumes Responsible Number 1 July 31.,1989 Prison Siting The Proposed Sites: Just when you thought it was safe to relax and enjoy our 400 acres of prime farmland beautiful part of western Washington County, along comes another located just north of Hillsboro, GREAT IDEA: Let's put a 550 to 3000 bed state prison in the Sunset bounded by Glencoe Road on the Corridor. east, Zion Church Road on the Although we are very concerned about the need for more prison south, Gordon Road on the west, space, the proposed site makes no sense, because it conflicts with and a line 1 /4 mile south of Beach the Governor's Economic Development Plan and its proposals for Road on the north. This site is attracting more clean, high-tech industry to the Sunset Corridor. about 1/2 mile south of the Sunset The proposed prison site: Highway, on the main road • Totally ignores the land use goals that the State pushed between Hillsboro and the Sunset Washington County to adopt under the power of the State Land Highway. Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). The second site is located 3 . Provides no impact funds to offset the increased taxes required to miles east of Cornelius Pass Road, provide police, fire, road, and school services. bounded by Jackson Road on the west, West Union Road on the Would remove 400 acres of prime farmland from production. north and Sunset Highway on the • Will provide up to 3000 prison beds. The largest existing prison is South. This site will be visible from 1800 beds (Oregon State Penitentiary). the Sunset Highway. • Will conflict with the goal of attracting new, clean industry to the Is this the best place to put a Sunset Corridor. prison, at the west end of the . Will lower property values in the surrounding areas. Sunset Corridor, the "Crown Jewel" of the Governor's Economic Will increase drug use and crime in the surrounding areas. Development Plan? We are one of the four sites specially recommended by the Prison Siting Committee's consultant. On September 1, the Corrections I would like to help the Coalition Department will recommend 5 sites for Oregon's MEGAPRISON. for Responsible Prison Siting by: If you agree that these sites are an undesireable place for a prison, you can: ❑ Donating money. Enclosed is a 1. Write letters to the Governor's Office and the Department of check payable to: Corrections expressing your opposition. The addresses are: Coalition for Responsible Governor Neil Goldschmidt Department of Corrections Prison Siting Office of the Governor Fred B. Pearce, Director Rt. 3, Box 224 State Capitol Building 2575 Center Street N.E. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Salem, OR 97310 Salem, OR 97310 ❑ Volunteering my time. 2. Contact your State Senator and Representative, and your local Home phone officials to express your opposition. We have attached their phone ;Work phone numbers and addresses. 3. Talk to your friends and co-workers. Let them know how to get Best time to call involved. My name and address is: If you need more information or have any questions, call the Committee for Responsible Prison Siting at 6404646. L--------------------------------------1 Summary of Coalition Organization and Activites The Coalition for Resposible Prison Siting Inc., is a non-profit organization that collects and distributes information concerning the effects of prisons on community life. Its purpose is to oppose the siting of a state prison in Washington County. The Coalition has been involved in a variety of activities relating to these goals: ® A direct mail campaign ® Newspaper articles, editorials and advertisements ® A county wide petition drive • Direct contact by telephone The Coalition is mounting a vigorous legal challenge to the siting process in a variety of ways. List of Questions 1. Mr. Pearce, what are the most important factors to you in determining the final selection? WILL you be required to live in the area of the new prison? 2. Both proposed sites have a school under the 2 miles recommended in the Policy Options for Siting Report. WHY did the states guidelines recommend against locating a prison i closer than 2 miles from a school? WHAT effect will this have on the security of our children? t 3. In a newsletter sent to all Intel employees, Governor Goldschmidt said, QUOTE: "We set urban growth boundaries to preserve prime farm land and wildlife habitat." UNQUOTE HOW will the Department of Corrections respond to legal challenges that the supersiting process disregards these important protections? 4. Numerous studies have shown that siting a penitentiary increases crime in the surrounding area, it places a strain on social services, police agencies and county courts. Washington County social services are severely strained already by our migrant workerer population. WHO is going to pay for the additional strain that the penitentiary would place on the county? 5. Fred Hanson - Director of DEQ - has stated that a moratorium on construction would be F imposed if water quality standards in the Tualatin River are not met by 1993. HOW will these standards be met with the added burden from the operation of a prison and is a prison the best use of these finite resources? 's 6. Does the state want to be in the position of displacing people whosse families have owned farms for generations and destroying this rural lifestyle when there are alternative sites without this type of impact? 7. The supersiting legislation provides for the local community to set conditions for prison siting in their areas. We are compiling a list of such conditions. WHAT criteria will determine which of these conditions the state will adhere to? 8. We have learned that the state penitentiary in Salem is at 195% capacity. WILL there be population limits on this facility and if so WHAT are they? 9. Given the large number of high tech industries attracted to and interested in the Sunset Corridor - do you see any ways that this area needs or would benefit from a prison, or . would this discourage further development of this kind of economic growth? t` ~r 10. The Jackson School Rd. /West Union Rd. site is where Joseph Meek made his original land claim. There is a historic farm house on the property and a marker that attracts numerous out of state tourests, what will happen to the historic value of this property if a prison is built there? List of Organizations and People Opposed to Building a Prison in Washington County Washington County Board of Commissioners North Plains City Council North Plains Elementary School District Jeannette Hamby, State Senator Al Young, State Representative Hillsboro Argus Newspaper Sunset Airstrip Association Davis Tool, Inc. Cornelius City Council Hillsboro City Council f Subject: STATE OF OREGON MANDATORY AND DESIRABLE CRITERIA FOR NEW Department of Corrections MEDIUM SECURITY PRISON SITE 11B 3496 Related ACA Standards: TEMPORARY OAR 291-90-005 through OAR 291-90-015 AD OP T I O N Rule X90 (Tab X68) S TA T p T C Functional Unit(s) Affected: 1 4.J t.7 Construction Division Procedure Requirement (Yes _ No ) Approved: Effective Date: 06-08-89 1. F-red_$. Pearce, director (Supersedos document dated: NA i t Authority and Purpose 291-90-005 (1) Authority: The authority for this rule is granted to the Director of the Department of Corrections in accordance with ORS 423.020 and 423.075. E (2) Purpose: In accordance with 1113 3496, these mandatory and desirable criteria are intended to provide a site for a prison capable of handling up to t 3,000 inmates, located in an area that will support up to 900 staff and their € families with appropriate support services at the lowest feasible cost, t Mandatory Criteria 291-90-010 The mandatory criteria are listed below. They are not in any 4 order of preference. ; (1) A proposed site will include'a minimum of 200 acres. It must be on relatively flat buildable terrain with a reasonable configuration. The site cannot be located within a floodplain area. (2) A proposed site must have soil with a sufficient bearing value to support structures which can accommodate the prison facilities for up to 3,000 inmates. The proposed site must also have adequate drainage and be free from problems caused by a high-water table. The topography of the proposed site must be suitable for construction. (3) A proposed• site must have a sewage disposal system that meets applicable state standards and be available at a proposed site by the construction deadline at a reasonable cost. (4) A proposed site must have a water supply that meets applicable state RU190-Page 1 of3 CD 7090 (5/67) standards and be available,to a proposed site by the construction deadline at a reasonable cost. (5) A proposed site must have other essential utilities, including electricity, gas, and telephone, that meet applicable building codes, and be available to a proposed site by the construction deadline at a reasonable cost. (6) A proposed site must be accessible to the Interstate Highway system or be within 20 miles of a currently operational State Corrections facility. A proposed site must be contiguous to an all-weather highway which is maintained by the State, County, City or private party.. If such an all-weather highway is privately owned, the owner must agree to maintain the highway at a level acceptable to the Corrections Department. (7) A proposed site must be within a reasonable distance of local and/or state police law enforcement agencies that will permit adequate emergency assistance from those agencies within a reasonable response time. (D) A proposed site must have availability of adequate fire protection services. (9) A proposed site must have availability of a local emergency'medical transportation system which is available to respond in no more than a 20 ; minute response time. (10) A proposed site must have an accredited, acute-care hospital licensed by the State within one hour's driving time. (11) A proposed site must be close enough to post-secondary facilities in order to provide GED and technical educational services to inmates. (12) A proposed site must have a population base of at least 30,000 people within a 50-mile radius of the proposed site. A proposed site must e have an adequate local work force'to staff the facility and adequate local community support services for: s (a) Institutional maintenance; k t F (b) Food supply; and s E. (c) Treatment and support services for inmates. (13) A proposed site shall not be located within an area used exclusively for single-family or multiple family dwellings. ` Desirable Criteria ` 291-90-015 Desirable Criteria: The desirable criteria are listed below. They are not in any order of preference. Preference may be given to sites with one or more of the following characteristics: (1) A proposed site which has access to higher educational facilities for staff improvement purposes. These could include accredited colleges, universities, community colleges and vocational schools. (2) A proposed site which has commercial overnight lodging and restaurants for visitors within a reasonable distance. (3) A proposed site which has adequate housing for facility staff and RU 90 - Page 2 of 3` their families within a reasonable distance. (4) A proposed site which is within a reasonable distance of primary and secondary schools for the children of facility staff. (5) A proposed site which is available at no cost to the government. (6) A proposed site which has commercial ground and air service nearby. (7) A proposed site with community support. (8) A proposed site which is designated as industrial or commercial property. (9) A proposed site which includes a minimum of 400 acres. (10) A proposed site which is roughly equal in length and width. (11) A proposed site which minimizes construction costs. (12) A proposed site which minimizes operating costs. FBP:aw 0121W 06/89 RU 90 - Page 3 of 3 Subject: STATE OF OREGON MANDATORY AND DESIRABLE CRITERIA FOR NEW Department of Corrections MEDIUM SECURITY PRISON SITE ~ ` ( iB 3496) Related ACA Standards: TEMPORARY OAR 291-90-005 through OAR 291-90-015 ADOPTION Rule #90 (Tab N68) STATUS Functional Unit(s) Affected: Construction Division Procedure Requirement (Yes - No 2-<) Approved: Effective Date: 06-08-89 F_re3_8_.__P'earce, birector (Supersedosdocurnontdated: NA 1 Authority and Purpose 291-90-005 (1) Authority: The authority for this rule is granted to the Director of the Department of Corrections in accordance with ORS 423.020 and f 423.075. (2) Purpose: In accordance with 1113 3496, these mandatory and desirable criteria are intended to provide a site for a prison capable of handling up to 3,000 inmates, located in an area that will support up to 900 staff and their families with appropriate support services at the lowest feasible cost. Mandatory Criteria 291-90-010 The mandatory criteria are listed below. They are not in any order of preference. (1) A proposed site will include'a minimum of 200 acres. It must be on relatively flat buildable terrain with a reasonable configuration. The site cannot be located within a floodplain area. (2) A proposed site must have soil with a sufficient bearing value to support structures which can accommodate the prison facilities for up to 3,000 inmates. The proposed site must also have adequate drainage and be free from problems caused by a high-water table. The topography of the proposed site must be suitable for construction. (3) A proposed, site must have a sewage disposal system that meets applicable state standards and be available at a proposed site by the construction deadline at a reasonable cost. (4) A proposed site must have a water supply that meets applicable state RU1 90 - Page 1 of 3 co 7090 (51871 standards and be available,to a proposed site by the construction deadline at a reasonable cost. (5) A proposed site must have other essential utilities, including electricity, gas, and telephone, that meet applicable building codes, and be available to a proposed site by the construction deadline at a reasonable cost. (6) A proposed site must be accessible to the Interstate Highway system or be within 20 miles of a currently operational State Corrections facility. A proposed site must be contiguous to an all-weather highway which is maintained by the State, County, City or private party.. If such an all-weather highway is privately owned, the owner must agree to maintain the highway at a level acceptable to the Corrections Department. (7) A proposed site must be within a reasonable distance of local and/or state police law enforcement agencies that will permit adequate emergency assistance from those agencies within a reasonable response time. (8) A proposed site must have availability of adequate fire protection services. (9) A proposed site must have availability of a local emergency medical transportation system which is available to respond in no more than a 20 minute response time. (10) A proposed site must have an accredited, acute-care hospital licensed by the State within one hour's driving time. (11) A proposed site must be close enough to post-secondary facilities in order to provide GED and technical educational services to inmates. (12) A proposed site must have a population base of at least 30,000 people within a 50-mile radius of the proposed site. A proposed site must have an adequate local work force'to staff the facility and adequate local community support services for: (a) Institutional maintenance; (b) Food supply; and (c) Treatment and support services for inmates. (13) A proposed site shall not be located within an area used exclusively for single-family or multiple family dwellings. Desirable Criteria 291-90-015 Desirable Criteria: The desirable criteria are listed below. They are not in any order of preference. Preference may be given to sites with one or more of the following characteristics: (1) A proposed site which has access to higher educational facilities for staff improvement purposes. These could include accredited colleges. universities, community colleges and vocational schools. (2) A proposed site which has commercial overnight lodging and restaurants for visitors within a reasonable distance. (3) A proposed site which has adequate housing for facility staff and RU 90 - Page 2 of 3 their families within a reasonable distance. (4) A proposed site which is within a reasonable distance of primary and secondary schools for the children of facility staff. a (5) A proposed site which is available at no cost to the government. (6) A proposed site which has commercial ground and air service nearby. (7) A proposed site with community support. (8) A proposed site which is designated as industrial or commercial property. F F (9) A proposed site which includes a minimum of 400 acres.` (10) A proposed site which is roughly equal in length and width. s (11) A proposed site which minimizes construction costs. (12) A proposed site which minimizes operating costs. I FBP:aw i 0121W 06/89 FF.Y F P 6 i ! S i P L RU 90 - Page 3 of 3 i ii i. A summary of the questions asked and answers given at lire public infornt:ttion meeting regarding the possible prison sites in the North Plains area. Mc•cling conducted by CPO-8 on Jul}' 12, 1989 at 7:(K) p.nt. in Ihc. Jessic Mays Community I loll in North Plair;. r i 4 i What type of Crimes arc represented ill the n►ediunr security culeg;ory? k medium security inmates include all ranges of crimes, including murder. You have to remember t 111.11 Some people who go into prison are in ntaximunt security, maybe they serve a 20 year sentence, that's the little they actually are in prison. As they have been in prison for a while and we have had a chance to understand who they are and what their behavior is, many of them don't need to. be in a nraxintunt security cell, so we transfer them to a medium security facility where the rules :u•e a little hit easier. They still are under 24-hour, 7-day custody and then many of them, prior to their ultintale release when they have legally served their sentence, are moved to minintunt security larilitics because we have found over the years that it makes a lot more sense to ii-ansition people back into the conununity rather than having; thettt come from an environment where they have been 4 locked tilt in a cell by Ihenrseh•cs willi no oilier contact with inmates and taking them out and turning them loose at the I'ront gates of the prison. So, there are all different kinds of people ill the medium security classification. S i What does the slate of Oregon do in paroling their inmates in the local area': ff =E. (answered by hick Mars, Director of Corrections in Washington County) In terms of how we parole individuals in the Slate of Oregon, up until ibis last legislative assembly, :r petition was eligible I'or parole in any of the 36 counties in the state of Oregon. This legislative assembly did pass a law that in the future will require each of the 36 counties that commit an offender to a state institution t t; to be responsible for the first 6 ntonlhs of parole 1'rom that respective county. So if Washington County sends 100 inmates to :t state institution, and those saute 100 parole out, we will be responsible for the supervision of Ihose parolees here in Washington County I'm the first 1S0 clays. %Vital process will the state use to acquire the land? f The process that we will use to acquire the 1:111d will be first, we will probably contract with the t- State Department of Transportation to enter into negotiations with the owner in an effort to buy the property at fair market value. They appraise the property, they usually get two or three appraisals to c:slablish the value. If we are not able to successfully purchase the property, we do have the right of imminent domain and can condemn the property and purchase it. Once you build it will the state pay property taxes? t,. ~y The sloe does not pay property taxes. It is Illy understanding; that there is presently an urban growth boundary along; Shute Road. NEC and hujilsu and other companies are building cast of that boundary. How does the siting; process proceed in relation to file 1jCB? a I can't answer that. Recommend that you contact Bruce Boyd. He is our expert in land use. . f I'ag;e 2 flow do you pla►► on getting your water and your sewer? In the hudget we have built in that we ru► develop a lot of those svstents ourself it' necessary. One of the things that the Department of 't'ransportation will evaluate for each of the properties that they give to its is the proximity of water, sewer and storm drainage and if it can handle ttte type of capacity that we are talking about. In other words, how muds money will it cost us to help a community develop a system if that's what it takes because that's what we have to do. So that is one of the issues that they will evaluate. If it is prohibitively expensive to do that or you have to bring water, as an example, from a long distance away, that could cause a sight to be rejected. You did a good job of explaining; how you keep the innuUes is and such, and those people don't really concern file too much. What 1 wonder about are what I think of as the camp followers. You mentioned a prison in California with the girlfriends and such next door. You take it 3,000 bed prison, let's assume 10% of the families live nearby, North Plains is it small town. It's It small town that is slowly pulling; itself up by its bootstraps the lust few yeal-s. Tbrce hundred lower class people with some major problems will have a real impact on this town. Where in the process is that type of thing; taken into consideration? The camp followers surprisingly enough is a question which comes up fairly frequently. I don't know where you got your estimate of 10%. What I would like to do is use a specific situation in Pendleton, Oregon where we have a 1,000 bed facility that will expand to about 1,500 beds. We have had inmates there for 5 years. We keep records of everybody who comes to visit, as you know. We get very good identification from them. There have been 19 families move to the Pendleton area that visited inmates at the facility and 9 families have left the area, for a net increase of 10 people. Larry O'Rourke, is the Dean of Students at Blue Mountain Community College and is the chairman of a citizens comrnlillce in Pcrndlelon that interfaces with the prison. fie has Iwo teenage daughtct:s and you Call imagine the concerns he had. The Superintendent of Schools in Pendleton is also on that advisory committee. The schools and the social service agencies have not noticed any increase in recipients or demands on. services as a► result of the prison being located there. I :nn also aware of (lie study that is widely talked about ftom Marion County where it shows that there were a significant number of people who have moved into the community. We have about 4,200 inmates in Marion County, one of course is a nl;ixinlunl security prison where people can spend a long; time, about 1,800 inmates there. We have mental hospitals, we have a lot of different types state fucilitics. Unfortunately we are. not able to segregate out from that study exactly how nnvny people camp-followed into that area as result of the prisons. In keeping actual records in Oregon State Peniteniian• and Oregon Correctional Institution, we found about the same statistical records that Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in Pendleton found. You have to remember also that ill a medium security prison, people typically serve pretty short sentences. They are only there from 24 to 48 months. That is usually not long enough for a family to pick up its roots and move. We also find that many people in prison don't have a family to follow them. You mentioned schools, in yoirr :u►swer. You mentioned guile it few support personnel, gu:u•ds, adminislraIOI'S and 50 on. 1 assuu►e Ihose people normally do move into the itl•ell :u►d those people have kills. Normally when It developn►tnl like Ihul occurs as If result of it major industry coming; into fotvtt, that industry pays faxes and the school benefits from that. In this case, as I undersland it, the prison facility does nol pay taxes. The residences that those people live in don't pay enough taxes to educate their kids. Where is the school expected to make up those taxes'' One of the things that we do look at in our siting criteria is the existing capacity of the school system as «•ell as other social service agencies because we are aware of I11a1 situation. That's the kind of thing the community heals to be concerned about and the kind of thing that we want to address as we look at the sites that we're going to ultimately select. Page 3 This area hats a lot of airpl:ute traflic that goes to the municipal airport and the glider club and also it lot of aerial spraying because this is one of the befit far•n► countries fn the whole world, and I mean the world, :►ttd you are proposing to Ilse the best soil to scrape ofT and build it prison oil, some of the best soil we are not making -.lily more of that some day we are going to need to feed all the people that we're going to have in the valley. How many communities have contacted the Department of Corrections and would like to have it prison sited in their area? I may not include them all, so forgive me if I don't because some of them have contacted Bruce Boyd directly. Sherman County has indicated an interest in having a facility located in Rufus or Wasco. The city of Boardman and the Port of Morrow have indicated an interest. The city of I'endiclon had indicated au► interest, and I believe tlicy have concluded Ihcy arc not inlcre:sled now in another prison. LaGrande, Union County, had contacted us to get more information. As you know they held a public vote on June 27th, and about 70% of the people rejected the idea of having a prison there. The city of Baker has contacted us about possibly locating there. Coos County has contacted us about a facility there. Linn County has contacted us about sites and locating a facility there. I believe those are the ones that immediately come to mind. Are you going to take into consideration whether or not the community wants a facility them? 011r Of OW elCSifablc crilc.ria is support from the: local officials and the community and yes that will be considered. And how much consideration? It is a desirable criteria. If we find a perfect site in a community that may not want us, we may still put the prison there. i What g1la •atlle•e do we have or any conuuunify have 111.11 if you put a medium security prison in here and you roll out of maximum security beds Ihael you won't suddenly convert that into 11 muxiatum security prison? The siting legislation gives us the authority to site up to 2,500 medium security beds and 500 minimum security beds. That is a question that probably better addressed to any legal counsel who might be present because I can't answer that from a legal Standpoint. If it community decides they don't want it there and you decide you want it there, then we would have no choice? The super siting authority gives us the ability to put a prison where we believe it is best suited, but we will take into account the community preference. It semis to file that if a large percentage of (Ile c•onuuur►ity doesn't want it, it's not right to put them through the emotional stress of something file), don't wall(. My other questions is: are there any studies j that have been made as fur as property values in the surrounding community if ti,ey go up or down? ~ Yes, there has. 't'here arc :u nunthcr of diffelcnt sluclics that have been done and life results are ail over the board. In Pendleton, property values have remained stable. Remember that when the mental hospital shin down and I lams Pine Mills shut down, a lot of people lost their jobs and property values actually decreased. In the Crescent City area where California is building a very large maximum security facility culled Del Norte they found property values have been rapidly increasing and it's begun to cause property values to increase in Brookings and Gold Beach also. In other property in California we just had a study conducted for us that we paid for for the Clackamas County area and Iltcy found that in the majority of instances property values around correctional facilities maintained or increased in value. You can contact Ken Dobble in the Clackamas County Planning DCparuncnl and he Can provide you with a copy of that report. If we are included in tie final live sites, are we still going to get the opportunity to say what we feel? Yes, you will. Isn't Condon interested? Don't they have in abandoned :►ir force base there that is very flat? You Ire right. Gilliam County did express an interest. It is an incorporated city that is ready to go and could accept a prison. One of the mandatory criteria is that are at Icast 30,000 people within 50 miles and Condon did not meet that criteria. One of file other mandatory criteria is that within one hour's driving time we have a hospital with acute care Capability. 'I'hCv did not elect that criteria. Condon dues not have adequate wale( or sewage capability. 'I'hev were eliminated in the first round of sites. You made a Comment earlier about an inmate's girll•ricffd in California and illy standards for file and lily family are not the saute as an inmate's girlfriend and I oppose a facility in this :urea. Our 1:11.111 is supposedly on or►e of the sites, and we have had this farm for several generations and what gives people file right to come out and say that this piece of ground will work and not ask the people who own it what they think? When we comtraCtcd with the Department of •I•ranspormlion to locate sites we did not ask them, in fart diseoutagCd tllCttt, to talk to property owners because we started Out with 96 sites and are now clown to 14 and we'll ultimately recommend up to five. When we start talking to the 10 to 12 communities which have sites from which the department will select up to five, we will also be talking to property owners so that they are aware of what happens. At this stage still, until those sites are selected, while I truly sympathize with you, I grew up on a large farm outside of NlcNlinnville, but until those sites are finalized, that's the time to worry about it. So there's nothing we cuff do now? If there are specific things about the site you think we should know about, you should contact Bruce Boyd. You should also contact Bruce to let him know what kind of farmland it is and those sorts of filings. The implication that yon seem to he presenting louight is that ti►e people no longer have tiny rights that this is it foregone conclusion and you :u•e going to do what you want to do and that we can say something to our city council, or to the mayor, or to the county commissioners, or whatever, but in the end it won't amount to anything. Now, I have been it fair student of constitutional rights for quite it while and I don't think this will hold up in court at all, hilt we don't want to have to do that, it's very expensive. 1 would like for you to go through one, two, three, four, live, six, seven....and give its the exact criteria that you're going to use and tell us exactly when we will have, if we are selected as one of the finalists, exactly when we can speak, and what we can say and what elTecl it might have? On June 8, 1989 we adopted the temporary rules which outline the mandatory and desirable criteria. With your indulgence, I will read the mandatory criteria which are the ones over which there are no appeal. (Cri(eria was read.) As far as the specific elate when you will have opportunity to offer the input, these will be public meetings that will be publicized in advance. 1 cannot tell you when the meeting will be held for any of the up to five sites, but that will be advertised. Has the time already passed far challenging the advocacy of that criteria? l am not an attorney so 1 can't answer that specifically. Doesn't the bill have a 21 day provision in it to challenge it? Without trying to give you legal advice, I think what you would need to do is when sites were ultimately selected, you can appeal if you felt that a site did not meet the mandatory criteria. i Our currenl governor and our past governors plus :a lot or our elected representatives spend a great deal of lime going overseas, in particular Japan, to try and entice these people to conic over and build. The state of Oregon is going through it recession of our own, so to speak, where the timber industry and the spotted white owl, fishing and the Valdez are ruining our resources, jobs ill particular are of importance. It appears to tile that if whoever makes the criteria up, with the Hillsboro airport, with NEC, will all of the people we have enticed to collie in here to provide jobs, that do pay taxes, (flat do improve the quality of living here, how much the governors' have all spent considerable lime getting these Japanese to invest, to build corporations, to provide jobs and pay taxes and what not, lily question is how much does that have on the determination on whether the site's picked? I don't understand your question. The question is, the governor seerhhs to have :h big plan. Ile has been trying to create new businesses, new corporations to build out here, to provide jobs in the state or Oregon. Ile has done it great job of enticing the .lupar►ese to collie over here, and it appears that it you look at the growth plums for Hillsboro and Washington l..aunty there are more major corporations planning to collie in here and build. You have stated that you do not like houses built butting up against your prison, what are they going to do, are no factories no Corporations caul butt lip against the prison either? I think I said in the mandatoryMcsirable criteria we have provided For what we think is enough property to provide an adequate buffer so that we will own property far enough around the facilities themselves so that people will not come right up next to it. 1'•u1c h l'he impact of losing new businesses of coating into this area or how is the governor going to tell these guys that -.arc going to collie in here and build Ihvir corporations or planning to build their corporations that note a there is a prison going lip. Iloar much are they going to consider %vha►t it prison call do to tile ecolloillic growth of this area which seems to be growing at a very rapid rate and a high duality rate. We're not getting fiber factories out here. We're getting quality high-tech companies. We are attracting businesses which is-ill meet the demand through 2050. I mentioned the study by Lord & Associates for Clackamas County that did address specifically that issue with 77 acres that are adjacent to the sherifl's compound that they wanted to develop as an industrial park. The study found that there was no adverse impact anywhere that they could find on industrial development. I should have mentioned that the jobs we are going to create are. 240 initially and that for example a correctional officer starts at SIO.W an hour which is it good wage. i . a Is it site selected in Salem near the new correctional institution? i' The governor and the department has publicly stated on it number of occasions that we will not build any more prison beds in Marion County and we intend to live up to that. I have examined the mandatory criteria that you read and I have also examined the desireable criteria that you did not read. My impression of those criteria is that they are selfish. They have listed everything that will facilitate building a prison at a minimum cost with it minimum amount of effort and it minimum amount of planning on the state's part. Please tell ale what studies have been done or what criteria were used ill determining these sites that will put the minimum amount of stress, and inconvenience, and negative impact on the communities that you propose' Are you asking the how (lid we conic up with the criteria? E Are there any that consider the community a►td not just the Mate in its position? No answer. F i r f Obviously one or the criteria is the proximity to the criminal hale. Needless to say, that base is in Portland/Multnomah County. My question is are there any sites in the final 14 in Multnontult County or k near Portland, nearer than North Plains? " No. i t E i i f i 6 i Page 7 i You were talking about the jobs 1 imagine will come to the conununity if the prison was built. Where do you hire your people from? Are they going to Ile people fron► this area, are they going; to be from out of state, like the guards, and how do you go Ilhout hiring these people? 1 We try to hire as many people locally is we can because that cuts clown on people relocating and uses the existing resources and housing stack. In Pendicion, we lure(] the majority of the people from Iustern Oregon. We just recently hired :ill additional 2(X) people, about 34 of those people came from the Willamette Valley. The rest of those people came from Eastern Oregon, Eastern Washington. The process that we go through to hire people, we advertise in all of the kinds of ` papers and publications that we can and use the employment agency in any other area that we run find to help us recruit people. We have training sessions where we use video tapes and actual guards that conic in. We have people who actually pay $40.00 to attend these sessions to find out if' they want to be a correctional officer. These sessions run for two Saturdays, and if they decide Ihcy still want to proceed, then we have a series of Icsis that we give them, and often times, like in Pendleton, a community college will be oflcring courses to help them learn more about being correctional officers. So we like to work in conjunction with local educational facilities. So that's basically how we go about recruiting. We do spend some time up front making sure that's what people want to do. Isn't it pretty hard to become a correctional officer? Is that the only jobs? We will need secretaries, physical plant people, maintenance: people, food service people, warehouse people, mechanics, etc. foil were saying that approximately 200 acres will be set aside. flow much of that will he fenced, does the fence go clear to the outside perimeter of Thal 200 acres? Or is there an acre or two outside of the fence, or what will be done with the area that you do not need? My best estimate at this point in ;I minimum 2(X) acre size is that we will have a rninimunn of 120 it) 130 acres within fences. Ancl the rest of the property may not be fenced. In other words, the buffer property where the state property line is may not have a fence on it. So what is going to be clone with that property? Does it grow up to bushes and trees and weeds and such, or what? Well, 1 don't know if you have been down to Salem to look at any of the facilities there or over to Pendleton, but we do maintain them pretty well. And (flat is something that the inmates do limillmin - minimum security innnatcs. 1 really don't have much information, perhaps there are two sites to he picked, one to start with 1,500 people and then if the legislature says no, that you cannot pot 3,000 people there and you have to have u second site, are you going to pick that second site now and if so are you going buy it or just zone it prison and we just hold on to it until such a time, or what would happen to that second site'.' My understanding is that when the two sites go to the governor in a priority basis, there will be a first priority and a second priority. If the governor accepts the first priority site, and that site then makes it through the appeal process, that is the site we will usc. I don't believe we will purchase or take in option oil a second site. I~:II~I: ti Odle question I had, Some of the sites elimirulled today where because of the proxin►ily to airports. Is this )MMSC Of air lrafliC C01111•01? I read the same article you did and I'm not sure. You will have to conlact Bruce Boyd. Ilecause file flight path pretty march begins over North Plains here plus there is private airport right here and (lie -re is it landing pattern right over the prison which will probably have to he eliminated. My second question is reasonable distance as you have under file desirable criteria, and we're talking lthout living; facilities for probably another 3,000 people, n:rrn^ly staff, and we're talking about restaurant and loading facilities for prisoners. You must have Hillsboro, -m-nelius and Forest Grove in mind. Can you answer that question? Are they within reasonable distance because North Plains is really not developed, it seems like its isolated and would make an excellent prison site but I'm concerned about the other? Let me address first the flight or glide path. I know that having flown in and out of Salem a number of times we fly right over life maximum security prison. So I'm not sure that if a site is right on a flight path is a problem, but that is something that you need to talk to Bruce Boyd. As far as proximity it takes about 1/2 hour to drive out here from Portland where I live and that's close proximity. There's a lot of housing and restaurants in the area. I'm not sure a 3,000 inmate facility would generate 3,000 families or people. We think we will hire about 900 people for the full facility. When a n►an escapes, does (lie Department of Corrections' jurisdiction end at the fence when he's out off the property and then who comes ill there? The first question I cannot answer. I am not sure if our officers are dcputircd. The State Police are the ones who investigate all of the crimes in a prison. When we have an escape we notify all local law enforcement officers. Are those local enforcement agencies subsidized to help take care of a problem? I'm not aware of [hat happening. I do knoN, that in the Houser area where we are going to build a minimum security prison clown by Coos flay, we beefed up the staffing; in [he ,;late• police office. We Conllni[tcd to do that wl►en the facility opens. The facility along; the sanliv» highway, would that be comparable to the one you're proposing? That's about 1,070 inmates. Will the security measures be the sane? 'Those fences as an example are about 20 feet aparl. They don't have is much wire in-between or on lop as we have in Pendleton and they have gun towers which we do not have in Pendleton. We are leaning, now loward not having gun lowers as an example on the perimeter fences. So it would he roughly similar but the electronics we would use would be significantly different. Page 1) Do you have ally numbers on the number of escapes from that prison, Diane Downs is an unusual situation since that was a single fence. ]'III not sure when we have had the last escape from OSCI. _ Those consnsunities in the essst get a lug or people out tlsere. I was talking to sou►e people out there this afternoon and there is a pretty good nosy or traffic front one or those prisons. The reason there sure no more prisons in Marion County is because they have 4 sill(] everyone is corrections and all of the outlying towns can't handle the traffic. Actually there are six prisons (here. You mentioned earlier the homeowners and landowners should not be concerned about moving; or having their land bought until they're approached, hilt th.0's hard to du, human nature doesn't allow that, in the back or your mind when you're oil one of these proposed sites. And the fact is that whatever city it is located in there's goings to be some homeowner who's going to have to relocate. My question is, once they're approached and the hind is purchased, how much little does the occupant have to relocate? A couple of things. There are a couple pieces of land that have nobody living on it. The second thing is the Sunderland site in Portland had two people living on it and the state paid for the people to relocate. One of them relocated 45 days after we purchased the property and the other relocated in April of this year and we purchased the property in November of last year. What we do is provide notice is that we need people to move and I'm not specifically familiar with the law on that. We use the federal guidelines which the state has adopted. The Department of Transportation uses l the same procedure as building the highway. You quoted this issue as emotional not rational. Will you explain that Please? When people hear that a prison is being built next to them or is considered being built next to them, the kind of things that first people Think about is what :till I going to do about people escaping, what ant I going; to do about people moving into the community, all the kinds of things you're talking about. You don't think about the economic impact. You don't think about the jobs created, the spinoff and the turnover of those dollars in the community, the significant impact you can have of just the construction alone, the infrastructure improvements that can be paid for a community as a result of the prison coming in. And so 1 would suggest from my standpoint if I were a citizen the first thing that I Mink of are all of the emotional issues, and not the other issues. If you have the mandatory criteria and you have rejected the Condon site based oil the 30,000 population t within 50 miles, however, the trvo sites in North Plains are still on the list, and there's no guarantee that these two sites meet all of the mandatory requirements either, how can you eliminate some sites because or one mandatory criteria and not consider the hest site for the facility? I'm note sure I understand !1►e second part of the question. All of the sites that will be given to its by the Department of Transpormlion will be certified to ntcel all of the mandatory criteria or they will not be given to us. I':al,c III this will break-up the economic value 01'01C firm. You said you will have the land appraised at fair market value. What is the fair market valor of a prison. I'm not interested in selling it at fair market value or ;a farm because that fluctuates up and down frith the economy. However, we may have to instigate it trade, hill if you're going to take part of the farm you might as well take the whole damn think. Is the fair market value going to be hosed on agricultural basis or industrial basis, or prison basis. How do they arrive at that? When the Department of Transportation was negotiating with tlac owners of Sunderland Avenue next to the Riverside Golf Course, they got three different appraisers. I'm not sure how they're selected. I think the owner selects one, the Department of Transportation selects one, and maybe the two of them select a third. ]'m not sure how the process works. They appraise the property like any other appraisal and that gives you a range. In the Sunderland facility the people agreed on the price we offered and we purchased [lie properly for.30M,M) which was a little over 26 acres. Two of the nutatlatory requirements were sheriff and lire emergency response. It was my understanding that both or those are severely limited right now. I've have a volunteer fire dep;u•tnaent and we hnve. very few sheriff's to cover Washington County. Are those not valid to make us not ill consideration? Those are criteria that Bruce Boyd does evaluate and they rule on adequacy for a lot of different buildings in addition to prisons. ']'here is at high school relatively close. Is that taken into consideration? Yes. Bruce Boyd's committee will tell us how close the schools are to (fie site. (directed to Corrections Officer) Do you have any information on how many inmates relocate close to the prison because the people who visit them move to the area? Not aware of that data. Marion County provided a study of similar questions, but that is part of the reason why Marion County is not interested in continuing to build facilities. Does the criteria take into consideration other growth projections ill the area in their share or sewer and sheriff facilities, etc. How ninny tech industries will be blocked out because the facilities are not available? I do not have any information on that however Bruce Boyd's study should have that type of information. One of the things that the minimum security facility siting process did was an economic impact study and that [ype of slutly will be done for this facility. Will nuaxinnnn security prisoners be located in the medium security prison before being paroled land then to minimum security so they will be going through file transition in this Coll) uunaity? Sheridan is a federal prison with 5,10 medianl security iRnaates and 250 minitmun security inmates. A state medium security prison may have some inmates released directly front the medium security when their legal term has been served. Our correctional philosophy is to transition from maximum, to medium to minimum and that is how the majority of inmates are transferred. Coalition for Responsible Prison Siting Report A 1 August 16. 1989 Cost of Local Infrastructure fora Large State Prison The State's prison siting criteria are designed to shift a significant fraction of the cost of Prison operation to the local community in which the prison is built. This is to be done by requiring that the necessary infra-structure (roads, sewer, police, schools, etc.) be available and provided by the local community. The following information identifies these costs. Conditions are being submitted to the State to ensure that they are borne equally by all citizens of the state. The deadline for these conditions is August 30,1989. It is the Coalition's goal that these costs be identified in public and paid by the Department of Corrections. This will be done as part of their construction costs or as part of their operational budget. Costs are identified in terms of conditions the Coalition wishes to impose of operation of the prison. Topics are organized into four categories: Traffic, Utilities, Community Services, Architectural Issues. TRAFFIC: Prison operation will bring increases in traffic on local roads beyond that envisioned in current plans and funding projections. Traffic restrictions are needed to prevent disruption of local farm and commercial use of existing roads. 1. The State must provide funds for an independent study of all impacts on ground transportation caused by prison operation. The study is to be directed by Washington County planning staff to ensure that it is conducted according to applicable professional standards. Findings of the study must be made available to the public prior to the start of construction. At a minimum, the study must investigate impacts on: * Farm equipment easements and turning space * Widening and resurfacing roads to handle increased traffic. * Construction of on/off ramps and overpass on highway 26. * Necessary traffic lights and other similar features. Estimated cost of study ...................$100,000 Source: Coalition research Staff estimate 2. The Department of Corrections must provide funds to pay for improvements to roads called for in the study. The Department of Corrections must ensure that funds to cover these costs are made available at the start of prison construction. Cost of Jackson School Road Overpass t 5,000.000 Estimated cost to improve traffic control S 2,000.000 Widen nearby county roads S 5,000,000 Source of highway construction funds: General State Funds Source of information: Washington Counly -Department of Tra_nsoortation telephone interview August 2,1989- (Jackson School Road overpass costs) UTILITIES: The siting criteria call for selection of a site where water, sewer. gas and electricity are readily available at reasonable cost. Water is not available on either site and must be purchased from nearby communities. The prison sewage demands could use up 7% of the total current capacity of the Unified Sewerage Agency. This is particularly troublesome in view of the County's commitment to meet stringent water quality standards and may preclude planned residential and commercial construction by pre-empting future increases in sewage treatment capacity. Restrictions are intended to prevent this. 1. Sewage treatment equipment located inside the prison compound must be adequate to treat sewage in a way that effluent discharged into the Tualatin River not affect the County's goals for meeting water quality standards. Only properly pre-treated sewage will be accepted into the Unified Sewerage Agency system. Quality must be ensured by means of weekly tests of effluent composition. Failure to meet previously agreed upon standards will result in a fine of $1,000 per day for each day in which standards are not met. Estimated cost of on-site pre-treatment system $1,200,000 Cost of extension and upgrading existing lines to meet increased demand $ 892,890. Connection costs $ 937,500. Annual charges by Unified Sewerage Agency. 121.500 First year sewer siting and operation costs $3,162,015 Source of Information: Medium Security Prison--Sewerage System Impact. (prepared for Board of Directors of Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County by agency staff. August 8, 1989.) The State must pay all customary and reasonable connection fees In full. in advance of construction of sewage lines. The State has suggested that they amortize fees and costs over a ten years at 7%. This would have the effect of imposing part of the expense on Washington County Taxpayers and is not acceptable. An on-site prison sewage treatment system must be in place to assure minimum impact on the Tualatin River and to lessen the possibilities of viral contamination from hepatitus and HIV i "Prisoners have been identified by the Center For Disease Control as an unusually high risk subgroup, presumably due to the high rate of IV drug abuse, with current rates varying but up to 15% of inmates carry the HIV virus In Oregon, depending on MEN I 2. The State must monitor all prison storm drains and must fully comply with all applicable Unified Sewerage Agency Standards. Storm drains must be constructed in such a way as not to interfere with nor impede the normal flow of McKay Creek. Runoff from the Prison property must not increase monitored pollution in McKay Creek watershed or in the creek itself. This area is already problematic, and the State must share responsibility for holding levels to an acceptable agricultural level of total phosphates.1 The State must guarantee that existing drainage will be maintained in the surrounding farmland with no adverse impact on farming operations. Cost to construct and monitor storm drains: $500,000 Source of funds: Dpartment of Corrections Operations Budget Source of Information: Coalition research staff estimate 3. The State must ensure that there is no adverse impact on ground water in the vicinity of the Prison. No water supply wells will be allowed on the prison property. New test wells must be located in at least six sites surrounding the prison property. All test wells must be monitored every three months to ensure the community that there has been no impact on water quality or water table level. Existing wells within two miles of the prison site must be sampled annually for the same purpose. If any impact is noted, corrective action must be in place within 30 days. Otherwise a fine of =1000/day will be due to cover costs to the affected parties. Cost to construct test wells: $100,000. Estimated annual cost 20,000. Source of initial funds: Department of Corrections Source of annual funds: Current drilling costs $20.00/ft which figure we use to estimate the normal pspulation... the rate of 1.2% in our inmate population is anywhere from 2.7 to 600 times that of the population at large." Public Information Committee Report Rega l i n g impact of a S t a t e Prison Located in Union CounLy. Oregon, John Millay, Prison Review Commettee Advisor. June, 1989. I Acceptable total phosphate level is .045• "Rural Non-point Source Monitoring System July 17,1989, developed by Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District. 4. The State shall pay standard commercial rates for all utilities and services to avoid shifting costs to other rate payers. Commercial rates shall be paid on water, electricity, gas, telephone and other utilities provided by a private or public entity. Construction costs shall be paid at the time of construction and shall not be amortized. i COMMUNITY SERVICES is E The State shall pay for the full capital construction cost Aud full operating costs for the first five years of the incremental costs in school operation required to educate children of inmates and prison staff. School systems in the area are already at capacity and these costs will be incurred immediately upon commencement of prison operation. Local residents are not willing to absorb these costs. 1. Estimates of public school system costs are based on publicly available information and are as follows: Capital Construction Costs: Two new 400 student elementary schools = 8,000,000. Added space to two existing Jr. High schools 3.800,000. Added space to two existing High Schools 3.800.000. $15.600,000. Annual operational costs: Children of staff - 1250 $4,200. $ 5,250,000 Children of inmates - 400 v $4,200. 1.680.000 $ 6,930,0001 Source of funds: Department of Corrections Budget Source of information: Fred Pearce's comments in public meeting, August 10, 1989, North Plains OR (25 children per prison staff member) Assumes 50% of the prison staff lives Washington County. 6 t, 2. The State must provide funds to hire, train and equip Washington County fire fighters needed to upgrade the department from volunteer to full time operation. r t Prison staff members living in Washington County will contribute to property which will partially offset these costs as follows: 500 new taxpayers a $500 ea - 250,000 per year. 3 positions, 4 shifts w $40,000 per year $360,000 Training and equipment per year 40,000 Source of funds: Department of Corrections operation budget Source of Information: Coalition research staff estimate. Need for additional staff is underscored by experience in Marion County. On July 28, 1988, a toxic waste fire at the State penitentiary in Salem required 170 hours of overtime effort by 36 fire fighters over a 24 hour period to bring the fire under control (Statesman Journal). Training to deal with such incidents is being sought by the State Department of Corrections. 3. The Department of Corrections must pay all costs to investigate and bring to trial all crimes committed inside the prison. There shall be court facilities inside the prison to eliminate danger and costs associated with transporting inmates to the County Courthouse. Any arraignment at the County Courthouse shall be done by means of closed circuit television. Estimated annual cost : $ 250,000. Source of funds: Department of Corrections Operations Budget Source of information: Coalition research staff estimate. 4. The prison will place a heavy increase in case load on the Washington County District Attorney's office making it necessary to hire three new deputy district attorneys two legal assistants and a secretary. Estimated annual cost: $180,000 Source of funds: Department of Corrections operation budget Source of information: Possible E=omic and Fiscal impacts on Jackson County from a prison in White City. 5. A variety of impact studies indicate that introducing a large prison into a community brings with it increases in drug trafficking and crimes against persons and property. The State shall help combat this additional problem by providing funds to hire, train and equip three additional deputies per shift for the Washington County Sheriff for each 500 beds of prison capacity. 3 positions (salary, benefits and incentive pay), 4 shifts w $55,000 per year $660,000 Training and equipment, including vehicle costs, 3 positions, 4 shifts 115.000 $775,000 times 6 prison units $4,650,000 Source of funds: Department of Corrections Budget Source of information: Coalition research staff estimate based on verbal information provided by Washington County Sheriff's staff, August 14, 1989 6. The State must pursue all escapees, "walk-offs- and other inmates absent without permission within one half hour of being reported missing. Impacts on local Washington County Sheriff department operation shall be reimbursed at reasonable and actual costs. All inmates returned to the prison in this way shall be housed in the State Prison and not in the local county jail. Estimated annual cost: $80,000 Source of funds: Department of Corrects operation budget Source of information: Coalition research staff estimates. 7. There shall be no work-release activity outside the prison unless there is direct supervision by guards at a ratio of 1:10. Inmates accepted for work release must wear electronic locator bracelets. Estimated annual cost: $200,0002 l Last year 207 inmates escaped from the Salem area correctional facilities. On any given day more than 700 prisoners are free on early release programs. (Salem Staesman urnal. fuly 30. 1989.) When valkoffs are added to this, the figure soars to 1633 last year alone according to District Attorney Charles Turner. The term 'valkoffs' applies to medium and minimum security prisoners on work release, temporary release, parole and "hot beds" (bed rotation due to crowding) who do not return on time. Nigh on the list of reasons for delinquent return is avoidance of the mandatory urinalysis test. 2Assumes 4 hour shifts for 250 minimum security prisoners 200 days per year. Guard service assumed to cost $10.00 per hour. Source of funds: Department of Corrections operation budget Source of information: Coalition research staff estimate. 8. Studies have shown that prison operation brings with it an increased demand for family counseling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation housing assistance, emergency shelter and other similar human services. The State must provide 10 additional social workers to combat these impacts. Estimated annual cost for salary, benefits, i travel expenses, training, equipment and office space for 10 staff a 50,000/yr. $500,000 Source of funds: Department of Corrections operation budget Source of information: Coalition research staff estimate r s 9. The State must pay the full actual cost (including capital cost) for each F inmate attending local community colleges and universities. i 10. The prison shall be prohibited from employing a "bed-sharing" program, E the prison population shall not be allowed to exceed the design capacity. '.r 11. Any decision affecting the prison physical plant. operating procedures which would affect the surrounding communities in Washington County shall b,!~ published in the newspaper and brought to a CP08 meeting at least 90 days prior the the planned date the change would go into effect. This is needed to allow local citizens time to prepare for and react to the anticipated change. 12. The State shall assume full financial responsibility for any crimes, damage or other loss caused by prison inmates. Accidents, stolen farm equipment personal injury or other property damage shall be fully reimbursed. EE E t ARCHITECTURAL ISSUES 1. Prison buildings shall be limited to 1 1 /2 stories in height with the first 1 /2 story below grade to give the appearance of a single story structure. The exterior lighting shall be shielding from the surrounding oon3munity. Estimated construction cost to shield lighting: $400,000 Source of funds: Department of Corrections budget Source of information: Coalition research staff estimate The prison shall be landscaped to the standard of the Dawson Creek Industrial park. Visual barriers (berms) will be required to obscure sight of the prison from highway 26 or any adjacent county road. Estimated landscape cost: $1.100.000 Source of funds: Department of Corrections construction funds Source of information: Coalition research staff estimate based on landscape costs for for the Dawson Creek Industrial Park. 3.There shall be no impact on aircraft operation at any of five adjacent airports, including the operation of helicopters for agricultural uses. Electronic surveillance equipment must be FAA certified to prevent interference with radio-navigation equipment Estimated cost to certify surveillance equipment: $100,000 Source of funds: Department of Corrections budget Source of information: Coalition research staff estimate tf E f' f 4i[s S e. Cost Summary f. Construction Annual operation Traffic $12,100,000 Utilities 3,640,515 t 141,500 Community Services 15,600,000 13.190.000 Architectural issues 1.600.000 *Total $32,940,515 $13,331.500 *See addendum E• SOURCES Correctional Facility Siting Study. City of Rufus. Sherman County County. Oxon. Feasiblilty and Impacts . prepared by Century West Engineering, The Research Group, and Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones, and Grey, Attorneys at Law. April 3, 1989. Cruz, Robert. Manager, Collection Systems Division, Unified Sewerage Agency. Telephone Interview. August 14, "Drugs: Testing Reinstated". Oregonian: Metro/Northwest. July 30,1989. Department of Corrections, "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Health Services (Inmate)", RU 124. June 20,1989. Governor Neil Goldschmidt, Inteleads. "Managing Oregon's 'Silicon Forest"'. August, 1989. Gustafson, Alan. "Prison Crowding Makes Escapes Seem Routine." Statesman Journal, July 30,1989. Gustafson, Alan. "Salem foots bill for fire, police protection: Lost tax base also costs taxpayers". Salem Statesman. July 30,1989. Hillsboro Garbage Disposal. Telephone interview. August 14,1989. Impacts of Washington State's Correctional Institutions on Communities. by R. Pete Paroells, PH.D. and Keith Farrington, Ph.D., (date unavailable). "Institutions: Prisoners, mental patients take toll on Salem Services." Statesman Journal. July 30,1989. Manzano, Phil. "Prison Visits Can Mask Smuggling: Myriad methods of passing drugs keep guards busy." Oregonian; Metro/Northwest. July 30, 1980. McCoy, John. Concrete Mama. Prison Profiles from Walla Walla. University of Missouri Press: Columbia. 1981. The Prison Supersiting Bill: Did We Need It? By: Staff Attorney Blair Batson July 25, 1989 This week the Governor signed into law a bill to provide for the "supersiting" of medium security prisons. Supersiting means a facility can be sited without regard to otherwise applicable permitting processes, including the process required by state and local land use laws. It is not clear why the Governor or the legislature deemed the bill necessary. At public meetings in Washington County and elsewhere, Washington County legislators, and at least one official from the Department of Corrections, have suggested that the supersiting legislation was necessary because the state's land use laws do not allow the siting of prison facilities. The premise underlying this suggestion is inaccurate. A 1988 report submitted to the legislature by the Bureau of Governmental Research and Service (BGRS) shows that at least five correctional facilities, including one federal prison, have been successfully sited in Oregon through the land use planning process. (These facilities are located in Baker, Multnomah, Linn, Lane and Yamhill counties). While there is no provision of state law that specifically allows correctional facilities as a permitted use in any land use zone, neither is there any prohibition against their siting. As the five examples illustrate, local governments can and do provide for the siting of correctional facilities. What's more, contrary to popular perceptions, the land use process does not noticeably delay or otherwise impede the siting of correctional facilities. in response to a request from the governor's office, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) formed a committee to determine whether there was evidence that the statewide planning program inhibited the siting of needed public facilities. In a report adopted by the 300 WILLAMETTE BUILDING 534 S.W. THIRD AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 (503) 223-4396 Supersiting-Op. July 25, 1989 Page 2 Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in February 1989, the committee concluded there was no such evidence. The committee found specifically that the land use process had never significantly impeded the siting of jails or prison facilities. Given the stringent time restrictions on application approvals imposed by the land use process, the committee's findings make sense. State law requires local jurisdictions to complete all land use applications, including internal appeals, within 120 days of their submission. The City of Albany approved the necessary planning and zoning permits for the Linn County jail in less than 30 days. State law further requires that appeals of local decisions to the Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) be concluded within 98 days. A study of the first 50 LUBA decisions rendered in 1985, showed that even with the extensions of time allowed by statute, the average LUBA appeal was completed within 138 days - less than 5 months. Significantly, the VLCD committee found that there had never been an appeal of a land use decision involving a correctional facility. The committee concluded that supersiting proposals were spawned by erroneous perceptions that the land use permitting process involved much red tape by local governments and extensive appeals and litigation with local citizens. The facts showed the perceptions were unfounded. The DLCD report stated that proponents of particular facilities, and not objective students of the process, had generated the perception that the land use process was too lengthy. The report found that facility proponents viewed even the most routine permit application and review procedure as unnecessary or unjustifed - particularly when the need for the facility had grown to crisis proportions. Oregon's citizens have voted time and time again - in 1973, 1976, 1978 and 1982 - to support the statewide land use planning program. They have voted to ensure the conservation of resource land; they have voted for orderly and efficient development. They have voted for a process that promotes careful and sound land use decisions - a process in which they, as citizens, can participate. Citizens are now asking why a prison can be sited on 300-500 acres of prime farm land without showing the absence of more appropriate sites to accomodate the use. These citizens question &upersiting op. July 25, 1989 Page 3 the prudence of sidestepping the land use planning process for the siting of a high-density, high-impact and long-term use. They want to know why the state is undermining the integrity of its land use program, widely-renowned as the best in the country, when there is no evidence of a need to do so. We encourage these citizens to ask their legislators. Y 'f trts t.: M'. ix f pt, L t July 31, 1989 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TENTATIVE TIMETABLE FOR MEDIUM SECURITY PRISON Max. date Tent. date 7/24/89 7/24/89 HB 2713 signed SENSE 7;19/89 ODOT sites to DOC 8/23/B9 B/23/B9 Deadline for nominated sites to (30 days) (30 days) submit 'resolution demonstrating interest' 7/24-11/6/B9 7/26-8111/89 DOC site visits/meet with officials (105 days) (1B days) 7/24-11/6/89 9/1/89 1. DOC nominates up to 5 sites (105 days) (39 days) 2. DOC publishes initial report on sites 3. DOC distributes report 4. DOC notifies neighborhood assoc. 5. DOC provides media notice 11/26/89 8/31/89 Deadline to submit proposed conditions (125 days) (38 days) (10 days prior to Siting Authority Hearings 12/b/B9 9/11-15/89 Siting Authority holds Public Hearings (135 days) (53 days) (30 days after DOC nominations) 12/21/89 9/29/89 Siting Authority selects 2 sites (150 days) (67 days) (45 days after DOC nominations)(2B) (15 days after SA Hearings)(14) 1/5/90 10/13/B9 Governor approves/disapproves site(s) (165 days) (BI days) (15 days after SA selection)(14) 1/26/90 11/3/89 Deadline to petition Supreme Court (1B6 days) (102 days) (21 days after Governor approval) t If Governor disapproves site(s) 1115/90 10/23/89 Siting Authority re-selects site(s) (175 days) (91 days) (10 days after Governor disapproves site(s) 1130/90 11/7/89 Governor approves site(s) (190 days) (106 days) (15 days after SA selection) 2/20/90 11/28/89 Deadline to petition Supreme Court (211 days) (127 days) (21 days after Governor approval) RESOLUTION NO. 400 1 A RESOLUTION DECI.AIi1NC OPPOSITION TO A STATE OF OI?E.G )N MEDIUM-SECURITY PRISON BEING LOCA'TE' ADJACEXI' '1'O ' HE, CI'T'Y LIMITS OF NOR'1'll PLAINS, OREGON WHEREAS, the City Council and the citizens of North Plains, Oregon, know the need and have a strong interest in the construction ofa ntediunt-security prison in the Slate of Oregon; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a medium-security prison built on either of the two proposed sites adjacent to the North Plains city limits would be a poor use of Oregon's finest and most productive farmland; and WIIF,RI'AS, the City Council finds that building a medium-security prison adjacent to the North Plains city limits would not be in the best interests of the citizens and would be detrimental to the economic advancement, social service structure, public peace and safety of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council realizes that the added burden of providing the services needed to accommodate a development of this nature would put a strain on the city's alre:,dy suffering infrastructure system, public safety programs and school; and WHEREAS, it is clear the City Council has a mandate from the citizens in the city of North Plains to stand opposed to a prison being built adjacent to the North Plains city limits. NOW, BE IT RI:SOINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 01, THE CITY OF NORTH PLAINS THAT: t" Section 1. The City hereby declares its opposition to the location of a State medium-securely prison adjacent to the North Plains city limits. Section 2. The City of North Plains encourages the Washington County Board of Commissioners to take a position in opposition of the proposed Stale medium-secw'ily prison being located in the agricullural and unincorporated area surrounding the North Plains city limits. INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED THIS ITI'll DAY OF JULY, 1989. (11'Y ()F NORT11 PLAINS, OREGON By: MaN,or Attest: Recorder Page I - Resolution No. 400 North Plains Elementary District PO Box 190 North Plains Oregon 97733 (503) 647.2- Robert Duffy/superintendent Marge French/Deputy Clerk August 1, 1989 Mark Cushing, Chairman Prison Site Committee 1719 SE Locust Portland, OR 97214 Dear Mr. Cushing: This matter coming before the Board of Directors of the North Plains Elementary District #70, after preliminary consideration, finds that: 1) The State of Oregon is considering siting a major prison facility in a location immediately adjacent to the North Plains School District. 2) Up to 900 persons are expected to be employed at the facility. 3) The City of North Plains, being the nearest municipality to the proposed facility, will likely experience a significant increase in population due to the new jobs created. The potential also exists for increased population stemming from the families ok inmates relocating to the area. These population increases will likely include significant numbers of school age children. 4) The facilities of North Plains School are currently at or near capacity. A significant increase in school population would necessitate the construction of additional facilities and an increase in staffing. 5) The proposed prison facility will not generate any increase in the total assessed evaluation within the North Plains Elementary District, hence the District and its taxpayers will be impacted by an increase in school population with no commensurate increase in revenues. our duty the blossoming child planting a thought nurturing a curiosity THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT: The Board of Directors of the North Plains Elementary School District X70 opposes the siting of any such prison facility within or adjacent to the North Plains Elementary School District. Adopted this 1st day of August, 1989. Chairm , Board f Directors Clerk of the District TS:mf cc: Gov. Neil Goldschmidt Fred B. Pearce, Director, Dept. of Corrections Members of Prison Siting Committee Rep. Les AuCoin State Sen. Joan Dukes State Rep. Bruce Hugo Wash. Co. Commissioners (5) I- North Plains City Council Mr. Jon Fort, CPO Chairman West Union School Board of Directors Hillsboro Elementary Board of Directors _ Hillsboro High School Board of Directors Xt bNUb1U1~6i WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON August 8, 1989 Mayor Cynthia Hirst City of North Plains P.O. Box 537 Nortl Plains, OR 97133-0537 Dear May first: On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I would like to thank you for your letter. Based upon comments from you, many of your neighbors, and our own feelings, we are bringing a variety of issues to the attention of the Governor. Among those issues are: 1) advisability of permanently converting prime' agricultural land to institutional use; and, 2) the social and economic impacts of a facility of this magnitude could have on a small town the size of North Plains. In addition, there are a variety of other factors that need to be assessed and their fiscal impacts taken into consideration: 1) transportation improvements (overpass on Highway 26); 2) impact on law enforcement agencies; 3) court and jail capacity; and, 4) social service agency impacts. In closing please understand that the Governor has the absolute and final authority in siting this much needed addition to our State prison system. The entire Board shares your concerns about the North Plains sites and will be working in earnest to assist the Governor's office in recognizing the implications of the siting process. Sincerely, Bonnie Hays Chairman i john Meek Commissioner 4957M Board of Cuuni). Com;:nssioners r', fca! 1. -nn• Hili!•h+n•('r•a.4Clr• ..'-0 Phrmf• 50.1 ! (+4N t (t-v1 C IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 2 In the Matter of the Siting of ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 3 a State Prison in the vicinity ) of North Plains ) No. 4 This matter having come before the Board of County 5 Commissioners for Washington County at its regular meeting of 6 August 8, 1989; and 7 It appearing to the Board that the State of Oregon will 8 site, construct and operate a medium security prison facility 9 capable of housing up to 3,000 inmates; and 10 It rappc-aring tai the Board that, ac of this date, two sites 11 in unincorporated Washington County near the City of North 12 Plains have been designated as finalists for selection; and 13 It appearing to the Board that it considers this decision 14 to be one that will have impacts throughout the County well into 15 the 21st Century and that, given the magnitude of these impacts, 16 the siting decision must be given the benefit of an extremely 17 thorough, analysis, including the full input of affected 18 > community residents and local governments; and 19 D It appearing to the Board that this Board has an obligation 20 z^ to maintain its residents quality of life during this time of °m 21 z' unprecedented growth and development; and --o 22 v,c ~x 23 It appearing to the Board that state law identifies We criteria for purposes of siting a prison facility, including z= 24 0- technical criteria which is identified as mandatory, and v- 25 z D 0 P DRO:DEE:BB:0354o:8/1/89 1 Page , nor.-technical criteria, including community support, which is 1 desirable; and 2 It appearing to the Board, that the establishment of a 3 prison facility at either of the two potential sites lack 4 ' community support as shown by various interest groups and 5 private citizens' stated concern over the consequences of 6 locating a prison facility on one of the proposed sites; the 7 City Council of North Plains has gone on record opposing the 8 siting of this facility in the vicinity of its City, citing 9 legitimate concerns over the use of farm land, and the 10 detrimental impact on economic advancement, social services, 11 public peace and safety of citizens which both the City Council 12 and this Board represent; and formal opposition to the proposed 13 siting has been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners 14 by residents and businesses throughout Washington County; and 15 It appearing to the Board that community concern, among 16 17 other things, includes the adverse effect such a facility would 18 have on the developing business community within proximity of } the proposed sites, e.g., the displacement of sewer availability 19 D from the business community to support a large prison facility 20 V! outside the urban growth boundary, as well as the loss of 300 to o= 21 ~o ZZ 500 acres of prime farm land; and N., 22 aW It appearing to the Board that the findings provided in the 23 Jr WZ Report of the Siting Coordinator (June 19, 1989) do not z= 24 o; 25 adequately address the issue of placing a highly urbanized u- 26 °u 2 DRO:DEE:BB:0354o:8/1/89 Page i I C facility such as a prison within the rural area of the County; 1 and 2 3 It appearing to the Board that the proposed facility may 4 have adverse impacts or be effectively unsuitable pursuant to 5 mandatory siting criteria identified in state law and more 6 particularly in the nature of the ability to provide appropriate 7 sewage disposal (OAR 291-90-010(3)) and impact of such sewage 8 disposal and resulting runoff from the facility on the County's 9 water quality; accessibility to adequate roads 10 (OAR 291-90-010(6)); and adequacy of law enforcement agencies 11 (OAR 291-90-010(7));and ' 12 It appearing to the Board that several previously 13 considered sites have been removed from further consideration 14 due to characteristics also found at the Washington County 15 sites, e.g., loss of prime farm land and close proximity to 16 residences; and, now, therefore, it is 17 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Board of County commissioners 18 for Washington County 1) expresses strong concern over the } 19 development of the siting criteria and process used to date; z 0 2) supports the concerns and opposition to the proposed siting u_ 20 om 21 of a prison facility within Washington County due to the adverse c~ zc 22 impacts and consequences to our community; 3) finds the proposed V) t• so 23 sitings lack the community support as contemplated by siting J.: z~ 24 criteria (OAR 290-90-015(7)) and 4) further finds that selection ON °2 ~5 of either of these sites will have significant and ,I D 26 0 3 DRO:DEE:BB:0354o:8/1/89 Page _ 1 long-range detrimental impacts on the health, safety and welfare of 11--he citizens of Washington County. 2 DATED this 8th day of August, 1989. 3 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 6 7 5 VOTES AY L CHAI 9AN 8 9 10 ECORDI11G SE RETARY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Z 20 Zx °m 21 O° Z~ yc 22 Ln v Q W ~c 23 J W zc= 24 N uJ 25 TZ Z 26 4 DRO•DEE:BB:0354o:8/l/89 0 Page i v ^ 1 ,t 4`yt i 4 EE[ i The attached statement was made by City of Hillsboro Mayor Shirley Huffman at the regular Millsboro City Council Meeting August 15, 1989. The Hillsboro City Council. voted unanimously to stand opposed to the building of a medium-security state prison on either of the two proposed Washington County sites. OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO EVERYONE IN THIS AREA IS THE ISSUE OF TWO WASHINGTON COUNTY SITES THAT ARE AMONG 13 POSSIBLE SITES BEING CONSIDERED FOR A MEDIUM SECURITY PRISON. BASED ON ALL OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO ME - INCLUDING THE REPORT OF THE SITING COORDINATOR; THE RESEARCH DONE BY OUR STAFF; MEDIA COVERAGE; RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY OUR NEIGHBOR, THE CITY OF NORTH PLAINS, AND BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; AND CITIZEN INPUT - I ASK YOU TO GO ON RECORD AS OPPOSING THE LOCATION OF A PRISON ON EITHER OF THOSE SITES. MANY OF THE VALID REASONS THAT SPEAK AGAINST THESE TWO SITES HAVE ALREADY BEEN VOICED MANY TIMES OVER AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED TONIGHT. I DO BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT NOT ENOUGH CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE RATHER DRAMATIC IMPACTS THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THE USE OF EITHER OF THESE SITES, NOT ONLY TO OUR NEIGHBORS IN AND AROUND NORTH PLAINS, BUT ALSO TO THE CITY OF HILLSBORO AND WESTERN WASHINGTON COUNTY - FOR EXAMPLE, FIRE SERVICES, COMMUNITY POLICE SERVICES, WATER AND SEWER SERVICES, JUSTICE SYSTEM SERVICES, MEDICAL FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. THE CITY OF HILLSBORO IS ALREADY SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE PROVISION OF MANY COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES - THE COUNTY JAIL OF 189 BEDS; A MAJOR RESTITUTION CENTER; THE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY; CHILDREN'S SERVICES DIVISION; A PAROLE AND w P' t PROBATION UNIT SERVING 3,600 CLIENTS PER YEAR; A MENTAL HEALTH' OUTPATIENT FACILITY; SHELTER HOME FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES; A ff t r. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER HOME. IT SHOULD BE APPARENT THAT THIS e-- AREA IS ALREADY DOING ITS SHARE IN THE DELIVERY OF SOCIAL SERVICES. IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS COUNCIL TONIGHT JOIN OUR NEIGHBORS, THE CITY OF NORTH PLAINS, AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN OPPOSITION TO THE SITING OF A PRISON ON EITHER OF THE TWO SITES PRESENTLY IDENTIFIED IN WASHINGTON COUNTY. E w C C RESOLUTION NO. 851 A RESOLUTION DECLARING OPPOSITION TO A STATE OF OREGON MEDIUM-SECURITY PRISON BEING LOCATED ON SITES IDENTIFIED ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF NORTH PLAINS, OREGON WHEREAS, the City Council and the citizens of Cornelius, Oregon, know the need and have a strong interest in the construction of a medium-security prison in the State of Oregon; and WHEREAS, the State of Oregon has identified two possible sites for such a facility adjacent to the city limits of North Plains; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a medium-security prison built on either of the two proposed sites adjacent to the North Plains city limits would be a poor use of some of Oregon's finest and most productive farmland; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that building a medium- security prison adjacent to the North Plains city limits would not be in the best interests of Cornelius and would be detrimental to the economic advancement, social service structure, public peace and safety of its citizens. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORNELIUS THAT: Section 1. The City of Cornelius hereby declares its opposi- tion to the location of a State medium-security prison on the sites identified adjacent to the North Plains city limits. Section 2. The City of Cornelius supports the Washington County Board of Commissioners in taking a position in opposition of the proposed State medium-security prison 'being located in the agri- cultural and unincorporated area surrounding the North Plains city limits. INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1989. CITY OF CORNELIUS, OREGON By r ATTEST By ity Mana er 851 y UN'iFIED SEWERAGEAGENCY OF WASHINGTC M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 8, 1989` 0 TO: Board 401/ 'Directors FROM: 'Gary Krahmer, General Manager SUBJECT: Medium Security Prison--Sewerage System Impact As requested, Agency staff has prepared the attached report on the potential impact of the proposed medium security prison on the public> sewerage system. Two sites are under consideration in unincorporated Washington County; both are in the vicinity of the City of North Plains and the Sunset Highway. /eb i C MEDIUM SECURITY PRISON--SEWERAGE SYSTEM IMPACT The Department of Corrections has completed an initial investigation of a number of potential sites for locating a medium security prison within the state of Oregon. That work was completed by the consulting firm of Construction Management and Negotiation, Inc. From an initial list of 96 sites throughout the state, 14 have been identified as qualifying under the criteria that is used for this type of an institution. Of those 14 sites, two are located within Washington County. Both are in the vicinity of the City of North Plains. This medium security prison would be developed in phases. The initial phase, it is estimated, would hold 500 inmates and employ approximately 90 persons. It is estimated that the prison site in total would be developed over a ten year period. Ultimately, it would be designed to hold 3,000 prisoners. It is also estimated by the consultant that each of the prisoners would generate 150 gallons of sewage per person per day. This number is consistent with the water usage that would be required for the prison site itself. The findings of the consultant are summarized on Exhibits A and B, attached. Exhibit A summarizes the findings of Site 82. This site is east of North Plains, east of Jackson Road in unincorporated Washington County. Site 88, the subject of exhibit B, is also in unincorporated Washington County, south of North Plains, just west of Glencoe Road. Based on input from the consultant, Agency staff has prepared the attached Exhibit C which shows estimated sewage flows and fees. The numbers generated on this exhibit are consistent with the numbers that are shown in the consultant's reports on Exhibits A and B. The estimated values are in 1989 dollars and reflect current Agency rates. Additionally, Agency staff reviewed the impact of this facility on the downstream collection system that runs through the city of Hillsboro and ultimately to the Hillsboro West Treatment Plant. The Hillsboro West Treatment Plant is the Agency facility that would receive the sewage from the proposed prison facility at either site. Exhibit D, attached, shows the improvements that would be required ultimately to enable the collection system to receive this sewage. Included in that attachment are costs that have been estimated to implement those improvements. Regarding the treatment facility itself, the Hillsboro West Treatment Plant does currently have the capacity to treat the sewage generated by the full development of this prison facility. However, that requirement--which could be up to 1,000 equivalent dwelling units--would take from the capacity that has been built into the system for the properties currently included within the urban growth boundary and within the boundary of the Unified Sewerage Agency. As stated in Exhibits A and B, both of these sites are outside the boundary of the Unified Sewerage Agency and outside the urban growth boundary (UGB). This means that, should the Unified Sewerage Agency provide service to either of these sites, normally an extraterritorial line extension would have to be applied for and received from the Portland Area - 1 - is E' t i Metropolitan Boundary Commission. It would also require the execution AP- of an agreement between USA and the Department of Corrections. The ` most recent similar agreement executed by the Agency was in may of t 1988. This agreement provided for sewer service to a mobile home park located outside both the UGB and the Agency's boundary. This mobile home park required public sewer service due to a history of failing septic tank and drain fields that previously has served the park for sewage disposal. It was finally declared a health hazard and the owners began negotiations for sewage collection and treatment by the Agency a couple of years ago. It has 67 dwelling units on it. In addition to the customary connection charges and user fees that have been itemized previously, a number of other fees would undoubtedly be included in an agreement, should one be executed. Those normal fees would include property taxes for the prior ten years, either a construction compensation fee (CCF) or facilities development fee (FDF) for connecting to the system, and a line tap fee. A CCF or FDF is t: currently $4,000 per physical connection. A line tap fee is currently $950 per tap. The property taxes for either of the sites under consideration for the prior ten years has not'been estimated.r R:. It is also noted in Exhibits A and B that the Agency has an ongoing problem with the quality of effluent from USA facilities. As stated in those exhibits, the Agency is working toward solving that problem. The solution obviously could have some financial impacts on not only this potential user, but the users throughout the Agency's system. Due to C very strict load limitations on the Agency by the State, it would seem appropriate that to require a facility outside the Agency's boundary and outside-the UGB to connect to the Agency's sewage system for the state to give the Agency additional load capacity equivalent to the sewage expected to be generated for this type of facility. 2 - Exhibit A REPORT OF THE SITDG COORDDMOR FOR OREO W DEPARITAWr OF CORRECTIONS DOC SITE EVALUATION STUDY June 16, 1989 MEDM4 SEWRITY FACILITY Site 82: North Plains, East of Jackson Ptoad, WashinxJtxn County Recamnendation: This is a site passing all the mandatory criteria. It should contirsis to be considered in the sitirrd process. General Comments on the Site: The site lies Just northeasterly of the proposed Jackson Road on the Sunset Highway. The access to transpac tation, utilities and other parts of the infrastructure are all beneficial. The size of arr. 1 41 31y 400 acres can ' be obtained by acquiring four parcels which are private ownership. + The bopograpI and drainage appear to be excellent. ..The small - drairl-W through the center of the site should be no problem. A. Site I f{caticn: Location: The site lies east of North Plains. It is bawled on the west i by Jacksm Road, on the north by West Union Road, on the east by a property line, and on the south by a property i ; ne. The Sunset Highway is about 2,000 feet south of the site. The site is in Section 8, MN, R2W, f+M, Washington County Size: The Site contains at S raKi rately 400 acres and is roughly square. Owner: The site is owned by four private parties. Availability: The site can be purchased at market price. Current Use and Zcni The site is zoned e=lusive farm use (EFV) and is currently used to raise hay and wheat. B. General De~iption: Site: The site is essentially flat, is roLx# ly squa=re in shape and has a minor drainage through the .-t earner. Utilities: Water supply and sewage disposal are not currently available at the site. To provide these facilities a three and one half mile 1 s extension of the sewer main and a three mile extension of the water main are required. Natural gas, electricity and telephone are available at a reasonable cost. C. Mandat xy Criteria: 1. Size: Site mist contain at least 200 acres minimum with 400 acres desirable, reasonably flat, not within a flood plain. i° Actual- This site contains approximately 400 acres, is reasonably flat and not within a flood plain. The site is 4 roughly square- r r 2A. Soil Type and General Drainage: Site must have soil sufficient to support stxucta res required for a 3,000 bed prism. Site moist have adequate drainage and be free of problems caused by a high crater table. Actual: The soil is a silt loatu layer approximately 20 feet deep with gravel below. The soil is reported to be capable of supporting 1, 200 to 1, 500 pounds per squa=w foot and is suitable to carry the spread footings required for a campus style facility. A minor drainage area runs southward through the southwest comer of the site. This can be put into a culvert or used in a landscaped buffer area. Tine site is not within the 100 year flood plain. 2B. Geanetcy and Cantons: The topography of the site must be suitable construction. Actual: This site is essentially flat and slopes slightly to ' the sarthwe t. A minimal amount of site preparation will be required for oonstruction. The site is suitable for. construction of a campus style facility. 3. Sew-age Disposal Syrian: The site molt have a sewage disposal system that meets applicable State standards and be available at the site by the oons ruction deadline at a reasonable cost. Actual: Sewage di.sposal service in this area is supplied by the United Sewerage Agency (U.S.A.) in Washirqton Gamty. They have dismal plant capacity to serve the site, but not the pipe line capacity. Anew sewer line will be required for a distance of three and one half miles. Some upgrading of the North Plains pump station will also be required. The cost of this exbensi,cn and upgrading is estimated at $900,000 by U.S.A. In addition, there is a connect-.ion fee of about $900,000 for a 3,000 bed prison. U.S.A. prefers these oasts be paid up fruit. It might be possible to make monthly payments which would amortize these costs over ten years at seven per er t. 2 r Q ` For a 500 bed grim there will be a monthly sewer users charge of about $1,800. For a 3,000 bed prison the ' monthly user fee will be abort $10,000. U.S.A. has an cn-going problem with the quality of the effluent from their sewage disposal system- They are working on a ' solution to this problem. The solution will probably result in a doubling of sewer user charges in the next few years. i The site is outside the urban growth b=-Aazy. U.S.A. does not normally provide service outside this boundary, but probably would make an except Lc n for the prison. An agreement with U.S.A. is required. f 4. Water Suooly: The site must have a water supply that meets applicable - State standards and be available to the site by the construction deadline at a reasonable cost. Actual:' Water is available from the Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Beaverton Joint Water Cmmi ssi c+. In order to supply water to the site, a main must be extended three miles. The supply available is adequate. The cost of the oc i mist be paid in advance by the State (apprccdmately $720,000). In addition there is a wat:ez eo'neetic n fee to be n egotlz ed (a mately $250,000), and a monthly user fee of about $11,000 for a 3,000 bed prison. The site is outside the urban growth boundary. The Water Oowmission does not te lly supply service outside this botandary, but probably would make an e=epticn for the prison. An agreement to this effect is necessary. 5. Other Utilities: The site mist have other essential utilities, including electricity, gas, and telephone, that meet applicable building cOdP , and az~e available to the site by the cons~ deadline and at a reasonable F. , Actual: Northwest Natural Gas Co. is just completing a 16-inch pipe line which nuns just north of North Plains. C nst n=t icn of of a feeder Lirye appznod mately 1,000 feet lcxxg will be required to serve the site. Because of the amount of gas the prison will use, No st Natural will probably provide this feeder line at no cost- The cn-site service line may also be a no-cost item. These Lines plus the rate for the gays itself must be included in an agreenent with Norihiwest Natural Gas. Electricity and telephone are available to the site at a reasonable cost. 1 3 I c 38 - - - dck~on~.it } . C~ 4 ~ r 1 I 64 6 ~ G e1 n - - • o t- • \ ~'I wcST /NMM - d • `aO - ~ r {1 o i -P 1 ~1 1 47 e 1 'L. ~ 9 1 t1 Misto~~l NaAer / I Joseph L Mock I land im _ V 46 c S _ 1O° zoo _ r 61 1 i -TGF+• uIPCM ROA 60 ! i • - ~ 0 ~ -i50. - ® J • ~ tea.. t/ 69 59 f r Exhibit B i REPORT OF THE SITING COORDINATOR FOR OREGON DEPARMYEW OF CORRECTIONS } DOC SITE EVAL AATICN STUDY June 14, 1989 NEDI[M SECURITY FACILITY Site 88: West of Glencoe Road, North Plains, Washington County. Reca nendation: This site merits high consideration because of the many factors of location and topographic features. General Czwents on Site: This cd abuts Glencoe Road on the west. This road is the major road linking Hillsboro and North Plains. By virtue of its location, access to utilities and urban services are assured. The trip-graphic features of this site are excellent. A drainway lies north and south through the westerly portion of the site but does not pose any difficult raw-dial. action. Preliminary estimates entail the on of nine-parcels in private ownership. The properties are presently mostly in farm ; use which would provide for cactiwed crop cultivation in the buffer areas, an excellent maintenance feature. This site is south of the Sunset Highway which avoids the need ' ' for utility extensions Eton Hillsboro crossing that major highway. A. Site Identification: Location: The site is south of the town of North Plains and about a mile south of the Sunset Highway (Hwy. 26) on the east side of Gordon Road. The site is DLC No. 46 and 47 in T1N, R3W. It is b=-ided on the --xxx 1 by Zion Cburch Road, on the east by Glencoe Road, and On the north by N. W. Beach Road. Size: The site is about 400 acres in size, is roughly square in shape and is essentially flat. Owner The site is privately owned. Availability: The site can be purchased at market price. No contact has been made with owners. 1 Current Use nd Zoning: The site is zoned exclusive farm use (EFU) and is currently used to raise hay and wheat. B. General DesciDticn• Site: The site is essentially flat with a slight slope to the south, and is roughly square in shape. It contains aTproXimately 650 acres. Utilities: Water supply and sewage disposal are not currently available at the site. To provide these facilities, a five and one-half mile extension of the water main, a three-mile extension of the sewer main, and upgrading of the Hillsboro disposal plant are required. Nat=-al gas, electric, and telephone are available at reasonable cost. C. Mandatory Criteria: 1. Size: Site must contain at least 200 acres minJum n with 400 acres gable, rea.scnably flat, not within a flood plain. Actual: The site contains a tvtat of 650 acres, is reasonably flat and not within a flood plain. A square 400-ace parcel edsts on the site. 2A. Soil Tyne and General Dmir e: Site must have soil sufficient to support structures required for a 3,000-bed prison. Site must have adequate drainage and be free of problems caused by a high water table. Actual: The soil is a silt loam layer apprcac mately 20 feet deep with gravel below. The soil is reported to be capable of supporting 1,200 to 1,500 pounds per square foot and is suitable to carry the spread footings required for a campus-style facility. The site slopes slightly to the south. Two minor drainage areas run diagonally across the site. One of these begins on the site. They can be put into culverts or used as part of 'landscaped buffer areas. The site is not within the 100-year flood plain. 2 29. Geometry and Contour: The topography of the site must be suitable for ars mucticn. AV- Actual: The site is essentially flat and slopes slightly to the south. A minimal amount of site pzeparaticn will be required. The site is suitable for oansr1_-:uc'-tian of a campus-type facility. 3. Sewage Disposal S~istem: The site must have a sewage disposal system that mints applicable State stan3ards ar!i be available to the site by the constructim deadline at a reasonable cost. Actual: sewage disposal service in this area is supplied by the United. Sewerage Agency (Washington Ccunty). This agency has a disposal plant capacity to serve the site, but not the pipe l;na capacity. A new sewer line will be required for a distance of three and one-half miles. The cost of this mcbension is estimated at $750,000. In addition there is a conniection fee of about $900,000 for a 3,000-bed prism. United Sewerage Agency (U.S.A.) prefers these costs be paid up front. It might be possible to make monthly payments which would amortize these cosh over ten years at 7 percent. For a 500-bed prison, the=se would be a monthly sewer. user charge of about $1,800. For a 3, 000-bed prison, the monthly user charge would be about $10,000. U.S.A. has an on-going problem with the quality of effluent from their facility. They are vxxking on solving the problem. The solution will probably result in a doubling of the monthly user fee in the next few years. The site is outside the urban growth bamdary. U.S.A. does not * ally provide service outside this boundary, but probably would make a a exception for the prison. 4. Water Suoply: The site must have a water supply that meets applicable State standards and be available to the site by the oonstructioz deadline at a reasonable cost. Actual: Water is available from the Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Beaverbon Joint Water mission. In order to supply water to the site, a main must be extended three miles. The supply available is adegsate. The oast of the extension must be paid e in advance by the State (appocnodmately $720,000). In addition, there is a water connection fee to be negotiated (apprwcimately $250,000) and a monthly user fee of abort S11,000 fcr a 3,000- bed prison. B ' 3 ,uto r 37.' `N 38 -4 184 . % T~ ~,~'J1YER~y 206 yew . J00 3. - 38 ,9, v 13.a S No Plaids i.. 2"o Ofo loll t 1049 4 `^1.71 ° - ~ • . 1 41 0 ! Q7 •oo a°wa• i r % BEACH . _ . ..r ROAD `l Se~ O C 4 \ k 35, 42 T + 2 O• 2 . ? ` 2 - - - = - 88 f. _ SAIrW,ioAt wo.o to. 046 ' o ~ QY. • - rv C NVRcN Starkey r• Y ~ ~ Schefflin Schoo Row° . Corner ; . '45 14 ros 44 Schefllin Su 0 W46 l` if 1-3 too 74 cc f ca B! • 23 .gOAO• #as Jy5 water i2 22 - - - Exhibit C Estimated Sewage and Fees Initial Ultimate Inmates 500 3,000 Employees 90 540 Sewage Generated (gallons/day) 7,500 450,000 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) 125 750 Connection Charge $156,250 $ 937,500 User Fee per Month $ 1,687.50 $ 10,125.00 Assumptions: Sewage generated 150 gallons per day per inmate *Estimated proportionately Exhibit D i f i NORTH PLAINS SEWER STUDY i d Assumptions 1. Flow data gathered 6/89 was used as average dry weather flows. 2. Flow data gathered 2/89 was used as wet weather flows. 3. Peak flows are approximately 3 times dry flows in West, Hillsboro Trunk line downstream of pump station.. 4. Velocity in force main is acceptable if less than 10 fps. 5. Study flow is .08 MGD initially with .5 MGD ultimate flow. Conclusions 1. Adding an initial flow of .08 MGD or .5 MGD to present flows will not affect capacity immediately in the trunk line even in wet weather.' 2. Velocity in the force main will increase with the addition of the study flows, but replacement will not-be necessary. 3. The North Plains Pump station is currently operating at ` capacity (1 MGD) during certain wet weather events. Any new flow would impact this station and it should be upgraded. If the ultimate flows outlined in the KCM Master Plan are correct, the station would need to be upgraded to 2.3 MGD. 4. The KCM Master Plan has indicated that the West Hillsboro trunk will be undersized in 2 areas upstream of the proposed Council Creek tie in: f, - 30", 2542, beginning at W. Main and 317th. (2005 flows) - 30", 2750" beginning at 317th and Darnielle. (Ultimate' i flows) It is not clear in the Master Plan when these improvements would F- need to take place, and so it is hard to say if the addition of the study flow would require the projects to be done earlier. Present flow (2.46 MGD estimated wet weather) with the addition of the ultimate study flow is 36% of capacity (8.32 MGD). t. 5. The line downstream of the Council Creek tie-in will need to E: be significantly upgraded as a result of the Council Creek project. While the flows from this development should be considered in upsizing that line, they would not greatly impact ` the size or construction costs. yl Costs Using cost data from RCM Master Plan (Contt. Cost Index 4600) 1. North Plains Pump station Upgrade $ 84,000 { t i i *2. Parallel to 30" line beginning at W. Main and 317th (24") $293,878 *3. Parallel to 30" line beginning at i 317th and Darnielle c 928, 21" @15-20, $110,432 1822, 18" @10-15' $173,090 E Total $661,400 Cost Adjustment-Engineering, Admin and Contingencies (35%) $231,490 S r $892,890 * These are the full costs of these projects as outlined in the Master Plan. a r f € 4 is f. f r:• it A WASHINGTON / V/}1y ooftw~ COUNTY, OREGON MEMORANDUM August 15, 1989 TO: City of Hillsboro City of North Plains North Plains Elementary School Hillsboro Union High School District Tualatin Valley Irrigation District Washington County Fire District #2 FROM: John Rosenberger, Deputy Direct Land Use and Transportation SUBJECT: CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT FOR A 3,000 BED PRISON ( Chairman Hays has asked that I request you submit suggestions to Fred Pearce on conditions that would be required by your district, agency or city if a 3,000 bed prison facility was sited in Washington County at either of the two suggested locations. Fred Pearce has requested that he receive these conditions no later than August 31st. Chairman Hays has asked that I coordinate the response from Washington County Departments and extend the opportuntiy to include any of your comments along with our response. Given the short timelines I would ask that if you wish to incorporate your conditions along with Washington County's that I receive those no later than August 29th. If you have any questions regarding my request or need additional information, I can be reached at 640-3406. I have included a letter from the Department of Corrections outlining the format for conditions. Also•I have provided excerpts from the legislation for siting of a prison and the types of conditions and general areas of concern that can be looked at by the siting selection group. Enclosures c: Bonnie Hays Charles Cameron Department of Land Use Arid Transportalion. Ennmeering/Survey Division 150 Norl[IMPOFT40br Hrllsburn, Qreclon 971 ~d , r i ;a,: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Wq. GOLDSWMT 2575 CENTER STREET NE, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE 378-24V 198 t i OF C~`11(►IISSf;}r~rC i. I August 10, 1989 }}E 1 NOTICE TO SUBMIT CONDITIONS FOR A MEDIUM SECURITY PRISON The Department of Corrections is currently considering the f&Ilowing sites in Washington County for location of a medium Security prison with a capacity of up to 3,000 inmates: Site tf8?: East of North Plains site 088: South of North Plains f According to House Bill 2713, Section 7, Subsection 2, "...any. affected local government or any person may submit proposed conditions to the CSitin 3 authority. Each proposed condition shallt (a) Be stated separately; (b) Be in writing;` (c) Identify the site to which the condition, if approved, would attach; (d) Be specific; } (e) Directly relate to any site or its proposed development, infrastructure, access thereto or physical condition on or in the immediate vicinity of such site; and (r) no supported by a statement of the need or reasons therefor." Deadline for submitting proposed conditions shall be 5 p.m., Thursday, August 31, 1989, to: Bill Hirsh, Construction Division Administrator Department of Corrections 2575 Center Street NE Salem, Oregon 97310 FAX: 373-1173 For 'further information: contact Lana Christensen, Siting Coordinator, 373-1572. i r I "SECTION 7. (1) Within 30 days after nomination Of sites as Set lbrth in scot inn 4 of this Art, 2 the authority shall hold a hearing within the region where each nominated site is located to receive .1 department, local government, neighborhood, law enforcement and public testimony regarding the i. 4 sites nominated and roudilions proposed therefor. 5 "(2) Not later than 10 clays before till- hearing held by the authority as required by sobsec•tion 6 (1) of this section, any affected local government or any person may submit proposed conditions to 7 the authority. Each proposed condition shall: 8 "(a) Be slated separately; } i 9 "(b) Be in writing; I 10 "(c) Identify the site to which Lite condition, if approved, would attach; j If "(d) Be specific; 12 "(e) Directly relate to any site or its proposed development, infrastructure, access thereto or 13 physical condition on or in the immediate vicinity of such site; and 14 "(f) Be supported by a statement of the need or reasons therefor. IS "(3) Within 45 days after nomination of the sites as set. forth in section 4 of this Act, the nu- I6 thorny shall select and rank in order of preference two sites and specify site development conditions 17 for each site, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole and supported by findings, 18 which findings shall address only: 19 "(a) The criteria specified by the department pursuant to chapter 2G2, Oregon Laws 1989 (En- 20 rolled House Bill 3496), and in section 4 of this Act. 21 "(b) The reasons for not adopting any of the proposed conditions that were submitted in ac- 22 cordance with subsection (2) of this section for the selected sites. 23 "(4) If one or more of the nominated sites meets the mandatory criteria established by the de- 24 partment pursuant to section 3 of this Act and the local jurisdiction demonstrates interest as de- 25 scribed in subsection (5) of this section, and the authority selects a site that has not demonstrated 26 interest as described under subsection (5) of this section, the authority shall make findings that 27 demonstrate why it selected the site in which the local jurisdiction did not demonstrate interest. 28 "(5) A local jurisdiction may demonstrate interest by presenting to the site nomination commit- 29 tee a resolution that sets forth such interest no later than 30 days from the effective date of this 30 Act. 31 "SECTION S. (1) As soon as practicable after making the siting decisions, the authority shall 32 notify the Governor and shall make available for the Governor's review any documents or materials 33 which the Governor may request. 34 "(2) Within 15 days after receiving the notification required by subsection (1) of this section, the 35 Governor shall approve or disapprove the two sites as selected and ranked by the authority. 36 "(3) If the Governor disapproves one or both of the sites, within 10 days the authority shall 37 make and rank an additional selection or selections, as appropriate, from the nominated sites and 38 notify the Governor of the selection. Within 15 days of receiving the new selection, the Governor 39 shall approve or disapprove the two sites as selected and ranked by the authority. 40 "(4) One site may be developed up to a capacity to accommodate 1,500 inmates and, after the 41 approval of the Legislative Assembly, up to a capacity to accommodate. 3,000 inmates. A facility 42 sited under Ilcis Act may include minimum security inmates provided that at least two-thirds of the 43 facility is capable of acconunodating medium security inmates. 44 "BF.CTION 9. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 169.690, 197.180, 215.130 (4) and 227.28G or any other CCA to H-Eng. fill 2713 Page 3 v~ DRAFT Conditions for Sites:" Ongoing education and training for community on prisoners and impacts to expect from prison siting. Pay for any sewage impacts that go beyond what master plan provided for and existing system is using. Pay for road maintenance in and around area. Pay for road improvements to accommodate traffic from freeway and to and from site. Pay for loss of property taxes; impact of prison workers' children being put into system. Pay for impact of families of prisoners and employees on social service budgets. Pay for negative impact on community's reputation - lost opportunity for other development; pay for other economic development project to diversify the economy. Pay for impact on legal system (courts, police). i 1 Page 2 E Pay for moving released prisoners out of area. Any work release program must meet standards agreed to by community. No minimum security inmates (law is permissive). ~i Build and manage housing for the inmates' families and employees. Establish and maintain a permanent local advisory committee that will be i empowered to require changes in prison programs that have adversely impacted area e.g. escapes. 1 * See Section 7 and Section 9(3) House Bill 2713; also Section 10(2)(b) and 4(b). * Signed House Bill 2713 into law on July 24, 1989 - took effect immediately. 5007M C - ( Ll CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 21, 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: Auauztz 14, 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 89-06 PREVIOUS ACTION: Public Hearing on Ash Avenue Extension Jul 10 1989 Burnham Re li nment PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton QF1 DEPT HEAD CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Planning Commission POLICY ISSUE Should the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map be amended to indicate a modification to the Ash Avenue extension and Burnham Street realignment as suggested in the City Center Development Plan and Report. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Center Development Plan and Report contain a number of recommended street and traffic projects designed to improve access and circulation within the City Center. In order to construct the Ash Avenue extension and realign a portion of SW Burnham Street, a modification to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map is necessary. A public hearing was held on July 10, 1989, before the City Council to consider the proposed modification. After taking public testimony, the City Council continued the hearing to August 21, 1989. Copies of the June 20th Planning Commission minutes were included in your July 10th packet. The July 10th Council minutes were included in your August 14th packet. A copy of the staff report is attached. Also attached is a memo regarding meetings held since July 10 regarding the proposal. ALTERNFTIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and direct staff to prepare a final order for adoption on August 28, 1989. 2. Uphold the Planning Commission recommendation on the Burnham/Tigard realignment but continue action on the Ash Avenue proposal to a later date and direct staff to conduct further analysis to determine a more exact alignment for the Ash Avenue connection. 3. Continue action on both propsals to a later date and direct staff to conduct further analysis to determine more exact alignments. FISCAL IMPACT i Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map has no direct fiscal impact. SUGGESTED ACTION Uphold the Planning commission recommendation and direct staff to prepare a final order for adoption on August 28, 1989. CPA89-06.LN August 14, 1989 MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Edward J. Murphy, Community Development Director Subject: Ash Avenue and Burnham Realignment meetings Ash Avenue: On August 2, 1989, a joint NPO #1/Neighborhood meeting was held in the Civic Center Town Hall for the purpose of discussing the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Transportation map regarding Ash Avenue. Approximately 60 people attended. The majority of the audience were residents of the Ash Avenue residential neighborhood. Some of the questions raised related to the timing of the amendment and why the amendment is being considered at all. In addition, questions were raised about the existing proposed extension of Ash Avenue and whether or not stipulations placed on the extension have been met. Specific concerns about the proposed modification included increased traffic, the potential negative impacts on the residential neighborhood (i.e. noise) and the uncertainty caused by a general route rather than a specific alignment. In addition, several people raised questions about the City Center Development Plan and the assumptions and recommendations made as part of that planning effort. Staff announced the upcoming City Center Development Plan workshop on August 17th and encouraged interested persons to attend. NPO #1 has scheduled a meeting for August 16 and will be forming a recommendation regarding the Ash Avenue modification to present to Council at the August 21st public hearing. Burnham/Tigard realignment: On August 7, 1989, staff met with the following people to discuss the Burnham/Tigard realignment: Julie Hakola, Owner, Jerry's Hair Design Lonnie Foster, Owner, Climate Conditioning Dave Leger, Vice President, Stash Tea Mike Scott, Partner, Furrer and Scott Chuck Woodard, Owner, Tigard Liquor Store Julie Hakola and Lonnie Foster do not oppose the realignment but they both would like to see a decision made so that they can plan for the future. Both indicated that they would like to work with the City relative to the alignment and the disposition of their property. Dave Leger suggested that the City consider moving any buildings with historic significance as opposed to removing them to accommodate the ne:v alignment. Mike Scott did not raise any specific concerns. Chuck Woodard is co c,:-rned about the removal of historic buildings and suggested an alternative route which he will present to Council at the August 21st hearing. STAFF REPORT June 20, 1989 - 7:30 PM TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL ' 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON i A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 89-06 REQUEST: An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation map. The Ash Avenue connection to be modified to indicate a connection between the intersection of SW Walnut and Pacific Highway and the intersection of Hunziker Street and Hall Boulevard. Ash/Hill will connect to the new street with a "T" intersection. The alignment of SW Burnham will intersect the existing Burnham right-of-way at a point south of 9185 SW Burnham. The realigned portion will replace the existing portion of Burnham as the minor collector route. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Ash Avenue extension: CBD Burnham/Tigard realignment: CBD. The Ash Avenue connection is currently shown on the Compre- hensive Plan Transportation map with the Following note: "connection of Ash Ave. between Hill St. and Burnham and any remaining unimproved portions of Ash." The Burnham/Tigard realignment is not currently shown on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation map. ZONING DESIGNATION: Ash Avenue extension: CBD Burnham/Tigard realignment: CBD APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNERS: Various 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOCATION: ASH AVENUE EXTENSION - between SW Pacific Highway at Walnut and Hall at Hunziker. (WCTM 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2AC, 2S1, 2CA, 2S1 2DB, 2S1 2AD & 2S1 2AA.) BURNHAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT - between SW Main Street at Tigard and the existing right-of-way of SW Burnham. (WCTM 2S1 2AB & 2S1 2AD.) STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-06 - Ash/Burnham - Page 1 NOW 2. Background Information On May 9, 1983, the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan Transportation map by approving Ordinance 83-24. Subsequent to the original adoption, changes have been made to the :rap but none which affect the revisions being considered for Ash Avenue and the Burnham/Tigard realignment. On November 9, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance 83-52 which accepted Volume II of the City's Comprehensive Plan containing findings, policies and implementationstrategies. The policies relating to Ash Avenue read as follows: "11.2.1 Ash Avenue shall be extended across Fanno Creek, enabling access to the neighborhoods and commercial area without using Pacific Highway. Design features shall be used to slow traffic and make the street as safe as possible. Ash Avenue'shall be designated as a minor collector in conformance with the Master Street Plan. Design features and mitigation measures shall hold traffic volumes to the middle limits of a minor collector. 11.2.2 Improvements to SW Ash Avenue from SW Hill to Fanno Creek shall be constructed as a condition of development of adjacent properties. The street improvements along with the development of a major commercial site will increase traffic on Ash. A barricade shall be placed at Hill Street approximately at the end of the existing pavement to protect the neighborhood residents from the commercial traffic. 11.2.3 Methods of mitigating the traffic impact on the neighborhood shall-include, in the following order of improvement, construction: a. Improving SW McDonald Street to interim maintenance standards to encourage traffic from south of McDonald to use McDonald to exit to Hall and/or Pacific Highway. b. Improvements to the residential portion of Ash from Hill to Frewing. These improvements could include limited parking, delineation of traffic lanes and sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. c. The extension of SW Hill to SW O'Mara and/or the improvement of SW Ash from Frewing to Garrett. d. The extension of SW O'Mara to SW Hill parallel to SW Ash. e. Removal of the barricade in place on SW Ash Avenue at SW Hill. f. Improvement of SW O'Mara Street to interim maintenance standards to encourage an alternate route. STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-06 - Ash/Burnham - Page 2 c. e _ g. Installation of traffic inhibitors to the residential portion of Ash if and when traffic volumes exceed the middle range for a minor collector. Traffic inhibitors include but are not limited i to planting islands, speed bumps, buttons, turning restrictions, load limits and enforcement." f Compliance with the above policies is discussed in more detail in the f; findings and conclusions section of this report. The proposed revision f to the Ash Avenue extension, however, in effect will eliminate the need I for most of the above conditions as traffic volumes through the L neighborhood will not reach the levels anticipated under the original i alignment. There are no policies in Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan which address the Burnham/Tigard realignment. I 3. Vicinity Information j Ash Avenue extension - Currently, Ash Avenue is improved from SW McDonald Street north and north-westerly to a point aproximately 225 feet past the intersection with SW Hill Street. This section of Ash Avenue passes through established residential neighborhoods of primarily single family homes. The other section of Ash is improved } from SW Scoffins to Commercial and from SW Burnham southwesterly 4 approximately 500 feet. This portion of SW Ash runs through the Central Business District which is comprised of mixed residential. and commercial land uses. Burnham/Tigard realignment - The alignment which is the subject of a this report is currently not in place. Burnham currently runs from SW Main Street to SW Hall Blvd. Burnham provides access to a mix of land uses within the Central Business District.' 4. Proposal Information Over the past two years, the City has been engage' in an effort to create and implement an action plan for the city center area. As part of that effort, the City contracted with several different firms to provide specialized recommendations for the area. Reports were prepared on the economic potential of the area, transportation alternatives, recommendations for improvements to Fanno Creek Park, design concepts for the area, and possible funding sources. One element common to all of the recommendations provided was the identification of the need to improve access to and through the city center area. In particular, the draft of the Downtown Tigard Traffic and Circulation Study prepared by Kittleson & Associates makes the following conclusions and recommendations: "Create new entry portals into and out of the downtown area. These new portals will have a beneficial effect on both local and regional traffic circulation patterns within the area. They are necessary to accommodate planned growth within the downtown STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-06 - Ash/Burnham - Page 3 area, while at the same time minimizing the interference between local and regional travel needs." Basud on the conclusions and recommendations, Kittleson proposes a package of improvement options including the following: "Extension of Ash Street to connect between the Pacific Highway/ Walnut Street intersection and the existing Hall Boulevard/ Hunziker Road intersection; Improvement of Burnham Street between Main Street and Hall Boulevard; and Realignment of Burnham Street to connect with the existing Main Street/Tigard Street intersection." The recommendation goes further to state that all of the improvements need not be constructed at a single time and that a staged approach would work. Under a staged approach, Kittleson recommends that the Burnham-Tigard connection be constructed first. It is important to note that the revisions proposed to the map do not imply construction of the improvements immediately. The projects will have to be designed and funded prior to construction. The Urban Design Plan prepared by Gutherie/Slusarenko/Associates also recommended the Burnham/Tigard realignment and the Ash Avenue exten- sion on the Capital Improvements Projects list. In addition, the City Center Development Plan and Report prepared by Moore Breithaupt & Associates emphasizes the need for improved access to the city center area and identifies t`+e need for these specific projects as necessary to improving the access and circulation to and through the city center area. 5. Agency and NPO Comments No comments had been received from the NPO or other agencies at the writing of this report. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12, and City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 8.1.1, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3 and applicable Community Development Code sections related to legislative plan amendments. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1 is met because the City has an adopted citizen involvement program which includes review of land use applications by the neighborhood planning organizations. In addition, public notice has been provided. STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-06 - Ash/Burnham - Page 4 2. Goal 2 is met because the city has applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community Development Code requirements in the review of this proposal. 3. Goal 12 is met because the City has adopted policies related to improving the transportation network and continued coordination of transportation improvements with other involved agencies. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the City's ackowledged Comprehensive Plan based upon the following findings: 1. Policy 1.1.1 a. is satisfied because the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will not affect compliance of the City's acknowledged Plan with the Statewide Goals. 2. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning Organization #1 and surrounding property owners have been notified of the proposal and the date of the hearing and have been encouraged to comment on the proposal. 3. Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because the amendments proposed to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map will address the need fora safe and efficient street system designed to accommodate current and future traffic volumes. 4. Policies 11.2.1, 11.2.2, and 11.2.3 are satisfied because the proposal to revise the route of the Ash Avenue extension redirects the extension away from the existing residential section of Ash avoiding the potential of substantially increasing traffic volumes through the local residential area. Policies 11.2.1, 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 were instituted to lessen the impact of the original route on the residential neighborhood. This proposal by design essentially meets the intent of those policies. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 89-06 to the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map as shown on the attached Exhibit "A". PREPARED BY: DATE Elizabeth Ann Newton, Senior Planner CPA89-06 STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-06 - Ash/Burnham - Page 5 u• as 'r . iii ?rJr c~ :~4` ~ \ ' . -f r : \ i't H to t ?1, \ k t. hi i'tY •i i? I w. r t . 6 -n - r. o V .Q LL.. ' 1a . 7'it 1 e _ y i a a ~,r \ l 1 r i ♦ : ~iiiiiiiiiiii.,.. • .L.' 1 i/ / 1 1 t. / 1 .r 1 i 1 1 J N • c .l: 1 u ~.::?j" ~'i~iiiii`iEi.:• - N 1 •i. 'b.. 11'1•• a • tii:::ii::ii::ri:ii:• c ii7 V • :j t I t,y't: t•~• :l ii::iii:iii:::: i::Y~::::..'~ ::S•i: il0 i;ii':iiiiii ii :)=,rh~: e/r f 111' ® 1)){I S' , G Vii; .p ii i::. r: I { 7}}7,, ':ii' •sr'iiiiiidi:• •'•~`eii•~•iit:::;•' - i s ~ ~ • ~`T'•.~~~:• ~~Y.:'.:ittit:iit:::a ! i old ; ' y .i. 17 Frn t NPO -31 ADVISORY STATEMENT CONCERNING THE WALNUT PLACE- ASH AVE. EXTENSION FILE NO. CPA 89-06 On August 2, the NPO and the city staff held a neighborhood information, meeting to hear from the staff on how this proposal carne about, and what it offers to the affected areas. The major benefits for these connections were: 1. To offer better police and fire access. 2. To give easy access to the downtown area from the Walnut Area, and from the entire Ash Area. To actually lower the traffic coming up and down ash Avenue, due to another outlet for traffic. After much consideration, we feel that this proposal has more negative than positive effects for the entire Ash Avenue Neighborhood, if it becomes a -reality. The Ash Avenue henries are not set off far from the curb, and there are no sidewalks along much of the street. The neighborhood is tight-knit, with kids, dogs, arid people walking on the street to get to schools, stares, and places in the vicinity. The attraction of such a relaxed neighborhood is bound to be lost if the street is turned into a traffic collector. There would be more traffic, more not=_•e, arid there would be uncontrolled traffic that has little regard for the residential status of an area. It's agreed that planning must take place for the city's future, but respectful consideration needs to be given to existing neighborhoods. On the issue of connecting Walnut Place to Ash near Burnham, the NPO cannot see how this carp be done without huge casts to the city, arid in fairness to the existing church, businesses, and apartments such a plan was not considered when these places were built. The NPO thinks that property owners have a right to expect continuity with the city in respect to land use. All the structures affected are not old, nor a hindrance to present-day Tiq_ard. The city should demonstrate a vital need for such a roadway before imposing any street plan upon owners and businesses, and search hard for possible alternatives. The present plan deals with speculative needs, and can linger as a plan forever. Finally, do imal]ine the real traffic impact such a connection could bring about. Ash is shown to be continued to Hurjz,.k.er Street, arid would offer an attractive bypass for people in S01.1th Beaverton to use if the Scholis f=erry - .:17 connection traffic continue=_ to get heavier and heavier. People could get to 1-5 and South 217 without r-e-,a'r'd to ',:i1y this extension was planned in the first place, :Jnich was to open downtown Tigard. The core area would Je expected t4 "iaricle this riew tra-affic as ear` of its burden. t ~ p rrY NPO #1 thinks that the current proposal should be rejected; ' a more suitable solution would be a further extension of Tigard's main street's west end to serve undeveloped , vacant land. Such a plan could better utilize the existing Johnson-Pacific Highway P' stoplight, and open up the downtown area without affecting many people's property and life style. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY NPO #1 ~ l / Nil- 11 J A?Ai' t1~ N~'14~ M Cr ti qy y ~j4'~ ^ Sly F , , ' y ,y o q S.W +09 2 C~ s' yAA ~ SO. low s 5 36 0 S.rL K T CE TEA pJE' Z ~ n 34' `35 99 eApotM a[. I J Np 1 + g W. FOWLER 3 2. ,.'UNIOR 1 hY k4~ ?t HIGH P~' do SCHOOL MOODARp s.w. w PARK ti ~r [ p lE % A{t sj! J? ~ er ~ ' 4F ~ 51• QYp Op e~ t~ ~j. c°`~ WALNUT sT p ~P SK EapOL 41 y+' S~ s .%ATKf1 0 a at at F i C SCHOOL $T. 7 ~ p 1071 sail c7. ~4' w / oEaar LL es. x+04 sp . ~t , s TIGARO °9, •:~?r 4ty CIVIC sc 1~4 c, CENTER rl t •4 5 ~v < " 1 ST. & PANK Pf ° e` y~*, ' TIGAR W ° Z° a cri mf S~ p SENIOR 9 CENTER ~ J! ti i a ; s E +f ,,,o CpOK LM. STREET 'A vi MARA W. P~1aw1vEN 'J s. T W ( n ~ t 1 `O ~..~.~.~•....n new. August 21, 1989 i ~a or Edward s i ,y CouncI4 f City Staff + RtU Oregon, 97223• Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council and Staffs This letter is in reference to the Walnut, Hunziker and Ash i Avenue realignment to amend the Comprehensive Transportation Plan E being considered at the City Council Meeting on August 21, 1989• After attending three meetings this month and reading and studying several reports, we feel as fifteen year residents of this large single family residential area that this proposal would have a negative impact on this neighborhood. Destroying businesses and apartments which are outside the C.B.D. zone does not seem logical to us when people on the far westside are saying how happly they will be when the Expressway through Tigard is built seF they will have an easier access to 1-5. We understood when our home was built that Fanno Creek Greenway was to be a buffer from the noise and pollution of the City Center. This proposal will destroy this protection by making Ash Avenue, Omara Street and Hill Street (now listed as a local residential street) into major street collectors. After living in large apartments on busy streets for over twenty years, it was a Blessing to move into a quiet residential area. Now it seems, we are being subjected to the very noise and pollution we moved away from in large urban areas. This proposal for street realignments plus the future density building in the City Center will destroy the livability and character of this older established single family residential neighborhood. Thank you for your concern and consideration. Sincerely, t Paul and G1 ria Johnson 9300 S. W. Hill Street Tigard, Oregon, 97223• C. Y ~ 1 AUG 17 1989 ' August 16, 1989 r '~l abI tC Ts~~ d ~ Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Nu. A4 Dear Council Members: Re: Ash Avenue, Burnham/Tigard Realignment My name is Catherine King and I have lived at 13205 S.W. Ash Drive for 22 years. I have mixed feelings about extending Ash Avenue into downtown Tigard, but I realize this has been in the comprehensive plan for years. What my husband and I both object to most vehemently is connecting Highway 99 to Ash and thence to Scoffins and Hunziker. We understand that there are serious traffic flow problems in Tigard. However, we cannot see that those problems justify harming business interests and the Methodist Church on Highway 99, and doing irreparable harm to the quiet Ash neighborhood. What you would be doing is destroying one segment of the city for problematical improvement in another. Have the Planning Commission and the City Council made studies of alternative routes? There is a great deal of vacant land directly across the highway from Johnson Street. Maybe this doesn't tie in to some master plan, but a road could be built there without the high costs of condemning already-developed property. It could also be built in such a way as to maximize the use of the property for any future developer. We realize that things change and that growth is inevitable. We have seen tremendous growth since we moved to Tigard in 1967. However, we would not have purchased a home on Ash Drive if we had thought there would ever be a direct connection to Highway 99. To do so now is changing the ground rules after people have bought in good faith. I think we all have to try to preserve as many of the amenities as possible - streets and highways exist to serve the people of the city, not the other way around. We do not need this connection, and we feel it would do more harm than good. Sincerely, qZ 13205 S.W. Ash Drive Tigard, OR 97223 cc: Planning Commission, NPO No. 1 CITY OF TIFAI tD August 17, 1989 OREGON Ms. Catherine King 13205 S.W. Ash Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Ash Avenue, Burnham/Tigard Realignment Dear Ms. King: Thank you for your letter of August 16 concerning the above proposed Compre- hensive Plan Amendment. Your letter has been forwarded to the City Council and will be considered as written public testimony for the Hearing on August 21, 1989. This hearing will be at the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall Room, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, 7:30 p.m. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, a7u~-~ WA4~~ Catherine Wheatley Deputy Recorder cw c: Pat Reilly, City Administrator 13125 SW Nall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 n , J a ~ 4 ty ' s t r f ~ a 1 r . ~ ! ~ o' t✓ 1 t I J. e ~ ~ ~r . l , 'l LL. ~ m. ~ _ ~ _ Ir(~~'f+l+l+l~~+l~l+la,ripl~i+,(~(tlr~~l~jtp ~1a71i~ iTi]'q Tm Ihji(+~jT~ gilrli`lal Ili YI I rll II[ ~i I{I IPt +,r,,3 tr, .r, il, a i r a a l a a i a i i i a s F ~ j I. j il't' ! P ~ --f i I'i~} 1 j' I j i f.t.E►i flll 191f11+~1t+11ti+11 NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED ~ 2 3 4 . _ 5 6 7 Q 9 ~ ~ L. I ~ OAAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN ~I ~ c THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO 5 7fE WAUTY OF TFE ORIGINAL , of sz ei ii ez sz ri~~EZ zz !a oz -er et LI 91 SI bl EI -ZI -1101 ~ 6 9 1 9 5 4 - E Z I i 2 nefualluu~nuhuefualAu+fH+all _.•'_•.L III. ~ r ~I ~r _ . _ _zA..- t ~ ~ r .:,*r ~ - :.'w ~ r - - - - - - _ - » _ _ z~' 'e Te~A11Sf'QRTATIE?~ A ~ ~ .r..~~` - _ 1!~ 'J ^_iG s ~ ~ ~ ~~r.~TV ~ _ - ~ ~ ~ - # .r ~EQ~'E~TGt~ , ~ - _ ! : ~ . : ~r 3 _ . _ ~ - . y ~ ~ary . w.~~r . F,. _ _ , ~ . , t - oi.~mivim./~ ~ ? 1 ,z ~ ns a.~I~t/. ~ ~ ./y..r i a _f S A ~ ~ s F* _ , . E f ! a~. . 1 ~ ~ , . - ' roc - .1 - - - 4- 1 ' 140 9R5 o - - I Ind I - W- , » `4 ~ ~ o i " ~ . ~ r=: iniiilwin;nf~';e,-r;ymv>:e;r ~;rr-~ reL ti~ O ~ ~ ~ t-yy ~ ~ - /.Yi/.HNd.W/l~l N/~H T ~.f'M,;:P^'~' r ~ - ~ ~ n 190 g'/' , :w - 1' ;'~?~}c _ i. ~I ~ u r'~1. h r., . ' ° - ~W' ~ ~ ~ ~ , W.. - _ ~f J ~r A ill ~ .y ~.'1.7iD~ ~ 'f- ~ ~ 1 i.. - - , . ~ NNiii/a/iii//n - ~ 7i /aiaidai~aauiiada uiuin iiMoaiNruiai /X I ; //////N////////HN , i JAS I . ~r JP ~ T I G ARD SSO . ~ ~ -S 7r ~ U.S A. . / ~ ~ i - HIGH r-- ~ \ ~ ~ - ~ ~a ~ 1 , /r0/naaioaii~uiioioioi200NNANU/ .rhl I. x 4 ~ ; ,r d F ~ sGNOOL r//r//All I 0 • • ' ~ - r - ~ ~ _ _ r _ _ . ti, C I R' ~ _ ~ I ~ T'- `/f ~r T~1 l .~F1 - ~ TREATMENT ~ "4LI...J~Vf y~ ~yt ~w..wt~nm ew..t, ~ f i ~ PLANT ...i T- ~ ~ . - I _ y@a~~ nIj i Ittw Iwa...uen,, nuwy ni ~ dj - l ~ , I ~ ..1. ~ . - ' `f~ C~'~ en.tar at^s Now tr J i ~ . -II wew w~ ry .r L ~7.- t 1 tt, i• , I, '.,I ~~CITY~ 0~- , r ~ L: ~ - ~ it "~~~E - L 1~ 0- . i..., ~ _ _ I~ I _ : - ~ I,~ s, ~ CITY 0 _ ~1 ~ co O _ . , ~ - -i N - - ~M~v 1. ~ ~ ~ a~~. I` _ ~ - ~ T.f~, - T ~,Q e ti ~ 1. ~ ~~F~ •W .-wrl - t OF i -I ~ ,I~~ - ,'D~RH ~ ~ , i ~ - ~ ~ ~ t . ~ ~ : _ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~TtJALATIN 1~.:I ~ , ~ ~ ~_w_ ~ ~x ~ ~ I ~ , ~ ~ ~ - ~ 1 REVisE¢ ~nr - I ~ I ~ li ~If'~, I ~,l Iw hl~~_~, _ ~ I ~ 987 ~ ~ ~ ~I I I I lu „ ley ~I' 11 ~ I _ ~a~ ~ _ I mi i U ~i 11 1 I I - ~V / l \ `~k~~.;lCt~fli t W ..-..a. . 1 . - I pllpl III I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I I I I . ry I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ UJl~mimlminlPnpPPlglnpl'~n I'PpIgN~ uI HlRg4In pulylpill I Intl INn~lq nlmpPl npl I Iqu ~.w+:.dr',8~ \ Myllwplla 2 i A 6 B 7 i 0 II I raxw uuu vtulr+ul . ~ w®imw.nnotn . _ ~w tttr w amtw - iOt I! R K H R N ti R li ai M 'l1 ~~~4 11-~7`M- ti it -11 ~01 ~ 1 t -I S 1 C t I - MARCH' ~`gil 199Q ~ - ~S 21-89 nc~erda" 4 C P ~1 S~-o~ ~1sh Avenue E~tr-n-lsi L)nl -Burnham -Teali~nrnenL LKYILI~Lt li See JS mm ~il~ll F~m t ~ubt~~ Tc~-~;ma~J • July 20, 1909 Tigard City Council Tigard, Oregon We are writing to protest the proposed Walnut, Ash, Burnham realighment plan. 21 years ago we moved into this area, building our home, intending to retire in it, and in fact have been retired for the last 6 years. We chose this area because it was a quiet, peaceful, caring neighborhood. We have always felt.- safe and secure and have enjoyed our life here. Now, suddenly, all that is threatened - and by a City Council, who, though elected by the people to protect their rights and welfare as city residents, seems no longer to consider or care for these citizens, or their quality of life. People are now talking of moving. We all have the feel- ing that the Mayor - and perhaps one or -two of the Council Members are seeking; to put a feather in their own hat, by building up Tigard commercially. Are unknown business menbeing aided by your actions? We are all extremely upset and concerned, and can only hope the City Council will consider the home owners in this area - perhaps place themselves in this situation and ask themselves honestly what their feelings would be. Thank you, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Steinborn L E 9560 S.W. Frewi.ng Court Tigard, Oregon CI) ~ p... ~ u e~ s CITY ®F TIGARD OREGON August 1, 1989 t E Mr. & Mrs. Robert Steinborn 9560 S.W.'Frewing Court Tigard; OR 97224 Re: Ash/Burnham Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing Dear Mr. & Mrs. Steinborn: Thank you for your letter dated July 26, 1989. The public hearing for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments for realignment of Ash and Burnham Streets has been continued to August 21, 1989. (7:30 p.m. at the Tigard Civic Center Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregoh) Your letter will be submitted to the Council as written testimony for this issue and included in their August 21, 1989, meeting packet. Packets for meetings are prepared about a week before the scheduled' meeting date; therefore, the Council will be receiving your letter for review on or about August 14th. r If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, rat-~~ Catherine Wheatley Deputy Recorder ! R ow c: Pat Reilly, City Administrator Ed Murphy, Community Development Director Liz Newton, Senior Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD) AGENDA OF: 8-21-89 DATE SUBMITTED: August 11. 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Bid Award for PREVIOUS ACTION: pfaffle St. I rovements Pro'ect. PREPARED BY: Randall R. Woole DEPT HEAD 00 V CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Award of construction contract for Pfaffle Street Improvements contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY This project provides for the widening of Pfaffle Street between Hall Boulevard and 78th Avenue and includes sidewalks along the north side of the street. Five bids were received as follows: Oregon Asphaltic Paving, Portland $136,570.00 Eagle-Elsner, Tigard $139,612.50 Fabricator's Inc., Salem $147,302.20 Benge Construction, Lake Oswego $162,688.70 White Construction Co., Lake Oswego $193,946.00 The bids are within the engineer's estimate and project budget. Prior to recommending award, staff is working to resolve an unexpected right- of-way problem. A recommendation will be available on August 21. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Reject all bids. FISCAL IMPACT This project is funded under the Streets CIP budget. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommendation and bid results will be presented prior to the August 21 meeting. br/Pfaffl.RW