Laserfiche WebLink
SECTION 4 – SITE SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS <br />AX0622181133PDX 4-5 <br />Conceptual site layouts were designed by <br />the project team for each site based on <br />requirements and parameters established in <br />the project Basis of Design. Figure 4-5 shows <br />conceptual site layouts of the Cement Plant <br />Site, Tjossem Road Site, and Airport Site, <br />respectively. <br />These three potential sites, along with <br />project progress, were presented to the <br />community during the second County-led <br />community meeting. The second <br />community meeting was held on September <br />13, 2017, and was attended by <br />approximately 37 community members. <br />Additionally, based on conceptual site <br />layouts, the project team generated rough- <br />order-of-magnitude cost estimates for each <br />site and presented a comparative costs <br />estimate. Comparative costs for each <br />potential site were separated into the <br />following: <br />• Facility development cost, representing <br /> all building and facility construction <br /> costs required onsite within the <br /> property <br />• Offsite development cost, representing <br /> construction costs required outside the <br /> property to connect roadway <br /> infrastructure and utilities to the new <br /> facility <br />• Land acquisition cost by owner, <br /> representing property sale or lease <br />Table 4-1 (shown on the next page) <br />summarizes the comparative costs of the <br />sites. <br />During the September 13, 2017, community <br />meeting, the County obtained feedback on <br />the three potential sites and secondary <br />siting criteria weighting. Additionally, the County’s online engagement website was available for review <br />and public feedback for the period from September 13 to 30, 2017. Community feedback collected from <br />this second online period and meeting revealed that the Cement Plant Site was the most preferred site <br />because of its location in an industrial area and proximity to the interstate. The Airport Site was the least <br />preferred site due to the following concerns: traffic congestion through residential neighborhoods, <br />concerns about future development planned for the surrounding property, and FAA setback <br />requirements. Additional community feedback collected during this period revealed that the secondary <br />criteria most important to the community were the floodplain and current land use criteria. This <br />feedback reinforced high community value in identifying a site that avoids potential flooding and for <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 4-5. Conceptual Site Layouts of Three Potential Sites <br />