Loading...
1992-14700-Minutes for Meeting April 20,1992 Recorded 5/6/199292-14700 0118-0305 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES ,_ L: � . I i APPEAL OF KLIPPEL SITE PLAN APPROVAL' .:� DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,0'f April 20, 1992 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel, Bruce White, Assistant Counsel, and David Leslie, Planner. Before the Board was a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Hearings Officer's approval of Bend Aggregate and Paving Company's site plan for surface mining at the Klippel site. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for a staff report. Dave Leslie said he had received two additional letters of testimony since the staff memorandum to the Board which would be added to the existing 67 exhibits. In his memorandum dated April 13, 1992, he provided a summary, analysis and recommendations on the seven issues contained in the notice of appeal. From his report, he wanted to highlight a few items. Under the category "truck traffic heading south on Johnson Road, he wanted to point out that the decision indicated that the ESEE impacts would need to be met. The Hearings Officer altered one of those ESEE conditions, which Mr. Leslie felt was an improper change. He recommended that the Board: (1) change that condition to reflect the actual ESEE language that the applicant was required to consult with Public Works, (2) make the findings in the Board's decision that this consultation occurred and that the authority for the Road Maintenance Agreement was contained within the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. Because the ESEE condition was changed to reflect that the Road Improvement Agreement needed to be met, that language should be pulled out and given its own separate condition #17. Also in the last paragraph under the same heading, the decision by the Board should reflect that it was a staff recommendation (not an appellant recommendation) that screening of resource material temporarily not be allowed to occur until trucks could head south. On Page 8, #5 regarding the requirements of the ODF&W, the ESEE analysis required that a winter closure plan be finalized with them. He thought the appellants correctly pointed out that there was no direct link in the conditions that this plan would need to be implemented and followed through. Therefore, he recommended that page 9 of the findings and decisions be revised to clearly state that the developer would implement and follow the Klippel Acre Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Condition #8 of the Findings and Decision needed some corrections in the numbering of the conditions: conditions 3, 10, 11 from the ESEE remained the same; add conditions 2A and 2C regarding an access permit from PAGE 1 MINUTES: 4-20-92 " " FWD KE C D 19-1�t 0118-0306 Public Works and the requirement to pave 200 feet of their access road; delete reference to items 2B and 2E; and where it said 6, 7, and 14, add 17 and 18. 17 concerned the road improvement agreement and 18 (c) and (d) referenced the ODF&W plan. Concerning condition #16, he suggested improving the language to change the last three words "road maintenance agreement" to "bridge improvement agreement. If the Board agreed with his recommendations, his memorandum could be used as findings for their decision. Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony from the neighbors of the Klippel acres site. Greg Hendrix, 716 NW Harriman, Bend, testified that he was an attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Andy Meswick and Mr. & Mrs. Charles Allen and felt he was representing all of the neighbors who had appeared and were on the notification list. He submitted a supplemental memorandum and asked that the record remain open for seven days to allow for additional written comment. His clients didn't engage him until their appeal time had nearly expired, so he had rephrased some of the objections. He felt that no one should have to be $1000 to make an appeal to their elected public officials. He pointed out that County staff had outlined the mistakes made by the hearings officer, and so it was "bad public policy" to require $1000 to appeal what might be mistakes. He suggested that the costs be spread among all of the applications. if someone wanted to make an appeal to LUBA or the Court of Appeal it cost $100; to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States it cost nothing. Commissioner Throop pointed out that the Budget Committee was the appropriate place to raise this issue. Mr. Hendrix went on to raise what he considered the "moral" issue. His clients attended the surface mining hearings and their strong and adamant recollection was that when the Klippel Acres site was discussed at the ESEE, the Board talked about screening and crushing as the same kind of "processing" operation. Both were considered "processing" under state law. When the ESEE analysis was passed and approved, it stated that only crushing would be excluded at this site. Throughout the application process, the set back on the screener was discussed as 250 feet. He felt this was an error, and that the correct set back was found in Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 18.52.090(B) "any storage and processing not occur within a quarter mile of a sensitive use or structure. The ordinance did describe screening and crushing as different activities, however the ordinance did not define "processing." Therefore, he felt the state law definition of "processing" would apply. ORS 517.750(11) defined processing as "including but not limited to crushing, washing, milling, and screening." He, therefore, contended that the County's ordinance required that processing operations, including screening, have a one-quarter mile set back. It was the applicant's burden to show that the screening site was not within one-quarter mile of homes. Since the application said they were not within 250 feet, he felt the application needed to be denied, and the applicants needed to PAGE 2 MINUTES: 4-20-92 0118-0307 refile the application and provide assurances and documentation on whether the proposed screener was within one-quarter mile of a sensitive use. Applicant's own map appeared to show that the screener would be within the one-quarter mile set back. Greg Hendrix continued that his second main issue concerned the truck traffic. They were in favor of having the screening temporarily stopped until the bridge was improved, however, they really did not want screening on the site ever. On page 9, #7 of the ESEE analysis, the applicant suggested that it would be necessary to have 4.6 truck trips per hour for extracted rock, and on Page 22 of the ESEE, the Board found that "approximately 4-6 trips" per hour would be an acceptable impact considering all the balancing of the conflicting uses. The hearings officer's decision on Page 11 discussed 12 trucks per hour. They felt this was a fault in the hearings officer's decision which should be corrected here. Everyone was bound by the ESEE analysis, so if they were going to have more than 4-6 trips per hour, the applicants needed to ask for an amendment to the ESEE analysis and the ordinance. The applicants had indicated that they were going to use water to keep the dust down. He didn't feel they could legally use irrigation water to do this. If they were going to use water trucks to provide the water, he felt they should have to include the water trucks in the 4-6 truck trips per hour. If they didn't, he felt they should have to amend the ESEE analysis to include water truck trips. Therefore, until the ESEE was amended, they should be allowed only 4-6 trips an hour including water trucks. Dave Leslie asked applicants to supply this information at the end of the December hearing, however it was never supplied to his knowledge. Greg Hendrix referred to Mr. Leslie's memorandum of April 13, 1992, and said Mr. Leslie's analysis of sight screening was good. It was their position, under Deschutes County's ordinance, that if the supplied vegetation could not perform the site obscuring requirement, then earthen berms had to be used to do so. The Hearings Officer indicated that 6 feet of vegetation would not be sufficient to meet the sight obscuring standard. Concerning the Fish and Wildlife agreement, they agreed with Mr. Leslie, but requested that it include a specific timetable for reclamation. They wanted something included which would get the seed in the ground in time for it to germinate. The agreement also did not reflect the March 19, 1992, agency letter, where ODF&W highly recommended that the closure period be increased to December to April. There was no timetable in the Hearings Officer's decision that limited operations to 5 -acres at a time. They felt that only way to assure that what the County had in mind was actual accomplished, was to have clear standards at this level. He agreed that CRL, Inc. had a reputation as good corporate citizens, but even good corporate citizens needed to have clear guidelines. If the County's intention was to have the mining done in "nice, surgical 5 -acre bites," then the approval process should be in 5 - PAGE 3 MINUTES: 4-20-92 0118-0308 acre bites, i.e. they wouldget a permit to do 5 acres, when that site was closed and reclamation completed, they could apply for the next 5 -acres. They agreed with Mr. Leslie that the Hearings Officer's decision failed to require consultation with Public Works regarding the bridge and other road improvements. They felt the decision should require that the applicant keep rock off the 200 foot section leading onto Johnson Road since rocks would spill out onto the highway from this section. These rocks would create a hazard for bicyclists. He didn't see anything about the water rights being maintained on the property. They felt the water rights should be preserved. Chuck Allen, 19175 Klippel Road, Bend, said he had heard at a previous hearing that mining could occur one-quarter mile from a scenic highway. However, Mr. Leslie said they would not allow them to mine the part which visitors could see from the highway. He thought it was wonderful to take the visitors into consideration, however, this mining was being allowed at the Klippel site "right in front of our house." He didn't feel that was fair. He felt strongly that screening should not be allowed on this site, and that the Board had agreed there would be no processing on this site. Andy Niedzwiecke, 19425 Klippel Road, Bend, testified that he had understood from the people who attended the hearings that "processing" included screening. Now screening was being allowed as a permitted use. He asked that the Board not allow screening on this site. They already had a Coats mining operation on one side of them. He tried to get some help from the County and the State to monitor the noise level. The County, the State and the Sheriff wouldn't do it, so there would be no control over the noise on this site. He agreed that the water trucks should be included in the total number of truck trips allowed on this site. He felt the six-foot trees would not be adequate to obscure the site, nor would a berm be pleasant to look at, so he felt larger vegetation would be the best answer. They would also like to see a longer shut -down period in the winter for the wildlife, and that application be made for each 5 -acre increment being mined and reclaimed. He didn't feel that a commercial operation should be allowed to use irrigation water for dust control. Bill Moore, 63394 Fawn Lane, Bend, testified that all of the neighbors had assumed that processing included screening. He said the 6 -foot vegetation would not screen this site from his view, and it would have to be a "pretty significant earthen berm" to obscure his view. He agreed that each 5 -acre parcel should have its own separate approval. John Homan, 19130 Klippel Road, Bend, testified that he was concerned about the south -bound traffic. When he left for work at 5 a.m., he encountered log trucks coming from Shevlin Park and Coats' aggregate trucks. The road was torn up and filthy already. PAGE 4 MINUTES: 4-20-92 0118-0309 Trucks from the Klippel site would make matters worse. The road was already narrow and with the heavy bicycle use, it was just a matter of time before someone was seriously hurt. When the trucks were on the up -hill portion of the road, there was a double yellow line, but people would take the risk to get around the trucks. The bus stop for the school children was right on Johnson Road, and there was no place for them to stand back off the road. The additional trucks made that situation more dangerous. He requested that the trucks not be allowed to go south on this road, especially since their business was north. Sally Callan, 442 NW State Street, Bend, read the attached testimony. John Schubert, 62915 Nasu Park Loop, Bend, said he directed Biking for a Better Community, a citizens group working to promote bicycles as transportation in Deschutes County to preserve the livability of this area by reducing air pollution and minimizing road traffic. He agreed with the comments made by Sally Callan, especially about the need to keep any additional traffic from proceeding south on Johnson Road. He asked that the Board "keep this County as bicycle friendly" as possible for transportation. Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony from those opposing the appeal. Nancy Craven of Ball, Janek, Novack, 101 SW Main, Portland, testified that she was an attorney representing Bend Aggregate and Jim and Jerry Curl. She just received a memorandum from Mr. Hendrix and requested that the record be left open to allow an opportunity to respond. She was testifying in defense of the Hearings Officer's decision. The County's ordinance indicated that a site plan approval had to be granted if the ESEE standards were conformed with and if the ordinance requirements were met. The Hearings Officer and the staff concluded that the applicant had satisfied those conditions. The only challenges to the site plan which were appropriate were those which related to the standard of approval which a site plan must meet. Any issue which was not related to the conformance of an ESEE condition or an ordinance requirement was not relevant to the case. She felt the appellants were raising issues which either had already been decided by the County or should have been raised at prior hearings. It was their position that the Board must approve and could not deny an application if the standards were or could be met. She felt a review of the Goal 5 decision was important to this appeal. The Board found that this site had a "very significant aggregate resource." In the ESEE hearings, they considered a balance of conflicting uses and impacts, and as part of that process, proposed an operational plan which was accepted by the Board in the ESEE. Bend Aggregate made that ESEE a part of their site plan application. On page 8 of the ESEE for the Klippel site, the Board made a finding accepting the proposed operational plan which PAGE 5 MINUTES: 4-20-92 0118-x0310 included specifically "excavation, transport to the permanent crusher area on site, crushing, screening, and reclamation." The Board then limited the extent to which they protected the aggregate resource by placing conditions in the ESEE to mitigate the impacts on the neighborhood. One condition the Board imposed was to "allow surface mining activities in accordance with the site operation plan excluding a crushing operation on site." Because of this, Bend Aggregate modified their operational plan to be consistent with the ESEE by eliminating on-site crushing and left the remaining components previously included in the original operations plan which had been accepted by the Board. Their site plan application satisfied all of the ESEE conditions set by the Board. Therefore, they felt there were no grounds to deny the site plan application. She went through the staff report in responding to the appellant issues. They felt the appellants principal concern was the screening and crushing. Appellants felt screening and crushing were the same thing, and that when the Board precluded crushing at the site, they really meant to prohibit screening also. She felt the appellants had misinterpreted the Board's ESEE decision and had failed to recognize the distinction between crushing and screening. The Board accepted Bend Aggregate's operational plan and developed ESEE conditions. The Board found that the DEQ noise standards could be met by the plan and accepted the expert report, however the Board decided to further protect the conflicting uses by prohibiting on-site crushing "which generates the highest level of noise of the various components of the operation." She felt that quote recognized that Bend Aggregate's operational plan included various components, one of which was on- site crushing. If the appellant's wanted to eliminate screening, they should have raised this issue during the ESEE review process. The ordinance specifically distinguished between screening and crushing and they had different standards for operation. In all of the meetings she had with County staff, these issues were distinguished, and the industry had wished they had not been distinguished. By eliminating crushing, the Board satisfied its intent to prohibit a commercial operation at the site, drastically reduced truck traffic into Bend, and eliminated the highest noise generator. Ms. Craven said appellant's second issue concerned the south -bound traffic. She said this was addressed by the Board in the ESEE and could not be addressed under the standard for review of this application. In the ESEE, the County analyzed the transportation component of Bend Aggregate's original operational plan and found that protection of the aggregate resource "may have an impact on the transportation infrastructure, but that the close proximity to Bend minimizes this consequence and preserving the resource near the major market area makes sense since less infrastructure is affected." The Board also found that even if traffic on Johnson Road exceeded the projections in the plan, any impact could be mitigated by improvements or fees in lieu of improvements. She felt the application was consistent with the ESEE conditions and PAGE 6 MINUTES: 4-20-92 0118-0311 all ordinance requirements concerning traffic, transportation and road impacts. She agreed with the staff report that the Board had no authority to preclude their use of Johnson Road, and that Bend Aggregate had consulted with Public Works as required under ESEE condition #10. They had negotiated a road maintenance agreement with the County which had not yet been finalized, but would require Bend Aggregate to submit materials to the County in an amount based on their pro rata percentage usage of the road, which was consistent with the Ordinance requirement. Ms. Craven said appellants third concern was vegetative screening. She agreed with the staff report that the ordinance standard was specific, and they would meet the six-foot high, six-foot center standard. Concerning the request that Bend Aggregate provide trees to be placed on appellant's property, she agreed with the staff that there was no provision in the ordinance for requiring actions on property outside the control of the applicant. Concerning the earthen berm, she said there was no standard in the ordinance for the earthen burn unlike vegetative screening. She didn't feel the term "obscure" could be read to mean total concealment. Ms. Craven said the fourth appellant's issue dealt with possible water pollution. Bend Aggregate had submitted to the County expert reports from CH2M HILL and ODF&W which indicated there would be no adverse environmental consequences to surface or ground water resources in the vicinity. In the ESEE, the County accepted these reports regarding Tumalo Creek. Ms. Craven said the fifth issue concerned a winter closure plan with ODF&W. Bend Aggregate had worked with ODF&W to finalize a winter closure plan which had been submitted to the County. It included a winter closure report and specific measures for planting, forage and screening. They had no objection to staff's suggestion that a condition be imposed that Bend Aggregate would have to comply with this winter closure plan. Last weekend Bend Aggregate began implementing the ODF&W agreement by planting 1,100 trees. Ms. Craven said that claim number six concerned the enforcement of water management regulations. She agreed with staff that Bend Aggregate had submitted evidence to show compliance with all water management regulations. She said the issue of property values had been previously resolved by the Board on page 22 of the ESEE where the Board accepted the Assessor's office analysis that no evidence of decreased property values would result. In summary, Bend Aggregate's position was that the appellant's claims could not be sustained and failed to address the relevant standards of approval which covered site plan approval requests. She said appellants were not happy with the ESEE or the zoning ordinance language, however these issues should have been dealt with during the adoption of the ordinances. Concerning the one - PAGE 7 MINUTES: 4-20-92 0118-0312 quarter mile set back for screening, it was her understanding from her client and discussions with Dave Leslie that the one-quarter mile limitation was used --not 250 feet. She said that was documented in the noise report which was a part of their application and indicated that the screener was more than 1/3 mile from any residences. If the Board wanted Bend Aggregate to verify the set back of the screener, they would do so. They objected to any consideration of a separate application for each 5 -acre parcel. That was not provided for in the ordinance, and the application was made as one site, and it had always been one site. Concerning the comments on the impacts on bicyclists on Johnson Road, the Board had already considered that in the ESEE analysis and determined that the fee provision adequately mitigated that concern. Again, this issue was previously addressed in the ESEE and was not a subject which the Board could review again as part of site plan approval. Chairman Maudlin said it was his suggestion that crushing be excluded on this site. Generally speaking, when a crusher crushed rock, it didn't dump it on the ground but ran it through a serious of metal screen for sizing."That is not what the screening is that we're talking about here." One of the reasons the Board wanted no crushing on this site was to reduce the traffic south on Johnson Road. He asked Bend Aggregate what they were going to screen which didn't have to go through a crusher. Jim Curl, Bend Aggregate owner, said the screen plant would screen and separate the aggregate which was below 1-1/2 inch in size. Anything above that size would be hauled to Tumalo for crushing. This screening would eliminate some of the hauling to Tumalo since the 1-1/2 inch and below would go directly to Bend for use in ready mix concrete. They would run two, ten -yard dump trucks to the ready mix plant on a daily basis during the week. Occasionally a third truck would be used. Chairman Maudlin asked if they would screen everything on the Klippel site before it was hauled to the plant. Jim Curl said everything above 1-1/2 inch would go over a scalping screen and into a pile which would then be delivered to the Tumalo plant. All of the rock went through the screening plant and was sized in one screening operation. Commissioner Throop asked him to describe the screening operation in more detail and asked if it had any moving parts. Jim Curl said the screen was motorized and shook the rocks through the screen. Screening plants were sold separately from crushing plants and there were a number of operations which only did screening. Chairman Maudlin asked for rebuttal testimony. Greg Hendrix said he didn't hear Jim Curl say how much rock would be screened. He said if the Klippel neighbors were stuck with the ESEE, so was CLR; and the ESEE had a finding of approximately 4-6 trucks trips per hour which he felt had to include water trucks. PAGE 8 MINUTES: 4-20-92 0118-031.3 The transcript from the first hearing showed that the applicants were asked to supply information on the water trucks which was never supplied. He didn't feel there was anything in the Ordinance which wouldn't allow the permit process to go in steps. The best way to handle enforcement was to have things spelled out at this level. He felt that if the intent of the Board was to have this site mined in 5 -acre increments, then why not require that the approval be done in 5 -acre increments also. In the Hearings Officer's findings on Page 8, Section 5, the only discussion was that minimum use set backs were at least 250 feet from noise and dust sensitive uses such as residences. That was the only place where the Hearings Officer's findings refered to any minimum use setbacks. Using the map they submitted, there were a couple of houses within one-quarter mile. It was applicant's burden to show they were not within one-quarter mile, and they haven't show that. Concerning applicant's ability to pay a fee rather than make improvements to the road, he questioned if that was the best way to go. If their trucks were over and above the use which caused the degradation of the road shoulders, why should they only have to pay for their proportion of the use. When a shopping mall was sited, the developer had to pay the full costs of upgrading the roads. Bend Aggregate paying a proportional fee would not make the road better or safer. The language said "fee or improvements," so if the County allowed trucks to go south, he felt they should do improvements to the road. He pointed out that if there was no screening on this site, all of the trucks would go north, so all of the concerns about impacts on Johnson Road would no longer be issues. Or, if there was going to be screening on the site, then they should have to improve Johnson Road to the arterial standard. John Homan testified again that he used to work for crushers. He suggested the Board visit a screening site. There would be a series of screens and washing ponds which would require reclamation. The rubber on the screens would eventually be worn off. He knew that the screening plants were really noisy. Chuck Allen said he used to be in the ready mix business, and unless the screeners had changed, the rock hitting together to get to the first screener made a tremendous amount of noise and dust. There also had to be conveyor belts or something to get the rocks up to the top screener and conveyor belts at each screen. He asked that the Board take that into consideration. Andy Niedzwiecke said he lived across from the R.L. Coats operation and his wife had an opportunity to tour the operation. His wife said the screener was very, very loud. Paul Rugloski, 19155 Klippel Road, Bend, testified that he thought the approval restricted any stockpiling on the site. If they screened on site, there would have to be stockpiling. He didn't feel that keeping the dust down during the screening process had been adequately addressed. PAGE 9 MINUTES: 4-20-92 0118-0314 Bill Moore said everyone was just playing with semantics. He hadn't heard discussions on crushing and screening, he had heard discussions on processing which he thought included crushing and screening. He didn't know what a scalping pile was, but wasn't it stockpiling. How could they barter for the maintenance costs? He was concerned about how the noise standards would be enforced. Nancy Craven referred to page 7 of Bend Aggregate's application where it indicated they were one-quarter mile from any nearby residences, and it also referred to that in the noise report. She referred to the ordinance where it discussed fees in lieu of improvements, and said Bend Aggregate did exactly what this Board told them to do which was to meet with Public Works concerning Johnson Road. She said this application was not like building a subdivision and should not be treated like it was. Concerning dust, the Hearings Officer imposed conditions on them which required meeting DEQ noise and dust standards. There would be a water truck on site as indicated in their application, and that water truck would need to make two trips a day. There was nothing in the ordinance to allow the Board to set up separate approvals for each five -acre area. It was clear that when the Board eliminated the crushing on this site, Bend Aggregate had to modify its operational plan to delete crushing. There would be two trucks traveling to Bend and there would be four trucks operating to Tumalo. Each would be making round trips. They anticipated there would be approximately three trips an hour to Bend and four trips an hour to the Tumalo plant. They felt this satisfied the changes which were made in the ESEE resulting from the Board's decision. Commissioner Throop asked if a "trip" was one way or two way. Ms. Craven said two way. Commissioner Throop said that would be two round trips to Bend and four round trips to Tumalo. Ms. Craven said there would be two trucks operating taking the screened material to Bend, and each one would make three trips an hour. Chairman Maudlin said no matter how fast they drove they couldn't make three trips to Bend and back in one hour. Mr. Curl said that two would be more likely. Ms. Craven said when they set the trip figures, they set them at the maximum amount possible for the noise analyst to consider, and they were still able to meet noise standards. So these trip figures were the maximum number, and they would probably be below that number. Commissioner Throop asked her to respond to the ESEE limitation on 4-6 truck trips. Ms. Craven said the truck trips which were described in the ESEE were based on the operation which was then proposed which included crushing on site. The operation as modified by the Board's decision did not include crushing on site. The numbers which she just clarified for the Board would be different than those provided for in the ESEE, although she felt there was no ESEE condition of approval which specifically limited the number of truck trips. When she made comments on the ESEE, she was referring back to the body of the ESEE to attempt to clarify Commissioner Maudlin's original motion concerning the crushing on site. She said the Board was obligated PAGE 10 MINUTES: 4-20-92 under the ordinance standards to were relevant to the site plan already met those. She said additional "goal posts for us to 0118-031.5 apply only those standards which approval, and the applicant had the Board could not now raise jump through." Bruce White said that in Dave Leslie's memo he asked the Board to clarify what the Board felt the screening standard meant. Specifically, to what extend did the screening operation need to be obscured? If the Board felt that the standard meant completely obscured, there might be a question as to whether six feet of vegetative screening would be adequate. Dave Leslie said the winter closure plan was submitted to the County with a letter from Norm Bahrens, ODF&W, and the letter showed support for this closure plan including the time period of closure. The maintenance of water rights was covered under the requirement to meet the ESEE conditions. In addition to the comments from the applicant's attorney regarding the ESEE statements on the set back, there was a comment in the Findings and Decision on Page 8 which indicated that based on the submittals from the applicant, staff had determined that the one-quarter mile set back was met. He did not believe that Public Works would agree with Mr. Hendrix's statement that if there was no screening on this site, there would be no impact on Johnson Road, since trucks would still head north on Johnson Road to the Tumalo plant. The road improvement agreement was intended to cover both directions of travel. Concerning the person who testified about a restriction on stockpiling, if that impression came from his earlier statements, he wanted to point out that he was recommending that the associated stockpiling not be allowed until screened material could be carried south. Chairman Maudlin said that additional written testimony would be accepted until Monday, April 27, 1992, at 5 p.m. The Board would make their decision on Wednesday, April 29, at 1:30 p.m. No further verbal testimony would be taken at that meeting. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing. DATED this 1 �' day of n i , 1992, by the Board of Connissioners of Deschutes County Or%g n. AT T: L,d� Z! C!i�, Recording Secretary PAGE 11 MINUTES: 4-20-92 Tom /ThrooU. 6Commiss Nancy Pog e\ SchXa_ ngen, Commiss PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LISTI 11`�,�,� s _ PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC: i + pOe, 14 -(f DATE: —TIME: NAME ADDRESS r-, MY I ZIP 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 18 19 RECEIVED APR 2 0 1992 Any kf_' 01 1.—Otli7 TESTIMONY by the DESCHUTES CO. BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE on the Klippel Pit Operations Appeal April 20, 1992 As Chair of the Deschutes County Bicycle Advisory Committee it is my responsibility to address changes in the County that could affect the ease and safety while using bicycle routes within the county. We, the committee, believe it is important that you recognize the very heavy use of this route by bicyclists and the impact your decision will have on these citizens. This route is used by visitors to the area as well as by local riders. The loop from Downtown Bend out Shevlin Park/Johnson Roads and returning on O.B. Riley Road is very likely the most heavily ridden loop in all of Deschutes County, and probably in Central Oregon. It is beautifully scenic, not too long or difficult and relatively lightly travelled by automobiles. There is some truck traffic along Johnson Road, already, hauling gravel for the Highway 97 widening project. The effects of this increased use by the loaded belly dump trucks are already visible on the roadway. The very narrow shoulders are beginning to break down, and along the ridge line before Johnson Road drops down into the Deschutes Canyon there is a distinct swale where a culvert for an irrigation side ditch is breaking down. These are problems which will be exacerbated with the increased truck traffic from the Klippel pit. They are also problems that increase the danger for bicyclists sharing the roadway. The safety issue was further underscored a week ago when a rider was caught in the frightening situation of being passed by a belly -dump truck on a corner. Had there been an oncoming car at that moment there's no telling what would have happened. This road is narrow and windy with no shoulder to speak of. The increased truck traffic makes it more dangerous. We remind you that bicycling is encouraged as a mode of transportation in the State of Oregon Transportation Plan. The law states that bicycles shall be considered in use and design of the roadways. Johnson Road is classified as a rural arterial (Shevlin Park to Tyler Road) or collector (Tyler Road to Tumalo Reservoir Road). The Deschutes County Bicycle Master Plan calls for either of these roadways to have a minimum of four foot shoulders. In the absence of shoulders there should be fourteen foot travel. lanes. The current width of Johnson Road is generally at 231, under existing county standards. 0118-0318 Klippel Pit Operations Appeal Deschutes County Bicycling Advisory Committee April 20, 1992 Furthermore, with tourism our second largest industry in Deschutes Co. it is important not to jeopardize our most popular bicycling routes. That delicate balance between growth and preserving those things that make Central Oregon an attractive place to live and visit must be preserved carefully. Given the above, we hereby recobmend the following: 1. That hours of operations at the Klippel Pit on Johnson Road be restricted as recommended in the Decision No. 1(B). We understand that this will also restrict truck traffic leaving the area to those times. 2. That resource material spilled onto Johnson Road will be minimized as recommended in the Decision Nos. 2 (D) and (E). Furthermore, we recommend that Johnson Road be swept for debris once a week on Fridays to ensure safety of cyclists as much as possible. 3. That consistent (monthly) road maintenance be performed on Johnson to repair surface potholes and degradations to the shoulder. This should be included in the "Road Maintenance Agreement" with Deschutes County Public Works. 4. That the number of truck round trips per hour from the Klippel Pit be limited to a total of 4. This will lessen the opportunity for conflicts between the trucks and other users of the road. 5. Deschutes County should also seriously consider adding shoulders to Johnson Road in the next year and a half. When construction on the Bend Parkway begins, more motorists will be using Johnson Road as a means to avoid the inevitable construction delays. Conflicts between motorist:-, bicyclists and gravel hauling trucks will become more corumion as use of Johnson Road steadily increases. 6. Finally, we strongly recommend that truck traffic not be allowed now or at any time in the future to proceed south on Johnson Road. Your safety and road degradation problems will be magnified 10 -fold, for cyclists, motorists, tourists, and others. Thank you very much. Respectfully submitted, Sally Callan, Chair