Loading...
2010-136-Minutes for Meeting February 22,2010 Recorded 3/5/2010COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS CJ 7010'136 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 03/05/2010 08:24:11 AM 11111 11111 - Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page -c~ If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded at the request of [give reason] previously recorded in Book _ or as Fee Number to correct and Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2010 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Tom Blust, Road Department; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and representatives of KOHO and KTVZ TV, and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 6: 00 p.m. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of a Text Amendment, Adding the 19th Street Extension to the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Map. Peter Russell read the opening statement (a copy of which is attached). In regard to prejudgment or personal interest, the Commissioners disclosed as follows. Commissioner Baney said that she has attended several on-the-record meetings where this subject was discussed. Commissioner Unger said he has been involved in the south Redmond Collaborative Group for ten years, as a member of the Redmond City Council and now as a County Commissioner, so is familiar with the Plan and the various projects in the area. Commissioner Luke stated that he has worked on this project for many years as well, as part of the BLM Collaborative Group. He does not own property in the area nor does he have any personal interest in the project. No challenges were offered. Mr. Russell gave his staff report, referring to an oversized map. An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 is needed due to privately-owned EFU land which is affected. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19t Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 1 of 18 Pages The underlying zoning does not allow this project to be placed on certain types of property. It has to be lined up according to the Upper Deschutes Management Plan, the railroad and other properties. To stay on BLM land would make the road to winding and not appropriate for this use. The Planning Commission has met several times on this issue, and unanimously supported the linkage between the areas, but denied some of the alignment due to traffic volumes on Deschutes Market Road, truck traffic, safety and crashes due to potential high speed, and the potential loss of economic lands near the railroad. There has been strong support from the Department of State Lands, the Oregon Department of Transportation, the City of Redmond and the City of Bend; but there is strong opposition from the Boonesborough subdivision and the general area for a variety of reasons. Chair Luke said this deals with adding this road to the TSP; it does not mean it will be built. Mr. Russell said there is no funding for this project, and if it is eventually earmarked for funding, there will be a series of land use hearings. The Planning Commission did not propose a specific alignment, but agreed that the areas need to be linked. George Endicott, the current mayor of Redmond, testified for the proposal. (A copy of his testimony is attached for reference) He added that the Fire Department supports this as well, as it would allow the Department to respond more quickly to fires and other emergencies. The South Redmond Collaborative Planning Group (composed of representatives of federal, State, County and local representatives) supports this addition. Commissioner Unger asked what is envisioned in the southeast part of Redmond if this does not occur. Mr. Endicott said they have problems already at the Yew Avenue intersection, and this would help with traffic from, for example, events taking place at the Fairgrounds and the roads during commute hours. Commissioner Unger asked if this would be classified as an expressway. Chair Luke said that an expressway is a limited access road for safety reasons. Mr. Endicott pointed out land owned by the Department of State Lands on an oversized map, and said some might end up being an extension of the Fairgrounds property. The balance would become large lot industrial, which is greatly needed in the area. He said that an economic analysis is being done to determine the sites. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19t Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 2 of 18 Pages Commissioner Baney asked what the backup plan for growth in Redmond might be if this does not happen. Mr. Endicott said this is on the Redmond TSP and part of the overall plan for the area. They would want 19th Street pushed as far south as possible. Chair Luke said that this would be a boon to Pronghorn, per some citizens, but said that any access Pronghorn gets - and they are required to have another access point - would be paid by Pronghorn. Paul Dewey, speaking for Central Oregon LandWatch, said they oppose the proposal. In regard to Redmond, they have always seen Quarry Road as where the City wanted to go. It makes the more sense in terms of connections to Highway 97 and Helmholtz. This makes a good east-west grid, with contained urban growth. 19th Street as proposed is the antithesis of it, as it is a parallel highway running through rural land that does not serve much of a purpose. By year 2030, there would be 1,000 daily trips, which can be handled by Highway 97 but not by the other proposed road. They support an extension to Quarry Road, but no further. Another reason is they see a pattern. It appears that where there are development opportunities, the BLM is easily convinced to trade property. The obvious example is the DSL land south of Redmond, but at least it is next to Redmond. The community extension designation shows additional lands on either side up for disposition. The BLM could trade out or exchange this, almost all the way down to Deschutes Market Road. This type of road often encourages development. Chair Luke asked how that could happen. Mr. Dewey said the Goal exception process would be used, which is challenging but the standard is often not met. He has never seen a TSP Goal exception proposal like this that was not based on a capacity need, or the failure of some system. This is the first of which he is aware, based on a concept of congestion at an interchange or potential accidents on the highway. There are always alternatives to these situations. This would be a bad precedence in terms of Goal exceptions. If this happens, demonstrated need will not be a factor. They are supportive of Redmond's plans otherwise. They would rather see this funding applied to other needs in the County. Chair Luke said he has been working on the Cooley Road/Highway 97 situation a long time. There is a failure there and another at Yew. ODOT has told the City of Redmond to limit development there because of that problem. The City is spending a lot of time and energy to address these issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19` Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 3 of 18 Pages The Planning Commission talked about adding lanes to Highway 97, but there is a failure at both ends. The traffic counts estimate was low at first, but now is much higher. This leaves less than six miles between the two cities. He does not see a lack of having 19`h Street as a problem now, but it will be later. Mr. Dewey stated that one issue in the past was a desire to not have Bend and Redmond grow together. This could be the reason for non-support of Juniper Ridge. This growing together worries people. Chair Luke said that private land is located along the corridors. Where is development to happen? Mr. Dewey replied that they need to develop more densely within the cities. It will be a long time before this type of road is needed. The first thing to happen is to develop the close-in areas. They would prefer to see planning in areas that are ready for it, and then determine what roads are needed. Jim Rhine said there is a letter from ODOT supporting this as an important addition to the TSP. This can serve as an alternate route. It is not typical for jurisdictions to think about this, but within twenty years this will be needed. Access and highway safety is the primary impediment, and 19th Street can help address these concerns. The transportation system should not entirely rely on the highways. Commissioner Unger stated that there should be a balance for local and through traffic. Mr. Rhine said that some traffic would not necessarily have to get on the highway, which is intended to carry traffic at a higher speed for a longer distance. In regard to Yew Avenue, it is constrained and although the signals have helped, little development can be allowed due to traffic issues. When the economy comes back, it will be a significant problem. Any additional traffic needs relief another way. This provides an alternative route so that all people won't have to use the highway. Commissioner Unger stated that through the BLM process, there was a designation of a transportation corridor. He asked if there a chance of increased development in the future. Mr. Rhine said it was designed as a transportation corridor. The additional lands nearby hold a number of classifications. Commissioner Unger stated there was a designation of community expansion. Mr. Rhine noted that there is large lot industrial near Redmond. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19` Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 4 of 18 Pages Commissioner Baney asked if ODOT should be a partner in helping with funding this, since it would take capacity off ODOT's highway. The County partnered regarding the interchange outside of Sunriver. Mr. Rhine said yes, if this is part of the solution, they would participate. Commissioner Baney asked what it takes to get to being `broken'. Mr. Rhine said there is a constraint and safety concerns, and they hope to provide frontage roads and keep direct access off the highway. This will benefit the highway and overall safety. Commissioner Luke said that they have concerns about ODOT putting barriers down Highway 97 for safety reasons. Some have proposed a frontage road. ODOT should partner if traffic is moved off the highway. Mr. Rhine said that is part of their highway plan. Chair Luke observed that ODOT looked at a road on the west side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Rhine stated that they cannot eliminate access without providing some kind of access elsewhere. Chair Luke said that this could open up that property for development as well. Commissioner Unger said that some have asked why they aren't going to Cooley Road. There would be a lot higher price tag for this. Mr. Rhine said that Quarry Road is identified as a rural need. Redmond's plans on the west side is to connect Helmholtz to Quarry, as a local facility. The idea would be that 19th Street could also serve that function on the east side. In that sense, it would help to the extent of getting a frontage road to Quarry. Commissioner Unger asked when ODOT could bring money to the table for Quarry. Mr. Rhine said that is a higher priority, but would be based on traffic volumes. It is unknown where or when that funding would come. Chair Luke asked Jan Elrod if her mother's property is okay now that the overpass is completed (she lives next to the overpass). She said it is fine. Ms. Elrod said their 33-acre farm would be impacted by this change. Traditionally it has always been rural, all up and down Deschutes Market Road. She opposes the extension. The biggest asset is the rural area, which is becoming degraded. This rural land is an economic boon to the area. There are forces at work that are degrading this. The landscape is being covered more and more by asphalt. Having seen what has happened over the years, it is not good. The overpass is a good thing as it has taken a lot of traffic off the road in front of her place, but by putting this through there would be a lot more traffic. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19t Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 5 of 18 Pages No one wants to live by a major road, as eventually it will become more densely developed. Privately owned property becomes rentals. Commercial development follows. Deschutes Market Road is not a safe road already. There are legitimate safety concerns on the highway, but from Deschutes Junction south the same problem will happen. The Pine Nursery park will add more traffic. One problem will just be moved to another location. Eventually Deschutes Market Road will have to be improved even more. She feels that more mass transit should be required instead of adding more vehicles. The property owners in the area also contribute to the economy, and communities that are already established should be considered. They love the community and should be a higher priority. A softer print on the landscape is what is needed. She also does not want traffic diverted to Morrill Road, as those residents don't deserve it either. True progress does not mean degrading one area to serve another. She has concerns about the process as well. She has gone to Planning Commission meetings to learn more, as there is a lot of information about the process. In those meetings, they seemed to be run fairly, but her road name was changed to 19th Street without her consent. Tom Blust explained that when they did Phase II of Deschutes Junction, Deschutes Market Road connected separately so road names had to be changed to avoid confusion for emergency services. Ms. Elrod said that this seemed to her to indicate this was a done deal. Chair Luke said the road by Willamette Graystone was changed as well. He said that a person who handles road names is trying to eliminate confusion throughout the County. Ms. Elrod said this seemed to imply there will be a 19th Street coming through. Chair Luke stated that the Pine Nursery situation, the Cooley Road issue and other locations impact the County but the County does not have a lot of say on these. Ms. Elrod said that she feels Deschutes Market Road already seems to be at capacity. Chair Luke stated that these decisions are not always the choice of the County. Ms. Elrod said that representatives of the two cities did not show up to the Planning Commission meetings and should have. Commissioner Unger said that Deschutes Market Road is on the County plan and either it has to be expanded or another road added. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19t Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 6 of 18 Pages Al Boss is a resident of Boonesborough. He said he does not have enough information on this road as to whether to support it or not. He thinks this project rises to the level of an EIS and not an EA. It seems that a lot of decisions have already been made in some capacity. He asked if there is a record in one place that brings this all together. He asked if there are alternatives to the issue to help south Redmond businesses. Commissioner Unger said this information is on the County website, as submitted by Peter Russell. Mr. Boss asked if there are alternatives to building this road. Commissioner Baney asked if this would be from Redmond to Deschutes Junction or further south. Mr. Russell said that the staff report is huge, and there is an overview of transportation that summarizes why this was chosen, any alternatives, and the various issues including widening Highway 97. Chair Luke said the collaborative group was chaired by the BLM, coordinated by the federal government, and it is not always easy to get all their information in one place. Mr. Russell said that it addresses the expected traffic in the cities and how to move that traffic. For instance, when Juniper Ridge develops, there will be impacts that have to be mitigated. Chair Luke said that Bob Bryant of ODOT stated that ODOT left off the area around Cooley Road since they are not sure how things will develop around Juniper Ridge. Commissioner Baney added that it would be hard to presuppose what the City of Bend will do. Mr. Boss said that he is concerned this will prompt requests for development along the new corridor. Boonesborough learned a lesson regarding the area south of there and the BLM. Sometimes they can roll right over assurances made regarding previous plans. He asked if there are feral funds available for this project. Chair Luke said if this gets approved, they will look to the federal government, but there are no guarantees. They paid for the current environmental assessment. Mr. Boss asked if any private entities have asked that this road be developed. Chair Luke said that none that he knows of. Commissioner Baney said she is not aware of any. Commissioner Unger said there may not be any direct requests but part is already on the TSP and some businesses may be expecting something to happen. There are discussions regarding development east of the Redmond Airport. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19 Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 7 of 18 Pages Mr. Russell said that the City of Redmond Economic Development group has submitted a letter of support. Mr. Boss asked what the risk of not building the road now would be, or would it be precluded over time. Chair Luke said he did not think it would be precluded. Scott Hersh of Boonesborough stated that much has already been said, but the issue of Redmond's growth in all directions is a concern. He does not know why Redmond's southern expansion issue should be shouldered by the Deschutes Junction area. It seems like it would make more sense for the City of Redmond to solve its problems internally. He would like to see the cities stay apart and not be subject to urban sprawl. Quality of life goes down. There should be a way for the City of Redmond to deal with this themselves instead of taking the easy way out. Chair Luke asked if Mr. Hersh travels that road during peak hours. The master plan of Juniper Ridge has a road going through it with five or six entrances onto Deschutes Market Road. This is a bigger concern. Commissioner Unger said that Redmond's fifty year plan shows them expanding into a limited area. A lot of people from Redmond drive to Bend to work. The transportation corridors are needed to move these people. Chair Luke said that Deschutes Junction was originally platted for several hundred homes. There used to be a lot of commercial development at Deschutes Junction. Things change over time. He suggested reviewing the Juniper Ridge master plan, which will certainly impact Deschutes Market Road. Commissioner Baney asked how many people live in the Boonesborough area. Mr. Russell said that there are a couple of hundred there. Commissioner Baney asked if there is a way to encapsulate the area to see what is affected. Mr. Russell said there is a Deschutes Junction Community Plan and a stakeholders group from that area. In terms of notification, everyone within the area was notified and their own outreach is good. Nick Lelack added that for the Community Plan boundary, the cost was about $800 so the mailing was significant, and covered probably more than a mile from the proposed road. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19` Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 8 of 18 Pages Tracy Boyer of Boonesborough said there are about 250 lots in the subdivision. There is a homeowners association as well. Chair Luke asked if the homes near Deschutes Market are part of Boonesborough; Ms. Boyer said they are not part of the subdivision itself. She asked the Commissioners about spending money for this kind of thing. Listen to the people. They do not want it. Jack Keeney of Boonesborough came to the Planning Commission meetings, but the sign in forms did not have the checkmark boxes that the Board forms do. He feels the only reason to build a road is to fix an existing problem or alleviate a perceived future problem. He was told that the rationale is that it is nice to have a parallel road in case there is an accident, or a train wreck at Yew Avenue. Those are at best nice to have but do not demonstrate a need for the road. He would like to hear a real reason for this highway. The federal government is encouraging people to buy more fuel efficient cars, and automobile companies are being funded to do this. As a result of all this, people are driving less and driving more energy efficient cars. Gasoline taxes went down because of this and they can't maintain the roads they have. New taxes are being dreamt up to cover this shortfall. He does not see a demonstrated need for the road, and the excising roads need to be maintained. The only thing that came out tonight that is new is something about a western access to Pronghorn. Maybe there is a need to provide protection there, but the vast majority of the people living in Pronghorn won't spend enough time to pay any income tax. Chair Luke said that Pronghorn has to, at 50% buildout, build another access. One parallels the canal on Highway 126. This will happen whether this additional road is built or not. Mr. Keeney asked if this would make it easier for them. Chair Luke said they would have to contribute about what it would cost to build another. This could be a long way out. Skyliners Road is an issue now, but the funding can't be obtained for several years. You never know when funding will come. It could be ten or fifteen years. Mr. Keeney said he could be in favor of the road if there was a demonstrated need. Chair Luke said that the problem with any transportation issue now is that the process takes a decade or more to plan and probably that long to get funding. Deschutes Junction's overpass took many years because the Sunriver interchange had to come first. The County had to put money into both. It takes so long to plan and get the money; it takes decades. It will probably be needed by that time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19` Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 9 of 18 Pages Commissioner Unger said it could be needed tomorrow. It's about economic development. The property off Highway 126 needs to be changed to industrial, but ODOT will not allow it because of the traffic issues. If T-Mobile or another company came in today to Redmond to develop and they had regular shift changes, they would be denied. T-Mobile said they'd have alternative shifts so that they would not overburden Yew Avenue at peak hours. Another big business that wants to come into the area around the Airport would be denied because of this deficiency. This is why Redmond has to find another way to provide for traffic. The same problem exists in Bend due to Cooley Road. Commissioner Baney asked Commissioner Unger for clarification about his statement that if 19th Street is not completed, the County's land on Highway 126 cannot move forward. She wondered if he was stating that if 19th Street moves forward, it would allow for development of the County's land. Commissioner Unger replied that is not entirely the case, but it would be a factor towards a solution, and that if this goes forward, it could free up the $269 million that is needed for the reroute. He added that it is such a big number, ODOT is not sure it will happen. But a denial of development and jobs will happen otherwise. Chair Luke said that the Cadillac fix at Cooley Road won't happen, so ODOT is looking at what might work. He pointed out that Highway 97 was not always four lanes, and eventually became what it is. When the road from Lava Butte to Sunriver is done, it will be a four-lane highway all the way from Redmond to Sunriver. Things evolve and this was necessary. Dan Rider of Boonesborough said he lived in California and saw a lot of changes, and is seeing that here. The differences between the two cities helped him to decide to live in the country. He did not want to have the density or hear traffic. In California, that all got pushed together. The city limits are hard to distinguish there. The Eagles had it right, "call it paradise and kiss it goodbye". Alleviating traffic during the County Fair is a small thing. They could add an extra lane for outgoing traffic during that period of time, as it would make a big difference. There is a pattern. He likes the new overpass, but everyone seems to be turning onto Highway 97 north. It is already bunching up there. Living in California showed that some areas separate the cities and others don't get it. (He spoke about various cities) He hopes that the Commissioners will get the big picture. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing -19` Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 10 of 18 Pages Commissioner Unger said that Oregon has land use laws much more stringent than California's. Oregon does not stop people from coming here, even from California. The area will grow, and ways have to be found to tie communities together and accommodate that growth. Redmond has a fifty-year plan that does not extend that far out. Bend does not have a fifty-year plan. He recommended anyone who is interested joining a group that helps to plan for the future. Commissioner Luke asked Mr. Rider whether he likes living in Boonesborough. (He does) Commissioner Luke said he remembers when that development was considered sprawl, and if it was applied for today, it would not be approved. Commissioner Unger said that the BLM plan is to keep as much property federal as possible, if it makes sense. Abbott Schindler lives in Boonesborough, and is here to listen and learn. He has heard a lot of the same things he heard previously. The problem is that it seems that there a problem to be solved at the Yew interchange, and it will get worse. And the railroad crossing is a concern. He has lived where those problems exist, and they put in a railroad overpass or redesigned the road. When he attended a December meeting, he saw the bottlenecks that will remain there. Another will be added at Deschutes Junction. There are already issues there. If Juniper Ridge goes through, it will be worse. He can't imagine someone wanting to go onto the 19th Street bypass. The intersection is not designed for more traffic. It needs to be redesigned in any case. It is better to keep the asphalt footprint consolidated. Most people moving here won't be coming here for jobs. He saw this happen in California and Colorado, and in Phoenix. He is concerned about bottlenecks being added. Commissioner Luke stated that the deceleration lanes were extended after the County met with ODOT. There is a group of County and ODOT representatives that is looking at the corridor in that area. There are too many access points that create issues. In the long term, there will have to be major improvements in that area. Mr. Schindler says that it barely handles it today and he is worried about safety issues. It seems to him that the current problems can be addressed rather than adding something new. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19` Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 11 of 18 Pages The other issue is that he is worried about development. Three lanes on Highway 97 would do the same thing, it is already there and it would keep the noise and pollution to the same area. Commissioner Unger said that they have to look at what is going to happen in the future. Traffic needs to be able to get away from the density in the cities. Deschutes Market Road will be widened in the future as the local road network is created. ODOT will prescribe this for Bend to expand. The locals have to solve the traffic problems. ODOT wants to handle through traffic but what they do impacts the local entities. Chair Luke said that highways developed along railroad lines and through towns, and now it is hard to get traffic out of the towns. Mr. Schindler said that this creates more of a bottleneck and more asphalt. Chair Luke said that expanding the road on the west side is a problem because they would have to acquire a lot of private property, which is a lot more costly. Jeff Boyer of Boonesborough is a former transportation planner for a city about the size of Redmond (Crescent City, California), which grew quickly after the state prison came in. There seems to be support for 19th Street to Quarry Road, but not further south. He said 72 individuals wrote letters of opposition to the Planning Commission, and the Boonesborough and Starwood associations oppose it also. As part of the Deschutes Junction comprehensive plan, a matrix was offered and 94% of the people opposed 19th Street expanding. The County can't afford to maintain existing roads. There needs to be a good reason for new roads in the future. He thinks this is the most expensive option and they will end up doing Quarry Road anyway. With limited funding, it will be hard to get dollars. He asked them to listen to the public and especially his wife. He wants tax dollars spent in a responsible manner. Already 86% of people feel that government does not work. The County can make this local disconnect smaller or larger. Commissioner Unger said that he has a problem with tying together elections and government. They are trying to look at the County as a whole and handle challenges. As Bend continues to grow and the additional 100,000 people come to the area, it has to be addressed. They are trying to look to the future. This project does the most good for the money. There have been a lot of people involved in this solution. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19t Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 12 of 18 Pages Mr. Boyer said that he does not feel that all the options have been looked at. Morrill Road is one, but it has not been fully analyzed. An EIS is needed for going through federal land. The public wants to know that this is the best option. There are other choices. Commissioner Unger stated that the BLM did the process as required. The options have been examined. All the other options cost millions of dollars more, and there is not enough money out there to do this. Commissioner Baney reminded everyone that this should not be a debate, as the purpose is to hear and not debate. She asked that they stay on point. Chair Luke stated that the new road between Lava Butte and Sunriver will have deer crossings. However, they are not where the deer and elk actually cross. It does not do a lot of good to put a road where people are not driving. A lot of things were looked at, but it does not do any good if they go too far east or west. Putting this on the TSP does not mean that it will be built. 27th Street and Knott Road in Bend was to be the Parkway. As ODOT did the public process, it was found that traffic goes through the middle of Bend. There is a lot of process even if this goes on the TSP. Jack Holt explained that from his perspective, he is opposed to a poor solution. He is not opposed to having a solution. The Mayor of Redmond and ODOT have said that they see a need for a connection, but none of them said where. It goes to need. No matter what the County does, someone is going to be happy and others aren't. Money will be spent as well. There are places where the road could go without too much disruption. There will not be a stampede to develop any areas in the near future due to the economy. Funding will be a major issue forever. One comment was that the County was going to gravel roads from asphalt due to a lack of funding. In the long term, they have to determine what will serve the area best and what is the cheapest way to do it. ODOT says that they will have a frontage and back age road. The first formal meeting was in 2003. At that time, talk was about a non-transversible barrier in the middle of Highway 97. In time, this will need to happen. He asked about the Old Bend-Redmond Highway. Every time ODOT has commented, Quarry is a feasible option and probably their focus, along with a frontage road. The best long-term solution is needed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19 Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 13 of 18 Pages The only need so far is an additional 1,000 cars a day in twenty years. Also mentioned were train issues and an alternative way to get around. The railroad tracks could be an issue. The other thing is that long-term, they need to look at a problem to be addressed. There has been no one asking for 19th Street. It will serve two government agencies, one on each end, and they should solve their problems using their own properties. There is sentiment that although you don't want it all built up, there is a population to come. This is the time to address where it should go. No one is living out east. ODOT will use the west side eventually anyway. There may be a lot of process that has gone on, but most people are not aware of it. Private citizens were not asked for input until the Planning Commission met. There has been a `for' response for every argument against, and he hopes that the public process is not just a formality. If it is so important to the cities, why haven't they attended previous meetings? When this started, the scene was different. A solution at Yew Avenue was to put in lights. The tracks are still there. Juniper Ridge has the same problem at Cooley Road. This road will be right next to the railroad tracks. Every crossing is an issue. Chair Luke said that one plan is to put the road under the railroad tracks at Cooley Road. They have to get rid of Roble Road and Cooley to address this. Mr. Holt said that the cost of Juniper Ridge will make it too expensive to go there. The best way to serve the community is to do something that makes logical sense now or even twenty years from now. Ruth Jones of Boonesborough said that she was just going to listen at first. She feels that this is probably a done deal. They will complain, but just like 19th Street is already on the road sign, she feels that they are not listening. She has worked for state agencies and knows how government works. She moved to Anchorage, which was a beautiful town. People came up from the lower 48 and instead of being smart, the city tore down forests and put in roads, and now it is like Phoenix. The reason for 19th Street has nothing to do with Deschutes Market Road or those who live there. It has to do with Redmond. She is offended that the Mayor left the meeting early. The Fairgrounds doesn't have a plan on how to build out. Anchorage ran out of room and had to take down forests, ruining habitat and lives. That is what is happening here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19t Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 14 of 18 Pages The Mayor has a situation at Yew Avenue. She and others did not create it. Industries are coming in, and she is worried about where traffic will go. You don't put in an industrial park without thinking about that. You don't put in a Fairgrounds until you know. One city she lived in did think about that. When they put the fairgrounds in, there were no roads. That's how Yew Avenue happened. They back up to the armory, the airport and the BLM. Denver moved its airport as it was interfering with the rest of the city. They moved to where there was a lot of room. The public wanted this. The reason she moved to where she is because there is a nice forest between two cities. The County will tear this down. Because the City of Redmond won't move their industrial parks or the airport, forests will be torn down. This will take a huge portion of BLM land and put asphalt right down it. There can be fires. There are only two roads out of Boonesborough. The only other exit, Morrill Road, will be in danger. She said the County is going to choose rather than looking ahead ten years ago, and put a road through pristine forest. Pronghorn tried to put a road down Morrill. There are more homes in the area than there were ten years ago. A lot of people will be put in danger, because Redmond put in its industrial park and Redmond is in the wrong place and are unwilling to move the industry or the airport. They just want to make money. People using the road go to Redmond. It is not trucks now. (She went on to express her frustration regarding traffic issues, wildlife, forests and other concerns.) Hal Kiesling of Starwood said that at a Planning Commission meeting, someone said that this would be earmarked money and would be available soon. A whole lot of work has been done on the project, and it is not just a line on the map. BLM has done a lot of work on an environmental analysis. There is also a Phase II plan for Redmond showing a Quarry overpass on the BLM narrative, talking about a 19th Street connection. The map does not show much. This is an important thing to keep in mind. When BLM draws lines on the map it takes care of other planning issues they have. It probably does not cross private land. He thinks there are about ten groups involved in this. A couple of Quarry interchanges could be built with that money instead. The federal government loves partnerships. Taking this to Deschutes Junction is a problem. One guideline is a County arterial is not to be used for urban uses, and this is all based on urban use. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19 Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 15 of 18 Pages A lot of the other guidelines seem to be thin on justification. Other things talk about a higher speed on arterials and a minimum 100 foot right-of-way. This is not justified south of Quarry Road. Good planning should mean no harm is done. Commissioner Luke explained that it is hard to find the paperwork from the federal agencies. He came on the Board in 1999, and Deschutes County was in its 9cn year of trading land south of the airport. The County owned property at Cline Falls and forest property in Fremont Canyon, and the BLM kept dragging it out. A lot of Cline Falls could have been developed. His point is, in 1990 there was discussion about how Redmond would grow. Commissioner Unger has a lot of experience in Redmond. When the reroute was being planned, what else had to be done was reviewed. BLM has a long range planning process. A lot of things were going on at the same time. He is sorry not all of it is on file in one place. The Board will deliberate and look at other options. It will be difficult and these things take a long time. The Parkway would have been much cheaper if done sooner. It cost about $100 million for the Redmond reroute. Mr. Kiesling said that this is a Redmond problem. There was no discussion about access out of there to the north. It has not been considered. Chair Luke said all three counties, the cities, rail and air have studied this. One thing that was looked out is whether the railroad should be moved to the east. At- grade crossings are the problem. There are people living out there who would not like this. The railroad divides the cities. It was more expensive to move the railroad than put in the crossings, plus the unknown environmental problems where the tracks are. Mr. Kiesling said that all of the planning documents should be brought together. Perhaps 19th Street could be phased - first being Quarry Road - and figure out later if it should be extended. There should be other alternatives. Commissioner Unger said the Board could not be a part of the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Baney asked if there is a spot at the table at COACT. Chair Luke said that people are always welcome to attend. They actively seek input and post all of their meetings. Perhaps this can be linked to Peter Russell's information. He added that the railroad plans to double the tracks throughout the area in the next fifty years. There are open seats on COACT and the cities are looking for business members. The County has to react to what the cities do. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19 Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 16 of 18 Pages The City of Bend will annex Juniper Ridge, all the way to Deschutes Junction. The City of Redmond could bring things down to Quarry. The County cannot force them to help. People do not care if they are on a state or local road, they just want to get where they are going. Jan Elrod asked about community meetings and how this comes together. Nick Lelack said the Community Plan is being done, and it includes the Transportation System Plan and the Comprehensive Plan update. A variety of hearings and stakeholder group meetings are being held. Ms. Elrod said that it appears the Community Plan seems to be in its beginning stages. She asked how it all comes together. Mr. Lelack said that some of the projects are on different timelines. Sometimes this is because grants are involved and decisions have to be made by a certain time. They try to bring them together as much as possible. These issues are very divisive and it is difficult to consolidate it all. Commissioner Baney said that the TSP is like a chapter in the Community Plan. They don't necessarily have to agree. Commissioner Luke stated that 27th & Knott Road was to be a major arterial. When it was all done, the Parkway became the major arterial. Things can change. A lot of time can't be spent until it is on the TSP. Ms. Elrod said that Commissioner Unger feels this is a top priority. She is concerned about this. There is an impression that this is a done thing, and sometimes people won't provide input because of this. Chair Luke reiterated that just because it is on the Plan, doesn't mean it will be built. It has to be there to be researched and other options investigated. There is a whole land use process that follows this. Commissioner Baney said that input will be considered in any case. Ms. Elrod said she feels good about an opportunity to speak and be heard. Commissioner Unger stressed that 19th Street is a number one priority transportation project for Deschutes County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19` Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 17 of 18 Pages Chair Luke closed the oral testimony at this time. The written record will remain open until 5 PM on March 12, and documents should be delivered to Peter Russell. It can be done by e-mail, fax, deliver or mail. No date was set for the Board to deliberate. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. DATED this 22°d Day of February 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dennis R. Luke, Chair a&', GUnger, Vice Chair Tammy Baney, Com ssioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - 19 Street - TSP Monday, February 22, 2010 Pages Page 18 of 18 0 Y ~ C~ REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: February 22, 2010 Name BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING `n'g%b2 Address ///`GtJ c~5 7'/G Phone #s - J <P E-mail address In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for tb Opposed No Yes F n U i { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: February 22, 2010 Name rk-)Au L V EwE Y L4, d w~ rte Address t539 NW AQc G-L'Sa a2 Phone #s 541- 3 - t!43 E-mail address pc,16 w c y dca ~o (e . a In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ErYes Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. I Opposed F1No o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: February 22, 2010 C~'OC Name- \J an Address 4/ F q6 MA ~ - -7 7a Phone #s / 'Z - ~7-4.)~ E-mail address F1 In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes 1-1 No Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 2Jh 1O "'ZMAMN -1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: February 22, 2010 E-mail address Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Q Yes No Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. In Favor © Neutral/Undecided F-1 Opposed {s BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: February 22, 2010 Name ka- HER.W Address Z15Y.5 PIDW) Kip z DIE - C11 ~0 Phone #s E-mail address F] In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1-1 Yes Please give a cQ -y_to_thoAo-cording Secretary for the record. Opposed No o` { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Trans ortation System Plan Date: Februarv 22 ?01() Name Address Phone #sJ E-mail ad ess r" ;?.z In Favor El Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: February 22, 2010 Name y Address gf=21~ dX g 7 701 Phone #s ~y / zC , ,Vr Ffl;~r E-mail address In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided 9 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes KI No ive aveonv to the Recording Secretary for the record 47 11 ` { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING -REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: Februga 22, 2010 Name Addres Phone # s E-mail address In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. M""Opposed <No - rJ r \ < BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: Februarv 22, 2010 Name C!/ I Address Z16 2 ~ &_gbm && 04)4 ~&7J)D 931 Phone #s _5~I-3 P9-9 y 9 y E-mail address "bo`7 K5 6Jp no F] In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: February 22, 2010 C Name -4~- Address -L-1 t 0%_.t e % I-10 Opposed FINo "2) L P Phone #s E-mail address 1-"Vll~ 1-1 In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? es Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. MI.- Opposed F1 No Q- e w ? BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o ~ REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: February 22, 2010 Name C4 t h L / - Address 9Af Phone #s E-mail address F] In Favor Neutral/Undecided 4-Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? es F1No Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the cord. w BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 0 REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: Februar 22 2010 1-1 Name 'J~ ~ , V) Address ? y C-E Phone #s E-mail address Loo In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F] Yes F--+-T<o Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: February 22, 2010 Name Address 2v E 3 6 01 o N w~, Phone #s5 3(9-/- E-mail address In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided 0 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes F1 No Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 77 U rn BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Addition of 19th Street to Transportation System Plan Date: ruary Fe 22, 2010 Name b J 1 YY\ J3R Y . Address Phone #s ..'S ~4,!57 E-mail address rAW. OX %.,)j rx In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F-1 Yes ( No Please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 0 r7J PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS This is a public hearing on proposed amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan Map. This is County File Number PA-09-2. This is a legislative matter, meaning the outcome of this process could change the TSP map of Deschutes County. The Board of County Commissioners will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Commissioners may make a decision on this matter tonight, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Board with a copy of written testimony. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any the Board of County Commissioners for conflict of interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth any information that may be perceived as conflict of interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT S:\CDD\planning\Long RangeUransportationUSPUSP Update\19th St\Board Opening Statement for PA-09-2.doc a 9M0 1910 • 8010 CITY OF REDMOND Office of the Mayor 716 SW Evergreen Avenue Redmond OR 97756 (541) 948-3219 Fax (541) 548-0706 george.endicott@ci.redmond.or.us www.ci.redmond.or.us Date: February 22, 2010 To: Deschutes County Commissioners From: George Endicott Mayor of Redmond Subj: 19`x' Street Testimony Chairman, Commissioners - Redmond greatly favors the proposed layout of 19th Street from Redmond to Deschutes Junction. This project will construct approximately 6 miles of new road, extending 1 e Street from the south end of the City of Redmond to U.S. Highway 97 at Deschutes Junction. The 19t" Street Extension will provide a vital southerly access to the rapidly developing southeast side of Redmond. As you are aware, investments in our transportation infrastructure are crucial to maintaining the economic vitality of our region. The Ie Street Extension is of particular significance to the regional economy as it provides access to the Redmond Airport, Deschutes County Fair and Expo Center, existing business/industrial areas, and a large state owned (Department of State Lands) parcel targeted for industrial development. In addition, the road would provide a future connection to the Pronghorn Resort, improving critical access for emergency service vehicles. The 19"' Street extension will also provide a parallel route to US 97, which carries a significant amount of interstate commerce. This project will connect to the Deschutes Junction/US 97 interchange and the Yew Avenue/US 97 interchange and help reduce traffic congestion on US 97 as well as providing a detour route in the event of a US 97 closure. Deschutes County has already received appropriations for a portion of the project development costs in the 2008 and 2009 Federal appropriation acts. The Bureau of Land Management has performed a NEPA (environmental assessment) study on this alignment and found no environmental or cultural issues that would be impacted by this alignment. The Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT) approved the project and a letter was sent to the Planning Commission. In February, the Executive Committee approved support letters for a Federal appropriations request. Furthermore, the South Redmond Collaborative Planning Group, a group comprised of Federal, State, County and local representatives, has supported the establishment and alignment of the proposed 19'h Street corridor. This group has been in existence for approximately 10 years. At a recent meeting, several Department heads from the Governor's staff, attending at the invitation of the Economic Revitalization Team (ERT), heard a presentation on 19"' Street and supported the need for such a corridor as a vital component for economic activity in the region. 10 years If Bend's plans for Juniper Ridge come to fruition, the southern end of le Street will align with the northern end of Juniper Ridge. If we do not prepare now, and anticipate the future, then we will be left in a situation where transportation corridors will be much worse off than the current situation. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide Redmond's position. 21 February 2010 Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Re: file PA-09-2 (19th Street rural arterial proposal) Chairman Baney and Commissioners Luke and Unger, The 2003 South Redmond Regional Problem Solving Process, in response to actions begun in 2000, was formed with the primary concern being the problems with Yew Avenue and Highway 97. The government agencies most affected and involved were the City of Redmond, Redmond Airport, Redmond Industrial zone, and the Oregon Military Department (National Guard). DLCD, BLM, ODOT, Deschutes County and the Governor's Economic Revitalization were parties to these original discussions as all had a perceived part in addressing this initiative. Other traffic and road considerations included as adjunct to the Yew intersection question were the Hwy 126 connection and the reroute of Highway 97 from downtown Redmond. Much has happened since this discussion began, such as the Highway 97 by pass around Redmond and the Hwy 126 one-way arterial connection. Some of the original `bullet points' have been addressed from the original discussion: • Future signalization of the ramps to US 97 at Yew Avenue • `Modifications' to the existing Deschutes Market Interchange Two new dynamics have been introduced and are influencing the current discussion. One is the Department of State Lands (DSL) and Juniper Ridge. While unstated, they are probably best addressed by the consideration of "public interest' 'between Redmond and Bend. It does appear to me that the "public interest" is a government interest in servicing its own projects. There has been no outcry from the `regular folks' for this connection other than some profanity in the family car after the County Fair. It is quite probable that putting a list of priorities for infrastructure improvements in Deschutes County before the `regular folks', 19th street would probably not be very high on the list. In fact, most of the non-government testimony would bear this out. Here are some of the main arguments, other than the inconvenience of a train crossing Yew during an event at the DCFEC, put forth in support of this proposal: • Alternative to Highway 97. It would provide another route in the event of a traffic or rail catastrophe. • Traffic count of 1,000/day by 2030. • Designed to be used by private rather than commercial traffic. Given these arguments, the question of relevance is raised. I have lived at Deschutes Junction since 1977 and in Bend since 1954. In that time, there has been one rail incident that has precluded the use of the rail, but did not affect highway traffic (except Rubber Neckers). We already have an alternative route called the Old Bend-Redmond Highway. Traffic count of 1,000 20 years from now is not a compelling argument for 19'h Street. The intent seems to actually be connecting the industrial development of DSL property and Deschutes County's sale of Juniper Ridge to the City of Bend. If true, designing the road and intersections would have to comprehend heavy truck as well as `light' traffic. The design of 19U' Street as outlined on the map is immediately along the east side of the rail road track. The rail road tracks are a problem along the entire length of the connection from north of Redmond to south of LaPine. I don't know the number of traffic crossings, but rail crossings are involved in most every major traffic plan. The route you are recommending offers no solution to this concern. If this is to be a forward looking project, it would seem that at minimum the full %2 mile corridor would be used to the east and as far as possible from the track. This would be logical, as one of the stated reasons for this alternative route is to have a strategy in the event of a rail disaster. In addition, at some point in our children's future, there may be a need to use the land between an easterly road and the tracks for industry or the ability to construct rail sidings to support industry throughout Central Oregon. The BLM, DSL, and County properties could service this entire route. As far as I can see, the areas that would include the road are being used for no purpose that would be in conflict with this project. That did not escape the notice of the work done on this from the very beginning. The LCDC was brought into the process up front because of the agricultural `exceptions' this route would necessitate. ODOT appears to prefer a frontage road along Highway 97. Much was made of trying to get on and off US 97. One of the original stated goals was a `non-traversable'median on US 97 following the construction of a frontage/backage road. Stated goal # 7 in the original incremental transportation expansion plan was an intersection at Quarry and US 97. If these two items are in the future planning process as stated, perhaps this may be the time rather than winding up with both. A Quarry/US 97 intersection could incorporate a frontage road connecting to Pleasant Ridge, an existing road connecting to Deschutes Junction. Planning, building and maintaining two future roads makes no sense. US 97 still has many options for carrying more traffic according to testimony. One of the reasons for rushing into this right now as currently proposed may be the `stimulus' money. This may be quite short sighted if the future uses and traffic patterns are considered. This is a unique opportunity to truly consider the future link(s) between Redmond and Bend. The unique part comes because Deschutes County has been the fastest growing area in Oregon but by fate still has an opportunity to make long range decisions with minimal disruption. While funding is tough for this project, that is not a reason to make less than the best long term decision. The above comments are those of a layman and gleaned through the public meetings and reading the information furnished. It is up to you and your staff to consider its validity. However, the logic is easy for this layman to see and I'd guess a lot of `laymen' would agree. I am also confident that if this is approved as proposed, the affect on private property will be significant and immediate. Any current or future use or sale will necessarily comprehend your actions. Your consideration of this letter and the two previously submitted through the Deschutes County Planning Commission is appreciated. I trust your review will be as thoughtful and objective as the Planning Commission displayed during the public input process. I ! kM(HbW, pi6perty owner/taxpayer 21440 Morrill Road Bend, OR 97701 Res (541)382-5195 cel (541)420-8585 jackholt@uci.net To: Deschutes County February 22, 2010 If Redmond needs 19th to Quarry, fine. Quarry to Deschutes Market Road is NOT appropriate. Say "NO "to 19th Street extension all the way down to Deschutes Market Road, for two major reasons: 1) it is not needed at this time or even in the intermediate future (old Bed-Redmond Hwy serves nicely as an infrequent detour.) 2) it is an unnecessary expense at a time when many other county transportation problems need If, as some county official have indicated, you mostly are rushing this decision through to be shovel- ready in the off-chance that another stimulus bill were to be passed, that's not a wise approach to long range planning. Marian Woodall Kent Franklin 21753 Boones Borough Dr Bend OR 97701 /~Y5(wj Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 18 February 2010 Mr. Dennis Luke Ms. Tammy Baney Mr. Alan Unger 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend Oregon 97701 Subject: PA-09-2 Adding 19th Street Extension to Transportation System Plan (TSP) map between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Dear County Commissioners, The Deschutes County Planning Commission (PC) held a number of public hearings on this issue. It voted 6-0 to DENY the specific alignment depicted in PA-09-02 (January 28, 2010). We strongly support that recommendation. With that in mind, please consider the following: The City of Redmond Public Works Department, February 8, 2008, developed an S Redmond Concept Reroute Il with DSL Solution, Sheet. This document was never presented nor previously discussed at the public meetings. This design sheet was provided at the January 28, 2010, Planning Commission Work Session by PC Member Mr. Todd Turner. However, the comment period had closed, and it could not be included at that time. Therefore, we are now presenting this design sheet to the Commissioners as illustrating a viable, timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to provide and build the street network envisioned by the City of Redmond for resolving issues that various Redmond Urban Users now encounter within the City limits. See attached Design Sheet. Located in the proposed project area are several agencies and entities: the Department of State Lands (DSL) land, the Expo Center and Fair Grounds access, the Redmond Airport access, other proposed recreation opportunities in the area, and access routes across the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railroad tracks (BNSF). Collectively, these could resolve possible urban traffic problems at the YEW interchange and at Veterans Way. Additionally, US Highway 97, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) seem to be parties in this mix as well. However, during the county's 2009 public hearings, surprisingly there were no formal presentations by the City of Redmond, City of Bend, DSL, ODOT, BNSF, Expo Center, Fair Grounds, Airport, or other potential users of this area regarding any requirements or even a need for a 19th Street extension from Redmond to Deschutes Junction. Deschutes Market Road was mentioned as a start/stop point for construction of the proposed 19th Street extension. 1 It appears that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is trying to solve problems in which other formal city governments and agencies do not want to participate. Or maybe they have already solved this issue! Our point is that according to the current public records, not all the players needed to resolve this issue either have participated in or provided any alternative solutions. The January 14, 2010, Memorandum from Mr. Peter Russell entitled "Response to issues raised at Dec. 17, 2009, public hearing on PA-09-02 to add 19th Street to Transportation System Plan (TSP) map" to the Deschutes County Planning Commission states in part "This would be a higher-speed, two-lane road through agriculturally zoned land with access only provided to parcels that would be otherwise landlocked. Such an access management strategy would be consistent with Goal 11 Guideline A.2, "public facilities... for rural areas should be provided at levels appropriate for rural use only and should not support urban uses." (Emphasis added). See discussion of Goal 11, 2° paragraph, page 18. Our point here is that extending 19th Street, as presented during the public hearing, is a result of urban, i.e., City of Redmond, access problems for a variety of urban land owners and urban activities. Clearly, a 19th Street extension would be used to support urban uses! It would appear that Goal 11 Guideline A.2 would not be met by the proposed 19th Street extension. Interestingly, the nine landowners that would be affected by the proposed 19th Street extension alignment all have access to US 97. Those land owners are not asking for different access nor is it an issue of access for BLM. Furthermore, if 19th Street were built as currently proposed it would land-lock tax lots that would have access only through private lands to a 19th Street extension. Additional road systems would have to be developed and built on private lands, and possibly BLM administered lands, to provide access to a 19th Street extension. These roads would have to cross the BNFS tracks as well. The tax lots east of US 97 and west of BNSF tracks have not been included in any planning analyses presented. Access has been presented as an ODOT dilemma because ODOT did not build frontage roads along US 97. Also provided in the Memorandum cited above and identified as Exhibit 3, UDRMP, is a map from the BLM's Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan (UDRMP 2005). The map displayed in the document at the county website represents a repeatedly copied map that obscures the other possible "Proposed Transportation Corridors". Our point is that the clear copy of the map in the county files indicates that Quarry Road and other transportation corridors do exist and that these are part of the BLM UDRMP thought process. This information should have been mentioned as part of the public meeting discussions on 19th Street but it was not. Thus, we have attached this map to our letter, as well. Although not a part of the Transportation System Plan (TSP), the 2030 Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update is continuing. During those meetings, the public's inquiries about 19th Street were met with statements such as (paraphrased here): This is a proposed street that possibly will be constructed sometime in the future; do not worry about it. Clearly, if a 19th Street extension is added into the mix at Deschutes Junction, it would impact and change the character/nature of the area surrounding the Junction. This additional impact is unwanted and undesirable at the Junction. Our point here is that, during the Deschutes Junction discussions, the reasons for the need of a 19th Street extension, and the full impact of a 19th Street extension, were not adequately presented. Again, please note that at the Deschutes Junction meetings the 19th Street addition was presented as being "way in the future do not worry". However at the 19th Street January14, 2010, Planning Commission meeting, it was clearly indicated that Federal earmark money is being sought actively for this project. This clearly indicates that a 19th Street extension could be built this year, 2010, not sometime in the distant future. Further, results of Deschutes Junction Plan Update meetings have not been taken fully into account in the Memorandum presentations regarding adding the proposed 19th Street to the TSP. This appears to be a sneaky way of getting two separate "plans" approved that conflict with one another. Planning should not result in conflicts between separate plans that will have to be resolved later with one plan being substantially altered. In this case, resulting from poor internal planning coordination, the proposed extension would limit Deschutes Junction's publicly developed and intended results. Characteristics desired for Deschutes Junction should not be degraded as a result of a 19th Street extension impact. Such negative impacts could lead to further attempts at rezoning at the Junction. This issue needs to be resolved. This planning process has left much to be desired in presenting and considering all possible and reasonable alternatives for urban issues and transportation conflicts present in the City of Redmond. Why Deschutes County is trying to solve perceived problems within cities urban areas and a US highway when various other players, who were not heard from at the public meetings, is problematic at best. The logic presented for a 19th Street extension cannot continue to circle back to statements indicating that Deschutes County has 10 million dollars while ODOT has no money for this problem. Supposedly this situation indicates that Deschutes County should spend 10 million dollars (which it does not have) to build a 19th Street extension as it currently appears as a line drawn on a map. The other logic/rationale presented was that at only 10 million dollars " thel9th Street extension would be cheaper to build than the 35 to 40 million dollars estimated to build an overpass crossing BNSF tracks and US 97" although it was admitted that this overpass would be built eventually anyway! Kind of makes you scratch your head. 3 Our point is that there is a problem. It is that a 19th Street extension, as presented to be added to the TSP, is the problem. Currently a 19th Street extension needs to be on the TSP to get additional funding from the Federal Government, either earmark or stimulus or proper funding, through the Federal Transportation Administration process. Deschutes County already has spent money on this proposed project to get it where it is without the project being in any of the County planning documents. However, adding it to the TSP now solves only the embarrassment of planning for this project at the exception of other projects currently in the TSP that need planning and funding. IF the County Commissioners do place al9th Street extension in TSP, and the county receives the funding this year or next, the county would have to build it soon - that is, essentially NOW - not in the distant future! We suggest that it would better serve the people and County Commissioners of Deschutes County to enter into a partnership with all affected groups, to develop and design a sound project solution, and to seek the funding needed for the Quarry Road interchange. We hope that these observations and suggestions will help you with your discussions and decisions. Thank you for your time and very careful attention to this matter. Sincerely, Hal and Carol Keesling 20836 Dione Way Bend OR 97701 Attachments: Redmond Design Sheet 1 (2008) BLM UDRMP Proposed Transportation Corridor Map (2005) 4 ~ r I Y MW t IS I IA Is s T is is s i s T S T s T 'S S T e 0 L HIDE RIIE R12E RlOE 811E RIsE RI.E RI)E RI.E 1 \ I I"lr 7cfl _ 'I Ilcai CROOK NAT NA 1 DESCIIUTtS .I I- - i NATIONAL FOREST ' _ o } l 7 I r( t _ 1 I ~ I I LesraJa ~ -~e...n"1. 1 I r>t _ I RIVER ~1- GR.A5SIAND - N WE S 5 0 5 10 MILES 5 0 5 10 KILOMETERS S yr"NI I fl I 7 _,j 26 I ' ?~dnw III 7 t{ 12 1 ° R 1 e ° L s Stiff flet ° Bi ~1 _ 1 `tM ` I r' a I L I ~I ~I i +S ~ " e~~ ~ Y ri r d / >aI i 1 I j 1 to c., ~ I ..I r I asl, \\\I I a ~ ~S C.rnok ~COUnf' ~ II i-_ 4 ~ t( i 2 a` I b I I I, L. • I La 1'111_ I I ~ ~ a I i I _ _ betchwes County 1,421county ITe iI I I I j I 'ae I ~ a Z'1 T Rr2E IJE N1rE I J I - l s ~ q I f- I P~ I INSET: Proposed Transportation Corridors ~t T " 14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERI( ~Io x I Bureau of Land Management PRINEVILLE DISTRICT Legend Administered Lands Regional Utility Corridor Bureau of Land Managem ent Planning Area National Forest _-r Urban Grmvth Boundary National Grassland Transportation' Bureau of Reclamation Collectors State of Oregon Q Proposed Transportation Corridor (See Inset Map) Private/Other - Road NNe. See RNR maps fb2a:w mterun -J ryatem RMP Map 2: Transportation and Utilities IR I 2005 Plannmq v v Area 0".." a PriDstriaPECOUpper Deschutes Resource Management Plan r>nty n matle Ey Ue &,rcau al land Nanagemenl asb the axurcry. ra4a0+JY. w cwnplole al Vise Jala I mdMtlrtal v aggregate uu ,ren oNV data. Orginal Gab. rwre compiled Irom rv:ous awrcee.Thu maY rwtmeel NadmN 1Aap Arsura Serdartle Th4 pro:e~tud as devebpetl o+ough dlgtal meane and may a bo upda!ed rnllwd ndrn. ' w Tk PHASE ■ T (S. RI FAfflCFJOUNDS I~ 'F KffURE ~~m=s,==•=s,o~--~ a ♦ • HT61M SW 19TH STREET • FUTURE US 97 OV6 , DES TO ACCOMODATE MTFTM SW 19TH STREET C ROSS14G AND RITURE UMERCRO8SHM OF BUSPESS 97 AND SW 19TH STREET. FUTURE 19TH STREET EXTENSION TO DESCHUTES MARKET ROAD D PHASEI rT OUARRY MERCFIANOE AND SW ET (E) AND SW HELM-IOLTZ WAY (N) ROADWAY CON ECTTONS V> DSL PROP REROUTE N 1 REALIGN US 97 TO ALTERNA 3S ALJC.&M NT US 97 REROUTE I 1 1-1 PRONGHORN n S REDMOND CONCEPT e bar ` CITY OF EMMOND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Reroute 1 with DEL SoMdfon bp k February 21, 2010 Deschutes County Planning Commission 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Dear Planning Commissioners, RE: Adding 19th Extension to the TSP My wife and I are STRONGLY OPPOSED to adding the 19th extension to Deschutes Market Road for several reasons: Please listen to us, we are your voting tax base, we are the folks that consciously decided not to live in the City of Bend... but to buy properties away from the traffic, small lot density, traffic noise and street lights. And yes, we are the people who will be effected by your current course of decisions... it is our life style that you could harm. This plan may be exciting to you... but what is the real effect to residents in the area? For example: The new railroad overpass on Deschutes Market already has a nasty problem in traffic flow around the daily commute. IT MAY HAVE LOOKED GREAT ON PAPER, but traveling west, there is no turn lane for traffic tuning right heading for the north bound 97 entrance... how many accidents will it take for that mistake to be fixed? And future pressure on this intersection only multiplies the daily traffic snarl. After witnessing the effects of out of control growth for over 40 years in California, we are concerned about urban sprawl adjacent to our neighborhood between Bend and Redmond. Look at the quality of life in Los Angeles, Alameda , or Orange Counties you don't want to live there either!... Look at the current glut of vacant commercial properties already in Bend. We don't need to change zoning ...We don't need this road. As soon as you change the zoning and the use of the land... development happens! When a Bend Airport Helicopter company recently made the deal to train student pilots... did any one in Bend Local government consider that low flying helicopters would be passing multiple times a day over our neighborhood causing lots of noise? We support local business, but it doesn't have to be so one sided. We just hope that planners can take steps to truly consider real world effects of proposals. A county fair last for a few days, traffic noise, and negative effects of spotty development, are permanent and everyday reality. Sincerely, Dan and Kathryn Rider 21883 Boonesborough Drive Bend, OR 97701 February 19th, 2010 Deschutes County Planning Commission 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Dear Planning Commission: My wife and 1 are vehemently opposed to the 19th Street Extension to Deschutes Market Rd. Below are our reasons: 1. Extending 19th Street is simply NOT NECESSARY! 2. Past County Planning meetings regarding Juniper Ridge and any updates have shown a substantial desire, by the RESIDENTS, to continue to prevent urban sprawl and maintain the beautiful character of the rural areas between Bend and Redmond. 3. There doesn't seem to be enough funding to fix the roads and bridges we already have in Central Oregon let alone start spending County money on projects that simply are not needed. We would like to see the County concentrate on fixing the roads we already have instead of making new ones they cannot afford to fix and/or maintain. (We understand that the City of Bend is in the red for millions of dollars, let's not repeat the City's mistakes.) 4. Finally ...2 other points personal to us...There is already too much congestion on Deschutes Market Road which makes it very dangerous to drive at times. We retired to Oregon after 40 years in Las Vegas where the light pollution ruined that once beautiful city and took away our starry nights. When we moved to Oregon and, especially out here in the County, we found it to be dark and quiet which was the MAIN attraction to living out here and, like many others, the lights from the soccer fields will bring more light pollution to an area that most folks like as dark and quiet. If we wanted to live where there were lots of lights and noise we would have moved closer to town. We urge you to find another venue for this and other projects, because "in the name of progress" is not always a good thing, especially when it destroys others things. Thank you for your mindful consideration, from residents who live on Dale Rd. Jeffery Lovaas Wendy Lov , itz cc: Planning Commission Paul D. Dewey Attorney at I. 1539 NW Vicksburg Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 317-1993 fax (541) 383-3470 pdeweygbendcable.com February 22, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 Re: PA-09-2; 19th Street Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch in opEosition to the proposed plan amendment to amend the Deschutes County TSP to add 19t Street between the City of Redmond and Deschutes Junction. The goal exception standards have not been met where there has not been a showing of demonstrated need or a showing that alternate methods or locations not requiring goal exceptions could not reasonably accommodate the identified transportation needs. Alternate methods are not adequately identified and exception thresholds are not clearly set out or analyzed for alternate methods. Instead, the County merely concludes that there are no alternate methods and limits its analysis to a cursory cost comparison with two other nearby locations for 19th Street. There has also not been an adequate long-term ESEE analysis of consequences of the proposed location and other alternative locations requiring exceptions or analyses of which resource land is the least productive, the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use and long-term economic impacts on the general area. There is also not an adequate showing of adverse effects that the proposed transportation improvement is likely to have on surrounding rural lands and land uses and what mitigation reduces impacts to a compatible level. The proposal violates the basic state policy that favors protection and improvements to the existing transportation system before building new transportation facilities. It also does not fit the road functional classification of an arterial in Table 1 of DCC 23.60.010(D) where it does not link major traffic generators and does not have a travel density greater than a collector. Policies of DCC 23.64.030(1)(b)(2) are not met where the need is not clearly demonstrated, there is no showing that the County can financially absorb the additional maintenance requirement and an accrued economic benefit and increased efficiency are not established. Further, the County also errs in stating that no goal exception is needed for land that is under federal ownership. Goal exceptions apply to all lands zoned under Goal 3 for exclusive farm use and this BLM land is so zoned. Furthermore, as revealed in the attached maps, this land is February 22, 2010 Page 2 included in a grazing permit of the BLM (Ex. 1). No authority is cited by the County for justification that an exception is not needed for this BLM land. Contrary to the County's assertion that the road would not lead to conversion of BLM lands, see the attached BLM maps showing BLM lands around the proposed 19th Street as being up for disposal as "community expansion" lands (apparently at the request of the County and the City of Redmond) (Ex. 2). See also the BLM transportation map (Ex. 3) and the BLM NEPA worksheet on 19th Street (Ex. 4). Other attachments include City of Redmond maps regarding its urban growth boundary and urban area reserve planning (Ex. 5) and current Deschutes County/ODOT materials on the current update of the County Transportation System Plan (Ex. 6). Also attached is a report by a traffic engineer on behalf of LandWatch (Ex. 7). We respectfully request the Board to deny this plan amendment application. Very truly yours, 11 iJ PAUL DEWEY PD:ao Attachments cc: Board ISE R1.E R11E R12E R13E R14E R15E R16E R17E R s 13 a T s T a T s T 17 S T 18 S T 19 S T 20 S T 21 S s S T 24 S N I 4CRO RI W +E 26 d S ° 5 0 5 10 l MILES 5 0 5 ,0 ° KILOMETERS 20 - JefTerson County Deschutes County o oudty CROOKED Prineville 97 26 edm ' oehoe° Reservav 126 P ° S~,'.rl Powell 126 y DESCHUT S " C g a Tf et Y 1 NATIONAL\a20 1• i II iI"` Fq ° a Tu-k \ \ FOREST Bend ♦ ♦ _"~gg A ♦ esgrvo . 6 L 1 20 T _ \ R.w rr is ki •Is-1~t`,Y ~p . p.` me.a Casdade ' a \ \ I _ 6 % ` S rv ` ♦ ~a q J \ Q ♦ rs A t: R12E »E R 14E I m P! \ RtJmaul v _ - ♦ East... ♦ 1-, 8 ' - Lake o R a ub T S • R s La Pine _ \ - ♦ I j~ , ~T e wrir ~ y1 . , r ` 1 ♦ DMbutes, County _ amath County ♦ ly 1 \ \ ♦ T I 9 7 S 16 s - w! 1 \ _ INSET P _ : roposed Transportation Corridors U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOI r, Bureau of Land Management Legend Administered Lands - Regional Utility Corridor Bureau of Land Management - Planning Area 0 National Forest Urban Growth Boundary National Grassland Transportation Bureau of Reclamation Collectors State of Oregon B Proposed Transportation Corridor (See Inset Map) O Private / Other Road • Note: See RMP maps 12-24 kn mleran mad eymem RMP Map 2: Transportation and Utilities L v 2005. r A- "F, 1 1.111 OI;EGUN Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan No earrerlly b .We by the Br-.1 Lend Manepemani as m the aalaary, re0amro: ormrpblmaaa of tleae date Nr kKWkkW oraaprepeo, rme with other date. Oriphlel dale-emooled rnrn verln0 eoaees.Tlds i darrnedon may nnl near NaaorW MV Aco ray atenderda TN♦ W00M .rte dMoodd durarpr d 9ftel rrew and nary be rpdned •ilhout noaloobn. wsaozMromem C,x. 3 R9E 1110E R11E R12E 1113E R11E 1115E R'SE R1]E 1118E 4 /s 1 T S , 12 s 97 1 OCH CO C 559 2s ° 'NATIO A L T ]511 _ 18 13 S - ` 51A `FORE T. S ' , 5176 20 i.ff ii County Val 5 180 Sir s<hut,, County. so61 • Crook County 'sin S177.' W 65 , °5086 "88 - 50]1 5086 5095 T~ 5069 11 sd6 sma ROOKED 3066 6 solo 1 O P T « C © Prineville 98 9 On A sill ©5089 5198 i SMI 5065 nond -11 - ° 1 Sisters 511 ,J - ocnoto sau 12 I I5 x slo] Rese T --1 126 tl 51]JL o u 15 Q 0° 5119 IA1 5135 lf' 5 LJ DESCHUT S(, Pow011 J3 us 'la ~ns amm son w so99 :i' sogz a Rrsux sus . •sa3 n61 s "59 fd S NATIONAL sos1~ ~!Uo~~ asu6 e 5127 51l]52 53 _ Sol6 t.33 -3 { I i FOREST ,568: T 1 Q V t - Is .r. r •S 1W? Sort on g z 0~ 1 - 1~ i i '19; '31 5359 5133 I~ _ .~'I " I - Z 5110 r r'- 20k 1~1 S x it-+ I 1~-i L v= t I - ~ 5 \ SxLi ~4 J~ T sEN~ T 521 s ~.-2~ 11 ♦F~ky~~ 1 'A a ` S easade 4k91 ~ t I ~ '~~1 S ~ 5 ' f I _ h T I I ~ws 20 - J p.I S Q 7571 _ T DESCHUTE ' 4 s 571 Paolina EaEast se x' S Lnke j'"~ 7575 (~_ti.J\ ]573 Wiclnup 7566 - T R m NATIONAL 22 La Pine s 0 7595 n c 7591 Desehute5 County - _ 7509 - / CI C E. 7559 7551 G T 7115 i u Ie 23 ]597 FOREST ° 7509 5 Wlw Y 97 7509 rt p I w7 - 7597 , Q 75 T ; I t 75„ I U.S. DEPARTMENT INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management PI ning, f PRINEVILLE DISTRICT Legend AfBe - Planning Area - 2005 Highway E Onct~ R Road owl Allotment Number OR11 G N. Urban Growth Boundary F- ---I Unallotted Area Administered Lands in La Pine (9999) N^ _ Bureau of Land Management w-jE National Forest a Upper Deschutes National Grassland 5 0 5 10 Resource Management Plan Bureau of Reclamation MILES State of Oregon 5 0 5 10 KILOMETERS nowananlyisnuoilyde e0rea 1LWWManayamanlmlotlreounoq. 0 Private Other MRSWy,«co11i;,Iotot ea alh.wdatawxlm9naat«ftgre"m w othmdata 0da8mdibi- np0Wft-,adp,saOUlppa Tide heron mvy nol nwt Map Acprta6y SWKW& ThIS pmd A Nat101W P Map 5: Livestock Grazing Allotments wasdMbpaO tlawph dllinit Vrw nsy« Wdabd wWOMW Ola eamn. Ex. 1 RgE R10E R11E R12E R13E T 12 S 97 C T S 13 5 0 ' J n of C..&} - • ' D s h tes (in I T + 14 S y o Tertebai a Sisters q~ 128 T ' on T 15 S 1 DESCHUT'ES T T ma[o-' d 14E R15E R16E R17E R1BE I r 1 C0- a °v:AI Ir,VAL: ra e ~ ok County ® a ® Printrvi!!e a a - Prineville 0 1.. 26 ®~r a69 1b Powell 126 380 e u Bun. F FOREST u 5- T s Band v a {I i' 20 Y - 1 pp ~s• It T v ~ f 1~ 18 F T - 1g .1 { 20 e.L r f S 'i Brorb _ T 1 t DESCHUTE, - t . T 22 NAT 111': A 1 N S w E - _ Pine - 5 0 5 10 T = t ' 1 f 1 ti t MILES 23 B 9 _ 7 6 0 5 10 IT' Q IOLOMETERS 11,14 111111R!A~~ T 24 1 , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Pln Bureau of Land Management PRINEVILLE DISTRICT Legend 2005 Planning Area BLM Lend Tenure Classification O R E G O fJ " - Highway Zone 1 Classified for Retention - Road Urban Growth Boundary Zone 2 Classified for Retention with Option to Exchange Private Lands that may be Administered Lands OW Zone 3 Classified for Disposal Desirable for Acquislton Lands Desirable for Acquisition Bureau of Land Management ® Community Expansion Along a Linear Feature National Forest Areas that Contain Private Land Military Training Area Upper Deschutes ® National Grassland Parcels Desirable for Acquisition ® Subunit Areas Bureau of Reclamation Resource Management Plan State of Oregon Private / Other Nowammybmateby ow Bureauort-,!Marweeoamvb0 smut teuebeN•WCOMIAO n a fwpdemmrtrlmwdualoreggregdom MP Map 6: Land Ownership and Military Land Use aMh odw fete Od*W dm awn cp1plod bow vadm gaups This =A== °°ry^~a 1ltla iaadx (land Tenure Zone Designatiorrs Apply Only to BLM Administered lam) vad ~'a'a' mpW _ man naaa .0so i4WI) Ex. a Worksheet Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) U.S Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management A. Background BLM Office: Prineville District NEPA Log DOI-BLM-OR-P060-2008-0250-DNA Project/Lease/Serial/Case File OR 65448 Applicant: Deschutes County Location: T. 15 S., R. 13 E., Section 32, Lot 2, up to 40 feet west of the east section line. T. 16 S., R. 13 E., Section 6, Lots 1 & 2, SE'/4, SE'/4SW%4, Section 7, Lots 2-4, E%2NW'/4, T. 16 S., R. 12 E., Section 12, E'/2SE'/4, SE'/4 Section 13, SW'/4NE'/4, NW'/4SE'/4, SE'/4SW'/4, Section 24, NE'/4NW'/4, Proposed Action Title/Type: Deschutes County Road Right-of-Way (ROW) Description of the Proposed Action and any applicable mitigation measures: Deschutes County is requesting to construct a new road on the east side of the Burlington Northern/Sante Fe Railroad from the terminus of 19`" Street in Redmond, Oregon to Deschutes Market Junction near Bend, Oregon. The proposed road ROW would be 100 feet wide and 19,100 feet in length, encompassing 32 acres, more or less. To construct this road it would involve backhoes, bulldozers, dump trucks, gravel/cinders, asphalt mixers, rollers, pickups, and other miscellaneous heavy equipment. Blasting the pressure ridges would also be involved. Mitigation Measures: The holder shall be required to fence both sides of the roadway. The east side of the fence shall be 4 strand with the bottom wire smooth and the rest barbed. By fencing the east side it would prevent off-road travel and dumping, designate the west side allotment boundary, and limit the road access for recreational use. The west side of the fence shall be 3 strands with the top and bottom wire being smooth and the middle barbed. By fencing the west side it would prevent off-road travel and dumping, limit the road access for recreational use and protect pedestrians from safety issues with the BNSF Railroad. Page 1 F-,. V, lp 1 The holder shall install a 14 foot wide cattle guard and a 14 foot wide powder river style gate at the intersection of 191h Street and the dry utilities road that goes to Pronghorn Resort. This will deter public access to an area that has not been readily accessible or known to the general public. This would also keep horses in the grazing allotment. B. Land Use Plan Conformance Land Use Plan Name: Upper Deschutes Record of Decision (ROD) and Resource Management Plan (RMP) Date approved (ROD): September, 2005 The proposed action is in conformance with the applicable plan because it is specifically provided for in the following land use plan decisions: Objective TU-5: Allocation/Allowable Uses: 2. Designate a transportation corridor, approximately '/2 mile wide and extending from approximately the end of 19`" Street in Redmond to Deschutes Market Road. C. Identify applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and related documents that cover the proposed action The following NEPA documents (EA, DEIS, FEIS) cover the proposed action: Proposed Upper Deschutes RMP and Final EIS (FEIS), January 2005 D. NEPA Adequacy Criteria 1. Is the new proposed action a feature of, or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if the project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? If there are differences, can you explain why they are not substantial? Yes, the proposed action is essentially the same as The Preferred Alternative in Alternative 7. On page 266, Transportation, Regional Transportation, second sentence states, "The Preferred Alternative includes a potential extension of 191" Street south to a proposed interchange at the US Hwy 97/Quarry Street Intersection and then south for approximately another four miles to the existing US 97 (Deschutes Market Junction/Interchange). Page 2 Ek, v, 9. s 2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns, interests, and resource values? Yes, the Upper Deschutes RMP HIS compared the transportation corridor under "Transportation and Utilities" on pages 266 through 281. The Preferred Alternative included an extension from 19th Street to Deschutes Market Junction/interchange. Alternative 2 depicted a corridor from Yew Avenue south to Deschutes Market Junction/Interchange. Alternative 3 depicted a corridor from Yew Avenue to Quarry Avenue. Alternatives 4-7 provides for a corridor that links to both Quarry Avenue and then another four miles south to Deschutes Market Junction/Interchange. 3. Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances (such as rangeland health standard assessment, recent endangered species listings, updated lists of BLM sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that all new information and new circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed action? Yes, the existing analysis continues to be valid. No previous Wilderness values were identified within the proposed project area during the statewide BLM Wilderness Inventory of public lands in 1978-9, because no wilderness inventory units were identified in this area at that time. No new information exists that would change the 1978-9 finding that these public lands continue to lack wilderness character. These public lands are less than 5,000 acres of contiguous public land, and do not contain any outstanding opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfined recreation. No supplemental values are known to exist within this public land corridor. 4. Are the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? Yes, the same effects that would result from the proposed action were analyzed in the Upper Deschutes RMP HIS for the alternatives in Volume 2, pages 265 through 281. Also on page 511, question 205, Response, states, "The effects of designating the corridor are included in the Transportation and Utilities section. Other resources also considered the effects of this corridor designation in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. Page 3 E-, q, p. 3 5. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA document(s) adequately for the current proposed action? Yes, the list of "interested publics" is updated on a regular basis and many of the individuals and organizations on the current "interested publics" list are the same as those on the mailing list for the planning and NEPA documents listed. A final copy of this DNA and the subsequent approved right-of-way grant will be posted on the Prineville District's internet page for public review. A printed copy of these documents would be available on request. Deschutes County indicated that they would have to go through amending their Transportation Plan which would entail a hearing with the Deschutes County Commissioners. There would also be environmental work on the private property, so the contractor would have to contact the private property owners for permission on their land and then a copy of the final environmental document. Deschutes County would then go through their Land Use Planning Process prior to development of this road which entails signs being posted near the project and mailing of the proposal to adjacent land owners. This proposal has been on the agenda and discussed numerous times at the South Redmond Collaborative Group meetings. E. Persons/Agencies/BLM Staff consulted Name Title Lyle Andrews Rangeland Management Specialist Jo Anne Armson Special Status Plants Cassandra Hummel Wildlife Biologist Teal Purrington NEPA Tom Mottl Recreation/VRM Dana Cork Engineer Janet Hutchison Team Lead/Realty Specialist Rick Demmer Wildlife Biologist Ron Gregory Archaeologist Christopher Anthony Botanist Megan O'Neill Archaeologist Ryan Griffin Archaeologist Page 4 Agency represented BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM BLM John Stilley Manager Public Projects BNSF Railway Co. Tom Blust Public Works Director Deschutes County George Kolb Engineer Deschutes County Mike Berry Engineer Deschutes County Conclusion Based on the review documented above, 1 conclude that this proposal conforms to the applicable land use plan and that the documentation fully covers the proposed action and constitutes BLM's compliance with the requirements of the NEPA. Signature Responsible official: /S/ Molly M. Brown 10/7/09 Molly M. Brown Date Deschutes Resource Area Field Manager Note: The signed Conclusion on this Worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM's internal decision process and does not constitute an appealable decision. However, the lease, permit, or other authorization based on this DNA is subject to protest or appeal under 43 CFR Part 4 and the program specific regulations. Contact Person For additional information concerning this review, contact: Janet Hutchison, District Realty Specialist, Prineville Field Office, 3050 NE 3rd Street, Prineville, OR 97754, telephone (541) 416-6710 or email her at j 1 hutchi@or.blm.gov. Page 5 l;x. Y, 19. S Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) 2020 Grm~sr Radmond Amp. Clompm~,sxnsjvs Man and Zone Map ~ReGxMRG~Ntlmb - _ Nwurr ue~z~ ' cx.x.nxRM na, a zxR aae~,.uw a~'1O'i.x RxaRRRR,.RRArfx~a may' unto CS ~SIOULLRx~~daok CxnnRxRS I 'Y-~I G-dRx6,SmMC¢naxW I ~_I I SS III}} Htl I) k" •RSbmauMS ~ - 6S1-1/prclMUavltl ~ j OS-ORenfyes Po,S Rx.rve '1 RR-RUL'1c Rx113S M IIxMRStliMwR/tl i : v } r. • ~ A`- t~u~- u w~ .tlc,m, I UH(o Rr~ R unto r {d rw~ 1 t 1 •,It~if ^ R 1 y P l i t~~ , 1 efPARK, .pR unto - ~_i .14 ~a I Pf M1 AIRPO CA 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Map Prepared By CITY OF REDMOND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1- Yom, za ~ I M~ maa .•ro ~,~i w am.,r w,mdcarr w,,,,,,w,.,, w.r z. n. mop 7\ F rz x 5, P. P Redmond Urban Area Transportation Plan Map Mry W. I Y MM.wtl WrnnM 1~~U.[4be.k 1 - /rwO~wma ~.e_tln6 ~lonW O11h'15Y UOG /nwnbwrt ~ flrw.pre~ ~ ~bb. ` ~ ~ ~ I I i . l _ 1 00 4.0 I o 97 / ' .(J a 1 t _ i ~ - Y p m, , ~ a ; r.,. 97 97 _ a _fa HIGHWAY 126 CORRIDOR m 126 t 126 i + J ti- 1 aaruraaru•a•~ y~ 1 I 97 __.za II wir + s ~ 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 Feet FUNCTIONAL CLASS N MAJOR ARTERIAL MINORARTERIAL ° PROPOSED MINOR ARTERIAL N MAJOR COLLECTOR .'-,.!'PROPOSED MAJOR COLLECTOR N MINOR COLLECTOR • PROPOSED MINOR COLLEC70R US 97 REROUTE PHASE 11-PROPOSED RURAL COLLECTOR STATE HIGHWAY CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT CITY LIMITS r~ r URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY- 2006 l^ POTENTIAL INTERCHANGE Map Prepared by CITY OF REDMOND dig PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT na,..,tia r+o zaae-oe mue Ju130, 1 "-~2 NAVLE AVE AVE ANRLE AVE NEaUaWAy. NMG DAVE s AVE nFMLaaN AVE O~ J OoOWGODA FF G L ANRER PVE -ERAVa ~ eUDK BUTTE 9001 ✓r ~ ~OEYERGREENAVE U'T~PD 0851GIAHAVE OaBLLNhRAVE ~ 5'erERSAVE V auARrzwve ;P411F, we~aaAVE p0 FSERYa~R R ~ b P~ W2NIURAVE VAaIaUPAVE YMEW._ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY OREGON Legend Deschutes Count , =Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone y Parcel Zoning Map Tom De Wolf, Chair C ty Limit Michael M Daly, Commissioner DRAFT Communky Devabpment Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner G" 1 0.5 o ATTEST: Recording Secretary Miles Dated this day of June, 2005 22.2EO6 Effective Date: July- 2005 ~0 3 >t , SPt * ~r ♦ 4 * aa-i a a sar r a-#-a 3• o ■ { aaaaaiaaaa iaa#a a 1 FFF NW Ir - NE ■ . NAPLEAV[ Ian a am am Na m a, v MV'LE" AVE # MWIE AVE 4 W WAY r a as ~ aaa a a as `a a # a as r _ mf ?K AVE ■ ■ , ■ ■ E r r R a a a a NLNLO[ AVE.^~ r ~ r k c 1 LWKAVE a a a aarlaaaa all ■ i ■ ■ m r ' r Wn ERAVE ANTLER AVE ~a ~.-...rte.. _.em.rrf,. a ANTL ER AV 0851OWiAVE in r . ■ r .aa. ■ SW r•aaW10 =,aaa-aaa r r Hr ■ raa aii~aaa as ♦ ♦ ■ ■ "..at ■ r ■ ■ a ■ Future County Rural Arterial BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS a ■ Future County Rural Collector Deschutes County OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ~ Future Redmond Minor Arterial Future Redmond Major Collector Transportation Plan Tom De Wolf, Chair Principal Arterial (County TSP) Exhibit C to Ordinance 2005-023 Michael M. Daly, Commissioner Rural Arterial (County TSP) Rural Collector (County TSP) Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner m BLM Corridor (126 reroute) ® Future Runway/Extension 1 0.5 c ATTEST: Recording Secretary Urban Reserve Area Miles Dated this day of June, 2005 City Limit A W 11,2005 Effective Date: July_, 2005 Ex CJ l .r , 370 ~ E / .1~ r 1 I Jr jai 4%~ 0"M J~w! in .'IN .1 W 4 1 fA_ , J C". , J I,! / t \ l i 17 U r` w - , 1 I s A~i HIGHWAY ~ l L 'J 1_ I_ wrto=w w ` ; Y%_ c "ARTS A11E i ,r--An I` ~ >0000 I~--#r t 97 77 Ir. 11 i h' 1 Exhibit C Ucschi~es,,_ • I;ssllip DESCHUTES COUNTY acoaar.FHC Fraroa\naw ssrvr Redmond Urban Reserve Area County TSP Changes 2000 0 2000 4000 8000 Feel MAP SCALE IN FEET 1' = 4.000 Feet , ..r..o...~ N ter` Map OM: July 1. 2006 S MAP LEGEND Future County Rural Arterial (County TSP) Future TSIP) Future Redmond u Minor Arterial (Redmond TSP) Future Redmond Major Collector (Redmond TSP) 1► wrnr 7'- FonFtNQ■ey ~]eiwl,~e ~.■■ITmml.~Cnwr iWr Nl■W-Jrm IFWn Mbllr dM l►nmr VM ~[I~N~r CoAwUr rpe~r. FVpl~~oul na.e e~.a.r ~ ~FbGrrr a.eu■n■x cauwra*o /Vex Eh 5, p 5 A`~ E W y 5 O Al) W0 -1- P ° 11 E = r gge N O ~E~-re~, i ~ n»~es W& K E6~R l M c E z a a U = _ w a ! n d O N E IN, g E C L g B Y F_ r ~ ` ~96 ° 2 " le ♦n E V3~~ 1 ~ pYR' d a W g$3A § O sel 9[l l 9911 ~ •~S ~ moo. 9 r11 SSIl 9l1 / @ a 0 S E -Ilk v _ m ~ y dd la i ! _ i fa - a i F s ~ '9 w d n j eQ> ! ~ 14 S 2 !J I x911 9911 sul ' ~ " ^ ~ S enl s911 51't { sml r ! 6 5, ~p to ..-k- ROBERT BERNSTEIN, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner February 22, 2010 Central Oregon LandWatch c/o Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney 1539 NW Vicksburg Ave Bend, OR 97701 SUBJECT: Review of traffic/transportation issues associated with the Deschutes County proposal to add 19th Street to its Transportation System Plan as a future rural arterial between the Redmond City Limits and Deschutes Junction Dear Mr. Dewey, I have reviewed and evaluated background information related to the proposed Plan Amendment, including in particular the December 17, 2009, Deschutes County Burden of Proof staff report; January 14 and February 11, 2010, memoranda from Deschutes County transportation planning staff to the Planning Commission; and comment letters from Oregon DOT (1/12/10), Redmond Economic Development (1/7/10), City of Redmond Public Works (1/8/10), Central Oregon Commission on Transportation (1/20/10), and City of Bend transportation planning staff (12/30/09). I am personally and professionally familiar with the area, and I visited the site and vicinity on February 15, 2010 (see attached photos). Based on my personal observations and on my review and assessment of the available traffic/transportation-related information, I have the following comments and conclusions: Conclusion The Deschutes County Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) should NOT be amended to add the proposed 19th St future rural arterial because (1) the need for a rural arterial in the proposed location/alignment has not been demonstrated, and (2) alternatives with less impact than the proposed rural arterial have not been considered or evaluated. Discussion Deschutes County staff and the various agencies and organizations that have commented on the proposed plan amendment have identified a number of potential benefits of the proposed future rural arterial. However, as discussed below, none has shown a demonstrated need for the proposed rural arterial, and no alternatives - including the No Action - have been evaluated and compared. cx ~ ~ '0 507 - 18th Avenue East (206) 325-4320 Seattle, Washington 98112 RBernstein.CE76@GTalumni.org fax (206) 325-4318 Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney February 22, 2010 Page 2 1. Claimed benefit: The proposed rural arterial would reduce traffic and ease congestion on US 97 between Deschutes Jct and Yew Ave. Need not demonstrated: The County's and Oregon DOT's analysis clearly indicate that US 97 will operate at an adequate level of service (LOS) with an acceptable volume:capacity ratio (V/C) without the proposed rural arterial, and furthermore, that the proposed rural arterial, if built, would not attract enough traffic away from US 97 to have a noticeable impact on US 97 LOS and V/C. Alternatives not considered: Alternative means of improving LOS and V/C on US 97 to which the proposed rural arterial should be compared include: • adding lanes to US 97; and • implementing access management and control measures (e.g., raised medians, frontage roads, driveway closure/consolidation, etc). 2. Claimed benefit: The proposed rural arterial would reduce traffic and ease congestion at the Yew Ave/US 97 Interchange. Need not demonstrated: As above, the County's and Oregon DOT's analysis clearly indicate that the proposed rural arterial, if built, would not attract enough traffic away from the Yew Ave/US 97 Interchange to have a noticeable impact on the episodic traffic congestion that occurs there. Furthermore, the determination of need for the proposed rural arterial must consider the probable elimination of Yew Ave Interchange congestion associated with opening of the planned US 97 Reroute Phase II. Alternatives not considered: Alternative means of relieving Yew Ave/US 97 Interchange congestion to which the proposed rural arterial should be compared include: • Improve/expand the interchange; • Grade-separate the Yew Ave crossing (e.g., take Yew Ave under the railroad, as is being proposed at the Cooley Rd crossing in Bend); and • Improve capacity and efficiency of Fairgrounds event traffic control (e.g., provide additional access points and/or access lanes, direct traffic to Veterans Wy and other access routes, etc.). 3. Claimed benefit: The proposed rural arterial would support Oregon DOT efforts to implement access management measures on US 97 between Deschutes Jct and Yew Ave. Need not demonstrated: The proposed rural arterial would provide no support for Oregon DOT access management efforts on US 97. Because the proposed rural arterial is on the opposite side of the railroad tracks from US 97, it does not and cannot provide alternate access to properties with direct access to US 97. Further more, the County's and Oregon DOT's analysis clearly indicate that the proposed rural arterial, if built, would not attract JEk 7 . I. Z Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney February 22, 2010 Page 3 enough traffic away from US 97 to have any impact on the viability and effectiveness of potential access management measures. 4. Claimed benefit: The proposed rural arterial would provide a new connection on the County road/highway network.. Need not demonstrated: The proposed rural arterial in reality does not provide a new connection in the road/highway network: because its north and south termini are so close to US 97, and because there is no developable land or other road connections between those terminus vicinities, the entire travel market served by the proposed rural arterial is already served by US 97. Accordingly, the proposed rural arterial is, in effect, simply added capacity for the US 97 corridor; and according to the County's and Oregon DOT's own analysis, that added capacity is not needed. 5. Claimed benefit: The proposed rural arterial would provide needed access to the Division of State Lands (DSL) property in the proposed Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion area. Need not demonstrated: This is backwards planning! If the proposed rural arterial is in fact necessary for the expansion of the UGB - and that need has not been demonstrated - then the need for and cost/viability of the proposed rural arterial should be considered in the review/evaluation of the UGB expansion proposal. Furthermore, the determination of need for the proposed rural arterial must consider the access to be provided by the planned US 97 Reroute Phase II. Alternatives not considered: Alternatives for providing additional UGB expansion area access, to which the proposed rural arterial should be compared, include: • Constructing the proposed 19th St extension to the north only; and • Providing additional accesses to the north. 6. Claimed benefit: In the case of a potential future accident-related closure of US 97 between Deschutes Junction and Yew Ave, the proposed rural arterial would provide an alternate route for detoured traffic. Need not demonstrated: It should be noted that detour routes are needed only in the rare cases when the entire highway is shut down. For such circumstances, other detour routes (e.g., the Old Bend-Redmond Hwy) already exist and are available. Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner C-% p 3 Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney February 22, 2010 Page 4 7. Claimed benefit: In the case of a potential future accident-related blockage of the Yew Ave railroad crossing, the proposed rural arterial would provide access to an alternate railroad crossing (i.e., the Deschutes Market Rd overcrossing several miles south at Deschutes Junction). Need not demonstrated: A much closer and more easily accessible alternate crossing exists 1.7 miles north at Veterans Wy, and in the future, the US 97 Reroute Phase II will provide another. Alternatives not considered: Alternative alternate crossings to which the proposed rural arterial should be compared include: ® Grade-separate the Yew Ave crossing (e.g., take Yew Ave under the railroad, as is being proposed at the Cooley Rd crossing in Bend); and ® Construct one or more emergency-only crossings (see Spokane Valley, WA, example in Photo 1, below). Photo 1: Emergency-Only Railroad Grade Crossing (Spokane Valley, WA) YiP W v i t I 1 Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner C;, , o t4 Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney February 22, 2010 Page 5 If you have any questions or if you need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, c~ A 4 nr~ . Robert Bernstein, P.E. Summary of Qualifications. I have Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Civil Engineering (from Georgia Tech and Northwestern University, respectively), and I am a registered professional engineer in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, Georgia, and New Jersey. I have over 30 years of transportation planning and traffic engineering experience, including five years with the City of Portland and seven years as Senior Transportation Engineer with the Puget Sound Council of Governments. In these positions and as a private consultant, I have served as project traffic engineer and transportation planner on dozens of arterial and highway conceptual design studies in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, and Georgia. In addition, I have prepared the transportation element for a dozen city and county comprehensive plans, and I have conducted numerous regional and subregional travel demand forecasting studies, traffic operations and safety analyses, and neighborhood traffic management studies. I also have provided on-call development review services for several cities in Oregon, Washington, and California, and over the last 20 years I have provided expert assistance on development-related traffic issues to over 100 community and neighborhood groups, including nine in Bend and Deschutes County. Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner E", 7 , P S I , • i Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney February 22, 2010 Page 6 Attachment: Site Vicinity Photos Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner 'e.. 7 , ,p looking west at Yew Ave RR Xing looking east at Yew Ave RR Xing looking west at Hwy 971Yew Ave Interchange looking west at Veterans Wy RR Xing and Hwy 97/Veterans Wy intersection looking east at Veterans Wy RR Xing TE 0 PvV '7 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: Deschutes County Planning Commission Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner February 11, 2010 SUBJECT: Work Session on Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Update BACKGROUND Staff has appeared periodically before the Planning Commission to provide updates on the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and issues raised by either the public, the state transportation agency, or area cities. The County adopted its first TSP in 1998 and began to update the current TSP in January 2007. For the TSP Update, staff supplied land use classification data as well as traffic volumes, speeds, bridge weight and road restrictions, and crash data to ODOT. The agency's Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU) prepared the traffic and land use model for the TSP Update. The Deschutes County model utilizes volume outputs from the traffic models for the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization ( BMPO), as well as Redmond, and Sisters. The BMPO is a federal regional planning authority involving the City of Bend, Deschutes County, and ODOT. The vast majority of the land within the BMPO boundaries is under City of Bend jurisdiction. The BMPO oversees that City, County, and State plans are consistent. County staff has held numerous public meetings as well as coordinated with the County Road Department, ODOT both in Central Oregon and Salem, and planners and public works staff from Bend, La Pine, Redmond, and Sisters, as well as the BMPO. SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Staff has attached copies of the technical memoranda for existing and forecast traffic volumes and will discuss the reports' implications. Tech Memo #3 focuses on how segments are forecast to function as well how intersections will operate. For the latter, preliminary signal warrants are used as a proxy to indicate the need for improvements. (Warrants are essentially volume or delay measurements that indicate a need for an improvement.) It is important to note, however, neither ODOT nor the County believes in placing traffic signals in high-speed, rural locations regardless of warrants. Road and highway segments The County system of arterials and collectors segments has adequate capacity in 2030 with the exception of Burgess Road between Meadow Lane and Huntington Road and Cline Falls Highway between Nutcracker and the on/off ramps to OR 126. Quality Services Performed with Pride Ex 1.1 P• 1 By contrast, there are numerous segments of state highways that will exceed ODOT's capacity standard. Roadway segment capacity can be increased by either additional lanes or access management strategies such as raised medians, frontage roads, limiting or eliminating private driveways or some combination of all these. For U.S. 97 the boundaries of the segments exceeding capacity in 2030 are approximately: • Lower Bridge Way in Terrebonne all the way to north end of Redmond • Spring River Road to Paulina Lakes Road For U.S. 20 the boundaries of the segments exceeding capacity in 2030 are roughly: • Indian Ford to west end of Sisters • Gerking Market Road to the Deschutes River For OR 126 the boundaries of the segments exceeding capacity in 2030 are essentially: • Quail Road eastward to the bottom of the grade • Cline Falls Highway to 35`h Street on west edge of Redmond • SE Sherman just east of Redmond to Crook County line. Road and highway intersections In terms of rural intersections the measure of improvements could range from simply adding turn lanes to rural roundabouts with advanced signing to grade-separated interchanges. County road intersections predicted to have operational challenges in 2030: • Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market • Powell Butte Highway/Neff-Alfalfa Market roads • South Century Drive/Abbott Road State highway intersections predicted to have operational challenges in 2030: • U.S. 97/Lower Bridge Way • U.S. 97/Smith Rock Way • U.S. 97/Pershall Way-O'Neil Highway • U.S. 97/Baker Road NB off ramp, SB on and off ramps • U.S. 97/Vandevert Road • U.S. 20/Cook Avenue • U.S. 20/Old Bend-Redmond Highway • U.S. 20/Hamby Road • U.S. 20/Powell Butte Highway • OR 126/Helmholtz Way While the bulk of the TSP focuses on state highways and selected County arterials and collectors, the state's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires a TSP to consider a variety of modes. The other modes include air, bicycle, pedestrians, railroads, and transit. Staff will discuss how the TSP Update will address these modes. The Update must also have a Finance chapter. NEXT STEPS Staff is scheduling a second round of public outreach meetings across the County in March to report the results of the 2030 Forecast Traffic Volumes and potential solutions. Staff will also explain what happened to transportation improvements suggested in TSP open houses or the Neighborhood Plan meetings in Deschutes Junction, Terrebonne, and Tumalo. Attachments: 1. Tech Memo #2, "Existing Traffic Conditions" 2. Tech Memo #3, "2030 Future Traffic Conditions" 2 C". t-, P 2 O T O 4D ra r6 C .~d J Q Owl jo AqwnN E f f { { f f { f F i ti Vi } Q a W 7 a 1--r O F Q F C O a i a a F w a F b a d .S d a a 0 0 N d O_ sr 'S ~Nr w A w C z n x a H 0 ea i O a h C G R{ O L O ~ U~ O o Z ~y y y 6~ G Q J ~ i i i i i 1 , y C r O 1 ~ i i 3 E c i N N h f// a.E d w ~ V J Q a j °o ° o° ~ °o N N M i i W d 0 a (n V V o 0 0 0 0 E p N N i i i i i ~ O i i i ' r i O C O i.. i i i i O ~ ! y i ; c ~ ! m : U ~ s i J,r, ~ Y i d m J i S CL i i i I ~ ~ i i e 1 ~ i I ( E i i 1 i { i { is { I I s ~ N Vi y a z W a :J aI 7 7. Z J a 1--I z w 0 a z a F W a F a 3 S a o, 0 0 N 4 ~ 7 .Nr w u ~ Gr A x n tv LTr R a ~ of C O eCa y L CL " y i is ~ w O o U = u y ~ d O ° ~ U ~ C F M W r~ V w 7. N N } Q z a z z a 0 F a F C O c N 'L Q CG f T O O N ~ O L ^y 3 N 7 ~ W y W A W Cd CL C.' R! z 0 F d H O z E"1 w O z w F x d 064 w A z 0 w a O a E y EC J.+ H F ~s o Ua C., - a~ d ~ d v ~ VJ O ~ M N A° IE,, le, p 5 c M 0 U N ~ J U ~ T m 3 rn j I l_ Q x O N V Z- Z AeM sn Q a 0N 0 0 (b'0N H L6S E T ~ NorthWes Wad \ C p 11 T O rT m` ` (eM ~oyw~eH ~b o~ r 2 MyJ ~ss~ }1 ~ A'~9 k i AGA 4 Nw 740 S ( J i 0 ~tiSgp y a~' J ° z O ~o O~ J5ti I F i a z W a V z z a a o w F z a F W H v d d a a` 0 0 N w w a a~ "C C. C L~r 0 ~b 0 i E O ~ as y ~ C C~ a i.r O L C Ua ~ d ~ E CA U Vl O ~ O A N ,1~x 0 G C4e) E MH WA ORO 4 t f ^A er o` J5`L N l z° 3 1 = { N J 1 q ! ~ d -Alp Fora a~A m - 4 a~ac J N a ~aa~~ aa~41 ~o ~ 16 I ~oI ` 2~ ( JS13 1 a N ~ O U J ~ L E i ~ i ~.I I I 1 f t w '711.- L O O w L., Ca C~ CC z 0 F Q O a z F w O F z w F a Q a w A z O a y t; ~ L 0 a.+ ab L F ° a ~ o~ d U ~ G~ M A O N 6* N P17 M i a a r pa youea uosuyof ~o `t~ 1 Y J0 A ro ~ya 1j' a c ~~a a p ° a pb 8 3 a U N N m " 7 J co pH Aq eH 4 U 0 J A S b b la~~ey~ saanyosad C) a I I ~o E F- c 0 co H sllej oui C4 lb'oN ~MH L6Sl1 c0 2 / y o~ d N F 7 y m Q a W 7 7. V d F..r z w 0 F Q C a z F o, 0 0 N_ w ~ ^3 .N. W k, A C~ b LL G CC z p„ O ~ F ~ O ~ a c v1 0 z w ~m O C ~ F ° ~ Lam' aoc ad• U a w A a O N 'EX f. , 0 Sr M 0 U N N 7 E N N _LM C U ~ ~ ~ 2 (D OLi i D O c _o U° d m (p 'off ~ pb u°16p~~ HJ<ssn Pa°~sa`aKe Ra K O~ n N ~a yoc U ~a ca°e ~a °a~6e m~ ~ O~tA W w ~11.. O N L O U O '3 rr W U1- w Rl b Qr CC nn a r~+ y C 0 ;r L oa CL ~ ea ~ O R Ua ~d v ~ Vl O d M N A° z 0 F Q O a F Gr. O F z w F a d' a w A z 0 C7 W O E!( (e I e 9 M s i BV~e ~ F'~~~e 1 i F" I r ake PaUGra~ i J i No x`91 ~ OR3, pN r~ ss~ 6y ~J~Ae c 0 v J L ~ w N 3 C rn 0 CD = U C) S J \Ll F MM H H } a z W a Z 7 Z a o w F F C ti F E" 11 9 v d d w` x a 0 0 N_ 4 ~ d d w ~ c~ b C ca z w O E a ~ o Z y ~ a F C R w ~a O C d F Lr O F ~ 4 o~ w Ua O ~ d U ~ en O AN Y O N N T f0 = Q Y a = a E m 7 MH An9118 M e 8 3 J L L L) 0 3 3 u i A W U 8 = y 2 J K I- { W N W . to I I ~ i ssn i o rv I OB co d i J~ HwYNo.1l1 p2/la",eW uosu i (6 oN H~~6S 4or n I 1 i /iniuac) 43noS i O Y -Z o ~p N E ° 1 Ico of K x I 1 i ° 't'tiH sped p m i j N ~ a b oN ~MW)~ o. ~ i i ~ ~ N N } I c M Z a i I N u I ca,e d d or, lc N 3 e e5 0° { j E 00 i I 3 M da Kestlw~ ~a a N o 1\ ~ S97 (FiwY . 4) N o G c 0 E 'y Northw t W m j! N o J ` 12 m AeM zllo4wlaH M ? 'n d 3 ° W w O O N d p L ~ N u ~ ;z Q Q m C A ~ i R ^^~3 R FBI C CA R O a+ nn L 4 O F" ~ O rA A ~r H C 4.0 Y oa o ~ U~ CA V Y d ~ G U ^ VJ O G> M z O F Q a a z 0 F z w Q a w Q O A N 6, (e, 0 1 I L L n A I i ^O c V C w .aLi Q Q ~j f-~ z o 'y y V d L) Q G a 1 I o o ! i V y W E U c v C 1 I a a J t C C ( i ~ J a a ~ Y K I i U O u ~ t ~ ( I i 1 I I i i I I I i 1 i i j 1 i i i lfl~Y~~• N H I 1 i I i 1 I I I P 4-old uoT or I f i 1 I i ~ _ i i 72 Z A a a ~ ° . _ y 9E ~o` rc ~I K ¢I 1 N 7 6 Aem 4,oq., M! QE l m ,e Z ~ ~ p p y J ~ i I 1 ¢ E ~ I I ! T4ej auq I I ~ o po BUo~ I o n F,9~er s a° 1 1 S''~ ! rn• N l6Sn~ t X91 . III ,acF~ t i1 w ~ i 0.o C , 5 I I ~ Z 1 x r I g I I I i F z y :A a z W a 7. z Z Q a H.y w a z 0 F n~ 1-11 a C N W ~ d ~ LZ 0 w C~ V^ Fn z 0 F 0 a cn z W O O C7 Lra a 0 a~~++ Tr y O O f.~r h C~ Y~ ~ O C u UR 'n U ~ F v ~ F A LZ 'Cx 10 11 i Z z E N ! 1 M c 1 Q i 0 3 y U L F- I 2 d f t 7 f0 ~ ~ ! /C' J t c L , U o Z ~ Li i- ! ! 1 I I i i i i I j 1 i 1 ! 1( I i 1 i a>;4wea~^: or i ~ dl f l 3 0' i z g y~ , ~ ao a i 19 i I N a C° d\ S E ¢ ;"Y A r m` I AeM ilM4urla MI o ' z~ D F~^`°yeO NI , U ~ 1 , 1(` ~ ~ ~ zssn - 1 ! I i ~~l 1 Fei i Rao C ~ / ul Pa i i \ r a~w^mf~ \ e~y i I ~ i ~_-w-_/ ,.-'~J~._ ~ tip.-✓'~ 1 H s H N in } a ~ W U 7. z a i 1--~ Z O e C d H 'L F 0. a~ E4 11a d O~ O d C y N 42 x d ~ JL CK PC ~.a ri CC a y O O CL h C to i, C a, U3 ~ d0 w a v = H O Az Fx lea p 13 4 3 rn z ; z 21 z I U F N ! « N N ~ 1 w r C E r r y I N N p ; 1 V O D W / ! I 1 ! ! i i N H I 1 ; ! i I I calls=uea ~o+4+or :l _ _ _ -~J Al t y~ I iJ~eo ~ m R¢M 11--l M 9 2 ~ I W0 J o~ 1 E O °c 1 i j N Teed aul m eAo i o ~ n Fm~y i NI 6S/1 _ ! S'~ o, 191 Pd n ~ Nry~ Foa r ~ a 5 e~wn Iced Ri m ~ 3~ 1 li S ! I ! i i s~ ' M n w C ~ FII 01 O C O eV d ~ JL CC i~ z a, O F h O ~ ~ O z F ~ w O F y, z F, w 0 ad. U A O s U ~ O A Ex L, lp x p ! 1 z z + ` i r I ' i f U w 1 W i ~ y _01 ~ I t I J i t i 1 I ! j i I r l I ! ~ 1 i i r j ! 1 yN 1 I 1 A_II,L~N H m N I f %'/a ~ ssn ! /b 0 i i N Sn ~ i Pi!l4ou¢b uo I o y c ; ! `a 4~6, a I 1 N M Wa $ o°o. ; I t 2 x ~loywie l I D d JR 8 no ~ ~ ~ l6Sn a ~ as wwew samwsea " ~ ~ ti I /b Z M/''J! I o N L sS ID "oN ) L6Sf1 o gH/~ss7 g r d~son Ice Gave Rd T1 1 E ~ a' 1 3 ~ I m 1 R ! v 1 m' 1 1 I I d- w l-1I tT O C O N W In i d R C~ c a y On C /Q rA y CC L H a 0 C V1 C a vvi E a> oa Q v! z 0 H H a 0 a z O z w a Q 0+ w Q z 0 C7 W a O & t. , 0 15 ° z E i z c ~ Q Y 1 C E ' r O ; i ~ W ~ y y •t,7 J 8i m ~ 1 i J Lil J C 1 ~ 1 I II E i i ! I ^ r do ^ ! 2 i r 4~9 ~ yrv ~ 0 ~ ° 1 ' E s ~ ~ E Yi ~ 1 ~lI_ 1 i v °WeW saln4xepm 1 1 ~ i i pa,e w i r . f aa~vwea °o vyyor / ssn ~ ~ N nh~ Wa ~ o'b ~ I ~m 1 ~ AW4w1 e A E ~ ~ ~ ~p E f A w w1 i v 3 1 _ ,(,hH sy°y eN O m° ~ J i o ~ ~K ~ 0 ~~qaa Fm~ev ~ I \ J I s a ~`sSn I a ~o o onF ~ p'P 2 1 ~ z N/ .c N I ~ Ica 1 I ~ / u £ N/~ 0 6 ~ ! O~y\ OVS° n IC°~ ~ N ~ 30 E 0 i s ~ 02 I d\ ~ 3 e M 597 IH'«Y I ~ N E 1 K ~ i j E caOe kes H~i G onh+~e my Os as ! m / MAV ! s sSO J v~ y } U z z a a 1~ w a C a 'L F 0. F-FII a+ d 0 C N W tn v m JL° ~I C R a h O L O a a ~a L F O Y U °~a o ~ v v ~ i AE £x (e , 0 1 le 2 N i O z VJ Z z y N I i T L c , i ! ~ d a m 1 j t/~ H U N N I 4 W r m y O O ( I d N U O O N N i i 1 I ; i I 1 ; i i I i i ' i ~ i IN H 1 1 1 1 i i I I ` i Pa -8... or i i i ~ { E~ a v N We ¢ ~ r ~ z 3 m` ,leM 211eyuri i ; ~9/p4 rc A I p J P - sslny~s i e F i m i t ~aa J e 1 l U ~ 1 { i s z rl i i Fla ~ Gave Rd -~sen lcc ~ i I i i 1 i i ~ Cyscede k05 Hwy J r F~1 w 0 N N y a z a U 7. z a d z a a a F O\ O p O N_ OO W y w ca it CC Q >r 4 06, y O 0 o i, In h ~ U C-' R x O a~ U " CA rA w r N ~o z O F a C a z W6. O Z. w a C N A° Lk ~1 ~~7 N N 1 m 1 Z 3 ' c i ~ p I Z U 1 N T N N C t j a uV !i 0 CL U rn C ' w N N p W ,T+ U U N A~ U O ~ c°v i W (I 1 i ` i I • I f Ii I I Jy 1 i i i I\~~~.SLIN H i I i i i 1 1 fj Paj ea cos a f wv 8 ra rc° j va N p pa d i N b U 1 K Sn a i 4da A ~ _ ~ ~ Nip i t Rd 1 0~~ Bison lce Gavo ~ S9 1 i J I i i i i Cascatla key MW 1~ F i w Q Q z z r~ \J a H O Q C 'L F hWi a ~ Z-II a ~y i d O p O • N 00 W GJ ~ w A ces "LS c>~ C CC ~1r y N ~ Z L O U C~ ~y O CL o ~a Fo G :S v" d ~A N V rA N ~ O A O N E,k I., lp iR STATE OF OREGON Department of Transportation Transportation Development Division Mill Creek Office Park 555 13th Street NE Suite 2 Salem, Oregon 97301-4178 (503) 986-4112 FAX (503) 986-4174 TO: Peter Russell Community Development Department Planning Division INTEROFFICE MEMO File Code: Date: July 24, 2009 FROM: Thanh Nguyen, PE, Senior Transportation System Analyst Joseph L. Meek III, PE, Transportation Analyst Transportation Planning Analysis Unit SUBJECT: Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Update (TSP) Technical Memo # 2 - Existing Traffic Conditions The purpose of this technical memorandum is to describe and analyze the current (2008) traffic conditions in Deschutes County, including safety conditions and capacity deficiencies. The roadway system in Deschutes County is dominated by six state highways providing connections between Bend, Redmond, Sisters and La Pine. The jurisdiction of roadways studied includes Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Deschutes County. No city entities were included. The functional classification of roadways provides guidelines for safe and efficient movement of people and goods between cities. Roads are categorized based upon the level of access and/or mobility provided. Functional classification of a roadway system involves determining what function each roadway should be performing with regard to travel between and through cities. The intent of a functional classification system is the creation of a roadway hierarchy that collects and distributes traffic from local roadways and collectors to arterials in a safe and efficient manner. Such classification aids in determining appropriate roadway widths, speed limits, intersection control, design features, accessibility and maintenance priorities. Functional classification helps to ensure that non-transportation factors, such as land use and development, are taken into account in planning and designing of the roadway system. A balanced system is desired, yet not always attainable. The criteria of the functional classification system are guidelines to be applied when planning for the construction of a classified route. Roadways with similar design characteristics may have different functional classifications. Some roadways, for a short segment, may carry higher volumes than a higher classification roadway. The two major considerations in the classification of Fx (e, p r 'T roadway networks are access and mobility. Mobility is of primary importance on arterials, thus limitation of access is a necessity. The primary function of a local roadway, however, is the provision of access, which limits mobility. The extent and degree of access control is a very important factor in the function of a roadway. The classifications are dependent upon one another in order to provide a complete and functional system. Figure 1 illustrates roadway jurisdiction and functional classification of Deschutes County. For the existing traffic condition analysis, rural principal arterials (state highways), rural minor arterials, rural major collectors and some urban collectors requested by Deschutes County have been studied. The requested urban collectors were Baker Road (from the US97 northbound ramps west to Brookswood Boulevard), and Burgess Road (from US97 west to Day Road). Figures 2 and 3 show state highways designated as National Highway System (NHS) highways and expressways, respectively. The Deschutes County road network consists of two-lane roadways with turn lanes at some critical locations. The majority of traffic controls are stop signs with a mix of four- way stops, three-way stops and two-way stops. There is only one signal in the county at South Century Drive and Venture Lane intersection in the Sunriver resort community. All arterials and collectors in the county are paved except for the following roads: • Buckhom Road is a graveled surface from OR] 26 to NW Lower Bridge Way. • Huntington Road: A portion of Huntington Road is gravel, from Riverview Drive (S) to Riverview Drive (N), (approximately 2.3 miles). Currently, all traffic uses Riverview Drive. The County is planning to realign Huntington Road at these two intersections and pave Huntington Road so it is the main road and Riverview Drive will be a "T-type" intersection. • McGrath Road: There is a portion of McGrath Road that is not constructed (approx. 1.7 mi.) from the south boundary of the Boonesborough Subdivision to the entrance to the City of Bend treatment plant. • Rickard Road: The last 1.8 miles of this road are gravel from end of pavement to the intersection with US20. • Wilt Road: The last 4.5 miles of this road are gravel from end of pavement to the County line. Caaacity Analysis Transportation System Plans (TSPs) are to identify needs/risks of transportation systems. Instead of detailed project level analysis outlined in Transportation Planning Analysis Unit's Analysis Procedure Manual (TPAU's APM), a system-level analysis was used for the Deschutes County TSP update. The analysis is based on the Deschutes County travel demand model along with other data to estimate deficiencies with a high, medium and low ranking. A high rank indicates a near-term project will be needed with a combination of the available funding. Medium and low ranks show need of a refinement plan for mid- term and long-term projects to be amended back into the TSP. Capacity analysis of the TSP's roadways was performed using the Highway Economic Requirements System - State Version (HERS-ST). HERS-ST can be used in "need" analysis, program development or establishing perfonnance objectives. HERS-ST Ex P, to analytical procedures rely on a Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) database. • State highways used existing 2006 HPMS data from ODOT's Integrated Transportation Information System (ITIS). • County roadways use HPMS data developed from the base Deschutes County travel demand model (e.g. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes, speeds, number of lanes), data provided by Deschutes County (e.g. truck percentages), an assumed average K-factor of 15 percent and some national default values in the HERS-ST analytical program for unattainable data. For county roads, the AADT volumes in HPMS were developed by post-processing the base 2003 Deschutes County Model (DCM) link's AADTs. Most of the base DCM link's AADTs were calibrated to reflect field counts, however some areas lack field counts, so those areas were adjusted using engineering judgment. Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR) on state highways within Deschutes County shows a decreasing volume trend between 2004 and 2008. The cause may be from a combination of higher fuel prices and a slowing economy. County roads would likely follow the same decreasing trend, so the existing year volumes would be approximately equal to 2006. To obtain the 2006 AADTs for county roads, the base DCM link's AADT were adjusted based on a growth factor developed from Deschutes County field counts. For county roads without a growth factor, a two percent annual growth rate was applied. The state highway mobility standards and the Deschutes County operational standards were used to rank segment deficiencies by high, medium and low. A process based on ODOT's Preliminary Signal Warrants (PSW) was used to rank intersections. Segments and/or intersections may have capacity, geometry or safety issues to be addressed in more detail in projects or refinement plans. State Highway Segments State highway mobility standards were developed for the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) to measure traffic flow of state highways. The mobility standards are based on volume to capacity ratios. For a system-level TSP analysis, the estimated results for state highway segments should be ranked based on a range of the mobility standards between 0.60 and 0.80 (based on engineering judgment) in a format below: • v/c < or = 0.60: Low risk • 0.60 < v/c < 0.80: Medium risk • v/c > or = 0.80: High risk For existing conditions, the state highway analysis shows that no segments are at the High risk level, most are at the Low risk level (See Figures 4). Table 1 shows segments at the Medium risk level. Fk t. , 1P..21 Table 1. Medium Risk State Highway Segments Beginning Ending N Ule- Average Ranking Functional Highway Name Mile-point point AADT' Level Class US97 Rural (Hwy No. 4 - The 115.23 117.34 16,300 Medium Principal Dalles - California) Arterial US97 Rural (Hwy No. 4 - The 151.05 153.08 17,100 Medium Principal Dalles - California) Arterial US20 Rural (Hwy No. 17 - 14.48 14.72 14,700 Medium Principal McKenzie - Bend Arterial Rural Hwy No. 370 - O'Neil 0.78 0.86 2,300 Medium Principal Arterial Hwy No. 372 -Century Rural Drive Drive 10.62 11.75 2,500 Medium Principal Arterial Hwy No. 372 - Century Rural Drive 18.77 18.81 1,050 Medium Principal Arterial Average AADT estimated from 2006 HPMS database of records for state highways. Deschutes County Road Segments For existing Deschutes County roadways, the County operational standards are based on delay at the Level of Service D (LOS D). However, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) thresholds for LOS D are 5,700 and 9,600. Therefore, roadway segments under the Deschutes County jurisdiction: • Below LOS D threshold: Low risk • Within LOS D: Medium risk • Above LOS D threshold: High risk Majority of existing Deschutes County roadway segments are at a Low risk level. Figure 4 shows the level of ranking for Deschutes County roads. Table 2 summarizes segment locations AADT, functional class and ranking. Ex 't., JP,27. Table 2. High and Medium Risk Deschutes County Segments Segment Roadway From To Ranking AADT' Functional Class Name Lower Bridge Way 3l" Street 43`d Street Medium 5800 Rural Collector Deschutes Market Rd. Dale Rd Hamehook Rd Medium 5800 Rural Collector Baker Rd Iroquois Circle Apache Rd Medium 5800 Urban Collector Baker Rd Apache Rd Cinder Butte Rd Medium 6800 Urban Collector Baker Rd Cinder Butte Southbound US97 Medium 8800 Urban Collector Rd Rams Baker Rd Southbound Northbound US97 Medium 9300 Urban Collector US97 Rams Ram Knott Rd Northbound China Hat Rd Medium 6700 Urban Arterial US97 Ram South Century Dr Springg River Venture Ln Medium 6000 Rural Arterial d Burgess Rd Huntington Rd Day Rd Medium 7400 Urban Collector AADT estimated from 2003 Deschutes County Model Version dated 3/23/09. Intersections within the Deschutes County TSP analysis network ODOT's Preliminary Signal Warrant (PSW) is used to evaluate signalization at an ADT level for an unsignalized intersection. Meeting the warrant does not mean a signal will be installed, but it indicates that the minor approaches will experience excessive delay or have substantial difficulty in entering or crossing the major street at an unsignalized intersection. As a part of the system analysis for the TSP, the PSW process was used to rank unsignalized intersections based on the approach's ADT volumes. Exceeding certain thresholds could indicate when an intersection improvement (not just including signals - i.e., roundabouts, turn restrictions, interchanges, etc.) would be necessary. Because of the sensitivity of the model volumes and the normal fluctuations in volumes, the following warrant thresholds to rank deficiency were used: • Between 60% and 80% of threshold: Low risk • Between 80% and 100% of threshold: Medium risk • Greater than 100% of threshold: High risk Figure 5 shows intersections with different levels of delay from minor approaches. The South Century Drive and US 97 intersection was fixed by a new interchange and the South Century Drive and Abbott Road interchange was fixed with a roundabout. Table 3 summarized intersection locations and their level of ranking. EyG,,a23 Table 3. Intersection Risk Ranking Intersection Locations Rankin Old Bend-Redmond H / US20 tli h Powell Butte H / US20 High US97 SB On/Off Ram / Baker Rd High Knott Rd / US97 NB Off Ram / Baker Rd High Cook Ave / US20 / O B Rile Rd Fli h Neff Rd / Powell Butte H / Alfalfa Market Rd Fli h SW/NW Helmholtz Way / OR 126 High Pershall Way / US97 / O. Neil H High US97 / Vandevert Rd High US97 / Lower Bride Way High US97 / South Century Dr' High Butler Market Rd / Powell Butte H Medium South Century Dr / Abbott Rd' Medium Dalles California H / Smith Rock Way Medium Fremont H / Dalles California H US97 Medium Tumalo Rd / Cline Falls H / Cook Ave Medium Hamby Rd 1 US20 Low South Century Dr / Vandevert Rd Low South Cenyxy Dr / Spring River Rd Low US97 / Tumalo Rd / Deschutes Market Rd Low This intersection has been fixed by a new interchange. ` This intersection has been fixed by a new roundabout. Safety Analysis A segment and intersection safety analysis was performed to identify poor geometric or operating conditions outside of capacity-related elements. Poor conditions are often indicated by patterns in the type of crash or level of severity. This analysis is based on official reported crash data from ODOT (there may be crashes not accounted for in ODOT data). Differences between state and local data are because of the investigative agency that reported to the crash scene or the crash not being reported by citizens involved. State Highways The crash data was analyzed for type, severity, location, crash rates, and the Safety Priority Index System (SPIS). SPIS was developed in 1986 by ODOT for identifying potential safety problems on state highways, where safety money may be spent to the highest benefit. The crash rate, expressed in crashes per million vehicle-miles traveled, is used to compare the crash experience of one roadway segment to another. This rate expresses how many crashes might be expected of vehicles traveling through a particular section of roadway for a cumulative total of one million miles. The SPIS score is calculated based on three years of crash data and considers crash frequency, crash rate, and crash severity. The SPIS score is computed for a roadway segment that is one tenth of a mile in length. A roadway segment becomes a SPIS site if. • A location has three or more crashes; or • One or more Injury-A (life-threatening); or Ex 4 , go 2V A fatal crash over the three year period. For state highways, a Crash Summary Database (CSD) program is created annually by ODOT. It is used in evaluating sections of highways and yields information for sections of highways regarding highest and lowest SPIS values, crash rates, traffic information and number and type of crashes. The analysis of the CSD program is based on three years of crash data (2005 - 2007). The CSD crash rates will be compared to a three year (2005 - 2007) average of the published rural highway system rates by functional class. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the crash rates, SPIS and the important patterns that emerged. Figure 6 shows 2005 - 2007 crashes and Top 10% SPIS sites on state highways. Deschutes County classifies all state highways as rural principal arterials. For the purpose of the crash analysis, state classifications on state highways will be used. Of the 626 reported crashes on state highways in Deschutes County between 2005 and 2007, the majority of crashes were fixed object collisions (44%). These fixed object crashes may be caused by lack of illumination, poor pavement conditions, poor weather conditions, driver fatigue, etc. Other collision types ranged from 5 to 20 percent. The vast majority (79%) of crashes were under daylight conditions. About half of the crashes occurred under snow, ice, or wet conditions. About a quarter of crashes occurred at intersections. The total crashes involving trucks were eight percent. Outside of UGBs, there are four top 10% SPIS sites on state highways in Deschutes County, one on US20 (McKenzie - Bend) and three on US97. • US 20, MP 14.53 and 14.71: This intersection of US20 at Bailey Road/71h Street is in the community of Tumalo. Of the seventeen 2005 - 2007 reported crashes, eight were turnings, six were angles, one was rear-end and two were fixed objects. There were also three severe Injury-A crashes. Right-in/out or other turn restrictions should be considered to improve safety. • US97, MP 128.49 - 128.67: This intersection of US97 at 61" Street/Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road has 12 crashes reported between 2005 and 2007, 42 percent were rear-end, 26 percent were turning and 16 percent were angle and sideswipe- overtaking. The crash severity includes one fatal, and two Injury-As. Countermeasures could include an over-crossing or right-in-right-out turn restrictions. • US97, MP 146.39 - 146.56: Of the six 2005 - 2007 reported crashes, there were two head-ons, two rear-ends, one sideswipe-overtaking and one fix-object. The crash severity includes one fatal and one Injury-A. Raised median barriers should be considered to improve safety at this location. • US97, MP 168.10 - 168.28: This intersection of US97 at 6`h Street divides Deschutes County and City of LaPine jurisdictions. Two out of seven 2005 - 2007 reported crashes were angle crashes, and the rest were turning crashes. The crash severity includes one fatal and one Injury-A. This location is within a transition of rural and urban areas. These type of crashes occur when drivers from the crossroad misjudge oncoming vehicle speed on the highway because highway vehicles speed up as they enter the rural area. Modification to the current striping f,, t, , 0 25 and signing to warn drivers the changes in travel lanes and in the culture on US97 have already been considered at this location. Table 4.2005 - 2007 State Highway Crash Ratest C8I3 Averaged Type of Crash Segment AD'T6 3-yr Crash Rate Ruri Awy S~ 400, Rates Head On Angle Turn Rear End Side Swipe Fixed Object s MISC US97 Hwy No. 4 - The Da lles - Ca lifornia MP 112.86 - 119.02 14,400 0.55 4 4 12 20 2 6 5 MP 124.41 - 130.18 29,400 0.30 2 3 4 13 8 16 9 MP 130.18- 132.19 27,500 0.30 2 1 1 5 1 5 3 MP 132.19- 133.56 27,500 0.24 2 0 1 0 2 2 3 MP 142.24- 143.47 22,200 0.37 0.712 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 MP 143.47- 150.71 17,100 0.40 4 1 0 5 5 33 6 MP 150.71- 162.67 13,250 0.59 7 4 12 17 11 43 8 MP 162.67 - 164.19 9,400 0.45 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 MP 168.18 - 169.68 6,650 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 3 0 OR242/126 Hwy No. 15 - McKenzie MP 77.14 - 91.1 1 535 1.17' 1 1 1 1 2 5 0 MP 93.38 - 107.77 5,150 0.55 1 1 1 0 7 6 2 19 10 MP 107.77 - 110.15 11,000 6 0.71 0 4 9 6 0 4 4 US20 Hwy No. 1.6 - Santiam MP 90.85 - 92.85 5,100 1 0 1 3 1 8 1 MP 92.85 - 94.95 6,550 0.60 0.71 0 0 0 2 0 4 3 MP 94.95 - 100.12 10,400 0.61 1 2 2 5 4 17 5 US20 Hwy No. 17 - McKenzie - Bend MP 0.00 - 4.04 8,700 0.57 0 0 2 4 2 8 6 MP 4.04 - 5.30 8,700 0.67 0 Q 0 3 0 4 1 MP 5.30 - 7.87 8,700 0 1 0 6 2 9 4 MP 7.87 - 9.72 9,100 0.71 2 0 1 4 1 9 5 MP 9.72 - 12.28 9,500 0.64 0 0 2 4 2 5 4 MP 12.28 - 14.30 9,500 0.33 0 0 1 1 0 3 2 MP 14.30 - 17.48 13,600 1 7 12 3 3 7 7 OR31 Hw No. 19 - Fremont MP 0.00 - 2.31 1,900 0.99° 11 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 OR126 Hwy No. 41 - Ochoco MP 2.32 - 3.58 8,100 0.45 0.71 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 US20 Hwy No. 7 - Central Oregon MP 3.05 - 4.80 12,450 1 4 4 1 0 1 3 MP 4.80 - 9.16 250 3 0 5 1 1 0 5 3 MP 9.16 - 20.56 , 2,600 t 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 MP 20.56 - 35.65 1,550 0.71 0 0 0 0 2 6 1 MP 35.65 - 42.64 1,500 O.3 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 MP 42.64 - 69.25 1,500 0.39 0 0 T 70771 1 0 12 4 Hwy No. 370 - O'Neil MP 0.00 - 3.84 1,950 0.994 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 Hwy No. 372 - Century Drive MP 4.63 - 7.19 8,500 0.25 0.99 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 IE,, C, , P a (e CSD Averaged T ype of Crash Segment ADT6 3-yr Rural Hwy Crash System Rate Rates Head On ngle urn Rear End Side Swipe Fixed Object s Misc MP 7.19 - 8.43 3,750 0.98 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 MP 8.43 - 11.43 2,50Q 1 0 0 1 2 5 2 MP 11.43 - 16.87 2,100 0 1 0 2 1 7 2 MP 16.87 - 19.19 2,100 0 1 1 2 0 4 0 MP 19.19 - 21.98 2,000 0 0 3 0 2 5 0 Black shaded cells indicate that the three year average of the published rural highway system crash rates were exceeded. Three year average of the published rural highway system crash rates for rural principal arterials. z Three year average of the published rural highway system crash rates for rural major collectors. a Three year average of the published rural highway system crash rates for rural minor arterials. s Miscellaneous crashes also include pedestrian, backing, parking, and non-collision crash types. E The ADT is taken from the middle year of the three years of data reviewed. Table 5.2005 - 2007 State Hiehwav Crash Severitv entl S Crash Sea eri 1 egm PDOj INJ FAT° 1 US97 Hwy No. 4 - The Dalles - California MP 112.86 - 119.02 25 26 2 IWWVEIEJM 28 26 1 P 130.18 - 132.19 7 11 0 P 132.19 - 133.56 Z 6 4 0 P 142.24 - 143.47 6 5 0 INEWIrmill 30 22 2 P 150.71-162.67 M 48 50 4 MP 162.67 - 164.19 6 1 0 5 5 2 OR242/126 Hwy No. 15 - McKenzie MP 77.14-91.11 7 4 0 MP 93.38 - 107.77 24 21 0 MP 107.77 - 110.15 9 18 0 US20 Hwy No. 16 - Santiam MP 90.85 - 92.85 9 6 0 MP 92.85 - 94.95 6 3 0 MP 94.95 - 100.12 20 16 0 US20 Hwy No. 17 - McKenzie - Bend MP 0.00-4.04 11 11 0 MP 4.04-5.30 4 4 0 MP 5.30-7.87 7 15 0 MP 7.87-9.72 12 9 1 MP 9.72 - 12.28 10 5 2 MP 12.28 - 14.30 5 l 1 18 22 0 OR31 Hwy No. 19 - Fremont MP 0.00-2.31 4 3 0 OR126 Hwy No. 41 - Ochoco MP 2.32-3.58 2 3 0 US20 Hwy No. 7 - Central Oregon MP 3.05 - 4.80 6 8 0 iF" to , 0 -17 tt S Crash Severity egaen Pool INJ3 FAT'' MP 4.80-9.16 6 8 1 MP 9.16-20.56 3 3 0 MP 20.56 - 35.65 4 5 0 MP 35.65 - 42.64 2 2 0 MP 42.64 - 69.25 8 9 0 Hwy No. 370 - O'Neil Highway MP 2.32 - 3.58 5 4 0 Hwy No. 372 - Century Drive MP 4.63-7.19 3 3 0 MP 7.19-8.43 4 1 0 M P 8.43 - 11.43 9 2 0 MP 11.43 - 16.87 6 7 0 MP 16.87 - 19.19 6 2 0 MP 19.19-21.98 7 3 0 ' Black shaded cell indicates the segment is a Top 10% SPIS site. z PDO = Property Damage Only IN1 = Injury a FAT = Fatality Two segments on the McKenzie Highway, one on OR242 and one on OR 126 east of Sisters, have CSD three year crash rates exceeding three year average of the published rural highway system rates. • OR242, MP 77.14 - MP 91.11: The majority of crashes on this rural major collector occurred on wet and icy roadway conditions. Weather advisory signs/message boards should be considered. • OR 126, MP 107.77 - MP 1 10.15: This roadway is a rural principal arterial and within the urban fringe area of Redmond. The majority of crashes on this segment were angle, turn and rear-end collision types which occurred during good weather with a dry roadway surface condition and at intersections and accesses. Consolidated accesses, channelized turn bays and raised median barriers should be considered for this segment. US 20, MP 90.85 - MP 92.85, west of Sisters: This rural principal arterial exceeds the three year average of the published rural highway system rates. A majority of crashes were rear-end and fixed object collisions. Thirteen out of fifteen total crashes occurred on wet, snowy or icy roadway surface conditions. Weather advisory signs/message boards should be considered for this segment. US 20, MP 5.30 - MP 9.72, east of Sisters: This rural principal arterial exceeds the three year average of the published rural highway system rates. Thirty out of forty-two total crashes occurred under dry conditions. Majority of crashes were rear-end, side-swipe and fixed objects. One head-on fatality crash occurred during dry daylight conditions. Errors in the crash reports included: followed too close, driving too fast, fatigued, careless driving, and inattention. Law enforcement and speed advisories should be considered for this segment. Raised barriers may also be considered to eliminate the potential head-on crash potential. 10 OR31, MP 0.00 - MP 2.31: This rural minor arterial exceeds the three year average of the published rural highway system rates. Four out of the seven total crashes were fixed object collisions. The majority of crashes were related to driving too fast and following too close. Law enforcement and speed advisories should be considered for this segment. US 20, MP 4.80 - MP 9.16, east of Bend: This rural principal arterial exceeds the three year average of the published rural highway system rates. One-third of the total crashes were angle and fixed objects. Seventy five percent of crashes occurred during dry conditions. Driver's errors included: driving too fast, following too close, and improper turning. Law enforcement and speed advisory should be considered for this segment. OR370, MP 0.00 - MP 3.84, O'Neil Highway (Hwy 370): This rural minor arterial exceeds the three year average of the published rural highway system rates. Most of the nine total crashes involved driving too fast and alcohol. Law enforcement and speed advisory should be considered. Century Drive (Hwy 372), MP 8.43 - 21.98: This rural minor arterial exceeds the three year average of the published rural highway system rates. Of the 42 crashes, 21 were fixed object crashes. Thirty-six crashes occurred with wet, snowy or icy roadway surface conditions. Weather advisories should be considered for this segment. Deschutes County Roads The county crash data is obtained from official ODOT crash reports, as with the state highways. However, due to the lack of accurate crash locations on county roadways, crash data were reviewed and located on the county road network in large segments. In addition, legislative changes to the Department of Motor Vehicles crash reporting requirements, effective January 1, 2004, may result in less Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes being eligible for inclusion in the Statewide Crash Data File. County crash analyses were conducted at intersections and on roadway segments. Analyzed intersection crashes were not included on segment analysis to avoid duplication. Figure 7 shows 2002 - 2006 crashes on roadways under Deschutes County jurisdiction. Intersections under Deschutes County Jurisdiction Table 6 summarizes intersections with crash rates greater than 0.50. The intersection crash rate, expressed in "crashes per million entering vehicles", is used to compare the crash rate of one intersection to another. Intersection crash rates greater than 1.0 indicate potential safety issues and the need for further investigation. .ckle,~z9 Table 6. 2002 - 2006 Deschutes County Intersection Crash Rates' Intersection Location Intersection Crashes Entering ADT Intersection Crash Rate Hamby Rd & Neff Rd 21 4150 Co er Ave & Northwest Way 8 3550 Old Bend-Redmond H & Tumalo Rd 9 4550 South Century Dr & Spring River Rd 6 5050 0.66 Neff Rd & Powell Butte Hwy & Alfalfa Market Rd 10 9050 0.61 Gosne Rd & Rickard Rd 2 2150 0.52 Hamehook Rd & Deschutes Market Rd 4 4350 0.51 Butler Market Rd & Powell Butte H 7 7650 0.50 Black shaded cell indicates the intersection exceeds a crash rate of 1.0. The three intersections shown below exceeded the 1.0 crash rate threshold. NE Neff Road at Hamby Road. There were a total of 21 crashes at this location between 2002 and 2006: • 33% (7) fatal crashes • 10% (2) Injury-A crashes • 39% injury crashes (including A) • 29% Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes • 86% occurred in daylight conditions • 81% (17) were angle collisions • 19% (4) were turn movement • No pedestrian crashes A high number of crashes occurred in 2002, with an average of five crashes per year from 2003 to 2006. The crash data shows that the vast majority of the crashes occurred in dry daylight conditions. Over a third of the crashes occurred between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM. All of the collision types were angle or turning. Angle collisions (17) included seven fatalities and one Injury-A crash. The four turning collisions included two fatalities and one Injury-A crash. All of the crashes occurred because the drivers failed to yield the right-of-way. Improvements have already been made at this intersection in the form of installing four-way stop control. This should improve the safety of the angle or turning maneuvers. If needed, additional countermeasures may include clearing sight distance and roadside shoulders. Coyner Road at Northwest Way. There were a total of 8 crashes at this location between 2002 and 2006: • 13% (1) fatal crashes • 25% (2) Injury-A crashes • 38% injury crashes (including A) • 50% Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes • 100% occurred in daylight • 75% (6) were angle collisions • No pedestrian crashes 12 E+r . in 30 Three crashes or less occurred per year from 2002 to 2006. All of the crashes occurred under dry daylight conditions. About two-thirds of the crashes occurred in the afternoon peak period from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM and three-quarters occurred in the last half of the week. The single fatality was an angle collision that occurred in 2002 when a driver failed to stop at a stop sign. One Injury-A crash was a turning collision, a vehicle improperly overtook another. The other Injury-A crash was a rear end collision. The inattentive driver was traveling too fast for conditions, but not exceeding the posted speed. The impacted vehicle was forced into the vehicle in front. Improvements have already been made at this intersection, in the form of installing flashing lights to the stop signs. If needed, additional countermeasures may include clearing sight distance and roadside shoulders. Old Bend-Redmond Highway at Tumalo Road. There were a total of 9 crashes at this location between 2002 and 2006: • 22% (2) fatal crashes • 11% (1) Injury-A crashes • 56% injury crashes (including A) • 44% Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes • 78% occurred in daylight • 11 % (1) were rear-end collisions • 22% (2) were turn movement • 11% (1) were fixed object collisions • 56% (5) were angle collisions • No pedestrian crashes There have been two to three crashes per year from 2002 to 2006. The crash data shows that half of the crashes occurred in the afternoon peak period between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM, and that two-thirds occurred in the last half of the week. About two-thirds of the crashes occurred in dry conditions and over three-quarters in daylight. One fatality was an angle collision. One vehicle failed to stop at a stop sign in the early morning on a dry roadway. The other fatality was a fixed object collision where the vehicle was traveling too fast for the icy conditions, but was not exceeding the posted speed. The Injury-A crash was a rear-end collision, under dry, daylight conditions where the driver was following too closely and could not respond quickly enough (cell-phone use involved) to livestock blocking the roadway. Deschutes County Roadway Segments Table 7 summarizes Deschutes County roadway segments with crash rates greater than 0.50 by functional class. 13 L`x te, p3! Table 7. 2002 - 2006 Deschutes County Roadway Segment Crash Rates' Road Name Crash Total Weighted ADT Roadway Length Crash Rate Functional Class Pershall Way 6 650 3.3 Rural Major Collector North Canal Blvd 2 300 3.0 Rural Major Collector Hamby Rd 14 1250 4.8 Urban Collector Canal Blvd 25 2150 6.8 0.94 Rural Major Collector Johnson Ranch Rd 2 150 8.0 0.93 Rural Major Collector Burgess Rd 59 3600 10.2 Urban Collector Paulina Lake Rd 2 50 34.8 0.85 Rural Major Collector Wilcox Ave 2 250 5.5 0.81 Rural Major Collector Alfalfa Market Rd 30 1200 18.9 0.73 Rural Major Collector Co er Ave 4 1350 2.5 0.66 Rural Major Collector Cannal Blvd 1 1950 0.4 0.64 Urban Minor Arterial Huntington Rd 11 1250 7.8 0.63 Rural Major Collector Butler Market Rd 13 2750 4.8 0.55 Rural Major Collector Skyliners Rd 5 350 15.4 0.53 Rural Major Collector Deschutes Market Rd 33 4200 8.4 0.51 Rural Major Collector South Century Dr 17 4300 4.3 0.51 Rural Minor Arterial Black shaded cells indicate that the 2007 published rural/urban area's highway system crash rates were exceeded. Based on Table 2 on page 7 of the 2007 State Highway Crash Rate Table (five-year comparison of state highway crash rates), the 2007 published rural/urban area's highway system crash rates are: • 1.24 for rural major collectors • 0.86 for urban collectors These 2007 published rural/urban area's highway system crash rates were compared to Deschutes County roadway segment crash rates. Any county roadway segment crash rate greater than the 2007 published rural/urban area's highway system crash rates for that classification indicates potential safety issues that need further investigation. Burgess Road (from US97 to Ponderosa Way). The Burgess Road segment outside of the La Pine city limits has a large number of fatalities (9). The crashes are mostly angle, turning, and rear-end collisions with about half occurring at intersections and about half occurring under winter conditions. Trends show that the number of crashes will increase with time. There are two high crash locations within this segment: Burgess Road, where it abruptly curves from an east/west to a southeast/northwest orientation, has been the scene of several crashes. The curve occurs between Sunrise Boulevard and Primrose Lane. This section should be investigated for geometric improvements. The intersection of Day Road and Burgess Road is incurring multiple crashes. The turning fatality crash occurred on a dry surface in daylight hours. The driver did not yield the right-of-way. There were no pedestrian collisions. The Injury-A crash was a fixed object collision that occurred on ice in the early morning. Countermeasures could include: limiting street access/turns, improved intersection traffic control, constructing medians, and improving roadway geometries (shoulders, clear zones, sight distance, etc). 14 Deschutes County Public Works specifically requested that the section of Burgess Road within the La Pine UGB be analyzed without splitting the Huntington Road/Burgess Road intersection out, deviating from the TSP safety analysis procedures and methodology. There are a large number of crashes on Burgess Road inside the La Pine UGB. However, the majority (27 of 34) of crashes occurred at the intersection of Burgess Road and Huntington Road. On Burgess Road, two crashes occurred between the La Pine UGB and Huntington Road and four were between Huntington Road and US97. At the intersection of Burgess Road and Huntington Road, four of the six fatal crashes were turn collisions. All fatal and Injury-A crashes occurred during daylight hours. One fatal crash and half of the turning crashes occurred in inclement conditions. The causes were mainly failure to yield the right-of-way or traveling too fast for conditions. There were no pedestrian collisions. Deschutes County plans to signalize this intersection which should reduce the severity and number of turning crashes. Hamby Road. There were fourteen crashes in this section, most of them occurring in dry, dark conditions. None of the crashes involved a fatality. All but four of the segment crashes were fixed object crashes. Of the four, two were pedestrian crashes; the other two were angle and rear-end crashes. The crashes were attributed to some form of improper driving, speeding, following too closely or inattention. Alcohol was only involved in one of the crashes. Countermeasures including recoverable slopes, clear zones and shoulder improvements should be considered. Pershall Way. There were six crashes on this roadway. Two were fixed object collisions, two were non-collision crashes (phantom vehicle) and two were rear-end collisions. All but the fixed object crashes were Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. There were no fatalities. The weather was clear for all crashes. Icy roadways were a factor in two crashes. All but one crash occurred in daylight. The crashes were attributed to improper driving, reckless driving, speeding, following too closely and inattention. Recoverable slopes absent of rocks, fences or other obstacles would have been of benefit to half of these crashes. North Canal Boulevard. Two crashes occurred on this roadway, both under clear dry daylight conditions. A fixed object crash near US97 was caused by driving too fast for conditions. The other crash on this roadway was a sideswipe-overtaking crash attributed to improper passing. cc: Peter Schuytema, TPAU Devin Hearing, Region 4 Mark Devoney, Region 4 File 15 fY L , n 33 STATE OF OREGON Department of Transportation Transportation Development Division Mill Creek Office Park 555 13th Street NE Suite 2 Salem, Oregon 97301-4178 (503) 986-4112 FAX (503) 986-4174 INTEROFFICE MEMO File Code: Date: January 22, 2010 TO: Peter Russell Deschutes County Public Works FROM: Thanh Nguyen, PE, Senior Transportation System Analyst Transportation Planning Analysis Unit SUBJECT: Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Update (TSP) Technical Memo # 3 - 2030 Future Traffic Conditions The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document the results for the 2030 future traffic conditions by ranking roadway network intersections and segments by low, medium and high. The ranking process was introduced in Technical Memorandum # 2 _ Existing Traffic Conditions, dated 7/24/2009. Travel Demand Forecasting Model The Deschutes County travel demand model relies on socioeconomic data (e.g., population and employment) to determine travel demand and system attributes (e.g., capacity, speeds, distances) to represent the transportation supply. The Deschutes County travel demand model has a base year of 2003 and a horizon year of 2030. Deschutes County provided base and horizon years' population and employment information. The horizon year (2030) population and employment forecast distributions were derived by the land use model - LUSDR (Land Use Scenario DevelopR) developed by ODOT. Two guiding assumptions for the Deschutes County modeling effort greatly simplified the land use model: 1) The future population and employment allocations for Bend, Redmond and Sisters are assumed as given in their models. 2) It is assumed that there will be no increase in employment outside of the urban model areas except in destination resorts. Given these assumptions, the land use model for Deschutes County simplifies to that of allocating residential dwelling units to Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) located outside of the urban model areas. The Deschutes County land use model also accounts for the development of recreational and second homes in destination resorts and elsewhere in the study area. These developments significantly contribute to vehicle travel and also to the amount of employment occurring in destination resorts and need to be modeled. fir 4'193V The Deschutes County land use model also makes general allocations of households and employment to Crook and Jefferson counties and the northern part of Klamath County. The transportation model includes those areas in order to provide better traffic predictions at the Deschutes County boundary. These counties are also important to the allocation of recreational and second home development since Deschutes County is part of the overall Central Oregon market for these types of developments. However, the forecasts are not made at the geographic level of detail of places within Deschutes County because it is unnecessary to do so in order to achieve the above objectives. The Deschutes County LUSDR model generated 30 different population and employment forecast distributions (scenarios) for 2030. These were then input into the 2030 Deschutes County travel demand model to determine the traffic demand on the various links for each of the 30 scenarios. Coefficients of variation were calculated for each link. The coefficient of variation measures how much a particular link volume changes over the different land use scenarios. In order to do this, each scenario was run in the model to distribute the 2030 population and employment forecasted numbers and to create link volumes. A coefficient of variation of up to ten percent is desirable. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the link's coefficient of variation. On links with coefficients of variation over ten percent, further investigations indicated that those links have low annual average daily traffic volumes (See Figure 2) and the majority of these links are off of the transportation system plan (TSP) study network. On roads with low volumes, any change can yield a high variation. The analysis results indicated no significant impacts on link demand among the 30 distributions, so they were averaged together into a single future scenario to be used in the 2030 Deschutes County demand model for future analysis. Future Average Annual Daily Traffic Forecast The future average annual daily traffic (AADT) forecasting process was based on the Deschutes County travel demand model. The future AADTs were developed by following the NCHRP Report 255 difference method outlined in ODOT's Analysis Procedure Manual. An AADT difference for each link was calculated from comparing the Deschutes County base year and horizon year demand models. The future AADTs are the sum between the base existing condition AADTs (from Technical Memorandum # 2) and the calculated links' AADT differences. The future AADTs forecasts allow an assessment of potential roadway capacity issues. Future Traffic Conditions The year 2030 traffic projections are used as a planning tool to help test the ability of existing roadways to accommodate 2030 AADTs. In addition to the number of lanes, the daily capacity of any individual roadway segment is based upon many factors, for example, number of lanes, number of access points per mile, and percent of truck traffic. For planning purposes on Deschutes County roadways, the analysis uses generalized volume to capacity (v/c) ratio thresholds for state highway segments, generalized AADT thresholds for the Deschutes County roadways, and preliminary signal warrants (PS W) thresholds for intersections. ,e% & , ,p 3S For state highway segments should be ranked based on a range of the mobility standards between 0.60 and 0.80 (based on engineering judgment) in a format below: • v/c < or = 0.60: Low risk • 0.60 < v/c < 0.80: Medium risk • v/c > or = 0.80: High risk For county roads, the County's operational standard is based on delay. The County defines Level of Servcie (LOS) D as acceptable for existing County roads. The County for a roadway segment defines LOS D as between 5,700 and 9,600 ADT. Therefore, roadway segments under the Deschutes County jurisdiction: • Below LOS D threshold: Low risk • Within LOS D: Medium risk • Above LOS D: High risk. ODOT's Preliminary Signal Warrant (PSW) is used to evaluate signalization at an ADT level for an unsignalized intersection. Meeting the warrant does not mean a signal will be installed, but it indicates that the minor approaches will experience excessive delay or have substantial difficulty in entering or crossing the major street at an unsignalized intersection. As a part of the system analysis for the TSP, the PSW process was used to rank unsignalized intersections based on the approach's ADT volumes. Exceeding certain thresholds could indicate when an intersection improvement (not just including signals - i.e., roundabouts, turn restrictions, interchanges, etc.) would be necessary. Because of the sensitivity of the model volumes and the normal fluctuations in volumes, the following warrant thresholds to rank deficiency were used: • Between 60% and 80% of threshold: Low risk • Between 80% and 100% of threshold: Medium risk • Greater than 100% of threshold: High risk These thresholds are qualitative measures describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. State Highway Segments The review of the future v/c ratios on state highways as tested against the generalized v/c thresholds indicates that many state highway segments are in high need of future capacity improvements. Table 1 summarizes state highways segments at the high and medium needs level. Figures 3-8 show the level of ranking for State Highway segments. State highways are principal arterials and have a function of accommodating larger volumes of traffic and at higher speeds; therefore ODOT needs to identify a near/mid term projects list for capacity improvements for segments in the high and medium needs category for inclusion in the Deschutes County TSP. Corridor refinement plans could also assist in identifying projects list for segments in high and medium needs category. A plan for capacity improvements does not only include adding lanes or changing physical geometry on state highways but also manages accesses along these state corridors. Access to such facilities must be limited in order to protect the integrity of the roadway. As numerous studies have shown that as the density of access increases, whether public or f'R , P 91s private, the traffic carrying capacity of the roadway decreases and the vehicular crash rate increases. Table 1. Need Ranking on State Highway Segments Highway Name Beginning mile- 1nt Ending Mile- f AADT- I Ranking Level Functional Classification 3.01 3.16 21500 High Urban Arterial 7) - US 20 C No. H l O(Hwy 3.16 3.44 17800 High Urban Arterial regon wy entra wy 3.44 3.58 12500 High Urban Arterial 114.24 115.19 14500 High Rural Arterial 115.19 115.50 19000 High Rural Arterial 115.50 115.66 16800 High Rural Arterial US 97 (Hwy No. 4) - Dalles 115.66 115.83 20400 High Rural Arterial California Hwy 115.83 115.91 17800 }High Rural Arterial 115.91 117.43 20700 High Rural Arterial 153.05 155.48 17100 High Rural Arterial 155.48 160.56 14000 High Rural Arterial OR 126 (Hwy No. 15) - 99.90 101.91 7100 High Rural Arterial McKenzie Hwy 107.98 110.77 16700 High Rural Arterial 13.70 14.57 14200 High Rural Arterial US 20 (Hwy No. 17) - 14.57 14.67 16800 High Rural Arterial McKenzie Bend Hwy 14.67 1492 21 100 High Rural Arterial 14.92 15.43 17200 High Rural Arterial OR 126 (Hwy No. 41) - 2.32 3.05 18400 High Rural Arterial Ochoco Hwy 3.05 3.62 15400 }-High Rural Arterial Highway No. 370 - O'Neil Hwy 0.40 0.90 3050 High Rural Arterial US 20 (Hwy No. 16) - 92.76 98.22 9600 High Rural Arterial Santiam Hwy 98.22 99.54 11400 High Rural Arterial US 20 (Hwy No. 7) - Central Oregon Hwy 3.58 437 12300 Medium Rural Arterial 112.83 114.24 13400 Medium Rural Arterial 117.43 118.53 23200 Medium Rural Arterial 160.56 162.64 11300 Medium Rural Arterial US 97 (Hwy No. 4) - Dalles 162.64 164.17 12600 Medium Urban Arterial California Hwy 168.35 169.65 8600 Medium Rural Arterial 169.65 169.84 7350 Medium Rural Arterial 169.84 172.17 6200 Medium Rural Arterial 94.16 96.47 6650 Medium Rural Arterial 15 OR 126 H N 96.47 99.90 7300 Medium Rural Arterial wy ( o. ) - McKenzie }-Iw 101.91 104.32 7150 Medium Rural Arterial y 106.26 106.87 6750 Medium Rural Arterial 107.79 107.95 7700 Medium Rural Arterial 0.37 3.19 7950 Medium Rural Arterial 3.19 4.91 11400 Medium Rural Arterial 4.91 7.49 8950 Medium Rural Arterial US 20 (Hwy No. 17) - 7.49 7.82 10100 Medium Rural Arterial McKenzie Bend Hwy 7.82 10.03 10700 Medium Rural Arterial 10.70 13.07 11600 Medium Rural Arterial 13.07 13.70 12850 Medium Rural Arterial E't Ie, Q 3 7 US 20 (Hwy No. 16) - 90.76 90.78 4850 Medium Rural Arterial Santiam Hwy 90.78 92.76 7250 Medium Rural Arterial AADT estimated from 2030 Deschutes County Model Version dated 11/18/09. Deschutes County Road Segments The future planning-level AADTs on Deschutes County roads as tested against the generalized AADTs thresholds indicates the majority of Deschutes County roadway segments are at medium and low needs of future capacity improvements. There are only two segments in the high need category; one is on Cline Falls Highway and the other is Burgess Road. Figures 3-8 show the need ranking for Deschutes County roads. Table 2 summarizes segment locations AADT, functional class and ranking. Access to these segments would experience greater delay in the future. Table 2. Need Ranking on Deschutes County Segments Segment or Roadway From To Ranking AAbTi Functional. blame Class Southwest ramps Cline Falls Hwy Nutcracker Dr terminal of OR 126 High 10750 Rural Arterial H No. 15) Burgess Rd Meadow Ln Huntington Rd High 10500 Urban Collector Powell Butte Hwy US 20 (Hwy. No. 7) Neff Rd/Allfalfa Market Medium 8200 Rural Arterial Powell Butte Hwy Neff Rd/Alfalfa Market Butler Market Rd Medium 7450 Rural Arterial Powell Butte Hwy Butler Market Rd Morril Rd Medium 8050 Rural Arterial Powell Butte Hwy Morril Rd County Line Medium 6700 Rural Arterial Alfalfa Market Rd Powell Butte Hwy Deer Trail Rd Medium 5750 Rural Collector Rickard Rd Knott Rd/27th St Bobcat Rd Medium 6350 Rural Collector Rickard Rd Bobcat Rd Arnold Market Medium 7150 Rural Collector Rd/McGilvra Rd Rickard Rd Arnold Market Larsen Rd Medium 6400 Rural Collector Rd/McGilvra Rd Deschutes Market Rd Ilamehook Rd Margaret Ln Medium 8350 Rural Collector Deschutes Market Rd Margaret Ln Dale Rd Medium 7000 Rural Collector OB Riley Rd Old Bend Redmond Destiny Ct Medium 7050 Rural Collector Hwy OB Rile Rd Hard Rd Mathers Rd Medium 5900 Rural Collector Cook Ave US 20 (Hwy. No. 17) Cline Falls Hwy Medium 7150 Rural Arterial Cline Falls H Cook Ave Tumalo Rd Medium 7250 Rural Arterial Southwest ramps Northeast ramps Cline Falls Hwy terminal of OR 126 terminal of OR 126 Medium 6050 Rural Arterial H No. 15 (,Hwy No. 15 Cline Falls Hwy Coopers Hawk Nutcracker Dr Medium 6500 Rural Arterial Drive/Falcon Crest Dr Helmholtz Way Quartz Ave Obsidian Ave Medium 6150 Rural Collector Helmholtz Way Obsidian Ave OR 126 (Hwy. No. 15) Medium 5750 Rural Collector Helmholtz Way OR 126 (Hwy. No. 15) Antler Ave Medium 6250 Rural Collector Northwest Way Maple Ave Spruce Ave Medium 9300 Rural Collector Northwest Way Spruce Ave UPAS Ave Medium 8200 Rural Collector Lower Bridge Way 43rd St 31st St Medium 8050 Rural Collector Lower Bridge Way 31 st St 19th St Medium 6750 Rural Collector 1~+e P 3 9 Lower Bridge Way 19th St US 97 (1-lwy No. 4)/ Medium 6250 Rural Collector 1 lth St Cannal Blvd Quarry Ave Helmholtz Way Medium 6000 Rural Collector Baker Rd Apache Rd US 97 (Hwy No. 4) Medium 6850 Urban Collector Southbound Ramps Baker Rd US 97 (Hwy No. 4) US 97 (Hwy No. 4) Medium 8250 Urban Collector Southbound Rams Northbound Ramps Knott Rd US 97 (Hwy No. 4) Chinahat Rd Medium 8850 Urban Arterial Northbound Ramps South Century Dr Lazy River Dr Huntington Rd Medium 5950 Rural Collector South Century Dr Huntington Rd Vandevert Rd Medium 6750 Rural Collector South Century Dr Spring River Rd Abbot Dr Medium 6800 Rural Collector Burgess Rd Day Rd Meadow Ln Medium 9350 Urban Collector AADT estimated from 2030 Deschutes County Model Version dated 11/18/09. Intersections within the Deschutes County TSP analysis network Preliminary signal warrants thresholds were used to rank intersections' deficiencies. Figure 9 shows intersections with different levels of delay from minor approaches. Table 3 summarized intersection locations and their ranking. All of these intersections are in the rural area. For intersections between Deschutes County roadways, roundabouts or additional lane channelizations could improve circulation and reduce delay in the future. For intersections between state highways and Deschutes County roadways, grade separated, additional lanes channelization, or right in - right out options would improve the intersections' function. Table 3. Intersection Need Ranking Intersection Locations Ranking Old Bend-Redmond Hwy / US20 (Hwy No. 17) High Powell Butte Hwy / US20 (Hwy No. 7) High Hamby Rd / US20 (Hwy No. 7) High US97 SB On/OffRamp / Baker Rd High Knott Rd / US97 NB Off Ramp / Baker Rd High Butler Market Rd / Powell Butte Hwy High Cook Ave / US20 (Hwy No. 17) / O B Riley Rd High Neff Rd / Powell Butte Hwy / Alfalfa Market Rd High OR 126 (Hwy No. 15) / SW Helmholtz Way / NW Helmholtz Way High 0. Neil Hwy / Pershall Way / US97 High US97 / Vandevert Rd High US97 / Lower Bridge Way High US97 / Smith Rock Way High South Century Dr / Abbott Rd High Hamehook Rd / Deschutes Market Rd Medium Butler Market Rd / 1-lamehook Rd Medium South Century Dr / Vandevert Rd Medium South Century Dr / Spring River Rd Medium OR31 (H No. 19) / US97 Medium If you have any comments or questions please contact me at 503-986-4108. Esc`, e39 cc: Peter Schuytema, TPAU James Bryant, Region 4 Mark Devoney, Region 4 File Ex L, p 4o ~~TES c G { Deschutes County Board of.Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Hearing of February 22, 2010 Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: February 9, 2010 FROM: Peter Russell, Sr. Trans. Planner CDD 383-6718 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of approval of PA-09-02, a staff-initiated amendment adding 19th Street to the Transportation System Plan (TSP) map and approving an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? YES. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: PA-09-2 proposes to add a line on the TSP map for 19 Street, a future rural arterial between southern Redmond and Deschutes Junction. The two-lane road would be east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. The alignment of 19th Street across Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land would follow the transportation corridor identified in the federal Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan (UDRMP). The UDRMP was completed in September 2005 after several years of meeting with the public, the BLM, Deschutes County, and numerous state agencies. The Deschutes County Planning Commission held public hearings on Dec. 17, 2009, January 14, 2010, and deliberated on January 28, 2010. All comments entered into the record are incorporated into the record for the Board's hearing. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to support a linkage between Redmond and Deschutes Junction, but voted 6-0 to recommend the Board deny PA-09-2, citing concerns about the 19th Street alignment. The Planning Commission was concerned about increased traffic, 19th Street becoming a de facto truck route, whether widening U.S. 97 to six lanes would have less adverse affect than building 19th Street, loss of agricultural land, and that the alignment would prevent future economic development. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REOUESTED: Staff recommends the Board approve PA-09-2. ATTENDANCE: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner and Tom Blust, Road Department Director. DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Original should go to Tom Blust, County Road Department with a copy to Peter Russell, CDD :ommunity Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 14 11 1 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: January 14, 2010 SUBJECT: Response to issues raised at Dec. 17, 2009, public hearing on PA-09-2 to add 19th Street to Transportation System Plan (TSP) map BACKGROUND During the Dec. 17, 2009, public hearing both citizens and the Planning Commission raised several issues. In no particular order of importance the main topics were 1) why 19th Street is not included in the larger Comprehensive Plan and/or TSP update; 2) concerns about 19th Street spawning commercial development; 3) does a later phase of the Redmond Re-Route of U.S. 97 make 19th irrelevant; 4) why not widen U.S. 97 to six travel lanes instead of building 19th Street; 5) will such a straight, high-speed road be safe; 6) are there any issues with game animals and 7) how 19th Street affected driveways and roads at southern terminus and how the the road would cross Department of State Land's (DSL) property south of Redmond. Staffs response to these subjects is provided below. 1. Why 19th Street is the subject of its own land use application Deschutes County long-range planning staff is undertaking several major tasks. These include updates of the comprehensive plan, the TSP, and a trio of community plans. All of these have fairly long timelines. 19th Street was the subject of an earlier multi-jurisdictional planning process and PA-09-2 is just another step of that process. The process would culminate in the Road Department applying for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct 19th Street should PA-09-2 be approved. Federal funding will be needed to construct this two-lane rural arterial. By making 19th Street the subject of its own land use, the county will be better able to compete for federal funds. These federal funding packages have much more compressed timelines than those for updates of the comprehensive plan or the TSP. 2. 19th Street will not lead to conversion of agricultural lands to commercial uses Zoning prescribes and proscribes what can occur on the land. For land under Deschutes County jurisdiction along the 19th Street alignment the predominant zoning is Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). Converting EFU land to commercial is one of the most difficult challenges in the Oregon planning system. An applicant would need to conclusively prove the land was not feasible for agricultural uses and that the proposed commercial uses could not be accommodated elsewhere on non-EFU land. Quality Services Performed with Pride Of course approximately 83% of 19th Street will be on federal land. The Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan (UDRMP) is the policy document which directs how these federal lands will be used. The UDRMP has not identified any commercial uses. In summary, both the state planning system of confining economic development in Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB's) and rural service centers and federal policy documents will prevent commercial conversion of agricultural lands along 19th Street. Likewise the current County planning process for Deschutes Junction concludes the public wishes to preserve the status quo for land use. Even if there were a shift in public sentiment, Oregon Administrative Rules for rural service centers (OAR 660-22) mandate any commercial uses must be small scale. 3. 19th Street is needed despite a potential re-route of U.S. 97 south of Redmond The City of Redmond TSP has verbiage and a map indicating an extension of the Redmond Re- Route of U.S. 97 extending south to a Quarry Avenue/97 interchange. However, such an alignment does not appear on the Deschutes County TSP map, which is the controlling planning document for lands outside city UGB's. The disparity in costs of building a two-lane county road vs. a five-lane state highway means 19th Street will in all probability be built first. ODOT, Redmond, and Deschutes County are in the initial stages of a $1-million refinement plan for the second phase of the Redmond Re-Route of U.S. 97. ODOT's Region Manager has already said he could not support Alternative 313, which is the 97 alignment in the Redmond TSP that leads to Quarry. Instead, the agency wants to study an upgrade of the existing Yew/97 interchange, possibly terminating a southern extension of the Redmond Re-Route of U.S. 97 at Yew. 19th Street would provide a parallel local route to U.S. 97 and would offer an option for drivers to avoid the Yew Avenue interchange and an at-grade crossing of the BNSF tracks. The existence of 19th Street does not preclude either a Quarry/97 interchange or a southern extension of the Redmond Re-Route. Finally, the combination of 19th and an extension of Helmholtz on the west side of the highway will provide Redmond with a ring road, which the city has long sought. 4. Widening U.S. 97 to six lanes would have lesser impacts than adding 19th Street As the purpose of having 19th is to provide an alternative to the highway, adding travel lanes to U.S. 97 would be self-defeating. Setting that fact aside, a comparison of 19th Street to six lanes of U.S. 97 - which ODOT designates an Expressway, the highest classification short of an interstate - indicates a two-lane rural arterial has much less impact than two more lanes of a state highway. A two-lane county arterial requires less right of way than a state highway. The standard for travel lanes on an Expressway such as 97 are wider than a county road (12 feet minimum vs. 11 feet). Expressways have wider shoulders (6' minimum vs. 3'-5'). Typically, highways have larger clear zones than county roads (this is the area beyond the shoulder but still within the right of way.) Highways simply have bigger footprints than county roads (100' right of way or more vs. 80'). 19th Street hugs the edge of the BNSF right of way, thus minimizing its impacts on the parcels it would cross. Most of these parcels are large. By contrast, two more lanes of 97 would further consume the front yards of the parcels abutting the highway, which are smaller than those crossed by 19tH 2 Finally, members of public testified they are already concerned about the safety of leaving their driveways to turn onto the highway. Adding two travel lanes to 97 would mean increasing the distance where they would be exposed to high-speed, high-volume traffic and potential crashes. 5. Concerns about the safety of such a straight road The intent of a rural arterial is to carry large volumes of high speed traffic. By that very nature, arterials have as few horizontal curves as possible. The terrain will provide some vertical curves, i.e, uphills and downhills, that will keep drivers engaged. But truly the shortness of the straight stretch makes safety concerns a non-issue. This is a six- mile stretch of roadway of which maybe four miles will be straight. Contrast that with the 14- mile straight as a string alignment of 97 between Bend and Redmond. If mere straightness were a strong causal agent for crashes, there would be a far greater amount of single-vehicle crashes on 97 than actually occur. For a county road comparison, Powell Butte Highway is straight for much of its length, Cline Falls is straight for several miles north of Tumalo, Neff Road has almost no curves for its length. Yet, none of these existing rural arterials have disproportionate crash histories. If 19th were going straight for hundreds of miles, then driver inattention would be a legitimate concern. 6. Concerns about conflicts with large game animals Certainly large game animals exist in the area as they do throughout Central Oregon. However, no Goal 5 resources have been identified in this area. A review of the county's comprehensive plan for Wildlife Combining Zones does not indicate any protective zoning for this area of the county. The area for antelope is several miles to the east. The BLM in its "Determination of NEPA Adequacy" did not identify any concerns with animals in this area. (see attached) 7. 19th Street affecting existing roads or driveways and location across DSL lands Although PA-09-2 deals with generalized alignment, several property owners were concerned about how 19th Street would reach Deschutes Junction, particularly the impact upon Morrill Road and the Used Cow Lot. Tom Blust, Road Department Director, has since met with the property owner to ensure him the eventual alignment will not adversely affect the driveway to the Used Cow Lot. Similarly, the conceptual alignment was also moved to the south portion of the DSL property to match the agency's master plan. Conclusion The public and the Planning Commissioners raised several issues regarding 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction. Staff has considered those topics and reviewed relevant planning and road documents. Staff hopes the information presented in this transmittal answers those questions to everyone's satisfaction and hopes the Planning Commission recommends approval to the Board of County Commissioners to amend the TSP map to include 19th Street. Attachments: Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Wildlife Combining Zones BLM "Determination of NEPA Adequacy Worksheet" 3 ~`~~ES co n 2 D X FILE NUMBER: PA-09-2 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: December 17, 2009, at 5:30 p.m. LOCATION: Barnes and Sawyer rooms of the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall St. in Bend. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Deschutes County Road Department c/o Tom Blust 61150 SE 27th Street Bend, OR 97701 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Plan Amendment to amend the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) map to add 19th Street, a future rural county arterial, between the City of Redmond and Deschutes Junction. The alignment does require an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agriculture. STAFF CONTACT: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner 1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & CRITERIA: A. Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 3, 11, and 12 B. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 1. OAR 660-004, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exceptions Process 2. OAR 660-012, Transportation Planning C. Title 22, Deschutes County Code Procedures Ordinance 1. Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions D. Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 1. Chapter 23.60, Transportation a. Section 23.60.10 2. Chapter 23.64, Transportation System Plan a. Section 23.64.020 b. Section 23.64.030 C. Section 23.64.040 3. Chapter 23.88, Agriculture Quality Services Performed with Pride 4. Chapter 23.120, Goal Exception Statement II. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT A. Existing Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations: The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map designates the area as Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). The area is predominantly Alfalfa Subzone (EFU-AL). About midway between Redmond and Deschutes Junction the corridor for 19th Street clips the southeast edge of a parcel designated EFU-Tumalo/Redmond/Bend (EFU-TRB). At the southern terminus the alignment crosses five parcels just north of Deschutes Junction that are zoned EFU-TRB. B. Location: The subject properties are located between Redmond and Deschutes Junction to the immediate east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) tracks. The properties are identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Maps from north to south as #15-13-000000-130; 16-13-000000-200; 16-13- 000000-100; 16-12-12-000-1200; 16-12-13-0000-101; 16-12-13-0000-602; 16- 12-13-0000-503; 16-12-13-0000-601; 16-12-24-0000-100; 16-12-24-0000-200; 16-12-24-0000-300; 16-12-23-0000-304; 16-12-23-0000-600; 16-12-26A-000- 401; and 16-12-26A-000-300. The proposed alignment lies within a '/2-mile wide corridor previously identified in the Upper Deschutes Management Plan (UPRMP). The precise location of this two-lane rural arterial within that corridor would be finalized prior to construction. C. Site Description: The corridor is bounded to the north by the City of Redmond, the west by the BNSF property, and the south by Deschutes Market Road. On the east, the land is primarily Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with a mix of a few private properties and land owned by Deschutes County. (Exhibit 1). The terrain is primarily flat with some modest elevation changes just south of Redmond. D. Surrounding Uses: The proposed 19th Street site is flanked on the west by a pre-existing transportation corridor, the BNSF tracks, and to the west of the tracks is U.S. 97. The bulk of the remaining land to the east of the proposed 19th Street is under BLM jurisdiction. Although zoned EFU, the land under BLM oversight is not used for agriculture, but instead is utilized for wildlife habitat, recreation, and slightly farther east the EFU land is the Biak Training Center for the infantry and armor of the Oregon National Guard. The EFU land just north of Deschutes Junction is primarily juniper trees with a few pockets of irrigated agriculture. (Exhibit 2). D. Procedure and Background: The location of the future 19th Street, a north- south road paralleling US 97 but east of the BNSF, has been the subject of planning at the federal and the local level. The right of way corridor for a future 19th Street was identified in the environmental work that culminated in the federal "Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan (UDRMP)." The September 2005 record of decision (ROD) for the UDRMP identified a %2-mile wide transportation corridor across BLM holdings between Redmond and Deschutes Junction. Specifically, the 19th Street corridor appears on UDRMP Map 2 "Transportation and Utilities." (Exhibit 3). The UDRMP on page 135 under the PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 2 heading of Transportation and Utilities states Objective TU - 1: "Provide new or modified rights of way for transportation corridors... to meet expected demands and minimize environmental impacts." On page 139 of the UDRMP, Objective TU-5, Allocation #2, states "[D]esignate a transportation corridor approximately a -mile wide and extending from approximately the end of 19th Street in Redmond to Deschutes Market Road. This includes a corridor connection to Quarry Avenue that will allow for a future Federal Highway interchange." (Exhibit 4). The 1998 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) in Policy #20 states "[W]henever practical, access to state highways shall be provided via frontage roads, alternative local roads, or other means, rather than direct access to the highway." While not as explicit on 19th Street as the UDRMP above, the policy indicates the strategic desire to have a system of parallel local roads as an option to the state highway system. 19th Street would be an alternative local road to U.S. 97. The future Quarry Road interchange appears on Page 155 at Figure 5.2.F2, "ODOT Projected Interchange Locations." (Exhibit 5). The Redmond TSP was updated in June 2008. On page 5-2 the TSP identifies the extension of 19th Street to Deschutes Junction as a critical alternate link between Bend and Redmond. The alignment is also depicted on the adopted Redmond TSP map at Figure 9-1, "Functional Classifications." (Exhibit 6). Finally, in 2007 the federal government awarded $500,000 to the Deschutes County Road Department to do the final fieldwork for the environmental clearance for 19th Street. The Road Department has contracted with BLM to do this work. As part of the release of these funds, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requested that Deschutes County amend its TSP map to specifically include 19th Street. E. Proposal: The applicant is requesting a Plan Amendment to amend the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) Map to add 19th Street, a roughly six- mile long Rural Arterial, between Redmond and Deschutes Junction. The proposed 19th Street would provide a north-south alternative to US 97 and serve as a rural-scale grid street between Bend and Redmond by connecting to Deschutes Market Road. Additionally, the applicant is requesting an exception to Goal 3 for those properties zoned EFU across which the new corridor will be located. The proposed 19th Street needs to be on those EFU lands east of the BNSF to 1) be consistent with the transportation corridor identified in the UDRMP; 2) align with the pre-existing City of Redmond 19th Street; 3) provide an option for the traveling public to use a county road to access the Redmond Airport, the county fairgrounds, and east Redmond; and 4) align with the Deschutes Junction Phase II interchange. The proposed 19th Street will draw traffic that otherwise would use the US 97New Avenue interchange, which is already experiencing operational challenges. Finally, the proposed 19th Street offers an alternate way to route traffic between Bend and Redmond should either a train derailment close Yew Avenue or a crash close U.S. 97, for example III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 3 A. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 1 seeks "To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." FINDING: The salient federal and local planning documents all had public comment periods and/or public hearings. The location of the proposed 19th Street underwent considerable vetting in the development of the UDRMP. The Deschutes County and Redmond TSPs also went through local adoption processes that included multiple public hearings before each jurisdiction's respective planning commission and decision-making body. This proposed plan amendment will also go through a public process before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners which includes mailed notices to affected property owners and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD") and a published public notice. The public has had and will continue to have ample opportunity to provide oral and written public comment. Staff believes the intent of Goal 1 is met. 2. Goal 2: Land Use Planninq Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 seeks "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions." FINDING: In accordance with Goal 2, the applicant submitted this application to the county to amend the county's TSP map. The applicant provided sufficient information about previous planning efforts and this current land use. Along with the discussion below, that information assures an adequate factual base for the county to make an informed decision regarding amending the TSP map to add 19th Street. Staff believes the intent of Goal 2 has been met. 3. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands; Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 3 seeks "To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. " FINDING: Approximately 83% of the length of the proposed 19th Street lies on BLM land; federal land is not governed by state or local land use requirements. The remaining 17%, however, crosses private property in several place. As 19th Street is not yet on identified right of way maps, the BNSF right of way is used as a proxy for locational descriptions. The first non-federal property is 1513000000130 (Division of State Lands [DSL] property), an approximately 942.6-acre parcel that directly abuts south Redmond. This PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 4 former BLM land was conveyed to the State of Oregon to make up for the shortfall of lands that were due to Oregon during the 1859 establishment of statehood. These former BLM lands are transferred to the state to benefit the common school fund. DSL intends for this land to come into the Redmond UGB primarily for industrial uses. Of the DSL property, 913.4 acres lies east of BNSF. The second non-federal property is 1613000000200, a 6.7-acre parcel owned by Bill Lee of which only 1.1 acres lies east of the BNSF and in close proximity to the southern boundary of the DSL property. Another piece of non-federal land is at 1612130000101, the Halligan Ranch, which is roughly midway between south Redmond and Deschutes Junction. All of the 72.3 acres of the Halligan Ranch are east of the BNSF. The Joann Jeans property is at 1612130000503 and is 41.8 acres in size, but only 0.7 acres is east of BNSF. The remaining non-federal parcels are the six at the far southern end, 1612240000200 (Central Oregon Irrigation District) is 62.2 acres with 19.9 east of BNSF; 1612240000300 (Deschutes County) a 38.6-acre parcel with 37.3 east of BNSF; 1612230000304 (Martha Sundreth and Elizabeth White), a 2.5-acre parcel completely east of BNSF; 1612230000600 (Leo and Judy Parsons) a 21-acre parcel completely east of BNSF; 161226A000401 (a second Leo and Judy Parsons property) whose entire 36.1 acres is east of BNSF; and 161226A000300 (Jack Holt and Adelheid Ulrike), a 30.6-acre parcel east of BNSF. All of the above state and privately-owned described parcels are zoned EFU and, thus, would require an exception to Goal 3. Staff believes Goal 3 can be met through the exceptions process as provided below. 4. Goal 4: Forest Lands Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 4 seeks "To conserve forest lands by...,, FINDING: The land is not zoned for forestry uses, so Goal 4 does not apply. 5. Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5 seeks "To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. " FINDING: Goal 5 resources are listed in the county's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. Staff reviewed the county's Goal 5 resource inventory and found no identified cultural or historic Goal 5 resources within the corridor. Utilizing the selected corridor as proposed would have no significant adverse impact on the amount of open space or scenic views available. The BLM is conducting fieldwork for archaeological, cultural, historical resources and threatened or endangered species within the corridor. The BLM identified a Y2-mile wide corridor and the proposed 19th street will be within that corridor. PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 5 The county's minimum right of way standard for an arterial is 100 feet. Therefore, there will be ample room to move the road to mitigate any impacts in the unlikely event a Goal 5 resource or other cultural or natural resource is discovered during the federal environmental work. There is an Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) designation for the State of Oregon rectangular parcel (15-13-32-0000-400) that lies approximately a quarter-mile south of Redmond. However, this parcel is already bisected by U.S. 97 as well as the BNSF tracks. 19th Street would cross the far southeast corner of the parcel. DCC 18.48.020(D) and (E) list outright permitted uses in the OS&C zone. Class I, II, and III road or street projects are all outright permitted uses. (A preliminary assessment indicates when it comes time to construct 19th Street, this would be a Class I road project as described at DCC 18.04.030 and thus will require a land use permit.) Finally, the proposed 19th Street may not actually cross this site pending further design work. The above information is provided as a contingency. Impacts on related resources: Mineral and aggregate resources: The corridor has not been zoned for mineral or aggregate resources. Energy sources: There are no known energy resources in the corridor such as natural gas, oil, coal or geothermal heat. Fish and wildlife habitat: The expansion site has no fish or wetland habitat. Preliminary environmental work in the UDRMP has not identified any threatened or endangered species. Ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas, including desert areas: Nothing about the selected corridor separates it from surrounding areas as ecologically or scientifically significant. Outstanding scenic views: Nothing about the selected corridor indicates it has a significantly better view than other sites in the vicinity. As no bridges or overpasses are planned, no views from the east to the west will be degraded. Water areas, wetlands, watersheds, and groundwater resources: There are no wetlands or watersheds within the subject site. Wilderness areas: The site does not meet the definition of "wilderness areas" as described within the Oregon State Goals and Guidelines. Historic areas, sites, structures and objects: The expansion site has no structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. No structures or places of historical significance have been determined to exist on or near the property selected. Cultural areas: The site has no known cultural resources. FINDING: Staff believes Goal 5 has been met. 6. Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 6 Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 6 seeks "To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." FINDING: Adding the line on the TSP for map for 19th Street will not affect air, water, or land resources. Staff believes this criteria does not apply. 7. Goal 7: Areas Subiect to Natural Hazards Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 seeks "To protect people and property from natural hazards." FINDING: There are no natural hazards in this area; staff believes this criteria does not apply. 8. Goal 8: Recreational Needs Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 8 seeks "To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts." FINDING: The proposed 19th Street predominantly lies on federal lands controlled by BLM. This agency allows recreational activities upon its land. A previous Deschutes County land use decision (CU-00-118, Condition of Approval #31) required the Pronghorn destination resort to build a permanent secondary access road that will connect to 19th Street after building out 50 percent of the residential units. Staff believes this criterion has been met. 9. Economic Development Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 9 seeks "To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. " FINDING: 19th Street will provide a parallel alternative to US 97 between Deschutes Junction and Redmond. When the DSL property develops, the site can use 19th Street as a transportation corridor to support its economic development. 19th Street will also offer another routing choice for agricultural products produced on EFU land to reach nearby urban markets. Staff believes this criterion has been met. 10. Housing PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 7 Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 10 attempts "To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state." FINDING: Staff believes this criteria is not applicable. 11. Public Facilities and Services Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 11 endeavors "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development " FINDING: Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, calls for a "timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services..." The proposed 19th Street would provide a north-south alternative to US 97 and serve as a rural-scale grid street between Bend and Redmond by connecting to Deschutes Market Road. This would be a higher-speed, two-lane road through agriculturally zoned land with access only provided to parcels that would be otherwise landlocked. Such an access management strategy would be consistent with Goal 11 Guideline A.2, "public facilities... for rural areas should be provided at levels appropriate for rural use only and should not support urban uses." Staff believes this criterion has been met. 12. Goal 12: Transportation Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12 seeks "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." FINDING: OAR 660-012 implements Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12. This administrative rule requires the county to prepare and adopt a Transportation System Plan (TSP) as part of its comprehensive plan. The Deschutes County TSP was adopted on August 26, 1998. The proposal's compliance with OAR 660-012 is discussed extensively below. Further operational analysis is provided below. Staff believes this criterion has been met. 13. Goal 13: Eneray Conservation Oregon Statewide Plannin_a Goal 13 seeks "to conserve energy." FINDING: The road will accommodate bicyclists and buses and will only have stops at either end with the rest of the facility being free flow. Staff believes this criterion is either inapplicable or has been met. 14. Goal 14: Urbanization PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 8 Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 14 attempts "to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities." FINDING: The land use is to amend the TSP to add 19th Street, a collector crossing rural lands. The facility will be outside of an Urban Growth Boundary. The extension of 19th Street does appear on the Redmond TSP, even though the road would be outside of the City's jurisdiction. Staff believes this criteria does not apply or has been met. 15. Goal 15: Willamette River Greenwav Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 15 strives "to protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway." FINDING: This goal is not applicable as the site does not abut the Willamette River. 16. Goal 16: Estuarine Resources Oregon Statewide Planning Goal seeks `To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and To protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries. FINDING: The proposed alignment does not cross any estuaries, so this criterion does not apply. 17. Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 17 attempts "To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. The management of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters; and To reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects upon water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, resulting from the use and enjoyment of Oregon's coastal shorelands. FINDING: The proposed alignment is in the High Desert; staff believes this criterion does not apply. PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 9 18. Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 18 desires "To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas; and To reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-induced actions associated with these areas. FINDING: The proposed alignment Is several hundred miles inland; this criterion does not apply. 19. Goal 19: Ocean Resources Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 19 attempts "To conserve marine resources and ecological functions for the purpose of providing long-term ecological, economic, and social value and benefits to future generations. FINDING: The only ocean this alignment crosses is one of sagebrush; this criterion does not apply. B. Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) 1. Section 660-004-0010, Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain Goals. (1) The exceptions process is not applicable to Statewide Goal 1 "Citizen Involvement" and Goal 2 "Land Use Planning." The exception process is generally applicable to all or part of those statewide goals which prescribe or restrict certain uses of resource land within or limit the provision of certain public facilities and services. These statewide goals include but are not limited to: (a) Goal 3 "Agricultural Lands," however, an exception to Goal 3 "Agricultural Lands" is not required for any of the farm or non-farm uses permitted in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone under ORS Chapter 215 and OAR 660 Division 33, "Agricultural Lands"; FINDING: The applicant is seeking an approval of an exception to Goal 3 to amend the TSP map to add a Rural Arterial, which is a public facility, on land zoned EFU. There is currently no funding to construct the road, but adding the road to the map will enable the county to successfully pursue state and federal funding for construction as those entities require a facility to be on a TSP map. The proposed road use is not a use listed as allowed on agriculture land under ORS 215.283 or by OAR Division 33, "Agricultural Lands," ORS 215.283(3) allows a road such as this proposed extension of 19th street, however, if an exception to Goal 3 and any other applicable goal is approved. PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 10 2. Section 660-004-0015. Inclusion as Part of the Plan (1) A local government approving a proposed exception shall adopt as part of its comprehensive plan findings of fact and a statement of reasons which demonstrates that the standards for an exception have been met. The applicable standards are those in Goal 2, Part II(c), OAR 660-004-0020(2), and 660-004-022. The reasons and facts shall be supported by substantial evidence that the standard has been met. FINDING: The amendments to the county's comprehensive plan provisions in Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 23.120 includes a reference to Ordinance 2009-020 which incorporates a findings document. The applicant addressed the standards of Goal 2, Part II(c) above and addresses OAR 660-004-0020(2) and 660-004-0022 below. Therefore, this requirement is met. 3. Section 660-004-0018, Planning and Zoning for the Exception Areas (1) Purpose. This rule explains the requirements for adoption of plan and zone designations for exceptions. Exceptions to one goal or a portion of one goal do not relieve a jurisdiction from remaining goal requirements and do not authorize uses, densities, public facilities and services, or activities other than those recognized or justified by the applicable exception. Physically developed or irrevocably committed exceptions under OAR 660-004-0025 and 660-004-0028 are intended to recognize and allow continuation of existing types of development in the exception area. Adoption of plan and zoning provisions that would allow changes in existing types of uses, densities, or services requires the application of the standards outlined in this rule. FINDING: This section of the administrative rule applies to the adoption of plan and zone use designations. It does not apply to goal exceptions for roads. Those exceptions do not require a change of plan or zone designations. As stated above, however, a road is allowed in the EFU zone with approval of a goal exception. In doing so, this administrative rule requires a decision as to which type of exception is applicable - "physically developed," "irrevocably committed" or a "reasons" exception - and has different requirements for each. (3) Uses, density, and public facilities and services not meeting section (2) of this rule may be approved only under provisions for a reasons exception as outlined in section (4) of the rule and OAR 660-004-0020 through 660-004-0022. This exception does not qualify for a "physically developed" or "irrevocably committed" exception subsection 2 of this rule. Therefore, this exception is a "reasons" exception. 4) "Reasons" Exceptions: PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 11 (a) When a local government takes an exception under the "Reasons" section of ORS 197.732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004- 0020 through 660-004-0022, plan and zone designations must limit the uses, density, public facilities and services, and activities to only those that are justified in the exception; (b) When a local government changes the types or intensities of uses or public facilities and services within an area approved as a "Reasons" exception, a new "Reasons" exception is required; (c) When a local government includes land within an unincorporated community for which an exception under the "Reasons" section of ORS 197.732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004- 0020 through 660-004-0022 was previously adopted, plan and zone designations must limit the uses, density, public facilities and services, and activities to only those that were justified in the exception or OAR 660-022-0030, which ever is more stringent. The TSP amendment will add 19th Street to the TSP map. The land use designations for the affected properties under local zoning will remain unchanged. 4. Section 660-004-0020. Goal 2, Part II(c), Exception Requirements (1) If a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR 660-004-0022 to use resource lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal or to allow public facilities or services not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan as an exception. FINDING: This section reiterates the procedural requirements of OAR 660-004-0015. 2) The four factors in Goal 2 Part II(c) required to be addressed when taking an exception to a Goal are: (a) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply: The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to specific properties or situations including the amount of land for the use being planned and why the use requires a location on resource land; FINDING: The state policy embodied in Goal 3 is that agricultural lands should be protected from non-agricultural development. A certain level of non-agricultural development, as specified in ORS 215.283, is allowed. Road projects, other than the creation of new roadways, are allowed without the approval of a goal exception. When a new road is proposed, an exception must be approved. The western edge of the road's right of way will abut the BNSF right of way, so no non- agricultural development would occur on that side. The UDRMP for the Bend-Redmond PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 12 area sets a goal and a vision to restore and maintain the ecosystem's health and diversity. Specifically, the Land Use Goal on page 24 of the ROD specifies "[P]reserve and protect public lands in their natural condition, and assure they provide, where appropriate, food and habitat for fish, wildlife and domestic animals, and land for outdoor recreation and other uses." Therefore, it is unlikely any development will occur on the federal land. The zoning on the state and privately held lands is EFU, which by definition is an agricultural zone. That zoning will not change with the construction of this road. Additionally, the road will not interfere with the agricultural uses on the state and privately owned lands as the property consumed by the road will be minimal. ORS 92.090 (2) requires that streets and roads "conform to the plats of subdivisions and partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the city or county determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern." The location for the 19th Street right-of-way and eventual construction will align at the north end with the pre-existing 19th Street already constructed within the City of Redmond. The approval of the goal exception is essential to allow the applicant to conform to the platted location of the City of Redmond's 19th Street. (b) Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use; FINDING: The road must be located on EFU land in order to align with the existing 19th Street within the City of Redmond. One of the purposes of the proposed 19th Street is to provide a non-highway connection between Deschutes Junction and the City of Redmond and to remove traffic from the US 97New Avenue interchange. To accomplish that latter objective, the road must be east of US 97. Given the pre- existing zoning and comprehensive plan designations, it is impossible to locate a parallel local route to US 97 east of the BNSF on anything but EFU land. Any location east of US 97 would require a goal exception. The county's 19th Street must be east of the BNSF tracks to provide the traveling public with an alternative to the overtaxed U.S. 97New Avenue interchange, which lies to the west of the BNSF. (A) The exception shall indicate on a map or otherwise describe the location of possible alternative areas considered for the use, which do not require a new exception. The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified; FINDING: There are no other alternative areas for the use that will result in the alignment of the proposed southern extension of 19th Street with the existing 19th Street in Redmond and the Deschutes Market Interchange, Phase II. Additionally, all lands from the BNSF east to the Crook County line are zoned EFU. The exception is for the non-federal parcels identified above. No goal exception to the state planning goals is needed for the land under federal jurisdiction. (B) To show why the particular site is justified, it is necessary to discuss why other areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 13 factors can be considered along with other relevant factors in determining that the use cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. Under the alternative factor the following questions shall be addressed: FINDING: There are two alternative locations for 19th Street (Exhibits 7 and 8). Option 1 would be east of the BNSF and move the southern terminus farther east. Option 2 would be west of the BNSF and east of US 97 until about Pleasant Ridge Road, then would cross back to the east side of the BNSF for the southern terminus. Both options, however, would also require a goal exception as all the affected lands between US 97 and the BNSF tracks are zoned EFU, with the exception of three properties that are OS&C. Thus there is no alternate location that does not require a goal exception. Additionally, the intent of Deschutes Junction Interchange Phase II is to connect to the future 19th Street. The construction of this second phase, which is predicated on 19th being east of the BNSF, will be completed in October 2009. This design was approved by Deschutes County in CU-08-42 and the location of 19th Street/Deschutes Market Road intersection, specifically, was upheld in A-08-13. To make a logical north-south connection and provide for an orderly development of transportation facilities, 19th Street must be east of the BNSF. Setting aside the fact all other sites also require a goal exception, if 19th Street were west of the BNSF and east of 97 there would need to be two crossings of the BNSF, likely along the Division of State Lands (DSL) property and again just north of the Deschutes Junction interchange to get back east of the tracks. The Rail Division of the ODOT is under a federal directive to not allow any new at-grade railroad crossings and to reduce existing at-grade railroad crossings by 25%. A 19th Street connection on the west side of Highway 97 would require two grade separation to cross the BNSF tracks. Any grade-separated structure would cost millions of dollars and, as stated above, two crossings would be needed. Finally, it would be extremely difficult from a geometric design perspective to have a structure connect to the City of Redmond's 19th Street then cross above the BNSF and get back down to grade while turning south to parallel 97 and then have a second structure cross back over the BNSF to tie into Deschutes Junction Interchange Phase II. The cost of needless structures would be an unfair burden that would be borne by the public. Finally, the purpose of 19th Street is to provide a parallel local north/south alternative route to the state highway. To accomplish this goal, the route needs to be an appropriate distance east of the existing highway. Given the four lanes of US 97 are posted for 55 mph and it is anticipated the proposed two lanes of 19th Street will be traveled at a lower speed, if 19th Street were between US 97 and the BNSF tracks, drivers would simply opt for US 97 and its higher speeds and better passing opportunities. By locating 19th Street east of the BNSF, some drivers may opt to continue on 19th Street to travel between NE Bend and Redmond. (i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on non- resource land that would not require an exception, including increasing the density of uses on non-resource land? If not, why not? PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 14 FINDING: The proposed road cannot be reasonably accommodated on non-resource land as nearly all of the land between US 97 east to the Crook County line is zoned EFU. The proposed 19th Street needs to be east of the BNSF to 1) be consistent with the transportation corridor identified in the UDRMP; 2) align with the existing City of Redmond 19th Street; 3) provide an option for the traveling public to use a county road to access the Redmond Airport, the county fairgrounds, and east Redmond; and 4) align with the Deschutes Junction Phase II interchange. The proposed 19th Street will draw traffic needing to access the Redmond Airport, that otherwise would use the US 97/Yew Avenue interchange, which is already experiencing operational challenges. Finally, the proposed 19th Street offers an alternate way to route traffic between Bend and Redmond should either a train derailment close Yew Avenue or a crash close U.S. 97, for example. (ii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already irrevocably committed to non-resource uses, not allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in existing rural centers, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands? If not, why not? FINDING: There are no irrevocably committed lands in the area. (iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not? FINDING: No, the purpose of the goal exception is to amend the county TSP to add a rural arterial. If the road were constructed inside an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) it would not provide an alternate parallel route between Redmond and Bend. (iv) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated without the provision of a proposed public facility or service? If not, why not? FINDING: The proposed use is a public facility. This criterion, therefore, either does not apply or is met. (C) This alternative areas standard can be met by a broad review of similar types of areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites. Initially, a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception, unless another party to the local proceeding can describe why there are specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonable by another party during the local exceptions proceeding. FINDING: As explained above, all other routes would also require a goal exception given the EFU zoning of the land between US 97 and the Deschutes/Crook border. (a) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 15 measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in other areas requiring a Goal exception. The exception shall describe the characteristics of each alternative areas considered by the jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located is areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not limited to, the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive; the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base. Other possible impacts include the effects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service districts; FINDING: Regarding alternatives, it is helpful to recognize the proposed 19th Street corridor has three fixed anchor points: 1) the southern terminus of the existing 19th Street in Redmond; 2) the northern and southern endpoints of the transportation corridor identified in the UDRMP; and 3) the overcrossing from the second phase of the Deschutes Junction interchange. The current proposal has the benefit of requiring the least amount of EFU land. The alignment immediately abuts the eastern edge of the BNSF right of way, which already cuts through EFU land and means the disruption to agricultural practices would be minimized as when compared to an alignment that bisected the various EFU lands. In the latter case, agricultural vehicles would have to cross a rural, high-speed arterial. The current alignment also minimizes the conflicts with training exercises on the Biak training grounds. The transportation corridor identified in the UDRMP is in an adopted federal planning document for federal lands. Any alternative that deviates from this identified corridor would require amending the UDRMP. Given the years the federal, state, and county spent selecting a corridor that preserved transportation and utility corridors while minimizing disruption to the natural environment it is highly doubtful there is a superior alignment for 19th Street. Given the transportation corridor in the UDRMP is set, the only area the alignment could vary would be for the six tax lots from Deschutes Junction north (161226A000300, 161226A000401,1612230000600,1612230000304,1612240000300,and 1612240000200). Swinging the alignment to the east would disrupt existing rural residences and the Boonesborough rural subdivision. Such a realignment would cause PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 16 additional energy consumption due to out of direction travel and consume even more EFU land due to the realignment. (b) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. The exception shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices. "Compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses. FINDING: The future 19th Street, being located along the boundary of the EFU property, is not incompatible with adjacent uses in the EFU zone. The history of "farm to market roads" indicates a road is necessary for agricultural uses. The 100-foot wide swath of the future 19th Street will be located abutting the existing railroad right of way. The few properties pursing agriculture have already made allowances for conducting farm and ranch operations in the vicinity of BNSF, a transportation facility. The current land use application is only to gain a goal exception and amend the TSP map to include the 19th Street alignment. The county will need to apply for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct 19th Street and can identify specific mitigations at that time. Additionally, the 100 feet of right of way will leave sufficient land for each of the EFU zone properties to continue to conduct the uses allowed on agricultural land. The road could provide improved access to the affected properties and by extension access to markets. (3) If the exception involves more than one area for which the reasons and circumstances are the same, the areas may be considered as a group. Each of the areas shall be identified on a map or their location otherwise described, and keyed to the appropriate findings. FINDING: This affected area is comprised of 1513000000130 just south of Redmond; 1612120001200 and 1612130000503, which are about midway between south Redmond and Deschutes Junction; and the six tax lots extending northward from Deschutes Junction, 161226A000300, 161226A000401, 1612230000600, 1612230000304, 1612240000300, and 1612240000200. While this proposal involves multiple lots, it does not involve more than one area for which the reasons exception must be sought. (4) For the expansion of an unincorporated community defined under OAR 660.022-0010, or for an urban unincorporated community pursuant to OAR 660022-0040(2), the exception requirements of subsections (2)(b), (c) and (d) of this rule are modified to also include the following: FINDING: This part of the rule does not apply as the applicant is not proposing the expansion of an unincorporated community or an urban unincorporated community. PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 17 5. Section 660-004-0022. Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part II(c) A. OAR 660-004-0022, Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part 11(c) An exception under Goal 2, Part 11(c) can be taken for any use not allowed by the applicable goal(s). The types of reasons that may or may not be used to justify certain types of uses not allowed on resource lands are set forth in the following sections of this rule: (1) For uses not specifically provided for in subsequent sections of this rule or OAR 660, Division 014, the reasons shall justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply. Such reasons include but are not limited to the following: (a) There is a demonstrated need for the proposed use or activity, based on one or more of the requirements of Statewide Goals 3 to 19; and either FINDING: The proper extension and alignment of 19th Street proposed by the applicant is needed to build the street network envisioned by the City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and the federal government. The road is planned as a rural arterial. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, calls for a "timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services..." The proposed 19th Street would provide a north-south alternative to US 97 and serve as a rural-scale grid street between Bend and Redmond by connecting to Deschutes Market Road. This would be a higher-speed, two-lane road through agriculturally zoned land with access only provided to parcels that would be otherwise landlocked. Such an access management strategy would be consistent with Goal 11 Guideline A.2, "public facilities...for rural areas should be provided at levels appropriate for rural use only and should not support urban uses." Goal 12, Transportation, seeks to "provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." Goal 12 Guideline A.1 calls for area-wide transportation plans be revised in coordination with local governments. This application is consistent with that direction. Guideline A.2 calls for using existing rights of way. While not an existing right of way, the 1/2-mile-wide transportation corridor identified in the UDRMP follows the intent and spirit of that guideline by locating 19th in a place set aside expressly for transportation purposes. Guideline A.3 seeks to restrain roads from being placed on Class I or II soils unless no feasible alternative exists. The lands 19th street would use are not Class I or 11 soils. Guideline A.4 states major transportation facilities should avoid dividing existing economic farm units if possible. The alignment abuts BNSF right to way which results in PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 18 achieving that purpose. Guideline A.5 relates to modal choice and density. While 19th crosses large EFU parcels, the road could be used by buses to provide a mass transit link between Northeast Bend and southeast Redmond as well as the rural subdivisions near Deschutes Junction. Guideline A.6 suggests plans should consider the carrying capacity of the natural world. The road will not have any adverse affect upon the air, land, and water in the area. The road will not have any stoplights, so cars will not be discharging pollution from idling in traffic or accelerating from a light, instead they will be constantly at-speed which is when pollution emissions are the lowest. The BLM land is not in agricultural production so carrying capacity will not be significantly affected. There is no standing or flowing water on the route, save for a canal near the southern terminus; the road will have no adverse affect upon the canal. (b) A resource upon which the proposed use or activity is dependent can be reasonably obtained only at the proposed exception site and the use or activity requires a location near the resource. An exception based on this subsection must include an analysis of the market area to be served by the proposed use or activity. That analysis must demonstrate that the proposed exception site is the only one within that market area at which the resource depended upon can reasonably be obtained; or FINDING: The proposed road right of way is not dependent upon a resource. Thus, this provision is not applicable to the proposed exception. (c) The proposed use or activity has special features or qualities that necessitate its location on or near the proposed exception site. FINDING: The road use proposed is a rural arterial. This road must be located as planned in order to achieve an orderly and efficient road system that offers a parallel local alternative to US 97. The location is pre-determined by 1) southern terminus of existing 19th Street in City of Redmond; 2) the identified transportation and utility corridor in the UDRMP; and 3) alignment of Deschutes Junction Interchange, Phase II as set forth in CU-08-42 and A-08-13. The alignment of 19th Street is a critical element to developing a functional network of streets to ensure the proper flow of traffic within a rural segment between Bend and Redmond. There is no non-exception site that can accomplish these objectives given the stated geographic constraints. 6. Section 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments (1) Where an amendments to a functional plan, acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation which significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 19 facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); FINDING: The proposal will amend the map to create a rural arterial, the southern extension of 19th Street from Redmond to Deschutes Junction. Creation, however, is different from changing an existing or planned transportation facility. As for the streets to which this arterial will be connected, the proposed amendment will not change the functional classification of 19th Street in Redmond. Nor will the amendment change the functional classification of Deschutes Market Road. (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; FINDING: No changes are proposed to the standards that implement the functional classification system for Deschutes County roads. (c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system plan; (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; or FINDING: The Deschutes County Code at 23.60(D) Table 1, "Road Functional Classification," indicates an arterial is intended to link "...the most important intra-county travel corridors." DCC 23.64.030(1)(b)(4) requires the county "shall consider roadway function, classification, and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes to assure the proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system." DCC 17.48.210(8) states "The creation of access onto arterials and collectors is prohibited unless there is no other possible means of accessing the parcel." Therefore county operational policies and access management spacing policies will ensure travel and access will be consistent with the road's rural arterial designation over the 20-year planning horizon of the TSP. (B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDING: The county at DCC 17.16.115(H)(1)(a) defines minimum acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for a new facility is LOS C. For a two-lane rural road under county jurisdiction, LOS C is defined as being between 3,401 and 5,700 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, according to DCC 23.64.080, Table 5.232 "Maximum Average Daily Traffic Allowed for Various Levels of Service." In 2030 the proposed 19th Street is expected to have 1,100 daily vehicles, according to a traffic forecast from ODOT's Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU). TPAU is creating the transportation PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 20 model for the ongoing update of the Deschutes County TSP. (2) Where a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, compliance with section (1) shall be accomplished through one or a combination of the following: (a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility. (b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. (d) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility. (e) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or similar funding method, including transportation system management measures, demand management or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall as part of the amendment specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided. (3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the facility where: (a) The facility is already performing below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan on the date the amendment application is submitted; (b) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the identified function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP; (c) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoids PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 21 further degradation to the performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or measures; (d) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined in paragraph (4)(d)(C); and (e) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a minimum, sufficient to avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local government may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (d) of this section. FINDING: Deschutes County sets performance standard of LOS C for new facilities and LOS D for existing roads in DCC 17.16.115(H)(1)(a). Table 2.233 in the TSP ties LOS standards to average daily traffic (ADT). LOS C is between 3,401 and 5,700 ADT and LOS D is between 5,701 to 9,600. These service standards by daily traffic volume also appear in DCC 23.64.080. According to ODOT's modeling unit, in 2030 19th Street is expected to carry 1,100 ADT. Thus, the map amendment has no significant effect. (4) Determinations under sections (1)-(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. (a) In determining whether an amendment has a significant effect on an existing or planned transportation facility under subsection (1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on existing transportation facilities and services and on the planned transportation facilities, improvements and services set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below. (b) Outside of interstate interchange areas, the following are considered planned facilities, improvements and services: (A) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are funded for construction or implementation in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a locally or regionally adopted transportation improvement program or capital improvement plan or program of a transportation service provider. PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 22 (B) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are authorized in a local transportation system plan and for which a funding plan or mechanism is in place or approved. These include, but are not limited to, transportation facilities, improvements or services for which: transportation systems development charge revenues are being collected; a local improvement district or reimbursement district has been established or will be established prior to development; a development agreement has been adopted; or conditions of approval to fund the improvement have been adopted. (C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) area that are part of the area's federally-approved, financially constrained regional transportation system plan. (D) Improvements to state highways that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when MOT provides a written statement that the improvements are reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or other transportation facilities or services that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when the local government(s) or transportation service provider(s) responsible for the facility, improvement or service provides a written statement that the facility, improvement or service is reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements included in (b)(A)-(C) are considered planned facilities, improvements and services, except where: (A) MOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing of mitigation measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the Interstate Highway system, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section; or (B) There is an adopted interchange area management plan, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in that plan and which are also identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section. (d) As used in this section and section (3): PA-09-2, 19" Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 23 (A) Planned interchange means new interchanges and relocation of existing interchanges that are authorized in an adopted transportation system plan or comprehensive plan; (B) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105, 205 and 405; and (C) Interstate interchange area means: (i) Property within one-half mile of an existing or planned interchange on an Interstate Highway as measured from the center point of the interchange; or (ii) The interchange area as defined in the Interchange Area Management Plan adopted as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan. (e) For purposes of this section, a written statement provided pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D), (b)(E) or (c)(A) provided by ODOT, a local government or transportation facility provider, as appropriate, shall be conclusive in determining whether a transportation facility, improvement or service is a planned transportation facility, improvement or service. In the absence of a written statement, a local government can only rely upon planned transportation facilities, improvements and services identified in paragraphs (b)(A)- (C) to determine whether there is a significant effect that requires application of the remedies in section (2). FINDING: The county used ODOT staff to forecast the 2030 traffic volumes on 19th Street and worked with ODOT, City of Redmond, and BLM staff to site 19th Street's alignment during the UDRMP process. The county assumed only the presence of the Deschutes Junction Interchange, Phase II; the funded project is under construction and slated for fall 2009 completion. ODOT classifies US 97 as a Statewide Highway and thus it is not an interstate. 7. Section 660-012-0065, Transportation Improvements on Rural Lands FINDING: OAR 660-012-0065 prescribes rules that apply to transportation improvements on rural lands that do not require goal exceptions. The county reviewed the language of 660-012-0065(3)(b) which describes transportation improvements allowed either outright or conditionally by ORS 215.213 and 215.283 or OAR Chapter 660, Division 6 (Forest Lands). Additionally, staff reviewed the language at 660-012- 0065(3)(g) for new access roads and collectors. Staff reviewed, as well, the language for local travel facilities as described at 660-012-0065(3)(o). The proposed 19th Street, an arterial that will provide a link between Northeast Bend and southern Redmond, does not meet the definition of an allowed use under 660-012-065. The county must demonstrate the need for Goal 3 exception for a transportation improvement on rural land as set forth by 660-012-0070. PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 24 8. OAR 660-012-0070. Exceptions for Transportation Improvements on Rural Land FINDING: This section of the administrative rule prescribes the rules that apply when a goal exception is required in order to plan and construct a transportation system improvement, which in this instance is 19th Street. (1) Transportation facilities and improvements which do not meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0065 require an exception to be sited on rural lands. FINDING: The proposed road alignment requires an exception to be sited on rural lands. It does not fit neatly into any of the exemptions provided by OAR 660-012-0065. (2) When an exception to Goals 3, 4, 11, or 14 is required to locate a transportation improvement on rural lands, the exception shall be taken pursuant to ORS 197.732(1)(c), Goal 2, and this division. The exceptions standards in OAR chapter 660, division 4 and OAR chapter 660, division 14 shall not apply. Exceptions adopted pursuant to this division shall be deemed to fulfill the requirements for goal exceptions required under ORS 197.732(1)(c) and Goal 2. FINDING: Compliance with ORS 197.732(1)(c) is addressed later in this application. Compliance with Goal 2 and the Goal 2 rules and this division have been addressed earlier in this application. (3) An exception shall, at a minimum, decide need, mode, function and general location for the proposed facility or improvement: a) The general location shall be specified as a corridor within which the proposed facility or improvement is to be located, including the outer limits of the proposed location. Specific sites or areas within the corridor may be excluded from the exception to avoid or lessen likely adverse impacts. Where detailed design level information is available, the exception may be specified as a specific alignment; (b) The size, design and capacity of the proposed facility or improvement shall be described generally, but in sufficient detail to allow a general understanding of the likely impacts of the proposed facility or improvement and to justify the amount of land for the proposed transportation facility. Measures limiting the size, design or capacity may be specified in the description of the proposed use in order to simplify the analysis of the effects of the proposed use; (c) The adopted exception shall include a process and standards to guide selection of the precise design and location within the corridor and consistent with the general description of the proposed facility or improvement. For example, where a general location or corridor crosses a river, the exception would specify that a bridge crossing would be built but would defer to project development decisions about precise location and design of the bridge within the PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 25 selected corridor subject to requirements to minimize impacts on riparian vegetation, habitat values, etc.; (d) Land use regulations implementing the exception may include standards for specific mitigation measures to offset unavoidable environmental, economic, social or energy impacts of the proposed facility or improvement or to assure compatibility with adjacent uses. FINDING: The exception is to amend the Deschutes County TSP map to add 19th Street, a future rural arterial with two travel lanes. The need for 19th Street is twofold. First, this future county rural arterial is intended to offload traffic from US 97, which 19th Street parallels. Complementing the reduction in US 97 traffic, 19th Street will lead to Airport Way, which is east of the congested Yew Avenue/US 97 interchange, and thus trips on 19th Street will not travel through the Yew Avenue interchange. Second, 19th Street would offer a potential detour should an incident close US 97. The design of 19th Street will ensure the facility is multimodal, meaning it will accommodate vehicles besides passenger cars and trucks. The county requires a minimum of 3'- to 6-shoulders on its arterials, so there will be adequate accommodations for cyclists. Also, Cascades East Transit or other shuttle services, particularly those with beginning and ending points at either the Redmond Airport or the industrial lands in east Redmond, could utilize 19th Street. The function is a rural arterial as set forth in DCC 23.60.010(D)(2)(a)(1-3) . That portion of the county code includes goals to link cities and larger towns, provide service to transportation corridors with trips lengths greater than those provided by collectors, and that rural arterials be routes with "relatively high overall travel speeds, with minimum interference to through movement." The general location was decided by the UDRMP, a collaborative planning process between the federal, state, and local governments. The northern end ties into an existing City of Redmond street and the southern terminus is set by the Deschutes Junction Interchange Phase II design. The precise location will be decided during project development and will minimize disruptions to existing agricultural practices. The construction of 19th Street will require a conditional use permit from the county and thus offer another opportunity for public comment and mitigation to any potential adverse impacts to agriculture or the physical environment. (4) To address Goal 2, Part II(c)(1) the exception shall provide reasons justifying why the state policy in the applicable goals should not apply. Further, the exception shall demonstrate that there is a transportation need identified consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-012-0030 which cannot reasonably be accommodated through one or a combination of the following measures not requiring an exception: (a) Alternative modes of transportation; (b) Traffic management measures; and (c) Improvements to existing transportation facilities. PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 26 FINDING: The future 19th Street is consistent with 660-012-0030 in that both the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) stress the need for parallel, local alternatives to offer a viable route to the state highway system. ODOT is in the beginning efforts to conduct a refinement plan for Redmond Re-Route, Phase II, which is an extension of the newly realigned US 97 south from its current southern terminus. The agency has stated US 97 will be at 90% of capacity south of OR 126 by 2030. The refinement's draft scope of work at key issue #7 on page 3 states, "The Bureau of Land Management's Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan (UDRMP, EIS) objectives, conditions, and standards need to be addressed." The state has therefore recognized the need for 19th Street. In terms of alternative forms of transportation, the most recent volume data (2008) on US 97 indicates the volumes are too high for buses or bicycles to make a dent in the daily flow. The Redmond Automatic Traffic Recorder, 09-020, is 1.40 miles south of Yew and recorded an average daily traffic (ADT) of 28,000 vehicles. The ADT 0.10 miles south of Quarry Avenue was 25,800 and 0.10 miles south of Deschutes Market Road was 25,500. Although there is a rail line adjacent to US 97, the BNSF only offers freight service at this time and has not expressed any desire to begin passenger rail service in the Madras-La Pine corridor. Traffic management measures to improve operations on US 97 could include a raised median, frontage roads connecting grade-separated interchanges, and parallel local alternative routes such as 19th Street. Yet, given US 97 between Deschutes Junction and Yew Avenue is a rural segment with few driveways, such access management strategies as consolidating or closing direct approaches and installing raised medians would improve safety, but not add much capacity. This is because the plurality of the US 97 traffic traveling between Bend and Redmond comes from those two cities, not the rural lands between these places. Adding travel lanes to existing US 97 would also result in travel lanes being constructed on resource land given the extensive EFU zoning between Bend and Redmond. Yet, from a livability standpoint, a six-lane cross-section is not desirable. Improving South Canal Boulevard/Old Bend-Redmond Highway would not divert from the Yew Avenue/US 97 interchange traffic bound for the Redmond Airport or industrial lands in eastern Redmond. This is because South Canal/Old Bend-Redmond lies to the west of the interchange, requiring eastbound traffic would have to pass through Yew/97 interchange, whereas 19th Street connects to Airport Way to the east of both the Yew Avenue/97 interchange and the BNSF tracks. Therefore, the chosen location for this new road is the only viable option. (5) To address Goal 2, Part 11(c)(2) the exception shall demonstrate that non-exception locations cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation improvement or facility. The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining why the use requires a location on resource land subject to Goals 3 or 4. FINDING: The applicant's findings regarding the Goal 2 exceptions rules demonstrate PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 27 that non-exception locations cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation improvement. The proposed road cannot be reasonably accommodated on non-resource land as nearly all of the land between US 97 east to the Crook County line is zoned EFU. The proposed 19th Street needs to be east of the BNSF to 1) be consistent with the transportation corridor identified in the UDRMP; 2) align with the pre- existing City of Redmond 19th Street; 3) provide an option for the traveling public to use a county road to access the Redmond Airport, the county fairgrounds, and east Redmond; and 4) align with the Deschutes Junction Phase II interchange. (6) To determine the reasonableness of alternatives to an exception under sections (4) and (5) of this rule, cost, operational feasibility, economic dislocation and other relevant factors shall be addressed. The thresholds chosen to judge whether an alternative method or location cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation need or facility must be justified in the exception. (a) In addressing sections (4) and (5) of this rule, the exception shall identify and address alternative methods and locations that are potentially reasonable to accommodate the identified transportation need. (b) Detailed evaluation of such alternatives is not required when an alternative does not meet an identified threshold. (c) Detailed evaluation of specific alternative methods or locations identified by parties during the local exceptions proceedings is not required unless the parties can specifically describe with supporting facts why such methods or locations can more reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need, taking into consideration the identified thresholds. FINDING: Cost The goal exception is needed for the non-federal parcels already identified. The current construction estimate for 19th Street is $6.2 million. Three other options provide a construction cost comparison; all estimates were prepared by George Kolb, County Engineer. Option 1 (the previously referenced Exhibit 7): This $7.44 million alignment was kept completely on BLM land. This estimate does not include the additional right of way needed for 19th Street or the realignment and reconstruction of Morrill Road. The road would hug the eastern boundaries of those lots, then swing southeast at about the 36-acre Parsons property (161226A000401) to reach Morrill Road while staying east of two EFU parcels of approximately 20 acres each owned by Randall and Christina Reid (1612000012300 and 1612000012301). From there the alignment would have to tie into Morrill Road, which is an unpaved legacy road. The costs to a) build such a realignment from the south end of the UDRMP corridor to Morrill to a county rural arterial standard, then b) rebuilding to Morrill to current county rural arterial standard for the segment from 19th Street intersection west to Deschutes Junction and then c) redesigning and rebuilding the Deschutes Junction/19th Street so that the connection PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 28 comes from the east instead of the previously approved north, would be significantly more than the proposed alignment and cost prohibitive. Option 2 (the previously referenced Exhibit 8): This $10.56 million alignment would lie between US 97 and the BNSF tracks. At the southwest edge of the DSL property a bridge would take 19th over the BNSF tracks. A second bridge would bring 19th Street back to the east of the BNSF tracks at approximately 1612240000200 to connect 19th Street to Deschutes Junction, Phase II interchange. There are additional costs besides the added distance to construct. To keep 19th Street on federal land, which would not need an exception to state planning goals, the UDRMP would have to be amended. This would entail significant staff time for natural and cultural resource inventories to establish a new transportation and utility corridor. As the requesting agency, the financial burden would fall to the county. Economic Dislocation As these are all large parcels, there would be minimal disruption to agricultural practices. No homes would be relocated by the 100-foot-wide alignment. Operational Feasibility The proposed goal exception is the only option that creates an alignment that corresponds to the existing 19th Street in Redmond, the transportation corridor already preserved by the UDRMP, and the Deschutes Junction Phase II interchange. Any other alignment would require severe reversing curves between the southern end of the UDRMP and Deschutes Junction, which would be contrary to the best engineering practices and county road standards. Safety The proposed road alignment and location is the safest for the numerous reasons discussed earlier. (7) To address Goal 2, Part II(c)(3), the exception shall: (a) Compare the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the proposed location and other alternative locations requiring exceptions. The exception shall describe the characteristics of each alternative location considered by the jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the location for the proposed transportation facility or improvement, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the transportation facility or improvement at the proposed location with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts; FINDING: The alternative locations and why they are not appropriate is discussed above. However, in case the reviewing body disagrees with the applicant's assessment, the following findings are provided. Any alternative to the west of the tracks and east of US 97 would require additional bridges over the BNSF tracks to reach both the southern terminus of the existing 19th Street in Redmond and the northern terminus of Deschutes Junction Phase II PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 29 interchange improvements. Additionally, an alignment west of the railroad and east of US 97 would not be consistent with the Deschutes Junction Phase II interchange site plan as approved in CU-08-42 and A-08-13. Any alternative east of the transportation corridor identified in the UDRMP would require amending the UDRMP to identify a new transportation corridor. It can be assumed that the UDRMP EIS has already identified and selected the transportation corridor with the least, if any, environmental, economic, social, or energy adverse impacts. Finally, the alignment identified in the UDRMP is the shortest alignment possible between existing 19th Street in Redmond and Deschutes Junction. A longer alignment would result in increased energy consumption to build and the resulting out of direction travel by users would also result in increased energy consumption. (b) Determine whether the net adverse impacts associated with the proposed exception site are significantly more adverse than the net impacts from other locations which would also require an exception. A proposed exception location would fail to meet this requirement only if the affected local government concludes that the impacts associated with it are significantly more adverse than the other identified exception sites. The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the needed transportation facility or improvement at the proposed exception location are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed location. Where the proposed goal exception location is on resource lands subject to Goals 3 or 4, the exception shall include the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive; the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base; and FINDING: While there will be a loss of irrigated EFU land at the south end, there is no alternative that does not require building on irrigated EFU land. Air photo analysis was used to identify irrigated agriculture. On the properties between the BNSF and US 97 the lands are irrigated EFU in the vicinity of Deschutes Junction. For the alternative to go farther east of the transportation corridor identified in the UDRMP, there are irrigated EFU lands as well. Additionally, if 19th were swung southeast of its currently proposed alignment it would ultimately intersect Morrill Road, which is classified as a local road. Morrill Road would have to be reclassified as a rural arterial and then reconstructed to meet the county's standard for that classification. To upgrade Morrill Road to handle 19th Street traffic wishing to go west to Deschutes Junction, the existing right of way would have to be widened by at least 40' to meet Deschutes County standards for a rural arterial. The lands along the affected segment of Morrill are also irrigated EFU. In summary, any other alternative would also consume as much or more irrigated EFU lands, have higher construction costs, and impose out of direction travel on users. The PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 30 proposed 19th Street has the least amount of adverse effects among all alternatives requiring a goal exception. (c) The evaluation of the consequences of general locations or corridors need not be site-specific, but may be generalized consistent with the requirements of section (3) of this rule. Detailed evaluation of specific alternative locations identified by parties during the local exceptions proceeding is not required unless such locations are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the locations have significantly fewer net adverse economic, social, environmental and energy impacts than the proposed exception location. FINDING: No alternative locations that would require a goal exception achieve the goals of 1) consistency with the transportation corridor identified in the UDRMP; 2) are consistent with the Deschutes Junction Interchange Phase II site plan approved in CU- 08-42 and A-08-13; 3) provide a parallel route to US 97 that would relieve the Yew/97 interchange; and 4) would be an efficient geometric design that would meet Deschutes County design standards and minimize costs; and 5) would be a shorter route and thus impact a lesser amount of EFU land. (8) To address Goal 2, Part II(c)(4), the exception shall: (a) Describe the adverse effects that the proposed transportation improvement is likely to have on the surrounding rural lands and land uses, including increased traffic and pressure for non-farm or highway oriented development on areas made more accessible by the transportation improvement; FINDING: As explained above, the exception will not have an adverse effect on surrounding rural lands and land uses. The land adjoining the exception area is used for agricultural use and this road alignment will still allow for a viable use of those private land for agricultural uses. The land in federal ownership has been identified in the UDRMP for preservation of natural resources and this road will not interfere with that preservation purpose. As part of the county's ongoing update of the comprehensive plan, the county is drafting a subarea plan for Deschutes Junction. The area residents and property owners on the east side of US 97 have stated they desire to preserve the rural environment and oppose any commercial development. The 19th Street alignment has the BNSF on the western border of the road's right of way. No development pressure can occur there as there is no physical room to develop. Adding the route to the map will not directly result in any increased traffic. (b) Demonstrate how the proposed transportation improvement is compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. Compatible is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 31 impacts of any type with adjacent uses; and FINDING: Roughly 83% of this planned rural arterial will be located in a half-mile wide corridor explicitly reserved in the UDRMP as a transportation and utility corridor. A rural arterial only needs a minimum of 100 feet of right of way. Placing a 100-foot swath within a half-mile wide corridor would give more than ample room to allow for any minor realignments to ensure compatibility or reduce adverse affects to adjacent land uses. Lastly, the proposed 19th Street will abut the BNSF railroad, an existing transportation facility. (c) Adopt as part of the exception, facility design and land use measures which minimize accessibility of rural lands from the proposed transportation facility or improvement and support continued rural use of surrounding lands. FINDING: The Deschutes County Code at 23.64.030(1)(b)(4) requires the county "shall consider roadway function, classification, and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes to assure the proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system." DCC 17.48.210(B) states "The creation of access onto arterials and collectors is prohibited unless there is no other possible means of accessing the parcel." Therefore, county operational policies and access management spacing policies will ensure travel and access will be consistent with the road's rural arterial designation. The county road approach permit process will minimize accessibility to adjacent rural lands from the proposed transportation facility and will support the continued rural use of the adjacent rural land owned by the applicant. 3. Conformance with Oregon Revised Statutes ORS 197.732 Goal exceptions; criteria; rules; review. FINDING: OAR Chapter 660, Division 4 implements this statute. Therefore, the above responses to the criteria in that OAR demonstrate compliance with the statute. C. Title 22, Deschutes County Procedures Ordinance 22.12.010. Hearing Required. No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless otherwise required by state law FINDING: The county has scheduled a public hearing on this land use application for December 17, 2009, beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Barnes and Sawyer Room, Deschutes Services Center, 117 NW Lafayette, Bend, OR. 22.12.020. Notice. A. Published Notice. PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 32 1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing. 2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under consideration. B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045. C. Individual Notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC 22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as required by ORS 215.503. D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in Deschutes County. FINDING: Notice was published in The Bulletin, a general circulation newspaper serving Central Oregon. The notice described the land use and provided a file number, location, time, and date of the public hearing before the Deschutes County Planning Commission. Individual notices were sent to affected property owners as well as Central Oregon media. The hearing was also posted on the website of the Deschutes County Planning Commission in a timely manner. 22.12.030. Initiation of Legislative Changes. A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of required fees as well as by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Commission. FINDING: The application was submitted by the Deschutes County Road Department as part of the county's update of the TSP. 22.12.040. Hearings Body. A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this order: 1. The Planning Commission. 2. The Board of County Commissioners. B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of Commissioners. FINDING: The land use will be heard before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on December 17, 2009, at 5:30 p.m. and the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, which will also hold a public hearing on a date yet uncertain. 22.12.050. Final Decision. All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance. PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 33 FINDING: These findings are in support of Ordinance 2009-020, therefore, this criteria is met. D. Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 1. Conformance with Chapter 23.60, Transportation 23.60.010(A) Introduction The purpose of DCC 23.60 is to develop a transportation system that meets the needs of Deschutes County residents while also considering regional and state needs at the same time. This plan addresses a balanced transportation system that includes automobile, bicycle, rail, transit, air, pedestrian and pipelines. It reflects existing land use plans, policies and regulations that affect the transportation system. FINDING: A goal exception for 19th Street is consistent with the intent to balance regional and state needs. A future rural arterial between Redmond and Deschutes Junction could serve the transportation needs of both local residents and through travelers. Local residents could use 19th as a "back way" to Redmond, which would reduce traffic on US 97. The future 19th Street would provide another route for cyclists and could be used by transit as well. 23.60.010(D) Road System Configuration Functional classification describes how the public road system should operate. Roads are grouped by their similar characteristics in providing mobility and/or land access. Within the county there are six rural road classifications and nine urban classifications. An explanation of the various road classifications used in Deschutes County is found in Table 1. There are three designated urban areas within the county where the urban standards generally apply, with the rest of the county using the rural standards. Table 2.2.T1 in the Transportation chapter of the Resource Element, provides a mileage and maintenance responsibility breakdown of the various county road classifications. FINDING: The requested land use action is to amend the TSP map to add 19th Street, a future rural arterial. A rural arterial, according to Table 1 "Road Functional Classification" accomplishes the following: • Links cities, larger towns and other major traffic generators, providing interregional and inter-county services; and • Spaced at distances so that all developed lands are with reasonable distance of an arterial highway; and • Provide services to corridors with trip length and travel density greater than that predominately served by rural collector or local systems • Serves the more important intra-county travel corridors • Movement of goods and services • Includes Federal Forest Highways The proposed 19th Street will link Bend and Redmond. The northern terminus connects to the existing City of Redmond's 19th Street. The 19th/Airport Way intersection is approximately a'/-mile east of the US 97New Avenue interchange. At the southern PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 34 terminus, 19th Street connects to the Deschutes Junction Interchange Phase II. Thus 19th Street is spaced at a reasonable distance to an arterial highway, in this case US 97. The proposed 19th Street will provide an alternative route to motorists traveling between the two largest cities in Central Oregon. The north-south route between Bend and Redmond is an important intra-county corridor as can be seen by the presence of Old Bend-Redmond Highway and US 97. 2. Chapter 23.64, Transportation System Plan Section 23.64.020, Coordination and implementation of the TSP Based on the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), Deschutes County has established an ongoing procedure to periodically analyze, prepare, and plan for the transportation needs of Deschutes County residents and visitors. The following goals and policies are intended to implement the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan, and thereby meet the requirements of the TPR. 23.64.020(1)(b) Have an ongoing transportation planning process and maintain a transportation plan that meets the needs of the county and its residents. The transportation plan and facilities of Deschutes County shall be coordinated with the plans and facilities of incorporated cities within Deschutes County, adjacent counties, and the State of Oregon. FINDING: Road Department and Planning staff have identified the need for a parallel local route to meet the transportation needs of Deschutes County residents. The City of Redmond TSP plans for the future presence of 191h Street and the City of Bend has also expressed a desire for an improved Deschutes Market Road/19th Street corridor to accommodate travel between northeast Bend and Redmond. Additionally, the State of Oregon through its transportation agency, ODOT, and state plans such as the Oregon Transportation Plan and the Oregon Highway Plan, has stressed the need for local roads to provide relief to traffic on state facilities. 23.64.030, Arterial and collector roads 23.64.030(1) County road network. The findings in the TSP conclude that the county road network currently in place, except for several specific segments, should be adequate to the county needs over the next twenty years. Given the rural nature of Deschutes County and the fact that the majority of new development will take place on existing lots with existing access, few additional roads are anticipated. New road corridors to isolated subdivisions and new roads linking urban and rural areas are the main exceptions... FINDING: The future rural arterial of 19th Street will be an arterial that provides alternate access between south Redmond and rural areas between Redmond and the Deschutes Junction neighborhood and, thus, links urban and rural areas of the county. 23.64.030(1)(b)(2) Deschutes County shall not add any miles of new road to the system unless the following issues are satisfied: a. The need for the road can be clearly demonstrated; b. The County can financially absorb the additional maintenance PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 35 requirements; c. The condition of the road proposed for acceptance into the County system must meet County road standards; d. An accrued benefit can be shown to the County's economic growth; and e. An overall increase in efficiency in the County road network can be demonstrated FINDING: The need for 19th Street is to provide an alternate route to US 97. The TSP at 23.64.030(1)(a) has a goal to "[E]stablish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified industrial base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism." The future 19th Street will support the industrial development of DSL property to the south of Redmond, enable residents to more easily travel between northeast Bend and southern Redmond, and will provide access to the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and the Redmond Airport. Regarding the latter two, one is a tourism destination and the other provides a tourism gateway to Central Oregon. BOCC Resolution 2009-118 recognizes the county will consider the long-term financial aspects before accepting new roads into the county's system. However, BOCC 2009- 118, Section 4 states ["T]hat the Board may establish roads that are functionally classified as Arterials or Collectors." 19th Street would be an arterial. The current land use is to amend a TSP map and approve an exception to Goal 3. Subsequent to approving this land use, the county will need to apply for a conditional use permit (CUP) to build 19th Street. DCC 17.36, Design Standards, and 17.48, Design and Construction Standards, will apply to 19th Street when it is built. These chapters ensure the road will be constructed to county standards. The accrued benefit to the county's economic growth is supporting continued agricultural practices, provide a potential secondary access to DSL land should it be rezoned for industrial use and provide a non-highway link between the later phases of the City of Bend's Juniper Ridge project and Redmond. The final benefit is providing an alternate route to U.S. 97, thereby avoiding the congestion of the Yew Avenue interchange and any attendant delays to the movement of goods and services. Finally, 19th Street will fill a gap in the county's rural-scale grid system. Currently, only Old Bend-Redmond/South Canal Boulevard provides a parallel alternate route to US 97 between Deschutes Junction and Redmond. By providing a complementary route on the east side of US 97, the future 19th Street will make the county's road network more efficient. 23.64.040, Access Management 23.64.040(1)(a) Establish an access management system adequate to protect the quality and function of the arterial and collector system. FINDING: DCC 17.48.020 and its Table A sets the design specifications for county roads. DCC 17.48.090 sets access management spacing standards and DCC 17.48.210(B) discusses prohibiting new accesses onto arterials and collectors unless there is other way to access the parcel. Thus the county has in place ordinances to PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 36 ensure the quality and function of the future 19th Street. 23.64.040(2)(c) Wherever practical, access to state highways shall be provided via frontage roads, alternative local roads or other means, rather than direct access to the highway. FINDING: The future 19th Street would provide an alternative local road to US 97 between Deschutes Junction and Redmond as well as northeast Bend and Redmond. 3. Conformance with Chapter 23.88, Comprehensive Plan, Agriculture Section 23.88.010. Agricultural Lands. The protection of farmland is a public policy goal of the federal government (USDA, Secretary's Memo #1828, Revised, Oct. 30, 1978), most states in the United States and many other countries. In Oregon, the 1975 Planning Goals, as amended, set statewide standards which must be met by local governments. For farmlands, ORS 215 and 197 and OAR 660, Division 5 set forth the criteria for compliance. The principal concept is that standards in the EFU zones must provide protection for the continuation of commercial- scale agriculture in the County, including farm operations, marketing outlets and the agricultural support system. FINDING: This portion of the comprehensive plan is silent on transportation issues; however, a road is a conditionally allowed use on EFU land, provided the county approves an exception to Goal 3, Agriculture. Section 23.88.010 does identify access to markets as a critical component to continued agricultural vitality. 4. Conformance with Chapter 23.120, Goal Exception Statement 23.120.010. Introduction. The purpose of this document is to identify the lands where Deschutes County shall request the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission grant an exception to meeting the requirements of either Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) or Goal 4 (Forest Land). Further, this statement shall also explain the findings and reasoning which justifies such an exception be granted. FINDING: The contents of this burden of proof shall become part of an attachment to a Board decision documenting the rationale behind the decision to approve an exception to Goal 3, Agriculture, for adding the 19th Street alignment to the Deschutes County TSP map. The attachment will explain the findings and reasoning which justify the exception. Conclusion For the above reasons, the county should approve PA-09-02 to add the future 19th Street to the Deschutes County TSP map. Actual construction will require a CUP and further public hearings so the public can advise and comment upon the design of the road. PA-09-2, 1 9th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 37 PA-09-2, 19th Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Page 38 19th Street Extension - Land Ownership v 19th Street Extension - County Zoning 5 Document Reproduce-. ^ :)orly (Archived) T 12 8 T 13 S8 T 1/ S T 1S a T 1O S T 17 S T 18 S T 19 S T 20 5 T 21 5 T 22 S T 23 S T N 8 R I LV Lagend Admkd$WN Lan& Raw MY Cwklor W _ Burro, of L W4 Mrreg8mar t-- PWmro AM NOonal Fored 1-- LhbwR Gmwlh awow of Ratlernala l - CoMolols Upper Deschutes smo. or orapon EM t CwrIdb` Resource Management Plan Pr1M. ~ oarr FIWA ' Hl1t Br RII mRt 128 b Y W lw wr ~ rb-ry Ynlrr bb Ow2r M laM WrarrOr Y Orr rYOag w vaAY`er wlrr rdbY6Mr w tOO~P1. w .~alrril► o11OYrrrrrewnOOMOwurnw.~watTA Ybllrrt~IrwrRrarwq~rl.rysrlrmt Tarp1 RW Map Z: Transportation and Utilities raw.ar ROE AIOE R/1E R12E R72E 814E RISE RHE R17E 810E Transportation and Utilities Rati' ° FLPMA (43 USC 1761 (a) (1-7) authorizes the Secretary of the interior to grant, issue, or renew rights-of-way over, upon, utrans ortation, opdistribution of "water; ystems fors pipelines, impoundment, storage, P stems for transmission generation, transmission, and distribution telegraph, electric energy, sy Is- and or reception of radio, television, telep oads, trail, highways, railroads, other mean of other means of communication; and interest transportation or other systems or faor through such lands.'lt Each night-of -w Y and require rights-of-way over, upon, under, habitat grant must "Minimize damage tt n{c reiredC pl ance w th appl cablelaarland water otherwise protect the environment; require public health an quality standards; require compliance c n~with r tction, operation, maintenance of or fo'r environmental protection, and g, rights-of-way for similar purposes if those andar bjece more string conthan to cable to terms and Federal standards... Each right-of-way grant is terests; (ii) manage nt thereto and protect the efficiently lawful "(i) Protect Federal property anecono adjace a- which are subject to the right-of-way ° 1 users of the lands adjacent to or traversed by such right-of-way; (iii) protect lives and property; (iv) protect the interests of individuals living in the general area traversed by I the right-of-way who rely on the fish, wildlife, and other biotic resources of the area for subsistence purposes; (v) require location of the right-of-way along a route that will cause the right relevant deration feasibility and least damage to the environment, tathe king into consi factors; and (vi) otherwise poote mterest in the lands traversed by other S of-way or adjacent thereto." (43 USC 1765 (a) and (b)) ~ Objectives in granting rights-of-way and temporary use permits (43 CFR 2800) are to "(1) protect the natural resources associated with the publiTe lands uannd adjacent oprivate prevent or other lands administered by a government agency, (2) environmental damage to the lands and resources, (3) promote the utilization of rights-g and national atib com of-way in common with respect to en gine thenra e to theechnol fullesp extent possib el hall ~ actin security and land use plans and (4) co taken pursuant to this part with State and local governments, interested individuals, and appropriate quasi-public entities." ett.,cations/Allowable Uses: 1 All transportahon/utility corridors identified by the Western Regional Corridor Study are designated as transportationlutility corridors. Existing communications sites in the planning area are identified. 2. Areas of critical environmental concern, l emus st dy areas, and Wild an areas. Scenic Rivers are designated $ 3. All areas identified as having special status plant or animal species are designated as avoidance areas. 4. Designate all existing right-of-way routes as local corridors for future collocation o compatible projects. Guides nes: aila 1. BLM administered lands will ci n~ns°o Cation orridorsgfollowing e~~ cS g multiple use and single use u~ty/tra P routes, and roads. 135 ~ ) %I UW*1" (C*) Resource Management rtan Rationale: Repeated use of a road or other staging area by tanks and other heavy equipment can damage the facilities. Site hardening and surfacing or grading roads can minimize the damage caused by this equipment. Rationale. gee objective TU -1. Allocations/AlIowable Uses: network and transportation/utility corridors ass own . Designate the collector road 1 on RMP Map 2 Designate, C (wide and.exat otendix~ zjt~ramsP4Ytaton ~o or a~ zs> Mad " - 1QttrPRedinon to D a#m approximaf"ely the Ad cl . ` ction to Quarry Avenue that w)1 allow for a futur'. lncs a conk,,: corridor, }~etwsex~ the. exis ft 1 ~ Q d. nortYi of Stag: Highway ' 1 t ate ' a with the;ez~isting State Highway 126 outside toteeclznorid 12 am connecting 9 , ways tectiom fox:futue realignment of Iii Airport-~un~'aY pro ~e nbjeTi7 - 6: Provide motorized access to facilitate reasonable entry and operations for administrative purposes. Ratio e: To meet BLM administrative needs for land and resource management activities, public access restrictions may Designations). Administrative aecedi Wed bee required Map 3 for Travel Management in cases of accestudying natural resources, wand to rconstruct maintain, and of protecting, restoring, or access private property or facilities. Examples of such administrative and managemen activities include but may not be limited emergency fa cities .e. fire su on/ ssion, hazmat clean-up, law enforcement), rights-of-way and ducation maintenance and ingress/egress private in-holdings, authorized mirie~emate al sitesmtoring/ inventory, military training, 1d ~ traditional cultural uses, and other activities allowed under written authorization. Allocations/Allowable Usee: vehicle use off of designated roads/trails is not allowed: a. In WSAs and ISAs (Instant Study Areas) at any time of the year (access on August approved activities). designated roads Mdlk e the ACEC during March fl for b. In the Peck Guidelines: 1. Groups and pents in the ranted administrative contract, access will be agreementlwhich w ll stipul to and requirem specific what types of activities and travel will be allowed, and under what conditions. 2. Administrative access includes but is not limited to: a. Access to designated Closed areas (seasonally or year-round). b. Access on designated or existing road systems that are closed (seasonally or year-round). 139 Guidelines: (greater than 10,000 GVW), provide For repeated activities involving heavy equipment ...,-f-A"a and maintenance that protects the roadbed. ~XlA&-T vs. ~o. Tse 1...0. Wherever practical, access to state highways shall be provided via frontage roads, alternative local roads or other means, rather than direct access to the highway. 21. A non-traversible median on state highways shall be installed by ODOT when operational or safety issues warrant installation. Directional breaks in the median shall be provided as needed to allow safe traffic operation. 22. Access requests onto Deschutes County arterials and collectors for new partitions, subdivisions and commercial and industrial development shall be processed with the following access management classification system in mind: a. Public road access spaced at no less than every 500 feet on arterials and 300 feet on collectors. b. If either safety or environmental factors, or the unavailability of adequate distance between access points requires placing access points at lesser intervals, then access will be denied or the best alternative placement will be chosen. On road segments that are already severely impacted by numerous access points or on road segments which abut exception areas, adherence to the above standards may be either unreasonable or counterproductive to infill of exception areas. In such cases, these standards may be relaxed by the County Road Department Director to accommodate the aforementioned special conditions. Functional Classification Functional classification describes how the public road system should operate. Roads are grouped by their similar characteristics in providing mobility and/or land access. Within the County, there are six rural road classifications and nine urban classifications. Further coordination is needed between the County and cities in Deschutes County regarding the functional classification of County roads within city limits and urban growth boundaries. Currently, the County maintains approximately 123 miles of roadway within city limits and urban growth boundaries. The County lacks funds to upgrade these roads to city urban standards. Strengthening and revising Urban Growth Management agreements with cities may be an effective way to pursue-Jtight-coordination on this-important- issue -and reduce the long-term financial burden to the County. As an example, the County and the City of Bend have agreed that as of July 1, 1998, all roads within the Bend UGB will become the responsibility of the City of Bend. This shift reduces the County's urban road mileage by approximately 70%. The following changes to functional classification are identified on the Deschutes County Transportation Plan Map, designated as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 98-044, and also identified on the more detailed maps located in the Transportation System Plan which is part of the Resource Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Bend TSP The draft Bend Transportation System Plan is proposing only one change in functional classification to a County road within the UGB. However, with the recent management agreement, this road will become the jurisdiction of the City of Bend. The functional classification of all other roads that cross the Bend UGB between the City and the County have been coordinated. PAGE 20 of 42 - EXHIBIT "A" to ORDINANCE NO. 98-044 (8/26/98) v a w w I - N z N LL U N ' N 4) 3 LM L6 L CU = m N CL E U cco 0( yr 0 me-.S 1! t: ~ (1) c p -o oa a S aQ U ~ •c c 0 c m ' z a. Da . ir ir or U c ` LL Q' _ a c ~ m J ,z ~e b U V ~ ry F~ Z L' o . W 3 <s~ bM Y W Z N~i v Z V, r s _ _ N :3 ~G W M Z W J g ~ 3 CO) Go r i Ha U) O ca o (D U o p DKS Associates ~XH~Q i7 ~Ibft~°o® TSP TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS Figure 9-1 FUNCTIONAL CLASS rdcomm nd ns for or when fu re I d use d c amendmen s, are can Ids Designation of these roje planned facilites or mpro will require an ame dmei the Deschutes Cou ty TSP and/or a UGB ame diner ■ ■ ill a UGB id will be as UGBB m, • f4' 1 ■ r k= • ~f tx' ■ i f / "♦4 Weilside Aderial wX Include coordinoBon with Deschutes W County ovistde the UGB if ri rr rr FF ~ spy In ~ rr ~Qti rr rr m rr 7 P i 11 ti~~~ ~ e 3" en . tiv 9 ig , ~t~a t°at nm ~onceP ~ ♦ SWKe: ♦ ♦ ~l I Deschutes Count' city Redmond r ♦ ~ 1 Redmond eUrban Area ♦ Transportation Plan Oclober 2006 i i t 1 1 rl r` 1 Functional Class Major Arterial Minor Arterial stiiiiiiiiiis Rural Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Rural Collector - Local Street Note: Doshed line indicates future roadway * Potential Interchange Railroad City Limit Urban Growth Boundary " City of Redmond A Transportation System Plan NOr ro SCALE =i'"• "i'll ■