The URL can be used to link to this page

2012-142-Minutes for Meeting March 26,2012 Recorded 4/19/2012COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS OJ 2012.142 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 04/1912012 09;34;21 AM IIIIIIIIIIJ1111111111111 III III 2012-1 i Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012 Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone and Tammy Baney; Commissioner Alan Unger was out of the office. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Chris Doty and George Kolb, Road Department; Peter Russell, Community Development, Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and ten other citizens, including media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Finance/Tax Update. Marty Wynne was unable to attend, so this item was placed on the March 28 agenda. 2. Discussion of Trip 97 Partnership. Chris Doty said that the main issue is the highway projects tend to be larger, and may not reasonably be subject to funding. Baseline levels are raised to a higher capacity rate. The highway plan allows communities to establish their own performance measure standards. They are not just focused on an intersection, the highway or one community; this is now being viewed as a larger system, involving various cities, which may allow for some congestion in some areas if the approach benefits the overall system. Funding mechanisms are designed to take small bites. Tax increment financing could be one of these, as well as pooling resources for urban renewal funding. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 26, 2012 Page 1 of 10 Property taxes should not be the only source for funding. Income taxes might be used due to job creation if the highways are working properly. Congestion leads; but they cannot wait for future development to fund improvements. Local state-federal buy-in allows for cooperation rather than competing for the same money. The process would involve a partnership, through an intergovernmental agreement between the cities, and a separate one with ODOT. It would be administered by the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization. The project management team and project steering teams are being developed, and they want the participation of the County. The notice to proceed is out, and the project should take about 12 to 18 months. There is a consultant team with five companies involved, and Kittleston is taking the lead. The tasks are: • A charter - who does what; • Performance measures development - what has already been done; • Development of corridor improvements and strategies - system-wide; • A funding and governance proposal - the most important piece; and • A public outreach and involvement plan. They are developing a virtual advisory committee to allow for outreach, suggestions and input from all areas. There has been a lot of statewide interest in this concept. Deschutes County's role would include being on the project management team (Chris Doty); and a steering committee with a representative from the Board or Administration. The goal would be to balance transportation needs with economic development needs and priorities, to represent interests that are directly impacted, and to inform elected officials and the community as appropriate. The group has to address potential fiscal issues and political support. Laws may need to be changed to address this concept. This is not a simple problem with easy answers, and will need a unique solution. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 26, 2012 Page 2of10 Commissioner Baney stated that in regard to standards and performance outcomes, people will need to understand that concessions will be necessary. The Oregon Transportation Commission is heavy on community and local awareness. She does not want someone feeling surprised later. Mr. Doty said that communities may have to accept some congestion in some areas, to benefit everyone as a whole. This involves mostly State roads inside urban growth boundaries. The funding would be used to manage existing systems rather than for bricks and mortar. For instance, there may be more congestion in urban areas, but the speed limit might be raised between cities to make up for delays in other locations. Alternative modes would be analyzed as well. They don't have funds to buy a lot of projects anymore, but can buy a lot of programs. They can work towards adjusted work hours and other transportation modes to get more out of what is already there. 3. Update on Skyliners Road Project and Petition for 8-Foot Bike Lanes. George Kolb updated the group on the Skyliners Road project and the petition for eight-foot bike lanes. He said Heidi Lansdowne is present for questions regarding the City of Bend water project. The issue is putting in eight-foot wide versus six-foot wide bike lanes. He and others have been working on the bike lane issue since October 2011. They looked at almost every source available for bike guidelines and code, and they can only substantiate and defend six-foot wide lanes. Originally the lanes were to be five feet wide, but this was expanded to six feet and will be striped for bike lanes. The main differences are that cars are not allowed to park in official bike lanes, and bikes are limited to using the lanes and not the vehicular part of the road. Tad Hodgert and others who signed his petition wanted ten or twelve-foot wide bike lanes, but those usually involve separate bike paths. Wider paths directly along roads can cause more problems than they solve due to the temptation of people to park there. They did a traffic count and the volume does not support any more than six-foot wide lanes. The letter accompanying the petition did not ask for a response, but Mr. Kolb wanted the Board to be aware of it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 26, 2012 Page 3 of 10 The issues with putting in eight-foot wide lanes are the cost and having to obtain extra rights of way. The federal government, which owns much of the land along the road, will only allow for six feet and the County would have to pay for any additional federal land. The County may not have to acquire any additional rights of way for six feet. Also, they would have to obtain rights of way from the individually-owned private parcels. He added that the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee supports the six-foot wide lane. He added that the property owners in the subdivision wanted to see only five-foot wide lanes in the developed area, since the road is narrower and it is 25 MPH anyway. The Road Department also recommends six-foot wide lanes, and a letter of support from the Board to the federal government would be helpful to reinforce this. As designed, the City's water line would be centered on the bike lane stripe, off the lane itself. Adding width would necessitate approximately a year longer to the construction timeline. The plans are developed at about 90% now. There will be a public meeting on this soon. The City will be starting the water line work this summer, with road construction to take place in the spring of 2013. Commissioner Baney stated that the Board should indicate now that they support six feet. If eight feet was justified, the County or others could try to find the money, but nothing shows that this is necessary or would add to safety. It may be just a `want' and not a `need' to some. Nothing from those that do this kind of work supports that eight feet is needed. She appreciates Mr. Hodgert's desire and feelings towards this, but she wants to support what the Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Group has recommended. The facts have been reviewed, and the lanes were adjusted from five to six feet. The evidence doesn't support anything wider. Chair DeBone added that the concept also was to get the water pipes and a new road in at the same time, and he does not want to see a delay. Commissioner Baney asked that a message be sent to Mr. Hodgert and the others, along with a letter to the federal government, that the six-foot wide bike lanes are supported by the County. The County has not heard from a wide variety of people on this issue, and has done the best work possible, in an expedited fashion. The facts do not support the implied safety concerns. She suggested that perhaps the Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee also submit a letter detailing their recommendations. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 26, 2012 Page 4 of 10 Mr. Kolb indicated that eight feet might make it even less safe, by encouraging three or four riders abreast. The City of Bend's bike lanes are six feet, including Century Drive, which supports a lot more vehicular traffic. BANEY: Move signature of a letter of support to the federal government supporting the six-foot wide bike lanes; and a letter to the petitions indicating the Board's position on this. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 4. Transportation System Plan Update. Peter Russell said that a hearing on the TSP update is scheduled for the April 16 Board business meeting. He asked if the Board would also like to hold an evening hearing. The Commissioners agreed that this was good idea. Mr. Russell stated that this has been a multi-year process. (He presented a matrix at this point.) Some owners involved in the Deschutes Junction refinement plan want that done as part of the TSP. Staff's response was that this is not necessary in the TSP, since the interchange is working well now. They would rather see this in the work program. There was a letter of intent to ODOT and others regarding an intent to apply for a grant deadline, seeking funding from two sources for a Deschutes Junction master plan. However, he is not sure if the State will be able to come up with the funds. From an operational standpoint, they need to know what ODOT's final plans are for that location. The Deschutes Junction frontage road has operational issues with Highway 97. A raised median and a frontage road may offer access without using Highway 97. ODOT could modify the language to show a preference for a frontage road. The issue that took him by surprise was the Deschutes River trail. The farthest one is a pedestrian trail at south canyon reach. Cyclists can't use it from Mt. Bachelor Village. Deschutes River Woods residents would also like to have a crossing nearby, at perhaps the southwest corner of the urban growth boundary, at Buckhom Road. The City wants the County to take a more proactive stance. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 26, 2012 Page 5of10 At one point, there was policy language for non-motorized bridge traffic. There is a basic disagreement regarding bridges. The Planning Commission would like to strike out the OAR's regarding bridge language; the City wants bicycle and pedestrian trails. There will be more discussion about this. There have been a good number of letters and some input from Bend Parks & Recreation at the Planning Commission meetings. It makes sense from a transportation standpoint, but the OAR's don't allow it. They intend to update the bike map with designated County bikeways. The State has a program of scenic bikeways, such as Twin Bridges Loop and McKenzie Pass, and others. He has worked with cyclists toward some roads being designated as bikeways. If these are not County-maintained roads, they can't spend money on them. The other hot spot is U.S. Highway 20 and the town of Tumalo. They have been working on this project for years, with the State suggesting a raised median with grade separation. They started out with twenty designs and are down to two. The County roads would run either over or under the highway. ODOT has not yet picked the preferred alternative. The County prefers I-3, under the highway that also allows turns off Cook. They want ODOT to have a hearing in Tumalo for public input. This is a $15 million project with no funding and no interim proposal. A roundabout would not work there. Some wanted a raised median and straight- across access. There is opposition to the raised median, and no real answers for the moment. This would affect bicycle use and local businesses. They are now working on monument signs with the community. The median is the hardest part. Most crashes are due to turns and crossings. ODOT has not looked at alternative standards. A traffic signal would cause long lines of traffic and backups in the community, and east-west circulation would then be a problem. A simple overpass won't work, because people would have to drive a long way to be able to get back towards Bend. Table 5-3 was revised. A solution in Tumalo remains a high priority due to safety issues. "High" means when they have the money, taking as long as five years. ODOT also hopes to construct some additional passing lanes going towards Sisters. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 26, 2012 Page 6 of 10 The MPO documents suggest an interchange at Quarry Road and Highway 97. This is already on the TSP as an interchange, and they collected SDC's based on this. It is critical for Redmond's development plans. In regard to U.S. Highway 20 towards Black Butte Ranch, they are getting some push-back from Sisters people who are concerned about the loss of trees and potentially higher speeds. It is a safety issue, with potential fatal head-on collisions when there are no passing lanes. The Planning Commission is comfortable proceeding with the passing lanes in a four-phase approach, with the goal ultimately to have divided lanes in some areas. They have been discussing rural roundabouts. The freight industry does not like them. The Planning Commission agreed that this slows traffic, but keeps things moving when traffic flows are lower. In regard to 19th Street, Redmond will propose an amendment to the TSP from south of Redmond to Quarry. There would be a similar TSP for Helmholtz to Quarry and the ring road. They talked about updating the TSP, but staffing changes in Redmond means a lack of expertise. The County will help them review it, but there is no timeframe yet. The burden of proof will be to show how much it is needed, with traffic volumes. A shorter segment and a collector classification do not require showing impacts on statewide planning goals. Chair DeBone asked if the TSP is in Code. Mr. Russell said that it is referenced as exhibits to Ordinances. The TSP is part of the Comprehensive Plan. The document to come before the Board would be what was submitted to DLCD previously. Some of it has been deleted or expanded, and that will be the final proposed document. There will be an executive summary available at the hearing. This document is based on a twenty-year vision. It started in 2010 and ends in 2030, but can be updated about every five years. 5. Other Items. Commissioner Baney explained that she has been analyzing ways to look at facilitating tourism in this area, including hiring a facilitator to oversee the process. She has contacted Travel Oregon and the Carazio Group, and has asked for a proposal. They specialize in high-stakes facilitation. It is a main industry in this area and she hopes to be able to see it gets its just due. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 26, 2012 Page 7of10 Chair DeBone asked if this is a common problem. Commissioner Baney said it is; there has not been this level of interaction recently, but it comes up about every ten years. They need to see how marketing and tourism is handled here. This is not a new issue. The facilitators have worked with the Oregon Coast Visitors Association. The helped the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association blend successfully; and they have also helped local governments. She recommends a two-prong approach. Phase I would be to determine the scope of the challenge, and look at who is already involved with tourism dollars; who needs to be at the table, and how broad the issues are. The second phase would be a business model going forward. She does not want this whole issue played out in the media like it has been recently. She would like to see the County help get things back on track. She vetted this idea with the tourism folks, and most feel this group can handle the challenge. The County could ask the organizations to cover the cost, or use economic development funds. They could request private entities, such as Sunriver, participate; or a combination of the above. Chair DeBone asked about equity, and the politics of who puts in more than others. Commissioner Baney stated that the industry thinks the County's policy is broken. Chair DeBone noted that there are often turf wars with this kind of thing. People are promoting but not necessarily doing things wrong. Commissioner Baney said that this issue comes up fairly often. She is not sure they will ever get the tourism agencies to align or work together. But the County needs to try to facilitate these efforts for the good of all, and pick up some of the costs. Chair DeBone asked about Phase I. Commissioner Baney stated that it will be the facilitator's opportunity to find out the challenges. There are many vested interests here. Perhaps the County could pick up the costs of Phase I. She wants the County to be able to have a hands-off approach, let Phase I go forward and perhaps request financial contributions from the entities for Phase II. Chair DeBone said that people might look at the direction things are going and decide not to invest. Mr. Pilliod added that the difficulty is them trying to find funding for the second phase. This is outreach dependent. It is expecting a lot to think the County should pay for the whole thing, but the County does collect lodging taxes. Perhaps those should be available for this kind of joint effort, but some of it may already be committed. They could put some pressure on partners and work with the cities on the rest. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 26, 2012 Page 8 of 10 Commissioner Baney said that she would request this of the City of Bend rather than Visit Bend. The County could ask COVA, and obtain the rest from private entities. This needs to have a unified voice. Mr. Pilliod stated that through the scoping efforts, people could begin to see what is in it for them. There are advantages but there needs to be something tangible. The contract with the County could be bifurcated, Phase I and Phase II. The County could pull out after Phase 1, but identify the funds first. Commissioner Baney said that she wants the involvement of private businesses. It is their business, bringing in the dollars. Some may want to support the conversation, but some may not. The facilitator would not know who donated how much. Some COVA members feel this is very important, and needs to include Mt. Bachelor and Sunriver. It should be fully vetted. She said she thought Phase I would cost about $4,500 plus travel expenses. She added that the City of Bend does not want to use tax dollars for this effort. Some community partners feel it is very important, though. She wants to get this out of the hands of the media and involve everyone who gets transient lodging taxes, including the cities, chambers of commerce and others. She wants the County to assist but not be the facilitator. Mr. Pilliod said that they could send a proposal to the various entities and ask if they want to participate or offer to pay some portion of the costs, before going forward. This idea needs to sell itself in some way. Some might like the idea but don't have the funds. They can find out who is in and who isn't, and see what is left over to cover. If they get a buy-in ahead of time, it puts it on firmer ground. Chair DeBone would like to talk with the chambers and the cities. There are basically two big players and a lot of bit players. He wants to get this out to everyone and define who the parties are. Commissioner Baney said that this would involve all who get transient lodging tax money. She can ask Finance for the percentage of who gets what. COVA and Visit Bend have talked, but there are no more comments on the current situation; this needs to be facilitated. Many are jumping into ideas for solutions that have not been adequately discussed. She would also like to involve service partners that might have an interest. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 26, 2012 Page 9 of 10 Chair DeBone said he is supportive of the idea, and feels the timing is right. Commissioner Bane added that the conversation needs to happen. There is too much history which will repeat itself otherwise. The County should take the big step to get this going in the right direction. However, one proposal says that this is a County problem, and some may not want to invest for that reason. Chair DeBone indicated that he does not want the County taking the lead. The cities and chamber and others need a chance to respond as well. They can then decide if they are a player. Commissioner Baney said that she will contact the various entities that have expressed an interest, and see how well this idea is accepted. The County may not be the best one to convene the conversation and start the process, but someone needs to do something. Being no further discussion, the meeting ended at 12:10 p.m. DATED this Day of 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeBone, Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary At,- Alan Unger, Vice Chair Abw') Tammy aney, Co missioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 10 of 10 Monday, March 26, 2012 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012 1. Finance/Tax Update - Marty Wynne 2. Discussion of Trip 97 Partnership - Chris Doty, George Kolb 3. Update on Skyliners Road Project and Petition for 8-Foot Bike Lanes - George Kolb, Road Department; and Heidi Lansdowne, City of Bend 4. TSP Update - Peter Russell 5. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. !f you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. 3/26/2012 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) ■ 3. The TRIP 97 Partnership ■ 4. Status of the Project ■ 5. What is the role of Deschutes County? ■ 1. A history of Transportation Planning. ■ 2. The TRIP 97 Concept 3/26/2012 ■ Transportation Planning Rule established in 1991 to implement Goal 12 ■ Identifies/emphasizes the relationship between land use and transportation. ■ TPR amended in 2005 (Jaqua vs City of Springfield). ■ Transportation improvements that are relied upon to mitigate traffic impact must be "reasonably likely" to be funded. • Game Changer! ■ Growth in Central Oregon necessitates large scale expansion of Urban Growth Boundaries. Significant transportation impact to existing congested corridors. ■ Stringent Oregon Highway Plan mobility standards. Strive to provide 30% excess capacity during the most congested 15 minutes of the day during the 3011 highest hour of the year - 20 years from today. ■ Focused on singular intersection performance. ■ Conservative Design Standards. t I~ ■ Focused on protection of investment. 1 2 ■ Oregon's Land Use System: Born May 29, 1973 (SB 100) • Establishes LCDC ■ Establishes 14 Land Use Goals • Goal 12: Transportation 3/26/2012 ■ Post-Jaqua: The projects must be "reasonably likely" to be funded. ■ Logical Outcome: Inability to proceed with development projects/land entitlement. ■ Prioritize Regional Investment ■ Best-value approach within the region. WLW" • Methodology example: An improvement in Bend may provide mitigation benefit to development projects in La Pine, Redmond, Madras, etc. W013016W ■ New/Unique Funding Mechanisms irw3 m ■ Small bites from many different sources tied to growth (tax increment concepts). • Pooled resources. ■ Recognize/accept that congestion leads and improvements lag due MPW-' lfir to timing of funding accumulation. ■ Create Local/State/Federal "buy-in" and investment W 3 ■ The existing approach results in plans which produce large scale, un-fundable projects. ■ Redefining Performance Measurement ■ Corridor approach recognition (vs intersection only) 3/26/2012 ■ Administered by Bend MPO: ■ Financial Commitment: $350,000 • ODOT (via Bend MPO): $250,000 • Bend: $70,000 • Redmond: $23,500 • Madras: $5,000 • La Pine: $1,500 ■ Project Management Team/Project Steering Team: ■ Reps from each participating agency plus Deschutes County and Jefferson County. ■ Progression of Project • 1. Scope developed: Fall 2011 • 2. RFP issued/consultant team selected: Winter 2011 3. Notice to proceed: Spring 2012 • 4. Project length: 12 to 18 months ■ Consultant Team • 1. Kittelson and Associates (prime/transportation) 2. ECONorthwest (finance/policy) ■ 3. Siegal Consulting (finance/governance) ■ 4. Mark Greenfield (legal/regulatory) • 5. HDR (prioritization) 4 ■ IGA between cities of Bend, La Pine, Madras, Redmond, and the Bend MPO (and ODOT via separate IGA with Bend MPO). • First Project: Fund study of TRIP 97 Concept (Phase 1) 3/26/2012 ■ Task 1: Project Charter ■ Define Expectations and Responsibilities ■ Task 2: Performance Measure Development • Consolidate existing plans (TSPs, Comp Plans, Corridor Studies, Modal Plans, etc) ■ Develop corridor based PMs ■ Task 3: Corridor Improvements and Strategies Existing/Future needs assessment and gap analysis ■ Prioritization list and strategies ■ Task 4: Funding and Governance Proposals ■ Develop a funding model/matrix ■ Task 5: Public Outreach and Involvement Plan • Targeted outreach to stakeholders ■ "Virtual Advisory Committee" of expanded statewide stakeholders ■ What is our role during development of the study? • Participate in Project Management Team (Chris Doty) and Project Steering Team (Erik Kropp) meetings. • Assist in developing the solution to balance transportation system and economic development needs and goals. • Represent interests directly affecting County Road Network. ■ Inform elected officials and community of progress at appropriate intervals. ■ What is our potential role at implementation? )TES ■ Awareness of potential fiscal impact. G■ Poli tical support (legislative effort). - t? ~ 5 XA1 TES (U ~ IVI < Road Department 61150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: GEORGE KOLB, COUNTY ENGINEER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EIGHT (8) FOOT BIKE LANES ON SKYLINERS ROAD DATE: 3/26/2012 WORK SESSION CC: MIKE ODEM, FI-IWA JENNIFER CORWIN, FHWA CHRIS DOTY, ROAD DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ERIK KROPP, INTERIM COUNTY ADMISTRATOR The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the reasoning behind the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and County going with six (6) foot bike lanes versus the eight (8) foot bike lanes requested by Tad Hodgert. October 2010: A public scoping meeting was held concerning the project and it was at this meeting that Mr. Hodgert first proposed the eight (8) foot bike lanes. November/December 2010: Project was first proposed with five (5) foot bikeways with eleven (11) foot travel lanes February 2011: a meeting with held with the residents that live on Skyliners Road to inform them of the project and get their input on the design. It was at this meeting that the residents expressed concern about a five (5) foot bike lane and they informed the County and FHWA that they would like to see a six (6) foot bike lane. May 2011: FHWA presented its proposed roadway plan at the Bicycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). BPAC requested FHWA to consider incorporating six (6) foot bike lanes into its design. June 2011: A public meeting was held concerning the Skyliners road project and waterline project. The FHWA informed the public that they were going to design the project with six (6) foot bike lanes versus the five (5) foot bikeways originally proposed. In a comment letter, dated Quality Services Performed with Pride June 17, 2011, received in response to the public meeting, BPAC conveyed its support for FHWA's proposal. Six foot bike lanes meet or exceed local, state, and federal guidelines. Reasoning behind the six (6) foot bike lane: 1. AASHTO Guidelines (2004) a. Recommend a minimum of 4-foot shoulders where bike use is prevalent. 2. The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian plan states the following: a. When providing shoulders for bicycle use (as is the case for this project), a width of 6 feet is recommended. Minimums widths for rural roads with Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 400 -1500, are: i. Rural Arterials: 6' ii. Rural Collectors: 5' iii. Rural Locals: 5' b. Skyliners Road is classified as a rural collector with an ADT that ranges from 1202 cars/day at the City Limits to 380 cars/day at the subdivision at the end of the road, therefore the recommended minimum width per the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian plan would be five (5) feet. c. "Steep grades" (not defined), shoulder bikeways should be at a minimum of five feet. A six-foot width is preferred. There are a couple locations on Skyliners road where grade is at 6%. d. Per the plan, a bike lane with a width of eight (8) feet would only be recommended on roads with an ADT of greater than 2000 cars/day. e. The plan also states that with bike lanes wider that six (6) feet, care must be taken so they are not mistaken for a motor vehicle lane, turn lane or parking area, with adequate marking or signing. 3. Deschutes County Code, Title 17, Table "B", Minimum Bikeway Design Standards states a width of six (6) feet for bike lane on urban arterial or major collector, or rural roads near urban areas with high anticipated bike use. 4. The design of Skyliners Road was shared with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and they are in favor of the six (6) foot bike lane per letter dated June 17, 2011 5. Conversations with Steve Jorgensen, Bend Park and Recreation District indicate that six (6) foot bike lanes are adequate for Skyliners Road and a bike lane width of eight (8) feet can contribute to higher vehicle speeds. 6. There is no data demonstrating that shoulders wider than six feet provide safety benefits that warrant the expenditure of additional public funds. FHWA has stated that if the County decides to go with the eight (8) foot bike lanes, the County will have to fund the additional cost. Preliminary estimates put the cost at approximately $450,000 and this does not include the additional cost for right of way. 7. The wider width will also increase the maintenance cost of the roadway over time. 8. There is no documentation supporting the claim that eight (8) foot bikes lanes are necessary or are safer than a six (6) foot lane.. Attachments: a) Letter dated January 18, 2012 from Tad Hodgert b) Sheets 1-8 and 1-11 of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan c) Traffic counts and bicycle counts from May/July 2009 d) Table "B", Minimum Bikeway Design Standards, Deschutes County Code, Title 17 e) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee letter dated 6/17/2011 supporting the six (6) foot bike lanes f) E-mail from Steve Jorgensen, Bend Park and Recreation District supporting the six (6) foot bike lane g) Letter dated March 13, 2012 from FHWA discussing the issue concerning the shoulder width issue. Masters of Dentistry Tad Hodgert, DMD /'11\ Fellow: mational Congress of Oral Implantology Assoc. Fellow: American Academy of Implant Dentistry January 18, 2012 George Kolb Deschutes County Engineering 61150 SE 27th Street Bend, OR 97702 Dear George: 628 NW York Drive, Suite 101 Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 389-2300 • Fax (541) 389-2301 tad @ mastersofdenti s try.net www.mastersofdentistry.net Enclosed please find signed petitions supporting the construction of an eight-foot bike lane to be installed during the redevelopment of Skyliners road. Skyliners is not a normal roadway. What makes it unique is the extremely high volume of recreational usage by locals as well as thousands of tourists annually. It is a gateway for many of Bend's most popular cross country ski, mountain biking, running, snowshoeing and scenic areas. It also consistently serves as a busy industrial route for log trucks, aggregate trucks, wood cutters and plow trucks. A bike lane wider than six feet is recommended with high usage or if foot traffic also uses the bike lane. Oregon design standards demand a 10-foot width for a low use multi- use bike way, 12-foot for high use; where both path sizes separated from motorized traffic. Skyliner's multi-use reality certainly warrants a path at least 8-feet in width given the high volume and variety of usage. When the road is beautifully paved with smooth pavement, traffic speeds will accelerate to those well beyond the current norm. Safety is a huge factor supporting the installation of an 8-foot lane. An additional benefit is that an 8-foot bike lane gives us a national caliber bike course with national caliber staging and parking areas (Miller and Summit schools). The several national level events held on Skyliners road these past years bring much needed dollars into the local economy. Build it right, many more will come. Let's do this right. It will be 50 more years before it is redone again. For economic reasons, for safety reasons, for the joy of why Westside Bend is so desirable, let's do this right. Appreciatively, n Tad Hodgert, DMD; (54 410-0215 Cc: Tammy Baney, Mike Odom CHAPTER 1: ON-ROAD BIKEWAYS Potential bicycle boulevard implementation problems Problems can arise under these conditions: 1. If they re discontinuous and/or located on streets that do not provide direct access to commerce and other destinations, cyclists will have to negotiate a more hostile street environment to complete portions of their trip. Bike boulevards must be continuous and close to corridors that serve many destinations; short connections may have to be built to provide continuity and access. 2. They can cause motor vehicle traffic diversion onto other streets. Neighborhood concerns must be properly addressed. 3. Failure to provide adequate crossings of busy streets can result in unsafe conditions for bicyclists. The planning phase must develop realistic and fundable strategies for crossings of busy streets. Shoulder Bikeways Besides giving an area for cyclists to ride, paved shoulders are provided on rural highways for a variety of safety, operational and maintenance reasons such as: • Motorists can stop out of traffic in case of emergency, or escape potential crashes; and • Storm water can be discharged farther from the motor vehicle travel lanes, helping to preserve the pavement. Width In general, the shoulder widths recommended for rural highways in the ODOT Highway Design Manual serve bicyclists well; HDM Table 7-2 should be used when determining shoulder widths: Average Daily Traffic < 400 00-1500 1500-2000 2000 Rural Arterials 4' 6' 6' 8' Rural Collectors 2' 5' 6' 8' Rural Local Roads 2' 5' 6' g' Table 1-2: Rural road shoulder widths When providing shoulders for bicycle use, a width of 6 feet is recommended. This allows a cyclist to ride far enough from the edge of pavement to avoid debris, yet far enough from passing vehicles to avoid conflicts. If there are physical width limitations, a minimum 4 foot shoulder may be used. Shoulders adjacent to a curb face, guardrail or other roadside barriers must be 5 feet wide, as cyclists will "shy' away from a vertical face. Shoulders adjacent to a curb should have 4 feet of pavement from the longitudinal joint at the gutter pan. Curbed sections usually indicate urban conditions, where shoulders should be striped as bike lanes. Figure 1-4: Shoulder bikeway On steep uphill grades, it is desirable to maintain a 6-feet (min. 5-feet) shoulder, as cyclists need more space for maneuvering. Note: many rural roads are 28 feet wide, with fog lines striped at 11 feet from centerline. The remaining 3 feet should not be considered a shoulder bikeway (min. 4 feet); these are shared roadways, as most cyclists will ride on or near the fog line. But they provide an enjoyable riding experience where traffic volumes are low to moderate. Pavement Design and Construction Many existing gravel shoulders have sufficient width and base to support shoulder bikeways. Minor excavation and the addition of 3-4 inches of asphaltic concrete is often enough to provide shoulder bikeways. Pavement overlays provide the best opportunity to widen shoulders for several reasons: 1-8 OREGON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN CHAPTER 1: ON-ROAD BIKEWAYS Bike lanes are generally not recommended on high-speed rural highways; at channelized intersections, the speeds are too high to place a through bike lane to the left of right-turning vehicles (see Chapter 4, Intersection Design). Shoulder bikeways, striped with a 4 inches fog line, are the appropriate facility for these roads For planning purposes, refer to the Bike Lane Matrix on page 1-3 to determine whether bike lanes are needed or appropriate for any given roadway. Advantages of bike lanes: • Bike lanes enable cyclists to ride at a constant speed, even when traffic in the adjacent travel lanes speeds up or slows down, for example at intersections. • Bike lanes enable bicyclists to position themselves where they will be visible to motorists. • Bike lanes encourage cyclists to ride on the streets rather than the sidewalks. Bike lanes are one-way facilities that carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor-vehicle traffic. Bike lanes should always be provided on both sides of a two-way street. One exception may be on steep hills where topographical constraints limit the width to a bike lane on one side only; in these cases, a bike lane in the uphill direction is acceptable as cyclists ride slower uphill. They can ride in a shared lane in the downhill direction. Width The standard width of a bike lane is 6 feet, as measured from the center of stripe to the curb or edge of pavement. This width enables cyclists to ride far enough from the curb to avoid debris and drainage grates, yet far enough from other vehicles to avoid conflicts. By riding away from the curb, cyclists are more visible to motorists than when hugging the curb. The minimum bike lane width is 4 feet on open shoulders, or 5 feet from the face of a curb, guardrail or parked cars. A 4-foot (min 3 feet) wide smooth asphalt surface should be provided to the left of a longitudinal joint between asphalt pavement and the concrete gutter section. It is preferable to pave the bike lane to the curb face to avoid a longitudinal joint in the bike lane. Shoulders wider than 6 feet may be marked as bike lanes in areas of very high use, on high-speed facilities where wider shoulders are warranted, or where they are shared with pedestrians. Care must be taken so they are not mistaken for a motor vehicle lane, turn lane or parking area, with adequate marking or signing. A bike lane should be marked with pavement stencils and an 8 inches stripe. This width increases the visual separation of a motor vehicle lane and a bike lane. The 8-inch white stripe is a legal requirement in Oregon (OAR 734-20- 055). Refer to page 1-19 for bike lane marking standards. If on-street parking is permitted, the bike lane must be placed between parking and the travel lane, and be at least 5 feet wide. Bike Lanes on One-way Streets Bike lanes on one-way streets should be on the right side of the roadway and should always be provided on both legs of a one-way couplet. The bike lane may be placed on the left of a one-way street if it decreases the number of conflicts, e.g., those caused by heavy bus traffic or dual right-turn lanes, and if cyclists can safely and conveniently transition in and out of the bike lane on the left. (See Chapter 6 for detailed information on bike lane configurations at intersections.) OREGON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 1-11 Figure 1-9: Typical bike lane dimensions 0 O O~~o d bLuZ N z J mM I 0 0 CID co- N ~ 0 LL N w ,t O N d ~ v- M fA a0 M LL M O co V; m O F O o ~ a C/) W o Z ~ J W Y i , U) c r) M ~ N N O L lC m CO v,HE o a a Q az' m m c 0 c~ 0 J V/ Z OU) U~ O in J Zp OLO U~ U LL O LL H Bicycle Count on Skyline Road July 19 2009 Sub Total 7:00 am-8:00 am It, 8:00 am-9:00 am 9:00 am - 10:00 am 2-2- 10:00 am - 11:00 am 11:00 am-12:00 am 12:00 am - 1:00 pm 4 1:00 pm-2:00 pm 2:00 pm-3:00 pm ,fl 3:00 pm-4:00 pm 4:00 pm-5:00 pm 5:00 pm-6:00 pm 6:00 pm-7:00 pm Grand Total Bicycle Count on Skyline Road July 1) ZUUv Sub Total 7:00 am - 8:00 am 8:00 am-9:00 am 9:00 am-10:00 am ICD 10:00 am - 11:00 am 7 11:00 am - 12:00 am 12:00 am-1:00 pm ►~t 'y 1:00 pm-2:00 pm 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 3:00 pm-4:00 pm 4:00 pm-5:00 pm 5:00 pm-6:00 pm 6:00 pm-7:00 pm 1- 21 Grand Total 0 2. W W N V m C C N d r Cc 0 d UY U) m d E U O ~ 0 d 3 y z z } ~ U - a+ Q N C N C N C N ~ C > ~ m ~ m a m m R b CL V) a°)im - o o a)o in to in Q C O L fD O L L_ Y N m O CO ~L 00 C m "N5Lo . (D -0 as L Lo O V).a) En -pm awEc) a) L ^ O -4 U N N a N a) a) 7 O N V U 3 0 is E R O a) V . J L C O C C G E E m 0 ~ ° O N E 3 0 U L ~ E D'a m : (n o pj 0 O L rw w u m C O N a) to C.'0 O O N U yU d d C M U) J ~ tU6 U v ~ iv d V R ~ C w O O t a1 ~ > U c bD i~ L D) y (D 2 ~ c a) 22 L -2 w (V CD i* 3 in U O k= 3N 30~ 9 C a) a) v c ~ np V' 0 30 _ in U O ' V' 3 f° ~ O l 0 L C C C r0 O O O O O O d S +L_„ N • V 3 c c v V) co a N C U) -C 3 m a3 m 3: 0 a ~ Y a) m J 3 0 0 -LC L (O Cc L CO O a) U C O f9 L a3 N N U Q ai O z L c -a E L 0)L C N O a) ~-0 O 3 L 30 0) N :0 N 3 > 3 U ca ~ O o) N N C 3 C o L rn 0 > ~~p O U m ~a) LL m 0 > N ` 0 C 3 a) L C, 'O Y l0 N C N E 0 E~ oN L N w O ~ N CD L 3 m 0 L L 3 O. -Lm dO 3 = d N L L C C E lD C (U w M o 3 ~ o O Na)E~ Z .c O CD '-o -0 a) - U O 3 N a) uLi>E x ai lD o N .L m L L O M m c 3 o a E co a) u) M Cl 3-0 a O L N 3 3 a) 3 L 3 N E O N L a) L '0 a O 3: t5 Y E ~ 3 a0 C 3 E _0 U o- > 1= "a c N 3 r 0 UI Cc (n _ co w a) W W CD A a) N 7 (6 O w 3 0 fl- 0 O N N I CO a) L t6 I- ~I June 17, 2011 ~ )~A - < Mike Odom, Project Manager FHWA-WFL 610 East 5th Street Vancouver, WA 98661 Dear Mr. Odom, 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ On behalf of the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), I respectfully submit this letter to provide comments reflecting our position regarding the proposed Skyliners Road reconstruction. Our mission is to promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of transportation in Deschutes County. BPAC members are appointed by the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners, and we serve to advise Deschutes County, the Cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters, and ODOT in bicycle and pedestrian transportation, and matters pertaining to existing and proposed road construction and signing. The Committee is recognized as a source of current information relating to the use of bicycle and walking as a means of transportation, and strives to support them as a viable means of transportation in Deschutes County. We wish to acknowledge the hard work of your team, and applaud the responsive design resulting from your diligent research efforts and public input opportunities. We fully endorse the current proposed design, which includes 11-foot motor vehicle travel lanes and the provision of 6-foot designated bike lanes adjacent to the motor vehicle travel lanes in each travel direction. I would like to emphasize that it is our position that the bike lanes should be officially designated as such, as appears to be the current plan. This designation will provide for more uniform enforcement of traffic laws, consistent expectations for all road users, clear objectives for maintenance and striping and, we hope, a much safer shared-use travel experience for generations to come. Thank you, again, for your efforts, and thank you also for this opportunity to submit comments on behalf of the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. We look forward to project completion in 2014, and please let us know how we might be of assistance to you in the interim. Sincerely, " L'_c Cheryl Howard Chairperson Deschutes County BPAC Quality Services Performed with Pride Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Cc: Jennifer Corwin, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Highway Administration George Kolb, Engineer, Deschutes County Road Department George Kolb From: Steve Jorgensen <Steve@bendparksandrec.org> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 10:29 AM To: George Kolb Subject: RE: Skyliners 8' bike lanes George, 6' is the state and federal standard/guideline for maximum bike lane width. More room is nice in some circumstances like when freeway shoulders (San Diego) are used for bike travel and heavily used 2-lane highways have high speeds and a mix of trucking and RV use like US 1 along the coast. 8' lanes may be good if the highway shoulder treatment also includes edge rumble strips. They can be mistaken for parking areas. I don't see this need on Skyliners. Wider is not always better. The wider pavement to go to 8' lanes will not be traffic calming and will contribute to even higher vehicle speeds. 6' lanes do provide room for side by side riding, and the narrower road cross section helps to keep speeds down. The 6' lane is measured from the center of the 8" stripe to the edge of pavement giving bikes S'-4". A standard rider needs about 2' to T of space. To make it even better for bikes, just go with an "advisory lane" giving bikes the priority and some uncertainty for drivers to keep their speeds down. Not enough room in the single center lane (no centerline) for opposing cars to pass easily side by side so they need to drift into the bike space after yielding to any cyclists, which is why it is a dashed line. This works on urban and rural roads with lower traffic volumes like Skyliners. That observed ratio of bike to cars on Skyliners is pretty telling. Either way, speed kills. Minneapolis- f -1, J0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration March 13, 2012 Western Federal Lands Highway Division 610 E. Fifth Street Vancouver, WA 98661 Phone 360-619-7700 Fax 360-619-7846 In Reply Refer To: HFL-17 Mr. George Kolb Deschutes County Engineer Deschutes County Road Department 61150 SE 27th Street Bend, OR 97702 Re: Skyliners Road Project OR PRA CRLA 2010(1) Dear Mr. Kolb: The Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in partnership with the Deschutes National Forest (FS), and Deschutes County have conducted extensive Stakeholder involvement activities on the Skyliners Road Project, which have included: • October 12, 2010 Public Scoping Meeting for the Pipeline and Skyliners Road; • February 9, 2011 Skyliners Road Landowner Meeting; • May 5, 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Meeting; • June 14, 2011 Open house for the Skyliners Road Project; • October 27, 2011 Open house the City of Bend Pipeline Project; and • Periodic project newsletters and a project website. During these stakeholder activities, FHWA has received comments requesting the FHWA to consider increasing the proposed bike lanes widths from six to eight feet for reasons ranging from general statements that this is the "right" thing to do, to more specific reasons referencing the high bike use of the road. In response to these comments, FHWA has consulted guidance documents, including the American Association of State Highway Transportation Official Guidelines, the State of Oregon's 1995 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and Deschutes County Minimum Bikeway Design Standards regarding the recommended bike lane widths for Skyliners Road. Considering the design speed, Average Daily Traffic (ADT), functional classification, bike usage, and other design criteria, these design guidelines recommend a four to six-foot wide shoulder to accommodate cyclists. Nowhere in these standard guidelines is it indicated that eight-foot wide shoulders would be safer or more appropriate. In fact, the State of Oregon's March 14, 2012 Skyliners Road Project Page Two document remarks that anything larger than six feet creates other safety risks to cyclists by encouraging parking in the bike lane. FHWA has concluded that, based on the above referenced documents, there are no engineering or design reasons supporting the implementation of eight-foot bike lanes. As a result, FHWA does not recommend nor will it provide funding for the additional costs (right-of-way acquisition, construction materials, etc.) associated with this option. By this letter, FHWA respectfully requests Deschutes County support of the proposed typical section which recommends six-foot bike lanes through public lands and five-foot shoulders through the subdivision near the western terminus of the project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 360-619-7568. Sincerely yours, 04o-j Michael W. Odom Project Manager MWO/mcb 2 Community Development D ~ apartment Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Sous Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: March 16, 2012 MEETING: March 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Work session on draft Transportation System Plan Update (PA-11-5/TA-11-4) The Planning Commission (PC) held public hearings on the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update beginning on Oct. 27, 2011, and concluded its deliberations on Feb. 23, 2012. The PC recommended approval of the draft TSP Update with some modifications. The attached matrix provides a quick summary of the major issues raised during the PC public hearings and how they were resolved. • Deschutes Junction • Future bike/ped bridge across the Deschutes River beyond the SW edge of Bend • County bikeway designations to include roads not maintained by the County • Long-term solution for US 20 in Tumalo • Prioritization of future County Road and State Highway projects (Table 5.3.T1) • Add Illustrative Projects List (Table 5.332) • Adding lanes to US 20 between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters • Rural roundabouts on US 20 east of Bend as well as on County system The Board will hold its public hearing on the TSP Update at 10 a.m. Monday, April 16, 2012, at the Barnes and Sawyer Room. Staff will also discuss whether the Board would like to hold an additional evening hearing in Bend on the TSP Update. Attachment: Planning Commission's Proposed Modfcation to Deschutes County TSP Update Quality Services Performed with Pride p ao 777 m r g0 4 c g y y d R 00 : O 0 c ' C m ° `bb ~ N c r O/ N 1~ C 7 O c t N ^ OC A ~ dt Vi C V. y J .2 C7 O l7 O V. O 3 E A a N ~ l7 N y N Er c A O N u o _ c N d d N C 4 L 'd w r m E rp 3 S~ N ~ ti c°5 L Z C o E E m o° '.0 E~ v ~ v a u 0 w u -0 v w Q o N E a ro m ° c; 1 L 4' ~Cp ;F C c '0, fpm t « > 0 L 01 }A~ Vf ° YJ N N W N 'O C Ol W N Mr as O y w u '0 a ° m o r L m m o a °d 3 0 n !E p C € m« yq N W L 3 00 ' m N N y e o 0 y w Z m F G U E • p W CC & W L a R N cu L c C ~Ti N 'c 0 0 '•1 N YI N ry n 112 N « W N O T+ m C Z• - wz ; 3a$t 2 3~ ° nn O dcg 3v . N ° 0 a) E 0 w m r2 -p O O E C v - N Z O p q a m c R c N T O p0 0. C 2 ca F d V. m W 0 C_ ' = N a m C > o w O ' 000 « 0 4 N m W 'D y K 0 N C N U ° a d ~p c •0 y N' -0 N 0 0 c 0 O F- E ' n - p > C CC Cf m t C ppipppp voO 'V q app 00 E a _N w `O N.. A?EC O 6 u~ O nL _ r 00000 vi. N U M wFL C C d M C Y- E E O x 0.09 ? c' Z 30 0 °n o a t u ; m a u E e ' 5 m a c E ce m o m'- o ii 1O . m e c o O a d p~ - c w O d ' pv~ i 'y N E H A 0, n O ~n Z' L O° ' 'O H Q v n c L„+ YR _O 2 0 o< ~ oc o .N l° p Q a 0. 3 ~ a E ~ n H ~ $ a u° v°i 5 c 5 c m a t; m w o ~ 'i° N e oO, 3 16 u E c m c= 0 0 E 0 2 N v 0' -4 m e c c m C v°ry c c o« o °y o • Tn 01 0 0 C y ~ ° o 0 0 O 9 x C, ~u0 N c C a 'c m 4 c 7 O N c~ ' m g o E + ~°o N d - vvn s ae v M ^ 0 m n m g e m E e- ti" x v d ~ N 0 l7 m m m ° v r CL $ a ti~ EI-"~;~;'° °J E g o L~+09 NQ Q,v_L ~aa;~~cYO cLa+E c ° c °e 'ey y v oo E E° a v t d w U ' a E 3" a r ED CL 0 yp y N 6 C = 3' CL J1 _ o 4) 0 N O u i ry x O C T u ` ~ [ C ' . o f E C N .2 -M c a+ a te5~^ N+L° ~.E p °r Sc e ° c E oa N@ ;o~y• a p ° D ~ 3 v Q m •3 d V 0 m ~ LL c H N UI ~ V I u"i E r 3 1A Y N d $ C $ ~ LLLL!! ° 0 C ~ y ~ C ~ 0 4 m Q d ii LL m 0 01 •in•' VI G A a v °C v 0 0 N ~ E 0 a N u ? t,J 0 H c e NNy O N O ; Y c O C c 0 m C ~ 0 •c ~ C L .C x a d m m g z 0 a m W y E O 9 m\ d 'YI • c ' 0 L 0 q E 9 s 9v z L a c° r F c c. A o c 60.1 P le r E ;Z P! L! Do V a c = 0 8 0 8 en 0 c 5 t° = m « H r to t, o a ff Pi N b m E o Q N m m c A d 1.2 m m. 2 2 0 ~T c . W c E n0 .p. t7 v 0 g• V, m c a u o c a m E ' c t m a Jt m ~ c a m N A v ' M t Y N L4Ayi C m $ m m e U ~ .Y o m o m N 9 G L O W L ' d°v ca •N N C £ p t { c b o j c W R v OF me ac m m-L° ~ W . v m o o o $ m y E LO d t . v+ v 7 G m m t m a $ E L C L r 0 ' u 0 E s p p 2 a d yN O> .c q G C N :O u W S N 'O 01 C 0 L> O Q 'p a N 0 Y O M C m ' H Ol M m E u a Z ' 2 n m W i o n W 0~j W G j C= N m p 8 6 t N W u V p « + C p'0 :C 1~ 7 G e° L E a d 0 W W m E u 0 0 c c G a F- E n vNi m «1 ° 2 ^ tin r « c c ° « 41 v- o . is 'o v n E ~ 3 s `o E- o m Z, _ -0 q E f-6 10 ° w~ v x c x m l° ' E c e a w ° _ o s E w c° o ff c tt: m a E L m' d' v rNi , u o u & u CL 3 m._ o t7 otg Fn_0 m._ v c m o CL _ts r m.+Ln c 2 - c 0 W v 75 t « c h l4 ~y a :i 0 .N N r CL p m C, CL cc 0 .Fµ4. 9 i" m u O u H W n U0 7 CL m G Q A m y 0 W\ 0 N : n W - j - - ~n 0 O .n-1 ,QO 'i 0 O et O !WT 43 i' t C ' t 3t m v m n 2-- c C q a ~y m W n O U O L L/1 m N a a E i = W E 2! Au a 3; u E I a 2 E N ti m Y E m F- W o e; C 0 h H« H a Lu o °t r m O: c E ti c m c O 9 1 ° o W f gad C c W U N yNm~ y_ ~o, g q d rq s V O W u n pQ d n W • .0 C d W O W F w W W H m; W C W m H O`i m , ` y c\ O O N C W\ O O N H v 1 O 3' O\ .a c 0! 4! N ,2 ` .W 4 B C N N y TJ ~ & ` e ~ N G L ~n C C~ W O G E G 9 u ~ U C E ~ L 0 _m N O O m ri C O x N O O a C W C W . p p b G m L Y 5 O n N .~1 a+v~ t E y'$o c u m..pN w~ am« > 0. cc u« yI-- c c4 E d GO 0 2x'v,o mm wY c ' dpi N &vv9 o e °m0 'u 'c$ \ oN N 'S v E r c o c-« 0 a c c W a C 8 ° N N a w an ~ ° m v m c ° m S 0 u o c s v v ~ o c a_ W o . u u v A ri : i a m .i L d • gy ' gi ' : ~ . E m i « u "m E 8 ' p p 8 O d N u~ 3 tg L _ O C d N 0 ~n' pQ O u R d W a ry Q 00~~ O N yn N ~ d C N 1 O W ei e p ~ C C n ~~p m yG 00`! Y F ~0 10 u d n J m e~1 m m d w a°+ N Of N N N H~ N N W to g ~ c E J, c m d F c m a W c o ~ ~ ° o d L O u a d ~ otf S tr y L u m ° m E 3 i u 'O L m c v I F ~ c N V1 W ~ O 2 O_. m 4S e c o O ti d L E ; qi r ~ u ~ t C A m W 0~~0 G 41 v v n b d c o Qv m tk o L c o vii- 10 « ~ o c tj ~ y u 9 W C C G C Y n yy d O r^ w O t C u C 0 3 7 u 0 Y « w N w 7 Z flQ 6 O O m = mrgom c o o m u :5 2 0 m ~ v L C W O z L. L C 48 8 d 10 - ~ A Nq I L ~ G u N 2 N g o' Q m N a ~L~, u 3 m a B Y v u d h N tj c 10 t d o g c« E 'a °s==om 12 0 CL r E o r° Z c E d S.- d E w A m- ~ m w ti E c d u O S~ m 9 C 0 O G K