Loading...
2012-1577-Minutes for Meeting April 16,2012 Recorded 5/3/2012COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS V 2012'1577 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 05/03/2012 01:35:17 PM 11111111111111111111111111111111 2012-1577 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page L - 0 A D C Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 130 0 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org U MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Tammy Baney and Alan Unger. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Peter Russell, Community Development; Chris Doty and George Kolb, Road Department; Hillary Saraceno, Children & Families' Commission; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and approximately thirty other citizens. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 10: 05 a. m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. 3. Before the Board was the Reading and Signature of a Proclamation Declaring the Week of the Young Child in Deschutes County - April 22 through 28. Holly Remer and Mara Stephens of Healthy Beginnings/High Desert Education Service District came before the Board and gave a brief overview of the Proclamation. Ms. Remer stressed the importance of early childhood care so that by the time children go into the school system, they are well prepared. This group provides services in the tri-county area. Chair DeBone read the Proclamation at this time. Commissioner Baney stressed the high level of volunteerism in this area, and is proud to live in a community that does this great work. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 15 Pages Commissioner Unger added that Healthy Beginnings is a model for how these kinds of efforts are effective - bringing together specialists to recognize and address issues. The work of this group fits well into the Early Childhood Learning Council model that the Governor is forming. BANEY: Move approval and signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Ordinance No. 2012-005, Amending the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan. Peter Russell came before the Board. Chair DeBone read the opening statement at this time. In regard to conflicts of personal interest, none of the Commissioners had any to disclose; there were no challenges from the audience. Mr. Russell gave a PowerPoint presentation, providing an overview of the history of this issue. Discussions began with ODOT and others in 2007, with numerous community meetings and hearings being conducted since then. (A copy of the presentation is attached for reference) He explained all of the major projects that have been reviewed or proposed. Many projects won't be done in the near future because of funding issues, but a lot of them will remain on the TSP until this can happen. There are high priority projects (one to five years), medium priority (five to ten years), and long-term projects. Some will not be addressed until 2030. Projects locations range from the south end of La Pine up through the Terrebonne area. In the meantime, there will be additional public hearings as plans develop. The higher priority locations have much to do with volume and capacity, and the level of crashes that exceed the allowable Statewide standard. There are also a few rural roundabouts being planned which would require the County's financial involvement. The Planning Commission has been a part of recent hearings and the current TSP update now before the Board. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 15 Pages Commissioner Unger asked if this has had State and DLCD review. Mr. Russell said the State received it last year and did not weigh in, and appears to be satisfied with what is being proposed. ODOT has been a part of this process for the entire time. The City of Redmond is working on the TSP amendment and modeling regarding improvements at 19`h Street at Quarry. A goal exception is not needed in this situation. Chair DeBone opened the meeting up for public comments. Paul Dewey reiterated the points brought up in his letter of January 26 (part of the record). Regarding the idea of planning Deschutes Junction, land use planning should come first, and then you plan transportation accordingly. He thought there would be a planning process undertaken first. He supports the Planning Commission's position that any new planning for Deschutes Junction should wait until it is part of the Comprehensive Plan. In regard to passing lanes outside Sisters, he worked with ODOT on this issue in years past. He thought they had a reasonable solution. The only difference now is that he feels traffic levels have fallen. He hopes the TSP would be amended to include what this group thought might work best. There is no need for the four lanes at this time, as the volume does not support it. Regarding upgrades on designations, he is concerned about Deschutes Market Road being a rural arterial and the policy implications of this designation. 2009 was a different time from now. He feels accidents and traffic levels are decreasing. He is concerned about creating new designations and new obligations for the County for funding. If something needs to be upgraded, he recommends it stay with the current designation. Laurie Craghead asked if there is information in the record showing a decrease in traffic volume. Mr. Dewey said that Bruce Bowen will provide this. Mara Stein spoke about the town of Tumalo and the TSP. The Planning Commission's statement is to preserve and protect the area. One core purpose of the Tumalo Community Association is to enhance as well. The group has been in place for five years and has met with various entities regarding recreational enhancements, business opportunities and more. There need to be safe and reasonable solutions. In 2010, ODOT came forward with plans for a raised median. This solution was not supported and adversely affected the community. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 15 Pages ODOT says the long-term solution is to address Highway 20 issues. The TCA asked for support of the community concept plan and does not support ODOT's plans for the area. The TCA concept plan addresses the goals and safety issues, recommends decreased speeds and no center median, and allows for multiple access points. They want to have a monument gateway into the community and more. She said that perhaps an interim plan would be to work within the proposal of the community. This is viable, effective and financially possible. James Lewis, on behalf of the City of Redmond, spoke about the extension of 19'h Street to Quarry. The City of Redmond has been working on this and asked that general policy be adopted to support the City's proposal. These alignments will add life to the State facilities and roads within Redmond; better access to the Fairgrounds area; and other positive impacts. This improvement was contemplated as far back as 1998, and he feels that the policy language included in his letter should be added to the TSP. Bruce Bowen gave some of his background doing this type of work - forecasting. He noted that the further out you forecast, the more difficult it is, and it is more subject to error. The latest possible data needs to be used. (He provided a handout to the Commissioners) He referred to his handout showing the traffic flows by Black Butte Ranch. Instead of the 25% twenty-year growth that ODOT shows, he would prefer the figures he presented used instead, which show merely a 3% increase forecast. He questions the accuracy of the ODOT figures. He has offered to talk with ODOT about this, but they declined. The Planning Commission did not have final 2011 data, which the Board has been presented. The other issue is already in the record, but has to do with analysis of crash data from ODOT from 2001 through 2010. If crashes from each mileage segment is analyzed, the closer you get to Sisters, it gets less likely. In terms of numbers, the distances from Santiam Junction to Black Butte Ranch is shorter but has many more accidents that the area between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters.. Accidents tend to occur in the winter. The higher traffic counts are primarily in the summer. He does not see a direct relationship. The trend is overall declining. 60% involve snow, ice or wet pavement; most others are hitting a fixed object. The types related to head-on crashes and side swipes represent just 8% of the accidents. He would like to see the priority removed from medium to low. He would not get rid of it completely, but does not feel this is an important place to spend money. Fewer people are traveling over the pass due to the cost of gasoline. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 4 of 15 Pages Commissioner Unger said that you have to take into consideration the economics of the day. This recession will not have a long-term effect on transportation. The data today may be an anomaly and the traffic flows will return. Mr. Bowen asked how long it would take for this to come back. Gas prices are fairly unlikely to come down. There may be some dips now, but the negative economy will have a long-term effect. It will not react as quickly as the stock market. Chair DeBone asked why he is opposed to more lanes. Mr. Bowen said the cathedral approach to Sisters is important and he would not like this visual change. And he feels this is a waste of taxpayer money. Doing things that are not needed affect peoples' views of government. This is a $20 million project, and that money could be used to do something else more important. Tony Aceti spoke about Deschutes Junction, and presented an oversized map. He spoke with ODOT representatives and got an updated traffic count for that area. Deschutes Junction in 2005 showed 1,580 vehicles. In 2010 there were 3,200; and 4,800 in 2011 per ODOT. After Pleasant Ridge Road was closed to traffic, another 1,000 vehicles used the overpass. Prior to that, it had doubled. The area of Deschutes Junction is a point of emphasis. He feels this is a priority. Mr. Dewey had pointed out that the Deschutes Junction refinement plan is in the overall plan. The comprehensive plan and TSP need to be linked; otherwise there is a disconnect. A master plan for that area is needed. They have had community meetings. To honor the work already done, a majority of the people affected came to meetings for two years and said they want the residential outside areas left alone, and to work on the core area. Traffic is occurring there and this will continue. If they close 61St Street or allow right in and right out turns only, the frontage road will be needed by the local citizens. The landowners in the area are supportive of this. Deschutes Junction needs to be in the transportation plan since there are definite facts about how this area is being affected. Steve Jorgensen, Bend Metro Park & Recreation District, along with Bruce Bowen, submitted written comments as well. He appreciates the work that has been done, but wanted to address a trails issue and connectivity. He appreciates that the newest version of the TSP looks at the trails portion for recreation and transportation. The area extends out of the city limits and UGB, and they try to work with the partners and agencies to deal with recreational assets. If it is not shown on the plan, it is hard to get grants and recognition. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 5 of 15 Pages He wanted to speak to a future footbridge on the south area of the City of Bend UGB. The Deschutes River Trail extends from Tumalo with the ultimate goal of reaching Sunriver. It extends towards River Rim subdivision and a future park site. Multiple planning documents have shown a crossing of the river at the south end. The idea of a future footbridge should show up on the Deschutes County TSP as well. It cannot be located in other places in the UGB per OAR's due to scenic river designations, and there is a bridge prohibition in most areas. There is no specific location for a bridge at this time, but they would probably go with the narrowest part of the river. He would like to see this as part of the regional planning concept so the background and support would be there in the future. They would lead the effort in this regard. Commissioner Unger stated the U.S. Forest Service is developing some pathways near Lava Lands. Mr. Jorgensen said that the work they are doing is from Benham Falls south for the most part, and not a lot is being done within or near the UGB. Doug White spoke as a resident. He has not had an opportunity to discuss the footbridge issue with the City, but appreciates the conversation with the County and Park and Recreation. Page 176 of the TSP could have additional language regarding trail connectivity. He wants to add, "and State regulations" when talking about acquisition and trail systems, as this needs to be consistent with State law. He provided a map showing the waterways and irrigation outtakes, as well as the UGB and current possible location of the bridge. The footbridge would start in the City but end up in the County. A bubble concept is a good idea, but he has a different idea about where it should be - not where the City has it shown. He is not opposed to a bridge per se, but the City does not have it shown anywhere on its TSP, ant it can't be where there are problems with parking or a wildlife wetlands area. He then spoke for the Central Oregon Planning Solutions group on Deschutes Junction, representing Tony Aceti. (He read a letter into the record.) Their position remains unchanged regarding improvements in this area. Greater details or a conceptual study area is needed that includes properties that protect the use of the interchange. This includes issues of functionality and land use. There are descriptions of Deschutes Junction, but it is not shown as a boundary or a study area. There are problems with the concept already, and a refinement plan needs to be developed. There are rumors about this area and he does not think this is appropriate. The process would address timing issues, and he recommends ODOT and the County work together on this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 6 of 15 Pages The initial extension of a frontage road would be from 61 S` Street. The agency already recognizes the out-of-direction traffic issue. He has worked on projects with raised medians and frontage roads that had to be coordinated and is familiar with this type of situation. The plan is not helpful if it is not clear. He wants to see a study area, and get the agencies and citizens involved; and start multi-approving this in a cohesive fashion and connect the two processes. Commissioner Unger asked if this is already in the Comprehensive Plan in regard to a frontage road. Mr. White said there is no study area in place and it is not well-defined. The north end of the proposed study area goes to the north driveway. The study area could be expanded as well, if appropriate. He would bring in existing developed and EFU land that affects the area. It needs to be laid out in a process, and the plan policies could be amended as well. It is common to amend the TSP and reference the plan. Ms. Craghead said that they cannot amend the Comprehensive Plan without proper notice. There is a plan to study this area and figure out what the exact area should be. It was too large of a project to take on with the Comprehensive Plan update, so it was felt this could be developed later. Brian Paez of Tumalo stated that Tumalo has issues trying to figure out what ODOT wants and the community wants. The residents are concerned about the speed limit being reduced to 35 MPH, causing more vehicle noise due to braking and acceleration. They are working on forming a group to address these issues. There has been a lot of disagreement regarding additional parks as well. He would not encourage anything being approved at this time, so they can work out some of these issues first. Commissioner Baney wondered if staff has had a chance to be involved in the conversation. Mr. Paez stated that he wants to do what is best for the community in terms of safety. ODOT feels that an interchange is best. Commissioner Unger asked if he is referring to residents who live there or just work there. Mr. Paez said they want to include anyone who is interested. There are pros and cons to everything and he wants to be heard as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 7 of 15 Pages Commissioner Baney asked if he has been to previous meetings. He said he has been attending the evening meetings as he often as he can. Dick Gummas, who lives on Second Street in Tumalo, said he opposes the TCA (Tumalo Community Association) plan. He represents Tumalo Town Irrigation District (not Tumalo Irrigation District). He indicated that the State wants to eliminate trees, but someone else wants to add more. The crossings at 6th St. and 7th St. are in jeopardy, and the proposed changes would affect the ditches. He feels that a 45 MPH speed limit is appropriate; and that 35 is too slow for big rigs. He thinks a roundabout at Cook Avenue would be a death trap for big rigs, and there would be a big bottleneck. He said a group wants to put in a path from Tumalo State Park into'town, and his ditch has a right of way there. He is concerned about vandalism. He thinks the proposed trees, sidewalks and speed limit are inappropriate. There needs to be better visibility at Cook Avenue. Commissioner Baney asked if he has been involved in the meetings. He said he has lived in Tumalo for forty years and has been involved. Nunzie Gould spoke about Tumalo. She lives three miles from town and was part of the U.S. Highway 20 short-term solutions meetings. She said the last ODOT and TCA meeting was January 2010. A short-term solution was presented afterwards. The pork chop displaced traffic within Tumalo and has meant problems for businesses, issues of inappropriate U-turns and more. Things like this say that the plan does not deal with the big picture. ODOT feels it is their road, and didn't take into account the County's part. What is missing is review of what happens to the local County roads and the community. ODOT created a matrix of items 1 through 9, and answered it differently than others. They are supposed to consider a lot of impacts. She said there is a bike crossing at 7th St. and Bailey Road for the scenic bikeway. That crossing would be nixed with the current TSP. Deschutes County is not properly representing what the Tumalo community wants. Tumalo was established before Bend, and a lot of real estate was platted as Laidlaw. With the failure of the reservoir at Sizemore Road, agricultural land was not developed. Much of it remains EFU .land with destination resorts and other interests. Tumalo is the gateway to those areas. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 8 of 15 Pages Mr. Russell and Commissioner Unger have participated as advisors, but do not represent the interests of the community. Tumalo is significant because of the river and topography. It has the highway, the river and links Redmond and Bend. It is increasingly used as a gateway to Bend. The connectivity has been instrumental over the years, and still is. Economic vitality there is important. If the purpose of the long-term solution is to benefit Deschutes County, the TSP should be amended. The County should speak up on behalf of its Tumalo citizens. This plan is specifically to minimize the County's expense for transportation. However, the citizen approved plan benefits all. There are 35 businesses there, and this is economic vitality that the County should nurture. Merely diverting traffic to one crossing displaces routes within Tumalo, creating unidentified problems. The citizen alternative keeps the connectivity. She attended a work session in 2011 that included a workshop between ODOT and the Board. There is no money for this, ODOT said. However, there is $240,000 from Eagle Crest and ODOT. There was laughter in the room that there is no money, but over eleven years ago this commitment was made. Accountability is important. This money could be used to implement the citizen alternative. ODOT entered into the record that this is not achievable in the low priority timeline of 11 to 20 years. ODOT has big infrastructure that would change things forever, and it could actually wipe out Tumalo. The citizen plan wants to keep it connected, and a long-term solution needs to be considered today. It was needed before the last fatality. The community plan is substantially cheaper. ODOT does not talk about business displacement, rights of way and other costly aspects. The citizens are concerned about safety and health as well. The object is not to impact the built environment. Including the citizen alternative now allows for vetting it now, but ODOT wants to table this. ODOT's long term idea was based on not increasing rights of way, but they now want more rights of way. The range of alternatives should be reviewed accordingly. Chair DeBone asked that Ms. Gould try to wrap up her comments due to the lateness of the hour, and because other speakers wish to testify. She replied that she prefers providing oral testimony rather than written and wants to continue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 9 of 15 Pages Ms. Gould said a traffic light should be considered. Signals can become adaptive. This area is a recreational gateway. (She went into these comments in detail.) There has been no data placed in this TSP update that identifies a cost-benefit analysis beyond the current lowered speed of 45 MPH. She wondered if the expenditure is justified for such a minor difference. She wants the citizen alternatives included in the TSP. She does not want to see access restricted and have the community suffer the effects of this displacement. She said there needs to be an entity added for recreation to implement this in the TSP. They rely on Bend Park and Recreation, the BLM and others who have their own boundaries and jurisdictions. A conservation easement was added in Tumalo for recreation. The transportation component of recreation is not being managed or planned for; there are the bike folks, the river trail folks and others. People get to the community via vehicle and parking is an issue. The TSP should have a recreation component. The County has not apportioned any funds to the roadway for bike lanes and recreation. A local Park and Recreation Department is needed for this. The river trail grant provided funds to connect Tumalo State Park to town. She asked who is going to provide maintenance. Safety is important, and appropriate signage is needed as well. A bikeway, not a bike lane, should be encouraged, with adequate parking for vehicles. Blair Jenkins of Tumalo Academy said she is not speaking to advocate for one particular plan. They are building for 200 rather than 120 students, and are concerned about safety at O.B. Riley Road at Highway 20. Most students come from Bend at this time. They have an active outdoor program and can see school buses coming and going on a regular basis. They will work with teachers and drivers, but support anything that makes it a safer intersection. Rick Coffin lives off Highway 97 and Deschutes Junction. He wants Deschutes Junction to be included in the TSP. It is important for several reasons. The overpass is a vital part of the community, but there are some real safety issues in that area. He is grateful for the language of a frontage road being considered prior to a putting in a barrier. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 10 of 15 Pages Since Deschutes Junction is not even on the TSP update, it will be a long time before it will be addressed since ODOT has no budget for a frontage road. The access issues are critical to safety. This needs to be revisited prior to the twenty-year timing. There are opportunities for master planning there and it deserves another look at this time. Carolyn Perry reiterated some points already made. When she moved to Tumalo ten years ago, she liked the community. She noted that few children in Tumalo, about I%, walk to school because it is not safe. A recent health impact assessment says there is less than one square mile of residents within the official boundary. They consider it 640 residents. The community is divided by the highway already, and the new plans make this worse. Both of the ODOT options funnel all crossings to one location. When Goal 1 was established, it was stipulated that the community was to be able to give input. However, the citizen group was not able to get its concept considered. Some residents have concerns regarding trees, irrigation districts, etc. she feels that reduced speed means more safety, and she supports 35 MPH. If there needs to be a corridor plan in place or a special transportation area, they encourage the County's initiative on this. No further public testimony was offered. Nick Lelack said that the Board could conduct another public hearing if desired. If so, he asked whether they prefer day or evening. Next Thursday night the Planning Commission is conducting a hearing on the Community Development work plan, and the master plan is on the list. A notice of intent to apply for a grant for funding has been submitted, but they won't know for six months or longer. There is another planning process that may or may not be on the work plan. Commissioner Baney asked if this would help with amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lelack replied that it might help regarding the Deschutes Junction issue. Commissioners Baney and Unger said an evening meeting is preferred. The hearing was continued to 6:00 p.m., Monday, April 23, 2012. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 11 of 15 Pages 5. Before the Board were Deliberations and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2012-004, Establishing Provisions for Agri-Tourism and Other Commercial Events and Activities, and to Amend the Winery Standards in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Nick Lack said an adjustment needs to be made to a reference to a section, but it does not affect the overall language. He asked about the noise issue; whether it would be the decimal level at the property line or using the DEQ standards. The other issue is the type of equipment to be used for this purpose. He indicated that the Board also needs to decide whether to adopt by emergency. Commissioner Baney asked for clarification of the DEQ standards and how this might affect things in the future. Ms. Craghead stated that the County can be more restrictive but not less, per a LUBA description, if the County refers to them. However, the DEQ standards are hard to interpret. 70 dba is referenced as I% of an hour at most; the rest is 65 dba or less, measured at the source and not the property line. It would be very complicated to include this language. Commissioner Unger asked what is already customary. Ms. Craghead said this language is in the Outdoor Mass Gathering criteria already. Mr. Lelack said for simplicity and consistency, it was thought best to refer to the Outdoor Mass Gathering language. Chair DeBone is comfortable with what the County already considered. Commissioner Unger added that changing over to the DEQ wording would be a nightmare. He is comfortable with what is already in place and would prefer they leave the DEQ language out. Ms. Craghead said that the impacts of the LUBA case are unknown. Commissioner Unger wants to proceed and deal with LUBA as needed. Chair Baney asked about leaving out a reference to the DEQ standards. Mr. Lelack said the DEQ standards would be very difficult to enforce, and that DEQ does not enforce its own standards and declined to comment on this. Lane County and another county have chosen to include a not to exceed number of 65. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 12 of 15 Pages Commissioner Unger noted that he wants to keep current the language in place. Commissioner Baney wants to not invite an appeal and remand; Commissioner Unger feels this could be going there anyway and the County can do what the DEQ does, which is to decline to enforce due to inadequate funding and staffing. It is a bigger issue than this one thing. Commissioner Baney asked about language stating that applicable laws would come into play. Commissioner Unger wants to keep moving forward as this will likely remain contentious and everyone is trying to reach a compromise, but no one will be completely happy with the outcome. Mr. Lelack said that draft 2, page 7, talks about compliance with applicable DEQ standards. Commissioner Baney stated that perhaps this should say State regulations in case other agencies come into play. Chair DeBone said that he still prefers the compromise of 70 dba. This issue could be debated for years, but there is already language in Code that deals with noise levels. Due to time constraints, it was decided that this item would be further addressed at this afternoon's work session after a final draft of the document is ready for consideration. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BANEY: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: UNGER: DEBONE: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-035, Transferring Appropriations within the Foreclosed Land Sales Fund 7. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-036, Transferring Appropriations within the Behavioral Health Fund 8. Approval of Minutes: • Board Meeting of April 11, 2012 • Work Session of April 11, 2012 Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 13 of 15 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $24,480.63. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $233.31. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $532,327.49. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 14 of 15 Pages UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 12. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m. DATED this <i Day of 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: Tammy Baney, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 15 of 15 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.or~ BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. 3. THE READING and Signature of a Proclamation Declaring the Week of the Young Child in Deschutes County - April 22 through 28 - Holly Remer, Healthy Beginnings, High Desert ESD Suggested Actions: Read Proclamation; move adoption and signature. 4. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Ordinance No. 2012-005, Amending the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan - Peter Russell, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open hearing and take testimony. 5. DELIBERATIONS and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2012-004, Establishing Provisions for Agri-Tourism and Other Commercial Events and Activities, and to Amend the Winery Standards in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone - Nick Lelack, Community Development Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 5 Pages Suggested Actions: Conduct first and second readings by title only of Ordinance No. 2012-004. Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2012-004, by Emergency. CONSENT AGENDA 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-035, Transferring Appropriations within the Foreclosed Land Sales Fund 7. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-036, Transferring Appropriations within the Behavioral Health Fund 8. Approval of Minutes: • Board Meeting of April 11, 2012 • Work Session of April 11, 2012 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 12. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 5 Pages 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. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572) Monday, April 16 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, April 23 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, April 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, May 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, May 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 5 Pages Wednesday, May 9 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, May 10 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, at Redmond City Council Chambers Thursday, May 17 11:00 a.m. Children & Families' Commission Meeting - La Pine Monday, May 21 through Friday 25 9:00 a.m. (All Day) Budget Meetings Monday, May 28 Most County offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day Tuesday, May 29 11:30 a.m. Annual Meeting with Black Butte Ranch Board, at Black Butte Ranch Wednesday, May 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, June 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, June 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, June 11 - Tuesday June 12 8:00 a.m. AOC Spring Conference - Bend Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 4 of 5 Pages Wednesday, June 13 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 14 7:30 a.m. Bend Chamber of Commerce Breakfast - Annual County Forecast Wednesday, June 18 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, June 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) Monday, July 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, July 4 Most County offices will be closed to observe Independence Day. Thursday, July 5 8:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, in Sisters 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; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 5 of 5 Pages M a < BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Agenda Item of Interest REQUEST TO SPEAK Date `41(`/ i ,~2 Name o t,- . k \J6 wC. LGAd Wak" Address 5 3 '9 N W 6 ✓Z -q ~ '76 1 Phone #s 5 1-1I _ 3 l ? - ('7'73 0 E-mail address A c, c w b~, tog ~d G~ (q. C_ 4 In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed ,Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ No r14,4t~y ~t- rsi a~ 56C_ Je.14. 210, 2412 I,{f<< 4. 177 REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ~1~ ti Date - L Name Address fv Y, i < Dl~_ - q I &I Phone #s`~ r T P-A E-mail address frmrn ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No ~tiTES ~ { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK ~ ~D D Agenda Item of Interest - ~ S Date Name J 14_, ~ LVIA)l Address Phone #s E-mail address n Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony. F-] No 77TF REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest T~ Date I6 2C)1 L 0 Name ~JQ K C_ E. ~o w E& Address tl- 212 ~ I p E_ r2% V CIS ~ F~..S Phone #s Sit ' S 4r - 3 }-3 3 E-mail address 'Dvo - 1-1 In Favor OI I P Wl CMG . C, avv-k Neutral/Undecided © Opposed No Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 9 Yes t -CES n BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 777 REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest :77!~X_p c✓/. ACS jw14 eA,'1- Date Name __r4 yI k / /0 Pd -7/1 , r Address Phone #s E-mail address ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? FL, es ❑ No ~~>-rES c7 a ` { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest 6w~~J T e Date 2 nn L Name T'~~ `1o~Z~EaI ~E~ 1~A S W C4~ t~ ~-f Address T l ellk Phone #s J q( 706 -Z, 1 S0 E-mail address ❑ In Favor ~Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ Opposed ❑ No 1 `RTES / { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest T5 e / Date Name Address F.~-.br LkC, it- T ssL~a_ Phone #s E-mail address ❑ In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided '0 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes F-] No 77777 REQUEST TO SPEAK Item of Interest Date Agenda Name ~I 1 g 1~ ` Address Phone #s E-mail address PAL c ~L In Favor F-1 Neutral/UndecidedOpposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? © Yes No ^ES oc { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Date Name / Address / ~ G1 / q el r / q Y-~ r. l ! of 1(/ ~~II ado Phone #s E-mail address J G Gr e~)i Q,~ a L C)0 ~ O tyN ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided W Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes No G~J~es C~C. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o { REQUEST TO SPEAK / a,C Date Agenda Item of Interest f umg Name ► G l~ to e,-7 4*7 v Address ) f ?;O ~ 7 N A Phone #s 6 41 3 e3~ 14 4 t-b E-mail address l~ ~mrs~ ` C a . In Favor F~ Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes Opposed LLN Z No /l ~G~ JTES ~o Z a { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Name O1 /\Ic Date ✓ 22 Address Phone #s E-mail address F In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? OYes Yopposed No U~JTES, % , .`Z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Name Y"_2~ Date 9 1(0 -122 zi 2O 33-z~ I Address ) 9-1-1,3) Phone #s E-mail address F-1 I In Favor F Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F-1 Yes SLII~q 2~o 33~ Z Opposed F] No OOEES Q BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest U v I Date Name Address 1 O S+vc d ,c,o Phone #s y 39'2-007 E-mail address i P i S fir oce-, CLA___ d . In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes F] Opposed HAO /3 JTES ~ o -c BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Agenda Item of Interest Name 1Q~ REQUEST TO SPEAK Date Address l ' /v W Phone #s E-mail address S 1-1 In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided F] Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes R No J'rES c o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Ite f Interest a(~ vc--~ Date 4111611 IL4 Name Address Phone #s~ E-mail address CeW7- In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided F1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? FY]Yes F] No /G/ PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS This is a public hearing on Ordinance 2012-005. The County File Number is PA-11-5 and TA-11-4. This is an application to update the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan; repeal Deschutes County Codes Chapters 23.60 and 23.64, replacing them with 23.01.10, Appendix C. The standards applicable to the applications before us are on page 1 of the Staff Report dated April 16, 2012. The Board will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter today, 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 Board for personal 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 personal interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). (STAFF REPORT) w H A A z w Hr^ V) z 0 H H 0 z H 0 u U*) w H A x u w A R 5 t Y~ . w; v~ 4 Z W x U Q O H w O w O a O~ M h v I o ° ~o CL H O = 0 u O~ ~ CL CL H 0 44- C Q) O L F- CL Q) U LL L C~ N N ~s N V i O CL U$ _ vs O ~ H •0 E s E•O)O =V a~ E E O V 0 i N 0 h E E O V CL iN- O O E N V Q. H v i O co r- N M ,I { d + i 1, + t. t~ I I i 1r I r,Al w ~ w ~ 0 go- W O w r, L _ ~ V = s o MIME W } 3 ,0 Q O y 0 = Oa O L ''uTW L - O O N 0 V y NOME s V t/! 0 i L - 0 E u f~ y o • V V - 0 E 0 . V y - y y %IM .u o 0~ 0 0 CL i y L } LL. O O N y E ~ y 0 > V V } .y = N V ~ y N 0 a~ O.0 r Oo O O N l 1y ,i i ki 1 t f, . "I W W x H W c~ 0 H A w a w H w 3 Q d O w x H a) 3a N O} N MI- 013 V Oc0 E O i' V0 V oV s ~ y O ~M -010 WN N i 0 n r --o . O E uO~ y N Q. O O N . 0 V 0 O L CL V O M O N N N F- O 0 O L O 2) E O N N O D."- 0 V r. V 0= N o "Em O~ DO O-0 ~I E, ~i ~i Y~ t , r f e I W Q .W W H W i W . T4 ` y V ~ 0 ~ 3 O a~ h N H y = 0 =H } C 0 O 0~ ~ E % Hm u V e ~ r. = V O E _ 00 i 0 ~N 0 0 o Ha y~ ON V a 41 C1 V_ f~ O N U _v o ~o O ~O 0> 0 t O = z •y N N O EV EO 0= Vo N H = ~ 0 ~O 0 ~t ;W W ,T c O ~ y 1 y = U) ~ W o y 4) he m 0u y 0 CL t c y 0 y E Eu 013 Vc C)) 0 cN%O N 000 CL " c O in O - 140 N t u O c 0 N y O y O m r .i CL a O y V ' W { x h - J { S kt 5 ~r O ~W CL CL Oa o E 3 a: _ o o 0 ' O O V o _M ID o V eftft H N H a a o a~ to aft N } 0 0 O n M V v~ _ H 4) 4) _ 0) *man 0 • • • C • • 'a H O O 'CL O O h O F. oc V f- ~ N y H lam O • a0 o~ o E Q. O '°a u c0Oam V _23O%V h h = ~ = 0O 4) _ O•~ a •o ~m *now V E 0 ~ •h O E~ M~o a (.7 z w x z 0 0 U C7 z z z H w O i a~ N s v N 0 - ~a O°-'•- CX 3 au ~ V O ~ •i V -o 40 0 OM = CK O ocle c OO h O ow 00.0 E •,o3 ==O y O a OEO Cie a H O 0 a waft cx O MUM a~ fto 0 0 a ch C a V O CL m UL. wi wi ~i i1 d 1 H t, ~W ,O ,U f t 4 V J O` . H 3 m r 0 V 0) c 0 N • . V C. 0 • 4 %am 0 a CL aft a 0 as t 3 0 u _ 0 c 0 0 44 H Cie a h t 3 E _0 h -a 0 as 00 VV "d c 0 E N as N Ln H h a *NAM 0 V 0 a 44 .IVAN h a~ `5T1. 1,~ty 4-A t .!O Y~k r ~D O I io ; 5 t t~ 0 N h o o a E N mIm H M H Mo o ~o o ~ o } 0 V ~ 0 0 H ~V L } ~t ~ h o vo a i u -a E h CL 10 DC v~ • 0 ~ a3 _ E 0 0,10 0 V V y " a w o o a E Oft "0 V 'o NUNN o mo a o _ CL=.0 0E~ a Ln o '0 u *mom "M 0 0 L m 1-- = V E O O,D)= 0 h 0 y= O0 U .aa o0y Q.- a,o.0 hdca ~ LZ~ N 4) a o h 4 i i, ,F •r t M *loft 0 06 0 j u 0 "o MGM= 1 * i ~ a Q CL E O a O a a U y.. u bAft y m h o 1*0 16- . , -4) V c m p • 4 E 7 N'laft *mom 0 E 0 Oo • a~ L o = N Cie O t O O y cn h un C1 > > > •a~ V O y vs ~ Cle 4C cx cC c Er L~ I'~ l • F-~-I ,''~fna rT1 .1 L I ' I^ x. V J 'O ,U O . f, O a 0 Cid V 4) Cie 0 • E a~ o y- o h -oft C a E 0 H ~ 0 0 V m O E 0 0 N Q O 3 0 J E 0 0• >11 3 a~ z w O ,I a. ~J ALA" y O 1-~ J O a o vs 4i aloft %waft *OEM OO E a~ - M O M O i Out Lei ~y o 4 a, c -O-ft fto O ' oc H > a { cn O a O O O M rwmft 4) a a~ rt I u, r"7 W w !O U C7 H u rir•,, i~ L f- H H LfE .0, V r; •1 aI • ~i *mom O fto L a O V OWAWS 4) ~ •1 0 O O ii H h a a~ • E z 0 V t. W k n I xl O U li ~h W UO) O 00=\ O .V i t D .he u m N Q 06 ftAft y L ~ i 0 ° •e W . C vs O cat ~ ~ *Ad O O w a~ -jE 1~ jE O i ,o a a ~ ya o O ~ O ZZ O ~ y ~ ~ i '=y mftft Rowl, Q F-~ f. ,U 'rti H r--a { rw y as O a o 0 O O ~ H CL o v o O h 4 O 3 O O V V a 0 O V a 3 .NANO a 3 *Minn _ NORM O Vm O y.. 0 O O a o h L, a o E a o, -a ~ h 0 aU .mom V t H W , 0 U s cn O O h own .y ~ O O V ~ E O vs a oC ~ - 4i 0 HO ~ H U E~ ° ' o ay = U CL. U .y ~ F--; _ o= E =0 = 00 a 4' .0 V-0 _ V 0o U0 = CIE oV v o H= V V O O O 0 • a Q a "Wft hift a O a as L a c 0 as aC1 i _ a. aO V c = o N a 3 z GN bft CO) Z N > Q O t E N mftft CL = a a = Z ~ O Z Ii W O 7, f! U I d v J I i 1r T1 ,1 I I. O %woo O .y h V O O O V LL. V CL O H 0 w4am ummft O a h 3 O Z m 0 O E Cie V i mom a a~ lot Q waft z oc 0 O "ft V 0 a s i c O~ mom V H 0 m m O O 4C "Oft -lid Z • H rA7- V .w cn !I ~ V w caun j k 1 ,4n~ O r ;1 5u MININ O %woo C 0 0 H V (D DC 0 0 V Li . . V O. O I- . O Z) LL. 0 _o V 4) 0 V a a o_ ag •a a~ QQ -a - =a Ca ag M 0 W-ft LL. -lid V M &am 0 ~ a Cie -41.. Z N m 4 _ ~ O ~ a~ • o U M o U h ~ NORM owma boa N y a •o = h o *own h a N Cie u x a a a~ W Cx 0) '0 U CD cc 4 f. t` il\ CITY OF REDMOND Community Development April 16, 2012 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Honorable Tony DeBone, Chair Honorable Tammy Baney, Commissioner Honorable Alan Unger, Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 716 SW Evergreen Ave. Redmond, OR 97756 (541) 923-7721 Fax: (541) 548-0706 www.ci.redmond.or.us RE: Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Update - Proposed Policy Regarding Support for City of Redmond TSP Dear Commissioners: Over the past few years, the City of Redmond and Deschutes County staff have continuously worked together to address interrelated transportation issues that benefit both Deschutes County and the City of Redmond. The County staff supported and assisted the City of Redmond during the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) update in 2008 - we are thankful for such collaboration. As the City of Redmond continues to work toward ensuring a functional transportation system to serve its citizens, we know that continued coordination with Deschutes County is necessary. In a continuation of this collaboration, our staff has had discussions with County staff regarding necessary transportation facilities between Redmond's southern city limit and the Quarry Avenue Interchange at US Highway 97 (as such alignments are shown on the adopted/acknowledged City of Redmond TSP). As part of the current County TSP update process, the City respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners consider adding a policy to the County TSP indicating support for the Redmond TSP which includes the aforementioned road alignments. The Policy language could be included as follows: POLICY: Deschutes County will support and collaborate with the City of Redmond to aid in implementing the City's Transportation System Plan as it illustrates new roads extending from existing City streets at the southerly Redmond City limits to the planned interchange with US Highway 97 at Quarry Avenue in Deschutes County. We believe that there are several practical reasons which support this or a similar policy, these include: Planning • Building • Economic Development Coordinated planning of transportation facilities (among City of Redmond, Deschutes County and ODOT staff) have included discussions of such road connections to Highway 97 at the planned Quarry Avenue Interchange, which is shown on the County TSP. These roads will aid in extending the lifespan of State facilities (Highway 97) where existing intersections are either at or are approaching facility capacity. The alignments will ultimately provide relief to the Yew Avenue interchange, and will add to the accessibility of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Redmond's eastside industrial lands by providing a new parallel facility to Highway 97. Such facilities will provide convenient, alternative routes for County residents who need to access the City of Redmond for employment and everyday life needs. The addition of the Policy will further promote continued transportation coordination between Deschutes County and the City of Redmond, and allow us to work jointly with ODOT and DLCD to address access and mobility issues affecting the interconnectivity between City Streets, County Roads and State Highway facilities. The Policy will let the residents of Deschutes County and the City of Redmond know that there is a commitment to work together with forethought in regional transportation planning. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Heather Richards Community Development Director Analysis of the Traffic Growth Rate Sisters ATR Revised April 16, 2012 Bruce Bowen, PhD The graph below shows the average annual daily traffic (AADT) for the Sisters Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) for the 18-year period 1994 to 2011. 2011 was obviously the latest full year of data available from ODOT. Calculating a growth rate for this time period presents some very difficult statistical problems. Note that the first three years and the last four are below the fitted line while all the others are above. This indicates that the growth rate is not simply a linear or multiplicative relationship. The line in the graph below represents an annual growth rate of 0.2% or 3.7% over a 20-year period. (The growth rate in the ODOT PowerPoint presentation was about 25% for the 20-year period using data from 1990-2009.) Why are the ODOT and this growth rate so different? First, they use slightly different time periods. Second, they have very wide confidence intervals because of how the errors are distributed. (The technical term is serial correlation in the errors.) S O r a O 0 m S CO 8 C P- Average Annual DailyTraffic at Sisters ATR 1994-2011 year • Actual+Forecast Fitted vaues Looking at the graph above, if there were more years to the left on the graph that had low traffic levels the graph would tilt/slope upward and mean that the growth 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 rate would be higher. This graph has fewer points on the left and one more point on the right tilting the graph down further than the one in the ODOT PowerPoint presentation. The steepness of the graph (slope) represents the growth rate. ATR data for the first two months of 2012 is available and the average daily traffic is up by 30. If (a big if) this were to continue, it would mean the slope of the trend line would become even flatter, which would further reduce the 20-year projection. What should be made of this? The most important conclusion is that for the last four years the level of traffic has been declining rather than growing. Also, if adding a year or two or subtracting a year or two changes the calculated growth rate dramatically, as it does in this case, then the estimates of the growth rate cannot be trusted. (They are unreliable and have large confidence intervals.) The ODOT prediction of 9900 average traffic on the segment of US 20 between Tollgate and Black Butte Ranch is very likely incorrect. Bend Park & Recreation 0 IS T R I C T 799 sw columbie street Bend, OR 97702 Board of County Commissioners April 16, 2012 Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 SUBJECT: Draft Deschutes County TSP Bicycle and Pedestrian Element Chair DeBone, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft County Transportation System Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Element. The Bend Park and Recreation District (BPRD) works closely with our city, county, and state partners to provide recreational facilities and opportunities for visitors and residents alike. The district is the designated park and recreation "urban services provider" for the city of Bend including those areas of the park district that extend outside of the Bend UGB. In many areas of the UGB, the district performs planning for trails that originate within the urban area and extend outside the boundary to make connections into the national forest or onto BLM lands. These connections are critical components of providing the close-to-home outdoor recreational opportunities that are in great demand, help to reduce automobile trips, encourage healthy exercise, and make our community an attractive place to live and work. We have reviewed the language in the draft Bikeway and Pedestrian Element, and specifically the section titled "Off-Road Route Selection" which is most relevant to our work on paths and trails located outside of road right-of-way. The narrative captures some important nuances in the desire to provide off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities. We appreciate the reference to these off-road paths providing a transportation and recreational opportunity, which is often not a consideration in the discussion of such facilities. This dual role is especially evident in paths close to urbanized areas where the majority of daily trips (being most often three miles or less) can be captured by cycling. Data' suggests that off-road paths can also be more attractive to seniors, children and inexperienced cyclists that may be uncomfortable using on-road bike lanes and shoulders. We encourage the county to continue to work with the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), as well as the other local jurisdictions and BPRD to have a role in the increased provision of off-road facilities. as demand warrants and funding allows. Often the best use of limited trail resources can occur when jurisdictions approach regional trail development in partnership so that individual segments are prioritized, planned, and constructed to fit within an overall trail framework across the entire region. During the County Planning Commission's recent review process, we had suggested the following edits to strengthen the language in this TSP section: Off-Road Route Selection On-road bike facilities including shoulder bikeways and bike lanes are generally preferred by more experienced cyclists, and can have a lower initial construction cost and have maintenance included with the adjacent roadway. However, paved and unpaved off-road bike paths can cater more to recreational and fitness riders, and also offer a mostly automobile free route for inexperienced, younger cyclists, and 1 The are many sources of information on bicycle facility safety perception and other factors surrounding bike facility selection that can be found on the Web. A summary, and starting point to seek available resources can be found at: bttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated-cycle facilities#Segregating_cyclists_controversy. Page 1 of 15 4/16/2012 those older cyclists that feel more comfortable on that type of facility . Well placed paths could also serve commuting cyclists, and have the most potential to do so when they serve origins and destinations effectively. A paved shared-use path should meet state (ODOT) guidelines and be of sufficient width to accommodate multiple user types (e.g., cyclists, walkers, strollers, etc). The opportunity exists in Deschutes County to create off-road, separate shared-use paths in many circumstances, including but not limited to: • Along irrigation district maintenance "ditch rider" roads adjacent to irrigation canals. • Major utility easements. • Short connector routes between adjoining subdivisions, and between subdivisions and adjoining commercial areas, schools, parks, and public lands. • Abandoned roadways and railroad lines. • Additional bicycle paths within destination resorts and new recreational communities now in the planning stage. • Heavily used and impacted forest trails that could benefit from the additional armoring that a widened pavement surface would provide . Goal 23. Work with BPAC to identify a system of off-road paved shared-use paths to be included in the County transportation system. Policies 46. Developers in Deschutes County shall be encouraged to design paths that connect to the countywide bikeway system and that provide the most direct route for commuters. In some cases, it may be appropriate to relax a requirement, such as for a sidewalk on one side of a residential street, in favor of a comparable and relatively parallel bike path within the development. However, the developer's provision of a bike path shall not change the on-road bikeway requirement for arterials and collectors. 47. Deschutes County shall facilitate the development of mountain bike routes and the creation of paved off-road shared-use paths. The County shall work with its public agency and non-profit partners, and the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to identify such routes and incorporate them into its transportation system where appropriate. Particular attention shall be given to obtaining and keeping rights-of-way for uninterrupted routes linking various residential, commercial, resort and park areas within the County. Linear corridors such as rivers, irrigation canals, ridges and abandoned roadway and rail lines shall receive special attention. Proposed developments may be required to provide such identified trail and path rights-of-way as part of their transportation scheme in order to maintain the integrity and continuity of the countywide system. 48. The County shall work with local agencies and jurisdictions to acquire, develop and maintain those sections of trail that are located outside of UGB's, but are part of a trail plan or map that has been adopted by the local jurisdiction and/or the County. Trails andpaths that originate within urban growth boundaries and extend outside the boundary to county, state and/or federal land destinations should be the highest priority. 49. Off-road paved shared-use paths shall be constructed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the most current edition of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Page 2 of 15 4/16/2012 Facility Requirements The TPR has various requirements relating to bicycle facilities such as bike parking amounts and areas, and employee considerations such as shower and changing facilities. These requirements have already been implemented through Deschutes County ordinances, but are reinforced here with goals and policies. Goal 24. Maintain and revise when necessary, the existing land use development requirements for bicycle facilities in Deschutes County. Policy 50. Deschutes County shall maintain and update as necessary, the existing ordinance requirements for bicycle facilities found in Title 18.116.031 and Title 17.48, Table B, or such other location that it may be moved to within the Deschutes County Development Code. After listening to the Planning Commission's deliberations on the TSP, it was clear that there was some confusion as to BPRD's role in the community, and the planning for several future trails and bridges shown on existing plans both inside and outside the Bend UGB. To clarify the district's position on trails in general, and specifically regarding the Deschutes River Trail (DRT) and its future extensions to the north and south, we believe a background discussion of trail planning is prudent. The first leg of what would become the Deschutes River Trail (DRT), the "River Run Trail" officially opened in 1989 and was a section running downstream along the Tumalo Irrigation District canal beginning just north of 1" St. in Bend. 1981 Bend Comprehensive Plan map. - The first leg of what would become the Deschutes River Trail (DRT), the "River Run Trail" officially opened in 1989 and was a section running downstream along the Tumalo Irrigation District canal beginning just north of I" St. in Bend. This was one of several trails identified on the South UGB - The 1995 "Bend Urban Trails Plan" identified the DRT running through most of Bend, and showed the COID Trail #12A extending beyond the south UGB line into county jurisdiction and then curving west to cross the river and connect to USFS land. The 1995 Plan was created before any development of Elk Meadow was envisioned west of Brookswood Ave. (Figure 1) The next formal trails planning effort was a joint project between the city of Bend and the BPRD Foundation in 1999 to develop a specific plan. The 1999 "The Bend Riverway, A Community Vision" identified development of the entire DRT through the Bend UGB. An additional factor that has been raised regarding this future trail extension and bridge is the status of the Deschutes River in this area with regard to the federal "wild and scenic" classification and the State of Oregon "scenic river" classification. These classifications affect where and if a new bridge can be built under existing rules. In this case, the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) is more restrictive than the federal guidelines and likely controls what can be built. As the south part of the UGB continued to develop with the River Rim subdivision on the Elk Meadow property, the district looked closer at a potential DRT extension to the south UGB. The district acquired Page 3 of 15 4/16/2012 and built Wildflower Park on River Rim Drive and also acquired a three-acre river park site now known as River Rim Park located at the end of River Rim Drive. Although River Rim Park is currently undeveloped, it does provide public access to the river and a safe final watercraft take-out opportunity for river users that want to avoid the more advanced rapids and the dangerous COID water diversion intake a short distance downstream. The park also provides a riverfront location for a future extension of the DRT to the south UGB (Figure 3). Figure 1- 1995 Bend Urban Trails Plan ,doe ~~p hi. I na,a. 40 IV M The 2002 "Deschutes River Trail Action Plan" consolidated these two documents and identified a total of six sections of the DRT referred to individually as "reaches" with corresponding project lists and action items. The south part of the UGB was covered by the "South Canyon Reach" which maintained the same conceptual trail alignment used in the 1995 Plan but it no longer extended south across the UGB into the adjacent county subdivision, but instead turned west on vacant land inside the UGB to a proposed bridge crossing of the Deschutes River connecting to the existing USFS trails on the other side. Once again, this was not a definitive trail design or bridge location, but rather a better refined placeholder for planning purposes. The final trail alignment would still be subject to future development plans and the bridge location could be either within or outside the current UGB. This plan did show a proposed short connector trail linking the Cinder Cone Natural Area south to Buck Canyon Road which is located in the county. The bridge was shown outside the UGB on USFS property (in yellow) which extends across both sides of the river in county jurisdiction. The graphic from the DRT Action Plan is included as Figure 2. Page 4 of 15 4/16/2012 Figure 2 - 2002 Deschutes River Trail Action Plan YJi ! i9't~^ r s a1~`~ t t 45 S+" r k 4 r r t w 00, 1 s r~~ d0p 1 J r - "now % JIA, NXIL As the south part of the UGB continued to develop with the River Rim subdivision on the Elk Meadow property, the district looked closer at a potential DRT extension to the south UGB. The district acquired and built Wildflower Park on River Rim Drive and also acquired a three-acre river park site now known as River Rim Park located at the end of River Rim Drive. Although River Rim Park is currently undeveloped, it does provide public access to the river and a safe final watercraft take-out opportunity for river users that want to avoid the more advanced rapids and the dangerous COID water diversion intake a short distance downstream. The park also provides a riverfront location for a future extension of the DRT to the south UGB. (Figure 3). Subsequent to the 2002 DRT Action Plan, the city adopted a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation System Plan" ("Accessway Plan", 2006) that delineated the multiple trail and path opportunities around the city both within and outside of public rights-of-way. This plan focused mostly on in-street facilities, but all of the proposed trails in the 1995 Bend Urban Trails Plan, including the trail alignment (and ped. bridge) in the previous DRT Action Plan, were carried forward and included in the adopted Accessway Plan. (Figure 3) Page 5 of 15 4/16/2012 Figure 3 - 2006 Bend Accessway Plan Alpine ~ _Y wiwflovmr River Rim . , 4:~Aoll ■ o2k ~BI441LJKSiMV'llD SL Hollygrape I=LK Ml'u~ AMETHYST ST `SCE9EhTA Y, - z 1 POPLARS Y6 , fi 'y,'`- BPRD subsequently adopted its "Parks Recreation and Green Spaces Trails Master Plan" (2008) that built upon the city's TSP and Accessway Plan work, as well as the 2002 DRT Action Plane. The Trails Master Plan identified a slightly refined DRT route and connecting trail network at the south UGB, and also included the proposed bridge shown in the 2006 Accessway Plan. Similar to the previous plans, the trail alignments and bridge location were subject to change according to future development proposals. (Figure 4) 2 Prior to adoption of the 2008 Trails Master Plan, BPRD had relied on the city of Bend Urban Trails Plan and TSP as its trails planning document. Page 6 of 15 4/16/2012 Figure 4 - 2008 BPRD Trails Master Plan ' I • lb p9F8 C 0,6iT1o11. Kil g5 t b j ~ ~ ~ ~ p1~ hlmi 10 bUAFB $ ~t~ ~l~MG11A!! ~ - By 'TIP aft T i G ~ ha s a 4 m u"I • tMrlkw wig: W6 CanAkIdWW BUCKCAryygy 4c o r Oil t 2t, 251 INA W ~fC Cl 4f NOW a@ . ~(0$ yl!/W1Qp$JftCUPII PNlRJ~d~~FJIVAT PSI ~+esch~ts River Trail South Canyon Leach w 11 RA1 KIN09 i MA NO~* 3 I ~ * IR ;a~ ~MyG'Gfl~./r r~~F4NGERGBAIh a Y.. One such proposal was for a 101-lot residential subdivision on the remaining 80 acres of the original Elk Meadow property. The 2006-07 "Renaissance Homes" PUD proposal eventually included the DRT extension from River Rim Park to the south UGB. This was the first time that a subdivision in the south UGB area accommodated the eventual trail alignment near the river. A portion of the trail was located within the subdivision and the rest of it was located on a 20-acre adjacent parcel that was part of the proposal, but was to remain undeveloped as a designated nature preserve (with trail) along the river. Page 7 of 15 4/16/2012 Brookswood Blvd- i_ \'J m . . 116maine Village Way ~V IZ"~ l'orlerosa Or. b per's - Buck Canyon Rd. - Proposed Shoshone Rd.f Renaissance Nomies development off'' Baker Rd: - This Renaissance subdivision eventually fell victim to Bend's economic decline and was never constructed. An additional factor to be considered for this future trail extension and bridge is the status of the Deschutes River in this area with regard to the federal "wild and scenic" classification and the State of Oregon "scenic river" classification. These classifications affect where and if a new bridge can be built under existing rules. In this case, the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) is more restrictive than the federal guidelines and likely control what can be built. The 1996 Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Management Plan (https://scholarsbank.uorepon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/7223?show=full) shows it as: NORTH THE UPPER DESCHUTES RIVER Federally Designated Wild & Scenic River State Scenic Waterway BEND C-1 97 48 c~ne~ M Wr High Desert Museum pr.. rw ew.., rw Y 8 Lava Butte SUNR ER ao Page 8 of 15 4/16/2012 The federal Wild and Scenic (Recreational) category extends downstream from Lava Island Falls and ends at the yellow dashed line (image below) that is an extension of the SW UGB line (BPRD interpretation). This is also where the State "Scenic" waterway designation ends. The State "River Community" Waterway is the only "scenic" designation that continues downstream within the current UGB. It extends approximately one river-mile downstream from that line to the other dashed yellow line at the top of the image located at the COID irrigation diversion gate. The current OAR does not allow any bridges over the river from the COID diversion point upstream both inside and outside the UGB/CL/Park District. Therefore, any future annexations to the south, or just moving the proposed bridge into the UGB would have no effect. It is the State OAR that deals specifically with the "River Community" designation that we would work to amend to allow pedestrian bridges through some sort of land use mechanism (to be determined). We would hope to avoid private property impacts by using the federal property located on both sides of the river to place any future bridge. The state OAR 736-040-0073 is the controlling administrative rule (edited to show only relevant text): OAR 736-040-0073 Upper Deschutes River Scenic Waterway (1) Scenic River Areas: (a) Two river segments are designated as Scenic River Areas: (B) The segment of the scenic waterway extending from the Deschutes National Forest boundary in Section 20, Township 19 South, Range 11 East, of the Willamette Meridian, (Section 20, T 19S, R IIE, WM.) to the Bend Urban Growth Boundary at River Mile 172 is classified as a Scenic River Area. Page 9 of 15 4/16/2012 2010 Image with planned trail and Scenic River Classifications (e) New bridges will not be permitted. Maintenance, repair and replacement of existing bridges shall be consistent with OAR 736-040-0035(6) and (7), Deschutes County land use and development regulations, and Oregon Department of State Lands regulations; (h) New, above ground river crossings shall not be permitted; 6) Improvements needed for public outdoor recreation use or resource protection shall be designed to blend with the natural character of the landscape; (2) River Community Areas: (a) Four areas are designated as River Community Areas: (D) Those related adiacent lands within the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary beginning at about river mile 172 and extending downstream approximately one mile to the Central Oregon Irrigation diversion at about river mile 171 is classified as the South Bend River Community Area. f New bridges will not be permitted. Maintenance, repair and replacement of existing bridges shall be consistent with OAR 736-040-0035(6) and (7), Deschutes County and City of Bend land use and development regulations, and Oregon Department of State Lands regulations; (h) New, above ground river crossing will not be permitted; (j) Improvements needed for public outdoor recreation use or resource protection shall be designed to blend with the natural character of the landscape; As written, the state OAR expressly prohibits new bridges or new river crossings in these stretches of river both upstream and downstream of where a potential DRT pedestrian bridge could be placed. In spite of this current prohibition, the district feels strongly that it is our responsibility to actively plan for the trails and bridges that have been identified through prior planning processes and are desired by Bend's growing population. The district's 2008 and 2011 community-wide surveys continued to show soft- surface trails as one of the most desirable district recreational facilities. Specifically, the completion of pedestrian bridge crossings for the DRT also ranked very high in our most recent 2011 community survey. The continuity of the DRT requires an eventual crossing of the Deschutes River in the SW UGB and no other upstream or downstream locations in the vicinity are practical due to private property impacts. We believe that the OAR was originally drafted without consideration of pedestrian bridges and trail connections. It seems ironic that a section of river designated as the "South Bend River Community Area" in the OAR would serve to seprate rather than connect the community. We would like to keep open the opportunity to work with state and federal agencies to amend the OAR for this location and allow these types of bridges and important trail connections outright or through an identified permitting process. We request that Deschutes County support our local and regional trail planning efforts by identifying such potential new trails and bridges in its TSP. These future facilities are not shown on maps and websites available for public use as wayfinding tools until such time that they are legally constructed and formally opened for public use. However, it is important that they are identified on planning level documents as indicators of public desire, and shown to fit within the overall trail framework. We believe that the ability to eventually amend the pertinent OAR will be directly related to our success in demonstrating the high level of public support and regional trail planning work that has already taken place. North UGB - The DRT also extends north from Bend downstream to Tumalo State Park and eventually to the unincorporated community of Tumalo at US Highway 20. In 2010, the district acquired 122 acres of the Gopher Gulch Ranch (GGR) on the east side of the Deschutes River just north of the existing Bend UGB. This acquisition brings closer to reality the future opportunity for a DRT connection north to Tumalo. The GGR connection was not envisioned in the 1995 Bend Urban Trails Plan, but the concept was part of Page 10 of 15 4/16/2012 the 2002 DRT Action Plan (Figure 5) and subsequent trail planning documents including the district's 2008 Trails Master Plan. The 2002 Action Plan envisioned the DRT continuing downstream on the west side of the river and deviating out-of-direction on Putnam Road before coming back to the river via private property and using a new crossing of Tumalo Creek near its confluence with the Deschutes River. Figure 5 - 2002 DRT Action Plan (Awbrey Reach) Section .x Awbrey e J r I i GopherGulch Ranch 4-~ ~ M Page 11 of 15 4/16/2012 The 2008 district Trails Master Plan retained this west side trail concept because the acquisition of the riverfront portion of Gopher Gulch Ranch was not yet anticipated. 2008 District Trails Master Plan MEADOW U C ~ O TUMALO.PARK V ~O NO ~ V COOLTEY____-___ Deschutes River Trail •.1 Awbrey Reach KLIPPLE Cox (Tito location offttntm nails and I connecdoW to erisiing nails will be delenntwed Lased on ( `--ROB wasterplawnngofthe lmrv priinte ymrels in this amn) ~ r c \ i j LEN.VISTA- HARDY II ~ 9CCE33 \ ROPEER-C~ r I CHANEY-52 b.aq POE SHOLES \ iM""~_~J~ ~ ~F.iPli~m / m (-o qk ph / ~~p ~~in~ - rpL r 7'. .,jON 4ALFWAY- ffi 41, ~y w SlevArt Pam ~'P y eV 1~1 \ j~ m ~ N 4-ELLIE f O ~/f 0g.0.e~ amha"e~&ss nai ala ~ ~eoY '!_'L F-u GG P0. - O ARCHIBBRIGGS A. rc. O I ? F G W 77 t w O ( ` V ~ n ~ 1 V ~ GtON ( ~ (Y,y _ ~ ~ J ~~~>>'g>~~ I~~ ~ sr / WASNIN ~,lrcp =`~R S~~uPlamt Pc`~aREACH n,. 7p~hs VAR O`l '~DWOyOD OpP,~`J ~E ! !•O o ®10 . v n F O, ~ .0 iP~! ~C pPNO~'~`1 \`Y.PO ~ O N ~ 4 J _ 14' i ~ O~ . -IMP~ON ~ tE'}~-~ . yO~i rv-~_ . T \ ---444 ✓ . O,F w;t . ~ 4..C ~ ~ ( E~'t. ff However, with the advent of the GGR purchase, the future trail extension can now be located on the east side of the canyon for a more direct and practical connection to the existing DRT trail segments leading into Tumalo State Park. The district Plan retains the Putnam Road trail alignments, but now treats those as connectors versus the primary DRT route along the river. The new DRT alignment will still require a new pedestrian bridge across the Deschutes but it can now be located on district-owned property in the Archie Briggs Canyon Natural Area and on Gopher Gulch Ranch (Park). This segment of the river is classified by the state in OAR 736-040-0072 as either the "North Bend Community River Area" or a "Recreational River Area" depending on which side of the UGB the bridge is located. New bridges are allowed within either of these designations. This serves to point out the obvious question as to why the bridge prohibition was included in the South Bend Community River Area and not in the North Bend River Community Area where arguably the river canyon is more natural and less disturbed than that in the south UGB area. Page 12 of 15 4/16/2012 OAR 736-040-0072 Middle Deschutes River Scenic Waterway (1) North Bend River Community Area: (a) From Sawyer Park at approximately river mile 164 to the northern Urban Growth Boundary of the CitEofBend at approximately river mile 161, the river is classified North Bend River Community Area; (b) Within this area, all new structures, improvements and development shall be in compliance with the Land Management rules as described in OAR 736-040-0035 and 736-040-0040(1)69, and be consistent with applicable City of Bend and Deschutes County land use and development regulations. Improvements needed for public recreation use or resource protection shall be designed to blend with the natural character of the landscape. (4) Recreational River Area: (a) From the northern Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Bend at approximately river mile 161 downstream to Tumalo State Park at approximately river mile 158 the river is classified Recreational River Area; (b) Within this area, all new structures, improvements and development shall comply with the Land Management rules as described in OAR 736-040-0035 and 736-040-0040(1)(c)(B), and be consistent with applicable Deschutes County land use and development regulations: (D) Improvements needed for public recreation use or resource protection shall be designed to blend with the natural character of the landscape. The proposed trail alignment is reflected in Figure 6. Figure 6 - Planned Alignment of the DRT through Gopher Gulch Park Oeg°h° aoK~ ~ ` J / 1 to M• T~ari ~c~ / - n`~~ S / Aral oft ` T oft Page 13 of 15 4/16/2012 BPRD requests that DRT trail segments and future bridges identified in these plans and located in county jurisdiction be incorporated into the Deschutes County TSP for planning purposes. In addition to those trails identified above, there are several other trails that currently extend or are planned to extend outside of the Bend UGB into county jurisdiction. They are included within the district's adopted Trails Master Plan or are contained in USFS or BLM planning documents. This request would be an implementation of County TSP Policy #48. In some cases, these trails transition directly onto federal land, but in other cases the responsible jurisdiction may not be clear. In order to create a seamless network, just like public roadways, these trails could be shown on maps extending into the UGB like the district and city planning naps show trails extending outside of the UGB. One of the more critical trails lacking a common jurisdiction is the Brooks-Scanlon Trail that extends along the old haul road from Bend to Sisters. To preserve these types of trail opportunities we feel it is important that the county recognize them in planning documents like the TSP which is the only appropriate official document that covers the entire county at this time. The trails outside of the UGB are identified on Figure 7. Figure 7 - Adopted Trails Outside of the Bend UGB - f - a t ~ 1 ~ - z j Bend tor 46_ l C y"' Page 14 of 15 4/16/2012 In addition, even though they are not reflected in the 2008 BPRD Trails Master Plan, we also ask that the DRT changes identified in figure 6, including a new pedestrian bridge at Archie Briggs Canyon Natural Area, be included in the county TSP as well. We can provide the county with a GIS layer of all of these trails and hope that the Board of County Commissioners will see the necessity of helping to preserve these existing and planned trails and bridges for future generations to come. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please don't hesitate to contact me at 541-706-6153 or at steve bendparksandrec.org , Steve Jorgensen Planning Manager Bend Park and Recreation District Page 15 of 15 4/16/2012 O v Q G v v7 y W O v G1 O ~ by 60 ,n 11 Q n x W i) lid T U CUO Ld Q tY' LLI a CL, Fi C r.. C } 3 w U Z W U w om a~ U 9 (7 9 v li O O O N O M r O N tD O 0 s0 a~ Z 16 v O C r L cN m Emv` pp~~'o8 a ~ L N N m j C U Q ~ Y O m y 0 0 `off m E m o O°nv Lb `o v r o T.- a E -0 O Nm N O m = Q S.E~ F aan~ ~O Jig ~~~--e. corridors such as rivers, irrigation canals, ridges and abandoned roadway and rail lines shall receive special attention. Proposed developments may be required to provide such identified trail and path rights-of-way as part of their transportation scheme in order to maintain the integrity and continuity of the countywide system. 48. The County shall work with local agencies, jurisdictions an affected ro a owners to acquire, develop, address trail-connectivity issues and maintain QoDJ1XY_tho sections of trail that are located outside of UGB's that are consistent with the County's TSP but are part of a trail plan or map that has been adopted by the local jurisdiction and/or the ounty. Staff will work with local. state fe~Pra; agpnr;ac anti BpAC to determin th DriorU for trails that connect urban and rural areas 49. Off-road paved multiple shared use paths shall be constructed in accordance with the spy guidelines set forth in the most current edition of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Facility Requirements The TPR has various requirements relating to bicycle facilities such as bike parking amounts and areas, and employee considerations such as shower and changing facilities. These requirements have already been implemented through Deschutes County ordinances, but are reinforced here with goals and policies. Goal 24. Maintain the existing development requirements for bicycle facilities in Deschutes County. Policy S0. Deschutes County shall maintain and update as necessary, the existing ordinance requirements for bicycle facilities found in DCC 18.1 16.031 and DCC Chapter 17.48, Table B, or such other location that it may be moved to within the Deschutes County Development Code. 6.6 Airport Plan Airport Overview The continued operation and vitality of airports registered, licensed or otherwise recognized by the Department of Transportation is a matter of State and County concern. The County protects the operations of airports through the Airport Safety Combing Zone (DCC Chapter 18.80) to ensure safe operations of aircraft and that nearby land uses are compatible. DCC Title 18 also requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of land use applications within the AS zone. There are currently 18 registered airports in Deschutes County. Four of these are public use airports; two of which, Bend Municipal and Redmond Municipal-Roberts Field are publicly owned while Sisters Eagle Air and Sunriver airports are privately owned. These airports have improved (paved) runways, and offer a range of services, from the availability of commercial passenger flights arriving and departing daily at Redmond Municipal Airport, to the Sisters (Eagle Air) Airport which offers no services or runway navigational aids. Cline Falls Airport, Juniper Airpark and Pilot Butte Airport are privately owned private use airports with more than three based aircraft. There are three heliports: St Charles SRS`'' #114-5 11"n -w a90 DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 176 of 182 Conceptual Study Area - Aceti 1"=6w 12/1512011 w f~` e'er g°~,g L ` wgr~tY~~w `'r ` ~ Mw . Ya ° &a1 sri"'~Al v. '~~aw Ar * ~ ~ 1s r ~ i ~F ~.^6 r• ! a % k ..°JB r , +~v ~ .tx v s" M r ~ . ' : S n ~ :fir ~ .rA drt a " ^ ~ T#b ~ °k,', ! " ~ • N 5ti P~ b T ' ° I ~ t ' ~ ~ 1 ; ~ ~ " 4,,y i ~ a ♦ ~ eb .rt s a y~ r~ i ✓ b n Y f f^YU o ek r, . ~ y, 3 a s, P ~ -„s,.a.:..,«;M r h. „ ~ * • R 4 ~ , ' ~ r~ t ~ jF 7 j)F~• a i ~v ~ ^ M ~ `r r • b w. m ~ ~ sir, ~ .w " R y _ F ° ~ y:; W i y r 9 afw* ~ ~ r tY e: x w i ^3 r~.. ' wry. ^ 4 a Wr . x .r b , ° . + p - r P w. R v a .ew P w yp r YY Tye 4jr X r n • r Y y 4'• 4w W ism Y - ~ P • ~ - N- "d aFa _ ~ d•a, ~ T Any p J y x ~ ~ ` wr > , « • • ~ . r` 9~ ~t T 'r ~ Y.'.. a,..ir ° y 'b ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ° n."_ ~ ~ ~ S ~ t Si'X y' .per x+ YY~ ' u ~ . w ~ x • r! iF.. of ~ ~ ~ ...+i .b i N:\CustomUndNitlualslDougWhitDWcetiPropertylProjectFile Conceptual_SWdv Arm.mxd Y April 16, 2012 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners TUMALO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (TCA) MISSION STATEMENT: To preserve, protect, and promote the character, welfare and integrity of our rural community through information exchange and meaningful public participation. One of the 5 core purposes of the Association is to "Maintain, protect, and enhance the livability and sense of community of the area." To that objective, the TCA, over the past several years, has met on countless occasions both as an association, as well as a stakeholder with other organizations and agencies, addressing our Community Vision and plans promoting connectivity, business vitality, recreational enhancements, the river, a community park, as well as traffic / safety issues and Highway 20. We have provided considerable time, effort, input and testimony to Deschutes County regarding the Tumalo Community Plan, as well as to ODOT for safe and reasonable solutions to Highway 20/ Tumalo intersections. A short-term solution was provided by ODOT in 2010. A raised curb median was installed on U.S. 20 restricting left turns onto U.S. 20 and cross movements. A left hand turn onto Bailey Road from westbound U.S. 20 was maintained. This solution was NOT supported by the community and has adversely affected several small community businesses in these already financially challenging times. ODOT states on their web-site that the long- term solution needs to address safety and operation conditions of all road users on U.S. 20 through the Tumalo area, while maintaining connectivity and mobility of the community of Tumalo. To that end, TCA respectfully requests the review and support of our Community Concept Plan ( map attached) and to strike the ODOT Long-Term Proposal from the County Transportation Safety Plan. The Tumalo Community Concept Plan addresses the County and Transportation System Planning goals, as well as demonstrating improved safety, connectivity, recommending decreased speeds of 35mph in the commercial corridor, NO CENTER RAISED MEDIAN, retained multiple accesses, and an improved roadside environment with "monument" gateway to the community. With limited and decreased funds available, the price tag on the ODOT 1-3 solution is financially prohibitive... and likely a decade or two from any probable funding. The Tumalo Community Concept Plan is viable, effective and financially realistic. Thank you for your time and support of the valued communities you serve. Appreciatively, M4Stein, Co-Chair Tmunity Assoc iation Tt7 ~lST~12~ SF EED L42 SrE Ev -"A 'WELCOME" ro -ruMAL6 11 Lt t4vs,e tPED. LiT MONUMENT 51614 A6 E C 1-TE ZEN (~aN C GFT . PLAN V'RJ M RINEk TRAtl.._ fttueAe To r Tit ST ROVNDd~BpVT CL4CAL~ CONN>=cTION 131=i'UJaw lbAILEY g 4 rB 90 LEY SPEEb REbUr_'rit)N OM NY ZD T4ROU414 TOWN BETWEEN WE\-Gf#ME 51dNA6E &ivE1\ T"iL * 511E Fern Prp\l D4iE P05E Z ONDERFASS AT STft vv I 516 NA L Did Rb0WtAWVr Per N w Y za ~ C-00K ' r ~1~ERPASS Al MEE$ e fiOQWAI~CS u a~ L r t L fA.YEb axEl) U% .--MAILS i Rc~~rt~#1~CDt~1d i.- wELCO&k12: rD TOMA Ld . ~Zt? C~tIG`.1= S~I~Et~ TO j~g- To PKtAD AD YA K LE wpfp"f-41 N4 5PEEt ` RE.AUcrrQ~t a -r-RFgS i FLPVNTS 11 - - - ex4- 4,o b) ID -3 L J~pn fizo CJ- - - - --cam- C yxe - - - r Cm9 Co Cep `s - •_1-ec,.E,.vv11~,a~ a.~- ~s ~e~.v~ - ~..d~V~~I.c~,(,a Y Us X0 1lvw-alo J lloc~~ , 40 _ ~ m~r~~ .~Pn~...1 u~~,~ ~G~e. etc ~ - ~ - -5t Q A, QAIJ A A - - 1 ►~'S Q~ ~ O.V `cs "at fl~ S ac. re c~e~ oln,r ►'1 a -n - - - - LC -Gus-- -A 15 ------Q---1 tie_°'^ex---1*cen'ti - - - - -----gam s~ ~ - j Co- cvvql_"u_ AN - 0o~- - - - 4,0 14 - - - 41 1 72-~ v 21- -1~ - - - - ~ ~2~~ ~ ~v,, nom- - - _~_`7~--_' ~U~S'c3~ ~/l V'Y~om✓1~2MJ'' 1 r~, ' ~~'NYhQ!C(J to vtar~,- 1 o,t e\ U r Q QAIU o,Q.Jd_ - ehav) e-. Ir `?_oo'©-moo y~~~-mss -4rv ~--04~7 BD~T s - - voo-u,u fOlh~ ,j 4o 0- --BQ `fie rn- - I . a - 4T T-5 LOO - - 711 A -ZAMA _ loo - - CA)~ Al - - - a yo' e o - - ----.~_~~-~2s,•- ~~~~L~?~ ~ ~.1~?,e~ ~-PSI-~~rre - Lo -)-c3 -7 G US20 @ Tumalo Key Number #14982 EA PE001491 000 Date: Tuesday, January 12 2010 Time: 1:00pm - 3:00pm Location: ODOT Region 4 Headquarters conference room 63055 N. Hwy 97, Bend Organized by: Stephanie Serpico, ODOT (541-388-6309) CAC Meeting CAC a~© Invitees: Stewart Bennett Ben Leber Carolyn Perry John Bosch Bill Boyd Tom Fay Nunzie Gould Marty Hopper Doug Koellermeier Bruce Dekock Dan Serpico Gene Powell Peter Russell Alan Vanvliet Libby Westlund Marianne Fellner Rex Holloway Brian Paslay Jim Bryant Cris Mercer ('V- 10-~l A.;. G E::.• 14,,4c D. A TIME TOPIC LEAD 1:00 - 1:05 Introductions Stephanie Agenda Review 1:05 - 1:15 Update on new project key#17027 US20 @ Stephanie Bailey/7th (Tumalo) • Scope • Schedule • Budget 1:15 - 1:45 Review Problem Statement, Goals and Screening Stephanie / All Criteria Matrix 1:45 - 2:30 Review preliminary options Stephanie / All • ODOT developed • Brainstorm new ideas 2:30 - 2:45 Review Preliminary NEPA classification Stephanie • Meeting with FHWA 2:45 - 3:00 Next Steps Stephanie December 19, 2000 Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 17,671 COOPERATIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT Cline Falls Highway @ US 20 (Tumalo) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "ODOT" and EAGLE CREST INC., an Oregon corporation, acting by and through its senior officers, hereinafter referred to as "Eagle Crest". SC. CCn4aCtS RECITALS 1. US 20 is a part of the state highway system and is under the jurisdiction and control of the Oregon Transportation Commission. Cline Falls Highway is part of the County road system and is under the jurisdiction and control of County. 2. Eagle Crest filed a land use application (the "Application") with Deschutes County (the "County") on July 2, 1999 to expand its existing destination resort (comprised of two phases, commonly known as Eagle Crest I and Eagle Crest 1I), to the west on four hundred eighty (480) acres of land adjacent to the existing resort. The proposed expansion ('"Eagle Crest Ili") would include approximately nine hundred (900) new dwelling units and would be connected to and managed in conjunction with the existing resort. The location of Eagle Crest I and Eagle Crest Ik and the proposed location of Eagle Crest III are shown on attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. 3. A portion of the Deschutes County Destination Resort Ordinance (the "DCDRO"), ---ChaPter- 18.113:070(G),- -requires developments -that will significantly -affect -a - - transportation facility to take steps to assure that such development "is consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility". 4. In connection with its application and to help in the determination of its transportation obligations pursuant to the DCDRO, Eagle Crest has retained Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ("Kittelson") to prepare a traffic analysis in connection with proposed Eagle Crest Ill. S. The parties agree pursuant to the Transportation Impact Analysis report dated June 1999 and prepared by Kittelson (the `Traffic Analysis") that access to and from proposed Eagle Crest III should be through two (2) routes: (1) north through a new local road "the New Road" connection to Oregon Highway 126 ("Route 115) and (2) east through a local connection to and along the existing internal roadway network for Eagle Crest 11 which leads to two (2) intersections with Cline Falls Highway ("Route 2"). 6. Some traffic from the proposed Eagle Crest III would travel via Route 2 south on the Cline Falls Highway to connect to U.S. 20 at the intersection of those two roads in Tumalo, an intersection which has been identified by Deschutes County in its County Transportation System Plan (the 'TSP'} as the site of a future overpass interchange to better accommodate current and future traffic. 7. Eagle Crest is willing to contribute a portion of the cost of construction of the new interchange based upon the likely impact of traffic from proposed Eagle Crest III upon the intersection of Cline Falls Highway and U.S. 20 in order to help resolve issues related to transportation impacts from its expansion request. Eagle Crest's contribution is contingent on the resolution of the pending permits with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for access to Oregon Highway 126 (route 1). 8. Eagle Crest and ODOT agree that the intersection of Cline Falls Highway at the )unction with U.S. 20 is presently operation at LOS F. According to the Traffic Analysis, Eagle Crest III is expected to generate 3% of the overall traffic to this intersection and that it is expected to be approximately 12% of the critical turning movements. 9. By the authority granted in ORS 366.425, ODOT may accept deposits of money or an irrevocable letter of credit from any county, city, road district, person, firm, or corporation for the performance of work on any public highway within State. When said money or a letter of credit is deposited, ODOT shall proceed with the project. -_Money so deposited--shall be_d sbursed_for the purpose for which it was deposited. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT: 1. ODOT acknowledges that should Eagle Crest III be developed, an interchange may need to be constructed at the location shown on the sketch map attached hereto, marked Exhibit B, and by this reference made a part hereof. Agreement #.17,671 Eagle Crest Inc. Cline Falls Hwy @ US 20 (Tumalo) 2. Funding of the Interchange at Cline Falls Highway and U,S. 20. has been calculated as follows: The Deschutes County TSP calls for the new interchange to involve the construction of a grade-separated crossing of the Cline Falls Highway at the junction with U.S. 20 (the "New Interchange"). According to the Traffic Analysis and ODOT's own traffic data, Eagle Crest III is expected, on average, to generate approximately twelve percent (12%) of the critical turning movements from the side street onto the highway at this intersection. The County and ODOT have estimated that construction of the New Interchange will be needed in approximately five (5) years and will cost approximately Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). Accordingly, ODOT and Eagle Crest hereby agree that should the interchange need to be constructed that Eagle Crest shall contribute as its share the fixed amount of Two Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($240,000) (the "Interchange Contribution") which equals twelve percent (12%) of the total estimated construction cost. Eagle Crest shall pay the Interchange Contribution prior to time of award of construction contract for the New Interchange, should the New Interchange be needed. 3. ODOT and Eagle Crest agree that the advance deposit of $240,000 will be returned to Eagle Crest if construction of the interchange does not occur. 4. The terms of this agreement shall begin upon execution of the agreement by all parties and shall terminate upon completion of project and final payment, or at such time that it is determined that a new interchange is not needed. EAGLE CRESS' OBLIGATIONS 1. The obligations of Eagle Crest contained herein are contingent upon the following: (1) approval by the County of its Application to permit the development of Eagle Crest III substantially-as- ubstantially as proposed in the Application; (2) and approval lay _DLIVITof special use permits to allow the construction of the New Road and Internal Road substantially as shown in Exhibits R and C, respectively; and (3) the grant of all necessary permits by ODOT for the New Road to connect to Oregon Highway 126 substantially as shown on Exhibit R. Agreement #17,671 Eagle Crest Inc. Cline Falls Hwy Q US 20 (Tumalo) 2. Eagle Crest agrees, subject to the contingencies provided in paragraph 1 of this section, above, to make a contribution calculated on its generation of critical turning movements, in order to help resolve transportation-related issues at the intersection of Highway 20 with Cline Falls Highway related to Eagle Crest 111. 3. Should the interchange project be included in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (ST1P) and ODOT advertises for a construction contract, Eagle Crest shall, upon receipt of an advance deposit request from ODOT, deposit $240,000 in cash, check, or an irrevocable Letter of Credit with ODOT. Such funds must be received by ODOT before it will award the contract. Said funds shall be placed in the Highway Fund by ODOT. ODOT OBLIGATIONS 1. Should the interchange project be included in the STIP and ODOT advertises for a construction contract, ODOT shall, prior to award of a construction contract, send an advance deposit request to Eagle Crest for $240,000, which is their calculated contribution to the project. 2. ODOT's contact for this project is Gary Farnsworth, ODOT Area Manager. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. All parties agree that a mutual review of the construction plans will be conducted prior to advertisement for construction bid proposals. 2. This agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both parties. 3. ODOT may terminate this agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Eagle Crest , or at such later date as may be established by ODOT, under any of the following conditions: a. If Eagle Crest fails to provide services called for by this agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b. If Eagle Crest fails to perform any of the other provisions of this agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this agreement In accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from ODOT fails to correct such failures within 10 days or such longer period as ODOT may authorize. Agreement #17,671 Eagle Crest Inc. Cline Falls Hwy @ US 20 (Tumalo) 4 c. If Eagle Crest fails to provide payment of $240,000 upon receipt of a letter of request from ODOT, -this termination shall occur only if all other conditions are met. Any termination of this agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. 4. ODOT and Eagle Crest agree that the Highway 126 connection will be restricted or closed at such time as the intersection meets signal warrants or other operational problems develop which cannot be mitigated to ODOT's satisfaction. Required modifications (e.g., restrictions to right-inlright out, raised median, etc.) or closure will be paid for by Eagle Crest, unless other development in area is also generating traffic at the intersection, in which case Eagle Crest's share of funding the modifications will be proportional to their share of critical traffic movements, The decision to restrict or close the access will be at ODOT's discretion, but will be closely coordinated with Eagle Crest and Deschutes County to consider reasonable options. Signalization will not be an acceptable solution. 6. This agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement snail bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of ODOT to enforce any provision of this agreement shall not constitute a waiver by ODOT of that or any other provision. Agreement #17,671 Eagle Crest Inc. Cline Falls Hwy US 20 (Tumalo) IN WITLESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. Pursuant to the Transportation Commission's adoption on March 18, 1999, of Delegation Order No. 3, (paragraph 10 as it relates to traffic management), the Deputy Director has been given authority to approve and sign this agreement. EAGLE CREST, INC., by and through its senior officers Elt- Title C a STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Depart nt of Transportation By ~ Executive Deputy Direct Date 'S^j( Date 3 - Z ~ - o / APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICkNCY _ Eagle Cres Counsel Date I Agreement #17,671 Eagle Crest Inc. Cline Falls Hwy US 20 (Tumalo) APP UAL RECOMMENDED Region 4 Manag6r,) Date ► 2-- Program nd lan,ning onager Date, APPROVED AS TO LEGAL. SUFFIC CY Pit 6/~z ~ Assj~stant Attomey General Date _ f Z2,Z - 6 L`XIHI BI 0 'B' - rFJPO-'SED HIGHWAY 126 AR"7`EF',r A IMrE ~ L. ~ ~.3 ~ EN D ;n. ef ED PROPOH RIGHT OF- WA Y {J 7 E E 1 ~ I ~F [ [ " ` _ 500 SOLE: 1 tni. v 4 yy I }k I PROPOSED ROAD AND UTILITY ACCESS k I ~ r£ U-) LLj P t . Kti > c { - , ( I I I I I f l I ~ «I E the I € ny s xT ~7 f' r jy yj/ PwT Jam'" m n p'n Eh"HIBI T 'C' ACCESS MAP TO LEGEND MD, LE- - A~ LE CREST li E: t " 400' E I T)N0 ROAD EED BED EXISTWG R OIAD a ~ off ~.~F~~`/ r PROPOSED RI T- OF- WA Y 1.7 l L # Kj ROAD AND EXrS Tl/V J TJ! 1 Tt , d R0DE ACCESS , . - LLI , re I a ~ , ROAD BELL 111 A'Y'E - ' ' - - ~ I . a . , 1111 , - f ' I N i 7 N R3 d C 2 .L .4) 0 V Q C M 'E C v N O LL cog Do L a) O N II J ~ .O C c6 U O L C ~ cn _ N C M to a cn C O a + ; . O a E II p cu , % C) O (N ` o a) L Ill O p V - C O m co C a) U U 0 M a L co r 0 =3 U O C O U N U N N C L a) U O C O p ° : a) (6 .O- II II a) 3 L L U - II n a) m rn m O r O -C L L - -C I_ Z Z CD Z .O Z L 0) L 0) L N L a) O u O C U C a) " L a o o C 7 N O a in _ U a) Ln o\ R! p U) > U *k J C U J I E C Y J J J J J J J J J J J J C \ a) \ \ C \ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ r4= 0 •E o 0 m 2 co = 2 > > C _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 L 0 L (D E O N . p N V Cl) Z U U 0) _ > O cn _ C N a) U > ~ f>3 o U CD ° a) (n ° co c _ c a) c0 c 0 is O O p (o to O U N -0 a) E a) O cn cn C L N rt+ cn CO) O Cl) O a) _r_ co U L L 2 co C. y...1 to O U U U U 1" L U 0 O) a) a) O r C: + a) O_ ° m cv co v°i > U a) . 3 ca a) N D. S a) U Y O- D. N O O cu c a) 7 o_ -L ' V ca ~ U - o U a) n L U • - O d " L -O - U . . . p _ - - - ~ U . - D -6 - . to C 'D to N O L U ` O LO O - O c C° O L) N p C ~ C l) C) O U a) L co 0 Q) C c~ O D c O W c a) p a] o. U c c a) a) m U) w U 3 N O_ O • C = ' C) N ° U U CO O N p C co N U U O a) L ° C t `C O a) L O W • a) D1 c U a) N C cu > =S 0) N U C O O O m d ~ O ~ y N 'V _ C fn U p U O (o O m N E ca U) a) Q) d s cn a r+ m Q) (D O > 3 a) o U L L m C a) L O_ c aci m ca m \ U V = U O C O N p O O ftf p a) a) E O_ O. ' c ° O_ C N m O) C a) L ca L D) co cn a) acu ) cn _0 4) _ C N c L a O O O O O a) a) O 0) . ~ O cu > 7 - O U C C cn ` =5 > a) cn E m O O 45 :t__ cn O U N U ° a) N U :5 a ) =3 u D a 0 0 c 3 > j > O L ° O_ c a) , OU N • U DD L L - C 3 o a E c- C U - N a) C O cu U O d 0) a) a 7 D t N,a) O_ ' U ~ L c p D) ~ C ) C L p m w toL«- U O) m CD - N Ip r O Cl) L -p O co - a) O •D a M > U X D O O CD a U O to X CU X a) ° (a •C X a) CJ a) > ~ t cu Y > U N a) > Q O ~ a) w N > L > O U U .E > a) m U o E _ a) C _ a) O ` .2 E >1 >1 B N c D a ) c 3. c c T° ° - C E O a) E ° v = - m° c L > co U U) M 0 U (D > a) ~N d > H J U O Q U 0 F- -0 Q Q - O> ~ n Q' U d' d O- tl m :C• 'd co co C a) C U c ~ E o O U) 3 LL Co a) Y d o 4; N co a) L U -t .5 ' t = d L O C O - L (p > 2 -p w - S o > O U C ~ = o c co C o a U E M C 3 C U o c a 0 )i U w o . c c 4? a) 3 m p' U N r' C 0) C N O ca .0 N Q) Q) U) o U a) C ca t O L _ N > (n to to Q. O N= d CL D U U) U .r •3 v O O U c(f a to C O D E "O -0 0 c O co d a p Z m e - m crf O) O O co (D a) N ` C p O ) U ar C d' a) 'C - u ca c c a c ai a C - C: U a m o G m ° m co (n a) 'd U) co CL u> co p .2 0 m 0 CD ° o m N O U U - N N U - -D U) E fo o C m (0 Q c .E V a) V a O L O U) Co (n E- a) 0 .0 (n CL -0 (n CL S cu ON c 'm J, « 0) U C c 3 N a) a o O LLJ y+ U O U U U (D v O C: O C: cn 0 o to O O N N O CL a) L E o -0 O m a) O _0 a) N O y O O c c Q C C O w m C U) (n ' C cq O cB E o O' co C M O U a) G) C, c O O a) 0 d O = c c r_ - c ~ o 7 L U N a) U C O N L N L co N C d CU O CU c U Q i+ a U) a) a) r a) t r + + . a) UJ c N m _ co C t: > U E L C U p L a O N N E d E O > > > p a) W a) E cn E c Q O > c0 N U) O a O a O Q O U C` N N U ° d N L) c O a) E c ° ° 3'~ ,C E E E w o N C cl o 0) E a E ` O o O_ 0) = ` w Ca o e v 2 o E ° r a o • E 0 c 3 o a)= t o c o c o c r , ° d ° L U a) a CL o m t U - L N • L (1) L N • c L a) L m L a) 0 L a) (0 > co O) N c a) C C 7 7 U. U C 'd E U in to U U U in U a) X Q' E ' N _ M O cd c- O O CD O o O > O D O > O O O O CL D a o a) ~ ° w c~ UU O O U a Uf- U a U U U U U t Q m y~ N Q m U in i~ Q M Q co Q LO 06 ~p Q m U ( C) p 1 N N N N ~ m Co CO D Co a.. ✓ , U') 0 O N_ N a) _ L O cn "0 a) N II L C ) U 7 C 0 0) fa cn ' C 0 'p O cu a) O E N ) U 0 0 0 O 0 L - Co -0 cn E o) a cu cu O L L L U U a) m a) fa 0 u a 0 J 0) J J J z _0 0 0 (U ` ' . C -0 L Z ' 7 z U) Y U O -D ` (n L 7 L (p O + O (n C U O m U a) 0) U 0 cu CU L '0 to cn C c ca U O (n L 0) CU O U COL 0) p a) u 7 O CL C: U N -0- g) 0 - r- - > cu E C O N 0 cn a) N CL a) O U C fA O a) CL 0 E ca > O co ~ a) > 4) - 0 E V O_ ca c 0 E 0 0 . L C :D CI 4- O + N 0) tp O C a) - ca U j 0 (U a Cl) O V O U) O C U) a O X A p > CO " C C C a) CV C _ d N ) X CL) D X 0 O V > a) cu a) CD w " CD n aE cc o ca a) -vN ca > - p ca in U 0 (D Q Y) a Do a i C~ a) D C ca co C d L P) a) 0 = C O y O M , v d c: CD 'c c c V C V M C 0 fl. to 3 V E = - a i 0 M >1 .0 C V) cn a) C C C 0) R3 U c O > O c 7 O L CL N C 0 - C a) L t0 V U ca co 'C a) . i0 ca 0) T) J Q' Q cn j cu 'rr to C 0) . tr U C ,0^ C V d m CU 5 , ~ ca C 3 M CU 0 cu 0m a U) a) o 0 N L c N c ` C -0 _ 0 a p _ -C CU L 0 a) a CL 3a) :R a 3 o 0 s 0 a Q - ()•N (D a)-0 v v a • E E E 4) cu E ` V a) cu CU - W . LL 0 0 C L n c}a . a) a) m C C O U E O U 2 N 2 ; C c N C CD cu a E L c a E - ca (a w co ~ an ti co co < rn co C) 0 N Figure 2. Tumalo Rural Boundary III. TUMALO COMMUNITY PROFILE Tumalo is a small rural community three miles northwest of the city of Bend. Tumalo is one of four types of State defined Unincorporated Communities. As such, the boundary is tightly regulated as are the allowed land uses. Figure 2 represents the legal comprehensive plan and zoning boundary. The City of Bend, which has significantly increased in population over the last decade is Central Oregon's largest city and despite its modest size, has recently reached metropolitan planning organization (MPO) status, a federal designation required when a city surpasses 50,000 in population. Some consider Tumalo a "bedroom community" to Bend, however, Tumalo residents passionately value retaining the longstanding rural character that attracted them to the area. During the Tumalo Community Listening Session one gentleman reminded the group that "Tumalo was formed to be the 'capitol' of Central Oregon-we want to keep that connectivity." Figure 3. Tumalo Community School Boundary a. Greater Tumalo Area The state-defined Tumalo community boundary does not include a larger outlying area wherein a significant number of residents reside (see Figure 3). These residents consider themselves Tumalo community members, frequently access local goods and services and are impacted by local transportation and land-use policies. The County currently estimates Tumalo at 372 people based on the rural community boundary (Figure 2), with build out potential to 604. This estimate is based on a residential boundary of less than one square mile, whereas the Tumalo Community School, with over 400 enrolled students, has a significantly larger attendance area. Within that area, it is estimated an additional 6,500 residents reside. In this HIA we take account of the Tumalo Community School boundary when assessing vulnerable populations as well as overall community health impact related to key Tumalo Community Plan (TCP) policies. LXIVV,0_~~ ua~ - ~ yv~ ~Z_C_k- k,- ItT r-f Legend TUC - Commercial TUR - Residential TUR5 - Residential 5 Acre Minimum TURE - Research & Development TUI - Industrial FP - Flood Plain Tumalo Zoning For More Information Contact: Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette BemI, OR 97701 541-388-6575 - deschutes.or-jWd V V o aw sm ram F¢t 1 t,tOe PeG m~ aw a..d.e„ova.r, m.as r,~s smc~we.xoora......o. 2. Funding of the Interchange at Cline Falls Highway and U.S. 20, has been calculated as follows: The Deschutes County TSP calls for the new interchange to involve the construction of a grade-separated crossing of the Cline Falls Highway at the junction with U.S. 20 (the "New Interchange"). According to the Traffic Analysis and ODOT's own traffic data, Eagle Crest Ill is expected, on average, to generate approximately twelve percent (12%) of the critical turning movements from the side street onto the highway at this intersection.. The County and ODOT have estimated that construction of the New Interchange will be needed in approximately five (5) years and will cost approximately Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). Accordingly, ODOT and Eagle Crest hereby agree that should the interchange need to be constructed that Eagle Crest shall contribute as its share the fixed amount of Two Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($240,000) (the "Interchange Contribution") which equals twelve percent (12°!x) of the total estimated construction cost. Eagle Crest shall pay the Interchange Contribution prior to time of award of construction contract for the New Interchange, should the New Interchange be needed. 3. ODOT and Eagle Crest agree that the advance. deposit of $240,000 *11 be returned to Eagle Crest if construction of the interchange does not occur. 4. The terms of this agreement shall begin upon execution of the agreement by all parties and -shall temtinate upon completion of project and final payment; or at such time that. it is determined that a new interchange is not needed. EAGLE CRESS' OBLIGATIONS 1. The obligations of Eagle Crest contained herein are contingent upon the following - ( approval by the County of its Application to permit the development of Eagle Crest III substantially as proposed in the App cation, (2yand approval-bvy--BL l-of special use permits to allow the construction. of the New. Road and Internal' Road substantially as shown in. Exhibits B and C, respectively; and (3) the grant of all necessary perm ts,by ODOT for the New Road to connect to Oregon Highway 126 substantially as shown on Exhibit B. Agreement #f17,671 Eagle Crest Inc. Cline Falls Hwy @ US 20 (Turnalo) 1 1 0 k n zLe l qe~pvv-s-sw 2,k 4[ L(ok~ ~e,►~ B~ ~11~ -33W ~ P",ki WA. - - - - - - ur.-fir- Q - I~ (~~~tl en - A-00 (9- b - f - -"h - ; i _ - - - - Ise. -r= - - . 'der cn