Loading...
2012-1584-Minutes for Meeting April 23,2012 Recorded 5/7/2012DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL COUNTY CLERKDS CJ 2011-1584 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 05/07/2012 01;00;03 PM 1111111111111111111111111111111 2012-1564 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Nick Lelack and Peter Russell, Community Development; Chris Doty and George Kolb, Road Department; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel, and approximately ten other citizens. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (continued from April 16, 2012), and Consideration of Ordinance No. 2012-005, Amending the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan. Laurie Craghead said that the changes discussed at the last meeting have not been completed, and she will ask for a continuation of the hearing to allow time for that process to take place. Most of the changes are not substantive, but the public should be allowed to have time to review them. Peter Russell submitted a memo from Chris Doty of the Road Department suggesting TSP language for a Tumalo interim solution development. Another change would be showing or not showing a bridge on the south end of Bend for trail use, until the OAR's change. Joseph Rodriguez asked about plans to develop the canal rights of way for bikes and pedestrians. He feels it is important for someone to support this idea. There is a path along the canal from Parrell Road to Butler Market, and he thinks a lot more people might use this if it was paved. Many places have these kinds of trails. People need to think about multi-modal and develop these types of amenities. This kind of improvements would be another feather in the cap of the area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Monday, April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 3 Pages Dick Gummas of Tumalo said he spoke with his neighbors and they wrote a petition opposing the actions of the Tumalo Community Association. It was signed by 62 people age 18 and older. Of these, ten own and operate a business from within the townsite. Commissioner Unger asked how they can move forward, considering the opinions people who live in town and those who care about the town; they all need to work together. Mr. Gummas said they are forming a Laidlaw town committee to address traffic and water issues. Mara Stein, who lives off Highway 20 and is co-chair of the Tumalo Community Association, said they have spoken with Commissioners Baney and Unger plus Planning Commissioners. She noted that you can't please all the people all the time, and she wonders how to go forward at this point. The Association did not want to work in opposition of what is in the best interests of the community. They need somewhat of a united voice and not be subjected to change without the opportunity to speak up for the community. If the Road Department memorandum can help, this is of interest. Some people are concerned about the specific area of the downtown community. Many others have spoken that there are those who live outside of the downtown corridor who have a profound commitment to the businesses and community. She wants to further this dialogue and support the memorandum, and look at an interim solution. She thought they had consensus on many things, but they now will look to work further through these issues. Commissioner Unger had questions about using ditch rider roads in the County for recreational purposes. Mr. Russell said that some have the roads strictly for maintenance purposes and are hesitant to let anyone else use them. He is working with the irrigation districts to develop a process so they can come together with service providers on this issue. Oral testimony was closed with a deadline of May 14, 2012, S: 00 p.m. for further written testimony. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Monday, April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Pages DATED this 00-41 Day of 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Z~OV-,- Anthony DeBone, Chair cda^,- U4--~ Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: Tammy Baney, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Monday, April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 3 Pages Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: April 19, 2012 HEARING: April 23, 2012 SUBJECT: Proposed Executive Summary for TSP Update; topics raised at 4/16/12 public hearing on Transportation System Plan Update (Ordinance 2012-005, land use files PA-11-5/TA-11-4); suggested revisions from legal counsel The Board held a public hearing on the Transportation System Plan (TSP) on April 16, 2012. Members of the public testified on several topics listed below. Staff provides the Board with a response to each to aid the Board in its consideration of Ordinance 2012-005, which implements the TSP. Staff would also like to include the attached Executive Summary into the version of the TSP now before the Board. The Executive Summary provides a broad overview on project cost and priorities and places all of the proposed goals in policies in one place in the Plan. (The goals and policies will continue to appear in the Plan under the appropriate sections.) Additionally, County Legal Counsel has several helpful editorial suggestions and proposed revisions for the Board to consider. (Staff appreciates the large amount of time Ms. Craighead spent improving the document.) In the pages below staff addresses the issues raised in public testimony. • Issue: Deschutes Junction Refinement Plan Response: The two major issues appear to be defining Deschutes Junction and the timing of a refinement plan for Deschutes Junction. Deschutes Junction was identified in the 1979 by the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan; the area was identified again and land uses inventoried in October 1994 in conjunction with the regional staff member from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to comply with that agency's Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 660-022), Unincorporated Communities; and Deschutes Junction was defined in the most recent update of the Comprehensive Plan.' 1 For a full history of land use at Deschutes Junction, please refer to DR-10-3, which dealt with the matter as part of a declaratory ruling, eventually withdrawn, on the residential status of the structure now known as "the pink building." Quality Services Performed with Pride The Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management, Section 3.4, Rural Economy, page 11 explicitly defines Deschutes Junction as: "The Deschutes Junction site consists of the following tax lots: 1612260000107 (9.05 acres), 161260000106 (4.33 acres), 1612260000102 (1.41 acres), 1612260000114 (2.50 acres), portions 1612260000300 (12.9 acres). 1612260000301 (8.93 acres), 161226A000203 (1.5acres) and those portions of 161226A0001112 located west of the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe railroad tracks (16.45 acres). Generally, the Deschutes Junction site is bordered on the west by Highway 97, on the east by the Burlington Northern Railroad, on the north by Nichols Market Road (except for a portion of 1612226A000111), and on the south by EFU-zoned property owned by the City of Bend." Should the Board direct staff to begin a refinement plan for Deschutes Junction, one of the first tasks would be to define the study area. Staff would begin with the description above as well as the area suggested by Mr. White as possible study areas. Staff would include representatives from adjacent subdivisions in the planning process. The more critical question is the timing of a refinement plan. Given the Deschutes Junction interchange meets the performance standards of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) until 2030; given no land use changes have occurred in the area, save for a minor expansion of Rural Industrial (RI) on the east side of the interchange; given neither the County nor the State has any major construction projects slated for this area, staff does not see any pressing need for a Deschutes Junction refinement plan. Of course nothing prevents a private party from initiating a Deschutes Junction refinement plan and going through the County's land use procedures if a private party feels there is an imminent need for such a plan. • Issue: Deschutes Junction Frontage Road Response: The concept of a frontage road on the west side of US 97 between Tumalo Road and Gift replacing direct at-grade access to the highway has been proposed by both ODOT and area residents. ODOT has sketched out a few preliminary concepts as have area residents. To date, no one has formally proposed a specific frontage road. Whatever the location, staff suggests the frontage road be in place prior to or simultaneous with the northward extension of the raised median on US 97. • Issue: Policy proposed by City of Redmond for future roads extending to Quarry/97 Response: The 1998 County TSP and the current TSP Update both show a future interchange at US 97/Quarry. The City of Redmond TSP shows roads extending to that future interchange, even though the roads are outside Redmond's jurisdiction. The City of Redmond has proposed policy language where the County would support and collaborate with the City on planning such extensions. 2 The 26B is a typo and should read 161226B00111; the County will correct the reference 2 The policy language proposed by Redmond is consistent with the County's long-term vision of an interchange at Quarry/97, development of a north-south road network on the west side of Redmond, and a similar road network east of US 97 and the BNSF as shown by the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan (UDRMP) in 2005. The City of Redmond will be the applicant to add these future roads to the County TSP in a subsequent land use process. • Issue: Future bike/ped bridge across the Deschutes River beyond the SW edge of Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Response: Currently, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 736-040, Scenic Waterways, prohibits any new structures across certain portions of the Deschutes River. The bike/ped bridge does appear on the City of Bend TSP, even though the location is under the jurisdiction of the County. Neither the currently adopted County TSP nor the draft TSP shows the footbridge. The crux of the matter is whether the County TSP should show a structure not currently allowed by state regulations, even though the general location has appeared in several long-range or aspirational Bend Park and Recreation District (BPRD) documents or plans.3 Not showing the bike/ped bridge makes it more difficult to secure grant funding for construction. Staff feels the bike/ped bridge is needed from both a utilitarian transportation perspective as well as from a recreational amenity aspect. Staff offers the following options: o Continue to not show the bridge on Figure 5.5F8, Bend Area Existing and Proposed Trails o Show the bridge on Figure 5.5F8, Bend Area Existing and Proposed Trails o Show the bridge on Figure 5.5.F8, Bend Area Existing and Proposed Trails, with a disclaimer stating "Generalized location; currently not allowed under OAR 736-040" Regardless of the map outcome, staff suggests adding policy language that the County would support revising OAR 736-040 to allow a bridge for non-motorized traffic. Staff supports Bend Park and Recreation District's request to add the footbridge by Archie Briggs Canyon to Figure 5.5.F8. • Issue: Tumalo Community Association Concept Plan for US 20 in Tumalo Response: Staff understands the desires of the Tumalo Community Association (TCA) to lower speeds in Tumalo and to keep the three existing at-grade intersections essentially unchanged, but cannot support the proposed TCA concept for a variety of reasons. Staff does support the establishment of "Welcome to Tumalo" monuments, the Tumalo Trail along the west bank of the Deschutes, and a pedestrian underpass at 5th/US 20 elements of the TCA concept. Otherwise, staff finds the TCA concept lacking in the following fundamental transportation planning areas: o No operational analysis of affected intersections on State and County systems o Does not comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) s Please refer to BPRD April 16, 2012, submittal which provides an excellent summary along with several helpful maps. o Unclear relationship with the State's rules for Unincorporated Communities, the adopted Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and the Tumalo Community Plan o Does not address documented safety issues on US 20 o Misunderstanding of the concept of "connectivity" o Presumes unrealistic speed zones o No cost estimates Lack of required operational analysis There is no operational aspect of how various intersections, both on US 20 and within Tumalo, function in 2030. The TCA proposal is essentially a No Build option and ODOT's technical analysis has already shown a No Build will not meet either the State or County's performance measures. Perhaps the traffic engineer the TCA alluded to who prepared the plan could provide the following transportation basics: o daily traffic volumes on the State and County system in 2030; o assumed numbers of lanes on US 20; o the distribution of traffic volumes in regards to through movements and turning movements; o the resulting volume/capacity (V/C) ratio of US 20/OB Riley-Cook, US 20/Bailey-7th and US 20/5th; the Level of Service (LOS) for Cook/7th, Cook/5th, and Cook/Tumalo Road, and 5th/Wood on the north side of the highway and Bailey/Strickler roundabout and Bailey Extension/OB Riley on the south side of the highway; o the V/C and LOS for the critical moves at each intersection; and o the queuing distances for all these intersections on both the State highway and the County roads. ODOT has conducted such analysis and published technical memorandums for the agency's two concepts. Does not comply with the TPR The TPR requires a 20-year analysis of a transportation system. The TPR at OAR 660-012- 0020(3)(a) requires a capacity analysis of the studied facilities. The TCA concept, unlike the ODOT concepts, does not have this technical analysis. The County cannot adopt a concept that does not comply with the TPR, particularly when there are concepts that have the required technical analysis of existing and future conditions. The TPR at OAR 660-012-0020(3)(a)(B) requires demonstration of compliance with the performance standards for State and regional facilities which the TCA concept does not provide. Unclear relationship among Unincorporated Communities, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Tumalo Community Plan The state's planning system deals with existing rural hamlets outside of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) under OAR 660-022, Unincorporated Communities (UC). These UC's have small-scale economic activity and minor concentrations of population higher than normally found in rural areas, predating the State's 1972 planning program. Both the State and the County classify Tumalo as a Rural Community, which is one of the four types of UC's. OAR 660-022-0010 defines that type of Unincorporated Community as: (7) "Rural Community" is an unincorporated community which consists primarily of permanent residential dwellings but also has at least two other land uses that 4 provide commercial, industrial, or public uses (including but not limited to schools, churches, grange halls, post offices) to the community, the surrounding rural area, or to persons traveling through the area. The point is the TCA concept assumes a far more urban-level of development and amenities than is anticipated by either OAR 660-022 or the County's zoning for Tumalo, which has roughly 375 residents now and is projected to have 600 by 2030.4 The Comprehensive Plan adopted just last year includes a Tumalo Community Plan as Appendix B. The Tumalo Community Plan was based on community input from several public meetings held in Tumalo. Generally, the sentiment was to maintain the community's rural character. Policies 8-11 deal with US 20. A grade-separation at US 20 is specifically anticipated in Policy #11. (See attached) The Tumalo Community Plan discusses sidewalks at Policies 3-7. A sidewalk along US 20 is not mentioned, but sidewalks consistent with the rural aspect of Tumalo are cited. Staff understands the TCA's desire for sidewalks along US 20, but as staff and ODOT have consistently pointed out, the ability to construct them is problematic given Tumalo's terrain. The highway is generally at a higher elevation and at 45 mph you would not want the sidewalks tight against the highway. Moving the sidewalks away from the highway introduces design challenges as the highway perches on a berm. Putting the sidewalks near the berm's edge could in turn require retaining walls. Also staff remains puzzled about who the sidewalks would serve given the auto-centric nature of that portion of Tumalo and the zoning. Further, the developed properties along the highway lie fairly distant from the highway as well as being at a lower elevation. While the sidewalks along US 20 look appropriate on a map, in the physical world they make little sense. A comparison of the relationship between sidewalks and use patterns along Cook Avenue in Tumalo, US 20 in Sisters or US 97 in Terrebonne, La Pine, or Chemult demonstrates the point. In those locales, terrain is flat, businesses are close to the road, and the density of businesses is noticeably higher. Does not address documented safety problems The crash history in Tumalo as studied by the Project Team for US 20 in Tumalo documents the various crashes by several factors, including location, type, and severity. The majority of the crashes are tied to either turning on or off of the highway or attempting to cross the highway. The safety problem in Tumalo is directly tied to the number of at-grade crossings of US 20. For motorized vehicles, a four-legged intersection has 32 conflict points. (A conflict point is where a vehicle's path could potentially lead to a collision with another vehicle.) A three-legged intersection has nine conflict points. A two-legged intersection has two conflict points. The TCA proposal means Tumalo will have retained the following 45 conflict points on US 20: Cook/013 Riley (32); Bailey/7th (4); and 5th (9). The ODOT concept of an overpass and a raised median would result in six conflict points: Cook/013 Riley (0); Bailey/7th (4); 5th (2). The ODOT concept also meets the State's and County performance measurements. The ODOT concepts have conflict-free connectivity whereas the TCA proposal leaves the underlying safety problem unaddressed. A raised median provides a cyclist or pedestrian a refuge when crossing the highway, which is a safer option. 4 Tumalo Community Plan, 2010-2030, Tables 1 and 2, page 6. 5 Misunderstanding of connectivity The TCA concept assumes the mere presence of an at-grade intersection ensures connectivity. However the projected daily traffic volumes result in few gaps in traffic for drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians to get on to or across US 20. A traffic signal without additional lanes on the highway simply ensures long queues will block intersections with the highway and local streets connecting to Cook. Further the traffic signal is a second phase in the TCA plan, so any connectivity benefits are deferred until the signal is constructed. Connectivity means the ability to safely cross a street or highway. A grade-separated crossing does ensure safe and reliable connectivity across US 20 as does a raised median. By contrast, an at-grade intersection with a road with higher speeds and large volumes of two-way traffic is not connectivity. Travel speed ODOT has pointed out repeatedly that the travel speed through Tumalo cannot be arbitrarily lowered, but must be done in accordance with a speed zone study. A previous speed zone study resulted in the current 45 mph posting. ODOT has said this is likely the lowest the speed can be posted in Tumalo in order to meet the 85th percentile as well as keeping vehicles grouped in platoons. Under the current speed zone study requirements an outcome of 35 mph is doubtful. Lack of cost estimates The TCA concept does not provide any costs estimates for the design elements of trees, sidewalks, Strickler/Bailey roundabout, monuments, or the 5th Street underpass. Nor is there any discussion of who pays the power bill for illuminating the signs. Miscellaneous observations Ms. Gould suggested County staff has been derelict in considering the needs of Tumalo while serving on the US 20 Project Team. County staffers from the Planning Division and the Road Department have been involved in both the Technical Advisory Committee and the Steering Committee. Several concepts were rejected based on staff's input that a proposed concept would have an adverse impact to either to County roads or the Tumalo community. A traffic signal at Cook/US 20 would have resulted in a seven-lane cross-section on US 20 to meet ODOT's performance measurement as well as traffic queuing north to Cline Falls/Tumalo Road intersection. Staff has also argued against concepts that diverted traffic to 5th Street as the resulting daily volumes exceeded 1,500 vehicles, which is the threshold for a local road in Tumalo.5 County staff argued that a seven-lane cross-section on US 20, gridlock on County roads, or dramatic increases on traffic on 5th were not in keeping with Tumalo's nature as an unincorporated rural community. Additionally, both the TCA concept and ODOT's concepts contain a new road segment between Bailey and OB Riley. The difference is in the ODOT concept, a grade separation at US 20/Cook-OB Riley means a motorist or cyclist could easily continue their journey uninterrupted. In the TCA concept they'd either have to wait for a traffic signal or gaps in a roundabout. The TCA plan attempts to make a highway into a downtown street whereas Tumalo already has a downtown street in Cook Avenue. Cook has on-street parking, trees, bulbouts, decorative pavers, crosswalks, and more pedestrian-scaled land uses. 5 See page 42 of 1998 TSP and page 61 of Draft Exhibit C, Ordinance 2012-005 6 The notation on the TCA concept references a river trail and a bike/ped bridge. Staff understands the first item and where it would occur, but the location of a bike/ped bridge is not shown, although bikes and peds are expected to use the proposed Tumalo Trail which passes beneath US 20 along the west bank of the Deschutes River. Perhaps the bike/ped bridge reference meant the Tumalo Trail rather than a stand-alone bike/ped bridge. • Issue: Adding lanes to US 20 between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters Response: While it may not seem like it, ODOT and County staff are actually in agreement with Bruce Bowen. The "triggers" are an attempt to set thresholds for when passing lanes would merit consideration. If the future traffic volumes turn out to be lower as Dr. Bowen discussed, then the highway segment would likely meet ODOT's performance measure and no passing lanes would be needed. Staff does disagree with Dr. Bowen's findings that 8% of crashes being related to failed passing maneuver is a low number. As most vehicles are not passing, 8% to staff appears to be a statistically overly represented figure. Next steps: The Board continued the public hearing on the TSP Update to 6 p.m. Monday, April 23, 2012, in the Barnes and Sawyer Room, Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall St., Bend. Staff requests the Board consider closing the oral record at that time, but leave the written record open until May 7 then begin deliberations on May 23 or afterward. Attachments: 1) Proposed Executive Summary 2) Policies 3 through 11 from Tumalo Community Plan, 2010-2030 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Deschutes County adopted its original Transportation System Plan (TSP) in August 1998, encompassing 1996-2016. In the intervening years the County and its cities saw rampant population growth and associated increases on the State highways and County road segments particularly those near Bend and Redmond. The County began a TSP date in 2007, incorporating changes in population traffic volumes rise of non-automotive modes, and diminishing available funding at the federal state and local levels for projects. The TSP Update spans 2010-2030 and lists $306.2 million in projects The TSP provides a roadmap of how to meet the needs of air, automobile bicycle freight pedestrian rail, transit, and other modes. A combination of technical analysis coordination with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) four cities within the County, public outreach and local knowledge identified those needs. The TSP prioritizes projects into high (0-5 years) medium (6-10 years) and low (11-20 years) categories and provides planning-level cost estimates The distribution of the 94 projects, excluding those on the Illustrative List is: • High Priority: 20 projects • Medium Priority: 31 projects • Low Priority: 43 projects The TSP contains background information on the major land use and transportation changes since 1998 as well as the approximately 832 miles of County-maintained roads Of those 832 miles 693 are paved and 139 are unpaved. Additionally, the County contains another 471 miles of public roads not maintained by the County but which the County still has jurisdiction Of the 310 miles of County arterials and collectors only 13% (40 miles) carry more than 3,000 or more average daily trips (ADT). The County's standard is 9.600 ADT. ODOT has approximately 200 miles of State highways in the County. The bulk of vehicles that move in the County travel on the State system with ADT's in the rural sections approaching 18,000 ADT whereas 6,000 ADT is high for a County road Volumes are just one aspect of a transportation system another is the operational safety. In the transportation industry a crash rate of less than 1.0 per million miles of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) is acceptable Similarly, for an intersection a crash rate of less than 1.0 million entering vehicles (MEV) is acceptable Acceptable means the crash rates are indicative of random events and not a systematic problem Crash data for County road segments and intersections indicate only three segments totaling I I 1 miles had a crash rate of more than 1.0 per million VMT and 10.2-segment had a rate of 0 89 which should be monitored No County intersection exceeded a crash rate of I 0 per MEV The TSP also examines non-automotive modes including air, bicycle freight pedestrian public transit and rail. While the County's 700 miles of paved and maintained roads offer a safe and efficient route for both bicycle commuters and recreational riders the cycling community supported a network of County_ and State-designated bikeways. The Road Department would use the bikeway designation as a tiebreaker when considering improvements to roads with roughly similar functional classification pavement condition index (PCI) and average daily traffic (ADT)Additionally, a bikeway designation could aid the County or other third parties seeking grant funding for road improvements The bulk of freight shipments in the County travel on the State highway system as do most vehicles The County has proposed roundabouts as a low-cost and safe improvement for several County-County road intersections as well as two County road-State highway intersections east of Bend The County recognizes the use of roundabouts on the State highway system is ultimately a decision by the Oregon DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 10 of 200 Department of Transportation (ODOT). However the County will use the cost of a rural roundabout as the baseline for the percentage of the County's financial contribution to improving County State highway intersections. The County will work with the air, rail and truck shippers to identify issues opportunities, and constraints on moving freight to and through the County. In 2010 Deschutes County had a total population of 157,733 of which 66% was urban and 34% was rural. The plurality of the urban population resided in either Bend (76 639) or Redmond (26 215) which are linked by the approximately 16 miles of US 97 By 2030 the County's population is expected to reach 266.539, an increase of 108,806 or 69 percent The urban/rural splits remains essentially the same with 67% residing in cities and 33% on unincorporated lands Bend (119,009) and Redmond (51,733) remain the County's largest cities by a substantial margin Forecasting future traffic volumes and their distribution was based on a combination of expected population growth. employment growth traffic data and modeling time spent traveling between attractors and generators ODOT prepared the state's first traffic model for a rural county, basing it on the pre-existing Bend and Redmond traffic models and dividing the rural County into 260 transportation planning analysis zones (TAZs). The 2030 forecast volumes demonstrated the majority of the roadway segments or intersections that will need improvement occur on the State system primarily on US 97 from Terrebonne to Redmond and Sunriver to La Pine: US 20 from Black Butte to Sisters and Tumalo to Bend: and OR 126 on the east and west fringe of Redmond. For County roads a few short segments on the margins of Bend and Redmond will need improvements as well as a few intersections primarily on the eastern edge of Bend: the west side of Redmond: the west edge of La Pine Deschutes County conducted extensive public outreach during the development of TSP including three rounds of open houses around the County. The first round was a kick off to allow the public to identify local issue. The second round was to present technical reports on existing conditions and forecast traffic volumes, listing resulting deficiencies The third round identified future projects and other transportation improvements . Additionally the County held work sessions and public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners Staff also participated in multiple community, homeowner. local associations and the County's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meetings. During the outreach described above the public and other stakeholders raised the following issues: • High speeds and/or cut-through traffic in rural communities and/or rural subdivisions • Better accommodations for cyclists including non-highway options between Bend and Sisters • Extending the trail network between Bend and Redmond to Smith Rock State Park Bend and Sisters, and Bend and Sunriver • Desire for various gravel roads to be paved • Concerns about condition of various roads • Safety issues at various intersections in the Bend La Pine Redmond Terrebonne Tumalo areas • Secondary access to isolated subdivisions in South County • Winter driving conditions on both County-maintained roads and State highways • Desire to add local access roads to County-maintained system • Traffic impacts of destination resorts The TSP continues the support the evolution of State highways particularly US 97, from two-lane roads with multiple direct accesses to an Expressway with frontage roads and grade-separated interchanges DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 11 of 200 The evolution is accomplished via an iterative "four-phase" approach that includes adding passing lanes which are later knitted together and adding raised medians The TSP meets the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) which implements Goal 12 of the statewide planning program. The TSP provides technical analysis to identify deficiencies and projects and/or policies to correct those deficiencies; prioritizes projects: and produce planning-level cost estimates over the 20-year life of the plan The TSP addresses all modes The TSP planning-level cost estimates are summarized as follows which excludes the illustrative projects: • $306.2 million for all projects (County roads and bridges State highways bike/ped etc.) • $240.6 million for State highway projects • $61.3 million for County road projects • $3.4 million for County bridge projects Winnowing the projects to only those identified as high priority results in: • $107.1 million for all high priority projects (County and State) • $75.9 million for State highway projects • $29.7 million for all County road projects • $ 1.5 million for County bridge projects Obviously, neither the State nor the County has adequate funding to construct the $306 million of projects identified in the TSP. Limiting the projects to the $107 million of high priority projects still presents a formidable challenge even spread over two decades The State would need to raise nearlX $3.8 million every year for 20 years and the County would need approximately $ 15 million annually for the same time period. Additionally, this does not consider the County's backlog of roads needing operations, maintenance and preservation which also requires increased funding At the time of this study, the Road Department is currently able to budget $3.8M annually for pavement maintenance and preservation in the form of overlay and chip seal The funding amount necessary to sustain the existing pavement condition is approximately $5.4M based on an overlay interval of 30-years with mid-cycle chip seal surfacing approximately every seven years At the rate of current investment approximately $1.6M in annual maintenance cost is deferred annually. In the fall of 2011. the Board of County Commissioners convened a special Road Committee to evaluate operations and investment levels within the Road Department The Committee developed five recommendations - with the fifth recommendation to explore alternative funding sources The Committee was clear that the first four recommendations which are focused on improved asset management efforts, internal efficiencies and regional partnerships should be fully explored and exhausted before proceeding with alternative funding source development The goals and policies to coordinate and implement the TSP are as follows: Goals Achieve an efficient, safe, convenient and economically viable transportation and communication system. This system includes roads, rail lines, public transit, air, pipeline, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Deschutes County transportation system shall be designed to serve the existing DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 12 of 200 and projected needs of the unincorporated communities and rural areas within the County. The system shall provide connections between different modes of transportation to reduce reliance on any one mode. 2. The Deschutes County TSP shall be continually updated in a timely fashion in order to ensure the transportation system serves the needs of County residents, businesses, and visitors. 3. The transportation plan and facilities of Deschutes County shall be coordinated with the plans and facilities of incorporated cities within Deschutes County, adjacent counties and the State of Oregon. Policies Deschutes County shall: a. Identify local, regional and state transportation needs; b. Develop a transportation plan that shall address those needs; c. Review and update the plan at least every five years; d. Continue to coordinate transportation planning with local, regional and state plans by reviewing any changes to Deschutes County local transportation plans, regional transportation plans, the Oregon Transportation Plan and ODOT's State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and e. Continue public and interagency involvement in the transportation planning process. 2. Deschutes County shall notify ODOT concerning: a. All land use proposals or actions that would create access onto a state highway or add > 100 ADT to any County road intersection with a state highway; b. Any proposed land use or development within 500 feet of a state highway or public use airport within the County; and c. Require ODOT road approach permits. Deschutes County shall protect approved or proposed transportation project sites through: a. Access control measures; b. Review of future large development and transportation projects that significantly affect the County's transportation system; c. Requirement of conditions of approval on developments and transportation projects that have a significant effect on the County's transportation system. d. Collection of transportation System Development Charges (SDC's) for approved land uses as proscribed under BOCC Resolution 2008-059 DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 13 of 200 4. Deschutes County shall coordinate local plans and land use decisions with state transportation plans, including the Oregon Transportation Plan, the Oregon Highway Plan and other modal plans. These plans provide ODOT policies and performance standards for State Highways within Deschutes County. These ODOT plans also provide the framework for access management on state facilities to protect the capacity and function of the highways. 5. The lead agency for review of transportation projects in Deschutes County shall be: a. Deschutes County for projects completely outside UGB's; b. The affected city for projects within its UGB; and c. The State of Oregon, Deschutes County and affected cities on projects involving state- owned facilities that are both inside and outside of a UGB. 6. Transportation Projects a. The County shall have a list of transportation projects, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the policies set forth below. b. The initial Transportation Project List shall be set forth in Table 5.1171 of the Transportation System Plan adopted as part of the Resource Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board shall update the Transportation Project List periodically by resolution adopted by the Board, without need of a formal amendment to the TSP. c. New transportation projects shall be included on the County's Transportation Project List. A transportation project proposed for addition to the list shall be subject to an individual land use review only if applicable administrative rules or land use regulations require such review. d. Transportation or development projects that require a plan text amendment or a conditional use permit may be required to fulfill conditions or implement mitigation measures before approval is granted. Mitigation and conditions may include, but are not limited to: • Improvement of surrounding roads; • Limits on level of development; • Revision of development placement; • Addition or redesign of access; • Addition of traffic management devices such as traffic signals, medians, turn lanes or signage; and/or • Improvements that reduce transportation impacts. Deschutes County acknowledges that land use designations have a significant impact on the overall transportation system and any alterations shall be completed with consideration to traffic impacts on the County road system and consistency with the TPR. 7. The findings of compliance with applicable statewide planning goals, acknowledged comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations, shall be coordinated with the preparation of any Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required for a proposed transportation facility that DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 14 of 200 is identified on the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan. The goals and policies for the Arterial and Collector Road Plan are as follow Goal 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism. Policies 7. Deschutes County shall: a. Consider the road network to be the most important and valuable component of the transportation system; and b. Consider the preservation and maintenance and repair of the County road network to be vital to the continued and future utility of the County's transportation system. 8. Deschutes County shall not add any miles of new arterials or collectors to the system unless the following issues are satisfied: a. The need for the road can be clearly demonstrated; b. The County can financially absorb the additional maintenance requirements; c. The condition of the road proposed for acceptance into the County system must meet County road standards; d. An accrued benefit can be shown to the County's economic growth; e. The Board determines there have been adequate replacement revenues to off the loss of timber payments from the federal program; f. An overall increase in efficiency in the County road network can be demonstrated. 9. Deschutes County shall make transportation decisions with consideration of land use impacts, including but not limited to, adjacent land use patterns, both existing and planned, and their designated uses and densities. 10. Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system. I I. Roads in Deschutes County shall be located, designed and constructed to meet their planned function and provide space for motor vehicle travel and bike and pedestrian facilities where required. 12. Deschutes County shall manage the development process to obtain adequate street right-of-way DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 15 of 200 and improvements commensurate with the level and impact of development. New development shall provide traffic impact analysis to assess these impacts and to help determine transportation system needs. The guidelines for traffic impact analysis shall be located within Title 17.48, Deschutes County Road Design and Specification Standards. 13. Transportation system improvements in Deschutes County shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 14. Transportation safety in Deschutes County shall improve for all modes through approved design practice and sound engineering principles. 15. Deschutes County shall acquire the necessary right-of-way through the development process to correct street intersections, substandard road geometry or other problems in order to improve the safety of a road alignment, consistent with constitutional limitations. 16. Deschutes County shall support efforts to educate the public regarding hazards related to travel on the transportation system. 17. Deschutes County shall support public and private efforts to acquire right-of-way for new secondary access roads to isolated subdivisions. The goals and policies for Access Management are as follows: Goal 5. Maintain an access management system adequate to protect the quality and function of the arterial and collector street system. Policies 18. Deschutes County shall designate access and land uses appropriate to the function of a given road. 19. Deschutes County shall require new development to minimize direct access points onto arterials and collectors by encouraging the utilization of common driveways. 20. Wherever practical, access to state highways shall be provided via frontage roads, alternative local roads or other means, rather than direct access to the highway. 21. A non-traversible median on state highways shall be installed by ODOT when operational or safety issues warrant installation as set forth by Policy 313: Medians in the Oregon Highway Plan. Directional breaks in the median may be allowed as needed, provided traffic operations are still safe. 22. Access requests onto Deschutes County arterials and collectors for new partitions, subdivisions and commercial and industrial development shall be processed with the following access management classification system in mind: a. Public road access spaced at no less than every 500 feet on arterials and 300 feet on DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 16 of 200 collectors. b. If either safety or environmental factors, or the unavailability of adequate distance between access points requires placing access points at lesser intervals, then access shall be denied or the best alternative placement shall be chosen. On road segments that are already severely impacted by numerous access points or on road segments which abut exception areas, adherence to the above standards may be either unreasonable or counterproductive to infill of exception areas. In such cases, these standards may be relaxed by the County Road Department Director to accommodate the aforementioned special conditions. The goals and policies for Functional Classification are as follows: Goal 6. Designate access and land uses appropriate to the function of a given road. Policies 23. Deschutes County shall: a. Coordinate the County Transportation System Plan with the transportation system plans of the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters. The County shall emphasize continuity in the classification of roads and appropriate design standards for roads that link urban areas with rural areas outside the urban growth boundaries. The County and affected city shall agree on the functional classification and design standards of County roads within the proposed UGB area. b. Request the transfer, or an agreement to transfer with specific timelines and milestones, jurisdiction of County roadways within the urban growth boundaries to their respective cities at the time of annexation. County policy also directs that any developer of property who proposes annexation and who has frontage on a road that does not meet city standards shall have the primary responsibility for upgrading the road to applicable city specifications. Roads shall be upgraded prior to or at the time of annexation, or the developer shall sign an agreement with the city to upgrade the road, at the time of development. Transfer of road jurisdiction shall require the approval of both the County and affected city in accordance with the provisions in ORS 373.270. c. Future roads outside of city limits but within Urban Growth Boundaries shall have right of dedications sufficient to meet the relevant city standards, but the road shall be constructed to County standards. The County will support a developer who chooses to build the road to the full urban standards of the relevant city instead of to County standard. d. Coordinate the County Transportation System Plan with surrounding county TSPs. The goals and policies for Road and Street Standards are as follows: Goals 7. Update as needed Title 17, Chapter 48, Design and Construction Specifications, to ensure all aspects of construction related to roads, pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities occurring DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 17 of 200 outside designated urban growth boundaries in Deschutes County are adequate to meet the needs of the traveling public. 8. Review every three to five years the adopted criteria in Title 17, Chapter 16, Section 115 for the requirement of various levels of traffic analysis for each new rural development. Policies 24. Any new or reconstructed rural roads shall be built to the standards set forth in DCC 17.48, Table A. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be built to the standards set forth in 17.48, Table B. 25. Road, pedestrian and bicycle projects occurring in unincorporated areas within urban growth boundaries shall be governed by the respective city's road and street standards. Those requirements shall be coordinated between the city, the County and the applicant during the land use process according to procedures to be identified in the Deschutes County Road Standards and Specifications document. The goals and objectives for the Road Management System are as follows: Goal 9. Maintain the County road network pavement in good to excellent condition. Policies 26. Deschutes County shall continue to maintain and preserve the County road network through its pavement management system which guides a program of paving, repairing, reconstruction, drainage clearance and vegetation control. 27. After safety-related issues, the highest volume road segments shall be the next priority for County road maintenance and repair. 28. If and when gravel or dirt roads are paved by the County, the main controlling criteria shall be: re-establishment of adequate funding for long-term maintenance, density of surrounding development, traffic volumes, road classification, gap filling, potential school bus routing efficiency and emergency evacuation potential. The goals and policies for Performance Standards are as follows: Goal 10. Maintain a level of service of "D" or better during the peak hour throughout the County arterial and collector road system over the next 20 years. Policy 29. Deschutes County shall continue to monitor road volumes on the County arterial and collector network. The County Road Department shall continue to be the department responsible for DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 18 of 200 monitoring volumes and shall strive to count each arterial and collector at least once every four years. The Road Department shall periodically examine the traffic volumes to identify level of service deterioration. Goal [I. Maintain the current arterial and collector system in the County and prevent degradation of the capacity of the system. Policies 30. Deschutes County shall monitor County arterials and collectors to help in the determination of when road improvement projects are necessary. 31. Deschutes County shall continue to work with the ODOT, the Cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, and neighboring counties to coordinate solutions to highway and non- highway road issues that cross over jurisdictional boundaries. 32. The County shall establish requirements and adopt standards for secondary access roads to isolated rural subdivisions. The goals and policies for Bridges are as follows: Goal 12. Maintain a safe and efficient network of bridges on County roadways. Policy 33. Deschutes County shall monitor the condition of County bridges on a regular basis, and perform routine maintenance and repair when necessary. The County shall also explore additional funding sources when major reconstruction or replacement of bridges is necessary. The goals and policies for Truck Routes are as follows: Goal 13. Develop a plan of designated truck routes on County arterials. Policy 34. Deschutes County shall designate that long-haul, through trucks, be limited to operating on Principal Arterial and Rural Arterial roads as designated in the County transportation network, except in emergency situations and when no reasonable alternative arterial road is available for access to commercial or industrial uses. 35. Deschutes County shall support economic development by encouraging ODOT to prioritize modernization, preservation, and safety projects on highways designated as Freight Routes over DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 19 of 200 non-Freight Routes The goals and policies for Facility/Safety Management are as follows: Goal 14. Maintain a safe and efficient network of roadways. Policy 35. Deschutes County shall develop and maintain a prioritized inventory of safety-deficient facilities on the County road network and give highest priority to correcting safety issues. The goals and policies for Public Transportation Plan are as follows: Goals 15. Enhance the opportunity for intermodal connections throughout the County transportation system, and actively support the provision of public transportation throughout the County. 16. Increase the existing level of special services provided. 17. Establish rural transit service for Deschutes County residents. 18. Decrease barriers to the use of existing public transportation services. Policies 36. Deschutes County shall work with ODOT, the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, and transit service providers to study countywide rideshare facility needs, and investigate public transit possibilities including potential transit stops for a regional or commuter-based transit system. Those possibilities shall include bus and rail, and if economically feasible, the County shall seek such services as are found to be safe, efficient, and convenient in serving the transportation needs of the residents of Deschutes County. 37. Deschutes County shall continue to work with special service providers, ODOT, and the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters to secure additional funding as well as increase promotion of those special transit services that may be underutilized. 38. Deschutes County shall identify and monitor the needs of the transportation disadvantaged and attempt to fill those needs. The goals and objectives for the Bikeway and Pedestrian Plan is as follows: Goals 19. Review every three to five years the adopted Countywide system plan for bike and pedestrian facilities to ensure continued access to various destinations within unincorporated communities DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 20 of 200 and between urban areas and unincorporated communities. 20. Provide and maintain a safe, convenient and economical bicycle and pedestrian system that is integrated with other transportation systems. 21. Support bicycle safety, education and enforcement programs for all ages, improve riding skills, achieve observances of traffic laws, increased awareness of cyclist's and pedestrian rights, and monitor and analyze bicycle accident data to determine safety problem areas. Policies 39. Deschutes County shall coordinate local plans for pedestrian and bicycle facilities with the most current edition of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The statewide plan provides a framework for a local bicycle and pedestrian system and design standards. 40. Deschutes County shall require bike facilities at locations that provide access within and between residential subdivisions, schools, shopping centers, industrial parks, and other activity centers when financially feasible. 41. Deschutes County shall: a. Balance the plan with a variety of facilities to meet the needs of different cyclists; b. Plan for bicycle access between the County's urban and rural areas; c. Develop a bikeway system, to be updated semi-annually and including a map for the public that describes the opportunities for bicycling in Deschutes County; d. Establish priorities for facility construction and maintenance based on need and resource availability; e. Evaluate the plan regularly to monitor how well the facilities meet the goals of the Plan; f. Upgrade rural road shoulder widths to County standards during road modernization or maintenance projects involving overlays as funding allows, provided no additional purchase of right of way is required or substantial cut and fill or grading is needed; g. Require bicycle and pedestrian facilities to satisfy the recreational and utilitarian needs of the citizens of Deschutes County; h. Make potential use, safety and the cost of bikeway construction, the primary considerations when designing specific bikeways; Emphasize the designation of on-road bikeways, where conditions warrant due to safety reasons and the cost of construction and maintenance of separate bike paths; j. Expend resources for the maintenance of existing bikeways and to keep pace with the development of new bikeways; DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 21 of 200 k. Designate that the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee facilitate the coordination of all bicycle and pedestrian planning in the County to assure compatibility; 1. Designate that the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee assure that the Plan remains up-to-date and that implementation proceeds according to the Plan; m. Work with affected jurisdictions to acquire, develop, connect, and maintain a series of trails along the Deschutes River, Tumalo Creek, and the major irrigation canals so that these features can be retained as a community asset; n. Adopt standards for trail system right-of-ways and trail improvements that are based on the type of planned trail use and reflect the standards of the most recent version of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; o. Pursue grant opportunities to plan or construct the Tumalo Trail between Tumalo State Park and the unincorporated community of Tumalo; p. Work cooperatively with City parks and recreation districts to support grant applications to build or maintain trails in the rural County whether on public or private lands; and q. Support the implementation of the Three Sisters Scenic Bikeway plan. Goal 22. Coordinate on-road County bikeways with known existing and proposed state and city bikeways. Policies 42. New public and private land developments in Deschutes County shall accommodate and tie into the bicycle system, and shall provide their residents and employees with appropriate bicycle facilities. 43. County arterials and collectors may use shoulder bikeways or shared roadways. These bikeways shall be upgraded to bike lanes when highway reconstruction occurs and the traffic volumes warrant lanes. 44. Deschutes County shall facilitate safe and direct bicycle and pedestrian crossings of arterial roads. 45. On-road bikeways shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications set forth in Deschutes County Code, 17.48, Table A. Goal 23. Work with BPAC to identify a system of off-road paved and non-paved ele shared=use paths to be included in the County transportation system. DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 22 of 200 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 use 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 multiple shared-use paths. The County shall work with its public agency and non- profit partners and the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAQ 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. Alatueal 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, jurisdictions,- and affected property owners to acquire, develop, address trail-connectivity issues and maintain only those sections of trail that are located outside of UG13'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 County. Staff will work with local, state, federal agencies and BPAC to determine the priority for trails that connect urban and rural areas. 49. Off-road paved multiple shared-use paths shall be constructed in accordance with the °pe„eatiens guidelines set forth in the most current edition of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The goals and policies for Facility Requirements are as follows: Goal 24. Maintain the existing 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 18.1 16.031 and Title 17.48, Table B, or such other location that it may be moved to within the Deschutes County Development Code. The goals and policies for the Airport Plan are as follows: Goal DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 23 of 200 25. Protect the function and economic viability of the existing public-use airports, while ensuring public safety and compatibility between the airport uses and surrounding land uses for public use airports and for private airports with three or more based aircraft. Policies 52. Deschutes County shall protect public-use airports through the development of airport land use regulations. Efforts shall be made to regulate the land uses in designated areas surrounding the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver and Sisters (Eagle Air) airports based upon adopted airport master plans or evidence of each airports specific level of risk and usage. The purpose of these regulations shall be to prevent the installation of airspace obstructions, additional airport hazards, and ensure the safety of the public and guide compatible land use. For the safety of those on the ground, only limited uses shall be allowed in specific noise impacted and crash hazard areas that have been identified for each specific airport. 53. Deschutes County shall: a. Continue to recognize the Redmond (Roberts Field) Airport as the major commercial/passenger aviation facility in Deschutes County and an airport of regional significance. Its operation, free from conflicting land uses, is in the best interests of the citizens of Deschutes County. Incompatible land uses shall be prohibited on the County lands adjacent to the airport; b. Cooperate with the cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters in establishing uniform zoning standards, which shall prevent the development of hazardous structures and incompatible land uses around airports; c. Take steps to ensure that any proposed uses shall not impact airborne aircraft because of height of structures, smoke, glare, lights which shine upward, radio interference from transmissions or any water impoundments or sanitary landfills which would create potential hazards from waterfowl to airborne aircraft; d. Allow land uses around public-use airports that shall not be adversely affected by noise and safety problems and shall be compatible with the airports and their operations; e. Work with, and encourage airport sponsors to work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to enforce FAA-registered flight patterns and FAA flight behavior regulations to protect the interests of County residents living near airports. f. Adopt regulations to ensure that developments in the airport approach areas shall not be visually distracting, create electrical interference or cause other safety problems for aircraft or persons on the ground. In addition, efforts shall be made to minimize population densities and prohibit places of public assembly in the approach areas; g. Continue efforts to prevent additional residential encroachment within critical noise contours or safety areas without informed consent; h. Specifically designate any proposed airport facility relocations or expansions within County jurisdiction on an airport master plan or airport layout plan map, as amended, and establish the appropriate airport zoning designation to assure a compatible association of airport DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 24 of 200 growth with surrounding urban or rural development; i. Maintain geographic information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport Overlay Zones and provide timely updates; j. For those airports in Deschutes County without adopted master plans, the County shall, as a minimum, base any land use decisions involving airports on DCC 18.80 and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 13, Airport Planning; k. Participate in and encourage the County-adoption of airport master plans for all public use airports and at least an airport layout plan for the remaining State-recognized airfields in Deschutes County; 1. Encourage appropriate federal, state and local funding for airport improvements at public- owned airports; and m. Discourage future development of private landing fields when they are in proximity to one another, near other public airports and potential airspace conflicts have been determined to exist by the Federal Aviation administration (FAA) or the Oregon Department of Aviation. The goals and policies of the Rail Plan area as follows: Goals 26. Maintain the existing levels of freight rail activity throughout the County while also encouraging expanded usage by commercial and industrial companies. 27. Increase the safety of existing at-grade crossings and work towards the eventual replacement of all at-grade crossings with gate-protected or grade-separated crossings according to the prioritized list from the 2009 Report on Central Oregon Rail Planning Policies 54. Deschutes County shall: a. Work cooperatively with affected local jurisdictions and railroad operators to reduce land use conflicts and increase safety at all at-grade crossings; b. Encourage efforts to improve the condition of rail lines throughout the County in order to retain the effectiveness and competitiveness of freight rail; c. Not endorse the abandonment of any rail lines unless they are to be converted to trail use through the federal "Rails to Trails" program. Once converted, the trails shall be incorporated into the County Bikeway/Trail System; d. Not endorse any activities that would diminish existing rail service; and e. Work cooperatively with affected local jurisdictions, businesses and railroad operators to protect all rail spurs that currently serve businesses or have the potential to serve freight rail uses from abandonment or incompatible zoning. DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 25 of 200 Goals 28. Re-establish passenger rail service to Central Oregon as soon as practical. Policies 55. Deschutes County shall work cooperatively with ODOT, area cities, and rail providers to identify and prioritize the actions needed to provide passenger rail service on the US 97 corridor. The goals and policies for Transportation System and Transportation Demand management are as follows: Goal 29. In order to optimize the carrying capacity of the County road system, provide cost effective transportation improvements and implement strategies that shall improve the efficiency and function of existing roads. Policies 56. Deschutes County shall adopt land use regulations to limit the location and number of driveways and access points on all collector and arterial roads; 57. Deschutes County shall ensure that land use actions support the access management policies of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) along State highways. 58. Deschutes County shall implement transportation system management measures to increase safety and reduce traffic congestion on arterial and collector streets, and protect the function of all travel modes. 59. Deschutes County shall promote safety and uninterrupted traffic flow along arterials via the following planning considerations: a. Clustering of all types of development and provisions for an internal traffic circulation pattern with limited arterial access shall be encouraged; b. A minimum setback of 50 feet from arterial rights-of-way shall be required; c. Recommendations on speed limits shall be forwarded to the State Speed Control Board. Goal 30. Reduce peak hour traffic volumes on County roads and diminish the exclusive use of single- occupant vehicles. DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 26 of 200 Policies 60. Deschutes County shall: a. Encourage businesses to participate in transportation demand management efforts through the development of incentives and/or disincentives. These programs shall be designed to reduce peak hour traffic volumes by encouraging ridesharing, cycling, walking, telecommuting, alternative/flexible work schedules and transit use when it becomes available; b. Work with business groups, large employers and school districts to develop and implement transportation demand management programs; c. Continue to support the work of non-profit agencies working towards the same TDM goals as Deschutes County; d. Encourage programs such as van or carpooling (rideshare) to increase vehicle occupancy and reduce unnecessary single-occupant vehicle travel; e. Continue to pursue the development of park and ride facilities and consider the siting of a rideshare facility, based on identified needs, when realigning County roadways, considering the sale of surplus property, or reviewing land use applications for developments that could benefit from such a facility; f. Pursue the development and utilization of telecommunication technologies that facilitate the movement of information and data; g. Support efforts to educate the public regarding the actual costs related to travel on the transportation system and encourage transportation demand management alternatives; and h. Establish and make available a transportation demand management program to County employees, to serve as a role model for the community. DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 27 of 200 Transportation Goal Provide a safe and efficient system for all modes of transportation, including active modes, to support local economic development, recreational uses, and community health. Road Network Policies I . Review the existing Transportation System Plan policies and standards. for Tumalo. 2. Review existing roadway design requirements to ensure complete streets which accommodate all modes of travel. Road and Sidewalk Policies 3. Implement road development standards for Tumalo that minimize pavement width and are consistent with the small-scale character of the community. 4. Utilize land development and grant funding opportunities to improve street segments identified for improvement in the Transportation System Plan. 5. Provide functional, cost effective sidewalks that are consistent with the rural character of the community. 6. Provide sidewalks or multi-use paths where they are needed for safety, as set forth in the Transportation System Plan. 7. Construct sidewalks specified on community roads without curbs and gutters, distant from property lines, to allow room for utilities. U.S. 20 Policies 8. Coordinate with the Tumalo community and Oregon Department of Transportation to implement both short and long-term improvements to solve transportation problems, including at the Cook Avenue and U.S. 20 intersection. 9. Enhance the roadside environment, through tree planting, signage or other means. 10. Promote safe access and slower speeds on U.S. 20 through Tumalo. 11. Retain and enhance access across U.S. 20 using above, below, or at grade crossings to support pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian access to recreation and community services. TUMALO COMMUNITY PLAN - 2010 TO 2030 27 Oregon ' JohnA KhAmber, MD, Governor April 20, 2012 Mr. Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner Deschutes County 117 NW Lafayette Ave., Bend, OR 97701 SUBJECT: Draft Deschutes County TSP Dear Mr. Russell: Department of Transportation Region 4 Planning James R. Bryant Interim Planning Manager 63085 N Highway 97 Bend, OR 97701 Phone: (541)388-6437 Fax: (541)388-6361 Email: james.r.bryant@odot.state.or.us The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) appreciates the opportunity to again comment on the draft Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP). This letter is intended to supplement our letter of December 15, 2011, and to respond to questions that have arisen in the interim as expressed at the Board of Commissioners' hearing on April 16, 2012. There were four areas of the TSP pertinent to ODOT that generated some discussion during the TSP process and were raised at the Board of Commissioners' hearing. These areas are west of Sisters, Tumalo, Deschutes Junction and Quarry Road. • US 20 west of Sisters ODOT appreciates the input from members of the Sisters' community who have expressed their concerns about four-laning US 20 between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters. In light of their concerns, ODOT collaborated with the County to identify certain triggers that ODOT would utilize to determine the need to add lanes to that portion of the highway. It should be noted that although the deficiency identified in the TSP extends for 10 miles between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters and has an estimated cost of $20 million, the improvement would be phased in over time as passing lanes of a mile in length or so. Regardless, ODOT has committed to use these triggers to ensure that the addition of travel lanes would be employed only when it is established that they would be a cost effective counter measure to reduce or eliminate crashes in the corridor. Further, given the uncertainty of predicting traffic volumes 20 years into the future and, again, in response to the expressed concerns of the Sisters community, we have reduced the priority from high to medium and would rely on the triggers to indicate the need for the improvement. • Tumalo ODOT is nearing completion of a three-year effort to identify the long term solution in Tumalo consistent with the current Deschutes County TSP which identifies an interchange as the solution and for which Deschutes County has been collecting SDCs. A TSP is required to identify and address the long term transportation needs with a future horizon of at least at least 20 years. The preferred long term solution is an interchange alternative which provides a grade separation at the US 20 and Cook/OB Riley intersection. ODOT has looked a number of alternatives including, specifically, the use of traffic control devices (i.e. a traffic signal or roundabout) to modulate at-grade intersections at US 20/Cook/OB Riley and at US 20 @ 7`h/Bailey. The at-grade alternatives were not selected because they did not meet the project objectives for a long-term solution (i.e. out to the year 2030). Once a long term solution is established, then mid-term solutions, if needed, can be developed that would satisfy the mid-term need and work towards the long term solution. • Deschutes Junction Refinement Plan The existing Deschutes Junction interchange and US 97 are projected to operate acceptable to the 2030 horizon year and no improvements are needed or identified except for a safety improvement of a median barrier between Deschutes Junction and Gift/61" to eliminate cross-over crashes. (We have included a drawing in the draft TSP for the frontage road concepts that would provide access to properties adjacent to US 97 whose access would be affected by the median safety improvement.) If a refinement plan looks at intensifying the land uses at Deschutes Junction, it would, of course, need to assess the affect of the land use changes on the safe operation of the interchange and connecting state and county roads. We would again suggest that the frontage road language be flexible enough to allow ODOT to employ other measures to safely provide access to properties whose access might be affected by a median barrier. While a frontage road system is the preferred solution, there are on-system improvements that have been implemented in other areas that provide for the safe ingress and egress of properties that front highways with non-traversable medians. One example is a J-turn which allows out-of-direction traffic to safely perform a turning movement to head back in the opposite direction such as is currently be used on US 101 outside of Warrenton. The turn is initiated from a channelized left-turn lane and is completed on a modified, widened shoulder to accommodate the needed turning radius. J-turns could provide a timely, lower cost solution, perhaps as in interim until a frontage road system can be implemented. • Quarry Road Interchange/19`h Street ODOT has previously suggested that the Quarry Road interchange be moved to the illustrative list as there is no demonstrated state or county need for the facility within the TSP planning period. The city of Redmond, however, has indicated that this interchange will be needed to accommodate future city traffic from Helmholtz on the west and 19'h on the east and have assumed the cost of the interchange in their funding program. Accordingly, ODOT would support keeping the interchange in the plan and amending the TSP cost allocation table to reflect Redmond's financial commitment for the improvement. The city of Redmond has also proposed policy language to support their future land use actions to implement their TSP with respect to extending city streets to the Quarry interchange. It should be clear that any such roadway extension is to be predicated on the understanding that the connection to US 97 will be at a grade-separated facility not an at-grade intersection. The primary management objective of US 97 between Bend and Redmond is to eliminate, where possible, direct access and at-grade connections. To wit, we partnered with Deschutes County to close Pleasant Ridge Road due to number of crashes at that intersection. Earlier, of course, Deschutes County partnered with ODOT to build the Deschutes Junction interchange in response to the number of crashes that were occurring there as an at- grade intersection. Thank you and again, if you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (541) 388-6437. Sincerely, James R. Bryant Cc: Bob Bryant, ODOT Region 4 Manager Page 2 ES 2. Road Department 61150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 - FAX (541) 388-2719 MEMORANDUM Date: April 23, 2012 To: Peter Russell, From: Chris Doty, PE, Director RE: Suggested TSP Language for Tumalo Interim Solution Development In an effort to address development of an interim solution to serve the Tumalo area prior to funding of an eventual interchange project, the following language could be inserted within Chapter 4 of the TSP: Due to the uncertainty of funding being available to construct either the C-4 or 1-3 concepts, it is suggested that ODOT, Deschutes County, and Tumalo-area stakeholders develop an interim safe and practical design solution to provide the necessary incremental system capacity. Suggested improvements could include signalization, speed reduction, bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements, and other similar treatments designed with consideration to the long term vision for the highway through Tumalo. All interim improvement concepts should consider both the needs of the highway user and the Tumalo community. Please present this language to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration. Thank you. April 23, 2012 Board of County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger, Tony DeBone 1300 Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Re: Transportation System Plan Update, 2012 - Tumalo 'Long Term Options', I-3, C-4 as presented by ODOT/Peter Russell in Commissioners; To make a decision about Tumalo, one would need to operate and seek services daily in Tumalo to understand the needs and functions of the community. I believe Goal 1 in Statewide Planning (Citizen Input) takes this into consideration. ODOT has rigid engineering overlays for access management, which do not take into account the nature and function of Tumalo. For this reason, I believe that Highway 20 in Tumalo needs to be classified as a `Special Transportation Area' and a 'Corridor Plan' needs to be implemented, for the area. Additionally with the advent of 'Least Cost Planning' and funding shortfalls I respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners dismiss the above referenced 'Long Term Options' and officially designate and appoint a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) or Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) to develop an Interim Plan, [if not the 'Community Concept Plan, already drafted], in collaboration with Deschutes County and ODOT for Tumalo, in which increased safety is sought and the community's connectivity is 'retained and enhanced' as called for the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, the Tumalo Community Plan and the Health Impact Assessment. The proposals for Tumalo as shown by ODOT have some very desirable features, increasing connectivity on the west side of the highway, however access across the highway is funneled into one crossing on a stretch of highway where we have traditionally had three. The median shown in the two renderings submitted by ODOT and appended to the TSP by Peter Russell have been objectionable to the community at large from the very beginning of the process of with ODOT. Many in the community have asked for the removal of the barrier, and at least two full crossings across Highway 20, to no avail. The problem, as presented by Peter Russell and ODOT, consists of 'conflict points' and the over-arching goal of the ODOT proposals is to restrict and eliminate those conflict points. However, as Walt McCallister of ODOT's Safety Division in Salem, points out the number one cause of traffic incidents is speed. The most immediate and cost effective solution to safety in Tumalo is - reduce speeds and install the requisite roadside environment to support those reductions in speed. It has already proven effective with our first speed reduction In consideration of a presumed goal of'Healthy Communities' the greatest factor deterring increased biking and walking in Tumalo is traffic speeds, next are volumes and safety of intersections and crossings. It's safe to assume that it is a fairly simple fix based on those factors. The greatest net benefit comes from reducing speeds in areas where either people walk and bike or where people might like to walk and bike. Volumes will only see relief from keeping alternate accesses open and streets connected, not restricted and eliminated as the ODOT plans show. I think we all agree that overcrossings and undercrossings where a highway exists provide safer refuge from highway speeds; since the funding for such is so distant, certainly reducing speeds and installing the appropriate roadside environment to meet driver expectations for such a speed reduction makes the most immediate sense. Please adopt the Community Concept Plan for Tumalo as either the 'Long Term Solution' for Tumalo or as an Interim measure until the need for such a division in the community as ODOT proposes is demonstrated, post-interim solution. Additionally: A policy statement developed by the Health Impact Assessment (HIA), done for Tumalo is: 'Retain and enhance access across Highway 20 using above grade, below grade or at grade crossings to improve crossing conditions across Hwy. 20' - page 20 The first recommendation of the HIA is to improve safety and increase connections within the community Page 5; 'Grade separated crossings across U.S. Hwy. 20 could provide Tumalo a myriad of benefits, such as improved public safety, greater access to destinations within and just outside their community, increased physical activity and local economic sustainability. Recommended change to transportation goal on page 25 (of current TCP draft): Provide a safe and efficient System for cyclists, equestrians, pedestrians and motor vehicles to support local economic development, recreational uses, and community health. Recommended change to Road and Sidewalk, Policy #2: Support a 'complete streets' policy consistent with Table A of Deschutes County Code 17.48 to establish future roadway design guidelines that plan for and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users. Recommended change to Policy #9: Support changes in roadside environment to promote a reduction in traffic speed through tree planting, signage, shoulder treatments or other means.' Page 8: '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.' Page 21: 'In a May 17, 2010 article, Gary Toth (Project for Public Spaces And T4America Coalition) explores how transportation and land use can be integrated to best serve rural communities. He writes, "Placemaking is the key to creating great communities. Design and planning must support the social connections that are essential to the identity and quality of communities of all shapes and sizes." The Article suggests that, "transportation is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The end result which we must strive for is a livable, sustainable community that is supported by its transportation system, not defined by it" (Toth, 2010). Additionally many residents who attended the Tumalo Listening session echoed this woman's thoughts, "Additional access at least for bikes and peds at 511 and north end of Tumalo Junction To accommodate children and people seeking services in town.' Keeping in mind the recreational revenues brought to Deschutes County by the 200,000 visitors to Tumalo State Park and the untold cyclists from the Three Sisters Scenic Bikeway, Tour DesChutes and the Cascade Cycling Classic I would encourage the consideration of Community and `sense of place' over freight mobility. Page 4 of the Health Impact Assessment: `..."sense of place", plays a role in influencing health determinants such as social capital/cohesion, access to goods and services and frequency of recreation and physical activity. This appears to contribute to each proximal health impact, and can be influenced greatly by the policies adopted in this 20-year plan.' Thank you for your time and consideration. Sin rely, Carolyn Pe Co-Chair, Tumalo Community Association tumalocommunityassociation.org 541-280-3772 email: redtruckranch@gmail.com April 23, 2012 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners: Alan Unger, Tammy Baney, Tony DeBone 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Commissioners: Re: Transportation System Plan (TSP) ODOT has submitted two maps for `Long-Term Solutions' to traffic concerns in Tumalo, both showing concrete medians spanning the length of Tumalo and connectivity reduced to one access point. • ODOT was meant to take community input by State Planning Goal 1, for the "Long Term Solution" for Highway 20 in Tumalo. The Citizens Advisory Committee which had been ignored for the 'Short Term Solution' never met to review or offer input for the 'Long Term Solution' • The community repeatedly asked for maps demonstrating an option without an unbroken median spanning the length of Tumalo and closing off, or restricting all but one of our valued accesses crossing Highway 20. That request was never met. • Many business owners are concerned that the restrictions will adversely affect their businesses. • Many community members are concerned that speeds will increase should an unbroken median be installed • The connectivity of the community would be even more divided, as the walking and biking options would be restricted to one point of access (safely). • The community, with the generous help of a Traffic Engineer /Consultant, drafted the 'Community Concept Map' which was submitted to ODOT without return comment • Another point of concern is cost. There is no money available in the foreseeable future to build either option ODOT is proposing to have adopted into the County's Transportation System Plan (TSP) By contrast, the Community Concept Plan retains connectivity, accesses, slows traffic, increases safety, protects and enhances business vitality, is affordable and attainable Please consider your electorate in Tumalo and establish the precedent that community matters, thank you for your time and consideration. Tumalo Community Association- tumalocommunityassociation.org i Al Unger Deschutes County Commissioner Bend, Or. We the people who live in Tumalo (Laidlaw Town Site) are opposed to the Tumalo Community Association (TCA) attempt to place visual awareness monument concepts entering Tumalo. The TCA proposal will not enhance our livability, only cause more congestion in Tumalo. The safety issue of slowing traffic on Hwy 20 will only create a bottleneck. Truck traffic will not be able to maintain a reasonable speed climbing out of town. We wish to eliminate this TCA monument proposal. NAME Fs % 1 yG L I~ Owe, 4&A5. 6cl7e COOIZ aVv Nfuz, i,, 4A-~,~ev 41z1 7 ( Cam, k 4(/L iLw 1 rZ~,~ b W4-71 o u ze Oj- VV", Vk Y, CJ W70LA 0 i2yc C AV. "IL 14 r~ 1 2 Al Unger Deschutes County Commissioner Bend, Or. We the people who live in Tumalo (Laidlaw Town Site) are opposed to the Tumalo Community Association (TCA) attempt to place visual awareness monument concepts entering Tumalo. The TCA proposal will not enhance our livability, only cause more congestion in Tumalo. The safety issue of slowing traffic on Hwy 20 will only create a bottleneck Truck traffic will not be able to maintain a reasonable speed climbing out of town. We wish to eliminate this TCA monument proposal. NAME ADDRESS G.S._- /7 A p `11_5~G GQv 2 1 91 77,-,t 2~ 61 P,, I" oc 9770 r. <T-177 01 si . 0 Al Unger Deschutes County Commissioner Bend, Or. We the people who live in Tumalo (Laidlaw Town Site) are opposed to the Tumalo Community Association (TCA) attempt to place visual awareness monument concepts entering Tumalo. The TCA proposal will not enhance our livability, only cause more congestion in Tumalo. The safety issue of slowing traffic on Hwy 20 will only create a bottleneck- We wish to eliminate this TCA monument proposal. S-- k U. L~ g'v 7 0, 9 770 rXd~ OK 9770/ T-7 Truck traffic will not be able to maintain a reasonable speed climbing out of town. Al Unger Deschutes County Commissioner Bend, Or. We the people who live in Tumalo (Laidlaw Town Site) are opposed to the Tumalo Community Association (TCA) attempt to place visual awareness monument concepts entering Tumalo. The TCA proposal will not enhance our livability, only cause more congestion in Tumalo. The safety issue of slowing traffic on Hwy 20 will only create a bottleneck. Truck traffic will not be able to maintain a reasonable speed climbing out of town- We wish to eliminate this TCA monument proposal. i NAME ADDRESS IZ, Otha(-er 70 ~v~es ~C. oG Z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest V Date Name Address Phone #s( E-mail address m f n) 11' W In Favok leu ided \2~ Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F~ Yes -T3 12 . fz Opposed No G~vres c0` o { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Date ~3 ~_~Z-- Name CJo~c'G~U Address Z I Z 4 2- ~<e 0r 5)770/ Phone #s t'~)4 1- 3 / 8 - l 7/ ° E-mail address 144a P'L In Favor F~ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes E3No tes o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest - 10 V14 Date Name Address yo, U Phone #s 1414 1~90 E-mail address F1 I In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes P Opposed F No r o 15T ER. S 5 PEED L4 -C 'REt)Je,F- SPEED 'TO W E L.COM E" TQ -rumAu!" LAND 5,^Rp E D UT MONUMENT 51GNME C I `rIZEN anN CE-FT ?LAN ~ttASC. I _ T ~I~aELtl~lLk. `'R1vER TRA i L P~~►oc4C, 'YO & TIC ST WPd. N, C?N1`atGam" ROW ati MOLTI?g 6m, SPEED REDUGTI©N-. OM MN Y Zo T"IRM6 R 'r()U)N BETLU EEu ANELGbNME 516NA6E P.%veK TRN IL 5we PED OR104E F IA5E Z- ~PtIAS E Z ST O Ist ONDERPAS'S D .V 1AY~b ~(~IIDTN SIDEWALKS -TRESS f, AxEn U5- -TkAILS fLhNTS iN~RUt~1 o . _.t----~---- 7rit Rw EL t~?w 1 'Sid 6v: my zD TIM) TOWN 'w~ LCONtlL TD "r UMNLO UNDERPASS AT STIR &bbr iAApwvr M r- N-'~' N-T law 1 ZD k Cooy\ lK 4r: RE DUCH. E TO S5- To FJ @~D \ AD VA N cl WR'RN l N4 5 PE Eb KEOVcrI o N I'u M A.LE,F LDMMUNI'1Y INTERIM "f1ZAFfl6 SOLUTION gmMFUnEv NI z31 iz