The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-04-16 Business Meeting Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 15 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Peter Russell, Community Development; Chris Doty and George Kolb, Road Department; Hillary Saraceno, Children & Families’ Commission; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and approximately thirty other citizens. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 10:05 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. 3. Before the Board was the Reading and Signature of a Proclamation Declaring the Week of the Young Child in Deschutes County – April 22 through 28. Holly Remer and Mara Stephens of Healthy Beginnings/High Desert Education Service District came before the Board and gave a brief overview of the Proclamation. Ms. Remer stressed the importance of early childhood care so that by the time children go into the school system, they are well prepared. This group provides services in the tri-county area. Chair DeBone read the Proclamation at this time. Commissioner Baney stressed the high level of volunteerism in this area, and is proud to live in a community that does this great work. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 15 Pages Commissioner Unger added that Healthy Beginnings is a model for how these kinds of efforts are effective – bringing together specialists to recognize and address issues. The work of this group fits well into the Early Childhood Learning Council model that the Governor is forming. BANEY: Move approval and signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Ordinance No. 2012-005, Amending the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan. Peter Russell came before the Board. Chair DeBone read the opening statement at this time. In regard to conflicts of personal interest, none of the Commissioners had any to disclose; there were no challenges from the audience. Mr. Russell gave a PowerPoint presentation, providing an overview of the history of this issue. Discussions began with ODOT and others in 2007, with numerous community meetings and hearings being conducted since then. (A copy of the presentation is attached for reference.) He explained all of the major projects that have been reviewed or proposed. Many projects won’t be done in the near future because of funding issues, but a lot of them will remain on the TSP until this can happen. There are high priority projects (one to five years), medium priority (five to ten years), and long-term projects. Some will not be addressed until 2030. Projects locations range from the south end of La Pine up through the Terrebonne area. In the meantime, there will be additional public hearings as plans develop. The higher priority locations have much to do with volume and capacity, and the level of crashes that exceed the allowable Statewide standard. There are also a few rural roundabouts being planned which would require the County’s financial involvement. The Planning Commission has been a part of recent hearings and the current TSP update now before the Board. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 15 Pages Commissioner Unger asked if this has had State and DLCD review. Mr. Russell said the State received it last year and did not weigh in, and appears to be satisfied with what is being proposed. ODOT has been a part of this process for the entire time. The City of Redmond is working on the TSP amendment and modeling regarding improvements at 19th Street at Quarry. A goal exception is not needed in this situation. Chair DeBone opened the meeting up for public comments. Paul Dewey reiterated the points brought up in his letter of January 26 (part of the record). Regarding the idea of planning Deschutes Junction, land use planning should come first, and then you plan transportation accordingly. He thought there would be a planning process undertaken first. He supports the Planning Commission’s position that any new planning for Deschutes Junction should wait until it is part of the Comprehensive Plan. In regard to passing lanes outside Sisters, he worked with ODOT on this issue in years past. He thought they had a reasonable solution. The only difference now is that he feels traffic levels have fallen. He hopes the TSP would be amended to include what this group thought might work best. There is no need for the four lanes at this time, as the volume does not support it. Regarding upgrades on designations, he is concerned about Deschutes Market Road being a rural arterial and the policy implications of this designation. 2009 was a different time from now. He feels accidents and traffic levels are decreasing. He is concerned about creating new designations and new obligations for the County for funding. If something needs to be upgraded, he recommends it stay with the current designation. Laurie Craghead asked if there is information in the record showing a decrease in traffic volume. Mr. Dewey said that Bruce Bowen will provide this. Mara Stein spoke about the town of Tumalo and the TSP. The Planning Commission’s statement is to preserve and protect the area. One core purpose of the Tumalo Community Association is to enhance as well. The group has been in place for five years and has met with various entities regarding recreational enhancements, business opportunities and more. There need to be safe and reasonable solutions. In 2010, ODOT came forward with plans for a raised median. This solution was not supported and adversely affected the community. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 4 of 15 Pages ODOT says the long-term solution is to address Highway 20 issues. The TCA asked for support of the community concept plan and does not support ODOT’s plans for the area. The TCA concept plan addresses the goals and safety issues, recommends decreased speeds and no center median, and allows for multiple access points. They want to have a monument gateway into the community and more. She said that perhaps an interim plan would be to work within the proposal of the community. This is viable, effective and financially possible. James Lewis, on behalf of the City of Redmond, spoke about the extension of 19th Street to Quarry. The City of Redmond has been working on this and asked that general policy be adopted to support the City’s proposal. These alignments will add life to the State facilities and roads within Redmond; better access to the Fairgrounds area; and other positive impacts. This improvement was contemplated as far back as 1998, and he feels that the policy language included in his letter should be added to the TSP. Bruce Bowen gave some of his background doing this type of work - forecasting. He noted that the further out you forecast, the more difficult it is, and it is more subject to error. The latest possible data needs to be used. (He provided a handout to the Commissioners.) He referred to his handout showing the traffic flows by Black Butte Ranch. Instead of the 25% twenty-year growth that ODOT shows, he would prefer the figures he presented used instead, which show merely a 3% increase forecast. He questions the accuracy of the ODOT figures. He has offered to talk with ODOT about this, but they declined. The Planning Commission did not have final 2011 data, which the Board has been presented. The other issue is already in the record, but has to do with analysis of crash data from ODOT from 2001 through 2010. If crashes from each mileage segment is analyzed, the closer you get to Sisters, it gets less likely. In terms of numbers, the distances from Santiam Junction to Black Butte Ranch is shorter but has many more accidents that the area between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters.. Accidents tend to occur in the winter. The higher traffic counts are primarily in the summer. He does not see a direct relationship. The trend is overall declining. 60% involve snow, ice or wet pavement; most others are hitting a fixed object. The types related to head-on crashes and side swipes represent just 8% of the accidents. He would like to see the priority removed from medium to low. He would not get rid of it completely, but does not feel this is an important place to spend money. Fewer people are traveling over the pass due to the cost of gasoline. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 5 of 15 Pages Commissioner Unger said that you have to take into consideration the economics of the day. This recession will not have a long-term effect on transportation. The data today may be an anomaly and the traffic flows will return. Mr. Bowen asked how long it would take for this to come back. Gas prices are fairly unlikely to come down. There may be some dips now, but the negative economy will have a long-term effect. It will not react as quickly as the stock market. Chair DeBone asked why he is opposed to more lanes. Mr. Bowen said the cathedral approach to Sisters is important and he would not like this visual change. And he feels this is a waste of taxpayer money. Doing things that are not needed affect peoples’ views of government. This is a $20 million project, and that money could be used to do something else more important. Tony Aceti spoke about Deschutes Junction, and presented an oversized map. He spoke with ODOT representatives and got an updated traffic count for that area. Deschutes Junction in 2005 showed 1,580 vehicles. In 2010 there were 3,200; and 4,800 in 2011 per ODOT. After Pleasant Ridge Road was closed to traffic, another 1,000 vehicles used the overpass. Prior to that, it had doubled. The area of Deschutes Junction is a point of emphasis. He feels this is a priority. Mr. Dewey had pointed out that the Deschutes Junction refinement plan is in the overall plan. The comprehensive plan and TSP need to be linked; otherwise there is a disconnect. A master plan for that area is needed. They have had community meetings. To honor the work already done, a majority of the people affected came to meetings for two years and said they want the residential outside areas left alone, and to work on the core area. Traffic is occurring there and this will continue. If they close 61st Street or allow right in and right out turns only, the frontage road will be needed by the local citizens. The landowners in the area are supportive of this. Deschutes Junction needs to be in the transportation plan since there are definite facts about how this area is being affected. Steve Jorgensen, Bend Metro Park & Recreation District, along with Bruce Bowen, submitted written comments as well. He appreciates the work that has been done, but wanted to address a trails issue and connectivity. He appreciates that the newest version of the TSP looks at the trails portion for recreation and transportation. The area extends out of the city limits and UGB, and they try to work with the partners and agencies to deal with recreation al assets. If it is not shown on the plan, it is hard to get grants and recognition. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 6 of 15 Pages He wanted to speak to a future footbridge on the south area of the City of Bend UGB. The Deschutes River Trail extends from Tumalo with the ultimate goal of reaching Sunriver. It extends towards River Rim subdivision and a future park site. Multiple planning documents have shown a crossing of the river at the south end. The idea of a future footbridge should show up on the Deschutes County TSP as well. It cannot be located in other places in the UGB per OAR’s due to scenic river designations, and there is a bridge prohibition in most areas. There is no specific location for a bridge at this time, but they would probably go with the narrowest part of the river. He would like to see this as part of the regional planning concept so the background and support would be there in the future. They would lead the effort in this regard. Commissioner Unger stated the U.S. Forest Service is developing some pathways near Lava Lands. Mr. Jorgensen said that the work they are doing is from Benham Falls south for the most part, and not a lot is being done within or near the UGB. Doug White spoke as a resident. He has not had an opportunity to discuss the footbridge issue with the City, but appreciates the conversation with the County and Park and Recreation. Page 176 of the TSP could have additional language regarding trail connectivity. He wants to add, “and State regulations” when talking about acquisition and trail systems, as this needs to be consistent with State law. He provided a map showing the waterways and irrigation outtakes, as well as the UGB and current possible location of the bridge. The footbridge would start in the City but end up in the County. A bubble concept is a good idea, but he has a different idea about where it should be - not where the City has it shown. He is not opposed to a bridge per se, but the City does not have it shown anywhere on its TSP, ant it can’t be where there are problems with parking or a wildlife wetlands area. He then spoke for the Central Oregon Planning Solutions group on Deschutes Junction, representing Tony Aceti. (He read a letter into the record.) Their position remains unchanged regarding improvements in this area. Greater details or a conceptual study area is needed that includes properties that protect the use of the interchange. This includes issues of functionality and land use. There are descriptions of Deschutes Junction, but it is not shown as a boundary or a study area. There are problems with the concept already, and a refinement plan needs to be developed. There are rumors about this area and he does not think this is appropriate. The process would address timing issues, and he recommends ODOT and the County work together on this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 7 of 15 Pages The initial extension of a frontage road would be from 61st Street. The agency already recognizes the out-of-direction traffic issue. He has worked on projects with raised medians and frontage roads that had to be coordinated and is familiar with this type of situation. The plan is not helpful if it is not clear. He wants to see a study area, and get the agencies and citizens involved; and start multi-approving this in a cohesive fashion and connect the two processes. Commissioner Unger asked if this is already in the Comprehensive Plan in regard to a frontage road. Mr. White said there is no study area in place and it is not well-defined. The north end of the proposed study area goes to the north driveway. The study area could be expanded as well, if appropriate. He would bring in existing developed and EFU land that affects the area. It needs to be laid out in a process, and the plan policies could be amended as well. It is common to amend the TSP and reference the plan. Ms. Craghead said that they cannot amend the Comprehensive Plan without proper notice. There is a plan to study this area and figure out what the exact area should be. It was too large of a project to take on with the Comprehensive Plan update, so it was felt this could be developed later. Brian Paez of Tumalo stated that Tumalo has issues trying to figure out what ODOT wants and the community wants. The residents are concerned about the speed limit being reduced to 35 MPH, causing more vehicle noise due to braking and acceleration. They are working on forming a group to address these issues. There has been a lot of disagreement regarding additional parks as well. He would not encourage anything being approved at this time, so they can work out some of these issues first. Commissioner Baney wondered if staff has had a chance to be involved in the conversation. Mr. Paez stated that he wants to do what is best for the community in terms of safety. ODOT feels that an interchange is best. Commissioner Unger asked if he is referring to residents who live there or just work there. Mr. Paez said they want to include anyone who is interested. There are pros and cons to everything and he wants to be heard as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 8 of 15 Pages Commissioner Baney asked if he has been to previous meetings. He said he has been attending the evening meetings as he often as he can. Dick Gummas, who lives on Second Street in Tumalo, said he opposes the TCA (Tumalo Community Association) plan. He represents Tumalo Town Irrigation District (not Tumalo Irrigation District). He indicated that the State wants to eliminate trees, but someone else wants to add more. The crossings at 6th St. and 7th St. are in jeopardy, and the proposed changes would affect the ditches. He feels that a 45 MPH speed limit is appropriate; and that 35 is too slow for big rigs. He thinks a roundabout at Cook Avenue would be a death trap for big rigs, and there would be a big bottleneck. He said a group wants to put in a path from Tumalo State Park into town, and his ditch has a right of way there. He is concerned about vandalism. He thinks the proposed trees, sidewalks and speed limit are inappropriate. There needs to be better visibility at Cook Avenue. Commissioner Baney asked if he has been involved in the meetings. He said he has lived in Tumalo for forty years and has been involved. Nunzie Gould spoke about Tumalo. She lives three miles from town and was part of the U.S. Highway 20 short-term solutions meetings. She said the last ODOT and TCA meeting was January 2010. A short-term solution was presented afterwards. The pork chop displaced traffic within Tumalo and has meant problems for businesses, issues of inappropriate U-turns and more. Things like this say that the plan does not deal with the big picture. ODOT feels it is their road, and didn’t take into account the County’s part. What is missing is review of what happens to the local County roads and the community. ODOT created a matrix of items 1 through 9, and answered it differently than others. They are supposed to consider a lot of impacts. She said there is a bike crossing at 7th St. and Bailey Road for the scenic bikeway. That crossing would be nixed with the current TSP. Deschutes County is not properly representing what the Tumalo community wants. Tumalo was established before Bend, and a lot of real estate was platted as Laidlaw. With the failure of the reservoir at Sizemore Road, agricultural land was not developed. Much of it remains EFU land with destination resorts and other interests. Tumalo is the gateway to those areas. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 9 of 15 Pages Mr. Russell and Commissioner Unger have participated as advisors, but do not represent the interests of the community. Tumalo is significant because of the river and topography. It has the highway, the river and links Redmond and Bend. It is increasingly used as a gateway to Bend. The connectivity has been instrumental over the years, and still is. Economic vitality there is important. If the purpose of the long-term solution is to benefit Deschutes County, the TSP should be amended. The County should speak up on behalf of its Tumalo citizens. This plan is specifically to minimize the County’s expense for transportation. However, the citizen approved plan benefits all. There are 35 businesses there, and this is economic vitality that the County should nurture. Merely diverting traffic to one crossing displaces routes within Tumalo, creating unidentified problems. The citizen alternative keeps the connectivity. She attended a work session in 2011 that included a workshop between ODOT and the Board. There is no money for this, ODOT said. However, there is $240,000 from Eagle Crest and ODOT. There was laughter in the room that there is no money, but over eleven years ago this commitment was made. Accountability is important. This money could be used to implement the citizen alternative. ODOT entered into the record that this is not achievable in the low priority timeline of 11 to 20 years. ODOT has big infrastructure that would change things forever, and it could actually wipe out Tumalo. The citizen plan wants to keep it connected, and a long-term solution needs to be considered today. It was needed before the last fatality. The community plan is substantially cheaper. ODOT does not talk about business displacement, rights of way and other costly aspects. The citizens are concerned about safety and health as well. The object is not to impact the built environment. Including the citizen alternative now allows for vetting it now, but ODOT wants to table this. ODOT’s long term idea was based on not increasing rights of way, but they now want more rights of way. The range of alternatives should be reviewed accordingly. Chair DeBone asked that Ms. Gould try to wrap up her comments due to the lateness of the hour, and because other speakers wish to testify. She replied that she prefers providing oral testimony rather than written and wants to continue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 10 of 15 Pages Ms. Gould said a traffic light should be considered. Signals can become adaptive. This area is a recreational gateway. (She went into these comments in detail.) There has been no data placed in this TSP update that identifies a cost-benefit analysis beyond the current lowered speed of 45 MPH. She wondered if the expenditure is justified for such a minor difference. She wants the citizen alternatives included in the TSP. She does not want to see access restricted and have the community suffer the effects of this displacement. She said there needs to be an entity added for recreation to implement this in the TSP. They rely on Bend Park and Recreation, the BLM and others who have their own boundaries and jurisdictions. A conservation easement was added in Tumalo for recreation. The transportation component of recreation is not being managed or planned for; there are the bike folks, the river trail folks and others. People get to the community via vehicle and parking is an issue. The TSP should have a recreation component. The County has not apportioned any funds to the roadway for bike lanes and recreation. A local Park and Recreation Department is needed for this. The river trail grant provided funds to connect Tumalo State Park to town. She asked who is going to provide maintenance. Safety is important, and appropriate signage is needed as well. A bikeway, not a bike lane, should be encouraged, with adequate parking for vehicles. Blair Jenkins of Tumalo Academy said she is not speaking to advocate for one particular plan. They are building for 200 rather than 120 students, and are concerned about safety at O.B. Riley Road at Highway 20. Most students come from Bend at this time. They have an active outdoor program and can see school buses coming and going on a regular basis. They will work with teachers and drivers, but support anything that makes it a safer intersection. Rick Coffin lives off Highway 97 and Deschutes Junction. He wants Deschutes Junction to be included in the TSP. It is important for several reasons. The overpass is a vital part of the community, but there are some real safety issues in that area. He is grateful for the language of a frontage road being considered prior to a putting in a barrier. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 11 of 15 Pages Since Deschutes Junction is not even on the TSP update , it will be a long time before it will be addressed since ODOT has no budget for a frontage road. The access issues are critical to safety. This needs to be revisited prior to the twenty-year timing. There are opportunities for master planning there and it deserves another look at this time. Carolyn Perry reiterated some points already made. When she moved to Tumalo ten years ago, she liked the community. She noted that few children in Tumalo, about 1%, walk to school because it is not safe. A recent health impact assessment says there is less than one square mile of residents within the official boundary. They consider it 640 residents. The community is divided by the highway already, and the new plans make this worse. Both of the ODOT options funnel all crossings to one location. When Goal 1 was established, it was stipulated that the community was to be able to give input. However, the citizen group was not able to get its concept considered. Some residents have concerns regarding trees, irrigation districts, etc. she feels that reduced speed means more safety, and she supports 35 MPH. If there needs to be a corridor plan in place or a special transportation area, they encourage the County’s initiative on this. No further public testimony was offered. Nick Lelack said that the Board could conduct another public hearing if desired. If so, he asked whether they prefer day or evening. Next Thursday night the Planning Commission is conducting a hearing on the Community Development work plan, and the master plan is on the list. A notice of intent to apply for a grant for funding has been submitted, but they won’t know for six months or longer. There is another planning process that may or may not be on the work plan. Commissioner Baney asked if this would help with amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lelack replied that it might help regarding the Deschutes Junction issue. Commissioners Baney and Unger said an evening meeting is preferred. The hearing was continued to 6:00 p.m., Monday, April 23, 2012. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 12 of 15 Pages 5. Before the Board were Deliberations and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2012-004, Establishing Provisions for Agri-Tourism and Other Commercial Events and Activities, and to Amend the Winery Standards in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Nick Lack said an adjustment needs to be made to a reference to a section, but it does not affect the overall language. He asked about the noise issue; whether it would be the decimal level at the property line or using the DEQ standards. The other issue is the type of equipment to be used for this purpose. He indicated that the Board also needs to decide whether to adopt by emergency. Commissioner Baney asked for clarification of the DEQ standards and how this might affect things in the future. Ms. Craghead stated that the County can be more restrictive but not less, per a LUBA description, if the County refers to them. However, the DEQ standards are hard to interpret. 70 dba is referenced as 1% of an hour at most; the rest is 65 dba or less, measured at the source and not the property line. It would be very complicated to include this language. Commissioner Unger asked what is already customary. Ms. Craghead said this language is in the Outdoor Mass Gathering criteria already. Mr. Lelack said for simplicity and consistency, it was thought best to refer to the Outdoor Mass Gathering language. Chair DeBone is comfortable with what the County already considered. Commissioner Unger added that changing over to the DEQ wording would be a nightmare. He is comfortable with what is already in place and would prefer they leave the DEQ language out. Ms. Craghead said that the impacts of the LUBA case are unknown. Commissioner Unger wants to proceed and deal with LUBA as needed. Chair Baney asked about leaving out a reference to the DEQ standards. Mr. Lelack said the DEQ standards would be very difficult to enforce, and that DEQ does not enforce its own standards and declined to comment on this. Lane County and another county have chosen to include a not to exceed number of 65. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 13 of 15 Pages Commissioner Unger noted that he wants to keep current the language in place. Commissioner Baney wants to not invite an appeal and remand; Commissioner Unger feels this could be going there anyway and the County can do what the DEQ does, which is to decline to enforce due to inadequate funding and staffing. It is a bigger issue than this one thing. Commissioner Baney asked about language stating that applicable laws would come into play. Commissioner Unger wants to keep moving forward as this will likely remain contentious and everyone is trying to reach a compromise, but no one will be completely happy with the outcome. Mr. Lelack said that draft 2, page 7, talks about compliance with applicable DEQ standards. Commissioner Baney stated that perhaps this should say State regulations in case other agencies come into play. Chair DeBone said that he still prefers the compromise of 70 dba. This issue could be debated for years, but there is already language in Code that deals with noise levels. Due to time constraints, it was decided that this item would be further addressed at this afternoon’s work session after a final draft of the document is ready for consideration. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BANEY: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-035, Transferring Appropriations within the Foreclosed Land Sales Fund 7. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-036, Transferring Appropriations within the Behavioral Health Fund 8. Approval of Minutes: Board Meeting of April 11, 2012 Work Session of April 11, 2012 Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 14 of 15 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $24,480.63. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $233.31. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $532,327.49. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 12. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m. DATEDtbis J~Dayof ~j 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: ~ Tammy Baney, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 16,2012 Page 15 of 15 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, APRIL 16,2012 Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject ofa public hearing will NOT be included in the official record ofthat hearing. 3. THE READING and Signature ofa Proclamation Declaring the Week of the Young Child in Deschutes County -April 22 through 28 -Holly Remer, Healthy Beginnings, High Desert ESD Suggested Actions: Read Proclamation; move adoption and signature. 4. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Ordinance No. 2012-005, Amending the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan -Peter Russell, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open hearing and take testimony. 5. DELIBERATIONS and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2012-004, Establishing Provisions for Agri-Tourism and Other Commercial Events and Activities, and to Amend the Winery Standards in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone -Nick Lelack, Community Development Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday,April16,2012 Page 1 of 5 Pages Suggested Actions: Conduct first and second readings by title only of Ordinance No. 2012-004. Move adoption ofOrdinance No. 2012-004, by Emergency. ICONSENT AGENDA 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-035, Transferring Appropriations within the Foreclosed Land Sales Fund I 7. Signature of Resolution No. 2012-036, Transferring Appropriations within the Behavioral Health Fund 8. Approval of Minutes: • Board Meeting of April 11, 2012 • Work Session of April 11,2012 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extensionl4-H County Service District I f RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 12. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, Apri116, 2012 Page 2 of 5 Pages Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for nY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Monday, April 16 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, April 23 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, April 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Wednesday, May 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, May 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 5 Pages I Wednesday, May 9 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, May 10 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, at Redmond City Council Chambers Thursday, May 17 11:00 a.m. Children & Families' Commission Meeting -La Pine Monday, May 21 through Friday, May 25 9:00 a.m. (All Day) Budget Meetings Monday, May 28 Most County offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day Tuesday, May 29 11:30 a.m. Annual Meeting with Black Butte Ranch Board, at Black Butte Ranch Wednesday, May 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, June 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, June 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, June 11 -Tuesday, June 12 8:00 am. AOC Spring Conference -Bend Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, Apri116, 2012 Page 4 of 5 Pages I Wednesday, June 13 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 14 7:30 a.m. Bend Chamber of Commerce Breakfast -Annual County Forecast Wednesday, June 18 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, June 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, July 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting I I 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting f J 1 Wednesday, July 4 Most County offices will be closed to observe Independence Day. Thursday, July 5 8:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, in Sisters PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 16, 2012 Page 5 of 5 Pages BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ____I......;'S=-...!.-fl_______ Date '-1/((../ J':2 Admess ___~IS~3~~~N~W=_~V~~~~~~~~~~u~~79-------------- 1).:r",d Q II.... C( 11tJ , Phone #s 2LII_ '3 ( 7 ~ t <t 13 D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided B'Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes 0 No REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item ofinterest 211~ h'L (.b.hl1tj , -::/Py Date /?f!d' l(, 2Jl1 L Name NMA S\'{?1 ~ Address ~":I t? '\ lJw'l QJl IV 7\ ql'l &~i(l)f:N D ( v1\. Phone #s s=<-f (,-Lf~0-S Y() (J E-mail admess ,f\\ctVUl ~ £ct hit V ~(areA +t"~~ Qsf0;I D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part oftestimony? 9'Yes 0 No 3 nFavor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING I()ot; REQUEST TO SPEAK J---DtJ-~O?D Agenda Item of Intere2l:j1(.. .figr:&;u:r -1S f' Name J i!J1£J [-EN,? Address {2/Tf-o?KC[Y?10/{ffi Submitting written documents as part of testimonY~ C No REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest -T-...........5~P---------Date ~/l Name 1>~~c.t::.. ~owEI\J Address __\l....l...-L_'_'2..__\>...:......L!:ItJ=-.lE._.-.:j):::;..1-=~:......::\V;...:tL-=-_________ ?l5(f:.~S E-mail address __'P_~_-__'_f_~_\_'-\.\_..... __ ________~_...s_~ YV\_G._c._·_c_a_~ D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided ~ Opposed \ \ I f<1v'\{6.; \\ Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [KJ Yes DNo ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Dr &~"';if J k /11 c!~'VI. Date y/;I/;,---- Name ~1 V licell t ! ' Address &~;( Phone #s E-mail address D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ~es D No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Gutdy 7Sf ~d'€ Date 1-/~-/,2... Name j \Eu 6: JofZG£~'\ S£~ / (?~ P~k ~ !(~~ D~sft.(J- I Address lq1 SW c.ol~lt(~ Sf--G~ Phone#s 5C{{ --7 0h -61").) E-mail address 5fe~cg beWf(~ ¢ fee . o~1 "--J o In Favor [2(NeutrallUndecided o Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? c:::(Yes 0 No ------------------------- ----------------------- 7 • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING , RE UEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest T 5 P l.A..f I' rt::: Date Name~ \.0kt\-~ r~~(~ SelF --- Address J)...r<.sc. j2\~~r :r-~b (' l ts Iil. Phone#s E-mail address D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided ill' Opposed . Submitting written documents as part of testimony? rzI-Yes D No REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest __~~~-------.:VJ=---_IA-f___!._c~~~~___ Date ____ Name W\A3 Whl~ Address ________:fC..L....!::O...:::..(_~H~..!oo:::k::......:J?=--~~·~---- :]}-~0 Phone#s ____________________________ E-mail address ___________________________ D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided ~Opposed .. Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ~Yes D No ______ _ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK AgendaItemoflnterest--L.r_};=-,tt~________ Date Ljd(,dfj J~ Name J3r/IC1Y) .,PO;C-2, « Address / 9 q ( q F/ r /C1 fl CL L~ r'hq I (/ Phone #s ~---"""",,S,---L---J.I1_~~--->...3,--O~I b -+-~0=-----__ o In Favor o NeutrallUndecided ~Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes ~No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK . /,' Agenda Item of Interest 2umQ/p , a"C(?PiS atie Date 1-/'-'-;2 Name D'LK b lim rn~-'2 Address ) q 15(;)~ 2 ~ J '57 (wm ~I", ) ?:J ~V\.-d d ( Phone #s 5 c..J-I o In Favor o NeutrallUndecided I2Q Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes ~No --------------------------- --------------------------------- // BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REOUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item ofInterest_-..".._---______ Date ~f )(A 2£)12 -/, . C2vlinl)) ~ Name V\l.\.f. vf2A.z. ,~_ Address ). ~L ~ ~!J v~\f'\---- -=r~ Phone #s 5L! )-Lj I 20 3 56~ E-mail address o In Favor D NeutrallUndecided ~Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ~Yes D No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Date L.{~, (0 ~/l..... -Q(\ 0 Name ~Vt..L ~L~\..d 3I\~ /')Address )4"b Lf s-N iJ"r~,'-..r-'~' \c,0 /) .Jl .') -., , J i](\.,r.v '1 I l J- Phone #s _____ __________Y1 '_---_L{~?_o__:....3_._3_2-_~ E-mail address D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided ~Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes DNo --- __ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK -Iv ' I. Agenda Item of Interest ~Q+-?-D ,vr!cf'b;;;\ LlVV'-do ~ Name (3(('u~ S~ltnJ Address :2 1)0 tJ <E S-h l d..A. 0 &Jl Phone #sS YI 3 f2 -(It, 91 ------------------~------------------------ D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part oftestimony? D Yes ~ I~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK PAgenda Item of Interest _-I--::'-""""'~________ Date ____ Name /fJd< t rJ Add~ess l~/'/~' /Vl!(~h\rl fJ _A· j0;o ',. ('TV' Phone#s ____________~~-----------_+------------"o~,2'!() ~~/;~f,(!J ".E-mail address __. .. __7'-'k"l~.'---,;;-"-....I,U-""· ___:L-_' i(~~:!{i-'\....A.-_--7 /:,.....::.Lf:,'L.:.'~:'~~flf!.-·_.,(=/._~ , C7'~ " D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes D No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Phone #s 511-J-'fJO .-319;; E-mail address rvL-fr-u.Ut-fMlU-Q r I. CffW7 D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes D No epJ~ 1 I I PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ 1 This is a public hearing on Ordinance 2012-005. The County File Number is PA-11-5 and TA-11-4. This is an application to update the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan; repeal 1 Deschutes County Codes Chapters 23.60 and 23.64, replacing them with 23.01.10, Appendix C. The standards applicable to the applications before us are on page 1 of the Staff Report dated April 16, 2012. The Board will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Board with a copy of written testimony. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any Board for personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth any information that may be perceived as personal interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). (STAFF REPORT) j PURPOSE OF TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING 1. Quic k recap o f proc e ss t o produce June 30, 20 11, draft Transp o rtation Sy stem Pla n (TSP ) Up date (Five years distilled to four slides!) 2. Highlight issues raised during Planning Commi ssio n p ublic hearings 3,. Plan n ing C ommi ss i o n 's rec om m endations 4. Board rec e ives pubU'c t estimony on TSP THE ROAD WE TRAVELED TO GET HERE 2007: ODOT, with County input, gathers transportation and land use d ata to build a traffi c model fo r rura l Desc h utes County 2008 : Fir st round of pu b li c outreach to identify tran spo rt a ti o n issues, modeling continues 2009: ODOT a nalyzes existing traffic volumes and identifi e s curren t deficiencies THE ROAD WE TRAVELED· TO GET HERE 2 010: Second ro und o f pu blic m eetings where staff discussed existing c o nditi ons and preliminary 203 0 traffic forecasts; O DO T fi nalizes 2030 traffic projections; O DO T and staff propose mitigations for identified deficien cies THE ROAD WE TRAVELED TO GET HERE 2011 : Third round of public mee tin gs where staff dis c ussed 2030 traffic , propose d projects; QandA City of Sis ters meetings on US 20 passing la n e s betwee.n Black BuHe-Sisters Draft TS P Up d a te d elivered to OLCO Planning Commission holds public hearings on Oct. 27, Nov. 10, Dec. 15 ..0.& THE ROAD WE TRAVELED TO GET HERE 2 0 12 : Plan ning Comm is sio n has work session Ja n. 12 an d c ontin ues p u b lic h earings on Ja n. 26 Planning Com miss ion deli bera tes on Feb. 9 an d Feb. 23 Bo ard holds w o rk session on March 26 Board begins pu b lic hearings on April 16 MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1. Topic: Deschutes Junction Refi nement Plan Result: De fe r to Pl anning Division work program (s e e p a g e J36 of latest draft of TSP, aka Exhibit C o f Ordinan ce 20 J2-005) 2. Topic: Tim i ng of Deschute s Jct Frontage Road Re sult: Cons truction occurs prior to or simultaneo us w ith extension of the raised median on US 97 north w ard from the Deschutes Junction inte rchange (see p age J 36) MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 3 . To p ic: Bike / Ped Brid ge a cross Desch utes River Re sult: Delete referen c e to County supporting amendment to OAR 736 -04 0, Sce nic Waterways, to allow bridges fo r non -motorized t raffic; A d d p o lic y langua g e f or developing trail routes; Continue t o not show bridge on Figure 5.5.FS, Send Area Existin g and Proposed Trails; Add Figure 5.5.F10, Re g ion al Trails (see pag es 175-176) MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 4 . Topic: Des i gnating County Bike ways Result: Do not consider wh e th er road is part of County-maintained system whe n designating C ounty bikeways: M odify Fi g u res S.S.F2-FS (Send, Redmond, Sisters, an d South County bikeways) MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 5. Topic: Long -t e rm solution for US 20 i n Tumalo Result: PC sele c ted Con c ept 1-3, grade separation where County roa d s go b eneath US 20; Kept rais ed median and new road connecting Ba iley a nd OB Riley; Re q uir e OD O T t o hold a public meeting in Tumalo prior to design of SJ5-million project to see how public's concer ns co uld b e addressed (See page J42) MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 6. Top i c : Table 5 .3 .Tl , County & Sta te Pro jects Result: Revise costs for state p rojec t s from $350 million to $240 million; Retain Quarry Road interchange on list; Retain US 20 in Tumolo as High Priority; Revise US 97f lower Bri d ge from High to Medium; Re v ise US 20 l anes fro m Black Butte to Sisters from High to Medium; MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARIN G 6. Topi c: Table 5 .3 .T 1, (c o n't ) Rev ise US 97 l anes fro m State Re c Road to Drafter from High to Me dium: Add US 20 from 08 Riley to Cooley to list: Revis e O 'Neil HwylUS 97 from Low to High (see pages J49-J53) MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7. Topic : Develop Table 5 .3 .T2, Ill u str ative List Move US 97 interc hange .... , .3 miles sout h o f Vandevert Road to Illustra tive List; M o v e US 97/0R 31 i n terchange to Illustrative List; Move US 20/01d Se nd-Redmond interchange to Illus trative List (see page 153) MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 8. Topic : US 20 Pa ·ssi ng La nes, Black BuHe-Sisters Re sult: ODOr and County agreed on ide ntifying "tri ggers " for passin g lanes; Req uire O DOr to hold a public meeting in Sisters prior to d esign of S20-million project to see h ow p ublic's concerns could be addressed; Change project 's priority from High to Medium; (see pages 140-1 4 1 a nd 158) MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 8. Topic: US 20, Black BuHe -Sisters (co n 't) Identified "triggers " for p assing lan es: The tra ffic volumes. exceed ODOT's volume/capacity ratio targets The c rash r ate exc eeds t h e Statewide average for similar rural highways The crash types are re l a ted to passing maneuvers (head-on, sideswipe on-coming, sideswipe overtaking) Th e segment i nclud es one or more top 10% Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) sites An increase in Percent Time Spent Following or a decrease in Travel Time Reliability ~ MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 9. Topic : Rural Roundabouts Re sult: County will base its p ro portionate fin a n c ial c ontribution on c os ts o f a rural roun dab out sh ould O DOr choose a non ro un d about solution fo r a State Highway/County Road inters ect ion; Several roun dabouts planned for County intersec t ions, primarily on Powell BuHe Highway (see pag e 157" an d Figure F5.3F2) MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 10 . Top i c : Fu nctional Reclassi fi c ations for Roads Result: Make County r oad c l assificat ions consistent with Redmond and Bend TSP 's; Re c ognize c hanges in either volumes, land use, or disconnection fr o m St a te hig hway system Redmon d Area Roads: Collector to Rural Arterial: Helmho ltz (43 rd St): NW Maple-South Canal Blvd NW Wa y : Maple Ave-Future extension of Pershall NW Maple: Helmholtz (43 rd)-NW Way (27'h) MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 10 . To p i c : Fu nctiona l Re classi fi catio n s (con't) Re dmond A r ea Road s: Local t o Rural Collector: Elkhorn Ave: SW He l mh.o l tz-39 th St NW Spru c e : Redm o n d UG B-North west Way Ben d A rea Roads: Ru ral Collector to Rural Arterial Des. Mkt Road: Be n d UGB-Des Jct/97 interchange OB Ril e y : Cooley Road-Bend UGB Ham by: Bu t ler Market Road-US 20 Ward: US 20-Stevens MAJOR ISSUES AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 10 . To pic: Functional Re c lass ifi cations (con't) Send Area Road s: Future Rural Collector to Future Ru r al Arterial Coo ley Ex tension: US 20 w est of OS Riley back to Glen Vista Se n d Area Roads: Add Rural Collector Skyline Ranc h Road: Skyliners-Century Drive (see p a ges 162-1 63: Figures FS.3.F12 and FS.3.F13) CITY OF REDMOND Community Development 716 SW Evergreen Ave. Redmond, OR 97756 (541) 923-7721 Fax: (541) 548-0706 www.cLredmond.or.us April 16,2012 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Honorable Tony DeBone, Chair Honorable Tammy Baney, Commissioner Honorable Alan Unger, Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Update -Proposed Policy Regarding Support for City of Redmond TSP Dear Commissioners: Over the past few years, the City of Redmond and Deschutes County staff have continuously worked together to address interrelated transportation issues that benefit both Deschutes County and the City of Redmond. The County staff supported and assisted the City of Redmond during the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) update in 2008 -we are thankful for such collaboration. As the City of Redmond continues to work toward ensuring a functional transportation system to serve its citizens, we know that continued coordination with Deschutes County is necessary. In a continuation of this collaboration, our staff has had discussions with County staff regarding necessary transportation facilities between Redmond's southern city limit and the Quarry Avenue Interchange at US Highway 97 (as such alignments are shown on the adopted/acknowledged City of Redmond TSP). As part of the current County TSP update process, the City respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners consider adding a policy to the County TSP indicating support for the Redmond TSP which includes the aforementioned road alignments. The Policy language could be included as follows: POLICY: Deschutes County will support and collaborate with the City ofRedmond to aid in implementing the City's Transportation System Plan as it illustrates new roads extendingfrom existing City streets at the southerly Redmond City limits to the planned interchange with US Highway 97 at Quarry Avenue in Deschutes County. We believe that there are several practical reasons which support this or a similar policy, these include: Planning • Building • Economic Development Coordinated planning of transportation facilities (among City of Redmond, Deschutes County and ODOT staff) have included discussions of such road connections to Highway 97 at the planned Quarry Avenue Interchange, which is shown on the County TSP. These roads will aid in extending the lifespan of State facilities (Highway 97) where existing intersections are either at or are approaching facility capacity. The alignments will ultimately provide relief to the Yew Avenue interchange, and will add to the accessibility of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Redmond's eastside industrial lands by providing a new parallel facility to Highway 97. Such facilities will provide convenient, alternative routes for County residents who need to access the City of Redmond for employment and everyday life needs. The addition of the Policy will further promote continued transportation coordination between Deschutes County and the City of Redmond, and allow us to work jointly with ODOT and DLCD to address access and mobility issues affecting the interconnectivity between City Streets, County Roads and State Highway facilities. The Policy will let the residents of Deschutes County and the City of Redmond know that there is a commitment to work together with forethought in regional transportation planning. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Heather Richards Community Development Director • • ••• • ••• • • -, Analysis of the Traffic Growth Rate Sisters ATR Revised April 16, 2012 Bruce Bowen, PhD The graph below shows the average annual daily traffic (AADT) for the Sisters Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) for the 18-year period 1994 to 2011. 2011 was obviously the latest full year of data available from ODOT. Calculating a growth rate for this time period presents some very difficult statistical problems. Note that the first three years and the last four are below the fitted line while all the others are above. This indicates that the growth rate is not simply a linear or multiplicative relationship. The line in the graph below represents an annual growth rate of 0.2% or 3.7% over a 20-year period. (The growth rate in the ODOT PowerPoint presentation was about 25% for the 20-year period using data from 1990-2009.) Why are the ODOT and this growth rate so different? First, they use slightly different time periods. Second, they have very wide confidence intervals because of how the errors are distributed. (The technical term is serial correlation in the errors.) Average Annual Oa il yTr affi c at Sis ters ATA 1994-2011 8 g • 8o 0) 0 8 CD --. • 0 • • g,.... • 1995 2000 20 05 2010 201'5 2020 year I_Act-ual~orecasl RUed va ues I Looking at the graph above, if there were more years to the left on the graph that had low traffic levels the graph would tilt/slope upward and mean that the growth rate would be higher. This graph has fewer points on the left and one more point on the right tilting the graph down further than the one in the ODOT Power Point presentation. The steepness of the graph (slope) represents the growth rate. ATR data for the first two months of 2012 is available and the average daily traffic is up by 30. If (a big if) this were to continue, it would mean the slope of the trend line would become even flatter, which would further reduce the 20-year projection. What should be made of this? The most important conclusion is that for the last four years the level of traffic has been declining rather than growing. Also, if adding a year or two or subtracting a year or two changes the calculated growth rate dramatically, as it does in this case, then the estimates of the growth rate cannot be trusted. (They are unreliable and have large confidence intervals.) The ODOT prediction of 9900 average traffic on the segment of US 20 between Tollgate and Black Butte Ranch is very likely incorrect Bend Park &Recreation DISTRICT 799 SIN Columbia Street Bend, OR 97702 Board of County Conunissioners April 16,2012 Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 SUBJECT: Draft Deschutes County TSP Bicycle and Pedestrian Element Chair DeBone, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft County Transportation System Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Element. The Bend Park and Recreation District (BPRD) works closely with our city, county, and state partners to provide recreational facilities and opportunities for visitors and residents alike. The district is the designated park and recreation "urban services provider" for the city of Bend including those areas of the park district that extend outside of the Bend UGB. In many areas of the UGB, the district performs planning for trails that originate within the urban area and extend outside the boundary to make connections into the national forest or onto BLM lands. These connections are critical components of providing the close-to-home outdoor recreational opportunities that are in great demand, help to reduce automobile trips, encourage healthy exercise, and make our community an attractive place to live and work. We have reviewed the language in the draft Bikeway and Pedestrian Element, and specifically the section titled "Off-Road Route Selection" which is most relevant to our work on paths and trails located outside of road right-of-way. The narrative captures some important nuances in the desire to provide off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities. We appreciate the reference to these off-road paths providing a transportation and recreational opportunity, which is often not a consideration in the discussion of such facilities. This dual role is especially evident in paths close to urbanized areas where the majority of daily trips (being most often three miles or less) can be captured by cycling. Datal suggests that off-road paths can also be more attractive to seniors, children and inexperienced cyclists that may be uncomfortable using on-road bike lanes and shoulders. We encourage the county to continue to work with the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), as well as the other local jurisdictions and BPRD to have a role in the increased provision of off-road facilities as demand warrants and funding allows. Often the best use of limited trail resources can occur when jurisdictions approach regional trail development in partnership so that individual segments are prioritized, planned, and constructed to fit within an overall trail framework across the entire region. During the County Planning Commission's recent review process, we had suggested the following edits to strengthen the language in this TSP section: Off-Road Route Selection On-road bike facilities including shoulder bikeways and bike lanes are generally preferred by more experienced cyclists, and can have a lower initial construction cost and have maintenance included with the adjacent roadway. However, paved and unpaved off-road bike paths can cater more to recreational and fitness riders, and also offer a mostly automobile-free route for inexperienced, younger cyclists, and I The are many sources of infonnation on bicycle facility safety perception and other factors surrounding bike facility selection that can be found on the Web. A sununary, and starting point to seek available resources can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/Segregated_cycle_ faci lities#Segregating_ cyc lists_controversy. Page 1 of 15 4/16/2012 those older cyclists that feel more comfortable on that type offacility . Well-plac ed paths could also senJe commuting cyclists, and have the most potential to do so wh en th ey serv e origins and destinations effectively. A paved shared-use path should meet state (ODOT) guidelin es and be ofsufficient width to accommodate multiple user types (e.g., cyclists, walkers, strollers, etc.). Th e opportunity exists in Deschutes County to create off-road, separate shared-use paths in many circumstances, including but not limited to: • Along irrigation district maintenance "ditch rider" roads adjacent to irrigation canals. • Major utility easements. • Short connector routes between adjoining subdivisions, and between subdivisions and adjoining commercial areas, schools, parks, and public lands. • Abandoned roadways and railroad lines . • Additional bicycle paths within destination resorts and new recreational communities now in the planning stage. • Heavily used and impacted forest trails that could benefit from the additional armoring that a widened pavement surface would provide. Goal 23 . Work with BPAC to identify a sy stem ofoff-road paved shared-use paths to be included in the County transportation sy stem. 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 on e side ofa residential street, in favor ofa comparable and relatively parallel bike path within the developm ent. How ever, the developer's provision ofa bike path shall not change the on-road bikeway requirementfor arterials and collectors. 47. Deschutes County shallfacilitate the development ofmountain bike routes and the creation ofpaved off-road shared-use paths. The County shall work with its public agency and non-profit partners, and the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to identify such routes and incOlporate them into its transportation system where appropriate. Particular attention shall be given to obtaining and keeping rights-ol-way for uninterrupted routes linking various reSidential, commercial, resort and park areas within the County. Linear corridors such as rivers, irrigation canals, ridges and abandoned roadway and rail lines shall receive special attention. Proposed developments may be required to provide such identified trail and path rights-ol-way as part oftheir transportation scheme in order to maintain the integrity and continuity ofthe countywide system. 48. The County shall work with local agencies and jurisdictions to acquire , de velop and maintain those sections oftrail that are located outside of UG B 's, but are part ofa trail plan or map that has been adopted by the local jurisdiction and/or the County. Trails and paths that originate within urban growth boundaries and extend outside the boundary to county, state and/or federal land destinations should be the highest priority. 49. Off-road paved shared-use paths shall be constructed in accordance with th e guidelines set forth in the most current edition ofthe Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Page 2 of 15 4/16/2012 Facility Requirements The TPR has various requirements relating to bicycle facilities such as bike parking amounts and areas, and employee considerations such as shower and changing facilities. These requirements have already been implemented through Deschutes County ordinances, but are reinforced here with goals and policies. Goal 24. Maintain and revise when necessary, the existing land use development requirements for bicycle facilities in Deschutes County. Policy 50. Deschutes County shall maintain and update as necessary, the existing ordinance requirements for bicycle facilities found in Title 18.116.031 and Title 17.48, Table B, or such other location that it may be moved to within the Deschutes County Development Code. After listening to the Planning Commission's deliberations on the TSP, it was clear that there was some confusion as to BPRD's role in the community, and the planning for several future trails and bridges shown on existing plans both inside and outside the Bend UGB. To clarify the district's position on trails in general, and specifically regarding the Deschutes River Trail (DRT) and its future extensions to the north and south, we believe a background discussion of trail planning is prudent. The first leg of what would become the Deschutes River Trail (DRT), the "River Run Trail" officially opened in 1989 and was a section running downstream along the Tumalo Irrigation District canal beginning just north of 1SI St. in Bend. 1981 Bend Comprehensive Plan map. -The fust leg of what would become the Deschutes River Trail (DRT), the "River Run Trail" officially opened in 1989 and was a section running downstream along the Tumalo Irrigation District canal beginning just north of 151 St. in Bend. This was one of several trails identified on the South UGB- The 1995 "Bend Urban Trails Plan" identified the DRT running through most of Bend, and showed the COlD Trail #12A extending beyond the south UGB line into county jurisdiction and then curving west to cross the river and connect to USFS land. The 1995 Plan was created before any development of Elk Meadow was envisioned west of Brookswood Ave. (Figure 1) The next fonnal trails planning effort was a joint project between the city of Bend and the BPRD Foundation in 1999 to develop a specific plan. The 1999 "The Bend Riverway, A Community Vision" identified development of the entire DRT through the Bend UGB. An additional factor that has been raised regarding this future trail extension and bridge is the status of the Deschutes River in this area with regard to the federal "wild and scenic" classification and the State of Oregon "scenic river" classification. These classifications affect where and if a new bridge can be built under existing rules. In this case, the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) is more restrictive than the federal guidelines and likely controls what can be built. As the south part of the UGB continued to develop with the River Rim subdivision on the Elk Meadow property, the district looked closer at a potential DRT extension to the south UGB. The district acquired Page30f15 4/16/2012 and built Wildflower Park on River Rim Drive and also acquired a three-acre river park site now known as River Rim Park located at the end of River Rim Drive. Although River Rim Park is currently undeveloped, it does provide public access to the river and a safe final watercraft take-out opportunity for river users that want to avoid the more advanced rapids and the dangerous COID water diversion intake a short distance downstream. The park also provides a riverfront location for a future extension of the DRT to the south UGB (Figure 3). Figure 1 -1995 Bend Urban Trails Plan The 2002 "Deschutes River Trail Action Plan" consolidated these two documents and identified a total of six sections of the DRT referred to individually as "reaches" with corresponding project lists and action items. The south part of the UGB was covered by the "South Canyon Reach" which maintained the same conceptual trail aligrunent used in the 1995 Plan but it no longer extended south across the UGB into the adjacent county subdivision, but instead turned west on vacant land inside the UGB to a proposed bridge crossing of the Deschutes River connecting to the existing USFS trails on the other side. Once again, this was not a definitive trail design or bridge location, but rather a better refined placeholder for planning purposes. The final trail alignment would still be subject to future development plans and the bridge locatio," could be either within or outside the current UGB. This plan did show a proposed short connector trail linking the Cinder Cone Natural Area south to Buck Canyon Road which is located in the county. The bridge was shown outside the UGB on USFS property (in yellow) which extends across both sides of the river in county jurisdiction. The graphic from the DRT Action Plan is included as Figure 2. Page 4 of 15 4/16/2012 Figure 2 -2002 Deschutes River Trail Action Plan As the south part of the UGB continued to develop with the River Rim subdivision on the Elk Meadow property, the district looked closer at a potential DRT extension to the south UGB. The district acquired and built Wildflower Park on River Rim Drive and also acquired a three-acre river park site now known as River Rim Park located at the end of River Rim Drive. Although River Rim Park is currently undeveloped, it does provide public access to the river and a safe final watercraft take-out opportunity for river users that want to avoid the more advanced rapids and the dangerous COlD water diversion intake a short distance downstream. The park also provides a riverfront location for a future extension of the DRT to the south UGB. (Figure 3). Subsequent to the 2002 DRT Action Plan, the city adopted a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation System Plan" ("Accessway Plan", 2006) that delineated the mUltiple trail and path opportunities around the city both within and outside of public rights-of-way. This olan focused mostly on in-street facilities, but all of the proposed trails in the 1995 Bend Urban Trails Plan, including the trail alignment (and ped. bridge) in the previous DRT Action Plan, were carried forward and included in the adopted Accessway Plan. (Figure 3) Page 5 of 15 4/16/2012 Figure 3 -2006 Bend Accessway Plan Alp ne " AME YST ST BPRD subsequently adopted its "Parks, Recreation and Green Spaces Trails Master Plan" (2008) that built upon the city's TSP and Accessway Plan work, as well as the 2002 DRT Action Plan2 • The Trails Master Plan identified a slightly refined DRT route and connecting trail network at the south UGB, and also included the proposed bridge shown in the 2006 Accessway Plan. Similar to the previous plans, the trail alignments and bridge location were subject to change according to future development proposals. (Figure 4) 2 Prior to adoption of the 2008 Trails Master Plan, BPRD had relied on the city of Bend Urban Trails Plan and TSP as its trails planning document. Page 6 of 15 4/16/2012 Figure 4 -2008 BPRD Trails Master Plan lIUSFI C:.o,D-nll :r--__Deschutes River Trail South Canyon Reach One such proposal was for a 10 I-lot residential subdivision on the remaining 80 acres of the original Elk Meadow property. The 2006-07 "Renaissance Homes" PUD proposal eventually included the DRT extension from River Rim Park to the south UGB. This was the first time that a subdivision in the south UGB area accommodated the eventual trail alignment near the river. A portion of the trail was located within the subdivision and the rest of it was located on a 20-acre adjacent parcel that was part of the proposal, but was to remain undeveloped as a designated nature preserve (with trail) along the river. Page 7 of 15 4/16/2012 I, i' II F II .4I, if if;fcc ;, 1 ~~Buc; anYOn Rd Shoshon Rd Pmpose e -Renaissance Homes develoament DESCHUTES RIVER & Scenic River Scenic 1I'oterway ~ ~ 16 a.... ~ ~ ~\~CO ~ ~ ~. ~~i~7 J Brookswood Blvd. ~~~ Romaine Village Way :'1 Ponderosa orl ~. ~ ~c:r This Renaissance subdivision eventually fell victim to Bend's economic decline and was never constructed. An additional factor to be considered for this future trail extension and blidge is the status of the Deschutes River in this area with regard to the federal "wild and scenic" classification and the State of Oregon "scenic river" classification. These classifications affect where and if a new bridge can be built under existing rules. In this case, the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) is more restrictive than the federal guidelines and likely control what can be built. The 1996 Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Management Plan (https:/ /scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/7223?show=full ) shows it as: NORTH THE UPPER i"ederally Deslgnote4 11'114 Stole Page 8 of 15 4/16/2012 The federal Wild and Scenic (Recreational) category extends downstream from Lava Island Falls and ends at the yellow dashed line (image below) that is an extension of the SW UGB line (BPRD interpretation). This is also where the State "Scenic" waterway designation ends . The State "River Community" Waterway is the only "scenic" designation that continues downstream within the current UGB. It extends approximately one river-mile downstream from that line to the other dashed yellow line at the top of the image located at the com irrigation diversion gate. The current OAR does not allow any bridges over the river from the com diversion point upstream both inside and outside the UGB/CLlPark District. Therefore, any future annexations to the south, or just moving the proposed bridge inlo the UGB wuuld have no effect. It is the State OAR that deals specifically with the "River Community" designation that we would work to amend to allow pedestrian bridges through some sort of land use mechanism (to be determined). We would hope to avoid private property impacts by using the federal property located on both sides of the river to place any future bridge. 2010 Image with planned trail and Scenic River Classifications The state OAR 736-040-0073 is the controlling administrative rule (edited to show only relevant text): OAR 736-040-0073 Upper Deschutes River Scenic Waterway (1) Scenic River Areas: (a) Two river segments are designated as Scenic River Areas: (B) The segment ofthe scenic waterway extendingfrom the Deschutes National Forest boundary in Section 20, Township J9 South, Range J J East, ofthe Willamette Meridian, (Section 20, T J9S, R J J E, WM.) to the Bend Urban Growth Boundary at River Mile J 72 is classified as a Scen ic Ri ver A rea . Page 9 of 15 4/16/2012 (e) New bridges will not be permitted. Maintenance, repair and replacement ofexisting bridges shall be consistent with OAR 736-040-0035(6) and (7), Deschutes County land use and development regulations, and Oregon Department ofState Lands regulations; (h) New, above ground river crossings shall not be permitted; OJ Improvements needed for public outdoor recreation use or resource protection shall be designed to blend with the natural character ofthe landscape ; (2) River Community Areas: (a) Four areas are deSignated as River Community Areas: (D) Those related adjacent lands within the City ofBend Urban Growth Boundary beginning at about river mile 172 and extending downstream approximately one mile 10 the Central Oregon Irrigation diversion at about river mile 171 is classified as the So uth Bend River Com munity Area . (/) New bridges will not be permitted. Maintenance, repair and replacement o/existing bridges shall be consistent with OAR 736-040-0035(6) and (7), Deschutes County and City ofBend land use and development regulations, and Oregon Department ofState Lands regulations ; (h) New, above ground river crossing will not be permitted; OJ Improvements needed for public outdoor recreation use or resource protection shall be designed [0 blend with the natural character ofthe landscape; As written, the state OAR expressly prohibits new bridges or new river crossings in these stretches of river both upstream and downstream of where a potential DRT pedestrian bridge could be placed . In spite of this current prohibition, the district feels strongly that it is our responsibility to actively plan for the trails and bridges that have been identified through prior planning processes and are desired by Bend's growing population. The district's 2008 and 2011 community-wide surveys continued to show soft surface trails as one of the most desirable district recreational facilities. Specifically, the completion of pedestrian bridge crossings for the DRT also ranked very high in our most recent 2011 community survey. The continuity of the DRT requires an eventual crossing of the Deschutes River in the SW UGB and no other upstream or downstream locations in the vicinity are practical due to private property impacts. We believe that the OAR was originally drafted without consideration of pedestrian bridges and trail connections. It seems ironic that a section of river designated as the "South Bend River Community Area" in the OAR would serve to seprate rather than connect the community. We would like to keep open the opportunity to work with state and federal agencies to amend the OAR for this location and allow these types of bridges and important trail connections outright or through an identified permitting process. We request that Deschutes County support our local and regional trail planning efforts by identifying such potential new trails and bridges in its TSP. These future facilities are not shown on maps and web sites available for public use as wayfinding tools until such time that they are legally constructed and formally opened for public use. However, it is important that they are identified on planning level documents as indicators of public desire, and shown to fit within the overall trail framework . We believe that the ability to eventually amend the pertinent OAR will be directly related to our success in demonstrating the high level of public support and regional trail planning work that has already taken place. North UGB- The DRT also extends north from Bend downstream to Tumalo State Park and eventually to the unincorporated community ofTumalo at US Highway 20. In 2010, the district acquired 122 acres of the Gopher Gulch Ranch (GGR) on the east side of the Deschutes River just north of the existing Bend UGB. This acquisition brings closer to reality the future opportunity for a DRT connection north to Tumalo. The GGR connection was not envisioned in the 1995 Bend Urban Trails Plan, but the concept was part of Page 10 of 15 4/16/2012 the 2002 DRT Action Plan (Figure 5) and subsequent trail plaruting documents including the district's 2008 Trails Master Plan. The 2002 Action Plan envisioned the DRT continuing downstream on the west side of the river and deviating out-of-direction on Putnam Road before coming back to the river via private property and using a new crossing ofTumalo Creek near its confluence with the Deschutes River. Figure 5 -2002 DRT Action Plan (Awbrey Reach) Gopher Gulch Ranch Page 11 of 15 4/16/2012 The 2008 district Trails Master Plan retained this west side trail concept because the acquisition of the riverfront portion of Gopher Gulch Ranch was not yet anticipated. 2008 District Trails Master Plan .-.=:TVMALO PAAK ' ~ .ITI,. ... /O('(1lioll C?ffrtlllTr Irmls and COIllIt'Oi01U /0 f" -;3;/lIg trmls trW b.' ,t,'lt'nll(u('d bnsl!d 011 J"nst\',. plmmi11g q{llH.' Inrgt' prim/t' parr"'" ill '/'i3 (fJ yf1I However, with the advent of the GGR purchase, the future trail extension can now be located on the east side of the canyon for a more direct and practical connection to the existing DRT trail segments leading into Tumalo State Park. The district Plan retains the Putnam Road trail alignments, but now treats those as connectors versus the primary DRT route along the river. The new DRT alignment will still require a new pedestrian bridge across the Deschutes but it can now be located on district-owned property in the Archie Briggs Canyon Natural Area and on Gopher Gulch Ranch (Park). This segment of the river is classified by the state in OAR 736-040-0072 as either the "North Bend Conununity River Area" or a "Recreational River Area" depending on which side of the UGB the bridge is located. New bridges are allowed within either of these designations. This serves to point out the obvious question as to why the bridge prohibition was included in the South Bend Conununity River Area and not in the North Bend River Community Area where arguably the river canyon is more natural and less disturbed than that in the south UGB area . Page 12 of 15 4/16/2012 OAR 736-040-0072 Middle Deschutes River Scenic Waterway (1) North Bend River Community Area: (a) From Sawyer Park at approximately river mile 164 to the northern Urban Growth Boundary o{the City o(Bend at approximatelv river mile 161. the river is classified North B end River Community Area; (b) Within this area, all new structures, improvements and development shall be in compliance with the Land Management rules as described in OAR 736-040-0035 and 736-040-0040(l)(f), and be consistent with applicable City ofBend and Deschutes County land use and development regulations . Improvements needed for public recreation use or resource protection shall be designed to blend with the natural character ofthe landscape. (4) Recreational River Area: (a) From the northern Urban Growth Boundary oOhe City o(Bend at approximately river mile 161 downstream to Tumalo State Park at approximately river mile 158. the river is classified R ecrea tiona l River Area ; (b) Within this area, all new stntctures, improvements and development shall comply with the Land Management ntles as described in OAR 736-040-0035 and 736-040-0040(I)(c)(B), and be consistent with applicable Deschutes County land use and development regulations: (D) Improvements needed for public recreation use or resource protection shall be designed to blend with the natural character ofthe landscape. The proposed trail alignment is reflected in Figure 6. Figure 6 -Planned Alignment of the DRT through Gopher Gulch Park Page 13 of 15 4/16/2012 BPRD requests that DRT trail segments and future bridges identified in these plans and located in county jurisdiction be incorporated into the Deschutes County TSP for planning purposes. In addition to those trails identified above, there are several other trails that currently extend or are planned to extend outside of the Bend UGB into county jurisdiction. They are included within the district's adopted Trails Master Plan or are contained in USFS or BLM planning documents. This request would be an implementation of County TSP Policy #48. In some cases, these trails transition directly onto federal land, but in other cases the responsible jurisdiction may not be clear. In order to create a seamless network, just like public roadways, these trails could be shown on maps extending into the UGB like the district and city planning nlaps show trails extending outside of the UGB. One of the more critical trails lacking a common jurisdiction is the Brooks-Scanlon Trail that extends along the old haul road from Bend to Sisters. To preserve these types of trail opportunities we feel it is important that the county recognize them in planning documents like the TSP which is the only appropriate official document that covers the entire county at this time. The trails outside of the UGB are identified on Figure 7. Figure 7 -Adopted Trails Outside of tbe Bend UGB ( ") ') ,"""> L {.... "'} ( Bend Page 14 of 15 4/16/2012 In addition, even though they are not reflected in the 2008 BPRD Trails Master Plan, we also ask that the DRT changes identified in Figure 6, including a new pedestrian bridge at Archie Briggs Canyon Natural Area, be included in the county TSP as well. We can provide the county with a G IS layer of all of these trails and hope that the Board of County Commissioners will see the necessity of helping to preserve these existing and planned trails and bridges for future generations to come. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please don't hesitate to contact me at 541-706-6153 or at teve@ bendparksandrec.org . Steve Jorgensen Planning Manager Bend Park and Recreation District Page 15 of 15 4/16/2012 Oregon Parks & Recreation DePt.aUPPER DESCHUTES RIVER 725 Summer St. NE. Suite C ~ Salem OR. 97301 '*"""vSTATE SCENIC WATERWAY BOUNDARY Stlte_Scenic_WaterwaLCorridor -Highways -Roads o txdesc2005 Oregon Lambert Projection Datum NAD 83 lThis product is for informational purposes and may not have been GSC 121512011 prepared for, or be suitable for legal. engineering. or surveying o 650 1,300 2,600 Feet \IDer1<s>perk\eftie mxdlpurposes. Users of this information should review or consult the I I I primary data and Information sources to ascertain the usability of the Information. 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. iurisdictions...ilnn!UalEs~U2JCQJ;~:U~!m acquire. develop, address trail-connectjyitt issues and maintain .QD.Ix..tho sections of trail that are located outside of UGB's that are consistent with the County's T~but are part of a trail plan or map that has been adopted by the local jurisdiction andlQr the'County. Staff will work with local. state. federal _ncies. and BPAe to determine the Wiocit)' for trails that connect urban and rural areas. 49. Off-road paved mI:IkipIe iIlired:use paths shall be constructed in accordance with the I t speei#leatieRS ~idelines set forth in the most current edition of the Oregon Bicycle and PedeS1rian Plan. Facifity Requirements j The TPR has various requirements relating to bicycle fucilities such as bike parking amounts and areas, , , and employee considerations such as shower and changing fucilities. These requirements have already 1 been implemented through Deschutes County ordinances, but are reinforced here with goals and policies. i I Goal j 24. Maintain the existing development requirements for bicycle fucilities in Deschutes County. !, Policy SO. Deschutes County shall maintain and update as necessary, the existing ordinance requirements for bicycle fucilities found in DeC 18.116.031 and DCC Chapter 17.48, Table B, or such other location that it may be moved to within the Deschutes County Development Code. 5.6 Airport Plan Airport Overview The continued operation and vitality of airports registered, licensed or otherwise recognized by the Department of Transportation is a matter of State and County concern. The County protects the operations of airports through the Airport Safety Combing Zone (DeC Chapter 18.80) to ensure safe operations of aircraft and that nearby land uses are compatible. DCC Title 18 also requires the Federal AViation Administration (FAA) be notified of land use applications within the ftS zone. There are currently 18 registered airports in Deschutes County. Four of these are public use airports; two of which, Bend Municipal and Redmond Municipal-Roberts Field are publicly owned while Sisters Eagle Air and Sunriver airports are privately owned. These airports have improved (paved) runways, and offer a range of services, from the availability of commercial passenger flights arriving and departing daily at Redmond Municipal Airport, to the Sisters (Eagle Air) Airport which offers no services or runway navigational aids. Cline Falls Airport, Juniper Airpark and Pilot Butte Airport are privately owned private use airports with more than three based aircraft. There are three heliports: St Charles DRAFT EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 176 of 182 Conceptual Study Area -Aceti® . , April 16, 2012 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners TUMALO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (TCA) MISSION STATEMENT: To preserve, protect, and promote the character, welfare and integrity of our rural community through information exchange and meaningful public participation. jOne of the 5 core purposes of the Association is to "Maintain, protect, and enhance the livability and sense of community of the area." r To that objective, the TCA, over the past several years, has met on countless occasions both as Ian association, as well as a stakeholder with other organizations and agencies, addressing our Community Vision and plans promoting connectivity, business vitality, recreational enhancements, the river, a community park, as well as traffic 1safety issues and Highway 20. We have provided considerable time, effort, input and testimony to Deschutes County regarding the Tumalo Community Plan, as well as to ODOT for safe and reasonable solutions to Highway 201 Tumalo intersections. A short-term solution was provided by ODOT in 2010. A raised curb median was installed on U.S. 20 restricting left turns onto U.S. 20 and cross movements. A left hand turn onto Bailey Road from westbound U.S. 20 was maintained. This solution was NOT supported by the community and has adversely affected several small community businesses in these already finanCially challenging times. ODOT states on their web-site that the long-term solution needs to address safety and operation conditions of all road users on U.S. 20 through the Tumalo area, while maintaining connectivity and mobility of the community of Tumalo. To that end , TCA respectfully requests the review and support of our Community Concept Plan ( map attached) and to strike the ODOT long-Term Proposal from the County Transportation Safety Plan. The Tumalo Community Concept Plan addresses the County and Transportation System Planning goals, as well as demonstrating improved safety, connectivity, recommending decreased speeds of 35mph in the commercial corridor, NO CENTER RAISED MEDIAN, retained multiple accesses, and an improved roadside environment with "monument" gateway to the community. With limited and decreased funds available, the price tag on the ODOT 1-3 solution is financially prohibitive ... and likely a decade or two from any probable funding. The Tumalo Community Concept Plan is viable, effective and financially realistic. I ! fThank you for your time and support of the valued communities you serve. f Tuma 0 ommunity Association I Appreciatively, I .. " "1"'0 ~1'5TI:R~ ""PEEP 1.4£ . 'REtlVc,e S,eED "'0 "wELCLlM.E It "TO -ruM~LO" lANO-S.eA'PEO, LeT MONlIMEW" :51liNME:.. crnZEN CONCEPi 'PLAN fttt6E. I • 1'RE'ES i ~1f)'E.wAL~ ~R,"'IEf\ 1"RArL ~ ~"\D~~ TO );. f~ ~r • f{ol1NoAeOm (t.aeAL..) CoNNECT\ON 'Bt:tW"'~'" bAn..l:Y i 0 e ~\LEy • 5PEEt> 'RED\"c'T~ON O~ H\NY Zn Tl+'i:.OuttlT tOWN 'BEruJ EE)J VJE\..C.ClME "5l6NA6E • R.,,,Ef\ TRAIL t &.tE PED 9~JOt.iE f'NASE L • UtiDERYM'5 I\T 5T t\ • SI6NAL DR ROoWnAT:Dvr f\'r l-\ v..ry 2.1\ \ CoOK I I i I I t I J __--:ST"H I t I I t ... t-WElC..OM...~ 1"0 "fUMALO . .,':'" ~, f I l f ADVAN.Lf ""A'fl..N I N 4 -SPEED' l\EOucTloN I ( / t '-f I f / ~h1tnt-Jl+O ..~. ~~.~.~~.. ~~{)" 4 .~ 6QCb-. \~Y.a-k 20\1 ~~ L4?'-Y-cJ'\Qc--. .. . : ~ ~~yo'OQC;> vv\~h',,\0 h ~T ~~.!U1-. _.c; \. -Pr. L~~&~2::'> A.\--~ w~ ~~.~ .I :' ~~~i"'~)~:~~~U~ I .t¥.\»~2.n.Q~'~<L" I.~\~~~ . 1 j .. J? fu~~ Q.v_~(LLo~ ..~C~.~ \Vn.~~. 1 ~ ,. Ol lJv. ..~ . ~ .... ~ ... ~ \ _ .. 1·'kUJ.r.-pnC~~y . ....-. ...___ .. • .j.. : I ! i US20 @ Tumalo Key Number #14982 EA PE001491 000 fO Date: Tuesday, lanuary 12 2010 Time: 1:00pm -3:00pm ~Uui-C~~ ~ CAC Meeting (J O O I rr--J Location: Invitees: ODOT Region 4 Headquarters Stewart Bennett Ben Leber conference room Carolyn Perry Gene Powell 63055 N. Hwy 97, Bend John Bosch Peter Russell Bill Boyd Alan Vanvliet Organized by: Tom Fay libby Westlund Stephanie Serpico, ODOT Nunzie Gould Marianne Fellner (541-388-6309) Marty Hopper Rex Holloway Doug Koellermeier Brian Paslay Bruce Dekock Jim Bryant Dan Serpico Cris Mercer , f" r .. , A G E '" N D A c ) TIME TOPIC LEAD 1:00 1:05 Introductions Agenda Review Stephanie 1:05 -1:15 Update on new project key#17027 US20 @ Bailey/7 th (Tumalo) • Scope • Schedule • Budget Stephanie 1:15-1:45 Review Problem Statement, Goals and Screening Criteria Matrix Stephanie / All 1:45 -2:30 Review preliminary options • OOOT developed • Brainstorm new ideas Stephanie / All 2:30 -2:45 Review Preliminary NEPA classification • Meeting with FHWA Stephanie 2:45 -3:00 Next Steps Stephanie US20 @ TUMALO DRAFT Screening Criteria an~ Measures ~ -jt -P ~ Screening Evaluation Screenina Criteria Screening Measure Comments 1 Provide trans~rtatl !)n Im~rovements that will accommodate future highway travel demand safely and efficiently . 1A Provide improvements that safely accommodates projected travel Conflict points alonQ the US 20 corridor Number of conflict points The fewer confl ict on US20 points the better demands for all uses and modes 20 years in the future Vehicle stops on the US 20 corridor Currently US20 free flow, # of stop conditions High =free flow Relative degree that spacing standards are met on the US 20 corridor H / M /l High -standards are being met 1:iP~ 1 B Provide improvements that are consistent and compatible with the Volume/capacity ratio at intersections VIC ratio at key intersections ~ Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) designation (statewide highway, Travel delay throuah the US 20 corridor Minutes expressway, freiaht route), meets design year mobility standards and length of queues at intersections Feet 2 Improve Transportation System Linkage and Operation .. . ' :. . I~ . , 2A Maintain or improve the function of the arterials and collectors in Tumalo High exceeds standards, M -m aintain , l- Maintain standards for local arterial and collectors H /M/l below 2B Maintain or improve the function of US 20 as a reg ional transportation route Compatibility of US 20 with Oregon Highway Plan standards or the likelihood that deviations would be approved H / M / L High being compatible with OHP standards 2C Maintain or improve emergency service response times Improved travel time for emergenc y service providers and variOUS project area locations Travel Times lower times are better 2D Ensure access to residential and commercial areas can be provided relative degree that alternative is not a barrier through the local transportation system Alternative provides for local street network access to to access and developments to utilize local commerical or residental street network H/M/l high is good 3 Cansldar Economic Development ODDortunities .. -. >. ., -' . . --. 3A Consider planned land use and zoning consistent w ith the Deschutes Relative e xtent that a lternati ve prov ides capacity to I County Comprehensive Plan accommodate planned arowth H / M / L 4 DeveloD a Cost Effec:tJve and Sustainable Project that can be Funded -.. ., -; .. . "':7;" _.-"!"I! 4A Optimize cost effectiveness of project, including opportunites to phase construction Total project cost (or benefiVcost) Dollars Ability of Project to be phased in fundable packaaes H/M/L 4B Consider long-term maintenance feasibility and cost Ability to conduct routine maintenance H/M/L 5 Avoid, Minimize or Mitigate for ImDacts to the Natural Environment -~ ..' " -..----.. & -..... "..;.:,,;.l . SA Consider aesthetics that are compatible with Central Oregon and the Degree to which project aesthetics complement the current Tumalo Rural Community visual setting H/M/l 5B&C Consider impacts to natural resources Minimizes new impervious surface con tri buting to Istormwater manaaement needs H/M/L high =net zero ; Relative extent of impact to T&E biological species and critical habitat H / M /l Relative extent of impact to the Deschutes River H / M /l 6 Avoid, Min imize or Mitigate for Impacts to the Built Environment --.. : .... "J:. , ... .'J ~ ., Potential of sensitive receptors within 500 feet of horizontal . - 6A Consider noise impacts to ne ighborhoods and sens itive receptors or vertical shifts of an alternatives alignment compared to the existing facility H/M/l 6B Consider historic properties and protected populations Potential eligible cultural/h istoric prooerties within alternative H/M/L Relative extent of impact to EJmtle VI populations H /M /l 6C Consider residential relocatiens and right of way acquisitions Residential relocations H/M/L 6D Consider commercial/business relocations and right of way acqu iSitions -. Business relocations H / M / L high =small number of relocations - 1111/2010 }! ~ 7 Ensure Compatibility with Local and Stat_Ide Plans -~-~ ._ -.-.0.. _. __-~-,-. .: ~ .J.. f: ;:.. .. ... 7A Be compatible with relevant Deschutes County plann ing documents 7B (comprehensive plans, transPortation system plans, neighborhood plans) Be compatible with relevant state planning documents (Oregon Highway Plan, Statewide Planning Goals) Support by County for inclusion into TSP and Comprehensive Plans Updates , Goal Exceptions HIM 1 L Yes/No -8 Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety and ConnectivitY ' ::1"" ..... ~ ;-:.. -<c-_. SA Enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists Number of at grade At Qrade vs arade-separated pedestrian crossings Number of grade-separated Relative extent that alternative provides connections for pedestrian and bicycle movements through and across 9 ' Improve Freight Mobility --US20 .-~ HIM 1L '7.... -"'... ,,.. -.. - 9A Maintain or improve local freight delivery Relative extent of out of direction travel for local freight delivery HI MI L how much does existing network need to be changed to accommodate trucks ; h=less I Geometry on existi ng streets accommodates larae trucks HI MI L changes/accom modates 9B Maintain or improve regional freight mobility Delay on US 20 for freight movement throuQh the corridor Minutes 1/1112010 2 -- Figure 2. Tumalo Rural Boundary III. TUMALO COMMUNITY PROFILE Tumalo is a small rural community three miles northwest of the city of Bend. Tumalo is one of four types of State defined Unincorporated Communities. As such, the boundary is tightly regulated as are the allowed land uses. Figure 2 represents the legal comprehensive plan and zoning boundary. The City of Bend, which has significantly increased in population over the last decade is Central Oregon's largest city and despite its modest size, has recently reached metropolitan planning organization (MPO) status, a federal designation required when a city surpasses 50,000 in population. Some consider Tumalo a "bedroom community" to Bend, however, Tumalo residents passionately value retaining the longstanding rural character that attracted them to the area. During the Tumalo Community Listening Session one gentleman reminded the group that "Tumalo was formed to be the 'capitol' of Central Oregon-we want to keep that connectivity." l \ ----=--,..-...""-'""- Figure 3. Tumalo Community School Boundary - - TumAlo Community School At1tndaD~ Area. - a. Greater Tumalo Area The state-defined Tumalo community boundary does not include a larger outlying area wherein a significant number of residents reside (see Figure 3). These residents consider themselves Tumalo community members, frequently access local goods and services and are impacted by local transportation and land-use policies. The County currently estimates Tumalo at 372 people based on the rural community boundary (Figure 2), with buiJd out potential to 604. This estimate is based on a residential boundary of less than one square mile, whereas the Tumalo Community School, with over 400 enrolled students, has a significantly larger attendance area. Within that area, it is estimated an additional 6,500 residents reside. In this HIA we take account ofthe Tumalo Community School boundary when assessing vulnerable populations as well as overall community health impact related to key Tumalo Community Plan (TCP) policies. Legend TUC -Commercial _ For More Informi.ltion Conlad: Dcsc.hull!s Counly Community Developm<:nl Department TUR -Residential 117 NW LarayeHe Bend, OR 97701 TURS -ResidentialS Acre Minimum 541-l88-6575 www.co.desdu..ttes.or.U5!cdd TURE -Research & Development TU1 -Industrial ® _ FP -Flood Plain "" -'~-----. 2. Funding of tile Interchange at Cline Falls Highway and U.S. 20. has been calculated as follows: The Deschutes County TSP calls for the new interchange to involve the construction of a grade-separated crossing of the Cline Falls Highway at the junction with U.S. 20 (the "New Interchange"}. According to the Traffic Analysis and ODOT's own traffic data, Eagle Crest [II is expected, on average, to generate approximately twelve percent (12%) of the critical turning movements from the side street onto the highway at this intersection. The County and OOOT have estimated that construction of the New Interchange will be needed in approximately five (5) years and will cost approxJmately Two Million Doltars ($2,000,000). Accord ingly , ODOT and Eagle Crest hereby agree that should the interchange need to be constructed that Eagle Crest shall contribute as its sha re the fixed amo unt of Two Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($240,000) (the "Interchange Contribution") which equals twelve percent (12%) of the total estimated construction cost. Eagle Crest sh a ll pay the Interchange Contribution prior to time of award of construction contract for the New Interchange, should t he New Interchange be needed. 3 . ODOT and Eagle Crest agree that the advance deposit of $240.000 will be returned to Eagle Crest jf construction of the interchange does not occur. 4. The terms of this agreement shall begin upon execution of the agreement by all parties and shall terminate upon completion of project and final payment, or at such time that it is determined that a new interchange is not needed. EAGLE CREST OBLIGATIONS 1. The obligations of EagJe Crest contained herein are contingent upon the following: ___(lJ~J?Qroval by the County of its Application to permit the development of Eagle Crest I'll substantially as proposed in the App rcation; (2 ana approvaT5YEOvr"--=o:-r--- special use permits to allow the construction of the New Road and Internal Road substantially as shown in Exhibits Band C, respectively; and (3) the grant of all necessary permits by ODOT for the New Road to connect to Oregon Highway 126 subsiantially as shown on Exhibrt B. Agreement #17.671 Eagle Crest Inc. Cline Falls Hwy @ US 20 (Tumalo) ... J