Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19th St - TSP - Letters in OppositionMarch 12, 2010 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 117 NW Lafayette Ave Rend OR 97701-1925 RE: PA 09-02 19th St Chairman Luke and Commissioners Baney and Unger, wkpA "" There have been many letters and comments made regarding the proposed extension of 19th street from Redmond to Deschutes Junction. T will not belabor them for thesakeof simple review but there are a tew comments 1 would hlce to make as a resident of the neighborhood directly affected by this possible project. There are useful and necessary services such as rendering plants and sewage treatment tacilities but no one wants them close to where they live. l he 'not m my backyard' sentiment does not negate the need for these services. If the 19th street extension was truly a benetit to the community 1 would not be wrrtmg this letter as 1 do recogmze the needs of the whole but the benefits of this project are in serious question. The Deschutes Uounty Planning Committee, as well as the State 01 Oregon, acknowledges that the need for this road is almost non-existent. Not _just now, but the need will not substantially mcrease m the next 2U years by the State of Oregon's own tmdmgs. Also, many of the rationales for the road are already being addressed by other projects. Another area of concern is the appearance that the processes of public mput and evaluating the need of this project have been conducted out of necessity rather than to objectively evaluate the need tor this road. the tollowing areas would indicate that minds have already been made up on this topic regardless of public input. 1. A local resident on Morrill Road whose driveway would exit onto the proposed 191 street has had their address already changed to a 19th street address. This is despite the fact their residence is located_ at least %4 mile north of where 19t street currently ends. 2. r or several years the County has applied tor earmarks to assist m the buitdmg of the 19th street project. 3. An article in the Bulletin last fall, and prior to the planning commission's tmdmgs, quoted Commissioner Unger as actively advocating and supporting the building of 19th street as it is currently proposed. This would seem to conflict with the idea that the planning commissions tmdmgs, as well as community mput would be considered from a truly objective and non -biased point of view. SCANNED MAR 16 2010 (l&,ci7 the County Commission also has a responsibility to look at the best way ot spenamg public funds, whether they are local, state or federal. Looking at this project from the standpomt ot a private mvestor the decision is easy. A private mvestor is lookmg tor a reasonable return on investment. If the return on investment for this project is the Ievel of positive impact tor the Central Uregon community a pnvate mvestor would put their money someplace else: The short and long term positive impact are so marginal compared to the monetary mvestment and ettect on pnvate land owners that to move forward with this project flies in the face of logic. With economic times being what they are and the need to wisely spend public funds on projects and issues which have a significant impact on the needs of the public, the 19{5 street project seems a poor investment in the betterment of our community Sincerely, Norm Holt AV-11,,/92-e,a-o_/ ___3200 76/2--C BOARD COMOSNNERS .a/ --)z) J Z.121 7J SCANNED MAR 2 3 2(110 ‘F -e_1766 G ez) GN. -e e ;te) 4A7r e -1-4L) 94e_se_ez.e)x), 0Q,o& , .4e1 -/ Z -t.1 Oyu / v / GGlle_GA x.1 0 _ . G -8/?U_lor/Zs-z /. a ey, hams, ems_ _ v44,11d zvZt.L ZdezZc./ci 2hae- Z/z-e,Lqu be_ .A9e-4e2u,c-L tAs_ a„it e tz2_ , Z__k) A 46,194-e, ee5 e_hal Zizz /74-e-0-0-) 04,z‘ ev-L2d4J-4.}71, e- kwo ke)Aze IL-e-e4u Zi,404.4- a)ad-) ii2Lft ite-e-iu a)11 14.4 4:12 Z -1L zg.Aa. • kha-14 &, "n4tw- Ge --e e,17—e4a4-, 1-A-i-n2A2) ‘L -Zi set -it) " .z9/t Y17 Z,Zh) z-ha,6 1-1.4„zi4e, TIe, 46-tZtee) 5z- ,A2,4_Ay 706t -e 4i4L). A zAitzuzze,d__ 09.4e_ a)at Lkitn912 08 March 2010 Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 RECEIVED MAR 0 9. 2010 Dsrq.t� .U'E.'`D : Re: file PA -09-02 (19th Street arterial proposal) Chairman Luke and Commissioners Baney and Unger, This is the fourth letter written on the 19th Street proposal. I am confident you have read and considered the previous three. The first hearing held on this by the Board of Commissioners prompts the following additional comments. It has been assumed all along that this effort was proposed in 1999 and the process started in 2000. The object was to address the Yew Street conundrum in Redmond. It was also assumed that all public meetings and documentation on the 19th Street proposal were public record and available to the public and those affected, such as myself. Comments from the Commission indicate that this timeline, the public process and the availability of information as presented were not correct. Further, it appears that 19th Street has been `accepted by assumption' in recent planning and direction. Here are additional statements that put a different perspective and spin on this effort by Deschutes County, Redmond, and DSL. First: The consideration for a 19th Street arterial was actually begun and considered in the planning process "Somewhere around 1990...this is nothing new." This has all the earmarks of a conclusion looking for a last minute `Public Process' to support a plan already in motion. "Unfortunately, we have lost (misplaced) any records of those previous discussions, and they are not available for your consideration" was another statement. The exact wording can be found from the first Board of Commissioners public hearing following the recently concluded recommendation(s) of the DCPC. Second: The question was asked about the public process, prior to the recent hearings by the Deschutes County Planning Commission, on this issue. The answer was that there was a `Public Process' and meetings were held. On questioning to identify the participants it became quite apparent that the `Public Process' was only for the affected government agencies. The most recent DSL public meetings held 11.06.2007 and 11.17.2008 were by "Notice of public meeting provided through a press release and through direct notice to neighbors and other interested parties." SC OPA 1 OW\ No one, property owners or affected neighbors, from the area impacted by the proposed 19th Street had heard or had any knowledge of public involvement of this proposal. The only attendee at any of these meetings other than the government agencies named in the proposal was one non-profit organization representing "Redmond business". The name of this organization can be found in the record...somewhere. No private business or citizen was involved prior to the DCPC meetings. The opposition to 19th Street by private citizens is 100% with no voices in support of the plan. Third: It appears as though there has been an `assumption' that 19th Street is a forgone conclusion. The most obvious example is the 19th Street off -ramp on the new Deschutes Junction overpass. DSL 945 acre property development, Juniper Ridge 1,500 acre development, Redmond's US97 couplet, OMD, and industrial development east of Redmond would also seem to be indicators of commitments made anticipating the 19th Street addition. Fourth: The route that is proposed is at the pleasure of the government agencies and was done without private stakeholder involvement. As a result, though this has apparently been in the mix for 20 years, the current changes have not been considered. Example: ODOT will have a frontage road from the area of a Quarry interchange (stated goal # 7) and the building of 19th is supported by ODOT, but it is neither required as a consideration of the South Redmond development plan nor eligible for any state aid. This is obviously a joint Deschutes County and City of Redmond project supported by the State of Oregon through DLS and DLCD through recent amendments OAR 660 — 9 + 24 now available to `speed up the process'. Fifth: The `South Redmond Tract Land Use Management Plan' was adopted in October of 2008. The only previous hint of a corridor was the 2004 Regional Problem Solving Project which stated that no roads were to be proposed. The purpose was exclusively to add a corridor. However, it appears to have drawn an invisible line on the map for Deschutes County planning. It appears that the die has been cast and the invisible line is now being becoming a permanent appendage. Sixth: The South Redmond Tract Land Use and Management Plan serves as evidence that much planning has already taken place and in fact has been implemented. • The anticipated 20 time line to bring DSL lands into the UGB has been compressed into 2 - 4 years. This property is in neither the UGB or the 50 year UAR. Much is made of the cooperation in the UGB process between Redmond, Deschutes County and the State of Oregon (DSL) through DLCD. This was stated as a strategy identified through the state and local partnership. The need to expedite the process is in aid of turning the property on a timely basis for economic considerations and the goal of contributing to the Common School Fund (CSF). Time is money. • There are several land swaps anticipated for laws/regulations made as far back as 1859, Oregon's birthday. The DSL property was acquired from BLM under these agreements.. Deschutes County and OMD are interested in acquiring portions of the Tract. A future land exchange is also anticipated between DSL and OPRD. • Part and parcel of this planning process is (1) a regional EOA and (2) a planned southerly extension of 19th Street and infrastructure by Redmond and Deschutes County. The private stakeholders have been conspicuously absent during this DSL 2006 - 2016 Asset Management Plan. It has been government planning its own development without affected private stakeholders muddying the water. Property owners of less than 200 acres will be precluded from participating in such a process. It would appear private property would be at a further disadvantage of gaining further near term inclusion into the UGB as one of the Tract concepts includes 80 central acres designated for mixed-use employment. This area would provide for commercial and small -lot industrial uses. Private interests could again be elbowed out by government regulating for its own benefit as a developer. • This process was begun in 2006 and organized by Mayor Unger of Redmond, the DSL Director Lilly (assumed) and the COERT Representative (unk). "The planning process included and relied upon significant interagency collaboration at each phase" and included DSL, OPRD, ODOT, the City of Redmond, EDCO, and Deschutes County. Note the lack of mention or inclusion of private citizens, businessmen, developers, and other private sector taxpayers. Briefings were held at joint meetings of Redmond and Deschutes County. • 19th Street is discussed in terms of a dead end, accessing the future Quarry Road interchange and Deschutes Junction. Considerations were also made in maximizing the economic value of the DSL property as a result of the route 19th Street would take in/around the parcels to be developed. It was also discussed in respect to the need for a Pronghorn connection. It was stated that an easement would be needed on the target DSL property if 19th Street did not pan out. 19th Street was identified by both Redmond and Deschutes County as a high priority hugging the rail road line in the TSP, indicating a commitment to the route now being promoted. The 18 month plan to "make improvements at the Deschutes Market/US 97 interchange, including an overpass to eliminate the at -grade crossing just east of the existing US Highway 97 overpass" was part of this proposal and has recently been completed. • A directive in the management plan indicated "a realignment of US Highway 97 would not be likely in the short term (20) years at the earliest. Note: the estimate of use of 19th as a Boulevard would be 1,000 vehicles/day by 2030 (20 years). This is hardly a mandate for building this road. Rerouting on DSL ground may facilitate development of a Quarry Road/US 97 interchange as envisioned by City and County planners. • The airport anticipated expanding the terminal by 136,000 feet, which has just been completed. They had a strong preference that no residential development be sited on this Tract. It should be noted that comparison by land uses/value does include on proposal for both light and heavy housing. This concept had the most value and may cause a shift in concept when economic reality hits. Think Juniper Ridge Active Management Concept's initial commitment to exclusive industrial with the subsequent shift to very mixed use ICR currently on the table. Industrial/Commercial/Residential (ICR) concepts have a way of surfacing when affordability rears its ugly head, which would be a consideration for any development of 19th Street depending on the final result. • DSL intends to (1) negotiate an MOU with the City, County and OMD to share the cost and work to develop the UGB amendment application; and (2) initiate work on the EOA in conjunction with these and other parties, including DLCD and OECDD. This would further support the theory that 19th Street as proposed has been part of the plan long before public input. The 19th Street proposal is part and parcel of this joint DSL effort. • One of the concepts submitted to the Management Team was "Why don't we maximize land along Highway 97 — this seems a natural, given that the corridor is already commercially developed?" Answer: "DSL doesn't own that land — yet — as it's OPRD land." OREGON Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of STA 1'E Lands should be able to work something out with the windfall BLM properties in an effort for government to serve government and the `public good.' The other options previously referred to by the testimony you have received should be seriously considered. Much water has gone under the bridge since this plan morphed into what it has become over 20 years, but there is still time to make the most prudent long term decision. This is your development and does not have to come at the expense of private citizens. The complete lack of public support shows where the impetus is coming from. Respectfully sub i ed, roperty owner 21440 Morrill Road Bend, OR 97701 541-382-5195 or 420-8585 iackholt@uci.net March 3, 2010 Deschutes County Planning Commission 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Dear Planning Commissioners, RE: Adding 19th Extension to the TSP MAR C 8 2C I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to adding the 19th Street extension to Deschutes Market Road for the following reasons: 1) My husband and I use the BLM off of Morrill Road on a daily basis. The proposed changes would impact how we and others use this area. There would be more garbage, more safety concerns, more traffic, more noise. Being able to take a walk in the openness of BLM that is close to our house is of great importance to us. We moved to Tumalo 10 years ago to purposefully find a quieter setting than Bend or Redmond 2) Traffic will be increased on Deschutes Market Road, which is already congested and dangerous. 3) There is not an adequate reason for this connection/extension. It is not clear to me why this road is needed. Highway 97 is west of the proposed 19th Street extension and one clear solution to me is expanding the number of highway lanes. 4) Neither of the proposed options will solve the traffic congestion at Yew Ave and/or Hwy 97 as these options will be slower, more circuitous and have more stops than using Hwy 97. 5) This road will most certainly create urban sprawl between Bend and Redmond and use valuable irrigated farmland. Past meetings for Juniper Ridge and General Plan Updates have shown a strong desire by residents to prevent such sprawl and maintain the rural character between Bend and Redmond. 6) Alternative routes to Hwy 97 currently exist with the Old Bend -Redmond Hwy, Canal Street, and Powell Butte Hwy. 7) There is not adequate funding to maintain existing roads as well as adding new ones. Gas tax and timber revenues are declining and no road funding mechanism is in place. 8) Funds for this connectionwill take away resources that could be used in the existing road system. SCANNED MAR 1 1 2010 BETTER OPTIONS 1) Do NOT connect 19th street to Deschutes Market Road, but extend 19th St from the fairgrounds to the Department of State Lands proposed industrial park. Concentrate where the problem is, from the fairgrounds south a mile or two. 2) Add an interchange at Quarry Road as requested in the Redmond General Plan. 3) If more capacity for Hwy 97 is needed, add lanes to Hwy 97. 4) Plan only for roads that are needed, and only when maintenance funds are a reality. Have a road capital improvement plan that fully mitigates EXISTING road problems and maintains these roads before adding NEW roads and expenses, which are unsustainable. Taxpayers are fed up with the fiscal irresponsibility of government. Sincerely, _l. Heather Rogers 20778 Northstar Way Bend, OR 97701 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2010 Deschutes County CDD 21 February 2010 Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Re: file PA -09-2 (19th Street rural arterial proposal) Chairman Baney and Commissioners Luke and Unger, The 2003 South Redmond Regional Problem Solving Process, in response to actions begun in 2000, was formed with the primary concern being the problems with Yew Avenue and Highway 97. The government agencies most affected and involved were the City of Redmond, Redmond Airport, Redmond Industrial zone, and the Oregon Military Department (National Guard). DLCD, BLM, ODOT, Deschutes County and the Governor's Economic Revitalization were parties to these original discussions as all had a perceived part in addressing this initiative. Other traffic and road considerations included as adjunct to the Yew intersection question were the Hwy 126 connection and the reroute of Highway 97 from downtown Redmond. Much has happened since this discussion began, such as the Highway 97 by pass around Redmond and the Hwy 126 one-way arterial connection. Some of the original `bullet points' have been addressed from the original discussion: • Future signalization of the ramps to US 97 at Yew Avenue • `Modifications' to the existing Deschutes Market Interchange Two new dynamics have been introduced and are influencing the current discussion. One is the Department of State Lands (DSL) and Juniper Ridge. While unstated, they are probably best addressed by the consideration of "public interest" between Redmond and Bend. It does appear to me that the "public interest" is a government interest in servicing its own projects. There has been no outcry from the `regular folks' for this connection other than some profanity in the family car after the County Fair. It is quite probable that putting a list of priorities for infrastructure improvements in Deschutes County before the `regular folks', 19th street would probably not be very high on the list. In fact, most of the non-government testimony would bear this out. Here are some of the main arguments, other than the inconvenience of a train crossing Yew during an event at the DCFEC, put forth in support of this proposal: • Alternative to Highway 97. It would provide another route in the event of a traffic or rail catastrophe. • Traffic count of 1,000/day by 2030. • Designed to be used by private rather than commercial traffic. Given these arguments, the question of relevance is raised. I have lived at Deschutes Junction since 1977 and in Bend since 1954. In that time, there has been one rail incident that has precluded the use of the rail, but did not affect highway traffic (except Rubber Neckers). We already have an alternative route called the Old Bend -Redmond Highway. Traffic count of 1,000 20 years from now is not a compelling argument for 19t Street. The intent seems to actually be connecting the industrial development of DSL property and Deschutes County's sale of Juniper Ridge to the City of Bend. If true, designing the road and intersections would have to comprehend heavy truck as well as `light' traffic. The design of 19th Street as outlined on the map is immediately along the east side of the rail road track. The rail road tracks are a problem along the entire length of the connection from north of Redmond to south of LaPine. I don't know the number of traffic crossings, but rail crossings are involved in most every major traffic plan. The route you are recommending offers no solution to this concern. If this is to be a forward looking project, it would seem that at minimum the full %2 mile corridor would be used to the east and as far as possible from the track. This would be logical, as one of the stated reasons for this alternative route is to have a strategy in the event of a rail disaster. In addition, at some point in our children's future, there may be a need to use the land between an easterly road and the tracks for industry or the ability to construct rail sidings to support industry throughout Central Oregon. The BLM, DSL, and County properties could service this entire route. As far as I can see, the areas that would include the road are being used for no purpose that would be in conflict with this project. That did not escape the notice of the work done on this from the very beginning. The LCDC was brought into the process up front because of the agricultural `exceptions' this route would necessitate. ODOT appears to prefer a frontage road along Highway 97. Much was made of trying to get on and off US 97. One of the original stated goals was a `non-traversable'median on US 97 following the construction of a frontage/backage road. Stated goal # 7 in the original incremental transportation expansion plan was an intersection at Quarry and US 97. If these two items are in the future planning process as stated, perhaps this may be the time rather than winding up with both. A Quarry/US 97 intersection could incorporate a frontage road connecting to Pleasant Ridge, an existing road connecting to Deschutes Junction. Planning, building and maintaining two future roads makes no sense. US 97 still has many options for carrying more traffic according to testimony. One of the reasons for rushing into this right now as currently proposed may be the `stimulus' money. This may be quite short sighted if the future uses and traffic patterns are considered. This is a unique opportunity to truly consider the future link(s) between Redmond and Bend. The unique part comes because Deschutes County has been the fastest growing area in Oregon but by fate still has an opportunity to make long range decisions with minimal disruption. While funding is tough for this project, that is not a reason to make less than the best long term decision. The above comments are those of a layman and gleaned through the public meetings and reading the information furnished. It is up to you and your staff to consider its validity. However, the logic is easy for this layman to see and I'd guess a lot of `laymen' would agree. I am also confident that if this is approved as proposed, the affect on private property will be significant and immediate. Any current or future use or sale will necessarily comprehend your actions. Your consideration of this letter and the two previously submitted through the Deschutes County Planning Commission is appreciated. I trust your review will be as thoughtful and objective as the Planning Commission displayed during the public input process. pr perry owner/taxpayer 21440 Morrill Road Bend, OR 97701 Res (541)382-5195 cel (541)420-8585 jackholt@uci.net To: Deschutes County RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2010 Deschutes County CDD February 22, 2010 If Redmond needs 19th to Quarry, fine. Quarry to Deschutes Market Road is NOT appropriate. Say "NO "to 19th Street extension all the way down to Deschutes Market Road, for two major reasons: 1) it is not needed at this time or even in the intermediate future (old Bed -Redmond Hwy serves nicely as an infrequent detour.) 2) it is an unnecessary expense at a time when many other county transportation problems need $$$. If, as some county official have indicated, you mostly are rushing this decision through to be shovel - ready in the off -chance that another stimulus bill were to be passed, that's not a wise approach to long range planning. Marian Woodall Kent Franklin 21753 Boones Borough Dr Bend OR 97701 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Mr. Dennis Luke Ms. Tammy Baney Mr. Alan Unger 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend Oregon 97701 lert RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2010 Deschutes County CDD 18 February 2010 Subject: PA -09-2 Adding 19th Street Extension to Transportation System Plan (TSP) map between Redmond and Deschutes Junction Dear County Commissioners, The Deschutes County Planning Commission (PC) held a number of public hearings on this issue. It voted 6-0 to DENY the specific alignment depicted in PA -09-02 (January 28, 2010). We strongly support that recommendation. With that in mind, please consider the following: The City of Redmond Public Works Department, February 8, 2008, developed an S Redmond Concept Reroute II with DSL Solution, Sheet . This document was never presented nor previously discussed at the public meetings. This design sheet was provided at the January 28, 2010, Planning Commission Work Session by PC Member Mr. Todd Turner. However, the comment period had closed, and it could not be included at that time. Therefore, we are now presenting this design sheet to the Commissioners as illustrating a viable, timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to provide and build the street network envisioned by the City of Redmond for resolving issues that various Redmond Urban Users now encounter within the City limits. See attached Design Sheet. Located in the proposed project area are several agencies and entities: the Department of State Lands (DSL) land, the Expo Center and Fair Grounds access, the Redmond Airport access, other proposed recreation opportunities in the area, and access routes across the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railroad tracks (BNSF). Collectively, these could resolve possible urban traffic problems at the YEW interchange and at Veterans Way. Additionally, US Highway 97, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) seem to be parties in this mix as well. However, during the county's 2009 public hearings, surprisingly there were no formal presentations by the City of Redmond, City of Bend, DSL, ODOT, BNSF, Expo Center, Fair Grounds, Airport, or other potential users of this area regarding any requirements -- or even a need for -- a 19th Street extension from Redmond to Deschutes Junction. Deschutes Market Road was mentioned as a start/stop point for construction of the proposed 19th Street extension. 1 It appears that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is trying to solve problems in which other formal city governments and agencies do not want to participate. Or maybe they have already solved this issue! Our point is that according to the current public records, not all the players needed to resolve this issue either have participated in or provided any alternative solutions. The January 14, 2010, Memorandum from Mr. Peter Russell entitled "Response to issues raised at Dec. 17, 2009, public hearing on PA -09-02 to add 19th Street to Transportation System Plan (TSP) map" to the Deschutes County Planning Commission states in part "This would be a higher -speed, two-lane road through agriculturally zoned land with access only provided to parcels that would be otherwise landlocked. Such an access management strategy would be consistent with Goal 11 Guideline A.2, "public facilities...for rural areas should be provided at levels appropriate for rural use only and should not support urban uses." (Emphasis added). See discussion of Goal 11, 2°4 paragraph, page 18. Our point here is that extending 19th Street, as presented during the public hearing, is a result of urban, i.e., City of Redmond, access problems for a variety of urban land owners and urban activities. Clearly, a 19th Street extension would be used to support urban uses! It would appear that Goal 11 Guideline A.2 would not be met by the proposed 19th Street extension. Interestingly, the nine landowners that would be affected by the proposed 19th Street extension alignment all have access to US 97. Those land owners are not asking for different access nor is it an issue of access for BLM. Furthermore, if 19th Street were built as currently proposed it would land -lock tax lots that would have access only through private lands to a 19th Street extension. Additional road systems would have to be developed and built on private lands, and possibly BLM administered lands, to provide access to a 19th Street extension. These roads would have to cross the BNFS tracks as well. The tax lots east of US 97 and west of BNSF tracks have not been included in any planning analyses presented. Access has been presented as an ODOT dilemma because ODOT did not build frontage roads along US 97. Also provided in the Memorandum cited above and identified as Exhibit 3, UDRMP, is a map from the BLM's Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan (UDRMP 2005). The map displayed in the document at the county website represents a repeatedly copied map that obscures the other possible "Proposed Transportation Corridors". Our point is that the clear copy of the map in the county files indicates that Quarry Road and other transportation corridors do exist and that these are part of the BLM UDRMP thought process. This information should have been mentioned as part of the public meeting discussions on 19th Street but it was not. Thus, we have attached this map to our letter, as well. 2 Although not a part of the Transportation System Plan (TSP), the 2030 Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update is continuing. During those meetings, the public's inquiries about 19th Street were met with statements such as (paraphrased here): This is a proposed street that possibly will be constructed sometime in the future; do not worry about it. Clearly, if a 19th Street extension is added into the mix at Deschutes Junction, it would impact and change the character/nature of the area surrounding the Junction. This additional impact is unwanted and undesirable at the Junction. Our point here is that, during the Deschutes Junction discussions, the reasons for the need of a 19th Street extension, and the full impact of a 19th Street extension, were not adequately presented. Again, please note that at the Deschutes Junction meetings the 19th Street addition was presented as being "way in the future -- do not worry". However at the 19th Street Januaryl4, 2010, Planning Commission meeting, it was clearly indicated that Federal earmark money is being sought actively for this project. This clearly indicates that a 19th Street extension could be built this year, 2010, not sometime in the distant future. Further, results of Deschutes Junction Plan Update meetings have not been taken fully into account in the Memorandum presentations regarding adding the proposed 19th Street to the TSP. This appears to be a sneaky way of getting two separate "plans" approved that conflict with one another. Planning should not result in conflicts between separate plans that will have to be resolved later with one plan being substantially altered. In this case, resulting from poor internal planning coordination, the proposed extension would limit Deschutes Junction's publicly developed and intended results. Characteristics desired for Deschutes Junction should not he degraded as a result of a 19th Street extension impact. Such negative impacts could lead to further attempts at rezoning at the Junction. This issue needs to be resolved. This planning process has left much to be desired in presenting and considering all possible and reasonable alternatives for urban issues and transportation conflicts present in the City of Redmond. Why Deschutes County is trying to solve perceived problems within cities urban areas and a US highway when various other players, who were not heard from at the public meetings, is problematic at best. The logic presented for a 19th Street extension cannot continue to circle back to statements indicating that Deschutes County has 10 million dollars while ODOT has no money for this problem. Supposedly this situation indicates that Deschutes County should spend 10 million dollars (which it does not have) to build a 19th Street extension as it currently appears as a line drawn on a map. The other logic/rationale presented was that at only 10 million dollars thel9th Street extension would be cheaper to build than the 35 to 40 million dollars estimated to build an overpass crossing BNSF tracks and US 97" -- although it was admitted that this overpass would be built eventually anyway! Kind of makes you scratch your head. 3 Our point is that there is a problem. It is that a 19th Street extension, as presented to be added to the TSP, is the problem. Currently a 19th Street extension needs to be on the TSP to get additional funding from the Federal Government, either earmark or stimulus or proper funding, through the Federal Transportation Administration process. Deschutes County already has spent money on this proposed project to get it where it is without the project being in any of the County planning documents. However, adding it to the TSP now solves only the embarrassment of planning for this project at the exception of other projects currently in the TSP that need planning and funding. IF the County Commissioners do place a19th Street extension in TSP, and the county receives the funding this year or next, the county would have to build it soon — that is, essentially NOW — not in the distant future! We suggest that it would better serve the people and County Commissioners of Deschutes County to enter into a partnership with all affected groups, to develop and design a sound project solution, and to seek the funding needed for the Quarry Road interchange. We hope that these observations and suggestions will help you with your discussions and decisions. Thank you for your time and very careful attention to this matter. Sincerely, Hal and Carol Keesling 20836 Dione Way Bend OR 97701 Attachments: Redmond Design Sheet 1 (2008) BLM UDRMP Proposed Transportation Corridor Map (2005) 4 tat c`n-qct •jr 11.1E 0.12E PtlE P.14 E 056 S II in. II ISE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NTERIOR Bureau of Land Management PRINEVILLE DISTRICT 2005 :=6-treid=. Administered Lands &soar of Land Management 1 Nalconal Foresl rkttr,,,,li National Grassland Bureau or Reciarnand Slate of Oregon PrAsta /Odle Regmnol Way Corridor - Raving Area urban Growth Boundary Transportation • C=I Roc esedlionaporcatron Condor (See Ina Map) Read .1me. RMP Map 2: Transportation and Utilities Auteuil. OisaLut on F. Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan Int &moo *I Weethospeamo eaboae amaKt .ava,kee erm.trsessatwo Mao. odnie-mt agpsxtme .41...13.13,0.116114100.<91.41dirMY•44.S00fl4 rout V....111600100.1Pagin.11.01/4,11.1•$18f0*di Th,queir vas awacorra egoa ma me e.,...reete we* a:us YboaAartrtiiit• 1 1 Ifmuumuu If uumu �1RBI riummul-77 Imo .41 _WI ®1®_ ♦,�,./., /111 : MIVAMEMERMONEMBed .�®®1®®� i ° :WI 'WV .1111 it; is jir • :-®.',®®®®..Ilu iii • �� • t- "'M BLinj F014A.1 • ra cs eri I I " " .• ..114;11)4 ***1 I I I I I p ,• ..11:17 sp „,..ar X11 �( #" ®allro: a 11 :U' ■. =HY 4011 000, 79f`M MA■11 111 1.11404e 1111 11;if .1011 lb 1111 --11.11-:. , . ., ...„ _.\,.. „.„...,,.::::-.)..,"-: ,,,...... ..... a Amy. MINIIPrilr 1 I -iwirill 4 IS . ! II FA.' FUTURE SW 18TH 87REET 4 I ca PHASE ■ INTEROHARGE FAR(IROUPO8 REROUTE. PH REALJON US 97 TO ALTERMA 3E1 ALIQPO.S win I. vs 8W 191H STREETvs 0897 iB±DIME l ar s FUTURE U8 97 OVE iCAOSSNO DESIO1ED10 ACCOMODATE WOW SW WH SOIREE? CROSSING AND FUlURE OF BUB111E$8 97 ANO SW 191H RRURE 88H STRUT EXTENSION TO DESCHUTES YNiKECROAD PHASE I CUAIRY INTEi ANOE AID SW STREET (E) APD BW Hj $3LTZ WAY (W) ROADWAY CONFECTIONS S REDMOND CONCEPT Reroute 1 with DBL Solution PRONGHORN 1-711-117-CfrntarrTh ... avosf C0 .'* CITY OF REMIND PUBLIC WORM DEPARTMENT ilY{i.tlY.Mf. i.p(?.a. MP aw.b040 P.M NN6lg1MWa, February 21, 2010 Deschutes County Planning Commission 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RECEIVED FEB 222010 Deschutes County CDD Dear Planning Commissioners, RE: Adding 19th Extension to the TSP My wife and I are STRONGLY OPPOSED to adding the 19th extension to Deschutes Market Road for several reasons: Please listen to us, we are your voting tax base, we are the folks that consciously decided not to live in the City of Bend...but to buy properties away from the traffic, small lot density, traffic noise and street lights. And yes, we are the people who will be effected by your current course of decisions... it is our life style that you could harm. This plan may be exciting to you... but what is the real effect to residents in the area? For example: The new railroad overpass on Deschutes Market already has a nasty problem in traffic flow around the daily commute. IT MAY HAVE LOOKED GREAT ON PAPER, but traveling west, there is no turn lane for traffic tuning right ...heading for the north bound 97 entrance... how many accidents will it take for that mistake to be fixed? And future pressure on this intersection only multiplies the daily traffic snarl. After witnessing the effects of out of control growth for over 40 years in California, we are concerned about urban sprawl adjacent to our neighborhood between Bend and Redmond. Look at the quality of life in Los Angeles, Alameda , or Orange Counties you don't want to live there either!... Look at the current glut of vacant commercial properties already in Bend. We don't need to change zoning...We don't need this road. As soon as you change the zoning and the use of the land... development happens! When a Bend Airport Helicopter company recently made the deal to train student pilots...did any one in Bend Local government consider that low flying helicopters would be passing multiple times a day over our neighborhood causing lots of noise? We support local business, but it doesn't have to be so one sided. We just hope that planners can take steps to truly consider real world effects of proposals. A county fair last for a few days, traffic noise, and negative effects of spotty development, are permanent and everyday reality. Sincerely, Dan and Kathryn Rider 21883 Boonesborough Drive Bend, OR 97701 February 19th, 2010 Deschutes County Planning Commission 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Dear Planning Commission: RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2010 Deschutes County CDD My wife and 1 are vehemently opposed to the 19th Street Extension to Deschutes Market Rd. Below are our reasons: 1. Extending 19th Street is simply NOT NECESSARY! 2. Past County Planning meetings regarding Juniper Ridge and any updates have shown a substantial desire, by the RESIDENTS, to continue to prevent urban sprawl and maintain the beautiful character of the rural areas between Bend and Redmond. 3. There doesn't seem to be enough funding to fix the roads and bridges we already have in Ceitral Oregon let alone start spending County money on projects that simply are not needed. We would like to see the County concentrate on fixing the roads we already have instead of making new ones they cannot afford to fix and/or maintain. (We understand that the City of Bend k in the red for millions of dollars, let's not repeat the City's mistakes.) 4. Finally...2 other points personal to us...There is already too much congestion on Deschutes Market Road which makes it very dangerous to drive at times. We retired to Oregon after c 0 years in Las Vegas where the light pollution ruined that once beautiful city and took away o Jr starry nights. When we moved to Oregon and, especially out here in the County, we found it to be dark and quiet which was the MAIN attraction to living out here and, like many others, t �e lights from the soccer fields will bring more light pollution to an area that most folks like as dark and quiet. If we wanted to live where there were lots of lights and noise we would have moved closet to town. We urge you to find another venue for this and other projects, because "In the name of progress" is not always a good thing, especially when it destroys others things. Thank you for your mindful consideration, from residents who live on Dale Rd. cc: Planning Commission Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law February 22, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 Re: PA -09-2; 19th Street Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2010 Deschutes County CDD 1539 NW Vicksburg Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 317-1993 fax (541) 383-3470 pdewey@bendcable.com I am writing on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch in opposition to the proposed plan amendment to amend the Deschutes County TSP to add 191 Street between the City of Redmond and Deschutes Junction. The goal exception standards have not been met where there has not been a showing of demonstrated need or a showing that alternate methods or locations not requiring goal exceptions could not reasonably accommodate the identified transportation needs. Alternate methods are not adequately identified and exception thresholds are not clearly set out or analyzed for alternate methods. Instead, the County merely concludes that there are no alternate methods and limits its analysis to a cursory cost comparison with two other nearby locations for 19th Street. There has also not been an adequate long-term ESEE analysis of consequences of the proposed location and other alternative locations requiring exceptions or analyses of which resource land is the least productive, the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use and long-term economic impacts on the general area. There is also not an adequate showing of adverse effects that the proposed transportation improvement is likely to have on surrounding rural lands and land uses and what mitigation reduces impacts to a compatible level. The proposal violates the basic state policy that favors protection and improvements to the existing transportation system before building new transportation facilities. It also does not fit the road functional classification of an arterial in Table 1 of DCC 23.60.010(D) where it does not link major traffic generators and does not have a travel density greater than a collector. Policies of DCC 23.64.030(1)(b)(2) are not met where the need is not clearly demonstrated, there is no showing that the County can financially absorb the additional maintenance requirement and an accrued economic benefit and increased efficiency are not established. Further, the County also errs in stating that no goal exception is needed for land that is under federal ownership. Goal exceptions apply to all lands zoned under Goal 3 for exclusive farm us and this BLM land is so zoned. Furthermore, as revealed in the attached maps, this land is February 22, 2010 Page 2 included in a grazing permit of the BLM (Ex. 1). No authority is cited by the County for justification that an exception is not needed for this BLM land. Contrary to the County's assertion that the road would not lead to conversion of BLM lands, see the attached BLM maps showing BLM lands around the proposed 19th Street as being up for disposal as "community expansion" lands (apparently at the request of the County and the City of Redmond) (Ex. 2). See also the BLM transportation map (Ex. 3) and the BLM NEPA worksheet on 19th Street (Ex. 4). Other attachments include City of Redmond maps regarding its urban growth boundary and urban area reserve planning (Ex. 5) and current Deschutes County/ODOT materials on the current update of the County Transportation System Plan (Ex. 6). Also attached is a report by a traffic engineer on behalf of LandWatch (Ex. 7). We respectfully request the Board to deny this plan amendment application. Very truly yours, PAUL DEWEY PD:ao Attachments cc: Board S 0 2B 5 24 5 S RBE RIO2 RIOE R 12 E 810E 015E R 165 R17E 118E Administered Lands k1 1 Legend Bureau of Land Management National Forest National Grassland Bureau of Reclamation State of Oregon Private !Other �-- Regional Uality Corridor --••••• Planning Area Urban Growth Boundary Transportation • - Collectors Proposed Transportation Corridor (See Inset Map) - Road • Nae: 5e. RMP mega 02.24 b 4.103 rood system RMP Map 2: Transportation and Utilities U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Ma lagement PRINEVILLE DP.TRICT 2005 Upper Deschutes Resource Manag-tment Plan No mummy a made hw aeearaland 4.024ma0.11u110wwr.y. tam,n.orcomwa.IR.+aMese diacr ortvklual 0.swap's m. ten omen bets dr4BB(.l dmvaro car4B>: hart MIAOW .awes MS hdormadon my not mal Nada. Map Act raw Siagad. This prodrt was dmabped Waugh dlpiml Boat. 4 m.ry be ladaad wrwtarsueoo �x 3 ROE R,OE RUE R2E RI.E AIdE RISE RISE RITE i1E d • s 1 OCH eCO C au .... !:C - �� lln 751� NATIO AG s County $ e , nn q\� tin L' �`r` y ,I. r u�' Ia FOR T menu. to ComtY 509 ' ',54. a 5r t Crook County rumba.. , �^►...� filed alla5195 r!m 'rinevillew � ■ 7811 iin cr" 5135 DESCHUT `' n II I nm IZ! fib' MI /,I us AI , !M) ! r -rte �l S. !3 iit Ali NATIONAL` = .,T lkr r "i ,IA■ y 4 +ia r. Ana� • �. 17 .5127—..:r 'L !� a.1f � �R� r n, s.. � FOREST 4. !un. d 41— • 141 tom!_. �+,�yp=�� fR~fR l yt 5140 11111, 5111 AN e96.--, Kg ligill.0 ft9tr 400 Ls5231 II '1r Yzb r? �S • � f tttt t 9. br�Y County fj DESCHUTE T �� L,. 0 P x•a ye hh. • �1't�. 't La Pine Deschutes County _ - - — _ NATIONAL xi 799 ,sls ��� .ftT r i if nse T!Y) n i v 11 FOREST MEMMISM 8 • ' 1.. r 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TI E INTERIOR Bureau of Land Man tgement Planning .4 PRINEVILLE DIS RIOT Legend Use -�— Planning Area --.'xa Prineville 2005 ' District ® Highway _ �� J Road 1501 Allotment Number9 ply " �^ L_I 0REGON / ��� 771 er.��?= Urban Growth Boundary l Unalloned Area i Administered Lands in La Pine (9999) N � : Bureau of Land Management , "-aJEt\ ( National Forest s Upper Desch Utes s"°vG National Grassland 6 0 5 n Resource Manage nent Plan Bureau of Reclamation MILES ;:; ) State of Oregon st.r-p—e s Io Privale101her KILOMETERS N9* nryu6196177 OW &raw olLaroW warn.es I0 le 499.. nfWWlrly, a campewws a 199 ml• br rK Asa a. appra9 ns Mt RMP Map 5: Livestock Grazing Allotments wan 919414 0609 Sala 792 camp.. n ova.. 09.9119 inlormallon rosy nal 4544 Ne94 Map Amt. Y6tuear . T,w9m&K1 ro.en.an6aay 997497wla.na tar 9 105 R0E R105 9115 R12E R10E R145 RIO RIO5 5175 R lE Jo:terms Conary Deixttda 5..., 5 0 5 Key KILOMETERS ---- Planning Area - Highway - Road Urban Growth Boundary Administered Lands Bureau of Land Management National Forest National Grassland Bureau of Reclamation State of Oregon Private! Other Legend BLY Land Tenure Classification Zone 1 Classified for Retention Zone 2 Classified tor Retention with Option to Exchange Zone 3 Classified for Disposal Community Expansion P 'i Pr61ev@e District OREGON Private Lands that may be Desirable for Acquisdon Lands Dasirabie for Acquisition Along a Linear Feature Areas that Contain Private Land Military Training Area Parcels Desirable for Acquisition ® Subunit Areas RMP Map 6: Land Ownership and Military Land Use (Land Tenure Zone Designations Apyly Oslo to Blit Administered Land) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TI E INTERIOR Bureau of Land Man agement PRINEVILLE DIS -'RICT 2005 Upper Desct utes Resource Manage neat Plan No armny19 madaq we &rasa d lard It upon...ss a.vramuarn lmmaw. nIre £wa 0l new dad tor Iry .fiats, d+oww+law wn00wrmM. WOO xoreCamwwrmwlae souromTM wwrmadcn may nal mael N,eaaMM5 hn.r y &Walesa. Toa matt was dwedradnmuyl 0050 maw and ma, a152Cmadaalud u>tina'm. 11050a92.e551tl5 fix. 2 Worksheet Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) U.S Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management A. Background BLM Office: Prineville District NEPA l.og #: DOI-BLM-OR-P060-2008-0250-DNA Project/Lease/Serial/Case File #: OR 65448 Applicant: Deschutes County Location: T. 15 S.. R. 13 E.. Section 32. Lot 2, up to 40 feet west of the east section line. T. 16 S.. R. 13 E., Section 6. Lots 1 & 2. SE'/. SE%4SW %. Section 7. Lots 2-4. E %N W'/, T. 16 S.. R. 12 E.. Section 12, E''/�SE%4, SE'/4 Section 13, SW/NE'/4. NW'/SPA, SE'/SWA, Section 24. NE'/NW'/, Proposed Action Title/Type: Deschutes County Road Right -of -Way (ROW) Description of the Proposed Action and any applicable mitigation measures: Deschutes County is requesting to construct a new road on the east side of the Burlington Northern/Sante Fe Railroad from the terminus of 19th Street in Redmond. Oregon to Deschutes Market Junction near Bend. Oregon. The proposed road ROW would be 100 feet wide and 19.100 feet in length. encompassing 32 acres. more or less. To construct this road it would involve backhoes, bulldozers, dump trucks. gravel/cinders. asphalt mixers. rollers, pickups. and other miscellaneous heavy equipment. Blasting the pressure ridges would also be involved. Mitigation Measures: The holder shall be required to fence both sides of the roadway. The east side of the fence shall be 4 strand with the bottom wire smooth and the rest barbed. By fencing the east side it would prevent off-road travel and dumping. designate the west side allotment boundary, and limit the road access for recreational use. The west side of the fence shall be 3 strands with the top and bottom wire being smooth and the middle barbed. By fencing the west side it would prevent off-road travel and dumping. limit the road access for recreational use and protect pedestrians from safety issues with the BNSF Railroad. Page 1 £k. V, f The holder shall install a 14 foot wide cattle guard and a 14 foot wide powder river style gate at the intersection of 19th Street and the dry utilities road that goes to Pronghorn Resort. This will deter public access to an area that has not been readily accessible or known to the general public. This would also keep horses in the grazing allotment. B. Land Use Plan Conformance Land Use Plan Name: Upper Deschutes Record ot'Decision (ROD) and Resource Management Plan (RMP) Date approved (ROD): September, 2005 The proposed action is in conformance with the applicable plan because it is specifically provided for in the following land use plan decisions: Objective TU -5: Allocation/Allowable Uses: 2. Designate a transportation corridor, approximately % mile wide and extending from approximately the end of 19th Street in Redmond to Deschutes Market Road. C. Identify applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and related documents that cover the proposed action The following NEPA documents (EA. DEIS. FEIS) cover the proposed action: Proposed Upper Deschutes RMP and Final EIS (FEIS). January 2005 D. NEPA Adequacy Criteria 1. Is the new proposed action a feature of or essentially similar to, an alternative analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? Is the project within the same analysis area, or if the project location is different, are the geographic and resource conditions sufficiently similar to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? If there are differences, can you explain why they are not substantial? Yes. the proposed action is essentially the same as The Preferred Alternative in Alternative 7. On page 266. Transportation. Regional Transportation, second sentence states. "The Preferred Alternative includes a potential extension of 19th Street south to a proposed interchange at the US Hwy 97/Quarry Street Intersection and then south for approximately another four miles to the existing US 97 (Deschutes Market Junction/Interchange). Page 2 Ek . v, p. 2 2. Is the range of alternatives analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s) appropriate with respect to the new proposed action, given current environmental concerns, interests, and resource values? Yes. the Upper Deschutes RMP FEIS compared the transportation corridor under "Transportation and Utilities" on pages 266 through 281. The Preferred Alternative included an extension from 19`h Street to Deschutes Market Junction/Interchange. Alternative 2 depicted a corridor from Yew Avenue south to Deschutes Market Junction/Interchange. Alternative 3 depicted a corridor from Yew Avenue to Quarry Avenue. Alternatives 4-7 provides for a corridor that links to both Quarry Avenue and then another four miles south to Deschutes Market Junction/Interchange. 3. Is the existing analysis valid in Tight of any new information or circumstances (such as rangeland health standard assessment, recent endangered species listings. updated lists of BLM sensitive species)? Can you reasonably conclude that all new information and new circumstances would not substantially change the analysis of the new proposed action? Yes. the existing analysis continues to be valid. No previous Wilderness values were identified within the proposed project area during the statewide BLM Wilderness Inventory of public lands in 1978-9. because no wilderness inventory units were identified in this area at that time. No new information exists that would change the 1978-9 finding that these public lands continue to lack wilderness character. These public lands are less than 5,000 acres of contiguous public land, and do not contain any outstanding opportunities for solitude. or primitive and unconfined recreation. No supplemental values are known to exist within this public land corridor. 4. Are the direct, indirect. and cumulative effects that would result from implementation of the new proposed action similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed in the existing NEPA document(s)? Yes, the same effects that would result from the proposed action were analyzed in the Upper Deschutes RMP FEIS for the alternatives in Volume 2. pages 265 through 281. Also on page 511, question 205. Response. states. "The effects of designating the corridor are included in the Transportation and Utilities section. Other resources also considered the effects of this corridor designation in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. Page 3 Ek w , p. :3 5. Are the public involvement and interagency review associated with existing NEPA document(s) adequately for the current proposed action? Yes, the list of "interested publics" is updated on a regular basis and many of the individuals and organizations on the current "interested publics.' list are the same as those on the mailing list for the planning and NEPA documents listed. A final copy of this DNA and the subsequent approved right-of-way grant will be posted on the Prineville District's internet page for public review. A printed copy of these documents would be available on request. Deschutes County indicated that they would have to go through amending their Transportation Plan which would entail a hearing with the Deschutes County Commissioners. There would also be environmental work on the private property, so the contractor would have to contact the private property owners for permission on their land and then a copy of the final environmental document. Deschutes County would then go through their Land Use Planning Process prior to development of this road which entails signs being posted near the project and mailing of the proposal to adjacent land owners. This proposal has been on the agenda and discussed numerous times at the South Redmond Collaborative Group meetings. E. Persons/Agencies/BLM Staff consulted Name Title Agency represented Lyle Andrews Rangeland Management Specialist BLM Jo Anne Armson Special Status Plants BLM Cassandra Hummel Wildlife Biologist BLM Teal Purrington NEPA BLM Tom Mott! Recreation/VRM BLM Dana Cork Engineer BLM Janet Hutchison Team Lead/Realty Specialist BLM Rick Demmer Wildlife Biologist BLM Ron Gregory Archaeologist BLM Christopher Anthony Botanist BLM Megan O'Neill Archaeologist BLM Ryan Griffin Archaeologist BLM Page 4 Etc. )0.' John Stilley Manager Public Projects BNSF Railway Co. Tom Blust Public Works Director Deschutes County George Kolb Engineer Deschutes County Mike Berry Engineer Deschutes County Conclusion Based on the review documented above. 1 conclude that this proposal conforms to the applicable land use plan and that the documentation fully covers the proposed action and constitutes BLM's compliance with the requirements of the NEPA. Signature Responsible official: /S/ Molly M. Brown 10/7/09 Molly M. Brown Date Deschutes Resource Area Field Manager Note: The signed Conclusion on this Worksheet is part of an interim step in the BLM's internal decision process and does not constitute an appealable decision. However. the lease, permit. or other authorization based on this DNA is subject to protest or appeal under 43 CFR Part 4 and the program specific regulations. Contact Person For additional information concerning this review, contact: Janet Hutchison. District Realty Specialist, Prineville Field Office. 3050 NE 3rd Street. Prineville. OR 97754, telephone (541) 416-6710 or email her at jlhutchi@or.blm.gov. Page 5 2020 Greater Redmond Area Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map I=JR•Imsoceary µan .ffew oe, lam • as low (40/..sas Aim* L • WS • *eon.. 14* CI • SW 11*.edormery C dopit•Conamar 1.• 2•Fint .11101•1•MI ,SIMINS••••0 E•100MOS Ci• AVM *000 -11.4roung 411•110.....1 1 • !Navy 061. • SO. HA ...tiro MIX ri,h1.1.014 • 1.W.NONeeferwr 11.1“41•4 01.41.4.0 11141,..11.10.4.1 Ri• MO Pao* 1401rao "WIN 1 1 ' P. . 2.11:11-1 ot AifikiliN711,11 its•itrise ..... 2.000 2.000 4.000 Fee( Map Prepared By CITY OF REDMOND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • 4, 0,^ • ,00•••• 17 7;0 Aat ANOMM•10.0.1.10liodaiit 5, p. I Redmond Urban Area Transportation Plan Map Of MY alloplabo • Ind um Pal NY. v.a. !worms. room.. 0o/otwore of Mom Pgiat. swOrewl. we 9..w.. Cou y,v wnA. • AXIS amovegtele ''. ...... rt�Nsn.aw nr.�,.c HIGHWAY 128CORR�f / •Y4\Y•t4Yt4 9T��,dMA1N^'.. Ti:i=S:iii O5 • cwr' ti 2.000 0 2.000 4,000 Feet r FUNCTIONAL CLASS p MAJOR ARTERIAL y3 MINOR ARTERIAL PROPOSED MINOR ARTERIAL Al MAloa couCCroa ,•:r PROPOSED MAIORCOLLECTOR %MINOR COLLECTOR `�• •� PROPOSED MINOR COLLECTOR N US 97 REROUTEPHASEII. PROPOSED RURAL COLLECTOR STATEHIGHW4Y t w CONCEPTUALAUGNMENT CITY UMITS V :URBANGROWTH BOUNDARY• 1096 ; POTENTIAL INTERCNA7.GE Map Prepared Cy CITY OF REDMOND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ,k • w. mea Ek 6, l.2 Legend aUtoan Reserve Area Combining Zone Parcel Cay uma Deschutes County Community Da elopment li Deschutes County Zoning Map DRAFT 0 Maes BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY. OREGON Tom DeWolf, Chair Michael M. Daly. Commissioner Dentis R. Luke. Commissioner ATTEST Recording Secretary Dated this _ day of June. 2005 Effective Date: July 2005 •gasae;aaa; i N • • • aaa ■■ 1i a a a�"a as as • is a Future County Rural Arterial • Future County Rural Collector o w Future Redmond Minor Arterial aim Future Redmond Major Collector N EN Principal Arterial (County TSP) Rural Arterial (County TSP) Rural Collector (County TSP) 1/ J BLM Corridor (126 reroute) © Future Runway/Extension Urban Reserve Area City Limit Deschutes County Transportation Pian Exhibit C to Ordinance 2005-023 Eif) 0.5 0 Mites BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tom Oewo0. Chair Michael M. Daly Commissioner Dennis R Luke. Commissioner ATTEST Recording Secretary Dated this _ day of June. 2005 Effective Date: July_ 2005 E 5 y Exhibit C Redmond Urban Reserve Area County TSP Changes mar �+Mrrmmn "ear Cw.. Mr++irr N.es Map Date:.My 1.2005 2000 4000 4000 Feet MAP SCALE IN FEET 1' = 4,000 Feet MAP LEGEND Ss. Future Couoty Rural 'County TeP) Future C Rural Cdbud (County SP) Future Redmond Minor ArterW (Wiwi(' TSP) Future Redmond Major Calleetor(Redr and TSP) Manor y��+IOM8..4rso6rCostar 4M6AN1� `- Orr Mor :M iaml Camaro! ,,_rlo Ran COWRY N➢n *saw%Mal.,.: tabnios ::::::r......• r Meb'rariWpvMR Ipwa6'.> Oeayary Ek 5, p5 hi ,101215 222222? ,p (e i \ / 111 2 d �y Mk , ,p (e ROBERT BERNSTEIN, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner February 22, 2010 Central Oregon LandWatch c/o Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney 1539 NW Vicksburg Ave Bend, OR 97701 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2010 Deschutes County CDD SUBJECT: Review of traffic/transportation issues associated with the Deschutes County proposal to add 19th Street to its Transportation System Plan as a future rural arterial between the Redmond City Limits and Deschutes Junction Dear Mr. Dewey, I have reviewed and evaluated background information related to the proposed Plan Amendment, including in particular the December 17, 2009, Deschutes County Burden of Proof staff report; January 14 and February 11, 2010, memoranda from Deschutes County transportation planning staff to the Planning Commission; and comment letters from Oregon DOT (1/12/10), Redmond Economic Development (1/7/10), City of Redmond Public Works (1/8/10), Central Oregon Commission on Transportation (1/20/10), and City of Bend transportation planning staff (12/30/09). 1 am personally and professionally familiar with the area, and I visited the site and vicinity on February 15, 2010 (see attached photos). Based on my personal observations and on my review and assessment of the available traffic/transportation-related information, I have the following comments and conclusions: Conclusion The Deschutes County Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) should NOT be amended to add the proposed 19th St future rural arterial because (1) the need for a rural arterial in the proposed location/alignment has not been demonstrated, and (2) alternatives with less impact than the proposed rural arterial have not been considered or evaluated. Discussion Deschutes County staff and the various agencies and organizations that have commented on the proposed plan amendment have identified a number of potential benefits of the proposed future rural arterial. However, as discussed below, none has shown a demonstrated need for the proposed rural arterial, and no alternatives — including the No Action — have been evaluated and compared. 507 - 18th Avenue East (206) 325-4320 Seattle, Washington 98112 RBernstein.CE76@GTalumni.org fax (206) 325-4318 Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney February 22, 2010 Page 2 1. Claimed benefit: The proposed rural arterial would reduce traffic and ease congestion on US 97 between Deschutes Jct and Yew Ave. Need not demonstrated: The County's and Oregon DOT's analysis clearly indicate that US 97 will operate at an adequate level of service (LOS) with an acceptable volume:capacity ratio (V/C) without the proposed rural arterial, and furthermore, that the proposed rural arterial, if built, would not attract enough traffic away from US 97 to have a noticeable impact on US 97 LOS and V/C. Alternatives not considered: Alternative means of improving LOS and V/C on US 97 to which the proposed rural arterial should be compared include: • adding lanes to US 97; and • implementing access management and control measures (e.g., raised medians, frontage roads, driveway closure/consolidation, etc). 2. Claimed benefit: The proposed rural arterial would reduce traffic and ease congestion at the Yew Ave/US 97 Interchange. Need not demonstrated: As above, the County's and Oregon DOT's analysis clearly indicate that the proposed rural arterial, if built, would not attract enough traffic away from the Yew Ave/US 97 Interchange to have a noticeable impact on the episodic traffic congestion that occurs there. Furthermore, the determination of need for the proposed rural arterial must consider the probable elimination of Yew Ave Interchange congestion associated with opening of the planned US 97 Reroute Phase II. Alternatives not considered: Alternative means of relieving Yew Ave/US 97 Interchange congestion to which the proposed rural arterial should be compared include: • Improve/expand the interchange; • Grade -separate the Yew Ave crossing (e.g., take Yew Ave under the railroad, as is being proposed at the Cooley Rd crossing in Bend); and • Improve capacity and efficiency of Fairgrounds event traffic control (e.g., provide additional access points and/or access lanes, direct traffic to Veterans Wy and other access routes, etc.). 3. Claimed benefit: The proposed rural arterial would support Oregon DOT efforts to implement access management measures on US 97 between Deschutes Jct and Yew Ave. Need not demonstrated: The proposed rural arterial would provide no support for Oregon DOT access management efforts on US 97. Because the proposed rural arterial is on the opposite side of the railroad tracks from US 97, it does not and cannot provide alternate access to properties with direct access to US 97. Further more, the County's and Oregon DOT's analysis clearly indicate that the proposed rural arterial, if built, would not attract Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney February 22, 2010 Page 3 enough traffic away from US 97 to have any impact on the viability and effectiveness of potential access management measures. 4. Claimed benefit: The proposed rural arterial would provide a new connection on the County road/highway network.. Need not demonstrated: The proposed rural arterial in reality does not provide a new connection in the road/highway network: because its north and south termini are so close to US 97, and because there is no developable land or other road connections between those terminus vicinities, the entire travel market served by the proposed rural arterial is already served by US 97. Accordingly, the proposed rural arterial is, in effect, simply added capacity for the US 97 corridor; and according to the County's and Oregon DOT's own analysis, that added capacity is not needed. 5. Claimed benefit: The proposed rural arterial would provide needed access to the Division of State Lands (DSL) property in the proposed Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion area. Need not demonstrated: This is backwards planning! If the proposed rural arterial is in fact necessary for the expansion of the UGB — and that need has not been demonstrated — then the need for and cost/viability of the proposed rural arterial should be considered in the review/evaluation of the UGB expansion proposal. Furthermore, the determination of need for the proposed rural arterial must consider the access to be provided by the planned US 97 Reroute Phase Il. Alternatives not considered: Alternatives for providing additional UGB expansion area access, to which the proposed rural arterial should be compared, include: • Constructing the proposed 19th St extension to the north only; and • Providing additional accesses to the north. 6. Claimed benefit: In the case of a potential future accident -related closure of US 97 between Deschutes Junction and Yew Ave, the proposed rural arterial would provide an alternate route for detoured traffic. Need not demonstrated: It should be noted that detour routes are needed only in the rare cases when the entire highway is shut down. For such circumstances, other detour routes (e.g., the Old Bend -Redmond Hwy) already exist and are available. Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney February 22, 2010 Page 4 7. Claimed benefit: In the case of a potential future accident -related blockage of the Yew Ave railroad crossing, the proposed rural arterial would provide access to an alternate railroad crossing (i.e., the Deschutes Market Rd overcrossing several miles south at Deschutes Junction). Need not demonstrated: A much closer and more easily accessible alternate crossing exists 1.7 miles north at Veterans Wy, and in the future, the US 97 Reroute Phase II will provide another. Alternatives not considered: Alternative alternate crossings to which the proposed rural arterial should be compared include: • Grade -separate the Yew Ave crossing (e.g., take Yew Ave under the railroad, as is being proposed at the Cooley Rd crossing in Bend); and • Construct one or more emergency -only crossings (see Spokane Valley, WA, example in Photo 1, below). Photo 1: Emergency -Only Railroad Grade Crossing (Spokane Valley, WA) Robert Bernstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney February 22, 2010 Page 5 If you have any questions or if you need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Robert Bernstein, P.E. f NC,►NE'F`' 11677 'A / oy r tik.1:NAMAT*. OREGON 6 \2 6x?. VIP I Summary of Qualifications. I have Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Civil Engineering (from Georgia Tech and Northwestern University, respectively), and 1 am a registered professional engineer in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, Georgia, and New Jersey. I have over 30 years of transportation planning and traffic engineering experience, including five years with the City of Portland and seven years as Senior Transportation Engineer with the Puget Sound Council of Governments. In these positions and as a private consultant, I have served as project traffic engineer and transportation planner on dozens of arterial and highway conceptual design studies in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, and Georgia. In addition, l have prepared the transportation element for a dozen city and county comprehensive plans, and I have conducted numerous regional and subregional travel demand forecasting studies, traffic operations and safety analyses, and neighborhood traffic management studies. I also have provided on-call development review services for several cities in Oregon, Washington, and California, and over the last 20 years I have provided expert assistance on development -related traffic issues to over 100 community and neighborhood groups, including nine in Bend and Deschutes County. Robert Bemstein, P.E. Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner 4 Mr. Paul Dewey, Attorney February 22, 2010 Page 6 Attachment: Site Vicinity Photos looking west at Yew Ave RR Xing looking east at Yew Ave RR Xing looking west at Hwy 97/Yew Ave Interchange looking west at Veterans Wy RR Xing and Hwy 97Neterans Wy intersection looking east at Veterans Wy RR Xing Robert Bernstein, P.E Consulting Transportation Engineer/Planner TO: Deschutes County Commissioners FROM: Bert Swift, Starwood Land Use Committee SUBJECT: 19th St. Extension RECEIVED FEB 222010 Deschutes County CDD The Board of Directors of the Starwood Association has already forwarded their views regarding the proposed changes to the Master Plan at Deschutes Junction, and for the extension of 19tH As a former professor of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University, and as a professor of Public Affairs and Government at several other universities, including the U of Oregon, I must take issue with the technical elements of the proposal. I spent the morning of February 17th reviewing the documents presented by the planning staff and find the following shortcomings: 1. The rationale for the extension is not fully documented. It is noted that there is a need to reduce congestion at the south end of Redmond, but there is no data to support the supposition such as waiting times, level of increased person -trips or other evidence of appropriate research to justify the extension, other than that there may be federal dollars available and "mapping" is required to obtain the dollars—an insufficient reason on it's own. 2. The extension to Deschutes Market Road is supported by the Redmond Mayor, the Redmond Public Works, Pronghorn, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Transportation and it complies with the State of Oregon Standards for Land Use Planning, according to the local transportation planner. All of the above supporters, it should be noted, are governmental, excepting Pronghorn, which is seeking relief from paying for the consequences of development it inspired. None of the above will bear the negative impacts of the extension: noise, pollution, congestion, etc. Furthermore, I disagree with the transportation planner that the state standards for community participation have been met, which is an issue beside the point at this juncture, but could become a point of contention in the future. 3. There is inadequate discussion, review, or analysis of options to Deschutes Junction as alternative points for relieving the largely undocumented problem. Quarry Road is mentioned in passing, but there is no determination of why it is not a viable solution. Real plans develop alternatives. Real planners present options, with the costs and benefits of each to decision - makers. Real plans include a cost -benefit analysis—who gains, and who loses. Real plans consider and measure environmental and social impacts, including the possibility of compensating the losers, if necessary. This, I present, is not a real plan! I am sure that you have observed there has been a strong negative reaction to governmental attempts to elicit change in recent months and years. The reasons for this are quite simple: either government has lost touch with its constituency, or government no longer cares to communicate with the public and would rather steamroll onward. Please fully review this proposal before making a final decision. SCANNED FEB 2 5 2010 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2010 Deschutes County CDD March 3, 2010 Deschutes County Planning Commissioners, and Peter Russell, Transportation Planner 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: 19th Street Expansion - Public Hearing Comments MAR f 8.2010 We are OPPOSED to the 19th Street connection to Deschutes Market Road for the following reasons: • Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Safety Issues • Increased Crime • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life • Increased Noise and Pollution • Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically chose to move out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area provides. We are opposed to this connection because it will directly and negatively affect the rural characteristics of our neighborhood. One Planning Commissioner has even stated this road could become "...a 6 mile drag strip and an alternative truck route". It is projected to draw thousands of cars per day. Numerous planning workshops have consistently shown that Deschutes county residents DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together - the expansion of this road will increase the likelihood of this occurring. Solve the Problem without creating new ones: The congestion and traffic issues of South Redmond can all be solved by developing the Quarry Ave/Hwy 97 interchange. This option is presently in the City of Redmond's General Plan. In addition this option does not create the problems outlined above. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. cerely, He-ther Rogers 20778 Northstar Way Bend, OR 97701 SCANNED MAR 1 1 2010 Date: all ili6 Deschutes County Planning Commissioners, and Peter Russell, Transportation Planner 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: 19th Street Expansion "' Public Hearing Comments We are OPPOSED to the 19th Street connection to Deschutes Market Road for the following reasons: ■ Increased vehicular and truck traffic • Safety Issues • Increased Crime • Diminished Irrigated Farm Land • Diminished Property Values & Quality of Life ■ Increased Noise and Pollution ■ Unnecessary Sprawl We specifically chose to move out-of-town for the rural lifestyle and quality of life this area provides. We are opposed to this connection because it will directly and negatively affect the rural characteristics of our neighborhood. One Planning Commissioner has even stated this road could become "...a 6 mile drag strip and an alternative truck route". It is projected to draw thousands of cars per day. Numerous planning workshops have consistently shown that Deschutes county residents DO NOT want Bend and Redmond to merge together — the expansion of this road will increase the likelihood of this occurring. Solve the Problem without creating new ones: The congestion and traffic issues of South Redmond can all be solved by developing the Quarry Ave/Hwy 97 interchange. This option is presently in the City of Redmond's General Plan. In addition this option does not create the problems outlined above. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, Your na - a : addre s: Charlie Krackeler 64759 Boones Borough Court Bend, Oregon 97701-8821