Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-07 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 1 of 7 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Peter Russell and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; and six other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Work Session regarding Adopting the South County Local Wetland Inventory into the Comprehensive Plan. Peter Gutowsky reviewed the current local wetland inventory, which was approved by the State in July, replacing the national inventory. This will be used to alert property owners of the designation in the event they wa nt to develop their property. It is the largest wetland inventory in the State, encompassing about 1,300 tax lots. However, this is about 500 less than the national inventory showed. Permission rates from property owners to allow the process to take place was very high. The consultants drafted the inventory last fall and there has been a lot of public involvement throughout. The new inventory is thought to be much more accurate. This uses a new wetland assessment methodology that is more comprehensive . The process would be to adopt the wetland inventory into the Comprehensive Plan, at which time the County could apply this to development. The information is much better than the previous plan. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Pages The Planning Commissioner and Board will be holding public hearings on this in the near future. Mr. Gutowsky will attend an Upper Deschutes Watershed Council meeting, and there will be up-to-date mapping so anyone asking about properties affected by this designation will be able to learn more. The Planning Commission did not have to make a recommendation, but did recommend Board approval. Chair Baney noted that this could have been a contentious process, but because of the way it has been handled, no negative feedback was received by the Board. There were community concerns, but this was done with a lot of thought to the process. Commissioner Unger asked if there are State Goals that regulate what happens with these lands. Mr. Gutowsky replied that the DSL has to be notified of any building permit or application since this is part of the State’s wetland inventory. There is a legal framework on how wetlands are protected. He hopes the community will provide input on how they would like this to happen. The State regulates any removal or fill under the Clean Water Act. Commissioner DeBone asked if the process has changed much. Mr. Gutowsky replied that if a property owner suspects they have wetlands, the DSL would send a wetlands specialist to the property. If the property does not have wetlands, the County will be informed and will waive the conditional use permit. There are rules covering removal and fill, which may have to be mitigated to equal no net loss of wetlands. The inventory went from 3,900 to about 3,300. Chair Baney asked if any County-owned properties are involved. Mr. Gutowsky said that he has not analyzed this but will do so. Commissioner Unger asked what the difference is between high groundwater lots and wetlands. Mr. Gutowsky said the consultant looks for the type of vegetation and the soil, so a property with standing water on it may not officially be wetlands. The Board’s hearing is scheduled for September 26. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Pages 2. Review of Event Venue Text Amendment. Nick Lelack gave an overview of the topic to date. He has been working on text amendments with the help of the Planning Commission. Some of the Planning Commissioners were supportive of the amendment as written, but others were not. Some supported private parks; others supported recent legislation regarding commercial venues on farmland, such as how wineries are used for events. There are four general text amendments for the Board to review. The question is, are events to be supported, mitigated, etc. and how to go about doing these things. The Planning Commission would like a joint meeting with the Board at some point to discuss these issues in detail. County Counsel feels there are problems with how this relates to the home occupancy ordinance. Commissioner DeBone asked what the four amendments are. Mr. Lelack said there are two under Section 18. Agri-tourism is a new use through Senate Bill 960. It would be put into Code as is. HB 3280 changed the wineries language. 18.16.044 begins to provide additional standards for private parks, SB 960 or even the wineries. One section deals with operational hours, notification period, whether sound application will be allowed, etc. Laurie Craghead said some uses are allowed outright, and others will be conditional. Mr. Lelack said that some text allows a new type 4 for home o ccupations. In the conditional use permit section, there are new standards for private parks. Chair Baney suggested that the Board finds it helpful to review see a matrix that lists current information plus changes, and the various options. Going through the changes page by page is a little more challenging, so another work session might be worthwhile. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Pages Commissioner Unger said if it makes it easier for everyone to understand, this would be appropriate. Chair Baney said sharing this information in a meeting with the Planning Commission might be the way to go. Commissioner Unger would like to learn their concerns as well. A date will be selected for this meeting. 3. Proposed County Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for US 97 – Bend North Corridor Project. Peter Russell referred to an oversized map and discussed ODOT’s draft environmental statement on north Highway 97 corridor alternatives. The main issue for the County is whether or which one of the proposals will work. The County prefers the first alternative, DS-1. The other issue is whether the EIS addresses County roads adequately, in particular Hunnell Road and Bowery Lane. Some areas will be adversely affected, and there is no way to avoid this. Some alternatives would prohibit access to some local areas. DS-1 is the full interchange. There would be a lot more use on Hunnell and Bowery, and those would have to be improved. The County has a road mo ratorium as well. Existing substandard County roads are not being considered in these proposals. DS-2 is a half-interchange near Deschutes Memorial Gardens. It does not allow local access, so would end up with a lot of non-directional travel. A statewide planning goal exception would be required, and ODOT should be the applicant . Chair Baney commented that there is an opportunity for the County and citizens to provide input. She wondered how far local government could go with this. Mr. Russell stated that this study and plan could tie up lands for years, especially if the State cannot get to the project for a long time. People want some kind of certainty as to what they will have to deal with. It will go into the TSP process at that point. Chair Baney asked about mobility standards. Mr. Russell said they have to go with what is in the adopted safety standards plan. Chair Baney asked for clarification on how Juniper Ridge might play into this, as it could have a big impact on the area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Pages Commissioner Unger said the Board needs to make a recommendation to the steering team, of which he is a member, representing the Board. A letter should be sent asking for more time to make a recommendation. Commissioner DeBone noted that funding for this work could be many years out. Chair Baney said that the expressway designation makes a lot of sense for some areas, but the local area needs to function. The question was asked, why someone would try to enhance his or her business if access is going to be jeopardized. There needs to be connectivity. Chair Baney stated that phasing and utilization need to be addressed together, and this lends itself to a bigger conversation. Commissioner Unger said there is no easy solution, so they are doing the best they can. Some of the decisions may come out of discussions with COACT and the City of Bend. Commissioner DeBone said he would like to get their input. Nick Lelack said he would have a letter drafted with the Board’s preferences and concerns, as it is due this week. 4. Update of Commissioners’ Meetings and Schedules. None were discussed. 5. Other Items. Nick Lelack indicated that Susan Ross said that the City should be asked to include the County’s Simpson Avenue (demo landfill) property in the buildable lands inventory, twenty-year plan. It would not be necessary to be concerned about infrastructure at this point. If the City does not include it in the inventory now, this land may not get included for a very long time. UNGER: Move that staff be directed to draft a letter for Board signature to ask the City of Bend to identify the County’s Simpson Avenue property as developable in the Bend planning process. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney said that she feels step increases for non-represented would be appropriate at this time, since there are no COLA's and the County's income supports this. Mr. Kropp said that about fifty people are affected who should get merit increases. Mr. Kropp said this should not be announced until after the union agreement is ratified, but that it would be retroactive to July 1. The Budget Committee should be made aware of this. DEBONE: Move approval of these recommendations. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. At this time, the Board went into executive session as follows: • 192.660(2)( d) -deliberations with persons designated to carry on labor negotiations • Executive Session, under 192.660(2)(i) -to review and evaluate the job performance of officers, employees and staff After executive session, the Board took action. UNGER: Move to assert the performance of County Legal Counsel is satisfactory, per discussion during executive session. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Concerning defining County Administrator duties, Mr. Pilliod indicated that Washington County's information is the most comprehensive, but Mr. Pilliod is not sure this is necessary. He suggested the Board compare others with what the County has in place, and be cautious of removing certain clauses. If there is something that should be included, all possible ramifications should be considered to make sure it just adds clarity. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 6 of 7 Pages A determination needs to be made as to whether something should be handled by the Administrator or if the Board should be the entity to do so. Decisions can be made much more quickly by an Administrator if necessary, but some things should be under the Board's purview. This is fundamental if there needs to be a structural change, and the Board has the authority to do this. This issue will be further reviewed at the September 14 work session. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p . m. DATED this fC{<I:-Day of *f~ 2011 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners: Tammy Baney, Ch Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ,~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners ' Work Session Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Pages Work Session l(j-tUR . ~/7( MOl (day. August ~~. 2011 (Please Print) Name AS!:ency MaiIinS!: Address City Zip Phone # e-mail address ~o.-Y"'Y yJflJ-,-en 0 s- J... ~l i e )Ce+re n o5 c ; 1--1::z. e l-> £:Qj7 11;0011 Bvrn..Jb J3e ~4 177D/ 5" '-1/ ~-/t 6 r Nk c.tY~n()'j @ ({ of, COr C-,' -rl· :t. ~h ~.;<;U7 lb~dI tvTf(-,ej Oe 'l rl q no/ ) '1/ --3y] -0/.10 HK d-reft c'X IP &t ol. c (> To hVJ 8~an1 c0.fr2en ~D5'$'{ l3o t:.re vL( la~ ;S vrvJ 1170 / S<f I ~t:J!7 ~ /i(~(,:, l)</I-q 71 -2.933 ~h4Afa ,d@v.ct/!VW -10, 00 pJ I OP ~CU:tlktQi H' , v J jV,6'1L 6~Jt1.lr &1/t-e,..J .....J ~7; /lA/ljV/~ .~A' 7 ") ?() I sv/-32;2 -q3~ , ~ 64,-~e ~f. . 0...~ I • c.c:>~ - -.­ Page # of Pages ---~ , 'Cl)I\I\. ef l ~ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 1. Work Session regarding Adopting the South County Local Wetland Inventory into the Comprehensive Plan -Peter Gutowsky 2. Review of Event Venue Text Amendment -Nick Lelack 3. Proposed County Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for US 97 -Bend North Corridor Project -Peter Russell 4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 5. Other Items • Executive Session, under 1 92.660(2)(i) -to review and evaluate the job performance of officers, employees and staff PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting. an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)( d). labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b). personnel issues. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners' meeting rooms at BOO NW Wall St., Bend. unless othelWise indicated. q'you have questions regarding a meeting. please call 388-6571. Deschutes COWlty meeting locations an: wheelchair accessible. Deschutes COWlty 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 CornY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further infonnation. I also require that an adequate mechanism will exist, such as an owners' association, that will assure maintenance of such facilities. D. No structure shall be utilized as a time-share unit unless all the units in the structure or particular phase of the development are used as time-share units for this purpose. (Ord. 2000-033 §9,2000) 18.128.375. Private Parks -Commercial Events A private park established under this section for commercial events shall meet the following standards and criteria: 1. Only allowed in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. 2. The lot, parcel or tract must contain an owner-occupied single family dwelling, and the event venue shall be operated by the owner(s) of the property, exclusive of catering or other contracted services. 3. The application must identify and establish an approved "activity area", which includes all land area to be used for the commercial event, including permanent and temporary structures, access and egress, and parking facilities to be used for commercial events. 4. The activity area shall be sited and designed to minimize noise. glare, odor. traffic, and other adverse impacts to dwellings on adjacent lots or parcels. 5. The minimum lot size shall be 15 acres. 6. Commercial events are limited to 18 calendar days per calendar year, exclusive of set-up and take-down activities. 7. Commercial events shall not be held on consecutive weekends, and commercial events shall not occur more than 6 calendar days in any month. 8. The activity area shall meet the following minimum setback requirements from the property line: a. 100 feet for up to 9 calendar days for commercial events per calendar year. b. 250 feet for more than 9 calendar days for commercial events per calendar year. 18.128.380. Procedure for Taking Action on Conditional Use Application. The procedure for taking action on a conditional use application shall be as follows: A A property owner may initiate a request for a conditional use by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department. B. Review of the application shall be conducted according to the terms of DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. (Ord. 86-032 §l, 1986) 18.128.390. Time Limit on a Permit for a Conditional Use. Duration of permits issued under DCC 18.128 shall be as set forth in DCC 22.36. (Ord. 95-018 §4, 1995; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.128.400. Occupancy Permit. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require an occupancy permit for any conditional use permitted and approved pursuant to the provisions of DCC Title 18. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall consider such a requirement for any use authorized by a conditional use permit for which the ordinance requires on-site or off-site improvements or where such conditions have been established by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon approval of such use. The requirement of an occupancy permit shall be for the intent of insuring permit compliance and said permit shall not be issued except as set forth by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The authority to issue an occupancy permit upon compliance with the requirements and conditions of a 18-128 (07/2010) Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ December 21,2010 Amy Pfeiffer, Environmental Project Manager ODOT Region 4 63030 O.B. Riley Road Bend, Oregon 97701 RE: County roads that will require improvement to County standards due to OOOT 97120 project at North End of Bend Dear Amy, Deschutes County appreciates the opportunity as an agency of record to comment on the alternatives for re-routing U.S. 97 in the north end of Bend. Tom Blust, Road Department Director, George Kolb, County Engineer, and myself met and discussed the proposed alternatives of East DS 1 and East DS2 as shown on maps dated November 2010. We have limited our comments to County roads we feel will need to be brought up to County standards due to changes in traffic distribution and/or highway access resulting from the ODOT 97/20 project at the north end of Bend. Several of what are now local streets will begin to function more as collectors as traffic will carve out new patterns to reach the highway. East 08-1 (full interchange north of cemetery) Fort Thompson: Entire length. While the map indicates Fort Thompson extends south to Harris as there is a paved road it is unclear if there is dedicated right of way for that road. Harris Way: From its terminus all the way south to Bowery Lane. Additionally, while the drawings indicate extending Harris through to Hunnell, which the County agrees makes sense, there is no dedicated right of way. Bowery Lane: Entire length from Hunnell road east to its connection to the new Third Street and west from US 97 to the new Third Street. The County strongly suggests rather than improving Bowery Lane, that instead ODOT look at extending Rogers Road east of Hunnell to provide a connection to the new Third Street. Hunnell Road: From Harris Way south to Cooley with the southern portion of Hunnell realigned westward to Berg Lane beginning at about Loco. This would result in a signalized four-legged intersection at Cooley/Hunnell. The current leg of Hunnell north of Cooley to Loco could be made into a cul-de-sac. Quality Services Performed with Pride Rogers Road: Consider extending eastward to the new Third Street alignment. Cooley Road: OB Riley Road east to US 20 given signalization of US 20/Cooley will draw increasing amounts of traffic. Robal Road: OB Riley to US 20 (new roadway). East DS2 (NB on, SB off only interchange near cemetery) Bowery Lane: Harris Way to east end of new roadway across US 97 and west to Hunnell Road. Again, the County would urge ODOT to consider extending Rodgers Road east, which in this case would be to Bowery. New Road from cemetery to Bowery Lane: entire length Hunnell Road: Lowe Lane (approximately 4,100' north of Rodgers Road) south to Cooley, again with Hunnell angled westward to use Berg Lane. Cooley Road: OB Riley to US 20 given signalization of US 20 will increase traffic on this leg. Robal Road: OB Riley to US 20 (new roadway). Again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide comment and look forward to continuing to work with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the City of Bend on solving the traffic problems in the urban-rural interface at the north end of Bend. Please let me know if you have any items you wish to discuss with us further. Thank you. Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner cc: Tom Blust, Road Department Director George Kolb, County Engineer Dennis Luke, Chairman, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 2 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ August 2, 2011 Amy Pfeiffer, Environmental Project Manager ODOT Region 4 63030 O.B. Riley Road Bend, Oregon 97701 RE: Comments on US 97 draft Environme Dear Amy, Deschutes County appreciates the opportunity alternatives for re-routing U.S. 97 comments and concerns about the enclosed a copy of our Dec. 21,201 north end the The project has a worthy this rural high-speed ability to easily ma County roads. The Under either ""If""'n~nl\l' the new Third street connections to side of US 97 lose the to travel substandard Road and Bowery Lane. shifts onto these roads to access either hway and US 97 also lacks any encourage ODOT to look at extending The scale the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to a from Deschutes County, including conditional use permits and . ODOT will need to satisfactorily address the County's transportation ,..nrl"'~ Road and Bowery Lane at the time of land use. Please enter this letter December 21, 2010, letter into the final EIS and any changes to improvements to County roads as a result of these letters. Again, the County supports this project provided it does not adversely affect County roads or rural residents. Thank you. Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner cc: George Kolb, Interim County Road Department Director Enclosure: Letter from Peter Russell to Amy Pfeiffer, dated December 21,2010. Quality Services Perfonned with Pride f &ld6it :Z~1:Z: £a$t DSJ Alternative: North Section Design R Thompson Ln j I "-.. 32 ft road Shoulder Roadway Shoulder it •t 1 Ditch & /4 ft 24 ft Ditch & utilities utilities ::c NOT TO SCALE R'ght fI o way 50 ft road BikeJShoulder 11 Lane Median lar f r BikeJShoulder•Ditch and 16 ft 12 ft 14 ft 12 ft 16ft Ditch and , ..utilities utilities NOT TO SCALE Right of WIIf BikelShoulder BikeiSlIoulder Ditch & utilities 12 It 12ft 10 ft 12 ft 12 It Ditch & utilities NOT TO SCALE \ \ -Roadway t-+-+ Railway _ Highway Imptowmenls _ Local Street Improvements Building Footptin! CJ Over/Under Cm""ing 0 Signal City 0' Bend UGB 0 Emergency Provider Only Turn Amund US 97 Bend North Corridor Project July 2011 I 2-15 Chapter 2 I Alternatives Between Grandview Drive and Fort Thompson Lane, a number of new connections or new roads would be constructed: • A new road would extend east of 3rd Street to access existing properties north of the Deschutes Memorial Gardens and Chapel • A new road would connect Bowery Lane to Suzanne Lane • A new road would extend east of Harris Way to access existing properties between Harris Way and US 97 • An upgraded connection would be provided between Fort Thompson Lane and Harris Way, and between Harris Way and Hunnell Road. • A new road would extend north and south of 3rd Street to access existing properties east of US 97. New county roads and private driveways have been designed to meet the appropriate standards. Existing substandard county roads would not be upgraded by this project, but could be priOritized and develop' as stand alone projects in the County TSP's and State STIP projects. &hlbit 2-13: Photo Simulation o/the North Section/or the EastDS1 Alternative us 97 Bend North Corridot 2-16 I July 2011 I Chapter 2 I Alternatives I Exhibit 2-14: East DS2 Alternative: North Section Design I I I I -Roadway t--t--t Railway _ Highway Improvements _ Local Street Improvements Building Footprint :-~= City of 8end UGB 0 Emergency Provider Only Turn Around ., Landscaping 2-18 I July 2011 Ft Thompoon In ------; !! c .::J X Sidewalk il It Bike Utilities . 5ft P.61t 6ft Bike/Shoulder n Ditch & 18ftutilities o Lane ~ 12 ft Lane• 12ft Shoulder Ditch and Shoulder utilities Right 01 way 98ft road Lane Median ~ 12 ft 16ft Right 01 way 74 ft road Lane t 12ft ILat Lane Median ~ 1 12ft 10ft I 12 ft \ 32 ft road Roadway +t 24 ft '\ utilities Ditch and Lane Bikel' r Sidewalk t 12 ft 6ft p:6ft 5ft Utilities r -BikelShoulder . Lane t 12ft 8ftl Ditch & utilities Design Features Unique to the East DS2 Alternative North Section: Cooley Road to Fort Thompson Lane For the East DS2 Alternative, US 97 would have two northbound and two southbound travel lanes separated by a median barrier. North of Cooley Road, 3rd Street would have two travel lanes in each direction separated by a median that would also serve as a turn lane. The new extension of 3rd Street would connect with US 97 through a directional interchange on the southeast side of the Deschutes Memorial Gardens and Chapel (Exhibit 2-14 and Exhibit 2-15). The directional interchange would allow southbound US 97 traffic to flow freely via an off-ramp to southbound 3rd Street. The directional interchange would also allow northbound 3rd Street traffic to cross over US 97 and flow freely via an on-ramp to northbound US 97. From. Cooley Road, travelers would travel approxiinately 0.6 miles on northbound 3rd Street to access northbound US 97 via the new directional interchange. From Cooley Road, travelers would travel approximately 1.5 miles on southbound 3rd Street to access southbo.und US 97 via the Empire Avenue interchange. Between Grandview Drive and Fort Thompson Lane, a number of new connections, new local roads, or upgrades to existing local roads would be constructed: • Bowery Lane would be upgraded and extended to the east, across US 97 • A new road would extend north and south of Bowery Lane to access existing properties east of US 97 • A new road would extend south of Bowery Lane to access existing properties southwest of the Bowery Lane overcrossing • A new road would extend north of Bowery Lane to access existing properties northwest of the Bowery Lane overcrossing of US 97 • A new road would extend east of Harris Way to access existing properties between Harris Way and US 97 • An upgraded connection would be prOVided between Fort Thompson Lane and Harris Way, and between Harris Way and Hunnell Road. New county roads and private driveways have been designed to meet the appropriate standards. Existing substandard county roads would not be upgraded by this project, but could be prioritized and developed as stand alone projects in the County TSP's and State STIP projects. Alternatives I Chapter 2 Definition Directional Interchange A directional interchange is an interchange between two major highway or freeway facilities where all of the movements are maintained without stopping or delays. I: t 1 I I t US 97 Bend North Corridor Project July 2011 I 2-17 ... September 7, 2011 Alan Unger, Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Baney, Deschutes County Commissioner Tony DeBone, Deschutes County Commissioner Subject: Hunnell United Neighbors Oppose East DSl Alternative; US97 Bend North Corridor Project Dear Commissioners: My name is Michel Bayard and I am the president of the Hunnell United Neighbors, Inc., (HUNS), a 163 family land-use and transportation focused action group that was formed in 2005 and incorporated in 2006. The HUNS act on behalf of the MUA-10 zoned residential area north of the Deschutes Memorial Gardens Cemetery, east of Old Bend Redmond Highway, west of US97 and south of Pohaku Road in Deschutes County, specifically, with the goal of keeping this area rural and free from growth inducing and urbanizing incursions such as the US97 Bend North Corridor Project's East DS1 Alternative. The HUNS are not against progress and we are in favor of development that will produce much-needed employment in Central Oregon. What we do oppose is the alternative East DS1, being proposed by ODOT under the US97 Bend North Corridor Project. The East DS1 alternative proposes to: • Build a Northern Interchange one mile to the north of the city of Bend's existing UGB • Connect the Northern interchange to a northern extension of the 3rd Street arterial (the former alignment of US97 before the Parkway was built) that will extend one mile north of Bend's UGB • The Northern Interchange will redirect as much as 75% of the "Iocal and regional trip traffic" from US97 onto Deschutes County's local road network • Roads that will be impacted include Hunnell Road, Rogers Road, Harris Way, Bowery Lane, Lowe Lane, Scenic Way, Suzanne Lane, Fort Thompson Lane and the Old Bend Redmond Highway • The northern extension of 3rd Street will cut through the heart of the Rock 0' the Range neighborhood, which is one of nine separate neighborhoods within the larger HUNS area • On page 4-12 of ODOT's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), it notes that without the project, "higher traffic volumes and increased traffic demand on local roads, reSUlting in increased cut-through traffic over time in neighborhoods will result in disrupting community cohesion • Yet there is virtually no traffic in this area today; cut-through traffic does not pass through the area as the road network is unimproved, and in some cases one lane wide • On page 4-13 of the DEIS ODOT notes that, "displacement of four residences under the East DS1 alternative would contribute to a minor, localized change in that neighborhood. These displacements could impact residents with long tenure in these neighborhoods and could slightly alter community activity and communication". This is a wild understatement, as East DS1 promises to route approximately 30,000 vehicle trips off of US97 and onto local roads (Traffic Analysis Appendices, Appendix H, pages H-92 through H-95. East OSl proposes the construction of a full diamond interchange one mile north of the Bend UGB This scttnano ba.,q US91 on Ihe east corridor alignment . US97 ha s a full intcrchungc north or Cooley Road with an extension of 3'" StJ"~t. Third Street provides local acn'ss nOM of Cooley Road and n future connection iuro the Juuiper Rid ge, dc\:clopmcnl. l1li.rd Street is two lanes fTOm the inltrchange down to start of the commcrci;l l ",rea north of Cooley Road . A non.hbouDd Icft-c:<.il otT-ramp from US97 provide, 3 COMC\;uon 10 US20 via the: c:li~:ting loop ramp and. 10 3n! Street In Ilddil ion, from rhe nurthern inlcrt.:h:m ge 'oOUlh 10 tht' US20IBuilcr Markel Rood interchange , :111 of the on-ramps have ramp mt'lcfm g. Thi~ scenario is the same as the £:0.:151 OS I ~ceDario except for rhe ex..tension of 3~1 Street (E-W Aneri_\) 10 an ">!ended 1&"' SIrOC'-Eighlccnlh Streel hIlS been upgmded 10 rour lanes and has anerial classificalion from Empire Avenue to the E-W Anerial. It is clear that the East DS1 alternative is focused on the city of Bend's Juniper Ridge development project. While ODOT elected not to opt for the East DS1 Alternative with 18th Street Extension (see above) is is definitely being considered for the future. Yet ODOT itself says that a full interchange is much more senstive to surrounding land uses and densities than a partial interchange. A partial interchange (such is being proposed by the East DS2 Alternative), is less risky per page J183, ODOr's Final Traffic Planning Technical Report, December, 2010. (See below for the actual quote: Alternath'e Comparison Across all of th~ alternative s. the difterence of a partial y te m or e rvice interchange versus a full servic type inten.:hange is minimal on e xi s ting land uses. A new north-south alterlal between Juniper Ridge and Empire Avenue needs to be constructed to support a new full interchange on 97. The combination will result in a 20 to 25 % di;:crease of volumes on US97 as some tlips will div e rt til the ni!W atterial. A full interchange is much more sensitive to s urroundin g land u C ' and dcnsitic than a partial interchange. Under a Juniper Ridge (1.500 acn::s) propo sal. East alternatives are more sensitive with a 60°/;, increase on US 97 over a We s t alternative with 30 %. This will result in a net impact to US97 of 10 to 40 % o ve r the e xisting land use s. Construction of a fiJlI interchange immediately is very risky hecau se of the unknown volume impact. so the partial half­ diamond (ramps to l from the north) should be constructed fi rs t. After the local system is expanded including the new north-sQuth arteriaL the ramp s to l/i-om the soulh could be constructed. Table 12 shows a summary oflhe s igni ficant positive. neutral and negative alternative impacts . Of particular concern to taxpayers, is that the US97 Bend North Corridor Project's traffic projections were based on outdated data inputs and assumptions that Bend's UGB expansion proposal was acknowledged by the Oregon DLCD. Specifically: • ODOT is basing its trend analysis using traffic volumes captured in 2007 • These volumes represent highway activity that corresponded with Bend's real estate boom • ODOT is using "straight line" projections to project traffic growth between 2007 and 2035 • Per OD01's own automatic traffic recorders (the data from which is online at this website) http:Uwww.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATAltsm/tvt.shtmllshtm l: o Traffic volumes have declined by between seven and 15% in the portion of the US97 corridor impacted by the project • ODOT is basing its population growth projections on 2000 US Census data and on the population growth numbers used by the City of Bend to project its 20-year land need for the Bend UGB o Population in Bend has declined by approximately 4,000 persons (5%) since 2007 • OD01's Purpose and Need statement for the US97 Bend North Corridor Project cites a need to improve safety in the US97 Corridor around Cooley Rd. and Robal Road o Analysis of OD01's safety data (for a study period ending in 2009) shows the real safety problems are at OB Riley Rd . at Empire, US20 at Robal Road, and OB Riley Rd . and US20 o Of the 7 traffic fatalities that occurred in the 6 year period in the part of US97 impacted by the project, only 1 occurred at Robal Road. There were no fatalities at Cooley Rd. o Three of the 7 fatalities occurred at least three miles north of the Cooley Rd .1 US97 intersection -much closer to the Deschutes Market Rd. interchange than to Cooley o Per the Oregon State Police report, the Robal Road fatality resulted from a medical event that caused a driver to plow into the back of a line of cars waiting for a light o During this same period of time, there were three fatalities on OB Riley Road o In fact, ODOT itself states that "the 2009 intersection • ODOT has assumed that 1,000 acres of Juniper Ridge will be included in Bend's UGB expansion o It assumed that Juniper Ridge will generate between 12 ,000 and 15,000 jobs by 2030 • ODOT considered connecting the Northern Interchange to 18th Street, which runs through the heart of Juniper Ridge. o There is ample evidence in the record that the US97 Bend North Corridor project is designed to enable Juniper Ridge o The Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization (Bend MPO) has only $40 -$42 million in its "2007 -2030" project fund • The US97 project and others aimed at promoting development at Juniper Ridge are expected to consume most or all of the Bend MPOs funding through 2030 • The transportation projects for Redmond and other Deschutes County cities will suffer from the diversion of funds to support this Juniper Ridge oriented project We encourage the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to reject OD01's projects aimed at furthering a development project associated with a local agency (the city of Bend). It is bad enough that the city of Bend has entered into the land development business. We do not need ODOT to be their partner in this speculative project . Bend's future relies on reroute . '. By David DHz and Jerry MItchell I N M Y V lEW limit the access to a 500-acre mixed BulletIn guest c.olumnists uSe . project to' a single roadway that M any members of the Bend passes through a residential neighbor- community are aware. that the There are approximately 525 acres of . hood and directly past two schools oregon Departm~nt of Trans-the Juniper Ridge property within the would be a highly dubious planning portation has recently issued a draft .Urban Growth Boilndary. Approxi-decision that coUld be seen as a fatal environlnental impact statement for mately 300 acres of the property are flaw by companies considering loeat­ OOOT's North Corridor project, which ' now zoned light industrial; the remain-. ing at Juniper Ridge. In fact;an access proposes to reroute U.S. Highway 97 in der is still zoned urban area reserve. to the Juniper Ridge property at its the north end of Bend between the Em-. The remainder urban area reserve northern boundary, with -direct access pire Avenue inte~and a point acreage is proposed to become the to Highway 97, is clearly vital to the about a .Dille north of COOley Road. . mixed-use "town center" COlilponent project's success. . . 1\vo alternatives have been prepared of Juniper Ridge. There are currently We respectful1y acknowledge the and ~died: "DS-l," which would pro-only two companies at Juniper Ridge: concerns about Ahernative DS-l that vide a full " highway interchange juSt the Les Schwab headquarters and the have been raised by the Hwmell United north of where Bowery Lane meets . Suterra headquarters and manufactur-Neighbors as well as the Cascade Vil­ Highway 97, and "DS-2," which would ing facility. Traffic impact on Cooley lage retail consortium. We agree that provide a. set of limited-access flyover Road by these two comparuesis mini-' DS-l's proposed alignment of Third ramps immediately-..east of the Des-mal. Obviously, traffic on Cooley Road .Street north of Cooley Road is intru­ . chutes Gardens cemetery. Between the williaCreaSe as Juniper Ridge grows. sive upon -the Hunnell neighborhood. . Empire interchAnge and Cooley Road, 1'be. DS-l altenlative wwld ~. and that additionalstudyGf .this .area .• :,«~~~~. . ~:~~.fo:tadditional~~tt) · . is-necessary. ~l1Btraclive' ~alOg~ i--. OPOTh&sconduetednumerouspub-~;)tidgeatthenorth ·endof.,th& taken pJace with representattves of the lie meetings to discuss this projectwitb property, which is tonsistent with the. Hu1Ulell neighborhood, out of which the cortUnunity over the ·past several City Council-approved Cooper Robert-has come a suggestion that ODOT re­ years,'and recently held an additional son Con~ptual Master Plan, This at-~the original "East 1" scheme. meeting to review the details of the cess would alleviate and balanCe traf-. We would strongly support such a step draft environmental impact statement fie growth on Cooley Road. The DS-2 by ODOT . . and to take public testimony. Based alternative precludes this opportunity, Bend's future depends on a sen­ on public input and its own analysis, and would forCe all future Juniper SIble, well-planned solution to a sig­ ODOT will soon Ii:1aIre a selection of Ridge traffic to Cooley Road.: Cooley meant transportation problem at one of the two alternatives and put Road is classified as a minor arterial in the north 'end of the city. We urge the that alternative through a final enVi-the·city's transportatiOn systemplan; community to study this issue care­ ronmental impact statement analysis, ' eventually, Cooley Road is proposed . fully; and let your voices be heard be; a process which willlikeIy.take an ad-to be extended to the east to connect to fore the public comment period ends ditional18 to 24 months. Deschutes Marl¢t Road. The roadway .Sept. 12, 2011. Information on· ~ We feel it is of vital importance that runs through a residential neighbor-North Corridor Project and the draft the community understand the criti-. hood (part of the Boyd ACres Neigh-environmental impact statement can cal nature of this decision.. There ' are borhood Association), amt .....directly be found on the project website at pros and 'COns with each of the two past the Lava Ridge/Sky View school www.us97solutions.org. alternatiVes, but the issue which we -complex. -' --'-------'------~ feel requires the most caret'ul study by It is our view (and we are speaking . ,DavId DfIz and Jeny Mitchell recentlY ODOT and the community as a whole as private citizens, not as rep~enta-served as the city ofBend's project " is acceSs toJuniper Ridge. ' . tives of the city) that the selection of executiVe Cmdstaff development '_. Cooley' Road is currently the only Alternative DS-2 will severely threat-. manager, respectively, for Juniper means of access to Juniper Ridge. en the success of Juniper Ridge/ To Ridge. .. ",1 '" .:.\0<-: ...... :'.. .. .. ,'! . " "n !lit