FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2015
THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS — 9
Local
Joint City-
County planning
tackles ODOT overlay
BY GINA K. SWARTZ
Gina@TheBakerCountyPress.com
Last Thursday evening
the planning commissions
from both the City and
the County met together
to hear information and
conduct a public hearing
concerning the proposed
Interstate Area Manage-
ment Plan (IAMP) in an
effort to get both the City
and the County working
together on this project by
developing recommenda-
tions regarding the plan.
The IAMP covers both
exits 302 and 306.
“This a new adventure
for us to do a joint com-
mission meeting so we
may have a stumble or
two. Just remember that a
little bit of laughter goes
a whole long ways,” said
Alice Trindle of the Baker
County Planning Commis-
sion.
Also in attendance were
Baker County Planning
Commissioners Suzan Ellis
Jones, Randy Joseph and
Tom Van Diepen and City
Planning Commissioners
Alan Blair, Ken Rockwell,
Tim Collins and Brandy
Bruce.
City Planning Commis-
sioners Rob Ellingson and
Aaron Still arrived after
the meeting had begun.
Trindle began the meet-
ing reading a statement
opening the public hearing
declaring that first the
committee would hear
from staff in a report they
have put together followed
by testimony and rebuttals.
The planning com-
missions will be making
recommendations to their
respective governing body,
the City Council and the
Board of Commissioners.
Staff began by addressing
the council of their staff
report and giving back-
ground.
Holly Kerns began by
stating, “This is as Alice
said, the first time we’ve
done a joint hearing and
this will be a great way to
address some of the issues
that in the plan overlap or
affect land in both Baker
City, the urban growth
boundary and the unin-
corporated areas in Baker
County.”
In 2005 an initial draft
IAMP project was put
together but never adopted.
Kerns said it was agreed
upon that “It was time to
take up the IAMP project
again and look at trying to
move this project forward
to adoption so there are
function plans in place for
both interchanges.”
The current project, a
twenty-year plan, is being
spearheaded by the City
County Planning Depart-
ment working closely with
consultants Kittleson and
Associates, Segal Planning
Services with consider-
ation of input from ODOT.
Elements of the 2005 plan
were a base for putting
together this project, how-
ever it has been updated,
expanded and revised.
Residents in the areas
affected have also been
involved and several open
houses hosted by Kittleson
and Associates have been
held encouraging discus-
sion from residents. Some
of the concerns voiced had
direct impact resulting in
changes that were already
made to the plan.
Public testimony will
continue until a final vote
for the plan is held, allow-
ing those who continue to
object to the plan to have
their voice heard.
Nick Foster from Kittle-
son and Associates present-
ed the commissions with
a presentation explaining
the process to develop the
plan, different alternatives
that were considered and
what was ultimately de-
cided upon for proposal to
the City Council and Board
of Commissioners in the
final plan that was up for
the commissions’ consid-
eration. Out of a full house
a handful of directly im-
pacted residents addressed
the Commission.
Karen Yeakley, who
lives on Hudson Road, pro-
vided the Commissioners
with a handout citing her
concerns. She also passed
around a pair of work
gloves. She said, “I am
passing around the work
gloves of my great-grand-
father who taught me work
ethic, respect for others
property and to leave this
earth better than I found it.
I have lived here 66 years
and cherish my roots and
Baker County.”
She noted money spent
on a new ODOT facility
and the realignment of
Best Frontage Road as be-
ing of concern.
She enlightened the
commission with further
suggestions citing that the
land in question was rural
ranching land, a vital part
of the Baker County way
of life that needed to be
valued. “We live in a flood
zone and up until this very
dry year the wetlands sup-
ported much wildlife,” she
said.
She continued to point
out that agriculture was
a main way of life in the
study area. Noting her
handout she reiterated that
suggestions in the plan
were only her suggestions
that she felt needed to be
on record because those
involved in the future
might need to know what
the intent in the plan was
because as she said, “I’m
not going to be here in
twenty years.”
She also questioned time
frames for things such
as funding and the lack,
she felt, of public notices
before the open houses.
Other residents that
spoke in opposition were
Charles Swinyer who was
concerned about the lack
of cattle guards on the on
ramps from the highway
to I-84 as well as drivers
unfamiliar with the area
speeding. He said, “There
has been a time or two they
come off that ramp and
they’ve been running 70-
75 or better, and I pert near
got sideswiped. They don’t
slow down, somebody is
going to get killed. I just
hope it ain’t me.”
John Leonard spoke
next saying “I’m going
to do everything I can to
fight this— it just ruins
our place. Just bring me
$500,000 and I’ll move
away.”
Christine Gyllenberg
had questions regarding
who set up the interstate
management study area
indicating that boundary
lines were different for
the same area on different
documents.
Nick Foster addressed
that concern telling her,
“The interchange man-
agement study area was
developed early on in the
project with the City and
the County. As part of the
processes and plans you
look at all properties that
if they were to re develop
could potentially impact
the function of the inter-
Gina K. Swartz / The Baker County Press
Karen Yeakley testifies in front of the City and County Planning Commissions.
change.” She also ques-
tioned who paid for traffic
impact studies should
properties be developed,
to which she was informed
the person developing the
property would be respon-
sible for that.
Greg Sackos expressed
his concern to the Commit-
tee stating he had just re-
ceived the information that
morning and questioned
the record remaining open
so he may comment once
he has had the opportunity
to review the material and
the procedure for com-
menting.
Kerns told Sackos that
a recommendation by the
Planning Commission to
City Council and the Board
of Commissioners would
be given but that would not
be the final hearing on the
matter.
Sackos also noted that
he failed to receive any
notice of previous open
house meetings despite
close working relationships
with Michelle Owen, City
Public Works Director and
ODOT.
After all Public Com-
ment was heard, which
included worries over
the influence ODO may
have in the future granting
them too much power in
decision making being of
grave concern for many,
the commission took a
short break before mov-
ing into deliberations and
deciding on whether or not
recommendations would
be made.
“We need to take a look
as to whether we can move
through deliberations
tonight to be able to have
findings so that we can
make recommendations to
the City Council and the
Board of Commissioners,”
Alice Trindle explained to
her fellow Commissioners.
They had three points
that needed voted on, the
first for discussion topic
was recommended amend-
ments to the comprehen-
sive plans, development
codes and zoning maps
specific to Baker City and
Baker County. Testimony
from the public had shown
concern for some of the
changes proposed.
Kerns offered some
wording changes to accom-
modate concerns that had
been raised as simple fixes
to clarify some misun-
derstandings between the
residents had with regards
to interchange functions.
Another wording miscon-
ception that was causing
some issue that needed to
be addressed was that an
ODOT facility referred to
a highway or road, it was
noted this needed to be
clarified to avoid further
confusion.
Tim Collins said, “As
I understand it the City’s
comprehensive plan
change would be a state-
ment that the IAMP for
both interchanges would
serve as the long range
comprehensive manage-
ment plan for providing the
transportation facilities and
are specifically related to
planning changes.”
Collins went on to say
that the plan in front
of them did not impact
Hudson Lane, which they
had heard testimony on,
and did Impact Lindley
Lane for which they had
heard no testimony on
and he recognized that
any development in the
area was very far into the
future therefore he had “no
trouble moving that the
City Planning Commis-
sion move forward with
a recommendation to the
City Council that the staff
proposed changes to the
transportation section of
the comprehensive plan be
adopted.”
Brandy Bruce made a
second to Collins motion
with the City Planning
Commission voting to
unanimously approve the
motion.
“That takes care of the
City part of the transporta-
tion plan,” said Alan Blair.
The County Planning
Commission discussed in
more detail the plan before
them taking issue with
several points.
Randy Joseph did move
that the Commission
recommend to the County
Commissioners amend-
ment of the transportation
systems plan including
amending the comprehen-
sive plan map and zone
maps and amendment of
the development code.
Trindle made a second
and called for further
discussion.
“One of the things I
would like to see, that
came up in testimony,
is before we adopt is
ODOT’s exact wording—
the of ‘the county shall’
seemed to really grate on
a lot of the people testify-
ing,” commented Suzan
Ellis Jones.
She asked if changing
the wording to say ‘may’
rather than shall as that
word indicated a manda-
tory requirement, was a
possibility in order to ad-
dress the concerns of those
who had testified.
Kerns acknowledged that
could be done if it was the
recommendation of the
commission.
Joseph disagreed with
Jones and said, “This is
like notifying land owners,
so shall is not incorrect
wording for an invitation
to participate and it is my
understanding. If there
is any access onto State
Highways ODOT has to
be at the table, staff correct
me if I am wrong.”
Kerns stated that was
correct. After further dis-
cussion regarding ODOT
and their role in the plan
Trindle, in an effort to
move things along and
wrap up the meeting said,
“There is a motion on the
table.” With all commis-
sioners agreeing to that
motion except Jones, the
motion carried.
Both the City and County
Planning commissions
agreed to propose to City
Council and the Board of
Commissioners adoption
of this plan.
More hearings will be
scheduled before a final
votes are rendered by both
entities.
Apply now for Fire Department to give away
chain-up
free smoke detectors
helper permits
BY GINA K. SWARTZ
Gina@TheBakerCountyPress.com
The Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT)
will issue permits for
individuals interested in
chaining up commercial
vehicles during the winter
months along specific
sections of Interstate 84 in
eastern Oregon.
This year the ODOT Dis-
trict 12 office in Pendleton
will issue five permits
for I-84 in the Umatilla
County area; the District
13 office in La Grande will
issue three permits for the
I-84 Ladd Canyon area
in Union County; and the
District 14 office in O -
tario will issue one permit
for I-84 west of Ontario in
Malheur County. Interested
parties need to contact the
appropriate ODOT district
office (see contact info -
mation below) between
October 1 and October
31. Random drawings
held November 2 at each
ODOT office will dete -
mine who will be offered
the ODOT permits.
In addition to the permits
issued by ODOT, the
Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reserva-
tion will also issue some
permits for the Uma-
tilla County area to Tribal
members.
October 4 – October 10
is National Fire Prevention
Week.
To help spread aware-
ness, the Baker City Fire
Department will be making
available free smoke detec-
tors as part of this year’s
campaign.
According to Baker City
Fire Chief Mark John, “We
are not only giving them
out, we are installing them
as well.”
The smoke detectors
were made available
through The State Fire
Marshall’s Office.
The program that makes
the smoke detectors avail-
able has been “ongoing
for some time,” said John.
“We just reapplied and
were selected to partici-
pate. We will receive 100
smoke alarms to give out
and if we go through 100
of them we will resubmit
to the Fire Marshall’s of-
fice for more.”
That program will kick
off on Monday, October 4
to run in conjunction with
National Fire Prevention
Week.
The National Fire Pro-
tection Association (NFPA)
has been doing fire preve -
tion week for decades.
Advised John, “I don’t
remember exactly when
they began, but maybe
early 1900s.”
NFPA was in fact
founded in 1896 and is a
global, nonprofit o ganiza-
tion devoted to eliminating
death, injury and property
and economic loss due to
fire.
John says there has been
a slogan for prevention
week every year like the
famous “Learn Not to
Burn” slogan.
This year the slogan is
“Hear the Beep Where You
Sleep.”
“Every bedroom needs
a working smoke alarm,”
John warned. “Having a
smoke alarm can reduce
the risk of a fatality by
50%. Coming into the
cooler weather season is
a good time too because
we’ve got people that start
firing up stoves, furnaces,
and space heaters.”
John said that in refer-
ence to fires starting with
space heaters, “It is not
so much them getting
knocked over as something
getting inadvertently set
against it.”
Anyone needing or
wanting an alarm is urged
call the department at
541.523.3711 or to go
the City Fire Department
located at 1616 2nd Street
to receive those alarms.
The Department will
schedule a time also that
they can come to your
home and install those
detectors free of charge.