Page 1 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF YAMHILL


IN THE MATTER OF Consideration of

)
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Including
)
FINDING OF FACTS AND
Exceptions to Goals 3, 11 and 14, to Allow
)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
the Siting of the Newberg-Dundee Bypass
)
and East Dundee Interchange.


)


Following public notice, this matter came before the Yamhill County Planning
Commission (“Planning Commission”) and the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners
(“Board”) for a work session on June 17, 2004, and for public hearings on June 24, 2004
and July 22, 2004. Following July 22, 2004, the record was held open until August 6,
2004 for the submittal of new evidence and testimony, and thereafter held open for
submittal of rebuttal testimony. On September 9, 2004, the Planning Commission
deliberated on the matter and voted to recommend that the Board approve exceptions to
Statewide Planning Goals 3, 11 and 14 to authorize the Newberg Dundee Bypass and the
East Dundee Interchange. This matter then came before the Board on September 23 and
30, 2004, for final deliberation and decision-making.


Having carefully considered the testimony and evidence that was offered into the
hearing record and accepted by the Planning Commission and the Board, and having
carefully considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the
application, the Board makes and adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions of
law in support of its decision on the application.

A.
General Findings

1.
This legislative matter is before Yamhill County upon application initiated by the
Yamhill County Department of Planning And Development at the request of the Oregon
Department of Transportation (“ODOT”). ODOT is requesting Yamhill County adoption
of amendments to the Yamhill County Comprehensive Plan and to the Yamhill County
Transportation System Plan (“TSP”) that would allow ODOT to design and construct (1)
the Newberg-Dundee Bypass (“Bypass”), including its terminal interchanges connecting
the Bypass to Oregon 99W east of Newberg and to Oregon 99W and Oregon 18 north of
Dayton, and (2) the East Dundee Interchange, including a new road connecting the
Bypass to Oregon 99W. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments include
exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3 (Agricultural Lands), 11 (Public Facilities and
Services) and 14 (Urbanization).

2.
The proposed Bypass would be a new four-lane, limited access highway
beginning east of Newberg, near the western bottom area of Rex Hill, and terminating
near the existing intersection of Oregon 99W and Oregon 18 (commonly called
“McDougal Corner”) north of the City of Dayton. Some portions of the Bypass would be
located on rural lands, while others would be located on urban or urbanizable lands inside
Page 2 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
the urban growth boundaries (UGBs) of Newberg and Dundee. Those portions of the
Bypass located inside urban areas do not require goal exceptions. Indeed, Newberg and
Dundee already allow for the Bypass in their local TSPs. However, the portions located
on rural lands east of Newberg, between Newberg and Dundee and west of Dundee all
require goal exceptions. These portions include the terminal interchanges east of
Newberg and near Dayton.

3.
During its consideration of exceptions authorizing the Bypass and the East
Dundee Interchange, the Board also considered and approved the adoption of (1) new
comprehensive plan policies associated with development of the Bypass and the East
Dundee Interchange; (2) an Interchange Area Overlay Zone, which is a new land use
regulation that would regulate uses on unincorporated lands located in the vicinity of the
proposed Bypass interchanges, and (3) amendments to the Yamhill County Zoning Map
to apply the Interchange Area Overlay Zone to the areas regulated by that overlay zone.
The adopted comprehensive plan policies include policies to protect the identified
functions of the Bypass to serve statewide and regional traffic by limiting permitted
development near interchanges, as well as policies to protect nearby rural and resource
lands from urban pressures that may result from development of a new limited access
facility in the area. Separate ordinances and findings were prepared for and adopted by
the Board for the comprehensive plan and zoning amendments referenced in this
paragraph. The Board takes official notice of those ordinances and their supporting
findings. Because those ordinances and findings also have relevance to the standards
governing the adoption of the goal exceptions for the Bypass and the East Dundee
Interchange, the Board incorporates them herein by this reference.

4.
The Bypass and the East Dundee Interchange (together, “the Bypass Project”) are
components of a larger project known as the Newberg-Dundee Transportation
Improvement Project (“NDTIP”). Other NDTIP components include improvements to
other parts of Oregon 99W; improvements to local street systems not addressed by the
Bypass Project; and an “Alternative Modes and Land Use” program aimed at reducing
the number of vehicles traveling along the Oregon 99W/Bypass corridor. These other
components are not part of the current proceeding before the County, and they are not
authorized by this decision. Planning for these other components is expected to occur
over the next few years, when the Bypass Project enters its “design” phase. ODOT has
entered into Intergovernmental Agreements (“IGAs”) with Yamhill County and with the
cities of Dayton, Dundee and Newberg which outline the planning process for the
completion of the Design Environmental Impact Statement during the design phase of the
project. As these IGAs also have relevance to the current proceeding, the Board takes
official notice of them and incorporates them by reference herein.

5.
Consistent with the Land Conservation and Development Commission’s
Transportation Planning Rule (“TPR”), set out at Oregon Administrative Rules (“OAR”)
Chapter 660, Division 12, the proposed exceptions to Goals 3, 11 and 14 address and
establish the need, mode, function and general location (which is specified as a corridor)
for the Bypass and the East Dundee Interchange. Later, during the design phase of the
Page 3 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
Bypass Project, ODOT will determine the precise alignment for the Bypass and the East
Dundee Interchange.


Also during the design phase, ODOT will determine the location of supporting
roadways, crossing roadways and interchange connections and identify modifications or
improvements to existing elements of the local street network that are necessary to
support the Bypass function or to achieve compliance with regulatory standards. Some of
the road network modifications and improvements may require additional local land use
decision-making, which would take place prior to the issuance of a final Design
Environmental Impact Statement.


ODOT also will consider and determine appropriate mitigation measures during
the design phase, including mitigation of impacts to riparian resources and wildlife
habitat. These mitigation measures will address the requirements established by the
Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (“CETAS”)
Record of Agreement/Consensus for the Newberg-Dundee Transportation Improvement
Project (hereinafter “CETAS Record”), dated February 2, 2004 and located at Volume 7,
pages 86-98 of the ODOT Supporting Documentation, which the Board incorporates into
these findings by this reference. The Board finds that final determination of measures to
mitigate impacts to natural resources will require additional land use decision-making by
Yamhill County. Only after ODOT has completed the design phase of the Bypass Project
can ODOT go forward with construction of the Bypass and East Dundee Interchange.

6.
As provided for in the Oregon Highway Plan (“OHP”), which is the highway
element of ODOT’s transportation system plan required by OAR 660-012-0015(1), the
Bypass would function as a “Statewide Highway”, an “Expressway” and a “freight
route.” See OHP Policies 1C and 1H and Appendix D. Under OAR 660-012-0015(2)(a),
county TSPs must be consistent with adopted elements of the State TSP. For reasons
discussed throughout these findings, the Board finds that the Bypass Project is consistent
with ODOT’s adopted OHP.


As defined in OHP Action 1A.1, the primary function of a Statewide Highway is
to provide inter-urban and inter-regional mobility and provide connections to larger urban
areas, ports and major recreation areas that are not directly served by Interstate
Highways. A secondary function is to provide connections for intra-urban and intra-
regional trips. The management objective of statewide highways is “to provide safe and
efficient, high-speed, continuous-flow operation” in urban and rural areas, with minimal
interruptions to flow in urban areas. See OHP 1A.1. As a Statewide Highway, the
Bypass would take over the function that existing Oregon 99W currently provides from
east of Brutscher Road to the intersection of Oregon 99W and Oregon 18 (McDougal
Corner). Existing Oregon 99W connects the Newberg-Dundee urban area with the
Portland metropolitan area to the northeast and with McMinnville and the Oregon coast
to the west and south. It is a primary route for tourist traffic between the Willamette
Valley and Oregon coastal communities. It also provides the Portland metropolitan area
with access to Spirit Mountain Casino and to the wineries of Yamhill County.

Page 4 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)

Expressways are a subset of Statewide Highways. As defined in OHP Action
1A.2, Expressways “provide for safe and efficient high-speed and high volume traffic
movements.” Their primary function is to provide for interurban travel and connections
to ports and major recreational areas with minimal interruptions. A secondary function is
to provide for long distance intra-urban travel in metropolitan areas. The Board finds that
an Expressway designation for the Bypass is consistent with and, indeed, mandated by
the OHP Bypass Policy (1H) and Action 1H.2, which directs ODOT to design new
bypasses “for moderate to high speeds at freeway or Expressway standards for regional
and statewide traffic.” The Board also finds that as an Expressway, the Bypass would
provide for safe and efficient moderate to high-speed and high volume traffic movements
from Newberg to Dayton and beyond. Indeed, with the Bypass, an Expressway
designation will extend continuously along Oregon 99W for approximately 45 miles from
Rex Hill to the Van Duzer Forest Corridor.


The State Highway Freight System is intended to facilitate interstate, intrastate
and regional movements of trucks. As described in OHP Policy 1C, it is state policy to
recognize the importance of maintaining efficient through movement of goods on major
truck routes, which include Oregon 99W. OHP findings regarding freight indicate that
freight depends upon timely and dependable movement of goods over the system, and
also that highway efficiency for goods movement in an expanding economy requires
investments in infrastructure to reduce congestion on freight routes. OHP Action 1C.4
directs ODOT to consider the importance of timeliness in freight movements in
developing and implementing plans and projects on freight routes. OHP Action 1C.3
establishes a preference to treat designated freight routes as Expressways both outside of
and within urban growth boundaries. The Board finds that the Bypass, which would be
built to Expressway standards and which would serve statewide and regional traffic, will
facilitate the timely and efficient movement of goods to and through the Newberg-
Dundee area. Indeed, the Board heard significant credible testimony in support of the
Bypass from businesses extending from Newberg to McMinnville confirming a very
serious need to improve freight mobility along the Oregon 99W corridor in order for their
businesses to remain competitive and successful.

7.
As interpreted by the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(“DLCD”), the TPR requires separate and independent justification, in the form of goal
exceptions, for intermediate interchanges proposed to be located along limited access
highways in rural areas. Accordingly, the East Dundee Interchange, including the
roadway connecting that interchange to existing Oregon 99W, requires separate goal
exceptions under the TPR. However, the Oregon 219 Interchange does not require goal
exceptions because ODOT is proposing to locate it entirely within the City of Newberg’s
UGB. If, at some future time, ODOT should determine that some or all of the Oregon
219 Interchange needs to be located on rural lands, goal exceptions then would be
required to justify its location on rural lands.

8.
The criteria applicable to the plan amendments authorizing the Bypass and East
Dundee Interchange are set out in ORS 215.283(3)(a), ORS 197.732, OAR 660 Division
4, OAR 660 Division 12 (the TPR), the Statewide Planning Goals, the Yamhill County
Page 5 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan, the Yamhill County Zoning
Ordinance, and the OHP. ODOT’s “Findings of Fact and Statement of Reasons in
Support of Exceptions to Goals 3, 11 and 14” (hereinafter the “Exceptions Document”)
identifies the specific standards within these authorities that are relevant to the Bypass
Project. Except as noted otherwise in these findings, the Board finds and concludes that
the standards identified and addressed in ODOT’s Exceptions Document are the only
standards that apply to the Bypass Project.

9.
The Exceptions Document contains detailed findings of fact and reasons
supporting exceptions to Goals 3, 11 and 14 and explaining how the Bypass Project
complies with the Oregon Highway Plan, the Yamhill County Comprehensive Plan and
all other applicable review standards. Except as expressly noted otherwise in these
findings, the Board finds ODOT’s analysis of compliance with the applicable standards
in its Exceptions Document to be credible, thorough, persuasive and correct.
Accordingly, with the exceptions noted, the Board adopts as its own and incorporates
herein in its entirety by this reference, the facts and analysis of compliance with
applicable standards set out in ODOT’s Exceptions Document.


An “Errata Sheet” submitted into the record by ODOT and dated July 22, 2004,
indicates that the land use designations on pages 9 and 16 of the Exceptions Document
incorrectly label as “rural residential” some lands that are zoned for exclusive farm use.
The Board accepts the corrections set out in ODOT’s Errata Sheet regarding the
designations of these lands and incorporates them into the Exceptions Document by this
reference.


ODOT’s “Errata Sheet” also indicates that the Oregon Transportation
Commission amended OHP Policy 1B in January, 2004, but that the Exceptions
Document addresses former Policy 1B instead. The Errata Sheet sets out new findings
addressing compliance with the amended Policy 1B. The Board accepts and agrees with
ODOT’s analysis of compliance with the amended Policy 1B as set out in ODOT’s Errata
Sheet, and it incorporates that analysis into the Exceptions Document by this reference.
The Board incorporates the new findings in the form of a supplement to the discussion of
former Policy 1B because it finds that the discussion of former Policy 1B has some
continuing relevance. To the extent that the two sets of findings may conflict, the Board
finds that the discussion of compliance with amended Policy 1B will control.


Finally, the Errata Sheet expands on a footnote in the Exceptions Document to
explain how ODOT determined adverse impacts. The footnote indicates, and the Board
finds, that ODOT applied a factor of 0.6 to each build alternative corridor to determine
adverse impacts, because the bypass’s actual footprint would only require about 60
percent of the area with any of those corridors. The Board finds that ODOT’s application
of this factor presents a more realistic determination of actual impacts, since
approximately 40 percent of the land within the proposed Bypass corridor will not be
developed, and it incorporates this revised footnote into the Exceptions Document by this
reference.

Page 6 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
10.
During the course of the public hearings, a great deal of testimony was provided
both in support of and against the Bypass Project. Much of the testimony focused on
existing and future traffic congestion in the region, impacts to businesses operations and
to the region’s ability to retain and attract new businesses, impacts to agricultural lands
and farm operations, impacts to community livability, and possible alternatives to the
Bypass and the East Dundee Interchange. Some of the evidence presented was
conflicting.


Having considered the evidence and testimony carefully, the Board finds the
evidence and testimony provided by ODOT and its consultants, including ODOT’s prime
consultants (Parametrix Inc. and URS Corporation) and ODOT’s sub-consultants
(Kittelson and Associates, Inc., Geodatascape, Inc., Dorman and Associates and Mark
Greenfield), to be more thorough and comprehensive and more credible and persuasive
on the matters raised by the applicable review standards than the evidence and testimony
submitted by opponents to the Bypass Project. This includes, but is not limited to, the
testimony of ODOT and its consultants regarding existing and anticipated traffic volumes
and traffic impacts; traffic engineering and operational feasibility issues; land use
impacts; impacts to agricultural lands; consistency with TPR, OHP, County
Comprehensive Plan and statewide planning goal standards; the need for the Bypass and
the East Dundee Interchange; and whether or not alternative locations or methods not
requiring goal exceptions can reasonably accommodate the identified transportation
needs.


Accordingly, the Board also adopts as its own findings of fact and reasons, and
incorporates by reference in their entirety herein, the facts and analysis set out in (1)
ODOT’s rebuttal to opponent testimony entitled “ODOT Responses to Opponents’
Questions and Comments” dated July 22, 2004 (hereinafter “ODOT Responses
Document”); (2) a letter from Bonnie Heitsch, Oregon Department of Justice to the
Yamhill County Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission dated August 6,
2004 (hereinafter the “Heitsch letter”); and (3) a letter from Bonnie Heitsch to the
Yamhill County Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission dated August 27,
2004 (hereinafter “Heitsch rebuttal letter”). The Board also believes and relies on the
facts and reasoning set out in the supporting reports and memoranda prepared by ODOT
or its consultants or relied on by ODOT that are expressly identified in the Exceptions
Document, the ODOT Responses Document, the Heitsch letter, the Heitsch rebuttal letter
or these findings.

B.
Exceptions Justifying the Newberg-Dundee Bypass

1.
Based on the facts and reasons set out below and in ODOT’s Exceptions
Document, the Board concludes that a transportation need for the Newberg-Dundee
Bypass exists that is statewide, regional and local. The Bypass is needed to
accommodate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods around and through
the Newberg-Dundee region and between the Newberg-Dundee region and other regions
of the state. The Bypass also is needed to remove unacceptably high levels of congestion
on existing Oregon 99W (exceeding 1.0 volume to capacity in both Newberg and Dundee
Page 7 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
by the year 2025 under no-build conditions), thereby freeing up capacity on that highway
to serve local and regional transportation movements.

2.
Oregon 99W presently serves as both a Statewide Highway/Freight Route and as
the “main street” for Newberg and Dundee. The highway connects Newberg and Dundee
to the Portland metropolitan region, McMinnville, the Oregon coast (via Oregon 18) and
other areas. Oregon 99W is a primary route for tourist traffic between the Willamette
Valley and Oregon coastal communities. It provides the Portland area with access to
Spirit Mountain Casino, which is currently the number one tourist destination in Oregon
with an estimated 3.3 million visitors in 2002, and to the wineries of Yamhill County.
Weekday commuters use Oregon 99W to travel between the Newberg-Dundee urban area
and McMinnville and between Yamhill County and the Portland metropolitan area.
Trucks use Oregon 99W to haul freight to and through this region.

3.
Over the past decade, traffic on Oregon 99W in downtown Newberg and Dundee
has increased by approximately 40 percent. On both weekdays and weekends, lines of
vehicles often stretch along the highway for more than a mile in both directions from the
intersection of Oregon 99W and 5th Street in Dundee, where Oregon 99W has just one
travel lane in each direction. This level of congestion already exceeds ODOT’s peak
hour volume to capacity (“v/c”) performance standard for Statewide Highways that are
also freight routes, which is 0.75 v/c inside urban growth boundaries and 0.70 v/c on rural
lands.


Traffic estimates indicate that 20 years from now, this congestion will get much
worse. By the year 2025, with some local road improvements but no bypass, average
daily vehicle trips on Oregon 99W in downtown Newberg are expected to increase by
another 40 percent, from approximately 40,000 vehicle trips to an estimated 56,000
vehicle trips. In downtown Dundee, average daily vehicle trips are expected to increase
by nearly 50 percent, from approximately 32,000 today to an estimated 47,000 vehicle
trips in 2025.


By 2025, ODOT projects that downtown Dundee and Newberg will experience,
respectively, 14 and 15 hours of congestion per day, during which traffic volumes would
exceed ODOT’s performance standard for a statewide highway/freight route. The Board
believes these estimates and so finds. It further finds that under a no-build scenario, it
would take more than 40 minutes to drive the approximately 11 mile distance from the
Rex Hill area immediately east of Newberg to McDougal Corner near Dayton, compared
with 12-15 minutes with the Bypass. Such high levels of congestion would have adverse
economic impacts (through delay, reduced movement of people and goods, reduced
accessibility to businesses and markets, etc.), social impacts (increased noise, increased
air pollution, reduced community cohesion, etc.) and safety impacts (increased potential
for crashes, reduced ability to provide emergency services or to handle emergency
evacuations in a timely manner). The Board concludes from these findings that such
impacts would cause significant harm to the economic, social and environmental health
and welfare of the region and would significantly reduce the region’s overall quality of
life.
Page 8 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)

4.
For reasons stated in the Exceptions Document, the Board finds that the Bypass is
needed to provide significant congestion relief to travelers along existing Oregon 99W
and to improve the movement of people and goods for all users in the Oregon 99W
corridor. It is needed to accommodate substantial volumes of recreational traffic
traveling between the Portland metropolitan area and the central Oregon coast, the Spirit
Mountain Casino and Yamhill County wineries. It is needed to accommodate business
and freight traffic traveling between the coast, McMinnville, the Newberg-Dundee urban
area and the Portland area and I-5 corridor. It is needed to facilitate and improve the
safety of local traffic and pedestrian movements within the Newberg-Dundee urban area.
It is needed to maintain and improve the attractiveness of Newberg and Dundee as places
to do business and to retain existing businesses located in and around Newberg, Dundee
and McMinnville. By removing approximately 25,000 anticipated year 2025 daily
statewide and regional trips from existing Oregon 99W in Newberg and (with the East
Dundee Interchange) approximately 38,000 daily statewide and regional trips from
existing Oregon 99W in Dundee, the Bypass would free up existing Oregon 99W to serve
local and remaining regional trips. With this reduction in statewide and regional traffic
volumes, the year 2025 volume to capacity ratio on existing Oregon 99W would be
reduced to a level that would then meet city, county and ODOT roadway performance
standards for arterial highway facilities.

5.
The Board heard no testimony contradicting ODOT’s assertions that congestion is
a very serious problem impacting statewide, regional and local travel within the existing
Oregon 99W corridor. Indeed, even opponents of the proposed Bypass acknowledged
that the transportation problems the region is experiencing are real and demand attention.
Testimony from these opponents instead focused on resolving this serious problem by
using alternatives to a bypass or by locating a bypass within a different corridor than the
one recommended for adoption. For reasons set out below, the Board believes that the
identified transportation need can reasonably be accommodated only by a bypass. The
Board further believes that the public testimony and the whole record very strongly
support ODOT’s identified need for the Bypass to serve anticipated statewide, regional
and local traffic volumes to the year 2025.


The Board heard compelling testimony regarding the need for the Bypass from
the leaders of municipal governments located along the Oregon 99W corridor in Yamhill
County. Dave Haugeberg, speaking on behalf of Mayor Stewart of Newberg, testified
that much like McMinnville has done, Newberg would like to develop an attractive
downtown. However, this goal is thwarted by tens of thousands of trucks and cars that
pass through Newberg’s downtown every day. Mr. Haugeberg stated that during peak
traffic hours, a semi-truck passes by City Hall on Oregon 99W every ten seconds, making
it very difficult for Newberg to attract businesses to the city’s downtown. He said that
this traffic is pedestrian and shopper unfriendly, creates noise and pollution, and poses
safety concerns both for people crossing streets and for emergency response vehicles.
The Board agrees with this testimony and so finds. Indeed, the Board finds that by 2025,
under a No-Build scenario, downtown Newberg would experience 2200 daily freight trips
Page 9 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
traveling eastbound and another 2200 daily freight trips traveling westbound, while
Dundee would experience 3700 daily freight trips through its downtown.


Similarly, Mayor Windish of Dayton testified that traffic at the intersection of
Oregon 99W and Oregon 18 has been a nightmare for years and that the Bypass is needed
to benefit Dayton’s economy. Mayor Gormley of McMinnville testified that difficulties
in getting products into the city or to market due to the heavy congestion along Oregon
99W has seriously impeded efforts to attract new businesses and family wages jobs to
McMinnville. Mayor Gormley stated that transportation is key to many industries and to
many manufacturing processes; that congestion on Oregon 99W has forced companies to
leave the McMinnville area and take high paying jobs with them; and that loss of
businesses is bad for McMinnville and Yamhill County. Mayor Worrall of Dundee
testified that widening Oregon 99W to five lanes in Dundee would “destroy Dundee” by
removing at least half of the businesses in the city’s downtown and creating a 300 foot
wide dead zone extending from Oregon 99W to the south side of the railroad tracks
paralleling Oregon 99W because there is inadequate space to build businesses there.
Mayor Worrall introduced letters from the proprietors of Rex Hill Vineyards, Sokol
Blosser Winery, and Lange Winery stating respectively that the Bypass needs to become
a reality, that congestion on Oregon 99W adversely affects safety and tourism, and that
the cost impact associated with delay on Oregon 99W is costing them time and money
and endangering their business. The Board believes and agrees with all of this testimony
and it so finds.


Numerous Yamhill County business owners or representatives provided similar
testimony to the Board. For example, Rosemari Davis, who is the CEO of Willamette
Valley Medical Center in McMinnville, testified that in just 10 years the hospital
emergency room volume has increased from 6000 (what?? Patients? Visits?) a year to
over 20,000 a year, with motor vehicle accidents accounting for much of the overall
volume. She emphasized that the Bypass would reduce the accident rate within the
corridor by “big numbers.” She added that anticipated growth in congestion along the
Oregon 99W corridor could have very serious adverse health effects because Willamette
Valley Hospital ships out its thoracic surgery and multiple trauma cases and does so
mostly by ground transport. Kurt Zetzsche, who is president of Cascade Steel Rolling
Mills in McMinnville, testified that his company ships about 1200 to 1400 trucks of
finished product a month and receives 250 to 300 shipments of materials each month that
enable the company to produce steel. He said it is becoming very difficult for his
company to compete in the market because of the delays associated with transporting
goods and materials. Indeed, Mr. Zetzsche told the Board that if he had to choose a
location for his plant today, he would select a location along the I-5 corridor rather than
McMinnville. He said it is imperative that a timely and efficient transportation
connection be provided between McMinnville and the I-5 corridor. Willy Lunn,
representing Argyle Winery in Dundee, testified that if Argyle Winery is forced to
relocate, it will relocate outside of Yamhill County. And Sean Carlton, the national
brand manager for Archery Summit in Dundee, stated that his company’s financial
success is tied directly to retail sales in Oregon and that congestion in Dundee will keep
customers away if it requires 20 minutes for people to travel 1.2 miles. The Board finds
Page 10 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
all of these people to be credible witnesses, and it agrees with and accepts as fact the
statements that they made.

6.
The Exceptions Document sets out thresholds for determining whether
alternatives to the Bypass (and to the East Dundee Interchange) that do not require goal
exceptions can “reasonably accommodate” the identified transportation need. Identified
thresholds include operational feasibility and minimum transportation performance; cost;
economic displacements, community livability and consistency with local adopted TSP
and community vision statements; safety; and compliance with Oregon Highway Plan
requirements.


The Board finds that these thresholds are reasonable and appropriate for the
reasons set out in the Exceptions Document and below. In so finding, the Board takes
particular notice of the fact that the OHP and the goals, policies and standards contained
therein constitute the modal system plan for highways prepared and adopted by ODOT
pursuant to OAR 660-012-0015(1) and OAR 731-015-0055. As such, the OHP,
including its goals, policies and standards (including the maximum volume to capacity
ratios contained in Table 6 of the OHP), as well as ODOT’s interpretation of the OHP
and its provisions, warrants considerable weight by the Board and is an appropriate
threshold to determine reasonableness pursuant to OAR 660-012-0070(6).


The Board expressly endorses the minimum performance threshold set out in the
Exceptions Document, for the reasons stated therein. Further, because the OHP
designates Oregon 99W as a Statewide highway and freight route, and because the
identified transportation need is to serve statewide and regional traffic and freight
movement and to separate this traffic from local traffic, the Board believes and finds that
non-exception alternatives, in order to be considered reasonable, must be consistent with
the functions and management objectives of Statewide Highways and freight routes as
identified in the 1999 OHP and described in Paragraph A.6 above. The Board concludes
that alternatives that are inconsistent with these policies or are incapable of achieving
these functions and management objectives will be deemed incapable of reasonably
accommodating the identified transportation need.


The Board expressly agrees with ODOT as to its justification for using economic
displacements, community livability and consistency with local adopted TSPs and
community vision statements as a threshold. As applied by ODOT to the East Dundee
Interchange, this threshold considers whether an alternative not requiring exceptions
would have unduly adverse effects on the City of Dundee in terms of economic
dislocations; Dundee’s existing and future economic viability, vitality and attractiveness;
Dundee’s outward appearance; development of a pedestrian friendly city environment
within Dundee; and the city’s ability to achieve a reasonable vision for future growth and
development consistent with standards in the city’s comprehensive plan and TSP. The
Board finds that this threshold is appropriately based upon acknowledged policies in
Dundee’s comprehensive plan and TSP. It further finds that ODOT has developed a
reasonably objective measure for determining compliance with this threshold that is
Page 11 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
consistent not only with Dundee comprehensive plan and TSP policies but also with a
community’s right to determine its desired urban form.


The Exceptions Document does not address in detail how cost would be used as a
threshold. In its testimony to the Board and Planning Commission, ODOT opined that
for alternatives to the Bypass corridor not requiring goal exceptions, cost should be
considered in determining their reasonableness but not relied on by itself to eliminate any
alternative. This is because a corridor study covering a very large geographic area, such
as that performed here by ODOT under the National Environmental Policy Act, does not
provide sufficiently detailed information at a site-specific level based on a conceptual
design of the roadway to determine costs with any significant degree of accuracy. The
Board agrees with ODOT and concludes that for non-exception alternatives to the
recommended Bypass corridor, cost should not be a controlling factor in determining
their reasonableness. Further, because cost estimates provided at a corridor level of
analysis (called ‘planning estimates’ by ODOT) are based on unit costs of questionable
accuracy, given the reduced level of site-specific analysis, the Board finds that cost
should enter into the equation only if the Board first determines that non-exception
alternatives can otherwise reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need
when measured against the other identified thresholds.


With respect to alternatives to the East Dundee Interchange that do not require
goal exceptions, ODOT testified that more reliable cost information is available because
these alternatives cover a much smaller area and because ODOT engaged in conceptual
design closer to that associated with a Design Environmental Impact Statement. Still,
ODOT stated that these cost estimates remain preliminary -- for approximate comparison
purposes only -- in the absence of design level engineering beyond the concept level, and
the Board so finds. In line with this level of accuracy, ODOT suggested that an East
Dundee Interchange alternative estimated to cost double or more the estimated cost of the
East Dundee Interchange would seem unreasonable because the excessive cost would be
an inefficient use of public funds. In the absence of very significant mitigating factors,
such as preservation of substantially more acres of agricultural land, the Board agrees
with ODOT’s suggestion.


Because the record does not demonstrate any such significant mitigating factors
associated with the non-exception alternatives that were presented to the Board, the
Board concludes that when an alternative would cost approximately double or greater the
cost of the East Dundee Interchange, that fact reflects poorly on the reasonableness of
that alternative to meet the identified transportation need. Still, as with Bypass corridor
alternatives, the Board finds that cost should not be the sole basis for eliminating any
non-exception alternative. The Board also finds that it is appropriate to consider and
compare the costs of the East Dundee Interchange and its non-exception alternatives
separate and apart from the costs associated with the larger Bypass corridor because the
TPR requires that the East Dundee Interchange be justified as an independent
transportation facility through its own separate goal exceptions.

Page 12 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)

Another factor that the Board finds relevant concerns the level of disruption to the
local transportation network and the impacts of associated mitigation. Existing roads that
provide direct access to local residences or that serve a neighborhood collector function
cannot be converted into a Statewide highway and freight route without providing new
local accesses or collector roads as replacements to serve affected neighborhoods. Those
new roads will have their own associated adverse impacts which contribute to the
cumulative impact of an alternative. The Board finds that it is appropriate to consider
these impacts.

7.
Alternatives to the Bypass not requiring goal exceptions include alternative travel
modes (such as transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel), transportation system management
(“TSM”) measures, improvements to existing transportation facilities, and combinations
of these three methods. For the reasons stated in ODOT’s Exceptions Document, the
ODOT Responses Document, the Heitsch letter and these findings, the Board finds that
these methods, alone and in combination, cannot reasonably accommodate the identified
transportation need for the Bypass.


As part of the environmental analysis performed in accordance with requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), ODOT examined the feasibility of
employing a combination of alternative travel modes, TSM measures and improvements
to the local road system in lieu of a bypass. Among other project elements, ODOT
looked at providing express bus service every 15 minutes between the Newberg-Dundee
urban area and the Portland metropolitan area, adding transit stations with park and ride
lots every few miles along Oregon 99W and Oregon 18, and providing additional transit
service to complement the express bus service. It looked at adding bicycle lanes within
city limits and adding bicycle and pedestrian links to express bus stations. ODOT also
considered a wide range of TSM measures, including driveway consolidation, raised
medians and new turning lanes along Oregon 99W, the use of traffic calming measures,
the use of transportation demand management measures such as dial a ride shuttle
service, employee shuttles to transit stations, carpooling programs, telecommuting,
compressed work weeks and the like. And ODOT examined roadway improvements to
Oregon 99W and local roadways like Edwards Road and Dayton Avenue that could
connect Dundee and Newberg.


However, ODOT found that these alternatives, taken together and combined with
Oregon 99W improvement projects undertaken over the past 30 years, still would not
decrease the level of congestion sufficiently to eliminate the need for the Bypass. Even
with these improvements, the year 2025 v/c ratio would be approximately 0.90 in
Newberg and 1.25 in Dundee, compared to a state v/c standard of 0.75 for Oregon 99W.
ODOT determined that in order to meet state standards, Oregon 99W would need to be
widened from three lanes to seven lanes in Dundee; from six lanes to eight lanes within
the downtown Newberg couplet; and from four lanes to eight lanes between Newberg’s
east UGB and the downtown couplet. ODOT also concluded that this combination of
alternatives would not improve the movement of through traffic or the efficiency of the
overall regional transportation network, nor would it enhance the safety of travelers
Page 13 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
through the area or the safety, economy, social fabric or livability of the communities of
Newberg or Dundee. The Board believes ODOT’s testimony and so finds.


The Board further agrees with ODOT that the required widening of Oregon 99W
in particular would significantly adversely impact the cities of Newberg and Dundee,
making both downtowns unrecognizable due to the displacements required for right of
way. The Board finds that the resulting development pattern would discourage bicycle
travel, make pedestrian crossings more dangerous, discourage a compact urban form of
redevelopment, discourage new business investment, create a significant barrier between
neighborhoods, and decrease overall livability. Like ODOT, the Board concludes that a
combination of alternative modes, TSM and improvements to existing roadway facilities
cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need.

8.
The Board heard testimony from Friends of Yamhill County and 1000 Friends of
Oregon emphasizing a need for “near term” improvements to help ease the congestion
problems along Oregon 99W. The Board does not disagree that such improvements are
necessary, and indeed the Board finds that the TSM alternative contains a variety of non-
Bypass improvements. Still, as described in the preceding paragraphs, those
improvements are not sufficient by themselves to reasonably accommodate the statewide,
regional and local transportation needs identified by ODOT and confirmed by virtually
all persons who appeared before the County. Those improvements cannot meet the
minimum performance threshold or the management objectives for Statewide highways
and freight routes. They will not provide for timely and dependable freight movement
that both the existing and an expanding economy require. They do not support local
livability objectives in acknowledged plans. The Board concludes that the fact that near
term improvements are desirable in no way undermines or defeats the justification for the
Bypass. Nonetheless, the Board encourages ODOT to work on interim improvements to
provide some modicum of relief to the congestion on Oregon 99W.

9.
The Board finds that ODOT considered improvements to Bell Road as a possible
alternative to the Bypass. For the reasons set out below, in Section 7.4.3 of the
Exceptions Document, in the Heitsch letter and in memoranda prepared by Kittelson &
Associates dated April 11, 2003 and September 11, 2003, incorporated herein in their
entirety by this reference, the Board concurs with ODOT that Bell Road cannot
reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need.


The Board finds that at an approximate length of about 20-25 miles and with an
estimated travel time of 35-40 minutes, the two identified Bell Road alternatives would
take too long to travel to constitute a reasonable alternative to the Bypass. The Board
agrees with ODOT that the Bell Road alternatives are comparable to the no-build
condition in the year 2025. As such, they are unlikely to remove much traffic from
Oregon 99W.


The Board further finds that one-third to one-half of each of the two Bell Road
alternatives would have slopes greater than 10 percent, and another approximately 15-20
percent of these alternatives would have slopes between six to ten percent. These steep
Page 14 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
slopes would require significant modifications to the horizontal and vertical curvature,
necessitating substantial cuts and fills as well as truck climbing lanes. The Board finds
that truck climbing lanes are slow and inefficient for moving freight. The Board believes
and finds that it is more difficult and hazardous for trucks to drive on steep, curvy roads,
as attested by the use of runaway truck escape ramps on Cascade mountain passes in
Oregon with slopes less steep than would occur here. The Board also finds it self-evident
that the costs associated with building on very steep slopes, and the potential
environmental damage that can occur in the form of slides or slumping, are much greater
than building on flat lands. The Board finds that the recommended Bypass corridor, by
comparison, would be located on predominantly flat terrain (less than 3 percent slope) on
which truck travel would be faster, easier and safer. Because one of the identified
transportation needs for this Project is the need to move trucks safely and efficiently, the
Board concludes that the Bell Road alternative cannot reasonably accommodate that need
for these reasons.


The Board also finds that Bell Road currently is used to provide rural area
residents with access to local and regional destinations. As such, it serves the functions
of a local and collector roadway. Many properties rely on Bell Road for their access.
Were Bell Road converted into a limited access expressway to accommodate the over
25,000 statewide and regional trips that would pass through the Newberg-Dundee area
each day by the year 2025, it would no longer be available to provide direct access to the
local residents. New access roads would be required to meet their needs. These roads
likely would involve significant out-of-direction travel and, like Bell Road, would have
steep slopes and be hard to build in a safe manner. These roads also would remove
additional land from the agricultural land base and would add more overall cost to the
project.


Finally with regard to Bell Road, the Board finds that because neither Bell Road
alternative would be attractive enough to divert large volumes of traffic off of Oregon
99W, ODOT still would need to widen Oregon 99W to four travel lanes through Dundee
and south to McDougal Corner. The Board agrees with ODOT that this would result in
redundant transportation infrastructure as well as cost, and it finds that the impacts of
such widening on Dundee would be unacceptable, for reasons explained below in the
findings addressing the East Dundee Interchange.


For these same reasons, the Board also rejects an alternative route presented by
John Ekman at the July 22, 2004 public hearing that would travel well north of Dundee
and existing Oregon 99W along Kuehne Road between the city of Lafayette and a
location on Oregon 99W between Newberg and Dundee. The Board finds that this route
would extend far out of direction over lands that have steep slopes and would be difficult
to build upon.

10.
ODOT also considered improvements to Edwards Road and Dayton Avenue in
lieu of building the Bypass. For the reasons set out below, in Section 7.4.3 of the
Exceptions Document and the various memoranda prepared by Kittelson & Associates,
Inc. and David Mayfield that are identified in that section, and in the ODOT Responses
Page 15 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
Document and Heitsch rebuttal letter, the Board concurs with ODOT that an
Edwards/Dayton
connection
cannot
reasonably
accommodate
the
identified
transportation need.


The Board finds that the improvements to Edwards Road and Dayton Avenue that
would be necessary in lieu of a bypass would fail to bring Oregon 99W back into
compliance with ODOT v/c performance standards for a Statewide highway and freight
route. It finds that using Edwards Road and Dayton Avenue to serve statewide and
regional transportation movements would be incompatible with and detrimentally impact
and disrupt local residential development and roadway circulation patterns because
Edwards Road and Dayton Avenue directly and indirectly serve many private residences
and function to connect these residences to the local and arterial street systems. The
Board also finds that Edwards Road and Dayton Avenue would continue to be needed to
serve this connector function, even with construction of a Bypass. Hence, these roads
would require replacement were Edwards Road and Dayton Avenue to substitute for the
Bypass.


Both Columbia Empire Farms (“CEF”) and 1000 Friends of Oregon have
challenged ODOT’s determination that improvements to Edwards Road and Dayton
Avenue cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need. However,
the Board finds that many of the assumptions upon which both 1000 Friends and CEF
base their respective examinations are incorrect and inaccurate and have not been
considered for engineering constraints. In his letter on behalf of CEF dated August 6,
2004, attorney Jeffrey Condit sets out four “building blocks” that he asserts support a
reasonable alternative to the Bypass. One of those building blocks is an Edwards Road-
Dayton Avenue connection. Mr. Condit argues that with this connection and with
alternate travel modes and transportation system management, year 2025 traffic volumes
on Oregon 99W would be only 1000 vehicles more per day than they are now. The
Board disagrees. It finds that Mr. Condit has misinterpreted and misapplied the data in
the Exceptions Document and in memoranda prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
More particularly, the Board finds that even with these measures and an Edwards Road-
Dayton Avenue connection, there would be an average of 35,000 to 36,000 daily traffic
volumes on Oregon 99W by the year 2025. This is in part because through traffic using
other routes would return to Oregon 99W. For reasons stated in Section C of these
findings, the Board finds that the traffic impacts on downtown Dundee associated with
this level of daily traffic would unreasonably impact the city of Dundee.


The Board further finds that neither CEF nor 1000 Friends has demonstrated the
operational feasibility of using Edwards Road and Dayton Avenue in lieu of or as a
substitute alignment for the Bypass. For example, neither has shown how, from an
engineering standpoint, semi-trucks, including triple trailers, can safely negotiate a sharp
90 degree turn where Edwards Road intersects with Parks Drive. The Board believes and
finds that such a sharp angled turn would make it much more likely that freight trips
would remain on Oregon 99W. Also, neither CEF nor 1000 Friends has provided a
footprint entirely inside Dundee’s UGB containing adequately designed curvature to
accommodate truck turning movements, nor have they identified or evaluated the
Page 16 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
economic, social or environmental impacts associated with such a footprint. Similarly,
neither has addressed safe and appropriate curvature for this facility where Parks Drive
reconnects to Oregon 99W or evaluated the impacts associated with such curvature. Here
again, the Board finds that the sharp angles required to keep these turning movements
within the Dundee UGB would most likely result in truck traffic remaining on Oregon
99W.


Neither CEF nor 1000 Friends has addressed the issue of how an Edwards/Dayton
connection and an Edwards/Parks connection would safely cross the railroad tracks
parallel to Oregon 99W in Dundee or how they would be consistent with OHP policy to
reduce rail/vehicle conflicts. As neither entity has employed the services of a traffic
engineer to lend support to any of their contentions that their proposed alternative is
reasonable, the Board has no factual basis to conclude that the impacts associated with
this alternative are less adverse than those associated with the Bypass. The Board
declines to make such assumptions or to speculate as to what the facility footprint would
look like, how it would operate, or whether it can operate safely. Instead, the Board finds
that neither 1000 Friends nor CEF has demonstrated that their Edwards Road-Dayton
Avenue proposal in lieu of the Bypass would be safe or operationally feasible.


Overall, the Board finds that the evidence and argument provided by CEF and
1000 Friends regarding the viability of Edwards Road and Dayton Avenue as an
alternative to or as a substitute alignment for the Bypass is substantially lacking both in
detail and in credibility. It finds that CEF and 1000 Friends make no attempt even to
address the thresholds set out in the Exceptions Document, including impacts to local
access and community livability concerns. In contrast, the Board finds ODOT’s analysis
to be thorough, comprehensive, credible and persuasive. Based on the analysis provided
by ODOT, and for the reasons stated above, the Board concludes that an Edwards
Road/Dayton Avenue alternative to the bypass is unreasonable.

11.
With respect to Bell Road, Edwards/Dayton improvements, a regional bypass
(discussed below), the 1000 Friends “boulevard” alternative (discussed below), and other
Bypass alternatives advocated by Bypass opponents (such as undergrounding the Bypass
through Dundee), the Board finds that ODOT has provided detailed and credible factual
information and persuasive reasoning to support findings that these alternatives cannot
reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need for the Bypass. The Board
further finds that in this circumstance, OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b)(C) imposes on the
opponents a responsibility to provide facts to support assertions why these or other
alternatives can reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need. Specifically,
OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b)(C) states: “Site specific comparisons are not required of a
local government taking an exception, unless another party to the local proceeding can
describe why there are specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed
use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such
sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more
reasonable by another party during the local exceptions proceeding.” (Emphasis added.)

Page 17 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)

While Bypass opponents such as 1000 Friends of Oregon, Friends of Yamhill
County, Columbia Empire Farms and John Ekman have criticized the location of the
proposed Bypass corridor and argued in favor of non-exception alternatives, the Board
finds that no opponent has provided the kind of factual information required by OAR
660-004-0020(2)(b)(C) to support their assertions that their preferred alternatives are
“more reasonable” to accommodate the identified transportation need. As the findings in
Paragraph B.10 above demonstrate, these opponents routinely have asserted that one or
another non-exception alternative is better without addressing whether that alternative is
operationally feasible or safe or identifying and analyzing the economic, social,
environmental, energy and traffic impacts associated with that alternative. In some
instances, the opponents have not even identified the location of their preferred
alternatives with specificity. The Board believes and finds that under OAR 660-012-
0020(2)(b)(C), this is not enough. Under the applicable LCDC rule standards, it is not
ODOT’s or the County’s responsibility to do that work for them.


Evaluating the reasonableness of alternatives to accommodate an identified
transportation need requires consideration of a greater range of factors than just soil type
or impacts to agricultural land or farm operations. This point is clearly brought home by
the thresholds requirement in OAR 660-012-0070(6). In making their arguments, 1000
Friends, Columbia Empire Farms, John Ekman and others have ignored operational
feasibility, safety, economic dislocations and “other factors” that may be appropriate to
determining the “reasonableness” of a non-exception alternative. Instead, their approach
has been entirely one dimensional. For this reason, they have failed even to make the
most elementary case to support a finding that their alternative proposals could
“reasonably accommodate” the identified transportation need.

12.
In the process of selecting a general location for the Bypass corridor, ODOT
considered many potential alternatives requiring goal exceptions. As described and
depicted in Chapter 2 of the LDEIS, these included northern corridor alternatives
traversing north of Newberg or through its north side; southern corridor alternatives that
extended more through rural residential areas than farmland in its central segment;
southern corridor alternatives that extended more through farmland than rural residential
areas in its central segment (which is the current application); and “regional bypass”
alternatives that extended through Marion County.


ODOT found, and the Board agrees and finds, that the overall net economic,
social, environmental and energy (“ESEE”) impacts of the recommended southern
alternative would not be “significantly more adverse” than the net impacts associated
with the other corridor alternatives requiring goal exceptions. See OAR 660-012-
0070(7)(b). In reaching this conclusion, the Board agrees with ODOT that the net
adverse ESEE consequences of the two southern Bypass corridors tend to balance out
each other, as shown on Table 3 of the Exceptions Document, while the northern corridor
alternative that ODOT studied in greater detail has more net adverse ESEE impacts than
either southern alternative.

Page 18 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)

The Board finds that a key difference distinguishing the recommended southern
alternative from the southern rural residential and northern corridor alternatives is that the
recommended southern corridor would maintain the 300-acre Dundee Farm (CEF) in two
large, commercially viable pieces, while the northern corridor alternative and the
southern rural residential alternative would fragment the farm by creating a much smaller
piece of land for which urbanization pressures would be high. The Board believes and
finds that the recommended alternative is more consistent with the policy objectives of
ORS Chapter 215 and Goal 3 to protect agricultural land, even though it would take
several more acres than the other two alternatives. The Board finds that by avoiding
fragmentation, retaining both parcels in sizes at or above the minimum lot size for lands
zoned Exclusive Farm Use, and providing mitigation to assure farm vehicle and
equipment access between the farm parcels, the recommended alternative is more likely
to maintain the commercial viability of the Dundee Farm and less likely to adversely
impact farm operations there.


Regarding the “regional bypass”, the Board finds that its net adverse ESEE
impacts would be significantly greater than the recommended Bypass alternative. In
particular, the Board finds that this alternative would: displace over 500 acres of
agricultural land, compared to about 175 acres for the recommended alternative; affect 30
to 50 percent more wetland area; require a new Willamette River crossing, impacting
floodplains and threatened and endangered species; have much greater growth-inducing
impacts by introducing 30,000 vehicles per day into rural northern Marion County; and
not eliminate the need to widen Oregon 99W to five lanes in Dundee and four travel lanes
between Dundee and McDougal Corner. The Board concludes that these substantially
more adverse impacts are sufficient to eliminate this alternative as unreasonable.

13.
In determining a general location for the Bypass corridor, ODOT also considered
a proposal by 1000 Friends of Oregon that involved constructing a new boulevard with
roundabouts through Newberg. That alternative, reproduced at page 115 of the
Exceptions Document, is difficult to follow in terms of its location. Based on that
drawing, ODOT found, and the Board agrees and finds, that this alternative would require
goal exceptions. But even if this boulevard alternative did not require goal exceptions, it
still would not constitute a reasonable alternative to meet the identified transportation
need. ODOT found, and the Board agrees and finds, that the use of a boulevard with
roundabouts and speed limits of 25-35 miles per hour is inconsistent with OHP
management objectives for Statewide Highways and statewide freight routes. For this
reason alone,
this alternative cannot reasonably accommodate
the
identified
transportation need. The slower travel times would not divert sufficient traffic from
Oregon 99W to sufficiently reduce the congestion on Oregon 99W. Also, the very nature
of this facility is likely to induce new commercial development near its intersections,
resulting over time in a mixture of statewide, regional and local traffic not unlike that
currently found on Oregon 99W. The Board finds that such a facility is not desirable or
consistent with the purposes and objectives of the OHP Bypass Policy (1H).


The Board also finds that this alternative does not meet the identified
transportation need because the traffic delay associated with this proposal reduces its
Page 19 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
value to a point where statewide and regional traffic would remain on Oregon 99W.
Further, the Board finds that by terminating the facility east of Dundee or by extending it
through downtown Dundee as 1000 Friends has subsequently advocated, this alternative
would require Oregon 99W in Dundee to be widened to seven travel lanes to
accommodate year 2025 average daily traffic volumes of approximately 47,000 vehicles.
In the findings below addressing the East Dundee Interchange, the Board concludes that
widening Oregon 99W even to five lanes would have unacceptably severe and
unreasonable impacts to the livability and economic vitality of Dundee. The Board
concludes in those findings below, and here as well, that widening Oregon 99W through
Dundee to five or more lanes would be pedestrian unfriendly, increase the likelihood of
accidents in Dundee, violate numerous acknowledged Dundee comprehensive plan and
TSP policies, displace many businesses in downtown Dundee and discourage new
businesses from locating there, and render Dundee’s downtown unrecognizable. The
Board concludes that these impacts would be significantly more adverse than those
associated with the recommended alternative. It finds this alternative to be unreasonable
and unacceptable.

14.
In its July 22, 2004 letter, 1000 Friends of Oregon asserts that “reasonable non-
exception alternatives” must be considered and analyzed for each of three distinct
segments of the proposed Bypass corridor because each segment has “separate utility and
can ‘stand alone’”. The Board rejects this contention for several reasons.


First, the Board is not aware of any legal authority requiring local governments to
consider goal exceptions for new transportation facilities in separate segments. In its
argument, 1000 Friends identifies no such authority.


Second, ODOT has identified, and the Board above has found, that there are
statewide, regional and local transportation needs in the Newberg-Dundee region that
extend the length of existing Oregon 99W from east of Newberg to west of Dundee and
over to McDougal Corner. 1000 Friends has not demonstrated how any segment, alone,
can reasonably accommodate these identified transportation needs, and the Board finds
that none of the segments alone can satisfy these needs. The Board finds instead that to
accommodate these needs, the project must be built in its entirety.


Third, the Board believes that 1000 Friends misconstrues the role that “phasing”
plays in project development. Constructing the Bypass and East Dundee Interchange in
two or three phases may be desirable or necessary as a way to build the whole facility in
fundable pieces, because it is possible that ODOT will not receive the entire funding for
the project at one time or from a single source. However, to accommodate the identified
statewide, regional and local transportation needs, the Bypass is needed in its entirety.
Each segment by itself cannot accommodate these identified needs.

15.
Also in its July 22, 2004 letter, 1000 Friends recommends a variety of Bypass
alternatives, some requiring goal exceptions and some not. These alternatives include (1)
moving the Dayton Interchange an unidentified distance west into the Dayton UGB; (2)
using existing Oregon 99W between Dayton and Dundee; (3) widening Oregon 99W in
Page 20 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
Dundee; (4) providing a Dayton Road/Edwards Avenue connection; (5) eliminating the
East Dundee Interchange and its connecting road; (6) moving the East Dundee
Interchange and the connecting road entirely inside the Dundee UGB; (7) moving the
East Dundee Interchange and the connector road onto rural residential land northeast of
its proposed location; (8) using existing Oregon 99W between Newberg and Dundee; (9)
relocating the East Newberg Interchange to avoid EFU lands; and (10) redesigning the
northern alternative through rural residential lands.


The Board rejects these alternatives for a number of reasons. First, for reasons
mentioned in this section and in the following section concerning the East Dundee
Interchange, many of these alternatives cannot “reasonably accommodate” the identified
transportation needs. Second, for every one of these alternatives, 1000 Friends of Oregon
has not provided the Board with sufficient factual analysis to conclude that these
alternatives are “more reasonable” or have “significantly fewer adverse impacts” than the
proposed Bypass and East Dundee Interchange. See OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b)(C) and
660-004-0020(2)(c).


The alternatives proposed by 1000 Friends of Oregon, like the alternatives
proposed by CEF, all reflect a narrow focus on avoiding impacts to agricultural lands
generally or for CEF, the Dundee Farm, at all costs. However, under OAR 660-012-
0070, the Board need not and indeed, may not consider only this issue to the exclusion of
other relevant factors. OAR 660-012-0070(6) directs the Board to establish thresholds
for judging whether alternatives that do not require exceptions can reasonably
accommodate the identified transportation needs. Those thresholds include economic
displacements, operational feasibility and “other relevant factors.” The Board rejects
1000 Friends’ effort to reinterpret or amend the TPR in such a way as part of this
proceeding.


For each alternative recommended by 1000 Friends that does not require goal
exceptions, the Board finds that 1000 Friends has failed to consider the identified
thresholds for determining whether it can “reasonably accommodate” the identified
transportation needs. For example, 1000 Friends has not considered, or it ignores, the
adverse displacement, local access and community livability impacts associated with
using Edwards Road or Parks Drive, with widening Oregon 99W, or with locating a
bypass interchange entirely inside Dayton’s or Dundee’s UGB. 1000 Friends also has not
considered or ignores whether these alternatives can meet ODOT highway performance
standards for Statewide highways or comply with ODOT management objectives for
Statewide highways and freight routes,


Similarly, 1000 Friends does not address the adverse economic and social impacts
associated with directing 47,000 vehicles per day through downtown Dundee. As noted
in Paragraph B.10 above, it nowhere addresses whether its recommended alternatives are
operationally feasible or safe. It nowhere identifies the business or residential
displacements associated with its alternatives or considers safety concerns or visual
impacts associated with grade-separated railroad crossings. 1000 Friends nowhere
addresses compliance with the minimum performance threshold. Instead, 1000 Friends
Page 21 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
leaves it to the Board and to ODOT to speculate on those impacts. The Board believes
that this level of alternatives analysis provided by 1000 Friends of Oregon is not
sufficient to demonstrate the reasonableness of the proposed alternatives such that further
analysis is warranted, and it so finds.


The Board further finds that the alternatives presented by CEF suffer the same
defects and deficiencies. As with the alternatives recommended by 1000 Friends, the
Board finds that the alternatives recommended by CEF are not sufficiently analyzed or
supported by substantial evidence to demonstrate their reasonableness such that further
analysis is warranted.

16.
In the course of the public hearings, the Board heard testimony from 1000 Friends
of Oregon and Columbia Empire Farms to the effect that in comparing alternatives that
require exceptions, the Board must select the alternative that has the least impact on
agricultural lands.


The Board finds nothing in LCDC’s rules or in any other applicable authority to
support the contention that the Board must give disproportionately greater weight to
agricultural land preservation over other concerns when comparing alternatives requiring
exceptions. While the Board clearly recognizes and respects the protections afforded to
agricultural lands under state law, and while the Board also deems it reasonable and
appropriate to pay particularly careful attention to impacts to agricultural lands and
operations when comparing ESEE consequences (as it has done here), neither OAR 660-
012-0070(7) nor OAR 660-004-0020(2)(c) creates a system under which agricultural land
protection has priority once a county has determined that the identified transportation
need cannot be met by alternatives which do not require new exceptions.


By their plain and unambiguous terms, OAR 660-012-0070(7) and OAR 660-004-
0020(2)(c) direct counties first to identify and consider a full range of adverse economic,
social, environmental and energy consequences, which include but are not limited to
agricultural impacts, and then to determine whether the net adverse impacts associated
with the proposed alternative are significantly more adverse than those associated with
other alternatives requiring exceptions. Yamhill County has done so in rendering this
decision. As its findings reveal, the Board has carefully considered impacts to
agricultural lands and operations in assessing the overall net impacts of the various
alternatives. That is all the County need do to comply with these standards.


1000 Friends of Oregon also testified to the effect that alternatives involving only
small amounts of exception acreage should not require comparison to alternatives
involving much larger amounts of exception land. However, the Board finds no support
for this contention in the applicable review standards. That the exceptions associated
with one alternative may impact more land, or even much more land, than the exceptions
associated with another alternative, does not change how the standards apply. As long as
an alternative requires an exception anywhere along its alignment, the method of
comparison set out in LCDC’s rules is the net adverse ESEE impact standard in OAR
660-012-0070(7) and OAR 660-004-0020(2)(c).
Page 22 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)


The Board also rejects an assertion by CEF in its letter dated August 12, 2004,
that Goal 14 factors 4 (maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of
urban areas) and 6 (retention of agricultural lands) mandate that the Board select the
alternative with the least impact to agricultural lands. The Board finds that these
provisions relate solely to the establishment or change of an urban growth boundary.
Here, Goal 14 exceptions have been taken not for the purpose of establishing or
expanding urban growth boundaries, but to allow urban uses on rural lands. The seven
Goal 14 factors applicable to urban growth boundary amendments do not apply in such
circumstances. See, e.g., OAR 660-014-0040.

17.
The TPR requires that goal exceptions authorizing transportation facilities on
rural lands describe the adverse effects each proposed transportation improvement is
likely to have on surrounding rural lands and land uses, including increased traffic and
pressure for non-farm or highway oriented development on areas made more accessible
by the improvement, and adopt facility design and land use measures which minimize
accessibility of rural lands from the proposed transportation facility and support the
continued rural use of rural lands. The Board finds that the Bypass would adversely
impact rural lands and rural land uses in the manner described in Sections 7.7.1 and 7.8
of the Exceptions Document. It also finds that the Bypass would increase population in
Yamhill County by less than five percent through the year 2050, with most growth
occurring within the McMinnville area within 20 years following opening of the Bypass.


However, while there would be additional traffic traveling through rural areas as a
result of the Bypass, the Board finds that these trips would be predominantly commuter
trips between the Newberg-Dundee urban area and McMinnville which are unlikely to be
diverted onto local rural roads. See ODOT Transportation Planning Analysis Unit,
“Exploratory Analysis of OTIA Projects Using the Gen1 Statewide Model, Newberg-
Dundee Case Study Methodology and Results (May 3, 2002), incorporated herein in its
entirety by this reference. Indeed, the Board agrees with ODOT that the risk of traffic
diversion onto local roads is greater under a no-build scenario, due to the very high level
of traffic congestion and delay on Oregon 99W under that alternative.


The Board also finds that rural driver infiltration is less likely to occur because the
Bypass design would not easily facilitate such movements. The directional interchanges
at the Bypass termini would keep Bypass traffic on the main roads of Oregon 99W and
Oregon 18 rather than providing drivers with easy access onto rural roads. Additionally,
wherever practicable, ODOT would relocate existing accesses near interchanges to a
distance of at least 1,320 feet away from the interchange ramps to comply with ODOT
interchange design standards. The Board finds that this will help minimize travel into
rural areas and help reduce pressures to establish non-farm or highway oriented
development in rural areas.


Moreover, the Board finds that during the course of this proceeding, Yamhill
County and the cities of Newberg, Dundee and Dayton have adopted new comprehensive
plan policies intended in large measure to minimize accessibility to rural lands from the
Page 23 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
Bypass and its interchanges, support continued rural uses of surrounding rural lands, and
protect the function and capacity of the Bypass and its interchanges. These new policies
include, but are not limited to, policies committing the local government to participate in
the development of Interchange Area Management Plans that will be intended in part to
ensure compatible land uses near the Bypass and its interchanges; policies to avoid UGB
expansions near interchanges where feasible; and policies to retain existing zoning of
urban lands located within approximately ¼ mile of Bypass interchanges and rural lands
located within approximately ½ mile of Bypass interchanges. The policies Yamhill
County has adopted are addressed in greater detail in separate findings which the County
officially notices and incorporates herein by this reference. The County also takes
official notice of and incorporates by reference herein the new comprehensive plan
policies adopted by the cities of Newberg, Dundee and Dayton, and their adopting
ordinances and findings.


In addition to the new plan policies, Yamhill County and the City of Newberg
have adopted new zoning regulations that retain existing rural zoning (for the County)
and/or limit the nature or scale of development near the Bypass interchanges. Among
other things, these regulations prevent more intensive commercial uses within Newberg’s
existing industrial zones, prevent rezonings of land to commercial uses pending adoption
of Interchange Area Management Plans, and prevent expansion of urban growth
boundaries into rural areas that are within Yamhill County’s Interchange Overlay District
pending adoption of Interchange Area Management Plans. Together with the new plan
policies, these regulations will help to maintain and protect agricultural and rural
exception lands for rural uses and reduce urban development pressures on these lands.
The Board takes official notice of these legislative enactments.


Further, the Board finds that while highway projects nationwide may have had
indirect impacts on land use, Oregon’s restrictions on land uses in EFU and rural zones,
especially when combined with access management measures, facility design measures
and the kinds of land use mitigation measures required by OAR 660-012-0070(8)(b),
have been effective at reducing development pressures on rural lands. In particular, the
Board finds that urban growth boundaries, combined with restrictive agricultural and
forest zoning, have controlled leapfrog development in Oregon and limited the expansion
of urban areas. Because of this, the more dispersed development that has occurred
around freeways elsewhere in the nation has not occurred in Oregon to the same degree.
The LDEIS (Land Use Technical Report at pages 25-33), the Exceptions Document
(Section 7.8.1.2) and the ODOT Responses Document all provide facts and reasons that
support the conclusion that the Bypass will not significantly induce population or
employment growth in Yamhill County or create pressures to convert rural resource lands
to non-resource uses. The Board finds that this is even more the case given the measures
contained in the new plan policies adopted by Yamhill County and the cities of Newberg,
Dundee and Dayton during the course of this proceeding. The Board expressly agrees
with these analyses and it so finds.


The Board concludes that with design and land use measures including full access
control, directional interchanges at the Bypass termini, establishment of overlay zones to
Page 24 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
protect rural lands within about 0.5 miles of Bypass interchanges, new zoning restrictions
inside UGBs that limit high traffic-generating uses on urban lands near interchanges, and
county and city adoption of policies prohibiting zone changes near interchanges and
limiting UGB expansions onto EFU lands near interchanges, the Bypass and its
interchanges will not likely have any significant adverse impacts on surrounding rural
lands and land uses in terms of increased traffic or pressure for non-farm or highway
oriented development. Moreover, the Board is committed to addressing vehicle
circulation issues during the design phase of the Bypass Project, to ensure that farm
vehicles and equipment reasonably can get around and under the Bypass.

18.
For all of the reasons stated above, in the Exceptions Document, and in the ODOT
Responses Document, the Heitsch letter and the Heitsch rebuttal letter, the Board
concludes that the Bypass is needed to meet statewide, regional and local transportation
needs; that this transportation need cannot reasonably be accommodated by one or a
combination of alternatives involving alternative modes, TSM or improvements to
existing facilities; that the net adverse ESEE impacts associated with the proposed
Bypass corridor are not significantly more adverse, or even more adverse, than those
associated with other alternative corridors; and that the facility design and land use
measures identified by ODOT and adopted by local jurisdictions and by Yamhill County
will minimize accessibility of rural lands from the Bypass, support continued rural use of
surrounding rural lands, and render the Bypass compatible with surrounding uses. For
all of these reasons, the Board concludes that the Bypass is consistent with and satisfies
the exceptions requirements for transportation facilities on rural lands set out in OAR
660-012-0070.

C.
Exceptions Justifying the East Dundee Interchange

1.
Based on the facts and reasons set out below and in ODOT’s Exceptions
Document, the Board concludes that there is a statewide, regional and local transportation
need for the East Dundee Interchange. The East Dundee Interchange is needed to
accommodate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods through the
Newberg-Dundee region and between the Newberg-Dundee region and other regions of
the state. It is needed to remove unacceptably high levels of congestion on existing
Oregon 99W in Dundee (that even with the Bypass would exceed a 1.0 v/c by the year
2025 if Oregon 99W remains a three lane facility though Dundee), thereby freeing up
capacity on that highway to serve local and regional transportation movements. The East
Dundee Interchange also is needed to facilitate and improve the safety of local traffic and
pedestrian movements in Dundee. And it is needed to support and achieve Dundee’s
vision for an economically vibrant community utilizing a more compact and pedestrian
friendly urban form consistent with “smart growth” development principles.

2.
The East Dundee Interchange would allow traffic traveling between Newberg and
locations west of Dundee to avoid downtown Dundee via the Bypass. It also would allow
traffic traveling between Dundee and locations east of Newberg to avoid downtown
Newberg. Without this interchange, there would be approximately 25,000 average daily
local, regional and statewide trips on Oregon 99W through Dundee in 2025, of which
Page 25 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
approximately 16,500 trips would be statewide or regional trips. The interchange would
reduce the number of total trips through Dundee to approximately 13,000 in 2025, with
most of that reduction coming through the redirection of regional trips to and from
Newberg.

3.
The Oregon Highway Plan refers to travel movements between Newberg and
locations west or south of Dundee, and between Dundee and locations east or north of
Newberg, as “regional through travel.” OHP Bypass Policy 1H provides that regional
through travel is best served by limited access facilities that allow higher speeds and
require infrequent stops. The policy notes that as congestion increases, regional travel
and local access may need to be separated. The Board finds that increased levels of
congestion in Dundee by the year 2025 warrant separation of statewide and regional
through traffic from local traffic for many reasons. These reasons are addressed below in
the findings discussing the need for and alternatives to the East Dundee Interchange. The
Board concludes that provision of the East Dundee Interchange is consistent with the
recommended method in the OHP for accommodating regional through travel and
warranted to effectively serve statewide and regional traffic.

4.
With the East Dundee Interchange, Oregon 99W can be maintained as a three-
lane roadway in compliance with OHP and Dundee roadway performance standards.
Without the interchange, Oregon 99W would need to expand to five lanes through
Dundee and to four lanes with turn lanes south of Dundee to McDougal Corner in order
to meet OHP or local highway performance standards. For reasons explained in detail in
the Exceptions Document and below, the Board finds that widening Oregon 99W to five
lanes through Dundee or constructing a couplet through Dundee cannot reasonably
accommodate the identified transportation need. While these alternatives may be
operationally feasible, they would have unreasonably severe adverse impacts on the
economic health and livability of the City of Dundee, virtually destroying Dundee’s
downtown. The Board finds such an impact would be unacceptable.

5.
Alternatives to the East Dundee Interchange addressed in the Exceptions
Document include (1) establishing a “Special Transportation Area” in Dundee to permit
higher levels of congestion to occur; (2) retaining Oregon 99W as a three-lane highway
and improving other roads in the area; (3) widening Oregon 99W through and south of
Dundee to five lanes; and (4) creating a couplet in Dundee and expanding Oregon 99W to
five lanes south of Dundee. Based on the facts and reasons stated in Section 7.4.4 of that
document and in the ODOT Responses Document and Heitsch letter as well, the Board
finds and concludes that none of these alternatives can reasonably accommodate the
identified transportation need for the East Dundee Interchange. The Board finds this is so
despite the fact that average daily traffic volumes in Dundee would be reduced by the
presence of the Bypass. In particular, the Board finds that each one of these alternatives
would have unreasonably and unacceptably high adverse economic, social and livability
impacts on the City of Dundee and its businesses and residents. For reasons explained
below, the Board also finds that these impacts are due, to a significant degree, to the
presence and location of the railroad right of way through Dundee.

Page 26 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
6.
A “Special Transportation Area” (“STA”) is an OHP-authorized designation that
may be applied to a state highway segment to foster compact development patterns when
a downtown, business district or community center straddles a state highway inside a
UGB. As explained in OHP Policy 1B (amended January 2004), within an STA
convenience of movement is focused on pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel rather than
on automobile movement. The primary objective of an STA is to provide access to and
circulation amongst community activities, businesses and residences and to accommodate
pedestrian, bicycle and transit movement along and across the highway. Under the OHP,
traffic speeds are slow, generally 25 miles per hour or less. The maximum permissible
volume to capacity ratio in an STA is 0.95.


The Board finds that an STA is not a reasonable alternative to the East Dundee
Interchange because an STA in Dundee cannot meet OHP standards for STAs. As
explained in the Exceptions Document, without the East Dundee Interchange, an STA in
Dundee could not meet ODOT’s maximum v/c ratio of 0.95 unless Oregon 99W were
widened to four travel lanes. As a three lane highway, Oregon 99W would operate at a
v/c in exceed of 1.0. For reasons stated below, such a widening of Oregon 99W through
Dundee would not be reasonable. Also, Dundee neither exhibits the attributes of an STA,
as described in the OHP, nor was planned as an STA in Dundee’s acknowledged
comprehensive plan at the time that the OHP was adopted or even now. Rather than
exhibiting mixed uses, buildings spaced close together, interconnected local streets and
convenient automobile and pedestrian circulation within the downtown, Dundee’s current
downtown character is more appropriately described as rural strip development. There is
no discernible city center, the buildings are not spaced closely together, there are
substantial gaps in the sidewalk network, parking lots are not shared or behind buildings,
and there is not convenient automobile and pedestrian circulation in the downtown.

7.
The Board rejects the alternative of retaining Oregon 99W as a three lane
highway and improving other roads. While improvements to local roads, including
Edwards Road and Dayton Avenue, might delay the need to widen Oregon 99W for 10 to
15 years, the TPR requires Yamhill County and Dundee to base their regional and local
transportation systems on population and employment forecasts covering a 20-year
period. The Board agrees with ODOT that it should not ignore 20-year projections and
the conclusions drawn from them simply because the identified transportation need arises
in the latter half of the planning period.


Moreover, the Board finds that the level of congestion associated with a three-
lane facility would exceed levels currently experienced in other communities, including
Seaside and Lincoln City, where projects now are underway to relieve the congestion.
The Board also finds that with an Edwards Road/Dayton Avenue connection in place,
established Dundee residential neighborhoods would experience substantial traffic
infiltration because diverted regional through traffic would need to find its way back onto
Oregon 99W farther west in Dundee. This traffic would result in key intersections along
Oregon 99W in Dundee operating at v/c ratios over 1.0 unless Oregon 99W in Dundee is
widened to five lanes. A v/c ratio over 1.0 (“gridlock”) violates both ODOT and local
transportation performance standards for arterials.
Page 27 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)

8.
Without the East Dundee Interchange, and with Oregon 99W remaining a three-
lane roadway, year 2025 daily traffic volumes through Dundee would average 25,000
vehicle trips and the v/c would be well over 1.0, in violation of state district highway and
local arterial performance standards. To meet ODOT and local performance standards
without building the East Dundee Interchange, Oregon 99W would need to be widened to
five lanes in Dundee and west to McDougal Corner.


For the reasons stated herein and in ODOT’s Exceptions Document, the Board
finds that a five lane roadway through Dundee would result in significant adverse impacts
to the community that, render a five lane roadway through Dundee unreasonable to
accommodate the identified transportation need for the East Dundee Interchange. Most
notably, the Board finds that a five lane facility through Dundee would preclude
Dundee’s ability to develop as a “main street” in the manner provided for in the City’s
TSP.


The Board finds that Dundee’s adopted TSP and comprehensive plan contain a
number of policies that are relevant to a determination as to whether alternatives to the
East Dundee Interchange can reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need.
These policies are described in Section 7.6.2 of the Exceptions Document, incorporated
herein by reference. They include policies to provide and maintain a transportation
system that: serves the travel needs of all Dundee residents, businesses and visitors while
minimizing the adverse impacts on Dundee associated with through traffic; fosters a
pleasant, small city and preserves and enhances existing neighborhoods and businesses;
supports the goals, objectives and visions of the Dundee community, which the Board
finds includes the visions set out in Dundee’s 2022 Vision Statement; and supports the
economic vitality of the Dundee community. They also include policies directing the city
to develop parking and circulation strategies that minimize pedestrian and vehicle
conflict and support downtown business retention and development.


Primarily because of the reduced lot depth between Oregon 99W and the parallel
railroad right-of-way resulting from the widening of Oregon 99W to five lanes, the Board
finds that these policies cannot be achieved. It finds that over the past 10 years, Dundee
has taken actions towards improving its economic development potential and fulfilling its
vision of its downtown being a pedestrian friendly “main street” by attracting fine
restaurants and wineries with regional and statewide reputations, including Tina’s, the
Red Hills Provincial Dining, the Dundee Bistro, and the Argyle and Ponzi wine tasting
rooms. All of these establishments are complimented by renowned wineries in or just
outside of Dundee, including Archery Summit, Cameron, Daedalus, Domaine Drouhin,
Domaine Serene, Duck Pond, Dundee Springs, Erath, Lange, Sokol-Blosser, Torii Mor, ,
, , , and Wine Country Farms Winery. The Board believes and finds that with a threelane
highway, economic development could and is likely to continue in this direction.


However, with a five lane roadway, the lot depth between Oregon 99W and the
parallel railroad right of way would be reduced to only about 150 to 170 feet, compared
to 200 feet and larger in other communities. Provision of land for automobile circulation
Page 28 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)
north of the railroad right-of-way reduces this lot depth even further, to about 130 feet.
For the reasons stated in the Exceptions Document, the Board finds that this reduced lot
depth would impede development and associated off-street parking. It finds that the
widening would substantially adversely affect over 80 percent of the businesses along the
south side of existing Oregon 99W, displacing 10 buildings and effectively displacing
some businesses through the loss of adequate parking spaces. Impacted businesses
include the Argyle Winery, an anchor business for downtown Dundee.


The Board finds that with the narrower lot depths, Dundee would be at a
disadvantage to compete economically with other cities for new businesses which require
larger lots for commercial establishments. It finds that the right of way for a five lane
roadway, combined with the parallel right of way for the railroad, would dominate the
city’s character in a manner inconsistent with and adverse to achieving its vision.
Further, the Board finds that the much smaller lot depths resulting from widening Oregon
99W to five lanes would preclude Dundee from achieving the pedestrian friendly “main
street” urban form that is called for in its TSP and 2022 Vision Statement. Indeed, it
finds this is so even if Oregon 99W utilized a narrower 92-foot wide right of way that
does not include on-street parking. Like ODOT, the Board concludes that a five lane
facility is more likely than not to encourage and foster an automobile oriented, strip
commercial development pattern that would violate the City’s comprehensive plan, TSP
and vision statement.


The Board also finds that a narrower five lane roadway design used to minimize
the adverse impacts associated with narrower lot depths would not be reasonable, for the
reasons set out in Section 7.4.4.6 of the Exceptions Document. It finds that narrower
lanes are not appropriate where, as here, substantial truck traffic would be present. It
finds that narrower lanes without on-street parking areas are unfriendly to pedestrians and
inconsistent with Dundee’s planning objectives for its downtown area. Narrower lanes
also are less safe for bicyclists, as there is a higher probability that vehicles will encroach
onto bicycle lanes.


Mayor Worrall of Dundee testified to the Board that widening Oregon 99W to
five lanes in Dundee would remove at least half of the businesses in the city’s downtown,
create a 300 foot wide dead zone extending from 99W to the south side of the railroad
tracks because there is inadequate space to build businesses there, and “destroy Dundee”.
The Board heard testimony from Argyle Winery, that if it is displaced, it will relocate
outside of Dundee. Evidence in the record indicates that if Oregon 99W is widened to
five lanes, many businesses, including Argyle Winery, will be displaced. The Board
believes Argyle Winery’s testimony that if displaced, it will relocate elsewhere, and the
Board finds that the loss of Argyle Winery to Dundee’s economic well-being and to
realization of its “vision” would be severe. It further agrees with the Mayor and finds
that the widening of Oregon 99W, combined with the railroad, would likely create a
broad “dead zone” and destroy Dundee’s ability to achieve its plan policies and its long
term vision for a vibrant downtown.

Page 29 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Newberg-Dundee Bypass Project)

For all of these reasons, the Board concludes that widening Oregon 99W to five
lanes cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need for the East
Dundee Interchange. In reaching this conclusion, the Board takes notice of the fact that
the impacts associated with widening Oregon 99W to five lanes would run contrary to the
mission established by the Department of Land Conservation and Development’s new
Economic Development Planning Team, which is “to ensure that Oregon’s land use
planning program meets the economic development planning needs of the state, local
governments and citizens by supporting policy initiatives and local planning projects that
promote sustainability, business recruitment, expansion and retention.” (Emphasis
added.) The Board expressly finds that widening Oregon 99W to five (or more) lanes
through downtown Dundee would have precisely the opposite effect.

9.
ODOT’s Exceptions Document explores whether building a couplet through
Dundee could meet the identified need for the East Dundee Interchange. ODOT
considered two couplet options, one with both couplet legs north of the railroad tracks
and one with the eastbound leg south of the railroad tracks. Under both options, existing
Oregon 99W would become a one way road westbound.


The Board finds that a couplet through Dundee, whether located north or south of
the railroad right of way, cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation
need served by the East Dundee Interchange. The Board finds that the right-of-way
needed to construct the eastbound leg of the couplet just north of the railroad would
reduce the depth of the block between the couplet legs to only about 115-135 feet. This
lot depth is substantially smaller than typical lot depths for commercial properties in
other Yamhill County cities and would provide insufficient space for buildings, parking
and circulation, placing Dundee at a significant competitive disadvantage to compete
with other cities for commercial development, especially those with two-way main
streets. Moreover, with this alignment, most if not all businesses located within this
block would be displaced either directly or indirectly due to loss of adequate parking
space and access. The Board finds that with this couplet, redevelopment would likely
take the form of isolated businesses with needed parking in between the businesses. This
would not represent a compact, pedestrian friendly “main street” urban design as called
for in Dundee’s TSP. The Board further finds that the dimensions of the land between
the two couplet legs would not encourage new businesses to locate in Dundee but would,
instead, likely cause a net decrease in business development along Oregon 99W in
Dundee. The Board concludes that because these impacts, the north couplet option
cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need served by the East
Dundee Interchange.


The Board also rejects the second couplet option as unreasonable. Under this
scenario, the eastbound portion of the couplet would be located south of the railroad
right-of-way, between the railroad tracks and Maple Street, which divides the light
industrial part of Dundee from a residential area. The Board finds that this design would
eliminate land identified for industrial development and reduce block depth for new
industrial development to 175 feet while introducing highway and regional truck traffic
serving Dundee and Newberg into a residential area. The Board finds that this couplet