Loading...
2009-1374-Minutes for Meeting June 24,2009 Recorded 7/2/2009DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERKDS CJ 74090 314 NANCY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 07/02/2009 08;10;00 AM 11jill 1111111111111111111 3 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page , Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 249 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Kristen Maze, Terri Payne, and George Read, Community Development Department; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Scott Johnson, Mental Health Department; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and five other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. 1. Comprehensive Plan Update. Terri Payne gave a PowerPoint presentation on the progress and proposed goals regarding the comprehensive plan update. (See attached reference information.) She said that attendance at community meetings has varied, depending on the local issues affecting each community. She explained that health issues are being combined with land use issues, to help encourage healthy living. Numerous other meetings have been held in regard to land use and the comprehensive plan. Comment cards and surveys have also been provided. Ms. Payne then explained the next steps: writing the plan and community plans for Tumalo, Terrebonne and Deschutes Junction; how the steering committee would function, and so on. Commissioner Luke would like to talk about the remapping situation at the next joint meeting of the Commissioners and the Planning Commission. Ms. Payne said that the Department of Environmental Quality representative who attended a meeting did not seem to have a grasp of the subject matter and questions asked about water quality issues. Commissioner Baney asked if they should be asked to attend again. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Page 1 of 6 Pages Nick Lelack said that they hope to have a meeting in south County to discuss a variety of issues. Commissioner Baney would like to limit the meeting to one subject matter or limit DEQ's input to the areas where it is appropriate; or to separate the subject matters. Mr. Lelack stated that they have talked about the land use process and how it ties into the other issues. Commissioner Unger said that south County residents have indicated they do not necessarily trust the County. Mr. Lelack replied that the key for the next round is to talk with the residents about the plan, but at the same time maximize notification of the meeting and to include in whatever they can to make it time and cost effective. Commissioner Baney would like to have July 22 meeting with DEQ representatives, in the evening, somewhere in south County. DEQ prefers this be a work session, not a hearing. Commissioner Unger would like to have a meeting with Klamath County to discuss common interests and issues. Commissioner Baney said that she thinks they may already be working on their own plan, so a meeting might be premature. Commissioner Luke stated that if the State DEQ works up a basin plan, Klamath County is already in it. 2. Update on High Groundwater Development Study. Peter Gutowsky stated that there have been some misunderstandings about this program. Input was sought from the Technical Committee and others. There were two meetings, in April and May. (See information, attached.) The first month of meetings was in March, and they were held in the south County area. One of the biggest issues is how to deal with conflicting uses. There is an opportunity to address growth now, being proactive, instead of reacting when a problem arises. Natural resources, wildfire protection, rural development and high groundwater are the biggest issues in south County. Regional problem solving policies come into play, as do community values. They examined what the role is of land use discussed at these meetings, and there was a broad consensus to go back out to these regions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that this is a large County and varies tremendously. Those living around Deschutes Junction may want something one way but others do not. He asked how this could be addressed. Kristen Maze is to come up with a draft plan so citizens can give their preferred vision. There will be competing land uses. Community area plans provide the context as to where a particular sub-region could go. Commissioner Luke said that when Tom Throop was a Commissioner, he envisioned a greenway between the cities. However, with all of the private land involved and the growth of the cities, what the communities want to do may be totally different. Mr. Gutowsky said the public process would help to identify differences of opinion. Commissioner Unger added that LCDC will be involved, but it is a balancing act. Commissioner Baney noted that it appears that there is no clear majority in what the citizens want, so there needs to be a way to come to a consensus of some kind. Commissioner Unger pointed out that they need to be prepared when growth returns. Commissioner Luke said that urban reserve areas are especially difficult, as the cities and County might have a different vision. Mr. Lelack suggested that a broad picture of the comprehensive plan be developed, with the smaller community plans to be addressed with that in mind. Some people have asked why this is moving along so fast. He explained that per State law, local land use decisions have to be made based on the comprehensive plan, which has to be updated. The Commissioners allowed some public testimony at this time. Lee Wilkins, Vice President of the Citizens Action Group, said he attended the meetings. One of the biggest problems is the fact that it was not a conversation; it was one-way with no dialogue. People had a concept that they were going to discuss something. The polling was a good tool but not enough. Discussion should take place after the polling results were made known. There should be some common ground to meet consensus. Commissioner Luke noted that staff is trying to educate people, and if twenty people take five minutes each to talk, that severely limits who gets to talk or what information gets out to everyone. Ms. Wilkins said that as other people addressed their issues, they typically would not ask to talk. Some people like to hear their own voices, though. The groundwater issues are closely aligned in the area. So are issues regarding development. The overwhelming opinion was no one wanted destination resorts. Polling narrowed things down but it is not really a conversation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Pages Commissioner Baney said that condensing the issues into categories, doing the polling and then addressing the results of the polling, while avoiding redundancy might be the way to go. Laura Harvey of the Three Rivers area said that citizens were not allowed to speak. They do not get enough opportunity to give input. All of this did not include verbal input. The questions are the same as those that were asked twelve years ago. She does not know what they mean about including the citizens. She also complained that only some roads are paved now. Commissioner Baney said those are in road districts, which are separate from the County. Ms. Harvey stated they need grant funds to pave the rest. Nothing much has changed over the years even though this was an issue twelve years ago. One comprehensive plan for the entire County may not fit all areas. Commissioner Unger encouraged written comments so that new information is not missed, that it is not good to rehash old issues when there are new ones to address. Commissioner Luke pointed out that staff is to gather information and provide data, but are not policymakers. They do not have the ability to spend weeks on one area. Commissioner Baney added that what they do affects a lot of people and a wide area, not just one locale. And staff is not going to have answers to all of the questions. The process is the main thing at this point. Jay Duncan said that he appreciates what they are trying to do and it is very difficult, mind-boggling work. He feels that the comprehensive plan is needed but getting to the people is critical. He said that people are worried about survival and possible financial impacts of what the County decides. Commissioner Luke feels that sometimes in meetings there is peer pressure. It seems to him that electronic polling might allow for some differences of opinion to be expressed. Mr. Duncan knows how hard it is to get information out to people. Mailings or advertising in the local newspapers is most effective. Commissioner Baney clarified that the meeting of the Commissioners and Planning Commission on July 23 will be a discussion of destination resort remapping, the CAG and what the Board wants to do about having staff develop parameters in this regard. The Commissioners do not want to guide the Planning Commission's work but wants to be more aware of the discussions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Pages This meeting will be a work session and not an opportunity for public testimony. At this time, the Board went into executive session to discuss pending or threatened litigation. 3. Discussion and Update on ABHA (Accountable Behavioral Health Alliance) Activities. Seth Bernstein of ABHA said he would be meeting with ABHA Board members later in the week and hopes to address specific issues at that time, along with any additional concerns that the Board has. He gave an overview of why ABHA formed and how the five counties involved operate together. ABHA is owned by these counties. About 75% of the revenue goes out to other counties, and ABHA provides oversight in this regard. There are stringent rules as to how the funding is spent. Commissioner Unger asked about the pilot projects for health care. Mr. Bernstein said that this is addressed along with other issues on an information sheet (copy attached). He then went over the organization's goals, outcomes, status, barriers and ways to enable action. Services on the Oregon Health Plan side of things are being impacted because of staffing cuts. It may be possible to contract out to avoid ramping up or down. He said that peer-to-peer services are not competing, but are complementary. This results in an increased quality of life and overall costs savings. Commissioner Baney asked what the difference is between being partially implemented and implemented. Mr. Bernstein said that hard times have made it hard to implement programs that are ready to be underway. It is not necessary to track certain programs at this time, while others need to be watched. Commissioner Luke stated that care has to be taken with how the funds are allocated and spent, as the federal government could audit and demand funds be returned if it feels that the funds were not spent for the appropriate programs. Mr. Bernstein said that care is taken to make sure everything goes where it should, and is tracked well in during the process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Pages Mr. Bernstein feels that the State is going to start paying more attention to the quarterly ABHA reports. He wants to see the reports with no potential red flags for things that are out of the ordinary. Commissioner Baney said that Deschutes County has been having conversation with St. Charles and other counties on health care. More people are showing up at the emergency room often or are in need of more mental health care. She said that there is some crossover with the jails as well. Mr. Bernstein stated that if there is a better way of doing things, he is open to change. The members are from Deschutes, Lincoln, Benton, Crook and Jefferson counties. He added that it appears that the State will fund an additional 8% even though costs have gone up 13%. Commissioner Baney said that she is concerned that resources are being spent on areas that are not within the ABHA area; for instance, residents of Crescent and Gilchrist (Klamath County). Mr. Bernstein replied that he is working on this situation and the State has been approached in this regard but explained that the system is not functioning properly in this regard. 4. Other Items. None were offered. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. DATED this 24th Day of June 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tammy Baney, Ch it ' , 2:; ~ ~ ~ - Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair ATTEST: a&I't-, av~ &MUJ- *Iu-/~ Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2009 1. Comprehensive Plan Update - Terri Payne 2. Update on High Groundwater Development Study - Peter Gutowsky • Community Outreach • Study Results • Poll Results 3. Discussion and Update on ABHA (Accountable Behavioral Health Alliance) Activities - Seth Bernstein 4. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. IIJ r o o %A N N -1 N c0 r 1. 17 C _ •tu E 1 N J v ~v ~ N ^p' v- J 1 "J 4 O ~O Q © 4 Q 1461 N o •N AD co o 1 Community Development Department ✓ Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Memorandum # 3 TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner and Staff DATE: June 15, 2009 MEETING: June 24, 2009 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan U BACKGROUND This memo will inform the Board of County Commissioners about the status of the Comprehensive Plan update. Deschutes County is updating the adopted comprehensive plan, the set of goals and policies that guide land conservation and development. These goals and policies are developed from an analysis of existing conditions/trends and community input and must comply with Statewide Planning Goals and regulations. Outlined below is a summary of what has been accomplished since the last report in January 2009 as well as a brief overview of the next steps in this process. COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS, STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS The Planning Commission is acting as a Steering Committee for the plan update, reviewing the existing chapters of the comprehensive plan and hearing from the public on what other policies could be considered as part of the plan. The sessions held from January on are described below. This public outreach and data gathering phase of the Plan update is ending with the June 25 meeting. January 22, 2009: Environmental Quality (water, air, land, energy) Panels were put together for the water and energy discussions, to hear from experts in the field. The water panel included: Kyle Gorman Oregon Water Resources Department Steve Johnson Central Oregon Irrigation District Todd Heisler Deschutes River Conservancy Bonnie Lamb Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Summary: • In dry Deschutes County water quantity and quality affect everything. • There are currently no incentives to use water efficiently. • Many good goals are in the current comprehensive plan, but no enforcement. • County needs to be part of regional water discussions (Deschutes Water Alliance). • Main issue with water quality is temperature. • Additional setbacks for the rivers would be useful. Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 3 The energy panel included: Christopher Dymond Oregon Department of Energy Phil Chang Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Mike Hewitt E2 Powered Summary: • Shortages of traditional energy sources can be expected. • Diversity of renewable energy sources is needed. • Local focus is on woody biomass, crops and agricultural waste as well as solar, wind and geothermal. • Location matters because it can be expensive to haul large amount of material (Warm Springs is planning a biomass power plant). • Sometimes what makes sense is small renewable energy to service local farms and homes. February 26, 2009: Terrebonne, Tumalo, Deschutes Junction Summary • Staff discussed the importance of coordinating transportation and land use in these areas and summarized the input received at public meetings in each area. • In Tumalo the primary issues are related to Highway 20 although there was also interest expressed in water quality and local trails. There was discussion about the current Tumalo boundary. • In Terrebonne the primary issues are transportation related, although there was also support for allowing more commercial on the west side of Highway 97. • In Deschutes Junction the primary issue was whether additional commercial uses should be allowed. The response was divided between those who would like a local convenience store and those who are opposed to more development in the area. Transportation issues were a large part of the discussion here as well. March 26, 2009: Economic Development and Transportation Roger Lee of Economic Development for Central Oregon attended and discussed EDCO actions to grow the economy. There was some discussion of how rural lands fit into economic development. Summary • Staff provided a briefing on the applicable state rules on transportation planning and comments received from the general public and stakeholders. • Staff summarized the purpose and progress of the Transportation System Plan update. That update is proceeding on a separate, but related, track from the overall Plan update. April 23, 2009: Public Facilities and Services Timm Schimke County Director of Solid Waste discussed current issues with County landfills. A panel was put together for to discuss sewer issues: Laurie Craighead Assistant Legal Council Doug White Department of Land Conservation and Development Walt West Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Summary • The challenges of locating landfills was discussed. • Staff explained the process for forming sanitary districts. pg 2 Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 3 Doug White summarized Goal 11 and the associated Administrative Rule, noting that public facilities plans are required for cities and some unincorporated communities. He also discussed the limitations on sewers in rural areas. Walt West spoke for Robert Baggett who was unable to attend. Walt is not familiar with land use laws. May 28, 2009: Unincorporated Communities Summary • Staff summarized the State regulations for unincorporated communities. Overall there are few substantive issues with our current Comprehensive Plan policies, except for the issue areas discussed in February. • Staff reported on a discussion with Sunriver Owners Association managers where a number of minor changes to the Comprehensive Plan were suggested. Additionally, it was noted that if Sunriver Sewer expands south there needs to be assurance that the service to existing Sunriver customers is not impacted. • Staff reported on a meeting with Black Butte Ranch management. They suggested one minor text change but otherwise are happy with existing Comprehensive Plan policies. • Staff reported on meeting with Inn of the 7th Mountain management. One issue they raised is the possibility that they could trade land toward the river to the Forest Service in exchange for forest service land to the west of the Inn. This would protect the riparian area and allow some additional development. Also discussed were the difficulty for resorts in obtaining hiking permits on public lands, making renewable energy an outright use and how to encourage energy efficiency. June 25, 2009: Additional Community Resources Comprehensive Plan chapters scheduled for discussion at this meeting include Historic and Cultural Resources, Parks and Recreation, Surface Mining and Open Spaces. Also a panel discussion is planned to discuss sustainability in the Comprehensive Plan. COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS, PUBLIC OUTREACH Community Outreach Three targeted listening sessions were held around the county in February to discuss issues in Tumalo, Terrebonne and Deschutes Junction. Attendance ranged from 17 people to over 100 people. The summary results are attached and also posted on the website (Attachment 1). In May planners staffed a booth at the Home and Garden show and used interactive outreach to engage in land use discussions with people who normally do not attend land use meetings. 443 people participated in an informal look at some of the current Comprehensive Plan policies. The summary results are attached and also posted on the website (Attachment 2). Meetings and Presentations The list below identifies stakeholder meetings from January to June 2009. In each case staff met with the agencies or organizations to discuss the Plan update and any issues that the agencies or organizations would like to see addressed in the update. • 1-14-09 Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management meeting • 2-3-09 Oregon Natural Desert Association meeting • 2-5-09 James Lewis for Tony Aceti meeting • 3-11-09 Deschutes Basin Board of Control meeting • 3-16-09 Central Oregon Cities Association presentation/discussion • 3-23-09 Jessica Kelly Deschutes County Health Department meeting, 4-7-09 Oregon Department of Transportation and Oregon Department of Land Conservation pg 3 Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 3 and Development meeting • 4-16-09 Historic Landmarks Commission presentation/discussion • 4-16-09 Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee presentation/discussion (Salem) • 5-11-09 Black Butte Ranch management meeting • 5-13-09 Sunriver Owners Association management meeting • 5-28-09 Inn of the 7th Mountain management meeting • 6-3-09 Department of State Lands meeting Other Outreach Maintained the website at www.deschutes.org/cdd under Comprehensive Plan update. Significant outreach has also been conducted for the destination resort remap project and the south County groundwater projects, which are associated with the Comprehensive Plan but on separate tracks. The process for these projects will be reported separately. NEXT STEPS The latest draft organization for the new Comprehensive Plan is attached (Attachment 3). The following summarizes where the process is headed. • Draft of Chapter 1 is complete and will be presented to the Steering Committee on August 27. • Chapters 2 and 3 are in progress and will be presented to the Steering Committee in August or September. • Community plans are being drafted for Tumalo, Terrebonne and Deschutes Junction. During the Comprehensive Plan Update process, additional community plans may be identified and initiated for areas such as South County. If other community plans are identified, they will become action/implementation items in the new Comprehensive Plan with estimated timelines for completion. • Staff will continue to present draft new chapters to the Steering Committee and public. • Staff will create a new community conversation and media outreach plan for the roll out phase with the intent of providing numerous opportunities for input on the draft plan before initiating formal adoption. • Staff expects to initiate the adoption process for the new Comprehensive Plan in spring 2010. Attachments 1. Tumalo, Terrebonne, Deschutes Junction community meeting summaries 2. Home and Garden Show meeting summary 3. Draft Chapter Organization for the new Comprehensive Plan pg 4 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 = - (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 1 r ! - r>>. r http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Tumalo Listening Session Date: 2-3-09 Location: Tumalo Church Fellowship Hall Staff. Terri Hansen Payne, Kristen Maze. Peter Russell, Nick Lelack, Paul Blikstad Attendance: Around 17 people Hand outs: Tumalo Comp Plan Goals and Policies, Steering committee flyer, Tumalo Questionnaire ■ What is the Tumalo boundary, the census tract is very different than the Tumalo rural community ■ Do we look at data as a whole for the Tumalo Community? ■ What about public facilities that accommodate Tumalo how does the comp plan address this? ■ Concern about the potential for rezoning Deschutes Junction to add more commercial because this could impact Tumalo. ■ Tumalo state park is an important part of the Tumalo community. ■ Tumalo state park impacts Tumalo economically because many people visit and seasonally live at the state park. ■ Would like to see some policy about river corridor pedestrian trails and public access to the river. ■ The river is a big draw for the public in the Tumalo community and throughout the county. ■ Deschutes County has significant watershed issues. Deschutes River is in bad shape and is deteriorating significantly. ■ The surface mines are impacting the Deschutes River. ■ Knife River maintains holding ponds on their property adjacent to the river and these ponds are at the same level as the river. Run-off from the Knife River site is impacting the river. ■ Mosquito spraying along the river is also a significant impact to the river and its corridor. ■ More environmental protection is necessary for Tumalo. ■ What is the county going to do about the issues raised tonight? ■ The county endorses growth because of the potential revenue and this puts a burden on the public to gather data to fight the growth. ■ Deschutes County government doesn't represent the residents. ■ We need infrastructure to meet the needs of new development not just promises. ■ The county does not follow through with the established development regulations. ■ Public services are not adequate in Tumalo. Fire Station not manned (District 2) ■ Code Complaints from the public are not enforced. Tumalo Listening Session ■ The County needs to consider how the area has changed over the past 15 years, like more people visiting and living here and what has been impacted and how can we preserve the resources that draw people to Deschutes County. pg 2 February 3, 2009 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 r F r, E (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Terrebonne Listening Session Date: 2-6-09 Location: Terrebonne Elementary School Staff. Kristen Maze. Peter Russell, Paul Blikstad Attendance: Around 20 people Hand outs: Terrebonne Comp Plan Goals and Policies, Terrebonne Questionnaire ■ How will unincorporated communities and rural areas accommodate projected growth? ■ Does a rural community have to accept growth? ■ Can a water district refuse to serve property or expand? ■ How can growth be accommodated while preserving Terrebonne's unique character. ■ Who will pay for and maintain the curb, gutter, sidewalks and a planting strip to buffer pedestrians from traffic on Highway 97 as required by Policy #56? ■ What are requirements for "dark sky" rule that ODOT has applied to the Highway 97 corridor, especially at the intersection of Lower Bridge and Highway 97? ■ Wimp Way traffic will go to Lower Bridge Way, Board of County Commissioners should reconsider closer of Wimp Way. ■ Need solar powered lights on Highway 97. ■ How will our input show up in the Comprehensive Plan and/or TSP in terms of policies and decisions? ■ We like our small community feel in Terrebonne. ■ Allow commercial on the west side of Highway 97, residential use along 97 is inappropriate. ■ Need a policy that looks at other options before widening Highway 97. ■ Need to review what the costs are of providing fire, transportation, school buses to outlying areas of development. ■ What about expanding the boundary of Terrebonne? ■ A business located at the corner of 13th Street and D Street was an operating Auto Repair business when the Rural Service Center was changed to Rural Community in 1997. This property was not included with the new Rural Commercial designations comp plan and zoning designations established. ■ Rezone the west side of 97 to commercial all the way back to the fire station. Summary of the six questionnaires received at the meeting. 1. Most everyone is satisfied or very satisfied with living in Terrebonne. 2. The thing everyone likes best about Terrebonne is the people and small rural community feel of the area. Terrebonne Listening Session 3. The things that they would change are the traffic on Highway 97, the sewer system, controlling growth and rezoning the parcel at 13 and D street to commercial as well as rezoning the west side of highway 97 to commercial 4. Everyone would preserve the natural resources around Terrebonne. 5. The problems vary the only consistent serious problem is congestion on highway 97. 6. Everyone saw Terrebonne growing in the next 20 years but they did not all want that to occur. pg 2 February 6, 2009 41 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 r F " J I, E: (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 -,rr -tit=z - r hftp://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Deschutes Junction Listening Session Date: 2-10-09 Location: Three Sisters Seventh Day Adventist School Staff: Nick Lelack, Terri Payne, Kristen Maze. Peter Russell, Paul Blikstad Attendance: Around 100 people Hand outs: Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Comp Plan Goals and Policies, Deschutes Junction Questionnaire • Highway 97 access on the west side needs improvement. • Need to fix the deceleration and acceleration lanes at the Deschutes Junction interchange as curves are too sharp. • Prevent another fatal accident like last summer by lengthening the current median on highway 97. • Public has asked ODOT for adequate deceleration lanes now for 10 years. • Need better signage for the north bound and south bound exits at Deschutes Junction, because they are not typical highway on and off ramps. • Does the county have historical traffic volume for the past 5 to 10 years along Tumalo and Deschutes Market Road? • What is the plan for Tumalo Road? • What is the plan for Pleasant Ridge intersection at Hwy 97? • Sell the land to Walmart and let them put in the necessary infrastructure. • What would happen to the existing land use if we rezoned to Rural Service Center? • Nearby proposed Juniper Ridge could provide services necessary to the residents in Deschutes Junction area. • In 2030 most of us here tonight will not be here (alive). • What is the county planning east of Deschutes Market Road in terms of zoning and rural roads? • How does Morrill Street fit into the 19`h Street extension? • Tumalo Road speed limit should be lower. • Increase commercial on the west side of Highway 97. Raise of hands shows majority of the people support this. • ODOT needs to remove the sign for 61" Street because it does not exist. • What is the purpose of the 19`h Street extension? It is a waste of money. • What is the chance of the two McGrath Roads being joined? • Convenience commercial would be helpful to the Deschutes Junction residents. • How is the County coordinating the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Plan and ODOT? When does the county anticipate any changes occurring? • Why is ODOT not at this meeting, they are often an obstacle for development. Deschutes Junction Listening Session • Is commercial development in the area a good idea and has the County researched this type of development to determine the impacts? • Is the Rural Commercial policy handout current and what is the county going to change? • Can we merge the zoning and Comp Plan designations into one step? • What does the county want in Deschutes Junction? • Deschutes County needs jobs, if ODOT is proposing a "jersey"(a raised concrete median) barrier this would close off driveways to existing commercial development along Hwy 97. • Need to provide frontage roads to commercial development around Deschutes Junction. • 2,500 square feet commercial building 'is not large enough to make a convenience store work. • It would be most cost effective to combine zoning and Comp Plan designation changes. • What about connecting Hunnell Road? • Is there a County plan for parks and fire hydrants? • 42 people out of 100 would like to see economic development in the area. • Most people at the meeting live within 6 miles of Deschutes Junction. • Would like to see the County maintain rural character of the area. County needs to balance development with the rural and open space. • County needs smart growth, limit growth of commercial in the Deschutes Junction area interchange. • "Jersey" barrier will put existing businesses out of business around Deschutes Junction. • Concerned about changes to the MUA-10. • What about noise and air impacts as a result of adding commercial development?. • Tony Aceti's property is ideal for commercial development like a park and ride or farmers market. • Commercial development exists in Deschutes Junction so Tony Aceti's property as a commercial site makes sense. • What is the boundary of Deschutes Junction? • Has the county identified a study area at Deschutes Junction that shows the changes in the past 20 years? • What are the guidelines that the County would use to define Deschutes Junction? • Growth in the area is a problem and people need services nearby for the residents. • What is happening with the Department of State Lands and County land exchange and the top of Whispering Pines? • Would like to keep the smells and noise down from the existing commercial businesses, no expansion. • Look at the flood plain in the Deschutes Junction area. • Concerned about the Country process and the people that are in attendance tonight are not representative of everyone's concerns. • Can you have multiple commercial 2,500 square feet buildings on one large Rural Commercial parcel? Pg 2 February 10, 2009 Deschutes Junction Listening Session Summary of the 31 Deschutes Junction questionnaires received at the meeting. 1. Most everyone is satisfied or very satisfied with living in Deschutes Junction, three were somewhat dissatisfied. 2. The thing everyone likes best about the Deschutes Junction area is the proximity to Bend and Redmond and the rural living. 3. The things that they would change are the traffic off and on Highway 97, the access off and on the Deschutes Jct. interchange, allow commercial and/or convenience store on the west side of Hwy. 97 and preserve the rural lifestyle of the area. 4. Current serious issues in the Deschutes Junction area varied significantly. 5. Very few are aware of the Oregon Statewide goals 6. 19 people of the 21 people that answered what they would not want to see change wanted the area to remain the same rural residential, two other letters also indicated that they would not like to see commercial development in the area. 7. Of those that answered the question yes or no half believed that land use regulations protect owners and communities and half do not. 8. Most everyone saw Deschutes Junction's commercial, residential and industrial area growing in the next 20 years. 9. Additional comments include: • No more traffic on Tumalo Road and make changes to the off ramps in both directions at Deschutes Junction to accommodate all uses. • Maximum 2,500 square feet of commercial is not adequate for commercial building. • Need fire protection before increase in population • Against 10 Street extension, no growth between Bend and Redmond. • Like the rural atmosphere and think that the push for commercial growth is a personal agenda for Tony Asceti, not what the residents want. • 5 people addressed the need for growth in and around Deschutes and the need for commercial zoning. • Commercial growth is not our desire, this would promote the future growth of the City of Bend. A rural fire department would increase our property taxes too much. We live here to get away from the growth and progress of the city. Pg 3 February 10, 2009 Community Development Department i~ 1t Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 hftp://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Spring Home and Garden Show What Deschutes County planning division set up and staffed a booth at the Central Oregon Builders Association Spring Home and Garden Show held at the Deschutes County Fairgrounds on May 1, 2, 3, 2009. Purpose To promote the comprehensive plan update and have an opportunity to talk about land use values with members of the community who do not generally attend land use meetings. Process Staff provided handouts, chocolate and two avenues for the public to provide instant feedback. Questionnaire A short questionnaire was available to allow the community to write down their specific ideas and comments. Twenty-six questionnaires were completed and a few people took the survey home along with a staff business card, intending to mail the results back to the County. Some people completely filled out the questionnaire, some answered only a few of the questions and some simply wrote in comments. A summary of the answers received is attached. Dot Exercise To jump start a discussion of land use values, six goals from our current comprehensive plan were printed out on a 24" X 36" sheet of paper and attached to a poster board. People passing by were invited to place a dot by the goal that best reflected their values regarding land use. City residents were given red or blue dots while rural residents were given green or yellow dots. 443 people participated in this exercise and the results are listed in the table below. The dot exercise was effective at initiating further discussion regarding land use in Deschutes County. Many people noted that the first goal on the sheet which included rural character, scenic values and natural resources also covered other goals listed like water quantity and quality. People also observed that many of these goals could be interpreted different ways. A fair number of people specifically noted that Deschutes County has enough destination resorts. Spring Home and Garden Show Notes 12 -11c of nM- F-Varr;QP CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY RURAL TOTALS GOAL THAT BEST REFLECTS YOUR RESIDENTS RESIDENTS VALUES "To preserve and enhance rural character, 89 85 174 scenic values and natural resources of the county." "To maintain existing water supplies at present 52 38 90 quality and quantity." "To reserve and maintain agriculture land." 23 33 56 "To allow flexibility of housing location, type 17 26 43 and density in Deschutes County." "To conserve forest lands for forest uses." 42 32 74 "To provide for the development of destination 1 5 6 resorts in Deschutes County." Totals 224 219 443 The following list provides an example of other issues discussed with staff. ■ Confusion over why tax bills go up despite a drop in assessed value ■ River quality and water supply ■ The need to work with the federal government to ensure access to federal lands for swimming and for off-road vehicles ■ The importance of supporting local farmers ■ The County's role in promoting economic development ■ The need for common sense in land use decisions ■ The need to use the word protect instead of preserve in land use goals Document Reproduces Poorly Attachment 1: Questionnaire results (Archived) pg 2 May 5, 2009 ~0C)N =r :3 0 O N M y (D i J O O O to (D ' fn Q r~r o ° - 17 CD 2) (D O v O h y ' N (D CD - - t0 O ° CD (nn ° ? ~j ° flu o v, ~ o v xN ~ W 0 A) lb :3 IQ Q C A N 0 v 0. CD CD (Cox N cn --h O 14 O N U N ° N 00 fA O O K N C J 'MI (D CD < ca O O ~ CD 3 0 3 0 a° w~ 3 o o o coo N C ' p < CD o a W cQ O A _ C C. `c 5' coo O rD n j 3 f...+ CD coo O O w O P- = r(nr ;14 0 N O _ "1 O o CD O n o m ~ m ~ ~ -b v ~D O O ~ a1 > (Q ~Q Q ~ O n O ~ ~ O O n y cD m lb ~ O a Q a ~ a tq Q O O N W O Ui N N N .A N -A, N ~ W O ~ W W ~ N N Cn O -ph, ~ ~ •p O N CSC W N O (A O W U1 W ~ N N N -D, N W O N 01 O V O ~ O O O W O co rn cn 3 p --4 (n cn oo co p m v C o w 3 ( D (D o, o -1 =3 n I l i m 0' :3 ~ ~ ~ fn co =r `C (D ( ~ ~i3 O ,r a (D -1 a) N a CD (D cr - Q p - n (n~_ C3- O< Q O n D~ < m (D p m z = ti n p c o o N o c w ~ ° ? o m CD C _ o ° a o 0 (n m c fl? D ( n M Q D o D cQ v n n (D (n can (n cD 3 t 0 X v o (D = 0 c ~ m n ~ O ti CD 3 (n n 3 (n (D 0 CD c : n w N "a (D v C') ;17, 3 O O 0 En CD fD =3 Q (D 0 O X (D n Q N :3 n O (D m y `G ~ O Q T. 7 (CD 7 (D O v 70 N 7 (D v c Q - CD CL (D O < CD O F) o N O C w O< 3 O c - v ~ 0 U) v 7 a- O (D 3 - r c Q Q O r« fD `G o O _ =r _ CL cn =r (D < v ) N O cr =3 O N :3 (D (D O c :3 C rt CD O N v O 0 Q Q :3 3 (7 (n J cr ? O ~ (D (D v c (D (D c n m - - (D n Q 0 CD (n 1 N m m n 3 rt c =3 (D (Q O Q. 0 O (D (D W O c :3 CD CD -a c CD 0 W -t o O n 3 I r. Vii c _ C N O (D O Q N 0 (n CO (D O 3 O (D n~ C O 00 w 0 (n 0 3 (a (n .0 c =3 - CD v 0 Z m° c D o ~ ~ ° 0 o~ m CD 0 Q a W a Irn o o ~ m ~ co 0 3 : (D (nom m =3 C~ cD v ( D vC 0 o 3 ~ N : Q Q - 3 :3 :3 o 3 0 _ ~ Q O 3 5 ~ r r cn Q Q Cf) o C D CD v :3 N Q w n. c D ~ Deschutes County Draft Comprehensive Plan Organization EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING Background Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Deschutes County Overview Statewide Planning Goals History of Comprehensive Planning in Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 2030 Creating the Plan Community Conversations Data Collection Plan Organization Plan Themes Community Involvement (Goal 1) References and Findings CHAPTER 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND DESIGNATIONS Land use and the Comprehensive Plan map Comprehensive Plan designations County-wide land use goals and policies Comprehensive Plan Maps References and Findings CHAPTER 3: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Introduction - Oregon resource protection Resource Lands Agriculture Lands (Goal 3) (map) Forest Lands (Goal 4) (map) References and Findings Natural Resources Environmental Quality (Goals 5 and 6) Water Resources (Goals 5 and 6) (maps) Regional Problem Solving (Goal 5) Wildlife Habitat (Goal 5) (maps) Open Spaces, Areas of Special Concern (Goal 5) (maps) Energy (Goals 5 and 13) References and Findings Other Goal 5 Resources Surface Mining (Goal 5) Historic and Cultural (Goal 5) References and Findings Comprehensive Plan Organization CHAPTER 4: RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT Intro - How does rural growth fit with resource protection Rural Development Rural Development, including Rural Residential (Goal 14) Housing (Goal 10) Economy (Goals 9 and 14) Natural Hazards (Goal 7)(maps) References and Findings Rural Infrastructure Public Facilities and Services (Goal 11) Transportation (Goal 12)(maps) References and Findings Rural Recreation Recreation (Goals 5 and 8) Destination Resorts (Goal 8)(map) References and Findings CHAPTER 5: URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT Intro - county partnership with cities, unincorporated communities County/City Coordination Urbanization (maps of UGBs, UARs) (Goal 14) Coordinated Population Forecast Unincorporated Communities Overview (Goal 14) Urban Unincorporated Communities (map) ■ Sunriver Rural Communities (maps) ■ Terrebonne ■ Tumalo Resort Communities (maps) ■ Black Butte Ranch ■ Inn of the 7t" Mountain/Widgi Creek Rural Service Centers (maps) ■ Alfalfa ■ Brothers ■ Hampton ■ Millican ■ Whistlestop ■ Wildhunt References and Findings APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY APPENDIX 2: GOAL EXCEPTIONS APPENDIX 3: IMPLEMENTATION TABLE pg 2 revised 6-11-09 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report Comprehensive Plan Update Deschutes County is updating the County Comprehensive Plan, the document that guides local land use and development regulations, for the first time in a decade. The current plan includes some chapters that have not changed since they were written in the late 1970s. The County is committed to involving citizens in the update process, to ensure the new plan reflects today's community values. The County's planning process focuses on key community issues: including roadways, rural development, farms and forests, destination resorts, public health, fish and wildlife habitat, fire protection, and water quantity and quality issues. Comprehensive Plan Update - Schedule Community Conversations October 2008 - May 2009 Draft Goals & Policies May - December 2009 Planning Commission Recommendation February 2010 Board Adopts New Comprehensive Plan April - May 2010 High Groundwater Lots One issue unique to the South Deschutes County involves development of lots that have groundwater less than two feet below ground. There are about 1,500 high groundwater lots covering nearly 900 acres in South Deschutes County. Many of the lots are located in or near floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas and wildlife corridors. Development of these lots could also affect roads, drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, schools, and fire protection plans. The Comprehensive Plan Update will reconsider potential development of the high groundwater properties. In 1998, after hearing from thousands of residents, Deschutes County adopted a policy prohibiting development in these areas. In 2008, the County Commission adopted an ordinance known as the "local rule" to formalize the protections. Voters rejected the ordinance in March 2009. Community Conversations A series of public workshops - or Community Conversations - was scheduled in South Deschutes County to consider topics of greatest interest to South County residents regarding the County's Comprehensive Plan update. To ensure all interested residents would have an opportunity to participate, the first sets of workshops were offered on two different nights: at Three Rivers Elementary School (in Sunriver) and La Pine High School (in La Pine). The final session was a joint meeting held at Three Rivers Elementary School. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report C:\Docurnents and Settings\sherb\Local SetUngsUernporary Internet Fi1es\0LK3\Surnrnary RepoA_Community Conversations.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM The events were co-hosted by the Deschutes County Community Development Department, the Upper Deschutes River Coalition and Project Wildfire. The Community Conversations were funded, in part, through a grant from Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development. The Community Conversations were open to South Deschutes County residents, property owners in high groundwater areas - or any interested citizen. Attendance ranged from 40 to 120 participants per session, and more than 200 different South County residents attended one or more of the forums. Additional opportunities for public input were offered via on-line surveys posted on the County's website, for those who could not attend the meetings. Fifty-seven surveys were completed by community members. Dates and topics for the five Community Conversations: March 17-18 Community Values April 15-16 South County Futures May 12 Policy Concepts Discussion at the forums focused on four topics that March participants identified as most important: • Natural Resources • Wildfire Protection • Rural Development • High Groundwater Areas Several methods were used to provide information to participants and capture their views on the four focus topics. The March and May forums utilized electronic polling technology to test South County residents' support for various community values, priorities and policy options covering each topic. Results The Community Conversations in South Deschutes County began on March 17-18 with an orientation on local issues spotlighted earlier through the Regional Problem Solving process (in 1998). Participants in the Community Conversations returned to the broadly held community values which were discerned earlier and are incorporated in Deschutes County's current Comprehensive Plan. While only a few of the March 2009 attendees had participated in the 1998 process, most of the values identified at that time proved to be enduring. There was substantial convergence among participations on community values, with 16 values rated as ,'very important" by forum attendees. Leading values are: Involve the community in decisions affecting South Deschutes County. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report C:\Documents and Settings\sherb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet FileMOLI(Mummary Report_Communiry Conversations.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM Reduce wildfire hazards. Maintain /protect drinking water supplies. These and other key community values continued to inform citizen deliberations throughout the Community Conversations process. In the April 15-16 forums, participants considered various South County Futures (or "scenarios") to help shape decisions affecting South County over the coming decades. The futures considered were: Natural Resources Status quo: Continue current pattern of development contributing to gradual loss/degradation of fish/wildlife habitat and decline in water quality. Preservation: Adopt new policies to prevent further loss/degradation of habitat and water quality. Strategic protection: Identify high priority natural resources and adopt new policies that protect these key resources, while allowing development to proceed at other locations. Wildfire Protection Status quo: Continue current firewise development standards for new subdivisions (three units or more) and destination resorts. Extend firewise standards: Adopt mandatory requirements that apply firewise standards to all properties, including single family homes and vacant lots. Voluntary program: Through public education, encourage property owners to adopt firewise practices: construction methods and materials, vegetation management, fuel reduction, water systems, access, defensible space. Rural Development Status quo: Continue current pattern of gradual infill of undeveloped lots; allow destination resorts and other developments. Preserve rural character.• Continue pattern of gradual infill of undeveloped lots at low density (1 unit per 1-5 acres); take proactive steps to preserve open space and retain South County's rural character; limit/restrict destination resorts. Conservation: Adopt new policies for development; take proactive steps to preserve open space and natural amenities; prohibit destination resorts and other large developments, directing growth to cities. High Groundwater Areas Status quo: Continue the current practice to prohibit development of high groundwater lots. Allow development: Permit development in high groundwater areas, in accordance with state and federal regulations. (Removes County prohibition). Increase protection: Adopt stricter policies to protect natural resources in high groundwater areas. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report C:\Documents and Settings\sherb\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Fi1es\OLK3\Summary Report_Community Conversations.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM Participants were also invited to develop their own preferred scenarios, on their own or in collaboration with other workshop participants. Results of the participants' feedback revealed clear consensus for two topics. For Natural Resources, attendees favored greater protection of South County's sensitive resource areas. For Wildfire Protection, participants called for more public education to encourage fire-safe practices. The culmination of the Community Conversations considered policy concepts (or "strategies") at the final May 12 forum. Strategies were generated from input received at the April 15-16 forums. May forum attendees agreed on 16 policy concepts acceptable to a majority, consistent with the community values and South County futures revealed in earlier workshops. Results of the five Community Conversations held in South Deschutes County in March-May 2009 are further detailed in the next sections. Appendices • Community Values • South County Futures • Policy Concepts • Meeting Flyers • Meeting Agendas • Media Releases • High Groundwater Fact Sheet • March 17, 2009 - Electronic Polling Results (Three Rivers ES) • March 18, 2009 - Electronic Polling Results (La Pine HS) • March - online survey results • April 15, 2009 - South County Futures (Three Rivers ES) • April 16, 2009 - South County Futures (La Pine HS) • April - online survey results • May 12, 2009 - Electronic Polling Results (Three Rivers ES) • Participant Roster Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report C:\Docurnents and Sedings\sherb\Local SeWngsUernporary Internet Files\OLK3\Surnrnary Report_Community Conversabons.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations March 17 (Sunriver Elementary School) and March 18, 2009 (La Pine High School) COMMUNITY VALUES* Sunriver ES VERY IMPORTANT 6.8 Involve the community in decisions affecting South Deschutes County 6.3 Reduce wildfire hazards 6.1 Protect the Deschutes River 6.1 Maintain/protect drinking water supplies IMPORTANT 5.9 Conserve forest lands for forest uses 5.9 Protect fish habitat 5.8 Preserve/protect water quality 5.7 Maintain the area's rural character 5.7 Protect wildlife habitat 5.7 Maintain property owners' rights to develop 5.6 Preserve/protect air quality 5.4 Preserve open space 5.3 Protect public health 5.3 Maintain affordability in South Deschutes County 5.2 Preserve/expand outdoor recreation opportunities LESS IMPORTANT 4.9 Concentrate urban development in cities 4.4 Preserve agriculture land 4.1 Accommodate new development in South Deschutes County La Pine HS VERY IMPORTANT 6.8 Involve the community in decisions affecting South Deschutes County 6.0 Reduce wildfire hazards 6.0 Maintain the area's rural character 6.0 Preserve open space 6.0 Maintain affordability in South Deschutes County IMPORTANT 5.9 Maintain/protect drinking water supplies 5.9 Maintain property owners' right to develop 5.8 Conserve forest land for forest uses 5.6 Protect the Deschutes River 5.6 Preserve/protect water quality 5.6 Protect public health 5.5 Protect fish habitat 5.4 Protect wildlife habitat 5.4 Preserve/protect air quality 5.2 Preserve/expand outdoor recreation opportunities 5.1 Concentrate urban development in cities LESS IMPORTANT 4.8 Preserve agricultural land 3.7 Accommodate new development in South Deschutes County * Mean score of participants on a scale of one (not important) to seven (very important) Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update 5 Community Conversations - Summary Report C:\Documents and Setbngs\sherb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLMSummary Report_Community Conversatlons.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM Deschutes County Community Conversations Three Rivers Elementary School - April 15, 2009 South County Futures FUTURES Natural Resources Wildfire Protection A. Status quo A. Status quo B. Preservation B. Extend firewise standards C. Strategic protection C. Voluntary program D. Own suggestion D. Own suggestion A. 3 A. 1 B.6 B.9 C. 14 C. 9 D. 4 D. 1 Combination: Combination: C,D 1 B,C 8 A,D 1 B,C,D 1 ? 1 B,C 1 Rural Development High Groundwater A. Status quo A. Status quo B. Preserve rural character B. Allow development C. Conservation C. Increase protection D. Own suggestion D. Own suggestion A. 4 A. 2 B. 9 B. 12 C. 10 C. 11 D.3 D.2 Combination: Combination: C,D 1 B,C,D 1 B,C 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report C:\Documents and Settings\sherb\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLKlSummary Report_Community Conversations.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM STRATEGIES Natural Resources • Economic development; tourism • Recreational uses • Access to river; boat ramps • Sewage treatment; sewer systems; utilize federal stimulus • Funding; funding strategy; grantsmanship • Coordinate state and federal agencies • Manage seasonal water flows in Upper Deschutes • Adopt new regulation to protect wetlands, water resources • Modify existing regulation to allow adaptive management strategies • Education for landowners: riparian habitat protection; natural resource BMPs • Outreach; inform public; listen; earn public support; brochure, workshops and PSAs • Local wetlands inventory • Transferable development credits; reimburse owners of undevelopable lots • Modify existing regulation to allow adaptive management strategies • Develop mitigation practices to support development, yet protect resource • Stricter zoning; prohibit new destination resorts • More enforcement • Follow sate rules for septic systems and drinking water Wildfire Protection • Adopt/enforce firewise standards that require property owners to reduce fire loads • Deschutes County clean up its own lots • Funding for property owners to provide for fuel reduction, defensible space; stimulus funding for risk abatement • Enforce existing regulations • Enforce Senate Bill 360 • Inform, educate absentee property owners and residents to take responsibility; BMPs; community meetings; education through schools • Concentrate on high risk areas; wildland/urban interface areas • Oregon Department of Forestry assist communities with funds to plan evacuation routes and inform neighborhoods • Charge property owners for cost of fire suppression • Better define firewise standards • Limit destination resorts • Employ aircraft to fight fires Rural Development • Seek federal and state funds to build roads, parks, bike paths for safe routes to~schools • Strategically plan the locations for new development Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update 7 Community Conversations - Summary Report CADocuments and Settings\sherMI-oval SettingsUemporary Internet FileMOLMSummary Report_Community Conversations.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM • Economic development and workforce: equals jobs, good income, tax revenues, infrastructure and services • Provide sewer systems to protect water quality • Allow development of all South County lots; grandfather development rights for all property owners • Prohibit; more carefully regulate; allow more destination resorts • Apply destination resorts requirements to other development: e.g., provide recreational amenities • Solve the nitrate problem in South County • Information: problems and possible solutions • Outreach: steps to preserve economy, quality of life • Develop new full service communities • Review developable lots in South County to identify other candidates for development: apply "intelligent zoning" with input for scientists, planners, others • Identify areas for job growth • Provide infrastructure • Limit lot size to minimum one acre • Enforce current zoning requirements • Ban development of high groundwater lots High Groundwater • Swap "red lots' for County-owned sites • Prohibit water suppliers from developing more wells • Allow development by providing sewer systems • Remove County development prohibition on high groundwater lots • Establish site-specific development criteria for high groundwater lots; list practices that achieve water quality standards • Inventory / map natural resources in high groundwater lots; additional data collection • Information / education for owners of red lots • No more septic systems; prevent development on red lots; stop current practice of allowing waivers • County purchase the red lots • Pursue state / federal grants for sewer systems; assist low income household with sewer development costs • Better / clearer maps of high groundwater areas Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report CADocuments and SettingMsherblocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLMSummary Report_Community Conversations.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM Deschutes County Community Conversations La Pine High School - April 16, 2009 South Countv Futures FUTURES Natural Resources A. Status quo B. Preservation C. Strategic protection D. Own suggestion A. 0 B. 4 C. 6 D. 14 Rural Development A. Status quo B. Preserve rural character C. Conservation D. Own suggestion A. 1 B. 5 C. 8 D. 5 Wildfire Protection A. Status quo B. Extend firewise standards C. Voluntary program D. Own suggestion A. 1 B. 11 C. 7 D. 2 Combination: A,B,C 1 B,C 1 High Groundwater A. Status quo B. Allow development C. Increase protection D. Own suggestion A. 4 B. 11 C. 4 D. 4 Combination: B,C 4 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report CADocuments and SettingstsherMI-oval Settings\Temporary Internet FileMOLI(Mummary Report_Community Conversations.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM STRATEGIES Natural Resources • Protect wetlands • Create specific codes that protect wildlife - not just a policy in the Comprehensive Plan • Be specific about what areas can be developed • Create equitable development policies • Prohibit destination resorts; reduce County's budget to compensate loss of revenue • Enforce current ordinances: wildlife, septic, water quality • Don't use data models to influence actions • Don't make any changes • Prohibit hunting • Identify high priority natural resources; adopt new polices that protect key resources; keep development a low priority • Allow development of single lots with allowances for natural spaces on each lot that allows wildlife access • Maintain river at higher level of flow • Complete local wetland inventory; distinguish vulnerable from less vulnerable Wildfire Protection • Make mandatory clearing plan for vacant properties • Ban open burning of brush piles: utilize materials for biofuel • Extend firewise standards without fines • Continue education sessions; programs for property owners; educational materials, updates, newsletters • Inspections to assist homeowners in keeping home area fire safe • Promote volunteerism: neighborhoods work together to protect property • Help low income; older residents; handicapped owners with fire protection activities: costs, labor • Continue with current practice of fire reduction practices on public land adjacent to residential development. • Apply for grants to educate and pay for clearing properties, etc. • Don't take out so many trees Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report C:\Documents and Settings\sherb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet FileMOLMSummary Report_Community Conversafions.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM Rural Development • Install sewer infrastructure • Remove Goal 11 exception requirements from South Deschutes County • Support and encourage localization; direct growth to cities; keep apartments and multi- family structures in the cities • Apply chip cover and maintain County roads; use road district fee to maintain private road district for safety and emergency vehicles; street lighting at major intersections; sell bonds to cover costs. • Allow existing landowners to develop • Prohibit new destination resorts, golf courses • Proactive approach to preserve open space and natural amenities • Protect current water right holders • Don't stop developments that enhance economic well-being of area but take into account environmental, economic, social impacts • Don't make exceptions for resorts • Stop all development High Groundwater • Address water quality, public health issues, groundwater protection before updating the Comprehensive Plan • No development until there is a plan to address the groundwater issue in South Deschutes County • Develop Comprehensive Plan policies to address groundwater pollution • Apply same standards to destination resorts; identify high groundwater areas in destination resorts • Do not allow development in wetlands and floodplains • Make code that specifically implements values from the Comprehensive Plan; address nitrate mitigation • Stop allowing sewage to be pumped from one lot to another • Provide assistance to owners who can't build on their lots • Provide better mapping of lot locations • Identify alternative sewage disposal systems; install sewer infrastructure • Develop scientifically based guidelines to protect groundwater • Restrict all development until affordable sewage treatment system is developed • Complete cost / benefit studies on every project Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update 11 Community Conversations - Summary Report C:\D000menls and Settings\sherb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\Summary Report_Community Conversations.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM Deschutes County South Deschutes County - Community Conversations Policy Concepts Natural Resources Community Conversations participants identify wildlife habitat, fish habitat, rivers and streams, wetlands, forests, groundwater quality and quantity and air quality as high priority natural resources that most need protection. Although there is strong support for protecting these resources, participants say they prefer a strategic protection program to a total ban on development in natural resource areas. Strategic protection would safeguard the high priority areas / resources, but allow some activities to occur in less sensitive areas. Policy Concepts • Create accurate and up-to-date natural resource mapping that identifies high priority areas and is accessible to the public. Completing a local wetland inventory is an example of natural resource mapping that could help property owners make informed development decisions. • Protect identified high priority natural resource areas from development impacts through zoning and other standards. • Allow development to occur on sites outside the high priority natural resources areas or where impacts to resources can be mitigated. Setting aside high priority areas to offset development impacts in less sensitive areas is an example of community-supported mitigation. • Conduct public education to promote voluntary stewardship of high priority natural resources areas. Showcase benefits of protecting and preserving high priority resources. Wildfire Protection Wildfire protection is a topic of great interest to area residents; reducing wildfire hazard is a top community value. Most Community Conversations participants say they already use firewise practices at their homes and businesses, and they support more stringent requirements to ensure all properties are protected. The favored approach is a mix of voluntary encouragement and mandatory requirements. South County residents recommend starting with a public outreach / education program to encourage voluntary adherence to firewise standards. Enactment of mandatory requirements would follow if outreach does not produce the intended results. Participants say the voluntary program should be given three to five years - or longer- to prove it is effective before mandatory requirements are implemented. Policy Concepts • Encourage voluntary compliance with firewise practices through a community outreach program that utilizes a variety of outreach methods and tools, employed in partnership with Project Wildfire and other community partners. Allow this program to operate for several years before considering mandatory standards. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report CADOCUments and SettingMsherbLLocal Settings\Temporary Internet RIWOMMummary Report_Community Conversations.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM • Adopt and enforce firewise standards for areas and situations where the voluntary program has not proven effective. Consider developing a program that allows charging non-conforming and vacant lots property owners for cleanup activities. • Apply firewise practices on County-owned lots in the South County area as a model for private property owners. Rural Development Preserving rural character and taking proactive steps to conserve open space and natural amenities ranks high with participating community members. There is support for maintaining the current prevailing pattern of low-density development, but residents also want new policies that promote conservation of open space, trees and forestland, rivers and stream, peace and quiet and other rural characteristics. There is little support for new destination resorts. Participants in the Community Conversations want no new destination resorts, with a few saying they would support tighter restrictions on resort development instead of an outright ban. No single strategy for preserving South County rural character stands out, but many suggest focusing development in areas already developed, and using zoning and other standards to guide development. Sanitary sewers is another topic of interest in South County, with varying degrees of support for installing sewer systems. Community members are split among those who support construction of sewers throughout South Deschutes County, construction of sewers only where proven cost- effective, expansion of existing sewer systems in Sunriver and La Pine, and those who oppose sewers and further rural development in South County. Participants think a yet unformed sewer district, DEQ or another organization should lead the exploration of sewers for South County. Maintaining rural roads is also important to community members and most agree policies should support some level of road construction and paving, with Deschutes County expected to lead the effort. Policy Concepts • Encourage new development to occur in cities or at strategically selected locations: areas of low natural resource value, or those areas already developed at higher densities or currently served by urban infrastructure. • Create zoning that requires buffers and open space for rural development and protects wetlands, riparian habitat, trees and wildlife habitat. • Support DEQ and other organizations in conducting a sewer feasibility study for South Deschutes County. • Support efforts to construct, pave and maintain roads in South Deschutes County. High Groundwater Areas High groundwater areas are lots where groundwater rises to within 24 inches of the surface. There are around 1,500 high groundwater lots in South Deschutes County. Because high groundwater lots have direct connections to rivers and wetlands and the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers are vulnerable to contamination, community members say protecting groundwater from contamination is important. At the same time, Community Conversations participants want to ensure that high groundwater property owners have the ability to develop their property to the extent practicable, especially if impacts to groundwater can be reduced or eliminated. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report C:\Documents and Settings\sherb\Local Settings\Temporary Internet FileMOLK3\Summary Report_Community Conversations.doc 6/2/2009 12:51:02 PM The desire to safeguard both water quality and property rights leads to two options supported by participants. One option increases protection of high groundwater lots; the second option permits development of high groundwater lots, as long as state and federal regulations are met, while removing the County's current measures to protect groundwater quality. There's ambivalence on the best regulatory strategy. Half of the Community Conversation participants want no development in high groundwater areas, while the other half support limited development under certain conditions. Two-thirds of the Community Conversations participants favor some form of compensation for high groundwater lot owners who cannot develop their property. Policy Concepts • Delay development of high groundwater lots until an effective groundwater protection program and/or sewers are available. • Establish site-specific development criteria for high groundwater lots, allowing for a case-by-case review of lot development proposals. Ensure water quality standards are met and development criteria are applied consistently to all high groundwater lots. • Conduct public education and outreach to landowners informing them of current conditions and development options. • Investigate feasibility of some form of compensation - transferable development credits, land swaps, or other options - for owners of high groundwater lots that cannot developed due to impacts to groundwater quality. • Create a program to permanently preserve County-owned high groundwater lots for wildlife habitat, open space and public access. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Community Conversations - Summary Report C:\Documents and SettingsMerbTocal SeWngs7emporary Internet Fi1es\0LK3\Summary Report_Community Conversabons.doc 612/2009 12:51:02 PM Comprehensive Plan Update South Deschutes County Tuesday, May 12 Three Rivers Elementary School Sunriver This project is funded in part through a grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. PROJECT WILDFIRE rnr. e....r{ a uri..na. South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Top Priority 1. Natural Resources 2. Wildfire Protection I Rural Development 4. High Gr undwater Areas 5. No particular priority S 3 4 5 South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Community Involvement 3. Not sure 1. Yes, keep me informed 2. No 0% 100% ■ Vw% k4to re~a t+rtor.. ■ ego 1 3 2 3 South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Wildfire I.. Yes many firewise practices 2. Yes-some practices 3. Not yet- but plan to do so 4. Maybe later - don't know enough about firewise practices 6. No 6. Don't live f own property in Deschutes County Z, Live In an area not subject to wildfire sm 1 2 3 C 5 i y 1. Yes 2. Only some communities would benefit 3. No communities would benefit 4. Not sure 1 1 4 South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure Wildfire 0% 1. Not important 3% 2. 0% 3. 3% 4. 0% 5. 14% 6. . 81% 7. Very important sax mean i 6.$4861 Rural Development 2 3 South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Outreach L5% 1. Newberry Eagle 0% 2. Bend Bulletin ass 3. Website 13% 4. Direct mail o196 5. E-mail a% 5. Through interested groups 6s% 7. Many / all of the above 3% 8. Another channel not listed 0% 9. Not sure 2. Property owner workshops /training 3. Public schools program ('K-12) 4. Newsletters 5. How-to brochures 0% 6. Videos 0% 7. Website 67% 8. Many / all of the above 3% 9. Another method / tool not listed Sac 10 . Not sure South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Sewer u% 1. Sewer customers t$% 2. State and federal grants and loans (if available) s% 3. All Deschutes County taxpayers 13% 4. South Deschutes County taxpayers 0% 5. Another source not listed 62% 6. Combination of sources ' vas 7. Not sure 1. La Pine and Sunriver communities *o~ 2. Load district(s) sz~s 3. Local improvement districts 4. Deschutes County ' . 0% 5. Homeowners associations 2% 6. Another organization 0% 7. Not sure 10% 8. No road construction / paving in South County 40- Road Development South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Sewer 1. Yes, significantly more 2. Yes, somewhat more 3. No 4. Not sure 61% 1 2 # a Natural Resources 6% 1. Wildlife habitat 9% 2. Fish habitat / rivers / streams a% 3. Wetlands 6% 4. Forests 6% 5. Groundwater quality and quantity 0% 6. Air quality 0% 7. Another resource not listed 60% 8. All of these are high priority resources 12% q. None of these are high priority resources South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Natural Resources 1. Yes, significantly more 2. Yes, somewhat more 3. No 4. Not sure Sewer 1. Yes, significantly more 2. Yes, somewhat more 3. No 4. Not sure 58% 59% x x 3 4 1 2 3 a South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. 6%: 1. Wildlife habitat 3% 2. Fish habitat t rivers / streams 3% 3. Wetlands 6% 4. Forests u 5. Groundwater quality and quantity 00.4 6. Air quality 3% 7. Another resource not listed .sue 8. All of these ire high priority resour s I ohs 9. Nonle of these are high priority resources 41- Wildfire 1. Yes-, significantly more 2. Yes, somewhat more 3. No 4. Not sore 51% Natural Resources z South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. s 1. Consolidate them with adjoining lots $ 2. Transfer ownership to land trust so% 3. Dedicate for wildlife habitat, open space 1s% 4. Use for public access 3% 5. Sell to private owners sou 6. Retain lots with no change 11% 7. Pursue another option Rural Character 1. Control development density through zoning and. other restrictions 2. Protect wetlands, riparian habitat, trees and wildlife habitat through.zoning and other code restrictions 3. Use tax money to purchase and hold land 4. All of these methods :5. Another method not listed 4s~ High Groundwater 1 1 $ 4 5 South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Wildfire 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure 0 1.Yes-- much more development 2. Yes moderate new development 3. Yes - but only very limited development 4. No further development 5.. Not sure 48% 1 : a High Groundwater 1 t' 3 4 5. South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Natural Resources 3% 4. Promote hunting, fishing, tourism instead of development 24% S. Creale zoning and other standards to minimize develop. impacts x~sc Conduct public education to promote voluntary stewardship 4 7. Any 1 all of these polities / programs, would be effective 14% 8. None of these policies J programs would be-effective M High Groundwater 3.% 5. All of the above 4'r-4 6. No dev lop ent in high groundwater areas s% 7. Not sure 4,01 ON 1. Identify.and protect wetlands 3% 2. Protect riparian areas along streams am 3. Set aside natural areas to offset development impacts 1. Expansion 1 improvement of existing homes es ?-6% 2. Constr tion of new homes ! businesses . ' . 8% . Temporary uses only (e.g., camping) o% 4. Destination resorts 1. Construction / paving of roads throughout South County 2. Construction / paving of priority roads 3. No road construction i paving in South County 4. Not sure Lili-l • + a 4 Natural Resources or. 1. Identify, and protect wetlands 3% 2. Protect riparian areas along streams ie% 3. Set aside natural areas to offset development impacts 3% 4. Promote hunting, fishing, tourism instead of development sus 5. Create zoning and other standards to minimize develop. impacts Za% 6. Conduct public education to promote voluntary stewardship 43% 7. Any 1 all of these policies 1 programs 14% 8. None of these policies / programs South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Road Development South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Wildfire 1. One year 2. Two years 3. Three to five years 4. More than five years 5. Don't support voluntary program 1. Yes 2. No M 3. Not sure -41 41% 3 2 3 South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. 1. Transferable .development credits 2. Trade County-owned land for high groundwater lots 3. Another type of compensation 4. No compensation 5. Not sure . Yes - but only in selected instances 3. No 4. Not sure 44. 41'1 High Groundwater 1 : s a. s 1. Yes =I% 1 2 '3 ~ South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. High Groundwater 1. Delay development until groundwater protection program or sewers are available 2. Establish site-specific development criteria for high groundwater lots 3. Conduct public education J outreach 'to landowners 4. All of these strategies 5. Another strategy not listed 6. None of these strategies 10% 1. 096 4. $9G 5. arc s% 7. 2[F% 8• 23% M Rural Character Open 'space Low density development Trees ! forest land Wildlife Rivers and streams Scenic views Peace and quiet- Limited infrastructure (unimproved roads, septic systems, wells-, etic: ) Another element not listed 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Wildfire Adapt I enforce firewise standards for all areas and all development 2_ Adopt I enforce standards for high risk areas 1 development 3_ Encourage flrewlse practices through a voluntary program 4. Clean up non-conforming I vacant lbts - charge the landowners 5- Many I all ofthe above 5. Another firewise practice not listed 3 None of these. approaches 0 I 1 3 i 5 6 1 High Groundwater 1. Areas served by sewers 2. Areas with low natural resource values 3. Areas already surrounded by development 4, All of the above 5. No development in high groundwater areas 6. Not sure 1 2 3 4 S 6 4 South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Natural Resources i . Construction of new sewer systems throughout South County 2, Construction of new sewer systems only whereproven cost- effective compared to septic systems 3, Expansion of existing sewer systems into rural areas 4. Installation of upgraded septic systems Instead of sewers 5. Another alternative instead of sewers .6. Nc rural.development in South County 7. Not sure "K I _ focus development In cibes 2. Cre~ **zoning that requires buffers and open sp€ticeforrural develop. 3. Increase the minimum lot size for new devtinft ir 4_ Limit infrasstructure ~ C sew rAitater.&"&s l and services that support develapment 5. Sara#eg~a~y$~iecfiocatiansiarnew developmord us 6 i ncouragg, Gvnswvation easa+ments on open lands t All I an~+ of these strategies are prom-11.9 8 None of these strategies ei 40, i I a 4 5 Is 7. 8' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 South Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - May 12th Mtg. Rural Character IW 4, 7 j0% Open space Low demady development Trees-.1 forest-land Wildlife Rivers and stre'erns Scenic viewers Dace and quiet Limited inftastrWure (unimproved roads. septic systems, wells, etc_) Another eiemeht`not listed' Document RWodu-'° Poorly (Archivcay Document P - -s POOdY (Ar~;~ ~ yeti) fi m T . X c° uY a M • a yy ` O a E y a m S E E d c m o a c a> c FE o 0 E ° _ a a " a ° r m u o G c O, 4 d • t J y . m N m C O) jEcc r r .+i ii n:3a= ui ~o ~ co y W a _ o of E c ~ c 4) c a o Q o o Q~ c U • d y w c o rn t rn L H d C ~O _ • ~ ~ 3 0 0 r N M V ~ a 3 N t6 ti 00 W C V N ~ S W LY N y 2 j D y C 2 E C E t w y Y N C V C1 O C CC~~ ~ O C L~ ~ y 0 iJ O N ~ O ~ C C N C E 0~5 a s H s 2 sin 0. m a 2 all , • co o ro rn o 0 0 ,o vi vi ,c <c • > eo M r o M tt W fC Ct fG (O N N N N Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) CO Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) 11, Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) O_ 0 N i a1 O O N O w O S-N O U a~ Q U X U O 0. O S pJ U } 'U } L > } O O O O E 3 S } O ice.. N Q Q i0- O } L } y _ } it } CL " (J W =1 in N ~ } u p) a L N ~ ~Q ~ Ol O U ~ V) O o 0 W -a 4- a :3 U S = s` 1 a p V a s N o m a o N L a W U V - N a S W L O O N E N in 'a o Q S U -a p N U al in . L } } L s ° o u X cs L } _ u L. u L. CO > i } to to L m :3 a Q L. a W S 00 0 rn ° O ~ ° tn ~ U- O L o Q cr la- 00 LL } Q O } ° U Q - I~ O 0 0 00 I- -0 O +o- co la- x s s } O a~ m Q 3 to O O C; S - W L. N U -a } N cn E L O T--4 3 U 3 a :.6 0 W L o S _ O F; O N N N } } ~ O } N Q N } a CO 1c: Ol CA) -a O + } 4- U Vj } } s C } _ N } cn r t p~ N F7 7 N O L :3 O u O ' O 0 } > ek) to co N S } } O N F--> U L. O U O N U ~ } O U O N L L a s p~ > L r- p N S } } m Q N Q U a 7 Q a1 S to V O co ° ° y _ ° .i- L. U Q cn a N Vi O N N N r- O N La Q S m } -p U O} 3 Q~ = } ° O L. = N to > CA) tn Q U o to Lo V S V 0 a ° 4- V i N C a- o C :3 :3 C 2 U U U o 2 > s L U ° o > W W ~ r.n co > ty N L N ..Q U co c v- ty O L = } L O S ~ W u L. ~ w W e ~ V U O Q L -a rL V) N Q L. o_ V 3 L. 'a N to V- > > ~ ' C U V L • ~ v L. N ~ t 3 ~ N t3 1 4- 0 0 to Ol N V) 0 > O U Qj c LL O L L S _ O Q Q } o ' N S } N o S N H N } N r/~ v1 } L J u T = O N O t3 L } ~ V1 L v C3 7 N U U C3 V O S O F- N m o- 0 ~ N Y 7 it H U i- 72 L Q N Q ° U 4- O p m u Q U 0 U N Vi L N 4- dl Q al Q -0 0 ~ U - > 3 h N p j H L N C3 U O V) t3 > L to i- N C S i- O U a- ° 4- N ° U U 4- O V L. w } L U O U O N 3 S S S X N > > N 1 . > Q a til O L a ~ CC Q O u N L Q L o to N S r } L CL N N O L ' to W s to Q a ° } L N to 4- i- o N > o E L ° L } a V) o } .2 O + a c U i in v to v v a n in r U L6 co L L N O > O V E r- -0 D_ L 0 I- 7 N L I N N O N L o > p > p) L O } O L w 7 o C3 c to N a O L. p O O C L O V O D w e - 4- L i d co 4- N CL to to u W L. 0- 4- U 4- i- CO O V H 0 L C 0 i o ~ S 7 -a 0 o L ' o O O O in C N L > s O c Q xn N N p t3 S H N d L U a O N O -p S } N Q `0 z- N O L ~ N N S s X > 'a to _ Q X L Ol s ~ } 3 N L p) to -d Q 6 p L = 0) U_ S U : } N 0 0 F- a EL rn 7 F- U L. a w DC s L = X o S cn o V V H W 'a N la- _ } 4 N vi V = o Q N v V v- ~ L 0 U L L O VI O± L N Q N - N d u O F- S U D u (3) -o O to L. N W s Q ~ C3 ~ W ~ } L. N -O 1w > N H p~ In y_ to O \ > o V N > Y - 3 a -a li L. V N H to U } I+- L L N O 4- O L a ~ a Q EL u O ~ to ~ N C3 -0 'a _tn O L H V > > U u m Q } s L a E c n M u u v V V N N 4- O L 00 4- O O CA) N L Q } V) L U . . L. a O U . co > - VI -a E V) L CC S C3 } ~ } } p U 61 U O a U S N ~ -a C )u U L Q 4- C W S O r_ : U CI a 4 J L L L L. vi N N N -C LE C xn O W c3 L } U 4- 4- r- 11.1 o CO } c3 o L QJ L U O L C N - L } } p -O -O V) ? L V) 4- 'a U U O :3 Q a Q } O N CL -C O 7 L. N L S L } Q -0 p j ~ S 3 > U } : N S a = } v' Q L Q N O a1 co L O S U S Q _ LL c a- OU 0 to N 00 > co u co 3 N C:) 00 CL tn O O S cn m Lo C7 O a v U 0 L 'a 0 ' } r Q Sf- 0 - D Q In - S 4- p C + - O_ Cl N O O O 0' N U V 'a L S C5 L. U Q - 0 N a H } v N M 0 U U O O X N N L ~ 00 L LQ _ p 0 F- } N L. N N Q Q C LL a Q O N N L V) u } Q C . N O Q ~ v m ~ U L o L c M i ~ C ~ W D :3 S S v1 O } Q 7 L -a S F- S in 0 L CA) N N 4- -0 S cn = O U C3 > 0- C ) ~ } O ~ L. N t > co O r A L. 4- 7 ~ . Q ice- ` a O p C3 V) o) > G~ a) o L L O . > ~ E a U O a Q 4- s p S C3 U s V O 0 } O L v a N } O `Q- L. H z) Q cn N L o V) O _ N co cn 4- > N V CO > Q N pOj N L N a } L N Q ~ "O } O :3 r- O) fl 0 CA) N U L c 3 0 - L S ~ L. E O U S O LU N C3 CA) N Q S rL : N o Q O 0) E L. L m S - 3 to L. F- O S C3 Q S u -C 4- x W kb Q _ 3 z3 V a W o O O } V L QJ } L > O O Q C31 LU L- a- O t= -O N } 0 0 U X fA) 3 4- N } L _ - N al U j co Q CA u _ C :3 O -a Q s :3 } t/1 s- 4- r v U 'O C51 S= O = N N N C3 N O S U -Cy O } O U C3 3 C31 i- O p CA) > O U } p a Q = = Q o a s o~i o CL L L. Q _ 3 N N N O 4 ' Q _ N E O S L C3 .N L N 0 Q = 6 N Q p - C3 N O X N 1 F- . ~ .o L. c.) QJ O 3 o