Loading...
2019-292-Minutes for Meeting May 08,2019 Recorded 7/3/20190-tES OG BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541 ) 388-6570 1 11 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2019-292 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 07/03/2019 8:45:36 AM ❑'�V"fE.S.C��2< �I�II��I�I"II'I�I'III�IIII I �I� 2019-292 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson, Patti Adair, and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel (arrived at 10:10 a.m.); and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and no identified representatives of the media were in attendance. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 10:03 am PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: None offered CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. DEBONE: Move approval ADAI R: Second BOCC MEETING MAY 8, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 9 VOTE: DEBONE: ADAI R: HENDERSON: Consent Benda Items: Yes Yes Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2019-260, Quitclaim Deed for Richard Scott Lewis 2. Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2019-226, MOU Between Deschutes County and RMG Destination LLC ACTION ITEMS: Added Item: Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2019-282, an Annexation Agreement with the City of Redmond for an adjustment to the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary Commissioner Henderson gave a summary of the history of this item. James Lewis, Property Manager presented the annexation agreement. ADAIR: Move approval of Document No. 2019-282 DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: DEBONE: HENDERSON: Yes Yes Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3. PRESENTATION: CCBHC Quarterly Update - 9/1/18 to 3/31/19 Health Services staff Janice Garceau, Dan Emerson and Tyler Nass presented a power point update on the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic. BOCC MEETING MAY 8, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 9 4. PRESENTATION: County College 2019 Whitney Hale Public Information Officer reported on the upcoming County College program; a county offering that allows residents to learn about Deschutes County department and services. At this time, we have received 24 applications for the 30 slots available (prior to even advertising for the class). Commissioner Adair offered to review this year's class applications and supports a geographic distribution. Applications for the 2019 County College will remain open through mid-July. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Repeal of Ordinance No. 2018-005 Flood Plain Amendments Nicole Mardell, Community Development Department outlined the hearing procedures. There being no declared conflicts of interest of bias and no challenges from those present, Commissioner Henderson opened the public hearing. Ms. Mardell presented the staff report. Commissioner Henderson called for public testimony. Fred & Teresa Netter presented testimony and requested clarification. Their concern involves a parcel they own that has "'I % flood plain" which won't allow them to build or split the parcel. Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager spoke on the hearings officer's decision that overturned the discretion of planning staff to recognize certain exceptions and accommodations. Staff proposed to decouple the multiple elements in the flood plain amendments. Will Groves, Certified Flood Plain Manager presented details on flood plain mapping. Commissioner Henderson closed the public hearing both oral and written record and the Board proceeded to deliberations. Commissioner DeBone supported the declaration of an emergency clause and recommended adding a sentence to support restarting a legislative process. BOCC MEETING MAY 8, 2019 PAGE 3 OF 9 DEBONE: Move first and second reading of Ordinance No. 2019-010 and declaring an emergency with edits. ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion CARRIED Commissioner Henderson read the Ordinance into the record. DEBONE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2019-010 ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion CARRIED 6. CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production and Processing Appeal at 25450 Walker Road Jacob Ripper, Community Development Department presented the decision matrix for continued deliberations. Mr. Ripper reported the applicant has recently offered to reopen the record and postpone the dates of the open record period to allow the District Attorney time to complete it's review. Discussion held on fire and safety risks. RECESS: The Board went into Recess at 12:08 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 12:18 p.m. Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel reported the appellants were contacted during the recess and they support reopening the record as well. Mr. Ripper BOCC MEETING MAY 8, 2019 PAGE 4 OF 9 relayed the request from the applicant yesterday was that the record be opened on June 14 for the submission of new evidence. The draft Order will be revised and presented to the Board this afternoon. Mr. Smith will contact both the applicant and appellant. RECESS: The Board went into Recess at 12:28 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 1:18 p.m. 7. DELIBERATIONS Appeal of an Administrative Determination for Marijuana Production at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road Jacob Ripper, Community Development Department presented the decision matrix for deliberations. Commissioner Henderson noted that he was not present for the public hearing but has since reviewed a portion of the recorded hearing. Topics that address approval criteria were discussed by the Board. Commissioner Henderson requested further time to review the issues of access to the subject property and the water rights. Commissioner DeBone observed that it is the Board's job to consider the land use code with the testimony in front of us. Deliberations will be continued to Wednesday, May 15. 8. Fall River Special Road District Discussion Commissioner DeBone summarized the request of the Fall River Special Road District to proceed the existing method of nominating board members. The request was come to the Board on the appointment process for Special Road Districts and an expressed dissatisfaction of the Home Owner's Association. Commissioner Henderson stated the Board of County Commissioner's job is to appoint a special road district board and he BOCC MEETING MAY 8, 2019 PAGE 5 OF 9 expressed concern with all of the community issues. Commissioner Henderson recommends a nominating vote by just the road district members and to not include members who are part of the Home Owner's Association from the process. The Home Owner's Association feel they have authority but it is not a legal binding authority on the County. Commissioner DeBone supports the Special Road District doing the work and authority of their responsibilities. Commissioner Adair would like to see harmony in their neighborhood again and feels that the Road District needs to add some transparency and continue on. Commissioner Adair supports the normal appointment process for Special Road Districts with a term expiration of 2019, 2020, and 2021. The appointment recommendation will come by a letter from the Special Road District. The next community meeting of Fall River is scheduled for June 1. A confirmation in the letter from the current Special Road District Board will identify the nomination recommendations based on a vote was made at the public meeting of June 1. Suggestion was made that each owner within the road district may vote and proxies should be permitted. County Counsel Doyle will prepare a communication and send to Mr. Swanson and Mr. McManus. ADAIR: Move extension of the current appointments through June 15 DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion CARRIED At the time of 3:31 p.m., due to a wildfire in La Pine, Commissioner DeBone excused himself from the meeting. 9. 9-1-1 Update 911 Operations staff Sara Crosswhite and Will Mullins presented a draft document amending the 911 Service District Operating Agreement. BOCC MEETING MAY 8, 2019 PAGE 6 OF 9 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 SERVICE DISTRICT ADAIR: Motion to approve Document No. 2019-237 HENDERSON: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Absent, excused HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Ad raft Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District and the agencies of the User Board was presented to the Board and will be on the agenda for the May 21 User Board meeting. ADAIR: Motion to authorize 9-1-1 Interim Director Sara Crosswhite's signature to the Intergovernmental Agreement Document No. 2019-292 HENDERSON: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Absent, excused HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried The Service Level Agreement Radio Subscribers and Accessories addendum was presented for consideration. This addendum documents specific radio devices and peripherals support to be provided by Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District Technology Services. OTHER ITEMS: • Lee Randall, Facilities Manager gave an HVAC replacement update of the Health Services building on Courtney. • Documents from earlier in this meeting were brought back as revised and directed for the Board's signature. BOCC MEETING MAY 8, 2019 PAGE 7 OF 9 ADAIR: Move approval of Order No. 2019-013 HENDERSON: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Absent, excused HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried RECESS: at the time of 4:34 p.m. the Board took a recess and reconvened the meeting at 4:40 p.m. in the Allen Room EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 4:40 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 5:04 p.m. OTHER ITEMS: • Future Agenda Item: Commissioner Henderson requests a future executive session for a general litigation update. • Annual Fees - Commissioner Henderson suggests a specific discussion as to annual fee increase predicated upon increased cost of doing business (due to COLA, inflation, etc.) and suggested an initial discussion without departments present. • A brief discussion was held about legislative bill deadlines and what bills are alive and what is dead. Concern raised about TPM resurfacing in some other bill. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: • Commissioner Henderson toured crisis stabilization centers in Jackson and Josephine Counties yesterday. Four of the 6 facilities that have been toured BOCC MEETING MAY 8, 2019 PAGE 8 OF 9 are operated by private entities. Josephine County has the oldest facility and is operated as 30 -day bed facility. Commissioner Henderson suggested a round -table discussion as to scope, scale, and term of the proposed facility. Role of CCO in stabilization center and larger behavioral care needs further investigation/understanding. Commissioner Henderson noted the long-term facilities tended to be located near hospitals and have a different design than the short-term facilities. Of the facilities that were visited, Marion County was the only facility that had police drop-offs. After discussion with the Commissioners, Mr. Anderson agreed that this item would be included on next Wednesday's meeting agenda. Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. DATED this _� Day of _ 2019 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. l UXIMMIq ANTHONY DEBONE, COMMISSIONER BOCC MEETING MAY 8, 2019 PAGE 9 OF 9 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BOCC MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2019 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit www. deschutes. org/meetin�s. Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2019-260, Quitclaim Deed for Richard Scott Lewis 2. Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2019-226, MOU Between Deschutes County and RMG Destination LLC ACTION ITEMS 3. 10:10 AM PRESENTATION: CCBHC Quarterly Update - 9/1/18 to 3/31/19 -Janice Garceau, BH Deputy Director Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 8, 2019 Pagel of 3 4. 10:40 AM PRESENTATION: County College 2019 - Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer The Public Notice for this Hearing identified a start time of 10:00 a.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Repeal of Ordinance 2018-005 - Flood Plain Amendments - Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner 6. 11:30 AM CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production and Processing Appeal at 25450 Walker Road -Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner 7. 12:00 AM DELIBERATIONS: Appeal of an Administrative Determination for Marijuana Production at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road -Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner LUNCH RECESS 8. 1:00 PM Fall River Special Road District Discussion 9. 1:30 PM 9-1-1 Update - Sara Crosswhite, Interim Director OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 8, 2019 Page 2 of 3 FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have questions, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 8, 2019 Page 3 of 3 N l ES cd STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: April 30, 2019 MEETING DATE: May 8, 2019 RE: Memorandum of Understanding between Deschutes County and RMG Destination LLC for payments to County for Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market Road improvements (Document 2019-226) I. Introduction Crook County has twice approved Hidden Canyon, a destination resort that will have 3,675 resort units spread across 4,152 acres in western Crook County, which has traffic impacts in Deschutes County. Hidden Canyon is located just east of the existing Brasada Ranch destination resort. The first Hidden Canyon approval was in 2007 and the second was last year. Crook County continues to require the developer to provide payment to Deschutes County for improving intersections the traffic impact analysis (TIA) had indicated would fail. The attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the developer, RMG Destinations LLC, and Deschutes County, specifies the amount and the phasing of the payment. The MOU essentially updates the 2007 MOU, which was Board Document 2007-580. Staff held a work session with the Board on April 29 to discuss the MOU. The Board had a few questions about how the amount was determined and the timing of the payment. Staff explained the amount and timing was based on the updated traffic impact analysis and the assumed rate of construction. Staff will present the 2019 MOU to the Board at its May 8, 2019, meeting for consideration of signature. 11. Summary RMG is developing Hidden Canyon, a destination resort in southwest Crook County. Crook County approved the original proposal in 2007 and at the request of Deschutes County required RMG to pay for improvements at Powell Butte Highway/Alfalfa Market -Neff Road and Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market intersections. The 2007 traffic impact analysis (TIA) indicated the resort's traffic adversely affected these intersections. The improvements were tied to phases of development and totaled $314,927. The Powell Butte Highway/Alfalfa Market -Neff intersection improvement totaled $278,680 and Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market intersection totaled $36,247. The payments were Condition #32 of Crook County file C -CU -DES -003-06. Payment for the Powell Butte Highway/Alfalfa Market -Neff improvements were to be made no later than the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the 257' dwelling unit; payment for the Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market Road improvement would be no later than the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the 1,102" d dwelling unit. The development did not occur, however, due to the economic recession. In 2018, RMG revived the project and submitted an updated TIA. Crook County again approved Hidden Canyon destination resort under Crook County file 217-18-000334-PLNG, with a revised Condition #32. As Deschutes County had already constructed a roundabout at Powell Butte Highway/Alfalfa Market - Neff intersection, the intersection no longer failed, and no improvements were needed. The Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market Road intersection still required improvements. Hidden Canyon will pay $75,095 for improvements to the Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market intersection no later than the issuance of the 500th certificate of occupancy. III. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board consider signing the MOU between Deschutes County and RMG Destination LLC (Document 2019-226) as presented. Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding between Deschutes County/RMG Destination LLC (Board Document 2019-226) Crook County 2018 Approval of Hidden Canyon (file 247-18-000334-PLNG) 2018 Hidden Canyon Traffic Impact Analysis 2007 Deschutes County-RMG MOU (Document 2007-580) Page 2 of 2 TRANSIGHT CON S U LTI N G,LLC Engineering and Planning Services Transportation Impact Analysis Hidden Canyon Destination Resort Crook County, Oregon 7061 P OREGM 10 74 Prepared For: RMG Development W. Prepared By: Transight Consulting, LLC Engineer of Record; Joseph Bessman, PE Project No. 1017 August 2018 Hidden Canyon Resort T/A TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................................4 ProjectBackground................................................................................................................................7 ExistingTraffic Conditions....................................................................................................................10 ExistingTransportation Facilities............................................................................................................................................... 10 TrafficOperations...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 StudyIntersections.................................................................................................................................................................... 11 AnalysisPeriods......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 2036 Background Traffic Conditions....................................................................................................19 GrowthForecasts...................................................................................................................................................................... 19 In -Process Traffic....................................................................................................................................................................... 19 TransportationImprovements................................................................................................................................................. 20 ProposedDevelopment Plan...............................................................................................................23 TripGeneration......................................................................................................................................................................... 25 TripDistribution and Trip Assignment....................................................................................................................................... 29 2036 Total Traffic Conditions (Full Buildout).......................................................................................32 US26/US 97 (South Madras) Junction....................................................................................................................................... 35 US97/0'Neil Highway............................................................................................................................................................... 37 Redmond US 97 Intersections (Evergreen Avenue, Highland -Glacier Avenue, and Veterans Way) ......................................... 38 AirportWay/Veterans Way....................................................................................................................................................... 40 Oregon126/Veterans Way........................................................................................................................................................ 41 Oregon126/Powell Butte Highway........................................................................................................................................... 41 OR126/Tom McCall Road......................................................................................................................................................... 43 US26/011126 Prineville „y" Junction........................................................................................................................................ 44 PowellButte Highway/Alfalfa Road........................................................................................................................................... 45 Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market Road.............................................................................................................................. 45 US20/Powell Butte Highway..................................................................................................................................................... 46 MitigationSummary .................................................................................................................................................................. 46 SiteAccess Characteristics...................................................................................................................47 IntersectionSight Distance........................................................................................................................................................ 47 TurnLane Warrants................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Event and Construction Management.................................................................................................55 EventManagement Plan........................................................................................................................................................... 55 ConstructionTraffic Plan........................................................................................................................................................... 55 Project Findings and Recommendations............................................................................................. 56 Page 2 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA APPENDICES Appendix A: Project Scoping Materials Appendix B: Traffic Count Data Appendix C: ODOT CARS Crash Records Appendix D: Description of LOS Methods and Criteria Appendix E: Year 2016 Existing Traffic Conditions Operational Worksheets Appendix F: Year 2036 Background Traffic Conditions Operational Worksheets Appendix G: Brasada Ranch Trip Generation Documentation Appendix H: Year 2036 With -Site Traffic Conditions Operational Worksheets Appendix 1: Mitigated Year 2036 Operational Worksheets Page 3 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed 4,152 -acre Hidden Canyon Resort in accordance with Crook County Transportation Impact Analysis requirements within Section 7.1.7 of the 2005 Transportation System Plan, Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.460(4), project scoping materials, and in coordination with Crook County, Deschutes County, and ODOT staff. This report provides a revised analysis of conditions within Central Oregon of the proposed destination resort development, which is planned to include up to 3,675 resort units located within the buttes immediately east of Brasada Ranch. Primary changes within the 2018 transportation analysis from the original Hidden Canyon Resort are summarized below: • Trip generation surveys conducted at Brasada Resort identified trip rates that are approximately 70% of those applied within the 2006 application. The revised trip rates show that full build -out of the resort results in approximately 845 weekday p.m. peak hour trips (448 in, 397 out). • Several studies and policy changes occurred since the original Hidden Canyon application that revised the potential improvement options on the OR 126 corridor. Initial scoping discussions with agencies indicated a desire to move toward the roundabout treatments along the highway as identified within the OR 126 Corridor Plan and currently under construction at Tom McCall. • Forecast growth in area traffic was reduced within the recent Crook County Transportation System Plan, extending the timeframe for when improvements would be needed at area intersections. This is due in part to more reasonable absorption of approved resort development and the lower trip rates of data centers near the airport. • The construction of the OR 126/Tom McCall roundabout and the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road roundabout addressed two critical system issues identified within the original analysis. Current plans for additional improvements to support industrial land development in Redmond will further address regional transportation system needs. The following provides a summary of key findings of the transportation impact analysis: The 2018 operations analysis shows that all of the study area intersections except the southern Madras US 97/US 26 junction operate acceptably today. By 2036 nearly all the US 97 intersections in Redmond, the OR 126/Powell Butte Highway intersection, and the Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market Road intersection are projected to exceed agency performance standards without Hidden Canyon. With the resort additional system needs were identified at the US 20/Powell Butte Highway intersection, along with incremental degradation of the intersections not meeting performance standards within the no -build analysis. Mitigation options have previously been identified within adopted Transportation System Plans for nearly all of the affected intersections or are currently subject to ongoing system or corridor planning efforts. The 2018 area safety review identified several locations that exceed ODOT's critical crash rate. These include the capacity -constrained US 97/Highland-Glacier Avenue and US 97/Veteran's Way intersections in Redmond, the OR 126/Powell Butte Highway intersection in Crook County, the [now mitigated] Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road and Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market Road intersections in Deschutes County. Most of these locations are also identified within ODOT's Safety Priority Index System (SPIS). Clear sight lines are provided at the Stearns -Becker connections with Alfalfa Road and Millican Road, easily exceeding AASHTO recommendations. Page 4 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA With these updates and findings the following reflects key recommendations to support transportation needs associated with the Hidden Canyon Resort: • Hidden Canyon Resort will be responsible for coordinating, obtaining approval, and installing wayfinding signage to direct users to the resort. • Hidden Canyon Resort will be responsible for constructing entrance treatments on Alfalfa Road and Millican Road to highlight the entrance locations through all stages of the resort development, from construction access through build -out. The entrances should include illumination so that resort guests unfamiliar with the area can find the entrances at night. • Hidden Canyon Resort will be responsible for obtaining ROW and approval from BLM to complete the Stearns -Becker Roadway alignment connecting Millican Road and Alfalfa Road. Additional ROW to support the widening for turn lanes (or other treatments) at the entrances will also be the responsibility of the development. • Completion of the following projects will be required to mitigate impacts to Crook County intersections: o Installation of a southbound right -turn deceleration lane at the Millican Road/Stearns- Becker intersection. This improvement should be in place with the completion of the Stearns — Becker connection with Millican Road to support construction and visitor trips. o Installation of a southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn deceleration lane will be required at the Alfalfa Road/Stearns-Becker Road intersection when warranted (estimated to occur with approximately 500 to 600 resort units depending on completion of the Stearns -Becker Road). Alternatively, the development could consider installation of a roundabout in lieu of turn lanes. o Installation of a single -lane roundabout at the Powell Butte Highway/Alfalfa Road intersection. This improvement is identified within this analysis as a long-term need, meeting adopted County performance standards but operating with high delay. The specific timing of this improvement will be a function of Brasada Resort and Hidden Canyon development. Operations and safety at this intersection should be monitored with future resort phases to identify when this improvement will be required. • Pro -Rata payments should be provided to offset the regional impacts to the following ODOT intersections: o US 26/US 97 (South Madras) Junction: 3.6%, $144,827.59 o US 97/0'Neil Highway Intersection: 1.5%, $1,506.97 o Central Redmond East-West Connection: 5.3%, $1,591,937.47 o OR 126/Powell Butte Highway: 19.7%, $786,725.23 o OR 126/Tom McCall Road: 8.1%,$161,016.95 o US 26/OR 126 Junction (Prineville "Y" Junction): 5.2%, $209,122.81 o US 20/Powell Butte Highway Intersection: 9.4%, $283,410.14 Total pro -rata payments for all of these projects equates to $3,178,547.16. It is recommended that this funding be earmarked toward the construction of a single -lane roundabout at the OR 126/Powell Butte Highway intersection to be constructed by the development prior to occupancy of the 251'` resort unit. • Pro -Rata payment should be provided to Deschutes County for impacts at the Powell Butte Highway intersection with Butler Market Road: 3.8%, $75,095.79 ($20.42/resort unit). This improvement is forecast to be required within the 2025 to 2030 timeframe to address capacity needs. An event management plan should be developed once the specific type and location of recreational amenities are finalized. The event management plan should ensure adequate on-site parking, wayfinding, and emergency service plans are in place. Page 5 Hidden Canyon Resort VA A fire evacuation plan should be developed and periodically updated in collaboration with emergency service providers, accounting for the roadways, amenities, and facilities that are in place. Additional details on the 2018 analysis methodology, findings, and recommendations are provided within this report. Page 6 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA PROJECT BACKGROUND An initial traffic study was completed and submitted for the Hidden Canyon Resort project to Crook County in August 2006. The study was premised on development of the overall 4,152 acres of land located in Crook County, with 3,243 acres of resort development and 909 acres preserved for open space and wildlife corridor, which would be retained for exclusive farm use. As shown in Figure 1, the resort is situated immediately east of Brasada Ranch. The original resort application identified development of up to 3,675 resort units, which could range from single-family homes (2,450 units) to various types of overnight rental units (up to 1,225 units) that could take a variety of forms (hotel rooms, lock -off units, condominiums, etc.). In addition to the resort's residential units, requirements for a resort included the need for on-site dining, recreation, and retail. Recreation could take numerous forms, from amenities such as golf, swim centers, trails, tennis courts, or a wide variety of other activities. These types of internal resort uses are considered ancillary to the resort operations, and are intended to help capture trips within the resort boundaries. Access to Hidden Canyon Resort was approved from an improved Becker -Stearns Road that bisected the property, connecting Millican Road and Johnson Ranch Road —Alfalfa Road. The alignment of this roadway connects across Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands east and west of the destination resort and requires right-of-way from BLM at the connection with Alfalfa Road. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the destination resort and the primary access roadway, and Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual layout of the resort roadways and development areas. Page 7 W&- Crook County Deschutes County Nov :'i�� Lb� �1�r',��: '�' m.,�. ✓'� t4i� � .z4 IM r 1� it �^--- s ��'r V� r Hidden Canyon Resort TIA EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES The proposed site is currently undeveloped and has a resort destination overlay zoning. The surrounding uses are undeveloped and zoned EFU, with the exception of the nearby Brasada Ranch. As shown in Figure 1, access to the site is provided by Stearns -Becker Road that connects to Millican Road and Johnson Ranch Road — Alfalfa Road. Millican Road and Johnson Ranch Road — Alfalfa Road are classified as Rural Collectors in the 2017 Crook County Transportation System Plan. Table 1 summarizes the existing area roadways included in this study and the pertinent characteristics. Most of the roads within the study area are rural in nature with no designated bike lanes, limited shoulders, no sidewalks, and no on -street parking. ToLJn 1 Vvictina Trancnnrtatinn Facilities NP: Not Posted/Speed Sign Not Observed Transit service in the area is provided by Cascades East Transit. Transit service is provided on Oregon 126 between Prineville and Redmond, and on US 97 between Redmond and Bend. Both routes are only served on weekdays with limited frequency. In the City of Redmond, public transit services are demand responsive and require a trip to be scheduled a day in advance. No service is currently provided to area resorts other than through private charter or ridesharing services. Page 10 Functional Roadway Jurisdiction Classification Cross Section Speed Oregon 126 ODOT StatewideExpressway 2-4 lanes 45/55 mph US 97 ODOT Statewide 2-5 lanes 55 mph Expressway US 20 ODOT Regional Highway 2 -lanes 55 mph Powell Butte Highway Crook County Minor Arterial 2 -lanes 55 mph Johnson Ranch Rd - Crook County/ Major Collector/ 2 -lanes 55 mph Alfalfa Rd Deschutes County Rural Collector Millican Rd Crook County Major Collector 2 -lanes 55 mph Shumway Rd Crook County Major Collector 2 -lanes NP Stearns -Becker Rd Crook County Local 2 -lanes NP Alfalfa Market Rd Deschutes County Rural Arterial 2 -lanes NP Crook Major Willard Rd County/Deschutes Collector/Rural 2 -lanes NP County Arterial Veterans Way City of Redmond Major Collector 2 -lanes 45 mph Airport Way City of Redmond Minor Arterial 2 -lanes withturn lanes 45 mph NP: Not Posted/Speed Sign Not Observed Transit service in the area is provided by Cascades East Transit. Transit service is provided on Oregon 126 between Prineville and Redmond, and on US 97 between Redmond and Bend. Both routes are only served on weekdays with limited frequency. In the City of Redmond, public transit services are demand responsive and require a trip to be scheduled a day in advance. No service is currently provided to area resorts other than through private charter or ridesharing services. Page 10 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS This 2018 analysis of traffic operations was prepared using Synchro 10 software and Highway Capacity Manual 6" Edition and 2000 Edition operations methods. All traffic operations within this report reflect peak fifteen -minute conditions during the peak hour. The study intersections are under the various jurisdictions of Crook County, Deschutes County, ODOT, and the City of Redmond and each has varying operation standards. The Crook County's Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements contains the County's operational requirements for intersections. Performance standards in Crook County vary based on the intersection control type as summarized below: • LOS "D" or better for signalized, all -way stop, and roundabout intersections with a maximum volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.95 • LOS "E," or LOS "F" with a v/c ratio of 0.95 or less for the critical movement for two-way stop - controlled intersections The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan identifies the performance standard for unsignalized and signalized intersections of county roads to be LOS "D" or better. Intersections under ODOT jurisdiction require compliance with the Oregon Highway Plan mobility targets based on Action IF. Table 6 of the OHP summarizes the relevant ODOT mobility targets outside the Portland Metropolitan area; ODOT performance standards vary by location of the facility (urban vs. rural), State Functional Classification, and posted speed. Based on this table, intersections on US 97, US 20 and OR 126 have a target v/c ratio less than or equal to 0.70 in the rural area and 0.80 in the City of Redmond and Prineville, and 0.90 in Special Transportation Areas. Two of the study intersections on US 97 and within the City of Redmond have established Alternative Mobility Standards. These were established for the US 97/Evergreen Avenue and US 97/Veterans Way intersections with the 2012 Senate Bill 1544 and Intergovernmental Agreement #28621, and may be revisited with the update to the City of Redmond TSP. The Redmond Transportation System Plan contains the City's standards for intersection operations. The standards for City streets require operation of LOS "E" or better during the peak 15 minutes of the peak hour of the average weekday. A lesser standard is allowed at unsignalized intersections with low volume minor street approaches. The requirement in these cases for a v/c ratio of less than 0.90 and a 95th percentile queue of less than four vehicles during the peak hour. STUDY INTERSECTIONS Study intersections within the 2018 analysis were identified based on review of the original 2006 Transportation Impact Analysis for Hidden Canyon Resort. Additional locations were identified through scoping discussions and outreach with the primary affected agencies. This includes 24 total study intersections throughout the Central Oregon area that are mostly on the highway system. Figure 3 illustrates the study intersection locations. Existing Traffic Operations Traffic counts were collected throughout the Powell Butte area in early August 2017, prior to the solar eclipse impacts and fires. These traffic counts reflect the seasonal peak summer volumes. Additional Page 11 Midden Canyon Resort TIA counts were collected in April and November of 2017, and again in April 2018. The April and November counts were seasonally adjusted to reflect 30" highest hourly design conditions per the ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual. A 1.6% growth rate was applied to all the year 2017 counts, consistent with the growth rate in the Crook County Transportation System Plan, to develop 2018 traffic volumes. Traffic counts were conducted during the weekday evening (4:00 — 6:00 p.m.) peak hour for all the study intersections. Additional data from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. was also collected atthe Highland -Glacier Avenue/US 97, Veterans Way/US 97, Airport Way/Veterans Way, Shumway Road-Bussett Road/Powell Butte Highway, Alfalfa Road/Powell Butte Highway, Alfalfa Road/Shumway Road, Stearns -Becker Road/Alfalfa Road, Stearns -Becker Road/SW Millican Road, Alfalfa Market Road/Johnson Ranch Road, and Reservoir Road/Millican Road intersections. The turning movement counts from the weekday p.m. peak hour are summarized and shown in Figure 3. Page 12 IL. 'Z m Hidden Canyon Resort T!A The existing traffic conditions reflect the current operations throughout the study area during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This analysis is used to calibrate operational models to field conditions. A summary of the existing conditions analysis is presented in Table 2. This analysis shows that all the study area intersections operate acceptably today, with exception of the US 26/US 97 intersection in south Madras and the OR 126/Tom McCall intersection (that is currently being reconstructed as a single -lane roundabout). The stop -controlled movements at the US 97/US 26 junction operate with high delays and with a v/c ratio over the 0.70 mobility target. r.. i.l.. 9 c--, -f rvictino Traffir renditions. Weekday PM Peak Hour 1 Cult G. Juan Nc„ T v ..p _ _ _---------- Intersection - - -Performance Performance Standard Critical Movement LOS Delay (sec) v/c Ratio 1: US 26/US 97 v/c:9 0.70 EB LTR F >50.0 0.74 2: US 97/0'Neil Hwy v/c15 0.70 (US 97) v/c:5 0.75 (O'Neil) WB LTR F >50.0 0.74 3: Evergreen Ave/US 97 Alternative Mobility Standard D 35.2 0.81 4: Highland -Glacier Ave/US 97 v/c:5 0.80 B 13.9 0.63 5: Veterans Way/US 97 Alternative Mobility Standard C 31.7 0.80 6: Airport Way/Veterans Way LOS E, v/c15 0.90 B 13.6 7: Oregon 126/Veterans Way v/c <_ 0.80 NB LR C 15.2 0.46 8: Oregon 126/Powell Butte Hwy v/c <_ 0.70 NB LT E 44.0 0.44 9: Oregon 126/Millican-Airport Way v/c:5 0.80 SB LTR E 40.9 0.14 10: Shumway Rd /Powell Butte Hwy v/c15 0.95 WB R B 10.5RO.8 11: Bussett Rd/Powell Butte Hwy v/c <_ 0.95 WB L B 12.4212: BussettRd/Shumway Rd v/c<_ 0.95 EB LTR B 10.0613: Alfalfa Rd/Powell Butte Hwy v/c5 0.95 WB L B 14.01 14: Alfalfa Rd/Shumway Rd v/c 5 0.95 WB LTR A 9.4 0.10 17: Butler Market Rd/Powell Butte Hwy LOS D EB LR C 23.1 0.53 18: Alfalfa Market Rd/Powell Butte Hwy -Neff Rd LOS D A 6.5 19: US 20/Powell Butte Hwy v/c:5 0.70 SB R B 12.4 0.42 20: Alfalfa Market Rd/Johnson Ranch Rd LOS D NB LTR B 10.5 0.01 21: Reservoir Rd/Millican Rd LOS D, v/c <_ 0.95 A 7.4 22: US 20/Dodds Rd v/c <_ 0.70 WB LR A 9.2 0.11 23: Oregon 126/Tom McCall Rd v/c:5 0.90 SB L F >50.0 >1.00 24: Oregon 126/US 26 v/c:5 0.90 NB L C 1 23.0 1 0.401 1Reflects the worst v/c ratio at the intersection where UK Im is stop contronea ro rurrl Reil dl]U IRA l" O ILO BOLD: Performance standard not met Page 14 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Roadway Safety Area safety was reviewed based on historical information within the ODOT crash database and field observations of the intersections. Critical safety issues are summarized below. ODOT Historical Crash Records Historical crash records were obtained from ODOT Crash Analysis and Reporting System (CARS) from the period between January 2012 and December 2016. This reflects the most recent five-year period available. Crashes that are required to be reported through this time period include those that involve at least one motor vehicle, involve any level of personal injury, or that result in $1,500 or more in property damage. Table 3 summarizes the number and severity of reported crashes at each of the study area intersections. The table also provides a crash rate per million entering vehicles and comparison to the ODOT critical crash rate, which is often used to assess whether a geometric or traffic control deficiency is present. Table 4 shows the crash history of individual intersections in further detail. Table 3. Reported Crash Summary (January 2012 to December 2016) Intersection 1: US 26/US 97 2: US 97/0'Neil Hwy 3: Evergreen Ave/US 97 4: Highland -Glacier Ave/US 97 5: US 97/Veterans Way 6: Airport Way/Veterans Way 7: OR 126/Veterans Way 8: OR 126/Powell Butte Hwy 9: OR 126/Millican-Airport Way 10: Shumway Rd/Powell Butte Hwy 11: Bussett Rd/Powell Butte Hwy 12: Bussett Rd/Shumway Rd 13: Alfalfa Rd/Powell Butte Hwy 14: Alfalfa Rd/Shumway Rd 17: Butler Market Rd/ Powell Butte Hwy 18: Powell Butte Hwy/Neff Rd 19: US 20/Powell Butte Hwy 20: Alfalfa Market Rd/ Johnson Ranch Rd 21: Reservoir Rd/Millican Rd (Continued) Page 15 Number of Crashes Crash Severity 3 Crash Rate per MEV > ODOT Critical Crash Rate?* Fatal Injury Non -Injury 10 0 6 4 0.32 No 10 0 6 4 0.27 No 34 0 22 12 0.59 No 42 0 26 16 0.69 Yes 51 0 35 16 0.80 No 1 0 1 0 0.07 No 3 0 2 1 0.16 No 13 0 9 4 0.66 No 3 0 2 1 0.14 No 3 0 2 1 0.29 No 3 0 2 1 0.29 No 3 0 2 1 0.29 No 1 0 1 0 0.11 No 0 0 0 0 0.00 No 7 0 3 4 0.52 Yes 22 0 12 10 1.41 Yes' 5 0 2 3 0.28 No 3 1 0 1 2 I 1 I 0.94 I No 0 I u I 0 I 0 ( 0.00 I No Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Table 3 (Continued). Reported Crash Summary (January 2012 to December 2016) to December 2016) Number Crash Severity Crash Rate > ODOT Critical Crash Intersection of Crashes Fatal Injury Non -Injury per MEV Rate?* 22: US 20/Dodds Rd 3 0 0 3 0.47 No 23: Oregon 126/Tom McCall Rd 11 0 5 6 0.50 No 24: Oregon 126/US 26 10 0 2 8 from June 0.32 2011 Assessment No of Statewide *Critical Crash Rate calculation based on "weighted average crash rate for reference population" S 2 Intersection safety Performance. p 0 1 Reflects conditions prior to the roundabout construction. 3: Evergreen Ave/US 97 1 Collision Types (January 2012 to December 2016) Table 4. Reported Intersection Turning Rear- End Angle Fixed Object Side- swipe Pedestrian Head On Other 1: US 26/US 97 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 2: US 97/0'Neil Hwy 2 1 S 2 p p 0 0 3: Evergreen Ave/US 97 1 29 2 2 0 0 4: Highland -Glacier Ave/US 97 11 24 2 1 4 0 0 0 5: Veterans Way/US 97 12 32 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 6: Airport Way/Veterans Way 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7: Oregon 126/Veterans Way 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8: Oregon 126/Powell Butte Hwy 7 5 0 1 0 0 0 9: Oregon 126/Millican-Airport 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Way 10: Shumway Rd/Powell Butte 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Hwy 11: Bussett Rd/Powell Butte Hwy 0 0 1 1 0 p 1 0 12: Bussett Rd/Shumway Rd p 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 13: Alfalfa Rd/Powell Butte Hwy 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17: Butler Market Rd/ 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 Powell Butte Hwy 0 0 0 2 18: Powell Butte Hwy/Neff Rd 2 5 11 2 19: US 20/Powell Butte Hwy 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 20: Alfalfa Market Rd/Johnson 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ranch Rd 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 22: US 20/Dodds Rd 1 0 0 23: Oregon 126/Tom McCall Rd 2 S :2 12 1 0 24: Oregon 126/US 26 2 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 Page 16 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA US 97 (Evergreen Avenue to Veterans Way) US 97 at Evergreen Avenue, Highland -Glacier Avenue, and Veterans Way experienced a high overall number of crashes even though the crash rate at each of these intersections is less than 1.00, but all are relatively high with the US 97/Glacier-Highland intersection experiencing a higher crash rate than 90% of similar signalized intersections statewide. The majority of the crashes at all three of these intersections were rear -ends, which is typical of traffic signals on high-volume roads in congested areas. At the Veterans Way/US 97 intersection, eight of the 12 turning collisions involved the northbound left - turn and southbound through movement. The northbound left -turn movement is controlled with protected -permitted phasing. Due to the congestion at this traffic signal, motorists may be taking smaller gaps. This intersection is also experiencing a trend in increasing number of collisions each year unlike the Evergreen Avenue/US 97 and Highland -Glacier Avenue/US 97 intersections. Figure 4 depicts the historical number of crashes at the Veterans Way/US 97 intersection by year. While the number of crashes is increasing, the annual crash rate remains below ODOT's critical crash rate for a signalized four -legged intersection. Crashes By Year Figure 4. Number of Crashes Dy year at veterans wayiw vf Overall, the Veterans Way/US 97 intersection experienced 32 rear -end collisions over the five-year period reviewed. The majority of these crashes occurred along the US 97 approaches. The yellow change and red clearance intervals were reviewed at this intersection for these US 97 approaches. Based on the posted speed of 40 mph on US 97, ODOT's Traffic Signal Policy Guidelines indicate that the minimum yellow change interval should be 4.3 seconds and minimum red clearance should be 0.5 seconds. According to the timing "snapshot" provided by ODOT it is unclear if these clearance timing minimums are being met within the automated SCATS system. All three study intersections on US 97 should continue to be monitored. The congestion and constrained conditions limit the opportunities to improve safety easily at these intersections. It is our understanding that the corridor is currently being studied to improve the overall safety and operational conditions of this area as part of a specific corridor plan, in addition to regional planning being conducted as part of the City's Transportation System Plan update. Page 17 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Butler Market Road/Powell Butte Highway The Butler Market Road/Powell Butte Highway intersection has a reported crash rate greater than the ODOT critical crash rate, though an overall crash rate less than 1.00. This intersection is adjacent to the Bend Municipal Airport. There were seven crashes reported at this intersection over the five-year period reviewed. The crashes consisted of two turning collisions, three fixed object collisions, one rear -end collision and one crash described as a non -collision involving an overturned vehicle during icy conditions. No patterns were identified among the crashes. The fixed object collisions involved different objects and different distractions. No mitigations are recommended at this time. Though, this intersection should be continued to be monitored for any crash patterns particularly with the projections for increasing congestion and delays. Alfalfa Market Road/Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road A roundabout was constructed at the Alfalfa Market Road/Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road intersection in 2016. Of the 22 recorded crashes in the five-year period between 2012 and 2016, three of these occurred after construction was completed on the roundabout. Two of these crashes were fixed object crashes, and the third was a rear end collision during icy conditions. No mitigations are recommended at this time. SPIS Sites The Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) is updated annually by ODOT and is a scoring method used to identify potential safety problems on state highways through a review of crash frequency, crash rate, and crash severity. The top 10% SPIS Groups list for year 2016 was reviewed for the study roadways. Table 5 summarizes the findings of the five locations identified within the study area. -r 61 G 9M A nnnT COIL Sitac in Study Arpa Highway Beginning Milepoint End Milepoint Intersecting Street SPIS Percent Oregon 126 6.78 6.91 Powell Butte Highway 90% US 97 97.20 97.38 US 26 90% US 97 121.12 121.30 Evergreen Avenue 95% US 97 121.36 121.54 Highland -Glacier Avenue 90% US 97 121.89 122.07 Veterans Way 95% ANALYSIS PERIODS The Draft Crook County Transportation System Plan assesses year 2036 conditions within its planning horizon. While the destination resort overlay zoning allowed the destination resort as an outright use within the 2006 application, regional transportation plans did not assume the increased intensity of these uses within lands otherwise designated primarily for farming uses. For consistency with the County's Transportation System Plan and as required by the Transportation Planning Rule, the Hidden Canyon Resort analysis will assess build -out conditions in 2036. This will also meet the Oregon Highway Plan requirements for an analysis that provides a minimum of 15 -year horizon. With the number of residential units within Hidden Canyon, the full resort build -out year could reasonably extend well beyond 2036, with the timing and absorption of these units dependent on market conditions. Assessment of full build -out by Page 18 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA 2036 shows a conservative and aggressive development scenario that will ensure the appropriate sizing of transportation infrastructure. 2036 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Background traffic conditions are presented to provide the basis for comparison to "with -site" conditions. This provides an understanding of area transportation needs that are attributable to the proposed development. These conditions consider the regional traffic growth and specific approved developments. GROWTH FORECASTS ODOT maintains multiple Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) in the study area that compile annual traffic volumes. The ATRs in this region showed a decreasing trend through the recession with growth following year 2012. Table 6 summarizes the average annual growth rate at each of the ATR locations. Tnhla A_ rrnwth Rates on ODOT Highways Highway Site Name Timeframe Annual Growth Rate OR 126 (ODOT Highway No. 41) ATR #07-002 2008-2016 3.9% US 97/US 26 (ODOT Highway No. 4) ATR #16-002 2007-2016 1.0% US 97 (ODOT Highway No. 4) ATR #09-023 2009-2016 3.2% US 97 (ODOT Highway No. 4) ATR #09-020 2007-2016 0.8% US 20 (ODOT Highway No. 7) ATR #09-005 2007-2016 1.2% The average growth rate for these five sites is approximately 2.0%. The 2017 Crook County Transportation System Plan has assumed a 1.6% annual growth rate on all County roads, which is relatively consistent with the historical ATR data. The 1.6% growth rate was based on historical traffic volumes for state highways in Crook County and guidance from ODOT's Analysis Procedure Manual. For consistency with the adopted TSP a regional annual growth rate of 1.6% was applied to all study roadways. IN -PROCESS TRAFFIC In 2006 when the original Hidden Canyon application was submitted, the Powell Butte area was responding to several destination resort applications. These included Brasada Ranch (1,125 units on 1,800 acres, 2004), Pronghorn Resort (600 units on 640 acres, approved 2002), Remington Ranch (1,200 units on 2,079 acres, approved in 2006), and Crossing Trails (750 units on 580 -acres, 2008) in Crook County, and additional destination resorts and applications within Jefferson, Deschutes, and Klamath Counties within this same period. To appropriately account for development of these resorts over time, reasonable unit absorption rates were assumed as shown in Table 7. These rates assume faster development based on lower residential unit sales costs and include high initial development due to the requirement to construct 150 overnight units. This also assumes some delay for the required time for the undeveloped resorts to initiate infrastructure development, complete lot sales, construct residences, and have occupied units. Page 19 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Table 7. Assumed Approved Resort Development Timeline Resort Total Approved Units 2017 Completed Units Assumed Development Rate Forecast Units 2020 2025 2030 2035 Pronghorn Resort 600 Approx. 84 20 units/year 2491 349 449 549 Brasada Ranch 1,125 Approx. 375 35 units/year 480 655 830 1,005 Remington Ranch 1,200 0 20 units/year 0 2501 350 450 Crossing Trails 750 0 20 units/year 0 2501 350 450 Total 3,675 459 95 units/year 729 1,504 1,979 2,454 'includes addition of new overnight lodging. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS A project to construct a roundabout at the Tom McCall Road/OR 126 intersection is currently underway and is anticipated to be completed by fall 2018. The project includes a single -lane roundabout at the OR 126/Tom McCall Road intersection and turning movements will be limited to a right -in maneuver at Millican Road and right -out at Airport Way. Motorists will utilize a new easterly extension of Aviation Boulevard and Tom McCall Road to access the roundabout for all crossing and left -turn maneuvers. Figure 5 depicts the estimated resulting traffic volumes for year 2036 and Table 8 depicts the associated traffic operations. As shown in Table 8, multiple intersections are expected to exceed the operation standards established by ODOT, Crook County, Deschutes County, and the City of Redmond. • US 26/US 97 — This intersection is forecast to operate with high delays and over -capacity in the future without the proposed Hidden Canyon Resort. A roundabout project has been identified for this intersection to improve operations and provide a connection to the planned truck route. • US 97/0'Neil Highway—The vehicles on O'Neil Highway at US 97 are expected to have high delays and exceed capacity. The 2006 North Redmond US 97 Interchange Management Plan, 2008 Redmond TSP and 2010 Deschutes County TSP indicate a long-term plan of an overpass at this location with the TAMP specifying a medium -range plan for a right-in/right-out at this location. • Evergreen Avenue/US 97 —The demand is expected to exceed the capacity at this intersection. • Highland -Glacier Avenue/US 97 — This intersection is expected to operate close to capacity with a v/c ratio of 0.95. • Veterans Way/US 97 — This intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F and over capacity. The 2008 Redmond TSP identified the need for additional turn lanes at this intersection. However, the TSP is currently being updated and the recommended improvements are not yet available. • Airport Way/Veterans Way —The westbound left -turn movement at this intersection is forecast to operate at level of service F. • Oregon 126/Powell Butte Highway — The demand at this intersection is expected to exceed capacity and this intersection is expected to operate with high delays. The adopted Crook County Transportation System Plan (TSP) identifies the need for a roundabout at this intersection as a medium priority with an estimated cost of $3,500,000. The TSP does not specify whether the improvement is required to be a single or double -lane roundabout. • Butler Market Road/Powell Butte Highway — This intersection is expected to operate with high delays and the demand will exceed capacity on the Butler Market Road approach. The Deschutes County TSP identifies the need for a roundabout at this intersection. It is ranked as a high need. Page 20 Hidden Canyon Resort T1A Oregon 126/Tom McCall Road - The eastbound approach at this intersection is expected to operate with high delays and over capacity with the planned single -lane roundabout design. Table S. Summary of 2036 Background Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour BOLD: Performance standard not met Page 21 Performance Critical Delay v/c Intersection Standard Movement LOS (sec) Ratio 1: US 26/US 97 v/c 5 0.70 EB LTR F >50.0 >1.00 v/c:s 0.70 (US 97) 2: US 97/0'Neil Hwy v/c:5 0.75 (O'Neil) WB LTR F >50.0 >1.00 Alternative 3: Evergreen Ave/US 97 Mobility Standard E 79.0 >1.00 4: Highland -Glacier Ave/US 97 v/c-,5 0.80 B 18.3 0.88 5: Veterans Way/US 97 Alternative F >80.0 >1.00 Mobility Standard Overall E 39.7 N/A NB LR E 35.3 0.85 6: Airport Way/Veterans Way LOS E, v/c <_ 0.90 WB LT F >50.0 0.97 EBT C 15.1 0.41 EB R B 10.9 0.17 v/c <_ 0.80 (OR 126) 7: Oregon 126/Veterans Way v/c <_ 0.90 NB LR E 41.3 0.85 (Veterans) 8: Oregon 126/Powell Butte Hwy v/c:5 0.70 NB LT F >50.0 >1.00 9: Oregon 126/Millican-Airport Way v/c <_ 0.80 SB LTR B 14.3 0.03 10: Shumway Rd /Powell Butte Hwy v/c <_ 0.95 WB R B 12.8 0.19 11: Bussett Rd/Powell Butte Hwy v/c 5 0.95 WB L C 16.2 0.04 12: Bussett Rd/Shumway Rd v/c <_ 0.95 EB LTR B 10.9 0.08 13: Alfalfa Rd/Powell Butte Hwy v/c <_ 0.95 WB L C 22.6 0.32 14: Alfalfa Rd/Shumway Rd v/c15 0.95 WB LTR B 11.0 0.21 17: Butler Market Rd/Powell Butte Hwy LOS D EB LR F >50.0 >1.00 18: Alfalfa Market Rd/ Powell Butte Hwy -Neff Rd LOS D A 9.4 19: US 20/Powell Butte Hwy v/c <_ 0.70 SB R C 18.1 0.66 20: Alfalfa Market Rd/Johnson Ranch Rd LOS D NB LTR B 11.1 0.02 21: Reservoir Rd/Millican Rd LOS D, v/c <_ 0.95 A 7.4 22: US 20/Dodds Rd v/c <_ 0.70 WB LR A 9.5 0.15 23: Oregon 126/Tom McCall Rd v/c 5 0.90 EB F >50.0 >1.00 24: Oregon 126/US 26 v/c 5 0.90 NB L F >50.0 0.841 BOLD: Performance standard not met Page 21 LL� _ < ` r a 41 s� I E �r �z. rg qLL \ >o 41 s� I E �r a rg qLL \ 41 s� I E Ilk xi rg qLL \ >o 41 s� I E xi rg qLL \ >o 41 s� I E ( x1 rg >o 41 s� I E Hidden Canyon Resort T/A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN The initial phase of development is planned to occur on the west side of the resort on the parcel near Alfalfa Road, with development proceeding to the north and east. At this time no changes to the overall unit count is proposed (Hidden Canyon was previously approved for up to 3,675 resort units), but changes are proposed to the supporting commercial uses to allow a broader range of supporting services and on- site entertainment/recreation options. Recreational uses were developed to better account for a wide range of activities that could better engage an entire family, with activities suitable for all ages. The proposed concept is to capture all users onsite to the extent practical rather than having tourists relying on separate external activities. As paraphrased from the land use application (see Exhibit 8 of the land use application), allowed recreational uses within the resort could generally include the following uses and size ranges: 1. Golf pro-shop/learning center/golf instruction (5,000 to 10,000 SF) 2. Golf Course (30 to 200 acres) 3. Stables/equestrian operations (5 to 20 acres) 4. Sports equipment sales and rental (800 to 4,000 SF) 5. Museum/interpretive center (2,000 to 20,000 SF) 6. Recreation Center (2,000 to 50,000 SF) 7. Golf Putting Course (1.5 to 5 acres) 8. Video/carnival games (750 to 1,500 SF) 9. Fishing stream/lake (0.4 to 3.0 acres) 10. Recreational sales, rental, or support facilities for tennis, swimming, skating, skiing, bicycles, hiking, fishing, paddle boarding, boating, ATV's, etc. (1,000 - 4,000 SF) 11. Charitable events (600 to 2,000 SF, or 1 to 5 acres for outdoor events) 12. Sports Field Complex (5 to 100 acres) 13. Nature Center (5 to 20 acres) 14. Spa (2,000 to 10,000 SF) 15. Tennis Facilities (0.3 to 5.0 acres) 16. Camping Facilities (1 to 40 acres) 17. Miniature Golf (10,000 to 15,000 SF) 18. Sports Camp Facilities (1 to 10 acres) 19. Water Park/Wave Pool/Whitewater Park (1 to 10 acres) 20. Swimming Pool Complex (1 to 5 acres) 21. Rock Climbing (0.5 to 10 acres) 22. Zip Line (0.5 to 5 acres) 23. Aerial Adventure Park (0.5 to 5 acres) 24. ATV Trailhead Access to Millican OHV Area (0.5 to 1.0 acres) 25. Disc Golf Course (1 to 10 acres) 26. Pickleball/Sports Courts (0.5 to 5 acres) Page 23 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA 27. Hard and soft surfaced hiking, biking, and Equestrian Path (varies) 28. Parks (0.25 to 20 acres each) 29. Downhill sledding/summer tubing (1 to 10 acres) 30. Playground(s) (varies) 31. Whiffle/kick-ball fields (0.25 to 2 acres) 32. Sand volleyball courts (0.25 to 2 acres) 33. Amphitheater/Concert Venue (0.25 to 5 acres) 34. Dog Park (0.5 to 5 acres) Within this listing of recreational amenities all are considered typical of resorts and able to accommodate general activities or events. From a trip generation perspective higher trip rates could occur depending on the size of any future amphitheater, concert hall, or sports field complex. Further discussion of event management is provided within a separate section of this report. Similarly, commercial uses were broadly identified as those that would cater towards tourists to meet their daily demands, security, or general resort needs without requiring off-site travel once they arrive. Allowable uses include the following (see Exhibit 9 of the land use application). 1. Specialty retail (600 to 10,000 SF) 2. Project administration and/or sales (6,000 to 20,000 SF) 3. Daycare (1,200 to 2,500 SF) 4. Real estate sales/leasing/property management (6,000 to 20,000 SF) 5. Automobile/marine service/repair/fuel sales (1,500 SF Building/10,000 SF Grounds) 6. Utility operation/maintenance and administration (3,000 SF Building/25,000 SF Grounds) 7. Convenience grocery stores (800 to 10,000 SF) 8. Hotel/Motel (80,000 to 200,000 SF) 9. Dormitory (6,000 to 20,000 SF) 10. Recreational vehicle storage/parking (1 to 3 acres) 11. Restaurant/snack shop/bakery/food service (1,000 to 10,000 SF) 12. Convention facility or meeting rooms (400 to 30,000 SF) 13. Fire station (1,900 to 12,000 SF) 14. Security/Sheriff services (600 to 4,000 SF) 15. Emergency services (2,000 to 4,000 SF) 16. Housekeeping/laundry (1,000 to 5,000 SF) 17. Grounds maintenance facilities and storage (6,000 to 10,000 SF Building and 1 to 3 Acres Compound) 18. Art galleries (1,200 to 10,000 SF) 19. Barber shop/salon (600 to 800 SF) 20. Dry cleaning/laundromat (750 to 1,000 SF) 21. Bicycle Shop (500 to 2,000 SF) 22. Library (500 to 10,000 SF) 23. Private Academy (1 to 15 acres Campus) 24. Drugstore (1,000 to 2,000 SF) 25. Church/club/lodge or fraternal organization (2,000 to 10,000 SF) 26. Bar/lounge/brewery (600 to 4,000 SF) 27. Bank (1,000 to 4,000 SF) Page 24 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA 28. Florist shop (600 to 1,500 SF) 29. Business Center (computer/phone/fax/prints/etc.) (600 to 1,500 SF) 30. Home Design Services (500 to 5,000 SF) 31. Boat and ATV/UTV storage and maintenance (1 to 10 acres) 32. Construction office, storage yard, staging, and equipment storage (1 to 5 acres) 33. Medical facilities (1,500 to 3,000 SF) 34. Community center (2,000 to 10,000 SF) 35. Post Office/Mail Service (600 to 4,000 SF) 36. Bed and Breakfast Inn (2,000 to 8,000 SF) 37. Car Wash (500 to 5,000 SF) 38. Mini -storage (5,000 to 30,000 SF) 39. Vehicle and recreational equipment rentals (500 to 10,000 SF) 40. Other personal services (Dental, counseling, financial, etc.) (500 to 7,500 SF) None of the commercial uses were considered additive with external resort traffic; the types of services considered and removed location of the resort is expected to only capture trips that would otherwise be reliant on nearby urban areas. In addition to these uses, othertemporary construction uses may also occur on-site outside of areas designated for Exclusive Farm Use. Figure 2 illustrates the general destination resort layout. This layout will be further refined as part of future land use applications but highlights the general alignment of the primary roadway system that serves the resort's required recreational and service commercial amenities. TRIP GENERATION As part of the original Hidden Canyon land use application the impact of a new destination resort was largely unknown, so studies of established resorts were conducted to prepare refined trip generation estimates. The first study was conducted as part of the Brasada Ranch application in 2003 and showed an overall trip rate of 0.33 trips/residential unit. Crook County and ODOT wanted more current data to verify these trip rates, and so a new trip generation study was commissioned at Eagle Crest Resort and at Black Butte Ranch. While new cordon studies at Brasada Ranch and Pronghorn Resort would have been more reflective of Powell Butte trip characteristics, neither resort was considered fully established in 2006 to serve as a representative site. Eagle Crest Resort and Black Butte Ranch were well established in 2006 but both contained significantly different trip characteristics owing to their locations and amenities. At the time, there was significant residential construction ongoing at Eagle Crest Resort as new phases were being brought online, and the resort serves as a major conference and event center for the area, and particularly for the City of Redmond. Unlike the Hidden Canyon site, the proximity of Eagle Crest to the City of Redmond made it convenient to commute between locations for services. Black Butte Ranch was largely built -out and caters more toward golf and other more passive uses within its natural setting. Its location farther from major service centers results in a somewhat isolated resort. It should also be noted that the approvals for Black Butte Ranch occurred under different land use requirements that did not mandate the same ratio of overnight lodging units as required of more recent resorts. The trip generation study conducted at these two resorts occurred in August 2006, at the peak of the recreational season in Central Oregon and prior to the recession. The trip rates reflect peak occupancy Page 25 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA conditions of the resorts. This study highlighted the difference in trip generation characteristics between the two resort and showed a trip generation rate at Eagle Crest that was identical to the 2003 study. Table 13 summarizes the comparison of the trip rates experienced at each resort throughout the day, and Figure 9 summarizes the comparison of the trip rates experienced at each resort throughout the day and shows the consistent peaking characteristics albeit of a varying magnitude. Page 26 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA 0.40 0.35 } 0..30 c D 0.25 c 0.20 .9 Q1 cc 0.15 N 0- 0.10 Ln a F— 0.05 0.00 Resort Trip Generation Rate Comparison 0 0 0 0 0 0 f^ 00 0 o g n o g a 0 N n) M Vl a r- co Black Butte Ranch Eagle Crest Resort Figure 6. Resort Trip Generation Rate Comparison. Source: 2005 Resort Trip Generation Study. In addition to the trip generation studies that were conducted, the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10'6 Edition contains limited information on Recreational Homes (ITE 260). Data is available for three sites studied in the 1980s and 2000s in New York and Oregon. These show a daily trip rate of 3.47 trips/residential unit and a weekday p.m. peak hour trip rate of 0.28 trips/residential unit. This trip rate is nearly an average of the Eagle Crest and Black Butte Ranch trip rates. It is unclear which specific sites were surveyed as part of this dataset. Based on the data shown in Figure 6, it is recognized that resorts experience a peak hour of generator in the early afternoon, with traffic volumes decreasing into the evening commute period. It is also recognized that trip rates vary substantially based on location and resort amenities. With the further establishment of Brasada Ranch, more recent data was obtained at Brasada Ranch in the summer of 2017 that is expected to much more closely mimic the trip characteristics of Hidden Canyon Resort given the similarities in access and proximity to urban centers. As part of the Brasada Ranch cordon study, traffic count data was collected on three consecutive days between Tuesday, June 13, 2017 and Thursday, June 15, 2017 at both Brasada Ranch entrances. This data collection effort captured the portions of the ranch on both sides of Alfalfa Market Road. Tube count data was also collected along the Powell Butte Highway for use in identifying the peak hour of adjacent street traffic during the 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. peak period. This data collection showed that area traffic volumes consistently peaked between 4:45 and 5:45 p.m. on each of the survey days. Total resort unit counts were obtained directly from Brasada Ranch. This information identified that there were 116 completed single family homes and 228 overnight lodging units (including lock -offs, cabins, and suites). In addition, 28 units were currently under construction, and while not fully built out these were accounted for within the overall trip generation study unit count, as construction trip generation is expected to be similar to or higher than trip rates following unit occupancy. Summation of the overall Page 27 Hidden Canyon Resort TtA units provides a total of 372 resort units at the time of the survey. A summary of trip generation data is provided below in Table 10. Table 10. Trip Generation Summary (Brasada Ranch, June 2017) Date Tuesday June 13, 2017 Wednesday June 14, 2017 Thursday June 15, 2017 Weighted Average 0.22/Unit 77 Trips 84 Trips 92 Trips 84 Trips Total Trips (42 In, 35 Out) (51 In, 33 Out) (41 In, 51 Out) (53% In, 47% Out) Weekday PM Peak June 2017 0.23/Unit Hour of Adjacent 0.21 Trips/Unit 0.23 Trips/Unit 0.25 Trips/Unit 0.23 Trips/Unit Street Traffic Trip generation data from the June 2017 data collection efforts was compared to prior resort studies and national resort trip generation rates as summarized within ITE's standard reference Trip Generation Manual, 10"' Edition. Table 11 provides a summary of the comparison. Tnhip 7 7. Trin Generation Summary Location Survey Date Weekday PM Trip Rate Black Butte Ranch August 2006 0.22/Unit Eagle Crest Resort August 2003 0.33/Unit Eagle Crest Resort August 2006 0.33/Unit ITE Recreational Homes 1980s/2000s 0.28/Unit Brasada Ranch June 2017 0.23/Unit While all of the resorts exhibit relatively similar trip rates, there are several possible factors contributing to the higher trip rates at Eagle Crest in comparison to Brasada Ranch: • Eagle Crest Resort is located close to the City of Redmond (six miles versus 16 miles for Hidden Canyon) making trips for dining, recreation, or other purposes more convenient than the Powell Butte location. • The 2006 trip surveys were conducted when 215 resort units were under construction at Eagle Crest, but the trip rates conservatively did not include the units being constructed (a weekday PM peak hour trip rate of 0.288 trips/unit would have been identified had the additional units been included). • Eagle Crest Resort caters more toward conferences', events, and day use than other area resorts; these uses are more likely to increase daily outing trips. • Eagle Crest contains three golf courses plus mini -golf. ' Destination resorts are required to provide conference rooms capable of accommodating a minimum of 100 persons. Eagle Crest's facilities can accommodate more than 1,000 persons. Page 28 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA • The resort contains a high proportion of timeshares versus hotel rooms. Based on the more similar conditions and travel characteristics at Brasada Ranch, summer 2017 trip data from Brasada Ranch was applied to Hidden Canyon Resort for transportation analysis purposes. Table 12 summarizes the estimated trip generation for Hidden Canyon Resort applying the measured Brasada Ranch trip generation rates shown in Tables 10 and 11. E t'.m ates i able 12. Trip Generation s Peak of Generator Weekday PM Peak Hour (3:45 to 4:45 PM) (4:45 to 5:45 PM) Total Weekday Land Use Units Daily Trips Total In Out Total In Out Hidden Canyon Resort 1 3,675 12,0711 1,132 487 645 845 448 397 'Daily trips were estimated as 7%of the peak hour trips based on tSiacK ou«CiE:ae1C %AV3L au- —Y -- Crook County Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements identifies the need for both a weekday a.m. peak hour and weekday p.m. peak hour analysis. However, resorts experience their peak in the late afternoon and evening hours, which coincide with ODOT's 30`h highest design hour requirements. Therefore, the analysis in this study focuses on the weekday p.m. peak hour consistent with the original resort application. The analysis and sizing of the site accesses will also assess the late afternoon period (Peak of Generator). TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution patterns were prepared for Hidden Canyon resort largely based on the original transportation analysis as the regional travel demand models do not provide the appropriate resolution or connections between Crook and Deschutes County. These patterns were refined from the original analysis to better reflect likely tourist and employee destinations and changes along the travel routes. The patterns were also informed by the traffic counts conducted at the Brasada entrances and traffic counts at major nearby intersections. From this information, Figure 7 illustrates the overall trip distribution patterns, showing approximately 25 percent of the resort trips would be arrivals/departures or regional outings, and the remainder would be captured within Central Oregon or to nearby recreational attractions. Routing toward these regional destinations could occur via several routes. Tourists that are less familiar with the area would likely rely on the major highway system, whereas local visitors/employees would be more inclined to travel via Alfalfa Market Road. Access from Millican Road will provide the most direct route to Prineville (and will connect at the planned roundabout), and the Powell Butte Highway will likely serve trips destined toward Redmond, Madras, and Sisters. Trips into Bend are expected to primarily rely on either the Powell Butte Highway or Alfalfa Market Road. The estimated weekday p.m. peak hour (4:45 to 5:45 p.m.) trip assignment is shown in Figure 8. As discussed within the original approvals, travel patterns could shift toward the major facilities during inclement weather conditions due to their higher maintenance priority, but overall roadway volumes are much lower outside of the summer peaks. The Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) data on OR 126 shows a 20 percent reduction in traffic volumes between July and January. Page 29 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Figure 7. Estimated Trip Distribution Pattern. Page 30 i I 1� 2; r 4 �a► r .� �I r = N -�► r N i I 1� 2; r 4 �a► r .� �I r r`� i I 1� 2; r Hidden Canyon Resort TIA 2036 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (FULL BUILDOUT) The total traffic analysis identifies how the study area's transportation system will operate with the inclusion of the Hidden Canyon Resort. It includes the traffic volumes from the background and adds in the site -generated trips. The resulting traffic volumes are shown in Figure 9, Table 13 summarizes the traffic operations. As shown in Table 13, the following intersections are expected to continue to exceed operation standards with development of the Hidden Canyon Resort: • US 26/US 97 • US 97/0'Neil Highway • Evergreen Avenue/US 97 • Highland -Glacier Avenue/US 97 • Veterans Way/US 97 • Airport Way/Veterans Way • Oregon 126/Powell Butte Highway • Butler Market Road/Powell Butte Highway In addition to the continued failure of the locations shown above, the US 20/Powell Butte Highway, Oregon 126/Veterans Way, and Oregon 126/US 26 junctions are expected to exceed ODOT's mobility targets with the addition of resort trips. A discussion of each intersection is included below. Page 32 <IVA y 1 1 LL, ` <IVA y 1 I 4) 4 4 `s LL, ` I 4) 4 4 LL, ` I 4) 4 4 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Tnhia 1 tt Cummary of 2n36 "With Resort" Traffic Conditions. Weekdav PM Peak Hour (Continued) Page 34 Performance Critical Delay v/c Intersection Standard Movement LOS (sec) Ratio 1: US 26/US 97 v/c:5 0.70 EB LTR F >50.0 >1.00 2: US 97/0'Neil Hwy v/c:s 0.70 (US 97) WB LTR F >50.0 >1.00 v/c _< 0.75 (O'Neil) 3: Evergreen Ave/US 97 Alternative E 78.7 >1.00 Mobility Standard 4: Highland -Glacier Ave/US 97 v/c:S 0.80 C 30.8 0.91 5: Veterans Way/US 97 Alternative Mobility Standard F >80.0 >1.00 Overall F >50.0 N/A NB LR E 43.9 0.94 6: Airport Way/Veterans Way LOS E, v/c <_ 0.90 WB LT F >50.0 >1.00 EBT C 18.2 0.53 EB R B 11.3 0.18 v/c 5 0.80 7: Oregon 126/Veterans Way (OR 126) v/c 5 0.90 NB LR F >50.0 >1.00 (Veterans Way) 8: Oregon 126/Powell Butte Hwy v/c!g 0.70 NB LT F >50.0 >1.00 9: Oregon 126/Millican-Airport Way v/c <_ 0.80 SB LTR B 14.7 0.03 10: Shumway Rd/Powell Butte Hwy v/c <_ 0.95 WB R C 16.4 0.35 11: Bussett Rd/Powell Butte Hwy v/c:5 0.95 WB L C 21.8 0.05 12: Bussett Rd/Shumway Rd v/c!!g 0.95 EB LTR B 11.9 0.10 13: Alfalfa Rd/Powell Butte Hwy v/c 5 0.95 WB L F >50.0 0.73 14: Alfalfa Rd/Shumway Rd v/c 5 0.95 WB LTR C 23.4 0.54 15: Alfalfa Rd/Stearns-Becker Rd v/c <_ 0.95 WB LR D 33.7 0.79 16: Millican Rd/Stearns-Becker Rd v/c:5 0.95 EB LTR B 11.1 0.19 17: Butler Market Rd/Powell Butte Hwy LOS D EB LR F >50.0 >1.00 18: Alfalfa Market Rd/ LOS D B 13.1 Powell Butte Hwy -Neff Rd v/c <_ 0.70 (US 20) 19: US 20/Powell Butte Hwy v/c:s 0.75 (Powell SB R C 22.8 0.76 Butte Hwy) 20: Alfalfa Market Rd/Johnson Ranch Rd LOS D NB LTR C 16.9 0.03 21: Reservoir Rd/Millican Rd LOS D, v/c 5 0.95 A 7.6 22: US 20/Dodds Rd v/c <_ 0.70 WB LR A 9.5 0.15 (Continued) Page 34 Hidden Canyon Resort T1A s 7naG «With Racnrt" Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour Tabie 13 p-onTlnuea). aulnma, V v. �••.••• •_.- --- - - - Delay v/c Performance Critical Intersection Standard Movement LOS (sec) Ratio 23: Oregon 126/Tom McCall Rd v/c 5 0.90 EB F >50.0 >1.00 24: Oregon 126/US 26 v/c 5 0.90 NB L F >50.0 >1.001 _- - �--.....- -�----_a.-..�1...J a.. •...... lei+ nA nnrth 'Reflects the worst v/c ratio at the intersection wnere un lco is scuN WIM U11cu •u • •�• onto US 26. BOLD: Performance standard not met Yellow: Adopted performance standards met, improvements recommended to address high delay US 26/US 97 (SOUTH MADRAS) .'UNCTION The US 26/US 97 intersection south of Madras is forecast to exceed ODOT mobility standards with or without the proposed Hidden Canyon Resort with the existing two-way stop control. The intersection is located within Jefferson County, on the boundary of Madras City limits. Within the recent City of Madras TSP no analysis was conducted at this junction despite its location on the UGB border and inclusion as part of the westside Madras truck route, as shown in Figure 10. The TSP states that additional analysis will need to be conducted to further understand the bypass alignment and capacity needs. As this intersection serves as a critical junction within southern Madras it is expected that either signalization or construction of a roundabout would be required, particularly to serve truck traffic at the junction of two designated freight routes. The Jefferson County Transportation System Plan dated September 5, 2007 assessed conditions through the year 2025. Page 16 of the TSP states the following: Operation analyses wets also conducted for certain higitrvay intersections. The 11S 97AJS 26 -South intersection is anticipated it) operate over a volume to capacity {v.+ci elf l.0 by 2425 unless, improvements are made. (1�ric is u nreaure of irstlfor itc dnaucJ f valunre} c►n a ttanspailatian facility conipared to its traffic-canying capacity. For example, a Vc ration of 0.7 indicates that a traffic facility is operating at 70 percent of its capacity.] Accordingly, improvements will be required at this intersection to support horizon year traffic demands with or without the destination resort. The design of the treatments will need to accommodate the City's future truck route and potential development plans within the southern Madras area. Page 35 Hidden Canyon ResortTlA W SE "H%"i Freight Truck 15 s c 'ux� Madras Urban 4 i 7 L J f Figure 10. Excerpt from Madras Transportation System Plan, US 97 S th Junction Im rovement Summary JS 26/ ou p improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Single -Lane Roundabout/ Jefferson County/Madras/ODOT Current Improvement Need $4M Pro -Rata Contribution Page 36 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA U$ 97/0'NEIL HIGHWAY The O'Neil Highway intersection is located north of the Redmond Reroute. Traffic volumes and speeds at this intersection are high, with the counts highlighting that most motorists avoid this intersection during peak hours and instead route to the Canal Boulevard interchange for crossing or turning movements on US 97. The completion of the US 97/Canal Boulevard interchange occurred following submittal of the original Hidden Canyon land use application, and now provides an alternative and safer route for traffic crossing or accessing the US 97 corridor. Drivers that remain on the O'Neil Highway intersection to cross or access US 97 experience high delays, and the turning demand is expected to exceed capacity in the future with or without the proposed project. The original TIA for Hidden Canyon recommended converting this intersection to a right-in/right-out only configuration. The completion of the Redmond Reroute has provided new connections and options that more fully address the connectivity needs of the area. Figure 11 illustrates the potential to remove the OR 370 connection with US 97, which would retain the NW Pershall Way intersection as a "T" intersection, reducing conflicting movements between the minor approaches and requiring the through movement utilize the Canal Boulevard interchange. With approximately 650 -feet between US 97 and NW Canal Boulevard it may also be possible to provide a grade -separated extension of Pershall Way east to connect into the O'Neil Highway alignment. However, this connection is expected to be a low priority as there are only 26 through vehicles makingthis maneuver today (though it is likely that current demands are higher as motorists are likely using alternative routes during the peak periods). The need for improvements at the US 97/0'Neil Highway intersection is a remaining need following the US 97 Reroute that should be provided by ODOT regardless of the Hidden Canyon Resort. Page 37 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA _v . .-L....... L..w.....n nni Cnmmf�w U�NIJU IVeo nignWay nnrnv a Improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Movement Restrictions ODOT Current Improvement Need $100k Pro -Rata Contribution REDMOND US 97 INTERSECTIONS (EVERGREEN AVENUE, HIGHLAND -GLACIER AVENUE, AND VETERANS WAY) The three signalized intersections on US 97 at Evergreen Avenue, Highland -Glacier Avenue, and Veterans Way are expected to operate poorly in the future with or without the proposed Hidden Canyon Resort. As documented within the City's TSP and subsequent projects, within the City of Redmond there are limited east -west connections that provide access between the City's eastern industrial lands and the western residential lands. Solutions within the City's adopted Transportation System Plan identified a second phase of the Redmond Reroute that would bypass the southern portion of the City and provide a new interchange near the Hemlock Avenue intersection. Most intersections along the southern portion of US 97 would not meet performance standards even with localized refinements (as indicated by shaded values). These locations would require parallel routes be built to divert traffic, such as the US 97 Reroute Phase 11 extension. While the US 97 Reroute Phase ll is included in the Master Plan, it is not included in the Action Plan! This long-term solution was not considered "likely' given the financial constraints, and the City has since been exploring design options to extend the lifespan of the existing highway system. Efforts are currently underway within southern Redmond (approximately from the southern UGB north to Veteran's Way) to provide parallel local routes and connections that would extend the viability of the current alignment. 2 June 2008 Redmond Transportation System Plan, page 9-20. Page 38 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA The traffic operations projections within the adopted TSP (TSP Table 9-7) show that all three intersections fail unless the City provide the Phase 2 Reroute. Since the preparation of the TSP additional rezone efforts (notably the SB 1544 and Regional Large Lot Industrial site) have further degraded the forecast conditions at these intersections. The ongoing Redmond Transportation System Plan scope was specifically developed to address these east - west needs, as extension of 9th Street alone was not considered adequate to address the east - west connectivity needs. While the Redmond Reroute Phase 2 was not identified within the City's Action Plan, the westside arterial (Helmholtz extension), Quartz Avenue __.9 M extension (across US 97 and BNSF railway to Airport Way), and 191h Street extension were a md.•� , expected to be complete by 2030 and are accounted for within the - �p»..�M,» • w,;; e,.°erTa sr City's future travel forecasts. Due d ® N-= to policy changes it is unlikely CJ u" that Quartz Avenue will extend east of US 97 without grade - separation of the rail crossing, and significant work (to include a goal exception) would be required to complete the Helmholtz Way extension. Figure 12. Senate Bill 1544 Connectivity Recommendations. Based on the planning work completed to date it is difficult to identify the specific mitigation measures required within the City of Redmond to address long-range conditions with or without the resort. During the preparation of the original Hidden Canyon application it was discovered that the planned US 97 Reroute intersections that were being designed were undersized to accommodate ODOT travel forecasts, and that grade -separated interchanges would instead be required to accommodate the long-term OR 126 to US 97 demands. Due to the built constraints surrounding the OR 126 connection to US 97 and the impacts grade -separation would have into the downtown City core it is expected that future east -west capacity will be provided by a new connection south of Veteran's Way (likely near Quartz Avenue) and a northern connection near Hemlock Avenue serving the Senate Bill 1544 lands and other undeveloped industrial lands. The specific design and configuration of these connections should be further identified through the City's TSP efforts. Page 39 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA I kn� rN1�Mrr�NNNNtNNN� ea r tr 41 N Figure 13. Redmond TSP showing the future Redmond Reroute Phase 11 plans. 11w n� f��.-�....1 De.1...i.r.A Imnrnvnmant S1 Loa 7/(GC1141 D1 1�G��..v.. v.....�.. ..-. �...�..- ___.______. I Improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing New Interchange/Connections ODOT/City of Redmond 2025 to 2030 Est. $30M Pro -Rata Contribution (Varies with Local Development) AIRPORT WAY/VETERANS WAY Intersection improvement plans are being designed at the Airport Way/Veteran's Way intersection to convert this intersection into a single -lane roundabout. This intersection forms a part of the north -south 19th Street extension that was identified in the City's adopted TSP and shown as a recommendation within the 561544 application. The connection will include a new northern leg providing continuity along the NE 9th Street —Airport Way — SE 19th Street route. Plans for the conversion of this intersection to a single -lane roundabout are already underway. Page 40 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA e :...�,...� %At 111 4. "r 110mu 1mnrnVPmPnt Summary Improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Single -Lane Roundabout City of Redmond/ Est. Completion: 2020 to 2025 $2M Currently Planned Improvement OREGON 126/VETERANS WAY This intersection is expected to exceed ODOT's mobility targets with the proposed resort development or with development of the Senate Bill 1544 lands. The City's adopted TSP identifies the future signalization of this intersection, which was also identified to serve as the primary entrance to the SB 1544 lands. Signalization of this intersection was previously expected to cost $750,000 (inclusive of widening for turn lanes and new approach treatments) and would occur when warranted. The majority of these costs would be required to extend the planned northern leg into the SB 1544 lands. O 126/Veterans Wa Improvement summary regon Y Improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Signalized Intersection City of Redmond/ Est. Completion: 2020 to 2025 $750,000 SB 1544 Planned Improvement OREGON 126/POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY The unsignalized OR 126/Powell Butte Highway intersection is forecast to experience high delays with or without the proposed Hidden Canyon Resort. This intersection was recently studied as part of the Crook County Transportation System Plan. The findings within the TSP indicate that the intersection operates at Level of Service "D" today (based on 2016 counts), with approximately 30 seconds of delay per northbound minor -street vehicle. Travel forecasts within the TSP (No -Build Forecasts, Figure 4) show that over the next 22 years (by 2036) the intersection would only experience growth of 10 additional northbound left -turns and 41 additional right -turns, increasing delays to Level of Service "F" with over 60 seconds of delay per northbound vehicle. This travel forecast is based only on the application of a low growth rate to the existing traffic counts and does not account for the previously approved area resort entitlements within Remington Ranch, Brasada Resort, Pronghorn Resort, or Hidden Canyon. Any of these planned or under development resorts will increase the northbound approach demands well beyond the TSP projections, exceeding agency performance standards. Mitigation of this intersection was a primary outcome of the original destination resort application. Within the original application all the off-site pro -rata impacts were pooled to complete the construction of improvements at this intersection within the initial development phases. As was appropriately identified in 2007, the cumulative impact of approved resorts, increasing use of the Powell Butte Highway, and increasing travel between Redmond and Prineville on OR 126 would require near-term improvements. Due to the ODOT policies in place in 2006/2007, the only improvement option that was considered appropriate by ODOTwas a grade -separated interchange solution. Low-cost interchange concepts (similar to the OR 126/Cline Falls Highway interchange) were discussed and agreed to with ODOT. It was Page 41 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA anticipated that construction of an interchange would cost approximately $5M, and the prior agreements were based on this approximate cost. It is unlikely that the 2006/2007 interchange costs would have been $5M Figure 14. Recommended OR 126/Powell Butte rngnway intersection IICdL111C11t. Corridor Facility Plan, January 2012. Subsequent to the August 2009 Memorandum of Understanding for Hidden Canyon Resort (Memorandum of Understanding No. 24650) Crook County and ODOT prepared a corridor study for OR 126 to revisit alternative at -grade design treatments for the corridor. This plan showed that traffic signals or roundabouts could operate acceptably and meet long-term needs. The roundabout concept was further advanced within the City of Prineville's Transportation System Plan at the Tom McCall Road — Millican Road intersection and was then fully funded through agreements between Crook County, the City of Prineville, and ODOT. Within the Design Acceptance Package it was recognized that a single -lane roundabout would not meet long-term mobility needs, but decided that the smaller design would provide a higher level of safety and better accommodate freight. The single -lane roundabout being constructed contains a bypass route for oversized freight. if ODOT accepts a mobility target v/c ratio equal to 0.80 or better, as was accepted at the under - construction Tom McCall Road/Oregon 126 intersection, then the Oregon 126/Powell Butte Highway intersection would work acceptably as a single -lane roundabout through the year 2036 with the proposed Hidden Canyon Resort. A single -lane roundabout with separate northbound and eastbound right -turn lanes is expected to operate at LOS B' in year 2036 with the proposed site, with the worst approach having a v/c ratio of 0.79. Similar to the original application it is recommended that the Hidden Canyon resort provide a proportionate share contribution toward the roundabout. As this intersection is expected to continue to serve as the critical intersection within the study area it is recommended that funding from all the surrounding site impacts again be "pooled" to provide the full roundabout funding and/or construction. Further analysis was conducted to identify the potential timing of the improvement based on the assumed build -out timeline of surrounding resorts and Hidden Canyon Resort. This analysis also included a more conservative growth rate of 3 percent (nearly double the growth assumed within the TSP) applied through 2020, returning to the long-range projection of 1.6 percent annual growth rate to reflect the current economic conditions. A moderate absorption rate was also assumed for Hidden Canyon; Table 14 summarizes the analysis assumptions and results. Page 42 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Table 14 Summary of OR 126/Powell Butte Highway Improvement Timing Based on the analysis shown in Table 14 it is expected that the construction of the roundabout will be needed between 2022 and 2024 assuming on-going approved resort build -out (to include start of construction at two approved resorts) and approximately 250 resort units within Hidden Canyon. Ute 1Co/rowan aauaw u..tr.a................ ...... _. I Improvement Need/ Responsibility/ 2018 Existing 2020 (No -Build) Estimated Timing Single -Lane Roundabout Scenario Conditions Conditions 2022 Conditions 2024 Conditions Growth Rate Not applicable 1.061% 1.095% Additional In- 270 additional 460 additional 670 additional Process Resort 0 Units area resort units area resort units area resort units Units Hidden Canyon 0 Units 150 Units 250 units 350 units Resort Units Intersection NB LT: LOS E NB LT: LOS F NB LT: LOS F NB LT: LOS F Operations Delay: 44.0 s Delay: 80.2 s Delay: >100 s Delay: >100 s v/c Ratio: 0.44 v/c Ratio: 0.72 v/c Ratio: 0.92 v/c Ratio: >1.0 Based on the analysis shown in Table 14 it is expected that the construction of the roundabout will be needed between 2022 and 2024 assuming on-going approved resort build -out (to include start of construction at two approved resorts) and approximately 250 resort units within Hidden Canyon. Ute 1Co/rowan aauaw u..tr.a................ ...... _. I Improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Single -Lane Roundabout Crook County/ODOT 2020 to 2025 $4M Pro -Rata Payment (250 resort units) OR 126/TOM MCCALL ROAD Construction on the OR 126/Tom McCall Road intersection is currently being completed, with opening of the single -lane roundabout and truck bypass route anticipated in early fall 2018. When complete, the roundabout will connect Tom McCall Road and Millican Road with frontage roads, providing a bypass route for over -dimensional loads that would otherwise be unable to navigate the roundabout, as shown in Figure 15. Page 43 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Figure 15. Conceptual Tom McCall roundabout layout. Image Source: City of Prineville. As documented within the roundabout Design Acceptance Package (DAP), to meet 20 -year travel forecasts on OR 126 additional lanes are needed at the roundabout. However, a single -lane roundabout provides a higher level of safety and is anticipated to meet the area travel demands for the next 10 years. The addition of auxiliary turn lanes may further extend the lifespan of the single -lane roundabout design, allowing deferral of dual through lanes on OR 126 for approximately 15 years. The design and sizing of the roundabout does not accommodate build -out of area resorts through 2036. To meet year 2036 travel needs it is anticipated that a multilane roundabout will be required either through auxiliary right -turn lanes on one or more approaches, or with highway widening to accommodate dual through lanes along OR 126. For planning purposes this project is expected to cost $2 million, as the design of the roundabout was developed to accommodate this future widening. OR 126/Tom McCall Road Improvement Summary Improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Roundabout Widening City/Crook County/ODOT 2025 to 2030 $2M Pro -Rata Payment US 26/OR 126 PRINEVILLE "Y" JUNCTION The Prineville "Y" Junction serves as the connection between OR 126 and US 26, which also carries traffic destined for the nearby O'Neil Highway. Within the 2013 Transportation System Plan the junction was shown to operate acceptably through the horizon period, but congestion along 3rd Street may require additional supporting improvements at the "Y" to disperse trips onto parallel roadways. The only identified projects at the junction included pedestrian and access enhancements. Page 44 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA The 2036 travel forecasts and operations analysis show that the intersection will exceed City of Prineville and ODOT performance standards in 2036 with or without the proposed destination resort. The critical intersection within the "Y" Junction is the eastbound OR 126 to northbound US 26 movement, which shows failing conditions in the future. Field observations have noted that this location also experiences queuing issues with trucks due to the short distance from the OR 126 mainline. Mitigation at this intersection was previously identified as a single -lane roundabout with bypass lanes. With the heavy projected eastbound OR 126 onto NW 3'd Street flow and reverse morning commute patterns the design of this junction may need to rely on system connections (such as the NE 9th Street extension) to maintain a single -lane design. Additional considerations within the design of a future roundabout at this location would be the access management along the southern NW 3`d Street boundary, as well as preserving the connectivity to the 2nd Street connection. For planning purposes it was assumed that a multilane roundabout solution (providing two lanes between OR 126 and NW 3'd Street) would be required to meet the long-term capacity needs. This treatment was estimated to cost $4 million. n.:..e..111 41V10 Innr+inn ImnrnVPmanf qummary Improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Multi -Lane Roundabout Crook County/ODOT 2030 to 2040 $41VI Pro -Rata Payment POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY/ALFALFA ROAD The Powell Butte Highway/Alfalfa Road intersection occurs at the apex of a horizontal curve that had been improved as a condition of the Brasada Ranch Resort. With full resort build -out this intersection experiences very high delay but continues to meet the adopted agency performance standard. Without intersection improvements the high delays at this intersection could lead to safety and comfort issues for drivers. Accordingly, it is recommended that improvements be made as part of the Hidden Canyon Resort build -out. With the roundabouts being constructed to the north and south and the location along the curve it is recommended that this intersection also be reconfigured as a roundabout. With a single -lane roundabout the intersection shows acceptable operations through build -out. o.....nn n..++o uiohwav/Alfalfa Read Improvement Summary Improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Single -Lane Roundabout Hidden Canyon Resort With 80% Resort Build -Out $2M Construct Improvement POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY/BUTLER MARKET ROAD Demand at the stop -controlled Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market Road intersection is expected to exceed capacity at this intersection with or without the proposed Hidden Canyon Resort. The Deschutes County TSP identifies a need for a roundabout at this intersection. A single -lane roundabout is expected to operate at LOS "A" in year 2036 with the proposed site. The proposed development is expected to add fewer than 50 trips to this intersection during the weekday p.m. peak hour. It is recommended that the Page 45 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA resort make a proportionate share contribution toward the improvement. The specific timing of the roundabout need will be based on several factors (to include development patterns within the airport and City of Bend and other area resorts) but is anticipated within the 2025 to 2030 timeframe. 12 *!... efi Ant Rn2.1/pnwP11 Butte Highway Improvement Summary improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Single -Lane Roundabout Deschutes County 2025 to 2030 $21VI Pro -Rata Contribution US 20/POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY Under total traffic conditions, the southbound right -turn lane at the US 20/Powell Butte Highway intersection is expected to operate with a volume -to -capacity ratio of 0.76, which exceeds ODOT's mobility targets. The Deschutes County TSP identifies the need for a roundabout at this intersection, though it is currently ranked low on the project list. The proposed development is expected to add 73 trips to the southbound right -turn movement, which is less than 15% of the traffic for this movement. It is recommended that the resort make a proportionate share contribution toward the long-term intersection improvement. US 20/Powell Butte Highway Improvement Summary Improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Single -Lane Roundabout ODOT/Deschutes County 2030 to 2040 $3M Pro -Rata Contribution MITIGATION SUMMARY A summary of the off-site mitigation requirements, approximate timing, and pro -rata calculations is provided in Table 15. This approach complies with Oregon Revised Statute 197.460(4) which states that for destination resorts east of the coast range and within 25 miles of an urban growth boundary "the county shall require the applicant to submit a traffic impact analysis of the proposed development that includes measures to avoid or mitigate a proportionate share of adverse effects of transportation on state highways and other transportation facilities affected by the proposed development, including transportation facilities in the county and in cities whose urban growth boundaries are within the distance specified in this subsection." Page 46 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA TLI_ w r c....-..-...... -9 ^14 -CU.- 1M.,^i1amont NPPfiC I auie 17. 341/111101 Y WN v.. -.i- . ..r. r-- ­... Need/ Responsibility/ Intersection Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Pro -Rata 2,320 Forecast US 97/US 26 Single -Lane Roundabout Crook County/ODOT 2025 to 2030 84 Added South Madras Junction $4M Pro -Rata Payment 3.6%,$144,827.59 2,787 Forecast US 97/ Movement Restrictions ODOT Current Added 42 A 21. A O'Neil Highway $100k Pro -Rata Contribution Improvement Need $1,506.97 Central Redmond New Interchange/Connections ODOT/City of Redmond 2025 to 2030 (Varies with Local 4,862 Forecast 258 Added Intersections Est. $30M pro -Rata Contribution Development) 5.3%,$1,591,937.47 SE Airport Way/ Single -Lane Roundabout City of Redmond/ CurrentlyPlanned Est. Completion: om letion:Currently N/A N/A SE Veterans' Way SE Veterans' Way $2M $2M Improvement 2020 to 2025 49 Forecast0, 22,0Added OR 126/ Single -Lane Roundabout Crook County/ODOT 2020 to 2025 Powell Butte Highway $4M Pro -Rata Payment (250 resort units) 19.7%, $786,725.23 2,124 Forecast OR 126/ Roundabout Widening City/Crook County/ODOT 2025 to 2030 171 Added Tom McCall Road $2M Pro -Rata Payment 8.1%,$161,016.95 2,850 Forecast Prineville "Y" Junction Multi -Lane Roundabout Crook County/ODOT 2030 to 2040 149 Added $4M Pro -Rata Payment 5.2%, $209,122.81 Powell Butte Highway/ Single -Lane Roundabout Hidden Canyon Resort With 80% Resort N/A Alfalfa Road $2M Construct Improvement Build -Out 1,305 Forecast 1, Powell Butte Highway/ Single -Lane Roundabout Deschutes County 2025 to 2030 Added Butler Market Road $2M Pro -Rata Contribution 3.8%,$75,095.79 1,736 Forecast US 20/ Single -Lane Roundabout ODOT/Deschutes County 2030 to 2040 1,7 Added Powell Butte Highway $3M Pro -Rata Contribution 9.4%,$283,410.14 SITE ACCESS CHARACTERISTICS Access to the Hidden Canyon Resort is proposed via Stearns -Becker Road on Alfalfa Road and on Millican Road. The majority of vehicles are expected to use the access to Alfalfa Road, particularly as development is expected to be initiated from the west side of the resort and continue east and north. INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE Intersection sight distance was reviewed to ensure an adequate view of conflicting traffic is provided to drivers at the proposed access points on Alfalfa Road and Millican Road. Sight distance information and requirements are based on the standard reference A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Page 47 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA 61^ Edition, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 2011, commonly referred to as the Green Book. The sight distance review was based on the existing two-lane cross section on Alfalfa Road and Millican Road. The speed is not posted on either roadway. Vehicles in the rural area generally travel 55 to 65 miles per hour along these rural roadways. With the minor -street stop -control for Stearns -Becker Road at both the Alfalfa Road and Millican Road intersections, intersection sight triangles were developed based on guidance cited within Conditions B1 (left -turn from minor road) and B2 (right -turn from minor road) of the Green Book. All distances were measured from a vertex point located 14.5 feet from the major -road travel way along the center of the approaching travel lane, accounting for comfortable positioning distance from the travel way (6.5 feet) and the distance from the front of the vehicle to the driver eye (8.0 feet). The assumed eye height is 3.5 feet above the departing road for passenger vehicles. The object height is also 3.5 feet above the major road, providing enough space on the approaching vehicle to recognize it. Figure 16 illustrates the intersection sight distance measurements at a stop -controlled approach. Figure 16. Typical Intersection Sight Distance Measurements. Case 131: Left -Turn From Stop Recommended intersection sight distances are based on the distance an approaching vehicle travels during the time it takes a side -street vehicle to make a decision and safely accelerate into the travel lane without unduly interfering with major -street traffic. Given the flat slope of Alfalfa Road (less than 3 percent), a time gap of 7.5 seconds' was applied based on typical acceleration of a passenger car. Formula 3 AASHTO Table 9-5 cites a 7.5 second time gap on a two-lane roadway to cross one lane. Page 48 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA 9-1 was used to calculate a recommended sight distance of 720 feet facing right along the major road based on as assumed speed of 65 miles per hour. Intersection Sight Distance = 1.47 Vmo/o,(mpb)tynp(se.) = 716.6 feet Field review was conducted at both Alfalfa Road and Millican Road at the proposed access locations to ensure adequate sight lines toward the right. Photos of the current views are illustrated in Figures 17 and 20. This illustrates clear sight lines facing toward the right that exceed the recommended minimum distance for 65 miles per hour travel speed. Case 132: Right Turn from the Minor Road Views to the left for vehicles exiting the site and turning right on Alfalfa Road must be adequate to accommodate a right -turn. A time gap of 6.5 seconds is applied to account for this maneuver, reflecting the distance of crossing into a single lane and the shorter time gap acceptance by drivers turning right. Formula 9-1 also applies for this distance, resulting in a minimum recommended intersection sight distance of 625 feet. Intersection Sight Distance = 1.47 Vmnior(mph)tgop(sec) = 621.1 feet Figures 10 and 11 depict the existing sight distance to the south of the proposed Stearns -Becker Road connection and the north of the Millican Road connection. As shown, clear sight lines are provided at both access points that exceed these minimum recommendations, accommodating the right -turn maneuvers. Figure 17. Alfalfa Road/Stearns-Becker Intersection Facing North Highlighting Uear aignt Lines. Page 49 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Figure 18, Alfalfa Road/Stearns-Becker Intersection racing Noum nignngnung uear algni u11ca. Page 50 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Figure 19. Millican Road/Stearns-Becker Intersection Facing North Highlighting dear aignt Lines. Figure 20. Millican Road/Stearns-Becker Intersection Facing South Highlighting Llear Sight Lines. Page 51 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA TURN LANE WARRANTS While the Stearns -Becker intersections with Millican Road and Alfalfa Road meet applicable operational standards, left -turn and right -turn lane warrants were reviewed at both proposed accesses to assess the safety of these future intersections. Both are located on high-speed and low-volume rural roads. Left -Turn Lane Warrants Turn lane warrants are reviewed based on guidance within the ODOT Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit's publication Analysis Procedures Manual. Left -turn lane warrants are based on the posted roadway speed, bidirectional traffic volume, and percentage of the total volume turning left. The left -turn lane warrants are essentially a cost -benefit calculation of the safety benefits provided by separating through and turning traffic versus the construction costs. Left -turn lane warrants do not apply to stop - controlled minor -street approaches. Figure 21 illustrates the left -turn lane warrants forthe proposed site accesses on Alfalfa Road and Millican Road for the year 2036 total traffic conditions during the peak hour of the development. As shown in Figure 21, with the majority of trips turning left along Alfalfa Road to access the resort, the Alfalfa Road/Stearns-Becker Road intersection meets the criteria for a southbound left -turn lane prior to site build -out. It is recommended that the entrance is appropriately signed during the initial construction phase to highlight that truck traffic will be entering and exiting Alfalfa Road to increase driver awareness until the turn lane is warranted and constructed. Based on linear growth left -turn lane warrants will be met with approximately 500 to 600 resort units. Assuming resort development starts from Alfalfa Road, the need for the left -turn lanes will be accelerated prior to the completion of the Stearns -Becker connection through the resort to provide secondary access from Millican Road. Alfalfa Road Left -Turn Lane Imnrovement Summary improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing 500 to 600 resort units Southbound Left -Turn Lane Development Mitigation (or sooner without the Millican (or single -lane roundabout) Road connection) Poge 52 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Figure 21. MOT Left -Turn Lane Warrant Review, Year 2036 Total Traffic Conditions, Peak Hour of Generator. Right -Turn Lane Warrants The purpose of a right -turn lane is to improve safety and capacity of a roadway by reducing the speed differential between through vehicles and decelerating vehicles. Right turn lanes are typically reviewed based on the ODOT methodology for rural highways. The predicted traffic volumes at the site accesses during the peak hour of the resort were reviewed during 2036 total traffic conditions. As shown in Figure 22, the Alfalfa Road/Stearns-Becker Road and Millican Road/Stearns-Becker Road intersections meet the criteria for right -turn lanes into the site prior to full resort build -out. Right -turn deceleration lanes will not be warranted until late phases of the resort development, which could occur beyond the year 2036. The benefit of having a right -turn lane to separate through and turning traffic could be particularly beneficial within the high-speed rural area. It is recommended that right -turn deceleration lanes be constructed at the Alfalfa Road intersection either 1) when warranted, or 2) with the completion of the southbound left -turn lane. It is also recommended that right -turn deceleration lanes be constructed on Millican Road with the completion of the Stearns -Becker connection linking west to Alfalfa Road. Should the development opt to construct a roundabout at the Alfalfa Road entrance a separate deceleration lane would be unnecessary. Page 53 Left Turn Lane Criterion 1000 4 Alfalfa Rd/ Millican Rd/ i Stearns -Becker Rd +\ o = 800 ., . _ Stearns -Becker Rd ».«.._......«� ,.......... i r M 600 ...- .... ........ ....... . _, ............ ........ l Q O > 400 } ! ! 1 ! CL O Cn ' LM CL N 200 ..............».....,i,...».,,.,..»..,.....,..«.« 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 fit Left -Turn Volume `i (Design Hour Volumes) Figure 21. MOT Left -Turn Lane Warrant Review, Year 2036 Total Traffic Conditions, Peak Hour of Generator. Right -Turn Lane Warrants The purpose of a right -turn lane is to improve safety and capacity of a roadway by reducing the speed differential between through vehicles and decelerating vehicles. Right turn lanes are typically reviewed based on the ODOT methodology for rural highways. The predicted traffic volumes at the site accesses during the peak hour of the resort were reviewed during 2036 total traffic conditions. As shown in Figure 22, the Alfalfa Road/Stearns-Becker Road and Millican Road/Stearns-Becker Road intersections meet the criteria for right -turn lanes into the site prior to full resort build -out. Right -turn deceleration lanes will not be warranted until late phases of the resort development, which could occur beyond the year 2036. The benefit of having a right -turn lane to separate through and turning traffic could be particularly beneficial within the high-speed rural area. It is recommended that right -turn deceleration lanes be constructed at the Alfalfa Road intersection either 1) when warranted, or 2) with the completion of the southbound left -turn lane. It is also recommended that right -turn deceleration lanes be constructed on Millican Road with the completion of the Stearns -Becker connection linking west to Alfalfa Road. Should the development opt to construct a roundabout at the Alfalfa Road entrance a separate deceleration lane would be unnecessary. Page 53 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Right Turn Lane Criterion Alfalfa Rd/ 800 see ricte illican Rd/ Stearns -Becker Rd M 700 Stearns -Becker Rd 500 < 45 m Ph 0 500 . .......... 400 -r > 45 mph Q 300 200 100 o 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Right -Tum Volume (vph) Note: If there is no right turn lane, a shoulder needs to be provided. If this intersection is In a rural area and is a connection to a public street, a right turn lane is needed. Figure 22. ODOT Right -Turn Lane Warrant Review, Year 2036 Total Traffic Conditions, Peak Hour of Generator. improvement Need/ Responsibility/ Estimated Cost Recommendation Estimated Timing Millican Road Southbound Development Mitigation With Stearns -Becker connection Right -Turn Deceleration Lane to Alfalfa Road Northbound Rig Alfalfa RoadW] opment Mitigation Development With southbound left -turn lanes I Turn Deceleration Lane (omit if a roundabout is built) Page 54 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA EVENT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT This section describes how the proposed resort proposes to manage construction traffic and events to minimize the impacts on the public roadway system. EVENT MANAGEMENT PLAN A wide range of on-site commercial and recreational amenities are allowed within the proposed resort. No specific development plans are known at this time, but it is expected that the resort will cater toward families with a range of ages and interests. In addition, resorts commonly host conferences, weddings, business meetings/retreats, and various tournaments and other events. Site plan approval will be required when specific development plans are known that provide a better understanding of the location, size, and characteristics of the specific amenities. Events at Hidden Canyon Resort are typical and related to the resort operations. The impact of these events is captured within the measured trip generation rates applied. There are certain types and scales of events that will generate higher traffic volumes than average, but these events are expected to be rare, generally occur on weekends or off peak, and do not warrant further study and/or implementation of permanent capacity mitigation. in an effort to minimize the off-site transportation impacts associated with events, the following strategies are recommended; Event management plans should be considered for various event scales as recreational facilities are developed. This could include separate plans for small events (less than 250 persons), medium events (less than 1,000 persons) and large events (more than 1,000 persons). The event management plan should consider on-site accommodations, connectivity from on-site housing to the venue, wayfinding information, event timing, and sufficiency of internal parking areas. Large events may require on-site (or off-site depending on the size) traffic control. It is anticipated that internal resort event coordinators could prepare and update these plans as required. Events should include an emergency response plan coordinated with internal and/or external emergency service providers depending on the size of the event. Transportation Demand Management measures should be considered as part of the event management plan. This could include internal or external shuttles, event siting considerations, and coordination with surrounding resorts. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC PLAN Construction of the Hidden Canyon Resort roadways has a higher potential to increase heavy truck traffic on surrounding roadways. Todd Taylor of Taylor NW was consulted to identify how rock and other construction materials would be provided to the site. Following field review with the project team, Todd Taylor identified that most of the construction materials forthe roadways could be provided from on-site sources that would reduce heavy construction impacts to the adjacent public roads. The Powell Butte Aggregate Pit is located north of the resort with access from Millican Road should additional rock be required. Additional construction details will be provided when additional resort phasing information and specific development plans are known. Page 55 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA PROJECT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Primary changes within the transportation analysis from the original Hidden Canyon Resort are summarized below: • June 2017 trip generation surveys conducted at Brasada Resort identified trip rates that are approximately 70% of those applied within the 2006 application. The revised trip rates show that full build -out of the resort results in approximately 845 weekday p.m. peak hourtrips (448 in, 397 out). • Several studies and policy changes occurred since the original Hidden Canyon application that revised the potential improvement options on the OR 126 corridor. Initial scoping discussions with agencies indicated a desire to move toward the roundabout treatments along the highway as identified within the OR 126 Corridor Plan and currently under construction at Tom McCall. • The 2018 forecast growth in area traffic was reduced within the recent Crook County Transportation System Plan, extending the timeframe for when improvements would be needed at area intersections. This is due in part to more reasonable absorption of approved resort development and the lower trip rates of data centers near the airport. • The construction of the OR 126/Tom McCall roundabout and the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road roundabout addressed two critical system issues identified within the original analysis. Current plans for additional improvements to support industrial land development in Redmond will further address regional transportation system needs. The following provides a summary of key findings of the transportation impact analysis: • The operations analysis shows that all of the study area intersections except the southern Madras US 97/US 26 junction operate acceptably today. By 2036 nearly all the US 97 intersections in Redmond, the OR 126/Powell Butte Highway intersection, and the Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market Road intersection are projected to exceed agency performance standards without Hidden Canyon. With the resort additional system needs were identified at the US 20/Powell Butte Highway intersection, along with incremental degradation of the intersections not meeting performance standards within the no -build analysis. • Mitigation options have previously been identified within adopted Transportation System Plans for nearly all of the affected intersections or are currently subject to ongoing system or corridor planning efforts. • The area safety review identified several locations that exceed ODOT's critical crash rate. These include the capacity -constrained US 97/Highland-Glacier Avenue and US 97/Veteran's Way intersections in Redmond, the OR 126/Powell Butte Highway intersection in Crook County, the [now mitigated] Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road and Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market Road intersections in Deschutes County. Most of these locations are also identified within ODOT's Safety Priority Index System (SPIS). • Clear sight lines are provided at the Stearns -Becker connections with Alfalfa Road and Millican Road, easily exceeding AASHTO recommendations. • Construction materials should be provided from on-site sources to the extent possible to reduce heavy truck traffic on adjacent roadways. With these updates and findings the following reflects key recommendations to support transportation needs associated with the Hidden Canyon Resort: Page 56 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA • Hidden Canyon Resort will be responsible for coordinating, obtaining approval, and installing wayfinding signage to direct users to the resort. • Hidden Canyon Resort will be responsible for constructing entrance treatments on Alfalfa Road and Millican Road to highlight the entrance locations through all stages of the resort development, from construction access through build -out. The entrances should include illumination so that resort guests unfamiliar with the area can find the entrances at night. • Hidden Canyon Resort will be responsible for obtaining ROW and approval from BLM to complete the Stearns -Becker Roadway alignment connecting Millican Road and Alfalfa Road. Additional ROW to support the widening for turn lanes (or other treatments) at the entrances will also be the responsibility of the development. • Completion of the following projects will be required to mitigate impacts to Crook County intersections: o Installation of a southbound right -turn deceleration lane at the Millican Road/Stearns- Becker intersection. This improvement should be in place with the completion of the Stearns — Becker connection with Millican Road to support construction and visitor trips. o Installation of a southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn deceleration lane will be required at the Alfalfa Road/Stearns-Becker Road intersection when warranted (estimated to occur with approximately 500 to 600 resort units depending on completion of the Stearns -Becker Road). Alternatively, the development could consider installation of a roundabout in lieu of turn lanes. o Installation of a single -lane roundabout at the Powell Butte Highway/Alfalfa Road intersection. This improvement is identified within this analysis as a long-term need, meeting adopted County performance standards but operating with high delay. The specific timing of this improvement will be a function of Brasada Resort and Hidden Canyon development. Operations and safety at this intersection should be monitored with future resort phases to identify when this improvement will be required. • Pro -Rata payments should be provided to offset the regional impacts to the following ODOT intersections: o US 26/US 97 (South Madras) Junction: 3.6%, $144.827.59 o US 97/0'Neil Highway Intersection: 1.5%, $1,506.97 o Central Redmond East-West Connection: 5.3%, $1,591,937.47 o OR 126/Powell Butte Highway: 19.7%, $786,725.23 o OR 126/Tom McCall Road: 8.1%,$161,016.95 o US 26/OR 126 Junction (Prineville "Y" Junction): 5.2%, $209,122.81 o US 20/Powell Butte Highway Intersection: 9.4%, $283,410.14 Total pro -rata payments for all of these projects equates to $3,178,547.16. It is recommended that this funding be earmarked toward the construction of a single -lane roundabout at the OR 126/Powell Butte Highway intersection to be constructed by the development prior to occupancy of the 25111 resort unit. Pro -Rata payment should be provided to Deschutes County for impacts at the Powell Butte Highway intersection with Butler Market Road: 3.8%, $75,095.79 ($20.42/resort unit). This improvement is forecast to be required within the 2025 to 2030 timeframe to address capacity needs. An event management plan should be developed once the specific type and location of recreational amenities are finalized. The event management plan should ensure adequate on-site parking, wayfinding, and emergency service plans are in place. A fire evacuation plan should be developed and periodically updated in collaboration with emergency service providers, accounting for the roadways, amenities, and facilities that are in place. Page 57 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA We trust that this updated Transportation Impact Analysis for the Hidden Canyon Resort provides affected transportation service providers with adequate information to review the transportation impacts of the destination resort with respect to current agency policies and priorities. Please contact me with any questions or comments at (503) 997-4473 or via email at ioe@transilthtconsultine.com. Page 58 Hidden Canyon Resort TIA Madras Redmo Est. Timing: ' 2025 to 2030 BRIDGE New \� Connections 2 Est. $30M Est. Timing: 2025 to 2030 Roundabout Est. $2M Figure 23. Summary of Intersection Mitigation Needs and Approximate Timing. Page 59 November 21, 2018 Crook County Community Development Department 300 NE 3,d Street, Prineville, OR 97754 (541)447-3211 ccplan@co.crook.or.us BEFORE THE CROOK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATION — RMG DESTINATION, LLC FINAL DECISION OWNER/APPLICANT: RMG Destination, LLC 210 SW Wilson Avenue, Suite 100 Bend, Oregon 97702 AGENT: Joseph Shearer AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC 3052 NW Merchant Way, Suite 100 Bend, Oregon 97703 ATTORNEY: Steve Hultberg Radler White Parks & Alexander LLP PO Box 2007 Bend, Oregon 97709 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER: Joe Bessman, PE Transight Consulting, LLC Bend, Oregon APPLICATION NO.: 217-18-000334-PLNG Original File Number: (CU -DES -003-06) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: T16 R 14E Sections 13, 24, 35, 36, Tax lots 2200, 3900 and 4100 T16 R15, Sections 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32, Tax lots 2100, 3100 and 3200 NOTICE: October 2, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES: October 24, 2015 and November 14, 2018 REQUEST: RMG Destination, LLC (Applicant) requested a modification to the approved Development Plan for the Hidden Canyon destination resort (CU -DES -003-06). The modification is limited to a request to update the recreational and commercial uses contemplated within the resort. The Applicant also proposes modifications to conditions of approval based on the findings of the updated Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). (Exhibit C of the Applicant's submittal). 217-18-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 1 of 12 THE ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER came before the Crook County Planning Commission at its regular meeting on October 24, 2018. The public hearing was closed at the end of the hearing but the Planning Commission held the record open until November 7, 2018 to allow the Applicant to respond to Commission questions. The Planning Commission reviewed the Applicant's November 7, 2018 memo (Exhibit 6), as modified based on discussions with Ann Beier, Community Development Director and Bob O'Neal, County Roadmaster (Exhibit 7) and deliberated at their November 14, 2018 meeting. After consideration of the staff report, findings, facts and written and oral testimony, the application received 6 votes in favor and 1 against from the Planning Commission. FINAL DECISION: Approved subject to conditions X Denied The Applicant's request (217-18-000334-PLNG) is APPROVED to modify original conditions #5 and #6 and conditions #30 — 35 subject to the following: 1. Condition 5 shall be modified as requested: The applicant shall invest a minimum of $2,968,617.40 (in 2003 dollars) for recreational facilities and $5,937,234.90 (in 2003 dollars) for visitor -oriented accommodations within the resort. The minimum spending requirements shall be increased to present day dollars at the time of the approval of the bond for the subject improvements, based upon the Consumer Price Index. The recreational facilities shalt -may include, but are not be limited to, the following: a. 18 -hole golf course; b. Trail system, including hard surface multi -modal trails, hard surface walking trails, soft surface hiking trails, biking trails, and equestrian trails, c. Two community pools; d. Clubhouse with exercise facilities. The list of proposed recreational facilities in Exhibit 8 of the original application shall be replaced by the new list submitted as Exhibit 5. 2. Condition 6 shall be modified to replace the list of commercial facilities in Exhibit 9 of the original application with the new list submitted as Exhibit 4. 3. The County Planning Commission accepts the amended version of the Transportation Impact Analysis September 4, 2017 (Exhibit C of the application). The Commission adopts the modified conditions of approval (#30-35) outlined in Exhibit 7 as submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant shall submit updated MOUs (memorandum of understanding) between the Applicant and Crook County, the Applicant and Deschutes County and the Applicant and the Oregon Department of Transportation when submitting the Final Development Plan. The MOUs shall be based on the proposed change in the original conditions of approval outlined in the November 7t" memo as modified by the November 14, 2018 memo to Ann Beier and Bob O'Neal from Joe Bessman, Transight Consulting (Exhibit 7). If any of the MOUS represent a substantial modification to the conditions outlined in the November 14, 2018 memo, these changes will be considered as part of the review of the Final Development Plan. BACKGROUND: The development plan for Hidden Canyon was originally approved by the Crook County Planning Commission in June 2007. The approved plan authorizes a combined 3,675 permanent 217-I8-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 2 of 12 dwellings and overnight units, a list of commercial uses, and a list of recreational uses. The project is designed to provide a variety of overnight lodging units, residential lots, open space and recreational uses including walking, hiking and biking trails, sports fields, swimming pools, golf, and equestrian facilities. The project envisions a retail/commercial core with casual and fine dining and meeting facilities to host conferences, business gatherings and social events. RMG Destination, LLC (Applicant) requested a modification to the approved Development Plan for the Hidden Canyon destination resort (CU -DES -003-06). The modification is limited to updates to the recreational and commercial uses contemplated within the resort. The Applicant also proposes modifications to conditions of approval based on the findings of the updated Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). (Exhibit C of the application). PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS: Hidden Canyon is located on 3,243+/- acres in western Crook County, near the border of Crook and Deschutes County. The resort is located east of Brasada Ranch and south of Powell Butte on the east side of Alfalfa Road. The northern half of the site has steep slopes running up the south face of the buttes. The southern half is relatively flat. The majority of development will be concentrated in the south. The northern half will provide open space, trails and natural environmental features. RMG also owns 909+/- acres zoned EFU that is not included in the Destination Resort Overlay. The majority of the EFU-zoned property abuts the eastern border of the approved resort site. This provides a natural buffer between the core resort area and private lands to the east. While the property has been grazed over the years, the property contains no water rights and has never been irrigated. The property is currently undeveloped and consists of juniper woodlands, although some areas have been cleared in the past. The site is surrounded on the northwest, west and south by properties managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Adjacent private lands are vacant and zoned EFU-3. Private lands to the west have a Destination Resort Overlay Zone and have been developed as Brasada Ranch. Access to Hidden Canyon will be provided by SW Millican Road from the east and Alfalfa Road/Johnson Ranch Road from the west via the Stearns -Becker Road that bisects the southern portion of the resort property. The Bureau of Land Management has granted the Applicant a right-of-way permit for use of Stearns -Becker Road, a currently unimproved road. MODIFICATION REQUEST: RMG is proposed specific modifications to several conditions of approval. The text in strikethFaugh is proposed to be deleted, and text in bold typeface is proposed to be added. Condition 5. The applicant shall invest a minimum of $2,968,617.40 (in 2003 dollars) for recreational facilities and $5,937,234.90 (in 2003 dollars) for visitor -oriented accommodations within the resort. The minimum spending requirements shall be increased to present day dollars at the time of the approval of the bond for the subject improvements, based upon the Consumer Price Index. The recreational facilities shoXmay include, but are not be limited to, the following: a.18 -hole golf course; b. Trail system, including hard surface multi -modal trails, hard surface walking trails, soft surface hiking trails, biking trails, and equestrian trails; c. Two community pools; d. Clubhouse with exercise facilities. Condition 6. Commercial uses within the resort shall generally be limited to the categories of uses listed in CCC§ 18.116.070(8) and Exhibit 9 of the Applicant's Development Plan application. All commercial uses 217-18-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 3 of 12 shall be internal to the resort, limited to the types and levels of use necessary to meet the needs of resort visitors, and oriented towards guests rather than the general public. Exhibit 8 of the approved development plan includes a list of potential recreational uses and their approximate size or floor areas, and Exhibit 9 provides the same for commercial uses. The 2007 decision approving the development plan stated "Because the resort will develop over a period of 20 years, the various resort amenities will evolve over the years to meet market demand:' Exhibits 8 and 9 reflected the Applicant's proposed list of possible recreational and commercial amenities based on 2006-2007 market demand. As the Applicant pointed out, back in 2007, the destination resorts in Central Oregon generally included golf related facilities. However, since 2007, the demand for golf related activities has declined. The Applicant stated that there is little reason to require construction of the specific recreational facilities listed in Condition 5 and recommended the proposed language change. The Applicant stated that they can meet the minimum investment for recreational amenities through any number of uses listed in current Exhibit 5. A modified list of commercial uses is included as Exhibit 4. Conditions 30-35: These conditions require transportation -related MOUS with Crook County, Deschutes County, and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), respectively. The full text of the original conditions are included in Exhibit D of the Applicant's September 2018 submittal. The 2006 traffic study submitted with the original development plan for Hidden Canyon contemplated development of the overall 4,152+/- acres of land, with 3,243+/- acres of resort development and 909+/ - acres retained as farm use and serving as open space and a natural buffer between the resort and surrounding private lands. The original resort application identified development of up to 3,675 resort units, which could range from single-family homes (approximately 2,450 units) to various types of overnight rental units (approximately 1,225 units) that could take a variety of forms. The updated Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is included as Exhibit C to the Applicant's submittal. The TIA was prepared in accordance with Crook County TIA requirements in CCC 18.180, ORS 197.460(4), project scoping materials, and in coordination with Crook County, Deschutes County, and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff. The TIA provides an analysis of conditions within the vicinity of Hidden Canyon and highlights the primary changes from the original (2006) analysis. These changes are based on better data on transportation impacts, construction of transportation facilities since 2006, and other factors summarized as follows: Trip generation surveys conducted at Brasada Ranch identified trip rates that are approximately 70% of those applied within the 2006 application. The 2006 analysis estimated much higher trip rates than have been observed in conjunction with activities at Brasada Ranch. Several studies and policy changes have been implemented since the original application, including discussions regarding potential improvement options on the OR 126 corridor. Forecast growth in area traffic was reduced in the recent Crook County Transportation System Plan, extending the timeframe for when improvements would be needed at area intersections. • The construction of the OR 126/Tom McCall Road roundabout and the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road roundabout addressed two critical system issues identified within the original analysis. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: CCC 18.116.110 allows for modifications to development plans and requires consideration of the modifications in the same manner as the original application, except that the scope of review must be limited to only those aspects of the proposed development that are materially different from the approved development plan. The applicable criteria are addressed below. 217-18-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 4 of 12 Crook County Code 18.116 (Destination Resorts) and 18.160 (Conditional Uses) 18.116.110(3) requires that the modified plan be considered in the same manner as the original application, except that review of the modified plan shall be limited to aspects of the proposed development that are materially different (emphasis added) from the approved development plan. Materially different, as used in this subsection, means a change in the type, scale, location, or other characteristics of the proposed development such that findings of fact on which the original approval based would be materially affected Criteria are in standard font. Responses are in bold italics. Crook County Code 18.116 — Destination Resort Overlay 18.116.040 Standards. A destination resort shall meet the following standards: (1) Development shall be located on a tract that contains at least 160 acres. (2) Development shall not be located on high value farmland. Not applicable. No changes are planned to the approved location of the resort. (3) Development shall include meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for at least 100 persons, and a minimum of 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodging, oriented toward the needs of visitors rather than area residents. However, the rentable units may be phased in as follows: (a) A total of 150 units of overnight lodging shall be provided as follows: (i) At least 75 units of overnight lodging, not including any individually owned homes, lots or units, shall be constructed or guaranteed prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units through an agreement and security provided to the county in accordance with CCC 17.40.080 and 17.40.090. (ii) The remainder shall be provided as individually owned lots or units subject to deed restrictions that limit their use to overnight lodging units. The deed restrictions may be rescinded when the resort has constructed 150 units of permanent overnight lodging as required by this subsection. (b) The number of units approved for residential sale shall not be more than two units for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under subsection (3)(a)(i) of this section, provided, however, after an applicant has constructed its first 150 permanent overnight lodging units, the county may approve a final development plan modification to increase the ratio of units approved for residential sale to units of permanent overnight lodging from two to one to two and one-half to one. (c) The development approval shall provide for the construction of other required overnight lodging units within five years of the initial lot sales. Not applicable. No changes are planned to the approved number and type of meeting rooms, restaurants, overnight units, or units for residential sale at this time. However, it should be noted that since Crook County approved the development plan for Hidden Canyon in 2007, CCC 18.116.040(3)(b) has been modified to increase the ratio of dwellings to overnight lodging units from 2:1 to 2.5:1 as allowed under Statewide Planning Goal 8 and Oregon Revised Statute 197.445(4)(b)(E). (4) Prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units, all required developed recreational facilities, key facilities intended to serve the entire development, and visitor -oriented accommodations shall be either fully constructed or guaranteed by providing an agreement and security in accordance with CCC 17.40.080 and 17.40.090. (This provision also discusses phased developments). Conditions 1-4 of the original approval require the Applicant to either construct or provide financial assurance for the minimum required developed recreational facilities and key resort facilities serving each phase of the resort prior to closure of sale of individual units within that phase (i.e., prior to 217-18-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 5 of 12 recordation of the final plat). The Applicant is proposing no changes to these conditions nor project modifications that would require these conditions to be changed. (5) At least $7,000,000 shall be spent on improvements for on-site developed recreational facilities and visitor -oriented accommodations exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities, and roads. Not less than one-third of this amount shall be spent on developed recreational facilities. Spending required under this subsection is stated in 1993 dollars. The spending required shall be adjusted to the year in which calculations are made in accordance with the United States Consumer Price Index. Condition 5 currently requires investment in recreational facilities and visitor -oriented accommodations within the resort consistent with CCC 18.116.040(5). As discussed above, the proposed modification suggested minor edits to reflect the evolving needs and interests of resort visitors for recreational and commercial amenities. The proposed modification will not impact the project's ability to meet the required expenditures for recreational facilities and visitor -oriented accommodations. (See Exhibit 5). (6) Commercial uses are limited to those listed in CCC 18.116.070(8). Such uses must be internal to the resort, and are limited to the types and levels of use necessary to meet the needs of visitors to the resort. Industrial uses of any kind are not permitted. Exhibit 9 of the approved development plan provided a list of potential commercial uses and their approximate size or floor areas. The Applicant has provided an updated list of commercial uses (Exhibit 4). The proposed commercial uses are consistent with CCC 18.116.070(8) and will generally be located in the central development areas delineated on the approved Development Plan Map (Exhibit E of the modification application). Consistent with the original approval and CCC 18.116.070(8), all commercial uses will be internal to the resort, limited to the types and levels of use necessary to meet the needs of resort visitors, and oriented toward guests rather than the general public. No industrial uses are proposed. Therefore, the standard is met. (7) At least 50 percent of the site shall be dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, streets, and parking areas. Not applicable. No changes are planned to the amount or location of permanent open space. (8) If the site includes a resource site designated on the county's Goal 5 inventories as significant, the resource site shall be protected in accordance with the adopted Goal 5 management plan for the site... Not applicable. No changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, or the location of uses shown on the approved Development Plan Map (Exhibit E). No changes have been made to any of Crook County's adopted Goal inventories since the 2007 development plan approval. (9) Riparian vegetation within 100 feet of natural lakes, rivers, streams and designated significant wetlands shall be retained as set forth in CCC 18.124.090. Not applicable. No changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, or the location of uses shown on the approved Development Plan Map (Exhibit E). (10) The dimensional standards otherwise applicable to lots and structures in underlying zones pursuant to Chapters 18.16 through18.112 and 18.120 through 18.140 CCC shall not apply within destination resorts. The planning commission shall establish appropriate dimensional standards during final development plan review. Not applicable. No changes are planned to the approved dimensional standards. Per Condition 8 of the 217-18-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 6 of 12 original development plan approval, the Applicant will submit a revised exhibit with the Final Development Plan showing required standards. (11) Establishes minimum setbacks from exterior property lines. Not applicable. No changes are planned to the approved setbacks. (12) Relating to alterations and nonresidential uses within the 100 -year flood plain and alterations and all uses on slopes exceeding 25 percent. Not applicable. No changes are planned relative to construction on slopes exceeding 25%. There are no identified 100 -year floodplains within the project boundary. 18.116.100 Approval criteria. The planning commission or county court shall approve a development plan for a destination resort if it determines that all of the following criteria are met: (1) The tract where the development is proposed is eligible for destination resort siting, as depicted on the acknowledged destination resort overlay map. Not applicable. No changes are planned to the approved development plan map included in Exhibit E of the application. The criterion continues to be met. (2) The development plan contains the elements required by CCC18.116.080. The Applicant states that the minor updates in this modification are addressed in this narrative and revisions to exhibits submitted with the original Development Plan application, which the County has deemed consistent with this criterion and CCC 18.116.080. The criterion continues to be met. (3) The proposed development meets the standards established in CCC18.116-.040 or 18.116.050, qualifying as a destination resort or a small destination resort, respectively. Not applicable. No changes are planned to the approved development plan map or the type of destination resort qualifying under CCC 18.116.040. The criterion continues to be met. (4) The uses included in the destination resort are either permitted uses listed in CCC 18.116.060, or accessory uses listed in CCC 18.116.070 that are ancillary to the destination resort and consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The original approval found that all uses proposed within the resort are either permitted or accessory uses listed in CCC 18.116.060 or18.116.070. The modifications to the lists of potential commercial and recreational uses are shown in Exhibits 4 and S. These uses are permitted or accessory uses and this criterion continues to be met. (5) The development will be reasonably compatible with surrounding land uses, particularly farming and forestry operations. The destination resort will not cause a significant change in farm or forest practices on surrounding lands or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices. No changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, or the location of uses shown on the approved development plan map. The Applicant's revised TIA included in Exhibit C estimates that trip generation will be significantly lower than predicted in the original transportation analysis, and potential impacts of resort traffic can be mitigated through the planned improvements discussed in the TIA. With these minor modifications, the project will continue to be reasonably compatible with surrounding land uses, particularly farming and forestry operations, and will not cause a significant change in farm or forest practices on surrounding land or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices. The criterion continues to be met. 217-18-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 7 of 12 (6) The development will not have a significant adverse impact on fish and wildlife, considering mitigation measures. Not applicable. No changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, or the location of uses shown on the approved development plan map. in fact, the TIA included in Exhibit C estimates that trip generation will be significantly lower than predicted in the original transportation analysis, and potential impacts of resort traffic can be mitigated through the planned improvements discussed in the TIA. The criterion continues to be met. Traffic Analysis (a) The traffic study required by CCC 18.116.080(3)(g) illustrates that the proposed development will not significantly affect a transportation facility. A resort development will significantly affect a transportation facility for purposes of this approval criterion if it would, at any point within a 20 -year planning period: (i) Change the functional classification of the transportation facility; (ii) Result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of the transportation facility; or (iii) Reduce the performance standards of the transportation facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the applicable transportation system plan (TSP). (b) If the traffic study required by CCC 18.116.080(3)(9) illustrates that the proposed development will significantly affect a transportation facility, the applicant for the destination resort shall assure that the development will be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility through one or more of the following methods: (i) Limiting the development to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; ii) Providing transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed development consistent with Chapter 660 OAR, Division 12; or (iii) Altering land use densities, design requirements or using other methods to reduce demand for automobile travel and to meet travel needs through other modes. (c) Where the option of providing transportation facilities is chosen in accordance with subsection (6)(b)(ii) of this section, the applicant shall be required to provide the transportation facilities to the full standards of the affected authority as a condition of approval. Timing of such improvements shall be based upon the timing of the impacts created by the development, as determined by the traffic study or the recommendations of the affected road authority. No changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, or the location of uses shown on the approved development pan map. However, the TIA included in Exhibit C estimates that trip generation will be significantly lower than predicted in the original transportation analysis. (7) The water and sewer facilities master plan required by CCC 18.116.080(3)(b) illustrates that proposed water and sewer facilities can reasonably serve the destination resort. Not applicable. No changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, the location of uses shown on the approved development plan map, or the water and sewer facilities master plan. The criterion continues to be met. (8) The development complies with other applicable standards of the county zoning ordinance. 217-18-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 8 of 12 No other standards of the County zoning ordinance apply to the proposed modification request. No changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, or the location of uses shown on the approved development plan map. The criterion continues to be met. 18.116.110 Final development plan review procedure. (1) Following approval of the development plan, the applicant shall submit for review a final development plan that meets the requirements of CCC 18.172.040 and addresses all conditions of the development plan. (2) The planning commission shall review a final development plan. The planning commission shall approve a final development plan if it conforms to the approved development plan and its conditions of approval. (3) If the planning commission finds that the final development plan is materially different from the approved development plan, the applicant shall submit an amended development plan for review. "Materially different," as used in this subsection, means a change in the type, scale, location, or other characteristics of the proposed development such that findings of fact on which the original approval was based would be materially affected. Submission of an amended plan shall be considered in the same manner as the original application, except that the review of an amended plan shall be limited to aspects of the proposed development that are materially different from the approved development plan. CCC 18.116.110(3) allows for the modification of an approved development plan. The Applicant acknowledges the modified plan will be considered in the same manner as the original application, except that review of the modified plan will be limited to aspects of the proposed development that are materially different from the approved development plan. This written statement includes findings of fact demonstrating the application complies with the limited applicable approval criteria — the criteria related to recreational uses, commercial uses and transportation impact analysis. 18.116.120 Duration of final development plan approval. A final development plan approval shall become void if construction has not commenced within two years after the date the approval became final. Crook County Code does not define when construction has commenced. However, CCC 18.08.190 provides a definition for "start of construction": Start of construction" means the first placement of permanent construction of a structure (other than a manufactured dwelling) on a site, such as the pouring of slabs or footings or any work beyond the preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling, nor does it include the installation of streets andlor walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings piers or foundations or the erection of temporaryforms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not as part of the main structure. For a structure (other than a manufactured dwelling) without a basement or poured footings, the "start of construction" means the affixing of the mobile home to its permanent site. For mobile homes within mobile home parks or mobile home subdivisions, "start of construction" is the date on which the construction of facilities for servicing the site on which the mobile home is to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the construction of streets, either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads, and installation of utilities) is completed. 217-18-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 9 of 12 The Applicant is developing conceptual plans for the placement of the first permanent building on the site. The building will have a ±700 -square -foot footprint and is planned to function as a welcome/informational center (a "visitor -oriented accommodation"). After the site is cleared, graded, and prepared, a foundation will be poured, and permanent framing will be constructed. In addition to the building Itself, an exempt domestic well and septic system are planned to be Installed. Electrical power will be extended ±300-500 feet to the building (depending on its final location), and parking and landscaping are planned to be completed. Pursuant to the definition of "start of construction" the Applicant requests that the Planning Commission adopt the following finding and memorialize it as a condition of approval for this modification application: Under CCC 18.116.120, commencement of construction is understood to be consistent with the "start of construction, " as that term is defined in CCC 18.08.190. As such, the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, not including a manufactured dwelling, such as the pouring of slabs or footings or any work beyond the preparation of the site, would vest the final development plan. Alternatively, if the structure contemplated above, does not include a basement or poured footings, the construction of the first permanent framing or assembly of the structure or any part thereof on its piling or foundations would vest the final development plan. County staff agrees that the proposed construction of a "welcome center" on the subject property meets the definition of "start of construction." If such construction commences within two years of approval of a final development plan, the County would find that the requirements of 18.116.120 have been met. Chapter 18.160 CONDITIONAL USES 18.160.020 General criteria. In judging whether or not a conditional use proposal shall be approved or denied, the planning director or planning commission shall weigh the proposal's appropriateness and desirability or the public convenience or necessity to be served against any adverse conditions that would result from authorizing the particular development at the location proposed and, to approve such use, shall find that the following criteria are either met, can be met by observance of conditions, or are not applicable: (1) The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies and regulations of the county. Destination resorts are a conditional use in the EFU-3 zone per CCC 18.24.020. However, no changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, or the location of uses shown on the approved development plan map included as Exhibit E of the application. The relevant criteria of the zoning ordinance are addressed above and incorporated herein by reference. Because CCC 18.116 implements the destination resort chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which itself implements Goal 8, the Planning Commission previously determined it is not necessary to directly address the Comprehensive Plan policies or Goal S. The Applicant will also address applicable zoning and subdivision standards at the time of subsequent Site Plan Review and Subdivision Applications. The criterion continues to be met. (2) Taking into account location, size, design and operation characteristics, the proposal will have minimal adverse impact on then(a) livability, (b) value and (c) appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding area compared to the impact of development that is permitted outright. No changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, or the location of uses shown on the approved development plan map. Based on information in the updated TIA (Exhibit C), 217-18-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 10 of 12 estimated trip generation will be significantly lower than projected in the original transportation analysis. The Applicant states that potential resort traffic impacts can be mitigated by transportation improvements described in the revised TIA. The criterion continues to be met. (3) The location and design of the site and structures for the proposal will be as attractive as the nature of the use and its setting warrant. 4) The proposal will preserve assets of particular interest to the county. No changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, or the location of uses shown on the approved development plan map. The criterion continues to be met. (5) The applicant has a bona fide intent and capability to develop and use the land as proposed and has some appropriate purpose for submitting the proposal, and is not motivated solely by such purposes as the alteration of property values for speculative purposes. No changes are planned to approved project boundaries, access locations, or the location of uses shown on the approved development plan map. According to the Applicant, this modification recognizes the evolving needs and recreational interests of resort visitors and makes minor updates to Condition 5 (see exhibits 4 and 5) in order to better align with those needs and interests. Additionally, the TIA included in Exhibit C estimates that trip generation will be significantly lower than can be mitigated through the planned improvements discussed in the TiA. This study provides an updated and more realistic analysis of the transportation impact and possible improvement necessary far mitigation. These modifications are planned to expedite the development and use of the land as proposed. The criterion continues to be met. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Commission received three letters regarding the proposed modification. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Greg Jackie, Ochoco District Wildlife Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The letter acknowledged that although no modifications to the wildlife plan are currently being requested, Department representatives have met with the Applicant several times. Mr. Jackie stated that the meetings have been positive and productive. The letter referenced the ODFW approval of the original mitigation plan (Letter dated May 3, 2007) and an August 8, 2018 memo with updated comments on the project. ODFW is recommending mitigation off-site to achieve a greater conservation benefit and is proposing to continue to work with the County and the Applicant to develop a funding mechanism. ODFW recommends that mitigation payment be made prior to groundbreaking (similar to the process used for solar developments). The Planning Commission also received a letter from Paul Dewey, Executive Director of Central Oregon Landwatch (COLW) (Exhibit 2). Mr. Dewey, writing on behalf of COLW, is opposed to the proposed modification application. He recommended denying the Modification Application because the original approval had expired. COLW filed an action in Crook County Circuit Court seeking reversal of the approval. That action was dismissed (Exhibit 8, Case Number 18CV25530 — added by staff). Mr. Dewey stated that the Applicant is not meeting the basic requirements for a destination resort, specifically stating that "it is not appropriate for the Applicant to defer providing the minimum required recreation facilities and other required amenities for a destination resort through bonding." The letter suggests that the Applicant's interpretation of the term "start of construction" should not be applied to development of a destination resort. Mr. Dewey, on behalf of COLW also raised questions regarding the updated traffic analysis and the failure of the Applicant to address impacts of the project on water availability in Central Oregon. 217-18-000334-PLNG RMG Destination Modification Page 11 of 12 The Planning Commission also received a letter from Meriel Darzen on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon. The letter also mentioned that the original approval had expired and the modification should not be considered until a Circuit Court decision. The letter also mentioned concerns about changes in the area since the original plan was approved including population growth in the surrounding area, development of a large solar facility and other projects that impact wildlife habitat, traffic and water availability. They requested that the record remain open for fourteen days. CONCLUSION: The required findings have been made and this written narrative and accompanying documentation demonstrate that the application is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Crook County Code. The original development plan approval, the Applicant's September 4, 2018 application and the October 19, 2018 staff report are incorporated by reference. The evidence in the record is substantial and supports approval of the application subject to the conditions of approval set forth in this decision. The Planning Commission considered the testimony, the evidence provided, including the application, exhibits, the staff report, and testimony in reaching a decision to approve the modification request. DATED THIS �ff DAY OF .��f/yi/ay<<l� , 2018. Michael Warren Il, Chair, Crook County Planning Commission Ann Beier, Planning Director NOTICE TO PERSONS PROVIDING TESTIMONY This approval mW be appealed to the Crook County Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on Decembers 2018. The written appeal must be submitted together with the appeal fee of $1,850 plus 20% of the application fee to the Crook County Community Development Department. The Crook County Community Development Department is located in the County Courthouse at 300 NE Third Street, Room 12, Prineville, Oregon 97754. Exhibit 1— Letter from Greg Jackie, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Exhibit 2 — Letter from Paul Dewey, Central Oregon Landwatch Exhibit 3 — Letter from Muriel Darzen, 1000 Friends of Oregon Exhibit 4 and S — Modified List of Commercial and Recreational Uses Exhibit 6 — Memo from AKS Exhibit 7 — Memo from Transight Exhibit 8 — Decision — Crook County Circuit Court case 18CV25530 (added by staff) 217 -18 -000334 -PING RMG Destination Modification Page 12 of 12 REVIEWED LEGAL OUNSEL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Deschutes County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its elected officials and RMG Development, Inc., an Oregon corporation, acting by and through its senior officers, hereinafter referred to as "RMG"; referred to hereafter collectively as the "Parties." A. RECITALS Pursuant to Crook County File No. C -CU -DES -003-06 (the "Resort Decision"), in which Crook County approved RMG's Development Plan for the Hidden Canyon destination resort (the "Resort"), RMG must contribute to the cost of the construction of certain improvements to the Powell Butte Highway/Alfalfa Market Road -Neff Road Intersection and the Powell Butte Highway/Butler Market Road Intersection (the "Intersection Improvements"). 2. Condition No. 32 of the Resort Decision requires the Parties to enter into a memorandum of understanding to ensure that RMG timely contributes its proportional share to the cost of the Intersection Improvements. 3. Deschutes County and RMG wish to execute this memorandum of understanding to govern RMG's obligations to contribute towards the costs of the Intersection Improvements. 4. This MOU is a binding agreement between the Parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: B. TERMS OF AGREEMENT: Intersection Improvements. Deschutes County and RMG agree that the Intersection Improvements are required to maintain safety and functionality of the affected intersections and to comply with the conditions of the Resort Decision. The Intersection Improvements required by Condition 32 of the Resort Decision are governed by this Agreement as follows: Page 1 of 5 — MOU BETWEEN RMG AND DESCHUTES COUNTY FOR POWELL BUTTE HWY IMPROVEMENTS Deschutes County Document No. 2007-580 7. f a. Powell Butte/Neff-Alfalfa Market. Pursuant to Condition 32 of the Resort Decision and the February 14, 2007 letter from Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner with Deschutes County to Bill Zelenka, Planning Director, Crook County Community Development, RMG shall contribute to the cost of the Intersection Improvements at the Powell Butte/Neff-Alfalfa Market intersection pursuant to the following terms: (i) RMG's contribution to the Intersection Improvements at the Powell Butte/Neff-Alfalfa Market intersection shall be Two Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Dollars and no/100 ($278,680.00), in 2007 dollars; and (ii) RMG shall pay its contribution by depositing cash with Deschutes County no later than the date upon which Crook County issues a certificate of occupancy for the 257' dwelling unit in the Resort. (iii) The County shall credit RMG's deposit to the County Road Department fund designated for road improvements. (iv) Upon recordation of each plat in the Resort, RMG shall provide the County with progress reports identifying the then current number of dwelling units in the Resort. (v) RMG's proportionate share set forth above was calculated as follows: (Hidden Canyon Added Trips) / (Total Trips in Year 2026) * (Total Improvement Cost). RMG's proportionate share calculations were reviewed and approved by the County pursuant to the terms and conditions of the letter from Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner with Deschutes County to Bill Zelenka, Planning Director, Crook County Community Development attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. b. Powell Butte/Butler Market. Pursuant to Condition 32 of the Resort Decision and the February 14, 2007 letter from Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner with Deschutes County to Bill Zelenka, Planning Director, Crook County Community Development, RMG shall contribute to the cost of the Intersection Improvements at the Powell Butte/Butler Market intersection pursuant to the following terms: (i) RMG's contribution to the Intersection Improvements at the Powell Butte/Butler Market intersection shall be Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Seven and no/100 Dollars ($36,247.00), in 2007 dollars; and (ii) RMG shall pay its contribution by depositing cash with Deschutes County no later than the date upon which Crook County issues a certificate of occupancy for the 1,102"`' dwelling unit in the Resort. Page 2 of 5 — MOU BETWEEN RMG AND DESCHUTES COUNTY FOR POWELL BUTTE HWY IMPROVEMENTS Deschutes County Document No. 2007-580 (iii) The County shall credit that amount to the County Road Department fund designated for road improvements. Upon recordation of each plat in the Resort RMG shall provide the County with progress reports identifying the then current number of dwelling units in the Resort. (iv) RMG's proportionate share set forth above was calculated as follows: (Hidden Canyon Added Trips) / (Total Trips in Year 2026) * (Total Improvement Cost). RMG's proportionate share calculations were reviewed and approved by the County pursuant to the terms and conditions of the letter from Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner with Deschutes County to Bill Zelenka, Planning Director, Crook County Community Development attached hereto as Exhibit A. c. Interest. The County shall retain the interest, if any, earned on the case deposited with the County to defray any costs due to inflation. d. No Obligation. The County's acceptance of the funds described in subsections (a) and (b) above does not obligate the County to construct the identified improvements. C. GENERAL PROVISIONS No Third Party Beneficiaries. a. County and RMG are the only parties to this MOU and are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. b. Nothing in this MOU gives or provides any benefit or right, whether directly, indirectly, or otherwise, to third persons unless such third persons are individually identified by name in this MOU and expressly described as intended beneficiaries of the MOU. 2. Successors in Interest. The provisions of this MOU shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their successors and approved assigns, if any. 3. RMG Not an Agent of County. a. It is agreed by and between the parties that RMG is not carrying out a function on behalf of County, and County does not have the right of direction or control of the manner in which RMG delivers services under this MOU or exercise any control over the activities of RMG. b. RMG is not an officer, employee or agent of County as those terms are used in ORS 30.265. Page 3 of 5 — MOU BETWEEN RMG AND DESCHUTES COUNTY FOR POWELL BUTTE HWY IMPROVEMENTS Deschutes County Document No. 2007-580 C. RMG covenants for itself and its successors in intereset and assigns that it will not claim or assert that RMG is an officer, employee or agent of the County, as those terms are used in ORS 30.265. 4. Partnership. County is not, by virtue of this contract, a partner or joint venturer with RMG in connection with activities carried out under this contract, and shall have no obligation with respect to RMG's debts or any other liabilities of each and every nature. 5. Governing Law. This MOU shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. a. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "Claim") between County and RMG that arises from or relates to this MOU shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Deschutes County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a Claim shall be brought in federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States Distrist Court for the District of Oregon. b. RMG, BY EXECUTION OF THIS CONTRACT, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF SAID COURTS. The parties agree that the UN Convention on International Sales of Goods shall not apply. 6. Severability. If any term or provisions of this MOU is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if this MOU did not contain the particular term or provision held invalid. 7. Attorney Fees. In the event an action, lawsuit or proceeding, including appeal therefrom, is brought for failure to observe any of the terms of this contract, each party shall be responsible for their own attorney fees, expenses, costs and disbursements for said action, lawsuit, proceeding or appeal. 8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the Parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification, or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and +or the specific purpose given. The failure of State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by State of that or any other provision. Page 4 of 5 — MOU BETWEEN RMG AND DESCHUTES COUNTY FOR POWELL BUTTE HWY IMPROVEMENTS Deschutes County Document No. 2007-580 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. Dated this -- of �_ 2007 ATTEST: &A'C�- �6� Recording Secretary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MI4EL AL AIR DE NIS R. LUKE, VICE C TAMMY BA COMMI IONER Return Document to: Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Attn: Mr. Peter Russell With a copy to: Crook County Community Development Department Planning Department 300 NE 3rd Street Prineville, Oregon 97754 Attn: Mr. Bill Zelenka RMG, INC. By Its Date ©`7 Page 5 of 5 — MOU BETWEEN RMG AND DESCHUTES COUNTY FOR POWELL BUTTE HWY IMPROVEMENTS Deschutes County Document No. 2007-580 ES Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 8, 2019 DATE: April 29, 2019 FROM: Janice Garceau, Health Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION: CCBHC Quarterly Update - 9/1/18 to 3/31/19 RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: No action is requested. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Deschutes County Health Services is participating in the CCBHC-Demonstration grant (original period 4/1/17-3/31/19), and was also awarded the CCBHC-Expansion grant starting 9/1/18. This is a standard status update per request from the Board. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Health Services staff: Daniel Emerson, Management Analyst; Tyler Nass, Management Analyst; Jillian Weiser, Compliance & Quality Assurance Program Manager; Janice Garceau, Behavioral Health Deputy Director; David Inbody, Administrative Services Deputy Director. . � 1;n4F U Co U U E 3 0 s 0 76 E o cUa E O E OO U U C- L- b -0 � O O 4 E E Cc U m bA U i O cc E >0- 'Q O � ~ Es r_ Ln o �- N '0 O Ln Q � � i aJ Ln ._ _0 =3 O � N = � •� 4-J U O 4A G� N U OJ N V L O — CA N M N QU ; Q) L - cu U E C: 0:3 U V) V) 4-J Co ro V CD o E .4--J cc C:L U 0 fu U L40 -C QL -J) (1 4 U 4-J m Ln -1J a -a c n ' N E C� W N N O 12 N O > U .N ( .i O ozi LZ O a) 4--) 0, ' 0 � . � O -0 a) 0 u N -0 N E 4- t)LO (3) C a) U u M O CL bo c 4-J (1) Q on Q) W _ f6 -0 > a) > N f6 W U j — L Ln . N U C: LA _0 i 4 c > N -U 0 v a) WN -0i U -Do aN a. =3 V <_0 O �� a)v —' 4-+ N U' .1- J U L � C:'> a) a� W > a) C6 C: —4-J"— N N \ > V -0�c N 0— _ f6 O a) N L > N U i U 1 �N y�U O V)4- vz� P, 0 .E N Q N -o c 0 U • 1 t • • t t 0 E to u 7: co u U 0 r ca L. 0 0 LL 4-J c 73 0 u V) a) 4-P U %A 4) w D < z LIJ LU U) Cl) < Cie uj LL LLJ Cf 05 Z z W W o < 0t- Z uj (j) z D 0 LL uj ry Z uj T— z w C� 0 —j T o cc z 0 w -i :5 z C) w 0 ME D < z LIJ LU U) Cl) < Cie uj LL LLJ Cf 05 Z z W W o < 0t- Z uj (j) z D 0 LL uj ry Z uj T— z w C� 0 —j T o cc z 0 w -i :5 z C) w 0 z 2 LU Li X Q 0 Z 0 U) CD LLJ C� CL. LU 0 0 (D 0 co 0-0 C) ti0 is Zi C4 z 0 7i N z 0 CO Lij r1l, z 0 CO co Li w CL LLJ C) 4-J c V) O op c� 4—J O E W U Z co U U N a) (1) > c 4 i U i O U 4-' O +j U a--+ N C � E a� � m O a) E U � N � OU 'L C: U O Q O U O (A > � O U }, ' o U O ; aA O 0- C: 4—N N O > `E O '0 4-1 ago 0 U O '0 N U C: +j =3 m O z Q z a) i U O U � � m a) E U � 'L U U O (A V) � � }, O �O 4—N U i iJLn aJ :i-+ c�i�6i cn U O re Ln D V O LL E LA w E O 0 Q1 N U fB � N N a� � C- U .O f6 i v � � s O 2 �m U '0 =3 C: U U 4-1 N >_ Ln � I N � � +�' Ln ca Q a. N N (/f O _g— v N w cn O O U v N c _ W O Ln O 0 i 4-1 CL N dJ a--+ aj C: O (10N C6 c/7 Q E O U o � N O _0 -a o O O 4A 0C Cc E c: •E o C- Lr) 4-J U f6 i Q E V i t1A N N LJ.J Ln U .- (3) T v U 1 U 4-J U O U 0 > v i 7 co 0 CL E O o M i m Q m CSP) N c N O c — -C O V) O N N (o O V) i= 72U •� C— (� • � N O .� O.T O v L N ai U ai 0 cLin 4— O a v ° o \ O Q U U U U O c c c O 0 i 4-1 CL N dJ a--+ aj C: O (10N C6 c/7 Q E O U 0 N 1 L L ++ •N N N > Q 4 �. o •- O c� +� o an -J 0 � �Q o � 4-J -02 4' 0 � `n N _ 4J 0L v E N c Uai co W N C:Q °o N N �' M I U �L (U p 0O c -I �� o� � 0C, �(1, V) >� _ ' � N L M N caa� — Z M � ° _ a) �-0 53 c� v — m (3) C: �O -0 v u r- _i O L L o +- N - N 4-J0 p 0 L • V / _ E 'o -0 o t 0-0 Q 4,J C�A'n� d p U 0 L .a 0 0 E 0 .Q 4J in N CI Ln (D '� Ln �o2s 4AN — -J L- 9 4-O C:) O 0) Q� - >.N H = Ln EE *5 �\ p 4 •N F= OI O O '� \ 0 � � 0 p 3\ O U �� � �� -E-J ;~ o� L �o i- 4-' s 4-J} •> '� cin 0 EO N to .0 W Rio, q ffi D Ln Ln .E m U- 1 ;o 10, Lei E O f� C6 W D V) I aj N 'o C- U +.jC: E U N O � • �N 4-j a. Q Q U CL N Q _ .; a -J N C: � cn _ Vi a..i 0O .i N U L' c6 G b.0 CL O Q a--+ _� -0N U N — V)c6 N N a -i .� C: C) a1 .0 _ 0 0 ro CL O -C N U CL E O O N '? fa O a — v E Ov I O N j, ca � ' +' 1E fa c :34-J Ov U - U Q Q c6 0-0 f6 E O o C: > o � ca -0 E Ln c Ln C: > -m M U Q N C: > 4_A U Ln Ln O V) a CL i N n w w m V) 0 0 O C6 N x N Oregon's plans to develop, expand, and support Behavioral Health Homes have unified behavioral health system leadership around a common vision. Health system experts, providers, and consumers agree the best way to provide behavioral health services to those whose primary needs pertain to substance use disorders or mental illness is through a coordinated, integrated approach. The Oregon Health Authority has prioritized this vision in their policy option packages for the 2019 Legislative session and we've seen early successes of this model across the state. Seeing the potential of community-based behavioral health centers, the federal government funded a two-year demonstration in 2016 and Oregon was one of a handful of states to be chosen to develop Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs). This two-year demonstration is set to end in June. In this time, the 12 CCBHCs across Oregon have received an increased Medicaid reimbursement rate, called a wrap payment, allowing them to offer a comprehensive range of addiction and mental health services to any community member regardless of insurance status and to invest in their agency's infrastructure: staffing, governance, data and quality reporting, and more. CCBHCs have just begun to see progress in their capacity to deliver integrated care. This increased capacity is resulting in demonstrable improvements in targeted services. In order for those changes in service capacity to be sustainable and to translate to outcomes such as improvements in the behavioral and physical health of CCBHC clients, it is imperative funding continues. In leveraging these federal demonstration dollars, we were able to finance the infrastructure for the very model Oregon intends to move toward in CCO 2.0. Allowing the dissolution of this work would waste that investment, requiring Oregon to foot the bill for an eventual rebuilding of the system. Person -Centered Primary Care Homes were granted a five-year timeline to build infrastructure, patient -centered, team -based care to give them sufficient time to move cost, quality and access measures. CCBHCs also need this time and support to bear outcomes. For further information call Cherryl Ramirez at 503-399-7201 or email cramirez@aocmhp.org Examples of early improvements show expanded access to care and increased array of services: Increased workforce, including psychiatry, addictions treatment, peer support, care coordinators, nurses and other physical health providers n, Decreasing emergency department use �= Notable increases in same day access and decreases in number of days between first and second appointment Standard use of depression screening and evolving improvement in PHQ-q scores m Standard use of suicide risk assessment noi Increased use of physical health screenings, like BMI, HBAlc, and Tobacco use What happens if CCHHCs are defunded? An immediate workforce reduction in a system that is already understaffed and undercompensated Dismantling Oregon's first statewide attempt to initiate behavioral health homes in 2019 only to resurrect primary care integration in behavioral health settings in CCO 2.0 Year 2021 Losing hard-fought gains in improving access, providing an expanded service array, and preventing higher cost care Re-establishing wait lists for services, closing programs or eliminating service lines, turning people away from care, and losing client access to MAT and other addiction treatment How much funding do we need to sustain the current CCHHCs in the 2019-21 biennium? $20,961,908 State General Funds for a Federal Match of $62,643,419 ASSOCIATION OF OREGON CASCADIA COMMUNITY MENTAL o� HEALTH PROGRAMS WHOLE HEALTH CARE" COLUMBIA ommU it It \)i E S CO COMMUNIIY ff C. G tiv MENIALounseli1i HLAL771 • olutions KLAMATH BASIN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 13H CENTERforWELLNESS For further information call Cherryl Ramirez at 503-399-7201 or email cramirez@aocmhp.org Adult Suicide Risk Assessment Alcohol Screening Routine Initial Evaluation in 10 D... Tobacco Screening Child BMI Adult BMI Child Suicide Risk Assessment Clinical Depression and follow -U... Depression Remission at 12 Mon... CCBHC Metrics 4/17 -6/2018 Visit or Client Based Measure? @Client 0Visit 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Adult Suicide Risk Assessment Alcohol Screening Tobacco Screening Child BMI Routine Initial Evaluation in 10 D... Adult BMI Child Suicide Risk Assessment Clinical Depression and follow -U... Depression Remission at 12 Mon - CCBHC Metrics 4/17 - 3/19 Visit or Client Based Measure? 0 Client Visil 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100io N O P tl") y} P r J N y)AL•]+Q M � 9• N v P N AlelugaJ .y M P u tcf C> N N N W -i5 CO j. N .r ca J2gWOAON ee N JBg op6 Ef) •O C) W W v vi N 12g1micb$ -O N ]511x)"\f •4 m N C9 h (4 H N oullf N ca !c]ry p N T d-+ civ ]I1C1\f In 0 O Y Q N Jam'• '� •— _ �N RSCO`^ P O _ N °e•.° cn lJ ry V 0 ei 0- enue( In Jig LlA l7Q U c o O o JJg UP AO ti era � nj M N -13g op 0 rs C`• to N d rn j N 1n P M Isfirmv JI O CJ O L � m M O � ,4p1( ' N J w � W tl� N 111d\7 N M g)JC(r4 \ D [ m_ N fjellJg3J Ti P� 61 ui E m LL Wis m 0 X E 0 V cis 0 4a C 0 LU El b P, S l� 6 z A I 6 0 c, t�Lj Ell 0 LU El lJ OEM= e. MIESIMM Emmons= rn zn M CO -NOR Allsom-- OEM co NONE= IMEMIM MEMO= 11111111M OO lJ 41 V / \ « RIP u \ W. M. -F. } \ \ :4 `e v y U c N p � Q parr, O N •G � 00 QD +O 4 / w CD M z�. OD W N � p n co - `:F 'O � v +4 Cry ✓ryf. f a�' 3 .— 81 ii 6 fCS CL TU W 4- 0 0 CL rl o 9 Cil rl SO 15 1, ii 6 fCS CL TU W 4- 0 0 CL rl I q) V) .X fB CL E E 0 ID 0 (D C) C) 0 0 0 C5 C, 0 CO O Ct 1* C) C) 4-J C: CD cl+ Ol 4— c 0 tA 0 LL CO llq 00 CO V) Lt- 00 C14 LL - C) > ER 71: CNWQ) 4� z tn 0 4 u ca C14 CO OR u (1) CD 2r- > 4� 10 :3 ui 00, E Oct =3 u c") O CD C� Q C? ca o ca C1 r5 r_ti C7 CS O 0 ID 0 (D C) C) 0 0 0 C5 C, 0 CO O Ct Q) E 0 0 un 0 u— u 3: co V V 0 SZE mu 0 r m V OR CD 0 —4 OP CD kD cu C� E Ln Ln LA W 0 Ln 0 Ln Ln LL 4� _0 0 ro 7D ru 0 U .0 41 <0 Ln T > LU ✓ E Ln Ln . 4� :3 0 OR CD 0 —4 OP CD kD MIM 1. Adult Major Depressive Disorder Suicide Risk Assessment (SRA -A): Percentage of consumers aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with a suicide risk assessment completed during the visit in which a new diagnosis or recurrent episode was identified • Collection Frequency: At initial assessment and then annually • Metric Challenges: Minimal 2. Unhealthy Alcohol Use Screening & Brief Counseling (ASC): Percentage of consumers aged 18 years and older who were screened at least once within the last 24 months for unhealthy alcohol use using a systematic screening method AND who received brief counseling if identified as an unhealthy alcohol user • Collection Frequency: At initial assessment and then annually Metric Challenges: Existing clients prior to 4/1/17 implementation date will be screened at their annual assessment (may not have occurred yet but will be accounted for by end of demonstration year); clients declining to answer count against the metric 3. Tobacco Use Screening & Cessation Intervention (TSC): Percentage of consumers aged 18 years and older who were screened for tobacco use one or more times within 24 months AND who received cessation counseling intervention if identified as a tobacco user • Collection Frequency: At initial assessment and then annually Metric Challenges: Existing clients prior to 4/1/17 implementation date will be screened at their annual assessment (may not have occurred yet but will be accounted for by end of demonstration year); clients declining to answer count against the metric 4. Time to Initial Evaluation (I-Eval): Percentage of new consumers with initial evaluation provided within 10 business days of first contact • Collection Frequency: Once at initiation of services • Metric Challenges: Does not account for clients who select appointment dates beyond 10 business days for scheduling preference; does not account for "no shows" or cancelations Body Mass Index Assessment for Children and Adolescents (WCC -BH): Percentage of consumers ages 3 to 17 who had an outpatient visit and who had evidence of BMI percentile documentation during the measurement year • Collection Frequency: At initial assessment and then annually Metric Challenges: Existing clients prior to 4/1/17 implementation date will be screened at their annual assessment (may not have occurred yet but will be accounted for by end of 11/21/17 demonstration year); clients who decline count against the metric; height/weight collection is difficult for clients seen in the community 6. Body Mass Index (BMI) Screening & Follow -Up for Adults (BMI-SF): Percentage of consumers aged 18 years and older with a BMI documented during the current encounter or during the previous six months AND with a BMI outside of normal parameters, a follow-up plan is documented during the encounter or during the previous six months of the current encounter • Collection Frequency: At initial assessment and then every 6 months Metric Challenges: Existing clients prior to 4/1/17 implementation date will be screened at their annual assessment (may not have occurred yet but will be accounted for by end of demonstration year); height/weight collection is difficult for clients seen in the community Screening for Clinical Depression and Follow -Up Plan (CDF-BH): Percentage of consumers aged 12 and older screened for clinical depression using an age-appropriate standardized depression screening tool, and if positive, a follow-up plan is documented on the date of the positive screen • Collection Frequency: Metric is based on results from most recent visit; therefore, screening expected at every visit • Metric Challenges: Frequent screening can be burdensome for clients seen multiple times per week or month Child and Adolescent Major Depressive Disorder Suicide Risk Assessment (SRA -BH): Percentage of consumer visits for those consumers aged 6 through 17 years with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with an assessment for suicide risk • Collection Frequency: Every visit Metric Challenges: Risk assessment is expected to be completed for every type of service delivered even during groups and family therapy sessions, which may not be clinically appropriate. Made the decision to not systematically assess suicide risk in groups but to attend to screening during other services. If a clinician observes concerning signs it is addressed outside of the group. Clinicians have discretion in assessing at family appointments. Licensed Medical Providers (LMP) conduct suicide risk assessments but the data cannot be queried from the EHR at this time. Depression Remission at Twelve Months (DEP): Percentage of consumers 18 years of age or older with major depressive disorder or persistent depressive disorder who reached remission 12 months (± 30 days) after an index visit • Collection Frequency: At first treatment appointment and then annually • Metric Challenges: Some clients will discharge prior to 12 months (± 30 days). These cases will not meet the metric. 11/21/17 ES Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 8, 2019 DATE: March 29, 2019 FROM: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services, 541-330-4640 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION: County College 2019 Planning for our 2019 County College recruitment and review of applications. County College is expected to begin in early September. ES CSG o c Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ewu 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 8, 2019 DATE: May 1, 2019 FROM: Nicole Mardell, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Repeal of Ordinance 2018-005 - Flood Plain Amendments BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board will conduct a public hearing on May 8, 2019 to consider Ordinance 2019-010. This ordinance would repeal Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-005, otherwise referred to as the "Flood Plain Amendments". The staff memorandum provides additional background and information on this topic. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner, Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager oI E $ c- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'r y� MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ('Board") FROM: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager DATE: May 1, 2019 SUBJECT: Repeal of Ordinance 2018-005: Flood Plain Amendments - Public Hearing The Board will conduct a public hearing on May 8, 2019 to consider an ordinance repealing Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-0051. 1. BACKGROUND Between March 2017 and September 2018, Deschutes County planning staff initiated a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance relating to the Flood Plain Zone. The County held four open houses, five Planning Commission public hearings, two citizen involvement group meetings, and one Board public hearing during this process. On September 19, 2018, the Board adopted Ordinance 2018-005, reflecting changes to the Flood Plain Zone, including a proposal to change the Base Zone to a Combining Zone, and proposed text changes to clarify procedures on cluster developments and land divisions on property zoned Flood Plain. The ordinance was then appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), on the basis that the findings were incomplete and did not adequately address State Land Use Planning Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces, among other less substantial issues. One of the Petitions for Review filed with LUBA included new arguments and evidence that had not been presented during the County hearing process. Prior to the LUBA hearing and in consultation with County Legal Counsel, the Board directed staff to withdraw the ordinance formally from the LUBA process, and initiate a new legislative amendment process. This process will allow the County to begin anew and provide a formal response to the new arguments and evidence presented in the Petition 1 Ordinance No 2018-005: An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning, and Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Changing the Flood Plain Zone to a Combining Zone and Incorporating Related Text Amendments and Declaring an Emergency. for Review. It will also allow the County to refine findings and evidence to more effectively demonstrate the need for the proposed amendments and likewise develop a record that demonstrates compliance with state and local regulations. II. LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS WITHDRAWAL PROCESS OAR 661-010-0021(A) allows for jurisdictions to withdraw decisions from the LUBA process for reconsideration, but there is a time limitation. Jurisdictions must provide a copy of the decision on reconsideration within 90 days of submitting the LUBA Notice of Withdrawal. Based on the County Commissioner's direction, staff filed the Notice of Withdrawal with LUBA on February 21, 2019. Therefore, the Board must provide its decision on reconsideration to LUBA by May 22, 2019. This short time frame is not sufficient for County staff to develop and propose alternative amendments, nor is it sufficient for the entire public process to begin anew. County staff recommends as an intermediate step that the County Commissioners adopt an ordinance formally repealing the previous Ordinance No. 2018-005. The new ordinance repealing the previous ordinance will serve as the Board's "decision on reconsideration" and will be provided to LUBA as required by the aforementioned OAR rule. Likewise, this intermediate step will provide the flexibility and time needed to begin the public process anew. Once the previous ordinance is repealed, staff is prepared to initiate the new Comprehensive Plan and Text Amendment process in late May 2019 with the first evidentiary hearing with the Planning Commission occurring in early July. A Board work session is scheduled for May 21 to discuss this option. 111. HEARING NOTICE AND PROCEDURES Notice of the public hearing was posted in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on April 24, 2019 and was mailed to parties with standing on April 23, 2019. The Board opted to include a time limitation of three minutes per individual for the public hearing, which was included in the hearing notice. No public comments have been received to date by staff. IV. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; • Close the hearing and commence deliberations. Attachment: 1. Ordinance No 2019-010: An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 2018-005 and Declaring an Emergency. Page 2 of 2 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Repealing Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-005 and Declaring an * ORDINANCE NO. 2019-010 Emergency. WHEREAS, on September 19, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners enacted Ordinance No. 2018- 005 amending both the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") and Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to change the Flood Plain Zone from a primary zone to a combining zone; and WHEREAS, two petitioners appealed Ordinance No. 2018-005 to the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"), and LUBA consolidated the two cases into one matter (LUBA Nos. 2018-123/124); and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Petitions for Review filed with LUBA and the new arguments and evidence contained therein, the County Commissioners directed staff to withdraw for reconsideration Ordinance No. 2018-005 pursuant to ORS 197.830(13)(b); and WHEREAS, based on the County Commissioners' direction, staff filed a Notice of Withdrawal with LUBA on February 21, 2019, and LUBA subsequently issued an order acknowledging the withdrawal on February 26, 2019; and WHEREAS, OAR 661-010-0021(1) provides the County only 90 days to reconsider a withdrawn decision; and WHEREAS, following a noticed public hearing on May 8, 2019, and in order to provide more time for a robust public process, the County Commissioners preferred alternative is to repeal Ordinance No. 2018-005 in its entirety and to start the amendment process anew, now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-005 is repealed in its entirety. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-010 Section 2. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance becomes effective upon adoption. Dated this of 52019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary Date of Ist Reading: Date of 2" a Reading: Commissioner Philip G. Henderson Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Effective date PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ANTHONY DeBONE, Commissioner day of , 2019. day of 12019. Record of Adoption Vote Yes No Abstained Excused day of , 2019. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-010 ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS ES c�G Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 8, 2019 DATE: May 2, 2019 FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production and Processing Appeal at 25450 Walker Road BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners began deliberations on May 1. This is a continuation of those deliberations. Application information and materials can be found in the May 1 Meeting packet: https://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detai I-Meeting.aspx?I D=2357 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner j 'r4 STAFF MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 2019 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner RE: Continued deliberations of a marijuana production and processing facility, and consideration of a request to reopen the record. File no. 247-19-000178-A (appeal of Administrative Determination file nos. 247- 18 -000504 -AD, 505 -AD, 506 -SP). I. Purpose The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners ('Board") held deliberations on May 1, 2019 and discussed the topics listed in the April 24 Staff Memo and the attached decision matrix. The Board found the application met the requirements for YACs, percent of crop processed, utility verification, odor control, and site plan review. Additionally, the Board determined that the proficiency/capability of a fire department was not a factor in this decision. The Board discussed the noise control requirement and an arrest ("south county incident") and how it may be a factor in this decision. The Board did not reach final determinations on these two points and continued the deliberations until May 8. This memo addresses two developments in this application. Specifically, a request from the applicant was received to reopen the record for new evidence with a corresponding clock extension, and a motion from the appellant to strike certain statements in the applicant's final written statement. I1. Reopening the Record On Tuesday, May 7, the applicant requested that the record be reopened towards the end of May to allow new evidence for consideration by the Board, in the three-week "7-7-7" format. The 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 �� (541) 388-6575 �7a cdd@deschutes.org ® www.deschutes.org/cd applicant is extending the clock until June 14`" to accommodate this request. The open record period would be to address and respond to the deliberations, specifically the "south county incident". The applicant states in the attached email that their business partner, Jacob Onat, reached out to the District Attorney and received guidance from the DA that the investigation into the "south county incident" should be concluded at the end of May 2019. The applicant further states that they believe this information will provide clarity around any association with the people involved with the incident. The applicant requests that the Board table deliberations for the time being, until the DA's investigation is complete and a decision is made on charges associated with the "south county incident". Staff notes the open record period could also settle a procedural issue regarding the record and a motion submitted by the appellant in response to the applicant's final legal argument, discussed in more detail below. If the Board's direction is to reopen the record, staff will provide notice to all parties. A Board Order to reopen the record is attached to this memo. III. Applicant's Final Written Argument The appellant submitted a "Motion to Strike Portion of Applicant's Final Rebuttal as New Evidence", specifically concerning the type of butane solvent proposed for marijuana processing. The appellant argues that hearing testimony referenced "n -tape" and "medical grade" butane. In response, the appellant submitted information regarding "medical grade butane", specifically, "Pentane" and "Quintane". The appellant then argued that the applicant has introduced new evidence by asserting in the final statement that it will not be using "medical -grade" butane and will be using "n-tane". The appellant .....1.-..-l�-L.-.+F Ll le r),.-rj.[.....,. ,J... .:..I_.,.__--- appcna� i� recommended II i lel lucu ll lal 11 a IC oval U I VUI IU I IeVV eVIUCI IlC III Lilt! JUUI I Illldl U Idl. Lilt 6UdI U CUUIU. 1). Strike the applicant's references on p. 14 to "n-tane"; 2). Reopen the record to allow rebuttal; or, 3). Exclude consideration of new evidence and note that it does not form any basis for this decision. The applicant responded that the proposal is to use "n-tane", that the terms "medical grade" and "high quality and pure" are synonymous, and that "n-tane" is an extremely high-quality and pure form of butane. The applicant states "N-tane" (C4H10) is chemically different than "pentane" (C51-112). The applicant further states that they did not make the alleged assertion in the final argument that the applicant will not be using "medical -grade" butane. When asked previously if the applicant wished to extend the clock and reopen the record to address the appellant's motion, the applicant indicated they did not wish to do so, believing the argument did not address approval criteria. rursuant to the Boards ueternnination in the May 1 deliberations, the only appiicabie criterion is that the processing facility is located within a fire protection district. Assuming the record was reopened and it was determined that new evidence was submitted in the final argument, it does not appear to staff that this information would be pertinent to the decision-making process. 247-19-000178-A Page 2 of 3 IV. Conclusion & Board Options The Board may choose to: Reopen the record and postpone deliberations. 2. Proceed with deliberations and leave the record closed. Attachments: 1. Board Order 2019-013 a. Exhibit A - S. Marshall email re reopening the record 2. Appellant's "Motion to Strike Portion of Applicant's Final Rebuttal as New Evidence" a. Exhibit O - Applicant's final legal argument b. Exhibit P - Partial hearing transcript 3. S. Marshall letter - Response to appellant's motion 247-19-000178-A Page 3 of 3 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Re -opening the Record for the Submittal of Written Materials on File Numbers * ORDER NO. 2019-013 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18- 000506 -SP and 247-19-000178-A WHEREAS, the Appellant, Rowan Hollitz, appealed the Planning Division's decision in application numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18 -000506 -SP; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") agreed to hear this appeal, file number 247-19- 000178-A, de novo under Order No. 2019-004; and WHEREAS, the Board conducted a public hearing and established post -hearing periods, for the submittals of written materials; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, Mark Weisheit, has agreed to extend the land use clock pursuant to an email from Mr. Weisheit's legal counsel Stephanie Marshall ("Marshall email"), and attached as Exhibit A to this Order; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a re -opening of the public hearing record for the submittal of written materials via the Marshall email, and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that additional testimony and information regarding this matter is of paramount importance in this proceeding; and WHEREAS, the Board may at its discretion reopen the record in accordance with DCC 22.24.160; and, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The record on file numbers 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 247 -18 -000505 -AD, 247 -18 -000506 -SP and 247-19-000178-A shall be reopened on May 24, 2019, for written evidence and argumentation. Section 2. The written record for all parties for new evidence and argumentation is extended to 5:00 p.m. May 31, 2019, but only for written evidence and argumentation. Section 3. The written record of all parties is extended to 5:00 p.m. June 7, 2019, but only for response to the evidence and argumentation per Section 2. Section 4. The written record for final argument by the Applicant is extended to 5:00 p.m. June 14, 2019. Section 5. The Planning Division shall give written notice to all parties that the record is being reopened, in accordance with DCC 22.24.160(B)(2). Page 1 of 2- ORDER NO. 2019-013 Dated this of , 2019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A— S. Marshall email dated May 7, 2019 Page 2 of 2- ORDER NO. 2019-013 PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner Jacob Ripper From: Stephanie Marshall <stephanie@bennulaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:45 PM To: Jacob Ripper; Adam Smith Cc: Mark Weisheit; Amanda La Bell Subject: Weisheit Applications - Request for Extension of Record Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Jacob and Adam, Hi Jacob and Anthony, The applicant and I have discussed the issues on which the Commissioners appeared to be focused during deliberations last week and would like to request the record to be reopened and the clock extended as described below. The applicant's partner, Jacob Onat, reached out to the DA and received guidance from him that the investigation into "the La Pine incident" should be concluded by the end of May 2019. The applicant is confident this decision will provide clarity to all parties and the Board regarding their "association" with the people involved in this incident, and should properly be before the Commissioners on the record. The applicant requests that the Board table its deliberations at this point until a decision is made on charges associated with the La Pine incident, expected by the end of May 2019. This is accompanied by a formal request to extend the record to a date certain, June 14, 2019, which we hope will allow ample time for the DA to make his decision. If the Commissioners desire to leave the record open for response by the appellant to the DA's decision as new evidence, the June 14 date should allow for a 7 -day period thereafter, followed by a 7 -day final argument period for the applicant on this limited issue. Thank you, Stephanie Marshall 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 April 24, 2019 Deschutes County Community Development Department Attn: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Board of County Commissioners 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 Re: Appeal of Administrative Decision to BOCC, de novo File No. 247 -18 -000504 -AD, 505 -AD, 506 -SP Appeal No. 247-19-000178-A Applicant/Owner: Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit Dear Mr. Ripper, �it J Deschutes County CDD Hand Delivered and by email Please find the enclosed Motion to Strike in the above referenced Administrative Decision. Thank you, in advance, for your time regarding this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, "Z--,- Eliz beth A. Dickson Attorney for Appellant eadickson a dicksnhatfield.com EAD/hoh Cc: client 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ROWAN HOLLITZ, Appellant, vs. MARK AND ELIZABETH WEISHEIT, Applicant File No. 247-19-000178-A MOTION TO STRIKE PORTION OF APPLICANT'S FINAL REBUTTAL AS NEW EVIDENCE Appellant Rowan flollitz ("Hollitz" or "Appellant") formally objects to Applicant's introduction of new evidence in Final Rebuttal and moves this Board to strike a portion of Final Rebuttal submitted by Applicant Weisheit ("Weisheit" or "Applicant") as new evidence. In the alternative, this Board may properly reopen the Record to allow Appellant to allow review and rebuttal, or categorically exclude consideration of the new evidence. It is Appellant's substantial right [ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B)] to rebut relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant if it is a fact offered to demonstrate compliance with the standards relevant to the decision, pursuant to ORS 197.763(9)(b). Applicant requests permission to process marijuana on site. Processing on site requires proof of safety from fire hazard. Applicant offers the following on Page 14 as proof of fire safety: I - APPELLANT HOLLITZ' MOTION TO STRIKE 400 SW BLUFF DR., STE. 240 BEND, OR 97702 (541) 585-2224 (P) 1 (541) 330-5540 (F) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 "[T]he Applicants will be doing the vast majority of their processing using water and ice. Mr. Onat testified at the hearing that the remainder will use n-tane, which is an extremely high quality and pure form of butane solvent. The purity (free from accelerants, mercaptans, etc.) renders it extremely predictable and results in a higher quality product for the consumer. This predictability, along with the proposed state-of-the-art closed-loop system and fire detection and prevention systems (described in previous submissions) is what ensures a safe processing environment." See Exhibit O, attached and incorporated by reference. Applicant initially claimed they were using only "water and ice" to process marijuana on site in Public Hearing, March 20, 2019. When pressed by Commissioner Henderson, Applicant's business partner, Jacob Onat, admitted some chemical materials would be required for processing. His testimony and his interaction with Commissioner Henderson is transcribed as Exhibit P, incorporated by this reference. Mr. Onat stated for the Record that the "mane" product is medical -grade butane. Appellant then researched this compound and practice of refinement and submitted evidence into the Record regarding dangers of medical -grade butane products when used for marijuana processing, based on Mr. Onat's testimony to Commissioner Henderson. Applicant now claims that all. that evidence is irrelevant because it does not relate to "mane." "All comments and attachments provided by the Appellant regarding different solvents and processing methods are irrelevant, as Applicant has not proposed the use of entane or pentane...." Exhibit O, Page 14. The safety of this proposal is pivotal to its approval. Applicant is now asserting ii Final Rebuttal that it will not be using medical -grade butane, as claimed in the Public Hearing. 2 — APPELLANT HOLLITZ' MOTION TO STRIKE 400 SW BLUFF DR., STE. 240 BEND, OR 97702 (541)585-2224(P)1(541) 330-5540(F) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Applicant claims that properties of "ntane" are distinct and superior from Pentane/Quintan, the compound research provided in Appellant's Exhibit M. Exhibit M, page 4 of 33, expressly notes that "Pentane is an organic compound with the formula C5H12 — that is, an alkane with five carbon atoms. The term may refer to any of three structural isomers, or to a mixture of them: in the 1 U PAC nomenclature, however, pentane means exclusively the n -pentane isomer; the other two are called isopentane (methylbutane) and neopentane (dimenthylpropane). Clyclopentane is not an isomer of pentane because it has only 10 hydrogen atoms where pentane has 12. Pentanes are components of some fuels and are employed as specialty solvents in the laboratory. Their properties are very similar to those of butanes and hexanes." If Applicant proposes to use C51112 (Pentane) to process marijuana on site, then Appellant's Exhibit M. research and conclusions are applicable, and the proposed process is hazardous because it is highly volatile. If Applicant now claims that "ntane" will be used, and that "ntane" is different and distinct from the "medical -grade butane" .Mr. Onat claimed would be used in his Public Hearing testimony, then this is new evidence and it is Appellant's right to rebut such evidence within this Record. Appellant moves this Board to take one of these actions to remedy this violation of Appellant's substantial right: 1. Strike Applicant's references on Page 14 to "n-tane" butane solvent; 2. Reopen the Record to allow Appellant to respond to the new evidence; 3. Categorically exclude consideration of the new evidence as not considered and not forming any basis for the decision. 3 - APPELLANT IIOLLITZ' MOTION TO STRIKE 4w SW BLurl- DK., SrE. 24u BEND, OR 97702 (541)585-2224(P)1(541) 330-5540(F) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dated this-P/ay of of t' _, 20LI. Respectfully Submitted, Dickson Hatfield, LLP BY C.. u/ beth A. Dickson 400 SW Bluff Dr., Ste. 240 Bend, OR 97702 Phone: (541) 585-2224 Email: eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com Exhibits: Exhibit O: Applicant's Final Rebuttal Submitted 4. 17.19 Exhibit P: Transcription of Public Hearing Portion 3.20.19 4 — APPELLANT HOLLITZ' MOTION TO STRIKE ONOWHIM 400 SW BLUFF DR., STE. 240 BEND, OR 97702 (541) 585-2224 (P) 1 (541) 330-5540 (F) Ashley Williams From: Stephanie Marshall <stephanie@cliftonlawl Ic.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 4:39 PM To: Jacob Ripper Cc: Mark Weisheit; Jacob Onat; Amanda La Bell Subject: Re: Weisheit Final Written Argument Attachments: 1078_001.pdf Follow wr Flay—• Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I am not sure the attachment was included. Here you go I Stephanie Marshall Senior Attorney at Clifton Law LLC Address 1735 SW Chandler Ave., Suite 3, Bend, OR 97702 Phone (541) 306.4441 Mobile 1'541) 977-1483 Email steplianietr2_cliftonlawllc,cont Website www.cliftorllawlle.com nnim This email message, including any attachments, is from Stephanie Marshall and may contain privileged or confidentiol information, The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments, if auy, are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof, If you are not the named addressee, or if you believe this message has been addressed to you in error, you are requested not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this information Delivery of this message to arty person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any rvay to v` sive confidentiality. ]fyou have received this ttausntission in error, please alert the sender by reply a -mail. It is also requested that you immediately delete this message and its attachments if any. From: Stephanie Marshall Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 4:37 PM To: Jacob. Ripper@deschutes.org Cc: Mark Weisheit; Jacob Onat; Amanda La Bell Subject: Weisheit Final Written Argument Hi Jacob, Aa+, ,I, -A .�.I... - 401-A +I+.+ A....I:...,..+r.. it....i . .:++....., ,.+ t...... ..:.I.,....a:...,. I... a6e e.._..A .s �_.._a. nava a.ncu Irrca�c rrrru urc �NMu�.an�� rnrar vrr nLcu arguritcrrL lU VVI NrUCI GLIVII UY LI IC UVQIU VI I.VUt1LY Commissioners. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thank you, Stephanie Marshall .Exhibit C/) Page /�,___of l7 OQL Stephanie Marshall Senior Attorney at CMonLaw LLC Address 1735 SW Chandler Ave„ State 3, Bend. OR 97702 Phone (541) 306-4441_ Mobile J� 977-1483 Email s�hattie"n�cliftonlawllc.cont Website n svw.cliftonlaw11c.com t ;lit I J This email message, including any attachments, is from Stephanie Maishall and may contain privileged or confidential infomwtion, The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments, if auy. are intended solely fbi the addiesseets) hemof, If you arc not the nantad addressee, or ifyou believe this message has been addressed to you in error, you are rEgaested not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, dissenunate os otherwise use this infoantation. Delivery of Ibis message to any person other that the intended recipients) is not intended in any tray to waive confidentiality. If you have recei-, od this tinusmission in erroz, please atert the sender by reply e-mail_ It is also requested that you immediately delete this .message and its attachments tf any. Exhibit Page off d- CLIFTON CANNABIS LAW April 17, 2019 Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste, 1 2905 Canon Street Bend, OR 97702 San Diego, CA 92106 (541) 306-4441 * (601) 452-0974 m info(okliftoncannabislaw.r.om re: Weishelt Applications for Administrative Determination and Site Plan Approval, Deschutes County File Nos. 247-18-000504-AD/505-AD/506-SP; Appeal Application File No. 247-19-000178- A Dear Jacob, Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit, the applicants for the referenced permit applications respectfully submit this final argument for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners for Deschutes County with respect to the appeal application filed by Rowan Hollitz and the referenced files above. The Applicant incorporates by reference their application and supporting documentation, all exhibits, testimony and legal argument in the record, as previously submitted to the Board. We respectfully request that this letter be included in the record, Context for Decision -Making The Board should deny the appeal and grant the subject applications. All applicable criteria are met, as shown by substantial evidence in the record. Opponents have not presented evidence, as the term is defined by the Oregon Legislature, to support a denial. Supposition, inference and unsubstantiated fears are not a legal basis for denial. See ORS 197,835(8)(a)(C) (decision must be based on substantial evidence); ORS 197.763(9)(b) (defining evidence); QRS 215.416(8)(a) (decision must be based on adopted criteria).' The proposed use is a farm use under Oregon law and is not, as the appellant's attorney has attempted to characterize it, subject to any more stringent review of site plan review for the processing aspect of the use. QRS 4756.526; see also DCC 18.16.020(A), (S) (marijuana production allowed outright in the EFU zone); DCC 18.16.025(L) (marijuana production allowed 1 ORS 315A1S18)(a) states. "Approval nr denial of a nerrriit annliratinn shall he hacod nn standards and rritarin which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the county and which shall relate approval or denial of a permit application to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the area in which the proposed use of land would occur and to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the county as a whole." Argument does not constitute evidence. ORS 197.763(9)(a). Argumentative statements made by attorneys do not transform into "evidence" if unsupported by facts, documents, data or other information." 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 m- infopcliftoncannabislaw,com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 ig' (541) 306.4441 ExhibiP0I) ., 0974 -T� Page -3 of outright in EFU zone subject to site plan review). ORS 475B.454 confirms that the provisions of ORS 475B.010 to .545 "are designed to operate uniformly throughout the state and are paramount and superior to and fully replace and supersede any municipal charter amendment or local ordinance inconsistent with the provisions of ORS 4756.010 to 4758.545. Amendments and ordinances that are inconsistent with the provisions of ORS 4756.010 to 475B.545 are repealed." The Board has been presented with hundreds of pages of materials for this Application, most of which are irrelevant to its consideration in this hearing. The Board is limited in its quasi-judicial decision-making role. ORS 215.422. That the hearing is de novo does not grant the Board any additional powers not granted to it as a quasi-judicial decision -maker by the Oregon Legislature, The Board is not a legislative body considering policy matters in this context, including, but not limited to whether marijuana businesses should be allowed in the County.' That decision has already been made in the affirmative.3 Nor is it deciding whether new protections should be codified or enforced with respect to other nearby agricultural uses in the EFU zone, under the guise of "youth activity centers."4 The Board cannot amend the Code by interpretation to add new requirements regarding minimum processing requirements (including but not limited to shipping and storage of any off-site materials received), "fire safety," or confirmation from any utility that it is "willing to serve" via a system that does not necessitate any upgrades (for which the Applicant will pay). The County has decided to allow marijuana within its jurisdiction, and the Board's limited charge is to determine if the Application meets the codified requirements for such a use at this location. DCC 22.04.010 states; DCC Title 22 is enacted to provide a uniform procedure for the grant or denial and processing of applications, approvals and determinations by the Planning Division of the Deschutes County Community Development Department under the applicable County comprehensive plan, land use regulations, subdivision and partition ordinance, and other ordinances which by their terms incorporate by reference the procedures in this title. z The Commissioners are constrained to put aside any personal opinions concerning marijuana in this quasi-judicial hearing. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 687 (2005). The Commissioners must be capable of reaching a decision by applying relevant standards to the evidence before them, E.g. Pend -Air Citizens Comm'n v. City of Pendleton, 29 Or LU BA 362 (1995) (emphasis added). 'Compare the definition of "land use action" in DCC 22,04.020, which is "any consideration for approval of a quasi- judicial plan amendment or zone change, any consideration for approval of a land use permit, and any consideration of a request for a declaratory ruling," with the definition of "legislative changes," which "generally involve broad public policy decisions that apply to other than an individual property owner. These include, without limitation, amendments to the text of the comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, or the subdivision or partition ordinance and changes in zoning maps not directed at a small number of property owners." See also definition of "land use permit" in DCC 22.04.020. See DCC 22.12.010. "No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless otherwise required by state law." 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. l Bend, OR 97702 m info(@cliftoncannabislaw.com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 9 9 '91' (541) 306-4441 Exhibettt) 452 44 Page of_�_ff (emphasis added). The Application is for a "land use permit," defined in OCC 22.04.020 as one that "includes any approval of a proposed development of land under the standards in the County zoning ordinances or subdivision or partition ordinances involving the exercise of significant discretion in applying those standards." (emphasis added). DCC 22.08.040 similarly requires that, "[wjith respect to the acknowledged portions of the County's comprehensive plan, the standards and criteria applicable to an application shall be the standards and criteria applicable at the time the application was first submitted if the application and requested information, if any, are received within 180 days of the time the application was first submitted." See ai.50 DCI. 22.24.120(0), stating, in relevant part, that the Hearings Body "shall list applicable substantive criteria, explain that testimony and evidence must be directed toward that criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations that the person believes to apply to the decision." Any other standards the Board attempts to imposed on the Applicant in this quasi-judicial proceeding would be an invalid exercise of legislative authority. See, e.g., ORS 215.503 (legislative act by ordinance and mailed notice to individual property owners required). The Board is deciding whether the Application meets the site plan criteria set forth in DCC 18.124, and the supplementary provisions governing marijuana in DCC 18.116.330. Substantial evidence in the record supports an affirmative finding with respect to each and every criterion. See DCC 22.04.020, defining "evidence" as "facts, documents, data or other information" offered to demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with the standards relevant to the decision. See also ORS 197.763(9)(b), The Board not only has prescribed criteria for evaluating the Application, but has been prescribed what it can consider in evaluating these criteria. Failing either charge, the Board would be committing clear, reversible error. The following sections address the points made in Hollitz/Dickson final submission: 1. Credibility Hollitz and his attorney claim that the applicant is not credible because of (1) an OICC warning letter to The local Market; and (2) a statement made by the applicant commenting on an unrelated incident in la Pine. Neither of these instances support a finding that the applicant has not been truthful about any information in the subject application, or that the applicant in general is not credible. Furthermore, as set forth in the Applicant's testimony and argument at hearing and in open record submittals, allegations concerning credibility do not provide a basis for the Board to conclude that any particular criterion for approval is not met in this case. Compliance with criteria has been documented in record exhibits, such that the Board need not make any "competing" evidence determination. In other words, the Board is not asked to find either the applicant or the appellant "more credible" on any particular criterion, because the exhibits speak for themselves. Moreover, Hollitz and his attorney rely on supposition and fear, rather than competing evidence, in urging the Board to deny the Application. They have not offered one piece of evidence regarding the Applicants themselves, their proposed facility (including the actual odor mitigation system, extraction methods, and safety measures to be employed) on 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue; Ste, 1 fiend, OR 97702 M info(c7cllftoncannabi5l8W.COnt 2905 Canon Strrek Sy(+ ie o, CA 106 9 V (541) 306.4441 XI11 Page —L Of .2_t_ which the Board could find "substantial evidence" to support a finding any criterion will not be met. The Board has no authority to deny an application on the basis that it does not "approve" of the applicant, his business, or business partners.5 Case law cited by appellant's attorney does not warrant any other result. Weighing of credibility must be tied to a specific criterion on which the Board believes the opponents are more credible than the Applicant; this requires a weighing of evidence in the record produced by the Applicant against any rebuttal evidence (not merely speculation or surmise) of opponents. See ORS 215.416(8)(a)("Approval or denial of a permit application shall be based on standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the county and which shall relate approval or denial of a permit application to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the area in which the proposed use of land would occur and to the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan for the county as a whole"); ORS 197.835(8)(a)(C) (substantial evidence requirement). Again, argument and unsubstantiated, fear -based statements do not constitute evidence, ORS 197.763(9)(a); see also ORS 197.763(9)(b) (defining "evidence"). The Applicant would like to submit the following summary of their own, previously made statements regarding credibility: We take the law, authority, standards and our commitments very seriously. Credibility and ethics are of utmost importance to us. It is painful that our credibility is being attacked and that some neighbors have lost their trust in us through this process. We have tried from the beginning to be proactive, forthright, and open with our neighbors. We reached out personally to every person who submitted public comments, in attempt to truly listen to their concerns, educate them, and update our plans to accommodate them where possible. We tried to keep them updated on our perspective and plans along the way, and even though that is now being used against us, we pledge to continue this approach going forward. We believe in rising above the attacks and doing our best to inform people and answer their questions to the best of our ability, By doing this, we retain our faith that whatever the outcome, we arrived at it with our integrity intact. 5 Contrary to Ms. Dickson's argument, the Applicant's attorney has not stated that "credibility is irrelevant." Rather, a generalized determination of credibility, when it is not tied to any applicable criterion, is not a factor for denial. This is black letter law under ORS 23.5.416(8)(a) and ORS 197.835(8)(a)(C). Ms. Dickson has not cited any case law or statute that gives the Board discretion to deny a land use application for reasons other than a finding of non- compliance with applicable criteria. Lee v. Marion County, cited by Ms. Dickson, does not grant any authority to deny an application on a generalized determination of "credibility," The decision concerned the weighing of competing evidence — not unsupported arguments as here — on specific approval criteria. There, the question the Board weighed was competing evidence on whether and how often the applicant occupied the dwelling, which was relevant to the question of whether the proposed use would be "subordinate" under the applicable standards. Lee, pages 10-11. The situation here, however, does not present any competing evidence for the Board to weigh with respect to any criterion. The Board is asked instead to rely on unsubstantiated assumptions and fears that the criteria will not be met, rather than any hard, substantial evidence to support any finding contrary to those determined by staff in its administrative approval of the applications. 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 m info(@cliftoncannabislaw.com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 09106 9 $' (541) 306-4441 Exhi, 45 974 V Page of- It We are not perfect, and we have made some mistakes that we acknowledge might be cause for concern. However, we believe that when viewed in the context of our actions, our intentions and character come through. intentions and character are the foundation of credibility, and we are comfortable offering ourselves up to scrutiny in this regard. Regarding the OLCC warnings, we take these very seriously. We have set a standard that everything we do at The Local Market must follow all laws and standards. This is evident in the outcome of all 6 of the site visits conducted by the OLCC: • One undercover minor attempting to purchase marijuana (which resulted in the commendation letter attached in our previous submission) • Two unscheduled site visits by the OLCC that resulted in no issues of any kind • One unscheduled thorough audit of our store, inventory and book-keeping, which resulted in no issues of any kind • And even in our actions around the two incidents that caused the warning. The first incident was triggered by a hardware malfunction, to which we responded by immediately notifying our IT vendor to troubleshoot the potential issue (at that point, we thought maybe we were misreading the system that was still new to us, or the video was recoverable). Our first priority was getting it working, so that we would not be out of compliance. Once the technician confirmed there was in -fact an issue, we proactively notified the OLCC with an email that clearly demonstrated that compliance is our top concern (full email attached to our earlier submission), closing with "If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at anytime of the day. We want to make sure we are following all OLCC requirements/procedures and staying within full compliance." Tho eiihcaniiont mnrnina frnm tho r)i rr IAIMC Alio +n +ha Al I—I in n^+tFainm +!-,..m T4,., .....,..�.., �, .,..� .. u,..� t, .. v. �1 11— vim _ v. u.,.�u., w urs uc Y ni �wu�yn�r5 uicin� i uc reason the OLCC knew about this delay was because we proactively notified them of the video outage AND honestly admitted that we had known about it for a few days before notifying them. We could have lied and told the OLCC that we had onlyjust discovered the issue. We could have even tried to cover up the fact we lost video footage, and never reported it to the OLCC. Instead, we chose to be proactively truthful, even though it resulted in a warning for our business. This is consistent with credibility in our book, and we are proud of how we handled this situation and the fact that no similar issues have occurred since (we now have a formal policy of notifying the OLCC upon immediate suspicion of an issue, rather than waiting for confirmation of an issue). The second incident was mischaracterized by Hollitz/Dickson as a "practice of marketing to minors." We have never marketed to minors, and as parents and grandparents of young children, find that reprehensible. The incident was a verbal explanation from the OLCC that a product we carried "risks being attractive to minors," This product is a popular, award-winning strain that has been around for at least 7 years (well before we even got into this business). We did not name the product, and we were required by the OLCC to use the correct and accurate name of it with our consumers, As such, we labeled the product correctly on shelf, and simply took a picture and posted it to instagram to alert our customers (who we know are all over 21, since we are extremely 0 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. I Bend, OR 97702 m infoPctiftoncannahkinw.com 2905 Canon Street San Do, CA 92106 9 12' (541) 306-4441 Exhi ir..iQl) 4'�s 974' V Page I of strict about checking ID's) that we had this product on shelf. This is all we did. A "practice of marketing to minors" would have resulted in evidence of our own attempts at reaching out to minors, naming products or writing advertising copy that is appealing to minors, etc. There is none. Once we were notified of this "risk," we immediately took down the label and the Instagram post in question, and we have taken extra care with all product that we carry since, as evident by the absence of incidents since. Regarding the "La Pine" incident, and as stated previously, we do not believe that the DA's plan to charge someone with a crime "conclusively and independently proves that Sam Onat and Mr. Solymez are not reasonably deemed innocent," as Hollitz and Dickson suggest, especially since Mr. 5oylemez was not arrested. This goes against the very principles of this country's legal system and our Bili of Rights (not to mention international standards for human rights). More importantly, neither Sam Onat nor Mustafa Soylemez are involved in the land use Application in question or the subsequent business plans for the property. However, we understand that Sam Onat's arrest and the news reports about it raise suspicions, and our association with him and our communications about the incident might call into question our credibility, As such, we again offer the following summary of context we've provided in the hearing and previous submissions about our relationship with each of them, our response to the situation, and clarifications on the email communication from Mark Weisheit. While we continue to hold the presumption that Mr. Onat (Sr.) is innocent, given his lack of ongoing contribution to the business and the risk that his situation poses to our business (The Local Market), we have mutually agreed with him to remove him from the business, As such, we have filed a request with the state to remove him from our license. We had previously notified him that if he was found guilty of any serious charge, then he would forever forfeit his stake. That is the standard we have set for doing business with us. As stated previously, he was never an active or managing partner in The Local Market business. We simply rewarded him with a small stake (1,75%) in return for the introduction to his son, As such, his removal is of no consequence to the operations of The Local Market, He is not involved in the plans for 25450 Walker Road, so even if neighbors or the Board (or even we) doubt his credibility, then there should be no concerns about how we will operate our business on Walker Road. Regarding Mustafa Soylemez, he is an active partner in The Local Market, and continues to be so. Mr. Soylemez was not arrested or charged in the La Pine incident. It is our understanding that he was not involved in the La Pine operation (whether it was legal or not), so we have no reason to change our business relationship with him at this point. If this should change, then we will take appropriate steps to end our business relationship with him. Given that he is an active partner in The Local Market, we do not know exactly what that path would look like at this time. Regardless, he is not involved in the plans for 25450 Walker Road, so even if neighbors or the Board doubt his credibility, then there should be no concerns about how we will operate our business on Walker Road. 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. I Bend, OR 97702 Qn infoC@cliftDncanna6isiaw.com 2905 Canon Street San l7iQ o", CA 9 1 G 9 V (541) 306-4441 Exhitt452 0 4 Page Y a Finally, regarding the email sent by Mark Weisheit that has been cited as a reason to question his credibility, as stated in the previous submission, Mark's intention was to update the neighbors of the facts as he knew them: 1. Jacob's father was arrested on suspicion of an illegal grow 2. Subsequently, he notified the authorities of the granted hemp license 3. The arraignment was cancelled 4. No charges were filed And, more importantly, to assure neighbors that that situation had no bearing on what was going on next door (omitted from Ms. Dickson's email was the final sentence: "Furthermore, his father is not involved in our plans for Walker Road at all, and we have no insight into or involvement in anything he is doing, in La Pine or elsewhere. As such, we do not feel this has any bearing on our application.") Contrary to Dickson's statement in her email to the DA, Mark did not claim the news reports were false. He simply listed the 4 facts above, which are all irrefutably true, in the order that he was made aware of them. He also never said that charges would not be filed, as he had no knowledge of the DA's plans. Thus, the only thing in his email that we can discern might be incorrect or misleading is the implied cause and effect between facts 2 and 3 & 4 (by using the words "As such, his arraignment was cancelled, and no charges were filed" (emphasis added). In hindsight, this inadvertent connection might be characterized as irresponsible, but it was in no way intended to mislead. The other possibility is that the DA was responding to Dickson's untrue statement that "Mr. Weisheit claims this [news] report is false," in which case the QA's assessment of Mark's email is unfair (given that it would have been in response to a false statement made by Dickson). 2. Minimum Processing Requirements Hollitz and his attorney continue to complain that the application should be denied because the Applicant cannot give precise calculations of crop yields and amounts to be processed. That is not a standard required in the Code however; denial on this basis would be contrary to law. What is required is that a minimum of 25% of crops processed on site were provided by the farm operation. DCC 18.16.025(1), This provision is a subsection of DCC 18.16.025, which lists uses permitted in the EFU zone, subject to special provisions under DCC Section 18.16.038 (not applicable here), DCC Section 18.16,042 (not applicable here) and a review under DCC Chapter 18.124 where applicable (site plan review, applicable). It states: I. A facility for the orocessing of farm crops, or for the production of hiofuel a,Z riafinPri in ORS 315.141, if the facility is located on a farm operation that provides at least one- quarter of the farm crops processed at the facility, or an establishment for the slaughter, processing or selling of poultry or poultry products pursuant to ORS 603.038, 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste, 1 Bend, OR 97702 m infoPcliftoncannabislaw.com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 2106 9 'e (541) 306-4441 Exhil ol> a1 0974 'V 1. If a building is established or used for the processing facility or establishment, the farm operator may not devote more than 10,000 square feet of floor area to the processing facility or establishment, exclusive of the floor area designated for preparation, storage or other farm use. 2. A processing facility or establishment must comply with all applicable siting standards but the standards shall not be applied in a manner that prohibits the siting of the processing facility. 3. The County shall not approve any division of a lot or parcel that separates a processing facility or establishment from the farm operation on which it is located. The Applicant has shown throughout the record that this standard will be met. To summarize the calculations of Applicant's estimated production and processing volumes provided in the previous submissions: First Crop & Initial Yearly Estimates: • Total yield in first crop: 75 pounds • Amount of first crop to be processed: 25 pounds (33%) Total amount processed: 25 pounds (100% of processing volume) Total amount grown in year 1: approximately 300 pounds « Total amount processed in year 1: approximately 100 pounds (33% of amount grown, with 100% of processing volume provided by the farming operation) Year 3 Estimates: • Total annual yield: approximately 562 pounds • Total amount processed annually: approximately 197-281 pounds (35%- 50% of amount grown, with 100% of processing volume provided by the farming operation) It is Applicant's intention to continue to grow all of the marijuana processed onsite. However, if market conditions dictate an opportunity to process more than Applicant can grow, then the Applicant would be within compliance if they increased processing volume up to 3 times the volume of their production (to stay within the 25% limitation). As previously stated, there is ample storage and transport space for this potential additional input material shown on the site plan in the freezer and storage rooms, and all inventory will be tracked, reported and audited according to rigid OLCC requirements, Incremental delivery and shipment of even the maximum amount of input material and finished product in any scenario would be zero to negligible, as the volume and weight of these goods is relatively low. Even in the most extreme (and extremely unlikely) scenario, this would result in about 70 pounds per month being delivered, which could easily fit into one small delivery van. Efficiency dictates limiting the number of trips to at most a few a month, which was considered in the transportation study. The concerns about delivery trucks lining up in the street are completely unfounded. P 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, C R 97702 m info(@cliftoncannabislaw.com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 9,2106 9 11' (541) 306-4441 Exhibiol) 450974 tr Page /0 of I Compliance with the 25% standard can only be assured via a condition of approval, and the Applicant would stand to lose its approval if it does not meet that minimum. Moreover, the Applicant is required to comply with reporting requirements set forth in DCC 18.16.025(1) and DCC 18.116.330(D) by submitting processed crop summaries to the Planning Division on request and no less frequently on an annual basis by February 1 of each year. The Applicant has also stated they are willing to voluntarily submit to more frequent audits and inspections as a condition of approval. Therefore, compliance is not determined merely on "applicant assurance," but a real, definable, and measurable standard on which approval is based. Staff properly recognized that a condition of approval is the only way to ensure the standard is met, because the proposed use is not in operation. No matter what the Applicant states (and regardless of all of Hollitz/Dickson's imagined potential outcomes), if the Applicant fails to comply with the minimum requirement for processing, which should be included both as a condition of approval and subject to annual reporting requirements, they would lose their approval. Why would the Applicant risk losing its substantial investment in the property, improvements to the property, its application, attorneys' fees, engineering fees, etc. by failing to ensure at least 25% of the amount processed on site is grown on site? That is an absurd assumption, contrary to substantial evidence in the record, The Board is reminded that the crops grown on site'will be grown in the very same building in which processing is proposed to occur, which will make compliance with a 25% processing standard simple and straightforward, The Applicant does not know the yield of crops that have not even been planted, nor is it required to have such information for approval of the applications. The Applicant has provided more information than is even required for approval, however. This includes first crop and initial yearly estimates, and year three estimates, set forth in Applicant's April 10, 2019 letter. The Applicant has also agreed to more frequent inspections than required under Code. The Applicant has nothing to hide, but stands to lose everything if they take in more than 75% of material processed on site from another source. The proposed use is consistent with the standard in DCC 18.116.025(1). Opponents have not offered any proof (e.g. a business plan or report, etc.) to rebut this evidence, or that would warrant any other determination. 3. Youth Activity Center The Applicant incorporates by reference its arguments concerning the legality of the County's use of an undefined and unadopted standard concerning YACs, set forth in its March 20, 2019 letter, incorporated herein by this reference. The Board is not permitted to engage in ad hoc decision-making about what constitutes a YAC.5 6 Not only has the Oregon Legislature declined to require any separation distances from "youth activity centers" in ORS Title 475B with respect to marijuana, the term or phrase is not found in any state legislation, as well. G 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste, I Bend, OR 97702 m info@cliftoncannabislaw,com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 P Z' (S41) 306-4441 E bW.0 'w Page _�(_ of 27 A law is void for vagueness where it does not give men or women "of common understanding adequate notice of what the regulation proscribes." See, e.g., State v. Darlene House and James House, 260 Or, 138, 489 P.2d 381 (1971); Haviland Hotels v. OLCC, 20 Or.App. 115, 530 P.2d 1261(1975); see also ORS 227.173(1) (requiring standards that are clear enough for an applicant to know what he or she must show during the application process), The Board lacks authority to decide on a case-by-case basis that certain operations are within a YAC, and others are outside a YAC with an obvious lack of criteria and/or via inconsistent decisions on the term "YAC," where there is no notice to the community of the meaning of the regulation in the regulation itself. Application of this vague regulation to deny the Application also would violate state and federal due process protections, See State v, Plowman, 314 Or 157, 162, 838 Ptd 558 (1992). On judicial review, neither LUBA nor an appellate court is required to defer to a local government's interpretation of its regulations if that interpretation is contrary to a state statute, statewide planning goal or administrative rule, ORS 197.829. The County cannot now "change the goalposts" by reinterpreting the YAC provision, to match the opponents' desired more expansive application, E.g., Holland v, City of cannon Beach, 154 Or App 450, 962 Ptd 701, rev den 328 Or 115 (1998) (local government not permitted to change interpretations regarding applicability of approval criteria). To do so would constitute reversible error where different interpretations are the product of a design to act arbitrarily or inconsistently from case to case, Alexanderson v. Clackamas County, 126 Or App 549, 552, 869 Ptd 873, rev den 319 Or 150 (1994); Friends of Bryant Woods Park v. City of Lake Oswego, 126 Or App 205, 207, 868 Ptd 24 (1994). As noted above, such action would constitute improper legislating action by the Board, Neither Hollitz nor his attorney have addressed, much less, acknowledged these legal arguments, which were presented in the Applicant's March 20, 2019 letter and in the Applicant's open record submittals. "Boundless Farmstead" is not designed for a youth gathering purpose. It is a farm, used as an agricultural operation. That children may come to an operating farm under the auspices of a separate, independently operated organization (Central Oregon Locavore) and observe farming operations, does not convert that use (farming) into a "youth activity center," The Board is reminded that the record confirms that: (1) field trips are not the primary permitted use of the property; (2) no future field trip events are scheduled; (3) Boundless Farmstead does not hold itself out as a field trip destination, or center or other "facility" for youth -centered activities; (4) Deschutes County has not issued any permits or licenses to Boundless Farmstead to operate any business, youth club, youth organization or school, as shown on the Deschutes County Property Information htt�s;//dial.c�eschutesorg/Real ,t)eveloTSmentDocs/13789 (March 14, 2019); and (5) there are no structures permitted on the property for the purpose of housing youth gatherings or for other instructional purposes. For the County to change the applicable standards by "interpretation" here impermissibly changes the goalposts and constitutes arbitrary and/or inconsistent decision-making subject to reversal on appeal. Dickson argues that the Waveseer decision "supersedes" the Board's decision in High Desert Nectar in which the Board specifically stated that its legislative intent in adopting a separation distance requirement from "youth activity centers" in DCC 18.116.330(13)(7)(a)(iv) was to require separation distances from "licensed, permitted or otherwise lawfully established uses." This In 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. I Bend, OR 97702 ea info(aklikoncannabislaw.com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 'V (541) 306 4441E hb01JA PageiIUD1L52')74 V L1L f argument is flawed and cannot constitute a basis for denial of the applications here, for the following reasons. First, the Board did not rule that High Desert Nectar was "superseded" by its Waveseer decision; the Board set forth its legislative intent specifically in High Desert Nectar and failed to make a decision that complied with this specific statement of the law in Waveseer. This inconsistency, as the Applicant has pointed out, raises serious questions concerning ad hoc decision-making and void for vagueness challenges, which also implicate due process considerations. SeconA, Dickson alleges that the Applicant nrmi 4 NA/—e-9r is "uideflned" an -4 "unadopted." . Clearly, Dickson did not carefully review the Applicant's arguments in this regard. The Applicant's argument is directed at DCC 18.116,330(8)(7)(a)(iv) itself, which uses a term "youth activity center," which itself is undefined. The Board has not adopted by legislative authority any standard to direct its decision-making on YACs, even assuming, arguendo, that its statement on legislative intent in High Desert Nectar complies with notice requirements for adoption of code criteria. Finally, CDD staff submitted a memorandum into the record after the public hearing, which confirms that staff was aware of the Waveseer decision and its ruling on YACs. Staff's review of the Boundless Farmstead farm use confirmed that the facts in the record support a finding that the farm is not a YAC, under even the most expansive interpretation of the term under Waveseer, Among other things, field trips are noncommercial in nature, relatively infrequent and are "accessory and subordinate to the primary farm use." Boundless Farmstead is not a YAC; the Application should not be denied on this basis. 4. Odor Control In the Api.)ellarit s sewn fuunU open lecuru submittal, riollitz anu his attorney again attempt to discredit odor control technology that is not even proposed by the Applicant, The Applicant has made it clear, repeatedly, that they are not proposing ionization. Therefore, all "evidence" on ionization is irrelevant. The Applicant stands on its first round open record period submittal on odor control, as well as the County's own CDD findings that odor mitigation criteria has been met via use of carbon filtration technology by other marijuana production and processing facilities throughout the County. The Applicant also stands on the 66 -page technical engineering odor and noise report prepared by its expert witness, ColeBreit, that specifically reviews the proposed odor system and technology for the subject application. Finally, the Applicant stands on the testimony provided at the public hearing and in the second round rebuttal in which Mr. Onat demonstrated a thorough, expert -level analysis of carbon filtration, adsorption technology and ionization, including benefits and drawbacks of each. Opponents have not produced any discrediting testimony on the system proposed by the Applicant. They stand on generalized comments by another engineer providing testimony in another hearing, offered to support that applicant's proposed odor control system for the purposes of that application's approval. Mr. Whitaker was not asked to review the Application before the Board in this matter. He did not review the proposed odor control system. He did not review the proposed structure in which marijuana would be grown and processed. He did not even review carbon filtration technology directly, but provided an opinion that, in some cases, Ii 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. l Bend, OR 97702 rm info(@cliftoncannabislaw.rorn 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 (541) 306-4441Exh>� G 4526)74 V I �.........�m Page of he believed ionization is preferable. Dickson herself has shot that theory down, however, by the information she has provided in the record about the flaws of ionization technology. This can be determined to be indirect support for the type of system proposed by the Applicant here, which does not require use of ionization. Regarding the letter submitted by Ms. Gould, the one question she raises is how Applicant will take deliveries or make shipments without exposing the interior air outdoors. The answer is in the dual -stage filters that have been referred to a number of times in previous submissions by the Applicant. The rooms with product will be airtight and contained within interior walls. Whenever odorous air is vented from those rooms, it will be filtered and vented into the secondary interior areas (e.g. - hallways). Typically, this air will not be odorous (since it went through the first stage of filters), so no odor will be expelled when an exterior door is opened. However, if an internal room's door releases any odor into the secondary areas, then it will be vented through the external (second stage) filters to clear out the secondary areas to prevent unintended external release. 5. Fire Protection The Code requires only that the subject property be located within the boundaries of a fire protection district, DCC 18.116.330(14). It is. That fact has not been challenged, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Hollitz and his attorney request the Board to amend the Code via interpretation to require proof regarding fire safety, and proof that the Alfalfa Fire District is "capable" of serving the subject property, The Board has no authority to do so in these proceedings. That said, the record is replete with evidence showing the Applicant's proposed building and processing methods will be constructed, maintained and conducted in a safe environment. All comments and attachments provided by the Appellant regarding different solvents and processing methods are irrelevant, as Applicant has not proposed the use of entane or pentane, and will certainly not be making hash oil at home, given they are not permitted to build a home on the property. As stated previously, the Applicants will be doing the vast majority of their processing using water and ice. Mr. Onat testified at the hearing that the remainder will use n-tane, which is an extremely high quality and pure form of butane solvent. The purity (free from accelerants, mercaptans, etc.) renders it extremely predictable and results in a higher quality product for the consumer, This predictability, along with the proposed state-of-the-art closed-loop system and fire detection and prevention systems (described In previous submissions) is what ensures a safe processing environment. 1? 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste,1 Bend, OR 97702 m info(@cliftoncannabislaw.com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 'V (541) 306-4441 EXl &112-O& 12' .ems......,. Page of 4 Any process can be dangerous if not done correctly. All statements and submissions made by the Appellants are referring to unsafe methods, and therefore irrelevant to this Application. 6. Power Supply The Applicant believes this has been sufficiently addressed in previous submissions, and to further support those submissions, spoke to Christy Ward at the CEC to confirm testimony of Mr. Onat at the public hearing. She confirmed that the language around requiring upgrades is standard, used in many cases (although not all) for facilities in multiple industries, and in no way should cast doubt on the CEC's ability to provide power to the site. 7. Site Plan Review Standards With respect to the site plan standards that Hollitz/Dickson vaguely says will not be met, the Board is directed to the following summary of their submissions and Applicant's responses thereto: Appeal - page 6: Hollitz does not include citation to any specific standard with which he alleges the application is inconsistent. The appeal includes a narrative objection that it is unclear "what the applicant intends to do inside the building." Dickson argues that there is a "deeper examination of an application that would otherwise receive minimal review as just another farm use." Oregon law provides otherwise. ORS 475B.526; ORS 30.930; ORS 475B.454. • Appeal page 6: Hollitz included vague assertions that the applicant may make sales from the site and allegation that it could be a commercial use with different standards. The Applicant addressed this assertion in its March 20, 2019 letter, and noted there are no separate standards for site plan review that depend on the category of proposed use (commercial, industrial, etc.) i First open record period letter: No argument. Reference to "see appeal and public hearing testimony." * Second rebuttal letter: No argument from Hollitz/Dickson. They include an unsupported assertion that the applicant has riot met standards, without citation to the Code or any evidence. * Argument at hearing: Dickson alleged that site plan review standards not met with respect to natural environment, landscaping, etc. The Applicant addressed all such arguments in its first open record period letter, as well as in its original application and supporting materials submitted to the County. 13 9 1735 5W Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 m info@cliftoncannabislaw,com 2905 Canon Street San (3,,icp,, CA 92 6 V tp (541)306-4441 E'XIAJ052• 4 �V Page -1!r oi,_o Opponents have not offered any specific argument or evidence concerning site plan criteria. Staff made the following findings (among others) in the Administrative Decision, at pages 30-34, which are supported by substantial evidence in the record: • Views in all direction from the subject property include some large undeveloped areas along with various sizes and intensities of farm operations and associated agricultural development • it does not appear that any natural or topographic features would be impacted by this proposal as it is located in the central buffering from off-site development o The proposed landscaping adjacent to the building and the park • The proposed development is consistent with existing agricultural development within the general area of Alfalfa • As proposed and conditioned, the processing use will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development by minimizing visual impacts and not impacting any natural features including views and/or topographical features None of the existing vegetation will be impacted by this proposal it No alterations to the existing topography are proposed or necessary with this development �. The layout of the driveway, parking area, and proposed structure provide appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private space, and is a safe environment for vehicles to enter, leave and maneuver on the property 0 The parking area is set back more than 460 feet from the southern property line, which is the nearest property boundary. Additionally, it is screened from view by proposed building and landscaping • The proposed building, in which the processing facility will be located, is set back from all property lines by several hundred feet The application materials and plans indicate the processing facility will be equipped with special odor control ventilation that will reduce sparks. • No changes in the existing circulation patterns on site are proposed with the exception of a new parking area, The parking area and proposed building are located adjacent to each other in the central portion of the property • The processing facility will be buffered from neighboring properties by both distance and landscaping • Given the relatively large size of the property in relation to the size of the parking lot and building footprint, and the location of the development, runoff from the building and parking area will be contained on-site • The parking area proposed on site is located more than 460 feet from the nearest property line. The parking and loading area is located where it will be visually shielded from Walker Road The applicant proposes to establish landscaping areas around the parking area to more fully screen the development from neighboring properties and the public Waste storage will be located inside the proposed marijuana production and processing building on site, thereby reducing any potential visual impacts 14- 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 m info(aic1iftoncanna6islaw.com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 - (541) 306-4441Exhibli1) 45,974 V L... Page AL of Transportation access to the site is from Walker Road, a County -maintained public right-of-way. No transportation deficiencies or improvements were identified by the Deschutes County Transportation Planner or the Deschutes County Road Department The Senior Transportation Planner's comments indicate that marijuana processing, the only aspect of the proposal that requires Site Plan Review and is subject to this criterion, will generate 4.5 trips The Senior Transportation Planner's comments also include an analysis of the marijuana production aspect of this proposal, which will generate 32,4 trips. Together, the marijuana production and processing will generate a total of 36.9 daily trips, below the 50 trip minimum threshold to require a Site Traffic Report Conclusion Local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. E.g., 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 82-83, 742 Ptd 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre v, Bd. of County Commis, 37 Or App 745, 750-52, 588 P2d 640 (1978). Local decision makers are expected, however, to: (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding individual permit applications, and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005); see also Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or LUBA 137, aff'd 183 Or App 581, 54 P3d 636 (2002) (citing 41 Op Atty Gen 490 (1981), setting forth factors to be considered in determining whether an elected official must refrain from decision-makint; due to bias). The Board must be capable of making a fair decision in the matter considering all of the evidence and arguments presented. See 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or 76, 80-85, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Spiering v. Yomhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695, 702 (1993), Where there is a "strong emotional commitment" by a decision -maker to approve or defeat a land use application, bias is established. E.g,, Catholic Diocese of Baker v. Crook County, 60 Or LUBA 157 (2009). Bias implicates the substantial rights of the Applicant to a full and fair hearing. E.g. Halverson v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702 (2001). The Commissioners are reminded of their sworn obligations to put aside politics and personal negative views of marijuana in this quasi-judicial proceeding. The Board cannot change the goalposts applicable here by applying an ad hoc determination of YACs, or by adding new requirements to the Code via "interpretation" to deny the Application. For the reasons set forth herein, and based on the Applicant's previously submitted materials and public hearing testimony, we respectfully request that the Board approve the subject applications and deny the appeal. Thank you for your consideration of this information. V! 4 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste. 1 Bend, OR 97702 n info@cliftoncannabislaw.com 2905 Canon Street San Dipga, CA 92j, 6 9 V (541) 306-4441 ExWilb l�52- 4 V Page ZZ_ of ley Sincerely, Stephanie Marshall cc: Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste.1 Bend, OR 97702 ® info(@cliftoncannabislaw.com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 9 V (541) 306-4441 ExhIbI1i 45974 Ir Page -_Y-- of /4.__ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: EAD FROM: AMBER SUBJECT: HOLLITZ APPEAL (WEISHEIT APPLICATION) DATE: ARPIL 24, 2019 CC: Transcript of Jacob Onat testimony from hearing before BOCC on March 20, 2019 (testimony at 2:59:53). COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: What kind of a solvent is that? GNAT: Water. Water is considered a solvent. There's two types of solvents that people are using. The one they were using in that home that exploded was an illegal grow, in all actuality, because they were doing what was called open blasting. Just to give you guys a little bit of a background. And that's generally people who gerry- rig tools and run solvent through and there's things that can happen. WEISHEIT: That's typically a hydro carbon - ONAT: Yes. Any solvent can be used. Butane. Hydrocarbon or anvthino. So. what we are proposing is to do a majority, probably about 70 percent of our product, to be conducted in a solvent -less manner. Which means what we'll do is we'll grow some weed, harvest it, put it in a bag and freeze it. 24 hours later we are going to get that and put it in a bucket like a washing machine with ice and water. We're going to turn it on and it's going to spin for about 30 or 40 minutes. The residual that is collected at the bottom is then dried out. That's it. There's no nasty chemicals and there's no nothing that's used. That's - I don't know if you guys reviewed our floor plan. That's in one room. We've actually segregated solvent -less with solvent. Because to be in this industry, you need to also have a solvent. However, the solvent used is very important. Most people with these explosions are using butane. If we do decide to go down the solvent route, we will use entane. It's a medical grade propane. And just so you guys know, I don't know if anyone read the burden of proof or narrative that we put together, but the room's layout has spark arresters, it's explosion -proof, there's exhaust fans that are hooked up rrcaavi i. to emprnenr i kirk-itin race th mit weNrc to nn nff vnj a L... for whateve@. .- ..._. �`....,� ....... .......................� ........... y......, ni+ yv.. ��I wvr, ivi VV iawv� i vv, at the end of the day, we are doing everything that we can to your guys' code and OLCC code. And we can sit here and guesstimate all day, "Well, what if that fails and what if the fire department's not ready?", but at the end of the day, I've got to - I spoke many times with Ron Thompson. He said, "We will serve your property." He actually was intrigued onto how we were doing it. He was like, "Oh, wow" - you know - "it sounds like you guys are going down a different path." So -- Exhibit Page / of COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: May I interrupt you a second? The solvent you are using is what? ONAT: We are doing two solvents. One solvent; water. It's technically a solvent. The other one we'd be using would be an entane, or a propane mix. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Are you saying E -N -T -A -N -E? GNAT: You can Google Entane. Entane. It's a medical grade solvent. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: I was just asking how you spell it. GNAT: "N". Like the letter "N"; Nancy. And then tane. T -A -N -E. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Ntane. GNAT: Like I said, it's a medical grade butane. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: So. it's still butane. GNAT: Correct, but it leaves a - very little to minimal residual. Like it's - it's able to be used in hospitals for consumption. So - COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: And you're saying you use 30 percent of that? GNAT: That's the max. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: So that's why. GNAT: Honestly, we don't even want to use it at all, but the market - if the market's demanding it, we are going to do it a little bit. But for the first year we are probably going to be doing 80 percent -- COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: The market seems to be demanding all sorts of things. The market is demanding butane and honey oil. I mean, that's what blows up things. There must be something -- ONAT: -- butane honey oil isn't what blows up things. It's people who don't understand and have a set operating - I could be incorrect, but I haven't heard of any OLCC licensed, at least in Deschutes County, processing facilities blowing up. Because you have to go through stringent engineering requirements to even set one up, unless I'm incorrect. (testimony ends at 3:03:04) End Transcript. Exhibit Page L of (L CLIFTON CANNABIS LAW April 25, 2019 Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste.1 2905 Canon Street Bend, OR 97702 San Diego, CA 92106 -a (541) 306-4441 -P (601) 452-0974 tm infopo cliftoncannabislaw.com re: Weisheit Applications for Administrative Determination and Site Plan Approval, Deschutes County File Nos. 247-18-000504-AD/505-AD/506-SP; Appeal Application File No. 247-19-000178- A Dear Jacob, We have received the Appellant's motion to strike comments about n-tane from Applicant's final submission, and do not believe they constitute new evidence. They are consistent with the comments made by Jacob Onat at the hearing: Applicant is proposing to use n-tane, which is a medical -grade / high-quality version of butane. N-tane/Butane (C4H10) is chemically different than pentane (C5H12), which is why Applicant has called Appellant's submission of articles about pentane irrelevant. Additionally, Ms. Dickson's claim that "Applicant is now asserting in Final Rebuttal that it will not be using medical -grade butane" is false. Applicant did not make that assertion anywhere in their final rebuttal. In fact, at the bottorn of page 12, Applicant reiterates that they will be using "n-tane, which is an extremely high quality and pure form of butane solvent." "Medical grade" and "high quality and pure" and synonymous. However, if the Board deems that it is new evidence, we accept it being stricken from the record, as there is no criteria that it is relevant to (the criteria only require that the property is within a fire district). Sincerely, Stephanie Marshall cc: Mark and Elizabeth Weisheit 9 1735 SW Chandler Avenue, Ste.1 Bend, OR 97702 m info(a)clifkoncannabidaw,com 2905 Canon Street San Diego, CA 92106 0 *4* (541) 306-4441 (601) 452-0974 V E S CSG o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 8, 2019 DATE: May 2, 2019 FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: DELIBERATIONS: Appeal of an Administrative Determination for Marijuana Production at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners will deliberate and determine if the subject proposal meets the requirements in the applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code. The Board held a public hearing to consider the appeal, filed by appellant Daniel Tye, in response to an administrative decision approving marijuana production proposed by Cameron Yee. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner STAFF MEMORANDUM DATE: May 1, 2019 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner RE: Deliberations following a public hearing of an appeal of a marijuana production proposal. File no. 247-19-000161-A (appeal of Administrative Determination file no. 247 -18 -000890 -AD). BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICANT: OWNERS: APPELLANT: Cameron Yee David House Daniel Tye APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: Elizabeth Dickson, Dickson Hatfield LLP LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 25606 Alfalfa Market Road, Bend; and is further identified on County Assessor Tax Map 17- 14-22 as tax lot 1400. HEARING DATE: March 27, 2019 RECORD PERIOD: The record was closed at 5:00 pm on April 17, 2019. REVIEW PERIOD: The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision ends July 9, 2019. 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd I. Purpose The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners ('Board") is tasked with determining if the subject proposal meets the requirements in the applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code. The Board held a public hearing to consider the appeal, filed by appellant Daniel Tye, represented by Attorney Liz Dickson (together "Appellant") in response to an administrative decision approving a marijuana production proposed by Cameron Yee ("Applicant"). This memo and the attached matrix are designed to assist the Board in their deliberations. Itfocuses on the contested aspects of the application that require Board determinations or interpretations. II. Record The record, in its entirety, was presented to the Board as attachments to the February 6, March 18, and March 20 Staff Memorandums. Only those record items that have not been presented to the Board previously are attached to this memo. The attached record items include materials submitted at the public hearing and during the open record period. Three binders containing copies of all materials in the record have also been prepared for the Board. They are located in the Board offices so that they are accessible at any time and the Board may reference them in public meetings. III. Opposition The appellant and four opponents at the hearing stated several reasons for their opposition which were described in the Notice of Appeal, in oral and written testimony, and in the open record period submissions. The attached decision matrix is to assist the Board to determine if the Administrative Determination should be affirmed, affirmed with modified findings and/or conditions, or denied. Below and in the decision matrix, staff has identified six key issues that the appellant or an opponent has raised regarding the proposal. Three other issues that were raised may be unrelated to approval criteria. Finally, several other topic or questions were raised that did not relate to or address approval criteria. IV. Discussion & Summaries The following is a summary of the points of objection and does not fully describe or explore all aspects of the proposal or of objections. The complete arguments and rebuttals were presented at the hearing and in the attached record materials submitted during the open record period. Topics that addressed approval criteria (green section): 1. Odor control method(s) and technology. 2. Noise produced by mechanical equipment. 3. Nonconformance and medical marijuana grow compliance. 4. Utility verification letter from CEC. 5. Secure waste disposal. 6. Modification of application. 247-19-000161-A Page 2 of 4 Topics that may or may not be related to approval criteria (orange section): 7. Credibility of the applicant as a factor to consider in a land use decision. 8. Water rights and status of transfer. 9. Access to subject property. Topics and questions that did not address approval criteria (red section): • Moral objections, personal beliefs, opinions regarding marijuana use (both positive and negative). • Road maintenance of driveway. • Traffic and vehicle incidents on Alfalfa Market Road. • Access easement on subject property leading to properties to the north, for further property division. • Marijuana as an agricultural market disrupter v. alfalfa/grass as a stabilizer. • Amount of water to be used and water table levels. • Comprehensive Plan Sections 2.2 and 3.4. • Right to Farm; ORS Time, Place, Manner regulations. • Public Health, Safety, and Welfare - in regard to public benefit. • Applicant's businesses, business partnerships, etc. • Attractive nuisance (marijuana as cash business, vagrancy in area, etc.). • Compatibility with neighborhood uses. V. Conclusion & Next Steps Staff respectfully requests that the Board specify if they intend to approve or deny the application and to provide any additional findings for staff to include in the decision. At the conclusion of the deliberations, staff will draft a decision for Board consideration. The draft decision will be placed on a future work session agenda to afford the Board with an opportunity to provide edits and feedback. That final decision will be placed on a future business meeting agenda for Board signature. The 150 - day period for issuance of a final local decision ends July 9, 2019. VI. Record Attachments The following attachments are materials that have been entered into the record after the March 20, 2019 Staff Memorandum. Only those record items that have not been presented to the Board previously are attached to this memo. They are presented in reverse chronological order. Attachments: 1. 2019-05-01 Decision Matrix 2. 2019-04-10 Open Record Period 2 -Appellant Rebuttal 3. 2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - Applicant Submittal 4. 2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal 5. 2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal Exhibit K OLCC Violation Information 247-19-000161-A Page 3 of 4 6. 2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal Exhibit L C Yee Business Registration Information 7. 2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal Exhibit M Partial Hearing Transcript 8. 2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal Exhibit N Boundary Survey CS15057 9. 2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - Appellant Submittal Exhibit 0 Boundary Survey CS15997 10.2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - T Threlkeld email 11.2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - M Cyrus Email 12.2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 -j Short email & attach RE water rights 13.2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - D House Email (Property Owner) 14.2019-04-03 Open Record Period 1 - D & L Sheridan email 15.2019-04-02 Open Record Period 1 - T+N Alfalfa T Looney 16.2019-04-02 Open Record Period 1 - R Dye 17.2019-04-02 Open Record Period 1 - L Pate email w attachment 18.2019-04-02 Open Record Period 1 - A Tye Email w attachment 19.2019-04-02 Open Record Period - 1 D Dudley Email 20.2019-03-27 Hearing Exhibit Schedule 21.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit A Applicant Submittal 22.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit B Appellant Submittal - Exhibit List 23.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit B Appellant Submittal - Exhibit E 2017 App Open Record Submittal w Attachments 1-9 24.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit B Appellant Submittal - Exhibit F 2017 App Appellant Rebuttal 25.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit B Appellant Submittal - Exhibit G Well Deepening Map 26.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit B Appellant Submittal - Exhibit H Water Rights Information 27.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit B Appellant Submittal - Exhibit I Lee v Marion County LUBA 28.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit B Appellant Submittal - Exhibit j Bend Bulletin article re Lunchbox Alchemy fined 29.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit C Staff Presentation 30.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit D Area Map from Hearing 31.2019-03-27 Hearing - Exhibit E Citizen Testimony Request to Speak Cards 32.2019-03-26 Staff Memo re Access 33.2019-03-26 Staff Memo re Access - Exhibit 1 Easement Agreement 2008-50699 (access across Tye property) 34.2019-03-26 Staff Memo re Access - Exhibit 2 Statutory Warranty Deed 2014-035977 (most recent sale, mentions easement) 35.2019-03-26 Staff Memo re Access - Exhibit 3 March 20, 2019 Email from Sr. Transportation Planner (regarding easement) 36.2019-03-26 Staff Memo re Access - Exhibit 4 January 11, 2018 Email from Sr. Transportation Planner (regarding Hunter Road) 37.2019-03-26 Staff Memo re Access - Exhibit 5 December 19, 2017 Staff Memo from Sr. Transportation Planner (regarding traffic) 38.2019-03-26 Staff Memo re Access - Exhibit 6 Warranty Deed - Vol. 243, P. 847 39.2019-03-26 Staff Memo re Access - Exhibit 7 Easement - 1983-13378, also recorded as Vol. 23, P. 1 40.2019-03-26 Staff Memo re Access - Exhibit 8 County Survey 15057 Map of Survey (indicates 30 ft Road ROW, filed in 2002) 247-19-000161-A Page 4 of 4 s o m m r m Y m r y E o£ c o m L .. c ._, m a o .. c o d o c ... o .. c o m o o° .N v ,, o X m '� c m N c o u° O M W `o bo d N m mc c b R c C M d ._ �eo 'WO C in Yt ._ O O > E o- a •p _ u W t a a> uv, v �`c-° u S O 0 > W E c v a> o M > E c �0 °i ��> W a s 0L0„ m= c$ v« E v w y m o c W v v o « E O d c v u c « U p C o v C v > w C A O« 'O u c .« v t W« u« V A C y > �'' C N p S i« c« E u C d >> �, v« > C _ 01 T u N a O m 'W L o 'c = Ti C C 0 o 0 L W N p W 0 W O O u u ou m p u a W u W u .a U m p u u a u u 0 w •a i0 p u` u C ,O 7. C W o C Awri «E o m=om N m$ d x of c = 0 N d am i a V O7!R zp u 2 v ow-� aoa u�a y a«vcE c N° o c v W as u a c_ 'c o E ;9 a c a a s a c o v N ° A 3 o c E« o o m a° m v "c c a ° t a o o i? 3 v v E 'v « a -W -Wo 0 o C c Z o J u L N 'in W m m G 3 C c o- W p > a c o C N d' ou OL— c E C v E E L c E¢ m—m o a m o `0 5 L m `o c c N v v0 .°o O OW `v c v v v v c o m L L m � a 6 c -O E W o .., u � c m - L ` w O v v o N ` E 3¢-N m 0 a c vM c c Al v 3 w"C3ma u Ev v m v- v E E v0, R v E uLW 0 0 '5° u wu E voN d «pm 00 wC 3 o- N �m L davaWWE o v Gvm o o o0v Eo W cC C 0 j O y pp>EOmtj G O c co' oENm mi3W o E m n 'EE 76 _u- E °=o S. E a r m E v u E£ w e °c o a E n E '5 c« o a c s m E v o v v c 19 Fc'�3 o zaci HvwctL-w E� "'W0 O0 ¢ omN3�a m c v i w c v n 0 c v v v v 3 m CL IL v c ..� W .- E o M # t u a v n d G a =, e v� c T C C m_ > m a+ d vi a N u a O N O �' u v� W « W N> E m y v _ v�° m x`0 ao a c 0 g m„vm wav3o <+'•�u c°.mc. ;na,�'o�" C;ma v o Q o voOW Cb0 a 0 ymu,co m +W m r Na " AyoEO -O v u o mo o 0 bo 0EE Nmo yv tr ooc« v3 '.. v.2vyWE .n c c E y o E a v '� L a m y W o mQ E W a = w E `o O .� o a m E m ^' c E u z m W v :D -5 E L ¢ u u a o p r y C o y m M C c O i n a+ L m vWi o `O E L�� C W C E L N C m a CLW, m c 3 o° 2 o C u m N o o v L ny m E y ipQ'L o w bb o N 3L .. O w ,.°`, u c m 3 gm oaci °z um aWmG E my am .0 m y «o m ;, aid o Z •,�W. '� 2r an« E6 £ E E W n. E E E v m ;:° A W W W 3- 3 o W x 6 w w GL o v o` y c« Y' 06 7 c v ,Ea 'm c eo a W ro y v eo ^+ C v G D v nn N C u C a, u o J m p °0 �v v c 0 m u O U 'S °0 L'S T °- m °° a p . `0 1 T m c cv c o c m'—° m a w« c w v W E C ou m a c v o F v a a 3 tL- `m ¢ a 3 H v u a vai w a` -6 O m>T > L C m C W m uc O CO u o- a o E .d ,3 o � L r d V= r o N O w B 02 W E W r° o =o c - H O E U .O U z u co E U p p z p C p m N t t a°+ C L 0.."-. 5 C p m %� a- Z 'w m 3 c d O E m p c . > a c ° ti c o°u m a+ � `Do c a o m z c V v c« o c c� c ° E c° « m {d m„v, vA v m 3 y c ;� F omo� vmua m °u EE'aN” eo c u i3 8 > E❑ m .vc E a '> E 3 v t E n '> -mo `o °- v m a o pp N w U a w 2 N c L U '✓ C N"> c A p C „c-, `w u '3 o c o M v v_ >, a y f c v o c p o v v o pyi a a v " A" o 'c a v E m c u m o 'a a v ° m 'a o v c u m a y o o $ m 'a a o °1 u •d 'c w o o T N d w E 3n pV as v�A '� r fV w w lv.J w w CA C m •00 m m mom x '° o .c m. ai o o E°¢ m v o �u y �c� a wa av «.°covuA acmes« v v v v N ,t, o o ° i u v eo c a m o— v _ _ Y a m o$ c o f s 75 c `-' a c a m° r c my !� u£ m m c m " t a c vO a m o ° °' o u u v u w u C a .� E o o,� E o o a 3 m m OL e ° ik o a m o o v y r y m v °c° E•cv, c v m :: y a a N v m m c a m m= s m v N o r !� a `v v .o °1 `0 E v a " v o ° '° c E d o o> Eo >' ED 7i u E o ° v c o a° o w n v c u c m ag a v° m E v a v `o E v v c > c -o v== av a v c= 0 i aa�`o m= o a - a+ F m v > v c a o a o a N c a o i y v v v m y � vY do o v m j n c w o 0 0 o c o It m o i .n V d ,V d N C y Oc0 2 E v � y a E o v o E i$ O F 'vp c O u w m v m L ° E m u m w t p 'C `v o w o c v v Y w u E «> E E m �C+ m E `o's E m� mt m•6 o m .oc m o. G o m � w .0 y v m n m o 0 9 m u m E 3... 0 7 a N V a2 y m O f ~ U 7 u y u V N � $ \ » \- r /}! ! »c §9) ! o EE \ ®� }} -0-0 E. )\ §ƒ )/ �( �( j{Ei ,) §f}t{®;2��® !|k2 \ �!/\[|a§ - - �]\%±e�E|{ - iI.\)[ �\ ({�)..\&/�3r\§2/» {\)!ƒ72«ez2 a;-0 cE m --_=r,�!£@B&»£e�e�� _ )]§w ww]2&.,..� .2.x §__ k\(\}w w + /7! O e1 O > C C c w u w 6 a o c £ s i a m E `w c ai "" c E a o m w >£ o 0 c u 0 `o a o E _ " a a ° 2 c o. m c o a 0 m � w a v c m C o l c a ,9 a v m a c«L c N w w e a m H a m m `m v E o o' •, YJ 3 N o N v 3 2 c w w f0 t 'o o o w y o c `m E a m c o. v c m �' c v m o .°n t L .c E L? O a n E c m a Kcb w z m i m a� a d Q 0 3 u w m m o v ry m J C m E $ 2 c wE '� m o r _ c u J c c n o 3 `0w c w a a a }' m e0 A m c m v`m o u a ° w e E `w a o c m o a w > 3 u m w c u v E aw, « p; N v m a Q c c 0 o m yip o E v h m m a N ° ,,mu-_ z o w c 'O E a w L T o c u O N -O C N c N1 O o u .N �a u w y °: c a« c 'c r `w u m « `u o c a s "' a 3 v '�t4 m— v m w m m �n c L c w o o e0 u `fit .., o w a u o E m ° m �°-' v L m N o o. « —u° —u° u v a u E c L H Ou « o U a E o c 3 o o N c u o 0 0 ° c o m a vO « c Ov.c c o .Y 'T"m �- .- m y E ✓ '° N,. m E `gip ee w ,m, N N �'- C w w W u o c o w = E c c N Na' m E c 000 es w a v v u v `w °i a.c « m °: E c.Q M o w£ rv« « c w E m o E w 3 m d u c es w a.` u Y L m 0 r- 3 w L J N O t- m a O X O U w m L O J ie r v x E L L m r- w E ° Z d `u O e1 O > ai c w u w 6 a o c w m w w c` w 3 0 o X fc0 > m— L,Z c oY wwo c o am E o ab L c o c m C o l c o'wo« E o a w N o « 0 E m a m p o r- o o v °c c v m m es a J o f o w u m es o o 0 O .y a o w co- Y m c c w m E > a d Q 0 3 w 0 m m o m J C m E $ 2 c 3° a '� m o r " v w c a c c 'wo '� E c `w }' m e0 A m a w U C m o '«°-0 E = be� o- m« c H E w m 0 > > 3 d es 3 t w o_ o a m3 m m w .m`'. m r- � a o'Oom O e1 O > ai c w u w eo N w o 3 w c w « J o o° j w 3 0 m X o c i0w V c oY wwo c o am E o ab L c o c m C o l c o'wo« E o a w N o « 0 E m a m p o r- o o c. «* a o c v m m es a J o f w« s a m es o o a o c a w N E J a Y m c c w m E > « c L c w 0 « c E m o 0 o a O v D c v w v° ° _ w o o .°u... m N a 'u Eo _ c u o'Oom = O y es Ac> C w o J 'J^ w C N c w o `w a O v N a m" a 3 N N m N `fit .., w c v w a u .n w '^ J 3 L H Ou « _ H m Q L U O e1 O > > u w «0v C Ng m R �-p W i0w V c o m m u 3 a m CL Q 00 0 0 rn N N f ); 1 � )Sr Zti �s d C j > Er z mw E 2 v a L O N u C G Jv H O. c � o a Ou E Y O ' �Q` m 3 T l: Q yi S « m � m � o s O £ d A m o v U` b lSFf'.' o u o N Q N w H o O uO {RSyY 3 u' Q go tics. 4 L P iV YCG�d 2^ OR ,n 2� U 1, S k�bO F ' +h y'' pq Sly 2 v V MIlM Y^ ka v w w 3 m a c N o a 0 c v = •o u y o 0 o v 0 u a w T oc '0 w �° •v �° � o c C a w u o a v m e >, m m >, o y c o 0 o N T 'O b0 E J v N C Y' N N � Y I!M11111 , NIM �y x<� O oui G O� —0 j A jel 1ph Z f ); 1 � )Sr Zti �s j > Er 3�fY� � S Jv M€ S £ d U` b lSFf'.' �wPi`„Wi {RSyY 3 u' go tics. L P iV YCG�d 2^ OR 2� U 1, S k�bO +h y'' pq Sly V MIlM Y^ ka z -.y �MF6 a VM ,�.: u IM ) I "s Y I!M11111 , NIM �y x<� oui —0 1ph �� 0, Icx �ON jo 1,w7�a.'x5,"' C.c An ISS r rill, a rx gggy LD ZZ 0 "WO 3 �� j bo l 5 zer�a, NMllQ OWinM-11s ME I'M o S^sk73 �' Sb VLh K,3'i�� gi gigifsophi Ma V MmE ry' N w a N C �m x s �r t s ,"g r J sbA 4t si �.:. - m r amy�h i N t v`f xf'sn�, `� ', ,z �- G l OR",mgr ILL I `ME T1 ? r 4�- f s s � ?w r" �� A's"}',4'k� O 0 10 y""kr �� M %{ :. 6b i r w 'M a gi ra=owy1An U S ,x ss mg:, �z !� ,M ° ° a v m m o R= t m M C y a � it E o c o N c O rC W w L L v° o � u u E E c m 0 o y .0 O . a _ a E m c « f0 � o O « Y O VO N v u C u o E E o � � n av � c d c u°� U � o� °E� C O H H y C O c u a o .._ o E w v « D u N �v c °u a m Y d c o w o N y o w E D Y O � = 0 0 � a � U! � � N � � v a ° v a w m m v 3 d T C Y � . v � � m ° c v v o c 0 C C � A m c m u C ° O 4] o O .0 —amE • m v 0 o d c X E « 'm d E o a o o g - � u o c w o N ¢ E Q Gl oco A c o S c M o u EE £D s v ¢ N 00 v N w i v Ec c A « w � - N CC 0 0 v �a E � N n d C a u a� '0 c C N N ¢ L O 3 c 01 c c o E v «a v � v v y o � � a C 0O D m L m „ d = C N 0 O y v s ry — Ov v N E c m N N « « C C w c o n c N 0 a aE uLo, ° m 0 L y E m 3 Y o o 0 � o v v a c 0 V`ov O .O m y T c w m° a w - c `o W v d A O T bo V d c £ � m a;= v = r a m u 0 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 8, 2019 DATE: May 2, 2019 FROM: Sara Crosswhite, 9-1-1 Operations, 541-322-6111 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: 9-1-1 Update Consideration of Amended Deschutes County Document No. 2019-237, Operating Agreement and Draft Intergovernmental Agreement: 9-1-1 Radio User. The User Board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 21. Staff asks for consideration of appointment of BOCC liaison as well as designation of chair of the User Board. An update will be given on the 9-1-1 technical systems. L6 \T E S f-, =A Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District User Board Meeting Agenda Date & Time: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 1000 hours Location: Deschutes County 9-1-1, 20355 Poe Sholes Drive #300, Bend 1. Call to order and introductions 10:00 2. Approval of April 16, 2019 meeting minutes 10:05 3. Public comment 10:10 4. Staff reports a. Administration 10:15 i. User Agreement Revisions ii. Draft Annual Report b. Operations 10:30 c. Training and hiring 10:35 d. Technical systems 10:40 i. CAD project ii. Radio system (fire deployment) iii. PSRT Update 5. Other items or good of the order 10:50 6. Adjournment 11:00 At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(h) litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d) labor negotiations; or ORS 196.660(2)(b) personnel issues. ®®Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make ®participation possible, please call Nanette Howard at (541) 693-7945 or send email to nanette.howard@deschutes.org. REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only DESCHUTES COUNTY 911 SERVICE DISTRICT - Doc. No. 20195-237149 AMENDING OPERATING AGREEMENT DC 201`x3-109654 WHEREAS, the Deschutes County 911 Service District ("District") was formed on May 4, 1988 under the authority of ORS Chapter 451 and ORS 401.720; and WHEREAS, under ORS 451.485, the Governing Body of a county service district shall be the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, under ORS 451.610, the Governing Body of a 911 Service District shall appoint an advisory committee to advise and assist the Governing Body in establishing, maintaining and operating the 911 emergency reporting system of the district, which shall consist of one representative from each public or private safety agency within the district; and now therefore, The parties agree as follows: PARTIES. The following are eligible parties to this agreement with the District Governing Body: - Alfalfa t --ire District - Black Butte Ranch Police Service District - City of Bend - City of Redmond - Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District - Deschutes County Dc-schilles< E+t i- --Rt j ,1 l its i'-retecii ri Di-sti re 12 - Redmond Fire and Rescue - Sunriver Service District - Black Butte Ranch Rural Fire Protection District City of La Pine City of Sisters - Crooked River Ranch Rural Fire Protection District - Deschutes County Sheriff's Office - La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - - Sisters/Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District 2. AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT GOVERNING BODY. a. The District Governing Body may at any time offer advice and direction to the User Board. b. The District Governing Body shall be the approval authority for the District's annual budget, personnel system and modifications thereto, tax measures, and fee proposals. C. The District Governing Body shall sign all collective bargaining agreements. 1 911 County Service District Amended Operating Agreement —DC20195-2,7-109 d. The District Governing Body shall also provide the necessary auditing services to the District at a mutually agreeable cost. The County Administrator or User Board may, at any time, request the services of County internal auditing services. Upon the request of the Governing Body, the District shall cooperate with the County's internal auditor. e. The District Governing Body, acting as members of the Budget Committee required by ORS 294.336, shall participate in the review and approval of the fiscal year budget, and shall assume responsibility for compliance with all publication, notice and hearing requirements for the budget process. The District Governing Body shall also be responsible for the preparation and completion of all necessary election filings and other requirements for all tax election measures. The District Governing Body shall appoint a Liaison to the User Board. USER BOARD. a. There is hereby established a User Board consisting of one member appointed by and representing each of the following public safety agencies ("User Agencies"): Alfalfa l=ire District Black Butte Ranch Department of Police Services City of Bend Fire Department - City of Redmond Police Department - Crooked River Ranch Rural Fire Protection District - Deschutes County Sheriffs Office - Redmond Fire and Rescue Sunriver Fire & Rescue - Black Butte Ranch Rural Fire Protection District - City of Bend Police Department - Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District - Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #2 - La Pine Rural Fire Protection District - Sisters/Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District - Sunriver Police Department b. A member of the Gov ert)in-body, I fhe County Administrator, or a designee; of the. Gov(11- n 13g6.,_shall chair the User Board ine ii -s. C. A majority of the User Board shall constitute a quorum. A majority of the entire User Board shall be required to take any action within the authority of the User Board. d. Meetings shall be held at a time and place designated by a majority of all User Board members, or the User Board Chair, upon not less than seven days prior written notice to all User Board members. e. A majority of the User Board members may call a special meeting of the User Board for the purpose of addressing with the County Administrator or Governing Body any issues of District -wide concern. f. The User Board shall meet at least quarterly to review and provide advisory input into operational rules, policies and procedures of the District that impact user agencies. The User Board will also receive an annual report on District challenges, issues and accomplishments and plans for the forthcoming year, and shall provide advisory input to the County Administrator and the 911 Director on the annual proposed budget for the District prior to the submission of the budget to the District budget committee. 911 County service District Amended Operating Agreement - DC 2011)? -23,7 100 g. Meetings and records of the User Board shall conform to the requirements of ORS Chapter 192. A written agenda for each User Board meeting along with the proposed minutes of the previous meeting shall be delivered to the District Governing Body and to each User Board member at least two days prior to each meeting. h The CJser„Board shall amrially provide to the_County /administrator, by_a_date desi9nated _by the County_ Administrator, written input and assessment regardingthe-lob performance of the 9.11 Director., 4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. a. The District Governing Body hereby delegates operational and management responsibilities to the County Administrator in accordance with Deschutes County Code Section 2.05.060 and 2.05.070. b. Without limiting the foregoing responsibilities, the County Administrator shall be responsible for the District's administration, budget and personnel functions, including hiring, evaluating, supervising and terminating the 911 Director. C. If the 911 Director position is vacant, the County Administrator, or designee(s) shall perform the functions of the position. d. Subject to legal review, the County Administrator may enter into contracts as authorized by DCC 2.37.040(A). 5. 911 DIRECTOR. a. The 911 Director shall plan, organize, and manage the operations of the 911 Service District. He or she shall have the authority to hire, promote, demote, discipline and terminate all District personnel in accordance with District personnel policies and collective bargaining agreements. The 911 Director shall review the personnel plan as needed and, with the advice of the User Board, make changes, if necessary. b. The 911 Director shall be responsible for call answering, dispatching, records, communications, security and other communications center functions in conformance with the rules, policies, plans and procedures of the District. C. Subject to legal review, the 911 Director may enter into contracts as authorized by DCC 2.37.040(D). d. The 911 Director shall prepare, revise, and modify District policies and procedures that impact user agencies subject to the advisory input of the User Board and thereaitei le��i �n ed by C ounty Leal and, apl2roKeel_ by th Uo crtrin l.3ody. e. The 911 Director shall prepare the annual budget subject to the advisory input from the User Board prior to Governing Board approval. The 911 Director shall present the proposed budget in accordance with District and Deschutes County budget timetables and Oregon Local Budget Law. 911 CountyService District Amended Operating Agreement—DC 2019> -?3710() i� Commented [DD11: This section was added to the operating agreement by document #2018-336 f. The 911 Director shall implement policies for the expenditures of budgeted items for the District. Such policies shall be submitted to the User Board for review and recommendation. Such policies shall thereafter be submitted to the District Governing Body for adoption. Anipolicy changes or additions to contracts shall be iimelve le��, ed..b <,qunt��._l__egal. g. The 911 Director shall annually prepare and forward to the governing bodies of the parties, an annual evaluation of the 911 emergency reporting system. 6. FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS. The financial transactions of the District shall be in compliance with the requirements of the local budget laws and expenditure limitations contained in the laws of the State of Oregon. 7. CONFIDENTIALITY. The User Board, County Administrator or 911 Director shall not use, release or disclose any information concerning any employee, client, applicant or person doing business with the District for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of the District's Governing Body, User Board's, Administrator's or 9-1-1 Director's responsibilities under this Agreement except upon any one or more of the following: valid subpoena, court order, as required under ORS 192.410 to 192.505, written consent of the District Governing Body, or if applicable, the employee, client, applicant or person. The User Board, Administrator and 911 Director shall ensure that its agents, officers and subcontractors and District employees with access to records of the District Governing Body, the User Board, the County Administrator and the 911 Director understand and comply with this provision. The User Board and 911 Director shall immediately contact the County Administrator and the Deschutes County Public Information Officer (PIO) when media contact occurs unless such contact occurs at a public meeting of the District or relates to routine District administration, such as the time and place of future meetings. FUNDING. Funding shall be derived as follows: a. Excise taxes collected on telephone exchange access services and distributed to participating local jurisdictions by the State pursuant to ORS 401.710 to 401.790. Ad valorem property taxes received by the District. The District may adopt additional funding methods, such as service fees and cost-sharing formulas. d. The Governing Body shall not take any action to change the funding mechanisms in b. and c. above, without first receiving a recommendation from the User Board. Should such a recommendation not be received by the Governing Body within 60 days of a request for same, the Governing Body may act without the User Board's recommendation. PARTICIPATING AGENCY EQUIPMENT. a. Each User Board member shall be responsible for purchasing, maintaining and repairing their own base, mobile and portable radio equipment, as well as direct landlines from the District's Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) to their individual stations, remote radios and offices. User Board members shall not be responsible for District landlines or other connectivity to the District's dispatch radios. b. tach agglicy represetried ou the Lser Board can utilize the teclutical capabilities of the District 1 911 County Service District Amended operating Agreement —DC 20195-7.37.101) raci.io staff to_pr_o de a maiilienance_hru r ni,_based on agreed ui>on_ternls, A Upon termination by a party and withdrawal from use of the District's PSAP, all District equipment shall be returned to the District. 10. ACCOUNTING. The fiscal year of the District shall be the same as that established for Deschutes County, Oregon. 11. FACILITIES. Deschutes County will provide space in the building, located at 20355 Poe Sholes Drive, Bend, Oregon to house District operations, including all staff and equipment. Reasonable costs for rent, maintenance and utilities will be based on actual costs to County and other occupants of the building. 12. OTHER SERVICES. If the District elects not to have District employees provide services, the District may contract for, or provide necessary services to, the District such as, but not limited to, legal services, personnel services, information technology, payroll and accounting services. Except for services furnished by Deschutes County, all services provided to District by non -District employees shall be set out in written contracts. In situations where it is determined by the Deschutes County Legal Counsel that an actual or potential conflict of interest exists in the County Legal Counsel's representation of both Deschutes County and the District, or that retaining legal services from outside the office of the Deschutes County Legal Counsel is in the District's best interest, the District may utilize legal services other than Deschutes County Legal Counsel. In the event the District utilizes the services of County Counsel, the District shall pay the County based upon the County's established internal service provider formula for legal services. 13. DEFAULT PROVISION. In the event the District does not adopt operational (including personnel) policies, rules, plans and procedures or contract for or provide necessary services, the applicable Deschutes County policy, rule, plan, procedure or service shall be deemed adopted by the District. 14. REVIEW/EVALUATION. This agreement shall be reviewed annually by the User Board to evaluate the efficiency of the organizational structure. 15. AMENDMENT. This agreement may be waived, altered, modified, supplemented, or amended in any manner only by written agreement of two-thirds of the parties. 16. ADMISSION OF NEW PARTIES. Additional public or private parties may be added by written addendum to this agreement, signed by all parties. Parties admitted to this agreement midway through the fiscal year may be admitted with a pro -rata financial commitment. 17. DURATION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be automatically extended from year to year on the same terms and conditions, including modifications and amendments, unless it is terminated by written agreement of two-thirds of the parties. 18. USER BOARD'S TENDER UPON TERMINATION. Upon receiving a notice of termination of this Agreement, the User Board, County Administrator and 911 Director shall immediately cease all activities under this Agreement, unless the District Governing Body expressly directs otherwise in such notice of termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, the User Board shall deliver to the District Governing Body all documents, 911 CountyService District Amended Operating Agreement - DC 2019»-2,7100 information, works -in -progress and other property that are, or would be, deliverables had the Agreement been completed. Upon the District Governing Body's request, the User Board shall surrender to anyone whom the District Governing Body designates, all documents, research, objects or other tangible things needed to complete the work. 19. WAIVER. The District Governing Body's delay in exercising, or failure to exercise any right, power, or privilege under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise or any right, power, or privilege under this Agreement preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other such right, power, or privilege. The remedies provided herein are cumulative and not exclusive of any remedies provided by law. 20. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed, in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "Claim") between District Governing Body and the User Board members that arises from or relates to this Agreement shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Deschutes County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a Claim must be brought in federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The U.N. Convention on International Sales of Goods will not apply. 21. SEVERABILITY. If any term or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held invalid. 22. ANTI -DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE. No person shall, on the grounds of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, age or association with any member of such classes, suffer discrimination in the performance of this Agreement when employed by the District. The User Board shall comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with Section V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and with all applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. Additionally, each party shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-336), ORS 659A.112 to .142, and all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to those laws. Further, User Board shall not discriminate against minority-owned, women -owned or emerging small businesses in awarding subcontracts as required by ORS 279A. 110. 23. MERGER CLAUSE. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the operational agreement for the Deschutes County 911 Service District between the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners and public safety agencies. All understandings and agreements between the parties and representations by either party concerning this Agreement are contained in this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change in the terms of this Contract shall bind either party unless in writing signed by two-thirds of the parties. Any written waiver, consent, modification or change shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. 24. SURVIVAL. All rights and obligations shall cease upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, except for the rights and obligations set forth in Sections 6 and 18. 25. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement shall be executed on behalf of each participant. This Agreement 1 911 County ServiceDistrict Amended operating Agreement—DC 201Qx-2,7-I09 shall become effective immediately upon being adopted and signed by a two-thirds majority of the eligible parties. 26. PRIOR AGREEMENT(S). This Agreement replaces thoseal certain Agreements entitled, Deschutes County 911 Service District Amended Operating Agreement, Document 2010-441, 2013-654, ._2_,015-109, 2018- 336 and any successor agreement, if any, thereto. 27. COUNTERPARTS. This Contract may be executed in several counterparts, all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one agreement binding on all parties, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original. 1 911 County Service District Amended Operating Agreement - DC 2010:x-.137109 =COUNSEL LE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONTRACT NO. 2019 - *** DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 SERVICE DISTRICT AND "AGENCY NAME" THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District, a duly formed and operating County Service District, hereinafter referred to as "District," and "ENTER AGENCY NAME," hereinafter referred to as "User." WHEREAS, the District has partnered with the Oregon State Department of Transportation (ODOT) to provide radio communications services to Cities, Agencies, Districts, and other Authorized Users within the District's operating boundaries in the Deschutes County area using the ODOT Project 25 Digital Trunked Radio System (DTRS or System) which is a combination of ODOT radio sites and sites owned by the District pursuant to the agreement dated MM/DD/YEAR between the District and ODOT; and WHEREAS, the District has the primary responsibility to act as the interface between ODOT and the User and to manage the process of enabling the User radios on the DTRS; and WHEREAS, the contract provisions between ODOT and the User flow through this contract to the User as applicable; andCommented [uui]1s this correct? ' Commented [WM2Rl]Yes all of our users have to adhere to ! WHEREAS, the District has the primary responsibility for the maintenance,health, security, 0130T guidelines and changes to policy. J upgrades, and management of the District owned sites including the District's dispatch center ' ., Commented [uu3]. ???? and ODOT has primary responsibility for ODOT owned sites; and C merited [WM4R3]: health is a technical term in reference to system uptime and availability j WHEREAS, ODOT has the primary responsibility for maintenance, upgrades, health, security, Commented [ous]: ??? upgrades, and management of the DTRS core computer network with support from the District c[ ommented [WMeRsjSee above ---- _-..-._- where appropriate; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to define the rights and obligations of the District and the User with respect to the cooperative and coordinated maintenance, technical and administrative support, and use of portable, mobile, desktop and other end user radios by the User on the DTRS; and WHEREAS, the system characteristics and capabilities are defined in Appendix A, System Baseline, which details the operational capacities and expectations of the DTRS; and WHEREAS, District is agreeable to providing such services as set forth in this Agreement; now therefore, Page 1 of 7 No. 2019-*** IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: DURATION 1.1 Effective Date. This Agreement is effective when signed by both parties and terminates at 11:59 p.m. on MM -DD -YEAR. Unless otherwise provided in a writing signed by both parties, beginning on MM -DD -YEAR, and continuing annually thereafter, the term of this agreement is automatically extended one additional year as of July 1 st. 1.2 Termination. Either party upon no less than 90 days written notice to the other party may terminate this Agreement. Termination under this paragraph shall not affect any obligations or liabilities accrued prior to such termination. 2 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 2.1 IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: 2.1.1 District will provide User with use of the DTRS System. 2.1.2 The User agrees to abide by the terms of use provided under this Agreement. 2.1.3 User may remain on DTRS as long as User is in compliance with this Agreement, and the User's use does not unreasonably interfere with other authorized users of the System. 3 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF USER 3.1 Conformance to ODOT and District Standards and System Standard Policies and Procedures (SSPP documents) User agrees to be aware of and conform to all applicable standards, policies, procedures and protocols established or amended by ODOT and District related to use of the System including but not limited to radio user training requirements, radio operating guidelines, subscriber maintenance requirements, audit, monitoring and compliance. Page 2 of 7 No. 2019-*** 3.2 Conformance to Federal Laws and Regulations User agrees to be aware of and conform to all applicable Federal Rules, Regulation and Laws pertaining to use of the System including but not limited to the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended and Part 90 of the Federal Communications Commission Rules and Regulations. 3.3 Response to Improper Use In the event District informs User that statistical analysis of System usage or other information indicates that User personnel may have inappropriately used the System, or may have violated standards, policies, procedures, rules, regulations or laws regarding proper operation of the System, or may have violated the provisions of this Agreement, User agrees to take immediate and appropriate investigative and corrective action to stop the violation and eliminate any reoccurrence, and to hold District harmless from any impacts associated therewith. 3.4 Subscriber Support Fees User agrees to maintain the subscriber devices used on the DTRS in accordance with requirements published by ODOT and the District. Users may also contract with the District for specific maintenance support if so desired under the terms outlined in Appendix B, Service Agreement — Radio System. 3.5 Provisional Use of User Purchased and Owned Radios and Radio Software User may utilize radios purchased and owned by User on the System provided that such radios, radio operating software versions, and accessories are specifically certified for use on the System by ODOT and the District. The User shall not access or use the system with non -certified radios and accessories or radios operating with non -certified software versions. 3.6 De -certification and Disposition of Obsolete Radios ODOT and/or District may de -certify radios, accessories, and/or radio operating software versions which become obsolete for reasons including but not limited to: become unsafe to use, impair System performance, are no longer supported by the radio manufacturer, are no longer supported by the District, exhibit substantial defects, exhibit performance deficiencies, impair implementation of System upgrades, become unreliable, become economically unfeasible to maintain, etc. Except in those cases affecting safety or performance impacts to the System, District will make reasonable efforts to avoid de -certification of radios, accessories, and software used by the User and to provide User with at least one Page 3 of 7 No. 2019-*** (1) year of advance notice prior to the effective date of radio or software version de -certification unless the equipment is causing problems to the system or other users De -certified radios or radios operating with de -certified software versions will not be allowed to access or use the System except by special permission of the District. The District will not be responsible for errant operation of the continued operation of de -certified radios or software. 3.7 Limitation of Radio Programming Radio Code Plug Programming Files and System Ka File Regardless of ownership, all radios on the System shall be programmed by the District or with permission from the District and the District shall retain an archived electronic copy of all radio code plug programming files and encryption keys files installed in all User radios covered under this Agreement. The configuration of all radio code plug programming files and radio templates shall be subject to approval by the District before the radios will be activated on the System. All radio code plug programming files, system key files and encryption key files are the sole property of the District, and contain information that is classified as security information and non-public government data. Unless specifically authorized by the District in writing, User may not directly or indirectly, permit any third party to: view, read, print, extract, copy, archive, edit, create, clone, transfer, tamper with or otherwise compromise the security of any radio code plug programming file, system key file or encryption key file for any radio on the System. If User learns that any party has improperly or fraudulently obtained radio code plug programming file information, system key file or encryption key file, User will immediately notify District of such an event. Additional information is contained in ODOT SSPP-05. Maintenance and programming of radios will be the responsibility of the User except for fleet map and code plug development, which will be the responsibility of the District. User may contract with the District for technical support as outlined in Appendix B. 3.8 Risk of Loss for Lost Stolen or Destroyed Radios User assumes full risk of loss for District provided radios assigned to User including but not limited to special event and repair loaner radios temporarily assigned to User, which are lost, stolen, physically un -repairable or destroyed for any reason except damage which occurs while the radios are in the possession of District. User will be invoiced, and agrees to pay for the replacement of any lost, stolen or destroyed radios. 3.9 Notification to District of Lost or Stolen Radios User agrees to immediately notify District of any missing, lost or stolen radios so the radio can be immediately deactivated on the system regardless of ownership. Page 4 of 7 No. 2019-*** 3.10 ContractorNendor Background Checks Any Vendor, User employee, Volunteer or other personnel with access to the system, programming, software, sites, and network shall be subject to a background check prior to being given access to the system programming, software, sites, or networks. Denial for access shall be as defined in the ODOT System Standards, Policy and Procedure SSPP 06. DISTRICT AGREES TO: 4.1 Furnishing of End User Radios District is available to assist User in selecting and ordering radios and accessories that are purchased directly by User for use on the System. However, the User retains the ultimate responsibility for the radio and accessories chosen for their application. Each User will assume responsibility for the cost of the purchase or lease of mobile, portable, and control station radios utilized by its organization and staff. Each User will assume responsibility for maintenance of mobile, portable, and control station radios, unless the User elects to contract the District for maintenance services. Equipment purchased by User must be compatible with the DTRS radio system infrastructure as approved by the District Deputy Director, Technical Services. 4.2 Radio Maintenance and Repair Services District will negotiate and administer a maintenance service agreement with a qualified service provider for the infrastructure equipment and/or provide maintenance services with District personnel. District will also negotiate a maintenance service agreement for the maintenance and repair of its mobile, portable, and control station radio equipment and/or provide maintenance services with District personnel. The agreement for services provided by District personnel is included in Appendix B. The District shall maintain its infrastructure equipment to the manufacturer's standards and on a timely basis to ensure reliable system operation. The District shall coordinate software updates and other system -wide activities with ODOT technical support staff. The District shall maintain an adequate number of trained staff to operate and maintain its equipment. 4.3 Allocation of System Resources The District will allocate to User, on a fair and non-discriminatory basis, Page 5 of 7 No. 2019-*** sufficient System resources including Talk Groups, Announcement Groups, Radio Unit IDs, Alias IDs, etc. in order to provide User with an equivalent grade of service afforded to other comparable System users. 4.4 Monitoring of User Talk Groups The District will periodically monitor talk groups allocated to User for User's internal use for system management purposes including but not limited to maintenance, troubleshooting, system performance assessments, unusual traffic gatterns (sudden jump in usage), policy and procedure compliance checks, etc. istrict monitoring of User's talk groups may occur at any time, for any duration, may be without notice and is subject to recording 4.5 Radio Operator. Trainin The District will provide User with access to train -the -trainer instruction to be used in training User's radio operators. The User shall be responsible for all end user training. The District will provide the User with any end user training information available to it from the manufacturers. 4.6 Database Administration The District will manage and administer the System database records containing the information related to inventory, configuration, programming history, software version control, radio IDs, service levels, statistical usage analysis, etc. for User's subscriber radios used on the System. 4.7 Radio Station Licenses The District shall hold and administer all FCC licenses on behalf of all users of the System. User shall operate as authorized mobile, portable and control station units under the District's FCC radio station licenses. 4.8 Partnership District is not, by virtue of this Agreement, a partner or joint venture with User in connection with activities carried out under this Agreement, and shall have no obligation with respect to User's debts or any other liabilities of each and every nature. ATTORNEY FEESNENUE 5.1 In the event an action, lawsuit or proceeding, including appeal therefrom, is brought for failure to observe any of the terms of this Agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own attorney fees, expenses, costs and disbursements for Page 6 of 7 No. 2019-*** _ --'( Commented [DD7]: Seems a bit invasive. Confidentiality ') concerns? -- 1 Commented [WMSR7] As it is a public radio system the administrator withholds the right to monitor/record individual talkgroups. This is required by some policies as well as troubleshooting. said action, lawsuit, proceeding or appeal. Venue for any such proceeding is in the Circuit Court for Deschutes County. ASSIGNMENT 6.1 This Agreement is binding on each party, its successors, assigns and authorized representatives, and, except as provided in this section, may not be assigned or transferred by either party. User may transfer its rights under this agreement to another public entity that assumes responsibility for services currently provided by User to the extent those rights are used in the provision of the services previously provided by the User. NO WAIVER OF CLAIMS 7.1 The failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by either party to that or any other provision of this Agreement. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 8.1 This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and may only be expressly modified in writing(s) signed by both parties. FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 SERVICE DISTRICT: SARA CROSSWHITE Interim Director DATE FOR User Agency: Name Title DATE Page 7 of 7 No. 2019-*** . \T E S r-, Service Level Agreement ' Radio Subscribers & Accessories This Services Addendum documents specific radio devices and peripherals support to be provided by Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District Technology Services (DC911) to (Customer) (Customer) under a subscriber maintenance plan for the monthly per radio price of $5 and per pager price of $2. Term: This Addendum Agreement begins on July 11t, 2019 and terminates on June 30th, 2020, unless otherwise extended or modified by written agreement of the parties. The Subscriber Maintenance Plan covers the following: o On-line helpdesk support & FAQ's o Yearly preventative maintenance inspections and alignments o Initial programming and 1 additional requested programming update ® All DC911 required programming included o Emergency troubleshooting and issue isolation o RMA support and shipping coordination o Ensure Customer technology complies with all local, state and federal requirements o Provide documentation as required by local state or federal rules o Asset tracking of all equipment/software o Assistance with the purchase, setup and installation of new/replacement hardware/software o Assistance with budget planning for equipment replacement programs DC911 will maintain the listed hardware & software under this agreement at the rate listed for the duration of the Agreement. All work to be conducted will occur at a mutually agreed location determined prior to service. Any unplanned in-house maintenance/repair will be billed at an hourly rate of $75 and costs occurred for material. If equipment is required to be sent to a manufacturer for repair, that real cost will be passed through to the Customer. Inventory: Subscriber Type Manufacturer Model Serial # User I® Firmware Pro ramming oiersion Version Portable Harris I XL -200 12345 BPD -DET i 8.1 V4 Revised 5/3/19 Once an agreement is in place no work by outside vendors should occur on the items listed above without the prior knowledge of DC911 Radio Staff. Period review: 07/01/2019 Previous Review Date: N/A Next Review Date: 07/01/2020 Revised 5/3/19