HomeMy WebLinkAboutHarper Bridge Citizen Committee UpdateCommunity Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils DIvIsion
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 8, 2011
TO: Board of County Commissioners <d)
FROM: Cynthia Smidt. Associate Ptann~
RE: Update on Harper Bridge Citizen Committee
Before the Board is an update by the Harper Bridge Citizen Committee regarding the goal of
establishing a public boat ramp in the general area of the unimproved Harper Bridge boat
launch area.
BACKGROUND
In 2007-08, a group of citizens tried to organize a public boat launch project (potential funding
by State Marine Board and overview by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) on the
northeast side of Harper Bridge. This property, however, is under the Sunriver Homeowners
Association ownership. Therefore, this citizen group needed approval by the HOA Board but
only found concern and opposition to the proposed boat launch idea. This location is still being
considered as a potential boat launch site.
Based on community concern regarding the existing unimproved boat launch at Harper Bridge,
interest in establishing a better site continued. Therefore, on October 29, 2009, the County
assisted in putting together the first meeting of interested parties and public agencies to discuss
the issues and options for an alternative boat launch. This group of stakeholders include over
25 individuals, private citizens, business owners, or public servants. At the October 2009
meeting, the group created a list of about seven sites to review as alternative locations for a
boat launch. The list included, for reference, existing private boat launch sites, in particular,
those found in the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites subdivision. Two public citizens,
Jerry Hubbard and David Ogden, stepped up to proceed with the next steps. Community
Development Department Planning staff, Cynthia Smidt and Will Groves, provided basic
information and maps to Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Ogden regarding the seven alternative sites.
Jerry Hubbard and David Ogden compiled information and reconvened a smaller stakeholder's
group on February 17, 2010 to review their findings. They provided a presentation, which
included the review of alternative the sites (including existing private sites) and review of their
self-created scoring matrix of each site. Agency staff (e.g. ODFW) to included additional
information to the scoring matrix such as wildlife impacts and wetland impacts. Community
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Development Department staff provided additional information on the scoring matrix and other
documentation.
Jerry Hubbard and David Ogden directed Planning staff to convene the larger stakeholders
group for a final overview of the alternative sites. At this July 27, 2011 meeting, they indicated
the most ideal alternative boat launch site was private property owned by Ron Bures (a.k.a. the
Brynwood property). The Brynwood site is located on the northwest side of Harper Bridge. Ron
Bures was present at the meeting and together with Keith D'Agostino, provided a brief overview
of their proposal. This proposal includes a RV park together with a public boat launch. At the
July 27 meeting, Nick Lelack informed the group that there is extensive land use issues involved
with the development of this site.1 The stakeholders group did not vote on the proposal.
Furthermore, it was not clear that the stakeholders believed the Brynwood site was the most
ideal alternative. However, Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Ogden would like to present their findings to
the Board at the September 28, 2011 work session. Planning staff indicated to the group that
written comments could be submitted prior to and shared with the Board in connection with Mr.
Hubbard and Mr. Ogden's presentation to the Board. These comments and additional
information are included.
Attachments
1. GIS maps illustrating existing and alternative boat launch sites
2. Harper Bridge Boat Launch -Alternative Sites
3. Deschutes River boat launch site review (scoring matrix)
4. Comments regarding the proposed Brynwood development
1 Mr. Bures, Mr. D'Agostino, and more recently, attorney Tia Lewis, have met with Planning Division staff
regarding the development of the Mr. Bures property.
Harper Bridge Alternatives Page 2 of 2
Public Boat Launch
Site Alternatives
South
o Public Boal Launch SileAU ... native
®
Public Boat Launch
Site Alternatives
North
o Public Boat launch Sile Alternative
®
Harper Bridge Boat Launch -Alternative Sites updated 11116109
Site Name Tax & tax lot Address Ownershi Comments
1 I Harper Bridge (north) 20-11-060-110
2 I Brynwood property 20-11-060-8200
3 20-11-07B-1200
Way (west) or
Road (east)
No address Sunriver Owners Association
17410 Spring River Rd Brynwood LLC
No address Property Owners of ORRHS Inc.
Sunriver Community Recreation (SUCR)
Sunriver Flood Plain (SUFP)
Flood Plain (FP)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
Rural Residential (RR10)
Flood Plain (FP)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Wildlife Area Combining (WA)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
Rural Residential (RR10)
Flood Plain (FP)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
* Pace Estates is a Cluster Development (see file nos. CU9028 and
TP90741). The subject property was platted as Open Space with a
restriction on building.
* Wetlands significant on majority of property.
* Owners would like to develop an RV park in conjunction with public
boat launch.
* Conservation Easement Recorded with County Clerk.
* Limited wetlands present.
Sunriver Resort Limited 4 20-11-07A-200 No address Partnership
20-11-18C-156005 No Address USA (US Forest Service)
Wildlife Area Combining (WA)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
Rural Residential (RR10)
Forest Use (F2)
Flood Plain (FP)
Sensitive Bird & Mammal Habitat (SBMH)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Wildl~e Area Combining (WA)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
Rural Residential (RR10)
Flood Plain (FP)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Wildlife Area Combining (WA)
* Property is together with and under the same ownership as the
Crosswater open space property on the east side of the river (same
as the land south of Harper Bridge for boat launching).
* Extensive wetlands present.
* Wetlands and Flood Plain on west side
* Coming from Satterlee (west). you will need to cross private lands
to get to public land.
• High bank on east side.
Rural Residential (RR 1 0)
Forest Use (F1)
Flood Plain (FP)
6 ISpring River Road 20-11-06-800 No address USA (US Forest Service) * No wetlands or flood plain in the southern region. Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Wildlife Area Combining (WA)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
Forest Use (F1)
Flood Plain (FP)
7 I Besson Boat Launch 19-11-00-100 No address for this
specific site. USA (US Forest Service) Open Space & Conservation (OS&C)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
* OS&C zone does not apply at the launch location.
* Wetlands may be present.
Wildl~e Area Combining (WA)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
Page 1 of 1
Deschutes River Boat Launch Site Review
2[:18/_2010
_.-
Scoring Points 1USFS Spring
1
Elsinore River Rd Besson
10L:-·"· .-~
I
8
10
-,10 ____ t
10, ~ 0, ~ 010
Possible Points
101 --------f
100
-~----r~--~---.
Scoring Points.
(Mal()
10
10' 1-
Connection to bike paths ___ ____~~
o
50!
~
0'
101
Swimming area !Q, -::I ~ I =I -1---::
scoring for the Public Needs and Public Wants sections were conducted by David Ogden and Jerryf-------+
HUDoara, the selected citizens to lead the boat launch alternatives project.
scoring for the ODFW section was Jack Williamson and staff from the Bend office of ODFW.
Smidt and William Groves.
-
Solar Drive
Park
-+-----'+1-
-----+_ ----f-
----"-11----.--1--
-----i-----i-----------t-
M;;,M4We4Uii\Q gt,. QQ #t L!QJlMt Q -...... g .... ___________<____
crDFW
Cynthia Smidt
From: Nancy E Doran <nancy.e.doran@state.or.us>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17,201111:27 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Cc: HARRINGTON Bethany; Michael Harrington
Subject: RE: Harper Bridge Boat Launch Alternative -Stakeholders Meeting July 27 at 2pm
Hi again,
Mike Harrington and I met after the stakeholders' meeting and here are a few comments that we wanted to make;
• The current option to develop the Brynwood property would displace fish and wildlife and have a significant
impact on the wetland in that area (2-3 acres is what Keith specifically mentioned). With this being spotted frog
habitat, there are concerns and issues that USFWS should be weighing in on with regards to this sensitive
species. ODFW is concerned as well and even if the final plan proposed let impact, we still feel the impact would
be significant.
• Development of the Brynwood property would encourage increased use and potentially a higher volume of
motor boat users. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the increase in motor boat use may contribute to
erosion along the riverbank, both upstream and downstream of the launch site. There is also minimal
enforcement so that be an issue as well.
• Removing the Brynwood property from the existing conservation easement may set a very dangerous precedent
and one that we are very concerned about. This property is in an easement for a reason and we would like it to
remain that way, for the sake of the resources in the area.
• It is very difficult to mitigate for wetland loss, even with the dollar amount that DSL calculates as the cost for
mitigation per acre. You can never replace what was lost to the same degree.
• ODFW does not want to be held liable for any safety Issues that arise as a result of developing the Brynwood
property. We realize there are safety concerns now, but there will be different concerns if this project is
completed. We know there are traffic flow studies to be done, as well as other studies and analyses, but we just
wanted to state this for the record.
• There are other options available with potential funding and partnerships for development. Besson Day Use is
one of the options and although it is not in the same immediate area as Harper Bridge, it is only two miles from
the main road, not too far from Harper Bridge in terms of river miles, is already designated as public land, has
existing parking, pit toilet, access and a primitive boat ramp and is an area that both ODFW and the USFS would
like to pursue.
I hope these comments are helpful. Thanks for the opportunity to provide comment.
Nancy
Cynthia Smidt
From: HARRINGTON Bethany <bethany.harrington@state.or.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06,2011 10:03 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: RE: Brynnwood property comment
Hi Cynthia,
I typed that message via an i-phone so I corrected my errors I could not see on the phone below ....
Thank you, Bethany
From: Cynthia Smidt [mailto:Cynthia.Smidt@deschutes.org]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 12:04 PM
To: 'HARRINGTON Bethany'
Subject: RE: Brynnwoocl property comment
Thanks Bethany.
cynthia
From: HARRINGTON Bethany [mailto:bethany.harrington@state.or.us]
Sent: Friday, September 02,201111:10 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Cc: bethany.harrington@state.or.us
Subject: Brynnwoocl property comment
Cynthia,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment to the Board of County Commissioners. Based on available information and two sik
visits to the Brynnwood property, it appears there are jurisdictional wetlands and waterways located on the site. If more than 50 cubic
yards of removal or fill will occur within jurisdictional waters, a removal-fill permit will be required. As part of the permitting
process, the applicant will have to demonstrate how the proposed location and design will first avoid then minimize impacts to waters
ofthe state with mitigation required for all unavoidable impacts. There were several other sites/designs proposed during the July 27
meeting that appeared to have less impact than the Brynnwood property and so we would ask these be explored as alternatives during
the permitting process.
I have shared the requirements and risk associated with applying for a removal-fill permit for the Brynnwood property with both the
developer and landowner. Thank you again for the opportunity to further comment. Please feel free to call or email if you would like
more information regarding permitting the Brynnwood property.
Sincerely,
Bethany Harrington
Resource Coordinator
Department of State Lands
1
fit SUNRIVER OW"'E~ ASSOCIATI 0lIl
MAINTAINING SUNRIVER AS A PREMIER RESIDENTIAL AND RESORT COMMUNITY PROTECTING
AND ENHANCING ITS QUALITY OF LIFE, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND PROPERlY VALUES.
August 29, 2011 RECEIVED
Cynthia Smidt SEP 01 2011
Deschutes County Community Development
117 N.W.lafayette Ave.
Deschutes County CDD
Bend, Oregon 97701
Reference: Harper Bridge Boat launch Site Alternative
Dear Ms. Smidt:
As Central Oregon has gained in popularity, access to a major southern Deschutes County resource, the
Deschutes River, has become increasingly difficult. The Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) acknowledges this
situation and has joined with other south Deschutes County stakeholders and interested parties in seeking a
solution for an access site near the Harper Bridge. SROA wishes to commend the task force leadership and
Deschutes County staff for their efforts to date. However at this time, it is apparent to SROA that a significant
amount of study remains to be accomplished before any course of direction can be supported.
The task force has been diligent in identifying possible river access points for public launching of
watercraft both upstream and downstream from Harper Bridge. Although the report heard on July 27 gave
explanation of the merits and potential obstacles for each of the identified access points, the evaluation process
appears to be lacking in substantive detail such as specific requirements that may come from other regulatory
agencies. Without an understanding of agency compliance requirements and the results of neighborhood
impact studies, SROA believes that it is premature to prioritize any of the candidate sites.
We understand that the focus of the task force is now being directed towards a singular potential site
northwest of Harper Bridge, i.e. the Brynwood property. As one ofthe proximate neighbors, Sunriver will be
directly impacted by several aspects of this plan, and our owners must be given a comprehensive report on the
Brynwood proposal before a meaningfulle"el of support can be determined.
SROA underscores the importance of having a more thorough evaluation of this matter before moving
forward with any specific proposal, and reaffirms its commitment to the County in its effort to establish better
river access in our region.
Sunriver Owners Association
57455 ABBOT DRIVE • P.O. BOX 3278 • SUNRIVER,OREGON 97707 • (541)593-2411 • TOLL FREE (888) 284-6639 • FAX (541) 593-5669
www.sunriverowners.org
Cynthia Smidt
From: jay bowerman <jbowerman@bendbroadband.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01,201111:42 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Brynwood project
Thank you (and Paul) for taking the time to update me on the status of the Brynwood property.
As I indicated briefly while at the counter, my principal concern lies with the wetland. As a field biologist
deeply involved in studying the Oreogn Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa), I am concerned for developments that
adversely impact wetlands that may serve is either foraging habitat or refuges along movement corridors. The
particular wetland that is included in the Brynwood property meets both of those criteria. Until recently, I would
have considered it unlikely to find spotted frogs utilizing this site. I had to revise that opinion, however, when I
was asked by a nearby property owner to visit his property to assess impacts to a similar but less susitable
wetland less than a mile upriver from this site. I was surprised when I found a juvenile spotted frog within my
first 10 minutes on the site. Other researchers and I have routinely found that visual encounter surveys of this
species detect less than 10% of the frogs at a given site within an hour of survey time, and for many sites
multiple surveys of a single site are sometimes necessary to detect any of the frogs even when known to be
present.
My opinion is that this site likely serves as a seasonal refuge for OSF. The presence of introduced predatory fish
(mostly Brown Trout) in the Deschutes has likely been a major contributing factor to the decline of OSF along
the corridor of the Deschutes. Still, the area from Sunriver south to Wickiup holds perhaps the most extensive
metapopulation of OSF, thanks to the remnant oxbow ponds and marshes of the Little Deschutes. On the main
river, it is the marsh wetlands such as both upstream and downstream of Harper Bridge that can serve as active
season foraging sites and migration refuges for OSF, and providing stepping stone sites that allow gene flow
between individual populations.
My concern for the Brynwood wetland is two-fold.
First, any kind of high-intensity development, such as a Recreational Vehicle Park, dramatically increases the
numbers of people, especially children, likely to enter and alter the wetland, especially during the summer
months, the same season that this site is most biologically active.
Second, extensive paving and/or the presence of large numbers of motor vehicles inevitably contributes to
runoff containing petroleum products, detergents, and solvents, all of which are potentially damaging to
sensitive wetland species, most especially amphibians.
Please keep me informed on the progress of planning for this parcel.
Jay Bowerman
541 593-8302
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Jeff Wieland <wilyj8@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 201111:18AM
To: Pete Gustavson
Cc: Cynthia Smidt; s.jeffries@fs.fed.us; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone; Jeff Trant; John
Vanlandingham; Bob Russell; Chris Kell; Carl Jansen; Dave and Becky Wilkins; Rick and Sue
Braithwaite; larry and Caroil Malcom; Vacation Discover Sunriver Vacation Rentals
Subject: Harper Bridge launch alternatives; proposed Brynwood RV Park
Attachments: Harper Bridge -Brynwood RVv1.0.docx
Good Morning Pete
Here's the info that I promised. Let me know if! can provide additional info or assistance.
Jeff Wieland
541-280-3237
Guide, Fly and Field Outfitters
Shop: 541-318-1616
www.flyandfield.com
See www.deschutespassages.com for Chinook, Sockeye, & Steelhead restoration info.
1
08-19-2011, v1.0jw
Background:
1. Harper Bridge launch: No question that there is a safety issue for the
people of Deschutes County and a liability issue for
SRlSROAlCrosswater. These need to be addressed.
2. Hubbard/Ogden have proposed re-zoning 8.6 acres ("The Brynwood
Property) on the SW side/downstream of Harper Bridge (directly
across from Sunriver) to an 87 space RV Park. The property was
originally zoned R 10, but a request by the previous owner was
approved years ago to permit three 2 acre homesites with 2.6 acres
of riparian buffer. Brynwood is requesting a rezone to allow the 87
space RV Park. In exchange, Brynwood will build and maintain (so
he says) a double launch ramp (power & non-powered) with
changing rooms, restrooms, and parking. He intends to connect
bathrooms and the RV Park to the Boondocks sewer system across
Spring River Rd. You can dress it up, but the "free" launch ramp is a
bribe to secure the innappropriate zoning change.
Alternatives:
1. Any alternative public launch area must be conditional on closing the
current, informal Harper Bridge launches on both sides of the road.
Otherwise, locals will just continue to use it notwithstanding the safety
and liability issues.
2.Besson Camp: Already a USFS Day Use area with a launch ramp.
The existing ramp has current and upstream logs, works but is not ideal,
and should be left in place. There is a "slough" connected to the Day
Use Area upstream of the existing ramp that would be ideal for
launching and retrieving non-powered watercraft. It would simply need a
ramp. There is space for changing rooms in the Day Use area as well
as picnic tables, and a tlplay area" that just needs some TLC. The
access road (Rd 41) off Spring River Rd is passable, but realisticall, it
would need improvement. I envision gravel, something like the road out
the the Sparks Lake launch.
3.Lunar Dr: This existing ramp may be within the boundaries of one of
the nearby HOAs. It's unknown if they would support public use. The
home on the upstream side uses the launch road as their driveway but
are probably not entitled to do so. The county apparently owns the 2
acres downstream and adjacent to the existing launch ramp. I have
been told but have not confirmed that it was originally intended as a
park/play area. It's clearly a safer alternative to both the impromptu
Harper Bridge launch & the Brynwood alternative. The wild card is
understandable neighborhood opposition.
4. Existing Harper Bridge launch: SROA could give up some of the
fence line and allow construction of a proper parking and launch facility.
This could be viewed as the responsible thing to do as it mostly benefits
their guests and boat rental concession. They already have the
infrastructure in place as far as hosting public activities including a
sewer system, police force, fire dept., insurance policies, etc.
Why SRQA should formally & publically oppose the zoning change:
1. The proposed RV Park is a separate issue from the need for a
safer public launch area. Although Brynwood has the right to
request the rezoning, he is not entitled to either the change or a
profit on his speculative land purchase. Building the currently
authorized 3 homes would have impacts but, IMHO, would neither
completely disrupt the deer and elk migration route nor present the
noise & nuisance of essentially paving 86 acres. County
Community Development would still have say over the specific
plans for each home, including buffers and river access.
2. The RV Park will create significant noise and light issues for
Sunriver residents. Sound carries long distances at night along the
river, and SR will surely be subjected to the nearly continuous drone
of generators, barking dogs, and lights. Then there is the inevitable
trash, etc.
3. The re-zoning of 8.6 precious riparian acres to RV Park is both
inappropriate and completely unacceptable. Approving the request
would not only violate the county's own zoning standards, but would
also be a gross betrayal of the public trust and ongoing efforts for a
healthier Upper Deschutes.
4.Those of us that regularly drive Spring River Rd do not believe that
the Brynwood Launch alternative would be safer, but that it would
simple change from a pedestrian safety issue to a cross-traffic safety
issue.
5. The mostly paved Brynwood RV Park would create surface run-off
that would surely include oil and household chemicals. Leaching it
through our porous soil won't filter the contaminents.
6. The proposed power boat launch is incompatible with the 990/0+
rafts, tubes, kayaks, and canoes. If you buildladveritise it, they will
come. My personal observations (as a power boat owner) are that
the 5 mph -No Wake rule is largely ignored and that enforcement is
almost non-existant. Power boat traffic is both more common and a
hazard near the Solar Dr launch.
6. This project will need EPA approval due to wetland and flood
zone impact. EPA will not consider any mitigation such as a boat
launch that further impacts wetlands. In fact, they should require an
Environmental Impact Study, which also would need review and
approval by ODFW.
7. It is ludicrous that the developer offers the Boondocks septic
system as a valid receptor to 80 trailer sites. The Boondocks system
was designed and approved for Boondocks and certainly cannot
arbitrarily be considered as useful capacity to accept 80 trailers and
also the added restrooms for the boat launch. The trailer park I boat
launch needs to have a system approved on it's own side of the road
and that is highly unlikely given that the property is 90% flood plain.
8. The request to change RR-10 zoning to a commercial use will
need active opposition. Change of zoning is of no benefit to anyone
living on either side of the river. How would this be any different that
building a 7-11 at the end of Cooper Dr.? Once the zoning change
has been achieved there is no stopping further development of the
site on further applications.
9. There are 3 other zoning overlays that require approval in addition
to the RR-10, Landscape Management, Airport Safety, and Wildlife
Management. Each of these will be scrutinized in a planning review,
and I don't see how the county can whitewash 4 zoning overlays in
favor of a launch ramp mitigation offer to build a RV park.
10. County traffic engineering will also be reviewing this proposal.
There is no guarantee that they will approve the entrance I exiting of
are probably not entitled to do so. The county apparently owns the 2
acres downstream and adjacent to the existing launch ramp. I have
been told but have not confirmed that it was originally intended as a
park/play area. It's clearly a safer alternative to both the impromptu
Harper Bridge launch & the Brynwood alternative. The wild card is
understandable neighborhood opposition.
4. Existing Harper Bridge launch: SROA could give up some of the
fence line and allow construction of a proper parking and launch facility.
This could be viewed as the responsible thing to do as it mostly benefits
their guests and boat rental concession. They already have the
infrastructure in place as far as hosting public activities including a
sewer system, police force, fire dept., insurance policies, etc.
Why SROA should formally & publically oppose the zoning change:
1. The proposed RV Park is a separate issue from the need for a
safer public launch area. Although Brynwood has the right to
request the rezoning, he is not entitled to either the change or a
profit on his speculative land purchase. Building the currently
authorized 3 homes would have impacts but, IMHO, would neither
completely disrupt the deer and elk migration route nor present the
noise & nuisance of essentially paving 86 acres. County
Community Development would still have say over the specific
plans for each home, including buffers and river access.
2. The RV Park will create significant noise and light issues for
Sunriver residents. Sound carries long distances at night along the
river, and SR will surely be subjected to the nearly continuous drone
of generators, barking dogs, and lights. Then there is the inevitable
trash, etc.
3. The re-zoning of 8.6 precious riparian acres to RV Park is both
inappropriate and completely unacceptable. Approving the request
would not only violate the county's own zoning standards, but would
also be a gross betrayal of the public trust and ongoing efforts for a
healthier Upper Deschutes.
4.Those of us that regularly drive Spring River Rd do not believe that
the Brynwood Launch alternative would be safer, but that it would
simple change from a pedestrian safety issue to a cross-traffic safety
issue.
5. The mostly paved Brynwood RV Park would create surface run-off
that would surely include oil and household chemicals. Leaching it
through our porous soil won't filter the contaminents.
6. The proposed power boat launch is incompatible with the 99%+
rafts, tubes, kayaks, and canoes. If you build/adveritise it, they will
come. My personal observations (as a power boat owner) are that
the 5 mph -No Wake rule is largely ignored and that enforcement is
almost non-existant. Power boat traffic is both more common and a
hazard near the Solar Dr launch.
6. This project will need EPA approval due to wetland and flood
zone impact. EPA will not consider any mitigation such as a boat
launch that further impacts wetlands. In fact, they should require an
Environmental Impact Study, which also would need review and
approval by ODFW.
7. It is ludicrous that the developer offers the Boondocks septic
system as a valid receptor to 80 trailer sites. The Boondocks system
was designed and approved for Boondocks and certainly cannot
arbitrarily be considered as useful capacity to accept 80 trailers and
also the added restrooms for the boat launch. The trailer park / boat
launch needs to have a system approved on it's own side of the road
and that is highly unlikely given that the property is 90% flood plain.
8. The request to change RR-10 zoning to a commercial use will
need active opposition. Change of zoning is of no benefit to anyone
living on either side of the river. How would this be any different that
building a 7-11 at the end of Cooper Dr.? Once the zoning change
has been achieved there is no stopping further development of the
site on further applications.
9. There are 3 other zoning overlays that require approval in addition
to the RR-10, Landscape Management, Airport Safety, and Wildlife
Management. Each of these will be scrutinized in a planning review,
and I don't see how the county can whitewash 4 zoning overlays in
favor of a launch ramp mitigation offer to build a RV park.
10. County traffic engineering will also be reviewing this proposal.
There is no guarantee that they will approve the entrance / exiting of
the number of proposed vehicle trips created by use of the 2
proposed facilities. 3 entrances onto Spring River Rd are proposed,
although Brynwood has stated that he has fallback positions with
fewer RV spaces and entrances onto Spring River Rd.
11. This proposal does not solve the goal of creating a 1-2 hour float
trip. The launch location is essentially unchanged and there is no
provision for a satisfactory public take out location before the Benham
Falls site.
12. Building a public boat launch on private property is bad in so
many ways. Ownership has the potential to default on tax payments,
maintenance, insurance and security of the stream banks and
surrounding area.
Submitting Comments to Deschutes County NL T 9-2-2011 :
Jeff Wieland
541-280-3237
Cynthia Smidt
From: Bev Barmore <bevfritz@peak.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 20118:34 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: 87 space trailerpark at Harper Bridge on Spring River Rd.
Please add our names to the strong objectors to this trailer park south of Harper Bridge. We have owned a home for 30
years on Spring River itself...46868 Spring River Drive and regular hike out to the point where Spring River meets the
Deschutes and all over that wonderful and still wild piece of property. Elk take refuge in there in winter and spring ....deer
all year ducks etc. We drive Spring River Road everyday and are horrified about the proposal to build the trailer
court. We can find a better place for a launch ramp with the trailer park. And yes we do need another launch ramp on the
upper Deschutes, but not attached to a huge trailer park .....yuk ........Thanks .....Fred and Beverly Barmore
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Howard Finck <hfinck@chamberscable.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25,20112:10 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Harper Bridge Boat Launch alternatives
These are my objections to the vacation of the Harper Bridge site and the construction of a large boat launching area with
'amenities';
1. Free vs fee. We've hand launched for 25 to 30 years now, just again twice this week. We don't intend to start paying
fees for hand launch and will look for other alternatives. The schematic in the file screams 'fees are coming'. Not for us they
aren't.
2. Alleged Harper Bridge dangers. We've never had a close call with the traffic. A single vehicle doesn't seem to be at
risk, in our judgement. We generally drop one or the other off, and pick up where the river runs close to our home. Even at
our age, after well over 100 launches, we've never experienced risk in or near the water edge. It couldn't be easier to get into
either one of our kayaks or the canoe at Harper Bridge. It appears to be set up as a danger to push agreement on the other
plan (the one that is the obvious choice) and the 'amenities' noted. It feels like a project designed to make money at our
expense. Getting in and out of the present dirt parking areas is no more of a challenge than exiting hundreds of drives onto a
45 mph road (like 3rd, or 27th, or ...). No tickets, no accidents, no close calls. Just usual driver caution.
3. Boats. We have both an outboard and a jet boat that are legal on the Deschutes, but never have touched that
water. Here's why: slow speeds result in big wakes that erode banks and more importantly, imperil the paddlers (the novices,
particularly). Since we live next to the river, and one of us walks it almost daily, we're familiar with the wakes, the substantial
amount of floating traffic-particularly by the tourists (increasing the risk), and the erosion of the banks. I would wonder
whether the fish fry would also be imperiled by the erosion and the added petrochemicals. The schematic looks less like a
better alternative than now, and rather, a way to launch more trailered boats with motors. ,just don't think the report is very
forthcoming in the developers' agendas for fees and water traffic.
, strongly believe the risk inherent in more motorboats on that section of the water greatly exceeds any risk imputed to the
Harper Bridge hand launch site.
I have dealt with wetlands issues before retirement, and will follow the implementation plans closely; perhaps things are more
easily complied with in Oregon.
Howard Finck
28 Siskin lane
Sunriver
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Julie Glover <mackinacspirit@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26,2011 8:33 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Cc: Chris Kell; Jeff Glover
Subject: Opporsition to proposed Brynwood RV Park
Dear Cynthia,
As homeowners in the Spring River area, we strongly oppose the proposed Brynwood RV Park near
Harper Bridge on the Deschutes River. The reasons are numerous:
• Unacceptable noise, light, traffic and natural habitat disturbance;
• Wetlands destruction;
• Deschutes river pollution from RV runoff and possible sewage overflows or seepage;
• Increased powerboat traffic, causing more danger to non-powered watercraft (especially
kayaks, canoes and rafts);
• Inadequate sewage capacity if connected to Boondocks sewer system;
• Increased traffic hazards caused by huge increases in traffic on Spring River Rd.;
• Existing adequate river access at Besson Camp and further south on the Deschutes;
• Destruction of our peaceful, natural environment in the Spring River area ...
I could go on and on!! Please deny this ridiculous request.
Sincerely,
Julie and Jeff Glover
Besson Road residents
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Jens Jorgensen <gDorg@mac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11 :35 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Subject Proposed Rezoning of the Brynwood Property at the Harper Bridge Site
Cynthia Smith
Deschutes County Development
Subject Proposed Rezoning of the Brynwood Property at the Harper Bridge Site
As home owners for more that 25 years in the Sunriver/Spring River area we are strongly opposed to the
proposed rezoning of the Brynwood Property on the SW side downstream from the Harpers Bridge. For years
we have enjoyed paddling down the Deschutes from up-river spots to either Harpers Bridge or our property on
the Spring River. The development of a RV park on such an environmentally sensitive property would do
irreparable harm to the river and the wetlands that is and integral part of the aquatic system for maintaining the
health of the Deschutes river and the wildlife that depends on it. Fish and Wildlife, the Forest Service and the
County, in cooperation with the residence of the river system, have made great strides in recent year to improve
wildlife restoration, preservation ofland, and the river system. The RV development would directly fly in the
face of all the work carried out over to preserve the resources. In addition, the RV Development would result in
a substantial increase in the pollution and nitrite load in the Deschutes River regardless of whatever attempt to
address and limit pollutants.
In addition, the proposed development will significantly impact the traffic and safety issues on the stretch of
road at Harpers Bridge. Currently, the safety of boaters parking at the bridge is an issue and is clearly not
improved with RV development regardless of the developer's promise of additional parking and the boat ramp.
Previous attempts by Sunriver to develop a minor off-street parking and small boat ramp for canoes and light
boats came to naught but should, in our opinion, be reconsidered along with road signs that declares "Congested
Area" and limits speed to 25 MPH during the summer moths.
Please urge the Deschutes County to deny this proposed rezoning as it is terrible idea.
Glenda and Jens Jorgensen
17090 Cooper Drive,
Bend
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Bob Russell <cprmtr@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30,2011 6:23 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Proposed RV Park at Harper Bridge
As a long-time (20+ year) property owner on Spring River (17050 Wright Point Way), I am writing to express my very
strong opposition to the proposed RV Park at Harper Bridge. This pleasant semi-rural neighborhood has enough vehicle
and boat traffic as is, and the Harper Bridge location is far too sensitive a marsh and river area to impose the substantial
additional human and vehicle demands of an RV park. Moreover, there is no need for either RV spaces or river access at
the location, as other locations are already available nearby.
Please do not let this RV Park receive approval from the County.
Robert Russell
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Kathy Halford <kjhalford@wkpyc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30,20116:32 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Cc: carlj@searchna.com; thal@pacbell.net
Subject: Harper Bridge RV Park
Dear Ms. Smidt: My husband and I reside at 17014 Cooper Drive and regularly travel Spring River Road past Harper's
Bridge. We are deeply concerned about the increased traffic and potential for accidents in the event this project is
approved. In addition, I would think that there should be some concern for the preservation of open spaces along this
route. There are plenty of other areas in the County and adjacent to Sunriver for the building of an RV park. Kathryn and
Hugh Halford
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Cynthia Smidt
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:26 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Harper Bridge RV
Phone call received 8/31/11
Anne Bialous
17060 Wright Point Way (20-10-01D-571)
She expressed opposition of the possible RV park near Harper Bridge location. Traffic will be difficult.
CyJlt.thiP Smidt
Desclilutes couV\,t!j covv-vv-uV\,Lt!j Developvv-eV\,t
11:7 NW UlfCl!jette Ave.
1Se~, oregoV\, 37701
PliloV\,e: (541) 317-3150
FCI)(: (541) 3f?5-17G4
EVV-Cla: ctJ v\'tIilLCls@co.ciescVtutes..or.us
webs[te: Vtttp://VvWW.co.ciescVtutes.or.uslccicV
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. Ifyou are not the intended
recipient or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please reply to sender indicating that fact
and delete the copy you received In addition, you should not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the
information without first receiving authorization from the sender. Thank you.
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: cheryl griffiths <cheryl.g@mac.com>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:58 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: proposal for 87 RV lots
Dear Cynthia,
Both my husband and I are appalled that this could even be considered! The area under consideration is a
lovely meadow, a part of the Elk migration path, and orne to numerous birds and other small wildlife.
An RV Park in that area would make it an eyesore and destroy the ambience of the river by Harper's Bridge.
We just want those who are making the decision on this project to know that we are unequivocally against it.
Best Regards,
Cheryl Griffiths
Kenney Griffiths
cheryl.g@mac.com
541-593-2070 house
541-641-0350 mobile
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Borovicka, Carla <cborovic@lesley.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 02,20115:28 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Comment on Brynwood RV Park
Hello Cynthia,
I am adding my comments regarding the proposed Brynwood RV Park:
I am opposed to the re-zoning of the Brynwood Property for the following reasons:
1. The Harper Bridge launch area issue is a separate public safety and public recreation site issue and should be
addressed independently by Deschutes County Community Development.
2. Spring River Rd. is currently unsafe for foot and bicycle traffic and proposing an 87 space RV Park needs
further review of the consideration for bike paths and challenges with local and tourist traffic.
3. The negative impacts on wetlands, water quality, fish and wildlife habitats do not appear to be well thought
out or supported with sound mitigation efforts. For example, connecting launch area bathrooms and RV Park to
the Boondocks sewer system seem unrealistic.
I plan to attend public meetings so please keep me informed of dates.
Carla
Carla Borovicka
Lesley University
Northwest Regional Director
AK, HI, ID, MT, OR, WA
866-600-3245
cborovic@lesley.edu
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: anthony FARINA <captnkelp@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday. September 02.2011 9:40 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: RV Park at Harper Bridge.
Hi Cynthia,
I live on Sringriver and from a safety stand point it is a bad idea. I am opposing the propose 87 space RV
Park at Harper Bridge for two reasons. #1 Having RV 's enter and exit at that point would only add to already
dangerous spot. The Bridge is so over used already in the summer time both from the road side and from the
river side. So to add more danger to the problem is not what we need. We need help in controlling and
minimize the in pack that is already happening from the over use. #2 On a good summer weekend it is wall to
wall people on the river already. It is over capacity already. And it is hard enough to clean up the river now
from the over use, let alone add more to the over load. There must be better use for the money in these hard
times. Or at lease a better spot.
Yours Truly
Anthony E. Farina III
Member ofthe
Springriver Fire and Safety Ass. and the UDRC
1
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
360 SW8Qnd Street. Suite 400, Send, OR 9n02 t Phone 541.749.4044 t Fax 541.330.11531 WWW.schwabe.COOl
TIAM. LEWIS
Oregon
Dir«t Line: 541-749...w48
E-Mail: tlewiS@Schwabe.c:om
September 8, 2011
c/o Cynthia Smidt
Deschutes County Planning Dept
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Harpers Bridge Boat Launch Relocation
Re: Brynwood Site
Dear Commissioners:
Our ollice represents Brynwood, LLC, owner of the property locatedjust west of the
existing Harper's Bridge boat launch and across the street from the Spring River commercial
plaza. We encourage you to support the Brynwood site for the relocation of the existing
Harper's Bridge boat launch.
We are surc you are aware of the significant safety and capacity reasons to relocate the
existing launch. The deVelopment proposal offered by the Brynwood site provides the best
solutions to the problems created by the existing launch and can provide additional positive
community and public benefits. The owner of the Brynwood site has offered to develop and
dedicate the boat launch to the public as a part of an adjacent motorcoach development in a
public-private partnership that offers the public benefit without the expense of public dollars.
The attributes that make the Brynwood development proposal the best site for the public boat
launch include:
• adequate area for safe parking ofcars and boat trailers;
• safe and convenient vehicular access from Spring River Road and internal access
area to provide loop maneuvering and prevent backing onto public roadways;
• safe access to the river for kids and families -staging area to inflate rafts and
power sources;
• public restrooms and changing facilities, family changing areas;
Portland, OR 503.222.9981 I Salem. OR 503.5404262 I Bend, OR 541.149.04044
5ealtle. WA 206.622.1711 I Vancouver, WA 360.694.7551 I Washington, DC 202.488.4302
PDXlI22964/17907IlTMLlB046469.1
c/o Cynthia Smidt
Deschutes County Planning Dept
September 8, 201 ]
Page 2
• no traffic through neighborhoods;
• across from commercial area in an already developed area -little impact to
residential properties;
• opportunity for multi-use path along Spring River Road frontage to serve
demonstrated community need and address pedestrian safety;
• easy to gate for after hours closure;
• public-private partnership development in conjunction with motorcoach park will
provide funds for boat launch development. on-site presence of employees and
security;
• ideal location on the river between put ins and take outs to allow for reasonable
float limes (under two hours);
• presence of wetlands and riparian vegetation can provide opportunities tbr
creation of interpretive signs, riparian and wetland enhancement through
mitigation programs and public education opportunities for river users and guests
in the area from outside the region~ and
• undeveloped site provides opportunity to work with stakeholders to determine
type/nature of facilities and types of boats to accommodate.
The Brynwood site was chosen by the stakeholders as the preferred site. It also has the
support of neighboring property owners. Attached are three letters from: 1) Larry Browning,
President Discover Sunriver Vacation Rentals; 2) Peter Knaupp; and 3) Rich Hadley, owner of
Spring River Plaza. Additionally. we have met with representatives of the LaPine Parks and
Recreation Department, the Division of State Lands, Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife
and the Land Conservation and Development Department to determine the regulatory
requirements for the entitlements.
As you know, many of the communities located in this area are planned communities
with private roads and private facilities. Yet, the area attracts the public because of its beauty
and abundant natural resources. As the area has continued to develop over the years, there is
increased pressure on the existing facilities and a significant need for a safe boat launch which is
open to the public and has adequate, safe facilities to serve them. There have been conditions of
past development approvals and many discussions about a public boat launch in this area but
there is still no adequate, safe launch which is open to the public. The pUblic/private partnership
offered by the Brynwood site is the best alternative to meet this long-standing need,
PDXl 12296411 7907 !fTMUl!046469.1
t I
clo Cynthia Smidt
Deschutes County Planning Dept
September 8, 2011
Page 3
We are committed to working through the land use and regulatory hurdles to permit the
site and believe, with local government support, we can obtain the necessary entitlements. We
ask you to support this site for the public boat launch relocation. Thank you.
I ~ ~" /Sing.erely. .." /
,v"AA~~'#'" /'dA""~ <_<I'"
j/--:.
Tia M. Lewis
TML:nmp
PDXlI 22%411 7907 IfrMU8046469.I
Cynthia Smidt
From: Howard Finck <hfinck@chamberscable.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25,20112:10 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Harper Bridge Boat Launch alternatives
These are my objections to the vacation of the Harper Bridge site and the construction of a large boat launching area with
'amenities':
1. Free vs fee. We've hand launched for 25 to 30 years now, just again twice this week. We don't intend to start paying
fees for hand launch and will look for other alternatives. The schematic in the file screams 'fees are coming'. Not for us they
aren't.
2. Alleged Harper Bridge dangers. We've never had a close call with the traffic. A single vehicle doesn't seem to be at
risk, in our judgement. We generally drop one or the other off, and pick up where the river runs close to our home. Even at
our age, after well over 100 launches, we've never experienced risk in or near the water edge. It couldn't be easier to get into
either one of our kayaks or the canoe at Harper Bridge. It appears to be set up as a danger to push agreement on the other
plan (the one that is the obvious choice) and the 'amenities' noted. It feels like a project designed to make money at our
expense. Getting in and out of the present dirt parking areas is no more of a challenge than exiting hundreds of drives onto a
45 mph road (like 3rd, or 27th, or...). No tickets, no accidents, no close calls. Just usual driver caution.
3. Boats. We have both an outboard and a jet boat that are legal on the Deschutes, but never have touched that
water. Here's why: slow speeds result in big wakes that erode banks and more importantly, imperil the paddlers (the novices,
particularly). Since we live next to the river, and one of us walks it almost daily, we're familiar with the wakes, the substantial ,
amount of floating traffic-particularly by the tourists (increasing the risk), and the erosion of the banks. I would wonder
whether the fish fry would also be imperiled by the erosion and the added petrochemicals. The schematic looks less like a i
better alternative than now, and rather, a way to launch more trailered boats with motors. I just don't think the report is very
forthcoming in the developers' agendas for fees and water traffic.
I strongly believe the risk inherent in more motorboats on that section of the water greatly exceeds any risk imputed to the
Harper Bridge hand launch site.
I have dealt with wetlands issues before retirement, and will follow the implementation plans closely; perhaps things are more
easily complied with in Oregon.
Howard Finck
28 Siskin Lane
Sunriver
!
I
t
I
i
I
1
\
J
I