Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComp Plan UpdateCommunity Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Memorandum # 3 TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner and Staff DATE: June 15, 2009 MEETING: June 24, 2009 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update BACKGROUND This memo will inform the Board of County Commissioners about the status of the Comprehensive Plan update. Deschutes County is updating the adopted comprehensive plan, the set of goals and policies that guide land conservation and development. These goals and policies are developed from an analysis of existing conditions/trends and community input and must comply with Statewide Planning Goals and regulations. Outlined below is a summary of what has been accomplished since the last report in January 2009 as well as a brief overview of the next steps in this process. COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS, STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS The Planning Commission is acting as a Steering Committee for the plan update, reviewing the existing chapters of the comprehensive plan and hearing from the public on what other policies couli be considered as part of the plan. The sessions held from January on are described below. This public outreach and data gathering phase of the Plan update is ending with the June 25 meeting. January 22, 2009: Environmental Quality (water, air, land, energy) Panels were put together for the water and energy discussions, to hear from experts in the field. The water panel included: Kyle Gorman Oregon Water Resources Department Steve Johnson Central Oregon Irrigation District Todd Heisler Deschutes River Conservancy Bonnie Lamb Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Summary: • In dry Deschutes County water quantity and quality affect everything. • There are currently no incentives to use water efficiently. • Many good goals are in the current comprehensive plan, but no enforcement. • County needs to be part of regional water discussions (Deschutes Water Alliance). • Main issue with water quality is temperature. • Additional setbacks for the rivers would be useful. Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 3 The energy panel included: Christopher Dymond Oregon Department of Energy Phil Chang Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Mike Hewitt E2 Powered Summary: • Shortages of traditional energy sources can be expected. • Diversity of renewable energy sources is needed. • Local focus is on woody biomass, crops and agricultural waste as well as solar, wind and geothermal. • Location matters because it can be expensive to haul large amount of material (Warm Springs is planning a biomass power plant). • Sometimes what makes sense is small renewable energy to service local farms and homes. February 26, 2009: Terrebonne, Tumalo, Deschutes Junction Summary • Staff discussed the importance of coordinating transportation and land use in these areas and summarized the input received at public meetings in each area. • In Tumalo the primary issues are related to Highway 20 although there was also interest expressed in water quality and local trails. There was discussion about the current Tumalo boundary. • In Terrebonne the primary issues are transportation related, although there was also support for allowing more commercial on the west side of Highway 97. • In Deschutes Junction the primary issue was whether additional commercial uses should be allowed. The response was divided between those who would like a local convenience store and those who are opposed to more development in the area. Transportation issues were a large part of the discussion here as well. March 26, 2009: Economic Development and Transportation Roger Lee of Economic Development for Central Oregon attended and discussed EDCO actions to grow the economy. There was some discussion of how rural lands fit into economic development. Summary • Staff provided a briefing on the applicable state rules on transportation planning and comments received from the general public and stakeholders. • Staff summarized the purpose and progress of the Transportation System Plan update. That update is proceeding on a separate, but related, track from the overall Plan update. April 23, 2009: Public Facilities and Services Timm Schimke County Director of Solid Waste discussed current issues with County landfills. A panel was put together for to discuss sewer issues: Laurie Craighead Assistant Legal Council Doug White Department of Land Conservation and Development Walt West Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Summary • The challenges of locating landfills was discussed. • Staff explained the process for forming sanitary districts. Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 3 • Doug White summarized Goal 11 and the associated Administrative Rule, noting that public facilities plans are required for cities and some unincorporated communities. He also discussed the limitations on sewers in rural areas. • Walt West spoke for Robert Baggett who was unable to attend. Walt is not familiar with land use laws. May 28, 2009: Unincorporated Communities Summary • Staff summarized the State regulations for unincorporated communities. Overall there are few substantive issues with our current Comprehensive Plan policies, except for the issue areas discussed in February. • Staff reported on a discussion with Sunriver Owners Association managers where a number of minor changes to the Comprehensive Plan were suggested. Additionally, it was noted that if Sunriver Sewer expands south there needs to be assurance that the service to existing Sunriver customers is not impacted. • Staff reported on a meeting with Black Butte Ranch management. They suggested one minor text change but otherwise are happy with existing Comprehensive Plan policies. • Staff reported on meeting with Inn of the 7th Mountain management. One issue they raised is the possibility that they could trade land toward the river to the Forest Service in exchange for forest service land to the west of the Inn. This would protect the riparian area and allow some additional development. Also discussed were the difficulty for resorts in obtaining hiking permits on public lands, making renewable energy an outright use and how to encourage energy efficiency. June 25, 2009: Additional Community Resources Comprehensive Plan chapters scheduled for discussion at this meeting include Historic and Cultural Resources, Parks and Recreation, Surface Mining and Open Spaces. Also a panel discussion is planned to discuss sustainability in the Comprehensive Plan. COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS, PUBLIC OUTREACH Community Outreach Three targeted listening sessions were held around the county in February to discuss issues in Tumalo, Terrebonne and Deschutes Junction. Attendance ranged from 17 people to over 100 people. The summary results are attached and also posted on the website (Attachment 1). In May planners staffed a booth at the Home and Garden show and used interactive outreach to engage in land use discussions with people who normally do not attend land use meetings. 443 people participated in an informal look at some of the current Comprehensive Plan policies. The summary results are attached and also posted on the website (Attachment 2). Meetings and Presentations The list below identifies stakeholder meetings from January to June 2009. In each case staff met w th the agencies or organizations to discuss the Plan update and any issues that the agencies or organizations would like to see addressed in the update. • 1-14-09 Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management meeti+ig • 2-3-09 Oregon Natural Desert Association meeting • 2-5-09 James Lewis for Tony Aceti meeting • 3-11-09 Deschutes Basin Board of Control meeting • 3-16-09 Central Oregon Cities Association presentation/discussion • 3-23-09 Jessica Kelly Deschutes County Health Department meeting • 4-7-09 Oregon Department of Transportation and Oregon Department of Land Conservatic,n pg 3 Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 3 and Development meeting • 4-16-09 Historic Landmarks Commission presentation/discussion • 4-16-09 Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee presentation/discussion (Salem) • 5-11-09 Black Butte Ranch management meeting • 5-13-09 Sunriver Owners Association management meeting • 5-28-09 Inn of the 7th Mountain management meeting • 6-3-09 Department of State Lands meeting Other Outreach • Maintained the website at www.deschutes.org/cdd under Comprehensive Plan update. • Significant outreach has also been conducted for the destination resort remap project and the south County groundwater projects, which are associated with the Comprehensive Plan but on separate tracks. The process for these projects will be reported separately. NEXT STEPS The latest draft organization for the new Comprehensive Plan is attached (Attachment 3). The following summarizes where the process is headed. • Draft of Chapter 1 is complete and will be presented to the Steering Committee on August 27. • Chapters 2 and 3 are in progress and will be presented to the Steering Committee in August or September. • Community plans are being drafted for Tumalo, Terrebonne and Deschutes Junction. During the Comprehensive Plan Update process, additional community plans may be identified and initiated for areas such as South County. If other community plans are identified, they will become action/implementation items in the new Comprehensive Plan with estimated timelines for completion. • Staff will continue to present draft new chapters to the Steering Committee and public. • Staff will create a new community conversation and media outreach plan for the roll out phase with the intent of providing numerous opportunities for input on the draft plan before initiating formal adoption. • Staff expects to initiate the adoption process for the new Comprehensive Plan in spring 2010. Attachments 1. Tumalo, Terrebonne, Deschutes Junction community meeting summaries 2. Home and Garden Show meeting summary 3. Draft Chapter Organization for the new Comprehensive Pian Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division Tumalo Listening Session 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Date: 2-3-09 Location: Tumalo Church Fellowship Hall Staff: Terri Hansen Payne, Kristen Maze. Peter Russell, Nick Lelack, Paul Blikstad Attendance: Around 17 people Hand outs: Tumalo Comp Plan Goals and Policies, Steering committee flyer, Tumalo Questionnaire • What is the Tumalo boundary, the census tract is very different than the Tumalo rural community • Do we look at data as a whole for the Tumalo Community? • What about public facilities that accommodate Tumalo how does the comp plan address this? • Concern about the potential for rezoning Deschutes Junction to add more commercial because this could impact Tumalo. • Tumalo state park is an important part of the Tumalo community • Tumalo state park impacts Tumalo economically because many people visit and seasonally live at the state park. • Would like to see some policy about river corridor pedestrian trails and public access to the river. • The river is a big draw for the public in the Tumalo community and throughout the county. • Deschutes County has significant watershed issues. Deschutes River is in bad shape and is deteriorating significantly. • The surface mines are impacting the Deschutes River. • Knife River maintains holding ponds on their property adjacent to the river and these ponds are at the same level as the river. Run-off from the Knife River site is impacting the river. • Mosquito spraying along the river is also a significant impact to the river and its corridor. • More environmental protection is necessary for Tumalo. • What is the county going to do about the issues raised tonight? • The county endorses growth because of the potential revenue and this puts a burden on the public to gather data to fight the growth. • Deschutes County government doesn't represent the residents. • We need infrastructure to meet the needs of new development not just promises. • The county does not follow through with the established development regulations. • Public services are not adequate in Tumalo. Fire Station not manned (District 2) • Code Complaints from the public are not enforced. Tumalo Listening Session • The County needs to consider how the area has changed over the past 15 years, like more people visiting and living here and what has been impacted and how can we preserve the resources that draw people to Deschutes County. Pg 2 February 3, 2009 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.orus\cdd Terrebonne Listening Session Date: 2-6-09 Location: Terrebonne Elementary School Staff: Kristen Maze. Peter Russell, Paul Blikstad Attendance: Around 20 people Hand outs: Terrebonne Comp Plan Goals and Policies, Terrebonne Questionnaire • How will unincorporated communities and rural areas accommodate projected growth? • Does a rural community have to accept growth? • Can a water district refuse to serve property or expand? • How can growth be accommodated while preserving Terrebonne's unique character. • Who will pay for and maintain the curb, gutter, sidewalks and a planting strip to buffer pedestrians from traffic on Highway 97 as required by Policy #56? • What are requirements for "dark sky" rule that ODOT has applied to the Highway 97 corridor, especially at the intersection of Lower Bridge and Highway 97? • Wimp Way traffic will go to Lower Bridge Way, Board of County Commissioners should reconsider closer of Wimp Way. • Need solar powered lights on Highway 97. • How will our input show up in the Comprehensive Plan and/or TSP in terms of policies and decisions? • We like our small community feel in Terrebonne. • Allow commercial on the west side of Highway 97, residential use along 97 is inappropriate. • Need a policy that looks at other options before widening Highway 97. • Need to review what the costs are of providing fire, transportation, school buses to outlying areas of development. • What about expanding the boundary of Terrebonne? • A business located at the corner of 13th Street and D Street was an operating Auto Repair business when the Rural Service Center was changed to Rural Community in 1997. This property was not included with the new Rural Commercial designations comp plan and zoning designations established. • Rezone the west side of 97 to commercial all the way back to the fire station. Summary of the six questionnaires received at the meeting. 1. Most everyone is satisfied or very satisfied with living in Terrebonne. 2. The thing everyone likes best about Terrebonne is the people and small rural community feel of the area. 1 Terrebonne Listening Session 3. The things that they would change are the traffic on Highway 97, the sewer system, controlling growth and rezoning the parcel at 13 and D street to commercial as well as rezoning the west side of highway 97 to commercial 4. Everyone would preserve the natural resources around Terrebonne. 5. The problems vary the only consistent serious problem is congestion on highway 97. 6. Everyone saw Terrebonne growing in the next 20 years but they did not all want that to occur. Pg 2 February 6, 2009 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.orus cdd Deschutes Junction Listening Session Date: 2-10-09 Location: Three Sisters Seventh Day Adventist School Staff: Nick Lelack, Terri Payne, Kristen Maze. Peter Russell, Paul Blikstad Attendance: Around 100 people Hand outs: Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Comp Plan Goals and Policies, Deschutes Junction Questionnaire • Highway 97 access on the west side needs improvement. • Need to fix the deceleration and acceleration lanes at the Deschutes Junction interchange as curves are too sharp. • Prevent another fatal accident like last summer by lengthening the current median on highway 97. • Public has asked ODOT for adequate deceleration lanes now for 10 years. • Need better signage for the north bound and south bound exits at Deschutes Junction, because they are not typical highway on and off ramps. • Does the county have historical traffic volume for the past 5 to 10 years along Tumalo and Deschutes Market Road? • What is the plan for Tumalo Road? • What is the plan for Pleasant Ridge intersection at Hwy 97? • Sell the land to Walmart and let them put in the necessary infrastructure. • What would happen to the existing land use if we rezoned to Rural Service Center? • Nearby proposed Juniper Ridge could provide services necessary to the residents in Deschutes Junction area. • In 2030 most of us here tonight will not be here (alive). • What is the county planning east of Deschutes Market Road in terms of zoning and rural roads? • How does Morrill Street fit into the 19th Street extension? • Tumalo Road speed limit should be lower. • Increase commercial on the west side of Highway 97. Raise of hands shows majority of the people support this. • ODOT needs to remove the sign for 61st Street because it does not exist. • What is the purpose of the 19th Street extension? It is a waste of money. • What is the chance of the two McGrath Roads being joined? • Convenience commercial would be helpful to the Deschutes Junction residents. • How is the County coordinating the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Plan and ODOT? When does the county anticipate any changes occurring? • Why is ODOT not at this meeting, they are often an obstacle for development. Deschutes Junction Listening Session • Is commercial development in the area a good idea and has the County researched this type of development to determine the impacts? • Is the Rural Commercial policy handout current and what is the county going to change? • Can we merge the zoning and Comp Plan designations into one step? • What does the county want in Deschutes Junction? • Deschutes County needs jobs, if ODOT is proposing a "jersey"(a raised concrete median) barrier this would close off driveways to existing commercial development along Hwy 97. • Need to provide frontage roads to commercial development around Deschutes Junction. • 2,500 square feet commercial building 'is not large enough to make a convenience store work. • It would be most cost effective to combine zoning and Comp Plan designation changes. • What about connecting Hunnell Road? • Is there a County plan for parks and fire hydrants? • 42 people out of 100 would like to see economic development in the area. • Most people at the meeting live within 6 miles of Deschutes Junction. • Would like to see the County maintain rural character of the area. County needs to balance development with the rural and open space. • County needs smart growth, limit growth of commercial in the Deschutes Junction area interchange. • "Jersey" barrier will put existing businesses out of business around Deschutes Junction. • Concerned about changes to the MUA-10. • What about noise and air impacts as a result of adding commercial development?. • Tony Aceti's property is ideal for commercial development like a park and ride or farmers market. • Commercial development exists in Deschutes Junction so Tony Aceti's property as a commercial site makes sense. • What is the boundary of Deschutes Junction? • Has the county identified a study area at Deschutes Junction that shows the changes in the past 20 years? • What are the guidelines that the County would use to define Deschutes Junction? • Growth in the area is a problem and people need services nearby for the residents. • What is happening with the Department of State Lands and County land exchange and the top of Whispering Pines? • Would like to keep the smells and noise down from the existing commercial businesses, no expansion. • Look at the flood plain in the Deschutes Junction area. • Concerned about the Country process and the people that are in attendance tonight are not representative of everyone's concerns. • Can you have multiple commercial 2,500 square feet buildings on one large Rural Commercial parcel? Pg 2 February 10, 2009 Deschutes Junction Listening Session Summary of the 31 Deschutes Junction questionnaires received at the meeting. 1. Most everyone is satisfied or very satisfied with living in Deschutes Junction, three were somewhat dissatisfied. 2. The thing everyone likes best about the Deschutes Junction area is the proximity to Bend and Redmond and the rural living. 3. The things that they would change are the traffic off and on Highway 97, the access off and on the Deschutes Jct. interchange, allow commercial and/or convenience store on the west side of Hwy. 97 and preserve the rural lifestyle of the area. 4. Current serious issues in the Deschutes Junction area varied significantly. 5. Very few are aware of the Oregon Statewide goals 6. 19 people of the 21 people that answered what they would not want to see change wanted the area to remain the same rural residential, two other letters also indicated that they would not like to see commercial development in the area. 7. Of those that answered the question yes or no half believed that land use regulations protect owners and communities and half do not. 8. Most everyone saw Deschutes Junction's commercial, residential and industrial area growing in the next 20 years. 9. Additional comments include: • No more traffic on Tumalo Road and make changes to the off ramps in both directions at Deschutes Junction to accommodate all uses. • Maximum 2,500 square feet of commercial is not adequate for commercial building. • Need fire protection before increase in population • Against 19th Street extension, no growth between Bend and Redmond. • Like the rural atmosphere and think that the push for commercial growth is a personal agenda for Tony Asceti, not what the residents want. • 5 people addressed the need for growth in and around Deschutes and the need for commercial zoning. • Commercial growth is not our desire, this would promote the future growth of the City of Bend. A rural fire department would increase our property taxes too much. We live here to get away from the growth and progress of the city. Pg 3 February 10, 2009 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or. us\cdd Spring Home and Garden Show What Deschutes County planning division set up and staffed a booth at the Central Oregon Builders Association Spring Home and Garden Show held at the Deschutes County Fairgrounds on May 1, 2, 3, 2009. Purpose To promote the comprehensive plan update and have an opportunity to talk about land use values with members of the community who do not generally attend land use meetings. Process Staff provided handouts, chocolate and two avenues for the public to provide instant feedback. Questionnaire A short questionnaire was available to allow the community to write down their specific ideas and comments. Twenty-six questionnaires were completed and a few people took the survey home along with a staff business card, intending to mail the results back to the County. Some people completely filled out the questionnaire, some answered only a few of the questions and some simply wrote in comments. A summary of the answers received is attached. Dot Exercise To jump start a discussion of land use values, six goals from our current comprehensive plan were printed out on a 24" X 36" sheet of paper and attached to a poster board. People passing by were invited to place a dot by the goal that best reflected their values regarding land use. City residents were given red or blue dots while rural residents were given green or yellow dots. 443 people participated in this exercise and the results are listed in the table below. The dot exercise was effective at initiating further discussion regarding land use in Deschutes County. Many people noted that the first goal on the sheet which included rural character, scenic values and natural resources also covered other goals listed like water quantity and quality. People also observed that many of these goals could be interpreted different ways. A fair number of people specifically noted that Deschutes County has enough destination resorts. Spring Home and Garden Show Notes Results of Dot Exercise CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL THAT BEST REFLECTS YOUR VALUES CITY RESIDENTS RURAL RESIDENTS TOTALS "To preserve and enhance rural character, scenic values and natural resources of the county." 89 85 174 "To maintain existing water supplies at present quality and quantity." 52 38 90 "To preserve and maintain agriculture land." 23 33 56 "To allow flexibility of housing location, type and density in Deschutes County." 17 26 43 "To conserve forest lands for forest uses." 42 32 74 "To provide for the development of destination resorts in Deschutes County." 1 5 6 Totals 224 219 443 The following list provides an example of other issues discussed with staff. • Confusion over why tax bills go up despite a drop in assessed value • River quality and water supply • The need to work with the federal government to ensure access to federal lands for swimming and for off-road vehicles • The importance of supporting local farmers • The County's role in promoting economic development • The need for common sense in land use decisions • The need to use the word protect instead of preserve in land use goals Attachment 1: Questionnaire results pg 2 May 5, 2009 cpolV 53 2- < O 3 3 0o O Z v Z(D 0 �- 0 In C = rn O 3 0 cn n) 0- ) 0 O C a) rn • Cl' S1) ▪ 0 • c CD CD N0 N O (DC 0) '< E •J SD a Co O CD 3 0 = 0 a S. rn 0. 0 C cn + O w 0 Q_ C. o s S.O 4 (D O O C 3 o- O 9) Z O. 0 rn rn D cn paU!e1u00-J1as 0 Allowing additional destination resorts Retaining rural character (outside cities/urban growth boundaries) Involving the community in planning Ensuring access to public lands for recreation Maintaining open spaces and views Preserving farm and forest lands Protecting private property rights Protecting the natural environment (rivers, wildlife) -1. O IV --• Ni -A -A w V O (J1 Ni IV IV Ni -N IV -L IV (n () Cr) -L w w -1- IV Ni (11 0) -1. - .p O 4), 4 Ni (1 () IV O Q O CO (1 CO 41. IV Ni -L C) IV 4), Ni CO O IV (3) O V -x 0 -x 0 0 0 () 0 00 # Responses for each ranking 1. Please rank the following ideas from 1 to 8, with 1 being the most important and 8 being the least important. y co q O x tv Cs', co 0 co 0 co co cZ co o co co co co co O a cnn 0-1 .54 - fp cn nn 0 0 4N�n kc ,ten fiti Q N r W ft, cn 0 C i0 Piert 3a 13) -! • , • 5- '.< • S a)oo=(D O' OO.E2 D o `o3 w � 3 (D n(D 45 O O O EL a) c O CD0 (D v v SI)• 7 N • 0O O C - a CD v Q (4 N O 5' oo =. El. CD cD (D O c (D (n 3 <' o (if ✓ o O O a (D Zit 5. Do you live inside a city or urban growth boundary? N Io e o} pe elaa 0) O_ S (D 3 O (D 0 (D O 0 O 3 -' v 0 c v a O 3 0 O O - n m c v a C 43u9lo1j4e I(6a8u3 Z v v N a O (D a O (D (D (D 0 (D (0 c 0) O N 0 O (Q (D CO c 0 N uogenaaseJd leopois!H CO Rural recreation opportunities Co k. cTC. ....s0 so w v ? p 63.03nSO3O S 0 (D it z co mh' 3� 3 0 o � cD 530 ID co*-�� ow -S • o CD m°� `< caccn n w. o o ID 0) ' m `‹o < 3 O 3 0 (D 0) C = 3 _ 8 (D �%� (D O' O O v O =' a) c 0 (Q fl� to S '-i o (n• S C CD (DCD p N Co (D (D c cv c n O c ?e. E J 0_ N b O m 0) X' o 3 o ° v �, v 0) ID 7 o CD 1Oi 00 Q 5. 0 7 O ▪ O C a fl) 1 O N 7 0 11) c O= 4 3 o a 0 5. z - a 0 m 3' o 1) a a r(}iligeliene pue r(lilenb JeleM (D Deschutes County Draft Comprehensive Plan Organization EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING Background Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Deschutes County Overview Statewide Planning Goals History of Comprehensive Planning in Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 2030 Creating the Plan Community Conversations Data Collection Plan Organization Plan Themes Community Involvement (Goal 1) References and Findings CHAPTER 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND DESIGNATIONS Land use and the Comprehensive Plan map Comprehensive Plan designations County -wide land use goals and policies Comprehensive Plan Maps References and Findings CHAPTER 3: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Introduction — Oregon resource protection Resource Lands Agriculture Lands (Goal 3) (map) Forest Lands (Goal 4) (map) References and Findings Natural Resources Environmental Quality (Goals 5 and 6) Water Resources (Goals 5 and 6) (maps) Regional Problem Solving (Goa/ 5) Wildlife Habitat (Goal 5) (maps) Open Spaces, Areas of Special Concern (Goal 5) (maps) Energy (Goals 5 and 13) References and Findings Other Goal 5 Resources Surface Mining (Goal 5) Historic and Cultural (Goal 5) References and Findings Comprehensive Plan Organization CHAPTER 4: RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT Intro - How does rural growth fit with resource protection Rural Development Rural Development, including Rural Residential (Goal 14) Housing (Goal 10) Economy (Goals 9 and 14) Natural Hazards (Goal 7)(maps) References and Findings Rural Infrastructure Public Facilities and Services (Goal 11) Transportation (Goal 12)(maps) References and Findings Rural Recreation Recreation (Goals 5 and 8) Destination Resorts (Goal 8)(map) References and Findings CHAPTER 5: URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT Intro- county partnership with cities, unincorporated communities County/City Coordination Urbanization (maps of UGBs, UARs) (Goal 14) Coordinated Population Forecast Unincorporated Communities Overview (Goal 14) Urban Unincorporated Communities (map) ■ Sunriver Rural Communities (maps) ■ Terrebonne ■ Tumalo Resort Communities (maps) ■ Black Butte Ranch ■ Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek Rural Service Centers (maps) ■ Alfalfa ■ Brothers ■ Hampton ■ Millican ■ Whistlestop ■ Wildhunt References and Findings APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY APPENDIX 2: GOAL EXCEPTIONS APPENDIX 3: IMPLEMENTATION TABLE pg2 revised 6-11-09