The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-11-12 Katzaroff Applicant Open Record Submittal - File Nos 247-21-000508-SP -849-A1 Tracy Griffin From:Katzaroff, Kenneth <KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com> Sent:Friday, November 12, 2021 2:39 PM To:Angie Brewer Cc:'Kameron DeLashmutt'; liz@lizfancher.com; Schunk, Andrea K. Subject:Applicant Open Record Submittal - File Nos. 247-21-000508-SP; -849-A [IWOV- pdx.FID4723617] Attachments:Applicant Open Record Submittal for 247-21-000508-SP; -849-A.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Angie, Please find the attached Open Record submittal by Applicant for File Nos. 247-21-000508-SP; -849-A. We will also be filing a paper copy. Thanks, Ken Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt Kenneth Katzaroff Attorney Direct: 206-405-1985 kkatzaroff@schwabe.com Admitted in Washington and Oregon. LEARN HOW OUR CLIENTS ARE INNOVATING IN THEIR INDUSTRIES: www.schwabe.com/fueling-change __________________________________________________________ NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. U.S. Bank Centre | 1420 5th Avenue | Suite 3400 | Seattle, WA | 98101-4010 | M 206-622-1711 | F 206-292-0460 | schwabe.com Kenneth Katzaroff Admitted in Washington and Oregon T: 206-405-1985 C: 206-755-2011 KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com November 12, 2021 VIA E-MAIL Hearings Officer Frank c/o Angie Brewer, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 RE: Deschutes County File Nos. 247-21-000508-SP; -849-A. Our File No.: 135849-262760 Dear Hearings Officer Frank: Our office is co-counsel with Liz Fancher for the applicant (“Thornburgh”) in the above- referenced matters. This letter constitutes Thornburgh’s open record submittal and includes new evidence to respond to issues and evidence submitted at the public hearing on November 4, 2021 (“Hearing”). Unless otherwise specified, any abbreviations correlate to those from applicant’s previous submittals. 1. Letter from David Newton Thornburgh includes Exhibit 20 in response to the “Technical Memorandum” filed by Mr. Karl Anuta and prepared by John Lambie. 2. Notice Provided to BLM County records show that notice of the hearing of Ms. Gould’s appeal of the approval of the OLU site plan application was sent to the Bureau of Land Management, acting for the USA, as notice of review of the application. A copy of the notice is filed as Exhibit 21. 3. Condition 38 Issues of compliance with Condition 38 are addressed by the filing of annual reports that the FMP requires be reviewed by County staff. The Board of Commissioners determined in their approval of the Thornburgh golf course that “reporting is not required during site plan review.” Exhibit 22. Hearings Officer Frank November 12, 2021 Page 2 schwabe.com While not agreeing that this issue is relevant to the review of this application, the applicant wishes to advise the hearings officer that annual reports are not yet required by the FMP. The following is the monitoring plan language from the WMP addendum known as the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (M&M Plan) filed by the applicant in August 2008 during review of the FMP. Hearings Officer Frank November 12, 2021 Page 3 schwabe.com 4.Subject Property and Claim of “Farmland” Appellant Gould claimed at the Hearing that the property is “farmland.” The base underlying zoning as EFU is irrelevant once a destination resort has been approved under DCC Chapter 18.113. See DCC 18.113.020.B. This interpretation has been consistently applied by the County. Exhibit 23. 5.Water Availability The Applicant owns hundreds of acres of water that may be used for resort purposes. These rights are outlined in Exhibit 24. 6.Revision to Condition C Applicant has asked that Condition C of the decision be revised or removed. Staff has recently issued another site plan decision with a similar condition. Exhibit 25. Respectfully submitted this 12th day of November, 2021. Very truly yours, SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. Kenneth Katzaroff PDX\135849\262760\JKKA\32219273.2 EVIDENCE FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD FILE 247-21-000508-SP/247-21-000 Updated 11.12.2021 Central Land is filing the following evidence in the record of its application seeking site plan approval to build 80 overnight lodging unit (OLU) to address issues raised by Annunziata Gould. Exhibit Description of Exhibit 1 Decision Approving Phase A-1 Tentative Plan, File 247-18-000386-TP/454-SP/592- MA (relevant parts) 2 BOCC Decision Thornburgh Golf Course, File 247-19-000881-SP (without Exhibit B) 3 BOCC Decision Thornburgh CMP Decision, File CU-05-5, DC 2006-151 (part) 4 Deed recorded at 2021-44813 5 Deed recorded at 2021-50325 6 Illustration of Lot Line Adjustment between TL 7800 and 7900 7 BOCC Decision for Tumalo Irrigation District, File 247-17-000775-ZC/-776-PA (relevant part) 8 Hearings Officer’s Decision for Phase A-1 Tentative Plan on Remand, 247-21- 000731-A 9 BOCC Order declining review of Phase A-1 Tentative Plan on Remand, 247-21- 000731-A 10 Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan, Addendum April 21, 2008 (FWMP) 11 Central Land’s Final Argument for 247-21-000731-A with its exhibits by Liz Fancher 12 FMP Decision dated October 6, 2008 by Hearings Officer Briggs (conditions of approval and findings re FWMP) 13 Letter from Janet Neuman to Gregory Frank dated September 14, 2021 14 Central Land’s Final Argument for 247-21-000731-A by Kameron DeLashmutt 15 Central Land’s Final Argument Response to John Lambie for 247-21-000731-A with its exhibits 16 Answering Brief by Central Land before Oregon Court of Appeals (golf course) 17 OWRD Permit Query re Thornburgh water permit G-17036 on November 2, 2021 18 OWRD Email of December 24, 2019 re golf course site plan and July 8, 2020 letter from Janet Neuman to BOCC 19 Memorandum from David Newton, P.E., C.E.G. dated August 24, 2021 re Impact of Well Site Relocations 20 Memorandum from David Newton, P.E., C.E.G. dated November 11, 2021 21 Notice of Proposed Hearing 22 BOCC Decision – Condition 38 Findings 23 Decisions and DCC 18.113.020 Findings 24 Letter from K DeLashmutt Dated September 7, 2021, Detailing Owned Water Rights 25 Site Plan Approval and Condition C 1180 SW Lake Road, Redmond, OR S-tl-'323·7554 www.ha"Tl-engr.com MEMORANDUM -RESPONSE TO E-PUR, LLC TEC MEMORANDUMS THORNBURGH RESORT November 12, 2021 INTRODUCTION This memorandum responds to conclusions stated in the Technical Memorandum dated October 19, 2021 , and the Technical Memorandum dated September 7, 2021, both prepared by E-PUR, LLC regarding status of Deep Canyon Creek spring discharge under conditions of declines in static water levels in irrigation wells operated by Big Falls Ranch (BFR). Deep Canyon Creek spring discharges relatively cool groundwater that enters the Deschutes River a short distance north of Lower Bridge in an area that experiences substantial discharge of groundwater into the Deschutes River. 1 The Deep Canyon spring water was diverted for inigation by BFR under applicable water rights by electric pumps and delivered to authorized places of inigation water use. The maximum diversion rate was 5.5 cubic feet per second (cfs). An agreement between Thornburgh and BFR discontinued use of the spring water for irrigation and leaves the spring flows to discharge into the Deschutes River in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (FWMP) developed with ODFW input and approved by Deschutes County. OWRD bas authorized BFR to pump these surface water rights from its groundwater wells until the rights are purchased by Pinnacle Utilities, LLC. Pinnacle recently purchased 90 acres ( 162 acre-feet of mitigation credits) of these water rights and has a contract to purchase more. The two E-PUR technical memorandums correctly point out that static water levels in the BFR well No.'s 1, 3 and 4 have dropped since water level reporting for the wells was initiated in the early 1990's. The declining water levels are likely results of continued drought conditions. The argwnent is presented that since the static water levels have dropped to elevations very near or below the elevation of the spring, the spring would be dehydrated resulting in no flows occurring 1 The attached map shows estimated groundwater discharge into the river in this area to be 17 cfs per mile and increasing to 305 cfs per mile shortly downstream, as reported by the USGS. Exhibit 20 Page 1 of 15 in Deep Canyon to provide mitigation according to the FWMP. This argument overlooks numerous salient facts, as discussed herein: 1. As observed in October 2021 , (when I was there) and as shown in pictures submitted by both applicant and opponents, there is flow from Deep Canyon Creek into the river. 2. Opponent's water analysis is based on the assumption that the spring is a "point" discharge. That is not correct. Spring discharge occurs at areas from the head of the spring down Deep Canyon to the Deschutes River, a change in elevation of roughly 20 feet. The groundwater system at BFR includes groundwater that is confined beneath geologic strata of relatively low permeability compared to the that of the materials in the water- bearing zones. The water is under pressure. The pressme can force water upward through naturally occurring geologic discontinuities and fractures in the confining strata, resulting in groundwater presence in upper zones and springs where the pressme is sufficient to push the groundwater to the ground smface, such as the bottom of Deep Canyon. CONCLUSIONS I have consulted for and provided water rights services to Big Falls Ranch for over 25 years, in a variety of capacities, including testing, analysis, transfers and certificate applications. Among the services provided were field investigations relative to the groundwater systems, springs and well testing conducted at BFR by David .T. Newton Associates, Inc., (DNA) in September and October 1994. Although those tests were years ago the findings from these investigations described in this document lead to a number of conclusions that are relevant2 to those conclusions stated in the technical memorandums by Mr. Lambie. Relevant conclusions from the prior DNA investigations are summarized below. 1. Water levels measmed by DNA in Well No's 1, 3, 4 and MT dming October 1994 were all above the estimated elevation of2541 feet at the head of Deep Canyon Spring and were up to approximately 28 feet above the Deschutes River at approximate elevation 2522 feet. These water level elevations indicated pressurized water in the water-bearing zones that can push groundwater upward in the wells and upward to the spring. Accordingly, DNA inferred in 1994 that the named wells are supplied by an aquifer system that is in hydraulic connection with the spring and that supplies water to the spring. 2. Static water levels in the Well No.'s 1, 3 and 4 are known to have declined based on water levels measured by DNA in 1994 and available annual water level reporting data since then up to March 20, 2020. Water level declines are summarized below: WELL NO WATER LEVEL {FT) DATE WATER LEVEL (FT) DATE DECLINE (FT) 2 The investigations yield information on geology, pressure of the head, and other elements that pertain to discussions today. Exhibit 20 Page 2 of 15 1 3 4 2550.2 2549.5 2543.6 9/30/94 9/30/94 10/1 /94 2543 2545.7 2540 3/20/20 3/20/20 3/20/20 7.2 3.8 3.6 3. Water level declines shown above in Well No. 's 1, 3 and 4 result in groundwater elevations (hydraulic head) in the wells that are up to 4. 7 feet above and 1 foot below the estimated elevation of 2541 feet for the bead of the Deep Canyon Spring. The water level declines reduce hydraulic head in the aquifer system that drives water from the spring. Reduced head reduces spring discharge. However, the spring continues to discharge water and was used as a source of irrigation water at a maximum rate of 5.5 cfs until 2018 when preparations were made by BFR to abandon use of Deep Canyon spring flows due to irrigation system efficiency improvements and the continual required work to remove beaver dams from the irrigation water diversion works. Water levels in the named wells had declined to about 1.2 to 1.6 feet above the March 2020 elevations by that time. Static water levels have declined. The spring still discharges water that flows into the Deschutes River. Photographs I , 2, 3 and 4 accompanying this memorandum illustrate current conditions in Deep Canyon. 4. Groundwater discharge from the Deep Canyon Spring occurs at locations over the reach of Deep Canyon from the head of the spring at approximate elevation 2541 feet to the Deschutes River which is located at approximately 2522 feet at the mouth of Deep Canyon. The spring is not a "point" discharge system strictly at an elevation of 2541 feet as suggested by E-PUR in its technical memorandums. Water level declines measured in the wells reflect declines in hydraulic head in the aquifer supplying the wells and the spring. Reduced hydraulic head will reduce spring discharge. However, spring discharge continues from locations between the head of the spring and the Deschutes River as described in Conclusion No. 3 above. 5. Pump tests by DNA in October 1994 involving Well No.'s 1, 3, 4 and MT indicate that the cone of water table depression developed by well pumping is relatively shallow and would have minimal effect on the hydraulic head elevation at the Deep Canyon Spring. This means that well pumping by BFR for irrigation will not dehydrate the spring. It is noteworthy that BFR does not operate all wells at the same time. They are operated in rotation with periodic total shutdown, resulting in discontinuous pumping over the irrigation season. Also, certain acres of crop land are left fallow each year, resulting in lower pumping rates. Under those circumstances a cone of depression that is persistent over time would not develop in a manner that would measurably reduce discharge of the Deep Canyon Spring. Drawing No. 1 accompanying this memorandum shows locations of wells and Deep Canyon Spring. 6. No measurable drawdown was detected in Well No. 7 during the October 1994 well testing. The water level in Well No. 7 declined 2.5 feet during the 1994 irrigation season, then began recovering in September as the irrigation season ended. Although Well No. 's 1, 3, Exhibit 20 Page 3 of 15 4, MT and No. 7 are constructed in two separate water-bearing units3, it was inferred by DNA that some degree of hydraulic connection exists between all of the water-bearing units. FIELD INVESTIGATION, STATIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AND PUMP TESTING Static water level measurements, field investigations and pump testing were conducted at BFR by David J. Newton Associates, Inc. (DNA) during September and October 1994. Field investigations included geologic reconnaissance of the Deep Canyon Creek and McKenzie Canyon Creek, both located on BFR, to provide the information described below. Groundwater Conditions Reflected by Well Data Logs of the BFR Well No.'s 1, 3, 4 and 7 prepared by licensed well constructors provide information on geology, static water levels, water-bearing zones and well yield. However, field verification of the data was considered necessary in order to generate updated and factuaJ information critical to determining aquifer characteristics. On tlus basis, DNA conducted the 1994 field surveys and well tests to obtain factual information on water levels in wells and well performance needed at that time. Well Log and Water Level Information The following table summarizes static water level elevation data collected by DNA. Depth to water in the wells was measured with a SINCO electric water-level indicator. WELL GROUND DEPTH TO STATIC WATER MEASURMENT NO ELEV {FT) TO WATER (FT) ELEV A TYON (FT) DATE 1 2729 178.8 2550.2 9/30/94 3 2688 138.5 2549.5 9/30/94 4 2687 143.4 2543.6 10/1 /94 7 2660 170.0 2490.0 9/30/94 MT 2700 150.9 2549.1 10/2/94 NOTES: 1. Estimated ground elevations and static water level elevations are updated from 1994 estimates based on USGS maps to estimated elevations shown above based on Google Earth imagery. 2. The "MT" well is a neighbor-owned well included in the 1994 DNA investigations. 3. Wells had not been pumped for several days prior to the water level measurements. 3 This shows water exists at different levels, in this case separated by roughly 40 foot of elevation between them. Exhibit 20 Page 4 of 15 Aquifer Conditions Reflected bv Well Log and Static Water Level Information Well No. I was constructed in November 1966 to a reported depth of232 feet. The water bearing zone (aquifer) reported on the log of Well No. I is described as "water-bearing black sand mixed with large river aggregate" from a depth of 171 feet to the well bottom at 232 feet (thickness of 61 feet, although not necessarily total thickness of the water-bearing zone). The depth at which first water was encountered is shown at 1 71 feet and the static water level is reported at 1 70 feet. The consistency of the water level data indicates that the water-bearing zone is not confined under pressure beneath a relatively low penneability geologic stratum, contrary to conditions for Well No. 's 3, 4 and 7 as noted below. Well No. 3 was constructed in December 1978 to a reported depth of262 feet. The water-bearing zone reported on the log for Well No. 3 is described as "black fine sand & gravel and black coarse sand & gravel" from a depth of 191 feet to 252 feet (total thickness of 61 feet). "Red soft rock was encountered from the bottom of the water-bearing zone to the bottom of the well. In this case, the well fully penetrated the water-bearing zone. The depth at which first water was encountered is shown at 191 feet and the static water level is reported at 171 feet. These water levels indicate that the water in the water-bearing zone is confined under pressure beneath a relatively low permeability stratum. The water in the water-bearing zone was under pressure sufficient to push the water level in the well bore 20 feet up above the top of the water-bearing zone. This increase in water level indicates the water was confined below low pem1eability strata. Once that strata was penetrated by the well, the water rose through the penetration. Well No. 4 was constructed in December 1977 to a reported depth of288 feet. The water-bearing zone reported on the log for Well No. 4 is described as "brown coarse gravel" from a depth of210 feet to 267 feet (total thickness of 57 feet). A 12-feet thick layer of "red soft rock" is reported beneath the water-bearing zone, which overlays "black hard rock" extending an additional 9 feet to the well bottom. The well fully penetrated the water-bearing zone. The black hard rock was inferred by DNA to be basalt. The depth at which first water was encountered is shown at 210 feet and the static water level is reported at 163 feet. These water levels indicate that the water in the water-bearing zone is confined under pressw-e beneath a relatively low permeability stratum. The water in the water-bearing zone penetrated by the well was under pressure sufficient to push the water level in the well bore 4 7 feet up above the top of the water-bearing zone. Well No. 7 was constructed in November 1990 and reamed to a larger diameter in February 1991 . The reported well depth is 340 feet. The log for the reamed Well No. 7 describes the water-bearing zone to include "gray lava broken, black basalt broken, red sand stone and coarse black sand." The depth interval for the water-bearing zone is from 213 feet to the well bottom at 340 feet (thickness of 127 feet, although not necessarily total thickness of the water-bearing zone). The depth at which first water was encountered is shown at 213 feet on the log for the reamed well. The static water level is reported at 170 feet. These water levels indicate that the water in the water-bearing zone is confined under pressure beneath a relatively low permeability stratum. Again, there was significant upward pressure in this well sufficient to push the water level in the well bore 43 feet up above the top of the water-bearing zone. Exhibit 20 Page 5 of 15 Relationships Between Well Static Water Levels, Deschutes River and Springs The static water levels shown above, measured in 1994 by DNA for Well No.'s 1, 3, 4 and MT range in approximate elevation from 2543.6 feet to 2550.2 feet. The approximate elevation of the Deschutes River at the mouth of Deep Canyon Spring is 2522 feet. The hydraulic head in the aquifer system supplying these wells at the measurement date was at least 18 feet above the Deschutes River and above the saturated ground areas noted in the Deep Canyon Creek including areas near the river. The measured water level shown for Well No. 7 was at approximate elevation 2490 feet, corresponding to the hydraulic head for the water-bearing zone penetrated by the well. At the measurement time, the hydraulic head for the aquifer system supplying Well No. 7 was approximately 35 feet below the Deschutes River. The aquifer system supplying Well No. 7 has no connection to the spring systems in Deep Canyon. In his September 2021 memo Mr. Lambie opined that because the elevation of well 7 was below the water level in the river that it may be drawing water from the river. This is not necessarily true. It is possible that the confined water bearing zone well 7 is drawing from extends under the river to be discharged further downriver where the elevation of the water level in the river meets the water level of this water bearing zone. The static water level elevations for Well No.' s 1, 3, 4 and MT were very near and above the estimated elevation of 2541 feet for the head of the Deep Canyon Creek spring. Based on the elevation ranges for static water levels in wells and the spring, it was concluded that the aquifer system supplying these wells also discharges into Deep Canyon Creek at and downslope of the head of the spring between it and the river. Geology and Hydrologic Conditions -Deep Canyon Creek and Spring Deep Canyon spring discharge occurs within Deep Canyon from areas between the head of the spring (the upper limit) at approximate elevation 2541 feet and the Deschutes River at approximate elevation 2522 feet. Free-flowing water and sand boils were observed within 150 feet of the head of the spring. Flowing water discharges into pools formed by a small, breached earth dam approximately 2,000 feet from the Deschutes River and a concrete weir near the confluence of the spring and the river. Stream flow at the weir was estimated at 1.5 cfs on October 3, 1994. Observation of stream flow in the Deep Canyon indicate that total spring flow capacity is at least 5 cfs. Flow over the weir does not account for total spring discharge. Other areas of groundwater discharge in Deep Canyon were evidenced by lush, aquatic vegetation and free-flowing water at elevations of approximately 8 to 10 feet above the river, which corresponds to an approximate distance of 870 feet up the canyon bottom from the Deschutes River. Saturated ground and free- flowing water were observed on the road that provides access from Lower Bridge, along the river, to the Deep Canyon Spring pump station. These seepage areas indicate groundwater discharge Exhibit 20 Page 6 of 15 was occurring at several locations in the Deep Canyon Creek area. Contrary to claims made by Mr. Lambie and project opponents, water flows into and through the Deep Canyon to the river. Pump Testing -Well No.'s 1 and 3, and MT Well Pump Tests Prior to DNA Investigations Pump tests were conducted in Well No. 1 and No. 7 in 1989 and 199L respectively. Potential drawdown in nearby wells resulting from pump testing Well No. I and No. 7 was apparently not monitored. Well No. l was pump tested on May 6, 1989 by A & H Pump Service. The pumping rate was reported at 1200 gpm (2.67 cfs) for the first 4 hours and 1700 gpm (3.79 cfs) for the remaining 4 hours of the test. Drawdown in the well from pumping was reported at 7 feet for the 1200 gpm pumping rate and 9 feet for the 1700 gprn pumping rate. The water level in the well fully recovered to the pretest water level within 15 seconds after the pump was shut off after 8 hours of continuous pumpmg. Pump testing of Well No.'s l, 3 and MT were executed by DNA from October 1 through October 3, 1994. Well No. 4 and the MT well were used as observation wells to determine drawdown in these wells due to pumping the other three wells. Well No. 4 is approximately 4206 feet away from Well No. 1 and approximately 3892 feet away from Well No. 3. The MT well is approximately 3767 feet away from Well No. 1, approximately 2676 feet away from Well No. 3 and approximately 1450 feet away from Well No. 4. Testing of Well No. 1 began at a pumping rate of 1200 gpm (2.67 cfs) at 2:00 pm on October 1, 1994. Testing of Well No. 3 began 8 minutes after testing of Well No. 1 began, at a rate of 1200 gpm (2.67 cfs). The water level in Well No. 4 remained unchanged during the first hour of testing. After 20 hours of continuous pwnping of Well No. 1 and Well No. 3, maximum drawdown in Well No. 1 was 6.2 feet. The water level in Well No. 4 dropped 1.3 feet. The water level in the MT well dropped l .0 foot. Pump testing began in the MT we ll at 11 :05 on October 2, 2994, concmrently with testing of Well No. 1 and Well No. 3. The pumping rate was 1100 gpm (2.45 cfs). After 19 minutes of pumping the MT well, the water level in Well No. 4 dropped by 0.17 feet. After 50 homs of pumping Well No.'s 1 and 3, and 29 hours of pumping the MT well, the water level in Well No. 4 dropped 1.8 feet. Maximum drawdown in the MT well was 55.4 feet. When pumping of the MT we11 was stopped on October 3, 1994, the water level recovered to within 0. 7 feet of the pretest static water level within 90 seconds. Zero drawdown was measmed in Well No. 7 during the pump tests described above. Pump Test Drawdown It is noteworthy that concw-rent pumping of Well No. I and Well No. 3 for 50 homs and pumping of the MT well for 29 hours at rates of 1100 to 1200 gpm resulted in only 1.8 feet of drawdown in Exhibit 20 Page 7 of 15 Well No. 4. Well No. 4 is about 4206 feet away from Well No. 1, 3892 feet away from Well No. 3 and 1450 feet away from the MT well. Based on the above drawdown conditions for Well No. 4, the potential affect of well pumping on the hydraulic head at the head of the Deep Canyon Spring can be evaluated. The approximate distance between the head of the spring and Well No. 1 is 9154 feet. The approximate distance between the head of the spring and Well No. 3 is 3492 feet. The distance between the head of the spring and the MT well is about 6000 feet. The distance between the head of the spring and Well No. 4 is about 6902 feet. Although Well No. 3 is about 3410 feet closer to the head of the spring than it is to Well No. 4, the distances between Well No 1 and the MT well and the head of the spring are much farther than for distances to Well No. 4 where 1.8 feet of drawdown was measured during the pump test. Accordingly, drawdown at the head of the spring from concurrently pumping Well No. 1, No. 3 and the MT well is likely to be significantly less than the 1.8 feet of drawdown measured at Well No. 4. Although some small lowering of the hydraulic head in the aquifer system supplying the spring could occur, this impact would not fully dehydrate the spring and dry it up. Drawing No. I accompanying this memorandum shows locations of wells and head area of Deep Canyon Spring. Summary The water-bearing zones beneath the ground surface in the BFR area consist of highly permeable geologic materials that transmit water to wells with relatively shallow cones of depression. This is shown by measured drawdown of 1.8 feet in Well No. 4 while Well No.'s 1, 3 and MT were pumped at 1100 to 1200 gpm and no pumping was done in Well No. 4. Water in the water-bearing zones penetrated by Well No.'s 3, 4, MT and No. 7 is under pressure due to its confinement beneath lower permeability geologic stratum. Such confining stratum are not entirely impermeable and pressurized groundwater can push upward through discontinuities, fractures or zones where a confining stratum pinches out. The pressure in the water-bearing zones penetrated by Well No.'s 3, 4 and MT is high enough to push water up to above the head of the Deep Canyon Spring. It is likely that the pressurized system supplies water to the spring as it does to Well No.'s 3, 4 and MT. Elevations of the Deep Canyon creek bottom decrease with the downward sloping creek gradient to the Deschutes River. As creek bottom elevations decrease, the vertical distance between the hydraulic head of the upward pushed groundwater and the creek bottom decreases. This means that upward pushed groundwater has less upward distance to travel before intersecting the creek bottom. 1n this situation, head loss in the flow paths in which the water travels upward is reduced, resulting in increased groundwater discharge into the Deep Canyon creek bottom. It is a logical expectation that spring discharge occurs in areas between the head of the spring and the Deschutes River. This is evident in field observations. Accordingly, declines in water levels have not dried the springs as stated in the E-PUR technical memorandums. 8 Exhibit 20 Page 8 of 15 Well No. 7 also penetrates a water-bearing zone that is under pressure by overlying geologic stratum of relatively low permeability. The pressure does not push the water up to the elevation of the Deep Canyon Spring, or the Deschutes River. Well No. 7 has no influence on Deep Canyon Spring. However, the pressure in Well No. 7 water likely pushes water upward to the point it will intersect the Deschutes River at a lower downstream river elevation where additional groundwater inflows occur into the river (the river elevation drops over a rough average of 50 feet per mile in the downstream direction). Exhibit 20 Page 9 of 15 Reference: USGS Report 004162 Figure 12. FIGUREDESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:DATE:PROJECT NO. 1130-101Oct 2015 Earth, Water and Rock Specialists Ph: 503 742-1800 Fax: 503 742-1801 Thornburgh Resort Deschutes County, Oregon Groundwater Estimated Inflows & Losses S. Yankey S. Schenck Exhibit 20 Page 10 of 15 Exhibit 20 Page 11 of 15 PHOTO 1 HEAD AREA OF DEEP CANYON SPRING OCT 2021 Exhibit 20 Page 12 of 15 POND CREATED BY BEAVER DAM PHOTO 2 HEAD AREA OF SPRING OCT 2021 Exhibit 20 Page 13 of 15 PHOTO 3 BEAVER DAM & POND BELOW HEAD OF SPRING OCT 2021 Exhibit 20 Page 14 of 15 BEAVER DAMMED WEIR & POND OCT 2021 PHOTO 4 Exhibit 20 Page 15 of 15 Exhibit 21 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit 21 Page 2 of 7 Exhibit 21 Page 3 of 7 Exhibit 21 Page 4 of 7 Exhibit 21 Page 5 of 7 Exhibit 21 Page 6 of 7 Exhibit 21 Page 7 of 7 REVIEWED �V}\, LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS File Number: Appellant: Applicant/Owner: Proposal: Subject Property: Planning Staff: DECISION 247-19-000881-SP,247-20-000279-A, and 247-20- 000282-A. Annunziata Gould and Central Oregon Landwatch Central Land and Cattle Company, LLC Affirm Approval of Site Plan Tax Lots 7700, 7800, and 7900, Map 15-12-00 Cynthia Schmidt, Planner: Staff Decision Will Groves, Senior Planner, Appeal The Board of County Commissioners {BOCC) adopts and incorporates by reference the basic findings, code interpretations, findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the April 1, 2020 Administrative Decision except for the findings relating to the DCC Sections identified below. To the extent there are conflicts between any of the findings identified above and the findings below, the findings and conclusions below shall control. I.BACKGROUND FINDINGS. A.Application Review Process. On December 11, 2019 Kameron Delashmutt and Central Land and Cattle Company, LLC {Applicant) submitted a request for a Site Plan Review (SP) for the Thornburgh Phase A golf course which included lakes that were approved by the Conceptual Master Plan (CMP, File No. CU-05-20) and Final Master Plan (FMP, File No., M- Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2020-579 File No. 247-19-000881-SP Thornburgh Golf Course Page 1 of 17 DC-2020-579 LUBA 2020-095 - Record 0009 Exhibit 22 Page 1 of 2 247-19-000881-SP, Central Land and Cattle Company, LLC Page 54 of 60 improved for reactional uses. The applicant is proposing recreational amenities such as a golf course and lakes. 35. The contract with the owners of units that will be used for overnight lodging by the general public shall contain language to the following effect: “[Unit Owner] shall make the unit available to [Thornburgh Resort/booking agent] for overnight rental use by the general public at least 45 weeks per calendar year though a central reservation and check-in service. FINDING: The applicant is proposing recreational amenities and not overnight lodging units. Therefore, this requirement does not apply to the Site Plan Review of the golf course and lakes. 36. Applicant shall coordinate with the Sheriff’s Office and its designated representative to address all public safety needs associated with the resort and the development process. FINDING: The applicant states they have informed the Sheriff that it is filing of this site plan. A Notice of Application was sent to the County Sheriff’s Office for the Site Plan Review12. No comments or general concerns were submitted into the record from the Sheriff regarding the public safety needs associated with this aspect of the proposed development. Staff notes that the Sheriff’s Office has been involved in the design of the resort during development of the CMP and FMP. This condition is met with the understanding that it is ongoing through future applications. 37. Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.113.070(D) by submitting a wildlife mitigation plan to the County as part of its application for Final master plan approval. The County shall consider the wildlife mitigation plan at a public hearing with the same participatory rights as those allowed in the CMP approval hearing. FINDING: This requirement has been satisfied. 38. The applicant shall abide by the April 2008 Wildlife Mitigation Plan, the August 2008 Supplement, and agreements with the BLM and ODFW for management of off-site mitigation efforts. Consistent with the plan, the applicant shall submit an annual report to the county detailing mitigation activities that have occurred over the previous year. The mitigation measures include removal of existing wells on the subject property and coordination with ODFW to model stream temperatures in Whychus Creek. FINDING: This condition is an ongoing obligation of the Thornburgh Resort FMP, which requires annual reporting for ensure compliance. No off-site mitigation is applicable or required during Site Plan Review because no impact has occurred. Impacts will not occur until development or groundwater pumping begins. One year after these events occur, the applicant will be required to provide the annual reporting. However, reporting is not required during Site Plan Review. 12 Staff mistakenly omitted the Sheriff’s Office from the Notice of Application for the Site Plan Review. To correct this unintentional oversight, the record includes an email that staff sent to Sheriff Nelson on Friday, March 06, 2020 with a copy of the Notice of Application. 13.c Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 2020-04-01 Admin Decision (3202 : Site Plan Review, File No. 247-19-000881-SP)LUBA 2020-095 - Record 1889 Exhibit 22 Page 2 of 2 FINDINGS AND DECISION FILE NUMBER: MC-13-6 APPLICANT/OWNER: Pronghorn Intangibles, LLC 65600 Pronghorn Club Drive Bend, OR 97701 REQUEST: An application for a Modification of Conditions to amend the Conceptual Master Plan (CU-00-118) and Final Master Plan (M-02-1) for the Pronghorn destination resort to: 1) Change the requirement that individually owned overnight lodging units be available to the general public for rent from 45 to 38 weeks per year, and 2) Amend the required ratio of residential units to overnight units from 2:1 to 2.5:1. STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Conceptual Master Plan for Pronghorn (File No. CU-00-118) Final Master Plan for Pronghorn (File No. M-02-1) Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Chapter 22.36, Limitations on Approvals 22.36.040, Modification of Approval Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone 18.16.035, Destination Resorts Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone 18.32.035, Destination Resorts Chapter 18.113, Destination Resorts Zone 18.113.020, Applicability 18.113.060, Standards for Destination Resorts 18.113.080, Procedure for Modification of a Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit 23 Page 1 of 17 File MC-13-6 2 II. BASIC FINDINGS: A. LOCATION: The Pronghorn property is all within Section 16 of Township 16 South, Range 13 East. B. ZONING: The resort property is zoned mainly Exclusive Farm Use, with a 10-acre portion zoned Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The entire resort is within the Destination Resort (DR) Combining Zone. C. SITE DESCRIPTION: The resort property is a total of approximately 640 acres, and has a somewhat varied topography of level areas and some rock outcrop. The resort has been developed with two golf courses (Nicklaus and Fazio courses), a clubhouse, recreation facilities, overnight multi-unit structures, single-family dwellings, entrance/ security building, and including roads and paths scattered throughout the site. Access to the resort is from a road across Bureau of Land Management land extending north from the Powell Butte Highway approximately 4.5 miles to the resort entrance. E. PROPOSAL: According to the information provided by the applicant, the proposal is to amend the Conceptual Master Plan – (CMP), and the Final Master Plan (FMP) for the resort to: 1. Change the requirement that individually owned overnight lodging units be available to the general public for rent from 45 to 38 weeks per year; and 2. Amend the required ratio of residential units to overnight units from 2:1 to 2.5:1. The applicant is proposing these changes based on amendments to Sections 18.04.030, 18.113.050, and 18.113.060 of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, through Ordinance Nos. 2007-005 and 2013-008. F. SURROUNDING LAND USE: The Pronghorn resort consists of the development and amenities listed above. The land surrounding the resort is all under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and is used primarily for recreational uses and some military training operations. G. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notices to several agencies of the proposed request and received the following responses: Deschutes County Transportation Planner: I have reviewed the materials for MC-13-6 to modify the overnight ratios in Pronghorn set by CU-00-118/M-02-1 from 2:1 to 2.5:1 and change the 45 weeks of overnight rental to 38 weeks. The application will not cause any changes in the traffic assumptions of the conceptual master plan approved previously. Redmond Fire Department: The Fire Department submitted a 4-page transmittal response which lists the fire code requirements for Pronghorn. These comments are incorporated herein by reference. County Road Department, Pacific Power and Light: No comment responses. Exhibit 23 Page 2 of 17 File MC-13-6 3 No response was received from: Avion Water Company, Deschutes County Assessor, Central Electric Cooperative, Centurylink, Oregon Department of Transportation, Bureau of Land Management, Redmond Airport, Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District, City of Bend Public Works Department. H. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of this application to all property owners within Pronghorn1. No response to the notice was received. I. REVIEW PERIOD: This application was submitted on November 15, 2013, and was accepted and deemed complete on December 16, 2013. The 150th day on which the County must make a final decision on it is May 15, 2014. The applicant submitted the land use action sign affidavit indicating that the required sign was posted on the property on November 20, 2013. J. LAND USE HISTORY: The Pronghorn resort has had many land use applications submitted and approved, as follows: The resort received approval of a Conceptual Master Plan (File No. CU-00-118 on June 13, 2001. The resort received approval of a Final Master Plan (File No. M-02-1) on May 22, 2002. The resort has received prior approval of the 85-lot phase one (TP-02-930), the 144-lot phase two (TP-03-938), the 59-lot phase three (TP-04-950), a replat to convert a developer’s area into residential lot 289 (RP-04-2), and a tentative plat for 11 lots in the core area of the resort (TP-05-960). Additionally, a tentative plat for 79 lots (TP-07-1005 - Tesana) was approved, as well as a 16-lot zero lot line subdivision (TP-09-1012/ SP-09-22). Included with the phase one approval was a variance (V-02-10) to allow a small portion of the road serving the subdivision to be within the 100-foot setback for roads, and a setback variance for a natural gas regulation station. The final plat for phase one was recorded with the County Clerk’s Office on December 19, 2002. The final plat for phase two was recorded with the County Clerk’s Office on August 18, 2003. The final plat for phase three was recorded with the County Clerk’s Office on November 10, 2004. The final plat for phase four (lot 289) was recorded with the County Clerk’s Office on May 4, 2005. The final plat for the 11-lot core area subdivision was recorded with the County Clerk’s Office on December 15, 2005. The final plat for the 79-lot subdivision was recorded with the County Clerk’s Office on June 24, 2008. In addition to the tentative plats for phases 1-6 and the core area plat, the resort approvals include: site plan (SP-02-35) for the two golf courses (Nicklaus, Fazio), site plan (SP-02-49) for visitor oriented accommodations; variance (V-03-1) to the boundary setback for the entry gatehouse; site plan for the entry gatehouse, restroom buildings, irrigation pumphouse, halfway house, natural gas regulation station (SP-03-22); site plan for the temporary clubhouse/pro shop, temporary golf cart storage and maintenance buildings, paviliion building, a generator and fuel tank storage area (SP-03-25); site plan for the golf maintenance facility (SP-03-44); site plan for enclosing the pavilion building (SP-04-5); site 1 The property surrounding the resort is all under the administration of BLM, and a transmittal request was sent to them for their comments, with no response submitted. Exhibit 23 Page 3 of 17 File MC-13-6 4 plan for four condominium/townhome units in the core area of the resort (SP-04-10); site plan for the Trailhead recreational facility (SP-04-31); site plan for the revised golf maintenance facility (SP-04-43); site plan for the permanent clubhouse facility (SP-04- 47/MC-04-18); site plan for 8 villa/condominium units (SP-04-54); site plan for the temporary clubhouse relocation and Fazio course pumphouse (SP-05-7); Partition to divide Developer Area A lot into two parcels (MP-05-3); a Declaratory Ruling for the Fazio golf course initiation of use (DR-05-3); site plan for two time-share units in the core area (SP-05-65); site plan for the golf academy building (SP-06-29); site plan for the arrival center/spa/store (SP-06-31, it appears this project will not be developed); site plan, variance and replat for the northern entry gatehouse (SP-06-34, RP-06-1, V-06-10); site plan for three condominium/ timeshare buildings in the core area (SP-07-55); site plan for five condominium/timeshare buildings in the core area (SP-07-56). Additionally, the applicant has obtained approval of Improvement Agreements with the County for assuring completion of the utilities/ infrastructure for the first three phases of the resort. The applicant submitted two site plan applications (SP-08-2, SP- 08-4) for two separate hotel facilities at the resort. TITLE 22 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE Chapter 22.36, Limitations of Approvals Section 22.36.040, Modification of Approvals A. An applicant may apply to modify an approval at any time after a period of six months has elapsed from a time a land use action approval has become final. FINDING: The conceptual master plan for Pronghorn became final on June 18, 2001. The final master plan for Pronghorn became final on May 22, 2002. These approvals are 12+ years and 11+ years, respectively, prior to the modification application submittal, meeting the 6-month standard above. B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. FINDING: The applicant has indicated that the changes in circumstances are the adoption of the amendments to Title 18, through Ordinance Nos. 2007-005 and 2013-008. Ordinance 2007- 005 amended the requirement for overnight units which qualify for that status if they are available for rental by the public from 45 to 38 weeks per year. Ordinance 2013-008 amended the ratio of residential units to the required overnight units from 2:1 to 2.5:1. The applicant states that the two changes will make the resort consistent with both State Law and County Code. Staff finds that there has been a clear change of circumstances since the original approval of Pronghorn with the above code changes completed. The applicant is not substituting the modification for an appeal of any land use decision. Staff further finds that the use will not be a substantially new proposal, as it will still be a destination resort. And staff finds that it will likely Exhibit 23 Page 4 of 17 File MC-13-6 5 have less impact on surrounding properties, as there will be fewer overnight units at the resort, meaning fewer people visiting the resort. C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed modification, as defined in DCC 22.36.040, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular aspect of the proposal. Proposals that would modify an approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. FINDING: The applicant has directed the proposal at two aspects of the destination resort standards, both of which have been amended by the County. They are the reduction in the number of weeks an individually owned residential unit must be available for rental to the public from 45 to 38 weeks to qualify as an overnight unit, and a reduction in the ratio of residential units to the required overnight units for the resort from 2:1 to 2.5:1. As stated in the foregoing finding, the proposal is not a substantially new proposal. The project will still be a destination resort. The proposed changes will also not have significant additional impacts on surrounding lands. Staff finds that there will likely be less impact on adjacent lands, as there will be fewer people staying overnight at the resort with the number of required overnight units reduced. Staff finds that the proposed changes are not in a scope greater than allowable as a modification. D. An application for a modification shall be handled as a land use action. FINDING: The proposed modification of CU-00-118 and M-02-1 is being handled as a land use action, including notice of application to all owners in Pronghorn, as well as a notice of decision to these same parties. PRONGHORN CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN AND FINAL MASTER PLAN The Hearings Officer’s decision2 on CU-00-118 included the following condition of approval: 3. The applicant/owner shall maintain the 2-to-1 ratio between individually- owned residential and visitor-oriented units throughout the resort and document that ratio with development of each phase of the resort. The Board of County Commissioner’s decision on M-02-1 includes the following condition of approval: E. The applicant/owner shall maintain the 2-to-1 ratio between individually- owned residential and visitor-oriented units throughout the resort and document that ratio with development of each phase of the resort. 2 The Hearings Officer’s decision was appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. However, the issues on appeal before the Board were only transportation related, and the appeal decision did not change the conditions requested for this modification. Exhibit 23 Page 5 of 17 File MC-13-6 6 FINDING: The applicant is proposing to amend conditions 3 and E to change the required ratio of residential units to visitor-oriented units from 2:1 to 2.5:1, which is now in effect in the County Code. These identical conditions also would reference what constitutes a “visitor-oriented” unit, which must be available for rental at least 38 weeks in a year. The applicable sections of DCC Chapter 18.113 are addressed below. TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Section 18.32.035, Destination Resorts Destination resorts may be allowed as a conditional use, subject to all applicable standards of the DR Zone. FINDING: Pronghorn was approved through a conditional use permit (CU-00-118) as stated in a foregoing finding. The resort is not subject to any standards within the MUA-10 zone. The standards and criteria under DCC 18.113 are the only ones that apply to the resort. Chapter 18.116, Exclusive Farm Use Zone Section 18.16.035, Destination Resorts Destination resorts may be allowed, where mapped, as a conditional use, subject to all applicable standards of the Destination Resort Zone. FINDING: As stated in the foregoing finding, Pronghorn was approved through a conditional use permit (CU-00-118), and is not subject to any standards in the EFU zone. The standards and criteria under DCC 18.113 are the only ones that apply to the resort. Chapter 18.113, Destination Resorts Zone 1. Section 18.113.020, Applicabilility A. The provisions of DCC 18.113 shall apply to proposals for the development of destination resorts, as defined in DCC Title 18, in areas designated DR by the County zoning maps. The provisions of DCC shall not apply to any development proposal in an area designated DR other than a destination resort. B. When these provisions are applicable, they shall supersede all other provisions of the underlying zone. Other provisions of the zoning ordinance, made applicable by specific map designations, such as the SMIA, AH, CH, FP or LM, or otherwise applicable under the terms of the zoning ordinance text shall remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise specified herein. C. The provisions of DCC 18.113 apply to destination resorts sited through the Goal 2 exception process. Exhibit 23 Page 6 of 17 File MC-13-6 7 FINDING: Pronghorn was approved under DCC Chapter 18.113 through applications nos. CU- 00-118 and M-02-1. As stated in foregoing findings, the MUA-10 and EFU zone standards do not apply to Pronghorn, since it was approved under DCC 18.113. The Pronghorn property does not contain any SMIA, AH3, CH, FP or LM combining zones. Additionally, Pronghorn was not approved through a Goal 2 exception process. 2. Section 18.113.040, Application Submission The authorization of a permit for a destination resort shall consist of three steps. A. Conceptual Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Destination Resort. A conceptual master plan (CMP) shall be submitted which addresses all requirements established in DCC 18.113.040. The CMP application shall be processed as if it were a conditional use permit under DCC Title 22, shall be subject to DCC 18.128.010, 18.128.020 and 18.128.030 and shall be reviewed for compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in DCC 18.113. B. Final Master Plan. The applicant shall prepare a final master plan (FMP) which incorporates all requirements of the County approval for a CMP. The Planning Director shall review the FMP to determine if it complies with the approved CMP and all conditions of approval of the conditional use permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve, deny or return the FMP to the applicant for additional information. When interpretations of the Planning Director involve issues which are discretionary, the FMP approval shall be treated as a land use permit in accordance with DCC Title 22. C. Site Plan Review. Each element or development phase of the destination resort must receive additional approval through the required site plan review (DCC 18.124) or subdivision process (DCC Title 17). In addition to findings satisfying the site plan or subdivision criteria, findings shall be made that the specific development proposal complies with the standards and criteria of DCC 18.113 and the FMP. FINDING: The Pronghorn resort received CMP and FMP approval as stated in a foregoing finding. The applicant is requesting a modification to the CMP and FMP to allow overnight rental units to be available 38 weeks of the year (from the current 45 weeks), and to reduce the ratio of residential units to the required overnight units from 2:1 to 2.5:1. Staff finds that these modifications are minor in nature and do not require revisiting all the criteria in the DR chapter. 3. Section 18.113.060, Standards for Destination Resorts The following standards shall govern consideration of destination resorts: D. A destination resort shall, cumulatively and for each phase meet the following minimum requirements: 3 The Airport Height Combining Zone has been changed to the Airport Safety Combining Zone. Exhibit 23 Page 7 of 17 File MC-13-6 8 2. Individually-owned residential units that do not meet the definition of overnight lodging in DCC 18.04.030 shall not exceed two and one- half such units for each unit of visitor-oriented overnight lodging. Individually-owned units shall be considered visitor-oriented lodging if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 38 weeks per calendar year through one or more central reservation and check-in service(s) operated by the destination resort or by a real estate property manager, as defined in ORS 696.010. a. The ratio applies to destination resorts which were previously approved under a different standard. FINDING: The applicant is requesting a modification to the CMP and FMP to allow the overnight rental requirement to meet the above standard of 38 weeks, and the ratio of residential units to overnight units of 2.5:1. Subsection “a” above allows the amended standard to be applied to Pronghorn, as it was approved under the prior 45-week and 2:1 ratio in DCC 18.113, which was in effect in 2000 (CMP) and 2002 (FMP). 4. Section 18.113.080, Procedure for Modification of a Conceptual Master Plan Any substantial change, as determined by the Planning Director, proposed to an approved CMP shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original CMP. An insubstantial change may be approved by the Planning Director. Substantial change to an approved CMP, as used in DCC 18.113.080, means an alteration in the type, scale, location, phasing or other characteristic of the proposed development such that findings of fact on which the original approval was based would be materially affected. FINDING: Staff finds that the proposed changes to the CMP and FMP, related to the required number of weeks (38) that a residential unit be available for rental to the public to qualify as an overnight unit, as well as the ratio of residential units that are not overnight units to the qualifying overnight units be amended from 2:1 to 2.5:1 are insubstantial. The number of required overnight units will be reduced with the ratio change, constituting less impact on the site and surrounding land. Staff finds that the findings of fact on which the original approval was granted will not be materially affected. The use will continue, and function as, a destination resort. Whether it is the general public that comes to the site, or on-site owners of residential units, the project will remain as approved. There will not be an increase in traffic to the site based on the proposed changes. The County Transportation Planner’s comment was: “The application will not cause any changes in the traffic assumptions of the conceptual master plan approved previously.” III. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed modification application meets the requirements of Titles 18 and 22 of the Deschutes County Code. The following amended conditions apply. Exhibit 23 Page 8 of 17 File MC-13-6 9 IV. DECISION: APPROVAL, to amend the required ratio of residential units to overnight units to 2.5:1, and to change the requirement that individually owned overnight lodging units be available to the general public for rent from 45 to 38 weeks per year. V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Conceptual Master Plan (CU-00-118), Condition No. 3: 3. The applicant/owner shall maintain the 2.5 to 1 ratio between individually-owned residential and visitor-oriented units throughout the resort and document that ratio with development of each phase of the resort. Final Master Plan (M-02-1), Condition E: E. The applicant/owner shall maintain the 2.5 to 1 ratio between individually-owned residential and visitor-oriented units throughout the resort and document that ratio with development of each phase of the resort. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Written by: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Kevin M. Harrison, Principal Planner Dated this ____ day of December, 2013 Mailed this ____ day of December, 2013 Exhibit 23 Page 9 of 17 FINDINGS AND DECISION FILE NUMBER: MC-14-3 APPLICANT/OWNER: Eagle Crest Resort Development, LLC 36 Narrow Rocks Road Westport, CT 06880 REQUEST: An application for a Modification of Conditions to amend the Conceptual Master Plan (CU-93-94 and CU-99-85) and Final Master Plan (M-95-1 and M-01-1) for the Eagle Crest destination resort to: 1) change the requirement that individually owned overnight lodging units be available to the general public for rent from 45 to 38 weeks per year, and 2) amend the required ratio of residential units to overnight units from 2:1 to 2.5:1. STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Conceptual Master Plan for Eagle Crest (File Nos. CU-93-94 and CU-99-85) Final Master Plan for Eagle Crest (File Nos. M-95-1 and M-01-1) Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Chapter 22.36, Limitations on Approvals 22.36.040, Modification of Approval Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.113, Destination Resorts Zone 18.113.020, Applicability 18.113.060, Standards for Destination Resorts 18.113.080, Procedure for Modification of a Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit 23 Page 10 of 17 File MC-14-3 2 II. BASIC FINDINGS: A. LOCATION: The Eagle Crest resort property is located within sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 24 of Township 15 South, Range 12 East. The subdivision plats within Eagle Crest include: Riverview Vista Estates, Eagle Crest, Eagle Crest II, Eagle Crest III, Eagle Crest IV, Eagle Crest VI, Eagle Crest VII, Eagle Crest VIII, Eagle Crest IX, Eagle Crest X, Eagle Crest XI, Eagle Crest XII, Eagle Crest XIII, Eagle Crest II Phase 1, Ridge at Eagle Crest II, III, IV, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11 Replat, 12, 12 Replat, 13, 14, 14 Replat, 15, 16, 17, 189, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61. B. ZONING: The resort property is zoned mainly Exclusive Farm Use, with a portion zoned Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The entire resort is within the Destination Resort (DR) Combining Zone. C. SITE DESCRIPTION: The resort property has a varied topography of level areas, hills and some rock outcrop. The resort has been developed in three phases, with three golf courses, two clubhouses, recreation facilities, overnight multi-unit structures, a hotel, single-family dwellings and including roads and paths throughout the site. Access to the resort is mainly from Cline Falls Road, with secondary access from Highway 126. Eagle Crest Phase 1 is located east of Cline Falls Road, between the road and the Deschutes River. Eagle Crest Phases II and III are located to the west of Cline Falls Road. A strip of land under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) separates Eagle Crest phases II and III. E. PROPOSAL: According to the information provided by the applicant, the proposal is to amend the Conceptual Master Plan – (CMP), and the Final Master Plan (FMP) for the resort to: 1. Change the requirement that individually owned overnight lodging units be available to the general public for rent from 45 to 38 weeks per year; and 2. Amend the required ratio of residential units to overnight units from 2:1 to 2.5:1. The applicant is proposing these changes based on amendments to Sections 18.04.030, 18.113.050, and 18.113.060 of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, through Ordinance Nos. 2007-005 and 2013-008. F. SURROUNDING LAND USE: The Eagle Crest resort consists of the development and amenities listed above. The land surrounding the resort includes private land zoned EFU, MUA-10 and RR-10. Additionally, there is property under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is used primarily for recreational purposes. G. REVIEW PERIOD: This modification application was submitted on May 15, 2014, and was accepted and deemed complete on June 6, 2014. The 150th day on which the County must make a final decision on it is November 3, 2014. J. LAND USE HISTORY: The Eagle Crest resort has had many land use applications submitted and approved. The Conceptual Master Plan and Final Master Plan are the guiding documents for the resort development. Exhibit 23 Page 11 of 17 File MC-14-3 3 The resort received initial approval in 1981 (file no. CU-81-144) for 4721 acres. The decision does not specify the number of lots or what type of development was proposed. The first tentative plat indicated there were to be 125 single-family lots, 75 nonresidential lots and 15 townhouse lots. T The resort received approval of a Conceptual Master Plan for phase II (File No. CU-93- 94), which took into account the original approval on the east side of Cline Falls Road from 1983/84, on August 11, 1994. The Final Master Plan for phase II (File No. M-95-1) was approved on August 23, 1995. The phase II approval was for a 746-acre expansion to the resort. It included 497 single-family homesites, 162 multi-family units (1/5 share condominiums, 120 timeshare townhouses, and a 226 room hotel. The resort also received approval of a Conceptual Master Plan for phase III (File No. CU-99-85) on May 24, 2001, and Final Master Plan approval for phase III (File No. M- 01-1) on October 16, 20012. This approval was for 480 acres with up to 900 dwelling units (including overnight lodging). TITLE 22 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE Chapter 22.36, Limitations of Approvals Section 22.36.040, Modification of Approvals A. An applicant may apply to modify an approval at any time after a period of six months has elapsed from a time a land use action approval has become final. FINDING: The conditional use permit for Eagle Crest phase 1 became final on April 10, 1982. The conceptual master plan for Eagle Crest phase II became final on August 10, 1994. The final master plan for Eagle Crest phase II became final on September 5, 1995. The conceptual master plan for Eagle Crest phase 3 became final on became final on May 24, 2001. The final master plan for Eagle Crest Phase 3 became final on October 16, 2001. Since the master plan approvals for phase 3 encompass the entire project, these approvals will be the ones subject to the 6-month time period above. The approvals are 13 years and 12.5 years, respectively, prior to the modification application submittal, meeting the 6-month standard above. B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. 1 The findings and decision for CU-81-144 indicate 476 acres, and the decision on Eagle Crest II indicates it was 508 acres. Staff is not sure which acreage is correct. 2 The phase 3 approval for Eagle Crest took into account all of the Eagle Crest resort, including those portions located east and west of Cline Falls Road, and constitutes the overriding documents for the resort. Consequently, the CMP and FMP applications for Eagle Crest 3 are the decisions that should be modified. Exhibit 23 Page 12 of 17 File MC-14-3 4 FINDING: The applicant has indicated that the changes in circumstances are the adoption of the amendments to Title 18, through Ordinance Nos. 2007-005 and 2013-008. Ordinance 2007- 005 amended the requirement for overnight units which qualify for that status if they are available for rental by the public from 45 to 38 weeks per year. Ordinance 2013-008 amended the ratio of residential units to the required overnight units from 2:1 to 2.5:1. The applicant states that the two changes will be directed at an effort to make the resort consistent with both State Law and County Code. Staff finds that there has been a clear change of circumstances since the original approval of Eagle Crest with the above code changes completed. The applicant is not substituting the modification for an appeal of any land use decision. Staff further finds that the use will not be a substantially new proposal, as it will still be a destination resort. And staff finds that it will likely have less impact on surrounding properties, as there will be fewer overnight units at the resort, meaning fewer people visiting the resort. C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed modification, as defined in DCC 22.36.040, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular aspect of the proposal. Proposals that would modify an approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. FINDING: The applicant has directed the proposal at two aspects of the destination resort standards, both of which have been amended by the County. They are the reduction in the number of weeks an individually owned residential unit must be available for rental to the public from 45 to 38 weeks to qualify as an overnight unit, and a reduction in the ratio of residential units to the required overnight units for the resort from 2:1 to 2.5:1. As stated in the foregoing finding, the proposal is not a substantially new proposal. The project will still be a destination resort. The proposed changes will also not have significant additional impacts on surrounding lands. Staff finds that there will likely be less impact on adjacent lands, as there will be fewer people staying overnight at the resort with the number of required overnight units reduced. Staff finds that the proposed changes are not in a scope greater than allowable as a modification. D. An application for a modification shall be handled as a land use action. FINDING: The proposed modification of CU-99-85 and M-01-1 is being handled as a land use action, including a notice of decision to the owners within the resort. EAGLE CREST CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN AND FINAL MASTER PLAN The Board of County Commissioner’s decision on CU-99-85 included the following condition of approval: 7. The applicant/owner shall assure through continuous monitoring that development within the Eagle Crest resort, including phase III, meets the Exhibit 23 Page 13 of 17 File MC-14-3 5 requirement that individually-owned residential units not exceed two such units for each unit of visitor-oriented overnight lodging. (i.e. the 2 to 1 ratio) The Board of County Commissioner’s decision on M-01-1 includes the following condition of approval: 1. All conditions of the Conceptual Master Plan approval shall be met and continue to be met throughout the life of the project, unless approval is granted for changes. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to amend condition no. 7 of the CMP, and condition no. 1 of the FMP, to change the required ratio of residential units to visitor-oriented units from 2:1 to 2.5:1, which is now in effect in the County Code. These conditions also would reference what constitutes a “visitor-oriented” unit, which must be available for rental at least 38 weeks in a year. The applicable sections of DCC Chapter 18.113 are addressed below.3 TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Section 18.32.035, Destination Resorts Destination resorts may be allowed as a conditional use, subject to all applicable standards of the DR Zone. FINDING: Eagle was approved through the land use applications stated in a foregoing finding. The resort is not subject to any standards within the MUA-10 zone. The standards and criteria under DCC 18.113 are the only ones that apply to the resort. Chapter 18.116, Exclusive Farm Use Zone Section 18.16.035, Destination Resorts Destination resorts may be allowed, where mapped, as a conditional use, subject to all applicable standards of the Destination Resort Zone. FINDING: Eagle Crest was approved through the land use applications listed in a foregoing finding. The resort is not subject to any standards in the EFU zone. The standards and criteria under DCC 18.113 are the only ones that apply to the resort. Chapter 18.113, Destination Resorts Zone 1. Section 18.113.020, Applicability 3 Staff notes that both the Hearings Officer’s and the Board of County Commissioner’s decisions on the CMP and FMP for Eagle Crest III did not specifically reference the 45-week requirement for overnight lodging units in the conditions of approval. However, it was a requirement in the code (DCC 18.113.060(L)(6), and is a requirement for the FMP for the resort. Additionally, it was addressed in the body of the Board’s FMP decision (page 8) and is required as part of any approval for a destination resort. Exhibit 23 Page 14 of 17 File MC-14-3 6 A. The provisions of DCC 18.113 shall apply to proposals for the development of destination resorts, as defined in DCC Title 18, in areas designated DR by the County zoning maps. The provisions of DCC shall not apply to any development proposal in an area designated DR other than a destination resort. B. When these provisions are applicable, they shall supersede all other provisions of the underlying zone. Other provisions of the zoning ordinance, made applicable by specific map designations, such as the SMIA, AH, CH, FP or LM, or otherwise applicable under the terms of the zoning ordinance text shall remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise specified herein. C. The provisions of DCC 18.113 apply to destination resorts sited through the Goal 2 exception process. FINDING: Eagle Crest III was approved under DCC Chapter 18.113 through applications nos. CU-99-85 and M-01-1. As stated in foregoing findings, the MUA-10 and EFU zone standards do not apply to Eagle Crest, since it was approved under DCC 18.113. Other provisions of the code have been addressed as part of the land use applications for the resort. Additionally, Eagle Crest was not approved through a Goal 2 exception process. 2. Section 18.113.040, Application Submission The authorization of a permit for a destination resort shall consist of three steps. A. Conceptual Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Destination Resort. A conceptual master plan (CMP) shall be submitted which addresses all requirements established in DCC 18.113.040. The CMP application shall be processed as if it were a conditional use permit under DCC Title 22, shall be subject to DCC 18.128.010, 18.128.020 and 18.128.030 and shall be reviewed for compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in DCC 18.113. B. Final Master Plan. The applicant shall prepare a final master plan (FMP) which incorporates all requirements of the County approval for a CMP. The Planning Director shall review the FMP to determine if it complies with the approved CMP and all conditions of approval of the conditional use permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve, deny or return the FMP to the applicant for additional information. When interpretations of the Planning Director involve issues which are discretionary, the FMP approval shall be treated as a land use permit in accordance with DCC Title 22. C. Site Plan Review. Each element or development phase of the destination resort must receive additional approval through the required site plan review (DCC 18.124) or subdivision process (DCC Title 17). In addition to findings satisfying the site plan or subdivision criteria, findings shall be made that the specific development proposal complies with the standards and criteria of DCC 18.113 and the FMP. Exhibit 23 Page 15 of 17 File MC-14-3 7 FINDING: The Eagle Crest resort received CMP and FMP approval as stated in a foregoing finding. The applicant is requesting a modification to the CMP and FMP to allow overnight rental units to be available 38 weeks of the year (from the current 45 weeks), and to reduce the ratio of residential units to the required overnight units from 2:1 to 2.5:1. Staff finds that these modifications are minor in nature and do not require revisiting all the criteria in the DR chapter. 3. Section 18.113.060, Standards for Destination Resorts The following standards shall govern consideration of destination resorts: D. A destination resort shall, cumulatively and for each phase meet the following minimum requirements: 2. Individually-owned residential units that do not meet the definition of overnight lodging in DCC 18.04.030 shall not exceed two and one-half such units for each unit of visitor-oriented overnight lodging. Individually-owned units shall be considered visitor-oriented lodging if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 38 weeks per calendar year through one or more central reservation and check-in service(s) operated by the destination resort or by a real estate property manager, as defined in ORS 696.010. a. The ratio applies to destination resorts which were previously approved under a different standard. FINDING: The applicant is requesting a modification to the CMP and FMP to allow the overnight rental requirement to meet the above standard of 38 weeks, and the ratio of residential units to overnight units of 2.5:1. Subsection “a” above allows the amended standard to be applied to Eagle Crest, as it was approved under the prior 45-week and 2:1 ratio in DCC 18.113, which was in effect in 1999 (CMP) and 2001 (FMP). 4. Section 18.113.080, Procedure for Modification of a Conceptual Master Plan Any substantial change, as determined by the Planning Director, proposed to an approved CMP shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original CMP. An insubstantial change may be approved by the Planning Director. Substantial change to an approved CMP, as used in DCC 18.113.080, means an alteration in the type, scale, location, phasing or other characteristic of the proposed development such that findings of fact on which the original approval was based would be materially affected. FINDING: Staff finds that the proposed changes to the CMP and FMP, related to the required number of weeks (38) that a residential unit be available for rental to the public to qualify as an overnight unit, as well as the ratio of residential units that are not overnight units to the qualifying overnight units be amended from 2:1 to 2.5:1 are not substantial changes. The number of required overnight units will be reduced with the ratio change, constituting less impact on the site and surrounding land. Staff finds that the findings of fact on which the original approval was granted will not be materially affected. The use will continue, and function as, a destination resort. Whether it is the general public that comes to the site, or on-site owners of Exhibit 23 Page 16 of 17 File MC-14-3 8 residential units, the project will remain as approved. There will not be an increase in traffic to the site based on the proposed changes. III. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed modification application meets the requirements of Titles 18 and 22 of the Deschutes County Code. The following amended conditions apply. IV. DECISION: APPROVAL, to amend the required ratio of residential units to overnight units to 2.5:1, and to change the requirement that individually owned overnight lodging units be available to the general public for rent from 45 to 38 weeks per year. V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Conceptual Master Plan (CU-99-85), Condition No. 7 is amended to read: 7. The applicant/owner shall assure through continuous monitoring that development within the Eagle Crest resort meets the requirement that individually-owned residential units not exceed 2.5 such units for each unit of visitor-oriented overnight lodging. Final Master Plan (M-01-1), Condition 1 is amended to read: 1. All conditions of the Conceptual Master Plan approval shall be met and continue to be met throughout the life of the project, unless approval is granted for any changes. The individually-owned lodging units considered to be overnight lodging must be available for rental to the public at least 38 weeks per calendar year. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Written by: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Kevin M. Harrison, Principal Planner Dated this 11th day of June, 2014 Mailed this 11th day of June, 2014 Exhibit 23 Page 17 of 17 PO Box 1597, Redmond, OR 97756 ThornburghResort.com September 7, 2021 GREGORY FRANK, HEARINGS OFFICER C/O WILL GROVES, SENIOR PLANNER DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 117 NW LAFAYETTE AVENUE BEND, OREGON 97703 Dear Hearings Officer Frank: I am writing to respond to comments filed by David Arnold in his letter dated August 30, 2021. I want to make it clear that while Pinnacle Utilities, LLC has been acquiring water rights from sources other than Big Falls Ranch, those water rights are currently not being used. As a result, those water rights are providing benefits for fish and wildlife by increasing the flows of Central Oregon creeks and rivers. Mr. Arnold, while complaining that Pinnacle has substantial water rights other than the BFR rights, overlooks the fact that the resort is not using them. The result is that a substantial amount of water is being left in the river. In the case of LeBeau, Thornburgh has transferred 50 acres (200 acre-feet) of water directly instream. This water is providing benefits to fish and aquatic habitat, for which OWRD has sent a thank you letter. See enclosed photograph of letter dated June 30, 2021 from Sarah Henderson of OWRD. The LeBeau water is the equivalent of 90 acre- feet of mitigation water. The Tree Farm water is .453 cfs of quasi-municipal ground water which is the equivalent of 327 acre-feet of water or 182 acre-feet of mitigation water (327/1.8). In addition, Thornburgh has 16.5 acres of groundwater (29.7 acre-feet of mitigation water) acquired from Dutch Pacific that has been allowed to flow to the river since 2019. Thornburgh also acquired DRC mitigation credits long ago that are equivalent to 6-acre feet of mitigation. As noted by OWRD watermaster Jeremy Giffin, Thornburgh has been providing this mitigation without using any water. These water rights that are being allowed to flow to or in the river total an equivalent of 307.7 acre-feet of mitigation water. This is over and above the 90 acres of BFR water (162 acre-feet of mitigation) Pinnacle recently acquired which, also, is not being pumped. This results in 469.7 acre-feet of mitigation water not being used. As noted in the record, the total BFR water currently allowed to flow to the creek presently is 836 acre-feet of mitigation water. When it is added to the 307.7 acre-feet of mitigation water owned by Pinnacle other than the BFR water, it yields mitigation of nearly 1,144 acre-feet. The fact that opponents try to twist leaving water in the river into a negative instead of embracing the benefits provided, indicate that river health is not their real concern. Exhibit 24 Page 1 of 3 Mr. Kleinman uses words like critical and delicate balance in his post-hearing comments and says: “The source of Thornburgh’s mitigation water is not merely relevant but is critical to the entire “delicate balance” to which we have referred to previously.” In the same submittal, he quotes extensively from the FWMP with the apparent aim of showing that there are very substantial impacts that must be addressed and that the solutions have little room for error. Mr. Newton speaks to in his letter today quoting conclusions reached on page 12 of the FWMP which clearly says that with OWRD mitigation only (quantity mitigation from the General Zone of Impact above the Madras gage), temperature/water quality impacts are negligible and the resort will not result in any quantifiable negative impact to fish habitat. See Newton Memo 9/7/21. The FWMP outlines the fish habitat that is potentially affected (See page 7, section IV) and discusses the discussions with ODFW saying: “Although the OWRD rules and USGS study on which the rules are based do not directly address temperature issues, ODFW also recognized that with the flow replacement required under OWRD rules the potential impact to temperature as a result of the Thornburgh project – or any similar individual project – is expected to be negligible. However, ODFW acknowledged a concern about the potential for cumulative impacts from on-going groundwater development in the basin over time.” On page 8, the FWMP notes that: “NCI determined the potential temperature impacts attributable to the project are expected to be slight and below levels that can be effectively measured.” Even though the resort’s impacts on stream temperatures were not measurable, ODFW was concerned with the cumulative impacts of other groundwater development. Because of that concern, we’ve litigated this issue for 13 years, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in every possible jurisdiction. That is why even after putting the Deep Canyon spring water in the river, project opponents continue to construct phantom issues to complain about -- issues that have nothing to do with the issue on remand. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. I realize they do not relate to the issue on remand because the source of mitigation water for the Phase A-1 tentative plan is Big Falls Ranch but feel it is helpful to understand the broader picture in order to determine that most of the issues raised are, in fact, irrelevant to the issue on remand. Sincerely, Kameron DeLashmutt Exhibit 24 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit 24 Page 3 of 3 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 | P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 cdd@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org/cd COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS AND DECISION FILE NUMBER: 247-21-000537-SP SUBJECT PROPERTY/ OWNER: Mailing Name: Central Land and Cattle Company, LLC Map and Tax Lots: 7700, 7800 Assessor's Map 15-12-00. APPLICANTS: Central Land and Cattle Company, LLC Kameron DeLashmutt REQUEST: Site Plan Review of Welcome Center, Gatehouse, Golf Clubhouse and Community Hall STAFF CONTACT: Angie Brewer, Senior Planner Phone: 541-385-1704 Email: angie.brewer@deschutes.org RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov I.APPLICABLE CRITERIA Final Master Plan (FMP) Approval, file no. M-07/MA-08-6 Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU) Chapter 18.113, Destination Resorts Zone (DR) Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance II.BASIC FINDINGS SUBJECT PROPERTY: The proposed project will be located on areas currently shown on tax lots 7700 and 7800, Assessor's Map 15-12-00. LOT OF RECORD: Tax Lot 7800 is a lot of record because it was found to be a lot of record in LR-91- 56.Tax Lot 7700 is comprised of four lots of record as determined by 247-14-000450-LR. The entire Exhibit 25 Page 1 of 2 247-21-000537-SP Page 67 of 70 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings, staff concludes that the proposed use can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. Other permits may be required. The applicants are responsible for obtaining any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division and Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division as well as any required state and federal permits. V. DECISION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. B. The applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division and Environmental Soils Division. C. This approval is based on the specific mapped locations shown in the application materials and that any substantial change to road, right-of-way, parking, structure configurations, or structure locations is not approved under this decision. D. Emergency secondary resort access roads shall be improved in compliance with FMP Condition #4 prior to final plat approval or issuance of any building permit under this site plan, whichever comes first. E. The applicant shall receive confirmation from the Redmond Fire Department that all fire protection requirements of the Redmond Fire Department identified in the submitted June 21, 2021 comment letter have been met, prior to issuance of building permits. F. Clear vision area shall be maintained in accordance with DCC 18.116.020(A). G. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18. H. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to take care of parking needs. Exhibit 25 Page 2 of 2