Loading...
1994-26564-Minutes for Meeting April 06,1994 Recorded 6/28/199494-26564 MINUTES Public Hearing Eagle Crest Appeal 0135--2593 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS April 6, 1994 Chair Nancy Pope Schlangen called the public hearing to order at 5:33 p.m. Board of Commissioners in attendance were Nancy Pope Schlangen, Tom Throop, and Barry Slaughter. Also in attendance were Dale Van Valkenburg, Rick Isham, and George Read. APPEAL BY EAGLE CREST OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION APPROVAL ON FILE CU -93-94 FOR A DESTINATION RESORTS MASTER PLAN AND DENIAL OF VARIANCE V-93-28 FOR REDUCTION OF ROAD SETBACK AND SEVERAL AREAS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE RESORT Chair Schlangen reported the public hearing would be conducted in the following order. The staff report will be given prior to the proceedings and cover the issues raised by the applicants on appeal. The applicant will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony and evidence. The applicant will be followed by effected agencies and tribal entities. Opponents will then be given a chance to make presentations. After both proponents and opponents have made their presentations, the proponents will be allowed to make a rebuttal presentation. At the Board's discretion, opponents may be recognized for rebuttal presentations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the staff will be given the opportunity to make any closing comments. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. Chair Schlangen asked for disclosure from the Commissioners for any prehearing contact in this matter. All three Commissioners reported having no prehearing contact. Chair Schlangen also asked audience members if they felt any member of the Board of Commissioners should be challenged with bias or inability to make a fair decision in this matter. No challenge was made from the public. Betty Marquardt submitted an envelope with a written challenge from Sandra Sands, 3450 S.W. 81st Street, Redmond. Sandra Sands questioned the Boards objectivity in rendering a decision pertaining to Eagle Crest. Along with the memo from Sandra Sands was a copy of a letter from Commissioner Throop to C.R. Lindsay in October 1, 1992, regarding Eagle Crest, a copy of an article from The Bulletin of December 20, 1991, a copy of a letter from ARLU- DeCo dated January 1, 1992, and a copy of campaign contributions raised during 1990 of which $500 was from Eagle Crest. Dale Van Valkenburg stated for the record these applications were submitted to the County August 5, 1993. J,VCHED- 51994 0135-2594 Commissioner Schlangen stated that when a Board member is challenged, the member may either disqualify himself and withdraw from the hearing or make a statement for the record of his/her ability to hear the appeal. Commissioner Throop responded to this challenge by stating that if you look at the language in a letter written by him on October 1, 1992, to C.R. Lindsay, The Bulletin article that is dated December 20, 1991, or if you look at anything that he has said or done since Eagle Crest began their interest in initiating their expansion, he has very strongly supported Eagle Crest having the opportunity to go through this process. He stated he has supported Eagle Crest from a process point of view by saying that this was a viable application that should be considered by policy makers of Deschutes County. He stated he had supported Eagle Crest in formulating a proposal, submitting that to the County and trying to put the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and implementing our ordinances in a position to where an application could be entertained and dealt with. He stated that this did not bias him in any way on outcomes. He stated he wanted to make certain that there was a process to make an application so they would have an opportunity to forward their proposal to the decision makers in the County. He said nowhere in any of the documents presented does it indicate bias for an outcome in that process. Eagle Crest submitted an application, we are engaged in that process, and again nowhere in any of these materials did he indicate that he supported this specific expansion proposal, that he opposes this specific expansion proposal, or nowhere in any of these materials did it talk about any conditions for approval or denial. He simply said to bring it on, conduct public hearings, hear the issue and listen to all sides and make the best possible decision based on what was heard in the hearings. He felt he entered the process without bias. He felt he could fairly listen to the testimony and render an unbiased decision. He stated he would not disqualify himself, but would retain his position as a decision maker on this application. Chair Schlangen discussed the procedure for this public hearing. She stated that written testimony will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on April 15, 1994. The next public hearing for accepting oral testimony would be scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on April 25, 1994. Written rebuttal will be accepted until Monday, May 2, 1994, at 4:30 p.m. The oral decision will be made by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, May 4, 1994, at the 10 a.m. meeting. Commissioner Throop pointed out that the final staff proposal was not issued from the Community Development Department until April 5, 1994, and the commissioners felt that another opportunity was needed for oral testimony because that information came out only twenty-four hours in advance of the hearing. MINUTES PAGE 2 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING 0135-2595 Dale Van Valkenburg reported the entire record was before the Board along with any new testimony submitted at this hearing. Dale Van Valkenburg stated Eagle Crest has applied for a conceptual master plan and conditional use permit for a destination resort which allow a 746 acre expansion of a 508 acre resort of Eagle Crest. The applicant plans to use the existing 508 acre Eagle Crest Phase I as a basis for expanding into two new areas. Eagle Crest Phase II would contain 710 acres and Canyon River Territories is adjacent to Phase I and would contain 36 acres. The total size of the resort resulting from the proposed expansion would be 1,254 acres. The application was applied for on August 5, 1993. Public hearings were held on October 14 and 21, 1993, before the County Hearings Officer. During the two public hearings a substantial amount of new information was submitted during those two public hearings. On January 13, 1994, the Hearings Officer issued a 170 page Findings & Decision approving the conditional use permit but denying the variance. The Hearings Officer's decision addressed all of the evidence and testimony submitted into the record at that time. The decision contained 74 conditions of approval. On January 24, 1994, Eagle Crest submitted timely appeals of the Hearings Officer's decision on each matter. Dale reported the applicant has organized the issues under appeal on the conditional use permit into seven different categories: water and water rights, sewage disposal, wildlife, transportation, economic analysis, compatible uses and miscellaneous. He reported that staff has followed this same format in responding to the appeal issues. Water and Water Rights: The applicant requests that condition #4 of the Hearings Officer's decision be deleted. Condition #4 reads the Newton Study adequately determined the impact area of the Phase II wells. The study did not address the impact of the Phase I wells. The condition required the applicant to study the impacts of the Phase I wells on surrounding water use. Staff believes the applicant would only need to address this criteria for the wells in Phase I, which are already there and have been used for a number for years, if additional water was to be withdrawn from them to serve the new development. Dale reported that water withdrawal from the Phase I wells will actually be reduced as part of this proposal. For these reasons, staff finds that the applicant has adequately addressed the consumption of water associated with the proposed development and recommends that condition #4 be deleted. The applicant was also requesting that condition #44 be amended which is regarding water. This is in regard to the fire flows within the resort. It was required that 1,000 gallons per minute to fire flows for residential uses and 2,500 gallons per minute for commercial fire flows be provided in all phases of the resort in MINUTES PAGE 3 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING 0135-2596 areas identified by the Redmond Fire Department. The applicant believes this is much more than what is required by the ordinance and that it would be a great burden on them to retro -fit all of the existing residential areas in the resort that currently have only 750 gallons per minute of fire flow. Applicant has submitted a letter from the Redmond Rural Fire Department stating that they believe that where there is currently 750 gallons per minute is acceptable to them. Staff disagrees with the applicant that condition #44 requires an increase in fire flow within Phase I, unless it was specifically required by Redmond Rural Fire Protection District. The letter from the Redmond Fire District would have satisfied the requirements of condition #44. The staff does not see a problem with amending the condition as proposed by the applicant. The applicant is also requesting that condition #47 relating to water rights be deleted. Condition #47 reads that the applicant should provide proof that all of its existing Eagle Crest water rights contain the standard Water Resources Division water rights conditions which are included in standards for new wells. Such conditions are not currently included in the existing Phase II water rights. Eagle Crest shall consent to written amendments of its existing permits to include those conditions. Dale reported that the staff report contains an error. Originally when the staff report was written, staff was misreading this condition that it applied to Phase I wells when actually what the Hearings Officer was intending was for these conditions to be imposed on wells in Phase II. Staff did not believe that those conditions should be applied to the Phase I wells which were already being used for domestic use. Staff does believe that the condition is appropriate for the Phase II well which is currently used for irrigation and has a pending application to be converted to domestic use. Staff feels it is important that those conditions be contained in the water rights permit for the new well. Sewage disposal: The applicant is requesting that condition #6 be deleted. This condition requires the applicant to revise its sewer master plan to provide greater detail about the specifications of the proposed sewer master plane prior to approval. The documents shall include plans for storm water collection and disposal for the entire resort and indicate where all sewage system facilities will be located. The applicant felt there was no basis in the ordinance for requiring that additional information. It is staffs position that this requirement of the Hearings Officer is reasonable to access the impacts and is required by the ordinance. The staff recommends condition #6 be retained as written. The applicant is requesting modifications to conditions of approval #51-58. These conditions all related to the subsurface sewage disposal system. The applicant states that the proposed modifications are technical corrections to ensure that the conditions are consistent with the method of sewage disposal as MINUTES PAGE 4 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING 0135-259'7 proposed by the applicant. Planning staff does not have any expertise in subsurface disposal systems. The amendments as proposed by the applicants are attached to the staff report. Staff does not have any objections to the amendments of conditions of approval #51-58 as requested by the applicant. Wildlife: The applicant is requesting the condition of approval #35 be deleted. Condition #35 requires the applicant to study the wildlife impact of Eagle Crest Phase I and mitigate any negative impact on wildlife habitat caused by the resort. The applicant argues that none of the approval applicable criteria to the existing resort based on their arguments that there was a drafting error. Staff does not believe that to be the case. Staff believes the applicant should be required to study the effects on habitat of development in Phase I which is not already in existence and also any additional impacts that development in Phase II might have on existing wildlife habitat in Phase I. Staff believes that condition #35 should be amended to require the applicant to study the additional impacts of all new resort development on fish and wildlife resources within Phase I. The applicant is also requesting modifications to conditions of approval #37 which contains twenty-six mitigation measures in that same condition and itemized as A -Z. The applicants specifically request that mitigation measures S, T, X & Y as set forth in condition #37 be deleted. To a point, staff agrees with applicants analysis of measures X & Y. These two measures require that there by a separate process to determine which specific mitigation measures would be implemented to be sure that there would be no net loss of wildlife habitat. The hearings body is charged with determining if the mitigation measures by the applicant will completely mitigate the loss of habitat associated with the resort development. If sufficient evidence exists for the Board to determine if the impacts of resort on wildlife habitat will be mitigated, then the applicant has not met the necessary burden of proof for approval. If this is the case, the applicants proposal should be denied. Dale reported that in talking with Fish & Wildlife and the applicant, it appeared that the effects of the resort on wildlife habitat can be completely mitigated. The conflict comes in determining which specific mitigation measures should be implemented. Staff believes that condition "X" could be amended slightly but what it would allow would be for the Board to make a finding that wildlife habitat loss to resort development would be completely mitigated by any number of the measures that are set forth in the staff report and the Hearings Officers decision. Staff believes that could be worked out between County planning staff, Fish & Wildlife, and the applicant. If there was a lot of disagreement on which specific conditions need to be done to completely mitigate wildlife, staff would propose to hire a separate consult like they did with the water study. MINUTES PAGE 5 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING 0135-2598 Condition "Y" required the applicant to reimburse the County for the cost of hiring an independent to look at the mitigation study. The applicant has appealed this. The applicants appeal was being reviewed under an actual cost of service basis which means that they need to reimburse the County for all costs associated with reviewing the application. The applicant feels that conditions "S" and "T" should be eliminated because they are not supported by evidence in the record. These conditions required more review by the applicant of all wildlife habitat and more mitigation measures were required. Staff feels that these two conditions should be left in so they can be worked out through the process. Transportation: Applicant proposed to amend three conditions of approval related to transportation. Applicant requested a major modification to condition #39 which deals with type and timing of improvements needed to be made to impact traffic facilities. The applicant is requesting to eliminate the majority of the condition of approval based on a letter from the Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Department of Transportation recommends that reference to the interchange be changed to necessary major highway improvements, i.e. interchange, and the timing be modified so the facility must be constructed and ready for use prior to any development or issuing of permits beyond twenty-five percent of Phase II build out. Oregon Department of Transportation has also agreed with the applicant that Eagle Crest would pay for 40% of the cost of the bridge structure and 100% of all other associated costs which would include adjoining road work, permits, design, etc. Oregon Department of Transportation also recommends that the Hearings Officer's condition regarding interim improvements be amended to say that any necessary interim safety improvements as determined by the Oregon Department of Transportation shall be installed prior to final master plan. These improvements would take the form of advance warning signs with flashing lights attached to the signs. Staff has no objections to the amendments as proposed by Oregon Department of Transportation. Staff believes that condition #39 should be altered to reflected these specific changes. Oregon Department of Transportation has also recommended, in exhibit #85, that the portion of condition #39 requiring Eagle Crest to install a traffic light at the intersection of Highway 20 and Cline Falls Highway be deleted. The Hearings Officer recognized that Oregon Department of Transportation might not approve the signal and made allowance for Oregon Department of Transportation and the Planning Director to approve an alternative improvement. Oregon Department of Transportation stated that they were opposed to the installation of a signal at this location and will not approve such a signal. Oregon Department of Transportation also stated it was their opinion that Eagle Crest should not be held responsible for improvement at that intersection. MINUTES PAGE 6 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING 0135-2599 The Hearings Officer found, based on the materials submitted by the applicants traffic consultant, that the proposed development would significantly effect two intersections. These are the intersections of Cline Falls Highway and Highway 126 and Cline Falls Highway and Highway 20 at Tumalo. Both intersections were found to operate below acceptable levels of service when estimates of traffic generated by the new resort were added to existing counts. The applicant and Oregon Department of Transportation have reached an agreement for the necessary construction of improvements at Highway 126/Cline Falls Highway. At the intersection of Cline Falls Highway/Highway 20, no other improvements have proposed to mitigate the traffic impacts. The applicant's traffic consultant concluded that certain minor street movements, left turn movements from Cline Falls Highway to Highway 20 currently rate at level of service "D" and would fail with Eagle Crest added in. Applicants exhibit 89 documents that at build out Eagle Crest would contribute 10.3% of the total traffic at this intersection and 32.1% of the cross traffic. Based on this evidence, staff concurred with the Hearings Officer that Eagle Crest will significantly impact the Highway 20/Cline Falls Highway intersection. As such, the applicant is required by the ordinance to mitigate those impacts. If this criteria could not be met, the applicants proposal could not be approved. Since Oregon Department of Transportation will not allow the placement of a traffic light at this intersection, it may not be possible for Eagle Crest to mitigate this traffic impact by improving the facility at this time. As an alternative, the applicant should propose other potential methods of mitigating this impact. These could include payment into a trust account on a per lot basis, limiting development or restricting southbound traffic from the resort on Cline Falls Highway. Without mitigation of the traffic impact at Cline Falls and Highway 20, the applicant has not satisfied all applicable criteria and the application must be denied. Also related to transportation, the applicant is requesting amendments to condition #40 which deals with required street improvements within and adjacent to the resort. The Hearings Officer required that all roads within the development be improved to a width of 28 feet and that Cline Falls Highway also be improved to at least 28 feet in width. The applicant has met with the Public Works Department and has reached some agreements on how wide these roads should be, but the planning staff has no alternative but to recommend that the applicant comply with the road standards contained in Title 17. Staff recommends that condition #40 be amended to require that all roads and other transportation facilities within and associated with the development be improved to compliance with the applicable standards in Title 17. Economic analysis: The applicant has appealed conditions #17 and #34 of the Hearings Officer's Findings and Decision. MINUTES PAGE 7 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING 0135-2600 Condition #17 requires the applicant to submit an analysis which addresses the economic viability of the proposed development and which considers the income that can be anticipated from the resort operations and compares that income to project expenses. The applicant argued that the analysis of income and projected expenses is not required by the ordinance when it is looked at in full context of the requirement versus the criteria. Staff recommends that condition #17 be deleted. Condition #34 required an analysis by an independent economic analyst because of insufficient evidence of compliance in the record. The applicant has submitted exhibit #91 which is a revised economic analysis to address the concerns addressed by the Hearings Officer. It was staff's opinion that this additional information eliminates the need for condition #34. Commercial uses: The applicant has appealed conditions #11 and #13 of the Hearings Officer's decision relating to the types of commercial activities and uses permitted in the resort. Condition #11 requires the applicant to further define what commercial uses are contemplated for the proposed commercial areas of Phase I and Phase II. Applicant has proposed new language for this condition which makes it somewhat less of a burden on the applicant but still requires the same basic information. Unless applicant can provide some justification for altering this condition, staff recommends that condition #11 be left as written. Applicant is also requesting a modification of condition #13 which relates to commercial, cultural, entertainment or accessory uses. This condition of approval prohibits the applicant from hosting such activities as the Dixieland Jazz Festival, Star Fest and public auctions. The applicants modification would eliminate any reference to specific activities at Eagle Crest and would contain the limiting language contained Chapter 18.113. Hearings Officer's findings on this issue and the applicants response are both directed toward defining the term visitor. The Hearings Officer interpreted the definition of visitor to mean that overnight visitors were people who stayed there one night and other short terms visitors were those who stayed more than one night. The applicant defines the definition of visitor differently. The applicant believes the term "overnight visitor" are those visitors who stay one or more nights at the resort while other short term visitors refers to those who visit the resort during the day time without staying overnight. Staff believes the applicant interpretation is a reasonable reading of the provision. If the Board accepts the applicants interpretation of the meaning of "visitor" then commercial uses may be oriented towards those who stay overnight as well as those who visit the resort only for the day for such activities as golf, eating at the restaurant, etc. This interpretation allows that once a person has been attracted to the resort for whatever reason, they become a "visitor" under this MINUTES PAGE 8 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING 0135-2601 definition. Staff believes that applicants interpretation of this issue is a reasonable alternative that may present a workable solution to the problems that such activities the Star Fest and Dixieland Jazz Festival present. The Board must decide whether the term "visitor" includes people who visit the resort for the day without staying overnight or is "visitor" limited only to those who stay overnight. The staff feels this is important, but the real question is whether these activities are land uses which are regulated by the ordinance or are they simply events which are not governed by the zoning ordinance. Miscellaneous: The applicant is requesting a modification of a finding regarding the tax lots involved in the application. The applicant is requesting that tax lot #1512-23B-1501 and tax lot #1512-23B-1300 be included as part of the approval. Tax lot #1501 was inadvertently left off the applicants list of impacted tax lots but it was included in the applicants maps of the resort property and development. Any notice defects have been corrected. Staff believes that this property should be included in the approval. Tax lot #1300 has never been indicated on any of the resort maps or included in any of the acreage calculations. Staff does not believe that this tax lot can be included. The applicant requests that condition #8 of the Hearings Officer also be amended. This condition required that both phases of Eagle Crest be operated as one self-contained development allowing full access by owners and visitors of either phase. Applicant is requesting that this condition be modified to require that only all portions of the resort be managed in an integrated manner. Staff believes that this what the ordinance requires and not that there be absolute full access between both phases. Staff recommends that the applicants amendment be adopted. Applicant is requesting that condition #15 be deleted. This condition requires the applicant to revise the open space maps so that it properly excludes all areas that were erroneously included by the applicant as open space and demonstrates that the 50% requirement is met. It also requires that the applicant furnish proof that all open space area has been permanently reserved for open space prior to approval. Staff believes that this condition should be left in as written. Applicant is requesting that conditions #24 and #25 be deleted. Condition #24 requires the applicant to establish that the existing Eagle Ridge Golf Course is a valid nonconforming use through the Planning Divisions nonconforming use verification procedure. Condition #25 gives the applicant alternatives if the nonconforming use can be verified for the Eagle Ridge Golf Course. Staff has found that the applicant has demonstrated that the Eagle Ridge Golf Course is a valid existing use. If the Board agrees, then conditions #24 and #25 are unnecessary. If the Board does not MINUTES PAGE 9 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING 0135-2602 concur with staff's findings regarding Eagle Ridge Golf Course, then conditions #24 and #25 should be left as they are written. Applicant was requesting that condition #26 be deleted. This condition requires the applicant to obtain a new conditional use permit for the second unconstructed Eagle Ridge Golf Course. The applicant was correct in their assertion that conditional use approval of the conditional master plan constitutes conditional use approval of the facility shown on that plan including the second golf course. Condition #26 is unnecessary and could be deleted. The applicant is requesting that condition #65 be deleted. Condition #65 prohibits any commercial facilities in the area eleven of Phase II. The CMP does indicate that some commercial type development is proposed for Phase II. Staff believes that only those areas shown on the CMP can be approved for commercial uses. The applicant has shown commercial uses in area eleven so there was no reason why they can not be approved through this process as long as they meet the other standards for commercial uses contained in the ordinance. Staff recommends that condition #65 be deleted. Staff notes that the last sentence of condition #63 should also be amended to read "only those areas designated for commercial use in the conceptual master plan may be developed for new commercial uses" and this covers the requirement for that section. The applicant is requesting that the last sentence in condition #67 be deleted. This condition is related to the temporary buildings which are within Eagle Crest including the sales offices, conference facilities, and the temporary golf pro -shop. This sentence required that the temporary golf pro -shop shall be removed no later than when the first plat in Phase II is approved. The staff believes that all temporary structures within the resort should be required to be removed no later than 18 months from the time of final master plan approval. The applicant was requesting that condition #69 be deleted. This condition requires the applicant to install fences or other buffers between the proposed golf course and all roadways, bikeways and pedestrians paths. The applicant argued that this condition required the applicant to fence the entire existing golf course which is impractical. Staff believes that this condition was only applicable to the undeveloped second golf course in Phase II and only where it abuts a roadway, bike path or pedestrian way. Staff believes that condition #69 should be amended to require buffering of the course where it was adjacent to roads, bike path or pedestrian ways unless the applicant can demonstrate that the course is designed in such a manner as to minimize interference of the golf course with adjacent uses. Compliance with this condition can be verified at the time of site plan review for the new golf course. MINUTES PAGE 10 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING 0135-2603 The applicant was requesting that a portion of condition #70 and all of condition #73 be deleted. These conditions are intended to insure that the applicant comply with any necessary conditions of approval which were inadvertently left out of the conditions list at the end of the Findings and Decision. Staff agreed that only the conditions which are listed under the condition section can be directly applicable. Jerry Andres, President of Eagle Crest Partners Limited and CEO of the resort development company, stated they appealed these conditions because they had no choice. He felt the approval of all these conditions would put them out of business. He stated Eagle Crest is in the destination resort business and manage many different kinds of businesses. They have a small hotel, restaurant, golf, property management, etc. These all require huge investments. Eagle Crest is one of Redmond's largest employers. He reported the primary source of revenue comes from building and selling real estate products. He stated this activity accounts for the major portion of the company's sales and profits. Bob Lovlien, attorney representing the applicant, reported the presentation would be limited only to those issues requiring additional information or clarification. He reported that except for the comments he was going to make, they agreed with the staff report. Bob Lovlien stated that on the variance he did concur with the staff. The applicant will provide a vegetative screen where the variances are permitted. The variances were only requested to accommodate the actual location of the existing golf course. He stated that there may be an adjoining property owner who would rather have a view of the golf course than the screening trees. He stated that if this was the case, the applicant would like to have the opportunity to do that. Bob Lovlien stated that regarding commercial uses, condition #13, the applicant strongly urged the staff's interpretation of the term "visitor" and the proposed modification of this condition. He felt this was not the appropriate place to determine the definition of an use or event. He stated the applicant agreed to be bound by the terms of the ordinance. Bob Lovlien stated the applicant concurred with what was contained in the staff report regarding wildlife. The applicant believes that the wildlife impacts can be mitigated and they will work with Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife to make sure that the mitigation measures are properly prioritized. Bob Lovlien addressed condition "S" by stating that the requirement that mature junipers be left on the site should read like condition "T". He felt that it should read that if mature junipers are removed, then it should be mitigated. MINUTES PAGE 11 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING 0135-2604 Bob Lovlien stated there would be four speakers in support of the applicant: David Hohler, Dan Seeman, Elton Gregory and David MacLellan. David Hohler, Biologist from A.G. Crook Company, an environmental consulting firm in Beaverton, testified in support of the applicant. He stated they would continue to work with Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife on the highest priority mitigation measures to be implemented. Dan Seeman of Rittleson & Associates, a traffic engineering and transportation planning firm, testified in support of the applicant. He stated that his firm has been employed by Eagle Crest to perform traffic analysis since 1990. He discussed the intersection of Highway 20 and Cline Falls Road. Elton Gregory, Redmond School District Superintendent, testified in support of the applicant. He stated that Eagle Crest was very supportive of the schools and community as well as employing a large number of people from the Redmond community. David MacLellan, President of the Eagle Crest Home Owners Association, testified in support of the applicant. Mark DeVony, Oregon Department of Transportation, reported that ODOT has a firm and consistent policy against placing signals in 55 mph zones in rural areas as this causes some safety problems. ODOT feels that Eagle Crest should pay an appropriate share of whatever improvements are needed at the intersections. Louie Pitt, Jr., Director of Government Affairs and Planning, Warm Springs Tribe, reported the tribes support development if their interest was protected. Commissioner Throop asked if there were any specific issues that related directly to the Eagle Crest application that should be taken into the decision making process. Louie Pitt felt there was a need for the tribe and the county to meet. He reported the tribe was negotiating with the State of Oregon regarding water in the Deschutes River. He stated that he was concerned about groundwater as well as surface water. Ted Wise, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, testified that he had numerous concerns regarding the mitigation measures. Commissioner Throop asked how far apart Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife and Eagle Crest were on these issues. Ted Wise felt it would be possible for the mitigation issues to be worked out. MINUTES PAGE 12 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING r 0135-2605 Linda Swearingen, Redmond Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of the Eagle Crest application. She felt the whole community benefitted from the presence of Eagle Crest. Howard Paine, a Sisters resident, testified in opposition of the Eagle Crest application. He expressed concern regarding the water usage, water quality, wildlife and wildlife habitat. Nancy Hall, a Bend resident, testified in opposition of the Eagle Crest application. She expressed concern regarding water issues. Linda Burwell, a Redmond resident, was not in opposition. She stated that in order to travel from Eagle Crest to Bend it was faster to go through Tumalo as it took only twenty minutes. If you travel from Eagle Crest to Bend through Redmond, it takes approximately thirty minutes. Steven Janick, representing Eagle Crest, responded to several issues brought up during testimony and stated that written rebuttal would be submitted within the time frame set by the Board. Nick Casey testified in opposition of the applicant and expressed concern regarding the river. Commissioner Schlangen reiterated the dates of accepting testimony. Written testimony will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on April 15, 1994. A continued public hearing will be scheduled for April 25, 1994, at 5:30 p.m. and it was for rebuttal only. Written rebuttal will be accepted until May 2, 1994 at 4:30 p.m. The oral decision will be made by the Board of County Commissioners at the 10:00 a.m. Board meeting on May 4, 1994. LDATED this (o fh day of , 1994, by the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon. Sdhlangen,' Chair Tom'Throop; Commissioner A T: V 611 Ila' 4 ",75, �7� zizv' AY�yj h� Recording Secretary Barry HI Slaughter, Commissioner MINUTES PAGE 13 APRIL 6, 1994 - EAGLE CREST PUBLIC HEARING