The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-139-Minutes for Meeting April 04,2001 Recorded 4/9/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 139 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02001-139 * Vol -Page hinted: 04/10/2001 15:02:40 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Apr. 9, 2001; 2:32 p.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 111 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK kg to ^A4iA 01 APR -9 PtZ�3 l/COUNTY C�.�=F��' Board of Commissioners 0-C 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF MEETING Mike Daly BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Prior to the meeting, the Commissioners, County employees and other citizens enjoyed a brief musical presentation given by students of Bear Creek Elementary School. Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10:30 a.m. Present were Commissioners Tom DeWolf and Dennis Luke; Commissioner Mike Daly was excused. Also present were Damian Syrnyk, George Read and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; George Kolb, Road Department; Susan Mayea and Jenny Scanlon; Commissioners' Office; Rick Isham and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel. Also attending were Barney Lerten of bendnet. com, Anne Aurand of the Bulletin, Jeff Mullins of KBND, and Jason Carr of Z-21; and approximately twenty citizens. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on File No. PA -00-10 and TA -00- 13, Proposed Amendments to the Text of the County Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Ordinance to Allow an Application for a Destination Resort in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone (Located South of Sunriver). Damian Syrnyk gave an overview of purpose of the hearing and the details of the proposed amendments. He offered copies of staff report to the audience. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page 1 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 Quality Services Performed with Pride He indicated he had also recently received two letters from citizens; one from Monty Fisher and one from Sara Farina; both who expressed concerns regarding the impact of development on the area's wildlife; copies were given to the Board. (Attached as Exhibits A and B.) Mr. Syrnyk confirmed that the Board had received and reviewed copies of the applicant's information contained in staff report; plus copies of letters previously submitted to the Planning Commission. Commissioner DeWolf asked if there be a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Syrnyk relied that the Planning Commission has done its work, unless the Board wishes to send the issue back to them for further review and a recommendation. Damian Syrnyk then summarized the proposed amendments and ordinances. (Attached as Exhibit C: Memorandum and Staff Report to Commissioners dated March 28, 2001; Exhibit D: copy of proposed Ordinance No. 2001-018; Exhibit E: copy of proposed Ordinance No. 2001-019; Exhibit F: copy of proposed findings of the Board; and Exhibit G: copy of Amended ESEE - Deer Migration Corridor.) Commissioner Luke asked if anyone testified at the Planning Commission hearings. Mr. Syrnyk said that some individuals did testify against these proposed changes, and that he had received letters both for and against the changes. He further stated that he had received letters from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, indicating the ODF&W agrees with the findings of the wildlife biologist retained by the applicants. He said it appears the ODF&W is not terribly concerned about the proposed changes. Mr. Syrnyk then referred to an oversized map, noting the portion of the wildlife zone that would be affected. He explained the boundary of the deer migration corridor, which includes a mix of EFU and Forest Lands. He said there is also an area identified as a deer migration corridor priority area, indicating higher counts of deer. He explained that another area has been mapped for a destination resort, shown on map just below the Sunriver area. This has been adopted and has been relied upon by the planner. He also referred to a different oversized map, showing Deschutes County; he pointed out areas that weren't considered good for farm use, big game, etc. Commissioner Luke said that County legal staff had spoken about the ESEE (Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy analysis) on Monday, April 2. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page 2 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 County attorney Laurie Craghead said that the original draft of the ESEE needed more particulars to it. She said the applicant's attorney has made changes to answer those concerns. Commissioner Luke asked if the ODF&W had stated that it has little concern about this particular site. Mr. Syrnyk replied that this is an area where the ODF&W considers the migration low priority, and has shown fairly consistently that deer don't go through this area in large numbers. Commissioner DeWolf stated that he wanted to disclose that he has recently conversed with Tom Luersen of Sunriver on another matter. Commissioner Luke made same disclosure. Nancy Craven, the attorney for the applicant, then spoke, giving her overview of the record. She said that she has two reports from the wildlife biologist hired by Sunriver, and has reviewed ODF&W reports; all of this information is contained within the record. She said she also has letters of support from three individuals. She then requested that the Board take immediate action if at all possible. She explained that the ODF&W had submitted a letter at the beginning of process, but it was not exhaustive. Since that time the ODF&W has submitted more information based on tracking numbers, indicating that the numbers have remained unchanged over many years. She stated that the ODF&W uses the term "negligible impact". She said that those who spoke in opposition had requested further information from the ODF&W, which has been received. She said that the application satisfies Goal 8 and Goal 5 processes. Paul Eisenberg, the Director of Development and Construction of Sunriver Resort, spoke. He stated that the applicants have done a good job of meeting all technical tasks. He said there has been no specific tracking done in Sunriver itself. Representatives of Sunriver Owners Association and the Sunriver Nature Center have stated that there is significant deer and elk traffic, but these numbers are not tracked. Mr. Eisenberg said that this is not a new issue; it has been under study for some time. He stated that he feels this is not a piecemeal erosion of protections; it does not involve any deer or elk habitat, just the migration corridor. He further said that there is no specific development project on the table for approval at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page 3 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 Mr. Eisenberg explained that development of any kind has an impact on wildlife in general. Public and private experts say the most damaging are cross fencing, extensive use of asphalt, dogs at large, a lack of open areas, no design controls, and roads that allow high-speed traffic. These problems are usually found in contiguously platted small lot developments. Destination resorts generally improve habitat over existing conditions; this is not the same as native conditions. Most of the area has been extensively logged and not reforested; the land was heavily abused in the past. Mr. Eisenberg further stated that destination resorts are required to provide 50% open space by the use of water ponds, man-made wetlands, buffers, and other improvements to show no net loss of wildlife. They must demonstrate that they have replaced the area with equal or better land use, and the same or larger numbers of wildlife. Mr. Eisenberg said that as a rule, wildlife habitat within existing resorts is far healthier and more diverse than before the developments were established. They regulate free roaming dogs, cats and livestock; have limited roadways; and very little fencing is allowed. In Crosswater Resort, all lots have a landscape envelope within a large lot; which is then surrounded by a native buffer for wildlife corridors. Destination resorts are subject to intense scrutiny and a thorough development process. This entire process will have to be gone through again to scrutinize whether a proposed development meets all requirements. He went on to say that they are good for the community as well. Communities across the country that use a consumptive process as economic base have seen their economy stall, and they find they need sustainable ways to keep their economy going. Many communities destroyed the assets needed for this change. Destination resorts provide a sustainable economic base that other areas are seeking. Often destination resorts are aligned with those who are looking to protect the natural environment. Part of what destination resorts sell is a natural area, so they want to protect and enhance what makes the destination resort desirable. Destination resorts create long-term sustainable jobs and economic assets for community. Citizen Monty Fisher then spoke. He read a letter he had previously submitted (Exhibit A) stating his opposition to these amendments. Commissioner DeWolf stated that this would not allow any specific development; another process would be conducted when applications are submitted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page 4 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 Citizen Jay Bowerman, a Sunriver resident for twenty-eight years, then spoke. He said that he and Monty Fisher share a lot of experience and ideas. He disclosed that he has a relationship with Sunriver Properties in that the Sunriver Nature Center receives a small retainer from Sunriver. He said he personally is not categorically in support of or opposed to destination resorts. He stated that he believes these processes and decisions need to be made based upon sound science. He said that he has been quoted as saying that the net impact on wildlife habitat is critical. Mr. Bowerman further stated that he considers the deer population relatively less important, as deer thrive in the presence of people. He explained that there is a great number of other species that he is concerned about. He stated that where Crosswater is now was a badly abused grazing area; development increased the types of habitat, edge effects, and gave a net increase in wildlife diversity. Inevitably some species benefit, and some are hurt, by any change; these need to be identified in advance to protect the species that need it. The enhancement of riparian areas and vegetation has had a profound positive impact; there was an increase in different types of wildlife, although some were damaged by the change. In recognition that this needs to be done early in the process, he offered the help of Sunriver Nature Center to provide assistance to those who want further education. Being no further testimony offered, Commissioner DeWolf closed the public hearing. Commissioner DeWolf asked if the new ordinances are sufficient based on the input provided. Mr. Syrnyk said they would be changed in order to refer to the attachments. Laurie Craighead stated that they could be adopted subject to review of the references to the ordinances described within the two documents. Commissioner DeWolf said that the reality is that he must rely on legal counsel's advice to make sure these meet statewide land use goals. He further explained that this doesn't mean it's a permission slip to start building a destination resort in the area; this only allows applicants to apply for it, subject to the restrictions that exist in this area. He said he must trust and belief that Sunriver will pay strict attention to these requirements. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page 5 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 Commissioner Luke said he is relying heavily on the opinions of the ODF&W; an agency that is not shy if it believes something is in danger. Their advice is very good. He reiterated that this is not permission to build the destination resort; it's only a change that will allow an application. There is a good public process to go through next. Laurie Craghead said she is comfortable with the findings; and documents can support this proposal; it does satisfy this process, and there are no particular red flags. It is also subject to appeal. LUKE: I move first reading, by title only, of Ordinance No. 2001-019. DEWOLF: Second. Commissioner DeWolf then conducted the first reading. The second reading and possible adoption will occur in not less than fourteen days. LUKE: I move first reading, by title only, of Ordinance No. 2001-018. DEWOLF: Second. Commissioner De Wolf then conducted the first reading. The second reading and possible adoption will occur in not less than fourteen days. Legal Counsel explained that the Ordinances would not be effective until after the second reading and the adoption of the Ordinances at that time. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a Contract with Burlington Northern -Santa Fe for an At -Grade Emergency Railroad Crossing in Deschutes River Woods. Commissioner Luke explained that this will provide a badly needed additional emergency exit at the south end of Deschutes River Woods. He said that Legal Counsel and the Road Department have both reviewed and recommend approval of the contract. Project Impact involved has also been involved in this issue. LUKE: I move that this contract be signed. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page 6 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 3. Before the Board Was a Decision on Appeals of the Hearings Officer's Denial of Applications from Tumalo Irrigation District and Cellular One for a Conditional Use Permit to Establish a Wireless Telecommunications Facility on Laidlaw Butte. Damian Syrnyk gave an over of the hearings previously held, and indicated that the record has been closed; he further said a complete set of the record was sent to the Board. The Board can make an oral decision today; then final written decision will be drafted by Legal Counsel. He further stated that if there is a split vote, a decision could wait until the third Commissioner is available. Commissioner DeWolf read his written statement into the record (attached as Exhibit H). He said he would vote to overturn the Hearings Officer's decision, subject to specific conditions detailed in his statement. Commissioner Luke stated that Commissioner DeWolf did a good job of summarizing. He said, however, that he sees a problem with the requirement of stealth and camouflage, which are not already in the County code. He explained that the County can't ask the applicants to do something that hasn't been completely researched and adopted by the County. Commissioner DeWolf stated that he has thought about that, and realizes that asking this is something the County does not yet have in its code. He said that if Tumalo Irrigation District wants to appeal based on that requirement, they would probably win at LUBA. He said that he is asking that they be a good neighbor and go beyond what County code requires. He said that if they should minimize the effect to the maximum possible; and that he doesn't think they can screen to the maximum without this. It change is technologically feasible without a great deal of expense and allows them to meet the requirements in County code to minimize the visual impact to the maximum extent practicable. This would meet the valid concerns of local residents. Commissioner Luke asked about planting and maintaining fast-growing trees. Commissioner Luke said they would eventually grow tall enough to block out the antenna. He still recommended some kind of camouflage to address the problem. Commissioner Luke stated that the area's natural trees are juniper, and camouflage may not be available. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page 7 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 Commissioner DeWolf replied that it should be matched to the degree possible. This would allow Tumalo Irrigation District to go the extra step to meet the requirements of code and the concerns of neighbors. They did wrong by putting up the pole in the first place; they should try to overcome this negative by going the extra mile. Commissioner Luke expressed concern that this would set precedence of requiring something that isn't already in the code, which could be challenged at LUBA. The applicant could get a positive decision from LUBA to override other items that the County wants included. Commissioner DeWolf asked Legal Counsel if the County requires stealth technology regarding camouflage that is not currently indicated in County code, how shaky is the ground then. He said Tumalo Irrigation District could comply; but if they appeal to LUBA, then what happens. Laurie Craghead stated that the code states trees and natural topography. Requiring camouflage is appealable. Commissioner Luke asked if an applicant is required to do something not already in the code, what is the County's liability; do other requirements get reviewed also? Laurie Craghead replied there would be a remand to do the decision over, excluding the provision. The appellant would be reimbursed their attorneys fees if they get a favorable ruling. Damian Syrnyk stated that the Board cannot ask Tumalo Irrigation District if this is acceptable without going through the notice process and opening another hearing. Commissioner DeWolf stated that he has had difficulty with the technical nature of the language in the ordinance, and whether the applicant has answered all the questions of hearings officer. He said that in particular, did they look to other areas that would be more easily screened; he did not think so. Laurie Craghead said that would be a basis to support the Hearing Officer's decision. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page 8 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 --------------------- Damian Syrnyk said that he feels he observed that there was an area closer to the existing wood pole that did not have as much vegetation as the area surrounding it. Commissioner Luke stated that if they had used the existing pole, and made the proper application, they could have even used the existing site. Their failure to make application created so many problems. He further said that he agrees with everything Commissioner DeWolf said except the requirement for stealth and camouflage. At this time, Chair De Wolf indicated the decision would be continued until the next Wednesday's regular Board meeting (April 11, 2001), when all three Commissioners would be in attendance. Before the Board was the Consent Agenda. LUKE: I move approval of Consent Agenda items #4, 5 and 6. Item #7 has been postponed and is removed from the Agenda. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items: 4. Signature of Order No. 2001-033, Surrendering a Portion of SW 27" Street in Redmond to the City of Redmond. 5. Signature of Order No. 2001-037, Surrendering a Portion of NE Hemlock Avenue, Redmond, to the City of Redmond. 6. Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and Jefferson County to Provide Certain Specialty Code and Plumbing Code Inspection Services for Jefferson County. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/ 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT. 8. Before the Board was Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $4,257.64. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page 9 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 LUKE: I move approval, subject for review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Letters Appointing John Ahrens of Terrebonne, Bill Kuhn of Bend and Genevieve Waldron of Bend to the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget Committee for the Deschutes County Extension and 4-H Service District. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $953.57. LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $370,211.65. LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page 10 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Legal Counsel Rick Isham indicated that he had additions to the Agenda. With time running short, Chair DeWolf indicated that the Board meeting would be continued. Chair Tom De Wolfcontinued the meeting at 12:20 p.m. until 9:30 a. m., Thursday, April S, 2001. CONTINUATION OF BOARD MEETING Thursday, April 5, 2001, at 9:45 a.m. 1. Before the Board was a Discussion of a Deed of Dedication to the City of Redmond. Legal Counsel Rick Isham indicated that he has received a deed of dedication from the City of Redmond, dedicating a portion of 19th Street, Redmond, to the City of Redmond as a condition of approval of the right of way for the Family Motor Coach Association. LUKE: I move approval of the deed of dedication of this property. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 2. Before the Board was a Discussion of Additional Documentation Received from the State Economic Development Department on the Fairgrounds Parking Lot Project. Legal Counsel Rick Isham stated that he has received additional paperwork from the Oregon State Economic Development Department relating to a change of scope for the Fairgrounds parking lot project. He said the reimbursement resolution is slightly different; that expenses incurred prior to the bond fund to be sold next fall can be included in the bond package, allowing the County to pre -draw funds. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 4, 2001 Page I 1 of 12 Pages and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 Commissioner Luke stated that additional expenses have been incurred already due to engineering, staking and bid costs. He asked if there was the possibility of getting a bigger loan. Mr. Isham replied he would check on this. LUKE: I move that we approve the contract with the changes indicated, and give Legal Counsel the authority to proceed. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Being no further agenda items offered, Chair Tom De Wolf adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m. DATED this 5t" Day of April 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 12 of 12 Pages Tom DeWolf, Chai Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Michael M. Daly, Commissioner Wednesday, April 4, 2001 and Completed on Thursday, April 5, 2001 CJ4/ CJJ/ CGCJl 11; L f 0911 O7.7 f 1 L f V ILLI*= rKLR-tK 1 lt5 h'Ak3L 171 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Dear Commissioners, My name is Monty Fisher. I was raised in Madras and Unity. I graduated highschool in Eugene. I went to Vietnam and was one of those who came home. I managed Crescent Lake Resort for a few years and in 19711 moved to the Sunriver area. Back to what was my roots. The Three Sisters, The Deschutes Rivers the lakes and the rest of the wonders we have here in Central Oregon. Members of my family helped build the first Lodge condos in Sunriver. I've participated in the construction of probably a hundred houses in and around Sunriver. At that time I saw Sunriver Resort as family type resort and a way for people to visit or even move to an area they wanted to be a part of. We built modest houses that modest people could afford. I did not see Sunriver as a threat to any of what it was a put of. To day that is different. I am here because I do see Sunriver Resort, other developers, recent legislation and proposed code changes as a throat. I am here to oppose proposed actions in the Sunriver area which is where I have lived for almost 30 years. We are talking about Migration corridors here. A Migration corridor is not a route for the Elk to migrate out of the area it is a migration route within the area, It is a route the elk use for feeding and breeding. Some will argue that the Elk actually live in the High montan and migrate through here, Its true during very hot and dry summers, some ... only some, move west to the Cascade Lakes Area and maybe even further but most do not leave. Likewise during hard winters the Elk will move East to get out of the deep snow. However Elk like the snow and it takes about three feet to make them move out and even theft many still winter in the parcels for sale by the forest service. The Elk herd in this area is split into in a number of smaller herds. 'Phis they do for survival. They include the Winoga Butte, Spring River, East Round Mountain, Fall River and Bates Butte herds. There are other scattered smaller bards. They all basically migrate year round in counter clock wise directions smaller circles within larger circles. following food sources as not to deplete them. They all do this in a planned sequence. I tracked the Elk daily for six days Ad the following is what I observed. My observation started near Winoga Butte, From Winoga Butte they moved South on either side of what is now Mount Bachelor Highway west of the Spring River area and Anne's Butte and to the East side of Round Mountain, and through the Pistol Butte area to Fall River. They spent a day and two nights around Fall River then traveled East to Bates Butte and crossed the Big Deschutes River and spent two days and a night in the Foster Road National Forest parcel the Forest service wants to sell accessing water in the Chief Paulina Road area.. During the second night they continued East around and through areas of Water Wonder Land and Lazy River. crossing the Little Deschutes, skirted around the Blue Eagle subdivision and onto the National Forest parcel the forest service wants to sell that extends from near the Fire Station across Vandervert Road to the Sunriver Business park. An additional point I'd like to make is that the water table in this area right now is about five or six feet and the north end of this property is where Water Wonder Land wants to construct their sewage plant just s short distance up grade from the Little Deschutes River. This parcel connects directly with the private property that Sunriver wants to develop. as well as the National forest property I'm sure, It lies across South Century Drive form what we knew for years as the old RECEIVED / APR 0 3 2001 DELIVERED BY: M" F'lshg Vfk gc"— Jam: /-L u41 ua/ cuvl 11 . c r JY1:JDJ f 1 L f V 1LLHUt r'KLM"tK 1 1tb t1AUt UZ Indian encampment but is now known as Crosswater Oolf Course. This am was the most valuable to the Elk. In fact they used to be seen in the meadows along the Little Deschutes quite often. The area west of South Century is still a valuable bedding and feeding area. Even though now very restricted, it is still an access to water. Last fall a cow was killed on the road trying to access water due to the fact of being hindered by the fence and mounds of dirt they cant sec over that were constructed by Sunriver Resort. Now Sunriver wants to take away the entire area. The Elk will not willingly go around this arca any closer to Highway 97. They are here for the feed and water. They are not just out on a hike because that Wee the scenery. This is a migration for their survival! In early February I observed 21 head in this area. I&" month 12 head and just weeks ago a 3 point right near the grave yard sign where the cow was killed -They spent two .-days and nights in this area across farm Crosswater. This is still one of the most valuable areas ,in this feeding migration. Tbo Elk continue Brom this area on to the north and of Sunriver and cross the Big Deschutes between River Village and Kava Butte and back to Winona Butte. I know this for a fact. I really don't under Stand why, now that the bill is passed, we the right full owners of the forests are ask what we want to happen with it. WHY were we not asked in the beginning? None of this should be happening at all. It all has to do with money. It has Nothing to do with the health of the forest or the welfare of the wildlife or the wishes of the people. I am actually ashamed that greed and capitalism has become the motivating force in Central Oregon causing what Central Oregon is all about to be, shoved aside. I speak for all the sportsmen, outdoor families and people who love our natural heritage that cannot be her to day in opposing further development of out National forests. Bill S 1936 is a crime against the Forest and its wildlife and should have never boon passed and the wild life codes should NOT be changed or altered. Monty Fisher 1673 8 Casper Dr. Bond OR 977'07 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St. Bend, OR 97701 RE: File #'s: PA -00-10 and TA -00-13 Honorable Commissioners: PO Box 3757 Sunriver, OR 97707 April 4, 2001 RECEIVED BY.. i� P S APR 0 4 2001 DELIVERED BY: C�rhGa Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the application by Sunriver Resort to allow, as a conditional use, a destination resort in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. This would require changing the wording in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 and to amend the text of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance. 1) The applicant states: The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (PA -00-10) would delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 under Chapter 23.40.050 the plan. This policy states: "An application for a destination resort, or any portion thereof, in a wildlife area combining zone shall not be accepted pending completion of the County's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process. The County shall complete the Goal 8 destination resort mapping process by December 31, 1992. " In a draft copy (final version not available when requested) of the minutes of the 3/8/01 Planning Commission Hearing the applicant states: ".... Deschutes County has not yet completed the destination resort mapping." Could it be clarified as to what has and has not been mapped? This application should not be considered until all associated mapping has been completed. 2) At the 3/8/01 Planning Commission Hearing (draft copy of minutes) and in the staff report it is stated that this proposal would permit a destination resort on lands zoned Wildlife Area Combining that is "located outside of deer migration priority areas" and that this would have "no net loss to wildlife habitat as long as the property is not located in a deer migration priority area". May I respectfully submit to you that due to development over the past decade, long since the 1986 and 1992 data supplied with this proposal was compiled, these area surrounding Sunriver and Crosswater that were mapped as low priority years ago are now indeed very high priority migratory areas. The maps have not been updated to reflect this change and this request is based on outdated information. 3) I was dismayed that the ODFW Biologist dismissed the importance of this request with a brief letter of reply. During the 1992 Goal 5 Periodic Review ESEE analysis for the Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor, ODFW submitted extensive documentation describing conflicting uses. The major conflicts with the corridor were sited as dwellings, roads, dogs, and fences. This request will have significant impact on the elk and deer herds here. The traditional migration corridor for deer and elk to get to and across the Little and Big Deschutes Rivers is being narrowed from the south and the north by encroaching housing developments and associated human activities. Within a few short years proposals for development of the large tract (1000 + acres) of USFS land adjacent to the Sunriver Business Park (now available for sale via the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act), and the 400 or so acres of privately held parcels east of Crosswater may come before the County Planning Staff and the Planning Commission for review. Before making changes in a piece -by -piece fashion, accurate and up to date studies and track counts should be completed. I believe this proposal violates the intent and spirit of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan, Fish & Wildlife Goal 1: "To conserve and protect existing fish and wildlife areas." This change in the Plan Policy will next result in an ordinance to implement the change. This is the chipping away that is eroding our land use laws in Oregon. Respectfully yours, Sara Farina TE Community Development Department A At Planning Division •Building Safety Division •Environmental Health Division AA Ylk 'V 117 NW Lafayette Avenue • Bend, Oregon - 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 • FAX (541) 385-1764 http://newberry.deschutes.org Memorandum To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner, Deschutes County Planning Divisio CC: George Read, Director; Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner Date: March 28, 2001 Re: April 4, 2001 public hearing on Plan Amendment PA -00-10 and Ordinance Text Amendment TA -00-13, for Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership. Purpose. This memorandum serves as the Staff Report to the Board of Commissioners on the above -referenced applications. Staff will attend your Monday, April 2, 2001 work session to make an initial presentation and to answer any questions you may have before the April 4, 2001 public hearing. The applicant, Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership, filed applications to amend the text of the County Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Ordinance that, if approved, would allow the County to accept an application for a conditional use permit to establish a destination resort in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal and has forwarded it on to the Board for a public hearing. You will find attached with this report a copy of the staff report to the Planning Commission, copies of the application materials, and copies of the written comments submitted by proponents and opponents. Background. The applicant has submitted concurrent applications for legislative amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Ordinance that would, if approved, allow the County to accept an application for a conditional use permit to establish a destination resort in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (PA -00-10) would delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 under Chapter 23.40.050 the plan. This policy states: "An application for a destination resort, or any portion thereof, in a wildlife area combining zone shall not be accepted pending completion of the County's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process. The County shall complete the Goal 8 destination resort mapping process by December 31, 1992." The proposed amendment (TA -00-13) to Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, of Title 18, would amend Section 18.88.040, Uses Permitted Conditionally, to modify subsection (C) by adding a reference "Subject to subsection E, the" and by adding a new subsection (D) that would include the following language: BOCC Staff Report — PA-00-10lrA-00-13 March 28, 2001 n Page 1 G (� Quality Services Performed with Pride "Subject to Chapter 18.113, destination resorts are allowed as a conditional use in that portion of the WA Zone designated as the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as long as the property Is not In an area designated as "Deer Migration Priority Area on the 1999 ODFW Map submitted to the South County Regional Problem Solving Group." The amendments to DCC Section 18.88.040 also include deleting subsection 18.88.040(F), which includes language that mirrors the language of Fish and Wildlife Policy No. 19. Discussion. This proposal provides proposed language and supporting documentation to complete two concurrent processes the County began in 1992 to plan for the siting of destination resorts in Deschutes County and to protect significant wildlife habitat, in this case deer migration corridors, to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5. In 1992, the County received an application for quasi-judicial amendments to the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance to allow destination resorts in Deschutes County. Statewide Planning Goal 8, Recreational Needs, is to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Goal 8 and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)197.435 through 197.467 include the applicable requirements for identifying lands in a county that would be eligible for development of a resort and for siting a resort. The County has amended its comprehensive plan to include goals and policies for mapping lands that are eligible for siting of a resort and has adopted implementing regulations in the zoning ordinance for review and action on a conditional use permit for a destination resort. In addition to completing this work for destination resorts, that same year the County completed work on periodic review of the comprehensive plan. Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces, exists to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas. The County adopted a series of ordinances that amended the existing text, goals, and policies of the comprehensive plan regarding protection of fish and wildlife habitat and to adopt new text for the Resource Element of the Plan, including inventories and analyses documenting the wildlife habitat in the County. The County also adopted changes to the text of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone to better protect the wildlife resources in the County, including deer migration corridors. The proposal would eliminate existing text in both the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance that prohibits the county from accepting an application for a destination resort in the WA Zone. The proposal would add text that would limit application for a resort to eligible lands located outside of deer migration priority area identified on Applicant's Exhibit 5. Staff will have oversized maps exhibits present at the public hearing, including the above -referenced Exhibit 5 and other maps that were before the Planning Commission. These documents include maps that identify the boundaries of the Bend -La Pine deer migration corridor, the lands eligible for siting of a destination resort in Deschutes County, and a map that identifies the 1999 ODFW deer migration priority area located between Sunriver and La Pine. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal and has now forwarded it to you for your consideration at a public hearing. The Planning Commission held a worts session on this matter on January 25, 2001, and held a public hearing on March 8, 2001. The record on the Planning Commission closed on March 23, 2001, and the commission considered it that same evening at the regular meeting. Please be aware that the entire Planning Commission has not made a recommendation on this matter. Only three of the seven planning commissioners were present and BOCC Staff Report — PA-00-10/TA-00-13 March 28, 2001 Page 2 voted on this matter at their March 23, 2001 meeting. Only two of the three planning commissioners present voted to forward this matter to the Board with a recommendation to adopt the proposed amendments. You will find attached to this report the documents submitted before the Planning Commission for their consideration of this matter. Please contact me at extension 1709 or at damians _co.deschutes.or.us if you have any questions. /DPS Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement in Support of the Proposed Amendment, including Exhibits 1 and 2. 2. Wildlife Analysis and Report for Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, URS 3. Reduced version of Applicant's Exhibit 5 4. Deer Tracking Study Area Map 5. Draft Amended ESEE for the Deer Migration Corridor 6. December 19, 2000 letter from Steve George, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 7. March 1, 2001 Staff Report to the County Planning Commission 8. March 6, 2001 letter from Helen B. Brown 9. March 6, 2001 letter from Leland F. Smith 10. March 6, 2001 letter from Peter Schneider 11. March 7, 2001 letter from Howard Paine, ARLU DeCo 12. March 8, 20001 letter from Katharine Kimball 13. March 8, 2001 letter from Jay Bowerman 14. March 8, 2001 letter from Sara Farina 15. March 8, 2001 letter from Robert P. Davison 16. March 19, 2001 letter from Sara Farina 17. March 21, 2001 letter from Steve George 18. March 21, 2001 letter from Monty Fisher 19. March 21, 2001 letter from Monty Fisher 20. March 22, 2001 letter from Lynn Sharp, URS BOCC Staff Report — PA-00-10/TA-00-13 March 28, 2001 Page 3 r STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION I. INTRODUCTION This Statement in Support accompanies two legislative land use requests filed by Sunriver Resort ("Sunriver"). The land use requests include a zoning ordinance text amendment to Chapter 18.88, the Wildlife Combining Zone ("WA") and a corresponding amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ("Plan"). The Plan text amendment updates the Fish and Wildlife Plan policies consistent with the requested change to the WA zone and also updates the Goal 5 ESEE Statement related to the Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor (the "Migration Corridor"). The purpose of these requests is to finalize the process the County started in 1992 when it undertook the mapping of wildlife resources under Goal 5 and the mapping of eligible properties for destination resort development under Goal 8. As is discussed in detail below, the County's Goal 5 process establishing the Migration Corridor resulted in the broad mapping of a 3 to 4, mile wide corridor extending south of Sunriver to the county line. Areas of high, moderate and low priority for deer migration were recognized, but not officially mapped at that time. In 1992, the County also undertook the mapping of eligible properties for resort development under Goal 8. Certain lands (F-2 and RR -10 zoned areas) within the Migration Corridor were mapped as eligible for resort development as allowed by state law and Goal 8. However, the County decided to preclude resort development on Goal 8 eligible lands in the Migration Corridor until the County had completed its overall Goal 8 mapping. The Plan policy (No. 19 in the Fish and Wildlife Chapter) was then drafted to defer the question of whether resorts should be allowed on Goal 8 eligible lands that are in the WA zone until completion of ]CATEMP`N239XV v -STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONAu: the County's Goal 8 process. Plan policy No. 19 indicates that this Goal 8 mapping process was intended to be complete by December 31, 1992. As a result, while the County's Goal 8 mapping is now complete, the County has not revisited the WA zone to consider the opportunity for resort development on Goal 8 eligible lands in the Migration Corridor. These applications ask the County to finalize this matter and to permit destination resort development on certain lands in the Migration Corridor. The applications request that the WA zone be amended to allow resorts on lands in the Migration Corridor mapped as eligible for resort development under Goal 8 if the eligible lands are not in an area designated as a Deer Migration Priority Area. In other words, under these applications, only Goal 8 eligible properties in the Migration Corridor that also are in an area mapped for low priority for deer migration will be allowed to apply for a destination resort under the County's Destination Resort (DR) zone. These areas of low priority in the Migration Corridor were mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in 1999 and accepted by the County as a part of the South County Regional Problem Solving Group. As discussed in detail below, Exhibits 4 and 5 depict these priority areas. The proposed amendments to the WA zone and to Plan policy No. 19 have a very narrow application. The changes do not allow resort development in any portion of the Migration Corridor if the area is designated by ODFW and the County as a priority area for deer migration. Under the proposed amendments, resorts would be allowed only on Goal 8 eligible lands in the Migration Corridor meaning lands already satisfying the Goal 8 criteria and that are also specifically outside the mapped priority area in the Migration Corridor. As detailed below, and as depicted on the referenced exhibits, there are a limited number of properties that meet these two qualifying prerequisites. 2:..TEMP\#239367 v I -STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION.dox II. APPLICATION MATERIALS These applications consist of the following submittals: A. Application form and filing fee B. Statement in Support of Applications C. Text Amendment to WA zone (Exhibit 1) D. Revision to Plan policy No. 19 Exhibit 2) E. Deschutes County Combining Zone Map Qit ibit 3 F. Wildlife Migration Priority Area for Regional Problem Solving 1999 (Exhibit 4) G. South Deschutes County, Destination Resort Eligible Properties in Low Migration Priority Area (Exhibit 5) H. Report from URS Exhibit 6) I. 1986 ODFW Deer Track Study Area Map from Behrens and George Study (Exhibit 7) J. 1992 Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor Map Exhibit 8) As is evident from this referenced list of exhibits, Sunriver, together with the County's planning staff, has accumulated the relevant historical data and maps to support these applications. These include the original 1986 Deer Track Study Area Map and the Wildlife Priority Map completed in 1999. It is this 1999 map, establishing the deer migration priority areas, that is overlaid with the County's Goal 8 destination resort eligibility maps to make the base map for Exhibit S. Exhibit 5 depicts the Deer Migration Priority Areas together with the destination resort eligible lands showing that only a few properties exist outside the priority area that are also deemed eligible for resort development under Goal 8. The additional overlays to -t:%TEMP%II299Rb7 id . STATEI►IENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION.&& Exhibit 5 also show that overall only limited properties consist of 160 acres, the minimum needed for resort development under the County's DR zone. As noted, Sunriver has met with and discussed these applications with the County planning staff. Further, as discussed below, Sunriver retained Lynn Sharp, a wildlife biologist with URS to analyze the impacts of this proposed amendment on the WA zone and the associated Plan policy. Her report, concluding that the amendments have no measurable impact on the Goal 5 resource of the Migration Corridor, is attached as Exhibit 6. Sunriver has also consulted with ODFW. ODFW staff has provided background information for these applications and has discussed the application with the wildlife biologist retained by Sunriver. ODFW staff has agreed that no significant impact to the Goal 5 resource will result from these amendments. The requests essentially recognize that certain Goal 8 eligible lands are outside the Goal 5 resource priority area and can accommodate destination resort development without impact on high priority deer migration areas. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This portion of the Statement in Support outlines the background of the County's Goal 8 mapping of properties eligible for destination resort development and the mapping of the Migration Corridor under the Goal 5 processes. This background information is intended to describe how the County undertook both Goal 8 and Goal 5 mapping processes in 1992 and the relationships between them in the Migration Corridor. Goal 8 In 1992, the County initiated the process of implementing Goal 8 in order to designate lands eligible for destination resort development throughout the County. It is a County -wide mapping process that must satisfy the relevant provisions of ORS 197 and Goal 8. Deschutes County approached the Goal 8 mapping process in a phased manner. Initially, the 4t:%TEMP%N239A67 v I • STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION.dik 4. County excluded from eligibility all lands on a county -wide basis that were required to be excluded under Goal 8. In Deschutes County, these exclusions included all lands designated as Sensitive Big Game Habitat and certain agricultural lands meeting Goal 8 criteria related to prime and unique farmland and lands within 3 miles of high-value crop areas. The areas excluded under Goal 8's Sensitive Big Game Habitat exclusion do not include areas designated in the Migration Corridor because the Migration Corridor areas are not recognized as Sensitive Big Game Habitat under Goal 8. Only big game habitat areas qualify for the Goal 8 exclusion, not migration areas. Then, as a part of Phase I, the County mapped various farmlands and other rural lands. Through a series of ordinances (No. 92-001 to 92-003), the County completed the Phase I mapping. Certain RR -10 lands within the Deer Migration Corridor were mapped as eligible for resort development in Phase I. In Phase II, by a subsequent set of ordinances (No. 92-029 to 92-032), the County mapped eligible forest -zoned lands. All F-1 zoned lands were excluded from eligibility by the County. Through the Phase II process certain F-2 zoned lands, including some areas within the Migration Corridor were mapped as eligible for resort development under the County's criteria and the Goal 8 criteria. Exhibit 5 shows the areas (both RR -10 and F-2 lands) of the Migration Corridor that were mapped as eligible for destination resort development through the implementation of Goal 8. As reflected on Exhibit S, most lands in the Migration Corridor were excluded from eligibility for resort development because they did not meet Goal 8 eligibility criteria or the county's more restrictive criteria. For example, all public lands were excluded. Likewise, most productive farmlands were excluded. And, as noted. all F-1 lands were excluded from eligibility. in fact, the only lands included as Goal 8 eligible in the Migration Corridor were F-2 lands and 5C:.TEMP%j$239867 v I - STATENI ENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION.doc RR- 10 lands. It should be recognized that none of the RR -10 lands meet the 160 acre minimum threshold for resort development under the DR zone so, while they are mapped as eligible for resort development under Goal 8, they are not likely locations for resort development. Goal 5 Through a separate Goal 5 process in 1992, the County updated its Plan policies related to Fish and Wildlife Resources. As a part of that process, the County updated its Goal 5 inventory and land use regulations. One of the decisions related to the siting of destination resorts in the WA zone. As a part of the Goal 5 process, the County decided that the question of whether to allow resorts in the WA zone should be delayed until the County completed its Goal 8 destination resort mapping. At that time, the County adopted Plan policy No. 19 that restricts land use applications for destination resorts in the WA zone until completion of the County's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process. The WA zone is consistent with Plan Policy No. 19 and does not presently allow destination resorts as a conditional use. As discussed above, these applications request that the County finalize this process that it commenced in 1992. The applications build on the decisions of the County in 1992 related to Goal 8 eligibility and recognize that the Migration Corridor contains various priorities of properties relative to the deer migration resource. The applications utilize the Goal 8 eligibility mapping and the Goal 5 mapping, including the data related to high, moderate and low priority to suggest that lands deemed eligible under Goal 8 that are located in an area mapped as a low priority Goal 5 resource should be allowed for destination resort development. Only the low priority areas of the Migration Corridor is subject to these applications, no other aspects of the WA zone that relate to other mapped Goal 5 resource areas are affected. (CATEMMN23080 %I - STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION d v IV. LOW PRIORITY MIGRATION AREAS Since 1978, ODFW has maintained tracking data to document low, moderate and high deer migration areas in the Migration Corridor. In a 1987 report, ODFW biologists Behrens and George reviewed data from 1977 through 1986. In 1992, they prepared a supplemental report. (Both of these reports are referenced in Exhibit 6). In each case, the reports document areas of varied frequency for deer migration. Exhibit 7, the 1986 deer tract study map, depicts these areas in detail. In 1999, ODFW prepared a map for the South County Regional Problem Solving project that mapped the ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area. It is attached as Exhibit 4. It depicts those areas that are of great importance or priority to the Migration Corridor, by including the areas of high and moderate deer crossing and excluding those areas found to have a low incidence or frequency of deer migration. While ODFW recognized the variation in the incidence of deer use along the Migration Corridor, the County does not reflect the distinctions in the WA zone. The proposed text amendment makes that distinction. In order to avoid impacts on the migration priority areas, the proposed text amendment requests that the WA zone be modified to allow destination resorts on lands mapped as eligible under Goal 8 for destination resort development in the Migration Corridor, but outside of the areas designated as "Deer Migration Priority Area" on the ODFW Wildlife Priority Area Map for Regional Problem Solving (March 1999). By limiting the amendment to allow resorts only in those areas outside the priority area, the revision enables important economic development in the Sunriver area, consistent with Goal 8, yet respects the integrity of those portions of Migration Corridor that have significant wildlife value. 1: TEMP4239867 v I . STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONAw V. STANDARDS FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS Section 18.136.010 provides that amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 22.12. Chapter 22.12 does not set forth any specific approval criteria for legislative plan policy or zoning ordinance text amendments. The applicable criteria are found in state law and regulation. As an amendment to Plan policies and land use regulations of an acknowledged comprehensive plan, the applications need to be consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals (ORS 197.175 (2)(a) and other existing policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan (ORS 197.835 (7)). A. Statewide Planning Goals Goal 8: Recreational Needs Goal 8 is designed to address the recreational needs of the state residents and visitors and to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities -including destination resorts. Consistent with the Goal 8 process, the County Plan provides for the siting of destination resorts on certain eligible lands. All of the eligible lands in the County are consistent with the provisions of Goal 8 related to eligibility criteria. In addition, the County's eligible lands have satisfied the more restrictive criteria that the County imposed on its Goal 8 implementation process. Some, but not many Goal 8 eligible -lands exist in the Migration Corridor. These lands serve the County's Goal 8 interests in providing opportunities for the siting of destination resorts. Deschutes County, in particular, has recognized the economic and social value of destination resorts. It has numerous Plan policies discussing the benefits to the County of destination resort developments. tATEMP.+r239867 v I - STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONAw This proposed amendment to the WA zone as it relates the Migration Corridor, is consistent with Goal 8 since it offers the opportunity for destination resort development on lands already deemed eligible and it thereby ensures that the County's eligible lands can be developed for resort uses. The amendments proposed to the WA zone are also limited in application. They relate only to areas of recognized low priority in the Migration Corridor, and do not otherwise amend the provisions of the DR zone that ensure compatibility of resort development with adjacent uses and a demonstration of no net loss of wildlife habitat. Goal 5: Natural Resources Under Goal 5, local governments are directed to adopt programs to protect natural resources. One of the recognized natural resources that needs to be inventoried is wildlife habitat. Deschutes County has adopted Plan policies and land use regulations that are designed to inventory and regulate land uses in areas recognized as wildlife habitat. The County has adopted inventories, Plan policies and land use regulations that relate to various wildlife habitat areas. These are mapped on the County's combining zone map, attached as Exhibit 3. That map designates the various wildlife habitat areas. It also designates the Migration Corridor in South Deschutes County. The WA zone implements its Goal 5 resource inventory. In accordance with Goal 5, the County is to manage wildlife areas and habitats pursuant to the ODFW wildlife management plans. Under OAR 635-190-0010, the objectives of the mule deer management plans are to 1) maximize recruitment of mule deer populations and maintain buck ratios at approved levels; 2) maintain, enhance, and restore mule deer habitat; and 3) enhance consumptive and non -consumptive recreational uses of the resource. 97:%TEMPV1239867 v 1 -STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION.d v As noted above, the proposed amendment to the WA zone as it relates to the Migration Corridor has a very narrow scope of application. First, it relates only to the Migration Corridor and not the recognized inventoried wildlife habitat areas. Secondly, it relates only to low priority migration areas in the Migration Corridor. And, finally, it does not change the County's existing regulations that require a destination resort (at the time of application) to demonstrate no net loss of wildlife habitat. This proposed amendment to the WA zone is consistent with the above - referenced ODFW plan objectives for mule deer population. The ODFW plan objectives are directed to the maximization of deer populations and the maintenance and enhancement of mule deer habitat. Given the limited scope of the proposed amendment and the consistent historical study data supporting the amendment, these applications are consistent with the ODFW Plan objectives. The low priority areas subject to these applications account for approximately 1% of the Migration Corridor pattern of movement for deer and are clearly not a measurable variable in accounting for the migration patterns for deer in the Migration Corridor. The areas are not mapped as deer habitat; they are mapped as deer migration corridors and only the low priority areas are involved with these applications. The other higher priority areas of the Migration Corridor will not be measurably impacted by the amendment. Further, since the proposed amendment only allows destination resort development on the eligible lands in the low priority areas, no other types of development opportunities are expanded. In addition, any future destination resort project is required to demonstrate no net loss of wildlife habitat. Based on the existing County regulations, the limited scope of these proposed amendments, the historical data and expert testimony, the proposed amendments are consistent with the intent and purposes of Goal S. At the time of the County Commissioner's consideration I O:NTEMP\0239867 %,I - STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION doe of this request, Sunriver will submit revisions to the Migration Corridor section of the ESEE Determination (Adopted Ordinance No. 92-041) that reflect these zoning ordinance and Plan amendments. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. Destination Resort Policies The County's destination resort Plan polices relate both to the siting or mapping of destination resorts and to their development impacts. Specifically, policy no. 1 is designed to assure that the mapping of eligible lands under Goal 8 does not conflict with the objectives of other Statewide Planning Goals. So, for example, as relevant to these applications, the County notes in policy no. I that the County excluded sensitive big game habitat from areas of eligibility in order to be consistent with Goal 5. Other Plan policies document other mapping exclusions made by the County. In addition, the remaining Plan policies relate to DR ordinance provisions that regulate destination resort development to assure compatibly with the site and adjacent uses. As previously noted, one such DR ordinance provision relates to a demonstration of no net loss of wildlife habitat. Another relates to the maintenance of important natural features. Given the limited scope of these proposed amendments, it is clear that these amendments do not affect and are consistent with the destination resort policies. 2. Rural Development Policies It should also be recognized that Policy 5 of the rural development portion of the Plan emphasizes the economic benefits of destination resorts to the economy of Deschutes County. In addition, Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 92-001, the ordinance adopting the destination resort Plan policies, outlines the numerous beneficial impacts of destination resorts to Deschutes County. I t:%TEMPW239867 v I - STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION.J.x These amendments will result in the opportunity to develop destination resorts on eligible lands under Goal 8 without adverse consequences to Goal 5 resources should be encouraged under these Plan policies and the County findings made when implementing Goal 8. As a result, these amendments are consistent with this referenced rural development policy. 3. Fish and Wildlife Polices Under these policies, the County establishes numerous measures designed to protect important fish and wildlife resources. Other than Plan policy no. 19 which is proposed to be updated as a part of these applications, the remaining policies do not specifically relate to the narrow change proposed by these amendments. Policy 3 recognizes that in the Migration Corridor for residential land uses in the RR -10 zone, cluster development should be encouraged. While a residential use is a different use from a destination resort, it should be recognized that clustering is common in resort development since the DR zone requires the preservation of 50% open space. VI. SUMMARY In summary, the Applicant requests that these proposed legislative amendments to the WA zone and to the County's Plan be approved. As is demonstrated above, the applications have limited scope within the Migration Corridor and relate only to lands with little value for the wildlife resource. The applications are consistent with all applicable standards and county policies. I P:\TEMP\M239867 v I - STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONAm- Chapter 18.88. WELDLIFE AREA COMBINING WA ZONE 18.88.010. Purpose. 18.88.020. Application of provisions. 18.88.030. Uses permitted outright. 18.88.040. Uses permitted conditionally. 18.88.050. Dimensional standards. 18.88.060. Siting standards. 18.88.070. Fence standards. 18.88.010. Purpose. The purpose of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone is to conserve important wildlife areas in Deschutes County; to protect an important environmental, social and economic element of the area; and to permit development compatible with the protection of the wildlife resource. (Ord. 93-043 §§ 13 and 13A, 1993) 18.88.020. Application of provisions. The provisions of this section shall apply to all areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a winter deer range, significant elk habitat, antelope range or deer migration corridor. Unincorporated communities are exempt from the provisions of the chapter. (Ord. No. 96-003 § 6, 03/27/96; Ord. No. 92- 042 §1,1992) 18.88.030. Uses permitted outright. In a zone with which the WA Zone is combined, the uses permitted outright shall be those permitted outright by the underlying zone. (Ord. 92-042 § 1, 1992; Ord. 91-020 § 1, 1991) 18.88.040. Uses permitted conditionally. A. Except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, in a zone with which the WA Zone is combined, the conditional uses permitted shall be those permitted conditionally by the underlying zone subject to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, chapter 18.128 of this title and other applicable sections of this title. B. The following uses are not permitted in that portion of the WA Zone designated as deer winter ranges, significant elk habitat or antelope range: 1. Golf course, not included in a destination resort; 2. Commercial dog kennel; 3. Church; 4. Public or private school; 5. Bed and breakfast inn; 6. Dude ranch; 7. Playground, recreation facility or community center owned and operated by a government agency or a nonprofit community organization; 8. Timeshare unit; 9. Veterinary clinic; 10. Fishing lodge. C. The Subiect to cgLZJk following uses are permitted in that portion of the WA zone designated as the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as conditional uses: 1. Church; 2. Public or private school; 3. Bed and breakfast inn; 4. Playground, recreation - facility or community center owned and operated by a government agency or a nonprofit community organization; D, Z. - subsection (C) of this section are subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 18.116 and 18.124 of this title and the following criteria: 1. The parcel shall be zoned RR -10; 2. The parcel shall be located within one- quarter mile of a rural service center and be located adjacent to a rural collector or a rural arterial identified on the Deschutes County Transportation Plan; 3. The parcel shall be no less than one acre and no more than 5 acres in size; 4. The parcel shall be farther than 100 feet from identified wetlands, floodplain or riparian areas. 5. The property shall be outside areas designated as "Existing High Use Migration Areas" or "Important Connective Areas Through Existing Developed Areas" on the 1997 ODFW map submitted to the South County Regional Problem Solving Group. 6. Fences developed as part of the conditional uses listed in subsection (C) of this section shall be built from posts and poles or smooth wire and shall have a minimum bottom pole or wire height of 18 inches from the ground and a maximum top pole or wire height of 40 inches from the ground. Fences exempted from these standards shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of subsection 18.88.070(B) of this chapter. E �. Expansion of any use listed in subsection (B) of this section that was lawfully established prior to August 5, 1992, is allowed, subject to provisions of Title 18 applicable to the establishment of such uses. Expansion of golf courses under this subsection shall be limited to a final size of 18 holes. Deroineiien neen me"' _. (Ord. 98-013 § 1, 1998; Ord. 95-075 § 1, 1995; Ord. 95-001 § 3,1995; Ord 92-042 § 1, 1992) 18.88.050. Dimensional standards. In a WA Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply: A. In the Tumalo, Metolius, North Paulin and Grizzly deer winter ranges designated in the Comprehensive Plan Resource Element, the minimum lot size for new parcels shall be 40 acres except as provided in subsection D of this section. B. In areas designated as significant elk habitat in the Comprehensive Plan Resource Element, the minimum lot size for new parcels shall be 160 acres. C. In areas designated as antelope range in the Comprehensive Plan Resource Element, the minimum lot size for new parcels shall be 320 acres. D. Residential land divisions, including partitions, in deer winter range where the underlying zone is RR -10 or MUA-10, shall not be permitted except as a planned development or cluster development conforming to the following standards: 1. The minimum area for a planned or cluster development shall be at least 40 acres. 2 2. The planned or cluster development shall retain a minimum of 80 percent open space and conform with the provisions of sections 18.128.040(P) or (Q)• 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Title 18.128.040 (P) or (Q), or Title 18.60.060(C), the total number of residences in a cluster development may not exceed the density permitted in the underlying zone. E. Residential land divisions, including partitions, in the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor where the underlying zone is RR -10 shall not be permitted except as a cluster development conforming to the following standards: 1. The minimum area for a cluster development shall be at least 20 acres. 2. The cluster development shall retain a minimum of 80 percent open space and conform with the provisions of section 18.128.040(P) or (Q). 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Title 18.128.040(P), or Title 18.60.060(C), the total number of residences in the cluster development may not exceed the density permitted in the underlying zone. (Ord. 95-075 § 1, 1995; Ord. 92-042 § 1, 1992) 18.88.060. Siting standards. A. Setbacks shall be those described in the underlying zone with which the WA Zone is combined. B. The footprint, including decks and porches, for new dwellings shall be located entirely within 300 feet of public roads, private roads or recorded easements for vehicular access existing as of August 5, 1992 unless it can be found that: 1. Habitat values (i.e., browse, forage, cover, access to water) and migration corridors are afforded equal or greater protection through a different development pattern; or, 2. The siting within 300 feet of such roads or easements for vehicular access would force the dwelling to be located on irrigated land, in which case, the dwelling shall be located to provide the least possible impact on wildlife habitat considering browse, forage, cover, access to water and migration corridors, and minimizing length of new access roads and driveways; or, 3. The dwelling is set back no more than 50 feet from the edge of a driveway that existed as of August 5, 1992. C. For purposes of subsection B of this section: 1. A private road, easement for vehicular access or driveway will conclusively be regarded as having existed prior to August 5, 1992 if the applicant submits any of the following: a. A copy of an easement recorded with the County Clerk prior to August 5, 1992 establishing a right of ingress and egress for vehicular use; b. An aerial photograph with proof that it was taken prior to August 5, 1992 on which the road, easement or driveway allowing vehicular access is visible; c. A map published prior to August 5, 1992 or assessor's map from prior to August 5, 1992 showing the road (but not showing a mere trail or footpath). 2. An applicant may submit any other evidence thought to establish the existence of a private road, easement for vehicular access or driveway as of August 5, 1992 which evidence need not be regarded as conclusive. (Ord 95-0013, 1995; Ord 92-042 § 1, 1992) 18.88.070. Fence standards. The following fencing provisions shall apply as a condition of approval for any new fences constructed as a part of development of a property in conjunction with a conditional use permit or site plan review. A. New fences in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone shall be designed to permit wildlife passage. The following standards and guidelines shall apply unless an alternative fence design which provides equivalent wildlife passage is approved by the county after consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: 1. The distance between the ground and the bottom strand or board of the fence shall be at least 15 inches. 2. The height of the fence shall not exceed 48 inches above ground level. 3. Smooth wire and wooden fences that allow passage of wildlife are preferred. Woven wire fences are discouraged B. Exemptions: 3 1. Fences encompassing less than 10,000 square feet which surround or are adjacent to residences or structures are exempt from *the above fencing standards. 2. Corrals used for working livestock. (Ord. 92-042 § 1, 1992) FISH & WILDLIFE The protection of fish and wildlife resources has been a on-going controversy in Deschutes County. Both those committed to the protection of the resources and those who wish to subdivide or otherwise develop in sensitive wildlife areas have often pressed their positions, sometimes resulting in court action to resolve the conflict. It is recognized that failure to protect fish and wildlife resources will result in loss of habitat and loss of endangered species, declining tourist expenditures, loss of recreational opportunities and loss of quality of life. Already, Deschutes County has witnessed the serious degrading of the cold water fishery by irrigation withdrawals, loss of sensitive deer winter range lands to development and the disturbance of deer migration corridors due to residential and recreational construction. Testimony by representatives of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife indicates that their studies have shown that there is significant deer migration from the Deschutes National Forest west of the Deschutes River to wintering ranges east of the river identified as the North Paulina, Devil's Gardena and Hole in the Ground Ranges. They further expressed a belief, based on their training and experience, that rural housing at a density of more than one residence per 40 acres can seriously threaten deer winter survival, and that rural residents often own dogs which, especially in packs allowed to run at large, are a threat to all wildlife. One type of area of particular concern is the riparian area or wetlands along streams and lakes. These areas not only serve as essential habitat for many species and as migration corridors for big game, but are particularly in need of protection because of their limited nature. Not only do the wetter, more forested areas of the County provide wildlife habitat, but the dry high plains in the eastern portion of the County have large populations of sage grouse and antelope. These wildlife species are highly dependent on the open relatively undeveloped character of this area for their survival. Throughout committee discussions and public testimony, the public expressed concern that local fish and wildlife resources be protected. As part of the Country periodic review of the comprehensive plan, the goals and policies have been reviewed by the public, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. During periodic review the county -also updated the fish and wildlife inventories and completed Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy analysis of conflicting uses and developed programs to protect the significant Goal S wildlife resources. (Amended by Ord. 92-040). GOALS: 1. To conserve and protect existing fish and wildlife areas. 2. To maintain all species at optimum levels to prevent serious depletion of indigenous species. 3. To develop and manage the lands and waters of this County in a manner that will enhance, where possible, the production and public enjoyment of wildlife. 4. To develop and maintain public access to lands and waters and the wildlife resources thereon. 5. To maintain wildlife diversity and habitats that support the wildlife diversity in the country. POLICIES: 1. In light of the need to protect deer winter range and to be consistent with plan policies restricting rural sprawl, the Metolius, North Paulina, Tumalo and Grizzly deer winter ranges shall be protected by special zones. The winter ranges shall be as designated on the Big Game Habitat — Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map contained in this plan's resources element. Within the winter ranges the minimum lot size shall be 40 acres, except that in the Rural Residential Zone and the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone planned or cluster developments are required for new land divisions. In planned and cluster developments man's activities must be limited to 20 percent of the development's lands with 80 percent left as open space. The density of planned and cluster development shall be determined by the underlying zone. (Ord. 92-040) 2. The county shall enforce an animal control ordinance which prohibits dogs to be at large or not under the complete control of a capable person. (Ord. 92-040) 3. In the Bend/LaPine deer migration corridor identified in the comprehensive plan resource element, new land divisions, where the underlying zone is Rural Residential —10, shall be cluster development. (Ord. 92-040) 4. Because public access to fish and wildlife areas is so important to the economic and livability aspects of Deschutes County, walking easements and periodic boat access points shall be provided in areas where public river access is limited, as determined appropriate by the County and State Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Ord. 92-040) 5. Consistent with Policy 4 and in order to protect the sensitive riparian areas, as well as to protect people and property from Flood damage, the zoning ordinance shall prohibit development (except floating docks) within 100 feet of the mean high water mark of a perennial or intermittent stream or lake. Exceptions may be permitted on lots created prior to November 1, 1979 where adherence to the 100 foot setback would cause a hardship. (Amended by Ord. No. 80-203; Ord 92-040). 6. In addition to State and Federal laws, County ordinances shall require all identified nesting sites for eagles, ospreys, prairie falcons or other species listed on the Oregon State or Federal threatened or endangered species list shall be protected. (Ord. 92-040) 2 7. Sensitive bird habitat sites (bald eagle, golden eagle, osprey, great grey owl, prairie falcon nests, great blue heron rookeries, and sage grouse leks) and mammal habitat sites (Townsend's big -eared bat hibernating and nesting caves) identified in the Resource Element of this plan shall be protected by a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Overlay Zone. A protection program acceptable to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for the nests or sites shall be submitted by the applicant for a development or land use permit and used implemented during and after construction of the development. (Ord. 92-040) 8. The antelope range and antelope winter range identified on the Big Game Habitat — Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map included by a wildlife areas combining zone. The minimum lot size for new parcels shall be 320 acres. The Rural Service Centers of Brothers, Hampton and Millican shall be exempt from the provisions of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. (Ord. 92-040) 9. The areas containing land identified as significant elk habitat on the Big Game Habitat Map — Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map included in the Resource Element of this plan shall be protected by a wildlife area combining zone. The minimum lot size for new parcels shall be 160 acres in the combining zone. 10. The county shall notify the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife of all land use applications for lands located in the WA Combining Zone or the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Overlay Zone. (Ord. 92-040) 11. The county shall work with ODFW and the Deschutes Basin Resource Committee to review existing protection of riparian and wetland area vegetation and recommend comprehensive plan and ordinance amendments, if necessary, by December 31, 1993. (Ord. 92-040) 12. When site specific information is available to the County on the location, quality and quantity of threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species listed by State and Federal wildlife agencies and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife develops protection criteria for the species, the county shall proceed with a Goal 5 ESEE analysis in compliance with OAR 660 Div. 16. (Ord. 92-040) 13. The county shall review the LaPine and Bull Flat elk habitat areas and the Metolius deer migration corridor designated as "1B" Goal 5 resources during the next periodic review or as additional information on the location, quality and quantity of the habitat areas becomes available. (Ord. 92-040) 14. The country shall maintain an inventory of county -owned property in the Bend/LaPine deer migration corridor. Prior to sale or exchange of county owned property in the corridor, the county shall consult the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine the value of the land for deer migration and make reasonable efforts to consolidate properties to maintain habitat characteristics important to preserving the migration corridor. (Ord. 92-040) 3 1 S. The county shall work with ODFW to identify specific areas where the county and ODFW shall encourage public retention and acquisition of land or seek conservation easements for the protection of the deer migration corridor. (Ord. 92-040) 16. The county shall retain and encourage public ownership of significant fish and wildlife habitat and riparian areas. (Ord. 92-040) 17. County -owned land shall be managed to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat except whefe a conflicting public use outweighs the loss of habitat. (Ord. 92-040) 18. The county shall notify the Oregon Division of State Lands and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife of any development application for land within a wetland identified on the National Wetlands Inventory maps. (Ord. 92-040) , eeember. 31, 1992. . 92 040) 4 Nov -03-2000 10:1spin From -BALL JANIK LLP +6032263910 T-603 P.002/005 F-943 TIRS WILDLIFE ANALYSIS AND REPORT FOR BEND/LA PINE DEER MIGRATION CORRIDOR TEXT AMENDMENT I. Introducth At the request of Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership, this report evaluates a proposed legislative text amendment to the Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA) for the limited purpose of allowing destination resort siting within the non-priority areas of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. The analysis considers historical and currently available data to assess the impact, if any, on the migration corridor if destination resorts were permitted on lands deemed eligible under Goal 8 for resort siting and located only in those areas determined to be a low priority for deer migration. The report also considers that pursuant to the approval criteria of the destination resort zone, any subsequent proposed development would have to demonstrate that there would be no net loss or net degradation of the wildlife resource. In summary, it is my view that the proposed text amendment will have no measurable impact on the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. 11. Historical Basis - Bend/La Pine Deer migration Corridor In 1987, ODFW biologists Norm Behrens and Gregory Robert issued an ODFW administrative report detailing field studies involving mule deer track counts in the Bend/La Pine area. The report summarized data from their field study that was designed to obtain information on areas where deer were concentrated during spring and fall migrations. The primary goal of the study was to monitor deer movements through the migration corridor, with the following specific objectives: 1. Identify the areas where deer cross the migration corridor most frequently. 2. Ascertain the relative frequency of deer crossing in the area of Tall Pines Fifth Addition. 3. Show areas of deer migration in relation to homesite development. As Behrens and Robart explain in their report, mule deer migrate from their summer ranges in the forests of the east slope of the Cascades to the North Paulina winter range northeast of the Pauline mountains and southeast to the Devils Garden and the Hole -in -the -Ground winter ranges near Fort Rock. Deer must pass through a 3- to 4 -mile -wide corridor of public and private land during this migration. This corridor is approximately 50 miles long, starts at Lava Butte, extends 40 miles south within Deschutes County, and 10 miles into Klamath County (Robart 1987). The ODFW field study consisted of a series of deer track counts along 40 miles of dirt/gravel road that originates at T 19 S. R 11 E, Sec 4 and continues south along the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers to a point 4 miles north of Gilchrist at T 24 S, R 9 E, Sec 5. This section was chosen because it was an area where deer trdcks could be readily observed, yet serve as an indication of travel patterns across neighboring private lands. 'track counts were made in URS Corporation U1 SW Columbia, Suite 900 Portland. OR 97201-5814 Tel: 603.222.7200 Fax: 503.222.4282 1 SAProJ0VSUNRIVER\.SR_rpt.doc E7Q-IIBIT _ _ _ Nov -03-2000 10:16pm from -BALL JANIK LSP +6032263910 • T-603 P.003/006 F-943 UM either late November or early December in 1978, 1980, and 1983. Spring counts were conducted in May of 1982, 1986, and again, for a supplemental report in 1991, Data was recorded in one mile intervals after the transect was exposed to deer crossings for a period of 24 to 120 hours. When the transect was exposed to crossings for greater than or less than 72 hours, the data was normalized to reflect a 72 hour period. The number of deer tracks and dog tracks encountered in each 1 -mile segment of road were included in the report. The study by Robart (1987) reached the following conclusions: 1. Deer cross between summer and winter range throughout the entire corridor. 2. The areas immediately south of Lava Butte, near LaPine State Park, and between LaPine and Gilchrist were areas of maximum deer crossing activity, according to the track count data. 3. Moderate areas of crossing were in the Pringle Falls-Dorrance Meadow area, and the vicinity of Big River. 4. Areas of low crossing activity were in the Sunriver-Harpers Bridge area and near Little River at the southern end of the study area. In 1992, Norm Brehens and Steven George produced a report to supplement the 1987 report which included track count data collected in 1991 from the same transect used in the original study. The supplemental report concluded that very little had changed in the way that deer move through the migration corridor. This report reiterated that continued protection of migration corridors was needed, and that the high use areas identified would become more important as development continues. Mile sections 10 and a portion of 11 just south of Sunriver are areas of low deer crossing frequency. The data collected indicates that the deer crossings in those sections are infrequent, especially when compared with the high and moderate areas of activity throughout the rest of the study area. Specifically, the number of tracks counted in the 1978. 1980, 1982, 1983 and 1986 collection periods combined for mile section 10 is a total of 32.4, which amounts to 1.3 percent of all of the tracts collected. The Supplemental Report showed that only 2.45 tracks were counted in mile section 10 the spring of 1991. This brings the total number of tracks to 34.85 and lowers the percentage when compared to all other tracks in the low priority area to 1.15%. The data set for mile section 11 also demonstrates low frequency of crossings through that area. The first study reported a total number of 39.2 tracks during the five collection years, or 1.6 percent of all tracks collected. The Supplemental Report indicates that only 2.74 tracks were found in the spring of 1991 for a total of 41.94 tracks over the entire study period. These numbers are most meaningful when compared to the total number of tracks both north and south along the transect. For example, 166.7 tracks were counted over the duration of the study in mile section 1. north of the subject area. Additionally, 178.26 deer tracks were found along anile section 37, south of the low priority area. This ODFW data indicates that the low priority area is already largely avoided by the deer population during their migration pattern when compared to the rest of the migration corridor. 2 S:1PrgIMSUNR TV8WR_ Vt.d« Nov -03-2000 10:16pm From -BALL JANIK� +b031263910 . T-603 P.004/005 F-943 Recent ODFW surveys corroborate the data presented in the Behrens reports. ODFW tracks the number of animals, including deer that are killed by vehicles along Highway 97 each year. That data corresponds with the evidence presented in the Behrens reports for high, moderate, and low migration areas. III. 1992 Process - WA update ODFW prepared the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor Map based upon the data collected in the Behrens field studies. The mapped corridor is approximately 56 miles long and 3 to 4 miles wide. The Deschutes portion of the BendfLa Pine Migration Corridor begins south of Sunriver and parallels the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers south to the Klamath County line. In 1992, Deschutes County revised the WA Zone and adopted new plan policies and land use regulations. As part of this revision, the county adopted the ODFW map designating the 1992 Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as an overlay zone. IV. 1999 Prlorfty Map The Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor Map presently fails to distinguish the areas of high, medium and low deer use areas identified in the Behrens field studies. In 1999, in recognition of the large variation of deer crossings throughout the migration corridor, ODFW modified the South Deschutes County Forest Zone and Deer Migration Habitat Map. It designated Deer Migration Priority Area. The priority area includes the high and moderate crossing activity areas identified in the 1987 and 1992 Behrens reports. It excludes the low migration activity areas. V. Impacts of Proposed Modification of Overlay Zone The proposed text change has very limited application. It is geographically limited since it only applies to those areas within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor that are outside the 1999 ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area. Therefore, the more important high and moderate deer migration crossing activity areas will not be adversely affected by the proposed text amendment. In essence, the proposed amendments allow destination resorts on Goal 8 eligible lands that are not of significance to the Goal 5 resource. As demonstrated by the ODFW repom the deer migration frequencies are not significant in the low priority area. As a result, a text amendment that provides the opportunity for resort development solely on Goal 8 eligible lands in low priority areas in the Migration Corridor does not have a measurable adverse impact on the Goal 5 resource. Further, it should be recognized that pursuant to Deschutes County Code § 18.113.070(D), prior to approving a destination resort, the decision -maker must find that "any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource." The proposed text amendment has no affect on this requirement. Prior to getting approval of a resort under this amendment, an applicant would have to meet this requirement by demonstrating that any development will cause no net loss or degradation of the deer resource. Consequently, while the text amendment would allow the possibility of a resort within the low priority area of the migration corridor, such a resort could 3 SAProjO"VNRTVRR\S"t.dou Nov -03-1000 10:16pm From4ALL JANIK P +5032263910 T-603 P.005/006 F-943 t not become a reality without a finding that the deer resource would suffer no net loss and no net degradation. VI. Conduslon In my opinion, the proposed text amendment will not have a detectable impact on the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. The amendment only applies to those areas identified by multiple ODFW studies and surveys as having low migration activity when compared with the high crossing numbers in the rest of the migration corridor. Therefore, it will only enable resort siting in those areas already avoided by the migrating deer populations. Additionally, the zoning code requires that before a resort is approved, the applicant prove that there will be no net loss or net degradation to the deer resource. This is a situation where the presence of development and human population is compatible with the preservation of wildlife habitat. References Behrens, Norm and Steven George. 1992. Findings: Mule deer track count study supplemental data to Central Region Administrative Report No. 86-2. Robart. Gregory. 1987. Findings: mule deer track county study, Lava Butte — Gilchrist 1978- 1986. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Report No. 86-2. 4 SAPrgj0MSUNR1VER%SR_rpt.doc I [A ee. Moo '.. nR.. .yt•{. ba •�4 _ _.___. _ __ __ •.�, , •• ••• • .1 I 1 • ^ w 'R' 1 a `. u... ',•1'N. '..».... ! n n I�-...,•` �• rw"u r.. Ick 1�,• „ , /rr r \ { . `I •C C� { t t r • 1 MIrQ 'r .1., r fgl,r a Ir „ .. o r .•y„„ » ( ♦ -' » ,(' / t• 1 m . j ' ♦ „ »'�i twdll �''( � »I N• ' t��l.� ��. `% v�.. •A @SItJYJ L.• 1 , .Q B • � ' IF u u r . .% • ;\ » ui dl iru • ( � IF u (r a /I• a .. , •Ir•D .,» . r. � u l {I � u ^n .. ' � •iii d'ZC ! 1'./. �; so solids 7 so of r so 0 h so / I • t Jft ♦ '♦ fff •e •k• B kYm I 1 •♦•f. 1►. M. ” .4 Ohl • P n n,u �• 11• ®r ♦ 1' rso r r 1 „-•_ ♦moi„1 �'G ��. , ^r•.r• �IY • •.I � ' • N � � » I'So C' r I / r�'.I Ir • it f�6• lee a 1'1 i� � —' . _ • ?_ • , i?.•. r',✓•., h / ` � ,•p, ” jj• '!"'♦h 4 ` • 't • 1 t " } I " .1 41 � ,, I ,. /ri..� i .• 64 ft -- fit 1p A lot 14 1 wu I t ,•�•�* _ » • O F LL'L 'plow „• ••� , » •• . fI. ^N 1 9 » 71 n Is rt;F� »..), ,„ i „ f ir.H „• '• r 1EXPERI ♦'• » » » » FOBso d n n » I •«)i ♦ t .�/ . YIAA I..M .•r l ` Z. MMaL[ i • 1 - —'�— �'B• I I „/iiii „ •'I�r: �\ ••,1 •alt e[♦•A11"1 slat f1�•1u » ., ' '••.\ MA+Vr1'1. [KAee1 .i• rA Md Md . \ J �+�� i�• 4 J/7�•c �— \ , J • — / • ��Y.;i.�.. .• •,•: .j W/CK/UI• �I, . • Y �I�Ir • I•a rI �IIdN•' rim • I f ,II! ( / �.�„I1L� r• rw•. i Iw Att[RVO,R_®, . •Y.r • ta.1e i I , e[NrrvON /•:7,h,•��+.'�! j Wg ht -4—r .f ;�,.•� f iia' i = f L— It IsGso OJEy .,.. slis so so 61 I . built I• » Nil- • so A T:: j• Ir fo nla 1A{ +r crYr»w• �.' •t x' : Bul 1 . • .ewM /yj �!„�. -�- „• i.� f` 1+� .• d n ! ✓ r ♦ r .. �t—I-. •�• , r G1' �-lam I _. L ? i _ • �: �. .. I E' y N k 1 ' • O J • •: ' I» ,Yt1 •- �:.•_ / DEER TRACK STUDY ARTA r� • ”—f'T APPENDIX I Low, Moderate d High 1• . r• ..11...E ti_ .u: • . / `'��:M F. .• 11 1 / _ „ frequency crossing. . rI November 1978 - M1aX 1986 )I �• ,) if N 17,443 . C /IP HIGH li , n n B fyda r• •„ - •i,.• „b I /'n MODERATE ' , IBM »s 777— rI• i L"W (Unshaded) I • Xr�♦ n !M » 11 » ♦ • y('r„N,• .IF / t.w.••�tp • ' 1• I '• I • N'1 r• • rr • < 4 '.• , ! • 4J.� _ 1 • 1 ti•�..•...� LI i i 77 so l C * ` ♦ 4 • _ _ l _ _ . JI ^ too I's t / �• , '• .., •^'...'. h �i � .r . :1.7�{ ' jI •II II �L i ,•d' 1 „ I ,r- I�:drte •.�.il •1e � �� e�=•w�t,�! 3/22/01 DRAFT AMENDED ESEE DEER MIGRATION CORRIDOR I. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS In 1992, the County updated its inventory of fish and wildlife resources pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 5. (Ordinance No. 92-041). As part of the program to achieve the goal, the County added the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor to the County's Wildlife Area Combining Zone ("WA Zone"). During the same time period in 1992, under a distinct process, the County began mapping properties eligible for destination resorts under Statewide Planning Goal 8. Because the County did not complete the Goal 8 mapping process prior to adopting Ordinance No. 92-041, the County decided to defer the question of whether to allow destination resorts in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone until the County completed its Goal 8 destination resort mapping. Through Ordinance No. 92-040, the County adopted Policy No. 19 of the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which prohibits the siting of destination resorts in the WA Zone "pending completion of the county's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process." Policy No. 19 specified that the County was to complete the Goal 8 mapping process by December 31, 1992. The County has completed the Goal 8 mapping process. Consistent with Policy No. 19 and the corresponding text of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, Deschutes County Code Section 18.88.040(F), the County now finds that conflicts between the deer migration corridor and destination resorts should be balanced by limiting destination resort development to Goal 8 eligible lands outside the 1999 ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area. In compliance with Goal 5 and its implementing regulations, the Deer Migration Corridor section of the Fish and Wildlife Inventories Conflict ESEE Analysis is amended accordingly. ODFW's findings in support of the amendments allowing limited destination resort development outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area are set forth in a letter from ODFW Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist Steven George dated March 21, 2001 and are adopted by the County in support of this Amended ESEE and incorporated by reference herein. II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A. Goal 8 MaDDlna On February 7, 1992, in compliance with Goal 8, the County began a mapping process to designate lands eligible for destination resorts. The objective of the Goal 8 mapping process was to identify those areas most appropriate for destination resorts. The County conducted the mapping process in phases. Initially, pursuant to Goal 8 regulations, the County excluded all areas ineligible for destination resorts. Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0000(8) destination resorts are not eligible in areas: (1) within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing population of 100,000 or more, (2) on prime or unique farm land, (3) on predominately class 1 or 2 forest lands, and (4) in especially sensitive big game habitat as mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife ("ODFW"). CATEMK DRNOV.doc In compliance with the final category, the County excluded four areas of big game habitat, including Tumalo Deer Winter Range, the Meiolius Deer Winter Range, and two areas of the Antelope range. The County also excluded additional habitat areas not mandated as ineligible areas under Goal 8, including the Horse Ridge Antelope Range and Millican Antelope Range areas beyond ODFW's mapped boundaries. The County did not exclude the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corrider from the lands mapped as eligible for destination resorts because migration corridors are not recognized as "especially sensitive big game habitat" under Goal 8. Therefore, lands within the migration corridor remained eligible for destination resort mapping. As a part of Phase I of the mapping process, the County mapped various farm lands and rural areas. The County adopted more restrictive and selective criteria than mandated by Goal 8 and initially excluded most large agricultural areas and public lands. The County adopted ordinances No. 92-001 through 92-003, completing Phase I. As shown on the South Deschutes County, Destination Resort Eligible Properties in Low Migration Priority Area Map ("Eligible Properties Map") adopted in support of this ESEE Amendment, certain RR -10 lands within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor were included as areas eligible for destination resorts. As a part of Phase II, the County mapped eligible forest lands in compliance with the Goal 8 limitations. The County excluded F-1 zoned lands from consideration and mapped several F-2 zoned lands. As shown on the Eligible Properties Map, the County designated some F-2 zoned lands within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as eligible for destination resorts.. Due to the mandatory statewide exclusions and the more restrictive County criteria, the County's Goal 8 mapping program resulted in a carefully circumscribed destination resort overlay. A few F-2 and RR -10 zoned lands within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor were included in this limited supply of Goal 8 mapped properties. B. Goal In August of 1992, under a process completely distinct from the Goal 8 mapping program, the County updated the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan compliance with Goal 5. Through periodic review, the County updated its Goal 5 inventory, analyzed the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy consequences of allowing, limiting, or prohibiting conflicting uses, and developed programs to protect the significant Goal 5 wildlife resources. The County addressed a variety of specific resources, including the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. The County incorporated policies regarding the migration corridor into the Comprehensive Plan and added the migration corridor to the WA Zone through Ordinance No. 92-040. In addition, the County added the related ESEE findings to the Comprehensive Plan through Ordinance No. 92-041 and amended the zoning map to include the migration corridor in the WA Zone Overlay through Ordinance No. 92-046. As part of this Goal 5 process, the County decided to defer the question of whether to allow destination resorts within the Wildlife Area Combining Zone until Goal 8 mapping was completed. III. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Inventory Information: 2 CATEM P\5 DRN02! .doc The County originally mapped the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as part of the 1992 Goal 5 process and included it in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map. Based on the compilation of ODFW field studies involving mule deer track counts in the Bend/La Pine area from 1978 through 1999, summarized in the ODFW Central Region Reports 86-2 and 92-1, the 1999 ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area Map, and ODFW's March 21, 2001 letter in support of allowing limited destination resort development outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area, the County is now able to adopt a more accurate map of the migration corridor to allow limited destination resort development in low priority migration areas. As part of the South County Regional Problem Solving Project, ODFW modified the South Deschutes County Forest Zone and Deer Migration Habitat Map and designated the ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area. The Priority Area includes those sections of the migration corridor most frequented by the deer and officially recognizes the high and moderate frequency use areas identified in Reports 86-2 and 92-1. The priority area excludes those areas with a historically low frequency of migration. To depict the levels of priority within the migration corridor, the 1999 ODFW Wildlife Migration Priority Area Map for Regional Problem Solving and the Eligible Properties Map are adopted as part of the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and incorporated herein by reference. The Eligible Properties Map shows the areas within the destination resort overlay and outside of the Priority Area where destination resort development may occur. Location, Quantity and Quality: The Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, which is approximately 56 miles long and 34 miles wide, starts at Lava Butte, extends approximately 40 miles within Deschutes County and 10 miles into Northern Klamath County. The corridor parallels the Deschutes and Little Deschutes rivers. Mule deer use the corridor to migrate from their summer range in the forest along the east slope of the Cascades to the North Paulina deer winter range northeast of the Paulina Mountains and to the Hole -In -The -Ground and Devil's Winter Garden winter ranges near Fort Rock. For over twenty years, ODFW has surveyed mule deer tracks to determine the level of use in the corridor during the migration period. The results of the studies are published in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Reports Nos. 86-2 and 92-1, incorporated herein by reference. The Reports conclude, based upon the historical deer track counts, that the levels of use by the migrating deer vary greatly throughout the corridor. Consequently, the Reports identify the areas of high, moderate, and low frequency of use. In 1999, ODFW officially recognized a variation of incidences of deer use throughout the migration corridor by mapping the ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area. The 1999 ODFW map produced as part of the South County Regional Problem Solving Project refined the 1992 Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor by specifically identifying areas most heavily utilized by migrating deer. The Deer Migration Priority Areas are depicted on the 1999 ODFW Wildlife Migration Priority Area Map and described in Report Nos. 86-2 and 92-1. The portion of the migration corridor shown on the Eligible Lands Map is the only segment of the corridor that contains lands that are outside the Deer Migration Priority Area and inside the destination resort overlay. This unique segment of the corridor is found at mile section 10 and a 3 CATEMMDRNOV.doc portion of section 11, just south of the Sunriver area (Mile sections 10 and 11 lie within Township 20 South, Range 10 East and Range 11 East). The number of tracks counted in the 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1986 collection periods combined for mile section 10 is a total of 32.4, which amounts to 1.3 percent of all the tracts collected. Only 2.45 tracks were counted in mile section 10 in the spring of 1991. A similar low frequency is documented for mile section 11. Only 39.2 tracks were reported during the first five collection years, which amounts to 1.6 percent of all tracks collected. Only 2.74 tracks were found in mile section 11 in the spring of 1991. In contrast, 166.7 tracks were counted over the duration of the collection years for mile section 1, north of the low priority area, and 178.26 tracks were found along mile section 37, south of the low priority area. The La Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977, describes the geology, soil hydrology, vegetation, migration roots and other characteristics and conflicts in the migration corridor area. The underlying zoning in most of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor is Rural Residential 10 ("RR -10 "). Although the zone has a 10 -acre minimum lot size, much of the development in the La Pine area occurred prior to zoning in the County. There are extensive areas of pre- existing subdivisions with lots ranging in size from less than one acre to five acres. Most of the RR -10 zone is made up of lots less than the 10 -acre minimum lot size. A portion of the RR -10 zoned land within the migration corridor is also within the destination resort overlay. The migration corridor also includes some Exclusive Farm Use ("BFU"), Forest Use 1 ("F-1 "), Forest Use 2 ("F-2"), and Flood Plain ("FP") zoned Land. The La Pine State Park is zoned Open Space Conservation. These resource zones provide for large lot sizes and limit uses that are not compatible with the farm, forest or open space uses. Because of the low density of development in these zones and the limitation on uses, the resource zones themselves limit conflicting uses and provide considerable protection to the migration corridor. A limited number of RR -10 and F-2 parcels within the migration corridor are also mapped as eligible for destination resort siting. However, as of the date of this ESEE Amendment, there are no 160 -acre undeveloped RR -10 zoned parcels and only two undeveloped F-2 zoned parcels within the destination resort overlay but outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area. Deschutes County Code Section 18.113.060(B) requires that all destination resorts must have a minimum of 160 contiguous acres of land. Conflicting Uses: ODFW has identified dwellings, roads, and dogs as major conflicts with migrating deer. Fences that do not allow safe passage of deer are also a conflicting use. Conflicting uses are documented in the ODFW Central Region Administrative Reports and No. 86-2 and 92-1 and in the La Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977. These documents are incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, the ESEEs for surface mines in the deer migration corridor identify the migration corridor as a conflicting use with the surface mining activity. There are four surface mines in the migration corridor (Sites 342, 426, 427, and 432). 4 CATEMM DRNOV.doc Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences of Protecting Significant Deer Migration Corridor By Limiting Conflicting Uses: 1. Economic Consequences: A positive economic consequence of limiting conflicts in the deer migration corridor is a reduction in staff time of ODFW attempting to resolve conflicts between rural residents and wildlife. Deer hunters depend upon the survival of healthy deer populations. Deer hunters spend an average of $46.69 per hunter per day; in Deschutes County there are 75,885 deer hunter days per year in the County for a value of $3,542,100. Negative economic consequences of applying regulations to limit conflicts in deer migration corridors are generally born by individuals prevented from doing an activity such as building a home or road, or dividing land or developing a use which would cause increased traffic or change in the vegetation which would decrease the quality of the forge or cover. Limiting surface mining activity could increase the cost of operation of the surface mine. Prohibiting destination resort siting within the entire deer migration corridor would have a severe negative economic consequence. Tourism is a vital element of the Deschutes County economy. The County is currently one of Oregon's premiere tourist destinations and it is a County goal to thoughtfully expand the area's resort and recreation opportunities to enhance that reputation. Tourism plays an essential role in creating new job opportunities and strengthening the regional and local economy. Most of Deschutes County's economic growth during the last decade has been a result of the growth in tourism and recreation opportunities, as well as an expanding retirement community. Destination resorts serve both of these growth segments. The economic benefits from the expansion of tourism in general and destination resorts in particular are tangible. Visitor and new resident expenditures contribute to regional business activity and provide multiple employment opportunities for the local labor force, including entry level positions, as well as managerial and professional positions. Destination resorts have become the most dynamic growth component of the local tourism industry. The existing destination resorts attract visitors from all over the region and increasingly the nation. The existing resorts have had an enormously positive impact on the local and regional economy while placing a minimum burden on the County, the County School District, and other service providers. In sum, destination resorts are a highly desirable type of development for County- wide economic growth since they attract wealth and generate employment within the region. The County finds that limiting, rather than prohibiting destination resorts within the migration corridor will lessen the negative economic impact of protecting the wildlife resource. 2. Social Consequences: The positive social consequence of limiting development to protect deer migration corridors is the retention of the stable deer population for hunting and wildlife viewing.. Negative social consequences stem from the restriction of residential uses and limits on partitions which would otherwise be allowed by the underlying zoning provisions. Siting standards limit the ability of people to site their dwellings in their preferred location, and limitations on destination resort siting reduce the quality and quantity of valuable recreational facilities and opportunities. Area resorts provide both locals and visitors with vast recreational CATEMPI5DRN02!.doc facilities. Additionally, the resorts provide needed visitor accommodations for tourists drawn to the area for recreational purposes. The County finds that the potential negative social consequences can be reduced by limiting resort siting in the migration corridor to areas outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area rather than prohibiting resort siting entirely. 3. Environmental Consequences: A positive environmental consequence of protecting the deer migration corridor is -the provision of opportunities for big game to travel freely without undue disturbance, obstacles, or harassment. In addition, other species of wildlife also benefit from the low density of development within high priority areas of migration corridors. Development standards mandating cluster developments and open space requirements benefit migrating deer and other wildlife in the migration corridor by increasing undeveloped open space. In addition, minimum setback requirements from street lot lines also limit disturbance of vegetation and provide more open space corridors. Furthermore, limiting the area available for extraction of aggregate resources decreases hazards to deer migration. Prohibiting destination resorts within the Deer Migration Priority Area will prevent resort development in those sections of the corridor most heavily utilized for migration purposes. The County finds that allowing destination resorts on lands within the destination resort overlay outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area will have minimal negative environmental consequences and significant positive social and economic consequences, as detailed above. As specified by ODFW's Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist in the March 21, 2001 letter incorporated herein by reference, ODFW has concluded that allowing destination resorts as a conditional use in the WA zone outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area will not significantly affect the deer migration pattern in the WA zone. The County concurs with ODFW's conclusion for the following reasons. First, the incidence of deer crossings within the low priority areas is so low that a relatively few number of migrating deer will be impacted by resorts in those areas. As documented in ODFW Reports No. 86-2 and 92-1, the tracks within the areas outside the ODFW Priority Area yet within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor (Miles 6-11 and 21-27 in the ODFW studies), amount to only 15.9% of the total tracks counted in the studies conducted between 1978 and 1991. Secondly, as emphasized in the March 21, 2001 ODFW letter, this impact is further reduced by the limited number of parcels that are (1) outside the Deer Migration Priority Area, (2) inside the destination resort overlay, and (3) at least 160 contiguous acres. Currently, only two parcels meet these qualifications. Both parcels are located just south of the existing Sunriver Resort and highlighted on the Eligible Properties Map. According to the ODFW Reports, the percentage of deer tracks counted during the total collection period in the vicinity of these parcels(mile sections 10 and 11 in the ODFW studies) amounts to only 2.5% of the total tracks throughout the entire migration corridor. Finally, the County concurs with ODFW's conclusion in the March 21, 2001 letter that the destination resort siting standards in Deschutes County Code Section 18.113 significantly reduce the range of potential adverse impacts on the migration corridor. Negative environmental 6 CATEMP\5DRN02!.doc consequences are further reduced by resort -type development as opposed to traditional residential development. Section 18.113 of the Deschutes County Code requires that 50% of the total percentage of a destination resort be dedicated to open space. This ensures that even within the resort, wildlife has adequate open space areas where vegetative disturbance is limited. This same open space requirement is not attached to residential development outside of a destination resort. The destination resort regulations also ensure that, consistent with other new residential development throughout the migration corridor, residences and other buildings will be clustered in order to minimize impact. Finally, the destination resort regulations also requires that, prior to resort development, a destination resort applicant must demonstrate there will be no net loss of wildlife habitat as a result of the resort development. Consequently, any applicant for a resort within the low priority area of the migration corridor will provide either on-site or off-site mitigation measures to ensure the protection of wildlife habitat. 4. Energy Consequences: Energy consequences from limiting development in the deer migration corridor winter range will be a reduction in vehicle trip generation associated with development located in rural areas. Development will occur closer to urban areas or within destination resorts, where services are more available and can be provided with less energy costs.. The lands eligible for resort development outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area are adjacent to existing development and services. Furthermore, destination resorts provide commercial, retail, residential, and recreational uses within the resort boundaries, thereby limiting vehicle trips outside of the resort area. For additional information on ESEE consequences, see the following documents incorporated herein by reference: a. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study Chapter VI, pages 1-6- 16; Chapter VII, pages 7-1-7-30. b. Bend River Study Staff Report, May 1986, pages 21-26. C. ODFW Central Region Administrative Report No. 86-2 and 92-1. d. La Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977. e. March 21, 2001 Letter from ODFW Deschutes County Wildlife Biologist Steven George, submitted in File No. PA -00-10 and TA -00-13. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, the County finds that the identified deer migration corridor and the identified conflicting uses within the corridor, including destination resorts, are important relative to each other. Consequently, the County finds that the conflicts should be balanced by limiting certain uses and prohibiting others, and the resource should be protected through a "3C" designation. Specifically, destination resorts should be limited rather than prohibited. Destination resorts will be limited to areas within the destination resort overlay that are outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area. IV. PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL 7 CATEMP\5DRN02!.doc Initially, the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor was added to the Wildlife Combining Zone by Ordinance 92-040, which adopted comprehensive plan policies regarding the corridor, by Ordinance No. 92-041 which adopted the original ESEE findings as part of the Resource Element of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, and by Ordinance 92-046 which amended the zoning map to include the migration corridor as part of the Wildlife Area Combing Zone. The WA Zone was amended by Ordinance No. 92-042 to require cluster development for all land divisions in the RR -10 zone in the Bend/La Pine Migration Corridor. A 20 -acre parcel is the minimum size required for a cluster development. Although much of the land is already divided into lots less than 5 acres, the 20 acre minimum lot size and the requirement for cluster developments will retain much of the limited open space important for the passage of deer. The siting standards and fencing standards in the WA zone apply to all properties throughout the entire deer migration corridor. The fencing standards are those recommended by ODFW to allow safe passage of the deer. The standards prohibiting destination resort siting until the completion of the Goal 8 mapping process are amended to allow limited siting outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area, as detailed below. Additional elements of the program to achieve the goal include surface mining limitations, ODFW consultation requirements, and policies encouraging the protection of high priority migration areas though conservation easements and federal land acquisitions. The conflicting use of surface mining activity will continue to be limited by Deschutes County Code Section 18.52.110(K), which limits the extraction area to five acres, excluding access roads, equipment storage areas, processing equipment sites, and stockpiles. ODFW will continue to be notified of any land use action in the migration corridor and will have the opportunity to comment on development proposals, including destination resort proposals. Furthermore, the 1992 county map of the migration corridor that shows the parcelization pattern in 5 size categories will remain an element of this Amended ESEE. The County and ODFW will work together to identify priority areas for land acquisition and work with Federal agencies to assure that land important for migration is retained in federal ownership or protected with conservation easements to retain the limited amount of open space in the corridor. In summary, all of the Comprehensive Plan policies and land use regulations adopted in 1992 to protect the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor by limiting conflicting uses remain effective, with the exception of the temporary prohibition on destination resort siting. The County concludes that at this time it is appropriate to address the issue of whether destination resorts should be sited within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor since the Goal 8 mapping project has been completed. Destination resorts are a vital part of the County's economy and they provide social benefits to the entire region. However, in order to protect the principal deer migration routes within the corridor, destination resort siting should be limited. Specifically, the County finds that limiting destination resorts to those areas within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, yet outside of the area mapped by ODFW as the Deer Migration Priority Area, achieves the appropriate balance between the Goal 5 wildlife resource and Goal 8 destination resort priorities. Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan chapter on Fish and Wildlife Resources and the Section 18.88 of the Deschutes County Code, the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, have been amended to allow destination resorts outside of the priority area through Ordinance No. 01- 8 CATEMNSDRNOV.doc -0 re Department of Fish and Wildlife High Desert Region 61374 Parrell Road John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor Bend, OR 97702 (541) 388-6363 FAX (541) 388-6281 OREGON jr i Flh t WIIAIIN December 19, 2000 Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Street Bend, OR 97701 ATTN: Damian Syrnyk, Associate Planner RE: Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership, Plan/Zone/Text Amendment We have had the opportunity to review the applicants request for a text amendment of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone to allow resorts within low priority migration corridors. We agree with the applicants assessment of the overall impacts to Goal 5 resources as a result of their request. With the additional safeguards in Goal 8 we feel that this amendment could be granted with negligible impacts to the Goal 5 resources. If we can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Steven George Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist steyen,w.P-eorge@,state.or.us DEC 2 2 2000 • FILE NUMBERS: , Z� Community Development Department Planning Division • Building Safety Division • Environmental Hearth Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue - Bend, Oregon - 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 - FAX (541) 385-1764 http:// newberry.deschutes,org DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT PA -00-10 and TA -00-13, HEARING DATE/ TIME: March 8, 2001, 6:00 P.M. LOCATION: Deschutes County Commissioners Hearing Room 1130 NW Harriman Street, Bend, Oregon 97701 PROPOSALS: PA -00-10, an amendment to the text of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 to allow an application for a conditional -use permit to establish a destination resort on lands zoned Wildlife Area Combining that are located outside of deer migration priority areas. TA -00-13, an amendment to the text of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance, to allow, as a conditional use, a destination resort in the Wildlife Area -Combining Zone in areas not designated as deer migration priority areas. APPLICANT: Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership STAFF CONTACT: Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan: Section 23.36.130, Destination Resorts. Section 23.40.050, Fish and Wildlife. B. Title 18 of the DCC, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, Section 18.88.040, Uses Permitted Conditionally. C. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.175, Cities' and counties' planning responsibilities; rules on incorporations; compliance with goals. PA-00-10/TA-00-13 Page 1 Quality Services Performed with Pride M D. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) OAR 660-015, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines OAR 660-023, Procedure and Requirements for Complying with Goal 5. II. BASIC FINDINGS: A. PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted concurrent applications for quasi-judicial amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Ordinance that would, if approved, allow the County to accept an application for a conditional use permit to establish a destination resort in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (PA -00-10) would delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 under Chapter 23.40.050 the plan. This policy states: "An application for a destination resort, or any portion thereof, In a wildlife area combining zone shall not be accepted pending completion of the County's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process. The County shall complete the Goal 8 destination resort mapping process by December 31, 9992." The proposed amendment (TA -00-13) to Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, of Title 18, would amend Section 18.88.040, Uses Permitted Conditionally, to modify subsection (C) by adding a reference "Subject to subsection E, the" and by adding a new subsection (D) that would include the following language: "Subject to Chapter 18.913, destination resorts are allowed as a conditional use in that portion of the WA Zone designated as the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as long as the property is not In an area designated as "Deer Migration Priority Area: on the 1999 ODFW Map submitted to the South County Regional Problem Solving Group." The amendments to DCC Section 18.88.040 also include deleting subsection 18.88.040(F), which includes language that mirrors the language of Fish and Wildlife Policy No. 19. B. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a written narrative that details the purposes of the proposed amendments and several exhibits in support of the proposed amendments. You will find this narrative attached to this report, which includes the proposed amendments to the plan and the zoning ordinance. The application includes the following documents submitted in support of the amendments: 1. Deschutes County Combining Zone Map; 2. Wildlife Migration Priority Area for Regional Problem Solving 1999 map; • • 3. South Deschutes County, Destination Resort Eligible Properties in Low Migration Priority Area map; 4. URS Report; • PA-W10fTA-M13 Page 2 5. 1986 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Deer Track Study Area • Map from Behrens and George study, and; 6. 1992 Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor Map. As indicated above, the applicant proposes concurrent amendments to the text of the County Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Ordinance to allow the county to accept an application for a conditional use permit for a destination resort in the WA Zone. This proposal provides proposed language and supporting documentation to complete two concurrent processes the County began in 1992 to plan for the siting of destination resorts in Deschutes County and to protect significant wildlife habitat, in this case deer migration corridors, to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5. In 1992, the County received an application for quasi-judicial amendments to the comprehensive.plan and the zoning ordinance to allow destination resorts in Deschutes County. Statewide Planning Goal 8, Recreational Needs, is to satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Goal 8 and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.435 through 197.467 include the applicable requirements for identifying lands in a county that would be eligible for development of a resort and for siting a resort. The County has amended its comprehensive plan to include goals and policies for mapping lands that are eligible for siting of a resort See DCC Section 22.36.000) and has adopted implementing regulations in the zoning ordinance (Seg DCC Chapter 18.113) for review and action on a conditional use permit • for siting a destination resort. In addition to completing this work for destination resorts, that some year the County completed work on its periodic review of the comprehensive plan. Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces, exists to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas. The County adopted a series of ordinance that amended the existing text, goals, and policies of the comprehensive plan regarding protection of fish and wildlife habit (&J DCC 22.40.050), and to adopt new text to the Resource Element of the Plan, including inventories and analyses documenting the wildlife habitat in the County. The County also adopted changes to the text of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone to better protect the wildlife resources in the County, including deer migration corridors. If approved as proposed, the proposal would eliminate existing text in both the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance that prohibits the county from accepting an application for a destination resort in the WA Zone. The proposal would add text that would limit application for a resort to eligible lands located outside of deer migration priority area identified on Applicant's Exhibit 5. You will find a reduced version of this exhibit attached with this report. C. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed written notice of this hearing to the applicant and 14 public agencies on February 16, 2001. Staff also posted notice of the hearing in three (3) public locations on February 26, 2001. The Bend Bulletin newspaper will publish notice of the March 8, 2001 public hearing on Sunday March 4, 2001. The Division received a December 19, 2000 letter from Steve PA400.10/fA-00-13 Page 3 George, Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist, with ODFW that provided the following , comments: • 'We have had the opportunity to review the applicant's request for a text amendment of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone to allow resorts within low priority migration corridors. We agree with the applicant's assessment of the overall impacts to Goal 5 resources as a result of their request. With the additional safeguards in Goal 8 we feel that this amendment could be granted with negligible impacts to the Goal 5 resources.' III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS A. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES. 1. OAR 660-023-0000. Purpose and Intent. This division establishes procedures and criteria for inventorying and evaluating Goal 5 resources and for developing land use programs to conserve and protect significant Goal 5 resources. This division explains how local governments apply Goal 5 when conducting periodic review and when amending acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations. 2. OAR 660-023-0010. Definitions. (5) "PAPA" Is a "post -acknowledgment plan amendment." The term • encompasses actions taken In accordance with ORS 997.610 through 997.625, including amendments to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation and the adoption of any new plan or land use regulation. The term does not Include periodic review actions taken In accordance with QRS 197.628 through 197.650. FINDING: The applicant has submitted applications for quasi-judicial amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to amend the text of both of these documents that would allow the county to accept an application for siting a destination resort in areas protected as Goal 5 resources. The Goal 5 resource that is the subject of the proposed amendments is the Bend/La Pine Deer migration corridor. Currently, both the comprehensive plan (Fish and Wildlife Policy No. 19) and the zoning ordinance (DCC 18.88.0040(F)) do not allow an application for a destination resort to be submitted until the County completes the process for Goal 8 destination resort mapping. The County completed this process in 1992 through the adoption of several ordinances (92-001 through 92-003; 92-029 through 92-032), which amended the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance to include map of lands eligible for siting of a destination resort. The amendments do not propose to add or to delete resources that are currently included the Goal 5 wildlife habitat resource inventories. As indicated above, the Goal 5 resource that is the subject of this application is the Bend -La Pine deer migration corridor. The applicant does not proposed to add lands to this corridor or to remove land from this corridor. The amendments proposed to amend the text of the plan and the zoning ordinance to allow the county to accept an application for a conditional use • permit to site a destination resort on lands eligible for siting of a resort that are also PA -00-101 TA -00-13 Page 4 located within the deer migration corridor. The proposal is consistent with Goal 5 • because it proposes to limit the ability for the siting of a resort on eligible lands that are located outside of the deer migration priority area shown on Exhibit 5. The record includes copies of wildlife research studies prepared by both ODFW and by URS, a wildlife biologist working for the applicant, that show the areas that would be eligible for siting of a resort are not as critical to the migration of deer as the areas indicated on Exhibit 5 as the migration priority area. Additionally, the applicant has correctly pointed out that if the County approves this amendment, an application for a destination resort would still be required to show how wildlife habitat would be protected. DCC 18.113.070(D) requires an application for a conditional use permit to show that any negative impact on fish and wildlife habitat resources will be completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource. 2. Chapter 660. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals State law (ORS 197.175) requires that changes to a comprehensive plan be consistent with the applicable statewide land use goals. The following finding addresses the proposal's compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, will be met because the County's land use process provides for notice of proposed comprehensive plan text amendments to the general public by publication in The Bulletin and by posting notices in public places in the county. The Planning Commission will hold at least one hearing regarding the proposed amendments and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The . Board will hold a public hearing regarding the application and make the final decision on whether to adopt the amendments. The Planning Commission's recommendation and the staff report will provide further information to citizens and allow -them to be informed participants in this process. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, will be met because at least two public hearings will be held prior to adoption of any amendment to the comprehensive plan. The County land use procedures code provides for such a hearing, complying with Goal 2. The amendment is consistent with the requirement of Goal 2 that implementing measures be amended at times to reflect changes in public policy or changed circumstances. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, is not applicable in this situation because the proposal would not affect lands protected under Goal 3. The record includes maps submitted by the applicant that show the land within the county that would be affected by this proposal is zoned for forest uses and rural residential development. The applicant's Statement in Support of the Application correctly points out that productive farmlands zoned for Exclusive Farm Use were not included in the lands within the county that would be eligible for development of a destination resort. Goal 4, Forest Lands, is applicable because the proposal would affect land zoned for forest uses, and zoned F2, that the County has also determined would be eligible for siting of a destination resort. Goal 4 requires counties to conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use of forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, -and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and PA-00-10/TA-00.13 Page 5 agriculture. The record includes maps that identify land south of the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community that are eligible for siting of a resort and that are also • located within the WA Zone. Goal 4 will be met because the proposal would affect lands zoned F2. The County's most productive forestlands are zoned F1, Forest Use 1, and include larger tracts of land that are within the national forests or that are part of larger commercial tracts. During the process for identifying lands eligible for siting of a destination resort, the County decided to not allow the siting of a resort on F1 -zoned lands. Goal 6, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources, is met because the applicant's written statement and the documentation in the record show the proposal would not affect significant wildlife habitat. These documents show that the proposal would affect lands that are outside of the areas considered a priority for deer migration. Approving the proposed amendment would not allow the opportunity for siting of a destination resort on lands the county, in concert with ODFW, have determined are a priority for deer migration. This report includes findings in the foregoing section that show the proposal will be consistent with Goal 6 and with the implementing administrative rules. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Ouslity, will be met because, if approved, the proposal will not create any new impacts to the quality of air, water and land resources. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards, is not applicable because the proposal does not amend regulations for development in flood plains or areas subject to slides. Goal 8, Recreational Needs, is applicable and would be met because if approved the proposed amendments would allow the county to accept an application for a destination resort in areas that the county has also determined are eligible for siting of a resort. Goal 9, Economic Development, is not applicable because the proposal does not allow for changing the plan designation and zoning on property from forest to commercial or industrial. Goal 10, Housing, is not applicable because it does not address planning and zoning for needed housing. The proposal would not affect plan policies for urban levels of housing in urban growth boundaries, urban unincorporated communities, or in rural residential exception areas. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, is not affected by this proposal because there is no net impact to any public facilities or services. If approved, the proposed language would allow an applicant to submit an application to the county for a conditional use permit to establish a destination resort. DCC Chapter 18.113 includes the regulations for development of a destination resort, including provision of adequate facilities and services for residents and guests of the resort. Goal 12, Transportation, does not apply because the proposal will not directly affect transportation facilities. If approved, the proposal would allow an applicant to submit an application to the county for a conditional use permit to establish a destination resort in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The proposal would not result In the immediate • PA -MI OITA-00-13 Page 6 development of property at a density that would exceed the capacity of adjacent streets. If approved, an applicant for a conditional use permit for a destination resort would need to satisfy the requirements of DCC Chapter 18.113. This chapter of the zoning ordinance includes submittal of a traffic study (See DCC 18.113.050(B)(2)), which addresses the impacts of the proposed resort on affected county, city, and state road systems. Goal 13, Energy Conservation, requires that land and uses developed on the land be managed so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. The proposed amendment does not directly affect this goal because it proposes changes in the text of both the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance that do not have an immediate effect on energy. Goal 14, Urbanization does not apply because the proposal would affect land located outside of urban growth boundaries and urban unincorporated community boundaries in the county. Goals 15 through 19 address river, ocean, and estuarine resources. These goals are not applicable because the proposal will not affect any of these resources. B. CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposal involves a change to the text of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the proposal must be evaluated against the Comprehensive Plan in order to determine whether or not the amendment is consistent with the Plan's goals and policies. 1. Applicable Goals -Chapter 23.40.050. Fish and Wildlife: 9. To conserve and protect existing fish and wildlife areas. 2. To maintain all species at optimum levels to prevent serious depletion of indigenous species. 3. To develop and manage the lands and waters of this County In a manner that will enhance, where possible, the production and public enjoyment of wildlife. 4. To develop and maintain public access to lands and waters and the wildlife resources thereon. 5. To maintain wildlife diversity and habitats that support the wildlife diversity In the county. FINDING: This finding addresses the above -referenced goals of the plan for fish and wildlife habitat. The applicant has submitted maps and supporting documentation that show the proposal will be consistent with the goals of this section. The lands that would be affected by this proposal are located within the Bend -La Pine deer migration corridor, a Goal 5 wildlife habitat resource protected through application and administration of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. This corridor extends south from Sunriver to include La • Pine and extends to the Deschutes County -Klamath County boundary. The proposal shows that lands eligible for siting of a destination resort in this corridor are located PA-00-10/TA-00-13 Page 7 outside of an area identified as °ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area.' The amendment, , if approved, would not allow siting of a destination resort on land within the migration corridor that is considered a priority for the migration of mule deer. Limiting the ability to site a destination resort in the area outside of the priority area will also ensure that this area can be protected for deer migration and for public enjoyment of deer migration. The record also includes supporting documentation from a wildlife biologist, based on prior research of OFW staff researchers, that shows the subject lands eligible for siting of a resort are not located in areas with high deer track counts. These same areas are located closer to Sunriver, and are within the same area located outside of the deer migration priority area. The proposal, as proposed, would allow the county to continue to maintain wildlife diversity and habitats within the areas of the deer migration corridor that are identified as deer migration priority area. IV. CONCLUSIONS: The above findings show the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable state law, administrative rules, and goal for fish and wildlife habitat under the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approving the proposed amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. VI. ATTACHMENTS: 0 1. Applicant's Statement in Support of Application, including Exhibits 1 and 2 2. Applicant's Exhibit 5 (reduced) Respectfully submitted, DESCH ES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner DPS:dps • PA-00-10/TA-00-13 Page 8 ---------------- f BROWN • P.O. BOX 3726 • SUNRIVER, OR • 541/593-7728 March 6, 2001 Mr. Damian Syrnyk Deschutes County Planning Division 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, OR 97701 Dear Mr. Syrnyk, I am writing to support the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment and the comprehensive plan amendment proposed by Sunriver Resort that would allow a destination resort outside of the high priority deer migration areas. My husband and I have been permanent residents of Sunriver since 1990. As many people do, we chose this area for its natural beauty and recreational opportunities. We cherish our lifestyle and guard it jealously. If anything were to jeopardize those things we hold dear (clean air, water, wildlife habitat and privacy), we would be among the first to voice our disapproval. Since 1993, Sunriver Resort L.P. has made many favorable changes to the area. It seems apparent to me that every project they have undertaken has resulted in a dramatic improvement over what was previously there. They build beautiful buildings in harmony with the surroundings. Where they have removed trees, they plant others indigenous to the region. Their newest golf course is a certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary. If Sunriver Resort plans to build a destination resort in a wildlife corridor, I have no doubts that they will do so in a way that causes little disruption to nature. If their plans do fall short of the county's assessment for wildlife needs, I hope Deschutes County will reject the proposal. But I urge you to give them a chance. They have an excellent track record for enhancing whatever they touch. As a home owner, I am aware that property values depend on the economic health of the entire area. Providing more economic opportunity in South Deschutes County by way of a destination resort will benefit its human inhabitants with an influx of jobs, outside revenue and diversity of the population. Thank you for doing your job of keeping our precious environment in balance with the needs of all concerned; wildlife, residents and visitors. Sincerely, 464-71 e4 -Z Helen B. Brown F1 ELESCO, Ltd. March 6, 2001 Mr. Damian Syrnyk Deschutes County Planning Division 1130 N.W. Hamman Bend, OR 97701 Dear Damian: pec � 3/�/ (Express Only - #7 Rocky Mtn. Ln.) P.O. Box 3539 Sunriver, OR 97707-0539 Phone/Fax 541-593-3963 elesco@teleport.com As a resident and business owner in Deschutes County and Sunriver for over 12 years, I am writing to urge the County to approve the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment and the comprehensive plan amendment proposed by Sunriver Resort that would allow destination resorts outside of the high priority deer migration areas. Implementation of the proposed amendments would successfully achieve the dual goals of promoting economic growth through resort development while still respecting and protecting the local wildlife. Deschutes County is quickly becoming one of the preeminent recreation and resort destinations in the Northwest. In order to continue that trend, the county must allow resort development in those areas currently mapped for destination resorts. In doing so however, we must remain mindful of the wildlife with which we share the area and take steps to protect their natural habitat, and in the case of the mule deer, their migration areas. By amending the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan to allow resort development in those areas that are mapped for destination resorts yet are outside of the priority deer migration areas, the County will successfully balance those interests. Both residents and visitors of Deschutes County are drawn to the area by its magnificent natural beauty and wilderness as well as its vast recreational and economic opportunities. I support the proposed amendments because they properly refine the balance between those interests that make the County both unique and livable. The amendments advance the crucial county goal of promoting economic growth, yet continue to protect those areas that are critical to deer migration patterns. Sincerely, Leland F. Smith President K ece► v 0 3/$D r Peter Schneider 18160 Cottonwood #423 Sunriver, Oregon 97707 Phone: (541) 593-3399 Faulk Pekrwbneider18&earthlinkaet March 6, 2001 Mr. Damian Syrnyk Deschutes County Planning Division 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend OR 97701 Dear Damian, I am writing in support of Sunriver Resort's request to update the county's wildlife zone. Based on my review of the staff report and understanding of the application, 1 would ask that Deschutes Country approve the request. I understand that it is only the first step in a long and careful process required to meet the standards of the county and other appropriate governmental bodies, before any development could take place. I have lived in Sunriver for almost six years. ]wring my time bore I have come to appreciate how careful planning and community concern can work together to create a mixed residential and resort community that exists easily with its surroundings while recognizing the economic realities of sucb a development. Based on my extensive experience working with the people of Survivor Resort in a variety of community activities I am, without reservation, confident they will always strive to maintain the proper balance between ecological and economic concerns. Those of us who volunteer to help the youth of our area see the need for economic development in southern Deschutes County on a daily basis. I believe that Sunriver Resort's request is intended to finalize the mapping processes that the County initiated in 1992 for destination resorts and wildlife migration areas. In light ofthe economic need, Sunriver Resort's request to allow for the potential for future resort development only on lands that are not significant for wildlife resources appears to be both reasonable and sensible. Once again, I urge the Planning Commission to make a positive recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Sincerely yours, rKwHK11 rr111M 4 0 do P.O. Box 1508 rax • J41—J47-111( • • March 7, 2001 Chairman Paul Biachina Deschutes County Planning Commission % Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner 11141 Ur U1 10•1f rU1 Siritnrn, OR 977.39 Re: Public Hearing File Nos. PA-00-10/TA-00-13 541 549-1117 Applicant: Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership • 548-615"Dear Chau Biachira and Commissioners: We are opposed to the text amendments proposed by the applicant, for the Bvttrd of nir.:ators following reasons: Bob Bates 1. The proposal violates Goal S provision to "protect natural resources and Bend converve scenic, historic, and open space retiouree,► for present and future generarions". Jeffrey Boyer Rrrul 2. Additional development intrusion onto the protected Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor should not be allowed. The applicant contends the low migration track counts show the subject area outside the "Migration Priority William Boyer Siatrra ArcC, if this is now true it is directly related to increased development in the Sunriver Area. As development increase, deer attempt to find less populated areas for migration. Ron rararnAM Rrrrlrrmnd 3. During the 1992 Goal S Periodic Review ESEE analysis for the BendlLaPine Deer Migration Corridor, ODFW submitted extensive documentation describing William Kuhn conflicting uses. They cited the major conflicts with the corridor as dwellings, Rend roads, does, and fences that do not allow safe passage. The county ESEE analysis was described in Ord. 92-040, Exhibit A, pp. 27-28. Based on the ESEE analysis, the county designated the Bend/LaPine Dcer Migration Corridor as a "3C" SWeri i Pain.' resource under Goal 5 (protect resource/limit conflicting uses). The applicants $t'"`r' proposal does RM Rrotect the resource, it introduces additional conflicting uses. Ernest Poole We request, you send a recommendation of denial of the proposed amendments to La Pine the Board of County Commissioners. Sincerely, R VED BY. - FC -4 `4 Y:FC-4`4MAR p 7 2001 Howard Paine, President DELIVERED BY.- The Y: The Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Dexchutm C(ntnty Katharine W. Kimball Attorney at Law 20325 Sturgeon Rd. Bend, Oregon 97701 OSB #00135 Ph. 541.382.9878 Fax 541.382.9372 Email: ktkimball@aol.com March 8, 2001 RECEIVED Deschutes County Planning Commission MAR - 8 2001 1130 N.W. Harriman St. Bend, OR 97701 PF,90HUT W TY CDD RE: PA -00-10 and TA -00-13 (Sunriver Resort Application) Dear Commissioners: On behalf of the Sisters Forest Planning Committee, I am writing to express my opposition to PA -00-10 and TA -00-13. I am opposed to these changes because of their impacts on wildlife habitat. I recognize you have a letter from Steven George of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department (ODFW) stating that other Goal 8 protections will suffice so that ODFW will not oppose this application. It would be easy to conclude that this letter means wildlife concerns are not an issue here. I am not a biologist and I would not pretend to more about deer migration than ODFW. What I do know about is process, and in my view the 3 sentence letter from Mr. George tells me two things: he is very busy and the proposed amendments are not his highest priority. But looking at the record, I cannot help but conclude that there is a more robust biological issue here than George's brief letter suggests. First, the amendment is being proposed in a manner that ostensibly protects the deer migration priority areas. But the priority area is a box when is needs to resemble 2 lines. Deer migrate through this area, so by definition they will not stay in the box. If we only give them a box to be in, they will fan out from there and, as more houses are built, become a nuisance. Many of us have already experienced the joy of finding deer eating our favorite shrubs. If we intern these deer in a box, we are creating future troubles for the deer and ourselves. Second, the priority area appears to be the area of the highest deer count. That is certainly relevant but it is a snapshot when what we need is a video. There are a lot of deer there and as we take away other habitat, more deer may appear. Designation as a "priority" area suggests that the other area is not a priority, when all it appears to mean is that fewer deer have been there on days when ODFW is tracking deer. This is a thin basis for deciding the fate of our deer heard. I am not writing to oppose the possibility of any more destination resorts, I am writing to say that these amendments highlight a growing wildlife habitat problem in Deschutes County. The County Code provides for a Wildlife Area Combining zone, but those restrictions address dogs, fences and setbacks. A qualifying applicant can still build in wildlife habitat. The County is growing at a good pace. The lingering question is what is left for our wildlife? Is there any place we are willing to designate for them and them alone? If the answer is "no," and we are not willing to set aside habitat for wildlife, then let us let go of the mirage of the Wildlife Area Combining zone, save a lot of procedural hassle and move on. If we do want to assure the future of large mammal herds in Deschutes County such as deer and elk, then let us adopt an effective means of doing so. If we do nothing, the decision is made be default: the habitat will disappear and so will the wildlife Some assume that the Federal lands will be the repositories for most of the wildlife. I urge you to look at what has happened to our Federal lands in the last 15 years and imagine central Oregon 20 years from now. BLM lands are being exchanged and fragmented by roads. The recently approved Huntington Ranch Resort is surrounded by BLM land so roads will be built. Forest Service lands are also under pressure. For example, Bend is requesting use of 14 acres of Forest Service land to store water. There are dozens of other examples. The point is not that any one of these actions demonstrably kills deer and elk, but that taken as a whole, over time, there will be no safe place for our deer and elk to go. My request is that you deny the application or that, before you take action, you hold the record open and meet with ODFW (and of course invite Sunriver's biologist) to find out about wildlife in Deschutes County, particularly the impacts of these proposed changes. At least this way we are all satisfied that we understand the likely biological impacts of these changes. If there are habitat problems, as I believe there are, this gives you a chance to address them before they occur. Prevention is still the cheapest alternative. Waiting until a child is hurt by a deer is waiting too late. Thank you for your consideration of these views. Sincerely, Katharine W. Kimball OSB #00135 PA 0 Jay Bowerman P.O. Box 4248 Sunriver, OR 97707 March 8, 2001 Mr. Damian Syrnyk Deschutes County Planning Division 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, OR 97701 ED RE� e�� MpR � g1p0� Re: Sunriver Resort Application PA -00-10 and TA -00-13 Since the actions being considered apply specifically to deer populations and migration patterns, I'll confine my comments to biological impacts that might affect deer. It is important that statements or arguments about the impacts'of development be supported by good observations and data. It appears that ODFW has provided signficant findings regarding historical use of this area by deer herds in their seasonal migrations. Because Sunriver now has a 30 -year history, it should be possible to assess the level of impact Sunriver has had on the migration patterns of deer moving through the area. The ODFW track -count study is a good starting point for answering these questions. While it appears that deer numbers have increased in Sunriver over the past 30 years, it is easy to reach invalid conclusions in the absence of good data, properly interpreted. For example, conclusions about deer migrating through one area alone (Sunriver, for example), might be skewed by any number of variables, including overall population changes or the impacts of a significant barrier like highway 97. The biologists at ODFW probably have sufficient data from their various studies to make comparisons of deer movement patterns through existing land use areas including resorts of Sunriver and Crosswater, as well as undeveloped lands and rural residential areas south of Sunriver. with respect to paragraph 1.5 (...maintain wildlife diversity and habitats...), the land in question has a relatively low level of diversity of topography and plant communities. If one looks at Sunriver and Crosswater, it appears that this style of development results in a net increase in habitat diversity, which generally increases diversity of species of both plants and animals. If accepted, the proposed amendments do not change the requirements that any development of this site still meet all applicable state and county goals. I will welcome the opportunity to comment upon impacts of development on other species at such time as actual development plans are being considered. Sincerely, C:IWIIVDOWS\DeddV\#24"50 vI - LT DAMIAN SYRNYK RE SLMWR APPLICATION.doc 11 Damian Syrnyk C7 From: Janeybell@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 08, 20013:40 PM To: DAM IANS@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: Request to leave the record open File # : PA -00-10 & TA -00-13 Greetings Damian, I have a request that I do not know if you can honor by electronic means. I would like to ask that the record stay open on the Sunriver Resort File # . PA -00-10 & TA -00-13 to allow more time for getting this information out to the public and for comments to be submitted. Your staff report does not say whether any residents were notified individually, there may be no abutters to that property and that requires even more diligence in getting out notice to the public. from the Staff Report ----- PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed written notice of this hearing to the applicant and 14 public agencies on February 16, 2001. Staff also posted notice of the hearing in three (3) public locations on February 26, 2001. The Bend Bulletin newspaper will publish notice of the March 8, 2001, public hearing on Sunday, March 4, 2001. As the newspaper notice was only four days before the hearing I don't feel that gives people enough time to become informed on this application. Can you tell me where the other three notices mentioned in the Staff Report were posted? Pursuant to Title 22 Deschutes County Development Procedure Ordinance 22.24.140, I request that the hearing be continued or the record remain open for at least seven days for the purpose of submitting "additional written testimony". As always I thank you for your kind assistance. Sara Farina PO Box 3757 Sunriver, OR 97707 541-593-6030 janeybell@aol.com 1 RECEIVEQ MAR • 6 2001 JSBCNUTE89(�MCD0 FROM : Wildlife Management Inst We FAX NO. : 541-382-9372 0 Mar. 08 2001 05:e6PM Pi Wildlife Management Institute 20325 Sturgeon Road • Bend, Oregon 97701 Phone (541) 990.9045 • FAX (541) 382.9372 E-mail • wmibdOeol.com ROBERT P. DAVISON March 8, 2001 Field Reprssentative ROLLIN D. SPARROWS President RICHARD E. McCABE Vice -President Deschutes County Planning Commission 1130 N.W. Harriman St. ' Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners: RE: P.A-00-10 apd TA -00-13 (Sunrfver Resort Application) I am.writing as a wildlife biologist and Northwest Field Representative of the Wildlife Management Institute to express my concern about the implications for the proposed plan and text amendments regarding destination resorts in the Wildlife Area Combining Gone .outside the "priority" deer migration areas. The Wildlife Management Institute; •founded in 1911, is a private, nonprofit, scientific and' educational organization staffed by experienced natural resource professionals dedicated to improving the management of wildlife and wildlife habitat in North America. . Under the proposed and•cuxrcnt code, requirements, the deer migration corrido .is not adequately protected. This is so for two reasons. First,' the area designated as "priority" is no more than' an Indication •of the area of highest deer densities and- use, not of its relative importance to deer migration, and is therefore somewhat misleading. Areas of relatively lower deer use or density are ofhigh priority to maintain connectivity with these higher use areas. Second, this is ari area of deer migration -- an area in.which deer move through from.one place to another. We cannot protect only the inner core of a migration area and haves it fiuicfion »s a corridor. For a corridor to work, one area of protected habitat must connect to another.. According to the.rnap contained in Exhibit S, we are putting, the area with the greatesi'popitlation of deer in a. box with little thought about how deer will get into or out of that box.. Finally, we'are good at planning for additional development, but where is the planning to assure that we have deer herds in Deschutes County in the future? A.s the proposed text amendment and previous recent text amendments amply demonstrate, the designations of FROM Wildlife Management Insti to FAX NO. 541-382-9372 Mar. 08 2001 05:06PM P2 0 Deschutes Planning Commission March 8, 2001 Page 2 Wildlife Area Combining "Zones is proving to be inadequate to meet the needs of wildlife. Without adequate planning to protect elk and dear migration corridors and big game winter habitat, all we are doing is providing for the orderly destruction of habitat. For example, in the deer migration wildlife combining zone there are already more than 6,000 dwellings and 11,000 tax lots subject to development. Allowing more building will decrease the number of deer in the area, decrease the amount of habitat available to the deer, and increase interactions between deer and humans. I urge you to begin addressing these critical wildlife issues more proactively. Thank you for your attention to these views. Sincerely, Robert P. Davison Northwest Field Representative 0 March 19, 2001 Paul Bianchina, Chairman Deschutes County Planning Commission C/O Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 RE. File #'s: PA -00-10 and TA -00-13 0 RECEive MAR B $ 2001 DESCHUTES D®UM Y CDD Honorable Chairman Bianchina and Commission Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the application by Sunriver Resort to allow, as a conditional use, a destination resort in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. This would require changing the wording in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 and to amend the text of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance. 1) The applicant states: The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (PA -00-10) would delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 under Chapter 23.40.050 the plan. This policy states: "An application for a destination resort, or any portion thereof, in a wildlife area combining zone shall not be accepted pending completion of the County's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process, The County shall complete the Goal 8 destination resort mapping process by December 31,1992. " In a draft copy (final version not available when requested) of the minutes of the 3/8/01 hearing the applicant states:...... Deschutes County has not yet completed the destination resort mapping." Could it be clarified as to what has and has not been mapped? This application should not be considered until all associated mapping has been completed. 2) At the 3/8/01 hearing (draft copy of minutes) and in the staff report it is stated that this proposal would permit a destination resort on lands zoned Wildlife Area Combining that is "located outside of deer migration priority areas" and that this would have "no net loss to wildlife habitat as long as the property is not located in a deer migration priority area". May I respectfully submit to you that due to development over the past decade, long since the 1986 and 1992 data supplied with this proposal was compiled, these areas surrounding Sunriver and Crosswater that were mapped as low priority years ago are now indeed very high priority migratory areas. The maps have not been updated to reflect this change and this request is based on outdated information. 3) I was dismayed that the ODFW Biologist dismissed the importance of this request with a brief letter of reply. During the 1992 Goal 5 Periodic Review ESEE analysis for the Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor, ODFW submitted extensive documentation describing conflicting uses. The major conflicts with the corridor were sited as dwellings, roads, dogs, and fences. This request will have significant impact on the elk and deer herds here. The traditional migration corridor for deer and elk to get to and across the Little and Big Deschutes Rivers is being narrowed from the south and the north by encroaching housing developments and associated human activities. Within a few short years proposals for development of the large tract (1000 + acres) of USFS land adjacent to the Sunriver Business Park (now available for sale via the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act), and the 400 or so acres of privately held parcels east of Crosswater may come before the County Planning Staff and the Planning Commission for review. Before making changes in a piece -by -piece fashion, accurate and up to date studies and track counts should be completed. I believe this proposal violates the intent and spirit of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan, Fish & Wildlife Goal 1: "To conserve and protect existing fish and wildlife areas." This change in the Plan Policy will next result in an ordinance to implement the change. This is the chipping away that is eroding our land use laws in Oregon. Respectfully yours, Sara Farina PO Box 3757 Sunriver, OR 97707 2 MAR. -21' 01(WED) 15:13 ODFW BEND 0 ilotegon john A. KlrAhabar. M.D.. Govemor March 21, 2001 Deschutes County Community Development Deschutes County Planning Division 1130 N.W. Hamman Bend, OR 97701 Attu: Damian Syrnyk — Senior Planner RE: PA -00-10 and TA -00-13 TEb:541 388 b281 P.UU2/UU3 I0 Department of Fish and Wildlife High Desert Region 61374 Parrell load Bend, OR 97702 (541)386-6363 FAX (541) 388-6281 O GO E Et;EIVE� �r awn i OR R 9 1 Z001 DESCHLIIrt t NTN CDD Thank you for the opportunity to supply fluther comments on thcke applications. Ti is my understanding that the Planning Commission has reques ed further information from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) with regard to,the proposed amendment to the Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA) that allows destination reg,orts as a conditional use in the WA zone as long as the property is not in a designated deer migr tion high use area. Based on our review or the application and all of the deer migrdtion corridor tracking data, it is our position that the pending application does not significantly j ffect the deer migration partern in the WA zone. As the applicant explaiued in the application r'aterials, ODFW has maintained tracking data to document low, moderate, and high deer use migration areas in the Bend-Lapine Deer Migration Corridor since 1978. Since the original cordd r mapping in 1957, which was based on the tracking data from the 1970's, the historical pa m for deer migration has not changed significantly in the area of Sunriver. In fact, Within tl!c Bcnd-Lapinc Deer Migration Corridor, the pattern of deer migration has remained constanmeaning certain areas of the corridor are traditionally used moderately or extensively by the migrating deer and other areas have maintained low usage patterns. Since the 1970'x, the car lest dates from which we have data, the areas near Sunriver have consistently had low deer mikation use. Further, the use by migrating deer has not varied significantly over the years. ThelODFW 1992 survey confirmed that the patterns established by the early tracking data remaincJ� valid and showed similar low migration usage in the vicinity of Sunriver. More recently, our data has confirmod these historical migration pattems, In 1999, at the request of Deschutes County and as a part of Regional Problem Solving, ODFW and Deschutes County undertook additional tracking studies. While this data has not yt been published in a report like the prior ODFW studies, ODFW utilized the data to aid in till creation of the deer inigration priority areas that have been referenced by the County to this ,WA amendment process. This very recent data continues to support the following conclusion : (1) the Sunriver area is not a high use arca for deer migration, and (2) the historical patten of deer migration use remain relatively unchanged in the areas already mapped by ODFW in the earlier tracking studies. The track counts will again be performed this spring. 6 --------------- ------------------ _ MAR. -21' Ul (WEU) 1b: 16 UVFW UNu-- - Ab:341 Jab bLif1 0 1* The pending application for the WA zone text amendment appearto have a very narrow focus. It completes the Goal 5 and Goal 8 processes which DeCounty started in 1992 and provides a solution to the temporary provisions of the WA Zone and the Comprehensive Plan provisions that currently prohibit acceptance of applications for liestination resorts in the WA Zone "pending completion of the County's Goal 8 destination fesort mapping process." As noted in the application materials, the County's Goal 8 mappin� process is complete, but the County has not updated the related provisions of the WA Zone nd�he Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. With the release of the 1999 dat.ablishing the Deer Migration Priority Area, the County now has over twenty years of tracking information that supports use limitations that continue to protect the migration corridor 1hile allowing limited resort development in low priority areas. ODFW does not oppose the proposed amendment because it wit allow a single type of use, a destination resort, on certain prescribed lands in the WA Zone. La44s within the priority areas on the 1999 Migration Priority Area Map will not be oligible for' resort development, and the eligible lands will be further limited by the 160 -acre minimparcel requirement in the destination resort zone. In addition, the destination resort use, b county ordinance, requires a showing of no net loss at the time of its application and the ret tion of 50% open space. A resort typically includes golf courses as a part of its open sp and, consistent with existing requirements of Section 18,88.050(E) of the WA zone, involv6o either clustered housing or housing with adequate areas of open space which if designed appropriately will provide for deer habitat. Because the proposed amendment maintains the exi ting destination resort siting standards and does not introduce any other new uses that are no presently contemplated in the WA Zone regulations, the proposal significantly limits the range f potential adverse impacts on the migration corridor. For these reasons, ODFW does not object to the proposed change to the WA zone. Instead. ODFW encourages the County to utilize th 1999 Migration Priority Area map to clarify the unresolved provisions of the WA Zone and the omprehensive Plan. Please feel free to contact me if you need any further assistance. Sincerely, Steven George Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist sjgv_�, eo�e(aiata_ ta.01'� March 19, 2001 Paul Biachina, Chairman Deschutes County Planning Commission C/O Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 RE: File #'s: PA -00-10 and TA -00-13 Honorable Chairman Biachina and Commission Members: • RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2001 DESCHUTES COUNTY CD1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the application by Sunriver Resort to change the wording in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 and to amend the text of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance, to allow, as a conditional use, a destination resort in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. 1) The applicant states: The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (PA -00-10) would delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 under Chapter 23.40.050 the plan. This policy states: "An application for a destination resort, or any portion thereof, in a wildlife area combining zone shall not be accepted pending completion of the County's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process. The County shall complete the Goal 8 destination resort mapping process by December 31, 1992." it was stated at the 3/8/01 hearing by the applicant that "....Deschutes County has not yet completed the destination resort mapping." Therefore this application should not be considered until all associated mapping has been completed. 2) The applicant also proposes: .....an amendment to the text of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 to allow an application for a conditional use permit to establish a destination resort on lands zoned Wildlife Area Combining that are located outside of deer migration priority areas. As well as an amendment to the text of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance, to allow, as a conditional use, a destination resort in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone in areas not designated as deer migration priority areas. ...The applicant further states: The proposed amendment (TA -00-13) to Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, of Title 18, would amend Section 18.88.040, Uses Permitted Conditionally, to modify subsection (C) by adding a reference "Subject to subsection E, the" and by adding a new subsection (D) that would include the following language: "Subject to Chapter 18.113, destination resorts are allowed as a conditional use In that portion of the WA Zone designated as the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as long as the property is not in an area designated as "Deer Migration Priority Area: on the 1999 ODFW Map submitted to the South County Regional Problem Solving Group." And finally, it was stated at the 3/8/01 hearing that this application would have "no net loss to wildlife habitat as long as the property is not located in a deer migration priority area" May I respectfully submit to you that due to the increased development over the past decade these rery areas surrounding Sunder and Crosswater are now indeed very high priority migratory areas, especially if you happen to be a deer or an elk. I was dismayed to see that the ODFW Biologist dismissed the importance of this request with a brief letter of reply. This request Tuesday, March 20, 2001 Mmerka oepne: MKFX$ Pape: 1 will have significant impact on the elk and deer herds here. Official counts are very dated; those submitted show dates of 1986 and 1992. Considerable development has taken place in this area over the past decade. The traditional migration corridor for deer and elk to get to and past the Little and Big Deschutes Rivers is being narrowed from the south by LaPine growth northward and at the North end of their traditional routes by Sunriver, more recently Crosswater, more golf courses and encroaching housing developments to the south. Those with local knowledge of such things claim we have a great many elk and deer in this very area now, having been pushed out of their former grounds at Crosswater and Vandervert Ranch. These claims are, many times, as accurate as official biologists data and should be considered when proposing development in this area. At the very least, before making any changes, such as is proposed to allow another destination resort, accurate and up to date studies and track counts should be completed. Although I appreciate Sunriver Resorts concern for bringing the wording of our County Codes into order, I see no pressing need to change the wording as requested at this time, without first having up to date data to support such a change. If, however, Sundwr Resort has a destination resort development proposal then let them bring this before the Commission for public review. it is common knowledge that Sundwr Resort wishes to purchase large tracts of public land owned by the LISFS (now available for sale via the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act) in addition to the privately held parcels of land east of Crosswater for Resort expansion. A plan such as this deserves and demands to be reviewed as a whole, by your Commission, County Planners and the Public, not piece by piece, which is what they are asking for in this request before you. I belie% this proposal violates the intent and spirit of Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Deschutes County's Comprehensive Pian, Fish & Wildlife Goal 1: "To conserve and protect existing fish and wildlife areas." This change in the Plan Policy will next result in an ordinance to implement the change. This is the chipping away that is eroding our land use laws in Oregon. Please say NO! Respectfully yours, Monty Fisher Tuaaday, March 20, 2001 America OnUrn: MKFX8 Papa: 2 11 Chairman Paul Biachina Deschutes County Planning Commission Re: Public Hearing File Nos. PA-00-10/TA-00-13 Applicant: Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership 9 RECEIVED MAR 21 2001 DESCHUTES COUNTY CD1 Dear Chair Biachina and Commissioners: As a resident of the Sunriver area for almost 30 years I am totally dumb founded that officials in our county, our Forest service, the game commission and the Senators that introduced the Bill (1936) that made this situation possible would even think of such an action. It is a step toward destroying what Central Oregon is all about. A place for people to get away with their families from exactly what these actions are promoting. The commercialization and corporate domination of our forests, lakes and rivers. It is destroying the last corridors of the deer and elk and their access to water. It is destroying their bedding grounds. I will block their circle of migration they use in this area for moving from feeding area to feeding area. I join all those who are opposed to this action. If any thing the county should try to protect this area from any more development by making it a game preserve! Its time the officials in our state and county stand up for central Oregon instead of revenues that come from increased population. It is embarrassing to have those in these positions making these disastrous choices with the peoples lands. The following is a published statement of mine sent to all environmental and wildlife protection agencies as well as to the White House: The forest service and Sunriver Resort as well as the senators who introduced Bill 1936 making it possible for the forest to be sold, have all over stepped their boundaries and are treading beyond the true interests of the forest and its wildlife. They are also treading on the toes and the rights of the people who rightfully own the forest. We the taxpayers and those who moved here for the beauty and the senility of living in the forest. They will be opening the door for continued development. Both of the parcels that were hidden in the Bend Pine Nursery Bill are valued and need corridors and bedding grounds for the Elk and Deer. There is a migration circle that the elk use to migrate for feeding that starts at Winoga butte south to the fall river area. They then move east by way of the Foster Road parcel and make their way across the little Deschutes then north between the highway and south century drive to the North end of Sunriver and across the Big Deschutes and back to the beginning of their cycle. I am sure Sunriver Resort will totally deny this. But I know it is truth after almost 30 years of watching this elk herd grow to what it is today. Last year a cow elk was hit by a car near what USED to be the pioneer grave yard as it was trying to get to water. Now they propose not only to close of their access completely but also destroy their corridor and bedding ground they use to access the river. It is a crime what they have in mind. They seem to think they can just say, "Ok you elk move somewhere else this is not your migration route any longer." It is ALL GREED AND THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR THAT SUNRIVER RESORT IS INTERESTED IN NOT OUR NATURAL HERITAGE AND OUR WILDLIFE AND THE REASON THAT THOUSANDS OF VISITOR COME TO THIS AREA EVERY SUMMER THAT ARE NOT INTERESTED IN GOLFING... I � 1 J My family helped build the first lodge condos in 1968 and I have built and worked on near a hundred or more homes had we known the resort was going to resort to such measures We would have had second thoughts. It began as a retreat and a way for people and families to get away and enjoy our wonders here in central Oregon. Now it is becoming nothing but a great capitalistic venture that cares about nothing but getting bigger no matter what it has to do to do SO. I am now employed in the industry that keeps many of us employed. But I am not a part of the corporate sprawl that Sunriver Resort proposes to spread across OUR forest. As far as the Sewer proposal. I disagree with that. The solution there is STOP BUILDING HOUSES..Why pollute our forest just to build more?..The mind of men seem to think that population is the answer to everything more house, more people, more revenue and so on, That thinking is blindly ruining our environment and over crowding our rivers our lakes our highways and our forests. This is a very fragile and valuable gate to one of the only the wilderness and natural areas left. This thinking is making it so the people that want to experience it have to kick aside the trash and stand in line to do so. How many can say this is what you want all in the name of progress? STOP THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE CORPORATE ABUSE OF OUR BLESSINGS! ! ! ! ! ! ! We are opposed to the text amendments proposed by the applicant, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal violates Goal 5 provision to "protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic, and open space resources for present and future generations". 2. Additional development intrusion onto the protected Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor should not be allowed. The applicant contends the low migration track counts show the subject area outside the "Migration Priority Area", if this is now true it is directly related to increased development in the Sunriver Area. As development increase, deer attempt to find less populated areas for migration. 3. During the 1992 Goal S Periodic Review ESEE analysis for the Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor, ODFW submitted extensive documentation describing conflicting uses. They cited the major conflicts with the corridor as dwellings, roads, dogs, and fences that do not allow safe passage. The county ESEE analysis was described in Ord. 92-040, Exhibit A, pp. 27-28. Based on the ESEE analysis, the county designated the Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor as a "3C" resource under Goal 5 (protect resource/limit conflicting uses). The applicants proposal does not protect the resource, it introduces additional conflicting uses. We request, you send a recommendation of denial of the proposed amendments to the Board of County Commissioners. Sincerely, Monty Fisher 03/22/2001 08:48 March 22, 2001 5032221671 It Mr. Damian Syrnyk Deschutes County Planning Division 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Supplemental Wildlife Analysis Dear Damian: This letter is filed in response to the testimony Deschutes County P4nning Commission and is analysis and report that was filed with the text ami •W.3 = •J Cat:' U R 5 0 Er vpn MAR 2 & 2001 fjAU =. by aESCHU � 'Y:CDE t the March 8, 2001 meeting of the to supplement our original wildlife 5plication for Sunriver Resort. As discussed in our original report, the ODFW adminisitve reports detailing the field studies and their referenced tracking counts demonstrate that. t4i areas in and around Sunriver have infrequent deer crossings. Since the 1970's, ODFW ha mapped the areas of deer migration activity, and the area near Sunriver has never been identif' d as an area of moderate or high deer migration usage. ; This pattern of low usage in the Sunriver area has beerscently corroborated by ODFW in its 1999 mapping of the areas of high priority on the migpra n corridor as a part of the Regional Problem Solving Group. In the 1.999 maps, prepared ODFW and adopted by Deschutes County, the Sunriver area remains an area exhibiting law „ infrequent deer migration crossings. In short, thirty years of tracking data confirms that the Su 'ver area has never been a preferred segment of the Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor. Th have been no tracking studies that suggest that the Sunriver area is utilized extensively by thmigrating deer. To the contrary, the tracking studies all suggest that the Sunriver area is a d umented low priority area for deer migrations. 2. No Measurlble J1n2aQj In my original report, I concluded that the proposed text impact on the Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor. following: URS Corporation 111 SW Columbia, Suite 900 Portland. OR 97201.5814 Tel: 503.222.7200 Fax: 503.222.4292 idment will *not have a detectable conclusion was premised on the %*M%en~PU0L"H^ftMLTR DAMIIAN avnM Xdm VJf LLf LV VL VV. 1V VV VLLLiV1i URS Mr. Damian Syrnyk March 22, 2001 Page 2 V 1% J • Geographic limitation of the proposal to areas Priority Area that are not of significance to the Limitation to destination resort uses that requirements, including the requirement for c degradation of the fish and wildlife resources. Historical low deer migration pattern and At the Planning Commission hearing, there was some test of destination resorts in the low migration areas would ad This has not been the case in the Sunriver area. For exam just south of Sunriver in the early 1990s has not significar migration activity. The ODFW data for this area has reft 1970s. As a result, I arm confident that simrilar destination that will become eligible for resorts under the proposed -ay the BendfLaPine Deer Migration Corridor. 3. Both the WA Combining Zone regulations and the Fish.ar County Comprehensive Plan contemplate the possibility a portions of the wildlife area combining zone. As detailed amendments to Policy 19 of the Fish and Wildlife Elemietw delayed consideration of how to limit resort development i until the County completed the Goal 8 destination resort n is complete, and the County now has over twenty yearns of the Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor has historically low priority migration segments. With the release of the 1 Map, the County has sufficient data to shape the regulatloi and DCC § 18.88.040(k). As discussed above and in the c collected and analyzed between 1978 and 1999 fully suppi proposed in PA -00-10 and TA -00-13 will adequately prote limited resort development. Very truly yours, -fes" Vo, -Ie.,, (F'-) Lynn Sharp, URS 1 r"%AL UJ 9 e of the 1999 ODFW Deer Migration 5 resource. all other destination resort siting mitigation to ensure no net loss or in the Sunriver area. my that suggested that development ely affect the migration pattern. the development of Crosswater changed the frequency of deer d unchanged essentially since the ort development in the limited areas dmaent will not measurably impact Wildlife Element of the Deschutes uture resort development in limited the application materials, the 1992 nd DCC § 18.88.040(F) effectively the wildlife area combining zone )ping process. The mapping process da from ODFW that illustrates that yen divided into high, medium, and 09 ODFW Migration Priority Area contemplated by Plan Policy No. 19 ginal wildlife analysis, the data s a finding that the amendments the Goal 5 resource while allowing Nporf%5h&m"L*UCW ARGM.tRDAMM OYRNYKd. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, of the Deschutes County Code, to amend the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Plan. ORDINANCE NO. 2001-018 WHEREAS, Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership submitted an application for a legislative amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission, after conducting a public hearing on the proposed amendment in accordance with applicable law, has forwarded the proposed changes to Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, after notice was given and hearing conducted on April 4, 2001 before the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with applicable law, and the Board of County Commissioners has considered the proposed amendments; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. Section 22.40.050, Fish and wildlife, of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is amended to delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and deleted language shown in stfikedwough. Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as its findings and conclusions in support of the amendment set forth herein the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit "B," and by this reference incorporated herein. DATED this day of April, 2001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tom DeWolf, Chair ATTEST: Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Recording Secretary Michael M. Daly, Commissioner — C�X" ct D, PAGE 1 OF 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-018 (4/4/01) Exhibit "A" 23.40.050. Fish and wildlife. A. Introduction. The protection of fish and wildlife resources has been a on-going controversy in Deschutes County. Both those committed to the protection of the resources and those who wish to subdivide or otherwise develop in sensitive wildlife areas have often pressed their positions, sometimes resulting in court action to resolve the conflict. It is recognized that failure to protect fish and wildlife resources will result in loss of habitat and loss of endangered species, declining tourist expenditures, loss of recreational opportunities and loss of quality of life. Already, Deschutes County has witnessed the serious degrading of the cold -water fishery by irrigation withdrawals, loss of sensitive deer winter rangelands to development and the disturbance of deer migration corridors due to residential and recreational construction. Testimony by representatives of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife indicates that their studies have shown that there is significant deer migration from the Deschutes National Forest west of the Deschutes River to wintering ranges east of the river identified as the North Paulina, Devil's Garden and Hole in the Ground Ranges. They further expressed a belief, based on their training and experience, that rural housing at a density of more than one residence per 40 acres can seriously threaten deer winter survival, and that rural residents often own dogs which, especially in packs allowed to run at large, are a threat to all wildlife. One type of area of particular concern is the riparian area or wetlands along streams and lakes. These areas not only serve as essential habitat for many species and as migration corridors for big game, but are particularly in need of protection because of their limited nature. Not only do the wetter, more forested areas of the County provide wildlife habitat, but the dry high plains in the eastern portion of the County have large populations of sage grouse and antelope. These wildlife species are highly dependent on the open relatively undeveloped character of this area for their survival Throughout committee discussions and public testimony, the public expressed concern that local fish and wildlife resources be protected. As part of the County periodic review of the comprehensive plan, the goals and policies have been reviewed by the public, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. During periodic review the County also updated the fish and wildlife inventories and completed Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy analysis of conflicting uses and developed programs to protect the significant Goal 5 wildlife resources. To protect important fish and wildlife resources the following goals and policies are established: B. Goals. 1. To conserve and protect existing fish and wildlife areas. 2. To maintain all species at optimum levels to prevent serious depletion of indigenous species. 3. To develop and manage the lands and waters of this County in a manner that will enhance, where possible,. the production and public enjoyment of wildlife. 4. To develop and maintain public access to lands and waters and the wildlife resources thereon. 5. To maintain wildlife diversity and habitats that support the wildlife diversity in the County. C. Policies. 1. In light of the need to protect deer winter range and to be consistent with plan policies restricting rural sprawl, the Metolius, North Paulina, Tumalo and Grizzly deer winter ranges shall be protected by special zones. The winter ranges shall be as designated on the Big Game Habitat — Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map contained in this plan's resource element. Within the PAGE 1 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-18 (4/4/01) 2. 3. 4. 11 Exhibit "A" winter ranges the minimum lot size shall 7. Sensitive bird habitat sites (bald eagle, be 40 acres, except that in the Rural golden eagle, osprey, great grey owl, Residential Zone and the Multiple Use prairie falcon nests, great blue heron Agricultural Zone planned or cluster rookeries, and sage grouse leks) and developments are required for new land mammal habitat sites (Townsend's big - divisions. In planned and cluster eared bat hibernating and nesting caves) developments man's activities must be identified in the Resource Element of this limited to 20 percent of the plan shall be protected by a Sensitive development's lands with 80 percent left Bird and Mammal Overlay Zone. A as open space. The density of planned protection program acceptable to the and cluster developments shall be Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife determined by the underlying zone. for the nests or sites shall be submitted The County shall enforce an animal by the applicant for a development or control ordinance which prohibits dogs to land use permit and used implemented be at large or not under the complete during and after construction of the control of a capable person. development. In the Bend/La Pine deer migration 8. The antelope range and antelope winter corridor identified in the comprehensive range identified on the Big Game plan resource element, new land Habitat -Wildlife Area Combining Zone divisions, where the underlying zone is Map included in the Resource Element of Rural Residential — 10, shall be cluster this plan shall be protected by a wildlife developments. area combining zone. The minimum lot Because public access to fish and wildlife size for new parcels shall be 320 acres. areas is so important to the economic and The Rural Service Centers of Brothers, livability aspects of Deschutes County, Hampton and Millican shall be exempt walking easements and periodic boat from the provisions of the Wildlife Area access points shall be provided in areas Combining Zone. where public river access is limited, as 9. The areas containing land identified as determined appropriate by the County significant elk habitat on the Big Game and State Department of Fish and Habitat Map — Wildlife Area Combining Wildlife. Zone Map included in the Resource Consistent with Policy 4 and in order to Element of this plan shall be protected by protect the sensitive riparian areas, as a wildlife area combining zone. The well as to protect people and property minimum lot size for new parcels shall from flood damage, the zoning ordinance be 160 acres in the combining zone. shall prohibit development (except 10. The County shall notify the Oregon floating docks) within 100 feet of the Department of Fish and Wildlife of all mean high water mark of a perennial or land use applications for lands located in intermittent stream or lake. Exceptions the WA Combining Zone or the Sensitive may be permitted on lots created prior to Bird and Mammal Overlay Zone. November 1, 1979 where adherence to 11. The County shall work with ODFW and the 100 -foot setback would cause a the Deschutes Basin Resource hardship. Committee to review existing protection In addition to State and Federal laws, of riparian and wetland area vegetation County ordinances shall require all and recommend comprehensive plan and identified nesting sites for eagles, ordinance amendments, if necessary, by ospreys, prairie falcons or other species December 31, 1993. listed on the Oregon State or Federal 12. When site specific information is threatened or endangered species list available to the County on the location, shall be protected. quality and quantity of threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species PAGE 2 OF 3 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-18 (4/4/01) Exhibit "A" listed by State or Federal wildlife agencies and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife develops protection criteria for the species, the County shall proceed with a Goal 5 ESEE analysis in compliance with OAR 660 Div. 16. 13. The County shall review the La Pine and Bull Flat elk habitat areas and the Metolius deer migration corridor designated as "IB" Goal 5 resources during the next periodic review or as additional information on the location, quality and quantity of the habitat areas becomes available. 14. The County shall maintain an inventory of County -owned property in the Bend/La Pine deer migration corridor. Prior to sale or exchange of County owned property in the corridor, the County shall consult the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine the value of the land for deer migration and make reasonable efforts to consolidate properties to maintain habitat characteristics important to preserving the migration corridor. 15. The County shall work with ODFW to identify specific areas where the County and ODFW shall encourage public retention and acquisition of land or seek conservation easements for the protection of the deer migration corridor. 16. The County shall retain and encourage public ownership of significant fish and wildlife habitat and riparian areas. 17. County -owned land shall be managed to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat except where a conflicting public use outweighs the loss of habitat. 18. The County shall notify the Oregon Division of State Lands and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife of any development applications for land within a wetland identified on the National Wetlands Inventory maps. eembining zone shall . not be aeoepted pending eempletien of the Geanty's Goal Deeember- 3 1, 1992. 2019. The County shall encourage the formation of nonprofit land trusts for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat, wetland, riparian and natural areas. The County should provide support and assistance when deemed appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners. (Ord. 2001-18 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 § 2, 2001; Ord. 2000-17 § 1, 2000; Ord.95-038, 1995;Ord. 92-040, 1992;Ord. 80-203, 1980) PAGE 3 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-18 (4/4/01) BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, of the Deschutes County Code, to Allow Destination Resorts in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. ORDINANCE NO. 2001-019 WHEREAS, Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership submitted an application for a legislative amendment to the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and have now forwarded the proposed amendments to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, after notice was given and hearing conducted on April 4, 2001 before the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with applicable law, the Board of County Commissioners has considered the proposed amendments; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. Section 18.88.040, Uses permitted conditionally, of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and deleted language shown in striketl eugh. DATED this day of April, 2001. ATTEST: Recording Secretary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tom DeWolf, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Michael M. Daly, Commissioner PAGE i OF 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-019 (4/4/01) Exhibit "A" Chapter 18.88. WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE - WA 18.88.010. Purpose. 18.88.020. Application of provisions. 18.88.030. Uses permitted outright. 18.88.040. Uses permitted conditionally. 18.88.050. Dimensional standards. 18.88.060. Siting standards. 18.88.070. Fence standards. 18.88.010. Purpose. The purpose of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone is to conserve important wildlife areas in Deschutes County; to protect an important environmental, social and economic element of the area; and to permit development compatible with the protection of the wildlife resource. (Ord. 2001-016 § 2, 2001; Ord. 93-043 §§ 13 and 13A, 1993) 18.88.020. Application of provisions. The provisions of DCC 18.88.020 shall apply to all areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a winter deer range, significant elk habitat, antelope range or deer migration corridor. Unincorporated communities are exempt from the provisions of DCC 18.88. (Ord. 2001-016 § 2, 2001; Ord. 96-003 § 6, 1996; Ord. 92-042 § 1, 1992) 18.88.030. Uses permitted outright. In a zone with which the WA Zone is combined, the uses permitted outright shall be those permitted outright by the underlying zone. (Ord. 2001-016 § 2, 2001; Ord. 92-042 § 1, 1992; Ord. 91-020 § 1, 1991) 18.88.040. Uses permitted conditionally. A. Except as provided in DCC 18.88.040(B), in a zone with which the WA Zone is combined, the conditional uses permitted shall be those permitted conditionally by the underlying zone subject to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.128 and other applicable sections of this title. B. The following uses are not permitted in that portion of the WA Zone designated as deer winter ranges, significant elk habitat or antelope range: 1. Golf course, not included in a destination resort; 2. Commercial dog kennel; 3. Church; 4. Public or private school; 5. Bed and breakfast inn; 6. Dude ranch; 7. Playground, recreation facility or community center owned and operated by a government agency or a nonprofit community organization; 8. Timeshare unit; 9. Veterinary clinic; 10. Fishing lodge. C. Subject to subgection F,, the following uses are permitted in that portion of the WA zone designated as the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as conditional uses: 1. Church; 2. Public or private school; 3. Bed and breakfast inn; 4. Playground, recreation facility or community center owned and operated by a government agency or a nonprofit community organization; CA a 1- 11 1 - 1 1 ire-71174MMENVO 1 1 1 1. 1 1. :•111 .: ' 1 �- ►� a 11 �� 1• 1 1 •I MIff 1 1 1" 1\ 1 1 1 : 1 • 1 1 1 1' • / . 11.1 1 11 1 1 • 1 " 1 1' 1 1 - 11 1 1 1 E. Use limitations. The uses listed in DCC 18.88.040(C) are subject to the applicable provisions of DCC 18.116 and 18.124 and the following criteria: 1. The parcel shall be zoned RR -10; 2. The parcel shall be located within one- quarter mile of a rural service center and be located adjacent to a rural collector or a rural arterial identified on the Deschutes County Transportation Plan; PAGE 1 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-19 (4/4/01) Exhibit "A" 3. The parcel shall be no less than one acre and no more than five acres in size; 4. The parcel shall be farther than 100 feet from identified wetlands, floodplains or riparian areas. 5. The property shall be outside areas designated as "Existing High Use Migration Areas" or "Important Connective Areas Through Existing Developed Areas" on the 1997 ODFW map submitted to the South County Regional Problem Solving Group. 6. Fences developed as part of the conditional uses listed in DCC 18.88.040(C) shall be built from posts and poles or smooth wire and shall have a minimum bottom pole or wire height of 18 inches from the ground and a maximum top pole or wire height of 40 inches from the ground. Fences exempted from these standards shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of DCC 18.88.070(B). EE. Expansion of any use listed in DCC 18.88.040(B) that was lawfully established prior to August 5, 1992, is allowed, subject to provisions of DCC Title 18 applicable to the establishment of such uses. Expansion of golf courses under DCC 18.88.040 shall be limited to a final size of 18 holes. pending completion of the ecmnty,s 6oal 8 (Ord. 2001-19 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 § 2, 2001; Ord. 98-013 § 1, 1998; Ord. 95-075 § 1, 1995; Ord. 95-001 § 3, 1995; Ord. 92-042 § 1, 1992) 18.88.050. Dimensional standards. In a WA Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply: A. In the Tumalo, Metolius, North Paulina and Grizzly deer winter ranges designated in the Comprehensive Plan Resource Element, the minimum lot size for new parcels shall be 40 acres except as provided in DCC 18.88.050(D). B. In areas designated as significant elk habitat in the Comprehensive Plan Resource Element, the minimum lot size for new parcels shall be 160 acres. C. In areas designated as antelope range in the Comprehensive Plan Resource Element, the minimum lot size for new parcels shall be 320 acres. D. Residential land divisions, including partitions, in deer winter range where the underlying zone is RR -10 or MUA-10, shall not be permitted except as a planned development or cluster development conforming to the following standards: 1. The minimum area for a planned or cluster development shall be at least 40 acres. 2. The planned or cluster development shall retain a minimum of 80 percent open space and conform with the provisions of DCC 18.128.200 or 210. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of DCC 18.128.200 or 210, or DCC 18.60.060(C), the total number of residences in a cluster development may not exceed the density permitted in the underlying zone. E. Residential land divisions, including partitions, in the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor where the underlying zone is RR -10 shall not be permitted except as a cluster development conforming to the following standards: 1. The minimum area for a cluster development shall be at least 20 acres. 2. The cluster development shall retain a minimum of 80 percent open space and conform with the provisions of DCC 18.128.200 or 210. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of DCC 18.128.200, or DCC 18.60.060(C), the total number of residences in the cluster development may not exceed the density permitted in the underlying zone. (Ord. 2001-016 § 2,2001; Ord. 95-075 § 1, 1995; Ord. 92-042 § 1, 1992) PAGE 2 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-19 (4/4/01) Exhibit "A" 18.88.060. Siting standards. A. Setbacks shall be those described in the underlying zone with which the WA Zone is combined. B. The footprint, including decks and porches, for new dwellings shall be located entirely within 300 feet of public roads, private roads or recorded easements for vehicular access existing as of August 5, 1992 unless it can be found that: 1. Habitat values (i.e., browse, forage, cover, access to water) and migration ,corridors are afforded equal or greater protection through a different development pattern; or, 2. The siting within 300 feet of such roads or easements for vehicular access would force the dwelling to be located on irrigated land, in which case, the dwelling shall be located to provide the least possible impact on wildlife habitat considering browse, forage, cover, access to water and migration corridors, and minimizing length of new access roads and driveways; or, 3. The dwelling is set back no more than 50 feet from the edge of a driveway that existed as of August 5, 1992. C. For purposes of DCC 18.88.060(B): 1. A private road, easement for vehicular access or driveway will conclusively be regarded as having existed prior to August 5, 1992 if the applicant submits any of the following: a. A copy of an easement recorded with the County Clerk prior to August 5, 1992 establishing a right of ingress and egress for vehicular use; b. An aerial photograph with proof that it was taken prior to August 5, 1992 on which the road, easement or driveway allowing vehicular access is visible; c. A map published prior to August 5, 1992 or assessor's map from prior to August 5, 1992 showing the road (but not showing a mere trail or footpath). 2. An applicant may submit any other evidence thought to establish the existence of a private road, easement for vehicular access or driveway as of August 5, 1992 which evidence need not be regarded as conclusive. (Ord. 2001-016 § 2, 2001; Ord. 95-001 3, 1995; Ord. 92-042 § 1, 1992) 18.88.070. Fence standards. The following fencing provisions shall apply as a condition of approval for any new fences constructed as a part of development of a property in conjunction with a conditional use permit or site plan review. A. New fences in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone shall be designed to permit wildlife passage. The following standards and guidelines shall apply unless an alternative fence design which provides equivalent wildlife passage is approved by the County after consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: 1. The distance between the ground and the bottom strand or board of the fence shall be at least 15 inches. 2. The height of the fence shall not exceed 48 inches above ground level. 3. Smooth wire and wooden fences that allow passage of wildlife are preferred. Woven wire fences are discouraged. B. Exemptions: 1. Fences encompassing less than 10,000 square feet which surround or are adjacent to residences or structures are exempt from the above fencing standards. 2. Corrals used for working livestock. (Ord. 2001-016 § 2, 2001; Ord. 92-042 § 1, 1992) PAGE 3 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-19 (4/4/01) FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTING ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO CHAPTER 18.88 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE Purpose: 1. The purpose of these findings is to support the Board of County Commissioner's (the "Board") adoption of legislative text amendments to both the Resource Management Element of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 18.88 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC"). Pursuant to DCC Section 22.12.030, Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership ("Applicant") submitted concurrent applications for the text amendments. The amendments will allow the County to accept an application for a conditional use permit for a destination resort within the boundaries of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, but outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area established by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (PA -00-10) will eliminate Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 19 currently provides: "An application for a destination resort, or any portion thereof, in a wildlife area combining zone shall not be accepted pending completion of the County's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process. The County shall complete the Goal 8 destination resort mapping process by December 31, 1992. " The Comprehensive Plan amendment includes an amendment of the analysis of the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences C ESEF) of protecting the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. 3. The amendment to DCC Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone (TA -00-13), will amend Section 18.88.040(C), Uses Permitted Conditionally, by adding the reference "Subject to subsection E," to clarify that the conditional uses allowed in the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor are permitted subject to the use limitations in DCC Section 18.88.040(E). The amendment also adds anew subsection (D) that will include the following language: "Subject to Chapter 18.113, destination resorts are allowed as a conditional use in that portion of the WA Zone designated as the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as long as the property is not in an area designated as "Deer Migration Priority Area " on the 1999 ODFW Map submitted to the South County Regional Problem Solving Group. " The amendments to DCC Section 18.88.040 will also delete subsection 18.88.040(F), which includes language identical to the language of Fish and Wildlife Policy No. 19. 4. The amended ESEE associated with the text amendments complies with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rule, OAR 660-023. The r 1.Lega1\BOCC Ordinances\2001\.Sunriver v. 7 -FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT AND F amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, DCC Chapter 18.88, and the ESEE have been conducted in compliance with the requirements contained in OAR 660-23 for a post - acknowledgement plan amendment ("PAPA") affecting a wildlife habitat resource. Backuround: 5. On November 1, 1979, the Board adopted its Comprehensive Plan, including goals and policies for the protection of fish and wildlife resources. The Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Resource Element of the Comprehensive Plan includes inventories and discussion of the fish and wildlife resources throughout the county. On November 1, 1979, the Board also adopted PL -15, containing provisions for the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. 6. As part of the periodic review process required by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and in compliance with Goal 5, on August 5, 1992, the Board adopted a new Fish and Wildlife Chapter to the Resource Element of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan through Ordinance No. 92-041. The addition included the inventory, conflicts analysis and the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting County fish and wildlife resources. At the same time, the Board adopted amendments to the goals and policies in the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan through Ordinance No. 92-040 and amendments to DCC Chapter 18.88, the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, through Ordinance No.92-042. The Board further amended DCC Chapter 18 by adding new wildlife areas to the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, including the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor through Ordinance No. 92-046. As of August 5, 1992, the County had not yet completed a distinct Goal 8 process of mapping areas as eligible for destination resort siting. Based upon the incomplete status of that project, the amendments to both the Comprehensive Plan and DCC Chapter 18.88 contained provisions that prohibited applications for destination resorts within the Wildlife Area Combining Zone pending the completion of the County's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process. Pursuant to the language included in the ESEE, the Goal 8 mapping project was to be completed by December 31, 1992. 7. On February 7, 1992, the County initiated a process of designating lands eligible for destination resorts in compliance with Goal 8. The Board adopted a package of destination resort siting ordinances, Ordinance Nos. 92-001 through 92-004, to implement the Goal 8 program. Through Ordinance No. 92-002 the County amended the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan by adopting a map to allow for the siting of destination resorts on certain land in Deschutes County. The Goal 8 mapping project was completed through two phases. Initially, the County excluded all areas that are precluded from destination resort siting pursuant to the Goal 8 regulations, including especially sensitive big game habitat as mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW '). Therefore, the four areas shown on the ODFW map as areas of especially sensitive big game habitat, the Tumalo deer winter range, the Metolius deer winter range, and two 2s:LLepr30CC Ordinances\2001%unriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - VAUXIFE TEXT AND F areas of antelope winter range, were excluded from consideration. The County also excluded an antelope rangb near Horse Ridge and most of the Millican antelope ranges from mapping consideration even through they were not included in the ODFW map. The County did not exclude areas within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor from destination resort mapping consideration because it was not recognized as especially sensitive big game habitat pursuant to Goal 8. In the second phase, the County mapped forest lands eligible for resort siting, and the County completed the Goal 8 mapping project in 1993 through Destination Resort Ordinances 93-029, 93-030 and 93-031. As a result of the phased mapping process, some Rural Residential 10 CRR -10') and Forest Use 2 ('T-2') zoned lands within the boundaries of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor were included in the destination resort overlay map as being eligible for destination resort siting. 8. In 1996, LCDC adopted a set of revised regulations, OAR Chapter 660, Division 23, for implementation of Statewide Planning Goal 5. The revisions were intended to replace the regulations at OAR Chapter 660, Division 16 for most resources. The Board processed the amendments in this case pursuant to the requirements of the revised regulations because OAR 660-023-0250(2) provides that the requirements of the revised regulations are applicable to PAPAs initiated on or after September 1, 1996. The County's consideration of this PAPA is limited to a specific resource site, the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. Therefore, pursuant to OAR 660-023-0250(4), the Board is not required to revise acknowledged inventories or other implementing measures, for the resource site or for other Goal 5 sites in the county, that are not affected by these amendments. 9. The Deschutes County Planning Commission conducted public hearings on March 8, 2001 and two workshops on January 25, 2001 and March 22, 2001, to consider the proposed amendments to the Resource Management Element of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and DCC Chapter 18.88. On March 22, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments. 10. The Board held a public hearing on April 4, 2001, to consider testimony on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and DCC Chapter 18.88. Compliance with Goal 5: 11. The Board finds that it is appropriate to address the issue of whether to allow destination resorts within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor through a PAPA in compliance with Goal 5. During the previous periodic review process, the Board deferred a determination on this issue until the County completed the Goal 8 mapping process. Now that the Goal 8 mapping is finished, the Board finds that the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor and the conflicting destination resort use are important relative to each other and, based on OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) and the amended ESEE analysis, the destination resort use should be allowed in a limited way that protects the Goal 5 3sA e8"0CC Ordinancea\20OBSuMver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT AND F resource. Specifically, destination resorts should be limited to areas within the destination resort overlay that are outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area. 12. Goal 5 is satisfied through the amended ESEE for the Deer Migration Corridor, adopted through Ordinance No. 01- . Pursuant to the requirements of Goal 5, the amended ESEE addresses the adequacy of the resource information, identifies potential conflicts with the resource, analyzes the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of protecting the resource by limiting and prohibiting specific conflicting uses, decides the level of protection needed for the resource based upon that analysis, and provides a specific program to achieve that goal. Goal 5 is further met through the adoption of amendments to the Resource Management Element of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Ordinance No. 01-_, and amendments to DCC Chapter 18.8 8, Ordinance No. 01-_, because these amendments accomplish the specific program for protection of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor identified in the amended ESEE. 13. In compliance with the requirements of Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0030, the County has worked with ODFW to obtain the most recent and accurate inventory information on the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. Since these amendments only affect the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, the County has neither collected nor considered information regarding other resources or resource sites. The inventory information relied upon by the Board in adopting the amendments includes the existing ESEE, the ODFW Central Region Reports 86-2 and 92-1, the ODFW modified South Deschutes County Forest Zone and Deer Migration Habitat Map that designates the ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area, information from ODFW regarding 1999 tracking studies conducted as part of the South County Regional Problem Solving program, the South Deschutes County Destination Resort Eligible Properties in Low Priority Deer Migration Area map, the Wildlife Analysis and Report for Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor Text Amendment prepared by Lynn Sharp of URS, the March 21, 2001 supplemental letter from Ms. Sharp, and the March 21, 2001 letter from Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist Steven George. Each of these information sources is described in the amended ESEE and is incorporated herein by reference. No other inventory information on the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor was submitted during the local process and there was no conflicting evidence relating to the Goal 5 resource. The Board finds that inventory information on the Bend /La Pine Deer Migration Corridor is adequate to complete the Goal 5 PAPA. a. The location of the resource is clearly defined through the previously adopted Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. The County added the migration corridor to the Wildlife Area Combining Zone through Ordinance No. 92-040. The mapping was based upon ODFW tracking data indicating that mule deer use the identified corridor as a migration route between their summer range in the forest along the east slope of the Cascades to the North Paulina deer winter range 4SALtp1S0CC Ordinances\2001%unriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT AND F northeast of the Paulina Mountains and to the Hole -in -the -Ground and Devil's Winter Garden winter ranges near Fort Rock. The amendments implemented through this PAPA refine the existing migration corridor by adopting the Deer Migration Priority Area designated on ODFW's 1999 South Deschutes County Forest Zone and Deer Migration Habitat Map. The amendments identify land within the corridor but outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area as appropriate for destination resort development if those lands meet all requirements of the County destination resort ordinance, DCC Chapter 18.113. Although the amendments are narrowly focused on limiting a particular conflicting use within a small segment of the corridor, the County has considered impacts on the entire Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor throughout this Goal 5 process. b. ODFW has recently produced updated inventory information on the quality and quantity of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. Over twenty years of ODFW studies and tracking data indicates that the quality of the resource as a migration route and the quantity of deer using the route vary within the corridor itself. ODFW conducted deer track counts along a 40 -mile transect from 1978 to 1991 and published the results in ODFW Central Region Administrative Report Nos. 86-2 and 92-1. Based upon the number of deer tracks counted in each area, the reports identify areas of high, moderate and low frequency of use within the corridor. In 1999, based upon the earlier reports and additional unpublished tracking studies in the area, ODFW produced the 1999 ODFW Wildlife Migration Priority Area Map for the South County Regional Problem Solving Project. ODFW further indicated in the March 21, 2001 letter to the County that recent, unpublished deer track counts indicate that the historical patterns of deer migration use remain unchanged in the areas already mapped by ODFW in the earlier studies. Consequently, the Board finds that the quality of the entire Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor is important to the County's wildlife priorities. The Board further finds that, based upon historical and recent ODFW data, the quality of migration areas within the corridor includes both priority areas and those areas with a low frequency of use. 14. In compliance with the requirements of Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0040, the Board's decision to adopt this PAPA is based upon an analysis of the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of protecting the migration corridor by limiting destination resort use. Through Ordinance No. 01-,_, the Board has adopted an amended ESEE. The new ESEE amends the Deer Migration Corridor section of the Fish and Wildlife Inventories Conflict ESEE Analysis adopted in 1992 as part of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Plan through Ordinance No. 92-041. This amendment does not affect any other section of the 1992 ESEE analysis. The analysis and the findings included in the amended ESEE for the Deer Migration Corridor are incorporated herein by reference. The Board concludes that the ESEE demonstrates that both the resource site and the conflicting uses, including destination resorts, are important compared to each other because the benefits to the County resulting from each use are significant enough to warrant a program that protects each use in a 5s:V.ept\Bocc Ordinme8\2001\Sun Iver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT AND F limited fashion. In addition, the conflicting uses are not so detrimental to the Goal 5 resource that they should be prohibited entirely under OAR 660-023-0040(5)(a). Therefore, pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b), destination resorts should be allowed in a limited way that protects the resource. (This level of protection for a significant resource site was previously recognized as a "3C" designation pursuant to the former regulations.) The Board finds that destination resorts should be allowed as a conditional use within the boundaries of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, so long as they are outside of the area mapped by ODFW as the Deer Migration Priority Area. The Board finds that limiting resort development to parcels within the destination resort overlay and outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area will direct future resorts to areas that have proven to be successful for resort development. Resort development in such areas will enhance the economic and social opportunities associated with resorts while protecting the high priority segments of the migration corridor. The Board finds that the amendments, coupled with existing regulations, ensure that any future application for a destination resort within the wildlife corridor must demonstrate that the subject site is outside the Deer Migration Priority Area and within the Destination Resort Overlay, and the resort proposal must comply with all requirements in DCC Chapter 18.113. The program to achieve Goal 5 is amended as detailed in the ESEE. All elements of the existing program not specifically amended by Ordinance No. 01-_ remain in effect. Compliance with Other Goals: 15. GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. The Board finds that the County satisfied Goal 1 by providing notice and holding public hearings. As required by state and local law, written notice of the proposed amendments and hearings were provided to the applicant and fourteen public agencies. Notice was also posted in public locations and published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper. A public hearing and two workshops were held before the Planning Commission and one hearing was held before the Board. Pursuant to the County's Development Procedures Ordinance, codified at DCC Chapter 22 of the Deschutes County Code, citizen participation was allowed at all hearings. 16. GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING. The County has satisfied Goal 2 by a) consideration of adequate and current inventory information; b) a revised conflicts and ESEE analysis and amendments to the ESEE document; c) the existence of a zoning ordinance that, as amended, will implement the ESEE decisions through clear and objective standards; d) the adoption of maps showing the areas eligible for resort development within the Bend /La Pine Deer Migration Corridor; and e) the extensive factual record generated by the inventory and ESEE process. 17. GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS. These ordinances do not conflict with Goal 3. None of the properties affected by the amendments are exclusive farm use zones. Additionally, any conditional use destination resort applications allowed pursuant to these amendments must still comply with the provisions of DCC Chapter 18.113, designed to protect surrounding agricultural uses. 6s:\.uprBocc 0rdinwc=\2001\Sunriver v. 7 - F iNDINos - WILDLIFE TEXT AND F 18. GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS. These ordinances do not conflict with Goal 4. While there are some forest lands included in the destination resort overlay zone, the Goal 8 mapping project addressed conflicts with forest uses and excluded high-value forest lands from mapping consideration. Furthermore, any conditional use destination resort applications allowed pursuant to these amendments must still comply with the requirements included in the DCC Chapter 18.113, designed to protect forest values. 19. GOAL 6 - AIR, LAND, AND WATER RESOURCES. Goal 6 requires the County to ensure that all waste and process discharges from future development will not violate applicable state or federal environmental quality standards. The Goal further requires the County to implement regulations to protect air, water, and land resources from degradation due to waste and process discharges. Any additional conditional use resort development within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor must still comply with all of the standards of DCC Chapter 18.113 designed to protect air, land, and water resources. The standards of DCC Chapter 18.113 will regulate waste and process discharges from future development consistent with Goal 6. 20. GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and DCC Chapter 18.88 do not permit development in areas subject to natural disasters. Furthermore, these amendments do not affect the floodplain requirements of Chapter 18.113 that apply to developed portions of a destination resort within the FP overlay zone. 21. GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS. These amendments satisfy Goal 8 by allowing destination resort development on lands mapped as eligible for destination resort siting through the Goal 8 mapping process. Since the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor is not identified as "especially sensitive big game habitat," destination resort development is not excluded from the corridor. The County has chosen to include destination resorts as an important component of the County's recreational goals because they provide both internal recreational opportunities and housing for residents and visitors to enjoy the surrounding recreation. Enjoyment of fish and wildlife is also identified in the comprehensive plan as an important part of the County's recreational experience. Consistent with twenty years of ODFW tracking data and analysis and ODFW's 1999 Deer Migration Priority Area Map, the amendments protect wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities by limiting resort development to the areas outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area. The destination resort ordinance, DCC Chapter 18.113, further protects wildlife viewing and hunting by requiring a showing of no net loss of habitat and mandating the retention of at least 50% open space. In addition, resorts also include golf courses and cluster housing, which are generally compatible with wildlife habitat, as evidenced by the current Wildlife Area Combining Zone standards. The County finds that the amendments will satisfy the recreational needs of the County by protecting existing recreational opportunities and creating additional opportunities for future destination resorts, consistent with Goal 8 and the County's destination resort overlay map. 7s.%epmocc OrdinanaesX2001%unriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDL.LFE TEXT AND F 22. GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE. Allowing destination resorts as conditional uses in those portions of the Bend/1,a Pine Deer Migration Corridor that are outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area helps achieve the economic goals of the County by expanding the tourist economy of the state and the region. Destination resorts are vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of the County's citizens because they create jobs and draw visitors to the area. By allowing this type of development within appropriately mapped areas, the amendments satisfy Goal 9. 23. GOAL 10 - HOUSING. Since the area affected by the amendments is outside of an Urban Growth Boundary, Goal 10 is not applicable. Pursuant to the goal, housing needs are to be addressed chiefly by measures taken in urban and urbanizable areas. 24. GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES. While the amendments allow destination resorts as conditional uses within new areas, all applicants for future resorts must address facilities issues pursuant to DCC Chapter 18.113. 25. GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION. The amendments allow destination resorts in already developed areas, thereby making transportation more efficient. Because destination resorts provide commercial, retail, residential, and recreational uses within the resort boundaries, vehicle trips outside of the resort boundaries are generally limited and transportation impacts are further minimized. Additionally, pursuant to the standards of DCC Chapter 18.113, all applicants for a destination resort must address transportation issues prior to approval. 26. GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION. Destination resort type development is inherently energy efficient. Since resorts typically include internal services, the development can provide them at a lesser cost than traditional development. Additionally, destination resorts provide commercial, retail, residential, and recreational uses within the resort boundaries, thereby limiting external vehicle trips. Furthermore, any destination resort development facilitated by this amendment will be sited near existing development, resulting in a reduction of vehicle trip generation. 27. GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION. The areas eligible for destination resorts that are affected by these amendments are neither located within an urban growth boundary, nor in areas planned for expansion. Goal 14 requires the establishment of urban growth boundaries to separate urbanizable land from rural land. Urban uses are generally restricted to lands within an urban growth boundary. However, urban uses within destination resort are specifically permitted on rural land outside of an urban growth boundary under ORS 215 and the corresponding provisions of the Deschutes County Code. Therefore, the amendments permitting destination resorts outside of the Deer Migration Corridor Area pursuant to the existing destination resort provisions of DCC Chapter 18.113 are consistent with Goal 14. 28. GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY. The properties affected by these amendments are not located within the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, this goal is not applicable. . 8SALep11B0CC Ordinances\2001%umiver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WRD11FE TEXT AND F i 29. GOAL 16 - ESTUARINE RESOURCES. There are no known estuarine resources or associated wetlands located on those properties eligible for destination resorts pursuant to these amendments. Furthermore, the amendments do not alter any of the existing estuarine protections currently in place. Therefore, this goal is not applicable. 30. GOAL 17 - COASTAL SHORELANDS. The properties affected by these amendments are not coastal areas. Therefore this goal is not applicable. 31. GOAL 18 - BEACHES AND DUNES. The properties affected by these amendments are not coastal areas. Therefore, this goal is not applicable. 32. GOAL 19 - OCEAN RESOURCES. These amendments have no affect on coastal resources, therefore, this goal is not applicable. 9SALega1\B0CC Ordinances\2001\Sunriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT AND F AMENDED ESEE: DEER MIGRATION CORRIDOR I. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS In 1992, the County updated its inventory of fish and wildlife resources pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 5. (Ordinance No. 92-041). As part of the program to achieve the goal, the County added the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor to the County's Wildlife Area Combining Zone ("WA Zone'). During the same time period in 1992, under a distinct process, the County began mapping properties eligible for destination resorts under Statewide Planning Goal 8. Because the County did not complete the Goal 8 mapping process prior to adopting Ordinance No. 92-041, the County decided to defer the question of whether to allow destination resorts in the WA Zone until the County completed its Goal 8 destination resort mapping. Through Ordinance No. 92-040, the County adopted Policy No. 19 of the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which prohibits the siting of destination resorts in the WA Zone `pending completion of the county's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process." Policy No. 19 specified that the County was to complete the Goal 8 mapping process by,December 31, 1992. The County has completed the Goal 8 mapping process. Consistent with Policy No. 19 and the corresponding text of the WA Zone, Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Section 18.88.040(F), the County now finds that conflicts between the deer migration corridor and destination resorts should be balanced under OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) by limiting destination resort development to Goal 8 eligible lands outside the 1999 ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area. In compliance with Goal 5 and its implementing regulations, the Deer Migration Corridor section of the Fish and Wildlife Inventories Conflict ESEE Analysis is amended accordingly. ODFW's findings in support of the amendments allowing limited destination resort development outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area are set forth in a letter from ODFW Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist Steven George dated March 21, 2001 and are adopted by the County in support of this Amended ESEE and incorporated by reference herein. H. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A. Goal 8 Mapping On February 7, 1992, in compliance with Goal 8, the County began a mapping process to designate lands eligible for destination resorts. The objective of the Goal 8 mapping process was to identify those areas most appropriate for destination resorts. The County conducted the mapping process in phases. Initially, pursuant to Goal 8 regulations, the County excluded all areas ineligible for destination resorts. Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0000(8) destination resorts are not eligible in areas: (1) within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing population of 100,000 or more, (2) on prime or unique farm land, (3) on predominately class 1 or 2 forest lands, and (4) in especially sensitive big game habitat as mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife ("ODFW"). In compliance with the final category, the County excluded four areas of big game habitat, including Tumalo Deer Winter Range, the Metolius Deer Winter Range, and two areas of the 1 S:VAO\BOCC Ordinances\200ASunriver v. 7 -AMENDED ESEE -DEER MIGRATI( -+i� vt Antelope range. The County also excluded additional habitat areas not mandated as ineligible areas under Goal 8, including the Horse Ridge Antelope Range and Millican Antelope Range areas beyond ODFW's mapped boundaries. The County did not exclude the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corrider from the lands mapped as eligible for destination resorts because migration corridors are not recognized as "especially sensitive big game habitat" under Goal 8. Therefore, lands within the migration corridor remained eligible for destination resort mapping. As a part of Phase I of the mapping process, the County mapped various farm lands and rural areas. The County adopted more restrictive and selective criteria than mandated by Goal 8 and initially excluded most large agricultural areas and public lands. The County adopted Ordinance Nos. 92-001 through 92-003, completing Phase I. As shown on the South Deschutes County, Destination Resort Eligible Properties in Low Migration Priority Area Map ("Eligible Properties Map") adopted in support of this ESEE Amendment, certain RR -10 lands within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor were included as areas eligible for destination resorts. As a part of Phase II, the County mapped eligible forest lands in compliance with the Goal 8 limitations. The County excluded F-1 zoned lands from consideration and mapped several F-2 zoned lands. As shown on the Eligible Properties Map, the County designated some F-2 zoned lands within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as eligible for destination resorts. Due to the mandatory statewide exclusions and the more restrictive County criteria, the County's Goal 8 mapping program resulted in a carefully circumscribed Destination Resort Overlay. A few F-2 and RR -10 zoned lands within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor were included in this limited supply of Goal 8 mapped properties. B. Goals In August of 1992, under a process completely distinct from the Goal 8 mapping program, the County updated the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan in compliance with Goal 5. Through periodic review, the County updated its Goal 5 inventory, analyzed the economic, social, environmental, and energy ("ESEE") consequences of allowing, limiting, or prohibiting conflicting uses, and developed programs to protect the significant Goal 5 wildlife resources. The County addressed a variety of specific resources, including the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. The County incorporated policies regarding the migration corridor into the Comprehensive Plan and added the migration corridor to the WA Zone through Ordinance No. 92-040. In addition, the County added the related ESEE findings to the Comprehensive Plan through Ordinance No. 92-041 and amended the zoning map to include the migration corridor in the WA Zone Overlay through Ordinance No. 92-046. As part of this Goal 5 process, the County decided to defer the question of whether to allow destination resorts within the WA Zone until Goal 8 mapping was completed. III. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Inventory Information: The County originally mapped the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as part of the 1992 Goal 5 process and included it in the WA Zone Map. Based on the compilation of ODFW field studies involving mule deer track counts in the Bend/La Pine area from 1978 through 1999, 2s:\L p1\BOCC Ordinsnces\2001%umiver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER MKIRATI( summarized in the ODFW Central Region Reports 86-2 and 92-1, the 1999 ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area Map, and ODFW's March 21, 2001 letter in support of allowing limited destination resort development outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area, the County is now able to adopt a more accurate map of the migration corridor to allow limited destination resort development in low priority migration areas. As part of the South County Regional Problem Solving Project, ODFW modified the South Deschutes County Forest Zone and Deer Migration Habitat Map and designated the ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area. The Priority Area includes those sections of the migration corridor most frequented by the deer and officially recognizes the high and moderate frequency use areas identified in Reports 86-2 and 92-1. The priority area excludes those areas with a historically low frequency of migration. To depict the levels of priority within the migration corridor, the 1999 ODFW Wildlife Migration Priority Area Map for Regional Problem Solving and the Eligible Properties Map are adopted as part of the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and incorporated herein by reference.' The Eligible Properties Map shows the areas within the Destination Resort Overlay and outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area where destination resort development may occur. Location, Ouantity and Ouality: The Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, which is approximately 56 miles long and 3-4 miles wide, starts at Lava Butte, extends approximately 40 miles within Deschutes County and 10 miles into Northern Klamath County. The corridor parallels the Deschutes and Little Deschutes rivers. Mule deer use the corridor to migrate from their summer range in the forest along the east slope of the Cascades to the North Paulina deer winter range northeast of the Paulina Mountains and to the Hole -in -the -Ground and Devil's Winter Garden winter ranges near Fort Rock. The La Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977, describes the geology, soil hydrology, vegetation, migration roots and other characteristics and conflicts in the migration corridor area. For over twenty years, ODFW has surveyed mule deer tracks to determine the level of use in the corridor during the migration period. The results of the studies are published in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Reports Nos. 86-2 and 92-1, incorporated herein by reference. The Reports conclude, based upon the historical deer track counts that the levels of use by the migrating deer vary greatly throughout the corridor. Consequently, the Reports identify the areas of high, moderate, and low frequency of use. In 1999, ODFW officially recognized a variation of incidences of deer use throughout the migration corridor by mapping the ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area. The 1999 ODFW map produced as part of the South County Regional Problem Solving Project refined the 1992 Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor by specifically identifying areas most heavily utilized by migrating deer. The Deer Migration Priority Areas are depicted on the 1999 ODFW Wildlife Migration Priority Area Map and the Eligible Properties Map and described in Report Nos. 86-2 and 92-1. The portion of the migration corridor shown on the Eligible Properties Map is the only segment of the corridor that contains lands that are outside the Deer Migration Priority Area and inside the Destination Resort Overlay. This unique segment of the corridor is found at mile section 10 and a portion of section 11, just south of the Sunriver area (Mile sections 10 and 11 lie within 3S:V.epI\B0CC Ordmances\2001%umiver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER MIGRATI( Township 20 South, Range 10 East and Range 11 East). The number of tracks counted in mile section 10 during the 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1986 collection periods combined is a total of 32.4, which amounts to 1.3 percent of all the tracts collected. Only 2.45 tracks were counted in mile section 10 in the spring of 1991. A similar low frequency is documented for mile section 11. Only 39.2 tracks were reported during the first five collection years, which amounts to 1.6 percent of all tracks collected. Only 2.74 tracks were found in mile section 11 in the spring of 1991. In contrast, 166.7 tracks were counted over the duration of the collection years for mile section 1, north of the low priority area, and 178.26 tracks were found along mile section 37, south of the low priority area. The underlying zoning in most of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor is Rural Residential 10 ("RR -10 "). Although the zone has a 10 -acre minimum lot size, much of the development in the La Pine area occurred prior to zoning in the County. There are extensive areas of pre- existing subdivisions with lots ranging in size from less than one acre to five acres. Most of the RR -10 zone is made up of lots less than the 10 -acre minimum lot size. A portion of the RR -10 zoned land within the migration corridor is also within the destination resort overlay. The migration corridor also includes some Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU" ), Forest Use 1 ('F -I'), Forest Use 2 CT -2'), and Flood Plain ("FP") zoned Land. The La Pine State Park is zoned Open Space Conservation. These resource zones provide for large lot sizes and limit uses that are not compatible with the farm, forest or open space uses. Because of the low density of development in these zones and the limitation on uses, the resource zones themselves limit conflicting uses and provide considerable protection to the migration corridor. A limited number of RR- 10 and F-2 parcels within the migration corridor are also mapped as eligible for destination resort siting. However, as of the date of this ESEE Amendment, there are no 160 -acre undeveloped RR -10 zoned parcels and only two 160 -acre undeveloped F-2 zoned parcels within the Destination Resort Overlay but outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area. The number of properties within the migration corridor that will be eligible for resorts under the new program to achieve Goal 5 will continue to be limited by the following factors: (1) the parcels must be both outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area and inside of the Destination Resort Overlay, and (2) pursuant to DCC § 18.113.060, the parcels must be a minimum of 160 contiguous acres and must have direct access onto a state or county arterial or collector roadway. Conflicting Uses: ODFW has identified dwellings, roads, and dogs as major conflicts with migrating deer. Fences that do not allow safe passage of deer are also a conflicting use. Conflicting uses are documented in the ODFW Central Region Administrative Reports and No. 86-2 and 92-1 and in the La Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977. These documents are incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, the ESEEs for surface mines in the deer migration corridor identify the migration corridor as a conflicting use with the surface mining activity. There are four surface mines in the migration corridor (Sites 342, 426, 427, and 432). Economic. Social. Environmental, and Energy Conseauences of Protecting Significant Deer Migration Corridor by Limiting Conflicting Uses: 4s:\Lepra000 Ordfimces12001%unriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER MIGRATI( 1. Economic Conseauences-, A positive economic consequence of limiting conflicts in the deer migration corridor is a reduction in conflicts between rural residents and wildlife and a related reduction in ODFW staff time spent resolving such conflicts. Limiting destination resort development to parcels that are within the Destination Resort Overlay but outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area will direct future development to areas in which conflicts between rural residents and wildlife are least likely to occur. The undeveloped parcels within the low priority area of the migration corridor that are now eligible for destination resort development are adjacent to existing development. The limited number of deer tracks documented by ODFW in the low priority areas over the last twenty years demonstrates that confining future resort development to these limited areas will minimize conflicts between deer and rural residents. In addition, limiting destination resort development to low priority areas will also ensure that recreational opportunities dependent upon the deer population remain viable within the migration corridor. One such recreational opportunity is deer hunting. Deer hunters depend upon the survival of healthy deer populations. As stated in the 1992 ESEE for the Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor, deer hunters spend an average of $46.69 per hunter per day in the County; in Deschutes County there are 75,885 deer hunter days per year in the County for a value of $3,542,100. This recreational activity generally occurs on public lands that are adequately separated from development. Allowing resorts on private lands outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area will not significantly impact hunting opportunities in the area. As described above, if resort siting is limited to protect the Goal 5 resource, the number of properties within the migration corridor that will be eligible for resorts will be limited by the small overlap of the Destination Resort Overlay and the low priority areas and by the siting standards of DCC § 18.113, the destination resort ordinance. In addition, the properties that are presently eligible for destination resort use are privately owned and located within currently developed areas. Private parcels adjacent to existing residential uses are not suitable for hunting and consequently, their future development will not decrease the hunting opportunities in Deschutes County. In addition, twenty years of ODFW data demonstrate that the health of the deer population will not be negatively impacted by the development of a documented low frequency migration area. As of the date of this ESEE Amendment, there are only two 160 -acre undeveloped F-2 zoned parcels that are within the destination resort overlay and outside of the high priority migration area. These properties are immediately adjacent to existing development, specifically the Sunriver and Crosswater developments. These properties are also privately owned and consequently off limits to hunting. Negative economic consequences of applying regulations to limit conflicts throughout the deer migration corridors are generally borne by individuals prevented from doing an activity such as building a home or road, dividing land, or developing a use which would cause increased traffic or a change in the vegetation which would decrease the quality of the forage or cover. In addition, limiting surface mining activity could increase the cost of operation of surface mines. Prohibiting destination resort siting within the entire deer migration corridor would also have negative economic consequences because destination resorts are an important facet of the local and state tourism industry.. Both statewide and locally, tourism plays a vital role in creating new 5S-\LephBOcc Ordinances\2001%umiver v. 7 • AMENDED ESEE - DEER MIORATI( job opportunities and strengthening and diversifying the economy. According to the Oregon Tourism Commission, in 2000, visitor expenditures generated $5.9 billion. This represents a 69 percent increase since 1991. Deschutes County's emphasis on diversifying its economy to include tourism has contributed to this figure. According to a recent economic report submitted to the County by Hobson Ferrarini Associates, Inc. ("Hobson Report"), most of the economic growth in the Central Oregon region during the last decade has been a direct result of the growth in the tourism/recreation sector and an expanding retirement community. (Economic Viability and Economic Impacts of Huntington Ranch, A Proposed Destination Resort in Deschutes County, Oregon, September, 2000). Destination resorts serve an especially important function in this economic growth because they cater to both of those groups. The economic benefits from the expansion of tourism in general and destination resorts in particular are tangible. According to the Hobson Report, destination resorts have an enormous positive impact on local and regional economies. The regional and national attraction of destination resorts generates a large amount of outside investment, resulting in a net increase in wealth for the local economy. New resort development initially creates employment in the construction sector. Pursuant to the Hobson -Report, in 1999, the average construction sector wages in Deschutes County were roughly 23 percent higher than the overall county average. Long-term economic benefits come from both direct and indirect payroll contributions. The resorts create high level managerial and professional positions, as well as entry-level positions that reduce local unemployment rates. Additionally, visitor and new resident expenditures contribute to regional business activity and provide multiple, indirect employment opportunities for the local labor force. The net fiscal impact of destination resorts on local jurisdictions is almost always positive, according to the Hobson Report. Destination resorts contribute large amounts of revenue to the County through taxes and fees, yet they place a minimal burden on public services because resorts provide facilities and utility services within their boundaries. Due to a high-level of part- time residents and a large number of retirees purchasing resort homes, destination resorts have a positive net fiscal impact on school districts because these owners contribute to the tax base without adding growth to the numbers of school children. Additionally, County expenditures on resort communities are usually less than traditional residential developments because the resorts often provide services traditionally provided by the county, such as security. In sum, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan identifies destination resorts as a highly desirable type of development for County -wide economic growth because they attract wealth, generate employment within the region, and provide a positive net fiscal impact. Deschutes County is currently one of Oregon's premiere tourist destinations, and the County Comprehensive Plan contemplates expansion of the area's resort and recreation opportunities to enhance that reputation and capture visitor expenditures. As explained above, continued destination resort development is an essential part of achieving that goal. In a 1999 presentation entitled "Deschutes County Growth and Buildout," the County anticipated that destination resorts should generate approximately 8,015 new dwellings within the County over the next twenty years. It is expected that continued development in current resorts will satisfy a portion of that growth, but the remainder must come from new resort development. According to the Hobson Report, the future demand for resort housing is expected to exceed historical resort 6s:uwmocc Ordina =\200PSunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER MIGRATI< permitting activity by a factor of approximately 14 percent and there will be a total under -supply of approximately 1,687 detached and attached resortdwellings by 2020. As discussed earlier, however, there are a limited number of properties within the County that are mapped as eligible for destination resorts. Furthermore, it is not feasible to site resorts on many of the mapped properties due to geographic, aesthetic, or other prohibitive factors. Therefore, the County must prioritize those areas where resorts have proven to be successful and vital to the local economy. As demonstrated by the Eligible Properties Map, those areas within the Destination Resort Overlay and outside of the Deer Migration Priority area are adjacent to existing resort developments, specifically the Sunriver and Crosswater developments. Past resort development has demonstrated that this area is ideal for destination resort development and therefore, an important area for meeting the County goal of resort development. The County has a unique opportunity to encourage the growth of the tourism industry while concurrently protecting the deer migration corridor by limiting, rather than prohibiting, destination resorts within this portion of the migration corridor. 2. Social Consequences: The positive social consequence of limiting development to protect deer migration corridors is the retention of the stable deer population for hunting and wildlife viewing. As detailed above in the discussion of economic consequences, limiting resort development to low priority parcels within the destination resort overlay will continue to protect wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities. Negative social consequences of limiting development to protect the resource stem from the restriction of residential uses and limits on partitions which would otherwise be allowed by the underlying zoning provisions. Siting standards limit the ability of people to site their dwellings in their preferred location, and limitations on destination resort siting reduce the quality and quantity of valuable recreational facilities and opportunities. Further negative social consequences result from limiting destination resorts. Area resorts provide both locals and visitors with vast recreational facilities including golf courses, sport courts and nature trails. Additionally, Deschutes County is renowned for its recreational opportunities including winter sports, fishing, hunting, camping, and similar outdoor activities. Destination resorts provide visitor accommodations for tourists drawn to the area for these opportunities. One of the goals of the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is to satisfy the recreational needs of the residents and visitors of Deschutes County. The potential negative social consequences of protecting the Goal 5 resource by prohibiting resort development within the migration corridor can be reduced by limiting resort siting to areas outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area. 3. Environmental Consequences: A positive environmental consequence of protecting the deer migration corridor is the provision of opportunities for big game to travel freely without undue disturbance, obstacles, or harassment. In addition, other species of wildlife also benefit from the low density of development within high priority areas of migration corridors. Development standards, which will apply to any destination resort expansion, mandating cluster developments and open space requirements throughout the migration corridor benefit migrating deer and other wildlife in the migration corridor by increasing undeveloped open space. In addition, minimum setback requirements from street lot lines also limit disturbance of vegetation 7s.\LepABOCC Ordinmces\2001\Sunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER MK3RAU and provide more open space corridors. Furthermore, limiting the area available for extraction of aggregate resources decreases hazards to deer migration. Prohibiting destination resorts within the Deer Migration Priority Area will prevent resort development in those sections of the corridor most heavily utilized for migration purposes. Twenty years of the ODFW data shows that allowing destination resorts on lands that are within the Destination Resort Overlay and outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area will have minimal negative environmental consequences on the Goal 5 resource, as detailed herein. As specified by ODFW's Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist in the March 21, 2001 letter incorporated herein by reference, ODFW has concluded that allowing destination resorts as a conditional use in the WA zone outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area will not significantly affect the deer migration pattern in the WA zone. The following information supports ODFW's conclusion. First, the incidence of deer crossings within the low priority areas is so low that a relatively few number of migrating deer will be impacted by resorts in those areas. As documented in ODFW Reports No. 86-2 and 92-1, the tracks within the areas outside the Deer Migration Priority Area yet within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor (mile sections 6-11 and 21-27 in the ODFW studies), amount to only 15.9 percent of the total tracks counted in the studies conducted between 1978 and 1991. Currently, the only properties within the low priority area of the migration corridor that are eligible for destination resort development are within mile sections 6- 11 of the ODFW study. This section accounts for only 7.1 percent of the total tracks counted by ODFW from 1978 to 1991. Secondly, as emphasized in the March 21, 2001 ODFW letter, this impact is further reduced by the limited number of parcels that are (1) outside the Deer Migration Priority Area, (2) inside the destination resort overlay, and (3) at least 160 contiguous acres. In addition, the parcels must have direct access to a state or county arterial or collector roadway. Currently, only two parcels meet these qualifications. Both parcels are located just south of the existing Sunriver Resort and highlighted on the Eligible Properties Map. According to the ODFW Reports, the percentage of deer tracks counted during the total collection period in the vicinity of these parcels (mile sections 10 and 11 in the ODFW studies) amounts to only 2.5 percent of the total tracks throughout the entire migration corridor. Finally, ODFW concluded in the March 21, 2001 letter that the destination resort siting standards in DCC § 18.113 significantly reduce the range of potential adverse impacts on the migration corridor. ODFW's conclusion was based upon recent tracking data that confirmed the results of the historical tracking data collected from 1978 through 1992. The 1999 data is not yet published in a report but is incorporated into the 1999 ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area Map, which is incorporated herein by reference. ODFW's findings illustrate that allowing destination resorts in the low priority areas of the migration corridor pursuant to DCC § 18.113 would not significantly interfere with historical migration patterns. DCC § 18.113.070(D) requires destination resort applicants to demonstrate that "any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or degradation of the resource." Consequently, any applicant for a resort within the low priority area of the migration corridor will provide either on-site or off-site mitigation measures to ensure the protection of the 8S. -\La a1\B000 Ordifmces\2001%miver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER M10RAT1( Goal 5 resource. Negative environmental consequences are further reduced by resort -type development as opposed to traditipnal residential development. DCC § 18.113 requires a minimum of 50 percent of the total acreage of a destination resort to be dedicated to permanent open space. This percentage excludes yards, streets, and parking areas. This requirement provides open space for wildlife and reduces vegetative disturbance. Similar to the existing WA Zone standards in DCC § 18.88.050, the destination resort regulations also ensure that residences and other buildings will be clustered in order to minimize impact. 4. Enerry Consequences: Negative consequences resulting from limiting rather than prohibiting resort development within the Bend/L.aPine Deer Migration Corridor are likely to be increased energy and resource demands from new resort development. However, the negative consequences are mitigated by the positive energy consequences of directing future development to developed areas with existing services. These positive energy consequences will accompany the limited development within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, because the WA Zone requires most conditional uses within the migration corridor to be located within one- quarter mile of a rural service center and adjacent to a rural collector or arterial, thereby reducing the number of vehicle trips. Similarly, destination resort uses permitted pursuant to the new program to achieve Goal 5 also limit daily vehicle trips by providing commercial, retail, residential, and recreational uses within the resort boundaries to serve the residential segment of the resort. Furthermore, the lands within the migration corridor that are currently eligible for resort development are adjacent to existing development and services. Positive energy consequences result from allowing additional destination resort development in areas adjacent to existing resorts and commercial developments. The commercial and recreational amenities provided by such resorts will reduce the likelihood that resort residents and visitors will travel outside of the resort area for commercial and recreational needs. For additional information on ESEE consequences, see the following documents incorporated herein by reference: a. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study Chapter VI, pages 1-6- 16; Chapter VII, pages 7-1-7-30. b. Bend River Study Staff Report, May 1986, pages 21-26. C. ODFW Central Region Administrative Reports No. 86-2 and 92-1. d. La Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977. e. March 21, 2001 Letter from ODFW Deschutes County Wildlife Biologist Steven George, submitted in File No. PA -00-10 and TA -00-13. Conclusion: The balance of positive and negative consequences identified above demonstrates that the identified deer migration corridor and the identified conflicting uses within the corridor, including destination resorts, are important compared to each other because the benefits to the 9S:\i egaPaOOC Ordinances\2001\.Sumiver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER MIORATI( County resulting from each use are significant enough to warrant a program that protects each use in a limited fashion. In addition, the conflicting uses are not so detrimental to the Goal 5 resource that they should be prohibited entirely under OAR 660-023-0040(5)(a). Consequently, conflicts should be balanced by limiting conflicting uses pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) (this level of protection has traditionally been referred to as a "3C" designation). Specifically, destination resorts can be limited rather than prohibited and still have only a minimal effect on the deer migration in the area. Both the Goal 5 resource and the conflicting destination resort use will be sufficiently protected under OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) if destination resorts are limited to areas within the Destination Resort Overlay that are outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area. IV. PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL Initially, the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor was added to the WA Zone by Ordinance 92-040, which adopted comprehensive plan policies regarding the corridor, by Ordinance No. 92-041 which adopted the original ESEE findings as part of the Resource Element of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, and by Ordinance 92-046 which amended the zoning map to include the migration corridor as part of the WA Zone. The WA Zone was amended by Ordinance No. 92-042 to require cluster development for all land divisions in the RR -10 zone in the BendALa Pine Migration Corridor. A 20 -acre parcel is the minimum size required for a cluster development. Although much of the land is already divided into lots less than 5 acres, the 20 acre minimum lot size and the requirement for cluster developments will retain much of the limited open space important for the passage of deer even if destination resorts are allowed within the non-priority areas. The siting standards and fencing standards in the WA zone apply to all properties, including destination resorts, throughout the entire deer migration corridor. The fencing standards are those recommended by ODFW to allow safe passage of the deer. The provision prohibiting destination resort siting until the completion of the Goal 8 mapping process is amended to allow limited siting outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area, as detailed below. Additional elements of the program to achieve the goal include surface mining limitations, ODFW consultation requirements, and policies encouraging the protection of high priority migration areas though conservation easements and federal land acquisitions. Conflicting surface mining activities will continue to be limited by DCC § 18.52.110(K), which limits the extraction area to five acres, excluding access roads, equipment storage areas, processing equipment sites, and stockpiles. ODFW will continue to be notified of any land use action in the migration corridor and *ill have the opportunity to comment on development proposals, including destination resort proposals. Furthermore, the 1992 county map of the migration corridor that shows the parcelization pattern in five size categories will remain an element of this Amended ESEE. As stated in the 1992 ESEE, the County and ODFW will work together to identify priority areas for land acquisition and work with Federal agencies to assure that land important for migration is retained in federal ownership or protected with conservation easements to retain the limited amount of open space in the corridor. In summary, all of the Comprehensive Plan policies and land use regulations adopted in 1992 to protect the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor by limiting conflicting uses remain effective, with the exception of the temporary prohibition on destination resort siting. Since the Goal 8 mapping project has been completed and ODFW has created a new map of the deer migration 10S:1Lep1\BOCC Ordinances\2001%unrlver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER MIGRAM priority areas based on twenty years of tracking data, it is appropriate to address the issue of whether destination resorts should be sited within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. Destination resorts are a vital part of the County's economy and they provide social benefits to the entire region. Furthermore, clustering resort development creates positive energy consequences, as detailed above. However, in order to protect the principal deer migration routes within the corridor, destination resort siting should be limited. Specifically, amending the WA Zone and the Comprehensive Plan to limit destination resorts to those areas inside of the Destination Resort Overlay but outside of the area mapped by ODFW as the Deer Migration Priority Area achieves the appropriate balance between the Goal 5 wildlife resource and Goal 8 destination resort priorities. 11 SALepI\BOCC Ordinances\2001%umiver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE -DEER MIGRATI Decision on TID/Cellular One Appeals of Hearings Officer's Denial of CUP to establish a wireless telecommunications facility on Laidlaw Butte. I will vote to overturn the Hearings Officer's decision subject to the following conditions: 1) Require a height reduction to 50', with a whip antenna extending no higher than 6', for a total height not to exceed 56', as discussed at the Hearing and listed as Exhibit "D" in Cellular One's Exhibit Presentation. 2) Require that TID/Cellular One submit a detailed design of the pole for public comment, understanding that the County Commission will be the point of final approval. 3) The detailed design will show that the pole will be camouflaged in the following ways: • the pole and the attachments will be painted to blend in with the colors of the bark and foliage of surrounding trees in such a way as to camouflage it. • Colors will be agreed to between TID and D.C.'s CDD, according to a color chart • Painting should be done to blend in. In other words, avoid straight lines, paint should be more like a tree would look. • Faux tree branches shall be installed to make the pole look like a tree to the best extent possible. • Branches should be installed to the largest extent on the pole below the 40' mark. • Above 40', branches or snags should be installed wherever possible to camouflage the pole. 4) Require photographic proof from the exact locations of the photos provided by Cellular One that the pole has indeed been installed in such a way that it is as non - intrusive as their proposed changed view images would indicate • If the photographic evidence does not mach the non -intrusive images that Cellular One provided as evidence, Cellular One and TID agree to reconfigure the pole until it does, at their own expense. 5) Once the installation has been approved as installed, TID/Cellular One would be required to obtain a new permit for any modifications. No modifications of any kind would be allowed without a new permit. 6) Require removal at TID's expense if the time comes when the pole is no longer used as indicated by this approval. 7) Once conditions are approved, Council for TID will write findings and conclusions in draft form for County Council to finalize. —11 t �/ " (X N - Response to Hearings Officer's findings on Laidlaw Butte Tower appeals 1) Applicant had not demonstrated the necessity to establish the proposed facility in the SM zone. • The applicant has shown, through the submission of additional testimony and evidence, that the Tumalo area has "dead" spots when it comes to communications technology and that this particular site, in the SM zone, offers the best coverage in a difficult area. Applicant has also shown that increasing the height will improve the coverage, which is important to residents in Deschutes County, and critical for public safety communication. • Additionally, County ordinances require co -location where possible. With a site already in the SM zone, Cellular One is following the direction laid down in County ordinances. To allow TID to locate on Laidlaw Butte but force Cellular One to locate elsewhere, we create our own "Catch 22" situation. 2) TID/Cellular One had not conducted and documented a process through which each entity considered alternative sites with respect to the visual impacts of the proposed facility. • Through the submission of additional evidence, the applicants have shown that alternative sites will not provide the necessary coverage due to the topography of the Tumalo area. • Through the requirement of camouflage conditions, we can reduce the visual impact of the facility. 3) Applicant had not demonstrated that the facility is sited using trees, vegetation and topography to the maximum extent practicable to screen it from view of nearby residences. • Through the submission of additional evidence, the applicant has shown that multiple sites are not practical, nor would they provide adequate coverage as would the single pole. • Requiring color and stealth camouflaging as a condition will reduce the visual impact of the facility from nearby residences. 4) Applicant had not demonstrated that it could site the proposed facility using trees, vegetation and topography to screen it from view of Highway 20. • Through the submission of additional evidence, the applicant has shown that it is possible to reduce the visual impect from Highway 20. • As with the other findings by the Hearings Officer, by requiring a shorter pole (50' plus 6' whip antenna, as opposed to 60' pole) as shown in Cellular One's Exhibit Presentation, the proposed cell tower will be much more effectively screened from Highway 20 • By adding the requirements for color and stealth camouflaging, the facility will be screened from view of Highway 20 to the maximum extent practicable.