Loading...
2002-820-Minutes for Meeting April 23,2002 Recorded 4/26/2002The subject of this hearing is a decision by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on the approval of a modification to the Conceptual Final Master Plan (FMP) and Tentative Plat Approval for the Eagle Crest Phase III Resort expansion to an existing destination resort (on property zoned EFU-SCISMIA/DR). Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; George Read, Paul Blikstad and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; Alan Van Vliet of Eagle Crest; Tom Walker of W & H Pacific Engineering; Tom Hall of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; and Nancy Craven, Attorney representing Eagle Crest, and approximately 25 citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 3: 00 p.m. Being no printed opening statement available at the moment, Laurie Craghead explained the reason for the hearing and the proposal provided by the applicants regarding an amendment to approvals given to them at an earlier date. The criteria were shown on an overhead. She then explained the burden of proof and applicable criteria, the hearings procedure, and the order to presentation. She then asked the Commissioners about any pre -hearing contacts, or challenges for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. Commissioner Luke said the only contact was when all three Commissioners met with the City of Redmond in a public meeting, and the issue of the sewer connection came up. Commissioner Daly said that last week he drove out to Eagle Crest to look around, but was unable to see the new phase because of the gates. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 1 of 14 Pages Quality Services Performed with Pride The above was part of the opening statement (a copy is attached as Exhibit A). Chair DeWolf asked if anyone was uncomfortable with this ad-lib reading to please say so; otherwise the statement would be entered into the record as -is. Regarding challenges for bias, prejudgment or personal interest, none were brought up by the members of the audience. Paul Blikstad referred to the overhead, which listed the required criteria. (A copy is attached as Exhibit D.) BLIKSTAD: Three applications are necessary because the applicant is applying to modify the conceptual master plan, which went before the Board last year. The Board issued a written decision on the conceptual master plan in May 2001. The second modification submitted by the applicant was for the final master plan. That was approved by the Board, with the written decision was issued in October 2001. The third is a modification of the tentative plat for the first phase of Eagle Crest III, which is a total of 108 lots. That application was approved administratively by the Planning Division; the decision on that was mailed November 2001. The applicant has now requested modifications to all three applications, mainly for the purpose of sewage treatment within Phase III. Eagle Crest has been in discussions with the City of Redmond regarding connecting to the Redmond sewage treatment system. The applicant has applied to the County for modifications to allow, as a possible alternative, an on-site sewage treatment plant. It was our determination, based on discussions with Legal Counsel, that the applicant actually needs to modify all three approvals. For the record, I would like to state that as of today Eagle Crest applied for two improvement agreements for Phase III. One of the improvement agreements is setting aside money with a bond and an improvement agreement for the on-site sewage treatment plant. To backtrack, for the Phase I plat, the applicant bonded the off-site sewage treatment connection to Redmond. That was for a little over $1.9 million. They submitted a bond to Planning, and we also drafted an improvement agreement, which was signed by George Read on behalf of the County. The applicant also bonded the on-site utilities - water, sewer, electricity - and roads for Phase III; I believe that was for $1.3 million. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 2 of 14 Pages BLIKSTAD: With those improvement agreements, the applicant actually platted that first phase of Eagle Crest III. So the first phase plat is recorded with the County Clerk's office. Since that plat has been recorded, those lots are now available for sale. I believe with the possibility that they may not be able to connect to Redmond, it's possible those sales might not take place. So, regarding these new improvement agreements, we felt they were necessary because the plat had been recorded. We had to assure that there was sewage treatment available for Phase III, and if it is not going to go to Redmond, we had to have a bond for the on-site system. The second bond they have submitted is for some pre-treatment they are proposing to do for the 18 -month period that is listed in their burden of proof. They want to be able to use those existing disposal cells that are within Eagle Crest Phase II for Phase III until they can get either the sewer connection or the outside sewage treatment in place. Staff has asked both Roger Everett of the County's Environmental Health Division and Tom Hall of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for their expert testimony on these systems. We'd like them to specifically address the on-site sewage treatment system, if that's the permanent solution, and this pre-treatment system that DEQ felt was necessary for allowing the initial phase of Eagle Crest III to tie into that until one of the permanent options is completed. LUKE: In the first hearing, it was stated that DEQ actually has the authority and responsibility for the current system, correct? BLIKSTAD: That's correct. DEWOLF: We actually have a letter dated April 15 that is a part of the record that came from Tom Hall of DEQ. BLIKSTAD: I also have a letter to Tom Walker from Tom Hall dated April 19. (He distributed this letter to the Board at this time. A copy is attached as Exhibit B) Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 3 of 14 Pages BLIKSTAD: We would ask that they give expert testimony on these sewer options for Phase III. Legal Counsel has had some e-mail communications with the applicant regarding proposed findings and decisions by the Board of County Commissioners on these modifications as well as draft conditions of approval that I believe may be somewhat different than what was originally proposed by the applicant. CRAGHEAD: That is correct. I finalized them just a few minutes before this hearing began. She distributed this document to the Board at this time (a copy is attached as Exhibit Q. BLIKSTAD: Staff has chosen not to give an opinion on this; it's preferred that the Board rely on the expert opinion of the Environment Health Division and DEQ. If they indicate the systems are adequate, staff would be willing to recommend approval. CRAGHEAD: Because of initial evidentiary hearing, we need to include the following in the opening statement. "Prior to the conclusion of this initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the application. The Board has the authority to either grant the request by either continuing the hearing or leaving the record open for additional written evidence, arguments or testimony." If you leave it open, you will need to set a date, time and place certain for that at least seven days from the date of this hearing. If you choose to leave the record open, again it will be for at least seven days. Then, unless waived by the applicant in either case, the applicant will have another seven days in which to rebut any information that came in during the seven days, but cannot present any new evidence. BLIKSTAD: In regard to the 150 days on this, we have until August 29. NANCY CRAVEN: I represent Eagle Crest. All sorts of people in the audience have been working collectively towards bringing this to a conclusion. This is an important decision for Eagle Crest so that we can get moving with Eagle Crest III. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 4 of 14 Pages CRAVEN: We have, as you know, been working with the City of Redmond for the extension, consistent with the conceptual master plan. We are today requesting a modification to that to allow some alternatives. We've been working with your staff, your Legal Counsel, your environmental health people and the Department of Environmental Quality for quite some time to bring this to you today. We've worked with your legal counsel on the decisions and findings ready; we have updated the bonds so that all of the alternatives that are presented for your review today are fully bonded. The improvement agreements have been revised and signed, and we have submitted into the record a variety of documents that should assist you in your decision. First of all, there is an extension agreement signed by the City of Redmond and Eagle Crest that extends the timeline for further consideration and work on the proposed extension agreement. There is correspondence, including two letters from DEQ, with regard to both the interim treatment plant at Eagle Crest and the two alternatives for a permanent sewage option. There are also a variety of notes from W & H Pacific that reflect their communications with your Environmental Health Division and DEQ. All of that documentation supports the aspects of this modification request. I'll make a very brief presentation in regard to the context of this, and an overview of what it provides for. Tom Walker is then going to make more specific comments regarding operational issues. And we're prepared to answer any questions you might have. All we are requesting here relates to the sewer conditions, so none of the other aspects of the CMP that Eagle Crest has received approval for are in play. The current CMP provides that the sewer connection to Redmond is the only alternative with regard to Eagle Crest III. It provided for an 18-month timeline to complete the negotiations and construction, and the implementation of this connection. Those 18 months is up this fall. The CMP also said that if we wanted to do an alternate sewer connection, we needed to come back to you for approval of a modification. All parts of the modification request in front of you are a part of the existing WCPF (water pollution control facility) permit that Eagle Crest has with the DEQ. The components of the alternatives are also recognized in the CMP approval as alternatives, but the CMP approval required us to come back and get them recognized by you. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 5 of 14 Pages CRAVEN: We are proposing essentially a three -prong alternative for you. It is consistent with the CMP and the WCPF permit. First, we're attempting to maintain two options for long-term sewage from Eagle Crest. One is a permanent sewage treatment plant, on site. The second is the connection to Redmond. The record we submitted demonstrates that are going to need additional time in order to resolve and address the variety of issues that have come up during our conversations with Redmond. There are some technical issues and engineering issues, as well as financial issues, which need to be resolved. The second option is a permanent on-site sewage treatment plant. That's also recognized in the current DEQ permit that Eagle Crest has, and is an option that Eagle Crest intends to evaluate concurrently with the ongoing discussions with Redmond. Under either option, time is going to be needed to implement them. The modification request is consistent with how we handled it the first time through, providing for 18 months (from the approval of this modification) in order to implement that permanent solution. The third point that relates to this modification agreement provides that, pending implementation of that permanent fix, and only on an interim basis, we would use the existing sewage treatment facility to serve Eagle Crest lots. But before occupancy of any Eagle Crest III lots, we would enhance the existing system with the installation and operation of a package wastewater treatment plant. That has been discussed extensively with your staff and DEQ, and is addressed in the letters you've received from DEQ. LUKE: What is the estimated occupancy of the new homes? CRAVEN: We are required to go through a HUD notification now, assuming we get approval from you. We expect this will take sixty to ninety days. Then lots can be sold and homes constructed. We're probably looking at sometime next year. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 6 of 14 Pages TOM WALKER: I'm an engineer with W & H Pacific. Our modification application is intended to ensure adequate sewage disposal facilities at Eagle Crest while we accommodate the business of selling property. Over the past six months we have worked with Roger Everett of the County, and Tom Hall and Dick Nichols of DEQ, cooperatively to develop a program for both the short-term and the long-term sewage disposal needs of Eagle Crest. Prior land use conditions required a connection to the City of Redmond. We have, and will continue to work diligently with the City of Redmond. We meet with them on a weekly basis to work through a number of programs, capital improvement budgets and SDC formulas and so on that affect the sewer connection. We consider that a good option and continue to pursue it. At the same time, we think it is prudent to bring forth a second option, which is an on-site, permanent wastewater treatment plant. To assure that wastewater treatment is adequate and to insure that ample time is available for both permanent disposal options, we propose an interim treatment plant to serve the resort for up to 18 months. The interim plant will reduce waste strength before disposal in the drainfields. The interim treatment facility will simply expand sewage capacity during the time that a permanent option is being implemented. There are a number of assurances in place to protect the public. Nancy mentioned that a bond has been provided for the interim treatment facility. A bond is in place that will cover either the connection to the City of Redmond or the permanent on- site wastewater treatment plant. In addition, Eagle Crest is under the Water Pollution Control Facility permit from DEQ, which means we are under the scrutiny, monitoring and enforcement jurisdiction of DEQ. We have improved our disposal system, we continue to add disposal capacity today to take care of ongoing needs, and we believe that appropriate capacity is in place. LUKE: Do you have an approved site for a permanent facility? WALKER: Whether it is a sewage treatment plant or a lift station, it would likely be in the northeast corner of the resort. It is shown this way on the HUD maps. We would still have to come back for site plan approval for either option. LUKE: Have you looked at on-site option for a treatment plant? Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 7 of 14 Pages WALKER: If that option were selected, we would anticipate storing effluent in the winter months and irrigation at agronomic rates in the summer months. LUKE: Either way, eventually the sewage in Eagle Crest will go into a treatment system instead of a drainfield, correct? WALKER: That is my presentation. In addition to that, we have a condition in our WPCF permit with DEQ that sets the threshold flow. When that permit was established, it required us to move off drainfield systems to a permanent system. This was always required by the DEQ permit. We expect we will connect to Redmond or have our own permanent plant. LUKE: Do you have a deadline with the DEQ permit? WALKER: The DEQ permit is up for renewal -- all*N When was the deadline to have the new system in place? WALKER: It's set on a threshold flow of 68,000 gallons per day, which cannot be exceeded. It's now at about 35,000 to 40,000 per day. DL - deadline? DALY: Am I to understand that you -- you keep talking about a sewage treatment plant, but then I hear you say an interim, temporary system. Are there two different plants? WALKER: There are two different plants. On a permanent basis, we recognize that it may take us 18 months to implement it, either by going to Redmond or constructing a permanent on-site wastewater treatment plant. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 8 of 14 Pages WALKER: During the next 18 months, though, we recognize that we may need to connect some Eagle Crest III units. Prior to connection of any of those units, during this 18 -month period, we will install an interim treatment plant to essential polish or improve the waste strength before we dispose of that effluent into the existing drainfields. DALY: Will that cover Eagle Crest II, also? WALKER: Yes. LUKE: You're going to treat the sewage before it goes into the drainfield. WALKER: Yes. It is really more complex than that. Our effluent is taken care of in two different facilities, but the bulk of it will be treated. The interim facility is proposed to be a package wastewater treatment plant. The level treatment will be subject to review and approval by DEQ. DALY: You have the new drainfields that you are constructing now, on site at Eagle Crest III? WALKER: We have them, but they are at either Eagle Crest II or at what we call Eagle Crest I -S. We have two different disposal facilities. There are no units at Eagle Crest III; there are no connections there yet. DALY: But your plan is to go ahead and run Eagle Crest III to the northeast corner Eagle Crest II. WALKER: Our collection system collects sewage from throughout Eagle Crest II and III and brings it to a central location. That location is at the northeast corner of Eagle Crest II, on the west side of Cline Falls Highway, near Highway 126. That would be the proposed site of the permanent plant, or the permanent lift station if we connect to Redmond. In all cases, that is exactly the area we always represented to be used for sewage disposal. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 9 of 14 Pages Chair De Wolf then asked if other proponents wished to testify. There was no response. Chair DeWolf then asked if any opponents wished to testify. EARL NELSON: My wife and I live in Eagle Crest Phase I. When Eagle Crest went through the last problems with the system, we wrote the County but didn't attend hearings. We got letter back regarding Eagle Crest III that said there would be no habitation in Eagle Crest III until a sewage facility was built or a sewer line to Redmond made available. I don't know if an interim plant fits in as a facility that would allow the habitation of Eagle Crest III. LUKE: That's what the application is for; if it is approved, it would. NELSON: I would like to know more about how it would be treated. WALKER: It's a package plant, which is a self-contained unit, often shipped in on a truck after fabrication. The advantage of that is that it is typically readily available. A permanent system takes a long time to put together. A fabricated system has been fabricated in advance and is relatively quick to install, taking only a few months to become operational rather than a year. We would divert sewage into the package facility, which would reduce waste strength dramatically, and the remaining effluent would go into same drainfields. It would mean much lower waste strength, consequently giving higher capacity to the system, probably two or three times greater. NELSON: What kind of treatment beyond a normal septic tank system? WALKER: A septic tank is anaerobic. The package facility introduces air, and has a fixed film activated sludge system, which lets microorganisms work faster and better. There will be some form of a clarifier, and solids will settle and separate. Because of the oxygen and the process, the result is a much -reduced waste strength. This means a higher capacity and it can treat larger flows. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 10 of 14 Pages wer" I would imagine it would mean a higher level of treatment. Possibly it could be used for irrigation. WALKER: DEQ rules are ver complex. You can do a lot with an interim facility, but of course not as much as with a permanent system. A permanent system could be confined in vessels, and would likely treat effluent to a higher degree. NELSON: So the input would be just liquid and not solid waste? WALKER: Correct. A permanent system could handle raw sewage. DALY: Will all of Eagle Crest III have septic tanks? WALKER: We might convert to a raw sewage, low-pressure system eventually. Chair De Wolf then asked if there was additional testimony. None was offered. Commissioner Luke asked that Roger Everett of Environmental Health and Tom Hall of DEQ answer a few questions. LUKE: It sounds lie you've reviewed this and it falls within DEQ guidelines. TOM HALL: That's correct. DALY: Does pre -treating destroy the bacterial action? ROGER EVERETT: Not entirely. The interim will polish up the effluent; it will be much more efficient. It will be significantly cleaned up. This is a good interim proposal to use on the way to a permanent solution. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 11 of 14 Pages LUKE: Does DEQ have any of these packaged systems in place now? HALL: I'm not familiar with the one proposed, but am familiar with the same type in place permanently. None of these go to drainfields. Biggs has a permanently built plant, which is a small system with aerators and clarifiers, and it discharges into the Columbia River. EVERETT: worked with Tom Walker and am comfortable with the conclusions. DEWOLF: Is Legal Counsel comfortable with what has been proposed today? CRAGHEAD: Yes, the application is okay with me and with the applicant. The conditions of approval are separate attachments. BLIKSTAD: To clarify, if they choose to connect to Redmond's system, 18 months would be fine. I would like to see some kind of confirmation that the other system could be done within 18 mos. ALAN VAN VLIET: We put together a critical path on both plans, and determined that either could be done within 18 months. We think we'll be at a decision point with the City of Redmond next month and will learn where they are with the analysis of their consultants. Chair DeWolf asked if anyone else wished to testify. No response was given. He said the Board could either delay a decision to give time to read all of the new material, or take a fifteen -minute break and do it now. CRAVEN: We would be happy to waive the rebuttal time, and would be pleased if you could review the information and make a decision today. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 12 of 14 Pages At this time the Board took a fifteen -minute break to read over the newly introduced documents. DEWOLF: There is something else that needs to be put on the record. Chair De Wolf reopened the public hearing at this time. CRAGHEAD: Commissioner Luke had a concern regarding the issue of the requirement of no occupancy unless the residence is hooked up to the packaged wastewater treatment system. He wanted some assurances from the applicant that this will not occur. LUKE: The County has no enforcement for this at all. VAN VLIET: The thought was that we would control hookups via our utility company, and would put a lock on the water meter until the package plant is on line. Chair DeWolf asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. No response was offered. He then closed the public hearing. LUKE: I have a question. It's my intention to make a motion to approve the findings, subject to allowing you (to Laurie Craghead) to take a little more time to reformat the document. Is this appropriate? LUKE: I move approval of the findings as submitted, subject to minor modifications by Legal Counsel. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Being no further action taken by the Board, Chair Tom DeWolf adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p. m. Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 13 of 14 Pages DATED this 23rd Day of April 2002 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: 46'w� fak�- Recording Secretary Tom DeWolf. Chair is R. Luke, Commissioner Attachments Exhibit A - Opening statement (2 pages) Exhibit B - A copy of a letter addressed to Tom Walker of W & H Pacific from Thomas Hall of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (1 page) Exhibit C - A draft of the preliminary Conditions of Approval (1 page) Exhibit D - A copy of the criteria to be followed, as displayed on the overhead shown at the meeting (1 page) Minutes of Public Hearing Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Eagle Crest III Modification to Final Master Plan Page 14 of 14 Pages Introduction This is a public hearing on arae0 f W+r€ land use applications submitted by ,@wpy BOOM f e le Use Ag�al-gone. fle 0 -MM i,} i`10� 5 /70?i7� -e LIP Burden of proof and Applicable criteria H e,��� The applicant has the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval sought. The standards applicable to the applications are listed in the overhead that you see. Hearings Procedure The procedures applicable to this hearing provide that the Board of County Commissioners will hear testimony, receive evidence and consider the testimony, evidence and information submitted into the record. The record as developed to this point is available for public review at this hearing. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the notice of this hearing and listed on the overhead. Testimony may be directed to any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue, with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Order of Presentation The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The Planning Division will give a staff report of the prior proceedings and the issues before the Board. The applicant will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony and evidence. Opponents will then be given a chance to make a presentation. After both proponents and opponents have made a presentation, the proponents will be allowed to make a rebuttal presentation. At the Board's discretion, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the Board's discretion. Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes a question be asked of any person during that person's presentation, please direct such question to the Chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witnesses. Pre -hearing Contacts will now direct a question to the other members of the Board of County Commissioners. If any member of the Board, including myself, has had any pre -hearing contacts, now is the time to state the substances of those pre -hearing contacts so that all persons present at this hearing can be fully advised of the nature and context of those contacts and with whom contact was made. Are there any contacts that need to be disclosed? At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth the substance of any ex parte observations or facts of which this body should take notice concerning this appeal? Any person in the audience has the right during the hearings process to rebut the substance of any communication or observation that has been placed in the record. Challenges for Bias. Prejudgment, or Personal Interest Any party prior to the commencement of the hearing may challenge the qualifications of the Board of County Commissioners or any member thereof of bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. I will accept challenges now. Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself; withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear the appeal. Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed. &,,, - A . & 0 ` 2-- jreaon JohnA. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor Mr. Tom Walker W&H Pacific, Inc. 920 SW Emkay, Suite C100 Bend, OR 97702 Department of Environmental Quality 2146 NE 4th Street, Suite 104 Bend, OR 97701 April 19, 2002 (541) 388-6146 REFU"EIVED APR 2 2 2002 DESCttu I E N7Y CDC Re: Eagle Crest III Sewage Treatment WQ - Deschutes County Eastern Region Bend Office We have reviewed your April 18, 2002, letter regarding timing of the installation of the interim sewage treatment facility to pre -treat the wastewater from Eagle Crest II and Eagle Crest III prior to disposal in the drainfields. Since there is inadequate lead-time to install a treatment unit prior to this summers peak use period at the resort, Eagle Crest is proceeding with the installation of additional drainfield cells. This is acceptable to the Department. You propose to have the interim sewage treatment facility on line prior to the occupancy of any Eagle Crest III dwelling. This is also acceptable to the Department. We have not had experience with either of the treatment units that you propose so the choice is yours. We will need to review and approve plans and specifications for the unit you chose including the details of how and where it will be tied into the existing system prior to installation. Walt West will do the plan review. The plan review fee is $600. If you have any questions regarding this matter niease call me in ✓enc ai i = 3 &`-o ; ,, - _ . Sincerely, moi.., -az a 6L4 Thomas D. Hall Water Quality Specialist TDH/ns cc: Paul Blikstad,Deschutes County Planning Division, 117 NW Lafayette, Bend, OR 97701 Eagle Crest Master Association, P.O. Box 1215, Redmond, OR 97756 Roger Everett, Deschutes County Environmental Health Dept., Bend Walt West, DEQ, Bend CMP Conditions of Approval 17. The applicant/owner shall comply with the following conditions with respect to sewage treatment: a) On an interim basis (during an 18 -month period following the date of approval of the modified CMP), the applicant may utilize the existing on-site sewage treatment facility to serve lots within Eagle Crest Phase III. However, prior to occupancy of any units in Eagle Crest Phase III, the existing treatment system shall be enhanced through the installation and operation of a package wastewater treatment plant. A "package wastewater treatment plant" is a self-contained and mobile treatment facility intended to be available and operable in a relatively short period of time. b) As required by the Eagle Crest Phase II and III WPCF permit, the threshold flow rate of 68,000 gallons per day for the Eagle Crest Resort (or a lesser amount if imposed by DEQ) shall not be exceeded while the applicant continues to utilize the existing on- site treatment system. c) Prior to the expiration of the 18 -month period, the applicant shall implement one of the following two long-term sewage treatment options: (1) a permanent on-site sewage treatment plant, or (2) a connection to the City of Redmond's sewage treatment facilities. d) Except as allowed by DEQ for emergency or special purposes, existing Eagle Crest II sewage disposal drainfields will not be utilized following implementation of the permanent wastewater treatment and disposal option. e) As required by Goal 8, if the applicant chooses the Redmond connection option, the applicant shall pay for the sewer extension and connection to the City of Redmond sewer system. FMP 9. The applicant/owners shall demonstrate compliance with CMP Condition 17dl with respect to the development of sewage treatment facilities. J' Tentative Plat 18. The applicant/owners shall demonstrate compliance with CMP Condition 17 with respect to the development of sewage treatment facilities. 1 JADocuments and Settings\laurie\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK235\NC CC y,1t� e (2, The following is a list of the applicable criteria for application nos. MC -02-3, MC -02-4, MC -02-5. Evidence and testimony at this hearing must be directed toward these criteria. Testimony may be directed to any other criteria in the County Comprehensive Plan or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision: Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.113, Destination Resorts Zone (DR). 18.113.050, Requirements for conditional use permit and conceptual master plan applications 18.113.070, Approval criteria 18.113.080, Procedure for modificaiton of a conceptual master plan 18.113.090, Requirements for final master plan Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, County Procedures Ordinance Section 22.36.040, Modification of approval.