2006-387G-Minutes for Meeting December 20,2005 Recorded 4/7/2006. A
Dec. 18, 2005
Deschutes County Community Development Dept.
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, Oregon 97701
Devin Hearing
Associate Planner
541-388-6555
File Number: CU-05-20
Applicant: Thornburgh Resort Company, LLC
Subject: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Destination Resort Conceptual
Master Plan approval (1,980 acres) in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) zone
This letter offers both comments and recommendations relative to the "de novel" hearing
scheduled December 20, 2005 plus a re-submission of the comments presented verbally
and written at the August 17, 2005 hearing.
COMMENTS REGARDING THE "DE NOVO" HEARING DECEMBER 20,2005:
The following are points of great concern regarding the current state of the hearing
process relative to the Thornburgh Resort Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Destination Resort:
1. That these hearing are even taking place.
• The fact that the Hearings Officer denied the application
• The fact that the applicant did not meet all of the approval criteria,
specifically:
Thornburgh has only one-third of the water mitigation credits
needed to develop the resort.
Thornburgh failed to meet a county requirement that 50% of
the total acreage of the development be dedicated as permanent
open space.
Exhibit- Q
Page { of
- Thornburgh did not meet the state rules that require a 2-to-1
ratio of residential homes to overnight units
2. The basis for this hearing is supposedly to avoid Thornburgh taking the County to
court requiring a reconsideration of the decision on the application that the
Hearings Officer has already rendered. The basis of this Thornburgh move is that
the Hearings Officer failed to meet the 150 day response requirement. All who
attended the hearing on Aug. 17, 2005 heard the dialog between Thornburgh and
the Hearings Officer negotiating the extension. This negotiated agreement is
referenced in the Hearing Officer's decision on page 5 REVIEW PERIOD.
Why has this document not been presented?
3. To the point in #2 above, it is alleged that the County recording equipment failed
and there is no public record of the negotiations between Thornburgh and the
Hearings Officer relative to the time extension; additionally, much of the public
testimony in opposition to the resort was lost. As a result of this strange event,
several question arise:
o Why does the County recording equipment failure, when the time
line extension is in writing, justify this "de novo" hearing? A
hearing that provides an opportunity for the County to over rule the
denial of application for a Conditional Use Permit?
o Is their any connection of the "dots" between this equipment
failure and the fact that this is the same department that states in
the "Deschutes County Planning Division Staff Report" section
SUMMARY dated July 14, 2005 that the "Staff has not as is
usually done, dissected the applicant burden of proof to glean the
relevant and applicable criteria from the overall document.
Instead, the staff has restated the applicant's burden of proof and
only added clarification or confirmation where needed."? In other
words the staff has not done their due diligence on this application.
o Isn't it unfair and unrealistic to ask or think that the County
Commissioners should or could make an informed decision on the
application for Conditional Use permit that would be anything but
in concurrence with the Hearings Office's decision of denial
without complete due diligence by the County itself? Even after
review and study of more than a 1000 pages of the Thornburgh
application, without confirming due diligence by the county itself,
there is no verifiable change of facts which can over turn the denial
of application by the Hearings Officer.
4. The quality of the Thornburgh group as a working partner of the County is
questionable.
o Relative to past Destination Resort Developments the County has
asked for a performance bond to assure that the development is
completed. Given the fact that the County did not complete any
due diligence on this Destination Resort application, the decision
to partner in a $160 million dollar business project is a heavy
-2-
Exhibit E~
Page 2 of g
burden for the Commissioners and the County tax payers to shoulder if
the project fails. The down side consequences are onerous.
5. Conclusion and Recommendation:
o The Thornburgh Resort is clearly opposed by the voting public and
the application has been denied by the Hearing Office, yet it
appears that there is a move to disregard these facts and find a way
to allow this Resort development to proceed. We, the citizens,
hope that in a time when government in general has a serious
creditability gap between itself and those that it represents that this
government (Deschutes County) will not cave in to the pressures of
the applicant and will take the right and correct action by
confirming the Hearing Officer's Conditional Use Permit denial.
o All Destination Resorts are not inappropriate, but this one is. The
applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated nor has the County
verified that the development can, among other issues, acquire the
required mitigated water credits, meet the open space
requirements, meet the state rules achieving the proper ratio of
residential homes to over night units, or adequately resolve the
traffic issues. For these reasons we request that you deny this
application.
ADDITIONALLY THE AUGUST 12, 2005 DATA IS RESUBMITTED. THIS
INFORMATION WAS ORALLY PRESENTED AT THE AUGUST 17, 2005
HEARING, BUT LOST DUE TO COUNTY RECORDING EQUIPMENT
MALFUNTION. AT THAT HEARING THE BELOW WRITTEN TESTIMONY
WAS ALSO PRESENTED FOR THE RECORD.
-3-
Exhibit G
Page 3 of
August 12, 2005
Deschutes County Community Development Dept.
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, Oregon 97701
Devin Hearing
Associate Planner
541-388-6555
File Number: CU-05-20
Applicant: Thornburgh Resort Company, LLC
Subject: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Destination Resort Conceptual
Master Plan approval (1,980 acres) in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) zone
This letter offers comments and recommendations regarding the proposed application for
a Conditional Use Permit for a Destination Resort Conceptual Master Plan approval
(1,980 acres) in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) zone. It is requested that this letter
be placed into the record regarding this Conditional Use Permit.
BACKGROUND:
Two public meetings and one public hearing have been conducted regarding the
community impact and possible use of BLM land as it regards the subject proposed
destination resort. The community has identified many serious issues of concern that will
result should this Conditional Use Permit be approved. This letter addresses only three of
those issues, but in no means is intended to lessen the concern or impact of the remaining
issues not discussed. The issues for discussion:
• Traffic congestion, safety and current infrastructure
• Water usage
• Developer Accountability
Further as these three issues are discussed the readers are asked to evaluate the issues
using the tests of reasonableness, fairness and consequence. These tests become highly
important after reading in the "Deschutes County Planning Division Staff Report" section
SUMMARY which was prepared for the July 14, 2005 hearing that the "Staff has not as
-4-
Exhibit <5
Page _ of _g
is usually done, dissected the applicant burden of proof to glean the relevant and
applicable criteria from the overall document. Instead, the staff has restated the
applicant's burden of proof and only added clarification or confirmation where needed."
Clearly the staff has relied (perhaps over relied) on the applicant's retained consulting
staff, by admission they have not done their own due diligence and failed to view the
application for the reasonable, fair and consequential effect this resort will have on the
community and surrounding property owners. Why? Don't all of the citizens deserve
better than a rubber stamp approval? The citizens clearly do not have the time or
financial capacity to match the consulting information that the applicant has amassed.
We have only the County to rely on for fair and equitable protection.
TRAFFIC:
Additional traffic flow created by the resort and the functionality of existing roadways
and intersections (specifically Cline Falls Hwy & the intersection of Cline Falls
Hwy/US20) are critical to both the resort and the community. The Staff Report
acknowledges that if a destination resort significantly affects the transportation facility it
will remedy this situation by either limiting the development, provide the facilities to
support the development or altering the land use density. However, the current Staff
Report is silent on what the applicant must do to mitigate the development's affects on
the transportation facility and what specific date the resort is responsible for completing
these improvements. The Staff Report merely relies on and recants the Group Mackenzie
Traffic Impact Analysis, provides no specifics as what needs to be done to make Cline
Falls Hwy safe and manageable and does acknowledge that US20/Cline Falls Hwy
intersection "...currently operates over applicable capacity requirements and would
continue to do so upon development of the resort." As regards US20/Cline Falls Hwy
the Oregon Department of Transportation has requested that the County condition any
approval that the applicant shall enter into with a requirement for an agreement to
contribute $406,929.00 towards the construction of the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20
interchange. The question is how do these statements and conditions meet the test of
reasonableness? Without specific dates of completion defined, over capacity facilities
continue to be over used, they continue to be unsafe and thus leaves the consequence of
dangerous excess traffic squarely with the surrounding property owners and other users
of the facility. For the applicant to agree to place money into an ODOT intersection
construction fund without specific time lines for use is a meaningless gesture. Therefore,
the only reasonable and fair solution is for the citizens and the applicant to be clearly
informed of the specific transportation facility improvements which must be made and
these improvements must be completed prior to any on site development at the proposed
resort. Minimally, Cline Falls Hwy should be reconstructed to include wider shoulders,
bike lanes, a double yellow line and a posted speed limit. All proposed changes to the
-5-
Exhibit G
Page of
interchange at Cline Falls Hwy/Us 20 must be completed. Finally, in the event the
conditional use permit is approved, the applicant should be required to furnish the County
with a performance bond to guarantee the required Cline Falls Hwy road work and
interchange improvements are completed and serviceable in accordance with proper
standards and conditions as set forth by both the County and ODOT. Failure to complete
all of the transportations facility improvements prior to beginning any on site work at the
proposed resort will result in immediate cancellation of the conditional use permit.
WATER USAGE:
It is reported in the "Hydrology Report / Water Supply Development Feasibility /
Proposed Thornburg Resort" - DCC18.113.050 that the proposed peak flow rate water
needs for the resort will be 6.4 million gallons of water per day. It is further reported in
The Bulletin July 13, 2005 that the resort's 6.4 million gallons per day water use is more
than half of the average daily use by the residents of the City of Bend. By any reasonable
standard the resort's water use is an exorbitant consumption of water by such few users.
Based on this high water usage the local farming residents have concerns that the
proposed resort's deep ground wells would reduce the flow of water to both the irrigation
system and our domestic wells; resulting in the need for these domestic wells having to
be pushed lower into the aquifer. Both Mr. Newton (the registered Engineer who
prepared the water use study) and the developer Mr. DeLashmutt assured the audience
that there will be no appreciable affect on any neighboring domestic wells and therefore
no future expense will be placed upon the neighboring property owners to adjust their
well depth. It was then ask of Mr. DeLashmutt that if their water supply studies were
accurate as representative, then clearly the resort would have no problem guaranteeing to
pay for any and all well reconstruction required as a result of the resorts water usage of
6.4 million gallons per day. Mr. DeLashmutt, on behalf of the resort, refused to consider
this or any type of guarantee or protection for the water usage of the neighboring
residents.
Now, clearly what the above information demonstrates is that the water study is one
dimensional; evaluating academic assumptions and drawing conclusions with far
reaching effects based on these assumptions rather than known water usage facts (as there
are none on a project usage of this size). Using the tests of reasonableness, fairness and
consequential damage, this usage of water is exorbitant. It is neither reasonable nor fair
to the surrounding property owners and water users to allow the resort these usage rates.
The consequence of miscalculation of water use will unfairly fall on the local residents
while the resort makes untold profits.
As mentioned, the water study is one dimensional. It accounts for no outside political or
social/economic impact on water. There is no allowance for the possibility of water,
which today is viewed as a boundless resource, being influenced by governmental selling
or trading of water between municipalities as happens between Phoenix, AZ and Los
Angles, CA. The water that is sold between these municipalities is the Colorado River
-6-
Exhibit G
Page ( of ___,g_
water. A water system flowing through the continental US and ending in the Sea of
Cortez, Mexico that was once thought to be boundless now dries up in the desert never
reaching its original destination. There is no consideration that abundant boundless water
can follow the course of other boundless resources such as crude oil. Thirty years ago oil
analysis, who were also Certified Engineering Geologist, spoke in one dimensional terms
of boundless crude oil reserves at prices of $3.00 per barrel. Then, as in today's water
study, the crude oil statements were one dimensional and not allowing for outside
influences of governmental, social economic and others. They were wrong and now
crude oil is over $65.00 per barrel (Sept. 2005 futures market). It is just possible that this
water study likewise is wrong and that the water is not boundless. Again, we the citizens
must rely on the county to look deeper into the water study, evaluate future needs for all
of the community, have the courage to look into the future effects of water politics and do
what is fair and reasonable on behalf of the citizens. Therefore, you must drastically
reduce the amount of water that is allowed this proposed resort.
DEVELOPER ACCOUNTABILITY:
With regard to the application, as discussed in the Staff Report, one of the major concerns
is the apparent lack of specificity in performance of the applicant. There appears to be no
definite dates when items must be completed or any defined plan as to how items are
going to be accomplished. The vagueness of the application combined with the lack of
due diligence by the County leaves more questions unanswered than answered. This
raises the question as to how this application could possibly be approved until issues,
answers, definite time lines for completion with the penalty of rejection of application
approval if items are not completed as required. The County must hold the developers
accountable and responsible with penalty for their requirement to mitigate the negative
effects of this project on the community and fulfill their promises and commitments.
Based on the several meetings conducted by the Bureau Of Land Management,
Thornburg Resort Company, LLC and Deschutes County Community Development
Department the following are some but not all of the items of concern that have no
developer accountability or commitment for correct action:
• Deschutes County Road Department lists six (6) serious traffic issues which are
unresolved (CU-05-20/page 4). Cline Falls Hwy will serve as the primary access
point for Phase A, B, and C of the proposed resort (CU-05-20/page 36). This is
an arterial roadway with limited shoulders, no bike lanes, no posted speed limit
and minimal double yellow lines. This clearly suggests that this road, in its
current state, can not handle the traffic build up from the resort and maintain the
safe needs of the local residents. Improvements for Cline Falls Hwy to meet the
minimum standards discussed above should be a requirement of application
approval and these improvements must be completed before any construction can
begin at the proposed resort.
• Oregon Department of Transportation has requested that the application be
conditioned on the applicant entering into an agreement with ODOT to make a
-7-
Exhibit G
Page rj of
proportionate share contribution of $406,929 towards construction of the Cline
Falls Hwy/US 20 interchange prior to the approval of the first subdivision. This
is a good start by ODOT, but does not go far enough. It is a known fact that today
Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 is utilized beyond its capacity (CU-05-20/page46);
therefore approval of this application should be conditioned on the completion of
the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intgrchang4e before the first subdivision is allowed to
begin construction. (CU-05-20/page 6)
Bureau Of Land Management issues must be resolved before the application can
be considered for approval. Map A-4 (2/4/05) shows three road entries on to
Barr Road across BLM property. (CU-05-20/page 6). At this time the BLM has
not approved all proposed access routes to include the north route connecting
with Hwy 126 and should be a condition of approval before the first subdivision
is allowed to begin construction (CU-05-20/page47).
Water usage should be completely reviewed again and consideration given to the
amount of water usage per resort residence and brought into a similar ratio of
water usage for the per residence usage in the City of Bend.
Thank you for your consideration in dealing with these concerns.
Sincerely,
David G. Jewett
66290 Cline Falls Hwy
Bend, OR 97701
(541) 617-9835
-8-
Exhibit G
Page $r of _