Loading...
2008-140-Minutes for Meeting December 04,2006 Recorded 3/13/2008COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKS 1~d ~~OY-~44 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 03/13/2008 08:57:30 AM 11111111111)1111111111111111111 2008-1Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page , ig O ES ~ 0 { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Bev Clarno and Michael M. Daly; also present were Planning Commissioners Robert Otteni (La Pine), Kelly Smith (Bend), Todd Turner (Bend), Brenda Pace (west of Bend), Mike Shirtcliff (Redmond) and Susan Quatre (Bend); and Keith Cyrus (for most of the hearing). Also in attendance were Catherine Morrow, Tom Anderson and Terri Payne, Community Development Department; County Administrator Dave Kanner; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; media representative Keith Chu of The Bulletin; and approximately sixty other citizens, including Senator Ben Westlund. Planning Commissioner Keith Cyrus was not present at the beginning of the meeting but joined it at about 6:15, just prior to public oral testimony being given. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. TODD TURNER: Before we get started, I want to make a declaration of a potential conflict of interest on this issue. Over the last twenty-five years in business here in Central Oregon, I've had dealings with all three of the applicants on this issue. I do plan to participate in the hearing tonight because I see this as a County-wide issue, and it is something that affects all destination resorts, not necessarily just these three applicants. Terri Payne asked that those who wish to testify fill out the testimony cards and staff will collect them and present them to the Commissioners. Ms. Payne then read the preliminary statement. (A copy is attached as Exhibit A.) Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 1 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 In regard to bias, prejudgment or personal interest, the Board of Commissioners declared the following. BEV CLARNO: I live in Eagle Crest, but I do not have any conflict of interest in this matter. MICHAEL DALY: I can think of no conflicts. DENNIS LUKE: From being in construction in this area since 1973, I have worked in most of those areas. But I think, like Todd mentioned, that this is an ordinance that affects everyone in the County. Even though it has been brought forward by an applicant, it is still a general change. From what I understand, and I don't want to step on staff's report, we're looking at complying with State law. So I don't see it as a conflict. No challenges were presented from the public. At this time, Ms. Payne gave her staff report and an overview of the history of the issue. Copies were available to the public. (A copy is attached as Exhibit B.) She then did a PowerPoint presentation. (A copy is attached as Exhibit C.) LUKE: The reason this was put on hold at the applicant's request was that they made the application to start with. It wasn't started by staff or the Planning Commission. PAYNE: It is an applicant-driven request and, yes, they requested that it be put on hold. LUKE: So we can be more restrictive but not less restrictive than the State? PAYNE: Correct. You have to be at least as restrictive as the State, and can be more restrictive. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 2 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 To make it a little more confusing, when State law was written to add phasing in 1993, the way the wrote the language and the way they copied it in 2003, that 2.5 ratio, as far as we can tell, refers only to the first fifty units. There is not, as far as we can see, anything in statute that requires an overall resort ratio of 2.5:1 or 2:1, or anything. This would argue that the 2.5:1 would be more strict than statute and would be something we could do. However, in 2006 Statewide Planning Goal 8 was amended; there were back and forth amendments between the statute and the Goal to try to keep them consistent. When they amended the Statewide Planning Goal, they kept the 2:1 overall resort ratio. They added the language 2.5:1 underneath the phasing, but kept the 2:1 ratio. So there is some question whether we would be out of compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 8 if we make that particular change. This is a legislative proposal. The criteria for approval are State statute, Statewide Planning Goal and County comprehensive plan. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that these changes comply with the criteria. There are a number of things we have found that are a concern or that we would like to see added. One, we see a conflict with statute and Goal in terms of bonding for the first fifty units, because the statute and Goal do not allow that. And we have discussed that with the applicant and they are in agreement. There is also confusion between statute and Goal regarding the accommodation ratio and whether that is 2.5 or 2:1. I think there is an understanding that the language that was intended was to have it 2.5 overall; but it doesn't really read that way at this moment. That is a change that we are recommending; that we retain the 2:1; the applicant disagrees with our interpretation. There are also two things in statute that have been added that are not in this proposal. One is a requirement for an annual report on the status of resort accommodations. This was added in 2003 for Eastern Oregon only. It would require a report on the status of the 150 required overnight units, the ratio between overnight lodging and residential units; and, for each residential unit used as overnight lodging, the number of weeks it was available for rent. So we are proposing to add that language into this proposal. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 3 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 The final thing that was not included in this proposal is the requirement that was added in 1993 for conservation easements on specified resources such as wetlands. We have in Title 19, which is our Bend zoning. We would like to see that added to Title 18 as well. Besides the criteria of compliance with statute, it is basically a public policy question. County Code currently states that destination resorts are not intended to be rural subdivisions. The proposed ratio in phasing would increase the residential nature of the resorts. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what the effects would be because we don't know currently how that housing is being used. Clearly, if it is used as a primary home it is going to have a considerably different land use effect than if it were used as a second home, with people only there sporadically. We don't know if they are second homes now but the owners intend to retire into them as primary homes. We don't know if they are available for rent, if they are not counted as part of the overnight lodging. We don't know how often they are used, so when we try to understand the impacts to transportation, water use, etc., we don't really have any basis to judge at this time. Essentially what we are going to do now is have the Board take testimony. They have the option of approving the proposal as submitted; they could approve the proposal with staff-recommended changes that remove the ability to bond the first fifty units, add the yearly accommodation report requirement, and add the conservation easement requirement. As far as I know, all three of those are acceptable to the applicant. And, retain the 2:1 accommodation ratio, which has been discussed with the applicant, and they do not necessarily agree with staff on this one. Or the Board could modify, continue or deny the proposal. That's a little background, and I am available for questions. LUKE: I have a question of staff. The conflict between the 2:1 and the 2.5:1 ratio between the Goal and statute? Is the statute clear; is the Goal clear? Where is the conflict? PAYNE: The statute and Goal both have the same language on the 2.5:1 ratio, referring to the first fifty units only. The Goal has an additional sentence added in that doesn't really conflict with anything, but adds an additional requirement for an overall ratio of 2:1 for the whole resort. And I don't argue that was probably not what was intended, but that's what it says. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 4 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 LUKE: But a Goal isn't adopted by the legislature. It is adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, which is an unelected body, and typically cannot pass something that is in conflict with statute. PAYNE: As I said, my reading of it - although I am not an attorney - is that it doesn't really conflict but just adds an additional requirement. Probably the County Attorney could probably answer that better. I don't know the case law behind it. LUKE: Could you explain again why we can't allow bonding for the first fifty units. PAYNE: State statute says if you are going to phase, you are required to build the first fifty units. LUKE: But if you aren't going to phase, you can bond the whole thing? PAYNE: Yes, that's the way I read it. LUKE: Is there any opposition to that, Laurie? If you agree with her, you don't have to come up. LAURIE CRAGHEAD: You cannot bond the first fifty units if you are going to phase. I would like to hear other testimony on that issue. CLARNO: I have a question, under Chapter 197, under 445, sub (b), (E). I requested this from staff. I'd like a clarification of 215.283, and 215.284, the number of units approved for residential sale may not be more than 2.5 units for each unit of permanent overnight lodging. Can you give me a little more clarification and your interpretation of what this says? Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 5 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 CRAGHEAD: Because it references (b), which says at least fifty units of the overnight lodging must be constructed prior to the sale and closing of individual lots, it indicates that the 2.5 ratio applies only to those first fifty. It specifically references (b); it does not reference (c) and (d), the other residential units or overnight lodging units. LUKE: I'd point out that you helped pass that. CLARNO: I think this was voted on after I left in the middle of 2003, which was the longest session in history. Since I was in the shortest one in history, I wanted to get out of town. I understand. Thank you. DALY: I am a little bit confused that statute and Goal conflict. You say that the Goal actually had an added sentence referring back to the 2:1 ? CRAGHEAD: The Goal has a sentence that was not removed or changed when LCDC changed the Goal to add in the statutory requirements. DALY: So they did change the part that says 2.5 for the first fifty, but didn't remove the last sentence. PAYNE: If you look at the Goal on page 3, number 5, it's in the middle of that paragraph. It says that accommodations available for residential use shall not exceed 2 such units for each unit of overnight lodging. It then goes on to say, however, the rentable units may be phased in as follows. Then it includes the phasing language. (A short break was taken to address sound and recording problems.) LUKE: Do the Planning Commissioners have any questions at this point? Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 6 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 BRENDA PACE: One reason we delayed the remapping was to see what was happening with Measure 37. By my count, looking at likely occupancies at destination resorts, we already have in the pipeline enough units to exceed our 2025 population projections. Does that have any bearing, and are we able to go ahead and allow increased numbers of units this early in our projection period? LUKE: Some of us made comments regarding Measure 37 at the joint hearing we had with the Planning Commission regarding remapping. I'm not sure that Measure 37 has much of an effect on us coming into compliance with State law. Remapping definitively does because we don't know what is going to happen out there. PACE: I understand, but our population projections fit in here someplace as well. That's what I am trying to figure out, if we are running up against those in 2006, does that have any bearing on the decisions that we make. CATHERINE MORROW: The population forecast was coordinated with the cities and County, and it is not something that we are striving for or are limiting ourselves to. Based on the data we had at the time, it is what we projected is going to happen. As far as I know we haven't in the past, and I don't know that we would, make a decision on a matter such as this with that in mind. We are committed to revisiting our population forecast on a periodic basis with the cities. But the forecast isn't something that limits us. It is to be used as a planning tool. PACE: So it does not have to be revisited in the process of this kind of a decision. MORROW: Well, we don't know how it would affect the population until people apply. We would then go back on a periodic basis with the cities and see how well we have done on our population forecasting, and whether any assumptions have changed. The population forecast is tied into demographics statewide as well as local data. As you, in our population forecast, we did project that there would be at least two more destination resorts. How changing the housing ratio would affect that, I can't say. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 7 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 SUSAN QUATRE: I have some questions for legal and some for staff. (A copy is attached as Exhibit M.) You can just answer these very simply. What impact on roads, schools, water resources, police, fire and EMS, do destination resorts have at this time? If you don't know - PAYNE: We don't have a lot of information on that because, again, we don't know how the housing is being used at this time. MORROW: I would also point out that when a resort makes an application, they are required to address some of those impacts, particularly traffic. QUATRE: How about water? MORROW: Well, they have to demonstrate that they can supply water for their project. QUATRE: What data have been collected to argue for or against such impacts? Have we collected data on the destination resorts, as required by statute? PAYNE: There are a couple of different things. When we did the remapping exercise, we did talk to the resorts to get as much information out of them as possible. We just asked them. This includes the historic resorts, to try to get a feel for what is going on. We collected what we could, but it is not information that for the most part the resorts keep. There is one piece of required information that is in part of our Code that they give us information on each individually owned unit that is counted as an overnight lodging unit. We have requested that information, and got the total number of units that fit that criteria from Eagle Crest, but haven't gotten the breakdown of which units they are. We have also sent letters to the other resorts that have been approved, requesting this information. Most of them have bonded for the required overnight units, so currently they don't have it. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 8 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 QUATRE: What is the penalty for non-compliance of the reporting requirements or building out completely. PAYNE: I believe it would go to Code enforcement. CRAGHEAD: It's Code enforcement, a Class A infraction with a maximum fine of $600. QUATRE: That's why I am asking these questions. Can the County prevent future development of residences if a destination resort is non-compliant with either required reporting or the final build-out of all 150 overnight units? What can the County do to make sure that there is the final build-out of all 150 units, or that final 100 units? CRAGHEAD: Right now what we do with bonding, if the developer walks away, we have the bond and the County can go in and build those 150 units. With the revisions, you won't have this because they will have to build the first fifty before they sell any lots. They would have up to 14 years to build the rest, and they could bond each fifty units separately rather than bonding them all together. So they could bond as they submit their tentative plan application. QUATRE: Is there a danger they could walk away without completing the units? CRAGHEAD: Yes, they could. LUKE: They could walk away now. CRAGHEAD: We just wouldn't have the bond in place to build them. QUATRE: But the County would then own them. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 9 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 CRAGHEAD: No, not own them. The way the improvement agreements are written now is that the County is given license to go on the property to construct those 150 units, but we do not own them even after we build them. We don't want to be in the ownership business. LUKE: As a follow-up, I know we are talking about the rental units here, but the amenities have to be in place before the units are built, such as a golf course, trails, a pool, recreation hall, and that kind of thing. CRAGHEAD: Now the way it is, they are bonded. The amenities are bonded. Like in Pronghorn, they did an improvement agreement and bonded for the golf course, the roads, utilities and that sort of thing. LUKE: So what we are looking at is the rental units. Everything else is bonded. So if they walk away from the rental units, they would be walking away from their bond for the amenities and everything else, which could be a very expensive proposition. It's not just the one thing; it is the whole development. QUATRE: I have one more question. How do we know if the second home owners will become permanent residents as they retire, which does impact roads and so forth because they are no longer rentals. And how do we know what the impact is going to be in the future if those residences are passed on to their children, who are procreating, and will then use the schools. These are just questions that I have about changing that ratio. I know we can be more restrictive than the legislature. I'm just asking the question, do we know these things? MORROW: That's the reason for the annual reporting. The assumption of the legislature and by our own Code is that a certain percentage, a certain ratio of the units can be residential units and could be lived in full-time. A certain percentage of them have to be available for overnight. That's the ratio, and we require annual reporting. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 10 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 CRAGHEAD: Also, in the requirements for the Code, there must be some sort of deed restriction for these. You have it in the CCR's and I believe we are also requiring it on the plat, that these are for overnight use. Whether there is a way to follow up to make sure that's happening, it's part of the annual reporting that Catherine is talking about it. QUATRE: Just one last question. If the homeowner doesn't comply and they live in it full- time when it is supposed to be an overnight unit, what is the penalty? CRAGHEAD: Code enforcement. QUATRE: $600. CRAGHEAD: If it is in the CCR's, the homeowners association could also bring an action against that property. PACE: To follow up, can I assume then that when traffic plans and impacts studies were done for these projects, they assumed the units are occupied full-time? MORROW: I'm sorry, you'll have to get the resort representatives to answer that question. I'm not intimately familiar with the traffic studies and can't answer that. KELLY SMITH: I have one question. It is my understanding that Eagle Crest is the only resort that has been required to do the annual reporting up to now. And they weren't really asked to report until early this year. But we are still waiting for some information on the overnight accommodations that they have. Catherine mentioned that they are required to do traffic analyses when they propose resort applications. Do we have any information on what has happened to the traffic on County roads after the proposals have come in? They say it's going to be a certain effect, but do we have any way of measuring what is actually happening? Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page I 1 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 MORROW: The Road Department does periodic counts on County roads, but to my knowledge no effort has been made to track it over time to see if it is consistent with projects based on traffic analyses. LUKE: Short of stopping the cars and asking them where they are from, even if you do a traffic count, you don't know where the car came from. MORROW: And you don't know how much is background. The traffic studies are done to determine whether the impact from the development requires any offsite improvements. And, if so, how much, and what percentage of the cost the developer would have to bear, as a condition of approval. SMITH: It's all prospective; it's a guess. MORROW: Well, it is done by traffic engineers. SMITH: But if we don't have any way of checking whether our guesses are accurate, I guess it doesn't do a lot of good to do that, does it? MORROW: It's been the practice for approval to take the data that is submitted and then, through a public process, people can argue whether that data and analysis is correct. When the application is approved or denied, decisions are made about the accuracy of that information and conditions could be applied. But there is no monitoring on that particular point in most cases, if they met another threshold, they'd have to do something else. That would be atypical for this type of project. LUKE: I would like to point out, because you mentioned that Eagle Crest is the only one that was asked to do the survey, Sunriver doesn't fall under the destination resort, and Black Butte Ranch and the Inn of the 7th Mountain do not, either. So that doesn't leave a lot of others that are built up far enough to do those kinds of surveys. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 12 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 MORROW: Actually, we did send out a letter to every approved resort asking them for the information this year. We will be doing that every year. We have gotten responses back from the resorts saying that they haven't built any yet or have bonded it, so are not yet subject to the requirement. But we have notified them and will continue to do so. LUKE: I appreciate the concern about trusting engineers and trying to figure this out. But short of actually going out and counting the cars, it will be difficult to do. In my experience ODOT has not been very conservative in their estimate of the impact on the roads, and have asked for great contributions to different intersections. QUATRE: Correct me if I'm wrong, Sunriver just underwent a rather large interchange development. Was that not to benefit Sunriver? LUKE: That interchange is being built by ODOT and has been in the plans for a long time, because of the amount of wrecks there. The County actually has more money invested than ODOT does. Sunriver Corporation and the homeowners of Sunriver put money into it. And some of the surrounding areas put money into it. There is also federal highway money included. There is a big mix there. That's been on the project list for a long time. QUATRE: I understand, but isn't it because of the impact of the outflow from Sunriver? Was it required? LUKE: Not just Sunriver; because you have another destination resort down there - there is close to $1 million in federal highway money in it because it is the gateway to the National Forest. The federal government will put money into projects like that that open up the National Forest to the public. If you go down that road - as a matter of fact, one option was to take Spring River Road straight up to the highway and avoid Sunriver, because the majority of traffic was coming onto Spring River Road - you'll see a lot of development out there, not just in the destination resorts. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 13 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 Do they have an impact? Yes. But they also did Cottonwood Road. It was built because people were getting killed there and the heavy accident rate. It was a dangerous intersection. There is a lot of traffic on Highway 97 traveling through Central Oregon. Keith Cyrus joined the meeting at this time. TODD TURNER: I have one question, which is somewhat of a follow-up to what has been mentioned. In our work session, we talked about residential overnight units that have to be managed by a resort or a property manager. But it was also mentioned here briefly that they are looking at deed restrictions on those properties. I would like to have a little more information about where that is coming from in the Goal, because I find that very restrictive if the Goal is to increase overnight housing. I for one, if I were buying a second home, I wouldn't want anything in my deed that would not allow me to sell it or change it, or do something different for me or for a future property owner. CRAGHEAD: It's in County Code, to remain as overnight lodging so that the numbers can be maintained. TURNER: Is that permanent? QUATRE: I thought it was until the all of the lots were sold, or the whole 150 was built out. PAYNE: The deed restriction and the CCR's are only for the individual units used as overnight lodging. So if you don't count it as overnight lodging, you don't have to apply that. LUKE: If I had a house under the current ordinance, the deed restriction is for 45 weeks? And if you lower the number, those deed restrictions are still there. PAYNE: Yes, they are. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 14 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 LUKE: So they would have to come out and apply to change it to the lower number. If I wanted to buy a house and it had this deed restriction on it, and I wanted to live in it full-time, and the resort already had a better ratio than required by law, can the deed restriction be taken off? CRAGHEAD: I'm not sure how that would work. We haven't thought about how that would happen. If there are enough deed restrictions on other properties, how would you choose which individual properties could have it removed? And the County would not be able to enter into the deed; they would have to work with their homeowners' association to release that requirement somehow. LUKE: For the record, Keith Cyrus has joined us as part of the Planning Commission. Being no further staff input or questions from the Planning Commission or Board of Commissioners, Chair Luke opened the hearing to public testimony. KEITH CYRUS: It is in order that I declare that I may have a conflict of interest. LUKE: You guys are here as guests, but you are welcome to ask questions. Todd (Turner) already declared a possible conflict of interest, and we appreciate you doing that also. NANCY CRAVEN: My name is Nancy Craven, and I am will Ball Janik and represent this evening Sunriver, Eagle Crest and Pronghorn. Linda Swearingen is here with me; she has been working on a variety of resort issues over the years. Tom Luersen is here from Sunriver; Scott Denny is here from Pronghorn; and Alan Van Vleet is here from Eagle Crest. We are all going to testify and will ask Ben (Westlund) to make a few comments regarding the 2003 legislative session. We submitted a memo to Terri (Payne) of your staff, and also submitted a memo to you. I would be pleased to add to that with regard to any legal issues, and also answer questions. I am going to start off with some brief testimony - Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 15 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 LUKE: Laurie, this is the one we will want to mark exhibits? For the record, if there are new exhibits entered in tonight, we are going to have to mark those with an exhibit number. Staff will take care of that. We will try to make that process as easy as possible. So if you have any new stuff, we need to know. CRAVEN: The ones I mentioned were those you received already. CRAGHEAD: Actually, what we would prefer is if the Chair could stop and name the exhibit as it is coming in, so it's all on the record. CRAVEN: What we are asking for the County Commission to act on tonight is to bring your County Ordinance into compliance with State law. We have two sessions in which Title 18 in Deschutes County Destination Resort Ordinance has been inconsistent with State law. As you heard from your staff, in Title 18, you have not yet even implemented the 1993 changes to State law regarding destination resorts. In Title 19, which regulates resorts in the Bend urban area, you have implemented the 1993 changes but you have not implemented the 2003 changes. So, I'd like to give you a little bit of practical information as to what that means to applicants when they are approaching the County with a destination resort. For example, with Pronghorn we applied Title 18 without the 1993 changes. For Cascade Highlands, inside the Bend urban area, we applied Title 19, with the 1993 changes and without the 2003 changes. With Caldera Springs, Tom's recent project, we applied without the 1993 changes and without the 2003 changes. So as you have applicants from different regions and different parts of the County, you now have an Ordinance that is very complicated, very different with regard to Title 18 and Title 19, and in both instances are inconsistent with State law. And, during the hearings process, as you are aware, issues come up as to whether the Hearings Officer should apply County Ordinance, should she apply State law, and in what instances does it make sense and when does it not make sense. In each of those projects, those issues came up, and we had to address them. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 16 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 What I am here to do is to urge you to update your County Ordinances and get them consistent with State law, and allow applicants who are pursuing destination resorts which, as you will hear tonight and as you know, are a significant contributor to the economic vitality of Deschutes County. Those applicants need to have a reasonably fair and straightforward application process as we proceed with applications for you. Those projects are complicated enough to have a difficult Ordinance process to work through. Not only is it important for you to make the changes that were included in the 2003 session, but also the changes that staff has identified that you have not adopted since 1993, and that includes some of the minimum investment requirements that an applicant has to make in a resort. The County clearly should have that kind of basic information required of all applicants, and insured that it is a part of each application as it comes before you, for both Title 18 and Title 19. The provisions that we are asking you to implement, which the legislature adopted - and Ben and Linda can give you a little bit of detail as to how this law came about - I can tell you briefly that in my involvement in that legislation, we had significant conversations with the Governor's staff, the DLCD staff, and with 1,000 Friends. There wasn't agreement on all of the issues, and as the client group will tell you tonight, we didn't get much, in my view, out of Salem when they passed the 2003 changes. They certainly did not adopt the changes that the industry requested. The changes in large measure are reasonably small with regard to the differences between the original bill, the 1993 bill and the 2003 bill. I'm going to let others up here talk specifically about what the changes mean to the various projects, and the technical changes that occurred in 2003. I'll let others up here talk about what that means to their specific resorts, and will also let Linda and Ben talk a little bit about the process. In 2003, when we went to the legislature, our purpose was to change the way overnight lodging units are counted, and how they are dealt with. In large measure, the resorts believe that the second homes in and of themselves without deed restrictions serve as overnight lodging units. So we went into it hoping to have significant changes with regard to overnight lodging units, and we tried it as well in 1993 and also did not succeed with the magnitude of the changes the industry was looking for. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 17 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 What we came up with instead, in working with DLCD staff and the Governor's staff, was a new approach to resorts, drawing a distinction between eastern and western Oregon. So, in eastern Oregon, it was a 2.5:1 ratio; in western Oregon, it was a 2:1 ratio. They were uncomfortable changing the ratio in western Oregon, largely due, I believe, to the proximity of potential resorts in the Valley to the permanent residents. That is obviously different than in eastern Oregon. So that was a clear distinction and the reason they did the 2.5:1 in eastern Oregon. The issue that your staff has raised and that Laurie has looked at as well is a problem in the statute relating to an old 1993 provisions, unrelated to the 2003 provision, that is a carry-over or a cross-reference where the 2.5:1 ratio refers to the first fifty rather than all of the overnight units. We have talked with DLCD staff and they agree with us that the intent of the law was for the 2.5:1 to apply across the board. There was no discussion of limiting that 2.5:1 to the first fifty units. (A brief recess took place to address microphone problems.) CRAVEN: In looking at this issue, because of the technical cross-reference overlap essentially from the 1993 law into the 2003 law, in our view the remedy is for the County to be more restrictive and apply the 2.5:1 ratio across the board to all units. If you don't, my reading of the statute is that you would apply the 2.5:1 to the first fifty units and no restrictions on the remaining units. By applying the 2.5:1, as we indicated in our memo, you are more restrictive than State law; and like you have been in other instances more restrictive than State law, I believe it is lawful for you to do that. You are more restrictive than State law in regard phasing, deed restrictions - no other counties require deed restrictions - and you have other instances where you have been more restrictive than State law, and would suggest that by implementing the full 2.5:1 across the board, you are more restrictive than State law, and consistent with the intent of the legislature. There is nothing unlawful about applying the 2.5:1. Now, there is a provision where LCDC did not delete some inconsistent language in Goal 8, as you talked about earlier. In that, they retained, incorrectly, the 2:1. There is nothing in the law that authorizes them to adopt a 2:1 ratio in eastern Oregon. The new bill makes it very clear that it is 2.5:1 in eastern Oregon. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 18 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 So the Goal has to be consistent with statute, and I don't believe adopting a 2:1 ratio is lawful, given the language in the 2003 statute. So that is the technical issue that has come up, but I think it is resolvable by the County being more restrictive than State law. With that, I would like to turn this over to Linda with regard to some history on the 2003 legislation. LUKE: Did you want Senator Westlund to testify also? CRAVEN: Yes. LUKE: Senator Westlund, would you mind joining us up here? S WEARINGEN: For the record, my name is Linda Swearingen. I represented Eagle Crest, Sunriver and Pronghorn in the 2003 legislature in an effort to make some significant changes and, as Nancy has testified, we ended up coming up with a negotiated agreement that the Governor, the Senate, the House, LCDC, DLCD and even Deschutes County supported. I know there have been some questions about impacts of destination resorts; those questions were also asked at the legislature and, at the request of DLCD, we actually did a survey of Sunriver, Eagle Crest, and Black Butte Ranch. What we did is look at their tax statements and registered voters in each of those resorts. As a result of our study, we found that in Sunriver only 20% were primary residents; in Black Butte Ranch it was 17%; and in Eagle Crest it was 24%. Now, I want you to think about it; Sunriver and Black Butte have been around for many years. If people were going to buy property there back in the 1970's or 1980's, you might assume by now they would be ready to retire there. And they haven't. Traditionally with destination resorts, they really have around a 20% primary residence factor. The other thing that we found during our survey is that, for example, Sunriver pays approximately $14 million a year in taxes to several taxing entities. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 19 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 I do have some additional information already entered into the record that talks about the impacts of destination resorts. For those of you who were not on the Planning Commission when we submitted that, we will go ahead and either have Catherine give that to you, or we can provide it. Another thing that I think is really interesting in the case of Eagle Crest, we actually took a look at the traffic engineering study that they submitted. And along with Tom Blust (County Road Department Director), we found that the numbers that Eagle Crest submitted on traffic several years ago, actually held true, even though it was prospective when we looked at it. They were really right on target. You can certainly talk to Tom (Blust) about that, or we can provide you with some information about traffic. The other thing is the impact on schools. When I contacted the Redmond School District, they said they had 17 students from the entire resort. The impact on the County and any of the other taxing districts is extremely small. Another real positive is the fact that they provide $3.5 million in transient room taxes as well. A high percentage of that ends up in the Sheriff s Department for patrols. So, what you have here today really is a law that was crafted by several different State agencies with the assistance of Deschutes County. I would hope tonight that the County Commission would have an opportunity to review it again and then approve it, because we do believe it is in the best interests of the County as well as the resorts. With that - LUKE: It's probably a good thing you didn't take your survey of Sunriver when they were getting ready to vote on incorporation. Because I think the number of permanent residences rose during that time. WESTLUND: For the record, I'm Ben Westlund, Senate District 27, the greatest Senate District in the State of Oregon. I'm here today to talk just a little bit about process and what we all went through in the passage of the bill, and the deliberative nature of what transpired in the legislature, on both the House and Senate sides. I introduced this bill in its original form as House Bill 2313. Incorporated within that bill were certain other provisions where destination resorts would be allowed to have, among other things, nursing homes and other facilities. It was a much more comprehensive bill. It passed in that form across the House floor with a large majority of both Republicans and Democrats. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 20 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 As an editorial comment, I would say that the body was not enlightened enough to have independence at that time. It passed across the House floor with majorities of both parties, and then went to the Senate, where we were then fortunate enough to have Senator Bev Clarno fill in the Senate seat. She incorporated that within a bill that became known as Senate Bill 911. We were starting to approach the end up the Senate process, and it was, as Bev indicated earlier, the longest session in State history. It was significantly pared down and confined to several key issues. The biggest one was the ratio between single-family residential dwelling units and overnight accommodations. And obviously I'm referring to the change from 2:1 to 2.5:1. This was not a cursory issue that was lightly dealt with. There were a number of committee hearings on this, and a number of discussions. The Governor's Office was involved, as was DLCD. Let me just enumerate the process that we go through, as Dennis and Bev so well know. I passed a bill across the House. Bev chose another vehicle for the same bill. It passed the Senate. It had to go back to a conference committee where the differences had to be worked out, and then passed again by both chambers. This is not an easy process, nor should it be. But in addition to that, and the reason it was eventually passed, is the good work of DLCD and the Governor's Office. I can remember in those late hours, Linda Swearingen running around with DLCD Commissioner Randy Falky (spelling) from office to office, legislator office to the Governor's Office and back over to DLCD. There were details to be worked out and agreements to be reached, which they certainly were, otherwise the bill would not have passed. No question. I understand where good people can disagree on interpretations of law. The joke in my family is that if you want three opinions, put two attorneys in a room. Sorry, Nancy and Laurie. If you go to the bill itself, Senate Bill 911, in section 2, sub D, sub b - page 3 of the bill, lines 5 and 6 - I don't know what could be more clear. The change is enumerated, the number of units approved for residential sales shall not be more than 2.5 for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under this paragraph. That issue in and of itself - and you have other considerations - I'm here to testify and hopefully to clarify any misgivings or misinterpretations with regard to legislative intent, the process that was gone through, and the logistics that were necessary to put such a clear statement in the bill. The law clearly calls for a ratio of 2.5:1, and I would hope you would take that into consideration. I would be happy to answer any questions. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 21 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 LUKE: Thank you, Senator. Legal Counsel, here's an exhibit. We can make a copy of it, Senator, if you need it back. As much as you had in the 2003 session, the 1993 session was even more fun as we did that bill. It was a Democratic Senate, lead by Senator Bradbury. It did pass both Houses and was signed by the Governor. WESTLUND: I remember a wise man standing on the House floor, looking directly at me, who said, Ben, you don't want to be in this building in the summertime. That was you, if you recall. We spent way too many summers in that building. LUKE: Any questions of the Senator before we move on? TOM LUERSEN: I'm Tom Luersen, the managing partner of Sunriver Resort. I'm here to present our scenario and to clarify any questions you had earlier. I think there is a misunderstanding and an ambiguity that comes with the destination resorts. I find it difficult myself to understand some of the language, so your earlier questions are appropriate. I would also like to disclose that I am an appointed Commissioner of Tourism for the State of Oregon. I've been in that position for the last three years. Sunriver Resort is not a destination resort. It is a UUC, an urban unincorporated community. As pointed out earlier - (There was a brief recess due to microphone problems.) LUERSEN: This is the first time someone has said, talk louder, Tom. Usually at my house it is, talk quieter, Dad. Sunriver Resort is a UUC, pre-Goal 8. However, in many regards it meets the standards that you talked about today. Furthermore, Caldera Springs, which is a destination resort that was recently approved by Deschutes County and is in process, does meet the standards of Goal 8 and is subject to many of the questions spoken earlier, including bonding, lodging and recreational amenities, and many of the off-site mitigating strategies as well, including transportation. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 22 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 I'll try to be brief. I can be passionate on this. I would first like to submit two letters to you, one from Todd Davidson, President and CEO of Travel Oregon, in support of our amendments. (There was a brief issue with microphone interference.) LUERSEN: Destination resorts also have first-class meeting facilities and audio-visual requirements. (Audience laughter.) Anyway, I would like to submit the letter from Travel Oregon as well as from the Oregon Lodging Association. (The two exhibits, F and G, were entered into the record.) I was also pleased to see staff's report. I thought one of the things that was refreshing to me was to see the original intent of the Goal 8 - to promote rural economic development. It is clear that places like Sunriver Resort and the wisdom of the early developer, John Gray, back in the 1960's, who went against the grain. Many people said there was no way to help the community and be successful. In the end he was proven to be very successful on some of the tax-based issues as well as Sunriver Resort's employment of over 1,000 people, without considering the multiplying effect. What we think the amendments do for Deschutes County is first, to align itself with the State. Oregon is an emerging state with a lot of desirable amenities, as many people in this room know - whether they are for or against the amendments - is why they have chosen to live here, with the beauty, amenities and so on. This State over the last few years has been in a boom. Destination resorts are a part of that. However, they haven't always been a part of it. It is based on market conditions - real estate interests and demographics of the buyers. Many of you said earlier, would I buy something that has a deed restriction, would it be a flexible use to me. Those are good questions. I'd love to tell you that I know the answer, as a developer. Those are the risks, and those are the mitigating issues we have to deal with when we make these decisions. We think the new amendments allow more flexibility. However, it also allows us to be held accountable. You make that very clear in the amendments, through the annual reports and the bonding mechanisms, and the things that are required. Don't forget the things that we are not talking about tonight; things like the 50% open space, the setbacks, the no net loss to wildlife - issues that have made Central Oregon what it is. Those are not in question. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 23 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 What is in question is the ratios and the ability to provide an economic tool, a destination resort, through lodging. The lodging is where we are struggling. If you watch the local media, which I know you all do, you can see where hotels and motels, more or less the conventional lodging components if you will, are struggling. We do wonderfully well, as you know, four months out of the year - June, July, August, and December - and get a few weekends. People can be successful in the hotel business here. Occupancies are stagnant, even though room nights are growing. Our market share across the country has grown, but so have hotels and motels and other lodging establishments. These ratios - the 2.5:1 versus the 2:1 - allows us to have a more flexible product to offer the consumer. It still holds us reportable and accountable to the governing body, in this case Deschutes County. At Sunriver, as pointed out earlier, 80% of the property owners there are second homeowners. That's the goal. The goal is not to create a neighborhood. That's not what we are in business for. We need transient population. We need you to come down to Sunriver Resort as a public entity and eat in our restaurants, and play our golf courses and ride our bike trails. That's a big part of this goal. When the forefathers of this destination resort criteria were outlining this, that was their goal. Take rural lands, create something that is good for everyone, protect natural lands - this is the 50% no net loss to wildlife - so the 80% of second home owners in Sunriver, and in Eagle Crest and other communities offer to the consumer a variety of accommodations. This is unlike hotels, where you can stay in a king room or a double. That's your choice. When you come to Sunriver Resort you have 1,400 units from which to choose. Some are on the water, some are three bedrooms, some are five bedrooms, some are hotel units, that flexibility is what allows us to be successful in those four months of the year. Otherwise, we are not going to be successful. So, we think this standard allows something that our demographic needs - variety of product and lodging accommodations. We are still happy to adhere to the deed restrictions. That's a difficult thing for us to overcome, as pointed out by Nancy Craven. This is something that is not across the country or the State. Deed restrictions are very imposing to us. We've got to fulfill that. I'm getting off my soapbox, I promise. The weeks change from 45 weeks to 38. Still deed restricted, still going to be managed by a professional, central reservation requirement as outlined in your amendments. But that allows the buyer more flexibility. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 24 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 So the 38 weeks just gives more flexibility to the property owner, and still allows us to provide more variety. It does allow the developer the opportunity to be more creative, to create something special like Sunriver, that's been there now for about 37 years, or Eagle Crest, or the new ones coming on board. That's what I think is good for our community. We are responsible. Nowhere does this amendment say that the developer doesn't care and the developer is not going to pay for the traffic impacts, or that the developer is not going to pay for fire and safety issues. We're all still responsible for those. I think you understand the economics of the tax base, the economic vitality that comes with a destination resort. You can look at Sunriver or Caldera Springs, which is only a year old. It created $80 million in real estate property values. It helps feed a reinvestment in tourism, which helps create the engine of economics here. LUKE: Tom, I want to point out, we've been here for almost one and one-half hours, and I don't think we are here to sell destination resorts. I think we are here to talk about the changes and the impact on the County. If we could stay more to that subject, I would appreciate it. We need to get through this. We still have public testimony to take. LUERSEN: The main points have been made. I think what my issue is in raising the importance of the destination resort is that in a forum like this, some of the details are lost and you get lost just on the two issues that seem to be on our minds. The ratios and the weeks. It's much more than that. So I appeal to you, as a responsible developer and someone who has proven that over time. That's the purpose of my soapbox, if you will. Just to put a simple closure to it, and I'm happy to answer questions. Our goal is for your to adopt State law. Deschutes County is a place of destination and is of interest to a lot of people. These two things we are talking about - the standards and the ratios - I'd like you to be more flexible. Going back to Senator Westlund's comments, I was in that process in 2003 and testified in Salem. I wanted something that creates more flexibility for the resorts. We didn't get what we wanted; we got a piece of it. So this is by all means not the cure-all, but it is something that we have accepted. We just want you to adopt what is happening at the State level as well. Thank you. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 25 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 ALAN VAN VLEET: I'm Alan Van Vleet, with Eagle Crest. In the interest of time, I'll be brief. One of the things that Tom did not touch on was the central reservation system versus outside rental agencies. The last time I looked in the phone book, I saw about 22 or more in this marketplace, and many of those people represent rental properties at Eagle Crest that we don't necessarily count. (A brief delay occurred while microphones were adjusted.) VAN VLEET: These rental agencies don't count the ones you can find on the internet. I spent maybe half a day on the internet, looking at what is available in this marketplace, and it is unbelievable how many destination resort properties you can find available through the internet. Tom touches on our occupancies, and how tough the hotel business is. I can tell you that this month alone we are probably going to average about 20% occupancy in our hotel. Annually we average about 60%. We have four good months, and it is a struggle the rest of the year. I think what we are looking for - and Tom said it well - is flexibility. With the 2.5:1 and the 38 weeks versus 45, it allows our customers to use their units a little more themselves and continue in the rental program. I wanted to mention the traffic impacts. In August we had traffic counts redone at Eagle Crest. I don't know if they have been shared with the County, as we did that for another project. It did show that we are at or below what we thought we were going to be. I'd be happy to share that with you. Of the 24% of our properties that are primary residences, of the balance, probably 40% of our properties are seasonal owners. So that is yet another group of folks who maybe spend the summers here and winter someplace else. That's about all I have since Tom covered much of the rest. SCOTT DENNY: My name is Scott Denny and I'm one of the partners at Pronghorn. We're really the new kid on the block and are kind of navigating through the process. We went through about 33 months of the process, trying to figure it out. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 26 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 To say the least, it is complicated. And it is a complicated read. You can get a couple of different interpretations from the same group. I think simplifying the Code is not only going to help you; it will also help the new people coming in. The changes we saw coming out of Salem were not what we wanted, by any stretch of the imagination. It was a modest change, and a change that we think helps us to be a little bit more flexible. But in this changing economy, with talk about the real estate market hitting a bubble, we need to be really careful in putting our foot down on tying people up with a lack of flexibility. I just don't think it is in the County's best interest. We're in the top five taxpayers in the County, and we employ 300 people, because of our ability to have flexibility in selling our real estate. It's like Tom said. It's not that we want to skirt our obligations to track and report and be partners with the County, because I think as a resort you have to be a partner. I could get on the soapbox also, but will be brief. I would urge you to adopt it. The changes are very modest. The 2.5 ratio gives us a touch more flexibility, and the 38 weeks gives our owners the ability to stay a little bit longer in Central Oregon. If you take a look at the grand scheme of 52 weeks, it really isn't a huge change. Again, I urge you to adopt these changes. LUKE: Does the Planning Commission have any questions of any of the witnesses so far? QUATRE: I know that you are responsible people. And I know that the developers out there are wonderful people, and that the legislative process you went through was absolutely tight and incredible, and exhaustive. I also know that you asked for 5:1 as your ratio, as opposed to 2.5:1. At least that is what I have read, that the original request of the legislature was a 5:1 ratio. That seems really huge. So to say it was pared down, it was, significantly. LUKE: As someone who spent six years there, and Commissioner Clarno spent longer than that, people will ask for more than they want or they think they can get so they can negotiate down. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 27 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 QUATRE: You said that Caldera Springs had $80 million in sales. And I just don't know how to weigh the difference that that .5 makes, versus the $80 million that you can get from the sales in Caldera. It seems that .5 is small, but when it is plotted over time and we don't know what is going to happen, that's my personal reservation. You have allayed some of those, but I still do have some other concerns. LUKE: Do you have a question? QUATRE: Well, my question is, how big a hit is that? Where is the statistics that you can show us as to what kind of difference it would make between the 2 and the 2.5? LUERSEN: Great question. The $80 million today has no profit in it. Keep in mind, as the County has required, we've got $70 million of infrastructure cost - utilities, water, berming, building an intersection and off-site responsibilities. There's no profitability in it yet. Our opportunity for profit comes in the transient component of the resort; the ability to get overnight rentals, the ability to get golfers to play golf, the ability to get someone to come to our restaurants. If we had the 2.5: 1 standard, it would allow more lodging to be there. So we'd have a higher density there. This helps feed the engine that Eagle Crest and Sunriver have been living through for the last thirty years. At four months of seasonality, where we have to make our money, it gives us that much more of an opportunity to capture a customer. There are records in the destination resorts through the bonding mechanisms to understand the infrastructure costs. Those are not make-believe numbers; those are outlined through studies and the bonding required by the County. No other questions were offered. LUKE: Catherine, I have a question. Commissioner Clarno and I were in the 1993 session. I was on the land use committee that heard these bills, which took a lot of time and effort. Why has it been so long - why didn't the County adopt the 1993 changes sooner? Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 28 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 MORROW: I don't know. It's probably a matter of workload, priorities, and until just two years ago we only had one long-range planner, and that was me. There has been much we haven't been able to get to due to staffing levels. There have been lots of work items on the plan that we have not been able to get to. DALY: I have a question for Nancy Craven and Laurie Craghead. Nancy, I heard you say that if the 2.5 ratio was applied to the first fifty units, that you believe there would be no restriction on the rest. CRAVEN: What I hope I said, or what I meant to say, was that the 2.5:1, if imposed by the County, should apply to all 150 units. I believe by doing that you would be more restrictive than State law. If you read the statute, there is this technical issue as to whether it applies to only the first 50. Our memorandum to you suggests that the County apply the 2.5:1 to all 150 units, and be more restrictive than State law, assuming you read the State law to have this technical, leftover problem from 1993. DALY: The glitch you are talking about is that if it is only applied to the first fifty, you could conceivably say there is no restriction on the rest. CRAVEN: Exactly. No restriction on anything above the fifty, that's my reading of the statute. DALY: Laurie, do you agree with this? CRAGHEAD: I agree that the statute says that, but don't agree that it is necessarily State law believe the Goal is something we are required to follow until there is a determination that the 2:1 is not consistent with statute. (A brief delay occurred while microphones were adjusted.) Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 29 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 KELLY SMITH: I've heard the word "compliance" used a bunch of times today, indicating that if we don't approve this proposal we will be out of compliance with State laws. That's surprising to me, if that is what is meant. I'd like a clarification on that, about whether we can retain a 2:1 if we want to and be more restrictive than State law. Being consistent is one thing; but are we legal. CRAGHEAD: There are two provisions proposed in which we are not in compliance; that is for the dollar amount for recreational facilities. We are not high enough in our Code. The other one is that we cannot allow bonding for the first fifty units right now. They have to be built before any lots can be sold. But you are correct, the 2:1 is where it is not consistent. We can be more restrictive, and I believe that was testified by Ms. Craven and Ms. Swearingen at the hearings before the legislature. CRAVEN: I think I agree with that. I think the question is whether the 2:1 across the board is authorized by law, given now that the statute shows 2.5:1 in eastern Oregon. The question is whether 2:1 is consistent with State law, and if it is more restrictive than State law, given that the 2.5:1 is what is in statute now. CRAGHEAD: Correct. At this time Chair Luke called on individuals who had signed up to testify. PAUL DEWEY: I first of all want to point out that I do agree with your Legal Counsel's analysis regarding Goal 8. That provision is not inconsistent with statute. You are entirely right that statute can trump a Rule from LCDC. But unless it is a direct contravention, unless it is directly inconsistent, that Rule still survives. The way the Rule is written here states, "accommodations available for residential use shall not exceed two such units for each unit of overnight lodging." That's the general Rule. Then, it makes an exception, just like the statute makes an exception, where you are phasing, however, "the rentable overnight lodging units may be phased in as follows Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 30 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 My interpretation is that if you are doing phasing, first fifty units maybe could be 2.5:1, but the rest of the 150 units would not be zero, as Nancy (Craven) was arguing, that there wouldn't be any ratio at all. In fact, it would default back to the 2:1 ratio. There's a series of cases out of Lane County upholding the fact that these rules, unless they are directly inconsistent with the statute, are still valid. (See exhibit H.) (A brief delay occurred while microphones were adjusted.) DEWEY: The second point is that the 2.5:1 ratio is more restrictive than State law. It is true it is more restrictive than statute, but it is not more restrictive than Goal 8. So it would be incorrect to say it is more restrictive than State law, which is the reason why it would be much more appropriate and legally defensible to stay with the 2:1 ratio. DALY: I have a question. Was the Rule done after statute, or was that Rule in existence at the time statute was changed? DEWEY: I understand that it was a mix. Some of the Rule was changed and some stayed the same. I believe a court's interpretation of it would be the same no matter what, that if the Rules cover something that the statute doesn't, that the Rule would apply. DALY: There are indications here that maybe something happened when the Rule was drafted that someone misunderstood something and drafted it improperly. DEWEY: I agree, Commissioner, there is a lot that is not consistent here, and I've heard talk of the industry going to the legislature or LCDC to get a correction, and maybe that needs to be done. But that is all the more reason that the Board should wait until that gets done so you'll know what you are dealing with. And in the meantime to have hearings to address these various issues of the resorts as to what are the occupancy rates, what are the impacts on roads, those kinds of things. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 31 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 I think it would be in the best interest of the County to wait to see if changes are made by LCDC or the state, and then deal with it then. I don't buy the argument that because there is a difference between State law and the County Code that things are just confusing out there. There are a number of differences between State law and Code, like with forest dwellings regulations. It is not that confusing. The only thing that the County really needs to pay attention to is to stay in compliance with State law, because you can't be more permissive. You can be more restrictive. ERIC CANSLER: My name is Eric Cansler, the Executive Director of Central Oregon Land Watch. I am here tonight on behalf of Land Watch and its members to express concern over the proposed changes to destination resort guidelines, specifically the ratio that has so often been brought up tonight. Although these changes raise other concerns as well, my comments focus on transportation impacts. If adopted, the changes have the potential to precipitate a significant increase in the number of single family homes built within destination resorts. This has the potential to lead to increased demand on County roads, and would come to a cost to Deschutes County and its taxpayers. Yet, to our knowledge, no analysis of the proposal's impact has been conducted. Furthermore, County staff has publicly admitted in the past that a thorough understanding of destination resorts in their entirety is also lacking. This means that, absent from the decision-making process, are both a baseline characterization of resort impacts and an understanding of the relative impacts of the proposal now before you. This uncertainty alone should be reason enough to slow down and thoroughly evaluate the impacts before bringing this to a vote. We also ask the resorts be required to fully mitigate their impacts. Yes, resorts have paid some mitigation to ODOT for State road improvements, but we are not aware if the County has asked for similar assistance, despite having the authority to do so through the conditional use permitting process. Recently the County has started charging impact fees on new developments south of State Recreation Road for the improvement of several intersections in La Pine. LUKE: This was for traffic lights, not improvements to intersections. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 32 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 CANSLER: That the County does not seem to have seriously examined this sort of option in regard to destination resorts is disappointing. This Rule change comes at a time when the County is facing a shortfall in funds for road maintenance. In June the County imposed a moratorium on itself, deciding not to take on maintenance of new roads because it simply does not have the money to do so. The proposed changes have the potential to worsen this shortfall. Cities also feel the impacts of destination resorts. In an article in the Bulletin dated November 3, Redmond's Public Works Director, Chris Doty, speaking on the impacts of nearby resorts, was quoted as saying, "the general problem is that their impacts extend far into the City and not just those outlying intersections". LUKE: Chris was talking about the destination resorts in Crook County, which we have no control over. CANSLER: My impression was that he was talking largely in response to that, but also some within Deschutes County - to the whole, mass sum of everything. "Is it worth going to battle to make sure that the development can lessen its impact and contribute to the solution", asked Doty. Destination resorts as advertised are supposed to help cities, not hurt them. A good place to start would be to study the impacts of existing resorts. Have they produced the level of traffic that was predicted when they were first approved? Are they being used as proposed? We have heard a lot of talk about this tonight. It seems that a lot of questions are still outstanding. Often second homes do become full-time residences when their owners retire. Has this been carefully studied with destination resorts? I think the list of unanswered questions of this nature is still quite long. No doubt a considerable amount of analysis went into crafting the original resort guidelines, yet the fundamental nature and scope of resorts has been allowed to diverge from the original intent without any serious following analysis. We ask that they not be allowed to morph any further without a hard look at the consequences of doing so. Thank you for your time. (His statement was submitted as Exhibit I.) Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 33 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 LUKE: This has been brought up before, about systems development charges for roads. Anyone who has dealt with this for very long understands and knows that they can only be used for increasing capacity on arterials and collectors, or building new arterials or collectors. An SDC in most areas does not benefit the County. We couldn't use it much. We aren't building new roads. The roads that you mentioned that we are not going to take over for maintenance are being built by other people through local improvement districts, which is a whole different game than the County having to go out and build. The LID's are paving them inside subdivisions. We simply cannot afford to maintain those roads, and probably should have cut it off long ago. Under an LID, the citizens pay for having the roads paved and then the County gets to maintain them forever. It doesn't make a lot of sense if you try to pencil it out. I just wanted to clarify those things. CANKER: Is it correct, however, that despite the fact that other sources of funding are being used to build those roads, that the County at this point cannot take on the maintenance of those roads as they come into the system. LUKE: I appreciate that, but they are subdivision roads that didn't have responsibility for anyway. They are not the main public collectors and arterials. ROB RUBBLE: My name is Rob Rubble and I live in Bend. I would like to talk about something different from the land use laws and so forth. I would like to ask you to keep the restrictions, and look at the future of what might happen. LUKE: You are asking that we keep everything as it is right now? RUBBLE: Yes. I think allowing these proposed changes in the criteria for destination resorts is sure to cause these entities to proliferate in the high desert. I'm looking down the road. Because of the precedent that would be created here, control would be impossible in the future. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 34 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 Developers use the myth of job creation and growth in the local economy to push their agenda, and they have highly visible, quasi-philanthropic public relations programs to sugar the public, costing them very little against the huge profits to be made. Resorts require imported, cheap labor, first for construction and then for service jobs. I'm talking about more and more destination resorts coming along the road. The social and economic cost to the existing community are insidious and destructive. Fees for medical treatment are passed on to the citizens at large. There are always social problems with imported underpaid workers. Why do we want to be a magnet for such problems? I am speaking from experience because I came from a hot resort area where I saw unfortunate, illegal hotel workers hauled off in chains in an INS raid. The innkeepers protest that they cannot do without illegals. Do we need to create such problems here? We already have an active resort economy that keeps our hands full in trying to provide housing and social and medical services. Do we need more resorts in our area? The clients of destination resorts would have no stake in our community and would be here just to exploit and not give back. They would spend their money in their self-contained communities, not in our town. Destination resorts are not local businesses; they are corporate businesses. They are not essential to the basic needs of society as a whole, and do not produce goods such as agricultural crops that benefit society. The profits leave the area, but the costs, which are air pollution, water speculation and these social problems, are borne by the surrounding communities. Now, this is a different tact that you ought to think about, what the future might be with more and more destination resorts. Thank you. PAUL MOTA: I'm from Tumalo. I'm here to specifically address the Eagle Crest Resort and the 2.5 ratio issue. First of all, I wanted to say that from my understanding of the law, if the law states no more than 2.5, that doesn't mean it has to be 2.5. If the County is within its legal parameters to restrict it to 2.0, I don't find any problem with that. LUKE: That's the current law. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 35 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 MOTA: What I heard Senator Westlund say was no more than 2.5, which he was implying that it should be. But I don't agree. Anyway, the reason I believe the County should keep it at 2.0, especially for the Eagle Crest Resort area and more resorts planned for development up that way, is that a major thoroughfare happens to be Cline Falls Highway. It goes off at Highway 20 and up to the resorts. Access can also be through Redmond. In the past I worked with the County Road Department to lower the speed limit on Cook Avenue because of the traffic flows from Highway 20 up Cline Falls Highway and back. The County worked with me on this and realized there was a problem, and there has been talk of funds being reserved for a cloverleaf there. There is also a possibility of a by-pass. But right now the roadway is being affected by an increased amount of traffic. Those residences that would increase in, for example, Eagle Crest, it is not just the residents, it's the contractors, the services, visitors and others. They all go through Tumalo for the most part, unless they take out of Redmond and to down Highway 97 to Bend. But when they want to visit Bend they come down Cline Falls Highway. We have a school and a day care center there, we have businesses and residences. In the past we petitioned to lower the speed limit because it has become very dangerous there. The County says they don't have any money to do any traffic improvements. I find it a little disheartening that millions can be spent but some different improvements can't be made for a few hundred thousand dollars that might affect the area there. LUKE: You need to talk with the Oregon legislature about the fact that there hasn't been a gas tax increase since before 1993, and that long-range plan for our region, which goes from the Columbia River to Klamath Falls, has no new projects in the entire region in the 5th year of the plan. MOTA: I understand that. And I'm sympathetic with the idea that there is no money, but the problem is, if you increase the density, how are we going to cope with that? I've talked with residents and businesses all along the route, and even people from Cline Falls Highway, and they were all in favor of lower the speed limits and against the increased traffic. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 36 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 Until the County can get funded or can come up with a solution, or if Eagle Crest wants to come up with money, I don't think it would be wise to increase the housing density in that area, not just in Eagle Crest but all the other proposed resorts. That's my point. LUKE: Thank you for what you did in Tumalo to work with the County to get that speed limit lowered. We appreciate that. I don't know if you know that Eagle Crest has a substantial amount of money into an eventual overpass at Tumalo at Highway 20. MOTA: I understand that, and can't even imagine when it is going to be built. The other thing I'd like to mention, from what I've gathered, Eagle Crest contributed some money to some road improvements in Tumalo. But basically they were just some sidewalks, with the idea it would make the town of Tumalo a little more attractive to the visitors as they pass through it. I find that a little bit disingenuous. If Eagle Crest wanted to help the situation, they might put maybe a roundabout at a major intersection there, maybe at Tumalo Road, which I've been trying to work on, to slow down the traffic from the highway. Different, other little improvements other than just cosmetically fixing up the town to make it more appealing to their destination resort guest. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Cline Falls Road is a County road, is it not? Does it qualify for an SDC due to it being at capacity? LUKE: Without the Road Department here, I would guess that Cline Falls Road is not yet at capacity. You have some failing intersections in Tumalo, but that has to do with Highway 20 and the stuff that is coming over from Deschutes Junction and other places. CATHERINE MORROW: We don't have County SDC's. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 37 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 LUKE: Her question was, if we had them for increasing capacity or building new roads on arterials and collectors, if Cline Falls Road is a County road, why can't SDC's be used to increase capacity. My answer was, I'm not sure it is over capacity. Only the Road Department would know this. PACE: So that means capacity is only based on vehicles, not on pedestrians and bicyclists and children and people walking on rural roads. LUKE: It sounds like a question you might want the Road Department to address. MOTA: As far as the traffic reports that Eagle Crest did, I'm not exactly sure about the exact totals, but when I was working with the Road Department, I learned that during the primary months, spring through fall, during the main part of the day there are about 300 to 600 cars that travel through town, per hour. And there is the question of how many come from the resort. Well, I did a number of hours of videotaping, and a large percentage of those cars are coming down and going up Cline Falls Highway. LUKE: But there is no indication they all come from Eagle Crest. There are a lot of homes up that way. MOTA: No, but what I am saying is, if you increase the density, you are only asking for more trouble. JIM KING: I reside by General Patch Bridge, on the River. It is a section of the River that has unfortunately suffered significantly in the last few years. I represent the Friends of the Upper Deschutes, which is a newly organized group with a mission of strengthening stewardship of the upper River. And I've worked with a number of you on fire-related issues and appreciate the help we have received on that. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 38 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 I appreciate that tonight you are focused on some micro-level issues related to a .5 change. But I would like you for just a second to be open to consider a very significant macro-level problem with this change. As you heard earlier, as staff stipulated, you do not yet know the impact on water use. The fact is that we in the upper River have suffered significant problems, as written in recent Bulletin articles on the problems of flooding and annual de-watering of the River, which has caused significant problems. (His information was submitted as Exhibit K.) In light of that, it seems inappropriate to push for these changes unless and until you have a water distribution plan that is workable. Let me cite three things that have happened just in the last year which give evidence that this is not the case. We don't have a distribution plan that is at all workable. One, you had a meeting in Bend, a water summit in Kahneeta and then a recent meeting in Redmond to rethink the stakeholders at the table to talk through a redistribution plan of Deschutes basin water. Two, as one of the articles points out, you have had a total collapse of what used to be Oregon's very best brown trout fishery in the upper River. It went from, as the Wild and Scenic Management Plan said in 1996, the best brown trout fishery - and I can tell you I retired there on some basis because of it - it has totally collapsed because of the annual dewatering of that section of the River. And in September you had, as the Bulletin captures, an unprecedented flooding of those neighborhoods, which caused some failures in septic systems. It was ten inches over anything that had happened before, and the State agency didn't even know what was going on. You have this in just the upper River, that there are some serious problems with the water distribution system. And until we have a plan that addresses that, until we get all of the appropriate stakeholders to the table, I think it is inappropriate to go ahead, absent evidence, which I haven't heard yet, that it is necessary right now. By delaying, it would create incentive by the stakeholders to get to the table to work on a redistribution plan. I appreciate the time and your attention to these issues. PAM HARDY: I am a citizen of Bend. I live here because of my love of the natural surroundings, including the mountains, the forest, the wildlife, and the wide open spaces that bring us all here. I love the fact that virtually this entire city is filled with people who cherish these surroundings. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 39 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 I am also an attorney, so when this issue came up I put some of my legal skills to work to do a little research on the original ideas and purposes behind Goal 8 in the first place, and behind the destination resort exceptions. Before I go on, I do want to disclose that although I do occasionally work for Central Oregon Land Watch, I am here representing myself tonight. The original purpose of destination resort legislation was to promote Oregon as a vacation destination and to encourage tourism as a valuable segment of our State's economy. That's straight out of the State law. A destination resort was originally and is still defined as a self-contained development that provides for visitor- oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. In support of this purpose, State law and DLCD Goal 8 allowed for an unusual exception to the general rule that prevents farm and forest lands from being developed for non-agricultural purposes. In principle, I support this vision. One of the greatest assets of Central Oregon is precisely our astonishing natural beauty and our landscapes. Done well, a reasonable number of destination resorts with open space. Ecologically conscious building and self-contained recreational facilities can bring economic stability to our region. My concern is that Goal 8 and the Deschutes County Code that implements Goal 8 could be disingenuously used as a loophole to push though basic residential subdivisions on valuable farmland and open space, especially if the ratio is increased. More concisely, my concern is that over time, if we increase this ratio, we will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. People move to and vacation in Central Oregon precisely because of the scenic beauty and the wide open spaces. They do not come to vacation in subdivisions; they come from subdivisions. Americans live in subdivisions. What we have here is something that is different from where everybody came from. Let's not allow this destination resort exception to become a loophole for urban sprawl. Right now it doesn't look like that. That's not what Deschutes County looks like. What I want you to consider is keeping it that way. Building new urban sprawl may be profitable in the short run, but each new development lowers the overall value of this area as a destination. The original purpose of Goal 8 was to encourage a tourism-based economy. The natural resource that we need to keep intact to continue to have such an economy is precisely this beautiful open space. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 40 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 Please don't allow a change in our Code that makes sprawl easier. The big distinction between a destination resort and a basic residential subdivision is purpose. A destination resort is aimed towards visitors, has overnight units and not just residential homes, and also has developed recreational facilities within its borders. Legislative history shows that these specific requirements were put in place to prevent subdivisions and rural development from occurring under the guise of being a destination resort. As it stands, the current law, as you know, allows two residential units for an overnight unit. This barely holds to the original purpose of keeping destination resorts as visitor places, and as visitor accommodations. The proposed changes of allowing 2.5 residential units for every overnight unit will only open this loophole wider, for more residential subdivisions and not actual destination resorts. What I ask of you tonight is to keep the current ration at 2:1 and also to take this opportunity to look before you leap. In the past several years Deschutes County has made several approvals for new destination resorts. I would like to ask you to look at where the predictions made in these various applications are coming true. Are the resulting projects really resorts for visitors, or are they in fact residential? Have they in fat provided the 50% open space and recreational facilities that are required? Do they in fact bring in good jobs in the tourism economy? Or are they more residents in search of jobs. Is there sufficient medium and low-income housing for their service level employees? Are our Code enforcement mechanisms sufficient to ensure compliance? Do they pay their own way for County services and roads, or is it a net loss to the taxpayers? If we are at a net loss, what Code changes should we consider to ensure that these developments are not being done at taxpayer expense. And how are these existing resorts being used? Most importantly, at this very juncture, what are the real impacts of Measure 37? During this time of real uncertainty about the kinds of developments that might happen in the future, potentially massive new developments with very little oversight, should we really be loosening the rules to allow what could ultimately become more subdivisions? I'd recommend to the County that we should find out the answers to some of these questions about destination resorts before we change the Code to allow what could be just more subdivisions. I ask you to safeguard the reasons that I and so many other people moved here and so many people visit and vacation here. And please don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 41 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 LUKE: I would point out that to say that these are built on valuable farm land, I would find it hard-pressed to say that Pronghorn was built on valuable farm land. But that's a matter of opinion. There was a brief recess taken at this time. SANDY LONSDALE: I'm a long-time resident of Deschutes County. It's almost past my bedtime. I work a hard job. We're trying to make renewable energy for Central Oregon. We're like the Marines; by 9:00 a.m. we've done most people's entire day's worth of work. And I'm not prepared very well to give a very coherent statement, but am prepared to object to a bunch of what has gone on tonight. If we in the audience were supposed to be able to follow the presentation by the first woman there, County staff, I didn't follow it and I'm a reasonably smart guy. Now, I have a bunch of questions and would like to know how I can get my questions answered. If I can have then answered tonight. I have them written down here, but you'd have to call her back or something. LUKE: How many do you have? LONSDALE: A bunch. Like the 50-50-50 thing - LUKE: Do you have them written down, or do you just have notes? LONSDALE: If you'd like me to write them down and submit them later on this week, is there an opportunity for that? (A brief delay occurred while microphones were adjusted.) LUKE: See what happens when you use the lowest bidder? Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 42 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 I would suggest that we leave the record open. If you can get those to staff tomorrow in written form, because your questions are directed to staff, I would ask staff to answer those and include it in the record. They can be made an exhibit. CRAGHEAD: If it is going to be submitted after the hearing, you don't have to give it an exhibit number. Also, because this is a legislative matter, you don't have to worry about ex parte contact or anything like that. It would just be entered into the record. LUKE: Would that work for you? LONSDALE: Sure. How would I do that? LUKE: They will get you the information when you are done here. LONSDALE: Sure. Part of it is an apology by me. I haven't followed this since 1993. I've been busy doing other stuff. I've been very active in the community in environmental issues as a volunteer. I was a long-time chair of the Juniper Group of the Sierra Club, and helped rebirth that group here because it was dying. It is now a fairly active group. We're all volunteers and none of us are staff. I'm here speaking for myself. But I tried to follow that, and I'm trained as a journalist and take very good notes, and I couldn't follow it. So, part of it is an apology that my testimony is going to be somewhat incoherent. I wasn't going to testify until I drove in here, but decided you need to hear from me because I have a perspective here that no one else here is going to state, so I'm going to state it. I mentioned that we are a renewable energy company. We're trying to generate new electricity for Central Oregon and for the world - (A brief delay occurred while microphones were adjusted.) We're based here in Central Oregon. We soon may be the biggest taxpayer in Deschutes County. We live here for the same reasons that everyone else wants to live here; it's the greatest place to live. In fact, I believe it is the greatest place in the world to live. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 43 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 I've been around the world a bit, not as much as many, but this place has a ton of amenities and is what brought my dad here when I was 13 in 1973. I've been a resident here ever since. He started a company called Bend Research, which has grown into a much bigger company and is already one of the largest taxpayers in Deschutes County. They provide quality jobs with benefits, well over a hundred, and the people who work there or who want to work there come here for the quality of life. Destination resorts, in my opinion, and I think it can be proven if we had all the facts that we've shown tonight we don't have, showing the impacts of the resorts, if we had those results now I think we would see that they are not adding to quality of life in Central Oregon. They are addition to the quality of life for a few people, and they are making some people millionaires, but they are not benefiting me. In fact, they are about to impact a piece of land that I've worked on for fifteen years, through the BLM as a volunteer going to hundreds of meetings, and I'm still going to them now, and there is another one in a week. I'm going to go as a volunteer just to give my time to these folks, just to let them know that I care about Central Oregon. I'm a nut. There are a few other people here who care about Central Oregon, too. I know you guys all do, too. But there are different levels of caring, as we all know. Bend Research was started here, and is known worldwide as - LUKE: We need to stay on point. You've mentioned two businesses now, one of which might be coming to us for a land use issue. We need to stay on point about what is being proposed, if you could, please. LONSDALE: It's the impact of destination resorts. If you are going to allow them to get bigger and have more permanent housing, you are going to impact the quality of life in Central Oregon. The comparison of jobs, the applicants said that they provide all of these jobs and money to the County, that needs to be broken down. We need to know if those are full-time jobs, are they part-time, do they come with benefits? That's one of my questions. I have a bunch. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 44 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 If you are going to talk about jobs and impact, for the record, you have to qualify it. What are those jobs? What is the impact? Because I know how Sunriver operates. Sunriver operates on very shaky ground in terms of getting the employees they need to clean all the rooms there, and all the houses. These are low wage jobs. Those people don't live in Sunriver. They live out in the bayous of La Pine, and they drive into work. All of that stuff has impacts on County services. I would urge you, before you make this decision, to find out what the impacts are of current destination resorts, including Sunriver, Black Butte Ranch and Pronghorn. I don't care if they were permitted in the stone ages, they are here and they are impacting. If we are going to allow more leeway or more convenience for the developers, we need to know what the impacts are now, and we need to have the facts. The only way we can get the facts is by demanding it to you, the County's leaders. You guys approved Thornburgh. In the opinion of myself and the Sierra Club, which is a nationwide organization that I'm a member of and can speak for, those impacts are too much, and you guys already approved that. Now you are talking about making those things even bigger and approving more of these things. Well, there is one proposed near Bend Research. The people at Bend Research work hard like I do, too. They don't have time to come here and testify. They are counting on you folks to do the right thing. We are all counting on you to do the right thing. Kelly Smith is a former leader at Bend Research, who became a millionaire I think working there. I'm not criticizing him for all his hard work. Because he worked damn hard there, I know because my dad is a tough taskmaster. My dad no longer works for Bend Research but I think he is still the number one stockholder. Bend Research would not have come here if the impacts of destination resorts, when fully known, were known to the people at Bend Research. When people try to decide where to bring their company, they spend a lot of time looking. My dad spent a lot of time. We toured the west. LUKE: We need to get back on point, please. LONSDALE: The destination resort proposed out in Tumalo will directly impact the quality jobs at Bend Research and I believe Deschutes County should not allow that. I believe we need fewer destination resorts, not more. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 45 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 If the folks here representing destination resorts are not making money off their destination resorts, I'd say make them smaller, not bigger. If you have to make them bigger you are impacting the County more, which means the County loses more. You know, it is more than traffic impacts. It is wildlife impacts. I happen to know that Eagle Crest has a trail system in their plan. Well, people aren't sticking to those trails. People are going off of those trails into other areas. That is impacting wildlife and current, existing recreation use, and none of that is being accounted for. It is certainly not in any plan in advance. We find out about it later when all of this stuff is already done. We can't have that. We need leadership to make sure that the impacts are known in advance, and we mitigate those impacts in advance. That's how this works. Mitigate in advance, not afterwards. Because one you've got the impacts you can't go back and re-mitigate. I will get you my comments and questions in writing. I have a bunch of other objections that I will get you in writing, including the conflicts of interest here from the Planning folks who have approved this thing, this expansion. LUKE: I don't think either one was on here two year ago, were you, when this first came through? The two people who declared a possible conflict - you weren't on, and you declared a conflict at the time. Neither one of them voted on that, by the way. LONSDALE: I wasn't aware of that. LUKE: We're pretty good about that. LONSDALE: I apologize for an emotional statement, but I care a lot and this is all I can do, to let you know that the critters and stuff, they can't come here and tell you what happens to them. But I know that we are diminishing Central Oregon's appeal to normal folks like me. Maybe I sound like an abnormal folk right now. I'm a permanent resident here. I'm not a transient. I pay pretty good taxes here, too, probably insignificant. Thank you very much for listening to me. LUKE: If anyone wants to submit additional testimony, the record will be left open. We'll determine how long in a little bit. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 46 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 NUNZIE GOULD: (She submitted her statement in writing.) I did write Mara Stein's name on the sign up sheet because I received from her an e-mail that she asked I contribute to the record. I made thirteen copies at home and they are still there. I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce that e-mail from Mara. She is a previous County Planning Commissioner. It's not in this packet, but I will get it to Catherine tomorrow for the record. I am a County resident and a city property owner, and an investor in destination resorts. I am not a developer of destination resorts. I'm getting good at reading lots of piles of paper, and I'm a potential appellant at the LUBA stand for the Thornburgh destination resort. One thing I heard today is the tax and demand on staff. I think that is something that is very, very relevant. Since the last destination resort was approved, the County has lost a planner and a transportation planner. And these are people who have dedicated a lot of time and have read a lot of pages of information, and came up the learning curve of the overall impacts of destination resorts. Now the County gets to start from ground zero on that. So I think we need to be reviewing what the impacts are beyond the individual Code words, a much broader reaching topic. So, in reference to the proposed destination resort Code amendment, I believe it would be premature to change the resort Code without studying the impacts that this language will have. Very important topics were disused during the Planning Commission's remapping of the DR zone, which took place October, November, December, January and February, coming up to 2006. Public discussion of this sort should be included in this record. Impacts that destination resorts have on the location of affordable housing, on the poor condition of County roads, on the huge request for water usage, on Sheriff services and fire protection from wildfire in the urban interface, on resort accountability, Deschutes County enforcement, and on the demands placed on Community Development Department staff. These are issues that I encourage you to discuss during the course of your taking testimony this evening, and I think in part you have. And I think continuing the record to be open for a number of questions, we are legitimately interested in having an ability to weigh these things. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 47 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 I think that question came before the Planning Commission over the course of five months, and a lot of information was really never answered. I think before we go and make Code changes, it is important to bring some real planning and vision to our community. Regarding the housing ratio increase from 2 to 2.5 to 1, let's talk about transportation. How many more trips will permanent housing place on our already failing road systems? So I've asked a transportation engineer to help me on this one, because I knew that the developers will tell you that the roads are doing just fine. But at your work session on the Planning Commission, you found that the roads weren't doing so great. And right now Deschutes County is going to spend over $1.5 million to widen and overlay Cline Falls Highway. Now, Cline Falls Highway is a road that goes from Tumalo to Highway 126. It's a road that has seen some improvements from destination resorts, and has not seen some improvements from destination resorts that will use it. LUKE: Where did you get the information that we are going to overlay that road? GOULD: I would prefer to take comments and questions afterwards, because I find it does interrupt my testimony and my procedure. Is that a problem? LUKE: Alright. GOULD: I have documentation in my packet. This is something I have followed. I'm a resident of Tumalo and it is important. The last page. So, as they blades are going down Cline Falls Highway, I'm paying. You are not seeing the destination resorts offering to pay anymore. Eagle Crest tapped out their $240,000 commitment to ODOT at the interchange that is proposed at Tumalo as a max. The transportation engineer memorandum, item 2 in the packet, identifies that there are ten trips generated for a home, and three trips generated for an overnight unit. Let's go figure. Let's do a little math. We go to 2.5 to 1. What does that do on the roads. I think we deserve an answer on that. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 48 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 In many resort cases, such as Eagle Crest, there has been a fixed top limit mechanism for contributing towards infrastructure needs. How will Deschutes County and/or ODOT we compensated for this proposed increase in traffic on our infrastructure. If we've already written the MOU and it caps out towards an interchange that was supposed to be built by 2005, that was last year, how do we get compensated if we just going to change density now. Why is there no transportation SDC now in the County? The huge cloverleaf at Sunriver is over budget and has taken longer to build than anticipated. So what monetary participation will destination resorts make towards this infrastructure? Especially if you grant a sweeping density request. Okay, now let's talk about water. (She referred to a map at this time, Exhibit O.) LUKE: For the record, a map has been placed up there. GOULD: I've attached an exhibit map to the map showing the zoning for DR zone within Deschutes County. Everything green is zoned DR zone. That's over 117,000 acres currently zone DR zone. The map I've attached is a map of Deschutes basin's watershed. And it shows all the counties that our watershed crosses; Klamath, Lake, Deschutes, Crook, Grant, Wheeler, Jefferson, Wasco, Sherman and Hood River. So, how much more domestic water and irrigation water will a permanent home use than an overnight unit. We ought to be able to get a number on that. What mitigation will be required to offset the added use of water? Deschutes County is concerned about the water quality. You guys were all down in La Pine talking about sewer contaminants and nitrates emissions. You are concerned about the use of our water. In your packet, the Oregon Insider's article, Central Oregon Water, proposed by the Deschutes River Conservancy, identifies a base case, low growth case and a high growth case of acre feet demand by destination resorts. Now, the high growth estimate for destination resorts required 35% more water than the base case. So which ratio is used to obtain the demand figures for 2025? Did they use the 2:1 or did they use the 2.5:1? I think we need an answer. We are trying to create a water plan for our basin, and our water basin extends to all of those counties. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 49 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 What happens here will set a precedent to all of the other destination resort zones in all those adjacent counties. What is the best use of our water? And what about the demand for Sheriff s services, since the levy failed. LUKE: Where did you get the idea the Sheriffs levy failed? Both passed. GOULD: Did the fire protection rural bond pass in November? It did not. I made an error in my written testimony. Thornburgh is relying on those. (Ms. Gould went on to read from her prepared statement) JIM GUILD: Transparency and accountability is the responsibility of local government. You need to think about that. I think the reason this ratio is being changed is because of profit. You are responsible for the health, safety and welfare of residents; do you feel any responsibility to represent my beliefs? We are experiencing destination resort overload. I agree with Nunzie. We need SDC's to deal with the transportation system failures. People don't need to make a 200% profit on property; they need to pay for what they are doing. CAROL MACBETH: (She provided a handout, and gave a brief overview of Senate Bill 911 and its impacts, Exhibits E and P) There is no good explanation as to why this change is needed. There is no benefit to the County. 1,000 Friends supports destination resorts when they operate properly, as economic benefit comes from overnight visitors and not full-time residents. Residential development only provides a payoff for the developers. They aren't able to properly show the ratios of overnight visitors and residents, and there is no mechanism in place to track this. LUKE: You are saying that we can't track the room taxes? MACBETH: You don't have that data. LUKE: We can't break it down by individual payee. We have good records but can't share them with the public. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 50 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 MACBETH: If there is more overnight lodging, there is more revenue. LUKE: we have great records on that. OTTENI: Where did you get your figures? MACBETH: Visitors go to dinner, ski, and spend more money on a daily basis. DALY: You are indicating there is no benefit. I don't know the dollar amounts but permanent residents with jobs are spending their salaries here. I think it would be hard to prove either way. MACBETH: The issue is whether these are tourist driven resorts or thinly disguised upscale rural sprawl. These should be placed within the UGB. QUATRE: If there is only 20% occupancy, how do you feel about that. MACBETH: I still can't figure out all these ratios. Maybe should multiply all of that out. I don't know if I am not in command with the data. PACE: It is relevant. The permanent occupancy rate is at 15-22% for the older resorts; I am greatly confused about Eagle Crest, as the census shows closer to 60%; Cascade Highlands could be closer to the occupancy rates of Broken Top. LUKE: A question was asked about how long the written record would be left open. We can do Thursday night at 5 PM for written comments. CRAGHEAD: It is a legislative matter. You can request information by then, but can leave the record open until the Board makes a decision. If want a response back by Thursday, you can specify that. Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 51 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 LUKE: Does anyone else wish to comment? PACE: I want information on the traffic report on Cline Falls Road and Eagle Crest. LUKE: The Board would like a copy as well. CRAVEN: This is a legislative text amendment. If a resort wants to use the 2.5 ratio, that's when impacts are analyzed. The rest of our testimony will be made in writing. LUKE: And any decision is appealable. CRAVEN: That's right. Being no further comments made, Chair Luke closed the hearing at 9:05 p.m. DATED this 4t" Day of December 2006 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. DE S R. L air - lwt ac1r~.~ ~l e - BEV CLARNO, Commissioner ATTEST: (F~ (&,&~_ Recording Secretary , Commissioner Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 52 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 Exhibit A: Preliminary statement, read at the beginning of the hearing Exhibit B: Staff report, provided to the Commissioners, Planning Commion and the public at the beginning of the hearing Exhibit C: Power Point presentation Exhibit D: Copies of written testimony provided to Commissioners, Planning Commission and the public at the beginning of the hearing Exhibit E: Senate Bill 911 Exhibit F: Travel Oregon Exhibit G: Oregon Lodging Association Exhibit H: Paul Dewey Exhibit I: Central Oregon LandWatch Exhibit J: Robb Reavill Exhibit K: Bulletin articles Exhibit L: Pamela Hardy Exhibit M: Comments and questions, Susan Quatre Exhibit N: Sandy Lonsdale Exhibit O: Nunzi Gould map (oversized) Exhibit P: Nunzi Gould packet of information (P through P8) Exhibit Q: Testimony cards Public Hearing regarding Destination Resorts Page 53 of 53 Pages Monday, December 4, 2006 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS This is a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Deschutes County Zoning Code, Title 18. This is County File Number TA-04-04. This is a legislative matter, meaning the outcome of this process could change the zoning laws of Deschutes County amending Sections 18.04 and 18.113, regarding destination resorts. The Board of County Commissioners will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Commission may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the commission with a copy of written testimony. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any the Board of County Commissioners for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any commission 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 and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the Board of County Commissioners need to set forth any information that may be perceived as bias, prejudgment, or personal interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit A N ' ' Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners cc: Deschutes County Planning Commission From: Terri Hansen Payne, Associate Planner Date: December 4, 2006 Subject: Text Amendment TA-04-4 PURPOSE The purpose of text amendment TA-04-4 (Attachment 1) is to revise Deschutes County Zoning Code sections 18.04 and 18.113 to incorporate1993 and 2003 changes to state destination resort statute. II DESTINATION RESORT BACKGROUND In 1984 regulations were added to State Planning Goal 8: Recreation, to allow the siting of destination resorts on rural lands without having to go through the state goal exception process. These rules made it easier to build destination resorts and at the same time set specific standards for their development. The intent was to promote tourism, create jobs and contribute to rural economic development. Over the next four years destination resort regulations were added to State Statute (ORS 197.435-197.467) and the goal was amended to ensure consistency between statute and goal. In 1992 Deschutes County mapped lands available for destination resorts and created Deschutes County Code (DCC) sections regulating destination resorts, including Title 23 comprehensive plan policies (DCC 23.12 and 23.84) and Title 18 destination resort zoning definitions and overlay code (DCC 18.04 and 18.113). The statute and goal were again amended in1993/1994 to allow phasing of the required 150 overnight lodging units, to raise the required investment and how it is calculated and to require conservation easements for specified resources. Title 18 and Title 23 were not updated to incorporate the new regulations. In 1999 the County added a destination resort chapter to Title 19 Bend Urban Growth Area Zoning. Title 19 Bend zoning Code was written to conform to the 1993 statute changes. Quality Services Performed with Pride BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit is e Staff Report TA-04-4 is in regard to the dollar investment required. The 2004 proposal was worded to require an initial investment of $7 million on visitor accommodations rather than on visitor accommodations and developed recreational facilities. The current proposal added the words 'developed recreational facilities' as part of the $7 million investment, which complies with the language in statute. VI. PROPOSAL DETAILS AND ANALYSIS The proposed changes are intended to bring County Code into conformance with changes to State Statute. The changes primarily address the regulations for visitor accommodations and the required resort investment. There are two types of visitor accommodations discussed in destination resort statute, individually-owned housing units and overnight lodging units. Individually-owned units are residential units that can be used as primary residences or second homes or rental units. Overnight lodging is defined as separately rentable units not available for residential use, such as hotel rooms. Resorts are required to provide 150 units of overnight lodging and maintain a defined ratio between the number of individually-owned units and the number of overnight lodging units. There is some flexibility provided in that ilndividually-owned units can be counted as overnight units if they are available for rent a specified number of weeks per year. Resort Accommodation Changes Phasing: Deschutes County Code currently calls for all of the required 150 overnight lodging units to be built or bonded before initial lot sales. The proposed language would change that to require just the first 50 units to be built or bonded before initial lot sales. The next 50 would need to be built or bonded within 5 years of initial lot sales and the final 50 would need to be built or bonded within 10 years of initial lot sales. If the last 100 units are bonded, they would be required to be built within four years of bonding. State Statute requires the first 50 units to be built, without the option to bond. Therefore both our current code and the proposed code are more lenient than state statute. The Planning Commission recommendation in 2004 required building those first 50 units to comply with statute. Staff has provided language to conform to statute and Planning Commission recommendation (Attachment 1, Exhibit D). Aside from that issue, allowing the overnight lodging to be phased in has the potential to change the composition of resort accommodations. The new language would ensure that 50 overnight units are provided, but would allow the remaining required 100 units to be phased in over the next ten years, with the final units not being built for14 years after initial lot sales. Individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging: Currently individually-owned units can be counted as overnight lodging if they are available 45 weeks per year through a central reservation system operated by the resort. This proposal would reduce the number of weeks these units are required to be available to 38 weeks per year. Additionally, the units could be rented through a real estate property manager as well as the resort. Both of these changes provide the resorts with additional flexibility with little substantive impact. Page 3 A Staff Report TA-04-4 however, currently requires an initial first phase minimum investment of $2 million in adjusted 1984 dollars for lodging, restaurants and meeting rooms as well as an additional $2 million in adjusted 1984 dollars for developed recreational facilities. This proposal would update county code to require an initial investment of $7 million in adjusted 1993 dollars, with one third going to developed recreational facilities. This would bring us into compliance with current statute requirements. To provide an idea of how the dollar investment would change, the 2006 required investment has been calculated using the federal consumer price index calculator. $2 million in 1984 dollars would require an investment in 2006 of $3,905,679. $7 million in 1993 dollars would require an investment in 2006 of $9,829,066. So, the required investment would rise, even considering the total investment required by County Code is double state requirements. Conservation Easements: In 1993 language was added to destination resort statute requiring a conservation easement for specified comprehensive plan resources. This language has been included in Title 19 (19.106.120) and could be added to Title 18 as well. Again, this would ensure the updated County Code is in compliance with statute. This is included in Attachment 1, Exhibit D. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PLANNING GOALS State Statute (ORS 197.250) requires all local land use regulations to comply with State Planning Goals. The following goals apply to this application. Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires local jurisdictions to provide notice of proposed land use matters. This proposal has been noticed in the following manner. 1. Planning Commission noticed public hearing 11-04-04 2. Notice mailed to applicants and list of interested parties from 2004 on 11-16-06 3. Publication in the Bend Bulletin on 11-19-06 4. Press release 11-21-06 Goal 2 Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires consistency in land use planning. As proposed, this would change only Title 18, leaving Title 19 and Title 23 unchanged. That would retain and worsen the existing inconsistencies between titles. For example, the definition of destination resorts would be different in Title 18, Title 19 and Title 23. Goal 8 Recreation: Due to the discrepancies noted above regarding the bonding of the first 50 overnight units and the ratio of individually owned units and overnight lodging, this proposal could put us out of compliance with Planning Goal 8. VIII. FINDINGS This request is a legislative action and a public policy decision. Deschutes County lacks specific criteria for reviewing a legislative text amendment. The applicant bears the burden for justifying that the text amendment is consistent with State Statute, the Statewide Planning Goals and the overall policy goals in the County Comprehensive Plan. Page 5 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL REVIEWED CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 18, of the Deschutes County Code Regarding Destination Resorts. * ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 * WHEREAS, Sunriver Resort, Eagle Crest Resort and Pronghorn Resort have filed an application with the Deschutes County Planning Division that proposed text amendments to Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, to the definitions of destination resorts and overnight lodging as well as amendments to the destination resort chapter, and WHEREAS, the text amendments are intended to align the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") with amended State Statute and the amended Statewide Planning Goal 8, and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission held a duly noticed pubic hearing on November 4, 2004, and recommended to the Board of County Corrnnissioner ("Board") the proposed changes to Title 18 as described in Exhibits "A" and "B" with one amendment, and WHEREAS, the applicant then requested the proposal be put on hold, reopening TA-04-4 in May 2006, and WHEREAS, some areas were discovered that would argue for changes to the proposal as described in Exhibits "C" and "D", in order to ensure compliance with State Statute and Statewide Planning Goal 8, and WHEREAS, the Planning Conunission and the Board held a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2006; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.04, Definitions of Destination Resorts and Overnight Lodging area amended to read as described in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in s*F'Etr~e*t"feugi. Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.113, Destination Resorts, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strikethfough. PAGE 1 OF 2 - DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/06) EXHIBIT "A" NOTE: denotes code provisions not amended by this ordinance. Chapter 18.04. TITLE, PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS restaurants with seating for 100 persons, and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodgings. 1. The 150 overnieht lodging units may be phased in according to the timeline set forth in DCC 18.113.060(A)(1.)(a) throu lg 1(c). 18.04.030. Definitions. As used in DCC Title 18, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 18.04.030. "Destination resort" means a self-contained development providing visitor-oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To qualify as a "major destination resort" under Goal 8, a proposed development must meet the following standards: A. The resort is located on a site of 160 or more acres. B. At least 50 percent of the site is dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, street and parking areas. C. At least $ 89;8087 million (in 44841993 dollars) is spent in the first phase on improvements for on-site-developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations, exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and roads. Not less than one-third of this amount shall be spent on developed recreational facilities. ;Mies i rtee l--te -enti D. Visitor-oriented accommodations are provided, including meeting rooms, 2. The number of individually-owned residential units that do not meet the definition of overni t lodging in DCC 18.04.030 shall not exceed 21/2 will tiet such units for each unit of overnight lodging. 3. The developed recreational facilities, key facilities intended to serve the entire development and visitor oriented accommodation must be physically provided or be guaranteed through surety bondin.a or substantially equivalent financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units, or as allowed by DCC 18.113.060(A)(1)(a) through (c). hi phased developments, developed recreational facilities and other key facilities intended to serve a particular phase shall be construced prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed through surety bonding. E. Commercial uses limited to those types and levels necessary to meet the needs of visitors to the development. Industrial uses are not permitted. "Overnight lodgings" with respect to destination resorts, means permanent, separately rentable accommodations that are not available for residential use. Overnight lodgings include hotel or motel rooms, cabins and time-share units. Individually-owned units may be considered overnight lodgings if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 4538 weeks per calendar year through a central reservation and check-in service operated by the destination resort or throu7,h a real estate propert y manager, as defined in ORS 696.010. Tent sites, recreational vehicle parks, mobile PAGE 1 OF 2 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "A" homes, dormitory rooms and similar accommodations do not qualify as overnight lodging for the purpose of this definition. PAGE 2 OF 2 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" Chapter 18.113. DESTINATION RESORTS ZONE - DR 18.113.010. Purpose. 18.113.020. Applicability. 18.113.025. Application to existing resorts. 18.113.030. Uses in destination resorts. 18.113.040. Application submission. 18.113.050. Requirements for conditional use permit and conceptual master plan applications. 18.113.060. Standards for destination resorts. 18.113.070. Approval criteria. 18.113.075. Imposition of conditions. 18.113.080. Procedure for modification of a conceptual master plan. 18.113.090. Requirements for final master plan. 18.113.100. Procedure for approval of final master plan. 18.113.110. Provision of streets, utilities, developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations. 18.113.010. Purpose. A. The purpose of the DR Zone is to establish a mechanism for siting destination resorts to ensure compliance with LCDC Goal 8 and the County Comprehensive Plan. The destination resort designation is intended to identify land areas which are available for the siting of destination resorts, but which will only be developed if consistent with the purpose and intent of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. B. The DR Zone is an overlay zone. The DR Zone is intended to provide for properly designed and sited destination resort facilities which enhance and diversify the recreational opportunities and the economy of Deschutes County. The DR Zone will ensure resort development that compliments the natural and cultural attractiveness of the area without significant adverse effect on commercial farming and forestry, environmental and natural features, cultural and historic resources and their settings and other significant resources. C. It is the intent of DCC 18.113 to establish procedures and standards for developing destination resorts while ensuring that all applicable County Comprehensive Plan policies are achieved. D. It is the intent of DCC 18.113 to ensure that all elements of a destination resort which are proposed are financially secured in a manner which will protect the public's interest should the development not be completed as proposed. E. It is not the intent of DCC 18.113 to site developments that are in effect rural subdivisions, whose primary purpose is to serve full-time residents of the area. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.020. Applicability. A. The provisions of DCC 18.113 shall apply to proposals for the development of destination resorts, as defined in DCC Title 18, in areas designated DR by the County zoning maps. The provisions of DCC 18.113 shall not apply to any development proposal in an area designated DR other than a destination resort. B. When these provisions are applicable, they shall supersede all other provisions of the underlying zone. Other provisions of the zoning ordinance, made applicable by specific map designations, such as the SMIA, AH, CH, FP or LM, or otherwise applicable under the terms of the zoning ordinance text shall remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise specified herein. C. The provisions of DCC 18.113 apply to destination resorts sited through the Goal 2 exception process. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.025. Application to existing resorts. Expansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination resorts shall meet the following criteria: PAGE 1 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT `B„ A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without consideration of any existing development; or B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved destination resort development and the proposed expansion area), except that as to the area covered by the existing destination resort, compliance with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required. If the applicant chooses to support its proposal with any part of the existing development, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will be situated and managed in a manner that it will be integral to the remainder of the resort. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.030. Uses in destination resorts. The following uses are allowed, provided they are part of, and are intended to serve persons at, the destination resort pursuant to DCC 18.113.030 and are approved in a final master plan: A. Visitor-oriented accommodations designed to provide for the needs of visitors to the resort: 1. Overnight lodging, including lodges, hotels, motels, bed and breakfast facilities, time-share units and similar transient lodging facilities; 2. Convention and conference facilities and meeting rooms; 3. Retreat centers; 4. Restaurants, lounges and similar eating and drinking establishments; and 5. Other similar visitor-oriented accommodations consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. B. Developed recreational facilities designed to provide for the needs of visitors and residents of the resort; 1. Golf courses and clubhouses; 2. Indoor and outdoor swimming pools; 3. Indoor and outdoor tennis courts; 4. Physical fitness facilities; 5. Equestrian facilities; 6. Wildlife observation shelters; 7. Walkways, bike paths, jogging paths, equestrian trails; 8. Other similar recreational facilities consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. C. Residential accommodations: 1. Single-family dwellings; 2. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and multi-family dwellings; 3. Condominiums; 4. Townhouses; 5. Living quarters for employees; 6. Time-share projects. D. Commercial services and specialty shops designed to provide for the visitors to the resort: 1. Specialty shops, including but not limited to delis, clothing stores, bookstores, gift shops and specialty food shops; 2. Barber shops/beauty salons; 3. Automobile service stations limited to fuel sales, incidental parts sales and minor repairs; 4. Craft and art studios and galleries; 5. Real estate offices; 6. Convenience stores; 7. Other similar commercial services which provide for the needs of resort visitors and are consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. E. Uses permitted in open space areas generally include only those uses that, except as specified herein, do not alter the existing or natural landscape of the proposed open space areas. No improvements, development or other alteration of the natural or existing landscape shall be allowed in open space areas, except as necessary for development of golf course fairways and greens, hiking and bike trails, lakes and ponds and primitive picnic facilities including park benches and picnic tables. Where farming activities would be consistent with identified preexisting open space uses, irrigation equipment and associated pumping facilities shall be allowed. F. Facilities necessary for public safety and utility service within the destination resort. PAGE 2 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" G. Other similar uses permitted in the underlying zone consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113.030. H. Accessory Uses in Destination Resorts: 1. The following accessory uses shall be permitted provided they are ancillary to the destination resort and consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8: a. Transportation-related facilities excluding airports; b. Emergency medical facilities; c. Storage structures and areas; d. Kennels as a service for resort visitors only; e. Recycling and garbage collection facilities; f. Other similar accessory uses consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.040. Application submission. The authorization of a permit for a destination resort shall consist of three steps. A. Conceptual Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Destination Resort. A conceptual master plan (CMP) shall be submitted which addresses all requirements established in DCC 18.113.040. The CMP application shall be processed as if it were a conditional use permit under DCC Title 22, shall be subject to DCC 18.128.010, 18.128.020 and 18.128.030 and shall be reviewed for compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in DCC 18.113. B. Final Master Plan. The applicant shall prepare a final master plan (FMP) which incorporates all requirements of the County approval for the CMP. The Planning Director shall review the IMP to determine if it complies with the approved CMP and all conditions of approval of the conditional use permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve, deny or return the FMP to the applicant for additional information. When interpretations of the Planning Director involve issues which are discretionary, the FMP approval shall be treated as a land use permit in accordance with DCC Title 22. C. Site Plan Review. Each element or development phase of the destination resort must receive additional approval through the required site plan review (DCC 18.124) or subdivision process (DCC Title 17). In addition to findings satisfying the site plan or subdivision criteria, findings shall be made that the specific development proposal complies with the standards and criteria of DCC 18.113 and the FMP. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.050. Requirements for conditional use permit and conceptual master plan applications. The CMP provides the framework for development of the destination resort and is intended to ensure that the destination resort meets the requirements of DCC 18.113. The CMP application shall include the following information: A. Illustrations and graphics to scale, identifying: 1. The location and total number of acres to be developed as a planned destination resort; 2. The subject area and all land uses adjacent to the subject area; 3. The topographic character of the site; 4. Types and general location of proposed development uses, including residential and commercial uses; 5. Major geographic features; 6. Proposed methods of access to the development, identifying the main vehicular circulation system within the resort and an indication of whether streets will be public or private; 7. Major pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle trail systems; 8. Important natural features of the site, including habitat of threatened or endangered species, streams, rivers, wetlands and riparian vegetation within 200 feet of streams, rivers and wetlands. PAGE 3 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" 9. All uses proposed within landscape Works or the Oregon Department of management corridors identified by the Transportation, or both) at the same time comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance. as the conceptual master plan and shall 10. The location and number of acres be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer reserved as open space, buffer area, or to the minimum standards of the road common area. Areas designated as "open authorities. space," "buffer area," or "common area" 3. A description of how the proposed should be clearly illustrated and labeled destination resort will satisfy the as such; standards and criteria of DCC 18.113.060 11. All proposed recreational amenities; and 18.113.070; 12. Proposed overall density. 4. Design guidelines and development standards defining visual and aesthetic B. Further information as follows: parameters for: 1. A description of the natural a. Building character; characteristics of the site and surrounding b. Landscape character; areas, including a description of c. Preservation of existing topography resources and the effect of the destination and vegetation; resort on the resources; methods d. Siting of buildings; and employed to mitigate adverse impacts on e. Proposed standards for minimum lot resources; analysis of how the overall area, width, frontage, lot coverage, values of the natural features of the site setbacks and building heights. will be preserved, enhanced or utilized in 5. An open space management plan which the design concept for the destination includes: resort; and a proposed resource a. An explanation of how the open protection plan to ensure that important space management plan meets the natural features will be protected and minimum standards of DCC 18.113 maintained. Factors to be addressed for each phase of the development; include: b. An inventory of the important natural a. Compatibility of soil composition for features identified in the open space proposed development(s) and areas and any other open space and potential erosion hazard; natural values present in the open b. Geology, including areas of potential instability; space; c. A set of management prescriptions c. Slope and general topography; that will operate to maintain and d. Areas subject to flooding; conserve in perpetuity any identified e. Other hazards or development important natural features and other constraints; natural or open space values present f. Vegetation; in the open space; g. Water areas, including streams, Deed restrictions that will assure that d lakes, ponds and wetlands; . the open space areas are maintained h. Important natural features; as open space in perpetuity. i. Landscape management corridors; 6. An explanation of public use of facilities . Wildlife. j amenities on the site. and 2. A traffic study which addresses (1) 7. A description of the proposed method of impacts on affected County, city and providing all utility systems, including state road systems and (2) transportation the location and sizing of the utility improvements necessary to mitigate any such impacts. The study shall be systems; 8. A description of the proposed order and submitted to the affected road authority schedule for phasing, if any, of all (either the County Department of Public development including an explanation of PAGE 4 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" 9. 10. II when facilities will be provided and how they will be secured if not completed prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units; An explanation of how the destination resort has been sited or designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects or conflicts on adjacent lands. The application shall identify the surrounding uses and potential conflicts between the destination resort and adjacent uses within 660 feet of the boundaries of the parcel or parcels upon which the resort is to be developed. The application shall explain how any proposed buffer area will avoid or minimize adverse effects or conflicts; A description of the proposed method for providing emergency medical facilities and services and public safety facilities and services including fire and police protection; A study prepared by a hydrologist, engineering geologist or similar professional certified in the State of Oregon describing: a. An estimate of water demands for the destination resort at maximum buildout, including a breakdown of estimated demand by category of consumption, including but not limited to residential, commercial, golf courses and irrigated common areas; b. Availability of water for estimated demands at the destination resort, including (1) identification of the proposed source; (2) identification of all available information on ground and surface waters relevant to the determination of adequacy of water supply for the destination resort; (3) identification of the area that may be measurably impacted by the water used by the destination resort (water impact area) and an analysis supporting the delineation of the impact area; and (4) a statistically valid sampling of domestic and other wells within the impact area; c. A water conservation plan including an analysis of available measures which are commonly used to reduce water consumption. This shall include a justification of the chosen water conservation plan. The water conservation plan shall include a wastewater disposal plan utilizing beneficial use of reclaimed water to the maximum extent practicable. For the purposes of DCC 18.113.050, beneficial uses shall include, but are not limited to: i. Irrigation of golf courses and greenways; ii. Establishment of artificial wetlands for wildlife habitation. 12. An erosion control plan for all disturbed land, as required by ORS 468. This plan shall include storm and melt water erosion control to be implemented during all phases of construction and permanent facilities or practices for the continuing treatment of these waters. This plan shall also explain how the water shall be used for beneficial use or why it cannot be used as such; 13. A description of proposed sewage disposal methods; 14. Wildfire prevention, control and evacuation plans; 15. A description of interim development including temporary structures related to sales and development; 16. Plans for owners' associations and related transition of responsibilities and transfer of property; 17. A description of the methods of ensuring that all facilities and common areas within each phase will be established and will be maintained in perpetuity; 18. A survey of housing availability for employees based upon income level and commuting distance; 19. An economic impact and feasibility analysis of the proposed development prepared by a qualified professional economist(s) or financial analyst(s) shall be provided which includes: PAGE 5 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" a. An analysis which addresses the economic viability of the proposed development; b. Fiscal impacts of the project including changes in employment, increased tax revenue, demands for new or increased levels of public services, housing for employees and the effects of loss of resource lands during the life of the project. 20. A solid waste management plan; 21. A desefiptien of the qystem. to be used for- owned -rains that will be li-s-ed-fsr 0"'efflight Wging afid how it will bee e6 et-pfe=risiefts to essefe thM any .,,7:..:.7.,..11„ o,. 1.,~7..:.,. r4eilities will be available for- avemight Fental tise by the genefal poblie for- at least 45 weeks per ealendaf yeaf thfo gh e.,+,l A description of the mechanism to be used to ensure that the destination resort provides an adequate supply of overnight lodging units to maintain compliance with the 150-unit minimum and 21/2 to 1 ratio set forth in DCC :18.113.060(D)(2). The mechanssm shall meet the requirements of DCC 18.113.070(0); 22. If the proposed destination resort is in a SMIA combining zone, DCC 18.56 shall be addressed; 23. If the proposed destination resort is in an LM combining zone, DCC 18.84 shall be addressed; 24. A survey of historic and cultural resources inventoried on an acknowledged Goal 5 inventory; 25. Other information as may reasonably be required by the Planning Director to address the effect of the proposed development as related to the requirements of DCC Title 18. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.060. Standards for destination resorts. The following standards shall govern consideration of destination resorts: A. The destination resort shall, in the first phase, provide for and include as part of the CMP the following minimum requirements: 1. At least 150 separate rentable units for visitor-oriented lodging. The resort may elect to phase in the 150 overnight lodging units as follows: a. At least 50 units of overnight lodging shall be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units and; b. At least 50 of the remaining 100 required overnight .lodging units shall be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within 5 years of the closure of sale of individual lots or units and; c. The remaining required overnight lodging units shall be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within 10 years of the closure of sale of individual lots or units. d If the developer of a resort guarantees all or a portion of the overni hg t lodging units required under subsection 18.113.060(A)(1 through surety bonding or other equivalent financial assurance, the developer shall begin construction of the subject overnight lodging units within 4 years of the date of execution. of the surety bond or other equivalent financial assurance. 2. Visitor-oriented eating establishments for at least 100 persons and meeting rooms which provide eating for at least 100 persons. 3. The aggregate cost of developing the overnight lodging facilities, developed recreational facilities, and the eating establishments and meeting rooms required in DCC 18.113.060(A)(1) and (2) shall be at least $2,000,000 7,000,000 (in 441993 dollars). 4. At least $2,000, *0_2,-1-33 ,333 of the $7,000,000 (in 44"1993 dollars) total minimum investment required by DCC 18.113.060(A)(3) shall be spent on developed recreational facilities. PAGE 6 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" 5. The facilities and accommodations required by DCC 18.113.060 must be physically provided or financially assured pursuant to DCC 18.113.110 prior to closure of sales, rental or lease of any residential dwellings or lots, or as allowed by DCC 18.113.060(A)(1)(a) through (c). B. All destination resorts shall have a minimum of 160 contiguous acres of land. Acreage split by public roads or rivers or streams shall count toward the acreage limit, provided that the CMP demonstrates that the isolated acreage will be operated or managed in a manner that will be integral to the remainder of the resort. C. All destination resorts shall have direct access onto a state or County arterial or collector roadway, as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. D. A destination resort shall, cumulatively and for each phase, meet the following minimum requirements: I. The resort shall have a minimum of 50 percent of the total acreage of the development dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, streets and parking areas. Portions of individual residential lots and landscape area requirements for developed recreational facilities, visitor-oriented accommodations or multi-family or commercial uses established by DCC 18.124.070 shall not be considered open space; 2. Individually-owned residential units that do not meet the definition of overnight lodging; in. DCC 18.04.030 shall not exceed two-21/2 such units for each unit of visitor-oriented overnight lodging. Individually-owned units shall be considered visitor-oriented lodging if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 43-38 weeks per calendar year through one or more central reservation and check-in service(s).. operated by the destination resort or by a real estate property manager, as defined in ORS 696,0.1.0. E. Phasing. A destination resort authorized pursuant to DCC 18.113.060 may be developed in phases. If a proposed resort is to be developed in phases, each phase shall be as described in the CMP. Each individual phase shall meet the following requirements: 1. Each phase, together with previously completed phases, if any, shall be capable of operating in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. 2. The first phase and each subsequent phase of the destination resort shall cumulatively meet the minimum requirements of DCC 18.113.060 and DCC 18.113.070. 3. Each phase may include two or more distinct noncontiguous areas within the destination resort. F. Destination resorts shall not exceed a density of one and one-half dwelling units per acre including residential dwelling units and excluding visitor-oriented overnight lodging. G. Dimensional Standards: 1. The minimum lot area, width, lot coverage, frontage and yard requirements and building heights otherwise applying to structures in underlying zones and the provisions of DCC 18.116 relating to solar access shall not apply within a destination resort. These standards shall be determined by the Planning Director or Hearings Body at the time of the CMP. In determining these standards, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find that the minimum specified in the CMP are adequate to satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan relating to solar access, fire protection, vehicle access, visual management within landscape management corridors and to protect resources identified by LCDC Goal 5 which are identified in the Comprehensive Plan. At a minimum, a 100-foot setback shall be maintained from all streams and rivers. Rimrock PAGE 7 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" setbacks shall be as provided in DCC Title 18. No lot for a single-family residence shall exceed an overall project average of 22,000 square feet in size. 2. Exterior setbacks. a. Except as otherwise specified herein, all development (including structures, site-obscuring fences of over three feet in height and changes to the natural topography of the land) shall be setback from exterior property lines as follows: i. Three hundred fifty feet for commercial development including all associated parking areas; ii. Two hundred fifty feet for multi-family development and visitor-oriented accommodations (except for single-family residences) including all associated parking areas; iii. One hundred fifty feet for above-grade development other than that listed in DCC 18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(i) and (ii); iv. One hundred feet for roads; v. Fifty feet for golf courses; and vi. Fifty feet for jogging trails and bike paths where they abut private developed lots and no setback for where they abut public roads and public lands. b. Notwithstanding DCC 18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(iii), above-grade development other than that listed in DCC 18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(i) and (ii) shall be set back 250 feet in circumstances where state highways coincide with exterior property lines. c. The setbacks of DCC 18.113.060 shall not apply to entry roadways and signs. H. Floodplain requirements. The floodplain zone (FP) requirements of DCC 18.96 shall apply to all developed portions of a destination resort in an FP Zone in addition to any applicable criteria of DCC 18.113. Except for floodplain areas which have been granted an exception to LCDC goals 3 and 4, floodplain zones shall not be considered part of a destination resort when determining compliance with the following standards; 1. One hundred sixty acre minimum site; 2. Density of development; 3. Open space requirements. A conservation easement as described in DCC Title 18 shall be conveyed to the County for all areas within a floodplain which are part of a destination resort. I. The Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM) requirements of DCC 18.84 shall apply to destination resorts where applicable. J. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland shall be a separate conditional use subject to all pertinent requirements of DCC Title 18. K. Time-share units not included in the overnight lodging calculations shall be subject to approval under the conditional use criteria set forth in DCC 18.128. Time-share units identified as part of the destination resort's overnight lodging units shall not be subject to the time-share conditional use criteria of DCC 18.128. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.070. Approval criteria. In order to approve a destination resort, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find from substantial evidence in the record that: A. The subject proposal is a destination resort as defined in DCC 18.040.030. B. All standards established by DCC 18.113.060 are or will be met. C. The economic analysis demonstrates that: 1. The necessary financial resources are available for the applicant to undertake the development consistent with the minimum investment requirements established by DCC 18.113. 2. Appropriate assurance has been submitted by lending institutions or other PAGE 8 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" financial entities that the developer has 2. Providing transportation facilities or can reasonably obtain adequate adequate to support the proposed financial support for the proposal once development consistent with Oregon approved. Administrative Rules chapter 660, 3. The destination resort will provide a Division 12; or substantial financial contribution which 3. Altering land use densities, design positively benefits the local economy requirements or using other methods to throughout the life of the entire project, reduce demand for automobile travel and considering changes in employment, to meet travel needs through other demands for new or increased levels of modes. public service, housing for employees A destination resort significantly affects and the effects of loss of resource land. a transportation facility if it would result 4. The natural amenities of the site in levels of travel or access that are considered together with the identified inconsistent with the functional developed recreation facilities to be classification of a facility or would provided with the resort, will constitute a reduce the level of service of the facility primary attraction to visitors, based on below the minimum acceptable level the economic feasibility analysis. identified in the relevant transportation D. Any negative impact on fish and wildlife system plan. resources will be completely mitigated so that a. Where the option of providing there is no net loss or net degradation of the transportation facilities is chosen, the resource. applicant shall be required to including but not E. Important natural features improve impacted roads to the full , standards of the affected authority as limited to significant wetlands, riparian a condition of approval. Timing of habitat, and landscape management corridors such improvements shall be based will be maintained. Riparian vegetation upon the timing of the impacts within 100 feet of streams, rivers and created by the development as significant wetlands will be maintained. determined by the traffic study or the Alterations to important natural features, recommendations of the affected including placement of structures, is allowed road authority. so long as the overall values of the feature are b. Access within the project shall be maintained. adequate to serve the project in a safe F. The development will not force a significant and efficient manner for each phase change in accepted farm or forest practices or of the project. significantly increase the cost of accepted H. The development will not create the potential farm or forest practices on surrounding lands for natural hazards identified in the County devoted to farm or forest use. Comprehensive Plan. No structure will be G. Destination resort developments that located on slopes exceeding 25 percent. A significantly affect a transportation facility wildfire management plan will be shall assure that the development is implemented to ensure that wildfire hazards consistent with the identified function, are minimized to the greatest extent practical capacity and level of service of the facility. and allow for safe evacuation. With the This shall be accomplished by either: exception of the slope restriction of DCC 1. Limiting the development to be 18.113.070, which shall apply to destination consistent with the planned function, resorts in forest zones, wildfire management capacity and level of service of the of destination resorts in forest zones shall be transportation facility; subject to the requirements of DCC PAGE 9 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" 18.40.070, where applicable, as to each individual structure and dwelling. I. Adequate public safety protection will be available through existing fire districts or will be provided onsite according to the specification of the state fire marshal. If the resort is located outside of an existing fire district the developer will provide for staffed structural fire protection services. Adequate public facilities to provide for necessary safety services such as police and fire will be provided on the site to serve the proposed development. Streams and drainage. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the adjoining property owner(s), existing natural drainages on the site will not be changed in any manner which interferes with drainage patterns on adjoining property. All surface water drainage changes created by the development will be contained on site in a manner which meets all standards of the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The erosion control plan for the subject development will meet all standards of ORS 468. K. Adequate water will be available for all proposed uses at the destination resort, based upon the water study and a proposed water conservation plan. Water use will not reduce the availability of water in the water impact areas identified in the water study considering existing uses and potential development previously approved in the affected area. Water sources shall not include any perched water table. Water shall only be taken from the regional aquifer. Where a perched water table is pierced to access the regional aquifer, the well must be sealed off from the perched water table. L. The wastewater disposal plan includes beneficial use to the maximum extent practicable. Approval of the CMP shall be conditioned on applicant's making application to DEQ for a Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) permit consistent with such an approved wastewater disposal plan. Approval shall also be conditioned upon applicant's compliance with applicable Oregon Administrative Rules regarding beneficial use of waste water, as determined by DEQ. Applicant shall receive approval of a WPCF permit consistent with this provision prior to applying for approval for its Final Master Plan under DCC 18.113. M. The resort will mitigate any demands it creates on publicly-owned recreational facilities on public lands in the surrounding area. N. Site improvements will be located and designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects of the resort on the surrounding land uses. Measures to accomplish this may include establishment and maintenance of buffers between the resort and adjacent land uses, including natural vegetation and appropriate fences, berms, landscaped areas and similar types of buffers; and setback of structures and other developments from adjacent land uses. 0. The resort will be served by an on-site sewage system approved by DEQ and a water system approved by the Oregon State Health Division except where connection to an existing public sewer or water system is allowed by the County Comprehensive Plan, such service will be provided to the resort. P. The destination resort will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner that substantially limits, impairs or prevents permitted or conditional uses of surrounding properties. Q. Commercial, cultural, entertainment or accessory uses provided as part of the destination resort will be contained within the development and will not be oriented to public highways adjacent to the property. Commercial, cultural and entertainment uses allowed within the destination resort will be incidental to the resort itself As such, these ancillary uses will be permitted only at a scale suited to serve visitors to the resort. The commercial uses permitted in the destination resort will be limited in type, location, number, dimensions and scale (both individually and cumulatively) to that PAGE 10 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" necessary to serve the needs of resort visitors. 1. Designation on the plat- A commercial use is necessary to serve the ifAivia, 'yw-ned tiflits-+ire-to be needs of visitors if: 1. Its primary purpose is to provide goods used in DC' -13 showing the or services that are typically provided to location of all of the required overnight overnight or other short-term visitors to lodging units, with a particular notation the resort, or the use is necessary for showing which individually owned operation, maintenance or promotion of residential units qualify as overnight the destination resort; and lodging units. The plat shall. demonstrate 2. The use is oriented to the resort and is compliance with the 21/2 to l ratio set located away from or screened from forth in DCC 18.11.3.060(D)(2); highways or other major through 2. Deed restrictions lif.mting use of suet roadways. identified premises to requiring the R. A plan exists to ensure a transfer of common individually-owned residential units desimated as overnight lodging yeses areas facilities such as sewer, water, streets under units to be and responsibility for police and fire available for rental at least 4338 weeks protection to owners' associations or similar each year through a cental reservation groups if contemplated. If such transfer is and check-in service operated by the not contemplated, the owner or responsible resort or by a real estate property party shall be clearly designated. Adequate manager, as defined in ORS 696.010; open space, facility maintenance and police 3. i"elusio~- the °G&R,s of an An and fire protection shall be ensured in irrevocable provision in the resort perpetuity in a manner acceptable to the CC&R s, enforceable by the County County. liwAtiag , of ° eb idefftif ed , ,.:t to S. Temporary structures will not be allowed requiring the individually-owned unless approved as part of the CMP. residential units designated as overnight Temporary structures will not be allowed for lodging 18.14-3 more than 18 months and will be subject to units to be available for .rental fi).r at least all use and site plan standards of DCC Title 4338 weeks each year through a central 18. reservation and check-in service operated T. The open space management plan is by the resort or by a real estate property sufficient to protect in perpetuity identified manager, as defined in ORS 696.010; open space values. 4. Inclusion of language in any rental contract between the owner of ie-an U. A mechanism to ensure that the destination individually-owned residential unit resort provides an adequate supply of designated as an overniabt lodging unit overnight lodging units to maintain and any central reservation and check-in compliance with the 150-unit minimum and service or real estate property manager the 21/2 to 1. ratio set forth in DCC requiring that such units-unit be made 18.113.060(D)(2). The mechanism shall also available . document that individually-owned residential ;order Dr,-113-for rental at least 4-5 units e esigxrated as 38 weeks each year; and overnight lodging +etffi' i° „ units are 5. A requirement that each su& available for rental for at least 4338 weeks individually-owned residential unit per calendar year through a central designated as an overnight lodiziny- unit reservation and check-in service-.--operated by be registered and a report be filed on the resort or by a real estate property each such unit yearly by the owner or manager, as defined in ORS 696.010. Such a central booking agent on January 1 with mechanism shall include all of the following: PAGE 11 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" the Planning Division as to the following information: a. Who the owner or owners have been over the last year; b. How many nights out of the year the unit was available for rent through the central reservation and check-in service; and c. How many nights out of the year the unit was rented out as an overnight lodging facility under DCC 18.113. (Ord. 92-032 § 1, 1992; Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.075. Imposition of conditions. The standards made applicable by DCC 18.113 may be met by the imposition of conditions calculated to insure that the standard will be met. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) C. Preliminary location of all sewer, water, storm drainage and other utility facilities and materials, and specifications and installation methods for water and waste water systems; D. Location and widths of all roads, streets, parking, pedestrian ways, equestrian trails and bike paths; E. Methods to be employed to buffer and mitigate potential adverse impacts on adjacent resource uses and property; F. Building elevations of visitor-oriented accommodations, recreational facilities and commercial services sufficient to demonstrate the architectural character of the proposed development; G. A description of all commercial uses including approximate size and floor area; 18.113.080. Procedure for modification of a conceptual master plan. Any substantial change, as determined by the Planning Director, proposed to an approved CMP shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original CMP. An insubstantial change may be approved by the Planning Director. Substantial change to an approved CMP, as used in DCC 18.113.080, means an alteration in the type, scale, location, phasing or other characteristic of the proposed development such that findings of fact on which the original approval was based would be materially affected. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) H. The location of or distance to any emergency medical facilities and public safety facilities; I. When a phase includes a residential subdivision, a general layout of the subdivision shall include the number of lots, minimum and maximum lot sizes, and approximate location of roadways shall be included: A description of measures taken, with copies of deed restrictions, CC&R's and rental contracts, to implement the requirements of DCC 18.113.070(0). . ~ ~ DCC-1-8. i i 3 asstff4fig R individually owned ledging units eensidefed pef ealead r year through a eet}attl reservation and eheek in se * 18.113.090. Requirements for final master plan. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide a Final Master Plan (FMP) which includes text and graphics explaining and K illustrating: A. The use, location, size and design of all important natural features, open space, buffer areas and common areas; A description of measures taken, with copies of deed restrictions and a final management plan, to implement the open space management plan required by DCC 18.113. L. The status of all required off-site roadway B. The use and general location of all buildings, improvements. other than residential dwellings and the M. Methods to be employed for managing proposed density of residential development automobile traffic demand. by location; PAGE 12 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "B" N. A copy of a WPCF permit issued by DEQ consistent with the requirements of DCC (Zoning maps adopted by Ord. 92-031 § 1, 1992) 18.113.070(L). (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.100. Procedure for approval of final master plan. A. The IMP shall be submitted in a form approved by the County Planning Director consistent with DCC Title 22 for a development permit. The Planning Director shall review the FMP and if the Planning Director finds that all standards of the CMP have been met, the IMP shall be approved in writing without notice. If approval the FMP involves the exercise of discretion, the IMP shall be treated as a land use action and notice shall be provided in accordance with DCC Title 22; B. If the Planning Director finds evidence in the IMP of a substantial change from the CMP, the Planning Director shall advise the applicant to submit an application for modification or amendment of the CMP. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.110. Provision of streets, utilities, developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations. A. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find that all streets, utilities, developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations required by the IMP are physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or substantial financial assurances approved by the County prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. B. Financial assurance or bonding to assure completion of streets and utilities, developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations in the IMP shall be required pursuant to the security requirements for site plan review and subdivision review established by the Deschutes County Code. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992; Ord. 92-003 § 1, 1992) PAGE 13 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "C" NOTE: denotes code provisions not amended by this ordinance. Chapter 18.04. TITLE, PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS 18.04.030. Definitions. As used in DCC Title 18, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 18.04.030. "Destination resort" means a self-contained development providing visitor-oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To qualify as a "major destination resort" under Goal 8, a proposed development must meet the following standards: A. The resort is located on a site of 160 or more acres. B. At least 50 percent of the site is dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, street and parking areas. C. At least $2 E>0A;A8E million. (in 44,941993 dollars) is spent in the first phase on improvements for on-site-developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations, exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and roads. Not less than one-third of this amount shall be spent on developed recreational facilities. restaurants with seating for 100 persons, and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodgings. 1. The 150 overnight lodging units may be phased in according to the timeline set forth in DCC 18.113.060(A)(1 )(a) throwgh (c). 2. The number of individually-owned residential traits that do not meet the definition of overnight lodging-- in DCC 18.04.030 shall not exceed 2 2 will at ° e " such units for each unit of overnight lodging. 3. The developed recreational facilities, ka facilities intended to serve the entire development, and visitor oriented accommodation must be physically provided or be guaranteed through surety bonding or substantially equivalent financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units, or as allowed by DCC 18.113.060(A)(1)(a) through (c). In phased developments, developed recreational facilities and other key facilities intended to serve a particular phase shall be construced prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed throw surety bonding. E. Commercial uses limited to those types and levels necessary to meet the needs of visitors to the development. Industrial uses are not permitted. €~eil•;•ties Intel to °••t develeprnent afid motor-efieiite4 OF be g+iafaf1A@ed +1,,.,,,,,,t, Stir@ty b8 a;•'^ 0809tRwted pfier- to sales ifi that phase of D. Visitor-oriented accommodations are provided, including meeting rooms, "Overnight lodgings" with respect to destination resorts, means permanent, separately rentable accommodations that are not available for residential use. Overnight lodgings include hotel or motel rooms, cabins and time-share units. Individually-owned units may be considered overnight lodgings if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 438 weeks per calendar year through a central reservation and check-in service operated by the destination resort or through a real estate property manager, as defined in ORS 696.010. Tent sites, recreational vehicle parks, mobile PAGE 1 OF 2 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "C" homes, dormitory rooms and similar accommodations do not qualify as overnight lodging for the purpose of this definition. PAGE 2 OF 2 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2004-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" Chapter 18.113. DESTINATION RESORTS ZONE - DR resources and their settings and other significant resources. 18.113.010. Purpose. 18.113.020. Applicability. 18.113.025. Application to existing resorts. 18.113.030. Uses in destination resorts. 18.113.040. Application submission. 18.113.050. Requirements for conditional use permit and conceptual master plan applications. 18.113.060. Standards for destination resorts. 18.113.070. Approval criteria. 18.113.075. Imposition of conditions. 18.113.080. Procedure for modification of a conceptual master plan. 18.113.090. Requirements for final master plan. 18.113.100. Procedure for approval of final master plan. 18.113.110. Provision of streets, utilities, developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations. 18.113.010. Purpose. A. The purpose of the DR Zone is to establish a mechanism for siting destination resorts to ensure compliance with LCDC Goal 8 and the County Comprehensive Plan. The destination resort designation is intended to identify land areas which are available for the siting of destination resorts, but which will only be developed if consistent with the purpose and intent of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. B. The DR Zone is an overlay zone. The DR Zone is intended to provide for properly designed and sited destination resort facilities which enhance and diversify the recreational opportunities and the economy of Deschutes County. The DR Zone will ensure resort development that compliments the natural and cultural attractiveness of the area without significant adverse effect on commercial farming and forestry, environmental and natural features, cultural and historic C. It is the intent of DCC 18.113 to establish procedures and standards for developing destination resorts while ensuring that all applicable County Comprehensive Plan policies are achieved. D. It is the intent of DCC 18.113 to ensure that all elements of a destination resort which are proposed are financially secured in a manner which will protect the public's interest should the development not be completed as proposed. E. It is not the intent of DCC 18.113 to site developments that are in effect rural subdivisions, whose primary purpose is to serve full-time residents of the area. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.020. Applicability. A. The provisions of DCC 18.113 shall apply to proposals for the development of destination resorts, as defined in DCC Title 18, in areas designated DR by the County zoning maps. The provisions of DCC 18.113 shall not apply to any development proposal in an area designated DR other than a destination resort. B. When these provisions are applicable, they shall supersede all other provisions of the underlying zone. Other provisions of the zoning ordinance, made applicable by specific map designations, such as the SMIA, AH, CH, FP or LM, or otherwise applicable under the terms of the zoning ordinance text shall remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise specified herein. C. The provisions of DCC 18.113 apply to destination resorts sited through the Goal 2 exception process. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.025. Application to existing resorts. Expansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination resorts shall meet the following criteria: PAGE 1 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without consideration of any existing development; or B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved destination resort development and the proposed expansion area), except that as to the area covered by the existing destination resort, compliance with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required. If the applicant chooses to support its proposal with any part of the existing development, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will be situated and managed in a manner that it will be integral to the remainder of the resort. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.030. Uses in destination resorts. The following uses are allowed, provided they are part of, and are intended to serve persons at, the destination resort pursuant to DCC 18.113.030 and are approved in a final master plan: A. Visitor-oriented accommodations designed to provide for the needs of visitors to the resort: 1. Overnight lodging, including lodges, hotels, motels, bed and breakfast facilities, time-share units and similar transient lodging facilities; 2. Convention and conference facilities and meeting rooms; 3. Retreat centers; 4. Restaurants, lounges and similar eating and drinking establishments; and 5. Other similar visitor-oriented accommodations consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. B. Developed recreational facilities designed to provide for the needs of visitors and residents of the resort; 1. Golf courses and clubhouses; 2. Indoor and outdoor swimming pools; 3. Indoor and outdoor tennis courts; 4. Physical fitness facilities; 5. Equestrian facilities; 6. Wildlife observation shelters; 7. Walkways, bike paths, jogging paths, equestrian trails; 8. Other similar recreational facilities consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. C. Residential accommodations: 1. Single-family dwellings; 2. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and multi-family dwellings; 3. Condominiums; 4. Townhouses; 5. Living quarters for employees; 6. Time-share projects. D. Commercial services and specialty shops designed to provide for the visitors to the resort: 1. Specialty shops, including but not limited to delis, clothing stores, bookstores, gift shops and specialty food shops; 2. Barber shops/beauty salons; 3. Automobile service stations limited to fuel sales, incidental parts sales and minor repairs; 4. Craft and art studios and galleries; 5. Real estate offices; 6. Convenience stores; 7. Other similar commercial services which provide for the needs of resort visitors and are consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. E. Uses permitted in open space areas generally include only those uses that, except as specified herein, do not alter the existing or natural landscape of the proposed open space areas. No improvements, development or other alteration of the natural or existing landscape shall be allowed in open space areas, except as necessary for development of golf course fairways and greens, hiking and bike trails, lakes and ponds and primitive picnic facilities including park benches and picnic tables. Where farming activities would be consistent with identified preexisting open space uses, irrigation equipment and associated pumping facilities shall be allowed. F. Facilities necessary for public safety and utility service within the destination resort. PAGE 2 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" G. Other similar uses permitted in the underlying zone consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113.030. H. Accessory Uses in Destination Resorts: 1. The following accessory uses shall be permitted provided they are ancillary to the destination resort and consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8: a. Transportation-related facilities excluding airports; b. Emergency medical facilities; c. Storage structures and areas; d. Kennels as a service for resort visitors only; e. Recycling and garbage collection facilities; f. Other similar accessory uses consistent with the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.040. Application submission. The authorization of a permit for a destination resort shall consist of three steps. A. Conceptual Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Destination Resort. A conceptual master plan (CMP) shall be submitted which addresses all requirements established in DCC 18.113.040. The CMP application shall be processed as if it were a conditional use permit under DCC Title 22, shall be subject to DCC 18.128.010, 18.128.020 and 18.128.030 and shall be reviewed for compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in DCC 18.113. B. Final Master Plan. The applicant shall prepare a final master plan (IMP) which incorporates all requirements of the County approval for the CMP. The Planning Director shall review the IMP to determine if it complies with the approved CMP and all conditions of approval of the conditional use permit. The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve, deny or return the IMP to the applicant for additional information. When interpretations of the Planning Director involve issues which are discretionary, the IMP approval shall be treated as a land use permit in accordance with DCC Title 22. C. Site Plan Review. Each element or development phase of the destination resort must receive additional approval through the required site plan review (DCC 18.124) or subdivision process (DCC Title 17). In addition to findings satisfying the site plan or subdivision criteria, findings shall be made that the specific development proposal complies with the standards and criteria of DCC 18.113 and the IMP. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.050. Requirements for conditional use permit and conceptual master plan applications. The CMP provides the framework for development of the destination resort and is intended to ensure that the destination resort meets the requirements of DCC 18.113. The CMP application shall include the following information: A. Illustrations and graphics to scale, identifying: 1. The location and total number of acres to be developed as a planned destination resort; 2. The subject area and all land uses adjacent to the subject area; 3. The topographic character of the site; 4. Types and general location of proposed development uses, including residential and commercial uses; 5. Major geographic features; 6. Proposed methods of access to the development, identifying the main vehicular circulation system within the resort and an indication of whether streets will be public or private; 7. Major pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle trail systems; 8. Important natural features of the site, including habitat of threatened or endangered species, streams, rivers, wetlands and riparian vegetation within 200 feet of streams, rivers and wetlands. PAGE 3 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" 9. All uses proposed within landscape Works or the Oregon Department of management corridors identified by the Transportation, or both) at the same time comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance. as the conceptual master plan and shall 10. The location and number of acres be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer reserved as open space, buffer area, or to the minimum standards of the road common area. Areas designated as "open authorities. space," "buffer area," or "common area" 3. A description of how the proposed should be clearly illustrated and labeled destination resort will satisfy the as such; standards and criteria of DCC 18.113.060 11. All proposed recreational amenities; and 18.113.070; 12. Proposed overall density. 4. Design guidelines and development B. Further information as follows: standards defining visual and aesthetic 1. A description of the natural parameters for: characteristics of the site and surrounding a. Building character; including a description of areas b. Landscape character; , resources and the effect of the destination c. Preservation of existing topography resort on the resources; methods and vegetation; d. Siting of buildings; and employed to mitigate adverse impacts on e. Proposed standards for minimum lot resources; analysis of how the overall area, width, frontage, lot coverage, values of the natural features of the site setbacks and building heights. will be preserved, enhanced or utilized in 5. An open space management plan which the design concept for the destination includes: resort; and a proposed resource a. An explanation of how the open protection plan to ensure that important space management plan meets the natural features will be protected and minimum standards of DCC 18.113 maintained. Factors to be addressed for each phase of the development; include: b. An inventory of the important natural a. Compatibility of soil composition for features identified in the open space proposed development(s) and areas and any other open space and potential erosion hazard; natural values present in the open b. Geology, including areas of potential instability; space; C. Slope and general topography; c. A set of management prescriptions d. Areas subject to flooding; that will operate to maintain and e. Other hazards or development conserve in perpetuity any identified constraints, important natural features and other f. Vegetation; natural or open space values present g. Water areas, including streams, in the open space; Deed restrictions that will assure that d lakes, ponds and wetlands; . the open space areas are maintained h. Important natural features; as open space in perpetuity. i. Landscape management corridors; 6. An explanation of public use of facilities j. Wildlife. and amenities on the site. 2. A traffic study which addresses (1) 7. A description of the proposed method of impacts on affected County, city and providing all utility systems, including state road systems and (2) transportation the location and sizing of the utility improvements necessary to mitigate any such impacts. The study shall be systems; 8. A description of the proposed order and submitted to the affected road authority schedule for phasing, if any, of all (either the County Department of Public development including an explanation of PAGE 4 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" when facilities will be provided and how c. A water conservation plan including they will be secured if not completed an analysis of available measures prior to closure of sale of individual lots which are commonly used to reduce or units; water consumption. This shall 9. An explanation of how the destination include a justification of the chosen resort has been sited or designed to avoid water conservation plan. The water or minimize adverse effects or conflicts conservation plan shall include a on adjacent lands. The application shall wastewater disposal plan utilizing identify the surrounding uses and beneficial use of reclaimed water to potential conflicts between the the maximum extent practicable. destination resort and adjacent uses For the purposes of DCC within 660 feet of the boundaries of the 18.113.050, beneficial uses shall parcel or parcels upon which the resort is include, but are not limited to: to be developed. The application shall i. Irrigation of golf courses and explain how any proposed buffer area greenways; will avoid or minimize adverse effects or ii. Establishment of artificial conflicts; wetlands for wildlife habitation. 10. A description of the proposed method for 12. An erosion control plan for all disturbed providing emergency medical facilities land, as required by ORS 468. This plan and services and public safety facilities shall include storm and melt water and services including fire and police erosion control to be implemented during protection; all phases of construction and permanent 11. A study prepared by a hydrologist, facilities or practices for the continuing engineering geologist or similar treatment of these waters. This plan shall professional certified in the State of also explain how the water shall be used Oregon describing: for beneficial use or why it cannot be a. An estimate of water demands for the used as such; destination resort at maximum 13. A description of proposed sewage buildout, including a breakdown of disposal methods; estimated demand by category of 14. Wildfire prevention, control and consumption, including but not evacuation plans; limited to residential, commercial, 15. A description of interim development golf courses and irrigated common including temporary structures related to areas; sales and development; b. Availability of water for estimated 16. Plans for owners' associations and related demands at the destination resort, transition of responsibilities and transfer including (1) identification of the of property; proposed source; (2) identification of 17. A description of the methods of ensuring all available information on ground that all facilities and common areas and surface waters relevant to the within each phase will be established and determination of adequacy of water will be maintained in perpetuity; supply for the destination resort; (3) 18. A survey of housing availability for identification of the area that may be employees based upon income level and measurably impacted by the water commuting distance; used by the destination resort (water 19. An economic impact and feasibility impact area) and an analysis analysis of the proposed development supporting the delineation of the prepared by a qualified professional impact area; and (4) a statistically economist(s) or financial analyst(s) shall valid sampling of domestic and other be provided which includes: wells within the impact area; PAGE 5 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" a. An analysis which addresses the economic viability of the proposed development; b. Fiscal impacts of the project including changes in employment, increased tax revenue, demands for new or increased levels of public services, housing for employees and the effects of loss of resource lands during the life of the project. 20. A solid waste management plan; 21. A degeription of the system to be used fe tleffwaiagenievA of a" individuajl~ 7 ewned aiiits that will be-used fef evemi& ledging a ho it will be implemented, ineluding, pEopesed ,diyi, hall„ , „l l l. ' - i enitses will be available for- evemight Hatal tise by the genefal publie fef at least 45 weeks per ealendar eaf thfoug „t,.,,l .--d ebeek in sefv' A description of the mechanism to be used to ensure that the destination. resort provides an adequate supply of overnight lode units to maintain compliance with the 150-unit minimum and 212 to I ratio set forth in DCC 18.113.0600)(2). The mechansim shall meet the requirements of DCC 18.113.070(0); 22. If the proposed destination resort is in a SMIA combining zone, DCC 18.56 shall be addressed; 23. If the proposed destination resort is in an LM combining zone, DCC 18.84 shall be addressed; 24. A survey of historic and cultural resources inventoried on an acknowledged Goal 5 inventory; 25. Other information as may reasonably be required by the Planning Director to address the effect of the proposed development as related to the requirements of DCC Title 18. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.060. Standards for destination resorts. The following standards shall govern consideration of destination resorts: A. The destination resort shall, in the first phase, provide for and include as part of the CMP the following minimum requirements: 1. At least 150 separate rentable units for visitor-oriented lodging. The resort may elect to phase in the 150 overnight lodging units as follows: a. At least 50 units of overnight lodging shall be constructed or fines eiRl Rsstjt~L° prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units, and, b. At least 50 of the remaining 1.00 required ovemi hg t lodging units shall be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within 5 years of the closure of sale of individual lots or units, and; c. The remaining required overnight lodginfr units shall be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within 10 years of the closure of sale of individual lots or units. d. If the developer of a resort guarantees all or a portion of the ovemi ht :Lodging units required under subsection 18.113.0600(1) through surety bonding or other equivalent financial assurance, the developer shall begins construction. of the subject overnight lodging units within 4 years of the date of execution of the surety bond or other equivalent financial assurance. 2. Visitor-oriented eating establishments for at least 100 persons and meeting rooms which provide eating for at least 100 persons. 3. The aggregate cost of developing the overnight lodging facilities, developed recreational facilities, and the eating establishments and meeting rooms reint4ed ii=i 2+ N-3 AH9(~4}(~) twd (2}-shall be at least $2,000,000 7,000,000 (in 499841993 dollars). 4. At least $0,000 2,333,333 of the $7,000,000 (in 41494 1 9 9 3 dollars) total minimum investment required by DCC 18.113.060(A)(3Lshall be spent on developed recreational facilities. PAGE 6 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" 5. The facilities and accommodations required by DCC 18.113.060 must be physically provided or financially assured pursuant to DCC 18.113.110 prior to closure of sales, rental or lease of any residential dwellings or lots, or as allowed by DCC 18.113.060(A)(1 (a) through (c). B. All destination resorts shall have a minimum of 160 contiguous acres of land. Acreage split by public roads or rivers or streams shall count toward the acreage limit, provided that the CMP demonstrates that the isolated acreage will be operated or managed in a manner that will be integral to the remainder of the resort. C. All destination resorts shall have direct access onto a state or County arterial or collector roadway, as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. resort or by a real estate property manager, as defined in ORS 696.010. E. Phasing. A destination resort authorized pursuant to DCC 18.113.060 may be developed in phases. If a proposed resort is to be developed in phases, each phase shall be as described in the CMP. Each individual phase shall meet the following requirements: 1. Each phase, together with previously completed phases, if any, shall be capable of operating in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. 2. The first phase and each subsequent phase of the destination resort shall cumulatively meet the minimum requirements of DCC 18.113.060 and DCC 18.113.070. 3. Each phase may include two or more distinct noncontiguous areas within the destination resort. D. A destination resort shall, cumulatively and for each phase, meet the following minimum requirements: 1. The resort shall have a minimum of 50 percent of the total acreage of the development dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, streets and parking areas. Portions of individual residential lots and landscape area requirements for developed recreational facilities, visitor-oriented accommodations or multi-family or commercial uses established by DCC 18.124.070 shall not be considered open space; 2. Individually-owned residential units that do not meet the definition of overnight lodging .in. DCC" 18.04.030 shall not exceed 6ve 2 such units for each unit of visitor-oriented overnight lodging. Individually-owned units shall be considered visitor-oriented lodging if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 45-38 weeks per calendar year through one or more central reservation and check-in service(s).- operated by the destination F. Destination resorts shall not exceed a density of one and one-half dwelling units per acre including residential dwelling units and excluding visitor-oriented overnight lodging. G. Dimensional Standards: 1. The minimum lot area, width, lot coverage, frontage and yard requirements and building heights otherwise applying to structures in underlying zones and the provisions of DCC 18.116 relating to solar access shall not apply within a destination resort. These standards shall be determined by the Planning Director or Hearings Body at the time of the CMP. In determining these standards, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find that the minimum specified in the CMP are adequate to satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan relating to solar access, fire protection, vehicle access, visual management within landscape management corridors and to protect resources identified by LCDC Goal 5 which are identified in the Comprehensive Plan. At a minimum, a 100-foot setback shall be maintained from all streams and rivers. Rimrock PAGE 7 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" setbacks shall be as provided in DCC Except for floodplain areas which have been Title 18. No lot for a single-family granted an exception to LCDC goals 3 and 4, residence shall exceed an overall project floodplain zones shall not be considered part average of 22,000 square feet in size. of a destination resort when determining 2. Exterior setbacks. compliance with the following standards; a. Except as otherwise specified herein, 1. One hundred sixty acre minimum site; all development (including 2. Density of development; structures, site-obscuring fences of 3. Open space requirements. over three feet in height and changes A conservation easement as described in to the natural topography of the land) DCC Title 18 shall be conveyed to the shall be setback from exterior County for all areas within a floodplain property lines as follows: which are part of a destination resort. i. Three hundred fifty feet for commercial development I. The Landscape Management Combining including all associated parking Zone (LM) requirements of DCC 18.84 shall areas; apply to destination resorts where applicable. ii. Two hundred fifty feet for J. Excavation, grading and fill and removal multi-family development and within the bed and banks of a stream or river visitor-oriented accommodations or in a wetland shall be a separate conditional (except for single-family use subject to all pertinent requirements of residences) including all DCC Title 18. associated parking areas; iii. One hundred fifty feet for K. Time-share units not included in the above-grade development other overnight lodging calculations shall be than in DCC that listed sted subject to approval under the conditional use 18.113 .060(G)( i) and (ii); criteria set forth in DCC 18.128. Time-share iv. One hundred feet for roads units identified as part of the destination v. Fifty feet for golf courses; and resort's overnight lodging units shall not be vi. Fifty feet for jogging trails and subject to the time-share conditional use bike paths where they abut criteria of DCC 18.128. private developed lots and no (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) setback for where they abut public roads and public lands. 18.113.070. Approval criteria. Notwithstanding DCC b. Notwithsta In order to approve a destination resort, the 18.11 G2)(a)(iii), Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find above-grade development other than from substantial evidence in the record that: that listed in DCC A. The subject proposal is a destination resort as 18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(i) and (ii) shall defined in DCC 18.040.030. be set back 250 feet in circumstances where state highways coincide with B. All standards established by DCC 18.113.060 exterior property lines. are or will be met. c. The setbacks of DCC 18.113.060 C. The economic analysis demonstrates that: shall not apply to entry roadways and 1. The necessary financial resources are signs. available for the applicant to undertake H. Floodplain requirements. The floodplain the development consistent with the zone (FP) requirements of DCC 18.96 shall minimum investment requirements apply to all developed portions of a established by DCC 18.113. destination resort in an FP Zone in addition to 2. Appropriate assurance has been any applicable criteria of DCC 18.113. submitted by lending institutions or other PAGE 8 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" financial entities that the developer has 2. Providing transportation facilities or can reasonably obtain adequate adequate to support the proposed financial support for the proposal once development consistent with Oregon approved. Administrative Rules chapter 660, 3. The destination resort will provide a Division 12; or substantial financial contribution which 3. Altering land use densities, design positively benefits the local economy requirements or using other methods to throughout the life of the entire project, reduce demand for automobile travel and considering changes in employment, to meet travel needs through other demands for new or increased levels of modes. public service, housing for employees A destination resort significantly affects and the effects of loss of resource land. a transportation facility if it would result 4. The natural amenities of the site in levels of travel or access that are considered together with the identified inconsistent with the functional developed recreation facilities to be classification of a facility or would provided with the resort, will constitute a reduce the level of service of the facility primary attraction to visitors, based on below the minimum acceptable level the economic feasibility analysis. identified in the relevant transportation D. Any negative impact on fish and wildlife system plan. resources will be completely mitigated so that a. Where the option of providing there is no net loss or net degradation of the transportation facilities is chosen, the resource. applicant shall be required to E. Important natural features, including but not improve impacted roads to the full limited to significant wetlands, riparian standards of the affected authority as habitat, and landscape management corridors a condition of approval. Timing of will be maintained. Riparian vegetation such improvements shall be based within 100 feet of streams, rivers and upon the timing of the impacts significant wetlands will be maintained. created by the development as Alterations to important natural features, determined by the traffic study or the including placement of structures, is allowed recommendations of the affected so long as the overall values of the feature are road authority. maintained b. Access within the project shall be . adequate to serve the project in a safe F. The development will not force a significant and efficient manner for each phase change in accepted farm or forest practices or of the project. significantly increase the cost of accepted H. The development will not create the potential farm or forest practices on surrounding lands for natural hazards identified in the County devoted to farm or forest use. Comprehensive Plan. No structure will be G. Destination resort developments that located on slopes exceeding 25 percent. A significantly affect a transportation facility wildfire management plan will be shall assure that the development is implemented to ensure that wildfire hazards consistent with the identified function, are minimized to the greatest extent practical capacity and level of service of the facility. and allow for safe evacuation. With the This shall be accomplished by either: exception of the slope restriction of DCC 1. Limiting the development to be 18.113.070, which shall apply to destination consistent with the planned function, resorts in forest zones, wildfire management capacity and level of service of the of destination resorts in forest zones shall be transportation facility; subject to the requirements of DCC PAGE 9 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" 18.40.070, where applicable, as to each individual structure and dwelling. Adequate public safety protection will be available through existing fire districts or will be provided onsite according to the specification of the state fire marshal. If the resort is located outside of an existing fire district the developer will provide for staffed structural fire protection services. Adequate public facilities to provide for necessary safety services such as police and fire will be provided on the site to serve the proposed development. Streams and drainage. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the adjoining property owner(s), existing natural drainages on the site will not be changed in any manner which interferes with drainage patterns on adjoining property. All surface water drainage changes created by the development will be contained on site in a manner which meets all standards of the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The erosion control plan for the subject development will meet all standards of ORS 468. K. Adequate water will be available for all proposed uses at the destination resort, based upon the water study and a proposed water conservation plan. Water use will not reduce the availability of water in the water impact areas identified in the water study considering existing uses and potential development previously approved in the affected area. Water sources shall not include any perched water table. Water shall only be taken from the regional aquifer. Where a perched water table is pierced to access the regional aquifer, the well must be sealed off from the perched water table. L. The wastewater disposal plan includes beneficial use to the maximum extent practicable. Approval of the CMP shall be conditioned on applicant's making application to DEQ for a Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) permit consistent with such an approved wastewater disposal plan. Approval shall also be conditioned upon applicant's compliance with applicable Oregon Administrative Rules regarding beneficial use of waste water, as determined by DEQ. Applicant shall receive approval of a WPCF permit consistent with this provision prior to applying for approval for its Final Master Plan under DCC 18.113. M. The resort will mitigate any demands it creates on publicly-owned recreational facilities on public lands in the surrounding area. N. Site improvements will be located and designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects of the resort on the surrounding land uses. Measures to accomplish this may include establishment and maintenance of buffers between the resort and adjacent land uses, including natural vegetation and appropriate fences, berms, landscaped areas and similar types of buffers; and setback of structures and other developments from adjacent land uses. 0. The resort will be served by an on-site sewage system approved by DEQ and a water system approved by the Oregon State Health Division except where connection to an existing public sewer or water system is allowed by the County Comprehensive Plan, such service will be provided to the resort. P. The destination resort will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner that substantially limits, impairs or prevents permitted or conditional uses of surrounding properties. Q. Commercial, cultural, entertainment or accessory uses provided as part of the destination resort will be contained within the development and will not be oriented to public highways adjacent to the property. Commercial, cultural and entertainment uses allowed within the destination resort will be incidental to the resort itself. As such, these ancillary uses will be permitted only at a scale suited to serve visitors to the resort. The commercial uses permitted in the destination resort will be limited in type, location, number, dimensions and scale (both individually and cumulatively) to that PAGE 10 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO.2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" necessary to serve the needs of resort visitors. ORS 696.0010. Sueb fflechanism 1 A commercial use is necessary to serve the inelude all o the fo11o ,k+,- needs of visitors if- 1. An annual report to be submitted to the 1. Its primary purpose is to provide goods Planning Division each February 1, or services that are typically provided to documenting the tollowing as of overnight or other short-term visitors to December 31 of the previous year: the resort, or the use is necessary for a. The status of the required 150 operation, maintenance or promotion of overni hg t lodging units; and the destination resort; and b. The number of individually- 2. The use is oriented to the resort and is owned residential units and the number located away from or screened from of ovemi hg_t-lodging units: and highways or other major through c. The ratio between the roadways. individually-owned residential units and R. A plan exists to ensure a transfer of common the overnight lodging units; and areas, facilities such as sewer, water, streets d. A report on the individually- and responsibility for police and fire owned residential units counted as protection to owners associations or similar : overnight units as required in groups if contemplated. If such transfer is 18.113.060(0)(2)( e~ not contemplated, the owner or responsible party shall be clearly designated. Adequate 2. Documentation; that individually-owned open space, facility maintenance and police residential. units designated as overnight and fire protection shall be ensured in lodging units are available for rental for perpetuity in a manner acceptable to the at least 38 weeks per calendar year County. through a central reservation and S. Temporary structures will not be allowed by a real estate property manager, as unless approved as part of the CMP. defined in ORS 696.010. Such Temporary structures will not be allowed for documentation shall ! include all of the more than 18 months and will be subject to following: all use and site plan standards of DCC Title 18, 4-a: Designation on the plat-o#=w1*c-h T. The open space management plan is indi'Z ually owned eni's ai-e-to be sufficient to protect in perpetuity identified iodg; ` as u open space values. s, d in DCC 1T8-1 showing the use location of all of the required overnight U. A mechanism to ensure that the destination todging units, with a particular notation. resort provides an adequate supply of showing which individually owned overnight lodging units to maintain residential units qualify as overnight compliance with the 150-unit minimum and todging units. The plat shall demonstrate the 244 2 to 1 ratio set forth in DCC compliance with the 24- 2-2 to 1 ratio set 18.113,060D (2) The mechanism shall forth in DCC 18.113.060(D)(2); include the following. ShR4 ~ a^P,11W°r* 2b. Deed restrictions l;n ~mr oz that individually Owned fesidefitial un 9+teh identified pt~eaiises to requiring the individualty-owned residential units Wgiffi4 t ' t bl + designated as overnight lodging tom es a at least 45_ e weeh~; per ealendi+f - - under DCT, l8."~-,?-or- units to be year through it eentrak resettatietl anc# available for rental at least 44-38 weeks elieek in!;erviee. opet-ated b the - each year through a cental reservation a foal estate prop- r~ ~jaai3ag°fas Qa;med4'a and cheek-in service operated by the PAGE 11 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" resort or by a real estate property manager, as defined in. ORS 696.010; An irrevocable provision in the resort CC&R's, enforceable by the County limiting use of stiell idefi~ified units to requiring the individuatly-owned residential units designated as overnight lodging lees-- under DGG 18.14-3- units to be available for rental fit--at least 438 weeks each year throw h a central reservation and check-in service operated by the resort or by a real estate proper manager, as defined in ORS 696.010; 4d. Inclusion of language in any rental contract between the owner of the an individually-owned residential unit designated as an overnight lodgingunit and any central reservation and check-in service or real estate property manager requiring that such Mnil~ unit be iiiade available at; ght lodging iliti, t;ndef DCC 18.113 for rental at least 45 38 weeks each year; and -5e. A requirement that each individually-owned residential unit designated as an overnight lodging unit be registered and a report be filed on each such unit yearly by the owner or central booking agent o anua^' ' as required by 18.113.070(U)(1) the Plann-4vg -trivia-as to the following information: iii. Who the owner or owners have been over the last year; bi'. How many nights out of the year the unit was available for rent through the central reservation and check-in service; and e.] u. How many nights out of the year the unit was rented out as an overnight lodging facility under DCC 18.113. (Ord. 92-032 § 1, 1992; Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.075. Imposition of conditions. The standards made applicable by DCC 18.113 may be met by the imposition of conditions calculated to insure that the standard will be met. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.080. Procedure for modification of a conceptual master plan. Any substantial change, as determined by the Planning Director, proposed to an approved CMP shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original CMP. An insubstantial change may be approved by the Planning Director. Substantial change to an approved CMP, as used in DCC 18.113.080, means an alteration in the type, scale, location, phasing or other characteristic of the proposed development such that findings of fact on which the original approval was based would be materially affected. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.090. Requirements for final master plan. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide a Final Master Plan (IMP) which includes text and graphics explaining and illustrating: A. The use, location, size and design of all important natural features, open space, buffer areas and common areas; B. The use and general location of all buildings, other than residential dwellings and the proposed density of residential development by location; C. Preliminary location of all sewer, water, storm drainage and other utility facilities and materials, and specifications and installation methods for water and waste water systems; D. Location and widths of all roads, streets, parking, pedestrian ways, equestrian trails and bike paths; E. Methods to be employed to buffer and mitigate potential adverse impacts on adjacent resource uses and property; F. Building elevations of visitor-oriented accommodations, recreational facilities and commercial services sufficient to demonstrate the architectural character of the proposed development; G. A description of all commercial uses including approximate size and floor area; PAGE 12 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) EXHIBIT "D" H. The location of or distance to any emergency medical facilities and public safety facilities; 1. When a phase includes a residential subdivision, a general layout of the subdivision shall include the number of lots, minimum and maximum lot sizes, and approximate location of roadways shall be included: the Planning Director shall advise the applicant to submit an application for modification or amendment of the CMP. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.110. Provision of streets, utilities, developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations. J. A description of measures taken, with copies of deed restrictions, CC&R's and rental contracts, to implement the requirements of DCC 18.113.070(U). meastiFes idea iPed DGC_ 19.113 r~-cT ---r&:istkrlng tjla* rrcrc m d:N`dtia1jv „ „J lod-;,,,. -nits -considered per-g ealettdar r tl~i ett T a sc^~ta~l K. A description of measures taken, with copies of deed restrictions and a final management plan, to implement the open space management plan required by DCC 18.113. L. The status of all required off-site roadway improvements. M. Methods to be employed for managing automobile traffic demand. N. A copy of a WPCF permit issued by DEQ consistent with the requirements of DCC 18.113.070(L). (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) 18.113.100. Procedure for approval of final master plan. A. The FMP shall be submitted in a form approved by the County Planning Director consistent with DCC Title 22 for a development permit. The Planning Director shall review the FMP and if the Planning Director finds that all standards of the CMP have been met, the FMP shall be approved in writing without notice. If approval the FMP involves the exercise of discretion, the IMP shall be treated as a land use action and notice shall be provided in accordance with DCC Title 22; B. If the Planning Director finds evidence in the FMP of a substantial change from the CMP, A. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall fmd that all streets, utilities, developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations required by the FMP are physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or substantial financial assurances approved by the County prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. B. Financial assurance or bonding to assure completion of streets and utilities, developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations in the FMP shall be required pursuant to the security requirements for site plan review and subdivision review established by the Deschutes County Code. (Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992; Ord. 92-003 § 1, 1992) 18.113.120. Conservation easement to protect resource site. A. If a tract to be used as a destination resart contains a resource site desimated for protection in an acknowledged comprehcnsive plan pursuant to open spaces scenic and historic areas and natural rc ourcc foals, that tract of land shall preserve the resource site by conservation easement sufficient to protect the resource values of the resource site inaccordance - with ORS 271.715 to 271.795. B. A conservation easement under DCC 18.113.120 shall be recorded with the property records of the tract on which' the destination resort is sited. (Zoning maps adopted by Ord. 92-031 § 1, 1992) PAGE 13 OF 13 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2006-036 (12/04/2006) Community Development Department 00 S Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division st' t ,117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 MEETING MINUTES http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BARNES AND SAWYER ROOMS OF THE DESCHUTES SERVICES BUILDING 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OR 97701 NOVEMBER 4, 2004 - 5:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sailors called the meeting to order. Members present were Tammy Sailors, Keith Cyrus, Brenda Pace, Dennis Erisman, Mike Shirtcliff and Allan Jones. Staff present were Matthew Martin, Planner, and Linda Larson, Planning Secretary. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 10/14/04 and 5/13/04) 10/14/04 - Commissioner Shirtcliff made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Erisman seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approving the minutes. 5/13/04 - There was not a quorum present to approve these minutes. They will be brought up for approval at the next meeting. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS There were none. IV. PUBLIC HEARING - FILE NO'S. TA-04-4 AND TA-04-5 - TEXT AMENDMENTS TO DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, TITLES 18 AND 19, REGARDING DESTINATION RESORTS - MATT MARTIN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER Chair Sailors read the legal disclaimer. Chair Sailors asked if anyone on the Commission wished to declare a bias on this issue. Chair Sailors had done work on behalf of the applicant on water issues. No one challenged Commissioner Sailors. There were no challenges from the public DCPC Meeting Minutes November 4, 2004 Page 1 Quality Services Pei fo"ned ivith Pride they are not counted. The second home users were really transient users. There is hesitancy of some purchasers to invest in a second home when there is such a high restriction on their private usage. The 45 weeks is a tough standard, when you buy a home and are limited to 7 weeks. The initial capitol investment is huge for 150 units. In 1993 they amended it to go 75-75 but it was never implemented by Deschutes County. We went to the legislature to get more flexibility in regard to that. We agreed to a 50-50- 50. The last issue was the central reservation system. Some of the resorts have property mangers or are managed by other people. We negotiated with LCDC, 1000 Friends then the governor's office. The consensus by all was compelling. The State wanted to insure that there was a transient use of the property. That is how we came to an Eastern and Western Oregon that is dealt with by the market. There is no major change to the definition of overnight or operation of overnight. The bill did not include the opportunity to include these second homes as rentals unless they stayed in a rental pool. The weeks changed from 45 to 38 of availability. The ration was changed from 2 to 1 to 2.5 to 1. The phasing was changed slightly so that the first 50 have to be constructed before you can sell individual lots and the next 50 can be bonded within 5 years of the initial lot sales. The remaining constructed or bonded within 10 years of the initial lot sales. And the bonding term of any of those segments is four years. The mapping, how can the county modify the mapping? The reason for filing this was to meet state law. Deed restriction, CCR'S, annual reporting, there is a requirement if home is used for overnight units. Maintain in the pool. Must show the ratio. I worked on the Pronghorn access and it is a direct access onto Powell Butte Highway. Commissioner Pace said a majority of houses can be single family or primary housing and over the years many resort projects that are far out of the way turn into more like a subdivision. What is the proportion of primary residences at Sunriver, Eagle Crest and Black Butte? Do you know what that is? Nancy Craven said no one can avoid the overnight accommodation ratio requirement. Neither Black Butte nor Sunriver were goal 8 issues. Torn Walker of W&H Pacific: Eagle Crest has to apply to the 2 to 1 ratio. One third of all dwellings at Eagle Crest have to be overnight rentals. Commissioner Pace asked of the remainder, how many are now primary housing. Tom says 10-20% are full time residents. A good indication is the number of children that go to school. Commissioner Pace says many are seniors. Tom says secondary homes are a big part of the picture. Commissioner Pace says the census shows 50%. Tom says it is greater in the summer and on weekends. John Fettig, realtor and property owner in Sunriver. 1998 home owner's survey shows that since 1968 the full time ownership has not changed, it is about 20%. The full time ownership after 1992 was 16%. Commissioner Pace says the census shows this also. Nancy would like the commissioners to implement the new law. Chair Sailors asked for discussion. Commissioner Shirtcliff moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Cyrus seconded. All voted yes. DCPC Meeting Minutes November 4, 2004 Page 3 BALL 1AN1K LLP A T "r 0 R N F Y S 101 SOLTrHwrST NtkIN STREET', SUITE 1100 PORTLAND, OREGON 972043219 www balljanik.com NANCY CRAVEN TELPPHONE 503-228-2525 ncraven@bjllp.com FAcsmu 503-295-1058 May 23, 2006 MAY 2 ~ 2006 Ms. Catherine Morrow tt'iI Planning Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Drive Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Implementation of SB 911 Update to the Text of Deschutes County Destination Resort Ordinances Dear Catherine: On behalf of Sunriver Resort, Eagle Crest and Pronghorn, this letter requests that the County finalize the update to the County's destination resort ordinances as recommended by the Deschutes County Planning Commission. This request will ensure that the County's ordinances are up-to-date and consistent with the ORS provisions and the new DLCD rules which were recently amended to reflect the updates to the statutes. The Deschutes County Planning Conmussion has previously recommended that the County update its destination resort ordinances to incorporate changes made in 1993 and 2003 by the state legislature regulating destination resort development arid operational management. The 2003 revisions to the destination resort statutes were initiated at die request of Sunriver Resort, Eagle Crest and Pronghorn. The legislative process involved extensive discussions and negotiations with DLCD staff, 1000 Friends and the Governor's office and those negotiations resulted in statutory revisions that were a compromise to all of those involved in the process. This letter summarizes the changes that were adopted by the legislature in 2003 and ultimately signed into law by the Governor. We request that the Board adopt the new statutory provisions so that the County's regulatory ordinances are consistent with state law. These 2003 amendments result in some, but limited, increased flexibility regarding the ratio of permanent residential housing to overnight lodging units, and the management options for the overnight lodging units. The 2003 law does not otherwise result in significant changes to the nature and operation of destination resorts. As noted, the new provisions of state law (ORS 197.435 et seq) have already been adopted by LCDC and made a part of the Goal 8 rule. A copy of the revised Goal 8 rule is attached for your convenience. A proposed red-line version of the county's Title 18 ordinance is attached. (It should also be noted that Title 19, that portion of the code that regulates resorts in the Bend Urban Area is also out-of-date). :ODMATCDOCSTORTLANM52227813 PORTLAND, OREGON WASHINGTON, D.C. BEND, OREGON BALL JANIK LLP Ms. Catherine Morrow Deschutes County Community Development Dept. May 23, 2006 Page 3 2) Reduced the number of weeks a single-family dwelling must be placed in a rental pool from 45 to 38; 3) Clarified that homeowners may rent overnight lodging units through either the resort's central service or an outside property management company; 4) Altered the phasing option to reduce a resort's initial overnight lodging investment from 75 units to 50 units and enabled the resort to phase in the remaining 100 units over a 10-year time period; and 5) Allowed counties to amend destination resort overlay maps outside of periodic review. Under the new law, a county may amend its overlay map once every 30 months. II. Deschutes County Action to lmalement DR Amendments The 2003 amendments serve to slightly increase the flexibility related to the provision of overnight accommodations and how they are managed/operated within a resort. It was the intention of the resort industry that requested the legislation to allow second homes as overnight lodging units because historical data shows that the majority of dwellings within resorts are held as second homes. To cover the costs of second home ownership, the majority of owners rent their dwellings to transient/vacation users for a large portion of each year. However, although they fulfill the goals of the resort statutes by making vacation units available for rent, most of these dwellings do not tecluvcally qualify as "overnight lodging units." Thus resorts are forced to provide additional overnight lodging units in the form of hotel-type units in order to meet the 150-unit minimum and maintain compliance with the ratio. Further, the historical data also showed that the mandatory "hotel-like" units constructed to meet the overnight lodging requirements have a very high annual vacancy rate. Due to significant amendments made during committee hearings, the approved legislation did not remedy these issues. Rather, only modest changes were made to the destination resort statute, which provide some flexibility on the ratio and management of overnight lodging units. Presently, most destination resorts in Deschutes County are governed by Chapter 18.113 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC). (Title 19 governs lands in the Bend urban area.) DCC 18.1 13.060 sets forth the standards for resorts and specifically for required overnight lodging units. As presently drafted, the code requires a total of 150 separate overnight lodging units and a ratio of two individually owned residential units to one unit of visitor oriented overnight lodging. (DCC 18.113.060(D)(2).) Title 18 does not allow the overnight units to be phased in over time. Further, under DCC 18.113.060(D)(2), individually owned units presently are considered to be visitor oriented overnight lodging units if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 45 weeks per year through a central reservation and check-in service. Furthermore, because the County has not implemented the 1993 resort bill in Title 18 (Title 19 includes the 1993 amendments), the minimum investment requirements in DCC 18.113.060(A)(3) and (4) require :0 DM A\PCDOCS\PO RTLA N D\ 5222 7 89 rt3 V) O Q O L Q O cn p cn O f V) . 4, . V^ \ 1_ E LL ) « ~ C ~ O $4 Q U u ru O O L O w- In ro L N a~ Q ~ ' i D f- 4- Eo a" o Ql ( Q1 O O w L L ~ ~ ~ L QJ Q (n ru L Q 4~ Q) U) L c Q1 In U QJ U) O O y'F r ~ ( D y L L n._ E M O Ln . II Q1 ra 0 C T. rti~ ` E Q n U M V 1 4 a) ) M O L 4~ > Q n c a) 4~ L O O 4-1 4J 4 C O m V) U ra Q1 cn U _ O w C O -0 0 0 0 ~ ~ c Q) E r0 cn CD Q) 0 SZ O N Oa CT O m Q V) V t a O QJ p +-j IQ 4{ L r Q) Z3 V) 1 In O E Q O E C ) M M 0) O E E o O O o O o U v L 4-J C CL O CL O U U M M L M O C) M v v ' C N ~ z :Zj (A 4-J 4~ E 0 v QI > E > o N v 4- L o _U O O E E " -o Q Q O ~ Q Q) Q (Y Q 0- Q Q ■ ■ ■ ■ U) 91 O C ^ rD i U LLl + r0 L C ~ O O O to ~ O M v . i v ~ ur) C CO O - rp " to t _ C U _C r0 Ca r C ~ O U V1 Q 0 U-) 7 Q1 C ~ Ln u) v O O LO L U, o f 1 Q ~ r~o L a jai s-0,.. U vi N O r0 c L E 0- O U D v O O U C a n ~ N > c 4 c :3 N o ° ~ U z o r~ RE BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File 4: TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit co o Ln L N O C m m O cr a) a) m v cn aj a L U ro ro m U O a a) fu E -m Lo ro :3 O (D C ru C cu O - C Q) m U) 4J ~ rp L 0 rn a ' 0-0 ' - ± L QJ Vl O Q ~n c O E U a 0 E a Ln Q O C v L u'1 O 0 ro O O X X ~ O 0 ~ O [V U) C O V) V) O U y_, O a o m O p O -Fu 4_ 4~ N ra ~ O 4J C ~o ro i c~ v~ v V) E u') n Lo L O m O -9 E Ln ru a_+ v OL ~ a) m Q) O N 4t U O a Q O • ~ LL J-J Z H 0- ■ ■ > ■ ra > C m d _ o t (1) cU L O U a1 m 4-J C: 4J C: O O N C D ro ~ tf C O C fa M D E 4-J C C E L O O E U v Q - O L N a 4-J 0 X _ Ln a~ ru 4 L rQ ^ W U E _ rQ m Z, I- a--+ t- 4J ~ \ O O n m O E 73 CD Ln Ln, 4-j Q) u o CL z N ❑ ■ ■ ■ N 3: N o -Z r r~ o C a) U) a > o 0 O Q II. O . ~ O v v^/ flu .1-- C O L O- U 0 O L 4O r~o (n (10 n- U ~ O 4-J L 4W 4 N a C N 4-J O L-> O L Cn cn U c a :3 . u N M Cl_ Q) O fu -0 U s V) U V) N Q1 Ql - O ~ _ a ~ C rv CL C J u c ro U u JJ s Ln Q .1-+ E ( i o 4 O O O N ~J O ~ C 'O ru O N OO O ro W L- O Q N rn O cn O M 0) O rv U E O Uo s =!F- o QJ Q N U L- LJ C > O O C ru ra _0 C O 0 E ru 5 E CL 4-j O U r V 1 Z N f~ s ' ~r C L r L ~ - v O L C o ? Q cn O O rQ a-J Q L 0 > ~n N f" > a m C O U C O U V) O Q1 Q O C Q V) o O 4-J a, C 0 U) 4-1O w 4- C U u - 4-1 Q) > a) a 0 C O E o D v L E o CD U v r-1 n Ln E O L C Q > v C ro 1 p w N N E N C v O LO 4~ U c°' 4-J Q) L D a' v C a) cn a ~ ,J v L L `D C ° E ° E o U (p 4-J a ~ m " E Q ~ 'g in E Q C CO M O CT) Q U Q Q -4 CD r-I m a 91 U-) Ql -Icl: rII E C O L1 O O r _ 4~ O 6 o c D1 E > C E L fa O v C U O Lf, aJ > ra 5 E o 3 , p O) Q Q) o ° a--+ X u U 0 fu 4-1 j -0 f- Ln E ra L Q E L Q L C O C v ' N N ■ ■ O f o > O ■ ■ ■ ■ L L M QJ r~ 4 O m co (3) N C U 1 Q) 4-1 > F O 4-.r aa) - 7 O _ C M m - 4J V) p Q1 o M r, C O C L Q rII p C L C -0 C 0 U 4- . N ~ E v U E C C E E m U C Cn Q v c - o 4. L ~ O O O C v) > N X L U C M U C U a~ M N F U E S E E oE Q L a) Ln L C O E y, L > C m 4~ o Q > C > O fII N Q C Q U1 Z3 i-. (n Q H U - rD T- 6 l L J J ~ d O . d 1 O C M O O CD p1 U N r' O rOO Q m d Ql u m O c O M E 'c w O V o U c> v o ) I'D C: C) E c v o E fu Z3 L- fu r"i _0 O L1 yJ O C- O ~n O O > ra c Q) M C: 4-1 U C) 1- _0 a E U o - a = Q ° o o . E m - 4-J - E Q) p to (O w E D 0) O X N M o U ;J Q o 4-1 o Z Q a a 4 c m r a 0) ,c ra U O O Q Q-o L a (L) Q) c U W O U Q a a k ' V L 1 ~ c ~ ~ < E E U E E Q~ 4-1 U U L c ~ a O f6 _ U c O _ U rr u O v ..O CL o ' Q) W L t a k - I r 0 Ill ~ c o a O 00 u 6 x Q In Ln i v m a, L c > Ql O O *zl -0 m ~,o L L O M U a-' 0 0 1 E O N N O N 0 0 -r- 3 0) o rn m 0) o U C 00 - v -0 Q) o ~ co m O _ >1 (3) 00 c L7 ro N CL) o m C: C 46 0 -0 1 Lr) ~ C r CO O t' •v fu C: O Z3 W L a O Q u JJ O Q1 E E O U v O ) - ro -0 4~ Ln 0 Q) -0 co Q) L o 11} r0 Q Q 0 Q U l 7 (U BAI-I., JANIK. A l 1' O R N L Y S ONE MAIN PLACE 101 SOUTHWEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 1 100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3219 www.balljanik.com TELEPHONE 503-228-2525 FACSIMILE 503-295-1058 MEMORANDUM TO: Terri Hansen Payne, Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department FROM: Nancy Craven DATE: November 21, 2006 RE: Destination Resort Statute, Goal 8, and TA-04-4 Introduction On behalf of Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, and Sunriver, we have submitted an application for a legislative text amendment to revise DCC Title 18 to implement Senate Bill 911 ("SB 911 Per our materials, we respectfully request that the Board of Commissioners update the Code to implement the 2003 law in its entirety. We understand that you are generally supportive of this request, but that you have some questions regarding the scope of the new 2.5:1 ratio of single family dwellings to overnight lodging units. The purpose of this memorandum is to confirm that the Board should revise Title 18 to change the ratio from 2:1 to 2.5:1 for all dwellings and overnight lodging units. 2. The 2.5:1 Ratio As we have discussed, SB 911 changed the ratio of single family dwellings to overnight lodging units from 2:1 to 2.5:1. After reviewing the statute, you questioned whether the new 2.5:1 ratio adopted by the Legislature in 2003 applies only to the first 50 overnight lodging units of a destination resort. You suggested that County Staff and DLCD think that the 2.5:1 ratio applies to the first 50 overnight lodging units of a resort, and a 2:1 ratio applies to the remainder of the units. As detailed below, that is not the case. Rather, the intent of SB 911 was to apply the 2.5:1 ratio throughout a resort, to regulate all overnight lodging units and dwellings platted and sold throughout the life of a resort. However, due to the carry-through a cross- reference from 1993, the statute appears to apply the 2.5:1 ratio only to the first 50 overnight lodging units of a resort, and to provide no ratio to correspond to any additional overnight lodging units. We have discussed this matter with Mr. Bob Rindy of DLCD, and he has confirmed that DLCD concurs that this is the correct technical reading of the statute. However, BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 C:\Documents and Settings\terrip\Local Settings\Tem CUD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit DLCD also agrees that the Legislature's intent was to apply the 2.5:1 ratio to all units within a resort. Because a County may be more restrictive than state law with respect to destination resorts, DLCD agrees that Deschutes County may implement the intent of SB 911 by applying a 2.5:1 ratio to all units in a resort. This approach would be more restrictive than state law because state law currently only applies the 2.5:1 ratio to the first 50 units, and no ratio to all other units. Thus, by applying the ratio to all units in a resort, the County would be broadening the scope of the ratio beyond the minimum required by the law. If the County did not apply the 2.5:1 ratio at all, and instead kept the 2:1 ratio for all units, it would be more restrictive than is necessary to carry forth the Legislature's intent, and it would be a direct repudiation of the Legislature's central goal in adopting SB 911 (i.e. increasing the number of single family dwellings that could be platted within a resort). A technical reading of the statute reveals that there are two ratios: a 2:1 ratio fof Western Oregon, and a 2.5:1 ratio for Eastern Oregon. However, as currently written, the statute applies those ratios to the respective counties only if a resort chooses to phase its overnight lodging units, and then only to the first phase of overnight lodging. If a resort does not choose to phase, the statute does not apply the ratio. If a resort chooses to phase, the 2:1 ratio applies to the first 75 units in western Oregon, and the 2.5:1 ratio applies to the first 50 units in eastern Oregon, but neither ratio applies to the remaining units on either side of the mountains. Thus, the number of residential dwellings that can be platted and sold is limited only during the first phase of a resort, and only if the resort phases. If a resort chooses to construct or financially assure 150 lodging units up front, the statute technically does not place a limitation on the number of residential lots that may be platted and sold. As discussed below, the text that gives rise to this interpretation was adopted in 1993. Deschutes County never amended Title 18 to implement the 1993 or the 2003 statutory amendments, and therefore, the 2:1 ratio in Deschutes County continued to apply to all units in a resort. The cross-references that give rise to this situation are quoted and discussed in more detail below. However, while our resort clients have and would certainly continue to advocate for a removal of the ratio entirely, we also understand that the Legislature discussed the option of deleting the ratio and specifically chose not to do so during the 1993 and the 2003 statutory amendments. Our clients were involved during the 2003 amendments, and are aware that the intent was to apply the 2.5:1 ratio to all units throughout the life of Eastern Oregon resorts. DCLD has confirmed that this was its intent as well. Therefore, we understand that rather than applying the ratio to only the first 50 overnight lodging units within a resort, and only when a resort chooses to phase its overnight lodging units, DLCD and Deschutes County would prefer to maintain a ratio for all units. Consequently, it is appropriate to use the ratio that is now set forth in state law for Eastern Oregon: 2.5:1. The law does not set forth a 2:1 ratio for any units in Eastern Oregon. Thus, it is inappropriate to continue to apply the 2:1 ratio. Again, in the absence of a specific ratio for any overnight lodging units beyond the first 50, the appropriate response is to extend the 2.5:1 ratio that is set forth by the current version of the law. DLCD, Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, and Sunriver support this approach, and believe it is consistent with our intent during the SB 911 process. 2CADocurnents and Settings\terrip\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\bng#04 History of the Reference to "Subparagraph (B)" in ORS 197.445 As you note in your memoranda, ORS 197.445 reads as follows, in relevant part: 197.445 Destination resort criteria; phase-in requirements; annual accounting. A destination resort is a self-contained development that provides for visitor-oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To qualify as a destination resort under ORS 30.947, 197.435 to 197.467, 215.213, 215.283 and 215.284, a proposed development must meet the following standards: (4) Visitor-oriented accommodations including meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for 100 persons and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodging shall be provided. However, the rentable overnight lodging units may be phased in as follows: (a) On lands not described in paragraph (b) of this subsection [i e western Oregonl: (A) A total of 150 units of overnight lodging must be provided. LBO At least 75 units of overnight lodging, not including any individually owned homes, lots or units, must be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units. (C) The remaining overnight lodging units must be provided as individually owned lots or units subject to deed restrictions that limit their use to use as overnight lodging units. The deed restrictions may be rescinded when the resort has constructed 150 units of permanent overnight lodging as required by this subsection. (D) The number of units ap roved for residential sale may not be more than two units for each unit ofpermanent overnight lodging provided under subparagraph B) of this paragraph. (b) On lands in eastern Oregon as defined in ORS 321 805: (A) A total of 150 units of overnight lodging must be provided. t'J At least 50 units of overnight lodging must be constructed prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units. 3C Documents and Settings\terrip\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLK2\bng#04 (C") At least 50 of the remaining 100 required overnight lodging units must be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within five years of the initial lot sales. (D) The remaining required overnight lodging units must be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurances within 10 years of the initial lot sales. (E) The number of units approved for residential sale may not be more than 2-112 units for each unit ofpermanent overnight lodging provided under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. (Emphasis added). As you have correctly noted in your memoranda, the ratios referenced in subparagraphs (a)(E) and (b)(E) specifically refer back to subparagraphs (a)(B) and (b)(B). In other words, rather than just stating that the "the number of units approved for residential sale may not be more than 2 [or 2-1/2] units for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided throughout the resort," the statute ties the ratio only to the first 75 overnight lodging units of a phased resort in western Oregon, and the first 50 units of a phased resort in eastern Oregon. Further, the statute does not tie the ratio to a resort if it is not phased, nor does it tie the ratio any additional overnight lodging units beyond the first 75 units of a phased resort in Western Oregon, and the first 50 units of a phased resort in Eastern Oregon. In your memoranda, you suggest that this reference to "subparagraph (B)" was added by SB 911. You surmise that the cross-reference must have been added in order to limit the applicability of the 2.5:1 ratio to the first 50 overnight lodging units of a resort in eastern Oregon, and to subject all other overnight lodging units within an eastern Oregon resort to the old 2:1 ratio. However, the statute does not link the 2:1 ratio to any overnight lodging units in eastern Oregon, and SB 911 did not add the cross-reference with an intention to apply the 2.5:1 ratio only to the first 50 units of a resort. First, the statute references the 2:1 ratio only with respect to western Oregon (i.e, only in ORS 197.445(4)(a)(D)). There is simply no language in the statute to tie the 2:1 ratio to any units within a resort in eastern Oregon.' Thus, if we read the statute to apply the 2.5:1 ratio ' As you note in your memo, the definitions in Goal 8 (which is the administrative rule that implements the statute) contain an extra phrase that attempts to link the 2:1 ratio to eastern Oregon. Specifically, under the definition of "Large Destination Resort" in OAR 660-015-0000(8), item (5) includes the same language as ORS 197.445(4) quoted above. However, in ORS 197.445(4), the first paragraph reads as follows: "Visitor-oriented accommodations including meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for 100 persons and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodging shall be provided. However, the rentable overnight lodging units may be phased in as follows:..." In the implementing language in Goal 8, the paragraph contains an extra clause, as underlined below: "Visitor-oriented accommodations including meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for 100 persons and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodging shall be provided. Accommodations 4CADocuments and Settings\terrip\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK2\bng#04 only to the first 50 units of a phased resort in eastern Oregon, then all remaining overnight lodging units are not subject to any ratio. In other words, if a resort phases its overnight lodging units under the statute, then the number of lots that the resort may plat and sell is initially limited to no more than 125 lots (50 x 2.5). However, once a resort provides more overnight lodging units, the ratio does not regulate the platting and sale of any additional lots beyond the first 125. Again, while we do not believe this was the intention of the Legislature, it is the effect of a literal reading of the statute. Second, the cross-reference to "subparagraph (B)" in ORS 197.445(4) pre-dated SB 911, and the 2003 Legislature did not add the cross-reference in an attempt to apply the 2.5:1 ratio only to the first 50 overnight lodging units of a resort and keep the 2:1 ratio for all other units. If we look back to the statute as it existed following the 1993 amendments, it shows that it read as follows (see attached copy for your reference): 197.445 Destination resort criteria; phase-in requirements; annual accounting. A destination resort is a self-contained development that provides for visitor-oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To qualify as a destination resort under ORS 30.947, 197.435 to 197.467, 215.213, 215.283 and 215.284, a proposed development must meet the following standards: (4) Visitor-oriented accommodations including meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for 100 persons and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodging shall be provided. However, the rentable units may be phased in as follows: (a) A total of 150 units of overnight lodging shall be provided as follows: }f) At least 75 units of overnight lodging, not including any individually owned homes, lots or units, shall be constructed or available for residential use shall not exceed two such units for each unit of overnight lodgint? However, the rentable overnight lodging units may be phased in as follows:..." (Emphasis added). The Goal then goes on to include the exact same language as ORS 197.445(4), including the references to the different ratios in eastern and western Oregon, and the cross-references tying the ratios to the first phases of a phased resort. Thus, the additional clause in the above quoted paragraph from the Goal is inconsistent with the associated portion of the statute. As confirmed by DLCD, the language of the statute of course supersedes the language of the administrative rule. Therefore, the Board is not bound to implement the text of the inconsistent rule, and DLCD should amend the Goal to comply with its statutory counterpart. Per Footnote 2 of this memo, it appears that the underlined clause was from a prior version of the Goal and statute, when ORS 197.445 consisted of one paragraph only, and the reference to the ratio was in that paragraph. However, when the Legislature amended ORS 197.445 in 1993 and 2003, they specifically removed the subject clause from the body of paragraph (4) of ORS 197.445, and it should also no longer be in the implementing paragraph in the Goal. 5CA\Documents and Settings\terrip\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK2\bng#04 guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units. (B) The remaining shall be provided as individually owned lots or units subject to deed restrictions that limit their use to use as overnight lodging units. The deed restrictions may be rescinded when the resort has constructed 150 units of permanent overnight lodging as required by this subsection. (b) The number o units approved for residential sale shall not be more than two units for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under paragraph (a) (A) of this subsection. As shown above, the 1993 statute referenced "paragraph (a)(A)," which is the paragraph regarding the first 75 overnight lodging units of a phased resort. At that time, resorts in western and eastern Oregon were not subject to different regulations. Therefore, the 75-unit phasing option applied to all resorts. Although neither DLCD nor any County appears to have interpreted it as such, the 1993 statute clearly linked the 2:1 ratio only to the first 75 units of a phased resort.2 In 2003, SB 911 divided resorts into eastern and western Oregon, mainly for the purpose of increasing the lodging ratio to 2.5:1 in eastern Oregon only. In addition, the bill also changed the phasing option for overnight lodging units, reducing the first phase from 75 to 50 units. Opponents of the bill were concerned about the potential impact of an increased ratio in western Oregon, and therefore the dual system was created. This resulted in the renumbering of ORS 197.445(4) such that the cross-reference to "paragraph (a)(A)" became "subparagraph (B)." Regardless of the renumbering, the ratio previously cross-referenced only the first 75 overnight lodging units of a phased resort, and it still references only the first 50 or 75 overnight lodging units of a phased resort (depending upon the which side of the mountains the resort is located). In summary, the cross-reference was not a deliberate reference created by SB 911, it is a carryover provision from 1993, updated only to reflect the new numbering of the statute. While DLCD chose to use the eastern/western separation to maintain the 2:1 ratio for western Oregon resorts, neither the legislators, nor opponents, nor DLCD ever discussed the idea of using a two-ratio approach in Eastern Oregon. In other words, at no time were the legislators asked to adopt a statute to apply the 2.5:1 ratio to the first 50 units of a resort, and the 2:1 ratio to the remainder. Rather, the legislators were asked to apply the 2:1 ratio to western Oregon and the 2.5:1 ratio to eastern Oregon, and the statute does just that. Unfortunately because it maintains the original cross-reference to "paragraph (a)(a)" (now "subparagraph (B)"), the confusion from the 1993 amendments is perpetuated. However, the Legislature never discussed the option of applying a 2:1 ratio after the first 50 units of overnight lodging were constructed. The intention was to apply the 2.5:1 ratio throughout the life of Eastern Oregon resorts. 2 As shown on the attached copy of the resort statute as it existed in 1991, prior to the 1993 amendments, ORS 197.445(4) then read: "Visitor-oriented accommodations including meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for 100 persons and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodging shall be provided. Accommodations available for residential use shall not exceed two such units for each unit of overnight lodging." 6CADocuments and Settings\terrip\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Fi1es\0LK2\bng404 4. Summary In summary, SB 911 did not create a dual-ratio approach within Eastern Oregon. However, it did carry forth an old cross-reference to "paragraph (a)(A)" of ORS 197.445 (now "subparagraph (B)"). On its face, the cross-reference limits the application of the 2.5:1 ratio to the first 50 units of a phased resort in eastern Oregon. The statute does not contain any additional text or cross-reference to apply the 2:1 ratio to the remainder of the units. Rather, the only reference to the 2:1 ratio is in ORS 197.445 4 a (D), and, as you know, all of 197.445~gl applies to western Oregon only. Thus, if the County were to follow the current statute exactly, you would revise Title 18 to apply the new 2.5:1 ratio only to the first 50 units of a phased resort. If a resort chose to construct or financially assure all 150 units up front, the phasing option of ORS 197.445(b) would never arise, and, accordingly, the ratio of ORS 197.445(b)(E) would also never arise because it is within the phasing subsection only, and it refers only to units "provided under subparagraph (B)." Therefore, contrary to what you suggested in your memo, the County is not bound to amend its code to apply the 2.5:1 ratio to the first 50 units of a resort and the 2:1 ratio the remainder. The statute does not apply the 2:1 ratio to eastern Oregon resorts at all, and it does not apply any ratio to a resort if the resort does not phase its minimum requirement of 150 lodging units. As noted in foot note 1 of this memorandum, Goal 8 continues to contain old text that appears to make the 2:1 ratio applicable to Eastern Oregon. However, this text is from a pre- 1993 version of the rule, and it is inconsistent with the current state statute. Therefore, because a state statute supersedes an inconsistent administrative rule, the statute must govern in this instance. Accordingly, the Goal 8 administrative rule does not require the Board to apply a 2:1 ratio to any units in Eastern Oregon. Finally, as you know, a County may be more restrictive than state law with respect to most land use regulations. Therefore, the Board may continue to apply a ratio throughout the life of a resort, as was the original intention of the law and the current requirement under Title 18. As noted above, the appropriate ratio for Eastern Oregon is 2.5:1. As a result, we would expect the changes to Title 18 to be as proposed in the redline that we provided to you. As such, they will maintain a ratio for the life of a resort (not just the first 50 overnight lodging units), but will increase it from 2:1 to 2.5:1 to carry forth the intent of the 2003 Legislature. Please contact me with any further questions on this matter. We look forward to answering any questions you may have about the statutory language. cc: Laurie Craghead, Deschutes County Catherine Morrow, Deschutes County Bob Rindy, DLCD 7CADocuments and Settings\ternp\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK2\bng#04 BAI.A., JANIK i,i,l' A T T O R N L Y S ONE MAIN PLACE 101 SOUTHWEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 1 100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3219 www.balljanik.com TELEPHONE 503-228-2525 FACSIMILE 503-295-1058 MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Nancy Craven DATE: November 21, 2006 RE: Destination Resort Statute, Goal 8, and TA-04-4 On behalf of Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, and Sunriver, we have submitted an application for a legislative text amendment to revise DCC Title 18 to implement Senate Bill 911 ("SB 911"). Per our materials, we respectfully request that the Board of Commissioners update the Code to implement the 2003 law in its entirety. We understand that County Staff has suggested that the Board may wish to retain the old 2:1 ratio single family dwellings to overnight lodging units, rather than updating the Code to reflect the new 2.5:1 ratio adopted by the Legislature. The adoption'of the new ratio was the central element of SB 911. The resort community advocated strongly for a change in the ratio to allow slightly more single family dwellings to be platted in relation to overnight lodging units. The intent was to amend the law to allow it to more accurately parallel the types of units that buyers wish to build and purchase within resorts. It would be contrary to the requests of the resort community and the intent of the Legislature to disregard the 2.5:1 ratio and maintain the 2:1 ratio. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Board revise Title 18 to change the ratio from 2:1 to 2.5:1 for all dwellings and overnight lodging units. We understand that Planning Staff's concerns stem from some questions regarding the impact of a confusing cross-reference in the state statute. We have addressed that technical issue in detail in the attached memorandum to Terri Payne. In brief, the statute allows a resort to phase in the 150 required overnight lodging units in sets of 50. The confusing cross- reference links the ratio only to the first 50 units of a phased resort. Thus, it creates a situation in which there is now a 2.5:1 ratio only for resorts that choose to phase their overnight lodging units, and only for the first 50 units of overnight lodging. Because a technical reading of the statute would result in no ratio for resorts that choose not to phase, and no ratio after the first 50 overnight lodging units in phased resorts, Staff has suggested that the Board avoid this unintended situation by simply maintaining the old 2:1 ratio for all units. We respectfully disagree with Staff, and believe that the more appropriate action is to update the ratio from 2:1 to CA\Docurnents and Settings\terrip\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\bq$x0]!.DOC 2.5:1 to reflect the Legislature's intent, but to apply the ratio to all units, not just to phased resorts and not just to the first 50 units of a resort. As explained in the memo to Ms. Payne, we have discussed this matter with Mr. Bob Rindy of DLCD, and DLCD concurs that it would be lawful and consistent with the intent of SB 911 if the Board adopted a new 2.5:1 ratio to govern all units within a resort. We look forward to discussing this matter further during the upcoming public hearings. Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, and Sunriver thank you for your careful consideration of this important matter, cc: Laurie Craghead, Deschutes County Catherine Morrow, Deschutes County Bob Rindy, DLCD 2C:Tocuments and Settings\terrip\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\bq$x01 Page 1 of 2 Terri Payne From: Carol Macbeth [carol@friends.org] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:54 AM To: Terri Payne Subject: Re: Work Session Staff report, Ball Janik Letters Attachments: SB-911 1 KF Veto Letter.doc; Blackout Resort Data from 1 KF.doc Hi Terri, I will try to get a PDF of what I faxed, (have requested it from our Admin staff in Portland), because that version is an actual copy of the signed letter. Attached to this email though, please find a copy of the text of our veto letter, and of the attachment regarding the gag- order imposed by the Central Oregon resort industry to prevent 1000 Friends of Oregon from obtaining actual market data on destination resorts such as overnight lodging vacancy rates. The most recent staff report states "There is no data available on whether the existing residential units in destination resorts are being used as primary homes or second homes or rentals. Without that information it is not possible to analyze the land use impacts that would result from an increase in destination resort residential units." These are not the only data that are missing- there is a dearth of data on all relevant aspects of the impact of current and future resorts-impacts on traffic, water, overnight vacancy rates, affordable housing, in short, everything. While I agree with the staff report that it is not possible to "analyze" the land use impacts that would result from an increase in destination resort residential units, on the other hand it is completely possible to make informed and educated hypotheses about the relative impacts of overnight guests vs. permanent residents on the local economy and the quality of life of current residents, and perhaps such reasoning would be helpful to the commissioners in making their decision on this important matter. Best regards, Carol Carol Macbeth Central Oregon .4 civo cote 1000 Friends of'Oregon 541.382,75.5'7 Help us keep Oregon Oregon http://www. friends. orQ Perri Payne wrote: Carol: I received your fax, but parts of the letter to the governor did not come through clearly. Do you have that in a PDF form that you could email to me? If not I will put together the cleanest copy for posting. Thanks! Terri From: Carol Macbeth [mailto:carolo'Wriends.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:49 AM To: Terri Payne Subject: Re: Work Session Staff report, Ball Janik Letters Terri, Thank you very much, 1/30/2006 NOV 28 2006 16:19 HP LASERJET 3200 P.11 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON vww"=~~ `To: FROM: FAX: PHONE: RE: DATE: Working to Keep Onon Oregon PO Box 1380 Bend, OR 97709 541.382.7557 Fax: 541.317.9129 www.friends.org Terri Hansen Payne Carol Macbeth ~1~k 385.1764 384,1404 1000 Friends Veto Request SB 911 Nov. 28, 2006 No. OF PAGES: 6 (including cover) Terri, Good speaking with you this afternoon. For your information here is a copy of our Sept. 8, 2003 letter to Governor Kulongoski requesting his veto of SB-911 On its website KTVZ Channel 21 reports that in a work session of the Deschutes County Commissioners yesterday, a lobbyist for the destination resort industry characterized SB-911 as: "a compromise between state land-use ocials, the resorts, and the watchdog group 1000 Friends of Oregon. " As this letter indicates, that statement mischaracterizes our position on SB-911, and by extension our position on the proposed changes to Deschutes County code. We would appreciate your sending a transcript of yesterday's work session at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions regarding our position on SB-911, or the related proposed changes to Deschutes County code, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Carol Macbeth FAX Did You Know? 1000 Friends of Oregon has more than 5000 members - and at least one member in each of Oregon's 36 counties. Oregon agriculture employs more than 100,000 Oregonians, and is a $5.5 billion/year industry. More than one-third of Oregon's agricultural revenues come from east of the Cascade Mountains. Portland's population increased by 36% from 1990-2000; yet its urban growth boundary expanded only 2%. Its overall density is about average for American cities. Over 800,000 Oregonians are too youmg, infirm, or poor to drive - they depend on us providing transportation choices. While 1000 Friends of Oregon was the first, over 15 other states now have "1000 Friends" groups. For more information, visit www. friends. org Central Oregon Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon September 8, 2003 Governor Ted Kulongoski Oregon State Capitol, Room 254 Salem, Oregon 97310 By Facsimile: (503) 378-4863 RE: Request to Veto Senate Bill 911 Dear Governor Kulongoski 1000 Friends of Oregon respectfully requests that you veto Senate Bill 911, which makes several ill-advised changes to the laws governing destination resorts. The main provision of the bill increases the ratio of residential homes to overnight lodging units allowed at resorts in Central and Eastern Oregon. The effects of this change will be to undermine the economic development potential of destination resorts and to allow significantly more residential development unrelated to tourism outside urban growth boundaries east of the Cascades. This bill is pure gravy for a handful of major Oregon developers and investors, but offers virtually no economic development benefits to the public. Moreover, the changes embodied in the bill come at the expense of farm and forest land. These changes also hurt the small and mid- sized Oregon cities that will lose the residential development that this bill siphons off into "resorts" that increasingly work like exurban commuter villages. As you know, 1000 Friends worked very hard during the recently completed legislative session in support of legislation that promotes economic development in ways that are consistent with sound planning. We supported and spent numerous hours working on the substantive provisions of HB 2011 (shovel-ready industrial lands) and HB 2691 (mill site redevelopment), which will provide more opportunities for employment to residents of both urban and rural areas of our state. SB 911, however, does not merit our support-or your signature. Far from promoting economic development, it actually runs contrary to the economic goals that justify destination resorts in the first place. Meanwhile, it increases the likelihood that destination resorts will evolve into little more than rural subdivisions, undermining the urban containment goals at the heart of Oregon's land use planning program. We strontZly urge you to veto SB 911 for the following reasons: There is no problem for this bill to solve. The proponents of SB 911 have never been willing or able to explain why legislation to increase the ratio of homes to lodging units is needed. Highly successful destination resorts have been built under existing law, including Bandon Dunes, which does not have ANY residential development; a new resort is approaching construction in Deschutes County (Pronghorn Resort); yet another was recently approved by Crook County (Powell Butte Resort)'; and others have been proposed. Developers are making money; golf courses and other recreational amenities, as well as overnight lodging, are being provided for the vacationing and touring public; and jobs are being created and sustained in the tourism service economy of Central Oregon. There is no crisis; indeed, as evidenced by the proposals for new resorts and the expansion of others, there is apparently not even a slowdown mirroring the general economic recession. There is, frankly, only greed and opportunism. People who are already making a lot of money see an opportunity in the present economic downturn and the eagerness of polieymakers to "remove barriers" to economic expansion. They are striking while the iron is hot by ramming through SB 911. 2. DLCD has-quite literally-sold out on this bill. Remarkably, the bill's proponents were able to achieve passage without any scrutiny of their arguments and without any evidence of a need for the bill. Very early in the session, Department of Land Conservation and Development staff met privately with lobbyists for destination resort developers and committed their agency to support the changes that are now contained in SB 911. They did so without prior consultation with your natural resources advisors; worse, they did so not because they were convinced there is a land use problem for resorts, but becausc thcy wcrc attempting to cunt' favor for their agency's budget with conservative legislators. 3. The proponents refused to negotiate and imposed a blackout. 1000 Friends attempted to negotiate with the proponents of SB 911 for weeks this spring, and in fact we developed a complete alternative proposal that we sent to them in late May. This proposal included many of the provisions sought by the bill's proponents and provided substantially more flexibility than current law. The proponents refused to consider our proposal. In fact, in spite of our efforts to find cornmon ground, some of the bill's proponents wrote letters to you and others that misrepresented our statements and positions on destination resorts and on this legislation (which at the time was embodied in HB 3213). We have previously responded to those letters. We enclose them again for your reference, along with our response. The proponents would not work with us; that was their prerogative. But, amazingly, when we tried to independently inform ourselves about market conditions in the resort industry-vacancy rates for overnight lodging, property management practices, etc.-we learned that a gag order 1 This approval has been appealed by local residents based on issues unrelated to the provisions of SB 911. V had been imposed, directing that no one in Central Oregon's tourism industry provide information to 1000 Friends (see attached May 13, 2003 email from the Oregon Lodging Association, which was apparently sent to us by mistake). 4. SB 911 contradicts the fundamental premise that justifies destination resorts. Destination resorts were designed to provide expanded tourism and economic development opportunities by bringing visitors for extended vacations to rural areas of Oregon. Unlike second homes, overnight lodgings at destination resorts create jobs by attracting vacationers who spend money on lodging, dining, and recreation-not just groceries. The destination resort elements of Goal 8 were developed by a Joint Subcommittee of the Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Economic Development Commission, which was charged by Governor Atiyeh with devising a policy for siting destination resorts. One of the clearest findings and recommendations of the Joint Subcommittee's Report reads as follows: "Destination resorts must provide primarily visitor oriented accommodations to assure that they are not built as or evolve into full time residential communities." Report and Recommendations on Destination Resort Siting, Joint Subcommittee of the Economic Development Commission and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (April 15, 1983). The reasons for this finding are twofold: first, that residential use does not provide the economic development that justifies the siting of destination resorts in rural areas, and second, that such development violates Oregon's urban containment policies. As noted by the 1983 Joint Subcommittee: "Destination resorts that evolve into full time communities, cities or retirement centers will not result in the desired economic benefits associated with tourism.... Also, such evolution would be inconsistent with Statewide Planning Goals which provide for residential development within urban growth boundaries and on built and committed lands in rural areas. No one has suggested to the subcommittee that there are inadequate lands in these areas to provide for year-round residential development needs." 3 It is very clear from both administrative and legislative history that the Commission and the Legislature did not intend to authorize rural residential subdivisions under the guise of destination resorts. The primary mechanism that has been used to ensure that resorts do not turn into subdivisions-and the primary provision at issue in SB 911 -is the ratio between overnight accommodations and residential homes. This ratio also helps to ensure that resorts are oriented toward attracting visitors rather than full-time residents. 2 The Joint Subcommittee Report specifically identified certain uses "not considered destination resorts," including planned communities and rural subdivisions or planned developments. The fundamental concern that the destination resort provisions might be misused to allow residential subdivisions is clearly recorded in the administrative history of the Goal 8 amendments and was again clearly articulated in the legislative history of 1993 Or. Laws Ch. 590 (1-1B 2932) by Greg Wolf of the Department of Land Conservation and Development when he specifically requested that changes in the destination resort provisions remain consistent with the original intent, which was not to allow the laws to become loopholes that would allow rural subdivisions. Minutes, Subcommittee on Environment and Energy, House Committee on Natural Resources, March 8, 1993. 3 According to Deschutes County's population forecast, the county has a 14-year supply of rural lots. 3 In short, tourism-related development is rural Oregon's payoff from destination resorts. Although residential units for sale accompany most large destination resorts in Oregon, destination resorts are intended for visitors-they are not intended to be residential communities or residential planned unit developments. Yet SB 911 moves us in precisely this direction. Specifically, SB 911 proposes to increase the ratio to 2.5 residential units for each unit of overnight lodging. A destination resort would thus be allowed to build 375 residential homes for every 150 lodging units-an increase of 25%-with no protection or assurances that such development will not be built as, or develop into, a rural residential subdivision. SB 911 also includes other elements making it easier to count a unit as an overnight lodging unit, thus further increasing the number of residential homes that can be built. For example, the bill reduces the number of weeks that a unit must be available for rental to qualify as an "overnight lodging unit" from 45 weeks to 38. This, in turn, increases the number of homes and lots that may be sold. Moreover, SB 911 makes these changes without any increase in the required investment for developed recreational facilities or any other provisions to ensure that the additional residential homes will be oriented to tourism. Recreational facilities are a key to attracting tourists to destination resorts, as well as a tool to distinguish between destination resorts and subdivisions, yet SB 911 increases the number of houses allowed by 25% without requiring a commensurate increase in the level of investment for developed recreational facilities. Taken together, these amendments do not ensure that destination resorts will "provide primarily visitor oriented accommodations to assure that they are not built as or evolve into full time residential communities." On the contrary, they move the law substantially away from the original intent of destination resorts-economic development based on tourism. Conclusion By this measure, or any other, SB 911 falls short. The bill is entirely unnecessary; its proponents have failed to make a case for it or to negotiate in good faith; and it will undermine both economic development and our land use goals. Therefore, 1000 Friends of Oregon strongly urges you to veto Senate Bill 911. Very truly yours, Bob Stacey Executive Director 4 Caroline MacLaren Subject: FW: Vacancy rates -----Original Message----- From: Andrea Gray [mailto:andrea@friends.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 10:23 AM To: Carrie MacLaren Subject: FW: Vacancy rates What's this all about? -----Original Message----- From: leanne Littrell [mailto:Leanne@oregonlodging.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 10:25 AM To: 'Andrea Gray' Cc: Scott@oregonlodging.com Subject: RE: Vacancy rates Denise, If you get any request from 100 Friends of Oregon, please do not send them anything without calling Scott or me.... a political thing! Thanks, Leanne -----Original Message----- From: Andrea Gray [mailto:andrea@friends.org) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 3:40 PM To: leanne@oregonlodging.com Subject: Vacancy rates Leanne, I'm doing some legislative research and am interested in vacancy rates for Oregon hotels and/or destination rates for the past year, I'm looking for both statewide numbers and Central Oregon numbers. Someone at the Oregon Tourism Commission suggested that you might have these numbers. Thanks for your help! Best, Andrea Gray Andrea Gray Legal Admin. Assistant 1000 Friends of Oregon 534 SW Thud Ave., Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 December 3, 2006 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners: This letter is written in opposition to changes which would allow Destination Resorts to create a higher percentage of permanent residences. Advantages of Destination Resorts Disadvantages of Destination Resorts Add to tax base for county Xk {T4 CEU' 4 2006 Major source of Urban Sprawl Require expansion of county roads because of added traffic load. Dependent on the automobile; therefore, more gas consumption and air pollution. In the long run do not pay a living wage. Workers cannot afford to live on site; therefore, produce even more traffic. Obviously, Deschutes County Commissioners believe the tax revenues created by Destination Resorts out weighs the disadvantages outlined above . This is very hard for many of us to understand. Do the Commissioners believe Deschutes County is immune from the sprawl, air pollution and traffic congestion that plagues so many areas of the country. With several more resorts being constructed and on the planning board, we believe the quality of life and especially, the quality of open space in Deschutes County will continue to rapidly deteriorate. Urban Growth Boundaries were created in the 1970's to prevent sprawl. Destination Resorts were created afi an exception because politicians thought a few Destination Resorts would contribute to rural economies. With the current out of control growth, how can anyone argue that we need to promote more subdivisions? Deschutes County can have restrictions more stringent than the state. Allowing more permanent residences will make the Resort look even more like a sagebrush subdivision. It is arrogant for the Destination Resort owners to request this change and they should be turned down. The next step should be to open up a process by which the amount of acreage open to development by Destinations Resorts should be reduced. Very truly yours,,,, 2~ ~534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 • www.friends.oxg 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON 1~ Southern Oregon Office • 33 North Central Avenue, Rm. 429 • Medford, OR 97501 • (541) 245-4535 • lax (541) 776-0443 Willamette Valley Office • 388 State Street, Suite 604 • Salem, OR 97301 • (503) 371-7261 • fax (503) 371-7596 Lane County Office • 120 West Broadway • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 431-7059 • fax (541) 431-7078 Central Oregon Office • P.O. Box 8813 • Bend, OR 97708 • (541) 382-7557 • fax (541) 382-7552 December 1, 2006 Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Re: Proposed Text Amendment to Deschutes County Zoning Code Title 18, Destination Resorts TA-04-4 Dear Commissioners, On behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon, thank you for the opportunity to coimnent on the proposed changes to Deschutes County Zoning Code Title 18. 1000 Friends of Oregon is a nonprofit, charitable organization founded in 1975 by Governor Tom McCall and Henry Richmond as the citizens' voice for land use planning to protect Oregon's quality of life - through conservation of farm and forest lands, design of compact and livable cities, provision of transportation choices, and protection of natural resources. We respectfully recommend that you deny the applicant's proposal to allow a 25% increase in the maximum allowable ratio of residential homes to overnight lodging, or to allow the first 50 overnight units at Deschutes County destination resorts to be bonded rather than built. These changes are unnecessary, and threaten the tourism-related benefit that destination resorts are intended to provide. 1000 Friends of Oregon recommends that you adopt the changes in Title 18 recommended by DCCDD staff in their Dec. 4, 2006 memorandum to you. Specifically, we request that you follow staff's recommendations to: 1. Change 18.113.060(A)(1)(a) to remove the bonding option for the first 50 overnight units. 2. Change 18.04 definition of Destination Resorts (D2) to retain the current 2:1 ratio of individually-owned units and overnight lodging. DCC 18.113.050(B)(24) and 18.113.060(D)(2) and 18.113.070(U) also address the ratio and should retain the 2:1 ratio. 3. Add language to 18.113.070(0) requiring an annual resort accommodation report as defined in statute. 4. Add a new section 18.113.120 requiring conservation easements as defined in statute. Deschutes County Community Development Department Staff Report on Text Amendment TA-04-4, December 4, 2006. 1000 Friends of Oregon TA-04-4 Proposed Amendment to Title 18 December 1, 2006 Page 2 By allowing a significant increase in the number of houses that are not available as rentals at destination resorts and loosening the requirements for provision of overnight lodgings, the applicant's proposed changes would weaken the current protections that promote tourism-related economic development in Deschutes County and that keep destination resorts from becoming "Sagebrush Subdivisions". The proposed 25% increase in the number of allowable residential homes is requested by a handful of major Deschutes County developers and investors who stand to realize enormous financial gain from such a change. However, the proponents have provided no evidence for why the proposed increase in the allowable ratio of residential homes is needed, or why it would be desirable for Deschutes County. Indeed, their only argument appears to be that the change is allowed under state statute. Because this handful of developers succeeded in pushing the proposed changes through in Salem, there is no reason that Deschutes County should agree to institute changes in its own code that would undermine the potential economic benefits of destination resorts to the county. 1000 Friends of Oregon vigorously opposed SB-911, as our attached veto-request letter to the governor indicates. We oppose the applicant's proposed changes to Title 18 for the same reasons. Destination resorts were designed to provide expanded tourism and econonuc development opportunities by bringing visitors for extended vacations to rural areas of Oregon. Unlike second homes, overnight lodgings at destination resorts create jobs by attracting vacationers who spend money on lodging, dining, and recreation - not just groceries. Residential use does not provide the economic development that is used to justify the siting of destination resorts in rural areas. Tourism-related development is Deschutes County's payoff from destination resorts. Residential development only provides a payoff to the developers. We have the flowing specific comments. 1. Adoption of DCCDD staff's recommendation to preserve the 2:1 ratio of residential homes to overnight lodgings, and require developers to build rather than simply bond the first 50 units of overnight lodging, is consistent with the administrative and legislative history of destination resorts. Below please find a brief adnnistrative and legislative history of destination resorts which makes it clear that the increase in residential housing sought by the applicants would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of destination resorts. "Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals seek to prevent urban sprawl and protect natural resource lands. They do this by restricting or prohibiting subdivisions and other forms of housing development outside cities and other developed areas. Major development must take a 'goal exception,' a state variance of sorts, to locate outside urban growth boundaries. Initially, while the exceptions process provided for uses like destination resorts, it didn't do a very good job. State law treated resorts like rural subdivisions or motels, making it difficult for developers and counties to site resorts. 1000 Friends of Oregon TA-04-4 Proposed Amendment to Title 18 December 1, 2006 Page 3 Developers said that the exceptions process blocked construction of new resorts. In 1982, Governor Atiyeh's Land Use Task Force agreed with the developers. The Governor then asked the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Economic Development Commission to come up with a solution. They did. In 1984, LCDC adopted amendments to Goal 8 to allow destination resorts." Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development's Destination Resort Handbook: A Guide to Statewide Planning Goal 8's Procedures and Requirements for Siting Destination Resorts (1995). The "solution" that LCDC and the Economic Development Commission came up with is articulated in a joint "Report and Recommendations on Destination Resort Siting" dated April 15, 1983. As noted above, that 1983 report led in 1984 to the LCDC adopting amendments to Goal 8, which provided for siting destination resorts. House Bill 3097, passed by the 1987 Legislative Assembly, 1987 Or. Laws Ch. 886, substantially adopted and codified LCDC's amendments to Goal 8 (as ORS 197.435- 197.465, not including ORS 197.462). One of the clearest findings and recommendations of the 1983 Joint Subcommittee Report reads as follows: "Destination resorts must provide primarily visitor oriented accommodations to assure that they are not built as or evolve into full time residential communities."t The Joint Subcommittee Report specifically identified certain uses "not considered destination resorts," including planned communities, rural subdivisions or planned developments, and hotels or motels (while noting that hotels/motels could be part of a destination resort). The fundamental concern that the destination resort provisions might be misused to allow residential subdivisions is clearly recorded in the administrative history of the Goal 8 amendments and was again clearly articulated in the legislative history of 1993 Or. Laws Ch. 590 (HB 2932) by Greg Wolf of the Department of Land Conservation and Development when he specifically requested that changes in the destination resort provisions remain consistent with the original intent, which was not to allow the laws to become loopholes that would allow rural subdivisions2,3 Report and Recommendations on Destination Resort Siting, Joint Subcommittee of the Economic Development Commission and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (April 15, 1983). 2 See e.g., Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission, Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Planning Goals to Allow Destination Resorts (June 1984) at Appendix C- 7 (where LCDC noted that defining a 'destination resort' is perplexing because of the variety of resort development and because the differences between a resort and a well-planned residential or second-home community are slight. The Commission is proposing a simple and narrow definition to assure that the developments which are approved under this process do in fact meet recreational and visitor-oriented needs rather than result in residential development.") (emphasis added); Memorandum of James S. Ross, Department of Land Conservation and Development, to the Land Conservation and Development Commission of 8/10/84 (sharing the commentators' concern that the proposed amendments did not place specific limits on residential development and noting that Charbonneau, a planned community, would meet most of the standards of the Goal but is solely a residential development); Memorandum of James S. Ross, Department of Land Conservation and Development, to Interested Persons of 8/22/84 (recommending a ratio of overnight lodging units to residential units); Memorandum of James S. Ross, Department of Land Conservation and Development, to Land Conservation and Development Commission of 10/5/84 (discussing how to assure that resort developments do not become rural residential or commuter village developments); Certificate and Order for Filing Administrative Rules with the Secretary of State 10/19/84 (for which the finding of statewide need states in relevant part that that the proposed amendment will appropriately limit resort development consistent with the statewide planning goals by requiring, among others, extensive visitor-oriented accommodations). 3 Minutes, Subcommittee on Environment and Energy, House Committee on Natural Resources, March 8, 1993. 1000 Friends of Oregon TA-04-4 Proposed Amendment to Title 18 December 1, 2006 Page 4 Again, residential use simply does not provide the economic development that is used to justify siting of destination resorts in rural areas. As noted by the 1983 Joint Subcommittee: "Destination resorts that evolve into full time communities, cities or retirement centers will not result in the desired economic benefits associated with tourism. In fact, a growing number of full-time residents will create demands for government expenditures for schools and health care facilities. A large resident population also demands development of a private infrastructure to service the full-time community including a range of commercial and professional services. These costs might offset the economic benefits created by continuing tourist and visitor use of the remaining portion of the development. Also, such evolution would be inconsistent with Statewide Planning Goals which provide for residential development within urban growth boundaries and on built and committed lands in rural areas. No one has suggested to the subcommittee that there are inadequate lands in these areas to provide for year-round residential development needs." It is very clear from both the administrative and legislative history that the Commission and the Legislature did not intend to authorize (as destination resorts) rural residential subdivisions. In short, although residential units for sale accompany most large destination resorts in Oregon, destination resort are intended for visitors - they are NOT intended to be residential communities or residential planned unit developments. Yet this is exactly what is sought by the applicants in their proposed amendments. This handful of resort developers and investors seeks to both increase the ratio of residential homes allowed in a destination resort and to allow the resort developers to front-load the destination resort with residential development. Both changes would be detrimental to the economic best interests of the county. 2. Lack of Data Regarding Economic Impact of Destination Resorts Finally, we note that there is a total absence of data on the impact of Deschutes County destination resorts on the county. There are no data available on impacts on county revenue, on traffic patterns, on water usage, on demands for services, on market conditions at area resorts, on vacancy rates for overnight lodging, or on property management practices. We respectfully urge you to follow the recommendations of your staff in making changes to Title 18 at least until such time as these important data can be collected. Only when such data are available can the impact of any substantial increase in the number of residential homes at destination resorts be properly analyzed. 1000 Friends of Oregon TA-04-4 Proposed Amendment to Title 18 December 1, 2006 Page 5 Conclusion The applicant's proposed changes would not allow Deschutes County's destination resorts to "provide primarily visitor oriented accommodations to assure that they are not built as or evolve into full time residential communities." On the contrary, they would move Title 18 substantially away from the original intent of destination resorts-economic development based on tourism. By this measure, or any other, the applicant's proposed changes fall short. The changes are entirely unnecessary; the proponents have failed to make a case for them, and they will undermine both the economic development of Deschutes County and our land use goals. Therefore, 1000 Friends of Oregon strongly urges you to reject the changes to Title 18 proposed by the applicants and to accept those recommended by your staff. Very truly yours, Carol Macbeth Central Oregon Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon Attachment: September 8, 2003 letter from 1000 Friends of Oregon to Governor Ted Kulongoski requesting his veto of SB 911. ,t 72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session A-Engrossed Senate Bill 911 Y., Ordered by the Senate July 22 including Senate Amendments dated July 22 Sponsored by Senator CLARNO SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editors brief statement of the essential features of the measure. Modifies definition of overnight lodgings included in destination resort. Modifies phase-in crite- ria for overnight lodging. k [Authorizes siting of long term care facilities in destination resort.] Requires resort developer to provide annual accounting documenting compliance with overnight lodging standards. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2, Relating to destination resorts; amending ORS 197.435, 197.445 and 197.455. 3 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 4 SECTION 1. ORS 197.435 is amended to read: 5 197.435. As used in ORS 197.435 to 197.467: 6 (1) "Developed recreational facilities" means improvements constructed for the purpose of re- i 7 creation and may include but are not limited to golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, marinas, 8 ski runs and bicycle paths. 9 (2) "High value crop area" means an area in which there is a concentration of commercial farms 10 capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross value of $1,000 per acre per year. 11 These crops and products include field crops, small fruits, berries, tree fruits, nuts or vegetables, 12 dairying, livestock feedlots or Christmas trees as these terms are used in the 1983 County and State 13 Agricultural Estimates prepared by the Oregon State University Extension Service. The "high value 14 crop area" designation is used for the purpose of minimizing conflicting uses in resort siting and 15 does not revise the requirements of an agricultural land goal or administrative rules interpreting the 16 goal. 17 (3) "Map of eligible lands" means a map of the county adopted pursuant to ORS 197.455. 18 (4) "Open space" means any land that is retained in a substantially natural condition or is im- 19 proved for recreational uses such as golf courses, hiking or nature trails or equestrian or bicycle 20 paths or is specifically required to be protected by a conservation easement. Open spaces may in- 21 clude ponds, lands protected as important natural features, lands preserved for farm or forest use 22 and lands used as buffers. Open space does not include residential lots or yards, streets or parking 23 areas. 24 (5) "Overnight lodgings" means permanent, separately rentable accommodations [which] that are 25 not available for residential use[. Overnight lodgings include], including hotel or motel rooms, cabins 26 and time-share units. Individually owned units may be considered overnight lodgings if they are BOCC Land Use Hearing NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed. New sections are in boldfaced type. Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 LC arm CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit 6 A-Eng. SB 911 1 available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least [45138 weeks per calendar year 2 through a central reservation and check-in service operated by a destination resort or by a real 3 estate property manager as defined in ORS 696.010. Tent sites, recreational vehicle parks, man- 4 ufactured dwellings, dormitory rooms and similar accommodations do not qualify as overnight 5 lodgings for the purpose of this definition. 6 (6) "Self-contained development" means a development for which community sewer and water 7 facilities are provided on-site and are limited to meet the needs of the development or are provided 8 by existing public sewer or water service as long as all costs related to service extension and any 9 capacity increases are borne by the development. A "self-contained development" shall have devel- 10 oped recreational facilities provided on-site. 11 (7) "Tract" means a lot or parcel or more than one contiguous lot or parcel in a single owner- 12 ship. A tract may include property that is not included in the proposed site for a destination resort 13 if the property to be excluded is on the boundary of the tract and constitutes less than 30 percent 14 of the total tract. 15 (8) "Visitor-oriented accommodations" means overnight lodging, restaurants and meeting facili- 16 ties which are designed to and provide for the needs of visitors rather than year-round residents. 17 SECTION 2. ORS 197.445 is amended to read: 18 197.445. A destination resort is a self-contained development that provides for visitor-oriented 19 accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To 20 qualify as a destination resort under ORS 30.947, 197.435 to 197.467, 215.213, 215.283 and 215.284, a 21 proposed development shall meet the following standards: 22 (1) The resort shall be located on a site of 160 acres or more except within two miles of the 23 ocean shoreline where the site shall be 40 acres or more. 24 (2) At least 50 percent of the site shall be dedicated to permanent open space, excluding streets 25 and parking areas. 26 (3) At least $7 million shall be spent on improvements for on-site developed recreational facili- 27 ties and visitor-oriented accommodations exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and 28 roads. Not less than one-third of this amount shall be spent on developed recreational facilities. 29 (4) Visitor-oriented accommodations including meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for 100 30 persons and 150 [separate rentable] units for overnight lodging shall be provided. However, the 31 [rentable] overnight lodging units may be phased in as follows: 32 (a) A total of 150 units of overnight lodging [shall] must be provided as follows: 33 (A) At least [751 50 units of overnight lodging, [not including any individually owned homes, lots 34 or units, shall] as defined in ORS 197.435 (5), must be constructed or guaranteed through surety 35 bonding or equivalent financial assurance prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units. 36 [B) The remainder shall be provided as individually owned lots or units subject to deed re- 37 strictions that limit their use to use as overnight lodging units. The deed restrictions may be rescinded 38 when the resort has constructed 150 units of permanent overnight lodging as required by this sub- 39 section.] 40 (B) At least 50 of the remaining 100 required overnight lodging units must be constructed 41 or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within five years of 42 the initial lot sales. 43 (C) The remaining required overnight lodging units must be constructed or guaranteed 44 through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within 10 years of the initial lot 45 sales. 2 9 [2] A-Eng. SB 911 1 (D) If a resort chooses to guarantee the overnight lodging units required under this 2 paragraph through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance, the overnight lodging 3 units must be physically constructed within four years of the date of execution of the surety 4 bond or equivalent financial assurance. 5 (b) The number of units approved for residential sale shall not be more than [two] 2-1/2 units 6 for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under paragraph (a)(A) of this subsection. 7 [(c) The development approval shall provide for the construction of other required overnight lodg- 8 ing units within five years of the initial lot sales.] 9 (5) Commercial uses allowed are limited to types and levels of use necessary to meet the needs 10 of visitors to the development. Industrial uses of any kind are not permitted. 11 (6) In lieu of the standards in subsections (1), (3) and (4) of this section, the standards set forth 12 in subsection (7) of this section apply to a destination resort: 13 (a) On land that is not defined as agricultural or forest land under any statewide planning goal; 14 (b) On land where there has been an exception to any statewide planning goal on agricultural 15 lands, forestlands, public facilities and services and urbanization; or 16 (c) On such secondary lands as the Land Conservation and Development Commission deems ap- 17 propriate. 18 (7) The following standards apply to the provisions of subsection (6) of this section: 19 (a) The resort shall be located on a site of 20 acres or more. 20 (b) At least $2 million shall be spent on improvements for on-site developed recreational facili- 21 ties and visitor-oriented accommodations exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and 22 roads. Not less than one-third of this amount shall be spent on developed recreational facilities. 23 (c) At least 25 units, but not more than 75 units, of overnight lodging shall be provided. 24 (d) Restaurant and meeting room with at least one seat for each unit of overnight lodging shall 25 be provided. 26 (e) Residential uses shall be limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the re- 27 sort: 28 (f) The county governing body or its designate has reviewed the resort proposed under this 29 subsection and has determined that the primary purpose of the resort is to provide lodging and other 30 services oriented to a recreational resource which can only reasonably be enjoyed in a rural area. 31 Such recreational resources include, but are not limited to, a hot spring, a ski slope or a fishing 32 stream. 33 (g) The resort shall be constructed and located so that it is not designed to attract highway 34 traffic. Resorts shall not use any manner of outdoor advertising signing except: 35 (A) Tourist oriented directional signs as provided in ORS 377.715 to 377.830; and 36 (B) On-site identification and directional signs. 37 (8) Spending required under subsections (3) and (7) of this section is stated in 1993 dollars. The 38 spending required shall be adjusted to the year in which calculations are made in accordance with 39 the United States Consumer Price Index. 40 (9) When malting a land use decision authorizing construction of a destination resort, the 41 governing body of the county or its designee shall require the resort developer to provide an 42 annual accounting to document compliance with the overnight lodging standards of this 43 section. The annual accounting requirement commences one year after the initial lot or unit 44 sales. The annual accounting must contain: 45 (a) Documentation showing that the resort contains a minimum of 150 permanent units [3] A-Eng. SB 911 1 of overnight lodging or, during the phase-in period, documentation showing the resort is not 2 yet required to have constructed 150 units of overnight lodging. 3 (b) Documentation showing that the resort meets the lodging ratio described in sub. 4 section (4) of this section. 5 (c) For a resort counting individually owned units as qualified overnight lodging units, 6 the number of weeks that each overnight lodging unit is available for rental to the general 7 public as described in ORS 197.435. 8 SECTION 3. ORS 197.455 is amended to read: 9 197.455. (1) A destination resort shall be sited on lands mapped as eligible for destination resort 10 siting by the affected county. [A map adopted by a county shall] The county may not allow desti- 11 nation resorts approved pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467 to be sited in any of the following areas: 12 (a) Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or 13 more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the re- 14 sort. 15 (b)(A) On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farmland identified and 16 mapped by the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service, or its [successor] predecessor 17 agency. 18 (B) On a site within three miles of a high value crop area unless the resort complies with the 19 requirements of ORS 197.445 (6) in which case the resort shall not be closer to a high value crop 20 area than one-half mile for each 25 units of overnight lodging or fraction thereof. 21 (c) On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forestlands as determined by the State 22 Forestry Department, which are not subject to an approved goal exception. 23 (d) In the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area as defined by the Columbia River Gorge 24 National Scenic Act, P.L. 99-663. 25 (e) In an especially sensitive big game habitat area as determined by the State Department of 26 Fish and Wildlife in July 1984 or as designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan. 27 (2) In carrying out subsection (1) of this section, a county shall adopt, as part of its compre- 28 hensive plan, a map consisting of eligible lands within the county. The map shall be based on rea- 29 sonably available information[, and shall not be subject to revision or refinement after adoption, except 30 in connection with periodic review] and may be amended pursuant to ORS 197.610 to 197.625, but 31 not more frequently than once every 30 months. The county shall develop a process by which 32 all map amendments proposed within each 30-month planning period are collected and pro- 33 cessed concurrently. A map adopted pursuant to this section shall be the sole basis for determining 34 whether tracts of land are eligible for destination resort siting pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467. 35 S ) [41 December 4, 2006 Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Destination Resort Statute before you this evening. As you are well aware, tourism is a major economic force in Oregon, as well as Deschutes County. In 2005, visitor spending in the state reached $7.4 billion. Of this, nearly $400 million was generated in Deschutes County. At the state level, this level of spending was up over 7% from the year before and represents the second consecutive year of growth of more than 6 percent. It is evident from this data that tourism plays a major part in the economic health of our state now and will into the future. We are writing to offer our support for updating the Deschutes County Code Title 18 to recognize the standards set forth in Senate Bill 911 passed during the 2003 legislative session. Adopting this statewide standard is sound public policy in helping to ensure consistent application across Oregon. We believe updating the Code to reflect the new 2.5:1 ratio (from its current 2.0:1 standard) to allow resorts more flexibility of residential units to visitor oriented accommodations is appropriate. We also support reducing the number of weeks that single-family dwellings must be available to the public to qualify as overnight lodging. The recommendation of moving from 45 weeks to 38 weeks makes it more likely that these homes will be available for rental by the public. These changes reflect what the market is asking to have built in resort locations and will subsequently result in stronger visitor opportunities. Overall, we believe that these changes will have positive economic impacts for Deschutes County and for Oregon and will ensure a consistent public policy arena in this area. We encourage your support for these recommendations. If you have any questions, please let us know. Thank you. Sincerely, I oD'D ~~vij~5~ Todd Davidson CEO BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 670 1-1wMhorne SL Suite 240_ Salem. OR 97301, phone: 503.378.8850. far: 5o3. CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts OREGON. WE LOVE DREAMERS. Exhibit F~ oregor,lodgfngassociation FU I A 106141-7 December 4, 2006 Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners, I'd like to take a moment to comment on the Destination Resort Statute you may be considering this evening and offer support for updating the Deschutes County Code Title 18 to recognize the standards outlined in Senate Bill 911. This bill was passed during the 2003 legislative session. I believe that adopting this statewide standard is an appropriate public policy matter in helping to ensure consistent application across Oregon. I believe updating the Code to reflect the new 2.5:1 ratio (from its current 2.0:1 standard) to allow resorts more flexibility of residential units to visitor oriented accommodations is appropriate. I also support reducing the number of weeks that single-family dwellings must be available to the public to qualify as overnight lodging. The recommendation of moving from 45 weeks to 38 weeks makes it more likely that these homes will be available for rental by the public. Tourism is an important element in Oregon's economy and this is especially true in Deschutes County. Oregon's economy continues to improve and according to Travel Oregon (Oregon Tourism Commission), visitor spending in the state reached $7.4 billion in 2005. Of this, nearly $400 million was generated in Deschutes County. It is clear from this data that tourism and the hospitality industry play a major part in the economic health of our state. On behalf of the more than 1,100 lodging members of Oregon Lodging Association, thank you for your support and consideration for these important recommendations. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide additional information or answer any questions. Respectfully, J. Gregg Mindt President & CEO 503-682-4422 8565 SW Salish, Suite 125 Wilsonville, OR 97070 BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File TA-04-4 Dest. Resorts Exhibit C~ aregonlodgingossociation A 1411 December 4, 2006 Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners, I'd like to take a moment to comment on the Destination Resort Statute you may be considering this evening and offer support for updating the Deschutes County Code Title 18 to recognize the standards outlined in Senate Bill 911. This bill was passed during the 2003 legislative session. I believe that adopting this statewide standard is an appropriate public policy matter in helping to ensure consistent application across Oregon. I believe updating the Code to reflect the new 2.5:1 ratio (from its current 2.0:1 standard) to allow resorts more flexibility of residential units to visitor oriented accommodations is appropriate. I also support reducing the number of weeks that single-family dwellings must be available to the public to qualify as overnight lodging. The recommendation of moving from 45 weeks to 38 weeks makes it more likely that these homes will be available for rental by the public. Tourism is an important element in Oregon's economy and this is especially true in Deschutes County. Oregon's economy continues to improve and according to Travel Oregon (Oregon Tourism Commission), visitor spending in the state reached $7.4 billion in 2005. Of this, nearly $400 million was generated in Deschutes County. It is clear from this data that tourism and the hospitality industry play a major part in the economic health of our state. On behalf of the more than 1,100 lodging members of Oregon Lodging Association, thank you for your support and consideration for these important recommendations. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide additional information or answer any questions. Respectfully, '000 ~z5ie . J. Gregg Mindt President & CEO 503-682-4422 8565 SW Salish, Suite 125 Wilsonville, OR 97070 BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit It> 1-4 (541) 317-1993 fax (541) 383-3470 pdewey&bendcable.com December 4, 2006 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Re: Proposed Changes to Destination Resort Code of the County Dear Commissioners: I am writing to briefly address some issues raised by the Ball Janik firm in their memoranda to the County on the Destination Resort Statute and Goal 8. The Ball Janik firm is proposing changes to the Deschutes County Code to allegedly make it consistent with State law. I do not believe the changes would be consistent. Moreover, I want to emphasize that the County need not be as permissive as state law. It can be more restrictive. The County should also not make any changes in its current code until it has more information on how the current system is working and what effects the new system would have. Ball Janik in referring to Goal 8's continued requirement of the 2:1 ratio makes the argument that "the language of the statute of course supersedes the language of the administrative rule." 11/21 Memo, p. 5, fn. 1. Though that is a general rule of construction, it is limited to situations where the administrative rules are directly inconsistent with the statute. That is not the case here. Goal 8 provides this general standard under Section 5 of "Large Destination Resort": "Accommodations available for residential use shall not exceed two such units for each unit of overnight lodging." Then the Rule, as does the statute, provides an exception for phasing of units, allowing a ratio of 2.5:1 for the first 50 units. Rule Section 5(b)(E) and ORS 197.445(4)(b)(E). The Ball Janik firm argues that the failure to mention a ratio for the rest of the phased units means there is no required ratio. That is illogical. Instead, the obvious reading would be that the standard 2:1 ratio would apply. Also on the basis of that illogical reading that no ratio applies beyond the first 50 units, Ball Janik argues that the County would be permissibly imposing a stricter standard than the State with the 2.5:1 ratio. That premise is wrong, though, where the 2:1 ratio of Goal 8 still applies. Accordingly, the Ball Janik 2.5:1 ratio would not be a stricter standard, but rather a lesser one than the 2:1 ratio. It would thus be illegal. BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit H Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County December 4, 2006 Page 2 I agree with County Staff that the 2:1 ratio should be maintained, at least until the Legislature amends and clarifies the law. There are also other policy reasons not to adopt the proposed changes at this point. At a minimum, we need to know whether current destination resorts are even complying with existing requirements on overnight accommodations, bonding, levels of investment and protection of open space. We also need to know whether the projection of impacts made by the destination resorts in their approval processes turned out to be accurate. Before any changes are made, there needs to be an adequate factual base as required by Goal 2. There is not even an adequate factual base that these changes are needed. Particularly with the destination resort development in Central Oregon expanding exponentially, heavily impacting the rural areas of the County (as are Measure 37 claims), the County should take a cautionary approach in looking at any proposed changes that might lead to more intensive development in rural areas. Particularly concerning the applicants here, including Eagle Crest, Pronghorn and Sunriver, these resorts must show compliance with the current code and statutes and do an assessment of what their current impacts have been (as compared with what was projected) and further project the impacts due to this proposed change in the code. Please inform me in writing of any decision by the Board on this matter. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, PAUL DEWEY PD:ao CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH 1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE SEND, OR 97701 PHONE: (541) 317-1993 FAX: (541) 383-3470 'rotecting Central Oregon's natural environment Ind working for sustainable communities. December 4, 2006 Testimony of- Erik Kancler Executive Director Central Oregon LandWatch 1539 NW Vicksburg Ave. Bend, OR 97701 RE: Proposed destination resort rule-making regarding the ratio of overnight units to single family residences. To the Deschutes Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission: I come before you tonight on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch and its members to express concern over the proposed changes to destination resort guidelines. Although these changes raise other concerns as well, my comments focus on transportation impacts. If adopted, the changes have the potential to precipitate a significant increase in the number of single-family homes built within destination resorts. This would lead to increased demand on county roads and come at a cost to Deschutes County and its tax-papers. Yet to our knowledge, no analysis of the proposal's impacts has been conducted. Furthermore, county staff has publicly admitted that a thorough understanding of destination resort impacts is lacking. This means that absent from the decision-making process are both a baseline characterization of resort impacts and an understanding of the relative impacts of the proposal now before you. This uncertainty alone should be enough reason to slow down and thoroughly evaluate the impacts before bringing this to a vote. We also ask that resorts be required to fully mitigate their impacts. Yes, resorts have paid some mitigation to ODOT for state road improvements, but we're not aware that the county has asked for similar assistance, despite having the authority to do so through the conditional use permitting process. Recently, the County has started charging impact fees on new developments south of State Recreation Road for the improvement of several intersections in La Pine. That the county does not seem to have seriously examined this option in regard to destination resorts is disappointing. This rule-change comes at a time when the county is facing a shortfall in funds for road maintenance. In June, the county imposed a moratorium on itself, deciding not to take on the maintenance of new roads because it simply did not have the money. The proposed changes have the potential to worsen the shortfall. Cities also feel the impacts of destination resorts. In an article in the Bulktin dated November 3rd, Redmond's Public Works Director, Chris Doty - speaking on the impacts of nearby resorts - was quoted as saying, "The general problem is that their impacts extend far into the city and not just those outlying intersections." BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit .J.... PAGE 2 "Is it worth going to battle to make sure that the development can lessen its impact and contribute to the solution?" asked Doty. Destination resorts, as advertised, are supposed to help cities, not hurt them. A good place to start would be to study the impacts of existing resorts. Have they produced the level of traffic that was predicted when they were first approved? Are they being used as proposed? Often second homes become full-time residences when their owners retire. Is this true of destination resorts? The list of unanswered questions is long. No doubt a considerable amount of analysis went into crafting the original resort guidelines. Yet, the fundamental nature and scope of resorts has been allowed to diverge from the original intent without any serious analysis. We ask that they not be allowed to morph any further without a hard look at the consequences of doing so. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Erik Kancler *-"W CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH 1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE. BEND, OR 97701 PHONE (541) 317-1993 FAx (541) 363-3470 . 1 Resort plans have Redmond officials leery of more traffic Two new resorts wotdd add 6,000 vehicle trips By Jeff McDonald f The Bulletin Published: November 03. 2006 B:OOAM PST REDMOND - The city of Redmond often prides itself for being at the geographic heart of Central Oregon. But its central location also may put the city in close proximity to several planned destination resorts. City leaders are concerned that the resorts would generate so much traffic that it would clog what city officials call an already deficient east-side transportation system. Combined, the Remington Ranch resort, located five miles northeast of Redmond, and the Hidden Canyon resort, located on the southeastern slopes of Powell Butte, would add nearly 5,000 dwelling units east of Redmond's city limits and approximately 6,000 vehicle trips per day into the city, said Chris Doty, Redmond's public works director. Both resorts would be located next door in Crook County. Doty raised the transportation issue at a Thursday morning meeting between the Redmond City Council and Deschutes County commissioners. The county owns approximately 1,500 acres east of Redmond in the urban reserve area, which is planned for development within 50 years. "The county is the largest property owner on the east side of Redmond, and it should be aware of developments adding traffic to the city's system," Doty said at the meeting. "The resorts would potentially make it more difficult and limit (the county's) ability to develop." Several resorts are located or planned both east and west of Redmond, including Eagle Crest Resort and the proposed Thornburgh Resort to the west of Redmond. Brasada Ranch and Pronghorn, which are both under construction, and the planned resorts Hidden Canyon and Remington Ranch are to the east. "For a majority of these resorts, Redmond is the closest urban area," Doty said. Remington Ranch first submitted its application in July for a 2,079-acre resort with 1,200 dwelling units. Already, Crook County has held two public hearings regarding the application and plans another on Wednesday at 7 p.m. in the Annex Building across from the Crook County Courthouse in Prineville. Pahlisch Homes, the developer of Hidden Canyon In Crook County, has filed a preliminary application, but it has not yet been finalized. The developer is planning a resort with at least 3,500 dwelling units. Doty wants the Remington Ranch developers to either make an $863,100 lump-sum payment to the city or pay the city's system development charges based on the number of trips that it would generate. "There's no mechanism to cross jurisdictional boundaries, but the city has to make a decision," he said after the meeting. "Is it worth going to battle to make sure that the development can lessen its impact and contribute to solutions?" Chris Pippin, project manager for the Remington Ranch project, said the developer of the project, Winchester Development LLC of La Quinta, Calif., commissioned a detailed trip-traffic study that estimated the number of trips to be generated. The developer is negotiating with the Oregon Department of Transportation to determine the costs of improving intersections on the edge of Redmond that would be affected by the resort, including the intersections of state Highway 126 and Southeast Veterans Way, and the junction of the O'Neil Highway and U.S. Highway 97, Pippin said. But those payments would be made to ODOT, not Redmond, Pippin said. u t s "Nothing has been finalized," he said. "But the area that's in the study is In the state highway system, so we would make our contributions to ODOT. However, they (ODOT) would want to work with Redmond would be up to them." The developer's contributions would be appreciated, but not enough, Doty said. "The general problem is that their impacts extend far into the city and not just those outlying intersections," he said. Other east-side intersections will be affected as well, bringing the combined traffic equivalent of a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Doty said. Dennis Luke, Deschutes County commissioner, said the county would need a change in state law to allow a city to collect system development charges outside its boundary. Do destination resorts create additional challenges? They do," he said. "But they're allowed under state law, and we have to do our best to mitigate the challenges." Doty agreed that the city is in "jurisdictional limbo" because its system development charges only apply to developments within its urban growth boundary. "We can certainly ask, and we'll continue to ask for payment," he said. "It's up to the resorts if they want to participate and risk the city taking this to the next step." The city could potentially appeal the Remington Ranch application to the state's Land Use Board of Appeals, Doty said. Jeff McDonald can be reached at 383-0323 or at imcdonaL42bendbulletin. com. Lack of traffic lights halts development La Pine's Chamber of Commerce would like to see officials fast-track installation of signals to further economic growth By Christopher Stollar / The Bulletin Published: November 07. 2006 S:OOAM PST About eight years ago, Deschutes County officials created a long-term plan for road development throughout the region. That plan included installing four traffic lights in La Pine from Burgess to Finley Butte roads, which just started blinking in September at the downtown corner of First Street and Huntington Road. While the county plans to construct the remaining three lights during the next 10 years for cost reasons, the La Pine Chamber of Commerce would like to see officials fast track that process so new businesses can open up without disrupting traffic flow. "We just can't hold back La Pine because of a street light," said Rose Alsbury, executive director of La Pine's chamber. "It baffles me." The'quandary' Alsbury's main concern is with the intersection of First Street and U.S. Highway 97, where Price Less Foods was making plans to open a 41,970-square-foot store west of the highway, according to Alsbury and Gary Ludeke with Lancaster Engineering in Portland. The grocery center would be located east of Huntington Road near Bi-Mart. But a traffic analysis conducted in July by Lancaster Engineering found that if the company opens without a light, traffic would increase by more than 10 percent. Steve Jorgensen, Deschutes County's senior transportation planner, went so far last week as to call the issue an "intersection failure," noting that 5,485 vehicles already drive on Huntington Road every day. "Opening another retail establishment is going to add more (traffic)," Ludeke said. "The higher delays get, the more chances people will take. People start (taking) chances out onto the highway." As a result, Jorgensen said Price Less Foods' land use application would probably be denied unless the company could find a way to lessen its traffic impact, like installing a light. The catch, Jorgensen added, is that the county does not have enough money right now to pay for such lights, which cost roughly $600,000. Typically, companies pay a portion for the light, and the county covers the rest. That is not possible right now because the county's plan has been to build such lights during the next 10 years, not the next few months. "We don't have money sitting in a county fund to go for a signal - even if Price Less came up with their contribution," Jorgensen said. "They're stuck in a quandary. They really can't get approval." Solutions At this point, Deschutes County has no plans to fast track the other three traffic lights in La Pine, which would be located at Huntington and Burgess roads, Finley Butte Road and Highway 97 and also First Street and Highway 97. Because lights cost thousands of dollars, Jorgensen said the county is not in a position to even set timelines for those other signals. Unless Price Less Foods can come up with $600,000 for the light, Jorgensen said the company will probably not be able to move into that spot. Repeated calls to Price Less Foods were not returned. And that potentially goes for other companies, too, said Tom Blust, Deschutes County Road Department director. If another grocery store applied to open downtown on one of those intersections with the same increased traffic flow, Blust said it could be denied, although that depends on individual traffic analyses. "We did not expect someone to build a huge development there right away," said Will Groves, an associate planner with the county. "We don't approve things that cause intersections to fail." That leaves only one option In the immediate future for the roughly 5,800 people who live and shop in La Pine: stick with the status quo. La Pine has dozens of businesses that provide basic necessities from food to gas. Residents can shop at Bi-Mart, Ray's Food Place and several smaller stores in the area. But La Pine needs more, said Sandy Irwin, with La Pine's library. "Another grocery store is necessary as the area grows," Irwin said. "Ray's does a great job, but people like to shop around. And La Pine could use jobs." Right now, 87 percent of La Pine's working population commutes 26 minutes to jobs, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Of the 4,882 people age 16 and older, 2,471 were employed, but only 49 actually worked in La Pine. 'The more jobs you bring to the area," Irwin said, "the better off the community is." Christopher Stollar can be reached at 617-7818 or at cstollar(ftendbulletin. com. Deschutes panel to vote on road ban By Keith Chu / The Bulletin Published: July 04. 2006 S:00AM PST With federal funding for Des-chutes County roads still in doubt, the second half of a two-part ban on establishing new roads is scheduled to come before the Deschutes County Commission on Wednesday. The measure would prevent the county from adopting new roads built by developers into its maintenance system. It wouldn't ban construction of new roads or subdivisions, said Roads Department Director Tom Blust. In June, the county commission passed a ban on adding roads from local improvement districts, groups of homeowners who pay to bring roads up to county standards then turn the streets over to the county for maintenance. County commissioners have said that falling federal funding for county roads forced the freeze on new maintenance responsibilities. They unanimously passed the earlier, partial ban. The federal payments program meant to offset counties' lost revenue from vanishing timber harvests provides $3 million - or about one-third of Des-chutes County's road funding - but that program is in danger of being canceled this year. Roads from developers and improvement districts that are already in the pipeline to be adopted by the county will not be affected by the ban. There are 7.9 miles of developer roads and 15.5 miles of improvement district streets in that category. Deschutes County adds an average of six miles of roads to its system each year, said Blust. The county maintains more than 800 miles of roads, he said. About 700 counties nationwide receive funding under the program, according to a statement by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. Dennis Pahlisch, founder of Pahlisch Homes, said a freeze on new roads could slow growth in Deschutes County. "It will put a hardship, of course, on new development," Pahlisch said. Rather than giving roads to the county for maintenance, developers will need to create homeowners associations or special taxing districts to repair and plow roads in new neighborhoods. Pahlisch noted that the measure would force some homeowners to pay county taxes plus a fee for road maintenance, while other homeowners, who got in ahead of the ban, would get the service without the extra charge. "It just doesn't seem quite fair," Pahlisch said. Oregon's congressional delegation is pushing a measure to restore the program, but the proposals have yet to pay off. To draw attention to the issue, Wyden at one point placed a hold on a White House appointment to the federal Department of the Interior. Most recently, Rep. Greg Walden, D-Hood River, and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Springfield, succeeded in attaching an amendment to the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act that would fund $50 million a year of county payments for five years. That's about one-ninth of the fully funded program, according to their press release. One-ninth of the current county payments in Deschutes County wouldn't pay for many more miles of county road, Slust said. "I imagine if it's anything much less than what we're currently getting, we're really not going to have the funds to maintain anything more than the existing roadway," Blust said. Keith Chu can be reached at 1117--7829 or at kdnO_bend bulletin. com. -FO Economic, Social, and Environmental Impacts of Destination Resorts Allowing the proposed changes in the criteria for destination resorts is sure to cause these entities to roliferate in the High Desert, because of the precedent that will be created, making contro impossible in the future. Developers use the myths of job creation and growth in theteconomy to push their agenda, and they have highly visible, quasi-philanthropic, public relations programs to sugar the public, costing them very little against the huge profits to be made. Resorts require imported cheap labor, first, for construction and then for service jobs. The social and economic costs to the existing community are insidious and destructive. Fees for medical treatment are passed on to the citizens at large. There are always social problems with imported underpaid workers. Why do we want to be a magnet for such problems? F In my previous residence~I have seen unfortunate illegal hotel workers hauled off in chains in an I#S raid, the innkeepers protesting that they cannot do without illegals. Do we need to create such problems here? We already have an active resort economy that keeps our hands full in trying to provide housing and social and medical services. Do we need more resorts in our area? The clients of destination resorts would have no stake in our community and would be here just to exploit and not give back. They would spend their money in their self-contained communities, not in our town. Destination resorts are not local businesses. They are corporate. They are nonessential to the basic needs of society as a whole and do not produce goods, such as agricultural crops, that benefit society. The profits leave the area, but the costs - air pollution, water speculation, and social problems - are borne by the surrounding communities. 1q-(A- AJ,) 1~711-"' BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit t t ~y n 0 v_ v v v a f? m c cu E 9 a O d i L 47 'i C 3 CA 1 'a O O LLM ca MC C (1) d E C O N G7 3 CL E 0 a+ C O Q 9 ~ ai J u te = aJ O y ^ ^ u a ~r = = !a Imo n 3> i' : o ~c~o a, Cz LL 3 J ~k U mL~U)Ea Z-)~a3~s No I- CO y o o y ~`j . 3 ; BOCC Land Use Hearing LM M 3 = Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 - = = CDD File TA-04 -4 - Dest Resorts J . I Exhibit \ O O a CD CL a: O J a~ •cts O O c3 v > 0 o, c a) S n n 3 e J G r U CL) 7- m: ® m cao~3~ti~ m- tea) ~a) a ~'~cZ ,~•-cso ~ z"p Cd y US r-i m + 4, Yr O C Y-' O'Y N a) .1•+ y o C:S O _ 1J• Ca al malm c w a) o o a C.) co CCO, ~ a 0 + .b ° C7 O.•v ° bq'a O cC O. V U C V U O - _ n~°' LL- vs,UC + ~OOOWCcO:. ycn.ap~^~v ~C.CbJI~'a) V ~a)~ bU c3 0 a) C Y Y p m cd a) . Y y ^ Y ~ O O 4; En y > .Q a) .Or•, N m ,n a) .yti m p C .O .Q 3 O C •C G a) O a) y - c3 ..C s N - a) O U aVi~ p p b°py~ Cc N ici ~ 4 z p cYa G bl) N m mC!(D En )a a)cd W O 0 C.~ O 41 O. a) p O Q d L O . ~..'U2 w¢. y O vi • U a? O >,.ca 3 .O O c3 0 z r O V O ca Cd v U U N y cn O bJ) " >y e U n U2 to O~ E-0 a) * m C V cn n¢ O L U y a) tr a c0 a) C ~~1 Y x C yr 0 u N ~ 01 W CIS C ° o) o o= Cd ~ o C-4 CA o ~ ~b 04 a~ vovU o 0" s>a = aOi~~bn~ cis -t ~.^ca w 0y d~ ~c3 V w o c cam o o aw ° $O o oF+•~`"'a2i o a 0 bancd a) 10 s-. cd 0 0 0 r e v :r o abD, r y, r O _ U O m s+ O U m a) O CO O 3 •3sO,p 3 CY ~p °).aki bC 0,0 :O G~~a) V 4° CD O r O U a) O oA^ O U. O J U p 0 0 O c* p .d O iO•, Y >J a y a) = i'1. 3 x c . o 0 o bUC a o3 Lim 3 N U CIS rn O cd '0 C .O .21. E a) a) bb C o a) S. V y L3 C 9t c cL o 4-• a a y Z cCN O 3 cd C 3L; En a Wre o m YbD +--Cdr Y)a)q,% 7 °a) O O ° V m cC ca ai oA y N - .0 V d.. to E -U) pi N Z Y cC '3 O C > a) r-•+ O a) V 3 E En - c a cd (D 0 T O a) m c ° a)~ c p o W cci O O d) > c m G _ 00 E O V a U m a) ca > G~ O: J G a y bCA N w. V Y p bn O G :C C'U G a1+. a) O p 'bp0 0 s" - m E2 = J Y . O=-0 W.- M O C yZ o r- 0 C C Cd _ CD cao ~0)(D ~a)3.°' ~ o. °bn bnEV s~Y fl o~:ac 0 Al n~, 0 r c310• a) a)pOO C y Ot39 O a) c C 5 mNEUNcc CO (D CZ ~ C?Cpm N~.W!- U ~i~. y .ate o"a o ` Q)C o ° 3 c azw a`~ 3 a Q`" o an~¢ ° ai C N O cA 3 w CL m 0 0 O s. a) cs a) s. c cu 0 4) - (DaC.)CCd~~ s Ud)~c ~ ~ ~3 Gs ny 0 ~w'C+ 0 w CfYRUY wCQ. .41 . C a) ,O m y m a) O W y a) p- C. ? r- ,f s a)''¢D a) rn, d d4 ca;c +'C"u q~'d s.~~~~y O a) ry p o > cax a) C+W O V •n 0 V O L ca ~ V a) a) C~ s y d) 4-, O Cra Y C Ca Q) U d) . °Q '0 W) 0 i, 40+ U Cd c6 on a V p G ❑ m R? O a ~j,r r c3' . CZ O O y O 0.++ M V Cd 0 O a) R C3 O ~O 'D ^ ri G N O a U B oA ca r a) x O sy a' a) O U V v a !4 rn a) 'ta O y U 4) U V by .C y a) U c3 0:. a) O O C -x 4~t: by c3 0 °O $-4 CU bLD ;.4 cu oim C) m UGt bD U O ~ 'd V -CS C). CZ, Cd O O > Z a) sa a) tt r V C r C ayi u 5 0 C 033 ~x ~•a' t~3~ C) a) ~3 OD o a~ Nn >s~ O Gb r o o c0 r U o o un o+~ 49 En cd CL 01 ° m cC R 0 o p ca ca ju Q) N C Y CD 0 u. ID b.Q= (u -0 In 2.2 OJ-5 OY y >~x vii >,OCF 3 a tn3> ~~°•6n ami O Sa) W r O 4.,ja C* N ~•y.; m h aU) ci O Cjr: 3 o m cL)o .018 o b o~~'~Q 3 NO-5E bJ)O r. bA s. c>6 a) N >,•O O O a) a) r ^ YO y z ~ci, 0 a) vOi 0 O d ^y.,~"' CO (3) : Q r- u -0 ~i N ca O o. O s. V .O ay F, > •C V (Y., ~~~x3vsvVa H Y Ca Y 4w-+ W J J m W I-- 0 co 0 C) N i E Q) O. a) U) -p •A O m (1) O 'O ct (1) 6r.- o0 y 34,- ,3omc .ac CD,o "a Y a y 0 C b V p y °s00~°ca°~ ccotia m -0 q a') y U G•V.~~~o};~cCavoi3 0. bb Q a;cbbda)R. Oo'er o 0 -n r~ y Yv.• Or:1 b0 r .O m a,;c) >~a~ xC~s bc is ° y too ° c 4 M a o r 0 o az is = > 4) 0 ca v cci y .r. O.'a a;> '"i r C3 3 m E o,... a) Ln u Cnmop~°a~Y zs'~5wooo+.5 p,ccs m'Jw .O m p `a3U ~A cai doOO~CA~ CGc v]om UCi a s Q • ca.~ Syt7 O O °hn G' •00_ C M o. C m ~n Vl 3 v .-7 U bU b0 U ca U m ❑ a m s•. 1+ C ca 1 xYA~ 0,0 o Y-Z -°'u o.3 arc 4w F~3 Z to s. ar ° •p a 'd DC U 3 a) ~f a m w~Y ami t. ~ m a) a° fl p o C: r C O cti aV, O C °O a>i CIS oV V-04~ cma'5 ^ O 6 aW ~ ^ U V m•~w bA~ N C Y w y O 3 a) N cn CL ch O r' < O OCO.v~y~O U° d O o 0o v v ym' U a) QQ ~ r. ~ y cYi o.U p~ V~ U 0 5 C-U- V c3~ a CV UO 0.cd p-G• ~.c". V s. Q m U Y w0 .~'O o c6 Y a) O V dmma)~~C7 a)~;tea) ~bnm^_Hv)Ua) a ~H cG bAa g' E y _aY). ua R °c•6 °Oi2 3 m 3 (a oY.r r3 Y } 6 m r U 'Y C u is U V •~-C o' v~ y 3 ~A~ r - Y`r• ,0,, O ct Q aU) a CO .^O. a" ca j ~ t an ~ p ~ Y cd C3 ca 4-. O v; -CIO C o obA? o ^~ate)= cs°^ y ca , cn a m o 3 Y a C Q, a) - O C O 3 cV = > yW a~iU E v•6 U 4~ n O r 3 cc E :a a) m= 1 > M ^ IL cz cn CZ (V 7~ 10 c s V a v m L ° 'bona= a,bbOv Q>, o Ca O r + C.) 41 > Q.. r+ Rob Vert i The Salleun ,ynthia, 11, as they ter, see Page BB. ~r passes ng Day at this point,' 11 snow levels around during the day and 13,500 feet at night. elor's Web site lists a snow showers today emulation of 5 inches, ice of snow showers 'sday through the an. 23 likely to change medical practice. The study; published in The Journal of the American I1e11_ ical Association, is the only large and rigorous randomized' trial to compare surgery with. waiting for sciatica. The study was controversial from the start, with many sur- geons saying they knew that the operation worked and that it would be unethical for their pa- tients to participate. See Back pain /A6 sciatica: painful pre A damaged spinal disk or ostemmr sciatic nerve, causing back pain that Burning Pain shoots into one or both buttocks and down the back of the thigh Coughing sneezing or trying to Mend back worsens pain Sciatic nerve: Largest in the body outside of the spinal cord ■ Drugs to reduce inflammation ■ Physical therapy ■ A new study found that bed rest usually does not help ssure on nerve tis can press on the big runs down into the legs. Sciatic nerve: Degenerated disk presses on nerve, causes pain or weakness Disk 0 Vertebra spinal (top view) cord SoUFICES- New England Journal of )Medicine, AMA Family Medical Guide Vering U.S. n. 23 pushes the start ay season. irement marks a nericans, Canadians, nd some Mex-:cans. U.S. citizens return- er countries in the ire not required to )rts. See Passports ,/A5 1: D I" ) children born Mock, Page A3 Syrian Lebanese Page A7 Jairned 'MASH' C4 lra~ slmaw~s; roc[ Anglers lobby to refine Upper Deschutes flow BY Christopher Stoilar The Bulletin A group of anglers who fre- quent the upper portion of the Deschutes River urged state and local officials Tuesday to protect fish populations and check whether the endangered bull trout still exists in the area - a claim some fishermen be- lieve, but the state doubts. Known as the Friends of the Upper Deschutes, the recently formed group of about 100 an- glers and residents has been asking the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Des- chutes River Conservancy and other organizations to look into the issues. Specifically, the group wants these government agencies and organizations to improve how water flows through the Upper Deschutes, research whether steelhead ever existed, and de- termine whether the endan- gered bull trout still swims in the river. See Angiers /A6 14 E4 iON J /may a dV By Gina Kolata IN- York Tiunes. eu>s service People with ruptured disks in their lower backs usually recov- er whether or not they have surgery. researchers are report- ing today . The study, a large trial, found that surgery appeared to relieve pain more quickly but that most people recovered eventually and that there was no harm in waiting- And that, surgeons said, is d 0- (D O !r Lo N Q tv 0 i~ O O U a O V V a E a 9 'i Anglers Continued from Al If bull trout do live there, the fed- eral government could potentially become involved. The Upper Deschutes is gov- erned in part by the amount of water released through Wickiup Reservoir. The group believes that too much water is released during the summer months and not enough is released in the win- ter, said Wes Pen* a spokesman for Friends of the Upper De- schutes. "I'm just worried about what's happening," said Tun King a Sun- river-area resident who helped or- ganize the group. "If there is an en- dangered species, it could push the issue further on the table." King said he began contacting state and local officials in 2005. At that time, King said, people were expressing concerns about the general decline of many Central Oregon fly-fishing waters and a perceived lack of response from state agencies. King had also heard from some anglers who claimed they caught bull trout in the Upper Deschutes. Bull trout are protected by the federal government through the Endangered Species Act, a law passed in 1973 that sought to pro- tect species of fish, wildlife and plants so depleted in numbers they were in danger of extinction. Bull trout supposedly were elim- inated from the river in the 1950s because of increased water tem- peratures, altered stream flows and blockage of adult spawning areas in the Upper Deschutes, said Ted Wise, a biologist with the fish and wildlife department. Bull trout have a large, flat head and yellow to reddish body spots on an olive green to brown back- ground, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Web site. They can grow to more than 20 pounds and live for more than a decade, the Web site said. While the state has not kept track of fish populations in certain sections of the river for years, Wise said it would be highly un- usual if bull trout shill existed there, given all of the hard times area waters have faced. In 1973, for example, an out- break of bacterial kidney disease and infectious pancreatic necrosis in the Fall River area wiped out more than 1 million fish after the water was chemically treated, Wise said. And in 2002, an air tanker dropped fire retardant in the Fall River that contained ammonia and cyanide, killing thousands more. "I literally savt, fish crawling out of the water," Wise said. "It was a complete kill." Yet some anglers believe bull trout are still there. King helped organize a survey this summer that he posted and handed to people who fish in the river. Limiting questions to the main stem of the Deschutes River be- tween Bend and Wickiup Dam to the south, King sought to ask about 250 people for their success rate with rainbow and brown trout and whether they caught any brook or bull trout. Dozens responded, King said, and seven claimed they caught bull trout in the Upper Deschutes. State officials are skeptical. "We're trying to work on credi- ble evidence," said Clair Kunkel, a regional watershed manager with the state fish and wildlife depart- ment. "We work on science. We work on fact." Even if the department con- firmed the existence of a couple bull trout, Kunkel said that might not be enough to take serious ac- tion to save the endangered fish. The Upper Deschutes would have to contain a viable popula- tion, habitat and age ranges of bull trout. That disturbed some fishermen, who also said they have seen a general decline of fish in the Up- per Deschutes. Kings survey included a list of such anecdotal fishing Stories from people, some who have lived along the river for decades. "The fishery is gone," said Bob Griffin, a longtime fisherman who has lived in Bend for 19 years. "It doesn't have anything now." At this point, the Friends of the Upper Deschutes plan to continue discussions with the state, but no official decisions were made at the meeting Tuesday. King remained optimistic "I thinkwe're on a new pat he said. -Ibis was very significant to- day." Christopher Stollar can be reached at 617-7818 or at cstollar@bendbulletimcorm T ach tha City ord dov and dov pan tori whe doe a be B CHOI staff dina N I Pamela Hard Attorney at Law 1629 NW Fresno Ave. Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 550-7968 pamhardy.law,@gmail.com December 4, 2006 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Opposition to the Code Amendment increasing the ratio of residential to overnight units to 2.5:1. Dear Commissioners: I am a citizen of Bend who lives here because of my love for the natural surroundings including the mountains, forests, the wildlife and wide open spaces. I love the fact that virtually the entire city is filled with people that cherish these surroundings, and the active outdoor culture and life style. I am also an attorney. So when this issue came up I used some of my legal skills to do a little research into the original ideas and purposes behind Goal 8 and the Destination Resort exceptions. Although I work with Central Oregon LandWatch and represent them on some cases I am here today to speak on my own behalf as a citizen of Deschutes County. The original purpose of the Destination Resort legislation was to "promote Oregon as a vacation destination and to encourage tourism as a valuable segment of our state's economy." ORS 197.440. A destination resort was originally, and still is defined as "a self-contained development that provides for visitor-oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities." ORS 197.445. In support of this purpose state law, and DLCD Goal 8 allowed for an unusual exception to the general rule that prevents farm and forest land from being developed for non- agricultural purposes. In principle I support this vision. One of the greatest assets of Central Oregon is precisely our astonishing natural beauty and landscape. Done well a reasonable number of destination resorts with open space, and ecologically conscious building and self-contained recreational facilities can bring economic stability to our region. BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit L__ December 4, 2006 Page 2 of 3 My concern is that Goal 8, and the Deschutes County code that implements Goal 8 is being disingenuously used as a loophole to push through basic residential subdivisions on valuable farm land and open space. More concisely my concern is that we're killing the goose that laid the golden egg. People move to, and vacation in Central Oregon because of the scenic beauty and wide open spaces. People do not vacation in subdivisions. They come from subdivisions. Most Americans live in subdivisions. Let's not allow this "Destination Resort exception" to be the loophole for urban sprawl. Building urban sprawl may be profitable in the short run, but each new development lowers the over all value of this area as destination. The original purpose of Goal 8 was to encourage a tourism based economy. The natural resource that we need to keep in tact to continue to have such an economy is the beautiful open spaces that surround our city. Please don't allow a change in the code that makes sprawl easier. The big distinction between a Destination Resort, and a basic residential subdivision is the purpose: a destination resort is aimed toward visitors. It has overnight units, not just residential homes. It also has developed recreational facilities within its borders. The legislative history shows that these specific requirements were put in place specifically to prevent subdivisions and rural development to occur under the guise of being a "destination resort." As it stands the current law allows two residential units for every single overnight unit. This barely holds to the purpose of being a place for visitors. The proposed changes to the law - allowing 2 and a half residential units for every overnight unit - will only open the loophole wider for more residential subdivisions - not for actual destination resorts. What I ask of you tonight are two things: First, to reject any amendments to the present code: Keep it as it is. Second to take this opportunity to look before you leap. In the past several years Deschutes County has seen several new "Destination Resorts" go up. Look at the predictions that were made during those decision making processes and see if they were true. • Are the resulting projects really resorts for visitors? Or are they residential? • Have they provided the required 50% open space & recreational facilities? " December 4, 2006 Page 3 of 3 • Do they bring in jobs in the tourism economy? Or are they more residents in search of jobs? Is there sufficient medium and low income housing for their service level employees? • Do they pay their own way for county services and roads? Or is it a net loss to the tax payers? If we are at a net loss what code changes should we make to ensure that these developments are not being done at tax payer expense. Most importantly - what will be the real impacts of Measure 37? During this time of real uncertainty about potentially massive new developments with virtually no oversight, we should not be loosening the rules to allow more subdivisions. Let's find out the answers to these and other questions about "Destination Resorts" before we change the code to allow even more subdivisions in the open space that makes Deschutes County an attractive place for visitors in the first place. Please, safeguard the reasons I moved here, and that so many people visit here. Please don "t kill the goose the laid the golden egg. Thank you for your time and for this opportunity to comment. Please inform me in writing of any further opportunities to comment and any decisions you make on this matter. Very truly OUn~ Pam Ha-?dy-- Attorney at Law Citizen of Deschutes County Comments and Questions Regarding TA-04-4 Destination Resorts Prepared By Susan S. Quatre, Deschutes County Planning Commissioner Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 23.54.030, § 2 (c)(d) states: c. The County may adopt additional land use restrictions to ensure that proposed destination resorts are compatible with the environmental capabilities of the site and surrounding land uses. d. Uses in destination resorts -moo visitor-oriented accommodations, overnight lodgings, developed recreational facilities, commercial uses limited to types and levels necessary to meet the needs of visitors to the resort, and uses consistent with preservation and maintenance of open space. Questions: A. What impact on roads, schools, water resources, police, fire and EMS do destination resorts have? B. What data have been collected to argue for or against such impact? C. Mow can a decision be made about altering the ratio of individually- owned residences to overnight lodging without adequate data collection on impact on county services or environment? D. What is the penalty for noncompliance? E. Can the county prevent future development of residences if a DR is noncompliant with either required reporting or final build-out of all 150 overnight units? F. As the text amendment Is written, couldn't a developer fail to completely build out the final 100 units? What then? BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resort: Exhibit AA l 2. Nancy Craven of Ball Janik, LLP, states in her 26 May 2006 letter to Catherine Morrow, argues in "History of DR Zoning and SB 911 that the "early versions of destination resort bills were more restrictive than LCDC's recommendations with respect to overnight lodging standards." She further states that the rental requirement of 45 weeks per week of individually-owned residential units "was not scientific". She also indicates that the 150 overnight unit and 2:1 ratio "were chosen somewhat randomly„. Questions A. Isn't it time to gather critical data before making more changes in text as requested? 3. Oregon State Assemble recognizes that it is economically sound to promote Oregon as a vacation destination and would like to encourage tourism and have tourists stay longer. (ORS 197.440) AND According to Title 18, Deschutes County Code (18.113.010 (E) it is not the intent of Title 18 to authorize rural subdivisions. Questions A. How do we know if second homes owners will become permanent residents as they retire? B. What impact on the county will occur in the future if second-homes become permanently occupied by owner's children? C. Will altering the ratio, even by a fraction, gradually turn Destination Resorts into something more like a rural subdivision given a dynamic population ? December 4, 2006 Deschutes County Commissioners Dennis Luke Bev Clarno Mike Daly Testimony on Public Hearing on Destination Resort Code Amendment I write in reference to the proposed destination resort code amendment. I believe it would be premature to change the destination resort code without studying the impacts that this language will have. Very important topics were discussed during the Planning Commission's remapping of the DR zone which took place from October 2005-February 2006. Public discussion of this sort should be included in this record: Impact that destination resorts have on the location of affordable housing, on the poor condition of County roads, on the huge request for Water useage, on Sheriff services and fire protection from Wildfire Urban Interface, on Resort Accountability, Deschutes County enforcement and on the demands placed on Community Development Department Staff. These are issues that 1 encourage you to discuss during the course of your taking testimony this evening 1. Regarding the housing ratio increase from 2.0 to 2.5:1 Transportation How many more trips will permanent housing place on our already failing road systems? ge-c. aA&J.oA Ft,(c, r-Z ~,Att o(o . In many resort cases such as Eagle Crest, there has been a fixed top limit mechanism for contributing toward infrastructre needs. How will Deschutes County and/or ODOT be compensated for this proposed increase in traffic on our infrastructure? Why is there no transportation SDC now in the County? The huge cloverleaf at Sunriver is over budget and has taken longer to build than anticipated. What monetary participation will destination resorts make toward this infrastructure if you grant their sweeping density request? Water How much more domestic water and irrigation water will a permanent home use than an overnight unit? What mitigation will be required to offset the added use of water? Deschutes County is concerned about it's water quality and it's use of water. The Oregon Insider's article "Central Oregon Water" (by DRC attached) BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File TA-04-4; Dest. Resort: Exhibit W identifies a base case, low growth case and a high growth case of acre-feet demand by destination resorts. The high growth estimate for destination resorts requires 35% more water than the base case. Which ratio is used to obtain these demand 2025 figures: the 2.0 : 1 housing ratio or the 2.5 : 1 housing ratio? According to The Water Report also created by DRC attached the 2025 demand for destination resorts is 9% of basin water! whereas municipalities over this same time frame are demanding only 2% of our basin water. What Is this the best use of our water resource, should resorts be developed on poor soils and water rights be diverted from good agricultural soils to accomplish the mitigation programs that are being drafted to meet water in stream? Central Oregon Deschutes County has been the hot spot for destination resorts. Adjacent counties are watching closely. Jefferson and Crook counties will be quick to adopt Deschutes County rules. As you can see from the attached article on Crook County, their destination resorts are just adjacent to major cities in Central Oregon. For instance Remington Ranch/Winchester is closer to Redmond than Prineville. How will Deschutes County collect for the taxing impacts which resorts in adjacent counties create? This issue has been brought to you by The City of Redmond's Chris Doty in the attached 2 correspondances dated September 7, 2006. This is just the beginning of the woes. Affordable Housing What distance do employees of destination resorts have to travel to find affordable housing? At the very minimum increasing density should be tied to building affordable housing on site so that employees do not have to commute huge distances at exhorbitant fuel prices. Sherriff's Services The rural sherriff bond failed this past November 2006 in Deschutes County. Now you are willing to increase the density of homes in Destination Resorts. This density increase will cause a longer response time for current population. Wildfire Urban Interface Why should BLM's Cline Buttes Recreation Plan have to protect added density so destination resorts can sell more lots? How do public entities get compensated for density increases after they have already created fixed mitigation MOU's? Recreation Deschutes County is one of few in the State of Oregon that does not have a parks department. It is time for County accountability in light of our escallating population. It is time for a Deschutes County Park System for public recreation and to not rely on destination resorts or federal lands to meet the needs of our citizenry. Phasing of recreational opportunities does not mean they will be constructed during the course of a developer's ownership of a resort. Eagle Crest's management has been turned over to at least 13 neighborhoods. The Ridge Owner Association The Eagle Crest Master Association and 13 sub Owner Associations such as: Fairway Vista, Riverview Vista, Vacation Resort, Eagle Crest Home Owners, Hotel, Phase III: Creekside, Desert Sky, Highland Parks, Vista Rim Phase II: Forest Green, Forest Ridge, Eagle Creek, Eagle Springs The Falls. Have residents of Eagle Crest been notified of this proposed land use that could occur within 500 feet of their property? Exactly where will accountability for overnight units come from if each unit of overnight accommodation is managed separately? Thank you for your thoughtful appreciation of the complexity of this code amendment. Nunzie Gould 19845 JW Brown Bend OR 97701 420-3325 -4-j 10 &4k J11 { 12/04/2006 17:06 5038926626 FALCQNI CONSULTING PAGE 02 11830 SW Kerr Parkway, Suite 375 - Lake Oswego. OR 97035 • (503)892-6608 • FAX (503)a92-6626 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1, 2006 TO: Nunzio Gould )FROM: Xavier R. Falcone PE SUBJECT: Comments for the Deschutes County Planning Commission Meeting (12/04/06) As you requested, this memorandum is to provide general comments to assist you in addressing the most relevant issues to be discussed at the upcoming Deschutes County Planning Commission meeting on December 4, 2006. In addition, this document provides some background information regarding other tramportation elements that should be taken into consideration in making decisions that would affect the community and the transportation system within Deschutes County. Following is a summary of our review and recommendations: The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan, under the Transportation Finance Plan section, addresses current and anticipated funding sources for transportation projects. Tt includes some possible funding sources that should be considered before making decisions on adding additional vehicular traffic to the existing transportation system. Without entering the funding of transportation projects into the equation, the citi2ens of the County would not be getting any benefit of fully utilizing the public transportation system and instead would create a burden to them to benefit private interest. • The County and ODOT need to snake some tough decisions regarding current and future land development projects in the area. If the current trend continues, the transportation conditions and safety within communities such as Tumalo will continue to deteriorate. There are plenty of examples of communities around the state where the lack of planrdng and vision has caused some serious deficiencies on the state highway system. BACKGROUND Transportation politics and agreenienM tra'ff'ic Safety and operational issues. and multimodal connectivity are some of the key elements that should be taken into consideration in making Deschutes County Planning Commission Meeting 1 December 1, 2006 Deschutes County G-ct-c d 4,0(o 12%04/2006 17:06 5038926626 FALCONI CONSULTING PAGE 03 decisions that would affect the transportation system in and around Tumalo and other communities in Deschutes County. The discussion of these key elements is provided as background information. Transtwrtatton_Policies and, Aereemen The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) is one of the main planning tools to be used in addressing transportation needs and goals in Tumalo. The purpose of the TSP is to develop.a transportation system that meets the needs of County residents as well as regional and state needs. This plan addresses a balanced transportation system that includes automobiles, bicycle, rail. transit, air, pedestrian and pipelines. it reflects existing land use plans, policies and regulations that affect the transportation system and includes options to finance future projects. The TSP is required to address the statewide requirements outlined in Goal 12 and its implementing administrative rule, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) OAR Chapter 660 Division 12. To comply with the Rule Deschutes County is committed to establish a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified local transportation needs and that will be compatible with local TSPs and adopted elements of the state TSP. Goal 12 is one of the statewide planning goals adopted by the State of Oregon in the 1970s. Under Goat 12, local governments, regions and metropolitan areas (MPOs) must adopt transportation plans to comply with the following requirements: • Provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system, Each transportation plan shall consider all modes of transportation including mass transit, air, water, pipeline, rail, highway, bicycle and pedestrian; be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state transportation needs. • Consider the differences in social consequences that would result from utilizing differing combinations of transportation modes. • Avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation. • Minimize adverse social,, economic and environmental impacts and costs. • Conserve energy • Meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services. • Facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional economy. • Conform with local and regional comprehensive laud use plans. The TSP represents the first phase of transportation planning. The plats establishes land use controls through the establishment of goals and policies and a network of facilities and services to meet overall transportation needs. During the second phase or project development the local government determines the exact location, alignment, and preliminary design of improvements identified in the TSP (OAR 660-12-010). The TSP also establishes a number of funding options to be able to cope with addressing the needs identified in the TSP for the duration of the planning period. In most recent years funding for transportation projects, including trying to cope with the current maintenance needs of the transportation system, has become a hot topic. This issue is very relevant to any proposed transportation related project since Deschutes County, ODOT and other local agencies around the state are attempting to cope with an increasing demand of transportation resources and are developing innovative ways to improve the ability to address financial needs. Deschutes County Planning Commission Meeting 2 December 1, 2006 Deschutes County 9 12/04/2006 17:06 5038926626 FALCONI CONSULTING PAGE` 04 ' Highway 20 is part of the County`s Principal Arterial System. It is owned and maintained by ODOT. The Highway is also classified as a freight Route. which raises the classification of this transportation facility to almost the highest level within ODOT standards. As such. Highway 20 must meet stringent mobility standards. The Highway is the main arterial within Tumalo and also divides the community in two sections. Highway 20 through Tumalo has captured the attention of ODOT and the County due to the unsafe characteristics of the at-grade intersections within this community. Of particular interest is the intersection of Cook Avenue and Hxgbway 20. This intersection has been included in the analysis of other major developments in the vicinity, including some resort type developments. In addition, in the now future ODOT is planning on conducting a study to determine the possibility of designing and constructing an interchange at this intersection- As part of recent land development projects in the area, the intersection of Cook Avenue and Highway 20 has been the subject of agreements between ODOT and private developers with the purpose of agreeing to an cgilitable share for the cost of the potential interchange at this intersection. Following are the agreements that have been provided for review as part of this project: 1. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) # 17.672 (October 12, 1999), between ODOT and Eagle Crest. Eagle Crest filed a land use application with the County on July 2, 1999 to expand its existing destination resort (comprised of two phases, commonly known as Eagle Crest I and Eagle Crest ti to the west on 480 acres of land adjacent to the existing Mort. The proposed expansion (Eagle Crest III) would include approximately 900 new dwelling units and would be connected to and managed in conjunction with the existing resort. As indicated in the MOU, some traffic from the proposed Eagle Crest III would travel via Route 2 south on the Clint Falls Highway to connect to Highway 20 at the intersection of those two roads in Tumalo, an intersection which has been identified by Deschutes County in its Transportation System Plan as the site of a future overpass interchange to better acoommodate current and future traffic. Eagle Crest anti ODOT agree that the intersection of Cline Faits Highway at the junction with Highway 20 is presently operating at LOS F. According to the traffic study for Eagle Crest III, it ;is expected to generate 3% of the overall traffic to this intersection and 12% of the critical turning movements at this intersection. We Crest agrees to make a contribution in an amount of $240,000 which equals to 12% of the total estimated construction cost of the new interchange. 2. Agreement 917,671 (December 19, 2000), between ODOT and Eagle Crest. Highway 20 is a part of the state highway system and is under the jurisdiction and control of ODOT_ Cline Falls Highway is part of the County road system and is under the jurisdiction and control of the County. Eagle Crest and ODOT agree that the intersection of Cline Falls Highway with Highway 20 is presently operating at LOS F. According to the Traffic Analysis, Eagle Crest Iii is expected to generate 3% of the overall traffic to this intersection and that it is expected to be approximately 12% of the critical turning movements. ODOT acknowledges that should Eagle Crest TIl be developed, an interchange may need to be constructed at the location shown on the sketch attached as part of this agreement. ODOT and Eagle Crest agree that the advance deposit of $240,000 will be: returned to Eagle Crest if construction of the interchange does not occur. The agreement also indicates that signalization will not be an acceptable solution for the intersection of Cline Falls Highway at Highway 20. Deschutes County Planning Commission Meating 3 December 1, 2006 Deschutes County 12/04/2006 17:06 5038926626 FALCONI CONSULTING PAGE 05 3. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) #22.759 between ODOT and the Thornburgh Resort Company. Thornburgh filed a land use application with Deschutes County on February 16, 2005. seeking development approval for a destination resort on approximately 1,980 acres of private land located adjacent to the Cline Buttes outside of Redmond, Oregon. This MOU documents the proposed contribution by Thornburgh towards the costs associated with transportation improvements that ODOT believes are needed to mitigate against the transportation impacts associated with the development of the project. Thornburgh is willing to make a contribution toward a portion of the cost of constructing a new interchange to replace the Highway 20/Cook Avenue intersection based on the impact that traffic from the proposed Thornburgh Resort will have on the intersection. Thornburgh'-.; contribution towards construction costs is intended to fully mitigate Thornburgh Resort's transportation impacts to this intersection. The terms of this MOU shall remain in effect for a period of 10 years or until the project is completed. The Development Review program is administered through ODOT's five region offices throughout the state. ODOT staff responsibility for coordinating internal review of local land use and development proposals varies among regions. In some regions the District Maintenance staff takes the lead while in other regions the Planning staff takes the lead in the coordination of Development Review with local governments. The goals of development review are to protect the traveling public's safety and to enable the infrastructure to achieve its full design life. ODOT participates in local land use review to help protect the public investment in the state transportation system by working with local governments to mitigate the impacts of development. By participating in the local land use and development review process, ODOT works to achieve a balance between the traffic generated by a proposed development and what the transportation system can accommodate. The need to protect the state transportation system has become more pressing in recent years due to the rate of population growth 83 well as growth in vehicle miles traveled. The funding for transportation investments has not kept pace with the state's travel demand. The growth in travel demand combined with the revenue shortfall has increased the need to protect the existing state transportation system and to ensure that development mitigates for its proportional impact. Coordination with ODOT is required when the state transportation system is affected by a proposed local land use change or development This includes land use with and without direct access to a state transportation facility. Development review often focuses on impacts to state highways; however, all modes of the state transportation system and attendant facilities are included within the legal framework of ODOT review. This includes consideration of impacts to rail, bike/pedestrian, transit and aviation facilities. The Transportation Planning Rule also requires that local governments provide notice and coordinate with ODOT on potential land use changes that have a significant effect on transportation facilities. Oregon's planning laws not only require that cities and counties comply with statewide planning goals, but also specify that spate agencies carry out their programs in accordance with acknowledge local plans. ODOT's State Agency Coordination Program outlines the legal and procedural interactions between land use and transportation programs to achieve coordination. In 1999 the Transportation. Commission adopted the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) as a critical element of the Oregon Transportation Plan. The 0HP Land Use and Transportation Policy Deschutes County Planning Commission Meeting 4 December 1, 2006 Deschutes County 12/04/2006 17:06 5038926626 FALCONI CONSULTING PAGEf 06 addresses the relationship between the highway and patterns of development both on and off the highway. The Highway Mobility standards set requirements for mobility based on volume to capacity ratios (v/c) that vary according to highway classification and urban and rural land use types. The v/c standards replace the level of service (LOS) standards. Policies and standards in the OHP provide an important context for ODOT review of local land use and development proposals. The statute and administrative rule define ODOT standards and procedures to manage access to state highway facilities to the degree necessary to maintain functional use, highway safety, and the preservation of public investment consistent with the 1999 OHP and adopted local comprehensive plans. jr-a a and Operational Issum Traffic safety is another important consideration in making decisions on projects affecting the community.. According to the trade accident data provided by ODOT for the years between 2003 and 2005, there have been a total of 16 accidents within half a mile east and west of the intersection of Bailey Road at Highway 20 through which most of the traffic associated with this project is expected to circulate. For a three-year period it demonstrates that is a significant amount of accidents and should not be overlooked. The fact that ODOT has decided to lower the speed limit in Tumalo to 50 MPH is another indication of the traffic safety concerns in the area. All ofthe streets intersecting Highway 20 in Tumalo are controlled by STOP signs. In such a situation, drivers feel pressed to take chances when a gap opportunity occurs for traffic along the highway. This tends to accentuate the potential for accidents. In addition, since Tumalo does not have much of a street grid system, traffic that tries to find a way to enter the highway is limited to intersections that are already experiencing a poor level of service, Compounding the problem is the high speed of traffic along the highway and the increasing volume of truck traffic. Multimodal Connectivity Pedestrian and bicycle safety is key to providing residents of the area an alternate to motorized vehicta usage. With the volumes of traffic in the highway and the lack of safe pedestrian and bicycle faciilities. the opportunities to use as alternate mode of transportation are very dim. Using alternates modes of transportation would also create an environment m which the highway would most likely be used far longer trips instead of shorter trips to go across town. This situation is typical of small towns where the state highway is the train roadway and no opportunities are provided for safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Following are our findings and recommendations: The construction of the proposed interchange of Cook Avenue at Highway 20 is very far into the future for consideration by ODOT. According to the ODOT Region 4 office in Bend, the agency is still in the process of securing a consultant to conduct the study for the location and design of this project and it is marry years from being constructed. The assumed estimate according to the signed MOU between ODOT and the Thornburgh Resort Company would not cover the actual construction costs of this interchange. Adding vehicular traffic to this intersection without consideration to any improvements would create a very dangerous situation and eventually a deterioration of a freight route of significant importance in the state. Deschutes County plaming Commission Mooting 5 Deembcr 1, 2006 Deschutes County 12fO4l2006 17:06 5038926626 FALCONI CONSULTING PAGE 07 The consideration of potentially adding single-family homes to aresort would have significant impacts on the existing transportation system- As an example, a single-family home according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Seventh Edition generates approximately ten daily trips. A recreational home, which is one that would fit within the definition of a resort, would generate approximately 3 daily trips,'The difference is substantial and should be a consideration before approving changes to allow an ivct+ease on the amount of single-family homes within a tesort. The policies included in the Deschutes County TSP should be guiding the Bowd of County Commissioners and Planning Commission in making Aecisions on transportation issues affecting this area.of the state. Not following would- p6t the County at risk of not complying with a policy document that has been approved by pDOT, DLCD and the County as part of the implementation of Goal 12. The County and ODOT need to make some tough decisions regarding current ind fixture land development projects in the area If the current trend continues, the transportation conditions and safety within Tumalo will continue to deteriorate. There an plenty of examples of communities around the state where the lack of planning and vision has caused some serious deficiencies on the state highway system. In summary, thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments to this very important issue affecting the community of Tumalo. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Deschutes County Planning Commission Meeting December 1. 2006 Deschutes County . 2iyhts, In This Issue: Long-Range Water Management in Quality LONG-RANGE WATER PLANNING COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS IN CENTRAL OREGON'S DESCHUTES BASIN by Bruce Aylward, Ph.D., Deschutes River Conservancy David Newton, P.E., Newton Consultants, Inc. Central Oregon 1 INTRODUCTION Clean, reliable water supply for agriculture, ecosystems and cities has long been a New Mexico key issue in Central Oregon. Since in the 1960s, the US Bureau of Reclamation Water Markets 17 (Reclamation) has studied the potential of conservation and water use efficiency to improve the availability of water in the upper Deschutes Basin for multiple uses, including CWA Wetlands instream flows, reservoir recreation development, fishery resources, water quality, and Jurisdiction: water supply for municipal, industrial and domestic uses. Water resource issues in the Deschutes Basin (Basin) have become critical in recent Supreme Court years as additional demands are placed on the resource base. Water storage and diversion Decision 23 by federal and private irrigation districts result in the dewatering of several reaches of the Deschutes River and its tributaries and the inclusion of some waterbodies as "water quality impaired" under the federal Clean Water Act §303(d) (i.e. the "303(d)list"). The US Envirommntal Protection Agency (EPA) requirements drive the development of this Water Briefs 26 list and of basin-wide water quality targets (Total Maximum Daily Loads or "TMDLs"). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of the Pelton-Round Butte Calendar 31 Hydropower Complex will result in the reintroduction of anadromous fish above the Complex, likely resulting in a federal Endangered Species Act listing in Whychus Creek and the Lower Crooked River. At the same time, rapid growth and development has led to the need for a safe and reliable water supply to meet the future needs of the Basin's growing communities and the need to find a way to address the impacts of land use Upcoming Stories: change on irrigation districts and the agricultural community. (See Griffiths, TWR #7). With surface water rights fully allocated and federal Safe Drinking Water Act Colorado In-Channel Provisions in place new needs will often be met through groundwater development. In 2002, the State began implementing an innovative groundwater mitigation program in the Water Rights upper Deschutes basin that effectively ties land development into the agriculture- ecosystem nexus - growing demand for groundwater from municipalities, resorts and Wetlands: irrigators will be met by converting existing water rights to instream flow as "groundwater CWA Jurisdiction mitigation." Analysis Conflicts occurring in the Klamath Basin underscore the need for proactive and collaborative measures to respond to these needs. The rapid growth and subsequent water needs that the Deschutes Basin is experiencing has made water usage and availability a Water Conservation: major topic in discussions among basin water suppliers, planners, business and the general Costs/Benefits public. Due to increased dialogue and awareness relative to water issues, regional urban water suppliers, irrigation districts and other private, government and individual water & More! users now recognize their interdependency in the use, management and protection of Deschutes Basin water resources. This recognition and related dialogue have led major actors in water supply and demand to call for a common vision that commits energy and Q=WW resources in a collaborative effort to respond to Basin water issues. Issue #29 Cam. 1 2.4 (0 July 15, 2006 Issrue'#29 r~ '1?iie ~I lull Ln:i f' The Water Report 77 Organization - Gl1V In 2004 a diverse coalition of partners from the ' Deschutes applied for and received a grant from Reclamation's Water 2025 Program for a "Deschutes Water Alliance: Formation and Pilot water Bank Project." The grant was received by the Central Oregon Irrigation District =~iT on behalf of: • Deschutes Basin Board of Control: Seven Basin irrigation sw Py, districts including Reclamation's Deschutes (North Unit ttj: Irrigation District) and Ochoco Projects • Central Oregon Cities' Organization: Basin cities (e.g. ~0(?t.WtI1Lt RATR 1 Ati M Bend, Redmond, Madras, Prineville) and affiliated regional drinking water suppliers h t5 • Deschutes River Conservancy: a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation carrying out ecosystem restoration projects in the Basin (with federal authorization and representation Under P1,106-270, Deschutes Resources Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2000) • Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation: representing the Warm Springs, Paiute and Wasco Tribes The Water 2025 grant consisted of three components: 1) the formation of an alliance; 2) the development of a series of plans and studies; and 3) the initiation of a pilot water bank. Vision and Objectives At an early meeting of the Alliance group, districts, 3w;1 cities, the Confederated Tribes and the Deschutes River k! 5r Conservancy agreed on a vision for the future in which the y y uses of water resources in the Deschutes are "balanced to serve and sustain agriculture, urban and ecosystem needs." It was felt that it is possible to simultaneously meet new and existing demands for water in the Deschutes Basin whether they are for agriculture, cities, or rivers-thereby raising the productivity of water in the Basin. Ongoing efforts gave the participants the expectation that this could happen through cooperation and voluntary participation of the key water suppliers and users. The desire to balance uses and needs was further defined in terms of several diverse objectives. ALLIANCE OBJECTIVES INCLUDED: • Move stream flows toward a more natural hydrograph while securing and maintaining improved instream flows and water quality to support fish and wildlife • Secure and maintain a reliable and affordable supply of water to sustain agriculture • Secure a safe, affordable, and high quality water supply for urban communities These objectives form the basis for further development of measurable outcomes and subsequent efforts to evaluate the feasibility of realizing the vision. Studies & Issue Papers As part of the Water 2025 grant a number of issue papers identifying the long-range trends in demand and supply for water resources in Central Oregon were developed. THESE INCLUDE STUDIES OF: GROUNDWATER DEMAND - assessment of the groundwater pumping and groundwater mitigation needs for resorts, municipal water suppliers, agriculture and other uses (Newton et al. 2006) INSTREAM DEMAND - analysis of water needed to meet instream flow targets for fish and wildlife (Golden and Aylward 2006) AGRICULTURAL SURFACE WATER DEMAND - inventory of amounts, patterns and rates of district water JI rights becoming surplus due to trends in growth, development and land use change (Aylward 2006) SUPPLY FROM WATER EFFICIENCY - an evaluation and prioritization of opportunities to save water through piping and lining of canals, laterals and ditches, as well as through on-farm conservation technologies (Newton and Perle 2006) SUPPLY FROM RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT - identifying and briefly assessing ways in which the use of storage can contribute to instream flows and improve reliability of agricultural water rights (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006) I .i~ctie ,(5R rw' 1'L out.: 1 cn,iiil: ~ccl„itc:, tiul,rrililiun R.ilt.~; l(J11 ~l ~ulo>~ril?~i +u u J)I 111c,NN`at~r 1Zep 11. 1 ~r~rthYolkl'Stie~t. of Copyn t1CV Cnvn~ut~ih Pu~'li<; . , Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. iuly,15; 2006 The Water Report The issue papers provide the measurable outcomes in terms of water demand, as well as identification and quantification of supply opportunities. This article uses the data and findings of these studies to examine the question of whether a long-term balance between demand and supply is possible and, if so, under what circumstances. Following an overview of the Basin, the article presents the data, methods and results from the analysis. Discussion of these results and emerging conclusions on water resource management in the Deschutes are then provided. BACKGROUND The Deschutes Basin is the second largest river basin in Oregon covering 10,700 square miles (see Figure 1). The counties of. Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Sherman and Wasco make up a majority of the Basin. Central Oregon, which is comprised of Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties, constitutes 73% of the Basin (see Table 1). Central Oregon is roughly congruent with the upper Deschutes Basin, defined as the area above the confluence of the Metolius, Deschutes and Crooked Rivers and above the bulk of the immense groundwater recharge that happens above, in and just below the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. Total area for the upper Basin is just over 5,000 square miles. Another important hydrologic unit is the regional aquifer through which a large amount of the precipitation input passes on its way to discharge in the confluence area of the Deschutes, Crooked and Metolius rivers. Land and Agriculture For the Basin as a whole just 40% of the land area is in private hands, with the remainder under public or tribal control. The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation hold 641,000 acres or 7% of the Basin. Of land available for private uses in Central Oregon, 1.77 million acres is dedicated to farming and livestock according to the 2002 National Agricultural Census. The proportion of farm area that is irrigated is roughly one-tenth, or 180,000 acres, reflecting the predominance of dryland ranching in Crook and Jefferson counties. Central Oregon is the home of the family farm with over 92% of owners living on the farm. However, 60% of farm operators also work part-time off the farm and 40% effectively work full-time off the farm. Agriculture makes up around 10% of county income in Crook and Jefferson County and only 1.% in Deschutes County. Jefferson County is home to large farms, with irrigation used largely for growing crops. Crook County is home to both smaller irrigated parcels growing crops and very large ranches with irrigated areas in the valley bottoms. Deschutes County is largely home to lifestyle or hobby farming, with just a few areas remaining of large commercial farms. Table 1. Deschutes Basin: Land Area and Population Population Land Total Urban Rural Total M M (a/o) M % (acres) Administrative Units - Counties Crook 20,650 8,640 42% 12,010 58% 1,914,231 Deschutes 135,450 84,800 63% 50,650 37% 1,955,191 Jefferson 20,250 7,070 35% 13,180 65% 1,146,235 Subtotal - Central Oregon 176,350 100,510 57% 75,840 43% 5,015,656 (3 counties) Wasco 23,900 13,970 58% 9,930 42% 1,533,433 Sherman 1,900 1,140 60% 760 40% 531,838 Subtotal - Five counties 202,150 115,620 57% 86,530 43% 7,080,927 Drainage Unit - Watershed Deschutes Basin 6,847,968 Upper Deschutes Basin 5,004,800 Groundwater Unit - Aquifer Groundwater Study Area 2,879,987 Oregon 3,582,600 2,434,922 68% 1,147,678 32% 61,437,792 Source: Aylward (2006) Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited Issu'e'-#29 The Water Report 180,000 - 160,000 0 Jefferson County ■ Deschutes County 140,000 - ®CrookCounty +-----L -T - 120,000 _ f- c ; Central Oregon 100,000 Creation of - - ro o Jefferson and Totals Je ` - 0- 80,000 --Deschutes frX a Crook County 40,000 - 20 ,000 1- - 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Growth and Development As of 2004, the population of Central Oregon totaled 176,000, 57% of which live in incorporated areas. Central Oregon has gone through periods of explosive growth, notably in the 1970s and from 1990 onwards. Averaged over the last century, Central Oregon's population has grown at a rate of 44% every decade (see Figure 2). In comparison, Oregon's rate was 24% and for US as a whole it was 14%. The figure below shows that the bulk of the population gain in Central Oregon has been in Deschutes County. During the 1990s the population of Deschutes County increased by 50% from 75,000 to 115,000. Since 2000, Central Oregon continues to grow rapidly, recording a 20% increase in population in the last five years. Of this increase 27,000 comes in incorporated areas and 5,000 in unincorporated areas. While official population forecasts suggest a slowdown, there is little in the last 15 years' experience or current trends to suggest that rapid growth in both urban and rural areas will not continue. Source: Aylward (2006) Water Resources Groundwater and Instream Flows Figure 2. Central Oregon Counties Population 1910 to 2000 In Central Oregon, water that moves through the aquifer discharges into streams throughout the upper Deschutes Basin (Gannett et al. 2001). The groundwater flows through the permeable Deschutes Formation until it runs into the impermeable John Day Formation. Groundwater generally flows upwards and emerges as springs at the surface. In hydrologic units that drain to the Crooked River, however, soils and geology are largely of the impermeable John Day Formation. Little groundwater recharge occurs in these hydrologic units, and runoff patterns vary rapidly with precipitation. Assessment of water resources for the Groundwater Study area, which forms a significant portion of the upper Deschutes Basin, confirms that human activities in the upper Deschutes Basin have significantly altered the flow regime in the Basin, but on balance have led to the consumption of only a relatively small amount of available water resources and an even smaller portion of the annual turnover in groundwater in the Basin (Golden and Aylward 2006). The most dramatic modifications to the water resources regime are clearly seen in terms of low flows below irrigation district diversions in the upper Deschutes Basin. Reservoir storage and releases for irrigation have highly altered flows in five of the seven water quality impaired reaches in the Basin. The upper Deschutes River reach does not often meet target flows in the winter due to upstream reservoir storage. Irrigation diversions have reduced summer flows in six of the seven water quality impaired reaches. Most reaches experience low summer flows due to irrigation diversions. Prior to current restoration efforts, sections of Whychus Creek and Tumalo Creek typically went dry during the irrigation season due to extensive diversion. The daily probability of reaching flow targets during each month is summarized in the table below. Table 2. Probability of Meeting Instream Flow Targets Historic Probability of Meeting iastreaw Flow Target' Month Little Upper Middle Tuwalo Whychus Metolius Lower Lower Deschutes Deschutes Deschutes Creek Creek River Crooked Deschutes River River River River River Ke to Table Ja"-- - High --Very High Vey High -Very High- - Very-H' V~-Hgt1_ High_._--- y Feb Very High Low VegrHigh- _ Very High Very High Very High Very High Mar _ Medium Low Very High Low VeryHigh VeryHigh High Very-High Percent or Historic Apr High Higir _ . _ Medium Low_ Low _ veHigh. High h _ FLg Days Meeting Probali ity May - Low-_ - VeryH ----Bh_ _ VeryLow__ - Low----- - - -Me di=__ m Ve H Low High Target Jun Low VeryHigh Very Low High, _ Medium Very High Low _ High Jul - Median _ _Veg1jigh -Vep•Low_ Low Ver y Low Very High _ Medium _ IL 80-100% Very Him Aug High Very High Wry Low Very VeiY Low Very Low V~T High High Very High _ - Sep Very High _ Very High Very Low_ VeryLow Very•Low VeryHigh Very High -_VeryHigh 60-791/. High Oct Very High MO Mtdmm_ Medium -Very Low Very High very High _ _Verv High-- 40-59% Medium - Nov Very High _ _ V_ e Low__- - Ve y Hgh Very High Very H gh_ _ K _11-9h---- -Very High--- -Ve1-Hi9h . 20-39% Low Dec Very High Low Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High 0-19% Very Low 'period of record varies for each reach So urce: Go lden and Aylward (2006) Federal and state regulatory approaches all have the potential to affect instream flow allocation in the Deschutes Basin. Federal approaches include the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. State approaches include the State Scenic Waterways Act and instream flow ~rights to support aquatic life. Voluntary, market-based approaches enabled by the state and federal legal 4 Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. July, 15,'2006 The Water Report framework, however, provide the greatest opportunity for restoring instream flows in the Deschutes Basin. Tools available include: instream transfers; leases; storage leases; and allocation of conserved water. Deschutes River Conservancy, local irrigation districts and state and federal partners are working together to restore water to reaches by using these tools. Irrigation Districts Historically in Central Oregon, the bulk of water rights and water use has been by irrigated agriculture, particularly a number of large irrigation districts (see Table 3). The potential for conflict over water arises due to increasing demand for groundwater for municipalities and rural destination resorts and increasing recognition of the importance of restoring instream flow. In addition, as urban areas expand they move into irrigation district areas, threatening the continued delivery of water to patrons and the financial solvency of the district (through a decline in the assessment base). The Central Oregon Water Bank builds on early efforts by local irrigation districts to work with the Deschutes River Conservancy on instream leasing and represents an effort to make long-term and permanent reallocations in water rights in order to avoid future conflict over water in the Basin. Table 3. District Water Right Acreages, Customers and Farm Size District Point of Diversion Irrigation Total Rights Rights (acres) (acres) Customers ' Average Farm Size (acres) Swalley Deschutes River at Bend 4,351 4,561 755 6 COID Deschutes River at Bend 43,747 44,784 4,497 10 Lone Pine Deschutes River at Bend 2,369 2,369 20 120 Arnold Deschutes River above 976 4,384 3 792 6 Bend , Deschutes River at Bend North Unit and Crooked River above 58,868 58,868 850 69 Smith Rock Walker Little Deschutes above , 5114 1,534 !0 153 Basin LaPine Tumalo Creek and Tumalo Middle Deschutes at 7,367 7,381 632 12 Bend Three Sisters Whychus Creek above 7,568 7,651 129 59 Sisters Ochoco Creek and Ochoco Crooked River above 20,150 20,332 745 27 Prineville, McKay Creek below Prineville Totals 149,924 151,878 8,897 17 Source: Aylward (2006) - Note: 'Estimates only for some districts Assessment of water delivery by irrigation districts in Central Oregon indicates that seepage loss potential is very high in some and very low in others with an average transmission loss of 37% (see Table 4). Further evaluation indicates seepage potential is correlated with geologic conditions in the district areas. Districts in Deschutes and Jefferson County that convey water across terrain underlain by the Deschutes Formation record very high seepage losses - in some cases approaching 60%. On-farm losses in these areas are also considerable. Seepage losses overall are significant, totaling almost 600,000 acre- feet (AF), thereby revealing significant opportunity to engage in water efficiency projects. Table 4. District Delivery Systems District Canals Laterals (miles) (miles) Irrigation System Diversions (acre-feet) On-Farm Losses (acre-feet) Transmission Loss (acre-feet) Delivery Efficiency Swalley 11.60 16.80 42,410 8,990 23,140 45% COID 76.50 129.70 351,510 137,550 91,250 74% Lone Pine 40.10 5.40 14,560 580 9,080 38% Arnold 15.50 24.50 38,400 8,420 20,520 47% North Unit 65.00 83.90 221,770 7,890 87,530 61% Tumalo 35.70 26.30 67,000 10,550 38,980 42% Three Sisters 20.90 39.50 26,420 12, 120 63% Ochoco 33.90 37.50 20,490 20,490 7,580 63% Totals 299.20 363.60 782,560 203,170 290,920 63% Source: Reclamation (1997) Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 5 Issue #29 The Water Report Water Rights: A Closed Basin Carey Act irrigation districts formed in Central Oregon at the turn of the last century. In 1913 the federal government reserved remaining waters in the main stem of the Deschutes for a future federal reclamation project. For all intents and purposes, creeks and rivers in the upper basin are closed to further appropriation of surface waters by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). However, water trading within irrigation districts and between districts and cities have a long history as a means of reallocation of surface water rights. In the 1930s and the 1950s, the City of Bend secured surface water rights to meet its future needs through transactions with Tumalo Irrigation District. In the 1990s, growth and development in Central Oregon led municipalities, developers and small irrigators to turn to groundwater to supply new water needs. Growing demand for groundwater led to concern that the groundwater permitting process ignored the potential for impact of groundwater withdrawal on surface waters. A US Geological Survey and OWRD study released in 2001 confirmed that aquifer discharge provides much of the surface water to streams in the Deschutes Basin (Gannett et al. 2001). The results suggested the potential for groundwater withdrawals to impact surface water flows and cause injury to surface water rights holders, including junior instream rights. (USGS Study website: http://or.water.usgs.gov/projs-dir/deshutes-gw/index.html) In 2002, following a multi-year collaborative process, OWRD put forward a market-based program intended to offset withdrawals on a long-term volumetric basis. The Oregon Water Resources Commission approved rules for the implementation of the Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program in September 2002 (Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 690-505). The program allows for water development while mitigating for the effects of groundwater withdrawals on surface water flows in the Basin through instream transfers, aquifer recharge, storage release and conserved water projects. Concerns regarding timing of mitigation (and other issues) led to a lawsuit by a number of protestants, including WaterWatch of Oregon, against the program's rules. The suit was decided in favor of the protestants in early 2005. Subsequently HB 3494 was passed by the Oregon legislature confirming that the existing rules provide "mitigation" and will govern the allocation of new groundwater permits in the Deschutes through 2014. (Rules on OWRD website: www.oregon.gov/O)NRD/LAW/index.shtml) Four years into the program only leases and transfers have been used to create mitigation credits. State-chartered groundwater mitigation banks may use temporary transfers to establish credits subject to holding an equal amount of credits in reserve (OAR 690-521). The groundwater mitigation bank operated by Deschutes River Conservancy uses demand from the mitigation credit to fund a portion of its instream leasing efforts. In 2006, the mitigation bank has 35 active accounts with groundwater applicants and new permit holders, providing funding for just less than 15% of the Deschutes River Conservancy's 2006 total lease of 6,200 acres (at the "2-acres leased" -to- "1-acre of credit" extended ratio). Closed to further appropriation of surface water rights and with new groundwater rights effectively provided only upon mitigation for consumptive use, the upper Deschutes Basin is effectively closed to further appropriation for consumptive use. With the appropriation for consumptive use capped, new needs for surface water can only be met by trading surface water, while new needs for groundwater may be met by trading existing surface water or groundwater rights. As the Basin balances future demand and supply it should therefore yield important insight into voluntary, market-based approaches to conjunctive use management. DEMAND & SUPPLY - DATA & PROJECTIONS The Water 2025 funded Issues Papers identified the long-range trends in demand and supply for water resources in Central Oregon. The papers provide measurable outcomes in terms of water demand, as well as identification and quantification of supply opportunities. This analysis of long-range water management in Central Oregon builds a number of potential scenarios based on detailed data with respect to future trends in demand and supply identified in the Deschutes Water Alliance Issues Papers. (For access to the final draft reports, see website: http://www.swalley.com/summit.htm). ON THE DEMAND SIDE, MEASURABLE OUTCOMES INCLUDE: • FUTURE GROUNDWATER DEMAND based on data on population growth rates and resulting increases in municipal water demand from work undertaken by the Central Oregon Cities Organization, as well as data on pending and prospective groundwater permits from the Oregon Water Resources Department (see Table 5) • INSTREAM FLOW NEEDS in five dewatered reaches in the upper Basin based on an assessment of current flows. natural flow levels, and fish and wildlife targets (see Table 6) Coovriaht© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. July. 15,'2006 The Water Report Table 5. Future Groundwater Demand and Mitigation Obligations Water Use Estimate Annual Volume (acre-feet) Volume of Consumptive Use (af) Percent of Total Consumptive Use Volume of Consumptive Use Subject to Mitigation (af) Mitigation Obligation (acres) Water Suppliers Inside 17,600 8,800 33.9% 2,768 1,538 UGBs Pending Groundwater 18,066 7,623 29.4% 7,623 4,235 Permits - Other Uses Outside UGBs Prospective Uses for 7,890 4,125 15.9% 4,125 2,292 Resorts, etc - Outside UGBs Exempt Wells 13,444 5,378 20.7% NA NA Grand Total 57,000 25,926 100 14,516 8,065 Source: Newton et al. (2006) Table 6. Instream Flow Demand Flow Targets Needs to 2025 Reach Rate (cfs) Rate (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Upper Deschutes 300 146 62,000 Middle Deschutes 250 224 94,913 Lower Crooked 75 22 16,079 T umalo 2^v 14 5,932 Whychus 20 14 5,932 Totals 665 421 184,856 Source: Golden and Aylward (2006) Figure 3. Price and Quantity for Water Efficiency Projects Source: Based on data from Newton and Perle (2006) 2,000 1,800 1,600 Z;~ 1,400 With respect to demand for water from irrigated agriculture the current trend is toward a lessening of demand due to continued growth, urbanization and land use change. This lessened demand also presents the opportunity for reallocation of these water rights to other uses. The analysis of irrigation water use is therefore both an analysis of demand and of supply. Information employed comes from Aylward (2006). IRRIGATION DATA INCLUDES: • Detailed information on eight irrigation districts in Central Oregon, including rate and duty calculations on 151,000 acres of appurtenant water rights, water available for conservation and transfer, district assessments, and exit policies • GIS analysis locating current irrigation district water rights relative to urban and county boundaries to evaluate water rights at risk in urban areas and estimate resulting decrease in agricultural surface water demand Y 1,200 R 1,000 0 800 U Q- 600 400 0 200 • from urban areas - - - - e• - • GIS analysis of water rights currently leased instream to j identify decrease in agricultural surface water demand from rural areas SUPPLY SIDE INFORMATION INCLUDES: - - - - - • Cost and water savings information on over thirty water efficiency and conservation projects across the irrigation districts (see Figure 3) • • Pricing data on leasing, purchase and exit fees for the -~-Average Cost districts (Aylward 2006) • Different methods for making water available from • Marginal Cost j reservoir management and storage reallocation, including a -Linear (Marginal Cost) total of 21,000 AF from reservoir optimization, trading of water allocations and district water management projects 0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 made available for agricultural and instream use Quantity of Water Saved (af) (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006) Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 7 Issue #29 The Water Report Future Scenarios Three scenarios were used ih this analysis: a base case scenario, and low and high growth scenarios. Water management tools employed in "moving" water and water rights from one use to another include: • Instream Leasing (restoration only) • Transfers for groundwater mitigation and for instream restoration • Water efficiency projects for main canals and laterals • On-Farm water efficiency projects • Reservoir Management THE BASE CASE SCENARIO is defined by the following assumptions and forecast trends for the twenty-year period from 2006 to 2025: • All irrigation district water rights currently found within urban growth boundaries (UGBs) and urban reserve areas (URAs) - a total of 9,773 acres - are transferred permanently instream • Instream leasing of district and individual water rights on rural lands outside urban areas continues in line with current levels, i.e. just under 4,000 acres per year • A few select high priority non-district rural water rights are included in the analysis to the extent that information on existing or proposed transactions is available - 800 acres of which are transferred instream • Total groundwater demands by 2025 of 57,000 AF, with a consumptive use of 25,926 AF and a total groundwater mitigation obligation of 14,516 AF of credits, or 8,065 acres (see Table 5) THE Low GROWTH SCENARIO incorporated the following changes to reflect future conditions if lower than expected population growth and development pressure in Central Oregon occurs: • Acres within URAs were not included in the acres transferred permanently instream, so that a total of only 5,256 acres was transferred from urban lands • The prospective destination resorts included in the original groundwater demands were deleted leaving a total demand for groundwater mitigation of 6,123 acres THE HIGH GROWTH SCENARIO involved the following change to approximate an assumption of a higher than projected growth rate in Central Oregon: • The assumption that higher development pressure would further reduce the comparative financial benefits of keeping land in agriculture - leading to an across the board transfer of 5% of rural irrigation district properties to instream use While simplistic, these scenarios serve to highlight the major issues driving water resource management in Central Oregon. A further necessary assumption was that public funding existed to provide the necessary supply from conservation projects to meet instream flow targets. In this sense the scenarios respond to the question of what level of investment in conservation is required to meet instream needs at different levels of growth and development pressure. All calculations in the scenarios are carried out on an irrigation district and stream reach basis. Driving the scenarios is the rate of land use change and resulting availability of surface water rights to meet demand for groundwater mitigation and instream flow. Demands for groundwater are classified according to municipal water needs, destination resort needs, new agricultural needs and other needs (homeowner's associations, industrial, etc). Satisfaction of groundwater demand results in augmentation of instream flow through the State's Groundwater Mitigation Program that requires water rights to be transferred instream to mitigate for new groundwater pumping. Those water rights transferred and leased that are not required for groundwater mitigation are used for instream flow restoration. Remaining demand for instream flow restoration must be met through improved reservoir management and water efficiency projects. A portion of reservoir management gains by 2025 are predetermined and another portion comes from reductions in demand due to leases, transfers and conservation. Conservation projects are ranked in order of reach priority and cost-effectiveness and then called on to meet the remaining demand for instream flow and provide flexibility in reservoir management. Instream flow demands are then met on a reach-by-reach basis according to the following protocol based on physical connectivity and legal fungibility of water and water rights between the reaches and districts. BY REACH THE PROTOCOLS INCLUDE: WHYCHUS CREEK - flows met from transfers, leases and conservation projects in the reach TUMALO CREEK - flows met from transfers, leases and conservation projects in the reach; water surplus to targets is "assigned" to the middle Deschutes as Tumalo Irrigation District has ability to source switch due to natural flow and storage rights held on the Deschutes by the district subject to the nnnt n_..:__.__~ n..l.l:.... r:.,.,~• Do..-1-f;- -;thnnt nPrmicsinn Strictly nrohlblted. Jufy 15, 2006 The Water Report Creek) [Editor's Note: "Source switch" occurs when a water user has the capability to change the source of water from a soured used previously to a new source of water] MIDDLE DESCHUTES - flows met from transfers, leases and conservation projects in the reach plus additional surplus water from Tumalo Creek; water surplus to targets is "assigned" to the Upper Deschutes as many of the districts diverting at Bend from the middle Deschutes also have storage rights in Wickiup and Crane Prairie reservoirs UPPER DESCHUTES - instream flows and reliability of junior agricultural rights are met from optimization of reservoir allocations, conservation projects in districts holding storage and surplus water from the middle Deschutes reach, water surplus to flow targets is "assigned" to the Crooked River as North Unit Irrigation district has some ability to source switch between Deschutes storage and Crooked River rights (on the further assumption that pending North Unit Irrigation District legislation to expand its district and use Deschutes water on its Crooked River lands is approved) CROOKED RIVER - instream flows and agricultural needs in North Unit are met from transfers, leases and surplus water from the Upper Deschutes (once agricultural needs are met in North Unit, Crooked River rights may be dedicated to instream use) In the scenarios no binding constraint was placed on funding for groundwater mitigation needs, restoration transfers and leasing, reservoir management and conservation projects. In other words, one output of the scenarios is the calculation of the costs and funding needs over the twenty-year period. All funding needs are expressed as simple totals of costs over the twenty-year period (i.e. costs and funds are not discounted). Results Key results derived from developing the scenarios are summarized below in Table 7. FINDINGS CONSISTENT ACROSS THE SCENARIOS INCLUDE: • Municipal water suppliers easily meet their groundwater mitigation water needs at a total cost of around $4 million over twenty years • Rural needs on county lands - for resort and agricultural uses - form the bulk of groundwater mitigation demand • Instream flow targets in the upper Basin are met in Tumalo Creek, Whychus Creek, the middle Deschutes River, Upper Deschutes River and lower Crooked River • Reliability, delivery and cost of agricultural water is ensured as additional reservoir storage is made available to junior users • North Unit Irrigation District switches supply for 10,000 acres from costly pumps on the Crooked River to gravity flow from the Deschutes River, and districts affected by growth and land use change buffer their members/landowners from increases in assessment fees through receipt of millions of dollars for their Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Endowment Funds. These potential funds would be available from the purchase price paid for water rights from members/landowners in the districts. Such funds would come from water rights buyers, including mitigators (i.e. municipalities, resorts, agriculture, etc.) and conservation buyers (i.e. public and private funds for flow restoration). • Water efficiency projects reduce district maintenance costs and liability issues by piping and lining canals and laterals, and provide large amounts of natural flow and stored water for redistribution to instream and agricultural uses Table 7. Key Indicators for 2025 Scenarios Key Indicators Units Instream Flow Restored acre-feet Municipal Demand Met 1/0 Groundwater Demand Met % Irrigated Land Change % District Revenues $million Landowner Revenue $million Saved Transmission Loss % 2025 Scenarios Base Case Slow Growth Fast Growth 196,171 196,171 200,657 100% 99% 100% 100% 99% 100% -4% -2% -9% 10 6 16 22 16 35 31% 41% 21% rnn< ~....:..,.r,,,.l, n..t,t,..,r:.. - Dona-1-t;nn m;0-it -rmiccinn ctrirtly nrnhihitPrl Issue #29 The Water Report In terms of outcomes that vary between the scenarios, the largest differences are observed in terms of the net loss of irrigated land, the water efficiencies realized and the distribution of financial costs and benefits. In the Base Case Scenario, the net loss of irrigated acres is 4% (balancing a decrease in acres irrigated with surface water and an increase in acres irrigated with groundwater). Total transmission loss saved through water efficiency projects is 31% and the total cost of carrying out all the projects, transfers and leases is $135 million - of which $32 million goes to agriculture, split between districts ($10 million) and landowners ($22 million). With the Base Case Scenario as an intermediate growth scenario in terms of these outcomes, it is possible to characterize the trade-offs between the three scenarios in terms of the level of growth. GENERALLY LOWER GROWTH RATES: Reduce the amount of instream transfer water that is for restoration; in the Low Growth Scenario all transfer water is for mitigation and only the leased water is for restoration of instream flows • Reduce the pressure on irrigation district lands • Increase the proportion of instream flow coming from water efficiency projects • Raise the cost of meeting instream and groundwater needs CONVERSELY, HIGHER GROWTH RATES: • Increase the amount of instream transfer water that is for river restoration (rather than groundwater mitigation) • Increase the pressure on irrigation district lands • Increase financial flows to irrigation districts and their members/landowners • Decrease the need for the more costly water efficiency projects • Lower the cost of meeting instream and groundwater needs Analysis Limitations Three limitations to the analysis should be noted - one related to an important outcome that the scenarios do not assess and two limitations inherent to the methods employed. First, the water management scenarios do not attempt to evaluate the impact of significant changes in current water management on groundwater recharge in the upper Basin. The effects of these changes and resulting changes to aquifer discharge at the confluence areas is likewise unevaluated, as is how these alterations will combine with impacted surface water flows to affect flows in the lower Deschutes River. To what degree increased flows in the Upper Deschutes (wintertime) and Middle Deschutes (summertime) will affect the Lower Deschutes - once the long-term effects on groundwater recharge of increased groundwater pumping and decreased recharge from transmission loss and on-farm use in irrigation are included in the analysis - is an open question. This highlights the importance of continued investment in developing a suite of models that can answer the question. At present the US Geological Survey (USGS), Reclamation, OWRD and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation and their consultants are engaged in a cooperative modeling effort that seeks to deploy the already existing USGS Modflow groundwater model and re-develop prior "MODSIMs" surface water distribution models to this end (Gannett and Lite 2004; LaMarche 2001). TWO factors influencing the costing of the scenarios are not well developed and their potential impacts on the large disparity between the costs of the three scenarios needs to be noted. Most importantly, 'the water efficiency projects identified and costed by the study team are insufficient to meet the need for saved water in a low growth scenario (where more water is needed from water efficiency projects to compensate for lower amounts of water from transfers). In the absence of information on what additional projects would cost it was assumed that large amounts of additional saved water could be generated at the cost of the last (i.e. marginal) project in the project rankings. It may well be that less expensive efficiency projects do exist but have simply not been uncovered by the study team to this point in time. The average cost of the projects that were costed is just under $1,000/acre-foot whereas the marginal project cost is $1,700/acre-foot. This factor probably tends to overstate the difference in costs between the scenarios. The second factor that the model does not adequately treat is the price response in the market for water. In the Low Growth Scenario, the availability of water rights to meet mitigation needs is reduced and thus there might be upward pressure on price. In the High Growth Scenario, water rights are made surplus at a rapid rate. In the Base Case Scenario, mitigation demand is already satisfied and river restoration is the marginal source of demand to acquire these rights. With an even larger amount of acres as surplus and for sale, market conditions can be expected to worsen for sellers with downward pressure on purchase price and district exit fees. This factor would tend to exacerbate the difference in costs between the scenarios, making restoration less expensive in the high growth setting and more expensive in the low growth setting. 1 n Coovrieht© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. .Jaly•15, 2006 The Water Report ISSUES Mitigation Program Leakage With respect to Oregon's Groundwater Mitigation Program a cursory examination of projections for 2025 suggests that there is some "leakage" from the program. In other words, due to the variance between projected pumping volumes and legal requirements for mitigation for new permits it is clear from Table 5 that municipalities will be required to mitigate for only a portion of their incremental pumping. Meanwhile, exempt groundwater uses (in Oregon) are completely unregulated. Thus, there are sources of leakage from the implicit cap placed on conjunctive use. With scenarios projecting water demand and supply out twenty years it is possible to calculate current and future consumptive use based on direct human uses, i.e. for domestic, industrial, commercial and irrigation. The results (shown in Figure 4) are necessarily imprecise, but they suggest that when the before and after uses are totalled there is a fairly imperceptible increase in net consumptive use in the upper Basin. This can be explained in terms of the decrease in consumptive use associated with the portion of retired irrigation rights which are placed instream for restoration, rather than explicitly used for groundwater mitigation. Figure 4. Comparison of Total Direct Human Consumption of Water (including irrigation) 2005 to 2026 Transactional Feasibility An important question is the degree to which water can. "move" in the manner envisioned by the scenarios. In this regard, existing collaborative efforts in the Basin and the legal framework provided by Oregon law as administered by OWRD provide for cautious optimism. The Deschutes River Conservancy (DRC) received Congressional authorization and federal funding beginning in 1996 to implement streamflow restoration projects in the Deschutes Basin. Partnerships between the DRC, landowners and irrigation districts on water efficiency projects and instream leasing have already resulted in over 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) of conserved water and 80 cfs of leased water protected instream by OWRD. Initial transfers of district and non-district water rights for groundwater mitigation and flow restoration have also been completed successfully. The DRC groundwater mitigation bank is also providing crucial temporary liquidity to the nascent groundwater mitigation market. Pilot efforts to develop a Central Oregon Water Bank to integrate both temporary and permanent reallocation to ensure an orderly transition are also underway between irrigation districts, the DRC and municipalities. Still, some actions contemplated over the long run in the scenarios are not yet feasible legally. Already mentioned is the issue of the mobility of federal project water. Arriving at agreements and procedures for improving reservoir management is still a discussion in the early stages, although a pilot project is underway for 2006/2007. Perhaps the most critical need is to resolve the issue of limited capacity at OWRD to support these voluntary, transactional approaches. The number of water rights transactions is increasing at a rapid pace. For example, DRC and its partners in the upper Basin have submitted 12 conserved water applications since DRC was created, but fully half of these were submitted in the last year alone. These transactions require time from OWRD's Salem and Bend office staff not only for processing, but monitoring and enforcement. At the same time as the transactional volume is increasing, OWRD's budget (derived wholly from general funds) is flat or declining. Action needs to be taken to either reverse this funding trend or devolve more administrative authority to the Basin. Otherwise, collaborative efforts may be for naught in the face of an administrative logjam. Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 11 Issue #29 The Water Report Base Case Water Management Scenario, 2006 to 2025 DESCHUTES WATER ALLIANCE WATER MANAGEMENT SCENARIO: 2006 to 2025 SCENARIO 1: BASE CASE WATER REDISTRIBUTION: WHERE THE WATER COMES FROM AND WHERE IT GOES Supply: Water Redistributed by Source, 2025 'Redistribution through conservation or groundwater mitigation enables existing water uses to serve multiple uses making water more productive In this scenario the total volume (In acre-feet) of water from existing uses is 208,108 final volume in productive use is 258,548 COST: WHAT IT COSTS TO REDISTRIBUTE WATER (BY SOURCE AND USE) Total Expenditure by Source of Water Leasing Reservoir Conservation- $2 Management $4 On-Farm Water Transfers $29 T Conservation- Laterals $18 Conservation- Main Canals expenditure in $ millions FUNDING: WHO PAYS AND HOW IS THE COST SHARED Cost-Share by Funder Cost-Share by Major Funder Type )nn,~ L'-.:~, f-1 A„hT rar;n c Renrndlirtion without permission strictly prohibited. July 15, 2006 The Water Report Low Growth Case Water Management Scenario, 2006 to 2025 DESCHUTES WATER ALLIANCE WATER MANAGEMENT SCENARIO: 2006 to 2025 SCENARIO 2: LOW GROWTH CASE WATER REDISTRIBUTION: WHERE THE WATER COMES FROM AND WHERE IT GOES Supply: Water Redistributed by Source, 2025 Water Reservoir Tranders Management 29,146 32,607 Leasing 16,772 Conservation- Conservation- Laterals On-Faun - 49,621 10,000 Conservation-4 Main Canals 69,661 .hares in water volume (acre-feet) 'Redistribution through conservaticn or groundwater mitigation enables existing water uses to serve multiple uses making water more productive In this scenario the total volume (in acre-feet) of water from existing uses is 208,007 final volume in productive use is 250,059 COST: WHAT IT COSTS TO REDISTRIBUTE WATER (BY SOURCE AND USE) Total Expenditure by Source of Water Leasing Reservoir Cen9ervatlen- $3 Management On-Farm - u Water Transfers $19 Conservation- Main Canals Conservation- $77 0 Laterals $65 expenditure in $ millions FUNDING: WHO PAYS AND HOW IS THE COST SHARED Coovrieht© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 13 y Issue #29 The Water Report High Growth Water Management Scenario, 2006 to 2025 DESCHUTES WATER ALLIANCE WATER MANAGEMENT SCENARIO: 2006 to 2025 SCENARIO 3: HIGH GROWTH CASE WATER REDISTRIBUTION: WHERE THE WATER COMES FROM AND WHERE IT GOES Supply: Water Redistributed by Source, 2025 Demand: Water Redistributed to New Uses, 2025 'Redistribution through conservation or groundwater mitigation enables existing water uses to serve multiple uses making water more productive In this scenario the total volume (in acre-feet) of water from existing uses is 213,701 final volume in productive use is 263,034 COST: WHAT IT COSTS TO REDISTRIBUTE WATER (BY SOURCE AND USE) Total Expenditure by Use of Water FUNDING: WHO PAYS AND HOW IS THE COST SHARED Cost-Share by Funder -;thnnt neriTmi-ion Strict1v prohibited. Cost-Share by Major Funder Type July X15, 2006 The Water Report CONCLUSIONS Results from a number of preliminary scenarios for managing water resources in the upper Deschutes Basin reveal the potential to meet future needs on the part of growing communities, agriculture, and upper Basin rivers and creeks. SPECIFICALLY, ANALYSIS CONDUCTED THUS FAR SHOWS: • Municipal water needs are easily provided for as the urbanization process releases irrigation water at a rate that exceeds new supply needs • Reliability and delivery of agricultural water is ensured through an aggressive program of piping and lining major canals/laterals • Cost of agricultural water and irrigation district finances are secured through a collaborative, non- profit Central Oregon Water Bank that acquires surplus water rights generated by land use change and growth, and reallocates such rights to new groundwater and surface water users, as well as to ecosystem needs • Instream flow targets are met through conservation, leasing, transfers and improved reservoir management A remaining consideration is to assess the impacts of these water management scenarios on groundwater and downstream reaches of the Crooked and Deschutes River, so as to ensure that the ecosystem and human values of these rivers are protected, or even improved. In sum, new and non-traditional needs for water resources in Central Oregon can be met from existing sources and rights under a number of scenarios considered in these studies. This can largely be accomplished using currently available administrative regulations for the management of water rights in the Deschutes and Oregon. In order to close the loop and realize the instream flow targets-as well as meet community and irrigation needs-a key ingredient will be obtaining the financing for the necessary water efficiency projects. A further conclusion is that water availability is unlikely to constrain continued growth in Central Oregon. Growing subdivisions appear to require less water than growing alfalfa and significant amounts of water from rural lands are leased instream from year to year as lifestyle farming reduces the productive, commercial use of water for irrigation. As a result, legal requirements for providing groundwater mitigation can be met through permanent transfers and "renting" water from the groundwater mitigation bank. However, this is not to say that land use and economic planning cannot be improved if planners and decision-makers take better account of the mechanics of water resources in the Basin - whether in terms of the legal, socio-economic, hydrologic or environmental aspects of these resources. Further development of water management scenarios and the application of existing surface water distribution and groundwater flow models to the Deschutes Basin should greatly assist ongoing efforts at integrated water resources management and attempts to better coordinate regional planning. The authors wish to thank Mathias Perle, Brett Golden and Kate Fitzpatrick for their assistance and comments on this article. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT: BRUCE AYLWARD, Water Bank Director, Deschutes River Conservancy, 541/382-4077 x11 or email: bruce@deschutesrc.org DAVID NEWTON, President, Newton Consultants, Inc, 541/ 504-9960 x211 or email: dnewton@newtonconsultants.com Bruce Aylward is an economist working on market-based approaches to water and watershed manage- ment. Bruce is currently directing water banking efforts in Central Oregon. Bruce has consulted for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the World Bank, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and previously served as a Senior Advisor to the World Commission on Dams. David Newton is the principal owner of the firm of Newton Consultants, Inc. of Redmond, Oregon. He is a registered civil engineer, a registered engineering geologist, and a certified water right examiner. Mr. Newton received a degree in geological engineering from the University of Arizona. His specialties include water supply development, water resources, management planning for effective water use, and facilitation of solutions for water supply issues. Newton Consultants, Inc. managed the five planning studies under a Water 2025 grant that culminated in the Deschutes Scenarios paper. Cc)nvr;ohtnC 9.006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 15 issue #29 The Water Report Central Oregon Water: Long-Range Management in the Deschutes Basin References Aylward, B. 2006. "Growth, Urbanization and Land Use Change: Impacts on Agriculture and Irrigation Districts in Central Oregon" Water Summit Draft. Bend: Deschutes Water Alliance. (available at www.swalley.com) Bureau of Reclamation, 1972. "Special Report on Potentials for Expansion and Improvement of Water Supplies, Deschutes Project, Central Division, Oregon" Boise: Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation. 1991., "Geology Report, Central Oregon Canal System, Upper Deschutes River Basin Water Conservation Project, Oregon" Boise: Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation. 1997. "Upper Deschutes River Basin Water Conservation Study: Special Report." Boise: Bureau of Reclamation. Bureau of Reclamation. 1999. "Canal-Lining Demonstration Project Year 7 Durability Report" R-99-06. Boise: Bureau of Reclamation Fitzpatrick, K., Gorman, K and B. Aylward. 2006. "Reservoir Management" Water Summit Draft. Bend: Deschutes Water Alliance. (available at www.swalley.com) Gannett, M.W. and K.E. Lite. 2004. "Simulation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon" Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4195. Portland, OR: United States Geological Survey. 84 pp. Gannett, M.W., Lite, K.E., Morgan, D.S. and C.A. Collins. 2001. "Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon" Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4162. Portland, OR: USGS. 72 pp. Golden, B. and B. Aylward. 2006. "Instream Flow in the Deschutes Basin: Monitoring, Status and Restoration Needs" Water Summit Draft. Bend: Deschutes Water Alliance. (available at www.swalley.com) ivewton, D. and M. Perle. 2006, "Irrigation District Water Efficiency Cost Analysis & Prioritization" Water Summit Draft. Bend: Deschutes Water Alliance. (available at www.swalley.com) LaMarche, J. 2001. "Upper and Middle Deschutes Basin Surface Water Distribution Model" Surface Water Open File Report #SW02-001. Bend: Oregon Water Resources Department. Newton, D., Perle, M. and J. Polvi. 2006. "Future Groundwater Demand in the Upper Deschutes Basin" Water Summit Draft. Bend: Deschutes Water Alliance. (available at www.swalley.com) Population Research Center. Various Years. Annual Oregon Population Report Portland: Portland State University. http://www.pdx.edu/prc/annualorpopulation.html. n.,, r. T?-rnr3„rt;nn w;thnut permission strictly prohibited. 4~:dgmkk.:4"d 875 SE VETERANS WAY PO BOX 726 REDMOND, OR 97756-0100 CITY OF REDMOND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 541.504.2000 FAX: 541.548.0253 www.redmond.or.us September 7, 2006 Mr. Bill Zelenka Crook County Planning Department 300 NE Third Street, Room 11 Prineville, OR 97754 RE: Remington Ranch Resort Mr. Zelenka: The City of Redmond appreciates the opportunity to provide comment regarding the proposed Remington Ranch Resort. The development of destination resorts in Central Oregon has placed a significant burden on urban area transportation systems. The adjacent cities are heavily relied upon to supply urban services, amenities and employees to support the residential and recreational elements of the resort communities. As such, the transportation systems of adjacent cities are integral to the existence of the destination resort. Although located approximately five miles northeast of Redmond, the proposed Remington Ranch Resort will have a significant impact on the City of Redmond's transportation system. As noted in the applicant's Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), the development will add approximately 300 PM Peak hour trips to the City's network (75% of the development's traffic) - which in scale is the approximate trip generation equivalent of five averaged sized McDonald's Restaurants'. The City has reviewed the TIA provided by the applicant and offers the following comments and proposal for mitigation of transportation impact: TIA COMMENTS: The TIA relies upon future improvements to be constructed by the City of Redmond to correct existing or future deficiencies (failing level of service or mobility standard) in the City of Redmond transportation system. The unmitigated intersection failure identified at some point during the study period is noted at the following intersections: 1. Highway 126Neterans Way 2. US 97 Northbound Ramp/Yew Avenue 3. US 97 Southbound Ramp/Yew Avenue 4. US 97/0'Neil Highway In addition to the above identified intersections, many other City intersections impacted by the development - not included as specific study area intersections within the TIA - will require future improvement as we112. ' Per the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition (Excluding negligible pass-by trips.) 2 Per the City of Redmond Transportation Capital Improvement Plan, August 2005. The TIA does state a need for the development to mitigate its proportional impact at the intersection of Highway 126/Veterans Way, but does not propose any other mitigation at the other study area intersections _----and--instead relies upon the construction of planned improvements by the City of Redmond and/or ODOT. Whereas the City of Redmond has planned improvements at the aforementioned intersections, the funding of those improvements is almost exclusively provided via Transportation System Development Charges (SDCs) assed to new growth within the City of Redmond. The mere planning of future improvements should not preclude the Remington Ranch Resort from mitigating its transportation impact - which is significant - at all of the study area intersections. MITIGATION PROPOSAL Via its Transportation System Development Charge methodology, the City of Redmond has crafted a funding mechanism to assess an equitable charge to all growth within the City on a "per trip" basis to pay for required transportation system improvements necessitated by growth. As a matter of fairness with regard to planned growth that occurs within the City, the City of Redmond requests the Remington Ranch Resort to pay the City's Transportation System Development charge for all of the trips which utilize the City's transportation system. The City is willing to accept a lump sum payment of $863,100 (300 PM Peak Hour trips x $2,877 per trip Transportation SDC), or enter into an agreement with the Remington Ranch Resort whereas the Resort will pay the City's Transportation SDC (tied to the trip generation rate identified in the TIA) upon issuance of building permits for dwelling units within the Resort. The City hereby respectfully requests a condition of approval which specifies the transportation system mitigation to City of Redmond as noted above. It is important to recognize the transportation impact of destination resort development as it pertains to urban areas. Although remote in location, the traffic impact of the development manifests itself within the urban area as if the development were located within the City itself. The City of Redmond, more than any other city in Oregon, is feeling the impact of large scale destination resort communities. Approval bodies (County Planning Commissions, Hearings Officers, etc.) should not hesitate to require resort developments to mitigate their far- reaching impacts within adjacent cities. The City of Redmond again appreciates the opportunity to provide comment regarding the proposed Remington Ranch Resort. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns. Sincerely, CXrtiss Doty, PE Director of Public Works City of Redmond 875 SE Veterans Way Redmond, OR 97756 chrisd(cDci.redmond.or.us PH. 541.504.2001 FX.• 541.548.0253 875 SE VETERANS WAY PO BOX 726 REDMOND, OR 97756-0100 541.504.2000 FAX: 541.548.0253 www.redmond.or.us CITY OF REDMOND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Patterson, City Manager FROM: Chris Doty, PE, Director of Public Worksc-D DATE: October 26, 2006 RE: Destination Resort Impact on future Eastside Redmond UGB Expansion Per your request, this memorandum summarizes the collective impact of two proposed destination resorts (located in Crook County) on eastside Redmond intersections. Crook County is currently in the midst of processing two development applications for destination resorts east of Redmond. At buildout, the two destination resorts (Remington Ranch and Hidden Valley) will include development of approximately 5,000 dwelling units. During the recent Urban Growth Boundary expansion, the City of Redmond carefully avoided eastside expansion due to infrastructure deficiencies, specifically the limited capacity of eastside transportation system alternatives. Future eastside expansion will create the need for significant eastside corridor improvements similar to the westside corridor improvements of the existing plan. Integral to this concept will be the need to provide east-west connectivity across the numerous north-south barriers that exist within the City (dry canyon, US 97, COID canal, RxR, etc). Development of the noted destination resorts will create additional eastside development challenges in Redmond. Resort development will add approximately 600 PM peak hour trips or 6,000 vehicles per day to the intersection of OR 126/SE Veterans Way, a critical eastside intersection. Other eastside intersections are similarly impacted, including the capacity constrained intersections with the US 97 Reroute. The combined traffic impact of the two resorts is the ballpark equivalent of a Super Wal-Mart. The City of Redmond has requested mitigation (via payment of the City's System Development Charge) from the Remington Ranch Resort - however the City has no jurisdictional position to make this request and it is currently unknown if Crook County will honor this request as a condition of development. The developer has proposed partial mitigation via payment to ODOT for impacts at OR 126/SE Veterans Way and O'Neil Junction; however the impact of the resort development will extend far beyond these intersections. Regardless of the outcome, the City feels that Deschutes County, the largest property owner on the eastside of Redmond, should be aware of the potential impacts of proposed destination resort development, as it will significantly affect future eastside UGB expansion in Redmond. Attachments: TIA material from Remington Ranch and Hidden Valley, Mitigation request to Crook County 2I Li ( 0 Page 1 of 1 ~ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Transportation Engineering /Planning ° m- N m.N n ~ n ~ ~ w a 0 Fa mz P I- 0* MM, a O M:4 mom 0>6 0jz zern O>m mx-( OOH Zxvi Alta7e Merkel RO d Res0rtVKWWpt17905FlGS.Mq Tae: FhW6 i. a O O 1 12' 1192 b~ 'a 7- -7 ]5 ~ w t/► h, It o/ m$ ° z ~1es te2-.,4 R 229 1 g C2 ~ s~ <g N F O~ r m > W m F o z ~d o d~~ DODOS RD Oa SHUMWAY RD JOHNSON RANCH RD f y 9 o rn vn~ o~ 77 ~1Io POR p UuTLAND ~m 2^ D O^ \ Mi~t70gN RD m 'r z O rn ` m i i i i i G ' ^w $p o~ z O~ m D m Oregon Parks Association F Oreo-olip.-I 171 ( Association Deschutes County aker Benton latsqu aItj nb a Coos role Douglas Gilliam Hood River Jackson Josephine Klamath Lane Lincoln Linn € arrow Polk Tillamook Union Washington Wheeler Yanihisl Curry DeschUte Grant rney allheur -r mai Umatilla Wallowa Non-Member This county not not currently a member of the Oregon Parks Association 12/04/200609:54A^, CONTACT U 1 BOUT TH P SITE MAP http://www.orparks.org/a_oregonparks/deschutes.htm Page 1 of 2 Oregon Parks Association )1-e(Y()11P`_1Yks - Association 12/04/2006 09:57 AM CONTACT LIS ; ABOUT THE A j SITE MAP Contact Us 1 t~ ,pt 0 k i rn H, _ I i e,r wkst' n 'IF loosephine Kl::a aUi Lane Lincoln 1 in mof rmv Polk Tillarnool< Union Washington VA-l l r Yar lli'l County Parks in Oregon To find out more about county parks in Oregon, click on any region of the map or use one of the links in the sidebar at the left. To find out more about non-county members of the OPA, Ic ick here. r Columbia Clatsop r' Hood Over Gilliarn / _ IMultnotnah Shern-san Washington 111,.~ ! Umatilla Wallowa Tillamook Morrow f Yamhill Clackamas Union Polk Wasco 11Nheele JMarion` Baker r'f Lincoln Benton r' Jefferson Linn Grant J r f J if I t Crook I f Lane ~ Deschutes 'l Coos Douglas r` Lake Curry r' Jackson ( Klamath a- - W aasaf : . http://www.orparks.org/a-oregonparks/index.htm Harney Malheur Page 1 of 2 Josephine Oregon Parks Association Wasco 12/04/2006 09:54 AM Home I Oregon Flarks I Legislative Issues I Conference Info { Resources About Us Contact Us I S1!-P-,-.p http://www.orparks.org/a_oregonparks/deschutes.htm Page 2 of 2 From: "George Kolb" <George_Kolb@co.deschutes.or.us> Subject: RE: Cline Falls Highway Date: December 1, 2006 9:33:31 AM PST To: "Nunzie" <nunzie@pacifier.com> Cc: "Tom Blust" <Tom Blust@co.deschutes.or.us> Hello Nunzi: I will try to answer your questions in this e-mail. If 1 missed something, e-mail me back. Cline Falls highway overlay status: County crews are starting work on the widening of the shoulders for the overlay. I have not determined the final width as I have to meet with the Department of State Lands to determine what they will require if we have to widen along the river. That area will have a wetlands designation so we may be limited by how much we can widen the existing road. Bid Date: I am hoping to put this out to bid in February or March with a completion date of June 30, 2007. Cost Projection: right now my estimate is approx. $1,500,000. That may change depending on the price of asphalt this coming year. Where will the funding come from: we get our funding from gas tax and forest receipts. Provisions for Thornburgh: We are just working on the overlay of Cline Falls Highway. Any additional improvements to the access to Thornburgh would be their responsibility. Will there be striped bikeways: This will depend on the final width of the road. I am hoping for a final width of 30 feet which will allow for 11 foot travel lanes and a 4 foot paved shoulder. Steve Jorgensens replacement: You would have to call the planning department to get the status on Steve's replacement. Hopefully this answers you questions. Thanks - George -----Original Message----- From: Nunzie [mailto:nunzie@pacifier.com] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:20 PM To: George Kolb Cc: Paul Motta; Greg Currie; Cynthia Smidt; Commute Options Subject: Cline Falls Highway Hello George: I am following-up on our discussion about the overlayment of Cline Falls Highway from Cook Avenue in Tumalo to Hwy 126 north of Eagle Crest. (2 (Kb 11' vehicle lanes plus 2 @ 4' shoulders) What is the status of putting together the Cline Falls Highway overlayment proposal? When is it expected to be put out to bid? Is there a cost projection for this project? Where will the funding for this project come from? Are provisions being made for an accelleration/decelleration/turn lane at the primary southern access to the proposed Thornburgh Resort?, if yes, could you kindly identify the milepost number? Will there be striped bikeways as part of the project to connect to the existing bikeway on Cook Avenue? and to offer alternative Oregon Parks Association (Masco Home I 0;-e cln Pars ( Legislative Issues I Conference Info Resources ( About Us Contact Us I Ste. maz[) 12/04/2006 09:57 AM http://www.orparks.org/a_oregonparks/!ndex.htm Page 2 of 2 transportation means on this major Bend-Redmond corridor? (Note both Old Bend Redmond Highway and Camp Polk Road which are in Deschutes County have recently been striped for bikeways.) Also, I understand that Steve Jorgensen has taken another position with Bend Metro Parks & Recreation; who has been named Senior Transportation Planner for Deschutes County as his replacement? Kindly foward me this person's contact information. Thank you in advance for keeping me posted on this project. Nunzie Gould 541-420-3325 cell bA x ~ c~0 "9 3g' ~ ~ as 0 o tn o p; N 7 y ,D Q O 0 "G ❑ 4: O ~Q Q Q w a 1 n O O 06 T J 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON 1~ ;01~"ftft 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 • www.fnends.org Southern Oregon Office • 33 North Central Avenue, Rm. 429 • Medford, OR 97501 • (541) 245-4535 • lax (541) 776-0443 Willamette Valley Office • 388 State Street, Suite 604 • Salem, OR 97301 • (503) 371-7261 • fax (503) 371-7596 Lane County Office • 120 West Broadway • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 431-7059 • fax (541) 431-7078 Central Oregon Office • P.O. Box 8813 • Bend, OR 97708 • (541) 382-7557 • fax (541) 382-7552 December 1, 2006 Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Re: Proposed Text Amendment to Deschutes County Zoning Code Title 18, Destination Resorts TA-04-4 Dear Commissioners, On behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to Deschutes County Zoning Code Title 18. 1000 Friends of Oregon is a nonprofit, charitable organization founded in 1975 by Governor Tom McCall and Henry Richmond as the citizens' voice for land use planning to protect Oregon's quality of life - through conservation of farm and forest lands, design of compact and livable cities, provision of transportation choices, and protection of natural resources. We respectfully recommend that you deny the applicant's proposal to allow a 25% increase in the maximum allowable ratio of residential homes to overnight lodging, or to allow the first 50 overnight units at Deschutes County destination resorts to be bonded rather than built. These changes are unnecessary, and threaten the tourism-related benefit that destination resorts are intended to provide. 1000 Friends of Oregon recommends that you adopt the changes in Title 18 recommended by DCCDD staff in their Dec. 4, 2006 memorandum to you. Specifically, we request that you follow staff's recommendations to: 1. Change 18.113.060(A)(1)(a) to remove the bonding option for the first 50 overnight units. 2. Change 18.04 definition of Destination Resorts (132) to retain the current 2:1 ratio of individually-owned units and overnight lodging. DCC 18.113.050(B)(24) and 18.113.060(D)(2) and 18.113.070(0) also address the ratio and should retain the 2:1 ratio. 3. Add language to 18.113.070(U) requiring an annual resort accommodation report as defined in statute. 4. Add a new section 18.113.120 requiring conservation easements as defined in statute. Deschutes County Community Development Department Staff Report on Text Amendment TA-04-4, December 4, 2006. BOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File TA-04-4 - Dest. Resorts Exhibit _ F 1000 Friends of Oregon TA-04-4 Proposed Amendment to Title 18 December 1, 2006 Page 2 By allowing a significant increase in the number of houses that are not available as rentals at destination resorts and loosening the requirements for provision of overnight lodgings, the applicant's proposed changes would weaken the current protections that promote tourism-related economic development in Deschutes County and that keep destination resorts from becoming "Sagebrush Subdivisions". The proposed 25% increase in the number of allowable residential homes is requested by a handful of major Deschutes County developers and investors who stand to realize enormous financial gain from such a change. However, the proponents have provided no evidence for why the proposed increase in the allowable ratio of residential homes is needed, or why it would be desirable for Deschutes County. Indeed, their only argument appears to be that the change is allowed under state statute. Because this handful of developers succeeded in pushing the proposed changes through in Salem, there is no reason that Deschutes County should agree to institute changes in its own code that would undermine the potential economic benefits of destination resorts to the county. 1000 Friends of Oregon vigorously opposed SB-911, as our attached veto-request letter to the governor indicates. We oppose the applicant's proposed changes to Title 18 for the same reasons. Destination resorts were designed to provide expanded tourism and economic development opportunities by bringing visitors for extended vacations to rural areas of Oregon. Unlike second homes, overnight lodgings at destination resorts create jobs by attracting vacationers who spend money on lodging, dining, and recreation - not just groceries. Residential use does not provide the economic development that is used to justify the siting of destination resorts in rural areas. Tourism-related development is Deschutes County's payoff from destination resorts. Residential development only provides a payoff to the developers. We have the flowing specific comments. 1. Adoption of DCCDD staff's recommendation to preserve the 2:1 ratio of residential. homes to overnight lodgings, and require developers to build rather than simply bond the first 50 units of overnight lodging, is consistent with the administrative and legislative history of destination resorts. Below please find a brief administrative and legislative history of destination resorts which makes it clear that the increase in residential housing sought by the applicants would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of destination resorts. "Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals seek to prevent urban sprawl and protect natural resource lands. They do this by restricting or prohibiting subdivisions and other forms of housing development outside cities and other developed areas. Major development must take a 'goal exception,' a state variance of sorts, to locate outside urban growth boundaries. Initially, while the exceptions process provided for uses like destination resorts, it didn't do a very good job. State law treated resorts like rural subdivisions or motels, making it difficult for developers and counties to site resorts. ~y 1000 Friends of Oregon TA-04-4 Proposed Amendment to Title 18 December 1, 2006 Page 3 Developers said that the exceptions process blocked construction of new resorts. In 1982, Governor Atiyeh's Land Use Task Force agreed with the developers. The Governor then asked the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Economic Development Commission to come up with a solution. They did. In 1984, LCDC adopted amendments to Goal 8 to allow destination resorts." Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development's Destination Resort Handbook: A Guide to Statewide Planning Goal 8's Procedures and Requirements for Siting Destination Resorts (1995). The "solution" that LCDC and the Economic Development Commission came up with is articulated in a joint "Report and Recommendations on Destination Resort Siting" dated April 15, 1983. As noted above, that 1983 report led in 1984 to the LCDC adopting amendments to Goal 8, which provided for siting destination resorts. House Bill 3097, passed by the 1987 Legislative Assembly, 1987 Or. Laws Ch. 886, substantially adopted and codified LCDC's amendments to Goal 8 (as ORS 197.435- 197.465, not including ORS 197.462). One of the clearest findings and recommendations of the 1983 Joint Subcommittee Report reads as follows: "Destination resorts must provide primarily visitor oriented accommodations to assure that they are not built as or evolve into full time residential communities."t The Joint Subcommittee Report specifically identified certain uses "not considered destination resorts," including planned communities, rural subdivisions or planned developments, and hotels or motels (while noting that hotels/motels could be part of a destination resort). The fundamental concern that the destination resort provisions might be misused to allow residential subdivisions is clearly recorded in the administrative history of the Goal 8 amendments and was again clearly articulated in the legislative history of 1993 Or. Laws Ch. 590 (HB 2932) by Greg Wolf of the Department of Land Conservation and Development when he specifically requested that changes in the destination resort provisions remain consistent with the original intent, which was not to allow the laws to become loopholes that would allow rural subdivisions2,3 1 Report and Recommendations on Destination Resort Siting, Joint Subcommittee of the Economic Development Commission and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (April 15, 1983). 2 See e.g., Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission, Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Planning Goals to Allow Destination Resorts (June 1984) at Appendix C- 7 (where LCDC noted that d]efining a 'destination resort' is perplexing because of the variety of resort development and because the differences between a resort and a well-planned residential or second-home community are slight. The Commission is proposing a simple and narrow definition to assure that the developments which are approved under this process do in fact meet recreational and visitor-oriented needs rather than result in residential development.") (emphasis added); Memorandum of James S. Ross, Department of Land Conservation and Development, to the Land Conservation and Development Commission of 8/10/84 (sharing the commentators' concern that the proposed amendments did not place specific limits on residential development and noting that Charbonneau, a planned community, would meet most of the standards of the Goal but is solely a residential development); Memorandum of James S. Ross, Department of Land Conservation and Development, to Interested Persons of 8/22/84 (recommending a ratio of overnight lodging units to residential units); Memorandum of James S. Ross, Department of Land Conservation and Development, to Land Conservation and Development Commission of 10/5/84 (discussing how to assure that resort developments do not become rural residential or commuter village developments); Certificate and Order for Filing Administrative Rules with the Secretary of State 10119/84 (for which the finding of statewide need states in relevant part that that the proposed amendment will appropriately limit resort development consistent with the statewide planning goals by requiring, among others, extensive visitor-oriented accommodations). 3 Minutes, Subcommittee on Environment and Energy, House Committee on Natural Resources, March 8, 1993. 1000 Friends of Oregon TA-04-4 Proposed Amendment to Title 18 December 1, 2006 Page 4 Again, residential use simply does not provide the economic development that is used to justify siting of destination resorts in rural areas. As noted by the 1983 Joint Subcommittee: "Destination resorts that evolve into full time communities, cities or retirement centers will not result in the desired economic benefits associated with tourism. In fact, a growing number of full-time residents will create demands for government expenditures for schools and health care facilities. A large resident population also demands development of a private infrastructure to service the full-time community including a range of commercial and professional services. These costs might offset the economic benefits created by continuing tourist and visitor use of the remaining portion of the development. Also, such evolution would be inconsistent with Statewide Planning Goals which provide for residential development within urban growth boundaries and on built and committed lands in rural areas. No one has suggested to the subcommittee that there are inadequate lands in these areas to provide for year-round residential development needs." It is very clear from both the administrative and legislative history that the Commission and the Legislature did not intend to authorize (as destination resorts) rural residential subdivisions. In short, although residential units for sale accompany most large destination resorts in Oregon, destination resort are intended for visitors - they are NOT intended to be residential communities or residential planned unit developments. Yet this is exactly what is sought by the applicants in their proposed amendments. This handful of resort developers and investors seeks to both increase the ratio of residential homes allowed in a destination resort and to allow the resort developers to front-load the destination resort with residential development. Both changes would be detrimental to the economic best interests of the county. 2. Lack of Data Regarding Economic Impact of Destination Resorts Finally, we note that there is a total absence of data on the impact of Deschutes County destination resorts on the county. There are no data available on impacts on county revenue, on traffic patterns, on water usage, on demands for services, on market conditions at area resorts, on vacancy rates for overnight lodging, or on property management practices. We respectfully urge you to follow the recommendations of your staff in making changes to Title 18 at least until such time as these important data can be collected. Only when such data are available can the impact of any substantial increase in the number of residential homes at destination resorts be properly analyzed. 1000 Friends of Oregon TA-04-4 Proposed Amendment to Title 18 December 1, 2006 Page 5 Conclusion The applicant's proposed changes would not allow Deschutes County's destination resorts to "provide primarily visitor oriented accommodations to assure that they are not built as or evolve into full time residential communities." On the contrary, they would move Title 18 substantially away from the original intent of destination resorts-economic development based on tourism. By this measure, or any other, the applicant's proposed changes fall short. The changes are entirely unnecessary; the proponents have failed to make a case for them, and they will undermine both the economic development of Deschutes County and our land use goals. Therefore, 1000 Friends of Oregon strongly urges you to reject the changes to Title 18 proposed by the applicants and to accept those recommended by your staff. Very truly yours, Carol Macbeth Central Oregon Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon Attachment: 1. September 8, 2003 letter from 1000 Friends of Oregon to Governor Ted Kulongoski requesting his veto of SB 911. 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON 534 ST Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 • w%m,.fnends.org,_ Southern Oregon Office • P.O. Box 2,442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1155 phonelfax Willamette Valley Office • 388 State Street, Suite 604 • Salem, OR 97301 • (503) 371-7261 • fax (503) 371-7596 Lane County Office • 120 West Broadway • Bugene, OR 97401 • (541) 431-7059 • fax (541) 431-7078 Central Oregon Office • P.O. Box 8813 • Bend, OR 97708 • (541) 382-7557 • fax (541) 382-7552 September 8, 2003 Governor Ted Kulongoski Oregon State Capitol, Room 254 Salem, Oregon 97310 By Facsimile: (503) 378-4863 RE: Request to Veto Senate Bill 911 Dear Governor Kulongoski: 1000 Friends of Oregon respectfully requests that you veto Senate Bill 911, which makes several ill-advised changes to the laws governing destination resorts. The main provision of the bill increases the ratio of residential homes to overnight lodging units allowed at resorts in Central and Eastern Oregon. The effects of this change will be to undermine the economic development potential of destination resorts and to allow significantly more residential development unrelated to tourism outside urban growth boundaries east of the Cascades. This bill is pure gravy for a handful of major Oregon developers and investors, but offers virtually no economic development benefits to the public. Moreover, the changes embodied in the bill come at the expense of farm and forest land. These changes also hurt the small and mid- sized Oregon cities that will lose the residential development that this bill siphons off into "resorts" that increasingly work like exurban commuter villages. As you know, 1000 Friends worked very hard during the recently completed legislative session in support of legislation that promotes economic development in ways that are consistent with sound planning. We supported and spent numerous hours working on the substantive provisions of BB 2011 (shovel-ready industrial lands) and BB 2691 (mill site redevelopment), which will provide more opportunities for employment to residents of both urban and rural areas of our state. SB 911, however, does not merit our support or your signature. Far from promoting economic development, it actually runs contrary to the economic goals that justify destination resorts in the first place. Meanwhile, it increases the likelihood that destination resorts will evolve into little more than rural subdivisions, undermining the urban containment goals at the heart of Oregon's land use planning program. We strongly urge you to veto SB 911 for the following reasons., 1. There is no problem for this bill to solve. The proponents of SB 911 have never been willing or able to explain why legislation to increase the ratio of homes to lodging units is needed. Highly successful destination resorts have been built under existing law, including Bandon Dunes, which does not have ANY residential development; a new resort is approaching construction in Deschutes Countty (Pronghorn Resort); yet another was recently approved by Crook County (Powell Butte Resort) ; and others have been proposed. Developers are making money; golf courses and other recreational amenities, as well as overnight lodging, are being provided for the vacationing and touring public; and jobs are being created and sustained in the tourism service economy of Central Oregon, There is no crisis; indeed, as evidenced by the proposals for new resorts and the expansion of others, there is apparently not even a slowdown mirroring the general economic recession. There is, frankly, only greed and opportunism. People who are already making a lot of money see an opportunity in the present economic downturn and the eagerness, of policymakers to "remove barriers" to economic expansion. They are striking while the iron is hot by ramming through SB 911. 2. DLCD,has -quite literally--sold out on this bill. Remarkably, the bill's proponents were able to achieve passage without any scrutiny of their arguments and without any evidence of a need for the bill. Very early in the session, Department of Land Conservation and Development staff met privately with lobbyists for destination resort developers and committed their agency to support the changes that are now contained in SB 911. They did so without prior consultation with your natural resources advisors; worse, they did so not because they were convinced there is a land use problem for resorts, but because they were attempting to curry favor for their agency's budget with conservative legislators. 3. The proponents refused to negotiate and imposed a blackout. 1000 Friends attempted to negotiate with the proponents of SB 911 for weeks this spring, and in fact we developed a complete alternative proposal that we sent to them in late May. This proposal included many of the provisions sought by the bill's proponents and provided substantially more flexibility than current law. The proponents refused to consider our proposal. In fact, in spite of our efforts to find common ground, some of the bill's proponents wrote letters to you and others that misrepresented our statements and positions on destination resorts and on this legislation (which at the time was embodied in BB 3213). We have previously responded to those letters. We enclose them again for your reference, along with our response. The proponents would not work with us; that was their prerogative. But, amazingly, when we tried to independently inform ourselves about market conditions in the resort industry-vacancy rates for overnight lodging, property management practices, etc.-we learned that a gag order 1 This approval has been appealed by local residents based on issues unrelated to the provisions of SB 911. 2 had been imposed, directing that no one in Central Oregon's tourism industry provide information to 1000 Friends (see attached May 13, 2003 email from the Oregon Lodging Association, which was apparently sent to us by mistake). 4. SB 911 contradicts the fundamental premise that justifies destination resorts. Destination resorts were designed to provide expanded tourism and economic development opportunities by bringing visitors for extended vacations to rural areas of Oregon. Unlike second homes, overnight lodgings at destination resorts create jobs by attracting vacationers who spend money on lodging, dining, and recreation-not just groceries. The destination resort elements of Goal 8 were developed by a Joint Subcommittee of the Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Economic Development Commission, which was charged by Governor Atiyeh with devising a policy for siting destination resorts. One of the clearest findings and recommendations of the Joint Subcommittee's Report reads as follows: "Destination resorts must provide primarily visitor oriented accommodations to assure that they are not built as or evolve into full time residential communities." Report and Recommendations on Destination. Resort Siting, Joint Subcommittee of the Economic Development Commission and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (April 15, 1983).2 The reasons for this finding are twofold: first, that residential use does not provide the economic development that justifies the siting of destination resorts in rural areas, and second, that such development violates Oregon's urban containment policies. As noted by the 1983 Joint Subcommittee: "Destination resorts that evolve into full time communities, cities or retirement centers will not result in the desired economic benefits associated with tourism... Also, such evolution would be inconsistent with Statewide Planning Goals which provide for residential development within urban growth boundaries and on built and committed lands in rural areas. No one has suggested to the subcommittee that there are inadequate lands in these areas to provide for year-round residential development needs.s3 It is very clear from both administrative and legislative history that the Commission and the Legislature did not intend to authorize rural residential subdivisions under-the guise of destination resorts. The primary mechanism that has been used to ensure that resorts do not turn into subdivisions-and the primary provision at issue in SB 911-is the ratio between overnight accommodations and residential homes. This ratio also helps to ensure that resorts are oriented toward attracting visitors rather than full-time residents. 2 The Joint Subcommittee Report specifically identified certain uses "not considered destination resorts," including planned communities and rural subdivisions or planned developments. The fundamental concern that the destination resort provisions might be misused to allow residential subdivisions is clearly recorded in the administrative history of the Goal 8 amendments and was again clearly articulated in the legislative history of 1993 Or. Laws Ch. 590 (BB 2932) by Greg Wolf of the Department of Land Conservation and Development when he specifically requested that changes in the destination resort provisions remain consistent with the original intent, which was not to allow the laws to become loopholes that would allow rural subdivisions. Minutes, Subcommittee on Environment and Energy, House Committee on Natural Resources, March 8, 1993. 3 According to Deschutes County's population forecast, the county has a 14-year supply of rural lots. 3 In short, tourism-related development is rural Oregon's payoff from destination resorts. Although residential units for sale accompany most large destination resorts in Oregon, destination resorts are intended for visitors--they are not intended to be residential communities or residential planned unit developments. Yet SB 911 moves us in precisely this direction. Specifically, SB 911 proposes to increase the ratio to 2.5 residential units for each unit of overnight lodging. A destination resort would thus be allowed to build 375 residential homes for every 150 lodging units-an increase of 259a-with no protection or assurances that such development will not be built as, or develop into, a rural residential subdivision. SB 911 also includes other elements making it easier to count a unit as an overnight lodging unit, thus further increasing the number of residential homes that can be built. For example, the bill reduces the number of weeks that a unit must be available for rental to qualify as an "overnight lodging unit" from 45 weeks to 38. This, in turn, increases the.number of homes and lots that may be sold. Moreover, SB 911 makes these changes without any increase in the required investment for developed recreational facilities or any other provisions to ensure that the additional residential homes will be oriented to tourism. Recreational facilities are a key to attracting tourists to destination resorts, as well as a tool to distinguish between destination resorts and subdivisions, yet SB 911 increases the number of houses allowed by 25% without requiring a commensurate increase in the level of investment for developed recreational facilities. Taken together, these amendments do not ensure that destination resorts will "provide primarily visitor oriented accommodations to assure that they are not built as or evolve into full time residential communities." On the contrary, they move the law substantially away from the original intent of destination resorts-economic development based on tourism. Conclusion By this measure, or any other, SB 911 falls short. The bill is entirely unnecessary; its proponents have failed to make a case for it or to negotiate in good faith; and it will undermine both economic development and our land use goals. Therefore, 1000 Friends of Oregon strongly urges you to veto Senate Bill 911. Very truly yours, Bo Stacey Executive Director 4 hTesort. fo- pAah~'ned . :cro, r kC01 . By Rachael Scarborough K►ng !The Bulletin _ ' A development company has filed an application 6b. ld a third destination resort in the Powell Butt? area of Crook County. r 71100 acres are spoken for out of 38,000 to- tal map; °d for resort use. Pahlisc. Homes, a Bend-based development company, hied its p' ' nm--v appli~aticn, Au j st wlth.the C ty la.._ .~a Department, ,gU said Bean Bergler, vice president of cart" ate com- municaticins for Pahlisch. The prelil ry plans call for 245 single-family, homes ,irdr1,225 +overi. _ it ~erftal units on a'3,243-a re parcel be twe. ~.Ifalfa and Powei Butte,?, :e resort, :P~ t,',sch~has also cho:> n , name for Hidden Canyon. At the same tijuie, Wnichester Development Co., • which, is .b'ased in La Quinta,-Calif., is already through two" u' lbiC hearuigs on its planned destina- tion'resort,'Romi, - on Ranch, north of state High' - way 126. Another hearing is sched~ 1 for Nov, 8, andthe planning commission may make a decision 6h thr application "then, Planning Director till Ze- 'enka said...air. > r t, , And a fhiid resort, Brasada Ranch, has already sold about 300 home sites and'started construction , general manager of on-nine houses.'Steve Cartmill Brasada Rahch, said the resort will eventually have abou000 whits on 11,800 acres and added that he ek- p'ects the first'families to arrive in early spring. The resortrs located east'of the PowellButte Highway. Renur''t"oj%an'splans=calTf~r!800 single farm ly resrdt.nces end 40p`oveinlght units, plus three golf -c oursek:and aNystem of walking and biking trails. :See Resort / C9 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) c k24)(0 THE BULLETIN - Friday; November 3, 2006 ,ZSI ZX ~ Resort oo 610 e I resorts 33~ r~ Continued from C1 ll ` I a Its 2,079 acre props rt is to " Gated northwest of Po ~ ell 41~ r s 4 r ~ Butte OO~a r F ° "We're very. ;happy :with Crook County, we spent a`lot j e evill of time looking for property * - , and the property we ultimate .r r~ ly landed on is a great fit'for us "and etr c' ~nmentphi s` Pippin, 4 ,rr;,sl,ient for Winchester ' i Developrrient.' «It s a"great 5 cation and a great communi- ty, we actually like being tied. , t to Prine 6 ds well as Bend." p~- Crook County mapped -out a destination resort overlay zone about four years ago on x 38,000 acres in the western it had farm use out eiig de- according to , e velopment. Crook County code, destina i n a lion resorts must mainta ratio of 2;1 for residential to'; r overnight lodging units, and set aside land for recreational facilities. ` % When Brasada Ranch vlias- in the initial phase of p. _ } =3 ` o ' hearings, seve oval MILES :d'ents raised corm a pk bout pp the resort and,ttle eals ~ ' i grog Cross / The~BulleUn . w:ui the county ar sta bloc l{ development n Ms, ` - r~ 1 - d ail g hands out there so I or o But Zelenr~t saidthat. n , :e en sal to have'a o 0 ~dori' eally know Who ultimately h o _ n set _s ositi rg aeaLt s w ca se (app o be filing th tcli Iw " n and no one spoke out nka ` do ' If the mar; Coo er a bons id sal -against Remington Ranch at us stun,-, zele the ones t at R ' e either .of its e already under developn ent first two public R hh wn~l~ p O L ooro ar n let ter t)eveiopmem aalu 11~ r . thinks people have become e commission, said Judge ;Scott then I suspect we amore used to;the idea,of r- Cooper;' of the Crook County receive applications trickling in sorts in the PowellButte area. -Court It would then have to sub- until we've saturated themar- I do ;think Brasada has nut individual phase ,plans ket.A t F,' done a good job of paving'the 'Cooper "added that the first public way' 4 you will for other des ` hearing for P,ahlischis deve~ob can becreaell Sc rarbtorough Kog tination esorts;'especially in :mentHidden Canyon, will p Crook County.' But I also ' ablv'be held early next year. at r:hiri bendbulletin.com think it speaks to the strength Cooper said he doesn't know of our application and tothe of any other definitplans for amount of time and energl,' , 1110reI , resoi s.-; as eaT,.two and dollars we've spent on do- ` Betid developer s bought about ing expert reports and getting 3 (1flU':acres `of;l ind'O the east this application to what it is side of Powell Butte near George today," Pippin said. hlillican Rntid some of which -A _f Dealing with the Reining- Would _Ib eligible for destination ton Ranch , ,and Hidden resort development Canyon applications back to "Ihear ~lots'of things iii the back has created a lot of pa ' wind, but there's a lot of property' Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) OREGON INSIDER A TWICE-MONTHLY DIGEST OF ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS r • r-,,chutes Basin Water: f -►g for la.. F-utu 1 CENTRAL OREGON WATER LONG-RANGE MANAGEMENT IN THE DESCHUTES by Bruce Aylward, Ph.D., Deschutes River Conservancy David Newton, P.E., Newton Consultants, Inc. INTRODUCTION Clean, reliable water supply for agriculture, ecosystems and cities has long been a key issue in Central Oregon. Beginning in the 1960s, the US Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has studied the potential of conservation and water-use efficiency to impr e the availability of water in the upper Deschutes Basin for multiple uses, zcl4 ~g instream flows, reservoir recreation development, fishery resources, water : ality, :nd water supply for municipal, industrial and domestic uses. Water i -1i ~urces issues in the Deschutes Basin (Basin) have become more critical in re. years a:, .`'.itional demands are placed on the resource base. Water storage and diver° un by fey: al and private irrigation districts result in the dewatering of several reg. of the D,_ Chutes and its tr=h_,r~r•es and the listi-- -mired waters nn the State of G- s (State's) 303)(d) ii,,,. 1 Rae US Envirommntal Protection Agency (EPA) requirements 'rive the develonfnent of this list and of basin-wide water quality targets (Total Maxirr. n Daily Loads or MDLs"). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FER( ) relic sing of the Pelton-Round Butte Hydropower Complex will result in the reintroduct. rI of anadromous fish above the Complex, likely resulting in a federal Endanger_ J Species Act listing in Whychus Creek and the Lower Crooked River. At the same tin rapid growth and development has led to the need for a safe and reliable water supply to meet the future needs of the Basin's growing communities and the need to find a way to address the impacts of land use change on irrigation districts and the agricultural community. With surface water rights fully allocated and federal Safe Drinking Water Act provisions in place new needs will often be met through groundwater development. In 2002, the State began implementing an innovative groundwater mitigation program in the upper Deschutes basin that effectively ties land development into the agriculture- ecosystem nexus - growing demand for groundwater from municipalities, resorts and irrigators will be met by converting existing water rights to instream flow as `groundwater mitigation.' Conflicts occurring in the Klamath Basin underscore the need for proactive and collaborative measures for responding to these needs. The rapid growth and subsequent water needs that the Deschutes Basin is experiencing has made water usage and Editor's Note: Apologies are in order for the late publication of this Insider. However, I think you will agree that the wealth of information contained in this article warranted special handling. The ongoing effort in the Deschutes is providing an important model on the range of focussed activety needed to adequately address long-range water management. An even more detailed article will be appearing in our sister publication, The Water Report, in July. Insider subscribers are welcome to request a free copy of The Water Report's July issue by emailing: epi@rio.com Issue #394 Printed on Recycled Paper With Soy Ink June 25, 2006 I0(0 Lssue #394 UKLUUIN lIV31LJEK Deschutes Water Stakeholder Coordination t availability a major topic in discussions among basin water suppliers, planners, business and the general public. Due to increased dialogue and awareness relative to water issues, regional urban water suppliers, irrigation districts and other private, government and individual water users now recognize their interdependency in the use, management and protection of Deschutes Basin water resources. This recognition and related dialogue has led major actors in water supply and demand to call for a common vision that commits energy and resources in a collaborative effort to respond to Basin water issues. Organization In 2004 a diverse coalition of partners from the Deschutes applied for and received a grant from Reclamation's Water 2025 Program for a `Deschutes Water Alliance: Formation and Pilot Water Bank Project.' The grant was received by Central Oregon Irrigation District on behalf of • Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC): Seven Basin irrigation districts including Reclamation's Deschutes (North Unit Irrigation District) and Ochoco Projects. • Central Oregon Cities' Organization (COCO): Basin cities (e.g. Bend, Redmond, Madras, Prineville) and affiliated regional drinking water suppliers. • Deschutes River Conservancy (DRC): a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation carrying out ecosystem restoration projects in the Basin (with federal authorization and representation Under PL106-270, Deschutes Resources Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2000) • Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation (CTWS): a tribal entity representing Warm Springs, Paiute and Wasco Tribes The Water 2025 grant consisted of three components: 1) the formation of an alliance; 2) the development of a series of plans studies; and 3) the initiation of a pilot water bank. Vision and Objectives At an early meeting of Alliance group, districts, cities, CTWS and DRC agreed on a vision for the future in which the uses of water resources in the Deschutes are `balanced to serve and sustain agriculture, urban and ecosystem needs.' It was felt that it is possible to simultaneously meet new and existing demands for water in the Deschutes Basin whether they are for agriculture, cities, or rivers - thereby raising the productivity of water in the bthu Basin. Ongoing efforts gave the participants the 1,{ ° } expectation that this could happen through cooperation and i s voluntary participation of the key water suppliers and users. YZ The desired to balance uses and needs was further defined f = in terms of several diverse objectives: c01.14 at 4 RIMER tt VMN . Move stream flows toward a more natural hydrograph ' ticatt Wit' while securing and maintaining improved instream flows and water quality to support fish and wildlife • Secure and maintain a reliable and affordable supply of water to sustain agriculture { • Secure a safe, affordable, and high quality water supply for urban communities w, These objectives form the basis for further development of measurable outcomes and subsequent efforts to evaluate the feasibility of realizing the vision. _ Studies As part of the Water 2025 grant a number of Issues Papers identifying the long-range trends in demand and supply for water resources in Central Oregon were developed. This article uses the data and findings of these studies to examine under what circumstances a long-term balance between demand and supply is possible. OREGON INSIDER (TSSN1043-7142) is published twice monthly byEnvirotech Publications; 260 North Po1kStr-eet, Eugene; OR 97402 Editor: David Light email: epi@rio.coin Phone: 541/343-8504 Fax: 541/ 683-8279 Subscription Rates: $245 per year, $195 for private non-profit 501 (c)(3) organizations; Multiple subscription rates available'.' Periodical permit #014-653 /Postage Paid at Eugene, OR Postmaster: Please send address corrections to Oregon Insider, 260 North Polk Street, Eugene, OR97402 Reproduction in any foam forbidden without the express consent of the copyright owner. Copyright© 2006 Eiwirotech Publications 2 Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. Fi ;ure 1: The Deschutes River Basin OREGON INSIDER June 15, 2006 Deschutes Water Evolving Agriculture Rapid Growth BACKGROUND The Deschutes Basin is the second largest river basin in Oregon covering 10,700 square miles (see Figure 1). The counties of Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Sherman and Wasco make up a majority of the Basin. Central Oregon, which is comprised of Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties, constitutes 73% of the Basin (see Table 1). Central Oregon is roughly congruent with the upper Deschutes Basin defined as the area above the confluence of the Metolius, Deschutes and Crooked Rivers and above the bulk of the immense groundwater recharge that happens above, in and just below the Pelton-Round Butte complex. Total area for the upper Basin is just over 5,000 square miles. Another important hydrologic unit is the regional aquifer through which a large amount of the precipitation input passes on its way to discharge in the confluence area of the Deschutes, Crooked and Metolius rivers. Land and Agriculture For the Basin as a whole just 40% of the land area is in private hands, with the remainder under public or tribal control. The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation hold 641,000 acres or 7% of the Basin. Of land available for private uses in Central Oregon, 1.77 million acres is dedicated to farming and livestock according to the 2002 National Agricultural Census. The proportion of farm area that is irrigated is roughly one-tenth, or 180,000 acres reflecting the predominance of dryland ranching as a land use in Crook and Jefferson counties. Central Oregon is the home of the family farm with over 92% of owners living on the farm. However, 60% of farm operators also work part-time off the farm and 40% effectively work full-time off the farm. Agriculture makes up around 10% of county income in Crook and Jefferson County and only I% in Deschutes County. Jefferson County is home to large farms, with irrigation largely for the purposes of growing crops. Crook County is home to both smaller irrigated parcels growing crops and very large ranches with irrigated areas in the valley bottoms. Deschutes County is largely home to lifestyle or hobby farming, with just a few areas remaining of large commercial farms. Table 1. Deschutes Basin: Land Area and Population Population Land Total Urban Rural Total % (acres) Administrative Units - Counties Crook 20,650 8,640 42% 12,010 58% 1,914,231 Deschutes 135,450 84,800 63% 50,650 37% 1,955,191 Jefferson 20,250 7,070 35% 13,180 65% 1,146,235 Subtotal - Central Oregon 176,350 100,510 57% 75,840 43% 5,015,656 (3 counties) Wasco 23,900 13,970 58% 9,930 42% 1,533,433 Sherman 1,900 1,140 60% 760 40% 531,838 Subtotal - Five counties 202,150 115,620 57% 86,530 43% 7,080,927 Drainage Unit - Watershed Deschutes Basin 6,847,968 Upper Deschutes Basin 5,004,800 Groundwater Unit - Aquifer Groundwater Study Area 2,879,987 Oregon 3,582,600 2,434,922 68% 1,147,678 32% 61,437,792 Source: Aylward (2006) Growth and Development As of 2004, the population of Central Oregon totaled 176,000, 57% of which live in incorporated areas. Central Oregon has gone through periods of explosive growth, notably in the 1970s and from 1990 onwards. Averaged over the last century Central Oregon's population has grown at a rate of 44% every decade (see Figure 2). In comparison Oregon's rate was 24% and for US as a whole it was 14%. The figure below shows that the bulk of the population gain in Central Oregon has been in Deschutes County. During the 1990s the population of Deschutes County increased by 50% from 75,000 to 115,000. Since Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 3 L IsuG trJ7-+ VI~,C.l UIN lIV31VE C 2000, Central Oregon continues to grow rapidly, recording a 20% increase in population in the last five ears. Of this increase 27,000 comes in incorporated areas and 5,000 in unincorporated areas. While Deschutes y official population forecasts suggest a slowdown, there is little in the last 15 years' experience or current Water trends to suggest that rapid growth in both urban and rural areas will not continue. Figure 2: Central Oregon Counties Population Water Resources, Groundwater and Instream Flows 1910 to 2000 In Central Oregon, water that moves through the aquifer discharges 160,000 into streams throughout the upper Deschutes Basin (Gannett et al. 2001). Groundwater flows through the permeable Deschutes Formation until it 160,000 ~ Jefferson County ■ Deschutes County runs into the impermeable John Day Formation. Groundwater generally 140,000 ® Crook County _ flows upwards and emerges as springs at the surface. In the drainage to 120,000 the Crooked River, however, soils and geology are largely of the o Central Oregon impermeable John Day Formation. Little groundwater recharge occurs in 100,000 Creation of Jefferson and totals these hydrologic units, and runoff patterns vary rapidly with precipitation. 0 80,000 Deschutes from Assessment of water resources for the Groundwater Study area, which a_ Crook County 60,000 forms a significant portion of the upper Deschutes Basin confirms that L 40,000 human activities in the upper Deschutes Basin have significantly altered 1 the flow regime in the Basin, but on balance have led to the consumption 20,000 of only a relatively small amount of available water resources and an even 0 smaller portion of the annual turnover in groundwater in the Basin (Golden 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 and Aylward 2006). The most dramatic modifications to the water resources regime are clearly seen in terms of low flows below irrigation ~ourcc: Ayk ud (2(X)1T6) district diversions in the upper Deschutes Basin. Reservoir storage and releases for irrigation have highly altered flows in five of the seven water quality impaired reaches in the Basin. The upper Deschutes River reach does not often meet target flows in the Reservoirs sinter due to upstream reservoir storage. Irrigation diversions have reduced summer flows in six of the & seven water quality impaired reaches. Most reaches experience low summer flows due to irrigation = Irrigation diversions. Prior to current restoration efforts, sections of Whychus Creek and Tumalo Creek typically went dry during the irrigation season due to extensive diversion. The daily probability of reaching flow targets during each month is summarized in the table below. > Table 2. Probability of Meeting Instream Flow Targets Historic Probability of Meeting Instream Flow Target* Mouth Little Upper Middle Tumalo Whychus Metolius Lower Lower Deschutes Deschutes Deschutes Crooked Deschutes River River River Creek Creek River River River Jan Very High _ Low Very High Very High Very High Very High VeryHigh High Key to Table • " Feb Very I-hgh Low Very High VeryHigh Very High Very High _ Very High _ High r Mar Medium Low Very High Low Very High Very High High Very High Percent of Apr High High Med um Low Low Very High _ High High Days Meeting Historic May Low Very High Very _Low Low Medium Very High Low _ High Target Probability Jun Low Very High Very Low High Medium Very High Low High Jul Medium Very High Very Low Low Very Low Very High Medium High Aug High Very High Very Low Very Low Very Low Very High High Very High 80-1000% Very High o5r~ ..Sep Very High, Very High Very Low Very Low Very Low Very High Very High Very High 60-79% High Oct Very High High _ Medium Medium Very Low Very High Very High VeryHigh 40-59% Medium " Nov Very High _ Very Low Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High. 20-39% Low Dec Very High Low Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High 0-190/0 Very Low *period of record varies for each reach Source: Golden and Aylward (2006) Federal and state regulatory approaches all have the potential to affect instream flow allocation in the Myriad Deschutes Basin. Federal approaches include the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Clean Water Act, and Regulations the Endangered Species Act. State approaches include the State Scenic Waterways Act and instream flow rights to support aquatic life. Voluntary, market-based approaches, enabled by the state and federal legal framework, however, provide the greatest opportunity for restoring instream flows in the Deschutes Basin. Tools available include: instream transfers; leases; storage leases; and allocation of conserved water. DRC, local irrigation districts and state and federal partners are working together to restore water to reaches by using these tools. Irrigation Districts Historically in Central Oregon, the bulk of water rights and water use has been by irrigated agriculture, particularly a number of large irrigation districts (see Table 3). The potential for conflict over water arises due to increasing demand for groundwater for municipalities and rural destination resorts and increasing 4 Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. OREGON INSIDER June 15, 2006 recognition of the importance of restoring instream flow. In addition, as urban areas expand they move Deschutes into irrigation district areas, threatening the continued delivery of water to patrons and the financial solvency of the district (through a decline in the assessment base). The Central Oregon Water Bank Water builds on early efforts by local irrigation districts to work with the DRC on instream leasing and represents an effort to make long-term and permanent reallocations in water rights in order to avoid future conflict over water in the Basin. Table 3. District Water Right Acreages, Customers and Farm Size Basin Water Use Water Delivery District Point of Diversion Irrigation Total Rights Rights (acres) (acres) t Customers Average Farm Size (acres)' Swalley Deschutes River at Bend 4,351 4,561 755 6 COID Deschutes River at Bend 43,747 44,784 4,497 10 Lone Pine Deschutes River at Bend 2,369 2,369 20 120 Arnold Deschutes River above 384 3 976 4 792 6 Bend , , Deschutes River at Bend North Unit and Crooked River above 58,868 58,868 850 69 Smith Rock Walker Little' -chutes above 1,534 1,534 10 153 Basin to Tumalo Crc k and Tumalo Middle Deschutes at 7,367 7,381 632 12 Bend Three Sisters Wh},_`tus Creek above 7,568 7,651 129 59 Sisters Ochoco C reek and Ochoco Crooked River above 150 20 332 20 745 27 Prineville, McKay Creek , , b €-:,.v Prineville Totals 149,924 151,878 8,897 17 Source: Aylward (2006) - Note: 'Estimates only for some districts Assessment of water delivery by irrigation districts in Central Oregon indicates that seepage loss potential is very high in some and very low in others with an average transmission loss of 37% (see Table 4). Further evaluation indicates seepage potential is correlated with geologic conditions in the district areas. Districts in Deschutes and Jefferson County that convey water across terrain underlain by the Deschutes Formation record very high seepage losses - in some cases approaching 60%. On-farm losses in these areas are also considerable. Seepage losses overall are significant, totaling almost 600,000 acre- feet (af), thereby revealing significant opportunity to engage in water efficiency projects. Table 4. District Delivery Systems District Canals Laterals (miles) (miles) Irrigation System Diversions (acre-feet) On°Farm Losses (acre-feet) Transmission Loss (acre-feet) Delivery Efficiency Swalley 11.60 16.80 42.410 8,990 23,140 45% COID 7650 129.70 351,510 137,550 91,250 74% Lone Pine 40.10 5.40 14.560 580 9.080 38% Arnold 15.50 24.50 38.400 8,420 20,520 47% North Unit 65.00 83.90 221,770 77890 87,530 61% Tumalo 35.70 26.30 67,000 10.550 382980 42% Three Sisters 20.90 39.50 26,420 127 120 63% Ochoco 33.90 3750 20,490 20,490 7,580 63% Totals 299.20 363.60 782,560 203,170 290,920 63°/n Source: Reclamation (1997) Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 5 I ~3ur_- ITJ7.+ Ui«UU1N LLV31"Fl ( Deschutes Water Groundwater Use & Impacts State Program Challenge Legislation Mitigation Banks onsuntption Capped Jew Studies Water Rights: A Closed Basin For all intents and purposes, creeks and rivers in the upper Basin are closed to further appropriation of surface waters by the Oregon Water Resources Department (WRD). However, water trading within irrigation districts and between districts and cities have a long history as a means of reallocation of surface water rights. In the 1930s and the 1950s the City of Bend secured surface water rights to meet its future needs through transactions with Tumalo Irrigation District. In the 1990s, growth and development in Central Oregon led municipalities, developers and small irrigators to turn to groundwater to supply new water needs. Growing demand for groundwater led to concern that the groundwater permitting process ignored the potential for impact of groundwater withdrawal on surface waters. A US Geological Survey and WRD study released in 2001 confirmed that aquifer discharge provide much of the surface water to streams in the Deschutes Basin (Gannett et al. 2001). The results suggested the potential for groundwater withdrawals to impact surface water flows and cause injury to surface water rights holders, including junior instream rights. In 2002, following, a multi-year collaborative process, WRD put forward a market-based program intended to offset withdrawals on a long-term volumetric basis. The Oregon Water Resources Commission approved rules for the implementation of the Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program in September 2002 (OAR 690-505) (see Pagel, Insiders #283 & #346 and Moon, Insider #309). The program allows for water development while mitigating for the effects of groundwater withdrawals on surface water flows in the Basin through instream transfers, aquifer recharge, storage release and conserved water projects. Concerns regarding timing of mitigation (and other issues) led to a prima facie lawsuit by a number of protestants, including WaterWatch of Oregon against the program's rules. The suit was decided in favor of the protestants in early 2005 (see Light, Insider #369). Subsequently HB 3494 was passed by the Oregon legislature confirming that the existing rules provide `mitigation' and will govern the allocation of new groundwater permits in the Deschutes through 2014. Four years into the program only leases and transfers have been used to create mitigation credits. State- chartered groundwater mitigation banks may use temporary transfers to establish credits subject to holding an equal amount of credits in reserve (OAR 690-521). The groundwater mitigation bank operated by DRC uses demand from the mitigation credit to fund a portion of its instream leasing efforts. In 2006, the mitigation bank has 35 active accounts with groundwater applicants and new permitholders, providing funding for just less than 15% of the DRC's 2006 total lease of 6,200 acres (at the 2-acres leased to 1-acre of credit extended ratio). Closed to further appropriation of surface water rights and with new groundwater rights effectively provided only upon mitigation for consumptive use, the upper Deschutes Basin is effectively closed to further appropriation of consumptive use. With the appropriation of consumptive use capped, new needs for surface can only be met by trading surface water, while new needs for groundwater may be met by trading existing surface water or groundwater rights. As the Basin balances future demand and supply it should therefore yield important insight into voluntary, market-based approaches to conjunctive use management. DEMAND & SUPPLY - DATA & PROJECTIONS The Water 2025-funded Issues Papers identified the long-range trends in demand and supply for water resources in Central Oregon. The papers provide measurable outcomes in terms of water demand, as well as identification and quantification of supply opportunities. [For access to the final draft reports, see website: http://www.swalley.conl/summit.htm] THESE STUDIES INCLUDE: • Groundwater Demand - assessment of the groundwater pumping and groundwater mitigation needs for resorts, municipal water suppliers, agriculture and other uses (Newton et al. 2006) • Instream Demand - analysis of water needed to meet instream flow targets for fish and wildlife (Golden and Aylward 2006) • Agricultural Surface Water Demand - inventory of amounts, patterns and rates of district water rights becoming surplus due to trends in growth, development and land use change (Aylward 2006) • Supply from Water Efficiency - an evaluation and prioritization of opportunities to save water through piping and lining of canals, laterals and ditches, as well as through on-farm conservation technologies (Newton and Perle 2006) • Supply from Reservoir Management - identifying and briefly assessing ways in which the use of storage can contribute to instream flows and improve reliability of agricultural water rights (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006) These analyses of long-range water management in Central Oregon provide a number of potential scenarios based on detailed data with respect to future trends in demand and supply. 6 C:opyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications, Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. OREGON INSIDER June 15, 2006 Deschutes Water Demands ON THE DEMAND SIDE, MEASURABLE OUTCOMES INCLUDE: • future groundwater demand based on data on population growth rates and resulting increases in municipal water demand from work undertaken by the Central Oregon Cities Organization, as well as data on pending and prospective groundwater permits from the Oregon Water Resources Department (see Table 5) • instream flow needs in five dewatered reaches in the upper Basin based on an assessment of current flows, natural flow levels, and fish and wildlife targets (see Table 6) Table 5. Future Groundwater Demand and Mitigation Obligations Water Use Estimate Annual Volume (acre-feet) Volume of Consumptive Use (af) Percent of Total Consumptive Use Volume of Consumptive Use Subject to Mitigation (af) Mitigation Obligation (acres) Water Suppliers Inside 17,600 8,800 33.9% 2,768 1,538 UGBs Pending Groundwater 18,066 7,623 29.4% 7,623 4,235 Permits - Other Uses Outside UGBs Prospective Uses for 7,890 4,125 15.9% 4,125 27292 Resorts, etc - Outside UGBs Fxerr. ' Wells 13,444 5,378 20.7% NA NA u1,jI,l Total 57,000 25,926 100 14,516 8,065 Source: Nev. -.,n et al. (2006) Table 6. Ins tream Flow Demand Flow Targets Needs to 2025 Reach Rate (cfs) Rate (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Upper Deschutes* 300 146 62,000 Middle Deschutes 250 224 94,913 Lower Crooked 75 22 16,079 Tumalo 20 14 5,932 Whychus 20 14 5,932 Totals 665 421 184,856 Source: Golden and Aylward (2006) Agricultural Needs With respect to demand for water from irrigated agriculture the current trend is toward a lessening of demand due to continued growth, urbanization and land use change. This lessening in demand also presents the opportunity for reallocation of these water rights to other uses. The analysis of irrigation water use is therefore both an analysis of demand and of supply. Information employed comes from Aylward (2006. IRRIGATION DATA INCLUDES: • detailed information on eight irrigation districts in Central Oregon, including rate and duty calculations on 151,000 acres of appurtenant water rights, water available for conservation and transfer, district assessments, and exit policies. • GIS analysis of current location of irrigation district water rights relative to urban and county boundaries to evaluate water rights at risk in urban areas and estimate resulting decrease in agricultural surface water demand from urban areas • GIS analysis of water rights currently leased instream to identify decrease in agricultural surface water demand from rural areas. SUPPLY SIDE INFORMATION INCLUDES: • cost and water savings information on over thirty water efficiency and conservation projects across the irrigation districts (see Figure 3) • pricing data on leasing, purchase and exit fees for the districts (Aylward 2006) • different methods for making water available from reservoir management and storage reallocation Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. Issue #394 OREGON INSIDER including a total of 21,000 of due to reservoir optimization, trading of water allocations and district water management projects made available for agricultural and instream use (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006) Figure 3. Price and Quantity for Water Efficiency Projects 2,000 - - 1,800 • • 1,600 1,400 • 1,200 R 1,000 w • 0 W 800 U • IL 600 --*--Average Cost 400 • Marginal Cost 200 - Linear (Marginal Cost) 0 0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 Quantity of Water Saved (af) Source: based on data from Newton and Perle (2006) Future Scenarios Three scenarios were used in this analysis: a base case scenario and low and high growth scenarios. Water management tools employed in `moving' water and water rights from one use to another include: • Instream Leasing (restoration only) • Transfers for groundwater mitigation and for instream restoration • Main canals and lateral water efficiency projects • On-Farm water efficiency projects • Reservoir Management THE BASE CASE SCENARIO is defined by the following assumptions and forecast trends for the twenty year period from 2006 to 2025: • All irrigation district water rights currently found within urban growth boundaries (UGBs) and urban reserve areas (URAs) - a total of 9,773 acres - are transferred permanently instream • Instream leasing of district and individual water rights on rural lands outside urban areas continues in line with current levels, i.e. just under 4,000 acres per year • A few select high priority non-district rural water rights are included in the analysis to the extent that information on existing or proposed transactions is available - 800 acres of which are transferred instream. • Total groundwater demands by 2025 of 57,000 acre-feet, with a consumptive use of 25,926 and a total groundwater mitigation obligation of 14,516 acre-feet of credits, or 8,065 acres (see Table 5) THE Low GROWTH SCENARIO incorporated the following changes to reflect future conditions if lower than expected population growth and development pressure in Central Oregon occurs: • acres within URAs were not included in the acres transferred permanently instream, so that a total of only 5,256 acres was transferred from urban lands • the prospective destination resorts included in the original groundwater demands were deleted leaving a total demand for groundwater mitigation of 6,123 acres THE HIGH GROWTH SCENARIO involved the following change to approximate an assumption of a higher than projected growth rate in Central Oregon: • the assumption that higher development pressure would further reduce the comparative financial benefits of keeping land in agriculture - leading to an across the board transfer of 5% of rural irrigation district properties to instream use. While simplistic, these scenarios serve to highlight the major issues driving water resource management in Central Oregon. A further necessary assumption was that public funding existed to provide the necessary supply from conservation projects to meet instream flow targets. In this sense the scenarios respond to the question of what level of investment in conservation is required to meet instream needs at different levels of growth and development pressure. All calculations in the scenarios are carried out on an irrigation district and stream reach basis. Driving the scenarios is the rate of land use change and resulting availability of surface water rights to meet 8 Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. uxtuuN JAMDEK June 15, 20U6 demand for groundwater mitigation and instream flow. Demands for groundwater are classified according to municipal water needs, destination resort needs, new agricultural needs and other needs (homeowner's associations, industrial, etc). Satisfaction of groundwater demand results in augmentation of instream flow through the State's Groundwater Mitigation Program that requires water rights to be transferred instream to mitigate for new groundwater pumping. Water rights transferred and leased that are not required for groundwater mitigation go to instream flow restoration. Remaining demand for instream flow restoration must be met through improved reservoir management and water efficiency projects. A portion of reservoir management gains by 2025 are predetermined and another portion come from reductions in demand due to leases, transfers and conservation. Conservation projects are ranked in order of reach priority and cost-effectiveness and then called on to meet the remaining demand for instream flow and provide flexibility in reservoir management. In the scenarios no binding constraint was placed on funding for groundwater mitigation needs, restoration transfers and leasing, reservoir management and conservation projects. In other words one output of the scenarios is the calculation of the costs and funding needs over the 20-year period. All funding needs are expressed as simple totals of costs over the 20-year period (i.e. costs and funds are not discounted). Results Key results from derived the developing the scenarios are summarized below in Table 7. FINDINGS CONSISTENT ACROSS THE SCENARIOS INCLUDE: • Municipal water suppliers easily meet their groundwater mitigation water needs at a total cost of around $4 million over twenty years. • Rural needs on county lands - for resort and agricultural uses - form the bulk of groundwater mitigation demand • Instream flow targets in the upper Basin are met in Tumalo Creek, Whychus Creek, the middle Deschutes River, Upper Deschutes River and lower Crooked River • Reliability, delivery and cost of agricultural water is ensured as additional reservoir storage is made available to junior users, • North Unit Irrigation District switches supply to 10,000 acres from costly pumps on the Crooked River to gravity flow from the Deschutes, and districts affected by growth and land use change buffer their landowners from increases in assessment fees through receipt of millions of dollars for their O&M Endowment Funds. • Water efficiency projects reduce district maintenance costs and liability issues by piping and lining canals and laterals, and provide large amounts of natural flow and stored water for redistribution to instream and agricultural uses. Table 7. Key Indicators for 2025 Scenarios 2025 Scenarios Key Indicators Units Base Case Slow Growth Fast Growth Instream Flow Restored acre-feet 196,171 196,171 200,657 Municipal Demand Met % 100% 99% 100% Groundwater Demand Met % 100% 99% 100% Irrigated Land Change % 4% -2% -9% District Revenues $million 10 6 16 Landowner Revenue $million 22 16 35 Saved Transmission Loss % 31% 41% 21% Total Expenditure $million 135 170 115 In terms of outcomes that vary between the scenarios the largest differences are observed in terms of the net loss of irrigated land, the water efficiencies realized and the distribution of financial costs and benefits. In the Base Case Scenario the net loss of irrigated acres is 4% (balancing a decrease in acres irrigated with surface water and an increase in acres irrigated with groundwater). Total transmission loss saved through water efficiency projects is 31% and teh total cost of carrying out all the projects, transfers and leases is $135 million - of which $32 million goes to agriculture split between districts ($10 million) and landowners ($22 million). Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 9 Is me #394 OREGON INSIDER With the Base Case Scenario as an intermediate growth scenario in terms of these outcomes it is possible to characterize the trade-offs between the three scenarios in terms of the level of growth. GENERALLY LOWER GROWTH RATES: • reduce the amount of instream transfer water that is for restoration; in the Low Growth Scenario all transfer water is for mitigation and only the leased water is for restoration • reduce the pressure on irrigation district lands • increase the proportion of instream flow coming from water efficiency projects • raise the cost of meeting instream and groundwater needs. CONVERSELY, HIGHER GROWTH RATES: • increase the amount of instream transfer water that is for river restoration (rather than groundwater mitigation) • increase the pressure on irrigation district lands • increase financial flows to irrigation districts and their landowners • decrease the need for the more costly water efficiency projects • lower the cost of meeting instream and groundwater needs. ISSUES Mitigation Program Leakage With respect to Oregon's Groundwater Mitigation Program a cursory examination of projections for 2025 suggests that there is some `leakage' from the program. In other words, due to the variance between actual projected pumping volumes and legal requirements for mitigation for new permits it is clear from Table 5 that municipalities will be required to mitigate for only a portion of their incremental pumping. Meanwhile exempt uses (in Oregon) are completely unregulated. Thus, there are sources of leakage from the implicit cap placed on conjunctive use. With scenarios projecting water demand and supply out twenty years it is possible to calculate current and future consumptive use based on direct human uses, i.e. for domestic, industrial, commercial and irrigation. The results (shown in Figure 4) are necessarily imprecise, but they suggest that when the before and after uses are totalled there is a fairly imperceptible increase in net consumptive use in the upper Basin. This can be explained in terms of the decrease in consumptive use associated with the portion of retired irrigation rights which are placed instream for restoration rather than explicitly for groundwater mitigation. Figure 4. Comparison of Total Direct Human Consumption of Water (including irrigation) 2005 to 2026 Transactional Feasibility An important question is the degree to which water can `move' in the manner envisioned by the scenarios. In this regard, existing collaborative efforts in the Basin and the legal framework provided by Oregon Law as administered by WRD provide for cautious optimism. DRC received congressional authorization and federal funding beginning in 1996 to implement stream flow restoration projects in the Deschutes Basin. Partnerships between the DRC, landowners and irrigation districts on water efficiency projects and instream leasing have already resulted in over 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) of conserved water and 80 cfs of leased water protected instream by WRD. Initial transfers of district and non-district water rights for groundwater mitigation and flow restoration have also been completed successfully. The DRC groundwater mitigation bank is also providing crucial temporary liquidity to the nascent groundwater mitigation market. Pilot efforts to develop a Central Oregon Water Bank to integrate both temporary and permanent reallocation to ensure an orderly transition are also underway between irrigation districts, the DRC and municipalities. 10 Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. U&P-OUN INSIDER June 15, 2006 Still, some actions contemplated over the long run in the scenarios are not yet feasible legally. Already eschittes mentioned is the issue of the mobility of federal project water. Arriving at agreements and procedures for improving reservoir management is still a discussion at the early stages, although a pilot project is Water underway for 2006/7. Perhaps the most critical need is to resolve the issue of limited capacity at WRD to support these KD Needs voluntary, transactional approaches. The number of water rights transactions is increasing at a rapid pace. For example, the DRC and its partners in the upper Basin have submitted 12 conserved water applications since the DRC was created, but fully half of these were submitted in the last year alone. These transactions require time from Salem and Bend office staff not only for processing, but monitoring and enforcement. At the same time as the transactional volume is increasing, WRD's budget (derived wholly from general funds) is flat or declining. Action needs to be taken to either reverse this funding trend or devolve more administrative authority to the Basin; else collaborative efforts may come for naught in the face of an administrative logjam. CONCLUSIONS Results from a number of preliminary scenarios for managing water resources in the upper Deschutes Basin reveal the potential to meet future needs on the part of growing communities, agriculture, and upper Basin rivers and creeks. SPECIFICALLY, ANALYSIS CONDUCTED THUS FAR SHOWS: Future ' Municipal water needs are easily provided for as the urbanization process releases irrigation water at a ossibilities rate that exceeds new supply needs • Reliability and delivery of agricultural water is ensured through an aggressive program of major canals/ laterals piping and lining • Cost of agricultural water and irrigation district finances are secured through a collaborative, non-profit Central Oregon Water Bank that acquires surplus water rights generated by land use change and growth and reallocates such rights to new groundwater and surface water users, as well as to ecosystem needs. • Instream flow targets are met through conservation, leasing, transfers and improved reservoir management. Research A remaining consideration is to assess the impacts of these water management scenarios on Needs groundwater and downstream reaches of the Crooked and Deschutes River, so as to ensure that the ecosystem and human values of these rivers are protected, or even improved. In sum, new and non-traditional needs for water resources in Central Oregon can be met from existing Tools, sources and rights under a number of scenarios considered here. This can largely be accomplished using currently available administrative regulations for the management of water rights in the Deschutes and Oregon. In order to close the loop and realize the instream flow targets - as well as meet community and irrigation needs - a key ingredient will be obtaining the financing for the necessary water efficiency Growth projects. A further conclusion is that water availability is unlikely to constrain continued growth in anaodated Central Oregon. Growing subdivisions appear to require less water than growing alfalfa and significant amounts of rural lands are leased instream from year to year as lifestyle farming reduces the productive, commercial use of water for irrigation. As a result, legal requirements for providing groundwater mitigation can be met through permanent transfers and `renting' water from the groundwater mitigation bank. However, this is not to say that land use and economic planning cannot be improved if planners and ontituied decision-makers take better account of the mechanics of water resources in the Basin - whether in terms of the legal, socio-economic, hydrologic or environmental aspects of these resources. Further Pla~znina development of water management scenarios and the application of existing surface water distribution and groundwater flow models to the Deschutes Basin should greatly assist ongoing efforts at integrated water resources management and attempts to better coordinate regional planning more generally. The authors wish to thank Mathias Perle, Brett Golden and Kate Fitzpatrick for their assistance and comments on thisarticle. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT: Bruce Aylward, Water Bank Director, Deschutes River Conservancy, 541/ 382-4077 or email: bruce@deschutesrc.org David Newton, President, Newton Consultants, Inc, 541/ 504-9960 x211 or email: dnewton@newtonconsultants.com Copyright@ 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 11 Issue 4394 OREGON INSIDER DESCHUTES WATER ALLIANCE WATER MANAGEMENT SCENARIO: 2006 to 2025 WATER REDISTRIBUTION: WHERE THE WATER COMES FROM AND WHERE IT GOES SCENARIO 1: BASE CASE Supply: Water Redistributed by Source, 2025 Reservoir Water Management Transfers 39,623 50,020 Leasing 16,261 Conservation- ~ Conservation- On-Farm Laterals 10,000 23,222 Conservation- Main Canals 68,982 shares in water vo lume (acre-feet) Demand: Water Redistributed to New Uses, 2025 Resorts, etc. 23,231 Agriculture Municipal 33,610 5,536 Instream 196,171 shares in water volume (acre-feet) 'Redistribution through conservation or groundwater mitigation enables existing water uses to serve multiple uses making water more productive In this scenario the total volume (in acre-feet) of water from existing uses is 208,108 final volume in productive use is 258,548 SCENARIO 2: LOW GROWTH CASE Supply: Water Redistributed by Source, 2025 Water Reservoir Transfers Management 29,146 32,607 Leasing 16,772 Conservation- Conservation- ✓ Laterals On-Farm 49,821 10,000 Conservation- Main Canals 69,661 shares in water volume (acre-feet) Demand: Water Redistributed to New Uses, 2025 Resorts, etc. Municipal 14,777 Agriculture 5,536 33,575 Instream 196,171 shares in water volume (acre-feet) "Redistribution through conservation or groundwater mitigation enables existing water uses to serve multiple uses making water more productive In this scenario the total volume (in acre-feet) of water from existing uses is 208,007 final volume in productive use is 250,059 SCENARIO 3: HIGH GROWTH CASE Supply: Water Redistributed by Source, 2025 Reservoir Water Management Transfers 45,693 80,600 Leasing 16,261 t Conservation- on-Farm 10,000 Conservation- Conservalion- Main Canals Laterals 882 38 22,266 , shares in water volume (acre-feet) Demand: Water Redistributed to New Uses, 2025 Resorts, etc- 23,231 Agriculture Municipal 33,610 5,536 Inslream 200,657 shares in water volume (acre-feet) 'Redistribution through conservation or groundwater mitigation enables existing water uses to serve multiple uses making water more productive In this scenario the total volume (in acre-feet) of water from existing uses is 213,701 final volume in productive use is 263,034 12 Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. OREGON INSIDER June 15, 2006 DEQ MAY PENALTIES Responsible Party Violation(s) Penalty Status & Location Shilo Management Corp. Constructing an on-site sewage disposal system (holding tank and hookups for seven $5,081 Appealed Troy recreational vehicle spaces at Shilo Inn) without a state permit ($2,456); constructing an on-site (total) sewage disposal system for 13 RV spaces without a permit ($1,750); modifying its wastewater control facility (adding three shower rooms and hooking them into existing on-site system) without DEQ written approval ($875) Cascade Locks Fire Dept Openly accumulating asbestos-containing waste material (asbestos siding) during preparation $6,000 Appealed Cascade Locks of an October 2005 training burn exercise Ken Leahy Construction Inc. Discharging turbid (sediment-filled) water from Stoney Mountain Reservoir and Dam $28,918 Appealed Sheridan construction site, rendering creek's water harmful to aquatic life, in January and March 2006 Stewart Stiles Truck Line Inc. Failing to submit two stormwater discharge samples and visual monitoring data to DEQ during $3,324 Paid cn-h- 1001 nA -A 7MA nc Gary Duane Everett Illegal open burning of prohibited material (including plastic sheeting and buckets, styrofoam, $2,500 Appealed Bend metal paint cans, a plastic pesticide container, aerosol can, household garbage) Alvin Kerns Spears Allowing a person other than a licensed asbestos abatement contractor to perform an asbestos $19,508 Appealed Grants Pass and Merlin abatement project ($6,660); openly accumulating improperly packaged and labeled asbestos- (total) containing waste material from site ($11,519); illegal open burning of prohibited material including wire insulation, plastic, automobile parts, oil filters, roofing material, paint cans and asbestos- containing waste materials ($1,389) Parkdale Sanitary Dist Discharging about 16,000 gallons of untreated sewage in December 2005 into Trout Creek $1,375 Appealed Parkdale from its wastewater treatment plant City of Heppner Violating wastewater discharge permit: reported two wastewater samples from 8/18/05 that $300 Paid He ner exceeded state's total coliform levels Southern Oregon Marine Inc. Failing to determine that wastes (pesticide residues and wastewater treatment sludge) generated $10,750 Appealed Coos Bay from facility were hazardous ($1,250); failing to properly label containers of hazardous waste (total) on site ($7,600); failing to keep containers of hazardous waste (paint waste, spent methyl ethyl ketone) closed on site ($1,900) Colvin Oil Company Improperly installing piping for company's underground storage tank system as part of $5,439 Appealed Grants Pass replacement piping work in May 1998 Floyd Arthur Mathews Illegal open burning of prohibited materials (including paint cans, aerosol cans, plastic $1,250 Appealed Umatilla containers and rubber) at automotive business Trident Seafoods Corp Violating wastewater discharge permit by discharging wastewater from seafood processing $3,600 Appealed Newport facility into Ya uina Bay from a dock drain and not from the rmit-authorized outfall BP West Coast Products LLC Discharging approximately 1,000 gallons of diesel oil into state waters (Willamette River) $8,000 Paid Portland when diesel tank um in system failed at its oil storage facility Synthetech Inc. Failing to determine that 24 55-gallon drums of waste (chemical wastes and solvents) disposed $9,565 Appealed Albany of at its amino acids manufacturing facility were hazardous ($6,965); failing to place proper (total) notification in its on-site files of prohibited wastes contained in its yield tanks ($2,600) 3 G Inc. dbaJMt.Hood Mobile Discharging undetermined amount of sewage onto the ground from failing on-site sewage $5,500 Paid Home Park and Restaurant disposal system serving Mt. Hood Mobile Home Park and Restaurant since May 2004 Mt. Hood Charles P. Thompson dba/C.T. Failing to provide DEQ with records of release detection monitoring for underground storage $300 Did Not Auto Repair and Express Lube tank system in violation of state permit Respond Medford Penalty Due Jeffrey Pike Supervising testing of underground storage tank system without an appropriate state license $2,000 Appealed Medford Dennis Harding Painting Failing to properly label and date 77 containers of paint and solvent wastes generated at paint $3,000 Appealed Portland contracting facility David Budreau Failing to keep proper release detection records for underground storage tank system in $5,524 Response Phoenix violation of state permit Due RR2 Limited Liability Comp Discharging significant amount of sediments into state waters (tributary of Mary's River) from $10,360 Response Philomath construction work at Starlight Village site in excess of acceptable state water quality turbidity Due level B-W Construction Inc. Allowing an unlicensed asbestos abatement contractor to perform asbestos abatement work on $6,000 Response Portland a building demolition project Due For info, contact: Jane Hickman, DEQ Compliance & Enforcement, 503/ 229-5555 Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 13 Issue #394 WATER TRANSFER RULE NPDES PERMITS EPA PROPOSAL A rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would clarify that water transfers are excluded from regulation under the Clean Water Act's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. NPDES permits will not be required for transfers of water from one body of water to another under the proposed rule. Such transfers include routing water through tunnels, channels, or natural stream courses for public water supplies, irrigation, power generation, flood control, and environmental restoration. The proposed rule would define a water transfer as "an activity that conveys waters of the United States to another water of the United States without subjecting the water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use." This exclusion does not apply, though, to pollutants that the water transfer itself may introduce to the water being transferred. The withdrawal of groundwater is not included in the scope of the rule. In 2004, the question of whether NPDES permits were necessary for water transfers went before the U.S. Supreme Court in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, et al., 280 F.3d 1364, 541 U.S. 95 (2004). The court did not rule directly on the issue and remanded it back to the District Court for further deliberation, creating uncertainty about the need for a permit. On August 5, 2005, EPA issued a legal memorandum entitled "Agency Interpretation on Applicability of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act to Water Transfers." This memo confirmed EPA's interpretation that Congress intended for water transfers to be subject to oversight by water resource management agencies and State non-NPDES authorities, rather than the NPDES permitting program. EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. The website listed below has links to the Federal Register Notice, as well as EPA's legal memorandum and a OREGON INSIDER "Frequently Asked Questions" paper about the Water Transfers Rule. For info: Jeremy Arling, EPA Water Permits Division (Office of Wastewater Management), 202/ 564-2218, email: arling.jeremy@epa.gov, or website: www.epa.gov/npdes/ agriculture#water-transfer USTs EPA GRANT GUIDELINES EPA has released for public comment draft grant guidelines that will establish requirements for public records for underground storage tank systems. States will have to meet the requirements to be in compliance with provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. EPA worked with states and other partners to develop the grant guidelines and, when final, will incorporate them into grant agreements between EPA and states. EPA will accept public comments on the draft guidelines until July 8, 2006. For info: EPA's Draft UST grant guidelines online: www.epa.gov/oust/ fedlaws/draft_pr.htm WASTE PREVENTION PACKAGING DEQ WEBSITE Packaging comprises an estimated 20 to 30 percent of business and household waste in Oregon. A website developed by DEQ through a joint project with Metro, the regional government of the Portland metropolitan area, was deigned to help businesses and others discover how packaging choices can save money while helping to ease waste burdens on the environment. The DEQ website [www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/packaging/ index.htm] includes descriptions of different methods for reducing packaging waste, checklists for evaluating existing and proposed packaging options, and other valuable information, such as foreign packaging waste prevention regulations. It also highlights case studies of businesses in Oregon and elsewhere that are saving thousands - in some cases millions - of dollars each year through packaging improvements. As part of the Packaging Waste Prevention Project, DEQ and its consultants worked with six businesses to examine their current method of packaging goods for customers - both in store and via mail order/Internet commerce. DEQ then helped these businesses chart specific savings gained by switching packaging methods. As part of this project, DEQ commissioned a "Lifecycle Inventory Analysis" of the environmental and natural resource burdens of 26 different types of packaging used by businesses in e-commerce and catalog order fulfillment. That meant examining the raw materials and energy used in producing, transporting and discarding the packaging material, as well as a variety of waterborne and atmospheric emissions, including greenhouse gases. The analysis focused on packaging options for non-breakable items such as clothing and linens. The results confirm the environmental benefits associated with using certain types of packaging methods. One interesting finding is that, for shipping non-fragile items, using any kind of shipping bag - regardless of material - results in lower environmental burdens in almost every category of burdens studied than any combination of corrugated box and void-fill materials. This is true for all of the shipping bags evaluated, including padded bags with little or no recycled content and few convenient recycling options. When making decisions about package design, businesses should recognize that recyclability and recycled content are not always the best predictors of environmental burdens. The lower environmental burdens associated with the shipping bags are a result of their significantly smaller weight and volume. Similarly, DEQ found that for businesses shipping non-breakable items in boxes, the choice of void fills may be less important from a lifecycle energy perspective than the size of the box. The lifecycle analysis was one of the first publicly funded studies of its type in the U.S. and used a methodology consistent with those described in ISO (International Standards Organization) 14040 Standard documents for lifecycle analysis. For info, contact: David Allaway, DEQ, 503/ 229-5479 or email: allaway.david @ deq. state. or. us 14 Copyright© 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. UKt(JUN ILVJIMIt June 15, 2006 11 DMI01 I• June 15 DEQ Air Toxics Science Advisory Committee Meeting, Portland, DEQ Headquarters, 811 SW 6th Ave, Room 3A, 8:30am- 11:30am. For info: Bruce Hope, DEQ/AQ, 503/ 229- 6251 June 15-16 Land Use and Environmen- tal Due Diligence & Compli- ance, Seattle, Washington State Convention & Trade Center. RE: Land Use Controls, Brownfields & Pollution Control, "All Appropriate Inquiries." For info: The Seminar Group, 800/ 574-4852, email: registrar @ theseminargroup.net, or website: www.TheSeminarGroup.net June 15-16 Environmental Insurance, San Francisco. For info: ALI-ABA, 800/ CLE-NEWS or website: www.ali-aba.org June 19 DEQ Air Quality Rulemak- ing, Public Hearing, Port- land, DEQ Headquarters Office, 811 SW Sixth Ave, Room 3A, 3pm. Includes Clean Air Mercury Rule. (see Brief, this Insider) For info: Jerry Ebersole, DEQ/AQ, 503/ 229-6974 email: ebersole.gerald @ deq. state.or.us June 19 Mixing Zones Issues Presen- tation, Air and Waste Management Association Pacific Northwest Interna- tional Section Event, Portland, One World Trade Center, 121 SW Salmon, Noon-lpm. Presenter: Brian King of Schwabe Williamson (see King/Maffei, Insider #389) For info: Frank Jones, AWMA, 503/ 235-9194 or email: frank@tw-nviro.com June 20 DEQ Air Quality Rulemak- ing, Public Hearing, The Dalles, Columbia Gorge Community College, 400 East Scenic Dr, Building 3, Third Floor, 7pm. Includes Clean Air Mercury Rule. (see Brief, this Insider) For info: Jerry Ebersole, DEQ/AQ, 503/ 229- 6974 email: ebersole.gerald @ deq. state.or.us June 21 DEQ Air Quality Rulemak- ing, Public Hearing, Boardman, The Riverfront Center, Port of Morrow, 2 Marine Drive, 6:30pm. Includes Clean Air Mercury Rule. (see Brief, this Insider) For info: Jerry Ebersole, DEQ/AQ, 503/ 229-6974 email: ebersole.gerald @ deq. state. or. us June 22 Dredging and Sediment Technologies Conference, Seattle, For info: Holly Duncan, ELEC, 503/ 282- 5220 or email: hduncan@elecenter.com or website: www.elecenter.com June 22-23 Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Meeting, Portland, DEQ Headquarters, Room 3A, 811 SW Sixth Ave, 6/22: 9am- 4pm; 6/23: 8:30am-12:30pm. RE: LEV-AQ Standards Adoption; Legislative Proposals; Budget Update; DEQ Planning & Priorities; Umatilla Facility Update; Vehicle Inspection Options. For info: Cat Skaar, DEQ, 503/ 229-5301 June 22-24 Association of Oregon Recyclers 28th Annual Conference & Tradeshow & Educational Conference. Eugene, Valley River Inn,. For info: AOR, 503/ 223-8633 or website: www.aorr.org June 29 Regional Hydropower Relicensing, Seattle, Wash- ington State Convention & Trade Center. RE: Recent Amendments to the Federal Power Act & Related Agency Regulations. For info: The Seminar Group, 800/ 574- 4852, email: info @ TheSeminarGroup.net, or website: www.TheSeminarGroup.net July 6-7 4th Annual National Groundwater Association International Conference, Chicago, Holiday Inn Chicago Mart Plaza Hotel. RE: Groundwater Law, Environmental Contamination Litigation, Hydrogeology, Contaminant Transport, Groundwater Modeling, Environmental Forensics for Allocating Liability, Toxic Torts, Coalbed Methane, Bottled Water Permitting, Transboundary Water Disputes & Emerging Con- taminants. For info: NGWA, 800/ 551-7379, website: www.ngwa.org/e/conf/ 0607065066.cfm July 11 Tribal Economies, Seattle. For info: The Seminar Group, 800/ 574-4852, email: registrar@ thesenunargroup.net, or website: www.TheSeminarGroup.net July 13 Law of Easements: Legal Issues and Practical Consid- erations in Idaho, Boise, ID, Holiday Inn Boise Airport. RE: Drafting & Construction, Creation of Easements, Scope & Termination, Litigating Easement Cases, Water & Conservation Easements. For info: Lorman Education Services, 866/ 352-9539, email: customservice @ lorman.com, or website: www.lorman.com July 25 Emiment Domain: Legal Update, Portland. For info: National Business Institute, 800/ 930-6182 or website: www.nbi-sems.com July 28 Oregon Board of Forestry Meeting, Baker City, Exact Location TBA. For info: ODF Public Affairs, 503/ 945- 7213 August 4-5 Land Conservation and Development Commission Meeting, Salem, Agriculture Building, 635 Capitol St. NE. For info: Cliff Voliva, DLCD Communications, 503/ 373- 0050 x268 or email: cliff.voliva @ state.or.us August 10-11 Oregon Water Resources Commission Meeting, Bandon. For info: Cindy Smith (OWRD), 503/ 986- 0876, website: www.wrd.state.or.us/commis- sion/index/shtml Copyright@ 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 15 CALENDAR (cwinued from previous page) August 10-11 Mnewables and Energy Efficiency Conference, S cattle, Renaissance Seattle Hotel. For info: Law Seminars Int'l, 800/ 854-8009, or website: vvww.lawseminars.com/ seminars/06RENUWA.php August 11 "New Directions for Oregon Water Quality" Seminar, Portland, World Trade Center. RE: Recent Legal & Regulatory Changes, Impacts on Operation & Development Activities. For info: The Seminar Group, 800/ 574-4852, email: registrar @ theseminargroup.net, or website: www.TheSeminarGroup.net September 6 Oregon Board of Forestry Meeting, Salem, ODF Headquarters, 2600 State St, Tillamook Rm, Bldg C, gam. For info: ODF Public Affairs, 503/945-7213 OREGON INSIDER 260 N. POLK STREET EUGENE, OREGON 97402 September 15 Property Transactions & Real Estate Development Conference, Portland, World Trade Center. For info: Holly Duncan, ELEC, 503/ 282- 5220 or email: hduncan@elecenter.com or website: www.elecenter.com Environmental News You Can Use... IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff er on. Name: SajAA~ Lno Mailing Address. 76.6-0k-s S-06 qq ffic &Y~ P2oa Pw-trD47 Phone sc-u i - cso -6 E-mail Address: S/0K_Sc("6PC0ePQ-r , ► ' Date: 124 d,6 Subject: ~l~ S ►w, d~, 1~a IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: wA~ Mailing Address: „5" TO 11 Ph ne #:o~ E-m it Address: Date: Sec. y 06 Subject: -D e IF YOU WISH TO TESS 'FY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: CAKeL. MA-/-6,C H )~L = Mailing Address: /l s-s Nw,~g<mow 36ivp , 1 A s- Phone ',?,f2_ E-mail Address: Date:. Subject: IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: ~J 7u[~~ Mailing Address: 1,?,3-~ 5 ~ Phone S41 E-mail Address: Date: fo~ Subject: T) -S I T 10 L~ caw GOCC Land Use Hearing Date: Monday, December 4, 2006 CDD File #:,rA-04-4 - Dest. Resort: Exhibit V IF YUU W155 it) i irY Please complete this card & turn it in t a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: Phone E-mail Address: Dater y o Subject: lkwrl- e~ IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Lk ailing Address: Z? 5kf Phone E-mail Address: <,t_4s7~ eg a a~ Date: > u b j ect: DvG4.:.. IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: ,ov /,4X zZ1s P e o~a7 E-mail Address: Date: /Z/,~o 6 Subject:- IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: No4cv Cz AU Mailing Addre s: 1S.SLA-) Colo-f o , f V +i Phone 0-1- $o E-mail Address: y\ io_e_ a Date: / Z - Subject:~- C'hc~ an v(f< IF YOU WISH TO TES IFY Please complete this card & rn it into a County staff person. Name. 1 s m LK4rs{ Mailing Address: ff. w Pp 1t.-p-6r 10h r- wA- y Phone .'"I l S "4.r E-mail Address: Date: t q%( o c ~kLN~ Subject: -V it 4 < IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in Coa Cou ty staff person. Name: Mailing Address: loo 7LIA Phone o~6S- E-mail Address: k<aa-&O, Date: 12 - 016 Subject: 117 YVU WlSh I U 11:51117Y Please complete, this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: PAUL 7FzvvEy Mailing Address: 153y IVW VIC VSGOQC, Phone I,(?- r g g s E-mail Address: ~aEW~Y~~.~dcabc~.< Date: Subject: D4.3-f *q 12 .,ae-f3 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff.person. N me:~ ~:z, b a 1,a-aV [ I Mailing Address: lqb-:K ,j&) Phone 3~s 3 E-mail Address: rr~ lJ~bc,~c~n.~ c y" Date: c , 44b Subject: '46&+S IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. N e: Mailing Address: S sus s- Phone ~ 3_ ? E-mail Address: X93 Date: Subject: . IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: r2kr- 'eAUC Mailing Address: Z►3c, PegcAi, , ► . 0tZ qg_=~ 01 Phone ,Z ti 1;~43b '64,60 E-mail Address: er;1c Date: L-~ Subject: p~tSl►'Ct4tL, c_~ r,►r C COAL IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it in to a County staff person. Name: , -Ul_ o /-m Mailing Address: ~j463A n"L 6% `7 7ZQ Phone 3 IA- 6g911 E-mail Address: y~- Date: o Subject: IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY Please complete this card & turn it i o a County staff person. Name: Mailing Address: VZa 41-)b l Phone 55n - I Gio<4 E-mail Address:,- cc1s1J. t_w~ail. Date: _20n, Subject: .--&mr, , r,*A ,Qnv~ Z: I 7 Z. S~ l ~'a~i, o