2008-945-Minutes for Meeting October 22,2008 Recorded 11/17/2008COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKOS CJ 2008.945
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1111712008 11;48;28 AM
(IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VIII
2008-945
Do 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
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ore
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 229 2008
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Anna
Johnson, Communications; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson,
Anthony Raguine, and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; and seven other
citizens, including Representative Gene Whisnant, Chris Telfer of the City of Bend
Council, and several representatives of the Sunriver Sewer District Board and
Sunriver Board of Directors, and media representative Hillary Borrud of The
Bulletin.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. Sunriver Sewer Utility - Continued Pursuit of Oregon Water Resources
Department Grant.
Tom Anderson explained that Oregon Water Resources did not recommend
funding for this project. Several meetings have taken place since then.
Gene Whisnant said he did not know there was a grant being submitted, but
since then he has provided a letter of support. He found out the grant went
away. During the last session over $1 million was authorized for this kind of
purpose, but there were nearly 40 applicants, so most of the applicants receiving
an award are getting about half of what they requested.
He requested a meeting with the County, DEQ and others, which was held in
Salem. Tom Anderson attended, and the south County groundwater issue and
the Sunriver Sewer system were discussed. The fact that this project will save
water got the attention of the group.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Page 1 of 7 Pages
He said there might be a grant available in the amount of $20,000, a $20,000
loan and $25,000 from COCIB (Central Oregon Community Investment
Board), along with whatever the County can grant or loan. There will be no
other meetings before summer. Mr. Whisnant suggested the Board offer a letter
of support.
Some of the concerns are options for reuse of sewage, how it will be treated per
DEQ, what areas can be sewered and at what cost, and various land use issues;
plus the public entity to be in charge of operating and maintaining the system.
The first thing is to find out if it is feasible. If it is, then there has to be a plan
and a way to address environmental issues. $60,000 will not go that far.
Laurie Craghead asked if they would cover the "no practicable alternatives"
issues. Mr. Whisnant said they would.
Commissioner Luke said that they have to use alternative energy if it is feasible.
Commissioner Baney stated she would like to see changes in the Oregon State
Police building project if it is not too late or too expensive.
Commissioner Daly asked what happens if support for the sewering is limited.
Ms. Craghead said that 15% of the people have to sign a petition. Dave Kanner
pointed out that they have to go through a Goal 1 exception process.
Commissioner Daly stated that no one would support it without the applicable
figures.
Chris Telfer said she wants to remain in the loop with Mr. Whisnant on what is
happening with this proposal. Mr. Whisnant stated that he wants the County to
take the lead.
Commissioner Luke pointed out that Sunriver Sewer District came to the Board
with the proposal and the application. If they need the County to take the lead
on getting a grant and putting the package together, okay; but not to ask the
County for the $160,000. The District has the expertise; the County does not do
sewers. The County will support this to the extent possible.
Mr. Whisnant said that the DEQ would not take anything from a private entity;
it has to be from government. He wants the County to keep him informed. He
stated that the grant was dead until he got involved. He didn't know anything
about it before and should have been in the loop from the beginning. He wants
to be involved if it is a State agency issue.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Baney said that she didn't think the intent was to use the entire
remaining grant funds for this process. There needs to be support from DEQ.
A $20,000 grant and a $20,000 loan are not much when the County is willing to
put in $60,000. There needs to be some partnering.
Mr. Whisnant stated that he wants out of this part, as he doesn't need to be
involved.
Mr. Anderson said that he will stay involved and will participate fully,
including if there is some kind of summit with DEQ and Oregon Economic
Development to identify and deal with a funding gap. He wants to see the
feasibility study happen, as it could set a benchmark or idea for everyone in
South Deschutes County what this kind of thing might cost. It will benefit the
entire area if it can be funded. There is about $480,000 remaining for the
various needs. The fund it not growing very fast due to the housing market.
From a staff perspective, he can take the lead and be a part of it. However, he
thinks that perhaps Mr. Whisnant would like to see the County push for sewers
in many areas of South County. That is a different kind of role that has not
been explored, and would take a whole lot more time and expertise. This is
something for the Board to decide.
Commissioner Baney stated that she sees this current idea as an isolated event
to see how it goes.
Mr. Whisnant said that the only reason he is not pushing for the whole thing
right now is that Sunriver has a time crunch and has to take action soon on their
own system. He did not want to show all the agencies what each might give,
but the numbers are now out.there. He would like the County to find out if
there is federal help.
Commissioner Baney stated that her greatest fear is that the cost burden will be
too high. She asked if there are other sources of funding available.
Commissioner Luke replied that if this study proves out, the federal money for
other areas might be enhanced. The County owns some lots that might become
more valuable later on that could be dedicated towards this.
Mr. Kanner said that Hood River County went through something similar. The
federal grants are mostly gone, but there might be loan programs.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Page 3 of 7 Pages
Mr. Whisnant stated that he would like another meeting held to discuss an
editorial in the Bulletin regarding tax credits. Commissioner Luke said they
have little control over what the Bulletin publishes. He received a notice that
the legislative committee would be meeting in the area, and asked
Representative Burley if there would be an opportunity to bring up the tax
credits then. However, DEQ brought up the issue instead.
He added that there is a pollution control tax credit program for dairy farms,
and he contacted DEQ to see if that could be expanded. At that time, it was
turned over to the PAC. He then learned that the Farm Bureau and DEQ did not
want to expand it.
Mr. Whisnant stated that he feels this should have been brought to him, as it
involves his district. He will either work with the Board or not.
Mr. Whisnant left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Kanner stated as the reviewing agency for Goal exceptions, the County
cannot take the lead on this project. Support can be offered, however.
Commissioner Baney said that she ran into Mr. Whisnant at another function
and floated the idea, but never reconnected. Sunriver had already approached
him about a letter. He missed the legislative committee meeting although he
would have been notified.
2. Other Items.
Laurie Craghead stated that Tetherow will be asking for an amendment to the
improvement agreement for overnight accommodations, in regard to the bond.
The original bond was for $16 million. They argue that changing market
conditions mean a different kind of accommodations are appropriate, reducing
the bond about half. The great room with sofa bed would be counted as a
lockout, so there would be more overnight lodging units in the same space.
Anthony Raguine added that; this follows Caldera's approval for a similar setup.
If there is a separate entrance, it is considered a lockout, and was counted as
units through the Hearings Officer's decision.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Page 4 of 7 Pages
Ms. Craghead said that the law is not specific; it just has to be a separate,
rentable unit. This would bring the number of units from 150 to 198. She
added that the provision that allows them to move overnight lodging from one
unit to another will be removed.
Mr. Raguine then reviewed the cost estimate that was provided through a
certified engineering company. Ms. Craghead said that the dollar amount is for
110% of the estimate. This is not a land use issue; it is financing. The Board
can ask the applicant questions but it is not a hearing. At the time, this
complied with State law.
Mr. Kanner said that at an LCDC meeting, the County briefly participated, but
there is concern that staff may have expressed opinions and not just facts in a
letter to LCDC regarding policy. Commissioners Luke and Daly said they were
surprised by Kevin Harrison's testimony, which they did not necessarily agree
with. Mr. Anderson stated that he is sorry it happened. He reviewed the draft
letter before it went to LCDC and did not recognize it as something that should
have been before the Board first. For the most part, it was technical comments.
Commissioner Daly said that LCDC wants to put the squeeze on destination
resorts but he feels things should be made easier for them as they provide a lot
of benefits to the area. Most of the comments from staff seemed to be that the
resorts are getting away with too much.
Mr. Harrison noted that they were invited to participate and say what is working
and what is not. They looked at areas where there are problems, and
recommended changes to barriers or issues.
Commissioner Baney said that she felt some items were more opinion than
policy. This is a big, sensitive issue in this area. CDD and the Board are
viewed as a team, and CDD's voice can be conveyed as the Board's voice.
Some issues are being addressed but not all of them yet.
Commissioner Luke pointed out that LCDC wants to move some things from
statute to administrative rule, and the letter says the County supports this. It is
not a good idea, as it does not allow for enough input. That is why it is in
statute now.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Page 5 of 7 Pages
Mr. Kanner noted that this type of thing has occasionally happened with other
departments that have interaction with the legislature and State. Care needs to
be taken so that those making comments are clear they are not representing the
County.
Before the Board was an Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h),
pending or threatened litigation.
After the executive session, the Board took the following action.
BANEY: Move to defend the decision regarding Thornburgh at the Court of
Appeals on the condition that Laurie Craghead make oral arguments
to defend, that Thornburgh's counsel write the brief for Ms.
Craghead's review and editing, and with Ms. Craghead submitting
the document to the Court of Appeals.
Further, that Thornburgh will pay for all of Ms. Craghead's costs,
time to review, discussions and updates, all travel expenses
including mileage, lodging, meals and related expenses, and the cost
of the original record being submitted to LUBA.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DALY: Yes
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Page 6 of 7 Pages
DATED this 22"d Day of October 2008 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
, ~ z J~ ~0 e' P -
De is R. Luke, Chair
Minutes of Administrative Work Session
Page 7 of 7 Pages
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tammy aney, Vi Chair
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2008
1. Sunriver Sewer Utility - Continued Pursuit of Oregon Water Resources
Department Grant
2. Other Items
Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened
litigation - Laurie Craghead
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherivise indicated.
Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
N
N
~
0
Y
S
~
° o
"
tj
J
0
cu
-
E
M
%
s
i
F
x
co
0
o
=
1
a
T
O
z,
a
rn
S
N
~
~2
:co
v
v
co
a
O
7z~
N
v
fo
1.
-:44
~.k
-L
T
3
_
2
C~
J
Q)
co
TES
[u~ 2~ Community Development Department
O 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. d esch utes. o r. us/ cdd/
October 15, 2008
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission
635 Capitol St. NE Suite 150
Salem, OR 97301-2540
SUBJECT: Destination Resorts
Dear Chairman VanLandingham and Commissioners:
Deschutes County implemented Goal 8 in 1992 by creating a map and set of regulations
consistent with ORS 197.435 through 197.467. Since that time five resorts have been
approved or expanded: Eagle Crest II and III, Pronghorn, Tetherow, Caldera Springs and
Thornburgh. Eagle Crest is almost built out, Pronghorn is less than 50 percent built out,
Caldera Springs and Tetherow are in early stages of development and Thornburg is still in the
initial approval process. Generally speaking, we think the Goal 8 process works, in that it allows
for successful siting of destination resorts. However, based on our experience, some areas of
state law are problematic to implement and some gaps in the law allow resorts to be sited where
they may not meet the intent of the law with respect to self-contained vacation destinations
versus large rural, subdivisions. This letter is an outline of the issues we have identified with
state destination resort regulations along with suggested changes.
ISSUES/SUGGESTIONS
Language regulating destination resorts is contained in state statute. Therefore, the
legislature needs to amend the resort regulations every time a change is needed. This
makes it difficult to efficiently and effectively make changes to the regulations.
* Deschutes County supports LCDC's legislative concept to move implementing
regulations from statute to administrative rule.
2. Mapping
a. ORS197.455(1)(a) states resorts cannot locate within 24 air miles of a UGB with a
population of 100,000. There are currently no cities in central Oregon that reach that
threshold so resorts are not limited by this provision. However, we do have resorts that
are located immediately adjacent to one city (Tetherow) and one urban unincorporated
community (Caldera Springs). These resorts look more like extensions of those
communities than stand-alone destination resorts. If this is contrary to the intent of state
law, then additional restrictions on siting near cities and urban unincorporated
communities (UUC's) is in order.
b. Tetherow resort is located immediately adjacent to the city limits of Bend and advertises
as being three roundabouts from downtown Bend. The resort utilizes city water and
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Deschutes County Comments on Destination Resort Statute - 10-15-08
sewer services and has an agreement with Bend for annexation. It is bisected by two
collector roads that are integral to the circulation of the Bend Urban area. It is difficult not
to see this resort as an exclusive neighborhood of Bend.
c. Caldera Springs is located immediately adjacent to the boundary of the Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community and utilizes water and sewer from that community. Owners
of properties in Caldera Springs have the right to use facilities in Sunriver, and
conversely. It is for all intents and purposes an addition to the Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community. By allowing resorts close to smaller cities and
unincorporated communities the basic goal of resorts as rural destinations (ORS
197.440) is compromised.
* If the intent of the law is to ensure that resorts are truly stand-alone, self-contained
destinations for visitors, then there should be some minimum distance between them
and cities and UUC's. It might also be desirable to more closely define "destination
resorts" so that it is clearer what is, and is not, a resort.
d. ORS 197.455(2) defines when a destination resort map may be amended. It simply says
"The county shall develop a process for collecting and processing concurrently all map
amendments made within a 30-month planning period." No direction is provided on what
kind of a process should be used. Deschutes County has found this language
problematic to implement because of the lack of specificity in the statute and the
enormity of the mapping exercise.
* Provide assistance to jurisdictions attempting to implement ORS 197.455(2) by either
adopting administrative rules, providing a model ordinance or writing a primer.
3. Regulations
a. ORS 197.435(5) allows individually owned residential dwellings to count as overnight
units, if they are available a defined number of weeks per year. Deschutes County has
found this has raised two concerns.
i. There is no way to effectively track those units over time. To ensure that the units are
meeting the availability requirements (ORS 197.435(5)), a county must obtain an annual
report from the resort or from a homeowners association. These entities can be required
to track the use of the units, but they rely on individual owners reporting. The information
received may or may not be reliable. Even with a deed restriction, unless someone
reports non-compliance for a unit, it is not possible for a county to verify compliance for a
large number of units. Tracking those units through room taxes is also not effective due
to privacy issues.
i. Resorts are using lock=off rooms to achieve the required overnight units. Both Tetherow
and Caldera Springs are counting living rooms with a fold down bed and attached bath
as a separate unit. It is not clear that these lock-off units will be rented separately so
while they may meet the letter of the law, they may not meet the intent of the law.
* Delete reporting requirements at ORS 197.445(9) to reflect actual practice.
Alternatively, amend definition of "overnight lodgings" to delete individually owned units.
* With respect to lock-off units, if these are not consistent with state law, then amend
definition of "overnight accommodations" to limit their use.
4. There is nothing in statute to address transportation impacts. Trip generation for destination
resorts is not defined in the ITE manual which makes it challenging for local governments to
get agreement with resort developers on traffic impacts and mitigations. Overall regional
transportation impacts are hard to assess. Resorts in Crook County are located so that
traffic impacts Redmond and Deschutes County roads. Likewise, the resorts being proposed
pg 2
Deschutes County Comments on Destination Resort Statute - 10-15-08
in Jefferson County will impact Sisters and Deschutes County and the resort being proposed
in Klamath County will impact La Pine and Deschutes County. Yet there is nothing in statute
to uniformly calculate and address the cross-jurisdictional transportation impacts.
* Create a formula for calculating traffic impacts by requiring a traffic study that meets ITE
standards for preparing the study and that includes a report that contributes to a resort data
base. The report should include a TPR-type finding for resort approvals, looking at a 20-
year time period and assessing worst case scenarios based on uses permitted outright in
the current zone versus those permitted outright in the resort. Mitigation should be required
based on this analysis.
5. There is no limit on the size of resorts (i.e. individually owned homes). Thornburgh proposes
950 homes (plus overnight units), which is close to the sizes of La Pine and Sisters. Eagle
Crest is even larger, at 1,256 reported home sites, plus overnight units. In other words, we
are seeing resorts that are larger than some of our local cities.
* Set some upper limits on the size (i.e., number of individually owned homes) of resorts.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these issues and have included copies of two
case studies, the initial approvals for Tetherow and Caldera Springs, for you benefit. We would
be happy to participate in any working group formed to look more closely at these issues;
please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this matter.
Sincerely,
DESC UTES, C NTY PLANNING DIVISION
K vin Harrison, Acting Planning Director
KMH:THP:sIr
ATTACHMENTS
Conceptual Master Plan for Tetherow
Conceptual Master Plan for Caldera Springs
cc:
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
Dave Kanner, County Administrator
Tom Anderson, Community Development Director
pg 3