Loading...
2008-949-Minutes for Meeting February 20,2008 Recorded 11/17/2008COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS Y~1 ~~~~-949 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11117120$ 11;50;50 AM 2008-040 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., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2007 Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Terri Payne and Catherine Morrow, Community Development Department; media representative Keith Chu of The Bulletin; and ten other citizens. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss issues relating to upcoming deliberations and a decision regarding File No. TA-04-4, a Proposed Code Text Amendment to Update Title 18 in regard to Destination Resort Zoning. Chair Daly opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Terri Payne gave an overview of the schedule for the Board's decision, and of the questions detailed in her staff report. Issue #I results in little controversy, would comply with statute and is proposed by the applicant. Issue #2 is out of statute but is not proposed by the applicant. Issue #3 results in little controversy, is proposed by staff, recommended by the Planning Commission, and was added to statute in 2003. The current requirement is reporting the status of the individually owned units that are counted as overnight units. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Tuesday, February 20, 2007 Page 1 of 4 Pages Issue #4 is proposed by the applicant. There would be a lower number of weeks. The controversy arises regarding lowering the rental pool. Current County Code is more restrictive than statute. This would allow the individual owners to use the property more often. Commissioner Daly stated that if it is available for rent, obviously the person doesn't live there and would want to rent it out as much as possible. Ms. Payne said that this is not mandated by the State, but the industry is lobbying for this change. Statute is 38 weeks; the County could try to keep it at 45. Issue #5 requires overnight lodging to be rented out by the resort or a property manager. This was changed for Eastern Oregon only. The County is more restrictive at this time than statute. It is harder to track the individual owners. Laurie Craghead stated that she recently found out that a couple of lawyers have maintained that requiring a centralized management system violates SEC law. Issue #6 relates to phasing. The applicant is okay with the amendment, but the Planning Commission in 2004 recommended taking out bonding. Staff feels that State law requires this. This was an issue with Caldera Springs; and is in appeal at Thornburgh. Staff feels it should be more restrictive for the first fifty units. Phasing is optional, except for the first fifty. Ms. Craghead said that State law doesn't allow for bonding the first fifty; it was found to be more restrictive than building. Commissioner Luke stated that under this proposal, they can't sell any residential lots, condos or time shares until the first fifty are built. If they get twenty-five built they can't sell any, and it could be difficult to build the rest. Bonding is important. They should have to put up a bond for the first fifty. If there is no financial incentive, they can't get a return on their money for a long time. It would be hard for someone to take over the process. He would like to see a bond in place to finish the work. Ms. Craghead said that a bond ties up a lot more money for a longer period of time. Current Code requires a bond up front for everything. Commissioner Daly said that he is confused as to why they would want this change, since it makes it harder on them. Ms. Craghead replied that it allows them to just do fifty and phase in the rest. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Tuesday, February 20, 2007 Page 2 of 4 Pages Commissioner Baney asked how long they would have to complete the work. Ms. Craghead indicated they would have a year for findings, and up to three years to begin building. They could build the second fifty within five years and the rest within ten. After bonding they have four years to build. Commissioner Daly said that in his opinion the market goes up and down, and he doesn't think the County should be overly restrictive. He wants them to succeed. Issue #7 has to do only with Eastern Oregon. The change in ratio would be from 2:1 to 2.5:1. There was a legal issue when this was written. The applicants stated that this doesn't say what was really meant. It conflicts with Goal 8, which retains the 2:1 ratio overall. There are legal issues as to whether this can be done. They copied the language in 1993 and it does not match. There were concerns about western Oregon being too residential. It was not a big issue at the time in Eastern Oregon. There has not been any movement in the legislature to clarify this. LCDC is aware of the inconsistency but doesn't get to policy decisions. Commissioner Luke said that he is okay with Issues #1, 2, 3 and 4. He thought perhaps Issue #5 could be clarified, and perhaps the reporting form could be changed. Commissioners Baney and Daly agreed. Catherine Morrow said that regarding #4, the Planning Commission recommended the 45 weeks to make it more resort-like. Commissioner Luke stated that people have to have an incentive to buy. It is definitely in the best interest of the County for them to realize the full potential of the property. Commissioner Daly added that they should be allowed to succeed, and the County should not create obstacles. Commissioner Daly said that the only one he is concerned about is #6. Ms. Craghead stated that it is okay as written but language needs to be added to clarify. Commissioner Luke said that it is important to deal with one set of rules. There needs to be consistency so staff and the applicants know what to do. Land use law was supposed to create some assurances. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Tuesday, February 20, 2007 Page 3 of 4 Pages Ms. Morrow stated that statute reads, before you can sell, you have to build the first fifty units. Statute does not allow bonding. You could say they have to comply with statute. Commissioner Luke noted that Pronghorn would not have been built otherwise. The ratio remains the same throughout. If no action is taken on #6 and #7, #6 functions. This could be revisited later. Ms. Morrow said that for workload purposes, they would appreciate a decision on all of the issues. They can wait for the legislature to make a change and then it can be revisited. Commissioner Baney stated she wants to make a decision on #7. She is concerned that there isn't enough information on #6. No option seems to be a good fit. Bonding but not building is a concern. There needs to be something that benefits the community but also the developer. Ms. Morrow said that she will ask staff to find ways to answer the concerns through conditions of approval. She will come back with suggested motions and clarified language. Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m. DATED this 20th Day of 007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: 3h4 )544 Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Tuesday, February 20, 2007 Page 4 of 4 Pages (A)57~~ Tamm aney, C missioner T t , .X A Community Development Department Planning tlivision Building Safety Div lion Environmental Health Division 117 14w Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1754 STAFF MEMO http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cd+d/ To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Terri Hansen Payne, Associate Planner Date: February 5, 2007 Subject: Text Amendment TA-04-4 Deliberation 1. TA 04-4 At a work session on January 29, 2007 the Board requested a brief summary of the decision points for TA-04-4, a proposed amendment to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18 regarding destination resort zoning. The following list summarizes the main ideas that are being proposed and provides possible motions. II. List of Decision Points Issue 1 Proposal Increase the required resort investment from $4 million in adjusted 1984 dollars to $7 million in adjusted 1993 dollars Support Proposed by Applicant, recommended by Planning Commission, Staff Impact This would increase the required resort investment by approximately $2 million dollars Motion 1 Amend DCC 18.04.030 and 18.113.060(A)(3) and (4) to increase the required resort investment as proposed (would bring County Code into compliance with Statute) Motion 2 Do not amend County Code regarding the required resort investment (would leave Count Code less restrictive than Statute) Decision Issue 2 Proposal Add language requiring a conservation easement for specified Goal 5 resources located at destination resorts Support Proposed by Staff, recommended by Planning Commission Impact This would protect specified resources already identified in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, such as wetlands or historic resources. Motion 1 Amend County Code by adding a new section 18.113.120 to require conservation easements (would bring County Code into compliance with Statute) Motion 2 Do not amend County Code to add a requirement for conservation easements would leave Count Code less restrictive than statute Decision Quality Services Performed with Pride ~JF Decision Points for TA-04-4 Issue 3 Proposal Add a requirement for an annual report on resort accommodations Support Proposed by Staff, recommended by Planning Commission Impact This would require resorts to report annually on the status of the required 150 overnight lodging units, the ratio between individually-owned residential and overnight lodging units and for all individually-owned units counted as overnight units the number of weeks they were available for rent. Motion 1 Amend County Code 18.113.070(U) to add language to require an annual accommodation report as required by Statute (would bring County Code into compliance with Statute) Motion 2 Do not amend County Code to add a requirement for an annual accommodation report would leave County Code less restrictive than statute) Decision I Issue 4 Proposal Modify the definition of overnight lodging units to lower the number of weeks that individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging are required to be available for rent from 45 weeks/ ear to 38 weeks/ ear Support Proposed by Applicant, recommended by Staff, opposed by Planning Commission Impact This would loosen the requirements for overnight lodging units Motion 1 Amend County Code 18.04.030 and 18.113.060(D)(2) and 18.113.070(U) and 18.113.090(J) to lower the number of weeks individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging are available for rent (permitted by Statute, but not required) Motion 2 Do not amend County Code to lower the number of weeks individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging are available for rent (would retain current county code which is more restrictive than Statute Decision Issue 5 Proposal Modify the definition of overnight lodging units to allow individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging to be rented by a property manager as well as the resort Support Proposed by Applicant, recommended by Staff, opposed by Planning Commission Impact This would loosen the requirements for overnight lodging units Motion 1 Amend County Code 18.04.030 and 18.113.060(D)(2) and 18.113.070(U) and 18.113.090(J) to allow individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging to be rented by a property manager as well as the resort (permitted by statute, but not required, although giving them the option may be better from the SEC regulation standpoint) Motion 2 Do not amend County Code to allow individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging to be rented by a property manager as well as the resort (would retain current count code which is more restrictive than Statute Decision 2-5-07 Page 2 Decision Points for TA-04-4 Issue 6 Proposal Allow phasing of the required 150 overnight lodging units over a maximum of 14 ears Support Proposed by Applicant, recommended by Staff with amendment, opposed by Planning Commission Impact Current County Code does not allow phasing of the required 150 units. TA-04-4 allows, but not require, the phasing of those units. If phased, as proposed by the applicant, the first 50 units would be required to be built or bonded before any individual units or lots are sold. Statute does not allow bonding so staff recommends bonding for the first 50 units be removed. The second 50 units would be built or bonded within 5 years of the initial lot sales and the final 50 would be built or bonded within 10 years of the initial lot or unit sales. If the last 100 units are bonded, they need to be built within 4 years of bonding Motion 1 Amend County Code 18.04.030 and 18.113.060(A)(1) and (5) to permit phasing as proposed by Applicant (would be more lenient than Statute) Motion 2 Amend County Code 18.04.030 and 18.113.060(A)(1) and (5) to permit phasing as proposed by Staff (permitted by Statute, but not required) Motion 3 Do not amend County Code to allow phasing of the 150 overnight lodging units (would possibly be more restrictive than Statute, legal question as to whether we need to require the first 50 units to be built Decision Issue 7 Proposal Support Impact Motion 1 Motion 2 Decision Change the ratio between individually-owned residential units and overnight lodging units from 2:1 to 2.5:1 Nroposed by Applicant, Opposed by Planning Commission, Staff This would allow more residential development in destination resorts. Amend 18.04.030 and 18.113.050(A)(21) and 18.113.060(D)(2) and 18.113.070(U) To change the ratio between individually-owned residential and overnight lodging from 2:1 to 2.5:1 (legally questionable, would not be more lenient than Statute, but would be more lenient than Goal 8) Do not amend existing code regarding destination resort ratios (would allow the legislature to fix the code before the County makes an changes) III. Ordinance Once the Board has voted on each decision point, Staff will create an ordinance reflecting the Board's decisions 2-5-07 Page 3 CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH 1 539 NW VICKSBURG AVE BEND, OR 97701 PHONE: (541) 317-1993 FAX: (541) 383-3470 rotecting Central Oregon's natural environment nd working for sustainable communities. December 7, 2006 Board of County Commissioners Planning Commissioners Deschutes County c/o Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Re: Follow-up testimony on recently proposed changes to destination resort code. Dear Commissioners: I'm writing to follow up on testimony presented at the Monday December 4th hearing on destination resorts to re-emphasize and clarify a few points and to raise several new points. In summary: • There is a high degree of uncertainty and severe lack of data regarding the net impacts of destination resorts and of the requested changes to county code. That uncertainty raises very real questions about the appropriateness of approving more resorts or loosening their guidelines any further. • The county is facing a significant shortfall in funding for roads. Destination reports add tot hat problem. The county should be exploring mechanisms to address this. • There is no legal mandate to pass the entirety of the developers' request. In fact, adopting the 2.5:1 ratio across the board is illegal as it is in violation of Goal 8. • An assessment of the cumulative impacts of destination resorts can only occur in a legislative context such as this one. Assertions that potentially negative impacts should have no bearing on this decision and only be considered during the land use application process are inappropriate. Uncertainty Over Net Impacts The primary argument against approving the developers' requests is the as-of-yet un-quantified impacts that such a rule change would have. This argument was made by pretty much everyone who spoke in opposition to the rule change at the December 41h hearing, and with good reason. It's clear that there is still quite a bit of confusion in regards to the impacts of the proposed rule-change, and in fact, in regards to destination resorts in general. The data and analysis upon which a confident assessment and understanding must rely upon simply do not exist. Many county commissioners and planning commissioners asked a number of pertinent questions about a variety of impacts - fiscal, environmental, and social - but at this point, few, if any, of those questions have been answered. The resort developers claim to have, and in some cases have brought forth to the county, limited data intended to illustrate that their projects have minimal negative impacts. Yet, the quality of that data has not been evaluated, nor have they made available to the public and subjected to public scrutiny. CO NT. Beyond the "fiscal" costs are the harder to measure, but no less important, impacts to the rural communities and environment due to the proliferation of these intensive developments. The combination of impacts from Measure 37 developments and destination resorts needs to be addressed. Why is an understanding of impacts important? It's quite clear that the primary justification for destination resorts has been and continues to be the perception of a net-positive fiscal impact on the county budget. That assumes that each resort brings the county enough revenue to more than offset the cost of the services it requires. Although resort advocates present impressive revenue numbers, they have failed to present any convincing fiscal analysis that justifies their claims that these revenues far outweigh the costs. At this point, many of us are left to ponder whether the perceived fiscal advantage is real. Without a thorough analysis, it's impossible to say. Pam Hardy, I believe, put it quite well during her testimony to say that she was not objecting to the concept of destination resorts, which if built as originally intended, in the right place, at the right time, and at an appropriate number, may indeed provide a valuable shot in the arm for struggling rural economies. Her objection, as is the case with many of us who voiced our own objections, is that the nature of the resorts has been allowed to drift so far from their original intent that it's questionable whether or not they even achieve their purpose anymore. Resort advocates have been arguing that their overnight accommodations do not provide them with sufficient incentive to justify their construction. Yet overnight lodging was the focal-piece of the destination resort concept when it was originally drawn up and the regulations governing resorts codified. The inescapable conclusion here is that there is no longer a market for true destination resorts in Central Oregon, only for expansive single-family subdivisions. The proposed rule changes now before you would allow resorts to diverge yet further from what was originally intended. It's difficult to see how this is justified. Shortfall in Funding for Roads It's also quite apparent that the county is facing a funding crisis in regards to roads. Although Commissioner Luke pointed out that the moratorium the county imposed upon itself earlier this year applied only to subdivision-like streets and not major arterials and collectors, it nonetheless helps illustrate the point that the county is struggling to find money for projects it has been able to take on in the past. Planning Commissioner Cyrus pointed out that the roads department, with whom he's worked closely is doing a great job and able to accomplish a long list of objectives. That this is true is of little doubt. But pointing out that roads is under- funded is not a slight against the roads department. It's a statement of truth and in fact a call for more money to perform critical work. Attached is an article printed in the December 6th edition of the Bulletin about the loss of $2.8 million in timber-related funds from the federal government. That's a huge hit for Deschutes County. It will be necessary to find additional mechanisms for addressing the hole that this will create. Commissioner Luke also pointed out that the SDC mechanism may not possess the broad power that some people have assumed to fix all the county's road headaches. Yet it's disappointing not to have seen any consideration of this option or something equivalent to it that can help the county deal with the very real impacts of destination resorts. We are not alone in believing that it's time for the county to have a creative discussion about how future county development will pay for itself and how the county plans on addressing the growing shortfall in funding. Such a discussion is bound to occur sooner than later, and leaving destination resorts out of the mix would be, from our perspective, a premature dismissal of a valuable financial opportunity; There is no dispute that resorts have impacts on county roads. It is reasonable that they be asked to pay for them. During my oral testimony I referenced the City of Redmond's complaints in regards to the impacts of nearby destination resorts. True, the comments I referenced referred primarily to resorts in Crook County - and those are obviously out of Deschutes County's jurisdiction. Yet, this complaint serves to illustrate at least two points: a) Destination resorts in neighboring counties have very real fiscal impacts on our cities, and on *WROW CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH 1589 NW VICKSBURG AVE. BEND, OR 97701 PHONE (541) 817-1998 FAX (541) 888-8470 CONT. Deschutes County's already under-funded road program, and b) generally speaking, resorts located near cities, whether over county lines or not, have fiscal impacts on those cities and have not been required to provide any remedy for problems they cause. Redmond's Director of Public Works, Chris Doty, in the Bulletin article attached to my original testimony was talking as much about cumulative impacts as he was of resort proposals just in Crook County. (see his attached letter) The approved but as-of-yet unbuilt Thornburgh resort will have a similar impact on the City of Redmond, as would pretty much any resort near any city. How does this relate to the decision at hand? I said it during my original testimony and I'll say it again - destination resorts, as advertised, are supposed to help counties - and their cities - not hurt them. Approving this rule change, not only without addressing impacts but also, and just as importantly, without ensuring adequate remedies for the costs incurred on the county and its cities would be fiscally and socially inappropriate. Given the substantial profits resorts are reaping, this does not seem like an undue hardship on them. Rather, it seems like a quite reasonable and logical cost of doing business. No Mandate To Grant Developers Requests I want to re-iterate that despite the assertions of the resorts, there is absolutely no legal mandate to pass the entirety of their request. Your own legal counsel made that abundantly clear. In fact, to adopt the 2.5:1 ratio across the board is illegal as it is in violation of Goal 8. There are only two elements of the proposed rule- change that the county has any obligation to pass, and neither includes changing the ratio of residential units to overnight units from 2:1 to 2.5:1. Cumulative Impacts Should Be Addressed During the Legislative Process Lastly, I want to strongly contest a point that Ms. Craven made during her closing remarks. Her point was that a legislative process is not the time to consider impacts. Ms. Craven asserted that the appropriate place to consider impacts is in the land use review process. While it's true that the land use review process is an appropriate - and absolutely necessary place - to scrutinize impacts of a particular development, what is needed here is an assessment of cumulative impacts that can occur only in a legislative context. We all know that projects often get approved to the limit that the law allows. Regulations are set during legislative processes expressly for the purpose of balancing the rights of the developers to profit with the government's duty to protect the well-being of the community and the rights of individual citizens and neighbors. Concluding Remarks From our perspective, proceeding without further analysis comes with a great risk, one that impacts the county's budget, the entire community, and the surrounding environment. Central Oregon LandWatch is interested in responsible growth. In this case, we believe it's not appropriate to loosen rules for resort development unless the proposed changes can be properly justified, and until state law is clarified. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Sincerely, Erik Kancler Executive Director CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH 1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE. BEND, OR 97701 PHONE (541) 317-1993 FAX (541) 383-3470 4~ D~Nd 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 RampNew 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, ris Doty, PE Director of Public Works City of Redmond 875 SE Veterans Way Redmond, OR 97756 chrisdAci.redmond.or.us PH: 541.504.2001 FX.• 541.548.0253 Area sees last timber payment Subsidy program that helps pay for schools, roads to end By James Sinks / The Bulletin Published: December 06. 2006 5:00AM PST SALEM - The final check will arrive in the next few weeks, but the hand-wringing has begun in Oregon's forested counties and across much of the West. The expiration date came and went in September for a six-year federal timber subsidy program known as the Secure Rural School and Community Self-Determination Act, passed in 2000, that replaced timber receipts that once helped to pay for schools and roads in 754 counties nationwide. Now, anxious state and county officials - facing the prospect of balancing their future budgets without millions from the U.S. Treasury - are mounting a last-ditch effort in the final days of the lame duck Congress to extend the payments, even for just another year. "People don't understand the devastation that will happen," said Laura Pryor, the longtime Gilliam County judge and the chair of the Eastern Oregon Rural Alliance. A coalition of counties and school districts have lobbied unsuccessfully since early 2005 to convince Congress to renew the $500-million-a-year program for another six years. Oregon counties, schools and forest projects have been the biggest winners under the program - collecting roughly $276 million annually or 55 percent of the total nationally - because the checks were pegged to timber harvests from federal lands in the boom years of the late 1980s. Of that sum, about $34 million a year flows into the State School Fund, and is divvied up among all of Oregon's 198 public school districts. Oregon's U.S. senators and U.S. House members sent a letter Monday to congressional leaders, saying that elimination of the program would cause "economic and social damage." "Please do not allow this law to expire with the 109th Congress," the letter said. "Please keep faith with the 100-year-old promise made to our forest-dependent rural schools and communities." Of Oregon's 36 counties, 32 receive money under the program. But the impact varies, based on the historical timber harvests in federal forests nearby. Dating back to 1908, the federal government sent counties 25 percent of the proceeds from economic activity on federal lands - a trade-off because the public lands were removed from property tax rolls. Gil Riddell, a lobbyist at the Association of Oregon Counties, said some counties may be forced to consider bankruptcy if efforts to renew the program are unsuccessful. According to data at the association, Grant and Douglas counties will see a budget loss of 68 percent if the federal subsidies end. In Central Oregon, Crook County would lose $2.4 million or 28 percent of its road and general fund budgets. Deschutes County would lose $2.8 million, which pencils out to 9.7 percent; and Jefferson County would lose $521,551, or 8.5 percent. "We are not in as bad a shape as some counties like Jackson and Douglas, but a $3 million hit to our road fund is quite a bit," said Des-chutes County Commissioner Dennis Luke. The county did not expect the federal money to last forever, so did not use the dollars for programs that would need money in perpetuity, he said. "We did the most with it while we had it," Luke said. "Rep. (Greg) Walden was pretty straight with us that it was going to be difficult to get it reauthorized, although you can always hope." Riddell said he does not expect good news out of the 2006 Congress, but he sees positive signs with the impending change in control at the Capitol thanks to the Democratic Party's success at the polls in November. Five of Oregon's federal officeholders are Democrats and will gain clout with the shift, he said. "The Oregon delegation will be moving up," he said. "Sen. (Ron) Wyden will be a chair of a resources subcommittee, so frankly it's not terribly bad news." The Bush administration has cautioned counties about relying too heavily on the money. In a synopsis written for Oregon counties, Riddell referenced a speech by U.S. Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who said the program was not intended to be a permanent entitlement; that "safety net" payments since the early 1990s have lasted longer than peak harvesting years in the affected counties; and that the payments are not "equitably distributed" among states. Curry County on the southwest Oregon Coast, which could lose 62 percent of its budget, has few places to turn for help, said County Commissioner Maryln Schafer. Officials are staging town halls - including one tonight in Gold Beach - to explain how dire the situation is and get suggestions, she said. The county has relied on the dollars first as the timber industry went into the toilet because of harvest restrictions on the Siuslaw National Forest. Now, the local fishing industry is suffering through a shutdown of the Pacific salmon season. "Our county is owned 74 percent by the federal government, so those lands don't pay taxes," she said. In addition, the county has a low property tax rate of 59 cents per $1,000 of assessed value and can't raise it because of Measure 50, passed by voters in 1997, Schafer said. To generate sufficient property taxes to replace the $3.6 million that will be lost from the budget, the county would need 35,000 new homes assessed at $350,000 each. Today, Curry County has a total of 11,000 homes with an average assessed value of about $225,000, she said. She said the word from Capitol Hill is that Congress won't revive the federal payments until the formula is rewritten to reduce Oregon's share of the money. That would be a mistake, Schafer said. "Those who say Oregon gets too much money," she said, "don't have a clue how much of our state is owned by the federal government." James Sinks can be reached at 503-566-2839 or at jsinks@bendbuiletin. corn Page 1 of 1 Bonnie Baker From: Kimry Jelen [kmry@kimryjelen.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:20 PM To: Mike Daly; Dennis Luke; Bev Clarno; Board Subject: TA-04-4 Response to public hearing on Dec 4th 2006 Kimry Jelen, 64682 Cook Ave #35, Bend OR 97701 541-330-6142 Dear Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission, Regarding TA-04-4, it alarms me that attorneys for Eagle Crest, Pronghorn and Sunriver Resorts have once again requested that Deschutes County change the criteria for Destination Resorts increasing the number of full time residences and decreasing the number of required overnight tourist accommodations which will be a decrease in overnight room taxes that fund our sheriff's services and an increase on our already stressed roads, safety services, resources and wildlife. This is not acceptable. Deschutes County should not allow developers to manipulate the intention that the Destination Resorts benefit the County through added recreation and tourism revenue. This change would increase the drive to build rural gated suburbs. I do not want to see our rural lands manipulated into massive suburbs outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries, this will wreck the whole reason there is tourism here in the first place. It is short sighted, greedy and unproductive - if these changes are allowed. Don't let greed and opportunism drive the overdevelopment of our rural lands at the expense of our rural communities. What has already been allowed is pitiful and short sighted. There are better ways to go about developing such a unique place. Please address these issues: The need for more information on the current impacts of existing resorts before a decision is made to allow expansions. The impact of increased traffic to existing communities, from Prineville to Redmond, Tumalo and Bend Water impacts in all of these areas. The demand on our rivers and the aquifer. Affordable housing for resort staff has not been resolved. The County should provide data on current overnight lodging revenues. There is a lack of current accountability of overnight lodging. How and when will this change? If allowed, the County should receive compensation for impacts on roads, protective services and natural resources. Tax payers should not be hoofing the bill for the needs of a development they do not even want. What are overnight accommodations? Can they be lockouts with 2 front doors on a large private home or a hotel? Is there credibility to the developer's economic arguments? Can these new homes actually pay for the increased demands on public services? Have we fully assessed the impacts of M37 and other rural development? Have the existing resorts even met the current criteria under Goal 8? Have they provided 50% open space? Is the County able to monitor and hold these resorts to the criteria that they have been permitted under? If there is a difficulty in meeting the requirements, why are we allowing more to be built? They should not be able to get by with calling these developments something they are not and get special allowances the rest of us have to pay for literally and in safety and the quality of life. Many questions must be raised and answered before we release these resorts to building high density suburban developments at the expense of community resources. Please be responsible. Do not allow more development when there is no infrastructure to support it. It never pays off to cater to greed and opportunism in the long run, it just creates waste. Thank you for doing your best to do what is right. 12/15/2006 Bonnie Baker From: susan strauss [wise-strauss@bendnet.com] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:25 AM To: Mike Daly; Dennis Luke; Bev Clarno; Board Subject: comment on destination resorts Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, I understand that there is a proposal to change the status defining development of destination resorts. In short, this proposal will allow suburban development all over rural lands and not bring the tax benefits to our community of "resort" visitors. This feels like a slap in the face to those of us who have paid extra in taxes and in gas for living in rural areas. We consider this proposal: 1. Unjust with regard to tax structure. 2. A problem with the traffic and use of water there developments will bring without proper tax compensation. 3. A blight on the rural landscape with "instant towns" going up without town or city governance. We are opposed to any change in the current definition of destination resorts. Thank you, Susan Strauss and Ted Wise 1 Page 1 of 2 Bonnie Baker From: Mike Daly Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:14 AM To: 'kathyd; dennis_luke@col.deschutes.or.us; bevc@deschutes.or.us; Board Cc: kimry@kimryjelen.com Subject: RE: Destination Resort Decision Frank, I have read your comments. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 541-388-6569 Cell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 From: kathyd [mailto:kathy@kathydeggendorfer.com] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:20 AM To: Mike Daly; dennis_luke@col.deschutes.or.us; bevc@deschutes.or.us; Board Cc: kimry@kimryjelen.com Subject: Destination Resort Decision To the Board of County Commissioners and the Deschutes County Planning Commission: Are you really listening to your constituents? Is your public really demanding more and more destination resort development? Are the conditions that you've put on existing development being met or are they being circumvented? Will you be proud of your legacy on the Commission? Have you really made decisions for the betterment of the county or only for a select few? Your decisions today will affect the quality of life in Deschutes County in perpetuity. You know the routine already of the affects of large destination resorts and their impact on the surrounding residences and rural lifestyles. There is no need to reiterate those impacts. However, by continuing to allow destination resorts and, in fact, make it easier for them to proliferate, I find it totally out of character from those of you I personally know on the Commissions. Rather than piecemeal your approach to destination resorts why not start with the remapping of lands within Deschutes County for destination resorts. Why not enforce those conditions that you have already placed on development and not reduce of eliminate them. Why not solicit information from your county residents and listen to their responses and act professionally and equitably in your decision making. Thank you in advance for your time. However, from experience I know that few of you will read this prior to your decision making. 12/15/2006 Page 2 of 2 ueggendorfer Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself....George Bernard Shaw 12/15/2006 1December 6, 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, I am writing to urge you to 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. I would like to encourage you to adopt at least the following changes in Title 18 recommended by DCCDD staff in their Dec. 4, 2006 memorandum to you. 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. Adoption of DCCDD staffs recommendation to preserve the 2:1 ratio of residential homes to overnight lodgings, and requiring 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. In addition, please address the lack of data regarding economic impact of Destination Resorts. 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. Currently, the amount of traffic on Cline Falls road makes my daily commute to work difficult and dangerous. The increased traffic from the Thornburg Resort will make getting to work nearly impossible. If you continue to exacerbate this problem by increasing the number of residential homes in the Destination Resorts on Cline Falls road, the Tumalo area will become unlivable. Si c rely, 0~-vh ren Lillebo T malo residen December 7, 2006 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St Bend, OR 97701 Commisioners: As 12 year residents of the Tumalo area, my wife and I are naturally concerned about the expansion of destination resorts in Central Oregon. I do not like the idea of the imposition of resorts on our rural existence. We live near Rock Springs Ranch and they are good neighbors and fit with the area. Anything different will not be appropriate. As a weekly golfer, I think that we do NOT need more courses. It is easy to get on the courses we have now, and they are rarely crowded. Plus, the out of town golf crowd only shows up about 2 to 3 months a year. Other than July and August, they are pretty much gone. As a former owner of a manufacturing business in Bend with about 40 employees, I see resorts as a non productive resource (other than property taxes). Our employees easily earned what might be termed a "family wage" and were provided with full health benefits. And they were contributing members of the community. This is not true of resort developments. Before more Destination Resorts are approved in Deschutes County, I ask you to carefully consider our county's priorities for the fixture. There is certainly no rush to approve them. Sincerely, Tim Andersen V ~ 18697 Kuhlman Road Bend, Oregon 97701 Wednesday, December 06, 2006 Deschutes County Commissioners and Planning Commissioners Deschutes County, Oregon Re: amendment TA-04-4 Dear Commissioners, I write in opposition to the proposed amendment for a host of reasons. First, is there factual evidence that each and every one of the "destination resorts" is in compliance with and respectful of all of the current rules and regulations? It is highly unlikely that they are! Step one is a requirement that the CFO certifies and submit factual evidence that they are in compliance this and every year with all the in place regulations, with appropriate civil penalty for non-compliance. Similarly the CEO shall sign off on the accuracy of the submitted documents with appropriate criminal penalty applying for failure. Have the room taxes and other taxes been paid fully and in a timely fashion, is 50% of the land "open space", can some of these "mega-homes" actually be freely rented for overnight stays, etc.? Step two is a process for determining the environmental impact of these proposed changes. Step three is an explanation of replacement income sources derived from those who benefit to replace those lost by this change. Recall that destination resorts are intended to attract transient guests to generate tourists' revenues for the support of many important elements of the Central Oregon infrastructure. How will the applicants replace the lost revenue as well as the exposure of the area to tourists? The proposed change is driven by a clear intent and motive to move the "destination resort" toward a gated walled private enclave reminiscent of parts of Arizona and the Southern California desert which is contrary to the culture of Central Oregon and the best interests of its citizens, not to mention of questionable long term fiscal stability. Please do the necessary homework and complete the critical documentation before even considering such a drastic change in the way we live or do business here in Deschutes County. JV;~Bu'tyler,o Ys, D. 15005 Plainview Road Bend, OR 97701 December 6, 2006 To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners and Planning Committee From: Suzi P. Lewis 18243 Rock Springs Court Bend, Oregon 97701 Subject: Destination Resort Planning in Tumalo I ask you to please use caution and care in your decisions related to land use planning in Tumalo. Please consider this piece of land between Bend and Sisters that has an identity all its' own. I care very much about this special community. (I have lived and worked there since 1984). Tumalo has characteristics that are similar to other outlying communities but unique to Central Oregon. It is a place of trees, river, bluffs, and irrigated farms, where people work hard on their land. While their various occupations of farming, ranching, and horse-related businesses contribute to the local economy, the emotional attachment these people have to Tumalo motivate them to also plan for long-term stewardship. I ask that your efforts compliment theirs. Your attention will most certainly be rewarded in a more sound infrastructure, a solid community of local people that support the place they live, and a much safer community in terms of driving on Highway 20, Cline Falls Road, and the Bend-Redmond Highway. Yours truly, Suzi P. Lewis When will it stop? When will the Californication of Central Oregon stop? When will the greed of a few to the detriment of the many be stopped? If WE, the silent majority who are suffering through `poverty with a view' because of the unreal, unnatural wealth coming in from over blown real estate values in California and Western Washington - if we wanted the clutter and confusion of city life just to earn more money we would move to these places that people are leaving in droves. Not only do we not need any more destination resorts in Central or Eastern Oregon we should seriously look at limiting the amount of growth to a controllable level. We won't let the greedy lawyers and land developers run over us as if we weren't even here. Just because we don't have large amounts of money doesn't mean we don't have a say in what happens to our homes. How many people who have fought for our freedom were/are rich? It is the grass roots that sustains this country and the grass roots who is going to fight the rich "overlords" of real estate. Store, Stop. Stop the rave of Central Oregon. Let sensible, reasonable and sane choices be the rule - not the dollar signs. Sincerely Rich Baessler@msn.com 18255 Tumalo Reservoir Road Bend, Oregon 97701 L-jo-D 6. 2- 2 Destination Resort Zoning Public Hearing Dec 4, continued until Dec 7 Submission for Evidence from Elizabeth Van Horn, County resident Dear Planning Commissioners and Commissioners, I write against the proposed increasing of residential housing within current and proposed destination resorts rations from 2 residences: 1 overnight housing, to 2.5 residences: 1 overnight housing unit. I was present at the Dec. 4 meeting and noted areas of concern that exist in Tumalo where I reside. The Fire Protection Measure was voted down in Nov. 06, yet the county will have a greater number of homes to protect, as Thornburgh and Eagle crest are county responsibilities. Wild life and rural homes will be endangered with more homes built and not enough fire protection funds available for them at public expense. 2. A count of traffic by the Tumalo Community Association member, Paul Motta, was videoed and entered as evidence at the state level to show that Cline Falls Road has upwards of 600 cars per hour going through the village of Tumalo right now. This is where children are dropped off for preschool, children cross for school access, and local residents rely on two convenience stores for groceries. Crossing Cook Road is very dangerous right now to pedestrians with Hap Taylor's huge commercial truck going through the village. Hap Taylor intends to bring all its facilities and trucks to Tumalo in the near future. This area will be further impacted by more residences in Eagle Crest and Thornburgh. 3. The impact of Measure 37, which may add residential housing in rural areas, needs to be known before we make increases to destination resorts "rural housing" developments. I do not know how many more properties will be developed into housing that will add traffic to the already failed intersection Hwy 20 and Cook Rd. and traffic in Tumalo village. I ask the county to wait until the impact of Measure 37 is known. 4. Increasing residential homes in Thornburgh and Eagle Crest according to ODOT testimony given last spring at a meeting I attended, stated that 10 - 12 trips are generated from residences as compared to 3 trips a day from overnight accommodations. Any further increase of residences in the destination resorts in the Tumalo area will increase the danger to the village pedestrians. 5. Destination resorts decided to build with the current ration of 2 residences to 1 overnight housing unit. The Sun River manager noted that they are only 40% full of overnight guests as Bend is overbuilt. There for their request is to become a rural development, and not a destination resort as planned. 6. Please look at the POSSIBLE destination resort acreage that is available in the county, and know that allowing any change in the current ratio would have an enormous future impact is and when these other sites develop as well. Rather than racing for an increase in destination resort permanent residences, let's participate in the Big Look statewide and rezone if we must the not so fertile agricultural land in Central Oregon. Let's do it so that the developers pay a fair share of the road improvements and maintenance as well as enough fire protection in the county so we will be safe. Please keep the current ratios to prevent rural housing developments occurring under the guise of "resort" . Yours truly, V~ Elizab Zan Horn 20325 Sturgeon Road, Bend, OR 97701 r , ~an~ts. Matta 64682 Cook Avenue, #67 ♦ Bend OR 97701 Home Phone 541-322-6982 ♦ Email janet@motta.net December 07, 2006 To the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission: IN RE: PROPOSED DESTINATION RESORTS HOUSING CRITERIA I would like to enter my thoughts for the record on the upcoming proposed change to destination resorts concerning the rental to housing ratio. I am very much against the change, and want to state my reasons why. As a homeowner living in downtown Tumalo, the main street Cook Avenue handles all the traffic for the current resort Eagle Crest, and will also handle the construction traffic for other proposed destination resorts nearby. This street is already maxed out and is extremely dangerous to cross. My husband and I worked for six months to lower the speed limit on Cook Avenue so residents and local school children from the Tumalo Elementary could safely cross the street. Even with the lowered limit of 25, many cars go speeding by and few actually stop at the crosswalks to let us cross. There are not enough funds available for a higher Sheriff presence to enforce the limits, and with the change to the destination resorts, even more Sheriffs funds will be lost due to the smaller transient rental taxes that will be collected due to this change. Not only can the downtown not handle any more increased traffic from these proposed resorts and the larger number of full-time residents that will be traveling these roads, but the developers do not care about improving the surrounding infrastructure. This is an outrageous set of circumstances. In California, for example, developers of housing and/or resorts are required to contribute money to roads and bridges to help the surrounding infrastructure. This system here is absurd and archaic, and is ruining the quality of life for people in this area. The question I have is just how many people taking part in this decision actually will have their homes affected by this resort change or the added destination resorts? I am guessing no one. (2) And finally, I believe that the "Destination Resorts" designation is just a legal loophole for developers to put in more housing that otherwise could not be put in and not be held accountable to improving the surrounding infrastructure and towns. Oh, I heard there was a $600 penalty if they did not comply. Whoopie. If they only had to put in one rental unit for their entire development, I am sure they would be thrilled. And I am sure the County is still thrilled because they still collect all the huge property taxes every year off the expensive golf course homes. The benefit of collecting the rental tax those that will even be reported is very insignificant compared to the property tax dollars brought in by the houses. So I don't think local government here cares if there are any rentals either in these so called resorts or a much lower percentage of rentals to be put in over 50 years or some ridiculous figure. I am sure the fix is already in on this, but I will add my voice to the cadre of outraged citizens. Gretchen Valido 19681 Ridgewood Drive Bend, OR 97701 gbvalido@yahoo.com December 7, 2006 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Deschutes County Planning Commissioners Bend, OR 97701 Re: TA-04-4 Ladies and Gentlemen: I oppose the proposed change to the ratio of permanent homes to overnight lodging from 2.0:1 to 2.5:1. The original purpose of legislation establishing Destination Resort zones was to encourage tourism to benefit local economies, particularly in Central and Eastern Oregon. It was not to establish permanent private housing garrisons whose impacts on county infrastructure are undocumented and unknown. From testimony at the hearing on December 4, it is clear that we are approaching saturation of overnight accommodations-the developers voiced their plight that they are successful only 4 months of the year-which should put the county governing bodies on notice to put on the brakes with regard to approving further projects. Abandoned, ghost destination resorts would be a blight to the entire county and some would see it as an opportunity to convert such projects to dense permanent housing. I oppose the proposed change to number of weeks overnight lodging must be available from 45 weeks to 38. Reducing the number of weeks would encourage more permanent residents. I oppose the proposed change to the central reservation system. Decentralizing this will make it much more difficult to audit lodging for transient room tax and to gather data on impacts to county infrastructure and services. These resorts must be held accountable to meet their reporting obligations. Surely this proposed change to the reservation system would encourage spotty submission of transient room tax and thus represent a loss of significant revenue to the county. I support the notion of permanently deeding the 50% open space required as part of county approval of destination resorts. The impacts of destination resorts on our infrastructure, finite water supply (desert climate), public services, fire districts and sheriff services are unknown. Traffic is already causing consternation in the off-season. The citizens have a right to know that our County Planning Commissioners and County Commissioners are being vigilant, responsible, and accountable to them, and that they take extreme care to protect the significant resources that draw people to this area. Therefore I encourage you to slow down, do the necessary due diligence, and provide a transparent process for the citizens to observe how decisions are being made. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Deschutes County Planning Commissioners December 7, 2006 Page Two In that regard, I request that ALL Planning Commission and County Commission meetings be publicly noticed with full agendas at least two weeks prior. It is unconscionable that we citizens must pour through work session documents to determine what and when agenda items of interest will be heard. Please respond to this request to me in writing or by email to inform me of your policy. Sincerely, F~14 V G then Valido December 7, 2006 Deschutes County Commissioners Board Hearing Room 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Or 97701 Denise Jacqueline Newbold 19615 Tumalo Rim Ct. Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Mike Daly, Dennis Luke and Bev Clarno: I am writing to you about the amendment to TA-04-4 making it easier for developers to build and create destination resorts. Please vote no to their request to increase the number of full time residences and decrease the number of required overnight tourist accommodations. This is no longer a destination resort. It will but a strain on our roads and schools an infrastructure. People are flocking to Central Oregon because of the natural beauty and the easy way of life. Well now we have traffic jams, increase crime, crowded schools and we are losing the quality of life that draws people here. I have 2 teenage girls that attend Redmond High School and they say the halls are so crowded during passing time that the can barely make it to their classes on time. Please slow down and preserve what we have now! Sincerely, Denise Jacqueline Newbold Artist December 7, 2006 David Newbold 19615 Tumalo Rim Ct. Bend, Oregon 97701 Deschutes County Planning Commission Board Hearing Room 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Or 97701 To whom it may concern: I am writing to you about the amendment to TA-04-4 making it easier for developers to build and create destination resorts. Please vote Qo to their request to increase the number of full time residences and decrease the number of required overnight tourist accommodations. What is being defined is longer a destination resort. It will put a strain on our roads and schools an infrastructure. The intent of this twenty+ year-old law was for economic development. Twenty years ago it could be justified. Now, in this time of rampant growth, it's an excuse for getting around the land-use laws for housing developments. We are losing our quality of life. Please slow down and preserve what we have now! Si cerely, avid Newbold Bend Research, Chemical Engineer December 6, 2006 Deschutes County Commissioners Deschutes County Planning Commission Re: TA-04-4 This letter is in opposition of the TA-04-4 amendment to the existing Deschutes County requirements for destination resorts. I attended the public hearing on December 4 h, but did not speak out at the time. However, I am writing to ask that you not let greed drive the over development of our rural lands at the expense of our precious rural communities. There are SO many reasons why you should not approve this amendment: increased traffic, water impacts, affordable housing, just to name a few. In addition, there are SO many unanswered questions on the overnight lodging accountability at the present time. The ball is rolling on these destination resorts and it is disturbing to think that decisions may be made prematurely. The developers are once again requesting that Deschutes County change the criteria for destination resorts. The only benefit for the change is in favor of the developers. Is the county even able to monitor and hold these resorts to the criteria that they have been permitted? What is the definition of and criteria for overnight accommodations anyway? Are "lock outs" (aka mother-in-law suite) in large homes considered overnight accommodations? I hope to hell not. Without a doubt, the developers are making rural subdivisions without consideration for the rural communities. Please do not be manipulated to accept and promote gated suburbs in rural communities. Kindly; f~ farm ('Banion) C y From: Kimry Jelen, 64682 Cook Ave #35, Bend OR 97701 541-330-6142 { Y 1-7 'p To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission, Regarding TA-04-4, it alarms me that attorneys for Eagle Crest, Pronghorn and Sunriver Resorts have once again requested that Deschutes County change the criteria for Destination Resorts increasing the number of full time residences and decreasing the number of required overnight tourist accommodations which will be a decrease in overnight room taxes that fund our sheriff's services and an increase on our already stressed roads, safety services, resources and wildlife. This is not acceptable. Deschutes County should not allow developers to manipulate the intention that the Destination Resorts benefit the County through added recreation and tourism revenue. This change would increase the drive to build rural gated suburbs. I do not want to see our rural lands manipulated into massive suburbs outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries, this will wreck the whole reason there is tourism here in the first place. It is short sighted, greedy and unproductive - if these changes are allowed. Don't let greed and opportunism drive the overdevelopment of our rural lands at the expense of our rural communities. What has already been allowed is pitiful and short sighted. There are better ways to go about developing such a unique place. Please address these issues: • The need for more information on the current impacts of existing resorts before a decision is made to allow expansions. • The impact of increased traffic to existing communities, from Prineville to Redmond, Tumalo and Bend • Water impacts in all of these areas. The demand on our rivers and the aquifer. • Affordable housing for resort staff has not been resolved. • The County should provide data on current overnight lodging revenues. • There is a lack of current accountability of overnight lodging. How and when will this change? • If allowed, the County should receive compensation for impacts on roads, protective services and natural resources. Tax payers should not be hoofing the bill for the needs of a development they do not even want. • What are overnight accommodations? Can they be lockouts with 2 front doors on a large private home or a hotel? • Is there credibility to the developer's economic arguments? Can these new homes actually pay for the increased demands on public services? • Have we fully assessed the impacts of M37 and other rural development? • Have the existing resorts even met the current criteria under Goal 8? Have they provided 50% open space? • Is the County able to monitor and hold these resorts to the criteria that they have been permitted under? • If there is a difficulty in meeting the requirements, why are we allowing more to be built? They should not be able to get by with calling these developments something they are not and get special allowances the rest of us have to pay for literally and in safety and the quality of life. Many questions must be raised and answered before we release these resorts to building high density suburban developments at the expense of community resources. Please be responsible. Do not allow more development when there is no infrastructure to support it. It never pays off to cater to greed and opportunism in the long run, it just creates waste. Thank you for doing your best to do what is right. December 6, 2006 Deschutes County Commissioners and bounty Planning Commission RE: TA-04-4 Dear commissioners: I write in opposition to the proposed rule change stated above. Why should they be granted a variance from the current rules appertaining to destination resorts? Who will it benefit? The general public or only the financial interests of the developers? How does it enhance or even comply with current standards in place? Will anyone but the developers profit from this? Why would you change what has been in place for the protection of natural resources and general livability to benefit the interests solely for developers out to make their fortunes at the expense of a jewel in Central Oregon to those who are not even residents? How will already overcrowded schools, increasingly crowded and deteriorating roadways, water resources, and air quality be handled? This is in your hands for the fate of this Central Oregon cherished resource and home to an increasing number of people seeking what is special here. I hope that you will be able to consider the ramifications of the changes proposed for future generations, including your own children, with your name on it. Please decide your place in history and how you effect livability in Central Oregon. ~-Yours truly, )121 4)" ~'A ctt~ Linda K. Butler 18005 Plainview Road Bend, OR 97701 541-312-2741 64682 Cook Ave., #67 Bend, OR 97701 December 7, 2006 Deschutes County Commissioners Deschutes County Planning Commission 1300 Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 RE: Proposed Amendment to Deschutes County Zoning Code Title 18, Destination Resort Criteria TA-04-4 To the County Commissioners and Planning Commission: Though I already spoke at the Board of Commissioners meeting on Monday, December 4 regarding the proposed increase to the density in the ratio of residential housing to overnight lodging from 2: 1 to 2.5:1, 1 wish to put my thoughts in writing for the record. As I have stated, I urge you to deny the recent request by developers to change the Destination Resort criteria to allow an increase in the ratio of residential housing to overnight lodging from 2: 1 to 2.5:1. My wife and I live on the main thoroughfare that links Highway 20 with the destination resorts, specifically Eagle Crest and the other proposed destination resorts like Thornburgh. This passageway incorporates both Cook Avenue and Cline Falls Road. Many residences, businesses, a school and now a daycare center exist along this corridor. For months the citizens along the route petitioned for a decrease in the speed limit because of the increased traffic and safety problems associated with this traffic. The proposed decrease was finally granted, but this will only be a bandaid on an otherwise major problem developing as more destination resorts are built in the area between Highway 20 and Highway 97 north of the City of Bend. What I find incredible is that the Board of Commissioners is even considering an increase in residential housing density when road improvements have not been made to accommodate the increase in traffic that exists today. According to reports presented at the hearing on Monday night, residences generate an average of 10 driving trips versus three trips for overnight lodging guests. Granted, some of the trips may be to the City of Redmond via Highway 126, but, as any traffic engineer can attest to and even the citizens here north of Bend, most of the resort traffic travels south toward Bend and the attractions and amenities the Bend area offers. The County claims it has no money to make road improvements. ODOT says the same thing. Has the County demanded any monetary contributions from the destination resorts for improvements to the roadways and the environment to help with the costs associated with building the communities that are labeled "destination resorts." Most of the residents are catching on. The County really doesn't care about the density of housing in these destination resorts because residences will provide much more tax revenue - guaranteed annually than overnight lodging ever will. However, that tax money doesn't end up making improvements to the infrastructure that is affected by the density increase. The County is only playing "catch-up" now, and decisions seem to be made based on reaction to the pressures rather than on data collected (if any) and environmental consideration. Respectfully, Paul Motta Resident of Tumalo, Bend, Deschutes County r • s Deschutes County Commissioners Deschutes County Planning Commission 1300 Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 December 6, 2006 RE: Proposed Amendment to Deschutes County Zoning Code Title 18, Destination Resort Criteria TA-04-4 Dear Commissioners, I urge you to deny the recent request by developers to change the Destination Resort criteria to allow an increase in the ratio of residential housing to overnight lodging from 2: 1 to 2.5:1. An increase by 25% in permanent housing will only benefit the developers and not the County and its citizens. Those of us that reside in rural Deschutes County object to the explosive growth of suburban communities outside of the Urban Growth Boundary under the ruse of creating resorts that cater to the to industry. Aggressive development seeks to exploit the real estate market by creating ,high density housing that surrounds golf courses. These developments are not in the public interest. They place a burden on our resources and public lands. They place the public at risk by putting additional traffic on our streets and intersections that are already failing. They create a high demand for water when we are actively trying to manage and conserve this resource. Have the existing resorts even met the current criteria under Goal 8? Have they provided 50% open space? Have they been held accountable to the criteria that they have been permitted under? It seems that there is currently no actual documentation concerning revenues collected by existing resorts for overnight housing. How are we to know if the existing resorts are actually creating the financial benefits to the county that they agreed to? How are we to know if the benefits to the community that were anticipated have actually taken place? I ask that the County follow up on the existing resorts and collect data that defines and clarifies the benefits, as well as the detriments, that these resorts have created. We cannot rely on the optimistic and speculative economic projections provided by the developer's attorneys and lobbyist. I am concerned with the use of so called "lockouts", rooms that are a part of a permanent resident that can be rented by the homeowner independently and calculated as part of the overnight housing ratio. These can be used as a marketing ploy to sell permanent houses that have the "benefit" to the owner of also qualifying as an income property. These lockouts defy the intention of overnight housing and invite abuse of the County's tax system. Until there is a clear method of defining what constitutes overnight lodging and how the rental market is managed Deschutes County will not be able to collect the revenues that are the intention of the Destination Resort zoning. Until we have fully assessed the impacts of M37 on rural development we should not increase the density of the destination resort criteria. I am both a resident and small business owner in Tumalo. I beseech you to consider the impacts of increased housing density on our community and how it affects the safety of our roads, the children on our congested streets and the businesses in our town. Don't let greed and opportunism drive the overdevelopment of our rural lands at the expense of our rural communities. Thank you, Marianne Fellner 64688 Cook Ave Bend, OR 97701