The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-123-Minutes for Meeting January 20,2010 Recorded 3/1/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS ~J 20~~,+23 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK ~I COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 03/01/2010 02;02;52 PM 11[111 111111111111111111111 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 at the request of [give reason] previously recorded in Book_ or as Fee Number to correct 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 PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2010 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Peter Gutowsky and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; a representative of KOHD TV, and approximately thirty other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 6: 00 p. m. Continuation of a Public Hearing, and Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2010-002, regarding Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures. Peter Gutowsky explained that he received eleven correspondences since the meeting recessed this morning around noon. He then read the names into the record. Liz Fancher said that she is representing her clients, Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC. They support the provisions developed by the Planning Commission. Overall, they support the County significantly reducing the amount of land available for destination resort development, with significant requirements to do so. There is a reasonable process for remapping as set by the legislature. When Bend reaches 100,000, there will be no ability to add destination resorts in most of the County. They support the ability to combine tax lots to make them available for destination resort siting. Her client has a parcel over 160 acres in size, and a neighboring property might be available as well; a larger parcel better fits the goals of the destination resort process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 1 of 13 Pages Lyn Mattei said there are many issues that are important and is glad the Board is continuing the process for a while. She opposes the Planning Commission's recommendations; she thought it would be helpful to highlight some things the Planning Commission said at meetings. At the November 5, 2009 meeting, a matrix was received and Commissioner Cyrus almost immediately said they should start over and go from there. Commissioner Brown agreed. Community Development staff person Terri Payne asked about dumping the public comments from the past year. Mr. Brown said to start with what is required. The public's comments were not taken seriously, and many people oppose expanding destination resorts. This is a hugely expanded set of requirements. Also at that meeting, Mr. Brown suggested that the Planning Commission vote on the matrix to keep it out unless they voted it in. At that point, Ed Chriss said to stop, that notice was needed and they needed to stick with the issues. Ms. Mattei did not hear of the matrix being spoken of again. On November 19, 2009, she read into the record information from two articles, whether the resorts cater to residents or tourists. And the history of the resorts, Eagle Crest, who paid W&H Pacific to do the mapping. The only thing excluded were areas that don't comply with State law. It was haphazard and done too quickly, without much thought. The two ways to determine whether they are beneficial are room taxes and property taxes, and even this is unclear. Commissioner Baney said that the comprehensive plan seems to be applicant driven rather than driven by need. It could take years to come up with a new map doing what has been done in the past. Existing destination resorts should have two years to get established rather than having new ones come in to compete. Bringing in all the properties sets up a County Measure 37 type of situation which would invite litigation against the County. Jean Harkin of Tumalo stated that there are too many destination resorts, and too many eggs in one basket. Many are next to urban areas. The State is requiring the cities to develop internally while destination resorts are being built. People move here because there are not a lot of people, and now it is hard to keep up with the number of people and tourists here. Wiser planning is needed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 2 of 13 Pages Paul Haggerty said he will have written testimony to be submitted later. He is glad this issue is going back to the Planning Commission. It is important to protect owners' rights as well. When you buy property and think you can do something with it, and then can be told you can no longer can do the same thing, it is not right. Deschutes County itself is a destination resort. People love to come here. We should make it as good as possible, so that the infrastructure can handle it. People will want to come and will protect it. For the future, there needs to be a map that is set right so there can still be more destination resorts that bring all kinds of jobs to the area. Construction, entry level positions and those that support the economy, and people paying taxes to help run things. That is how he feels feel about it. Nunzie Gould said she is a member of the Juniper Chapter of the Sierra Club and concurs with their previously submitted testimony. She introduced a survey of the Upper Deschutes River from the USGS, showing sandy loam soils, and a map that shows where these soils are located in the County. (She referred to an oversized map) She said that State law prohibits this soil from being included in destination resort mapping. Soils 65A are included in the proposed Thornburgh resort. This remapping makes no difference; there are 112,000 acres mapped so far. It is time to correct the situation. It is not appropriate to grandfather in lands that are not appropriate by State law. Annexing lands into existing resorts and adding lands to the map are not appropriate. The remapping process and criteria should be streamlined with definitive dates, not left open ended. She requested that the record remain open after the Planning Commission reconvenes. It is difficult to make meaningful comments when the language is continually morphing. The Planning Commission has had months to do its outreach, but they are not satisfied with it. There are a lot of public dollars being wasted in this process if the document is going to be changed so much. Commissioner Baney said that the Planning Commission had two absences and one abstention at their last meeting, and they want the entire group to be able to weigh in. Ms. Gould said that they had dialogue and rationalization even after the hearings. This should have been done in the public venue. She has been asking for six years for transparency and full disclosure, and due diligence. This is for the long-term health and welfare of the community. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 3 of 13 Pages Chair Luke said that all meetings are recorded and posted, and available for the public. Eva Eagle of Sisters said that the Board will hear about owners' rights, but they need to be modified and amended for the public good. If she had permission to do something and then could not, she hopes the Board could take action to think of the overall public good. She said the original map and rules developed by the Planning Department should take precedence over what the Planning Commission has done. It aligns with the proposed Comprehensive Plan, but the Planning Commission seems to be sabotaging the work that has been done by grandfathering in some properties. A lot of citizens are tired of the Planning Commission voting profit over the needs of the citizens. Chair Luke said that personal attacks are not allowed during testimony, and to please stick to the issues. Ms. Eagle said that when the destination resorts are built, there are impacts that are not addressed, and the area suffers. The water aquifer is being drained, wildlife resources are damaged, and when there are too many resorts, they have land speculation that goes bad. There is a lot of magical thinking on the part of those who build the resorts, but it is clear that isn't working. They need to be regulated and in the right place, through a good ordinance and a good map. A well-founded resort map is important. If properties are grandfathered and some are combined, this takes the County backwards. The future should have a diversified economy, not based on the construction or resort industry. (She said she sent her statement via e-mail already.) Merry Ann Moore of Sisters and on behalf of the Sierra Club said she appreciates the time spent on this issue. She said that whether this results in true and meaningful change, the proposed map does not meet objectives - where resorts can be built, and clear mapping criteria. As presented, it would not remove those that don't fit the criteria. This will not be clear and objective. The County Administrator has asked how someone can be eligible if their lands don't comply with State statutes. This does not reflect the majority views of the citizens, either. The public has been speaking out loudly but has not been heard by the Planning Commission. In regard to the summary that staff put out in 2008 and 2009, the overall consensus is that no one understands the impacts of resorts, or can properly oversee them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 4 of 13 Pages Public input has not been heard. Comments made in November said that there are resorts closer than five miles from UGB. There should be a moratorium on new resorts, and the resort map should be repealed. Big resorts are a failed experiment. There needs to be an economic analysis, and other things need to be considered. The grandfather clause is bad public policy, they remain even though they don't qualify. The majority of the public don't support adding new lands. In regard to the theoretical impact of Measures 37 and 49 on the County - the State feels this is an unsettled part of law, and the results are not known but it is unlikely they would be a problem. There have been no claims under Measure 49 that were not tied to a Measure 37 claim. Most have been negated and there is little risk to the County. The cost of resorts to the taxpayers are unknown but high. This includes public hearings, processing, settling disputes between neighbors, fees, court time, citizen energy and time. The net economic value of new resorts is not known. The resort mapping process does not include impacts to wildlife. Her final recommendation is that fish, wildlife and landscapes are the biggest economic generator. Chair Luke said the reason for the grandfathering part has nothing to do with Measures 37 or 49. Down-zoning is a taking. He believes that these Measures passed because of this, taking property without compensation. He is a firm believer in land use law, but does not believe that taking people's use of their property without permission or compensation is right. He knows there won't be any more Measure 37 or 49 claims. He sat through a lot of hearings when people lost the use of their property, and these laws have injured a lot of people. She said she respects that view, but some people buy land thinking that a resort won't be built next to them. If State regulations say it is not allowed but it is done anyway, it injures them. Chair Luke stated that he thinks that very few people will be able to meet the very stringent requirements if their property is grandfathered. She said she submitted an e-mail with her testimony previously. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 5 of 13 Pages David Stowe said his family has been in the State for generations. His life is deeply intertwined with the land. There is a long history of meaning. He moved back to Bend from San Diego after 25 years, and sees that pristine places have been destroyed by development. Many are closed to public access now. He spent a lot of time this past year in places where he used to go. He has visited but didn't have time to really look closely. He has been increasingly shocked. In some ways the land is being protected but in other ways is being destroyed. The deer have declined to about half. In some places it is much lower. Some species no longer live here. Pronghorn used to live here but they are gone. Sage grouse are in steep decline. The bottom line is that there is a tremendous amount of pressure from increasing population. Fish and Wildlife reports show that wildlife is declining. The last boom has taken a toll on the land, resulting in an economic bust. Bend has been in this cycle for years. He has been a builder and farmer, and he is sympathetic, but this leaves the area with an unsustainable economy. The economic model needs to change from real estate to a more diverse economy. People need a reason to stay. He feels that destination resorts are another real estate model for a few developers to make a lot of money. They do not benefit the local economy. Some people don't talk about it, but that is how they feel. They are in mourning for the town they grew up in. There are 30 or more golf courses within an hour of Bend, and these don't benefit local citizens. Robb Reavilt talked about the economic impacts in Oregon. Who will fill the new resort jobs? Are there real living wages? How much is transient or seasonal? How much is really spent in neighboring towns? Unemployment would be greater if more resorts were built. Homeowners bail out when it gets rough. The same greed that enveloped Wall Street exists. They need to look at the far future and not short-term supposed benefits. The prognosis is a shortage of food and water. Small farms are being established and there is a good market for their products. This should be encouraged. Water should be used for this and not golf courses. This means the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Black Butte Ranch and Sunriver are red herrings. The number of destination resorts has reached the limit. If any, there should be smaller ones without golf courses. The Commission and the County should turn a deaf ear for those wanting to make quick bucks. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 6 of 13 Pages Sandy Lonsdale said that he already provided a document dated January 19. He has commented often on this issue. He has learned more about the process and the overlay map issues. He has not been to all of the Planning Commission meetings but may add to his comments. Older resorts like Black Butte Ranch and Sunriver are different from Thornburgh and others. They are here for the same reason and are all providing impacts. A new destination resort overlay map should clearly show which lands are eligible based on existing criteria and State law. New criteria is being contemplated, like forest lands if they meet other criteria, and grandfathering in lands that don't meet existing criteria. They have been misled into thinking that those not eligible would be removed and new lands would be added. Why attempt to reclassify lands for use as resorts? Most do not meet State and local standards and should be taken out. He wants to know more about the grandfathering issue. The Board should reject the Planning Commission recommendations so they can do what the public was told they would do. There are many resorts in the application process yet to come, so why consider it now. A moratorium for five years is needed to learn if they are even necessary. A new economic analysis from Central Oregon Landwatch has come out, and states clearly that Thornburgh is a $46 million mistake, and the County is broke already, unemployment and foreclosures are high, so why consider more. Remington Ranch is another. Pronghorn is almost a ghost town. They were a bad idea to begin with. Business plans and compliance are important. Bend Research has been here for years and pays well. The are needs more businesses like those. Chair Luke said that Pronghorn met with the environmental community and made some deals, and then brought their application to the County There was not a lot of opposition. Duncan Brown said he entered his testimony at the last Planning Commission meeting. The reason for the memo is that the issues listed there are still valid. The Planning Commission has not addressed the deficiencies of the remapping process. The projects should be tabled or terminated. There are two major outstanding issues. They need to take a step back. There is no definition of destination resort in the County. The State has one that needs to be incorporated. They define it as a self-contained development providing visitor oriented amenities. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 7 of 13 Pages The area has natural amenities. There was no discussion at the Planning Commission regarding high natural amenities. These must be identified and the mapping reflect those amenities. The County must address this. The lack of a definition makes mapping impossible. Under goal 8 recreation, findings, do not show how the mapping complies. There are vague reference to economic reasons, but does not show that the mapped lands support this. The word recreation is not contained in the entire findings. There is an uncoordinated series of responses without any regard to high natural amentias as required by Goal 8. It is a mapping project that has no defined product. He recommends that mapping be tabled or include just those that are already there or under review until it is known how they meet Goal 8, and how they meet the description of destination resorts. Deschutes and Crook counties alone have four developed, six approved or developing, and one proposed resort which is under review. All but Black Butte Ranch are within 20 miles of Bend. This represents over 2500 overnight units. This housing reservoir should be more than sufficient for many years. In the interim, the County could develop a clear and concise definition of destination resorts. Erik Kancler, the Executive Director of Central Oregon Landwatch, submitted a study into the record. He said that some take issue with the study, but no other quantitative study has been introduced. The work remains the most thorough study to date. This morning, Commissioner Luke made a comment about good planning. Mr. Brown agrees that doing this now without association to a project or application makes sense. The proposal will clarify and give order to the process. Good planning is also based on a fundamental understanding of what is being planned. What little data is available has cast serious doubts on the benefits of destination resorts. With all due respect, more information is needed and a more robust dialogue is needed. Some weeks ago the County asked about a fiscal impact study, but he does not know if this was required. It might have been tabled due to cost considerations. The County is spending a lot already. It is arguable that the tax rolls are enormous, but this does not address the concerns of the citizens. Goal 8 destination resorts don't address the needs of constituents. Since the report was produced, property values have plummeted and permanent occupancy is on the rise. Some day this impact study might be considered overly optimistic. Take time while things are slow and shrink the map. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 8 of 13 Pages There is no need to add lands. This needs to be studied. There are no words to say what is at stake. The public would like to see a responsible response. A grandfather clause is not good. They should retain agricultural protections that are in place. The language regarding transportation will be discussed with staff. Steve Munson of Tumalo said he has been involved in the land use process for about five years, including Thornburgh. He has commented on mapping process from the beginning. He would like to see the Board consider the possibility of a process where an applicant would pay fees and use approved consultants with no ties to developers, much in the way that the BLM and USFS does, to pay approved service providers. He is opposed to the planning process, thought it would eliminate lands that don't comply to statute. There is no benefit for grandfathering. No new lands should be added; the resort base is large enough or too large. Bankruptcies and lawsuits abound. They need the Planning Commission to plan. They don't need the approach that was voiced by the Planning Commission early on in this process. It is a down time in the real estate market, not a good time to remap and add new properties and grandfather. They need the public's account into the vision making process. They need to create a vision as to what the County should be many years from now. The Planning Commission should honor the desires of 80% or more citizens who want this. They are not being heard. He really thinks the County could pull together on a vision that can be agreed upon. Not everyone will agree. He would rather they spend time trying to get someplace instead of fighting others. He offered a fee process suggestion and would like to see the Board help figure out the future together. Sue Bastian of Tumalo said they don't need ay more resorts. They need to plan based on the environment and the people, and the community. The should not work on enclaves for wealthy migrants. They are wasting time and money on things that are designed to enrich the wealthy. These plans should be trashed. If the Planning Commission needs justification for its existence, they should focus on the poor and homeless. The rich will always take care of themselves and don't need a Planning Commission to facilitate their trips toward greed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 9 of 13 Pages Jeff Walton said he sent an e-mail already, and was told it is part of the public record. He does oppose additional destination resorts. The key point is the process is too complicated. It should be based on State and local laws, on the map if it complies and not if it does not. It should be simple. Another point is that currently agricultural land is said to be not economically viable. Commissioner Luke said this is based on the poor soil and lack of water content for the most part. Mr. Walton said they will need agricultural lands in the future to be self-sustaining. They can raise food, hay or put in solar farms. You can't do it if you build a resort on it. They need to be careful to protect agricultural land for the future. A lot of people see the infrastructure problems from the resorts. Really need to focus on generating higher paying jobs rather than minimum wage. Pam Mitchell said she has been in CO for six generations. She would like to know how many people in the room have been here for more than a few years. She heard a lot said tonight regarding the majority of people. The majority of citizens are not well organized and not called to action. Most feel that their property is their own property, and don't want to wish their feelings on their neighbor's property. Thanks to the Sierra Club for the call to action. It should not be negative to believe in private property rights. She is tired of people who are hypocrites who move here and want the gates closed. Resorts contribute few students to schools but provide a lot of tax money, resulting in less burden on social services. They support the arts and contribute to philanthropic needs. Resort crime rates are low and many resorts provide their own law enforcement. They also provide 50% open space. She welcomes anyone to come out and pick rocks on her farm. She heard planners and the Planning Commission criticized for thinking for themselves and private property rights. She hopes they keep up the good work, and will continue to question the motives of people who object to private property rights. These are the same ones who helped shut down the timber industry. The average earning is minus $58 for farm land per acre. These same people now want to take the water and put it back into the rivers away from the farms that already can't make it. The resorts provide living wage jobs, jobs for retired folks and young people starting out. People need those jobs to continue on with schooling. People who believe in private property rights need to take a stand. Already 80% of the County is owned by the public. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 10 of 13 Pages Some lands need to be removed and growth should be appropriate and thought out. There should be no personal vendetta against destination resorts. The running report for Fish & Wildlife talks about the income from wildlife viewing. She suggested Googling that report - it is not what you think it might be. (She said she previously sent an e-mail.) Keith Cyrus of Sisters said he does not have a lot to say, and has heard it all before. He feels reassured that the Planning Commission is looking to reduce acreage. Some are easier than others. In response to comments about a river in some part of a state, replicated here, means 45,000 fisherman fish it a year, on a four-mile stretch. That is 1,232 fishermen a day, or 144 per mile. An interesting point. In regard to testimony about water temperatures and rivers warming up, he asked why that would be. Kyle Gorman (Watermaster) said that the Deschutes is introducing 100 CFS, significant to historic levels. Whychus Creek is being piped to save water; that's 20 CFS. This is close to the targets that Fish & Wildlife established to maintain them. If water temperatures are rising, the question is are we diluting the cold spring water with the warmer water. Perhaps they need to ditch and channelize it. Spring water is about 48 degrees, but he doesn't know the optimum temperature for fish habitat. They are subject to periodic flooding and drying up. Another item is problems with their wells. He called the Watermaster again, who said that it is normal for wells to fail after a number of year, depending on how they were established and how long they were used. He appreciates everyone's efforts. Commissioner Luke asked if there is a definition of destination resort in Code. Mr. Gutowsky said that it is in the Comprehensive Plan, which is not before him right now. There are conditional use requirements for siting. Code should be in compliance with State criteria. The Comprehensive Plan chapter addresses destination resorts; this is the chapter that is being amended. The combining zone allows parties to submit. This is the first he's heard there is no definition. Ms. Craghead said it might not be in the definitions part, but it is definitely in the Comprehensive Plan and Code. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 11 of 13 Pages Nick Lelack said there are references to Goal 8 throughout Code. That is the definition per State law. It is referenced throughout Code in the recreation section. Commissioner Baney noted that it is obvious that it is throughout Code. Mr. Gutowsky stated that one thing that is important is to define the expectations of the Planning Commission. Does the Board expect them to deliberate again about the text amendment. The second option is whether to initiate another hearing. Notice requirements could conflict with the Board's continuation. Commissioner Luke asked about running a separate process. Going back years, the Board typically leaves the Planning Commission alone They set their own agenda and they can take testimony again if they want. He does not know why they want to take it back. The Board does not want to wait that long. Mr. Gutowsky said that running two different public hearings on the same amendment is difficult for staff, and confusing to the public. Commissioner Luke suggested that this hearing be continued for thirty days. By that time, they should have some idea what the Planning Commission wants to do. It can be continued again if necessary. Ms. Craghead suggested that there not be another hearing of the Planning Commission. This would be a new hearing process and expensive. The Board should provide time for them to deliberate and provide comments to the Board. Commissioner Baney said that it is her understanding that they did not have a full group and want to do it totally as a body. She supports this. If two members are missing, it makes it hard. She wants them to be able to finish what they want to do. There does not need to be a further hearing, but they should be able to meet and deliberate more fully. Commissioner Unger stated that the Planning Commission brought this forward to the Board. If they want to clarify and discuss it further, that is good. They should come back to the Board with their ideas and recommendations. The Board would then use that information for its deliberation process. Ms. Craghead confirmed that the Board is not giving back the issue to them, but just allowing more time to deliberate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 12 of 13 Pages Mr. Gutowsky said the Planning Commission has four other items on its next agenda, but also meet on January 28, and February 11 and 25. Perhaps this can be continued to March 3. Christian Brown, the Chair of the Planning Commission, said at their December 2 meeting, they wished they had had the other two members there. They need for those folks to weigh in and understand what they are trying to do. It is best to use three meetings to form suggestions. Commissioner Luke said the written record for the Board remains open, but the Planning Commission record is closed. Mr. Gutowsky asked for any written correspondence for the Board to be part of the record. Ms. Craghead indicated that it is appropriate to receive information or talk with people about this issue, but it will need to be disclosed if it is a basis for a decision. The hearing was continued to March 1, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. DATED this 20th Day of January 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Dennis R. Luke, Chair aj-c~ allk- - Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tammy Brney, Coni nissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Hearing (Continued) Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 13 of 13 Pages I'''-re o0 91 { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Date: 20 U s Name L C- Address Co~~ Kw a. Gl -1 o I Phone #s S q l _-Z,:) 6<~;- ' ~o ( E-mail address I I* Z Z-~;--c^e " . C--0 In Favor F] Neutral Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes [-]No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING c { REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Q I Name Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided 1---O-Pposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING n { 7WP REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: b~r`~~ r t 1~~( P coU~S Date: Name- Address l~ q,:P- 7 Q Address Phone #s 5~61 3 g's-,6 E-mail address , P a.tic /1a C Gr-)'t.- In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the recor . SGT ~~2 a { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Name ~~~~~Z7( Address 1:&2v C;24 Phone #s E-mail address Opposed Date: 7 r Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided F1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? es F] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary or the record. 11 J-tES ~O w~U e -c BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Agenda Item of Interest: Name ~v y1''. Address Phone #s E-mail address 1-1 2~33a~ In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided F] Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 'Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. IS n o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: 0'5 n ►J"4 'J e " Date: Name Address ` (U ~ OA" `157 Phone #s E-mail address 14 10(.t -1 - LO-49 I e-"6 _ re 4'a In Favor F~ Neutral/Undecided a Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ® Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. t4 L A/4C mo4 'e r't. a REQUEST TO SPEAK p o`l Date: f- 2b " 2-~ 1 O ~G,..", ? BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: wj Date: Name V~(I Address ~a c1 ZZ Phone #s S d E-mail address ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes [~INO If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. o-rEs c L G r Agenda Item Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Interest: Date: l~ Phone #s 6l g E-mail address l ~ct b- ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary tor the record. r~ A Q 0 e, ~ 7FQ JO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: fk Date: Name Address G L k 2 Phone #s E-mail address f . . 1-1 In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided 21~_Orposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No cord. If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the 40- 'tES ; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING D REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: il1 I"cam JRe5ov~v- Date: Name T::~)U V\C. cV~ ~.D f-OC,_)V\ Address Phone #s !E'y \ - '1 r7 - } 1 Coo E-mail address ~VIVILav) . brown CC_ affe , V\ QT_ In Favor a Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 7 Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Z c) _()A D Z Date: Name 1/` S &(A- Address Phone #s S L9~ E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0-Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. wg ? BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING n { REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: bC Date: I - ZC.)= 16 Name E1 _ k:: ~'-AMCLETZ Address ISEI-Q, 0C ` r~q C) 1 Phone #s -:7- Cc~g q E-mail address ~~►K C ? C Off,- C fi:-~, , -C ~ In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F-] Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. -(ES ~ wG~~J L BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Name Address ate: _fL Phone #s E-mail address F1 In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. `RTES \h~ - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Date: 2-61 lot 0 L NameC 5 LCa Address 0 Phone #s E-mail address j~ --3WR- 36, 77 F] In Favor F-1 Neutral/Undecided 2r Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes 0 No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~T E!SR n { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: /z = Name ~7 ld Address i/ 2 v~ Date: r Phone #s j' c ' 3 3 E-mail address' W ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: tt,-,',Q,... Date: Name _P"' Address ;"Jz' Phone #s j ~1/ s ~ E-mail address ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided A 1-1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ATE wv -A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING c { REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Date Name Address 17 a n L Phone #s 4: 4q ^ 77/ - [(/G/ (2 E-mail address In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Richard Klyce DCPC 12/14/09 Deschutes County Commissioners As Planning Commissioners we have been encouraged to express our views to you regarding the Destination Resort Remapping ordinances. In my view the two ordinances which were presented to the Planning Commission did not embody the concepts which were agreed to at the joint BOCC/DCPC meeting. Specifically the ordinances unmapped everyone, imposed new, more restrictive criteria, and then allowed back on the map only those properties which met the new criteria and only if the property owners specifically asked to be mapped This is why we felt it necessary to add an amendment which would "grandfather" those properties currently mapped. Under the amendment all the landowners need to do is notify the County of their wishes. While they do not need to meet the new restrictions we felt requiring the active step of notification would cut down the number of mapped properties. The "grandfather amendment" fulfills the wishes of the BOCC as expressed at the Joint Session and at the 12/9/09 Working Session. This assumes the County does a more than adequate job of notifying property owners of the potential changes. Because of the high stakes involved I feel the County should go farther than the legally required minimums for notification. Personally, I do not feel efforts to date are adequate, however a revised flier inserted in next years tax bill would go a long way toward satisfying adequate notice. Thank you for your time. Richard Klyce Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Sher Buckner Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:29 AM To: Nick Lelack; Terri Hansen Payne; Peter Gutowsky; Chris Brown; Ed Criss; Keith Cyrus; Merle Irvine; Richard Klyce; Susan Quatre; Todd Turner Subject: Destination Resorts From: Judy Lehrer [mailto:iehrer-judy@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 5:04 PM Subject: Destination Resorts Dear Planning Commissioners, Refering to the Destination Resorts My husbabd and I are residents in South Deschutes County. Please add us to the public record regarding the Destination Resorts. Please note that we are rural residents and DO NOT want NOR DO WE want to support any of the Distination Resorts paticularly in the area south of Sun River. Our serious concers is in regards to the Destination Resorts will have on the Ground water and the surface water. As the south county of the comp plan comes together we want to make sure that the planning commission conveys our wishes. No more Destination Resorts in South County Area Thank you, Robert and Judy Lehrer 12/15/2009 Dec Peter Gutowsky Page 1 of 1 From: Sher Buckner Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:28 AM To: Peter Gutowsky; Terri Hansen Payne; Nick Lelack; Chris Brown; Ed Criss; Keith Cyrus; Merle Irvine; Richard Klyce; Susan Quatre; Todd Turner Subject: 12 10 09 to BOCC no more DR.doc From: Alice T. Peterson [mailto:alicejuiceplus@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 7:29 PM Subject: 12 10 09 to BOCC no more DR.doc Dec. 10, 2009 Planning Commissioners: RE: DESTINATION RESORTS Please be sure this is added to the public record regarding the DRAFT Comprehensive Plan. In your deliberations regarding Destination Resorts, please know that we, rural residents of Deschutes County do not want to see, nor do we support any more Destination Resorts in Deschutes Countyparticularly, south of Sun River. One of our most serious concerns is in regards to the cumulative affect of Destination Resorts on groundwater and surface water alike in the Deschutes Basin. As the South County Chanter of the Comp Plan comes together, we want to be sure that the Planning Commissioners convey our desire that County Staff must craft code language to fully express our concerns of "NO more Destination Resorts in the South County area south of Sunriver." Again, we collectively thank you for your dedication and service to all rural county residents. Alice Peterson 52674 Ammon Rd La Pine, Oregon 97739-1124 12/15/2009 Dec. 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: RE: DESTINATION RESORTS Please include our comments in the public record regarding the DRAFT comprehensive Plan. As rural residents in South Deschutes County, we do not want to see any more Destination Resorts, especially South of Sunriver. First, we feel that there are far too many properties in the destination resort zone. Second, Destination Resorts do affect the quality of life, forests, wildlife, farm lands, congestion, water etc. in a negative way. Please include in the South County Chapter language that should reflect the rural residents desires that there will be NO destination Resorts south of Sunriver. Also, when remapping, please remove all lands shown as possible sites for a destination resort south of Sunriver from your Destination Resort Maps. Thank you for your time, Robert & Jill Liberty 52609 Rainbow Dr. LaPine, Oregon Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Bill Smith [bill@wspi.net] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:41 PM To: Tammy Baney; Dennis Luke; Alan Unger Cc: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Destination Resorts I will be out of town and unable to attend your hearing on the Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures. In your deliberations on Destination Resorts, please remember that Resorts are a mainstay of our economy. Resorts helped replace the jobs lost in the resource segment of our economy. Central Oregon, more than any rural area of the state, has weathered the loss of the timber industry; that is due to tourism for which Resorts are primarily responsible. Resorts also attract people who find us and move here and start businesses here. Schlosser Casting is an example of such a company. There should be no radius restriction from a City. Resorts pay their way. The people that live in the resorts or stay in the resorts, bank, shop, eat, and do business with businesses that have paid their "dues" to belong to the community. The businesses are better off for having the tourist component. We full time residents have more offered to us because of the Resorts. Cleaning up the map to meet reality likely makes sense. but I see no reason why the County should be more restrictive than the State on siting resorts. The County has ample opportunity to weigh in on the pros and cons of a particular development proposal. Remapping is not an urgent matter however. In the process of change, please allow for innovation and for inclusion of ideas we have not yet thought about Thanks. Bill Smith c/o William Smith Properties, Inc. 15 SW Colorado Avenue, Ste 1 Bend, OR 97702 (541) 382-6691 (541) 388-5414 FAX bill wspi.net 1/19/2010 Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Katy Yoder [ktyoder@ykwc.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM To: Tammy Baney; Dennis Luke; 'Alan Unger' Cc: Peter Gutowsky; Nick Lelack Subject: RE: Comments for submission for Jan. 20 hearing on resort remapping I am deeply concerned by Deschutes County's focus on generating tax dollars via Destination Resorts without weighing the long-term consequences of their actions. This area needs "big picture" thinking that reflects the understanding that dissecting this area into resorts that suck us dry of water and push wildlife out and eventually to their death is not the answer. I concur with the Sierra Club's main concerns and want their concerns to be reflected as mine also. 1. The current proposal on remapping does not meet several objectives originally set forth by the County: to have a map that truly reflects where resorts may be built according to existing statutes, and to have clear and objective mapping criteria. 2. The map recommendations do not reflect the majority views of the public on resorts. The public has been speaking out loudly for well over a year, but the testimony is not reflected in the current resort remap proposal. 3. The grandfather clause is bad public policy because it allows existing mapped properties to remain on the overlay map even though they don't qualify for resorts under current regulations. 4. Another clause may result in ADDING lands to the resort map, which is not what the majority of the public has been asking for. 5. Theoretical Measure 37 and 49 claims against the County by unmapped property owners are unlikely to succeed. 6. The costs to Deschutes County taxpayers are unknown and likely to be high if the resort map continues to include non-conforming properties. 7. The actual economic value of big new resorts in Central Oregon is unknown, and the County has a duty to objectively weigh costs and benefits. 8. The resort map process has not incorporated new research on current habitat and wildlife needs Katy Yoder From: Merry Ann Moore [mailto:merryann a@bendcable.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:27 PM To: Tammy Baney'; 'Dennis Luke'; Alan Unger Cc: 'Peter Gutowsky'; nickl@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: Comments for submission for Jan. 20 hearing on resort remapping Dear Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed ordinances which will guide creation of a new resort overlay map. Please enter the attached into the record. I look forward to presenting this information at the hearing. Best, Merry Ann Moore, Juniper Group Sierra Club 1/20/2010 Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: KELLY and KAREN SMITH [kls1998@msn.comj Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:50 AM To: Tammy Baney; Dennis Luke; aunger@bendcable.com; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Destination Resort Remapping Dear County Commissioners I am out of town and unable to attend tonight's Commission hearing on destination resort remapping. Please accept these comments in place of in-person testimony. I will be brief. I urge you to adopt a policy and map that reflect current state and county statutory restrictions on destination resorts. Do not include lands that do not qualify. I support the City of Bend's request that no destination resorts be allowed within 5 miles of the Bend UGB. As you know, destination resorts were initially conceived to assist rural economies; they were designed not to be built near cities. Soon Bend's population will exceed 100,000 and destination resorts will not be allowed within 24 miles; the 5-mile buffer seems entirely reasonable at this point. In addition, the negative impacts of destination resorts on city infrastructure will have to be borne by city residents, with no sharing of costs by the resorts. It is clear that the majority of county residents do not desire more destination resorts. There is no defensible reason to liberalize statutes or regulations to allow more destination resorts, particularly when there is ample evidence that the costs of resorts exceed their economic benefits. Destination resorts were established to increase tourism, not to result in population sprawl and make our communities less livable. Please keep this in mind as you downsize the lands on the resort map. Thank you for considering my thoughts. Kelly Smith Kelly & Karen Smith 18700 Bull Springs Rd Bend, OR 97701 1/20/2010 Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Hultberg, Steve [shultberg@balljanik.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:12 PM To: Peter Gutowsky Cc: Laurie Craghead Subject: DR Ordinance Peter, As you know, I have been monitoring the County's DR Work Program on behalf of Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership. I wanted to confirm our understanding of the new DR Ordinance. Under 23.84.030(3)(c)(1), destination resorts are not allowed in areas "shown on the Wildlife Combining Zone" for Deer Winter Range. Under the Wildlife Combining zone regulations, 18.88.040(D), destination resorts are allowed in the WA Zone, except in the areas designated as "Deer Migration Priority Area." Based on our previous discussions, I understand that the new DR policies set forth in 23.84.030(3)(c)(1) will be read to continue to permit destination resorts in the WA Zone, provided they are not in the Deer Migration Priority Area. In other words, there is no intent to categorically excluded destination resorts from the WA Zone. Can you please confirm that this is your understanding of how these two provisions are intended to work. Also, please add this email to the record for both Ordinance 2010-001 and 2010-002. . Thank you for your assistance. Steven Hultberg Ball Janik LLP / 15 SW Colorado, Suite 3 / Bend, Oregon 97702 541.693.0065 (direct) 541.617.8824 (fax) This email message may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the person to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not (1) the intended recipient or (2) the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (541.617.1309), and destroy the original message. Thank you. Client Matter/Number: 1/19/2010 January 18, 2010 To the Deschutes Co. Commission and Planning Commission re: public input regarding a new destination resort map: I have been a resident of Oregon for over 35 yrs and have owned farm and ranch land in the past. I have already sent over ten letters in the past year to the Planning Commission, my State Representative and Senator, our Governor, Oregon Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Water Resources, Central Oregon Landwateh, the DLCD, and other State of Oregon public officials, regarding my opinion on destination resorts, which is : "enough already!". I am a strong believer in preserving scenic values, wildlife corridors and habitat, farm and ranch land, and our natural resources like groundwater and forests. I want to take a stand against approving more destination resorts until there can be adequate scientific and economic studies conducted on the hidden negative impacts of destination resorts, and research on appropriate mitigation requirements for developing them. These impacts include increased demands for public services, demands on natural resources (groundwater, wildlife, and forests), and transportation demands with increased traffic on roads designed for rural use only. As I understand, system development charges aren't collected from destination resorts to cover costs of expanding services to them; yet, according to Hillary Bomtd's article in the Bend Bulletin a short time ago, she revealed that destination resorts can obviously still have significant impacts on roads, sewers and parks for a nearby city. Many residents, county and statewide, feel that destination resort land is being primarily developed to create high-end primary and secondary homes communities all with their own private golf courses rather than a development whose main objective was supposed to attract and serve tourists and visitors. I strongly agree with DCLD's opinion that destination resorts are more resembling residential subdivisions rather than unique developments for tourists. Already there has been public disclosure that several exclusive "resorts" in Deschutes Co. have circumvented state/county laws by continually delaying their requirement to provide in a timely manner a certain ratio of hotel/rental rooms per number of residential properties developed. Clearly these destination resorts are taking advantage of state/county rules and restrictions placed on destination resort development that aren't being enforced. It also seems like our Deschutes Co. Commission and Planning Commission are ignoring state laws and/or trying to circumvent them by possibly allowing ineligible land for destination resort development to become eligible by letting them combine acreage with a neighbor to qualify for the 160 acre minimum for destination resorts, or allowing ineligible lands to remain in the new destination resort map by grandfathering them in so they don't need to meet state requirements (i.e., allowing subdivisions to upgrade to enter the new destination resort map). I don't think the purpose of creating a new destination resort map is to ignore state laws and fiddle around with ineligible land to make them eligible This meeting is not about property rights - it's about upgrading an inaccurate map to conform to state laws and listening to and not ignoring a large number of citizens' opinions on resort remapping. By the way, is it not considered unethical and an outright conflict of interest that Keith Cyrus, the Planning Commission Chair who happens to own Aspen Lakes Golf Estates which had applied for destination resort status and yet remains part of the decision making process for a new destination resort map? It would be the right thing for him to do to excuse himself from the decision part of this issue. Sincerely, Donna M. Harris Deschutes Co. resident r" Deschutes County Commission Meeting of January 20, 2010 Mollie Eder PO Box 72 Powell Butte, Oregon 97753 Dear Commissioners: In your annual report on community involvement, presented to the Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee on April 16 of 2009, you stated that Deschutes County desires to ensure that the community is involved in a meaningful way in land use planning discussions. More specifically, you stated in the section "Community Conversations," your goal is to ensure the updated comprehensive plan, and the associated project to re- map the destination resort overlay map, addresses community interests and values. In your report you detail your numerous efforts to get the word out to invite citizens to participate, your many public listening sessions, and the several ways you gathered public opinion. If, at this time, you adopt a new destination resort overlay map as shown here today, I believe you will be ignoring much of the time, effort, and (taxpayer) money spent on your community involvement process. Loud and lengthy citizen input against more resorts will have been ignored. This would be a shame for both the expenditures wasted, and for the resulting changes in communities which are clearly not wanted by your citizens. As you state in your community involvement report to CIA.C, the choices made today will shape Oregon for the future. Please honor the comprehensive plan update process developed by your professional planners in the Planning Division, and please hear your abundant citizen input as to their values, so that Deschutes County is what your citizens want it to be in the future. DR Remapping Proposal Peter Gutowsky Page 1 of 1 From: Erik Kancler [erik@centraloregonlandwatch.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:15 AM To: Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky Subject: DR Remapping Proposal Hi Nick and Peter. Just want to submit a little testimony via e-mail ahead of broader written testimony on the matter of DR remapping. Regarding the State's TPR Requirements: From a technical perspective, it appears that the language in DCC 22.23.010(G)(5) regarding compliance with the State's Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) is inadequate to address your proposed goals. In the comprehensive plan (DCC 23.84.020) four goals are proposed, the fourth of which states that, "To provide for development of destination resorts consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12 in a manner that will ensure the resorts are supported by adequate transportation facilities." However, in the implementing ordinance (DCC 22.23.010(G)(5) the language could be interpreted to mean that while property-owner initiated applications to add land to the map shall be subject to the State's TPR requirements, board-initiated proposals to do the same shall not. Whether or not it is the intention of the board to exempt its own actions from this sort of analysis, the language could be interpreted as allowing such a possibility. We would ask that this language should be rewritten to ensure that all applications demonstrate consistency with the TPR. In fact, we believe that all properties within a map, as adopted under the proposed remapping process, not just those properties proposed for addition to the map, must comply with the TPR and we'd encourage the Board to approve language to that effect. Thanks, Erik Erik Kancler Executive Director Central Oregon LandWatch 25 NW Minnesota Ave. #12 Bend, OR 97701 Phone (541) 647-1567 Fax (541) 647-1568 1/20/2010 Page 1 of 2 Peter Gutowsky Subject: FW: Destination Resort remapping Attachments: Bill Robie.vcf From: "Bill Robie" <Bill@COAR.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:57:57 -0800 To: Alan Unger<alanu@co.deschutes.or.us>; Dennis Luke<dennisl@co.deschutes.or.us>; Tammy B aney<tammyb@co. deschutes.or.us> Cc: Bill Robie<bill@COAR.com>; 'Brian Meece $E-mail$'<brian@stevescottrealtors.com>; 'Charlie Brown $E- mail$'<charliebrown@uci.net>; Dave Woodland<dave@signetmortgage.com>; 'Gary Everett $E- mail$'<gary@garyeverett.com>; Gretchen Palmer<gpalmer@palmerhomes.com>; Hallie Dew<halliedew@halliedew.com>; Jason Boone<jason@goteamterry.com>; Kathy Ragsdale<kathy@COAR.com>; Kitty Warner<kitty@dukewarner.com>; Lester Friedman<Ffriedman@coldwellbanker.com>; Mary Garcia<maryr@johnlscott.com>;'Mike Reinemer $E-mail$'<mikereinemer@aol.com>;'Nancy Melrose'<nmelrose@bendcable.com>; 'Newell Clarno'<nclarno@uci.net>; Patty Dempsey<pdempsey@windermere.com>; Shannon McCabe<shannonmccabe@prinetime.net>; Shannon McCabe<shanny.mac@hotrnail.com>; Sheree MacRitchie<sheree@bendbroadband.com>; Vikki Iverson<vikki@iversonmedia.com> Subject: Destination Resort remapping Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, It is my understanding that the county Planning Commission has requested that Ordinance No. 2010-002, the destination resort remapping procedures, be sent back to that panel for reconsideration. COAR supports that request from the Planning Commission. Having submitted written testimony, attended both public hearings held by the Planning Commission and communicated with staff I am still unclear on several issues, including mapping eligibility vs. siting eligibility, whether or not properties less than 160 acres will be included on the new map, and the application process and associated costs. In addition, we have some concerns that the results of the hearings increases the restrictions on resorts over and above those required by the state and those in place in the existing ordinance. COAR does not feel that this is an appropriate time to be erecting more obstacles to a valuable asset in the county's economic future. Thank you for taking our views into consideration Bill Robie Government Affairs Director Central Oregon Association of REALTORS@ 2112 NE 4th St. Bend, OR 97701 541-585-2066 (ph.) 541-848-8267 (cell) 541-585-1005 (fax) bill_@_poa.r.com E Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 1/20/2010 Larry and Carol Stotts 68360 Cloverdale Rd. Sisters, OR 97759 Jan 18, 2010 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Deschutes Service Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Subject: Destination Resort Mapping Destination Resort Draft Language: We urge the County to remove the prohibition on irrigated land for resort remapping. The prohibition to allowing resort mapping on same ownership property that has over 40 acres of contiguous irrigated and or over 60 acres of noncontiguous irrigated property is a non productive demand against the best use of specific properties. The remapping could best serve to enhance the local economy from more tourism attraction. The additional benefit is increase revenue for the county and increase jobs for the communities. Further by having the County complying with the State Regulation the County will save time and money as they would not have to revisit the issue every time the State makes a change. With the current state of affairs we request the Commissioners to adopt a common sense approach that will foster new businesses developments that will be win win for providing jobs, attracting more tourist revenue to central Oregon plus added revenue for the county. Larry and Carol Stotts DATE: January 20, 2010 T0: Peter Gutowsky, Deschutes County Planning Dept. Deschutes County Planning Commission Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FR: Eva Eagle RE: Comments on Deschutes County Destination Resort Map I urge you to revise the County's destination resort overlay map, not with the changes that the Planning Commission is bringing to you but with the original map and rules developed by the Planning Department. The staff proposed map for destination resorts is based on years of work, numerous contributions from professional resource specialists, extensive citizen input, and considerable public funds. It aligns with the proposed comprehensive plan, a long overdue piece of work. Now the Planning Commission wants to sabotage this process by grandfathering everything into the destination resort overlay that was eligible in the old map, despite the fact that many of these lands do not meet state or county guidelines about resort eligibility. We the citizens are tired of seeing would-be resort developers and big landowners sitting on the Planning Commission and voting to support their own profit over the needs of the County citizens. When destination resorts are built without proper guidelines, we ordinary citizens pay the infrastructure costs that these resorts impose outside the boundaries of the resort. When destination resorts are built in the wrong place, they tap out precious water with their golf courses and landscaping, plus they drive away scarce wildlife such as the sage grouse. When too many destination resorts are built, which is already the case here in Deschutes County, the magical thinking of the developers cannot overcome the economic realities of too many high end homes for the existing market. We need to regulate these developments, we need to limit their overall numbers, and they need to be sited in the proper place. Please, please move Deschutes County into a bright future with a well founded resort map. Reject the Planning Commission's proposal, which will take us back down a road of environmental and economic damage. Instead, vote for the staff map and take Deschutes County toward a future where we develop a diverse economy, not one that relies on the boom and bust of land speculation. Memorandum January 20, 2010 To: Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County From: Duncan Brown Subject: Testimony on the Proposed Destination Resort Remapping Project Attached to this testimony is the letter entered into the record at the last Planning Commission hearing in December 2009. The reason for this is that the issues raised in this document are still valid. The Planning Commission has not addressed the deficiencies in the remapping process. As a result, the proposed action before you is premature, and the project should either be tabled until it can be completed in the proper manner or terminated. Following are the outstanding issues identified in the remapping process: There is no description of what the map is being prepared for. There is no definition of Destination Resort in the County Code. The State has a definition, but if it is to be used, it must be incorporated into the County Code directly, by reference, or as part of a County definition. The state definition is as follows: Destination Resort A elf-contained developmentproviding visitor-oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities, and that qualifier under the definition of either a "large destination resort" or a `fmall destination resort" in this goal. Spending required under these definitions is stated in 1993 dollars. The spending required shall be adjusted to theyear in which calculations are made in accordance with the United States Consumer Price Index. (emphasis added) If the State definition is to be used, there are no findings or discussion about how the proposed destination resort areas are in areas of "high natural amenities." In order to comply, high natural amenities that support destination resort mapping must be identified, and the mapping must reflect those amenities. Whether or not the State definition is used, the County must address the issue of "high natural amenities." 2. The destination resort provisions are placed under Goal 8, Recreation. The record and, particularly the findings, do not show how mapping complies,with Goal 8. Vague reference in the findings as to the benefits of destination resorts as listed under Goal 8 does not demonstrate that the mapped lands provide those benefits. In fact, the findings fail to make any direct mention of recreational opportunities that might occur with the mapped lands. Rather, the mapping criteria are an uncoordinated series of responses to property ownership, lot or parcel creation, and size, and without regard for the "high natural amenities" required under State requirements or compliance with Goal 8. In summary, what is before you is a mapping project that has no defined product. It reflects a number of unrelated criteria that have no connection to the Statewide Goal under which it is regulated. Page 1 I recommend that the County table the mapping project, or even better yet amend the map to reflect only those lands on which destination resorts have been approved or are presently under County review until 1. A clear description of what a destination resort should be is developed, 2. An explanation of how the destination resort as described by the County meets the State definition (particularly relating to high natural amenities) and Goal 8 is given, and 3. Findings developed of how the lands to be mapped meet the description of destination resorts, and how it meets the guidelines and requirements of Goal 8. At present, in Deschutes and Crook Counties alone there are four developed destination resorts (Inn at the Seventh Mountain, Sunriver, Eagle Crest, and Black Butte Ranch), six approved and developing resorts (Tethrow, Pronghorn, Caldera Springs, Remington Ranch, Hidden Canyon, and Brasada Ranch), and one proposed resort that is still in the midst of County review. All but Black Butte Ranch are within 20 miles of Bend. The approved but undeveloped resorts alone represent approximately over 2500 overnight lodging units and 6300 residences, which is approximately the number of units developed in the last 30+ years. This housing reservoir contained in the undeveloped destination resorts should be more than sufficient to satisfy destination resort needs for the next several years until the County is again eligible for remapping. In the interim, the County will be able to develop a clear concise description or vision of what we believe a destination resort should be and how it should function in providing recreational amenities and opportunities of Goal 8. Page 2 Duncan Brown Land Use Planning 61487 SW Elder Ridge Street Bend, Oregon 97702 541-317-9160 duncan.brown@clearwire.net December 2, 2009 Testimony Before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on Proposed Mapping for Destination Resorts There has been considerable testimony on the proposed mapping process for Destination Resorts in Deschutes County. The following written testimony is a suggestion as to a logical process for identifying land that is appropriate for Destination Resorts. As presented in prior testimony, it is important to stress that Destination Resorts are an option, not a requirement, under State land use regulations. These regulations are found under- Statewide Land Use Goal 81 Recreation, which states: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. As such, Destination Resorts are intended to provide a diversity of recreational opportunities for those counties that wish to allow them. I recommend three steps that, when taken in order, will provide a clear and direct approach to establishing a map identifying lands appropriate for Destination Resort locations. These steps are: (1) developing a vision; (2) Acknowledging public regulations and lands that restrict Destination Resort development; and (3) Identifying appropriate County locational Criteria. 1. Vision Within limits established by Goal 8 and its related rules, Destination Resorts can take on virtually any appearance, size, and function the County wishes them to be. The initial vision of how Destination Resorts fit into the County comprehensive development plan is of paramount importance in the mapping of suitable areas. This vision should be developed prior to initiating mapping or land regulations. It will serve as the yardstick by which all further steps, whether it be mapping or developing land use regulations, will be measured. The vision should be as focused and succinct as possible, so that everyone will have a clear understanding of what is expected. Elements of this vision should include: The type of recreational opportunities Destination Resorts are intended to support or provide. 1. Active or passive use of natural resources located onsite or nearby. 2. Developed recreational opportunities. The market Destination Resorts are intended to serve. 1. Tourists -Users who are traveling pasta resort and wish to take advantage of the recreational opportunities and support services as a rest stop or brief stay before continuing to their final destination. We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. Native American proverb page 2 2. Vacationers - Users who plan on staying a few days or weeks at a single location and might take advantage of recreational opportunities both on the Destination Resort site and in the surrounding area. 3. Local Residents - Users who live in the vicinity and wish to take advantage of specific recreational opportunities that are present on the Destination Resort site such as attending a golf tournament, participating in a sporting activity, or attending a native plant display and lecture. Once a clear vision is developed, it can be applied in a careful, logical, and deliberate manner that provides flexibility to property owners within suitable areas, protects the rural character and natural resources, does not adversely impact urban areas and development, and can be supported by the existing and planned transportation system and utility infrastructure. II. State and Federal Limitations Once the vision is developed, State limitations can be applied to the County in order to begin to more clearly identify land that is realistically available for Destination Resort siting. It is also suggested that Federal and State-owned property that has no possibility of being sold or traded (wilderness lands, State and County parks, monuments, etc.) also be eliminated from consideration, but that other Federal, State, or locally-owned lands (forest lands, grazing lands, etc.) continue to be included. With this information a map can be produced that represents the maximum area available for Destination Resort development. III. County Variables/ Location At this point the County can systematically evaluate a number of variables or locational criteria that can be applied, either individually or jointly, in order to more specifically identify what impact the Destination Resort map will have on allowed rural uses and activities. The mechanics of this process are fairly straightforward; a simple application of overlays can be applied onto the previously prepared map. However, gathering data may be more problematic, as some has been developed in only a general manner, while other variables can be clearly and accurately measured. Many of the objections or concerns in testimony presented to date center on the choice and measurement of these mapping criteria. In short, this is because both the identified variables and the application of them are inconsistent and confusing. For example, testimony has included concern about errors in soils classification. To reduce the confusion I would suggest dividing the criteria into two categories: those that can be clearly and accurately measured using existing data, and those that require additional clarity and refinement in order to produce clear and objective onsite delineation. Examples of each category are given below. They are for purposes of illustration only, and do not represent a category that should necessarily be included. • Clearly delineated and objective criteria 1. Distance from an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) if the time of UGB identification is stated. Time of UGB identification is necessary in order to prevent UGB expansion that would then create a conflict with application of this criterion and the actual Destination Resort mapping. 2. Platted subdivisions, although if this criterion is used a provision must be made to address lot consolidation, vacation of the subdivision in whole or in part, and property line adjustments within the subdivision. 3. Lands with a particular zone designation, such as OS&C (Open Space and Conservation) or F-1 (Forest Use). 4. Ownership by a single entity, although this must be clarified if it is an application criterion or if single ownership will have to continue as the resort is developed. We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. Native American proverb Duncan Brown :t Land Use Planning 61487 SW Elder Ridge Street Bend, Oregon 97702 541-317-9160 duncan.brown@clearwire.net December 2, 2009 Testimony Before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on Proposed Mapping for Destination Resorts There has been considerable testimony on the proposed mapping process for Destination Resorts in Deschutes County. The following written testimony is a suggestion as to a logical process for identifying land that is appropriate for Destination Resorts. As presented in prior testimony, it is important to stress that Destination Resorts are an option, not a requirement, under State land use regulations. These regulations are found under Statewide Land Use Goal 81 Recreation, which states: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. As such, Destination Resorts are intended to provide a diversity of recreational opportunities for those counties that wish to allow them. I recommend three steps that, when taken in order, will provide a clear and direct approach to establishing a map identifying lands appropriate for Destination Resort locations. These steps are: (1) developing a vision; (2) Acknowledging public regulations and lands that restrict Destination Resort development; and (3) Identifying appropriate County locational Criteria. 1. Vision Within limits established by Goal 8 and its related rules, Destination Resorts can take on virtually any appearance, size, and function the County wishes them to be. The initial vision of how Destination Resorts fit into the County comprehensive development plan is of paramount importance in the mapping of suitable areas. This vision should be developed prior to initiating mapping or land regulations. It will serve as the yardstick by which all further steps, whether it be mapping or developing land use regulations, will be measured. The vision should be as focused and succinct as possible, so that everyone will have a clear understanding of what is expected. Elements of this vision should include: The type of recreational opportunities Destination Resorts are intended to support or provide. 1. Active or passive use of natural resources located onsite or nearby. 2. Developed recreational opportunities. The market Destination Resorts are intended to serve. 1. Tourists - Users who are traveling past a resort and wish to take advantage of the recreational opportunities and support services as a rest stop or brief stay before continuing to their final destination. We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. Native American proverb y page 2 Vacationers - Users who plan on staying a few days or weeks at a single location and might take advantage of recreational opportunities both on the Destination Resort site and in the surrounding area. Local Residents - Users who live in the vicinity and wish to take advantage of specific recreational opportunities that are present on the Destination Resort site such as attending a golf tournament, participating in a sporting activity, or attending a native plant display and lecture. Once a clear vision is developed, it can be applied in a careful, logical, and deliberate manner that provides flexibility to property owners within suitable areas, protects the rural character and natural resources, does not adversely impact urban areas and development, and can be supported by the existing and planned transportation system and utility infrastructure. H. State and Federal Limitations Once the vision is developed, State limitations can be applied to the County in order to begin to more clearly identify land that is realistically available for Destination Resort siting. It is also suggested that Federal and State-owned property that has no possibility of being sold or traded (wilderness lands, State and County parks, monuments, etc.) also be eliminated from consideration, but that other Federal, State, or locally-owned lands (forest lands, grazing lands, etc.) continue to be included. With this information a map can be produced that represents the maximum area available for Destination Resort development. III. County Variables/ Location At this point the County can systematically evaluate a number of variables or locational criteria that can be applied, either individually or jointly, in order to more specifically identify what impact the Destination Resort map will have on allowed rural uses and activities. The mechanics of this process are fairly straightforward; a simple application of overlays can be applied onto the previously prepared map. However, gathering data may be more problematic, as some has been developed in only a general manner, while other variables can be clearly and accurately measured. Many of the objections or concerns in testimony presented to date center on the choice and measurement of these mapping criteria. In short, this is because both the identified variables and the application of them are inconsistent and confusing. For example, testimony has included concern about errors in soils classification. To reduce the confusion I would suggest dividing the criteria into two categories: those that can be clearly and accurately measured using existing data, and those that require additional clarity and refinement in order to produce clear and objective onsite delineation. Examples of each category are given below. They are for purposes of illustration only, and do not represent a category that should necessarily be included. • Clearly delineated and objective criteria 1. Distance from an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) if the time of UGB identification is stated. Time of UGB identification is necessary in order to prevent UGB expansion that would then create a conflict with application of this criterion and the actual Destination Resort mapping. 2. Platted subdivisions, although if this criterion is used a provision must be made to address lot consolidation, vacation of the subdivision in whole or in part, and property line adjustments within the subdivision. 3. Lands with a particular zone designation, such as OS&C (Open Space and Conservation) or F-1 (Forest Use). 4. Ownership by a single entity, although this must be clarified if it is an application criterion or if single ownership will have to continue as the resort is developed. We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. Native American proverb 7 page 3 S. Distances separating Destination Resorts from each other. 6. Minimum Destination Resort size. • Criteria that require refinement for accurate onsite application. 1. Land areas can be inaccurate, as some large lots, parcels, or other units of land may be defined by metes and bounds, and have not been accurately surveyed. Additionally, a property line adjustment can impact lot or parcel size, which in turn can affect whether or not a size criterion is met. 2. Lot or parcel sizes do not accurately reflect actual ownership patterns or potential Destination Resort limits. Lots and parcels under a single ownership can be created in response to tax advantages, gradual consolidation of ownership by purchasing adjacent properties over time, or land use requirements. Individually they do not necessarily represent the logical or desirable boundaries for a Destination Resort, although as an ownership group they may. 3. Precise wildlife area boundaries are difficult to identify, and may be delineated by a feature that has shifted over time such as a forested area, meadow, or water feature. Additionally, maps delineating these features are often of too a large scale and too generalized. 4. Soils identification is made on a large scale with limited onsite proofing. In order to provide a more objective approach to delineating appropriate Destination Resort sites, I suggest that the County first choose the clearly identified criteria to be applied and produce a final map based on those and the State and Federal limitations discussed in the previous section of this testimony. Within those lands identified on this map, criteria that require refinement would be applied to each Destination Resort proposal, with the applicant providing the more precise information at the time of land use review. This approach intends to overcome the concerns about application of overly general, obsolete, or potentially inaccurate information used to create precise boundaries for Destination Resort locations. As these criteria are proposed, continual measurement of the result against the vision developed in the first step is required in order to assure continuity of the process. Conclusion This testimony presents a logical sequence of steps for identifying land that is appropriate for the location of Destination Resorts. It progresses from the general to specific, and allows opportunity for new and more detailed information to be collected, analyzed, and submitted for those lands that meet the clear and objective map criteria. We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. Native American proverb Page 1 of 1 Nick Lelack From: Andy High [andyh@coba.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:25 PM To: Board Cc: Nick Lelack Subject: Record for Destination Resorts January 20, 2010 Deschutes County Board of Directors 1300 Wall St Bend, Or 97701 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for the time to submit testimony to you about the destination resort remapping. We have continued to give input to the process and discuss our position to staff. After seeing the Deschutes County Planning Commission's request, we would support sending back the mapping report so that we can see what additional input they have before we make more comments. Thank you for your time on this matter. Regards Andy High SVP of Government Affairs Central Oregon Builders Association Andy High Central Oregon Builders Association 541-389-1058 Office 541-771-3187 Cell 1/20/2010 Larry and Carol Stotts 68360 Cloverdale Rd. Sisters, OR 97759 Jan 18, 2010 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Deschutes Service Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Subject: Destination Resort Mapping Destination Resort Draft Language: We urge the County to remove the prohibition on irrigated land for resort remapping. The prohibition to allowing resort mapping on same ownership property that has over 40 acres of contiguous irrigated and or over 60 acres of noncontiguous irrigated property is a non productive demand against the best use of specific properties. The remapping could best serve to enhance the local economy from more tourism attraction. The additional benefit is increase revenue for the county and increase jobs for the communities. Further by having the County complying with the State Regulation the County will save time and money as they would not have to revisit the issue every time the State makes a change. With the current state of affairs we request the Commissioners to adopt a common sense approach that will foster new businesses developments that will be win win for providing jobs, attracting more tourist revenue to central Oregon plus added revenue for the county. Larry and Carol Stotts January 20, 2010 Board of Deschutes County Commissioners: RE: Ordinance No. 2010-001 and 2010-002 1 would like to introduce a Shapefile of the USDA's Upper Deschutes River Survey Area (1992) type 65A Houstake Sandy Loam soils in Deschutes County together with a map (30"x48") showing where the 65A soils are located in Deschutes County. You will find that Deschutes County's current DR map contains soils 65A. State law prohibits soils 65A from being included in destination resorts. Right now, Deschutes County's DR map does not comply with state law. Right now, there are soils 65A that are included in the proposed Thornburgh resort. Since inception the DR process was initiated by resort proponents and this remapping process and criteria is no different. At inception, a broad brush was swiped across lands proclaiming their inclusion in the DR overlay zone. It is time to correct this situation. It is not appropriate to grandfather in lands that are not eligible by state law. It is not appropriate to make public accounting of destination resorts more convoluted by annexing in lands into existing resorts and it is not appropriate to add lands to the DR map. The remapping process should be streamlined with definitive dates, not open ended calendars. I ask for accountability now for the public safety, health and welfare of our community. I request that the record be kept open for at least one week after the Planning Commision revisits these two ordinances. Thank you, g8 Nunzie Gould 19845 JW Brown Bend, OR 97701 enclosure: 1 disk & 1 map 541-420-3325 Destination: Central Oregon I I The Bulletin bendbulletin.com Destination: Central Oregon By Lily Raff / The Bulletin Published: May 11. 2008 4:OOAM PST As destination resorts spread across Central Oregon, so does debate surrounding these developments. Some resorts have failed to meet state and county requirements for overnight lodging and wildlife mitigation, so critics are seeking to make statewide rule. Click here for interactive Map. In the early 1980s, Central Oregon's economy was in a rut. Millwork had slowed, panic was mounting over tighter environmental regulations and laid-off loggers were looking for work elsewhere. So the state hatched a plan - a sort of economic stimulus package for hard-luck rural areas: destination resorts. The idea was to allow self-contained resorts in remote areas where the state's land use laws prohibited other development. Tourists would flock to these getaways in the woods, flushing rural communities with much-needed cash. Here in Central Oregon, it worked - or something did. The region's population boomed, at least in part because now- permanent residents were first lured here as tourists. Local officials tout that 80 percent of new businesses in the region are the result of tourism. Central Oregon now has three completed destination resorts, six under construction and five more in the works. But the proliferation of these resorts has also sparked debate. Some say 14 resorts is too many. Certain resorts are criticized for catering to permanent residents and serving as exclusive, remote subdivisions instead of tourism hubs. 11/16/09 2:31 PM Tfr &t"n badras. attanr~al to land U4 Cute OD, Ann n -a* is Gat hertt►an .isAr Emig Cltesl Roo#it~1 ~ h ~ E1Ne ~Mt~hrilh Prifieyide Sifts Redmotld ~mF ~5. if 9utte Ctwe! Tom ` Prw~rMeitl - j tescAutes River ` . 1wdii.. Caa. 8tasatfa Much ~n2iFa/lS Alialta TE4Et1Mr Wks RAW ;"`8awhet Rem \ . *C 1MM "I'm" Rom 19 Rn~er tink Ita c#,W+ s Jttvr ~ Proposed and WILES Existing resorts s La Pine t)~ Other resort-eligible aag Cmts, Fne E i Olin 11irNdas-• Cltlser • http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080511/NEWSOl/805110302&template=print Page 1 of 7 Destination: Central Oregon I I The Bulletin Nearly every resort in the region was approved according to a different set of rules. And those rules have been enforced inconsistently. State officials are talking about reviewing and possibly changing the resort rules in the next couple of years. But the state Legislature would have to give up control over destination resorts. Planning for growth Oregon's one-of-a-kind land use planning system was born in 1970, when the state's population had doubled to 2 million in just 15 years. Officials worried that sprawling development would eat up the agricultural and timber lands that sustained Oregon's economy. When one farm turned into a subdivision, it changed the character of the area and put pressure on neighboring farmers to sell or change their practices so they didn't annoy residents. The state started requiring local governments to assign a category of permitted uses to each piece of land in their jurisdiction. New development was to be clustered in and around cities, protecting rural areas from sprawl. The system was controversial because limiting the uses of a particular piece of land could potentially limit the landowner's profit from it. "The whole idea behind Oregon's land use laws is that all individuals give up some of their individual profit to benefit all agriculture," said Carol Macbeth, Central Oregon advocate for 1000 Friends of Oregon, a land use planning nonprofit. Destination resorts were not mentioned in the first land use rules. But by the early 1980s, pressure was mounting on Oregon's land use agency to create more economic opportunity for rural areas. In 1984, the state land use agency began allowing destination resorts. Sunriver, south of Bend, and Black Butte Ranch, near Sisters, had already been developed by then. They were an example to state officials crafting the new resort rules. Tourists traveled from all over the Northwest to vacation at these resorts. They were bright spots in Central Oregon's otherwise gloomy economy. They were reasons for hope. 11/16/09 2:31 PM O 'RSl+Wno; ww:'G".® now, dM .Viw qu "'10sei p.i. fwl Kiw bxtlMls -{,mss 4im-'Vo sJ. w b 0"I ,ua~, ~ .way Where resorts can go It's up to individual counties where destination resorts may and may not be built, within certain statewide guidelines. According to state law, destination resorts may not be sited: *Within 24 air miles of a city with a population of 100,000 or more. *Too close to productive farmland or forestland. *In the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. *In especially sensitive big-game habitat. *On land that is not zoned appropriately. For more information, visit www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/goals.shtml and click on Goal 8. To build a destination resort, a developer must assess how the resort will affect nearby fish and wildlife and prepare a plan to mitigate those effects. In Deschutes County, the development and mitigation must result in "no net loss" of habitat. In r`.rnn4 onri Vlomo+h ruin+iee i+ mi so+ rao, d+ in nn h"p://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.diI/article?AID=/20080511/NEWSO1/805110302&template=print Page 2 of 7 I KEY # Existing resorts W Proposed resorts Under construction ad as unnamed Men Man`. Ponderosa Land and Cattle Co land v~ll,~ iation Metol' s Acres 10,000 1.~:° .Bend Homes:2500 % ~•la Pine , Overnight units: Unknown I LS ! The Metollan - - _ j \ • Crescent Y Acres: 627 1 I Homes: up to 200 i CUISeT~ / Overnight units Unknown ' - JEFFERSON Camp COUNTY Sherman Black Butte Ranch ~Remington Ranch I - y Eagle Crest i Acres: 1,300 Homes: 1,251 I Acres: 1,772 Acres: Homes: 2.079 800 Homes: 891 Overnight units: 425 ' Overnight units: 400 j Overnight units: 585 € Terrebdnne ' Sisters - Redmond Crossing nails Thornburgh , r debate F. } 1,970 I Acres. Homes: Unknbwn 0 Names: : U W= Overnight units. Unknown I Ong t 95 these Overnight units: At least 475 Pdwell Butte' ! I ' Higtlen Canyon Acres Mor&4han 3;250 I' cents Deschutes / Homes: 2,450 National ; Pronghorn Overnight units: 1,225 Acre's: 640 Forest I . _ _ _ o! is have f 5 es: 420 l Overnight ; Brasada Ranch n units 160 Y j Alfalfa Homs:160 d~ 180 currently 0 t 1 300 lee l ` Hemsesc6ro93$ ; 2io townhomes • ' planned Y' - ,2 t Overnight units it I Overnight units: Unknown county E CROOK COUNTY as ants 1--- - - ght Sunriver Resort 1d Acres: 3.200 b ~i Homes: 4.200 ; i Acres: 00$pringS RCSOrt r Overnightvnits: Unknown i e I : Homes: 320 itigation, Ov f. ernight units: At least 160 OUT-E ire 1/ CE?UN Y~~~< r resorts, Ir,U now far along each is' . toward completion. ~1. MILES Inside wide 1a Pang I'M iO-, cMFii jagef6. Crescent Creek Ranch - - 1 Acres: 9,000 Homes: 2,000 b. Overnight units: 800 ! k )re KLAMATH COUNTY blchristz s . " Cfescent:. T , R 3~ .4' A4 k.'. Destination: Central Oregon I I The Bulletin 11/16/09 2:31 PM To some, they still are. "All across Oregon, counties are in budgetary chaos," said Scott Cooper, Crook County judge. "And Central Oregon is pretty much an oasis in the financial desert, in large part due to the destination resorts." Tourism is the main reason for this region's recent growth, according to Cooper. "What we've had to sell in this region is resources," he said. "We sold trees for a long time and now we're selling sunshine." The national housing market crash has nearly halted the region's once-brisk home-building business. Destination resorts are the area's lone exception to the slowdown, Cooper said. Hard to enforce Each county in Oregon must adopt rules that are at least as strict as the statewide rules for destination resorts. Until recently, the state required that every resort build at least one unit of overnight lodging for every two permanent homes. In 2003, however, developers successfully lobbied the state Legislature to change that ratio for new resorts in Central and Eastern Oregon. State law now requires destination resorts to build just one unit of overnight lodging for every 2.5 homes. Deschutes County still requires the stricter 1 to 2 ratio. But Deschutes County planners realized a few years ago that they did not know how many overnight lodging units were in Eagle Crest, Central Oregon's first resort built under destination resort code. Planners began sending letters to resort managers, requesting an annual report of the number of overnight units. "It's what the code always required, but we weren't always doing it," said Catherine Morrow, the county's planning director. Morrow said the county hasn't always been as diligent as it should have been for all types of applications that require annual monitoring, not just resorts. "Now we're trying to do better," she said. Pronghorn, a destination resort northeast of Bend, received an extension from Deschutes County last month so that it now has 111 --1 IL 111- I-IL III IIW "significant adverse impact." Jefferson County code is less specific. Below are areas deemed by county commissions to be sensitive to wildlife: What's at stake - and for whom? Developers spend millions of dollars to buy land for destination resorts and millions more to develop that land. Developers put money into recreational amenities - restaurants, stables and golf courses, for example - to raise the prices of homes there and to attract wealthy tourists. Resorts raise property tax revenue because they allow expensive homes to be built on agricultural land. Working farms and forestland qualify for property tax deferrals and credits that whittle down the amount of tax a county collects. Property tax funds all county services, from planning to mental health care. Destination resorts stimulate the economy by creating jobs and attracting tourists. And resorts generate room tax, charged on top of all hotel and vacation rental stays. Destination resorts are a different option for homeowners and tourists. Oregon's land use laws aim to confine new development to already-urban areas and keep rural areas rural. Destination resorts are an exception to that rule. The resorts offer dense, city-like amenities in otherwise remote areas. Visitors eat at upscale restaurants, play golf and stay in fancy homes, all in a pastoral setting - or a suburban setting, in the case of a resort like Tetherow, which abuts Bend's west side. Fish and wildlife are state-owned resources, managed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Destination resorts are prohibited, by state law, in areas that ODFW identified in 1984 as especially sensitive wildlife areas. Because resorts are built in previously undeveloped areas, developers are required to mitigate their resorts' impacts on fish and wildlife. They usually mitigate by improving habitat on or near the resort. The county approves mitigation plans but often consults with ODFW staff first. ODFW does not receive funding from resorts. The agency is funded mainly by fishing and hunting license fees and taxes on the sale of guns and ammunition. Some residents complain that destination resorts lead to the overcrowding of their favorite spots to fish, ski or hunt. And some say the resorts have veered away from +Hnir nrininol infcnf - fn hnncf f^I mom P-rfo offronf http: //www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dlI/article?AID=/20080511/NEWSO1/ 805110302&template=print Page 3 of 7 Destination: Central Oregon I I The Bulletin until April 2013 to build enough overnight units to meet the required ratio of overnight units to permanent homes. Pronghorn developers said they requested the extension because of a temporarily weak market. The commissioners who voted for the extension complained that their hands were tied. Commissioner Dennis Luke said in a recent interview that the county code and state law have changed since plans for Pronghorn were approved in 2002. 11/16/09 2:31 PM homeowners who expect schools, buses and fire protection. But resort developers don't pay system development charges like other developers. SDCs fund the expansion of roads, sewers, parks and other services to a newly developed area. Resorts create jobs and attract tourists who spend money on guided rafting trips and fancy dinners. - Lily Raff "We have better checkpoints, and I think the state law has better checkpoints," he said. If, for example, Thornburgh - a proposed resort north of Tumalo - gets approved to build its first batch of homes, it won't get approval for a second batch until it has met requirements for overnight units, Luke said. Pronghorn's developers had bonded 120 percent of the estimated costs of the overnight housing as insurance that they would eventually meet the requirement. But state law allows the county to seize the bond only to develop the required overnight lodging. Erik Kancler, executive director of a local advocacy group called Central Oregon Landwatch, said this illustrates a problem with the law. "I would like to see the county enforce (the lodging ratio) but I don't blame them because they would have to become developers, and counties shouldn't have to become developers," he said. "It would be advantageous if the state law were set-up_s_Q that. 0-ondmg-wasn'tin lieu_of-following-the-law, but rather a means of motivating-a_developer_to_comply_with._an agreement." In an e-mail, Pronghorn developer Tom Hix said that his resort is still "very much" visitor-oriented. "Certainly a small percentage of our homes have full-time residences," Hix wrote. "Overall, I would put 85 percent of our owners as vacation property (owners)." But second homes ar no he same as overnight units, Kancler said. And the region's newer resorts seem to be catering to homebuyers instead of vacationers. "They've become a means of collecting property tax, rather than room tax on overnight visitation," he said of the resorts. "They were supposed to have a lot of short-term visitors who are coming in and not placing a lot of demands on services. They were supposed to boost tourism and infuse the economy with tourism dollars. But they have morphed over the years and become residential communities." Hard to quantify Debate over destination resorts often boils down to this: Opponents say the resorts have skirted land use laws to become remote residential communities. Proponents insist they're still tourist-oriented, as the laws originally intended. "You always have those folks out there that are anti-growth, that say destination resorts are getting around the rules," said http://www.bendbuiletin.com/apps/pbcs.dlI/article?AID=/20080511/NEWSO1/805110302&template=print Page 4 of 7 Destination: Central Oregon I I The Bulletin 11/16/09 2:31 PM Deschutes County Commissioner Mike Daly. "They're not. The destination resorts bring tourism, and tourism brings good, clean dollars to Central Oregon. They come, they spend their money and they leave. Everybody knows that tourism is the cleanest dollar you can have." So which is it - do destination resorts cater to tourists or permanent residents? It's hard to say. A quick way to gauge a resort's focus is to visit its Web site. Sunriver, Black Butte Ranch and Eagle Crest, for example, have Web sites that beckon tourists. Web sites for Caldera Springs, Tetherow and Pronghorn look more like real estate advertisements. A more scientific method is to compare the taxes a resort generates. Resorts generate property taxes and room taxes. Room taxes are charged on overnight lodging rentals and go to the city or county in which the lodging is located. Some of the taxes must be spent on tourism promotion, while the rest may be spent by the local government. Deschutes County's room taxes for the current fiscal year - from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008 - are projected to total approximately $3.5 million, according to Marty Wynne, Deschutes County's finance director. Room and home rentals in the Sunriver area make up about 70 percent of that total, or $2.45 million, Wynne said. But Deschutes County would not disclose more detailed information about room taxes generated by each destination resort, citing laws that protect business information. Property taxes generated by a resort are also difficult to quantify because the property taxes in a completed resort are paid by hundreds of individual property owners and are spread over hundreds of accounts. Both of the county commissioners interviewed for this article - Daly and Luke - cited Pronghorn's contribution to property tax revenue when defending their decision to grant the resort an extension on its overnight lodging requirements. Pronghorn Investors LLC paid almost $672,000 in property taxes and was the fourth-highest taxpayer in the county in 2007. Commissioner Tammy Melton, who voted against the extension, did not return phone calls for this article. "The argument has been that the property tax these resorts generate is so much that it overwhelms the burden placed on counties and cities," Kancler said. "But nobody has bothered to quantify the burden." Wildlife Destination resorts bring people, traffic, lights and noise to quiet, rural areas. This impacts wildlife, which is considered a state- owned resource, managed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. State law requires destination resort developers to calculate and then mitigate their impacts on fish and wildlife. Mitigation usually involves habitat improvements on or near the resort site. Standards for mitigation vary from county to county. Deschutes County has the strictest standard in Central Oregon for wildlife mitigation, requiring "no net loss or net degradation of the resource." Crook and Klamath counties require no "significant adverse impact." Jefferson County code does not mention mitigation. County planning departments do not employ wildlife biologists, so they rely on ODFW employees for technical expertise. http://www.bendbuiletin.com/apps/pbcs.dil/article?AID=/20080511/NEWSO1/805110302&template=print Page 5 of 7 Destination: Central Oregon I I The Bulletin 11/16/09 2:31 PM Glen Ardt, a wildlife habitat biologist for ODFW, said his agency offers advice such as, "What kind of assessment (do) we recommend the developers be doing? What kind of mitigation? What type of compliance monitoring (do) we recommend to the county to be implemented? We have no regulatory authority." As the agency worked with more resorts, it gained experience in evaluating wildlife plans, Ardt said. "The early destination resorts, in hindsight, did not fully mitigate. I mean, they didn't meet the 'no net impact' standard. And that was just due to ODFW's inexperience," Ardt said. When asked whether any of the resorts fully mitigated their impacts, Ardt paused and then said, "Thornburgh is going to be pretty close." Ruth Wahl, a senior planner for Deschutes County, said Thornburgh has had to "jump through more hoops" than earlier resorts. Between early 2005, when Tetherow was quietly approved, and late 2005, when an application was submitted for Thornburgh, public opinion of destination resorts changed. "For whatever reasons, Pronghorn and Tetherow did not have the scrutiny that Thornburgh has had.... 1 think the bar has been raised and if we have other (resorts) they know what standard they will have to meet because of Thornburgh," Wahl said. But a good plan on paper doesn't do much for wildlife. And local planners admit that they don't always follow up on whether a resort completes its mitigation. The Running Y Ranch, a resort near Klamath Falls, was approved by Klamath County in 1996. The resort agreed to mitigate its impacts on wildlife by creating hundreds of acres of wetlands on resort property. Bob Hooton, Klamath and Malheur watershed district manager for ODFW, said the resort still has not completed its mitigation. "Our frustration is that we try to work in good faith to assist the counties and to assist the developers and we're - rightly so - just an advisory capacity," Hooton said. "But when the developer doesn't complete the mitigation, (enforcement is) kind of up to the whims of the county and in the case of Klamath County it's been slow coming." Jon Barkee, development director for Running Y Ranch, said the resort had completed about half of its mitigation when an adjacent landowner's dyke broke in 2006, flooding the project area. The developers expect to present new mitigation plans to Klamath County within the next two months, he said. Changes coming 1000 Friends of Oregon is working with stakeholders this summer to draft new legislation addressing where destination resorts may be sited and how developers mitigate their impacts on water, traffic and wildlife. Oregon's land use system was put in place by administrative rule, but the state Legislature later adopted the destination resort rules into the state statute. The rules can only be changed by legislative action. Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development has indicated that it may ask the Legislature to remove the resort rules from statute so that the agency again has control. Changes are coming locally, too. Deschutes County will revamp its resort zoning map for the first time since 1992. Officials said http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080511/NEWSO1/805110302&template=print Page 6 of 7 Destination: Central Oregon I I The Bulletin 11/16/09 2:31 PM they plan to unveil the proposed map by the end of June. Jefferson County's first-ever resort zoning is currently under appeal. Oral arguments on the case were heard in circuit court last week. Crook County residents vote this month on a ballot measure that, if passed, would advise county commissioners to put a stop to new resorts. Meanwhile, Deschutes, Jefferson, Crook and Klamath counties are each considering or expecting applications for more resorts. "In my county we've got roughly 650 farm properties out there," Cooper said. "Three have been turned into destination resorts, only one of which is actually building anything. And there's one more applied for. That's four less farms in the whole county. "It is hard for me to see how we have completely disrupted the farming sector with numbers like that," he continued. "But what I do know is that if you call for a sheriff's deputy in the middle of the night, or you call for an ambulance now, you expect somebody to come. And you expect somebody to pay for it.... And resorts are doing that." Lily Raff can be reached at Iraff@bendbulletin.com or 617-7836. Published Daily in Bend Oregon by Western Communications, Inc. © 2009 www.bendbulletin.com http://www.bendbuiletin.com/apps/pbcs.dil/article?AID=/20080511/NEWSO1/805110302&template=print Page 7 of 7 Dear Board of County Commissioners and Staff, I am a Bend native that grew up here, and come from a family that has been here for many generations. My family is in fact the oldest European family in the state, and we were in Central Oregon long before Bend or Deschutes County existed. My life is deeply intertwined with this land, and it holds a special meaning to me that is hard to explain in a letter. I recently moved back to Bend after living in San Diego for the last 25 years, and have been saddened and depressed by the development of previously pristine areas and the rampant sprawl that has swallowed up and fragmented much of the land in the County. So many areas where I once found solitude are now paved over or closed to public access with no trespassing signs. I have spent a great deal of time revisiting and exploring old haunts where I used to hunt, fish, and hike, and am shocked at the fragmentation of what were once large contiguous blocks of habitat, and the decline in the local animal populations. My feeling from spending many, many days walking the area is that the local deer herd is less than 50% of what it was in the 1980's. In some areas, I would say that there is an 80% reduction. Antelope are all but gone from the area, and Sage Grouse will be gone completely in the near future unless we make some changes in the way we manage the land. East of town, where there used to be a herd of real antelope, we now have a gated community with guard and a sign that says "Pronghorn". The real antelope are gone. I came across a report from the DFW Interagency Working Group last week that supports these numbers, and makes specific recommendations for land use and management. That report was sent to the County Commission and staff, and I highly recommend that those recommendations be followed. The public land that is not developed is under incredible pressure from the exploding population boom of the last 20 years. That boom took a severe toll on the land here, and has left us with the economic bust we are all dealing with now. Bend has been in boom- bust cycles for my whole life following the swings of the real estate market. This makes economic stability for the area impossible, and also forces all the land use decisions through the lens of real estate development. The result is massive sprawl, degraded habitat, and an unstable economy. We need to change the economic model from a real estate-based model to a sustainable base of high tech, clean energy, bio-tech, medical, light manufacturing, and other well paying jobs that can create a stable economic base for the area. We also need to change our housing model from McMansions in the country to affordable higher density housing that will allow us to grow without killing the remaining open space. Bend was in fact mostly high-density affordable housing before real estate speculation drove prices out of sight with the results we are living with now. Much has been made about the economic contribution that more destination resorts will have on the community to promote the necessity of building more resorts. I see these resorts as mostly sub-divisions with a golf course that mainly benefit the land developer and the people who can afford to buy a house there. I do not see a benefit for local citizens. The jobs they create are temporary construction jobs or low paying service jobs that aren't an answer to our current economic dilemma. They also contribute to sprawl and the continuation of the myth that another real estate boom will somehow save us. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly against more resorts, but the planning commission appointed by the County Commissioners has ignored that input, and is recommending rezoning AG land for resorts, and going against state law to make more land eligible for resort development. I attended and testified at two of the planning commission hearings and saw from their response that the deck was completely stacked with property right activists that do not represent the prevailing public sentiment regarding resorts. It takes a lot of time to prepare for, attend, and testify at public hearings, and it is very discouraging to realize that your testimony will have no effect because the decision has already been made. The planning commission should have been made up from a cross section of the community representing a broad spectrum; not just the development community and property rights activists. Democracy should represent the people, not just the influential. We are all stronger with diversity; do a better job next time in your selection process. One commissioner asked me if I was aware that 80% of the land in Deschutes County was public, and we are only talking about the remaining 20%. I reminded him that I grew up here and am pretty familiar with the land. The 80/20 figure is very misleading in that it presumes that 80% of the land base is free from development, and therefore the environment is in great shape. It also presumes that the entire land base is equal in terms of wildlife habitat, which of course is false. Winter range for deer and elk is mostly below 5000 ft in elevation. Take a look at a map of Deschutes County to see how much of our land is below 5000 feet. All of the private land sits in the winter range for deer and elk thus impacting 100% of the heard. Private land is closer to 50% of prime winter range, and it is no surprise to me that the deer herd is a shadow of what it was. Bend was once a tight-nit community that was about as close as you can get to heaven in this life. Many of the local people I grew up with have left the area due to the high cost of living, and to try to find another place like Bend used to be. We should not be forcing local people to leave; we should be striving for a sustainable model that welcomes us to stay. We can't go back in time, but we can use intelligence instead of greed to make our decisions going forward. The quality and integrity of the land and ecosystem is the real treasure that is the basis for our quality of life in Central Oregon. My daughter has heard my stories about Bend her whole life, and now that we are living here she asks me why it isn't like the old days. Try looking into the eyes of an 8 year old and explain that. Those "Old Days" are only 20-25 years ago, and I shutter to think what this place will look like in another 25 years if we don't take a more intelligent path. I want my daughter to have the experience I had growing up as much as is possible. We can give her and all of the rest of the next generation that experience, or we can chop it all up with ignorance and greed. I think we can be better than that. More destination resorts benefit a few while harming the many. We have enough; we don't need more. Sincerely, David Stowe 1103 NW Foxwood Pl. Bend, OR 97701 619 925-8191 dave@ardellgroup.com //2-0`/0 4f,7 J J ll 96 Iz c14 14 1,V 1,7X 7 pp Z~4 W~-,~C4 oo~ zx,~, ~ IV,,- 7~ ~ -1 Ca" h AL I:e eel klvly 1,17 74, Gt 1. ~?'t~`i~ h"Z~"~ 141 c 6~u G 7L4N 717 l ; ~ ' / o ' N 2 Oregon 8"9 Theodore R Kulongoski, Governor January 20, 2010 Deschutes County Board Of Commissioners Department of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 Salem, OR 97301-1279 (503) 986-5200 FAX (503) 378-4844 www.oregonstatelands.us. State Land Board Theodore R. Kulongoski Governor RE: Proposed Amendments to Deschutes County Code Chapter 23.84, Clarification of Common School-Fund Trust Lands Presented by Douglas Parker, Asset Planner Commissioners, Staff and public school advocates: Kate Brown Secretary of State Ben Westlund State Treasurer In the most basic of terms, the intent of this testimony is to make sure that the Board is aware of the significant difference be Common School Fund (CSF) Trust Lands and "state lands" as the term is used in the proposed ordinance. The purpose of Common School Fund Trust Lands is to generate revenue to support K-12 public education statewide through real estate-oriented activities including ground leases and land sales, most often to the private sector. CSF Trust Lands are not "public lands" or "state lands" in the conventional usage of these terms. CSF Trust Lands are managed according to the Admission Act, the Oregon Constitution, state law and various legal directives including an Attorney General Opinion (Crookham Opinion, July 24, 1992, No. 8223) [attached] that requires the State Land Board ...to use lands dedicated to the Common School fund in such a way as to derive the greatest net profit for the people of this state." In order to codify the distinction between CSF Trust Lands and state lands, the Board is requested to adopt a minor modification to proposed Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 23.84. This modification will help avoid future constraints to the constitutional and judicial mandates regarding the highest priority use and management of the real estate assets of the Common School Fund. A clear legal distinction between "state lands" and "Common School Fund Trust Lands" is the goal. This requested clarification has direct bearing on 400 acres of CSF Trust Lands currently leased to the proposed Destination Resort on Cline Buttes. This lease represents significant income to the Common School Fund while a possible future lease to develop this site has the potential to produce even greater revenue for the CSF. Deschutes County Ordinance 2010-001, as currently proposed in DCC Chapter 23.84.030 (3)(d)(6), allows Federal, State, or City land not otherwise excluded that becomes privately. owned through land exchanges or other disposition can be considered for destination resort siting consistent with these policies and mapped as available for destination resort development. Given the above-cited Cline Buttes example where CSF Trust Lands are leased rather than sold or exchanged, it is essential that the adopted implementing Ordinance and resulting Code language distinguish between state lands and CSF Trust Lands so as not to inhibit or impede CSF Trust Lands highest priority use and management goals. To avoid this possible future development conflict, it is requested that the following be added to proposed DCC Ordinance 2010-001, Chapter 23.84 as part of this Plan and Text Amendment procedure: DCC 23.84.030 (3) (f). For the purposes of this Ordinance, State land, does not include Indemnity lands or School lands as defined in ORS 273.251 (3) and (4) respectively or any other Common School Fund Trust Lands managed by the Oregon Department of State Lands. In closing, this amendment request provides adequate clarification to avoid a direct conflict between CSF Trust Land management obligations and the proposed Deschutes County Code pertaining to Destination Resorts. On behalf of the DSL, I thank you for considering this important Deschutes County Ordinance 2010-001 clarification issue. January 20, 2010 TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission, Deschutes County Commission, Deschutes County Development Department FR: Robb Reavill, 1468 NW Kingston Ave., Bend, OR 97701 RE: Destination Resorts Thank you for extending the public comment period. The public sentiment in Deschutes County has been recorded as running against the development of destination resorts. People seem to be aware that cities will be competing with these quasi-municipalities for resources such as water and that these ostensible cash cows for counties are fraught with hidden costs and future liabilities. The so-called economic benefits to counties should be studied carefully, taking into consideration the long-term impacts. I urge the Commission to study the document Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon in which some of the myths of economic advantage to counties are examined and analyzed; for example: Who will fill the new resort jobs, locals or newcomers? Would the service jobs pay real living wages? How much of this is transient, seasonal labor? Why increase the number of such jobs in the county? With the amenities to be contained in these quasi-municipalities, how much money is really spent in neighboring towns? Economic risks: What would have happened last year if more destination resorts had been developed? How much greater the unemployment rate and the impact on social services? What happens when the infrastructure within the resort starts to age, homeowners' fees increase, and homeowners bail out? Destination resorts are based on a boom economy with the same greed that has enveloped Wall Street and left us with an economic mess. County planning should always work with a worst-case scenario, looking at the far future instead of looking at short-term supposed benefits. Now the issue of farmland classification has arisen. The prognosis for the world of the future is a shortage of water and food. In the High Desert, even now, produce from small farms is being marketed. A vineyard is getting started. Sheep, cattle, goats, and poultry are being raised in a natural way, the products of which are finding a good market. Such enterprises should be encouraged. Water should be used for this new farming model rather than for golf courses, which benefit only a few wealthy people. In the long-range plan for the county, priorities should be set with the greatest good for the greatest number of people in mind. Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch are being held up as models for destination resorts. These are red herrings. The new generation of resorts is entirely different. Moreover, Sunriver is a recycled army camp. The number of destination resorts in Deschutes County has reached its limit. Recreational needs should be met by small resorts without golf courses and long-term residences. History is replete with calamities brought on by a disregard of the admonishments of farsighted people, those without vested interests other than concern for the future welfare and protection of the general population, inherent in which is care for the land. I hope the Commission and the County will develop such farsightedness and turn a deaf ear to quick bucks and financial rewards for this world's developers. Look what greed and permissiveness did on Wall Street and in the City of Bend recently *Fodor & Associates, LLC, Eugene, OR, March 2009. Available from Central Oregon Landwatch., Ste. 12, 25 NW Minnesota Ave., Bend OR 97701-2750. 541-647-1567 M. Kay Knott 68308 Cloverdale Rd. Sisters, OR 97759 January 19, 2010 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Deschutes Service Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 SUBJECT: Destination Resort Mapping Destination Resorts: I would encourage the County to modify the proposed destination resort remapping amendments to comply with the state plan. Ultimately it would save the county time and money. Deschutes County is highly reliant on tourism and has implemented policies to "protect the area, preserving its esthetic values to encourage tourism and maintain the rural lifestyle". Some of these policies have impacted negatively on some industries ability to make a living by increasing costs, reducing income and restricting ability to use their property in the most effective manner. It's important for the county's benefit, that the county provide diverse opportunities for these businesses to expand, providing jobs for citizens and revenue for the county. Agriculture in Central Oregon is no longer viable. In fact, the average income is negative $51 per acre. The various data tables conflict with one another as to number of farms, percent of county income, and various other categories. These need to be reconciled. The general conclusion seems to be that there may not be any viable agriculture in Deschutes County to merit preservation as Exclusive Farm Use, except for the open space values. It might make sense to allow for much broader uses on agriculture lands such as events, dude ranches, etc. to preserve the agricultural sense and feel of the area while allowing more creative methods of subsidizing these operations. Goal 8: "To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts." I believe the current county's siting language is too restrictive and does not meet the intent of goal 8. The destination resort language should be streamlined to be more in line with state statute. The county's siting criteria are far more restrictive than state statutes allow and are more cumbersome. There is no provision for an opt-in process to avoid M49 liability for those who may lose qualifications for resort mapping. The resort siting portion of the code could be simplified to read: "Siting of Destination Resorts will be done in accordance with state statutes" Comments specific to the current language: 23.84.020 Goals 4. Delete; this is redundant. It is unnecessary to call out specific goals. 23.84.030 Policies 3.a.2. Change to: "within 3 miles of a high value crop area as defined in ORS 197.435(2) 3.a.4. Delete: This is not consistent with ORS 197.467 3.a.5. Amend sentence to comply with ORS 197.455(e) 3.a.6. Amend to read "Contiguous qualifying properties of less than 160 acres" 3.c.1-9. Delete: Language is not consistent with state statutes. Ordinance Provisions: a.2. Delete: This is a CMP consideration and should not be required at the mapping stage. 3.c.1-9. Delete: Language is not consistent with state statutes. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this matter. Marilyn K. Knott January 20, 2010 TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission, Deschutes County Commission, Deschutes County Development Department FR: Robb Reavill, 1468 NW Kingston Ave., Bend, OR 97701 RE: Destination Resorts Thank you for extending the public comment period- The public sentiment in Deschutes County has been recorded as running against the development of destination resorts. People seem to be aware that cities will be competing with these quasi-municipalities for resources such as water and that these ostensible cash cows for counties are fraught with hidden costs and future liabilities. The so-called economic benefits to counties should be studied carefully, taking into consideration the long-term impacts. I urge the Commission to study the document Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon in which some of the myths of economic advantage to counties are examined and analyzed; for example: Who will fill the new resort jobs, locals or newcomers? Would the service jobs pay real living wages? How much of this is transient, seasonal labor? Why increase the number of such jobs in the county? With the amenities to be contained in these quasi-municipalities, how much money is really spent in neighboring towns? Economic risks: What would have happened last year if more destination resorts had been developed? How much greater the unemployment rate and the impact on social services? What happens when the infrastructure within the resort starts to age, homeowners' fees increase, and homeowners bail out? Destination resorts are based on a boom economy with the same greed that has enveloped Wall Street and left us with an economic mess. County planning should always work with a worst-case scenario, looking at the far future instead of looking at short-term supposed benefits. Now the issue of farmland classification has arisen. The prognosis for the world of the future is a shortage of water and food. In the High Desert, even now, produce from small farms is being marketed. A vineyard is getting started. Sheep, cattle, goats, and poultry are being raised in a natural way, the products of which are finding a good market. Such enterprises should be encouraged. Water should be used for this new farming model rather than for golf courses, which benefit only a few wealthy people. In the long-range plan for the county, priorities should be set with the. greatest good for the greatest number of people in mind. Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch are being held up as models for destination resorts. These are red herrings. The new generation of resorts is entirely different. Moreover, Sunriver is a recycled army camp. The number of destination resorts in Deschutes County has reached its limit. Recreational needs should be met by small resorts without golf courses and long-term residences. ~ ~ s'J ifs ~ History is replete with calamities brought on by a disregard of the admonishments of farsighted people, those without vested interests other than concern for the future welfare and protection of the general population, inherent in which is care for the land. I hope the Commission and the County will develop such farsightedness and turn a deaf ear to quick bucks and financial rewards for this world's developers. Look what greed and permissiveness did on Wall Street and in the City of Bend recently *Fodor & Associates, LLC, Eugene, OR, March 2009. Available from Central Oregon Landwatch., Ste. 12, 25 NW Minnesota Ave., Bend OR 97701-2750. 541-647-1567 Memorandum January 20, 2010 To: Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County From: Duncan Brown Subject: Testimony on the Proposed Destination Resort Remapping Project Attached to this testimony is the letter entered into the record at the last Planning Commission hearing in December 2009. The reason for this is that the issues raised in this document are still valid. The Planning Commission has not addressed the deficiencies in the remapping process. As a result, the proposed action before you is premature, and the project should either be tabled until it can be completed in the proper manner or terminated. Following are the outstanding issues identified in the remapping process: 1. There is no description of what the map is being prepared for. There is no definition of Destination Resort in the County Code. The State has a definition, but if it is to be used, it must be incorporated into the County Code directly, by reference, or as part of a County definition. The state definition is as follows: Destination Resort Aself-contained developmentproviding visitor-oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities, and that qualifies under the definition of either a "large destination resort" or a "small destination resort" in thisgoal. Spending required under these de inztions is stated in 1993 dollars. The spending required shall be adjusted to the year in which calculations are made in accordance with the United States Consumer Price Index. (emphasis added) If the State definition is to be used, there are no findings or discussion about how the proposed destination resort areas are in areas of "high natural amenities." In order to comply, high natural amenities that support destination resort mapping must be identified, and the mapping must reflect those amenities. Whether or not the State definition is used, the County must address the issue of "high natural amenities." 2. The destination resort provisions are placed under Goal 8, Recreation. The record and, particularly the findings, do not show how mapping complies with Goal 8. Vague reference in the findings as to the benefits of destination resorts as listed under Goal 8 does not demonstrate that the mapped lands provide those benefits. In fact, the findings fail to make any direct mention of recreational opportunities that might occur with the mapped lands. Rather, the mapping criteria are an uncoordinated series of responses to property ownership, lot or parcel creation, and size, and without regard for the "high natural amenities" required under State requirements or compliance with Goal 8. In summary, what is before you is a mapping project that has no defined product. It reflects a number of unrelated criteria that have no connection to the Statewide Goal under which it is regulated. Page 1 I recommend that the County table the mapping project, or even better yet amend the map to reflect only those lands on which destination resorts have been approved or are presently under County review until 1. A clear description of what a destination resort should be is developed, 2. An explanation of how the destination resort as described by the County meets the State definition (particularly relating to high natural amenities) and Goal 8 is given, and 3. Findings developed of how the lands to be mapped meet the description of destination resorts, and how it meets the guidelines and requirements of Goal 8. At present, in Deschutes and Crook Counties alone there are four developed destination resorts (Inn at the Seventh Mountain, Sunriver, Eagle Crest, and Black Butte Ranch), six approved and developing resorts (Tethrow, Pronghorn, Caldera Springs, Remington Ranch, Hidden Canyon, and Brasada Ranch), and one proposed resort that is still in the midst of County review. All but Black Butte Ranch are within 20 miles of Bend. The approved but undeveloped resorts alone represent approximately over 2500 overnight lodging units and 6300 residences, which is approximately the number of units developed in the last 30+ years. This housing reservoir contained in the undeveloped destination resorts should be more than sufficient to satisfy destination resort needs for the next several years until the County is again eligible for remapping. In the interim, the County will be able to develop a clear concise description or vision of what we believe a destination resort should be and how it should function in providing recreational amenities and opportunities of Goal S. Page 2 Duncan Brown Land Use Planning 61487 SW Elder Ridge Street Bend, Oregon 97702 541-317-9160 duncan.brown@clearwire.net December 2, 2009 Testimony Before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on Proposed Mapping for Destination Resorts . There has been considerable testimony on the proposed mapping process for Destination Resorts in Deschutes County. The following written testimony is a suggestion as to a logical process for identifying land that is appropriate for Destination Resorts. As presented in prior testimony, it is important to stress that Destination Resorts are an option, not a requirement, under State land use regulations. These regulations are found under Statewide Land Use Goal 8, Recreation, which states: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. As such, Destination Resorts are intended to provide a diversity of recreational opportunities for those counties that wish to allow them. I recommend three steps that, when taken in order, will provide a clear and direct approach to establishing a map identifying lands appropriate for Destination Resort locations. These steps are: (1) developing a vision; (2) Acknowledging public regulations and lands that restrict Destination Resort development; and (3) Identifying appropriate County locational Criteria. 1. Vision Within limits established by Goal 8 and its related rules, Destination Resorts can take on virtually any appearance, size, and function the County wishes them to be. The initial vision of how Destination Resorts fit into the County comprehensive development plan is of paramount importance in the mapping of suitable areas. This vision should be developed prior to initiating mapping or land regulations. It will serve as the yardstick by which all further steps, whether it be mapping or developing land use regulations, will be measured. The vision should be as focused and succinct as possible, so that everyone will have a clear understanding of what is expected. Elements of this vision should include: • The type of recreational opportunities Destination Resorts are intended to support or provide. 1. Active or passive use of natural resources located onsite or nearby. 2. Developed recreational opportunities. The market Destination Resorts are intended to serve. 1. Tourists - Users who are traveling past a resort and wish to take advantage of the recreational opportunities and support services as a rest stop or brief stay before continuing to their final destination. We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. Native American proverb page 2 2. Vacationers - Users who plan on staying a few days or weeks at a single location and might take advantage of recreational opportunities both on the Destination Resort site and in the surrounding area. 3. Local Residents - Users who live in the vicinity and wish to take advantage of specific recreational opportunities that are present on the Destination Resort site such as attending a golf tournament, participating in a sporting activity, or attending a native plant display and lecture. Once a clear vision is developed, it can be applied in a careful, logical, and deliberate manner that provides flexibility to property owners within suitable areas, protects the rural character and natural resources, does not adversely impact urban areas and development, and can be supported by the existing and planned transportation system and utility infrastructure. II. State and Federal Limitations Once the vision is developed, State limitations can be. applied to the County in order to begin to more clearly identify land that is realistically available for Destination Resort siting. It is also suggested that Federal and State-owned property that has no possibility of being sold or traded (wilderness lands, State and County parks, monuments, etc.) also be eliminated from consideration, but that other Federal, State, or locally-owned lands (forest lands, grazing lands, etc.) continue to be included. With this information a map can be produced that represents the maximum area available for Destination Resort development. III. County Variables/ Location At this point the County can systematically evaluate a number of variables or locational criteria that can be applied, either individually or jointly, in order to more specifically identify what impact the Destination Resort map will have on allowed rural uses and activities. The mechanics of this process are fairly straightforward; a simple application of overlays can be applied onto the previously prepared map. However, gathering data may be more problematic, as some has been developed in only a general manner, while other variables can be clearly and accurately measured. Many of the objections or concerns in testimony presented to date center on the choice and measurement of these mapping criteria. In short, this is because both the identified variables and the application of them are inconsistent and confusing. For example, testimony has included concern about errors in soils classification. To reduce the confusion I would suggest dividing the criteria into two categories: those that can be clearly and accurately measured using existing data, and those that require additional clarity and refinement in order to produce clear and objective onsite delineation. Examples of each category are given below. They are for purposes of illustration only, and do not represent a category that should necessarily be included. • Clearly delineated and objective criteria 1. Distance from an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) if the time of UGB identification is stated. Time of UGB identification is necessary in order to prevent UGB expansion that would then create a conflict with application of this criterion and the actual Destination Resort mapping. 2. Platted subdivisions, although if this criterion is used a provision must be made to address lot consolidation, vacation of the subdivision in whole or in part, and property line adjustments within the subdivision. 3. Lands with a particular zone designation, such as OS&C (Open Space and Conservation) or F-1 (Forest Use). 4. Ownership by a single entity, although this must be clarified if it is an application criterion or if single ownership will have to continue as the resort is developed. We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. Native American proverb page 3 5. Distances separating Destination Resorts from each other. 6. Minimum Destination Resort size. • Criteria that require refinement for accurate onsite application. 1. Land areas can be inaccurate, as some large lots, parcels, or other units of land may be defined by metes and bounds, and have not been accurately surveyed. Additionally, a property line adjustment can impact lot or parcel size, which in turn can affect whether or not a size criterion is met. 2. Lot or parcel sizes do not accurately reflect actual ownership patterns or potential Destination Resort limits. Lots and parcels under a single ownership can be created in response to tax advantages, gradual consolidation of ownership by purchasing adjacent properties over time, or land use requirements. Individually they do not necessarily represent the logical or desirable boundaries for a Destination Resort, although as an ownership group they may. 3. Precise wildlife area boundaries are difficult to identify, and may be delineated by a feature that has shifted over time such as a forested area, meadow, or water feature. Additionally, maps delineating these features are often of too a large scale and too generalized. 4. Soils identification is made on a large scale with limited onsite proofing. In order to provide a more objective approach to delineating appropriate Destination Resort sites, I suggest that the County first choose the clearly identified criteria to be applied and produce a final map based on those and the State and Federal limitations discussed in the previous section of this testimony. Within those lands identified on this map, criteria that require refinement would be applied to each Destination Resort proposal, with the applicant providing the more precise information at the time of land use review. This approach intends to overcome the concerns about application of overly general, obsolete, or potentially inaccurate information used to create precise boundaries for Destination Resort locations. As these criteria are proposed, continual measurement of the result against the vision developed in the first step is required in order to assure continuity of the process. Conclusion This testimony presents a logical sequence of steps for identifying land that is appropriate for the location of Destination Resorts. It progresses from the general to specific, and allows opportunity for new and more detailed information to be collected, analyzed, and submitted for those lands that meet the clear and objective map criteria. We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. Native American proverb January 19, 2010 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 SUBJECT: Deschutes County Destination Resort Comprehensive Plan I encourage the County to modify the proposed plan so that it complies with the State Plan. Ultimately it would save the county time and money. I believe the county's current siting language is too restrictive and does not meet the intent of statewide land use goal 8, which states: "To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts." Although Deschutes County is highly reliant on tourism and has implemented policies to "protect the area, preserving its esthetic values to encourage tourism and maintain the rural lifestyle", ironically some of these policies have impacted negatively on some industries' ability to make a living by increasing costs, reducing income and restricting ability to use their property in the most effective manner. It's important for the county's benefit that the county provide diverse opportunities for these businesses to expand, thus providing jobs for citizens and revenue for the county. We must face the fact that production agriculture in Central Oregon is no longer monetarily viable. In fact, the average income is negative $51 per acre. If it weren't for the ability of farmers and ranchers to produce income from other sources, it would be impossible for them to maintain their money-losing acreages. It would make much better sense to allow for broader uses on these lands such as events, dude ranches, etc. to preserve the agricultural sense and feel of the area while allowing more creative methods of subsidizing these operations. To repeat, the siting criteria are far more restrictive than state statutes allow and are more burdensome. The destination resort language should be streamlined to be more in line with state statute. The resort siting language of the county's code could be simplified to read: "Siting of Destination Resorts will be done in accordance with state statutes" Comments specific to the current language: There are several specifics in the county code that warrant change. These have been covered in detail in other letters to you, and I will not repeat them here. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this matter. Leonard J. Knott 68308 Cloverdale Rd Sisters, OR 97759 46 i Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd STAFF REPORT TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County Planning Commission FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner Nick Lelack, Planning Director DATE: July 10, 2009 MEETING: July 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Destination Resort Remapping / Next Steps The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) and Planning Commission will convene a work session on July 23, 2009 at the Deschutes Service Center, starting at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the destination resort remapping work program. ISSUE: Shall staff initiate legislative amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) later this fall, creating three separate ordinances that define the process and procedures for amending the County's Destination Resort (DR) map, formally add and remove lands from the DR map, and revise certain resort siting criteria. The Board and Planning Commission need to provide direction on the following: A. BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION 1. Whether or not to initiate legislative amendments to the DR map. 2. Select or identify a preferred alternative (or as modified by the Board or Planning Commission) for un-mapping unsuitably large destination resort properties. 3. Select or identify a preferred alternative (or as modified by the Board or Planning Commission) for remapping lands for large destination resorts. 4. Initiate a legislative amendment to allow small destination resorts. Three potential ordinances are summarized below and described in more detail starting on Page 4. • Ordinance (9) would define the legislative process for amending the Deschutes County DR map and the review criteria for approving such an action. This ordinance must be adopted before any formal DR remapping proposals can be considered. Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -1- • Ordinance (2) would remove unsuitable properties while private parties would be allowed to request that their properties be retained or added to the DR map. This ordinance would be initiated following the adoption of Ordinance (1). • Ordinance (3) would amend DCC, Chapter 18.113, Destination Resort Combining Zone by revising certain siting criteria. This ordinance would follow the same legislative timeline as Ordinance (1) or Ordinance (2). BACKGROUND: On March 3, 2009 the Board directed staff to engage residents, government agencies, and stakeholders to ascertain their opinions about amending the DR map and the type of processes that are available to use. Staff held several community conversations from March to July, using PowerPoint to describe the existing DR map, a map amendment process, and a legislative timeline (Attachment A). During this five month period, staff met with twenty-nine organizations (Attachment 8). Opinions spanned the political spectrum (Attachment C). The strongest opinions, voiced at several well attended community meetings in Tumalo and Southern Deschutes County, advocated prohibiting new resorts, removing all un-entitled properties on the current DR map, or requiring stronger mitigation measures to offset their related impacts. Business organizations tended to remain neutral, while members of the Deschutes Farm Bureau and Water for Life underscored their economic benefits. B. DESCHUTES COUNTY DESTINATION RESORT MAP A destination resort chapter was added to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan in 1992 at the request of Eagle Crest Resort.' Table 1 lists the mapping criteria used by the County to determine resort eligibility. As demonstrated in Table 1, the County supplemented the state's criteria by excluding certain large agricultural and forest parcels, and resource lands within one Table 1 - Deschutes County Destination Resort Map Criteria (1992) Agency Criteria _ E,Cd • Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary (UGB) with an existing population of 100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the resort. • On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farmland identified and mapped by the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service, or its State of predecessor agency. Oregon2 • On a site within 3 miles of a high value crop area unless the resort complies with the requirements of ORS 197.445 (6) in which case the resort may not be closer to a high value crop area than % - mile for each 25 units of overnight lodging or fraction thereof. • On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forestlands as determined by the State Forestry Department, which are not subject to an approved goal exception. • In an especially sensitive big game habitat area as determined by Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife in July 1984 or as designated in acknowledged comprehensive plan. ' hftp://www co deschutes or us/dccode/title23/docs/chanter%2023.84.doc 2 hfti)://www.leci.state.or.us/ors/197.html Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -2- Exc'J ided Lands • All resource (farm and forest) lands within one mile of a UGB. • Irrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) lands greater than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation under one ownership. • Irrigated EFU lands greater than 60 acres of non-contiguous land in the same ownership. • All Forest Use 1(F-1) zoned property. Deschutes • Wildlife: a) Tumalo & Metolius deer winter range; b) antelope winter range east of County Bend; c) antelope winter range near Millican; d) elk range; e) sage grouse range. ' I , u d CaQds ~ - - e' • Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and Rural Residential (RR-10) zones. • Unirrigated EFU lands. • Irrigated EFU lands less than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation under one ownership. • Irrigated EFU lands with 60 acres or less of non-contiguous land in the same ownership. mile of a UGB. The mapping was done in a phased sequence, based on pending farm and forest studies. Additionally, as a result of a court case, lands within three miles of the county border were also excluded since most of the lands in Jefferson and Crook counties had not yet been evaluated. At that time it could not be demonstrated they contained high value crop areas excluded by Statewide Planning Goal 8 (Goal 8) and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). If a property was not excluded from the map by state or county criteria, it was automatically designated on a DR overlay map. The DR map and subsequent regulations enable a resort to be sited on rural lands without having to initiate statewide planning goal exception processes. Today, there are 112,448 acres in Deschutes County mapped for destination resorts. A vast majority are unsuitable for resort development because they are irreversibly committed to platted subdivisions, rural residential development or small lots. Notable statistics include: • 10% of mapped area (10,931 acres) is developed or planned as a destination resort or resort community (Sunriver, Black Butte, Inn of 7`h Mountain/Widgi Creek); and, • 54% of mapped area (60,175 acres) contains properties less than 160 acres, including several platted subdivisions. Large Destination Resorts Goal 8 and ORS allow large and small scale destination resorts.3 Large destination resorts must be located on a site of 160 acres or more to establish residential uses and real estate sales. The DCC only permits large destination resorts a Table 2 lists the destination resorts in Deschutes County while Table 3 lists those in Crook and Klamath counties. As both tables indicate, since 1992 only large destination resorts have been approved in Central Oregon. 3 http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goal8.pdf 4 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/dccode/title18/docs/chapter%2018.113.doc Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -3- TABLE 2 - DESTINATION RESORTS IN DESCHUTES COUNTY Resort Date Approved # Acres _ Fijlle Crest 1. 11. 111 1941; 1X93 2001 1,7/2 Pronghorn 2001 640 w Tethero 004 I 706 _ Caldera Springs _ - 2005 - 300 Tisr r nt~1~ Pendil3g 1.970 Total 5,478 TABLE 3 - DESTINATION RESORTS IN DESCHUTES COUNTY Resort Date A roved # Acres uprrii inch (Iaa~7~atf~) 1 " o _ 3,520 Brasada (Crooks 2004 1.800 nlernincllon Ranch ((-',rook) 2007 2,000 Hidden Canyon (Crook) 2007 3,600 c_ Trails (Crook) Total 11,506 2. Small Scale Destination Resorts The DCC does not allow small scale resorts. Small resorts must be located on a site of twenty (20) acres or more, but residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the resort. Therefore, real estate is not permitted. Direction: Staff seeks direction on whether this work program should include amending the DCC to allow small destination resorts. Please note that staff has not engaged the public on this particular issue. C. PURPOSE OF REVISING DESTINATION RESORT MAP Originally, an acknowledged DR map could only be amended during a state periodic review process. In 2003, that changed when the Oregon Legislature amended ORS exempting counties from periodic review. New language was added allowing counties to remap, not more frequently than once every thirty (30) months.5 Remapping is now dependent on creating a process for collecting and processing all DR map amendments made within a thirty (30) month planning period. D. REMAPPING ALTERNATIVES The following section provides several different alternatives for the Board and Planning Commission to consider for amending Deschutes County's DR map. Any of these alternatives or others like them would be encompassed in Ordinance (1) and then upon adoption, applicants would initiate formal DR map amendment requests, that if approved by the Board, would ultimately be codified in Ordinance (2). Figure 1 illustrates the interrelationship between Ordinances (1) and (2) that ultimately create a new County DR map. 5 See note 2. ORS 197.455(2) Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -4- Figure 1 - Destination Resort Remapping Process Ordinance (1)= Map Amendment Process &:Criteria • Specifies DR map canonly be amended every 30 months • Describes the legislative process for applicants to formally initiate a DR map amendment request . • Establishes a fixed time period for submitting a DR remapping request • Describes the criteria for County to review and approve DR map changes 1. Removing Unsuitable Properties Ordinance (2) - Format Request to Amend Destination Resort Map • Upon adoption of Ordinance (1), County initiates process for DR! map requests ' • County is one of the applicants, requesting removal of unsuitable lands from the existing resort map based on criteria identified in Ordinance (1) PC & Board hold hearings • Board adopts Ordinance (2), establishing a new DR map Table 4 lists three potential approaches to removing unsuitable properties from the County's DR map. Staff will refine the preferred approach once the Board provides direction, with input from the Planning Commission. Table 4 - Un-mapping Unsuitable Large Destination Resort Properties Alternatives Un-mapping Criteria Result • Remove 311 rc )Ernes ~vlth the. exception of 10,G31 acres entitled dr.stin:~tinii resorts_ committed to Alternative rn.iilr.r Ire uutiiy.,Ffectr:d properties l< ,linrtion resort , ur A I giVing o~r;ners the opi~~r,rtunity to request resurt curnrpimities, II r3n itainn 1y their resignation either with or wrth 90% mduc ion from existing map • All individually owned properties less than 160- acres. • All platted subdivisions. • All public lands. 15,058 eligible Alternative High priority deer migration area. acres; B • Resource lands within 1-mile of a UGB. . 87% reduction from • All lands within Redmond's Urban Reserve existing DR map Area. • Use tax mailer to notify affected properties giving owners the opportunity to request maintaining their designation. Same as Alternative R. but excludinrr i All individually owned properties less lh~rn 160- • 4}, 631 eliylhle Alternative Addinc acres: - C All mdividu 3Uy owne¢contiquuus i~rope ties ,got redllGtirrn frOnl less than 1 60-acres. l existing DIR map Use Lix mailer to notify affected prrsfiertjes yivrnq owr i., thr uprinrtunity to request _ ttlalntai(iitlg th,el~ rlesictnatiprl- _ _ - - Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -5- 2. Adding Suitable Lands for Large Destination Resorts Any remapping requests to add land to the County's DR map must be based on specific approval criteria that are identified in an adopted ordinance (Ordinance Before examining different alternatives for adding lands to the County's DR map, it is important to reexamine the County's Destination Resort Combining Zone, DCC 18.113 to understand the burden of proof placed on an applicant seeking conceptual master plan (CMP) approval. Table 5 lists some of those CMP requirements, including the consultants that must be retained to provide an adequate factual base. A complete overview of DCC 18.113 is provided in Attachment D. Table 5 - Destination Resort Combining Zone Burden of Proof s Consultants Requirements • Findings of fact. • Open space deed restrictions. Use of public facilities and amenities on site, Pioposed order of phasing and timing. i • Method frjrprnviding emergency medical sertiiees~nd facilities apd public safety ~ervices and facilities (fire' • V%fildfirP prevention, r:ontml anri e.v wwjtion plans. <tid Interim development ipclul-iintl temt,orary structures related to sales de elopnaent. txvrieis as~so,iations end related transition of responsitiiities ind transfer l of proix:rly. • fr.Iethcds of ensurin- that all fneilltit~5 a[ I'd rn;mnaon zlre -1 , within each Land use law ph-ise ~Jll be established-and will },,e nwirtained m perpetuity.- attorney Survey of hou: m; availability~for employees h aged upon income level and ' commutn~7 distanr c, • C~c ~cription of;the systprri to be used for the managernwnt of any rtdividually owned units that will be used for overnight lodging and how it will he implemented. " • Devr-lopment.will not create the potential foir natu'rA hazards identified in s file Cc a ity Comprehensive Plan., • Adequ=rte public. safety irroteetion'will b available through existing firm disirirts nr'wiIl be provided onsite,acec;rdinta to the specification of the state fire fnarshal. • resort Will mitigate any demands it cr. 3~r . on pul,licly owned re,-reational taiulilies on piabllc lands in the surrour,..i i(j area. C~rlectuat~ apt n space, facility rn.iintenance and police and fire l)r-tectinn shall be ensured iii perpetuity,n i mannr;r ac ~c;pt ihl~ to the rotrpty. Resource protection plan. Wildlife Open space management plan. biologist . Natural resources inventory. • Management prescriptions. 6 See note 4 above. Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -6- Table 5 - Destination Resort Combining Zone Burden of Proof s Consultants Requirements • Negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource. • Important natural features will be maintained. ~ Traffic~tudy. Traffic Destination resort developmnents thatsignificantly affect a transportation engineer facility >llall <rs5ure that the development r, _rnpsistent',vith the id;ntlfic~d function, tamer nd level of seplice of the facility. • Description of method of providing all utility systems, including the location and sizing. • Water conservation plan. • Wastewater disposal plan. Civil • The wastewater disposal plan includes beneficial use to the maximum extent practicable. engineer • Sewage disposal methods. • Erosion control plan. • Solid waste management plan. • Resort will be served by an on-site sewage system approved bye DEQ and a water system approved by the Oregon State Health Division. Water law attorney - • Availahility of waterfor estir iateJ derrlaritis at the destination re"' il. AdequatF water available for a!I proposed uses at the dostination IeSOII, based a ipn the water strIffy any l a prof ,Q.ed w +ter conservation pl iri. • Estimate water demands for the destination resort at maximum build-out. • Identification of the proposed sources. • Identification of all available information on ground and surface waters relevant to the determination of adequacy of water supply for the Hydrologist destination resort. • Identification of the area that may be measurably impacted by the water used by the destination resort (water impact area) and an analysis supporting the delineation of the impact area. • Statistically valid sampling of domestic and other wells within impact area. • Site desianed,to avoid or minimize adverse-effects on:adjoinina property. • D~✓elop n .nt v ill not force a si inificant dhange nr rccepted fans or fcrr~st Agricultural piaetices of sidnrti ;anfly nr~rease the cost ~f accepted farm or furest specialist pr3ctia . on -surrounding lands devoted to fans ur forest use SitE jrapr, ~demFnfs will he loeated and designzd to avoid or minimize dverse effects of the port or the surrouncling land • Analysis addressing the economic viability of the proposed development. • Fiscal impacts of the project including changes in employment, increased Economist tax revenue, demands for new or increased levels of public services, housing for employees and the effects of loss of resource lands during the life of the project. • Necessary financial resources are available for the applicant to undertake DCC 18.113.070(0). Except where connection to an existing public sewer or water system is allowed by the County Comprehensive Plan Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -7- Table 5 - Destination Resort Combining Zone Burden of Proof 6 Consultants Requirements the development consistent with minimum investment requirements. • Appropriate assurance has been submitted by lending institutions or other financial entities that the developer has or can reasonably obtain adequate financial support for the proposal once approved. • Resort will provide a substantial financial contribution which positively benefits the local economy throughout the life of the entire project considering changes in employment, demands for new or increased levels of public service, housing for employees and the effects of loss of resource land. • Natural amenities of site considered together with identified developed recreation facilities to be provided with the resort, will constitute a primary attraction to visitors, based on economic feasibility analysis. Arc ijtect l . - )Ilustrations and graphics to scale. Landscape A°tc itect Design guidelines. Three remapping alternatives are provided in Table 6. Each one is based on clear and objective criteria. The reasons for promoting this type of an approach are three fold: • As demonstrated in Table 5 and Attachment D, applicants' seeking CMP approval for a resort incur substantial costs to hire the necessary consultants to satisfy the burden of proof stipulated in the Destination Resort Combining Zone, DCC 18.113. Reason (1): Staff does not believe it is necessary to duplicate the rigorous findings required for siting a resort at the DR remapping stage. The land use process for obtaining the entitlements to establish a destination resort can face significant community opposition or be delayed by appeals and litigation. Crook County repealed its destination resort map in October 2008, in response to an advisory vote approved by voters in May 2008. Alternatively, the Thornburgh Resort CMP, originally approved by the Board in May 2006, faces its ninth appeal as it is now up for review by the Oregon Supreme Court. The final master plan is also on appeal. Reason (2): Staff does not believe it is necessary to apply discretionary criteria for DR remapping requests that can be subject to different interpretations and therefore litigation. Destination resorts will likely remain controversial in Deschutes County. Anyone applying for a DR map amendment recognizes that community concerns and the possibility of legal challenges are distinct possibilities if and when a resort is formally proposed. • Recent case law now requires any new destination resort to construct the first 50 overnight lodging accommodations prior to the sale of any residential lots." This requirement, coupled with other statutory obligations dealing with recreational s DCC 18.113.060(A(1)(a) was amended in 2007 based on a decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Annuziata Gould v. Deschutes County and Thornburgh Resort. Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -8- amenities and public facilities, may create significant financial impediments for siting future destination resorts in Deschutes County. Reason (3): Staff does not believe it is necessary to further encumber the DR remapping process. Applicants interested in siting a destination resort already face substantial challenges, from first obtaining the necessary land use entitlements to constructing associated infrastructure, ranging from recreational amenities, overnight lodging, water and wastewater facilities, and transportation improvements. Table 6 - Remapping Criteria for Large Destination Resorts Alternatives Criteria Alternative 1 na i ire Lands Within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing population of 100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the resort. • On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime m farmland identified and mapped by the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service, or its predecessor agency. v • On a site within three miles of a high value crop area unless the o resort complies with the requirements of ORS 197.445 (6) in which case the resort may not be closer to a high value crop area than 1/2 mile for each 25 units of overnight lodging or fraction thereof. • On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forestlands as determined by the State Forestry Department, which are not subject to an approved goal exception. • In an especially sensitive big game habitat area as determined by ODFW in July 1984 or designated in an acknowledged Comp Plan. • All resource lands within one mile of a UGB. • All public lands. • All lands within an Urban Reserve Area. • Irrigated EFU lands greater than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation under one ownership. • Irrigated EFU lands greater than 60 acres of non-contiguous land in the same ownership. 2 • All F-1 zoned property. • Wildlife: a) Tumalo deer winter range; b) Metolius deer range; c) U antelope winter range east of Bend; d) antelope winter range near `5 U Millican; e) elk range; f) sage grouse range; g) Deer migration priority wildlife migration area. - Elifiible L ji w • F-2, MUA-10, and RR-10 zones. • Unirrigated EFU lands. • Irrigated EFU lands less than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation under one ownership. • Irrigated EFU lands with 60 acres or less of non-contiguous land in the same ownership. Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -9- Table 6 - Remapping Criteria for Large Destination Resorts Alternatives Criteria Parcel maize - _ - • Minimum of 160 acres under one or multiple owners in one DR remapping request. Transportation Anaiyr,is • Require a "macro-level" transportation analysis that examines the rezoned property and the impact to major transportation facilities if build-out occurs during a twenty year period. It alerts applicant, community, and agencies of potential impacts to county or state transportation facilities and the mitigation measures that will likely be required if and when a destination resort is formally proposed. CO In i9il)le Lands Same as Alternative 1, but excluding: • Irrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) lands greater than 40 acres of contiguous irrigation under one ownership. Irrigated EFU lands greater than 60 acres of non-contiguous land in the same ownership. Alternative Z Eligi6l~r?ds • Same as Alternative 1, with the following additions: m .T • All irrigated EFU land. 76 • Minimum of 160 acres under one or multiple owners in one DR remapping request. Transportation Anars'~, • S~~n~e ;:r:-. Alternative 1. ~ - Inelic~ibl~e Lands a~ L U a) • Variations of Alternative 1 and 2. 06 m U O Alternative 3 J Eli~itilc L'~nds CO Vari,rtions of Alternative 1 and 2. P~ cel 5iz- U • Minimum of 350 acres under one or multiple owners in one DR remapping request. J Trait,Loriation A it its ~ • Same as Alternative 1. Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -10- E. REVISING LARGE DESTINATION RESORT SITING CRITERIA Water Management Plan The Deschutes Basin Board of Control, an intergovernmental unit composed of seven irrigation districts, recommended during the Community Conversations that the Board and Planning Commission consider amending the Destination Resort Combining Zone to add a new siting criterion. The new criterion would require an applicant proposing a destination resort to obtain a Water Management Plan (WMP) from an irrigation district, as part of an application if surplus irrigation water (surface water right) is being transferred to meet groundwater mitigation credits. A WMP is a contract between the resort developer and the affected irrigation district, addressing among other things: water distribution, timing of water need, access easements, water holdings, and drainage and tail water. The purpose of requiring a WMP as an integral criterion is to diffuse the ongoing controversy associated with water availability for a destination resort. It will demonstrate to the various constituents, organizations, and local officials that water supply is being adequately addressed at the front end of the land use process, thereby minimizing misunderstandings during a forthcoming public hearing. 2. Others Many residents expressed an interest in modifying other destination resort requirements. The following list summarizes other potential criteria that could be integrated into the Destination Resort Combining Zone, DCC 18.113. • Provision for work force housing • Conversion of cluster development • Provision of fire fighting facilities and services • Independent review of wildlife plans and inventories • Mitigation for impacts on cities 3. Timeline If supported by the Planning Commission and the Board, text amendments to the Destination Resort Combining Zone would be embodied in Ordinance (3) and be processed concurrently with either Ordinances (1) or (2). F. REMAPPING TIMELINE Table 7 provides a timeline for initiating Ordinances (1), (2), and (3) and the opportunities for public involvement. Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -11- Table 7 - Remapping Timeline Ordinance Content Public Outreach • Specifies DR reap can rsrily kle:amended lwtli.rte DLCD V) Day ~lotice once every 30 months in September for Ordinance • Drs^roFs the legislative~ptocess fr'r applicants to fonnallyinitiate a DR map Reengage organizations Ordinance amendment from Sprinq / Summf-r 2009 (1) • Entablp!jes a fixed time period for Community Conversations ~submittiinq a DR remapping request nth ,fall -Ddscrlbes the crit~ nj tai rr4iew~ r)ri ' First evidf•ntialy anng approve 'DR ina~'~haitc~Ps v,ith the Plannfrig (;umrllissinrf m ~Juyembe[ 'M9 • Upon adoption of Ordinance (1), County initiates formal process for to amend DR map • County is one of the applicants, Ordinance requesting removal of unsuitable lands (2) from the existing DR map based on criteria identified in Ordinance (1) • Opportunities for private property owners to request adding their property or keeping it on the DR map Reviser, destmation resort siting rntena, such as: • Requires an Lipplicpnt proposing a doAnation resort to obta it a 4Viv1P from Ordinance wi irrigation district as part ur au (3) appli~,ation if surplus irrigation water (surface water right) is Doing transferred to meet yroundWBter mitigation r-redits • County's unmapping proposal available for Fall 2009 Community Conversations • Use tax mailer to notify affected properties being considered for unmapping and opportunities to comment • Initiate DLCD 45-Day Notice in January for Ordinance (2) • First evidentiary hearing with the Planning Commission in March 2010 • _Jnitilte DLCD 45-Day Notice if i o ptember for Ordinance tiro srm-je time as Ordinances (I 11 or (2), peengage organizations irofii S jf n-11 5ummor 2009 Conuiumity Conversations in the -fail First ~:vidontiLar, hearin~j in November 2069 or cgncurrently with Ordinance (2) in rvlarch 2'010 Attachments: A. Community Conversation Remapping PowerPoint Presentation B. Community Conversation Gantt Chart C. Community Input Summary D. Destination Resort Combining Zone Summary Destination Resort Remapping Work Session July 23, 2009 -12- Page I of 2 Peter Gutowsky From: Jeff Walton ljwalt9@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:53 PM To: Board Subject: remapping project Attachments: Staff Report_7-23[1].pdf Commissioners, I wanted to voice my opinion on the current Resort Destination Remapping Project. It seems to me that we are spending a tremendous amount of time on this effort when the course of action seems rather obvious to me. Doesn't it stand to reason that each piece of land within Deschutes County either meets the current local and state laws for being classified as resort destination eligible property or not? If current land doesn't meet current criteria to be included on the map, then it shouldn't be included. Why are we making this so difficult? After the new map is created which should only Include current resort destination eligible land, if a property owner that is not included on the map wants to approach the county and attempt to have their land rezoned ...then great ...they can go through the normal process like any other land owner in Deschutes County. How would it be helpful to allow every land owner in Deschutes County the opportunity to request that their land be included on the map? I live on 2/3 of an acre in the City of Bend. What sense would it make to allow me to include this property on the map when clearly it could never be allowed to become a resort property? What we will end up with under this scenario is a Resort Destination Map that will make no sense and have very little value. I also believe that our agricultural land should be preserved for just that, agricultural purposes. While I understand that in the short run Deschutes County agricultural land does not look overly attractive from a financial perspective, I honestly do believe that will all change as we move into the post peak oil era. Once oil prices accelerate beyond $150 per barrel in the future, our local agricultural land will become far more valuable than its current underlying development value. Whether this land is used to grow hay, vegetables or solar, we are going to need all of it to support our "buy local" community requirements. From a real estate perspective, I cringe at the thought of more resorts coming into Deschutes County. The last thing I want is more inventory to compete with my already battered home price. just read today on www.RealtvTrac.com that it won't be until 2015 that we work our way through the foreclosure inventory that only continues to grow. Oregon is now ranked #11 nationally in foreclosures. My guess is Deschutes County probably ranks 1st within the State of Oregon. I am also tired of hearing that destination resorts will save Deschutes County with increased jobs and 1/28/2010 Page 2 of 2 tax revenue. As a City of Bend property owner, I no longer want to pay for the infrastructure deterioration that accompanies this kind of growth. As far as job growth, let's focus our efforts on trying to generate long term high paying jobs rather than the seasonal minimum wage jobs that typically accompany resort development. Sincerely, Jeff Walton 19955 Poplar St Bend, Or. 97702 1/28/2010 16 January, 2010 Rich Van Winkle 16915 Hwy 126 Sisters, OR 97759 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 Re: Destination Resort Remapping Work Program and Related DCCs Honorable Commissioners: I regret that I will be out of the State of Oregon during your public hearing on January 20tH, 2010 since I would prefer to offer in-person testimony. However, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be heard via this written testimony. There are five key points I hope to make regarding the destination resort re-mapping project: The letter on file from Mr. Brown is cogent, clear, and a great starting point for your consideration of destination resort re-mapping'. 2. The letter you have on file from Mr. & Mrs. Knott (as well as others) makes the point that your starting consideration should be State law2. I My previous letter to the Planning Commission agreed with staff that your consideration should include (and possibly differentiate) small destination resorts (per State law)3. 4. Several letters you have on file and the Planning Commission findings make reference to some means for "grandfathering" existing or previously mapped destination resorts4. Such is essential to maintain both fairness and the appearance of fairness. 1 "...first choose the clearly identified criteria to be applied and produce a final map based upon those and State and Federal [law]..." (page 3). 2 "The resort siting portion of the code could be simplified to read: 'Siting of Destination Resorts will be done in accordance with state statutes"' (page 1). 3,, Staff seeks direction on whether this work program should include amending the DCC to allow small destination resorts. Please note that staff has not engaged the public on this particular issue." (Staff Report 7-23-09, p.4). 5. Many of the letters you have received are plainly off-point, misinformed, or misleading. I will attempt to address each of these points succinctly. The letter from Mr. Brown ("Land Use Planner") speaks to vision as well as important process oriented details. I believe that the County has had a clear vision regarding destination resorts longer and more complete than any other in Oregon. Experience has shown that destination resorts are a "mixed bag" with some being unsavory and others delightful. Those who would throw out the whole group because of a few bad apples lack vision and wisdom. I trust that you will not be so foolish. As is usual, State law regarding destination resorts has left much of the burden and opportunity. for implementation decisions to the Counties. Also typical is the State's enactment of a law that is both vague and incomplete - a work in progress. This would greatly favor the approach of simply having County destination resort siting follow state requirements. With recent revisions in Goal 8 (OAR 660-015-0000(8)), the State has expanded the dichotomy between requiring Counties to meet recreational needs while limiting where and how that can be done. State law clearly favors destination resorts while stringently limiting them. Perhaps the most overlooked clause in Goal 8 is the first sentence: "The requirements for meeting such [recreational] needs, now and in the future, shall be planned for by governmental agencies having responsibility for recreation areas, facilities and opportunities: (1) in coordination with private enterprise (2) inappropriate proportions; and (3) in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the availability of the resources to meet such requirements."(Emphasis added) The State recognizes that the vast majority of recreational opportunity for its citizens is made available by private enterprise. The County and its citizens would be best served if we keep that in mind during this process. That is not to say that developers should not be restricted and controlled. But there are already a plethora of procedural, economic, and legal obstacles that confront anyone attempting to plan future recreational opportunities for Oregonians. Those who believe that destination resort remapping is another barrier that should be raised to prevent progress and improvement are just plain wrong. a "Ordinance 2010-002, Exhibit A, proposes a grandfathered clause for existing mapped properties to remain on the map regardless if they do not qualify under the new, 2010 eligibility criteria." (Your "Finding", p.9). Our State and Federal laws provide rigid and rigorous restrictions on destination resorts as well as other forms of recreational development. The remapping of County destination resort lands provides no permissions, grants no permits, and offers no assurances that a destination resort can be build on any parcel. It serves only to guide potential developers to appropriate parcels and away from others. It is a planning tool that neither encourages nor discourages development. But therein lies the rub - state and local governments harm the interests of their citizens when they frequently change planning law because doing so prevents long-term planning. Those who would plan for and provide the best opportunities for long-term development need an environment of legal stability. Without that, the "up-front" costs and risks are too great. You should recognize that it is simply unfair for the government to needlessly diminish property owner rights without good cause - or without justly compensating them for their loss. It is also unfair to "un-designate" property as destination resort eligible without cause or compensations. Because we don't want to re-open the Measure 37 can-of-worms, the easy and obvious solution would be to "grandfather" properties previously designated as destination resort eligible under a procedure where owners request such in a timely manner. Otherwise, the County has a legal and ethical obligation to show why each change in eligibility is not merely a capricious diminishment of right and value - and that current laws and regulations are insufficient to protect whatever valid interests the government may have in such changes. The next issue is sort of an aside: clarification regarding "small destination resorts". Staff raised the concern early in the process, but it seems to have "fallen through the cracks". The relevant OAR provision (660-015-0000(8)) states: Small Destination Resort To qualify as a "small destination resort" under Goal 8, a proposed development must meet standards (2) and (4) under the definition of "large destination resort" and the following standards: (1) The resort must be located on a site of 20 acres or more. (2) At least $2 million must be spent on improvements for onsite developed recreational facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations exclusive 5 Knudson v. City of Ellensburg M, 832 F2d 1142 (9`h Cir. 1987): The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process protects individuals from erroneous or unjustified deprivations of life, liberty, or property, and assures them that the government deals with them fairly. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259, 262, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1050, 1051, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). (Emphasis added). of costs for land, sewer, and water facilities and roads. Not less than one-third of this amount must be spent on developed recreation facilities. (3) At least 25 but not more than 75 units of overnight lodging shall be provided. (4) Restaurant and meeting rooms with at least one seat for each unit of overnight lodging must be provided. (5) Residential uses must be limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the resort. (6) The county governing body or its designee must review the proposed resort and determine that the primary purpose of the resort is to provide lodging and other services oriented to a recreational resource that can only reasonably be enjoyed in a rural area. Such recreational resources include, but are not limited to, a hot spring, a ski slope or a fishing stream. (7) The resort shall be constructed and located so that it is not designed to attract highway traffic. Resorts shall not use any manner of outdoor advertising signing except: (a) Tourist oriented directional signs as provided in ORS 377.715 to 377.830; and (b) Onsite identification and directional signs. If this provision is implemented (or mentioned) within the DCC, I missed it. In addition, it would appear that State law has left an opening for Counties to designate "medium size destination resorts" since there is a gap between large and small definitions that might serve many interests. Per your Staff Report of July 10, 2009 (page 4), 1 would encourage the Commission to direct staff to include amending the DCC to allow small destination resorts pursuant to ORS 197.445(7) and to include Small Destination Resort Lands in the County Destination Resort Mapping. Otherwise, you should re-caption the map and the project as the "Deschutes County Large Destination Resort Map" and ensure that ordinance language specifically distinguishes Large versus Small Destination Resorts. Finally, I would be inclined to ignore a number of the letters and arguments submitted by those who seek to serve an agenda only tangentially related to destination resort re-mapping, but they are so pernicious and erroneous that I am compelled to point out their flaws. First, it is obvious that some of the "testimony" offered to you came from people who haven't read any of the reports, relevant law, or proposals. They simply wish to voice their vague objections to any and all development - especially the ominous sounding "large destination resorts". This group appears to think that destination resort mapping is not a planning tool, but a political weapon. Another group appears to be wrought with good intentions that are badly misguided: they speak of being concerned about environmental hazards of overdevelopment, loss of ground water, wildlife disturbances, and the like. Again, they have picked the wrong forum and an incorrect process. Their views are important to the County's "vision" mentioned previously and to the larger-scale planning process where a large number of laws and regulations work strongly in their favor. But, for the most part, their objections offered here are irrelevant, out- of-place, presumptuous, or unfounded. Finally, there are a few people offering testimony who focus upon the economics of destination resorts. I am not an economist, but even I can see the many flaws in their analysis and assumptions. For example, their lengthy report suggests that "the total net cost of the five infrastructure categories required for the Thornburg Resort [in which I have NO interest] is estimated to be $51, 284,705." ("Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon", Fodor & Assoc., 2009, p. 67). They support this assessment with a variety of "facts" and "computations" shown in various charts and graphs - none of which take into account generally accepted accounting principles, common sense, or facts other than the ones offered to mislead the uninformed. Luckily, I know that you are not uninformed. Certainly destination resorts create windfalls for some and "losses" for others. But even their most entrenched opponents have to recognize the significant overall economic benefit that destination resorts have brought to the County (and the State) to the gain of everyone except those who want things as they were 25 years ago. Destination resorts have brought over 3 billion dollars worth of increased property valuations, hundreds of millions in extra tax revenues6, and general prosperity that makes Deschutes County the envy of many others. I appreciate your consideration of this testimony and your service to the community. Cordially Yours, Rich Van Winkle 6 From the County website, County budgets, and other County sources. 16 January, 2010 To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From Jane Gragg Re: Destination Resort Remapping Work Program and Related DCCs Honorable County Commissioners: Since I will be away from the State during the hearing on January 20th, I hope that you will accept my written testimony regarding the destination resort remapping. I am a property owner within Deschutes County whose property designation will change under the proposed ordinances. The history of my property with the County has been tumultuous and tenuous: because of changes in land-use planning laws I was compelled to file (and "won") a Measure 37 claim. Then, that was put into question by Measure 49 and the new rules adopted to implement it. I now await the Supreme Court's decision in State ex rel Dorothy English v. Multnomah County to see if Oregon Counties will held financially responsible for their diminishment of my property value. Destination resort remapping has become yet another excuse for the County to take away property rights in violation of common and constitutional law. I realize that the impetus for this change came from new State rules, but it has the same sour taste: government agencies and elected officials need to understand that the "planning laws" are primarily intended to permit citizens to PLAN. It is simply unfair and unwise to keep changing the laws and rules in a manner that denies us the ability to plan - such as deciding whether to invest in property with a plan that meets a specific set of legal requirements. I'm not sure what impact your remapping will have on my property, but I know that I have relied upon the possibility of destination resort use as a major part of my decision to not sell at a time when the market was much better. If I sell now, I'll not only suffer from market decline, no prospective buying can predict what new ordinances will diminish what can be done with the parcel. Thus, I encourage and implore you do what you can to make this new ordinance more predictable and less harmful. As I see it, you have two simple ways to do that: instead of writing a new ordinance that will have to be re-written when State law changes, just word the ordinance to follow State law - with one major exception. That exception is to allow property owners some way to "grandfather" prior destination resort eligibility designations. Thus, I should be able to have my property that is currently designated as destination resort eligible to retain that designation (upon application). I thank you for hearing my testimony, Sincerely, Jane K. Gragg 5235 Riddell Rd., Monmouth, OR 97361 Page 1 of 2 Peter Gutowsky From: Pam Mitchell [Pam@aspenlakes.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:06 PM To: Tammy Baney; Dennis Luke; Alan Unger; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Destination Resort Remapping Pamela Mitchell 69339 Hinkle Butte Drive Sisters,OR 97759. January 20,2010 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Deschutes Service Center 1300 NW Wall Bend, OR 97701 Re: Destination Resort Mapping Dear County Commissioners: I don't tend to be a rabble rouser and I certainly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinions ...But I have finally had enough! I am tired of having it be a bad thing if you believe in private property rights! I am tired of going to the public hearings and hearing from the same group of individuals who vilify those who wish to do something with their property. I am tired of these folks saying that I am in the minority because I believe in private property rights. And quite frankly, I am tired of the hypocrisy of those who move into an area, who then deem that the gates shall now close to all others. My family has lived in Central Oregon for 6 generations and yes, we have seen quite a bit of change ...not all of it has been good. However, change is inevitable and you can be a part of it and direct it or you can sit on the sidelines and gripe. When it became apparent that the property next to our family farm was to be developed, our family decided that we would stick our necks out and buy the property in order to guide the development in a direction that we hoped would have a positive overall impact on the Sisters community. The result is Aspen Lakes. It would take a while to count the number of donation requests that we receive from throughout the State, not to mention the tens of thousands of dollars that have been raised directly for the Sisters Schools through the Outlaw Open Golf Tournament (we donate the course and carts for this event) and various other fundraisers that we have hosted through the years. When signing checks for payroll, I get writers cramp by the time I'm through so I would say we have a positive impact on the job market (This includes numerous family wage jobs as well as much needed entry level jobs that provide seasonal employment for high school and college students, and retired individuals looking for additional income.) I resent the statements that resorts are a burden on schools and infrastructure. Resorts contribute very few students to school districts but provide a significant amount in tax support. Residents of resorts tend to be more affluent and thus put less burden on the social services of a community. These individuals tend to be active supporters of the arts and are likely to contribute to philanthropic organizations. Crime rates are low within these communities and many provide their own security teams. As far as wildlife is concerned, we have done wildlife counts at Aspen Lakes and on nearby property that is "natural"...guess where there were greater numbers and greater diversity ...at Aspen Lakes. The Sierra Club criticizes the current County Planning Commission for supporting private property rights and for thinking for themselves and questioning proposals put to them by the County Planners-rather than just being a rubber stamp. Personally, I say "keep up the good work". The folks that say "no more destination resorts", are the same ones that helped shut down the timber industry. They are the same ones that say we must preserve all farm land (even though the average net income per acre of agriculture land in Deschutes County is -$58) and then they want to take the water away from these lands to protect the fish. Now that Deschutes County is heavily reliant on the tourism industry, these same folks are now targeting that industry. Whenever, a Destination Resort is approved, these groups keep them tied up in court for years with appeals in hopes of financially breaking them. I think it is time for folks who believe in private property rights to take a stand. Otherwise, we will continue to see more and 1/20/2010 Page 2 of 2 more restrictions put on the private lands a county that is already about 80% publicly _wned. Yes, there are some lands that need to be taken off of the DR map and I think that growth should be appropriate and well thought out. However, I don't think the mapping process should be used as a means to eliminate properties on the map by those who have a personal vendetta against Destination Resorts. Thank you, Pam Mitchell 69339 Hinkle Butte Dr Sisters, Oregon 97759 i 1/20/2010 Dear Board of County Commissioners and Staff, I am a Bend native that grew up here, and come from a family that has been here for many generations. My family is in fact the oldest European family in the state, and we were in Central Oregon long before Bend or Deschutes County existed. My life is deeply intertwined with this land, and it holds a special meaning to me that is hard to explain in a letter. I recently moved back to Bend after living in San Diego for the last 25 years, and have been saddened and depressed by the development of previously pristine areas and the rampant sprawl that has swallowed up and fragmented much of the land in the County. So many areas where I once found solitude are now paved over or closed to public access with no trespassing signs. I have spent a great deal of time revisiting and exploring old haunts where I used to hunt, fish, and hike, and am shocked at the fragmentation of what were once large contiguous blocks of habitat, and the decline in the local animal populations. My feeling from spending many, many days walking the area is that the local deer herd is less than 50% of what it was in the 1980's. In some areas, I would say that there is an 80% reduction. Antelope are all but gone from the area, and Sage Grouse will be gone completely in the near future unless we make some changes in the way we manage the land. East of town, where there used to be a herd of real antelope, we now have a gated community with guard and a sign that says "Pronghorn". The real antelope are gone. I came across a report from the DFW Interagency Working Group last week that supports these numbers, and makes specific recommendations for land use and management. That report was sent to the County Commission and staff, and I highly recommend that those recommendations be followed. The public land that is not developed is under incredible pressure from the exploding population boom of the last 20 years. That boom took a severe toll on the land here, and has left us with the economic bust we are all dealing with now. Bend has been in boom- bust cycles for my whole life following the swings of the real estate market. This makes economic stability for the area impossible, and also forces all the land use decisions through the lens of real estate development. The result is massive sprawl, degraded habitat, and an unstable economy. We need to change the economic model from a real estate-based model to a sustainable base of high tech, clean energy, bio-tech, medical, light manufacturing, and other well paying jobs that can create a stable economic base for the area. We also need to change our housing model from McMansions in the country to affordable higher density housing that will allow us to grow without killing the remaining open space. Bend was in fact mostly high-density affordable housing before real estate speculation drove prices out of sight with the results we are living with now. Much has been made about the economic contribution that more destination resorts will have on the community to promote the necessity of building more resorts. I see these 1 , resorts as mostly sub-divisions with a golf course that mainly benefit the land developer and the people who car- afford to buy a house there. I do not see a benefit for local citizens. The jobs they create are temporary construction jobs or low paying service jobs that aren't an answer to our current economic dilemma. They also contribute to sprawl and the continuation of the myth that another real estate boom will somehow save us. Public sentiment is overwhelmingly against more resorts, but the planning commission appointed by the County Commissioners has ignored that input, and is recommending rezoning AG land for resorts, and going against state law to make more land eligible for resort development. I attended and testified at two of the planning commission hearings and saw from their response that the deck was completely stacked with property right activists that do not represent the prevailing public sentiment regarding resorts. It takes a lot of time to prepare for, attend, and testify at public hearings, and it is very discouraging to realize that your testimony will have no effect because the decision has already been made. The planning commission should have been made up from a cross section of the community representing a broad spectrum; not just the development community and property rights activists. Democracy should represent the people, not just the influential. We are all stronger with diversity; do a better job next time in your selection process. One commissioner asked me if I was aware that 80% of the land in Deschutes County was public, and we are only talking about the remaining 20%. I reminded him that I grew up here and am pretty familiar with the land. The 80/20 figure is very misleading in that it presumes that 80% of the land base is free from development, and therefore the environment is in great shape. It also presumes that the entire land base is equal in terms of wildlife habitat, which of course is false. Winter range for deer and elk is mostly below 5000 ft in elevation. Take a look at a map of Deschutes County to see how much of our land is below 5000 feet. All of the private land sits in the winter range for deer and elk thus impacting 100% of the heard. Private land is closer to 50% of prime winter range, and it is no surprise to me that the deer herd is a shadow of what it was. Bend was once a tight-nit community that was about as close as you can get to heaven in this life. Many of the local people I grew up with have left the area due to the high cost of living, and to try to find another place like Bend used to be. We should not be forcing local people to leave; we should be striving for a sustainable model that welcomes us to stay. We can't go back in time, but we can use intelligence instead of greed to make our decisions going forward. The quality and integrity of the land and ecosystem is the real treasure that is the basis for our quality of life in Central Oregon. My daughter has heard my stories about Bend her whole life, and now that we are living here she asks me why it isn't like the old days. Try looking into the eyes of an 8 year old and explain that. Those "Old Days" are only 20-25 years ago, and I shutter to think what this place will look like in another 25 years if we don't take a more intelligent path. I want my daughter to have the experience I had growing up as much as is possible. We can give her and all of the rest of the next generation that experience, or we can chop it I all up with ignorance and greed. I think we can be better than that. More destination resorts benefit a few while harming the many. We have enough; we don't need more. Sincerely, David Stowe 1103 NW Foxwood Pl. Bend, OR 97701 619 925-8191 dave@ardellgroup.com / c. TROUT UNLIMITED Date: January 20, 2010 To: Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Deschutes County Planning Dept. Deschutes County Planning Commission Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Darek Staab, Trout Unlimited Subject: Regarding Destination Resort Remapping On behalf of the Upper Deschutes Home Rivers Initiative and Trout Unlimited staff, thank you for your time and interest in comprehensive planning and my comments in this letter. We are an organization with over 400 local Chapter members and projects which combine volunteers, staff support, and outside grant funds to care for our local and shared natural resources. I couldn't imagine living and working in a better place. Thank you for taking the time to consider our state and local statutes and how they guide future resort development in our County. As we all know, our population has doubled in the last 10 years, and we now have more resorts than any other county in Oregon. This rapid growth and the natural resources sacrificed for that growth has lead to the decline in our native fisheries, the dangerous warming of our streams and rivers, and a loss in our open space and natural areas that draw people to our region. I know Travel Oregon contracted a study which found that travel-generated expenditures for fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing trips to Deschutes County are almost $70 million annually. I am concerned that by encouraging more resort development, we will be losing the conditions, fish and wildlife that bring people to our region. We should support our current neighborhoods, tax payers, and state guidelines, and remove properties that are not eligible for resort development. I commend your goal for this process, which was to clean up the resort map, and produce a map that truly reflects where resorts may be built according to existing statutes, and have clear and objective mapping criteria. 0 FSC_ Med source: ve~xrtomr INK ~,,,,,„,erµ`°"w~•- - With this in mind I urge you to support the past years of planning work and follow three important steps to improve the map and meet state and federal laws: 1. Remove all lands that do not conform with current local or state resort statutes from the overlay map. These include: • wildlife corridors/ migration paths • big game winter range • areas that will result in detriment to threatened or endangered species • existing housing subdivisions and platted lands • flood zones 2. I also urge you to exclude the Whychus Creek watershed from the resort map, because water rights on this crucial waterway for reintroduced threatened steelhead are already oversubscribed and the creek's temperature is dangerously high for the fisheries attempting to use it for habitat. 3. Finally, I urge you to create a technical committee to update county wildlife inventories, winter ranges, wildlife corridors and habitat, and adopt recommendations from the interagency Updated Wildlife Information & Recommendations for the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update. In closing, I hope the county will realize the time, energy, and professional work that have gone into our complex planning work. We are lucky to have the staff that we do and we must support their time and exceptional work. We also must support the public process by acknowledging and respecting public input, who have clearly expressed concern over the impacts of expanded resort development. I hope you will follow state and federal statutes and focus on conserving the natural amenities which have drawn people to our beautiful region. Thank you for your time and acknowledgement of these comments. cerely, ek Staab j Resident of Deschutes County and Manager of the Upper Deschutes Home Rivers Initiative January 14. 2010 Dennis Luke Deschutes County commissioner 1300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioner Luke: Copy given to Dennis, Tatnmy, Alan, Dave K., and CDD We are writing in regard to the resort map in the new Comprehensive Plan. It is our understanding that a main goal was to make the resort map conform to state and county statutes and eliminate lands that did not conform. Some of the proposals being made by the Planning Commission do not make sense. We do not believe that adjacent property owners who combine their land to reach 160 acres or established subdivisions should be included on the map. Lands that do not conform to state or county statute should not be included. Numerous citizen "outreach" meetings have been conducted throughout the county. Many citizens have indicated they are opposed to more resorts(See the attached Bulletin article) We see no evidence in the proposed Comprehensive Plan that the County Planning Commission or the Commissioners are recognizing that numerous citizens are opposed to resorts. At the meeting conducted in Tumalo, the vote of the citizens was unanimously against more resorts. What is the point of the county asking for public imput if you are going to ignore the results? Even the city of Bend is opposed to resorts within five miles of the city because they recognize the cost to the city outweighs the benefits. Deschutes County should recognize this opposition by eliminating or significantly reducing the amount of acreage eligible for resort development. It is time for Deschutes County to withdraw its "blind' support for these resorts until such time that the county can do it own independent research to prove that benefits of resorts outweigh the costs to the taxpayers and justify the negative impacts to rural areas in the county. Very truly yours, C. William Boyd Bonnie Lu Boyd 20160 Tumalo Rd. Bend, OR 97701 ~I. 15 i.: i BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATION mr X5-13 '.S• o~ OmA.~y~ra$~~++o~ c$m~;~oom~9 on F+ Gf m K m m m ~ B gym 111 < ~ Ir'f° ..8 a ~D ri, A. K•.. my rn rn d_a m rn m m K I b ¢ m m.`Im. N N rn ~'~C AA.0 Og04•-m.~cKO O 0. WA m. n o 9 ~ 5 .Q Iq R m 0 m m ~D oo m SD m meew O y Yam(D coOo O C.mO•~ m C mA0 0 O P O (D m e A ,~j o A ~t m m A'3 A b n 3 C. ,"t.. O ~'C7 b A ',3• •K• N fD fD K '.3' .7 r y O w .w p L307 It AO~j as ~ m.7 pQ 00 o~ aO ~•0~„~~•sA_~.~: cod ro tm0 [ CD mj O (D OWN ~~O O Ky A G ti, O Om O ID ~O O A CD r3 K m m m R" co 1 m ~m a< Sig a o -e end fl R P .4 co Er, am ma.w_ mon~'~~~ ~.a°~mmaop. t`o p'~o m ooam m ~ ~ All, EPrA ~ r'3 m p M rt b (D.. d •a m oy mo~•i~u .0 - a. o ~ °'°•~fD m OO CD .0; A m O G. (D 03 A ~ it-0 mm, m A 0 V] Jt" L!1 O y ",b 'O 'c1 O''D 09 - a O' Q = m roC~`.~O.tc ~-3~ n~ m.O.C y`5.~-,O,i O p.~ 0~zm Z:r..~r°RmMrAm.o m o.'0 fD ooviiQm°i.mo b°im m szQ 211.00 o m51n 'om«nm~m G Egg R I ~.mg~cma~mo tD oamodmm o~y~ a•~;2 mpp.y cC".3 A....,5~ "o o'~yo~ o. m ~o a ~F.ao!o *yF~o?: mo Ao-,.m o'= A. V A Q• can m N 6i• N S p'tf CD ems C. 0., : :y .A G. ~ ~."O't .yam G. CD 0 _ _ cFC~r~o Cr !3 0 CD Z3 p O .'7. O. O CTO y Ar `Gbtp' m_ m 9 9M 'G m v, "p cD ;T A O N m ,LSD p CO w~ I 9 -1 -S n -'U ►tJ m tD 3 m. A (D p N R o'!, ;:r E O m ry W 0 R 0 CS 5. N nQp O m 9 *`'3 r+ O• fn LS. N O it S-0 0 Documen+ gas Poorly (Arcnived) Document Reproduces Poorly - - (Archived) _ o°mina o.. oa'm m= o ~~yy y ~ m :rc O A A; m~ m ,oA w~ mAo ooC] v .K El" m C A C m en IA o SD ID Am oa • ado ~d !0 Q^~ fp O m. '(p y .cC CO •O m ..m.: W rn O" ~~3. m <u ~ tmn K o o ~•;cv 0 . L m . A O m m p CO 641 '3~ ° coy o pOA nP,-5 S~ O f~D O C R O C'O`~ N~ N m LA 2, wp, ~to::PCOOLB.-rm0 r„o C Oy~+a O~ rM..00'-1 6~~000 0 o'm p mOO.O.Oy E~ p: 0 0. a' r`°nm..mvo°e FE,, m C F- 0 o~ ° tv. Cr so ao g o.~.m pS m 0'e - 'Yal 12A a 2_, .tV'O 5'.CdD C) .-r ~ QO K Oq m (D ~ . ^ a O . m o•pmao, t r O aWbR~ o C a m O fC w .•t , C7'e F K H p ~ ~ O RS . m 0 m 0 WO n A 0.:1 ~ ~ O co mmOO tuO° ' om m K m 1o b m a N o O~ K CL o m~ R N CD 'El ty.1 SO ::S 5-0 Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Nick Lelack Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:10 PM To: Dave Kanner; Tom Anderson Cc: Peter Gutowsky; Laurie Craghead Subject: PC Adopts Motions to ask BOCC to Remand DR Code Amendments Importance: High Attachments: DR Table.pdf Dave, Tom: (bcc: BOCC) Tonight, the Planning Commission adopted two motions, both by 6-0-1 votes, to ask the Board to remand the two destination resort code amendments to the Planning Commission. The Commission originally recommended approval of the ordinances by 4-0-1 votes. However, the Planning Commission would like to reconsider the County's local criteria with the full Commission. The Board is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on the ordinances next Wednesday, Jan. 20. Sher captured the motions in the draft meeting minutes: Motion: Commissioner Quatre motioned that the Board remand to the Planning Commission Ordinance[s] 2010- 01/02 for the reasons that, at the time of the vote, there was not a full Commission, but we would like to have the vote considered by the entire Planning Commission to reconsider Deschutes County's local criteria. Seconded by Commissioner Irvine. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Cyrus abstaining. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned that, to further clarify the vote they just took, the Commissioners would like to provide the Board with the attached outline covering the existing State, existing County and additional proposed criteria for their information. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Cyrus abstaining. Please find attached the table referenced in the second motion. Chair Brown provided the table to the Planning Commission at the meeting. I will be in Salem on Friday, Jan. 15 at the AOC Planning Directors meeting from 10-3. You may reach me on my cell phone at 541-678-3866, except while I am driving. Thank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Planning Director Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette, Bend, OR 97701 Office: 541.385.1708 / Cell: 541.678.3866 / Fax: 541.385.1764 www. deschutes.org/cdd 1/19/2010 # Description 123.84.030 State Existing County Proposed County .1. Resort Map Required X X X 2. Amend 30 Month limit X X 3. MaPpin g r X11=~ p A. Not Sited 1.24 Mile radius of 100,000 X X X 2. 50 acres prime farm land or 3 mile high value crop area X X X 3. Forest Class 1 or 2 X X, X 4. Goal 5 protection X X X 5. Big Game Habitat 84 ODFW X X X 6. Less than 160 Acres X X B.. Not Sited Critical. State Concern X X C. Not Sited-Desch 'Co objectives 1. Wildlife-goal 5 X X. 2. 1999 ODFW Wildlife Priority'.. X X 3. Zoned Operi Space ind.Conser X X 4. Zoned Forest F-1 X. X 5. EFU w/40acres water contig. X.. X 6. EFU w/60 acres- water owned . X X 7. Within one mile of UGB; Reserved Lands X X 8. Zone Urban Reserve X 9. Platted Subdivisions X 10. Fed/State/City Lauds: X . X . D. May be Sited in Deschutes County 1. F-2/MUA-10/RR-10 Zones X X 2. Dry EFU X X.. 3. EFU w/less than 40 acres 1420 X X 4. EFU w/less than 60 owned H2O X X 5. 160 Acres or More X 6. Exchanged prev govt land X 7. Minimize adverse effects on Fanning and Transportation X X Prepared by C.Brown 1-13-10 Page I of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Frank Baldwin [skibum@bendcable.com] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 4:34 PM To: Dennis Luke Cc: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Your Destination Resort Decision Dear Commissioner Luke, In the near future you will no doubt be deciding on a revision of the County's Destination Resort map. For many months you have heard ample public testimony that the Commissioners must follow the established planning policies that conform to state and county law. To do otherwise would be a violation of your own sworn public duty. This means not ignoring years of work by professional planners and the public record in favor of property rights advocates. This means taking out properties that don't conform with state and county statutes. This means not wasting years of staff time and expense, and not ignoring the pleas of the public. So, the question becomes: will you advocate for the public and conform to the laws of Oregon - or capitulate to a few powerful private interests? We will be watching intently. NW Frank Baldwin - Sisters - 1/11/2010 Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Frank Baldwin [skibum@bendcable.com] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 4:32 PM To: Tammy Baney Cc: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Your Destination Resort Decision Dear Ms. Baney, In the near future you will no doubt be deciding on a revision of the County's Destination Resort map. For many months you have heard ample public testimony that the Commissioners must follow the established planning policies that conform to state and county law. To do otherwise would be a violation of your own sworn public duty.. This means not ignoring years of work by professional planners and the public record in favor of property rights advocates. This means taking out properties that don't conform with state and county statutes. This means not wasting years of staff time and expense, and not ignoring the pleas of the public. So, the question becomes: will you advocate for the public and conform- to the laws of Oregon - or capitulate to a few powerful private interests? We will be watching intently. M/M Frank Baldwin - Sisters - 1/11/2010 Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Nick Lelack Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:28 AM To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: FW: Destination Resort remapping Nick Lelack, AICP, Planning Director Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette, Bend, OR 97701 Office: 541.385.1708 / Cell: 541.678.3866 / Fax: 541.385.1764 www.deschutes.org/cdd From: Tammy Baney Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 10:35 AM To: Dennis Luke; Alan Unger; Tom Anderson; Nick Lelack Cc: Dave Kanner Subject: FW: Destination Resort remapping Fyi... In Partnership- 714YY{YY1YJ Tammy Baney, Chair Deschutes County Board of Commissioners O 541 388-6567 1 F 541 385-3202 1 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 From: Derek & Rachel Cornforth [mailto:dhcgrc@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:54 AM To: Tammy Baney Subject: Destination Resort remapping Dear Commissioner Baney, It is my understanding that the Planning Commission at their December 2 meeting voted to include a grandfathering clause in the new destination resort map that would allow landowners to keep their land within the overlay map even if it does not meet state and local statutes for resorts. This recommendation is completely absurd and I ask you to have it removed. think it is also time for Keith Cyrus to be removed from the Planning Commission. He has a self-evident conflict of interest in that he has been trying to convert his completed clustered subdivision into a destination resort despite the strong objections from local property owners (see correspondence submitted to the county during last year's "text amendment" fiasco). This property does not meet the current destination resort rules, is highly unlikely to meet any modified destination resort rules, and the ongoing efforts to get around the rules has been highly distressful to the many adjoining residents who have been living with this threat to their properties for the last few years. We are not so naive as to think that Mr. Cyrus has no influence on this committee (which he currently chairs) just because he recuses himself from voting on this issue. Derek Cornforth 1/4/2010 Page 1 of 1 Peter Gutowsky From: Derek and Rachel Cornforth [dhcgrc@comcast.netj Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:06 PM To: Tammy Baney; Dennis Luke; Alan Unger Cc: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Destination resorts meeting-January 20, 2010 Dear Commissioners, I am unable to attend the meeting on January 20 but would like to pass on my views for your consideration. 1. Leaving ineligible properties on the county destination resort map does not make sense. I hope that you will rethink this proposal because otherwise it looks foolish. If a possible Measure 37/49 lawsuit is your concern, I suggest that the title of the map be written as: "Map showing Deschutes County properties that Staff has identified as complying with the current rules for destination resort siting". This is factual. People need to know what is eligible, not what is ineligible. If others are dissatisfied they should appeal the map and be able to show conclusively why another parcel should be added to the map. 2. The statement from the Deschutes County Planning Commission that Farms cannot be expected to stand alone as a source of family income in Deschutes County. Profitability is not expected." stretches all credibility. It is well-known that farms receive low property taxes, government subsidies, etc and the price of agricultural land is rising. The Planning Commission seems to reflect a very biased view on development in Deschutes County. In my opinion, it needs to be reconstructed to reflect a better balance with competing views of future development in the county, or be abolished altogether. Sincerely, Derek Cornforth 1/13/2010 Matt Cyrus 16925 Green Drake Ct. Sisters, OR 97759 January 19, 2010 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Deschutes Service Center 1300 NW Wall Bend, OR 97701 Re: Destination Resort Mapping. Dear Commissioners, I have farmed in Central Oregon all of my life. My family homesteaded in Central Oregon in the 1880's after moving from the Willamette Valley (where they homesteaded in the 1840's). I am currently the President of Deschutes County Farm Bureau and have served on that board in various positions for the past 26 years. I serve on the board of directors for Water for Life as well as the Oregon Farm Bureau Water Advisory Committee. 1 have been a volunteer for the Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District for the past 28 years and currently hold the rank of Captain. My formal education includes Bachelor of Science degrees in Business Management as well as Agricultural and Resource Economics from Oregon State University. Living in the Sisters area, l have had the opportunity to observe the growth of destination resorts in Central Oregon and would offer the following observations. Destinations Resorts are good for the econom Destination Resorts are good for the economy and, when concentrated in an area, create a regional destination. Central Oregon's economy is now tourist-based as we have transitioned from our resource based roots. We are, in fact, better utilizing our natural resources as a draw for a tourist- based economy. Limiting construction of new resorts would hurt the local economy and be counterproductive to both the local and statewide tourism efforts. Black Butte Ranch is a good example of what a destination resort can do for a local community. When Black Butte Ranch was started in the early 1970's, Sisters was a dying timber town. The mills that had been its lifeblood closed, the whole industry was in decline, and most of the timber jobs simply disappeared. At the time, Sisters had no high school. Along came Brooks Resources and the development of Black Butte Ranch. Brooks Resources gave the businesses in Sisters money to install western facades on their buildings in order to create the western theme that is its trademark today. It also developed the Tollgate and Crossroads subdivisions in order to create affordable housing options for future employees. Today, Black Butte Ranch is a mature resort, employs over 230 people, and generates $6,827,217 in property taxes. It represents roughly 1/3 of the tax base for the Sisters school district, but contributes very few students. It was the Black Butte tax base that has allowed Sisters to have one of the best school districts in the state. Prior to Measure 5, Sisters was one of the richest districts in the state. Now, with Measure 5, all the schools in the state are benefitting from the taxes generated by this resort because only a portion of the millions of dollars in Black Butte tax dollars are returned to the Sisters School District. Thanks to the tax base in Black Butte Ranch, Sisters can still build state- of-the-art schools (construction bonds were not affected by Measure 5) and continues to have one of the top school districts in the state in spite of Measure Ts reallocation tax dollars. Sisters has been the beneficiary of the success of Black Butte Ranch and become a thriving Resort Community. The western theme, the diversity of shops, and decades of Black Butte Ranch promotion have all combined to make Sisters the livable community it has become. Concentrations of Resorts are good for the region Individual resorts can create a draw to themselves, but concentrations of resorts create a regional draw. The construction of multiple resorts in Central Oregon has allowed Central Oregon to promote itself both nationally and worldwide as a destination. This critical mass of resorts has allowed the Central Oregon region of the state to achieve what no single, or even small group of resorts could accomplish. Central Oregon is now ranked nationally and internationally as a golfing destination- Central Oregon is finally able to compete on a national level with resort communities such as Palm Springs, Aspen, Vale, Whistler. The Pacific Amateur golf tournament is a good example of multiple resort properties working together to promote a multi-course tournament that brings millions of tourist dollars to Central Oregon. As the timber economy disappeared and the agricultural economy declined, tourism became the driving force in Deschutes County. Without it, Deschutes County would be in the same dire straights as many of the other rural counties that have lost their primary industries. Destination resorts have become Deschutes County's primary industry. According to a study by the Oregon Employment Department, the payroll directly attributed to the eight resorts in Oregon in 2005 was more than $85 million annually, with an average wage of $26,132. Resorts' impacts on Farm Land, Water, Wildlife, and Public Services Farm Land There has been criticism that resorts cover good farm land, use water, use public services, and have become excuses for more "sagebrush subdivisions." Resorts are already prohibited from being placed on the best farmland and may not be sited near "high value crop areas" in order to protect farming areas that have already been deemed important to the state. Deschutes County has already determined that none of these areas exist in the county. And rightly so. Deschutes County has only marginal soils and a short growing season that severely limits the types of crops that can be grown in the area. Fifty years ago, Deschutes County had a thriving potato industry, but improved transportation and a growing global economy has made it economically impossible to compete with more efficient production areas. Destination Resorts are sited on land that is beautiful, and generally less productive for farming. Water It is a common myth that destination resorts use huge amounts of limited water resources. It is true that golf courses do use water to irrigate the grass. What most people don't realize is that per acre, golf courses use less water than most agricultural crops, but generate far more economic value. Homes use even less water. While golf courses are a popular amenity, they are not required for resort development. Assume a typical golf course has 120 acres of irrigated turf and generates 25,000 rounds per year at $60 per round. It generates a gross revenue of $1.5 million, employs 30 to 40 people, and pays tens of thousands of dollars in property tax. That same 120 acres in hay might produce four tons per acre or less at $160 per ton (current value assuming no rain). This would generate gross revenue of $84,000, employ one to two people, and pay only a few thousand in property taxes. Our records show that over 70% of the play on Aspen Lakes Golf Course is from outside the Central Oregon. Therefore, a good portion of the 25,000 people who play the course come from outside Central Oregon, stay in resorts or local motels, buy their meals, and generally make a significant positive impact in the local economy. The current siting language prohibits siting of resorts on irrigated tracts of EFU of more than 40 contiguous acres or irrigated EFU tracts of more than 60 non-contiguous acres. There is no requirement as to the dependability of the water rights on the property. For example, the water may be a junior right and only available for irrigation one out of five years. If this language were to be left in, it should clarified that it only apply to EFU with water that is available 100% of the season. The preference would be to eliminate this condition due to the fact that it would force development on dry land and require developers to dry up irrigated land in order to obtain water under the current mitigation rules. A number of years ago, the USGS survey determined that there is a strong likelihood of hydrologic connection between the underground aquifer in the Deschutes Basin and the springs that flow into Lake Billy Chinook, and therefore the flows at the mouth of the Deschutes River. Based on this theory of connectivity, it was determined that any new groundwater withdrawal would result in a reduction of flow at the mouth of the Deschutes River, (the lower Deschutes is a protected state wild and scenic river). In order to lessen these impacts, new ground water withdrawals are required to mitigate by putting 1.8 gallons of water back into one of the basin rivers for each one gallon of new withdrawal from the aquifer. Herein lies the problem. Because irrigated agriculture holds the rights to most of the surface water in the Deschutes Basin, the primary source of water for stream mitigation must come from irrigated agriculture. Presently, there are only two ways to obtain water from irrigation lands. The first is to buy the water outright and dry up irrigated lands, and the second is to fund conservation projects in order to obtain "conserved" water (piping projects are the current favorite). The first of these two options is generally the cheapest and easiest. The conserved water option also has the potential for long term harm to any ecosystems that may be reliant on the open ditches and canals that may be lost as a result of conservation projects (ditches and canals are an important water source for big game animals as well as nesting sites for numerous song birds, etc). Since most of the irrigated land in the Deschutes Basin falls within one of the various irrigation districts, for practical purposes, resorts cannot be sited on irrigated land. Therefore, the prohibition on siting within an irrigation district would require siting a resort on land without water rights and obtaining those rights through the mitigation process. In simple terms, in order to obtain water for a 1,000 acre resort, a developer may be required to purchase water rights from, and dry up, 1,800 acres of farmland. The alternative would be to purchase irrigated land within the district and petition to have the land removed from the district boundary, which serves no beneficial purpose; or participate in one of the limited number of conservation projects. Drying up irrigated farmland and moving the water out of the district would likely result in Iona, term harm to the irrigation district as well as the agricultural base of the region. The reality is that it would lessen the impact on irrigated agriculture if resorts were encouraged to be sited on irrigated land rather than creating a virtual prohibition by restricting siting within irrigation districts. In fact, the district manager that I spoke with would welcome a resort as a patron and water user of the district. Right to Farm restrictions can protect neighboring farms against nuisance complaints or other potential conflicts with resorts. Retaining the current prohibition against siting on irrigated EFU lands will have a negative impact on irrigated agriculture. Please remove this provision. Wildlife The provision in county code that requires mitigation for wildlife habitat is not found in state statute, but rather was added to county code at the request of the development community to allow mitigation of wildlife impacts as an alternative to restrictions on potential habitat reduction. The courts have morphed this to include fish habitat that might be affected by ground water withdrawals and its potential affect on the flows in the lower Deschutes. This provision does not exist in state statutue, nor does it contain any language requiring wildlife or habitat protections. In fact, there is no data to support the claim that wildlife avoid resorts. On the contrary, I submit the attached wildlife survey that was conducted on three parcels of land in the Sisters area. They include the developed portion of Aspen Lakes, an adjacent undeveloped parcel, and a farm parcel. As is shown on the report, all three have very similar distributions of wildlife. The notable exception is that the report fails to include the numerous aquatic species that are also present on the developed parcel. It should be noted that the undeveloped parcel had the least number of animals. Deschutes County is already roughly 80% public land and there is no reason to burden private landowners with the care of the state's wildlife. If it is determined to be in the public interest to encourage private landowners to provide habitat for wildlife, such cooperation should be done through incentive programs rather than regulation. Public Services Destination resorts use far less public services than they provide. For the most part, destination resorts are self contained, in that they use little or no outside public services. In fact, the Black Butte fire, ambulance, and police routinely leave the ranch to assist other service districts far more than they receive, for a net export of services. Most people don't realize that generally the first ambulance on the scene of any major accident on the Santiam Pass is from Black Butte Ranch and that Black Butte Ranch's ladder truck routinely leaves the ranch to assist neighboring fire departments in Western Deschutes and Jefferson Counties. Under mutual aid agreements, Black Butte Ranch and Sunriver respond to emergencies in other jurisdictions far more often than others respond to theirs. Resorts typically have their own water and sewer systems. Resorts such as Eagle Crest, that don't have their own emergency systems, pay more in taxes to the affected taxing districts than they use in services. The emergency service districts that I am familiar with are delighted to have resorts in their service areas. Recent discussions with the Deschutes County Sheriffs office revealed that they have very few calls into the Eagle Crest resort, but receive a considerable amount of tax dollars from that area. Destination resorts actually subsidize the public services enjoyed by the rest of us non-resort residents. Though not a resort, the Aspen Lakes development's water system allowed the Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District to challenge the district's ISO rating and drop from an ISO of eight to a six. This resulted in a fire insurance savings district wide of 20% to 30%. Every tax payer in the district saved money on insurance as a direct result of Aspen Lakes. The addition of homes continues to add tax dollars to the district and has helped the district upgrade both equipment and personnel over the past few years. Destination Resorts are not your typical sagebrush subdivisions. While there are a number of permanent residents in destination resorts, many are second homes that are occupied only weeks or sometimes months per year. These homes are often valued in excess of a million dollars and generate thousands of dollars in tax base for homes seldom occupied and that use little or no services. For the affected taxing district this is "free money." Because the economic multiplier for Central Oregon is greater than two, each million dollar home that is built, generates more than two million dollars in the local economy. There are many thousands of ancillary jobs that are reliant on the Central Oregon resort industry, from contractors, and home furnishing companies, to sign makers, and nurseries. I would argue that the majority of the Central Oregon economy is now reliant on construction and resort development. The people who are permanent residents of the resort, are often retired professionals who are apt to donate their time and money to the local charities and causes, or they are business owners and community leaders who create the living wage jobs that keeps the economy working. Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon As Prepared for Central Oregon Land Watch This document presents some interesting arguments on the premise that Destination Resorts have a negative impact on the economy rather than the generally accepted view that they are beneficial. First, it should be noted that the authors do not appear to have the credentials to undertake such a study. The principal author is educated in Urban Planning and Mechanical Engineering. The research and analysis was done by an individual who lists History and Criminal Justice Administration as his areas of study. This document is riddled with flaws, both in their understanding of basic economic theory and in their statement of facts. For example, the study assumes an average wage for resort employees of $16,000 in spite of the fact that the Oregon Employment Department determined in a 2007 study (attached) that the actual average resort wage was over $26,000. The study used statewide averages for other assumptions such as number of persons per household and ignored the fact that typical resort houses are actually far below average for occupancy, student loading on schools, and general use of services. The methodology used in determining transportation costs is hard to debate based on the fact that it is completely different than that used by anyone else. It's somewhat like having a serious debate about warp drive technology on the Starship Enterprise. It's very difficult to find a common base to begin the debate when the methodology is fictitious. From an economics standpoint, the report tries to discount the concept of the multiplier effect on the economy. This is one of most basic premises in economics and only points out the author's limited knowledge in the field of economics. Many economic studies and much data support the conclusion that resorts are one of the best case scenarios for housing, in that they have low occupancy, low need for services, but provide considerable tax revenues and contribute heavily to the economy. If we were to assume that resorts do not pay their way, then all other forms of housing are a more serious drain on the economy and the more affordable the house the greater the impact. Mapping of Existing Subdivisions The proposed siting criteria would drop all existing subdivisions off the map. I would encourage these properties to be left on the map if they otherwise qualify. Much testimony has been heard regarding the opposition to "gated communities posing as resorts". Given the opposition to basic subdivisions, but general support for tourist based resorts, why not, instead, encourage conversion of subdivisions to resorts. These communities would have to create recreational amenities and open space that would otherwise not be present and in doing so, improve their communities and. increase their property values and tax base. Conversion from a subdivision to resort would be a substantial hurdle that most subdivisions could not attain, but why prevent them from trying. Destination Resorts are critical to the Central Oregon Economy In short, destination resorts are a good, clean, industry that use few resources, but create jobs, tax revenue, and improve the overall livability of the communities where they're located. The Central Oregon economy was especially hard hit in the 1980s with the decline of the timber industry. It was fortunate to be able to transition its economy to the tourism base that it now enjoys. Destination resorts are a critical component of that tourism economy and should be encouraged. Imposing a moratorium on additional resorts in Central Oregon would be akin to the state stepping in and creating a similar moratorium on any new high tech manufacturing in the Portland Metro area. It simply doesn't make sense for the state to limit an area's ability to determine its own economic vitality and future. Prohibiting resorts altogether is also not the answer. Resorts in Central Oregon have proven important to the tax base and the regional economy (especially in today's economic climate). I would argue that the substantial tax base provided by the area resorts has had a statewide impact on school funding (Measure 5) and reduced political pressure on the faun use assessment enjoyed by the agricultural industry. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. It is my strong opinion that the county's resort provisions should be streamlined to more nearly match those of the state. In this case, more is not better. I would encourage the county to defer to the state's siting language. Sincerely, Matt CYr resident Deschutes County Farm Bureau Wildlife Inventory of the Aspen Lakes Resort Prepared for The Aspen Lakes Resort Attn: Matt Cyrus Prepared by Ron Gaines Fred Small Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 570-0800 (503) 570-0855 FAX PHS Project Number: 3620 28 October 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................1 METHODS .........................................................................................................................1 RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................2 DISCUSSION .....................................................................................................................3 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................4 LITERATURE CITED .....................................................................................................4 Figure 1- Area Map of the Aspen Lakes Property ............................................5 Figure 2 - Wildlife species of the Eastern Cascades Juniper Scrub Habitat 6 Figure 3 - Wildlife Observed on the Aspen Lakes Property ................................7 INTRODUCTION The Aspen Lakes Resort is proposing to expand the footprint of its development onto two parcels of land, one north and one south of their current development and golf course. Pacific Habitat Services (PHS) was asked to perform a wildlife inventory of the Aspen Lakes Resort to assess potential impacts the proposed expansion may have on species residing in the area. SITE DESCRIPTION The Aspen Lakes Resort is located approximately three miles northeast of Sisters, Deschutes County, Oregon. Currently this development has a lodge, a number of occupied residences and an operating 18-hole golf course. The current plan involves developing two adjoining parcels of land. The northern parcel, approximately 326 acres in size, is located TI 4S, RI OE, Section 35. The second (southern) parcel, approximately 160 acres in size, is located in TI 5S, RI OE, Section 12 (Figure 1). The Aspen Lakes Resort is located in the western juniper woodlands of central Oregon. This plant community extends from California to the Columbia River and from the eastern flank of the Cascades to the Owyhee Plateau. The habitat on the existing development has been altered with the construction of homes and the golf course. Open space on the existing development consists of native juniper woodlands and manicured fairways and greens. A significant change that has taken place is the establishment of water elements (water hazards and decorative stream-like features). METHODS Information regarding wildlife use of the site was gathered from several sources. A search of the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC) data base was requested for any records of rare, threatened and endangered species on or within two miles of the proposed development site. Also requested from the ORNHIC was a review of the ORNHIC Wildlife Relationship Matrix for the Eastern Cascades Juniper/Shrub habitat type. Local officials from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W) were canvassed for information on wildlife use of the site and visits were made to the proposed development site to identify unique habitat characteristics and to gain first hand knowledge of the types of wildlife found on the site. To assess potential wildlife impacts on developed vs. undeveloped sites, wildlife observations were made on six, quarter-mile long transects. Two transects were placed on the northern parcel, two on the existing development and two on the southern parcel. Wildlife observations recorded along these transects were intended to document species diversity on undeveloped vs. developed sites and were not intended to be used to estimate wildlife abundance. Placing transects on the various parcels ensured that a relatively equal amount of time was spent on each parcel. Wildlife Inventory of Aspen Lakes Resort, Sisters, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS##3620 Page I RESULTS Results from the ORNHIC data base search showed no records of rare, threatened or endangered species of wildlife on or near the proposed development site. A copy of this information is included as Appendix A. Additional information from the ORNHIC on the Eastern Cascades Juniper/Shrub habitat indicated that this area is of good or high quality habitat for a number of species. A list of these species is presented in Figure 2. Correspondence from ODFW biologist Stephen George concurred with the ORNHIC findings (copy enclosed). Mr. George did say that the property is located in historic mule deer winter range but is outside of the Deschutes County protection zone for mule deer winter range. Mr. George also added that the property includes valuable wildlife habitat for numerous wildlife species. Site visits were conducted to the property on 24 February, 03 October 2006, 13 -14 June 2007 and 13 September of 2007. The Aspen Lakes Resort is located in a transition zone between two climax forest zones, the Ponderosa Pine and Western Juniper zones. The area includes vegetation communities ranging from mixed pine juniper forest and scattered pine or juniper-dominated stands, to sagebrush flats, irrigated cottonwood plantations, and irrigated hayfields. The most prevalent community type in both study areas is a transitional forest community in which pine and juniper are codominant. While Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) is dominate in small patches of the forested areas, both parcels appear to be too xeric for pure pine stands to develop. Instead, mixed stands of Ponderosa pine and western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) are most common. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) is often an understory component. It was observed that much of the sagebrush understory on both parcels was dead. Evidence of fire was observed on some of large snags and stumps found on the property but the most likely reason for the condition of the sagebrush is that the juniper has outcompeted it, depriving it of essential water and nutrients (Miller et al, 2005). Healthy stands of big sagebrush and other shrubs, including bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), and currant (gibes sp.) persist in more open areas of the site, especially on the South Parcel. The topography of the northern parcel is generally flat with several open rocky areas that provide meadow-like habitats. These areas are devoid of trees and are primarily vegetated by grasses. The southern parcel exhibits more topographic relief than the northern parcel. Canopy cover is greatest in the north and decreases in the southern two thirds of the parcel. The southwest quarter of this parcel is irrigated and is under different forms of agriculture. There is also a sand mining operation in the very southwest corner of this parcel. Wildlife Inventory of Aspen Lakes Resort, Sisters, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services, inc. / PHS#3620 Page 2 To determine which species of wildlife the property could potentially be of value, the ORNHIC Wildlife Relationship Matrix was referenced'. This matrix ranks the importance of different habitat types in Oregon to the wildlife species found in the state. The rankings indicate the suitability of a particular habitat type for a particular species. The rankings range from 0 (not habitat) to 5 (high quality potential habitat). According to the Matrix, the habitat on property is considered good to high quality potential habitat for 32 bird species, 18 species of amphibian and reptile, and three species of mammal. A list of these species is presented in Appendix A. Figure 3 represents the species observed on the developed and undeveloped parcels. A total of 61 different species of wildlife were observed during this investigation. Thirty two species of wildlife were observed on the existing development, 29 species on the northern parcel and 31 species on the southern parcel (Figure 3). By far, avifauna was the most common wildlife on the three areas surveyed followed by mammals and then reptiles. Twenty eight species of birds were observed on the existing development, 21 species of birds were observed on the northern parcel and 31 species on the southern parcel. Three species of mammals were observed on the existing development, six on the northern parcel and five on the southern parcel. One species of reptile was observed on the existing development, two on the northern parcel and one on the southern parcel. DISCUSSION Nearly all of the species observed on the undeveloped north and south parcels are likely present on the existing development at some point during the year even though they were not observed on any of the visits to the development. Black-capped chickadees, for example, were not observed on the existing development but there is no reason that they wouldn't use the edges and wooded areas of the existing development. The converse is not true for some of the species observed on the existing development, such as those that show an affinity for aquatic habitats. It isn't likely that spotted sandpipers or red-wing blackbirds would be seen in a juniper woodland. The number of species observed on one parcel over another was not that different. Many of the species for which the Eastern Cascades Juniper/Shrub habitat type is considered good to high quality were not observed during any of our visits to the area. This may be due to the fact that the Aspen Lakes Resort property is located on the western edge of this habitat type. The type of wildlife found here may be strongly influenced by the pine and Douglas fir dominated habitats to the west of the Aspen Lakes Property. While the establishment of water features has made it possible for a greater variety of wildlife to be found on the Aspen Lakes Property the water features themselves are not necessarily permanent. They are not self sustaining from a hydrological stand point. In most cases the presence of water in the various features around the existing development is entirely dependent upon managers of the existing development putting water in those ' This matrix was developed by the ONHP in support of ODP&W's Conservation Strategy for Oregon. Wildlife Inventory of Aspen Lakes Resort, Sisters, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS#3620 Page 3 features. Because the water features are not permanent, self sustaining systems they are not in a true sense aquatic habitats. CONCLUSION Observations of wildlife on the undeveloped parcels near the Aspen Lakes Resort identified species that are adapted to a juniper woodland habitat. Most, if not all of these species could also be found on the existing development itself. Overall the diversity of wildlife species found in the vicinity of the Aspen Lakes Resort has increased due to the establishment of water features. LITERATURE CITED Miller, R.F., J.D'. Bates, T.J. Svejear, F.B. Pierson, and L.E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, Ecology, and Management of Western Juniper (Juniperus occidentatis). Oregon State University Ag, ltvra#- xperim-ent Station Technical Bulletin 152. 82pp. Wildlife Inventory of Aspen Lakes Resort, Sisters, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS#3620 Page 4 Figure 1 - Area Map of the Aspen Lakes Property Page 5 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) 1 Figure 2 - Species for which the Eastern Cascades Juniper Scrub Habitat is considered good or high quality. Birds :.Turkey vulture ;sharp-shinned hawk Suvainson's'lawt 'Re 4tailed hawk. "Feug[Qus, hawk 'iGoidera:'ege " e~ican' estrei lUoiirning dove c:Barnowl Mammals sfoot::::;'.'°:. :.::;::;iPellid bat . - ~~:Deel:moi~se lizard ~~Mule deer°`: . ;lizard iri kinganake Wildlife Inventory of Aspen Lakes Resort, Sisters, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS93620 Page 6 Wildlife Inventory of Aspen Lakes Resort, Sisters, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS#3620 Page 7 Figure 3 - Wildlife Observed on the Aspen Lakes Property Hutton's Vireo Yellow-rumped Warbler Green-tailed Towhee Chipping Sparrow Brewer's Sparrow Junco White-crowned Sparrow Golden-crowned Sparrow Red-wing Blackbird Brewer's Blackbird American Gold Finch Red Crossbill House Finch Western Fence Lizard Western Skink Lizard s Garter Snake Mountain Cottontail Rabbit Chimpunk (sp) Merrian's Ground Squirrel Douglas's Squirrel Bushy-tailed Woodrat Coyote Mule Deer Birds 28 21 151 Reptiles 1 2 2 Mammals 3 6 5 Total 32 29 37 Blue color indicates a particular species was observed on a particular parcel. Wildlife Inventory of Aspen Lakes Resort, Sisters, Oregon Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS#3620 Page 8 f Peter Gutowsky Page 1 of 1 From: Hultberg, Steve [shultberg@balljanik.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:12 PM To: Peter Gutowsky Cc: Laurie Craghead Subject: DR Ordinance Peter, As you know, I have been monitoring the County's DR Work Program on behalf of Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership. I wanted to confirm our understanding of the new DR Ordinance. Under 23.84.030(3)(c)(1), destination resorts are not allowed in areas "shown on the Wildlife Combining Zone" for Deer Winter Range. Under the Wildlife Combining zone regulations, 18.88.040(D), destination resorts are allowed in the WA Zone, except in the areas designated as "Deer Migration Priority Area." Based on our previous discussions, I understand that the new DR policies set forth in 23.84.030(3)(c)(1) will be read to continue to permit destination resorts in the WA Zone, provided they are not in the Deer Migration Priority Area. In other words, there is no intent to categorically excluded destination resorts from the WA Zone. Can you please confirm that this is your understanding of how these two provisions are intended to work. Also, please add this email to the record for both Ordinance 2010-001 and 2010-002. Thank you for your assistance. Steven Hultberg Ball Janik LLP 115 SW Colorado, Suite 3 / Bend, Oregon 97702 541.693.0065 (direct) 541.617.8824 (fax) This email message may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the person to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not (1) the intended recipient or (2) the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (541.617.1309), and destroy the original message. Thank you. Client Matter/Number: 1/19/2010 f" Comments on Destination Resort Remapping Goals, Policies and Proposed Ordinances Submitted to Deschutes Board of County Commissioners by Merry Ann Moore for Juniper Group Sierra Club January 20, 2010 S Thank you for initiating this important revision to the destination resort CLUB: map. I am commenting on behalf of Juniper Group Sierra Club, representing 900 local members. We respect the huge amount of planning staff time, Planning Commission time, your time and public input invested in the resort remapping process. Whether the outcome is true and meaningful reform remains to be seen. Sierra Club sees serious problems with the recommendations that have come out of Planning Commission. We urge you, the Commissioners, to consider the following key points, and vote for a map that truly reflects resort requirements and public input. 1. The current proposal on remapping does not meet several objectives set forth at the beginning of the process. One is to have a map that truly reflects where resorts may be built according to existing statutes. A second is to have clear and objective mapping criteria. The County's intention-to remove lands that don't comply with statutes-was made clear in an Oct. 15, 2008 memo on the Comprehensive Plan revision [(http://lava5.deschutes.ore/cdd/compplan/assets/files/staffinemos/10-23- 2008%20Memo%205.pdfj. It reads: In 2005 the county considered amending the destination resort map, but did not take action. The original intent was to clean up the destination resort map by removing properties that are too small or isolated from ever being developed as a resort. Action was postponed because Ballot The current ordinances recommended to you today by the Planning Commission would fail to remove all lands that don't meet state and local statutes from the resort map. Such lands include parcels that are under 160 acres in size, platted subdivisions, land in flood zones, etc. If you vote to allow this, you are reneging on a crucial goal of this process. And you will not have adopted clear and objective mapping criteria. At your most recent work session (1/6/10) on resort remapping, even the County Administrator pointedly asked, "How can a property owner be eligible if they are not, if their lands don't comply with state statutes?" 2. These recommendations do not reflect the majority views and testimony of the public on resorts. Juniper Group Sierra Club Resort Map Comments 1/20/2010 - p. 1 The public has been speaking out loudly for well over a year, but the testimony is not reflected in the current resort remap proposal. Examples: A. Planning Department staff has conducted numerous public input listening sessions and hearings (Oct. 2008 to Nov. 2009) on the Comprehensive Plan. To quote the Jan. 5, 2009 Management Area Listening Sessions Summary they prepared for you, "staff held listening sessions around the county to discuss how the comprehensive plan was working and what policy areas needed attention. At each of these listening sessions residents raised the issue of destination resorts. Additionally, other written comments regarding resorts have been submitted. With a few exceptions, what staff heard from the public is that Deschutes County has enough destination resorts. [emphasis added] Concerns were expressed that resorts are primarily exclusive subdivisions, which have impacts on traffic, water availability, natural resources and rural character. A moratorium, similar to the one adopted for Crook County, was recommended by a number of listening session participants." The summary goes on: "The overall consensus (with a few exceptions) was that we don't understand the impacts of resorts, can't enforce the resort regulations and should not allow more resorts. Another common theme was the need to protect water and other natural resources. A final common theme was mistrust and frustration with county land use and with county government in general." Below is the chart summarizing this public input. http://bit.ly/6gnax8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IVIQST,FAVORITE LEAST f:AVORITE GOALS "To preserve and enhance 29 1 rural character, scenic values and natural resources of the county." "To maintain existing 8 1 water supplies at present quantity and quality." "To preserve and maintain 6 5 agriculture land." To allow flexibility of 3 11 housing location, type and Juniper Group Sierra Club Resort Map Comments . 1/20/2010- p. 2 3. The grandfather clause is bad public policy because it allows existing mapped properties to remain on the overlay map even though they don't qualify for resorts under current regulations. Currently, 87% of the mapped area contains ineligible properties based on existing local and state criteria. If you don't remove those, you are condemning Deschutes County to repeated land use disputes among neighbors and time-consuming appeals that tie up County and state staff and resources. 4. Another clause you are considering may result in ADDING lands to the resort map, which is not what the majority of the public has been asking for. The Planning Commission has inserted a provision that would allow different landowners to pool land together to create parcels of 160 acres or more and become eligible for resorts. If this is allowed, there is no predicting how much new land this would add to the map. 5. Theoretical Measure 37 and 49 claims against the County by unmapped property owners are unlikely to succeed. The assertion that unmapping will create costly liability for the County is overblown. Measure 37 no longer exists. So the question at hand is, "could Measure 49 potentially be triggered by un-mapping lands, and could small parcel owners claim property loss when they are currently ineligible to develop as resorts?" The answer is most likely, "No." Inquiries to DLCD have led some to understand that the department has not approved a single "new"' M49 claim, because the criteria are too stringent. (By new, meaning claims that were not the "descendants" of M37 claims.) Further, it is unlikely that an M49 claim resulting from removal of property from a destination resort overlay map would succeed; M49 is not about compensation, so it is unlikely property owners could come to a county and demand money because their perceived rights to build a resort have been taken away. Moreover, if someone changed the ownership of a property, such as forming an LLC or a trust, that would negate the validity of an M49 claim. 6. The costs to Deschutes County taxpayers are unknown and likely to be very high if you allow lands that don't meet resort requirements to stay in the Deschutes County's resort map. The costs to the County of adding newly-formed 160-acre parcels in are also likely to be daunting. The county seems to be very concerned about the unlikely costs of successful M49 claims, while overlooking the very likely costs of weak action. Here are some that can be anticipated: • The costs of processing, public hearings, etc. for applications for resorts that have little to no chance of gaining approval. • The costs to the public to settle ongoing disputes between neighbors about what lands are really eligible for resorts or not. These costs include county planning Juniper Group Sierra Club Resort Map Comments 1/20/2010 - p. 4 staff time, county counsel time, outside attorneys' fees, fees for hearings officers, the state court system's time, and citizens' energies and time. Legal liability if the county approves resorts where state statute says they should not be. The cost burden of processing and managing the addition of new properties of 160 acres that have multiple, separate ownership. As one public testimony letter says, it will "create havoc, as the public could be inspired to combine dozens or even hundreds of small parcels to meet the 160-acre minimum. These consortiums would be highly fragmented (with dozens or hundreds of decision makers and voters in each group); likely to inspire internal litigation (which will burden the owners, the Commission and our courts); and would result in highly irregular property boundaries (as small parcels are gerrymandered into unpredictable geometric patterns.)" The costs of mediating land use disputes from these newly-added parcels, as neighbor is pitted against neighbor: how many cases will the County get from landowners who bought their land never dreaming that a resort would be built next door? 7. The net economic value of big new resorts in Central Oregon is unknown. The County has relied on selective information in determining the costs, benefits and future feasibility of more Goal 8 resorts. For example, there is a glut of housing in the luxury, second-home category and no sign of when this will be absorbed. It is unclear if demand will ever be restored for second-home housing in resorts. Resorts have not provided enough stable employment to insulate our region from today's devastating economic slump. [See attached article, "Still Cookin': Oregon-based Hayden Homes enjoys success despite building slump," 1/10/10.] 8. Finally, the resort map process has not incorporated new research on current habitat and wildlife needs. This must be addressed in the near future. Sierra Club Recommendations on Resort Ordinances, Map & Policies The real revenue-generators for Deschutes County are our fish, wildlife and landscapes, and the fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing that they support. A recent study found that travel-generated expenditures for fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing trips to Deschutes County are almost $70 million annually: Juniper Group Sierra Club Resort Map Comments 1/20/2010 - p. 5 Economic Value of Fish and Wildlife Recreation in Deschutes County The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County consider the economic impact or benefit to wildlife resources when making a decision that could affect wildlife populations or their habitats to limit conflicting use. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Travel Oregon contracted with Dean Runyan and Associates in 2008 to conduct an economic analysis by county of Fishing, Hunting Wildlife Viewing and Shellfishina Recreation in Oregon: 2008 Trip Characteristics and Expenditure Estimates. The survey identified two distinct type of expenditures related to fishing, hunting, shellfish and wildlife viewing trips. Travel related expenditures were for trips of more than 50-miles one way or included an overnight stay. Local recreation trips were less than 50-miles one way. Preliminary results for the 36 county economic analyses revealed that travel generated expenditures for fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing trips to Deschutes County generated nearly $70-million. Expenditures for fishing trips in Deschutes County were the third highest in the state at $20,410,000, the second highest for hunting at $6,663,000, and the third highest for wildlife viewing at $42,771,000. Dean Runyan and Associates also found that out of the $478,781,000 expenditures generated by people traveling to Deschutes County that 14.6% came from fishing,. hunting, and wildlife viewing activities. Preliminary results also revealed for locally generated expenditures, that fishing" trips in Deschutes County generated the fourth highest in the state at $5,321,000, the fifth highest for hunting ($1,817,000); and the ninth highest for wildlife viewing at $1,520,000. Additive, residents and non-residents spent $25,731,000 on fishing trips in Deschutes County, $8,480,000-on.hunting trips, and $44,291,000 on wildlife watching for a grand total of $78,502,000. Compared to Oregon's 36 counties, Deschutes County ranked third highest for fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing revenues, behind Lincoln County's $102,605,000 and Clatsop County's $84,967,000, both of which provide saltwater, salmon and steelhead, and shellfishing opport u hies. Freshwater fishing trips in Deschutes County generated the highest fresh water revenues at $25,731,000, with Lane " and Tillamook Counties generating the second and third highest revenues at $22,703,000 and $15,557,000 respectively. Shellfishing generated an additional $36,295,000 in revenue resulting in over one billion dollars being spent on fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, and shellfishing activities in Oregon in 2008. Source: Updated Wildlife Information & Recommendations for the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update, Interagency Wildlife Working Group (7/09) We ask the BOCC to adopt the following recommendations, so the goals of the remapping process are met, and the public's feedback on resorts is answered. 1. Repeal the resort overlay map. It is within your power to do so. Several of you have recently suggested that Deschutes County must allow resorts because of state law. This Juniper Group Sierra Club Resort Map Comments 1/20/2010 - p. 6 is not accurate. As shown in Crook County, any county may choose to have a resort overlay map or not. Central Oregon has enough resorts. It's time for you as our elected leaders to respond to public sentiment and repeal Deschutes County's resort map. It's time to move on. 2. Failing that, remove all lands that do not conform with current local or state resort statutes from the overlay map. These include, but are not limited to • wildlife corridors/migration paths • big game winter range • areas that will result in detriment to threatened or endangered species • existing housing subdivisions and platted lands • flood zones • parcels of land under 160 acres. 3. Exclude the Whychus Creek watershed from the resort map, because water rights on this crucial waterway for reintroduced threatened steelhead are already far oversubscribed. 4. Commission an objective economic cost-benefit study of new, Goal 8 resorts. The analysis should include a comparison of the costs and revenues of Goal 8 resorts to other revenue sources and economic development paths. It should also assign dollar values to conservation of natural resources such as wildlife, habitat, open space, etc. The Planning Department estimates that such a study will cost between $75K and $100K. 5. Create a technical committee to update county wildlife inventories, winter ranges, wildlife corridors and habitat, and adopt recommendations from the interagency Updated Wildlife Information & Recommendations for the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update (7/09). This could be part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process. 6. Incorporate the following specific language changes in the ordinances: 23.84.010. Destination Resorts. [Remove this reference because it can change rapidly. Twenty or so years ago the timber industry was dominant engine of the local economy. If this ordinance goes another 20 years without changing, resorts may not still be of increased importance to the economy. Or in the near term, what if a study is done showing some resorts are economically beneficial and others are actually more costly to taxpayers than beneficial?] In order to allow destination resorts within the county, Goal 8 requires that Deschutes County adopt a map showing which lands are available for destination resort development. The purpose of the map is to provide greater certainty concerning destination resort siting than is available under the exceptions process. [In actuality, the original goal set forth for the rernapping process in 2005 was to remove non-confonning lands from the map. "Greater certainty" is not a sufficient standard; all non-conforming lands should be removed from the map.] However, although a property is mapped as eligible for a destination resort, a destination resort may not be permitted outright in that location. [This is an unacceptable paradox to codify in statute. Let's think ahead 10 or even 5 years. This debate is forgotten. Some property has changed hands. Do you think this language might be confusing? Do you think a landowner could come to the conclusion that his land is in the map and therefore he deserves approval for a resort, and might hire a clever lawyer? That neighbors and conservationists might read the statutes and say, "no he can't"? Sound familiar? Like Thornburgh? Like Aspen Lakes? If you allow this you are not acting in the best interest of citizens, who want efficient use of taxpayer money, clear policies and good government.] Juniper Group Sierra Club Resort Map Comments .1/20/2010 - p. 7 In order to be approved, a proposal for a resort must be processed as a conditional use and must comply with the specific standards and criteria established by the county and state statutes for destination resorts. The County recognizes the importance of balancing protection of resource lands and rural land uses, wi&the economic benefits destination resorts provide and the costs to taxpayers associated with resort infrastructure and services. The County further recognizes that this balance can be struck by the manner in which areas are designated as being available for destination resort development, and-by establishing thorough siting criteria, by obtaining and acting on current, objective economic analysis and by using current wildlife/habitat data. 23.84.020. Goals. 1. To provide for development of destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8 in a manner that will be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development, and in a manner that will maintain important natural features, and conserve benefits such as wildlife and fish, habitat of threatened or endangered species, streams, rivers and significant wetlands. To provide a process for the siting of destination resorts on rural lands that have been mapped by Deschutes County as eligible compliant with state and County statutes for this purpose. 23.84.030. Policies. 6. Sites less than 160 contiguous acres. Deschutes County shall adopt a map showing where destination resorts can be located in the county. [Unless all lands that do not comply with current state and county statute are removed from the map, this language may legally codify lands that do not conform to state and local statutes as resort-buildable. This is a lawsuit against the county waiting to happen. One cannot on the one hand say just because land is in the map doesn't mean it can be a resort, and then make this statement.] 4. Ordinance provisions. a. The County shall ensure that destination resorts are compatible with the site and adjacent land uses through enactment of land use regulations that, at a minimum, provide for the following: 1. Maintenance [Paul, would Conservation be a better word legally?] of important natural features, including habitat of threatened or endangered species, streams, rivers, and significant wetlands; maintenance of riparian vegetation within 100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wetlands; and 3. Such regulations may do not allow for alterations to important natural features.; The zoning ordinance shall include measures that assure that developed recreational facilities, visitor-oriented accommodations, overnight lodging and key facilities intended to serve the entire development are physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or substantially equivalent financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. In phased developments, developed recreational facilities, overnight lodging and other key facilities intended to serve a particular phase shall be constructed prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed through surety bonding. Thank you sincerely for your public service, and for your careful consideration of our requests. Merry Ann Moore Secretary, Juniper Group Sierra Club P.O. Box 6376 Bend, Oregon 97708 541.549.2468 merrvann(@bendcable.com Explore. Enjoy. Protect. Juniper Group Sierra Club Resort Map Comments 1/20/2010 - p. 8 Juniper Group Sierra Club Resort Map Comments 1/20/2010 - p. 9 Print Story Page 1 of 4 The Register-Guard httD://www.reizisterizuard.com/ STILL COOKIN' (http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cros/sites/web/business/24299552 -41/hayden-homes-company-murp4y-h2uses.csp) I Oregon-based Hayden Homes enjoys success despite building slump BY DIANE DIETZ (MAILTO:DIANE.DIETZ@REGISTERGUARD.COM) The Register-Guard Posted to Web: Saturday, Jan 9, 201011:32PM Appeared in print: Sunday, Jan 10, 2010, page D4 While the homebuilding industry has suffered its biggest slump in a half century, Oregon-based Hayden Homes enjoyed its best years ever in 2008 and 2009. And, on the last day of December, Hayden capped it off by buying a 101-lot subdivision in Springfield out of foreclosure for $2.1 million. The 20-year-old company expects to submit a slew of building permit applications to begin filling the lots with houses before January is through. All of which explains why Hayden Homes President Dennis Murphy and CEO Hayden Watson keep mum at gatherings of builders, where epic tales of woe have been the norm over the past couple of years. "We keep quiet because they want to beat us up," Murphy said. In 2009, Hayden Homes sold more than 590 houses in 30 small and medium-sized towns in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, making last year the second-best year on record for the Redmond-based company. The company's best year came in 2008 with 602 houses sold - against the backdrop of an industry stalled by a credit freeze that's yet to thaw, a housing price collapse that's only beginning to rebuild, and the worst recession since the Great Depression. Hayden Homes clip-clopped along on its Lane County projects throughout 2009, filing a handful of building permit applications every month and recording clusters of sales occasionally - six in February, seven in July, eight in November and nine in December. Local homebuilding largely would have disappeared in recent years without Hayden Homes and also Eugene builder Bruce Wiechert, said Ed McMahon, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Lane County. "It's pretty bleak," he said. Hayden Homes' secret to success: Housing the masses. The company provides a couple of decent bedrooms and a bath for the people who "do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community," to quote George Bailey, a character in the 1946 film, "It's a Wonderful Life." "When I watch that movie - I can't say that I'm George Bailey - but I surely feel that a number of things that happen in that movie are very similar," said Murphy, who oversees the http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cros/sites/web/business/24299552-41 /hayden-homes-co... 1/19/2010 Print Story Page 2 of 4 company's building operations. "I've seen our model change people's lives. There's just not a lot of people who do what we do." Murphy figures that Hayden Homes has housed more Lane County residents since the company began building here in 1994 than any single construction company - building upwards of 1,500 houses. "We've done the most units," he said. "Some of the guys who do a little higher-price (houses) than we do have gotten more revenue. But on a unit basis, I would say we are the largest." Local subdivisions include Shadow Glen in west Eugene, Mountain Terrace in north Eugene, Jasper Meadows in Springfield, Meadowview Park in west Eugene, Riverwalk in Cottage Grove and Applegate Landing in Veneta. Hayden Homes takes pains to feed its projects with customers through first-time homebuyer seminars, through marrying potential customers with government homebuyer assistance programs, and through its own private homebuyer assistance programs. Four years ago, the company started a Hometown Heros program that gives down payment assistance to "teachers, firefighters and policemen, also anybody who has served our country," Murphy said. Two years ago, Hayden started its Money Match program to help potential homebuyers set up a down payment savings plan. The company then pledges to match the savings for participants and also to pay their closing costs. One other program, Work to Own, allows participants to apply the value of their labor - painting or shovel work, for instance - to their down payment costs. Additionally, the company's charitable arm, the Hayden Giving Fund, helps low-income families into houses, including a family in Cottage Grove this year and a family in Veneta in 2008. Hayden Homes can cater to families of ordinary means because the company sticks within a price range - $140,000 to $250,000 - that average salaries in a given community can sustain, while many other builders followed the rapidly inflating housing prices up, up, up between 2004 and 2007. "Even people who really couldn't afford (higher-priced houses), the mortgage companies could somehow get them qualified. That was a huge disservice because you end up having to short sale or foreclose, and that's never pleasant," Murphy said. "You drive through a majority of our neighborhoods here in the Northwest, it's hard to find a foreclosure sign because most people's payment is very similar to the rental of the house - that's a $750-a-month up to $1,500-a-month mortgage," he said. Company principals, however, weren't entirely immune to the mid-2000s real estate gold rush. CEO Hayden Watson bought into the 700-acre Tetherow destination resort development in Central Oregon, which faltered when sales stopped. But Hayden Homes' bread-and-butter building model allowed the company to cook along until February when Congress enacted the $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit to stimulate house sales nationally. The program proved very good for Hayden Homes. "That's been a big part of our business in 2009," Murphy said. "At least 50 percent of the customers who purchase our houses are going to be able to apply for it." While the supply of houses in the $300,000,$400,000 and $500,000 price range exceeded the demand, the under $200,000 homes were moving fast, McMahon said. http://www.registerguard.comlcsp/cros/siteslweblbusiness/24299552-411hayden-homes-co... 1/19/2010 Print Story Page 3 of 4 This meant Hayden Homes was well positioned, he said. "Market conditions were favorable to that price point." Hayden Homes has better control over its costs because, while other builders must buy lots from developers, the company buys its own land and creates its own subdivisions, McMahon said. "It allows them to build a less expensive home," he said. "Another reason they've been able to continue is because they've got the financial backing to do it. It's probably their own money. Individual builders are still having a very hard time in going out and borrowing money to do anything." Murphy declined to disclose Hayden Homes' annual revenue figures. The company has 55 workers internally and employs 30 salespeople externally. Hayden Homes had sufficient financing to buy the foreclosed Westwind Estates subdivision in a year-end deal with LibertyBank. When the former owner of the property, Brent Anderson, ran into financial difficulty in mid- 2008, he was in the process of installing the underground utilities, streets and curbs on the 29- acre property. Anderson had paid $3.8 million for the property in 2006, county records show. He took out a $5.4 million construction line of credit from LibertyBank in 2007. When he defaulted in 2008, he owed $5.2 million, court records show. LibertyBank claimed the property in a sheriff's foreclosure sale in 2009 for $3.4 million. A Hayden Homes-related limited liability company paid $2.1 million for the property on Dec. 31, county land records show. Anderson declined to comment. LibertyBank officials were glad Hayden Homes agreed to buy the property. "It's good news. The plat's finaled," said John Revell, vice president in charge of construction lending. Hayden Homes took the risk of finishing the underground work and preparing to complete the asphalt streets before the deal was closed - otherwise the company couldn't get financing for the deal, Murphy said. "What was real attractive to us is the lot sizes were right to fit our homes. And it's pretty close to our other (Jasper Meadows) location there," he said. With prices in the 1140,000 to $200,000 range," Murphy said he is sure the company can sell houses in the revived Westwind Estates. His certainty is stunning against measures of confidence on the part of homebuilders nationally, which have been bumping along the bottom of the scale for more than a year. In December, the National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo confidence index landed at 16. Readings of less than 50 mean most builders rate conditions as poor. Hayden Homes' model is to build one house on speculation for every house it sells, and that's what it'll do at Westwind Estates, Murphy said. But he's anticipating a steady build out. "We're anticipating good sales demand, and sales are going to drive it." "I've seen our model change people's lives." http://www.registerguard.coni/csp/cros/sites/web/business/24299552,411hayden-homes-co... 1/19/2010 Print Story - DENNIS MURPHY, HAYDEN HOMES PRESIDENT Copyright © 2010 - The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA Page 4 of 4 http://www.registerguard.cornlcsplcros/siteslweblbusiness/24299552-411hayden-homes-co... 1/19/2010 Page 1 of I Peter Gutowsky From: Merry Ann Moore [merryann@bendcable.com] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:35 AM To: Tammy Baney; Dennis Luke; Alan Unger; Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Please add to public record on destination resort remapping Attachments: County wildlife update 7-8-09.pdf Dear Commissioners and Planning Department, I would like the full report, "Updated Wildlife Information and Recommendations from the Interagency Wildlife Working Group on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update," added to the record for consideration before the January 20 public hearing. This report, which is a joint effort combining the professional opinions from wildlife experts at the BLM, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife and U.S. Forest Service, is the latest information the County has on local wildlife. To ignore it would be a breach of the public trust. I urge you to read the brief section on the economic value of our county's wildlife, fish and habitat, page 6. These rich county revenue sources must have better protection from development. The recommendations in this report should be incorporated into decisions on the county's resort remap. Thank you for considering my views. And thank you for your responsiveness in allowing testimony on the new resort map proposal in the evening on Jan. 20, so working people can participate. Sincerely, Merry Ann Moore 1/11/2010 July 6, 2009 Deschutes County Planning Division 1130 NW Harriman Street Bend, Oregon 97701 RE: Recommendations from the Interagency Wildlife Working Group on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Deschutes County: In response to a request from Deschutes County to provide up-to-date wildlife information for the County's Comprehensive Plan Update, a group of local interagency wildlife experts from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Fish. and Wildlife Service, US Bureau of Land Management and US .Forest Service convened a working group (Interagency Working Group). The enclosed document provides wildlife information to support the Comprehensive Plan Update and includes recommendations from the Interagency Working Group concerning necessary wildlife conservation measures to include in Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact members of the working group listed herein. Sincerely, _4 ODFW US Forest Service High Desert Region Manager Deschutes National Forest Supervisor kit EL USFWS Bend Field Office Supervisor Prineville District Manager (.8 2009 r h s 5 Updated Wildlife Infor=mation and - Recommendations for the Deschutes County. Com rehensive Plan Update Prepared by: An Interagency Working Group Jennifer O'Reilly (USFWS), Glenn.Ardt (ODFW) Jan Hanf (BLM), Rick Demmer (BLM) and Lauri Turner (USFS) 7/6/2009 ~f Table of Contents Economic Value of Fish and Wildlife Recreation in Deschutes County ........:................................6 Oregon Conservation Strategy ............................................7 ODFWFish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy .........................................................................8 Threatened'and Endangered Species and Species of Concern.* ............:.......................:..............8 Riparian and wetland areas for wildlife and fish Shrub-Steppe Habitat , . . 19 Critical Bird & Mammal Sites . : 20 . Game Species 23 : Energy Development . Tables Table 1:2008 Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife Viewing Expenditures in Deschutes County ...:..........7 Table 2: Threatened, endangered and species of concern dependent on floodplain areas in . Deschutes County ...................................:...........:.............................................:.........................10 Table 3: Threatened, endangered and species of concern dependent on sagebrush steppe habitat in Deschutes County ..............:...............................:..................................................:.....14 Table 4:. Big game population estimates, Deschutes County 2009 ..................................:.........21 Figures Figure 1: Winter deer population in Paulina Unit 22 Figure 2: Winter deer population in Upper Deschutes Unit .....................................................22 Appendices . Appendix A1: Bald eagle nest sites occupied and protected by Deschutes County 25 Appendix A2: Bald Eagle nest sites currently protected by Deschutes County and no longer in use ........................................:............,....................................................:................26 Appendix A3: Bald Eagle nest sites that are occupied and not protected by Deschutes County ......................................................................................................................:27 Appendix 61: Golden Eagle nest sites that are occupied and protected by Deschutes County 28 Appendix B2: Golden Eagle nest sites not protected by Deschutes County and currently in use . ..............29 3 Appendix C1: Sage Grouse lek sites that are in use and currently protected by . Deschutes County '.30 Appendix C2: Sage Grouse lek sites currently protected by Deschutes County and no longer in use ...........................................................................31 Appendix C3 Sage Grouse lek sites not currently protected by Deschutes County and currently in use .........................:..................................................................................................................31 Appendix C4: Name change for Sage Grouse lek site currently protected by Deschutes a............... 31 County Appendix D: Prairie Falcon nest sites currently occupied and protected by Deschutes County.32 Appendix E1: Heron Rookery site currently in use and protected by Deschutes County 3Z Appendix E2: Heron Rookery site currently protected by Deschutes County and.no longer in use ...........................................................32 Appendix F: Great Grey Owl nest site currently in use and protected by Deschutes County.... 32 Appendix G: Bat sites currently in use and protected by Deschutes County ..............................3.2 Appendix H: Use period, abundance and special status of select mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles in Deschutes County 2009............. .......::.................................:............:..................33 7 z ♦nc nc Glen Ardt - ODFW Chris Carey = ODFW Wildlife Habitat Biologist Wildlife Diversity Biologist 61374 Parrell Road 61374 Parrell Road Bend, Oregon 97702 Bend, Oregon 97702 541-388-6444 ex 230 541-388-6350 ex 228 Rick Demmer Steven George - ODFW Bureau of Land Management Wildlife Biologist Prineville District 61374 Parrell Road 3050 NE Third Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Prineville, OR 97754 541-388-6363 541-416-6738 Jan Hanf Jennifer O'Reilly Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Biologist Prineville District US Fish and Wildlife Service -Bend Field Office 3050 NE Third Street 20310 Empire Avenue Suite A-100 Prineville, OR 97754 Bend, OR 97701 541-416-6721 541-312-6426 Lauri Turner. Deschutes National Forest Forest Wildlife Biologist .1001 SW Emkay Drive Bend, Oregon 97702 541-383-5640 5 Economic Value of Fish and Wildlife Recreation in Deschutes County The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County consider the economic impact or benefit to wildlife resources when making a decision that could affect wildlife populations or their habitats to limit conflicting use. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Travel Oregon contracted with Dean Runyan and Associates in 2008 to conduct an economic analysis by county of Fishing, Hunting, Wildlife Viewing, and Shellfishm Recreation in Oregon: 2008` nj Characteristics and Expenditure Estimates. The survey identified two distinct type of expenditures related to fishing, hunting, shellfish and wildlife viewing trips. Travel related expenditures were for trips of more than 50-miles one way or included an overnight stay. Local recreation trips were less than 50-miles one way. Preliminary results for the 36 county economic analyses revealed that travel generated expenditures for fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing trips to Deschutes County generated nearly $70-million. Expenditures for fishing trips in Deschutes County were the third highest in the state.at. $20,410,000, the second highest for hunting at $6,663,000, and the third highest for wildlife viewing at $42,771,000. Dean Runyan and Associates also found that out of the $478,781,000 expenditures generated by people traveling to Deschutes County that 14.6% came from fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing activities. Preliminary results also revealed for locally generated expenditures, that fishing trips in Deschutes County generated the fourth highest in the state at $5,321,000, the fifth highest for hunting ($1,817,000); and the ninth highest for wildlife viewing at $1,520,000. Additive, residents and non-residents spent $25,731,000 on fishing trips in Deschutes County, $8,480,000 -on hunting trips, and $44,291,000 on wildlife watching for a grand total of $78,502,000. Compared to Oregon's 36 counties, Deschutes County ranked third highest for fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing revenues, behind Lincoln County's $102,605,000 and Clatsop County's $84,967,000, both of which provide saltwater, salmon and steelhead, and shellfishing opportunities. Freshwater fishing trips in Deschutes County generated the highest fresh water revenues at $25,731,000, with Lane and Tillamook Counties generating the second and third highest revenues at $22,703,000 and $15,557,000 respectively. Shellfishing generated an additional $36,295,000 in revenue resulting in over one billion dollars being spent on fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, and shellfishing activities in Oregon in 2008. , L, Table 1: 2008 Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife Viewing Expenditures in Deschutes County Activity Fishing Hunting, Wildlife Viewin g . Total FHW Total Travel Generated Travel Generated Revenue 20,410,000 6,663,000 42,771,000 69,844,000 478,781,000 14.6% FHW 36 County Rankin 3 2 3 3 Locally Generated ' Revenue 5,321,000 1,817,000 1,520,000 8,658,000 36 County Rankin 4 5 9 4 Deschutes Total '*25,731,000 8,480,000 44;291,000 78,502,000 Statewide Total 341,510,000 136,032,000 495,260,000 972,802,000 Deschutes County generated the highest freshwater fishing revenues in the state. Oregon Conservation Strategy The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County utilize the Oregon Conservation Strategy as a guide and reference for the maintenance and enhancement of Oregon's wildlife resource to limit conflicting use. In 2006 the Oregon Conservation Strategy was adopted by Oregon's Fish and Wildlife Commission.for the state of Oregon. The focus of the Conservation Strategy is to use the best available science to create a broad vision and conceptual framework for long-term conservation of Oregon's native fish and wildlife, as well as. various invertebrates and native plants. As a guide to conserving the species and habitats that have defined the nature of Oregon, this strategy can help ensure that Oregon's natural treasures are passed on to future generations. The Conservation Strategy emphasizes proactively conserving declining species and habitats to reduce the-possibility of future federal or state listings. It is not a regulatory document, but instead presents issues and opportunities, and recommends. voluntary actions that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of conservation in Oregon. Healthy fish and wildlife populations require. adequate habitat, which is provided in, natural systems and, for many species, in landscapes managed for forestry, agriculture, range and urban uses. The goals of the Conservation Strategy are to maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations by maintaining.and restoring functioning habitats, preventing declines of at-risk species, and reversing declines in these resources where possible. The Conservation Strategy is a broad strategy for all of Oregon, offering potential roles and opportunities, for residents, agencies and organizations. It incorporates information and insights from abroad range of natural resources assessments and conservation plaits, supplemented by the professional expertise and practical experiences of across-section of Oregon's*resource managers and conservation interests. It is designed to have a variety of applications both inside and outside of state government. Most important, perhaps, it establishes the basis for a common understanding of the challenges facing Oregon's fish and wildlife, and provides a shared set of priorities for addressing the state's conservation needs. The heart of the Conservation Strategy is a blueprint for voluntary action to address the long-term needs of Oregon's fish and wildlife. The future for many species will depend on landowners' and land managers' willingness to voluntarily take action on their own to protect and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The Oregon Conservation Strategy is available online at h=://www.dfw.state.or.us/consoLationstrategy ODFW Fish and Wildlife.Habitat Mitigation Policy Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends that Deschutes County require impact avoidance for development actions that will impact Category I habitat and development of a wildlife mitigation plan far development actions that will impact habitat Categories 2-5 to limit conflicting use. Oregon Department of Fish and. Wildlife's (ODFW) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635415) (bttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/Mitigation policy.asp Y provides direction for ODFW staff to review and comment on projects that may impact fish and wildlife habitat. This policy recognizes six distinct categories of wildlife. habitat ranging from Category 1 = essential, limited, and irreplaceable habitat; to Category 6 - low value habitat: The policy goal for Category 1 habitat is no loss of habitat quantity or quality through avoidance of impacts by using development alternatives, or by not authorizing the proposed development action if impacts cannot be avoided. The Department recommends avoidance of Category 1 habitats as they are irreplaceable, and thus mitigation is not a viable option. Categories 2-4 are for essential or important, but not irreplaceable habitats. Category 5 habitat is not essential or important habitat, but has high restoration potential. Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 'The interagency working group recommends that Deschutes County develop and adopt measures that will protect federal and state listed threatened and endangered species to limit conflicting use. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for administration of the Endangered-Species Act and.multiple Federal wildlife laws that protect endangered species and migratory birds, respectively. For more information on legal authorities of the USFWS in the protection of migratory birds, please visit httv://www.fws.jzov/miMLorybirds/l*nt-nltr/treatlaw.hbnl. It is Oregon's policy "to prevent the serious depletion of any indigenous species" (ORS 496.012).. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of native fish and wildlife species in Oregon that have been determined to be either "threatened! or "endangered" according to criteria set forth by rule (OAR 635-100-0105) hft://www.dfw.state.or.us./OARS/100 ndf Recovering species when their populations are severely depleted can be difficult. and expensive, and socially and economically divisive. To provide a positive proactive approach to species. conservation, a "sensitive" species classification was created under Oregon's Sensitive Species Rule (OAR 635-100- 040) (http://www.dfw.stAte.or.us/wildlifediversity/species/docs/SSL by taxon.pdf Appendix H lists species in Deschutes County that are listed by either the Federal or State wildlife agencies under the above mentioned laws or. authorities along with a list of wildlife species that occur in Deschutes County. Riparian and wetland areas for wildlife and fish The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County complete a Local Wetland Inventory and adopt it into the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to limit conflicting.use. Riparian areas support a greater diversity of wildlife than upland areas, and are particularly important and limited habitats in the and Western U.S. Over 60 percent of the neotropical migratory songbirds in the western U.S. use riparian areas at some point during the year. Approximately 80 percent of all wildlife species depend on riparian areas. Aquatic and fish productivity are directly related to properly functioning and healthy riparian habitat. Deschutes County has limited riparian and wetland habitats. In 1985, the US Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a National Wetland Inventory for most of Deschutes County. However, due to the large spatial scale of the mapping effort (1:58,000). wetlands smaller than five acres in size were not identified as significant only because they were not mapped, not because they are insignificant. Most wetlands smaller than five acres. in'size provide significant habitat necessary for a suite of wildlife species as depicted in the introductory paragraph above. A Local Wetland Inventory would greatly improve the County's ability to conserve wetland resources, which are vital to maintaining healthy fish and wildlife populations in the Upper Deschutes basin. Therefore, the Working Group strongly recommends that the County pursue the completion of a Local Wetland Inventory and its adoption into the Comprehensive Plan Update. Sensitive fish and wildlife species dependent on riparian and wetland areas in the County include but are not limited to those in Table 2. 1 Birds that reproduce and summer in North America and winter in South America. Bat California Myotis SV -OCS Long-legged Myotis SV - OCS Hoary Bat SV - OCS Silver-haired Bat SV - OCS Pallid Bat SV.- OCS Mule Deer Goal 5 Elk Goal 5 - National 'Marine Fisheries Service has regulatory authority for steelhead. C - USFWS Candidate is warranted to be listed as Threatened or Endangered SC - State Sensitive Critical SV - State Sensitive Vulnerable OCS - Oregon Conservation Strategy Species SOC - USFWS Species of Concern State Sensitive Species List - http://www.dfW.state'.or.us/wildlifeldiversity/species/sensitive species.M EPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Oregon Conservation'Strategy Species List - http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrat6m~/strategy species-asp Oregon Spotted Frog in the Upper Deschutes Basin Oregon Spotted Frog Conservation Recommendations to Limit Conflicting. Use The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County add an Oregon spotted frog habitat area to the wildlife area combining zone map to include the . floodplains along the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers south of Bend (approximately from River Mile. (RM) 173 to headwaters of the Deschutes River and from the confluence with the Deschutes River to the Klamath County line (RM42.9) for the Little Deschutes River). Oregon spotted frog habitat is essential and limited, and depending on the-site, it could be irreplaceable. The mitigation goal for essential, limited, and irreplaceable habitat is no net loss of either habitat quantity or quality through avoidance (Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW).Habitat Category 1). The mitigation goal for essential and limited habitat if impacts are unavoidable is no net loss of either habitat quantity or quality and to provide a net bene, fit of habitat quantity or quality (ODFW Habitat Category 2). • The Working group recommends. a No Net Loss of wetlands within the Oregon spotted frog habitat area. Therefore, wetland fill permits should be sent to the ODFW and FWS for review and comment to the county on their findings. 11 • The working group recommends that Deschutes County complete a Local Wetland inventory to properly protect wetland and inherent functions and values. • Hydrologic connectivity should be maintained when wetlands will be filled. For example, culverts should be installed below roads, driveways, or other obstructions'that may block hydrologic connectivity that allows for proper wetland function and dispersal of Oregon spotted frogs. • Limit structures within floodplains. that could impact floodplain functions • Maintain highest water quality standard in wetlands and rivers. The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is endemic to the Pacific Northwest and 'historically ranged from southwestern British Columbia to northeast California. There are less than 50 known sites inhabited by the species in southwestern British Columbia, western and south-central Washington, and western, central, and south-central Oregon; no populations are known to persist in California. Revisits of historic localities suggest the species is lost.from 70-90% of its historic range (Cushman and Pearl 2007). In Oregon, Oregon' spotted frogs historically were found in Multnomah, Clackamas, Marion, Linn, Benton, Jackson, Lane, Wasco, Deschutes and Klamath counties. Currently, this species is. only known t6occur in Deschutes, Klamath, and Lane counties. In Deschutes County, Oregon spotted frogs occur within water bodies on the Deschutes National Forest, Prineville District Bureau of Land Management and private land. The Oregon spotted frog is considered a Candidate species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which means that there is sufficient information to support a proposal to list this species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS is currently completing a status assessment for the Oregon spotted frog. The Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers and associated wetlands are key habitat for the frog. In particular, riverine oxbows that contain permanent standing water but are no longer connected to the river provide essential overwintering and breeding habitat for . Oregon spotted frog. The rivers and associated floodplains are connectivity corridors that must be maintained to allow populations of frogs to interbreed. Small ponds and isolated wetlands with emergent or floating aquatic vegetation and perennial water also provide habitat for the frog, particularly those that are devoid of predatory fish and bull frogs. In the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers, Oregon spotted frog is threatened by the loss of marsh habitat due to vegetation succession and lodgepole pine encroachment into wetlands; alteration of riverine and wetland hydrologic regimes; interactions with non-native fish and bull frogs; and degraded water quality.' Livestock grazing in high 'density may also pose a threat to Oregon spotted frog. Development of Deschutes County "red lots" within the floodplain of the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers may pose a threat to Oregon spotted frog in the 12 future and could be considered conflicting uses relative to conservation of the Oregon spotted frog. Filling of wetlands will directly affect the habitat on which the frog is dependent. Additionally, the recent findings of the US Geological Survey suggest that development of lots with a high water table will increase nutrient loading (i.e., nitrate) in the rivers. Excess nitrate loading in-the river, combined with a naturally occurring high level of phosphorous in the substrate, will greatly exacerbate eutrophication of the rivers and lead to excess algal growth and vegetative growth. Spotted frogs are dependent not only on the wetland habitat but the high quality of water within these wetlands. References: Cushman. K.A. and C.A. Pearl. 2007. A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. Shrub-Steppe Habitat 7'he Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County consider impacts to wildlife populations and their habitat when a decision will result in degradation ofshrub- steppe habitat to limit conflicting use. Nationally, grassland and shrubland birds show the most consistent population declines over the last 30 years .of any group of bird species. Across the U.S:; the population of 63% of shrubland and shrub-dependent bird species and 70% of grassland species are declining. In the Intermountain West, more than 50% of grassland and shrubland species show downward trends (Paige 1999). The sagebrush ecosystem has been reduced in.area by greater than 40% since-pre- European settlement, and less than 10% remains in a condition unaltered by human disturbance. Populations of many of the sagebrush-associated species are declining, and approximately 20% of the ecosystem's native plants and animals are considered imperiled (Wisdom 2005). Invasion of exotic vegetation, altered fire regimes, road development and use, mining, energy development, climate change, encroachment of pinyon juniper woodlands, intensive grazing by livestock, and conversion to.agriculture, to urban use, and to non- native livestock forage all have contributed to the ecosystem's demise (Wisdom 2005). Shrub-steppe habitat provides needed resources for. over 100 bird species and 70 mammals included 12 Oregon state listed sensitive species; and. one threatened species (Table 3). Large blocks of unfragmented functioning habitat with low human disturbance are needed to support shrub-steppe wildlife. If avoidance of these areas" is not possible, providing for "no net loss" and a "net benefit" (restoration) of shrub-steppe habitat should be a vital component of any conservation plan. 13 References Paige, C., and S.A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise, ID; Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, and L.H. Suring, editors. 2005. Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods. of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. Table 3: Threatened, endangered and species of concern dependent on sagebrush steppe habitat in Deschutes County Species State Oregon Dept of Fish . and Wildlife Federal US Fish and Wildlife Service Deschutes County . Greater Sage-Grouse SV - OCS SOC Goal 5 American Bald Eagle Threatened EPA Goal 5 Golden Eagle EPA Goal 5 Swainson's Hawk SV - OCS Ferruginous Hawk OCS SOC. Prairie Falcon Goal 5. American Peregrine Falcon SV - OCS DeListed Goal 5 Burrowing Owl SV SOC Loggerhead Shrike OCS Townsend's Big-cared Bat Sc - OCS SOC California Myotis SV - OCS Long-legged Myotis SV - OCS SOC Hoary Bat SV - OCS Silver-haired Bat SV SOC Spotted Bat SV - OCS SOC Pallid Bat SV OCS Pygmy Rabbit SV - OCS SOC Mule Deer Goal 5 Elk Goal 5 Pronghorn Goal 5 SC - State Sensitive Critical SV - State Sensitive Vulnerable OCS - Oregon Conservation Strategy Specie SOC - USFWS Species of Concern EPA - Federal Eagle Protection Act State Sensitive Species List - http•//www dfw state or ustwildlife/diversity/species/sensitive species.asp 14 Oregon.Conservation Strategy Species List - http•//www dfw state or us/conserVationstrateay/strategy species asp Greater Sage Grouse in Deschutes County Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Recommendations to Limit Conflicting .Use: ■ Establish a 3-mile radius (habitat protection area) around occupied leks. All habitat within the 3-mile radius is essential for greater sage grouse, limited, and irreplaceable (ODFWHabitat Category 1). The mitigation goal for essential, limited,'and irreplaceable habitat is no net loss of either habitat quantity or quality through avoidance. • Any sagebrush habitat identified as brood rearing or winter habitat for greater -sagegrouse is essential and limited (ODFWHabitat Category 2). Wherepossible' avoid development within 0.5 mile of these areas. The mitigation goal for essential and limited habitat if impacts are unavoidable is no net loss of either . . habitat quantity or quality and to provide a net benefit of habitat quantity or quality. ■ Transmission lines should be placed in existing right-of-ways to aggregate this . disturbance, if not possible then transmission lines should be sited at least 2-miles from leks,'and where possible 0.5 mile from brood rearing habitat and wintering areas. ■ Unimproved roads should be 0.5 mile from leks. Paved (or improved gravel). larger volume roads should be at-least I-mile from leks. • Ground level structures (i.e., residences, roads, buried power lines, natural gas lines) should not be sited within 0.5 mile of the nearest lek site, ■ Timing restrictions: construction and maintenance activity associated with any development or industrial and.commercial activities (i.e., mineral extraction, shooting sports, paintball course, landfills, OBV systems) should be avoided from 15 February to 31 July time frame in sage grouse habitat. If avoidance is not possible then activity should be restricted from 2 hrs prior to and 2 hrs after -sunrise during this timeframe. In August 2005, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted into rule the "Greater Sage-Grouse Conservatioa Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat" Plan development was led by the Oregon Department 15 of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), but was collaboratively agreed upon and written by the Oregon Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Team (Sage-Grouse Team). Specifically, the Commission adopted the population and habitat goals into rule (OAR 635-140-0005 & -0010), and directed staff to implement these policies as described in the Plan. The statewide population objective is to maintain or enhance sage-grouse numbers and distribution at the 2003 spring breeding population level, approximately 40,000 birds (Hagen 2005:32)." The statewide habitat goal is to maintain 70% of the sagebrush steppe as sagebrush dominated 10% sagebrush cover) landscapes and allow for 30% of the landscape to occur in various stages of disturbance and transition. To achieve this goal, conservation guidelines were established to ".:..maintain (at a minimum) or enhance (optimum) the quality of current habitats (Hagen 2005: 70)." Further, the population management objective for sage-grouse in this region (Prineville District), which includes portions of Deschutes and Crook Counties, is to restore sage- grouse numbers and distribution near the 1980 spring breeding population level, approximately 3,000 birds (Hagen 2005: 37). ODFW's state estimate was at a low point in 2008, with figures showing populations levels at less than half the population estimate for 2005, (Hagen 2009 news release). In 2008, Prineville District alone showed a 38% decrease from the 2007 estimate (Hagen 2008 personal communication). Sagebrush conversion to agricultural lands, wetland degradation, invasive plants, mining, -transmission lines, grazing practices. that affect necessary cover or forage, recreational disturbance - motorized and non-motorized, and residential and wind energy developments all can impact local sage-grouse populations and could be considered conflicting uses relative to conservation of greater sage-grouse. Sage-grouse populations have declined since the 1960s across their range. The declines have been substantial enough to initiate 9 petitions to protect the sage-grouse under, the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Sage-Grouse Plan was developed to maintain sustainable populations in Oregon, so that listing under the Endangered Species Act would not be warranted. To this end, the Plan established a "no net loss" objective - for .sage-grouse habitat conservation. This objective also provides benefits for a suite of .other sagebrush obligate species (Hagen 2005, Rowland et al. 2005). Breeding habitat (lekking, nesting habitat, and early brood-rearing) is critical to the life- history of sage-grouse (Johnson and Braun 1999, Walker 2008). Like many upland birds, sage-grouse rear only 1 brood of young. in a breeding season. Thus, any hindrance to _ breeding activities (i.e., habitat loss or other disturbance) may be deleterious to production and ultimately recruitment into the population (Lyon and Anderson 2003, Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007). Leks are used for breeding and the surrounding sagebrush habitat is used for nesting. Oregon research shows that nearly all nests occur within 5 miles of a lek, :while 80 percent of nests occur within 3 miles of a lek. However, regional radio-telemetry data in Deschutes and Crook counties showed that 80 percent of hens nest within 4 miles of a lek. This distance becomes paramount when considering the sage-grouse population in 16 Deschutes County, which is on the fringe of the species range, and therefore is more susceptible to cumulative effects of habitat alteration and disturbance. Population models suggest that such a loss (20%) can be sustained by a large "healthy" population, but the carrying capacity will.be diminished resulting in a smaller but viable population in the future (Walker et al. 2007). A model; indicating where sage-grouse populations are more likely to persist in landscapes throughout the full range of the species, shows Deschutes county to be on the. fringe of the species range and at risk of extirpation (Aldridge et al. 2008) These authors suggest that conservation efforts focused on maintaining large expanses of sagebrush habitat, enhancing the quality of existing habitat, and increasing connections betweed . suitable habitat patches would be most beneficial to maintaining healthy sage-grouse populations. These conservation measures are key in Deschutes county due to the . present low sage-grouse population levels, the species low reproductive rate, and the species limited ability to adapt to habitat changes (i.e. habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation). Breeding.and nesting habitats are essential, limited, and irreplaceable. Based on Oregon's' research and elsewhere in the West, the biological dynamic that occurs between female nest site selection and movement. patterns that drive males to establish. a lek in . these areas of female use has yet to be successfully recreated. Given the uncertainty and risk involved in trying to mitigate for the loss of these habitats (i.e., replace/restore), protection of breeding and nesting habitat is paramount. Generally brood-rearing habitat is comprised of a mosaic of upland vegetation intermixed with wetland sites (e.g., playas, seeps, springs, wet meadows, riparian areas) where broods seek succulent vegetation and invertebrates. These areas can be greater than 10 miles from lek sites. Wetland sites in shrub-steppe habitats are an essential and limited habitat and "no net loss" and "net benefit" (restoration) are paramount if protection is not possible. Winter habitat is comprised of low elevation flats in stands of Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big, sagebrush, or stands of low sagebrush along windswept ridges or drainages. Winter habitat has not been adequately inventoried in Oregon, thus its distribution and abundance is unknown. However, in Deschutes County, some wintering areas are known and have been delineated. (Hanf, et al. 1994).. These habitats have included extensive stands of mountain big sagebrush and low and early-flowering sagebrush. Depending on winter snow. accumulations, some wintering areas become especially important, asheavy snowfall forces birds out of low sage areas into big sage areas where sagebrush is still accessible. Because of sage-grouse dependence on sagebrush for winter forage, losses to these areas can have severe impacts on winter survival and subsequent breeding population size (Swenson et al. 1987, Connelly of al. 2004). Because of the essential and limited nature of winter habitat "no net loss" and "net benefit" (restoration) are paramount if avoidance is not possible. 17 References Aldrige; C.L., S.E.Nielsen, H. L. Beyer, M. S. Boyce, J. W. Connelly, S. T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder. 2008 Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse persistence. Diversity and.Distributions 14, 983-994. Connelly, J. W., S.T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,'Denver, CO. Hagen, C.A. 2005. Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, Oregon. Hagen, C.A. 2009. Sage grouse numbers dip, but biologists are hoping for a rebound. Bend Bulletin May.21, 2009 News Release. Hagen, C.A. 2008. Personal communication. Hanf, J.M., P.A. Schmidt, and E.B: GGroshens. 1994. Sage grouse in the high desert of central Oregon: results of a study, 1988-1993., United States Department of Interior, Bureau'of Land Management, Series P-SG-01, Prineville, OR. Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populatoin response to natural gas field development in western Wyoming. Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Johnson, K. H., and C. E. Braun. 1998. Viability and conservation of an exploited sage grouse population. Conservation Biology 13: 77-84. Lyon, L. A., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation.and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486-491. Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, C. W. Meinke, and L. H. Suring. 2005. Utility of greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species. (pages 232-249). In Habitat Threats in the Sagebrush Ecosystem: Methods of Regional Assessment and Applications in the Great Basin (Wisdom et al. eds). Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas. Swenson et al, 1987. Decrease of Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus after ploughing of sagebrush. steppe. Biological Conservation. 41:125-132. Walker, B. L. 2008. Greater sage-grouse response to coal-bed methane natural gas development and West Nile viruse in the Powder River Basin, Montana and Wyoming USA. Dissertation, Universtiy of Montana, Missoula, MT. 18 Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. Greater sage-grouse population response to energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2644-!2654.' Critical Bird & Mammal Sites Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is not requesting additional. or modification of existing protection criteria for site specific sensitive bird and mammal sites other than for sage grouse. Sage grouse protection criteria additions and modification are listed under Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Recommendations to Limit Conflicting Use. The sites adopted in the last periodic review have been examined and we recommend that the county-consider updating their inventory to include new sites and remove old sites that are no longer used.. Attached is a list of current and recommended critical bird and mammal site locations and protection measures (See Appendices A-G). Site-specific protection recommendations • Continue to protect 30 bald eagle nest sites inDeschutes County (Appendix Al) Remove protection for 34 bald eagle nest sites that are no longer occupied (Appendix A2) • Add protection for 22 eagle nest sites that are not currently protected under Deschutes County ordinance (Appendix A3). • Maintain protection for 32 golden eagle nest sites are currently protected under Deschutes County ordinance (Appendix B1). • Add one golden eagle nest site to the Deschutes County inventoryfor protection (Appendix B2). • Continue to protect 32 sage grouse lek sites that are currently protected under Deschutes County ordinance (Appendix CI). • Remove protection for 4 sage grouse lek sites that are currently protected under Deschutes County ordinance but are no longer in use (Appendix C2). • Add.'5 sage grouse lek sites to the Deschutes County inventoryfor protection (Appendix C3). • Change the `name of the sage grouse lek site, currently protected by Deschutes County, from Squaw Lake to Shaver Flat (Appendix C4). • Continue to protect 8 prairie falcon sites under Deschutes County ordinance Appendix D). 19 I • Maintain protection for one heron site that is still in use (Appendix EI). Remove protection for heron site that is no longer in use (Appendix E2). . • Maintain protection for. Great gray owl nest site (Appendix.F): . • Maintain protection for two. known bat sites in Deschutes County (Appendix G). :'Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identified a list of bird and mammal species that occur on private land in Deschutes county that are especially sensitive to human activity: bald and golden eagles, sage grouse, prairie falcon, great blue heron, great gray owl and Townsend's big-eared bat. The purpose of providing special protection for sensitive birds and mammals is to assure that their habitat areas are protected from the effects of conflicting uses or activities. Protection of bird sites can be achieved through the development of site specific management plans. Management plans assure that the proposed use and activities will not destroy or result. in abandonment of the sensitive species from a nest site. The county previously adopted protection criteria for site specific sensitive bird and mammal sites. Residential development, mining, and activities with high human disturbance and other actions that result in habitat loss and/or.degradation are threats to these critical bird and mammal sites that could be considered conflicting uses relative to conservation of critical bird and mammal sites. Game Species . Game Species Conservation. Recommendations to Limit Conflicting Use: Many new land uses have occurred that were not envisioned during the last periodic review. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends that Deschutes County add the following uses with high human use and disturbance to the do not permit list: 1. Guest ranch, 2. Outdoor commercial events (i.e. "Wedding Venues, Farmers Market') 3. OHV course 4. Paintball course 5. Shooting range .6. Model airplane park . 7. BMX course Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is not asking the county to change any of the existing big game wintering range. and migration corridor maps currently in use by *the county. 20 Existing county ordinances do not permit the following uses in a WA Zone designated as deer winter i 1. 2.' . 3. 4. 5. 6.- 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. -ange, significant elk habitat, or antelope range: Golf course; Commercial dog kennel; Church; Public or private school; Bed and breakfast inn; Dude ranch; Playground, recreation facility or community center owned and operated by a government agency -or a nonprofit community organization;. Timeshare unit; Veterinary clinic; Fishing lodge; Destination Resort The above listed uses generate a :high level of public activity, noise, and habitat . alteration,-which in turn can impact large geographic spaces and alter many acres of valuable wildlife habitat. Game species avoid areas with these uses, which results in reduced overall habitat effectiveness of these critical habitats. Mule Deer, elk, antelope, cougar, black bear, and silver grey squirrel are species considered to-be sensitive to human disturbance in Deschutes County by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Cougar populationg are increasing. Elk., antelope, black bear, and silver grey squirrel populations are stable.. Mule deer populations continue to decline. Table 4: Big game population estimates, Deschutes County 2009 Species Number Mule Deer 9,337* Elk 1;500 Pronghorn 1,000 Cougar.' -150 Black Bear -150 Silver Grey Squirrel -800 * The management objective for the. Paulina and Upper Deschutes Wildlife Management Units, primarily located in Deschutes County, is an April adult population of 18,700 mule deer 21 Paulina Unit 25000 20000 o - - c 15000 - t Mgmt Obj m --*-Wtr Pop " 0 Po trend 10000 - p iu c 0 50 0 0 O O W - - - - - - - - r N CO N N Year Figure 1: Winter deer population in Paulina Unit. CO O r CO ~ t` (fl O O t` W CO . f` W t0 O O r` O N O O LO O O O O O r O O d' O O f` O O O O O CO O (O O O O C3 O +Mgmt Obj -a- Wtr Pop Pop Trend c- 1500 p~ r ti O M cp pi CV M O -h O M Cfl O tq m ~ O ~ h ti ~ O O O O ~O O O. O O O d) Q) O O O) . W .0) O O O O W Q) N N N N Year 3000 ;r0 2500 m a 2000 0 a. 1000 a~ 500 0 Upper Deschutes Unit Figure 2: Winter deer population in upper Deschutes unit 22 Energy Development Wildlife Conservation Recommendations to Limit Conflicting Use with Energy Developments: The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County: develop a wind . energy ordinance that would include both pre and post construction wildlife surveys, monitoring, and mitigation requirements as outlined in the following documents. We also recommend the county require the developer to create a Technical Advisory Committee (TA C) that would provide wildlife oversight and recommendations to the county. Any. TAC would minimally include an Oregon Department of Fish and Mildlife (ODFW) and a developer wildlife biologist. Resources ofparticular concern in Deschutes County are sage-grouse habitat,. raptor nest sites, pygmy rabbit colonies, and big game winter range. 'Impacts to bats has also become an issue with wind energy development. The Oregon Columbia Plateau siting guidelines recommend that a county wind project permitting process rely on ODFW's Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635-415-0000) for guidance on mitigation strategies. The interagency working group recommends the county require of a developer a map and classification. offish and wildlife habitat impacted by a wind development and a plan outlining the proposed mitigation to any impacted habitat. Mitigation of impacted habitat is critical to the future of Deschutes County's wildlife. The interagency working group recommends language be included in any ordinance that will provide information on impacts to the following wildlife species: 1) state or fede .rally listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, and special status species, 2) bats and raptors, 3) species of local sport and economic importance such as big game, and any Goal 5 species. Other Forms of Energy Production (e.g., geothermal, biomass, solar): The interagency working group recommends that Deschutes County use. the proceeding Wind Energy recommendations as a template when the county develops geothermal, solar, and biomass ordinances. Wind Energy: The Interagency Working Group.supports wind energy as a renewable resource, and we support wind energy projects that are designed to conserve fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. To that"end, the interagency working group recommends that Deschutes County consider several resources that are available to counties. The first is the "Oregon Columbia Plateau Ecoregion Wind Energy Siting and Permitting Guidelines " 23 ■ (guidelines). This document was finalized in September 2008. Although the guidelines were targeted for wind projects in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion, much of the information is applicable in other areas. The guidelines identify the kinds of surveys, monitoring and wildlife habitat mitigation that we and other agencies will be looking for from wind developers. (http://oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Wind/does/OR_wind siting_guidelines.pdfl. The second resource the interagency working group, recommends the county consider is the Oregon Department of Energy "Model Ordinance for Energy Projects This 2005 document has useful material for siting all types of energy projects. a=:/%oreggn izov/ENERGY%SITING/local.shtmll: 24 Appendix H: Use period, abundance and special status of select mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles in Deschutes County 2009 -Special Status* Species Use Period Relative Abundance State Status Federal Status Mammals Allen's Chipmunk X U .Badger X C Beaver X A Belding Ground Squirrel X C Big Brown Bat S U Black Bear X C Blacktail Jackrabbit X C Bobcat X C Bush ail Woodrat . X C . California Ground Squirrel X F- California M otis X F V California Vole X F California Wolverine X U T SOC Canyon Mouse X F Chickaree X C Co ote X A Dark Kangaroo Mouse X F Deer Mouse X A Dusk Shrew X U Fisher X U C Fringed M otis S U V Goldeh-mantled Squirrel X A Gray Fox X U Great Basin Pocket Mouse X C Heather Vole X F Hoa Bat S F 33 i Rubber Boa X F Sharp-tailed, Snake X U Short-horned Lizard X F Side-blotched Lizard X F Striped Whip-snake X F Tailed Fro X F Western Fence Lizard X C Western. Pond Turtle X R C Western Rattlesnake X- F' Western Skink X F Western Terrestrial Garter Snake X C Western Toad X . C V Use Period: X = Year Around S = Summer W'= Winter Relative Abundance Key: R = Rare F = Few C = Common A Abundant U = Unknown Federal Status Key: E = endangered; T =Threatened; C= Candidate; SOC = Species of Concern; DL = Delisted Federal ESA-listed Species: An endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Federal Candidate Species: Taxa forwhich the Fish and Wildlife Service has. sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. Federal Species of Concern: Taxa whose conservation status is of concern to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, but for which further information is still needed. Federal Delisted SpecieS: A species that has been removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. State Status Key: T = Threatened; C = Critical; V = Vulnerable State Endangered Species: Any native wildlife species determined by the commission to be in-danger of extinction throughout any significant portion of its range within the state; or any native wildlife species listed as an endangered species pursuant to the federal ESA. State Threatened: an animal that could become endangered within the foreseeable future within all or a portion of its range. State Critical: species are imperiled with extirpation from a specific geographic area of the state because of small population sizes, habitat loss, or degradation and/or immediate threats. Sensitive Vulnerable: species are facing one or more threats to their populations and/or habitats. 43