Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-00292-05046 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES An Ordinance Amending PL -20, The Deschutes County Year 2000 Plan, to Adopt a Map to Allow for the Siting of Destination Resorts on Certain Lands in Deschutes County and Declaring an Emergency. ORDINANCE NO. 92-002 WHEREAS, Deschutes County has an acknowledged Plan; WHEREAS, Deschutes County has determined to Statewide Planning Goal 8; and REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL COUNTY, OREGON 0108 1300 �. -0 _y C-) gra ComIjheive r+ implem-$ WDC r-) Ln WHEREAS, public hearings have been held consistent with the requirements of state law on implementing Goal 8 in Deschutes County; WHEREAS, in implementing Goal 8 it is necessary to amend certain portions of Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Plan; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended (Plan), is further amended by the adoption as a part of the Resource Element of the Plan of a county- wide map designating certain lands in Deschutes County for the siting of destination resorts and a series of 8 maps showing portions of the county -wide map in greater detail. Said county -wide map, labelled "Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Destination Resort Map and Destination Resort Combining Zone Map" has been separately signed by the Board of County Commissioners on this date and is hereby incorporated by reference herein. Said detail maps have likewise each been separately signed on this date and are by this reference incorporated herein. Section 2. The Resource Element of Ordinance PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is further amended to include the text setting forth the mapping process supporting adoption of the Deschutes County Destination Resort Map, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as its findings and conclusions in support of these amendments the text attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein and the findings set forth as Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. X CHED 1 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 '(� E 7992 MAR 0108 1301 Section 4. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. DATED this day of February, 1992. BOARD OF C UNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DES9HU91ES COUNTY, OREGON ss, -on �WIN ROME 110111W:4T/J 1VYJi,A 2 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1302 EXHIBIT B Goal 8 and its codification in state law, found at ORS 197.435 et seq. (hereafter collectively referred to as Goal 8) require that counties adopt a map showing where on rural resource lands destination resorts can be sited. The map adopted by Deschutes County as part of its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance is shown on the county -wide map labelled "Land Available for Destination Resorts in Deschutes County" and the series of 8 large scale maps covering portions of the county -wide map in greater detail (collectively referred to as "Phase I destination resort map") accompanying this text. Goal 8 requires that a county's Goal 8 map not include certain areas of natural resource significance. Those areas include sites having significant farm soils or highly productive farms; sites of high forest productivity; sites with inventoried Goal 5 resources that the County has chosen to fully protect; and areas of especially sensitive big game habitat as identified by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department. Counties have the option to go further than the restrictions of Goal 8 and exclude additional areas from consideration for destination resort siting. To aid in developing the County's Goal 8 map, a series of reference maps was produced showing exception areas where destination resorts are currently allowed, showing the location of resource lands that under Goal 8 can not be considered for destination resort siting, showing lands in public ownership and showing other lands that for policy reasons the Board of County Commissioners determined either should not be considered further for destination resort or on which a decision would be deferred to a later date. The information on these reference maps, such as zoning boundaries, soils boundaries, and land ownership boundaries, was digitally scanned from source maps onto the reference maps. These maps were produced by Wilsey & Ham Pacific, a contractor retained by Eagle Crest Partners, Ltd. Eagle Crest's desire to site a destination resort through the Goal 8 process precipitated the legislative Goal 8 process. The Board finds that the technology used in preparing these maps is state of the art. The Board finds that, based on the technology employed by the contractor that the accuracy of these maps meets or exceeds hand drawn maps. The only challenge to the accuracy of these maps during the hearing process was a question as to whether the maps could be trusted to be objective and unbiased given that they were prepared by development interests. Planning staff spot-checked the maps and found the information presented was an exact representation of the County's current data base. Based upon this information, the Board has no reason to believe that these maps are biased in any way. These maps were all made a part of the record and will be referred to hereafter by the Exhibit number given them in the public hearing process. 3 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1303 Phased Mapping Sequence and Deferral of Decision on Certain Lands For reasons that will be discussed below, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the mapping of areas where destination resorts are permitted should occur in a phased sequence. In Phase I, completed in February 1992, the County has reviewed the desirability county -wide of siting destination resorts in the following areas: privately owned lands in the F-1, EFU-320, EFU-801 OS&C, RSR -5, RSR -M, AD, RSC and RI zones. In addition, the County has reviewed the desirability county -wide of siting destination resorts on resource land within one (1) mile of established urban growth boundaries in the county. Finally, the County has determined the desirability of siting destination resorts on certain EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands. These lands include unirrigated farm lands (so called "dry lands") and irrigated lands having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation, or non-contiguous irrigated acres in the same ownership having less than 60 irrigated acres. The Board has determined that at this time it should defer consideration of the County's F-2 and F-3 forest lands and on the irrigated farm lands not considered in the first phase. The reasons for this decision relate to the County's ongoing periodic review process and will be discussed further on in these findings. There was much public discussion as to whether it is permissible for the County to complete its Goal 8 destination resort map in a phased process. The Board finds that the County has developed a data base on a county -wide basis to identify land areas that under Goal 8 are off limits to destination resort siting. As is discussed further below, the only Goal 8 exclusions applicable to Deschutes County are the requirements concerning farmland and wildlife habitat areas. These areas have been identified on reference Maps 3 and 9. The areas so mapped have not been included in the Phase I destination resort map and will not be included in any revised maps resulting from County consideration of the F-2 and F-3 forest lands and the remaining EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands. Having identified the lands required by Goal 8 to be excluded, nothing in the Goal precludes the County from dividing the County's lands on a county -wide basis into several different classes and deferring consideration of destination resort siting for certain of those land classes. The Board finds that a destination resort map produced in phases satisfies Goal 8 as to those areas mapped so long as (1) the Goal 8 areas have been excluded, and (2) the map is sufficiently detailed to determine from the map a site's eligibility without need of any further map refinement. The Board finds (1) that the Goal 8 areas have been excluded, as is further discussed below, and (2) that the Phase I destination resort map will allow destination resort siting without requiring further refinement. The Phase I map includes maps of a scale that will clearly show which parcels are included. Furthermore, by its terms, the zoning ordinance adopted as part of this package will 4 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1304 allow destination resorts to be sited only on lands designated by the DR zone. Exception Areas The County currently allows destination resorts to be sited in areas within certain exception areas - MUA-10 and RR -10 - on the County's rural lands. The County proposes to continue to allow destination resorts in such areas. These areas already have an exception from the resource land goals under the County's acknowledged comprehensive plan and the use of such lands for destination resorts need not be justified under the Goal 8 process. These areas were depicted on reference Map #6, labelled "Rural Residential Zoning." They are shown on the Phase I destination resort map, and are therefore available for destination resort siting. Other exception areas are generally found in and near the County's rural service centers, such as Tumalo, Alfalfa, and Terrebonne. Destination resorts historically have not been allowed in these areas, and the County finds no reason why this policy should be changed. Consequently, those areas, referenced on Map #5, are not shown on the Phase I destination resort map and are therefore not available for destination resort siting. Publicly Owned Lands Much of the rural resource lands in the County lie in public ownership, mostly federal land administered by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. The County has limited regulatory jurisdiction over such lands. In addition, these lands are not generally available for private development on the scale of destination resorts. Accordingly, these lands were excluded from further consideration. These lands were mapped on Map #2, "Deschutes County Public Land Ownership," and do not show on the Phase I destination resort map. Resource Lands The Board of County Commissioners made a policy choice to not include other lands for further consideration as possible destination resort sites. These lands include lands whose zoning classifications denote them as having special resource values, including all lands within the F-1, EFU-320, EFU-80 and OS&C zones. The F-1 zone is composed of the prime forest areas of the County, virtually all of which is in public ownership. The EFU-320 lands are range lands in the eastern part of the County, most of which is involved in large grazing operations on BLM-owned lands. They also include areas having significant wildlife values for antelope and sage grouse. The EFU-80 lands are composed of the best farm lands in the County or of riparian areas. These lands are shown on Map #4 and do not appear on the Phase I destination resort map. 5 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1305 Lands Adjacent to Urban Growth Boundaries Other lands excluded from further consideration as a matter of discretionary policy include all lands within one (1) mile of the Urban Growth Boundaries of the Bend, Redmond and Sisters urban areas except those in existing MUA-10 or RR -10 exception areas. The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the location of destination resorts on resource lands adjacent to urban growth boundaries could have negative impacts on the orderly expansion of the County's urban areas and recommended that consideration of destination resorts in these areas be deferred pending further study. The Board of County Commissioners sha: Planning Commission. The Board finds that around existing urban growth boundaries is the orderly expansion of the County's urban Board finds as a matter of policy that it destination resort siting on resource lands resource areas are mapped on Map #9A and do I destination resort map. -es the concerns of the a one -mile buffer area reasonable to safeguard areas. Accordingly, the does not wish to allow in these areas. These not appear on the Phase The Board finds that destination resorts and rural subdivisions are currently permitted in RR -10 and MUA-10 committed exception areas adjacent to urban growth boundaries. The Board finds no evidence that the existing designations would create a significant problem and will allow destination resorts to continue to be sited in these areas adjacent to the counties urban growth boundaries. Goal 8 excluded areas Wildlife Areas Goal 8 requires exclusion of all areas of especially signficant big game habitat mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in July of 1984, as further refined by local comprehensive plans implementing this requirement. The County's Phase I destination resort map does not include any such areas. The 1984 Fish and Wildlife Map shows four areas of the County as areas of especially signficant big game habitat. The areas mapped by ODFW include the Tumalo deer winter range, a portion of the Metolius deer winter range and two areas of antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican. The LCDC Destination Resort Handbook states that the especially sensitive areas mapped by ODFW are much less extensive that the areas designated as big game habitat in acknowledged plans. The ODFW map notes that the location of the denoted wildlife habitat is generalized and is subject to local refinement. The County's comprehensive plan includes specific deer winter range areas that cover more area than those shown on the ODFW map. These areas have been designated as a wildlife area combining zone in 6 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1306 the County's zoning ordinance. In addition to covering the ODFW mapped deer winter ranges, the WA zone encompasses the antelope range hear Horse Ridge and most of the Millican antelope range. Reference map #3, "Deschutes County Wildlife Overlay Zone," shows these wildlife zones. These mapped areas are not included in the Phase I destination resort map. The remainder of the Millican antelope area shown on the ODFW map coincides with EFU-320 zoning and has already been excluded from destination resort siting by the Board's decision to not site destination resorts on EFU-320 lands. Farm lands Goal 8 protects sites with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and lands that are within three miles of farm lands lying within a High -Value Crop area. No areas were identified as having unique soils. In Deschutes County, numerous soils are considered to be prime farm land when irrigated. A list of those soils is included in the record. After excluding the wildlife areas and all other excluded areas, the occurrence of each of these soil types on EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands and in non -resource lands (MUA-10 and RR -10) was mapped by digitally scanning SCS maps and then transferring that information onto a county zoning map. (Reference maps 6 and 8 depict the EFU-20, EFU-40, MUA-10 and RR -10 land base on which soil information was obtained.) The occurrence of all prime soils in these areas was mapped regardless of whether the prime soils occurred in areas of less than 50 contiguous acres. The prime soils map reflecting this information is shown on reference Map #9. The Board finds that EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands with prime soils have not been included on the County's Phase 1 destination resort map. The Board finds that by adhering to the Phase I destination resort map, the County will not allow destination resorts to be sited on any prime soils on those resource lands.' The Board finds that the zoning ordinance implementing Goal 8 adopted as part of this Goal 8 package permits siting of destination resorts only on lands actually mapped and zoned for destination resort use. Consequently, even if a parcel located on resource lands has prime soils on one portion and a destination resort designation on another portion, the prime soils will not be available for destination resort siting. By definition High Crop Value areas consist of a concentration of farms capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross ' With respect to the non -resource lands, the Board has already found that destination resorts should continue to be recognized as appropriate uses in such areas. 7 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 130'7 value of $1,000 per acre per year.' The Board finds that no such areas exist in Deschutes County. The Board finds from OSU Extension Service annual commodity reports that potatoes are the only field crop produced commercially in Deschutes County that yields a gross value of at least $1,000. In 1983 potatoes could yield $1,890 per acre, when 700 acres of potatoes were harvested in Deschutes County. In 1991, only 350 acres were harvested, with a value of $2237 per acre. The Board finds from the evidence that it is reasonable to conclude that the lower figures in 1991 as compared to 1984 represents a general decline rather than a low point in a cyclical pattern. The evidence shows that potato production in Deschutes County was 300 acres in 1989 and 300 acres in 1990. This conclusion is corroborated by testimony that the Fred Hodecker Potato Company in Redmond went out of business in recent years. Peppermint is the only other field crop of signficance; however, according to Extension Service data, the value of peppermint was $720 per acre in 1983 and $960 per acre in 1991. The County finds that there is not a concentration of commercial farms growing potatoes in the County. Only a few individual growers in the County produce potatoes; they are isolated from one another and not of sufficient concentration to qualify any area as a High Value Crop areas. Furthermore, the County finds that the stated purpose of the High -Value Crop Areas is to minimize conflicts in resort siting. The Board finds that the relatively few number of acres in potato production tend to in and of itself minimize conflicts. According to extension data, the acreage total is relatively small and the dollar value of potatoes constitutes less than 5% of the County's aggregate agricultural produce value. The County recognizes that llamas are achieving increasing importance as an agricultural commodity in the County. However, the production of livestock is not by the Goal 8 definition a high value crop, unless such production is concentrated in the form of feed lots. Furthermore, llama producers are scattered throughout the County and not concentrated sufficiently to qualify any llama producing areas as High Value Crop areas. Based upon the above analysis, the Board finds that it is not ' The Board makes no determination at this time on whether the $1,000 figure must be expressed in 1984 dollars or in 1991 dollars. Goal 8 is ambiguous on this point. For the purposes of this analysis, the Board need not makes this determination, since it is clear from the data presented below that whether 1984 or 1991 is used as the benchmark, only potatoes qualify as a high value crop. 8 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1308 necessary to identify any High Value Crop Areas in Deschutes County for exclusion. The Phase I Destination Resort Map therefore does not include any High -Value Crop Areas. Goal 5 Protected Areas Goal 8 requires exclusion of all areas fully protected by a County under the Goal 5 administrative rule ( so called "3A" sites) in an acknowledged comprehensive plan. Fully protected Goal 5 sites do place limitations on the conflicting land uses and resources to the extent that there are no conflicts with the Goal 5 resource. No sites currently inventoried as Goal 5 sites in Deschutes County are fully protected under Goal 5. The treatment of all such sites under the County's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances either fully protects the land use or resource in conflict with the Goal 5 resource (e.g., surface mining site 251) or limits both the conflicting use or resource and the Goal 5 resource (e.g. surface mining site 294). Other Goal 8 Protected Areas Other areas required to be excluded by Goal 8 by their terms do not apply to Deschutes County. No part of the County is within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more. The County has no forest lands classified as predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2. The County is not within the Columbia Gorge. Deferred Areas The County has chosen to proceed with the destination resort mapping in a phased process. The County's forest lands will not be considered for destination resort zoning until such time as the County completes its implementation of the LCDC forest rule. The forest rule does not allow Counties to amend their comprehensive plans concerning their forest lands prior to implementation of the rule. Consequently, the Phase I Destination Resort Map does not reflect decisions on the county's forest lands. The Planning Commission had made a recommendation for discussion purposes defining "impacted forest areas" and "non -impacted forest areas" and recommended that destination resorts be sited only on as yet unmapped impacted forest areas. The Board finds that it is more appropriate that this issue be addressed during the implementation of the forest rule and thereafter. Therefore, the Board declines to take further action at this time. The County has also chosen to defer consideration of certain EFU-zoned lands in the EFU-20 and EFU-40 zones. These lands are those composed of lands in contiguous ownership containing 40 or more acres of contiguous irrigated land or 60 or more acres of non- contiguous irrigated land in the same ownership. These lands were referred to by the Planning Commission in their recommendation to the 9 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1309 Board of County Commissioners as "other important agricultural areas." The Planning Commission expressed concerns about the potential impacts on agricultural communities and commercial agriculture if such lands were designated for destination resort siting. The Board expresses no opinion on the Planning Commission's concerns. Because of uncertainties surrounding what constitutes commercial agriculture in the County, the Board finds that it would be prudent to await the results of a farm study currently being undertaken as part of the periodic review of the County's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances before considering these lands for destination resort siting. The Board attaches no signficance of any kind to the Planning Commission's "important agricultural areas" label, and will conduct an independent analysis of the deferred areas as part of the periodic review process. Summary of Process The Phase I Destination Resort Map represents the County's compliance with Goal 8's mapping requirement in this first phase of destination resort mapping and reflects other discretionary local decisions. The map represents the County's final mapping decision county- wide on all privately -owned F-1, EFU-320, EFU-80, OS&C, RSR -5, RSR -M, AD, RSC, and RI zones. In addition, the map represents the County's final mapping decision on all private resource land within 1 mile of the County's urban growth boundaries. Finally, outside the 1 -mile buffer, the map represents final zoning destination resort zoning decisions on a portion of the County's privately owned EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands that have less than 40 contiguous acres of irrigation in the same ownership or that have less than 60 non-contiguous acres of non -irrigated lands in the same ownership. The map does not include any area that Goal 8 excludes from destination resort siting. The map does not represent County destination resort mapping decisions on privately -owned forest lands nor does it represent County destination resort zoning decisions on privately -owned EFU-20 or EFU-40 lands in contiguous ownership containing 40 or more acres of contiguous irrigated land or 60 or more acres of non-contiguous irrigated land in the same ownership. In succeeding phases of the county's destination -resort zoning process the County will proceed to consider whether destination resorts should be sited on its privately -owned forest lands and on privately -owned EFU lands not considered for destination resorts in this first phase. TT. NPS _ 10 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1310 Exhibit B FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF DESTINATION RESORT ORDINANCES 92-001, 92-002, 92-003, and 92-004 1. On April 19, 1991, the County accepted an application from Eagle Crest Partners, Ltd. for a legislative amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance to implement the provisions of LCDC Statewide Planning Goal 8 relating to destination resort siting on resource lands. 2. Goal 8 sets forth two components for Counties seeking to implement the Goal's destination resort siting program. First, the County must identify those areas in the County available for destination resort siting after identifying and excluding certain farm and forest resource lands, wildlife habitat areas, and areas including inventoried Goal 5 resources fully protected under the County's acknowledged comprehensive plan. The second component is to implement regulations that will at a minimum (1) maintain identified natural features, such as threatened or endamgered species, streams, river and significant wetlands; (2) provide buffers and setbacks between improvements and activities taking place within destination resorts in order to avoid or minimize adverse effects of destination resorts on surrounding lands; (3) limit uses occurring within the destination resort to those permitted by Goal 8; and (4) provide assurance that the required developed recreational facilities, visitor -oriented accommodations, and other key facilities are physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or other substantially equivalent financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. 3. The Planning Commission held several public hearings and worksession at which destination resorts and their impacts were generally reviewed; policies were reviewed for determining which of the resource lands in the County should be made available for destination resort siting; data concerning certain classes of resource lands required to be excluded from destination resort siting was reviewed; and a proposed ordinance regulating siting of destination resorts was reviewed. 4. Based upon their extensive review of the issues and the data, the Planning Commission issued a report recommending a destination resort package to the Board of County Commissioners, which included a proposed map for siting destination resorts, a proposed zoning ordinance regulating destination resort siting, and certain policy recommendations. 5. The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the Planning Commission's recommendations on January 8, 1992. 11 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1311 6. Based upon its extensive review of the record, including the record developed before the Planning Commission, the Board made a tentative decision on a destination resort map and ordinance provisions governing the siting of destination resorts. 7. Based upon the Board's tentative decision, County staff assembled a package of ordinances to implement the Board's decision. Those ordinances are as follows: Ordinance 92-001, amending the Comprehensive Plan to adopt Goals and Policies regarding development of the County's destination resort map and the County's zoning ordinance regulating destination resort siting; Ordinance 92-002, amending the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a countywide destination resort siting map and amendments to the resource element of the Comprehensive Plan describing the mapping process; Ordinance 92-003, amending the County zoning ordinance to adopt zoning maps to show which County lands are available for destination resort siting; and Ordinance 92-004, amending the text of the County zoning ordinance to adopt new provisions regulating the siting of destination resorts on lands identified on the destination resort map as available for destination resort siting (hereinafter collectively referred to as "destination resort siting package"). 8. The Board finds that other than the process Goals set forth in LCDC Statewide Planning Goals 1 and 2, Statewide Planning Goal 8 (and its associated codification in state statute - hereinafter collectively referred to as Goal 8) provide the the only criteria for reviewing the County's destination resort package. 9. The Board finds that the County's destination resort package meets the requirements of Goal 8 for the following reasons: a) The County has adopted as part of its comprehensive plan a county -wide destination resort map and a series of large scale enlargements of that map (hereinafter collectively referred to as "destination resort map" or simply "the map") indicating where destination resorts may occur in the County on certain EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands as well as certain exception areas. The County finds from the discussion set forth in Exhibit A to Ordinance 92-002, which discussion is incorporated herein by reference, that the map meets Goal 8's requirement that areas available for destination resorts be mapped and that certain resource areas not be included on such a map. That map has been adopted as part of the County's zoning maps by Ordinance 92-003. b) The County has adopted by Ordinance 92-001 amendments to the text of its Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies designed to provide for the implementation of Goal 8, including a recitation of Goal 8 requirements. This ensures that County ordinances drawn to implement Goal 8 will comply with Goal 8 and 12 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1312 that completion of the County's destination resort map will comply with Goal 8. C) The Goal 8 requirement that uses and activities in destination resorts be limited to those that are consistent with the Goal are satisfied by provisions in the zoning ordinance, adopted by Ordinance 92-004. Those provisions include Sections 18.113.030 and 18.113.070(Q) of the Deschutes County Code, as amended by the destination resort additions. Uses allowed in the destination resort are limited to those, such as visitor - oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities, that are defined by Goal 8 to be elements of destination resorts, or are limited in scope to serve only the needs of the visitors to the resort. All definitions of component parts of destination resort duplicate or are more stringent than those found in the Goal. d) The Goal 8 requirement that important natural features be maintained is satisfied by inclusion in the zoning ordinance at Section 18.113.070(E) of language duplicating that found in the Goal. e) The Goal 8 requirement that buffers and setbacks be required to avoid or minimize adverse effects on land uses, particularly intensive farming operations, on surrounding lands is satisfied by the setback requirements set forth in Section 18.113.060(G)(2). These setbacks require that most recreational activites be setback at least 50 feet from property lines, that residential structures be set back at least 150 feet, that multifamily development be set back 250 feet, and that commercial development be set back 350 feet. The setback specified in the current acknowledge County zoning ordinance from intensive farming operations is 100 feet. f) The Goal 8 requirement that a mechanism be included to assure that developed recreational facilities, visitor -oriented accommodations, and key facilities intended to serve the entire development are physically provided or are guaranteed by surety bonding or similar financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots is satisfied by Sections 18.113.060(E) and 18.113.110, which duplicate the Goal 8 provisions and allow the County to require security through existing provisions in the County's subdivision ordinance. 10. The Board finds that Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, has been met by the series of hearings held before both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners on the destination resort package. The Planning Commission serves as the County's Citizen Involvement Committee. 11. The Board finds that Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is satisfied by this destination resort package with respect to requirements for 13 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1313 setting forth the factual base for its decision. The Board has provided an extensive discussion of the process by which its destination resort map was produced. 14 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002