The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM101920 - to include Hearing Comment re: Planning Commission Recommendation on Final Docket of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments co 4 2, `zCv SIJ1 NO SO MINUTES Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting — Monday, October 19, 2020, 9:00 a.m. Jefferson County Courthouse—Commissioners' Chambers 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Brotherton, Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Kate Dean participated in the meeting remotely. Chair Brotherton called the meeting to order at the appointed time. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments submitted by individuals via email which reflect their personal opinions and which were read aloud by the County Administrator: • Comment regarding the homeless encampment at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds and the local ferry system. • Comment regarding shooting noise at the Jefferson County Sportsmens Association(JCSA). • Comment regarding marijuana facilities zoning. • Comment regarding extension of the free school meal program. • Comment regarding marijuana facilities zoning. • Comment regarding marijuana facilities zoning. • Comment regarding the homeless encampment at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds. • Comment regarding a recent EMT/Fire Department outreach event in Port Ludlow. The Commissioners and CountyAdministrator addressed comments and concerns raised duringthe Public Comment Period. PROCLAMATION re: Declaring October 2020 as National Disability Employment Awareness Month: Developmental Disabilities Coordinator Anna McEnery stated hiring individuals who have a disability helps build a more inclusive community and the Developmental Disability Board would like to recognize businesses who employ those with disabilities. After all three Commissioners read aloud the proclamation, Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve a PROCLAMATION re: Declaring October 2020 as National Disability Employment Awareness Month. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Ms. McEnery read a list of local businesses that hire individual with disabilities. WEEKLY UPDATE re: COVID-19: Public Health Officer Dr. Thomas Locke provided information on the COVID-19 virus in Jefferson County and Emergency Management Director Willie Bence provided a situation report. 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2020 HEARING re: Planning Commission Recommendation on Final 2020 Docket of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Department of Community Development(DCD) Acting Director Linda Paralez and Lead Associate Planner David Wayne Johnson were present for the hearing. Mr. Johnson reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations for the Final 2020 Docket of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments and DCD's recommendations, and outlined the process for the docket. Chair Brotherton opened the hearing for public testimony. The following participated via telephone call and provided testimony: Jean Ball. Hearing no further comments, Chair Brotherton closed the Public Hearing. After discussion, the Commissioners agreed to table deliberations until the Afternoon Session at 1:30 p.m. (The public testimony portion of the hearing was opened again prior to the Afternoon Session. See below) APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Dean moved to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT re: Ballot Drop Box on Quinault Indian Reservation;No Dollar Amount—For Property Use Only; Jefferson County Auditor; Quinault Indian Nation 2. AGREEMENT re: Ballot Drop Box on Hoh Indian Reservation;No Dollar Amount—For Property Use Only; Jefferson County Auditor; Hoh Indian Nation 3. AGREEMENT NO. CLH18247,Amendment No. 17 re: 2018-2020 Consolidated Contract; An Additional Amount of$948,569 for a Total Amount of$2,706,722; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health 4. AGREEMENT re: Shelter Facilities and Services; In the Amount of$169,085; Jefferson County Central Services; Bayside Housing and Services 5. AGREEMENT re: Lake Leland Park Improvement Partnership; In the Amount of$30,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 6. EASEMENT re: Larry Scott Trail Stormwater Utility and Maintenance, Parcel No. 001 161 004; Jefferson County Public Works; City of Port Townsend 7. LETTER re: Requesting Continued Support for the Washington Coast Restoration and Resiliency(WCRRI) Capital Budget Request;Jefferson County Environmental Public Health; Governor Jay Inslee 8. MINUTES re: Regular Meeting of October 12, 2020 9. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated October 12, 2020 Totaling $1,282,556.70 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with vouchers approved and signed by the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners are retained by the Jefferson County Auditor and Public Works Department.) 10. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated October 12, 2020 Totaling $139,279.04 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with A/P Warrants approved by the Payroll Services Manager are retained in the Jefferson County Auditor's Office) BRIEFING re: Compliance Code Briefing and Notice of Joint Hearing of the Board of County Commissioners and Jefferson County Board of Health: Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Philip Hunsucker and Code Compliance Coordinator Debra Murdock briefed the Board on the County's need for a Compliance Code. The proposed Compliance Code is based upon the County's current Public Nuisance Code, Chapter 8.90 JCC. If the proposed Compliance Code is adopted, Chapter 8.90 would be repealed and replaced. 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2020 After discussion, Commissioner Dean moved to approve a HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Draft Compliance Code Ordinance; Hearing Scheduled for Thursday,November 19, 2020 at 2:20 p.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers at the Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING DELIBERATIONS re: Planning Commission Recommendation on Final 2020 Docket of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Continued: Chair Brotherton reopened the public hearing to allow for one person from the public who had difficulty calling in her public testimony earlier. The Board listened to Kathleen Waldron's testimony. Chair Brotherton closed the public hearing to oral testimony. The Board agreed to resume deliberations during the Afternoon Session at 1:30 p.m. The meeting was recessed at 11:40 a.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. HEARING DELIBERATIONS re: Planning Commission Recommendation on Final 2020 Docket of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Continued: The Commissioners deliberated on the items to place on the 2020 Final Docket. The Board discussed in greater detail the issue of restricting the production and processing of marijuana on Rural Residential zoned properties and developing regulations to allow some Brinnon properties to connect to the Dosewallips State Park Sewer System. County Administrator Morley suggested continuing deliberations to the October 26, 2020 Board of County Commissioner(BOCC) meeting to allow time for staff and legal counsel to suggest language for a motion, based on today's discussions. Department of Community Development staff did not have any timeline objections to moving the deliberations to the next BOCC meeting. The Commissioners will deliberate and plan to make a decision regarding the following Docket items: MLA20-00039: Seton—upon a site specific application for a rezone from RI O to R5 (automatically included), MLA 2000102: Update to the Hadlock Sewer Capital Facilities Plan, MLA19-00019: Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendment to restrict marijuana production and processing in some or all rural residential zones, and development of possible Brinnon Sub-area Wastewater Treatment regulations (no MLA at this time). COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. • County Administrator; upcoming evaluation process and Executive Session • Review of items to discuss • Commissioners' Briefing Session; review of past and upcoming meetings • Washington State Ferries; budgetary issues and how it may affect Jefferson County routes • Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee (ICC); upcoming meeting on October 22, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Potential Special ICC meeting on November 5, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. • Chimacum Park; recent logging • Clallam County; request to sign onto letter re: CARES Act extension • Ballot box; many people voting 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2020 NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Chair Brothel/on adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m. until the ne*t irggular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. °? � JEFFERSON COUNTY w - BOA OF COMMISSIONERS ir '. ,) t, / a'' reg e ri, Chair ATTEST: David ulliv er ed+64-dafrvay-- \(. .tf).,____________ Carolyn allaway, CMC Kate Dean, Member Deputy Clerk of the Board 4 -C I I effbocc U From: Barbara Moore -Lewis <brinnongroup@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 1:29 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Public Comment for 10/05/20 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. October 5, 2020 Brinnon Group PO Box 572 Brinnon, WA 98320 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: We are sending this signed petition (and additional signatures) asking you • To post the legal development agreement for the Pleasant Harbor MPR on your website in an easily accessed place and • To identify county, state, and federal permits the developer will need for the MPR and to post them on the website 19-Petition.pdf INBrinnon Group Petition.pdf The development agreement is a multi million dollar contract between the Canadian developer and the county. The Washington State Guidance on MPRs states that only 1 in 10 MPRs is developed successfully. The county does not appear to be exercising oversight of the development contract. This leaves it up to citizens to monitor it. Citizens had to identify logging violations and report them to DNR. • Citizens had to alert the state Health Department planner reviewing the water plan to give a copy to the county, which must also review and approve it. • Citizens had to identify that the plan in the DNR logging permit application is not the plan that is the FSEIS or the one that is in the development agreement. Citizens will have to monitor the conflicts between the multi million dollar restoration of the Duckabush estuary and the urban density MPR. The MPR impacts not only Brinnon, but all of the county. Research shows that the income to the county from the MPR will not cover the public expense for infrastructure. The higher taxes will affect everyone who pays taxes in Jefferson County. 1 Please take the actions requested in the petition. PETITION From the Brinnon Group To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County, Washington We request that the county be transparent in the permit process for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort by: 1. Posting the current development agreement where it is easy to find on the county website and make it easily searchable, within a week of receiving this petition. 2. Listing ALL county, state, and federal permits that will be required, in the order they are likely to occur and post them on the county website, so they are easy to find, within 2 weeks of receiving this petition. This list will include: • Who makes the final decision for issuance of the permit and • How to appeal the decision. 3. Notifying the Brinnon Group by email at brinnongroup@gmail.com of any permit application filed (as recommended in WAC 365-196-845) within 5 business days of receiving the application. NAME ADDRESS DATE e iz !moo � e-R 5!:; 2 5 K t(A o,- N % t f z� 16 I zo llc'rti (e Po 3 7 y sfib Zo -DO Al 3)Y2ECK S"o NfjA/7-"C KaT1P (''- z//L/ZU �w� �t � Vr s.)� 0, r ,�16j Cy ,ram, a c a 1 2;. I1.Pcr Sv fb2- p, �Nei�ngo 7-W Z-40 (�. S'Cjo ccIt-y►.S Z06Z. Spruce sl. F.T• 16De-13Zo vca" Caw I�3a - yr zlul�6 v\ e`er vv�D.r� S 30 K. St. PA;t PETITION From the Brinnon Group To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County, Washington We request that the county be transparent in the permit process for the Pteasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort by: 1. Posting the current development agreement where it is easy to find on the county website and make it easily searchable, within a week of receiving this petition. 2. Listing ALL county, state, and federal permits that will be required, in the order they are likely to occur and post them on the county website, so they are easy to find, within 2 weeks of receiving this petition. This list will include: • Who makes the final decision for issuance of the permit and • How to appeal the decision. 3. Notifying the Brinnon Group by email at brinnongroup@gmaii.com of any permit application filed (as recommended in WAC 365-196-845) within 5 business days of receiving the application. NAME ADDRESS DATE S/ g ✓r M � C� l^D uJ` ��i !� i S Ca v-e,'y �Ad f % /• z�f.2o R�a�dAy- 011apal rl ri le 73 S r��e �: P '4 12c- I , ;en 3vtd!/W5T/ 73 in Vu/AkJ /Z- r � UL ��9 7 4e- A r4m15 C-e $i* co N- �-�-; �,- 4 f 6 02- SAIN From the Brinnon Group To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County, Washington We request that the county be transparent in the permit process for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort by: 1. Posting the current development agreement where it is easy to find on the county website and make it easily searchable, within a week of receiving this petition. 2. Listing ALL county, state, and federal permits that will be required, in the order they are likely to occur and post them on the county website, so they are easy to find, within 2 weeks of receiving this petition. This list will include: • Who makes the final decision for issuance of the permit and • How to appeal the decision. 3. Notifying the Brinnon Group by email at brinnongroupCgmaii.com of any permit application filed (as recommended in WAC 365-196-845) within 5 business days of receiving the application. PETITION From the Brinnon Group To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County, Washington We request that the county be transparent in the permit process for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort by: 1, Posting the current development agreement where it is easy to find on the county website and make it easily searchable, within a week of receiving this petition. 2. Listing ALL county, state, and federal permits that will be required, in the order they are likely to occur and post them on the county website, so they are easy to find, within 2 weeks of receiving this petition. This list will include: • Who makes the final decision for issuance of the permit and • How to appeal the decision. 3. Notifying the Brinnon Group by email at brinnongroup@gmail.com of any permit application filed (as recommended in WAC 365-196-845) within 5 business days of receiving the application. 7- NAME ADDRESS DATE Yl— WA —R M — T-2! 1 all 31 N. �q% L_Al2 A Pj V' AZ 150 (UPLIQ ---- F fk3,l Y t -7 )7 TZ A e EtAV/A'rM? _4T qi Im r 4 Ze. WA IV C..C 445 7--7-1 L, . LA t �Lt( I ME 10-M SA OR From the Brinnon Group To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County, Washington We request that the county be transparent in the permit process for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort by: 1. Posting the current development agreement where it is easy to find on the county website and make it easily searchable, within a week of receiving this petition. 2. Listing ALL county, state, and federal permits that will be required, in the order they are likely to occur and post them on the county website, so they are easy to find, within 2 weeks of receiving this petition. This list will include: 0 Who makes the final decision for issuance of the permit and 6 How to appeal the decision. 3. Notifying the Brinnon Group by email at brinnongroupagmaii.com of any permit application filed (as recommended in WAC 365-196-845) within 5 business days of receiving the application. NAME ADDRESS DATE 2-q-4 V4 VT19 P71..WA Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in ... Page 1 of 16 Petition details Comments Updates Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in Brinnon https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in ... Page 2 of 16 267 have signed. Let's get to 500! Barbara Moore -Lewis signed this petition https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in ... Page 3 of 16 Brinnon Group started this petition to Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners The legal development agreement between the county and the developer of the Master Planned Resort has not been posted on the county website in a year. The draft agreement that is posted was overturned in a court victory by the Brinnon Group in April 2019. The agreement affects the decisions of all Jefferson County residents about property, taxes, and other personal matters. They need the legal information to make those decisions. There is no transparency about permits at the state, federal, or county level that the developer must get. This means that citizens cannot track county or developer compliance with required permits. We request the county post on the county website in an easily searchable format within 2 weeks: The current development agreement ALL county, state, and federal permits required, in the order they are likely to occur, and include who makes the final decision how to appeal the decision We request that the county notify the Brinnon Group of any permit application (as recommended in WAC 365-196-845) within 5 business days of receiving the application. We can be reached at brinnongroup@gmaii.com and brinnongroup.org. Updates 3 months ago 250 supporters 3 months ago Brinnon Group started this petition https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in ... Page 4 of 16 Reasons for signing https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in ... Page 5 of 16 Nick Eagle-3 months aao Development for rich people with no concern for the hundreds of homeless people on the peninsula is mad messed up yolM 1• Report View all reasons for signing Report a policy violation Complete your signature First name !Last name https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in ... Page 6 of 16 Port Hadlock, 98339 United States ®Please share my name and email address with Brinnon Group, so that I can receive updates on this campaign and others. ODisplay my name and comment on this petition Sign this petition By signing, you accept Change.org's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, and agree to receive occasional emails about campaigns on Change.org. You can unsubscribe at any time. Today: Barbara is counting on you Barbara Moore -Lewis needs your help with "Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in Brinnon". Join Barbara and 283 supporters today. Sign this petition Sign this petition Petitions promoted by other Change.org users https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in ... Page 7 of 16 Breonna Taylor was an award -winning EMT and model citizen. She loved her family and community, working at two hospitals as an essential worker during the pandem... Read more https://www.change.org/p/Jefferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in ... Page 8 of 16 https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort in ... Page 9 of 16 As citizens of Moscow, we are concerned about the safety for each other and the well-being of our community. Because the voices ... Read more https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort i... Page 10 of 16 PT-,T-M 1- M N ••• K. F I I 1175 • - •I. • • •.• I^-• • • • • June 8th 2019 the human -caused Woodbury Fire started to burn The Superstition Wil... tread more https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort i... Page 11 of 16 Please tell Garden City Mayor John Evans to renew the city's contract with the Idaho Humane Society for the good of our animals.... Read more This petition is made on behalf of, and at the request of Sara. Lacy. Cecil Lacy, Jr. was murdered by Snohomish County Sheriff's Dept. Deputy Tyler Pendergrass and two ... Read more https://www.change.org/p/j efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require-jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort i... Page 12 of 16 Please also donate to our GoFundMe Save the CAFP GoFundMe The aquarium's doors have been closed to the public since Mar... Read more Intent The purpose of this petition is to notify all parties listed that we do not want St... Read more https://www.change.org/p/Jefferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort i... Page 13 of 16 This is a petition against the proposed rezoning of 5.92 acres located at the Northe... Read more https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort i... Page 14 of 16 Children are being forced to learn from home due to school closures, and as many... Read more "Minor setback for a major comeback" CASE INFORMATION Joshua was a young man that was attending college where his whole life changed, and became a victim of th... Read more https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort i... Page 15 of 16 Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental disabilities ODD) in New York State are facing the devastating impact of cuts to the services they depend on. These cuts are on t... Read more https://www.change.org/p/j efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require-j effers... 10/5/2020 Petition • Require Jefferson County to Tell the Truth about the Master Planned Resort i... Page 16 of 16 Save My Brother, Jahanzaib Anwar he is innocent. He was wrongfully convicted. Save My Brother, Jahanzaib Anwar he is innocent. Don't let him get charged ... Read more COMPANY About Impact Careers Team SUPPORT Help Guides Privacy Policies English (United States) COMMUNITY Blog Press CONNECT Twitter Facebook J 2020, Change.org, PBC Certified B Corporation This site is protected by reCAPTCNA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply, https://www.change.org/p/J*efferson-county-board-of-county-commissioners-require jeffers... 10/5/2020 Master Planned Resorts "Washington Style" (opyright © too3 by the Municipal Research and Services (enter of Washington. All rights reserved. Fx(ept as permitted under the (opyright Act of 1916, no part of this publi(ation may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means or stored in a database or retrieval system without the prior written permission of the publisher, however, governmental entities in the state of Washington are granted permission to reproduce and distribute this publi(ation for of(ial use. MRS( i6ol Fourth Avenue, Suite Boo Seattle, WA gki-i 8o (lob) b25-1300 (800) g33-6111 www.MR5(.org May ioo3 $30 Preface In recent years, many of the resource -based industries that have traditionally provided jobs and income to rural residents have eliminated jobs or, in some cases, closed up shop altogether. Concerned county officials are under pressure to attract alternate sources of income, employment, and tax base to revive languishing local economies. Other counties may simply seek to take advantage of an area's special natural features. In response to these needs, the legislature amended the Growth Management Act in 1997 to offer greater flexibility for new uses, services, and economic opportunities in rural areas, while attempting to limit negative effects on rural, resource and critical area lands. Master planned resorts and small-scale recreational or tourist uses are among the new uses that counties may choose to permit within rural areas. This publication discusses GMA requirements, hearing board direction, and other considerations that are important to local officials in making decisions about these two types of recreational development. Although this publication focuses on master planned resort developments, it also contains a short discussion of small- scale recreational and tourist uses. The guidebook will provide information about how local jurisdictions can better anticipate and evaluate the potential benefits and impacts of these developments. This publication suggests criteria to help local jurisdictions decide whether it makes sense for a county to allow for such exceptions within its rural areas. It provides criteria for assessing whether a specific proposed resort (or small-scale recreational use) is a net benefit to the community, and whether the location is suitable. The publication contains examples of policies and regulations that might be used to guide resort and recreational development consistent with the GMA. In addition, it includes examples of regulations to address other potential issues common to resort development, such as increased housing costs, wildfire hazard, or fragmented wildlife habitat. Special acknowledgment is given to Susan Enger, MRSC Planning Consultant, who researched and wrote this publication. Appreciation is also given for the excellent work contributed by other members of our staff. Holly Martin designed the format and prepared the document for publication, and Nicole Stiver created the cover illustration for the publication. Special thanks to Carol Tobin, Public Policy Consultant, Bob Meinig, Legal Consultant, and Connie Elliot, Research Associate, who reviewed the draft and provided helpful advice. We also thank the many individuals and public officials who provided encouragement, alerted us to interesting programs, and provided fine examples for inclusion in this publication. Richard Yukubousky Executive Director Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington Table of (ontent Introduction.......................................................................... i New Development Options for Rural Areas ............................................ 1 What the Heck are MPRs?......................................................... 1 Small -Scale Recreational or Tourist Uses Are Not Just Mini-MPRs ......................... 2 The Ground Rules: GMA and Hearing Board Direction for Master Planned Resorts ............ 2 Guidebook Purpose............................................................... 4 Answering Preliminary Questions To Have or Not to Have — That is the First Question ..................................... 7 Considerations in Deciding Whether to Allow MPRs................................. 7 Criteria for Reviewing Specific Proposals .......................................... 8 Criteria Examples......................................................... 8 Is the Project Economically Viable? .......................................... 10 Will the Resort Recruit Local Employees? ...................................... 12 Location, Location, Location...................................................... 13 Suggestions for Addressing Basic GMA Requirements ............................................. 11 Self Contained, Fully Integrated, Planned Development ................................. 17 Examples of Ordinances Promoting Self -Contained, Fully Integrated Development ........ 18 Short -Term Visitor Focus......................................................... 20 Examples: Visitor/Permanent Accommodation Ratio ............................. 21 Examples: Defining "Short Term " Occupancy .................................. 22 Visitor -Oriented Commercial ................................................ 23 Policy and Standard Examples for Visitor- Oriented Commercial Limitations ......... 24 Comprehensive Plan Guiding Policies ............................................... 25 Infrastructure Impacts Mitigated .................................................... 26 Examples of Requirements for On -site and Off -Site Mitigation ..................... 28 Developed On -Site Recreational Facilities ............................................ 30 Critical Areas Protection.......................................................... 31 Special Environmental Concerns Related to Golf Courses ......................... 32 Environmental Issues Commonly Faced in Mountain Resort Development ............ 34 Environmental Issues Commonly Faced in Shoreline MPRs ........................ 37 Suggestions for Addressing other (ommon (oncerns............................................. 3q Wildlife Habitat and Corridors (or Room to Roam) ..................................... 39 Wildfire Prevention.............................................................. 45 Employee and Affordable Housing .................................................. 46 Open Space and Scenic View Protection ............................................. 50 Buffers........................................................................ 54 Light Trespass and Sky Glow ...................................................... 57 Table of Contents (onnnuea Small -Scale Recreational or Tourist Uses ...................................................... 61 Small -Scale Recreational or Tourist Uses are not Just Mini-MPRs ......................... 61 GMA and Growth Management Hearing Board Direction for SSRTs ....................... 62 Many Considerations/Regulations Applicable to MPRs Also Apply to SSRTs ................ 63 Examples of SSRT Guiding Policy and Regulation ..................................... 63 (onclusion........................................................................... 65 References........................................................................... 67 Appendices Appendix A MPPR Approval Criteria - Deschutes County, OR Appendix B Agreement for Payment of Professional/Staff/Consultant Services Appendix C MountainStar MPR Settlement Agreement Excerpts -Water Demand Appendix D Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States Appendix E Critical Slope Area Regulations - Mukilteo, WA Appendix F Wildlife Habitat Protection Standards - Pitkin County, CO Appendix G Fire Siting Standards Covenant - Douglas County, OR Appendix H Wildfire Area Standards - Pitkin County, CO Appendix I Employee Housing Standards - Jackson, WY Appendix J Dark Sky Ordinance - Ketchum, ID Appendix K Goals and Policies Guiding Small -Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses - Jefferson County, WA Introduction New Development Options for Rural Areas Rural areas have been described by one growth management hearings board as the leftover meat loaf of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). This observation was prompted by the indirect way that GMA defines rural areas. Rural areas are those lands that are not designated for urban growth, agricultural production, forestry or mineral resource use. The meaning of rural under Washington's GMA continues to evolve. Although rural areas are not resource lands per se under GMA, rural areas have a close association with resource lands. Rural lands have served to provide support services and housing areas for farms, forestry, and mining operations. They also may provide a transition or buffer between resource and urban areas, and they often contain environmentally sensitive areas. Although the 1990 Growth Management Act did not permit growth that is "urban in nature" outside of Urban Growth Areas, subsequent amendments to the Act provided for some limited exceptions. The exceptions include "new fully contained communities," "master planned resorts," "major industrial developments," master -planned "urban industrial land banks," and "limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs)." LAMIRDs have also been referred to as AMIRDS or even RAIDS (rural areas of intensive development) in some growth management hearings board cases. This report focuses on two types of exceptions that are related in nature but different in scale: 1) master planned resorts as allowed under RCW 36.70A.360 — 362) and 2) small-scale recreational or tourist uses (one of the types of limited areas of more intensive rural development allowed under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii)). Many of the resource industries that have traditionally provided j obs and income to rural residents have more recently cut back or disappeared altogether from the scene. These GMA amendments provide flexibility for additional uses, services, and employment/economic opportunities in rural areas, while attempting to limit negative effects on rural, resource and critical area lands. Many of Washington's rural areas offer magnificent scenic settings and natural amenities with potential to attract tourists and recreational enthusiasts. Resort and recreation uses can potentially provide additional sources of rural jobs and income. When carefully planned and sited, some of these recreation -related uses can be developed without jeopardizing neighboring resource uses or sacrificing rural character. What the Neck are MPRs? According to the GMA definition, master planned resorts (MPRs) are "self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development(s), in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on -site indoor or outdoor recreation facilities (RCW 36.70A.360(1))." In other words, MPR's are more than just overnight lodging for visitors or a single recreation use. They are carefully planned and integrated developments, centered on special recreational opportunities and natural settings. They provide a package of facilities, services and amenities that largely meet the daily needs of visitors. Visitors are drawn for extended stays because of the high quality and varied recreational opportunity and the area's natural splendor. In several other states, they are called destination resorts to emphasize their special attractions and ability to draw visitors from distant places and even other countries. While most counties will not be home to a planned resort of Disneyland dimensions, Washington is already home to a number ofresorts (representing varied levels of planning and self -containment). Examples include ski and mountain sports -oriented Crystal Mountain, with lodging, restaurants and other services, in the shadow of Mt. Rainier. A major expansion has been proposed for Crystal Mountain. Port Ludlow, in its z Master Planned Raom %afhftM11f#fe" Hood Canal setting, offers boating and other activities, and a variety of services and accommodations. The new Skamania Lodge offers retreat -type conference facilities, lodging, restaurant, golf, horseback riding, and other activities. The lodge overlooks the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Sun Mountain Resort in Okanogan County, WA has become a destination resort for cross country skiing and includes lodging, restaurants, and supporting commercial services. Developers of major resort areas such as Aspen and Breckenridge have shown an interest in Washington's potential. Careful planning and siting of resort facilities coupled with design excellence are essential ingredients to the success of an MPR. Successful resorts must balance development of an attractive package of amenities with preservation of the features and natural settings that are a major key to attracting visitors. As noted in the MountainStar Resort Draft EIS Summary Report (related to an MPR in Kittitas County, WA): "The obj ective of the master planning process is for the developer, local jurisdiction and community to agree on a set of parameters that will guide long-term development of a resort site in a way that provides opportunities for economic development while protecting environmentally sensitive areas (Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 1999). As one observer of resort development notes: "The crucial ingredients of great resorts are those of great neighborhoods or cities: good architecture, a sense of place, economic vitality, inviting public spaces, and convenient, efficient traffic... The j ob ahead is to create resorts that match the grandeur of their settings while providing the services, amenities, and ambience expected by today's tourist." (Shaw & Rebecca Zimmerman, 1997) Small -Scale Recreational or Tourist Uses Are Not Just Mini-MPRs A county also may choose to allow small-scale recreational or tourist uses (SSRTs) that rely on a rural location and setting, within rural areas. Small-scale recreational or tourist uses generally will involve a more limited investment and a smaller scale of development on an individual parcel. They are not intended to be mini-MPRs, but generally will focus on offering one or several activities rather than broad range of activities or services. They may be a Ma & Pa type operation, but they still must provide access to a high -quality recreational opportunity to be successful. They can include commercial but not permanent residential uses. Washington has numerous examples of small-scale uses such as bed and breakfast lodging, campgrounds, river rafting guide services, and equipment rental (such as boats, cross-country skis or sail boards) in areas bordering park, forest, or recreational areas. Master planned resorts and the small-scale types of recreational development are more fully discussed in the following sections. The Ground Rules: GMA and Nearing Board Direction for Master Planned Resorts As noted above, the 1990 Growth Management Act was amended to permit master planned resorts as an exception in rural areas (RCW 36.70A.360 — 362). Master planned resorts (MPRs) are "self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development(s), in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on -site or outdoor recreation facilities (RCW 36.70A.360(1))." Because MPR uses are different than traditional rural uses and often involve more intensive development and activity, they potentially can conflict with neighboring rural uses and character. The statutes above include criteria that limit the extent and nature of development allowed under this exception. These criteria Master Planned Nesortt '11afbilp7 ly/e" 3 must be met before a county may approve MPR development. In general, local jurisdictions may not permit an MPR if the development interferes with adjacent rural and resource uses, impacts critical areas, or is a catalyst for spin-off urban or suburban development on rural or resources lands. The county may authorize an MPR only if the following criteria, at a minimum, are met: 1 The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of master planned resorts; 1 The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the master planned resort except in areas otherwise designed for urban growth under RCW 36.70A.110; 1 The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term importance, for the master planned resort than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as forest land or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A.170; 1 The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and 1 On -site and off -site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated (RCW 36.70A.360(4)). Counties may choose whether or not to allow the MPR exception and may adopt additional criteria to supplement the statute criteria. Counties may also designate existing resorts as MPRs, subject to minimum criteria almost identical to the criteria listed above (although adjusted to address existing rather than new development). Before designating an existing resort as an MPR, a county must adopt comprehensive plan policies and a review and approval process specifically addressing existing MPRs as per RCW 36.70A.362. A handful of Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) cases provide some additional clarification and direction. Although three separate boards render decisions that apply only within their respective jurisdictions, these cases may indicate the likely outcome of similar cases in other jurisdictions. The Eastern Washington Board made these findings concerning master -planned resorts: 1 The State Legislature provided a specific exception that allows new urban growth in the form of a Master Planned Resort (MPR) to exist outside Urban Growth Areas, if certain requirements are met. The MPRs are to be self- contained and not be the catalyst for further urban sprawl. Ridge, et al. v. Kittitas County, EWGMHB 96-1-0017, Order on Compliance and Invalidity (Apr. 16, 1998). The GMA use of the phrase "self contained" does not require a MPR to contain everything it or the visitors need. This would be virtually impossible and would be too strict an interpretation of the language. The better interpretation would require the MPR to have sufficient services and needed places to shop for common needs to be met and avoid an adverse impact upon the neighboring urban areas. The visitors and residences at the MPR should be able to meet their daily needs without being forced to go elsewhere. The fact others might shop there or visit does not put the County in violation of the "self contained" section of the Act. Ridge, et al. v. Kittitas County, EWGMHB 96-1-0017, Order on Compliance and Invalidity (Apr. 16, 1998). 4 Master Planned Resorts %jfhi1Vm1fty/e" 1 The Act does not require the MPR to be any specific distance from UGAs, not 5 miles or 100 feet. Ridge, et al. v. Kittitas County, EWGMHB 96-1-0017, Order on Compliance and Invalidity (Apr. 16, 1998). 1 The county must follow the framework procedures that the county and cities have adopted together for amending county -wide planning policies — county master planned resort policies must be consistent with the county -wide planning policies (Ridge v. Kittitas County, E`JVGMHB No. 96-1- 0017, Order on Compliance and Invalidity (Apr. 16, 1998)). The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board concluded that a county development regulation could not be used to justify the siting of master planned resorts outside of its UGA when county's comprehensive plan did not make specific allowance for them (Whidbey Environmental Action v. Island County, WWGMHB No. 95-2-0063, Third Compliance Order, (October 6, 1997)). Several decisions from the Central Puget Sound GMHB address MPRs: 1 As provided by statute, sanitary sewer may be extended outside of urban growth areas to areas of more intensive rural development or to other UGAs (Gain et al. v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB No. 99-3-0019, Final Decision and Order (April 18, 1999)). To designate existing resorts as MPRs, a county must adopt guiding comprehensive plan policies that address existing resorts as per RCW 36.70A.362. A county must establish review and approval procedures for designating existing resorts that comply with RCW 36.70A.362„ RCW 36.70A.360 does not apply to the designation of an existing resort as an MPR. RCW 36.70A.362 does not require a planned unit development (PUD) review and approval process to designate an existing MPR, although, by definition, a new MPR is a type of PUD (Kenyon and Gold Hill Community Club v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB No. 01-3-0001, Final Decision and Order, August 27, 2002). The Washington State Office of Community Development (OCD) has raised some additional types of concerns when reviewing environmental impact statements on proposed MPRs and when reviewing local plans and provisions for MPRs. OCD has suggested the need for provisions for limiting conversion of short- term rentals into permanent residences, for providing affordable employee housing and for avoiding sprawling development patterns. The agency has also called for sufficient buffers and expressed concerns about limiting environmental, fiscal and other impacts on adjacent rural and resource uses, jurisdictions, transportation corridors and state or federal parks or recreation areas. Because master planned resorts are, by definition, located in settings of significant natural amenities, OCD has cautioned that they must not compromise these amenities and the natural environment. Large-scale MPRs may pose a particular threat to the environment. OCD has particularly focused on the need to analyze cumulative impacts of golf courses and resort development on wetlands, protection of endangered species such a salmon, and avoiding fragmentation of wildlife habitats and disruption of wildlife corridors. It has also noted concerns with water rights and impacts on agricultural irrigation and operations. Following sections will provide additional detail about GMA basic requirements, and hearing board or court decisions. Guidebook Purpose This guidebook discusses GMA requirements, hearing board direction, and other considerations that are important to local officials in making decisions about these two types ofrecreational development. Although this publication focuses on master planned developments, it also contains a short discussion of small-scale Master Planned Resorts ';V,#f 11p#11ft, /e" S recreational and tourist uses. It will help local jurisdictions better anticipate and evaluate the potential benefits and impacts of these developments. This publication suggests criteria to help local jurisdictions decide whether it makes sense for a county to allow for such exceptions within its rural areas. It will then provide criteria for assessing whether a specific proposed resort (or small-scale recreational use) is a net benefit to the community, and whether the location is suitable. Finally, this publication will provide examples of policies and regulations that might be used to guide resort and recreational development consistent with the GMA. It includes examples of regulations to address other potential issues common to resort development, such as increased housing costs or fragmented wildlife habitat. The statutes mentioned above address conditions under which an urban intensity MPR or recreational use may be permitted in rural areas within counties. It should be noted that MPR-type developments and recreational uses do occur within city limits as well. Although these statutes do not apply to such developments within urban areas, the principles and examples contained in this handbook offer many guidelines that will be equally useful in urban areas. This guidebook offers a number of examples of standards, agreements and other documents from other jurisdictions within Washington and from other states. The examples were chosen because they contain some interesting new ideas or approaches that may be useful to Washington communities. Although some aspects of the sample documents may provide useful ideas, other aspects may not be applicable or appropriate for a given jurisdiction. As a result, we recommend that any examples used be considered and adjusted for local conditions and that they be reviewed by your county or city attorney before incorporation into local codes and policies. Answering Preliminary Questions To Have or Not to Have — That is the First Question MPRs may be appropriate in some counties and not in others. Because master planned resorts are different from traditional rural uses, they will bring changes to the economic, social or environmental character of surrounding rural areas. The changes aren't necessarily all bad, nor will they be viewed as all positive by existing residents. The changes can be dramatic. For instance, Kittitas County has approved an MPR application and initial phase development permits for an MPR sited on 6,200 acres. Although most of the land will be retained in open space, the development will include up to 3,785 new units at full build -out (mainly short-term rentals with some permanent and employee housing). The new MPR will have significantly more total units than those of the two neighboring cities of Cle Elum (population 1,755) and Roslyn (population 1,017) combined. The combined number of dwelling units for the two cities would be approximately 1,000, using the state-wide average household size of 2.53 persons per household (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000). Pierce County has given master plan approval for a somewhat smaller MPR, located at a major gateway to Mt. Rainier National Park. This single resort development, as originally proposed, would have generated 28 percent more weekend daily vehicle trips on the highway to Mt. Rainier than would have occurred without the resort by the year 2005, according to EIS documents for the project. People at hearings for the two MPRs expressed concerns about employee housing, effects on affordable housing in the area, excessive commercial development, impacts on wildlife habitat and other critical areas, water rights, water supply and quality, loss of rural character, and a variety of other issues. On the other hand, resorts promise to bring new jobs, revenues and recreational opportunities to rural areas, in addition to any impacts. Even economic changes in the form of new jobs and income can be a mixed bag. Master planned resorts promise new jobs and revenue to a community but they may also disrupt farm operations and other existing economic pursuits. There may be an opportunity cost if some other type of development would offer greater benefits. Revenues do not always match costs to local government, and there will likely be a gap between when the costs begin and when the revenues begin. Each county will need to weigh whether well -planned MPRs offer net benefits to the county and are consistent with GMA and the county's goals for its rural areas. MPRs will make sense in some rural locations within some counties. They will be most appropriate when any impacts can be adequately addressed, and the county seeks new job and/or recreational opportunities, or other benefits that resorts may offer. Other counties, such as King and Jefferson counties are already home to some existing resort developments and have chosen not to encourage new master planned resorts in rural areas. King County, as an example, has decided that preserving the limited remaining rural areas should be the County's primary focus. New MPRs that include residential development may not be needed to further priority goals for such rural areas. (Karen Wolf, 2001) The GMA requires that counties must have comprehensive plan policies specifically directed at guiding master plan resort development before MPRs may be authorized in that county (RCW 36.70A.360(4)(a)). Such plan policies, regulations, procedures and guidelines should aim to assure that any MPR development permitted is largely a positive contribution to the county. Counties will be in a better position to consider and decide whether MPRs are needed in the county, and what criteria should be applied, if they do so before being faced with the pressures of a specific MPR application. .0miderations in Deciding Whether to Allow MPRs In addition to the criteria in RCW 36.70A.360, the following questions may be helpful in thinking about whether MPRs would be beneficial to a given county: 8 Master Planned Resorts %afbigM17fty/e" / What are the county's priorities for its rural areas? Can MPRs be permitted in a way that is consistent with the priorities expressed in the county's comprehensive plan? 1 Does the county have locations that offer the type of exceptional natural amenities necessary to a resort's success? Can they draw visitors from outside the region? 1 Can an economically viable project be developed within the county? 1 Does the county need new j ob opportunities and sources of income to augment or replace traditional sources? 1 Would MPRs offer employment and income opportunities that are greater than other potential uses of rural lands? 1 Could MPRs enhance recreational opportunities for county residents? 1 Are the county's remaining rural and resource lands threatened by growth pressures? For what use is the land best suited? 1 Does the county have areas where valuable resource lands can be buffered from the effects of an MPR? 1 Are there extensive areas of wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, wildlife habitat or other sensitive areas that would be threatened by increased development, visitors and traffic? Can they be adequately protected? 1 Are there opportunities to develop MPRs in a manner that will not interfere with other rural uses and that will be compatible with rural character? 1 Can the resort secure water rights and a sufficient supply of potable water as required by Washington State law? 1 Can county roads and other infrastructure be developed to support resort/recreational development without harming the county's fiscal situation? •(riteria for Reviewing Specific Proposals Criteria Examples Once the decision has been made to provide the opportunity for MPR development, a county will benefit from criteria to evaluate specific MPR proposals. As an example, Clark County has included the following criteria in its comprehensive plan to guide decisions about MPR permitting: Master Planed Rem %whilpflRXe" q Clark County, WA MPR Approval Criteria 4.1.4 Master Planned Resorts (MPR) may be approved in an area outside of established Urban Growth Boundaries providing they meet the following criteria: a. The land proposed is better suited and has more long-term importance for a Master Planned Resort than the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as a forest or agricultural resource; b. the location, design, and provision of necessary utilities does not allow for the development of new urban or suburban land uses in the immediate vicinity; c. the proposed site includes unique natural amenities, such, as views, streams, lakes or other features that provides a natural attraction for public use; d. the proposed development provides urban level public services that are strictly contained within the boundaries of the resort property by design and construction; e. the proposed site for the Master Planned Resort is sufficient in size and configuration to provide for a full range of resort facilities while maintaining adequate separation from any adjacent rural or resource land uses; f. residential uses are designed primarily for short-term or seasonal use, full time residential uses should be limited; g. the major recreational facilities within the Master Planned Resort must be open to the public and the overall facilities and recreational activities should promote tourism and the recreational goals of the comprehensive plan; h. each proposal should include a full inventory of critical wildlife habitat, significant wetlands, shorelines and floodplains, and cultural resources; i. significant natural and cultural features of the site should be preserved and enhanced to the greatest degree possible; j. commercial uses and activities within the MPR should be limited in size to serve the customers within the MPR and located within the project to minimize the automotive convenience trips for people using the facilities; and k. adequate emergency services must be available to the area to insure the health and safety of people using or likely to use the facility. Source: Rural and Natural Resources Element, Clark County 20-Year Comprehensive Growth Management Plan io Matter Planned Retorts 'Wafbil,�t17We" The following arc additional criteria from San Juan County (WA) Code § 18.90.060(H): San Juan County, WA MPR Criteria for Approval H. Criteria for Approval. 1. Master Planned Resort Proposal and Application. An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as an MPR may be approved, or approved with modifications, if it meets all of the criteria below. If no reasonable conditions or modifications can be imposed to ensure that the application meets these criteria, then the application shall be denied. a. The master plan meets or exceeds the requirements of this section and SJCC 18.60.190. b. The MPR is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the requirements of the Shorelines Master Program in Chapter 18.50 SJCC, and complies with all other applicable sections of this code and all other codes and policies of the County. c. If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infrastructure, open space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed. d. The MPR will provide active recreational uses such as boating, pools, and playing fields, and sufficient services such as transportation access, police, fire, and social and health services, to adequately meet the needs of the guests and residents of the MPR. e. The MPR will contain within the development (or be provided by outside providers as per SJCC 18.30.060(C)) all necessary supportive and accessory on -site urban -level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. f. Environmental considerations are employed in the design, placement, and screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, public views, and historic and other important features. g. Improvements and activities are located and designed in such a manner as to avoid or minimize adverse effects of the MPR on surrounding lands and property. h. The master plan establishes location -specific standards to retain and enhance the character of the resort. Source: San Juan County (WA) Code §18.90.060(H) In addition, see Appendix A, which contains a very comprehensive list of approval criteria used in Deschutes County, OR. Is the Project Economically Viable? Resort development is a risky business, although the long term prospects for the industry may be favorable. Master planned resorts are typically large undertakings that will take years (and sometimes decades) to complete all phases. To be successful, resort developers must make a substantial investment in recreational facilities and other amenities. Much of this investment must occur before substantial revenues come in. Like the agriculture business, resort businesses that provide outdoor recreation facilities, such as golf or ski areas, may suffer from the whims of the weather. After reviewing North American resort and recreational projects over a 30-year span, some resort industry leaders estimated that as few as 10 percent were profitable for the original developer (Middleton, 1994). As a result, local jurisdictions should carefully evaluate a proposed MPR's prospects for success. Recognizing the level of risk in the resort industry, a number of Oregon Master Planned Resorts %afMVflft,#e" 11 communities have adopted minimum investment criteria for destination resorts, based on Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. An investment of at least $7 million is required for onsite developed recreation facilities and visitor -oriented accommodations for "destination resorts" (similar in concept to Washington's MPR and on a site of 160 acres or more). At least one-third of this amount must be spent on recreational facilities. This amount does not include expenditures for sewer, water and road improvements. The same Oregon goal calls for a $2 million investment (one-third of it for recreation facilities) for "small destination resorts" (OAR 660-015-0000(8)). Although this may seem like a lot, an 18-hole golf course is in itself a multi -million dollar project. As one Oregon community development director observes, a serious resort prospect "doesn't bat an eye" at these minimums (Read, 2001). Local officials may or may not be interested in adopting specific investment targets. However, they should look for convincing assurance that the project is economically viable. A developer should present market plans and analysis that demonstrate that a proposed resort can succeed and that benefits to the community will materialize. In addition, a developer should provide evidence of sufficient company experience and financial backing to manage a large-scale, long-term venture. Deschutes County, OR (which does have minimum investment requirements) also has adopted the following submittal requirements and approval criteria for economic analysis: Economic Analysis Submittal Requirements from Deschutes County, OR 19. An economic impact and feasibility analysis of the proposed development prepared by a qualified professional economist(s) or financial analyst(s) shall be provided which includes: a) An analysis which addresses the economic viability of the proposed development; b) Fiscal impacts of the project including changes in employment, increased tax revenue, demands for new or increased levels of public services, housing for employees and the effects of loss of resource lands during the life of the project. Source: Deschutes County Code §18.113.050(B)(19) 12 Maiter Planned Room %arbil, NlkWe" Economic Analysis Criteria from Deschutes County, OR C. The economic analysis demonstrates that: 1. The necessary financial resources are available for the applicant to undertake the development consistent with the minimum investment requirements established by DCC 18.113. 2. Appropriate assurance has been submitted by lending institutions or other financial entities that the developer has or can reasonably obtain adequate financial support for the proposal once approved. 3. The destination 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. 4. The natural amenities of the site considered together with the identified developed recreation facilities to be provided with the resort, will constitute a primary attraction to visitors, based on the economic feasibility analysis. Source: Deschutes County Code §18.113.070(C) See also Appendix A that contains Deschutes County's complete approval criteria. Will the Resort Recruit Local Employees? Although successful resorts can be expected to generate jobs, the jobs will not necessarily go to local residents. It is not unusual for a resort to bring in top managers from other areas. News of j ob opportunities in a resort setting may draw job seekers from afar, who compete with local job seekers. For instance, when the Scmiahmoo Resort was developed near Blaine, WA, a large percentage of the jobs were filled by college students driving up from Bellingham, WA, according to a consultant who has worked with resort developers (Burke, 2001). Trendwest agreed to the following condition assuring local job recruitment efforts in a settlement agreement related to the MountainStar MPR in Kittitas County: Trendwest/Ridge Agreement to Encourage Recruitment of Local Employees "1.8.2 Trendwest will advertise and give written notice at libraries and post offices in Easton, Cle Elum, South Cle Elum, Ronald and Roslyn and recruit locally (Kittitas County), to fill opportunities for contracting and employment, and will prefer local applicants provided they are qualified, available and competitive in terms of pricing." The Trendwest developer also agreed to coordinate with schools districts, vocational and apprenticeship programs on some vocational training opportunities in the community. Source: Settlement Agreement Regarding MountainStar Master Planned Resort, Cle Elum Urban Growth Area and Supporting Infrastructure and Services, 2001 Master Planned Resorts %jfMgM17f#fe" 13 location, location, location Resort development siting decisions present a particular dilemma for counties. By statute definition, MPRs are located in settings of "significant natural amenities." Such settings are often environmentally fragile. We are all aware of examples of resort development proliferating at gateways to National Parks, lining lakeshores, or perched on highly visible ridges and hilltops in mountain communities. If counties choose to allow MPRs, they must carefully consider whether such MPRs are located proximate to natural amenities that can draw visitors and make the resorts a financial success. At the same time, counties must also assure that development does not impinge upon sensitive areas and scenic vistas in a manner and quantity that destroys the special attraction of the area. In approving MPRs, counties must make findings that the resort can be sited and developed in a manner consistent with critical area regulations. Resorts may not be sited on lands designated as agricultural or forest resource lands under GMA unless a county makes a finding that the land is "better suited and has more long-term importance" for an MPR use than for resource uses. Similarly, resorts should not be sited where they will interfere with nearby farms, timber harvesting, and other activities so important to the rural economy and way of life. Beyond these general considerations, a county must assure that MPRs are located consistent with the county's own goals and requirements for rural area development. Siting guidelines can help assure that MPRs do not interfere with other rural uses. In addition, they may help the county to maintain the area's rural character if MPR development is sited in less conspicuous locations. They can also help counties protect environmentally sensitive areas and the natural amenities that attract visitors. Washington counties may choose to designate and/or map appropriate areas for MPRs in advance of receiving applications. Alternatively, a county may choose to wait for MPR proposals and decide on a case -by -case basis whether a proposed location is appropriate. The advanced designation approach offers greater certainty to a developer before investing time and dollars in a specific site. It may reduce pressures on the county to approve a marginally appropriate site. The case -by -case decision provides a developer greater flexibility in selecting a marketable site. Whether or not a county chooses to map specific eligible areas, the county will benefit by developing criteria that discourage such development where inappropriate, and perhaps target other types of locations where they are desirable. The GMA definition and provisions for MPRs were borrowed from and resemble Oregon State's earlier provisions for "destination resorts." However, the Washington legislature did not adopt Oregon's approach of requiring counties to map eligible areas. Once they have mapped eligible areas, Oregon counties may amend the map for destination resorts only during periodic review periods (once every 5 years). Deschutes County, OR (home of Sun River and Black Butte resorts) has used a destination resort overlay zone to prevent resorts from locating in inappropriate locations, such as areas with high value soils for farmlands or forestry, valued natural resources, or sensitive big game habitat. George Read, Deschutes County Community Development Director, notes that these provisions have reduced pressures for frequent map amendments. Read suspects that developers would say there are not enough prime areas eligible for resorts. However, the county continues to get serious proposals on lands that avoid impinging on important resource lands, including one high desert site (Read, 2001). Whether or not a county chooses to designate eligible areas, adopting criteria for appropriate locations can help direct prospective resort developers to areas most acceptable to the county, while retaining some flexibility. The following are eligible areas adopted by Josephine County, OR and based on Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines (Goal 8: Recreational Needs). Some or all of these may be relevant criteria to consider for use by Washington counties. 14 Master Planned Resorts %jfhigVfl F' Josephine County, OR MPR Siting Criteria 96.040 - SITING REQUIREMENTS A destination resort shall not be sited within any of the following areas: A. Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more; B. On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, or within 3 miles of farm land in a High Value Crop Area, as defined in Section 11.030, unless the resort complies with the requirements of Section 96.030.F (small destination resorts) in which case the resort shall not be closer to a High Value Crop Area than mile for each 25 units of overnight lodging or fraction thereof (area specified has been identified and a map is located in the Planning Office); C. Predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to an approved goal exception (area specified has been identified and a map is located in the Planning Office); D. if a tract to be used as a destination resort has a site designated for protection as open space, a scenic area, a historic area, or a natural resource area in the acknowledged comprehensive plan, the tract of land shall preserve the site by conservation easement sufficient to protect the resource values of the site. (area specified has been identified and a map is located in the Planning Office); E. Especially sensitive big game habitat as mapped by the Oregon Department offish and Wildlife in July of 1984; Note: Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals discourage destination resorts from locating near metropolitan areas and j obs to help assure that they do not evolve into "communities of commuters" (Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, 1995). The state goal no. 8 does allow them to locate closer than 24 miles from a metropolitan center if residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the resort. Source: Josephine County (OR) Code Many communities also require direct access from a major arterial or highway: Deschutes (OR) County Highway Access Requirement C. All destination resorts shall have direct access onto a state highway or County arterial or collector roadway, as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Source: Deschutes County (OR) Code §18.113.060 (C) Matter Planned Rem 'Y✓afbg&m7VV' lS Douglas County, WA Requirements to Discourage MPR Displacement of Prime Agriculture L. An applicant for an MPR shall submit the following when an MPR is proposed within an agricultural zoning district: l An evaluation shall be conducted by a qualified agricultural economist ofthe impacts on the commercial agricultural and social -economic structure of the immediate area and of the county as a whole, 2. An analysis of the proposed site to determine the least productive agricultural lands and an evaluation of the appropriateness for a change in land use from agriculture to nonagricultural, 3. If an MPR proposes to maintain a portion of the site as lands designated agricultural resource lands, an evaluation and analysis shall be conducted to determine the most productive agricultural lands. The determination shall be based on a soils analysis (Class I, II, III), conflicting land uses and other criteria as deemed appropriate by the director upon recommendation of the Natural Resource Soils Conservation Service, the Department of Agriculture and local farm and ranch group organizations, and 4. Based on associated impacts and an overall evaluation of the site, an MPR may be limited in intensity, location and/or prohibited if found to measurably degrade the economic viability of adjacent farming activities. Source: Douglas County (WA) Code §18.74.070(L) Suggestions for Addressing Basic GMA Requirements Master planned resorts must both fit the definition for an MPR and meet criteria and conditions specified in RCW 36.70A.360 before they may be permitted as an exception within rural areas. The following sections further explain these minimum requirements and provide examples of policies and regulations that other communities have used to address such concerns. Self Contained, Fully Integrated, Planned Development To qualify as a master planned resort under the GMA, a development must be a "self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development... (among other defining characteristics)." MPRs represent a more intensive form of development that may be permitted as exception in rural areas, if certain requirements are met. MPRs are located in settings of significant natural amenities, which may include lakes, river corridors, ocean shores, mountain vistas, forestlands or bucolic settings. Such natural features are commonly associated with environmentally sensitive lands (or critical areas). Rural areas also support nearby agricultural and forest production lands. Because MPRs tend to locate in proximity to such sensitive neighbors, it is especially important that they be carefully planned to avoid conflicts and to harmonize with neighboring rural uses. The requirement that MPRs be self-contained means that visitors and residents should be able to meet most of their daily needs on site, without having to leave the site. Because visitors come to these destination resorts for extended rather than just overnight stays, MPRs must serve as a "home away from home" as well as to provide a variety of special recreational opportunities for its guests. If needs are met on -site, traffic and other demands on neighboring community facilities will likely be reduced. This does not mean that an MPR must anticipate and meet every need of its visitors. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB) determined that: "(t)his would be virtually impossible and would be too strict an interpretation of the language. The better interpretation would require the MPR to have sufficient services and needed places to shop for common needs to be met and avoid an adverse impact upon the neighboring urban areas. The visitors and residences at the MPR should be able to meet their daily needs without being forced to go elsewhere. The fact others might shop there or visit does not put the County in violation of the "self contained" section of the Act." (Ridge, et al. v. Kittitas County, EWGMHB 96-1-0017, Order on Compliance and Invalidity (Apr. 16, 1998)). The GMA was amended in 1998 (ESHB 2596) to clarify that MPRs may be served by capital facilities, utilities and services provided by outside service providers, including municipalities and special purpose districts, with certain limitations. In this respect, an MPR does not need to be "self-contained" in the strictest sense, but may enter into an agreement with a provider for sewer service (or other urban -type services) rather than rely on package treatment plants, septic tanks or other more rural solutions. Sewer service is limited to the MPR or areas designated for urban growth, and may not be used to serve intervening rural areas and uses. A Central Puget Sound GMHB case confirmed that sanitary sewers may be extended outside of urban growth areas to areas of more intensive rural development specifically permitted by the GMA and local plans (Gain et al. v. Pierce County CPSGMHB No. 99-3-0019). The Eastern GMHB also noted that MPRs are to be self- contained and not be the catalyst for further urban sprawl. (Ridge, et al. v. Kittitas County, EWGMHB 96-1-0017, Order on Compliance and Invalidity (Apr. 16, 1998)). The MPR should not provide facilities and services that serve and encourage surrounding development. San Juan County, for instance, has been concerned about preventing the "halo' effect of spin- off development that has tended to surround several existing resorts, especially when sewer service was 18 Matter Planned Room ';VMin8t flWe" extended from the resort (Rutz, 2001). The county's comprehensive plan and development regulations, in fact, must "include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the master planned development" (RCW 36.70A.360(4)(b)). In addition, MPR commercial businesses and services should not be dependent on attracting customers from the surrounding community or passing traffic, although, inevitably, some business will come from off -site. Instead, such commercial uses should be oriented to serve those who are staying at the resort or have come to use resort recreational facilities. Because MPRs provide a mix of uses to meet guests' needs, careful site planning is needed to integrate the development and to limit the impacts of the development. For instance, recreational facilities and commercial or other types of services should be centrally located in relation to visitor accommodations, rather than inconveniently on the (highway) edge of the MPR. Pathways should connect living areas with services and recreational facilities, reducing the need for vehicle trips, especially on an adjacent highway. The capacity and variety of on -site recreational facilities and programs should be sufficient to hold visitors' interest and to minimize impact on off -site facilities. Employee housing should be planned so that commute trips can be minimized. San Juan County, WA was concerned about improving integration of new phases of existing resorts, particularly when not developed by the original developer. Because the resort owners had given up control of some properties within the original resort boundaries, new development phases had no relation to the resort or access to resort facilities. San Juan County has worked with several existing resorts to implement requirements that new units in new phases must have memberships and access to resort facilities, giving them a stake in the future of the resort. New phases are also subject to design standards that further relate them to existing phases (Rutz, 2001). Examples of Ordinances Promoting Self -Contained, Fully Integrated Development Some communities have chosen to specify a minimum MPR site size sufficient to provide for a complete package ofresort facilities and for adequate separation from surrounding rural or resource uses. For instance, Okanogan and Clallam counties (WA) require a minimum parcel size of 640 acres. Oregon counties, such as Tillamook and Deschutes, require a 160-acre minimum parcel size (but only a minimum size of 40 acres within two miles of the ocean). Master Planned Room '7✓afbgm11#e" iq Douglas County, WA has adopted the following requirements to encourage a self-contained, fully integrated development: Requirements for Self -Contained, Integrated Development in Douglas County, WA D. Commercial. Commercial retail and services provided as part ofthe MPR shall be located within the interior of the development (see subsection (B)(1) of this section) and shall not exceed eight percent of the developed land use in the MPR. Commercial retail and services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. Construction of commercial retail uses and services shall occur in equal proportions and at a rate that can be substantiated by recreation and visitor accommodations of the MPR. M. The MPR shall be appropriately served by a full range of facilities and services, and utilities including provisions for sewer, water, power, emergency services and roads. On -site and off -site infrastructure impacts shall be fully considered and mitigated. Services and utilities established for the MPR shall not be extended beyond the MPR boundary. N. During subsequent phases of development, an amendment and update to the capital facilities, utilities plan and financing plan shall be provided prior to each phase of an approved MPR. O. Pedestrian and transit oriented facilities shall provide access to all areas within the development in accordance with DCC Chapter 18.16. Pedestrian systems shall include a combination of bicycle and pedestrian paths, hiking paths, and equestrian trails where appropriate. Source: Douglas County Code, Sec. 18. 74.070 20 Master Planned Resom 'WifftmIlRy/e" Jackson, WY has adopted requirements assuring that each phase of development is self-sufficient: Jackson, WY Requirements for Self -Sufficient Phases 2. Functional phases. Each phase shall be self-sufficient, in conjunction with existing elements of the Planned Resort, i.e., transportation and parking needs, as well as amenities, for each phase shall be satisfied within each phase and shall not be dependent upon a future phase. Each phase shall represent a logical and compact extension of infrastructure and public services. In order to develop certain improvements in logical increments that provide for economies of scale, the phasing plan may propose that improvements required for an earlier phase be provided in a later phase only if: a., The delayed construction of the improvement does not create a negative impact or exacerbate an existing problematic condition, and b. Financial assurance, in a form acceptable to the Town Council, is provided, i.e., letter of credit, that the improvement required for the earlier phase will be developed within a certain time -frame, even if later phases remain undeveloped. 3. Coordinated with public services. Phasing shall be coordinated with the improvements schedule or capital improvements program of public or semipublic service providers, as identified in the Capital Improvements Element. 4. Relationship of phasing to overall resort plan. Phasing shall implement the stated purpose of the Planned Resort master plan, i.e., if a destination ski area is the basis for the resort plan, the ski area facilities should not be the last increment of development. Similarly, open space dedications, amenities, and required performances that mitigate the impacts of the resort shall be developed or provided in proportion to the type and amount of development in each phase. Source: Jackson Municipal Code, Division 2550 - Part K San Juan County, WA includes the following submittal requirement to address phased development: San Juan County, WA Phasing Requirements A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any. The initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases such that the full intended scope and intensity of the development can be evaluated. This shall also discuss how the project will function at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of the project, and how the project may operate successfully and meet its environmental protection, concurrency, and other commitments should development cease before all phases are completed. Source: San Juan County Code 18.30.060(C)(6) Short -Term Visitor Focus The full potential economic benefits of a resort on a county will not be realized if a large percentage of resort units are occupied by full-time, permanent residents rather than vacationing visitors. Visitors from outside the region can inject new money into the local economy as they pay higher rates for short-term lodging, Matter Planned Resort '7✓afh4MIllty/c" zi participate in a variety of recreational activities, eat meals out, and shop. In contrast, a high percentage of permanent residents may translate into a higher demand for county facilities and services such as schools, senior services, and libraries, than would be demanded by short-term visitors. Over the years, a number of studies have documented a trend for vacation homes to become primary homes as owners become year—round residents. A November 2000 Lehman Brothers report notes the growth in the 50 to 64-year-old age cohort (as baby boomers approach retirement). This demographic trend could further fuel the conversion of vacation homes to year-round residences for those who retire and no longer are tied to the location of their jobs (Hornberger, 2001). Technological and telecommunications innovations also provide increased flexibility in where many people choose to live. Several Washington counties have identified, as a top concern, the challenge of ensuring that visitor accommodations remain available for short- term rentals (Cardwell, 2001; Lee, 2001; Olasen, 2000). Although short-term visitors can greatly boost the local economy, there are also clear benefits to providing for employee housing and other very limited permanent residents within the resort site. Such on -site housing can eliminate significant traffic that may otherwise be generated by commuting employees and may reduce pressures on housing costs in the greater community. It may also contribute to the sense of activity and life, especially during off-peak seasons. In addition, resort developers often argue that the development won't be feasible without some initial home sales to individual owners. As in the case of a recently approved resort in Pierce County, developers often count on revenue from residential lot sales to ease the financing of expensive up -front recreational facilities (Causseaux, 2000). Washington legislators have sought to ensure that a master planned resort in Washington does not become just another retirement community or bedroom community housing permanent residents that commute to city jobs. The primary focus of MPRs in Washington is on "destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations." Washington resorts are also distinguished from simple planned developments in that they must provide "a range of developed on -site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities" (RCW 36.70A.360(I)). Accommodations, recreational facilities, commercial and other services must be oriented to meet the needs of short-term visitors. While the primary focus must be on short-term visitors, the MPR statute provides some flexibility for limited permanent residential uses to assure that MPRs are workable. These permanent residences are allowed "only if these other uses are integrated into and support the on -site recreational nature of the resort" (RCW 36.70A.360(3)). Housing for employees and on -site managers clearly fits into this category. A developer may be able to demonstrate that a limited amount of additional permanent residences supports the purposes of the MPR. However, the primary focus over time must remain on short-term visitors, and local j urisdictions will need to consider adequate measures to prevent conversion to permanent residential use. If the proportion of permanent residences begins to exceed that required to support the on -site recreational nature of the resort, the development may better fit the definition of another type of planned development permitted under GMA — the fully -contained community. A fully -contained community (essentially a new town) is authorized in RCW 36.70A.350 and would require a comprehensive plan amendment and a reassessment of the overall urban growth area capacity. Examples: Visitor/Permanent Accommodation Ratio Counties in Washington and other states are trying a number of approaches for ensuring that a resort maintains a primary focus on visitor accommodations, facilities and services. Kittitas County has adopted a standard that short-term visitor units shall constitute greater than 50 percent of the total resort units. The county's development agreement with Trendwest for the MountainStar Resort specifies that short-term visitor accommodations must constitute at least 70 percent of the total MPR tt Master Planned Resorts %jfhi40flftWF' accommodations units at full build -out. The development agreement specifies that 200 short-term units be provided within the first phase of development, and that a cumulative total of more than 50 percent of all built and occupied units be maintained as short-term units throughout building construction. Pierce County has adopted a ratio of at least two overnight accommodations for every one (permanent) residential dwelling unit approved (PCC 18A.75.080(H)(1)(b)). Pierce County recently conditioned approval of a MPR with requirements for 70 percent of total units to be maintained as short-term rentals. The applicant must maintain a record of rentals and sales available for review by Pierce County. If the number of homes sold to permanent residents begins to exceed 30 percent, a method will be found to get back on track with the target 70/30 ratio. Again, some flexibility may be needed to ensure that required ratios do not create insurmountable difficulties with start-up financing. Spokane County has recommended comprehensive plan policies that would limit full-time residential uses to employee housing, placing even greater emphasis on short-term visitor orientation. Oregon communities that have provided for destination resorts have typically adopted a ratio that parallels Oregon State goals (individually -owned residential units shall not exceed two for each unit of visitor -oriented overnight lodging). However, a Deschutes County planner who has worked with several large destination resorts (such as Sun River) believes that a more balanced ratio would be preferable, if shown to be feasible. (Read, 2001). In addition, Oregon's minimum distance requirement from major metro areas (24 miles) makes it somewhat less likely that an MPR would become a bedroom community for those commuting to urban jobs. Examples: Defining "Short Term" Occupancy Lodge, hotel, motel units and time-share units, are commonly classified as short-term units. A time-share arrangement typically allows a purchaser to occupy a unit for one or two weeks a year. A unit type that is related to the time-share unit, called a fractionally -owned unit, is typically divided into longer blocks of time, which may exceed standard definitions of short-term units. Deschutes County, OR has adopted a well-defined approach for monitoring units in short-term rentals. Individually -owned units qualify as visitor -oriented lodging if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 45 weeks per calendar year. They must be listed as available for the 45 weeks through one or more central reservation and check -in service(s). (DCC 18.113.060(D)(2)). Master Planned Resorts 'Wafhi4 0n11yie" 23 Sanibel, FL has the following options for demonstrating that units are being used for short-term rental rather than permanent occupancy: Sanibel, FL — Distinguishing Short -Term Rental from Permanent Residential Occupancy Sec.126-1076. Availability for temporary occupancy; evidence of use. (a) Each unit of resort housing is a dwelling unit, whether denominated a hotel or motel room, apartment, condominium unit, cooperative unit, timeshare unit, single-family unit, or otherwise. (b) The term "made available for temporary occupancy" means rented or occupied for time periods of less than four consecutive weeks in duration. Where resort housing (short-term accommodations) is a permitted use in compliance with the requirements of article XII of this chapter, there is no limit to the frequency of change or length of stay of occupants or tenants. Where resort housing is not a permitted use or is not in compliance with the requirements of article XII of this chapter, dwelling units may not be made available for rental or occupancy for periods of less than four consecutive weeks; provided that such restriction shall not apply to temporary, nonpaying guest of lawful occupants. (c) The following shall be prima facie evidence that a unit is being used as resort housing: (1) Advertising a unit as being available for rental for periods of less than four consecutive weeks. (2) Recording or filing land use covenants, condominium declarations, cooperative documents, public offering statements, or other legal documents which sanction authorize, or approve rental or occupancy of a unit for periods of less than four consecutive weeks. (3) ' Creation of timeshare estates for periods of less than four consecutive weeks. Source: Sanibel (FL) Municipal Code Visitor -Oriented Commercial Assuring that retail uses are primarily oriented to serve resort visitor needs was a major issue in reviewing an MPR development at the gateway of Mt. Rainier National Park in Pierce County. The proposed MPR consisted of approximately 700 accommodation units, a conference center and a championship golf course. A 50,000 square foot retail center (initially proposed to be 70,000 square feet) was proposed for a site alongside the highway edge of the development. A staff report recommended relocating the retail center to be more convenient to and integrated with resort accommodation areas. An interior retail center site would be less likely to draw people passing by on the highway. The staff report also recommended significantly reducing retail center square footage to 5,000 square feet, based in part on the developer's own traffic study, which indicated that 94 percent of the trips to the center would be from outside the resort. The study indicated that the retail center, as proposed, would generate significant additional traffic in the vicinity of the resort (Booth, Barber and Risvold, 2000). In the final conditions of approval, the county compromised by requiring a more central location for the center and permitting a 20,000 square foot retail center. The county also kept open the possibility of up to 15,000 additional square feet, if the developer could convincingly demonstrate the need for additional visitor services (Causseaux, 2001). t4 Master Planned Helortl 'Wat*qto1QXe" Policy and Standard Examples for Visitor- Oriented Commercial Limitations Below are several examples of comprehensive plan policies and development standards to assure that commercial development serves primarily visitor needs. Pierce and Douglas counties illustrate somewhat different approaches to limiting the size and visibility of commercial development: Pierce County, WA MPR Commercial Limitations No sign, display or other exterior indications of the MPR's commercial uses shall be visible from an adjacent property. Retail and service establishments, other than eating and drinking establishments, shall be no greater than 5,000 square feet. Source: Pierce County (WA) Code 18A.75.080(H)(4) Douglas County, WA MPR Commercial Standards D. Commercial. Commercial retail and services provided as part of the MPR shall be located within the interior of the development (see subsection (B)(1) of this section) and shall not exceed eight percent of the developed land use in the MPR. Commercial retail and services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. Construction of commercial retail uses and services shall occur in equal proportions and at a rate that can be substantiated by recreation and visitor accommodations of the MPR. Source: Douglas County WA Code §18.74.070 Clark County, WA adds standards aimed at reducing automotive trips: Clark County, WA Standards for Visitor -Oriented Commercial in MPRs Commercial uses and activities within the MPR should be limited in size to serve the customers within the MPR and located within the project to minimize the automotive convenience trips for people using the facilities; Source: Clark County (WA) 20-Year Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, Revised 1997, Policy 4.1.46) Matter Planned Hetom 'Alarhillpflflyie" zS Deschutes County, OR specifically includes limits on cultural and entertainment uses and identifies dimensions and scale as concerns: Deschutes County, OR MPR Commercial Limitations Q. Commercial, cultural, entertainment or accessory uses provided as part of the destination resort will be contained within the development and will not be oriented to public highways adjacent to the property. Commercial, cultural and entertainment uses allowed within the destination resort will be incidental to the resort itself. As such, these ancillary uses will be permitted only at a scale suited to serve visitors to the resort. The commercial uses permitted in the destination resort will be limited in type, location, number, dimensions and scale (both individually and cumulatively) to that necessary to serve the needs of resort visitors. A commercial use is necessary to serve the needs of visitors if: 1. Its primary purpose is to provide goods or services that are typically provided to overnight or other short-term visitors to the resort, or the use is necessary for operation, maintenance or promotion of the destination resort; and 2. The use is oriented to the resort and is located away from or screened from highways or other major through roadways. Source: Deschutes County (OR) Code 18.113.060(Q) (omprehensive Plan Guiding Policies The GMA specifies findings (criteria) that must be met before a county may authorize master planned resorts. Topping that list is the requirement that a county's comprehensive plan "specifically identifies policies to guide the development of master planned resorts" (RCW 36.70A.360(4)(a)). Guiding policies should be carefully constructed to ensure that any MPR development approved is a net benefit to the county. MPRs are a more intensive form of development than surrounding rural uses. Increased visitors may bring wanted dollars to the rural economy, but they also can overwhelm existing infrastructure and rural character. Plan policies can help guide the scale and character of MPR development to ensure that increased visitors to the rural areas do not translate into traffic levels, noise and other impacts that interfere with farm operations, enjoyment of low -density residential areas and other rural activities. Because MPRs, by definition, are located in areas with unique natural amenities, much is at stake. Careful planning is required to ensure that the development does not destroy or diminish enjoyment of the natural features by rural residents and visitors alike. Local comprehensive plan policies can be tailored to ensure that MPR development is sensitive to the specific county conditions and priorities. Plan policies signal the county's expectations for MPR development. They provide greater predictability for resort developers and neighboring property owners about what development can occur. They allow a common understanding about what is desirable and acceptable. Clark County, WA has adopted comprehensive plan policies that augment GMA criteria and that emphasize the county's specific concerns: z6 Master Planned Reorts WahilgollfiXe" Clark County, WA Guiding Policies for MPR Development 4.1.4 Master Planned Resorts (MPR) may be approved in an area outside of established Urban Growth Boundaries providing they meet the following criteria: a. The land proposed is better suited and has more long-term importance for a Master Planned Resort than the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as a forest or agricultural resource; b. the location, design, and provision of necessary utilities does not allow for the development of new urban or suburban land uses in the immediate vicinity; c. the proposed site includes unique natural amenities, such as views, streams, lakes or other features that provides a natural attraction for public use; d. the proposed development provides urban level public services that are strictly contained within the boundaries of the resort property by design and construction; e. the proposed site for the Master Planned Resort is sufficient in size and configuration to provide for a full range of resort facilities while maintaining adequate separation from any adjacent rural or resource land uses; f. residential uses are designed primarily for short-term or seasonal use, full time residential uses should be limited; g. the major recreational facilities within the Master Planned Resort must be open to the public and the overall facilities and recreational activities should promote tourism and the recreational goals of the comprehensive plan; h. each proposal should include a full inventory of critical wildlife habitat, significant wetlands, shorelines and floodplains, and cultural resources; i. significant natural and cultural features of the site should be preserved and enhanced to the greatest degree possible; j. commercial uses and activities within the MPR should be limited in size to serve the customers within the MPR and located within the project to minimize the automotive convenience trips for people using the facilities; and k. adequate emergency services must be available to the area to insure the health and safety of people using or likely to use the facility. Source: Sec. 4.1.4, Ch. 4, Rural & Natural Resources Element, Clark County 20-Year Comprehensive Growth Management Plan Spokane County has very similar draft comprehensive plan policies but limits full-time residences to employee housing and adds the following guideline: Preservation of wildlife corridors and open space networks should be integral to the site design. Source: RL. S. 7(7) Chapter 3 —Rural Land Use, Recommended Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Infrastructure Impacts Mitigated A county must find that "on -site and off -site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated, before authorizing an MPR" (RCW 36.70A.360(4)(e)). MPRs cater primarily to visitors rather Master Planned Resorts %whigmlilty/e" 27 than permanent residents. As a result, costs for MPR facilities should be borne by the development and should not create significant new costs for taxpayers. Increased demands resulting from MPR development on existing community infrastructure and services should be mitigated. If MPRs are truly self-contained, impacts on neighboring uses and facilities should be minimal. Even so, a large-scale MPR development located in a rural area can generate significant traffic on surrounding rural roads, as well as demands on utilities, public safety services, and other infrastructure and services. The House Bill Report on ESHB 2596 emphasized the importance of fully considering and mitigating on -site and off -site infrastructure impacts before approving a proposed MPR. That bill allows MPRs to use outside service providers for capital facilities, services and utilities (including those related to sewer, water, storm water, security, fire suppression and emergency medical services), provided that any shared facilities may serve only the master planned development and urban growth areas. The report notes that counties must determine that on -site and off -site service impacts are fully considered and mitigated, in addition to infrastructure impacts. The statute does not limit consideration and mitigation only to impacts occurring within the county. A Washington Supreme Court case would seem to support this interpretation. Although addressing a planned development rather than specifically a master planned resort, the Court held that a jurisdiction needs to analyze and mitigate any transportation and other impacts of a zoning action on neighboring jurisdictions (SAVE v. Bothell, 89 WN 2nd 862, 576 P. 2nd 401 (1978). Aspen, CO has along history of dealing with the impacts of major resort developments. For example, Aspen has actively pursued measures to prevent increased traffic congestion on its streets and the highways serving the city. The city is reacting to congestion generated in large part by resort development. Many employees commute to resort jobs in the Aspen vicinity from residences in surrounding cities and counties, some of which are 40 miles or more away. The city has successfully met a goal to prevent an increase in level of traffic over a bridge, which is a major entrance to the city, beyond the 1993 traffic level, despite steady growth. When the Highlands Ski Area, located in the county less than two miles from the city, was redeveloped, the city sought conditions to mitigate resort -related traffic. The resort was required to contribute a bus and associated maintenance fees to the city's existing bus system. The resort was also required to provide bus passes to employees. The resort also has its own shuttle bus for airport pick-ups and other visitor needs. (There is also a free countywide shuttle bus that serves visiting skiers.) As a result of Aspen's transportation management programs, Aspen's bus system enjoys the second highest ridership in the state of Colorado, second only to the city of Denver. Similarly, Okanogan County, WA requires that resort developments provide public transportation proposals that "satisfy public transportation demands generated by the planned destination resort" (Okanogan County Municipal Code § 17.20.030(F). Resorts can impact the county and surrounding jurisdictions in less obvious ways. For instance, calls for police, fire, medical and other emergency services can increase, impacting both the county and surrounding cities having mutual aid agreements with the county. Conditions of approval, such as the examples below, should be considered to address the variety of off -site impacts on public services and facilities. 28 Master Planned Resorts WaNytoflJoe" Examples of Requirementsfor On -site and Off -Site Mitigation The following regulations were drafted for Chelan County, WA to address infrastructure needs: Chelan County Draft Infrastructure Requirements • All required public improvements including roads, utilities and public facilities that are part of the approved site plan and narrative, shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the building official or installation guaranteed by the posting of performance bonds or other surety acceptable to the prosecuting attorney in an amount of one hundred fifty (150) percent of the estimated cost of the outstanding improvements, except that all life/safety improvements must be installed and in operation prior to occupancy. • Community sewer, water, security and fire protection may be provided on -site and sized to meet only the needs of the development. Existing public service purveyors may provide services as long as the costs related to service extensions and any capacity increases generated by the development are born by the development and such extensions do not promote sprawl or urban level of development adjacent to the MPR. An MPR that adjoins, or is in part within, an organized fire protection and/or hospital district shall seek annexation of the entire MPR site into said districts. Source: Chelan County Code, Draft Sec. 11.89.050 (8 & 10) Matter Planned Room 'Wifftrolik /e" tq Pierce County imposed the following conditions of approval (among others) to address off -site impacts related to an MPR at the entrance to Mt. Rainier: Pierce County Conditions to Address Off -Site Impacts • The applicant shall contribute the appropriate impact fee for each non -excluded dwelling unit to the Eatonvlle School District per Pierce County requirements. • The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Fire District concerning the fair share contribution the Applicant shall make to the costs associated with the added facilities, equipment and staffing. This agreement shall be submitted to the Pierce County Planning and Land Services Department prior to issuance of the first building permit for the resort. • The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Pierce County Sheriff's Department concerning the fair share contribution the Applicant shall make to the costs associated with the added facilities, equipment and staffing. This agreement shall be submitted to the Pierce County Planning and Land Services Department prior to issuance of the first building permit for the resort. • Additional reviews for Phases Two through Five shall include additional analysis ofrecreational impacts to off -site areas and whether on -site recreational amenities are sufficient. The additional review should determine what impacts have occurred from the previous phase as a guide in determining whether mitigation should be provided to (Mount Rainier National Park) MRNP, Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), etc., for the next phase. Impacts may not exist. (Casseaux, 2001) Deschutes County, OR adopted particularly comprehensive approval criteria to assure long term operation and maintenance of facilities and services. These findings are contained in Appendix A. (See particularly criteria F through R.) A large and complex MPR development can add substantially to the work load of county staff, particularly in a small rural county. Significant staff time and often specialized expertise from outside the county may be required during the development review process, construction and follow-up monitoring stages. Kittitas County adopted conditions requiring developer funding of development review costs, as presented below. In addition, the developer signed an agreement with the county to cover added professional, staff and consultant services related to the proposed MPR. The agreement is contained in Appendix B. 30 Master Planned Resorts 'wOV17lly/c" Kittitas County (WA) Requirements Covering Development Review Costs C-10 County Review Costs. All County Public, Works Department costs for labor, equipment, materials and overhead, including any costs associated with additional staff and/or outside consultants (including development review, in-house design, construction inspection, etc.,) shall be included in determining the total cost of the particular improvement. These costs shall either be paid 100% by the applicant, if related to the improvements for which the applicant is fully responsible or paid by the County and the applicant based on the proportionate shares of the improvement determined as described in Condition C-6. The County Public Works department shall, for each improvement, provide the applicant with information that identifies the expected hourly rates and other costs that are anticipated for the particular improvement as part of the Department's comments on the particular site development plan or preliminary plat application. Source: Kittitas County Ordinance No. 2000-I S A Roslyn, Washington -based citizen's group negotiated a settlement agreement with Trendwest Resorts to resolve litigation related to the proposed MountainStar Resort. The citizen's group was concerned about a number of potential impacts on the city of Roslyn including increased water demand and reduced in -stream flows. Appendix C contains excerpts from the "Settlement Agreement Regarding MountainStar Master Planned Resort," § 1.5.3 Water Demand. The agreement places fairly stringent requirements on the MPR developer, and is included here mainly to illustrate some of the types of complex water rights/demand issues that could arise related to a large MPR development. Developed On -Site Recreational Facilities A resort's outstanding recreational facilities are the key to attracting the visitors who will stay at the resort. To meet the GMA definition of master planned resort, the MPR must feature "a range of developed on -site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities" (RCW 36.70A.360(1). Most often, a resort will feature a major recreational attraction, such as a championship golf course or destination ski area. Washington has potential for resorts centered on water -related attractions, and careful market analysis may reveal other viable recreational niches and opportunities in Washington communities. Investment in recreational facilities is so central to a resort's success, that the state of Oregon requires that a minimum of $2.3 million in resort accommodations and facilities be invested in recreation facilities for a large destination resort (at least 160 acres). Oregon requires a smaller minimum investment of approximately $670,000 in recreation facilities for small destination resorts (which are at least 20 acres and offer less varied recreation facilities). Although Washington statutes do not require a minimum investment, local jurisdictions should determine that investment in recreational facilities is sufficient to ensure the success of the resort and to meet the needs of resort visitors. The recreation facilities that are the focus of the resort should be in place during the early stages of development, or their completion should be guaranteed. Every phase of development should have sufficient recreation facilities to meet visitors' needs. Master Planned Relortt Wahillplijoe" 31 Douglas County, OR provides an example of a minimum investment requirement for large destination resorts: Douglas County, OR Minimum Investment Requirement for Large Destination Resorts Minimum Investment: At least seven million dollars shall be spent on improvements for on -site developed recreational facilities and visitor -oriented accommodations exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and roads except that any application submitted prior to the November 1995 amendments to this subsection shall be subject to the previous minimum investment standard. Not less than one-third of this amount shall be spent on developed recreational facilities. Recreational facilities and other day facilities intended to serve a particular phase shall be constructed prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed through performance bonding mechanisms specified in Section 3.50.200 of this Article. Source: Douglas County Land Use and Development Ordinance §3.50.050(6) Jackson, WY requires each phase of MPR development to have a proportionate share of recreation facilities: Jackson, WY Recreation Facility Requirement for Phased MPR Development Relationship of phasing to overall resort plan. Phasing shall implement the stated purpose of the Planned Resort master plan, i.e., if a destination ski area is the basis for the resort plan, the ski area facilities should not be the last increment of development. Similarly, open space dedications, amenities, and required performances that mitigate the impacts of the resort shall be developed or provided in proportion to the type and amount of development in each phase. Source: Town of Jackson (WY) Land Development Regulations, Article 11, Division 2500, Sec. 2550(K)(4) (ritical Areas Protection Washington local governments are required to adopt "critical areas" regulations to designate and protect environmentally sensitive areas. Critical areas regulations protect wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas (susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake or other geological events). Washington local governments also adopt shoreline master plans and regulations that should address many concerns related to resorts located near water features. SEPA review, often triggering the need for environmental impact statements (EISs), will be required for MPR developments, and small-scale recreational and tourist uses. Because MPRs are located in settings of "significant natural amenities," careful environmental review will be especially important. Applications for MPR development should be reviewed for compliance with critical areas and shoreline regulations. Two types of environmental concerns related to typical resort settings are given special attention in their own sections of this guidebook — wildfire hazard and wildlife habitat protection. The Open Space and View Protection section addresses some issues often facing mountain resorts (and other resorts) including ridge -top 32 Master Planned Ren MOV1QYle" or other highly visible development. Some jurisdictions will be concerned with unique environmental concerns. For instance, Pierce County adopted special conditions for an MPR development partially located in a volcanic hazard area. In addition, some types of resort developments, including golf course, shoreline, and mountain resort developments, present unique environmental concerns. Examples of special provisions to address such resort developments will be briefly discussed below. A number of Washington communities have included a general finding or standard in their MPR requirements as a reminder that MPRs must comply with critical areas regulations. For instance, Douglas County, WA has adopted the following standard: Douglas County, WA Critical Areas and Resource Lands Protection Requirement J. Resource Lands and Critical Areas. The proposed MPR shall identify and mitigate impacts to resource lands and critical areas pursuant to DCC Title 19 and other applicable provisions of the DCC. Development located within or adjacent to these areas shall be evaluated for impacts and may be limited in intensity, location and/or prohibited if found to measurably degrade the integrity of resource lands and critical areas. Source: Douglas County Code, §17.74.070(J) Special Environmental Concerns Related to Golf Courses Golf courses are increasingly a component of the recreational package offered by a destination resort, even when not the primary recreational .attraction. Many resorts that focused exclusively on ski recreation have added golf to create four -season appeal. For other resorts, such as Pebble Beach, in Carmel, CA, a world - class golf course is the principal attraction, enhanced by an oceanfront setting. Because 50-59 year -olds have the highest golf participation rate, interest in golf can be expected to grow as baby boomers age. While the real estate industry grew at an average annual rate of 2 to 3 percent during much of the 1990's, the golf resort master planned community segment grew at a 9 percent average annual rate during that period (Kaufman and Perino in Lohmann, 1997). Some traditional golf course development practices have drawn fire from environmentalists. Chief environmental concerns with golf course development have included: 1 Extensive earth -moving, sculpting and alteration of natural terrain and water courses; 1 Displacement of previous uses or important ecological functions, such as agricultural operations, wildlife habitat or wetlands; 1 Extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides that contaminate soil or water and harm plant, fish and wildlife; 1 Erosion and runoff, particularly when water contains chemicals; and 1 Excessive consumption of water, particularly to meet the water requirements of non-native turf grasses. (Smart, Spencer, Calvo and Peacock, 1993) Although these practices continue to varying degrees at some golf courses, others are moving toward more environmentally friendly practices. MPR developers should have a particular interest in preserving an Master Planned Resorts '7✓arhir,�tonity/e" 33 environment that is a key ingredient in attracting visitors. A new breed of golf courses has demonstrated that sensitivity to local conditions and context can address many environmental concerns and capitalize on the uniqueness of a site without sacrificing the bottom line. For instance, the renowned Pebble Beach Resort, which until recently required 800 acre-feet annually to irrigate the course, has switched to treated effluent supplied by the city of Carmel. The Coors Brewing Company, which owns the Applewood Golf Course, has found that addressing threats to the environment can serve its own interests. The company has discontinued use of chemicals on the golf course that could threaten the aquifer, since water from the aquifer is used to make the company's beer. Golf course development has been used to rehabilitate degraded sites, such as quarries and mines (Salvesen,1996). Appendix D contains "Environmental Principles for Golf in the United States." This document was developed through a collaborative effort that involved the golf course development industry, environmental groups and designers. It is endorsed by most participants in the process, including some of the environmental groups (several of the participants declined to endorse the guidelines which do not address all of their concerns). It provides a checklist of issues and many useful guidelines, even if there was not consensus on all issues. Many local jurisdictions have adopted regulations and/or permit conditions to limit application of insecticides, fertilizers and other chemicals, to reduce water consumption, to control golf course runoff, and to address other environmental concerns such as those noted above. Both Pierce County and Kittitas County, WA have adopted a number of conditions in approving master planned resorts that address golf course environmental issues. The Kittitas County conditions focus on protecting water quality from contamination: Kittitas County Conditions of Approval related to MountainStar MPR Golf Course B-14 Concurrent with submittal of an application for any site development plan that includes a golf course, the applicant shall prepare and submit for the County's review and approval, a golf course management plan that addresses protection of water quality. The plan shall include provisions regarding proposed design for fairways, greens, tees and water bodies, to ensure appropriate drainage and infiltration; integrated pest management (IPM), to reduce use of pesticides; computer controlled irrigation, to reduce water consumption; storage and handling of all chemical substances, consistent with applicable state and federal requirements; a discussion of the toxicity, mobility, persistence and risk associated with use of proposed pesticides, fertilizers, fungicides and other applications; and drainage controls andfacilities, to ensure appropriate collection, treatment and release of golf course runoff. Standards shall be as specified in the Development Agreement. The storage of all hazardous materials shall follow the same guidelines as prescribed by the latest codes and regulations from various agencies. The focus on the golf course chemicals shall be part of a total plan for use, containment and disposal of all hazardous materials during construction and operation of the MPR. All chemicals on site will require MSDS sheets at site and construction main office for use in emergency situations. B-15 All golf course fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers shall be stored in an enclosure with a closed sump to prevent chemical release. Mixing areas for golf course chemicals shall be enclosed with concrete curbs or other means for spill containment and a closed sump or collection point. B-16 The applicant shall prepare a golfcourse spill prevention and accidental spill response plan consistent with Department of Ecology requirements. Following approval by Ecology, a copy of the plan shall be submitted to Kittitas County. Source: Kittitas County Ordinance No. 2000-1 S Approving Trendwest MountainStar Resort 34 Matter Planned Resorts 'Xfhigta f#fe" Pierce County has adopted a number of conditions to ensure separation of the potable water supply from irrigation system water. Reclaimed water that flows into the irrigation system from the golf course will undoubtedly contain chemicals and other pollutants that would threaten safe drinking water. In addition to these conditions, Pierce County has adopted conditions regulating stormwater management practices and requiring water quality monitoring. Pierce County Conditions Re: Golf Course Irrigation for Mt. Rainier Resort at Park Junction 63. The golf course irrigation supply system shall be separated from the potable water supply to avoid the possibility of cross connections between the potable and reclaimed water systems. 64. All pipes carrying reclaimed water shall be colored purple for easy identification. 65. All reclaimed valves and outlets shall have special fittings so that only authorized personnel can access them. 66. All reclaimed water storage facilities, outlets, and valves shall be labeled to warn the public and employees that this water is not suitable far drinking. 67. Hose bibs shall not be provided on the reclaimed waterlines except as approved by WDOE and DOH. 68. Signs shall be placed around the playing fields and at wetponds around the golf course informing visitors of the use of reclaimed water. 69. A Best Management Practices manual and an Integrated Pest Management plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Pierce County Planning and Land Services Department prior to construction of the golf course. These plans shall specify the application details for pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and any other chemical that will be applied to the golf course. 70. The irrigation system shall be designed and operated to prevent runoff of reclaimed water from the designated playing fields areas. 71. The irrigation system shall be monitored to prevent over -application of irrigation water. 72. Drainage from the irrigated areas shall be directed into on -site sumps or wetponds through design of the grading plan. 73. All wetponds and ornamental ponds on the golf course shall be lined to prevent leakage of water into the underlying groundwater. 74. The amount of nitrogen in the reclaimed water shall be monitored. The application rate of nitrogen fertilizers shall be adjusted according to the quantity ofnitrates applied in the irrigation water and matched to the uptake rate of the turf. 75. The concentration of nitrates shall be diluted in the reclaimed water through supplementation with groundwater as necessary. Source: Causseaux, 2001 Environmental Issues Commonly Faced in Mountain Resort Development Several Washington ski resorts, such as Crystal Mountain and Snoqualmie Summit, have proposed major expansions of lifts, terrain and base facilities. Okanogan County, WA has seen proposals for new resorts in mountainous areas. Mountain resort development typically requires addressing a number of environmental challenges. Critical areas regulations should cover many of these environmental concerns, including steep slope conditions, and landside and erosion hazards. Mukilteo, WA's "Critical Slope Area Regulations" exemplify regulations adopted to minimize hazards to development associated with steep slopes, which can occur in the form of shoreline bluffs as well as mountain slopes (see Appendix E). In addition, SEPA review, Malter Planned RCSOM 'Xfhi1P17f2yic" 35 including an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be required for a larger destination resort and some small-scale recreational or tourist uses. Even so, a number of other environmental issues not typically addressed by a critical areas ordinance may emerge for such resort developments. Examples include air quality problems, snow storage and avalanche hazards. Fireplaces and wood -burning stoves are commonplace (almost expected) features in resort housing, particularly in snow country. As units multiply, the burning of wood or other solid fuels can have serious consequences for the air quality in the resort vicinity. Some resort communities have adopted restrictions to prevent unhealthful wood -smoke smog from descending over valleys, degrading air quality, and obscuring views. Summit County, CO approved the Copper Mountain Resort PUD with the following standards to restrict fireplaces: Copper Mountain, CO Fireplace Restrictions 12. Air Quality A. Gas fueled fireplaces are encouraged for use in all fireplace, stove, and fire pit applications. B. Sold fuel burning devices are only permitted in the following applications: The lobby or common area of mixed use, multi -family, or lodge buildings (1 per building). Restaurant ovens (shall be submitted for review by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment and submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division for an Air Pollution Emissions Notice) C. Solid fuel burning devices are prohibited in all one -family and multi -family dwellings. Current dwellings that have solid fuel burning devices (fireplaces) are legal, grandfathered, non -conforming land uses. D. All solid fuel burning devices shall meet or exceed the County requirements and be EPA certified. E. Fire pits are permitted in outdoor areas associated with Copper Station, Base One, West Lake, and Umon Creek (1 per area). F. All new construction shall use best management practices for controlling dust. G. Open burning of slash requires a burning permit. H. Trash incinerators are prohibited. I. If the County adopts a county -wide air quality -monitoring program, the Owner/Developer will cooperate in the program as it relates to the Copper Mountain Sub Basin for all new projects from the time of adoption of this program. Source: Summit County, CO, 1999 Resorts in mountain country will need to deal with snow storage issues. Snow that is removed from parking areas and roads may contain salts, sand and pollutants, with implications for water quality. Summit County, CO placed the following requirements on the Copper Mountain resort to address snow storage: 36 Master Planned Resom %jfhi4p1Q,,#e" Copper Mountain, CO Snow Storage Requirements 20. Snow Storage A. Within each project for which a site plan application is submitted, snow storage areas shall be provided within the project area (as such project area is defined by the Development Parcel or lot (the "Project Area")) on snow storage areas adjacent to paved areas and other areas to be plowed, except as otherwise permitted in accordance with the other provisions of this Subsection B.20. The size of these snow storage areas shall be equivalent to at least 25% of paved or graveled surfaces on the Project Area, and shall be located adjacent to paved or graveled areas to provide convenient access for snowplows. Uphill slopes of 5-10% shall count at 75% of their areas towards this requirement. Uphill slopes of 11-20% shall count at 50% of their area. Steep uphill slopes greater than 20% © are not appropriate for snow stacking, and shall not be counted in determining compliance with snow storage requirements. The area of snow stored on downhill slopes shall be evaluated in the development review process. B. Where on -site snow -melting systems are installed, the area served by the system may be deducted from the paved area estimate (for the purpose of determining snow storage requirements). Homeowner association documents or other agreements or instruments must identify the party responsible for operation and maintenance of snow melt systems. If operation of the snow melt system is terminated the association (or other party responsible for the operation and maintenance thereof) trust provide alternate snow removal plans subject to approval of the County. C. It is recognized that the more intense urban village areas in the Village Center and East Village Neighborhoods may not be able to accommodate on site snow storage in certain areas. In these cases, snow may be: (i) transported to snow storage areas described generally on Exhibit J attached hereto, (ii) transported to an approved snow melting facility, or (iii) removed through snow -melt systems integrated into the project site development. D. Snow storage areas or snow melting facilities shall be subject to a site plan review by the Planning Commission. In addition to the site plan criteria from the Code other site suitability issues, including compatibility with adjacent land uses, location and visual impacts, shall be considered. Construction of snow melting facilities shall comply with the commercial and industrial design standards of the Code. E. When practicable, snow storage is not allowed on or within 25 feet of jurisdictional wetlands. Where snow storage areas have to be adjacent to wetlands, adequate measures shall be taken to protect wetlands from salt and sand intrusion including, as determined by the Owner/Developer and the County, placement of hay bales or filter fabric, detention ponds and similar measures. F. Design of snow storage treatment facilities for off -site snow storage facilities shall be in accordance with the following: • Maintain existing peak flow rates for storms up to and including the 25-year, 24- hour rainfall event, in combination with amelt rate from the snow stockpile oft inches in 24 hours. • Sites with favorable infiltration rates are encouraged. • Minimize run-off by diverting such drainage around snow storage piles if possible. • Vegetate the storage areas with species appropriate to the site conditions. • Discharges shall be non -erosive and/or measures shall be taken to protect receiving channels. • Good site access for trash removal and periodic maintenance. Source: Summit County, CO, 1999 Master Planned Resom %'fhirlgtollltXe" 37 Resort developments in snow country may be exposed to avalanche hazard in addition to other geological hazards. Telluride has adopted the following standards: Telluride, CO Avalanche Area Standards Section 8-512 Avalanche Areas The following regulations apply in avalanche areas: 8-520.A. Site Location and Design. The applicant shall show that the proposed development is either located in a site free from avalanche danger or is adequately protected by avalanche defenses or structural provisions. 8-520.B. Access. No development shall be accessible only by crossing dangerous active avalanche paths. 8-520.C. Removal of Vegetation. The development shall not result in timber clear cutting or other large-scale removal of vegetation in avalanche hazard areas. Alteration of plant cover which would decrease the stabilizing effect shall be prohibited, especially on slopes above the proposed development. Where any alteration of vegetation cover is allowed, revegetation shall be initiated promptly and provisions ensuring seedling protection, including an acceptable irrigation plan, shall be enforced until seedlings are large enough to stabilize the snow cover. 8-520.D. Extractive Operations. Extractive operations shall not be conducted in historic or high - hazard avalanche areas during winter without an adequate program of avalanche control and defense measures. 8-520.E. Utilities. Utility lines or pipes crossing historic avalanche areas shall be buried underground, and surface pipes and poles or towers for suspended transmission lines in historic avalanche areas shall be adequately protected by avalanche diversion or direct -protection structures. 8-520.F. Roads for Winter Use. Roads intended for winter use shall avoid avalanche hazard areas. 8-520.G. Temporary or Seasonal Uses. Building restrictions may be modified for construction of underground utilities such as water reservoirs or for temporary buildings used only in non - avalanche season and either removed or protected in the winter. 8-520.11. Warning Signs. Warning signs of avalanche danger shall be placed along roads and trails that are commonly traveled in winter where they cross avalanche paths characterized by high frequency of activity. 8-520.1. Artificial Release. Artificial release of avalanche by explosive control or artillery shall not be considered an acceptable mitigation technique for areas of potential human occupancy. Note: Although similar guidelines may be useful for Northwest development, snow and avalanche conditions in the Northwest differ from those in Colorado. Different practices may be required, for instance, for the protection of utilities from wet snow or slab avalanches. Source: Telluride Land Use Code, Article 8 Division 5, Part IV Environmental Issues Commonly Faced in Shoreline MPRs Resorts located in shoreline areas present multiple environmental concerns. Resorts may raise water quality issues related to potential water pollution from package sewage treatment plants, surface water runoff (especially if fertilizers and insecticides arc used) boat holding tanks related to marinas and other sources. Destruction of habitat, including wetlands, riparian lands, and shellfish beds, may be a concern particularly following recent ESA listings for several types of salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Beach erosion, sand dune encroachment, landslides on bluffs and coastal hazards, such as storm winds, flooding, or even tsunamis 38 Master Planned Resorts ';Vafbir, N1Q,,#e" may be issues. Resorts located on bodies of water may be highly visible for great distances, without careful siting and design controls. Motorized boats and personal water craft (jet skis) operated in some resort areas are raising water pollution, noise, and use conflict issues. A number of examples of local jurisdiction shoreline and ESA -related regulations are available on MRSC's web site at: http://www.mrsc-org/subject/enviromnent/shorelin.aspx http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/enviromTlent/esa/esa-docs.aspx San Juan County, WA specifically requires public shoreline access for MPR development: Shoreline Access - San Juan County, WA • Access to Shorelines Common Easements. An MPR adjacent to water and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program shall dedicate public access to the shoreline area as required by the Shoreline Master Program in Chapter 18.50 Suggestions for Addressing Other Common Concerns As mentioned earlier, RCW 36.70A.360 contains the basic requirements that must be met prior to MPR approval. In addition, there are a number of concerns common to many resort developments because of their typically sensitive locations. The following sections discuss some additional concerns that counties should consider addressing in their MPR requirements. Examples of policies and regulations that address such concerns from other communities are also presented. Wildlife Habitat and (orridors (or Room to Roam) Most local jurisdictions have adopted development regulations to designate and protect critical areas, including fish and wildlife conservation areas, in response to Growth Management Act requirements. Despite these steps, the recent listing of several species of salmon, steelhead, and bull trout as endangered or threatened species has galvanized renewed concern about protecting valued fish and wildlife resources. The salmon listings follow in the wake of "an unprecedented spasm of species extinction and biodiversity loss," particularly in states with high population growth (Beatley, 2000). Now Washington is facing the prospect that salmon — a beloved symbol of the bountiful resources in the Pacific Northwest - could be lost without adequate protection measures. In response to the listings, local governments must develop programs and regulations that protect listed species and promote recovery. The challenge will be to adopt measures that permit reasonable and necessary economic pursuits befitting rural areas while providing real protection for wildlife. Any type of development could potentially displace wildlife habitat and disrupt wildlife movement. Because master planned resorts must be located outside of urban areas and in "settings of significant natural amenities," they may be particularly likely to impact wildlife habitat and migration corridors. They are frequently located near national parks, shorelines, rivers, riparian lands and other open space lands that may be home to a diversity of wildlife. MPR developments also are typically large in area and involve more intensive development than surrounding rural and resource areas. As a result, local jurisdictions should be alert to potential impacts on wildlife in considering appropriate resort siting and development. Protection measures will be more effective and less costly to implement if they are in place before extensive project planning is underway. There is an added economic incentive for resorts that plan for wildlife preservation. Wildlife can be a major attraction and economic boon to resort areas. Visitors to resorts in the Yellowstone/Jackson Hole areas of Wyoming have long been enchanted by wildlife viewing opportunities. Traffic comes quickly to a stand -still in Yellowstone when a moose or bear puts in an appearance! Early risers at Sun Mountain Resort in Deschutes County, OR may awaken to bird songs and be rewarded with a glimpse of deer or coyotes from a condominium deck. Some resorts directly cater to fishing, hunting, or other wildlife -based activities. Others may capitalize on the attraction of wildlife by offering nature walks, guided whale or bird watching activities, or similar opportunities, in addition to recreation facilities. Whether or not such activities are offered, resort visitors will likely appreciate a chance encounter with wildlife - a special experience not readily available in a more urban living environment. Destruction of habitat (whether by land development, land clearing, agricultural or forestry activities, human presence or other cause) has become the most significant threat to species survival (Beatley, 2000). Buildings, roads, fences, culverts, and other obstructions to wildlife movement similarly threaten species that must range for food and other needs to survive (Duerksen, Elliot, Hobbs, Johnson & Miller, 1997). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife provides this explanation of the importance of habitat: 40 Maiter Planned Resorts '7✓jf*gta1#e" "`Habitat' is what plants and animals call `home.' Habitat for a particular plant or animal consists of the elements it needs to survive. These elements may be tied to temperature, water, soil, sunlight, source of food, refuge from predators, place to reproduce, and other living and non -living factors... Salmon recovery projects, bald eagle protection activities, mule deer enhancement programs, and other similar management actions are, at their core, based on habitat considerations. Habitat is the key to fish and wildlife management" lhttp://www.wa.gov/wdfw/habitat.htm) . Different species have different minimum habitat or home range size requirements, which also vary in size depending on the quality of the habitat. All species must travel to some extent within their home range, to meet basic life needs. "Home range" defines the amount of space an animal requires in a particular location to meet these basic needs, such as foraging for food and water, escaping predators and finding shelter (Peck, 1998). Many larger mammals, especially predators, must range over extensive areas to meet these daily needs. They are particularly quick to disappear when habitat is fragmented by development (Schwab, 1994). In addition, some species, including elk and deer, migrate with the changing seasons to breeding grounds or to follow seasonal food supply. These species usually travel along predictable routes or corridors, which again can be easily disrupted by development (Peck, 1998). Corridors that link open space areas are an important key to providing adequate range area for wildlife. Severed corridors have obvious, immediate consequences when species are cut off from food supplies. In addition, wildlife that is isolated and cut off from a larger range and pool of wildlife likely will weaken and decline over time with increased inbreeding and greater susceptibility to predation (Schwab, 1994). It is particularly critical to preserve a corridor when a resort lies in the path of a "gap" between parks, forests, and other pockets of protected areas that are home to wildlife. For instance, state and federal wildlife experts and conservation groups in Colorado opposed a proposal by Keystone Real Estate Development because of the potential impact on threatened lynx. U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologists described the corridor as the "last connecting sliver of forest" in a "nearly solid east -west wall of development" impeding wildlife movement in Summit County (Berwyn, 2001). The King County, WA design standards that follow on page 42 provide a good example of standards that promote linkage of habitat areas and open spaces. Buffer Zone V i X rh: L Buffer Zone Biosphere Reserve Design: Core areas of secure habitat are connected by movement corridors. Buffer zones around the core allow some compatible human development. Source: American Wildlands http://www.wildlands.orglcorridorlreserver.html Development can also disrupt the balance of species. For instance, if larger predators disappear, the uncontrolled smaller predators might decimate a nesting bird population. Some types of species that adapt Master Planned Resorts XjfhAW#fty/e" 41 well to human presence, such as squirrels or raccoons, often predominate in developed areas. An "alien" species (not native to an area) that is accidentally or purposely introduced to an area by people can edge out other species and reduce the diversity of species (Schwab, 1994). For instance, wildlife officials are now on alert to prevent introduction of the Mitten Crab (a stow -away transported on ships from Asia) to the Northwest. This crab has devastated stream ecosystems and threatened native fish in the San Francisco Bay area (Powell, 2002). Similarly, uncontrolled dogs or other pets may chase or otherwise disrupt wildlife. Wildlife will be best served if wildlife protection strategies are incorporated into both comprehensive/area- wide planning and site planning for individual resorts. An American Planning Association report recommends that the following principles guide planning at "the landscape scale:" 1. Maintain large, intact patches of native vegetation by preventing fragmentation of those patches by development 2. Establish priorities for species protection and protect habitats that (support) those species 3. Protect rare landscape elements (such as wetlands, riparian zones, cliffs and old growth forest, especially those that support rare species). Guide development towards areas of landscape containing "common" features 4. Maintain connections among wildlife habitats by identifying and protecting corridors for movement. (identify "stepping stone" patches of vegetation that bridge gaps between the large intact patches, especially natural corridors such as river/riparian corridors) 5. Maintain significant ecological processes (such as fires and floods) in protected areas 6. Contribute to the regional significance of rare species by protecting some of their habitat locally 7. Balance the opportunity for recreation by the public with the needs of wildlife The same report recommends these principles for conservation at the site planning and review stage: 1. Maintain buffers between areas dominated by human activities and core areas of wildlife habitat 2. Facilitate wildlife movement across areas dominated by human activities (connect open spaces in the development to other open spaces; minimize or design fencing to avoid obstruction to wildlife movement; locate roads away from corridors or provide alternatives for crossing busy roads...) 3. Minimize human contact with large native predators (prevent wildlife from associating food with people — control pets, garbage, food for domestic animals) 4. Control numbers of midsize predators, such as some pets and other species associated with human - dominated areas 5. Mimic features of the natural local landscape in developed areas (for instance, use native vegetation) (Duerksen, Elliot, Hobbs, Johnson & Miller, 1997) 4z Master Planned Resom XMi4ofl lyie" King County has adopted these development standards for protecting wildlife corridors: King County Wildlife Habitat and Corridor Standards 21A.14.270 Wildlife habitat corridors - Design standards. Corridor design shall be reviewed by the department for consistency with the following standards: A. The wildlife habitat corridor shall be sited on the property in order to meet the following conditions: 1. Forms one contiguous tract that enters and exits the property at the points the designated wildlife habitat network crosses the property boundary; 2. Maintains a width, wherever possible, of 300 feet. The network width shall not be less than 150 feet wide at any point; 3. Be contiguous with and may include sensitive area tracts and their buffers; and B. When feasible, the wildlife habitat corridor shall be sited on the property in order to meet the followingconditions: 1. Connect isolated sensitive areas or habitat; and 2. Connect with wildlife habitat` corridors, open space tracts or wooded areas on adjacent properties, if present. C. The wildlife corridor tract shall be permanently marked consistent with the methods contained in K.C.C. 21A.24.160. Conservation easements are exempt from the permanent marking requirement. D. A management plan for the wildlife corridor contained within a tract or tracts shall be prepared which specifies the permissible extent of recreation, forestry or other uses compatible with preserving and enhancing the wildlife habitat value of the tract or tracts. The management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the department. The approved management plan for an urban planned development or subdivision shall be contained within and recorded with the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs). If the wildlife corridor is contained in a conservation easement, a management plan is not required, but may be submitted to the department for review and approval, and recorded with the conservation easement. E. Clearing within the wildlife corridor contained in a tract or tracts shall be limited to that allowed by the management plan. No clearing shall be allowed within a wildlife corridor contained within a conservation easement on individual lots, unless the property owner has an approved management plan. F. A homeowners association or other entity capable of long term maintenance and operation shall be established to monitor and assure compliance with the management plan. G. Wildlife corridors set aside in tracts or conservation easements shall meet the provisions in K.C.C. 16.82.150. H. The permanent open space tract containing the wildlife corridor may be credited toward the other applicable requirements such as surface water management and the recreation space requirement of K.C.C. 21A.14.180, provided the proposed uses within the tract are compatible with preserving and enhancing the wildlife habitat value. Restrictions on other uses within the wildlife corridor tract shall be clearly identified in the management plan. I. At the discretion of the director, these standards may be waived or reduced for public facilities such as schools, fire stations, parks, and public road projects. (Ord. 11621 § 53, 1994) Source: King County Code Master Planned Resorts Xafbi4oliftyle" 43 Multnomah County, OR has adopted fence design standards to allow the passage of wildlife: Multnomah County, OR Fence Design Standards New fences in deer and elk winter range (1) New fences in deer and elk winter range shall be allowed only when necessary to control livestock or exclude wildlife from specified areas, such as gardens or sensitive wildlife sites. The areas fenced shall be the minimum necessary to meet the immediate needs of the project applicant. (2) New and replacement fences that are allowed in winter range shall comply with the guidelines in Specifications for Structural Range Improvements (Sanderson, et. al. 1990), as summarized below, unless the applicant demonstrates the need for an alternative design: (a) To make it easier for deer to jump over the fence, the top wire shall not be more than 42 inches high. (b) The distance between the top two wires is critical for adult deer because their hind legs often become entangled between these wires. A gap of at least 10 inches shall be maintained between the top two wires to make it easier for deer to free themselves if they become entangled. (c) The bottom wire shall be at least 16 inches above the ground to allow fawns to crawl under the fence. It should consist of smooth wire because barbs often injure animals as they crawl under fences. (d) Stays, or braces placed between strands of wire, shall be positioned between fences posts where deer are most likely to cross. Stays create a more rigid fence, which allows deer a better chance to wiggle free if their hind legs become caught between the top two wires. (2) Woven wire fences may be authorized only when it is clearly demonstrated that such a fence is required to meet specific and immediate needs, such as controlling hogs and sheep. Source: Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area - Multnomah County (OR) Land Use Code §38.7065(F) 44 Master Planned Resorts %aflliVflAj1e" Larimer County, CO has adopted the following wildlife protection standards including pet control, refuse disposal and restrictions on exterior lighting: Larimer County, CO Wildlife Standards for Estes Valley G. Review Standards. The following review standards shall apply to all development applications as specified, unless Staff determines that a specific standard may be waived pursuant to subsection F.5. above. It is the intent of this Section that these standards be applied in a flexible fashion to protect wildlife habitat and wildlife species in a cost-effective fashion. L Review Standards. a. Buffers. All development shall provide a setback from any identified important wildlife habitat area, as specified by the Division of Wildlife, to the maximum extent feasible. b. Non -Native Vegetation. There shall be no introduction of plant species that are not on the approved landscaping list in Appendix C on any site containing any important wildlife habitat area. To the maximum extent feasible, existing herbaceous and woody cover on the site shall be maintained and removal of native vegetation shall be minimized. c. Fencing. ('1) No fencing on a site containing important wildlife habitat shall exceed forty (40) inches in height, except to the extent that such fencing is approved by Staff to confine permitted domestic animals or to protect permitted ornamental landscaping or gardens. (2) Fences higher than forty (40) inches may be allowed if adequate openings are provided for the passage of deer, elk or other identified wildlife. These openings shall be at least six (6) feet wide and spaced a maximum of fifty (50) feet apart along continuous fence lines exceeding this length. (3) No fencing using barbed wire shall be allowed. (4) The type of fencing (materials, opacity, etc.) shall be determined by Staff or the Decision -Making Body as appropriate for the wildlife species on the site based on advice from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. d. Exterior Lighting. Use of exterior lighting shall be minimized in areas of important wildlife habitat, and lighting shall be designed so that it does not spill over or onto such critical habitat. See also §7.9 below. e. Refuse Disposal. Developments on sites containing important wildlife habitat, such as black bear, must use approved animal -proof refuse disposal containers. £ Domestic Animals. Development applications for property that includes important wildlife habitat must include a plan with specified enforcement measures for the control of domestic animals and household pets. The plan must include provisions to prevent the harassment, disturbance and killing of wildlife and to prevent the destruction of important wildlife habitat. Note: Larimer County limits fence height to generally allow passage of wildlife between properties. However, high fences may be appropriate to prevent wildlife from crossing highways in unsafe areas, and to direct them to safer crossings, such as the wildlife underpasses used in Florida and on the Trans -Canadian Highway. Source: Chapter 7, §7.8(G)(1)Estes Valley Development Code, Larimer County, CO Master Planned Resorts '7✓Millpflf#fe" 45 See also Appendix F for the Pitkin County, CO wildlife habitat protection standards. Wildfire Prevention Wildfires have grabbed headlines in recent years as they threaten developments that have pushed up against remote forested lands. The first year of the millennium (if you believe that the year 2000 is the first year) proved to be the worst in 50 years for wildfires, with over 8 million acres burned (National Interagency Fire Center). That same year, wildfires captured public and Congressional attention, particularly as 47,000 acres burned out of control in Los Alamos County, threatening the Los Alamos National Laboratory for nuclear research (Webb and Carpenter, 2001). Closer to home, in 2001, four firefighters lost their lives battling a human -caused blaze in Okanogan County, WA. In 2002, massive fires threatened and destroyed homes in developments interfacing with forest lands in Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and other states. One Arizona fire burned approximately 468,000 acres and destroyed 467 homes (Klug, 2002). A fire in Oregon destroyed two homes and forced the evacuation of 5000 residents in the Black Butte Ranch Resort (Statesman Journal, 2002). Master planned resorts, which must locate in areas of "significant natural amenities," often seek sites near major national parks, recreation areas, national forest lands or other public lands. These lands are typically forested or otherwise heavily vegetated. Because people cause many wildfires, resorts located in close proximity to forests can increase the potential for wildfires. Wildfires occur naturally, without human presence, when started by lightening or other natural causes. They can be renewing for the forest, cleansing it of undergrowth, dead or diseased trees and debris. Fires also increase biodiversity as new species have the opportunity to grow. Human intervention alters these natural processes. Past suppression of fires has allowed debris (fuel) to build on the forest floor, which provides fodder for even larger fires, if they get out of control. When development interfaces with forested areas, the potential for expensive property damage and loss of life raises the stakes - it becomes difficult to allow the type of natural or prescribed (controlled) burns that cleanse the forests. Counties that permit MPRs have an interest in conserving forest resources and minimizing interference with forestry management and practices. At the same time, county officials will want to protect MPRs (and other development) from wildfire hazard. Careful siting of MPRs, regulations addressing activities, building materials, access, fire flows (water capacity available to suppress fires), and "defensible space" can do much to limit wildfire hazard and potential damage. Defensible space requirements are directed at keeping combustible materials (including the forest edge) away from homes/structures. Several fire codes prepared by international professional associations are specifically directed at reducing wildfire hazard and can provide a basis for local regulations. Yakima County, WA has adopted the Urban-Wildland Interface Code (with some amendments) that is published by the International Fire Code Institute, for instance. (Information about the International Fire Code Institute code is available at http://www.icbo.org/wsnsa.dll/prodshow.html?prodid=UWIS2K&statelnfo=dbcgjcicjGTjhbNc3 51115). Clark County, WA has incorporated the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) No. 299 — "Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire" into its code, and also mapped wildland urban interface/intermix areas where the standards will be applied. (Information about the NFPA code is available at http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product.asp?pid=29997&src=nfpa). 46 Master Planned Rem 'Wafhi4m#ft,*" ------- FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINES----�-�-----� rw 8, Trim branches i . Reduce den surround"%� '* I`*$ d. Clean root and gutters lg!r 2 1 ti`AIM to t. ThinThintree sttd -'- ....�•... -- 7. Prune btrttt tt brush cover 10 S. Maintain irrlgsted above the rou Aund I DI of slash �reerdsett 4. Stacie firewood sway and debris left S. Mow dry grosses from home from thinning and -e 3. Remove dead limbs, teeves and other litter Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency http: //Www.fema.govlregionslviiillivingwithfire.shtm Note that in other materials the Federal Emergency Management Agency recommends a greater separation of 100 feet between stacked firewood and a residence, preferably located uphill of the residence. FEMA's defensible space recommended practices may be found at (http://www.fema.gov/tnit/wfmit.htm). The Washington Department of Natural Resources (http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/rp/stewardship/bfsi) has an active backyard stewardship program and posts similar defensible space guidelines for homeowners on its web site. Appendix G presents the "Fire Siting Standards Covenant" for development in wildfire hazard areas used in Douglas County, OR. The covenants address water supply, road access, building materials and defensible space. Appendix H contains a comprehensive ordinance from Pitkin County, CO that addresses access, fire hazard reduction and building standards. Empioyee and affordable Housing Affordable housing is a problem common to many communities in the vicinity of major resorts. Len Harlig, a county commissioner at Blaine County, ID (home to Sun Valley Ski Resort) has been quoted as saying, "We have Rodeo Drive land prices and K-Mart wages here." The housing affordability problem that Harlig and Ketchum, ID Mayor Guy Coles face is "a problem that bedevils upscale ski resorts around the West: People can't afford to live where they work" (Jones, 2001). People in nearby communities that staff schools, hospitals, fire stations, government offices and businesses are among those finding it increasingly difficult to live near their work. Such communities often experience an influx of people attracted by resort job opportunities and/or recreational opportunities. Prospective resort employees may compete with local Matter Planned Rein '7✓afhi11p11f#fe" 47 residents for limited affordable housing, particularly if the resort is not providing housing for most of its employees. More affluent buyers, seeking to buy property near recreation facilities, have pushed up property values and housing costs in areas within driving distance of resorts. For example, the median price of a single-family home made news when it reached $1,846,217 in Aspen/Snowmass and $2,257,544 in Aspen in 1997. A condominium (median price) costs a mere $397,808 in Aspen that same year (Clarion Associates, 2000). The average price for a single-family house in Jackson, WY (near Jackson Hole and Snow King ski areas and Grand Teton National Park) is now $460,000, according to Jackson Senior Planner Tyler Sinclair (2002). When housing costs greatly outpace wages, some local workers will seek housing in more affordable outlying areas. The greater distances require longer commutes and contribute to greater traffic congestion. For instance, only 35 percent of the people who work in Vail live in Vail. Many are now commuting from towns such as Gypsum and Eagle, 30 to 45 miles away (Salvesen, 1998). Similarly, only 20 percent of those who work in Snowmass, CO live in Snowmass, and 35 percent of those who work in Aspen, CO live in Aspen. Many of Aspen's workers commute similar distances (Healthy Mountain Communities, 1998). As an alternative to a long commute, local workers may pay a painfully high percentage of what may be a modest income for housing. Unquestionably, these pressures on housing result from the combined attractions of these areas, especially in areas near popular national parks or recreation areas. Yet resorts that offer recreational facilities can be expected to contribute to upward pressures on housing costs. This is especially true when they offer recreational opportunities that attract more people than just those staying at the resort. In Washington, MPR development must include restrictions that prevent new urban and suburban development in the vicinity. Washington MPRs are to be self-contained, meeting most needs of resort visitors on site. Even so, a report prepared for San Juan County indicates that without proper planning, increasing housing costs could be on the horizon for the areas with significant natural amenities (Mann, 2000). Cities and towns, as well as unincorporated rural areas within striking distance of a resort, often experience increased housing demand. Affluent buyers in Aspen (Pitkin County, CO), Jackson Hole (Teton County, WY) and similar resort areas have not hesitated to buy larger rural -zoned parcels to be near high amenity areas. Although 20 and 40 acre parcels may be considered rural rather than suburban in size, the "ranchettes" and "martini farms" purchased by affluent buyers can still push up land costs. The affordability problem can be expected to grow, if not addressed up front. Julie Ann Woods, Aspen Planning Director, notes that, despite high average housing costs, Aspen had 2000 units of affordable housing (some affordable to low, moderate and middle income residents) out of 5000 units. She believes that if Aspen had not put its aggressive affordable housing programs in place in 1978, before housing prices skyrocketed, Aspen wouldn't have the affordable housing inventory the city has today (Woods, 2002). Aspen uses a multi -pronged approach to expand the employee and affordable housing stock. Commercial developments must provide housing for 60 percent of the employees the business will generate, generally on the same site as the business. In addition, 60 percent of the bedrooms in any residential subdivision approved under Aspen's growth management regulations must be in units that are restricted to affordable housing. Aspen has designated an "Affordable Housing Zone District" where a housing mix of 70 percent affordable housing to 30 percent free market units is required. Aspen also established a housing fund with revenues from a real estate transfer tax to directly provide affordable units (Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines). While these "inclusionary" percentage requirements may seem high, the extreme pressures on housing affordability in this resort community have made drastic measures necessary to attract employees. 48 Master Planned Resorts %jfhir�gtawfOt" The Town of Jackson, WY (home to Snow King Resort and a short distance from Jackson Hole Ski Resort) requires most non-residential development to provide employee housing according to a formula of expected employee generation. Rent may not exceed 30 percent of an employee's gross wages. The housing must be provided on -site, or within one-fourth mile of the development. Existing housing stock may not be used to meet the requirement. To address the more wide -spread affordability problem, Jackson requires that 15 percent of all residential development consist of affordable housing. (The number of occupants of affordable units must be 15 percent of the total occupants of the development.) However, according to Jackson planner Tyler Sinclair, the requirement is not enough to provide affordable housing demand related to each individual development, let alone affordable housing to meet the backlog of demand (Sinclair, 2002). The private, nonprofit Jackson Hole Community Housing Trust also constructs and sells affordable housing but retains ownership of the land. Buyers sign a 99-year ground lease, (acceptable to lenders) and the Trust writes down the price of the land when the house is sold. The Trust retains first right of refusal to control resale price rather than relying on a deed restriction (Salvesen, 1998). (See Appendix I for Jackson Employee Housing Standards, including amount of employee housing required by type of land use.) Summit County, CO is home to Arapaho Basin, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain and Keystone ski resorts. Summit County requires that ski areas provide for employee housing as stated in the planned unit development approval for the particular resort. As an example, the Copper Mountain PUD was approved with the requirement that the resort provide employee housing for 40 percent of the number of its basic employees and 60 percent of the number of its seasonal employees during the peak season (Copper Mountain Planned Unit Development Designation, 1993). Kittitas County, WA is requiring that the Trendwest MountainStar Resort developers prepare semi-annual housing monitoring reports to consider housing vacancy rates, housing costs, land availability and other housing and demographic information. The resort owners must directly provide housing to mitigate impacts related to the resort development, to the extent that the private market is not providing it. The following conditions describe the resort's obligations to provide such housing: Master Planned Resorts 'WJ014 11flYle" 49 Kittitas County Housing Conditions C-60 Housing Production. To the extent that such housing is not produced in a timely manner by private housing developers, and using the tools identified in Condition No. C-61, Trendwest shall directly provide, as necessary, the amount, type and cost of housing necessary to mitigate direct impacts associated with MPR operations and construction employment. If the supply of new housing, as identified in the monitoring program, lags behind anticipated need— as identified in the Final EIS, or in future adjustments of the data in the EIS - then the applicant shall develop, directly or through joint venture, or will cause to be developed, sufficient housing to meet the anticipated need. This housing may be provided on -site or off -site, as permitted by Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan policies. C-61 The applicant shall prepare and implement a program providing incentives designed to facilitate the planning, financing and development of housing to meet needs created by the MPR. The program shall be developed with input from the county and nearby cities, and shall be submitted to Kittitas County concurrent with submittal of an initial application for development of the MPR. The housing program shall consider and propose one or more ofthe following elements, as necessary to meet demand: (a) low interest loans to employees (subject to credit and employment criteria), guarantees of leases for an agreed -upon percentage of multi -family units built by local developers, and land subordination for construction loans obtained by local builders; (b) financial and other support for ongoing planning in local jurisdictions to encourage sufficient, well -planned and designed housing, including support for design guidelines for new housing that is consistent with local character. (c) identification of sites on the MPR property that could be used on an interim basis for RV units for construction workers. Such area(s) shall be adequately separated and screened from adjacent neighborhoods. (d) master leasing of existing local RV spaces for MPR construction workers; (e) issuance of requests for proposals (RFPs) to builders offering incentives (such as construction loan guarantees, master lease agreements for blocks of units and/or participation in land purchases); (f) preparation and dissemination of market studies, to help identify the market for local housing production; (g) creation of a centralized clearinghouse of information about land supply and demand in the local area, local permitting requirements and similar information. (h) appointment of a housing coordinator/manager, to provide housing information to employees and coordinate housing programs with local governments, builders, non-profit organizations and financial institutions. The housing coordinator/manager could also coordinate with the Kittitas County Action Council and Kittitas County Housing Authority to support below -market -rate housing programs and explore the availability of subsidies for low income housing. Source: Kittitas County Ordinance 2000-1 S, Exhibit D So Master Planned Resn 'Xfh1qrx#e" Open Space and Scenic View Protection If resorts are to "match the grandeur of their settings," resort developers must begin by taking careful stock of the area's special attractions and character. They must then develop in a manner that blends with and showcases the special setting, rather than disrupting the very features that attract visitors to the area. Although a resort may provide world class recreational facilities, its unique setting and matching character is what sets it apart from other resorts with quality facilities. Resorts that work against their setting by siting jarring development along highly visible ridges or by blocking water views risk diminishing their potential appeal. In reviewing a proposed resort, local officials should evaluate how well the resort incorporates local character and capitalizes on its setting. A good fit between a resort and its setting will be an important determinant in the resort's ultimate success and its benefit to the community. A number of communities encourage clustered development and require significant blocks of open space to enhance resort development. For instance, Pierce County requires that 30 percent of an MPR site be retained in open space, with 50 percent of that area left in passive open space. Douglas County, WA requires a minimum of 40 percent open space and Okanogan County, WA requires their destination resorts to maintain a minimum of 60 percent of the resort site in open space. The value of open spaces can be greatly enhanced by connecting them into larger systems of open space. The King County wildlife habitat corridor standards described in the wildlife section of this publication illustrate standards that encourage linkage of individual habitat areas and open spaces. Other communities have adopted view protection measures to preserve views of area -defining natural features and landmarks. Vail, CO precisely defines view corridors of regionally important features such as the Gore Range, ski slopes, and the town center's clock tower. Structures constructed within these corridors may not obstruct views of these features along such corridors. Some codes focus on protecting views seen from important public viewpoints or scenic roads. Many other jurisdictions focus on design standards to assure that new resort development is visually subordinate to its natural setting. Landscaping and screening standards can also help to assure that resort structures and facilities do not overwhelm surrounding rural uses. Matter Planned Retom WaMbig mIlWe" 9 The following excerpts from the Douglas County Code (WA) address MPR cluster development and open spaces: Douglas County (WA) Clustering and Open Space Guidelines § 18.74.080 Design standards. A. An MPR shall seek to blend the site development and architecture with the natural character and features of the land, including topography, vegetation, geology, slope, soils, natural resource environment, and cultural/historic resources of the area. B. At least sixty percent of the developed portion of the MPR shall be designed in a manner which emphasizes cluster developments. Site design shall consider the location of productive agriculture resources and natural characteristics of the landscape. § 18.74.090 Preservation of common and private open space. A. All designated open space shall be preserved in perpetuity for that purpose established in this chapter. Appropriate land use restrictions shall be contained in all deeds to ensure that the open space is permanently preserved. The deed restrictions shall run with the land and be for the benefit of present as well as future property owners, and shall contain a prohibition against partition of open space for other uses not designated at initial MPR approval. No common open space may be altered or put to a change in use in a way inconsistent with this chapter or the final development plan unless the final development plan is first amended. No change of use or alteration shall be considered as a waiver of any covenants limiting the use of the common open space, and all rights to enhance these covenants against any use permitted are expressly reserved. B. Common Open Space. The developer shall choose one or a combination of the following methods of administering common open space: 1. An association of owners formed and continued for the purpose of maintaining the common open space. The association shall be created as an association of owners under the laws of the state and shall adopt articles of incorporation of association and bylaws. The association shall adopt in form acceptable to the prosecuting attorney, covenants and restrictions that ensure the preservation of the common open space and perpetual maintenance of all common open space; 2. A public agency which agrees to accept a dedication of and maintain the common open space and any buildings, structures, or other improvements which have been placed on it for the use and benefit of the general public; or 3. A private nonprofit conservation trust or similar entity with a demonstrated capability to carry out the necessary duties and approved by the director. Such an entity shall have the authority and responsibility for the maintenance and protection of the common open space and all improvements located in the open space. (Ord. TLS 97-10-71B Exh. F (part)) Kittitas County, WA adopted the following conditions in approving the MountainStar Resort application to assure that the development maintains open space values important to the county: ¢ Master Planned Resorts 'Xf&g&11RXe" Open Space Conditions for MountainStar Resort — Kittitas County, WA A4 Open space lands within the MPR shall at a minimum include the following identified in the MountainStar EIS: Natural and Managed Lands that are retained in a substantially undeveloped state, which may include forested lands that are managed for habitat (approximately 2,700 acres); Perimeter Buffers around the perimeter of the NOR site (approximately 250 acres); Internal Buffers within the MPR site (approximately 1,300 acres); and Golf Courses (approximately 300 acres). Open space lands shall be segregated from other lands and shall be subject to a deed restriction, conservation easement or other mechanism ensuring permanent maintenance as open space. Prior to approval of the first site development plan fora phase or subphase, the applicant shall create one or more legal entities (e.g., conservation trust, homeowners associations or Trendwest management entity) which shall be responsible for maintaining open space lands on the site for their intended purpose. A-5 Open space lands shall be managed to buffer sensitive environments from intensive development or activities; to retain and restore native plant communities and to maintain and enhance habitat; and, for developed areas, to provide an aesthetically pleasing landscape, provide habitat connections, and minimize risk of fire. To document and achieve these landscape planning objectives, Trendwest will finalize and submit to the County for approval the existing conceptual Land Stewardship Plan and a Noxious Weed Plan for the entire MPR site prior to any construction and/or land clearing activities for the first phase or subphase of MPR development. An amendment to the Land Stewardship Plan and Noxious Weed Plan shall be submitted to the County for approval with a general site plan or site development plan for any phase or subphase of MPR development if the general site plan or site development plan is inconsistent with such Land Stewardship Plan and/or Noxious Weed Plan. Such amendments shall demonstrate how the goals and policies of the Land Stewardship Plan and Noxious Weed Plan will be implemented for the developed area in the phase or subphase of MPR development covered in the general site plan or site development plan. The Land Stewardship Plan shall include and follow the Department ofNatural Resources Backyard Stewardship Program, (Eastern Washington Type) as a model of fire prevention in the interface as a proven working program. The contents of the plan shall be as described in Plants & Animals Conditions B-23 and B-29. -- A-6Open space lands shall be retained in a substantially undeveloped state. Development which may occur shall be limited to recreational trails, golf courses, roads and utility facilities required to meet the needs of the MPR. A-7 Lands within the geomorphic floodplain of the Cle Elum River shall remain undeveloped, except as provided herein, and shall protect the resources values and natural functions of the shoreline area. Clearing and disturbance shall be minimized. The following proposed activities may be permitted in the geomorphic floodplain, subject to submittal of appropriate development applications: non - motorized pervious trails, utilities, including a water intake, and a bridge and associated roads spanning the Cle Elum River. Additional recreational facilities beyond those identified in the Final EIS, if any, shall be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program and other applicable regulations. Appropriate environmental review, or confirmation that adequate environmental analysis is contained in the MountainStar EIS, shall be conducted for any facilities located within the floodplain and all necessary permits will be obtained by the applicant. Source: Exhibit A, Kittitas County (WA) Ordinance No. 2000-1 S Master Planned Ran '7✓afhAW1IfIY1e" 53 Multnomah County, OR has identified key viewing areas within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and applies development guidelines to preserve views from these viewpoints. Multnomah County, OR Scenic Area Guidelines §11.15.3816 SMA Scenic Review Criteria The following scenic review standards shall apply to all Review Uses in the Special Management Area of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area with the exception of rehabilitation or modification of historic structures eligible or on the National Register of Historic Places when such modification is in compliance with the national register of historic places guidelines: A. All Uses Under Prescribed Conditions and Conditional Uses: 1: Proposed developments shall not protrude above the line of a bluff, cliff, or skyline as seen from Key Viewing Area. 2. Size, scale, shape, color, texture, siting, height, building materials, lighting, or other features of a proposed structure shall be visually subordinate in the landscape and have low contrast in the landscape. 3. Colors shall be used in a manner so that developments are visually subordinate to the natural and cultural patterns in the landscape setting. Colors for structures and signs should be slightly darker than the surrounding background. 4. Structure height shall remain below the average tree canopy height of the natural vegetation adjacent to the structure, except if it has been demonstrated that compliance with this standard is not feasible considering the function of the structure. 5. Proposed developments or land use shall be aligned, designed and sited to fit the natural topography and to take advantage of vegetation and land form screening, and to minimize visible grading or other modifications of landforms, vegetation cover, and natural characteristics. 6. Any exterior lighting shall be sited, limited in intensity, shielded or hooded in a manner that prevents lights from being highly visible from Key Viewing Areas and from noticeably contrasting with the surrounding landscape setting except for road lighting necessary for safety purposes. 7. Seasonal lighting displays shall be permitted on a temporary basis, not to exceed three months duration. 8. Reflectivity of structures and site improvements shall be minimized. 9. Right-of-way vegetation shall be managed to minimize visual impact of clearing and other vegetation removal as seen from Key Viewing Areas. Roadside vegetation management should enhance views out from the highway (vista clearing, planting, etc.). 10. Encourage existing and require new road maintenance warehouse and stockpile areas to be screened from view from Key Viewing Areas. Source: Multnomah County (OR) Zoning Code S4 Matter Planned Rem VW1,Wta0,#e" San Miguel County, CO applies these design guidelines within its scenic areas. Similar guidelines could readily serve to guide resort development in scenic settings: San Miguel County, CO Scenic Foreground Overlay and Scenic View Plane District Standards 5-316 C. Development Standards Subject to Planning Commission Review Development within the SFO and SVP Zone District shall generally comply with the standards in this Section and shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission. Compliance with every standard is not required, but developments shall comply with the cumulative intent of these standards: 1, Utilize existing topography such as dry ridges and hills to screen buildings to the maximum extent possible from the State or County road system H. Design developments to complement the natural topography of the land, whenever possible and appropriate. Ill. Utilize innovative architectural techniques such as earth sheltered design and clustering of structures in the least visible portion of the site. IV. Design structure height and bulk to avoid to the maximum extent possible visibility from the State and County road systems. V. Avoid locating uses on the highest ground or most visible sites from the State and County road systems. VI. Locate development outside of the SFO and/or SVP Zone District, or on a suitable site with the least possible visual impact on the State and County road systems. VII. Avoid development within wetland and wildlife habitat areas. VIII. Shield exterior lighting to prevent direct visibility of light bulbs from offsite. All exterior lighting shall be directed toward either the ground or the surface of a building. High -intensity sodium-vapor and similar lighting shall be prohibited; IX. Utilize landforms and earth moving to complement and enhance development rather than as primary devices for screening development from the State and County road systems. X. Cluster development outside the SFO and/or SVP Zone District to minimize visual impacts. Source: San Miguel County (CO) Land Use Code Buffers Resorts are essentially enclaves of more intensive development in the midst of lower intensity rural areas. Because resort activities and uses are so different from typical rural activities and uses, compatibility issues need to be addressed. Resort short-term accommodations are generally higher density with greater turnover than other rural development. Resorts typically include lodging, recreation facilities, conference facilities, and retail and other commercial services that generate traffic, noise, human presence and other impacts. These impacts potentially can disrupt peaceful rural living or resource operations. Conversely, some nearby rural residential areas may interrupt scenic vistas. Also, the sights, smells and sounds of adjacent farms and forestry operations may be distasteful to resort guests. If the conflicts between uses can not be adequately addressed on a given site, a new location may be the best answer. However, because master planned resorts ideally involve clustered development on large sites, the opportunity exists to buffer resort uses and activities from surrounding uses. Critical areas may also need to be buffered from human intrusion. Structures, other improvements and activities can be sited and designed to minimize conflicts between rural and resort uses. Setbacks or other treatment at the resort's perimeter can Master Planned Nen 'Y✓NS11 tofty/e" SS be particularly important in addressing conflicts. Vegetation, berms, and natural features can aid the effort to create a visual and physical separation. The following arc examples of MPR buffer requirements. Douglas County, WA requires a substantial perimeter buffer, but builds some flexibility into its code: Douglas County, WA Setback and Buffer Requirements B. Yard, Setback, Lot and Width Requirements. The minimum lot area, yards and setbacks, lot width, building heights and road standards otherwise applying to the underlying zoning district may be modified from the standards of the underlying zoning district, provided: 1. All buildings or structures shall have a minimum yard area and setback of one thousand feet from the perimeter boundary of the MPR or shall be physically and visually separated from external roads, except as follows: a. This provision shall not apply when an MPR is adjacent to a shoreline or other significant, internal recreation amenity of the resort, or b. Substantial separation is achieved by natural features, elevation or topographical differences and other physical separation, as approved by the review authority. G. Transition Buffer. A buffer shall be required when the MPR has greater density and/or intensity than that allowed in an adjacent zoning district and/or is located adjacent to an agricultural district and/or critical area. A combination of additional landscaping, fencing, increased setbacks or other alternatives which mitigate impacts to adjacent properties may be required. Source: Douglas County Code §18.74.070(B) & (G) 56 Matter Planned Resort %arbi rollWe" Deschutes County, OR specifies different setbacks from the exterior MPR boundary related to the intensity of the use: Deschutes County, OR MPR Perimeter Setbacks 2. Exterior setbacks. a. Except as otherwise specified herein, all development (including structures, site -obscuring fences of over three feet in height and changes to the natural topography of the land) shall be setback from exterior property lines as follows: i. Three hundred fifty feet for commercial development including all associated parking areas; ii. Two hundred fifty feet for multi -family developmentand visitor -oriented accommodations (except for single-family residences) including all associated parking areas; iii. One hundred fifty feet for above -grade development other than that listed in DCC 18. 1 13.060(G)(2)(a)(i) and (ii); iv. One hundred feet for roads; v. Fifty feet for golf courses; and vi. Fifty feet for jogging trails and bike paths where they abut private developed lots and no setback for where they abut public roads and public lands. b. Notwithstanding DCC 18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(iii) above -grade development other than that listed in DCC 18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(i) and (ii) shall be set back 250 feet in circumstances where state highways coincide with exterior property lines. c. The setbacks of DCC 18.113.060 shall not apply to entry roadways and signs. Source: Deschutes County (OR) Code §18.113.060(G)(2) San Juan County uses a performance standard approach: San Juan County (WA) MPR Buffers 11. Open space and landscaped areas shall be designed as an integrated part of the MPR rather than as an isolated element. A landscaping plan shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of and incorporating the development standards of SJCC 18.60.160. A visual buffer shall be established along the perimeter, appropriate to the project, if required by the administrator. All significant trees within the project area and its buffer areas shall be retained whenever feasible. 13. MPR parking shall be screened from view from public rights -of -way. Source: San Juan County (WA) §19.60.190 (A)(11) & (13) Master Planned Resorts 'w'010011*e" 51 Jefferson County, WA has specified special buffer requirements between new development in the existing Port Ludlow MPR and adjacent commercial forest districts: MPRiResource Lands Buffers in Jefferson County Section 3.106 Commercial Forest Land Buffers: New developments on property located adjacent to lands designated Commercial Forest are subject to the requirements of the County's Forest Lands Ordinance No. 01-0121-97. Section 7.20(l) of the Forest Lands Ordinance allows modification of the standard 250' setback from adjacent commercial forest lands. Within the MPR-SF zone, the following limitations shall apply to any agreement to modify the standard buffer or setback requirement for development adjacent to Commercial Forest land. I. An average setback of at least 200' shall be maintained 2. Critical areas and critical area setbacks or buffers shall not be included in the calculation or areas used to establish the 200' average setback distance. 3. A minimum setback of 150' shall be maintained. 4. Natural vegetation and forested areas shall be maintained in a native state, but may be managed to ensure healthy reforestation and avoid hazards to life or property. 5. The boundaries of the buffer or setback area shall be visibly marked during and following development. 6. When established through a platting process, the buffer or setback area shall be designated on the face of the plat as a separate open space tract. 3.108 Conceptual Site Plan Requirement: Prior to preliminary plat approval in the south area designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as requiring a "conceptual site plan," a plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development showing a concept for development of the entire south area. The conceptual site plan shall illustrate at least one development option for the entire south area and shall at a minimum address required buffers, road layout, and potential phasing. Source: Jefferson County Ordinance No. 08-1004-1999 Light Trespass and Sky Glow One of the potential rewards of leaving the city behind for a more natural setting is the opportunity to gaze at an intensely star -lit night sky. Many of us have fond memories of evenings we spent scrutinizing the sky for falling stars or constellations. In many of the places we live, we can no longer view the full wonder of the night sky because of excessive, competing light radiating from developed areas. Some of us also have observed the startling glow of a distance city from a remote, high viewpoint at night. This "sky glow both washes out our view of the stars and diminishes our enjoyment of a natural setting. In recent years, many communities have begun to adopt ordinances to address sky glow in addition to light trespass beyond property boundaries. The original impetus of these ordinances came from amateur and professional sky watchers. The best of these ordinances continue to recognize the need for adequate lighting for visibility and security. However, the new emphasis is to direct lighting to illuminate only what needs to be seen rather than spread pools of light above and beyond the site. These ordinances also seek to eliminate the undesirable side effects of poorly designed lighting. In addition to the sky glow effect, intense, poorly directed lighting creates glare, which hampers vision. Also, the light shining into a neighbor's window can interfere with a good night's rest. Poorly designed lighting also wastes energy and money. For instance, much of the lighting directed upward onto a billboard will spill beyond the sign into the sky. Instead, a lesser amount of 58 Master Planned Ren %whi mliftyie" downward -directed light can do the same job, with less spillover effect, and often less energy use. Lighting manufacturers now offer a variety of "full cut off' or "partially shielded" lighting fixtures that direct light where it is needed while preventing light spillover. Resorts can benefit from the ambiance of well -designed lighting and can preserve the enjoyment of a starry sky from the resort and surrounding natural areas. Definitions for the special terminology used in these examples can be found in the Ketchum, ID "Dark Sky Ordinance" in Appendix J. Pierce County adopted the following condition in its approval of the Park Junction Master Planned Resort: Pierce County Outdoor Lighting Standards for Park Junction Master Planned Resort On -site lighting shall be oriented in a manner that will minimize glare and does not extend off -site. All lights more than 7 feet above the ground shall be cut-off or downward directional lighting. Lighting shall illuminate large areas with multiple, low -intensity light sources rather than single, high -intensity light sources. Light standards visible from SR706 shall be ornamental pole lamps that approximate the Upper Nisqually Valley's historical character and shall not exceed a height of 16 feet. Lighting of the golf course is not allowed. Street lights along SR 706 are not allowed. Redmond, WA has adopted the following site lighting standards: Redmond, WA Outdoor Lighting Standards 20D.40.25-060Site Lighting. (1) Intent. (a) To minimize the impacts of lighting on night skies throughout the City; (b) To reduce the general illumination of the sky in Redmond's residential neighborhoods, in the Sammamish and Bear Creek Valleys; and over Lake Sammamish; (c) To reduce horizontal light glare and vertical light trespass from a development site onto adjacent residential and commercial development and onto natural features and sensitive areas; (d) To encourage the use of lighting in conjunction with other security methods to increase site safety; (e) Lighting should not be used to market or advertise. Lighting may be used to enhance building, landscaping, or site elements. (2) Design Criteria. (a) Site lighting should not trespass onto adjacent uses, particularly residential uses. (b) Lighting should be provided at consistent levels with gradual transition to unlit areas. Avoid creating highly contrasting pools of light and dark areas which can be temporarily blinding. (c) Design lighting to enable users to identify a face 15 yards away, in order to reduce anonymity and to give the pedestrian the opportunity to choose another route. (d) Use pedestrian -scaled lighting where there is pedestrian activity. (e) Parking lot light fixtures shall be non -glare and mounted no more than 25 feet above the ground to minimize the impact onto adjacent properties. All fixtures over 15 feet in height shall be fitted with a full cut-off shield. (f) All building lights shall be directed onto the building itself or the ground immediately adjacent to it. The light emissions should not be visible above the roofline of the building. (Ord. 1993) Source: Redmond Community Development Guide Master Planned Resorts 'Wafhi11r#11f#Ye" Sq Site Lighting Criteria (2)(a), (2)(c) and (2)(f) of this section. Lighting should be sufficient for security and identification without allowing light trespass onto adjacent sites. Source: Redmond Community Development Guide Jackson, WY in general requires "total (full) cut off' light fixtures for outdoor lighting but has adopted the following standards for special lighting situations such as ball fields: Jackson WY Lighting Requirements for Recreational Facilities with Limited Hours of Operation B. Exempt uses. Because ball diamonds, playing fields, outdoor rinks, ski areas, tennis courts, and some commercial developments such as gas stations have unique requirements for nighttime visibility and may have limited hours of operation, they shall be exempted from the exterior lighting standards of Section 49370.A.1, Total Cut -Off Luminaires and Fixtures, if the following standards are met: 1. Complies with requirements. The proposed development meets all other requirements of these Land Development Regulations and the applicable standards as contained in the current edition of Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Lighting Handbook, as determined by the Planning Director. The Planning Director or applicant may refer detailed lighting plans for compliance with these provisions to the Town Council. (Ord. 623 § 1, 1999). 2. Do not exceed maximum height. Exterior light sources do not exceed a maximum post height of forty (40) feet, unless an alternative height is approved via issuance of a Conditional use permit pursuant to Section 5140, Conditional and Special Use. 3. Luminaire shielded. If the luminaire is shielded in either its orientation or by landscaping to prevent light and glare spill -over to adjacent residential property, then the luminaire may exceed a total cut-off angle of ninety (90) degrees. The maximum permitted illumination at the nearest interior setback line for a principal residential structure shall not exceed one and one half (1.50) footcandles. Source: Jackson Land Development Regulations, Article IV, Section 49370(B) 6o Master Planned Resorts %whi4tollWe" Appendix J contains a good example of a comprehensive "Dark Sky Ordinance" from Ketchum, ID. EXAMPLES OF SOME COMMON LIGHTING FIXTURES POOR GOOD i R k A � � Yr a 4MFlK.+w f k d*j* ba L` NJLa ht; ,It Fb«�wt�,{� G�wq Prxxta,ty�e fanny (mare f}uai i,�Joiaa�aaas! tt�nayxlm��GT+� �l Source: New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG) and the International Dark -Sky Association, May 1995 Small -Scale Recreational or Tourist Uses A county may choose to allow small-scale recreational or tourist uses (SSRTs) that rely on a rural location and setting, within rural areas. Many of the considerations, criteria and regulatory examples described in previous sections are relevant to small scale recreational and tourist uses. The Growth Management Act (GMA) provides only very general direction on how such uses should be controlled, if permitted in rural areas. Local jurisdictions are left with considerable flexibility for how these uses are regulated in rural areas. Small -Scale Recreational or Tourist Uses are not Just Mini-MPRs Small-scale recreational or tourist uses generally will involve a more limited investment and a smaller scale of development on an individual parcel. They are not intended to be mini-MPRs, but will more likely focus on offering one or several activities rather than a broad range of activities or services. They may be a "Ma & Pa" type operation, but they still must provide access to a high -quality recreational opportunity to be successful. They can include commercial but not permanent residential uses. Washington has numerous examples of rural -based, small-scale recreational or tourist uses. The Washington State Department of Community Trade & Economic Development offers some examples of such uses. Examples of the intensification of development on lots containing small-scale recreational or tourist uses that depend on a rural location and setting might include: 1 Adding a restaurant to an herb farm and nursery; 1 Building a club house for a golf course, but no residences (arguably may not be dependent on a rural setting); 1 Operating a bed and breakfast in a farmhouse; or 1 Converting a barn into an antique shop. Examples of new development of small-scale recreational or tourist uses that depend on a rural location and setting might include: 1 River rafting is a small-scale recreational business that may be appropriate in rural areas; 1 Overnight camping facilities; 1 Overnight accommodations (in addition to campgrounds) that are rural in scale, such as cabins and cottages; 1 River access and associated activities, such as swimming, boating, windsurfing, fishing, and picnicking; 1 Guided river rafting; 1 Cross-country ski rentals in nearby foothills; and 1 Commercial uses (such as restaurants) if they are part of the recreational or tourist use. 61 Master Planned Resorts 'WarhiV1i#e" (Source: Keeping the Rural Vision: Protecting Rural Character & Planning of Rural Development, CTED, 1999) GMA and Growth Management Nearing Board Direction for 55P SSRTs are one of the categories of limited areas of more intensive development (LAMIRD) allowed as an exception within rural areas as provided in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii). Such development may involve: 1) intensification of development on lots already containing SSRTs; and/or 2) creation of limited new SSRT development. The SSRTs may include commercial development to serve recreational or tourist uses, but may not contain new residential development. (This does not appear to exclude overnight lodging or short term visitor accommodations.) Public services and facilities must be limited to those needed to serve the SSRT and must be provided in a manner that does not permit low -density sprawl. Unlike other rural uses, SSRTs need not be designed to serve only rural residents but instead are intended to cater to tourist and recreational demand. A county may only permit those small-scale recreational or tourist uses that rely on a rural location and setting within its rural areas. Although several growth management hearings board cases address limited areas of more intensive rural development, only a few address SSRT issues. A Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board case offers some insights into the interpretation of RCW 37.70A.070(5)(d)(ii): (City ofAnacortes v. Skagit County, WWGMHB Case No. 00-2-0049c, Final Decision and Order, (February 6, 2001). While some of the other types of limited areas of more intensive rural development are to be contained by designating "logical outer boundaries" of existing development, the SSRTs are "defined and bounded by (the) lots" on which the approved development already exists or where new development is permitted. The Western Washington Board also noted that SSRTs are subject to the general rural element requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a), (b), and (c) and to GMA definitions in RCW 36.70A.030(14) (regarding "rural character") and (15) (regarding "rural development'). Of particular interest, a county allowing SSRTs must adopt measures: 1. Containing or otherwise controlling (in this case, more intensive) rural development; 2. Ensuring visual compatibility of (more intensive) rural development with the surrounding rural area; 3. Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development in the rural area; 4. Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW 36.70A.060, and surface and ground water resources; and; 5. Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. The Western Board suggests that SSRTs and other LAMIRDs should not destroy the overall rural character of surrounding rural areas. Recreational/Tourist uses in rural areas should not dominate the rural landscape. Instead, they should be of compatible scale and incorporate elements of rural character or otherwise achieve compatibility with neighboring rural uses. Rural character is defined in RCW 36.70A.030(14), as follows: 14. 'Rural character" refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: (a) In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment; Matter Planned Hetortt XIhiVWftXe" b; (b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural -based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas; (c) That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities; (d) That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; (e) That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low -density development; (f) That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and (g) That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and surface water recharge and discharge areas. The Western Board also notes that LAMIRDS, including small-scale resort developments, must be identified in the county's comprehensive plan rather than only at the interim urban growth area or development regulation stage (Smith v. Lewis, WWGMHB Case No. 98-2-001 lc, FDO, 4/5/99). As the terminology "small-scale" implies, SSRTs are considerably more limited developments than master planned resorts. Smith v. Lewis and other LAMIRD cases stress minimization and containment of LAMIRDs. The Eastern Board notes that areas of more intensive rural development are not "mini-UGAs" or a rural substitute for UGAs — again they must be minimized and contained (James A. Whitaker v. Grant County, EWGMHB Case No. 99-1-0016, FDO, 5/19/00; City of Moses Lake v. Grant County, EWGMHB Case No. 99-1-0016, Order on Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, 8/7/00). A number of other hearing board cases have suggested that LAMIRDs in general must be "minimized and contained." (See also Dawes v. Mason County; WWGMHB No. 96-2-0023, CO, 1/14/99). Many Considerations/Regulations Applicable to MPRs Also Apply to SSRTs As mentioned, many of the considerations, criteria and regulatory examples described in previous sections are relevant to small scale recreational and tourist uses when adjusted for the smaller scale of SSRTs. Most of the considerations in deciding whether to permit SSRTs are similar to the considerations important in deciding whether an MPR should be allowed. County decision -makers should be satisfied that the SSRT will be a clear benefit to the county, compatible with county goals for rural areas and an economically viable project. The sections of this guidebook related to mitigating on- and off -site infrastructure impacts are also relevant to SSRTs. Measures to limit wildfire hazard and control sky glow and light trespass apply equally to MPRs and SSRTs,- although again on a smaller scale. Similar to MRPs, SSRTs should not be located so as to impact critical areas, disrupt wildlife corridors or interrupt important rural open spaces and views from public places. SSRTs should also be sited and/or designed to assure that they do not interfere with neighboring rural and resource uses. Examples of SSRT Guiding Policy and Regulation Jefferson County, WA has adopted useful goals and policies to guide and contain SSRT development found in Appendix K. 64 Master Planned Ren XfhiVflWe" Josephine County, OR has adopted the following siting requirements for "recreation resorts" (smaller than MPRs, but somewhat different from SSRTs): Josephine County, OR Siting Requirements for Recreation Resorts and for Campgrounds, RV Parks & Lodges 97.040 - SITING REQUIREMENTS (Recreation Resorts) A. Structures and high intensityrecreational facilities shall not be located less than 200 feet from any exterior lot line. B. The character of the neighborhood shall be maintained through site buffering or other methods to keep the appearance, of the Recreation Resort compatible with uses in the neighborhood. C. Any change of use of facilities or construction ofadditional facilities shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission in the same manner as the original development. 98.020 - SITING STANDARDS (Campgrounds, RV Parks &Lodges) Campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, lodges and conference grounds shall demonstrate the development meets all of the following special siting requirements: A. The development shall not be located within or adjacent to any area identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Josephine County as a natural area or potential research natural area where the development would result in damage or overuse of the natural area; B. The development shall not be located in or adjacent to an area of known valuable mineral deposits where the development would restrict development of the mineral resource, unless the area has been withdrawn from mineral entry; C. The development site is not suited for continued resource management, and that the proposed development is compatible with adjacent resource uses; D. The development meets the public recreation needs and tourism needs identified by the Josephine County Comprehensive Plan; E. The development abuts a maintained state or county road. The proposal may abut a federal road where the applicant has proof of a long-term access agreement for the proposed use from the appropriate federal agency. Source: Josephine County Rural Development Code Conclusion Many of the resource -based industries that have traditionally provided jobs and income to rural residents have cut jobs or closed up shop altogether. Concerned county officials are under pressure to attract substitute sources of income, employment and tax base to revive their communities. In response to these needs, the legislature amended the Growth Management Act in 1997 to offer greater flexibility for new uses, services, and economic opportunities in rural areas. Master planned resorts and small-scale recreational or tourist uses are among the new uses that counties may choose to permit within rural areas. Many of Washington's rural areas. offer magnificent scenic settings and natural amenities with potential to attract tourists and recreational enthusiasts. Master planned resorts and small-scale recreational or tourist uses offer a potential "shot in the arm" for counties with depressed economies. However, these uses can contrast greatly in scale and nature from traditional rural uses and activities. As a result, they can bring changes to the economic, social or environmental character of surrounding rural areas. The changes will not be welcomed by all existing residents, and, in fact, they may not all be desirable changes. Each county will need to weigh whether MPRs offer net benefits to the county. MPRs may be appropriate in some counties and not in others. They should be permitted only if they are consistent with the GMA and further the county's priority goals for its rural areas. If the county decides to permit MPRs and/or SSRT uses, the challenge will be to guide the development in a manner that limits undesirable effects on existing infrastructure, sensitive critical areas, resource uses, and rural uses and character. Carefully considered criteria and standards, such as those presented in this publication, will help a county to guide recreational development for maximum benefit to the county. To be successful and beneficial to the county, an MPR must offer something very special. The county must be satisfied that the MPR location qualifies as "a setting of significant natural amenities." The MPR also must offer a package of high quality recreational opportunity and amenities capable of drawing visitors from distant places. Careful planning and design are essential to attract visitors. They are also essential if an MPR is to fit within the context of the surrounding rural area. The MPR must not overwhelm surrounding rural character or interfere with neighboring resource operations. It must also be self contained and able to meet the daily needs of its guests to minimize conflicts and to harmonize with neighboring uses. Small-scale recreational or tourist uses generally offer one or several activities rather than a broad range of activities or services. They are not intended to bemini-MPRs with a mix of uses and amenities. Even so, they too must offer a high -quality recreational opportunity to be successful. Although smaller in scale, they are can be more intensive uses, and are certainly different than traditional rural uses. As a result, careful planning and design is essential to minimize conflicts with neighboring rural uses. MPRs and SSRTs offer promising options for broadening economic and recreational opportunities in rural areas having special amenities, while respecting traditional rural character and economies. References • Beatley, Timothy. "Preserving Biodiversity: Challenges for Planners," American Planning Association Journal, American Planning Association, Winter 2000 • Berwyn, Bob. "Colorado Resort Development Threatens Wildlife Corridor," Environmental News Service, June 2001 (http://ens.lycos.conVens/jun2OOl/200IL-06-22-Ol.html) • "Best Management Practices for Golf Courses Development and Operation," prepared by Beak Consultants Incorporated for King County Environmental Division, October 1992 • Booth, Ty; Paul Barber; and Dave Risvold. Staff Report to the Pierce County Hearing Examiner, Conditional Use Permit: Case No. CP5-96 (Mount Rainier Resort at Park Junction) February 26, 2000 • Burke, Robert. McConnell Burke, Interview, November 16, 2001 • Cardwell, Dan. Pierce County (WA) Planning and Land Services, Interview, 2001 • Causseaux, Stephen K. Office of the Pierce County Hearing Examiner. Conditional Use Permit: Case No. CP5-96 and Environmental Appeal: Case No. AE6-99 for Master Planned Resort at Park Junction, January 12, 2001 • Clarion Associates. "Pitkin County Colorado Affordable Housing Regulation Support Study," May, 5 2000 • Destination Resort Handbook: A Guide to Statewide Planning Goal 8's Procedures and Requirements for Siting Destination Resorts. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Land Conservation, 1995 • Duerksen, Christopher J.; Donald L. Elliot; N. Thompson Hobbs; Erin Johnson; & James R. Miller. "Habitat Protection Planning: Where the Wild Things Arc," PAS Report No. 4701471, Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, 1997 • Finch, Ginny. "Critter Crossings," Public Roads, March/April 2000 • Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting: A Guide To Selecting And Installing Efficient, Cost Effective, and Unobtrusive Outdoor Lighting Fixtures, compiled by the New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG) and the International Dark -Sky Association, May 1995 (http://www.darksky.org/—ida/gnol.html) • Hornberger, Mark. "Four Seasons," Urban Land, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, August, 2001 • Jones, Steven D. "Resort Towns Face Ruckus Over Affordable Housing," Wall Street Journal, 2001 (http://wsj.com/buysell/salestrends/20000406-jones.htnil) • Klug, Foster. "Arizona Wildfire Fully Contained," (http://www.firehouse.com/wildfires/2002/7/8_A,Paz.html) • Lee, Patrick. Long -Range Planning Manager, Clark County, WA, November 29, 2001 • "Local and Regional Travel Pattern Study," (1997-1998) Healthy Mountain Communities,1998 (Roaring Fork Valley in Pitkin County/Aspen, CO and vicinity) 68 Master Planned Ren %jfhigm11f#Ye" • Lohmann, Bob. "Golf in the Next Millennium: Building for Tiger Woods and Grandma Moses," Urban Land, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, August, 1998 (including shadowbox article — "Golfresort Master -Planned Communities," by Gadi Kaufman and Tony Perino) • Mann, Pat. "Staff Report Re: Study of Socioeconomic Impacts of Growth Pressure in Selected Seasonal Resort Communities," May 25, 2000 • Manning, Michele. "Wildfires: Potential Danger and Fire Preparedness in Michigan," Planning & Zoning News, Lansing, MI: Planning & Zoning Center, January 2001 • Middleton, Scott. "Where is Resort Development Heading?" Urban Land, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, August, 1994 • MountainStar Resort Draft EIS Summary Report," Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 1999 • National Interagency Fire Center. "Wildland Fire Season 2000 at a Glance," (http://www.nifc.gov/fireinfo/2000/index.html) • Olason, Kraig. Senior Planner, Whatcom County, WA, Interview, November 2000 • Peck, Sheila. Planning for Biodiversity: Issues and Examples, Washington D.C.:Island Press, 1998 • Powell, Shane. "Alien Invaders? Alert is on for mitten crab," Local News, Seattle Times, May 36, 2002 • Read, George. Community Development Director, Deschutes County, OR, Interview, November 28, 2001 • Rutz, Rick. Senior Planner, San Juan County, WA Planning Department, Interview, November 16, 2001 • Schwab, Jim. "Planning for Wildlife Migration Corridors," Environment & Development, American Planning Association, May 1994 • Schwanke, Dean (and other contributing authors). Resort Development Handbook, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1997 • Salvesen, David. "Coping with Rapid Change," Urban Land, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, August 1998 • Salvesen, David. "Greening Up the Greens," Planning, Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, August 1996 • Schwab, Jim. "The Biology of Wildlife Migration Corridors," Environment & Development, American Planning Association, April 1994 • Settlement Agreement Regarding MountainStar Master Planned Resort, Cle Elum Urban Growth Area and Supporting Infrastructure and Services, Trendwest Resort, Inc. & RIDGE, 2001 • Shaw, Richard & Rebecca R. Zimmerman. "Resort Renewal: Redeveloping Tourism," Urban Land, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, August 1997 • Sinclair, Tyler. Senior Planner, Jackson, WY, Interview, January 2001 Master Planned Resorts 'WaJbipflfty/e" 69 • Smart, Miles M. J. Don Spencer, Ricardo N. Calvo and Charles H. Peacock. "Working with Nature For Better Golf Developments," Urban Land, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, March, 1993 • Summit County, CO. Copper Mountain Planned Unit Development Designation (3rd Draft), revised 1999 • Webb, M. Diana & Kelly Carpenter. "How Interagency Planning Lessened Impacts of the Cerro Grande Fire," Western Planner, September 2001 • Wolf, Karen. 2002 King County Comprehensive Plan Update Project Manager, King County, WA Office of Regional Policy and Planning, Interview, November 2001 • Woods, Julie Ann. Planning Director, Aspen, CO, March 2002 Appendix A MPR Approval Criteria - Des(hutes County, OR MPR Approval Criteria - Deschutes County, OR 18.113.070. Approval criteria. In order to approve a destination resort, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find from substantial evidence in the record that: A. The subject proposal is a destination resort as defined in DCC 18.040.030. B. All standards established by DCC 18.113.060 are or will be met. C. The economic analysis demonstrates that: 1. The necessary financial resources are available for the applicant to undertake the development consistent with the minimum investment requirements established by DCC 18.113. 2. Appropriate assurance has been submitted by lending institutions or other financial entities that the developer has or can reasonably obtain adequate financial support for the proposal once approved. 3. The destination 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 ofpublic service, housing for employees and the effects of loss of resource land. 4. The natural amenities of the site considered together with the identified developed recreation facilities to be provided with the resort, will constitute a primary attraction to visitors, based on the economic feasibility analysis. D. Any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource. E. Important natural features, including but not limited to significant wetlands, riparian habitat, and landscape management corridors will be maintained. Riparian vegetation within 100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wetlands will be maintained. Alterations to important natural features, including placement of structures, is allowed so long as the overall values of the feature are maintained. F. The development will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. G. Destination resort developments that significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that the development is consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: 1. Limiting the development to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; 2. Providing transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed development consistent with Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 660, Division 12; or 3. Altering land use densities, design requirements or using other methods to reduce demand for automobile travel and to meet travel needs through other modes. A destination resort significantly affects a transportation facility if it would result in levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of a facility or would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the relevant transportation system plan. a. Where the option of providing transportation facilities is chosen, the applicant shall be required to improve impacted roads to the full standards of the affected authority as a condition of approval. Timing of such improvements shall be based upon the timing of the impacts created by the development as determined by the traffic study or the recommendations of the affected road authority. b. Access within the project shall be adequate to serve the project in a safe and efficient manner for each phase of the project. H. The development will not create the potential for natural hazards identified in the County Comprehensive Plan. No structure will be located on slopes exceeding 25 percent. A wildfire management plan will be implemented to ensure that wildfire hazards are minimized to the greatest extent practical and allow for safe evacuation. With the exception of the slope restriction of DCC 18.113.070, which shall apply to destination resorts in forest zones, wildfire management of destination resorts in forest zones shall be subject to the requirements of DCC 18.40.070, where applicable, as to each individual structure and dwelling. I. Adequate public safety protection will be available through existing fire districts or will be provided onsite according to the specification of the state fire marshal. If the resort is located outside of an existing fire district the developer will provide for staffed structural fire protection services. Adequate public facilities to provide for necessary safety services such as police and fire will be provided on the site to serve the proposed development. J. Streams and drainage. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the adjoining property owner(s), existing natural drainages on the site will not be changed in any manner which interferes with drainage patterns on adjoining property. All surface water drainage changes created by the development will be contained on site in a manner which meets all standards of the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The erosion control plan for the subject development will meet all standards of ORS 468. K. Adequate water will be available for all proposed uses at the destination resort, based upon the water study and a proposed water conservation plan. Water use will not reduce the availability of water in the water impact areas identified in the water study considering existing uses and potential development previously approved in the affected area. Water sources shall not include any perched water table. Water shall only be taken from the regional aquifer. Where a perched water table is pierced to access the regional aquifer, the well must be sealed off from the perched water table. L. The wastewater disposal plan includes beneficial use to the maximum extent practicable. Approval of the CMP shall be conditioned on applicant's making application to DEQ for a Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) permit consistent with such an approved wastewater disposal plan. Approval shall also be conditioned upon applicant's compliance with applicable Oregon Administrative Rules regarding beneficial use of waste water, as determined by DEQ. Applicant shall receive approval of a WPCF permit consistent with this provision prior to applying for approval for its Final Master Plan under DCC 18.113. M. The resort will mitigate any demands it creates on publicly -owned recreational facilities on public lands in the surrounding area. N. Site improvements will be located and designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects of the resort on the surrounding land uses. Measures to accomplish this may include establishment and maintenance of buffers between the resort and adjacent land uses, including natural vegetation and appropriate fences, berms, landscaped areas and similar types of buffers; and setback of structures and other developments from adjacent land uses. O. The resort will be served by an on -site sewage system approved by DEQ and a water system approved by the Oregon State Health Division except where connection to an existing public sewer or water system is allowed by the County Comprehensive Plan, such service will be provided to the resort. P. The destination resort will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner that substantially limits, impairs or prevents permitted or conditional uses of surrounding properties. 2 Q. Commercial, cultural, entertainment or accessory uses provided as part of the destination resort will be contained within the development and will not be oriented to public highways adjacent to the property. Commercial, cultural and entertainment uses allowed within the destination resort will be incidental to the resort itself. As such, these ancillary uses will be permitted only at a scale suited to serve visitors to the resort. The commercial uses permitted in the destination resort will be limited in type, location, number, dimensions and scale (both individually and cumulatively) to that necessary to serve the needs of resort visitors. A commercial use is necessary to serve the needs of visitors if: 1. Its primary purpose is to provide goods or services that are typically provided to overnight or other short-term visitors to the resort, or the use is necessary for operation, maintenance or promotion of the destination resort; and 2. The use is oriented to the resort and is located away from or screened from highways or other major through roadways. R. A plan exists to ensure a transfer of common areas, facilities such as sewer, water, streets and responsibility for police and fire protection to owners' associations or similar groups if contemplated. If such transfer is not contemplated, the owner or responsible party shall be clearly designated. Adequate open space, facility maintenance and police and fire protection shall be ensured in perpetuity in a manner acceptable to the County. S. Temporary structures will not be allowed unless approved as part ofthe CMP. Temporary structures will not be allowed for more than 18 months and will be subject to all use and site plan standards of DCC Title 18. T. The open space management plan is sufficient to protect in perpetuity identified open space values. U. A mechanism to ensure that individually -owned units counting toward the overnight lodging total remain available for rent for at least 45 weeks per calendar year through a central reservation and check -in service. Such a mechanism shall include all of the following: 1. Designation on the plat of which individually -owned units are to be considered to be overnight lodging as used in DCC 18.113; 2. Deed restrictions limiting use of such identified premises to overnight lodging purposes under DCC 18.113 for at least 45 weeks each year; 3. Inclusion in the CC&R's of an irrevocable provision enforceable by the County limiting use of such identified units to overnight lodging purposes under DCC 18.113 for at least 45 weeks each year; 4. Inclusion of language in any rental contract between the owner of the unit and any central reservation and check -in service requiring that such units be made available as overnight lodging facilities under DCC 18.113 for at least 45 weeks each year; and 5. A requirement that each such unit be registered and a report be filed on each such unit yearly by the owner or central booking agent on January 1 with the Planning Division as to the following information: a. Who the owner or owners have been over the last year; b. How many nights out of the year the unit was available for rent through the central reservation and check -in service; and c. How many nights out of the year the unit was rented out as an overnight lodging facility under DCC 18.113. (Ord. 92-032 § 1, 1992; Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992) Source: Deschutes County Code, §18.113.070 Appendix 8 Agreement for Payment of Profess ion a Otaff/(ons u Ita nt Services Agreement for Payment of Professional/Staff/Consultant THIS AGREEMENT for terms and conditions ofpayment for professional, staff and consultant services ("Consultant Payment Agreement") is entered into by the CITY OF CLE ELUM, a second class municipal city organized under the laws of the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as "City") and TRENDWEST PROPERTIES, INC., a Washington corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Trendwest"). RECITALS A. Trendwest is pursuing development approval for both the City's Urban Growth Area ("UGA") and the MountainStar Master Planned Resort ("MPR") projects in Upper Kittitas County on property owned by JELD-WEN, INC., the parent company to Trendwest; and B. Both the developments in the UGA and MPR are expected to rely on water treatment and wastewater treatment services from the City; and C. The City had commenced state- and federally -mandated improvements to its water and sewer treatment facilities prior and unrelated to Trendwest development activities in the UGA and MPR, but which upgrades are presently being modified in response to and by the participation of Trendwest relative to its development activities in the MPR and UGA; and D. Property located in the City's UGA which is owned by JELD-WEN, Inc. is being considered for possible annexation by the City; and E. Both the MPR and UGA development projects will result in both direct and indirect impacts on the City which will generate the City's need for professional, staff and consultant services which, but for the development activities of Trendwest, would not be required; and F. In response to Trendwest development activities in the Upper Kittitas County, the City is currently engaging the services of professional, staff and consultants for: municipal legal work; water rights legal work; fiscal analysis; planning; and water and sewer engineering services, and anticipates the addition of professional, staff and consultants including but not limited to a land use attorney, staff planner, and sewer treatment plant operator as a result of Trendwest development activities in the Upper Kittitas County; and G. Meeting these professional, staff and consultant needs will enable the City to respond to Trendwest' s development needs in a timely and efficient manner; and H. The Cie Elum City Council has adopted a policy of not allowing the City's taxpayers to be adversely impacted by costs of responding to the Trendwest projects; and I. Trendwest is committed to paying the costs, fees and expenses incurred by the City for mutually agreed - upon professional, staff and consultant positions which must be filled, based on criteria which the parties agree shall include an objective determination that the prospective consultants and professionals be both credentialed and experienced in the area in which they are being considered for performances of services to the City, in order to enable the City to respond to the Trendwest development activities without causing adverse financial impacts to existing residents of the City; and J. A professional, staff and consultant services payment system established by the City and which is funded by Trendwest and administered by the City in a manner subject to accountability to the Washington State Auditor, the City and Trendwest, is needed so as to assure prompt and timely payment for services rendered in a manner which will satisfy all applicable rules and regulations under which the City operates; and K. Said professional, staff and consultant service needs of the City generated by Trendwest development activities in the MPR and UGA shall include, but not be limited to: planning, agreement negotiating and drafting, status reporting to the City, financial and legal services, said legal services to include but not be limited to all fees and costs reasonably incurred in connection with litigation, administrative hearings and appeals, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that in the event of legal action, including litigation, administrative hearings and appeals between the parties hereto as opposing parties, an award of legal fees and costs shall be made to the prevailing party; and L. Disbursements from the fund to be established for payment ofprofessional, staff and consultant services pursuant to this Agreement shall be made by the City only for professional, staff and consultant fees and costs incurred by the City for services rendered in relation to Trendwest development activities. Those Trendwest development -related services which may already be contracted for by the City, including regional water and sewer design services as well as review of the preliminary, draft and final Environmental Impact Statements generated for Trendwest development proposals in the Upper Kittitas County shall continue to be reimbursed through pre -established mechanisms already implemented through agreement of the parties; and M. Consultants, staff and professionals funded by Trendwest pursuant to this Agreement must work under the direct authority and control of the City and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as abrogating the City's requirement and ability to remain independent and not subject to improper influence in the exercise of its governmental and proprietary functions in planning for the development of the UGA, as this Agreement is undertaken without any commitment or obligation by the City that would in any way impair or compromise the City's duty to objectively and independently carry out its governmental and proprietary responsibilities and its duties to its constituents and to the law; and N. Notwithstanding the foregoing and in addition thereto, the City and Trendwest agree that both parties deem it desirable that the City's professional service providers, staff and consultants provide to both parties hereto projected estimated costs on both quarterly and annual bases, accompanied by individual projected scopes of work and schedules, if applicable, subject to acceptance by Trendwest and subject to revision by the City's professionals, staff and consultants based on emergent issues and matters not otherwise projected for budgeting in said initial scopes of work, said acceptance and revision not to be undertaken or denied unreasonably. In consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby AGREE as follows: 1. The City will notify Trendwest if the creation of any professional, staff or consultant positions beyond those already filled by the City become necessary as a result of Trendwest development proposals in the MPR or UGA. The term position does not necessarily mean either in house or full-time, but can be full-time, part-time, in-house or out -of -house depending on the circumstance. A request for approval of the newly created position shall be presented to Trendwest for consideration and written approval, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld. Upon authorization of the creation and funding of said position, the City shall fill the position utilizing criteria which the parties agree shall include an objective determination that the prospective consultants and professionals be both credentialed and experienced in the areas in which they are being considered for performance of services to the City. 2. An initial scope of work for each professional, staff and consultant working for the City in relation to Trendwest's MPR and UGA activities will be prepared, said initial scope of work to contain the applicable billing rates for each professional, staff or consultant. These initial scope of work projections will be presented to Trendwest for consideration and written approval, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld. 3. On a quarterly basis, the City will provide Trendwest with 0.1 estimate of costs for the subsequent quarter for each professional, staff and consultant position. When possible, not -to -exceed cost or fee limits will be provided for specific consultants, staff and professionals. The City will also prepare and submit to Trendwest annually starting January 2, 2000, an estimated total cost for the next four quarters for the initial 2 scope of work. 4. If any subsequent revisions or changes in scope of work or costs, fees or rates are anticipated, such revisions or changes shall be presented to Trendwest for consideration and written approval, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld. 5. If Trendwest believes any such positions, scopes of work, budgets or revisions as described in Paragraphs 1 through 4 above and submitted by the City to Trendwest for approval are unreasonable, the approved dispute resolution process identified in the Mediation and Arbitration Agreement ("MAA" herein) dated November, 1999, between the City and Trendwest, as hereafter amended from time to time, shall be followed. 6. Trendwest' s acceptance of quarterly proposed budgets shall be made in writing in an agreement to be executed by the parties thereto. The agreement itself should provide for allowance of quarterly and annual costs of up to 10% percent in excess of the initial cost or fee estimate, with provision for concurrence by Trendwest in the event that costs are projected to increase beyond these 10% overage limits based on emergent events unforeseen at the time of execution of the agreement, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that Trendwest' s concurrence shall not be unreasonably withheld and that any dispute over the reasonableness of Trendwest' s refusal to concur with projected cost increases over 110% of initial projections shall be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution process identified in the MAA, as hereafter amended from time to time. 7. Anew City municipal fund entitled the "Cie Elum/Trendwest Professional, Staffand Consultant Services Fund" shall be established by the City of Cie Elum in order to implement the terms and provisions of this agreement. 8. The Cie Elum/Trendwest Professional, Staff and Consultant Services Fund shall be administered by the City in a manner which is fiscally accountable to the Washington State Auditor, the City and Trendwest. 9. The Cie Elum/Trendwest Professional, Staff and Consultant Services Fund shall be initially funded by a payment from Trendwest to the City in the amount of $50,000.00. The City shall, on a monthly basis, issue vouchers for Trendwest-related invoices received from its respective consultants, staff, and professionals for work performed on behalf of the City. Contemporaneously therewith, the City shall inform provide Trendwest with copies of all professional, staff and consultant invoices reflecting the total amount of consultant, staff and professional fees paid by the City for Trendwest-related work performed on behalf of the City of Cie Elum. Within ten (10) days of written notice from the City stating the amount it paid for the previous month's Trendwest-related consultants, staff and professional services, Trendwest shall reimburse the City in an amount equal to the prior month's vouchers issued. 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing paragraph and in addition thereto, Trendwest shall be responsible for maintaining sufficient funds in the Cie Elum/Trendwest Professional, Staff and Consultant Services Fund for any and all approved budgeted amounts for specific proj ects specially submitted to the City and Trendwest which are outside the scope of the initial 3-month and 12-month projected scopes of work, but subsequently authorized by Trendwest. 11. Any and all interest accrued in the Cie Elum/Trendwest Professional, Staff and Consultant Services Fund shall remain in the Fund for payment toward future invoices for consultant and professional services. Any and all late fees, penalties or interest charged by the City's Trendwest-related professionals, staff and consultants as a direct result of Trendwest' s failure to timely reimburse the City for any prior month's payment for Trendwest-related consultant, staff and professional services, shall be the sole responsibility of Trendwest, which shall indemnify and hold the City harmless therefrom. 12. Nothing in this agreement shall constitute or be interpreted as a maximum cap on Trendwest' s obligations for the City's monthly or cumulative expenditures on professional, staff and consultant services, nor shall it constitute or be interpreted as a cap on any amounts which may be drawn from said account during any monthly, quarterly or annual period. 13. This Consultant, Staff and Professional Services Funding Agreement shall have an initial term of two (2) years and may be extended, at the option of the parties, for one-year periods, said renewal(s) to be in writing and executed not less than 90 days prior to the expiration of the previous term. Should either party desire to terminate this Agreement, the terminating party shall provide the other party with 180 days' prior written notice. 14. In the event of any dispute or claim arising out of this agreement which cannot be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions set forth elsewhere herein, venue shall lic in Kittitas County. 15. This Agreement can be amended only by written agreement of the parties. DATED this 22 of December, 1999. CITY OF CLE ELUM Hon. Gary Berndt, Mayor ATTEST: DeLiela Bannister Cle Elum City Clerk TRENDWEST PROPERTIES, INC. J. Michael Moyer, Sr. Vice President 4 Appendix C Mountai6tar MPR Settlement Agreement Excepts Water Demand MountainStar MPR Settlement Agreement Excepts - Water Demand 1.5.3 Water Demand. 1.5.3.1 Trendwest will reduce Master Planned Resort Accommodation Units in the MPR as described in Paragraph 1.2 of this Agreement, thereby reducing the consumptive use demand. 1.5.3.2 Trendwest will reduce the UGA golf course irrigated area from one hundred ninety (190) acres to ninety (90) acres. Trendwest will not propose any alternate project to a golf course that would divert more than 288.5 acre feet per year. This represents a reduction in diversion demand from the 403 acre feet per year analyzed (alternative 3) in the Site Engineering section of the UGA DEIS of 114.5 acre feet per year. This saved water may be used to maintain artificial lake circulation and will be directed to an infiltration facility. Total diversion quantity will be measured by metering. Trendwest agrees not to increase treated water diversion above the four hundred and fifty-two (452) acre feet per year identified in the UGA DEIS Alternative 3, as a result of such alternative project. 1.5.3.3 Trendwest will accelerate the purchase or transfer of water rights for in stream flows under the Yakama Nation/WDFW Cooperative Agreement. Instead of providing Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) of water rights each year over a twelve (12) year period, Trendwest will commit to providing Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) of water rights per year for six (6) years. 1.5.3.4 Trendwest will agree not to seek water rights or diversions from Domerie Creek. 1.5.3.5 Trendwest agrees not to divert water from the Cie Elum River when stream flows are at or below levels recommended by the Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima Field Office, in consultation with the System Operations Advisory Committee (SOAC) or three hundred cubic feet per second, whichever is less, or from locations that would adversely affect wetlands or other aquatic resources, including salmonid habitat, as determined by the appropriate regulatory agencies. 1.5.3.6 Trendwest will propose, advocate and actively support locating Cle Elum's municipal water intake on the Cle Elum River at a location having no adverse impacts on the Bullfrog Pond wetlands. 1.5.3.7 Trendwest will negotiate an agreement with the City of Roslyn that will provide Roslyn with an additional water right to provide for growth in the Roslyn-Cle Elum School District resulting from the MPR and the UGA. The Parties agree that the quantity of the additional water right will be based for the first five (5) years upon modeling used in the UGA EIS to measure such impacts, and thereafter shall be adjusted based upon actual impacts as determined by monitoring as required in the MPR Development Agreement and the UGA Master Plan. In the event the City of Roslyn and Trendwest have not executed the agreement described in this Paragraph 1.5.3.7 prior to the recording of the first final plat of the MPR or UGA, the negotiation shall be remanded to RIDGE and Trendwest, and the provisions of Paragraph 17.0 shall apply to arrive at a functional equivalent to this provision. 1.5.3.8 Trendwest will negotiate an agreement with the City of Roslyn that will provide Roslyn with an additional water right to mitigate for increased water demands on Roslyn resulting from induced off -site development within Roslyn. The Parties agree that the quantity of the additional water right will be based for the first -five (5) years upon modeling used in the UGA EIS to measure such -impacts, -and thereafter shall be adjusted based upon actual impacts as determined by monitoring as required in the MPR Development Agreement and UGA Master Plan. In the event the City of Roslyn and Trendwest have not executed the agreement described in this Paragraph 1.5.3.8 prior to the recording of the first final plat of the MPR or UGA, the negotiation shall be remanded to RIDGE and Trendwest, and the provisions of Paragraph 17.0 shall apply to arrive at a functional equivalent to this provision. 1.5.3.9 To the extent not already mitigated under the terms of the Cooperative Agreement or through other agreements which Trendwest may enter into regarding the use of Trendwest water, Trendwest agrees to provide additional mitigation for induced off -site housing impacts, which may include the transfer of water rights to Ecology's Yakima River Trust Water Program or such other mitigation agreed to by Trendwest and the appropriate regulatory agency, to mitigate for consumptive uses of water associated with induced off -site housing outside Roslyn's service area. The Parties agree that the quantity of the additional water right will be based for the first five (5) years upon modeling used in the UGA EIS to measure such impacts, and thereafter shall be adjusted based upon actual impacts as determined by monitoring as required in the MPR Development Agreement and UGA Master Plan. If the appropriate regulatory agency does not agree to measure impacts in this manner, Paragraph 17.0 shall apply to arrive at a functional equivalent to this provision. 1.5.3.10 Trendwest agrees not to transfer water rights to, or provide water service for, lands within the area identified in Paragraph 1.7 (Preservation of Off -Site Habitat and Open Space), below. 1.5.3.11 Trendwest will provide mitigation as determined by the appropriate regulatory agencies for impacts from the change in seasonality of water rights proposed for transfer by Trendwest. 1.5.4 Water Quality. 1.5.4.1 Trendwest will agree to monitor selected water quality parameters at selected baseline measuring stations as identified in Paragraph 1.5.4.2, below. If this monitoring demonstrates a degradation of these parameters between the two (2) monitoring locations identified in Paragraph 1.5.4.2 resulting from MPR and UGA development and operation, Trendwest will take corrective action to comply with all standards in the Washington Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201 a). Appendix D Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States I. Preamble A group of leading golf and environmental organizations have jointly developed a set of principles that seek to produce environmental excellence in golf course planning and siting, design, construction, maintenance and facility operations. II. What are the principles? These principles are envisioned as a tool of universal value, for national use under a variety of circumstances. However, it should be up to local communities, based on local values, and others involved in the regulatory process, to assess the environmental compatibility of golf courses. These principles are meant to provide a framework for environmental responsibility in developing goals for existing courses and for considering issues associated with new courses. They are designed to educate and inform the public and relevant decision -makers about environmental responsibility, and to help set goals for environmental performance. These principles are voluntary. They are not intended for use in making judgments about socioeconomic issues. These principles assume regulatory compliance and are designed to provide opportunities to go beyond that which is required by law. These principles were developed through a collaborative research and dialogue process, and represent a consensus of all endorsing organizations. They represent areas of agreement but do not resolve all environmental issues related to golf. The dialogue and process is ongoing, as is the implementation of these principles. How should they be used? Good environmental practice and design is the result of a multitude of factors and a thorough understanding of how these factors interrelate on a specific site in a specific locale. The principles are meant to be used as a guide to making good decisions relative to the planning and siting, design, construction, maintenance and operation of a golf course. They are voluntary, and should be interpreted as representing a whole philosophy of good environmental design and management rather than specific dictates, each of which must be met in all cases. It is hoped that the principles will be widely adopted and used to improve the level of environmental awareness, practice, dialogue, and quality achieved within the game of golf. For further information you are encouraged to contact any or all of the following organizations that participated in the development of these principles. American Farmland Trust American Society of Golf Course Architects Audubon International Center for Resource Management Friends of the Earth Golf Course Superintendents Association of America Golf Digest National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides National Wildlife Federation North Carolina Coastal Federation Rain Bird — Golf Division Royal Canadian Golf Association SENES Oak Ridge Inc. — Center for Risk Analysis Sierra Club United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Golf Association The participating organizations are committed to the following basic precepts, which provide a foundation for the environmental principles: To enhance local communities ecologically and economically. To develop environmentally responsible golf courses that are economically viable. To offer and protect habitat for wildlife and plant species. To recognize that every golf course must be developed and managed with consideration for the unique conditions of the ecosystem of which it is apart. To provide important greenspace benefits. To use natural resources efficiently. To respect adjacent land use when planning, constructing, maintaining and operating golf courses. To create desirable playing conditions through practices that preserve environmental quality. To support ongoing research to scientifically establish new and better ways to develop and manage golf courses in harmony with the environment. To document outstanding development and management practices to promote more widespread implementation of environmentally sound golf. To educate golfers and potential developers about the principles ofenvironmental responsibility and topromote the understanding that environmentally soundgolf courses are quality golf courses. III. Voluntary principles for planning and siting, design, construction, management, facility operations and what golfers can do to help A. Planning and siting 1. Developers, designers and others involved in golf course development are encouraged to work closely with local community groups and regulatory/permitting bodies during planning and siting and throughout the development process. For every site, there will be local environmental issues and conditions that need to be addressed. 2. Site selection is a critical determinant of the environmental impact of golf courses. A thorough analysis of the site or sites under consideration should be completed to evaluate environmental suitability. It is very important to involve both the designer and a team of qualified golf and environmental professionals in this process. 3. Based on the site analysis and/or regulatory review process, it maybe determined that some sites are of such environmental value or sensitivity that they should be avoided. Other less environmentally sensitive or valuable sites may be more suitable or even improved by the development of a golf course if careful design and construction are used to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts. 4. The presence and extent of some types of sensitive environments may render a site unsuitable or, in some cases, less suitable for golf course development. Examples include, but are not limited to: Wetlands Habitat for threatened or endangered plant or animal species Sensitive aquatic habitats 5. There maybe opportunities to restore or enhance environmentally sensitive areas through golf course development by establishing buffer zones or by setting unmaintained or low -maintenance areas aside within the site. 6. Golf course development can be an excellent means of restoring or rehabilitating previously degraded sites (e.g., landfills, quarries and mines). Golf courses are also excellent treatment systems for effluent water and use of effluent irrigation is encouraged when it is available, economically feasible, and agronomically and environmentally acceptable. B. Design 1. When designing a golf course, it is important to identify existing ecosystems. Utilizing what nature has provided is both environmentally and economically wise. Emphasizing the existing characteristics of the site can help retain natural resources, allow for efficient maintenance of the course and will likely reduce permitting and site development costs. 2. A site analysis and feasibility study should be conducted by experienced professionals. The identification of environmentally sensitive areas and other natural resources is important so that a design can be achieved that carefully balances environmental factors, playability and aesthetics. 3. Cooperative planning and informational sessions with community representatives, environmental groups and regulatory agencies should be part of the initial design phase. Early input from these groups is very important to the development and approval process. This dialogue and exchange of information should continue even after the course is completed. 4. Native and/or naturalized vegetation should be retained or replanted when appropriate in areas that are not in play. In playing areas, designers should select grasses that are best adapted to the local environmental conditions to provide the necessary characteristics of playability yet permit the use of environmentally sustainable maintenance techniques. 5. Emphasis should be placed upon the design of irrigation, drainage and retention systems that provide for efficient use of water and the protection of water quality. Drainage and stormwater retention systems should, when possible, be incorporated in the design as features of the course to help provide for both the short and long term irrigation needs of the maintained turf and the unmaintained areas of the course. 6. Water reuse strategies for irrigation should be utilized when economically feasible and environmentally and agronomically acceptable. It is important that recycled water meets applicable health and environmental standards and that special consideration be given to water quality issues and adequate buffer zones. Water reuse may not be feasible on some sites that drain into high quality wetlands or sensitive surface waters. Suitable soils, climatic conditions, groundwater hydrology, vegetative cover, adequate storage for treated effluent and other factors will all influence the feasibility of water reuse. 7. Buffer zones or other protective measures should be maintained and/or created, if appropriate, to protect high quality surface water resources or environmentally sensitive areas. The design and placement of buffer zones will vary based on the water quality classifications of the surface waters being incorporated into the course. Regulatory agencies and environmental groups can assist in the planning of buffer zones. 8. Design the course with sustainable maintenance in mind. The design should incorporate integrated plant management and resource conservation strategies that are environmentally responsible, efficient, and cost effective. Integrated plant management includes integrated pest management and emphasizes plant nutrition and overall plant health. 9. The design of the course should enhance and protect special environmental resource areas and when present, improve or revive previously degraded areas within the site through the use of plants that are well adapted to the region. Seek opportunities to create and/or preserve habitat areas that enhance the area's ecosystem. C. Construction 1. Use only qualified contractors who are experienced in the special requirements of golf course construction. 2. Develop and implement strategies to effectively control sediment, minimize the loss of topsoil, protect water resources, and reduce disruption to wildlife, plant species and designated environmental resource areas. 3. Schedule construction and turf establishment to allow for the most efficient progress of the work while optimizing environmental conservation and resource management. 4. Retain a qualified golf course superintendent/project manager early in the design and construction process(es) to integrate sustainable maintenance practices in the development, maintenance and operation of the course. D. Maintenance Plant protection and nutrition 1. Employ the principles of integrated plant management, a system that relies on a combination of common sense practices of preventing and controlling pests (e.g., weeds, diseases, insects) in which monitoring is utilized to identify pests, damage thresholds are considered, all possible management options are evaluated and selected control(s) are implemented. IPM involves a series of steps in the decision -making process: a. Through regular monitoring and record keeping, identify the pest problem, analyze the conditions causing it, and determine the damage threshold level below which the pest can be tolerated. b. Devise ways to change conditions to prevent or discourage recurrence ofthe problem. Examples include: utilizing improved (e.g., drought resistant, pest resistant) turfgrass varieties, modifying microclimate conditions, or changing cultural practice management programs. c. If damage thresholdsare met, select the combination of control strategies to suppress the pest - populations with minimal environmental impact, to avoid surpassing threshold limits. Control measures include biological, cultural, physical, mechanical, and chemical methods. Biological control methods must be environmentally sound and should be properly screened and tested before implementation. Non -chemical control measures should focus on practices such as the introduction of natural pest enemies (e.g., parasites and predators), utilizing syringing techniques, improving air movement, soil aerification techniques, and mechanical traps. The selection of chemical control strategies should be utilized only when other strategies are inadequate. When chemical and nutrient products need to be applied, the following practices should be utilized 2. Always read and follow label directions when using any plant protestant products. Strive to treat problems at the proper time and under the proper conditions to maximize effectiveness with minimal 4 environmental impact. Spot treatments may provide early, effective control of problems before damage thresholds are reached. 3. Store and handle all pest control and nutrient products in a manner that minimizes worker exposure and/or the potential for point or non -point source pollution. Employ proper chemical storage practices and use suitable personal protective equipment and handling techniques. 4. Use nutrient products and practices that reduce the potential for contamination of ground and surface water. Strategies include: use of slow -release fertilizers, selected organic products, and/or fertigation. 5. Test and monitor soil conditions regularly and modify practices accordingly. Choose nutrient products and time applications to meet, not exceed, the needs of the turfgrass. 6. All plant protectant products should only be applied by or under the supervision of a trained, licensed applicator or as dictated by law. 7. Maintain excellence in the continuing education of applicators (including state licensing, professional association training and IPM certification). Training for non-English speaking applicators should be provided in the worker's native language. 8. Facilities should inform golfers and guests about golf course chemical applications. Common methods include permanent signs on the first and tenth tee boxes and/or notices posted in golf shops and locker rooms. Water usage 1. Use native, naturalized or specialized drought -tolerant plant materials wherever possible. For areas in play (greens, tees and fairways), using plant materials that: are well -adapted to local environmental conditions; can be efficiently managed; and provide the desired playing characteristics. 2. Plan irrigation patterns and/or program irrigation control systems to meet the needs of the plant materials in order to minimize overwatering. When feasible, use modern irrigation technologies that provide highly efficient water usage. Inspect systems regularly for leaks and monitor water usage. 3. Water at appropriate times to minimize evaporation and reduce the potential for disease. 4. Consider converting .to effluent irrigation systems when available, economically feasible and agronomically and environmentally acceptable. 5. Manage water use effectively to prevent unnecessary depletion of local water resources. Waste management 1. Leave grass clippings and other organic materials in place whenever agronomically possible. If clippings are removed, compost and, if possible, recycle them. 2. Dispose of chemical rinsate in a manner that will not increase the potential for point or non -point source pollution. Methods include rinsate recycling or "spraying out" diluted compound in previously untreated areas. 3. Dispose of chemical packaging according to label directions (e.g., triple rinsing, recycling or returning to manufacturer). 5 4. Other waste products, such as used motor oil, electric batteries and unused solvents, should be recycled or disposed of according to the law and available community disposal techniques. 5. Seek to reduce waste by purchasing products that minimize unnecessary packaging. Wildlife management 1. Habitat for wildlife species that help control pests (e.g., bats, bluebirds, purple martins, etc.) should be protected. Additional habitat for these beneficial species should be created whenever feasible and environmentally desirable. 2. Manage habitat to maintain healthy populations of wildlife and aquatic species. 3. Species such as skunks, non -migratory Canada geese, and deer, when they become damaging, should be managed through nonharmful means whenever possible. Nonharmful control methods could include dogs, noisemakers, repellents, and trapping and removal. Managed hunting may be appropriate where legal and safe. E. Facility operations 1. Facilities should conduct an environmental assessment in order to develop and implement an overall environmental policy and/or long-range plan that reflects or expands upon these principles. 2. Maintain ongoing records to measure and document progress toward environmental improvement. 3. The environmentally responsible practices adopted for the maintenance of the golf course should extend to all areas of the overall facility grounds. 4. Facilities should adopt practices and technologies that conserve natural resources, including water and energy. Facilities should develop and initiate comprehensive programs for recycling, reuse and waste reduction. Facilities should properly store and dispose of solvents, cleaning materials, paints and other potentially hazardous substances. 7. Facilities are urged to join programs that help to foster effective environmental management and policies. 8. Facilities should take active steps to educate golfers, neighbors and the general public about their environmental policies and practices. F. What golfers can do to help The American golf community is dedicated to preserving the game's treasured links to nature. As a result, golf courses are now being developed, designed and managed more responsibly than ever before. However, we who play the game also have a responsibility to help ensure that golf remains compatible with nature and that our courses are well -managed and in harmony with the environment. As golfers, we should: 1. Recognize that golf courses are managed land areas that should complement the natural environment. 0 2. Respect designated environmentally sensitive areas within the course. 3. Accept the natural limitations and variations of turfgrass plants growing under conditions that protect environmental resources (e.g., brown patches, thinning, loss of color). 4. Support golf course management decisions that protect or enhance the environment and encourage the development of environmental conservation plans. 5. Support maintenance practices that protect wildlife and natural habitat. 6. Encourage maintenance practices that promote the long-range health of the turf and support environmental objectives. Such practices include aerification, reduced fertilization, limited play on sensitive turf areas, reduced watering, etc. 7. Commit to long-range conservation efforts (e.g., efficient water use, integrated plant management, etc.) on the golf course and at home. 8. Educate others about the benefits of environmentally responsible golf course management. 9. Support research and education programs that expand our understanding of the relationship between golf and the environment. 10. Take pride in our environmentally responsible courses. Appendix 1 The "Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States" were developed through a collaborative research and dialogue process managed and facilitated by the Center for Resource Management. The following individuals participated in this process and can be contacted for further information. American Farmland Trust Ed Thompson Jr. 1920 N St. NW, #400 Washington, DC 20036 202/659-5170 Golf Digest Andy Nusbaum 5520 Park Ave. Trumbull, CT 06611 203/373-7127 American Society of Golf Course Architects Bill Love P.O. Box 510 College Park, MD 20741 302/345-1510 National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides Jay Feldman 701 E. St. SE, #200 Washington, DC 20003 202/543-5450 Mike Hurdzan, Ph.D. 1270 Old Henderson Road Columbus, OH 43220 614/457-9955 Physicians for Social Responsibility Sharon Newsome 1101 14th St. NW, #700 Washington, DC 20005 202/898-0150 Audubon International Ron Dodson 46 Rarick Road Selkirk, NY 12158 518/767-9051 North Carolina Coastal Federation Todd Miller 3609 Highway 24 Newport, NC 28570 919/393-8185 Center for Resource Management Paul Parker 1104 East Ashton Ave., #210 Salt Lake City, UT 84106 801 /466-3600 Rain Bird -- Golf Division Eric Bescoby 145 N. Grand Avenue Glendora, CA 91741 818/812-3649 Meredith Miller 1410 Grant Street, C307 Denver, CO 80203 303/832-6855 Royal Canadian Golf Association Teri Yamada 1333 Dorval Drive Oakville, Ontario L6J4Z3 Canada 905/849-9700 Friends of the Earth Courtney Cuff 1025 Vermont Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005 202/783-7400, ext. 207 SENES Oak Ridge Inc. — Center for Risk Analysis Steve Bartell 102 Donnor Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 615/483-6111 Golf Course Superintendents Association of America Joe O'Brien 1421 Research Park Drive Lawrence, KS 66049 913/941-2240 Sierra Club Mark Massara 1642 Great Highway San Francisco, CA 94122 415/665-7008 United States Environmental Protection Agency Phil Oshida 401 M Street, SW (4502F) Washington, DC 20460 202/260-6045 Anne Leslie 401 M Street (7501 W) Washington, DC 20460 703/308-8727 United States Golf Association Kimberly Erusha, Ph.D. P.O. Box 708 Far Hills, NJ 07931 908/234-2300 Appendix 2 The following organizations have, at the time of publication,* endorsed the "Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States." American Society of Golf Course Architects Arizona Golf Association Audubon International Center for Resource Management Club Managers Association of America Friends of the Earth Golf Course Builders Association of America Golf Course Superintendents Association of America Ladies Professional Golf Association National Club Association National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides National Golf Foundation National Wildlife Federation North Carolina Coastal Federation Pamlico -- Tar River Foundation Save the Bay Southern Environmental Law Center United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Golf Association *March 1996. Contact the Center for Resource Management at 801/466-3600 for a current list of endorsing organizations. Source: Physicians for Social Responsibility website at http://www.psr.org/golf environment.htm (see also United States Golf Association Website http://www.usga.org/grecn/download/current issues/environment/environmental_principals.httnl 10 Appendix E Critical Slope Area Regulations - Mukilteo, WA Chapter 17.52A CRITICAL. SLOPE AREA REGULATIONS Sections: 17.52A.010 Purpose of critical slopes. 17.52A.030 Critical slope areas. 17.52A.040 Analysis required. 17.52A.050 Development in critical slope areas.. 17.52A.060 Vegetation management on steep slopes. 17.52A.065 Repair of slope instabilities. 17.52A.070 Native growth protection areas and buffers. 17.52A.080 Exceptions. 17.52A.085 Density calculation for critical slope areas. 17.52A.090 Reasonable use provision. 17.52A.010 Purpose of critical slopes. A. The purpose of this chapter is to designate critical slope areas in the city and to regulate development activities in or near critical slope areas to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare. B. Several geologic conditions influence development on or adjacent to slopes including: steep slopes, surface soil types, underlying geology, groundwater and seepage, surface water runoff and vegetative cover. Therefore, for the purposes of this chapter, a critical slope area screening device has been established to determine the likelihood of slope stability and/or instability. Development within the city will be allowed, conditionally allowed, or prohibited, based on the city's review of the findings of a geotechnical engineering report prepared by a registered professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington which addresses each of the items, in this chapter. (Ord. 987 § 4 (part), 2000) 17.52A.030 Critical slope areas. To determine if a proposed development lies within a potential critical slope area, and whether geologic and geotechnical engineering expertise is required, a multi -step screening process shall be used. Once all parameters have been evaluated, any one parameter that leads to "action" triggers the need for a critical slopes assessment and geotechnical evaluation input. Tables 17.52A.030A, 17.52A.030B and 17.52.A.030C provide a step-by-step guide to identify and classify average slopes, soil categories, groundwater seepage, and steep slope factors that could trigger the need for further evaluation. Attachments A and B to Ordinance 987, on file in the clerk's office, show the soil categories and landslide hazard areas within the city. A. On Site Slopes. 1. Twenty Percent Slope or Less. Slopes equal to or less than twenty percent have a high factor of safety against failure under almost all conditions; 2. Twenty to Twenty-five Percent Slope. Slopes greater than twenty percent up to twenty-five percent have a reasonable factor of safety under most conditions; 3. Twenty-five to Thirty-nine Percent. Slopes greater than twenty-five percent can, under certain combinations of soil types and ground water conditions have a marginal or unsatisfactory factor CM1 Code Publishing. Inc. Page 1 of safety. 4. Forty Percent or Greater. Steep slopes of forty percent or greater shall always require a geotechnical evaluation. B. Soil Type. The twelve sbil'types Iisteil4h-tlie "Preliinitiary SurEicial'Geologic Map of the Muldlteo and Everett. Quadranges, Snohomish County, Washington, 1976, were placed into three categories (I, II and IIn based on their characteristics relative to construction and slope stability. 1. Type I. Soils rated good for the intended use and normally mould not require Specific geologic and geotechnical input; 2. Type U. Soils are intermediate, generally suitable for developtnent, and would not require. . input for moderate and flatter slopes. However since ther&is in indrea$irig risk of Niure as the 31ope " gradient increases, steeper sloped sites with Type iI§6ilit §111 require geblogic acid geatechnical`input. 3. Type III. Poor soil types that require geologic and=g technical input,'proirided the sto{ie gradient is above the minimum value. C. Groundwater. The presence of visible groundwater seepage on slopes sr6fir{han'twentV*rd,6nt will require that a site assessment must be prep. a� ; - D. Presence of a Newt Ste Slope. Failure of a near s . , y Steep ope. by 4eep 'slops could irirpaCt ii developm+dtit if the failure extends into the developed area for slopes located above or below the developmeent. Therefore if. (1) single-family residential structures are within one hundred feet of a landslide hazard area; or (2) multifamily, commercial, and industrial structures are within two hundred feet of a landslide hazard area, a site assessment shall be prepared. Table 17.5,ZAA30 ' boa )Flow Elt RptpEielgeut.lor Sits Asseasmmts;for ]Da+elQpmenton and,Adjpt tp, Stepp $lopes 401 Code'isuliina. jnc.... Pane 2 A"rap Siapa on fteperq Sall' 84bg* Pam i ?" AMI- (3:1-4.1 Slope) $pap Lwdslidt llax�d Aeea' 21,2549% --. -- (4:1- 33:1 S1epo) Jl lY0 AOtiC11 . II NoAotloa Yes - 'Aeft No 2A*--,...s..-�. AcdkA Rt d (3+:1 map) . , forall-dapn 40X or *Applies to: a) single-family residential structures within one hundred feet of a landslide hazard area; and b) multifamily, commercial, and industrial structures within two hundred feet of a landslide hazard area. Table 17.52A.030B Soil Category Chart Soil Category Soil Namesoil Map Identification I Vashon Till Qvt II Double Bluff Drift Qdb II Vashon Recessional Outwash Qvr II Vashon Advance Outwash Qva II Whidbey Formation Qw 02001 Code Pubiishino. Inc. Paae 3 II Artificial Fill Af II: _ Modified Land.;,,, ml $eaefi"liosits"" Qb III Landslides Qls Ill Peat Qp III Old Landslides Qols Esperance Sand Qe Soil map identification, from'Trelinknary.Surficial_Geologic Map'of tl a 14tuldlteo and Everett' Quadranges, Snohomish,County; Washington, l•976" Table,17.52r 00C Gec►lagic-Haaxrd Areas-Gliar LM Moderate Landslide Heard Area. "Areasdoping between fifteen and forty percent and undelf fin by`soib #14Qonsist largely of sand, gravelbodrock or glacial till. Erosion potentiaX is moderate ba htgh. LH High Landslide Hazard Area Areas slophig"between: grid forty percent arid-"` .A underlain by so a sth►g largely of s lt•ant c)ay, a#td; fl)f .was slopt.q iiore steeply than forty percent. Erosion, pot�enbal is.moderate to hi LV Very High Land>glicie }* rd Areg,_Ar 46bfIMow p WipOble.landslide deposits. Erosion, potential is generally moderate to high. (Ord. 987 § 4 (part), 2000) 17.52A.040 Anaiysls'regniretl. All development proposals requiring an "action" undo- the critical Blope.ela4sification system listed in Section 17.52A.030 shall include. an additional, site assessment pin a gdz�tBclinical repot prepared by a registered professional engineer licensed in the state of Washingl[<m, grading and temporary erosion control plan, and a landscapeJxe-vegelan The site assessment shall be provided at the applicant's ex pp ' pense and shall dot tain the fellowink. r non A. GeotechnicafReport. I. Data regarding the nature, distribution and soil patat eteCs'°.ti 3`tpt.. analysis :of exiatidg,sails and the characteristics of the underlying geology, conclusions "womwevd0on for gr4(*W {•. procedures, design criteria for corrective measures and opinions and re6{ypC}lsdations regarding the capabilities of the site; 2. ' ' 'Analysr's o the gverall slope stability from,toe to top of all >clapes of irate;`est r6lated development, notlimited to the site tieing developed. The report shall consider'static'i6a lit- in (1Y and saturated conditions, and seismic stability in; dry and saturated conditions; 3. A description of the hydrology of the sits, comWiens and reconunendations regarding the effect of hyd *Qva w0opm on the proposed developm t, and proposed measures, if adequate, for mitigating the identified impacts. 8: Grading and�t, ontml Plan. 1. A gr which shall include a schedule -showing when each stage of the project will beompleta ?Ad trnrashmated:starting and completion doges; the schedule shall be drawn up to limit to the; shortest posBi v period, the time that soil is exposed and unprotected; 101 Code Pu�lishlrw Inc. � � . Pace 4 I "'S4So�Wi Yeasures`'to be taken for slope stabilization and erasion control using best nmagemmt practices as ooritsa bd m the Fkpartrinent of l*cology's `storm Water Management Manual for the Puget' soutid'lliasin; or,,J6 E r'metiiodology as approved by'the public works -director. C. Landscape/Re-Vegetation Plan. l 'Aft-vtgi=t ddnplan shall be prepated which rises the guidelines developed by the' Depa&Cmdftf'of) ctilbgy ui their pttblicatfotr "Vegetation 3lylatiagenldh A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property { ovnets,'`,or other itrethndoidgy as appi6Ve by -the planniri -and Public Wbiks bisectors. The re-vegetstifm-rtain •slink incliuie: a. Measures to be taken for protection and replacement of the natural vegetative cover; and b.' "Alkhodule showing when each stageof tfib prti}ect wiltbe re-vegetated'with estimated startio19 and dohvlet on dates: (Ord.'987'§ 4 (part), 2000) 17.52Ai:45Fi 'Develop>hen U c"rltical'slope areas: A. Appli6ainf's proposing development on existing and/or previously developed'lots within a critical slope' area'shall su°bnat th °required site assessment and structures" shall be set beck a'minimum of twenty-five fttiftoillthe top or foe oft, steep slope. Decks'and'accessory buildings --One hundred and twenty (120) square feet or loss may extend into this setback area to"within mil' feet of the top or toe of a steep slope. B. New lots developed as part of a subdivision, short subdivision, binding site plans and those lots reeonfiioed w'patt of x boundary' line adjustment; shall becreated ii '§ueli a rrtamne r so that: 1. , There is sufficient area to construct all proposed structure(s), driveways, private roads, parking areas and yard areas while maintaining,a twemy,five: foot setback from the top or toe of a steep slope; 2. Decks and accessory buildings one hundred twenty square feet or less` may extend into the setback area to within $a` toe of a slope, and h 3. The lots. p the(bulkqunrpents of the palymg gone in which it is located. 2, t> C. To provide so� n� `et'te pl i sitr* tt�or wdst3cahbn fi is this section may be approved by the plann t ector an8�ic ski i S4e f *e f it stow: 1. A site assessor iti t has been Bubn d Akmrithat the a dsf t minimal impact on the site and surrounding propettiesi= 2. Modifications #o s oin of foi$y ant or greater : y ¢�vq�i in small, isolated areas;, 3. An increaea moi►nt of 6pm•space is providett; 4. The modification results" in a t+eduction in'the amoutnt of itfvous surface and storm water runoff-, and/or . 5. An applicant may request approval of an innovative design which addresses critical slope areas in a creative manna > t s from sta ds4et forth in this chapter. The creative solution must demonstrate that. *chieve ail.i""vw+ient in,* design, protection of slope areas, or provide further slope,,ioqIgthe property thim that which i$ achievable using the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 987444 ad?OU 17S2A.060 Vegeta4'nsanxn4atsareep$lopes. Vegetation on steep slopes (slopes of forty percent and greater) shall be preserved over the entire steep sloped area except as listed below in subsections A through D of this section. Modifications from this section may be allowed as recommended in the Department of Ecology's handbook "Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners" and as approved by the city's planning and public works directors. A. Alder, Willow and Bitter Chevy and other similar trees may be cut and removed from the site in a method determined by the planning director and public works director; however, the stumps and root systems shall be left undisturbed to protect the slope from erosion. Deep rooted bushes or ground cover such as Ocean Spray, Snow Berry, Salal or Evergreen Huckleberry shall be planted around the stump of the tree to establish erosion control functions that the tree once provided. B. Trees (such as Big Leaf Maple, Vine Maple, Pacific Machone, Red Cedar and Douglas Fir) which help to stabilize bluffs, offer wildlife habitat, and keep soils from being over saturated with water may not be cut down or topped, except with the submittal of a geotechnical report and as approved by the public works director to maintain slope stability. However, the following tree trimming practices may be used in combination to provide some views without compromising tree health or slope stability. When using these tree trimming or pruning practices, a minimum of sixty percent of the original tree canopy/foliage must be retained to maintain the tree's health (Figures 17.52A.060A and 17.52A.060B). 1. Windowing. Pruning major limbs that obscure a view, excluding the top third of the tree; 2. Interlimbing. Removal of an entire branch or individual branches throughout the canopy, excluding the top third of the tree, to allow more light to pass through as well as reducing wind resistance; and ground. Skirting -Up. Limbing the tree from the bottom upward to a maximum of twenty feet from the Figure 17.52A.060A ALTERNATIVE PRUNING PRACTICES CONIFERS `'Up Msiubiatbe Msm=the Wp Mw=m itiX& top U/3 of t oe 113 of tic of 20 feet fmm dw ground level Figure 17.52A.060B ALTERNATIVE PRUNING PRACTICES DECIDUOUS 02001 Code Publishina. Inc. Paw 6 BEFORE AFTER AFTER (Cow) (WMM) C. Himalayian Blackberry, Scot's Broom, Thistle and other similar invasive plants (including those listed by the Snohomish County noxious weed control board) may be removed manually from a steep slope, but the slope must immediately be replanted with native shrub species such as Oregon Grape, Salal and Evergreen Huckleberry. D. To ensure adequate habitat for wildlife, no cutting of trees over twenty-four inches in diameter is allowed. Removal of trees over twenty-four inches in diameter may only be considered if they are dead, dying, diseased or hazardous trees as determined by a certified landscape architect or aborst and approved by the planning and public works directors. (Ord. 987 § 4 (part), 2000) 17.52A.065 Repair of slope Instabilities. Repair of slope instabilities and emergency slope failures shall be allowed by the planning and public works directors as needed to correct an immediate danger to the public health, welfare and safety. The directors shall use the guidance of this chapter when evaluating the necessary repairs and add mitigation measures as appropriate to ensure that the intent of this chapter has been met. (Ord. 987 § 4 (part), 2000) 17.52A.070 Native growth protection areas and buffers. A. For development activities where land division is proposed or required, native growth protection areas shall be placed in a separate tract on which development is prohibited, protected by execution of an easement, dedicated to a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the city. The location and limitation associated with the critical area and its buffer shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat applicable to the property and shall be recorded with the Snohomish County assessor's office. B. Native growth protection areas and buffers shall not be used for storage or deposit of construction debris or material or deposit of vegetative spoils. C. All native growth protection areas shall be shown on the development site plans or final plat map, and shall be noted as follows: There shall be no clearing, excavation, or fill within a Native Growth Protection Area shown on the face of this site plan/plat, with the exception of required utility installation, removal of dangerous trees, thinning of woodlands for the benefit of the woodlands as determined by a Certified Landscape Architect or Arborist, and removal of obstructions on drainage courses, or as allowed under Section 17.52A.060, Vegetation Management on Steep Slopes. =1 Code Publishina. Inc. Page 7 D. A temporary sign shall be placed at the boundary of all native growth protection areas during periods of construction, clearing, grading, or excavation on adjacent property. The sign shall describe the limitations of on -site distwbonce and development *atbizt the nativae on area. A permanent sign shall be placed at the of all nattF a tec i y .the limitation on bo development. . ¢ E. A written report by a'eornfied'landscaif pre ,l0aer with all requests to modify or disturb a ve.gr8wd} ction area, Tle report' i+evit�vc the planning and public works director, ci�d6h shall and condition ar reject the rtiesi based on findings presented. (Ord. 987 § 4 (per), 2000) 17.52A.080 Exceptions. A. Public Agency and Uti'lityExceptions. If the application of this chapter would prohibit a development prWsaLby a public agency or utility, orthe installation :of necessary utilities -for a development proposal, the-agency,,utility or private:applicant may aMly far an exception.pursuanrto this sect'im. Applioations far an. exception shall. inclu4p. a report clesenbing the exception request, and the - development must meet the following criteria: 1. A geotecluLical report shall be submitted -to the city descnbAv .dw proposal.and..any impacts the development npa�y. hays on,ft critical, slope -area. 2..: ; ; applcaut can show that there is no other feaasible andasonabte motive to the proposed development with less impact on the critical, slope area; and 3. The proposal minimizes the impact on the critical slope area and incorporates all reasonable mitigation measures. (Ord. 987 § 4 (part), 2000) 17.52.AA - Density for critical slope areas A..., An o*T",of a site or property, containing a critical slope area ;maybe ,permitted to transfer the density attributablolo the steep dope portion,.of the property. to another oonsettaitive:portion=,of the same, site or property subject to the limitation of this section. B. Up to twenty-five percent of the density that could be achieved on the steep slope portion of the site can be transferred to the nonsensitive portion ofthe property;•sub*t.to: I.., s TheAc4sity4imilation of the underlying zoningdassifcation; ;:... . 2. Lots:shilluot be less than1cw-thousand fiva.hundred(4 500) square feet,in size; 3. AUeolicable. setbacks: and lot coverage standards<of underlying zoning regul6tions-apply; 4. The-fiont lot=line width may be reduced to forty feet; and . S. � Provided that the�k" to which the density is transferred shall not be coostrained by -another environmentally critical area regulation. (Ord. 987 § 4 (part); 2000) - 17.52A.0R0 ; . Re W, use pr'**1oQ..: A. The standards and regulations for critical slope areas in this chapter are not WaWcd and shall not be construed or applied in a manner to deny all reasonable economic use of private property. If an applicant that;atriot, applications of these standards would deny all :reasonsble economic'use of its propcWt davolopthent-may be permitted s*ect'td appropriate conditions: B. For ref d 66m the strict application ofth ik"stdhdards an appii6Anf shall 1 demonstrate the following:"" Appendix F Wildlife Habitat Protection Standards - Pitkin County, (0 Wildlife Habitat Protection Standards - Pitkin County, CO 3-80-080 Wildlife Habitat Areas This section establishes land use standards for wildlife habitat areas in addition to the general standards in Subsection 3-80-030. The standards apply to areas mapped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife on the County's adopted Wildlife Resource Information System (1041 Wildlife maps) and to areas known to be wildlife habitat areas by the Division of Wildlife. In all cases mapping will be field verified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist. A. General Standards: The standards in this section apply to all wildlife habitat areas. 1. Commercial, industrial or high impact recreational development, open pit mineral extraction, or construction of roads should avoid the habitat areas identified in this section. 2. Residential development shall be clustered outside of habitat areas to the maximum extent possible to minimize impacts on wildlife. 3. The removal of vegetation shall be minimized. Disturbed areas shall be promptly revegetated with beneficial browse species. 4. When existing vegetation must be altered, for an access road, utility line or similar uses, an applicant will cooperate with the County and the Colorado Division of Wildlife to devise a compensation plan acceptable to the County. Such compensation plan may substitute (in a nearby area on the subject property) vegetation equal in type and quantity to that being removed to mitigate effects on wildlife species. 5. Food, cover and water sources beneficial to wildlife shall be preserved. Mitigate development effects which would destroy or damage these. Give special consideration to trees and shrubs with high wildlife food value, especially heavy seed, berry and fruit producing species. 6. Wildlife food species and woody cover along fences should be encouraged as one way of improving wildlife habitat. 7. Waterholes, springs, seepage, marshes, ponds and other watering areas should be preserved. 8. Endangered species habitat shall be protected. All disturbances to such habitat shall be minimized. 9. All golden eagle nest sites and bald eagle roost sites shall be protected. Provide a three -hundred (300) yard buffer around nest sites. Protect all other raptor nest sites with one hundred (100) yard buffers. 10. Mesh or woven wire fences are prohibited. (Pitkin Co. Land Use Code 11/01) 198 11. Wire fencing shall employ a three strand barbed or smooth wire fence with a forty-two inch (42") maximum height above ground level and at least twelve inches (12") between the top two strands. Wood rail fencing shall employ three rails or less, be the round or split rail type, shall not exceed forty-eight inches (48") in height above ground level and twelve inches (12") in width (top view), and shall have at least eighteen inches (18") between two (2) of the rails. 12. Edges (places where two habitat types meet) must be avoided by development and shall be maintained whenever possible since deer and many other species of wildlife utilize edge areas. Vegetation disturbances on winter ranges should be minimized and all disturbances revegetated with beneficial browse species. 13. Tall, overly mature trees and standing dead trees should be retained whenever possible as nesting habitat for woodpeckers and other tree nesting species, such as eagles and hawks. Den trees in wooded areas which provide homes for birds, squirrels, and raccoons should also be retained. Disturbance or destruction of wildlife den sites shall be prohibited except in certain nuisance cases, like skunks under homes. B. Deer, Elk and Bighorn Sheep Winter Concentration Area/Severe Winter Range/Critical Habitat: Development is prohibited within deer, elk and bighorn sheep winter concentration areas and severe winter range areas. In the event that there is no hazard -free area on a site and a development application is subsequently denied, an applicant may petition the Board of County Commissioners for consideration pursuant to Section 3-290 of this Code. If an appeal is granted by the Board and development is permitted, an application shall be reviewed according to the following standards: 1. Avoid overgrazing of ranges by livestock. 2. Restrict development to areas that minimize wildlife impacts. 3. Preserve access to the Division of Wildlife for managing wildlife. 4. Prohibit commercial activity (such as seismic activity, construction and timber harvesting) and recreational uses from December 1, through March 31. 5. Prohibit dogs within or adjacent to elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep severe winter ranges and winter concentration areas, except for dogs working as part of an agricultural operation. C. Deer, Elk and Bighorn Sheep Winter Range: Land uses located in deer, elk or bighorn sheep winter range shall comply with Subsections 3-80-080(A); 3-80-080(B)(1), (2), (3) and (4), and the standards in this section. 1. Prohibit high impact recreational uses. 2. Kennel dogs within or adjacent to winter range, except for working dogs when at work. 199 (Pitkin Co. Land Use Code 11/01) D. Deer and Elk Migration Patterns/Corridors and Highway Crossings: Land uses located in deer and elk Migration Corridors shall comply with Subsections 3-80-030, 3-80-080(A) and the standards in this section. 1. Prohibit development blocking a corridor and preventing migration between summer and winter ranges. 2. Kennel dogs within one -quarter (1/4) mile of mule deer and elk migration corridors and patterns, except for working dogs when at work. E. Deer and Elk Production Areas: Development is prohibited within deer and elk production areas. In the event that there is no hazard -free area on a site and a development application is subsequently denied, an applicant may petition the Board of County Commissioners for consideration pursuant to Section 3- 290 of this Code. If an appeal is granted by the Board and development is permitted, an application shall be reviewed according to the following standards: 1. Prohibit development in production areas and prohibit other activities during the calving season which would disrupt reproduction. 2. Prohibit dogs within one -quarter (1 /4) mile of deer or elk production areas. Kennel dogs within one- half (1 /2) mile of deer or elk production areas. 3. Preserve access for the Colorado Division of Wildlife for trapping, tagging or studying wildlife. 4. Prohibit manipulation of vegetation except as approved by the Division of Wildlife. G. Riparian, Shoreland and Wetland Areas: Development shall be prohibited within riparian, shoreland and wetland areas with the exception that bridges, roads, utility crossings and other structures such as irrigation devices may be permitted upon a finding that there is no feasible alternative location and that any impacts will be adequately mitigated. In the event that there is no hazard -free area on a site and a development application is denied, an applicant may petition the Board of County Commissioners for consideration pursuant to Section 3-290 of this Code. If development is permitted or an appeal is granted by the Board, an application shall be reviewed according to the following standards; 1. For the protection of both terrestrial and aquatic habitat, any development or activity which is permitted within such areas shall incorporate measures designed to maintain vegetation, reduce erosion and sedimentation, maintain cold water temperatures, and otherwise allow man to function in harmony with, rather than be destructive to, wildlife habitat. 2. The development shall demonstrate compliance with Section 3-70 concerning water resources and with Subsection 3-50-040 concerning stream setbacks. (Pitkin Co. Land Use Code 11/01) 200 2 3. Removal of vegetation in riparian and shorcland areas and disturbance of ground cover adjacent to streams and in shorelands shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible. This destroys insect habitat and streambank stabilization, removes natural cover that provides shelter and insulation, and disrupts the natural filtering action of the landscape. Riparian and shoreland habitat areas should be allowed to develop naturally since they provide habitat for many birds and insects, shade and insects for fish and den sites for aquatic mammals. 4. Permitted land uses which disturb or denude areas of vegetation adjacent to wetland or riparian areas shall be revegetated as quickly as possible. 5. Channelization of streams destroys aquatic habitat and is prohibited. Development shall be designed to fit the channel rather than allowing changes in the channel in order to fit the project. 6. Placing culverts which may become barriers to fish passage and may plug or wash out during high flows shall not be permitted. Perennial stream channels should be bridged whenever possible. When this is not feasible, culverts shall be designed to avoid plugging and prevent washouts. 7. Adequate erosion control measures shall be incorporated in any development site plans. 8. Sewer lines shall be designed to avoid leakage of contaminants into the ground water resource. 9. There shall be permitted no changes to the stream channel or its capacity (provided, however, that bridge abutments may affect the stream channel if they do not substantially encroach on the flood channel and comply with any other building permit conditions); and no activity shall be allowed which will increase stream sedimentation and suspension loads. 10. All efforts must be made to reduce stream pollution and interference with the natural changes of the stream, and to enhance the value of the stream as an important natural feature. 11. In the event there is a trail designated by an approved trail plan within the development site, such trail shall be dedicated for public use; and a fisherman's access easement shall be granted, if appropriate. 12. Developments otherwise permitted shall not raise water temperature in portions of a watercourse or along the entire watercourse. Land use proposals should also be evaluated in terms of sewage and other organic and inorganic pollutants which have potential to lower the present high water quality and degrade the County's fishery. 13. Development shall maintain the pristine water quality of cutthroat trout streams if cutthroat trout are to be maintained within the County. 14. Development shall maintain baseline biological conditions established by existing water quality and aquatic biology conditions for major streams and lakes affected by the development. (Ord. 98-20 (part)) Section 3-90 Pitkin Co. Land Use Code, Article 3, 11/01 Appendix G Fire Siting Standards Covenant - Douglas County, OR Fire Siting Standards Covenant - Douglas County, OR ("Grantors") are the owners of real property described as follows: In consideration of approval of a and the issuance of a permit on the above described property by Douglas County, I (We), , the undersigned real property owner(s), for themselves and their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, do hereby agree and covenant that they shall comply with the following fire siting standards with respect to all new dwellings or structures on the property: 1. Owners of new dwellings shall maintain an adequate water supply suitable for fire protection, and the appropriate fire fighting equipment to contain fire from spreading to surrounding forest lands. 1.1. The property owner shall provide and maintain a water supply of at least 500 gallons with an operating water pressure of at least 50 PSI and sufficient 3/4 inch garden hose to reach the perimeter of the primary fuel -free building setback. 1.2. If another water supply (such as a swimming pool, pond, stream, or lake) is nearby, available, and suitable for fire protection, then road access to within 15 feet of the water's edge shall be provided for pumping units. The road access shall accommodate the turnaround of fire fighting equipment during the fire season. Permanent signs shall be posted along the access route to indicate the location of the emergency water source. 2. Road access to new dwellings shall, at a minimum, meet the following standards: 2.1. Maximum grade shall not exceed 20 percent; 2.2. Top surface width shall be 12 feet; 2.3. A turn -around shall be provided which allows for either a 35 foot radius cul-de-sac, or a 60 foot "T- shaped" design; 2.4. The road bed shall have an all weather surface; and 3. Owners of new dwellings and other structures shall: 3.1. Maintain a primary fuel -free building setback of at least 30 feet surrounding all structures. Vegetation within this primary safety zone may include mowed grasses, low shrubs (less than 2 feet high), and trees that are spaced with more than 15 feet between the crowns and pruned to remove dead and low (less than 8 feet from the ground) branches. Accumulated needles, limbs and other dead vegetation should be removed from beneath trees. 3.2. Clear and maintain a secondary fuel -free building setback of at least 100 feet in all directions around the primary safety zone. Vegetation within this secondary safety zone should be pruned and spaced so that fire will not spread between the crowns of trees. 3.3. Maintain adequate access, conforming with road access standards in this agreement, to the dwelling for fire fighting equipment vehicles. 3.4. Use fire resistant building materials and construction standards. Wood roof shingles or shakes shall not be permitted. Power lines that service the dwelling or structure shall be insulated. 4. If adjacent to a Rural Fire Protection District, the property owner shall apply for annexation into that district. 5. In areas subject to the State Scenic Waterway Program, compliance with the primary and secondary fuel - free building setback requirements of this agreement may be modified to comply with specific siting standards contained in a state approved Scenic Waterway Management Program when such regulations conflict. All the covenants contained in this instrument shall be binding upon, apply and inure to the burden of the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the Grantor(s) and all covenants shall be construed as covenants running with the land in perpetuity. Specifically, the Grantor(s) intend that the burden of the covenants run to successors of the successors of the Grantor(s). I (We), , do further agree that failure to comply with any provision of this agreement shall constitute a violation of this agreement. To facilitate the enforcement of this agreement, any violation of the agreement shall constitute a nuisance and may be enjoined, abated, or removed by Douglas County or otherwise enforced as provided at law or equity. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have executed this covenant on Grantor Grantor STATE OF County of This instrument was acknowledged before me on by Signature of Notary firesit.cov (12/98) Grantor: Grantee: Consideration: All Tax Statements to: After Recording Return to: After Recording Return to: Douglas County, OR website (http://www.co.douglas.or.us/planning/Plan—docs.htm) 2 Appendix H Wildfire Area Standards - Pitkin County, (0 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3- "70, WILDFIRE AREAS Ordimmee No. it 7 - 2002 1. The Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC') has directed the preparation of amendments to the Wildfire Hazard Areas section of the Pitkin County Land Use Code ("the Code'). 2. The amendments to section 3-80-070 of the Code are clarifications relating to the coverings of roofs in 1041 Wildfire Hazard Areas of Pitkin County. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z') reviewed the Code amendments at a regularly scheduled meeting on February 5, 2002 and recommended approval of the amendments as contained in this Ordinance. 4. The BOCC considered the amendments to section 3-80-070, Wildfire Area, of the Land Use Code to allow fire treated shake shingles in low wildfire areas at regular meetings on February 13, 2002, February 27, 2002 and March- 13, 2002. 5. The BOCC adopted an Emergency Ordinance amending section 3-80-070, Wildfire Area, of the Land Use Code on March 27, 2002 and confirmed said Emergency Ordinance at a publicly noticed hearing held on April 24, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners that it hereby enacts the following amendments to Section 3-80-070, Wildfire Areas, of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, as contained in Attachment A. ADOPTED ON THE 271n DAY OF MARCH, 2002 AND SET FOR CONFIRMATORY PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2e DAY OF APRIL. NOTICE OF PUBLIC G PUBLISHED IN THE WEEKEND EDITION OF THE ASPEN TIMES ON THE DAY OF - Ael-12 2002. CONFIRMED AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON 24m DAY OF APRIL, 2o02. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION IN THE WEEKEND EDITION OF THE ASPEN TIMES ON THE 99MDAY OF ::rVM 2002. EFFECTIVE ON THE 27TM DAY OF MARCH, 2002. Ordinance No. 07 2002 Page 3 AITACHIYIL+NT A Rawl and Reenact Secdon 3-80-070. Wildfire Areas 3-80-070 Wildfire Areas A. Seven Hazard Wildfire Areas: Development is prohibited within any of the following areas: l . Areas designated as "C - Severe Hazard: Trees" or "X - Severe Hazard: Brush" wildfire hazard on Pitkin County's adopted wildfire hazard area maps. 2. Areas that are not mapped but are identified by the Colorado State Forest Service and/or the Pitkin County Sheriffs Department as areas containing "C -Seven Hazard: Trees" or "X - Severe Hazard: Brush" wildfire hazard. 3. Ares that are incorrectly mapped m4but are identified by the Colorado State Forest Service and/or the Pitkin County Sheriffs Department as area containing "C - Severe Hazard: Trees" or "X - Severe Hazard: Brush" wildfire hazard. 4. Note: In all cases mapping will be field verified by the Colorado State Forest Service or the Pitkia'County Sheriffs Department. In the event that there is no area of a development site free of "C - Severe Hazard: Trees" or "X - Severe Hazard: Brush" wildfire hazards and a development appiication'is subsequently denied, an applicant may appeal the denial to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Section 3-290 of this Code. If an appeal of a project denial is granted by the Board, then the development application shall incorporate hazard mitigation according to the standards in subdivision C of this subsection. B. Low and Medium Hazard Wildfire Areas: If the development proposal is located within - any of the following areas: 1. Areas designated as "A - Low Hazard: Trees and Grass", "B - Medium Hazard: Trees" wildfire hazard on Pitkin County's adopted wildfire hazard area maps. 2. Areas that are not mapped but are identified by the Colorado State Forest Service and/or the Pitkin County Sheriffs Departments as area containing "A - Low Hazard: Trees and Grass," "B - Medium Hazard: Trees" wildfire hazard. 3. Areas that are incorrectly mapped aaddbut are identified by the Colorado State Forest Service and/or the Pitkin County Sheriffs Department as areas containing "A - Low Hazard: Trees and Grass," "B - Medium Hazard: Trees" wildfire hazard. 4. Note: In all cases mapping will be field verified by the Colorado State Forest Service or the Pitkin County Sheriffs Department. Or if an appeal of a project denial in a "C - Seven Hazard: Trees" or "X - Severe Hazard: Brush" wildfire hazard area is granted by the Board, then a development application shall be, reviewed according to the following standards: C. Mitigation Standards: Ors . No. 07 2002 Page 4 1. Location: The building envelope shall not be located in draws, canyons or on slopes greater than thirty percent (300%). 2. Defensible Space: The area around the structure shall incorporate landscaping with wildfire defensible space considerations as follows: Note: Actual vegetation manipulation to meet these conditions may not be necessary where the natural vegetation patterns have already fulfilled these conditions. a Brush, debris, and non -ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a minimum ten - foot (101 perimeter around the structure. b. Vegetation shall be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuels a minimum of a thirty-foot (30') foot perimeter around a structure built on flat ground. (For greater slopes reference CSFS Safety Zone chart. Page 13, Wildfire Guidelines For Rural Homeowners). c. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the thirty-foot (30') perimeters shall be a minimum of two (2) times the height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be two (2) times the height of the fuel. All measurements shall be fromthe edges of the crowns of the fuel. d. All branches from trees and brush within the thirty-foot (30') perimeter shall be pruned to a height of ten feet (10') above the ground and removal of laddec'fuels from around trees and brush. e. Tree crown separation within the thirty-foot (30') perimeters shall have a minimum of ten feet (10') between the edges of the crowns. This does not apply`fo'inature stands of Aspen trees where the above recommendation for removal of ladder fuels have been complied with. In area of Aspen regeneration, the spacing guidelines shall be followed. f All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all branches within fifteen feet (15') of the chimneys shall be removed. g. The density of fuels within a one hundred -foot (100') perimeter of the structures shall be reduced where natural reduction has not already occurred. h. All deadfall within the one hundred -foot (100') perimeter shall be removed. i. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. 3. Structural Design and Construction Requirements •a. Roofing: Roofs shall have a non-combustible roof.covering on a Class A assembly. Wood shake/shingle roof covering are prohibited in all wildfire hazard areas. Roofs with less than 3:12 pitch are not permitted in 1041 Wildfire Area unless they comply'with the following: 1) All roof coverings shall be non-combustible materials as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC)1997 Section 1504 and installed on a Class A roofassembly. 2) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the roof. Ordirwrrce No. 00 7 2002 Page 5 3) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited. 4) Roofs shall be installed as required by UBC 1997 Chapter 15 and shall have a minimum slope of 1:49. 5) All roof designs, coverings; or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Marshall prior to submittal of a building permit application. bc. Vents: Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant win mesh with mesh one -fourth - inch (1/4'i maximum. 4. Structural Design and Construction Options:` It'lithe policy of Pitkin County to encourage development to avoid wildfire hazards; however; when'this is not possible, the Board may, in its discretion, approve a development which incorporates the following architectural design standards in substitution for the defensible space requirements in subdivision'(W)'of this Subsection. Where structural design is proposed in lieu of defensible space requirements, the Board must find that the same level of protection would be provided as that gained through measures to create defensible space. a. Projections (Heat Traps) 1) Projections at the roof line (which include but are not limited to eaves, cornices, soffits and roofs over open decks) shall be sheathed with materials approved for one hour fire -resistive construction. 2) For projections below the roof line (including but are not limited to exterior balconies, decks, porches, cantilevered floor projections, and bay windows.wbich -extend over a flat or slopdd surface) the open space between grade and the underside of projections below the roof line shall be enclosed by solid, vertical walls. These walls shall be constructed with materials approved for one -hour fire -resistive construction on the exterior side of the wall and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor docking or walls of the projection. An alternative construction method for such projections would require. use of noncombustible building materials, or heavy timber or log wall construction, if the underside of the projecting portion is covered with materials approved for one -hour fin -resistive construction aril if there are no inside angles of less than seventy-five degrees (75°). Areas below such projections shall be void of vegetative or other combustible materials. These areas below projections shall be protected from accumulation of vegetative materials by placement of a vegetative barrier covered with rocks or gravel or by coverage with concrete Ordinance No, 007 2002 Page 6 or stone. There shall be no storage of combustible materials under projections. The walls underneath projections shall be constructed with materials approved for one -hour fire -resistive construction on the exterior side of the wall. Window openings in walls below projections shall be tempered glass. Doors shall be noncombustible or one and three -fourths inch (I %") solid wood. b. Windows and Oka: Glazed openings shall be provided with closable, solid, exterior non- flammable shutters or shall be tempered glass. , C. Exterior Walls and Siding: Siding and exterior wall construction shall have a minimum one -hour fire -resistive rating ground level to roof line. Exterior doors shall be noncombustible or one and three -fourths inch (I %") solid wood. d. Foundations: Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings shall be fully enclosed and constructed with materials approved for one hour fire -resistive constriction on the exterior side of the walls and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor decking or walls. e. Stilt Construction: The underside of decks and structures with stilt foundations shall be fully enclosed and constructed with materials approved for one hour fin -resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls and shall extend from the top of geadi46 the underside of the floor decking or walls. S. Maintenance a. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris: b. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. c. ' All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of fifteen feet (15') away from any structure. d. Weeds and grasses within the ten -foot (10') perimeter shall be maintained to a height not more than six inches (6"). 6. Miscellaneous a. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of fifteen feet (15') away from the structure. b. Swimming pools shall be accessible by the Fire Departments. C. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. d. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure. C. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the some standards as structures. f, Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. g. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a contour away' from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any above -ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for two (2) hour fire- Ordina►rce No. C07 20o2 Page 7 resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. h. Each structure shall have a minimum of one ten (10) pound ABC fire extinguisher. i. Addresses shall be clearly marked with two inch (2') non-combustible letters and shall be visible at the primary point of access from the public or common access road and installed on a non- combustible post. 7. Access a. Access roads shall be built to County standards; however, these standards may be increased to mitigate wildfire hazards based on comments provided'by the Colorado State Forest Service, the Sheriffs Department or local fire protection districts. When feasible, looped routes of access/egress to the main artery/highway shall be incorporated in the project design. Looped routes of access/egress is defined as two (2) or more dedicated access roads to the main artery/highway for widely separated ingresa/egress; looped drives with one entrance point or divided single entrances do not satisfy this condition. Where this is not feasible, the Board may approve vehicular turnaround areas a maximum of seven hundred fifty feet (7501) apart installed between the road intersection and its terminus. Turnaround areas shall be the same standard as cul-de-sac turnaround pads; these may be incorporated into the proposed driveway entries. b. Dead-end streets (not cul-de-sacs) shall not beetmitted. C. Cul-de-sac Wrn'around pads shall have a mud of a thirty-foot (30') drivable surface inside turning radius. d. The driveways and access roadway shall enter the roadway at a ninety degree (900) angle for the first twenty-five feet (25') of the driveway. e. Fuel breaks shall be incorporated into the roadways of the subdivision for one hundred feet (100') on each side of the roadway. (For greater slopes, reference CSFS Fuelbreak Guidelines for Forested Subdivisions). Now. Actual vegetation manipulation to meet this condition may not be necessary where the natural vegetation patterns have already fulfilled these conditions:' f. Access roads shall be built at a minimum to County standards; however, these standards may be increased to mitigate wildfire hazards based upon comments provided by the Colorado State Forest Service, the Pitkin County Sheriffs department and the local fire protection districts. 8. Water Supply a. When access to a public or private pressurized water system is not available or if it is necessary to augment fire protection water systems, private ponds may be used if approved by Pitkin County and the local fire protection district. b. Any fire department recommendation for individual structure water supply and storage shall be accessible to fire department vehicle from the exterior of the structure through a Fire Department approved mechanism (such as a fire hydrant). The amount of storage capacity shall be determined by fire protection district with a minimum of one thousand (1,000) gallon storage capacity per structure. Appendix I Employee Housing Standards - Jacksao, WI' Employee Housing Standards - Jackson, WY DIVISION 49500 EMPLOYEE HOUSING STANDARDS SECTION 49510 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE A. Findings. The findings contained in this section are abstracted primarily from Chapter 5, Affordable Housing, and Appendix B (to Chapter 5), Seasonal Employee Housing Needs Assessment, of the Jackson -Teton County Comprehensive Plan, which is adopted by resolution of the Jackson Town council and is available from the office of the Jackson Town Clerk. 1. Economic well-being. The economy of Jackson and Teton County is based primarily on tourism. Peak visitation occurs in the summer months of June, July, and August when almost 3 million tourists visit the county. During this period of time, county employment increases by more than 4,500 jobs. 2. Affordable housing shortage. There is a shortage of over 200 affordable rental housing units in Teton County. There is essentially no contract rental housing available for the influx of seasonal workers. 3. Private market not responsive. Because of the relatively low wages earned by seasonal workers, the private housing market does not respond to their need for basic shelter. 4. Need for regulatory action. The Seasonal Employee Housing Needs Assessment (Appendix B to Chapter 5 of the Jackson -Teton County Comprehensive Plan) concludes that housing must be provided for approximately 69 percent of the seasonal labor force. B. Purpose. The purpose of this Division is to provide for a reasonable supply of affordable, attainable housing suitable for the needs of the seasonal work force in Teton County. It is the intent of this Division to set forth standards, guidelines, and requirements for such housing to be equitably provided in conjunction with nonresidential development. (Ord 518 § 1, 1995.) SECTION 49520 APPLICABILITY The standards of this Division apply to development of nonresidential uses, as listed in Section 2220.C, Nonresidential Uses, unless exempted in Section 49530, Exemptions. (Ord 518 § 1, 1995.) SECTION 49530 EXEMPTIONS The following development is exempted from the standards of this Division. A. Redevelopment of preexisting uses. Redevelopment or remodeling of a nonresidential use existing prior to the effective date of this Division is exempt from the standards of this Division, provided no additional floor area is created by the redevelopment or remodeling activity. In the event new floor area is created, only the area that existed prior to the redevelopment or remodeling shall be exempt from the provisions of this Division. B. Change of use. Any change of use which would result in an employee housing requirement less than or equal to a prior use legally existing on the effective date of this Division is exempt from the provisions of this Division. In the event that a change of use results in an employee housing requirement which is greater than that of the prior Jackson Municipal Code - Land Development Regulations Article IV - Development Standards Page 61 of 66 legally existing use, only the difference in the employee housing requirement is subject to being provided pursuant to this Division. C. Development on lot or parcel for which employee housing standard has already been met. Development on any lot or parcel for which the employee housing standard, pursuant to this Division, has already been met through provision of employee housing, conveyance of land, or payment of fees -in - lieu, is exempt from the standards of this Division. D. Agriculture. Agriculture, as listed in Section 2220.C. La, Agriculture, is exempt from the standards of this Division. E. Agricultural employee housing. Development of agricultural employee housing is exempt from the standards of this Division. F. Institutional residential. Development of an institutional residential unit is exempt from the standards of this Division. G. Institutional uses. Development of an institutional use, as listed in Section 2220.C.2, Institutional uses, is exempt from the standards of this Division. H. Home uses. Development of a home use, as listed in Section 2220.C.5, Home Uses, is exempt from the standards of this Division. I. Temporary uses. Development of a temporary use, as listed in Section 2220.C.8, Temporary uses, is exempt from the standards of this Division. (Ord 518 § 1, 1995.) SECTION 49540 CALCULATION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING STANDARDS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The employee housing standards for all nonresidential development not exempted pursuant to Section 49530, Exemptions, shall be as follows. A. Required employee housing. Nonresidential development not exempted pursuant to Section 49530, Exemptions, shall provide housing for seasonal employees pursuant to the standards of Table 49540.A, Nonresidential Employee Housing Standards. The employee housing shall be provided consistent with the standards of Section 49550, Methods for Providing Employee Housing. Table 49540.A. NONRESIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING STANDARDS Land Use Category Employees Required to be Housed Office 0.03 per 1000 sf Commercial retail 0.42 per 1000 sf Heavy retail/service 0.05 per 1000 sf Service 0.15 per 1000 sf Restaurant/bar 1.01 per 1000 sf Commercial lodging Dude ranch 0.62 per guest Campgrounds 0.43 per 1000 sf of commercial floor area + 0.75 per 34 camp sites Hotels, motels, and other short term rental 0.13 per bedroom Jackson Municipal Code - Land Development Regulations Article IV - Development Standards Page 62 of 66 Table 49540.A. NONRESIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING STANDARDS Land Use Category Employees Required to be Housed Commercial amusement and indoor/outdoor recreation To be determined by independent calculation Resorts To be determined by Resort Master Plan Nursery 0.28 per 1000 sf + 1.13 per acre Aeronautical To be determined by independent calculation Industry 0.02 per 1000 sf B. Other nonresidential development. The employee housing standard for any nonresidential use not listed in Table 49540.A, Nonresidential Employee Housing Standards, shall be determined by an independent calculation, pursuant to Section 49570, Independent Calculation. The standard given in the Table 49540.A is the result of calculating the number of summer (peak) season employees who are in need of housing, accounting for those who may already live in the community and accounting for average wages paid by various land uses (see Seasonal Employee Housing Needs Assessment, Appendix B, Chapter 5, Affordable Housing, Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan.) (Ord 518 § 1, 1995.) 2 SECTION 49550 METHOD FOR PROVIDING EMPLOYEE HOUSING Applicants shall demonstrate how the employee housing standards established in Section 49540, Calculation of Employee Housing Standards, are to be met by submitting a housing mitigation plan pursuant to the procedures and standards of Section 49560, Housing Mitigation Plan. Employee housing standards may be met by one (1), or a combination of the following methods. A. On -site housing 1. General. Where permitted by these Land Development Regulations, the applicant may provide employee housing on site through mixed -use development. All mixed -use development is subject to the standards set forth in Table 2400, Schedule of Dimensional Limitations. This is the primary and preferred method for providing employee housing, and should be used whenever possible and wherever practicable. 2. Accessory Residential Units. The residential component of a mixed -use development may be comprised, in whole or in part, by Accessory Residential Units pursuant to Section 2370, Accessory Residential Units. 3. Rent. Rents charged for any on -site residential unit produced to satisfy the standards of this Division may not exceed thirty (30) percent ofthe seasonal employee's gross wages, in accordance with Teton County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. 4. Maintenance. All employee units shall be regularly maintained, and kept in a safe, sanitary, liveable, and rentable condition. B. Off -site housing Jackson Municipal Code - Land Development Regulations Article IV - Development Standards Page 63 of 66 1. General. The applicant may provide or cause to be provided, off -site conventional residential housing, either single family or multiple family, or dormitories. Applicants with obligations to provide employee housing may pool their required units with affordable units from other developments to create a viable offsite housing project. 2. Number of employees per unit credited. The following Table 49550.13.2, Number of Persons Housed Per Unit, gives the number of employees each type of unit will be credited toward an applicant's employee housing obligation. Table 49550.B.2 NUMBER OF PERSONS HOUSED PER UNIT Unit Type Persons Housed Per Unit Studio 1.25 One Bedroom 1.75 Two Bedroom 2.25 Three Bedroom 3.00 Four Bedroom 3.75 Five Bedroom 4.50 Each Additional Bedroom 0.50 Dormitory 1.00 per 150 s.f. of net habitable area 3. Rent. Rents charged for any on -site residential unit produced to satisfy the standards of this Division may not exceed thirty (30) percent of the seasonal employee's gross wages, in accordance with Teton County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. 4. Use of existing housing stock not permitted. The purchase or otherwise designation, assignment, or commitment of existing housing stock is not permitted for purposes of meeting the requirements of this Division. C. Campgrounds 1. General. The applicant may provide or cause to be provided campground facilities. 2. Dimensions per seasonal employee. A minimum of 350 square feet of space shall be provided per person. 3. Facilities. The campground facilities shall consist of sanitation and bathing facilities, and each campsite shall be provided with a fire pit or grill. 4. Rent. Rents for this housing shall not exceed a rate that is greater than thirty (30) percent of the seasonal employees' wages. 5. Other restrictions. All applicable provisions of these Land Development Regulations shall apply. D. Payment of in -lieu fees Jackson Municipal Code - Land Development Regulations Article IV - Development Standards Page 64 of 66 1. General. The applicant may pay an in -lieu fee for each employee required to be housed by this Division. A fee schedule shall be set by resolution of the Town Council and shall be reviewed and updated within two (2) years of its original adoption, and at least every two (2) years thereafter. 2. Time of payment and use of funds. Payment of the in -lieu fee shall be made to the Town of Jackson prior to, and on a proportionate basis to the issuance of any building permits for the free market portion of the development. a. Interest bearing account. The Town shall transfer the funds to an interest bearing trust fund. b. Authorized uses of fees. The funds, and any interest accrued, shall be used only for the purposes of planning for, subsidizing or developing employee housing units. 3. Refund of fees a. Seven year limit. Fees collected pursuant to this Section may be returned to the then present owner of property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees have not been encumbered within seven (7) years from the date of payment, unless the Town Council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which case the Town Council may extend the time period by up to three (3) years. b. Sequence of expenditures. Fees paid pursuant to this section are deemed to be spent or encumbered in the sequence in which they were received. c. Written request. To obtain the refund, the present owner must submit a written request to the Planning Director within one (1) year following the end of the seventh (7th) year from the date payment was received. d. Refunds for expired permits. Any payment for a project for which a building permit has expired due to non -commencement of construction may be refunded provided a request for refund is submitted to the Planning Director within three (3) months of the date of the expiration of the building permit. All requests shall be accompanied by proof that the applicant is the current owner of the property and a copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the fee. e. Credit for non -refunded payments. Any payments made for a project which is not begun or completed for any reason, and for which a refund has not been requested in accordance with subparagraph c. above, shall be retained by the Town of Jackson and a credit shall be established. Such credit runs with the land, is not transferable to other property, and may only be used against future employee housing obligations on the subject property. A record of such credit shall be maintained by the Town of Jackson. (Ord 518 § 1, 1995.) SECTION 49560 HOUSING MITIGATION PLAN A. Housing mitigation plan required. For all developments not exempted pursuant to Section 49530, Exemptions, a housing mitigation plan shall be submitted. Any applicant required to provide less than one employee housing unit, pursuant to Section 49550.A., Production of New Units, shall instead pay an in -lieu fee, pursuant to Section 49550.D., Payment of In -lieu Fee. 1. Content. The housing mitigation plan shall include the following: a. Requirement calculations. Calculations determining the employee housing standard that indicate each step of the calculation, from projected full-time equivalent employees to actual number of employee units required to be provided. b. Method. The method by which housing is to be provided, in compliance with Section 49550, Method for Providing Employee Housing. c. Unit descriptions. A conceptual site plan and building floor plan (if applicable), illustrating the number of units proposed, their location, and the number of bedrooms and size (square feet) of 4 each unit. A tabulation of this information shall also be submitted. d. Units developed. If employee housing units are proposed to be developed, the proposed restrictions that will be placed on the units to ensure the units will remain available as employee housing units. All restrictions are subject to approval of the Teton County Housing Authority (TCHA). e. Fee calculations. If fees -in -lieu are proposed, the calculations for determining the required fee amounts, pursuant to Section 49550.C, Payment ofln-lieu Fee, shall be submitted. 2. Procedure. Review of the housing mitigation plan shall occur at the time of the initial review of the free market portion of the development plan. B. Review standards. The Town Council shall approve the housing mitigation plan if it complies with the standards of this Division, addresses the need for affordable housing, and is consistent with the Jackson - Teton County Comprehensive Plan. (Ord 518 § 1, 1995.) SECTION 49570 INDEPENDENT CALCULATION A. General. An applicant may submit an independent calculation requesting modification to the amount of affordable employee housing required to be provided, and/or the in -lieu fee amount. B. Calculation contents. The independent calculation shall be supported by local data and analysis, surveys, and/or other supporting materials that provide competent substantial evidence that supports the proposed modification. C. Procedure and standards. The independent calculation shall be reviewed by the Town Council. If the materials and information supporting the calculation demonstrate by competent substantial evidence that there is a reasonable basis to modify the standards of this Division because of unique circumstances related to the proposed development, the Town Council may approve the independent calculation and make the appropriate modifications. (Ord 518 § 1, 1995.) Jackson Municipal Code - Land Development Regulations Article IV - Development Standards Page 60 of 66 Appendix Dark Sky Ordinance - Ketchum, ID Dark Sky Ordinance - Ketchum, ID Ordinance Number 743 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KETCHUM, IDAHO, TO BE KNOWN AS THE "DARK SKY ORDINANCE" ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING; PROVIDING FOR GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEFINITIONS, CRITERIA, NOTIFICATION, THE CITY' S ROLE, AND VIOLATIONS, LEGAL ACTIONS AND PENALTIES; PROVIDING A SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE; AND, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, unnecessary and improperly designed light fixtures cause glare, light pollution and wasted resources; and, WHEREAS, glare and light pollution can result in: hazardous circulation conditions for all modes of transportation; the diminishing ability to view the night sky; light trespass; and, unattractive townscape; and, WHEREAS, the people who live in and near Ketchum value the natural environment, including the beauty and high quality of the night sky; and, WHEREAS, the City of Ketchum is a destination resort community, economically dependent upon tourists and part-time residents, and is dependent upon its natural resources and environment to attract tourists and part-time residents; and, WHEREAS, the City of Ketchum desires to protect the health, safety and welfare of the (residents, tourists, motorists and) general public, and to protect the night sky that adds to the quality of life and economic well being of the City; and, WHEREAS, these regulations for exterior lighting will not sacrifice the safety of our citizens or visitors, or the security of property, but instead will result in safer, efficient and more cost-effective lighting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KETCHUM, IDAHO: SECTION 1- GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1 Title - This Ordinance together with the amendments thereto, shall be known and may be cited as the Ketchum Dark Sky Ordinance. 1.2 Purposes - The general purpose of this Ordinance is to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare, the quality of life, and the ability to view the night sky, by establishing regulations and a process of review for exterior lighting. This Ordinance establishes standards for exterior lighting in order to accomplish the following: a. To protect against direct glare and excessive lighting; b. To provide safe roadways for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians; c. To protect and reclaim the ability to view the night sky, and thereby help preserve the quality of life and the tourist experience; d. To prevent light trespass in all areas of the City; e. To promote efficient and cost effective lighting; f. To ensure that sufficient lighting can be provided where needed to promote safety and security; g. To allow for flexibility in the style of lighting fixtures; h. To provide lighting guidelines; i. To provide assistance to property owners and occupants in bringing nonconforming lighting into conformance with this Ordinance; and, j. To work with other jurisdictions within Blaine County to meet the purposes of this Ordinance. 1.3 Scope - All exterior lighting installed after the effective date of this Ordinance in any and all zoning districts in the City of Ketchum shall be in conformance with the requirements established by this Ordinance and any other applicable ordinances. All existing lighting installed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance in any and all zoning districts in the City of Ketchum shall be addressed as follows: a. All existing lighting located on a subject property that is part of an application for a City of Ketchum Planning Department Design Review, Conditional Use, or Subdivision Permit, or Building Permit is required to be brought into conformance with this Ordinance. Conformity shall occur prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, Final Inspection, or Final Plat Recordation, when applicable. For other permits, the applicant shall have a maximum of thirty (30) days from date of permit issuance to bring the lighting into conformance. b. All existing exterior commercial lighting that is not in conformance with this Ordinance shall be brought into conformance with this Ordinance within twelve (12) months from the date of adoption of this Ordinance, by June 30, 2000. c. All existing lighting that does not meet the requirement of Zoning Ordinance Number 208, Section XXIV, Subsection 24.5, which states that "any parking, yard, or building illumination in [any] zoning [district] shall be so directed as to protect adjacent properties from glare and direct lighting" is required to be brought into conformance with this Section of Zoning Ordinance Number 208. d. All existing exterior residential lighting, not affected by (a) and (c) above, that does not comply with this Ordinance is required to be brought into conformance with this Ordinance within two years from the date of adoption of this Ordinance, by June 30, 2001. e. In the event of a discrepancy in applicable ordinances, the most restrictive shall apply. SECTION 2 - DEFINITIONS Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this Ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this Section its most reasonable application. 2.1 Area Light - Light that produces over 1800 lumens (See Addendum 1 for Light Output of Various Lamps). Area lights include, but are not limited to, street lights, parking lot lights and yard lights. 2.2 Average Footcandle - The level of light measured at an average point of illumination between the brightest and darkest areas. The measurement can be made at the ground surface or at four to five feet above the ground. 2.3 Ballast - A device used with a discharge lamp to obtain the necessary voltage, current, and/or wave form for starting and operating the lamp. 2.4 Building Official - The City of Ketchum Building Official. 2.5 Bulb - The source of electric light. To be distinguished from the whole assembly (See Luminaire). 2.6 Candela (cd) - Unit of luminous intensity. 2.7 Commission - The City of Ketchum Planning and Zoning Commission. 2.8 Eighty -Five (85) Degree Full Cut -Off Type Fixtures - Fixtures that do not allow light to escape above an 85 degree angle measured from a vertical line from the center of the lamp extended to the ground. (See Figure 2). 2 2.9 Existing Lighting - Any and all lighting installed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. 2.10 Exterior Lighting - Temporary or permanent lighting that is installed, located or used in such a manner to cause light rays to shine outside. Fixtures that are installed indoors that are intended to light something outside are considered exterior lighting for the intent of this Ordinance. 2.11 Fixture - The assembly that holds the lamp in a lighting system. It includes the elements designed to give light output control, such as a reflector (mirror) or refractor (lens), the ballast, housing, and the attachment parts. 2.12 Flood Light - Light that produces up to 1800 lumens (See Addendum 1 for Light Output of Various Lamps) and is designed to "flood" a well-defined area with light. Generally, flood lights produce from 1000 to 1800 lumens. 2.13 Flux (radiant flux) - Unit is erg/sec or watts. 2.14 Footcandle - Illuminance produced on a surface one foot from a uniform point source of one candela. Measured by a light meter. 2.15 Full Cut -Off Fixtures - Fixtures, as installed, that are designed or shielded in such a manner that all light rays emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamps or indirectly from the fixture, are projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest point on the fixture where light is emitted. (See Figure 1). 2.16 Glare - Intense light that results in discomfort and/or a reduction of visual performance and visibility. 2.17 Holiday Lighting - Festoon type lights, limited to small individual bulbs on a string, where the spacing of bulbs is not closer than three inches and where the output per bulb is no greater than 15 lumens. 2.18IESNA - Illuminating Engineering Society ofNorth America (IES or IESNA) - The professional society of lighting engineers, including those from manufacturing companies, and others professionally involved in lighting. 2.19 Illuminance - Density of luminous flux incident on a surface. Unit is footcandle or lux. 2.20 Lamp - The source of electric light: the bulb and its housing. To be distinguished from the whole assembly (See Luminaire). 2.21 Light - The form of radiant energy acting on the retina of the eye to make sight possible; brightness; illumination; a lamp, as defined above. 2.22 Light Pollution - Any adverse effect of manmade light including, but not limited to, light trespass, uplighting, the uncomfortable distraction to the eye, or any manmade light that diminishes the ability to view the night sky. Often used to denote urban sky glow. 2.23 Light Trespass - Light falling where it is not wanted or needed, generally caused by a light on a property that shines onto the property of others. 2.24 Lighting - Any or all parts of a luminaire that function to produce light. 2.25 Lumen - Unit of luminous flux; the flux emitted within a unit solid angle by a point source with a uniform luminous intensity of one candela. One footcandle is one lumen per square foot. One lux is one lumen per square meter. 2.26 Luminaire - The complete lighting unit, including the lamp, the fixture, and other parts. 2.27 Luminance - At a point and in a given direction, the luminous intensity in the given direction produced by an element of the surface surrounding the point divided by the area of the projection of the element on a plane perpendicular to the given direction. Units: candelas per unit area. The luminance is the perceived brightness that we see, the visual effect of the illuminance, reflected, emitted or transmitted from a surface. 2.28 Non -Essential - Lighting that is not necessary for an intended purpose after the purpose has been served. Does not include any lighting used for safety and/or public circulation purposes. Example: For purposes of this Ordinance, lighting for a business sign is considered essential during business hours, however, is considered non -essential once the business is closed. 2.29 Partially Shielded - The bulb of the fixture is shielded by a translucent siding and the bulb is not visible at all. Light may be emitted at the horizontal level of the bulb. (See Figure 3). 2.30 Planning and Zoning Administrator - The City of Ketchum Planning and Zoning Administrator or a member of the City of Ketchum Planning Department Staff. 2.31 Recessed - When a light is built into a structure or portion of a structure such that the light is fully cut- off and no part of the light extends or protrudes beyond the underside of a structure or portion of a structure. 2.32 Shielded - When the light emitted from the fixture is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest point of the fixture where light is emitted. The bulb is not visible with a shielded light fixture, and no light is emitted from the sides ofthe fixture. Also considered a full cut-off fixture. (See Figure 4). 2.33 Temporary Lighting - Means lighting that is intended to be used for a special event for seven (7) days or less. 2.34 Uplighting - Lighting that is directed in such a manner as to shine light rays above the horizontal plane. SECTION 3 - CRITERIA The Commission, the Building Official and/or the Planning and Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to require new lighting, and existing lighting pursuant to Section 1.3(a) hereinabove, to meet the recommendations and guidelines, in addition to the requirements of this Ordinance. 3.1 All applications for Design Review, Conditional Use, Subdivision and/or Building Permits shall include lighting plans showing location, type, height, and lumen output of all proposed and existing fixtures. The applicant shall provide enough information to verify that lighting conforms to the provisions of this Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Administrator, Commission and/or Building Official shall have the authority to request additional information in order to achieve the purposes of this Ordinance. 3.2 All exterior lighting shall be full cut-off fixtures with the light source fully shielded, with the following exceptions: a. Luminaires that have a maximum output of 260 lumens per fixture, regardless of number of bulbs, (equal to one 20 watt incandescent light), may be left unshielded provided the fixture has an opaque top to keep light from shining directly up. (See Figure 5). b. Luminaires that have a maximum output of 1,000 lumens per fixture, regardless of number of bulbs, (equal to one 60 watt incandescent light) may be partially shielded, provided the bulb is not visible, and the fixture has an opaque top to keep light from shining directly up. (See Figure 3). 4 c. Flood lights with external shielding may be angled provided that no light escapes above a 25 degree angle measured from the vertical line from the center of the light extended to the ground, and only if the light does not cause glare or light to shine on adjacent property or public rights -of -way. (See Figure 6). Flood lights with directional shielding are encouraged. (See Figure 7). Photocells with timers that allow a floodlight to go on at dusk and off by 11:00 p.m. are encouraged. d. Holiday lights as defined in Subsection 2.17 are exempt from the requirements of this Ordinance for the six and one half month period from November 1 to April 15, except that flashing holiday lights are prohibited on commercial properties. Flashing holiday lights on residential properties are discouraged. Holiday lights are encouraged to be turned off after bedtime and after close of businesses. e. Sensor activated lighting may be unshielded provided it is located in such a manner as to prevent direct glare and lighting into properties of others or into a public rigbt-of-way, and provided the light is set to only go on when activated and to go off within five minutes after activation has ceased, and the light shall not be triggered by activity off the property. £ Vehicular lights and all temporary emergency lighting needed by the Fire and Police Departments, or other emergency services shall be exempt from the requirements of this Ordinance. 3.3 Light Trespass - It is the intent of this Ordinance to eliminate and prevent light trespass through the proper installation of lighting fixtures. All existing and/or new exterior lighting shall not cause light trespass and shall be such as to protect adjacent properties from glare and excessive lighting. 3.4 IESNA Guidelines - The Commission may require that any new lighting or existing lighting that comes before them meet the standards for footcandle output as established by IESNA. 3.5 All non -essential exterior commercial and residential lighting is encouraged to be turned off after business hours and/or when not in use. Lights on a timer are encouraged. Sensor activated lights are encouraged to replace existing lighting that is desired for security purposes. 3.6 Area Lights - All area lights, including street lights and parking area lighting, shall be full cut-off fixtures and are encouraged to be eighty-five (85) degree full cut-off type fixtures. Street lights shall be in accordance with the Idaho Power Franchise Agreement and/or the Light Conformance Schedule adopted by resolution by the City Council. Street lights shall be high pressure sodium, low pressure sodium, or metal halide, unless otherwise determined by the Council that another type is more efficient. Street lights along residential streets shall be limited to a 70 watt high pressure sodium (hps) light. Street lights along nonresidential streets or at intersections shall be limited to 100 watts hps, except thatlightsat major intersections on state highways shall be limited to 200 watts hps. If the Council permits a light type other than high pressure sodium, then the equivalent output shall be the limit for the other light type (See Addendum 1). For example: a 100 watt high pressure sodium lamp has a roughly equivalent output as a 55 watt low pressure sodium lamp, or a 100 watt metal halide lamp. Parking area lights are encouraged to be greater in number, lower in height and lower in light level, as opposed to fewer in number, higher in height and higher in light level. Parking lot lighting shall not exceed IESNA recommended footcandle levels. All freestanding area lights within a residential zone, except street lights, shall be mounted at a height equal to or less than the value 3 + (D/3), where D is the distance in feet to the nearest property boundary. 3.7 Luminaire Mounting Height - Free standing luminaires shall be no higher than 25 feet above the stand/pole base, except that luminaires used for playing fields shall be exempt from the height restriction provided all other provisions of this Ordinance are met and the light is used only while the field is in use, and except that street lights used on major roads may exceed this standard if necessary as determined by the City Council, as advised by a lighting engineer. Building mounted luminaires shall be attached only to walls, and the top of the fixture shall not exceed the height of the parapet or roof, whichever is greater. 3.8 Uplighting - Uplighting is prohibited in all zoning districts, except in cases where the fixture is shielded by a roof overhang or similar structural shield from the sky and a Idaho licensed architect or engineer has stamped a prepared lighting plan that ensures that the light fixture(s) will not cause light to extend beyond the structural shield, and except as specifically permitted in this Ordinance. 3.9 Flag Poles - Upward flagpole lighting is permitted for governmental flags only, and provided that the maximum lumen output is 1300 lumens. Flags are encouraged to be taken down at sunset to avoid the need for lighting. 3.10 Service Stations - The average footcandle lighting level for new and existing service stations is required to be no greater than 30 footcandles, as set by the IESNA for urban service stations. 3.11 Canopy Lights - All lighting shall be recessed sufficiently so as to ensure that no light source is visible from or causes glare on public rights -of -way or adjacent property. 3.12 Landscape Lighting - Lighting of vegetation is discouraged and shall be in conformance with this Ordinance. Uplighting is prohibited. 3.13 Towers - All radio, communication, and navigation towers that require lights shall have dual lighting capabilities. For daytime, the white strobe light may be used, and for nighttime, only red lights shall be used. 3.14 Temporary Lighting - Temporary lighting that conforms to the requirements of this Ordinance shall be allowed. Nonconforming temporary exterior lighting may be permitted by the Planning and Zoning Administrator only after considering 1) the public and/or private benefits which will result from the temporary lighting; 2) any annoyance or safety problems that may result from the use of the temporary lighting; and, 3) the duration of the temporary nonconforming lighting. The applicant shall submit a detailed description of the proposed temporary nonconforming lighting to the Planning and Zoning Administrator. The Administrator shall provide written notice of said request to owners of property immediately adjacent to the subject property. Said notice shall inform adjacent property owners they may comment on the request during a period of not less than ten (10) days after mailing of the notice and prior to final action on said request. 3.15 Neon Lights - Neon lights are only permitted pursuant to the Sign Ordinance, Section XXIV, Zoning Ordinance Number 208. 3.16 The attached figures and information sheets shall be incorporated into this Ordinance as guidelines for the public and the City for use in meeting the intent of this Ordinance. The figures and information sheets only serve as examples. The City does not endorse or discriminate against any manufacturer or company that may be shown, portrayed or mentioned by the examples. Additional information is provided at the Ketchum Planning Department. SECTION 4 - NOTIFICATION 4.1 The City of Ketchum Building and Planning Department permits shall include a statement asking whether the subject property of the proposed work includes any exterior lighting. 4.2 Within thirty (30) days of the enactment of this Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Administrator shall send a copy of the Dark Sky Ordinance with a cover letter to all local electricians and local electric suppliers listed in the local 1999 telephone books, as well as to the Ketchum/Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce. Within ninety (90) days (coincide with next available mailing) the Planning and Zoning Administrator shall send notice to all property owners on the Ketchum Water/Sewer mailing list. SECTION 5 - THE CITY'S ROLE 5.1 The City of Ketchum will commit to changing all lighting within the City rights -of -way and on City - owned property to meet the requirements of this Ordinance through the franchise agreement with the power company and/or through the Light Conformance Schedule adopted by resolution by the Council. 5.2 The City of Ketchum will assist property owners and/or occupants to correct any nonconforming lighting through consulting with the owner/occupant and assisting in the provision of shields. SECTION 6 - VIOLATIONS, LEGAL ACTIONS AND PENALTIES 6.1 Violations and Legal Actions - If, after investigation, the Planning and Zoning Administrator finds that any provision of this Ordinance is being violated, the Administrator shall give notice by hand delivery or by certified mail, return receipt requested, of such violation to the owner and/or to the occupant of such premises, demanding that the violation be abated within thirty (30) days of the date of hand delivery or of the date of mailing of the notice. The Planning Department Staff shall be available to assist in working with the violator to correct said violation. If the violation is not abated within the thirty (30) day period, the Administrator may institute actions and proceedings, either legal or equitable, to enjoin, restrain or abate any violations of this Ordinance and to collect the penalties for such violations. 6.2 Penalty - A violation of this Ordinance, or any provision thereof, shall be punishable by a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100) and each day of violation after the expiration of the thirty (30) day period provided in Subsection 6.1 above, shall constitute a separate offense for the purpose of calculating the civil penalty. SECTION 7 - SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that the provisions and parts of this Ordinance shall be severable. If any paragraph, part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 8 - REPEALER CLAUSE All City of Ketchum ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof which are in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 9 - EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KETCHUM, IDAHO and approved by the Mayor this 21 st day of June, 1999. Guy P. Coles Mayor Attest: Sandra E. Cady, City Clerk Publish: Idaho Mountain Express June 30, 1999 Appendix K Goals and Policies Guiding Small -Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses - Jefferson (ounty, WA Goals and Policies Guiding Small -Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses - Jefferson County, WA SMALL-SCALE RECREATIONAL AND TOURIST RELATED USES GOAL: LNG 7.0 Foster economic development in rural areas which is small-scale recreational or tourist - related and that relies on a rural location and setting. POLICIES: LNP 7.1 Small-scale recreational or tourist uses that do not include new residential development shall be provided for by the conditional use permitting process, subject to all of the following criteria: LNP 7.1.1 Small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall demonstrate under the permit review process that the proposed wholly new location or use or expansion of existing location or use is reliant upon a particular rural location and setting. LNP 7.1.2 Small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall be defined as those uses reliant upon the rural setting, incorporating the scenic and natural features of the land. These uses may include uses similar to campgrounds, U-fish ponds, hot springs, trails, boat launches and docks, outdoor/recreational equipment rental, private parks, recreational, cultural or religious retreats (non-residential), mini -golf, historic sites, gardens open to the public, animal viewing farms or wild game farms, horse arenas and stables, shooting ranges, music festivals/festival sites, and marinas. Under no circumstances should this policy be interpreted to permit new residential development or a Master Planned Resort pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360. LNP 7.1.3 The primary use of the site shall be for the small-scale recreational or tourist use. Commercial facilities, as provided for within an approved conditional use permit for small-scale recreational or tourist uses, shall serve only those recreational and tourist uses and shall be clearly accessory to and dependent upon the primary recreational or tourist uses. LNP 7.1.4 Small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall not include new residential development, except that necessary for on -site management. LNP 7.1.5 Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the recreational or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low -density sprawl. LNP 7.1.6 The following measures to minimize and contain the site shall be incorporated into the site plan of the wholly new or expanding recreational or tourist use: 7.1.6(a)A single site plan shall designate the location of all uses, and shall be processed as a conditional use permit. 7.1.6(b)The location of small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall be based upon the scenic and/or natural features of the land that support the need for a rural location and setting. 7.1.6(c) Standards shall include compatibility of the small-scale recreational or tourist uses with the rural character of adjacent lands including forestry, agriculture and rural residential uses. The rural character of the area shall be protected by landscape buffers and physical setbacks away from major transportation corridors, and otherwise ensuring visual compatibility with the surrounding rural area. 7.1.6(d)Conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, commercial development in the rural area shall be prohibited. 7.1.6(e) Site design for small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall ensure the protection of critical areas, as provided in RCW 36.70A.060, and surface water and ground water 10 resources. 7.1.6(f) Site design for small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall ensure protection from conflicts with the use of agriculture, forest, and mineral resource lands of long-term commercial significance designated under RCW 36.70A.170. LNP 7.1.7 Upon application for intensification/expansion of existing small-scale recreational or tourist areas and uses, the ultimate size and configuration of the site should be established and maintained by logical outer boundaries. Existing areas and uses are those that are clearly identifiable and contained, and where there is a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment as of July 1990, but may also include undeveloped lands if the overall goals of the Rural Element are maintained, by: a. preserving the character of the existing natural neighborhood; b. physical boundaries such as bodies of water, roadways, and land forms and contours are used to assist in delineation of the site; c. abnormally irregular site boundaries are prevented; d. public facilities and services are provided in a manner that does not permit low -density sprawl; and e. protecting critical areas and surface and groundwater resources. LNP 7.1.8 Within Jefferson County's isolated West End, allow small-scale recreation and tourist uses to provide basic goods and services to meet the needs of a local population living at a distance from commercial areas. This limited expansion of uses is also intended to allow for the creation of local jobs in an area of high unemployment and distressed economic conditions. Source: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998 11 Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon r_.^.fnc"".:Y.•:�/fin Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon March 2009 For: Central Oregon LandWatch By: Eben Fodor FODOR & ASSOCIATES LLC Community Planning Consulting Eugene, Oregon www.FodorandAssociates.com With research and analysis by David Hinkley Cover photo credit: Sandy Lonsdale Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page I Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3 1. Destination Resorts in Oregon.................................................................................... 4 2. The Thornburgh Resort Case Study......................................................................... 12 3. Thornburgh Fiscal Impact Analysis......................................................................... 13 4. Revenues from the Thornburgh Resort....................................................................17 PropertyTaxes............................................................................................................. 17 RoomTaxes................................................................................................................. 22 5. Thornburgh Resort Costs........................................................................................... 24 Transportation System Costs..................................................................................... 27 SchoolFacilities Costs................................................................................................ 40 Fire& EMS System Costs.......................................................................................... 48 Public Safety System Costs......................................................................................... 53 Parks& Rec. System Costs......................................................................................... 59 General Government Facilities.................................................................................. 64 6. Fiscal Impact Summary.............................................................................................. 67 RevenueSummary ...................................................................................................... 67 Costsof Facilities........................................................................................................ 67 ServicesImpacts.......................................................................................................... 68 Fiscal Impact Conclusions......................................................................................... 69 7. Thornburgh Resort's Economic Impacts.................................................................. 70 Job Creation and Employment Impacts.................................................................... 71 Who Will Fill New Resort Jobs: Locals or Newcomers? ........................................ 76 Housing Impacts of Thornburgh Resort.................................................................. 78 Spending by Destination Resorts.............................................................................. 81 EconomicRisks........................................................................................................... 83 Economic Impact Conclusions.................................................................................. 85 8. Implications for Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon ................................... 86 Appendices....................................................................................................................... 89 A-1. Property Tax Explanation.................................................................................. 90 A-2. Transient Room Tax Explanation..................................................................... 94 A-3. Population Projection Used in Study................................................................ 98 A-4. Tax Bases for Jurisdictions Used in Study ....................................................... 99 A-5. About the Authors............................................................................................ 100 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 2 Introduction The recent proliferation of destination resorts, and the number of new resorts currently being proposed in Oregon, raises concerns about the potential impacts of these resort on local communities, cities and counties. Based on a literature review performed as part of the research for this study, there are no independent, third - party studies evaluating destination resort impacts. The only readily -available sources of information are the resort developers' own studies prepared as part of the land -use application materials. This report represents the best effort to date to assess the impact of destination resorts in Oregon. It is a complex task and there are an almost unlimited number of potential impact areas that could be studied. To establish a manageable scope of work within the project budget, the focus of this study is on the fiscal impacts of resorts. Fiscal impacts are those that affect local governments and local taxpayers. They include both the tax revenues that will be generated and the costs to provide the services and infrastructure required to support the development. In addition to fiscal impacts, the economic impact of destination resorts was evaluated in terms of job creation and housing impacts. This study does not address any of the environmental or social impacts associated with residential and recreational development of resorts in the State. Instead this study focuses on the monetary (fiscal and economic) impacts these destination resorts have on the local communities where they are being built. In order to study resort impacts in detail, the proposed Thornburgh Resort in Deschutes County was used as a case study. The Thornburgh Resort is to be located near Redmond and just west of the existing Eagle Crest Resort. The Thornburgh Resort would be a medium-sized resort and was considered to be fairly typical of past and future resorts in the State. This report is intended to be transparent. All sources of information are documented and all the calculations and methodologies are explicit. Where data were not available, reasonable assumptions were made. These assumptions are also clearly stated. In some cases, where good data were not available, alternative scenarios were used to examine a range of possible conditions. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 3 I. Destination Resorts in Oregon Destination resorts typically involve 500 to 3000 single-family homes and various recreational amenities, such as golf courses and clubhouses, in an attractive natural setting located away from existing cities and growth centers. The term "destination resort" has a unique legal meaning in Oregon. Special status was given to "Destination Resorts" allowing them outside urban growth boundaries under Goal 8 (Recreational Needs) of the Land Use Planning Program! This action appears to be based on the assumption that the tourism benefits would outweigh the costs associated with this form of rural development. In 1987, provisions for destination resorts were enacted into state law and codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.435 through 197.467. According to ORS 197.440: The Legislative Assembly finds that. (1) It is the policy of this state to promote Oregon as a vacation destination and to encourage tourism as a valuable segment of our state's economy; (2) There is a growing need to provide year-round destination resort accommodations to attract visitors and encourage them to stay longer. The establishment of destination resorts will provide jobs for Oregonians and contribute to the state's economic development; (3) It is a difficult and costly process to site and establish destination resorts in rural areas of this state; and (4) The siting of destination resort facilities is an issue of statewide concern. The State Legislature attempted to enforce the tourism aspects of these developments by requiring a certain minimum amount of overnight accommodations and certain visitor -oriented facilities! The intent was apparently that without such requirements, destination resorts would likely be little more than the classic, sprawling rural subdivisions that the Land Use Program was intended to prevent. However it is unclear that resorts are actually meeting their overnight accommodations requirements due to a lack of reporting and enforcement mechanisms. In spite of State requirements, residential lots and private homes outnumber overnight accommodations by more than two to one. Residential lot sales represent the primary feature of existing and proposed destination resorts. Questions remain as to whether the destination resorts are essentially rural subdivisions that are increasingly having adverse impacts on cities, counties and the state that are not ' Goal 8: Recreational Needs (OAR 660-015-0000(8)). z State Law requires that destination resorts permanently allocate one overnight housing unit for every two residential units in Western Oregon and two overnight units for every five residential units in Eastern Oregon (see ORS 197.445(4)). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 4 adequately offset by tourism benefits. Our literature review found no studies examining these impacts in detail, other than those prepared by the individual resort developers themselves. So we are left with an inadequate understanding of the full impacts these development are having across the State. The Growth of Destination Resorts Destination resorts have proliferated rapidly in the State and will have increasingly significant impacts, both positive and negative. At this point, Oregon has eight existing resorts, most of which are historic or pre -Goal 8 resorts. Another seven are approved and under construction, and thirteen more have been proposed. Figure 1-1 shows these existing, approved and proposed resorts on a map of the State. Central Oregon shows the highest concentration of resorts in all stages of development. Southern Oregon and the Coast are also seeing resort development. Deschutes County has seen far more resort development than any other county, but Crook, Jefferson and Jackson counties are also seeing a high level of resort development. Figure 1-1: Destination Resorts in Oregon by Status Source: Toby Bayard Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 5 Table 1-1 provides a more -detailed summary of destination resorts that are completed, under construction, and proposed in the State. The land use and housing unit data from this table is illustrated graphically in Figures 1-2 and 1-3. It is evident that destination resorts are expanding rapidly. If the recently -approved and proposed resorts are built, Oregon's destination resort capacity will approximately triple. The rapid growth in destination resorts raises a number of questions. Is there going to be a market demand for so much resort capacity? Will new resorts compete with established resorts and undermine their viability? And will the economies of Central Oregon and other popular resort locations become vulnerable in the event of a possible downturn or collapse of the resort market? Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 6 Table 1-1 Destination Resorts in Oregon, January 2009f'I Overnight Existing Resorts Goal 8? County Acres Homesites Units(') Total Units Bandon Dunes Goal 2 exception Coos 2,000 600 150 750 Eagle Crest Yes Deschutes 1,772 891 585 1,476 Sunriver/Crosswater No Deschutes 3,310 3,220 936 4,156 Black Butte Pre -Goal Deschutes 1,300 1,251 425 1,676 Inn of the Seventh Mt. Pre -Goal Deschutes 310 20 210 230 Running Y Ranch Yes Klamath 6,000 896 305 1,201 Otter Crest Pre -Goal Lincoln 35 144 130 274 Salishan Pre -Goal Lincoln 750 369 0 369 Subtotal: 15,477 7,391 2,741 10,132 Under Construction Brasada Ranch Yes Crook 1,800 600 300 900 Hidden Canyon Yes Crook 3,250 2,450 1,225 3,675 Remington Ranch Yes Crook 2,079 800 400 1,200 Caldera Springs Yes Deschutes 390 320 160 480 Pronghorn Yes Deschutes 640 430 215 645 Tetherow Yes Deschutes 698 379 298 677 Paradise Ranch Yes Josephine 320 200 67 267 Subtotal: 9,177 5,179 2,665 7,844 Proposed Resorts Crossing Trails Yes Crook 580 490 240 730 Pacific Rogue Ranch No Curry 592 500 150 650 Aspen Lakes Yes Deschutes 550 300 100 400 Skyline Forest No Deschutes 1,500 950 0 950 Thornburg Yes Deschutes 1,970 950 425 1,375 Heaven's Gate Yes Douglas 500 200 200 400 Hidden Valley Ranch (2) Yes Jackson 883 TBD TBD TBD Table Rock Yes Jackson 2,100 1,200 600 1,800 Ponderosa Land & Cattle Yes Jefferson 3,500 2,500 1,000 3,500 The Metolianizl Yes Jefferson 640 450 180 630 Crescent Creek Ranch Yes Klamath 5,000 1,965 785 2,750 Naples Golf & Beach Yes Lincoln 576 1,155 0 1,155 Elkhorn Estates Yes Marion 464 150 40 190 Subtotal: 18,855 10,810 3,720 14,530 Totals: 43,509 23,380 9,126 32,506 (1) Data Compiled by Toby Bayard and COLW on 2/25/09 (2) Data on number of units not final at this time (rBD is to be determined). (3) Dwelling units only. Hotel rooms were not included in the overnight units when information was available to separate them from dwelling units. Where data for the number of overnight units was not available, required State minimums were applied to Goal 8 resorts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 7 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 8 The Destination Resort Controversy The booming growth in destination resorts has led to increasing concern about their impacts and more questions than answers. Do we need more destination resorts, or do we have too many already? Are these resorts beneficial to the local economy, or are they just generating profits for a few and low -wage jobs for the rest? Are local governments reaping giant tax windfalls, or are they incurring more costs than they can recover? Are resorts allowing more Oregonians to vacation in beautiful rural areas, or are they destroying the beauty of the landscape and rural character Oregonians currently enjoy? Are resorts well -planned developments that are carefully integrated with the natural environment, or are they just low -density rural sprawl and ecological disasters that threaten ground water and destroy habitat? Regardless of the answers to these questions, opposition to new resorts has grown. For example, last year residents of conservative, rural Crook County voted 2 to 1 to halt the spread of resorts in that county. According to an editorial in The Oregonian newspaper,3 Crook County opponents have some justification in warning that these projects are essentially large subdivisions under the guise of destination resorts. They will, as critics complain, have a significant impact on the county's vehicle traffic, water supply and wildlife habitat. Prineville boosters of the new resorts correctly point out that they contribute heavily through property taxes and create hundreds of jobs. But opponents are equally correct in noting that the influx of homes will inflate land values, putting unwelcome pressure on farmland and making housing unaffordable for workers who will fill all those low -paying new jobs. lobs for Whom? In spite of high unemployment in Central Oregon, alarming information was reported in the Bend Bulletin last year that many of the local resorts were hiring from outside the U.S. to fill their jobs.' According to the article, instead hiring locally, the Sunriver Resort actively recruited foreign workers at overseas job fairs, hiring 85 workers from countries such as Lithuania, Brazil and Mexico. Inn of the Seventh Mountain hired 11 workers from Jamaica and Indonesia. Other resorts may be doing the same. Even if some resorts are not hiring foreigners, studies show that many of the new jobs they create will go to newcomers rather than locals.' s "Putting the Brakes on Destination Resorts," editorial, The Oregonian, May 27, 2008. a "Unemployment might be high, but resorts still struggle to fill some jobs," The Bulletin, May 11, 2008. ' See: Who Benefits from Locallob Growth, Migrants or the Original Residents, by Timothy J. Bartik, Regional Studies, vol. 27, No. 4, 1993. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 9 Resort or Rural Subdivision? It is increasingly clear that the primary incentive for building destination resorts is the traditional profit resulting from the real estate sales of residential lots. Developers rarely build more tourism accommodations than they are required to provide by law. The resort -oriented features appear to be little more than the vehicle by which the subdivision is allowed. Certainly the golf courses and resort amenities enhance the value of the residential lots, but developers recognize that the resort components are marginal, risky and often unprofitable investments. Meeting the tourism -oriented overnight accommodation requirements of Goal 8 has been challenging for resort developers. Newer resorts are focused more on residential lot sales and less on tourism accommodations. There has been an increased use of smaller, lower -cost units, such as hotels and timeshares, to meet overnight lodging requirements.' Resorts that are close to urban areas may end up functioning more like suburbs. The Eagle Crest Resort, for example, is less than six miles from downtown Redmond, making urban amenities and jobs just a 10-minute drive away. Some resorts may evolve into rural communities or towns of their own. The Hidden Canyon Resort for example, which will be located in Powell Butte (Crook County), will have a population roughly equal to that of the City of Madras, if it is fully developed. The proposed Ponderosa Resort could have a population three times that of the City of Sisters. Effects of the National Recession The dramatic expansion of the destination resort industry in Oregon has been fueled in part by a booming real estate market that seemed to have no end. Ten years of unprecedented growth peaked in 2007 and has declined rapidly since. The economic models for destinations resorts were based on assumptions of continued high land values, high real estate demand, and rapidly expanding tourism. However, the ongoing collapse of the inflated national real estate bubble and the ensuing economic downturn requires that these assumptions be revised. In the past, the residential lots in a destination resort have been largely purchased by individuals as second homes and investment properties. The current economic recession will contract the market for second homes and will reduce the appeal of real estate investing. Unless the national economy has an unexpected, dramatic recovery, more and more potential homebuyers will be economically constrained. Potential tourists are likely to reduce travel and shun expensive vacations to save e See: Destination Resort Siting, a presentation by Bob Cortright, DLCD in Prineville, October 15, 2008, htty://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/rulemaking/101508/item4 att D.ndf. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 10 money.' A Central Oregon economic forecast shows tourism to be "extremely weak" and contracting through at least the end of 2010.' Owners of second homes may find the cost of owning two homes to be too expensive. Under this scenario, it is likely that more of the lots created in destination resorts will be purchased for primary residences. We may see a similar shift in existing resorts, with more second homes and rental properties changing to primary residences. Resort developers may respond to the weak economy by downscaling homes to make them more affordable as primary residences. Infrastructure Needs The residential component of the destination resort functions much like any subdivision in a rural area. It is removed from the retail services and amenities people require. It is lacking adequate infrastructure and services required by an urban population. Greater travel distances are required for commuting and meeting daily needs. This generates demand for more roads with more capacity. When traffic growth is projected in Central Oregon, including destination resorts, the funding gap to bring the state highways to standards for traffic congestion is approximately $750 million over the next 20 years.' Resorts located close to cities and towns run the risk of becoming more residential, as residents have access to the nearby urban amenities homeowners desire. The proposed Thornburgh Resort is to be located approximately seven miles from Redmond. Such resorts may have the effect of attracting higher -end housing away from the cities, which undermines the cities' property tax base while increasing their effective populations and adding to demands for more roads and schools. County and municipal governments will be severely squeezed for financial resources over the next few years as a result of: • Decreasing property values that reduce property tax revenues; • A weak economic outlook that may reduce other sources of income; • Government costs increasing at rates exceeding Measure 47 and 50 limits on property tax increases of 3%; and, • Decreasing Federal payments to counties in lieu of timber revenues. Will the new destination resorts be a golden goose, or the straw that breaks the camel's back? Fiscal impact analysis can provide the answer. ' Early reports indicate that major tourism destinations such as Las Vegas are seeing significantly lower tourism resulting from the recession. Gaming revenues there are down 25.8%, room rates have declined 14.3 %, and many construction projects have been canceled or scaled back, according to the Los Angeles Times (published in The Register -Guard Newspaper, 12/26/08). ' Presentation: United States and Central Oregon Economic Review and Forecast, by Dr. Bill Watkins, Executive Director, UCSB Economic Forecast Project, January 2009, http://www.ucsb- efp.com/PPT/2009/OR Watkins.ppt. 9 Source: Gary Farnsworth (ODOT), Meeting Minutes for Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation, COACT, September 13, 2007, page 3. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page I I 2. The Thornburgh Resort Case Study In order to examine the impacts of destination resorts in detail, a typical resort was selected for in-depth analysis. The proposed Thornburgh Resort has a similar profile to most of the resorts in Oregon. It is typical in terms of its size and mix of development. It is to be located in Deschutes County, home to more destination resorts than any other county in the State. Due to its pending application, extensive current materials are available on the planned resort. As shown in Table 2-1, the proposed Thornburgh Resort is to have 950 residential ownership units and 425 overnight units, for a total of 1,375 residential units. The application proposes a 50-room hotel with restaurant, three golf courses, recreational facilities, and retail space. Table 2-1: Thornburgh Resort Profile for Impact Analysis Peterson Land Use Economic Report Application Used in Impact Metric (1/2005) (2/2005) Study Total acres 1,980 1,970 1,970 Acres open space (incl. Golf) No info 1,293 1,281(t) Residential ownership units 1,400 950 950 Residential overnight units Unclear 425 425 Hotel rooms 100 50 50 Golf courses (regulation 18-hole) 3 3 3 Golf courses — par 3 1 0 0 Other facilities: • Retail space 20,000 ft2 20,000 ft2 • Real Estate Sales office 15,000 ft2 15,000 ft2 • Hotel and restaurant 75,000 ft2 75,000 ft2 • Recreational • Convention facility, business center 60,000 ft2 60,000 ft2 Unspecified size Assumed part of hotel/rest. Water system 6 new wells, 2 6 new wells, 2 reservoirs reservoirs Sewer system 2 drain fields 2 drain fields (1) From Final Master Plan. Since the Thornburgh Resort is unbuilt, certain types of data were not available. For example, the ultimate occupancy rates and vehicle trip generation rates were unavailable. To reflect the most likely scenario for the Thornburgh Resort at full buildout, data was used from the nearby Eagle Crest Resort. Eagle Crest appears to have a similar profile in terms of the mix of uses and relative price ranges for lots and homes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 12 3. Thornburgh Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal impact analysis generally refers to the evaluation of the financial and budgetary effects of alternative land uses or public policies on local governmental jurisdictions or other local service providers. These may include cities, counties, school districts, special-purpose districts, water and wastewater service districts, and regional authorities. Sometimes state governments are also impacted. While the focus of fiscal impact analysis is on government revenues and costs, the broader public policy question is: How will this action or decision affect local taxpayers and the general public? Answers to this broader question allow elected officials to determine how the proposed action will affect local tax rates or the quality of local services. This question tends to be one of most interesting to local voters and the public in general. As shown in Figure 3-1, the fiscal impact analysis compares the changes in revenues with the changes in costs of a local government entity that result from an action or decision. Revenues include taxes, fees and other income. Costs include operation (services) and maintenance (O&M) and new or expanded capital facilities and equipment. Figure 3-1: Diagram of fiscal impacts of land development on local government (Fodor & Associates). Revenues *Property Taxes -Other Taxes -Other Revenue (fees, permits, etc.) Local Government (City, County or School District) Costs -Operation (services -Maintenance -Capital Facilities & Equipment Usually local governments must balance their budgets so that costs don't exceed revenues. While this is true for government services, it is not the case for major capital expenditures. Local governments may issue general obligation bonds for new capital facilities that enable them to carry debt. General obligation debt is a reasonable way to finance facilities that have a broad public benefit. However, when the new facilities are constructed primarily to serve new development, an inherent Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 13 inequity results, and all taxpayers pay to fund facilities that benefit a small segment of the population. One solution to this problem is the LID, or local improvement district, that limits funding of improvements to the beneficiaries. Another is the impact fee, or system development charge (SDC) in Oregon, that directly recovers some or all of the costs associate with providing certain facilities to new development. Deschutes County also uses "Community Service Districts" to assess the costs of some public safety, fire protection and library services directly to the geographic districts they serve. Public Infrastructure Required by Thornburgh Resort Development Table 3-1 below summarizes the categories of infrastructure required by new development. The costs associated with all onsite facilities and services (such as local roads and utility lines) are assumed to be borne by the developer. Only the offsite impacts are examined here. Of these, transportation and schools typically represent the greatest costs, so much of the analysis work focused on these two categories. Table 3-1: Basic Public Infrastructure Required by New Development All Categories Evaluated Transportation System Yes School Facilities Yes Fire & EMS Facilities Yes Police Facilities Yes Parks & Rec. Facilities Yes Sanitary Sewer System NA Storm Drainage System NA Water Service Facilities NA Library Facilities No General Gov. Facilities Yes Solid Waste Facilities No Public Open Space No The Deschutes County Code10 requires that the resort developer pay for onsite water and sewer systems, so it was assumed that the costs associated with these facilities and services are borne by the resort and its future residents and visitors. The long- term viability of these onsite water and sewer systems is unclear. For example, the current plans indicate that the resort's sewer system will rely on drain field disposal for an indefinite period of time. This method of disposal can contaminate groundwater and has a limited lifespan. The high water demand from the resort may 10 Deschutes County Code, Chapter 18.113. Destination Resorts Zone — DR. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 14 deplete local groundwater supplies and the resort may be obliged to indemnify nearby landowners. The County has no requirements for offsite stormwater management facilities or services, so it was assumed that onsite stormwater management will not have offsite fiscal impacts. These resort developments are contingent on provision of open space within the development." Therefore, additional open space needs may not be generated by the development.12 However, any new residential development is likely to increase demands for certain County parks and recreational facilities, so these impacts were included in the study. Electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste disposal services to the resort are operated by private businesses. These services also require offsite infrastructure investments. Such costs tend to be added to the utility rates that are paid by all customers, not just resort residents. The costs associated with increased rates for these services were not included in the study because they are not public - sector costs and because it is difficult to obtain the necessary revenue and cost data from private companies. Impact Analysis Methodoloay In order to evaluate the potential impacts of the Thornburgh Resort, two scenarios are compared: unbuilt and full buildout. The unbuilt scenario assumes no change in current land use. The full buildout scenario assumes the resort is entirely built out (all proposed facilities are built and all lots are developed with homes). In all likelihood the resort will take many years to build out and may have undeveloped lots remaining long after most construction is completed. To simplify the impact analysis, both the unbuilt and full buildout scenarios were compared for the year 2008. This simplification enables a direct comparison of before and after costs and revenues and eliminates the time -values of various cash flows in different years. By comparing built and unbuilt scenarios, the vagaries of uncertain approval dates and construction schedules are eliminated. It is intuitively more useful to consider the alternatives of a resort that is either built or unbuilt under current economic and fiscal conditions than to consider one option today and the other 12 years in the future. A destination resort creates both direct and induced impacts. As described in the Economic Impacts section of this report, a resort induces additional growth and " According to Deschutes County Code, DDC 18.113.060(D)(1), "The resort shall have a minimum of 50 percent of the total acreage of the development dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, streets and parking areas." Golf courses are considered open space. "Increased use of public lands surrounding resorts by resort residents is common. For example, the Pronghorn Resort recommended that their property owners use adjoining BLM land for exercising dogs in a recent newsletter. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 15 development beyond its physical boundaries. This is primarily the result of new jobs created at the resort. Many of these jobs will be filled by newcomers who will require additional housing and have fiscal impacts of their own. In this study the induced impacts were evaluated only for schools. All other impact areas reflect only the direct fiscal impacts of onsite development within the resort. The induced impact on schools was addressed because student generation will be significantly increased by influx of new workers at the resort and this information may be useful to school districts for facilities planning purposes. All revenue and cost figures are given in 2008 dollars and values. Costs from other years were adjusted to 2008 values based on the appropriate inflation index or construction cost index. Tax rates were based on the 2008-09 rates. The most recent available data was used throughout the analysis. It is important to note that from an accounting perspective, there are two basic types of costs and revenues: annual streams that occur every year, and one-time costs or payments. Tax revenues and service costs represent the former. Infrastructure costs and any associated System Development Charges are treated as the later. As soon as a new resort development is completed, the residents and visitors will need adequate road capacity, classroom space for their children, fire protection, and public safety services, so these facilities must be in place. There are a number of standard methods for estimating the demand for new facilities and infrastructure a new development will generate. Each method has advantages and drawbacks. The methods used here were selected to yield the best estimates of demand given the limitations of available data. In most cases the capacity of services and infrastructure must be adequate to serve peak demands. For example, police and fire protection capacity must be adequate to meet peak demand periods, not just average demand. In such cases, the demand for public facilities was based on peak season resort occupancy, rather than average occupancy. The terms "gross" and "net" are used to describe costs and revenues in this report. In the case of costs, a gross cost would be the total cost to provide a particular facility or service, while the net cost would be the gross cost, minus any payment or revenue from the resort towards that facility or service. In other words, it is the balance of costs after any revenues are deducted. Tax revenues are treated as gross revenues because they are used to pay for government costs. The net revenue for a particular service, if any, is the surplus left over after the costs of providing the service are deducted. The fiscal impact reporting begins by evaluating the revenues the resort is likely to generate from property taxes and room taxes. Then the costs are addressed. And finally, the costs are compared with the revenues to determine net impacts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 16 4. Revenues from the Thornburgh Resort A significant selling point for new destination resorts has been the tax revenues they will generate for county governments. As described later, increased tax revenues are offset by increased costs for public facilities and services required by the resort. In this analysis, both property tax revenues and transient room tax revenues are estimated for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Property Taxes The Thornburgh Resort Company LLC submitted a report by Peterson Economics, of El Cerrito, California, which provided their estimate of property tax revenues, but made no estimate of room taxes. The property tax revenue estimate provided by the developer was approximately three times greater than the revenue calculated here. This was partly due to use of overinflated real estate values that may have seemed realistic during the 2004-2005 boom period, but are out of line with current real estate prices and the assessed values at the nearby Eagle Crest Resort.13 The annual property tax figures by Peterson were also inflated at an annual 3% rate over the 12- year construction phase so that the final annual tax revenues at completion were given for the year 2016 and are much higher than they would be today. The taxes calculated here are based on the revenues that would be generated if the resort were fully completed in 2008 under the 2008-09 tax rates. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the estimated property tax revenues from the residential and commercial properties planned for the Thornburgh Resort. The combined total property tax revenues are $5.1 million per year based on a total assessed value of approximately $375 million, as shown in Table 4-3.14 The $5.1 million tax revenue estimate is about one-third of the amount estimated by the applicant in the Peterson Report." However the figure calculated here is in line with data reported by other sources for actual tax revenues from other resorts.16 In order to determine where tax revenues will go in Deschutes County, the individual tax rates for each taxing district applicable to the resort were used and the 23 Eagle Crest Resort is considered to be comparable to the proposed Thornburgh Resort in terms of its real estate values. 14 Assessed values are for tax purposes and not the same as real market values. 15 For comparison purposes, the tax revenues estimated by the applicant in the Peterson Report were adjusted from the 2016 buildout year back to 2008, resulting in an estimate by Peterson of $17,500,000 per year. 16 Tax revenues were reported for 2005-06 tax year by Linda Swearingen (a lobbyist and consultant for destination resorts) for various resorts in a presentation to the League of Women Voters, November 2005. She reported annual tax revenues for Eagle Crest at $4,096,058 and for Black Butte at $6,315,414. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 17 results provided in Table 4-4. Technical details on the methodology used for property tax calculations are provided in the Appendix to this report. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 18 P•4 4 0 co x C LIM III) co to co LO Fes'• � cD '� T T a V M r- y1••": N t0 d r M t E9 d4 W% C4 a CD CD IQ L() m co q, c V% 69 O` H O d �_ YC cn m_ 00 0 C� C C. CC r O a r 7 N y n CD CD C. C ^J = LO lA � i d d N ¢ C. 6s LC C M O CDa7 O O 'C O �p O O V1 aD •C O ci C5 � CD N LO Lrr) d3 EFi E C. � LC 67 w 3 � R C 47 7_' CD CD CD O Y O_ O_ C a= CDCD N aQ N N M Cl) C Ef3 EA E d A =3 Cr- U) 2. as o 0 Q CO E - = 0 C � O r CDO Mall O LU fA d4 'C d E N CD W Z o m le y m d W w O � = cc-.) Oi C O O > O C O H o a m U U p O _ OccY E x N N Q O O O II O CD aIIi cyi a� ' Ux N c � m m of O IA y L ` tO II ~ O U O O y y c W E N CD y C m ` y Y N ` N fd tO O y N II y VJ _ r td d p p C U Q y O 0 U L Q p O 3 II E i3 EIIv a m cl m ` c y N E N J n �O' H Q M. O E T J Q N y O Q aL-+ O GL tOiJ N Go_ M Cl) C3 O � � 7 p d L 3 y C y y II Of M y 0 N n E m U O U C N a O > O J n y [Q C w L x O R a U II C y U N x N a N E `m Cl o QII o a m O n m a E II N H n p y fpA U Y O tm ��- O > = Y U N n L y p Q Y y O O m d O O y 0 0 N R zi N d A d y tll U 4/ y y cL L 0 7 O y i0 O II t0 Y tC II O O y > E> `� 3 y > a o ''s a� U II d E II a O M M C Y N n CIS _-x o m aim m p t �0..¢- E� CS II C O O"" 7l U N N� y O d N O �- m O >. > N II cL 'O p C - OL y _ NII (. O QCi NC 2 = y K O C N O _ a - m OLYY d� i0 + o E0 CJ L > O w y m d a as y Q� m3E0 E a y cE�c y aCviII� H> 0 0 d 0 O O II LO co N y C C n U N R d ed d C > ` O O O M OLO y Gl ea d L.� O O II V a s o> > ai y o M d E o °o'$ N cn E `o m cL ai E c o 0 o p a� m d .16 ae o+ E E a iL cc y c E p f0 yGo .0 y .0 Y 0> ._ y cm C <C H n G> E y fO E N c, =¢ > _ E t= Y C T� Y U p n N N «V 3e W a O ya N Y N C H O o m p E m.�o > o c ftt O tC o12 d V Q d yLD y y C N O f0 O p 'E�.d cD'o �oiw pia c0 N N O C«.a aB m m� Y O y N G> C C a�.69 °�-¢_ -0 II O you R N E fO C C07 y (n = y t II R n , C N II E a¢ c E a o o 3> E D o 3 cc n� noQ aIIia 3 oL o °'YII �' m.0 nmto cm.O m °' p E d v yII y C �O eya 0 0 3 d y E y Ec'�r2� „9�E om O y tt! y N y > as75 N y II d y tO C O L O O L d y YSH[CQ ma Ql �O y y < �N aYyiQ ayi :r.3 c O bo N h Z CD a C O p CL C O a' D d L 2 CO O_ E -a E «Y O Cn V O C � O Z O cz 21% CD N C a O � E E O O V E .a O w E O � C y cn CL i CL � as R E ; W w 7 m Zia A is w 'O G7 E W _C') C, N M I-- CM M i 'C', O M -C', P- C', F N Lf7 O I.T.N CO L. CA Qf G d r CA CO CA O N C7 CO O M V cM N r 6r9 Vs tsa Vf Wa V9. 60D I� ~ w IT T LO M M T- d Ln M M W M W LO C O "I O_ M_ Lh CO w r � (1 Ln T m C', C13as tsa e a Efa tfa Esa EA G7 OI CL C 00 CL K r r T T T T ti r --cr V � V• mot' V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d O O O O C O O CL T T T o H? Esa tsa t{a E9 G:i E9 a O) st CO CO m 'T w 1`� CA Imo- O� 07 T O O O M O T O O O" I- C) r - r - P� Lo N I-Y Cl) CO N I-cr CO V N V' CO CO N CO d 7 00 N N N N H CO HS 6a 60 E9 tfi to 603 a� O O O O O O O O C) LO O C) O O O V CO CO O CO Co M 07 M Ch 00 M {p CO Imo- d" M N I- M +� t-- Ln a! 't I` Lf) V s 60 to t!3 tsa tsa tsa `. O O O O69 O69 O OH? CD O CD O O O O N C) CD CD CDO CD CD c o 0 0 0 6c tc 6c E O oCD00000 O O O O O_ CD w in �' M Li) M � CM a T Efi Ei} to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lf7 0 0 0 0 C,M O O V O 9 co O C" M C, 00 C'a p O C- � f'M N Il- co J14, C, 6s LO m 6s ta 61i} 6% 69 ts} E= r CV M r N r r 0 Z o C d C U O E N Q c o, - > U C j CU N 0 O O U U = y 4-- C N C O — O U �U E W d 2:: w- [C! U E CC 0 0 0 O CU O d 2 CD C.7 cA [G CD OC IN U E M cD _ E o N d x �y A y 0 w > > m i m O U n in � •p w p n o E 2 o O y CT U C r O] O C h U O A N O d CV C A N d Y 4 O CNC y Q A cc A ` O LO d N 0_ _• N n Q O C �' E9 (o y y L co y N C V N O ¢ N N O aQ O E 3 U O.i c cM C a1 a a> > w ae E y A a� A > N Oco N d N A i y A w O E �O id Cty] O_ ED E PIE `o c o o o m w CD o ai a 'E c E C j,•p c o o Q N y O = N O N o n a m A [2 cm cc C F7 C T O H N A N U U U Y A o 0 E 'otNO wN y c2 �p Q cm O c =era " Q yLL c E d E cLi L o c o m o E o Z .`YS o o� O n c+ E 62 n m Cn � o E o o o cD w- Y nT ° $ � ca o'" = o a of A N U O Ch tH i V N N td p tNO C O d V E A- EJ9 .O C N 'O Y m L 3 tOV G-a N > p y i` � C cD `] (n L tCV' c, N R2, =iA Na• Qy O Oa) N uJ iO C tD R, d Y - a teN- c� .o ae3 o a m a o O - ❑C m y CL o Vi O E N O. CO r N S A A Q= d N N tn C cn A C L U= U— N m N L= t0 cwn O a N d F- N. N O o d N N E+ mE m ai o o -j -o o a s L A C A 0 3 N? d N U U U B = C C C C= y L v t0 ' '_- �O+ ty6 A tY C ca O 0 0 �' N `J O N L N N= y t�Q O A O O. C]I N U Q '= Q C N Q A c N N d C O U Off $~ 0 0 0 0 O. m r x o Gi to tcv c' E n 3u. % c cta Av mw S U O O O O p O S y � N O d A Cn .� U C C N N N N w¢omE 'p-ac cSooa`� aoaao is .c) a=+a c c c c °' y E' m c c o 3 0 o 9:i :t >>`cn A a a O YtyO N ed U tNV N ��. O O. L c Q v==== uw A A = > > C 0E y C= R1 y O O N N N N N O0 0 0 0 0 Q S-5Q oo> = Eoo Eoaoo �IrJ pm eCOQ a0 d C y,N HlC7 N'7 O1C7 v Q O w A Q N N n y C �. E gym-�-Q� a°D-o r0 FA tf 6A Table 4-3 Estimated Total Property Tax Revenues from Thornburgh Resort (Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates and property values) Property Type Total Assessed Value Annual Property Taxes Residential Property $344,313,750 $4,677,150 Commercial Property $30,475,067 $413,973 Totals: $374,788,817 $5,091,123 Table 4-4 Distribution of Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Districts for Thornburgh(') (Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates. Thornburgh estimated total assessed value of $374,788,817) ID Tax District Tax Rate Property Taxes( ) 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 $464,720 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 $48,533 010 Fairgrounds Bond 0.141 $51,260 011 County Library 0.55 $199,950 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.95 $345,368 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4 $508,963 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 $20,613 090 County Extension/4H 0.0224 $8,143 093 911 0.1618 $58,822 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.23 $83,615 202 Rural Fire District #1 1.7542 $637,731 351 Redmond Area Park & Rec District 0.3717 $135,130 620 School District #2J 5.0251 $1,826,851 626 School #2J Bond 92 & 93 0.8307 $301,997 628 School #2J Bond 2004 0.293 $106,519 651 High Desert ESD(3) 0.0964 $35,046 670 COCC14) 0.6204 $225,543 671 COCC Bond 0.0889 $32,319 Total 14.0041 $5,091,123 (1) Tax rates from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll page 80. (2) Tax revenues = (AV/1000) x Tax Rate x 0.97. Amount to taxing districts assuming the property owner takes advantage of the 3% discount for paying in full prior to 15 November. (3) High Desert Educational Service District. (4) Central Oregon Community College. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 21 Room Taxes Transient Room Tax revenues are generated from hotels and other overnight lodging facilities in Deschutes County. The tax rate is 7% of the total room charge payable to the County. As shown in Table 4-5, the estimated room tax revenue from the Thornburgh Resort is $430,296 per year. A complete technical explanation of room tax calculation is provided in the Appendix to the report. Currently room tax revenues are allocated to rural law enforcement and tourism, as shown in Table 4-6. Table 4-5 Estimated Transient Room Tax Revenues from Proposed Thornburgh Resort (Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates and rental rates) Number Daily Estimated Estimated of Room Occupancy Tax Daily Tax Annual Tax Type of Unit Unitsflf Ratefzf Ratef3f Rate (4) Revenue(') Revenue(') Hotel Rooms 50 $121 29% 7% $123 $44,827 Residential Overnight Units() 425 $162 29% 7% $1,398 $408,115 Subtotal: $452,943 Less Collection Reimbursementlaf: ($22,647) Revenue to County: $430,296 1. Number of Units available as Visitor -Oriented Units is taken from page 4 of the Revised Application dated April 21, 2008. 2. Estimated Average Room Rate subject to the Room Tax. The rate for the Hotel is based on a weighted average of the rates for Hotels, Motels and Inns located in the Greater Redmond Area. The Inn at Eagle Crest showed standard room rates of $95 to $126 per night, depending on season. The rate for Residential Overnight Units is the average of the daily rate for 39 units in the Greater Redmond Oregon Area currently listed on the Vacation Rentals by Owner website for the area. Twenty-eight of these were located in Eagle Crest Resort. 3. While the total monthly Transient Room tax receipts are available, actual occupancy data is extremely difficult to come by. So an occupancy rate of 90% was assumed for the month of August and then adjusted for the other months based on Total Transient Room Taxes paid to the County for that month. From this an average annual occupancy rate of 29% for all rental types was derived. This table was also run assuming an annual occupancy rate of 100%, and 50%for both types of units. The resulting estimated revenue for Deschutes County was $1,818,010 for 100% and $909,005.13 for 50% annual occupancy rates. 4. The current Tax rate as set by Deschutes County Ordinance. 5. The number of units times the occupancy rate, times the daily room rate, times 7%. 6. The estimated Daily Tax Revenue times 365 days. For residential units, an 80% reporting rate for room taxes was assumed. 100% reporting was assumed for hotel rooms. 7.425 is the number of units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for Short Term Rental at least 38 weeks a year. It is possible that some of the owners of the other 950 housing units in the resort might also want to rent their units at least some of the time, so the actual number of available rental units could be higher. 8. Deschutes County Code 4.08.120 requires the operator to bill the transient for the Room Tax as a separate line item on the invoice or receipt and allows the operator to retain a Collection Reimbursement Charge of up to 5% of all revenues collected. While it is possible for an operator to retain less then the full 5% permitted, for the purposes of this estimate a full 5% has been assumed. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 22 Table 4-6 Distribution of Room Tax Revenues to County (Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 room tax rates and rental values) Share(') Amount For Rural Law Enforcement 73% $314,116 For Tourism -Related Activities 27% $116,180 Total Room Tax Revenue 100% $430,296 (1) This distribution assumes the same 73-27% split as was used in the FY 2008-09 Budget for the County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 23 S. Thornburgh Resort Costs This section examines the fiscal impacts of the proposed Thornburgh resort on the following six major service categories: • Transportation System • Schools • Fire & EMS • Public Safety System • Parks & Recreation System • General Government As described previously, costs occur in two basic categories: 1. Capital Costs: Initial, one-time costs for the increment of new or expanded capital (facilities, infrastructure and equipment) necessary to provide adequate levels of service to the resort; and, 2. O&M Costs: Annual costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the services provided to the resort. The capital costs for expanding facilities, infrastructure and equipment were calculated for all six of the above service categories. These capital costs tend to be the greatest costs associated with serving new development. The O&M costs for providing services were calculated for fire/EMS, public safety, and parks and recreation. The tax revenues for each of these service areas were also determined, so that service costs could be compared with revenues. For transportation and schools, revenues come from multiple sources (County, State and Federal) and are allocated based on formulas described in the following sections. Since revenues for these two categories could not be tied directly to the resort, it was not possible to compare the annual O&M costs with the revenues resulting from resort development. O&M costs were not calculated for general government services due to the complexity of assigning service costs to the resort. The cost impacts the resort will have on these systems may be offset by tax revenues and impact fees or mitigation fees the resort will pay. The only impact or mitigation fees identified in this study are related to the transportation system. Deschutes County enacted transportation SDC (system development charge) in 2008. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is seeking mitigation funding from the resort for impacts to intersections with state highways. Both of these potential revenues are computed and deducted from the transportation system costs. The County collects no other impact fees and the Redmond School District collects no impact fee from new development. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 24 The Thornburgh Resort is also credited with future tax payments that could potentially go towards repaying bonds for the infrastructure needs the resort creates. A new destination resort will increase the local tax base, which will distribute the bond repayment cost more widely. For example, if a new resort increases the local tax base by 5%, it will pay for 5% of the bond costs. The remaining 95% will be paid by the existing community. However, it is the new development that is creating the demand for new facilities that are calculated in this study, not the existing community. Therefore, new development will pay for only a fraction of the facility costs it creates (1120`' in this example). The actual 2008/09 tax bases for each category of service and the potential contribution of the resort towards future bond repayments is provided in the Appendix. To aid in calculating some costs, an estimate of the number of houses used as primary residences at the Thornburgh Resort and an occupancy rate of these residences was developed. Average occupancy per household in Deschutes County was 2.5 persons per the 2000 Census. The Census data is for all existing housing, and therefore does not accurately reflect the occupancy of new housing. New housing is typically larger than the average of exiting housing and typically has more occupants per unit. The American Housing Survey provides data on new homes for major cities in the US. The nearest city survey is for Portland where new housing units were found to have 8.2% higher occupancy levels than for all existing units." This same adjustment was applied to Deschutes County to produce an estimated household occupancy rate of 2.7 persons per new house. The percentage of housing in destination resorts used as primary residences has been the subject of some debate. Resort housing could be used for a primary residence, a second home (or vacation home), or a rental home (overnight unit). Undoubtedly, the mix of home uses will vary from resort to resort. The nearby Eagle Crest Resort appears to have a very similar profile to the proposed Thornburgh Resort and was used to establish a likely percentage of owner -occupied homes serving as primary residences. A complete tabulation of residential properties at Eagle Crest was generated by Deschutes County from County tax assessment data.18 There were 1,538 residential properties that were developed with homes on the tax rolls. Of these, 559 property owners received tax statements at their Eagle Crest address. Tax statements are usually sent to the property owner's primary residence, so this is highly indicative of a primary residence address. "American Housing Survey for the Portland Metropolitan Area: 2002, Issued July 2003, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 18 Result from this tabulation were provided in Excel format to COLW by Tim Berg, Deschutes County Community Development Department on February 26, 2009. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 25 According to a survey provided to the County by Eagle Crest Resort, an estimated 252 of the single family homes in the resort were being used as overnight units (rental units) in March of 2008.19 Deducting the 252 overnight units from the 1,538 total residential units leaves 1,286 owner -occupied units (both primary residences and second homes). Based on the addresses of the tax statements, the 559 primary residences represent 43% of the 1,286 owner -occupied units. The actual percentage of primary residences will be higher if some resort residents have tax bills sent to a post office box or to an accountant's address. 19 Letter from Alan VanVliet of Jeld-Wen Development to Catherine Morrow providing results of an annual housing survey, dated March 25, 2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 26 Transportation System Costs A key issue in destination resort development is the demand they place on the transportation infrastructure. The new travel demand generated by resorts creates costs for the required transportation infrastructure. The full cost of the transportation infrastructure to serve new growth is reflected both in the new infrastructure that must be built and in the existing capacity that is consumed. Travel demand is a function of both the number of new vehicle trips generated and the average trip distance. The combination of the number of daily trips and the average distance of trips results in the daily "vehicle miles traveled" or VMT. VMT reflects actual roadway usage, and therefore provides a good measure for allocating transportation system costs. Another measure of travel demand is "peak -hour trips," which is intended to reflect demand on the system during the peak period. Peak -hour trips are widely used in transportation studies because they provide an indication of transportation system conditions at the busiest time of day. However, as roads become more congested, travelers shift their travel times to avoid congestion. Instead, they contribute to congestion at other times. As transportation systems become more and more overburdened, peak congestion periods extend to multiple hours and can occur throughout the day. One deficiency of peak -hour trips is that they only capture those trips generated at the peak hour (usually 5-6pm weekdays) and miss traffic generation at other times. Schools, for example generate considerable traffic at other hours. Resorts will also generate most trips at other hours for golf and other recreational activities. With this measure, traffic sources that do not generate peak -hour trips are not counted as impacting the transportation system, despite increased travel demand. Peak -hour trips are based on the peak traffic hour of the adjacent roadway, and not the peak for the source of the trips being studied. Destination resorts are typically sited in relatively remote locations outside of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and away from existing cities and towns. Due to their remote locations, residents and guests will travel farther to reach common destinations, such as employment, grocery stores, department stores, etcetera. As a result, VMT generation will tend to be higher per unit of development than it would be in an urban location. Studies show that even in urban areas, the per capita VMT increases by a factor of two to three, or more on the urban fringe compared with the urban core. Daily per - capita VMT was found to be two to four times greater in the Atlanta suburbs than in Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 27 the city's core area.20 Similar findings were obtained for Eugene -Springfield in a 1994 travel study by Lane Council of Governments.21 According to a study in Rhode Island (1999), rural towns had on average 16.5 miles of local roads per 1,000 housing units, or almost three times as many as urban core communities (6.1 miles per 1,000 housing units).2z Figure 5-1: Time of day for trips in rural Oregon (Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, ODOT, 2000) Based on the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey,23 Deschutes County's rural households reported an average of 7.31 daily vehicle trips. This is lower than the 9.57 trips that would be estimated using the ITE Trip Generation manual.24 Average rural trip time was 16.52 minutes. While this trip time is comparable to that in urban areas, rural trips will tend to cover more distance and be at a higher average speed, requiring 20 Source: Atlanta Journal -Constitution, 12/9/02, based on data from Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. 21 1994 Estimated VMT per Capita by Production Zone, by Lane Council of Governments. zz The Costs of Suburban Sprawl and Urban Decay in Rhode Island, Executive Summary, by Grow Smart Rhode Island, 1999, Providence, RI, The Rhode Island Foundation. "Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, ODOT, 2000, Table 4.2. According to ODOT, survey data involves some underreporting, so actual daily trip will be higher than reported (see footnote, page 9 of Oregon Travel Behavior Survey). " Institute of Transportation Engineers' reference manual for trip generation, 8,h Edition. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 28 more road infrastructure. If an average rural speed of 40 mph is assumed, the average trip distance would be 11 miles and household VMT would be 80.5 miles per day." The Cost of Transportation Facilities The "projection -based" method for estimating transportation system costs uses a planning estimate or projection of the future system improvements that are needed as a basis for allocating costs to the new development that will occur over the planning period. The County has prepared a 20-year list of transportation projects as part of its adoption of a new transportation System Development Charge (SDC) in 2008. This list covers all projects in the unincorporated areas of the County that are anticipated from 2008 to 2028. The total cost of all projects is $280 million. Project costs are funding by a mix of County, State and Federal sources. Most of these projects are capacity -increasing and will serve the needs of new growth in the County. However, a portion of the projects are maintenance -related and will not expand the system capacity. Only a very brief description is available to characterize each project on the 20-year list and no further information was available from the County. A simplified system was used to allocate individual project costs between capacity expansion and maintenance functions. New roads were allocated 100% to meet the needs of new growth. New bridges were allocated 75% to new growth. Road "widening and overlays" and "road reconstruction and widening," were allocated 50% to new growth. None of the costs for pedestrian and bike lane improvements were allocated to growth as they were considered system -wide upgrades. Based on this cost allocation, $240 million or 86% of these costs are growth -related (capacity increasing), while $39 million, or 14% are for maintenance. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the project cost allocation. As shown in column 5 of Table 5- 1, Deschutes County will fund less than one-third of growth -related transportation facilities, while the State will fund two-thirds. (The Federal funding is shown as being fairly small, but Federal transportation funds that are distributed by the State are listed under the State funding, so the actual Federal contribution is larger than shown.) " The average speed of 40 mph was used to reflect overall average trip speed, including stops, starts and turns on roadways with typical 55 mph speed limits. This was intended to be conservative, as higher trip speeds would result in longer travel distances and greater road costs. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 29 Table 5-1 20-year Transportation System Project List for Unincorporated Area of Deschutes County (2008-2028)(') 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Percent Percent of Growth Cost per Total Project of Total Growth -Related Growth Cost per Typical New Funding Entity Costs Costs Project Costs Costs Capita(') House(4) Deschutes County $96,614,339 35% $70,165,715 29% $2,273 $6,137 State of Oregon(2) $157,500,000 56% $157,500,000 66% $5,102 $13,775 Federal Gov.f2i $25,431,250 9% $12,715,625 5% $412 $1,112 Totals: $279,545,589 100% $240,381,340 100% $7,787 $21,024 (1) Source: Deschutes County SDC Project List, 2008. (2) State funding includes funds from the Federal Government to the State so this distribution only shows final source of funds. (3) Growth -related costs are divided by the projected population increase over the same 20-year period. (4) Costs associated with new house are based on an occupancy rate of 2.7 persons, as described earlier in this section of the report The per -capita cost for population growth can be estimated by allocating the growth - related (capacity increasing) components of the County's total future transportation system costs for the next 20 years ($240,381,340) to the estimated population increase for the same period. During this time period the population of the unincorporated County is projected to grow from 56,609 in 2008 to 87,480 in 2028, an increase of 30,871 people.26 This results in a cost of $7,787 per new person (column 6 of Table 5-1). The County's share of this cost is $2,273 per person. The cost per new house can be estimated based on the typical occupancy rate of 2.7 persons per new house (calculated earlier). At this occupancy rate, the total cost per new house is $21,024, The County's share of this cost is $6,137 per new house. A new transportation System Development Charge (SDC) was approved by Deschutes County in July of 2008 to help recover a portion of the County's share of capacity -increasing transportation costs. While the State SDC Statute27 allows for a reimbursement component, the County's fee does not include a reimbursement component to recover the cost of existing roadway capacity that will be consumed by future growth. The SDC fee will be phased in gradually up to $3,504 per new peak - hour vehicle trip by 2011. For a new single-family dwelling, 1.01 peak -hour trips are generated and the SDC is $3,539 per SFD (not including the $45 administrative charge allowed by State Statute). Deducting the SDC (full 2011 rate) from the County's gross cost per new house ($6,137) results in a net transportation system cost to the County of $2,598 per new house for the capacity -increasing components. 26 Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. The forecast was extended to 2028 using the growth rate for the 2020-2025 period of 2.21/o/year. 27 ORS 223.297-314. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 30 Reimbursement Value of Existing Transportation Infrastructure As noted, the Deschutes County SDC project list does not address the value of transportation infrastructure capacity that has already been built that will be consumed by new development (also referred to as "excess capacity"). If average roadway congestion levels on existing roads did not increase over the 20-year project timetable, then there would be no loss in mobility (or increase in congestion), and therefore no "consumption" of existing excess capacity. However, it is unlikely that the County will be able to build enough new facilities to prevent such congestion increases. Nationwide the roads have become increasing congested as cities, counties and states across the country have been unable to keep up with demand.28 To investigate changes in traffic levels on existing roadways, historic traffic count data must be analyzed. The County's traffic count data reports Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for 281 roadway segments. 29 Data was obtained from the County for the 11- year period, 1998 to 2008. Data was not available for every year for every segment, so the average of the traffic counts in the first four years (1998-2001) was compared with average of the last four years (2005-2008). Only the 212 road segments that had traffic counts in both time periods were analyzed. The results show that traffic increased from an average ADT per road segment of 1,473 to 1,780, an increased volume of 20.8% on County roads in a roughly seven-year span.31 It is therefore reasonable to conclude that new development in the County is generating transportation system demand faster than the County is building new capacity and that new development is consuming existing excess road capacity. There is no data on the existing excess capacity of County roads. The County's Level -of -Service (LOS) standard for rural roads is "D" or better. A LOS of D represents average daily traffic (ADT) of up to 9,600 vehicles for a two-lane road. Therefore, 9,600 vehicles is the effective capacity of the roadway under the LOS standard. The County's 1996 Transportation System Plan shows ADT and LOS for the 36 busiest roadway segments in the County at that time. None of the segments exceeded a LOS of D and most were rated B or C with 3,000 to 5,000 ADT. Based on this somewhat dated data, it appears that the County had more than 50% excess capacity on its main road network in 1996.31 " The 2007 Urban Mobility Report, by the Texas Transportation Institute reports that over last 24 years we have built only 41% of the transportation infrastructure necessary to keep up with growing demand. " A sample of this data can be found on the Deschutes County Road Department web site at httt)://www.co.deschutes.or.us/download.cfm?DownloadFile=OD8135CF-BDBD-57C1- 98378109FA737581. The full data set was used for this study. " This increase in traffic occurred over a period of approximately seven years, based on using the midpoint of each of the two periods compared. The period is approximate because traffic count data was not available for all years. 31 The more -recent County traffic count data referred to earlier shows an average ADT at 212 road locations of 1,780 for the 2005-2008 period. If all of these roadways have a capacity of 9,600 ADT, Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 31 The value of the County's excess roadway capacity is significant, however, due to data limitation there is no direct way to accurately determine either the value of this capacity or the amount that will be consumed by new development. However, rather than leave this cost area completely unaddressed, a very rough, but conservative estimate was developed. To make this estimate, the following rough assumptions were used: 1. Excess capacity in 2008 is at least 40% of existing roadways. 2. New development over the next 20 years will consume half of the remaining excess capacity. 3. The value of the excess capacity can be indexed based on its replacement costs today and the population increase served by the total value of the capacity - increasing projects on the SDC project list. To roughly estimate the replacement value of the existing transportation system it was assumed that the value could be based on the estimated costs necessary to serve future population growth. The value of the growth -related (capacity increasing) projects in the 20-year SDC project list is $240,381,340. This results in a cost of $7,787 for each new person projected in the County over the 20-year period. Applying the per -capita cost to the 56,609 persons currently living in the unincorporated County in 2008 results in an existing system value of $441 million. This figure is the approximate replacement value for the system required to serve today's population. The figure is low, since it does not account for building the excess capacity that exists today. None -the -less, as a very rough estimate, the value of excess capacity consumed over the next 20 years is 20% of $441 million, or $88 million. Dividing $88 million by the projected population growth over the next 20 years of 30,871 people, results in a reimbursement cost of $2,856 per new person. Based on an occupancy rate for new homes of 2.7, the reimbursement cost per new home is $7,711. Table 5-2 combines the value of new facilities and the value of excess capacity used to serve new growth in the unincorporated area of the County. As shown, total transportation system costs (from all funding sources) for new growth are $10,637 per person, $28,720 per new house, and $3,929 per daily vehicle trip. Note that the estimates in Table 5-2 are based on planning projections and are therefore only as accurate as the projections they are based upon. then there is approximately 80% excess capacity in the road network. However, the data is not adequate to assess the actual capacity of each roadway segment. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 32 Table 5-2 Estimated Transportation System Costs to Serve New Growth for Unincorporated Area of Deschutes County (2008-2028) County Costs State Costs") Federal Costs Total Costs Value of New Capacity for Future Growth(') $70,165,715 $157,500,000 $12,715,625 $240,381,340 Value of Existing Capacity Consumed(2j share unknown share unknown share unknown $88,000,000 Total Growth -Related Costs share unknown share unknown share unknown $328,381,340 Cost per Capita for New Population() $10,637 Cost per New House(') $28,720 Cost per Daily Vehicle Tript5l $3,929 (1) Derived from Deschutes County SDC Project List, 2008. (2) Rough estimate based on estimated excess system capacity consumed by new growth. (3) Growth -related costs are divided by the projected population increase over the same 20-year period. (4) Cost associated with new house are based on an occupancy rate of 2.7 persons, as described at the beginning of this section. (5) Based on the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, Deschutes County's rural households reported an average of 7.31 daily vehicle trips (6) State funding includes funds from Federal Government to the State so this distribution only shows final source of funds. Transportation System Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Estimating the transportation system impacts associated with a destination resort is more complex because standardized data on destination resort travel demand is unavailable and the use has unique characteristics. These resorts contain a variety of commercial and residential uses. The commercial uses cannot be readily estimated from the same per -capita basis used for residential land uses. Also, resorts will accommodate a certain percentage of vehicle trips internally. Internal trips are those that do not leave the resort, and would include residents visiting the golf course or resort restaurant. Since the road structure within the resort is funded entirely by the resort developer, these internal trips do not create an impact on the external public road system. There are various estimates for the number of external vehicle trips generated by resorts. The Thornburgh Resort submitted their own traffic study showing that a vast majority of vehicle trips would be accommodated internally and that the resort would generate a total of 517 peak PM hour trips (5-6pm weekdays).32 However, the "peak PM trips" metric failed to capture the peak trip generation by the resort, which occurred earlier than for the adjacent roadways. Peak resort traffic occurred between 1pm and 4pm. " Transportation Impact Analysis, Revision II, by Group McKenzie, September 28, 2005, Table 9B. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 33 A study by Kittelson and Associates33 measured the traffic generation from the nearby Eagle Crest Resort by counting trips in and out of the resort for several weekday periods. The study concluded that 4.4 offsite trips are generated per residential unit and suggested that this is an appropriate value to use for destination resorts. These trip counts include all the commercial and recreational activities at the resort, as well as the residences. Therefore, they are an indication of the total trip generation by the resort, indexed to the number of residential units. The Thornburgh Resort has 1,375 residential units. Based on the Kittelson Study, the resort would generate at total of 6,050 daily vehicle trips. These would all be external, or offsite trips. For comparison purposes, the trips were estimated using standard trip generation rates for conventional development (see Table 5-3). As a conventional development, the uses at Thornburgh would generate approximately 17,054 daily vehicle trips. However, since destination resorts are likely to accommodate more vehicle trips internally than conventional developments, the empirical data from Kittelson was used instead. Using the estimate based on the Kittelson Study of 6,050 daily trips and the cost per vehicle trip of $3,929 from Table 5-2, the total gross transportation system cost associated with the resort is $23.8 million. To obtain a net cost for the Thornburgh Resort, SDC payments and developer contributions to the transportation system must be deducted. That step is done at the conclusion to this section. Table 5-3 Conventional Trip Generation Estimate for Thornburgh Destination Resort(" Expected Expected Daily Description (ITE Code) Units(') Units Trips Single Family Homes (210) DU 1,375 13,159 Hotel (310) Rooms 50 446 Health/Fitness Club (493) TSF Gross 60 1,976 General Office (710) TSF Gross 15 165 Shopping Center (820) TSF Gross 20 859 Quality Restaurant (931) TSF Gross 5 450 Total Trips: 17,054 (1) Based on ITE Trip Generation manual, r Edition. (2) DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet of gross floor area. 33 Central Oregon Resort Trip Generation Study, by Kittelson and Associates, September 12, 2006. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 34 Standards -Based Costing Method The transportation system costs calculated above in Table 5-2 are based on the projected population growth of the County and the projected transportation infrastructure needs for the next 20 years. Both projections are estimates for a long period of time and could involve substantial errors. It is notoriously difficult to estimate future population growth, but it is even more difficult to anticipate and accurately estimate all the transportation infrastructure needs for a county 20 years into the future. To examine the transportation system costs from another perspective, a standards - based impact analysis was performed. This method is based on meeting County level -of -service (LOS) standards. Travel demand was used to determine the number of new lane -miles of roads that are needed to serve new homes. A roadway cost per - lane mile was developed and the number of lane -miles required by new development was used to estimate road costs. Estimates of new road costs were not available from Deschutes County, so road costs per lane -mile were compiled from three sources, including the County SDC project list and ODOT in order to develop a reasonable estimate. Values for two-lane, rural roads on flat terrain were selected. As shown in Table 5-4, the average cost per new lane -mile for all sources is $3.4 million. The seven new roads on the Deschutes County Transportation SDC Project List were used to develop one road cost estimate. The average cost of these roads per lane -mile was $3 million. The cost for one road segment included an overpass, so that some other roadway costs are included as well. Representative road costs should include the costs of intersections, signalization, bridges, and other associated system costs. For comparison, Table 5-4 shows the road costs for a rural road on flat terrain from ODOT's Highway Economic Requirement System ($2.7 million/lane-mile) and an estimate for rural roads from the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute ($4.5 million/lane-mile). These figures bracketed the Deschutes County road costs, so the $3 million per lane -mile figure was used for road costs. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 35 Table 5-4 Road Cost Estimates from Various Sources (All costs adjusted to 2008 dollars) Cost per Lane -Mile Construction Land Source Cost Acquisition Cost Total Cost New Roads in Deschutes Co. SDC Project List(') $2,807,982 $240,000 $3,047,982 ODOT New HERS Improvement Costs(2) $2,461,980 $240,000 $2,701,980 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute(') $4,199,040 $263,340 $4,462,380 Average of Sources: $3,404,114 (1) Average cost for new roads on list. Land values based on total road ROW width of 80 feet and land acquisition costs of $50,000 per acre. (2) ODOT New Highway Economic Requirement System (HERS) Improvement Costs, lane -mile costs for constructing new rural major collector on flat terrain. (3) Source: VrPI Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II — Roadway Costs, Table 5.6.3-4, January 2009. Value for undivided highways in outlying areas. Year 2000 dollars were adjusted to 2008 using Oregon Highway Construction Cost Trends. As described earlier, the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey provides the best available travel demand data for rural households in the unincorporated area of Deschutes County. From this survey data it was estimated that the average daily rural household VMT is 80.5 miles. To translate this into a lane -mile demand for new roadways, a level -of -service standard must be assumed. The County's minimum LOS standard of "D" represents the maximum congestion limits acceptable on County roads. The ADT at LOS D is 9,600 vehicles. A two-lane roadway operating at LOS D could accommodate 4,800 vehicles per day per lane in each direction. At this congestion level, the lane -mile distance required to accommodate the 80.5 miles of daily VMT generated by the typical rural household is 0.017 lane -miles. The cost of building 0.017 lane miles at $3 million per lane -mile, is $51,000 per new household. To maintain a higher LOS standard of "C" (ADT of 5,700, closer to what County residents now enjoy), requires 0.028 lane miles per new household, or $84,000 in new road system costs per new household. The costs on a per -trip basis are shown for both LOS standards in Table 5-5. While costs of $51,000 to $84,000 per household may seem incredibly high, they should be adjusted even higher to reflect the higher occupancy rate that can be expected in a new home compared with the average of existing homes from which the travel survey data was derived. Using the 8% higher occupancy rate of a new house relative to an existing house, the costs would be $55,000 to $90,700 for LOS of D and C respectively. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 36 Table 5-5 Standards -Based Transportation System Costs per New Vehicle Trip Cost Per Household Cost Per New Vehicle Trip"' Cost to maintain LOS T" $51,000 $6,977 Cost to maintain LOS "C" $84,000 $11,491 Based on 7.31 trips per household reported for Deschutes County in the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey. These standards -based costs are much higher than the $28,720 per new house cost estimated by using the County's 20-year projections for new road infrastructure and population growth. One possible reason for the higher standards -based cost is that the County is not planning enough future road capacity to maintain current LOS standards and will see roads become increasingly congested in the future. As mentioned previously, road congestion is increasing nationwide and planned road construction is inadequate to maintain current standards. The high cost of maintaining even the County's minimum LOS standard under continuing growth may be too high for the public to bear. Instead of paying for construction of new roads, county residents will likely pay indirectly through the travel delays and increased fuel use associated with growing congestion. Standards -Based Transportation System Impacts of Thornburgh Resort As noted previously, a destination resort generates a complex mix of uses and accommodates many of its vehicle trip onsite. The trip generation estimate from Kittelson and Associates is a total trip generation rate of 4.4 trips per dwelling unit that includes all uses in the resort (residential and commercial). For Thornburgh this would be 6,050 daily vehicle trips. Using the cost per vehicle trip to maintain a LOS of D of $6,977 from Table 5-5, the cost for building the offsite road capacity for 6,050 new trips is $42.2 million. Depending on the fiscal impact analysis method employed, the gross transportation facilities costs for the Thornburgh Resort would range from $23.3 million to $42.2 million (see Table 5-6). While both figures are reasonable estimates, the higher, standards -based figure probably does a better job of representing the full cost of transportation system impacts. This is because the standards -based method assures that the current minimum LOS standard of D is maintained, while the projection - based method does not. It is also worth reiterating that the LOS standard used here still allows for a considerable increase in average road congestion that is not included in the $42.2 million cost, and therefore is a conservative (low) estimate. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 37 Table 5-6 Estimated Transportation System Costs for Thornburgh Resort Impact Analysis Method Cost Planning projection -based estimate $23.3 million Standards -based estimate (LOS=D) $42.2 million Net Transvortation Cost from Thornburgh Resort To obtain a net cost, SDC payments and developer contributions to the transportation system must be deducted. The Thornburgh Resort will pay a Transportation SDC for each development. The SDC may be based on the standard rate indicated in the SDC adoption resolution, or an alternative rate based on the applicant's data showing that a reduced number of vehicle trips will be generated.34 The approximate total SDC payments under both methods range from $1.8 million to $6.5 million, as shown in Table 5-7. Table 5-7 Estimated SDC Payments for Thornburgh Resort — Conventional Method (Assumes full rate charged with no trip reductions) ITE Expected PM Trip Cost per Full SDC Code SDC Category Units Units Rate PM Trips Trip(') Rate 210 SF Detached DU 1375 1.01 1388.8 $3,504 $4,866,180 310 Hotel Rooms 50 0.59 29.5 $3,504 $103,368 493 Athletic Club TSF Gross 60 5.76 345.6 $3,504 $1,210,982 710 General Office TSF Gross 15 1.49 22.4 $3,504 $78,314 814 Specialty Retail TSF Gross 20 2.71 54.2 $3,504 $189,917 931 Quality Restaurant TSF Gross 5 2.15 10.8 $3,504 $37,668 Totals: 1851.2 $6,486,430 Alternative Method with Trip Reductions Resort's Estimated PM Peak Trips(2) 517.0 $3,504 $1,811,568 (1) Excludes administrative fees. (2) Transportation Impact Analysis, Revision II, by Group McKenzie, September 28, 2005, Table 98, prepared for Thornburgh Resort. According to an unsigned "Cooperative Improvement Agreement" between the Thornburgh Resort and ODOT, the resort will mitigate its immediate, direct 34 Deschutes County Resolution #2008-059 establishes the SDC charge, standard rates, and the allowance for exceptions to the standard rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 38 impacts on a nearby intersection with the State highway. This mitigation includes payment of up to $1,125,000 towards improvements at the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection in Tumalo. The improvement to the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection is included on the SDC project list, so this contribution should be deducted from the resort's gross transportation system costs. The maximum potential payment of $1,250,000 is applied. The increase in State gas tax revenues resulting from the resort should also be considered. Gas taxes are collected from gasoline sales, but the State distributes them to counties based on the number of registered vehicles in the county. The extent to which the resort increases the number of county -wide registered vehicles will determine the increase in gas tax revenues attributed to the resort. Only permanent, year -around residents of the resort are likely to register their vehicles locally. There was no clear method for estimating the increase in the number of register vehicles resulting from the resort, so this impact could not be computed. However, the impact would be quite small. For example, if there were 400 additional registered vehicles, County Road Fund revenue would increase less than $16,000, which would be insignificant relative to the costs.35 The final cost estimate for the transportation system impacts of the Thornburgh Resort assumes that the resort will apply for trip reductions to lower their SDC payment to a total of $1.8 million. As shown in Table 5-8, the final cost range is $20.7 million to $39.1 million, depending on the impact method used. The higher standards -based figure is used in the final impact analysis because it does a better job of reflecting the full impacts of this development, as discussed previously. Table 5-8 Estimated Net Transportation System Costs for Thornburgh Resort noact Analvsis Method Gross Cost Maximum SDC Developer mentsl'I Contribution(2) Net Cost Planning projection -based estimate $23,770,450 ($1,811,568) ($1,250,000) $20,708,882 Standards -based estimate (LoS=D) $42,210,850 ($1,811,568) ($1,250,000) $39,149,282 (1) Assumes aftemate SDC calculation method with trip reductions. (2) Maximum possible contribution towards ODOT expenses at the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection. 3' For the 2007-08 fiscal year Deschutes County received $7,963,277 in State Road Funds and had 205,402 registered vehicles, equivalent to $38.77 per registered vehicle (based on Oregon Department of Transportation, Financial Services, Highway Revenues Apportionment data). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 39 School Facilities Costs Destination resorts will generate new K-12 school students and additional demand for school facilities. This section looks at the likely impacts of the proposed Thornburgh Resort on the revenues and costs of the Redmond School District. The resort will generate school students both from the new resort housing and from the newcomers attracted to fill jobs created by the resort. According the current Working Draft of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan:36 Schools One of the basic problems with larger amounts of residential development is that it rarely pays in property taxes for the services that must be provided. This is particularly true for the most expensive public facility --schools. Additional permanent residences require more facilities and teachers. When this plan was written, much of the new development had been provided for seasonal recreation and was therefore not likely to require schools. However, the County was realizing that much of the seasonal development was becoming full-time residences. This forced the school districts to seek additional funds for new buildings and more teachers. In addition, costs rose because many of the new residences were in rural areas and required ever more expensive busing. Student Generation by Resort Housing The new, private resort homes that are occupied as primary residences will generate new school students, but the specific level of student generation is unknown. There is no data that clearly differentiate the student generation rate of a private home in a destination resort from a typical new home in the same county. If resort homes are occupied full-time by their owners, they may have a similar demographic profile to other new houses in the area. If they are used as part-time second homes (or vacation homes), they will generate few, if any new students. It is assumed that homes built exclusively for overnight lodging purposes will generate no new students. Therefore, homes designated for overnight lodging are not included in the following analysis. As described at the beginning of this section, homes used as primary residences were found to constitute 43% of owner -occupied (non overnight) units in the nearby Eagle Crest Resort. This percentage may vary considerably from resort to resort. In order to examine the potential impacts of the proposed Thornburgh Resort, two scenarios are used to model the range of potential student generation by the private, owner occupied homes in the resort: " Working Draft Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, draft of 5-14-08, Page 3-18. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 40 Scenario #1: High student generation. Private, owner -occupied homes in the resort are assumed to generate the same demand as new private homes elsewhere in the County. (Overnight units are assumed to generate no demand.) This scenario may become increasing likely if resort homes are purchased and used as primary residences. The Thornburgh resort has no age limits or household limitations regarding children, so the market will decide who owns these units and how they are used. A continued weak national economy may encourage consolidation of home ownerships, reducing the number of second homes. A weaker economy may also reduce the sizes and prices of future resort homes, making them more attractive to families. Scenario #2: Low student generation. This is the "vacation resort" scenario. Private, owner -occupied homes in the resort are assumed to be used largely as retirement homes and as second (vacation) homes and to generate only 25% of the new students generated by new homes elsewhere in the County. This scenario would be more applicable if expensive, higher -end housing is constructed, which would favor more -affluent owners and may reduce the number of families with school -age children and increase the percentage of retirees without school -age children. If a resort were age -restricted (such as 55 and above), it might generate no students from the new homes. However, we are not aware of any destination resorts in Oregon with age restrictions. In Deschutes County, 16.1% of the population is of K-12 school age, 5 through 17 years of age.37 This is slightly lower than the statewide school -age figure of 16.9% of the population. Applying the percent of school -age children to the occupancy rate of 2.7 for new homes, yields a school -age generation rate of 0.43 students per new house. State Law requires that destination resorts provide a certain amount of overnight accommodations to assure that they meet their tourism function. In Deschutes County there must be at least one housing unit available for overnight accommodations for every two private, owner -occupied housing unit created at a destination resort. Most resorts build only the minimum number of overnight units, and therefore adhere closely to this ratio. It is not clear that resorts continue to adhere to the minimum number of overnight units once construction is completed, and some overnight units may convert to owner -occupied status. For the Thornburgh Resort, 950 of the 1,375 housing units will be owner -occupied. A 50-room hotel will be used to meet the balance of the overnight housing requirement. There are no age or demographic restrictions on ownership, so the use 37 The most recent US Census estimates for households in Deschutes County are for 2006. This data includes the incorporated areas of the county. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 41 of these homes will be market -driven. These homes may be used either as primary residences or as second homes (vacation homes). Table 5-9: Estimated K-12 student generation by residential housing at Thornburgh Resort. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Total owner -occupied housing units 950 950 Students generated per housing unit 0.43 0.11 Students generated by resort housing 409 102 Student Generation from Resort Employment In addition to student generation from the housing in a destination resort, there is a secondary demand resulting from the new jobs created at the resort. These new jobs will attract new households to the area and generate new students. Since the construction jobs are temporary, the number of new students generated by resort employment will fluctuate as households move in and out of the area to meet employment needs. Employment impacts are addressed in more detail in the Economic Impacts section of this report. The direct and induced employment resulting from the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to peak in year six at 2,015 jobs and then decline by 1,471 jobs to a steady level of 544 jobs from year twelve onward. There is no straightforward method for estimating school system impacts resulting from short-term employment. Undoubtedly the students generated by the 1,471 temporary jobs will significantly impact the school system. This study evaluates the school impacts resulting from only the permanent jobs generated by the resort. These employment -related school impacts are included in order to better account for the full impact resort development has on the local school district. Based on estimates developed in the Economic Impacts section, 347 new households will be created by the 408 jobs filled by newcomers. Table 5-10: Estimated K-12 student generation by newcomers filling permanent jobs at Thornburgh Resort. Total new housing units for resort -related employment 347 Students generated per housing unit 0.43 Students generated by resort employment 149 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 42 Table 5-11 shows total student generation for new resort housing and resort employment. Under Scenario #1, resort housing will generate a similar number of new students as other new housing in Deschutes County, resulting in a total of 558 new students. Under Scenario #2, resort housing will generate only 25% of the students of a typical new house in the County, resulting in a total of 253 new students. These two scenarios provide a reasonable range of 251 to 558 new students generated by the Thornburgh Resort. Table 5-11: Total K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing and employment. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Students generated by resort housing 409 102 Students generated by resort employment 149 149 Total students generated 558 251 School Funding in Oregon Schools in Oregon are funded primarily by a combination of state and local sources. The primary local source is property taxes. The State School Fund formula determines how much state funding a school district gets. The formula bases the state funding on the number of students served and deducts the local property taxes going to schools. The state funding is directed to school operations, maintenance, repairs and transportation needs. If the local property tax revenues increase due to a new destination resort, the state contribution to local school funding will be reduced by an equal amount. For new students generated by the resort, the district will receive the same funding per student as they do for the rest of their students. Therefore, new developments provide no extra funding to local school districts for general operations. New school facilities needed to serve growth are funded primarily through issuance of voter -approved local general obligation bonds that are repaid through local property taxes. Local property tax revenues for bond repayment are not deducted from the State's operation funding. The tax base for the Redmond School District comes from the total assessed values of the District in both Deschutes County and Jefferson County. Table 5-12 shows the total tax base is $4,937,455,942 for 2008-09. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 43 Table 5-12: Assessed value for the Redmond School District 2J tax base. Assessed Value Total County 2008-09(') Deschutes County $3,594,082,824 Jefferson County $1,343,373,118 Total School District Tax Base: $4,937,455,942 (1) Source: Redmond School District. Assuming that the Thornburgh Resort is fully built out as planned, the estimated increase in the assessed value of the school district's tax base would be $374,788,817. At full buildout, Thornburgh would represent 7.1% of the tax base available to the school district. Based on the estimated increase in the total tax base available to the Redmond School District that would be created by the Thornburgh Resort, the resort will pay for approximately 7.1% of facility bonds issued for new construction by the District. This percentage will be deducted from the school facility costs generated by the resort. School Facility Costs To estimate the cost of expanding school facilities to increase student capacity, the total costs for new facilities at all grade levels must be determined. The Redmond School District passed a bond in May of 2008 for a new high school and new elementary school. A new middle school was built by the District in 2006. The costs for these new facilities are added to the land values to obtain a total school facility cost for each grade level, as shown in Table 5-13 below. Table 5.13: School facility costs, Redmond School District, 2008. Total School Grade Level Building Cost Land Cost") Facility Cost High school(') $80,000,000 $13,600,000 $93,600,000 Middle school(�) $22,764,955 $3,000,000 $25,764,955 Elementary school(') $20,000,000 $2,600,000 $22,600,000 Notes: (1) Building costs based on a bond issue by the Redmond SD approved by voters May 20, 2008 as Measure 9-56. (2) Building cost based on Etton Gregory Middle School completed in 2006 for $20 million. Costs adjusted to 2008 using ENR Construction Cost Index for closest location (Seattle). (3) Based on actual acreage and a current land value estimate of $200,000 per acre. The total school facility cost is divided by the capacity of students for each facility to calculate at cost per unit of student capacity (see Table 5-14). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 44 Table 5-14: School facility costs per unit student capacity, Redmond School District, 2008. Cost per Unit Total School Student Student Grade Level Facility Cost Capacity(') Capacity High school $93,600,000 1400 $66,857 Middle school $25,764,955 804 $32,046 Elementary school $22,600,000 600 $37,667 (1) Capacity for each school from Redmond School District. The "cost per unit of student capacity" is then distributed across the student generation rate at each grade level for a typical new house in Deschutes County, as shown in Table 5-15. Based on facility costs in the Redmond School District, the total school facilities cost associated with typical new house is $21,542. Table 5-15: School facility costs per new house, Redmond School District, 2008. Cost per Percent of Student School Unit Total Students Generation by Facility Student at Grade Grade Level for Costs per Grade Level Capacity Level(') New House New House High school $66,857 47% 0.202 $13,507 Middle school $32,046 23% 0.098 $3,147 Elementary school $37,667 30% 0.130 $4,888 Totals: 100% 0.430 $21,542 (1) Based on 2007 enrollment data Estimated School Facilities Costs for Thornburgh Resort The Redmond School District does not charge a school excise fee (a development impact fee authorized by the State Legislature) for new and expanded school facilities, so development makes no direct contribution to school facility costs outside of ordinary property tax payments. If the district were to adopt the fee, it could collect up to $1 per square foot. A new 3,000 square foot house would pay a fee of up to $3,000. Based on the high and low student generation rate scenarios (Scenarios #1 and #2), it is possible to estimate the range of total students generated by the destination resort and the resulting total facility costs. The Thornburgh Resort will generate costs for new and expanded school facilities ranging from a low estimate of $12.6 million to a high of $27.9 million, as shown in Table 5-16. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 45 Table 5-16: Total facility costs for K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing and employment. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Number of primary residences in resort(') 950 238 Number of new households for permanent employees 347 347 Total new households generating school -age students 1297 585 Total students generated (at 0.43 per house) 558 251 School facility costs per new house $21,542 $21,542 Total school facilities costs (#houses x $/hse): $27,939,974 $12,591,299 Note (1) Scenario #1 assumes that 950 owner -occupied resort houses will have similar occupancy to typical new houses in Deschutes County, while Scenario #2 assumes that only 25% of resort houses will be similar and the rest will be second homes that generate no school children. For the final fiscal impact on school facilities, only the student generation from Thornburgh Resort housing was included. Impacts from resort employment were not included in order to be consistent with the rest of the impact study, which did not include secondary or induced impacts. The costs associated with only the resort housing range from $5 million to $20 million, as shown in Table 5-17. Table 5-17: Total facility costs for K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Number of primary residences in resort(') 950 238 Total students generated (at 0.43 per house) 409 102 School facility costs per new house $21,542 $21,542 Total school facilities costs (#houses x $/hse): $20,464,900 $5,116,225 Note (1) Scenario #1 assumes that 950 owner -occupied resort houses will have similar occupancy to typical new houses in Deschutes County, while Scenario #2 assumes that only 25% of resort houses will be similar and the rest will be second homes that generate no school children. In order to credit the resort for future property tax payments that would potentially contribute to school construction bonds, the estimated 7.1% contribution to the tax base should be deducted from the school facility costs attributed to the resort (see previous discussion on this). Therefore the net costs for school facilities attributed to the resort range from $4.8 million to $19 million, as shown in Table 5-18. To be conservative, the $4.8 million cost associated with the low -student -generation -rate scenario (Scenario #2) was used in the final cost estimates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 46 Table 5-18: Net K-12 school facilities costs for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net School Facilities Costs Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Total school facilities costs: $20,464,900 $5,116,225 Future property tax contribution (at 7.1 %) ($1,453,008) ($363,252) Net school facilities costs: $19,011,892 $4,752,973 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 47 Fire & EMS System Costs The Thornburgh resort would receive fire and emergency medical service (EMS) services from the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 (DC RFPD#1). Four of the ten existing land parcels that make up the proposed Thornburgh Resort are located within the boundaries of the Fire District and the remaining 6 parcels have been recently annexed within the District at the request of the resort developer. Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 does not independently provide fire and EMS services, but rather has entered into a cooperative agreement with the City of Redmond to jointly provide Fire Protection and EMS services to both City and District residents through Redmond Fire and Rescue (RF&R). With an annual budget of $6,483,074 and utilizing the services of 40 career and 23 volunteer fire fighters, Redmond Fire and Rescue provides fire and EMS services to the 42,000 residents of its 145 square mile service area (450 square miles for ambulance service).38 To do this it operates four fire stations: The Headquarters Station located within Redmond proper; the Airport Station at Roberts Field; and the Cline Falls and Terrebonne Fire Stations within DC RFPD#1. Operational Capacity Assessing the capacity of a fire department is a difficult task. First, it is impossible, for both fiscal and operational reasons, to have a fire department of sufficient size to meet all possible operational situations. Second, the random nature of emergency calls makes establishing a reasonable base level of service difficult. In 2007 RF&R experienced 4,253 dispatched 9-1-1 service calls, 2,864 in the city of Redmond and 1,388 rural calls.39 This included 2,894 EMS calls, 830 fire calls and 511 medical transfers. While this averages out to roughly 12 calls per day, or 3 calls per station per day, these call levels are not consistent. They can come in bunches as well as one at a time. Several years ago, a single arsonist, starting fires along Highway 97 managed to overtax the fire departments in three Central Oregon counties.40 The impression from Chief Knorr's report on RF&R operations in the agency's 2007 Annual Report is that of an organization operating within its capabilities. Yet one of the unfunded budget requests in the FY 2008-09 RF&R Budget was for three additional firefighter/paramedics to staff a second ambulance to handle non - emergency medical transfers. Because this went unfunded, the Terrebonne position " 2007 Annual Report, Redmond Fire & Rescue, page 11 and data provided by RF&R staff. 39 2007 Annual Report, Redmond Fire & Rescue, page 3. " From phone conversation with Redmond Fire and Rescue staff. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 48 is vacant and they are unable to respond to calls for these transfers 41 It appears that the Redmond Fire & Rescue has sufficient capacity to provide a reasonable level of Fire Protection for the 42,000 residents living and working within its 145-square mile area of responsibly. Whether the RF&R has sufficient un-utilized operational capacity to provide additional fire protection for the residents of the Thornburgh Resort is not clear. Capital Costs The combined operation provides one fully -equipped fire station for every 10,500 residents." In order to apply this current population -based service standard to the resort, an "effective population" was used that reflects the number of structures at the resort requiring fire protection. This population figure is the number of people typically associated with these structures in the County and is not intended to represent the actual population of the resort at any given time 43 As shown in Table 5-19 the Thornburgh Resort would have an effective population for Fire/EMS demand of 3,813. To meet the standard of one station for every 10,500 people, an additional 36.3% of a fire station would need to be provided to meet the demand Thornburgh places on the capacity of Redmond Fire & Rescue. Table 5-19 Thornburgh Effective Population Estimate for Fire/EMS System Demand Number of Persons per Persons per Type of Housing Unit units unity) Type(2) Hotel 50 2 100 Residential Overnight Units(" 425 2.7 1,148 Houses 950 2.7 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,813 Notes: (1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure used is the residential occupancy rate for new homes in Deschutes County. (2) Number of Units x Persons per Unit. (3) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. 41 Section 2, Fire Fund, City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget, page 5 12 It would be preferable to use number of addresses or type or number of structures located within the district as the main metric in an evaluation of this type, but as Redmond Fire & Rescue does not have that data we were limited to what is available, which is population data. 43 In the case of fire protection, all buildings (empty as well as occupied) have the potential of placing demand on the capacity of the system. "Effective population" was used here to reflect the number of structures in the resort, relative to those serving the general population. This population figure is different than the figure used in estimating the demand Thornburgh would place on public safety or public parks. In the case of public safety or the park system, it is people who place demand on the capacity of the system. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 49 The Terrebonne Fire Station opened in August of 2007 and is the newest station in the Redmond Fire and Rescue system. It cost $1.3 million dollars to construct. The cost of constructing a similar station in 2008 is about $1,362,920.41 This station is staffed 24/7 by 6 firefighters and has the equipment listed in Table 5-20. Table 5-20 Fire Apparatus at Terrebonne Fire Station Equipment Type(i) Cost Light Rescue Truck(�) $70,000 Light Brush Truck (Type 6 Fire Engine)() $80,000 Heavy Brush Truck() $150,000 Fire Engine() $250,000 Ambulance(') $150,000 Total $700,000 Notes (1) Equipment list provided by staff at the Terrebonne Station. In addition to the apparatus listed that station also has a boat to facilitate access to parts of Smith Rock Park. (2) The cost figure was estimated using prices for used equipment currently listed on the Internet. (3) The $80,000 is the amount budgeted to purchase the truck (4) The cost figure was estimated using prices for used equipment currently listed on the Internet. (5) The cost value used was provided by RF&R staff. The combined cost of constructing a new station and providing it with the same type and number of apparatus is about $2,062,92045 Based on the estimated need to provide 36.3% of a new fire station to serve the Thornburgh Resort, the total capital cost for providing Fire Protection services to the resort is about $748,840. Oregon Law does not permit the imposition of System Development Charges or impact fees to recover the Fire/EMS system capital costs associated with new development. Therefore, these capital costs for expanding the system will fall on all of the property owners within the DCRPD#1, not just those in the Thornburgh Resort. One of the projects RF&R has been undertaking is researching the feasibility of a fire station in DCRFPD#l's southern area. Due to prudent fiscal planning the DCRFPD#1 has $840,800 in its building reserve fund and $77,250 in its equipment 44 Adjusted using the ENR Construction Cost Index for the nearest city (Seattle). " In addition to the fire house structure and the fire apparatus there are a large number of other items that are needed for a fully functioning Fire Station. Items such as beds, stove, washer -dryer, hoses, breathing apparatus, tools, lights, hose nozzles, etcetera, were not included in this cost estimate. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 50 reserve.4' However, that is much less then the $2,062,920 needed to build and equip an additional fire station in the District's southern operating area, particularly as those funds would also be needed to cover the eventual replacement of existing buildings and equipment. To obtain the final net fire/EMS system costs, estimated future contributions to the District tax base from the resorts are deducted from the cost above. If fully developed, the Thornburgh Resort would represent 22% of the DCRFPD#1 tax base. Deducting the contribution through future tax payments, leaves a net cost for fire/EMS facilities of $580,813, as shown in Table 5-21. Table 5-21: Net fire/EMS facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Fire/EMS Facilities Costs Total fire/EMS facilities cost: $748,840 Future property tax contribution (at 22%) ($168,027) Net fire/EMS facilities cost: $580,813 Operational Costs Redmond Fire & Rescue has an annual budget of $6,487,876 of which $5,830,680 is allocated for department operations.4 ' That amount includes the replacement of the division commander's vehicle and $27,000 to replace four ambulance gurneys and similar operational expenses. For the service district population, this operations cost amounts to $138.83 per resident per year. For the estimated 3,813 Thornburgh residents, it should take about $529,359 to maintain this level of service. It is important to note that 18 of the firefighter positions in the RF&R are to be filled by volunteers. As such, the value of their labor is not included in that operational cost.49 At this time, finding individuals with the interest, ability and commitment necessary to become volunteer firefighters is not easy. As reported in the Revenues section of this report, Thornburgh Resort property owners will pay an estimated $637,731 in property taxes to the DCRFPD#1. This exceeds the estimated cost of $529,359 needed to provide the current level of service 46 DCRFPD#1 FY 2008-09 Annual Budget 47 Section 2, Fire Fund, City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget, page 4 48 Ibid " Section 2, Fire Fund, City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget, page 2 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 51 for those residents. The revenue surplus of $108,372 would not be adequate to meet the capital costs to build and equip the additional fire station infrastructure necessary to serve the resort. There is another non -monetary operational cost that the rest of the District residents will bear, at least in the short term, because of the development of the Resort within their District: A reduction in the level of service caused by increased driving time. The Thornburgh resort is located at the extreme edge of the district's southwest boundary and, as a result, fire and EMS vehicles going to and coming from Thornburgh will have longer response times to call in other parts of the district. The construction of an additional fire station in the southern part of the DCRFPD#1's operating area should mitigate some of this negative impact. Additionally, as the proposed Thornburgh Resort is not intended for permanent full time residents, it is not a likely source of additional volunteer firemen and this burden will fall on the other full-time residents of the District. So while the property taxes should adequately cover the day-to-day costs of providing fire protection for the Thornburgh resort, the need to provide volunteer firefighters and to bear the major portion of the capital cost of constructing and equipping an additional station as well as a reduction in service due to extended travel times until it is built means that in the final analysis the current residents of the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 would incur net costs if the Resort is constructed. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 52 Public Safety System Costs Public safety involves many different functions, including patrols, prosecution, incarceration, parole, 911 services, courts, and others. Some resorts provide their own onsite security and patrol services. Sunriver, Black Butte and Pronghorn are examples. Some, such as Eagle Crest provide limited onsite security. These services lack the police powers of the Sheriffs officers and are therefore a limited substitute for County public safety services.50 Thornburgh Resort has not indicated that it will provide any onsite security, so security and patrols are assumed to be provided by the Sheriffs Department. To estimate the impacts of the Thornburgh Resort on public safety facilities and services, data is needed on public safety facility costs and the Sheriffs Department operating budget. This analysis was complicated by the many different public safety functions and the lack of usable facility cost data. There are three Sheriffs substations that serve unincorporated Deschutes County: Terrebonne, Sisters and La Pine substations. There is no facility cost data for any of these since two are being leased (Sisters and Terrebonne) and one is part of the South County Building that contains multiple uses. The service area for the substation also cannot be determined, since they have no particular boundaries and overlap coverage. The Thornburgh Resort could be served by either the Sisters or Terrebonne substation. In addition, the main Sheriffs office in Bend provides services for the unincorporated area near Bend. Public safety functions include: • 911 County Service District • Adult Parole and Probation • Community Justice - Juvenile • District Attorney's Office • Justice Court • Sheriffs Office • Deschutes County Adult Jail Public safety facilities must be adequate to handle peak demands at the height of tourist season. There is very little opportunity to adjust or downsize the system for off-peak periods. For this reason, public safety facilities must have capacity to serve the resort during peak occupancy. "Private security services are limited in their ability to arrest, detain and use force and do not replace the need for true law enforcement services. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 53 The Deschutes County Adult Jail was built in 1994 and has a capacity of 228 beds. According to the Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan (January 26, 2006),51 the capacity of the jail is currently being exceeded. The 2005 average daily population (ADP) was estimated to be 270 inmates. Modeling of future jail demand results in a projected ADP of 578 in the year 2015, increasing to 818 in 2025. A two -phased plan is proposed for meeting current and future jail expansion needs. Allowing for fluctuations in jail bed demand, the first phase of development would address projected corrections needs through year 2015 at 690 beds, with occupancy of expanded facilities assumed to occur, in the year 2010. A second phase of development would then address projected corrections needs through the year 2025 at 975 beds, with facility occupancy assumed to occur in the year 2020. The cost for phase one is $70,989,839. Phase two, to be constructed starting in 2020, will cost approximately $54 million. Table 5-22 Deschutes Jail Expansion Master Plan") Population Existing Jail Jail Beds Year Estimate") Beds ADP(1) Needed(") 2005 143,053 228 284 349 2010 166,572 690 427 520 2015 189,443 690 578 690 2020 214,145 975 689 820 2025 240,811 975 818 975 (1) Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006. (2) Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. (3) ADP is average daily population from page D.3.3 of Corrections Needs Assessment. Current values for ADP are higher than actual to include early releases. (4) Includes capacity to handle daily fluctuations (peaking factor). Based on the estimated population increase of 3,688 people resulting from the peak occupancy of the Thornburgh Resort (Table 5-23) and the cost for the associated increase in jail capacity, at $1,129 per person (Table 5-24), the associated cost for jail capacity is $4,163,752. Note that jail facility costs are assigned on a population - weighted basis and do not assume that resort residents will be more or less likely to be incarcerated than average residents. In principle, all residents benefit equally from the increased safety that adequate jail facilities provide. " Corrections Needs Assessment. Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006. See http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/eo/obiectid/29B167F2- BDBD-57C1-9A456F288808D927/index.cfm. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 54 Table 5-23 Thornburgh Peak Population Estimate for Public Safety System Demand Peak Number Persons Occupancy Persons per Type of Housing Unit of units per unit(') Rate 0 Type (3) Hotel 50 2 90% 90 Residential Overnight Units (11 425 2.7 90% 1,033 Houses 950 2.7 100% 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,688 Notes: (1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure is the residential occupancy rate for a new house in Deschutes County. This occupancy rate is applied to overnight housing as well, even though many resort rentals show capacity for 8 to 12 persons. (2) The peak occupancy rates used for the hotel and overnight units are those used to generate the transient room tax data. (3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x Occupancy Rate. (4) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. Table 5-24 Jail Expansion Costs Associated with Population Growth Phase One CostM $70,989,839 Increase in Beds 462 Cost per New Bed: $153,658 Increase in Needed Beds, 2005-2015 341 Cost for increase in needed beds, 2005-2015 $52,397,262 Cost per capita for population growth, 2005-2015(2) $1,129 (1) Cost to meet projected needs in 2015 per Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County; Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006. (2) Population growth for this period was based on the official population forecast for Deschutes County provided in the Appendix. To estimate the costs for other public safety facilities (other than jail facilities), the 2008-09 Deschutes County Capital Asset Query File was used to compile capital costs. It was impossible to determine values for all facilities because some are shared facilities that provide multiple functions and there was no way to separate out the public safety components. These facilities are indicated as zero -values in Table 5-25. Table 5-25 provides the most complete listing possible from the Capital Asset database. Each facility cost was adjusted to 2008 building costs using the ENR Construction Cost Index for the year in which the asset was built or purchased to obtain an estimated current replacement value. The total estimated replacement Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 55 value of public safety facilities is $22.5 million. This total does not include some shared facilities nor any rented facilities. Land values, patrol cars and Sheriffs equipment costs were adjusted for inflation to 2008 values. Table 5-25 Value of Existing Public Safety Facilities (Excluding Jail)(') Source: Deschutes County 2008-09 Capital Asset Query File (All buildings and improvements adjusted to 2008 values using ENR Construction Cost Index) Dept Code Buildings and Land Total Facility (Location code) Facility/Dept Name Improvements Improvements Value(Z) 21 Civil/Special Units 29 Automotive/Communiciations 33 Investigations/Evidence 34 Patrol $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,536 $45,536 $7,653 $0 $7,653 $18,214 $0 $18,214 35 Records $0 $0 $0 38 Court Security $0 $0 $0 39 Emergency Services $0 $0 $0 41 Special Services $7,819 $0 $7,819 43 Training $0 $132,266 $132,266 75 911 General Operations $200,727 $0 $200,727 82 Adult Parole/Probation $152,855 $70,222 $223,077 45 Non-Departmental(3) 45(170002) Sheriff's Office Building $3,863,921 $0 $3,863,921 45(170202) Juvenile Community Justice Bldg $10,929,783 $0 $10,929,783 45(170302) Regional Correctional Building $3,567,591 $0 $3,567,591 Facilities Subtotals: $18,748,562 $248,024 $18,996,586 170*** Patrol Cars (VO4)(4) $1,688,946 170*** Sheriff Equipment (SE)(4) $488,409 170100 Land for Public Safety Bldg (LA)() $1,359,059 Total Capital Value: $22,532,999 Notes: (1) Three Sheriff's Substations were not included because they are rented or shared facilities. Other shared facilities also were not included. (2) Total costs do not include the values of any shared facilities or facilities used for public safety purposes that are rented, such as the Terrebonne and Sisters Substations. (3) Only public safety facilities were included from this department code. (4) Cars, equipment and land costs adjusted for inflation to 2008 values using the Consumer Price Index. To arrive at a per -capita cost for public safety facilities (not including jail cost), the total of facilities values of $22.5 million (from Table 5-25) were distributed across the entire County population. The full County 2008 population of 156,733 persons Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 56 was used because most of the facilities serve the entire County.52 The per -capita cost for these public safety facilities is $144. Based on the demand resulting from the assumed peak population of the Thornburgh Resort of 3,688 persons (Table 5-23), the incremental cost for expanding these facilities to serve the resort is $531,072. As shown in Table 5-26, the total public safety facility costs associated with the Thornburgh Resort is $4,694,824. It is important to note that the cost value is understated due to the lack of data mentioned previously. Table 5-26 Total Public Safety Facility Costs for Thornburgh Resort Per New Person For Resort Jail Expansion $1,129 $4,163,752 Other Public Safety Facilities $144 $531,072 Total Cost: $4,694,824 To obtain net public safety facility costs, estimated future tax contribution by the Thornburgh Resort are deducted from the cost in Table 5-26. At full buildout, the resort would represent 2.2% of the County's tax base and would fund the same percentage of County facility costs. As shown in Table 5-27, the net cost for public safety facilities is $4,591,181. Table 5-27: Net public safety facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Public Safety Facilities Costs Total public safety facilities cost: $4,694,824 Future property tax contribution (at 2.2%) ($103,643) Net public safety facilities cost: $4,591,181 " Exceptions are the patrol cars and patrol facility cost, which serve primarily the unincorporated area. These costs are relatively small, so the error is negligible, but the effect is to slightly lower public safety costs attributed to the resort. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 57 Cost of Public Safety Services The actual amount spent for the Sheriff's office for the budget year ending June 30, 2008 was $26,844,500.53 This expenditure was allocated to countywide and rural service districts as shown in Table 5-28. The cost for each district was divided by the 2008 population for the district to arrive at per -capita costs. Rural unincorporated residents received service from both districts, so the total per -capita cost is $295 per year. For the estimated 3,688 peak residents of Thornburgh Resort, the cost to provide public safety services is approximately $1,087,960 per year. Table 5-28 Sheriff's Department 2008 Operations Costs") Population Per -Capita District Expenditure Served Cost Countywide District $15,908,322 156,733 $102 Rural District $10,936,178 56,609 $193 Total $26,844,500 $295 Ended June 30, 2008, pages 63 and As shown in Table 5-29, the total estimated annual public safety revenues from the proposed Thornburgh Resort are $1,310,884. This is about $223,000 more than the estimated costs to serve the resort. The surplus is due to the allocation of 73% of all room taxes to law enforcement, as described in the Revenues section. Table 5-29 Estimated Public Safety Revenues from Thornburgh Resort Revenue Source Revenue�ll Countywide Law Enforcement $345,368 Rural Law Enforcement $508,963 911 Service 142,437 Share of resort room taxes to law enforcement $314,116 Total: $1,310,884 (1 ) From Table 4-4 in Revenues section. ss Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Deschutes County, Oregon, For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008, pages 63 and 64. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 58 Parks & Rec. System Costs The Thornburgh Resort is within the Boundaries of the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District (RAPRD). The District is supported through a combination of user fees and property taxes. The District operates the Cascade Swim Center, with a 25 meter indoor pool, the RAPRD Activity Center with indoor basketball, volley ball courts and batting cage; and multipurpose activity room; the High Desert Sports Center with 4 softball fields a BMX track and a Remote Control Airplane Landing field; Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve a 26-acre park and nature preserve located along the Deschutes River, and Historical Tetherow Crossing, an 11-acre Deschutes River -front park. The recreational opportunities offered by RAPRD at its swim and activity centers directly duplicate those that would be available to Thornburgh residents and guests at Resort -owned and operated facilities. As those facilities are closer and should be available at little to no out-of-pocket expense, it is likely that Thornburgh residents and guests would use the resorts facilities rather then driving long distances to a similar RAPRD facility. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Thornburgh Resort would have no measurable impact on the operation of the RAPRD Aquatics and Activity Centers. The facilities provided by the High Desert Sports Center are not duplicated at the Thornburgh Resort. But as the resort is intended to provide short term rentals, and vacation or second homes, it is not likely that many of the residents would be participating in local softball leagues or otherwise using these facilities. The one possible exception would be out of area teams renting a house or houses to stay in while participating at a tournament hosted by the High Desert Sports Center or Cascade swim Center. However, if that should occur, it would be more accurate to say that the sports complexes were utilizing the short term housing capacity of the Resort rather than Resort residents utilizing the capacity of the sports complexes. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Thornburgh Resort would have no significant impact on the operation of the High Desert Sports Center. While the resort does intend to provide open space for the use of residents and guests these facilities do not duplicate those provided by Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park. The Deschutes River is one of the significant tourist attractions in Central Oregon. The Thornburgh Resort does not have any river frontage and both of these parks include extensive Deschutes River frontage. For this reason it is reasonable to assume that residents and guests of the Thornburgh Resort would utilize these two parks. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 59 Capital Costs The flexible nature of park facilities such as the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park makes it difficult to determine the maximum number of users that could utilize them at a time. Thus making a determination of whether they are at, over, or below capacity difficult to impossible. It is however, relatively easy to determine what the current level of service that is being provided by these two parks to the 32,000 residents of the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District, and from that determine the amount of similar river front park acreage that would be needed to maintain that level of service.54 Currently RAPRD provides 1.156 acres of open space per 1,000 residents." Table 5-30 Parks and Open Space Operated by RAPRD Facility Acreage Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve 26 Historical Tetherow Crossing Park 11 Total Acreage 37 Park and recreation facilities receive peak demand in the summer months, the same time that resort occupancy will peak. The limited data available for the proposed Thornburgh Resort does not contain any demographic or population figures, but it is possible to arrive at a peak population estimate for the resort by working from the number of planned housing units, as shown in Table 5-31. If the advertisements for vacation rentals in the greater Redmond area are any indicator of the occupancy rates, the estimate for the occupancy of residential overnight units of 2.7 persons may be low. Many of these ads indicate that rental homes sleep from 8 to 12 persons. sa Population figure was provided by RAPRD staff. ss (37 acres/(32000/1000) = 1.156 acres per thousand residents Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 , page 60 Table 5-31 Thornburgh Peak Population Estimate for Park System Demand Peak Number Persons Occupancy Persons per Type of Housing Unit of units per unit(') Rate (1) Type (3) Hotel 50 2 90% 90 Residential Overnight Units (4) 425 2.7 90% 1,033 Houses 950 2.7 100% 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,688 (1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure used is for the residential occupancy rate for a new house in Deschutes County. (2) The peak occupancy rates used for the hotel and overnight units are the same as those used to generate the transient room tax data. (3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x Occupancy Rate. (4) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. To meet the current standard of 1.156 acres per 1000 residents, the RAPRD would need to acquire an additional 4.26 Acres of parkland with river frontage for the estimated 3,688 new Thornburgh residents. At an acquisition cost of $250,000 an acre,56 that 4.26 acres would cost the district $1,065,000. As RAPRD does not impose a Systems Development Charge for Parks the money for this land acquisition would need to come from District Reserve Funds, operating revenues, a Parks Bond or some combination thereof. Given the current political climate and the funds available to the district it is unlikely that this land acquisition would happen. So rather than paying to meet this new demand for service, the existing residents would likely experience a reduction in the level of service. The new level of service would be lowered to 1.036 acres per 1000 residents. Crediting the Thornburgh Resort for future property tax contributions (assuming full buildout), results in a net cost for parks and recreation facilities of $463,562, as shown in Table 5-32. 56 Replacement Land cost was provided by RAPRD staff. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 61 Table 5-32: Net parks and recreation facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Parks and Recreation Facilities Costs Total parks and recreation facilities cost: $1,065,000 Future property tax contribution (at 56%) ($601,438) Net parks and recreation facilities cost: $463,562 Oneratina Costs As it is unlikely (for the reasons provided above) that Thornburgh residents would be utilizing the Cascade Swim Center, the RAPRD Activity Center, or High Desert Sports Center, there should not be any additional operational costs caused by the resort's demand on the capacity. As for the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park, which are more likely to be utilized by Thornburgh residents, they do not currently generate General Fund operating expenses. Historic Tetherow Crossing Park is in the public planning phase of development and the limited operations of the Wildlife Preserve are supported by gifts, donations and inter -fund transfers to a special fund. This year the fund's $400-dollar beginning balance was supplemented by a transfer of $500 from the District's General Fund. On the expenditure side, a total of $500 dollars57 has been budgeted for Materials and Services out of the fund's $900-dollar balance. The salary and benefits for the minimal Groundskeeper labor are absorbed into that of the rest of the District's operations. This breaks down to $15.63 per thousand residents. Assuming that the per -capita cost generated by new users is equal to the current per - capita cost, and no new acreage is provided, -then the increased operating cost resulting from the 3688 peak Thornburgh residents is $57.63. If the additional 4.26 acres is added to the park so as to maintain current levels of service, then an additional $81.91 would be needed to provide the same level of operations and maintenance expenditures that the Wildlife Preserve currently receives. Conclusion Thornburgh property owners will be paying taxes toward the Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District amounting to an estimated $135,130 per year. This greatly 57 The actual expenditure for FT 2006-07 was $551 (RAPRD 08-09 Annual Budget). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 62 exceeds the $57.63 operating cost associated with meeting their demand on parks capacity. In terms of level of service, District residents would likely see a small drop from 1.156 acres to 1.036 acres per 1000 residents. There is a limit to how many development projects similar to the Thornburgh Resort could be constructed within the District's boundaries before the cumulative negative impacts caused by reductions in the level of service are felt by the current population. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 63 General Government Facilities The costs for expanding Deschutes County's general government facilities to accommodate the Thornburgh resort are calculated in this section. None of the infrastructure or facility costs addressed on other sections of this report are included here, so there is no duplication of costs. Deschutes County's Capital Asset Data File was used to identify the costs of all County facilities purchased or built since 1978 (Table 5-33). This database does not include the road system or facilities operated by independent districts, such as schools, fire, and parks. Note that the County rents some facilities, so these costs will not be included here. The costs for each of these facilities were adjusted to reflect 2008 replacement values using the ENR Construction Cost Index and the BLS Consumer Price Index. Facilities for the Sheriff's Office and the County Jail were removed from this list, as they were already included in the Public Safety Impacts section of this report. Table 5-33 Deschutes County General Government Facilities Costs") (All costs adjusted to 2008 values) Buildings and Land Vehicles, Improvements Improvements Equipment Facility (BU, BI) (LI) Land and Other Total Value All County Facilities $120,614,699 $34,384,960 $18,388,936 $115,653,683 $289,042,278 Deduct Sheriff & Jail ($31,681,617) ($325,792) ($1,359,059) ($2,177,355) ($35,543,823) County -(Sheriff & Jail) $88,933,082 $34,059,169 $17,029,877 $113,476,328 $253,498,455 (1) Includes all facilities and equipment purchased since 1978. Buildings and Land Improvement values adjusted with CCI. Land and Equipment values inflated with CPI. Sheriff and Jail facilities were addressed under Public Safety Impacts. The new population added by the Thornburgh Resort that would require general county services was assumed to be limited to the occupants of primary residences. As previously describe in this report, primary residences were found to comprise 43% of the owner -occupied housing at the nearby Eagle Crest Resort, so this figure was applied to Thornburgh. Other property owners at Thornburgh who have second homes may also used County services and facilities, but this impact was considered to be relatively minor. As shown in Table 5-34, the estimated population in primary residences at Thornburgh is 1,103 persons. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 64 Table 5-34 Thornburgh Population Estimate for General Government Facilities Demand Percent Number Persons Primary Type of Housing Unit of units per unitftf Residences") Population(') Owner -Occupied Houses 950 2.7 43% 1,103 Notes: (1) The 2.7 occupancy rate is for a new houses in Deschutes County. (2) Percent primary residences is based on an analysis of tax records for the Eagle Crest Resort. (3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x % Primary Residences. Based on the per -capita value of existing County facilities of $1,617 shown in Table 5-35, the cost of expanding general government facilities in Deschutes County to accommodate the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to be $1,783,984. Table 5-35 General Government Facilities Costs Associated with Thornburgh Resort Countywide General Government Facilities Cost (Tbl 5-33) $253,498,455 2008 County Population(1) 1561733 Per -Capita Facilities Cost $1,617 Thornburgh Population Estimate (Tbl 5-34) 1,103 General Gov. Facil. Cost: $1,783,984 (1) From Coordinated Population Forecast. Since the resort will make future tax payments to the County, those payments should be deducted from the facilities cost in Table 5-35. When fully built out, Thornburgh Resort will represent approximately 2.2% of the County's tax base and will therefore fund 2.2% of these facility costs. The net cost for general government facilities after deducting future tax revenues is $1,744,601, as shown in Table 5-36. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 65 Table 5-36: Net general government facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net General Government Facilities Costs Total general gov. facilities cost: $1,783,984 Future property tax contribution (at 2.2%) ($39,383) Net general gov. facilities cost: $1,744,601 The costs and revenues associated with general government services were not estimated in this study, as there are many types of services and it would have been very difficult to determine how much demand for each of these services would be created by the Thornburgh Resort. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 66 6. Fiscal Impact Summary The section compares the costs and the revenues calculated in the previous sections to determine the net fiscal impacts for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Revenue Summary Table 6-1 summarizes the total gross annual tax revenues that are estimated for the Thornburgh Resort. Combined property and room tax revenues total $5,521,419 per year. These gross revenues go to pay for all of the services and facilities provided by local government to the resort and therefore do not represent a net windfall. As shown below, these revenues are more than offset by the infrastructure costs created by the resort. Table 6-1: Annual revenue summary for Thornburgh Resort. Revenue Summary Revenue Category Revenue Property Tax Revenue $5,091,123 Total Room Tax Revenue $430,296 Total Annual Revenues $5,521,419 Costs of Facilities As shown in Table 6-2, the total net cost for the five categories of infrastructure required by the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to be $51,284,705. These are effectively one-time costs to local governments that are "due" upon completion of the resort. As noted previously in the text, some of the transportation system costs will be incurred by the State, so not all of these costs will accrue to Deschutes County and its various districts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 67 Table 6-2: Net cost summary for infrastructure required by Thornburgh Resort. Net Facility Cost Summary Category of Facility Net Cost Estimate(') Transportation System $39,149,282 School Facilities(2) $4,752,973 Fire & EMS Facilities $580,813 Public Safety Facilities $4,591,181 Parks & Rec. Facilities $463,562 Gen Gov. Facilities $1,744,601 Total Net Cost: $51,284,705 (1) Net costs are total gross costs, minus any payments or revenues from the resort that fund infrastructure, including future tax payments and SDCs. (2) The school cost figure is for the lower estimate of student generation in Scenario #2. Services Impacts The costs to provide ongoing services were calculated for three of the six impact categories and compared with the tax revenues generated for that same category. It was not practical to calculate comparative values for schools, transportation and general government, as described previously. Table 6-3 summarizes the revenues and costs and gives a net impact for each category of service. The net impacts are positive for each category. The total net impact is a surplus of $466,344 per year. This accrues to the County and its service districts, since each of these services is funded exclusively by either the County or the service district. Table 6-3: Net annual services impact for Thornburgh Resort. Net Annual -Services Impacts for Thornburgh Resort Category of Service Revenue Estimate Cost Estimate Net Impact Transportation System(') NA NA NA School Facilities(') NA NA NA Fire & EMS Facilities $637,731 ($529,359) $108,372 Public Safety Facilities $1,310,884 ($1,087,960) $222,924 Parks & Rec. Facilities $135,130 ($82) $135,048 Totals: $2,083,745 ($1,617,401) $466,344 (1) Direct revenue and service costs were not be calculated for these categories because they are funded from a combination of sources (Federal, State and County) and revenues from the resort could not be determined. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 68 Fiscal Impact Conclusions The net $51.28 million in infrastructure costs associated with the Thornburgh Resort greatly overshadow the $466,344 annual surplus for County services. In order to consider the overall net fiscal impacts of the resort, the annual surplus for County services was converted to an equivalent amount of capital that could be financed with this cash flow. The $466,344 surplus could service interest and principal payments on a 20-year loan at 6% interest for $5.35 million. Assuming this surplus was used for this purpose, the $51.28 million in infrastructure costs could be reduced to $45.94 million, as shown in Table 6-4. Table 6-4 Net Fiscal Impact of Thornburgh Resort Net Infrastructure Cost $51,284,705 Less Capital Equivalent of Revenue Surplus(') ($5,348,967) Net Fiscal Impact: $45,935,738 (1) This is the value of capital facilities that could be financed with a $466,344 annual revenue stream at 6% interest over 20 years. In conclusion, local governments and local taxpayers will be left with a net cost burden of $45.94 million if the Thornburgh Resort is fully completed as proposed. This is a net cost after the resort has been credited for all known payments and tax revenues it will generate. The $45.94 million cost will be externalized and will ultimately be borne by other taxpayers (not the resort) through some combination of higher taxes, reduced public services, and lower facility service standards. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 69 7. Thornburgh Resort's Economic Impacts This section provides a review and analysis of the jobs and housing issues resulting from destination resorts by examining the proposed Thornburgh Resort as a representative case study. The resort developer, Thornburgh Resort Company LLC, maintains that the resort will create many new construction and operations jobs and will have little impact on housing in the area. To support their position, they have submitted the following two reports as part of the required application materials: • An Economic and Benefit Study for the Thornburgh Destination Resort in Deschutes County, Oregon, for Thornburgh Resort Company LLC, by Jon Peterson of Peterson Economics, January 21, 2005. • An Employee Housing Analysis for the Thornburgh Destination Resort in Deschutes County, Oregon, for Thornburgh Resort Company LLC, by Jon Peterson of Peterson Economics, August 22, 2005. These reports are referred to here respectively as the Peterson Economic Report and the Peterson Housing Report and collectively as the Peterson Report. The Peterson Economic Report was prepared as part of the required application materials for the Thornburgh Resort. Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.113(B)(19) requires the destination resort applicant to provide: An economic impact and feasibility analysis of the proposed development prepared by a qualified professional economist(s) or financial analyst(s) shall be provided which includes: a. An analysis which addresses the economic viability of the proposed development; b. Fiscal impacts of the protect including changes in employment, increased tax revenue, demands for new or increased levels of public services, housing for employees and the effects of loss of resource lands during the life of the project. [Emphasis added.] In spite of the Code requirement, the Peterson report lacks a complete analysis of the fiscal impacts of the project and instead focuses on the property tax revenues that may be generated if the resort is completed. Absent from the report is any analysis of the demands for new or increase levels of public services. The report also neglects to report transient room tax revenues from overnight lodging. The Peterson study, like many economic impact studies provided by developers, portrays an unrealistically optimistic and beneficial picture of the development Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 70 project. Tax revenues, for example, are projected by Peterson to be three times greater than for comparable resorts located nearby. According to a separate study comparing projected tax revenues for commercial developments with actual tax revenues after the developments were completed, projected revenues were found to be overstated by an average of 39%.58 The portrayal of resort development as beneficial is also achieved by ignoring the costs and negative impacts of the project. The Peterson Report ignores all external costs associate with the Thornburgh Resort development. While new jobs, employment compensation and property tax revenues are presented in explicit detail, there is little to no effort made to address the many costs associated with providing public services, public infrastructure, or any of the potential adverse impacts on the community and the environment. In this case, most of the costs are likely to be borne by the current and future residents of Deschutes County via increased taxes or declining services, or both. Costs that are externalized by the developer and shifted onto the local community improve the developer's profitability at the expense of local residents. job Creation and Employment Impacts The employment and compensation data in the Peterson Economic Report (as Table II-1) was revised downward seven months later in the Peterson Housing Report (as Table 1), so the more -recent Housing Report data is used here. The Housing Report bases projected wages for the Thornburgh Resort on a past projection for an analysis the company did for the Suncadia Resort in Roslyn, WA in 2002 and inflated to 2005 values. By their own figures, almost half of employees (49%) will make less than $21,000 per year and 67% will make less than $26,000 per year. As shown in Table 7-1, Federal guidelines indicate that household incomes below $21,200 represent the poverty level for a family of four. Such households may qualify for Federal aid from the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, the Low -Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. " Commercial Development: Impact Analysis Before and After Construction, by C. Fred DeKay, Ph.D. and Barbara M. Yates, Ph.D., Economic Development Tournal, fall 2005, p 7. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 71 Table 7-1: 2008 US Poverty Guidelines. Persons 48 Contiguous in Family or Household States and D.C. 1 $10,400 2 $14,000 3 $17,600 4 $21,200 5 $24,800 6 $28,400 7 $32,000 8 $35,600 For each additional person, add: $3,600 Source: Federal Register, Vol. 73, No.15, January 23, 2008, pp. 3971-3972 Resorts are notoriously low -paying businesses. The "leisure and hospitality" sector, that includes destination resorts, pays the lowest of any employment sector in Deschutes County. This sector paid average annual wages of only $16,096, about half as much as the average annual wage in Deschutes County of $31,492 in 2006, according to the Oregon Employment Department." The Peterson Report appears to be considerably overestimating wages for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Peterson claims that only 7% of jobs will pay less than $16,000 per year. This contrasts sharply with the $16,096 average wage in this sector. Many more than 7% of the jobs created at the resort will likely pay minimum wage. Such jobs include maids, waitresses, dishwashers, groundskeepers, landscape maintenance workers, janitors, and laborers. Minimum wage in Oregon was $7.25 per hour, or about $14,500 in 2005 when the Peterson report was written. In 2008 the State's minimum wage was $7.95 per hour, or approximately $15,900 before taxes. According to Oregon's Report on Poverty 200661 for Deschutes County: The 2005 average [monthly] wage of $2,624, however, proved inadequate for single parents. Deschutes County's 2005 average wage could not fund the basic family budget for a single adult and one child or more. The second largest industry in Deschutes County, leisure and hospitality, paid an average wage nearly half of the county average—$1,342 a month.... Families earning poverty level wages could afford no more than 40.2 percent of basic family expenses in Deschutes County. " Oregon Employment Department, 2006, as quoted in 2007 Central Oregon Area Profile, by Economic Development for Central Oregon. 61 Oregon Housing and Community Services. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 72 Based on the Peterson Housing Report,61 the median wage offered at Thornburgh would be about $21,000. Median household income in Deschutes County was $45,894 in 200462, more than twice as much as the resort will pay. Even if two members of a household worked full time at the Thornburgh Resort, they would still make less than the median County household income in 2004 and the effect of the resort will be to depress median wages in the County. Peterson uses "induced jobs" to enhance the total employment -related compensation associated with the resort. However, this induced employment works both ways: increasing jobs when hiring, but decreasing jobs in a similar proportion when firing. Using Peterson's assumption of 0.5 induced jobs per construction job and 0.2 induced jobs per operations job, total employment associated with the resort will peak at 2,015 jobs in the sixth year of development. However, when construction is completed, 1,471 of these jobs will be lost. The loss of 1,471 jobs is roughly equivalent to the closing of Central Oregon's second largest employer, Les Schwab Tire Centers (1500 employees). It will have an even greater impact due to the relatively higher salaries paid to construction workers. The loss of these jobs will have a profound impact on the region as these households struggle to pay bills and seek to relocate to other areas in search of employment. The lost jobs are likely to increase local demand for social services and public assistance and may result in evictions, foreclosures and bankruptcies. The magnitude of these job losses could negatively impact the local economy for years after the resort is completed. 61 Peterson Housing Report, Table 2. ez According to the US Census Bureau. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & associates March 2009 page 73 Figure 7-1: Direct employment at the proposed Thornburgh Resort estimated by Peterson (based on Peterson Housing Report, Table 1). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 74 Figure 7-2: Total direct and induced employment at the proposed Thornburgh Resort estimated by Peterson (based on Peterson Housing Report, Table 1). Projected Jobs, Thornburgh Resort 2500 2000 1500 co N � � 1000 N co L r o a o m 0 500LO M � co LO n N N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Project Year ❑ Direct Jobs ❑ Induced Jobs M Total Jobs Figure 7-3: Employment changes resulting from the Thornburgh Resort development (based on Peterson Housing Report). Annual Changes in Projected Employment, Thornburgh Resort 1000 899 800 566 600 t 411 400 -, 185 200 "r 0s: -200 x; -179 -188 -400'f M 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 -600 -490 -512 Project Year Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 75 Theoretically, the only way to prevent such employment shocks from impacting the local economy (other than not building the resort in the first place) is to continually and indefinitely build more resorts at a steady and even pace in Deschutes County. However, this approach is completely impractical as the County could not sustain such development over the long term, and it would be impossible to transition seamlessly from one development to the next for employment purposes. Who Will Fill New Resort jobs: Locals or Newcomers? The Peterson Report claims that "in excess of 90%" of employees will live in Deschutes County. To support this, they cite anecdotal evidence from conversations with the management of Black Butte and Eagle Crest Resorts that a "vast majority" of employees live within the County. Without additional evidence, Peterson claims that these employees were also local County residents before their employment at these resorts.63 This apparently forms the bases for Peterson's conclusion that only 8% to 10% of jobs created at Thornburgh Resort will be filled by newcomers. However, empirical data and studies indicated that the percentage of newcomers moving into Deschutes County to fill resort jobs will be much higher. Recently it came to light in a Bend Bulletin article that not only are resorts filling some of their jobs from out of the area, they are actively recruiting foreigners.` The Sunriver Resort filled 85 jobs last year with people from as far away as Lithuania, Brazil and Mexico. People may move to a new county for a variety of reasons. Deschutes County has outstanding recreational opportunities and natural amenities that attract people from all over the country. A limiting factor to County in -migration is employment. While there may be a large number of people who would like to live there, most will need employment to make such a move successful. Thus, the more jobs created in the County, the more people will be able to move there. To a large extent this same phenomenon applies statewide in Oregon. The State is viewed as offering attractive natural amenities and a desirable quality of life that act to stimulate in -migration. But the limiting factor to in -migration is the lack of employment opportunities. As a result of this "pent up" demand, new jobs created in the State are rapidly absorbed by newcomers and unemployment levels tend to remain consistently above the national average. This was the case even during the 1990s, a decade of the most rapid economic expansion and job creation in the State's history. "Job seekers who move to a new location seeking work often obtain a local address to use for job applications, so employers may not know if they are hiring new arrivals. ' "Unemployment might be high, but resorts still struggle to fill some jobs," The Bulletin, May 11, 2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 76 As shown in Figure 7-4, the US Census found that "work -related" reasons accounted for 31.1% of all intercounty moves 65 More specifically, 24% of all moves were either for new jobs/transfers or to look for work. "New jobs and job transfers" accounted for the most moves of any category in the Census survey. Clearly, employment is a major motivational factor in migration. This factor is amplified when a region offers additional amenities and quality -of -life benefits as found in Central Oregon. Figure 7-4: Reasons for moving to another county (US Census). Intercounty movers Other reasons 10.1 Family -related reasons 26.9 Work -related reasons 31.1 Housing -related reasons 31.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000. When new jobs are created in a community by a development project, its proponents often claim that the jobs will go to local workers. However, studies show that in the near term, 40% to 60% of new jobs go to newcomers and in the longer term, 60% to 90% of these jobs are filled by newcomers.bb Applying the midpoint estimates to the Thornburgh Resort, we can assume that construction jobs are shorter -term jobs that are filled by 50% newcomers and operations jobs are longer -term and are filled by 75% newcomers. As shown in Table 7-2, at peak employment, the resort will generate an estimated net in -migration of 1,150 workers to fill, the jobs. This is considerably more than the 133 newcomers identified in the Peterson report. ' Why People Move: Exploring the March 2000 Current Population Survey, Special Studies, US Census Bureau, March 2001. es See: Who Benefits from Local,7ob Growth, Migrants or the Original Residents, by Timothy J. Bartik, Regional Studies, vol. 27, No. 4, 1993. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 77 Table 7-2: Peak In -Migration to Deschutes County Due to Direct and Induced Jobs at Proposed Thornburgh Resort. Peak Percent Jobs to Jobs to Job Source Employment(') Newcomers(') Newcomers Construction 964 50% 482 Const. Induced 482 50% 241 Operations 474 75% 356 Oper. Induced 95 75% 71 Total: 2,015 1,150 (1) Based on Peterson Housing Report; (2) From Bartik, 1993. Housing Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Increased demand for housing will tend to increase prices, especially when there is a relatively fixed supply of housing and a marked increase in demand. Unless housing is expanded to meet the new demand, prices will increase and housing will become less affordable in the County. The loss of housing affordability becomes a regional cost associated with the resort. The Peterson Housing Report states that, due to the vacancy rate in Deschutes County, all housing needs generated by construction and ongoing operations at the resort will not "pose a problem." This conclusion seems to imply that the resort will have no significant impacts on the local housing demand or supply in Deschutes County. To the contrary, we find that the resort will have substantial impacts on the needs and demands for local housing. Peterson indicates that additional offsite job creation will be induced by the onsite jobs at the resort. However, no consideration is given to the housing demand created by the induced employment. Peterson reports that induced jobs peak in year six of the development at 577 jobs. Total jobs are estimated to peak at 2,015 at that time, including construction, operations and induced employment. The addition of more than 2000 new jobs to Deschutes County, many of which are temporary and low - paying, will have a very significant impact on the local housing market. This effect on the housing market is aggravated by the fact that most of these jobs (985 by Peterson's estimate) will be temporary. Temporary demands for a significant quantity of local housing can create multiple problems. As the demand grows rapidly, housing prices go up, housing availability and affordability decline, and additional home construction may be stimulated. As the temporary demand comes to an end, there is a glut of housing with a sharp increase in vacancies and unsold homes that may leave the housing market in worse shape than before the resort started. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 78 Most ongoing jobs will be low -paying groundskeepers, maids, and maintenance positions. Such jobs may attract workers who will require low income housing assistance and will increase demand for affordable housing in the County. Furthermore, many of the lower -paying jobs will be seasonal, or have significant seasonal variations in employment. Seasonal jobs will further stress households that are struggling to afford market -rate housing as their employment varies from season to season. Lower -paid workers will have more difficulty finding affordable housing near the resort and they will need to travel farther to meet their housing needs. The additional commuting requirements will further exacerbate their financial stress. Renters in Deschutes County are currently struggling to meet housing costs. According to the US Census, 41% of the County's renters are paying more than 30% of their income for rent 67 New destination resorts will increase local housing demand and push up rental prices forcing more local residents to spend a greater share of their incomes on housing. Peterson estimates that during the 11-year period of resort construction, between 37 and 133 housing units will be required to supply the new workers (both construction and resort operations) and that all of these units can be met from the current inventory of vacant housing. However, this conclusion is based partly on the unrealistic assumption that more than 90% of jobs will be filled by local residents and that only 8-10% will be filled by people moving into the county. As shown previously, the Thornburgh Resort is likely to attract newcomers to fill 1,150 of the peak jobs generated by the resort. Most of these newcomers will create new households in the County. However, some may live with others or have a spouse that is also employed by the resort. To estimate new households it was assumed that 30% of the newcomers will either live with others who work at the resort or have a spouse also working at the resort. These cohabitating workers would reduce demand for new housing by 15% (half of 30%). The newcomers will therefore generate a peak demand for 978 housing units in Deschutes County (Table 7-3). 67 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005American Community Survey, Deschutes County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 79 Table 7-3: Estimated new households created by peak employment at Thornburgh Resort. Jobs & Households Generated Number Peak jobs at Thornburgh 2,015 Peak jobs to newcomers (from Table 7-2) 1,150 Newcomers cohabitating (30% assumed) 345 Households by new cohabitating workers 173 Households by other new workers 805 Total new households by newcomers: 978 The Peterson Housing Report states that there was "an existing vacancy inventory of more than 320 rental units in Deschutes County" in order to show that the County can absorb the modest demand they predict from resort employees without generating any need for additional housing. However, the Peterson data does not appear to be accurate and there is no source cited. The Central Oregon Rental Survey Results for 2004 showed 411 vacant units for all of Central Oregon. The most recent Central Oregon Rental Survey Results for 2007 (1" Quarter) showed 270 vacancies for all of Central Oregon with a 6.86% vacancy rate. However, this survey provides only a partial account of vacancies, since the US Census 2005 American Community Survey shows there were 18,552 rental units in Deschutes County in 2005 with a vacancy rate of 6.4%, or about 1,187 vacant units. Vacancies always exist in the rental housing market and don't necessarily represent housing availability. Vacancies are a natural part of the rental housing business. Turnover of rental units typically requires a period of vacancy between tenants so that the unit can be cleaned, marketed and leased. Rental units also require repairs and improvements during unoccupied periods. Less -desirable, substandard, or overpriced units may take longer to rent. Rental vacancy rates in 2005 were 9.8% nationally and 8.3% in Oregon, much higher than the 6.4% rate in Deschutes County. The likely demand for housing resulting from resort employment will be much greater than Peterson has estimated. Peterson estimated a peak demand of 133 housing units, compared with the estimate here of 978 housing units. It is unrealistic for the Thornburgh Resort to rely on local rental vacancy rates to meet the housing needs for the estimated 1,150 peak jobs filled by newcomers. As shown in Table 7-4, the Thornburgh Resort is projected to create direct and induced long-term employment of 544 persons from year 12 of the project onwards. An estimated 75% of these jobs will be filled by newcomers. Of the 408 permanent jobs filled by newcomers, an estimated 347 new households will be created by these Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 80 employees." This will result in a permanent demand for 347 new housing units in the County. Table 7.4: Newcomers to Deschutes County Filling Permanent Direct and Induced Jobs at Proposed Thornburgh Resort (year 12 of project and onwards). Permanent Percent Jobs to Jobs to Job Source Employment( Newcomers(" Newcomers Operations 453 75% 340 Oper. Induced 91 75% 68 Total: 544 408 (1) Based on Peterson Housing Report. (2) From Bank, 1993. Spending by Destination Resorts The typical economic analysis presented by a developer estimates the total gross spending in connection with the development as a net benefit to the local community. The spending estimate is often magnified by use of multiplier -effects to show even greater benefit to the local community as direct spending ripples through the local economy. Thus, spending figures typically include both direct and induced (secondary) spending for wages, construction materials and services. Such spending figures tend to greatly overstate local benefits. For example, assumptions are made that 100% of spending for construction, including materials and supplies, will stay in the local county. However, construction materials such as lumber, cement, appliances, cabinets, flooring, plumbing fixtures, lighting, doors, windows, plaster and paint are obtained through a national and international supply network. It is highly unlikely that a significant portion of these construction materials will be produced within the county. Therefore, most of this spending quickly leaves the county. Many economic studies also assume that other construction -related spending, such as design, engineering, and construction labor, will stay in the local county. However, many of the design firms and construction companies are likely to be based out of the area, or even out of state. Most of the expenditures to firms and employees based out of the area will leave the local county. " Estimate assumes that 30% of employees will share housing with another employee, reducing household generation by 15 percent. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 81 Use of "multiplier effects" is a common practice in economic analysis. Multipliers are used to show how money can be recycled in a community or region and can significantly inflate the apparent economic benefits. In contrast, empirical studies show that local growth does not result in real benefits to the community in terms of increased per -capita income.69 Therefore, it must be assumed that much of the direct and indirect economic activity flows out of the community and does not significantly benefit local residents. In this case, "multiplier effects" are likely to be offset by national builders, national building materials suppliers, and non -local workers who will take much of the money out of the community. If multipliers are to be used in impact analysis, they should be applied to cost as well as revenues (see sidebar on this topic). Use of multipliers An increasingly common method among the building industry and some governments for projecting fiscal impacts involves the use of multipliers derived from economic models. Using data from the models, an analyst might take the estimated direct economic activity in dollars associated with a project and "multiply" it by a given amount to account also for indirect, secondary impacts. The total measure of economic activity is then used to estimate revenues for the purpose of determining fiscal impacts. Such multiplier approaches to fiscal impact analysis suffer from several shortcomings. First, the multipliers are usually obtained from economic models of large regions or states. But they are applied at the level of an individual local jurisdiction that is usually only a fraction of a region's or state's economy. The smaller the jurisdiction relative to the economic region for which the multipliers have been derived, the less reliable the multipliers will be for that jurisdiction. Furthermore, while the multipliers are applied to the revenue side of the budget, few such analyses ever apply a multiplier to the cost side of the local budget. The implicit (but often wrong) assumption is that local governments can generate revenue from secondary, induced, or indirect development without incurring increased costs in providing services to that development. Another shortcoming of the multiplier approach is its tendency to "double -count" revenues. A multiplier -based fiscal analysis of a project might credit it with the additional revenue impacts as derived from 1,000 new jobs elsewhere in the jurisdiction. But, when the separate fiscal impact analysis of the development where these jobs are located is (or was) prepared by its developer, the revenues would also be claimed on behalf of that development. Source: Developments and Dollars: An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis in Land Use Planning, by Michael L. Siegel, May 2000, Natural Resources Defense Council. In the case of the Peterson Economic Report for the proposed Thornburgh Resort, compensation is estimated for both direct and induced jobs. While totaling all the wages paid for direct and induced employees is straightforward, it is far less clear how this spending should be counted in terms of net benefits to Deschutes County. " Gottlieb, Paul D., Growth Without Growth: An Alternative Economic Development Goal For Metropolitan Areas, Center for Regional Economic Issues, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, A Discussion Paper Prepared for The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, February 2002. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 82 Wages benefit the individual employee, but he or she must exchange their time and labor for the wage. Employment is therefore an economic transaction exchanging labor for money. From the local perspective, existing residents of Deschutes County will benefit from resort employment if: 1. They are currently unemployed and obtain employment at the resort, or 2. They are working part-time and obtain full-time employment at the resort, or 3. They are currently employed, but are able to obtain higher wages at the resort. On the other hand, existing residents of Deschutes County will not benefit from resort employment if newcomers move into the County to fill the jobs. Only the incremental increase in the incomes of existing local residents resulting from resort employment can be counted as a clear economic benefit. This incremental increase in income is a fraction of the total compensation figure estimated for the resort and does not include the 40% to 90% of new jobs likely to go to newcomers. Economic Risks In addition to considering the likely economic impacts of a successful and completed resort, there are emerging risks associated with resort development that could dramatically affect local homebuyers, local government investments, and the local economy. The national economic downturn has revealed structural weaknesses in the real estate markets. Property values became over -inflated and banking institutions lent too much money to unqualified buyers. The supply of homes grew at record levels until supply greatly exceeded demand. It may take several years before the real estate market stabilizes. In the mean time, foreclosures and bankruptcies are at levels not seen since the Great Depression. In the past, California provided many of the second home and investment home buyers in Oregon. Many were able to transfer equity from their California homes to make these purchases. But California's real estate market has suffered greatly. The median price of a home in that state dropped 38% in December from a year earlier.70 Under any circumstances, a destination resort is a risky business venture. If it goes well, it is a potential bonanza to investors. But a great deal of investment is required up front. Typically a hundred million dollars or more must be borrowed and spent to build these resorts. The Thornburgh Resort estimates the total project cost at $160 million." What happens if revenue streams don't match projections? What if 70 December median home prices in California dropped to $249,000 from $402,000 a year earlier the Associated Press reported January 22, 2009. " Peterson Economic Report, Table IV-1. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 83 lots don't sell, or prices drop? If one resort fails, how will other resorts in the area be impacted? In Deschutes County the Tetherow Resort's golf course was heralded as the "Best New Course of 2008" by Golf Magazine. However, lot sales have stalled, investors are unable to make loan payments, and the bank is foreclosing on properties.72 The large, upscale Tamarack Resort in Idaho made the Wall Street-70urnal last year when investor money dried up and the resort went into default on loans.73 Construction of resort facilities stopped and the bank filed for foreclosure. Homebuyers had already committed more than $500 million for fancy homes, condos and building sites. The resort village remains unfinished, home sales have withered and the local economy is suffering. The resort closed on March 4, 2009 and 250 employees were fired. Of 2,100 planned chalets, condos and town homes, only 250 are completed.74 The Vineyards Resort in Yakima, WA declared bankruptcy last year.75 It was to be a destination resort in wine country designed as a Tuscan-themed village with 500 acres, 600 homes, an 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, hotel, and recreation center. They were unable to obtain financing for the $100 million investment needed. The posh Yellowstone Club resort in Montana is also declaring bankruptcy.76 According to the Wall Street.7ournal article on the Tamarack Resort, A resort's success was often staked to real-estate sales: As a Tamarack lender recounted in recent court filings, the resort had a business model in which "operating expenses would exceed revenues and the primary source of profit would be generated by the sale of real estate. " Destination resorts are following the same business model as the rural subdivision: buy large tracts of cheap rural land to make hundreds, or thousands, of buildable residential lots for a large profit. The resort elements are often unprofitable, but make the residential subdivision possible. The Tetherow and Pronghorn Resorts in Deschutes County have been unable to build the required amount of overnight housing, which is intended to support tourism. According articles in the Bend Bulletin, Pronghorn was to have completed a hotel by 2006." It has received four time extension from the County and cut its planned hotel expenditure in half. 72 "Tetherow housing lots are entering foreclosure," The Bend Bulletin, January 15, 2009. 73 Wall Street Journal, "In Idaho, Ski Resort's Promise Fades," 7/7/2008. 74 "Tamarack Resort closes; employees cut loose," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 4, 2009. 75 Reported by the Associated Press, November 23, 2008 in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 76 See htti)://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?vid=20601103&sid=ai WwtVGzHrY &refer= news. 77 "Without financing, Tetherow on hold indefinitely: Hotel won't open in spring 2009 as planned," The Bend Bulletin, October 15, 2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 84 If Thornburgh Resort is successful, its developer could make $300 million on lot sales, almost doubling its investment. The lucrative profit potential for developers creates a formidable incentive for them to pursue resort projects on Oregon's cheap rural lands in beautiful natural settings. They can afford to spend liberally to make their resort projects possible. Economic Impact Conclusions • Many of the economic impact studies provided by developers portray an overly optimistic picture of the development project's benefits by ignoring the costs associated with providing public services, public infrastructure, and the potential adverse impacts on the community and the environment. • The "leisure and hospitality" sector (that includes destination resorts) paid average annual wages of only $16,096, the lowest of any employment sector in Deschutes County and about half as much as the average annual wage in the County of $31,492 in 2006. • Even if two members of a household worked full time at the Thornburgh Resort, they would still make less than the median household income in 2004 and the effect of the resort will be to depress median wages in the County. • Household incomes below $21,200 represent the Federal poverty level for a family of four. • Most jobs created by the resort will be temporary and when construction is completed, 1,471 jobs will be lost, causing ripple effects in the local economy. • The addition of more than 2000 peak new jobs to Deschutes County will have a very significant impact on the local housing market, especially when the temporary jobs are lost. • Low -wage jobs created by the resort will increase demand for affordable housing. • While the Peterson Housing Report estimates a peak of only 133 new households generated by the resort, it is more realistic that a peak of 978 new households will need to find housing in Deschutes County. • After the resort is completed, there will be an estimated permanent demand for 347 new housing units in the County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 85 8. Implications for Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon This section considers the potential statewide and regional impacts that may result from the resorts that are currently under construction and those that are proposed. In order to examine the potential statewide impacts of destination resorts in Oregon, total figures for the number of residential units were calculated for all resorts that are currently planned or under construction. The total number of residential units was then used as an index for gauging statewide impacts. The impact per residential unit is based on the impact analysis for the Thornburgh Resort. As described previously, the Thornburgh Resort is fairly typical of destination resorts in Oregon in terms of its overall profile (land area, mix of homes and overnight units, and recreational facilities). Some factors affecting impact will vary from place to place. For example, sewage treatment, water supply, and stormwater management may involve offsite public expenses for some resorts, but did not in the case of Thornburgh. Such cost factors may be governed by county policies and individual siting issues. The transportation system impacts of the Thornburgh Resort were partially mitigated by the transportation SDC implemented recently by Deschutes County. Total estimated transportation SDC payments for the resort were deducted from the transportation system costs. Most counties in Oregon have no transportation SDC, so the costs will be higher in those counties. It should also be noted that no impacts were calculated for Thornburgh Resort for libraries. As a result of these factors, Thornburgh's fiscal cost impacts may be somewhat less than for the typical new resort. None -the -less, it serves as the best available gauge at this time. The net fiscal impact per residential unit for the Thornburgh Resort is a cost of $33,408." Based on the 22,374 residential units in destination resorts that are either under construction or proposed in Oregon, the total fiscal impact is estimated to be a net cost of $747 million. As shown graphically in Figure 8-1, almost two-thirds of this cost will come from the resorts that are proposed. Note that these net infrastructure costs are the externalized costs from the resorts after all payments and contributions are deducted. 78 This net cost incorporates the projected revenue surplus from services in the form of the capital cost that could be financed with the same annual revenue stream, as described in the Fiscal Impact Conclusions section. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 86 Figure 8-1 Future Statewide Resort Costs (Total Net Cost = $747,455,211) esorts Under ;onstruction, ;262,039,728 Resorts Ranne( $485,415,483 Destination resorts have regional impacts that often receive little or no consideration in the resort planning and siting process. Resorts located near cities tend to create a fundamental fiscal inequity. The counties receive all the tax revenues, and the nearby cities receive much of the impacts, especially from increased traffic. Resort residents and visitors will avail themselves of the urban services and amenities of the city. They may travel to the cities to purchase necessities, for entertainment, or to commute to work in these cities. They may also travel through these cities going to and from the resort and to visit other attractions in the area. Resort employees are likely to find housing in the nearby cities and will create additional traffic. The City of Redmond will be especially impacted by new resort development, as four new destination resorts are planned nearby: Remington Ranch, Hidden Canyon, Brasada Ranch, and Thornburg Resort. The Remington Ranch Resort is just 5 miles from Redmond and it is estimated that 75% of the trips generated by the resort will use the city's road network. An estimate 35% of the trips from the proposed Hidden Canyon Resort will be to, or through, Redmond. According to City of Redmond Public Works Director, Chris Doty, the city's growth is currently constrained by road capacity and by requirements of the State's Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 87 Transportation Planning Rule.79 Yet resort development can continue to burden these transportation facilities without having to mitigate their impacts. Housing needs for resort employees put added pressure on nearby cities to provide additional affordable housing, as resort workers are among the lowest -paid in the State. Impacts of resorts on nearby cities are beyond the cities' control and occur outside of the cities' planning processes. Redmond, for example, collects a Transportation System Development Charge on new development within the city, but is unable to collect such charges from resort development. Resorts have the potential to function like suburban subdivisions or bedroom communities, taking advantage of a nearby city's urban amenities, but paying no taxes to the city. Revenue sharing by the county, or mitigation requirements from the resort developers, could offset some of these impacts. 79 Letter from Chris Doty regarding Remington Ranch Resort to Bill Zelenka, Crook County Planning Department, September 7, 2006. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 88 Appendices Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 89 A-1. Property Tax Explanation The single largest revenue source for local governments, school districts and agencies in Oregon is the property tax. Property subject to taxation includes all privately owned real property (land, buildings, and improvements). This tax is collected by the county tax collector for all agencies within the county. As the boundaries of the various taxing districts do not align the county is divided into Code Areas. Each Code Area represents a unique combination of taxing districts. For the 2008/09 tax year, the proposed Thornburgh Resort was located in two different Code Areas: 2-003, with a total tax rate of $12.2499 per thousand dollars of Assessed Value; and, 2-004 with a total tax rate of $14.0041 thousand dollars of Assessed Value. The difference being that property in 2-004 is subject to a tax from Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1. Table A-1 Tax Code Area 2-00380 Id District Total Rate Education Government Non -Limited 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 1.2783 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 0.1335 010 Fairgrounds Bond, 0.1410 0.1410 011 County Library 0.5500 0.5500 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.9500 0.9500 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4000 1.4000 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 0.0567 090 County Extension/4h 0.0224 0.0224 093 911 0.1618 0.1618 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.2300 0.2300 351 Redmond Area Park & Rec District 0.3717 0.3717 620 School District #2j 5.0251 5.0251 626 School #2j Bond 92 & 93 0.8307 0.8307 628 School #2j Bond 2004 0.2930 0.2930 651 High Desert Esd 0.0964 0.0964 670 C 0 C C, 0.6204 0.6204 671 C 0 C C Bond 0.0889 0.0889 Total 12.2499 5.7419 4.9642 1.5438 80 Data from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll page 80. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 90 Table A-2 Tax Code Area 2-00481 Id District Total Rate Education Government Non -Limited 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 1.2783 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 0.1335 010 Fairgrounds Bond, 0.1410 0.1410 011 County Library 0.5500 0.5500 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.9500 0.9500 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4000 1.4000 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 0.0567 090 County Extension/4h 0.0224 0.0224 093 911 0.1618 0.1618 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.2300 0.2300 202 Rural Fire District #1 1.7542 1.7542 351 Redmond Area Park & Rec District 0.3717 0.3717 620 School District #2j 5.0251 5.0251 626 School #2j Bond 92 & 93 0.8307 0.8307 628 School #2j Bond 2004 0.2930 0.2930 651 High Desert Esd 0.0964 0.0964 670 C 0 C C, 0.6204 0.6204 671 C 0 C C Bond 0.0889 0.0889 Total 14.0041 5.7419 6.7184 1.5438 Since 199782 the assessed value (AV) of a property, and not its real market value (RMV), is used to calculate the amount of property tax due. This assessed value was initially established in 1997 by rolling back the RMV of a property to 90% of its 1995 level. As long as the resulting AV is less then the current RMV this value is allowed to increase by 3% annually. For new properties, like the proposed Thornburgh Resort, the County Tax Assessor's Office appraises the property and sets a RMV for the land and its improvements. Then, an Exception Value Ratio is applied for the "property class" of the parcel to arrive at the properties initial RMV. For example, the AV of a parcel in a property class with a ratio of 0.46 and a RMV of $100,000 would be $46,000. The Exception Value Ratio is calculated annually and is the ratio between AV and RMV for properties of the same property class. The Current Exception Value Ratio for resort properties is 0.491.83 Property tax is levied on July 1 and due on November 15 each year. It can be paid either in a single payment on or before November 15, in which case a 3% discount can be taken, or in three payments due on the 15'' of November, February and May. If taxes are not paid within three years the property is subject to foreclosure. 81 Data from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll page 80. 82 A relatively detailed history of the Oregon Property Tax system can be found as Appendix B of Oregon Property Tax Statistics an annual publication of the Oregon Department of Revenue. 83 Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll, page 9. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 91 Property Tax Revenue Methodologv The basic formula for calculating the initial property tax84 on a new development such as Thornburgh is simple and straight forward. It is: Property Tax = ((RMV x Exception Value Ratio)/1000) x Tax Rate The (RMV x Exception Ratio) establishes the initial AV for a new property. All that is necessary is to supply values for the RMV, Exception Ratio and Tax Rate. The "Property Class" for the Thornburgh Resort is "48 Resort," and the Exception Value for all properties in the Resort for 2008-09 is 0.491 which was the value used. As pointed out earlier, the Thornburgh Resort was located in two different Code Areas (2-003 and 2-004) with different tax rates. But, as those parcels not in Code Area 2-004 are to be annexed into the Deschutes County Rural Fire Prevention District #1,55 it was assumed that the $14.0041 tax rate of Code Area 2-004 would apply to all properties in the resort. Establishing a RMV for each type of property was difficult as only the briefest of descriptions was provided in the Thornburgh Resort Application. These descriptions lacked information as to parcel or lot size, building size, construction materials to be used, amenities or expected or proposed costs. Three different methodologies were used to establish a RMV for the various types of properties. For the 1,375 residential properties86 proposed for the Thornburgh Resort a single methodology was used. The land -use application for the resort contained very little information on the characteristics of the residential development, so for calculation purposes, it was assumed that all the residential units and lot sizes would be similar. To arrive at a value for these properties, a sample of 49 residential properties located in the nearby Eagle Crest Resorts' was obtained by selecting a number of parcels from each of the tax maps containing part of Eagle Crest. The current RMV for the land and improvements for each of these parcels was obtained from Deschutes County's D.I.A.L system." Townhouses were excluded from the sample. Average values were calculated for a sample of 38 lots and 35 houses. 84 In subsequent years the formula is the same as all other property, (AV/1000)*Tax Rate. 85 Letter from Fire Chief Tim Moor of DCRFPD#1 to Deschutes County Commissioners dated 25 March 2008. 86 The total includes 425 with deed restrictions that they be available for short term rental and 950 without the deed restrictions. 87 Eagle Crest Resort is an existing Destination Resort similar in concept to and located in close proximity to the proposed Thornburgh Resort for which property tax records were available. 88 This is an online tax record system. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 92 The County RMV data from 2008 reflects the peak prices of the real estate bubble should be adjusted downward to reflect current market conditions. The Standard and Poor's/Case-Shiller 20-city housing price index fell 18% in October of 2008 from a year earlier.89 It appears that this downward trend in real estate values is likely to continue through 2009 and possibly longer. To reflect the decline in values, average values from the Eagle Crest sample were reduced by 20% to obtain the RMV of the residential land and improvements in our calculations. For Commercial and resort -owned properties,90 total building square footage was provided in the application. A $200 per square foot construction cost was used to establish an RMV for the commercial improvements. To determine the RMV of the land it was assumed that the lot associated with a building would be twice the square footage of the building (i.e. 50% lot coverage). To reflect declining real estate values, the value of comparable developed commercial parcels at Eagle Crest were reduce by 20 percent in the same manner as residential property. For the Golf Courses it was assumed that they would be 150 acres each and would cost $3 million dollars each to construct.91 The land value was obtained by averaging the cost per acre of 5 Eagle Crest parcels identified as containing significant parts of a golf course. 89 Year -over -year declines in property values were reported in the Standard and Poor's/Case-Shiller 20-city housing price index. See Home Prices post 18 percent annual drop in October, by J. W Elphinstone, AP, December 30, 2008. 90 Hotel, Recreation Centers, Golf Club Houses, SPA and Retail Center 91 The web sites for the United States Golf Association and American Society of Golf Course Architects both contain a $1.6 to 4.5 million range for the construction cost of a Golf Course, $3 millhon is roughly the midpoint in that range. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 93 A-2. Transient Room Tax Explanation Deschutes County imposes a Transient Room Tax on the guest of any Hotel or short term rental housing92 located in an unincorporated part of the county. This tax is in the amount of 7% of the full rent charged by the rental manager for the occupancy of a room. The room tax is not imposed on items separate and independent from the use of the room93 nor is it imposed on recreational fees". If the room is rented as part of a package deal that includes food and or recreational activities the Hotel operator is permitted to exclude from the rent the cost of providing the food or activities. The hotel operator collects this tax on behalf of Deschutes County at the time the room rate is paid. Monthly, the hotel or rental operator remits the amount of taxes collected minus a 5% "Collection Reimbursement Charge." Revenues from the Transient Room Tax are currently being used to fund services provided by the Sheriffs Office and for tourism through the Central Oregon Visitors Association.95 By state law the minimum proportion spent on tourism promotion and tourism -related facilities can not be less then that allocated on 1 July 2003. The current division is about 730/o/27% with the majority going to the Sheriffs Office.% In the FY 2008-09 Annual Budget $2,435,020 or about 19.6% of the operating funds devoted to Rural Law Enforcement came from Transient Room Taxes.97 Room Tax Methodology In its most basic form estimating the amount of revenue raised by the Deschutes County Room Tax from a hotel is a very straight forward process. The revenue equals the room rate, times the occupancy rate, times .07, times 365 days, minus 5% of the total. Making an estimate of a proposed hotel where the only information is 92 The Deschutes County Code (DCC) defines "Hotel" as "...any structure or space, or any portion of any structure or space which is or intended or designed for Transient Occupancy for 30 days or less, for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes, but is not limited to any Hotel, inn, tourist home, tourist accommodation, condominium, motel, studio Hotel, hostel, bachelor Hotel, lodging house, bed and breakfast, vacation home, vacation rental home, rooming house, apartment house, public or private dormitory, fraternity, sorority, public or private club, mobile home, R.V. or trailer park, campgrounds private home, or similar structure or portions thereof so occupied. [DCC 4.08.045] 93 Items such as Food service, Room Service, Pay for view movies long distance telephone. 94 "Recreation Fee" means a fee charged, assessed, or allocated by a Hotel to a Hotel occupant or occupants for use of Destination Resort recreation facilities, whether the Hotel charging the Recreation Fee is a Destination Resort or has a contract or agreement with a Destination Resort for use by the Hotel's guests of the recreation facilities of the Destination Resort. [DCC4.08.065] 95 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 page iii. 96 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 pages 332 and 370 97 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 page 370 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 94 the number of rooms, as is the case here, requires a number of assumptions to be made. In order to estimate the average room rate, it was assumed that the Hotel and other rental units would meet the American Automobile Association's Three -Diamond Rating98 criteria. This rating is the middle of a 5 level scale and is typical of the ratings held by other resorts in Oregon99. There are 14 Three -Diamond Hotels operating in Deschutes County of which rate information is available for 12 of them. The rates range from a low of $89 to a high of $439 per night. Based on the number of distribution of room types in the AAA Guide, it was assumed that there are four times as many inexpensive rooms as there are expensive rooms. The weighted average room rate is $121 per night. just as there is little information on the configuration of the hotel there is little information on the configuration of the 450 houses that will be available for short- term rental. In order to estimate vacation home rental rates, the assumption was made that they would resemble those currently on the short term rental market for the Greater Redmond area. The Vacation Rentals by Owner web site listed 39 vacation homes available for vacation rental in Redmond, Oregon.10o Twenty-eight of these listings were for rentals in Eagle Crest Resort. The rates for these houses run from $100 to $300 a night, with an average rate of $162. The last variable is the occupancy rates for each type of unit. While the total monthly Transient Room tax receipts paid by all operations subject to Transient Room Taxes are available, actual occupancy data is extremely difficult to come by. To develop an annual occupancy rate estimate, a peak occupancy rate of 90% was assumed for the month of August and then an adjusted occupancy rates for each of the other months was calculated based on the actual monthly Transient Room Taxes paid to the County for that month. From this an average annual occupancy rate for all rental types was derived, as described below. Occupancy Rates for Room Tax Revenues Room tax revenues are difficult to estimate for a planned, but unbuilt resort such as Thornburgh. Occupancy rates and reporting rates (the percent of private rentals for which room taxes are paid) must be estimated. To estimate occupancy rates, County- wide room tax revenues101 were examined and adjusted to reflect the likely seasonal " According to AAA, "Three diamond lodgings offer a distinguished style. Properties are multi- faceted with marked upgrades in physical attributes, amenities and guest comforts." (AAA Oregon and Washington Tour Book, AAA Publishing, Heathrow, Florida, 2008, page 21) " The 2008 AAA Oregon and Washington Tour book lists 7 Oregon Resorts, one Two -Diamond, five Three -Diamond and one Four -Diamond. 100 Data collected on 21 December 2008 from http:www.vrhbo.com/vacation- rentals/region/usa/Oregon/central-oregon. '0' Data from Deschutes County Treasurer Marty Wynn. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 95 nature of this resort. The County -wide vacancy rate was estimated based on the assumption that a peak occupancy rate of 90% is achieved during the peak month of August. This may be overly optimistic, as many private rentals will be occupied by owners during this month. However, this peak occupancy rate was used as a reference to estimate occupancy rates for the rest of the year (see Figure A-1). Average annual occupancy for the County was estimated to be 33% based on this method. Hotels and lodging in Bend, and resorts such as Sunriver and Inn of the Seventh Mountain, are close to Mt. Bachelor and can maintain modest winter occupancy rates. However, resorts such as Thornburgh are located too far away to benefit from skiing. Since Thornburgh would lack off-season appeal, it was assumed that rental occupancy would drop to an average of 10% from November through April. For the remainder of the season, County -wide vacancy rates are applied (see Figure A-2). This results in an average annual occupancy rate at Thornburgh of 29%. Figure A-1: Deschutes County occupancy rates based on monthly room tax revenues. Estimated Rental Occupancy Rates, Deschutes County, 2007 100% 90% 80% E 70% >, 60% R 50% 40% cc) 30% 0 20% 10% 0% _ _ fC O U a)O � li Q 2 Q (n O Z 0 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 96 Figure A-2: Occupancy rates used for Thornburgh Resort. Estimated Rental Occupancy Rates for Thornburgh Resort 100% 90% m 80% 70% cc >, 60% C 50% 40% 30% 0 20% 10% 0% Lei Q -=i Q (A Z 0 Resort vacation homes that are managed by a property management firm will tend to fully report room taxes, as the room tax revenues provides compensation to these firms to offset administrative and collection costs. However, privately -owned vacation homes that are owner -managed may not fully report room taxes to the County. This situation may occur at Eagle Crest Resort, where a recent property owner survey conducted by Jen-Weld specifically mentioned that survey respondents would not be reported to the County if they were renting their house. For Thornburgh, it was assumed that 80% of privately -owned rental homes are fully reporting room taxes, and that 100% of hotel room rentals are reported. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 97 A-3. Population Projection Used in Study The population figures used throughout this study are from the Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. The forecast data for each of the 5-year increments was interpolated using exponential growth rates to create data for each year in between, making it possible to examine population changes over any period of time. In order to create a 20-year forecast through 2028, the projection data was expanded beyond 2025 to 2028 using the same growth rate as in the final 5-year period (2020-2025). Table A-3 Interpolated Population Data for Every Year to 2028 Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast Bend Redmond Sisters Unincorp. Total Year UGB UGB UGB County County 2005 69,004 19,249 1,768 53,032 143,053 2006 71,294 20,100 1,864 54,199 147,475 2007 73,661 20,989 1,966 55,391 152,033 2008 76,106 21,916 2,074 56,609 156,733 2009 78,632 22,885 2,187 57,854 161,578 2010 81,242 23,897 2,306 59,127 166,572 2011 83,135 24,953 2,379 60,428 170,914 2012 85,072 26,056 2,454 61,757 175,369 2013 87,054 27,208 2,532 63,116 179,940 2014 89,082 28,411 2,611 64,505 184,630 2015 91,158 29,667 2,694 65,924 189,443 2016 92,981 30,979 2,782 67,374 194,144 2017 94,841 32,348 2,874 68,857 198,962 2018 96,738 33,778 2,968 70,372 203,900 2019 98,673 35,272 3,065 71,920 208,959 2020 100,646 36,831 3,166 73,502 214,145 2021 102,337 38,459 3,275 75,119 219,231 2022 104,056 40,159 3,387 76,772 224,437 2023 105,804 41,935 3,503 78,461 229,768 2024 107,582 43,788 3,623 80,187 235,225 2025 109,389 45,724 3,747 81,951 240,811 2026 111,227 47,745 3,875 83,754 246,530 2027 113,095 49,856 4,008 85,597 252,385 2028 114,995 52,060 4,146 87,480 258,379 Data from County (population for intermediate years are added) Added projections based on previous 5-year growth rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 98 A-4. Tax Bases for Jurisdictions Used in Study The total assessed values of the tax base for each of the local jurisdictions used in this study are provide in Table A-4. The final column of the table shows the percentage of each tax base that would be represented by the Thornburgh Resort if fully developed. This percentage was treated as the potential future contribution by the resort towards repayment of bonds associated with the infrastructures costs generated. Table A-4 Potential Contribution to Infrastructure Costs Through Future Tax Payments of Infrastructure Jurisdiction Percent of Future Taxes Assessed Value Paid by of Tax Base(" Thornburgh(') Transportation System(') Deschutes County NA NA School Facilities Redmond School Dist. $4,937,455,942 7.1% Fire & EMS Facilities DCRFPD#1 $1,295,518,889 22.4% Public Safety Facilities Deschutes County $16,602,476,500 2.2% Parks and Rec. Facilities RAPRD $288,870,875 56.5% Gen Gov. Facilities Deschutes County $16,602,476,500 2.2% (1) Data from the 2008-09 District Summary Table on page 16 of the 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll published by the Deschutes County Assessors Office. Assessed value of school district from Redmond School District (2) The percent of the total future tax base represented by the resort based on a fully -developed resort with a total assessed tax value of $374,788,817. (3) Transportation system is not funded by property taxes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 99 A-5. About the Authors Eben Fodor, Principal Author Mr. Fodor is Founder and Principal of Fodor & Associates, a consulting firm based in Eugene, Oregon since 1993. The firm specializes in community planning and land use consulting, including fiscal impact analysis, growth management, land -use planning, economic forecasting, and research and analysis. He is an expert in development impact analysis. He created a development impact model for the City of San Diego that quickly estimates infrastructure and service costs for new developments of any size and mix of uses. He has examined the fiscal impacts of development proposals in Washington, Oregon, Maryland and Wyoming for various clients. He conducted statewide assessments of infrastructure impacts of residential development in Oregon and Washington. Mr. Fodor holds a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning and a M.S. degree in Environmental Studies, both from the University of Oregon. He holds a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. David Hinkley, Research and Analysis Mr. Hinkley has worked since 1996 providing public policy research, analysis and advocacy services to lobbyists, candidates, businesses and individuals. Areas of expertise include land use codes, government budgeting, tax increment financing, development impacts, state land use programs, systems development charges, transportation issues, disability issues, bottle bills, campaign contributions, and liquor laws. He served 8 years on the City of Eugene's Public Works Rates Advisory Committee helping to revise the City's System Development Charge methodologies for transportation, waste water and parks systems. Mr. Hinkley holds a Bachelors of Arts degree in History from the University of San Francisco and a B.S. degree with Honors in Criminal Justice Administration from San Jose State University. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 100 From: Carol Gonnella <carolgonnella@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 1:54 PM To: Public Comments; jeffbocc; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley Subject: AMENDED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR HEARING ON OCT 5 Attachments: COSTS Itr 9-30-20.docx; ATT00001.txt CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Mr. Morley: I sent you a public comment yesterday which I have modified in the attachment below. I corrected a couple of typos and tried to takeout some words to insure that you are able to read my thoughts in the 3 minute time slot. I ask you to replace this letter with the one I sent you yesterday. Many thanks, Carol To: Board of County Commissioners Email: publiccomments@co.iefferson.wa.us Date: October 5, 2020 From: Carol Gonnella Dear County Commissioners; At the hearing last Monday, the issue of the cost to the county to process a CUP for a marijuana facility in RR zones was addressed. I have been using the sum of $30,000 for the past year and a half in presentations to you. Let me tell you where I got this figure. It was told to several of us at a meeting with Philip Morley on February 26, 2019. We asked if we could tape the meeting and Mr. Morley told us no. Mr. Morley was asked how much it costs the county to process each CUP application. He stated he did not have an exact figure, but estimated $30,000. There was no misunderstanding nor were his words taken "out of context", as he indicated last Monday to be a possibility. I would be happy to share my notes with you. We have repeatedly told you the hard dollar costs that the Marrowstone Island Coalition has spent, which does not reflect any of the "soft costs" of research and preparation. In reflecting about the costs, it amazes me that none of you have asked about costs to your County Administrator or to your various departments. It seems logical that DCD would attempt to analyze costs of each CUP application. From all appearances, last Monday was the first time this issue was ever broached. I was shocked when you asked David Wayne Johnson and he indicated that he had no idea whatsoever about costs, but that he could tell you the application fees. In my mind, that is no way to run a county as you are the stewards of our tax dollars. Vigo Anderson made a public document request last spring for the costs spent by the county to process an application. He received a response from Mr. Ken Hugoniot on June 5, 2020. Although Mr. Hugoniot did his best to provide the requested documentation, he indicated the county does not track the hours spent by the various departments in researching and evaluating CUP applications. He was unable to answer the request. We have unsuccessfully tried to get cost records from the county. The only solution is for the county to do such an analysis. Until completed, we will assume the figure of $30,000 provided to us by Mr. Morley is the correct number. Thank you, Carol effbocc UL From: Patricia Earnest <pjearnest@earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 4:28 PM To: jeffbocc; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley; DCD Front Staff; Public Comments Subject: 2020 Docket CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: Board of County Commissioners Date : October 4, 2020 Dear County Commissioners: At the public hearing, September 28, 2020, former Planning Commission Chairman, Mike Nilssen stated that the analysis of the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in RR areas has already in large part been done by the Planning Commission and that the Commission voted 7-1 in favor of putting this issue on the 2020 Docket. Mr. Nilssen stated that the process does not need to be complex and volunteered the Planning Commission to work on proposed amendments that could then be reviewed by the DCD and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. It needn't be an expensive, time-consuming process since much of the work has already been done. Mr. Morley lamented that it could be more work, that there would have to be a review of other agricultural practices in RR areas. However, that seems unnecessary as the following explains: In 2015, after multiple hearings on marijuana legislation, the BOCC enacted ORDINANCE #04-0608-15 which in part reads- 1. "...production of marijuana is a type of agriculture, it also has characteristics that differentiate it from other types of agriculture and it therefor requires specific regulation and review..." 2. "...marijuana production and processing has been sought at a scale and intensity exceeding the scale and intensity of agriculture ...and may therefore result in [probable significant adverse environmental impacts] PSAEI such as increased traffic, noise, light, hours of activity, odors, water supply withdrawals, and surface and ground water pollution." Because of the above concerns, The County adopted JCC 18.20.295, Recreational Marijuana/Cannabis, which addresses only marijuana, not any other agricultural practices. JCC 18.20.295(3) mandates in which zones of the county a licensed marijuana grower may or may not erect a facility. Merely deleting the words "rural residential" from JCC 18.20.295(3)(a)(b) and (4)(a)(c) would substantially solve the issue. A table or two may need to be tweaked to make all compatible. It could be as easy as when the BOCC amended JCC18.40.530(1)(g) by deleting the word "federal" from the CUP requirements in the spring of 2018. The deletion of that word took away a very important and significant argument opponents had for why marijuana facilities should not be in RR zones. That argument was the reason that the DCD recommended denial at the second hearing of Mr. Smith. The Board amended the law with minimal cost, minimal time. You can do it again. Submitted by Patricia Earnest resident of Nordland, Jefferson County o« ��RING From: Tom Weiner <tweiner66@gmail,com> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 5:23 PM To: jeffbocc CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, Thomas D. Weiner 123 Beach Dr. Nordland, WA 98358 1 effbocc From: Lori Johnson <lori j.77@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 6:55 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana facilities in RR zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, Lori Johnson 8265 Flagler Rd. Nordland, WA 98358 eff bocc I I EARING R1 From: Mark Secord <misecord@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 10:18 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear County Commissioners, I urge you to put the issue of location of marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the 202o docket. Our experience on Marrowstone Island points out the incompatibility of these businesses in a residential area. Sincerely, Mark and Linda Secord 9796 Flagler Rd Nordland, WA 98238 U A 1?11�IG From: Hope Borsato <hopeborsato@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:21 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fwd: VERY IMPORTANT HEARING Regarding Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. + please note that as a citizen and county resident i strongly believe every property owner in RR zoning should be protected by your ability to insure their privacy, safety and rural living standards. industrial development does not belong in this zoning region. please protect our zoning rights now and in the future. Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, Hope Borsato 872 East Marrowstone Road Nordland, WA 98358 occ UCARII�IG pF From: Radha Newsom <radha.newsom@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 9:42 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Add location of marijuana facilities in RR to 2020 docket CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens, Thank you, Radha Newsom 7082 Flagler Rd Nordland, WA 98358 Public Comments From: Terry Germaine <tgboating@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:46 AM To: Public Comments Cc: 'Barbara Moore -Lewis'; Terry Germaine; Cindy Germaine Subject: Pleasant Harbor Golf Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. BOCC: Comments for BOCC meeting, 10/5/20 I am sorry I have not better prepared to make comments concerning this development, but I also feel many others have not prepared to deal with this development. I see much timber being removed and hear earth moving going on on a daily basis. I guess you must have already made allowances for this stage of the project to proceed. Terry & Cindy Germaine, Brinnon, WA Public Comments U� ILA loun, Dr, From: Patricia Earnest <pjearnest@earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 4:28 PM To: jeffbocc; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley; DCD Front Staff; Public Comments Subject: 2020 Docket CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: Board of County Commissioners Date : October 4, 2020 Dear County Commissioners: At the public hearing, September 28, 2020, former Planning Commission Chairman, Mike Nilssen stated that the analysis of the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in RR areas has already in large part been done by the Planning Commission and that the Commission voted 7-1 in favor of putting this issue on the 2020 Docket. Mr. Nilssen stated that the process does not need to be complex and volunteered the Planning Commission to work on proposed amendments that could then be reviewed by the DCD and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. It needn't be an expensive, time-consuming process since much of the work has already been done. Mr. Morley lamented that it could be more work, that there would have to be a review of other agricultural practices in RR areas. However, that seems unnecessary as the following explains: In 2015, after multiple hearings on marijuana legislation, the BOCC enacted ORDINANCE #04-0608-15 which in part reads- 1. "...production of marijuana is a type of agriculture, it also has characteristics that differentiate it from other types of agriculture and it therefor requires specific regulation and review..." 2. "...marijuana production and processing has been sought at a scale and intensity exceeding the scale and intensity of agriculture ...and may therefore result in [probable significant adverse environmental impacts] PSAEI such as increased traffic, noise, light, hours of activity, odors, water supply withdrawals, and surface and ground water pollution." Because of the above concerns, The County adopted JCC 18.20.295, Recreational Marijuana/Cannabis, which addresses only marijuana, not any other agricultural practices. JCC 18.20.295(3) mandates in which zones of the county a licensed marijuana grower may or may not erect a facility. Merely deleting the words "rural residential" from JCC 18.20.295(3)(a)(b) and (4)(a)(c) would substantially solve the issue. A table or two may need to be tweaked to make all compatible. It could be as easy as when the BOCC amended JCC18.40.530(1)(g) by deleting the word "federal" from the CUP requirements in the spring of 2018. The deletion of that word took away a very important and significant argument opponents had for why marijuana facilities should not be in RR zones. That argument was the reason that the DCD recommended denial at the second hearing of Mr. Smith. The Board amended the law with minimal cost, minimal time. You can do it again. Submitted by Patricia Earnest resident of Nordland, Jefferson County F ' Ai Public Comments � ,� ,, I r cr From: MARIA MENDES <maria.mendes@snet.net> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 12:55 AM To: Public Comments Subject: Brinnon MPR CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Commissioners, I have been concerned about the Brinnon MPR for some time. You have approved going forward with the MPR, however, the county does not appear to be exercising oversight of the development contract. It has taken citizens to: identify logging violations and report them to DNR alert the state Health Department planner reviewing the water plan to give a copy to the county, which must also review and approve it identify that the plan in the DNR logging permit application is not the plan that is the FSEIS or the one that is in the development agreement. Citizens will also have to monitor the conflicts between the multi million dollar restoration of the Duckabush estuary and the urban density MPR. This appears to be an environmental conflict. Further, the traffic impact on US 101 is inadequately covered in the FSEIS. It is at this point woefully dated, and only covers impact at intersections. Anyone who drives US 101 and/or reads the papers is aware that accidents occur on the curves or with the Elk herd. Not to forget that traffic volume has increased. Plus I have a question: have you considered the impact on taxes for Jefferson County with regard to required infrastructure? Best regards, Maria Mendes 11 Danbury Court, Port Townsend 17j Public CommentsPINr From: Carol Gonnella <carolgonnella@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 1:54 PM To: Public Comments; jeffbocc; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley Subject: AMENDED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR HEARING ON OCT 5 Attachments: COSTS Itr 9-30-20.docx; ATT00001.txt CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Mr. Morley: I sent you a public comment yesterday which I have modified in the attachment below. I corrected a couple of typos and tried to take out some words to insure that you are able to read my thoughts in the 3 minute time slot. I ask you to replace this letter with the one I sent you yesterday. Many thanks, Carol To: Board of County Commissioners Email: publiccomments@co.iefferson.wa.us Date: October 5, 2020 From: Carol Gonnella Dear County Commissioners; At the hearing last Monday, the issue of the cost to the county to process a CUP for a marijuana facility in RR zones was addressed. I have been using the sum of $30,000 for the past year and a half in presentations to you. Let me tell you where I got this figure. It was told to several of us at a meeting with Philip Morley on February 26, 2019. We asked if we could tape the meeting and Mr. Morley told us no. Mr. Morley was asked how much it costs the county to process each CUP application. He stated he did not have an exact figure, but estimated $30,000. There was no misunderstanding nor were his words taken "out of context", as he indicated last Monday to be a possibility. I would be happy to share my notes with you. We have repeatedly told you the hard dollar costs that the Marrowstone Island Coalition has spent, which does not reflect any of the "soft costs" of research and preparation. In reflecting about the costs, it amazes me that none of you have asked about costs to your County Administrator or to your various departments. It seems logical that DCD would attempt to analyze costs of each CUP application. From all appearances, last Monday was the first time this issue was ever broached. I was shocked when you asked David Wayne Johnson and he indicated that he had no idea whatsoever about costs, but that he could tell you the application fees. In my mind, that is no way to run a county as you are the stewards of our tax dollars. Vigo Anderson made a public document request last spring for the costs spent by the county to process an application. He received a response from Mr. Ken Hugoniot on June 5, 2020. Although Mr. Hugoniot did his best to provide the requested documentation, he indicated the county does not track the hours spent by the various departments in researching and evaluating CUP applications. He was unable to answer the request. We have unsuccessfully tried to get cost records from the county. The only solution is for the county to do such an analysis. Until completed, we will assume the figure of $30,000 provided to us by Mr. Morley is the correct number. Thank you, Carol UO Public Comments .� � A ; r From: Ann Mahan <proleader@att.net> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 10:03 AM To: Public Comments Subject: jcc18.20.295 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Commissioners: My family and I submit this comment regarding the allowance for property owners to cultivate and harvest marijuana on rural residential property. Please review the statement in the current code and remove allowance for growing and processing on rural residential property in Jefferson County. We understand that this can be put on the docket for 20/20. Thank you, Ann Mahan Magee Anthony Magee C. effbocc IEI From: Helen Stusser <hers1936@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 11:56 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, Helen Stusser 300 Beach Drive NOrdland, Wa 98358 1 r From: April Surgent <april@aprilsurgent.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 9:53 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Regarding Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, April Surgent 363 Pocket Lane Port Townsend WA 98368 UCARi 1JLh From: Ann Mahan <proleader@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 12:58 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: jcc18.20.295 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. >> Commissioners: >> My family and I submit this comment regarding the allowance for property owners to cultivate and harvest marijuana on rural residential property. Please review the statement in the current code and remove allowance for growing and processing on rural residential property in Jefferson County. >> We understand that this can be put on the docket for 20/20. >> Thank you, >> Ann Mahan Magee >> Anthony Magee 1 11 11� ieffbocc RE From: Len and Beckie Mermod <lvrjm@olympus.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 7:31 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: 2020 docket CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 Re: Marijuana Facilities in Rural Residential Zones Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all Rural Residential zones. Protect your citizens from the prolonged and costly battles against dubious marijuana producers placing commercial size facilities in rural residential zones. Thank you, Leonard Mermod 395 Fort Gate Rd. Nordland 1 From: Sheila H <mailboxwalk@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 10:09 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to please place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Potential issues of concern: * sufficient water for residents * water quality * noise pollution / quality of life * increased law enforcement needs * traffic * integrity of the rural environment Marijuana grow operations are not appropriate for Jefferson County rural areas. Please do review this issue this year. Thank you, Sheila Husting 1294 Lemonds Drive Quilcene WA 1 can/ 0 " i fs 42- 0'70f �� a,l r 8 l r»ar�Jvr��t la-w -t-o fro I i t 77-va-ji �Eo V, r 6) 0/55 occ H�ARfNG RE From: Debra Ayres <raskyl.da@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 12:58 PM To: Planning Commission Desk; Kate Dean; jeffbocc; Greg Brotherton Subject: Re: Marijuana Facilities in Rural Residential Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear county officials, I understand this question re: placing the issue of prohibiting marijuana grow facilities in rural residential zones on the 2020 docket has resurfaced. PLEASE do this and put an end to the uncertainty on this issue. See the email below that I sent on this issue in August. Respectfully, Debra Ayres 780 Schwartz Rd. Nordland, WA 98358 On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 4:04 PM Debra Ayres <raskyl.da@gmail.com> wrote: Dear County Officials: Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the 2019 docket. The County Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket. I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020. Presently, the majority of counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas. Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us before it is too late. Respectfully, Debra Ayres 780 Schwartz Rd. Nordland, WA 98358 From: Alva Ayres <aeayres1UCcugmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 1:01 PM To: Planning Commission Desk, Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Facilities in Rural Residential Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear County Officials: Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the 2019 docket. The County Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket. I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020. Presently, the majority of counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas. Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us before it is too late. Respectfully, Bud Ayres 780 Schwartz Rd. Nordland, WA 98358 occ N�RIN6 pE From: kentonlarson@seanet.com Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 12:31 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Facilities CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Email: jeffbocc _co.jefferson.wa.us Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, Kenton R. Larson 241 Mumby Rd Nordland, WA 98358 i effbocc From: Barb Lanum <Barb_Lanum@wvlcorp.com> ' %' Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 2:52 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Hearing on October 19, 2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 RE: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in ALL RR zones. It's your responsibility to protect your citizens. My husband and I own the lot on Coyle adjacent to the lot where they want to build a marijuana facility We bought the land for retirement, and now that we are at the age where we can begin to consider the next stage of our lives, our dream lot is not nearly as appealing. The vultures are already circling. We keep getting offers for our land that are a third of what we paid for the lot more than twenty years ago. Land speculators think they can get it pretty cheap. Prove them wrong. Thank you, Barbara Lanum 11941 Fairway Circle N Dr Indianapolis, IN 46236 (Owner of the lot on Coyle next to proposed marijuana facility) ut`AR1NG From: BARRY LANUM <blanum@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 2:52 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Hearing on October 19, 2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 RE: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in ALL RR zones. It's your responsibility to protect your citizens. Thank you, Barry Lanum 11941 Fairway Circle N Dr Indianapolis, IN 46236 (Owner of the lot on Coyle next to proposed marijuana facility) effbocc 71 From: Leah Brown <leah.leahbrown@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 5:49 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana in rural areas CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. As I have urged you in the past, I again ask you to put this item on the docket and then preserve what is left of the rural area. Marijuana processing should be restricted to industrial areas and citizens should be able to avoid the time and expense incurred opposing this inappropriate activity. Thank you, Leah Brown 3.300 Schwartz Rd Nordland, WA. 98358 jeffbocc From: Paula Lalish <paulalalish@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 6:55 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana facilities in rural Jefferson County CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Email: ieffboccCa�co.iefferson.wa.us Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens, Distinguish between a manufacturing facility and a rural residential area. PLEASE. Thank you, a - From: Cynthia Rowe <marrowstoneshirtsCugmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 4:29 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Carol Gonnella; Gary Rowe Subject: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, Gary and Cynthia Rowe PO Box 181, Nordland, WA 98358 ceeandgary@Rmail.com From: Nancy Craig <nancycraig7@gmail.com> A" 44W Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 9:23 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Email: jeffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. I recently stayed at a small resort in the Winthrop area and drove by a marijuana processing plant located on the road near the resort multiple times. After smelling what appeared to be a skunk every time I passed it, I finally realized it was a marijuana plant. The smell is quite pungent and awful. I urge you not to consider permitting these facilities in Jefferson County as there is no rational reason to do so. Thank you, Nancy Craig 182 Huntingford St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 ql:Apl From: Jen Stankus <jenstankus@gmail.com> a �� Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 11:34 AM To: jeffbocc CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Email: jeffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, Jennifer Stankus 11 ieffbocc I1CM ° From: Jen Stankus <jenstankus@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 11:37 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: RR zone protections CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: For the Hearing on October 19, 2020 Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Email: ieffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, Jennifer Stankus 223 Huckleberry Place (county) 98368 effbocc From: Patricia Earnest <earnest.pj@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 6:05 PM To: jeffbocc; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley; DCD Front Staff Subject: 2020 docket hearing 10/19/20 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To the BoCC Commissioners, County Administrator, DCD Public Comment for the 2020 Docket Hearing October 19, 2020 from JC Ordinance #04-0608-15 June 8, 2015 "WHEREAS, ... it has been appropriate to review regulations for the potential scale and intensity of recreational marijuana under the County' s existing regulations and make such regulatory changes as found necessary so that potential impacts between incompatible uses can be avoided, reduced or mitigated, for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of all Jefferson County citizens and businesses as well as its overall rural character." From 2014-2015, the BoCC worked tirelessly with much citizen input to put in place regulations regarding mj in Jefferson County. It's now 5 years later and you can see the reality. The idea of allowing LONG TIME RESIDENTS to participate in what was anticipated to become a booming industry seems very much a part of the rationale of the rules set out. That intention is to be applauded. However, what was unknowable in those early times was the scale necessary for a licensed grower and/or processor of marijuana (mj) to make a profit. Nor could the rules have been seen as luring some to buy RR land for purely business purposes, skirting the comfort of neighborliness and neighborhoods. There are other zones better suited. Jefferson's RR areas deserve to be maintained as just that: "rural" and "residential" Most counties in this area of WA have come to that conclusion. Currently it's like asking to dot the countryside with paper mills. There will be no rural residents left. Is that what was intended, I think not. While the DCD has not been able to enumerate the County's true costs for Hearings, they do not likely match the costs by citizen advocates who are footing the bill for the necessary research for each request. And those requests have been denied at those Hearings. As was inferred in the Ordinance, and seen by a great number of Jefferson citizens, it is time to review this issue by re -addressing the RR mj site permission rules. Please put this issue on the 2020 Docket. Submitted October 11, 2020 by Patricia Earnest Nordland resident Thank you! jeffbocc r!REARING to, arn From: wpburden@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:53 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: editor@ptleader.com;jeffconews@peninsuladailynews.com Subject: Hearing on October 19, 2020 on Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear County Commissioners: My family and I (four taxpaying and voting constituents) ask all of you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR)zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket. We agree that you need to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all Rural Residential zones. We think such operations are more appropriately located in and should be confined to industrial zones. Protect your citizens from industrial development in non-industrial zones. This issue affects every citizen in our county because we all have friends in rural zones who moved there seeking to live in peace and quiet without worry of crime or malodorous and noisy assaults from commercial marijuana operations. When we town dwellers seek better connections to our natural environments by visiting state and county parks or our rural-living friends, we do NOT want to see or experience fortified growing operations that mar the landscape and threaten everyone's peace of mind. All of us have read about and know that dangerous crime can be associated with these types of operations since so much money is involved. PLEASE limit marijuana operations to industrial zones and keep our rural areas peaceful and inviting for visitors and quiet and rural for our rural-living friends and neighbors. Thank you for your attention to this important issue, Dan and Lys Burden Michael and Dan Brant 310 Willow St Port Townsend, WA 98368 i Li Public Comments RECO From: Vigo Anderson <vigoanderson@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 9:43 AM To: Public Comments Cc: David Sullivan; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton Subject: Public Comment - for the October 12 BOCC Meeting Attachments: CUP LESSONS NOT LEARED 10-11-20 (002).docx CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Attn: Philip Morley, Philip, will you please read the attached public comment letter at the BOCC meeting on, Monday, October 12, 2020. Thank You, Vigo Anderson Marrowstone Island Resident Mobile: 360-302-0359 i To: The Board of County Commissioners Date: October 11,2020 Email: publiccomments@co.iefferson.wa.us From : Vigo E. Anderson Subject : CUP LESSONS NOT LEARNED At the Commissioner's meeting on September 28, 2020, Commissioner David Sullivan stated that he did not want the issue of marijuana facilities on the 2020 docket because the conditional use permit process is working, thus there is no need to take "another bite of the apple". His thoughts were quite different from those he expressed to several of us at a meeting held on February 26, 2019, when he addressed an application to put a facility on Marrowstone. He stated: "The DCD has let us down and we are ultimately responsible for that. I apologize for the system not working. If DCD had done it right, it should have been a no. We need to have a system that works." At said meeting, Commissioner Sullivan implied that lessons have been learned from prior CUP application processes and that the system should work better. However, that has not proven to be the case. Just one glaring example is the following: The first Smith application and the Williamson application were asking approval for not only a grow operation, which requires a conditional use permit, but also a processing operation, which additionally requires a cottage industry permit. The first requirement of a cottage industry permit, as set forth in JCC 18.20.170(4), is that the cottage industry be operated by at least one full-time bona-fide resident residing in a single-family residence on the parcel. In the decision of the first Smith hearing, dated October 31, 2017, Mr. Causseaux, the Hearing Examiner, found that no one was residing on the parcel and the application failed the bona-fide resident requirement. It was one of the main reasons for denial. Ironically,the same basic set of facts were mirrored in the Williamson hearing. Testimony was that no one was presently residing on the property. Mr. Causseaux denied the Williamson application on April 1, 2020, because the bona-fide resident requirement was not met. In my opinion, the DCD made the same mistake twice by failing to adequately review and incorrectly recommending approval of both the Smith and the Williamson's applications. Lessons were not learned, and that mistake cost our county approximately$30,000. Sincerely, Vigo E. Anderson Marrowstone Island Resident Mobile: 360-302-0359 Public Comments retRECopr From: Kathleen Waldron <kathleen.waldron@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2020 8:13 AM To: Public Comments Cc: Kathleen Subject: BoCC Public Comment 10-12-20 CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good Morning County Commissioners: Thank you for moving the Marijuana code review to the 2020 Docket Public Hearing! We are grateful for your support. The County's main concerns seem to be about DCD time& money. I know that DCD says it will cost them around$7000 to process this docket request. Since residents of Marrowstone Island have already spent over$50,000,Coyle residents have spent$10,000,the applicants have spent thousands, &the county around$90,000 for 3 denied Hearing Examiner CUP reviews,this process does not work for anyone, including the taxpayers! So$7000 seems like a smarter use of DCD's time and taxpayer's money,then processing future CUP applications!! My question is how will this$7000 be spent?What will the estimated 72 hours for the DCD used for? Will the Planning Commission be involved? What are the steps for moving this docket forward between October 19& February 26, 2021?This is new territory for us, & any specific information about how county code reviews work would be appreciated. Thank you! Kathleen Waldron Marrowstone Island i Litit mit jeffbocc tifrirrin Itte i14 From: Linda Secord <Isecord@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 11:05 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear County Commissioners: We are asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, Linda and Mark Secord 9796 Flagler Road Nordland, WA 98358 1 Julie Shannon (t tr 3n�wL' �a ire rm From: Greg Brotherton GGG gam, Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 10:17 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Comment for 10-19-2020 Public Hearing re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Attachments: 10-2020 LTR to BOCC.docx;ATT00001.txt r From: Carol Gonnella Sent: Friday, October 1.6, 2020 10:09:38 AM (UTC-o8:oo) Pacific Time(US & Canada) To:jeffbocc; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley Subject:Comment for 10-19-2020 Public Hearing re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or I'I clicking links,especially from unknown senders. Dear County Commissioners: Attached please find my letter to you for your consideration at the hearing on October i9, 2020.1 Thank you, Carol 1 it To: The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners From: Carol Gonnella Date: October 19, 2020 RE: Location of Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Email: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Dear Commissioners Dean, Brotherton and Sullivan: I wish to express my gratitude for your decision to review the law that allows marijuana facilities to be located in rural residential zones utilizing the conditional use permit process. We feel that you have listened to the concerns we have been presenting to you for the last three plus years. The State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana eight years ago. I, along with many others, applaud that decision. Jefferson County, in its wisdom, placed a moratorium on allowing marijuana facilities within the county to study the issue of impacts. In 2015, the County through Initiative #04-0608-15, lifted that moratorium and added JCC 18.20.295, Recreational Marijuana Performance Standards, which in part designates certain land use zones as being banned and certain others as allowable for such facilities. It designated two zones "MAYBE", requiring any applicant to go through a conditional use permit process, those two zones being rural residential and forest resource zoning districts. Since the legalization of cannabis both in Washington State and in several other states, evidence has surfaced about how cannabis facilities negatively impact both the environment and the quality of life of humans. Because of this new evidence, it is time for Jefferson County to reanalyze the decision it made in 2015 regarding the location of these facilities. Below I address only three of the many negative, adverse impacts suffered by those living in rural residential areas whose homes are close to these facilities. Those impacts are noise, diminishment of property value, and odor. 1. NOISE. Two applications for a marijuana facility were filed requesting a location on Marrowstone Island. The DCD basically rubber stamped its approval. After two administrative hearings, two years of research, a cost of over$50,000 paid by islanders, the hearing examiner on both occasions denied the application and ruled that the mandated fans create substantial noise that unreasonably impacted residents. The fan noise seriously affects the quality of life for anyone living around the facility. 2. DIMINISHMENT OF VALUE OF PROPERTY. It was difficult for the Marrowstone Islanders to find an expert who would say these facilities decrease the value of property as the experts stated it is such a new topic they have no sufficient history to give an expert opinion. But anecdotally, the Gustafson family had a piece of property for sale adjacent to the property of the proposed facility to be placed on Marrowstone. A prospective buyer wanted to buy the Gustafson property, but not as long as there was 1 going to be a cannabis facility as his neighbor. Once the hearing examiner denied the application (for the second time), the applicant removed the green house and sold the proposed site, the buyer purchased the Gustafson property within a couple of months. 3. ODOR. There is now a plethora of evidence that cannabis facilities emit a skunk-like odor. This odor has an adverse, negative effect on the quality of life for those who have to live close to these facilities. I have previously provided the Commissioners with an article from the New York Times dated December 19, 2018, regarding Santa Barbara County in California, and the many complaints that county has received about the odors emanating from marijuana facilities and how it is affecting the quality of life of the residents. It describes individuals getting headaches, residents not being able to open their windows or have a barbeque in their back yard. A few have moved to get away from the stench. On June 6, 2019, the Santa Barbara Independent published a follow-up article regarding this issue. The title is: Santa Barbara County in an Uproar over Cannabis Odors. From Carpinteria to Santa Ynez Valley, Lawsuits, Public Hearings, and Civic Protests Complain about the Smell Emitting from Greenhouses and Fields. The article states that residents of Carpinteria filed 166 complaints with the County regarding cannabis odor. As of the date of the article, one lawsuit had been filed against the County, and the city of Carpinteria was generating a slush fund to sue Santa Barbara County for allowing these facilities to be located in areas that adversely affect the quality of life of its citizens. The citizens were mad and their anger was directed at their County Commissioners. The author of the article describes it as "A HOT STEAMING MESS". That mess is costing the County of Santa Barbara taxpayer money to handle the complaints, to have public hearings, and to defend lawsuits. Doesn't it make sense to correct this problem so that Jefferson County does not have the bad press, the ire of its citizens,the many complaints with which it will have to deal, the public hearings, the lawsuits it will have to defend. Before we become a HOT STEAMING MESS, put these industrial facilities where they belong: in the industrial and agricultural zones of the county where the impact will be less. We ask you to follow the lead of many other counties in Washington State that have prohibited the location of marijuana facilities in rural residential zones. They have done so to protect their citizens. We ask you to do the same for those you serve. Thank you, Carol Gonnella Nordland, WA 98358 2 Ff4 P(M �r Lee M. Ube's* 6 4-111, , 8802 Flagler Road Nordland,WA 98358 ldoes@frontie r.com 09 October 2020 TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners RE: Place JCC 18.20.295 on Docket Dear County Officials: Please endorse and support our JEFCO Planning Commission's request to review and amend JCC 18.20.295,re. "recreational marijuana production in rural residential zones". The CUP provision within the above rule serves only as an enticement for a commercial producer to locate within the typically less expensive surroundings of a residential community. If a CUP is approved within a developed neighborhood,both the applicant and objectors can face a lengthy, time consuming,and expensive path to an eventual decision by a hearing examiner. Note that if the CUP provision was eliminated entirely,commercial marijuana facilities are still approved to be located in other zones comprising about 60% of our county. A primary responsibility for any management team is cost-benefit analysis of how their decisions could affect budgeting as a whole.As a contributor to the$50,000 legal fees paid to block a CUP application here on Marrowstone island, 1 was appalled to hear that county officials were apparently unable to provide an accounting of county costs for completing a single CUP.This is unacceptable. DCD has estimated costs for revising 18.20.295 at$7,168 as a one-time expense for correcting a problem that has proven to be an otherwise unpredictable (and therefore uncontrollable) expense for both the county and CUP applicants alike. Please get this issue onto the 2020 docket so we can finally put our county in line with the majority of nearby Washington counties. Doing so now save future dollars, while helping to maintain and protect the beauty and future livability of our county. Sincerely, Lee M. Does LIE'A RING likrt, pryiko&\ jeffbocc RECO,O,fup Ku From: P l <tch4fun@pacbell.net> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 2:52 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Rural Residential Areas - Docket 2020 Attachments: Letter to County Commissioners re 2020 Docket.docx CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. October 16, 2020 Dear County Commissioners, You will be deciding issues that will go on the 2020 Docket and we again request that you place on this docket the issue of restricting commercial marijuana facilities in rural residential areas. These facilities must be prohibited in our rural residential area. We have been asking for years to please keep these facilities out of our neighborhoods. We live on Marrowstone Island and representatives in the county know, our community paid attention, we attended meetings, and donated money to fight to keep marijuana facilities that are totally inappropriate for our island from being built here. This expense was unnecessary. We have now followed what is going on in our neighboring Coyle area. Why must taxpayers in our areas go to great expense to fight the county to keep marijuana and other large production facilities out of our residential area? County Commissioners ask us to elect them to represent their constituents. Commissioners and County Planning Commissioners are not serving their constituents when they fail to listen and act in accordance with their constituents. Why are Jefferson County officials consistently continuing a CUP process that is inappropriate for small rural residential area, and a needless expense to the taxpayers of the county? Please define who you are representing. So far,you represented and permitted a CUP to a man from Seattle, that did not live on our island, yet wanted to build a marijuana processing facility. Then, another CUP was given to a person in COYLE that did not even live on the property. Please, already, save the county money and your constituents unnecessary expense, by making clear laws. Please give clarity,guidance, and protect your citizenry from unnecessary expense as other counties in Western Washington have done. Act responsibility and with integrity. Please make this right by placing this issue on the 2020 Docket. Thank you. Martin and Patricia Ivers PO Box 173 Nordland, WA 98385 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 October 16, 2020 Dear County Commissioners, You will be deciding issues that will go on the 2020 Docket and we again request that you place on this docket the issue of restricting commercial marijuana facilities in rural residential areas. These facilities must be prohibited in our rural residential area. We have been asking for years to please keep these facilities out of our neighborhoods. We live on Marrowstone Island and representatives in the county know, our community paid attention, we attended meetings, and donated money to fight to keep marijuana facilities that are totally inappropriate for our island from being built here. This expense was unnecessary. We have now followed what is going on in our neighboring Coyle area. Why must taxpayers in our areas go to great expense to fight the county to keep marijuana and other large production facilities out of our residential area? County Commissioners ask us to elect them to represent their constituents. Commissioners and County Planning Commissioners are not serving their constituents when they fail to listen and act in accordance with their constituents. Why are Jefferson County officials consistently continuing a CUP process that is inappropriate for small rural residential area, and a needless expense to the taxpayers of the county? Please define who you are representing. So far,you represented and permitted a CUP to a man from Seattle,that did not live on our island,yet wanted to build a marijuana processing facility. Then, another CUP was given to a person in COYLE that did not even live on the property. Please, already, save the county money and your constituents unnecessary expense, by making clear laws. Please give clarity,guidance, and protect your citizenry from unnecessary expense as other counties in Western Washington have done. Act responsibility and with integrity. Please make this right by placing this issue on the 2020 Docket. Thank you. Martin and Patricia Ivers PO Box 173 Nordland, WA 98385 i**0 jeffbocc ' RECO,clb From: Kathleen Waldron <kathleen.waldron@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 2:05 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Kathleen Subject: Letter for 2020 Docket Public Hearing CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Date: October 17, 2020 To: The Board of County Commissioners From: Kathleen Waldron, Marrowstone Island 50 Beach Drive, Nordland WA 98358 Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Dear County Commissioners^' I have decided to trust you will put the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket. I believe you have heard the concerns of 100's of county residents,7 Planning Commissioners, &the 2 County Commissioners in favor of this Docket issue. I know the county can find the money needed to fund this review, because it will prevent future time& money spent by the DCD for failed CUPs, as well as by future applicants&future upset Rural Residential citizens. I know that you have heard us, and as our county representatives, I trust you will do the right thing. Thank you for listening to us and for protecting your citizens! 1 -11.riKipi(.7 hirtylt”,\ jeffbocc Ir 10 j toi From: Jean Ball < narle do farm@ mail.com> 9 Y 9 9 Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 12:49 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Docket/Hearing consideration Attachments: 2021 BoCC PC Docket Review Cannabis Submitted copy 10.18.20.docx CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good afternoon Commissioners, Please accept my comments before you consider the addition of the R/R marijuana docket item for 2012. Kind regards,Jean Ball 1 2021 Planning Commission Docket R/R Marijuana Land Use Consideration I am writing to you today in an effort to provide perspective and in an attempt to prevent you from making what I consider to be an error. I hope you will consider my message today in that light. I believe it would be an error to alter the existing county code to accommodate an exclusion of marijuana businesses on R/R land. There is no advantage to this reconsidering of the code and the issues are already managed within the CUP process. Perhaps the most obvious argument in support of my position on this issue is that the CUP process is functioning as intended. The proof of this simple fact is that there have been denials of permits. This is precisely what the CUP process is intended to do... to disallow land use which is incompatible with the county code and surrounding land uses. The various elements which identify a particular land use as incompatible and therefore un-permittable are clearly laid out in the code as IMPACTS such as light pollution, water run-off, noise, traffic levels, employee quantities, facility size, etc. These impacts to neighbors and the environment must be mitigated and if they cannot be, then a permit will not be granted. This system works very well for this, and many other, land uses throughout the county. Jefferson County is not like other counties and should not strive to imitate them, we don't live here and champion our unique way of life because we desire to become more like surrounding counties or states. Instead, we consider our beloved county an outlier for certain freedoms and a breath of fresh air upon returning when we have been away to other places. I travel to other places and every time I cross that bridge on the way home I breathe a sigh of relief that we are not like them. We do not want to be more like Kitsap or Clallam Counties. Being unique in this regard is a feature, not a bug. The existing county code is the fruitful compromise of a laborious public process which lasted over a year and took into account many differing opinions. I am watching as that lengthy process is potentially disregarded to serve the loud and persistent voices of a very small, one-sided, special interest group which did not participate originalprocess ate in the while the opinions of the various interested parties who came together to draft the existing code are ignored. I find this alarming and disrespectful of the process and the residents who did participate when the issue was in the forefront. These people who have come late to the party and want the county to do their bidding have a legal term. They call it "coming to the nuisance", it means that you can't buy a house near JCSA or the mill and then complain about the sound of gunfire or the stink of the settling ponds. When you buy land in Jefferson County, the onus is on the buyer to be aware that certain land uses are permissible while others are not. In Jefferson County, we can have a farm next door or a cottage industry of many different kinds. In Jefferson County, we have a right to agricultural use of our land. Kitsap County does not even have a land use designation for agriculture and they do not have a right to agricultural use on their land and should not be used as a valid comparison for our land use in Jefferson County. Clallam County is busily converting their fertile farm lands into construction sites for homes, their focus is not on agriculture or economic development for working families. In Jefferson County, we need to strike a balance and accommodate many land uses, and that is exactly what the Jefferson County CUP does...it allows residents to make use of their land to create jobs and become self-employed. Among the land uses allowed in Jefferson County under the agricultural heading are dairy farms, swine farms, poultry farms, etc. No restrictions are placed on any of these uses for stench, noise of livestock or machinery, hours of operation, percentage of land allowed for use or employee quantities, or other restrictions which are imposed on marijuana businesses. In Jefferson County, we can have pigs, chickens, cows, packed cheek to jowl, over every square inch of land and there is no consideration provided to the neighbors who will be impacted. They are not afforded an opportunity to express their opinions to a hearings examiner or request mitigation for the impacts. This leniency for one form of agricultural use and not another is another example of discrimination based on misinformation. R/R land use via the cottage industry application is used for many, many businesses. This is a benefit to the residents both directly and indirectly, throughout the county. Allowing people to have various types of businesses on the parcel where they live provides an opportunity to work from home, create jobs and generate tax revenue. Discriminating against one agricultural use and not another is a recipe for a law suit. Should we review the entire ag use? Should horse farms be delisted as an agricultural use because we don't eat horses or because we use chemicals to treat their parasites or wounds? In Kitsap Co, you can get a permit for the 8' tall fence with an over-the-counter application which is issued while you stand there. In Jefferson Co, a permit for an 8' fence requires a lengthy application process with an engineer's design and a DCD review. Should we accept that all the most stringent of options should be applied to land use in Jefferson County or should we embrace the option to customize our own land use according to the lengthy public processes we undertake to find out what our neighbors want? As long as I have lived here I have heard that it is impossible to do business here and that the code was insurmountable. Should we make it more difficult for land owners and the working class to support themselves by removing another low-impact and highly regulated business option? The assertion that Cannabis production is industrial in nature is inconsistent with other cottage industry or agricultural uses. If a cabbage farmer can grow, harvest, process/pickle, package their cabbage, why can't a Cannabis farmer grow, harvest, process/extract, package their Cannabis plants. Many "processors" only processing activity is the drying and bagging of Cannabis flowers. The notion of exclusive and industrial scale equipment is misleading and untrue. Simple extraction methods are common using only ice or glycerin and these methods are low impact and environmentally friendly. The impacts of heavier duty extraction methods are misunderstood and clouded in misinformation. The solvents used are in a closed loop system, recycled, expensive and precious to the processor and heavily regulated for toxins because the products are intended for human consumption. These processors are not dumping pollutants or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons into the water table. This aspect is largely misunderstood and used as a red herring. Should we prohibit other cottage industry R/R cottage industry land use because they make use of solvents and chemicals and appear to be far more industrial in nature? Examples of such uses include ironworking, welding and blacksmithing or excavating contractors and auto service stations. These cottage industries make use of oils and chemicals which are toxic but (hopefully) carefully managed, are very noisy and messy. What about furniture repair or refinishing? I have been a life- long woodworker and I am very familiar with the nasty chemicals used in woodworking and refinishing of furniture. How about small equipment, boat or engine repair? They use solvents, oils, various chemicals and lots of fumes and noise is created in the course of their work day. No, I submit to you that these allowed land uses under the cottage industry heading in our county are precisely what the citizens want to provide as options for our residents to make use of in our rural county with exceedingly rare opportunities for economic development and vital to the residents of our county to be self-sufficient and contributing members of society. Jefferson County endlessly bemoans our limited tax base and our lack of economic development, particularly in rural areas. These marijuana businesses are part of the solution, not part of the problem, they do not diminish or destroy our R/R lands, they enhance them. These entrepreneurs provide sorely needed jobs and tax revenue and eliminating their opportunity to use their R/R land just like any other cottage industry only compounds the systemic problem and further degrades residents' ability to make a living here. This notion that "the vast majority of citizens" would have a code revision to disallow R/R cottage industries which permit marijuana businesses is dishonest and quite backwards. In fact, Jefferson County had the second highest affirmative vote in the entire state in 2012 when Washington State was the first state to legalize Cannabis (along with Colorado, which legalized on the same day). The residents of Jefferson County are overwhelmingly in support of small businesses, andour elderlypopulation has use of land and workingfamilies agricultural p p proven to be enthusiastic consumers of Cannabis products. The "will of the citizens" was heard loud and clear in 2012 and it is clearly mirrored in the current code because THAT is what the voices of the people called for when we wrote the code. Do not be gaslighted by the false claims that are peddling misinformation in an effort to bend you to their will. This is the same old shtick they have been employing for nearly a century. Not the least of which, DCD is woefully understaffed and ill-prepared to take on the task of this review/revision. DCD staffing capacity is below zero for this unnecessary task. Linda Paralez says that DCD is "extremely busy", "severely understaffed" and "does not have staffing capacity" to address this issue. The Planning Commission suggests that this proposed code revision language should be passed off to the Prosecutor's Office for their review of legality and comparison with existing county code. The Prosecutor's office is also understaffed. What is the benefit of opening this can of worms? To drag the county through the excruciating public process of hearings and testimonies, during a pandemic, for the sake of a taking of the rights of land owners is not a great aspiration. The gain of a restriction, which is already managed by the CUP process is pointless. We don't double write code in multiple places which is already addressed within the existing code. There is no advantage to this. It would be different if the risks had demonstrable impacts which were not already addressed with in the CUP process. In order to justify placing this issue on the 2021 docket, the fear must be supported by empirical evidence. Demonstrable facts have value, fear mongering does not. Show me the existing facts and I will show you a CUP that functions as intended. Jefferson County needs commissioners who preserve and protect the will of the citizens and do not curtail reasonable land uses or discriminate. We need commissioners who are able to see through the smoke screen and not distracted by the straw man. Commissioners who revere the arduous public process which preceded their tenure shows wisdom and humility. Our county got this one right and we should honor that decision. Thank you for your consideration of my comments, Jean Ball REARiNG jeffbocc e From: Susan Petek <susanpetek@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 1:00 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones - Hearing October 19, 2020 CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To the Board of County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR)zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Please protect your citizens and the land. Thank you, Susan Petek 290 Smith Road Nordland,WA 98358 1 LICA 'lt , it,„‘„i„Z C jeffbocc From: Patricia Earnest <earnest.pj@gmail,com> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 3:52 PM To: Public Comments;jeffbocc; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley; DCD Front Staff Subject: addition to earlier post: 60 seconds CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: BoCC When requesting that you follow the Planning Commission's recommendation that MLA 19-000ig be placed on the 2019 Docket, a petition was presented to the BoCC. It has 35o signatures and addresses requesting the County"Prohibit Commercial Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing in Jefferson County Rural Residential Zoning Districts."To date, no one has asked to be taken off the list. If you do not have it in your possession, I will gladly re-deliver a copy to you. The signers reside on or own property in Port Townsend, Port Hadlock, Nordland, Sequim, Port Ludlow, Quilcene,and Chimacum.As this Hearing time is to hear from the citizens, please consider the petition a message of the will of those people. Changes are never taken lightly and the citizens know you all are giving this issue long and serious thought. Thank you for all the hard work you do. Patricia Earnest Nordland,WA resident 1 Uri! typo" rt tirtNiirtiv: lorrpoct) jeffbocc From: Kathleen Waldron <kathleen.waldron@icloud.com> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 5:26 PM To: Patricia Earnest Cc: Public Comments;jeffbocc; Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Philip Morley; DCD Front Staff Subject: Re: addition to earlier post: 60 seconds CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Thank you so much, Patricia! Kathleen >On Oct 18, 2020, at 3:51 PM, Patricia Earnest<earnest.pj®a gmail.com>wrote: >To: BoCC >When requesting that you follow the Planning Commission's recommendation that MLA 1g-000lg be placed on the 2019 Docket,a petition was presented to the BoCC. It has 35o signatures and addresses requesting the County"Prohibit Commercial Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing in Jefferson County Rural Residential Zoning Districts."To date, no one has asked to be taken off the list. If you do not have it in your possession, I will gladly re-deliver a copy to you. >The signers reside on or own property in Port Townsend, Port Hadlock, Nordland, Sequim, Port Ludlow, Quilcene, and Chimacum.As this Hearing time is to hear from the citizens, please consider the petition a message of the will of those people. Changes are never taken lightly and the citizens know you all are giving this issue long and serious thought. >Thank you for all the hard work you do. > Patricia Earnest > Nordland,WA resident 1 jeffbocc 1 It pt ' prr,0 John Gonnella <' onnella1 i tow e'N From: Jg @gmail.com> t Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 6:03 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Petition to discuss placing marijuana facilities in RR zones. CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear County Commissioners, I am requesting you place the issue of marijuana facilities in RR (rural residential)areas on the docket at your Oct 19th meeting. For three years we have been imploring you to listen to the voices of the majority of your constituents and ban such facilities in RR zoned areas.The negative impact, is well documented and would have lasting effect. Follow the lead of so many counties that surround us and make the right decision. Respectively, John Gonnella 120 Beach Dr Nordland, Wa. 98358 • HE4ipj jeffbocc RECORb From: Jan Garing Windermere PT <garingjan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 7:10 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear County Commissioners: I am asking you to place the issue of the location of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential (RR) zones in Jefferson County on the 2020 Docket and to change the law to prohibit these facilities in all RR zones. Protect your citizens. Thank you, Jan Garing 375 Merry Road Nordland,Wa 98358 0 ° Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 jeffbocc NFA QI From: RON <rrempel2@msn.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 7:23 AM To: Public Comments Cc: Greg Brotherton; Kate Dean;jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana CUP in Rural Residential- Work Program CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Subject: Conditional Use Permits for Marijuana Facilities in RR Zones Dear County Commissioners Today you have already heard or will be hearing multiple comments from the public about the need to revisit the issue of marijuana facilities in Rural Residential Zones in Jefferson County. The Planning Commission has recommended this issue be placed on the 2020 Docket. Previously the Department of Community Development(DCD)stated that doing so would cost approximately$8,000. DCD has now revised their cost estimate to$15,000. During meetings over the past several years, County staff estimated the cost for processing the CUP for Olympic Gardens was around$30,000. The$30,000 cost estimate is probably in the ballpark considering that the Olympic Garden records I've reviewed so far is in excess of 1,000 pages. Many of the pages in the record are notes, letters,memos,worksheets, etc.that were generated by County staff This includes staff from DCD,Environmental Health and Public Works. Multiple County representatives also attended meetings with the applicant and the hearings for the project. A conservative estimate for the number of person hours spent by DCD and Environmental Health on this CUP based on the meetings conducted,County staff generated documents and the pages staff had to read is probably at least 200-250 or approximately 1.5 person months. My record review to date also indicates that the applicant was told their cost for the CUP process would$2,822,which at the rate of$100/hr. (DCD posted hourly rate)would only cover a max of 28 hours of County staff involvement in processing the CUP.The stated fees also have to cover some personnel costs including public noticing, document production and scanning. While Olympic Gardens may have paid more than the$2,822 there is no documentation of that in the more than 1,000 pages I have been provided to date. So if County staff hours, exclusive of the hearing examiner process,were 200-250,the cost for processing the Olympic Gardens CUP was$20,000 -25,0000 plus the costs associated with the hearing for the project. Based on the above, it appears that the County may be spending well in excess of$20,000 to process a marijuanagrow CUP while only receiving$2,822 in fees from the applicant which means that other DCD and Environmental Health fees are subsidizing the cost of CUPs for Marijuana facilities in RR zones. The processing of marijuana grow CUPs may also cause significant delays in processing other CUPs,building permits,etc. since some of the same staff are involved in both.Delayed permitting(which is already an significant issue in the County)is a cost to shovel ready projects that are delayed and that are much more important to the economic health of Jefferson County. 1 Its time to look at changing the marijuana in RR rules, save Jefferson County significant dollars and help unclog the DCD pipeline. As an aside, it might also be appropriate to consider how county departments that are funded by fees actually track costs/time associated with projects so the County can better assess if changes in statutes would reduce costs and streamline permitting as a whole. Sincerely Ron Rempel Nordland WA 2 Fjeffbocc AIRECOpFrom: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:20 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Re: Docket/Hearing consideration CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good morning Commissioners, I would like to provide a correction to something I stated in my comments which I continued to research after I made the submission and found out was inaccurate. My internet connection failed me during my research phase but I was able to access the info later in the day. My statement said that Kitsap does not have a land use designation or right to farm.That is not correct. Further research suggests that Kitsap does have a right to farm, but they do not have an ag land use designation. My apologies for my misstatement. Please fix my internet so that I don't have to apologize to you! Kind regards,Jean Ball On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 12:48 PM Jean Ball<gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com>wrote: Good afternoon Commissioners, Please accept my comments before you consider the addition of the R/R marijuana docket item for 2012. Kind regards,Jean Ball 1 jeffbocc 1EARINC From: Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Itini i Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:35 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comment about the PC Docket for 2021 Attachments: PC 2021 Docket Review Request.docx CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good morning Commissioners, Please accept my comments about the docket. Kind regards,Jean Ball 1 PC 2021 Docket Review Request The "JeffCo PC Report & Recommendation for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket", dated 9/15/20 states: "The Jefferson County Planning Commission, representing the expressed will of the citizens of Jefferson County, respectfully requests the opportunity to revisit the current marijuana, and Forest Transition Overlay regulations in order to refine, revise, remove, and improve current regulations, consistent with Regulatory Reform Resolution No. 17-19". I am very concerned about this. I think it behooves the BoCC to place firm guardrails on this proposal. I have seen the PC go off the rails and take liberties with the directive administered by the BoCC over the years. Activists represent a fringe group, not the majority of the residents of the county. The influence of a very small group on this process at this late point in time, after the exhaustive public process which the county underwent a few years back, is alarming to me. The way I read that excerpt from this PC recommendation is excessively loose and subject to abuse. The expansive verbiage used in this excerpt to "refine, revise, remove, and improve current regulations" presents limitless bounds and asks for permission to do whatever a small group wants with the code review. This excerpt does not mirror the verbally stated request of the PC to review the R/R allowance for marijuana businesses. It puts in the fine print the intention to "refine, revise, remove, and improve current regulations...". I think the operative word in this statement is "remove". The obvious question is who does this serve? Does it serve the county in general or does it serve a very vocal and minute group? It does not serve land owners and entrepreneurs who are motivated to make use of the sufficient and highly functioning CUP process to become self- employed and create jobs for neighbors. Jean Ball jeffbocc NrARING PrreNtr) From: Tom Thiersch <tprosys@gmail.com> Ili M V.41 j Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:48 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: TESTIMONY: Planning Commission' s final docket CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. I support passage of the Planning Commission's recommended final docket as stated in the Agenda recommendation. Thank you, Tom Thiersch Jefferson County i jeffbocc Othir < mil om> °°�Vb From: Jean Ball narle do farm@ a .c 9 Y 9 9 �tol Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:54 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: docket comment CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. It is a misnomer that R/R marijuana businesses are always the source of friction. My own business had the support of ALL my neighbors.They all wanted to work for me and supported my business. Jean Ball 1