Support for proposed destination resorts grows

GOLD BEACH – So far, Curry County has not received opposition to the idea of destination resorts and a proposed ordinance governing such development.

On Wednesday the Curry County Board of Commissioners heard oral testimony from four people and received written remarks from three organizations, none opposing destination resorts and the majority overwhelmingly endorsing recommendations by the county’s Planning Department for a proposed ordinance.

“The positive impact this could have on our county would be unbelievable,” Steve Hammermeister of Gold Beach told the commissioners at the public hearing. “Our economy is in a quagmire. The golf course would be an impact on our county that would last beyond our lifetimes.”

The proposed map listing possible sites for destination resorts as approved by the planning commission has been reduced from 15 property owners to 13 by the planning staff – deleting proposals for the 71-acre county-owned site near Floras Lake and the 421-acre Sweet property north of Cape Blanco.

County Planning Manager Jodi Fritts said those two properties had been removed because state law requires destination resorts not be near high quality agriculture land and they have been determined to be too close to cranberry bogs.

In addition, Golden Gate, which had requested five properties be included, withdrew requests for four of those properties.

“That leaves us with 13 property owners with a total acreage of 3,901.11,” Fritts said. “There may be fewer parcels the next time we come back.”

One reason, is that since the Planning Commission has approved the proposed ordinance, the Legislature has passed a new bill on destination resorts, which would become law when signed by the governor.

That measure will require economic and traffic impact analyses for proposed resort sites.

The staff report suggests the commissioners require property owners to address statewide goals, specifically Goal 5 (natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces) and Goal 12 (transportation) before placing property on the map of lands eligible.

Under those provisions, a property owner must demonstrate that a destination resort will not be a conflicting use with a particular resource site on the acknowledged Curry County resources lists, or complete an economic, social, environmental and energy analysis.

Also the owner must demonstrate it would not significantly affect the existing or planned transportation facilities, or complete a transportation impact analysis.

The county sent letters to the affected property owners on Friday requesting those two provisions be completed soon.

The commissioners will continue the hearing at 10 a.m. April 29 at the County Annex building. The record was left open until 5 p.m. April 2 for additional written testimony, with oral testimony to be accepted at the April 29 meeting.

Final drafts of the proposed ordinance will be available, including items from the new state measure if it is signed by the governor.

“I would encourage all property owners to contact the planning staff concerning goals 5 and 12 and get the material in,” Commission Chair Bill Waddle said.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Tim Palmer, representing the Audubon Society, said the Planning Commission had done a good job drawing up the ordinance even though they did not accept all the Audubon Society’s recommendations.

“We encourage you to adopt it,” Palmer said.

John Spicer, who has proposed a destination resort near Lobster Creek on the Rogue River, said the resorts would bring high wage jobs to Curry County.

“I know we’re concentrating on the golf course. We also have Rogue River. We’ve had very little development in that area,” Spicer said. “Destination resorts feed off the environment and want to protect it. Clear cutting does not. That’s what we have there.”

Jacqueline Crook, a member of the family proposing the Pistol River golf complex, said Curry County has one endangered species that no one talks about – “our children.”

She said 66 percent of the children in Gold Beach and Brookings receive free or reduced school lunches, and the percent is higher in Port Orford.

“We have churches putting together snack packs for children so they have food on the weekend,” Crook said. “We have environmental concerns that need to be addressed. We have children who need to grow up healthy – food and education. When you have the poverty as we have in this county, we have to think of our future. This is a key element on how we have a healthy future. We need to do right by them.”

Cameron La Follette, land use director of Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, and Greg Holmes, Southern Oregon Advocate for 1000 Friends of Oregon, both wrote letters endorsing recommendations in the Planning Department’s staff report on destination resorts and asked the commissioners to adopt them.

The Planning Commission voted 5-0 on Jan. 28 to recommend the ordinance, which establishes requirements for approval, locations and requirements needed to construct such a resort in Curry County. 

Copies of the draft map and ordinance are available on the county web page at: http:// co.curry.or.us/publicservices/publicservices.htm.

Under Goal 8, counties map all the land in the county and maps those where resorts may be sited under state law and county ordinance.

Under state law, destination resorts cannot be sited on a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of prime farmland, within three miles of a high value crop area, on predominantly Class 1 or 2 forest lands or in especially sensitive big game habitat.

Pratt has said that Curry County areas where the resorts could not be built included the farmland in the Agness area, near cranberry bogs and the Harbor Bench.