Dear Deschutes CountyCommissioners and SROA:

I am writing as an owner of property in Sunriver and as President of the Board of the Wildflower I Owners Association. My wife and I have been owners in Sunriver for over 20 years.

We became Sunriver devotees in order to have a family retreat with the feeling of “a cabin in the Oregon woods” with the amenities of skiing, golfing, etc.  We also hoped that our investment would not lose financial value. We felt these were protected by homeowners rules and county ordinances. It seems clear that the SilverStar development will change all of that.  We have the following concerns about the proposed development in Sunriver.

·       Density is much too high. This overdeveloped village is not what the Sunriver resort (or Oregon resorts in general) stands for. We, and all visitors, love Sunriver for its natural beauty and open scenery. This will be lost with the present proposed high-density development.

·       Height of buildings & zone changes. We must not permit changes such as these, which will impact Sunriver views and property values in incalculable ways. This opens up precedents which (in fairness) will apply to all Oregon resorts.

·       Parking will be a nightmare. Hotel guests, high-rise condo owners, and shoppers will fight for places to park. A huge multi-story parking garage should not be allowed, as it will be an eyesore and contribute to the congestion.

·       Traffic will be congested and impossible to navigate.

·       Don’t allow hotels and motels in the village. Again, density, parking, and the associated problems.

·       Environment will be impacted by loss of trees, concrete/asphalt covering huge areas, air quality deteriorating because of vehicles and mechanization.

·       Adequate Police and fire protection are unclear and perhaps impossible; who is responsible for what and when, etc.?? It is frightening to consider long-term effects of dense buildings, etc. on safety and evacuation efforts in an emergency.

·       Need to plan for bike paths, recreation areas, walking areas, drainage, ingress and egress, etc.

·       Long-term impact on surrounding areas and the entire Sunriver resort will be major, changing the new area to a self-contained “city.”  

Let’s update the mall area, but do it right. Create open spaces, ice skating arena, shopping, grocery stores, restaurants, walking and sitting areas, places where people can gather to have fun and enjoy the relaxing atmosphere. What do people come to Sunriver for? They do not come to repeat their experiences of big-city malls, crowds, smog, and cumbersome traffic.

Joe Upton, President Wildflower I Owners Association

Peggy Upton, Owner Wildflower 14

You may find it of interest to look at the SROA's web site and the power point presentation of the consultant. The consultant gave this presentation at the last meeting of the Commissioners. The consultant specializes in planning and designing Town Centers and is from Portland. He assisted in designing downtown Bend. I found the following points of interest and have included my observations:

1. 50% of all town centers fail. Does SilverStar's Town Center design include and emphasize components that lead to a successful Town Center?
2. To succeed in business, shops need to be seen from cars/streets. SilverStar's proposed Town Center does not allow this visibility. Parking is primarily in a parking garage. The present mall design with some modifications to the buildings (such as windows overlooking parking areas and entrances from parking areas allows shops to be seen from the parking areas.
3. Sunriver is located away from the highway. Traffic flows on this highway to Bend and its town center(s). Sunriver's Town Center will need to pull traffic from the highway into Sunriver and away from Bend. The competition for SilverStar's Town Center is Bend.
4. To suceed Town Centers need high density and large populations. Sunriver and its outlying areas are not densely populated and will not be for some time--if ever. For SilverStar's Town Center to suceed, Sunriver's Town Center must create this huge population. This goal seems unrealistic.
5. Urban Town Centers including Bend contain residences for people who live full time in the area. SilverStar's design emphasizes nightly rentals. No area has been set aside through zoning for full time residences. This reliance upon transient populations to provide the consumers for the shops within the Town Center differs drastically from the model used in urban town centers. Is this realisitic and will the transient populations come throughout the year?

I wonder if the Town Center model is good economic policy for Sunriver. For shops to suceed and for people to want to live in the Town Center, the development itself must create very large populations that live or visit the center on a regular basis. Town Centers were designed for urban centers that already have the large populations living near by and visiting the area for other reasons. Are we establishing a mall area that is destined for failure? Aren't we asking too much from a new development?


Just some thoughts for consideration. If you find anything of value in this E-mail and wish to forward this E-mail on to Others please do so.

Marcia Maguire

Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St Suite 200
Bend OR 97701-1960

Re: County Commission Work Session on the Sunriver Town Center proposal

Dear Commissioners:
I have been a Sunriver property owner for over 18 years, and I have owned my current house at 13 Elk Lane for nearly 14 years. I respectfully request that you reject the proposed zoning changes for the Sunriver Town Center and, at least, return this proposal to the Planning Commission for further consideration. One clear reason for doing so is that rejection of the land sale by Sunriver property owners has rendered SilverStar’s conceptual design moot. Another reason is the possibility of a perceived or actual conflict of interest on the part of Planning Commissioner Otteni with regards to this matter. The final reason is failure to address adequately numerous concerns about the impacts of the proposed Town Center development that were brought to the attention of the Planning Commission by residents and property owners. These concerns include, but
are not limited to,
Increased traffic congestion.
Inadequate parking.
The impact of a development of this magnitude on the ability to safely evacuate the southern portion of Sunriver in case of a fire emergency.
Environmental impacts, including adverse impacts on air quality in the immediate neighborhood of the development (see my January 3 submission to the Planning Commission on this matter)
Establishment of a zone of residential density exceeding anything outside an urban growth boundary in Deschutes County and completely inconsistent with Sunriver’s historic emphasis on development that is compatible with its
surroundings.

Although these concerns are shared by a large number of owners throughout Sunriver, the adverse impacts of the proposed Town Center development are disproportionately borne by those who live or own property in the immediate vicinity. To date, our interests have been largely ignored or trivialized by both SilverStar and the Owners Association. I hope you will take these concerns and interests into account as you make your decision.

Very truly yours,
William T. Pennell

Dear Commissioners:

My name is Rob Fallow and my family and I own a home in Sunriver (#7 Loon) and we are very concerned about the current proceedings that you are in the middle of reviewing and formalizing a decision.  We are concerned about the impact of the size of the development on the common amenities and the infrastructure of Sunriver by this design.  We feel the developer has not considered the impact of this on the overall Sunriver property – both directly and indirectly.

We are most concerned that the current SROA Board has misrepresented the feelings of the property owners in Sunriver to you.  The vote just taken is a most graphic repudiation of this.  

The current owner of the Sunriver Mall has misrepresented the supposed consensus they say that they have forged in our community.  The vote just taken shows that this consensus is not correct.

The process that was undertaken is flawed from that followed by most successful city endeavors dealing with significant redevelopment.  I am quite familiar with the process and have participated in a number of them in ClackamasCounty and Lake Oswego.  Usually, the City and/or the developer will participate in some type of a visioning process with a group of stakeholders (political representatives and staff of city; representatives of surrounding property owners; representative of other effected parties such as other business districts, schools, public service providers; etc.) to the area in question BEFORE a final design/vision is ever put to the voters or entitlements put in place.  That vision will then drive the zoning and entitlement process that will allow the vision to take shape.   

This process was short-circuited by the SROA Board and the developer in a way that did not allow for a broad based coalition to be formed to give the program the chance for success.  The SROA Board also took it on themselves to use SROA funds to promote the project while not allowing the dissenting property owners the same access to these resources.  If funding or access to other direct mailings of the Board regarding this vote had been fair, the results against this current design/process would have been significantly more overwhelming negative.

With that said, many of the negative votes, mine included, are of those that would support a well thought out redevelopment of the current SR Mall.  I do not think it would be too difficult for the Board to start the process over and do it right and they as well as the developer might be very surprised to find a high level of support for this process and project.  I think that it would be in the best interest of the Deschutes County Commission to return this request back to SROA for them to review the process and resubmit it for review after meeting with a representative group of dissident property owners and the developer to try to reach some consensus.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Best regards,

Rob Fallow  

Cc:  SROA Board President

Dear Commissioner Daly:

My name is David Hansen and my wife and I are full time residents of
Sunriver at 8 Hickory Lane

. We are writing to respectfully request the Board to DENY the request by SilverStar L.L.C. to change Sunriver's zoning to a Town Center District file ref; TA-07-6, PA-07-6. I attended the
Planning Commission meeting where it was their recommendation to allow the
the re-zoning with changes. We believe that that process was flawed due to;

Conflict of interest of a commission member who was the chief proponent of
approving the request. The commission member attending via teleconferencing voted no then changed her vote to yes under questioning.

Further, we do not believe that DeschutesCounty intended Sunriver to be the
repository for possibly the tallest building east of the Cascades when Sunriver was zoned.

Key phrase. Sub 3. Development shall take into consideration the unique
physical features of the community and be sensitive to the residential
development within which the community areas are interspersed. From
page 39 of D CC 23.40

Also, we believe that the proposed re-districting goes against the original
developers intent as well as Deschutes County original intent as evidenced
by; A key phrase from Deschutes County Code 23.40, page 32 is, "With the help of
a stakeholder advisory committee comprised of key members of the community
who represent a multitude of property owners and development interests, the
decision was made to proceed with the planning process for Sunriver as an
Urban Unincorporated Community. It was the consensus of the committee that
the provisions allotted for Urban Unincorporated Communities under the
rule offered the greatest practical degree of flexibility for
future growth and development in Sunriver. "

While this particular citation may not accurately be applied to the
commercial zone of the Village, it none the less did take into consideration
the future development issues at the time and the vision of Sunriver.
Sunriver is not a Retail Destination nor should it be a high density urban
area.

In staff's recommendation to you following the last public Planning
Commission meeting, staff cited as a positive that a new turnaround will be
constructed by the Sunriver Owners Association improving ingress and egress
to the area which would be helpful in case of fire or other emergencies.
Since the Land Sale Ballot was defeated by the owners of Sunriver, this
roundabout will not be constructed and therefore this part of staff's
recommendation should be amended. Also, staff cited a need for overnight
lodging and that Sunriver's location made it suited for such a need.
Overnight lodging is already provided by Sunriver Lodge and it is our belief
that capacity is sufficient. It is inconceivable that any new single night
lodging would attract any new business from north south travelers who
couldn't make it from Bend to La Pine or vice versa.

Lastly, it is our belief that part of the testimony in support for the
re-districting from Sunriver Owners Association states "overwhelming
support" for SilverStar's plan. According to the results of the ballot that
FAILED February 15th, there is NOT overwhelming support to turn our
community into high density urban area for the sake of some possibly
upgraded retail shopping opportunities.

Please consider the above in your deliberations and DENY the proposed
re-districting so that our community will be maintained as DeschutesCounty
and the developers originally envisioned.

Thank You,

David and Marsha Hansen
8 Hickory Lane