Loading...
2007-1377-Minutes for Meeting June 27,2007 Recorded 7/23/2007NANCYDESCHUTESBLANKENSHIPCOUNTY CLERKDS vu 200701377 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 07/73/2007 09;29:10 AM 111111111 X11111111111111111 3 7 2107-1 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page , SOT E S ~ I { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 279 2007 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Marty Wynne, Finance; Joe Studer, County Forester; Teresa Rozic, Property Management; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Terri Payne, Kristen Maze and Catherine Morrow of Community Development; and nine other citizens. Media representatives Chris Stollar of The Bulletin and Jeff Mullins of KBND Radio were also present. The meeting was called to order at 1: 30 p.m. 1. Discussion of Response to Home Rule Charter Committee Request. Andrea Blum and Len Knott, representing the Home Rule Charter Committee, came before the Board. Ms. Blum said that she was sorry that the Charter did not pass before but has been analyzing it since then. Other possible configurations for a Home Rule Charter are being considered. She feels there is still considerable interest in it. Commissioner Luke asked what changes have been suggested. Ms. Blum said some say they do not want to have district Commissioners. Some want it to be partisan. Others say they don't trust the voters and what might result from a different structure of government. Mr. Knott stated that he feels it is useful for a County to have a Charter, and it can assist a County in choosing its own destiny. Perhaps the Charter previously considered was not the right one. Some were concerned about full-time versus part-time Commissioners. These could be addressed again, as the citizens deserve another chance at it. Perhaps more citizen involvement would be helpful. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Page 1 of 9 Pages Commissioner Baney stated she appreciates the statement, but is concerned about the time and effort it would take a committee to work on it, especially if it is a new group of people. She is also concerned about the amount of staff time needed to support this effort. Mr. Knott said that the existing document could be used as a take-off point to analyze what it would take to make it more agreeable to the public. Ms. Blum added that she does not know how the committee members would approach the issue. If there are new members, it can be more time consuming overall. Commissioner Daly asked what they think is wrong with the way things are now handled. Ms. Blum said that this is an administrative structure that does not work well for citizens anymore. A structure that is more flexible is needed. There are some good ideas of things that can be modified to make government more efficient, but they are difficult to do without a Home Rule structure. She added that she feels more than three Commissioners would be desirable. Commissioner Luke said that if you have five, two can get together without it being a public meeting and can influence decisions. Ms. Blum said the quality of the candidates is important. Commissioner Daly said that the County is in its best financial situation ever and all is working well. There is a small group that wants to change it all. Ms. Blum stated that it wouldn't be a complete overhaul. Jack Blum added that the new committee might want three. It's an unknown what they feel is acceptable. He looks for a way to have the Commissioners allow a new committee to be formed so they can educate the voters. The time it takes to get an initiative going is daunting. Commissioner Daly invited all of the members of the last committee to shadow a Commissioner to see what they do before deciding a different form of government is needed. Therefore, most of the committee members do not really know what the Commissioners do every day. They should have an understanding of what goes on. Ms. Blum said the committee was split on whether the Commissioners should be full-time or part-time. Commissioner Luke stated that no polls were taken and there is no way to know why people did not vote for it. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Page 2 of 9 Pages Commissioner Daly stated that some of the votes could have been partisan in nature. Mr. Knott said that the only time it came into play was when they were looking at precincts. There was no way for citizens to vote for or against specific aspects of the proposal. Mr. Knott agreed the County is in good financial health. However, people change and the situation might be different in a year or two or later. Mr. Blum said that he attended most meetings of the last group and the one before that. Ms. Blum added that 6,000 people didn't vote one way or the other. Commissioner Luke stated that it would be interesting to know what the under-vote for Judge positions was to compute the under-vote on this issue. Mark Pilliod said the measure could be on the primary or the general election in 2008; otherwise, it would have to be in 2010. Commissioner Baney said to not allow a group to form would be a mistake; it is her job to allow this. It offers citizens an opportunity to have their voice heard. Move that the Commissioners support the formation of the group. With a caveat - there are many groups with great needs that cannot be funded. For instance, treating seniors who are suicidal costs about $30,000. it is hard to balance this type of need with the formation of a committee. The Commissioners have to be the best stewards of the dollars and time, while still allowing for an open process. It is a sensitive time with many important programs that aren't being funded. Mark Pilliod said statute does not speak to a great extent about the County furnishing staff time, but he believes the threshold is low. The law recognizes limitations in staff capacity. Someone who is familiar with the concept of Home Rule Charters should staff the committee so they don't have to start from scratch. Commissioner Luke stated that in 1999 the Board asked them to get a certain number of signatures to find out what kind of public interest there was. Ms. Blum said that they realized they missed the deadlines. Mr. Pilliod stated that the number of signatures would be about 4% of the number who voted for governor. Ms. Blum observed that by the time they get people trained in signature gathering and everything in place, it will probably take until 2010. It is hard to explain to the public exactly what would take place. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Page 3 of 9 Pages Commissioner Daly stated that it has been defeated four times since the 1960's. Mr. Pilliod concurred. The materials and records of the first two are very sketchy. Commissioner Daly said it is too soon after the last time to assume that the voters have changed their minds. Getting 2,300 signatures wouldn't be that big a task. He is upset that no one spent any time with the Commissioners to find out what they do on a daily basis, and therefore are not in a good position to judge what needs to change. He added that voters put him into office and expect him to watch over taxpayer dollars, and a part-time Commissioner cannot do that. He would like to see some public support before forming a committee. The issue died for lack of a second. 2. Finance/Tax Update. Marty Wynne gave a brief overview of the County's financial standing, stressing the bigger departments and funds. Commissioner Luke asked why the Road Department seems to have a shortfall. Mr. Wynne stated it is only about $60,000. The RV park project has an additional contingency of $119,000, but it is expected that this will not be needed to complete the project. The Solid Waste project should also come in under budget. The direct deposit receipt for employee payroll will be changing; much of the information on the receipt is confidential in nature, and there is also a cost for departments to put the receipts into envelopes prior to disbursing them. 3. Destination Resort Code Change Work Session. Terri Payne said there have been some changes in State law - as soon as the Governor signs them - and the LUBA decision. Regarding Thornburgh, Laurie Craghead said the first fifty units have to be built if they plan to phase. It is on appeal at this point. She has not yet seen the brief. It is now at the Court of Appeals, but could still be remanded to the County. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Page 4 of 9 Pages She distributed the changes made by the Legislature. In paragraph 4, B and E, they took out some wording. They thought it would end up being an overall ratio of 2.5 units. However, Ms. Payne said this only applies if they phase. If they choose to build all 150 units at once, there is no ratio in State law. And this does not override the current 2.5 ratio in Goal 8. She feels they are still bound by the 2:1 ratio. They did not fix the entire problem. If the Goal changes, the County could go to 2.5. At this point only 2:1 can be used. Ms. Payne developed some sample language of three alternatives. Because the Commissioners all had concerns about the bonding portion, some restrictions were developed. Statute did not appropriately fix the problem since the Goal didn't change. Commissioner Luke was concerned about not being able to build an additional phase until the ratio was in place. Ms. Payne stated that they are considering to be complying if the units are bonded. However, the County could require a time limit to perform and the County could refuse to issue permits if they don't comply. It is not limited to just building permits. Commissioner Luke observed that you could be punishing a private property owner if the resort doesn't comply. Commissioner Daly said that they need to sell lots to be able to build, and this makes it difficult. Ms. Payne said that they want to be able to wait five years to build the second fifty units and another five years to build the last fifty units. The 2:1 ratio would be required. This would allow fourteen years total to finish the project. The Board could allow them to bond the last fifty or hundred units, but there should be a limit on when they are built. Ms. Craghead stated that Thornburgh says that it is not feasible to build a hotel. Other resorts have had varied success with hotels; much depends on whether it is located within a city. Commissioner Daly feels that times are good now, but it may not always be that way. He would like them to be successful. Commissioner Luke noted that there is no way to know how well it will work for them. It is a huge investment, and perhaps two years is too limited. He'd like to see the 2:1 ratio maintained throughout but wants them to be successful. Commissioner Daly agreed that two years is not enough time. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Page 5 of 9 Pages Ms. Payne advised that this will have to go back to a public hearing again due to changes instituted by the Legislature. Commissioner Baney asked if the idea of breaking it into segments of fifty would work. Ms. Craghead stated that the place to monitor development is at the tentative plan. They would have the opportunity to bond fifty units. She asked if they have already built the first hundred, would they have another fourteen years to finish the development. They would have to maintain the ratio. Ms. Payne said that the State requires that there be 150 units or it is not considered a destination resort; however, there is no effective way to enforce this if the first hundred are built and the other fifty don't get built. Another work session will take place prior to setting up an additional public hearing. 4. Work Session on Proposed Noise Permit for Bend Municipal Airport. Kristen Maze explained the nature of the item. The noise permit is for work to be done on the runway. A larger than normal radius was used for notification purpose. The completion date to replace the runway is October 2007. They will also tear up the old runway next year. Commissioner Luke asked why it has to happen at night. Ms. Maze said that it is an undue burden on the businesses at the airport to have the airport closed during the day. The FAA requires the work to be done at night or the runway has to be closed while work is taking place. They will also be doing some work during the day. Mitigation measures have been discussed as well. Much of the work that produces the greatest amount of noise has already been done. They still need to trench for utility and waterlines. The neighbors have been contacted by the airport manager. Ms. Craghead said that law does not provide for notice, but Community Development went above and beyond, in part because it is a noise permit issue and not a land use issue. There should be no procedural issues presented, but this is new ground. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Page 6 of 9 Pages Ms. Morrow stated that findings have to be made regarding mitigation, or the fact it could be considered a public necessity. The airport checked out whether they needed permits, and were told they did not; however, after some complaints were voiced by neighbors, it was learned they need a noise permit. 5. Other Items. Commissioner Luke asked if the Bend UGB plan has been presented to the Bend Planning Commission. Ms. Morrow said it will be presented soon and then will be presented to the County's Planning Commission. There will be additional work sessions of the planning staff of both entities to work out the details. Several of the Bend Planning Commissioners indicated dissatisfaction with the City's ideas on the UGB. Ms. Morrow said there is an adopted, coordinated population forecast that must be used. Land absorption and population numbers must be reviewed annually. This has been in place since 2004 and the predictions are very close now. They should not try to straight-line the projection. The Planning Commissions can make recommendations on the boundaries, zone changes, comp plan changes and so on. They may not agree on everything, but they will likely have joint public meetings. The recommendations will be on the UGB as well as the urban reserve. Transportation issues will be a big part of the discussions. Staff is required to present the Planning Commission's findings to the Council, and if staff does not agree, they have to explain why. Ms. Craghead said that any type of boundary change is typically quasi-judicial per LUBA; however, this is being handled as a legislative issue. There is some risk involved if the Commissioners speak with people about the issue because someone could challenge it on the basis of dealing with specific properties. The risk is probably small because there are so many properties involved. Susan Ross presented an economic development grant request from the La Pine Community Kitchen for funding to remodel the facility. Commissioner Luke stated that he feels this should come off the top of the fund since it serves the County population as a whole. Ms. Ross said that there may not be funding available for this fiscal year as some of it is being used for construction projects. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Page 7 of 9 Pages Commissioner Luke said he would grant $2,500. Commissioners Daly and Baney granted the remaining $2,500. Commissioner Daly reminded the other two Commissioners that they promised $2,500 each to the Historical Society on July 1. The building currently occupied by the Oregon State Police is now for sale at $3.25 million. Joe Stutler said that he is applying for two grants relating to biomass utilization. The grants will help with getting biomass off private property. Katie Lighthall explained how the match would be realized. The Commissioners advised them to proceed. Commissioner Baney updated the group on her trip to Salem yesterday to discuss affordable housing issues with Oregon Community and Housing Services. Teresa Rozic also attended. The meeting went well after a slow start. They claim the Bulletin had misquoted them and they, in fact, are supportive of addressing the housing issue in La Pine. Teresa Rozic stated that the desire was not to subsidize all of the housing, but to contribute expertise and to help find other resources. Commissioner Luke said that a group of non-profits originally wanted to bid on the project if the County granted the land. Ms. Rozic said that the State was going to play a facilitator role. She will continue to be the point of contact for the County to recruit volunteers to sit on a committee to work with the State to develop the criteria for the RFP, and to review the responses and advise the Board of which ones might work, if any. The County and State will have completed all of the obligations of the MOU at that point. HousingWorks' resources will fit nicely into the partnership being built. Dave Kanner attended a transportation meeting yesterday with Commissioner Luke to discuss the overall plan for the reroute, Cooley Road and Juniper Ridge. The Governor's Office was involved in setting the meeting. It is Commissioner Luke's understanding that each entity will discuss the issue so they can get back together for further discussions. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Page 8 of 9 Pages Mr. Kanner stated that the meeting was somewhat awkward. It appeared that the City of Bend wanted the other entities to agree to their plans; however, it was agreed more discussions at each agency is needed first. The County and ODOT are not ready to rubber-stamp what the City has decided should be done. The communications problems are there, but the group needs to move forward and be more open than they have been in the past. It appears the City wants to do things with County roads that are not in the County's plan. There is no harm in continuing to meet. Commissioner Luke said that there needs to be more City Councilors involved so that the discussion and message is balanced. Commissioner Baney agreed that there is a good idea to have the meetings public. Dave Kanner said that the Personnel Policies were sent to the various unions at some point for them to review. However, the policies were not specifically listed on the letter that went to the unions and it needs to be confirmed as to whether they got them all, or perhaps they all should be sent again. In the five days that the internal recruitment for 9-1-1 Director was open, another application came in from someone who may be qualified. Therefore, an interview process will be set up for that position. Being no further items to come before the Board, Commissioner Daly adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m. Commissioners. A TEST: Recording Secretary DATED this 27th Day of June 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Page 9 of 9 Pages ll K. Luke, Vice Chair Tammy aney, missioner It\,01 too 0 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2007 1. Discussion of Response to Home Rule Charter Committee Request 2. Finance/Tax Update - Marty Wynne 3. Destination Resort Code Change Work Session - Terri Payne 4. Work Session on Proposed Noise Permit for Bend Municipal Airport - Kristen Maze 5. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to: ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information blz~-7107 C ~f L L d ~l VA e- fJt~e. l s~ - ~-eM ~ c In a ~ (~-et/ j j -~r, k c,r d Cow f01144e- llo-i /I PI ~0, ~k3 , G 0 2A Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.or WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2007 1. Discussion of Response to Home Rule Charter Committee Request 2. Finance/Tax Update - Marty Wynne 3. Destination Resort Code Change Work Session - Terri Payne 4. Work Session on Proposed Noise Permit for Bend Municipal Airport - Kristen Maze 5. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to: ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. The US Forest Service has made available two grant programs that address biomass utilization. The first is for a "jump start" program to utilize woody biomass as an alternative energy source. The grant is available to State Foresters and their designees (Deschutes County) for programs that meet the criteria. ODF will be submitting a grant that requests funding for Deschutes County for the short-haul costs to deliver the woody biomass from high risk neighborhoods to locally placed tub grinders following hazardous fuels reduction treatments. T2 is the current partner that accepts the slash material and hauls it to their biomass plant in Roseburg. All but the pick up and delivery from neighborhoods is covered under existing grants or by T2. If successful, this grant will pay for the pick and delivery of the material. Project Wildfire will be an active partner in this program utilizing educational opportunities to advance the benefits of fuels reduction and using the resulting biomass for energy production. Amount requested: $74,500 with an in-kind match of $103,740. Due June 29, 2007. The second grant opportunity is similar in nature except that Deschutes County can apply for funding directly. This grant focuses on partnerships that have the collective capacity to advance landscape scale projects. The woody biomass-to-energy program will be highlighted in this grant as well with an emphasis on partnerships and shared visions of forest restoration and wildland fire prevention. Project Wildfire will have a similar role under this grant as well. Amount requested: $100,000 with a 20% match that can be in- kind. Due July 11, 2007. Page 1 of 1 Connie Thomas From: Kate Lighthall [klighthall@bendcable.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:46 AM To: Connie Thomas Subject: BOCC agenda Hi Connie, Project Wildfire has two grant opportunities with VERY FAST turn around times. One is due this week and one is due on July 13th. Joe reminded me that we need to get approval from the board if we want to apply for these grants. They are both Forest Service grants for partnerships with ODF, counties, and private businesses to enhance biomass utilization. They also include an education component to educate communities about biomass-to-energy use. As you know we have several fuels reduction projects going on around the county (and lots of funding to do this work!) and these grants will supplement those projects by getting the woody debris to the grinders (cost of hauling) so that it can be ground and trucked to biomass plants around the state. Here's my question, is it too late to bring this up to the board at a work session tomorrow? kate Katie Lighthall Program Coordinator Project Wildfire 541-382-1675 541-408-3048 6/26/2007 March 26, 2007 Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 41 Dear Commissioners: Even though the charter failed in the last election, we believe it would be appropriate to have the home rule issue put before the voters again in the May 2008 election. From our perspective, while there were legitimate differences on particular aspects of the home rule government, there was strong support for home rule. The large under vote in the last election also indicates that there continues to be a need for a process of providing more information to voters and getting more input from the public. We believe that if a charter committee is formed a year in advance of the next election that those.opportunities.will be available and that a better charter can be presented to the voters for consideration. We are asking that the Board adopt a resolution to initiate the charter process. We understand that we may or may not be part of that charter committee, but the idea is one that has merit and deserves further consideration by the voters of Deschutes County. We would be happy to meet the commissioners if you have any questions. Thank you. Very truly yours, LC Carnahan Ted Schoeler Katckman EPF/mcm G:\WP51\EPF\FTTCH\H0ME RULE COMMITTEE\Commissioners.05.wpd(mcm) l Edward P. Fitch _ Ronald L. Bryant BRYANT Craig P. Emerson EMERSON Edward P. Fitch & FITCH, LLP Steven D. Bryant Michael R. McLane Attorneys at Law Michael W. Flinn Lisa D.T. Klemp Nicholas J. Geil May 29, 2007 Alison M. Trimble * Also admitted in Washington Mike Daly, Chair Dennis Luke, Commissioner Tammy Baney, Commissioner Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Home Rule Charter Dear Mike, Dennis and Tammy: Enclosed is a letter that has been signed by a majority of the members of Home Rule Charter Committee from last year. I apologize for the delay in which it took to get this letter you but some of the committee members were out of town at various times and so it took a couple of months to get this signed. At any rate, we believe that given the momentum toward Home Rule Charter from last year, that it would be appropriate to take another look at that issue in 2008. The Bulletin has asked me to forward a copy to them. I'll wait a couple of days until you have had a chance to look it over and think about it before having to respond to the Bulletin. If you have any questions we would be more than happy to discuss those with the Board. Thanks. Very truly yours, GEdward P. Fitch EPF/bmb Enclosure cc:. Home Rule Charter Committee The Bulletin. G:\WP5AEPF,FITCH\ 0ME RULE COMMITTEE\County Commissiones.04.wpd(bmb) 888 S.W. Evergreen Ave. P.O. Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756-0103 (541) 548.2151 Fax (541) 548-1895 E-mail bef@rdmond-lawyers.com i 74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session A-Engrossed Senate Bill 1044 Ordered by the Senate May 4 Including Senate Amendments dated May 4 Sponsored by Senator ATKINSON SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure. Modifies ratio of units for residential sale to units of overnight lodging. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to destination resorts; amending ORS 197.445. 3 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 4 SECTION 1. ORS 197.445 is amended to read: 5 197.445. A destination resort is a self-contained development that provides for visitor-oriented 6 accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To 7 qualify as a destination resort under ORS 30.947, 197.435 to 197.467, 215.213, 215.283 and 215.284, a 8 proposed development must meet the following standards: 9 (1) The resort must be located on a site of 160 acres or more except within two miles of the 10 ocean shoreline where the site shall be 40 acres or more. 11 (2) At least 50 percent of the site must be dedicated to permanent open space, excluding streets 12 and parking areas. 13 (3) At least $7 million must be spent on improvements for on-site developed recreational facili- 14 ties and visitor-oriented accommodations exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and 15 roads. Not less than one-third of this amount must be spent on developed recreational facilities. 16 (4) Visitor-oriented accommodations including meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for 100 17 persons and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodging shall be provided. However, the 18 rentable overnight lodging units may be phased in as follows: 19 (a) On lands not described in paragraph (b) of this subsection: 20 (A) A total of 150 units of overnight lodging must be provided. 21 (B) At least 75 units of overnight lodging, not including any individually owned homes, lots or 22 units, must be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance 23 prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units. 24 (C) The remaining overnight lodging units must be provided as individually owned lots or units 25 subject to deed restrictions that limit their use to use as overnight lodging units. The deed re- 26 strictions may be rescinded when the resort has constructed 150 units of permanent overnight 27 lodging as required by this subsection. 28 (D) The number of units approved for residential sale may not be more than two units for each 29 unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under [subparagraph (B) of] this paragraph. NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. LC 3812 A-Eng. SB 1044 1 (E) The development approval must provide for the construction of other required overnight 2 lodging units within five years of the initial lot sales. 3 (b) On lands in eastern Oregon, as defined in ORS 321.805: 4 (A) A total of 150 units of overnight lodging must be provided. 5 (B) At least 50 units of overnight lodging must be constructed prior to the closure of sale of 6 individual lots or units. 7 (C) At least 50 of the remaining 100 required overnight lodging units must be constructed or 8 guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within five years of the initial 9 lot sales. 10 (D) The remaining required overnight lodging units must be constructed or guaranteed through 11 surety bonding or equivalent financial assurances within 10 years of the initial lot sales. 12 (E) The number of units approved for residential sale may not be more than 2-1/2 units for each 13 unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under [subparagraph (B) oA this paragraph. 14 (F) If the developer of a resort guarantees the overnight lodging units required under subpara- 15 graphs (C) and (D) of this paragraph through surety bonding or other equivalent financial assurance, 16 the overnight lodging units must be constructed within four years of the date of execution of the 17 surety bond or other equivalent financial assurance. 18 (5) Commercial uses allowed are limited to types and levels of use necessary to meet the needs 19 of visitors to the development. Industrial uses of any kind are not permitted. 20 (6) In lieu of the standards in subsections (1), (3) and (4) of this section, the standards set forth 21 in subsection (7) of this section apply to a destination resort: 22 (a) On land that is not defined as agricultural or forest land under any statewide planning goal; 23 (b) On land where there has been an exception to any statewide planning goal on agricultural 24 lands, forestlands, public facilities and services and urbanization; or 25 (c) On such secondary lands as the Land Conservation and Development Commission deems ap- 26 propriate. 27 (7) The following standards apply to the provisions of subsection (6) of this section: 28 (a) The resort must be located on a site of 20 acres or more. 29 (b) At least $2 million must be spent on improvements for on-site developed recreational facili- 30 ties and visitor-oriented accommodations exclusive of costs for land, sewer and water facilities and 31 roads. Not less than one-third of this amount must be spent on developed recreational facilities. 32 (c) At least 25 units, but not more than 75 units, of overnight lodging must be provided. 33 (d) Restaurant and meeting room with at least one seat for each unit of overnight lodging must 34 be provided. 35 (e) Residential uses must be limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the re- 36 sort. 37 (f) The governing body of the county or its designee has reviewed the resort proposed under this 38 subsection and has determined that the primary purpose of the resort is to provide lodging and other 39 services oriented to a recreational resource which can only reasonably be enjoyed in a rural area. 40 Such recreational resources include, but are not limited to, a hot spring, a ski slope or a fishing 41 stream. 42 (g) The resort must be constructed and located so that it is not designed to attract highway 43 traffic. Resorts may not use any manner of outdoor advertising signing except: 44 (A) Tourist oriented dire signs as provided in ORS 377.715 to 377.830; and °45 (B) Oi4=site identification "directional signs. [21 i A-Eng. SB 1044 1 (8) Spending required under subsections (3) and (7) of this section is stated in 1993 dollars. The 2 spending required shall be adjusted to the year in which calculations are made in accordance with 3 the United States Consumer Price Index. 4 (9) When making a land use decision authorizing construction of a destination resort in eastern 5 Oregon, as defined in ORS 321.805, the governing body of the county or its designee shall require 6 the resort developer to provide an annual accounting to document compliance with the overnight 7 lodging standards of this section. The annual accounting requirement commences one year after the 8 initial lot or unit sales. The annual accounting must contain: 9 (a) Documentation showing that the resort contains a minimum of 150 permanent units of over- 10 night lodging or, during the phase-in period, documentation showing the resort is not yet required 11 to have constructed 150 units of overnight lodging. 12 (b) Documentation showing that the resort meets the lodging ratio described in subsection (4) 13 of this section. 14 (c) For a resort counting individually owned units as qualified overnight lodging units, the 15 number of weeks that each overnight lodging unit is available for rental to the general public as 16 described in ORS 197.435. 17 [31 . ' t ~vTese G urg ,~F 2 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of July 2, 2007 Use "tab" to move between fields, and use as much space as necessary within each field. Do not leave any relds incomplete. Agenda requests & backup must be submitted to the Board Secretary no later than noon of the Wednesday prior to the meeting to be included on the agenda. DATE: July 2, 2006 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Kristen Maze, Community Development Department TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: A public hearing, consideration and signature of a Noise Permit for night construction of a runway at the Bend Municipal Airport. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? YES. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to consider a proposal by the Bend Municipal Airport for a Noise Permit. This application is not a land use application; therefore it is not subject to Title 18, Airport Development Zone regulations.The permit is required by the Deschutes County Chapter 8.08, Noise Control, to operate construction equipment to replace the existing runway between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The current runway project is scheduled to be completed in October of 2007. Following neighbor complaints about the construction noise to the Deschutes County Sheriffs Department, the construction crews have been required to shut down. The issusance of this permit will allow the Bend Airport to continue without interruption to complete the runway replacement construction. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: NONE. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends the Board listen to public testimonty, consider and approve the noise permit with conditions required to finish construction of the Bend Municipal Airport runway between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. Action requested is for the Board of County Commissioner Chair to sign the attached noise permit. 11 e ATTENDANCE: Kristen Maze, CDD DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Kristen Maze C r^. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner DATE: July 2, 2007 SUBJECT: Public Hearing for a Noise Permit, SOP-07-01 Purpose The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing to consider a proposal by the Bend Municipal Airport for a Noise Permit. The permit is required by the Deschutes County Chapter 8.08 Noise Control, for construction to replace the existing runway between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.(See Attachment 1) Applicant Proposal The applicant, City of Bend Municipal Airport, is currently in the process of replacing the existing airport runway. According to the applicant, the runway replacement is necessary for the following reasons: 1. To meet federal design standards - the 2002 Master Plan identified a requirement to increase the separation distance between the runway and the parallel taxiway from 177 to 240 feet to meet safety criteria for the aircraft using the Bend Airport currently 2. To increase the weight bearing capacity of the runway - the current runway is designed to accept aircraft weighing up to 12,500 pounds. The 2002 Master Plan identified aircraft weighing significantly more than are legally allowed using the runway. While this doesn't create an unsafe condition over the short term, it does place additional stresses on the runway that should be addressed as soon as possible, and that have been designed into this current project. 3. To rehabilitate the runway - the current runway is in poor shape, with no significant repair in more than 20 years. It is the original runway that was designed and first constructed in 1942. While it has over the years had some moderate maintenance, the current runway has reached the end of its serviceable life. Quality Services Performed with Pride • r This application is not a land use application; therefore it is not subject to Title 18, Airport Development Zone regulations. However, DCC 8.08 requires an agency contracting for scheduled construction or maintenance between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall request a permit from the Board. After considerable review and neighborhood outreach by Airport Management to perform the $10 million airport runway project, management determined that in order to minimize impacts to the airport users and the eighteen businesses and more than 1000 workers employed at the airport, this project must be scheduled for night time construction. The construction takes place five nights a week, Sunday through Thursday 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The project includes construction equipment that generates noise such as; • Dump trucks and pickup trucks • Vibrating rollers • Excavators • Pneumatic hammer • Light stand power generators, and • Bulldozers with backup beepers Following neighbor complaints to the Deschutes County Sheriffs Department regarding the noise, the construction crews have been required to shut down during night time hours. The construction crews are currently making the effort to utilize daytime hours for noise producing construction including blasting, drilling and rock crushing. The applicant has stated that the majority of the rock crushing and hammering has been completed. The remaining work includes finishing the trenching for proposed utility lines, laying the base gravel, and paving the runway. The construction of the runway is scheduled to be completed by October 25, 2007. In addition to the construction of the new runway, the old runway is scheduled to be torn out in the spring and summer of 2008. The is no completion time scheduled for the tearing out of the old runway at this time which may also generate noise, and will require night time work as well. Considerations and Findings In granting the proposed noise permit the Board shall consider the following: 1. the location of the construction 2. the potential nature of the sound from the activity, 3. the potential nature of the sound from the vehicular traffic to and from the project site and the relative loss or inconvenience that would result to the persons affected. The location of the construction and the nature of the sound are discussed above. The potential sound from vehicular traffic to and from the project is considered negligible because the project is located off the Powell Butte Highway with existing traffic to and from the Bend Airport. The "relative loss and inconvenience" would occur if the construction project required that the Airport to shut down during the day for several months. In this case the relative loss would be to the eighteen business and numerous employees at the Bend Airport. There is currently the neighborhood inconvenience of the night time construction noise; including the OSHA backup horns on construction equipment and the pneumatic hammering and excavating that has occurred. In addition to the above considerations the Board shall make the following findings prior to issuing the noise permit; 2 1. that peace, quiet, comfort or repose of other persons will not be disturbed, or can be mitigated to an acceptable degree, or 2. a public necessity exists. The neighbor complaints about the construction noise are an apparent disruption to the quiet and comfort of people in the vicinity of the airport. Airport Management has met with these individuals and discussed their noise issues. As a result the airport began mitigating the construction noise as follows; • The airport has moved the more significant noise producing construction such as; blasting, drilling and rock crushing to the daytime hours. These efforts will occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. • The OSHA back-up horns on the various construction trucks have been an issue with the neighbors. Efforts are being made by the construction crew to drive forward and limit the backing up by taking circular routes. • A small portion of the work includes pneumatic hammering and excavation. This has been a significant concern for the neighbors of the airport. Airport management had reworked schedules for all hammering work that can be accommodated outside the area of the runway to be completed in the daytime hours. A public necessity exists to maintain the integrating of the City of Bend Municipal Airport runway and the businesses that rely on the airport to function normally during daytime hours. Conclusion Following the work session a Public Hearing has been scheduled for July 2, 2007. Attachments: 1. DCC 8.08 2. Application Form and Letter 3. Supplemental Information Letter 4. Noise Permit Chapter 8.08. NOISE CONTROL 8.08.010. Title. 8.08.020. Authority. 8.08.030. Purpose. 8.08.040. Definitions. 8.08.050. Exception for certain farming and forestry practices. 8.08.060. Construction. 8.08.070. Acts prohibited. 8.08.080. Permits-Issuance. 8.08.090. Variances. 8.08.100. Amendments. 8.08.110. Publication and effect of rules. 8.08.120. Violation-Enforcement. 8.08.130. Abatement and removal. 8.08.010. Title. DCC 8.08 shall be known as the County Noise Control Ordinance. (Ord. 203.11 § 2, 1980) 8.08.020. Authority. DCC 8.08 is adopted pursuant to the provisions of ORS 467.100, 203.035 and 203.127. (Ord. 203.11 § 1, 1980) 8.08.030. Purpose. The purpose of DCC 8.08 is to promote the public peace, health, safety and general welfare, which the Board finds to be adversely affected by unreasonably loud or raucous noises. (Ord. 203.11 § 3, 1980) 8.08.040. Definitions. For the purposes of DCC 8.08, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in DCC 8.08 are defined as set forth in DCC 8.08.040. "Direct transportation" means travel between different locations separated by a distance not substantially different than the length of a trip with a destination where the rider leaves the vehicle before resuming travel. "Direct transportation" includes parking places in streets and parking lots, but excludes speed contests, motocross contests, rallies and practice therefore, repair and testing of motors, accelerating the motors of stopped motor vehicles, and vehicular traffic wherein the same vehicle may be heard for more than five minutes from the same location. "Motor vehicle" means every self-propelled vehicle and vehicle designed for self-propulsion, except road rollers, farm tractors, traction engines; provided however, that police vehicles, ambulances, fire engines and other emergency vehicles responding to emergency calls are not subject to DCC 8.08. "Off-road motorcycle" means every motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, but excluding a trailer. This includes motorcycles suitable for use off any road or on dirt trails, regardless of whether it may also be used on public streets or highways under state law. "Off-road motorcycle" includes motorcycles sold or commonly described as dirt bikes, motocross bikes, trail bikes, enduro bikes and trail bikes which in operation make crackling or explosive noises that would disturb the sleep, comfort or repose of persons 30 or more feet away. "Unreasonably loud or raucous noise"' means: A. Motor vehicle noise which is louder or heard for a longer period than that produced by use in direct transportation by motor vehicles with mufflers supplied by the manufacturer with the vehicle, which disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of persons 30 or more feet away, if such noise is not emitted in order to make the motor vehicle move up to the maximum speed limit on public streets, roads, and/or highways for the purpose of direct transportation; or B. Noise, which violates the standards of the Environmental Quality Commission, adopted pursuant to ORS 467.030 which are not exempt under ORS 467.035 or permitted by a variance issued under ORS 467.060; C. The sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle, bus or other Chapter 8.08 1 (06/2005) vehicle except as a reasonable signal required by the exigencies of vehicular or pedestrian traffic; the creation by means of any such signaling device of any sound which disturbs the sleep, peace, quiet, comfort or repose of other persons; the sounding of any such device for an unnecessary or unreasonable period of time; D. The playing, using or operating of any radio, musical instrument, phonograph, television set, tape recorder or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such a manner as to disturb the sleep, peace, quiet, comfort or repose of other persons, or at any time with louder volume than is necessary for convenient hearing by the person or persons who are in the room, vehicle or chamber in which the machine or device is operated and others who are voluntary listeners thereto. The operation of any such machine or device in such a manner so as to be plainly audible to a peace officer at a distance of 50 feet from the building, room, structure or vehicle in which it is located shall be prima facie proof of a violation of DCC 8.08.040; E. Using, operating or permitting to be used or operated any mechanical or electrical loudspeaker or sound amplifier, either stationary or mobile, for producing or reproducing sound which is cast upon the public streets or other public property. DCC 8.08.040 does not prohibit the reasonable use of mechanical loudspeakers or sound amplifiers in the course of noncommercial public addresses or emergency announcements required by public safety; provided however, that repetitive mechanically or electrically amplified political advertising shall not be allowed in zoned residential neighborhoods between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. if it disturbs the sleep, peace, quiet, comfort or repose of persons more than 30 feet away; F. Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on the public streets, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time or place so as to disturb the sleep, peace, Chapter 8.08 comfort or repose of persons more than 30 feet away. DCC 8.08.040 shall not apply to applause and cheering at public meetings, lectures, sports events and shows held at schools, stadiums, auditoriums, churches, meeting halls, public parks and public playgrounds; G. The keeping of any animal which by frequent or long continued noise disturbs the sleep, peace, quiet, comfort or repose of persons more than 30 feet away; H. The blowing of any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work, as a warning of fire or danger, or upon request of proper authorities; I. The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal combustion engine, motor boat or motor vehicle except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises there from; J. The use of any automobile, motorcycle or other vehicle so out of repair, so loaded, or in such a manner as to disturb the sleep, peace, quiet, comfort or repose of persons more than 30 feet away; K. The loading or unloading of any vehicle or the opening, closing or destruction of bales, boxes, crates and containers, so as to disturb the sleep, peace, quiet, comfort or repose of persons more than 30 feet away; L. The construction including excavation, demolition, alteration or repair of any building, street, sidewalk, driveway, sewer or utility line between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., except as provided in DCC 8.08.080; A The creation of any sound on any street adjacent to any school, institution of learning, church or court, while the same is in use, or adjacent to any hospital, nursing home or other institution for the care of the sick or infirm, which would tend to unreasonably interfere with the operation of the same or disturbs the sleep, peace, quiet, comfort or 2 (06/2005) repose of persons more than 30 feet away. "Adjacent" means within 500 feet of any of such institutional building; N. The operation between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any pile driver, earthmoving equipment, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or other appliance or machinery, the use of which creates a sound which disturbs the sleep, peace, quiet, comfort or repose of persons more than 30 feet away; 0. The use of any off-road motorcycle or snowmobile where it is heard by the occupant from the premises of an inhabited residence not owned by the user. If the user has a permit issued under DCC 8.08.080(B), such person may operate the motorcycle or snowmobile within the terms of the permit; P. The operation of any blower, power fan, internal combustion engine, electric motor or compressor, or the compression of air, unless the sound from each machine is sufficiently muffled so as not to disturb the sleep, peace, quiet, comfort or repose of persons more than 30 feet away. (Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203.11 § 4, 1980) 8.08.050. Exception for certain farming and forestry practices. Generally accepted, reasonable and prudent farming and forest practices as described in ORS 30.930 to 30.937 and DCC 9.12 do not constitute nuisances under DC 8.08. (Ord. 95-024 § 12, 1995) 8.08.060. Construction. For the purpose of DCC 8.08, words used in the present tense include the future, the singular includes the plural, the word "shall" is mandatory and directory, and the term "this chapter" shall be deemed to include all amendments hereafter made hereto. (Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203.11 § 10, 1980) 8.08.070. Acts prohibited. Except as permitted in DCC 8.08, no person shall make any unreasonable loud or raucous noise which disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, Chapter 8.08 repose, health, peace or safety of others within the legal boundaries of the County. (Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203.11 § 5, 1980) 8.08.080. Permits-Issuance. A. In cases of an emergency which create an unsafe, dangerous or hazardous condition, the Sheriff may give permission to allow activities in DCC 8.08.040(L) to take place at any hour. Emergency permission from the Sheriff may not exceed three days, but may be renewed for an additional three-day period. If the emergency extends past six days, further permission must be granted by the Board. B. At a public meeting noticed in accordance with ORS 192.640, an agency contracting for scheduled construction or maintenance between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall request a permit from the Board. Upon finding that the peace, quiet, comfort or repose of other persons will not be disturbed, or can be mitigated to an acceptable degree, or upon finding a public necessity exists, the Board may issue a permit allowing activities in DCC 8.08.040(L) to take place between such hours and for such periods as they deem proper. In granting such a permit, the Board shall consider the following: 1. the location of the road repair, construction, building or other site, 2. the potential nature of the sound from the activity, 3. the potential nature of the sound from vehicular traffic to and from the site and the relative loss or inconvenience that would result to the persons affected. C. Permits issued by the Board may also include such restrictions or conditions that are necessary to safeguard the public peace. D. Granting of such permits may be appealed at any time by any person who resides or works within hearing of the noise generated as a result of the granting of the permit. Appeals of permits may result in the temporary or permanent revocation of the permit, pending a review of the appeal at the next regularly scheduled public meeting of the Board. 3 (06/2005) E. DCC 8.08.080 shall not apply to emergency work performed on public improvements and public utilities. Such activities may be conducted without restriction on the hours of operation. (Ord. 2005-004, § 1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203.11 § 11, 1980) 8.08.090. Variances. The Board may grant personal nonassignable variances of expressly limited duration and covering a defined geographical area from the operation of DCC 8.08 after public hearing and satisfaction of the variance burden of proof under the current County zoning ordinance. In addition to the standards provided therein, the Board shall apply the relevant provisions of ORS 467.060. (Ord. 2005-004, § 1, 2005; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203.11 § 12, 1980) 8.08.100. Amendments. DCC 8.08 may be amended, supplemented or changed by order of the Board. A proposal for change or amendment may be initiated by the District Attorney, County Counsel, Sheriff or by petition of 10 or more persons to the Board. (Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203.11 § 7, 1980) 8.08.110. Publication and effect of rules. A. To the extent that DCC 8.08 conflicts with rules of procedure established by any earlier ordinance, DCC 8.08 shall apply. B. A copy of DCC 8.08 shall be made available for the cost of reproduction to any person requesting it. C. DCC 8.08 supersedes any previous noise control ordinance. (Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203.11 § 9, 1980) 8.08.120. Violation-Enforcement. A. Violation of any provision of DCC 8.08 is a Class A violation. B. It shall be the responsibility of the Deschutes County Sheriff to enforce DCC 8.08. (Ord. 2003-021 §15, 2003; Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 83-018 § 1, 1983; Ord. 203.11 § 6, 1980) 8.08.130. Abatement and removal. In addition to and not in substitution for any other remedies provided by law for enforcement of DCC 8.08, the Board may institute proceedings for injunction, mandamus, abatement or other appropriate proceedings to prevent temporarily, or permanently enjoin, abate or remove any activity or use of real or personal property which it has probable cause to believe does or will violate DCC 8.08. (Ord. 95-032 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203.11 § 13, 1980) Chapter 8.08 4 (06/2005) TES t Community Development Derlartment r Planning Division - 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701-1925 ' (541) 388-6575 - Fax (541) 385-1764 A10fJ G ~n APPLICATION ~ http: //wwwdeschutes. org/cdd r- !GPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate original signatures. 2. Include a copy of the current deed showing. the property owners. 3. Attach correct fee. 4. Include a plot plan that shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. 5. If this application includes oversized plans, a single, reduced-size plan no larger than 11' x 17' with graphic scale shall also be included. 6. All applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): Conditional Use (CU) - Temporary Use (TU) _ Partition (MP) Site Plan (SP) _ Subdivision (TP Variance (V Applicant's Name (prim: ©r Mailing FEE: -M,, M Setback Exception (SE _ / Other 54-1, ~L.- E. !e , q, - Phone: City/State/Zip: Property Owner's Name (if different)*:_ S _T Phone: Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: 1. Property Description: Township'? Range G~ Section Z10 Tax Lot 2. Property Zone(s): A- L) Property Size (acres or sq. ft.): 3. Lot of Record? (State reason): y-7 4. Property Address: _ i7 31~~ato AL~,- V,12,~ 5. Present Use of Property:. 6. Existing Structures: 01, 7 i11/111 8. Property will be served by: Sewer t✓ r Onsite Disposal System 9. Domestic Water Source: Applicant's Signature:, Property Owner's Signature (if diffe ent)* ' Date: Agent's Name (if applicable): Phone: L>-7 Z9~C7 Mailing Address:_ b 90X ?/,3 ( City/State/Zip: t~ *If this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing sigma "40'applicant must be attached. 1/07 JUN 12 Nul June 11, 2007 710 WALL GREET Deschutes County Planning Department BEND, OR 97709 117 NW Lafayette Avenue 15411 388-5505 TEL Bend OR 97701 [5411388-5519 FAX WWW.ci.bend.or.us RE: Special Operating Permit for Bend Municipal Airport Runway Construction BRUCE ABERNETHY. Mayor LINDA S. JOHNSON Major Pro Tenn BILL FRIEDMAN City Councilor CHRIS TELFER City Councilor JIM CIRMN City CounaIor MARK CAPELL City Councilor HAROLD A. ANDERSON City Manager MARGARET ECHEVESTE Fkance Dbvctor ANDREW JORDAN Pblice Chief LARRY LANGSTON Rre Chief PAIMCIA STELL City Recorder This narrative provides detail with reference to the attached Land Use Application by the City of Bend for a Special Operating Permit for the Bend Municipal Airport Runway Construction project. This critical $10 Million project for the Airport has been designed to replace the existing Runway at the Bend Airport and is on a construction schedule for completion by October 25, 2007. In order to appeal to the common good of the public and to minimize impacts to the Airport users, both local and itinerant, as well as the eighteen businesses and more that 1000 workers employed on the Airport, this project has been scheduled for night time construction, five nights a week. The details of the project are: Construction Dates: Current through October, 2007 (construct new runway) Spring/ Summer 2008 (tear out old runway) Location: Bend Municipal Airport (see attached map) Time: Sunday - Thursday nights, 7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Sources of Noise: Construction equipment, including dump trucks, pickup trucks, vibratory rollers, excavators, pneumatic hammer, lightstand power generators, and bulldozers Key Considerations: 1. The new runway cannot be constructed while the existing runway is open, in accordance with FAA regulations (FAR Part 77). 2. Numerous options were considered for the construction of this project. After review, the only option preserving the ability of the Airport users, businesses, and tenants to conduct business and provide adequate services to the public was to schedule the project for night time cloim es/cons lion. 3. Significant effort has been made to uti aytim e o for noise producing events resulting from construction of this project, including blasting, drilling, and rock crushing. 4. Outreach was conducted to local neighbors of the Airport within a mile of the Airport in anticipation of this project. SCANNED JUN 12 2007 f6~ 5. The greater part of the work of this project consists of trucks moving dirt. The most notable noise producers from this work are the OSHA required backup horns on the various trucks. 6. A small portion of the work includes pneumatic rock hammering and excavation. Point of Contact: City of Bend Greg Phillips, Airport Manager PO Box 431 Bend, OR 97709 (541) 389-0258 Thank you for your consideration. Please let me know if you need anything else in order to process this permit request. Sincerely, Manager, Bend Municipal Airport gphillipso,ci. bend.or.us (541) 389-0258 SCANNED JUN 12 2007 June 22, 2007 710 WALL STREET Deschutes County Planning Department PO BOX 431 BEND, OR 97709 Kristen Maze [5411388-5505 TEL 117 NW Lafayette Avenue [5411388-5519 FAX WWW.ci.bend.or.us Bend, OR 97701 RE: Additional Information for Application BRUCE ABERNETHY for Special Operating Permit for Bend Mayor Municipal Airport Runway Construction LINDA S. JOHNSON Kristen: Mayor Pro Tem My thanks to you and Ruth for coming out to the Bend Airport this BILL FRIEDMAN week to discuss our application for a Special Operating Permit for City Councilor construction at the Bend Airport. In our meeting, you requested CHRIS TELFER additional information about three items, (1) the reasons we are City Councilor building the new runway, (2) justification of public necessity for night time construction, and (3) mitigation efforts we have taken to date to reduce the noise impact of the project. The intent of this letter is to JIM CLINTON address those three issues. City Councilor 1. REASONS FOR RUNWAY CONSTRUCTION: This $10 Million MARK CAPELL project has been designed to replace the existing Runway at the Bend City Councilor Airport and is on a construction schedule for completion by October 25, 2007. The runway is included in the Deschutes County approved 2002 Airport Master Plan and is being constructed for three reasons. HAROLD A. ANDERSON A. To meet federal design standards - the 2002 Master Plan City Manager identified a requirement to increase the separation distance IARGARET ECHEVESTE between the runway and the parallel taxiway from 177 to 240 feet Finance Director to meet safety criteria for the aircraft using the Bend Airport currently. ANDREW JORDAN B. To increase the weight bearing capacity of the runway - the Police Chief current runway is designed to accept aircraft weighing up to LARRY LANGSTON 12,500 pounds. The 2002 Master Plan identified aircraft Fire chief weighing significantly more than that are, and have been, legally using the runway. While this doesn't create an unsafe condition PATRICIA STELL over the short term, it does place additional stresses on the City Recorder runway that should be addressed as soon as possible, and that have been designed into this current project. C. To rehabilitate the runway - the current runway is in poor shape, with no significant repair in more than 20 years. It is the original runway that was designed and first constructed in 1942. While it has over the years had some moderate maintenance, the current runway has reached the end of it's serviceable life. 2. PUBLIC NECESSITY FOR NIGHT TIME CONSTRUCTION: A. The new runway is being constructed 110.5' east of the existing runway. Given that both the old and new runways are 75' wide, with runway lights 10' off the edges of the runway sides, there is only 15' separating the old runway lights and the location of the new runway lights. B. Because of this close proximity between old and new runways, the federal requirements for clearance around an active runway require in this case that the existing runway be closed at all times when the new runway is being constructed. Literally, the new runway cannot be constructed while the existing runway is open for use. C. Several options were studied for methods to construct the runway with minimal impact. These options included shutting the runway down for an extended period of time, shortening the runway at each end at different times and constructing portions of the runway at a time, utilizing the existing taxiway as a runway during construction, and narrowing the existing runway to provide clearance to construct the new runway with the current runway still open. Night time construction was the final option considered. D. There are eighteen on-site Airport businesses at the Bend Airport, employing over 1000 people. These businesses rely on the Bend Airport to be able to conduct business. For this reason, any closure to the runway beyond short duration closures has a significant, deleterious impact to their businesses. For all of these businesses, the great majority of their work must be done during normal daytime business hours. In the final analysis, this was a significant portion of the decision to construct the runway as a night construction project, from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., five nights a week. 3. MITIGATION EFFORTS TO DATE: A. Public meetings were held during the design of this project to solicit input on the best approach to building the runway. B. Outreach was conducted approximately a month prior to the project start date, with letters mailed to local neighbors of the Airport within a mile of the Airport, stating the intent and hours of construction scheduled for the project. Additionally, the press was notified repeatedly about this project, with stories appearing on KBND radio, KTVZ TV, Fox News, and the Bend City Edition reporting articles two separate times about the coming project. C. During construction, daytime hours have been used for the most significant noise producing events, which include blasting, drilling, and rock crushing. These efforts have typically been conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. D. The greater part of the work of this project consists of trucks moving dirt. The most notable noise producers from this work are the OSHA required backup horns on the various trucks. Efforts have been made to require trucks to use forward, circling routes as much as possible instead of backing up. E. A small portion of the work includes pneumatic rock hammering and excavation. It's clear that this work has generated concerns from local residents. For this reason, we have reworked schedules for all hammering work that can be accommodated outside the area of the runway itself so that they can be completed in daytime hours. No hammering or excavation has been completed in night time hours is currently being conducted. Kristen, thank you for your consideration in this process. Please let me know if you need anything else in order to process this permit request and prior to the scheduled public hearing on July 2nd. Sincerely, Greg Phillips Manager, Bend Municipal Airport gphillipsna,ci. bend.or.us (541) 389-0258 NOISE PERMIT DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BEND (541) 388-6575 LOCATION: 63136 POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY OWNER: CITY OF BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DATES & TIME OF EVENT: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RUNWAY AND REMOVAL OF OLD RUNWAY UNTIL SUMMER 2008 / SUNDAY - THURSDAY 7:00 PM - 7:00 A.M. OPERATOR: CITY OF BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PHONE 541 389-0258 1. PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF PROJECT HAS NOT STARTED ON THE APPROVED DATE. 2. THE APPROVED PERMIT SHALL BE RETAINED ON-SITE UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE. 3. BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PERMIT, OWNER OPERATOR CONSENT TO ALLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT TO COME ON THE PREMISES FOR WHICH THE PERMIT HAD BEEN GRANTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT AND DCC 8.16, AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS OR ORDINANCES. FILE NUMBER (SOP-07-1) The Board of County Commissioners approves the City of Bends' application for Noise permit for the above listed event based upon the attached findings incorporated by reference herein and subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Blasting, drilling and rock crushing shall take place during daytime hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 2. Construction crews shall make every effort to limit backing up during night time construction by driving forward and taking circular routes. 3. When outside of the runway area pneumatic hammering and excavating shall take place during daytime hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 4. Airport Management shall continue to meet with the Airport neighbors to discuss issues of the runway construction noise and inform the neighbors of any changes to the construction schedule. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION Michael M. Daly, Chair Signature authorized by the Board of County Commissioners DATE City of Bend Municipal Airport SOP Permit (July 2, 2007) Michael and Pamela Kelly 22640 Peacock Lane Bend,Oregon 97701 (541)382-7358 June 21, 2007 Kristen Maze,Assistant Planner Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend,Or. 97701-1925 Dear Ms.Maze, This letter is in response to the recent mailing we received regarding the City of Bend Municipal Airport construction. We have had numerous conversations with the Airport Manager since April of this year regarding this construction and the sleep disturbance that it creates in the neighborhood nearby. As a result,there has been some abatement. However, despite numerous personal noise: ands vibration:; reduction strategies,there are still many nights that sleep is difficult,if not impossible;for several hours. We feel that the construction was planned and instituted without any regard to the people living in the nearby areas. As,with so ma.ny:other, projects "out here",we.receive letters only after the fact,making any input we might have redundant. I would suggest that if the planning department and the airport would desire any type of support and positive public relations,that provisions be made for those neighbors who might like to sleep elsewhere in a more restful environment. I specifically mean a motel or some other temporary accommodation. Studies have shown that you can't ":catch-up ' on sleep. The two merciful nights that construction is silenced are not sufficient to restore well-being. We hope that a mutually>satisfactory and humane solution.can be found:as soon as possible, We don't feel that;we should have to leave our home :and possessionsJor a decent night's sleep. Sincerely, J U; l 2 2077 , I\ -y CD Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners; 6-27-07 M y name is Doug Covey. I live at 22666 Peacock lane in Deschutes County with my wife Desiree and two children. Please accept this letter as our objection to a Noise Permit being granted for the construction of the Bend Municipal Airport Runway. As the crow flies, our home is less than one half mile from the airport runway. We have lived here for a little over a year. We love the airplanes flying around and would not move next to an airport and then complain about the noise the planes and jets make. Construction noise in the middle of the night is another story. When the construction of the new runway began we were surprised to here the noises a night while we were trying to get a good nights rest for the following work day. It seemed as thought the trucks and other larger equipment,with back up alarms beeping, were much closer to our home than they actually were. We put up with it for a couple of nights before we decided that a call to the Airport Manager was in order. I spoke to Gregg Phillips about our concerns and he told me that letters had been sent to all of the addresses in the area some time before construction was to begin. We never received any notices, nor did any of our neighbors that we spoke with. He said he was sorry for the noises at night but that there was nothing that could be done about it. Mr. Phillips also told me that there was a permit in place to be able to make the noise. With that information we thought our hands were tied and that we would just have to keep putting up with the noise at night. Many nights passed that we woke up tired and un rested the following mornings. Soon a new noise was echoing through our windows. The construction crew began hammering rock with a pneumatic hammer at midnight. There was no way we could sleep through this noise. We tried; but after three hours laying there sleepless I decided to call the County and complain. I was told that a Deputy would go to the construction site and check it out. About 20 minutes later the hammering stopped. We were then able to drift off to sleep. That morning I awoke at my normal time of 5am to get ready for my day of work. It was not easy . After only four hours of sleep I was very tired. On my way in to town I decided to call dispatch to find out what had come of the Deputies visit the night before. I was told that the construction companies permit had expired. That was why the hammering had stopped after the deputy had paid them a visit. The vary next night I was not surprised to hear the hammering begin again. This time much earlier. We did not even have a chance to get to sleep. I gave it a while, hoping it would stop, but it seemed as though it would not. Again, I decided to call in a Deputy. This time I was told by dispatch that the construction company had a permit and that a deputy would probably not go pay them a visit. With that information we laid in bed for hours listening to he hammering. Morning came very slowly. Eventually the hammering stopped and we fell asleep but awoke very tired and un rested. With the information that they had a permit and that the county would not respond, we felt our hands were tied. We had to put up with numerous sleepless nights due to noise. A few weeks ago I received a call from Captain Mills with the Deschutes County Sheriffs Office. He said that there had been several complaints from around the airport and that his department had been investigating the situation. He also gave me some very interesting information. He said that at no point was there ever a permit granted to the construction company or the airport to make noise after l Opm. This made me very angry and feeling misled. Greg Phillips, the Airport Manager, had told me over the phone that they had a permit to do what they were doing. He either lied to me or was very miss informed. They never had a permit to be making noise after l Opm. Why would he tell me otherwise? I was told by Captain Mills that the construction crew would do their best to keep the noise to a minimum and that there would be no hammering permitted after l Opm. This information was very pleasing to us. In closing, please know that I understand why some construction has to be done at night. But the hammering of rock at night should not be permitted at all. We and our neighbors have a right to a restful nights sleep. I would hate to be injured or hurt another person due to not being properly rested as I am driving down the road or operating the tools I'use on a daily basis. I also invite the County Commissioners to spend the night at my house and see how rested they are after a night of listening to hammering. It also said on the Notice of Public Meeting that the runway construction takes place between 7pm and lam. This Is true, however, I do know that construction is also taking place all day long. Surely arrangements could be made to do the very noisy operations during the day. I hope you will consider the rights of the counties tax payers and voters to get a good nights sleep when you make your decision on the application for a noise permit. Kindest Regards, Douglas L Covey