The URL can be used to link to this page

2024-59-Minutes for Meeting January 31,2024 Recorded 2/26/2024Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2024-59 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 02/26/2024 1:17:30 PM VIES 0 { j BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 1111111111111111111111111111 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BOCC MEETING MINUTES 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY January 31, 2024 Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Tony DeBone and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack; Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley; and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal webpage www.deschutes.org/meetings. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: • Ryan Rudnick said the shelter for male parolees on Wilson Avenue would negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood, which has many families, children and parks, and is already disproportionately burdened by facilities such as this. Noting that many people have expressed their opposition to this shelter, he found it unfortunate that the County's response has been to downplay concerns and make no changes, which he interpreted as sending the message that the safety concerns of neighbors and nearby residents are of no importance. He asked that the Board revisit this matter and adjust the operations and/or location of this facility. • Ashley Schreiber opposed the transitional housing program at 640 Wilson Avenue, saying that at least 12 children reside within 60 yards of this facility. Disputing that many adjacent residents were notified as represented by the contractor, Schreiber BOCC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 1 OF 11 said neighboring residents do not feel that their concerns are being heard or given any consideration. • Brooke Mullay said she did not receive any notification of the 640/652 Wilson Avenue transitional housing project although she lives in proximity and should have been notified. She believed this to be a poor location for this kind of facility, questioned how much supervision the residents will receive from the contractor, and asked that the Board reconsider its action which approved this. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda. 1. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Jeannie Adkins for service on the Lazy River Special Road District 2. Consideration of Board Signature on letter thanking Patrick Trowbridge for service on the Deschutes County Planning Commission 3. Approval of minutes of the January 19, 2024 Legislative Update meeting 4. Approval of minutes of the BOCC January 17, 2024 meeting DEBONE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented CHANG: Second vOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried ACTION ITEMS: 5. Emergency Operations Plan Update Sergeant Nathan Garibay presented the most recent update of the County's Emergency Operations Plan, highlighting some of the changes that were made and asking that the Board approve the base plan only as the appendices will undergo revision as needed. Responding to Commissioner DeBone, Garibay said each county in the state has a "Fire Defense Board" which is comprised of all fire chiefs in the county and serves to organize and mobilize resources in the event of a fire emergency. Commissioner DeBone emphasized the importance of interoperability and of having communication channels set up beforehand as well as clearly designated responsibilities for all critical activities. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 2 OF 11 Garibay added that in the event of an emergency, other County departments in addition to the Sheriff's Office would play a supporting role as far as mutual aid. In response to Commissioner Adair, Garibay spoke to the balancing act inherent in determining who to contact via an emergency alert call, explaining that the aim is to notify those who need the information without alarming others who are not experiencing an immediate threat. Garibay said the DCSO website is updated during emergency events to share information for those who may be curious about an event but not directly affected. Commissioner Adair asked about evacuations from Deschutes River Woods in the event of an emergency. Garibay said DCSO encourages people to be prepared, create defensible spaces, and leave early in the event of a fire. Responding to Commissioner Chang, Garibay offered to make available a copy of the numerous appendices to the Plan for the Board's review. County Administrator Nick Lelack added that the County's Transportation System Plan, which also addresses evacuation routes, will come before the Board for consideration of updates in a few weeks. CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2024=005 adopting the 2024 Deschutes County Emergency Operations Plan DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 6. Public hearing and consideration of Resolution No. 2024-003 adopting a supplemental budget and increasing or adjusting appropriations in the General Fund and the Natural Resources Fund Dan Emerson, Budget and Fiscal Planning Manager, explained that the requested change will transfer revenues and expenditures associated with the Oregon Living With Fire program from a custodial fund to the Natural Resources Fund. The public hearing was opened at 9:35 am. There being no one who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:36 am. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 3 OF 11 Commissioner DeBone stated his role as a representative for Oregon Living With Fire and referred to the involvement of other counties in efforts to achieve fuels reduction and resiliency. Noting that Oregon Living with Fire is a multi -jurisdictional effort, Commissioner Chang asked if the other participating counties are agreeable to the change that would be implemented by the resolution. Emerson responded that this change is being made to achieve compliance with federal regulations. Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp referenced his new role as grant administrator for the Natural Resources Fund and said all funds will be tracked separately within the account by object code. Chief Financial Officer Robert Tintle expounded on the new federal standard related to fiduciary funds which the County must conform to. DEBONE: Move approval of Resolution No. 2024-003 increasing or adjusting appropriations within the 2023-24 Deschutes County Budget CHANG: Second ir,TC• r-unnir_• VV I C. LI InIVV. Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 7. Public hearing and consideration of Resolution No. 2024-004 adopting a supplemental budget and increasing appropriations in the Full Faith & Credit Debt Service Fund Budget and Fiscal Planning Manager Dan Emerson explained that the purpose of the resolution is to recognize the proceeds received from the recent refinancing of the Series 2013 Full Faith & Credit bonds in November 2023. Emerson added that the funds will be transferred into Fund 530, not Fund 556 as shown in the exhibit to the resolution. The public hearing was opened at 9:40 am. There being no one who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:41 am. In response to Commissioner Chang, Chief Financial Officer Robert Tintle said the refinancing will save $404,000 in debt service payments over the life of the bond. CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2024-004 adopting a supplemental BOCC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 4 OF 11 budget and increasing appropriations in the Full Faith & Credit Debt Service Fund within the 2023-24 Deschutes County Budget DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 8. Public Hearing: Redmond Airport Master Plan Update Text Amendment Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner, said the purpose of the requested amendments is to align relevant sections of Deschutes County Code with the 2018 Redmond Airport Master Plan Update. Commissioner DeBone disclosed his service on the Redmond Airport Advisory Committee and stated he has no conflict of interest in this matter. The public hearing was opened at 9:51 am. Rawlings presented a staff report on the proposed amendments to Deschutes County Code section 18.80.030, saying these pertain to the imaginary surfaces and noise contour boundaries of the Redmond Municipal Airport's Airport Safety Combining Zone. Rawlings explained that aviation related imaginary Iry surfaces are explained that aviation -related "u«u ,,, ,ug,nu, y surfaces u, imagined areas both on the ground and in space which are established in relation to the airport and its runways. Such imaginary surfaces allow for specific aviation uses and actions within their defined boundaries; the allowed uses and actions involve travel to, from, or around a given airport. A noise contour boundary delineates an area extending beyond the airport, inside of which certain noise decibel ratings could be disturbing to residential properties and other land uses. Following the initial public hearing on November 7, 2023 at which two comments were received, the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the amendments. Rawlings asked that the Board continue today's public hearing to February 21 st to allow sufficient public notice and to enable the finalization of all exhibits to the draft ordinance. Zach Bass, Redmond Airport Manager, summarized that the requested changes will enhance safety. Responding to questions, Bass said the airport had originally planned to construct a future third runway out 1500 feet in one direction and 1500 in another; now, it is planning this extension for 3000 feet in just one BOCC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 5 OF 11 direction. He said while larger aircraft are being manufactured these days, those are also being made more quiet to lessen environmental noise impacts. The Board was in consensus to continue the public hearing to February 21' 9. Miller Pit Plan Amendment and Zone Change Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner, said the Board is asked to decide whether it concurs in the Hearings Officer's decision to approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for a 65-acre parcel located south of Bend bordering Knott Road. The applicant requests to change the zoning of the property from Surface Mining to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10); the applicant also requests a concurrent change in the Comprehensive Plan designation from Surface Mine to Rural Residential Exception Area. Following a public hearing on November 13, 2023, the Hearings Officer issued a decision approving the applications. The appeal period has expired and no appeal was filed. Commissioner Chang asked if the State allows bringing lands zoned Surface Mining into the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and if so, if these have a designated priority. Stuart answered that the State requires cities which apply to expand their UGB to demonstrate how the affected properties would meet certain goals such as housing or commercial needs, and it could be difficult to show how land zoned Surface Mining would meet goalc �i iiivv how land zoned Surface Mining i� would meet �ccv adopted goals. Commissioner Chang spoke to his concerns about groundwater and the likelihood that applications for new groundwater permits will receive substantial scrutiny going forward. Stuart acknowledged that if this zone change was approved, residential development would be allowed on the property. She said the applicant has not communicated any plans to the County regarding the future use of the property. Commissioner Chang said if six residences were developed and each property included up to a half -acre of irrigated landscape, substantial water usage could result. He supported further research into projected groundwater utilization of rural residential development and questioned if the Hearings Officer paid sufficient attention to the subject of groundwater usage when evaluating the applications. Commissioner DeBone said the decision of the Hearings Officer appears to be well -reasoned. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 6 OF 11 With respect to the State's priorities for adding land to the Urban Growth Boundary, Planning Manager Will Groves said whether this property was zoned Surface Mining or MUA10, it would rate as a second tier priority. Commissioner Adair noted the letter in the record from Avion Water stating its ability to serve this property. Responding to Commissioner Adair, Stuart confirmed that MUA10 zoning generally requires a ten -acre lot minimum, although a cluster development proposal could conceivably result in a somewhat higher density. Commissioner Chang asked if Avion Water's letter is based on water rights it already has, or if it would need to secure a new groundwater permit to serve the property. DEBONE: Move approval of Hearings Officer decision for files 247-23-000547-PA and 247-23-000548-ZC, approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change CHANG: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes AnAio• rhnir sir rno v c nnnrinrs rnrrinr4 rkvrAli.. `1 'ail VVIG .J ye.J. IVIVIIVI l.Ul lA Commissioner Chang objected that the way the County's planning process is structured, the Board cannot ensure that this land will be held and preserved in order to accommodate future urbanization, nor does the process enable the County to ensure sufficient future water availability in advance of acting on rezone requests. 10. Ordinance 2024-001 changing the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zone Designation for 40 acres located at 64430 Hunnell Road Will Groves, Planning Manager, presents the ordinance for second reading, noting the Board had approved first reading on January 17tn Commissioner Chang recused himself from discussing or acting on this item. DEBONE: Move approval of second reading of Ordinance No. 2024-001 by title only ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: (abstained) BOCC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 7 OF 11 DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 2 - 1 - 0 Chair Adair read the title of the ordinance into the record. DEBONE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-001 amending Deschutes County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, and amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to change the Zone Designation for certain property from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: (abstained) DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 2 - 1 - 0 Chair Adair announced that Item 12. would be taken up before Item 11. 12. Amendment to the land donation agreement with the City of Redmond for Northpoint Vista, and Board Order authorizing the Deschutes County Property Manager to execute the documents associated with dosing the Land Donation Kristie Bollinger, Property Manager, reviewed the County's action in 2019 to donate 39.31 acres between NE Maple Avenue and NE Kingwood Avenue in East Redmond to the City of Redmond for the development of affordable housing. Noting that the final partition plat for the property was recorded in December of 2023 and the agreement which was entered into between the County and Redmond calls for closing the transaction within 30 days of this recording, Bollinger said the City has now requested the following: 1. Extension of the agreement to dose within 120 days from recording the final plat; 2. Modification of the percentage of required affordable housing units from 50% to 30%; and 3. Modification of the original timeline with respect to the development of the site. John Roberts, Deputy City Manager for the City of Redmond, addressed the request to modify the percentage of required affordable housing units from 50% to 30%, saying that this project is being developed using State funds which require that the project be at least 30% affordable housing. Acknowledging that BOCC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 8 OF 11 the application for State funding stated the City's plans to develop the property with 50% affordable housing, Roberts said it is now clear that more flexibility is needed. He said if the agreement with the County is modified as requested, 75% of the project would be a combination of workforce housing and affordable housing, and just 25% of the units would be market rate. Bollinger verified that the State has agreed to the City's requested change to reduce the project's percentage of affordable housing units. Responding to Commissioner Adair, Roberts confirmed that this project will include multi -family housing. Commissioners stated their appreciation that the project will include workforce housing and expressed their support for the requested modifications. In response to Commissioner Adair, Roberts said the City's goal is to apply for funding by March 4th for a 25-30 unit cottage development and begin construction in early 2025. CHANG: Move approval of Document No. 2024-104 authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the land donation agreement with the City of Redmond, and approval of Board Order No. 2024-005 authorizing the Deschutes County Property Manager to execute the documents associated with closing the land donation DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried A break was announced at 10:40 am. The meeting reconvened at 10:44 am. 11. Approval of the 2023 Title III Certification Form Kevin Moriarty, County Forester, reviewed that counties which receive funds under the federal Secure Rural Schools and Community Self -Determination Act must submit an annual report certifying that the funds expended were utilized as authorized. Moriarty said the County used these revenues to fund the Forester and Fire Adapted Communities Coordinator positions as well as Search and Rescue efforts. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 9 OF 11 Saying that this federal funding source is currently authorized only to 2025, Commissioner Chang urged the County to advocate for its reauthorization. CHANG: Move approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2024-103, the 2023 Title III Certification Form DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 13. Application for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funds Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager, reported that the County is eligible to receive $78,310 in grant funding —or the same amount in the form of a technical voucher —to further energy efficiency efforts. Staff recommends applying for the technical voucher to use for conducting an energy audit and developing an energy efficiency and conservation strategy. Lee Randall, Facilities Director, said these funds would allow the County to develop an energy efficiency plan for County facilities and operations following an energy audit. Responding to Commissioner Chang, Randall said the scope of the work has not yet been determined; a consultant would help identify which facilities and operations merit a deeper look. In response to Commissioner DeBone, Randall listed several examples of building components and functions which may be evaluated, such as whether the installation of different roof insulating materials could save on energy costs. Other potential considerations include the effectiveness of direct digital controls for HVAC systems, whether it's more cost-efficient to use gas or electric in dual - fuel systems, and if any existing CO2 sensors should be updated. CHANG: Move to authorize the submittal of an application for grant funds to complete an energy audit and develop an energy efficiency and conservation strategy for County facilities and operations DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 10 OF 11 OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner Adair reported that yesterday's Visit Central Oregon (VCO) board meeting was the last one for outgoing executive director Julia Thiesen. Six candidates to replace Thiesen are scheduled to be interviewed in the near future. • County Administrator Nick Lelack announced that VCO's Future Fund allocation total for this year will be $450,000, with $350,000 of that coming from the State and $100,000 from Deschutes County Transient Room Tax revenues. • Commissioner DeBone reported an Eastern Oregon Counties Association meeting tomorrow at 10 am. • Commissioner Adair shared allegations reported in the media that the State may be overcharging the trucking industry. • Commissioner DeBone announced a COIC meeting tomorrow. • Commissioner Chang reported on the Wolf Depredation Compensation and Financial Assistance Committee meeting this past Monday. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 am. DATED D nrED this � I rA-, nuaykJi Commissioners. ATTEST: r)Ct1J Na ww-^�nfrsCfa( RECORDING SECRETARY BOCC MEETING 2024 for the Deschutes County Board of PATTI ADAIR, CHAIR ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER JANUARY 31, 2024 PAGE 11 OF 11 TES a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2024 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 I www.deschutes.org AGENDA MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session. Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link: http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To attend the meeting virtually via Zoom, see below. Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda. Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means. Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer. • To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD. • To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the passcode 013510. • If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *9 to indicate you would like to speak and *6 to unmute yourself when you are called on. • When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist. You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to. to Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org. Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the agenda. Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Jeannie Adkins for service on the Lazy River Special Road District 2. Consideration of Board Signature on letter thanking Patrick Trowbridge for service on the Deschutes County Planning Commission 3. Approval of minutes of the January 19, 2024 Legislative Update meeting 4. Approval of minutes of the BOCC January 17, 2024 meeting ACTION ITEMS 5. 9:10 AM Emergency Operations Plan Update 6. 9:30 AM Public hearing and consideration of Resolution No. 2024-003 adopting a supplemental budget and increasing or adjusting appropriations in the General Fund and the Natural Resources Fund 7. 9:40 AM Public hearing and consideration of Resolution No. 2024-004 adopting a supplemental budget and increasing appropriations in the Full Faith & Credit Debt Service Fund 8. 9:50 AM Public Hearing: Redmond Airport Master Plan Update Text Amendment 9. 10:50 AM Miller Pit Plan Amendment and Zone Change 10. 11:10 AM Ordinance 2024-001 changing the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation and Zone Designation for 40 acres located at 64430 Hunnell Road January 31, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 11. 11:15 AM Approval of the 2023 Title III Certification Form 12. 11:20 AM Amendment to the land donation agreement with the City of Redmond for Northpoint Vista, and Board Order authorizing the Deschutes County Property Manager to execute the documents associated with closing the land Donation 13. 11:40 AM Application for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funds OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the 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), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN January 31, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3 w Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony. 6FFEN - Gifu w y U3 b f[6 q/t it/4e iatnivig< ' s 5r/ (Z' L 1t5®r L Date: Phone #s E-mail address In Favor ("yew t1 111 Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes L If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record: SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS 0-CES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 31, 2024 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Redmond Airport Master Plan Update Text Amendment RECOMMENDED MOTION: Open the public hearing for file 247-23-000252-TA regarding the Redmond Airport Master Plan (RAMP) Update Text Amendment. The Board has several options at the conclusion of the staff presentation and public comments. The Board may: • Hold the oral and written record open and continue the hearing to a date certain • Close the oral record and hold the written record open to a date certain • Close both the oral and written record and set a date certain for deliberations • Close both the oral and written record and begin deliberations BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing to consider an applicant - initiated text amendment to update the Redmond Airport's imaginary surfaces and noise contour boundaries to align with the 2018 Redmond Airport Master Plan (RAMP) Update. The full record is located on the project webpage: https://www.desch utescou nty.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta-redmond-airport-master- plan-ramp-text-amendment BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner Ci i'ES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: January 24, 2024 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Redmond Airport Master Plan (RAMP) Update Text Amendment The Board of County Commissioners (Board) is conducting a public hearing on January 31, 2024. The January 31, 2024 public hearing concerns a request for an applicant -initiated Legislative Text Amendment to the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport, submitted by the City of Redmond and Airport representatives. This will be the second of two required public hearings and will be conducted in -person, electronically, and by phone. Attached to this memorandum are the proposed text amendments, Hearings Officer Recommendation, and original application materials which have not changed since the Board's work session on January 29, 2024. Within the proposed amendments, removed text is shown in strikethrough and newly -added text is shown in underline. The record is available for inspection on the project website: https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta-redmond-airport-master-plan-ramp- text-amendment I. BACKGROUND The applicant, City of Redmond and Redmond Municipal Airport, is requesting a Legislative Text Amendment to the AS Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) imaginary surfaces and noise contour boundaries. The Oregon Department of Aviation defines aviation -related imaginary surfaces as "imaginary areas in space and on the ground that are established in relation to the airport and its runways". These imaginary surfaces allow for specific aviation uses and actions within them regarding travel to, from, or around a given airport. The noise contour boundary indicates the distance from the airport at which certain noise decibel -ratings could be disturbing to residential properties and land uses. The subject proposal would update the Runway and Approach information and include a corresponding update amending the AS map to reflect the new zoning boundaries for imaginary surfaces and the new 55 DNL (Average Day -Night Sound Level) noise contour boundaries associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport. The subject Text Amendment would bring the descriptions of imaginary surfaces contained in DCC 18.80.030 into alignment with the Airport's approved 2018 Master Plan update. Staff submitted a 35-day Post -Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on September 18, 2023. Agency notice was sent to relevant agency partners on September 19, 2023. One generic agency comment was received from the County Building Safety Division stating that, if structural development is involved with the project, to coordinate with Deschutes County for permitting requirements. The second agency comment was from the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODAV) expressing no specific comments other than their support for approval of the application. Notice of the proposal was sent to all property owners within Deschutes County whose property would be affected by the newly -adjusted imaginary surfaces and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries on September 20, 2023. The Notice explained the scope of the proposal, provided a project -specific website related to the application, and gave meeting information for the initial Hearings Officer public hearing held on November 7, 20231. Following the Hearings Officer's public hearing, a recommendation for approval was mailed to relevant parties on December 15, 2023. II. PUBLIC COMMENT AND HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Staff received two (2) public comments. The first public comment was from Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) expressing that they have no facilities or water rights on the airport's property. The second public comment, received during the public hearing process, was from a private citizen stating opposition to the proposal based on general concerns with airport operations, potential impacts to surrounding properties, and adequacy of public notice. The initial public hearing was held on November 7, 2023. On December 15, 2023, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer issued a recommendation evaluating compliance with all applicable review criteria and ultimately recommending approval of the proposed Text Amendment. III. BOARD CONSIDERATION The Board conducted a work session on January 29, 2024. Any questions or comments raised by the Commissioners during that work session will be incorporated into the public hearing proceedings and/or the subsequent open record period, should the Board choose to impose such a period. As the airport's surrounding properties include lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C) requires the application to be heard de novo before the Board, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer. Per DCC Section 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed Text Amendment (reflecting quasi-judicial aspects of the proposal) is not subject to the 150- day review period typically associated with land use decisions. 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-LpibIJ5EA Page 2 of 3 The record is available for inspection at the Planning Division and at the following link: https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta-redmond-airport-master-plan-ramp- text-amendment. Moreover, the complete record will be available at the public hearing. IV. NEXT STEPS The Board will hold a public hearing concerning the subject proposal on January 31, 2024. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; • Close the hearing and commence deliberations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Public Hearing 2. Draft Ordinance 2024-002 and Exhibits Exhibit C: Proposed Text Amendments Exhibit D: Hearings Officer Recommendation FORTHCOMING ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit A: Legal Description 2. Exhibit B: Proposed Zone Change Map Page 3of3 e No. 247-23-000252-TA • MINI U. V an v) ^� 1 W a C t ..,asO c IAE'ca +.1 0 cL L.a.+ c O 4., O o 0-p O H a) a) ti I- auVI® w Q Ci t6•— CI-- N 4a i =.i •0 L 4.11 in w IA — i 0.0 i' iv 0. E N vi O O J 'V ( � E,_ •— -c 'a O O O b.° v ORS O O u c N CDv E 'vn -0 4a c ©oo a��'C �bz� t p Mcm O ed) O 1- �Z'O .. �m I— a)^ 4, 0 = >'.Cc • d- .. CO��,CI � ns c,) — c GJ pZ L. O v,Eo CCVO4. CO Uwa. Hearing Procedure be conducted as follows: 1. Staff wi L w u 0 VI (n• NM - tv ra 0 I s 0 -0 s rrs E L L 1 130) o s E a� � c •� uca W 4 cu 1-7 r, icant: 30 minutes B. Public agencies: 10 minutes -13 u a) 0) 4a b4 W C 0 0) In v, O RS o a) era iim ._ V O E L.. .- 11-3 CU 0 4a ra VI in O O 41 a)O a jE 2 C "0 < °7 C b3 la i R5 C O bA • ._ in 4-I CL2 i>eg 17... 2 � E o A A c O O ® 00 A A c • O O 4.1 _ E 4— E o ._ o16 i t�if �' a)O •O •— i 4- +-+ u •O O ea W +a O Z 73 INS O u O ,_ O E ® ,�O $ 2, .0 O ' E oL6NE 4.'O ca In W w O 0 Ca VI 44 O ®O a)0 a)•- to bo O 0. i .boo -c ,0 ) . Q O 4a w O V ns L a O A A A a, o 4 a, IA = o O. u . i ›% to 4-1 o 4 o to i CL1 ja hmi .MN J s �, u • .1; a o of A A Raise Hand (Dial -in) Computer / Smart Device Enter *9 on your keypad ®®® Press the Raise Hand button • • VI a, L ma CU u 0 L CL bil3 C "i RS w 2 A In -person Hand to staff IMMO Remote - Email to staff: a ri .®. • Orderly & respectful hearing Objections to hearing format A A Location - Airport Redmond Municipal Airport G) i 0 IA i V • r • (5 4J CI) E • � 0 u �ca0 cz L... 0 u H V co li— w tin co 11 ca E Fo C 0 .2 r..� RS u 0 J v W ° •�i + OV1 4.4 woo O. 0 O O cu No O° • Amendments to: DCC 18.80.030, Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone • Effect of Amendments: • Ci w u C i CZ Z 4- c 0 O ▪ O VI OC 4-+ — s a a/ aio o as Z •— = co tz 1. u J •- Z o o m enu Ln a, o o a .44- LA runway/primary Redmond Airport 00 0 cs1 Zone with 1Y • Associated c 0 4-1 N Ct. r3 O u O O Q•— u O O E ' •— ✓ - CAN NELi B ON w •- E bA .CCDviss n if;▪ O 'O N a D.CL 5 ® �,E to I IA O z x -0 w 45 11.5110 t,..) 1- In = E • 24111 4.; O u. Wca o.® c� C0= ° it - a) C�W •_ � Q .sz '5 W m • • Comments and Process 4.1 A Deschutes E A c 0 bO i O E 0 4. comment .` �® 0 O® � V V O 0. t u O 4.+•- s 4a O �' ,0 ,0 A O® O to O = O ®A ® .- : in tnn t O imam CC �O '�C O O A .— O .® bb40 C bO 4a �.(5E o E O O O 0 a) < 4.1 i 4a U 4a U i� �O •UO V V •® �•= to � �O - u W = W. W ;7 aU O A Ca) Co O Om O® O c • Comments and Process Hearings Officer Public Hearing - November 7, 2023 1 O 0 0 Q 0 O tIS E E O U a) M N w ▪ O •u Ili. 0' VI CU Win c E � U a� a� December ma L. 0 d W a) to 0) s in a) 1 RS co •• cu41.1 cS N fu 73 1- wo O ! V•— O L" 0 u s- — to•� O O O in O O O to b.O O. C ma a) O = a) cl o s 4.1 ns O bA O o O O•— u 471 `u ® 0 CL, in � O 0 i _ To ..a. CU in w i ,�H >tO L at 441.1O OO . •_ T. +-1 to a) +.1 0 N. E Ci.j) in• a) -0 0 i i two= O to O O as c ��-+ — ma i • h° o i 'we�0.- O fa; ca0O cW O i O o a) 4 CO 0 CO 113"0 v' 4a n• a C O CY 0 >ft rO a) c c d 0 03 0 Q • 0 c vi • 4-0 L O u c Q�J v � � c I- 03 Q a) `o n co C*1 0 a) v a) CL � 0 O u CI) -0 Q �> w CU A February 21st at - Wednesday, February 14th at 4 pm clJ A A w V Q) c t -0 03 CU > •- u a) +) i (6 ® _o a) +-+ _C u E rti o Q CU O v a) Q w C6 E c Electronic submittals should be: . desc:hutes®o Sent to Tarik®rawlin • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners will conduct the public hearing as described below by video, telephone and in person. Options for participating in the public hearing are detailed in the Public Hearing Participation section. PROJECT DESCRIPTION FILE NUMBERS: 247-23-000252-TA LOCATION/ OWNERS: Mailing Name: CITY OF REDMOND Map and Taxlot: 1513220000100 Account: 187594 Situs Address: **MULTIPLE SITUS ADDRESSES** APPLICANT: Mailing Name: CITY OF REDMOND Map and Taxlot: 1513000001500 Account: 162763 Situs Address: **MULTIPLE SITUS ADDRESSES** Mailing Name: CITY OF REDMOND Map and Taxlot: 1513000001503 A.•r•r,, e.-,t• 9 CACI") flLLvul Il. 1 VVJLL Situs Address: 3840 SW AIRPORT WAY, REDMOND, OR 97756 Mailing Name: CITY OF REDMOND Map and Taxlot: 1513280000101 Account: 150717 Situs Address: 3000 SW AIRPORT WAY, REDMOND, OR 97756 Redmond Municipal Airport 2522 Jesse Butler Cir Redmond, OR 97756 City of Redmond 411 SW 9`h Street Redmond, OR 97756 PROPOSAL: The applicant, City of Redmond, has applied for a Text Amendment to the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) to update the Runway and Approach information and a corresponding update amending the AS map to reflect the new zoning boundaries for imaginary surfaces and the new 55 DNL (Average Day -Night Sound Level) noise contour boundaries. HEARING DATE: STAFF CONTACT: RECORD: Wednesday, January 31, 2023 Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner Tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org, 541-317-3148 Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta-redmond- airport-master-plan-ramp-text-amendment PUBLIC HEARING PARTICIPATION • If you wish to provide testimony during the public hearing, please contact the staff planner by 4 pm on January 30, 2023. Testimony can be provided as described below. • Members of the public may listen, view, and/or participate in this hearing using Zoom. Using Zoom is free of charge. To login to the electronic meeting online using your computer, copy this link: bit.ly/3h3oqdD. Using this option may require you to download the Zoom app to your device. • Members of the public can access the meeting via telephone, dial 253-215-8782. When prompted, enter the following: Webinar ID: 899-4635-9970 and Password: 013510. • If participation during the hearing by video and telephone is not possible, the public can provide testimony :n person in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend. Please check the Commissioners' Public Meeting Calendar to see the anticipated start time for this agenda item: https://www.deschutes.org/meetings. All documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost at the Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Seven (7) days prior to the public hearing, a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at CDD and on the websites listed above. Copies of all documents, evidence and the staff report can be purchased at CDD for (25) cents a page. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please contact the staff planner identified above. REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code 18.80.030(A-F), to update the Airport Safety ("AS") Combining Zone Imaginary Surfaces and Noise Contour Boundaries for the Redmond Airport. * * ORDINANCE NO. 2024-002 WHEREAS, City of Redmond applied under land use file number 247-23-000252-TA for a text amendment to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone; A-S, to update the imaginary surface information and noise contour boundaries associated with the Redmond Airport to align with the 2018 Redmond Airport Master Plan (RAMP) Update; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on November 7, 2023 before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on December 15, 2023 the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the proposed text amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered this matter after a duly noticed public hearing on January 31, 2024 and concluded that the proposed changes are consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and that the public will benefit from changes to the land use regulations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C), the proposal shall be heard de novo before the Board; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone; A-S, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "C", attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language set forth in stfikethreugh. Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18 Zoning Map, is amended to change the zoning boundaries as described in Exhibit "A" and as depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "B", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein. / / / PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2024-002 Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, Exhibit "D", attached and incorporated by reference herein. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on the 90th day after the date of adoption. Dated this of , 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PATTI ADAIR, Chair ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary PHILIP CHANG, Commissioner Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2024. Date of 2°' Reading: day of , 2024. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Philip Chang Effective date: day of , 2024. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2024-002 1'ES COMr;UNITY DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT C - PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS FILE NUMBER(S): 247-23-000252-TA SUBJECT PROPERTY: The subject Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries are associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport (Airport), which includes the following addresses and tax lots: • Tax Lot 1513220000100 O 1050 SE Sisters Ave O 1050 SE Sisters Ave (A-B) O 1120 SE Sisters Ave O 1120 SE Sisters Ave (A-E) O 1300 SE USFS Dr O 1320 SE USFS Dr O 1350 SE USFS Dr O 1410 SE USFS Dr (A-B) O 1552 SE USFS Dr O 1605 SE Ochoco Way O 1694 SE USFS Dr O 1900 SE Airport Way (A-1 to A-3; B; C-1 to C-2; D; E; F-1 to F-14; G1 to G14; H to V) O 2215 SE USFS Dr O 2234 SE 6th St O 2234 SE Salmon Ave O 2700 SE Airport Way O 625 SE Salmon Ave O 644 SE Salmon Ave O 645 SE Salmon Ave O 665 SE Salmon Ave • Tax Lot 1513000001500 O 1730 SE Ochoco Way O 1740 SE Ochoco Way O 1764 SE Ochoco Way O 2000 SE USFS DR (A to D) O 675 SE Salmon Ave O 679 SE Salmon Ave O 681 SE Salmon Ave O 683 SE Salmon Ave O 685 SE Salmon Ave O 687 SE Salmon Ave O 689 SE Salmon Ave O 691 SE Salmon Ave O 693 SE Salmon Ave O 701 SE Salmon Ave O 705 SE Salmon Ave O 743 SE Salmon Ave O 765 SE Salmon Ave O 875 SE Veteran's Way O 880 SE Veteran's Way O 888 SE Veteran's Way (A to G; H-1 to H-2; I- 1 to I-7; J-1 to J-2; K-1 to K-7) O 905 SE Salmon Ave O 907 SE Salmon Ave O 911 SE Salmon Ave • Tax Lot 1513000001503 O 3840 SW Airport Way • Tax Lot 1513280000101 O 3000 SW Airport Way 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 I P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 �fi(541) 388-6575 c@cdd@deschutes.org www.deschules.urg/cd APPLICANT: REQUEST: STAFF CONTACT: RECORD: City of Redmond 411 SW 9th St Redmond, OR 97756 Redmond Municipal Airport 2522 Jesse Butler Cir Redmond, OR 97756 The applicant, City of Redmond, has applied for a Text Amendment to the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) to update the Runway and Approach information and a corresponding update amending the AS map to reflect the new zoning boundaries for imaginary surfaces and the new 55 DNL (Average Day -Night Sound Level) noise contour boundaries. Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner Phone: 541-317-3148 Email: tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta- redmond-airport-master-plan-ramp-text-amendment I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Deschutes County Code Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS) Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, (Rural Growth Management), Section 3.4, Rural Economy Oregon Revised Statutes ORS 836.610 ORS 836.616 Oregon Administrative Rules OAR Chapter 660, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals 1-14 OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, Transportation OAR Chapter 660, Division 13, Airport Planning 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 ( P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 e (541) 388-6575 @ Ldd@deLIluLes .ui g ey vvvvvv.de5Ll iuLes.ui g/Ld II. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS: The proposed text amendments are also detailed in the referenced applicant's burden of proof materials, included as an attachment. Below are the proposed changes with removed text shown in strikethrough and newly -added text identified by underline. Title 18, County Zoning: Chapter 18.80 Airport Safety Combining Zone; A-S Section 18.80.030 Redmond Municipal Airport The Redmond Municipal Airport is a Category 1, Commercial Service Airport. Its function is to accommodate scheduled major/national or regional commuter commercial air carrier service. The two existing approximately 7,040' long by 100' 150' wide, "other than utility" paved runways are located at an airport elevation of 3,080.7' 3,077'. The proposed extension to runway 4-22 the primary runway and the planned new parallel runway are both identified on the FAA -adopted Airport Layout Plan. Therefore, these improvements are used in the layout of the Airport Safety and Combining Zone. The same safety zone dimensional standards used for Runway 1 22 the primary runway will also apply to the planned parallel runway. A. Primary Surface - For Redmond, the primary surfaces are 1,000' wide by 7,406' 7,440' long for the crosswind runway Runway 10-28, 1,000' wide by 9,100' long for the primary 22 d 000' wide L) 6.600' 7,'!00' long for the proposed new parallel runway Runway i a.. Y g proposed N�� runway. B. Transitional Surface - The surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7:1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surface which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the runway centerline. B. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Two different R-PZs apply to the Redmond Airport because it has a total of tree potentla-I runways with two possible approaches. Runway 4 22 and the planned parallel runway will both have precision approaches. Runway 10- 28 has a non -precision approach on each end. The precision RPZ forms -a 1,000' wide by 2,500' long by 1,750' wide trapezoid while the non -precision RPZ forms a 500' wide by 1,700' long by 1,010' wide trapezoid. C. Approach Surface - The current ILS precision approach surface to the primary runway runway 22 and the planned precision approaches to the Runway 4 and future parallel runway 4.22, are 1,000' wide by 50,000' long by 16,000' wide, with an upward approach slope ratio of 50:1 (one foot vertical for each 50 feet horizontal) for the first 10,000', then a slope ratio of 40:1 for the remaining 40,000'. The non -precision approach surface is 500' wide by 10,000' long by 3,500' wide, with an upward approach slope ratio of 34:1. Exhibit C - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA Page 3 of 4 D. Horizontal Surface - The surface boundary is comprised of connected arcs drawn 10,000 feet outward and centered on the ends of the primary surface. The elevation of the horizontal surface for the Redmond Airport is 3,227 230 feet (150' above airport elevation). E. Conical Surface - The surface extends outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000' up to an elevation of 3,430.7'. F. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Two different RPZs apply to the Redmond Airport because it has a total of three potential runways with two possible approaches. The primary runway and the planned parallel runway will both have precision approaches. The crosswind runway has a non -precision approach on each end. The precision RPZ forms a 1,000' wide by 2,500' long by 1,750' wide trapezoid while the non -precision RPZ forms a 1,000' wide by 1,700' long by 1,510' wide trapezoid. The RPZ begins 200' from the surveyed runway end point. Exhibit C - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA Page 4 of 4 Mailing Date: Friday, December 15, 2023 HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION REDMOND AIRPORT MASTER PLAN (RAMP) UPDATE - TEXT AMENDMENT FILE NUMBER(S): 247-23-000252-TA SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Airport Safety Combining Zone and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries are associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport ("Airport"), which includes the following addresses and tax lots: • Tax Lot 1513220000100 O 1050 SE Sisters Ave O 1050 SE Sisters Ave (A-B) O 1120 SE Sisters Ave O 1120 SE Sisters Ave (A-E) O 1300 SE USFS Dr O 1320 SE USFS Dr O 1350 SE USFS Dr O 1410 SE USFS Dr (A-B) O 1552 SE USFS Dr O 1605 SE Ochoco Way O 1694 SE USFS Dr O 1900 SE Airport Way (A-1 to A-3; B; C-1 to C-2; D; E; F-1 to F-14; G1 to G14; H to V) O 2215 SE USFS Dr O 2234 SE 6th St O 2234 SE Salmon Ave O 2700 SE Airport Way O 625 SE Salmon Ave O 644 SE Salmon Ave O 645 SE Salmon Ave O 665 SE Salmon Ave • Tax Lot 1513000001500 O 1730 SE Ochoco Way O 1740 SE Ochoco Way O 1764 SE Ochoco Way O 2000 SE USFS DR (A to D) O 675 SE Salmon Ave O 679 SE Salmon Ave O 681 SE Salmon Ave O 683 SE Salmon Ave O 685 SE Salmon Ave O 687 SE Salmon Ave O 689 SE Salmon Ave O 691 SE Salmon Ave O 693 SE Salmon Ave O 701 SE Salmon Ave O 705 SE Salmon Ave O 743 SE Salmon Ave O 765 SE Salmon Ave O 875 SE Veteran's Way O 880 SE Veteran's Way O 888 SE Veteran's Way (A to G; H-1 to H-2; I- 1 to I-7; J-1 to J-2; K-1 to K-7) O 905 SE Salmon Ave O 907 SE Salmon Ave O 911 SE Salmon Ave • Tax Lot 1513000001503 O 3840 SW Airport Way • Tax Lot 1513280000101 O 3000 SW Airport Way Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA APPLICANT: REQUEST: STAFF CONTACT: RECORD: City of Redmond 411 SW 9`h St Redmond, OR 97756 Redmond Municipal Airport 2522 Jesse Butler Cir Redmond, OR 97756 The City of Redmond ("Applicant") applied for a Text Amendment to the Airport Safety ("AS") Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) to update the Runway and Approach information and a corresponding update amending the AS map to reflect the new zoning boundaries for imaginary surfaces and the new 55 DNL ("Average Day -Night Sound Level") noise contour boundaries. Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner Phone: 541-317-3148 Email: tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: https://www.deschutescou my.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta- redmond-airport-master-plan-ramp-text-amendment I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Deschutes County Code Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS) Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, (Rural Growth Management), Section 3.4, Rural Economy Oregon Revised Statutes ORS 836.610 ORS 836.616 Oregon Administrative Rules OAR Chapter 660, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals 1-14 OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, Transportation OAR Chapter 660, Division 13, Airport Planning Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 24/-23-UUU2b2- I A 247-23-000252-TA Page 2 of 27 II. BASIC FINDINGS LOT OF RECORD: DCC 22.04.040(B) does not require lot of record verification for Text Amendment applications and, as a result, lot of record verification is not required for the subject application. SITE DESCRIPTION: The AS Combining Zone and 55 Day -Night Sound Level ("DNL") noise contour boundary includes the Redmond Municipal Airport ("Roberts Field") and surrounding properties affected by the imaginary surfaces of the AS Combining Zone, which collectively total approximately 1,934 acres. The Redmond Municipal Airport is developed with a number of aviation -related uses including taxiways, runways, internal roads and parking areas, and several structures. The Tax Lots associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport (1513220000100, 1513000001500, 1513000001503, 1513280000101) abut or contain several City of Redmond roadways to the west and north (SE Jesse Butler Cr [city local], SE Salmon Ave [city local], SE 6th St [city local], SE Airport Way [city arterial], SE Veteran's Way [city arterial], SE Sisters Ave [city local], SE USFS Dr [city local], SE 10th St [city local]). Highway 126 (a State Primary Highway) adjoins the Airport property along its northern boundary. SE Sherman Rd and Redmond -Powell Butte Market Road border the Airport property to the east and are functionally classified as County -owned Rural Local roadways. Additional portions of SE Sherman Rd (to the east of the Airport) are owned and maintained by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") and are functionally classified as Rural Local roadways. PROPOSAL: The submitted Burden of Proof includes the following background on why this Text Amendment is necessary for the Airport: 'The applicant, City of Redmond, owner of the Redmond Municipal Airport, proposes the enclosed amendments to the text of Chapter 18.80 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance and the County's Official Zoning Map to reflect the proposed improvements identified in the 2018 Airport Master Plan. The Airport Master Plan evaluated the Airport's needs over a 20-year planning period for airfield, airspace, terminal area, and landside facilities. The goal of the plan was to document the orderly development of Airport facilities essential to meeting City needs, in accordance with FM standards, and in a manner complementary with community interests. The Plan resulted in a 20-year development strategy envisioned by the City of Redmond, reflective of the updated Airport Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and graphically depicted by the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawings. The approved Plan allows the City to satisfy FAA assurances and seek project funding eligible under the respective federal and state airport aid program. City of Redmond Ordinance No. 2018-18 updated the Redmond Transportation System Plan, inclusive of the 2018 Airport Master Plan, making it the transportation element of the Redmond Comprehensive Plan." The proposed language of the Text Amendment is included as Attachment 1 and summarized as follows: • The Applicant proposes to change the introductory language of DCC 18.80.030 including changes to airport elevation, and descriptions of the existing runways. Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 3 of 27 • The Applicant proposes to change the Primary Surface, Approach Surface, and Horizontal Surface dimensional description(s) at DCC 18.80.030(A, C, and D). • The Applicant proposes to remove the existing language of DCC 18.80.030(B) and replace it with a description of the Airport's Transitional Surface. • The Applicant proposes to add descriptions of the Airport's Conical Surface and Runway Protection Zone at DCC 18.80.030(E) and (F), respectively. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on September 19, 2023, to several public agencies and received the following comments: Deschutes County Building Safety Division, Randy Scheid, September 20, 2023: "The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review." The following agencies/entities did not respond to the notice: Arnold Irrigation District, Bend Metro Parks & Rec., BLM Prineville District, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Forestry, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Department of State Lands, Deputy State Fire Marshal, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Deschutes County Fire Adapted Communities Coordinator, Deschutes County Forester, Deschutes County Road Department, Deschutes County Sheriff, Deschutes National Forest, ODOT Region 4 Planning, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon Department of Water Resources, Redmond Area Parks & Rec. District, Redmond City Planning, Redmond Fire & Rescue, Swalley Irrigation District, Terrebonne Domestic Water District, Three Sisters Irrigation District, Watermaster - District 11, BNSF Railway, Cascade Natural Gas Co., Central Electric Co-op, Oregon Department of Aviation, Redmond Airport, Redmond Public Works, and Redmond School District. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all property owners whose property would be affected by the new AS Combining Zone and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries on September 20, 2023. Comments were received from Central Oregon Irrigation District ("COID") and Dorinne Tye. COID, Spencer Stauffer, September 22, 2023: "Re: 247-23-000252-TA Deschutes County Assessor's Map 15-13-00, Tax Lots 1500 and 1503 Deschutes County Assessor's Map 15-13-22, Tax Lot 100 Deschutes County Assessor's Map 15-13-28, Tax Lot 101 Please be advised that Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) has reviewed the Text Amendment to the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) to update the Runway and Approach Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-2.3-000252-TA Page 4 of 27 information and corresponding update amending the AS Zoning Map to reflect the new zoning boundaries for imaginary surfaces and the new 55 DNL (Average Day -Night Sound Level) noise contour boundaries. (dated August 29, 2023). COID has no facilities or water rights on the subject property (TAXLOT.• 15-13-00, Tax Lots 1500 and 1503, 15-13-22, Tax Lot 100, 15-13-28, Tax Lot 101)." Dorinne Tye, November 7, 2023 An email was received, during the conduct of the November 7, 2023 Hearing, from Dorinne Tye ("Tye"). The Tye email raised a number of issues and objections to the proposal in this case. The Hearings Officer attempted to identify and characterize Tye's email issues below. Tye stated that aircraft noise creates negative psychological and general health impacts. The Hearings Officer considered Tye's "noise" impact comments in the findings for any relevant approval criterion. Tye asserted that "shifting noise contours requires avigation easements." Tye provided no legal citations to assist the Hearings Officer regarding what relevant approval criteria/criterion the "avigation easement" argument applied. Further, Tye failed to provide citations or other legal authority, with sufficient specificity, to allow the Hearings Officer to comprehend or analyze the "avigation easement" issue. Tye asserted that shifting noise contours may violate one or more EPA guidelines. The Hearings Officer finds that Tye failed to develop the "EPA" argument with sufficient specificity allow to llow the Hearings Officer to comprehend and analyze that issue. Tye suggested that Applicant's proposed shifting of noise contours violates the US Constitutional provision that prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation. Tye did reference the U.S. Supreme Court case Nollan v. California Coastal Commission in the context of the "taking" issue. Tye indicated that the court in Nollan required a "nexus" test to be satisfied. The Hearings Officer finds that Tye failed to connect the Nollan "nexus" test, with sufficient specificity, to the present application. The Hearings Office finds that Tye failed to provide specific facts or evidence to support her Nollan argument(s). The Hearings Officer finds that Tye failed to adequately develop the Nollan "nexus" test argument such that the Hearings Officer could provide a legally competent response. Tye asserted that the process leading up to the issuance of the Staff Report and the hearing in this case did not provide for adequate citizen involvement. The Hearings Officer addresses Tye's "citizen involvement" argument in the findings for relevant approval criterion below. Tye stated that "there must be adequate consideration and mitigation of airside impacts and related road traffic impacts, especially from an airport..." The Hearings Officer notes that Tye raised no specific road traffic impacts that should be considered in a negative or positive light. The Hearings Officer addresses traffic impacts in the findings for relevant approval criterion below. Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 747-23-000252-TA Page 5 of 27 Tye referenced an "Airport Easement Ordinance" and stated that such law had been found unconstitutional. The Hearings Officer opened the Internet link in Tye's email and determined the referenced Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals decision related to a Hillsboro, Oregon ordinance. The Hearings Officer finds Tye did not provide any legal authority that would lead the Hearings Officer to conclude that a Hillsboro ordinance was relevant to this case. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: As mentioned previously, on September 20, 2023, the Planning Division mailed notice to all property owners whose property would be affected by the new AS Combining Zone and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries. This type of notice is commonly referred to as a Measure 56 Notice. A separate Notice of Application was mailed to relevant agencies on September 19, 2023. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, October 8, 2023. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on September 18, 2023. The Applicant complied with the posted notice requirements outlined in DCC 22.24.030(B) and submitted a Land Use Sign Affidavit confirming that the required notice was posted on October 25, 2023, for at least 10 days prior to the scheduled public hearing date of November 7, 2023. REVIEW PERIOD: According to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Text Amendment application is not subject to the 150-day review period. III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Preliminary Findings. A public hearing was held on November 7, 2023 (the "Hearing") providing the Applicant, Deschutes County Planning ig Staff ("County Staff") and members embers of the public an opportunity to provide oral and written comments related to the application in this case. Only the Applicant and County Staff offered oral testimony and written comments at the Hearing. One person submitted written comments (Tye email referenced above) in opposition. With the exception of the Tye email submission there is no evidence or argument in the record to dispute specific sections or language contained in the Staff Report. The Hearings Officer incorporates the Hearings Officer's comments included in the Public Comments section above, related to the Tye email, as additional findings for this section. The Staff, in the Staff Report (page 11), opined that the policies set forth in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 3.4 Rural Economy Policy 3.4.6 are not a specific approval criterion. Staff stated that if the Hearings Officer concluded that these policies were relevant approval criteria the Hearings Officer should provide findings in support of the Hearings Officer's position. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff that the policies (i.e., Policy 3.4.6) are not mandatory approval criterion. Finally, as noted above, only the Tye email raised any issues with the Staff Report. Specifically, the Tye email raised questions concerning noise, citizen involvement and transportation related findings. The Hearings Officer supplemented the Staff findings related to noise, citizen involvement and transportation issues. Therefore, except as noted above, the Hearings Officer adopts the Staff findings in the Staff Report as the Hearings Officer's findings. Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 6 of 27 Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning Chapter 18.136, Amendments Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "The Applicant, as the property owner, requested a quasi-judicial Text Amendment with corresponding quasi-judicial Map Amendment. The Applicant has filed the required land use application forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. DCC 22.04.020 includes the following definition: 'Quasi-judicial' zone change or plan amendment generally refers to a plan amendment or zone change affecting a single or limited group of property owners and that involves the application of existing policy to a specific factual setting. (The distinction between /legislativee and quasi-judicial changes must ultimately be made on a case -by -case basis with reference to case law on the subject.) The subject application is not a request to change the zoning or Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property. However, as described below, the quasi-judicial process of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is the most applicable guidance regarding Text Amendments that are not squarely legislative. Therefore, staff includes the definition of a quasi-judicial process above for reference and also addresses the provisions of DCC 22.28.030, below, regarding final action on Comprehensive Plan amendments. Potentially relevant to this case, the Bend Municipal Airport most recently went through a Text Amendment in Deschutes County file 247-20-000482-TA. The Hearings Officer decision for file 247-20-000482-TA made the following findings regarding whether the application should be processed as a quasi-judicial Text Amendment: Based on the foregoing, the Hearings Officer finds that, in this case, the ultimate adoption of the Text Amendments is a two-step process. The role of the Hearings Officer is to apply the law, not to change it. In the first step of the process, the Applicant has a right under the DCC to submit and to have considered an application to amend the Code's text. This phase of the process is quasi- judicial in nature and it is appropriate to have a hearing and to build a record following the principles of a quasi-judicial process. As part of that process, the Hearings Officer is addressing the application of the County's exiting laws. The second step of the process is for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ("Board') to adopt an ordinance to incorporate any text Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 747-7.3-000252-TA Page 7 of 27 amendments to the Code. Amendments to the text of a zoning ordinance are a change in the County's law, and only the Board can make such a change. In other words, the Hearings Officer is without authority to amend the County's Code. The Hearings Officer, however, can make a recommendation to the Board based on what develops in the quasi-judicial phase of the process. The Oregon Supreme Court case Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers provides guidance on how to distinguish between a legislative and quasi-judicial process, and outlines a three-part test that continues to be applied throughout case law. The Court of Appeals applied and expanded on the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers decision in Hood River Valley v. Board of Cty. Commissioners, 193 Or App 485, 495, 91 P3d 748 (2004): Given those concerns, 'lt]he fact that a policymaking process is circumscribed by * * * procedural requirements [such as public hearings] does not alone turn it into an adjudication.' Id. at 604. Rather, at least three other considerations generally bear on the determination of whether governmental action represented an 'exercise of * * *quasi-judicial functions.' ORS 34.040(1). First, does 'the process, once begun, [call] for reaching a decision,' with that decision being confined by preexisting criteria rather than a wide discretionary choice of action or inaction? Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers, 287 Or at 604. Second, to what extent is the decision -maker 'bound to apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts'? Id. at 602-03. Third, to what extent is the decision 'directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons'? Id. at 603. Those three general criteria do not, however, describe a bright -line test. As we noted in Estate of Gold v. City of Portland, 87 Or App 45, 51, 740 P2d 812, rev den, 304 Or 405 (1987), Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers 'contemplates a balancing of the various factors which militate for or against a quasi-judicial characterization and does not create [an] 'all or nothing' test[.]' (Citation omitted.) In particular, we noted that the criteria are applied in light of the reasons for their existence -viz., 'the assurance of correct factual decisions' and 'the assurance of 'fair attention to individuals particularly affected." Estate of Gold, 87 Or App at 51 (quoting Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers, 287 Or at 604). As noted above, the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test requires a case -specific analysis of all three factors in combination. Individuals most affected by the proposed Text Amendment include the Redmond Municipal Airport and neighboring property owners, all of whom were mailed notice pursuant to DCC 22.24.030. Staff addresses each component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test below: Results in a decision The applicant has submitted an application for a Text Amendment, in order to amend text related to the Redmond Airport's AS Combining Zone in DCC 18.80.030 and to update applicable AS overlay zoning boundaries and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries identified in associated zoning maps and County records. The request will result in either an approval or a denial, and a decision will be issued by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) pursuant to DCC Title 22. As opposed to a policy change initiated by staff or decision -makers, which has a wide discretionary choice between action and inaction, Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 24 /-23-000252- I A 247-23-400252-TA Page 8 of 27 the subject request was submitted as a land use application by the property owner and the County must take final action on it. Staff finds the subject amendment clearly meets this component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test and may be considered a quasi-judicial process. Apply existing criteria The subject request is being reviewed based on criteria in DCC Chapter 18.136, Amendments, and applicable state statutes. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 836.616, Rules for airport uses and activities, provides a list of the uses that may be permitted within an airport under a local jurisdiction's land use code. Staff is unclear about the specific applicability of ORS 836.616 to the subject application as there are no changes to permitted uses within the Airport, but includes that provision, below if the Hearings Officer finds it applies to the subject application. The application is being reviewed to confirm compliance with the DCC along with applicable OARs and ORSs, and staff therefore finds existing criteria are being applied to the subject application. Consequently, the application meets this component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test for a quasi-judicial process. Small number of persons The AS Combining Zone encompasses the Airport, with the Zone's imaginary surfaces located above a limited number of surrounding properties. The subject property from with the AS Combining Zone is based is owned and operated by the City of Redmond, who manages leases and oversees uses within the Redmond Municipal Airport. While staff notes the Redmond Municipal Airport is utilized by members of the public and various businesses, changes to the airports imaginary surfaces and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries can only be established on the property if the City of Redmond initiates or authorizes an application. The subject request will impact the development potential of the Airport property and a limited number of surrounding properties. Therefore, staff finds the subject request complies with this component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test and may be categorized as quasi- judicial. When the factors above are considered in combination, staff finds they indicate the subject Text Amendment is a quasi-judicial process. As noted in Hood River Valley v. Board of Cty. Commissioners, the differentiation between a legislative and quasi-judicial process is important to ensure all affected parties are given a fair process. In this case the proposal was noticed to all property owners who would potentially be affected by the proposal and processing the request through a quasi-judicial process will provide for a public hearing before a Hearings Officer and final action by the Board. For these reasons, staff finds the request meets the three-part test outlined in Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers as well as the intent of a quasi-judicial process." Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Development Procedures Ordinance Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures Section 22.12.010, Hearing Required No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 9 of 27 public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless otherwise required by state law. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "As described above, staff finds the subject request is a quasi-judicial Text Amendment. However, the procedural steps will be similar to those outlined in the Hearing's Officer decision for file 247-20-000482- TA, which finds amendments to allowed airport uses carry the qualities of a legislative act. The subject amendments will be adopted through an ordinance, consistent with the process for a legislative amendment. The Planning Director has exercised their discretion not to set a hearing before the Planning Commission." Section 22.12.020, Notice A. Published Notice. 1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing. 2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under consideration. B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045. C. Individual Notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC 22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as required by ORS 215.503. D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in Deschutes County. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "Notice of the proposed Text Amendment was published in the Bend Bulletin. As noted above, the applicant complied with the posted notice requirement and staff mailed notice to all property owners who would be affected by the newly -proposed AS zoning and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries. Notice was provided to the County public information official for wider media distribution." Section 22.12.030, Initiation Of Legislative Changes A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of required fees as well as by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Commission. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 10 of 27 "The applicant has submitted the required fees and requested a Text Amendment. Staff finds the applicant is granted permission under this criterion to initiate a legislative change and has submitted the necessary fee and materials." Section 22.12.040, Hearings Body A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this order: 1. The Planning Commission. 2. The Board of County Commissioners. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "As described above, the subject application meets the definition of a quasi-judicial application. For this reason, this application was referred to a Hearings Officer rather than the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The adoption of the proposed text amendments will follow a legislative process because it must be approved by the Board. For the purpose of this criterion, staff notes the application has properties of both a quasi-judicial and legislative amendment." B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of Commissioners. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "The subject application was not initiated by the Board. Staff finds this criterion does not apply." Section 22.12.050, Final Decision All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "Staff finds this criterion requires action by the Board to effect any legislative changes to Deschutes County Code. If the proposed Text Amendment is approved, it will become effective through the Board adoption of an ordinance." Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions Section 22.28.030, Decision On Plan Amendments And Zone Changes Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 11 of 27 A. Except as set forth herein, the Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission when acting as the Hearings Body shall have authority to make decisions on all quasi- judicial zone changes and plan amendments. Prior to becoming effective, all quasi- judicial plan amendments and zone changes shall be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. B. In considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those quasi-judicial plan amendments on which the Hearings Officer has authority to make a decision, the Board of County Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review initiated by the Board, adopt the Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or further testimony will be taken by the Board. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "As detailed above, staff finds the proposal should be viewed as a quasi-judicial plan amendment. For this reason, staff finds these criteria apply. This application is being referred to a Hearings Officer for a recommendation. if an appeal is not filed and the Board does not initiate review, the Board shall adopt the Hearings Officer's recommendation as the decision of the county." C. Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or concerning lands designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission. Such hearing before the Board shall otherwise be subject to the same procedures as an appeal to the Board under DCC Title 22. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "The subject Text Amendment does not require a goal exception and does not concern lands designated for forest or agricultural use as the base zoning of the airport subject property is within the City of Redmond's jurisdiction. For this reason, a de novo hearing before the Board is not required." D. Notwithstanding DCC 22.28.030(C), when a plan amendment subject to a DCC 22.28.030(C) hearing before the Board of County Commissioners has been consolidated for hearing before the hearings Officer with a zone change or other permit application not requiring a hearing before the board under DCC 22.28.030(C), any party wishing to obtain review of the Hearings Officer's decision on any of those other applications shall file an appeal. The plan amendment shall be heard by the Board consolidated with the appeal of those other applications. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "No other application is being consolidated with the subject Text Amendment. Staff finds this criterion Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-1A 247-23-000252-TA Page 12 of 27 does not apply." Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan Section 3.4, Rural Economy Goal 1. Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. Policy 3.4.6 Support and participate in master planning for airports in Deschutes County FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings related these policies as additional findings. Further, the Hearings Officer finds that the Staff Report findings set forth below and the underlying documentation submitted by the Applicant, constitute substantial evidence in this case. While perhaps not relevant to these findings the Hearings Officer addresses, at the end of this section, Tye email comments related to transportation (road impacts). The Hearings Officer agrees with and therefore adopts the following Staff Report comments: "The County's Comprehensive Plan includes a number of guiding policies such as the rural economy goal cited above. In addition, Appendix C - Transportation System Plan includes goals specific to airport planning. Staff finds the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies are implemented through Deschutes County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan goals themselves are not specific approval criteria. However, to the extent the Hearings Officer finds this policy is an applicable approval criterion, staff notes that the proposed text amendments will support master planning for the Redmond Municipal Airport. The subject amendments are proposed to implement the changes within the 2018 Redmond Airport Master Plan, the purpose of which is to document the orderly development of Airport facilities essential to meeting the City of Redmond's needs, in accordance with FAA standards, and in a manner complementary to community interests." Tye, in the Tye email, stated the following related to transportation issues: "There must be adequate consideration and mitigation of airside impacts and related road traffic impacts, especially from an airport with the highest airborne lead in the state." The Hearings Officer finds Tye statement that "there must be adequate consideration" of "road traffic impacts" is a reasonable and fair comment. However, without additional evidence or argument related to how the instant application fails to "adequately consider road traffic" the Hearings Officer is unable to meaningfully respond. The Hearings Officer finds the Tye email comment related to road traffic is not developed sufficiently to allow the Hearings Officer to make a reasonable analysis and decision. Exhibit ID - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 13 of 27 OREGON REVISED STATUTES Chapter 836 - Airports and Landing Fields 836.610, Local government land use plans and regulations to accommodate airport zones and uses; funding; rules. 1) Local governments shall amend their comprehensive plan and land use regulations consistent with the rules for airports adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission under ORS 836.616 and 836.619. Airports subject to the rules shall include: (a) Publicly owned airports registered, licensed or otherwise recognized by the Department of Transportation on or before December 31, 1994, that in 1994 were the base for three or more aircraft; and (b) Privately owned public -use airports specifically identified in administrative rules of the Oregon Department of Aviation that: (A) Provide important links in air traffic in this state; (8) Provide essential safety or emergency services; or (C) Are of economic importance to the county where the airport is located. (2)(a) Local governments shall amend their comprehensive plan and land use regulations as required under subsection (1) of this section not later than the first periodic review, as described in ORS 197.628 to 197.651, conducted after the date of the adoption of a list of airports by the Oregon Department of Aviation under subsection (3) of this section. (b) A state agency or other person may provide funding to a local government to accomplish the planning requirements of this section earlier than otherwise required under this subsection. (3) The Oregon Department of Aviation by rule shall adopt a list of airports described in subsection (1) of this section. The rules shall be reviewed and updated periodically to add or remove airports from the list. An airport may be removed from the list only upon request of the airport owner or upon closure of the airport for a period of more than three years. [1995 c.285 §4; 1997 c.859 52) FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "The AS Combining Zone stems from the Redmond Municipal Airport, which is a publicly -owned airport. The proposed changes relate to dimensions and boundaries of the imaginary surfaces of the AS Combining Zone and the 55 DNL noise contour boundary. No changes to the Airport's operational uses or activities are proposed and, as a result, the provisions of ORS 836.616 do not apply to the subject application. Additionally, staff recognizes that the underlying zoning for the Airport is based on City of Redmond zoning districts over which the County has no jurisdiction for the Airport's allowed uses or activities." Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 14 of 27 836.619, State compatibility and safety standards for land uses near airports; rules. Following consultation with the Oregon Department of Aviation, the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules establishing compatibility and safety standards for uses of land near airports identified in ORS 836.610 (Local government land use plans and regulations to accommodate airport zones and uses) (1). (1997 c.859 §8 (enacted in lieu of 836.620)1 FINDING: Applicable Oregon Administrative Rules are addressed below. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Division 13 - Airport Planning OAR 660-013-0010, Purpose and Policy (1) This division implements ORS 836.600 through 836.630 and Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation). The policy of the State of Oregon is to encourage and support the continued operation and vitality of Oregon's airports. These rules are intended to promote a convenient and economic system of airports in the state and for land use planning to reduce risks to aircraft operations and nearby land uses. (2) Ensuring the vitality and continued operation of Oregon's system of airports is linked to the vitality of the local economy where the airports are located. This division recognizes the interdependence between transportation systems and the communities on which they depend. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "The above provision is a purpose and policy statement related to OAR 660 Division 13. The applicant's burden of proof statement includes the following response to this provision: 'By adopting these amendments, the County continues to encourage and support the continued development, operation and vitality of the Redmond Municipal Airport. The amendments are consistent with ORS 836.600 through 836.630 and Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation).' Staff notes the applicable provisions of ORS 836.600 through ORS 836.630 are reviewed in previous findings. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, including Goal 12, are reviewed in subsequent findings." OAR 660-013-0030, Preparation and Coordination of Aviation Plans (2) A city or county with planning authority for one or more airports, or areas within safety zones or compatibility zones described in this division, shall adopt comprehensive plan and land use regulations for airports consistent with the Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 15 of 27 requirements of this division and ORS 836.600 through 836.630. Local comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements shall be coordinated with acknowledged transportation system plans for the city, county, and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) required by OAR 660, division 12. Local comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements shall be consistent with adopted elements of the state ASP and shall be coordinated with affected state and federal agencies, local governments, airport sponsors, and special districts. If a state ASP has not yet been adopted, the city or county shall coordinate the preparation of the local comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements with ODA. Local comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements shall encourage and support the continued operation and vitality of airports consistent with the requirements of ORS 836.600 through 836.630. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement: 'The proposed Deschutes County code text and map amendments do not affect the adopted transportation planning documents. This proposed set of amendments are consistent with local comprehensive plans and the State Aviation System Plan. By adopting these amendments, the County continues to encourage and support the continued development, operation and vitality of the Redmond Municipal Airport.' Staff concurs with this description and finds the proposed amendment to the DCC will encourage and support the continued operation and vitality of the Airport." OAR 660-013-0050, Implementation of Local Airport Planning A local government with planning responsibility for one or more airports or areas within safety zones or compatibility zones described in this division or subject to requirements identified in ORS 836.608 shall adopt land use regulations to carry out the requirements of this division, or applicable requirements of ORS 836.608, consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted state ASP and applicable statewide planning requirements. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement: 'Revisions to DCC Chapter 18.80, specifically DCC 18.80.030, are proposed as part of this application and the revisions update the text of the uses allowed in the safety zone, consistent with OAR 660-013-0050.' Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 16 of 27 This administrative rule imposes a mandatory requirement on the County to adopt land use regulations consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted state Aviation System Plan ("ASP") and applicable statewide planning requirements. The applicant proposes to amend the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone, which implements this administrative rule. Other applicable statewide planning requirements are addressed below, and staff finds this criterion will be met." OAR 660-013-0070, Local Government Safety Zones for Imaginary Surfaces (1) A local government shall adopt an Airport Safety Overlay Zone to promote aviation safety by prohibiting structures, trees, and other objects of natural growth from penetrating airport imaginary surfaces. (a) The overlay zone for public use airports shall be based on Exhibit 1 incorporated herein by reference. (b) The overlay zone for airports described in ORS 836.608(2) shall be based on Exhibit 2 incorporated herein by reference. (c) The overlay zone for heliports shall be based on Exhibit 3 incorporated herein by reference. (2) For areas in the safety overlay zone, but outside the approach and transition surface, where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surface such that existing structures and planned development exceed the height requirements of this rule, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet in height. A local government may adopt other height exceptions or approve a height variance when supported by the airport sponsor, the Oregon Department of Aviation, and the FAA. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement: 'The acknowledged DCC Chapter 18.80 implements the requirements of this regulation, and this application proposed to amend the existing provisions only to update the location and dimensions of the existing safety zones.' The County has adopted an Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone, and staff therefore finds subsection (1), is met. Subsection (2), above, allows a jurisdiction to adopt height exceptions to the imaginary surfaces of the Airport Safety Overlay Zone when supported by the airport sponsor, the Oregon Department of Aviation, and the FAA. No height exceptions are included in the subject proposal. Notice of Application for the subject proposal was sent to the Oregon Department of Aviation on September 19, 2023 and no comments were received." OAR 660-013-0080, Local Government Land Use Compatibility Requirements for Public Use Airports Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-UO2 - 24/-23-UUU252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 17 of 27 (1) A local government shall adopt airport compatibility requirements for each public use airport identified in ORS 836.610(1). The requirements shall: (a) Prohibit new residential development and public assembly uses within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) identified in Exhibit 4; (b) Limit the establishment of uses identified in Exhibit 5 within a noise impact boundary that has been identified pursuant to OAR 340, division 35 consistent with the levels identified in Exhibit 5; (c) Prohibit the siting of new industrial uses and the expansion of existing industrial uses where either, as a part of regular operations, would cause emissions of smoke, dust, or steam that would obscure visibility within airport approach corridors; (d) Limit outdoor lighting for new industrial, commercial, or recreational uses or the expansion of such uses to prevent light from projecting directly onto an existing runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach corridors except where necessary for safe and convenient air travel; (e) Coordinate the review of all radio, radiotelephone, and television transmission facilities and electrical transmission lines with the Oregon Department of Aviation; (f) Regulate water impoundments consistent with the requirements of ORS 836.623(2) through (6); and (g) Prohibit the establishment of new landfills near airports, consistent with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules. (2) A local government may adopt more stringent regulations than the minimum requirements in section (1)(a) through (e) and (g) based on the requirements of ORS 836.623(1). FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement: 'The acknowledged DCC Chapter 18.80 implements the requirements of this regulation, and this application does not propose to amend the acknowledged regulations, other than to change the dimensions and locations of the protected areas consistent with the currently adopted Airport Layout Plan.' Staff agrees with the applicant's response and finds that no substantive changes to allowable uses, activities, or regulations associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport are included in the subject proposal." OAR 660-013-0160, Applicability This division applies as follows: Exhibit D - Ordlnance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 18 of 27 (1) Local government plans and land use regulations shall be updated to conform to this division at periodic review, except for provisions of chapter 859, OR Laws 1997 that became effective on passage. Prior to the adoption of the list of airports required by ORS 836.610(3), a local government shall be required to include a periodic review work task to comply with this division. However, the periodic review work task shall not begin prior to the Oregon Department of Aviation's adoption of the list of airports required by ORS 836.610(3). For airports affecting more than one local government, applicable requirements of this division shall be included in a coordinated work program developed for all affected local governments concurrent with the timing of periodic review for the jurisdiction with the most land area devoted to airport uses. (2) Amendments to plan and land use regulations may be accomplished through plan amendment requirements of ORS 197.610 to 197.625 in advance of periodic review where such amendments include coordination with and adoption by all local governments with responsibility for areas of the airport subject to the requirements of this division. (3) Compliance with the requirements of this division shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and OAR 660, division 12 related Airport Planning. (4) Uses authorized by this division shall comply with all applicable requirements of other laws. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of OAR 660-013-0140 amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations, including map amendments and zone changes, require full compliance with the provisions of this division, except where the requirements of the new regulation or designation are the same as the requirements they replace. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report statements: "The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement: 'These amendments are being accomplished by code amendments authorized by OAR 660-013- 0160(2). The amendments comply with all of OAR 660-013 and other legal requirements' Staff agrees with the above statement and notes that it appears the proposal complies with the applicable provisions of OAR 660 Division 13 and other relevant legal requirements outlined in this staff report." DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing Exhibit U - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 19 of 27 or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts as findings for this decision the following Staff Report for this section. In addition, the Hearings Officer, at the end of the section, addresses the Tye email transportation (road impacts) comments: The incorporated Staff findings are: "The Applicant does not propose any changes to the uses and activities outlined within the City Zoning Districts associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport. The Airport's underlying zoning districts, as administered by the City of Redmond, dictate the allowable uses and activities associated with the Airport. Because no changes are proposed to the uses and activities at the Airport, staff finds there are no foreseeable traffic impacts from the proposed amendments. The amendments themselves propose changes to the written descriptions, including dimensional aspects, of the Airport's imaginary surfaces and 55 DNL noise contour boundary. Because there are no proposed changes to the base zoning, there are no foreseeable traffic impacts associated with the proposal and, as a result, the Transportation Planning Rule under OAR 660 Division 12 is not triggered." The Hearings Officer finds Tye statement that "there must be adequate consideration" of "road traffic impacts" is a reasonable and fair comment. However, without additional evidence or argument related to how the instant application fails to "adequately consider road traffic" the Hearings Officer is unable to meaningfully respond. The Hearings Officer finds the Tye email Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 24/-23-0002b2- I A 247-23-000252-TA Page 20 of 27 comment related to road traffic is not developed sufficiently to allow the Hearings Officer to make a reasonable analysis and decision. DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES OAR 660-015, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals and the Applicant's responses are quoted below: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. APPLICANT RESPONSE: Over the course of the master plan there were five Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings and two public open house events held in 2016/2017 as part of the prescribed public involvement process. These amendments are being adopted by a process that provides the opportunity for citizen involvement by including public hearings before adoption. The County will hold public hearings before its Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners before any text and map amendments are adopted. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: Tye, in the Tye email, provided the following citizen involvement related comments: "The airport has NOT ADEQUATELY ATTEMPTED TO INCLUDE NON AVIATION BENEFACTOR CITIZENS, nor had citizen feedback or approval TO GET THIS BBUSY OR BIG in light if what that means for our farms, ecosystems, wildlife, outdoor recreation, public dollars and citizen impacts." The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's reference to five planning advisory committee meeting and two public open house events to be credible. The Hearings Officer finds that notice of this land use action has been posted/published. The Hearings Officer finds that a quasi judicial hearing and a legislative hearing before the Board of County Commissioners are required. The Hearings Officer finds the public has had and continues to have rights to participate in this planning process. The Hearings Officer finds Tye's citizen involvement comments are not persuasive. Goal 2: Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. APPLICANT RESPONSE: These amendments are being adopted through the land use planning process as set forth in DCC 22.12. The decision made in this matter is based on the applicable goals, statutes, regulations as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan. The amendments will provide guidelines for future decisions. Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 747-73-000252-TA Page 21 of 27 HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with Applicant's Response comments. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments pertain to aircraft operations within imaginary surfaces and what land uses are allowed outright, conditionally, or not allowed within those surfaces. There are agricultural lands to the east, south, and north of the airport. These lands are zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). However, the combination of the uses permitted in the EFU zone, the size of the affected parcels, the height limit of the zone, the distance from the airport's runways, and the vertical gradient of the AS zones all combine to preclude any adverse effects from the imaginary surfaces onto the EFU lands. Additionally, much of the EFU lands are in federal ownership and thus are exempt from local land use controls. Thus, the proposed changes to the mapped AS features are consistent with Goal 3. STAFF COMMENT: Staff notes that the land uses allowed outright, conditionally, or prohibited in association with the Redmond Municipal Airport are dictated by the Airport's base zones, which are within the jurisdiction of the City of Redmond. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response and Staff Comment. Goal 4: Forest Lands. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments do not affect any designated Forest Lands so Goal 4 does not apply. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with Applicant's Response. Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments do not affect any inventoried Goal 5 natural resources, scenic or historic area or open space. The proposed amendments do not affect any natural, scenic, historic, open space, or surface mining resources adjacent to the Redmond Municipal Airport that may have been protected through the application of a combining zone. STAFF COMMENT: The County's Goal 5 protections are partially implemented through DCC Chapter 18.84, the Landscape Management Combining Zone. This overlay zone protects scenic resources through design limitations and additional protections for designated roadways, rivers, and streams. The subject property is not located within the Landscape Management Combining Zone and is not subject to these provisions. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response and Staff Comment. Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 22 of 27 Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. APPLICANT RESPONSE: Goal 6 is primarily concerned with the preservation of air, land and water resources from pollution. The amendments are consistent with Goal 6 because they do not allow any additional impact on air, water or land quality compared to what is allowed under current zoning. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments do not affect any areas subject to natural hazards, so Goal 7 does not apply. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response. Goal 8: Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. APPLICANT RESPONSE: General Aviation operations (aviation activities conducted by recreational and business aircraft users) makes up a significant portion of the aircraft operations at the Redmond Municipal Airport. Commercial flights into Redmond provide many visitors the first step on their way to enjoy Oregon's recreational activities. The proposed amendments do not negatively affect any areas relative to the recreational needs of the community, thus the proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 8. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response. Goal 9: Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments do not affect any economic activities as they currently exist, so Goal 9 does not apply. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response. Goal 10: Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Exhibit U - Ordinance 2U24-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 23 of 27 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Redmond Municipal Airport is subject to federal grant restrictions which do not permit residential use at the airport. Goal 10 is therefore, not applicable to this application. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The proposed amendments do not include any amendments that would affect the Airport's water and sewer service. The proposed changes are therefore consistent with Goal 11. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response. Goal 12: Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Redmond Municipal Airport is part of the County's multi -modal transportation system. The proposed amendments include minor text modifications and map amendments to airport safety zones to reflect future facility improvements identified in the 2018 Airport Master Plan. The proposed changes are therefore consistent with Goal 12 to provide and encourage a safe transportation system. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response. Further, the Hearings Officer incorporates as additional findings for Goal 12 the Preliminary Findings (related to Tye email transportation [road impacts]) and the findings for OAR 660-012-0060. Goal 13: Energy Conservation. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Redmond Municipal Airport has been established in its location for decades and it would not be feasible to relocate the airport. Given that it cannot be relocated, provisions that allow it to continue to function do not affect the energy needed to go to and from the airport. The proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 13. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response. Goal 14: Urbanization. Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 24 of 27 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Goal 14 is not applicable because proposed changes to the airport safety overlay zones is outside of any urban growth boundary. The proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 14. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response. Goals 15-19. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Redmond Municipal Airport is not in and does not affect any area subject to Goals 15-19. The Airport is not within the Willamette River Greenway, is not adjacent to a river, and is not located no the Oregon Coast. These goals are therefore not applicable to this application. HEARINGS OFFICER COMMENT: The Hearings Officer concurs with the Applicant's Response. PLANNING GOALS SUMMARY: The Hearings Officer notes that Staff generally accepted the Applicant's responses and concluded that the application was in compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals has been effectively demonstrated. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff summary related to the satisfaction of this application of the Statewide Planning Goals. IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant has met/satisfied all relevant criterion and policies to justify the proposed Text Amendment. VI. DECISION Recommended Approval of: Text Amendment as set forth in Attachment 1. Deschutes County Hearings Officer ,44f7-. Gregory J. Frank Date: December 13, 2023 Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 25 of 27 ATTACHMENT 1 - PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS FILE NUMBER: 247-23-000252-TA The proposed text amendments are also detailed in the referenced applicant's burden of proof materials, included as an attachment. Below are the proposed changes with removed text shown in strikethrough and newly -added text identified by underline. Title 18. County Zoning: Chapter 18.80 Airport Safety Combining Zone; A-S Section 18.80.030 Redmond Municipal Airport The Redmond Municipal Airport is a Category 1, Commercial Service Airport. Its function is to accommodate scheduled major/national or regional commuter commercial air carrier service. The two existing approximately 7,040' long by 100' 150' wide, "other than utility" paved runways are located at an airport elevation of 3,080.7' 3,077'. The proposed extension to runway 1-22 the primary runway and the planned new parallel runway are both identified on the FAA -adopted Airport Layout Plan. Therefore, these improvements are used in the layout of the Airport Safety Combining Zone. The same safety zone dimensional standards used for Runway 1 22 the primary runway will also apply to the planned parallel runway. because it has a total of three patential runways with two possible approaches. Runway 4 rand the plane parallel runway will both have precision approaches. Runway 10 28 has a non precision approach on ech end. The precision RPZ forms a 1,000' wide by 2,500' long by 1,750' wide trapezoid while the non-p-r-ecisi n R-PZ fo ns-a 500' wide by 1,700' long by 1,010' wide trapezoid. C. Approach Surface - The current ILS precision approach surface to the primary runway runway 22 and the planned precision approaches to the Runway 1 and future parallel runway 4-22, are 1,000' wide by 50,000' long by 16,000' wide, with an upward approach slope ratio of 50:1 (one foot vertical for each 50 feet horizontal) for the first 10,000', then a slope ratio of 40:1 for the remaining 40,000'. The non -precision approach surface is 500' wide by 10,000' long by 3,500' wide, with an upward approach slope ratio of 34:1. D. Horizontal Surface - The surface boundary is comprised of connected arcs drawn 10,000 feet outward and centered on the ends of the primary surface. The elevation of the horizontal surface for the Redmond Airport is 3,227 230 feet (150' above airport elevation). Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-UU2 - 24/-23-000252-TA 247-23-000252-TA Page 26 of 27 E. Conical Surface - The surface extends outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000' up to an elevation of 3,430.7'. F. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Two different RPZs apply to the Redmond Airport because it has a total of three potential runways with two possible approaches. The primary runway and the planned parallel runway will both have precision approaches. The crosswind runway has a non -precision approach on each end. The precision RPZ forms a 1,000' wide by 2,500' long by 1,750' wide trapezoid while the non -precision RPZ forms a 1,000' wide by 1,700' long by 1,510' wide trapezoid. The RPZ begins 200' from the surveyed runway end point. Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-IA 247-23-000252-TA Page 27 of 27 L!1 N cc 0 Q c O N E >- -0 Y � U CC N 0 w 0 (13 U 411 SW 9th St 2522 Jesse Butler Cir HO Recommendation Century West Engineering Y L O O- •L Q Q • U C C O � � Eg a� v • -0 CC C 0 = N E 3 • ' • ▪ Q) O O U CC 1— Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 24/-23-0002b2- I A TES Mailing Date: Friday, December 15, 2023 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has recommended approval of the land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBERS: 247-23-000252-TA SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Airport Safety Combining Zone and 55 DNL noise contour boundaries are associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport ("Airport"), which includes the following addresses and tax lots: • Tax Lot 1513220000100 O 1050 SE Sisters Ave O 1050 SE Sisters Ave (A-B) O 1120 SE Sisters Ave O 1120 SE Sisters Ave (A-E) O 1300 SE USFS Dr O 1320 SE USFS Dr O 1350 SE USFS Dr O 1410 SE USFS Dr (A-B) O 1552 SE USFS Dr O 1605 SE Ochoco Way O 1694 SE USFS Dr O 1900 SE Airport Way (A-1 to A-3; B; C-1 to C-2; D; E; F-1 toF-14;G1 to G14; HtoV) O 2215 SE USFS Dr O 2234 SE 6th St O 2234 SE Salmon Ave O 2700 SE Airport Way O 625 SE Salmon Ave O 644 SE Salmon Ave O 645 SE Salmon Ave O 665 SE Salmon Ave • Tax Lot 1513000001500 O 1730 SE Ochoco Way O 1740 SE Ochoco Way O 1764 SE Ochoco Way O 2000 SE USFS DR (A to D) O 675 SE Salmon Ave O 679 SE Salmon Ave O 681 SE Salmon Ave O 683 SE Salmon Ave O 685 SE Salmon Ave O 687 SE Salmon Ave O 689 SE Salmon Ave O 691 SE Salmon Ave O 693 SE Salmon Ave O 701 SE Salmon Ave O 705 SE Salmon Ave O 743 SE Salmon Ave O 765 SE Salmon Ave O 875 SE Veteran's Way O 880 SE Veteran's Way O 888 SE Veteran's Way (A to G; H-1 to H-2; I- 1 to I-7; J-1 to J-2; K-1 to K-7) O 905 SE Salmon Ave O 907 SE Salmon Ave O 911 SE Salmon Ave • Tax Lot 1513000001503 O 3840 SW Airport Way • Tax Lot 1513280000101 O 3000 SW Airport Way 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Exhibit D - Ordinance L k156.112 31ift--0252@Add@deschutes.org www.deschutes.orgicd APPLICANT: REQUEST: STAFF CONTACT: RECORD: City of Redmond 411 SW 9th St Redmond, OR 97756 Redmond Municipal Airport 2522 Jesse Butler Cir Redmond, OR 97756 The City of Redmond ("Applicant") applied for a Text Amendment to the Airport Safety ("AS") Combining Zone (DCC 18.80.030) to update the Runway and Approach information and a corresponding update amending the AS map to reflect the new zoning boundaries for imaginary surfaces and the new 55 DNL ("Average Day -Night Sound Level") noise contour boundaries. Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner Phone: 541-317-3148 Email: tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/247-23-000252-ta- redmond-airport-master-plan-ramp-text-amendment I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Deschutes County Code Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS) Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, (Rural Growth Management), Section 3.4, Rural Economy Oregon Revised Statutes ORS 836.610 ORS 836.616 Oregon Administrative Rules OAR Chapter 660, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals 1-14 OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, Transportation OAR Chapter 660, Division 13, Airport Planning 247-23-000252-TA Page 2 of 3 Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the application meets applicable criteria and recommends approval of the application. As a procedural note, the hearing on November 7, 2023, was the first of two required public hearings per DCC 22.28.030(c). The second public hearing will be held before the Board of County Commissioners at a future date to be determined. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the base appeal deposit plus 20% of the original application fee(s), and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the decision, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. 247-23-000252-TA Page 3 of 3 Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 vzz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOMP000 022222222220222000222220022220002222222222 g,2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 3 0 00 E E r : o _ o > ✓3i 0 0 G O z N 3 z 2 N a 0 L °'Qo u 3 u u u u u u u u o u s u o m w�� a F� L Z = Z Z °� �' Z p " Z Z m w Z 'n N z 6 a 6 a a ¢ a v¢ O m 3 ry m m Q p m 2 w GGGGG G GGoNi2.2 , Gp 000 EEE Rochette (sean.rochette@ LARRY BROWN (Larry.BROWN@deq.oregon BOB HOUSTON 0 0 F' 0 z 2 o 2 8 orth DC) ADAM MILLER (amille Tom Mooney (Tom.Moone ON, PROJ. & PLANNING DIV. Exhibit D - Ordinance 2024-002 - 247-23-000252-TA 0 0.25 0.5 Nautical Miles 2019 AMP U • date Pro • osed Roberts Field, Redmond Municipal Airport Runways and Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) Roberts Field, Redmond Municipal Airport Part 77 Surfaces L)LU 16. $ 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1114141 Ill! II Nautical Miles 2019 AMP U • date Roberts Field, Redmond Municipal Airport Direct and Secondary Impact Areas CENTTURY WES ENGINEERING Figure 4 Nautical Miles Roberts Field, Redmond Municipal Airport Noise Contour Proposed ENGINEERING e No. 247-23-000252-TA► U Min � ^ i w in-0 1'" < O-0 (50 >%0 0 +' 0 0 .—.CI 4. i.+ ni to I. in 0 4.+ O i ▪ 4.1 O4. O 0.0 0 I. .— u Q O O i u VI 0 CD gz •— .0� L 0 0< c6 'to — go 0 O cb 0 O w!O2 Q CU4a 0 bA IT H bOZ73 .. O > pe r•+ •- c 0O0O O.0 �_ ._ O 0 Z 0 U. LeVO4— I1 1- w c 0 0 0 1 E 0 V Board of County a) c c ru 0 c 0 4-• 0 R3 4-0 1- 0 0 V) c a) 1- 0 1- C • o a,N tea) bO u C N • c m (13 co v- 7-- c •- d- c " Ln a) —- c a3Ec U w a_ L. u Hearing Procedure Applicant: 30 minutes Public agencies: 10 minutes C. General public: 3 minutes D. Applicant rebuttal: 10 minutes CU 4-1 co 0) •- .O O. aU co tn co ca (11) OO •- c O 4- w b.O s 4.,bo. or.' .z...10) 4atua) 4a R a) IA 4) E a) H 3: a V�.— Q l 0 MN t.) t 1113 T.; >I% o_ V L • 47J O lCI. al imil Q) 4.1 O L. wia E o Irti a) > IND - c w3 a az; C(...... a L .. 4a pa >' 0 Inc o® 1. ns I" ..170 a E ,42 2 N O m4) _ 4. O I A A First and Last Name ➢ Mailing Address 64:11 • a 0 a� a 1111111111111 c • A 0 4-+ ns 11111 RS 2 72 7:5 c co •— A .L.,73 .t., : 80. ..,..:7°) i 13 C U 0 TA Q a) 4a w w •L 4 a ca i .J e i V co F 0- A A A A O O r.+ O O O rio tri O O rZS •- O .v O i-+ >+ L. o O +El N co •- — O Om 4-1 E ns V Iu ..r..,,,,v) 4,0 L �° CtS ° L. OM - irla o — ° CP L. ito O IZ a MC L. a 4- ° •- — •- in CI)F° ui°.�' et A A Raise Hand (Dial -in) Computer / Smart Device Enter *9 on your keypad Press the Raise Hand button 00. (13 4-1 in in 0 a) 4.di 4.a lim •... E 'V = -0 CD (1.) V ra O >I a 0 E b.O.- 4" C 44 � . cl : c c a) I A In -person - Hand to staff 0 EMI MEM Remote - Email to staff: t •®• •• • 0 Orderly & respectful hearing Objections to hearing format A A Location - Airport Redmond Municipal Airport .12 "0 13 c to 4a 4-1 _ •u •� O O inN 13 ;;Ila C •- _ O •- O E u E 13 RI 13 fC co C 4. OO � y o u 'i 1. +_Q tn ,•— V O MVCI a • ()d 11!O fa •_ (13 414EJ L 0 Location - Imaginary Surfaces (Existing) v w CU " 1% s iv O (u(5 ca.= 0_ c6 =9. co .- ° u ca :9. ,,,� O , 1.>,O. 01.. .►0 I :13 L.O L m0 .670 'w ( O OO O •; bA.0 �.� O i u VI _ ._ ._ p cars o = L. u c 00 O �^�>+=a+-+OOca=v •momim o-0'� �-0 co W (5 co + tua Q C��awoa)iOtt-o C _ VI_ 3 lam M i O== O ca (I)4a L. ca to O. of Vf ra ... 1Y in a) u 4... co VI 1 co a •._ -a cu in E ct. 1_ N CO>1 W 1 u ea L. in 4... L co •... eV E a) On ci. aO L. mpact Areas L. 0 C 0 0 4) 0 z 1 in w u ca 4- L N ?I.: to i o® JO b tQ E 73 4) N 0 0 0 i a. • Amendments to: DCC 18.80.030, Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone • Effect of Amendments: Redmond Airport runway/primary 00 r 0 0 0 CU •- O uvn VI O 1513 • 0,)Vi . _ f5 To ▪ V E O •— O 0 GOJ -0V a bA = VI 2 gO +-+ .o (5 47, (5 Q u O O � u � c In O u 7:1 RI O . 0L L. u uA 0 N A GJ c a) iv u0 ,EO cats 0 i °s- 0 O 0•DXI fl I N O i >% . a- (6 O c5 u� ®4J ▪ i O •:+ O 41 = N u w ._ c O .vi VI 5 .— VI 0 O la • co u 43.•••... (a L. G) RI O _ 46 _ -a j D< a. MJ DNL (Day -Night • • • • w " H O O i N Ct. u bA °L 0. .o 0. _ .� u Q O rts �EON O •—E 0A . O to it;obA O • O ca. 0. 4-0 iftitZ E -a-a 11- OnX `^ 4 ukJ o E O O o ii Q °°� a® CO 'CS® O +7J X O Liu co • Associated Comments and Process 0 u Deschutes E 0 c 0 bO 0) 0 E 0 1- comment ®® elc.® 7) cutm.r5 E > o 3 w.4 u � '� O >% ? i 'la i Cl. � � b = E tip O 0 c0 0m 0® v O 0 V i4-1 O ItA Cni C C 0 • 0.two L .� c 4. 3 0 E EO E O u .�.+ V ._ 72. V (1) co 0c 0 0 E.) 0 O 0 0. 0 c CU E E 0 u . a) 0 Comments and Hearings Officer Public Hearing - November 7, 2023 1 0 0 a. O c ._ c5 au E E O u ce N .V N OI"- O bO. .0 E u CU CU d M December C O • u a) E °CIO E mie Qco �O Xm co -C2 1 ®® V • t5 o- i u, to a) • i -o 'tip O tin) E E 0 0 iu a) s 44 vs .D a) ...c VI XI M 0 a) fa' 0 .ra i 7. : a) a' +.• . co 47 aj, 73 Lbo we) •— O L O Q 42 • NAY Ci � cu u O O c IA d O b.O O • (Ni t6 % 0.13 u N •0 •: ®"0 4- .� a) O a O S iN '�'� J ra•— 4.J H O R3 bO ® 0 L.O i a) c c a) u®o o ,o •— ,u 17) 8 47+ 13o a, M. o .— ._ o aU (5 a) o-® 0 uo ��O ,o ia , .— E 'al �� ini a) �� i o�� 5� Cif o >,o §® 134- -o O VI7 i L. L. 4- CO co coO.0 caW OCx OO OCLw 4 U CUuu CO 0 CO fa N 4a 0 >fte s Deadlines "Ci 'i N a us iv u ce a) d Ong 0 E 0 c6 4.N c6 N LL ro CU c 0 E v) F- 06 LJ cu .> W aJ A - Wednesday, February 14th at 4 pm CO ID aJ 4 ) co N r N q. ca - I- CU ICU CV 1/1 L N 4a c6 c tPI V CU a) c t -0 c eu > 4- .- O >1 V N a-+ C y CO ® .w in c Li E f) To 4J E 0 E 0 4J 0 0 Q C CU D Q To E W "C3 �L -13 Ct. 0 u c a� O 0 0 i 0 c Hi Sent to Tarik rawlin2s -81 0 0 tn 0 0 u a) 4.1 CU CU u L � VI N E scu a) _0 (1) v J O O w � . . . x\vES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 31, 2024 SUBJECT: Miller Pit Plan Amendment and Zone Change RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of Hearings Officer decision for files 247-23-000547-PA and 247-23-000548- ZC, approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Staff will provide background to the Board for consideration of a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for a 65-acre parcel located east of Bend. The applicant requests to change the zoning of the property from Surface Mining (SM) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10); the applicant also requests a concurrent change in the Comprehensive Plan designation from Surface Mine (SM) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The subject property, which does not have an assigned address, is located across Knott Road from the Bend Urban Growth Boundary. A public hearing was held before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer on November 13, 2023, and a Hearings Officer decision approving the applications was mailed on January 10, 2024. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner 1 ES CO MUNITY DEVELO MENT MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner DATE: January 16, 2024 RE: Consideration of whether to initiate review of a Plan Amendment/Zone Change request; Land use file nos. 247-23-000547-PA, 247-23-000548-ZC. On January 31, 2024, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") will consider whether to initiate review of a Hearings Officer's approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change, for a 65-acre parcel located south of Bend. I. SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property does not have an assigned address and is located across Knott Road from the Bend Urban Growth Boundary. Neighboring properties to the east, south, and west are zoned Multiple Use Agricultural, and neighboring properties to the north include Caldera High School and urban development within the Bend city limits. The property is zoned Surface Mining (SM) and is undeveloped. The property previously contained a cinder cone, and two pits on the property were mined beginning in the late 1940's. Mining on the property has since ceased and the state permit for this mine site was closed out in 1998. No other uses have been established on the subject property. I1. PROPOSAL The Applicant requests a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation, from Surface Mine to Rural Residential Exception Area. The Applicant also requests a concurrent change in the zoning designation, from SM to MUA10. No development or new uses are being reviewed as part of this application. The applicant argues the mineral resources on the subject property have been mined to the extent they are no longer a significant Goal 5 resource. In support of this, the applicant provided a Geotechnical Reconnaissance report prepared by a professional engineer, which details the remaining mineral resources on the property. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 t ' (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@d esch u tes . o rg P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 www.U6Lliute.org/cd A staff report was mailed on November 7, 2023, and staff found the proposal complied with all applicable provisions of Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policies, and Statewide Planning Goals. A public hearing was held before a Hearings Officer on November 13, 2023, and a Hearing's Officer decision approving the application was mailed on January 10, 2024. As described below, the Board may decide to either adopt the Hearing's Officer decision or initiate review of the decision. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Five members of the public submitted written comments on this application, including Central Oregon LandWatch. Four members of the public submitted comments in opposition and one member of the public submitted neutral comments. These comments generally included questions about the future use of the property, environmental concerns, concerns about increased density, and questions about whether the property qualifies as agricultural land. Two members of the public attended the Hearings Officer hearing on November 13, 2023. Comments from the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) indicate they do not have any concerns with the proposal. Comments received from other public agencies also did not express any concerns. IV. BOARD OPTIONS Pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(B), the Board shall adopt the Hearing's Officer decision unless an appeal is filed or the Board initiates review of the application. Under DCC Title 22, the Board is only required to hold their own hearing when a Plan Amendment and Zone Change application involves an exception to a Statewide Planning Goal or involves land that is designated for forest or agricultural use. In this instance, neither of those conditions apply and the Board is therefore not required hear this application. Reasons not to hear Members of the public received a mailed Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing and were provided an opportunity to submit testimony. There was a 21-day open record period following the November 13, 2023, hearing, and the Hearings Officer decision responded to all comments received. Many of the comments received were not directed at applicable approval criteria and raised concerns about potential future uses of the property, which are not being reviewed through this application. The Applicant provided property -specific technical reports, the findings of which were not contested. Staff and the Applicant generally concur with the Hearings Officer decision and there do not appear to be any interpretive issues that would benefit from further review. The Hearings Officer decision provided a thorough analysis and could be supported, as the record exists today, on appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. 247 23 000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 2 of 3 Reasons to hear The Board may want to take testimony and make interpretations relating to the Hearings Officer's decision. The Board may also want to reinforce or refute some or all of the decision findings/interpretations prior to Land Use Board of Appeals review. Several members of the public provided testimony in opposition, and the Hearings Officer found that many issues raised in objection were not directed at approval criteria. The Board may choose to modify those findings and provide additional analysis in response to concerns raised by members of the public. Finally, the Board may want to offer additional opportunities for public testimony by holding a new public hearing. If the Board decides the Hearings Officer's Decision shall be the final decision of the county, then the Board shall not initiate review. Staff will then return to the Board for a first and second reading of a draft Ordinance approving the subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Hearing's Officer decision was well -reasoned and aligned with staff's analysis of the application materials. Staff does not have any concerns with the Hearing's Officer decision and therefore recommends the Board decline to initiate review. VI. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK Pursuant to DCC 22.20.040(D)(1), the subject application is exempt from the 150-day land use clock. VII. RECORD The record for File Nos. 247-23-000547-PA, 247-23-000548-ZC are as presented at the following Deschutes County Community Development Department website: https://www.desch utes.org/cd/page/247-23-000547-pa-247-23-000548-zc-m i Iler-pit-Ilc- comprehensive-plan-amendment-and-zone Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Hearing's Officer Decision for file nos. 247-23-00547-PA, 247-23-000548-ZC 3. Staff Report for file nos. 247-23-000547-PA, 247-23-000548-ZC 247-23-000547 PA, 548-ZC Page 3 of 3 Land Use File #247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Miller Pit LLC AMt3RosiA Ltd CAMB DICIRCHESTER E ODS'IDE NcRT Mailing Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: HEARING DATE: HEARING LOCATION: APPLICANT: OWNER/ SUBJECT PROPERTY: REQUEST: 247-23-000547-PA, 247-23-000548-ZC November 13, 2023, 6:00 p.m. Videoconference and Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 Caldera Land, LLC Miller Pit LLC Map and Taxlot: 1812210000200 Account: 110218 Situs Address: N/A Applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of the Subject Property from Surface Mine (SM) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). Applicant also requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the Subject Property from Surface Mining to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA- 10). HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant has met its burden of proof with respect to the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change and, therefore, recommends APPROVAL of the Application based on the Findings set forth in this Recommendation. I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) Chapter 18.52, Surface Mining (SM) Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Page 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Appendix C, Transportation System Plan Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 Division 12, Transportation Planning Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 23, Procedures and Requirements for Complying with Goal 5 II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS A. Nature of Proceeding This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as a request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ("Plan Amendment") to change the designation of the Subject Property from Surface Mining (SM) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The Applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment ("Zone Change") to change the zoning of the Subject Property from Surface Mining (SM) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10). If approved, the Plan Amendment would also remove the Subject Property, designated as "Site No. 391", from the County's Goal 5 inventory of significant mining resources. The primary bases of the request in the Application are the Applicants' assertions that: (1) the Subject Property has been mined to the extent that it no longer qualifies as a significant Goal 5 resource; and (2) the Subject Property does not qualify as "agricultural land" under the applicable provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes or Oregon Administrative Rules governing agricultural land. Based on those assertions, the Applicant is not seeking an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 for the Plan Amendment or Zone Change. B. Notices and Hearing The Application is dated June 23, 2023. On July 7, 2023, the County issued a Notice of Application to several public agencies and to property owners in the vicinity of the Subject Property (together, "Application Notice"). The Application Notice invited comments on the Application. The County also provided notice of the Plan Amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on October 9, 2023. The County mailed a Notice of Public Hearing on October 10, 2023 ("Hearing Notice") announcing an evidentiary hearing ("Hearing") for the requests in the Application. Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on November 13, 2023, opening the Hearing at 6:00 p.m. The Hearing was held via videoconference, with Staff and representatives of the Applicant in the hearing room. The Hearings Officer appeared remotely. The Hearing concluded at 6:51 p.m. Page ( 2 Prior to the Hearing, on November 7, 2023, the Deschutes County Planning Division ("Staff') issued a report setting forth the applicable criteria and presenting the evidence in the record at that time ("Staff Report"). At the beginning of the Hearing, I provided an overview of the quasi-judicial process and instructed participants to direct comments to the approval criteria and standards, and to raise any issues a participant wanted to preserve for appeal if necessary. I stated I had no ex parte contacts to disclose or bias to declare. I asked for but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction over the matter or to my participation as the Hearings Officer. Prior to the conclusion of the Hearing, Staff recommended, and the Applicant agreed to, leaving the written record open to take additional evidence. At the conclusion of the Hearing, I announced that the written record would remain open: (1) until November 20, 2023, for any participant to provide additional evidence ("Open Record Period"); (2) until November 27, 2023, for any participant to provide rebuttal evidence to evidence submitted during the Open Record Period; and (3) until December 4, 2023, for the Applicant only to provide a final legal argument, without additional evidence. C. 150-day Clock Because the Application includes the request for the Plan Amendment, the 150-day review period set forth in ORS 215.427(1) is not applicable.' The Staff Report also notes that the 150-day review period is not applicable by virtue of Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") 22.20.040(D). No participant in the proceeding disputed that conclusion. III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Staff Report On November 7, 2023, Staff issued the Staff Report, setting forth the applicable criteria and presenting evidence in the record at that time. The Staff Report does not make a final recommendation. However, the Staff Report does make several findings with respect to the approval standards. Because much of the information, analysis, and findings provided in the Staff Report are not refuted, portions of the findings below refer to the Staff Report and, in some cases, adopt sections of the Staff Report as my findings. In the event of a conflict between the findings in this Decision and the Staff Report, the findings in this Decision control. B. Code, Plan, and Statewide Planning Goal Findings The legal criteria applicable to the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change were set forth in the Application Notice and appear in the Staff Report. No participant in this proceeding asserted that those criteria do not apply, or that other criteria are applicable. This Recommendation therefore addresses each of those criteria, as set forth below. 'ORS 215.427(7). Page 13 1. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner, for a quasi- judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. The Applicant submitted the Application with the consent of the owner of the Subject Property, as evidenced by the owner's signature on the Application form. The Applicant has requested a quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and filed the Application for that purpose, together with the request for a Zone Change. It is therefore appropriate to review the Application using the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. According to the Applicant, with which the Staff Report agrees, the County's application of this Code provision does not involve the direct application of the Plan's introductory statements and goals as approval criteria. Rather, consistency with the Plan can be determined by assessing whether the proposal is consistent with specific Plan goals and policies that may be applicable to the proposal. The Applicant identified multiple Plan goals and policies it believes are relevant to the Application.' Among those goals and policies are those set forth in: (1) Section 2.4 of Chapter 2, relating to Goal 5 resources; (2) Section 2.10 of Chapter 2, relating to surface mining; (3) Section 3.3 of Chapter 3, relating to rural housing; and (4) Section 3.4 of Chapter 3, relating to the rural economy. The Application explains how the Plan Amendment and Zone Change is consistent with these goals and policies. No participant disputes the Applicant's characterization of the goals and policies, asserts the Application is inconsistent with those goal and policies, or identifies other goals and policies requiring consideration. Separate findings appear below relating to the identified Comprehensive Plan policies. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. / / / 2 See page 15-17 of the Application narrative prepared by AKS Engineering and Forestry ("Application Narrative"). Page 4 B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. The Applicant and Staff each offer evidence and argument with respect to the purpose of the MUA-10 zone. The purpose of the MUA-10 zoning district is stated in DCC 18.32.010 as follows: The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full- time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. According to the Applicant, the Subject Property is not suited to commercial farming. The MUA-10 zone will instead allow the owners to engage in low -density development allowed by the MUA-10 zone, which will conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources. As a result, the Applicant asserts that the MUA-10 zoning provides a proper transition zone from urban to EFU zoning. The Staff Report agrees that the change in classification is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MUA10 Zone. The record contains several comments expressing potential concerns arising from residential development on the Subject Property. Those comments, however, are based on the fact that no specific development is yet proposed, and those comments do not assert that the change to MUA-10 is inconsistent with the purpose of that zone. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. As noted in the Staff Report, this criterion specifically asks if the Zone Change will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The Applicant provided the following as support for why this criterion is met: • Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the Subject Property • Transportation access to the Subject Property is available, and the impact of increased traffic on the transportation system is non-existent and, to the contrary, the planned rezone results in a reduction in the trip generation potential • The Subject Property receives police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff and fire service Page 15 from Rural Fire Protection District # 2, which has a fire station 1.4 miles from the Subject Property • The close proximity of the Subject Property to urban development will allow for efficient service provision of water, electric, and telephone, which already exist on surrounding properties The Staff Report acknowledges that no service issues have been identified for the Subject Property. The Staff Report also confirms that, prior to development of the Subject Property, the Applicant would be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Code, at which time assurances of adequate public services and facilities will be verified. Comments in the record express concerns about the adequacy of water supplies for agriculture or irrigation purposes. Those comments do not expressly state that this Code provision is not satisfied, but they do provide testimony that the Arnold Irrigation District has not supplied adequate water in recent years and that inadequate water poses increased fire risks if the Subject Property is developed with residential uses. The Applicant relies on a service provider letter from Avion Water Company, Inc. That letter confirms that Avion is able to serve the Subject Property and can provide water both for domestic purposes and for fire flow. No participant challenges Avion's ability to serve the Subject Property. Based on the foregoing, I find that services are currently available and sufficient for the Subject Property, and that they can remain available and sufficient if the Subject Property is developed under the MUA-10 zone. I therefore find this Code provision is satisfied. 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant asserts the following: Any potential impacts on surrounding land would be minimal due to the consistent zoning and the fact that most of the surrounding MUA-10 properties are less than five acres in size, have been subdivided, and contain residential uses. Regardless, the development and uses permitted under the MUA-10 Zone are far less impactful to surrounding land than uses permitted under the SM Zone. Applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and polices are addressed in the responses above. The standards are met. The Staff Report agrees that the Applicant has demonstrated the impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Plan. Some testimony in the record expresses concerns about the impact of future development on the Subject Property, but that testimony does not assert that any potential impacts are inconsistent with Plan goals and policies. Nor does that testimony dispute the Applicant's characterization of the applicable goals and policies. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. / / / Page 6 D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. According to the Applicant, a change in circumstances exists because the Subject Property has been mined and reclaimed, meaning there are no longer any viable uses for the Subject Property under the SM zone. The Staff Report agrees that the termination of mining and the reclamation of the Subject Property constitute a change in circumstances. No other participant appears to dispute those arguments or otherwise assert that there has been no change in circumstances. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. Section 18.52, Surface Mining Zone Section 18.52.200, Termination of the Surface Mining Zoning and Surrounding Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone A. When a surface mining site has been fully or partially mined, and the operator demonstrates that a significant resource no longer exists on the site, and that the site has been reclaimed in accordance with the reclamation plan approved by DOGAMI or the reclamation provisions of DCC 18, the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone identified in the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant provided information documenting that the Subject Property no longer has a significant resource. The Subject Property has been mined since the late 1940's. No participant in opposition to the Application asserts that any mineable resource remains, much less a significant resource. The Applicant has also documented that DOGAMI has acknowledged the reclamation of the site. Based on the foregoing, the Code contemplates that a reclaimed site will be rezoned. The Code specifically provides that a reclaimed site will be rezoned to the "subsequent use zone identified in the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan." For the Subject Property, the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan does not identify a subsequent use zone. A comment submitted by Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLW") asserts that the subsequent use zone for the Subject Property is "agriculture". The sole basis of COLW's comment is that "[t]he only subsequent use zone identified anywhere, in both the property's reclamation plan on file with DOGAMI and in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, is Agriculture." COLW points to the County's original Comprehensive Plan Map, on which the Subject Property appears to be depicted as "agriculture". COLW also points to the 1974 Reclamation Plan Guideline submitted to DOGAMI in which the property owner indicated that the "planned subsequent `beneficial use' of the permit area" would be "Immediate — Agriculture (pasture)". The Applicant responds, and I agree, that COLW's assertion is misplaced for several reasons. First, this Code provision refers not just to any identified subsequent use, but rather to the "subsequent use zone identified in the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan." That is a very specific reference, and the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan contains a specific table that identifies a Page ( 7 subsequent use zone for various properties in the Surface Mining Zone. Second, even if the 1979 Comprehensive Plan Map were relevant, the County has since made a determination that the Map was in error for the Subject Property, and the Subject Property was not "agriculture" as COLW suggests. Finally, the 1974 Reclamation Plan Guideline COLW relies on is also irrelevant. That document asked the property owner to identify a subsequent "beneficial use" and does not itself refer to what zone was contemplated. Even so, the portion of that document COLW relies on is not a complete characterization of the subsequent beneficial use the property owner anticipated. That document also states that, beyond the immediate pasture use, the long-term use was unknown but could be a race track or stadium. Based on the foregoing, I find that a Plan Amendment and Zone Change is available to the Applicant as long as all other criteria are satisfied, and the Code does not require the Applicant to change the zoning of the Subject Property to an agriculture use. B. Concurrent with such rezoning, any surface mining impact area combining zone which surrounds the rezoned surface mining site shall be removed. Rezoning shall be subject to DCC 18.136 and all other applicable sections of DCC 18, the Comprehensive Plan and DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. As described in the Staff Report, this criterion is contingent upon approval of the Application and, if approved, the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone would also be removed from affected surrounding properties. No participant objects to that description. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision will be implemented if the Application is approved as part of the final action by the County's Board of Commissioners ("Board"). 2. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies The Applicant and Staff Report both identify several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies potentially relevant to this Application. Staffs discussion of those goals and policies appears on pages 12 through 19 of the Staff Report. No participant in this proceeding identified other applicable goals and policies or otherwise asserted that the proposal is inconsistent with the plans and policies the Applicant and Staff identified. I therefore adopt the findings in the Staff Report as my findings relating to the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. 3. Oregon Administrative Rules The Applicant and Staff agree that the Transportation Planning Rule — OAR 660-012-00060 — is relevant to the Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Only the Applicant and Staff address that rule. OAR 660-012-0060 (1) Page 8 If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in. section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. I find that this administrative rule is applicable to the Plan Amendment and the Zone Change because they involve an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan. The Applicant asserts that its proposal will not result in a significant effect to the transportation system. In support of that assertion, the Applicant submitted a transportation impact analysis memorandum dated March 22, 2023, prepared by traffic engineer, Joe Bessman, PE. No participant to this proceeding disputed the information in the impact analysis or otherwise objected to the use of that information. The County's Transportation Planner agreed with the report's conclusions. As a result, the Staff Report finds that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change will comply with the Transportation Planning Rule. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the Application satisfies this administrative rule. / / / Page 9 4. Statewide Planning Goals Division 15 of OAR chapter 660 sets forth the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, with which all comprehensive plan amendments must demonstrate compliance. The Applicant asserts the Application is consistent with all applicable Goals and Guidelines. No participant in this proceeding identified a Statewide Planning Goal with which the proposal does not comply, except that COLW asserts that the Subject Property is agricultural land protected by Statewide Planning Goal 3. The Staff Report generally agrees with the Applicant and asks the Hearings Officer to address Statewide Planning Goal 3. Having reviewed the evidence and arguments presented, I adopt the Applicants' position and find that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with the applicable Goals and Guidelines as follows: Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Deschutes County has an established citizen involvement program. The application will be processed as a quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change, which is a land use action involving public notification and public hearings as established in DCC Title 22. Therefore, Goal 1 is satisfied. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. The County reviewed and processed this quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change consistent with the procedures detailed in DCC Title 22, including consideration of any public comments received regarding the Application. Therefore, consistency with this Statewide Planning Goal is established. Further, the Application provides an adequate factual basis for the County to approve the Application because it describes the site and its physical characteristics and applies those facts to the relevant approval criteria. Goal 2 also requires coordination of the Application by the County with affected governmental entities. Coordination requires notice of an application, an opportunity for the affected governmental entity to comment on the application, and the County's incorporation of the comments to a reasonable extent. Coordination of this Application has been accomplished in two ways: by the Applicant prior to submittal of the Application and by the County in the review process for the Application. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. The Subject Property is designated as Surface Mining and had been mined since the late 1940s. There is no evidence of prior agricultural use, the property predominantly consists of Class VII and VIII soils, and the property does not have water rights. The Subject Property is not identified as agricultural land on the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map. The 1980 zone change (Z-80-13) to SM included findings acknowledging that active surface mining sites at the time of plan adoption should have been zoned SM, the Subject Property was active and designated as site #58 on a preliminary map, and a "simple error" resulted in site #58 not being transposed to the final zoning map with adoption of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. The Subject Property was again identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the County's Board on December 6, 1988. In 1990, the County listed the property as Site No. 391 on the Goal 5 Inventory, adopted a site -specific economic, social, environmental and energy ("ESEE") analysis, and imposed the SM and SMIA zoning (Ord No. 90-014, 90-025, 90-028, and 90-029). Page I10 The Subject Property's status as something other than agricultural land was confirmed in the 1990 ESEE. Ordinarily, the ESEE identifies the post -mining uses and zoning for properties deemed Goal 5 significant mineral resources. The ESEE for the Subject Property does not include any such discussion. In Tumalo Irrigation District (247-17-000775-ZC/247-17-000776-PA), the County's Board interpreted that a similar ESEE omission on a Goal 5 site would have specified EFU zoning if the property had been classified as agricultural land, and concluded that the SM Zone was "intended to be a distinct zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation and the properties designated as other than `resource uses' (lands subject to Goals 3 and 4)." In 1992, as part of periodic review and a revamping of the County's agricultural lands program, the County again inventoried its agricultural lands. Once again, the County did not classify the Subject Property as agricultural land. The agricultural land analysis was incorporated into the County's Comprehensive Plan, which was again acknowledged. Based on the foregoing, the Subject Property is not agricultural land subject to the protections of Statewide Planning Goal 3 and, as such, the Plan Amendment and Zone Change is consistent with that Goal. Goal 4, Forest Lands. Goal 4 is not applicable because the Subject Property does not include any lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses. Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. The Subject Property does not contain any inventoried significant resources related to energy sources, habitat, natural areas, scenic views, water areas or watersheds, wilderness areas, historic areas, or cultural areas. The Subject Property no longer contains any significant aggregate resources. The Subject Property contains a small strip of "wetland" within the southern pit. The Comprehensive Plan has no specific protections for wetlands; protections are provided by ordinances that implement Goal 5 protections (for example, fill and removal zoning code regulations). Because the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are not development, there is no impact to any Goal 5 resource. Any potential future development of a wetland — no matter what zone the wetland is in — will be subject to review by the County's fill and removal regulations. Therefore, Goal 5 is satisfied. Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality. The surface mine has been reclaimed and mining activities have ceased. Rezoning the Subject Property will not impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the County because no specific development is proposed at this time. However, any future uses permitted in the MUA-10 zone are likely to have less adverse impacts to air, water, and land resources than the historical mining use or uses permitted in the SM Zone. Future development of the property will be subject to local, state, and federal regulations that protect these resources. Therefore, Goal 6 is satisfied. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. The Subject Property does not include areas subject to flooding or landslide activity. The Subject Property is located in a Wildfire Hazard Area. The Subject Property is also located in Rural Fire Protection District #2. Rezoning the Page 111 property to MUA-10 does not change the Wildfire Hazard Area designation. Any future development of the Subject Property will have to demonstrate compliance with applicable local and state health, environmental quality, and wildfire regulations. Therefore, Goal 7 is satisfied. Goal 8, Recreational Needs. Goal 8 is not applicable because the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change do not reduce or eliminate any opportunities for recreational facilities on the Subject Property or in the general vicinity. Goal 9, Economy of the State. The Subject Property no longer contains sufficient quantity or quality of mining or aggregate materials for profitable economic use. However, the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change will promote continued economic opportunities by allowing the currently undeveloped and underutilized property to be put to productive use. Therefore, Goal 9 is satisfied. Goal 10, Housing. The Plan Amendment and Zone Change do not reduce or eliminate any opportunities for housing on the Subject Property or in the general vicinity. Rather, they will allow rural residential development, consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the acknowledged Deschutes County comprehensive plan. Therefore, Goal 10 is satisfied. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The approval of the Application will have no adverse impact on the provision of public facilities and services to the site. Utility service providers have confirmed that they have the capacity to serve the maximum level of residential development allowed by the MUA-10 zoning district. Therefore, Goal 11 is satisfied. Goal 12, Transportation. This application complies with the Transportation System Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, the rule that implements Goal 12. Compliance with that rule also demonstrates compliance with Goal 12. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. Approval of the Application does not reduce or eliminate the ability to conserve energy. In fact, Planning Guideline 3 of Goal 13 states "land use planning should, to the maximum extent possible, seek to recycle and re -use vacant land..." Surface mining activities have ceased on the subject property and has been vacant for decades. The Subject Property abuts the Bend City Limits and is surrounded by other rural residential uses. The Plan Amendment and Zone Change will allow for rural residential development that would provide homes close to urban services and employment, as opposed to more remote rural locations. Siting homes close to urban services and employment results in fewer vehicle miles traveled and related energy expenditures as residents travel to work, school, and essential services. Therefore, Goal 13 is satisfied. Goal 14, Urbanization. This goal is not applicable because the Applicant's proposal does not involve property within an urban growth boundary and does not involve the urbanization of rural land. The MUA-10 zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district that limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon. Page 12 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicant has met its burden of proof with respect to the standards for approving the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change. I therefore recommend to the County Board of Commissioners that the Application be APPROVED. Dated this 8th day of January 2024 Tommy A. Brooks Deschutes County Hearings Officer Page13 1"ES STAFF REPORT FILE NUMBER: 247-23-000547-PA, 247-23-000548-ZC SUBJECT PROPERTY/ OWNER: Mailing Name: MILLER PIT LLC Map and Taxlot: 1812210000200 Account: 110218 Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS** APPLICANT: Caldera Land, LLC REQUEST: STAFF CONTACT: RECORD: C M UNITY DEVELOPMENT The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from Surface Mine (SM) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The applicant also requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the subject property from Surface Mining (SM) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10). Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner Phone: 541-388-6679 Email: Audrey. Stuart@deschutes.org Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-23-000547-pa-247-23- 000548-zc-miller-pit-Ilc-comprehensive-plan-amendment-and-zone I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10). Chapter 18.52, Surface Mining (SM) Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Appendix C, Transportation System Plan 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 I P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 t' (541) 388-6575 @Luld@cleschutes.org b wwvv.deschutes.org/cd Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 Division 12, Transportation Planning Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 23, Procedures and Requirements for Complying with Goal 5 II. BASIC FINDINGS LOT OF RECORD: The Burden of Proof includes the following statement: Pursuant to the Hearings Officer's decision in Belveron (ZC-08-04) and Powell/Ramsey (PA- 14-2) legal lot of record status is not applicable to an application for a plan amendment and zone change. Staff concurs with this analysis and notes the Applicant will be required to obtain Lot of Record Verification prior to any development of the subject property. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is 65.67 acres in size and is approximately rectangular in shape. The property is bordered to the north by Knott Road, which is classified as a City of Bend arterial. The application materials provide the following description of the site: The property is the site of a former cinder cone that was mined beginning in the late 1940s. There are two pits in the middle of the site, the smaller one to the north and a larger one extending to the south. Natural elevations of the property range from ±3,760 feet near the northeast corner along Knott Road to ±3,825 feet along the west edge of southern pit in the south-central part of the Site. Outside the two pits, the outer edges of the property are characterized by slopes typically less than 8% with rolling topography. Existing vegetation is typical of the southeast side of Bend and predominantly juniper trees of varying heights and maturities, sagebrush, and bitterbrush. There are no drainages evident within the Site. The property is vacant, is not irrigated, and does not have water rights (Exhibit J, Arnold Irrigation District correspondence). The subject property has not been farmed or used in conjunction with any farming operation. The property is zoned Surface Mining (SM) and is not within any overlay zones. There is no mapped floodplain on the subject property, and a small portion of the subject property is mapped on the national wetland inventory. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 2 of 31 Figure 1: Location Map and Proximity to Bend UGB PROPOSAL: The Applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from Surface Mine to Rural Residential Exception Area. The Applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the subject properties from Surface Mining (SM) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10). Submitted with the application is an Order 1 Soil Survey of the subject property, titled Site -Specific Soil Survey of Property Located South of Knott Road, also known as T18S, R12E, Section 21, Tax Lot 200 (65.67 acres), Southeast of Bend in Deschutes County, Oregon (hereafter referred to as the "soil study") prepared by soil scientist Brian T. Rabe, CPSS, WWSS of Cascade Earth Sciences. The Applicant has also submitted a traffic analysis prepared by Transight Consulting, LLC titled Miller Pit Rezone, hereafter referred to as "traffic study." The application materials also include a Geotechnical Reconnaissance report, titled Site 391- Miller Pit (formerly known as Shalex Pit) Bend, Oregon, prepared by J. Andrew Siemens, PE, GE of Siemens and Associates. Additionally, the Applicant has submitted an application form, a burden of proof statement, and other supplemental materials, all of which are included in the record for the subject applications. 247-23-Q00547-PA, 548-ZC Page 3 of 31 SURROUNDING LAND USES: The area surrounding the subject property is defined by the City of Bend's UGB, which is adjacent to the north and only 430 feet away to the west. Surrounding land within the UGB is primarily developed with single family dwellings but also includes a school, park, and church. Neighboring rural lands to the east, south, and west are zoned MUA10. The surrounding area outside of the UGB is generally characterized by single family dwellings and small -to -medium scale agriculture. North. The Bend UGB is located adjacent to the subject property to the north. Caldera High School is located across Knott Road from the subject property, on a 72.8-acre parcel. The Caldera High School property includes a number of buildings, parking areas, and sports fields, as well as approximately 23 acres of undeveloped land located to the north of SE Caldera Drive. Alpenglow Community Park is located immediately to the north of the school on a 36.48-acre parcel that is developed with trails, parking areas, and picnic shelters. Alpenglow Community Park is owned by Bend Park and Recreation District. Nativity Lutheran Church is also located across Knott Road from the subject property, on a 4.69-acre parcel. This church property is located at the intersection of Brosterhous Road and Knott Rott, and is separated from Caldera High School by SE Wolfpack Way. There is a significant amount of undeveloped land located to the northeast of the subject property, east of 15t Street and north of Knott Road. This area is currently under development by Pahlisch Homes as the Easton master -planned community, which will be constructed in phases. West. Neighboring lots in the Brightenwood Estates IV subdivision range in size from 0.58 to 0.46 acres and are developed with single-family dwellings. The Brightenwood Estates subdivisions are primarily within the Bend UGB but a small section, containing eleven lots, is located outside of the UGB and to the west of the subject property. There is also a 25.4-acre parcel adjacent to the subject property, between the subject property and the Bend UGB. This MUA10 parcel is undeveloped and is bisected by Woodside Road. The Bend UGB is located approximately 430 feet west of the subject property and surrounding land within the UGB is primarily developed with single family dwellings, and is platted as various phases of the Brightenwood Estates subdivision. The general surrounding area to the west is characterized by single-family development and is zoned Bend Residential Low Density (RL) and Bend Residential Standard Density (RS). A railroad track is located approximately 860 feet northwest of the subject property, within the Bend UGB. A golf course is also located approximately 4,000 feet west of the subject property. South. Land to the south of the subject property is located outside of the Bend UGB and is more rural in character. Neighboring properties to the south are zoned MUA10 and range in size from 3.69 to 6.99 acres. Three of these four neighboring properties are developed with dwellings, and irrigated fields are visible on two of these properties. Farther south, the surrounding area is zoned Rural Residential (RR10) and Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 4 of 31 The RR10 land is located to the southwest of the subject property and consists of several rural subdivisions, including Woodside Ranchettes and Woodside Ranch phases one through six. These subdivision lots are generally two -to -four acres in size and are developed with dwellings, residential accessory structures, and some small hobby farming. EFU-zoned land is located approximately 420 feet south of the subject property. Surrounding EFU parcels range in size from 3.68 to 20 acres. Many of these parcels appear to be receiving farm tax deferral and contain irrigated fields and pasture. East. Adjacent properties to the east are zoned MUA10 and are platted lots in the Skylandia subdivision, which range in size from 2.09 to 4.66 acres. These lots are developed with single family dwellings and some appear to contain irrigated pasture. MUA10 parcels east of Tekampe Road also appear to be developed with a mix of residential uses and small-scale agriculture, with the exception of a church located at the intersection of Knott Road and Tekampe Road. EFU-zoned land is located approximately 0.33 miles east of the subject property, beyond the MUA10-zoned parcels. This EFU land generally contains larger lots and more intensive farm uses than the MUA10 parcels adjacent to the subject property. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on July 7, 2023, to several public agencies and received the following comments: Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Tarik Rawlings I have reviewed the application materials submitted on behalf of file no. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC for a Plan Amendment from Surface Mine (SM) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and Zone Change from Surface Mining (SM) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) for property located on Assessor's Map 18-12-21 Tax Lot 200. This property does not have a mailing address and the applicant should work with the County Property Address Coordinator to establish valid mailing addresses for the property. The site itself is a surface mine that has been reclaimed according to the Department of Geologic and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) within which the surface mine resource has been exhausted and trip generation is essentially zero based on the lack of activity or an established land use on the property. I have reviewed Mr. Bessman's March 23, 2023, Traffic Impact Analysis and I'm mostly fine with its assumptions, methodology, and conclusions. Mr. Bessman utilizes the acceptable road segment standard of 13,400 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which is incorporated into the County's most recent 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan. As Mr. Bessman utilizes the 2040 planning horizon year (reflective of the most recent data included in the County's 247-23-000547-PA, 548-C Page 5 of 31 forthcoming Transportation System Plan update) this analysis appears to comply with relevant criteria. Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Becky Johnson I did a review of the site in question (DOGAMI ID# 09-0013) and it was a 34 acre Limited Exemption site, closed in August of 1998. We have nothing permitted in the area currently, nor any active applications. DOGAMI has no comments or concerns with the land use application! Thank you so much for checking in with us about it. Arnold Irrigation District, Juanita Harvey The above -mentioned property does not have any Arnold Irrigation District water rights appurtenant to it nor does it have any District facilities within its property boundaries or associated with it. The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Arnold Irrigation District, Bend Fire Department, City of Bend Planning Department, City of Bend Growth Management Department, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Department of State Lands, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Building Division, Deschutes County Road Department, and District 11 Watermaster. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all property owners within 250 feet of the subject property on July 7, 2023. The Applicant also complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of Title 22. The Applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit indicating the Applicant posted notice of the land use action on September 13, 2023. Four public comments were received. These public comments generally included questions about future use of the property and the process of filling in the surface mine, as well as concerns regarding impacts to wetlands, available water, wildfire risk, impacts to wildlife, and increased residential density. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: On October 10, 2023, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 250 feet of the subject property and public agencies. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, October 22, 2023. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on October 9, 2023. REVIEW PERIOD: According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change application is not subject to the 150-day review period. III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 6 of 31 Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Section 18.32.010, Purpose The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. FINDING: The Applicant proposes to change the zoning designation of the subject property from SM to MUA10. The submitted Burden of Proof includes the following explanation of how the proposed zone change is consistent with the purpose of the MUA10 Zone. The MUA-10 Zone is appropriate for the subject property because it is surrounded on three sides by other properties zoned MUA-10. Portions of the property may support some agricultural uses, but the property could never be high -quality agricultural land that would support commercial farming. The maximum density, if developed under a planned or cluster development is one unit per five acres because the property is within one mile of the Bend UGB. This equates to ±13 units for the ±65-acre property. This relatively low density will conserve open space and maintain or improve the quality of air, water, and land resources. It also allows for clustering to maximize flexibility in siting future uses, which is particularly suited for a former surface mining site that may come with some grading challenges. Finally, the MUA-10 zoning provides a logical transition zone between urban and EFU zoning, appropriate for this property and location. The standard is met. As described in additional detail under the findings for DCC 18.136, staff finds the proposed zoning designation is consistent with DCC 18.32.010. Chapter 18.52, Surface Mining Zone Section 18.52.200, Termination Of The Surface Mining Zoning And Surrounding Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone A. When a surface mining site has been fully or partially mined, and the operator demonstrates that a significant resource no longer exists on the site, and that the site has been reclaimed in accordance with the reclamation plan approved by DOGAMI or the reclamation provisions of DCC 18, the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone identified in the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 7 of 31 FINDING: The submitted Burden of Proof includes the following response to this criterion: As described in Kimble (PA-07, ZC-07-2), this standard requires that Site No. 391 be 1) fully or partially mined, 2) no longer a significant resource, and 3) reclaimed in accordance with the reclamation plan approved by DOGAMI. The first two prongs are addressed in the responses to OAR 660-023-0180, above, which sets out the standards for determining whether an aggregate resource is significant. The third prong is satisfied by documentation contained in Exhibit E demonstrating that Site No. 391 has been reclaimed and DOGAMI has approved the reclamation of the site. A memo to DOGAMI file# 09-0013 Shalex Mine dated August 12, 1998 states: "The site has operated as a Limited Exemption since 1974. A reclamation plan was submitted in October 1974. Thirty-four acres were effected [sic] by mining at this site...Thirty-four acres have been voluntarily reclaimed. It is recommended that this file be closed." The mining element of the Comprehensive Plan does not identify a subsequent use for Site No. 391 and subsequent uses are not identified in the ESEE analysis for Site No. 391 adopted by the County. The Applicant proposes rezoning the property MUA-10 because the subject property is surrounded by MUA-10 land on three sides and it is appropriate for the context abutting the Bend City Limits and UGB. Therefore, the criteria are met. Staff concurs with this analysis and notes comments dated August 24, 2023 from Department of Geology and Mineral Industries confirm the subject mine was closed in August, 1998. The application materials also include a report dated September 29, 2022 from J. Andrew Siemens, a licensed engineer, concluding that no significant cinder resource exists on the property anymore. For these reasons, staff finds the subject property has been partially or fully mined and has been reclaimed in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. B. Concurrent with such rezoning, any surface mining impact area combining zone which surrounds the rezoned surface mining site shall be removed. Rezoning shall be subject to DCC 18.136 and all other applicable sections of DCC 18, the Comprehensive Plan and DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. FINDING: Staff notes this criterion is contingent on approval of the subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. If the subject application is ultimately approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the adopting Ordinance will also remove the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone associated with the property. Chapter 18.136, Amendments Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner 247-23-000547-PA,_54&ZC Page 8 of 31 for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDING: The Applicant, also the property owner, has requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and filed the applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The Applicant has filed the required Planning Division's land use application forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: In several previous decisions, Deschutes County Hearings Officers have found the introductory statements and goals are not approval criteria for the proposed plan amendment and zone change. 'The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is not to provide a site -specific identification of the appropriate land uses which may take place on a particular piece of land but rather it is to consider the significant factors which affect or are affects by development in the county and provide a general guide to the various decision which must be made to promote the greatest efficiency and equity possible, which managing the continuing growth and change of the area. Part of that process is identification of an appropriate land use plan, which is then interpreted to make decision about specific sites (most often in zoning and subdivision administration) but the plan must also consider the sociological, economic and environmental consequences of various actions and provide guidelines and policies for activities which may have effects beyond physical changes of the land (Emphases added.) The Hearings Officer previously found that the above -underscored language strongly suggests the county's plan statements, goals and policies are not intended to establish approval standards for quasi-judicial/and use permit applications." Staff agrees with the Applicant's analysis and finds the above provision to be met based on Comprehensive Plan conformance as demonstrated in subsequent findings. The Applicant utilized analyses provided in prior Hearings Officers' decisions to determine and respond to only the Comprehensive Plan Goals and policies that apply, which are listed in the Comprehensive Plan section of this staff report in further detail. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 9of31 8. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDING: The findings for DCC 18.32.010, above, address this criterion and staff incorporates them herein. The Applicant has demonstrated that proposed Zone Change is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MUA 10 Zone, which allows for residential development by preserving agricultural resources and large lot sizes. The proposed MUA10 zoning is consistent with the surrounding area and will provide an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Staff finds the Applicant has demonstrated the change in classification is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MUA10 Zone, but asks the Hearings Officer to amend or add to these findings as the Hearings Officer sees fit. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDING: Although there are no plans to develop the properties in their current state, the above criterion specifically asks if the proposed zone exchange will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: In Tumalo Irrigation District (247-17-000775-ZC/247-17-000776-PA), the BOCC acknowledged that "a zone change, in and of itself, does not create any demand for public services or impact surrounding land uses" before concluding that an applicant for a zone change "must demonstrate that public services and facilities are either presently available for specified development or that there are no significant impediments to providing public services and facilities when site specific development, within the context of the proposed zoning, is actually proposed." Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the subject property. Transportation access is available from Knott Road, designated a Minor Arterial in the City of Bend Transportation System Plan (TSP). According to the Transportation Memorandum prepared by Transight Consulting (Exhibit G), the planned rezone results in a reduction in the trip generation potential of the property, even at higher residential densities only permitted through a conditional use. The property receives police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff. It is in Rural Fire Protection District #2 and ±1.4 miles from Bend Fire Department Station 303. Surrounding properties contain residential uses, which receive water service from Avion Water or wells, on -site sewage disposal systems, electrical service, telephone service, etc. Exhibit H contains correspondence from Avion Water, Cascade Natural Gas, Central Electric Cooperative, Inc (CEC), Lumen, and TDS, documenting that necessary public services and facilities are 247-23-000547-PA, 848-ZC Page 10 of 31 available and can be provided efficiently in a manner that serves the public health, safety and welfare. No issues have been identified in the record regarding service provision to the subject property. The Bend UGB is adjacent to the north side of the subject property, and nearby land within the UGB includes a mix of established neighborhoods and undeveloped land that is currently being master planned. Staff finds the proximity to the Bend UGB will allow for efficient provision of public services. The subject property is bordered to the north by Knott Road, which is maintained by the City of Bend. This road connection provides direct access to land within the Bend UGB as well as surrounding rural lands. There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare. In addition, the application materials include materials from water, gas, and electricity providers indicating necessary public facilities and services can be provided. Prior to development of the properties, the Applicant would be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Deschutes County Code. Through these development review processes, assurance of adequate public services and facilities will be verified. Staff finds this provision is met. 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Any potential impacts on surrounding land would be minimal due to the consistent zoning and the fact that most of the surrounding MUA-10 properties are less than five acres in size, have been subdivided, and contain residential uses. Regardless, the development and uses permitted under the MUA-10 Zone are far less impactful to surrounding land than uses permitted under the SM Zone. Applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are addressed in the responses above. The standards are met. The Applicant provided specific findings for each relevant Comprehensive Plan goal and policy, which are addressed below. Staff finds the Applicant has demonstrated the impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan, and asks the Hearings Officer to amend or add to these findings as the Hearings Officer sees fit. D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDING: The Applicant proposed to rezone the properties from SM to MUA10 and re -designate the properties from Surface Mine to Rural Residential Exception Area. The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 11 of 31 The major change of circumstance since the property was zoned SM is that Site No. 391 no longer contains significant resources, and the site has been voluntarily reclaimed. Consequently, there are no longer any viable uses under the SM zone and designation. The subject property may support some resource uses, but not any form of commercial agriculture or forestry. Additional requirements for changing conditions related to surface mining are addressed in the responses to DCC 18.52.200, above. The applicable standards are met. Staff finds the termination of mining and the reclamation of the property constitute a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning Section 1.3, Land Use Planning Goal 1, Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts. FINDING: The subject application is being evaluated based on an objective review of compliance with Statewide Planning Goals, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policies, and Oregon Administrative Rules. A public hearing will be held before a Hearings Officer on November 13, 2023, and members of the public can attend and testify at that hearing. Pursuant to DCC 22.28.030, the Board of County Commissioners will take final action on the application and may choose to either adopt the Hearings Officer findings or conduct their own hearing. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change application will be evaluated through an open process that allows for public input and follows Deschutes County's Procedures Ordinance. Staff finds that within each of the steps described above, there is an open and public process that is based on an objective evaluation of facts. This criterion will be met. Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies FINDING: The subject property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Surface Mine and is therefore not categorized as agricultural lands. In addition, staff finds there is nothing in the record that indicates the property is in farm use. The Applicant submitted a soil study (Applicant's Exhibit F), which was prepared by a certified soils scientist and soil classifier. A letter dated August 9, 2021 indicates the Order 1 soil study was accepted by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The property -specific soil study made the following findings: 247-23-044547-PA, 548-ZC Page 12 of 31 Based on observed conditions, it is unlikely that this site would have ever qualified as resource land. Areas where mining occurred most likely would have been classified as cinders or Class VII Bluesters. This is evidenced by the classification of soils immediately abutting the pits and the overburden deposits present on site. The minimal volume and makeup (comprised of little soil) of overburden deposits suggest that cinder resources were very close to the surface. Since the Site predominantly consists of Class VII and VIII soils, the site does not qualify as "Agricultural Land" based on soil conditions. The soil study goes on to provide additional analysis regarding the soil fertility and suitability for grazing, again concluding that the property could not support a commercially viable livestock operation. There is no evidence the subject property is in agricultural use and the Applicant has demonstrated that it does not contain agricultural soils. Staff therefore finds agricultural lands policies do not apply. Section 2.3, Forests FINDING: The subject property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Surface Mine and is therefore not categorized as forest land. Staff therefore finds forest land policies do not apply. Section 2.4, Goal 5 Overview Policies Goal 1, Protect Goal 5 Policies FINDING: The Applicant does not propose to modify or repeal Goal 5 policies. The Applicant proposes to remove the subject property from the list of significant aggregate and mineral resources in Deschutes County, based on site -specific conditions. Re -designating the subject property will not impact any County -wide Goal 5 policies. Staff therefore finds the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not have an adverse impact on Goal 5 policies. Policy 2.4.4, Incorporate new information into the Goals inventory as requested by an applicant or as County staff resources allow. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in their Burden of Proof: This application provides new information supporting removal of Site No. 391 from the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory (Comprehensive Plan Table 5.8.1). The Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report (Exhibit D) concludes the site no longer qualifies as a significant Goal 5 resource based on the quantity, quality, and location of the resource. Documentation from DOGAMI (Exhibit E) shows Site No. 391 has been voluntarily reclaimed in accordance with a DOGAMI reclamation plan and DOGAMI has approved the reclamation of the site. The plan policy is met. 247-23-_000547-PA, 548-ZC Page__13 of_31 Staff finds the Applicant has submitted new information for the purpose of amending the Goal 5 mineral aggregate inventory. Section 2.5, Water Resources Policies Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies. Policy 2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant land uses or developments. FINDING: The Applicant has not proposed a specific development application at this time. Therefore, the Applicant is not required to address water impacts associated with development. Rather, the Applicant will be required to address this criterion during development of the subject property, which would be reviewed under any necessary land use process for the site (e.g. conditional use permit, tentative plat). This criterion does not apply to the subject application. Section 2.6, Wildlife FINDING: There are no Goal 5-listed wildlife species present on the subject property, based on the Goal 5 inventory nor threatened or endangered species. There is no identified wildlife habitat on the subject property. Section 2.7, Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites Goal 1, Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and scenic view and sites. Policy 2.7.1 Goal 5 open spaces, scenic views and sites inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained and not repealed. FINDING: The subject proposal will not repeal any open space designations, or impact identified scenic corridors. The subject property is not identified as significant open space and any future development will be subject to setbacks, height limitations, lot coverage standards, and use limitations, which will effectively limit the impact on scenic views. Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and visually important areas including those that provide a visual separation between communities such as the open spaces of Bend and Redmond or lands that are visually prominent. Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites. FINDING: These policies are fulfilled by the County's Goal 5 program. The County protects scenic views and sites along major rivers and roadways by imposing Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zones to adjacent properties. Staff notes that no LM Combining Zone applies to the 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 14 of 31 subject property at this time. The subject property is adjacent to the Bend UGB and there is a significant amount of existing development in the surrounding area. The subject property was historically mined but has been inactive for many years, and photographs submitted with the application materials show little vegetation or scenic features on the subject property. Furthermore, no new development is proposed under the present application. These provisions of the plan, therefore, are not impacted by the proposed zone change and plan amendment. Section 2.10, Surface Mining Goal 1, Protect and utilize mineral and aggregate resources while minimizing adverse impacts of extraction, processing and transporting the resource. Policy 2.10.1, Goal 5 mining inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained and not repealed. FINDING: The Applicant proposes to amend the County's Goal 5 mining inventory on the basis the subject property has been substantially mined and does not contain a significant aggregate resource. The Applicant submitted a Geotechnical Reconnaissance study dated September 29, 2022, prepared by a registered professional engineer. The study estimates that over 800,000 tons of cinder may have been extracted from the subject property when it was an active surface mine. The report addresses OAR 660-023-0180 and provides an analysis of how the property is eligible to be rezoned based on the limited quantity and quality of remaining aggregate resources. In part, the report states: Mining activities at Site 391 appear to have terminated for several technical reasons including: • Depleted quantities of readily minable cinder • Declining cinder quality with depth • No favorable areas for expansion Within the perimeter of the former cinder cones, only small quantities of loose cinder remain available for export (less than a few thousand tons). Developing additional cinder would require extending the depth of the mine using aggressive methods for excavation (ripping, drilling, and blasting). Evidence is present that some of this has been done, probably to explore the feasibility of expansion. These efforts were terminated when indurated, volcanics were discovered and likely judged to offer poor characteristics for economic cinder production. Hence, declining cinder quality. Based on surface reconnaissance, SA [Siemens & Associates] has identified limited quantities of other, non -significant materials including surficial soils and Newberry basalt. Surficial soil thickness appears to be limited and the basalt is judged to be of low quality, with durability characteristics far below Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) standards. As described further under Policy 2.10.6, below, the Applicant has demonstrated the mineral and aggregate resources on the subject property have been substantially mined. No changes are 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 15 of 31 proposed to Comprehensive Plan policies or other programs regarding surface mining in Deschutes County. Table 5.8.2 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan lists the Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory, and the subject property would be eligible for inclusion in this table based on submitted evidence demonstrating there is no longer a significant aggregate resource. The Hearings Officer decision for files 247-17-000775-ZC, 776-ZC provides the following analysis of sites listed in this table: The applicant and COLW appear to agree that this Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory is not a Goal 5 provision. The County has retained it apparently to address potential use for reservoirs which may or may not require "mining" or extraction. There do not appear to be any express criteria for inclusion on the Non -significant inventory. The Applicant does not propose to modify the ESEE associated with the subject property, or modify the County's Goal 5 program. The Applicant has demonstrated that limited aggregate resources remain on the subject property, and it is therefore eligible to be rezoned and removed from Table 5.8.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory. Policy 2.10.2, Cooperate and coordinate mining regulations with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. FINDING: The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries provided comments on the subject application and indicated there were no concerns. The application materials also include reclamation documents and file notes from DOGAMI regarding the subject surface mine. Policy 2.10.3, Balance protection of mineral and aggregate resources with conflicting resources and uses. FINDING: The record does not include any comments or objections regarding the conflict between surface mining and surrounding uses. Policy 2.10.4, Review surface mining codes and revise as needed to consider especially mitigation factors, imported material and reclamation. FINDING: No amendment is proposed to the provisions of the Surface Mining Zone or the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone. Staff finds this policy does not apply. Policy 2.10.5, Review surface mining site inventories as described in Section 2.4, including the associated Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analyses. Policy2.10.6, Support efforts by private property owners and appropriate regulatory agencies to address reclamation of Goal 5 mine sites approved under 660-016 following mineral extraction. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 16 of 31 FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted Burden of Proof: DOGAMI formally closed the file for Site No. 391 in August 1998 after confirming the site had been voluntarily reclaimed consistent with the 1974 reclamation plan (Exhibit E). The Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report (Exhibit D) concludes that Site No. 391 no longer qualifies as a significant Goal 5 resource based on the quantity, quality, and location of the resource. The report, prepared by a registered engineer specializing in geologic engineering who has conducted geotechnical explorations in the area since 1992, states: "Cinder fails to meet the identified ODOT specification for base rock since the particles offer poor durability characteristics compared to base rock produced from quality hard rock sources and crushed sand and gravel. Therefore, cinder is not considered 'significant' and cinder products are no longer used in municipal road building activities." This determination is consistent with prior decisions in Tumalo Irrigation District (247-17-000775-ZC/247-17-000776-PA) and TID/Cascade Pumice (PA-02-8/ZC-02-4). Even if the cinders met ODOT standards, a sufficient amount of these materials has been removed such that the site does not possess the 500,000-ton significance threshold for sites outside the Willamette Valley. Based on aerial photography, site geology, and onsite investigation, Mr. Siemens concludes that "over one million cubic yards (over 800,000 tons) of cinder may have been extracted from Site 391 over the lifetime of the mine and the remaining cinder resource is far less than 500,000 tons." Consequently, to the extent the site ever met OAR 660-023-0180(3)(a) standards for significance, the majority of the significant material has been removed such that there is no longer a "deposit" on the site. The plan policies are met. Staff concurs with this analysis but requests the Hearings Officer modify as they see fit. Chapter 3, Rural Growth Section 3.3, Rural Housing Policies Goal 1, Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County FINDING: No new rural housing is proposed. Residential uses are permitted in the MUA10 Zone, so changing the zoning of the subject property to MUA10 may provide for additional housing units in unincorporated Deschutes County. The Applicant has not specified the intended use of the subject property and any future housing will be subject to all applicable provisions of Deschutes County Code. The types of housing permitted in the MUA10 Zone are relatively low density and will therefore maintain a rural character if housing is developed. Policy 3.3.1, Except for parcels in the Westside Transect Zone, the minimum parcel size for new rural residential shall be 10 acres. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in the Burden of Proof: 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 17 of 31 The planned MUA-10 zoning allows residential uses with a minimum parcel size of 10 acres. The plan policy is met. Staff concurs and finds no land division is proposed as part of the subject application. Policy 3.3.2, Incorporate farm and forest housing reports into a wider system for tracking the cumulative effects of rural housing development. FINDING: The subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change does not review or approve any new uses or construction on the subject property. In addition, the proposed MUA10 zoning is not a farm or forest zone, therefore new residential construction would not be subject to this reporting requirement. Staff therefore finds this criterion does not apply. Policy 3.3.4, Encourage new subdivisions to incorporate alternative development patterns, such as cluster developments, that mitigate community and environmental impacts. FINDING: No land divisions, including subdivisions, are proposed with the subject application. The proposed MUA10 zoning allows for cluster development with a Conditional Use Permit. Future development will be subject to applicable provisions of Deschutes County Code, and will be reviewed at the time a land use application is submitted. Policy 3,3.5, Maintain the rural character of the County while ensuring a diversity of housing opportunities, including initiating discussions to amend State Statute and/or Oregon Administrative Rule to permit accessory dwelling units in the Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and Rural Residential zones. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response to this criterion: This policy is implemented by the development standards DCC Title 18. The planned MUA- 1 0 zoning matches the existing zoning on three sides of the subject property and allows housing opportunities that are more rural in appearance. Future development will be subject to the applicable code standards in effect at that time. The plan policy is met. Staff concurs and finds that the portion of this policy regarding accessory dwelling units does not apply. The Applicant does not propose to change allowed uses or establish an accessory dwelling unit in the MUA10 Zone. Uses permitted in the MUA10 Zone are generally rural in character, and will maintain relatively large lot sizes. No specific use has been proposed for the subject property, but housing may be provided as allowed by DCC 18.32.020. Staff therefore finds the proposal complies with the applicable sections of this policy, namely those regarding rural character and provision of housing opportunities. Section 3.4, Rural Economy Policies 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 18 of 31 Goal 1, Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. Policy 3.4.1 Promote rural economic initiatives, including home -based businesses, that maintain the integrity of the rural character and natural environment. a. Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural economic development opportunities. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response to this criterion: Up through the 1980s when the subject property contained a significant Goal 5 aggregate resource, it was capable of supporting rural economic opportunities and the County complied with the plan policy by imposing the SM zoning and designation. Now that the significant resource has been exhausted, the property can no longer support the economic development opportunities that come from surface mining. Given the surrounding MUA-10 zoning and residential uses, it is not an appropriate site for either rural commercial or rural industrial uses. The MUA-10 zone allows for limited economic initiatives, including home occupations, that would maintain the integrity of the surrounding MUA-10 character and context. The plan policy is met. Staff concurs with this analysis and notes any future commercial uses on the subject property will be subject to separate review. As outlined in the Geotechnical Reconnaissance report submitted with the application materials, the subject property currently provides limited economic value for surface mining. Section 3.7, Transportation Appendix C - Transportation System Plan ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN Goal 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism. Policy 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system. FINDING: This policy applies to the County and advises it to consider the roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan amendments and zone changes. The County will comply with this direction by determining compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), also known as OAR 660-012, as described below in subsequent findings. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 19 of 31 OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDING: This above language is applicable to the proposal because it involves an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan. The proposed plan amendment would change the designation of the subject properties from SM to RREA and change the zone from SM to MUA10. The applicant is not proposing any land use development of the properties at this time. The Applicant submitted a traffic memorandum, Exhibit G, dated March 22, 2023, and prepared by Joe Bessman of Transight Consulting LLC. The traffic study examined vehicle trips under the proposed MUA10 zoning and made the following conclusions: 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 20 of 31 The proposed comparative assessment of scenarios with and without the rezone shows that in consideration of outright allowed residential use (or even with conditionally allowed clustered development) the overall trip generation potential is reduced with the proposed rezone. This does not meet Deschutes County's or the City of Bend's significance thresholds to require further analysis. The report was reviewed by the County Transportation Planner, who agreed with its assumptions and methodology. Staff finds that the proposed plan amendment and zone change will be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the County's transportation facilities in the area. The proposed zone change will not change the functional classification of any existing or planned transportation facility or change the standards implementing a functional classification system. Based on the County Senior Transportation Planner's comments and the traffic study from Transight Consulting LLC, staff finds compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule has been effectively demonstrated. However, staff asks the Hearings Officer to modify these findings as they see fit. DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES OAR 660-015, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. FINDING: A land use action sign was posted on the subject property on September 13, 2023, and a Notice of Application was mailed to nearby property owners on July 7, 2023. A public hearing will be held before a Hearings Officer and a decision will ultimately be made by the Board of County Commissioners. Notice of all public hearings will be mailed to impacted individuals and a notice will also be printed in the Bend Bulletin newspaper. The published and mailed notices will all comply with the requirements of DCC 22.12.020. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: The County will review and process this quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change consistent with the procedures detailed in DCC Title 22, including consideration of any public comments received regarding the application. Therefore, consistency with this Statewide Planning Goal is established. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 21 of 31 The County can also find the other two substantive requirements of Goal 2 are satisfied. First, the application provides an adequate factual basis for the County to approve the application because it describes the site and its physical characteristics and applies those facts to the relevant approval criteria. Second, Goal 2 requires coordination of the application by the County with affected governmental entities. Coordination requires notice of an application, an opportunity for the affected governmental entity to comment on the application, and the County's incorporation of the comments to a reasonable extent. The County can find that coordination of this application will be accomplished in two ways: by the Applicant prior to submittal of the application and by the County in the review process for the application. Staff agrees with this analysis and finds this Goal will be met. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: The subject property is designated as Surface Mining and had been mined since the late 1940s. There is no evidence of prior agricultural use, the property predominantly consists of Class VII and VIII soils (Exhibit F), and the property does not have water rights (Exhibitj). The subject property is not identified as agricultural land on the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map. The 1980 zone change (Z-80-13) to SM included findings acknowledging that active surface mining sites at the time of plan adoption should have been zoned SM, the subject property was active and designated as site #58 on a preliminary map, and a "simple error" resulted in site #58 not being transposed to the final zoning map with adoption of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan(Exhibit C). The property was again identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the BOCC on December 6, 1988. In 1990, the County listed the property as Site No. 391 on the Goal 5 Inventory, adopted a site -specific economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) analysis (Exhibit I), and imposed the SM and SMIA zoning (Ord No. 90-014, 90-025, 90- 028, and 90-029). The subject property's status as something other than agricultural land was confirmed in the 1990 ESEE. Ordinarily, the ESEE identifies the post -mining uses and zoning for properties deemed Goal 5 significant mineral resources. The ESEE for the subject property does not include any such discussion. In Tumalo Irrigation District (247-17-000775-ZC/247-17-000776- PA), the BOCC interpreted that a similar ESEE omission on a Goal 5 site would have specified EFU zoning if the property had been classified as agricultural land, and concluded that the SM Zone was "intended to be a distinct zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation and the properties designated as other than 'resource uses' (lands subject to Goals 3 and 4)." In 1992, as part of periodic review and a revamping of the County's agricultural lands program, the County again inventoried its agricultural lands. Once again, the County did not classify the subject property as agricultural land. The agricultural land analysis was incorporated into the County's Comprehensive Plan, which was again acknowledged. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 22 of 31 In Caldwell v. Klamath County, 45 Or. LUBA 548 (2003), LUBA concluded that a proposed zone change from Non -Resource to Rural Residential (e.g., SM to MUA-10) did not require revising the County's original determination that the property did not qualify as agricultural land, memorialized through a zoning designation that zoned the property Non -Resource, a zone that applied to lands that were not protected by Goals 3 and 4. On several occasions, Deschutes County has determined that the subject property is not agricultural land and those prior determinations were incorporated into the County's acknowledge Comprehensive Plan. Those determinations are binding and not subject to challenge as part of a subsequent land use decision. Furthermore, in Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 80 Or App 176, 181-82, 721 P2d 870 (1986), the Court of Appeals held that a statewide goal is only implicated for review purposes if the PAPA itself affects the goal, either directly or indirectly. Under the Urquhart rule, a PAPA is not reviewable "on the basis of a defect in the inventory which is not directly or indirectly attributable to the plan amendment." This was affirmed in Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 301 Or App 701 (2020), where the Court of Appeals upheld Deschutes County's approval in Tumalo Irrigation District of a similar plan amendment and zone change from SM to MUA-10, and concluded Deschutes County was not required to revisit its prior determination that the subject property was not agricultural land subject to Goal 3. Therefore, Goal 3 does not apply. The findings above are applicable to other sections of this staff report, including Comprehensive Plan policies regarding agricultural lands. Staff therefore requests the Hearings Officer make specific findings on whether Statewide Planning Goal 3 applies to the subject property. Goal 4, Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. FINDING: The subject property does not contain any forest lands and therefore this goal is not applicable. Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: The subject property does not contain any inventoried significant resources related to energy sources, habitat, natural areas, scenic views, water areas or watersheds, wilderness areas, historic areas, or cultural areas. As described below in the responses to OAR 660-023- 0180, the subject property no longer contains any significant aggregate resources. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 23 of 31 Deschutes County DIAL property information and Interactive Map show the subject property contains a small strip of "wetland" within the southern pit. According to the Comprehensive Plan (Chapters 2, Resource Management and 5, Supplemental Sections), in 1992 Deschutes County Ordinance 92-045 adopted all wetlands identified on the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps as the Deschutes County wetland inventory. Additionally, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, the NWI Map "shows an inventory of wetlands based on high -altitude aerial photos and limited field work. While the NWI can be useful for many resource management and planning purposes, its small scale, accuracy limitations, errors of omission that range up to 55 percent (existing wetlands not shown on NWI), age (1980s), and absence of property boundaries make it unsuitable for parcel -based decision making" [emphasis added]. The Comprehensive Plan has no specific protections for wetlands. Protections are provided by code sections that implement Goal 5 protections (for example, fill and removal zoning code regulations). Because the proposed plan amendment and zone change are not development, there is no impact to any Goal 5 wetland (to the extent one even exists). Any potential future development of a wetland —regardless of the zoning —will be subject to review by the County's fill and removal regulations. Therefore, Goal 5 is satisfied. Staff generally concurs with this analysis, but notes the presence of mapped wetlands on a property does not in itself mean that this Goal cannot be met. Statewide Planning Goal 5 offers protection to a wide range of natural and scenic resources, and the mineral resources are the only ones currently inventoried on the subject property. Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: The surface mine has been reclaimed and mining activities have ceased. Rezoning the subject property will not impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the County because no specific development is proposed at this time. However, any future uses permitted in the MUA-10 zone are likely to have less adverse impacts to air, water, and land resources than the historical mining use or uses permitted in the SM Zone. Future development of the property will be subject to local, state, and federal regulations that protect these resources. Therefore, Goal 6 is satisfied. Staff agrees with this analysis and finds development of the subject property under the proposed MUA10 zoning will not likely have a measurable impact on air, water, and land resources quality. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect people and property from natural hazards. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 24 of 31 FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: The site does not include areas subject to flooding or landslide activity. According to the Deschutes County Property Information (DIAL) Interactive Map, the entirety of Deschutes County, including the subject property, is located in a Wildfire Hazard Area. The subject property is also located in Rural Fire Protection District #2. Rezoning the property to MUA1 0 does not change the Wildfire Hazard Area designation. Any future development of the subject property will have to demonstrate compliance with applicable local and state health, environmental quality, and wildfire regulations. Therefore, Goal 7 is satisfied. Staff agrees with this analysis and notes the subject property is adjacent to Knott Road, which is developed to urban standards and maintained by the City of Bend. There is a significant amount of development in the surrounding area due to the proximity to the Bend UGB, and development of the subject property is not likely to have a noticeable impact on wildfire risk in the general area. In addition, the road access and proximity to service providers will benefit the subject property if a natural disaster were to occur. Goal 8, Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: Goal 8 is not applicable because the proposed plan amendment and zone change do not reduce or eliminate any opportunities for recreational facilities on the subject property or in the general vicinity. Staff agrees with this statement and notes the subject property has not been identified as a current or future recreational facility. Goal 9, Economy of the State. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: The subject property no longer contains sufficient quantity or quality of mining or aggregate materials for profitable economic use. However, the proposed plan amendment and zone change will promote continued economic opportunities by allowing the currently undeveloped and underutilized property to be put to productive use. Therefore, Goal 9 is satisfied. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 25 of 31 Staff agrees with this analysis and finds it is supported by the Geotechnical Reconnaissance report submitted with the application materials. This report detailed the limited economic value of the subject property for future surface mining, based on the amount and deposition of remaining mineral aggregate. Goal 10, Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: The plan amendment and zone change do not reduce or eliminate any opportunities for housing on the subject property or in the general vicinity. Rather, the plan amendment and zone change will allow rural residential development, consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the acknowledged Deschutes County comprehensive plan. Therefore, Goal 10 is satisfied. Staff agrees with this analysis. The Applicant has not identified the intended use of the subject property but single family dwellings are a permitted use in the MUA10 Zone. The MUA10 Zone is generally more permissive of residential development than the SM Zone, and the proposed rezone may lead to the creation of additional housing. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: The approval of this application will have no adverse impact on the provision of public facilities and services to the subject site. Utility service providers have confirmed (Exhibit H) that they have the capacity to serve the maximum level of residential development allowed by the MUA-10 zoning district. Therefore, Goal 11 is satisfied. Staff agrees with this statement and notes the proximity to the Bend UGB and existing development will allow for more efficient public service delivery to the subject property. Goal 12, Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation program. FINDING: Compliance with Goal 12 is demonstrated by meeting the Transportation System Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060. Compliance with this rule is addressed above and the application materials include a traffic study. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 26 of 31 FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: Approval of this application does not reduce or eliminate the ability to conserve energy. In fact, Planning Guideline 3 of Goal 13 states "land use planning should, to the maximum extent possible, seek to recycle and re -use vacant land..." Surface mining activities have ceased on the subject property and has been vacant for decades. The subject property abuts the Bend City Limits and is surrounded by other rural residential uses. The plan amendment and zone change will allow for rural residential development that would provide homes close to urban services and employment, as opposed to more remote rural locations. Siting homes close to urban services and employment results in fewer vehicle miles traveled and related energy expenditures as residents travel to work, school, and essential services. Therefore, Goal 13 is satisfied. Staff agrees with this analysis. Goal 14, Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: Goal 14 is not applicable because the proposal does not involve property within a UGB and does not involve the urbanization of rural land. The acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan confirms that MUA-10 is not an urban zone and the intensity and density of uses permitted therein do not constitute urban development. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the MUA-10 and RR zones are the zones that will be applied to lands designated Rural Residential Exception Areas. Staff agrees with this analysis. Goal 15, Willamette Greenway. FINDING: This criterion does not apply because the subject property is not located in the Willamette Greenway. Goals 16 through 19. FINDING: These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon. Staff finds that compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals has been effectively demonstrated. 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 27 of 31 DIVISION 23, PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLYING WITH GOAL 5 OAR 660-023-0180 Mineral and Aggregate Resources FINDING: The applicable provisions identified below and the associated findings are quoted from the applicant's Burden of Proof. Staff agrees with this analysis but requests the Hearings Officer make specific findings. (2) Local governments are not required to amend acknowledged inventories or plans with regard to mineral and aggregate resources except in response to an application for a post acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) or at periodic review as specified in section (9) of this rule. The requirements of this rule modify, supplement, or supersede the requirements of the standard Goal 5 process in OAR 660-023-0030 through 660-023-0050, as follows: (b) Local governments shall apply the criteria in section (3) or (4) of this rule, whichever is applicable, rather than OAR 660-023-0030(4), in determining whether an aggregate resource site is significant; FINDING: The proposed amendment constitutes a PAPA. As outlined in the Stott and Kimball decisions, a determination of significance is required to de -list a Goal 5 aggregate resource. The thresholds for significance are addressed in the responses to OAR 660-023-0180(3) and (4), below. (3) An aggregate resource site shall be considered significant if adequate information regarding the quantity, quality, and location of the resource demonstrates that the site meets any one of the criteria in subsections (a) through (c) of this section, except as provided in subsection (d) of this section: (a) A representative set of samples of aggregate material in the deposit on the site meets applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) specifications for base rock for air degradation, abrasion, and soundness, and the estimated amount of material is more than 2,000,000 tons in the Willamette Valley, or more than 500,000 tons outside the Willamette Valley; FINDING: The County's Goal 5 inventory indicates that Site No. 391 contains the following: # Taxlot Name Type Quantity Quality Access/Location 391 181221- 00-00200 Central OR Pumice Cinders 500,000 Good The material at the site likely never satisfied the OAR 660-023-0180(3)(a) standard for significance. According to the Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report (Exhibit D) provided by). Andrew Siemens, of Siemens & Associates —a registered engineer specializing in geologic 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 28 of 31 engineering who has conducted geotechnical explorations in the area since 1992—"Cinder fails to meet the identified ODOT specification for base rock since the particles offer poor durability characteristics compared to base rock produced from quality hard rock sources and crushed sand and gravel. Therefore, cinder is not considered 'significant' and cinder products are no longer used in municipal road building activities." This determination is consistent with prior decisions in Tumalo Irrigation District (247-17-000775-ZC/247-17- 000776-PA) and TID/Cascade Pumice (PA-02-8/ZC-02-4). Even if the cinders met ODOT standards, a sufficient amount of these materials has been removed such that the site does not possess the 500,000-ton significance threshold for sites outside the Willamette Valley. Based on aerial photography, site geology, and on -site investigation, Mr. Siemens concludes that "over one million cubic yards (over 800,000 tons) of cinder may have been extracted from Site 391 over the lifetime of the mine and the remaining cinder resource is far Tess than 500,000 tons." Consequently, to the extent the site ever met OAR 660-023-0180(3)(a) standards for significance, the majority of the significant material has been removed such that there is no longer a "deposit" on the site. (b) The material meets local government standards establishing a lower threshold for significance than subsection (a) of this section; or FINDING: Subsection (b) is not applicable because Deschutes County has not established lower standards for significance. (c) The aggregate site was on an inventory of significant aggregate sites in an acknowledged plan on September 1, 1996. FINDING: Site No. 391 is included in the County's inventory of significant aggregate sites and was acknowledged prior to September 1, 1996. However, Subsection (c) is not applicable to this PAPA because the request includes removing the site from the acknowledged inventory. In Stott (PA-98-12/ZC-98-6), the Hearings Officer made the following finding, adopted by the BOCC: 'The subject site is included in the county's inventory of significant mineral and aggregate sites. The Hearings Officer is aware this inventory was acknowledged prior to the effective date of the new Goal 5 administrative rules. Therefore, I find the subject site falls within the 'significant' standard in paragraph (c). Arguable that finding would end the inquiry since under this provision a site is considered 'significant' if it meets any of the three criteria. However, I find such a result would create a 'Catch-22' where, as here, the applicant is seeking to remove a site from the inventory as no longer 'significant.' Consequently, I find the 'significant' standard in paragraph (c) should not be applied to PAPAS requesting removal of a site from an acknowledged inventory..." 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 29 of 31 The Hearings Officer in Tumalo Irrigation District (247-17-000775-ZC/247-17-000776-PA) concurred and concluded that "as in ZC-98-6 and PA-98-12, subsections (b) and (c) are not applicable. Therefore the aggregate resource is significant only if it meets all the criteria in subsection (a)." The BOCC adopted the Hearings Officer's finding in their ultimate approval of the application. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section, except for an expansion area of an existing site if the operator of the existing site on March 1, 1996, had an enforceable property interest in the expansion area on that date, an aggregate site is not significant if the criteria in either paragraphs (A) or (B) of this subsection apply: (A) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified as Class I on Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) maps on June 11, 2004; or (B) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified as Class II, or of a combination of Class ll and Class I or Unique soil, on NRCS maps available on June 11, 2004, unless the average thickness of the aggregate layer within the mining area exceeds: (i) 60 feet in Washington, Multnomah, Marion, Columbia, and Lane counties; (ii) 25 feet in Polk, Yamhill, and Clackamas counties; or (iii) 7 feet in Linn and Benton counties. FINDING: The criterion does not apply. The subject property does not contain any Class I, Class II, or Unique soils as confirmed by the Site -Specific Soil Survey that was conducted by Cascade Earth Sciences (CES) and assessed as complete by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in accordance with OAR 660-033-0045(6)(a) (Exhibit F). (4) Notwithstanding section (3) of this rule, a local government may also determine that an aggregate resource site on farmland is significant if subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply or if subsection (c) of this section applies: FINDING: The criterion does not apply. The subject property is not identified as agricultural lands on the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map, and it has not been farmed or used in conjunction with any farming operation. Staff finds the Applicant has demonstrated compliance with OAR-660-023-0180, above, but requests the Hearings Officer make specific findings on this topic. IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the Hearings Officer determine if the Applicant has met the burden of proof 247-23-000547-PA, 548-ZC Page 30 of 31 necessary to justify changing the Plan Designation from Surface Mine to Rural Residential Exception Area and Zoning of the subject property from Surface Mining to Multiple Use Agricultural through effectively demonstrating compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC Title 18 (the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance), the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and applicable sections of OAR and ORS. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Written by: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Jacob Ripper, Principal Planner 247-23-000.547-PA, 548-ZC Page 31 of 31 01/31/2024 Item #13. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 31, 2024 SUBJECT: Application for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funds RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Move to authorize the submittal of an application for grant funds to complete an Energy Audit and develop an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. BACKGROUND: The Department of Energy has funded the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The EECBG program is designed to assist states, local governments, and Tribes in implementing strategies to reduce energy use, to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and to improve energy efficiency. The EECBG has designated $78,310 in funds for Deschutes County. With these funds, the County can apply for a Technical Assistance Voucher which allows government entities to use the funds for eligible voucher activities without going through a more rigorous federal grant process. One of the requirements of using EECBG funds is for the local government entities to have an energy efficiency and conservation strategy, eligible voucher activities include using part of the funds to develop the strategy. If the Commissioners are in favor of applying for the EECBG funding designated for Deschutes County, staff recommends the funds be applied to developing an energy efficiency and conservation strategy and conducting an energy audit. ATTENDANCE: Lee Randall, Facilities Director Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager 367