Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Other Docs - Leading Edge
A 1 1 111 CDD COVER SHEET FOR SLB 02/13/2014 13:03:52 1 11 11 11 11 PL 1 PAGES Y 1 11 11 11 1 11 11 1 M W 11 FILE ID 1713200000200PL20140213130352 TAXMAP 1713200000200 SERIAL 164835 DIVISION PL SITUS 63052 POWELL BUTTE HWY HOUSE# 63052 STREET POWELL BUTTE CONTENT SP137 Notice of Remand Hearing RECORD ID SP137 LOCATED IN DATE FILE Cover Sheet Identifier A-IJKMTWX 1 1 1 11 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division NM MO P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Hearings Officer will hold a Public Hearing on March 4, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, to consider the following request: APPLICANT: Leading Edge Aviation 63048 Powell Butte Highway Bend, OR 97701 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Bend 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 ATTORNEY: Sharon R. Smith Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, PC 591 SW MiII View Way Bend, OR 97702 REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for a fueling station in the Airport Development Zone on remand from LUBA. LOCATION: The project site is located at the City of Bend Municipal Airport and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Tax Map 17-13-20, as Tax Lot 200. STAFF CONTACT: William.Groves@deschutes.org ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN REPLIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE RECORD LEFT OPEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE. Recipients of this notice may request a copy of the Staff Report (25 cents a page). Any person submitting written comment or who presents testimony at the hearing will receive a copy of the decision. Failure to raise an issue in person at the hearing or in writing precludes appeal by that person to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to provide statements of evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue. Quality Services Performed with Pride Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at no cost, and can be purchased for 25 cents a page. Information about pending land use applications can be accessed online at http://www.deschutes.org/Community-Development/Planning/Current- Planning.aspx. Click on "Pending Land Use Applications" (opens in new window). STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.76 Airport Development Zone — AD Chapter 18.80 Airport Safety Combining Zone — AS Chapter 18.116 Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.124 Site Plan Review Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. Please contact Will Groves at (541) 693-4400 at the County Planning Division if you have any questions. Dated this 14th day of February, 2014 Mailed this 14th day of February, 2014 SP -13-7 2 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 4E4 ITEREKS P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILE NUMBER: SP -13-7 DOCUMENT/S MAILED: Notice of Public Hearing MAP/TAX LOT NUMBER: 17-13-20, as Tax Lot 200 I certify that on the 14th day of February, 2014, the attached notice(s)/report(s), dated February 14, 2014, was/were mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list.d Dated this 14th day of February, 2014. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: Sher Buckner Leading Edge Aviation 63048 Powell Butte Highway Bend, OR 97701 City of Bend 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Hearings Officer Karen Green Sandra Larsen Oregon Department of Aviation 3040 25th Street, SE Salem, OR 97302-1125 Sharon R. Smith Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, PC 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, OR 97702 Michael H. McGean Francis Hansen & Martin LLP 1148 NW Hill Street Bend, OR 97701-1914 Gary Judd City of Bend 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Matt Rogers, P.E. Century West Engineering 1020 SW Emkay Drive, Suite 100 Bend , OR 97702 Edward J. Elkins 63613 OB Riley Road Bend, OR 97701 Quality Services Performed with Pride i i i 01 II CDD COVER SHEET FOR SLB 05/07/2014 16:42:38 i 1 II II II II PL 1 PAGES i i i 11 i i i i i i i i i i i FILE ID 1713200000200PL20140507164238 TAXMAP 1713200000200 SERIAL 164835 DIVISION PL SITUS 63052 POWELL BUTTE HWY HOUSE# 63052 STREET POWELL BUTTE CONTENT SP137 Hearing Sign in Sleet RECORD ID SP137 LOCATED IN DATE FILE Cover Sheet Identifier A JKMTWX i i i i i i Date: 1 / /Ll - Subject: rt.tC L-7 /(--7 &AT / } Meeting Location: jJ�2 SLS File No. / ( R - Name��lames - S ..Sf36 :: �5, o;,..:?i3.. -*r�',i x a���n Addre s an mad r .r� � � Ho � ho -. n�,� H Jt,f Y""v £..:� �s Epri i )22c S i OJ`'t `71 0 rsA w v,3 -1t_. L , 7 ' C.4 3 i 1---e 5±e) 1)6) r2-tN. 6:int)i). 9 cil 52./,(,9 3 -2. / .‘-,l MIa"or\ \i/ritk -C ir)-itis gbljlaw e.mss, (oma 5yr3e2Y.32 )4, /1/(4 -eek \A 1/1^` KA- C'°` `s v, . tm e", -377-5e il ;fid` ,()-r"C c ---t (17)J/( e (/h09 W- 30.--c, 5 g /,fir s U✓��� ��-�,, � 4r'," -v/4 1S 0�� SV/- 3d'3 -- gez CDD COVER SHEET FOR SLB 05/07/2014 16:52:09 V A PL 1 PAGES V 1 i V 11 d 11 FILE ID 1713200000200PL20140507165209 TAXMAP 1713200000200 SERIAL 164835 DIVISION PL SITUS 63052 POWELL BUTTE HWY HOUSE# 63052 STREET POWELL BUTTE CONTENT SP137 LUBA Petition for Review, Attachments RECORD ID SP137 LOCATED IN DATE FILE Cover Sheet Identifier AHJKMTWX C.E. "WIN" FRANCIS MARTIN E. HANSEN* GERALD A. MARTIN MICHAEL H. MCGEAN t FH 1 1 FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1148 NW HILL STREET, BEND, OR 97701-1914 PHONE: 541-389-5010 FAX: 541-382-7068 WWW.FRANCISHANSEN.COM March 4, 2014 Karen Green Deschutes County Hearings Officer c/o William Groves, Senior Planner Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend OR 97701 Re: SP137 Leading Edge Aviation Inc. Site Plan Application Remand from LUBA Dear Ms. Green: CHRISTOPHER. MANFREDI t ALISON A. HUYCKE SARAH E. HARLOS ALISON G. HOHENGARTEN t ADMITTED IN OREGON AND CALIFORNIA *ADMITTED IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON Enclosed as part of my clients' submission into the record on remand please find the following documents: 1. My clients' Petition for Review to LUBA; 2. An enlargement of the Airport Layout Plan from the 2002 Airport Master Plan, as approved (LUBA Record at p. 333); 3. For convenience, a copy of the LUBA Opinion and Order; 4. Photograph of LEA's construction of roof structure on January 21, 2014; 5. Photograph of LEA's fueling station, as currently operating; 6. Excerpt from City of Bend RFP for Facilities, 2005; 7. Code Violation Letter, January 16, 2014. In particular, pages 6-10 of the Petition for Review contain the discussion and authorities for why compliance with the 2002 amendment to the Bend Airport Master Plan and approved Airport Layout Plan represents a mandatory approval criterion •' the Leading Edge application. That 2002 Master Plan is adopted as part of De es 1,04 County Transportation System Plan which is part of the County's Comprehen Plea. The Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.76.010 and ORS 197.175 (2)(d) all require tha�� development comply with that Airport Master Plan and its incorporated ALP. Ms. Karen Green Re: SP137 Leading Edge Aviation Inc. Site Plan Application Remand from LUBA March 4, 2014 Page 2 The 2002 Master Plan was very specific in its selection of a final configuration of facilities for the Bend Airport, and in its plans to direct new development to the east side of the Bend Airport. (Relevant portions of the 2002 Airport Master Plan are included at pp. 44-51 of the appendix to the Petition for Review.) It is hard to conceive how the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed fuel station is consistent with or in compliance with the 2002 AMP even on a general level. Given the detail and site -specificity of the 2002 Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan, there is no way that the Airport Development Zone (which in comparison is extremely general) can reasonably be viewed as having fully implemented or displaced the requirements and standards of the 2002 Airport Master Plan and ALP. As the enclosed copy of that Airport Layout Plan demonstrates, the proposed LEA fuel station directly conflicts with the ALP. The proposed LEA fuel station site is circled in red and located toward the center of the ALP above location no. 9, for "small conventional hangars". The ALP shows 6 existing small conventional hangar buildings, plus 2 future hangar buildings indicated by 2 small broken -line boxes. The proposed LEA fuel station is located at the same site as the northeast future hangar building. Immediately to the north of the proposed LEA station is the north tie down apron. Immediately to the south is the existing Pro Air fuel station. Therefore, it is not as if LEA has proposed the fuel station for an undesignated or empty site on the ALP map; it has located the fuel station at an area that was expressly designated for existing and future hangar buildings. Further, the future fuel storage station location was already designated for an area east of the runway at location no. 17. That is consistent with the discussion in the AMP about the need to locate new facilities to the east side of the Airport as much as possible. It is simply not reasonable to read the Airport Development Zone Ordinance, and its requirement to provide for development consistent with the 2002 Airport Master Plan and Layout Plan, in a way that is in fact inconsistent with and contrary to AMP and ALP. Since the AD zone regulations do not fully implement or displace the Comprehensive Plan and, its incorporated 2002 Airport Master Plan and ALP, LEA must demonstrate that compliance with the 2002 AMP and ALP. It has not done that, arguing instead that the 2002 AMP and ALP are strictly inapplicable. LEA has failed to show that its proposed location is in any way planned by or consistent with the 2002 AMP. Not only was the subject location planned for a different function, allowing another new fuel station to be placed on the west side of the Airport would seriously undermine the 2002 AMP for the east side of the Airport. There is simply not enough business and activity to support two fuel stations at the Bend Airport, let alone three. Allowing. LEA to Ms. Karen Green Re: SP137 Leading Edge Aviation Inc. Site Plan Application Remand from LUBA March 4, 2014 Page 3 locate a new fuel station on the west side of the Airport forecloses the possibility of the proposed new fuel station on the east side of the Airport under the 2002 AMP. Until recently, the City of Bend in its operation of the Bend Airport always took the position that the 2002 Airport Master Plan and the ALP were the controlling planning documents for the Bend Airport and were to be given a very literal interpretation. For example, a request for proposals that the City put out in 2005 to select a developer for the east side of the Bend Airport expressly included the 2002 AMP that is enclosed, and also indicates that all proposed development, in addition to meeting City of Bend ordinances and the Deschutes County Development Code, had to demonstrate how the proposal met the stated vision and the goals of the Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan. (See attached). The LEA application has attempted:to ignore or dismiss the planning that went into the 2002 AMP and ALP because the proposal conflicts with those plans. Absent an amendment to the Airport Master Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Airport Development Zone ordinance, the LEA application simply cannot be approved. In addition, I would also like to bring to your attention that LEA has continued to operate the fuel station not withstanding LUBA's Opinion remanding the approval. LEA has even expanded its construction beyond its application to include a large roof structure. (See attached photos). That roof structure was installed beginning January 21, 2014, after LUBA had issued its Order. Nowhere in LEA's application materials was there any plan, design or discussion of any roof structure, and to the contrary, the applicant stated that there were no accessory structures included in the proposal. (See Burden of Proof at p. 19). Deschutes County has issued a code violation notice based upon LEA's continuing operation of its fuel station: (See attached). Based on the foregoing, the LEA application should be denied on remand, and should be required to start over with a new application that actually complies with the AMP and Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely, FRANCIS HAN N & MARTIN LLP MICHAEL H. McGEAN MHM/bh Enclosure cc: Sharon Smith Clients BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON THE FLIGHT SHOP, INC. and AERO FACILITIES LLC, Petitioners, vs. DESCHUTES COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Respondent, and LEADING EDGE AVIATION, INC., Intervenor -Respondent. CITY OF BEND, an Oregon Municipal Corporation, Intervenor -Respondent LUBA No. 2013-073 PETITIONERS THE FLIGHT SHOP INC.'S AND AERO FACILTIES LLC'S PETITION FOR REVIEW PETITIONERS THE FLIGHT SHOP INC.'S AND AERO FACILITIES LLC'S PETITION FOR REVIEW Michael H. McGean, OSB #004734 FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP 1148 NW Hill Street Bend OR 97701 (541) 389-5010 Attorney for Petitioners The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Laurie E. Craghead, OSB #922663 DESCHUTES COUNTY COUNSEL 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 205 Bend OR 97701 (541) 388-6623 Attorney for Respondent Deschutes County Sharon R. Smith, OSB #862920 BRYANT LOVLIEN & JARVIS PC 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, OR 97702 (541) 382-4331 Attorney_ for Intervenor -Respondent Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. Mary Winters, OSB #076824 Gary Firestone, OSB #872211 CITY OF BEND LEGAL COUNSEL 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 (541) 693-2124 Attorneys for Intervenor -Respondent City of Bend Table of Contents L Petitioners' Standing ..1 II. Statement of the Case 1 A. Nature of the Land Use Decision and the Relief Sought .1 B. Summary of Arguments .1 C. Summary of Material Facts 1 III. LUBA'S Jurisdiction .3 IV. First Assignment of Error .3 V. Second Assignment of Error 8 VL Conclusion 10 APPENDIX Decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer dated July 18, 2013 App. 1 Deschutes County Code 18.76.010-.110 App. 32 Excerpts from Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ..App. 36 Excerpts of 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan, as amended in 2002, including Airport Layout Plan map App. 44 1 Petition for Review 2 I. Petitioners' Standing. 3 Petitioners The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC have standing because they 4 appeared before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer orally and in writing and filed their 5 Notice of Intent to Appeal. ORS 197.830(2). 6 II. Statement of the Case. 7 A. Nature of Land Use Decision and Relief Sought 8 This is an appeal of a Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision approving an 9 application for site plan review by Leading Edge Aviation Inc. for a new aviation fueling 10 station on the west side of the Bend Municipal Airport. Petitioners seek reversal or remand 11 of the County's approval pursuant to ORS 197.835(8) and (9)(a)(D). 12 B. Summary of Arguments 13 First Assignment of Error 14 The Hearings Officer's decision is in error because it did not apply controlling 15 provisions of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County's Airport 16 Development Zone ordinance, both of which specifically require the proposed use to be 17 consistent with the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan, as amended in 2002. 18 Second Assignment of Error 19 The Hearings Officer's decision is in error because the proposed use conflicts with 20 the 1994 Airport Master Plan, as amended in 2002, which was specifically incorporated in 21 the Comprehensive Plan and Airport Development Zone ordinance. 22 C. Summary of Material Facts 23 Leading Edge Aviation Inc. filed an application with the Deschutes County Planning 24 Department for Site Plan Review to open a new fuel station on the western side of the Bend 1 of 10 PETITION FOR REVIEW LUBA 2013-073 1 Municipal Airport. Rec. 386. The runway and taxiway at the Bend Airport run north -south. 2 Rec. 138. The west side of the Airport has been extensively developed with hangars, parking 3 areas, and aviation -related businesses. Rec. 171. There is additional room for development 4 on the east side of the Bend airport. Id. 5 The Bend Municipal Airport is owned by the City of Bend but located on property 6 under the zoning authority of Deschutes County. Rec. 48. The property subject to the 7 Leading Edge Aviation application is in the Airport Development zone (AD), Deschutes 8 County Code Chapter 18.76, and the Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS), Deschutes 9 County Code Chapter 18.80. Rec. 48. 10 Leading Edge Aviation's Burden of Proof Statement attached exhibits entitled "2002 11 ALP" (Airport Layout Plan) and "Draft ALP from the recent Master Plan update process." 12 Rec. 385, 407, and Color Rec. p. 407. The document that Leading Edge Aviation called the 13 "2002 ALP" was unsigned but had a date of December 2002. Rec. 407. 14 The current approved airport planning document for the Bend Municipal Airport for 15 purposes of this application is the 2002 Airport Master Plan, prepared by Century West 16 Engineering. Rec. 88; 128-225. Chapter Four of that 2002 Airport Master Plan discusses 17 "Airport Development Alternatives," and concludes that "The airport layout plan 18 contained in Chapter Six reflects the final agreed upon `preferred alternative' for the 19 airport." Rec. 187, App. 48, emphasis in original. Chapter Six of the 2002 Airport Master 20 Plan contains the "Airport Layout Plans" themselves. Rec. 213-225. 21 The Airport Layout Plan attached and incorporated in the 2002 Airport Master Plan is 22 not the same as the plan labeled "2002 ALP" in the Leading Edge Aviation application. Rec. 23 220, 407. The version attached to the 2002 Airport Master Plan includes places for future 24 use under the building legend that are not present in the version submitted by Leading Edge 2 of 10 PETITION FOR REVIEW LUBA 2013-073 1 Aviation with its application. Rec. 220, 407. The version attached to the 2002 Airport 2 Master Plan included specific locations for future fuel storage and FBO (Fixed Base 3 Operator) facilities that were both placed on the eastern side of the airport and east of the 4 runways. Rec. 220. The future fuel storage area is location number 17 on the Airport Layout 5 Plan and the future FBO is location 16. Rec. 220-221, App. 50-51. 6 III. LUBA Jurisdiction. 7 LUBA has jurisdiction over the matter because the Decision of the Hearings Officer, 8 which the Board of County Commissioners declined to review, was a final written decision 9 concerning the application of land use regulations, to wit, the County's Site Plan Review and 10 Airport Development Zone ordinances, requiring the exercise of legal or policy judgment, by 11 one with authority to make such a decision. ORS 197.015(10); OAR 661-010-0010(3). 12 IV. First Assignment of Error. 13 The County's decision did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County Code 18.76.010 because it did not evaluate the application for 14 consistency with the 2002 Airport Master Plan. 15 ORS 197.175(2)(d) requires Deschutes County to make land use decisions in 16 compliance with its acknowledged plan and land use regulations. ORS 197.175(2)(d). 17 Because the Board of County Commissioners declined review, the challenged decision is not 18 entitled to deferential review under ORS 197.829. Gutoski v. Lane County, 141 Or App 265, 19 917 P 2d 1048 (1996). 20 The Deschutes County Code's Airport Development Zone ordinances include DCC 21 18.76.010, a policy statement, which states: 22 The purpose of the Airport Development (AD) Zone is to allow for development compatible with ongoing airport use consistent with the 23 Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan (as amended by a 2002 supplement), 24 while providing for public review of proposed development likely to 3 of 10 PETITION FOR REVIEW L1113A 2013-073 1 2 have an impact on surrounding lands. The AD Zone is composed of three separate zoning districts, each with its own set of allowed uses and distinct regulations, as further set forth in DCC 18.76. 3 Deschutes County Code 18.76.010, emphasis added, App. 32. By its terms, DCC 18.76.010 4 requires consistency with the 2002 amended Airport Master Plan for all development in the 5 zone, not just for conditional uses. 6 The Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan referenced in DCC 18.76.010 7 includes a Transportation System Plan that addresses airport development, and that 8 specifically references the 1994 Airport Master Plan, as amended in 2002: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 City of Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan The Bend Municipal Airport is located outside the Bend City limits and UGB, therefore the County has land use jurisdiction over it. In order to guide airport land uses, the County adopted and utilizes the 1994 Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan, as amended in 2002 the "Supplement to 1994 Airport Master Plan," which is incorporated by reference herein. This is the guiding document for airport planning and development. This document incorporates a range of facility improvements for the Bend Municipal Airport over the 20 -year planning horizon (2021), including short, intermediate, and long-term projects to improve safety and function at the airport. In 2003 the County adopted DCC 18.76, Airport Development (AD) Zone to identify outright permitted and conditional activities at the airport. The County in 2001 adopted DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combing Zone (AS) to ensure surrounding land uses and structures were compatible with airport operations. 18 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Exhibit C (Transportation System Plan), App. 43, 19 emphasis added. 20 The Executive Summary to that Transportation System Plan explains the County's 21 goals and policies for implementing the Transportation System Plan with respect to airport 22 planning as follows: 23 16.2 Deschutes County shall: * * * * * 24 h. Specifically designate any proposed airport facility relocations or 4 of 10 PETITION FOR REVIEW LIJBA 20134)73 1 2 3 4 App. at 39-40. 5 Petitioners contended below that the Leading Edge Aviation site plan review 6 application had to comply with the 2002 amendment of the Bend Airport Plan because that 7 Plan was specifically adopted and incorporated in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 8 and DCC 18.76.010. Rec. 330-331; 123-127. There is no dispute that the controlling 2002 9 Airport Master Plan and its approved Airport Layout Plan specifically designated future fuel 10 storage and FBO facilities in a different location on the other side of the airport from where 11 the Leading Edge Aviation fuel station is proposed. The draft versions of the Airport Layout 12 Plans submitted and relied upon by respondents were not the versions approved in the 2002 13 Airport Master Plan, and do not designate any specific location for such future facilities. 14 The Hearings Officer's Decision did not consider whether the proposed use complied 15 with the cited portions of the Comprehensive Plan and DCC 18.76.010, but ruled instead that 16 those provisions did not apply to the application. The Decision stated: expansions within County jurisdiction on an airport master plan or airport layout plan map, as amended, and establish the appropriate airport zoning designation to assure a compatible association of airport growth with surrounding urban or rural development 17 "The Hearings Officer finds I need not reach the merits of The Flight Shop's arguments concerning the Application of the Airport Master Plan 18 and ALP to the Applicant's proposal because the plain language of Section 18.76.100 makes it applicable only to conditional uses and not to 19 uses permitted outright in the AOD zone under Section 18.76.070(A) such as fuel storage and sales. As discussed in the findings above, I have found 20 the Applicant's proposal falls within this outright permitted use." 21 Rec. 55, App. 9. 22 The ordinance the Hearings Officer Decision cited, DCC 18.76.100 ("Design and -Use 23 Criteria") does separately require the County to take the Airport Master Plan into account in 24 reviewing certain proposed conditional uses. However, nothing in that ordinance suggests 5 of 10 PETITION FOR REVIEW LUBA 2013-073 1 that the Airport Master Plan only applies to conditional uses, or that uses permitted outright 2 may be allowed anywhere in site plan review, without compliance with or reference to the 3 Airport Master Plan. To the contrary, the broad language of DCC 18.76.010 states that the 4 purpose of the AD zone is to allow that development that is consistent with the 2002 5 amendment to the Airport Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. 6 The other ordinance cited by the hearings officer, DCC 18.76.070, simply states that 7 fuel storage and sales are permitted outright. It does not address the Airport Master Plan at 8 all. However, DCC 18.76.010 provides that any development under the entire AD zoning 9 chapter, including DCC 18.76.070, must be consistent with the Airport Master Plan. 10 Therefore, neither DCC 18.76.070 nor DCC 18.76.100 excuses the application from 11 compliance with DCC 18.76.010 or the Comprehensive Plan, when they both specifically 12 prescribe the 2002 amended Airport Master Plan as the County's "guiding document" for 13 planning within the AD zone and for achieving Comprehensive Plan objectives. Consistency 14 with that Airport Master Plan is an overarching requirement and approval criterion for any use 15 in the AD zone under DCC 18.76.010 and the Comprehensive Plan. By finding that DCC 16 18.76.070 rendered both the Comprehensive Plan and DCC 18.76.010 inapplicable, and by 17 not considering them, the County Hearings Officer erred. The Decision does not comply with 18 the Comprehensive Plan and DCC 18.76.010, and improperly construed the applicable law by 19 deeming it not to apply. ORS 197.835(8)-(9). 20 Whether a Comprehensive Plan provision such as the Bend Airport Master Plan 21 provision represents a mandatory approval criterion depends on the context and wording of 22 the plan provision. A provision that is couched in terms that are mandatory and site-specific 23 support a reading as a mandatory approval criterion, while provisions that just encourage or 24 discourage certain actions will be viewed as aspirational and non -mandatory. Bothman v. City 6 of 10 PETITION FOR REVIEW LUT3A 2013-073 1 of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426, 439 (2006) (noting that geographic and subject matter 2 specificity are "highly significant" to whether a policy is a mandatory approval criterion or 3 guideline for consideration.) Further, the comprehensive plan itself should be considered for 4 whether it "expressly assigns a particular role to some or all of the plan's goals and policies." 5 Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192, 210 (2004). 6 Here, the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that "the County adopted and 7 utilizes" the 2002 amended Airport Master Plan as the "guiding document for airport planning 8 and development." App. 43. The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes that that Airport Master 9 Plan "incorporates a range of facility improvements for the Bend Municipal Airport over the 10 20 -year planning horizon (2021) ...." Id. Therefore, under Save Our Skyline, the 11 Comprehensive Plan assigns that Airport Master Plan the particular role as the County's plan 12 for all future development at the airport. The Comprehensive Plan clearly states that 13 Deschutes County shall "specifically designate any proposed airport facility relocations or 14 expansions within County jurisdiction on an airport master plan or airport layout plan map, as 15 amended .... " App. 40. This directive to specifically designate the site of future airport 16 facilities in an approved map provides context that further underscores the mandatory nature 17 of the Comprehensive Plan's Bend Airport provisions. The Comprehensive Plan clearly 18 indicates a mandatory requirement that any new development at the Airport must comply with 19 an Airport Master Plan adopted by Deschutes County. 20 Even if the adoption of the 2002 amended Airport Master Plan in the Comprehensive 21 Plan did not create a mandatory approval criteria, Deschutes County Code 18.76.010 cannot 22 reasonably be read in anything other than mandatory terms. That ordinance states that the 23 purpose for the entire Airport Development zone chapter was to assure that development is 24 consistent with the cited Airport Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Nothing in the 7 of 10 PETITION k)R REVIEW LUBA 2013-073 1 ordinance suggests that the Airport Master Plan is merely hortatory or aspirational. This 2 Court has found similar language requiring "consistency" with a comprehensive plan to 3 require compliance with that plan. Friends of the Hood River Waterfront v. City of Hood 4 River, Or LUBA , (LUBA case no. 2012-050, March 13, 2013) ("To the extent that 5 there is a difference between a requirement for plan compliance and a requirement for plan 6 consistency, both requirements apply here.") Accordingly, DCC 18.76.010 independently 7 requires compliance with the Airport Master Plan as a mandatory approval criterion. 8 Finally, even if compliance with the Airport Master Plan was not mandatory under 9 DCC 18.76.010 and/ or the Comprehensive Plan, it is at the very least a relevant standard that 10 required consideration by the Hearings Officer to review and balance with other required 11 considerations. Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, supra, 48 Or LUBA at 209. The Hearings 12 Officer Decision gave the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and DCC 18.76.010 no such 13 consideration. 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer Decision did not comply with the 15 Comprehensive Plan and AD zone ordinances, misconstrued them by finding them 16 inapplicable, and must be reversed or remanded under ORS 197.835(8) and (9). 17 V. Second Assignment of Error. 18 The County's decision did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County Code 18.76.010 because it conflicts with the adopted Airport 19 Master Plan. 20 The Leading Edge Aviation Site Plan Review application proposes a new fueling 21 station "consisting of two 12,000 gallon Fire Guard fuel tanks with a self serve fueling 22 system for AV Gas and Jet A fuel" on the west side of the Bend Airport. Rec. 386. 23 There is no serious dispute that the Airport Master Plan that has been adopted by 24 Deschutes County designates specific sites on the east side of the airport for development of 8 of 10 PETITION FOR REVIEW LUBA 2013-073 1 future fuel storage and FBO facilities, or that the proposed site for the Leading Edge Aviation 2 fuel facility is not designated for such use in that same Airport Master Plan. The designation 3 on the Airport Layout Plan map is explained and supported in the text of the 2002 amended 4 Airport Master Plan. Chapter Four of those 2002 amendments is entitled "Airport 5 Development Alternatives." It discusses alternative plans for development of the Bend 6 Airport, including alternative plans for development of the West and East sides. Rec. 172, 7 187, App. 47-48. It explains: 8 "Bend Municipal Airport has experienced substantial growth in activity, which has resulted in a nearly continuous series of improvements since 9 the most recent Airport Master Plan (Century West Engineering) was completed in 1994. Demand for hangars and other aviation -related 10 development continues to be strong. Up to this point, this demand has largely been satisfied through development on the west side of the 11 runway. However, this part of the airport is rapidly reaching a point where all developable land will be in use or is otherwise committed. The 12 1994 Master Plan recognized this likelihood and reserved the east side of the airport for future aviation -related development. [...] As the west side 13 of the airport reaches capacity, the east side will become increasingly critical to the airport's ability to satisfy demand for business and general 14 aviation facilities, services and related development." 15 Rec. 171, App. 47. After discussing multiple development alternatives and considering 16 "local and FAA review", the 2002 amendment adopted a final Airport Layout Plan that 17 "reflects the final agreed upon `preferred alternative' for the airport." Rec. 187; App. 48. It 18 is that Airport Layout Plan version that specifically designates the site of future fuel storage 19 and FBO facilities on the east side of the airport. 20 The deliberate decision making about the location of specific future development 21 reflected in the Airport Master Plan shows that the location of the proposed new Leading 22 Edge facility is a material element for determining consistency with the Airport Master Plan 23 under DCC 18.76.010 and the Comprehensive Plan. When the adopted Airport Master Plan 24 expressly designated that new development for a location that is different from that proposed 9 of 10 PL'I'11'ION FOR REVIEW I,lJRRA 2013-073 1 by the application, and actually designated other uses for the subject property, the County is 2 not free to disregard those planning choices. ORS 197.175. Since Leading Edge Aviation's 3 proposed fuel facility conflicts with the Airport Layout Plan incorporated in the 4 Comprehensive Plan and DCC 18.76.010, its site plan application should have been denied, 5 and the Hearings Officer's Decision should therefore be reversed under ORS 197.835(8). 6 VI. Conclusion. 7 8 9 10 For the foregoing reasons, the County's decision must be reversed or remanded. DATED this 12th day of November, 2013. FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP 11 Michael H. McGean, OSB #004734 Attorney for Petitioners The Flight Shop Inc. 12 and Aero Facilities LLC 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 10 of 10 PETITION FOR REVIEW 1,1113A 2013-073 APPENDIX DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBER: SP -13-7 APPLICANT: Leading Edge Aviation 63048 Powell Butte Highway Bend, Oregon 97701 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Bend 710 N.W. Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Sharon. R. Smith Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, PC 591 S.W. Milt View Way Bend, Oregon 97702 OPPONENTS' ATTORNEY: Michael H. McGean Francis Hansen & Martin LLP 1148 N.W. Hill Street Bend, Oregon 97701 Attorney for The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities, LLC REQUEST: The applicant requests site plan approval to establish an aviation fueling station in the AD Zone at the Bend Airport. STAFF REVIEWER: William Groves, Senior Planner HEARING DATE: May 28, 2013 RECORD CLOSED: June 20, 2013 I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions * Section 18.04.030, Definitions Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone -- AD * Section 18.76.020, Standards in All Districts * Section 18.76.050, Use Limitations * Section 18.76.060, Dimensional Standards * Section 18.76.070, Airfield Operations District (AOD) * Section 18.76.100, Design and Use Criteria Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone -- AS * Section 18.80.026, Notice of Land Use and Permit Applications * Section 18.80.028, Height Limitations * Section 18.80.044, Land Use Compatibility * Section 18.80.078, FAA Notification (Form 7460-1) LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 47 App. 1 Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions * Section 18.116.020, Clear Vision Areas * Section 18.116.030, Off-street Parking and Loading * Section 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review * Section 18.124.030, Approval Required * Section 18.124.060, Approval Criteria * Section 18.124.070, Required Minimum Standards B. Title 22 of the Deschutes County, the Land Use Procedures Ordinance II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Location: The subject property is located at the Bend Municipal Airport and is further identified as Tax Lot 200 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-13-20. B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned Airport Development (AD), Airfield Operations District (AOD), and is also located within the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone for the Bend Municipal Airport. The property is designated Airport Develpment on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map. C. Site Description: The Bend Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Bend. It consists of 177 predominantly level acres and is developed with a paved runway and taxiways, aircraft hangars and tie -downs, and a variety of aircraft -related businesses operating pursuant to leases with the city. Although the city operates the airport, it is located outside the Bend city limits and therefore is subject to the county's land use ordinances. The proposed fueling station would be located on a 6,500 -square -foot leased area north of the existing Leading Edge Aviation Building, on the west of Taxiway A and on the south side of Taxilane 7. D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: The Bend Municipal Airport is surrounded by land zoned Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10) and developed primarily with rural residences and small-scale farms. The airport is zoned AD and the subject fueling station site would be surrounded by land within the AD Zone and developed with airport - related uses. Those uses include an aircraft fueling station owned by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities, LLC, the existing Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the airport (hereafter "The Flight Shop"). E. Procedural History: The application was submitted on April 16, 2013 and was accepted by the county as complete on May 15, 2013. Therefore, the 150 -day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.427 would have expired on October 14, 2013. A public hearing was scheduled for May 28, 2013. On that date and prior to the hearing, the Hearings Officer conducted a site visit to the subject property and vicinity accompanied by Senior Planner Will Groves. At the public hearing, the Hearings Officer declared her observations and impressions from the site visit, received testimony and evidence, left the written evidentiary record open through Jun 18, 2013, and allowed the applicant through June 25, 2013 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. By an electronic message dated June 20, 2012 the applicant waived its right to submit final argument and the record closed on that date. Because the applicant agreed to the SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 2 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 48 App. 2 post -hearing schedule, under Section 22.24.140 of the county's procedures ordinance the 150 -day period was extended for 14 days and now expires on October 28, 2013. As of the date of this decision there remain 102 days in the extended 150 -day period. F. Proposal: The applicant requests site plan approval to establish an aviation fueling station on the subject site. The applicant currently operates an aviation -related business at the Bend Airport that includes aircraft rental and instruction. The proposed aviation fueling station would be located north of the applicant's existing facility, just northwest of the intersection of Powell Butte Highway and Butler Market Road. The facility would consist of two ground -mounted 12,000 -gallon Fire Guard fuel tanks and a self -serve fueling system for aviation fuel (AV Gas and Jet A), as well as a paved standing and maneuvering area for aircraft. The fueling station would be accessible to aircraft from Taxiway A and would be accessible to fueling trucks from Taxilane 7. The proposed site is a leased area approximately 6,500 square feet in size. The fuel tanks would occupy a 1,700 -square -foot area on the west side of the leased area. Three existing aircraft tie - downs on the west side of Taxiway A and on the east side of the leased area would be removed to provide aircraft access to the fueling station. Patrons of the fueling station would pay for fuel using a credit card. G. Public/Private Agency Notice and Comments: The Planning Division sent notice of the applicant's proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the Deschutes County Transportation Planner; the City of Bend Fire Department and Airport Manager; and the Oregon Department of Aviation. These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 2 and 3 of the staff report and/or are included in the record.' The following agencies did not respond or had no comments on the applicant's proposal: the Deschutes County Building Division; and the City of Bend Planning and Engineering Divisions and Public Works Department. H. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property located within 250 feet of the subject property. The record indicates this notice was mailed to 31 property owners. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the Bend 'Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the record closed, the county had received one letter in response to this notice from Michael McGean representing The Flight Shop. In addition, Mr. McGean and one member of the public testified at the public hearing. Lot of Record: The staff report states the county recognizes the subject property as a legal lot on the basis of previously -issued building and land use approvals thereon. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance COMPLIANCE WITH AD ZONE REQUIREMENTS ' In her April 30, 2012 comments on the applicant's proposal, Sandra Larsen, Aviation Planning Analyst with the Department of Aviation, stated the applicant is required to obtain approval from the Department of Aviation for the proposed fueling station. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 3 L1113A No. 2013-073 Page 49 App. 3 1. Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone -- AD a. Section 18.76.020, Standards in AU Districts A. Approval Required. Any use in an AOD, ASD, or ARID District shall be subject to DCC 18.124. FINDINGS: The subject property is located within the Airfield Operations District (AOD) in the AD Zone and therefore the proposed use is subject to site plan review under Chapter 18.124. The applicant has applied for site plan approval. The proposal's compliance with the site plan approval criteria is discussed in the findings below under Chapter 18.124. B. Solar Setbacks. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements of DCC 18.116.180. FINDINGS: The record indicates the north lot line of the Bend Airport would be over 1,000 feet from the proposed fueling station, and therefore the Hearings Officer finds the proposed fueling station would comply with the solar setback requirements of Section18.116.180, discussed in the findings below. C. Building Code Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or Deschutes County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings below, the proposed fuel tanks are located near existing hangars. The applicant's burden of proof states these tanks do not require special building setback requirements. The Deschutes County Building Division did not comment on the applicant's proposal or identify any particular building code setbacks. Nevertheless, the Hearings Officer is aware all applicable structural code provisions including setbacks will be verified by the Building Division during building permit review. To assure the applicant's proposal complies with any applicable building setbacks, I find that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to submit a revised site plan showing the distance between the fuel tanks and the nearest hangar to the west. The record indicates the proposed fuel tanks also must be located outside of the FAA -required "object free area" designated on the Airport Master Plan. The submitted site plan shows the location of the "object free area" as a line to the east of the proposed fueling station site and an 80 -foot setback between this line and the fuel tanks, thus demonstrating the fuel tanks will not encroach into the "object free area." The Hearings Officer finds that with imposition of the condition of approval described above the applicant's proposal will satisfy this criterion. D. Off -Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided subject to the parking provisions of DCC 18.116. FINDINGS: The proposal's compliance with these requirements is addressed in the findings below under Chapter 18.116. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 4 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 50 App. 4 E. Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be installed in conformance with DCC 15.10. FINDINGS: The applicant has not proposed outdoor lighting for the fueling station. However, to assure compliance with this criterion the Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to install any outdoor lighting in compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 15.10. F. Excavation, Grading and Fill and Removal. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland shall be subject to DCC 18.120.050 and/or DCC 18.128.270. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the subject property does not include a stream, river, or wetland. G. Signs. All signs shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of DCC 15.08. FINDINGS: The applicant's proposal does not include any signs. To assure compliance with this criterion, the Hearings Officer finds that the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to install any signs in compliance with the applicable criteria in Chapter 15.08. b. Section 18.76.050, Use Limitations The following limitations and standards shall apply to all permitted uses in the Airport Districts: A. The height of any plant growth or structure or part of a structure such as chimneys, towers, antennas, power lines, etc., shall not exceed 35 feet. FINDINGS: The proposed fuel tanks would be 10 feet tall. No landscaping is proposed. As discussed in the findings below the Hearings Officer has found that the applicant will be required either to submit documentation that there are no unimproved areas on the fueling station site that could be landscaped, or to submit a revised site plan showing the minimum landscaping required by the site plan approval criteria in Chapter 18.124, including no trees taller than 35 feet in height at maturity. B. In approach zones beyond the clear zone areas, no meeting place designed to accommodate more than 25 persons for public or private purposes shall be permitted. FINDINGS: The proposed fueling station would be unmanned and would not be sited within the Bend Airport approach zone, therefore satisfying this criterion. C. All parking demand created by any use permitted by DCC 18.76 shall be accommodated on the subject premises entirely off-street. FINDINGS: Because the fueling station would be unmanned, the Hearings Officer finds no new parking demand would be created and therefore no off-street parking is required. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 5 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 51 App. 5 D. No use permitted by DCC 18.76 shall require the backing of traffic onto a public or private street or road right-of-way. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the location of the proposed fueling station would not require backing of traffic onto a public or private street or road right-of-way. Aircraft would access the fueling station from Taxiway A and fueling trucks would have access from Taxilane 7, neither of which abuts a public or private street. In addition, the submitted site plan shows there would be sufficient space at the fueling station for on-site standing and maneuvering of aircraft and fuel trucks. E. No power lines shall be located in clear zones. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the applicant does not propose any overhead power lines. F. No use shall be allowed which is likely to attract a large quantity of birds, particularly birds which normally fly at high altitudes. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the proposed fueling station is not a use that would attract birds. c. Section 18.76.060, Dimensional Standards The following dimensional standards shall apply in the Airport Districts: B. An airport related use or structure located adjacent to or across the street from an existing residential use or platted residential lot shall not exceed 70 percent lot coverage and shall require off street parking and loading areas. FINDINGS: The Bend Airport is located across the street from existing residential uses and platted residential Tots. The record indicates current lot coverage at the airport is approximately 40 percent. The Hearings Officer finds the small size of the proposed fueling station would not increase lot coverage within the airport to exceed 70 percent. As discussed elsewhere in this decision, I have found no on-site parking or loading is required for the unmanned facility. C. The minimum setback between any structure and an arterial right-of-way shall be 100 feet. The minimum setback between any structure and a collector right-of-way shall be 50 feet. The minimum setback between any structure and all local streets shall be 20 feet. FINDINGS: Powell Butte Highway, a designated rural arterial road, abuts the Bend Airport on the west. The applicant's submitted site plan shows the proposed fueling station would be located over 350 feet from the highway right-of-way, therefore satisfying this criterion. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 6 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 52 App. 6 D. The minimum setback between any structure and a property line adjoining a residential use or lot shall be 50 feet. FINDINGS: The record indicates the closest residential use is located across Powell Butte Highway to the west. As discussed above, the proposed fueling station would be over 350 feet from Powell Butte Highway, and therefore more than 50 feet from the nearest residential use. F. The minimum side setback between any structure and a property line shall be three feet, and the minimum total of both side setbacks shall be 12 feet. FINDINGS: The record indicates the proposed fueling station would be located over 100 feet from the airport's side lot lines, therefore satisfying this criterion. G. The minimum rear setback between any structure and a rear property line shall be 50 feet. FINDINGS: The applicant's submitted site plan shows the rear setback for the proposed fueling station would exceed 100 feet, therefore satisfying this criterion. d. Section 18.76.070, Airfield Operations District (AOD) Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A. Runway, taxiway, service road, fuel storage and sales and emergency repair. B. Facilities approved or mandated by the FAA or Oregon State Aeronautics Division specifically supporting airport operations. (Emphasis added.) FINDINGS: The proposed fueling station is permitted outright in the ASD as "fuel storage and sales." f. Section 18.76.100, Design and Use Criteria The following dimensional standards shall apply in the Airport Districts: The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall take into account the impact of any proposed conditional use within the AD Zone on nearby residential and commercial uses, and on the capacity of transportation and other public facilities and services. In approving a proposed conditional use, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find that: A. The proposed use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan as amended (supplemented) in 2002. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 7 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 53 App. 7 B. The proposed use is in compliance with the intent and provisions of DCC Title 18. C. Any adverse social, economical, physical or environmental impacts are minimized. D. The proposed use is not sensitive to noise of the character anticipated by the current and expected noise level contours of the airport. E. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent agricultural and residential uses. F. There are sufficient public facilities and services to support the proposed use. G. The location and site design of the proposed facility will not be hazardous to the safety and general welfare of surrounding properties, and that the location will not unnecessarily restrict existing and future development of surrounding lands as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. H. The use shall make the most effective use reasonably possible of the site topography, existing landscaping and building placement so as to preserve existing trees and natural features, preserve vistas and other views from public ways, minimize visibility of parking, loading and storage areas from public ways and neighboring residential uses, and minimize intrusion into the character of existing developments and land uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. (Emphasis added.) FINDINGS: The above -underscored language makes clear Section 18.76.100 applies only to conditional uses and not to outright permitted uses such as the applicant's proposed fueling station.2 Nevertheless, The Flight Shop argues the Hearings Officer should require the applicant to demonstrate its proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the Bend Airport Master Plan. The Flight Shop argues the proposal conflicts with the Airport Master Plan because the plan shows a second fueling station at a different location than that proposed by the applicant — i.e., on the east side of the runway. In his May 28, 2013 memorandum, the Flight Shop's attomey Michael McGean stated in relevant part: "The County cannot approve a site plan application for a use that is in conflict with the current 2002 Airport Layout Plan approved by the FAA and the City of Bend. The Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County acknowledges that the 2002 ALP `is the guiding document for airport planning and development.' (Ex. C, Ordinance 2012-005, p. 48. See also OAR [Oregon Administrative Rules] 660- 013-0030, requiring coordination of any land use regulation with existing 2 With the exception of Paragraphs (A) and (C) of this section, all of the factors required to be considered are addressed through other approval criteria in the AD and AS Zones and in the site plan provisions, discussed in the findings below. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 8 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 54 App. 8 acknowledged plans." The applicant is in effect asking the County to amend the ALP.' The record includes considerable written testimony from the Flight Shop, the applicant and Gary Judd, the Bend Airport Manager, concerning the applicable provisions of the Airport Master Plan and ALP, and whether and to what extent they affect the siting of airport -related uses through the county's land use process. The Hearings Officer finds I need not reach the merits of The Flight Shop's arguments concerning application of the Airport Master Plan and ALP to the applicant's proposal because the plain language of Section 18.76.100 makes it applicable only to conditional uses and not to uses permitted outright in the AOD Zone under Section 18.76.070(A) such as "fuel storage and sales? As discussed in the findings above, 1 have found the applicant's proposal falls within this outright permitted use. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that with imposition of the conditions of approval described above, the applicant's proposal satisfies all applicable approval criteria in the AD Zone. COMPLIANCE WITH AS ZONE REQUIREMENTS 2. Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone - AS a. Section 18.80.026, Notice of Land Use and Permit Applications Except as otherwise provided herein, written notice of applications for land use or limited land use decisions, including comprehensive plan or zoning amendments, in an area within this overlay zone, shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation in the same manner as notice is provided to property owners entitled by law to written notice of land use or limited land use applications. [ORS 836.623(1); OAR 738-100-010; ORS 215.416(6); ORS 227.175(6)] For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports: A. Notice shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation when the property, or a portion thereof, that is subject to the land use or limited land use application is located within 10,000 feet of the sides or ends of a runway: B. Notice of land use and limited land use applications shall be provided within the following timelines. 1. Notice of land use or limited land use applications involving public hearings shall be provided prior to the public hearing at the same time that written notice of such applications is provided to property owners entitled to such notice. 2. Notice of land use or limited land use applications not involving public hearings shall be provided at least 20 SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 9 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 55 App. 9 days prior to entry of the initial decision on the land use or limited land use application. 3. Notice of the decision on a land use or limited land use application shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation within the same timelines that such notice is provided to parties to a land use or limited Land use proceeding. 4. Notices required under DCC 18.80.026(B)(1-3) need not be provided to the airport sponsor or the Department of Aviation where the land use or limited land use application meets all of the following criteria: a. Would only allow structures of less than 35 feet in height; b. Involves property located entirely outside the approach surface; c. Does not involve industrial, mining or similar uses that emit smoke, dust or steam; sanitary landfills or water impoundments; or radio, radiotelephone, television or similar transmission facilities or electrical transmission lines; and d. Does not involve wetland mitigation, enhancement, restoration or creation. FINDINGS: The subject property is located within the AS Zone. The record indicates notice of the applicant's proposal and the public hearing was provided to the airport sponsor — the City of Bend — as well as to the Department of Aviation. The staff report notes that notice of this decision also will be provided to these entities within the same timelines that such notice is provided to parties to a land use proceeding. b. Section 18.80.028, Height Limitations All uses permitted by the underlying zone shall comply with the height limitations in DCC 18.80.028. When height limitations of the underlying zone are more restrictive than those of this overlay zone, the underlying zone height limitations shall control. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070] A. Except as provided in DCC 18.80.028(B) and (C), no structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth shall penetrate an airport .imaginary surface. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013- 0070(1)] B. For areas within airport imaginary surfaces but outside the approach and transition surfaces, where the terrain is at higher SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 10 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 56 App. 10 elevations than the airport runway surfaces such that existing structures and permitted development penetrate or would penetrate the airport imaginary surfaces, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet in height C. Other height exceptions or variances may be permitted when supported in writing by the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA. Applications for height variances shall follow the procedures for other variances and shall be subject to such conditions and terms as recommended by the Department of Aviation and the FAA (for Redmond, Bend and Sunriver.) FINDINGS: The proposed fueling station would be 10 feet tall at its highest point. The applicant's burden of proof states in relevant part: 'The proposed development falls within the Transitional Surface of the Bend Airport Safety Combining Zone. The 2002 ALP [Airport Layout Plan] was submitted as Exhibit 1. The draft ALP from the recent Master Plan update process was submitted as Exhibit 2. Due to the runway shift, the existing approved ALP (2002) is not current with regard to the actual runway transitional surfaces because the future runway location was conceptual. The draft ALP currently under review at the FAA does include the transitional surface information based on the current runway location and applicable FAA design standards. The relevant information with regard to conformance with FAA design standards regarding transitional surface penetrations is the APL/TOFA (E/F) line depicted in both the draft ALP drawing and the Site Plan (Exhibit 3). This line corresponds to the Aircraft Parking Line and is also shown as a Building Restriction Line, BRL (16), in the ALP. The notation 16 associated with this line establishes that, up to this line, structures can be constructed up to 16 feet in height without penetrating the transitional surface. Consequently, the proposed tank installation at 10 feet will not be a transitional surface penetration. Based on the definition of 'Transitional Surface' in 18.80.022, the proposed development would not penetrate the Transitional Surface of the Bend Airport." The record indicates the applicant's statements were reviewed by Peter Russell, Deschutes County Transportation Planner, and found to be accurate. The Hearings Officer has reviewed the documents identified by the applicant and concurs with the applicant's analysis. Therefore, I find the proposed fueling station will satisfy this criterion. And as discussed in the findings above under the AD Zone, I have found landscaping required for the fueling station shall not exceed a height of 35 feet at maturity. c. Section 18.80.044, Land Use Compatibility Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall comply with the requirements of DCC 18.80 as provided herein. When compatibility issues arise, the Planning Director or Hearings Body is required to take actions that eliminate or minimize the incompatibility by choosing the most compatible location or design for the boundary or use. Where compatibility issues persist, despite actions or conditions intended to SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 11 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 57 App. 11 eliminate or minimize the incompatibility, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may disallow the use or expansion, except where the action results in Toss of current operational levels and/or the ability of the airport to grow to meet future community needs. Reasonable conditions to protect the public safety may be imposed by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. [ORS 836.619; ORS 836.623(1); OAR 660-013-0080] A. Noise. Within airport noise impact boundaries, land uses shall be established consistent with the levels Identified in OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 5 (Table 2 of DCC 18.80). Applicants for any subdivision or partition approval or other land use approval or building permit affecting land within airport noise impact boundaries, shall sign and record in the Deschutes County Book of Records, a Declaration of Anticipated Noise declaring that the applicant and his successors will not now, or in the future complain about the allowed airport activities at the adjacent airport. In areas where the noise level is anticipated to be at or above 55 Ldn, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of a noise sensitive land use (real property normally used for sleeping or as a school, church, hospital, public library or similar use), the permit applicant shall be required to demonstrate that a noise abatement strategy will be incorporated into the building design that will achieve an indoor noise level equal to or less than 55 Ldn. [NOTE: FAA Order 5100.38A, Chapter 7 provides that interior noise levels should not exceed 45 decibels in all habitable zones.] FINDINGS: Section 18.80.022(G) defines "Airport Noise Impact Boundary" as areas "located within 1,500 feet of an airport runway or within established noise contour boundaries exceeding 55 Ldn." The proposed fueling station would be located within a noise impact boundary because it would be within 1,500 feet of the runway. The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the proposed fueling station would not be incompatible with airport activities because of the nature of the use — i.e., an unmanned, self-service fueling station. I further find establishment of the proposed fueling station would not result in loss of current operational levels and/or the ability of the airport to grow to meet future community needs. The proposed fueling station is not a noise sensitive use. However, because this decision is one affecting land within airport noise impact boundaries, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to sign and record in the Deschutes County Book of Records a Declaration of Anticipated Noise declaring that the applicant and its successors will not complain about the allowed airport activities at the airport. For the foregoing reasons, and with imposition of the above-described condition of approval, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. B. Outdoor lighting. No new or expanded industrial, commercial or recreational use shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces except where necessary for safe and convenient air travel. Lighting for these uses shall incorporate shielding in SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 12 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 58 App. 12 their designs to reflect Tight away from airport approach surfaces. No use shall imitate airport lighting or impede the ability of pilots to distinguish between airport lighting and other lighting. FINDINGS: The staff report states this criterion does not apply to the applicant's proposal since it is an aviation -related use. The Hearings Officer agrees that the proposal is neither an industrial nor recreational use. Nevertheless, l find it is a "commercial use," defined in Section 18.04.030 as: * * * the use of land primarily for the retail sale of products or services, including offices. It does not include factories, warehouses, freight terminals or wholesale distribution centers. The record indicates that aircraft owners/pilots will purchase fuel at the proposed fueling station through a self -serve system which will allow them to use some type of credit card. I find this system clearly constitutes "retail sale of products." Therefore, I find this outdoor lighting criterion is applicable. The applicant has not proposed any outdoor lighting for the fueling station. However, to assure compliance with this criterion 1 find the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to install any outdoor lighting that is shielded so that it does not project lighting directly onto the runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces. C. Glare. No glare producing material, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of structures located within an approach surface or on nearby lands where glare could impede a pilot's vision. FINDINGS: According to the AS Zone map, the proposed fueling station is not located in an approach surface. The burden of proof states the metal fuel tanks will be painted white. The record indicates, and the Hearings Officer's site visit confirmed, that the nearby hangars are painted a light non -reflective color. For these reasons, I find this criterion is satisfied. D. Industrial emissions. No new industrial, mining or similar use, or expansion of an existing industrial, mining or similar use, shall, as part of its regular operations, cause emissions of smoke, dust or steam that could obscure visibility within airport approach surfaces, except upon demonstration, supported by substantial evidence, that mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions will reduce the potential for safety risk or incompatibility with airport operations to an insignificant level. The review authority shall impose such conditions as necessary to ensure that the use does not obscure visibility. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the proposed fueling station is not a new industrial, mining or similar use. E. Communications Facilities and Electrical Interference. No use shall cause or create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between an airport and aircraft. Proposals for the location of new or expanded radio, SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 13 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 59 App. 13 radiotelephone, and television transmission facilities and electrical transmission lines within this overlay zone shall be coordinated with the Department of Aviation and the FAA prior to approval. Approval of cellular and other telephone or radio communication towers on leased property located within airport imaginary surfaces shall be conditioned to require their removal within 90 days following the expiration of the lease agreement. A bond or other security shall be required to ensure this result. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the proposed fueling station does not constitute or include a communication facility. F. Limitations and Restrictions on Allowed Uses in the RPZ, Approach Surface, and Airport Direct and Secondary Impact Areas. For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports, the land uses identified in DCC 18.80 Table 1, and their accessory uses, are permitted, permitted under limited circumstances, or prohibited in the manner therein described. In the event .of conflict with the underlying zone, the more restrictive provisions shall control. As used in DCC 18.80.044, a limited use means a use that is allowed subject to special standards specific to that use. FINDINGS: The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that because Table 1 of Chapter 18.80 shows public airport use as a permitted use in the Transitional Surface and Direct Impact Areas, the proposed fueling station would be allowed outright on the subject site. d. Section 18.80.078, FAA Notification (Form 7460-1) A. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 requires that anyone proposing to construct anything which may obstruct the use of airspace by aircraft to provide a notice to that effect to the FAA. Generally, construction proposals in the vicinity of airports may obstruct airspace. Notice to the FAA is required for anything which may affect landing areas, either existing or planned, which are open to the public, or are operated by one of the armed forces. B. FAA Form 7460-1 "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" is the notification form. It is to be submitted by the applicant directly to the FAA. Forms are available from the Oregon Department of Aviation or the Northwest Regional Office of the FAA. C. FAA Form 7460-1 should be submitted if the proposed construction or alteration meets the following criteria: 1. Anything over 200' AGL (above ground level at the site). SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 14 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 60 App. 14 2. Proposals in the vicinity of an airport, if the proposal would be higher than a slope from the nearest point on a runway and increasing its elevation at a ratio of: Longest Runway Proximity to Runway Slope > 3,200' Within 20,000' 100 to 1 3,200' or less Within 10,000' 50 to 1 For a Heliport Within 5,000' 25 to 1 D. For identification purposes, Deschutes County has established FAA Notification Areas around each of the public use airports within Deschutes County. The boundaries of these areas are based on the runway length. If a proposed construction project is located in one of these areas, the applicant shall determine if the height of the proposed project will require FAA notification as per DCC 18.80.076(C). In Deschutes County, each of the public -use airports has a runway longer than 3,200 feet Therefore, each FAA notification area includes all land within 20,000 feet of each airport's runway(s), and the slope to be used is 100 to 1. E. FAA notification is NOT required for any of the following construction or alteration: 1. Any object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and would be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will not adversely affect safety in air navigation. 2. Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height except one that would increase the height of another antenna structure. 3. Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing aid, aircraft arresting device, or meteorological device, of a type approved by the Administrator, or an appropriate military service on military airports, the location and height of which is fixed by its functional purpose. 4. Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FAA regulation. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed fueling station is not one of the uses exempt from the requirement to notify the FAA. However, I find the applicant bears the SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 15 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 61 App. 15 responsibility to coordinate with the Bend Airport manager and to submit FAA Form 7460-1 for the proposed fueling station. The staff report recommends, and I agree, that the applicant be required as a condition of approval to provide to the Planning Division written documentation that final approval of Form 7460-1 has been given by the FAA prior to issuance of building permits. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that with imposition of the conditions of approval described above, the applicant's proposal satisfies the applicable criteria in the AS Zone. COMPLIANCE WITH SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 3. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions a. Section 18.116.020, Clear Vision Areas A. In all zones, a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. A clear vision area shall contain no planting, fence, wall, structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet in height, measured from the top of the curb or, where no curb exists, from the established street centerline grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight feet above the grade. B. A clear vision area shall consist of a triangular area on the corner of a lot at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. Two sides of the triangle are sections of the lot lines adjoining the street or railroad measured from the corner to a distance specified in DCC 18.116.020(B)(1) and (2). Where lot lines have rounded corners, the specified distance is measured from a point determined by the extension of the lot lines to a point of intersection. The third side of the triangle is the line connecting the ends of the measured sections of the street lot lines. The following measurements 0 fshall establish clear vision areas within the County: 1. In an agricultural, forestry or industrial zone, the minimum distance shall be 30 feet or at intersections including an alley, 10 feet. 2. In all other zones, the minimum distance shall be in relationship to street and road right of way widths as follows: Right -of -Way Width Clear Vision 80 feet or more 20 feet 60 feet 30 feet 50 feet and less 40 feet SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 16 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 62 App. 16 FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the proposed fueling station is not located at, and will not impact, any clear vision area at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. b. Section 18.116.030, Off-street Parking and Loading A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and evidence are presented to show how the off-street parking and loading requirements are to be met and that property is and will be available for exclusive use as off- street parking and loading. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18. B. Off -Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows: 1. Commercial, industrial and public utility uses which have a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or more shall provide truck loading or unloading berths subject to the following table: Sq. Ft. of Floor Area No. of BerthsRequired Less than 5,000 0 5,000-30,000 1 30,000-100,000 2 100,000 and Over 3 2. Restaurants, office buildings, hotels, motels, hospitals and institutions, schools and colleges, public buildings, recreation or entertainment facilities and any similar use which has a gross floor area of 30,000 square feet or more shall provide off-street truck loading or unloading berths subject to the following table: Sq. Ft. Floor Area No. of Berths Required Less than 30,000 0 30,000-100,000 1 100,000 and Over 2 3. A loading berth shall contain space 10 feet wide, 35 feet long and have a height clearance of 14 feet. Where the vehicles generally used for loading exceed SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 17 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 63 App. 17 these dimensions, the required length of these berths shall be increased. (Emphasis added.) FINDINGS: The staff report questions whether these criteria are applicable because the proposed outdoor fueling station does not have any true "floor area." The term "floor area" is not defined in Title 18. The uses listed in the loading berth tables constitute uses enclosed in structures, with the possible exception of "public utility uses" and "recreation or entertainment facilities" which could include outdoor space and therefore, theoretically, could require one or more "loading berths." However, the Hearings Officer finds that in light of the nature of the proposed fueling station, rather than requiring a loading berth it is more appropriate to assure there is sufficient loading space" for the fuel trucks that will deliver fuel to the tanks. Section 18.04.030 defines "loading space" as: * * * an off-street space within a building or on the same lot with a building, having direct access to a street or alley, for the temporary parking of a commercial vehicle or truck while loading or unloading merchandise or materials. As discussed in the findings above, the proposed site plan shows a large area on the subject property for the temporary standing and maneuvering of fuel trucks which would enter and exit the property via Taxiway A and Taxilane 7. The Hearings Officer finds this area will provide adequate loading space for the proposed use, therefore satisfying these criteria. 4. If loading space has been provided in connection with an existing use or is added to an existing use, the loading space shall not be eliminated if elimination would result in less space than is required to adequately handle the needs of the particular use. FINDINGS: The applicant's proposal would not eliminate any existing loading space. 5. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to take care of parking needs. FINDINGS: The record indicates there are no off-street vehicle parking areas in the vicinity of the proposed fueling station that would be impacted by any fuel truck unloading and/or fuel tank loading. C. Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set forth in DCC 18.116.030 for all uses in all zoning districts. Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building existing on the effective date of DCC Title 18 is changed. D. Number of Spaces Required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows: SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 18 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 64 App. 18 9. Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate parking as required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The above list shall be used as a guide for determining requirements for said other uses. FINDINGS: Aviation fueling station is not one of the uses specifically listed in this section. The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the nature of the proposed unmanned fueling station is such that it would not generate any demand for vehicle parking spaces at the airport, and therefore no off-street parking spaces are required for the use. As discussed above, I have found the submitted site plan shows adequate space for the temporary standing and maneuvering of both aircraft and fuel trucks on the site. E. General Provisions. Off -Street Parking. 1. More Than One Use on One or More Parcels. In the event several uses occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirement for off-street parking shall be the sum of requirements of the several uses computed separately. FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the proposed fueling station does not require off-street parking and therefore I find this criterion is not applicable. 2. Joint Use of Facilities. The off-street parking requirements of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking or loading space used jointly to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators of the uses, structures or parcels that their operations and parking needs do not overlap at any point of time. If the uses, structures or parcels are under separate ownership, the right to joint use of the parking space must be evidence by a deed, lease, contract or other appropriate written document to establish the joint use. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because no joint use facilities are proposed. 3. Location of Parking Facilities. Off-street parking spaces for dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling. Other required parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel or another parcel not farther than 500 feet from the building or use they are intended to serve, measured in a straight line from the building in a commercial or industrial zone. Such parking shall be located in a safe and functional manner as determined during site plan approval. The burden of proving the existence of such off -premise parking arrangements rests upon the applicant. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 19 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 65 App. 19 4. Use of Parking Facilities. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found no off-street parking spaces are required for the proposed fueling station because the proposed unmanned use would not generate any demand for vehicle parking spaces. Therefore 1 find these criteria are not applicable. 5. Parking, Front Yard. Required parking and loading spaces for multi -family dwellings or commercial and industrial uses shall not be located in a required front yard, except in the Sunriver UUC Business Park (BP) District and the La Pine UUC Business Park (LPBP) District and the LaPine UUC Industrial District (LPI), but such space may be located within a required side or rear yard. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the proposed use does not require off-street parking, and therefore there will be no parking in a required front yard. F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off -Street Parking Areas. Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private parking area, including commercial parking lots, shall be developed as follows: 1. Except for parking to serve residential uses, an off- street parking area for more than five vehicles shall be effectively screened by a sight obscuring fence when adjacent to residential uses, unless effectively screened or buffered by landscaping or structures. 2. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone. 3. Groups of more than two parking spaces shall be located and designed to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right of way other than an alley. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are not applicable because no off-street parking areas or spaces are required for the proposed use. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 20 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 66 App. 20 4. Areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved surfaces adequately maintained for all weather use and so drained as to contain any flow of water on the site. An exception may be made to the paving requirements by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon finding that: a. A high water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface to reduce surface water runoff problems; or b. The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties; or c. The subject use will be in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial District in an unincorporated community and dust control measures will occur on a continuous basis which will mitigate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. FINDINGS: As discussed above, the submitted site plan shows an area on the proposed fueling station site for standing and maneuvering of aircraft and fueling trucks. The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that this criterion requires the standing and maneuvering area on the site to be paved. I further find none of the listed exceptions to pavement applies to the applicant's proposal. Therefore, 1 find the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to pave areas used for standing and maneuvering of aircraft and fuel trucks, to adequately maintain the paved surfaces for all weather use, and to design and maintain them so that any water is contained on site. 6. Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering. FINDINGS: The applicant does not propose any new access aisles for the proposed fueling station. Aircraft would access the site from Taxiway A and the fueling truck would access it from Taxilane 7. In addition, the submitted site plan shows three existing aircraft tie -downs will be removed to provide open access from the taxiway to the fueling station. Based on the submitted site plan and the Hearings Officer's site visit observations, I find these taxiways are of sufficient width to allow tuming and maneuvering by both aircraft and fuel trucks. 6. Service drives to off-street parking areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic, provide maximum safety of traffic access and egress and maximum safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic on the site. The number of service drives shall be limited to the minimum that will accommodate and serve the traffic anticipated. Service drives shall be clearly and permanently SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 21 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 67 App. 21 marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. Service drives to drive in establishments shall be designed to avoid backing movements or other maneuvering within a street other than an alley. 7. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right of way line and a straight line joining said lines through points 30 feet from their intersection. 8. Parking spaces along the outer boundaries of a parking area shall be contained by a curb or bumper rail placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are not applicable because no off-street parking areas are required for the proposed use. G. Off -Street Parking Lot Design. All off-street parking lots shall be designed subject to County standards for stalls and aisles as set forth in the following drawings and table: (SEE TABLE 1 AT END OF CHAPTER 18.116) 1. For one row of stalls use "C" + "D" as minimum bay width. 2. Public alley width may be included as part of dimension "D," but all parking stalls must be on private property, off the public right of way. 3. For estimating available parking area, use 300-326 square feet per vehicle for stall, aisle and access areas. 4. For Targe parking lots exceeding 20 stalls, alternate rows may be designed for compact cars provided that the compact stalls do not exceed 30 percent of the total required stalls. A compact stall shall be eight feet in width and 17 feet in length with appropriate aisle width. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are not applicable because no off-street parking is required for the proposed use. c. Section 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking New development and any construction, renovation or alteration of an existing use requiring a site plan review under DCC Title 18 for SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 22 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 68 App. 22 which planning approval is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance 93-005 shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.031. A. Number and Type of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required. 1. General Minimum Standard. a. All uses that require off-street motor vehicle parking shall, except as specifically noted, provide one bicycle parking space for every five required motor vehicle parking spaces. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because I have found the proposed fueling station does not require any off-street vehicle parking. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that with imposition of the conditions of approval described above the applicant's proposal will satisfy all applicable approval criteria in the supplementary provisions. COMPLIANCE WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 4. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review a. Section 18.124.030, Approval Required A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to DCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following: 1. All conditional use permits where a site plan is a condition of approval; 2. Multiple family dwellings with more than three units; 3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities; 4. All industrial uses; 5.. All other uses that serve the general public or that otherwise require parking facilities, including, but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries, mausoleums, crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales yards; and SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 23 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 69 App. 23 6. As specified for Flood Plain Zones (FP) and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones (SMIA). FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal requires site plan review and approval under Paragraph (B)(5) of this section. Although I have found the proposed use does not require off-street parking, it is a use that has the potential to serve the general public — i.e., owners, pilots and passengers of general aviation aircraft operating at Bend Airport which is a public airport. In addition, the staff report notes that Section 18.76.020(A) of the AS Zone states any use in that zone and in the AOD is subject to site plan review. The proposal's compliance with the site plan approval criteria is discussed below. The subject property is located in the AS Zone and in the AOD. b. Section 18.124.060, Approval Criteria Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. FINDINGS: The proposed fueling station would be located within the Bend Airport east of Taxiway A, south of Taxilane 7, and west of existing hangars. The proposed site is surrounded by airport -related development. As discussed above, the site is located 350 east of Powell Butte Highway, a designated rural arterial road. Based on maps in the record and the Hearings Officer's site visit observations, I find there is little "natural environment" within the airport property, consisting primarily of grassy areas surrounding the runway and on the east (opposite) side of the airport property. The proposed fueling station would consist of two 10 -foot -tall ground -mounted 12,000 -gallon fuel tanks that would be painted white, and a standing and maneuvering area for aircraft and fueling trucks. The fuel tanks would be considerably lower in height than the nearby hangars and therefore would have no effect on existing views. The record indicates, and the Hearings Officer's site visit observations confirmed, that the topography on and in the vicinity of the proposed fueling station site is generally levet and consequently very little grading will be required for construction of the fueling station. For these reasons, I find the proposed fueling station will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, will minimize visual impacts, and will preserve vies and topographical features, thereby satisfying this criterion. B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings immediately above, the Hearings Officer has found that because of the generally level topography, construction of the proposed fueling station will require very little grading and therefore the existing topography will be preserved. Based on my site visit observations there are no trees on the site to be preserved or protected. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 24 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 70 App. 24 C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. FINDINGS: The proposed fueling station is in an already developed area of the airport, located between Taxiway A and existing hangars. The site is large enough to provide for on-site standing and maneuvering areas for aircraft and fueling trucks. As discussed above, at ten feet in height the proposed fuel tanks will not penetrate any imaginary airport surfaces. The Hearings Officer finds the primary safety issue presented by the applicant's proposal is the potential for fires or accidental fuel leaks originating from the fuel tanks. At the public hearing, the applicant's representative Matt Rogers from Century West Engineering testified that the fuel tanks are designed and built to meet rigorous fire safety standards and to contain any fuel leaks within or adjacent to the tanks themselves. I observed on my site visit that there is an existing fire hydrant relatively close to the proposed fueling station site, although I am aware that materials in addition to water may be required to suppress a gasoline fire. In his comments on the applicant's proposal, Bend Fire Chief Larry Medina stated in relevant part: "An application shall be made to the Office of State Fire Marshall to install flammable/combustible liquid aboveground tank(s) accompanied by two sets of plans when installing aboveground tanks over 1000 gallons in either individual or aggregate quantities.° The staff report recommends, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that to assure a safe environment the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to meet all applicable safety requirements of the Oregon Fire Marshall and the FAA for installation and operation of on -airport fueling stations. D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that in light of the nature of the proposed use it is unlikely it would be require any accommodations for disabled persons. Nevertheless, I agree with staff that the Building Division wilt notify the applicant of any accessibility requirements at the time of building permit review. E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. FINDINGS: Because of the nature of the proposed use, the Hearings Officer finds it will have very limited use by pedestrians, likely consisting of pilots walking between their aircraft and the fuel tanks. Consequently I find no special design features or precautions are required to separate pedestrians and vehicles beyond those already in place and practiced on airport property to separate pedestrians from operating aircraft. As discussed above, aircraft will access the fueling station from Taxiway A and fuel trucks will access the station from Taxilane 7 which connects to an airport frontage road and thereafter to the Powell Butte Highway. I have found the proposed site SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 25 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 71 App. 25 will provide adequate space for on-site standing and maneuvering of aircraft and fuel trucks. For these reasons, 1 find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. F. Surface drainage system shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets or surface and subsurface water quality. FINDINGS: The proposed fueling station site is approximately 6,500 square feet in size, relatively level, and currently is composed primarily of pervious surfaces. However, the majority of the site will be paved and therefore storm water will need to be directed to the remaining pervious surfaces or otherwise contained on the site. The Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to provide to the Planning Division a grading and drainage plan that demonstrates surface water drainage will be retained on site. G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDINGS: The proposed fuel storage tanks will be ground -mounted, 10 feet tall, and painted white. The on-site standing and maneuvering area on the subject property will be paved. The applicant's proposal does not include any other structures, areas or facilities for storage. Based on the Hearings Officer's site visit observations, I find the fuel tanks will be screened from view from Powell Butte Highway and the residential uses west of the highway by the existing hangars on the west side of the subject property. For these reasons, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. H. All aboveground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDINGS: The applicant's proposal does not include installation of any above -ground utilities such as power lines. However, assuming for purposes of discussion that the proposed fuel tanks constitute "aboveground utility installations," the Hearings Officer finds they will minimize adverse visual impacts by their relatively small size, paint color, and screening by adjacent hangars. I. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.) FINDINGS: The proposal's compliance with the standards in the AD and AS Zones is discussed in the findings above. J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. FINDINGS: The applicant has not proposed exterior lighting. Nevertheless, the staff report recommends, and the Hearings Officer concurs, that the applicant be subject to a condition of approval requiring that any exterior lighting at the proposed fueling station site be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 26 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 72 App. 26 b. Section 18.124.070, Required Minimum Standards B. Required Landscaped Areas. 1. The following landscape requirements are established for multi -family, commercial and industrial developments, subiect to site plan approval: a. A minimum of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped. b. All areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved shall be landscaped. (Emphasis added.) FINDINGS: The staff report questions whether these landscape standards apply to the applicant's proposal since it is an aviation -related use. The Hearings Officer agrees with staff that the proposal is neither multi -family nor industrial development. Nevertheless, I find it is a "commercial" development. Although Title 18 does not define "commercial development," Section 18.04.030 defines "commercial use" as: * * * the use of land primarily for the retail sale of products or services, including offices. It does not include factories, warehouses, freight terminals or wholesale distribution centers. The Hearings Officer finds "commercial use" is the functional equivalent of "commercial development," and therefore this definition is relevant to application of Paragraph (8) to the applicant's proposal. The record indicates that aircraft owners/pilots will purchase fuel at the proposed fueling station through a self -serve system which will allow them to use some type of credit card. This operation clearly constitutes "retail sale of products." Therefore, I find the landscape requirements in this section technically are applicable. The applicant's site plan does not propose any landscaping of the fueling station site. However, it appears from the submitted site plan that there would be no unimproved areas on the site — i.e., the entire site would be paved, including the location of the fuel tanks and the aircraft and vehicle standing and maneuvering areas. The Hearings Officer finds that to assure compliance with this landscaping criterion, the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to submit either written documentation that there will be no unpaved areas on the fueling station site, or, if there will be unpaved areas, a revised site plan showing the minimum landscaping required by this section and the means for watering and maintaining this landscaping. 2. In addition to the requirement of DCC 18.124.070(B)(1)(a), the following landscape requirements shall apply to parking and loading areas: a. A parking or loading area shall be required to be improved with defined landscaped areas SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 27 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 73 App. 27 totaling no less than 25 square feet per parking space. b. In addition to the landscaping required by DCC 18.124.070(B)(2)(a), a parking or loading area shall be separated from any lot line adjacent to a roadway by a landscaped strip at least 10 feet in width, and from any other lot line by a landscaped strip at least five feet in width. c. A landscaped strip separating a parking or loading area from a street shall contain: 1) Trees spaced as appropriate to the species, not to exceed 35 feet apart on the average. 2) Low shrubs not to reach a height greater than three feet zero inches, spaced no more than eight feet apart on the average. 3) Vegetative ground cover. 3. Landscaping in a parking or loading area shall be located in defined landscaped areas which are uniformly distributed throughout the parking or loading area. 4. The landscaping in a parking area shall have a width of not Tess than five feet. 5. Provision shall be made for watering planting areas where such care is required. 6. Required landscaping shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. 7. Maximum height of tree species shall be considered when planting under overhead utility lines. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these landscaping standards are not applicable to the applicant's proposal because I have found no on-site parking or loading areas are required. C. Nonmotorized Access. 1. Bicycle Parking. The development shall provide the number and type of bicycle parking facilities as required in DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035. The location and design of bicycle parking facilities shall be indicated on the site plan. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 28 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 74 App. 28 FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposal does not require any bicycle parking because no off-street vehicle parking is required. 2. Pedestrian Access and Circulation: a. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be provided in new commercial, office and multi family residential developments through the clustering of buildings, construction of hard surface pedestrian walkways, and similar techniques. FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposed fueling station constitutes a commercial use because it involves retail sales of aviation fuel. However, I also have found the use will not generate pedestrian traffic other than pilots walking between their aircraft and the fuel tanks. The proposed aircraft standing and maneuvering areas will be paved surfaces that will permit safe on-site circulation for the few pedestrians who will use the site. For these reasons I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. b. Pedestrian walkways shall connect building entrances to one another and from building entrances to public streets and existing or planned transit facilities. On site walkways shall connect with walkways, sidewalks, bikeways, and other pedestrian or bicycle connections on adjacent properties planned or used for commercial, multi family, public or park use. c. Walkways shall be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width. Walkways which border parking spaces shall be at least seven feet wide unless concrete bumpers or curbing and landscaping or other similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles from obstructing the walkway. Walkways shall be as direct as possible. d. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the walkway system crosses driveways, parking areas and loading areas, the walkway must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar method. e. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the primary building entrance and any walkway that connects a transit stop to building entrances shall have a maximum slope of five percent. Walkways up to eight percent slope SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 29 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 75 App. 29 are permitted, but are treated as ramps with special standards for railings and landings FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are not applicable because the proposed fueling station will be located entirely outside any structures and consequently there will be no "building entrance" to which a pedestrian walkway would be required to connect. V. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the applicant's site plan for the proposed aviation fueling station, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. This approval is based upon the submitted burden of proof statement and exhibits, site plan, and written and oral testimony. Any substantial change to the approved site plan will require a new land use application and approval. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 2. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division either written documentation that there will be no unimproved (unpaved) areas on the fueling station site, or, if there will be unimproved (unpaved) areas, a revised site plan showing the minimum required landscaping and the means for watering and maintaining this landscaping. 3. The applicant/owner shall submit a revised site plan showing: a. the distance between the fuel tanks and the nearest hangar to the west; b. a grading and drainage plan that demonstrates surface water drainage will be contained on site; and c. if there are unimproved (unpaved) areas on the fueling station site, the location and types of minimum required landscaping and the means for watering and maintaining this landscaping. 4. The applicant/owner shall sign and record in the Deschutes County Book of Records a Declaration of Anticipated Noise declaring that the applicant and its successors will not now, or in the future, complain about the allowed airport activities at the Bend Airport. 5. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division written documentation of final FAA approval of the FM Form 7460-1 for the fueling station. 6. The applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division written documentation of final approval of the fueling station from the Oregon Department of Aviation. WITH CONSTRUCTION: 7. The applicant/owner shall pave all areas on the fueling station site used for standing and maneuvering of aircraft and other vehicles. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 30 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 76 App. 30 8. The applicant/owner shall install any outdoor lighting in compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 15.10 of the Deschutes County Code. Such lighting shall be shielded so that it does not project lighting directly onto the runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces. 9. The applicant/owner shall install the fuel tanks to meet all applicable safety requirements of the Oregon Fire Marshall and the FAA for installation and operation of on -airport fueling stations. AT ALL TIMES: 10. The applicant/owner shall maintained all paved areas on the fueling station site for all weather use and assure that drainage of surface water is retained on site. 11. The applicant/owner shall install any signs so that they comply with the provisions of the county's sign ordinance, Chapter 15.08 of the Deschutes County Code. Dated this 18th day of July, 2013. Mailed this 19th day of July, 2013. Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Page 31 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 77 App. 31 Chapter 18.76. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ZONE — A -D 18.76.010. Purpose. 18.76.020. Standards in All Districts. 18.76.030. Uses Permitted Outright. 18.76.040. Conditional Uses. 18.76.050. Use Limitations. 18.76.060. Dimensional Standards. 18.76.070. Airfield Operations District (AOD). 18.76.080. Aviation Support District (ASD). 18.76.090. Aviation -Related Industrial District (ARID). 18.76.100. Design and Use Criteria. 18.76.110. Additional Requirements. 18.76.010. Purpose. The purpose of the Airport Development (AD) Zone is to allow for development compatible with ongoing airport_ se sn,isttent with the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan (as amended by a 2002 supplement), while providing for public review of proposed development likely to have significant impact on surrounding lands. The AD Zone is composed of three separate zoning districts, each with its own set of allowed uses and distinct regulations, as further set forth in DCC 18.76. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.76.020. Standards in All Districts. A. Approval Required. Any use in an AOD, ASD, or ARID District shall be subject to DCC 18.124. B. Solar Setbacks. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements of DCC 18.116.180. C. Building Code Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or Deschutes County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. D. Off -Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided subject to the parking provisions of DCC 18.116. E. Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be installed in conformance with DCC 15.10. F. Excavation, Grading and Fill and Removal. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland shall be subject to DCC 18.120.050 and/or DCC 18.128.270. G. Signs. All signs shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of DCC 15.08. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003) 18.76.030. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright in all of the Airport Districts: A. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230. B. Class III road or street project. C. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. D. Farm use as defined in DCC Title 18. Chapter 18.76 1 (09/2004) App. 32 (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003; Ord. 2001-039 §10, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 93-043 §11, 1993; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.76.040. Conditional Uses. The following uses may be allowed in all of the Airport Districts subject to DCC 18.128. A. Farm accessory buildings and uses, excluding residential uses. B. Utility facility necessary for public service except landfills. C. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland subject to DCC 18.120.050 and/or DCC 18.128.270. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003; Ord. 2001-039 §10, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991) 18.76.050. Use Limitations. The following limitations and standards shall apply to all permitted uses in the Airport Districts: A. The height of any plant growth or structure or part of a structure such as chimneys, towers, antennas, power lines, etc., shall not exceed 35 feet. B. In approach zones beyond the clear zone areas, no meeting place designed to accommodate more than 25 persons for public or private purposes shall be permitted. C. All parking demand created by any use permitted by DCC 18.76 shall be accommodated on the subject premises entirely off-street. D. No use permitted by DCC 18.76 shall require the backing of traffic onto a public or private street or road right of way. E. No power lines shall be located in clear zones. F. No use shall be allowed which is likely to attract a large quantity of birds, particularly birds which normally fly at high altitudes. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.76.060. Dimensional Standards. The following dimensional standards shall apply in the Airport Districts: A. The minimum lot size shall be determined subject to the provisions of DCC 18.76 relative to setback requirements, off-street parking and loading requirements, lot coverage limitations or as deemed necessary by the Planning Director or Hearings Body to maintain air, land and water resource quality, protect adjoining and area land uses, and to ensure resource carrying capacities are not exceeded. B. An airport related use or structure located adjacent to or across the street from an existing residential use or platted residential lot shall not exceed 70 percent lot coverage and shall require off-street parking and loading areas. C. The minimum setback between any structure and an arterial right of way shall be 100 feet. The minimum setback between any structure and a collector right of way shall be 50 feet. The minimum setback between any structure and all local streets shall be 20 feet. D. The minimum setback between any structure and a property line adjoining a residential use or lot shall be 50 feet. E. The minimum lot frontage shall be 50 feet. F. The minimum side setback between any structure and a property line shall be three feet, and the minimum total of both side setbacks shall be 12 feet. G. The minimum rear setback between any structure and a rear property line shall be 50 feet. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003; Ord. 94-008 §24, 1994; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.76.070. Airfield Operations District (AOD). Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: Chapter 18.76 2 (09/2004) App. 33 A. Runway, taxiway, service road, fuel storage and sales and emergency repair. B. Facilities approved or mandated by the FAA or Oregon State Aeronautics Division specifically supporting airport operations. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003) 18.76.080. Aviation Support District (ASD). A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: 1. Runway, taxiway, service road, fuel storage and sales and emergency repair. 2. Facilities approved or mandated by the FAA or Oregon State Aeronautics Division. 3. Related uses which are customarily appurtenant to airports, including but not limited to hangars, tie -down areas and parking facilities. B. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following conditional uses may be permitted subject to DCC 18.128 and a conditional use permit: 1. Restaurant, which may include a bar or cocktail lounge as an accessory use. One restaurant per airport. Restaurant, including any accessory use, to be 2,500 square feet or less in size. 2. Airport or aviation -related businesses that benefit from an on -airport location. (Ord. 2004-013 §8, 2004; Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003) 18.76.090. Aviation -Related Industrial District (ARID). Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A. Runway, taxiway, service road, fuel storage and sales and emergency repair. B. Facilities approved or mandated by the FAA or Oregon State Aeronautics Division. C. Related uses which are customarily appurtenant to airports, including but not limited to hangars, tie -down areas and parking facilities. D. Airport or aviation -related commercial or industrial businesses that benefit from an on -airport location. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003) 18.76.100. Design and Use Criteria. The following dimensional standards shall apply in the Airport Districts: The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall take into account the impact of any proposed conditional use within the AD Zone on nearby residential and commercial uses, and on the capacity of transportation and other public facilities and services. In approving a proposed conditional use, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find that: A. The proposed use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan as amended (supplemented) in 2002. B. The proposed use is in compliance with the intent and provisions of DCC Title 18. C. Any adverse social, economical, physical or environmental impacts are minimized. D. The proposed use is not sensitive to noise of the character anticipated by the current and expected noise level contours of the airport. E. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent agricultural and residential uses. F. There are sufficient public facilities and services to support the proposed use. G. The location and site design of the proposed facility will not be hazardous to the safety and general welfare of surrounding properties, and that the location will not unnecessarily restrict existing and future development of surrounding lands as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. H. The use shall make the most effective use reasonably possible of the site topography, existing landscaping and building placement so as to preserve existing trees and natural features, preserve vistas and other views from public ways, minimize visibility of parking, loading and storage areas from public Chapter 18.76 3 (09/2004) App. 34 ways and neighboring residential uses, and minimize intrusion into the character of existing developments and land uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.76. 110. Additional Requirements. As a condition of approval for any conditional use proposed within the AD Zone, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may require: A. An increase in required setbacks. B. Additional off-street parking and loading facilities and building standards. C. Limitations on signs or lighting, hours of operation, points of ingress and egress and building heights. D. Additional landscaping, screening and other improvements. E. Glare -resistant materials in construction or other methods likely to reduce operating hazards. F. Other conditions considered necessary to achieve compliance and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 80-221 §1, 1980) Chapter 18.76 4 (09/2004) App. 35 �escl�utes C,ot,uktu corel1evt&,\Je PLcv�, App. 36 Sectf,oiA, 3.j Trawspovtat,ow The Transportation System Plan is being adopted as a separate project and will be incorporated here when adopted. 32 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.7 TRANSPORTATION App. 37 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan 2010 2030 Adopted by Ordinance 2012-005 August 6, 2012 By The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page I of 268 App. 3 8 attention shall be given to obtaining and keeping rights-of-way for uninterrupted routes linking various residential, commercial, resort, and park areas within the County. Linear corridors such as rivers, irrigation canals, ridges and abandoned roadway and rail lines shall receive special attention. Proposed developments may be required to provide such identified trail and path rights-of-way as part of their transportation scheme in order to maintain the integrity and continuity of the Countywide system. 15.10 The County shall work with local agencies, jurisdictions, and affected property owners to acquire, develop, address trail -connectivity issues and maintain only_those sections of trail that are located outside of UGBs that are consistent with the County's TSP but are part of a trail plan or map that has been adopted by the local jurisdiction and/or the County. Staff will work with local, state, federal agencies, and BPAC to determine the priority for trails that connect urban and rural areas. 15.1 1 Off-road paved shared -use paths shall be constructed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the most current edition of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 15.12 Deschutes County shall maintain and update as necessary, the existing ordinance requirements for bicycle facilities found in DCC 18.116.031 and DCC Chapter 17.48, Table B, or such other location that it may be moved to within the Deschutes County Development Code. AIRPORT PLAN Goal 16 16. Protect the function and economic viability of the existing public -use airports, while ensuring public safety and compatibility between the airport uses and surrounding land uses for public use airports and for private airports with three or more based aircraft. Policies 16.1 Deschutes County shall protect public -use airports through the development of airport land use regulations. Efforts shall be made to regulate the land uses in designated areas surrounding the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver and Sisters (Eagle Air) airports based upon adopted airport master plans or evidence of each airports specific level of risk and usage. The purpose of these regulations shall be to prevent the installation of airspace obstructions, additional airport hazards, and ensure the safety of the public and guide compatible land use. For the safety of those on the ground, only limited uses shall be allowed in specific noise impacted and crash hazard areas that have been identified for each specific airport. I6.2. Deschutes County shall: a. Continue to recognize the Redmond (Roberts Field) Airport as the major commercial/passenger aviation facility in Deschutes County and an airport of regional significance. Its operation, free from conflicting land uses, is in the best interests of the citizens of Deschutes County. Incompatible land uses shall be prohibited on the County lands adjacent to the airport; EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 25 of 268 App. 39 b. Cooperate with the cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters in establishing uniform zoning standards, which shall prevent the development of hazardous structures and incompatible land uses around airports; c. Take steps to ensure that any proposed uses shall not impact airborne aircraft because of height of structures, smoke, glare, lights which shine upward, radio interference from transmissions or any water impoundments or sanitary landfills which would create potential hazards from waterfowl to airborne aircraft; d. Allow land uses around public -use airports that shall not be adversely affected by noise and safety problems and shall be compatible with the airports and their operations; e. Work with, and encourage airport sponsors to work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to enforce FAA -registered flight patterns and FAA flight behavior regulations to protect the interests of County residents living near airports. f. Adopt regulations to ensure that developments in the airport approach areas shall not be visually distracting, create electrical interference or cause other safety problems for aircraft or persons on the ground. In addition, efforts shall be made to minimize population densities and prohibit places of public assembly in the approach areas; g. Continue efforts to prevent additional residential encroachment within critical noise contours or safety areas without informed consent; h. Specifically designate any proposed airport facility relocations or expansions within County jurisdiction on an airport master plan or airport layout plan map, as amended, and establish the appropriate airport zoning designation to assure a compatible association of airport growth with surrounding urban or rural development; i. Maintain geographic information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport Overlay Zones and provide timely updates; j. For those airports in Deschutes County without adopted master plans, the County shall, as a minimum, base any land use decisions involving airports on DCC Chapter 18.80 and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 13, Airport Planning; k. Participate in and encourage the County -adoption of airport master plans for all public use airports and at least an airport layout plan for the remaining State -recognized airfields in Deschutes County; Encourage appropriate federal, state and local funding for airport improvements at public -owned airports; and m. Discourage future development of private landing fields when they are in proximity to one another, near other public airports and potential airspace conflicts have been determined to exist by the Federal Aviation administration (FAA) or the Oregon Department of Aviation. EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 26 of 268 App. 40 CHAPTER ONE Introduction The State of Oregon requires cities and counties to comply in their comprehensive plans with 19 Statewide Planning Goals, of which Goal 12 is Transportation. Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 660 Division 12, Transportation Planning, implements Goal 11 OAR 660-012 is known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and requires cities and counties to prepare Transportation System Plans (TSPs) that have 20 -year planning horizons. The TSP is the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. The TSP must encompass all modes to ensure Oregonians have a transportation network at the state and local level that is safe, convenient, and economical as it serves their needs. The transportation network should provide a variety of modal choices and serve the transportation disadvantaged. Deschutes County adopted its first TSP in 1998 and began to update the TSP in January 2007. 1.1 Geographic Setting Deschutes County encompasses 3,055 square miles of widely varied terrain, ranging from the snow- capped crest and timbered slopes of the Cascade Range on the west to the sagebrush ocean of the High Desert to the east. (Figure 1.1.F1) The combination of mountains, lakes, rivers, open desert and a proximity of less than three hours driving time to each of the Willamette Valley's three major population centers (Portland, Salem, and Eugene) has long made Deschutes County a recreational destination. The County, which was formed in 1916, also lies approximately midway between Washington and California. The County's economy, like many other counties in the intermontane West, had long relied on timber and cattle with some agriculture. In recent decades, the County has relied more on tourism. An average of 12 inches of rain a year and a base elevation of approximately 3,600 feet may make farming a difficult endeavor, but those limiting factors for agriculture becomepositives for hunting, fishing, downhill and cross-country skiing, off-roading, and hiking. Yet, the County also contains areas of manufacturing, rural industry, manufacturing, and research. The County's physical and recreational amenities led to a nearly two -decade population boom. According to the 2010 US Census, the County had a total population of 157,733; by comparison in 1995 the County had a certified population of 94,100. The County's population resides in four incorporated cities Bend (76,639), Redmond (26,215), Sisters (2,038), and La Pine (1,653) and an unincorporated area totaling 51,188. In other words, about 65% of the County's population is urban and 35% is rural. Bend and Redmond are the two most populous cities in the eastern two-thirds of the state and Bend is the only Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) east of the Cascades. The main highways to Deschutes County are US 97, which is the major north -south highway on the east side of the Cascades, US 20/OR 22 from the mid -Willamette Valley, OR 126 from the Upper Willamette Valley, and US 20 and OR 31 from eastern Oregon. The bulk of the vehicle movements in Deschutes County occurs on the state highway system, particularly on US 97 between Redmond and Bend, US 20 between Sisters and Bend, and US 97 between Bend and Sunriver. US 97 leads north roughly 113 miles to Interstate 84 and the Columbia Gorge and south approximately 152 miles to California. EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 30 of 268 App. 41 1.2 Transportation Planning The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) synthesizes the transportation information, population, and land use patterns to identify short to long-term transportation needs. The timelines are defined as follows. Short-term is 0-5 years; mid-term is 6-10 years; and long-term is I 1-20 years. The TSP in the short-term identifies and provides recommended solutions to immediate safety, operational, and congestion problems. For the 20 -year planning horizon, the TSP identifies goals and policies and prioritizes projects to ensure the movement of people, goods, and services through the County. The Deschutes County TSP was coordinated with the TSPs for the cities within the County and with various state modal plans, including air, auto, bicycles, freight, pedestrian, pipeline, rail, and transit. The plan reflects existing land use plans, policies, and regulations that affect the transportation system and includes financial assumptions and concepts on how to finance future projects Goal 12 Goal 12 is the transportation goal in the nineteen separate statewide planning goals adopted by the State of Oregon in the 1970`s. These goals were designed to be implemented through inclusion in regional and local comprehensive plans. Under Goal 12, local governments, regions and metropolitan areas (MPOs) must adopt transportation plans which: "...provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." Specifically, each transportation plan: "..shall (1) consider all modes of transportation including mass transit, air, water, pipeline, rail, highway, bicycle and pedestrian; (2) be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state transportation needs; (3) consider the differences in social consequences that would result from utilizing differing combinations of transportation modes; (4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation; (5) minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs; (6) conserve energy; (7) meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services; (8) facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional economy; and (9) conform with local and regional comprehensive land use plans." The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1979 and codified in April 1993. The Plan included a chapter on transportation, which addressed County -wide issues in Deschutes County Code (DCC) 23.60. The County adopted its first TSP in 1998. The TSP was codified in the Comprehensive Plan at DCC 23.64. While the two chapters complement each other, they also introduce a slight bit of confusion and redundancy, so one result of the TSP Update was to just have one chapter in DCC for transportation. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) In April, 1991, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted a new administrative rule, the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660, Division 12), governing transportation planning and project development at local, regional and statewide levels. The rule was modified in 2004 and 2006, but its overall intent remains unchanged. EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 31 of 268 App. 42 Transportation facilities, that are illustrated on the Bend TSPs Roadway System Plan map, but are located beyond the Bend UGB and therefore not authorized by the TSP, shall not be constructed to an urban standard until approved by the County and the area is brought into the UGB. As areas are annexed into the City of Bend, or are urbanized within the UGB, the affected land use authority, property owners, developers and/or applicable service districts shall work cooperatively to develop appropriate plans for extensions and connections of the transportation system, including but not limited to: roads, sidewalks, trails and/or public transportation. City of Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan The Bend Municipal Airport is located outside the Bend City limits and UGB, therefore the County has land use jurisdiction over it. In order to guide airport land uses, the County adopted and utilizes the 1994 Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan, as amended in 2002 the "Supplement to 1994 Airport Master Plan," which is incorporated by reference herein. This is the guiding document for airport planning and development. This document incorporates a range of facility improvements for the Bend Municipal Airport over the 20 -year planning horizon (2021), including short, intermediate, and long-term projects to improve safety and function at the airport. In 2003 the County adopted DCC 18.76, Airport Development (AD) Zone to identify outright permitted and conditional activities at the airport. The County in 2001 adopted DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combing Zone (AS) to ensure surrounding land uses and structures were compatible with airport operations. The City of Bend is currently in the midst of updating of the Bend Airport Master Plan in 2010-12. County planning staff is participating in that process which will look at land uses within the airport as well as the potential for physical expansion of the airport. City of Redmond Transportation System Plan The City of Redmond identified the following goals in its Transportation System Plan update of June 2008: Provide a supportive transportation network to the land use plan that provides opportunities for transportation choices and the use of alternative modes serving all residential areas and businesses. 2 Develop a transportation system that is supportive with (sic) the City's adopted comprehensive land plan and with the adopted plans of state, local, and regional jurisdictions. 3 Establish a clear and objective set of transportation facility design and development regulations and standards that address all elements of the city transportation system and promote access to and utilization of a multi -modal transportation system. 4 Develop complementary infrastructure for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to provide a diverse range of transportation choices for City residents. 5 Provide reliable and convenient transit service to Redmond residents and businesses as well as special transit operations for the City's elderly and disabled residents. EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 48 of 268 App. 43 1: SEND NIURICIPAL AIRPORT FINAL REPORT AIRPORT PLANNING UPDATE (SuppIemeh'tt.1.00.4.Alroott Master Plan Update) December 20.02 'Prepared by it/AZ°, E:NTU RY W EST ---, A:IOW-Ariz.-pow co10464:4701+7 6650- SW:Redwood Lang:S.tifte..300 Pirttandi Oregon 070.24 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 129 App. 44 CHAPTER FOUR Airport Development Alternatives LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 170 App. 45 CHAPTER FOUR BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT PLANNING UPDATE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Introduction Bend Municipal Airport has experienced substantial growth in activity, which has resulted in a nearly continuous series of improvements since the most recent Airport Master Plan (Century West Engineering) was completed in 1994. Demand for hangars and other aviation -related development continues to be strong. Up to this point, this demand has Iargely been satisfied through development on the west side of the runway. However, this part of the airport is rapidly reaching a point where all developable land will be in use or is otherwise committed. The 1994 Master Plan recognized this Likelihood and reserved the east side of the airport for future aviation -related development. This development was initiated very early in the planning period with the construction of the Lancair facility on the southeast comer of the airport. As the west side of the ai .ort reaches ca.acity, the east side will become increasinal critical to the sort's ability to satisfyd__emand fbr business and general aviation facilities, services and related development. One of the 1994 Master Plan's major short-term (0-5 years) recommendations was a 500 -foot extension of Runway 16-34. Following completion of the Master Plan and approval of the Airport Layout Plan, several projects associated with the runway extension, including an Environmental Assessment, property acquisition, and design & construction costs were included in the airport's NPIAS5 capital improvement program, which is maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It is important to note that the factors supporting the runway extension in 1994 have not changed significantly over the last five years. As predicted in the 1994 Master Plan, aviation activity at Bend Municipal Airport has increased at a healthy rate, particularly in the business aviation category for both locally based and itinerant aircraft. Based on activity, the original timing of the runway extension project appears to remain valid today. 5 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Century West Engineering December 2002 35 Alternatives LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 171 App. 46 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT PLANNING UPDATE The proposed extension of Runway 16-34 identified in the Airport Master Plan requires an assessment of environmental impacts, as defined in FAA Order 5050.4A, The FAA Airport Environmental Handbook. The project may require either a categorical exclusion report or a foil environmental assessment, depending on the complexity of issues involved with the proposed action. Based on a variety of local factors, the City of Bend recognized the need to revalidate the Master Plan's preferred runway extension alternative. The revalidation determined whether one or more of the previously considered alternatives, or an unconsidered alternative, became more viable based on current conditions (Summer 1999). Following the revalidation of the alternatives, a preferred alternative was identified in the Fall 1999. Over the next two years, the preferred runway option was discussed Land debated extensively in the community. The FAA provided additional review comments in. 2001. and 2002 before the final development concept was agreed upon. As noted earliertheairport layout plan contained in .Chapter Six reflects the final agreeds ne n "preferred alternative" _or the aixport. The final configuration of facilities reflects specific comments provided by FAA and the City following review of the preliminary preferred alternatives recommended by the local planning advisory committee. The -updated planning doeuin e.nts will: be submitted to Deschutes County for review and adoption. Summary of 1994 Airport Master Plan Alternatives The 1994 Master Plan identified four airport alternatives designed to address the need for a runway extension. The four alternatives each focused on potential changes in roadways, cost of roadway construction, and the options for providing 500 feet of additional runway length. Alternative 1 provided a 500 -foot runway extension at the north end of Runway 16-34. Approximately 3,200 feet of the Powell Butte Highway was to be relocated to provide clearances from the Runway 16 approach surface, runway safety area (RSA) and object free area (OFA). With this option, the highway would travel through the inner one-third of the future Runway 16 protection zone (RPZ). Alternative 2 provided a 500 -foot runway extension at the south end of the runway. Approximately 2,100 feet of Nelson Road would be relocatedto provide clearances for the Runway 34 approach surface, RSA and OFA. Nelson Road currently penetrates the existing RSA, OFA and approach surface; the runway threshold has been displaced 217 feet to provide improved obstruction clearance. With this option, Nelson Road would continue to travel through Century West Engineering Alternatives December 2002 36 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 172 App. 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 West Side Improvements BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT PLANNING UPDATE Public Access Improvements. The intersection of Powell Butte Highway and Butler Market Road will be upgraded to become the primary access point for the west side of the airport. Two existing road connections between the airport frontage road and the highway, located south of this intersection, will be closed. The existing Nelson Road/Powell Butte Highway intersection will be modified to provide a secondary airport access point when Nelson Road is realigned. Aviation. Support Facilities, . The existing aviation fuel storage tanks will be relocated to a more centrally located site.: This will provide convenient access tofuel storage and provide a site for a new aircraft maintenance hangar adjacent to the fixed base operator :facilities. An automated weather observation system (AWOS) will be located adjacent to the math terminal building on an elevated platform. This systemwill provide 24-hour weather data for aircraft operating at the airport, and is particularly beneficial to emergency medevac flight operations. Helicopter Parking. Designated helicopter parking facilities will be located near the north .end of the terminal apron. The area will provide defined parking for medevac, government, and business rotorcrafi and reduce dust and debris generated while aircraft are on or near the ground. The helicopter areas are intended to be used for parking only and will not operate as independent helicopter landing areas. Aviation Redevelopment Areas. As the west side of the airport approaches its development capacity, some areas can be redeveloped to optimize facility potential. Improvements include converting the north aircraft parldng apron to accommodate aircraft hangars, improving the terminal area aircraft parking configuration, improving the existing glider staging area, and providing aircraft parking and hangar space south of the terminal area. Proposed west side improvements are depicted in Figure 8. East Side Improvements (Several preliminary development concepts were created far east side improvements see Figures 9 through 12 at the end of this chapter). Following the ev. nation of the preliminary concepts, a preferred alternative was selected (Figure 13). This n referred aitemative was further refined as the result of subsequen local and FAA review. he airport layout lan contained in�pter S �c reflects the final agreed urn " refea tl alternative" for the airport. Note: several items included in the preliminary development concepts and in the Local preferred alternative recommendation (for the east side of the airport) were not supported by FAA. For reference purposes, the preliminary concepts and narrative presented in this chapter (depicted in Century West Engineering Alternatives December 2002 51 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 187 App. 48 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT . AIRPORT PLANNING UPDATE Figures 9-12) have not been revised. These items have been eliminated from the final airport layout plan. Vehicle Access. New vehicle access to the east side of the airport will initially extend from Nelson Road, with a north connection to McGrath Road added as needed to provide efficient traffic flow. The roadway will be located along the east airport property line and adjacent to the airport landscape buffer/walking trail. Note: The future walking trail has been eliminated from the ALP at the regvest of FAA and the development buffer located along the east edge of the airport has been redefined as "aviation support." Airport -Related Light Industrial. Approximately 10 acres adjacent to the Lancair facilities are identified for this use_ Aviation -related businesses that benefit from an airport location are the anticipated tenants for this area. Aviation Related Use. The largest portion (55 acres) of the east side area is designated for aviation related uses such as aircraft parking, glider staging area, hangars, aviation businesses and support facilities. This area provides ample aviation use reserves with nearly twice the development space as the entire west landside area, which developed over a period of more than 50 years. An additional 15 acres located near the northeast corner of the airport is reserved for long-term aviation use and will be maintained as open space until it is needed for other uses. Aircraft Camping and Day Use Picnic Areas. A small aircraft camping area and day use picnic area are located adjacent to the pond- The camping area will have aircraft access to the runway- taxiway system with several rustic campsites. The day use picnic area is intended for community use and will have public access from the east access road and the adjacent walking trail. Note: The future aircraft camping area has been eliminatedfrom the ALP at the request of FAA. This area has been redefined as "aviation support reserve," which may accommodate a variety of aviation uses. East Landscape Buffer and Pond Access. A 100 -foot wide buffer will be developed along the eastern airport property line. The buffer will be planted with a variety of natural trees and vegetation that provide a visual screen between airport development and adjacent properties. A walking trail is proposed through the entire length of the buffer to provide a new public mixed- use recreational opportunity for the community. The existing drainage pond located near the southeast comer of the airport will have improved public access but will not be enhanced to increase its attractiveness to birds, which may create a hazard to aircraft operating at the airport. Century West Engineering Alternatives December 2002 52 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 188 App. 49 . AIR DDA'���� 1� UL F1�AMlt ji6T`AY .71A?P.& tf / 4 swim F IRS ' ATE tray . min T ilt47 l4 E d4]4` AN +EFNCNN• D HW14. r �B x tYD d x•ZS }SgTyl��l 7th EMS11144 Fll)UPE/N.tIMAtE OA FOR'.A ITEMS It ¢ y'q�@ • 3µ 3 ANE vF�t¢Ni �V� CRAA 7 0pf5 �67� ...A AIRPORT ?In** P(161T.000NpINA1E! (MP) 40'� PEAO€NT. N1Nb.lA4tRirr371S�PNI 98.2169 C [ANF I Pu ' : i...-.� . ^ 1 1 ' Sd' V/ 141.46' i 51r` .'�{A�tE , ...AVW(NJF ASPHALT, ASPNAt SAM RU AY ' ..=n !Al. ){1? .. NRPOgT NAON[TiQ yAII,At(9N t7A' /7A _ "S ATiEIXENT (YRn E1-POVNOSI SINy1E - 12600 BIROFf'+.7V,ODD: 7�M �yO�1VWN44 PoCRV1,{aa{CIq `.'-.!-.212: -SR 1)�- Rib 116 (MLI� ------Apt [E7�-'•-•. -=. M� F1• -•r• ' M AASIMUM 1ZMPEM URE HOTTEST MONOS B • FAME MI N. A 11�G REa-. CRS 1111L • AOLE VATIOII SANE II TIRO SIL) . " .4 AIR �A1 ..: -l. V •n . �. •:•• •�� • T MCC CODE (ARC) pR O @�aII 'sM1 s WA : HIND WAY AREA N�OFAEJw N.:« -' . N. .. .. • s : ,� .1Y . I ) ,ESOP+ . aa.d.: a. 'c ---- --L:4..,.A.rr.:.a..... • , . .-. _ T. - .wa ".: :. 1....... LA)`1•4'•FE npalES) �IPPR07141 601ES *Mat TWIT I. S ' : r ....6 x 4u ..' gat :.•30 -Bi". o �' .. .." .. .. .. . - •• . `e .. DECJJIRED DISTANCES 'MST E'. • REELZI) E ` :234 m x: , etoo . Rgt7XQ a.,....," .=, ✓...D m , •.]I '•' a 'W•: It ' ^. 1 ) NANCAII • AI; AID �TR u€, P�IP'S YAR MEQ• S16 #6PORT',.2.,-,,I,{•;{,110 ib 4 APPRDAR. 'EVE Q N01�PflslD1( 'N•'t-PAE03fE17 ..1 cl.),«�..� aV,` oP '{ •'- FIr \ uu [[;;gg f��77 51 v.a v .. ... .,. 34: N)v' .HON'-eREgS10N SAN . LICIFRD TEE ! SEQYENTFD =CIE i+•- .,� 1r . ..*Ei..�...t • • 9. • 320@• 26d SSW. SW '•RUNWAY END ' B' 44-"Z �� T (I )S ... A.«, • A7E- •,,,i1' \` gJ� fes. 4' ;• • . • • •, •COCROINA7ES 4' 44�3'IO+ Y 71.0;• . HY10Mai FAFEDEMT BEACON. * iZZSId * •1.' ' 1 n ydI aI 1.I1�FI 4938' 0" .5208 WO' 6 ""'' •APPROACH. SLOPE 16 •34j Ii'1•1. BN /JP11 •ISPEA•.. 1 'T? MO ••P•AC1 EN' ' .. tG;, .i ' RECORED/CLEAR .34 •• 2:1 2.4 SI )34:1 SAYE �AiHO 100 TEE +'• -` ' APRIt0A0L ANO LANDOWC 10..YDR/DYEt •RetveAsl vOR/OY •PS:RQt;PAPI SAMF>. NOS :34"' ' ' NOV "CPS.. REI&•PAAP1 • WE' 1M{N CONE A 4 exq.Unew M,. A>frR� 4f� .. .. �_ 100 300 WO _. ' s [OP7 Iu A+'�Mippiti�;)I,G���t�ie•- 1 ..dl.<.I:/611)•G1 _, 1 . A 9Ar►. $.'�iw]s 50&a1ns '3Y�irav•l� �{I .;�• f fJ Flss �rnv- it n� [m cad ""'• . • 1 I' r •pr...,.set • ` .4C,, -.1,4- --� \ � �/ �. fld� 199 .),Irr•vnit tt ' -I , •�•4 I ) !- i I V)°' 1,y� �1 ,�' may... MAW v„'"":woo "'�' II��3V1Y�(OC9A@R n,.Y t }-J :{Y`S is ':.i I o ; fr7B °) rl) ,\ ,\•, ' 411 7 1114,W41011 / /1C It 111164.'"e111101111111MA S.. __ i1 ". ""o°°C .7r;ii�2 In i4 "- -• c. a� ♦ - �m )�x41a,.'b9-calrb a -.1' yrs• -r.'•' i nom' e.riaeri \ll,,9 �B {� _ _ '�..e...r+ G::i-nrr n.c .f [ ._ ,,, . i•- 'Er, :If �. 1-1I �' � I ._ -. if� -.3%f'7 = 9e'tFJ7'Gi n -• � \ [ !xRu3 Milge'tsul o5i\IAl�71r_-vfluL6rr■I1R�. Rj!-wA•a.Ar L; d�/..��lr:a)o. 1.u�7-' I -.nap fItPPP�iaYk LlA i� ri,I o..Y;S'. :I., .,- -0E7 411 1 St..Kr E .,, -I.„IW •' 0)71" II Imowrv.. = ' NOTES • R tiIURCAKOSsoBe,meurrep.pN demi,FFA •T TVdemi,@M TO ..., ..^... +- PR0V10E REOTARED OBNSSiillXOIOtlN CL ARANCE. 2-0C 14A7E. . tfiWEXTEITS.'ON ^. monk: REA41 . YEHr OF gcrigIX rr. Ty PA.Y4C47 au�r4.. cc `' .. BU) $fNTA LEGEND,. . ./tif'Rarnr A.PRCtinfri ib0 4,E,}A,r .,•09.1.4 Accolanoift nrtOl6L.0 E GS11NG : .EUTU•RE ., .. ACc ss4lOAD CES AN RP2' 0.xi'J{-191NRE . 4.WESCPN04.01. YA)th'AY TO IX HIO04 41109 30 FEEr TD 36 FEET. O 'ni¢.s191100E + EIYrt cONwrtlaw. rima* © MAW !Om& . Am 484x09 99 ?3s'9060 Ot961 Mg* 660 • *tow ria (Pomo losRAFT 1spOnir 'ME PREPARATION OF 1fIR6C,f10CD101/fi WAS 41NANCIO 114 4ART 11MOY9N A FIAHMI}9 OR.WT TROY 7X[ 99849 6 A7110 /➢YMI47RAPON'A74ROMO 9N6N t00:"OF 14 MPORF AHp'MR1AY'NPIIO\4YR1[ I(Cf OF'1te AT IAM"". iXf� Orilt �Y RVtteT 1196 DITI ur irls OR.OIIs'Al TN[ FM ACCO MAC E OF 11145 sr mit IAA Q Npt R1, NAY OON690tre 1 conext t co we PARF OF 7M[ STATES:70 / RRWt�''ATE Dt Y• onno MENr '1901 vets R Dip(O47[ TNAT 119E PRDPa2D 0P1atNts DINRDIb41TALLYACCAPTAO.t N ACCORD WPI APPRCPIBATO Neu UWd.«'' 6' E1a49N0 O. Mitt rODSDP.RUN,R•AY / Calm' PER ' NO wary ACCE44 TO 68 869108 1OUl ED. MINryAY TO eE CQNSRNWIEO.OU)SOE sumo. Rsti V eE, OVVVP RSDEYAY,IDAVA1jCNS SURVEYED 4/10/0,1. FAA CO[WFN06110N, PoIA In PE ROOM NNEN, Kssex. CEI RNT'ALLDWED. • 0 19O 11.ua. /9100 An 1Yz• 0 ►I�A#41 6. t4YE�F *PIS FACE/R7 0 MOOION IN 14N64xs NORM mootw MAOM 1 air* towns coot. wpm /4800 .O. 10'9x6 191[ AVM AbOI SD/: .T.Z.,;;Lco44.15.Pv20,,w,. ARCA . earstrraniiirr"h” *-242WIL-Sfe., till:UtatL111:1.-Zt.VaLA.L..-4140' 61.41briet0171.14.`4174 a 441 <A • 6440".$0.79349: DMZ* t 10.4s, 4.WWW*„1:tatit,t2042i,- -.87,4YoRN•1:L-41,-..mr.k 1 .61 AWATION SQPPORT RESEW POND (SEE NOTE 8) IN DRAWING. 1) .\•,„/"" Cps! rr tr. tacrutr APRON R •Ob51,•W.-5K625,9:1W-11.00711ri • '7. 14.647..• 'OR Vio %Valy 3: 1Q9P'e_tft,Iti)."'' 0011. ^ • ..7-=•••• 3452 (ESN. 4 .7432.3 (r) " ""tr411a7 IBUILOINO LEGEND EXISTING 0 MU groom* sou. cotiVINTIONAL Kemal; 0 FRIVA itipitot. Atiro ritecitia 0 FM 3040910e tuIt 0 mast mon. 1WATER, SYS1Di iA01.111Z 0 eNcouNiusi Ay•VAs l A0801 njtoctili APRON 0 tmunrc mwauts N. �,m& MOWN AMOR .0 worn WOE rMottm OLDER in.P2p M PNINNI 0 r-wroms FUTURE ' Curni.iion .0 . • nip, grcomusERVX 1 :engirt* Kylorfo IT -N8151188 NTO MIMIC '05/44,010frott Mr-% NEUcornm Mato A SWIM Nzrk.1%0),VNI . TWA WRCIV.19'111:901rt4 MEM MATO n10141R44.. LEW ARM 'spakicaus, NANCM KmioNi• MUNE 1011,12W111. ,gais ovrAumta REUSE OF DOCUMENT$ Me7:oiavilam Aft/MW. 147414"C OffalFet. • MN emiNfrovol 1.!.000 eer..mm 50431.5ms 5645i=" . r tint#F %V wax Ipisseg.ammi0 TOO icae.c4c 17.t:Roc SEVERAL AVI101061 ADMINISTRATION' APPROVAL APPIIOVAL DA Et NC *e.c PRONNAMI 10.00.2•0•1 A.AnisAsom.vAs 11AAAA AAAvAN arm Tral nrsAA OCTN; MSINDON 7Amscorp....,18,,aco woe RCM Ke ON TWANItt n, NONOT ,112,11i OOtO.NOT•13•610ALT OK Mot ONEINItyl• taN,CONTINVIt• CONNNOIR ON 11,2 vun''''3721&. wancrisuptffitsmomrt mown ex8 obocin 8Ar •• MONO= SONUNWOON•0••••00rIALN liarlINNL NM UNIKONAWRINC1,111. .51CNATURC sceimuRg j.c'"'N.T. DOCEORER42003 . " f'344NROO' Vila doto:orr-zoal CITY Or ZENO BEND MUIVOIPAL AIRPORT TERMINAL AREA PLAN ORkliN0 N0. 2 OF 6 SNOT N0. 3 N N oz: CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on November 12, 2013, I filed the original of this Petition for Review of Petitioners The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC, together with four copies, with the Land Use Board of Appeals, DSL Building, 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 330, Salem, OR 97301-1283, by First Class Mail, certified. DATED: November 12, 2013. FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP Michae H.McGean, OSB #004734 Attorney for Petitioners The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 12, 2013, I served a true and correct copy of this Petition for Review of Petitioners The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC for LUBA No. 2013-073 on the parties by causing the Brief to be deposited in the United States Postal Service, first class mail, addressed to: Laurie E. Craghead, OSB #922663 DESCHUTES COUNTY COUNSEL 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 205 Bend OR 97701 Sharon R. Smith, OSB #862920 BRYANT LOVLIEN & JARVIS PC 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, OR 97702 DATED: November 12, 2013. Mary Winters, OSB #076824 Gary Firestone, OSB #872211 CITY OF BEND LEGAL COUNSEL 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP Michael II. McGean, OSB #004734 Attorney for Petitioners The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC AIRPORT DATA ExOST,HG FUTURE ULTIMATE RTINWAY DATA (I/34 EXISTING FUTURE ULTIMATE LEGEND AIRP011V -HON (MSL) !•R 3452.31' SAME 3454' _I LENGTH AND WIDTH 4935' X 75' 5200' X 75' 5500' X 75 __,__-_ EXISTING FUTURE/ULTIMATE DATUM , .. L ITEMS NAD 83.5!40029 SAME SAME PERCENT EFFECTIVE GRADIENT 1.06% 1.06% SAME FACILITIES -, -'FNCF LAT. N 44.05 58 N 44. 05 40 PERCENT WIND COVERAGE (12/18 MPH) 98.2/99.9 SAME SAME BUILDIN 3 1 AIRPC,- POINT COORDINATES (ARP) LONG. W 12`49.' 11' 56" W 121' Il' SB" PAVEMENT TYPE ASPHALT ASPHALT SAME RUNWAY - AIRP01. . .:.TIC VARIAT109 I7' ' 0 SAME SAME PAVEMENT STRENGTH (WHEEL-POUNDSS- SINGLE - 12,500 SINGLE - 30,000 SAME BUILDING RESTRICTION 11140 (BRL, BRL (E) --BRL (F) MEAN "• • VA TEMPERATURE HOTTEST MONTH 82' 5 SAME SAME TAXIWAY LIGHTING REFLECTORS MIR SAME AIRCRAFT PARKING UNE (API) -APL (E) -APL (F) NPIAS = GENERAL 5.94TION SAME SAME RUNWAY LIGHTING MIRL MIRL SAME AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE - - - -� AIRPO,.-:TLNCE CODE (AHC) 6-' 8-11 SAME RUNWAY MARKING NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME RUNWAY SAFETY A ( SA) AIRPOR' :;110 507 SAME SAME RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 5415' X 120' 5800' X 150' 6100' X 150 OBJECT FREE AREA OFA- ' II FEE (ACRES) APPROX 415 ACRES APPROx 421 ACRES SAME BJECT FREE AREA 5415 X 240 5800' X 500 6100' X 500 FENCE _IANO DECLARED DISTANCES OBSTACLE FREE ZONE 5335' X 250' 5600' X 400' 5900' X 400 040960 CONTOURS 440 CRITICAL AIRCRAFT KING AIR (50100) CITATION II (GESSO) CITATION ULTRA (560) RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RP2) - - - - - - ExT:12 FUTURE NAVIGATIONAL AIDS VOR/DME: GPS VOR/DME: GPS SAME AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP) 4 4 16 34 16 34 16 34 APPROACH TYPE 16 NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME VISUAL GUIDANCE INDICATOR 0MA55 oPAPI TAKEC• LAKE (i10 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500' 34 VISUAL NON -PRECISION SAME TEE k CIRCLE rw '"1 TAKEC= .T=:+CE AVAILABLE (TODA) ( 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500' RUNWAY END COORDINATES 4 16 44'06'06" - 121'12'02 LIGHTED SEGMENTED 9 ACCEIi.- -iIOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (4504) 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500' (f6 A41AR,) 1 34 44'05'18- - 121'12'02- AVIGATION EASEMENT C = 1 .�,• I LANDF.: FT:.NC'0 AVAILABLE (LDA) 4935 4935 5200' 5200 5500 5500 APPROACH SLOPE REQUIRED/CLEAR 16 34:1/21:1 34:1/34:1 SAME OISPL- 1 RESHOLO (APPROACH ENOL 0' 147' 0' 0 0 0' 34 20:1/20:1 34:1/34:1 SAME ROTATING BEACON APPROACH AND LANDING AIDS 16 VOR/OME:GPS;REIL: VAST VOR/OME: CPS; REIL, PAPI SAME 001 ND TEE�-- 34 REIL CPS. REIL: PAR SAME WIND CONE 1 _ Yw _ 4f"S''"`N' °t•"A _ �. 000 0 300 600 . •'_:. ',I, ..:..�"".� -G,. ..,.:_ ArZS�y^-'."- .,-...-rte.., �� r..-. i.- .w _,..._. • -.m.-r..Il+ SCALE SCALE: �F }00 _..._..._..._ v�ilill "° ���� r TIL I \.'_ 1 �'4�d P - ) I H«olr„ Ei gm, :•� , �g l l �.4.;y,. k\� \ I lav Opi[MA116N1 .. .. --. .. \ 'i. -+I �.: / T , P"1 ' s °; o°°N°'az� }pod MO !yr,. I{' r r 4i nN•l ,431 • n Ammon Arne 1 TPKA, P. w,.A. A .,Y 1'1 ® �I ra r HASE 2 -,-�_�.�. PHASE � „a o - �_,._ ILI w co ISI �'- - / ...17.'", _1 (. . l�Y` „r,„ -v--. ea. co ,' rl n a 1 i I' ;rorvn•,•..,.roNc,a,laal �� ,� w`.lc --g.,,,,=.- '-. i - M _--- ��,NwW�°, Tom, ii.1.- _,,---- - It n a,P: *- I it > tnl•y --•T T r�4 / _ izrJ _. :_ .,= kI _ �--, 1 f na I �� I j I -- - v wl 1I '�''- f :� .1 . n':_!�r Tr .y . s Y 3 ` . ' -1 I4- - - - j j - -...1- ____,_ - 1 _-u._ %�' - i'' '_ %--�.r�a�' a<Iszr� - url . „ '---°r _ 1-_- 11 _ - _ -: _ 14_ _ -I i y \ / �� =-«.G _ 111 I _ _ --_ ii„ i :iItIIIIIIIIIItar 41.111AL�� I r - 1 VI'®F '.7. . A�•gon4w mZ. In (SidYGLa1 L5� .iy 4 00c ^a'u7 L. „ ssr ;,s.:m mAw a wr Wm ® dt !o: I n S , > 1 1 ® ti A^ E, 2 L 11 3 0 I .a540 Rr1 I ow (0 ,0 It f:: °.F� aF .))Ai.v:-..1. 4 x",:..44 �4..r.T ,P ar -. \ E ox: 9t 6TE�,s ® _ ->�--1 G _.....:r=.',.? - .t' r n ' ".r�.. 15:14 u.r so R , . X, ,ar . ,oa . rcm zvuul. ff lr") NN•tO 00+.c 0 lsTT brt r,wY YC �- } A2 :AN YYI b ..0 .: .:: n0xrvr �� f :r• - - - \ euRT .... P0xR4 :.0 / jo. N .3,•• HI R uuwnv END C5/25/7 ATES . A.A. Nn- NOTES: - - -- '1 S wM ,F 'Art GPS - 5/x1�o3 aO""" 1. FUTURE AWOS TO BE MOUNTED ON ELEVATED PLATFORM TO '( scn+c PROVIDE REQUIRED OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE. ! Et wrt 1 /N NY. 14 - 94' 06' 06.1' N ULTIMATE RUNWAY EXTENSION) REALIGNMENT 1x1' Ix' 2. (NORTH WILL REQUIRE OF wPOWELL BUTTE HWY TO PROVIDE STANDARD APPROACH CLEARANCE. p - ' AS LEGEND �A., 17.3' Run. 34 - 4t' OS' 17.3' N CpEL04. TKZESH- 3. PROPERTY ACOUISTION 15 NEEDED 70 ACCOMMODATE NTERNAL FUTURE 121. (2' 02.3"W ACCESS ROAD CLEARANCES AND THE RPZ (RWY 34 -FUTURE). ENTERED INTO OC -AAA S/xl Oa � 4. WEST PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO BE WIDENED FROM 30 FEET TO 35 FEET. NEL STORAGESMALL N N ZONAL HANGARS O 0 0 COVE © NOVA TERMRUI C. AUTO PARKwG My s CO AS ROSE T AREA T ® f:1 GLIDER 1 AGING U @ IEDOwN FBO (RESERVE) v� AIRCRAFT TIEOOWNS -- • ,.110N OF 1505E 9059910/5 WAS FINANCED IN PART THROUGH A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE 000' .: ,-- ''1109 ADMINISTRATIO.. A5 PRO2080 990ER SECTION 505 OF THE AIRPORT ANO AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT I M.„ A5 AM1NDED. THE CONTENTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS 0R POLICY OF 1HE FAA _ ':1100 OF THESE 00CuAEN15 BY THE FAA 00ES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PARDEPICTED HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT VI01TE0 STATES TO PARIIC,PATE IN ANY DEVELOP 1.1 ACCORDANCE .D1, DEVELOPMENT 15 ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE 1I ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS- ... 5. EXISTING AIRPORT ACCESS TO BE RECONFIGURED. 6. FUTURE RUNWAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE EXISTING RSA. EXISTING RUNWAY TO BE REMOVED. 7• EXISTING RUNWAY ELEVATIONS SURVEYED 4 /10/01. 8. PER FAA RECOMMENDATION, POND TO BE REMOVED WHEN POSSIBLE, NO ENHANCEMENT ALLOWED. O F80 HANOAR/5H0P m AIR LIFE O PRECISE RIGHT ® WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES 0 C0ND0MIHIUM HANGARS ® NORTH 1180069 APRON 0 ExECUTIVE HANGARS 4) CENTRAL 1IEDOWN APRON Q LEADING EDGE AVIONICS C GLIDER STAGING k PARKING Q 5 -HANGARS .s�' 4 NEL STORAGE RESERVE �4) AIHARPORT RELATED INDUSTRIAL LEASE AREA O EXECUTNE HANGARS .y SMALL \MEDIUM NGAR 4) 1 -HANGARS el HANGAR RESERVE D AUTO PARKING 4) SEGMENTED CIRCLE ® FBO/MA,NTENANCE HANGAR HELICOPTER PARKING RE.. ' :,F DOCUMENTS VERIFY SEAT FS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATIONCENTURY APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE: I /Y)/ 63 CITY OF BEND APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE: A 60/02 ` WEST CITY Of BEND BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DMWIN6 N0. 1 OF 6 " IDE DESIGNS INCORPORATED EN, ,STRwENT OF PRore5SiONAL &MISERV['. P JPERTY OF Ran .y0 sl . .:.:POpR.C. ANO IS NOT YO B[ 9500..' ART, FOR ANY OTHER 0^ “,,,,, . _-r".ITHE 7019008INGEN CONSENT OF CORPORATION. O.• ....M T.4N OTTNG CORPORA/0N n+oHvw waPow.A.IP•, 300 AKA .4 O.P•. 111 50.1410. •4P1.aP.1T10R. BAR IS ONE INCH ON VI"' DRAWING. 1- AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN - SHEET N0. 0- tS IF NOT ONE INCH ONPRO, THIS SHEET, ADJU51 SCALES ACCORDINGLY. CO--! I -fes V h W 4/" ✓/, e((✓✓(/) DESIGNEUD BY: I ORAWNP GHECKDMBf: I SCALE:300' SIGNATURE SIGNATURE DATE: DECEMBER 2002 PROJECT 44: 10051044.01 BEND -ALP -2001 s*1 Request for Proposals For the Development of Hangars and Aviation Facilities at the Bend Municipal Airport in Bend, Oregon Released: September 26, 2005 Proposals Due: 5:00 p.m., November 9, 2005 City of Bend 710 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-5505 www.ci.bend.or.us Bend Municipal Airport RFP Table of Contents Introduction & Background 1 About Bend 1 History of Bend Municipal Airport 3 Airport Layout Plan 4 Site Facts 5 Phase I 5 Phase II 5 Phase III 6 Green Building Design 6 General Development Practices 6 Map of Parcels 8 Selection Process 9 Proposal Document 9 Evaluation Committee 11 Proposal Evaluation Criteria 11 Proposal Scoring Criteria 12 Interview 13 Pre -Proposal Meeting 13 Site Tours 14 RFP Registration 14 Schedule 14 Negotiations & Development Agreement 14 Discretion and Authority 15 Confidentiality 15 Contact 16 Appendices 18 Appendix Note: For development teams interested in submitting proposals, the Appendix items are available for download at the City of Bend's website at www.ci.bend.or.us. RFP Registration: The RFP specifications may be viewed or printed on-line from Central Oregon Builders Exchange at http://www.plansonfile.com, then click on Public Works Projects. Viewers are responsible for checking this web site for issuance of any addenda prior to submitting a proposal. Proposers should register with Central Oregon Builders Exchange as a document holder to submit proposals for this project. This can be done on- line or by contacting Central Oregon Builders Exchange at 541-389-0123, FAX: 541-389-1549 or email at admin@plansonfile.com. If the proposer does not register with the plan center, the proposer will still be held responsible for all addenda/changes to the documents and may be considered non-responsive if their bid does not reflect those addenda/changes. Contact: Mr. Greg Phillips, Bend Municipal Airport Manager City of Bend 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 (541) 389-0258 gphillips@ci.bend.or.us Introduction & Background The City of Bend is pleased to solicit qualifications from development teams to develop between eighteen and fifty-nine acres of land in three possible separate phases at the Bend Municipal Airport. These developments will be designed with the primary intention to provide, in Phase I, up to eighteen acres for the construction of hangars for aircraft storage and possible new general aviation facilities. Phase II will provide the opportunity for the construction of aviation related business facilities on the Airport on an approximately twenty four acre parcel, while Phase III will be an additional parcel of up to eighteen acres that may be made available through a follow- on Request for Proposals at a later date. The Bend Municipal Airport, as Central Oregon's gateway for general and corporate aviation and for aerospace and aviation related business, continues to grow as a significant community partner and contributor to the economic development of Bend and its surrounding communities. These proposed developments represent a singular opportunity to provide something remarkable and thoroughly representative of the unique qualities of Bend and Central Oregon. About Bend Bend was Oregon's fastest growing large city from 1990 to 2000 and is the largest city in Oregon east of the Cascades. Bend forms the heart of Central Oregon's economy, which includes Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook counties and has a total population base of over 176,000 people. This growth continues today, with Bend's resident population reaching over 65,000 in 2004 and a daytime population of around 80,000 including employees and tourists. Between 2003 and 2004, Deschutes County was the 29th fastest growing county in the nation and the fastest in Oregon. Deschutes County is projected to grow from 135,000 people today to a total population of 214,000 by 2025. As an example of Bend's rapid growth, the City issued permits for 2,323 dwelling units in 2004, and 901 dwelling units through April 2005. This growth will fuel continued demand for employment development. Since 1990, Bend has transformed its economy from one based largely in natural resources and recreation to a much broader one that includes technology, aviation, tourism, natural resources, and health care. Many of Bend's largest employers are already well known: The heart of the city, downtown Bend is home to dozens of fine boutiques and restaurants. • Advanced Power Technology • Accent Optical Technologies • St. Charles Medical Center • IdaTech • Laserline Manufacturing • Alliance Data Systems • Suterra • Bend Memorial Clinic • T -Mobile • Brightwood Corporation • Clear Pine Mouldings • Jeld-Wen Windows & Doors Bend Municipal Airport Development ■ Request for Proposals 1 • Sony Corporation • Lancair Company • Bend Research • Deschutes Brewery Through this RFP, the City of Bend invites talented development organizations to bring their expertise, capital, and enthusiasm to develop one or two significant properties at the Bend Municipal Airport to meet the tremendous existing demand at the Airport and to prepare for the future of the Airport in its role as the General Aviation and Corporate Aviation gateway to Central Oregon. The selected developer should have an excellent track record of successfully built master planned developments, have the financial capacity to provide advanced financing for front- end infrastructure, and be able to break ground on a first phase as soon as possible. Experience in developing specific Airport developments is highly desired by the City. Phase I of the Bend Municipal Airport projects is the development of general aviation and aircraft storage facilities in an eighteen acre area described in detail here. Phase II is identified as an option for the development of commercial aviation related business facilities in an approximately twenty four acre area on the Airport property. Phase III is an eighteen acre parcel north of th4e Phase I parcel intended for aircraft hangars and general aviation facilities that may be offered in a later RFP. The City is open to retaining the same development team for all phases of Airport development, but reserves the right to select separate developers for each Phase and may choose not to select a developer for any Phase of development. Responding teams may include a single developer, a partnership, consortium, or other arrangement that brings together the necessary talent and capital to achieve the vision. grin cvi Regional map of Bend courtesy. of Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO). Bend Municipal Airport Development 2 Request for Proposals History of Bend Municipal Airport Located on approximately 415 acres five miles northeast of the City of Bend, Oregon, the Bend Municipal Airport traces its history back to 1942. The country was at war and there was an immediate need across the western states for training sites for aviators for the war. To this purpose, a group of patriotic Bend citizens banded together and deeded a small piece of farmland to the City of Bend for the express purpose that a municipally owned and operated landing strip be established. The site was developed and, as intended, used for pilot training throughout World War II. After the war, it was maintained by the City of Bend as an airstrip, where it experienced slow and steady growth throughout the 1950's and 1960's. By the 1970's, it was clear that the Bend Municipal Airport was becoming an important part of the transportation network for Central Oregon and a comprehensive Airport Master Plan was conducted in 1979. This plan established much of the direction for development at the airport and forecasted significant growth in activity at the Bend Airport in coming years. This early plan, however, was completed while General Aviation was booming across the country. A downturn in the general economy, however, affected General Aviation in the 1980's and through the early 1990's, and as a result, the forecast growth in demand at the airport did not immediately materialize. That all changed by the late 1990's, though, and General Aviation began a significant resurgence that continues today, along with tremendously increased business and corporate aviation travel into and out of Bend. Today, in 2005, the Bend Municipal Airport stands poised to serve as the General Aviation and Corporate Aviation gateway to Central Oregon, for now and into the future. Facilities at the Bend Municipal Airport include a single runway, 5005 feet in length, and a corresponding full parallel taxiway. The Bend Municipal Airport is currently identified as a Category 2, Business and High Activity General Aviation airport by the Oregon Department of Aviation, and there are approximately 170 aircraft based at the airport and over 40,000 annual operations. Today, sixteen aviation related businesses are located on the airport and more than 700 people are employed there, making the Bend Municipal Airport one of the largest concentrations of family -wage jobs in the area. The Airport Flight Services Building Bend Municipal Airport Development Request for Proposals 3 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN Bend Municipal Airport Development n 4 Request for Proposals Site Facts The properties addressed in this RFP include three distinct and separate parcels. Proposers may choose to bid on either the Phase I parcel or the Phase II parcel in this RFP. Alternatively, proposers may bid on both parcels at the same time. The Phase III parcel will be reserved for consideration in a later Request for Proposals. Phase I Development The first a for development, Phase I, consists of approximately eighteen acres on theast sidthe Bend Municipal Airport, beginning directly north ofthe recently c;o_ stracted-Epic Lixcraft.facility, with the eastern boundary of pa'rce ginning 155' from the eastern edge of the airport property (setback) and the western boundary approximately 410' due east of the centerline of the existing runway 16/34 (see attached map). This Phase I parcel is identified specifically for the design and construction of General Aviation and Aircraft Storage facilities. It is anticipated that a number of hangars, to be determined by the proposer, will be constructed to meet various needs and should include a mix of Tee -Hangars, medium sized Executive Hangars, and larger Corporate Hangars. Sufficient attention should be paid to access and security in this phase of development. Additionally, it is anticipated that the design of this Phase I parcel will includes cient ramp space for General Aviation ander Corporate Aviation itinerant aircraft. Additional General Aviation facilities may be included as current and future demand indicates and at the discretion of the proposer. This Phase I parcel is included in the Airport Development Zone and is zoned Aviation Support District (ASD, Deschutes County Zoning Code Chapter 18.76.080). Currently, there is adequate infrastructure (power, sewer, water, natural gas, telephone, cable, and access road) leading up to the southern edge of this parcel, but all utilities terminate at the Epic Aircraft facility. The successful proposer will be required to develop any additional infrastructure necessary for proposed developments. Phase II Development The second parcel of approximately twenty four acres is also on the east side of the Bend Municipal Airport and directly south of the Epic facility and optioned land which they currently control, with the eastern boundary of the parcel similarly located 155' from the eastern edge of the airport property (setback) and the western boundary approximately 410' east of the centerline of the existing runway 16/34 (see attached map). This parcel is identified as the Phase II parcel to design and construction aviation related business facilities. Any proposed tenants for this parcel must be identified by the proposer and demonstrated to have an Aviation related use with a specific, clearly defined need to be sited on Airport property. This Phase II parcel is included in the Airport Development Zone and is zoned partially as Aviation Support District (ASD, Deschutes County Zoning Code Chapter 18.76.080), and partially as Aviation -Related Industrial District (ARID, Deschutes County Zoning Code Chapter 18.76.090). There is adequate infrastructure (power, sewer, water, natural gas, telephone, cable, and access road) provided around this Parcel. Bend Municipal Airport Development Request for Proposals 5 Phase III Development The Phase III parcel of approximately eighteen acres is an additional parcel for General Aviation development directly north of the Phase I parcel and is a future option for award in a follow-on RFP. This parcel is locateddirectly north of the Phase I parcel, with similar size and boundaries. Consideration will be given to successful performance in developing either of the previous Phase I and/or II projects. This parcel is zoned similarly to the Phase I parcel. Green Building Design The City strongly encourages LEED status for the construction of all new buildings at the Bend Municipal Airport. Although LEED certification may not be required, Green Building principles such as energy and water efficiency, site density, accessible site layout, indoor air quality, utilization of sustainable materials, site protection, and others should be utilized as much as is feasible throughout the project. Proposers are encouraged to review the LEED program by visiting the US Green Building Council's website at www.usgbc.org. General Development Practices It is important to note that all facilities proposed will be constructed on property owned by the City of Bend, which is encumbered by Federal Grant Assurances that specifically prohibit the transfer of land ownership from the City's control. Specific terms for transfer and development of airport land will be negotiated with the selected developer in a Disposition Development Agreement (DDA). Currently, developed land at the Bend Municipal Airport leases for $.30/square foot per year, a figure determined in a full airport appraisal by the Portland, Oregon office of the firm Cushman & Wakefield, which was completed in January, 2005. All proposed development, in addition to meeting City of Bend and Deschutes County development code, must meet Federal Aviation Administration airspace design standards as described in FAR Part 77 and development and construction standards as described in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 5300-13, which is available at http://www.faa.gov/arp/engineering/. In addition, any DDA agreement negotiated as a result of this RFP shall include the following: "The following laws of the State of Oregon are hereby incorporated by reference into the Agreement: ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316, and 279.320". Equal Employment Opportunity Policy - It is the policy of the City of Bend to promote equal opportunity to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or handicap, in respect to employment, housing, public service, facilities, and accommodations. This policy is reinforced by obligations assumed by the City of Bend as a condition of receipt of federal and state funds. This policy thus becomes an obligation which must be assumed by the successful proposer as well. By submitting a proposal in response to this RFP, proposer agrees that any selection as a result of this RFP shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. Exclusive Bend Municipal Airport Development a Request for Proposals 6 venue for litigation of any action arising under this agreement shall be in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Deschutes County. City of Bend and the proposer expressly waive any and all rights to maintain an action under the agreement in any other venue and expressly consent that, upon motion of the other party, any case may be dismissed or its venue transferred, as appropriate, so as to effectuate the choice of venue made in this section. Bend Municipal Airport Development to Request for Proposals 7 I N. HIBIT BI:;, AIRPi:IR EXHIBIT "A" SHOWING PHASE I, II, AND III PARCELS Bend Municipal Airport Development 8 Request for Proposals Selection Process The following sections describe the proposal requirements and the process that the City will use to select the developer. Proposal Document Development teams are asked to submit detailed development proposals for one or more of the sites. Proposals must include conceptual design, project financing, and other information as described below. Selection of developer(s) will be recommended to the Bend City Council for approval by a designated review committee. The final selection, if any, will be those proposals which, in the opinion of the selection committee after review, best meets the requirements set forth in the RFP and is in the best interest of the City. Proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise description of the Proposer's capabilities to satisfy the requirements of the RFP. Special bindings, colored displays, and promotional materials are not desired. Emphasis should be on completeness and clarity of content. At a minimum, the proposal must include the following information: 1. A letter of introduction signed by the principal(s) of the respondent firm indicating a willingness and capacity to develop Airport facilities consistent with the vision described in this RFP. For the prime respondent only, the letter should also include a description of the form of organization (corporation, partnership, LLC, etc.), the number of years the firm(s) has been in business under current name, and any other names under which the firm(s) has operated. 2. Team Members: List all team members (developer, design, construction, etc.). For each member, include: (1) name of principal(s) or key associate(s) who will work on this project; (2) primary contact information including name, mailing and e-mail addresses, and phone numbers for each team member. 3. Firm Profiles: Include brief firm descriptions for each team member. 4. Resumes: Include resumes of the key principals or associates from each team firm who will be involved in the planning and development of the Bend Municipal Airport. 5. Narrative description of the development concept: Proposers must submit, for either Phase I or Phase II developments, or both, a summary of project objectives, general development program, and unique design elements. The narrative must also describe how the proposal meets the stated yision angoals of the Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan and the desire of the City to create a signature experience for travelers and visitors to the Bend Municipal Airport. 6. Description of Detailed Development Program: A detailed development program must be submitted and must include: proposed project timeline including phasing of developments, public involvement strategy, as well as a detailed description of proposed developments, including number of structures, vehicle and aircraft access and security design elements, and proposed tenant Bend Municipal Airport Development a Request for Proposals 9 right corner of each page of any such document or material with substantially the following legend: "This document is exempt from disclosure under ORS 192. [Citing the statutory section and subsection that provides the applicable exemption]." 2 Submit in a separate, sealed envelope, clearly marked "CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIALS," all financial statements and other information not typically made available to the public about Respondents' financial capabilities, creditworthiness, committed sources of capital, and so forth. These materials will not be retained by public entities, but shall be passed on to consultants/accountants who will review and assess financial information and provide a report to the Evaluation Committee. The City's disclosure of documents or any portion of a document submitted and marked as exempt from disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law may depend upon official or judicial determinations made pursuant to the Oregon Public Records Law. If the City receives from a third party any request under the Oregon Public Records Law for the disclosure of information identified by a Respondent as confidential, the City will notify Respondent within a reasonable period of time of the request. Under such circumstances, the Respondent shall be responsible for assisting the City in determining the confidentiality of the requested information, and defending any legal action seeking the disclosure of the documents. Contact For further questions and clarifications about this RFP, please contact: Mr. Greg Phillips Bend Municipal Airport Manager City of Bend 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 (541) 389-0258 gphillips@ci.bend.or.us Bend Municipal Airport Development Request for Proposals 16 January 16, 2014 Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. 63048 Powell Butte Hwy Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes County Code Violation Dear Property Owner: Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Sods Division `�s. c ;40,ER ,max s ;€`O. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ C14-18 63132 Powell Butte Hwy, Bend This letter is to inform you of an alleged violation of the County Code associated with your operation. The alleged violation is that Leading Edge Aviation's fuel facility is operating without land use approval. This circumstance violates Deschutes County Code section DCC 18.124.030. (Deschutes County Code can be viewed at: http://www.deschutes.org/county-code.aspx.) For your information, Deschutes County Code Enforcement received a complaint on January 13, 2014, after LUBA remanded (see attached) the hearings officer decision to approve the facility (site plan SP137). Our review of the complaint with the Deschutes County Community Development Department has determined that the complaint is substantiated. Given these circumstances, we request to meet with you to discuss the complaint and corrective action. We are requesting to meet next week. Please contact me at (541-617-4708) to schedule this meeting. Since many violations occur because of unfamiliarity with the county code, voluntary compliance is sought before further legal enforcement actions are taken. In the vast majority of cases, property owners correct the situation without the necessity for further action. The County believes that voluntary compliance generally is less expensive for all parties and of a more satisfactory and lasting nature than involuntary compliance. For your information, code enforcement cases are initiated in several ways, including notification from County field personnel, other governmental agencies, and from private citizens. In each case, confirmation of the alleged violation is required prior to the mailing of this letter. For more information on the Code Enforcement program, please visit the County's website at http://www.deschutes.org/Community-Development/Violations-Code-Enforcement.aspx, or stop by our lobby, to review the Deschutes County Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Griley / Deschutes County Code Enforcement Technician Quality Services Performed with Pride II i i III ll CDD COVER SHEET FOR SLB 05/07/2014 16:38:04 i i H i 0 il PL 1 PAGES II i i II II i i i i i 0 i i i 0 i 0 III II li FILE ID 1713200000200PL20140507163804 TAXMAP 1713200000200 SERIAL 164835 DIVISION PL SITUS 63052 POWELL BUTTE HWY HOUSE# 63052 STREET POWELL BUTTE CONTENT SP137 Hearing Exhibits RECORD ID SP137 LOCATED IN DATE FILE Cover Sheet Identifier AHJKMTWX i 0 i i 0 :xhibi.t Schedule File No. SP •- Hearing Date: /2/14 Subject: ; /\ ; zc)f\J ra:r' ./-1/0 1-o LC? EA Hearings Body: K/,,2� ( rL&L7 J Exhibit No. escraption Submitted By /i te- 41/2/ /Zr t79YouT 7'1_,/qn1 j)DCe(/ / fry f 77) 6 /9(g(o(2-7- ,4744(44-Y5- - 4/ y5- se -D RTINWAY TATA AA FUTURE ULTIMATE r,FGRND _gj$PO BT E%•STING FUTURE ULTIMATE AIRpoa '.• lloNN .. 3452 37 SAME MA Nit, LENGTH AND `MOTH EXISTING 0935' X 75' 5200' X 75' 5500' X 75' _ EXISTWC TU TU E�%IRtZIT . ATUl. 2 ITEMS NAD 83.-NAV029 SAME SAME PERCENT FEE TIVE CRAOENT 1065 1.. 614 S F- I IT _'.5 -- LAT' N 40' 05' 58' N 04' 05 40 PERCENT TNND COVERAGE (12/18 MPH 982 999 SAME SAME BUILDINGS 55POF' ENC0 PONT3COORDINATES (ARP) AIRPN• .,.TIC VARIATION LONG. W 121' 11' 36" 17. 04' E W 12T' TT' 5B" SAME SANE PAVEMENT TYPE PAVEMENT STRENGTH MH EL -POUNDS ASPHALT SINGLE - 12 500 ASPHALT SINGLE - 30 000 SAME SAME RUNWAY :UILDING R STRIC 04 N. - ` —BRL (£ ( MEAN :4 TEMPERATURE HOTTEST MONTH Br F SAME SAME TAXIWAY LIGHTING REFLECTORS MITL SAME AIRCRAFT PARKING UNE (AP) --APL E —BRL --�-APL (F)6) NG•p5 - GENERAL A.AATION SAME SAME- RUNWAY LIGHTNG /MIL mutt, SAME AIRPORT PROPERTY ,N — — -—• MR000' :nLNCE CODE (ARC) 9-, B -II SAME RUNWAY MARKING NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME . R1NHIY SAFETY AREA AIRPORT .:OF _ 507 5AME SAME RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 5415' X 120' 5800' X 150' 6100' X 150 OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA LAND ' • •": II ACRES APPROX 415 ACRES APPROX 421 ACRES SAME OBJECT FREE AREA 50(5' X 240 5800; X 500' 6100' X 500' FENCE FHD DECLARED DISTANCES OBSTACLE FREE ZONE CRITICAL AIRCRAFT 5335'-X 250' KING ANIS (80100) 5600 X 400' CITATION II (CE550) 5900' X 400' CITATION ULTRA (560) GROUND CONTOURS RUNWAY PROTECTS.N ZONE RPZ I - EXIST: IG FUTURE NAVIGATIONAL AIDS v0R ME; GPS _ VOR/DME; GPS SAME 4185 iT REFERENCE POINT (ARP)_ 2111111111111111111111011MIC 16 34 16 34 16 34 APPROACH TYPE 16 NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME _ VISUAL GUIDANCE INDICATOR 89851 1-V opAPI A 1AKEC• 9. 2 :AILABLETORA) 1456(1 5T_NCE AVAILABLE (100A) 4935' 4935 4935' 493F 5200' 5200 5200' 5200 5500' 5500' 5500' 5500' 4 34 16 VISUAL 44.606' - 121.12'02" NON -PRECISION SAME LIGHTED TEE h SEGMENTED CIRCLE �� '''(.- \ .1.456c1 A0CE -STOP DISTANCE ALOA) LF�LASOA) 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500' RUNWAY ENO COORDINATES (R2 INA) l 3444.518"- 121'1202 AV104TION EASEMENT C = L' '•1 . (LOA) LA/IDf .' F1 0935' 4935' 5200 5200' 5500' 5500' APPROACH SLOPE: RECUIRED/CLEAR 16 34:1/24:1 31:1 j34:1 SAME ROTATING BEACON y R S300VALABLE gSPL= %•ESHOLD7APPROACH ENO) 0' 147' 0' 0' D' 0' 34 20.0:1 34:1 34:1 SAME HIND TEE APPROACH AND LANDING AIDS 16 34 VOR/OME:GPS;REIL;VASI REIL VOR/DME'GPS'REIL;PAPI CPS; RE1L: PAP• 540E SAME .AND CONE 4 -1., 1002000v,H+.n I •.-..-- . _. -1•T°- _. A" - ` 300 0 300 600 •• SCALE OF FEET �` MI H -.AM �► rnH.. . Woo, E iAT4 O61LMMM' -- . 5. INS ID SA rReu rr''' NK` 4H„�6 l: ww N. �H . �._ w � -- - ' \ I� ('` - II)C7CrJnL I A. II'I Il a • c I Di r \ 11. 'i I F------) 1 , ` ®� 1,11:1 PW<sE 2 ®I. I j < ..,- ® I • E...0r."1,01-T.•. i • • e •1 71 - ® ' =` - I •.\ :\ i NU NNE e1 i 1'. - \ i' pry �.: i (2 1i..1.�U nK`I• .. KU , "° - r : rN 1 — k Yi••( T.' Ff?Y I )•• / ,-. • 1 �'. . • \ RAW WOWIMISClw Ar I I wry a 1 w[ MOW \ . o DATA' i i •� ' M 12 _ — HrW,rc a,N.r Iprrcro- ms - I I .....l,. r,Ftri '- _ _ _ _ _ -1r,� '�. .. .-rC1"_,I�-� - _ - �-� ,u.mrl I - ,t• - %"( r".�,-Pr z ir..•-s.s1�_,�'l :s: I) i i 1 -r --1t•1µ" — — _ I 1 . Ii I :•I _ yst ..1'...072-"s-7-15•,-..,.. . - II ---+ - \ 1n , d �I� nnn r.,r. • P : ° I ... - 't.."....TI L,,.a c CAA, ..a ® LirAM IL �� "..1 "-. k 1 „..re,114r. wr ` 3 � V NU �..g Iv� DL E q TD 4 9 mg Film ,+ Bo �R � Yl w"."..• ,am' wa ,Mx^ I.a{M'J : I s3ip .® ea 1.1101 onG,w ^ AYN aP °R��� ..111-11N M,A.--_--_......... — — — ......-. .. ':. -.. 560W9Y 6]10 20008144165 Ao.r• O7E5: .z. . .. ._m+.mr .. _ ... Six' lair,445.2I..4M . ty•_f(E Art 1 \ 1 ./ GPS - 0*1/05 'T' ' 1. FUTURE AWOS TO BE MOUNTED ON ELEVATED PLATFORM TO oln.K'l. SaF"F•ea PROVIDE 868015E0 OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE. PWT. 14 - 14 OG' 09.1' N \ 'I WS 121' 12' OZ.,'W 2. ULTIMATE RUNWAY (NORTH EXTENSION) PALL REQUIRE REALIGNMENT OF POWELL BUTTE HMA' TD PROVIDE STANDARD APPROACH CLEARANCE. G fr • '� �1�LEGEND WI. 31• • 44. OS' n.3' 9 (F6140. 'Muni) PROPERTY ACOUISTION IS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE 'NTERNAL SSS({iii:)())VV) Cir["' 4e,,,,,,,r FUTURE 12I' 12' D2 3" W3. ACCESS ROAD CLEARANCES AND THE RPZ (RW5 34 -FUTURE). ETIT066 INTO O[•MA 5113/o*4 4. 4601 PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO BE WIDENED FROM 30 FEET TO 35 FEET. AV 0 NEL STORAGE 0 SMALL CONVEN110NAL HANGARS 0 FBO\RA TL7IMDIAI, ID 0110 PARXIN6 0 NR UK ) COMPASS ROSE BUDER STAGING ARTA 8 T6OOWN 0 F60 (RESERTE) 0 AIRCRAFT 8(005645 0 NEL STORAGE RESERVE AIRPORT RELATED INDUSTRIAL LEASE AREA ) -5. •10 . ,..`•ION OF THESE DOCUMENTS WAS FINANCED 01 PARI THROUG9 A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE 6606,• - :905 ADutN15TRATIq. AS PROVIDED UNDER 160106 505 OF ME AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT AC1 --, AS AMEN0(0. 114. CONTENTS 00 HOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICI91 VIEV5 0R POUCY OF 1HE FAA _ Ili:— OF NESE DOCUMENTS BY THE FAA DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A CGMMIRUENT ON THE PAR UN,TEO STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OETELOPAIENT DEPICTED HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE NAT . �• .' -:1 IN 0EvELOPMENT IS ENMRONAIENTALLY ACCEPTABLE I` ACCORDANCE INN APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS." EXISTING 6. FUTURE EXISTING 7. EXISTING 8. PER NO ENHANCEMENT AIRPORT ACCESS TO BE RECONFIGURED. RUNWAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE EXISTING RSA, RUNWAY TO BE REMOVED. RUNWAY ELEVATIONS SURVEYED 4/10/01. FAA RECOMMENDATION, POND TO BE REMOVED WHEN POSSIBLE, ALLOWED. 0 180 HANGAR/SHOP 0 PRECISE RANT ® WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES(((9(600VE FpHDOMINiUM HANGARS Q'1 NORTH TIEDOWN IPPON 0 EXECUTAE HANGARS 0 CENTRAL n600WN APRON 0IAL 1LEADING-0006 EDGE AVIOMGS C GLIDER $;AGING k OIAKING 0 1 -HANGARS wNCARS SHALL\MEDIUM HANGAR f9 T-HANGA95 HANGAR RESERVE AUTO p00KXNG SEGMENTED CAGE FBO001106NWCE HANGAR HELICOPTER PARKING RCL •• C F DOCUMENTS VERIFY SCALF� - FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APP00931. OATS: 1 / 53 / 03 CITY OF BEND APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE: I.)Iio'PZ CENTURY WE.T CITY OF BEND BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT URANTN0 HO, 1 OF 6 I1 E o66WWs inoRPORATED 568.61.: .: 0..1.0/KEW r MIES-SINN. (83 11 r. ..101015 . TY Yi0 4 001 TO°BE SED.... -0 i P WRIT. FON AN OTHER PROA,� THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF 00P - . -_. •-1IG,NEERINC CORPORATION. a.` ,•.., 00081 cfW°OU,PV aO 026 Fy�P'L xt-'' Ai °O lei BAR IS ONE •NEN a1 0111611111.1G. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SHEETH0. DESGHED BY: BR Mme' SCALE: If S S ONE INCA ON THIS SHEET. Ap1V51 SCALES ACCORDINGLY (J A 1 •-I-- /. W rW ,.ti OATS DECEMBER 2002 v 44: 10 10051051 04601 8EN090LP-2001 SIGNATURE SIGNATURE v MODIFICATION TO STANDARDS NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION DISPOSITION Q TAXILANEOFA LESS THAN ADG II STANDARD FOR TIEDOWN APRON ROWS RECONFIGURE FALCONS APRON Q TAXIIANE OFA LESS THAN ADG I STANDARD FOR MODIFIED FAA TANIANE CLEARING FORMULA it-APPROXIMATEPOWEURITN HIGHWAY REALIGNMENT 001 TEAK %EYOTINGRP2 „4 URFACE /SODA Gvis 6�Utt MINwUAa — i ,` NOT AM M LOWER THAN 611 2V. � T — Ay_EAao n�_ __ oACNwMACEIFI r+" NOTES: 1. EXISTING RANGE FENCING TO BE REPLACED WITH STANDARD CHAINUNK IN PHASES OR ABANDONED AS PART OF RECONFIGURATION OR PROPERTY ACQUISITION. FUTURE FENCING TO BE CONFIGURED BASED ON PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT. 2. SEE DATA SHEET (SHEET 2) FOR FADILITY I BUILDING LEY MESS ROAD DESCHUTESWUNTY 190033T1I AVIATION RELATED USE AERONAUTICAL USE CATEIFl WMMFRrJAI ®_ -- AV IT OM S -11 TEIFl EXHIBIT PAGE LEGEND EXISTING FUTURE BUILDINGS AIRFIELD PAVEMENT BUILDING RESTRICTION UNE (SRL) —BRL(E)- AIRCRAFT PARKING UNE (APL) —APL(E)-- -BRL if --- -- API )F).___. - AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA) OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ) TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA(TOFA) RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) GROUND CONTOURS AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP) RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS (REEL) 31 VISUAL GUIDANCE IND(CATORS(PAP') 0000 WIND INDICATOR SEGMENTED CIRCLE WIND INDICATOR O SAME 0 0 FENCE BEACON THRESHOLD UGHTS M ROM ACCESS ROAD/VEHICLE PARKING N/A AVIGATION EASEMENT DEVELOPMENT RESERVE N/A TO BE REMOVED MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY UGHTS (MIRE) PROPERTY TO SE ACQUIRED NIA WA 056 T AVIATION USE ❑ a �rr�» E IFI ACCESS iVFNICIEPARNMG AIRFIELD ACCESS ROM NEDCOPTER IANDSRG PADS WBSON NRPARX AOI TMPS- MNUACF 11a% &Qw ,a REAUONEDNIGHWAY. FIGURE Rn W .— ,t,�9 ICOHIiPNM) SRTOW R IOW APPROACH OUT' 10 NOT LOWER NON I-MIIE FUTURE RWT1D L. 33909 LPEED AENRFN NF II ACEE59ROM IWNTROLUDAW[SSI ©©T� T.(F5l1FK151 1� APLIE/7) EMI. 0.11 ARNOLD )2/0) -_''••` )! __ __. _ )(— _ Spp'tt MNOLD (ERI MNOIDIMEI I' AC IIDID IF/FI il—ACNo1DIF/i) II •—DNIE/il_ _35. _ I— /ice % �� Jl� I`�/�.�.Y01 .74/1 �r��/.A1�(� 11C/:�LOp IIIriire(E��kN©@WItSi?Ifni �T1ttt IA li/i) _' !'1 1�Ile..i� 41111 1210YR�(•etlAie�i: RSR;`- � c.'aTiT ■1 _. _ 'Z Jl�il lll� F B ��1iA7 rr�iA� 1 . Illiiiiiiiitanivniwancvnitaill ISL -4i »r1! uis:,r�r s==E2�C— ' �j,d1,1 �"..rawis_wises �fr� watasmmememin . /0 52005 75' IEAISTNG) O © 0 O 0 0 0 0 'F AN EVALUATION OF POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY REALIGNMENT W LL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OCCURS TO ENSURE THAT THE SELECTED OPTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORTS PROPOSED RUNWAY DEVELOPMENT AND LONG- TERM RUNWAY EXTENSION RESERVES. THE FINAL AUGNMENT OF THE HIGHWAY WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL FAA AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS AND AIRSPACE, COMPLY WITH AASHTO DESIGN GU DEUNES, AND WILL REFLECT NORMAL HIGHWAY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. 0' 300' 600' I� LsSa.12231 Scale: 1"=300' .00101.0 Is 1r usr 003 WM. MIN 3A EL SIMS —API IE/FI BRl1JE/N/ MUM NRFlEW PERIMETER ACCESS ROAD (CONTROLLED ACCESS) Mals l3/3) POWELL BUTTCHWY. rl •MENNPAMT,NOI TIPS POWWOW. NAVE EEEMfIA00RIW, INPM(, NNOUWFTN(NRPO0rIMPAOV(MEMPAOGRAM (WNW(ASLSMKKEEROM ENE (EOERN AVUTKN(AOMWISIMRIOYIIROIECFNUMBER 341.0 07'020.10) AS PROW= UNDOTTIRMUNNEDST3ITSWOE,SECTION17100. M( cON700Y000N0EN,2SS,P(YREFE(CTTNEO1300AI N(WS09PIKYOf THE PAA AREPFMEEOFTND REPORT EVIHEWOO( NOT WANY WAY W'ISTITURAWMMITMFMON MEPAR,OFTREUNOED STAIUTO PMTION(EW ANYOEY(IOPMEK(DEIICIFO THERON NOR 0015 UW01GT( TWIT THE PROPOSLDOEVECOPMEM15 ENIRONMENTALLYACCFPTANEW ACCORWNCE WANAPPROPRI0E PIIBLICIAWS• N0. DATE BY APPR REVI510 AS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL0N OCTOBER 2.201 VERIFY SCALES DAR IS ONE POI ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. 0. 1• IF NOT ONE INCH ON THIS SHEET, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APPROVAL WE: /O/./4// 3 (-gc•A,$� �P J 1/JP .125X40. 7A. SIGNATURE CITY OF BEND APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE: /O_ 5-1 3 SIGNATURE CENTURY WEST ENGINEERING CORPORATION RENO oFT. INN SW FNMA DANS AM REND ON MOT HoMOTOTIMAI TeAviDEMDAVWFAToou OCTOBER2013 CHECREDBY: SLR PROJECT NO 1005109901 FIGURE NO. BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SHEET NO. 3 OF 13 EXHIBIT Pr PAGE er D • TA E%15TIN6 FUTURE ULTIMATE RUNWAY DATA 16/34 EXISDNG FUTURE ULTIMATE T.EGRND _.M$PORT AIRPO0 •1109 (MSL) L 3452.31' SAME 3454' LENGTH AND 0.10114 4935' X 75 5200` X 75' 5500' X 75 _ EXISTING FUTURE/ULPMATE _ ()ARPP ' h+L ITEMS NAO 83.-NAv029 SANE SANE PERCENT EFFECTIVE GRADIENT 1.06% 1.060 SAM rA 1.111 "I AIRPCF' • --:ENCE POINT COORDINATES (ARP) LAT. N 44' 05' 58 8 44' OS' 40" PERCENT WIND COVERAGE (12/18 MPH) 98 2/99 9 SANE SANE 801101NG5 s"�='AM I LONG. W 121' 11' 56" W 121' 11' 58" PAVEMENT TYPE ASPHALT ASPHALT SAME RUNWAY 11800*. ... 1S vARlAT10N 17. 44' E SAME SAME PAVEMENT STRENGTH (9HFw NO3) SINGLE - 12 500 SINGLE - 30.000 SAME BUILDING RESTRICTION UNE (B0 -68L ((E) -- an (F) MEAN •• '.I TEMPERATURE HOTTEST MONTH 82' 0 SANE SAME TAXIWAY UGH1INC REFLECTORS MIR SAME AIRCRAFT PARKING UNL(API PROPERTY -APL (E) -APL (F)--- N _S, _ " _ AIRPO,_ .11NLY: CODE (ARC) GENERA A' ARO 8-' SANE 8 -II SANE SAME RUNWAY 1264565 RUNWAY MARKING M1141 HON -PRECISION A4RL NON -PRECISION SAME SANE AIRPORT UNC RUNWAY 5AAFETY_ A ) -- - - - - AIRPOR' .`.110 S07 5AME SANE RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 544115' X 120' 5800 X 150 8100' X 150' OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA - -.� - - - - - - LAND, " "'. Ii LAND, ApPROX 415 ACRES APPROX 421 ACRES 5AME OBJECT FREE AREA 54 5' 0 210 5800' X 500 6100' X 500' FENCE DECLARED DISTANCES OBSTACLE FREE ZONE 5335 X 250 5600' X 400' 5900 X 400' eri GROUND CONTOURS RUNWAY PROTECR0N IONE RPZT♦ L44 " - sso - EXI51l1G FUTURE 'ITICA AIRCRAFT 0405420841 AIDS [j,�..l♦t•aT VOR/OME; GPS HMiL..+RDINl VOR/OME: CPS L' SAME AIRPOITT REFERENCE POINT (*1701 NQ 16 34 16 34 16 38 16 NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME VISUAL GUIDANCE INDICATOR ovA51 oPA(0I _ TAXA. -„. A:AAA61E (LORA) 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500' ApPROACH TYPE 34 VISUAL NDN -PRECISION SANE UGHTED 700 & SEGMENTED CIRCLE % L(M- TAKECi- ,T_NCE AVAILABLE (TODA) 4935' 4935 5200' 5200 5500' 5500 RUNWAY ENO COORDINATES-' 16 44.136118"-- 12112'02A ACLEIi - • :-STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASID*) 1935` 49}5' 5200' 5200' 5500 5500' 34 4413518" - 12112'02' - ANGARON EASEMENT C C Q MIDI'.' 0).'500 AVAILABLE (IDA) 4935' 4935- 5200' 5200' 5500' 5550' 16 34:1/21:1 3411/3411 SAME ROTATING BEACON * �'f DISPEL : .RESHOLO (APPROACH END) 5 0' 147' 0' 0' 0' 0' 40080608 SLOPE: REQUIRED /0.EAR 34 220:1 34:1/34:1 SAME �" APPROACH AND LANDING NOS 16 VOR/DME;GPS:REIL;VASI REIL VOR/OME;GPS;REIL;PAPI GPS REIL; PAP* SAME SAME MND TEE 1WRD CONE Q r , _N o, H». a \ 300 o soo GOO ;- lair _ _ .. MS SCALE OF FEET SCALE: 1. 300' _.. !� ``� I C _ i �Y li�l �4kirraa„ 4_ I MI M FNM,:. ARGABR400 ,A .wH ...P„ .... M> .. .0 ...- ..s:::`3E`53 r I I� I x�M •,,,,,,..„-,-- ,h'a IFi I �.• II ...... .000.0. - _� (r r -T _ ,-- • �'4'�•- X'}` '-f as jI l� jr (. t'_ _._ aRy�•c. .as.� `'=...c ".••= I \ % \• N I U¢ rww4[ 9 I I �' , 0 \.: ✓ 2s,T = = ::: ('� .. %Y41 .. 14" A •� '' 1 .. (• k ) ) R f �� -• NNRN r I •\'!46.--- I. •�.t� .. \ 1 I•, ' \ TATA AaSCAR�` ...101.100 a , MY R.f ,W.,,..�w4. ,�., Ito :,H,1,;;"M2»i:'"" mow;°, 1 ® ♦ I. PH - • ♦ I ---I '.-� ; tit :' 2 r" -i• HAS®1®''- "o'r"� - ' ::. �i . ^�A�� _N Piscrini7i: L sJ < , � �r �I. ii, I �;" r.`, ��P P� I �° c'.1 .F • NAL SII • ® ILE[ 2 _ =_ : arsurairamormorwr r ri ...��..N.�.�Tr, wammini - - r .io177�AtT� • I - 1,---:-...--....z..-------, --".;q• J � 1... iiia ��� lqtfA8 r1 �T f l.,.i�'3 µll-- - - R1 �l�leAsaTJ��9e ".:.) �' 1 l....1 -` O� of'.s-ro• 8 N ', - ta-Y �. - - ,. .. ,ee `v � .. m,F �D ;q GF ,514 L_� t T i:3 JP ',i`to� .asas'Awu Tv NPs0 MO RA xAP,�a+*x .-.-__ - n. 1 S?_ 4 iiifik �pE i T •. HOWDY ' Pi M�iP i ®F 7- 2 ) ? 6.5J `N.,,,,i+ ram ,Ar, mP r.m' aia{ML 90'7.FE k' C1 X r✓.u'[ V wa' : c., , /( /I e c f <rt +5 \ xNx•tP auo ecc• yr /, �.AP47 LANK VN NAI. a -.....• --. - 04 \ -`- .-- AIrIR JIo(�o' R 404 WM ,R PAR 4 \ RUNWAY ENA C0/81/2ATES \ Ao•F-AAA• NOTES: E LaNF: M.G,P: ' Gl'S - 5/sl/01 A"'W 1. FUTURE AW05 TO BE MOUNTED ON ELEVATED PLATFORM TO 1 J PROVIDE REQUIRED OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE. 1 680.14 - H4' 04' 04.1' N , . /NYi \ 121. 18' 02.3' w 2. ULTIMATE RUNWAY (NORTH EXTENSION) WILL REQUIRE REALIGNMENT OF POwELL BUTTE H 70 PROVIDE STANDARD APPROACH CLEARANCE. /41,-.A, 4- Y ' �Y LEGEND RYX. 34 - 44' OS' 17.3' N (/ETDc. 7HP1sN.) 3. PROPERTY 400015TI0N 15 NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE 'NTERNAL (5T(�l 4,4,v RE (21' (2' 02.3"W ACCESS ROAD CLEARANCES AND THE RPZ (RW( 34-IUIURE). ENTE1Lm WTO OCAM sit*, 4. WEST PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO BE WIDENED FROM 30 FEET TO 35 FEET. 0 NEL STORAGE 0 SMALL CONVENTIONAL HANGARS 0 FINAGA TERMWAL ir' AUTO PARKWO COMPASS ROSE a STAGING AREA a TIEOOWN (1�I 080 (RESERVE) DEOOWNS NEL 510840E RR ' ,ORT REUTE0 AREA ` - 'Ni.. ANON OF THESE UUCUMENTS WAS FINANCED IN PAA1 THROUGH A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE FE00..- - ':TION AOMIN151RA7101. A5 PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 505 OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT AC1 . . A5 AMENDED. ME CONTENTS 00 NOT RECESS/ART REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR PO0CY OF THE FAA - '*NCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS FIT THE FAA DOES NOT 'N ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PAF' UNITED STARS TO P YR04A? E IN ANY DE 1009? ENT DEPICTED HERRN NOR DOES IT INDICATE MAT IH1.... . 1 N 01,0LOPMENT IS ENWRCNMENIALLY ACCEPTABLE rI ACCORDANCE MRH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LANS.- 5. EXISTING AIRPORT ACCESS TO BE RECONFIGURED. 6. FUTURE RUNWAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE EXISTING RSA, EXISTING RUNWAY TO 8E REMOVED. T EX151W0 RUNWAY ELEVATIONS SURVEYED 4/10/01. 8. PER FAA8H ftECANMENDATION, POND TO BE REMOVED WHEN POSSIBLE, NO ENHANCEMENT ALLOWED. 0 F80 HN0GAR/SHOP if) AR Alt O PRECISE FUGHT ®WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES 0 CONDOMINIUM HWGARS if., MORIN iIEDOWN APPON 0 rXECU1NE WHGARS CENTRAL 0IE00WN APRON 0 LEADING EDGE AVIONICS C GLIDER STAGING 0, PARKING 0 i -HANGARS ((J INDUSTRIAL LEASE 31c2.T1' (.3)EXECURAE' HANGARS el SMALL♦M552090 EDIDM HANGAR 19 T-N8-HANGARSHANGARE AUTO PARKING Ei' SEGMENTED CWCLE ffq/MMNTENANCE HANGAR HELICOPTER PARKING RCL : F DOCUMENTS VERIFY FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APPROVAL 0ATE: I / A' 03 CITY OF BEND APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE. MISP/4L CENTURY Weer CITY OF BEND BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ORAMNG N0. 1 OF 6 Nos r... HE OESICNS INCDRPDRMEo fRVE: .,•. PRoPEENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVE:. Ani OPERn OF canlv.yws41 MVGINLI LDRPORATION. t.1 LS X00 TO BE PROM: HE WRIIIEN CONSENT OF M=ED A, . •.' D; W IN. FDR ANS 000. con .. ..�u. •IIIGINEFRINC CORPORATION. 0: ...I 05008 ) 2' NP +m.,ow,l. inOw ,,,,,,,,,,,,,am N.3.1941100....•$.0/47111 I. E INT BNA IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL ORAMNG. 0- AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SWEET N0. 1- N NDS DALE INCH DN( THIS SHEET. ADJU51 SCALES ACGORDWGLY. ,�L..( (b W 'W,.^- OESXYN68 8Y: ORAwH BI: ON P.Y. CIIECK80 BY: SCALE DN 1-.300' DATE: DECEMBER 2002 0(15704{, H0: 1005101 BEND -ALP -2001 1 SIGNATURE SIGNATURE MODIFICATION TO STANDARDS J NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION DISPOSITION Q TAXILANE OFA LESS THAN ADG II STANDARD FOR71E00WN APRON ROWS RECONFIGURE PARKING APRON Q TA%IIANE OFA LESS THANAOG !STANDARD FORT -HANGARS MODIFIED MATAXILANE CLEARING FORMULA Ir APPRO%pMrE POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY REALIGNMENT I / EIDS/ --- „4:: �NOAOI%V 1Y MINIMUMS NOUMEA T1ANLWIE 6B It EMP TM R -J APPROACH SURFACE IN 1� Ir ISI ROLM AWIEU3 PERIMETER -T! UCESS0OAD ICONTR0LLE0 ACCESS! 1. i a NOTES: 1. EXISTING RANGE FENCING TO BE REPLACED WITH STANDARD CHAINUNK IN PHASES OR ABANDONED A5 PART OF RECONFIGURATION OR PROPERTY ACQUWTON. FUTURE FENCING TO BE CONFIGURED BASED ON PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT. 2. SEE DATA SHEET (SHEET 2) FOR FAC(ITY / BUILDING KEY DESCHUTES COUNTY (POTENTIAL AVIA110NREIATEDOSE 0 PROPOSED AERONAUTICAL USE ROAD CLOSED ACCESS ROAD NELICOPRR IANOWG PADS GATE /0— _r COMMER r1 AVIATION --- - USE „a91— iellika CCLEHik N;.. Ste— AV WTOH RESTED � RF u 9 3D' RL 3398A \` p 1 \ \ �O \. WfRQ / \ REALIGNED HIGHWAY., FUTURE PPE 0 'CONCCEMAL1 SOW %TDO %IWC APPROACH an., MNMUMS NOT LOWER THAN I -MILE / D -II 100' RL (0/F AM1ON — — —OFAIE/H- — — OFAV51 — — 1. ACH0LD1F/0) — — y— 1500(E/5(' • ONUSE� AVRFSERVE -111 TE IFI I, C I./ PAGE LEGEND ILISELLAILLALLIMINMEMISM BUILDING RESTRICTION UNE 8' AIRCRAFT PARKING UNE APL --80L -- BRL F)- -APL E)—APL(F)--- RUNWAY SAFETY AREA TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA OFA RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE RPZ RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS REI lE VISUAL GUIDANCE INDICATORS PAP( cepa SEGMENTED CIRCLE WIND INDICATOR FENCE BEACON THRESHOLD UGIRS ACCESS ROAD/VEHICLE PARKING AVIGATION EASEMENT DEVELOPMENTRESERVE TO BE REMOVED MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY UGHTS (MIRO PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED EoEo o03D N/A 4010 *MN. N/A 81A_ WA AVIATION U 0 ❑• T[IFI /VEHICLE PARING O ri;.t.,141 7G I rt APRON mmonsimiRESERVE ��i�SR:�IR�Sf��_ OPi 'APL(E/FI 000 6(8/51 AC HOLD WO —0508/0- — — AC HOLD WO \7� 115 AVIAT ON USE B:S EAR PART R APPROACH SURFACE IFNs 1 WIELD ACCESS ROAD MASONNRPAM OXL501U5 APL 0,61 WY3A EL MKS 5]910%15' R%ISTRS ACNOW IF/FI II� ACHOl01F/H L—_TAS_11 Ply war i��-r s ■ r -I ■ �1♦ �lJ•111m1�1 �I� i �C� � LitsT t` * SIL Eginfirm _Z=� istB © © O Q 0 P O •D ' .y sr s .y AN EVALUATION OF POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY REALIGNMENT WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OCCURS TO ENSURE THAT THE SELECTED OPTION 15 CONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT'S PROPOSED RUNWAY DEVELOPMENT AND LONG- TERM ONGTERM RUNWAY EXTENSION RESERVES. THE FINAL ALIGNMENT OF THE HIGHWAY WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL FAA AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS AND AIRSPACE, COMPLY WITH AASHTO DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND WILL REFLECT NORMAL HIGHWAY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. A 1lii�i 0 08 (10(1 BB 11 (�/II NO gEI imam stiiimir !�lIIIlE� AAm emiliml l=i Q. •s T 4 F 4. F Or 2 a 300/ 600' Scale: 1'=300' r BRLIB'2/1) SURFACE T IER FACE W511NG/ROURE APE SOY [TPD %GO6 APPROACH VOGARY Mw!MAAS NOT LOWER MANI-MU UNREAIR9DD PERIMETER 0655 ROAD (COMO.° `5 MP) EL 34 I( POWELL BUTTE NS2SY.'-C TIE PREPARATION OFTH6DOCUMENT MAYHAMMEN SUPPORTED, IN PMT, RA0O16Y WENRABw,IWRDPEMENT PROGRAM MVO= ASS6TAN.MIN THE FEDERAL MS0000 ADMw6RAT W N EPR W ECT NUMBER 3JE4X07020.10I AT PRONGED UNDER TIRE 49, UNEED STATES COOL SECTION 47101.1112 CONTENTS 00 MOTECES8INLY MEC T1MOFKTN NEWS OR EMIKTO ENE FM. ACCEPTANCE OF TNM WORM' ENFDIA GOES NOT INANY WAY CONSTITUTE COMMRMENTON ENE PMT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PMOGPATF MANY DEYFIOM(M DEPICTED ENERON NOR ODES N INDICATE THAT THE PROPO.SlCOEYFIDPAFF 1TALYTPIANIW 6 0 3FNVMOM11OE1NDROANCC WON APPROPRIATE UBL. LAW, 0. DA' BY PPR REVMIO 10/13 115 om AS APPROVED BYOWYalp N0 ON OCTOBER 13053 VERIFY SCALES BAR H ONE INCH 05 ORIGINAL DRAWING. IF NOT NCH ON THIS SHEET;5HEET, AUIU80 SGLES ACCORDINGLY FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE:i0/A//.�.r X/e SIGNATURE CITY OF BEND APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE: /0- '- JOENTURYWEST ENGINEERING CORPORATION BOA OFF= 0415R.2HCDAq w.w.CENT:DAMEST.cOY DESIGNED oRAw DATE: OCTOBER 2913 Y: OIEOMD BY: IS SLR PROJECT NO: SCALE: AS SHOWN 1005109901 FIGURE N0. BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SHEET NO. 3OF13 '-YLHBPT_ PAGE'2' AIRPORT, DATA EXISTING FUTURE ULT ATE 2 LEi • 1 • '4 0X1509 FUTURE ULTIMATE L I AIRP011 '. L .1109 (450) 3452 3, SAME 3454' L NGTH ANI MOTH a9 5 X 75 5200 0 75' 5500' X 75' - _ DATUA: ''0... ITEMS NAD 83-NAV529 SAME SANE PER ENT EFFECTIVE RAOIENT 1069 .069 SAM FA I TTI 6 - AMPP" • "':ENCS 00191 COORDINATES (ARP) LAT. N 44' 05' 56 14 44' 05 40' PERCENT WINO COVERAGE (12/18 MPH 982 999 SAME SAME BUILDINGS _ AIFiF0.1. .,.11C vARIAT10N LONG. 14.12., 11' 56 17. 44 E W 121. 11' 59` SAME SAME PAVEMENT TYPE PAVEMENT STRENGTH 011EEL-PO21DS ASPHALT SINGLE. - 12 500 ASPHALT SINGLE - 30.000 SAM( SAME RUNWAY 9 LINRS 00ILOINO 80908100.99-'" 8601 =0R1 (0)---- NEAN .. '.I 1EEIPERATURE HOTTEST 40900 V 82' F SAME SAME TAXIWAY LIGHTING REFLECTORS MIR SAME AIRCRAFT PARKING UN AP —PPL (E)— - PPL F — NPIAS = F GENERAL 0NATION SAME SAME RUNWAY LIGHTING M1RL NIRL SAME AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE — - - --- A1600,. _d9CE .00 ARC B-, 0-11 SAME RUNWAY MARKING NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME RUNWAY SAFETY 4REAA) AIRPOF: .1)10 S07 SAME SANE RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 541%' 8 120' 5800' X 150' 6100' X 150' OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA — — — — — — — - LAND :" ', 11 FEE (ACRES) APPROX 4I3 ACRES APPRO.( 421 ACRES SAME OBJECT FREE AREA 5415 X 40' 5800' X 500' 6100' X 500'-- FENCE OBSTACLE FREE ZONE 5335' X 250' 5600' 4400' 5900' X 400' GROUND CONTOURS a Ne DECLARED DISTANCES CRITICAL AIRCRAFT KING NR (8E100) 57A00N 11 (GESSO)_ CITATION ULTRA (560) RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE («PC) - - - 00150:10 FUTU60 NAVIGATIONAL A150 VOR/040' GPS VOR/DME; GPS SAME AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP) - iO 16 34 16 34 16 34 APPROACH TYPE 16 NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME VISUAL GUIDANCE INDICATOR 0 04 1 OPAPI (AXE., - A;AILABLE (10Ra)" 4975' +975' 5200' 3200' 5500' 5500 34 VISUAL NON -PRECISION SAME LIGHTED IEE h SEGMENTED CIRCLE (.4 -if V TA%EC:: 0T -NCE AVAILABLE (TODA) 4935' +935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500` RUNWAY END COORDINATES SI 16 4459'06` - 12112'02' A • ACCEL,... -STOP (HSIANG( AVAILABLE4ASDA) 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500' (PDI 0..04 34 4455'16' - 12112'02` AVICATION EASEMENT C I= LANOI'. ' FT: NCE AVAILABLE (LOA) 4935' 4935' 5260` 5200' 5500' 5500' APPROACH SLOPE: REQUIRED/CLEAR 16 34:1 21:1 34:1 34:1 SAME 60TATWG BEACON DISPL- : 1•RESHOLD (APPROACH END) 0' 147' 0' 0' 0' 0' 34 16 20:1/20:1 VOR/OME:CPS:REIL;VASI 34:1/34:1 VOR/DMEGPS'REIL.PAPI SAME SAME ND TEE f APPROACH AND LANDING AIDS 34 REIL CPS' REB; PAR SAME VAND CONE q .( Pe,¢A.,INI,A.+n _ _ _ J00 0 300 600 . ., -:.. .�� 4.. , I ' .c. _ ..,_. i..,-..._ ` ' SCALE OF FEET SCALE: 1..300' •. 1� _- _ • L i ,ia.,..e. ;` To L-.. _ 1 � -TIO I,fi 11 t --... 4r ..' , .�.uw..._— .- y.. .ss mnc..a.P !II �I __ �-42.-Jri'.� . / it l f = 1 f = I K \w4 .a '' _ _ �__...�• r..._... I 1 •� I•-• \•. _ ..`:::� �.'�. ,.• '�. , y •1p ; \ or .awIEMKxoO')� -� \-Gi-2-� I' 41,�� I n4rm M,..n r' A �� MN - Frm .M • "is. 4""�MIfN." mIa � w..K. W...ar . Rm.w Nvx .r Rnww 104 ..:5.1 Top a II . 1 1 �. _.. '•�.\ II - 1 �. _ n�i r 1 4•® rr 11 �� 9 lr (`' e�'�.�"-".` - -'n' r 1 r `,y.. LEI II L t 1��t .J• * B: j «.r:� � :a H ` ® -_ 1, I 1' :-` `'�.! � >E, ` Y . ,ww — Y r+ r''t.. ° 7 • yT• n a�iA .; � 11 ' -'1"44--,...- ? f`` o v y „,r- • . . � - "•`; : �a"Oeo• IOW \ ' I I o a. 1421 'ow, ''"""''' »F. __sem �y. • 0_ _,� . / J._7 ..m - -. r` I usury runty repro. toryI il- �I II f--- -Lac_ I -; rt A. t v i4 / _ _, ' _ _ -� s.g,=ter-_,'.-I ;- 1- n f -ro ti€„ _e R ._, — �s� `. _- 't I: 1 ,,. +_it..._ �'* ) t�" SCI`. i -.---- II i —i : , ¢ +N ¢ I _ �ii �P LT I s /�oir���nv.\vim_ vel +aN - ,¢-; . � II I' "� Fes_ I ®F- _ I i O l�4Ji7 L� MM^R '- n 1'11'1 - , uc THIO»,M,..r aqi .. tit ,»• ..» F rP» Icm" ` _ _ .. . an.-..— _ N[ "�- 0 1 plir Qi ■ ® R'�' w.. l7LA..`xFA•A4+ xE0.nr I .R[ ► ( • s, - 0` ' ®UI I%jr,.... HTR-e�o'i4»C a ,� a� »veona lone ArNURmX -.. ttedad..' NRPf , ` C&14/0 }I� D. O UY.fNt�ryy an9 rcNAlyr o,¢wr mr laL ) Ld.M1t+s+ Zr. AY+r»e' Ixnwl,M • 1 tfL 51445 V. 4777:; �Ni.„,,,,,,,,,,,,,;.. .� 001Aw40 ma.�Mo¢ `) \ /, �= '\'} eT awn M8 kM A{Ar - - ._�� uR MAr / L \ / Bx ,art .. ton (DNa C»fWMATES \ AA•../r- NOTES: .... ••.....•_._-. _. .. -. -,E. _5 I. FUTURE AWOS TO BE MOUNTED ON ELEVATE. PLATFORM TO f ..awl( .0105 PIT (90.10 TT 4.1 OL' 06.1' N PROVIDE REQUIRED OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE. /N 7• Mr 12' DtY W 2. ULTIMATE RUNWAY (NORTH EXTENSION) WALL REQUIRE REALIGNMENT OF POWELL BUTTE H TO PROVIDE STANDARD APPROACH CLEARANCE. �v- �'" G� LEGE �. RW1', 74 - 44' DS' TT•3' N (,Ewa 'mum) 3. PROPERTY ACQUI000N IS 90E0E0 TO ACCOMMODATE 'NTERNAL F9q�' ^'6�'""' '^ - FUTURE 121' 12' 02.5° W ACCESS ROAD CLEARANCES AND THE RPZ (RWY 34 -FUTURE). FNTEXED INTO OC -AM slop; 4, WEST PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO BE WIDENED FROM 30 FEET TO }5 FEET. Q FUEL STORAGE 0 SMA0L C0<400 XINAL HANGARS © FBO\GA IpNYWI1 �' .WTO PARK)9G COMPASS ROSE 9UDER 0 AGING10000 AREA 6 TIEDOWN I FBO (RESERVE) a NRDMFT IIEDOWNS FUEL STORAGE ' -ERVE NRPO8T REUTEO LEASE AREA - '5. "Ila . , ,..:109 OF MESE WNMENIS WFS FRIANCEO IN PART THROUGH A PLANN1NG GRANT FROM THE 0001,•• - •:RDH ADMI915TRA1101, AS PRO9DED UNDER SECTION 505 OF ME AIRPORT AND NRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACI _-. AS AMENDED. THE C09TENTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL 0EV5 OR POLICY OF THE FAA :NICE OF THESE 00CUMENTS BY THE FAA DOES NOT ,N ANY WAY CONSOTUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PAR' - - u01TE0 STATES PARTICIPATE 0, ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED HERON NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT OIL '0 ..11. DEVELOPMENT IS ENNR°NNENTALLY ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE MIN APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS." EXISTING 6. FUTURE 00191190 7. EXISTING 8. PE NO AIRPORT ACCESS TO BE RECONFIGURED. RUNWAY TO 8E CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE EXISTING RSA RUNWAY TO BE REMOVED. RUNWAY ELEVATIONS SURVEYED 4/10/01, FAAFAA R 9E ALLOWEA. NOAOON, POND TO BE REMOVED WHEN POSSIBLE, Q FRO HANGAR/5WD, ISNR UK Q PRECISE FUGNT el WATER 5T51EM FACILITIES © CONDOMINIUM HANGARSNORTH TIFDOWN APRON Q EXECUTIVE HANGARS ) CENTRAL 0100009 APRON Q LEADING EDGE AVIONICS Q GLIDER STAGING & PAR:NG Q 1_,I},NOpR9 INDUSTRIAL . 510 - - SMALL\MAXIM HANGAR 0 T-H""�5 HANGAR RESERVE ..`. AUTO PARKNC SEGMENTED CRCLE ® EBO/MNNOEWWCE HARGAR HELICOPTER PARKING RCL Cr DOCUMENTS FEDERAL AVIATION CITY OF BEND 0CBNTURY W6sT CITY OF BEND OR AMNG No. .I„Hf DEsicH5 INCORPORATED 568,10,, -1..090901W Di PROFESSIONAL SER.K:. INF PROPERTY OF centurywe41 VERIFY STN BAR IS ONE INCH 0:1 ORIGINAL DRAWING. ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APPROVAL ��VVVV77���00 �" y�� • owwworrIE BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1 OF 6 EHWNEI- . CcaPORAMON. Ano 6 NOT TO BE p- I' APPROVAL DATE: I /11i' 03 APPROVAL DATE: /3(34/02 la4141104T ,aM4N.101. SHEET N0. 594 r:.:••.I ;RN PARI. FOR MO OTHER PRO➢. :.,..:v C WAREN CONSENT 01 cen _• ...v.-IIOINEERINC CORPORATION. IF NOT ONE INCH ON (J � IA) -- lL,' DE ED BY: OMAN BY: DM I P.Y. CHECNE8 Bf: SCLLD DM I ,•=3°°' AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN 0: ...a.FMN¢WM 4/009040 SCN.ESHACC0R000LY SIGNATURE SIGNATURE wTL DECEMBER 2002 PROJECT NO: 10051044.01 BEND -ALP -2001 • MODIFICATION TO STANDARDS NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION DISPOSITION Lj TAXIIANE OFA LESS THAN ADG II STANDARD FOR TIEDOWN APRON ROWS RECONFIGURE PARKING APRON Q TAXI LANE OFA LESS THAN ANG1STANDARD FORT -HANGARS MODIFIED FAA TAXILANE CLEARING FORMULA II APPROXIMATE POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY 0.FAlIGNMENT I I; II II / .11IIISwFORPS Mn)GRI— NVISIBILITY MUMS NOT LOWERTHANWILE sn 6l FM PART n=� APPROACH SURFACEM p9 • •y\ 0 NOTES: 1. EXISTING RANGE FENONG TO RE REPLACED ,MRH STANDARD CHAINUNK IN PHASES OR ABANDONED AS PART OF RECONFIGURATION OR PROPERTY ACQUISITION. FUTURE FENCING TO BE CONFIGURED BASED ON PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT. 2. SEE DATA SHEET (SHEET 2) FOR FACILITY /BUILDING KEY DESCHUTES COUNTY (POTENTIAL(POTENL AVIATION RELATED USE 'PRWOSEO AERONAUDGE USE ACCESS ROAD GAll -• —yr_ _ ,.ice - ITU G PARS ROAD MOSED FUTURE 2338.0 -FUTURE MAPCO ACI CESS ROAD (CONTROLLED ACCESS) L - \\,vq, RFAUGNED NIG WA' FUTURE RFT' .26, (CONCEPRMG W SEW %Ix1000' ' PROAERI14&UIYMNMUMF NO LOWER THAN I-MRE / 0-11 00 COMMERCIAL I��avunDN RFurtR EXHIBIT _8:PAGE 4 LEGEND BUILDING RESTRICTION UNE SRL RIECT FREE AREA 085'0 C2EE,AREE ZONE OFZ 11==1111=1=2V�I �iR� RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE RPZ ®— [RLY 1.11HIR3T.T`I•yl Hfl/:\L•]: 1PAPI—�® GROUND CONTOURS AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT ARP WINO INDICATOR SEGMENTED CIRCLE WIND INDICATOR �6 ©� mlR = • TO BE REMOVED IIMIUIIMMIll PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED AVULSION USE O 0 • tom01n _ TE IFS ACCESS ROAD AND VEHICLE PANG AVOPON II USF 1 ■ [� EIF 1 ) �/ �/ ,��• r I 1 : AVMTNIH USE I /(� hr. RESERVE LIII' - ® Lf� ilii[ ■/�1�'� l• IIF I l �� I_t-i,, P.LB \ 5)S i / M1 F22121 0) 5" I i ® I '- 0'•• \.i^ APRONR DPW Y�MII in 463 _l5' 1 } S n r' C'' ML 3P IF/7,_ \I \•. — _ P — ——ACXWOIFFl !! �II AVIATION USE ACCESS OAD I B: FAR PART n I AVPROACHSURFACE (FIN r - —oFNE/Fl- — -- — oi4F/FI AGNOL4(UFl _* r- _ R54Fl ETI _-RWE/FI- E, _ o•— — X ACNOLD IE/Fl 1' 14 :IOW IF/F) -MOM- —3f' — — —0S -S• .. ONE) — — — — — i`— —I. Ip �L\0 � .. ce_ AZ,— :— ..�`R� 1��1�i��al�IMMIMP�11111 i.1i1111 ��T�h0,r®—�a�1. Mllf/FI RRL e'IE/FI O T s its I.I.•LH9SY61SiTi�ATA I se Y1 /—APL(EM/N_WLLIRJ-w ein -"eni5s(VFI-- ' 1 ��[� �� ■ ■ 'R� oeeLFe��rwrs I I T- 'S ` 3slUF111 'r _ T ■re fes. ■ , =7:•1 . aF��[1...4,�71[Q-AI[B7, �����141.11 .i[2l�tl��Lrlrr'-5��=.��•®• h; ..tee •Ri�Iea.a�F R`I I ____.I�----SSL.-L�/L- �— —A��E�a_._ .�._ �_. Q' a f ORSON NMARK R0. SURF TERPS� wuACE FUTURE RPE SOP 200. APPROACH M9BILTY MINIMUMS NOT LOWFA 114M MARL .11 VIVRE AIRFIELD RSVP SA PERIMETER 0. 3095 � RO 0&U0 EL 3400 © O O O 0 E S. i• •.1; O. 1. 2. R. 2 =E• : 0 0 © 'L I �W P ._n l z P _ F .- �L'R S G' AN EVALUATION OF POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY REALIGNMENT W LL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OCCURS TO ENSURE THAT THE SELECTED OPTION I5 CONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORTS PROPOSED RUNWAY DEVELOPMENT AND LONG- TERM RUNWAY EXTENSION RESERVES. THE FINAL AUGNMENT OF THE HIGHWAY WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL FAA AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS AND AIRSPACE, COMPLY WITH AASHTO DESIGN GU DEUNES, AND WILL REFLECT NORMAL HIGHWAY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. D' 300' 600' Scale: � POWEUBADEHYT', . TNEEREIARAT0MOF THIS 000UMFNTAOXHAVE SEW SUP2ORNO,,HART, TNROUGNAI NP/WEWPAOVEMEMPRocRRMNNANCMLASLETAAEIAQM NNEFTOIRAAMNONAOMMSFMITOY(PROIKTNUMBER IJII40E-0I010) AS MOYIGE0 UNDER 8TI.140 MAYA SIAM 000E SECTION 0)1 W.111E COWENS 00 NOT NEOSMRLYRERECITHE OFHCML VIEWS OR PLWCYOf TME FAAALQP/ANOOF M6 REPORT BY INE IM DOES NOIW ANYWAY CIMOONPAIEE M� MEMOE GIFOWINHER NOOOOORSMµpGIE 09ITINE PROI03E0ONEEOPMEM6pMRONMIXMLLYAOMNIANfW ACCOROANCEWTINAPPROYRMTEAMC LAY, NO DATE BY APPR REVSIONS 14613 AS DM AS aPPROVEO MON COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 11013 VERIFY SCALES OAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. 0"MIIIMIGMMII 1' 6 NOT ONEINOI ON THIS SHEET, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE "'Al9/i3 igreg die SIGNATURE QdJ7 CITY OF BEND APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE /0 - SI TURE 0- SITONATURE ENGINEERING cORAORATTITURY OM 111110M BONY oFsa ono 60 Pas= 222.2112472 PAM mwEGEMLIRnvemosi 019GNEOBDMY: DRAWN BY !L' CHEC%EUI SwF AS SHOWN DAR OCTOBER 2013 PROJECT N0: 1005109901 FIGURE NO. BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SHEET NO. 3 OF 13 .....EXH►Is► ( c) • AIRPOKT DATA EXISTING FUTURE U111 ATE RiJNWAY DATA 18 94 EXISTING FUTURE U1TIMATE AIRP014 !. .11054 (801) L 3452.37 SAME 3454' LENGTH AND 'MOTH ' 4935' X 75 5200' X 75' 5500' X 75 _ _ DATUM. .L 17005 NAD 83-00V029 SAME SAME EFF C11VE GRADIENT 1080 1.06E SAME FACILITIES _ ••I - . ENCS PONT COORDINATES (ARP) LAT. N 115.055;•%. N 44' 05' 40" _PERCENT FPERCENT ® 99.9 SAME SAME BUILVIN05 -- � F ' -" AIRPOF LONG. W W 14:1.71' 21' 11 58• PAVEMENT TYPE ASPHALT ASPHALT SAME RUNWAY A1RV(V. .!.TIC *ARIAT10N 17' 44' 0 SAME SAME AVEMENT STRENGTH WHEEL -POUNDS SINGLE - 12,500 SINGLE - 30.000 SAME BUILDING RESTRIC1106 UNE (1161)_____-=-____13T444 (APL) E =981 (F) MEAN " '"'.,.1 TEMPERATURE HOTTEST MONTH 82' F SAME SAME TA REFLECTORSAME AIRCRAFT PARKING LALs -APL E) -APL (F)�'- NPIAS 4 • 'SLNCL GENERAL :NATION SAME SAME SAME RUNWAy LIGHTING R MARKING MIRL- NON PRECISION 1400 -PRECISION - SAME AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE��- RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA! •-- AIRPO_ CODE (ARC) AIRPORT 8-: S07 B -II SAME SAME NWAY RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 5415' X 120' 5800 X 150 6100' X 150 OBJ CT FREE AREA ( A) - -- - - -- - - ,:IIF LAND :" "" ILFEE (ACRES) APPROX 415 ACRES APPROX 421 ACRES SAME OBJECT FREE AREA 54 5' X 240' 58001 X 500X 500 6100' Y 500' FENCE OBSTACLE FREE 70NE 5335' X 250' 5600' X 400' 5900' X 400' GROUND CONTOURS W HD DECLARED DISTANCES CRITICAL AIRCRAFT KING AIR (50500) OTADON II (GESSO) CITATION ULTRA (560} RUNWAY PROTECTION 2054E (RPZ) _ _ ' - - - (5151,12 FUTURE NAMGATIONAL *100 VOR/01.1E: GPS .500/13ARE' CPS SAME AIRPORT REFERENCE PONT CARPI 4 I6 34 16 34 16 34 16 NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME VISUAL GUIDANCE INDICATOR o5A51 o PAPI TAKE(' =N: A:AIL ABLE (70/ar 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500' APPROACH TYPE 34 VISUAL 9014 -PRECISION 5AME LIGHTED TEE & SEGMENTED CIRCLE it tiY \M TAKES, ST:TICE AVAILABLE (TODA) 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500' RUNWAY END COORDINATES 16 44'06'06 - 1217702• M • ACCEI: ..- ..-S FOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (*50A) 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500' (F¢ r4rAAr) 7 34 440516 - 1211202 AVIGATION EASEMENT CC_ Q LAPID!".' ° T -NCE AVAILABLE (LDA) 4935' 4935' 5200' 520 0' 5500' 5500' APPROACH SLOPE: REQUIRED/CLEAR I6 34:1 21'1 4:1 341114" SAME ROTATING BEACON ,,A R r D15PL= : ,GESHOLD (APPROACH ENOL 0' 147' 0' 0' 0' O J4 20 20:1 34:1/34:1 SAME APPROACH AND LANDING AIDS 16 34 90R/OME:GPS:REIL;VASI REIL VOR/OME•GP$;REIL;PAPI GPS• ROL; PAP! 5AME SAME WIND TEE VA ND CONE q f , a aona+.__ .._ Pn - Av. % • . - ]00 300 600 �---N_'j' %\ `__.........7.z..._..._...„........_______,,,......, ----47-2, TT �\ �� �' 1♦ . _ - .•SflklkA 1/r4f u � r u�..uw...... �•1. y. / j-4 / -�..s+---'�+^!'Z-y .^...7 l r �`.411111 ..>�,s � yy ..... �.a-. ...-� I •\ ...+..., _ ._. (a 10 l SCALE OF FEET 1_ SCALE: 1'.J00' r . xoAiK'�-� • r 1111 I '(' yxA r -`\ WHO -805E �• us. _ MO 0030.11.6 I -' - - P.THCA. I .�,. o s. o.gwL I:': wrCTRUPIT PT, oi x..P, ..v ... _AIu ....( \\� , _._.. �• •., I .. \ ® �P4 4„ CZ�` \ C� M I L I li FrW Ss # I. k r I ( ( I,I r HASE 2 � � I I 3 a 1:'-=''",9 r--� ®I I H.' -"TE i"'.- : 3 _ ® ®'z""(' AYE"' '-;1' - --.i'r.:4.f ' Ij 0..Otn I '� /, j :. �' ,% •� y/' AR•• •_ r" wIP�I rP . Y 14' 9 1i T I . '', I.. '..i1 1 • i • .'1. �{{, !1 I.1 �RA'ILt�D\ ; \ \ I ON FOY . .540r g .00. O '. D,Ft.Y -�^ 4, V I.I I•r.i � .-. 0 0 ' - '-T ,� I] p18 I -- _��I1�-,.-� --II _ a'r nruY VMtt,ax AUY .--.-►...+3 N. .an..1 R-'-=--'1' ._ wT-N I II -_,...}-- "-r P_I -9>m._'-!Y%.. '�.'-_" s.+..--2-=^.. _ _ - r.+1.' .. Aa'. -r if _ li ,,.:..>< .-_ -,.�__ (y4 _ _ _ Sid_ -' K 50:.-m'4,-1-'--', II"r=� 11 i ��- • I' I ..sem-�.^; -t. -.P. 1I ' 111. i7.7.•• -'--- -.'. -`y:' �'. `r.'- ---� --- -�'- 's:-- --- _ -- __I -I-I-�i:- I Y •.. ~ •T..+.�'7dmFhr^S1RIT NgPr 1 I R TM T I . _ 7 -.4pA '- �' .r,�k` P - ec• `��-- _�¢ ill ,,,,,J7•111. _ I 1 I _ - ST _- `-� ' _ _ _ - f • _ MINIS! 1111111111.1111110 - - l •.mea. ,A�\.\fIJ\ >0 ,•_-• _ '. ,`',2 I i r )' D,iSS.h it T .,i3 ^ '� . � PYYaI^13 / ! r.NLF r.r.; y, 1. r.- o ..mvew , 1 .a:D::..R.AI.ryF . .. -Mrr e, \ ® �`� ,.^ n^na®Dsa a® B•*Im. ,.er:`Iw�.w.w.1., 1 -- -.�. 1 a' V <:w° j=lf F Ca_,� 1 , �_ i }� '� 3 . rm:% �E�iL9�e Uo !^3i1 7( r :`�e°v�"I'"`ar reMm .wl. a'°Nlyu DPr i '° iX \ / OM / / ham_ • UUWAY 060 COD$044ATE5 - P ` \ 04440. 5' NOTES: . lD1DM rDOFIIO(f4Y.:� .. -" [ AVOr .- ]DPA-AYN•3n%WAR Srt Ilett, '""'77-6571°).43"c5 r5 - 540/ 1 s'A'H 1. FUTURE AW05 TO BE MOUNTED ON ELEVATED MATRON TO Rua. 14 - 4'4' OE' 04.1" N PROVIDE 80001508 OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE. ( a.w[ \ /'� ,4E'I;;��i'fA,yv 121' I2' 02.3' W 2. ULTIMATE RUNWAY (NORTH EXTENSION) WILL REQUIRE REAUGNMENT OF POWELL BUTTE HWY TO PROVIDE STANDARD APPROACH CLEARANCE. G� �ya�r` '+Y LEGEND XVn, 34 - 44' OS' 17.3' N (RYar•'7NgE'4 3. PROPERTY ACQUISTION IS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE 'NTERNAL• EX15TI1V(7^ FUTURE 121' 12' 02.3"w ACCESS ROAD CLEARANCES AND THE RPZ (RWM 34 -FUTURE). BNIe*En INTO OC -AM f/A1 O) 4. WEST PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO 80 WIDENED FROM JO FEET TO 35 FEET.AUTO 0 NEL STORAGE 0 SMALL CONVEHIYINAL HANGAR.. FRO TERMINAL �' PARKING 04/44 AIR � COMPASS ROSE GUM STAGING AREA 4 11ENWN 0 FBO (RESERVE) AIRCRAFT TIEIIOWNS ff4 NEL STORA8E RESERVE AIRPORT RELATED INDUSTRIAL LEASE AREA • - n*IION OF THESE *00080016 WAS FINANCED 46 PART THROUGH A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE FE07"• -'=,ION ADMINISTRAOO. A5 PROVIDE()UNDER SECTION 505 OF ME AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPRON]4ENT ACI . I..1:_. AS AMENOE0. 19E CONTENTS 00 5404 NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL M0,4OR POLICY OF THE FAA - _ 'ANCE OF THESE 00CU8ENT5 BY THE FAA 00ES NOT :N ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A 70My11MENT ON THE VAR' UNITED STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY 0EVELOPMENT DEPICTED HERON NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT INH.. - •'..I N DESELOPMENT IS ENMRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE 1H ACCORDANCE MTN APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS.' 5.04151NC AIRPORT ACCESS TO BE RECONFIGURED. 6. FUTURE RUNWAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE EXISTING RSA, EXISTING RUNWAY TO BE REMOVED. 7. EXISTING RUNWAY ELEVATN)NS SURVEYED 4/10/01. B. PER FM RECOMMENDATION. POND TO BE REMOVED WHEN POSSIBLE, NO ENHANCEMENT ALLOWED. 0 F80 HANGAR/SHOP TD LIFE Q PRECISE FLIGHT ®WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES 0 506004WIV9 HANGARS (E. NORTH TIE00WN APRON 0 IXENTNE HANGARS ID CENTRAL TIEOOWN 458054 0 LFADINC EDGE AMOWCS 0 GLIDER STAGING & PARKING 0 0 -HANGARS (3 EXECURVE HANGARS SMALL\MEDIUM HNVGAR 1 T -HANGARS HANGAR RESERVE AUTO PARKING SEGMENTED CIRCLE 2 FBO/YMNIENAIICE NNiGAR HEUcOPTER PARKING R E i • •'F DOCUMENTS 1 15 0 0 INCA BAR IS ONE INCH CO, O0 -IN .NIIIMMIIII I FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE: 7 / 15/ G3 CITY OF BEND APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE. AJ�3O/02 CBNTURY WEST CITY OF BEND BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DRAmNC NO. 1 OF 6 I E Dlawxs INCORPORMEO /,!,;.,- v. �I.6 60541.11 OF PROFESSIONAL 66GNEI I:-+PORATFON. TRY ANDTSANOT TO' BE USED. I: :..., 1 Ill ,0 PART. FOR ANY OTHER OWI- .,0. WRITTEN en, CORPORATION. 0: • ..,..IOPRNRNR CORPORA.. FRIOOP.A.PION fOwHa1Ai�, SIO F. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN PTO 554001 F NOT ONE INCH ON THIS SHED. AOIUS, SCALES ACCORWNCLY n ' .�� , !4{ uLt/_ ) ,,/ CO 1� 08 I ORAMIPBY: gICCItE�I 15"`;;a�0' 1 DATE: E DECEMBER 2002 10051044.01 BEND -ALP -2001 SIGNATURE SIGNATURE `/ 5coT 88 Jus 078 4. ( • O' T 1; ' EX1511NG FUTURE ULTIMATE LL • 1 • • EXISTING FUTURE U TIMATE LII . AIRPORT ELEVATION (MSL 3453' 3456' 3456' LENGTH AND WIDTH 5005' X 75' 5200' X 75' 5500' X 75' '_ ETEEAM DATUM FOR ALL ITEMS NAD 83-NAVD29 SAME SAME PERCENT EFFECTIVE GRADIENT 1.038 1.095 SAME AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT COORDINATES (ARP) LAT. N 44' 05' 41' LONG. W 121. 12' 02' N 44' 05' 40" W 121' 12' 01' N 44' 05' 42" W 121' 12' 01' PERCENT WEND COVERAGE (12/18 MPH( PAVEMENT TYPE 98.2/99.9 ASPHALT SAME ASPHALT SAME SAME BUILDINGS RU,WAY PIIIIMINI AIRPORT MAGNETIC VARIATION I6' 6' E SAME SAME PAVEMENT STRENGTH (WHEEL -POUNDS) SINGLE - 12,500 SINGLE - 30,000 SAME I&lfliAl:M17-2® „moi ''' d'===1 MEAN MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE: HOTTEST MONTH 82' F SAME SAME TAXIWAY LIGHTING REFLECTORS 'MIL 5AM5 11:NA3a .5011lT.Ir18 (TIS''I1===S©1==1111=M13O1=11 NPIAS ROLE AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC) GENERAL AVIATION 8-1 SAME 8-11 SAME SAME RUNWAY IJGHTING RUNWAY MARKING MIRL NON -PRECISION MIK NON -PRECISION SAME SAME ".' ".' ' 1,',4\bY328A 3: LI'FIAM1 L (- . AIRPORT CODE 804 SAME SAME RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 5415' X 120' 5800' X 150' 6100 X 150 ('.:TT r Ta-4MT'RtiO —CIS LAND OWNED IN FEE ACRES APPROX 415 ACRES APPROX 421 ACRES SAME OBJ CT FREE AREA 5415' X 240' 5800' X 500' 6100 X 500 ITISIMMOMMONOIN4 DECLARED DISTANCES OBSTACLE FREE ZONE CRITICAL AIRCRAFT 5335' X 250 KING AIR BE100 5600 X 400 CITATION 11 0E550 5900 X 400 CITATION ULTRA 560 GROUND CONTOURS RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE RP2 110- - 414 EXISTING FUTURE ULTIMATE 46000TIONAL AIDS V08 AME; TOS VOR/545• CPS SAME ' ' casim11111111=PIMMIIIINIMMIIIMMIEMINIONIII 16 34 16 34 16 34 16 NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORR 5005 5005 5200 5200 5500 5500 APPROACH TYPE 34 VISUAL NON -PRECISION SAME LIGHTED TEE 6: SEGMENTED CIRCLE IIIIMglIll' ti TAKEOFF DISTANCE *UMLAUTE TODA 5005 5005' 5200' 5200' 5500 5500 RUNWAY END COORDINATES 16 "116'06' - 1211702• 44.06'06.086' - 12112'00.773' 4.4136.09.'- 12112'01' /V ACCELERATE -STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDA LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE LOA 5005 5005 5005 5005' 5200 5200' 5200 5200 5500 5500 5500 5500 34 mniffirM1101011111111 449517' - 1211705 440.514.730 - 12112'00.821. 44.0514.730 - 11112'00.821- AVIGATION EASEMENT ROTA TING BEACON Iliellil DISPLACED THRESHOLD APPROACH ENO'qUMmmllKallIlIlljIIII APPROACH SLOPE: REWIRED/CLEAR m111111111EXIMMINIMIIIIIMMIBMIIIIIII APPROACH AND LANDING AIDSmEMEEZMIMM Ell GPS; REIL; PAPI SAME I^.1NIN.1:1><3:H1L1;M• 4LX.>•.1:iW61 11i1Ma��� AJIi WOS 111 P /— SS amw*°11.031- 300 0 300 600 '�` -_- _ __ _ =__=.•=_27,._.:,,,,,.:_..,,:;„_„,;-=________,_'-_ —" '_ SCALE OF FEET /'' ``` A 0`' 0\ .1 uaw'm x11" '- SCALE: 1'°300 ',,,', ---'_'U �VfAiRii,�`' •Tom( ��� I-- 14 v ® MADNEnc (16 OW E - 11007 IF74Y�0��1r� l >a L � re,1110 �r� �WA AD.>m ` S4.4 11101 00, .. RnRf 1.0 10.....M. noxc AWWWIT, .aunt -- ki E " 1I 1I CI ti =1 .avnT ° Fj I 6/' 1 , S' • ii TONG wort "W �f°"N=2.1. PEA .x 1:72 tO N 2. x m°'0o'1W' m.r P.o A IRA b amN YI ( 15/ t"-'� lea 1L1Y�/f 4 a;., 1 ..d o P�6R I COWL.: M 64 . m. a m.R , „, 1. ,.x w.v{ /AO. �2 I } _/1 Pi 4 ' ..PNASE 21 " i { .N P .RN. ' _ _ - >� �.v m l I 1 04fr' .. ■ A i rdl o ❑ m• a // ;'-_��_'_J il' '�'•�?>Y,tDE`__. >�xy e:- `� . , - • - - y :iv '' I! TONE meow Amncror RPrCI mo•A AN. Imo•110 I ,aI.,...N., ETI 'mr { (f :..jr..-..1 �� ay - __� ,, _. .-Lk-•_' i __ •-4 11 m.u4x � ; }-t - 4� _ >- - :'ei .. _' `-__ - 'kms; �- N- 1 I J 1• R' "L F ` . S ."=n -+.ti _ =9 -_ :+Y----- -A _(= __�� �uioY al. 1L I n � t QY.•^, i • L._It) -_.__ 1F ia___ ..{.I MX I IMO \ -ii l� — o D e l9� lval a �g;��.51 azosow a ov, Ime m.a m °'; l ,min 00W'I 4 NW. 10 PROWL "MAK MIROACII I Oo® 0 0 0 �- = S",;I oow.°m "w.�aso°y'wwcr. .v41.000011 iyi . © O��"' 44. ..¢..n J .\�� • EXISTING FACIUTIES �'? FUTURE FACILITIES REVISIONS NOTES: 1. ULTIMATE RUNWAY (NORTH EXTENSION) WILL REQUIRE REALIGNMENT OF 0 FUEL STORAGE �' 052400 L TIEOOWN APRON O IXECIFOVE EMNGARS /,\ A DEP REMOVED RELOCATED THRESHOIp AND 40060 NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS 6/2007 POWELL BUTTE 10145 TO PROVIDE STANDARD APPROACH CLEARANCE. ©6 0/08 TERMINAL HE000PIFR PARING Q T -HANGARS N0. BY DESCRIPTION 0019 r8P20215 2. WEST PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO BE WIDENED' FROM 30 FEET TO 35 FEET. O FWD HWGAR/0806 GLIDER STAGING k PARKING Q FB0/MNNTFNAVCE HANGAR I WATER SYSTEM FACTURES ©AUTO PARKING •�.4 ; O KuGGErTFR RAE.. "'� 'THE 81 *0* TION ADMINISTRATION THESE 000UAS P8 VIER FINANCED IN PART 0HROF A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE FEDERAL AMATION 050.1125A5 PROW000 00 HE ESSTIOL 505 OF THE AIRPORT AND 25MRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1982, AS A 6 0459 THE CONTENTS 00 NOT NECESSARILY 84840REFLECT THE O4IS01OFFICIAL NEWS OR POLICY OF TME FAA ACCEPTANCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS BY THE FAA DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN MAY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 15 ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS." 3. EXISTING RUNWAY ELEVATIONS SURVEYED 11/05.G Q CONOOLONIVM HANGARS 14 WND CONE 0 EXECVTNE HANGARS Q COMPASS ROSE 0 SMALL CONVENTIONAL HANGARS 16 SEWER PUMP STATION Q T -HANGARS. ()AUTO PARIONG ;.'.III• O NRfRMT TIEDOWNS li 0 j1.06T ': O AIRPORT RBATFO INDUSTRIAL 15.255 AREA �_ REUSE OF DOCUMENTS FEDERAL AVIATION CITY OF BEND Can Wst CITY OF BEND DpAwwO NO. M15 DRAWING AND ME DESIGNS INCORPORATED FREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL VERIFY COATER 8AR IS ONE INCH ON ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APPROVAL -T ;;m m A+�• $i0o 300 O'wn. 67224 BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1 OF 6 SERVICE. 5 ME PROPERTY OF cenlu l ENGINEERING CORPORATION, AILD IS NOT BE MORTAL DRAWING. 0- til�6� APPROVAL DATE: /07/97 APPROVAL DATE: / (, -�' SOL-N....L. ��rt. 419-0710 (ex • SHD7 N0. PROJECT TYITII011T THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PROJ IN WHOLE OR E PAR. FOR ANY NTNOF ENGINEER!. PI' NOT ONE INCH ON THIS SHEET. ADJUST • �,/ ( \ G."•�t.LL' a DESIGNED BY: I OMAN BY: CHE0T60 BY: SC. p DM P.Y.:.. �PRDJFLTONR 1 _3DD• AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN cc eur7Weel CORPORATION. 0 mm..nw.F.e.l 0.x030100190.031 SCALES ACCORDINGLY. /a 51 ATTIRE SIGNATURE �� DECEMBER 2002 10051044.01 BEND -ALP -2001 MODIFICATION TO STANDARDS NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION DISPOSIMON Q TANLANE OFA LESS THAN ADGIISTANOARD FOR TIEDOWN APRON ROWS RECONFIGURE PARKING APRON TAXILANEOFA LESS THAN ADG I STANDARD FOR T -HANGARS MODIFIED FAATWOLANE CLEARING FORMULA NOTES: 1. EXISTING RANGE FENCING TO BE REPLACED WITH STANDARD CHARJUNK IN PHASES OR ABANDONED AS PMT OF RECONFIGURATION OR PROPERTY ACQUISITION. FUTURE FENCING TO BE CONFIGURED BASED ON PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT. 2. SEE DATA SHEET (SHEET 2) 000 FAGILITV I BUILDING KEY )l N PROtlMAIi POWELLRUTR GXWAYRFWGNMEM CCTSS ROAD GATE IN COMMERCIAL "NTION f-'-rT USE F DESCHUTE5000NTY (POTENTIAL AVIATION REMIFO USE RELATED USE ;;tom: cI: _._� PAGE LEGEND G FUTUR BUILDINGS AIRFIELD PAVEMENT BUILDING RES-T*010N UNE BRL AIRCRAFT PARKING UNE (APL) AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) OBJECT FREE AREA (00A) ORSTACIE FREE ZONE (OR) -BRL F - ---APL F) TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (MEM RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RR) GROUND CONTOURS SAME AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP) RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER UGHTS (REIL) VISUAL GUIDANCE INDICATORS (PAPI) WIND INDICATOR SEGMENTED CIRCLE WIND INDICATOR FENCE BEACON THRESHOLD UGHTS OND OSO ACCESS ROAD/VEHICLE PARKING N/A AVIGATON EASEMENT DEVELOPMENT RESERVE TO BE REMOVED MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY UGHTS (MIRL) PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED AVIATION 0 0 • �—�ACCFSTRdNAND _�- VMICLEPARNNG AuwND ACQSSROAD EE0S1150 RN(-- 1W'010W APPROACH vASIBIUT' 0111MUM NOT LOWER THANI.M¢E OB T 1111. ERE APPROACH SWAM IN FUTURE __cF�3398A ,( FUTUREPERM MMRID PERM. I 100' (CONTROLLED ACCESS) L -1 AOPUSEU AERONAUIIUI USE Av ADON USE RESERVE 81iMPART TF— APPR000ISO ARI GIBSON =PARK NFLCOPIFR IANOING PARS 41:1 TEOP3 SURFACE ✓ EIOSFWG/FUTURE RPZ SOO, TO MILD, APPROACH VISIBIUTY MINIMUMS NOT IOWM.01144IIE BALI APRON RESERVE ACCESS ROAD - 03E131 - - '+t ILI RGUGAEONIGNWAT_ FUTURE RPZ--•SOO.% 101Y MOW' \qn` (10603 5011 APPROACH VISIB NIMUMS �1-r MOTOT IOWEWERTHMFWILE 30110131 BRL16'(E/N 6RLBS 1:/N AC HOLD 1UEI 11 •a. • II ' .& —T- WAY _/.A. I\_ � ._ ,�, a VTI . i—�- - 4111/ it =IIMINIZriailMiwiroin Miii7I l iG�'airr `.= EXHIBIT PAGE AIRPORT DATA EXISTING FUTURE ULTIMATE RUNWAY DATA 16/34 EXISTING FUTURE ULTIMATE LEGEND AIRPORT ELEVATION (MSL) 3453 3456 3456' LENGTH AND WIDTH 5005' X 75' 5200' X 75' 5500' X 75' EXISTING FUTURE/ULTIMATE DATUM FOR ALL ITEMS NAD 83-NAVD29 SAME SAME PERCENT EFFECTIVE GRADIENT 1.030 1.090 SAME FACILITIES — LAT. N 44' 05' 41' N 44' 05' 40" N 44' 05' 42" PERCENT IA1N0 COVERAGE 12 18 MPH) 98.2/99.9 SAME SAME BUILDINGSRUNWAY '<:""' I r AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT COORDINATES (ARP) LONG. W 121'12' 02' W 121' 12' 01" W 121' 12' 01" PAVEMENT TYPE ASPHALT ASPHALT SAME — AIRPORT MAGNETIC VARIATION 16' 6' E SAME SAME PAVEMENT STRENGTH (WHEEL -POUNDS)_ SINGLE - 12,500 SINGLE - 30.000 SAME BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL) BRL (E) BRL (F) MEAN MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE HOTTEST MONTH 82' F SAME SAME TAXIWAY LIGHTING REFLECTORS MITI- SAME AIRCRAFT PARKING LINE (APL) APL (E) APL (F) NPIAS ROLE GENERAL AVIATION SAME SAME RUNWAY LIGHTING MIRL MIRL SAME AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE — — — — AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC) 8-I 8-11 SAME RUNWAY MARKIN0 NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA. AIRPORT CODE BON SAME SAME RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 5415' X 120' 5800' X 150' 6100' X 150' OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA) — — — — LAND OWNED IN FEE (ACRES) APPROX 415 ACRES APPROX 421 ACRES SAME OBJECT FREE AREA 5415' X 240' 5800' X 500' 6100' X 500' FENCE - DECLARED DISTANCES OBSTACLE FREE ZONE 5335' X 250' 5600' X 400' 5900' X 400' GROUND CONTOURS ew— CRITICAL AIRCRAFT KING AIR (8E100) CITATION II (GESSO) CITATION ULTRAj560) RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ) — — EXISTING FUTURE ULTIMATE NAVIGATIONAL AIDS VOR/DME: GPS VOR/DME: CPS SAME AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP) —4 16 34 16 34 16 34 APPROACH TYPE 16 NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME VISUAL GUIDANCE INDICATOR *VASI *PAPI TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORR) 5005' 5005' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500' 34 VISUAL NON -PRECISION SAME 4.---) '-� -L' TAKEOFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE (TODA) 5005 500V 5200' 5200 5500 5500 RUNWAY END COORDINATES 16 44.06'06* - 12112'02.4*V606.099' - 121'12 00.773 4496'09' - 121'12'01' LIGHIEU TEE & SEGMENTED CIRCLE - ACCELERATE -STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE5005'5005'5200'5200'5500' A50A) (AVIGATION 5500' 34 *50'11" - 12112'02' 450612.030 - 1213200.821 '" 445514.737 - 12192'00.821' '' EASEMENT C = LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLELDA] 5005' 5005' 51.00' 5200 5500' 5500' APPROACH SLOPE: REWIRED/CLEAR 16 34:1/21:1 34:1/34:1 SAME DISPLACED THRESHOLD APPROACH END) 0 0' 0 0' 0 0 34 20:1/20:1 34:1/34:1 SAME ROTATING BEACON * APPROACH AND LANDING AIDS '4; 16 VOLME:GPS:RFIL:VASI V01DME:GPS:REIL:PAPI SAME WIND TEE f z `< 34 REIT_ GPS: REIL PAPI SAME WIND CONE AND SEGMENTED CIRCLE AWOS III P/T A /Nimirq„ �°0°Oi°�''C' J00 0 J00 fi00 MN OW SCALE OF FEE! _SCALE /�' �\ tf ' 27,-.112-1912-1128:227011.21.11-1171119,71,19-9-9- ATA 4rss�w Aw RL. 1"..=300' 1I ��F7Fj hlillt T L J L_ J I "i : Os asM'IiER`zaml `_� WI TIN IY ND ROSE 2.2.74 OBSI..0.0.15. Mwo1 ,A.KIJOR mR NI WK."ROYOY sero I,.w me tena5g °°" J.w,, 1 ar osswO 1smlmvr- > rarl g /lnn a-Yfl-✓A Ar R .y I--1 010 I 7 r�0 Ei Ll '. "% I - -.-_ . Al -- -4 y waQi II I - S,,, h' . ' rti HM m� ai A / II IIP hArr J BM 01 Diii.,01 0 MI wr...N R.... Pa.9.1,W 2«A i � � - - - �_ — _._ "' -— ,71_ -_ _. = J, >, 1 I '�° ro -- —+i _ 6,t G ,D ilimm.6.. imia e.nsmc P. . 1.:� IMINIMEMO �. :.r r MM �QQ I6� I .r,1.., o ,QII® � _. tE mQ R�w=r, :.11r �A.m -- .. -- NT RE. NOTES: EXISTING FACILITIES 1SFUTURE FACILITIES 1. ULTIMATE RUNWAY (NORTH EXTENSION) WILL REQUIRE REALIGNMENT 04 0 FUEL STORAGE /V CENTRAL TIEDOWN APRON OA EXECUTIVE HANGARS DEA N0. BY REMOVED RELOCATED THRESHOLD AND ADDED NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS DESCRIPTION 6/2007 D4TE APPROVED POWELL BUTTE MWY TO PROVIDE STANDARD APPROACH CLEARANCE. 2 WEST PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO BE © 180/G4 TERMINALHELICOPTER PARKING 4) 0 I HANGARS "THE PREPARATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS WAS FINANCED IN PART 011R000f1 A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AS FRONDED UNDER SECTION 505 OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1982. A5 AMENDED. THE CONTENTS 00 NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL NEWS OR POLICY OF THE FAA. ACCEPTANCE OF THESE 0400904TS BY THE FAA DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES 10 PAR0CIPAIE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE 1X01 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE W1TH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS.- WIDENED FROM S0 FEET TO 35 FEET. 3. EXISTING RUNWAY ELEVATIONS SURVEYED 11/05. / EGO HANGAR/SHOP 01GLIDER STAGING & PARKING 4 F80/MAINTENANCE HANGAR 4) WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES ©CONDOMINIUM HANGARS IA WINO CONE 0 EXECUTIVE HANGARS 1) COAIP SS ROSE 1 SMALL CONVENTIONAL HANGARS I6 SEWER PUMP STATION T- GARS �O \'l AUTO PARKING © AUTO PARKING O HELICOPTER PARKING _ .. O NRCRAF1 11600645 r13? ��•')1 AIRPORT RELATED INDUSTRIAL LEASE AREA — c ' REUSE OF DOCUMENTS VEWFYSCLes FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APPROVAL DALE: ///rik7 CITY OF BEND APPROVAL APPROVAL oprE' !.� -L� Century WaoN CITY OF BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 04`8("4 No' 1 OF 6 THIS OMWWG AND THE DESIGNS INCORPORATED HEREIN. AS AN INSIRIMENI OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING ROI EC RING rCORPORATION. USED. IWHOIE OPRPoINP ARiO, THE cOF�LANYr OTHER UEPo�EERIN�CE CORPORATION. CONSENT OE fifi05 ,t-�NG n, Sul.BEND Pwsu6 0.209 97224 3W snJ-419-7t,o PKa„ 502-62e-7=15 N. .. .cml.rrv.eM.co., BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINALDRAWING. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SHEET NO. 1 ONE TSCALESI GLY. G [� j j�� A71L '1L9 1yls �!tI'. •,"LLLW rC4/'_ `�"� SIGNATURE DESIGHE0 P1 jO6644 Y. CHECKE`)MBY: ,SGLLF: ' `'°°' f�(/L 51 AILIRE DATE: DECEMBER 2002 PROJECT N0. 10051094.01 BEND -ALP -2001 EXHIBIT PAGE "Skittot4,,F, CDD COVER SHEET FOR SLB 05/07/2014 16:29:48 PL 1 PAGES II FILE ID 1713200000200PL20140507162948 TAXMAP 1713200000200 SERIAL 164835 DIVISION PL SITUS 63052 POWELL BUTTE HWY HOUSE# 63052 STREET POWELL BUTTE CONTENT SP137 Staff Memo to H.O., CU0954 & MC019 H.O. Dec RECORD ID SP137 LOCATED IN DATE FILE Cover Sheet Identifier AHJKMTWX '/C9//(// From : Will Groves, Senior Planner To: Karen Green, Hearings Officer RE: ALP and AMP Past Practices, Decision Summary Staff has attempted to locate all past land use decisions at the Bend Airport and identify those decisions that provide some discussion of the Airport Master Plan (AMP) or Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Staff notes that decisions were identified based on electronic records and, thus, the list below may be incomplete. Of approximately 60 decisions identified, the following decisions provide some discussion of the AMP. Staff notes that, to the extent that analysis is provided, each of the decisions appears to take the position taken by the Hearings Officer in CU -09-54: "The Hearings Officer finds the comprehensive plan is implemented through the county's zoning ordinance, compliance with which is addressed throughout this decision." However, PA-08-3/ZC-08-3 was denied because it was found to be inconsistent with AMP. Excerpts of findings are included below. Staff has attached the Hearings Officer and BOCC decisions from the list below. Staff also notes that the DCC 18.76.010 Purpose statement that includes reference to the AMP and the 18.76.100(A) Design and Use Criteria criterion requiring compliance with the AMP for conditional uses do not appear in the code until 2003. Thus it appears that pre -2003 land use decisions were being made under criteria that did not reference the AMP. FILE NUMBER: CU -07-67 FINDING: As discussed above, the proposed aircraft maintenance and storage space are consistent with the conditional uses in the AS District, therefore, are consistent with the comprehensive plan and Bend Airport Master Plan. Staff has discussed below that the proposed use is in compliance with the intent and provisions of Title 18. FILE NUMBERS: CU -06-60 and SP -06-21 FINDING: As discussed above, the proposed restaurant and office space to accommodate Professional Air Services charter flight service are consistent with the conditional uses in the AS District and, therefore, are consistent with the comprehensive plan and Bend Airport Master Plan and as discussed below are in compliance with the intent and provisions of Titl .� g \k 00 FILE NUMBER: CU -03-90 and SP -03-49 FINDING: The height of the proposed hangar is 26 feet at its highest point accordo elevation plans submitted with the building application. The proposed development falls within the Transitional Surface of the Bend Airport Safety Combining Zone. The distance between the existing runway [which is closer than the future runway identified in the adopted Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan (Supplement to 1994 Airport Master Plan)], is about 450 feet. Based on the definition of "Transitional Surface" in 18.80.022, the proposed development will not penetrate the imaginary surface of the Transitional Surface at the Bend Airport. FILE NUMBER: CU -09-54 (Hearings Officer) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the comprehensive plan is implemented through the county's zoning ordinance, compliance with which is addressed throughout this decision. And based on the findings above concerning the context of the term "aviation -related," the Hearings Officer finds PDC's business is similar to other businesses sited at the Bend Airport and appears to be consistent with the overall plan for on -airport development. FILE NUMBER: MC -01-9 (Hearings Officer) A request to modify Condition No. 2 of Site Plan Review File No. SP -96-106 to postpone widening of Nelson Road to November 30, 2003. AMP and ALP is discussed as context for application. FILE NUMBER: MC -05-1 FINDING: The proposed use of this facility, specifically the proposed modifications, are airport related and will not affect the neighboring properties since the other buildings adjacent to the existing and proposed buildings are similar in use. FILE NUMBER: MC -03-15 AMP and ALP is discussed as context for application. FILE NUMBERS: PA -08-3, ZC-08-3 (BOCC, Hearings Officer) Plan Amendment and Zone change is denied because it is inconsistent with AMP. FILE NUMBER: CU -00-19 and SP -00-13 FINDING: Planning staff is aware the City of Bend has an out dated 1979 airport master plan that has not been adopted as part of the county Comprehensive Plan. In general the proposed development is consistent with the airport plan. The proposed hangar would occupy one of the remaining sites along the frontage road on the west side of the airport in an area allocated for this purpose. By law the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance is consistent with and implements the comprehensive plan. The DCZO identifies uses allowed outright or as conditional uses in the AD zone. Therefore, if the proposed use is found to comply with the applicable standards and criteria in the DCZO, then compliance with the general provisions of the County Comprehensive Plan is assumed. FILE NUMBER: SP -03-53 Master Plan is discussed as context for MC -99-6, SP -96-106, 6, MC -99-6, MC -01-9, and MC - 03 -15 and CU -03-73 - realignment of Nelson Road. FILE NUMBER: SP -04-53 FINDING: The County's Zoning Ordinance, which implements the Comprehensive Plan, along with master plan for the Bend Municipal Airport specifically designated the area where the Epic Air facility is proposed for aviation related industrial uses, hence the district name. Because the proposed facility is an aviation related industrial use, Staff finds this criterion is met. FILE NUMBER: SP -05-16 FINDING: The County's Zoning Ordinance, which implements the Comprehensive Plan, along with master plan for the Bend Municipal Airport specifically designated the area where the hangar is proposed for aviation support uses, hence the district name. This criterion is met. FILE NUMBER: SP -05-48 FINDING: According to the submitted elevation plans, the proposed hangars would be 35 feet at its highest point. The proposed development falls within the Transitional Surface of the Bend Airport Safety Combining Zone. The distance between the existing runway [which is closer than the future runway identified in the adopted Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan (Supplement to 1994 Airport Master Plan)], would be a minimum of 1,000 feet. Based on the definition of "Transitional Surface" in 18.80.022, the proposed development will not penetrate the imaginary surface of the Transitional Surface at the Bend Airport. DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBER: APPLICANTS: CU -09-54 Dan Nesmith Paladin Data Corporation 61579 Westridge Avenue Bend, Oregon 97702 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Bend c/o Eric King, City Manager 710 N.W. Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97702 APPLICANTS' ATTORNEY: Liz Fancher 644 N.W. Broadway Bend, Oregon 97701 APPLICANTS' AGENT: Jon Skidmore Skidmore Land Use Consulting Services, LLC 2570 N.W. Sacagawea Lane Bend, Oregon 97701 REQUEST: STAFF REVIEWER: HEARING DATES: RECORD CLOSED: I. The applicant requests conditional use approval to convert portions of an existing aircraft hangar at the Bend Airport into office space and a pilot's lounge and to operate a business within the hangar. Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner September 16, 2009 October 14, 2009 APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions * Section 18.04.030, Definitions 2. Chapter 18.76 Airport Development Zone — AD * Section 18.76.010, Purpose * Section 18.76.020, Standards in All Districts Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 1 of 33 * Section 18.76.050, Use Limitations * Section 18.76.060, Dimensional Standards * Section 18.76.080, Aviation Support District (ASD) * Section 18.76.100, Design and Use Criteria * Section 18.76.110, Additional Requirements 3. Chapter 18.80 Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS) * Section 18.80.010, Purpose * Section 18.80.020, Application of Provisions * Section 18.80.022, Definitions * Section 18.80.026, Notice of Land Use and Permit Applications * Section 18.80.032, Bend Airport * Section 18.80.028, Height Limitations * Section 18.80.044, Land Use Compatibility * Section 18.80.054, Conditional Uses * Section 18.80.062, Dimensional Standards * Section 18.80.064, Procedures * Section 18.80.078, FAA Notification (Form 7460-1) 4. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions * Section 18.116.030, Off -Street Parking and Loading 5. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review 6. Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use * Section 18.128.015, General Standards Governing Conditional Uses B. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 1. Chapter 174, Construction of Statutes; General Definitions * ORS 174.010, General Rule for Construction of Statutes * ORS 174.020, Legislative Intent; General and Particular Provisions; Consideration of Legislative History 2. Chapter 836, Airports and Landing Fields * ORS 836.616, Rules for Airport Uses and Activities C. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660, Land Conservation and Development Commission Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 2 of 33 1. Division 13, Airport Planning * OAR 660-013-0020, Definitions * OAR 660-013-0040, Aviation Facility Planning Requirements * OAR 660-013-0100, Airport Uses at Non -Towered Airports * OAR 660-013-0110, Other Uses Within the Airport Boundary II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Location: The subject property is located at the Bend Municipal Airport with an address of 63390 Powell Butte Highway. The property is further identified as Tax Lot 200 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-13-17. The subject hangar is located near the north end of the runway and adjacent west taxiway. B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned and designated Airport Development and is located within the Aviation Support District (ASD) and the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone. C. Site Description: The Bend Municipal Airport consists of approximately 415 acres of relatively level land several miles east of the city limits and the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The airport is bordered on the west by Powell Butte Highway, on the north by McGrath Road, and on the south by Nelson Road. The airport is developed with a 5,005 -foot -long, 75 -foot -wide paved runway, associated paved taxiways, aircraft hangars, a fixed -base operator, a restaurant, and numerous aviation -related commercial and industrial enterprises on both the east and west sides of the runway. The subject hangar is 12,000 square feet in size, 24 feet 8 inches tall and is on land leased by the applicant from the City of Bend (hereafter "city") located approximately 400 feet west of the runway. The hangar is served by city water and sewer service. It has access from a frontage road connecting to Powell Butte Highway, a designated rural arterial road, and is partially screened from the highway by existing juniper trees. The hangar has access to the runway from the west side taxiway. D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: The subject hangar is surrounded by the remainder of the Bend Airport property. Land surrounding the airport is zoned Exclusive Farm Use -Alfalfa Subzone (EFU-AL) and is developed with farm uses and residences. E. Procedural History: Applicant Dan Nesmith leased the subject hangar site from the city in October of 2004. On March 18, 2005 Mr. Nesmith submitted an application for site plan review for the hangar. The applicants' site plan burden of proof stated he was requesting approval for "a new 12,000 square foot aircraft executive hangar building." The application did not include a reference to the applicant Paladin Data Corporation (PDC) or state PDC's business was to be conducted in the hangar. On April 21, 2005 Mr. Nesmith and the city executed an amendment to the original hangar lease reducing the least payments. By an administrative findings and decision (hereafter "administrative decision") dated April 25, 2005, the county granted Mr. Nesmith's requested site plan approval for the hangar (SP -05-16). The administrative decision described the hangar as Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 3 of 33 "for personal use" and made no mention of PDC's business operations. Later in 2005, the county issued Mr. Nesmith a building permit to construct the hangar (B58852). In spite of the site plan approval for a "personal use" hangar, the approved building plans, copies of which are included in the record, show an office area on the first floor of the hangar. On May 8, 2006 the applicant received fmal occupancy approval for the hangar. At some point after this date, Mr. Nesmith moved PDC's business operations into the hangar. Mr. Nesmith testified at the public hearing that city officials advised him PDC's business was the type they would like to have at the airport. However, neither the applicants' original or revised hangar lease authorizes any type of business in the hangar.' On November 3, 2008, Mr. Nesmith and PDC submitted an application for conditional use approval to establish an aviation -related business in the existing hangar (CU -08-73). By a letter dated December 4, 2008, Senior Planner Anthony Raguine advised Mr. Nesmith that his application was incomplete because it did not include the signature of a representative of the city as property owner, did not include a traffic impact analysis (TIA), and did not document that PDC is an aviation -related business. On May 18, 2009, Mr. Raguine sent another letter to the applicant advising him that the application was still incomplete. On June 3, 2009 Mr. Nesmith submitted a TIA, an application with the signature of an authorized representative of the city, and additional information concerning the nature of PDC's operations, and the county accepted the application as complete on that date. A public hearing on CU -08-73 was scheduled for July 28, 2009. By a memorandum dated July 23, 2009, Mr. Raguine advised the Hearings Officer and the parties that staff had miscalculated the. 150 -day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.427. The memorandum noted that staffs incomplete letter was issued more than 30 days after the application in CU -08-73 was submitted, and therefore under the statute the application was deemed complete on December 3, 2008 and the 150 -day period expired on May 2, 2009. By a letter dated July 28, 2009 Mr. Nesmith withdrew his application in CU -08-73 stating he wanted to avoid any issues concerning the expiration of the 150 -day period and requesting that all information included in the record for CU -08-73 be incorporated into the new application. On July 28, 2009 Mr. Nesmith submitted the subject conditional use application (CU -09- 54) and the county accepted this application as complete on August 27, 2009. Therefore, the 150 -day period for issuance of a final decision on the new application would have i Paragraph 1.2 of the lease, entitled "Use of Premises," provides as follows: "Tenant's primary use of the premises shall be the construction and maintenance of aircraft hangars and thereafter the storage of aircraft in compliance with the Landlord's General. Aviation Minimum Standards (`GAMS ), which the Landlord may amend from time to time as conditions warrant and which are incorporated in this lease. No other use may be made of the Premises without Landlord's prior written permission." (Emphasis added.) The revised lease states all terms and conditions of the original lease except those amended remain in effect. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 4 of 33 expired on January 25, 2010.2 A public hearing on the new application was held on September 16, 2009. At the hearing, the Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence, left the written evidentiary record open through October 7, 2009, and allowed the applicant through October 14, 2009 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. Because the applicant agreed to extend the written record from September 16 through October 14, 2009, under Section 22.24.140 of the county's land use procedures ordinance the 150 -day period was tolled for 28 days and now expires on February 22, 2010. As of the date of this decision there remain 115 days in the extended 150 -day period. F. Proposal: The applicants request conditional use approval to conduct PDC's existing software business and future aircraft maintenance business within applicant Dan Nesmith's existing 12,000 -square -foot hangar. To facilitate this use, the applicants request approval to utilize 1,515 square feet of the first floor of the hangar and 3,060 square feet of the mezzanine level for office space, and 939 square feet of the first floor for a pilot's lounge.3 In addition, three new bathrooms would be constructed. The remainder of the hangar space would be utilized for the storage and servicing of PDC's six aircraft and in the future for maintenance of aircraft other than those owned by PDC. G. Public/Private Agency Comments: The Planning Division sent notice of the applicants' proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the Deschutes County Building and Environmental Health Divisions and Senior Transportation Planner; and the City of Bend Airport Manager, City Manager, and Fire Department. These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 2-4 of the staff report and/or are included in the record. The following agencies either did not respond to the request for comments or submitted a "no comment" response: the Deschutes County Assessor and Property Address Coordinator. H. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the applicants' proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property located within 250 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the Bend `Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the record in this matter closed, the county had received three letters from the public in response to these notices — one in support and two in opposition. In addition, one member of the public testified in opposition at the public hearing. I. Lot of Record: The staff report states the county recognizes the subject parcel as a legal lot of record because of the county's issuance of land use approvals and building permits, 2 The stair report states the original 150' day is January 24, 2010. However that day falls on a Sunday, and therefore the 1501 day is Monday, January 25, 2010. 3 It is unclear from this record to what extent these office and pilot lounge spaces already exist within the subject hangar. The burden of proof states the applicant also desires to increase the size of the existing hangar to replace the hangar space consumed by the proposed offices, but that this request would be made through a separate application. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 5 of 33 including the site plan approval and building permit for the subject hangar. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone — AD a. Section 18.76.010, Purpose The purpose of the Airport Development (AD) Zone is to allow for development compatible with ongoing airport use consistent with the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan (as amended by a 2002 supplement), while providing for public review of proposed development likely to have significant impact on surrounding lands. The AD Zone is composed of three separate zoning districts, each with its own set of allowed uses and distinct regulations, as further set forth in DCC 18.76. b. Section 18.76.020, Standards in All Districts A. Approval Required. Any use in an AOD, ASD, or ARID District shall be subject to DCC 18.124. FINDINGS: The subject hangar is located in the ASD and therefore the applicants' proposed development is subject to site plan review. The applicant received site plan approval for the existing hangar. However, the applicants did not request site plan approval in conjunction with this conditional use application, and therefore they will be required as a condition of approval to apply for site plan approval within 30 days of the date this decision becomes final. B. Solar Setbacks. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements of DCC 18.116.180. C. Building Code Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or Deschutes County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer fmds compliance with these setback requirements was reviewed and confirmed through the county's 2005 site plan review for the hangar (SP -05-16). D. Off -Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided subject to the parking provisions of DCC 18.116. FINDINGS: Compliance with the off-street parking and loading standards under Chapter 18.116 Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 6 of 33 is discussed in the findings below. E. Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be installed in conformance with DCC 15.10. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the applicants will be required to install any outdoor lighting in compliance with the county's outdoor lighting standards in Chapter 15.10. F. Excavation, Grading, Fill and Removal. Excavation, grading, fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland shall be subject to DCC 18.120.050 and/or DCC 18.128.270. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the applicants do not propose any excavation, grading, fill or removal. G. Signs. All signs shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of DCC 15.08. FINDINGS: The applicants have not proposed any signs in conjunction with this conditional use application. The Hearings Officer finds that any outdoor signs installed on the subject hangar site shall comply with the provisions of the county's sign code. c. Section 18.76.050, Use Limitations The following limitations and standards shall apply to all permitted uses in the Airport Districts. A. The height of any plant growth or structure or part of a structure such as chimneys, towers, antennas, power lines, etc. shall not exceed 35 feet. FINDINGS: The existing hangar is 24 feet 8 inches tall, and the applicants do not propose any increase in height in conjunction with this conditional use application. Therefore, the Hearings Officer fmds the applicants' proposal complies with this criterion. B. In approach zones beyond the clear zone areas, no meeting place designed to accommodate more than 25 persons for public or private purposes shall be permitted. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the existing hangar is not located within the clear zone or any approach zone, and contains no "meeting place" for public or private purposes. C. All parking demand created by any use permitted by DCC Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 7 of 33 18.76 shall be accommodated on the subject premises entirely off-street. FINDINGS: The preliminary site plan included in the record shows off-street parking spaces located in front of the existing hangar. As discussed above, the applicants will be required as a condition of approval to apply for site plan approval for the business use of the hangar within 30 days of the date this decision is final, and such review will include off-street parking compliance. D. No use permitted by DCC 18.76 shall require the backing of traffic onto a public or private street or road right-of-way. FINDINGS: The record indicates the hangar is located approximately 100 feet from Powell Butte Highway. The Hearings Officer finds the location of the hangar's off-street parking areas will not require backing of vehicles onto a public or private street or road right-of-way. E. No power lines shall be located in clear zones. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable because the applicants do not propose any new power lines in conjunction with this conditional use application. In addition, the record indicates power lines serving the existing hangar are located underground. F. No use shall be allowed which is likely to attract a large quantity of birds, particularly birds which normally fly at high altitudes. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the proposed business use of the existing hangar, which would occur primarily if not entirely within the hangar, will not attract a large quantity of birds. d. Section 18.76.060, Dimensional Standards FINDINGS: The record indicates compliance with the dimensional standards in the AD Zone for the hangar was confirmed through the county's 2005 site plan review (SP -05-16). e. Section 18.76.080, Aviation Support District (ASD) A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright. 1. Runway, taxiway, service road, fuel storage and sales and emergency repair. 2. Facilities approved or mandated by the FAA or Oregon State Aeronautics Division. 3. Related uses which are customarily appurtenant to airports, including but not limited to hangars, tie -down Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 8 of 33 areas and parking facilities. FINDINGS: The applicant states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the existing hangar and aircraft storage and maintenance within it, as well as the associated off-street parking areas, are uses permitted outright in the ASD. I further find that the applicants' proposal to provide aircraft maintenance for aircraft other than those owned by PDC also is a use permitted outright in the ASD because it is a use "customarily appurtenant to airports." B. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following conditional uses may be permitted subject to DCC 18.128 and conditional use permit: 2. Airport or aviation -related businesses that benefit from an on -airport location. FINDINGS: The applicant requests conditional use approval to operate PDC's business within the existing hangar, as well as to convert 4,575 square feet of the existing hangar into office space and 939 square feet into a pilot's lounge. The question presented by the applicants' proposal is whether PDC's business qualifies as a conditional use in the ASD Zone because it is an "airport or aviation -related business" that would "benefit from an on -airport location." The staff report concludes the applicants' proposal does not qualify as a conditional use in the ASD for several reasons discussed in the findings below. 1. Authority to Interpret Code. At the outset, Bend's Airport Manager Gary Judd questioned whether the county or the city should make the interpretive determination central to this application. In a letter dated September 16, 2009, Mr. Judd stated: "The Bend Municipal Airport recognizes that the County must use the standards and definitions supplied by County code to make determinations regarding land use. The airport supports that process in regards to the fact that such standards and definitions creates [sic] a uniform base for operations that can be referenced by any individual seeking to understand or implement those standards." Nevertheless, Mr. Judd's letter went on to state: "It is my concern that should the County code be interpreted in this manner in the future [to prohibit PDC's business in the hangar] that the Bend Municipal Airport will find itself unable to compete with other regional airports. * * * This could create a crippling and non-competitive financial environment that the airport could not operate under. * * * I believe it is best to leave specific operational decisions to the Sponsor of the airport as it is directly responsible for the operation, maintenance and compliance of the facility. In many instances determinations must be made on a Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 9 of 33 case by case basis using the aeronautical knowledge and experience of staff members and consultants that are specifically charged with those responsibilities. " In addition, in the applicants' final argument, the applicants' attorney Liz Fancher seemed to agree with Mr. Judd's approach by stating that it should be up to the city to determine through its leases of on -airport property what degree of connection to the airport or aviation a particular business must have to qualify as an "airport or aviation -related" business. The Hearings Officer finds the county's code does not support Mr. Judd's and Ms. Fancher's arguments on this point. In the first place, there is nothing in the county's land use regulations or in any other documents identified by the parties that delegates to the city interpretation and application of the Bend Airport's AD Zone.4 And although Section 18.76.010 states that one of the purposes of the AD Zone is to allow for airport development that is compatible with the city's airport master plan, it is well established that zoning district purpose statements do not themselves establish approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use applications. E.g., Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 LUBA 129 (2004). Therefore, the airport's master plan and the city's minimum standards for general aviation do not constitute approval criteria for development in the AD Zone covering Bend Airport.5 Rather, they function as a guide for the city's leases and its regulation of on -airport businesses as a landlord and an FAA airport "sponsor." In other words, based on the airport master plan standards, the city could elect not to lease ground or hangar space to a business even if that business had received county conditional use approval for airport development. However, the converse is not true. In other words, the city may not permit an airport lessee to conduct a business that is not permitted under the county's zoning ordinance, regardless of how desirable the city believes that use to be. 2. Code Requirements. To obtain conditional use approval to operate PDC's business in the hangar, the applicants are required to demonstrate that PDC's business: • is "airport or aviation -related;" and • benefits from an on -airport location. Each of these requirements is discussed in the findings below. 3. "Airport or Aviation -Related Businesses." Section 18.04.030 does not define the terms "aviation," "related." or "business" or the phrase "airport or aviation -related business." For this reason, planning staff and the parties disagree as to the meaning of this phrase. The goal of interpreting a statute or code provision is to discern its intent. For many years, the 4 In contrast, the Hearings Officer is aware that the city and county have an intergovernmental agreement which authorizes the city to administer land use regulations applicable within the Bend UGB. S The airport's operational standards include a document entitled "Airside Standards for Development," a copy of which is included in this record. However, it does not appear that these standards comprise part of the airport master plan. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 10 of 33 appellate courts and LUBA have followed the three-step interpretive analysis established by the Supreme Court in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-612, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (hereafter PGE v. BOLI), which requires a court or other body to focus on the provision's text and context before turning to legislative history and general rules of statutory construction. In State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 209 P3d 1042 (2009), the Supreme Court modified its holding in PGE on the basis of 2001 amendments to ORS 174.020, which along with ORS 174.010 essentially codifies the standard rules for statutory interpretation.6 The court held in Gaines: "We therefore conclude that, in light of the 2001 amendments to ORS 174.020, the appropriate methodology for interpreting a statute is as follows. The first step remains an examination of text and context. PGE, 317 Or at 610-611. But, contrary to this court's pronouncement in PGE, we no longer will require an ambiguity in the text of a statute as a necessary predicate to the second step — consideration of pertinent legislative history that a party may proffer. Instead, a party is free to proffer legislative history to the court, and the court will consult it after examining the text and context, even if the court does not perceive an ambiguity in the statute's text, where that legislative history appears useful to the court's analysis. [Footnote omitted.] However, the extent of the court's consideration of that history, and the evaluative weight that the court gives it, is for the court to determine. The third, and final, step of the interpretive methodology is unchanged. If the legislature's intent remains unclear after examining text, context, and legislative history, the court may resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty." In other words, the court held the PGE v. BOLI analysis still applies to questions of statutory or 6 ORS 174.010 provides: In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all. ORS 174.020 provides: (1)(a) In the construction of a statute, a court shall pursue the intention of the legislature if possible. (b) To assist a court in its construction of a statute, a party may offer the legislative history of the statute. (2) When a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former so that a particular intent controls a general intent that is inconsistent with the particular intent. (3) A court may limit its consideration of legislative history to the information that the parties provide to the court. The court shall give the weight to the legislative history that the court considers to be appropriate. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 11 of 33 code construction, but the legislative history of the provision may be considered even if there is no ambiguity in intent based on examination of the provision's text and context. a. Text Section 18.04.030 defines "airport" as "any area of land or water which is used or intended to be used by the general public for the landing and taking off of aircraft." 7 The remaining words in the phrase "airport or aviation -related businesses" are not defined in Title 18. In the applicants' final argument, Ms. Fancher noted that since the Gaines decision the courts have continued to hold that where a term is not defined it is appropriate to assign the term its ordinary meaning. E.g., Mountain High Homeowners Association v. J.L. Ward Co., 228 Or App 424, 209 P3d 347 (2009). Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, Second Edition, defines "aviation" as "the art or science of flying airplanes; the field of aircraft design, construction, etc." The same source defines "business" in part as "commerce; trade; a commercial or industrial establishment,"' and defines "relate" as "to have some connection or relation." Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition, defines "related" as "connected; associated." Based on these ordinary definitions, "airport or aviation -related businesses" could be read to mean any commercial enterprise hat has even the slightest degree of connection to or association with an airport or with flying aircraft. For example, as the Hearings Officer noted at the public hearing, under this broad reading of the code language my hearings officer business could be considered "aviation -related" if I piloted a private airplane from Bend to public hearing locations in other cities. However, before determining whether such a reading is justified, I find it is necessary and appropriate to examine the context of the phrase. b. Context (1) AD Zone. As discussed above, Section 18.76.010 states the purpose of the AD Zone includes allowing for development "compatible with ongoing airport use consistent with" the county's comprehensive plan and the Bend Airport Master Plan as amended in 2002. Chapter 18.76 establishes three districts within the AD Zone — the Airfield Operations District (AOD), the Aviation -Related Industrial District (ARID), and the ASD — and the uses permitted therein. Under this section, the only uses permitted in the AOD — and they are permitted outright -- are those that make up the operational base of most airports — the runway, taxiway, service road, fuel storage and sales and emergency repair, and facilities approved or mandated by the FAA. The only uses permitted in the ARID -- and they also are permitted outright — are those permitted in the AOD, as well as "related uses which are customarily appurtenant to airports (including hangars and tie downs), and "airport or aviation -related commercial or industrial businesses that benefit from an on -airport location." The ASD is the only district that includes both outright and conditionally permitted uses. It permits outright the same uses permitted outright in the AOD and ARID, with the exception of "airport or aviation -related businesses" which are a conditional use, along with restaurants.8 Section 18.04.030 defines "aircraft" as "any vehicle designed or used for flight through the air and capable of carrying goods or people." Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 12 of 33 (2) Bend Airport Master Plan. A copy of the 2002 supplement to the Bend Airport Master Plan (hereafter "Supplement") is included in the record. The Supplement does not include a glossary of terms. However, the term "aviation related" is used in the master plan. The "Airport Development Alternatives" discussion in Chapter Four of the Supplement includes a discussion of future development of on -airport land on the east side of the runway. The following language is found at page 52: "Aviation Related Use. The largest portion (55 acres) of the east side area is designated for aviation related uses such as aircraft parking, glider staging area, hangars, aviation businesses and support facilities. This area provides ample aviation use reserves with nearly twice the development space as the entire west landside area, which developed over a period of more than 50 years. An additional 15 acres located near the northeast corner of the airport is reserved for long-term aviation use and will be maintained as open space until it is needed for other uses. "(Underscored emphasis added.) This language appears to contemplate siting "aviation businesses" on the east side of the airport. In contrast, Chapter Six of the Supplement, "Airport Layout Plans," sets forth the following language in the Section covering the "On -Airport Land Use Plan:" "The west side of the airport is designated aviation support (AS). AS areas accommodate the full range of aviation -related land uses including hangars and other aviation -related buildings, aircraft parking, fueling areas, etc. The northern half of the east side of the airport is also designated AS. A portion of this area is planned for aviation -related development within the current 20 year planning period and a portion is reserved for long-term aviation use. Additional AS areas are identified in the area surrounding the pond (to be removed) and along the east edge of the airport boundary. (Underscored emphasis added; bold emphasis in original.) The aviation -related uses listed for the west side of the airport are the more typical airport operational uses and do not include aviation -related businesses. This distinction between uses contemplated for the east and west sides of the airport appears to be reflected in the county's AD Zone. As discussed above, the AIRD on the east side of the airport permits outright "airport or aviation -related businesses," whereas such uses are permitted conditionally in the ASD on the west side of the airport. However, it is less clear that the city has followed such a distinction in leasing airport land. Airport Manager Gary Judd submitted into the record a list of the following existing and recent on -airport businesses, most of which are or have been located on the west side of the airport: • Cessna -- aircraft manufacturer 8 Sections 18.76.030 and 18.76.040 list other uses permitted outright and conditionally, respectively, in all three districts, including road projects, irrigation systems, and farm uses (outright permitted), and farm accessory buildings, utility facilities necessary for public service, and excavation, grading and fill and removal within streams, rivers and wetlands (conditional uses). Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 13 of 33 • Epic Air -- kit aircraft construction • Professional Air — aircraft charter and rental; flight instruction; aircraft repair, maintenance and storage • Leading Edge Helicopters — aircraft charter; flight instruction; helicopter repair, maintenance and storage • Snowline — Aircraft component fabrication • Precise Flight — Aircraft lighting systems • Electronics International — Digital aircraft instrumentation • Windward Aircraft — Glider manufacturing • Aerofacilities — Hangar site development and construction, offices on airport • Juniper Investments — Hangar construction and leasing, offices on airport • Cascade Air Charter — Aircraft charters • Griffin Interiors — Aircraft re -upholstery • Cafe 3456 — restaurant (3) Statutes. ORS 836.600 through ORS 836.630 govern local regulation of airports. These provisions also use the term "aviation -related" but do not define it. ORS 836.608 requires cities and counties to recognize and protect existing private- and public -use airports, to allow the continuation of existing uses at such airports, and to authorize the establishment of new airport uses that are compatible and have adequate public facilities and services. ORS 836.616 provides: (1) Following consultation with the Oregon Department of Aviation, the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules for uses and activities allowed within the boundaries of airports identified in ORS 836.610(1) and airports described in ORS 836.608(2).[9] (2) Within airport boundaries established pursuant to commission rules, local government land use regulations shall authorize the following uses and activities: (a) Customary and usual aviation -related activities including but not limited to takeoffs, landings, aircraft hangars, tie -downs, construction and maintenance of airport facilities, fixed -based operator facilities and other activities incidental to the normal operation of an airport; Emergency medical flight services; Law enforcement and firefighting activities; Flight instruction; Aircraft service, maintenance and training; 9 These statutes describe both private -use airports and public -use airports such as the Bend Airport. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 14 of 33 (3) Crop dusting and other agricultural activities; Air passenger and air freight services at levels consistent with the classification and needs identified in the State Aviation System Plan; Aircraft rental; Aircraft sales and sale of aviation equipment and supplies; and Aviation recreational and sporting activities. All land uses and activities permitted within airport boundaries, other than the uses and activities established under subsection (2) of this section, shall comply with applicable land use laws and regulations. A local government may authorize commercial, industrial and other uses in addition to those listed in subsection (2) of this section within an airport boundary where such uses are consistent with applicable provisions of the acknowledged comprehensive plan, statewide land use planning goals and commission rules and where the uses do not create a safety hazard or limit approved airport uses. (4) The provisions of this section do not apply to airports with an existing or approved control tower on June 5, 1995. (Emphasis added.) Subsection (2) of this statute identifies uses permitted outright at non -towered airports, and Subsection (3) authorizes but does not require cities and counties to permit "commercial * * * uses in addition to" the outright permitted uses as long as they meet certain compatibility criteria — i.e., conditional uses. Finally, ORS 836.623(1) provides in relevant part: A local government may adopt land use compatibility and safety requirements that are more stringent than the minimum required by Land Conservation and Development Commission rules for issues other than water impoundments where such regulations are within its authority. * This statutory scheme also appears to distinguish between the more traditional "aviation -related" activities and uses that characterize airport operations, and commercial and industrial businesses that may be permitted within airport boundaries if they are compatible with airport operations. However, both types of uses are allowed at airports. (4) Administrative Rules. Pursuant to ORS 836.616, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted implementing administrative rules for airport planning in OAR Chapter 660, Division 13. Again, the term "aviation -related" is used but not defined. OAR 660- 013-0030 requires cities and counties with planning authority for an airport to adopt land use regulations for airports "consistent with" the requirements of Division 13 and ORS 836.600 Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 15 of 33 through 836.630. OAR 660-013-0100 implements and fleshes out the list of outright permitted airport uses established in ORS 836.616(2), and includes the following pertinent language: (1) Customary and usual aviation -related activities including but not limited to takeoffs, landings, aircraft hangars, tie downs, construction and maintenance of airport facilities, fixed -base operator facilities, a residence for an airport caretaker or security officer, and other activities incidental to the normal operation of and airport. Residential, commercials industrial, manufacturing, and other uses, except as provided in this rule, are not customary and usual aviation -related activities and may only be authorized pursuant to OAR 660- 013-0110. (Emphasis added.) OAR 660-013-0110 provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of OAR 660-013-0100, a local government may authorize commercial, industrial, manufacturing and other uses in addition to those listed in OAR 660-013-0100 within the airport boundary where such uses are consistent with applicable provisions of the acknowledged comprehensive plan, statewide planning goals and LCDC administrative rules and where the uses do not create a safety hazard or otherwise limit approved airport uses. (Emphasis added.) The underscored language in OAR 660-0123-0100(1) does not have a counterpart in the statutes. It distinguishes between "commercial" uses that are "customary and usual aviation -related activities" (e.g., fixed -base operator) and "commercial" uses that "are not customary and usual aviation -related activities." The latter may be permitted only as authorized in OAR 660-013- 0110 — i.e., if consistent with the applicable goals and rules and compatible with airport uses. (5) FAA Regulations The FAA regulates the operation of private- and public -use airports, including Bend Airport. In an effort to interpret the phrase "airport or aviation -related businesses," the applicants' agent consulted with Stan Allison, FAA Assistant Manager for the Seattle Airport District Office. In an electronic mail message dated June 23, 2009, Mr. Allison noted that the FAA has no authority concerning local land use decisions involving airports, and that its rules do not define an "aviation -related" business. Mr. Allison suggested a method of interpreting the county's ordinance that focused on whether or not the business is "aviation -dependent" — i.e., whether the business needs access to the runway to conduct its business and would be harmed if such access were cut off. In addition, in a letter dated July 23, 2009, Airport Manager Gary Judd referred to the .term "aeronautical "activity" in the FAA's "Advisory Circular 5190.6A," a copy of which is included in the record. The circular defines "aeronautical activity" to include the types of activities listed as uses permitted outright in the statutes and administrative rules discussed above, but not to include ground transportation, restaurants, in-flight food catering, barber shops and auto parking lots. Mr. Judd acknowledged that the FAA circular does not use or define the term "aviation - related" and does not address the level of relation to or connection with aviation required for on- Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 16 of 33 airport businesses. The Hearings Officer finds the FAA's rules and terminology, while they may be applicable to the managers of the Bend Airport as airport "sponsors," do not apply to the county and should not be considered part of the context for the county's AD Zone. c. Interpretation The Hearings Officer finds the context discussed above shows a legislative intent to assure the safe and efficient operation of non -towered airports by recognizing and permitting the development of several tiers of uses within the airport boundaries: • Actual airport operations, including runways, taxiways, service roads, fuel storage and sales, and emergency repairs — permitted outright. • Uses customarily appurtenant to airports, including hangars, tiedowns, fixed -based operator, aircraft charters, flight instruction, aircraft maintenance, law enforcement and emergency medical flights, passenger and air freight service, crop dusting, and aircraft recreational activities — permitted outright. • Commercial and industrial enterprises that are clearly airport- or aviation -related, such as aircraft and aircraft component manufacturing, aircraft refurbishing, and hangar development and leasing —permitted outright. • Commercial and industrial enterprises that may or may not be airport- or aviation -related but benefit from an on -airport location and are compatible with airport operations and uses — permitted conditionally.'° However, in failing to define the term "aviation -related," the statutes and administrative rules do not clarify where the line is to be drawn between the third and fourth categories of on -airport commercial uses. And the interpretive question is further complicated by the fact that the use permitted conditionally in the ASD — "airport or aviation -related businesses that benefit from an on -airport location" — is a hybrid of the third and fourth categories, with characteristics of both 10 The Hearings Officer notes that in 2005 the Oregon Legislature created a pilot program for development of this last category of commercial uses on airports — called "Through the Fence Operations" — now codified in ORS 836.640 and 836.642. These operations are defined in ORS 836.640(4) as "a customary and usual aviation -related activity that: (a) Is conducted by a commercial or industrial user of property within an airport boundary; and (b) Relies, for business purposes, on the ability to taxi aircraft directly from the property employed for the commercial or industrial use to an airport runway. This pilot program does not apply to the Bend Airport because it serves a population of more than 75,000 people. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 17 of 33 outright permitted and,conditional uses. Under these circumstances, it would be very useful to have the benefit of reviewing the legislative history for the county's AD Zone to gain a better understanding of what types of businesses the county intended to permit conditionally in the ASD. However, none of the parties submitted legislative history into this record. Considering the context described above, and the fact that Bend Airport — like most airports — has a finite amount of developable land that has access to the runway and taxiways -- the Hearings Officer finds the apparent intent of the ASD in general, and the "aviation -related business" conditional use in particular, is to allow development of businesses with more than an incidental connection to aircraft and/or aviation, while assuring valuable on -airport property is available for businesses that cannot operate off -airport. Planning staff and the parties have offered several approaches for determining where to draw the line between businesses that are "airport or aviation -related" and those that are not. Mr. Raguine suggested the appropriate analysis is to determine whether the "core function" of the business is "aviation -related," based upon an analytical method suggested by Stan Allison of the FAA. Mr. Allison suggested the county ask two questions: (1) whether the business requires access to the runway in order to perform its business; and (2) . whether the business would be negatively affected if runway access were cut off. Mr. Allison suggested that if the answer to either question is "no," the "core function" of the business is not "aviation -dependent" and the business does not need to be on -airport. The applicants correctly note there is nothing in the language of the ASD that contemplates identification of the "core function" of the business. Moreover, a test that focuses on access to the runway may be inconsistent with the ASD language that merely requires the business to "benefit" from being on -airport. Ms. Fancher also impliedly suggested two less strict tests — i.e., whether aircraft are utilized to operate the business, and whether aviation is "integrated into and an important part of" the business operation. The Hearings Officer finds the former test is not strict enough. It is difficult to imagine any business that does not "use aircraft," even if only to fly employees on commercial air carriers to business meetings and conferences. I find the latter test is too vague to the extent it asks whether aviation is "important" to the business. However, I concur that examining whether aviation is integrated into the business would be an appropriate way both to determine whether the business is "aviation -related" and to assure that businesses with only tangential connections to aviation are not permitted in the ASD or the AIRD. Therefore, I find the phrase "airport or aviation -related businesses" in Section 18.76.080(B)(2) means businesses in which aviation is an integral part. i t d. Application of Definition to PDC's Business For purposes of this discussion, the Hearings Officer finds PDC's business consists of three components, each of which is addressed in the findings below. (1) Aircraft Storage and Maintenance. The record indicates PDC has six aircraft that are stored 11 Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, Second Edition, defines "integral" as "necessary for completeness, essential." Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 18 of 33 in its hangar and are maintained by PDC employees. In addition, the applicants' burden of proof states PDC desires in the future to provide maintenance for non -PCD aircraft. The Hearings Officer finds these activities clearly are aviation -related and are in fact uses permitted outright in the ASD as uses and activities customarily appurtenant to airports. (2) Aircraft Maintenance Software. The applicants' original burden of proof for CU -08-73 did not identify any aircraft maintenance software as part of its business. As noted in Anthony Raguine's staff report for CU -09-54, development of such software was discussed only after he recommended denial of the applicants' original proposal, and PDC's website does not describe or advertise such software.12 For these reasons, staff concluded the development of this software could not be considered part of its "core" business. Under these circumstances, I understand staff's conclusion.13 However, as discussed above, I have concluded analysis of PDC's "core function" is not appropriate or required. I understand that software is a somewhat intangible commodity while under development, and that PDC may not want to divulge the particulars of such software in this land use proceeding. Nevertheless, I find development of this software — which is very different from its retail point -of -service software discussed below -- is simply too speculative to establish that PDC is an "aviation -related" business. (3) Retail Point -of -Service Software Business. The record indicates PDC develops, sells, installs, and services "point -of -service" software primarily for small retail establishments that lack their own information technology staff. This software allows retailers to manage their sales, inventories and accounts receivable. Mr. Nesmith and his wife started PDC in their home, At some point after the subject hangar was completed, Mr. Nesmith moved part of PDC's business offices to the hangar while retaining some offices at his home. Initially Mr. and Mrs. Nesmith traveled to their customers' places of business by car. Later they began using aircraft to increase their service area and to reduce their service response time. Approximately ten years ago Mr. Nesmith upgraded the company's aircraft so PDC could provide service nationwide. As PDC's business expanded Mr. Nesmith hired additional employees. He testified that PDC currently has 21 employees.14 Some of those employees are licensed pilots with multiple FAA ratings that allow them to fly a variety of aircraft in a variety of conditions. Some of PDC's employees also 12 The staff report sets forth the following excerpt from PDC's website: "[PDC] * * * has been developing, supporting and delivering Point of Sales (POS) and Inventory Management Solutions for nearly 30 years. The people at Paladin Data Corporation are experts in the field of POS, Inventory Control, Accounts Receivables and Customer Support. The Paladin POS Solution is sophisticated yet easy to learn, use and operate. It offers an intuitive graphical user interface (GUI) that closes the gap between people and computers." The record does not include a modified lease authorizing the applicants to conduct PDC's business in the hangar. 13 In fact, as discussed in the findings below, it was not until the Hearings Officer requested that Mr. Nesmith testify at the public hearing — he apparently had not intended to do so — and questioned him about PDC's business that he described the nature of the operation with sufficient detail for the county to make a determination as to whether it is in fact "airport or aviation -related." 14 The record indicates two of PDC's employees commute to work in the hangar in their own airplanes. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 19 of 33 are FAA licensed airplane mechanics. PDC's employees design and sell point -of -service software for individual retail establishments throughout the United States. They install the software and train the customer's employees in its use on site, and often travel to the customer's site for those purposes in PDC's aircraft. After software installation and training, PDC's employees in Bend communicate with the customer's staff by telephone and electronic mail in order to keep the software in working order and to troubleshoot to solve problems. When it is not possible to solve the problem by telephone or electronically, PDC's employees travel to the customer's site in the company's aircraft. Mr. Nesmith testified at the public hearing that PDC handles many service calls each day, and that on average at least one of those calls requires an employee to fly to a customer's location. Mr. Nesmith stated PDC's customers often are located in more remote areas that are not served by commercial air carriers or take too long to reach by commercial airlines, and/or are a very long distance to drive by car. He testified that because of the nature of PDC's point -of -service software and its use, its customers need the software for their retail businesses to function and as a result cannot wait long for software to be adjusted or fixed. Accordingly, PDC's ability to provide prompt and reliable service throughout the country by use of its own aircraft and pilots is a major selling point for its software products and provides PDC with a competitive advantage. Mr. Nesmith testified at the public hearing that some of his employees perform multiple functions within PDC. For example, employees who fly and maintain PDC's aircraft also develop, sell, install and service PDC's software and train customers' employees. For this reason, Mr. Nesmith stated that at this point in the evolution of PDC's business, it is critical that all of PDC's employees be housed in the same location. He stated that as the company grows, the number of employees will increase, and the employees likely will become less generalized more specialized, such that not all of the employees can or will need to be housed together in the hangar. The applicants and the city's airport manager likened PDC's business to typical on -airport uses that provide expedited service by use of aircraft — such as air freight companies (e.g., Fed Ex) and air ambulance providers such as AirLink which operates out of a hangar at Bend Airport.'5 As discussed above, these types of businesses are permitted outright at non -towered airports under state statutes and administrative rules, and clearly fall within the "appurtenant" airport uses permitted outright in the ASD. The Hearings Officer agrees that there are strong similarities between these outright permitted uses and PDC's business model and operations. In both cases, although the product or service theoretically could be provided by means other than flying aircraft — e.g., by trucks or by ground ambulances — the nature of the customers' needs often requires expedited service delivery. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds aviation is an integral part of PDC's business, and therefore the business is "airport or aviation -related." 4. Benefits from On -Airport Location. There is no dispute that PDC's business "benefits from" 15 The Hearings Officer is aware that AirLink has split its operations between its Bend Airport hangar and a hangar at St. Charles Medical Center in Bend. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 20 of 33 being located in the applicants' hangar at the airport. This location allows PDC's employees quick and easy access to PDC's aircraft and to the Bend Airport runway, thereby reducing the company's response time for service calls that cannot be adequately addressed by telephone or electronic mail communications. In addition, because some of PDC's pilots and mechanics also develop, sell, install and service the company's software products, PDC benefits from an on - airport location because it allows the company to house all of its employees in the same location, facilitating communication among the company's employees and supervision by its managers. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds PDC's business qualifies as a conditional use in the ASD. f. Section 18.76.100, Design and Use Criteria The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall take into account the impact of any proposed conditional use within the AD Zone on nearby residential and commercial uses, and on the capacity of transportation and other public facilities and services. In approving a proposed conditional use, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find that: A. The proposed use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan as amended (supplemented) in 2002. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the comprehensive plan is implemented through the county's zoning ordinance, compliance with which is addressed throughout this decision. And based on the findings above concerning the context of the term "aviation -related," the Hearings Officer fmds PDC's business is similar to other businesses sited at the Bend Airport and appears to be consistent with the overall plan for on -airport development. B. The proposed use is in compliance with the intent and provisions of DCC Title 18. FINDINGS: The proposal's compliance with the requirements of Title 18 is discussed throughout this decision. C. Any adverse social, economical, physical or environmental impacts are minimized. FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to convert part of an existing hangar to office and pilot lounge space and to use the entire hangar for PDC's business operations. As discussed in the findings below, the Hearings Officer has found the applicants' proposal will have no adverse impacts on the airport or land uses on surrounding agricultural land. D. The proposed use is not sensitive to noise of the character anticipated by the current and expected noise level contours of Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 21 of 33 the airport. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the proposed business use of the applicants' existing hangar is not noise sensitive. E. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent agricultural and residential uses. FINDINGS: In the 2005 administrative decision, the county found the existing hangar would be compatible with adjacent agricultural and residential uses. Because the applicants' proposed business use of the hangar will occur primarily if not entirely within the hangar, the Hearings Officer finds it also will be compatible with such uses. F. There are sufficient public facilities and services to support the proposed use. FINDINGS: The subject hangar is served by city water and sewer service. It has access from a frontage road that connects to Powell Butte Highway, a designated rural arterial road. And as discussed in the findings below, the Hearings Officer has found traffic impacts on Powell Butte Highway from the proposed business use of the hangar will be minimal and will not exceed the capacity of this transportation facility. Therefore, I find the applicants' proposal satisfies this criterion. G. The location and site design of the proposed facility will not be hazardous to the safety and general welfare of surrounding properties, and that the location will not unnecessarily restrict existing and future development of surrounding lands as indicate in the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS: The proposed business use of the existing hangar will take place primarily if not entirely within the hangar. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds it will not create safety hazards for surrounding properties or restrict their development. H. The use shall make the most effective use reasonably possible of the site topography, existing landscaping and building placement so as to preserve existing trees and natural features, preserve vistas and other views from public ways, minimize visibility of parking, loading and storage areas from public ways and neighboring residential uses, and minimize intrusion into the character of existing developments and land uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. FINDINGS: The applicants' proposed business use will occur primarily if not entirely within an existing hangar that previously received site plan approval. The hangar is located in an area of the airport already developed with hangars and taxiways and with few natural features. The record indicates the hangar is partially screened from Powell Butte Highway by existing juniper Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 22 of 33 trees. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed use will be consistent with the character of existing development at the airport and within the ASD. g• Section 18.76.110, Additional Requirements As a condition of approval for any conditional use proposed within the AD Zone, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may require: A. An increase in required setbacks. B. Additional off-street parking and loading facilities and building standards. C. Limitations on signs or lighting, hours of operation, points of ingress and egress and building heights. D. Additional landscaping, screening and other improvements. E. Glare -resistant materials in construction or other methods likely to reduce operating hazards. F. Other conditions considered necessary to achieve compliance and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds it is not necessary to impose any of these listed conditions of approval in order to assure the applicants' proposed use satisfies all applicable conditional use approval criteria. 2. Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone a. Section 18.80.010, Purpose In any zone that is overlain by an Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS Zone), the requirements and standards of DCC 18.80.010 shall apply in addition to those specified in the ordinance for the underlying zone. If a conflict in regulations or standards occurs, the more restrictive provisions shall govern. The purpose of the AS Zone is to restrict incompatible land uses and airspace obstructions around airports in an effort to maintain an airport's maximum benefit. The imaginary surfaces and zones; boundaries and their use limitations comprise the AS Zone. Any uses permitted outright or by conditional use in the underlying zones are allowed except as provided for in DCC 18.80.044, 18.80.050, 18.80.056 and 18.80.058. The protection of each airport's imaginary surfaces will be accomplished through the use of those land use controls Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 23 of 33 deemed necessary to protect the community it serves. Incompatible uses may include the height of trees, buildings, structures or other items and uses that would be subject to frequent aircraft over -flight or might intrude into areas used by aircraft. b. Section 18.80.020, Application of Provisions The provisions of DCC 18.80.020 shall only apply to unincorporated areas located under airport imaginary surfaces and zones, including approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, conical surfaces and runway protection zones. While DCC 18.80 identifies dimensions for the entire imaginary surface and zone, parts of the surfaces and/or zones do not apply within the Redmond, Bend or Sisters Urban Growth Boundaries. * * * Imaginary surface dimensions vary for each airport covered by DCC 18.80.020. Based on the classification of each individual airport, only those portions (of the AS Zone) that overlay existing County zones are relevant. * * * FINDINGS: The Bend Airport is located outside the Bend UGB. The record indicates the subject hangar is not located within any of the airport imaginary surfaces. However, because it is located within the boundaries of the AS Zone, the provisions of the AS Zone are applicable. c. Section 18.80.026, Notice of Land Use and Permit Applications Except as otherwise provided herein, written notice of applications for land use or limited land use decisions, including comprehensive plan or zoning amendments, in an area within this overlay zone, shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation in the same manner as notice is provided to property owners entitled by law to written notice of land use or limited land use applications. For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver and Sisters airports: A. Notice shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation when the property, or a portion thereof, that is subject to the land use or limited land use application is located within 10,000 feet of the sides or ends of the runway. * * * FINDINGS: The subject hangar is located approximately 400 feet from the runway. The record indicates the Planning Division sent written notice of this conditional use application to the City of Bend Airport Manager and to the Department of Aviation as required by this paragraph. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 24 of 33 d. Section 18.80.028, Height Limitations All uses permitted by the underlying zone shall comply with the height limitations in DCC 18.80.028. When height limitations of the underlying zone are more restrictive than those of this overlay zone, the underlying zone height limitations shall control. A. Except as provided in DCC 18.80.028(B) and (C), no structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth shall penetrate an airport imaginary surface. B. For areas within airport imaginary surfaces but outside the approach and transition surfaces, where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surfaces such that existing structures and permitted development penetrate or would penetrate the airport imaginary surfaces, a Local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet in height. C. Other height exceptions or variances may be permitted when supported in writing by the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA. Applications for height variances shall follow the procedures for other variances and shall be subject to such conditions and terms as recommended by the Department of Aviation and the FAA (for Redmond, Bend and Sunriver). FINDINGS: The subject hangar is 24 feet 8 inches tall. The hangar's compliance with the AD Zone's 35 -foot height limitation was reviewed and confirmed through the county's 2005 site plan review (SP -05-15). e. Section 18.80.044, Land Use Compatibility Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall comply with the requirements of DCC 18.80 as provided herein. When compatibility issues arise, the Planning Director or Hearings Body is required to take actions that eliminate or minimize the incompatibility by choosing the most compatible location or design for the boundary or use. Where compatibility issues persist, despite actions or conditions intended to eliminate or minimize the incompatibility, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may disallow the use or expansion, except where the action results in loss of current operational levels and/or the ability of the airport to grow to meet future community needs. Reasonable conditions to protect the public safety may be imposed by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 25 of 33 A. Noise. Within airport noise impact boundaries, land uses shall be established consistent with the levels identified in OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 5 (Table 2 of DCC 18.80). Applicants for any subdivision or partition approval or other land use approval or building permit affecting land within airport noise impact boundaries, shall sign and record in the Deschutes County Book of Records, a Declaration of Anticipated Noise declaring that the applicant and his successors will not now, or in the future complain about the allowed airport activities at the adjacent airport. In areas where the noise level is anticipated to be at or above 55 Ldn, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of a noise sensitive land use (real property normally used for sleeping or as a school, church, hospital, public library or similar use), the permit applicant shall be required to demonstrate that a noise abatement strategy will be incorporated into the building design that will achieve an indoor noise level equal to or less than 55 Ldn. [NOTE: FAA Order 5100.38A, Chapter 7 provides that interior noise levels should not exceed 45 decibels in all habitable zones.] FINDINGS: The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that by definition an "airport or aviation -related business" is or can be a compatible land use because such uses are permitted conditionally in the ASD. As discussed above, I have found PDC's business constitutes an "airport or aviation -related business" that benefits from an on -airport location and therefore is a conditional use in the ASD. F. Limitations and Restrictions on Allowed Uses in the RPZ, Approach Surface, and Airport Direct and Secondary Impact Areas. For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports, the land uses identified in DCC 18.80 Table 1, and their accessory uses, are permitted, permitted under limited circumstances, or prohibited in the manner therein described. In the event of conflict with the underlying zone, the more restrictive provisions shall control. As used in DCC 18.80.044, a limited use means a use that is allowed subject to special standards specific to that use. FINDINGS: The record indicates the subject hangar is not located in any of the airport's imaginary surfaces. Moreover, Table 1 of DCC 18.80 shows public airport use as a permitted use in the Transitional Surface area, and "commercial" use is permitted in the impact areas. f. Section 18.80.054, Conditional Uses Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 26 of 33 1 Uses permitted conditionally shall be those identified as conditional uses in the underlying zone with which the AS Zone is combined, and shall be subject to all conditions of the underlying zone except as provided in DCC 18.80.044. FINDINGS: As discussed above, "airport or aviation -related businesses that benefit from on - airport location" is a use permitted conditionally in the underlying AD Zone, and therefore is also a conditional use in the AS Zone. g. Section 18.80.062, Dimensional Standards A. Minimum lot size and setbacks shall be those indicated in the underlying zone with which the AS Zone is combined. B. Where an area is covered by more than one height limitation, the more restrictive shall prevail. C. The airport owners, or their agents, shall be permitted at mutually agreed upon times to enter onto private property to reduce the height of trees that exceed the height limitations herein established. FINDINGS: Compliance with the minimum lot size in the AD Zone was confirmed in the county's 2005 site plan review (SP -05-16). The hangar is 24 feet 8 inches tall and therefore does not exceed the 35 -foot height limit in the AD Zone. h. Section 18.80.064, Procedures An applicant seeking a land use or limited land use approval in an area within this overlay zone shall provide the following information in addition to any other information required in the permit application: A. A map or drawing showing the location of the property in relation to the airport imaginary surfaces. The Community Development Department shall provide the applicant with appropriate base maps upon which to locate the property. B. Elevation profiles and a site pan, both drawn to scale, including the location and height of all existing and proposed structures, measured in feet above mean sea level. * * * FINDINGS: The applicants submitted the information required by this‘section. i. Section 18.80.078, FAA Notification Form (Form 7460-1) Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 27 of 33 A. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 requires that anyone proposing to construct anything which may obstruct the use of airspace by aircraft to provide a notice to that effect to the FAA. Generally, construction proposals in the vicinity of airports may obstruct airspace. Notice to the FAA is required for anything which may affect landing areas, either existing or planned, which are open to the public, or are operated by one of the armed forces. B. FAA Form 7460-1 "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" is the notification form. It is to be submitted by the applicant directly to the FAA. Forms are available from the Oregon Department of Aviation or the Northwest Regional Office of the FAA. C. FAA Form 7460-1 should be submitted if the proposed construction or alteration meets the following criteria: 1. Anything over 200' AGL (above ground level at the site); 2. Proposals in the vicinity of an airport, if the proposal would be higher than a slope from the nearest point on a runway and increasing its elevation at a ratio of: * * * D. For identification purposes, Deschutes County has established FAA Notification Areas around each of the public use airports within Deschutes County. The boundaries of these areas are based on the runway length. If the proposed construction project is located in one of these areas, the applicant shall determine if the height of the proposed project will require FAA notification as per DCC 18.80.076(C). In Deschutes County, each of the public -use airports has a runway length longer than 3,200 feet. Therefore, each FAA notification area includes all land within 20,000 feet of each airport's runway(s), and the slope to be used is 100 to 1. E. FAA notification is NOT required for any of the following construction or alteration: 1. Any object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and would be located in the congested area of a Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 28 of 33 city, town or settlement where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will not adversely affect safety in air navigation. * * * FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal likely is exempt from FAA notification under Paragraph (E) of this section because it would occur within an existing hangar that previously received site plan approval. 3. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions a. Section 18.116.030, Off -Street Parking and Loading A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and evidence are presented to show how the off-street parking and loading requirements are to be met and that property is and will be available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to apply for site plan approval for the proposed business within 30 days of the date this decision becomes final. I fmd site plan review is the appropriate process through which to review compliance with off-street parking and loading requirements. Nevertheless, I find it is necessary to determine through this conditional use application whether there is sufficient land available within the applicants' leased area to accommodate required off-street parking and loading. B. Off -Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows: * FINDINGS: The record indicates PDC receives deliveries from UPS at the subject hangar. The applicants state, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the existing large hangar doors and adjacent apron are adequate for the required loading area. C. Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set froth in DCC 18.116.030 for all uses in all zoning districts. Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building is hereafter erected or Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 29 of 33 enlarged or the use of a building existing on the effective date of DCC Title 18 is changed. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the off-street parking requirements in this section are applicable to the applicants' proposed use because it constitutes a change of use of the existing hangar. D. Number of Spaces Required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows: * * * 6. Commercial * * * Bank or office, except 1 space per 300 sq. ft medical or dental of gross floor area * * * 8. Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate parking as required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The above list shall be used as a guide for determining requirements for said other uses. FINDINGS: The applicants propose to convert 4,575 square feet of hangar space for office use and 939 square feet for a pilot's lounge. The Hearings Officer finds the use listed among the commercial uses in Paragraph 6 that most resembles a "pilot's lounge" is "office." Therefore, I find the applicants' proposal must provide a total of 18 off-street parking spaces (5,514 square feet divided by 300 square feet) for the office and pilot lounge areas. The applicants' submitted preliminary site plan shows 17 off-street parking spaces adjacent to the existing hangar, including one handicap accessible parking space. I find there is sufficient land on the applicants' leased area to accommodate one additional off-street parking space — either within or adjacent to the hangar -- thus assuring the requirements of this section will be satisfied. b. Section 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds compliance with bicycle parking requirements will be determined through site plan review. However, I find there is sufficient room within the existing 12,000 -square -foot hangar to provide bicycle parking for employees. 4. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan FINDINGS: The applicant submitted a preliminary site plan and addressed the applicable site Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 30 of 33 plan approval criteria in his burden of proof statement for this conditional use permit application. However, as discussed in the findings above, the applicant did not submit an application for site plan approval or request such approval. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds that as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to apply for site plan approval within 30 days of the date this decision becomes final. 5. Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use a. Section 18.128.015, General Standards Governing Conditional Uses Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single-family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use; FINDINGS: The applicants propose to conduct PDC's business within the existing hangar and to convert portions of the hangar into office space and pilot's lounge. The record indicates PDC employees 21 people and has six aircraft. As discussed above, the site and design of the hangar were approved under SP -05-16. The staff report notes the applicants' burden of proof did not identify the hours of operation or other operating characteristics of the business. In response, the applicants' post -hearing memorandum states the following: "The hours of operation of Paladin's business vary. Many employees work flexible schedules but the range of work hours fall within the following general time frames: (1) members of the sales, support, diagnostic and repair staff work hours that range from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and (2) research and development staff work from around 10:00 a.m. until around 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.; and (3) flight crews and employees traveling to customer locations can leave as early as' 5:00 a.m. and as late as 8:00 a.m. and typically return between noon and midnight. Most employees bring their lunches to work so do not travel off-site for lunch. The business receives UPS and mail deliveries during the normal business hours for those businesses." The applicants' memorandum also correctly notes that PDC's business flights can occur at any time the Bend Airport is open for flight operations. Based on this evidence, the Hearings Officer find the subject hangar and PDC's leased area are suitable for the proposed use considering the site, design and operating characteristics of PDC's business. 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 31 of 33 FINDINGS: The existing hangar has access from a frontage road that connects to Powell Butte Highway, a designated rural arterial road. In response to the applicants' original conditional use application (CU -08-73), the county's Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell stated the applicants would need to submit a TIA for the proposed new use because, based on the information in the applicants' burden of proof statement, Mr. Russell calculated the proposed use would generate 50 or more average daily vehicle trips (ADTs) per week day. Mr. Russell also stated that the applicants would be required to pay a county transportation systems development charge (SDC) for the proposed use, to be calculated at a future date, but based upon a rate of $5,219 per thousand square feet of space. As discussed in the findings above, in June of 2009 the applicants submitted a TIA prepared by Gary Judd of Sage Engineering Associates LLC.16 The TIA projected the proposed business use of the existing hangar would generate approximately 53 average daily vehicle trips (ADTs), of which 8 trips would occur during the p.m. peak hour (between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. weekdays). The TIA concluded that with the addition of the projected 53 ADTs and 8 p.m. peak hour trips, the intersection between Powell Butte Highway and the airport frontage road would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, and therefore no mitigation measures would be required. Peter Russell submitted an electronic mail message stating: "I have read and reviewed the study, and agree with its methodology and conclusions that no traffic mitigation is needed." For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the subject site is suitable for the proposed use considering the adequacy of transportation access. 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. FINDINGS: The subject site is already developed with the existing hangar and therefore there are no meaningful natural features or natural resource values on the site. The record also indicates there are no known natural hazards on the site. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the site is suitable for the proposed use considering the natural and physical features of the site. B. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in (A) above. FINDINGS: As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the subject hangar is surrounded on the north, east and south by other airport development, and abuts the airport frontage road and Powell Butte Highway on the west. Land across Powell Butte Highway is zoned EFU-AL and is developed with small-scale farm uses and rural residences. The hangar is located over 100 feet from any of these uses. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposed business use of the hangar would be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties. 16 Gary Judd of Sage Engineering is not the same person as the city's Airport Manager. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 32 of 33 IV. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the applicants' proposed conditional use permit, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. This approval is based on the submitted burden of proof statement and attachments, supplemental materials, and the applicants' written and oral testimony. Any substantial change to the approved use will require a new and use application and approval. WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL: 2. The applicants/owner shall apply to the Deschutes County Community Development Department for site plan approval for the conditional use approved by this decision. 3. The applicants/owner shall obtain from the Deschutes County Community Development Department any required building and other construction permits for modifications to the interior of the hangar required to create new office space, a pilot lounge, and bathrooms. AT ALL TIMES: 4. The applicants/owner shall comply with all requirements of the Bend Fire Department. 5. The applicants/owner shall install and maintain any outdoor lighting in compliance with the county's outdoor lighting standards in Chapter 15.10. Dated this day of October, 2009. Mailed this % day of October, 2009. Karen H. Green, earings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. Nesmith/Paladin Data Corporation CU -09-54 Page 33 of 33 DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBER: MC -01-9 APPLICANT: City of Bend for Lancair Group Inc. c/o Mike Elmore 1375 NE Forbes Rd Bend, OR 97701 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Bend REQUEST: A request to modify Condition No. 2 of Site Plan Review File No. SP -96-106 to postpone widening of Nelson Road to November 30, 2003. STAFF CONTACT: Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner HEARING DATE: January 8, 2002 RECORD CLOSED: January 8, 2002 I. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Development Procedures A. Chapter 22.36, Limitation on Approvals. * Section 22.36.040, Modification of Approval. II. BASIC FINDINGS: A. LOCATION: The subject property is known as the Lancair aircraft manufacturing plant at the Bend Airport and has an assigned address of 22550 Nelson Road, Bend. The Bend Airport property has an assigned address of 63132 Powell Butte Highway, Bend. Both the subject property and the Bend Airport are identified on County Assessor's map 17-13-20 as tax lot 200. The Bend Airport occupies the northwest one-quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 20 of T17S, R13E.W.M. B. ZONING: The subject property is zoned Airport Development (AD). The Comprehensive Plan designation is Airport Development. C. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is the Lancair aircraft manufacturing facility in the southeast corner of the property known as the Bend Airport. The airport site includes the airport runway, taxiways, hangars, fixed base operator building, Air Life building, tie down areas, the Gibson Pond and areas left in a natural state. Access to the Lancair site is from Nelson Road. The County approved development of the Lancair Facility through Conditional Use Permit CU -95-120 and Site Plan Review SP -96-106. MC -01-9 Page 1 D. PROPOSAL/BACKGROUND: The applicant requests modification of Condition No. 2 of Site Plan Review SP -96-106 (also referenced as Condition No. 7(a) of CU -95-120) to postpone widening of Nelson Road to no later than November 30, 2003. A county hearings officer approved Site Plan Review application SP -96- 106 through a written decision dated and mailed on February 4, 1997. Through this decision, the hearings officer approved the development of the existing Lancair aircraft manufacturing plant. This decision was not appealed and became final on February 15, 1997. This decision approved the development of the facility subject to several conditions of approval. Condition 2 of SP -96-106 required all conditions of Conditional Use Permit CU -95-120 to be met, including the road improvements under condition 7 (of CU -95-120) prior to occupancy of the building. The original site plan approval has been modified twice through files numbers MC -98-6 and MC -99-6 to extend the deadline for the widening of Nelson Road. These decisions and the original conditional use permit site plan decisions are incorporated by reference into the record herein. The applicant requests that the widening of Nelson Road be further postponed until November 30 of 2003. The applicant has submitted a written narrative that addresses the criteria for modification of an approval under DCC Section 22.36.040. This narrative indicates that the improvements required as items b, c and d under condition of approval No. 7 of CU -95-120 have been completed. These are listed as follows: b. Place a center turn lane on Powell Butte Highway on the north side of its intersection with Nelson Road, constructed to AASHTO standards, and be tapered back to the existing paved highway width to the north. c. Place a deceleration/right turn lane on the Powell Butte Highway on the south side of its intersection with Nelson Road, designed to meet AASHTO standards and tapered back to the current width of Powell Butte Highway. d. Place a flashing red light at the intersection of Nelson Road and Powell Butte Highway to warn traffic heading west on Nelson Road and a flashing yellow Tight at the intersection of Powell Butte Highway and Nelson Road to warn traffic heading north on Powell Butte Highway. Condition 7(a) of CU -95-120 (also referred to under Condition No. 2 of SP -96- 106) requires the following: a. Nelson Road shall be widened to 28 feet from the intersection with the Powell Butte Highway east to the edge of the subject parcel. A 3 -inch thick overlay of AC paving shall be installed on the road. A center turn lane on Nelson Road on the east side of its intersection with Powell Butte Highway shall be installed for a distance of 300 feet east of the intersection and then tapered back to the normal 28 foot width at a 20 to 1 ratio. The applicant's narrative and the record indicate that the County has approved two prior applications for a similar modification (File Nos. MC -98-6 and MC -99-6). The first modification (MC -98-6) approved the postponement of the widening of Nelson Road to November 30, 1999. The second modification (MC -99-6) approved the postponement of the widening of Nelson Road to November 30, 2001. MC -01-9 Page 2 E. AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of the January 8, 2002 public hearing and a request for transmittal comments to the following 13 public agencies on November 21, 2001: Deschutes County Assessor; Deschutes County Environmental Health; Deschutes County Property Address Coordinator; Deschutes County Road Department; Deschutes County Transportation Planner; Bend Fire Department; Central Oregon Irrigation District; Avion Water Company; Cascade Natural Gas; Oregon Department of Transportation -Region 4; PG&E Gas Transmission; and Pacific Power and Light. The comments received from these agencies, if any, are set forth in the Staff Report and incorporated by reference herein. F. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the January 8, 2002 public hearing to owners of record of property within 750 feet of the subject properties, as required by DCC Section 22.24.030, on November 21, 2001. None of the owners of property notified of the hearing submitted written comments and no members of the public attended or testified at the public hearing. The Staff Report indicates that the applicant complied with DCC Section 22.24.030(B) by posting notice of the January 8, 2002 public hearing on the site where it was visible from Nelson Road on December 13, 2001. Notice of the hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on December 9, 2001, as required by DCC Section 22.24.030(C). The Bulletin submitted an affidavit dated December 10, 2001 that confirmed the publication of the notice. G. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is part of the Bend Airport property, which is considered a legal lot for development purposes. H. REVIEW PERIOD: This application was deemed complete and accepted for review on December 6, 2001. The record closed on January 8, 2002 and the 150th day on which the County must take final action is May 4, 2002. III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: A. Conformance with Section 22.36.040, Modification of Approval, of Title 22, Development Procedures, of the Deschutes County Code. 1. Section 22.36.040, Modification of Approval. A. An applicant may apply to modify an approval at any time after a period of six months has elapsed from the time a land use action approval has become final. FINDING: The condition of approval the applicant seeks to modify first became final on February 15, 1997. As discussed above, the applicant has received 2 approvals to modify this condition (MC -98-6) and (MC -99-6). The most recent modification approval became final on December 15, 1999. The applicant submitted the subject modification application on November 5, 2001, almost 2 years after the previous modification decision became final This criterion is satisfied. MC -01-9 Page 3 B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. FINDING: The applicant argues that the proposed modification is justified by two changes in circumstances since the original approval of the condition. First, the number of employees anticipated when the original approval was granted, which was one of the reasons for condition requiring widening of Nelson Road, was far greater than the actual number now occupying the facility. The record shows that the original estimated work force at the facility was 600 people. The applicant indicates the facility currently has a work force of 300, with an additional 50-100 employees expected to by employed by the end of 2002. Second, the applicant indicates that it is completing the Airport Layout Plan for the Bend Airport and completion of this plan will include a runway extension to the south, which will require relocation of Nelson Road and its right of way. This plan includes revalidation of the Airport Master Plan recommendations for a runway extension and forwarding the Master Plan to Deschutes County for approval. The applicant indicates that the final form of the Layout Plan includes an extension of one of the airport runways 200 feet to the south. The applicant asserts that in order to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety zone requirements, Nelson Road will need to be relocated with a different alignment. The applicant argues that it is desirable to make this change in the condition so that once the applicant obtains FAA and County approval of its Master Plan, including the proposed runway extension, the applicant can complete the runway extension and relocation and widening of Nelson Road. At the public hearing, Andrew Lindsey testified on behalf of the applicant that the Airport Layout Plan was submitted to the FAA for review in late November and that the applicant had just received the first round of comments back from the FAA. Mr. Lindsey testified that the comments were relatively minor and that the applicant expected to make the requested revisions and resubmit the plan to the FAA by the end of January. Based on this timeline, he estimated the applicant could have the Airport Layout Plan approved by the FAA late-February/early March and then submit the revised Bend Airport Master Plan to Deschutes County thereafter. The Hearings Officer finds that both of these changes in circumstances make it desirable to make the requested change to the condition. The records shows that the required road improvements were based on a total impact from 600 employees, creating an additional estimated 3,600 trips per day on Nelson Road and its intersection with the Powell Butte Highway. The 600 employees were estimated based on more building area than just the initial Lancair facility. The existing number of employees (300) for Lancair represents 50% of the original number used for road improvement recommendations. Additionally, the Staff Report notes that Staff has reviewed the most recent traffic counts for Nelson Road from the Deschutes County Traffic County Summary: 1980-2000. In 1998, Nelson Road was accommodating 775 vehicle trips per day at a point .10 mile East of the Powell Butte Highway. MC -01-9 Page 4 The record indicates the applicant has completed the deceleration lane on the Powell Butte entrance to Nelson Road, as well as the flashing yellow and red lights at the intersection. The center turn lane for southbound traffic on Powell Butte Highway has not been completed to date. However, the comments from the Road Department indicate that Nelson Road does not have a capacity problem or unusual crash history. The Hearings Officer also finds that the progress of the City's airport master plan update is sufficient reason to justify the proposed modification. Because the master plan update includes the runway extension requiring that Nelson Road be realigned, the Hearings Officer finds that it is desirable to wait until the plans are approved and the runway extension and realignment can be coordinated with the widening. Based on the evidence in the record, the Hearings Officer further finds that this modification request is not filed as a substitute for appeal. The applicant's written narrative addressing this criterion does not contest the validity of the criterion and does not request review and possible removal of this condition from the original approval. The applicant has requested postponement of the improvements to Nelson Road. Additionally, the request for the modification does not propose changes to the proposal that could have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. The modification request is limited to a postponement of the widening of Nelson Road. The applicant has not proposed modifications to the approval beyond postponing improvement to Nelson Road. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposal satisfies this criterion. C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed modification, as defined in this section, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular aspect of the proposal. Proposals that would modify an approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. FINDING: The requested modification is directed at one discrete aspect of the original land use approval. Specifically, the modification application seeks to extend the time period for complying with one condition of approval. The proposed modification does not amount to a substantially new proposal or one which would have significant impacts on surrounding properties. The applicant merely seeks to postpone compliance with one condition of approval until November 2003, based on a change in circumstances since the condition was imposed justifying the delay in complying with it. The proposal satisfies this criterion. D. An application for a modification shall be handled as a land use action. FINDING: The record shows that the County has processed review of the proposed modification as a land use action. The County notified owners of record of property within 750 feet of the subject property of the January 8, 2002 public hearing. The public hearing was held and no members of the public have MC -01-9 Page 5 submitted written comments or testified at the hearing. A final decision will be rendered in accordance with the County land use procedures. IV. DECISION: Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the Hearings Officer APPROVES the application to modify Condition No. 2 of SP -96-106, also referenced as Condition No. 7(a) of CU -95-120, to postpone the widening of Nelson Road to no later than November 30, 2003. Dated this day of January, 2002. Mailed this day of January, 2002. Tia M. Lewis, Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. MC -01-9 Page 6 C.E..VVIN.. FR 1N(_P', MARTIN E. HANSEN GERALD A. MARTIN MICHAEL H. Nit+ GF AN t Al,�,rrrn1,, Oki Mot r.�� FH M FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1148 NW HaI. STREET, BEND, OR 97701-1914 Nov: 541-389-5010 • FAX: 541-382-7068 WWW.FRANCISHANSEN.COM March 21. 2014 BY HAND DELIVERY Karen Green Deschutes County Hearings Officer c/o William Groves, Senior Planner Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend OR 97701 CHRISTOVHE i I. MAN'FREDI t .ALISON A. HLYrKE SARAH i F. HARLOS ALISON G. Hill -t NGARTEN 111\111 TF11 IN OR/64 in AND CAillt ,OA Re: Proceedings on Remand -- SP'I3-07 Dear Ms. Green: This letter will provide additional written evidence from Professional Air, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC in opposition to the above -referenced application on remand. The City of Bend's March 4, 2014 letter to the Hearings Officer states that "nothing in the 1994 or the 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan Text expressly requires any private development to be in any particular location nor prohibits any development from any location within the areas where private development is allowed." (City Letter at p. 1.) The City also makes the dismissive statement that "the maps included in the Airport Master Plan need to be considered in the context of reality. Actual development often differs from plans." (Id. at p. 3.) The City statements contradict the position that the City has been taking in other proceedings, and mischaracterize the terms of the 2002 Airport Master Plan ("AMP") Update itself. Just two weeks after that letter, the City wrote to the Federal Aviation Administration to respond to an informal complaint made by Professional Air Inc. (A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) In the letter, the City states: `:[T]he City has ensured, and continues to ensure, that development at the Airport remains consistent with the Master Plan and the ALP: and, as needed, it has conferred with and received approval from FAA of Ms. Karen Green Re. Proceedings on Remand -- SP13-07 March 21, 2014 Page 2 any necessary amendments to reflect changes in operational demands and actual development." (Exhibit 1 at p, 2.) The City's assurances to the FAA that development "remains consistent" with the AMP and ALP cannot reasonably be squared with its position in these proceedings that those plans are advisory only, and that "actual development often differs from plans." The City has also taken the position when it suits the City that the AMP and ALP are binding and controlling on where development is to occur. The City told Professional Air and Aero Facflities LLC in a meeting that a fuel farm could not be located on its Phase 1 property on the east side of the Airport besides it was not consistent with the location identified in the 2002 AMP adopted by the County. Although the City's letter to the FAA denies having rejected Professional Air's request for an east side fuel station, it acknowledges that the County Code would require development of that fuel station to occur consistent with the adopted AMP and ALP: "Pro Air alleges that it then asked the City to allow a fueling facility in "Phase 1" but was told that the area was to be used strictly for hangars. This is something of a rischaracterization of the City's reponse. The City took the position that it would allow it, but that Deschutes County approval would be required and that getting County approval might be difficult." (Exhibit 1, p. 4, internal footnote omitted.) The City's own airport planning documents also tend to show that the AMP and ALP are to be given controlling effect. In a June 23, 2009 Memo to the Bend Municipal Airport Counsel about the potential annexation of the Bend Airport, City planning staff summarized the AMP as follows: "The Master Plan illustrates where new hangars, taxi ways, runway extensions, FAA standard protection zones, accesses, reserve areas, etc. will be located. Other improvements to Airport facilities (such as lighting, towers, etc.) are also specified in the Master Plan. The Plan determines FAA -approved improvements at the Airport to accommodate expected aviation activity. Improvements included in this Plan are then typically eligible for grants to complete these projects with a match from the City of Bend, Without updating the Master Plan, making Airport improvements, adding lands for aviation uses or creating reserve areas not detailed in the current Master Plan will not be funded by FAA grants." (See Memo from Senior Planner Brian Rankin attached as Exhibit 2, at p. 4) Ms. Karen Green Re: Proceedings on Remand -- SP13-O7 March 21, 2014 Page 3 The Memorandum also describes the role of the Airport Master Plan as follows: "Future facility and land needs are precisely defined and substantiated by the Master Plan." (Id. at p. 1, ) The foregoing examples demonstrate that the City's has consistently viewed and interpreted its Airport Master Plan in other contexts as a controlling planning document. That position is in fact more in keeping with the actual text of the Airport Master Plan Update of 2002, The clear text of that AMP Update indicates that Plan and ALP maps were indeed intended to be binding planning documents, as explained above and in my clients' prior submissions. The very first page of the 2002 AMP Update states: "The facilities depicted on the Airport Layout Plan (contained in Chapter Six) represent the final version of the preferred alternative development through this planning process. The final configuration of facilities reflects specific comments provided by FAA and the City following review of the preliminary preferred alternatives recommended by the local planning advisory committee." (Bend Municipal Airport Planning Update, 2002, p. 1, LUBA record at p. 134.) For the City to urge here that the text of the AMP does not "expressly require" private development to be located in accordance with the Airport Layout Plan simply ignores the plain meaning of the AMP and the key planning function that it assigns to the incorporated Airport Layout Plan. The City and Leading Edge also argued that the Airport Development Zone Ordinance has fully implemented and therefore displaced the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that adopted the 2002 AMP Update. This argument too is undermined by the language of those ordinances. First, DCC 1876.010 ("Purpose") refers back to the 2002 AMP update itself in addition to the Comprehensive Plan. It contains no such language that the AD zone has fully implemented the AMP or the Transportation System Plan. To the contrary, it notes that its purpose is to "allow for development compatible with ongoing airport use consistent with the Deschutes County year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan (as amended by a 2002 supplement)." It clearly anticipates the continuing use of the 2002 AMP Update and County planning. That specific language dictating ongoing use of the AMP would control over the general preamble the Comprehensive Plan that it is not intended to be used to evaluate specific development projects. See Durig v. Washington County, 35 Or LUBA 196, 202 (1998) ("This broader proposition [that the code displaces all of the plan] requires explicit supporting language that is lacking in the Plan and CDC.") Ms. Karen Green Re: Proceedings on Remand -- SP13-07 March 21, 2014 Page 4 The language of the Comprehensive Plan itself contemplates an ongoing direct planning function for the 2002 AMP Update: City of Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan "The Bend Municipal Airport is located outside the Bend City limits and UGB, therefore the County has land use jurisdiction over it. In order to guide airport land uses, the County adopted and utilizes the 1994 Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan, as amended in 2002, the "supplement to 1994 Airport Master Plan," which is incorporated by reference herein. This is the guiding document for airport planning and development. This document incorporates a range of facility improvement for the Bend Municipal Airport over the 20 -year planning horizon (2021) including short, intermediate, and long term project to improve safety and function at the Airport. In 2003 the County adopted DCC 18.76, Airport Development (AD) zone to identify outright permitted and conditional uses at the Airport. The County in 2001 adopted DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Combining Zone (AS) to ensure surrounding land uses and structures were compatible with airport operations." (Comprehensive Plan, Deschutes County Transportation System Plan, p. 48; also attached as appendix p. 43 to Pro Air's Petition for Review to LUBA.) Again, the Comprehensive Plan could have clearly articulated that the AD zone implemented and displaced the Airport Master Plan, but did not do so. Instead, it emphasized that the County "utilizes" that AMP to guide airport land uses. If the controlling analysis for whether a zoning ordinance has fully implemented and therefore displaced a comprehensive plan provision is to examine the text of those documents, in this case both documents anticipate that the adopted AMP should be applied as an approval criterion. See Friends of the Hood River Waterfront v. City of Hood River 11, Or LUBA (December 13, 2013). In Friends of the Hood River Waterfront 11, LUBA noted that ordinance language requiring a permit application to be "consistent" with a comprehensive plan generally means that the cited plan provisions survive as permit approval criteria. Id. at p. 11-12. Further, there is nothing else in the AD zone to guide where new airport facilities should be located, underscoring the necessity for the AMP to be applied directly to guarantee coordination and consistency in airport planning. This is the point that LUBA was making in its footnote. Staff suggested at the hearing that there is always site plan review to make sure that a fuel station is not located in the middle of a runway. Although it is certainly true that in the absence of a controlling planning document like the AMP and its incorporated ALPs, that site plan review should serve that function, in this case site plan review must also examine consistency with the AMP and ALP, in addition to any other health, safety or planning priorities. That function is also supported by the airport planning rule, OAR 660-013-0040 ("A local government shall Ms. Karen Green Re: Proceedings on Remand -- SP13-07 March 21, 2014 Page 5 adopt comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements for each state or local aviation facility subject to the requirements of ORS 836.610(1). Planning requirements for airports identified in ORS 836.610(1) shall include (3) A map or description of the general location of existing and planned buildings and facilities.") The foregoing points and authorities demonstrate that the Leading Edge application must on remand be reviewed for consistency with the Airport Master Plan adopted by the County. Sincerely, FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP MICHAEL H. McGEAN MHM/bh Enclosures cc: Sharon Smith Gary Firestone Clients 710 NW WALL STREET PO Box 431 BEND, OR 97701 [541] 388-5505 TEL [541 ] 385-6676 FAX BENDOREGON.GOV JIM CLINTON Mayor JODIE BARRAM Mayor Pro Tem VICTOR CHIDOWSKY City Councilor DOUG KNIGHT City Councilor SALLY RUSSELL City Councilor MARK CAPELL City Councilor SCOTT RAMSAY City Councilor ERIC KING City Manager March 14, 2014 Mr. Peter Doyle Compliance Specialist Federal Aviation Administration Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Informal Complaints by Aero Facilities, LLC and The Flight Shop, Inc. Dear Mr. Doyle: On January 27, 2014, Aero Facilities, LLC ("Aero Facilities") and the Flight Shop, Inc. d/b/a( Professional Air ("Pro Air" and, together with Aero Facilities, the "Complainants") each submitted informal complaints making a number of allegations against the City of Bend ("City") as the manager, operator, and sponsor of the Bend Municipal Airport (Airport"). By letter dated February 10, 2014, you requested that the City provide you with a response to the allegations raised in each letter and a status of any efforts to resolve the complaints. In this letter, the City responds to both complaints. While the City recognizes that Pro Air and Aero Facilities are separate corporate entities and treats them as such, the complaints are predicated on the same factual background and contain significant overlap. Moreover, both Complainants, while separate and distinct, are owned by the same individuals. Thus, for the sake of simplicity, the City believes that it is appropriate to respond to both complaints in a single letter. The City is fully aware of its Federal obligation to not favor any aeronautical user or service provider at the Airport over similarly situated users or service providers. The City is also aware that it cannot grant exclusive rights, whether explicitly or implicitly, for the aeronautical use of the Airport or any portion thereof. Moreover, the City is aware of its obligation to not create artificial barriers for new entities seeking to provide aeronautical services or engage in aeronautical activities at the Airport or for existing entities seeking to expand their range of aeronautical services or activities. The City has taken and continues to take affirmative steps to Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 16 Mr. Peter Doyle March 14, 2014 Page 2 of 11 ensure that it remains in full compliance with these and other Federal obligations. The allegations in the two complaints concern airport safety, discrimination, compliance with Grant Assurances, and consistency with the Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan, The City's position is that: 1. all aeronautical operations at the Airport, including helicopter operations, meet safety standards and that the flying public is not at risk; 2. the City does not discriminate in favor of or against any aeronautical user or services provider; 3. the City has not violated any of its Grant Assurances; and 4. the City has ensured, and continues to ensure, that development at the Airport remains consistent with the Master Plan and the ALP; and,, as needed, it has conferred with and received approval from FAA for any necessary amendments to reflect changes in operational demands and actual development. The City responds in detail to the allegations made by Complainants, and in support of these points, below. Pro Air's Allegations Background Currently, two different entities offer FBO services at the Airport: Pro Air and Leading Edge Aviation LLC ("Leading Edge"). However, for years, Pro Air had been the sole provider of FBO services. More recently, Leading Edge, which had previously offered only helicopter flight training, expanded its range of aeronautical services to become a full-service FBO. As the sole FBO, Pro Air was, until recently, the only fuel provider at the Airport, The City believes that, at one point not long ago, Leading Edge was Pro Air's biggest customer, In 2011, Leading Edge asked to lease additional space at the Airport so that it could install and operate its own fuel storage facility. The City originally offered to lease space on the east side of the Airport. However, Aero Facilities and Pro Air objected and threatened legal action claiming that the proposed location would encroach on Aero Facilities leasehold.' Pro Air has also taken the position that the City could deny a lease to Leading Edge for its fueling facility under 49 USC § 40103(e)(1) and 49 USC § 47107(a)(4)(A) (Grant Assurance 23.a) because it would be unreasonably costly, burdensome or impractical to allow another FBO. The City's position has been that it cannot do so because the second part of the test provides that the exception only applies if allowing the additional FBO"would require reducing the space leased under an existing agreement. 49 US § 47103(e)(2); 49 USC § 47107(a)(4)(B) (Grant Assurance Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 16 Mr. Peter Doyle March 14, 2014 Page 3 of 11 In an effort to avoid litigation, the City found another location on the west side of the Airport where Leading Edge is constructing its own fuel facility. As of this writing, Leading Edge stores and sells only avgas. The subject !ease provides that if Leading Edge does not make Jet A available within 1 year from the date avgas is first available for sale, its fueling rights will be restricted to self -fueling only. See Exhibit 1, Leading Edge Fuel Lease. Leading Edge has until November 1, 2014 to start selling Jet A or it will be limited to self -fueling. Safety Issues Safety – Helicopter and Fixed Wing Pro Air states that it engaged a safety expert, John Enticknap, to evacuate safety issues at the Airport. As the informal complaint notes, Mr. Enticknap was hired by Pro Air to draft a report alleging safety concerns at the Airport. At the outset, it should be noted that the City has worked and coordinated closely with FAA on the development of the Airport. As a result, the City believes that the Airport fully complies with the design standards for the aeronautical operations currently being conducted. The City stands ready to work with FAA on any safety concerns raised by the agency. The City notes, however, that the conclusions reached in the Enticknap report submitted by Pro Air are both self-serving and not supported by the data in the report itself. The report discusses risks that Pro Air believes are created by the increase in traffic at the Airport as a whole. And yet it proposes restrictions only on: (1) helicopter operations that are run by Leading Edge, and (2) fixed -winged aircraft operations handled by Leading Edge—that is, it proposes to restrict all operations not conducted or handled by Pro Air, and only those operations. In response, the City has taken the position that if aeronautical activities at the Airport were to be curtailed for the sake of safety (a proposition that the City does not believe to be necessary at this time), all aeronautical users and service providers should be impacted equally. The City believes that, as the sponsor of the Airport, it cannot restrict the operations of one particular aeronautical user or service provider in the manner being suggested by Pro Air, Moreover, the report's basis for Pro Air's recommendation that only Leading Edge's fixed winged aircraft operations should be restricted is nothing more than a rhetorical question—it muses: "[i]f Leading Edge is not now managing a safe helicopter operation, how can it manage to handle additional fixed wing aircraft at the West Side 23_b). FM has advised the City that, indeed, the exception does not apply in this case_ See Exhibit 7, Email from Peter Doyle. It should be noted that the reduction in Pro Air's leased ramp space was not to accommodate Leading Edge, but as a result of the renovation and relocation project for Taxiway A, Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 16 Mr. Peter Doyle March 14, 2014 Page 4 of 11 Location?" Even if Pro Air had submitted proof that Leading Edge's helicopter operations are unsafe, this does not constitute the type of reasoned, supportable expert analysis that is proper for consideration in an administrative proceeding (or in a court of law), and thus should not be considered probative in this informal investigation. As far as the City is concerned, Leading Edge holds both part 135 charter and part 141 flight school certifications. The City is not aware of any accidents involved Leading Edge in the past five years. Furthermore, the City understands that Leading Edge employs EMS industry standards in addition to its own SMS program. Location of Competitor's Fueling Facility Pro Air complains about the location of a fuel facility operated by Leading Edge. However, its accusations that a fuel farm is not and cannot be properly operated on the west side of the Airport are unfounded. First, contrary to Pro Air's allegations, the location was carefully selected and sited by experienced professional engineers to comply with all applicable FAA standards, and the City conferred with the FM regarding the siting of the facility. While Pro Air is correct that the ALP shows a fueling facility on the east side of the Airport, the current ALP shows the Leading Edge fuel facility in its current location. In this context, Pro Air's allegation that the east -side taxilane is within the area leased to Aero Facilities is also incorrect. The City attempted to lease the east -side location to Leading Edge for a fuel facility, but, as noted above, Pro Air threatened and then filed a legal action in state court seeking to invalidate the lease, claiming in part that access to the site was through land allegedly leased to Aero Facilities. Because the litigation would have delayed the construction of the new fuel facility, the City amended the lease to change the leasehold to the current location on the west side of the Airport. Pro Air alleges that in 2010, it asked the City if it could swap some land in Aero Facilities' Phase 1 leasehold for land in the Phase 3 leasehold to construct a fuel farm. The City is not aware of any such request or denial. Pro Air alleges that it then asked the City to allow a fueling facility in "Phase 1" but was told that the area was to be used strictly for hangars. This is something of a mischaracterization of the City's response. The City took the position that it would allow it, but that Deschutes County approval would be required2 and that getting County approval might be difficult. Pro Air alleges that the City refused to lease Pro Air any additional land at the Airport while Aero Facilities had so much undeveloped land. This is incorrect. At a meeting in October 2012, representatives of the City made it clear to Aero Facilities and Pro While the Airport is owned and operated by the City, it lies wholly within Deschutes County, As a result, the County has jurisdiction over land use at the Airport. Exhibit 1 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Peter Doyle March 14, 2014 Page 5 of 11 Air that although the City would not lease additional land to Aero Facilities, it recognized Pro Air as a distinct corporate entity and, therefore, that it would be willing to lease land on the east side of the Airport to Pro Air for a fuel facility. Pro Air makes a number of allegations that it was, in various ways, prevented from leasing land that it would have liked to lease. With the exception of the additional ramp space, the City is unaware of any requests for additional area, other than some requests for tie -downs and office space for which Pro Air has been put on waiting lists, consistent with standard practice. Moreover, Pro Air could sublease any additional space it needed from its sister corporate entity, Aero Facilities. That the City leased certain Airport land to Leading Edge for a fuel facility -something which Pro Air already has at the Airport—does not constitute discrimination against Pro Air. Pro Air's accusations about the temporary fuel tank that Leading Edge installed and operated for a brief period of time are equally ungrounded in the facts. Itis true that the Fire Marshal reviewed Leading Edge's proposal for a temporary fueling tank and did not originally approve it. However, the Fire Marshal did not "orderfl the Fuel Tanker Truck off the Airport," as Pro Air alleges. Instead, the Fire Marshal requested more information and ultimately approved the tank on a temporary basis, consistent with the Fire Code. The Fire Marshal did require that the temporary tank be removed at the end of the temporary period, which is what happened. it should be noted that Pro Air's allegations on this issue are unsupported by the evidence it attaches to its informal complaint. The correspondence submitted by Pro Air as Exhibit C in support of this point consists mostly of letters from Pro Air or its consultants and lawyers to the City and the Fire Marshal. The only Metter from the Fire Marshal—to Leading Edge ---is dated February 11, 2013, and states that the temporary tank may stay in place, unused, until February 22, 2013. This was an extension of the original allotted time to obtain an approval, issued by the Fire Marshal in order to give Leading Edge time "to allow a design professional to propose alternative materials and methods." Ultimately, the Fire Marshal accepted the additional submission from Leading Edge and allowed the fueling facility to operate for six months from February 22, 2013 to August 22, 2013 When the temporary permit expired, the temporary tank was removed. In addition, contrary to Pro Air's assertions, the temporary fuel tank was used only for self -fueling. The City communicated with the FM regarding the installation and use of the temporary fuel tank and emailed information regarding the Fire Marshal's approval to the FAA on February 25, 2013. See Exhibit 2. The City also denies that it ignored the input of the local airport public planning committee when including the new fuel facility in the revised ALP. As stated above, it is true that the City is temporarily allowing Leading Edge to sell only avgas and not Jet A. Leading Edge has been granted one year in which to bring its fueling operation into full compliance with the Airport minimum standards for FBQs, meaning that it must also begin to sell Jet A. Also as stated above, if Leading Edge does not start selling jet fuel by November 2014, Leading Edge's fuel facility will Exhibit 1 Page 5 of 16 Mr. Peter Doyle March 14, 2014 Page 6 of 11 be limited to self -fueling of Leading Edge's aircraft, It should be noted that Pro Air, too, has been granted time to come into compliance with the Airports minimum standards in the past. For example, the City allowed Pro Air to continue to operate as an FBO although for a period of time it did not provide charter service because its charter certificate had expired and had not been renewed. Separately, Pro Air alleges that the new west -side fuel facility built by Leading Edge concentrates traffic in a small portion of the Airport. First, the west side of the Airport is where the great majority of the aeronautical traffic already operates. Second, while congestion is not a problem in any portion of the Airport, the new west -side fuel facility is to the north of the Airports busiest area. Aircraft traffic is already concentrated on the west side; the location of Leading Edge's fuel facility actually diverts some of it north of the busiest area. The Leading Edge fuel facility has a card lock system for self-service fueling, as well as Leading Edge's fuel truck operations. Ramp Area Pro Air alleges that the City has "refused to return approximately 40,000 square feet of ramp space" in contravention of an agreement between the parties." No such agreement exists and Pro Air provides no evidence of it (other than a mere assertion). The City did require Pro Air to reduce its ramp space as part of the renovation and relocation project for Taxiway A. At that time, the City offered to provide Pro Air with additional ramp space to the north of its existing leasehold area. Pro Air declined the offer, so the City and Pro Air entered into a lease amendment reflecting the smaller ramp space and reduced rent. That amendment is permanent, not temporary. See Exhibit 3 Ramp Lease Amendment. Pro Air claims that it has "made repeated requests for ramp space," and specifically, that it had asked for "two rows of aircraft tie downs immediately adjacent to Complainant's ramp." Pro Air objects to the City's denial of that request because those tie -downs are leased on a month-to-month basis to other tenants. Although the City rents tie downs on a month-to-month basis, it does not evict tie -down tenants merely because someone else wants the space. Instead, when a tie -down space becomes available, it is offered to the next person or entity on a waiting list. Given this policy, the City does not view Pro Air's desire for that space as a reason to relocate existing tenants. Pro Air's objection to the fact that the City leased Leading Edge four fixed -wing tie - down spots near its leasehold is also misguided. In fact, the City actually first offered those tie down spots to Pro Air for its use. However, Pro Air declined the offer because the location of the tie -downs in question is not immediately adjacent to Pro Air's ramp space. See Exhibit 4 documentation of refusal. Pro Air is correct that, at the time Taxiway A and associated ramp space were reconfigured, the City leased additional ramp space to Leading Edge. However, the Exhibit 1 Page 6 of 16 Mr. Peter Doyle March 14, 2014 Page 7 of 11 City believes that the decision to do so is justified on several grounds. First, at the time, Leading Edge had been growing its operations dramatically. The number of helicopter operations required increased parking area for helicopters. As the biggest helicopter operator, it was only reasonable to lease additional helicopter parking areas to Leading Edge. Second, by creating a specific helicopter parking area, the City was able to reduce the potential for helicopter/fixed wing conflicts, thereby improving airport safety. Third, the total ramp area leased by Leading Edge (67,622 square feet for helicopter ramp area and 9,321 square feet as individual tie -downs for a total of 76,943 sq.ft) is still less than the ramp area currently leased by Pro Air (80,000 sq.ft.) Finally, Pro Air continues to have full access to, and uses much of the same, ramp area it leased before the reduction.3 Ramp Pavement The City acknowledges that the ramp area leased to Pro Air is in need of repair. The City has proposed to make repaving of that area a priority in its funding request to the FAA. The pavement in this area is listed as "failed" by FAA and is scheduled for a complete replacement in the FAA CP program. Although ineligible for FAA maintenance funding at this time, the City has continued making repairs as needed using Airport funds. However, the City believes that moving helicopter operations to the east side of the Airport is just as important. The City believes that if it receives funding for and constructs the proposed east -side helicopter facility, it will free up ramp space on the west side so that the ramp reconstruction will have less impact on existing operations and Pro Air's business. Parking Pro Air alleges that Leading Edge does not pay rent for the area where Leading Edge parks its fuel trucks. Although true, Pro Air likewise does not pay rent for the place it parks its fuel trucks. Fuel truck parking is subject to Fire Code regulations administered by the Fire Marshal. Airport management has worked very hard to find compliant locations to park both sets of fuel trucks. This is why Pro Air cannot park its fuel trucks near its hangars — applicable fire code provisions require separation between fuel truck parking and structures. The City acknowledges that the fuel truck parking locations for both Pro Air and Leading Edge are not optimal. However, this issue will be resolved once the helicopter operations are moved to the east side of the Airport. The City provides all of the automobile parking in the paved and striped parking lot behind Pro Air's FBO at no charge to Pro Air. Similarly, Leading Edge is not charged for its unimproved parking location adjacent to its facilities. 3 As noted earlier, the City did not take away ramp space from Pro Air and gave it to Leading Edge. While the leased ramp space For both entities was adjusted around the same time, the two adjustments were made independently of each other and were fully justified by the new airfield geometry and operational needs. Exhibit 1 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Peter Doyle March 14, 2014 Page 8 of 11 Aero Facilities' Allegations Background The City selected Aero Facilities pursuant to an RFP process to develop a portion of the east side of the Airport. The City and Aero Facilities entered into a development agreement and a lease to allow Aero Facilities to develop certain specific parcels of land in three phases. The economic downturn has seriously affected Aero Facilities' ability to develop as originally contemplated. On several occasions, the City has offered to amend the agreements to be more in line with current realistic development expectations, Aeronautical Service Provider At the outset, is should be noted that Aero Facilities is a developer, not an aeronautical service provider. The only service provided by Aero Facilities is the developing and selling of hangars and the subleasing of the area occupied by the hangars it seals.¢ As noted above, Aero Facilities and Pro Air are separate companies, and Aero Facilities cannot claim to be in competition with other aeronautical service providers based on its common ownership with Pro Air. Aero Facilities is in competition only with other developers. In particular, Aero Facilities is not an FBO or fuel seller, and is not in competition with Leading Edge. Aero Facilities has no development on the west side of the Airport, and no basis to complain of issues relating to the aeronautical activities on the west side of the Airport. Many of the allegations in Aero Facilities' informal complaint overlap with those made by Pro Air. This letter addresses those claims above. The allegations that were not made also by Pro Air are addressed below. The Aero Facility Development Two of Aero Facilities' allegations relate specifically to Aero Facilities' development. First, it claims that the City allowed hangars to be developed on the west side of the airport in violation of an earlier promise to Aero Facilities. Second, it argues that the City has improperly required Aero Facilities to pay for connections to taxiways. Both of these allegations are factually incorrect. a And even if the developing and selling of hangars were to be considered an aeronautical service (which the City believes it is not), Aero Facilities cannot claim to be similarly situated to Leading Edge because Aero Facilities is neither an FBO nor provides the same aeronautical services to the public as Leading Edge. Exhibit 1 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Peter Doyle March 14, 2014 Page 9 of 11 West Side Hangars Aero Facilities alleges that the City allowed Ken Smith to develop hangars on the west side of the Airport in violation of earlier promises that it would not permit additional development in that portion of the Airport. There is nothing in the original RFP or in Aero Facilities' development agreement or lease agreement indicating or even implying that additional development on the west side would be impossible or that the City would prohibit any further development on the west side. In fact, the hangars built by Mr. Smith were in a spot shown as available for development from 2002 to 2012 in the Airport Master Plan Update ALP and in a 2007 FAA ALP update. It is true that the west side had been largely developed before the Smith hangars were built. However, the west side still contained potential areas for seven more hangars according to the ALP. Aero Facilities did not approach the City seeking to build those hangars until after Mr. Smith was in the process of developing therm. Aero Facilities further objects to the fact that Mr. Smith was not required to pay for infrastructure at that site. However, those sites—like the entire west side of the Airport—was already developed with taxiways, paved areas, water, sewer, and fire hydrants_ Aero Facilities also objects to the fact that the City did not issue an RFP for development of the Smith hangars. Under Oregon law, the City has no obligation to issue an RFP to develop land at the Airport, and the City is not aware of any similar requirement under its Grant Assurances. In fact, the City has found that the RFP process is not an effective method of encouraging Airport development. As such, it instead has adopted a policy of leasing available Airport land on request, based on demonstrable need. Connection to Taxiway Next, Aero Facilities discusses its claim that the Airport "attempted to renege an the promise to construct a planned Taxiway B connector to the infrastructure already constructed by Complainant," This claim misstates the facts. In fact, Aero Facilities demanded that the City construct a north taxilane connector to Taxiway B, which the City found to be justified based on its hoped-for build -out of Phase 1 (66 hangars). However, the ground elevation differences between Aero Facilities' Phase 1 leasehold area and Taxiway B are too great to allow a direct 90 degree connection and alternative access had to be constructed. The access eventually was constructed with the approval of FM and using Federal grant funds, and now connects to the new Taxiway B and also provides access to the land north of the current Aero Facilities development. Exhibit. 1 Page 9 of 16 Mr. Peter Doyle March 14, 2014 Page 10 of 11 The south access, an existing access, was also connected to Taxiway B and was not paid for by Aero Facilities as it was in place before Aero Facilities started developing Phase 1. Leading Edge Fueling Facility Aero Facilities objects to the fact that the City allowed Leading Edge to build a fuel facility on the west side of the Airport instead of forcing it to construct an access road at its own expense on the east side. It also claims that the City violated the ALP in doing so. Aero Facilities is wrong. The City has kept its ALP up-to-date. The current layout plan shows Leading Edge's fueling facility where it is actually located. The City amended the ALP to reflect this with FAA's concurrence and approval. The project is referred to in a 7460 (2013 ANM-1077-NRA) approval letter dated September 12, 2103, with a reference to the FAA's action to update the ALP. See Exhibit 5. Given this, the fact that Leading Edge moved its fuel facility location from one approved location to another should be unexceptional. Aero Facilities' Agreements Aero Facilities appears to be taking the position that its agreements with the City may be in violation of the City's Federal obligations because they (allegedly) grant exclusive rights to Aero Facilities and that, therefore, FAA should order the City to terminate the agreements. Aero Facilities may believe that if that were to happen, it could then make a condemnation claim for damages in state court, The City has not granted exclusive rights to Aero Facilities. Proof of that is the construction of the Smith hangars, of which Aero Facilities complains. Also, portions of the Airport, including much of the area between Aero Facilities Phases 1 and 2 and the area north of Phase 3 remain available for development. In fact, the Aero Facilities lease is explicitly subordinated to the Grant Assurances. See Exhibit 6, Lease, section 12.13. Thus, the City may extinguish any rights conferred upon Aero Facilities that violate section 12.13 and still be in compliance with the lease. Request for Support for Oregon Grant The City admits that it requested letters of support of its application for a Connect Oregon grant for the proposed west -side helicopter operations area. The City's timing was related solely to the timing of the City's application and the need to have the City's application in reasonable form before it sought support. Any inference to the contrary is mere speculation and not based on reality. County Land Use The County approved the land use for Leading Edge's new fuel facility. On appeal by Pro Air, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals remanded to the County to Exhibit 1 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Peter Doyle March 14, 2014 Page 11 of 11 consider additional standards and criteria. The case is now back before the County, and the City has no reason to believe that, on remand, the County will deny the land use approval for the fuel facility Responsibility for enforcing land use lies with the County, not the City, and the County has not asked the City to prevent the use of the fuel facility. Effort to Resolve Complaint The City is in ongoing discussions with Complainants in an effort to resolve these issues. All settlement correspondence, however, is subject to ORS 40.190, Rule 408 and the terms of a confidentiality agreement. As of this writing, no settlement agreement has been reached. Conclusion As the facts stated above show, none of the Complainants' allegations stand close scrutiny. The City believes that it understands its Federal obligations and that it has taken the necessary steps to remain in compliance. The City has worked, and will continue to work, closely with FAA to that end. For that reason, the City respectfully requests that FAA reject the informal complaints submitted by Complainants. The City stands ready to submit any additional information that you believe would be helpful in your investigation of these allegations. Respectfully, Airport Manager GJlnf Attachments cc: Mary Winters, City Attorney, City of Bend (w/attachments) Gary Firestone, Assistant City Attorney, City of Bend (wlattachments) Jon Skidmore, Assistant City Manager, City of Bend (w/attachments) Pablo Nuesch, Attorney for City of Bend (w/attachments) Robert Franz, Jr.,. Attorney for City of Bend (w/attachments) Leonard Kirsch, Attorney for Pro Air (wlattachrnents) Martin Hansen, Attorney for Aero Facilities (w/attachments) Exhibit 1 Page11 of 16 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jason, Exhibit 2 Gary Judd Monday, February 25, 2013 9:53 AM Jason.Ritchie@faa.gov peter.doyie@faa.gov; Joelle.Briggs@faa_gov; Gary Firestone Bend Airport Leading Edge Temp fuel site approval Leading Edge Aviation Acceptance Letter 2013-2-22.pdf Late Friday afternoon on the deadline date for approval or removal of the temporary fuel system the Fire Marshal issued a 160 approval for the temporary system while the new site is being constructed. (attached) Leading Edge now has access to fuel provided directly by the supplier and we are working with Century West to come up with a final site and prepare a lease for presentation to Council Thank you, (See attached file: Leading Edge Aviation Acceptance Letter 2013- 2-22.pdf) Gary Judd Airport Manager Bend Municipal Airport Bend, OR 97701 Phone 1-541-389-0258 Fax (same as phone) Cell -1-541-6477-0828 email giudd(cci.bend.or.us http://www.ci.bend_orusilndex.aspx?page=4 7 "Never assume that anyone outside your profession understands your acronyms" Exhibiti1 Page 12 of 16 1212 SW Simpson Ave Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 322-6300 FAX 322-6321. February 22, 2013 Travis Warthen Leading Edge Aviation Bend Oregon Re: Temporary Fuel Transfer Site Dear Mr. Warthen: NEUF. DEM ItTlvi ENT Larry E. F3utin Fire Chief We have received the proposal regarding your temporary fuel transfer site. We are accepting this proposal for the fuel transfer site in its current location and configuration for no greater than 180 days from today's date. Should you need any further information please contact my office. Professional Regards, Larry Medina Deputy Chief of Fire Prevention/Fire Marshal City of Bend Fire Department 1212 SW Simpson Ave Bend OR 97702 (541) 322-6308 CC: John Skidmore, City of Bend Gary Firestone, City of Bend Larry Huhn, City of Bend Eric King, City of Bend Mary Winters, City of Bend Kurt Chapman, City of Bend Gary Judd, City of Bend Jeff Bond, City of Bend Exhibit Page 13 of 1 Exhibit 5 U,S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 10 October, 2013 Mr. Gary Judd Airport Manager City of Bend Public Works 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 07701 Dear Mr. Judd: Northwest Mountain Region Seattle Airports District Office 1801 Lind Avenue S.W., Suite 260 Renton, Washington 96057-3358 The update to the Bend Municipal Airport Layout Plan (ALP) dated October, 2013, is hereby approved. A signed copy of the approved ALP is enclosed, An aeronautical study was conducted during the review of this submission to determine any effect on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft. This approval considers only the safety, utility, and efficiency of the Bend Airport, and it is conditioned on acknowledgment that any development on Airport property requiring federal environmental approval must receive such written approval from the FAA prior to commencement of the subject development. This ALP approval is also conditioned an acceptance of the plan under local land use 'awe. We encourage appropriate agencies to adopt land use and height restrictive zoning based on the plan since action toward this end is a prerequisite of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Grant Assurance ft 21, Compatible Land Use, requires airport sponsors to take appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws to restrict the use of land, adjacent to or in the Immediate vicinity of the airport. to activities and purposes compatible with normet airport operations inctudng the arrival andlor departure of aircraft The FAA recognizes resioential development adjacent to the Bend Municipal Airport property as an incompatible land use. Approval of the pian aces not indicate tnat the United States will participate In the cost of any development proposee. Wnen a+rpon construct+on, alteration, or deactivation is undertaken, such action requires notification aro review :n accordance with the provisions of Part 77 and Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Reguiat ons Please attach tars letter to the Airport Layout Plan and retain it in the airport files for future use under the Airport Improvement Program. Sincerely,. Carol A. Suomi Manager, Seattle Airports District Office Encl: BDN ALP dtd Oct 2013 Cc: Mr, Jon Skidmore. Asst City Mgr Mr. David Miller. Century West Engineering Mr. Malt Rogers Century West Engineering Exhibit 1 Page 14 of 16 L1 F • 1r1711 I -1 l I7-1 w CCQ K 4 L RUNWAY DATA TABLE v BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT DATA SHEET Q a E hibit 1 ?age 1.i I of 16 , ti r s• 4 l r ,i BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN -g 3— LL I "nag n Exhibit 1 age 16of16 710 WALL STREET PO Box 431 BEND, OR 97709 15411388.5505 TEL 1541J 388.5519 FAX WWw.CI,b ,d.or,us MEMORANDUM To: FROM: BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT COUNCIL BRIAN RANKIN, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: AIRPORT PLANNING PROJECTS DATE: 6/23/2009 CC: 7 C Pte edh 7/15 di:l /lief? lu sa3 « 7ij1u uy5k`a4icee pro a ustc tit/5- (tn dL) Introduction The Bend City Council adopted 2009 goals pertaining to the Bend Municipal Airport (airport), annexation, and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion. These goals, tasks, and timelines converge at the airport. The question arises: what is the most logical, efficient, and beneficial order to complete the interrelated goals and tasks? Ultimately, the City Council will have to answer this question, but the City Manager has also suggested soliciting input from the Bend Municipal Airport Council regarding the relative importance of these projects. The discussion below outlines three main alternative courses of action and some initial thoughts about their pros and cons. Please review these and be ready to discuss the validity of the approaches and proslcons, other ideas, and most importantly, what you believe to be the best course of action from your point of view. For more information on the council goals and brief discussion of the tasks, please see the background section later in this memo. Alternative 1: Complete airport master plan prior to other planning projects Complete master plan in 2010 ► Consider initiating UGB expansion (1-3 years), annexation (1-2 years), or both (2-4 years) Pros: 1. The master plan will lead to answers for basic questions concerning the airport's future. These answers will make it possible to identify and carry out the appropriate follow-up actions. 2. Future facility and land needs are precisely defined and substantiated by the master plan. This approach and information will support a more effective and defensible annexation or UGB expansion- The master plan will detail exactly the location and use of land to include in an annexation or UGB expansion. 3. Completing the master plan removes existing uncertainties constraining current airport development projects. 4. The public process accompanying the master plan engages and informs the public prior to starting projects that can be legally challenged (annexation/UGB). 5. Implementing the preferred airport development alternative may not require annexation or UGB expansion. ai rporl_plann Ing _srojecis. doc 6/23/2009 Exhibit 2 Page 1 of 8 6. Annexation and UGB expansion projects will be easier and more legally defensible if undertaken after the master plan is completed. 7. Annexation and UGB expansion can be considered potential solutions or opportunities as airport development alternatives are considered and a preferred alternative selected. Cons: 1. Efforts to centralize control of the airport through annexation or UGB expansion would be pushed back until the master plan is completed (approximately 1 year). 2. Waiting to annex introduces uncertainty about the future policy priorities of the county and city governing bodies. 3. Near term development projects dependent on a high degree of coordination between the city and county will have to continue to be processed as at present. Alternative 2: Annex the city -owned portions of the airport without completed master plan Begin process to annex the airport ■ Complete master plan in 2010 ■ Consider UGB expansion or additional annexations Pros: 1. If annexation is successful, developers would deal with only the City of Bend possibly up to a year earlier than waiting for the master plan to be completed. 2. Starting the annexation process may have a symbolic value to the development interests at the airport, potentially encouraging additional development. 3. Annexation may increase revenues to City of Bend based on taxes on annexed properties (this may also be a disincentive to the Board of County Commissioners to allow annexation). Cons: 1. A cherry -stem annexation outside a UGB could be difficult to legally defend and would require a General Plan text amendment before the annexation could be initiated. 2. Annexation without a UGB expansion neither adds more land for economic development, nor allows intensification of uses. 3. Starting annexation before the master plan is complete would be speculative because no one knows what additional lands need to be added to facilitate future operations or expansion. This may result in the need to do a second annexation to create consistency with the new master plan. 4. Alternative policy options such as modifying the Joint Management Agreement {JMA) to allow the city to oversee land use approvals could achieve some of the benefits of annexation without the legal hurdles, lengthy process, and cost. airport planning proiecis.doc 2 6/23/2009 Exhibit 2 Page 2 of 8 Alternative 3: Begin process to add airport to Bend UGB, annex, and start the master plan Begin process to expand UGB ► Complete master pian in 2010 II - Consider Consider additional UGB expansions, and/or annexation Pros: 1. Starting the process of UGB expansion prior to completing the master plan may move up eventual inclusion of the airport in the Bend UGB by approximately one year. Cons: 1. Without the updated master plan, it is impossible to estimate exactly the location and type of land that should be included in the UGB expansion and annexation proposal. The city would very likely face opposition from the Department of Land Conservation and Development or others on the premise that the proposed expansion lacks a credible factual basis and puts the "cart before the horse". 2. Initiating UGB and annexation atter the master plan is complete will be easier, faster, and more legally defensible, 3. UGB expansion and annexation may be unnecessary depending on the preferred airport development alternative selected through the master plan. 4. Any time savings from immediately starting annexation or UGB expansion prior to completing the master plan may be lost to defending legal challenges or DLCD objections to annexation and UGB expansion. Background The following is a summary of the applicable council goals and description of issues related to the airport master plan, annexation, UGB expansion, and other options. Council Goals 2009 City-wide Goals Economic Development • Pursue airport development and expansion Growth Management • Manage the UGB expansion while balancing short and long term community needs • Utilize efficient, consistent, repeatable, financially sustainable, and legally defensible processes for annexation 2009 Tasks and Timelines Economic Development Outcomes • Explore annexing the Water Reclamation Facility and Bend Municipal Airport into the Urban Growth Boundary — 4th Quarter • Complete the Airport Master Plan update — 4th Quarter airport plan ni ng_proj ect s. da c 3 6/23/2009 Exhibit 2 Page 3 of 8 q, Growth Management Outcomes • Communicate "`critical paths" for UGB and annexation with Council and community members — 3rd Quarter • Proactive City Council adoption of an Annexation Policy — 4th Quarter Staff believes the Council's overarching goals are to maximize opportunities for employment growth and aviation use at the airport; and to do so in a manner that has the greatest social benefits with the fewest costs. Airport Master 'Plan The current master plan was last updated 1995. Most of the projects included in the master plan have been completed. The new master plan will: • summarize existing conditions • determine aviation activity forecasts • inventory airport facility requirements • develop airport development alternatives • perform a brief environmental review • detail a financial and development program • and layout plan drawings The master plan illustrates where new hangars, taxiways, runway extensions, FAA standard protection zones, accesses, reserve areas, etc. will be located. Other improvements to airport facilities (such as lighting, towers, etc.) are also specified in the master plan. The plan determines FAA -approved improvements at the airport to accommodate expected aviation activity. Improvements included in this plan are then typically eligible for grants to complete these projects with a match from the City of Bend. Without updating the master plan, making airport improvements, adding lands for aviation uses or creating reserve areas not detailed in the current master plan will not be funded by FAA grants. Staff has reviewed the current scope of work and has noticed some topics are not included. Staff believes these topics should be addressed by the master plan under any of the alternatives so the end products can be used for other related projects such as annexation, UGB expansion, or other projects. The approximate cost of these scope adjustments has not been determined. 1. Proposed scope adjustment #1 - The master plan scope of work can be amended to consider the expansion potential of the airport for a 50 -year planning period. The FAA uses a planning and forecasting process to determine 50 -year needs. Staff recommends adding the 50 -year analysis to the scope of work to preserve the long-term function of the airport (depending on cost). This process may identify "aviation reserve areas" for future aviation related uses to be protected through subsequent planning efforts (new zoning, annexation, or UGB expansion). 2. Proposed scope adjustment #2 - The master plan can also be amended to add an additional focus on the non -aviation related land -use issues lacing the community. Staff recommends considering adding additional planning services to the scope of work (depending on cost) to provide expert guidance on potential economic, social, and infrastructure -related benefits and costs associated with adding non -aviation dependent, but airport_planning projecls.doc 4 6/23/2009 Exhibit 2 Page 4 of 8 related, uses in the vicinity of the airport. This work could begin as airport development alternatives are developed as part of the master plan update. This work may not be needed if the airport development alternatives developed through the master plan satisfy the Council and the community. Staff Analysis — The scope of work for the master plan has been developed, a letter awarding the project to Century West Engineering issued, and the city is waiting for FAA funding. Staff is researching other scope items and their potential cost. As currently soaped, the master plan will cost $150,000. The FAA will cover 95 percent of the cost with funds that will be available, depending on re- authorization of federal funding, in the spring of 2010. The advantage of waiting for FAA funding is obvious. The downside is that valuable time will be lost, and the Board of County Commissioners has already cited the lack of a current master plan as a reason for denying or delaying certain airport developments. Should an opportunity for an airport business or other use arise while waiting for FAA funding, the loss in jobs to the community and ground lease revenues to the airport may well outweigh the $142,500 savings. In addition, the $150,000 will not be forfeited, but simply spent on other projects such as a portion of the upcoming taxiway "B" project or other improvements listed in the current master plan. The airport has a line of credit that can be used immediately to fund the master plan. It should be noted that the portion of the plan that can be funded with FAA or airport revenues must meet guidelines provided by the FAA regarding such expenditures. Areas outside of this scope will have to have funding sources identified before committing to them. Another advantage to using non-federal funds is administration of the process becomes easier and fewer restrictions and processes apply. Staff believes starting the master plan as soon as possible with a scope to fully address the council's and community's needs should precede annexation and UGB expansion. Staff has reviewed the scope of work and believes the aforementioned scope items be added (contingent on the cost of the services). By focusing financial, staff, decision maker, and community energies on the master plan, the end result will be a document that paves the way for successful implementation. Importantly, successful implementation of the council's vision for the airport may not require annexation or a UGB expansion. If it does, then the master plan provides the basis for subsequent planning efforts. Annexation Annexation is a legal process to add land to the corporate boundary of a city. Tax rates change and political and policy control of the annexed area would shift to the City of Bend and the Bend City Council. The process below does not provide total control over land use at the airport until the land is added to the UGB through a separate process. Hired legal counsel for the city has suggested an expedited process to annex portions of the airport into the City of Bend. The following summarizes legal counsel's proposed strategy to annex the city -owned portions of the airport under a irpor! pia nn ing,proiecls.doc 5 6123!2009 Exhibit 2 Page 5 of 8 current conditions. The annexation would place the land inside the city, but no new lands would be available for development, and no intensification of land use would be allowed. The city would implement the county's existing land use codes regulating the airport. Key elements of the process needed to annex the airport in the near-term are: 1. Complete a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) to amend the Bend General Plan to add specific annexation policies and a reference of the airport to the Transportation Systems Plan. This action can be appealed to the Land lJse Board of Appeals. This should be finished prior to amending the Joint Management Agreement with Deschutes County (Step 3). 2. Rescind or amend existing City Council Policies on annexation to replace them with objective policies in the General Plan. 3. Amend a Joint Management Agreement (JMA) with Deschutes County to allow the city to annex outside the current UGB. The JMA would likely include new language detailing the responsibilities for road maintenance in the annexed area. Modifications to the JMA must be consistent with the city and county comprehensive plans. 4. Initiate an annexation pursuant to ORS Chapter 222. The proposal would annex only city -owned properties and no new expansion areas. 5. A"cherry-stem" annexation would be required. The "stem" would be a road leading to the "cherry" of the airport. "Cherry -stem" annexations are a more contentious form of annexation compared to incremental and gradual outward growth of the city limits. The city must show the annexation meets a legal "reasonableness" standard. Staff Analysis - It is clear the city may legally initiate a proposal to annex the airport at any time. However, there are many obstacles to a successful annexation. f=irst, the city's proposed annexation policies (PAPA) may be challenged and appealed. Second, the JMA as written prohibits annexation of the airport; therefore, the Board of County Commissioners must be supportive of the project for it to move forward. Alter these preliminaries, annexation itself may be legally challenged at LUBA and the courts. Making matters more complex, the proposed annexation is a "cherry stem" outside the city's UGB. This condition alone will likely draw the attention of DLCD, and possibly neighbors or other land use watch -dog groups. If the annexation is actively opposed it may not be successful, and under the best circumstances would take years to complete. Urban Growth Boundary Expansion A UGB expansion to include the airport and other surrounding lands is a significant undertaking requiring the approval of the City Council, Board of County Commissioners, and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Once inside the UGB, the land could then be annexed and be fully under the jurisdiction of the City of Bend. The city would then be responsible for administering land use and building approvals, providing services, and setting policy for the area inside the UGB and city. This process would likely take 2-4 years to complete and considerable staff and financial resources. aerporrplanning projects doc 6 6,2312009 Exhibit 2 Page 6 of 8 The city would initiate the project by doing an analysis of land need, developing alternative expansion scenarios, developing land use policies and codes, ending with a formal adoption process. The technical and legal hurdles to complete this undertaking are significant. It is critical to have an adequate factual basis to substantiate the UGB expansion. Key elements of this process are outlined below: 1. Amend the city's 2008 Economic Opportunities Analysis to identify the airport area as prime industrial land. 2. Conduct studies of transportation, water, and sewer infrastructure needs associated with including the airport area in the UGB. 3. Staff or consultant analysis to address all requirements of Goals, statutes, and OARs for airport planning. 4. Coordinate with Deschutes County: a. Amend the Joint Management Agreement. b. Draft and adopt amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. 5. Draft and adopt amendments the Bend Area General Plan: a. Amend the Economic Opportunities Analysis. b. Amend Chapter 6 — The Economy and lands for Economic Growth. c. Amend the Transportation Systems Plan. d. Amend Chapter 7 — Transportation. e. Amend General Plan Map — Apply new airport development designation. L Amend Chapter 8 and Public Facilities Plan. g. Adopt Airport Master plan (if complete)_ h. Possibly adopt new policies in other chapters. 6. Draft and adopt amendments to the Bend Development Code: a. Amend Zoning Map — Apply new airport protection zones, development zones, and possibly other zones for limited commercial or mixed use development. b. Amend Development Code — Write new code pertaining to the airport and surrounding zones to implement the Airport Master plan and other studies. 7. Public Process: a. Typically includes advisory committees and stakeholder groups involved through the policy formulation and adoption process. b. Hearings with the Bend Planning Cornmission. City Council, and Board of County Commissioners. Staff Analysis — The process to expand the UGB to include the airport is lengthy. costly, and potentially controversial. but will ultimately provide the highest degree of control of the airport and surrounding areas. It would be ideal to begin this process after the airport master plan is complete and after the Bend UGB expansion proposal is closer to resolution. After the master plan is finished. the city will know exactly what it needs in terms of aviation related uses. Staff recommends adding a scope item to the airport master plan to estimate airport - related and supportive uses combined with an analysis of expected employment gains. In addition, staff recommends taking a 50 -year look at land and aviation - related needs al the airport. At the end of the master plan process, the report should detail exactly what needs to take place at the airport and surrounding rport_planning_proiecls.dac 7 6,23r2009 Exhibit 2 Page 7 of 8 areas to meet the Tong -term expectations of the city council and community. The master plan will be the factual basis for any UGB expansion, which wiil be highly scrutinized by DLCD and other opponents. A UGB expansion could then be undertaken with a higher degree of certainty and better chance of success. Other Options It may be possible to amend the JMA to allow the City of Bend to oversee land use permitting and provide building services on the city -owned portions of the airport. The current JMA is currently written to allow the city to perform these services for areas outside the city limits, but inside the UGB. This approach may reduce inefficiencies associated with dealing with the city and county, while being less controversial than annexing the airport. Further research on this approach is needed before making a more definitive recommendation. This option may be pursued as an interim approach while other options, including UGB expansion, are being pursued. :i:''to 42,0 ] cda Sec yti/i;i. air pc rl_planning_projects.doc S 6(28/2009 Exhibit 2 Page 8 of 8 E Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cddi APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: $2,801 EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues. Michael H. McGean, Francis Hansen & Martin LLP obo Appellant's Name(print):TheFlight Shop & Aero Facilities Phone: (5 41 ) 3 8 9 — 5 0 1 0 Mailing Address: 1148 NW Hill Street City/State/Zip: Bend, OR 97701 Land Use Application Being Appealed: File No. SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Property Description: Township 17 . . - 13 Section 20 Tax Lot 200 Appellant's Signature: EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON -THE -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) sr Statement on Appeal by Opponents The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC (collectively "Appellants") of Decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer on Remanded Application A-13-4 and SP -13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Inc. 1. Standing. Appellants have standing to appeal because they are an interested party, and filed comments and appeared in proceedings on the Application with the Planning Division. 2. Statement of Issue. Appellants contend that the Hearing Officer Decision dated April 30, 2014 is in error for each and all of the following grounds: a. By finding that the Bend Municipal Airport AMP does not include any standards and criteria applicable to the Applicant's site plan; b. By finding that the AMP does not preclude approval of the Applicant's fueling station on the subject property; c. By concluding that policy 16.2(h) of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and TSP should be interpreted to not prohibit development except as specifically designated on the Airport Layout Plan (Hearings Officer Decision on Remand, p. 14); d. By finding that Deschutes County has revised, or has approved revisions, of the Airport Layout Plan several times since the 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the Airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the Applicant's fueling station on the subject property (Decision on Remand at p. 14); By concluding to not consider the Airport Development Zone Purpose Statement (DCC 18.76.010) in connection with the issues on remand, including whether the AMP or any of its contents must be applied as an approval criterion because of the purpose statement; and f. By finding that the "AMP and ALP are intended to describe recommended airport developments to meet identified needs and to accommodate development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted" (Decision on Remand at p. 16). Page 1 of 2 STATEMENT ON APPEAL 3. Request for Review. For the foregoing reasons, The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities, LLC therefore request review by the Board of County Commissioners. Appellants request de novo review by the Board because the matter requires the interpretation of a significant policy issue and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. Dated this 12th day of May 2014. FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP Martin E. Hansen, OSB #800526 Michael H. McGean OSB #004734 Attomeys for The Flight Shop, Inc. & Pro Air, LLC Page 2 of 2 STATEMENT ON APPEAL REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Accepting Review of Hearings Officer's * Decision in File No. SP -13-7 (A-14-2, A-13-4) and Ordering the Review be on the Record. ORDER NO. 2014-015 WHEREAS, Appellant, The Flight Shop and Acro Facilities, appealed the I-Iearings Officer's decision in application number SP -13-7; and WHEREAS, Section 22.32.027 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Board of County Commissioners (Board) discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application on appeal; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The Board will hear the appeal for application number SP -13-7 (A-14-2, A-13-4) pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances. Section 2. The appeal shall be on the record pursuant to DCC 22.32.030(E) that allows for written arguments from the parties based upon the record developed below but no new evidence and no "oral evidence, argument or comment other than staff comment." Section 3. The deadline for submittal of written arguments shall be: June 18, 2014 — written arguments from all parties; July 2, 2014 — rebuttal arguments from the applicant. //1 Page l of 2- ORDER NO. 2014-015 Section 4. Staff shall mail notice to persons or parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.32.030(A) no later than May 21, 2014.1,,, - Dated this / -/.of //(4w, 2014 ATTEST: Recording Secretary Page 2 of 2- ORDER NO. 2014-015 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON a12 441,1641 ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair 4,44 ALAN UNGER, Commissioner Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division IF1`;ir,5 ;?may, P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILE NUMBER: SP -13-7 DOCUMENT/S MAILED: BOCC Order 2014-015 MAP/TAX LOT NUMBER: 17-13-20, as Tax Lot 200 I certify that on the 21st day of May, 2014, the attached notice(s)/report(s), dated May 21, 2014, was/were mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list. Dated this 21st day of May, 2014. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: Sher Buckner Leading Edge Aviation 63048 Powell Butte Highway Bend, OR 97701 City of Bend 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Hearings Officer Karen Green Sandra Larsen Oregon Department of Aviation 3040 25th Street, SE Salem, OR 97302-1125 Sharon R. Smith Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, PC 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, OR 97702 Michael H. McGean Francis Hansen & Martin LLP 1148 NW Hill Street Bend, OR 97701-1914 Gary Judd City of Bend 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Matt Rogers, P.E. Century West Engineering 1020 SW Emkay Drive, Suite 100 Bend, OR 97702 Edward J. Elkins 63613 OB Riley Rd. Bend, OR 97701 Gary Firestone City of Bend 710 NW Wall Street, P.O. Box 431 Bend, OR 97701-0431 Quality Services Performed with Pride 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY 7 ) In the Matter of the Review of ) ORDER No. 2014-015 8 the Application of ) ) Application No. SP -13-7 9 ) LEADING EDGE AVIATION INC., ) WRITTEN ARGUMENT OF 10 ) APPELLANTS THE FLIGHT SHOP, Applicant. ) INC. and AERO FACILITIES LLC 11 ) 12 I. SUMMARY 13 This is an appeal of a County Hearings Officer decision after the Oregon Land 14 Use Board of Appeals remanded the County's original approval of an application for 15 site plan approval filed by Leading Edge Aviation for a new fuel station at the Bend 16 Airport. LUBA found that the County failed to properly consider an Airport Master 17 Plan (AMP) and Airport Layout Plan (ALP) that has been adopted by the County as 18 the guiding planning document for the Bend Airport. That Airport Layout Plan 19 designated future fuel storage for a different location on the opposite side of the 20 airport, and planned the LEA site for small hangar space instead. LUBA directed the 21 County to address whether the Airport Master Plan contained any requirements, 22 express or implied, that prohibit a new fuel facility at the site proposed by Leading 23 Edge. 1 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 The Hearings Officer issued a new decision on remand, but for the reasons 2 that follow, the decision is still in error, and fails to adequately address the issues 3 posed by LUBA and the plain language and meaning of the AMP and ALP. LEA's 4 proposed fuel station site directly conflicts with those adopted plans, and cannot be 5 approved without an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and County Code to 6 adopt a new Master Plan and ALP. 7 A copy of the ALP is attached for convenience as Exhibit 1. All exhibits to this 8 memorandum are excerpts from the record below. 9 10 11. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11 1. Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. submitted an application for site plan 12 approval on April 16, 2013 to be allowed to open a new fueling station on the west 13 side of the Bend Municipal Airport. 14 2. The proposed location for the new fueling station is in the County's 15 Airport Development (AD) zone, Deschutes County Code 1816, and the Airport 16 Safety Combining Zone (AS), Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.80. 17 3. The County Code describes the purpose of the AD zone as follows: 18 The purpose of the Airport Development (AD) Zone is to allow for development compatible with ongoing airport use consistent with 19 the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan (as amended by a 2002 20 supplement), while providing for public review of proposed development likely to have significant impact on surrounding lands. 21 22 DCC 18.76.010 (emphasis added). (Exhibit 2.) 23 4. The Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan also makes 2 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 specific reference to the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan, as updated in 2002: 2 City of Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan The Bend Municipal Airport is located outside the Bend City 3 limits and UGB, therefore the County has land use jurisdiction over it. In order to guide airport land uses, the County 4 adopted and utilizes the 1994 Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan, as amended in 2002 the "Supplement to 1994 5 Airport Master Plan," which is incorporated by reference herein. This is the guiding document for airport planning 6 and development. This document incorporates a range of facility improvements for the Bend Municipal Airport over the 20- 7 year planning horizon (2021), including short, intermediate, and long-term projects to improve safety and function at the airport. 8 In 2003 the County adopted DCC 18.76, Airport Development (AD) Zone to identify outright permitted and conditional activities 9 at the airport. The County in 2001 adopted DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combing Zone (AS) to ensure surrounding land 10 uses and structures were compatible with airport operations. 11 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Exhibit C (Transportation System Plan), p. 12 43, emphasis added. (See Exhibit 3). 13 5. Further, the Comprehensive Plan states that "Deschutes County shall 14 J... 1 Specifically designate any proposed airport facility relocations or expansions 15 within County jurisdiction on an airport master plan or airport layout plan map, as 16 amended ...." Id.) Although the 2002 Airport Master Plan and ALP were originally 17 prepared by the City of Bend, this provision is from the County Comprehensive Plan 18 and is directed to the County. 19 6. The 2002 Supplement to the 1994 Airport Master Plan ("AMP") 20 referenced and adopted in the Comprehensive Plan incorporated the Airport Layout 21 Plan in the form attached as Exhibit 1. The AMP discusses future development at 22 the airport, and generally projects new development for the east side, as the west 23 side is built out. Those projected developments are depicted on the ALP. In both 3 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 the Executive Summary and Chapter Four, addressing development, the AMP 2 concludes that: 3 "The airport layout plan contained in Chapter Six reflects the 4 final agreed upon `preferred alternative' for the airport." 5 2002 Supplement to 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan at p. 51, emphasis in bold in 6 original. (Relevant portions of the 2002 Amp are attached as Exhibit 4.) 7 7. The 2002 Airport Master Plan states that it is intended to guide growth 8 at the Bend Airport over a 21 year period in the future. (See Executive Summary, 9 Ex. 4.) 10 8. Although the City of Bend has had engineers prepare subsequent 11 revisions to the 2002 ALP, the 2002 update to the 1994 Bend Municipal Airport 12 Master Plan is the only version that has been adopted by Deschutes County in its 13 Comprehensive Plan and Airport Development Zone ordinance. No other airport 14 layout plans or site plans for the Bend Airport that have been adopted by Deschutes 15 County for use in comprehensive land use planning at the Bend airport. 16 9. The 2002 AMP update and Airport Layout Plan adopted by the County 17 did not plan or anticipate any new fueling stations on the west side of the airport. 18 Instead, it designated the location for future fuel storage and FBO (fixed base 19 operator) facilities for certain spots on the east side of the runway. (See ALP at 20 location no. 16-17, Ex. 1.) 21 10. The site of the proposed new Leading Edge fuel station on the west 22 side is instead designated by the 2002 AMP and Airport Layout Plan to be small 23 hangar space. (See ALP at location no. 9, Ex. 1.) 4 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 11. Leading Edge Aviation submitted with its application a draft Airport 2 Layout Plan that has not been approved or adopted by Deschutes County, and 3 which is different from the 2002 version in the AMP adopted by the County in its 4 Comprehensive Plan and Code. 5 12. After the County approved Leading Edge's site plan application in 6 August, 2013, the Land Use Board of Appeals found the County's decision to be in 7 error, and remanded it. (LUBA's Opinion and Order is attached as Exhibit 5.) 8 9 III. ARGUMENT 10 A. Controlling Legal Principles. 11 1. Record. 12 The record for the Board's review of the Hearings Officer's decision on 13 Remand consists of the written transcript of any prior hearing, all written or graphic 14 materials that are part of the record, the Hearings Officer's decision, and any written 15 arguments, comments or reports from any party to the decision or staff. DCC 16 22.32.030. In this case, the parties stipulated and the Hearings Officer incorporated 17 for the record in the proceedings on remand the entire record before LUBA, as well 18 as the additional written materials and testimony on remand. 19 2. Scope of Review. 20 Oregon Revised Statutes 197.175(2)(d) provides that counties with 21 acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations like Deschutes 22 County must make land use decisions in compliance with the acknowledged plan 23 and land use regulations. ORS 197.175(2)(d). The relevant portions of the 5 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Airport Development Zone ordinance 2 (DCC 18.76) which adopt the 2002 update to the 1994 Airport Master Plan as the 3 guiding document for airport planning are discussed and cited above. 4 Although the County's interpretation of its Comprehensive Plan and zoning 5 ordinances will receive deference if it "plausibly accounts for the text and context" of 6 those controlling documents, that interpretation will not be upheld if it is inconsistent 7 with the plan or the purposes or policies underlying the plan, See Siporen v. City of 8 Medford, 349 Or 247, 262, 243 P3d 776 (2010); Mark Latham Excavation, Inc. v. 9 Deschutes County, 250 Or App 543, 281 P3d 644 (2012). 10 For example, in a recent case involving the City of Hood River's interpretation 11 of a comprehensive plan provision requiring it to map flood plain areas and 12 implement a flood plain zone, LUBA rejected the City Council's interpretation, and 13 the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. Friends of the Hood River Waterfront v. City 14 of Hood River, ____ Or App , P3d ____ (May 21, 2014). In that case, the City 15 approved a site plan application for a waterfront office and hotel development in a 16 flood plain. The City had decided that a comprehensive plan policy did not directly 17 apply as a mandatory approval criteria for the application because, it reasoned, the 18 property was not within the City's FP zone, even though there was no dispute it was 19 in a flood plain. Id. LUBA and the Court of Appeals rejected the City's interpretation 20 was not plausible because it defied "the most natural, ordinary reading" of the 21 comprehensive plan provision, made those provisions superfluous, and was 22 inconsistent with the context of the comprehensive plan provision. Id. 23 6 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 3. Questions on Remand from LUBA. 2 A copy of LUBA's Opinion and Order is attached as Exhibit 5. LUBA 3 determined that the Deschutes County Hearings Officer was in error by ruling that 4 the 2002 Airport Master Plan and Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan did not 5 need to be considered for LEA's application. LUBA found that since the Airport 6 Master Plan was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, it may serve as a 7 mandatory approval criteria that needed to be met under ORS 197.175(2)(d). 8 Specifically, LUBA held: 9 "If in fact the Master Plan includes a requirement that applies to proposed development, for example, an express or 10 implied prohibition on locating new fuel facilities in certain locations of the Airport, then such requirement must be 11 complied with." 12 (LUBA Opinion at p. 9, Ex. 5). 13 In deciding whether the Comprehensive Plan Provision or Statement of Policy 14 applies as a mandatory approval criterion, geographic and subject matter specificity 15 (such as may be found on maps and plans) are " highly significant" factors. 16 Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426, 439 (2006). Further, the 17 Comprehensive Plan should be considered for whether it "expressly assigns a 18 particular role to some or all of the Plan's goals or policies." Save Our Skyline v. 19 City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192, 210 (2004). The City of Hood River Opinion serves 20 as another example of the weight accorded to geographic and subject matter 21 specificity in deciding whether to apply comprehensive plan provisions directly as 22 mandatory approval criteria. 23 In addition to the comprehensive plan provision mandating that the 2002 7 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 update to the 1994 Airport Master Plan shall serve as the "guiding document" for 2 airport planning and development, DCC 18.76.010 specifically states that the 3 purpose of the AD zone is to allow for development "compatible with ongoing airport 4 use consistent with the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and 1994 5 Bend Airport Master Plan (as amended by a 2002 supplement)...." DCC 18.76.010. 6 LUBA has found this kind of language to require compliance with the referenced 7 plan. Friends of Hood River Waterfront, 2013 Or LUBA (LUBA no. 2012-050) 8 ("To the extent that there is a difference between a requirement for plan compliance 9 and requirement for plan consistency, both requirements apply here.") 10 Particularly noteworthy in LUBA's Opinion and Order remanding the Leading 11 Edge approval was a footnote stating: 12 "But we cannot imagine that the County could have proved, without consideration of the Master Plan, a proposal to site a fueling station 13 as an outright permitted use in an area designated on the Airport Master Plan for expansion of the runway, because runway 14 expansion is necessarily limited by the location of the existing runway to one or two areas of the entire airport." 15 (Opinion and Order, Exhibit 5 n 7). This footnote is significant because there is no 16 where else in the Comprehensive Plan or Deschutes County zoning ordinances, 17 other than the adopted 2002 AMP update and ALP, that specifically map and plan or 18 give any kind of guidance for where to locate different airport development functions. 19 B. Specific Assignments of Error. 20 In light of the foregoing principles, the Appellant's believe that the Hearings 21 Officer's decision on remand from LUBA is still in error as follows. 22 23 8 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 2 3 1. The Hearings Officer decision erred by finding that the Bend Municipal Airport AMP does not include standards and criteria applicable to the LEA Site Plan Application. 4 Despite the clear weight that the Comprehensive Plan and AD zone gives the 5 Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan for planning, the obvious conflict 6 between those adopted Plans and the Leading Edge proposal, and LUBA's 7 skepticism, the Hearings Officer determined that "there is nothing in the 8 Comprehensive Plan itself that either establishes approval criteria for, or prohibits g approval of, the applicant's fueling station on the subject property." (Decision of 10 Remand, p. 12.) The Hearings Officer decision seems to rely upon the preamble to 11 the Comprehensive Plan stating that the Comprehensive Plan is not intended to be 12 used to evaluate specific development projects. However, that language is simply a 13 statement of general intent, and does not rule out that some portions of the 14 Comprehensive Plan might be made to apply as independent criteria, for example, if 15 an ordinance such as DCC 18.76.010 imposed it, or where the Comprehensive Plan 16 itself imposes another document such as the Airport Master Plan as a planning 17 document to be applied. 18 The Transportation System Plan incorporated in that Comprehensive Plan 19 allots a specific function to the 2002 AMP update. It states that "This is the guiding 20 document for airport planning and development" for a twenty year planning horizon. 21 (Exhibit 3.) The plain language of that provision indicated that it was indeed intended 22 to serve as a planning document that would be applied to development proposals to 23 guide the County in the development of the Bend Airport. The Hearings Officer 9 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 considered the TSP but did not conclude, one way or the other, whether those 2 specific portions of the TSP concerning the 2002 AMP and ALP served as 3 mandatory approval criterion, or made them mandatory approval criteria for airport 4 development. The Hearings Officer decision failed to consider whether that 5 particular part of the TSP and Comprehensive Plan made the 2002 AMP and ALP 6 mandatory approval criteria. 7 2. The Hearings Officer decision erred by finding 8 that the 2002 update to the AMP does not preclude approval of the LEA fuel station on the 9 west side of the Airport. 10 Turning to the actual text and the incorporated Airport Layout Plan map, it is 11 clear that the proposed LEA fuel station is not consistent with that planning 12 document and does not comply with it. The 2002 AMP update and its incorporated 13 Airport Layout Plan designate future fuel storage and FBO operation for the east 14 side of the Airport, not the west side. That is supported by text in the AMP indicating 15 that given the high level of development on the west side of the Airport, that future 16 infrastructure should be built out on the east side of the Airport. Further, not only 17 does the 2002 AMP and ALP adopted by the County specifically designate a 18 location on the east side of the Airport for a new fuel station, it designates the 19 subject property for the LEA fuel station for an entirely different use. The Leading 20 Edge proposed site is designated for small hangar space, not for any other function, 21 and not for fuel storage or a new FBO. (Exhibit 1 at locations 16 and 17, for fuel 22 storage and FBO, versus location no. 9 for small hangars.) 23 The Hearings Officer's decision strained to try to reconcile the clear plan of 10 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 the 2002 AMP and the ALP's specific designation of future fuel storage on the east 2 side with the LEA application. Rather than relying on the actual AMP and ALP map, 3 the Hearings Officer decision instead resorted to what it calls a pattern of past 4 practices by the County to allow development that varied from the ALP to support a 5 conclusion that the AMP and ALP were intended to reflect only past development 6 and not to guide or control future development. Rather than requiring consistency 7 with the 2002 AMP and ALP, the Hearings Officer decision would render those 8 documents meaningless as planning documents, because they would always be 9 meant to be revised. The Hearings Officer's conclusion that the AMP and ALP were 10 meant to "accommodate development that may have not been foreseen at the time 11 the update was adopted — such as the applicant's proposed fueling station" would 12 make those documents useless as plans. (Hearings Officer decision at p. 16.) 13 In fact, the 2002 AMP specifically anticipates that it is meant to anticipate as - 14 yet unforeseen development at the Airport over the next twenty years: "The updated 15 Airport Plan and associated drawings illustrate that the long term aviation needs at 16 the Airport are addressed with the added protection of aviation -related development 17 reserves to accommodate a wide range of unforeseen development needs." (2002 18 AMP, Chapter 6, "Airport Layout Plans.") The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes 19 that the 2002 AMP represented the plan for the airport over a twenty year planning 20 horizon. (Ex. 3) The plain language of the 2002 AMP and ALP rebut the Hearings 21 Officer's conclusion that those documents allow for ad hoc development that 22 blatantly deviates from the AMP and ALP, such as the Leading Edge application. 23 11 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 2 3 3. The Hearings Officer decision erred in finding that Policy 16.2(h) of the Comprehensive Plan and TSP should be interpreted to not prohibit development except as specifically designated on the ALP. 4 The Comprehensive Plan's Transportation System Plan has a specific policy 5 that requires the County to map airport development on an adopted airport master 6 plan like the 2002 ALP. (See Exhibit 3 at Policy no. 16.2(h).) 7 As explained above, the Hearings Officer decision would interpret this policy 8 to allow the County to map only "relocations and expansions of airport g infrastructure," and not private developments such as the applicant's fueling station. 10 This interpretation represents an implausibly narrow interpretation of "airport 11 facilities." There is nothing in the TSP that would limit airport facilities to runways, 12 taxiways, and runway and taxiway service lighting, as found by the Hearings Officer. 13 (See Hearings Officer decision at p. 14.) The Airport Master Plan clearly interprets 14 facilities to include fuel storage and FBO operations such as what Leading Edge is 15 proposing. 16 Considering the text and context of the TSP and Comprehensive Plan, the 17 County is required to apply an airport master plan map to development projects at 18 the Bend airport. The County has not adopted any other document besides the ALP 19 to serve that function and to satisfy that policy. Whether Deschutes County has in 20 fact allowed private development to occur in deviation of the 2002 AMP update and 21 ALP is irrelevant. The Comprehensive Plan, AMP, and the AD zone ordinance 22 indicate a clear intent to use the adopted ALP map as a criterion to guide future 23 development, whether private or public. Thus, the Hearings Officer decision not only 12 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 misreads the text of Policy no. 16.2(h), but disregards the context for that language, 2 and is in error under ORS 197.175. 3 4. The Hearings Officer decision erred by finding that Deschutes County has revised, or has approved 4 revisions, of the Airport Layout Plan "several times since the 2002 version in order to reflect actual 5 development at the Airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the applicant's fueling station 6 on the subject property." 7 The Hearings Officer decision at p. 14 indicates that the County has reflected 8 new development that deviates from the 2002 ALP on subsequent ALP revisions. 9 (Hearings Officer decision at p. 14.) Although the Hearings Officer apparently 10 considered past applications and land use decisions provided by staff, there is 11 nothing in the record to support the conclusion that the County has approved or 12 adopted any subsequent ALP revisions after the 2002 ALP. To the contrary, the 13 only Airport Master Plan and ALP adopted by the County in the Comprehensive Plan 14 and in the AD zone ordinances is the 2002 update. There has been no text 15 amendment by the County to adopt any subsequent AMP or ALP revision. The 16 Hearings Officer's finding that "the ALP has been revised by the City and County, 17 and approved by the FAA several times since 2002 version [sic] in order to reflect 18 actual development at the airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the 19 applicant's fueling station on the subject property," is simply wrong. It is irrelevant 20 whether the City of Bend or the FAA have approved revisions, because Deschutes 21 County hasn't. There has been no such revision by the County whatsoever to the 22 2002 AMP update and ALP. Accordingly, the 2002 AMP and incorporated ALP 23 stands as the only version codified and adopted by the County. This finding 13 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 represents clear error in the Hearings Officer decision. 2 3 4 5 5. The Hearings Officer decision erred by concluding to not consider the AD Zone (DCC 18.76.010) in connection with the issues on remand, including whether it requires the AMP or any of its contents to be applied as approval criteria. DCC 18.76.010 provides: "The purpose of the Airport Development (AD) Zone is to allow for 7 development compatible with ongoing airport use consistent with the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and the 8 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan (as amended by a 2002 supplement), while providing for public review of proposed 9 development likely to have significant impact on surrounding lands." 10 DCC 18.76.010. (Exhibit 2.) 11 LUBA's Opinion and Order on remand specifically directed the County to 12 decide whether the 2002 AMP update was a mandatory approval criterion for LEA's 13 application. The Hearings Officer decision discussed at length the Comprehensive 14 Plan provisions that specifically referenced the 2002 AMP update, but completely 15 ignored the impact of DCC 18.76.010 on that question. Under LUBA's Friends of the 16 Hood River Waterfront 1, supra, a local government comprehensive plan provision or 17 ordinance requiring "consistency" with a comprehensive plan is meant to require 18 compliance with those provisions. 19 DCC 18.76.010 separately references the 2002 AMP update as a plan for 20 airport growth. Accordingly, that specific reference to the 2002 AMP update is an 21 additional indication of intent to apply and enforce the 2002 AMP and ALP for any 22 development in the AD zone. There is no question that the LEA application is 23 subject to the AD zone. However, the Hearings Officer decision completely 6 14 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 neglected the AD zone policy statement as an independent approval criterion that 2 would apply the 2002 AMP update and ALP for the LEA application. By failing to 3 address and consider that ordinance as an independent source for mandatory 4 approval criteria for the application, the Hearings Officer decision was in error. 5 6 6. The Hearings Officer decision erred by finding that the "AMP and ALP are intended to describe 7 recommended airport developments to meet identified needs and to accommodate 8 development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted." 9 The Hearings Officer decision made this finding at p. 16. There is no support 10 for that conclusion. Nothing in the 2002 AMP update contains such a qualification 11 and to the contrary it states: 12 "The facilities depicted on the airport layout plan (contained in 13 Chapter Six) represent the final version of the preferred alternative developed through this planning process. The final configuration of 14 facilities reflects specific comments provided by FAA and the City following review of the preliminary preferred alternatives 15 recommended by the local planning advisory committee. 16 The Updated plan includes a wide range of facility improvements recommended over the twenty-year planning period." 17 (Ex. 4 at p. 1) 18 Chapter Six of the AMP (Airport Layout Plans) similarly states: 19 "In Chapter Four, Airport Development Alternatives, an evaluation 20 was made of future options for airside and landside development at Bend Municipal Airport. This effort has resulted in the selection of a 21 preferred airport development alternative that will accommodate the facility requirements projected through the current 20 -year planning 22 period, and beyond." 23 (Ex. 4 at p. 76). 15 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 It is hard to imagine that an airport master plan and airport layout plan that 2 specifically designates and projects areas for future growth after careful 3 consideration of alternative plans would then undermine itself by "accommodating 4 future development" that is contrary to that plan, as the hearings officer suggests. 5 Rather than using the adopted 2002 AMP update and ALP as the guiding document 6 for airport planning, as required by the Comprehensive plaan and DCC 18.76.010, 7 the Hearings Officer decision would relegate that document to a meaningless guess 8 as to future development, with no planning function at all. 9 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 The Hearings Officer decision strains to reconcile the Leading Edge proposal 12 LEA fueling station with planning documents that clearly prohibit it. Rather than 13 addressing and meeting the questions from LUBA on remand, the decision seeks to 14 justify the approval of the LEA fueling station based upon past mistakes where the 15 2002 AMP and ALP were never directly considered. The Deschutes County 16 Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.76.010, and the 2002 AMP update clearly prohibit the 17 siting of the LEA fueling station on the west side of the Airport. The pending site 18 plan application cannot be approved absent an amendment to the Comprehensive 19 Plan and AD zone ordinance to adopt and incorporate, after the required public 20 process, the proposed new revision to the AMP and ALP. 21 22 23 16 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer decision must be reversed 2 based upon the Comprehensive Plan and AD zone ordinance and LEA's site plan 3 application must be denied. 4 DATED this 18th day of June 2014. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP Michael H. McGean, OSB #004734 Attorney for Petitioners The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC 17 of 17 WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (Filed by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC Order No. 2014-015 (SP -13-7) 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on June 18, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of this WRITTEN ARGUMENT OF APPELLANTS THE FLIGHT SHOP, INC. AND AERO 3 FACILITIES, LLC on the parties by emailing to the party at the last -know email address: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Will Groves Senior Planner Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend OR 97701 (Also Via Hand -Delivery) Sharon R. Smith, OSB #862920 BRYANT LOVLIEN & JARVIS PC 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, OR 97702 DATED: June 18, 2014. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP Michael H. McGean, OSB #004734 Attorney for The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC AIRPQ AIRPOI .. DATut AIRF'c- RIRPCI, MEAN 11601 AS - - AIRPt) ARDOR : 'T LAND - - DECLAR 1AKLl' TAKE[ ACCCE _, LAUD, OISPL - 111'• Id 1 FA: PAR; 1111 04$.48 S - 21t4T1 Uhl 2e w yD RC35i 5010 ul+pc'a,4 :0110111 2.372 00599917301,5 • 411110YETER AT 94219091 18011 Writ/7i 1v401r P80111110' 001.9 S. 1479 TO 190801199 22, 1900 3111'M OM' ..�,D rom0 wt1 C0'C#: 12 NPH 92.2141`08 A .--- +2 91+• 29.91 11111 1.910/50,90 -Acr 11.9029O200j06€ I valkily 11,41A a /.599 II L --_LE' ] fSt i - Ft 974 J,i 1 ` 204' aew o.'o15r gong . 0 1420 MAW DEVELO-NIVI'A4$4 {Ir1 e - � v 414:101 00441FA' 9.02612951. 0 -...� "�.�.: �. - s ,�... -.•any � .� 111JPPONT 973091E 2050 (IEE 1.171( E1 RNn. N'.1 4841 9770 041 2110 µ�� •2 4A17 APPP1110751 ) ( ` 1 -AL1 140• Et 5.51. (0111 �_� - .+..--. -- T fir, -qt• � -. � - 72 0 #E 2110 300 G 300 600 SCALE OF FEET SCALE: 1 "=300' N4CNET4 (,r 45' E 200t1� TRUE NORTH i -Com +271011 RUMMY 08711([1109 2PI( sae 700'2 '073 1154419' 01.10 2 7 V71 D LFa II 14- - - - 4- r` H I I - -4- - gI 11 I r £20'-'2 1111.110 1801112 011 2 Ma' " 'A0' 11 1000" �. rrs•Sir.Y 41800 1 11 4411 001C107[444 A0M610 RikGHYfNT J� - 11711402 70 000,121 0772741 APPP011H1 r:0ACArre 01112 2ESOW42ium(117 70 or /1107/420 PI,U11 204M PHASE (SL0 4077 2) RUNWAY EN11 0008OINATE- GPS KW. 16 - 44 06 06.1' N Izl' 12' 0Z'3' W gWr. 3+ - 4+ OS 17.3' N [RE3Cc. THRESH} 12111 112' 02.3° 111 ENTERED IIJ1.O0E-AAA SI21/01 94.4 SLE 1.070 ANA', A" 1• NOTES. 3a1+u111 ,•11014 OF IHESF. UDCUMENTS WAS FiNAN'CED IN 02111 THROUGH A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE • "ZEN ADMINISTRATICl. A5 PRONDED UNDER SECTION 505 OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT &MENDED. THE CONTENTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY OF THE 110E OF THESE DOCUMENTS BY THE FAA DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE Lil-:TED STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT ^+,r Dt-tiELOPMEIIT 15 EIYWIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE 1:1 ACCORDANCE 114TH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS_" ee} 77-YYI. 7: Ah -i Ero IA 0 rRA1A+c4 .L 700001 17120(1 n "r2 Ti ____ a�c�or47� rw,ee�eeeeera� R M7- . I� ,,1 n► iC��k 1 = 1UMW VT. TA, atom I VsSti FUTURE AWOS TO BE MOUNTED ON ELEVATED PLATFORM TO PROVIDE REQUIRED OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE. 2 ULTIMATE RUNWAY (NORTH EXTENSION) WILL REQUIRE REALIGNMENT OF POWELL BUTTE HWY TO PROVIDE STANDARD APPROACH CLEARANCE_ 3. PROPERTY ACOUISTION IS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE 'NTERNAL ACCESS ROAD CLEARANCES AND THE RP2 (RWY 34 -FUTURE). 4. WEST PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO BE WIDENED FROM 30 FLET 00 35 FEET. 5 EXISTING AIRPORT ACCESS TO BE RECONFIGURED. 6. FUTURE RUNWAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE EXISTING RSA, EXISTING RUNWAY TO BE REMOVED. 7 EXISTING RUNWAY ELEVATIONS SURVEYED 4/10/01. 8. PER FM RECOMMENDATION, POND TO BE REMOVED WHEN POSSIBLE. NO ENHANCEMENT ALLOWED. Er 1186TP.G 09004117111 8uMw0 PAOTCC9(19 2041 (HA2 [ 10 , 200' .700 2 1G?a• 9r3+2rcm ,11Mw z 1 Amt 1711. rq5 012 .1x5.11 1204.r 1107121110 201.1 (.1PX, 7010' 1 Tow' 10. ,271' VAM1t4 1 1 110 o4S•AdPT-`J 7a•1lrtn L--111£101105 6p- Exifnftr LEGEND 21111 PAM 1 I: (prz FUTURE V 0 0 0 FUEL STORAGE FOC\GA TERMINAL 090 HANGAR/SHOP PRECISE FLIGHT CONDOMINIUM HANGARS EXECUTIVE HANGARS LEADING EDGE AVIONICS T- 411400405 V� 411:7 QD tt SMALL CONVENTIONAL HANGARS AUTO PARKING AIR LIFE WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES NORTH TIEDOWN APRON CENTRAL TIEDOWN APRON GLIDER 51121810 0 PARKING 1B COMPASS ROSE FAQ (RESERVE) F'UE'L STORAGE RE5ERYE £XECUT11E HANGARS T -HANGARS. A'JT0 PARKING FBO/MAINTENANCE HANGAR HELICOPTER PARKING K GLIDER STAGING AREA & TIEDOWN AIRCRAFT TIEOOWNS AIRPORT RELATED INDUSTRIAL LEASE AREA SMALL \,MEDIUTA HANGAR HANGAR RESERVE SEGMENTED CIRCLE -F DOCUMEMTS Il 141E 1365101110 INCORPORA7E0 157Ru1AENT OF PROFESSIONAL c PROPERTY OF centWrywesl -_,..1,08471014, AND IS NOT TO BE .11 IN PORT, FOR 271 OTHER - ' • I 141E WRITTEN CONSENT OF - '101(IEER11-C CORPORATION 2147400I1913 CCRP*RAI10' VERIFY SCALES RAR IS ONE INGi 0;, ORIGINAL 0948174. 0` I IF NOT ONE INCH 0(4 THIS SHEET, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE: + 43 1 03 L k LI) a7 -3 --- SIGNATURE 0# - SIGNATURE CITY OF BEND APPROVAL APPROVAL flA1E' /11.30./4 SIGNATURE %%ECENTURY WEST QINEERINO CORPORA/10N 225011W. 2.4/1e46 IgA., 3Wir 300 ►anlaAd Crno197224 500.414.3130 oho. 2 3.429.2711114. Ma.runlrrA.rtaa+ DESIGNED 61: OM DRAIN BY: P.Y. CHECKED 9Y; DM SCALE: 1"-0300' DATE: DECEMBER 2002 PROJECT NO: 10051044.01 BEND-A1P-2001 CITY OF BEND BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING NO. 1 OF 6 SHEET NO. ` FUTURE ULTIMATE RUNWAY DATA 1 6/14 EXISTING FUTURE ULTIMATE LEGEND DATA _ ExISTING WIDTH 4935' X 75' 5200' X 75' 5500' X 75' - EXISTING _ FUTURE/ULTIMATE - -11ON (MSL) 3452.37' SAME 3454' LENGTH AND SAME FACIIJTIES - _ NAD 83-I1AV029 SAME SAME PERCENT EFFECTIVE GRADIENT 1.06% 1.06% �- 1--_ - ' L ITEMS LAT, N 44. 05' 58' N 44' 05' 40" PERCENT WIND COVERAGE (12/18 MPH) 98.2/99.9 _ SAME SAME BUILDINGS F`ICE 001411 COORDINATES (ARP) 58" PAVEMENT TYPE ASPHALT ASPHALTI- SAME RUNWAY LONG W 17`- 11' 56" W 121' 11' - 30,000 SAME BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (D'RL) 9RL SE SRL (E) TIC VARIATION 17' 44` E 62` F SAME SAME SAME SAME PAVEMENT STRENGTH (WHEEL -POUNDS) _ TAXIWAY LIGHTING SINGLE - 12,500 REFLECTORS SINGLE _ MI TL SAME AIRCRAFT PARKING LINE (APL) APL (E) APL (F) 1 TEMPERATURE HOTTEST MONTH GENERAL VAATION SAME _ _ SAME _ RUNWAY LIGHTING MIRL MIRL SAME AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE _ rLINCL CODE (ATC) 6-1 B-11 SAME RUNWAY MARKING NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION X 150' SAME 6100' X 150' RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA) 507 SAME SAME RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 5415' 11 120' 5800' e ACRES APPROX 421 ACRES SAME OBJECT FREE AREA 5415' X 240' 5800' X 500' 6100 X 500' FENCE Ii FEE (ACRES) APPROX 415 FREE ZONE 5335' X 250' 5600' X 400' 5900' X 400' GROUND CONTOURS 6.26 o D DISTANCES OBSTACLE CRITICAL AIRCRAFT XING AIR (0E100) CITATION 11 (CE550) CITATION ULTRA (560) RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPL) - - - - - EXIST I3 FUTURE NAVIGATIONAL AIDS VOR/DME; GPS VOR/DME; GPS _ SAME AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP) 0 PAPI 16 34 16 34 16 34 16 NON -PRECISION NON -PRECISION SAME VISUAL GUIDANCE INDICATOR o VAST -- 5500' 5500' APPROACH TYPE 34 VISUAL NON -PRECISION SAME LIGHTED TEE &SEGMENTED CIRCLE- 1 4 A :;..71. ABLE (TOR ) 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200 [ w 4. , -.NCE AVAILABLE (11000 }RUNWAY 4935' 4935 5200' 5200" 5500` 5500' + END COORDINATES /[L 01 2 { 16 44'06'05" - 121'12'02" EASEMENT C1= ;IOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE (ASDAL 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200 5500' 5500' i 34 44'105.16" - 121'12'02" AVIGATION 4935' 4935' 5200' 5200' 5500' 5500` 16 34:1/'21;1 34:1/34:1 SAME ROTATING BEACON 7� .112E AVAILABLE LOA) ,:_SHOED (APPROACH END). 0' 147' 0' 0' 0' V APPROACH SLOPE: REQUIRED/CLEAR 34 20:1/20:1 34:1/34:1 SAME WIND TEE -.--• -4- APPROACH APPROACH ANU LANDING MOS 16 VOR/DME;GPS;REIL; VAST REIL VOR/DME; GPS; REIL: PAPI GPS; REIL; PAR SAME SAME WIND CONE 4 4 34 04$.48 S - 21t4T1 Uhl 2e w yD RC35i 5010 ul+pc'a,4 :0110111 2.372 00599917301,5 • 411110YETER AT 94219091 18011 Writ/7i 1v401r P80111110' 001.9 S. 1479 TO 190801199 22, 1900 3111'M OM' ..�,D rom0 wt1 C0'C#: 12 NPH 92.2141`08 A .--- +2 91+• 29.91 11111 1.910/50,90 -Acr 11.9029O200j06€ I valkily 11,41A a /.599 II L --_LE' ] fSt i - Ft 974 J,i 1 ` 204' aew o.'o15r gong . 0 1420 MAW DEVELO-NIVI'A4$4 {Ir1 e - � v 414:101 00441FA' 9.02612951. 0 -...� "�.�.: �. - s ,�... -.•any � .� 111JPPONT 973091E 2050 (IEE 1.171( E1 RNn. N'.1 4841 9770 041 2110 µ�� •2 4A17 APPP1110751 ) ( ` 1 -AL1 140• Et 5.51. (0111 �_� - .+..--. -- T fir, -qt• � -. � - 72 0 #E 2110 300 G 300 600 SCALE OF FEET SCALE: 1 "=300' N4CNET4 (,r 45' E 200t1� TRUE NORTH i -Com +271011 RUMMY 08711([1109 2PI( sae 700'2 '073 1154419' 01.10 2 7 V71 D LFa II 14- - - - 4- r` H I I - -4- - gI 11 I r £20'-'2 1111.110 1801112 011 2 Ma' " 'A0' 11 1000" �. rrs•Sir.Y 41800 1 11 4411 001C107[444 A0M610 RikGHYfNT J� - 11711402 70 000,121 0772741 APPP011H1 r:0ACArre 01112 2ESOW42ium(117 70 or /1107/420 PI,U11 204M PHASE (SL0 4077 2) RUNWAY EN11 0008OINATE- GPS KW. 16 - 44 06 06.1' N Izl' 12' 0Z'3' W gWr. 3+ - 4+ OS 17.3' N [RE3Cc. THRESH} 12111 112' 02.3° 111 ENTERED IIJ1.O0E-AAA SI21/01 94.4 SLE 1.070 ANA', A" 1• NOTES. 3a1+u111 ,•11014 OF IHESF. UDCUMENTS WAS FiNAN'CED IN 02111 THROUGH A PLANNING GRANT FROM THE • "ZEN ADMINISTRATICl. A5 PRONDED UNDER SECTION 505 OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT &MENDED. THE CONTENTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY OF THE 110E OF THESE DOCUMENTS BY THE FAA DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE Lil-:TED STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED HEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT ^+,r Dt-tiELOPMEIIT 15 EIYWIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE 1:1 ACCORDANCE 114TH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS_" ee} 77-YYI. 7: Ah -i Ero IA 0 rRA1A+c4 .L 700001 17120(1 n "r2 Ti ____ a�c�or47� rw,ee�eeeeera� R M7- . I� ,,1 n► iC��k 1 = 1UMW VT. TA, atom I VsSti FUTURE AWOS TO BE MOUNTED ON ELEVATED PLATFORM TO PROVIDE REQUIRED OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE. 2 ULTIMATE RUNWAY (NORTH EXTENSION) WILL REQUIRE REALIGNMENT OF POWELL BUTTE HWY TO PROVIDE STANDARD APPROACH CLEARANCE_ 3. PROPERTY ACOUISTION IS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE 'NTERNAL ACCESS ROAD CLEARANCES AND THE RP2 (RWY 34 -FUTURE). 4. WEST PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO BE WIDENED FROM 30 FLET 00 35 FEET. 5 EXISTING AIRPORT ACCESS TO BE RECONFIGURED. 6. FUTURE RUNWAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE EXISTING RSA, EXISTING RUNWAY TO BE REMOVED. 7 EXISTING RUNWAY ELEVATIONS SURVEYED 4/10/01. 8. PER FM RECOMMENDATION, POND TO BE REMOVED WHEN POSSIBLE. NO ENHANCEMENT ALLOWED. Er 1186TP.G 09004117111 8uMw0 PAOTCC9(19 2041 (HA2 [ 10 , 200' .700 2 1G?a• 9r3+2rcm ,11Mw z 1 Amt 1711. rq5 012 .1x5.11 1204.r 1107121110 201.1 (.1PX, 7010' 1 Tow' 10. ,271' VAM1t4 1 1 110 o4S•AdPT-`J 7a•1lrtn L--111£101105 6p- Exifnftr LEGEND 21111 PAM 1 I: (prz FUTURE V 0 0 0 FUEL STORAGE FOC\GA TERMINAL 090 HANGAR/SHOP PRECISE FLIGHT CONDOMINIUM HANGARS EXECUTIVE HANGARS LEADING EDGE AVIONICS T- 411400405 V� 411:7 QD tt SMALL CONVENTIONAL HANGARS AUTO PARKING AIR LIFE WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES NORTH TIEDOWN APRON CENTRAL TIEDOWN APRON GLIDER 51121810 0 PARKING 1B COMPASS ROSE FAQ (RESERVE) F'UE'L STORAGE RE5ERYE £XECUT11E HANGARS T -HANGARS. A'JT0 PARKING FBO/MAINTENANCE HANGAR HELICOPTER PARKING K GLIDER STAGING AREA & TIEDOWN AIRCRAFT TIEOOWNS AIRPORT RELATED INDUSTRIAL LEASE AREA SMALL \,MEDIUTA HANGAR HANGAR RESERVE SEGMENTED CIRCLE -F DOCUMEMTS Il 141E 1365101110 INCORPORA7E0 157Ru1AENT OF PROFESSIONAL c PROPERTY OF centWrywesl -_,..1,08471014, AND IS NOT TO BE .11 IN PORT, FOR 271 OTHER - ' • I 141E WRITTEN CONSENT OF - '101(IEER11-C CORPORATION 2147400I1913 CCRP*RAI10' VERIFY SCALES RAR IS ONE INGi 0;, ORIGINAL 0948174. 0` I IF NOT ONE INCH 0(4 THIS SHEET, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION APPROVAL APPROVAL DATE: + 43 1 03 L k LI) a7 -3 --- SIGNATURE 0# - SIGNATURE CITY OF BEND APPROVAL APPROVAL flA1E' /11.30./4 SIGNATURE %%ECENTURY WEST QINEERINO CORPORA/10N 225011W. 2.4/1e46 IgA., 3Wir 300 ►anlaAd Crno197224 500.414.3130 oho. 2 3.429.2711114. Ma.runlrrA.rtaa+ DESIGNED 61: OM DRAIN BY: P.Y. CHECKED 9Y; DM SCALE: 1"-0300' DATE: DECEMBER 2002 PROJECT NO: 10051044.01 BEND-A1P-2001 CITY OF BEND BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING NO. 1 OF 6 SHEET NO. I. Chapter 18.76. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT /A)NE A-1) 18.76.0I0. Purpose. 18.76.020. Standards in All Districts. 18.76.030. Uses Permitted Outright. 18.76.040. Conditional Uses. 18.76.050. Use Limitations. 18.76.060. Dimensional Standards. 18.76.070. Airfield Operations District (A01)). 18.76.080. Aviation Support District (ASI)). 18.76.090. Aviation -Related Industrial District (ARID). 18.76.100. Design and Use Criteria. 18.76.110. Additional Requirements. 18.76.010. Purpose. The purpose of the Airport Development (AD) Zone is to allow for development compatible with ongoing; airport use consistent with the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan (as arnended by a 2002 supplement), while providing Cor public review of proposed development likely to have significant impact on surrounding lands. The AD Zone is composed of three separate zoning districts, each with its own set of allowed uses and distinct regulations, as further set forth in DCC 18.76. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.76.020. Standards in All Districts. A. Approval Required. Any use its an AOD, ASD, or ARID District shall be subject to DCC 18.124. B. Solar Setbacks. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements of DCC 18.1 16.180. C. Building Code Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon andlor Deschutes County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. D. Off -Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided subject to the parking provisions of DCC 18.116. E. Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be installed in conformance with DCC 15.10. F. Excavation, Grading and Fitt and Removal_ Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland shall be subject to DCC 18.120.050 andlor DCC 18.128.270. G. Signs. All signs shall be constructed itt accordance with the provisions of DCC 15.08. (Ord. 2003-036 §2, 2003) 18.76.030. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright in all of the Airport Districts: A. Class 1 and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230. 13. Class 1II road or street project. C. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. D. Farm use as defined in DCC Title 18. Chapter 18.76 i (09/2004) pescliu.tes cou.wt� coimp rel/ewstve PLaw COM' EH N.SIVE Pi .1,4.MAT E App. 36 Sectivw 3.7 rra visportatit vu The Transportation System Plan is being adopted as a separate project and will be incorporated here when adopted. 32 DI SCI Ill IL s COUN lY COMIF'F [FIENSIVC PIAN — 2011 CI IA!"I R 3 RI s1tAi GR(aW rI I MANAGIMtN F SECTION 3.7 TRANSPOR I ATION App. 37 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan 2010 PI 2030 Adopted by Ordinance 2012-005 August 6, 2012 By The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 1 of 268 App. 38 attention shall be given to obtaining and keeping rights-of-way for uninterrupted routes linking various residential, commercial, resort, and park areas within the County. Linear corridors such as rivers, irrigation canals, ridges and abandoned roadway and rail lines shall receive special attention. Proposed developments miy be required to provide such identified trail and path rights-of-way as part of their- transportation scheme in order to maintain the integrity and continuity of the Countywide system. 15.10 The County shall work with local agencies, jurisdictions, and affected property owners to acquire, develop, address trail -connectivity issues and maintain only those sections of trail that are located outside of UGBs that are consistent with the County's TSP but are part of a trail plan or map that has been adopted by the local jurisdiction and/or the County. Staff will work with local, state, federal agencies, and BPAC to determine the priority for trails that connect urban and rural areas. 15.11 Off-road paved shared -use paths shall be constructed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the most current edition of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Pion. 15.12 Deschutes County shall maintain and update as necessary, the existing ordinance requirements for bicycle facilities found in DCC 18.1 16.031 and DCC Chapter 17.48, Table B, or such other location that it may be moved to within the Deschutes County Development Code. AIRPORT PMN Goal 16 16. Protect the function and economic viability of the existing public -use airports, while ensuring public safety and compatibility between the airport uses and surrounding land uses for public use airports and for private airports with three or more based aircraft. Policies 16.1 Deschutes County shall protect public -use airports through the development of airport land use regulations. Efforts shall be made to regulate the land uses in designated areas surrounding the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver and Sisters (Eagle Air) airports based upon adopted airport master plans or evidence of each airports specific level of risk and usage. The purpose of these regulations shall be to prevent the installation of airspace obstructions, additional airport hazards, and ensure the safety of the public and guide compatible land use. For the safety of those on the ground, only limited uses shall be allowed in specific noise impacted and crash hazard areas that have been identified for each specific airport. 16.2. Deschutes County shall; a. Continue to recognize the Redmond (Roberts Field) Airport as the major commercial/passenger aviation facility in Deschutes County and an airport of regional significance. Its operation, free from conflicting land uses, is in the best interests of the citizens of Deschutes County. incompatible land uses shall be prohibited on the County lands adjacent to the airport; EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 25 of 268 App. 39 b. Cooperate with the cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters in establishing uniform zoning standards, which shall prevent the development of haiardons structures and incompatible land uses around :airports; c. Take steps to ensure that any proposed uses shall not impact .airborne aircraft because of height of structures, smoke, glare, fights which shine upward, radio interference from transmissions or any water impoundments or sanitary landfills which would create potential hazards from waterfowl to airborne aircraft; d. Allow land uses around public -use airports that shall not be adversely affected by noise and safety problems and shall be compatible with the airports and their operations; c. Work with, and encourage airport sponsors to work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to enforce FAA -registered flight patterns and FAA flight behavior regulations to protect the interests of County residents living near airports. Adopt regulations to ensure that developments in the airport approach areas shall not be visually distracting, create electrical interference or cause other safety problems for aircraft or persons on the ground. In addition, efforts shall be made to minimize population densities and prohibit places of public assembly in the approach areas; Continue efforts to prevent additional residential encroachment within critical noise contours or safety areas without informed consent; f. g. h, Specifically designate any proposed airport facility relocations or expansions within County jurisdiction on an airport master plan or airport layout plan map, as amended, and establish the appropriate airport zoning designation to assure a compatible association of airport growth with surrounding urban or rural development; Maintain geographic information system (GIS) mapping of the Airport Overlay Zones and provide timely updates; For those airports in Deschutes County without adopted master plans, the County shall, as a minimum, base any land use decisions involving airports on DCC Chapter 18.80 and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 13, Airport Planning; Participate in and encourage the County -adoption of airport master plans for all public use airports and at least an airport layout plan for the remaining State -recognized airfields in Deschutes County; Encourage appropriate federal, state and local funding for airport improvements at. public -owned airports; and rn- Discourage future development of private landing fields when they are in proximity to one another, near other public airports and potential airspace conflicts have been determined to exist by the Federal Aviation administration (FAA) or the Oregon Department of Aviation. EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 26 of 268 App. 40 CHAPTER ONE Introduction The State of Oregon rcquines cities and counties to comply in their- comprehensive plans with 19 Statewide Planning Goals, of which Goal 12 is Transportation. Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 660 Division 12, Transportation Planning, implements Goal 12. OAR 660-012 is known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and requires cities and counties to prepare Transportation System Plans (TSP) that have 20 -year planning horizons. The TSP is the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. The TSP must encompass all modes to ensure Oregonians have a transportation network at the state and local level that is safe, convenient, and economical as it serves their needs. The transportation network should provide a variety of modal choices and serve the transportation disadvantaged_ Deschutes County adopted its first TSP in 1998 and began to update the TSP in January 2007. 1,1 Geographic Setting Deschutes County encompasses 3,055 square miles of widely varied terrain, ranging from the snow- capped crest and timbered slopes of the Cascade Range on the west to the sagebrush ocean of the High Desert to the east. (Figure I.1.Fl) The combination of mountains, lakes, rivers, open desert and a proximity of less than three hours driving time to each of the Willamette Valley's three major population centers (Portland, Salem, and Eugene) has long made Deschutes County a recreational destination. The County, which was formed in 1916, also lies approximately midway between Washington and California. The County's economy, like many other counties in the intermontanc West, had long relied on timber and cattle with some agriculture. In recent decades, the County has relied more on tourism. An average of 12 inches of rain a year and a base elevation of approximately 3,600 feet may make farming a difficult endeavor, but those limiting factors for agriculture become positives for hunting, fishing, downhill and cross-country skiing, off-roading, and hiking. Yet. the County also contains areas of manufacturing, rural industry, manufacturing, and research. The County's physical and recreational amenities led to a nearly two -decade population boom. According to the 2010 US Census, the County had a total population of 157,733; by comparison in 1995 the County had a certified population of 94,100. The County's population resides in four incorporated cities Bend (76,639), Redmond (26,215), Sisters (2,038), and La Pine (1,653) and an unincorporated area totaling 51,188. In other words, about 659E of the County's population is urban and 35% is rural. Bend and Redmond are the two most populous cities in the eastern two-thirds of the state and Bend is the only Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) east of the Cascades. The main highways to Deschutes County are US 97, which is the major north -south highway on the east side of the Cascades, US 20/OR. 22 from the mid -Willamette Valley, OR 126 from the Upper Willamette Valley, and US 20 and OR 31 from eastern Oregon. The bulk of the vehicle movements in Deschutes County occurs on the state highway system, particularly on US 97 between Redmond and Bend, US 20 between Sisters and Bend, and US 97 between Bend and Sunrivcr. US 97 leads north roughly 1 13 miles to Interstate 84 and the Columbia Gorge and south approximately 152 miles to California. EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 30 of 268 App. 41 1.2 Transportation Planning The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (1SP) synthesizes the transportation information, population, and lind use patterns to identify short to Tong -term transportation needs. The timelines arc defined as follows. Short-term is 0-5 years; mid-term is 6-10 years; and longterm is 1 I -20 years. The TSP in the short-term identifies and provides recommended solutions to immediate safety, operational, and congestion problems. For the 20 -year- planning horizon, the TSP identifies goals and policies and prioritizes projects to ensure the movement of people, goods, and services through the County. The Deschutes County TSP was coordinated with the TSPS for the cities within the County and with various state modal plans, including air-, auto, bicycles, freight, pedestrian, pipeline, rail, and transit. The plan reflects existing land use plans, policies, and regulations that affect the transportation system and includes financial assumptions and concepts on how to finance future projects Goal 12 Goal 12 is the transportation goal in the nineteen separate statewide planning goals adopted by the State of Oregon in the 1970's. These goals were designed to be implemented through inclusion in regional and local comprehensive plans. Under Goal 12, local governments, regions and metropolitan areas (MPOs) must adopt transportation plans which: "...provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." Specifically, each transportation plan: ".._shall (1) consider all anodes of transportation including mass transit, air, water, pipeline, rail, highway, bicycle and pedestrian; (2) be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state transportation needs; (3) consider the differences in social consequences that would result from utilizing differing combinations of transportation modes; (4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation; (5) minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs; (6) conserve energy; (7) meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services; (8) facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional economy; and (9) conform with local and regional comprehensive land use plans.'" The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1979 and codified in April 1993. The Plan included a chapter on transportation, which addressed County -wide issues in Deschutes County Code (DCC) 23.60. The County adopted its first TSP in 1998. The TSP was codified in the Comprehensive Plan at DCC 2164. While the two chapters complement each other, they also introduce a slight bit of confusion and redundancy, so one result of the TSP Update was to just have one chapter in DCC for transportation. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) In April, 1991, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted a new administrative rule, the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660, Division 12), governing transportation planning and project development at local, regional and statewide levels. The rule was modified in 2004 and 2006, but its overall intent remains unchanged. EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 3I of 268 App. 42 Transportation facilities, that are illustrated on the Bend TSPs Roadway System Plan map, but are located beyond the Bend UGB and therefore not authorized by the TSP, shall not be constructed to an urban standard until approved by the County and the area is brought into the UGB. As areas are annexed into the City of Bend, or are urbanized within the UGB, the affected land use authority, property owners, developers and!or applicable service districts shall work cooperatively to develop appropriate plans for extensions and connections of the transportation system, including but not limited to: roads, sidewalks, trails and/or public transportation. City of Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan The Bend Municipal Airport is located outside the Bend City limits and UGB, therefore the County has land use jurisdiction over it. in order to guide airport land uses, the County adapted and utilizes the 1994 Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan, as amended in 2002 the "Supplement to 1994 Airport Master Plan," which is incorporated by reference herein. This is the guiding document for airport planning and development. This document incorporates a range of facility improvements for the Bend Municipal Airport over the 20 -year planning horizon (2021), including short, intermediate, and long-term projects to improve safety and function at the airport. In 2003 the County adopted DCC 18.76, Airport Development (AD) Zone to identify outright permitted and conditional activities at the airport. The County in 2001 adopted DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combing Zone (AS) to ensure surrounding land uses and structures were compatible with airport operations, The City of Bend is currently in the midst of updating of the Bend Airport Master Plan in 2010-12. County planning staff is participating, in that process which will look at land uses within the airport as well as the potential for physical expansion of the airport. City of Redmond Transportation System Plan The City of Redmond identified the following goals in its Transportation System Plan update of June 2008: Provide a supportive transportation network to the land use plan that provides opportunities for transportation choices and the use of alternative modes serving all residential areas and businesses. Develop a transportation system that is supportive with (sic) the City's adopted comprehensive land plan and with the adopted plans of state, local, and regional jurisdictions. 3 Establish a clear and objective set of transportation facility design and development regulations and standards that address all elements of the city transportation system and promote access to and utilization of a multi -modal transportation system. 4 Develop complementary infrastructure for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to provide a diverse range of transportation choices for City residents, 5 Provide reliable and convenient transit service to Redmond residents and businesses as well as special transit operations for the City's elderly and disabled residents. EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 48 of 268 App. 43 1l 1 1 BAND MUMCIPAL MRPOOT` .erti4D-, drag GON Atiosoire PLANNI140 VPPATE motg-Ati2 ) Pippteineato1994 AitpprilMastaPlaii Wirfae N-ruaylifo:A4t Ativfmnorzystoorzair LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 12.8 1 BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FINAL REPORT AIRPORT KAMA pap• UPDATE (Supplernet# to 1994 Altport Master Plan UNate) PePRI.111Itkr 209g. .PnwaTed 'by ,L4plifQ.E.N:TLI RV W ST -MGINErRittV COM:14016 6650 SW'Redwood Lanai $11.0te 300 tiOrtlancis Oregon 07024 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 129 TABLE OF CONTENTS ilFINID MUNICIPAL AIRPORI AIRPORT PLANNING UPDATI ClIAIlltlt ONE - EXECUTIVE 8 I iMMARY AND' INVENTORY .„.. i IntroductiOil , , , . 1 P.:IctictitiVe Suunlimy .. I Updated Inventory I Airport Facilities , , .5 Airport Noise 14 CIIAMER TWO - FORECASTS OF AVIATION I)F.MAND 0. 16 hitroductiori,. 16 ., . ,, ., ....... .94 M. ......... • al .. NA •—• I i .• m.....,,a,sam. • ., a w 4 . 4 S44, Population . , ,„„ , t . . a Jai 16 Airport Activity, ,, ,, „ , , . I.., liitv 17 CHAPTER THREE - FACILITY REQUIREMENTS...-. ............. ......,,,,4„,..,...... .. ..... . 24 Runway Deskyr Rermitements . . 25 Aircraft Storage and 'Parking 27 A .. 4 MR Part 77 Su!faces —. 31 FAA Ain)ort Design Standards 32 :Lighting and Instrumentation Utilities 0 33 cHAPTER FOUR.. AIRPORT DEVELOP-MENT ALTERNATIVES,— . , .. -- ........ ._..,3.5 Introduction ,„.„, , „ i„....•• ..,, " . 35 SOnarnaty Of 199,11.Aitport Master Plan Alternatives , 36 Preatifingri AlLetikativ.es Revalidation..(S:ummer - Fall 1999) .. , . , , 3.7 Additionat.Mtptsrt Facility Evaluations.(Surrner-Fall 2000) .,.. —........, ....... .„. .............. „ 45 Preferred AlteritAtlii:e (Fall 2000-Stnnrnet,2001); ..., . ...;:.-,., 4 4R 411 .4000 „„-.,,,,,,,,,, „A...4. . 53 Changes in:Fifebx .ga#rns and Airpigt Noise:.„ CHAPTER Ply-,FEstANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND DEVOLOP10143.110ROGRAR. 62, 'OveN100 orpitiedmasing - ,, ,,, •:44y . : „ 1 . 4 . •. ,.. 4. PI OZ Artport Develepreient Schedule Arid Oigt Estimates - -: - , - -..-,.-. --. 63 Financing OfElei/eleptrient Program, , off:..,:ei.4, r., 73 Financing.The L9cal'S1iare Of Capitol Improvements 74 CHAPTER SIX-- A ORT LAYOUT PLANS . . ..0 . 0, 76 LIST -0,F TABLES Table 1-1: Existing AirpOrt Etrildings - goimary Table 1-2: Oengial Relationship Betwc-en,gasistlAirCraft and anildingSpape . 10 Table 2-1 PopplatiOn Trends - ••• • • 4 . -i • 17 Table ..... , 17 Table 2-2: liNforipal raft Activity --,, . . - Table 2-3: AirportActLvity Data. 41 4 • 'cenivry Wed EnoitliferIng December 20,02 LURA No. 2013-073 Page 130 nthII) MUNICIPAL AIRPOR1 AIRPOR1 PLANNING UPDAII: Table 2-4: 1994 Aiiport Master Plan 'Based Aircraft and Operations FormaMs 20 Table 2-5: Updated (2000) Based Aircraft Forecasts . 21 Table 2-6: Updated Airmail Operations Forecasts , 22 Table 2-7: Summary of Updated Aviation Foreeasts , 23 Table 3-1: 1994 Airport Master Plan Update -FAA Recommended Runway Lengths 26 Table 3-2: Aircraft Parking Apron-11/4wility Requirements Summary 30 Table 4-1: Bend Airport' Runway BxtensionrPlauting Cost Estimate (October 1999) . . .. 44 Table 4-2. Renway-Taxiway Improvements -Preliminary Cost Analysis (10/00). , 47 Table -1-: Summary ofnovolopment Cats ,... ,, 65 Table 5-2:Summary ofiCIP Projects by Type. 65 Table 5-3: 20 -Year Capital improvement Program 70 Table 54 OP Projeets by batepry LIST OF• FIGURES Figure 1: Existing CenditiOns. , ,, 7 Figure 2 Rupay.Ty34:Threshold Alterations 8 Figure 3: Akan:nave 1 , . . . , 1 kO 41 Figure 4: Alteinttive IA ..,._ ....... . . op _ 42 Figure 5: AlternatiVe2 LI p it. 00 PO •Povr voo p 43 Figure 6: Option 1 -- Relocate West Parallel TaXiway . . 54 f - Figure 7: Option 2 — Shift Runway ,, 55 )1 Figure 8: West Side Airport Iraprovernents„, ..... . .. , . , ............ .....i..........— : . ...„.„-,......... . . . . . ..56 - Nitre 9- East Sid6.DeVelUpmettt — Opitten,,A. ' ,...,-,„,.. .., , ,,57 Figure 1.0: EaStAid4 tleVelopmeni - Option IA . „........, ......... , .... :.,.............. 58 Figure 11: Basil:14e Dey,elopment — Option C.— .... 59 Figura 12 East, Side PPY0_19pirmnt — Option D , , N ffinp,o 1 ' . . 60 Figure 13: Preferred DOVelopment„ Alternatiye4..„,........ ... .. ....... „..,,,,..4.„,.6..g.,,, -,„ 61 LIST cIF DRAWINGS Drawing 1 - AirpettrLtiyOUPIan ii An i :5 i: 4 .,4 ?r2 - Drawing 2 - Teint-nal 'Aita.inaii 83 Drawing 3- - AirspnepPwwing • , , .....„ . I. .94, o.N. .. , 1 v.• 84 Di -awing -4- Runwaq Priqfi1 in4-.4. -. V" 85 MaliAng 5 - OfgAirpoti tand Use Plan (Vejth 2413 Najw Contotwg) Dra:wing 6 - On-. ifpett, Lan' d Use Plan,. ,,. , . ,, .. . .. , , .-0,,,...o.i.,-4,----,,-,:-,,,-., 81 •Corifory West ERginiefing .Dacerri ba( 2002 11 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 131 • HAPt Oi4E: EXECIITIV:UMIVIARY AND INVENTORY -In trodilert4f:i I3LiND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT PIANNINC; UPDATE 1:414-pla6niriA. Fiaii4t$q) (1944n:cut supplitonots the 1994del al Airports Milqor Kan tipAatChy cliiiiSent'itlOiAges in facilities/. tictiVity, aOd Jaciljty needs that:have occurred slum ?.:'.§1.10,111#1/g.R-1grfirigted in Tuly 1994. A copy of the 1994 Water Aid TRAM is 'document. The1994 masterplan,servos as the pritywy-rofexope for E;ciki 1Vincitift4-A4titt;' EX6iitPtX0,0.640rY Tixeso doeutixents cenkhine to represent the currentplanning - --rholoso ck-ro„04-,po-t:put, Ajtgo in late 1999 and extetidod into U.62. As a real% mow OEt ,itfthed tiguificaritly as the plarallog process extended:Weftinie„ i"%ainaiTk tioftripkpn during this period is prOMed: iv. Chapter Rcur, 01.6hailaos acid aliustalents VtIO- OVSF 0131P, ttu..cornprehensiv tleseriptiOngtore* JA-$:.0014140.t.dtisgrA tpailgw. ThelacilinakeWertil,041*AWArt loco. 'Sr') represexirthe final v.ersietuatliopiA czna • .P;4eveloPcd _ , ; Th fi,t4 0010.14atipp, offacththsl tofro(s5diedito towaitig5 111419* j), following: Widely ,„ of thP, prAillIt11144V :Plgkrr414 AkeirKG7LOYes t'ePtoule o 'ttni*g adyigorycomrditteo. ahe_ up dated „PlgkinClgdos-a wide range of facility improvementtreaOonntaded.OYer. th way. - Yew 14,9ninif-,i0,064:,.Se: Table, reilai)ter Five for the Ottipleto capital improvement proriniliStik.4!*.tiwakcit4 Proiwts. Op; oatine41440140,03. 10 west side landside facilities Will be Undertaken early in -stip *ining peri*4*g, gewttg.rmss ;Pads and utilities on.the east side ofthd floactIVIuilicipat Alift6igga:(6.e-plqn ppciate, 1.9A4t COtary Wpst Fogia4-!*g. Ceniory West gogirteiing peegreibtkr • LUBA No, 2013-073 Page 134 1 H OPND MUNICIPAI AIRPORT AIRPORT MANNINO liPDATL _Elie, dev'elopoent4. of cast side foeilita% will require developagett of an it parallol daring 1h. 1Liflht 'rho most significant runway Mated inaPrOvcOwtfiN 4r0-40*3:10 NI, tr 1cpUMrt nix; aotuntarizixl below lo Iazitft Ilto ,generul phasing (If major 'iltroOgeIentema: toinjt • rrditititt Wv.irogiu4o0 ,ANs,s4Intelt for propnity ncluisition for Nelson Road realignment and minwRi'qttfetywealruprovements on existing ItunWily 1684. ▪ ponclitia.VIr�un1fttfl$tudy, acipite properly xquired for Isleisolt Road tealignnogt*Vitignwarsafqty area improvements. • Real igt lr1 Rpt and bring runway safety area UP to FAA Airplane Dego Griatip (ADp)' ULid0tio•ad iemoVat; ataclhig and compaotiodirpr APPrnaula Cnteg,011 fl ?ircraft. Ait#011: kkif.4")41Pe Cpdo (ARC): B41. JMiasito•intenIialte4ernO: • P:t0P;Oie itepnit or Environmental ApSea$Mentl for ti c 491,?1,` *ill be oiged 110 feet cast of the existing ranwq ,and cii)piOldtiA,Iiii.kJOgdi of 5,200 feet ba addition to allitling-ilie-ittWay to the dasti sontkbpunWy wiI bc. 0/4000.1 to apptoxiln4tOirti*centetline of -the eXiafing t161$C04. • '''7Tirdsoits:tlio it44,643f the Airport Deveitipran4A0) zotAin; aril* soitthk! Th04-.641.0-011Setscol Roaawill adoiti004146-41040WAW43r safety- ak4; :fre-c, area for the new runway. The kieW tAlitt,ityvin totado .tho *RI oprowqrolt cogst-root uo:Ny iRtal*aY 104 to t MA ADG 11 tkaign .SiOtiards; connect new runwaywithoiwpt7skorpatila Iax1wy, cxtend south cnd �wst patauo toxiwnytb connect A4PAr filA0VAY Olt tgittOVP- old runway pavympa, Rttigwegy pavements will be designed based inaffeemannended B-1.1 dasigivairefaft, Recommendation fnr:GtitTx-gvoit or EA %vat be made by FAA based on an ogualloaoligsgs.assotiated with each project zot4:kreeititiernaltS for analysis and content Century West EnghteerinT Inventgry, December 2002 2. LUI3A Nu, 2013-073 Page 135 BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT PLANNING UPDATE (mug font): P.1:q11,40. C;AitOrtiti!i! .,l,',.$064,1491:11.;Aoltott Environmental AsAesamcnt for north runway take Oemit (OQ fedi t [la! O;til ;gno tem 41),dwOIIIILIlle kg1rWaY provide 5,A)04:gsiiktinivotY). !t!!liNiay !:61444 -4114 rpfolkil 4iximea5As) 30() rmtvOtiriten feasible (roquires UP 0410 d' filf fltOrif, 'qeT):01041ifiiairid` 1' A,:01'00101 P,F?olitilts ecittntyi approximattii0ii6 iforthera of gtil..&,*(valt-poit btio6kitftztggitig Eittprox)thatgy 41:-*.rrOjOi ig.eNttileit Abdpporated ity tit )3:6.a*tiffAle4goViti 41.i rtilOmorgcotatociportion of tho-ttcninty:. QP1:111.1 Of .Thf-71.1..Ok4 Airpclift clatq,. bticicio 1942 when land provintisly•iftd..*t a wIri, wos 1c Jtcc.q:itx_r*rai46,ttir eXtfitAish a Mutii0iphily own:00 acid 91,1004 .14.041g-44. The - g ' fii i3ilti%4 Aii.Kiiiit.-W644 w4rTI. and then :glowly daii.dI4fiedlilirtrou8h the 5 . , .. ..-. tilyja?: , • 13, , . - ,1-, TliirI.uprc1icLic..1.*:*•`ixttoaOr Om wns )0pr-1- in hate 017 :#tgl- cocnpleted in 1979, rx -.:'.% #r.q, ';',7)t gig:pc of 11.'g1ikerktiORli3Ori 3$00par the plan. forodgica 01010:44i grbwai ir/1 ,ip-pogv , . brA,,, 4-o,dfsmatititoot Wo10401 1engAlenink0e.ARVI4Y- and PArallel: ih0-.-10,04ibtii: •4 0Its4sNY,140 Amos gid. various support; Eae-ill tie§; ' - - *o]. the 1979 ,ati.;.'::kps-4,.44.ort roaster- plans. seVOrEd .signifieant WiEityiniPrOvements wore rit*.107.0: tbo,iiiivoxt ,,, . ... Als. Theunytttyw)..s:,0,40141froin,3750 feet to i5000 'fee( Cill two 'separaterirojcots) - 4 . • • . 1 NT' t Sti 04.4401,1:. 0 wtIs extended 'ill bagOtituOtiqd,-6,*:401cdg,fipntav roads * - T.A.5.011ilg$ apt*Id tictiomexpg_Loons , 1 ,. cootnittiottg$ .„,opkc.o. Iiistaatipaof la tyrcfkotErs,.. runts -4', endidentifier Reds, and 4 04itin8 btappn The davelgpment of taolliti0S20 f3„011ifdaIAlfport ecatinuecl ala qpgly pace idler the. plan was 4-daM .09A. Airfield 1011)17PV-031elltS haFg inthiddd aeijnttnaintermcc •Cei-#06 We5t Engitiectit% 1 Da earn ber 20-02 : ..1 14' 3 Inveniory !MBA No. 2013-073 Page 136 r . I I I 131141) MLJNJCIPAI AIRrOK.I AIRPORT PLANNING UrI)AIL t .1 : . I. 1 iltic1 rohnbilthitiOn- pip:fuels anti tlevelninneitt. of taxiways to Noryt> now 'Ilan* wash -fiction, PrivaMy fowled 1,14ngar coustmetion activity at the airport outpaced the 19fifil ;piaster plati's i -- i 1 r : pii00.1Priw; 4-00: bcAii140Ntitil,o u Very ofirong WPtiloaonl, of airport k1 1,90.1ctit. tiPv,001)010nt Ottli: 403,,,i? LanookahiaIlil:bliiinifoettning theilities began on the ca i sn.lsr: Oilte. on0ii in .1.99(- ,1. imp.roveraunts to '016 aitkorti Water iiid Nowa system 'wpm also t....04)41),,o4a...litiVe beim t ; .:.., -•_ .. % • it90.0•10 fAct41:111 a41 -1.11g Vroveclive tenant$,. Ottildlitg sp4. pia,..K.tttbif..(rinoluding la baiigat-s,, a new 11130itenniiial, And rAncair) Nis intim 111Aii tlotibJoti iiiet t04i, II. Akii0p1nt RolP ( -000.04nicipa1Ai„iportlias dliistorically served business andzOtierat avitili0 Mantiimportant ,,Ohiponnt)1 of tbo Itgini)'§:ttattpxklatiou systeYn- /37eadt$,rotc in the: Oriegt4A-ViAtiOn: y'4"Woo _,. — , , . 1 4iidi,tileiyc.'darg Alriiattign Atimitlistration (FAA) National Hun of ntor4csVititptitt Systems 4 ' Vg)hdi. liattiktnattir M7006 the 1041311:W1er 1-31,30*0 Wittplacif. - rik'._,, -. • NI 311 • trd , . 2000 tliviyii kviiitidti,Plark. defituts-'aud cat'0,gOdf.es OpegOn'a core SYst,0.111.010ft.(iblic use „ . L1 I4 t3u the funational role of the airports: Bond Muitieipal Aiaport is included in 2-. • l3usiness and /ligh ActiVIty GeooOl Avititiqit 6en ditspiiptifixilploy).. thbtb a ,•...! t c .togp: 2 ,i1prt4.p-91,ggp., although Bend; Mttnialpk is the oniy auport in, tins gnaw -! 7 .•,' - •,,,,,,;1 A,.:,".e.ksk of the 0.6soatio640tintaino, For onnipati$014 kocbriOnd Patoxt is ',o)16 Of IA/10 ....6§`') (0,01Plerciat Scrvicto)ni91011&1110M0111 which arP"Cie§b3P0--ill-OWC111a9440 larger -4P06ist4. with edritinniCiAI air serViO-O. Mos('Catepiy 2 alto:it% iti,71)rOp-ii-att.locatcd 04e7htitir drive. OTte 'org Oat 1 k.iiToki4PArlzsomal are luboakitlegihag .30 rpitis II ;_.20/0 Oft A1110 a'ategory 2: Buts166V§ or WO Activity.Goriertil Aviation Airport AtOgtiOrtt ArkontOirktUlt al-rPorOP tlYiati0,1 .gclitkibt inolitding littoess jo!smigi tJier •.7ge4et,a1 aviation ,adivitiek PeOpalion Cilteri:04,00110 Opetations pa- year:, rude itt least 590 tittliiik blVORiss COlogory 2 airportspick 1,0,0 ups t� : thn air tranVOrtatiOn. 0/Steal '6ar •gipwiAtion 'purposes. They are eapOle:ot's'ori(ing small busing and other aiteraft.uaqtlorintOneFa. AotiyitylevelS at thete,aiiptorts are:typically hig,"heethattAt'Other general aviationairp. oft and s.cialeCategory 1 aitports, .C..niutyVest Erigirtaaring Darernber 2002 4 trWentorry LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 137 AIRPORT T D .1/1 .....0136.0.. 11. FSR _TfE ' P IA`6`QVR S CHAPTER roue BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT PLANNING U1'DA1 F Introduction tion Bend Municipal Airport has experienced substantial growth in activity, which has resulted in a nearly continuous series of improvements since the most recent Airport Master Plan (Ccniny West Engineering) was completed in I994, Demand for hangars and other aviation -related development continues to be strong. Up to this point, this demand has largely been satisfied through development on the west side of the runway. However, this part of the airport is rapidly reaching a point where all developable land will be in. use or is otherwise committed. The 1994 Master Plan recognized this likelihood and reserved the east side of the airport for future aviation -related development. This development was initiated very early in the planning period with the construction of the Lancair facility on the southeast corner of the airport. As the west side of the airport reaches capacity, the east side will become increasingly critical to the airport's ability to satisfy demand for business and general aviation facilities, services and 'related development. One of the 1994 Master Plan's major short-term (0-5 years) recornrnendations was a 500 -foot extension of Runway 16-34. Following completion of the Master Plan and appmval of the Airport Layout Plan, several projects associated with the runway extension, including an Environmental Assessment, property acquisition, and design & construction costs were included in the airport's NPIAS5 capital improvement program., which is maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It is important to note that the factors supporting the runway extension in 1994 have not changed significantly over the last five years. As predicted in the 1994 Master Plan, aviation activity at Bend Municipal Airport has increased at a healthy rate, particularly in the business aviation category for both locally based and itinerant aircraft. Based on activity, the original timing of the runway extension project appears to remain valid today. 5 National Pian of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Century West Engineering December 2002 35 Alternotives LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 171 I31 l\fft M11fyICIi''A1 AIRPORT Al1Pt7h1 PI ANNNII1.1(, 1.111]AIti The proposed extension of Runway 16-.34 idl:itlilirel in the Aapori Master Plan trxluircl, an assessment of environmental impacts, as defined in FAA Oder 5050,4A, The FAA Airport ,l rivrror)nterltal l landbook_ The. ju je i may plinth c. either a categorical exclusion report or 11 fill environmental assossinent, depending on the complexity of issues involved with the !imposed action. Based an a variety of pkat factors, the City of fiend Iecognirecl IIIc; nc;rtl to revalidate the Master Plan's preferred ntnway extension alternative. The revalidation determined whether orient more of the previously considered alternatives, or an unconsidered alternative, became more viable based on cuircnt conditions (Sununer 1999). Following the revalidation of the alternatives, a preferred alternative, was identified in the Fall 1999. Over the next two years, the preferred runway option was discussed and debated extensively in the eonulaunity. The FAA provided additional review comments in 2001. and 2002 before the final devoloprnenr concept was agreed upon. As noted earlier, the airport layout plan container) in .Chapter Six reflects the final agreed upon "preferred alternative" for the airport. The final configuration of facilities reflects specific comments provided by FAA aud the City following review of the preliminary preferred alternatives rcconunendcd by the local planning advisory committee. The updated planning docurneitts will be submitted to Deschutes County for review and adoption. Summary of 1994 Airport Master Plan Alternatives The 1994 Master Plan identified four airport alternatives designed to address the, need for a runway extension. The four alternatives each focused on potential changes in roadways, cost of roadway construction, and the options for providing 500 feet of additional runway length. Alternative 1 provided a 500 -foot runway extension at the north end of Runway 16-34. Approximately 3,200 foot of the Powell Suite Highway was to be relocated to provide clearances from the Runway 16 approach surface, runway safety area (RSA) and object free area (OFA)_ With this option, the highway -would travel through the inner one-third of the future Runway 16 protection zone (RPZ). Alternative 2 provided a 500 -foot runway extension at the south end of the runway. Approximately 2,100 feet of Nelson Road would be relocated to provide clearances for the Runway 34 approach surface, RSA and OFA. Nelson Road currently penetrates the existing RSA, CFA and approach surface; the runway threshold has been displaced 217 feet to provide improved obstruction clearance. With this option, Nelson Road would continue to travel through Century Wet Engineering Alternotives December 20D2 36 1,1 111A No. 2013-073 Page 172 m a West Side Improvements 13END MUNICIPAL. AIitf OR1 AIRPORT PLANNING UPDATE Public_AccesnA aroarments. The intersection of Powell Butte highway and Butler Markt:[. Road will be upgraded to become the primary access point for the west side of the airport. Two existing road connections between the airport frontage road and the highway, located south of this intersection, will be closets. The existing Nelson Road/Powell Butte Highway intersection will be modified to provide u secondary airport access point when Nelson Road is realigned. Aviaiion.Suptrort Facilities, The existing aviation fuel storage tanks will be relocated to a more centraUylocated site, This will provide convenient access to fuel storage and provide a site for a new aircraft-rnaintenance hangar adjacent to the fixed base operator :facilities. An autorhatcd weather- observation system (AVVOS) will be located adjacent to the main terminal building on an elevated platform. This system will provide 24-hour weather data for aircraft operating al the airport, and is particularly beneficial to emergency medevac flight operations. Helicopter Parking. Designated helicopter parking facilities will be located near the north end of the terminal apron- The arca will provide defined parking for medevac, government, and business rotor -craft and reduce dust and debris generated while aircraft are on or near the ground. The helicopter areas are intended to be used for parking only and will not operate as independent helicopter landing areas. Aviation Redevelopment Areas As the west side of the airport approaches its development capacity, some areas can be redeveloped to optimize facility potential. improvements include converting the north aircraft parking apron to accommodate aircraft hangars, improving the terminal area aircraft parking confrp ration, improving the existing glider staging area, and providing aircraft parking and hangar space south of the terminal area. Proposed west side improvements are depicted in Figure 8. East Side Improvements Several preliminary development concepts were created for east side improvements (see Figures 9 through 12 at the end of this chapter). Following the evaluation of the preliminary concepts, a preferred alternative was selected (Figure 13). This preferred alternative was further refined as the result of subsequent local and FAA review. The airport layout plan contained in Chapter Six reflects the final agreed upon "preferred alternative" for the airport. Note: several items included in the preliminary development concepts and in the local preferred alter -native recommendation (for the east side of the airport) were not supported by FAA. For reference purposes, the preliminary concepts and narrative presented in this chapter (depicted in Century West Engineering Alternatives December 2002 51 1,1JBA No. 2013-073 Page 187 m m f3Ehll:1Mlj{ lCI1'AL AIRPORl AIRPORT MANNING UPDATE' Figures 9-12) have nes been rceviserl. Them. items hove been erIrrrirrrrterl filum the final riirrpait layout plan. Vehicle Access. New vehicle access to the east side of the airport will initially extend from Nelson Road, with a north connection to Mc(hrath Road added as needed to provide efficient traffic flow. The roadway will be located along the east atirpoit property lime arid udjactaat to the- airport heairport landscapebufferfwalking trail. Nate: The future walling trail has been eliminated from the ALP at the request of FAA and the development buffer located along the east edge of the airport Inas been re.defne.d as "aviation support. Airport -Related Light Industrial. Approximately 10 acres adjacent tu the Lrrnt:air facilities are identified for this use. Aviation -related businesses that benefit from an airport location are the anticipated tenants for this arca. Aviation Related Use. The largest portion (55 acres) of the cast side arca is designated for aviation related uses such as aircraft parking, glider staging arca, hangars, aviation businesses and support facilities. This area provides ample aviation use reserves with nearly twice the development space as the entire west landside area, which developed over a period of more than 50 years. An additional 15 acres located near the northeast corner of the airport is reserved for long-term aviation use and will be maintained as open space until it is needed for other uses. Aircraft Camping: and Day Use Picnic Areas. A small aircraft camping area and day use picnic area are located adjacent to the poncL The camping area will have aircraft access to the runway - taxiway system with several rustic campsites. The day use picnic area is intended for community use and will have public access from the east access road and the adjacent walking trail. Note: The future aircraft camping area has been eliminated fr-orn the ALP at the request of F44. This area has been redefined as "aviation support reserve," which may accommodate a variety of aviation uses_ EEast landscape Buffer and Pond Access. A 100 -foot wide buffer will be developed along the eastern airport property line. The buffer will be planted with a variety of natural trees and vegetation that provide a visual screen between airport development and adjacent properties. A walking trail is proposed through the entire length of the buffer to provide a new public mixed- use recreational opportunity for the community. The existing drainage pond located near the southeast comer of the airport will have improved public access but will not be enhanced to increase its attractiveness to birds, which may create a hazard to aircraft operating at the airport. Century West Engineering Atternafives December 2002 52 LUl3A No. 2013-073 Page 188 a 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER SIX AIRPORT LAYOUT PLANS BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT PLANNING UPDATE Iri COapter Pour, Airport DevelopgrentMternativeq, an evaluation was made offuturo options for ditside and laridSide devOlofintent at Bend Municipal Afroett. TbiS offnit tusulted in the seleetfon .Of a preferrer141rt development altemati*0 that INA aeconxtriodate tiro facility requirements PrOjectedAllt,k3hrthrrt Current, 20 -year platutufg peritid„ and ;beyond, The purpose of This ehaPtpr. Awl graphic x01. -She recOtranendekairport d.eVelopnacuL :manta:Mal in-Ithe.-2116yiStcr plan. Reduocd,size copies of the drawings. are included ...it the WA of this .0144Pto• Wkexi*p.tobod, the 2001 ALP drwjng iiifl replao4 the'1994-gerYdrated ALP c1rawingskigtOlUdixt apatOctinent revisions) contained in * 1904 7ffirport Master Plan :ki.4100.0WeT.000-041:40414e Aitport foy01-.11P-1110-10,i1AvoteiefOrOPReittO Oat:PO(1115'0*r .14wkrittOdagon*for airport layout, land use, and -possible disposition-uf Obstructions located olitihooloRty ProteOtien.zones,, approaches, or other airfield irha Cuiiattentfacers. The set of Dirax#00,2 ....4-4.0,Ort,L451youtiflun rhatioio:- Affilt,404rpa:Oon 1)i.,awii.10:7:R.4.11:Phr:t'-77'.11k7space Drawing Dertkiliii&S-,*:,,,449tt-La'nd-Use Plan with 20 13 Noise OintOties DifaignkijOi‘i0112;ata use Nan 14tii*Aviatiritt-4.40014:#904.AttkisbrYCiratiftitIAC)1.50/S300444,0440S Airport Design, 444644**'Pril4454ttiiIi1uys4 . txiwys 04.-Qftt.,-Otaciti -0.6111114,:,*:**/b reembinlended rue 7 'Aiird, i05#0***".140-44"midrawiia(g; set,s ;; Federal Air iteOla4lan FAR ) Part 77 :coo* Ago* No4 -4400Airipacei Provides Criteria far ebl4bflsblng and dcpictjn tlie• On -space **V siitface05**FillOglito airport ctfititoty Ws1.gr erh Airport Layout Plff.e 0.000Ya,bet 2002 76 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 214 1 1 BEND MUNICIPAI AIRPQR1 AIRPORT PLANNING UPDATE: Ditikfirig 1 - Airport Layout Plan The Airport Layout Plan 011.1..F)'011.,-tent.4 the gxcisting mid ultimate airpertlaynnt mid depicts the i-IPPIPvelgen104Itat arP 010111meltdcdto meet foirOst:avizition demand. Aitport and innway data tables provide additional information on faCilitio-i' Mid dimensions. The ALP provides data for the existing, future and ultimate na-tway cortAgui'a(ion. The existing daktrolates to Runway 16- 34 in its current configuratinn. The. future dati} to the new RunwAy 16-14 as it will he tonstruetbel, The tilthnate data reistesliiiric new runway in its ultimate: lenp,th. The citing 4,015 lt '75 -Pot rupway.(16-34)will'lw replaced with a new Rattwiy 1634 located approximately 110 feet egfOtlie,enitent 'innW4.: Tito now ninway wfl lio::.5,2,01),A15 feet and designed based ci# alipoiCAPf:0510, ,1:10,p ORO pal standards. The existing runway will be :-,tentOVe..4. The 4iptikkg*pci?'4allel',-taxi*ay wfl bodohnected to 1h tic* nirtway and eventually Widenedo.3.5 failis*Vitti0(41), p$yi$ps 44V it at 13(;:110 Mirpicipal Airport .are. related to maximizing the. west sidc of the,,:p.ntway Improvements to ti mam apro. inclOc the, ..additioo of helicopter parking areas and .expansion of the overall .1.upwi. umjp4tc1ylio: '.,!artiLsonth. of the existing apkon. 'The existing. nOnli Aircraft parlung . _ . . irbtwill be co#ft1_,.c,!<yatgoingiedate three rows Osman/medium conventional hangars. Tho ' • con5Lflo±o11orij1 bo don in stages based en demand. It is 'attieipatcdtbat a portion of fhc. aireraft,01004-ipetk-t*uorli wen wifl cohtikale to be used midi the Hangar development .timpukklyall of tp,c.aircraft ticdowns on the north apron will 'be' rOocus.ted to theAaipa43;fetbraihiapieriat*O.§. the pating.glidor parking area located southoi the i-reereatiorrarl "aviation facilities are -developed on the cast side of .1;11g n4lvv.,Y.- A designated area `4,:idejlOrted pi he ATM- fOr an automated weather -observation system .,:(AWQS). The-,R00,,S,-y,,Alae located on an elevated platform on the north side- of the terminal Raisina.-the,systwn is neeesstuy to ensure that the wind sensors .are not affected lay **Iv siitel0104, :,Sever41-4pptvvergentikr9rweSt side roadway are. on the ALP. The stlti access to the **at Si& Ictf the 04.44 OOM Poweli Otrti0 thgliway will be imprO-Tied by upgrading the i4totrseeliPP, wittjAgcefl3iftior Road. The location and number of adeess pfmts aiiig tbelvOt alip.ott frontag*.:rbid 1iiso be tbmdifi"ed, The "realignment of Nelson Roadawayfrom #1., sonth end of the-0*-iy 101 allow the airport to meet FAA safety and -design standards. The road will be- locateAtrtitiielj, Onside the Rittiway 34protection zone•(g.PZ:)..for both the existing and futUre runway eonAg-tgition. A small portion of the existing Nelson Road will be used to Century West Engineetiag Airport Layout Mons December 2002 77 LUBA No. 2013-073 Page 2l5 BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPOR1 AIRPORT PLANNINc.; UPDATE provide access to the soullnwtxt haugar.area ;Ina two additional ricce.ss paints north of Nelson Road will be closed_ •Development of aviation and aViatiOn4-61411 hiditshial areas are identified en the east.sido of the ranWay. The, aViation jfltjj&41askgrred to accommodate ADO 11 and nen-precision nstromentapproaoh elearanees. A Wiffellafitviattlan ildvelnInnenl -area 'is idntitified that will aeceraincdate aircraft hangars, parking and, tisSeciatecl Mollifies once the went aide °Abe airfield reaches its maximum beild.ouL Tito roast side of the airptnt is eXPeelcd o aftenmindato prefeeted defnandilaring the AO-lekrfpftiniiitzp eriad and provide ample reserves- for longer -teen needs. Surface ce.ess thweast'sid6.40.0 ilcipiort will be provided by a eanneeti01.10 NPI•50P- Road, ,east ottbe Lattgait tiX**Oess rod will be located along the eastern ridge of the ret,tdOlOittrserVe the vatious developitient areas. A future (north) ,eitetiSiO4At4-easCac-eera;05.40-Mecrrath. goad) is planned when traffic, demands j'estify a secoad 44.1,6g8 ratiW A peitApp.aft.h4*neGrath eonneetioti extends beyond airgutt property and woOldf.reciiiire-,aeggisittaniitiggirdf.WaY. •.A.qatiernat'ort indtt,104.detekepieni is identified in the area immediatelyadiadent to the eXiStinkLaneitin-.4:s0O0intitishUl atea is identified between the future airtrAft.camping area apd.gcnera101atidififiti**ifiesprve.,- These areas. arerexpected to accommodate a variety of 9A -related light incinit-MtaeaSinarilar to Lineait's.developrnent. • . ':X0Pgral aYia..* stEKAW-Aptiarliinoatta far gpaer§,and toW•03=41 islaeated:00.110 east gide . „ 440.,-.tiala :ow ":-.061.*01.044411:te ranway and parallel taxiway object free areas:, Additional .. , g,enetal:-alklatien-A):det.tA0merito•eserves are. locAted ea the -east side oftbermyway, ill.i.Oprm.eitnatety .04-drOklIgtern part of the. airport eastern e;ertler): k identified as One,...Megvey44 prg.aervedto accommodate Aviation needs' thattatiiebur beyond ie.neA20 years, ,; tira,*itigr.g -.70rAititgAr O. Plan PF:4"Tina1 Aica 1au pr4es a larger scare view of faicilities and Teecaunerided t*OlVictts 0.06 main apron The tare terminal area raellities on the east deto'firA-ranway-a0:***Wed onfthe drawing, 1.* drantifaZ PreVide.,$*dtiitional detail for hanaz -844,j nn4 aa aittes Anotd ab4w Ie pximarytocusmmibemestside of t1e--440: kiy4ififinien4y an& rciaiditikc the ;Ise ofynaireed Aoyigitiputerit sppre... coitthyVirest Engineeririg Pe4;04.-Pit 1?.07 Airporitayoul Mans 78 LUBA No 2013-073 Page 216 a F :4X Jo F e 0.0000 m 1.1113A No. 2013-073 l'age 220 1 1 BEFORETHE LAND INE BOARD DI: APPEALS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (7! '1`111{ STATE ( )F UIti?(1()N T1 IE 11,1(111'1' SI1()1', INC',, and AFRO FACILITIES 1,1,('., f'et rl ion['rx, vs. DESCI :SCI I I J' I'1S COI I N" l' Y, Respondent, and LEADING EDGE AVIA'I'I()N, INC. and TI IE CITY OF I31;N1), Intervenors -Respondents. LUBA No. 2013-073 FINAL OPINION AND ORDER Appeal from Deschutes County. 26 Michael H. McGean, Bend, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of 27 petitioners. With him on the brief was Francis Hansen & Martin LLP. 28 29 No appearance by Deschutes County, 30 31 Sharon R. Smith, Bend, filed a response brief and argued on behalf of intervenor - 32 respondent Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. With her on the brief were Garret Chrostek and 33 Bryant Lovlicn & Jarvis PC. 34 35 Gary Firestone, Assistant City Attorney, Bend, filed a response brief and argued on 36 behalf of intervenor -respondent City of Bend. With him on the brief was Mary A. Winters, 37 City Attorney. 38 39 RYAN, Board Member; HOLSTUN, Board Chair; BASSHAM, Board Member, 40 participated in the decision. 41 42 REMANDED 4111012414 43 44 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the 45 provisions of ORS 197.850. Page 1 1 ()pinion by Ryan. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioners appeal a decision by a county lte:iritti=s officer approving an aI) Iie litair fiat 4 site plan review for a new aviation fueling station ;ri the lie trcl ivlsiirieiparl Airport. 5 MOTION TO INTERVENE 6 Leading Edge Aviation, Inc., the applicant below (Leading Edge) and the City of 7 Bend (together, intervenors) each move to intervene on the side o1 the Fes'ndunl in the 8 appeal. The motions are granted. 9 FACTS 10 The Bend Municipal Airport is owned by the city but located outside the city on 11 property zoned and regulated by the county, The runway at the airport runs north and south, 12 and the area to the west of the runway is developed with hangars, parking areas, and other 13 aviation-related businesses, including petitioners' fueling business. There is some 14 development in the area to the east of the runway as well, although it is less developed than 15 the area west of the runway. I6 Leading Edge applied to the county for site plan approval for a new aviation fueling 17 station at the airport, to be located to the north of its existing aircraft rental and instruction 18 business that is located west of the runway. The bearings officer approved the application, 19 and petitioners appealed the decision to the county board of commissioners. The board of 20 commissioners declined review, and this appeal followed. 21 FIRST AND SECOND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The central dispute in this appeal is over the applicability and effect of the county's 23 adopted Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan on the site plan review application. In order to 24 understand petitioners' assignments of error and our resolution of them, a brief overview of 25 the county's plan and zoning regulation of the airport is necessary. Page 2 1 A. Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan 2 The current adopted version of the c:utrnly':; Transportation f ortation Systetrr I'Iaru (TSI.) 3 incorporates the "199,1 I%end FVlrrnleip a I Airport Master PItltC ars amended by a 20(12. 4 Supplerneni.l The TSP describes the fiend Municipal Airport Master Plain, which we refer to 5 as the airport master plan: 6 "!n order to guide airport land tISCS, the ('caurtly adopted and utilizes the 1994 7 Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan, as amended in 200).. the `Supplement to 8 1994 Airport Master Plan,' which is incorporated by ret.rence herein. This is 9 the guiding document for airport planning, and development. This document 10 incorporates a range of farcility improvements aur the 13cnd Municipal Airport 11 over the 20 -year planning horizon (2021), including shot, intermediate:, and 12 Iong-term projects to improve safety and function at the airport_ In 2003 the 13 County adopted IXC 18.76, Airport Development (Al)) Zone to identify 14 outright permitted and conditional activities at the airport. The County in 2001 15 adopted DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combing Zone (AS) to ensure 16 surrounding land uses and :structures were compatible with airport operations." 17 2012 TSP 48.2 I8 The airport master plan includes six drawings called "Airport Layout Plans." Record I9 214, 220-225. As relevant here, the airport master plan includes Drawing 1, labeled "Airport 20 Layout Plan," and Drawing 6, labeled "On -Airport Land lJse Plan." Record 220, 225. The 21 airport master plan explains that "[Drawing 11 presents the existing and ultimate airport 22 layout and depicts the improvements that are recommended to meet forecast aviation 23 demand.[,]" and that "[Drawing 6] depicts the recommended uses of airport property 24 associated with the ALP[.]" Record 21.5, 218. The airport master plan goes on to explain 25 that the west side of the airport, the northern half of the east side of the airport, and an area 26 surrounding a pond and along the cast edge of the airport boundary, are shown in Drawing 6 The TSP is incorporated into the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCCP). 2 The airport master plan was apparently supplemented in 2007, hut that supplement does not appear to be relevant to this appeal, Record 89, Page 3 1 as "Aviation Support," and that "Aviation •Relaled Inclusiri;tl" areas ,Iry located on the east 2 side of the airport. Record 21g-219. 3 Both Drawing 1 and Drawing f, prelude a "Buildingij 1.cgcnd" that depicts "FINistirrl=," 4 buildings and development and "Future" buildings and clevelcrprrrcul by circled numbers. 5 "Fuel storage" is depicted on both legends under the "1?x istirrg" column Citi "1." "F uel storage 6 reserve" is depicted on both drawing legends under the "future" column as "17." Although it 7 is not possible to tell from the scale of Drawings 1 and 6 included in the record where "1" is 8 located within the airport, we undcrsturnd that petitioners' existing thel storage is labeled "1- 9 1"9 and is located on the west side of lire runway, and the "future" "fuel storage reserve" labeled 10 as "17" is located on the east side of the runway. As discussed below, one of the issues to 11 this appeal is whether the airport master plan or its drawings limit development of new fuel I2 storage facilities to the east side of the runway. 13 B. Deschutes County Code Section 18.76 14 The airport is designated and zoned "Airport Development" (AD) on the county's 15 comprehensive plan and zoning maps, As explained above, Deschutes County Code (DCC) 16 Section 18.76 governs development in the AD zone. The AD zoning district is comprised of 17 three separate zoning sub -districts: the Airfield Operations District (AOD), the Aviation 18 Support District (ASD) and the Aviation -Related Industrial District (ARID). "Fuel storage 19 and sales" is identified as "permitted outright" in all three zoning subdistricts. The fueling 20 station is proposed to be located on property zoned AOD, on the west side of the runway.3 We use a large number of acronyms in this opinion. We set them al! out here for reference. AD Airport Development_ The county zoning designation for the subject property. ALPs Airport Layout Plans. There are six ALPs in the airport master plan. AOD Airfield Operations District. One of three subdistricts in the AD coning district. ARID Aviation -Related Industrial District. One of three subdistricts in the AD zoning district, Page 4 1 C. Assignments of EE',rror. ? As explained above, the hearings officer approved die. application and concluded that 3 she was not required to consider whether the application is consistent with the airport master 4 plan because the application proposes ar use permitted outright iii the At )1) 'zone: 5 "The Hearings Officer finds J that] 1 need not reach the merits of The Flight 6 Shop's arguments concerning application of the Airport Masser flan and Al A' 7 to the applicant's proposal because the plain language of Section 18.76.101) 8 makes it applicable only to conditional uses and not to uses permitted outright 9 in the AOD zone under Section 18.76.070(A) such as `file] storage and sales.' 10 As discussed in the findings above, 1 have found the applicant's proposal falls 11 within this outright permitted use.""r Record 55. 12 in their first assignment 01. error, petitioners argue that the hearings officer misconstrued 13 DCC 18.76.070 and DCC 18.76.101) and provisions of the TSP in concluding that the county 14 is not required to determine whether the proposed fueling station is consistent with the airport 15 master plan. ASD Aviation Support District. One of three subdistricts in the AD zoning district. 4 DCC 18.76.070, "Airfield Operations District," provides in relevant pari: "Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses arc permitted outright: "A. Runway. taxiway, service road, fuel storage and sales and emergency repair. "B. Facilities approved or mandated by the FAA or Oregon State Aeronautics Division specifically supporting airport operations." (Emphasis added,) DCC 18.76.100, "Design and Use Criteria," provides in relevant part: "The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall take into account the impact of any proposed conditional use within the AD Zone on nearby residential and commercial uses, and on the capacity of transportation and other public facilities and services. In approving a proposed conditional use, the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find that: "A. The proposed use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan as amended (supplemented) in 2002. * * *" Page 5 I Petitioners first argue that the porpctsc- starlc'rrr(1rrl tor Ihc. A1) 4011e, DC( 18.7t',.010, 2 requires the county to determine that the tipphr;rlion fisc ;c liieling station is consistent nt villi 3 the airport master plan.' I)("C ` 18.76.1)10 provides: 4 "The purpose of [he Airport I)evelopirtenl Al))1Zone is to allow liar 5 development compatible with ongoing tiir•pairi 1180 corm -slew will) the 6 Deschutes County Year 20111) Comprehensive Plan and the 19)4 Rend Airport 7 Master Plan (as amended by a 2002 supplement), while providing for public 8 review of proposed development likely to have significant impact on 9 surrounding lands. The Al) Zone k composed of three separate zoning, 14 districts, each with its own set of allowed uses and distinct regulations, as 11 further set forth in DC'C" 18.76." (Emphasis added.) 12 Petitioners maintain that the hearings officer's decision fails to give effect to DCC. 18.76.1)10. 13 Petitioners argue that while I)C'C 18.76.100 specifically requires the county to determine 14 whether the proposal is "in compliance with the * * * Airport Master Plan" when reviewing 15 certain proposed conditional uses, and DCC 18.76J)70 allows fuel storage as an outright 16 pennitted use in the AOD zoning district, nothing in the language of either provision 17 indicates that uses permitted outright may be approved without demonstrating that they are 18 "in compliance with the * * * Airport Master Plan" under DCC 1836.010. See n 4. 19 Petitioners also argue that the language of the TSP itself requires the application to be 20 consistent with the airport master plan. Petitioners rely on the provision of the TSP quoted 21 above that describes the airport master plan as the "guiding document for airport planning 22 and development," and argue that the TSP and the airport master plan require that any new 23 development at the airport must be consistent with the airport master plan. According to Petitioners also cite ORS 197.175(2)(d) in support of their argument. ORS 197.175(2)(d) provides that counties with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations must "make !and use decisions * * in compliance with the acknowledged plan and land use regulations[,]" Leading Edge responds that petitioners are precluded from raising an issue regarding ORS 197_175(2)(d) because petitioners failed to cite ORS 197.172(2)(d) during the proceedings before the hearings officer. At oral argument, petitioners responded that the "issue" that was raised during the proceedings below was whether the county's decision is consistent with applicable provisions of the DCCP, including the TSP and the airport master plan, and that their lack of citation to ORS 197.175(2)(d) during the proceedings below does not preclude them from raising that issue_ We agree with petitioners.. Page 6 1 petitioners, the text of the airport master Ilan and the Al,I's ;atl;telied to the airport master ? plan as Drawings 1 through (1 re/uin' rww ladling Mations to he latt°.nled ettt;I of lite runway, 3 and approval of an application that locales ;t new fueling station ,vest of the runway is 4 inconsistent with the airport master pian. Petition for Review 9. 5 Intervenors respond first that Leading 1{cigcc's application was not required ler satisfy 6 DCC 18.76.010 because I)(`(' 18,76,t)10 is nol properly viewed its an approval criterion. 7 According to intervenors, the airport master plan is no longer relevant alter adoption of the 8 AD zoning regulations. Intervenors argue That 1R V 1 K.76.tl10 merely expresses the county's 9 conclusion that the zoning regulations that follow in IX 'C 18.76 are consistent with the 10 DCCP and the airport master plan, and docs not require new development that is permitted 11 outright under the AD zoning regulations to also separately detnonst.rate that such 12 development is consistent with the airport master plan. Intervenors argue that petitioners' 13 interpretation of DCC 18.76.010 as requiring review of outright permitted uses for 14 consistency with the airport master plan renders the requirement in DCC 18.76.100 for 15 conditional uses to show "compliance with" the airport master plan superfluous.f' Intervenors 16 argue that the fact that the parts of DCC 18.76 that specifically apply to outright permitted 17 uses do not include a similar requirement for those outright permitted uses means that the 18 county deliberately chose not to require such a showing of "compliance with" the airport 19 master plan for outright permitted uses. 20 Intervenors also respond that the language of the TSP that petitioners rely on is non - 21 mandatory and merely advisory, because it describes the master plan as a "guiding 22 document." Intervenors also point to the language of the TSP that describes the function of 23 the airport master plan in conjunction with DCC 18,76, and argue that the TSP recognizes 24 that DCC 18.76 provides the only approval criteria for development at the airport. 5 As explained above, DCC 18.76,100 requires the county to find that certain proposed conditional uses are "in compliance with" the airport master plan. See n 4. Page 7 I Finally, intervenors resparntl tlrrt the location of the proposed fuel storage station is 2 consistent with the text of the airport master plan because nothing in the language the 3 airport master plan relied on by petitioners, or the Al is attached to the airport roaster plan, 4 either prescribe or proscribe development in a particular location. In particular, intervenors 5 point out that ALP attached to the airport master plan as Drawing 6 depicts areas 011 hath the 6 west side and the east side of the runway as encompassing "Aviation Operations," "Aviation 7 Support," and "Aviation -Related Industrial" uses. Record 225. Because fuel storage and 8 sales are permitted outright in the Aol), ASI_) and ARII) zoning districts under DCC 18.76, 9 intervenors argue, there can be no inconsistency with the On Airport land Use ALP in 10 allowing fuel storage and sales on the west side of the runway, which is zoned AOl). 11 ORS 197.835(9)(0(D) allows LUBA to remand the county's decision if it 12 "[i]niproperly construes] the applicable law[.]" The hearings officer concluded that because 13 DCC I8.76.100 expressly requires that conditional uses in the airport zones must comply 14 with the master plan, but does not include an express requirement to that effect with respect 15 to permit -ted uses, the master plan simply does not apply in approving permitted uses. We I6 17 of DCC 18.76. The master plan is adopted as part of the TSP, which is part of the county's 18 comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is frequently a potential source of approval 19 standards or requirements with respect to development approvals, and if such standards or 20 requirements exist in the comprehensive plan, then ORS I97.175(2)(d), if nothing else, 21 requires that development comply with such standards or requirements. That DCC 18.76 22 does not specify that permitted uses must comply with the master plan, or any other part of 23 the comprehensive plan, does not mean that, as a matter of law, the master plan includes no 24 applicable requirements for permitted development within the airport zones. If in fact the agree with petitioners that the hearings officer's interpretation infers too much from the text 25 master plan includes a requirement that applies to proposed development, for example, an Page 8 1 express or implied prohibition on locating new fuel facilities in certain locations of the 2 airport, then such requirement must be complied with./ 3 The relevant question, then, is whether the airport master plan includes any applicable 4 standards or requirements with respect to lite proposed fuel storage facility. More 5 specifically, the relevant question is whether the airport toaster plan precludes approval of a 6 fueling station on the west side of the runway in the proposed location. The hearings officer 7 never reached that question, relying instead on inferences drawn from the text of 13CC_: 18.76 8 to conclude that as a matter of law the master plan does not apply to permitted uses. As 9 explained above, that conclusion is an insufficient basis to conclude that the master plan 10 includes no requirements that apply in approving the proposed fuel storage facility. 11 In their second assignment of error, petitioners argue that the master plan prohibits 12 locating a fuel storage facility in the proposed location. Intervenors respond that the airport 13 master plan neither prescribes nor proscribes the location of the proposed fueling station. 14 Those are questions that the hearings officer must consider in the first instance on remand. 15 Therefore, we do not reach the second assignment of error. 16 The first assignment of error is sustained_ I7 The county's decision is remanded. As an example, runways are allowed in ail three zoning districts as outright permitted uses. However, the master plan depicts the existing and future expansion areas for runways, and all of the existing and future airport development is based on the location of the runway as planned in the master plan. Under the hearings officer's interpretation, the runway could be moved or expanded in ways that are entirely inconsistent with the master plan. But we cannot imagine that the county could approve, without consideration of the master plan, a proposal to site a fueling station as an outright permitted use in an area designated on the airport master plan for expansion of the runway, because runway expansion is necessarily limited by the location of the existing runway to one or two areas of the entire airport. Page 9 ('crtiIic;il.e or M:liliilj', 1 hereby certify that 1 served the foregrrirlt! Final Opinion ion ;rlrcl 1 )rdui 1011,1 WA No.: l)1 i 0/ i on January 10, 2014, by mailing hl s;rid parties or their allot:Ic:y it wile° copy diet ci)l-eortlaiIRA in a sealed envelope with postap,e prep id ulclrc'rs:sc{I Ica si1141 lr,2rlies 111 the it irltss111c:y:r; follows: Gary Firestone City of Bend 710 NW Wall St Bend, OR 97701 Laurie E. Craghcad Assistant Legal Counsel Deschutes County Counsel 1300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701-1960 Michael H. McGean Francis Hansen & Martin LLP 1148 NW Hill Street Bend, OR 97701 Sharon R. Smith Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis PC 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, OR 97702 Datcd this l Oth day of January, 2014. Kristi Seyfried Executive Support Specialist File No: BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) SP 13-7 (A-14-2, A-13-4) ) ) (LUBA 2013-073) ) ) REQUEST TO DISMISS APPLICANT: Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. 63048 Powell Butte Highway Bend, Oregon 97701 PROPERTY City of Bend OWNER: 710 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 ATTORNEY: Sharon R. Smith Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, PC 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, Oregon 97702 APPLICATION: Applicant is requesting Site Plan approval for a fueling station in the Airport Development Zone on remand from LUBA. LOCATION: The project site is located at the City of Bend Municipal Airport and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Tax Map 17-13- 20, as Tax Lot 200. I. REQUEST TO DISMISS: Applicant requests that the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") dismiss the appeal (A-14-2) filed by Professional Air, Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC (collectively "the Opponents") as not perfected because the Opponents failed to provide a transcript prior to the date set for the receipt of written legal argument as required by Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 22.32.024. II. BACKGROUND: DCC 22.32.024(A) requires an appellant to provide a complete transcript of the hearing appealed from and DCC 22.32.024(B) requires that the appellant submit the transcript to the Planning Division prior to the close of the day on the date set for receipt of written legal argument for an on -the -record appeal. In Order No. 2014-015, the Board ordered that the appeal be heard on -the - record and established that written argument must be submitted by June 18, 2014. To date, the Planning Division has not received a transcript from the Opponents. III. BASIS FOR DISMISSAL: Failure to comply with DCC 22.32.024 is jurisdictional as the language in DCC 22.32.024 is mandatory ("appellants shall provide a complete transcript," "appellants shall submit to the Request to Dismiss Page 1 of 3 ;16923008-00454923;3y Planning Division the transcript no later than..."). Moreover, DCC 22.32.024 expressly states "an appellant's failure to provide a transcript shall cause the Board to decline to consider the appellant's appeal further and shall, upon notice mailed to the parties, cause the lower Hearings Body's decision to become final." There is precedent for dismissing an appeal for failure to submit a transcript. In Bjerk v. Deschutes County, 26 Or. LUBA 439 (1994), the Board dismissed an appeal for failure to submit a transcript under prior code language imposing a similar transcript requirement. Then DCC 22.32.015(3) provided, "The transcript of the hearing may be submitted to the Community Development Department within 10 days after the date the notice of appeal is filed or within ten (10) days after the hearing tape is mailed or given to the appellant, whichever is later." Despite the permissive "may" in then DCC 22.32.015(3) and the petitioner's attempts to secure an extension, the Board upheld the Planning Director's decision to dismiss the appeal because timely submission of the transcript is required by the DCC and there was no mechanism to grant an extension request. The Board specifically found that submission of a transcript is "an essential element of perfecting an appeal." LUBA affirmed the Board's decision based on the County's interpretation of its code. In 1996, the County adopted DCC 22.32.024 to clarify the transcript submittal requirements. In lieu of making timely submission of the transcript permissive, the Board selected language that expressly requires the Board to dismiss an appeal where a transcript is not submitted prior to deadlines established by the DCC. Moreover, the Board decided not to add an opportunity to extend the deadline for submission. Rather, the Board adopted DCC 22.32.024(C), which describes situations in which an appellant may be excused from transcript submission deadlines (inability of the Planning Division to supply the recording or a defect in the recording). None of the bases for excusal apply to Opponents and, in any event, Opponents have not filed a timely request to be excused from this requirement. The Opponents may argue that the prior hearing was recorded electronically and therefore there are no "magnetic tapes" for the Planning Division to provide or that the Planning Division did not provide any copies of the recording. It is our understanding that the Opponents never requested the recording from the Planning Division so the medium on which the recording is contained is irrelevant and the Planning Division could have provided magnetic tapes had there been a request. Secondly, the DCC does not require that the Planning Division preemptively provide the recording. While the prior language in then DCC 23.32.015(3) indicated that the Planning Division would mail or provide a copy of the recording, such language was omitted from DCC 23.32.024 and the Board should make a finding interpreting this provision as placing the onus on the appellant to obtain a recording. Request to Dismiss Page 2 of 3 (16923008-00454923:3) IV. CONCLUSION The Opponents' failure to timely supply a transcript as required by DCC 23.32.024 is jurisdictional pursuant to the express language of the DCC. The Board must dismiss the Opponents' appeal. Submitted this 23rd day of June, 2014. Request to Dismiss Page 3 of 3 BRYANT, LOVLIEN & JARVIS, P.C. Sharon R. Smith OSB#862920 Garrett Chrostek OSB#122965 Of Attorneys for Applicant {16923008-00454923;3} BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) File No: SP 13-7 (A-14-2, A-13-4) (LUBA 2013-073) APPELLANTS' RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO DISMISS Appellants Professional Air and Aero Facilities LLC respond to applicant's Request to Dismiss as follows. I. THE TRANSCRIPT IS FILED Appellants have indeed filed the complete transcript from the hearing on remand, after the Planning Division provided a CD recording of that hearing on June 24, 2014. A true copy of that complete transcript has been served upon applicant through its attorneys. II. THE CD RECORDING WAS JUST NOW "PROVIDED" TO APPELLANTS BY THE COUNTY The ordinance that applicant cites, Deschutes County Code 22.32.024, requires the Planning Division to provide "magnetic tapes" of a hearing for the appellants to transcribe. Even if a CD recording is considered to be a "magnetic tape", that ordinance still requires the County to affirmatively provide such a recording. In this case, the Planning Division provided a recording to appellants immediately upon receipt of the applicant's objection, and the appellants immediately filed the transcript. Accordingly, all requirements of DCC 22.32.024 have been met, and appellants filed the transcript as soon as practicably possible upon receipt of the recording provided by the Planning Division. III. THE TRANSCRIPT WAS NOT LATE The period for written argument in this appeal is in fact still open, as the applicant has until July 2, 2014 to file its final written argument, and therefore the transcript is not even late under DCC 22.32.024. IV. APPLICANT HAS SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE It is especially noteworthy that the applicant has not pointed to any prejudice whatsoever that it has suffered or could suffer from any late filing of the transcript. The hearing testimony was summarized at great length in the Hearings Officer's decision on remand, which was entirely favorable to the applicant. Further, the applicant has full use of the complete transcript in the submission of its final written argument by July 2, 2014. Applicant does not complain of any prejudice or harm that it may have suffered, because there was none. V. DCC 22.32.024 IS NOT JURISDICTIONAL Applicant's contention that DCC 22.32.024 amounts to a "jurisdictional" requirement is unsupported and incorrect as a matter of law. A jurisdictional requirement is one that by its very nature can't be excused or waived, whereas DCC 22.32.024 expressly provides that its timing requirement may be excused, even if they have been violated (and appellants dispute that there has been any violation). Applicant misrepresents the ordinance to the Board by claiming that "DCC 22.32.024 is jurisdictional pursuant to the expressed language of the DCC." (Request to Dismiss at p. 3). There is no such express language making DCC 22.32.024 a jurisdictional element. A separate statute, DCC 22.32.022 does in fact contain a specific express list of jurisdictional elements for an appeal to the Board, and the transcript deadline is expressly not included in that list. See DCC 22.32.022. Accordingly, the specific reference and list items that are expressly jurisdictional indicates the legislative intent to exclude other specific items not so listed. Please note that that specific statute, DCC 22.32.022 ("determination of jurisdictional defects") does not contain any general language indicating that other jurisdictional elements may exist. It simply states: "Any failure to conform to the requirements of DCC 22.32.015 and 22.32.020 shall constitute a jurisdictional defect." It would have been easy for the Board to have included a reference to the transcript requirement of DCC 22.32.024 in that ordinance as a jurisdictional defect if it had intended to do so. It is also clear in cases like this that there is a presumption that a requirement is not jurisdictional: "In the quasi judicial or judicial arena, the question of when failure to follow certain requirements is a jurisdictional defect necessitating dismissal of an appeal is not entirely clear. However, it does appear that the trend is not to dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with procedural requirements unless the legislative intent behind the procedural requirements clearly is that the requirements be construed as jurisdictional. See B&L Holdings v. City of Corvallis, Or LUBA (1980)." Tribbet v. Benton County, 2 Or LUBA 161 (1981). The 1994 case cited by applicant is irrelevant because by applicant's own admission it was based on an entirely different and obsolete code. In this case, applicant cannot identify any authority for its misleading claim that DCC 22.32.024 is jurisdictional because no such authority exists. Applicant's request for dismissal must therefore be denied. VI. PUBLIC POLICY SUPPORTS A DECISION ON TIIE MERTIS It is revealing that the applicant has only chosen to complain about the transcript deadline now, after the submission of initial argument, and without pointing to any conceivable prejudice or harm it suffered. Applicant would clearly like to avoid having the merits of this appeal considered. However, the Board made a decision that there are important questions of policy and interpretation that warrant the Board's review of this appeal. Appellants and applicant testified at the hearing, and have submitted written argument already to the Board for its consideration. Significantly, applicant did not make any complaint or objection to the lack of a transcript in its initial argument, which would have been the time and place to do so and waived any objection to the transcript not been having filed by that time. Applicant still has a week to use that transcript in its written argument should it choose to do so. Applicant has presented no compelling policy reasons why the appeal should be dismissed without a decision on the merits, while public policy and the Board's order accepting this appeal would support a decision on the merits based upon the record and the parties' written submissions. Applicant's "Request to Dismiss" must therefore be denied. Respectfully submitted this 25th day of June 2014. FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP I Michael H. McGeari OSB #004734 Attorney for Appellants Professional Air and Aero Facilities LLC C.E. "WIN" FRANCIS MARTIN E. HANSEN* GERALD A. MARTIN MICHAEL H. MCGEAN t *ADMITTED IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON FH Vt FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1148 NW HILL STREET, BEND, OR 97701-1914 PHONE: 541-389-5010 • FAX: 541-382-7068 WWW. FRANCISHANSEN.COM June 25, 2014 William Groves, Senior Planner Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend OR 97701 Re: SP137 Leading Edge Aviation Inc. Site Plan Application Remand from LUBA Dear Will: CHRISTOPHER J. MANFREDI t ALISON A. HUYCKE SARAH E. HARLOS ALISON G. HOHENGARTEN t ADMITTED IN OREGON AND CALIFORNIA Enclosed please find a complete transcript of the March 4, 2014 hearing on remand, from the CD and link provided this week. Sincerely, FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP A4•441) MICHAEL H. McGEAN MHM/bh Enclosure cc: Sharon Smith (w/enclosure) Laurie Craghead (w/enclosure) Clients (w/enclosure) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICE FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY In the Matter of the Review ) of the Application of ) )Application No. SP -013-7 LEADING EDGE AVIATION, INC., ) ) Applicant. ) ) ) PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND commencing on March 4, 2014, before Hearings Officer Karen Green in Bend, Oregon, transcribed by GENIE L. KELLEY, R.P.R., C.M., C.S.R. #90-0149. ORIGINAL CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 For Applicant: For Opponent: APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL SHARON SMITH, ESQ. Bryant, Lovlien and Jarvis 591 S.w. Mill View Way Bend, Oregon 97702 MICHAEL McGEAN, ESQ. Francis, Hansen and Martin 1148 N.W. Hill Street Bend, Oregon 97701 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Good evening. My name is Karen Greene. I'm the hearings officer for this evening's hearing. we just have one matter on the agenda tonight, and that is a hearing on a remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals of a decision that 1 issued, gosh, must be a year ago, year and a half ago. 1 can't even remember. Anyway, the LUBA number is 2013-073. The original applicant is the Flight Shop -- excuse me, is Leading Edge Aviation. The opponent and one of the parties at LUBA is The Flight Shop, Incorporated and Aero Facilities, and both Deschutes county and 1 believe the city of Bend were parties to the LUBA matter. So, the case is before me because 1 was the hearings officer that issued the decision that was remanded by LUBA, and these proceedings will follow the county's procedures for remand proceedings that are specified in the county's code. However, because the hearing will be conducted essentially in the same manner as any land use hearing on any other type of case, what 1 want to do is go through the procedures for land use hearings as 1 normally do at the beginning of a hearing and I'll note if there are any changes as a result of this being a remand as opposed to more of CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 an ordinary type of land use application. The purpose of the hearing tonight is for me to receive relevant testimony and evidence related to the remand and pertinent to the remand from LUBA. The order of proceedings will be as follows: I'll open the public hearing, I'll ask for a staff report from will Groves, and then I'll hear from the applicant, the original applicant, then I'll hear from the opponent, and any parties who were parties to the previous proceeding may also appear at the remand. 1 was unable to find my notes from the original hearing so 1 do not have a record of who else testified at the original hearing and -- will, 1 don't know if you do or not. If that becomes an issue we will discuss that at that time. So if there are members of the public who testified at the original hearing that preceded the decision that was remanded, they would be allowed to testify again tonight, first in support and then in opposition. If there is opposing testimony, I'll allow the applicant a brief period for oral rebuttal and then I'll hear any final comments from staff. In order to give testimony, as always you need to raise your hand and let me acknowledge you and invite you to come up to the table to your right and my CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 left where there is a microphone, and as always i'll ask you to first take a moment to print your name and address on the sign-up sheet and then state your name and address for the record. if you are submitting written materials, which I know the parties already have done, if you are intending to do that as well I appreciate that, I thank you for written testimony, I just would ask that you not read it verbatim into the record tonight at the oral hearing but just give me the highlights or refer to it in your -- in your testimony. Oregon law requires me to make a couple of disclosures before I hear any land use matter. one is whether or not I've had any of what we call ex parte contacts, which would be contacts between myself and a party to this matter outside of the public hearing, and I'll state at this time that I've had no ex parte contacts between the last hearing and tonight's hearing. My only contacts have been with staff to obtain a copy of the decision from LUBA, materials that are in the record, and to schedule tonight's hearing. I also will disclose that I've taken no testimony outside of the public record. I've not conducted a site visit, another site visit to the property following my decision, which was remanded by CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 LUBA. 1 did conduct a site visit prior to that hearing, and my observations and impressions from that site visit are in the record from the previous hearing. Any party may challenge my qualifications to act as hearings officer in this matter, if you believe that 1 cannot be impartial, and although 1 was the hearings officer in the previous matter and that's why it's before me again, you are still entitled to have an impartial fact finder and decision maker, so if anyone believes that 1 cannot be impartial now is the time to -- to challenge me. Does anyone wish to challenge my qualifications? okay, hearing none I'll proceed. Unless 1 hear an objection 1 will rely on the prior circulation of staff's original staff report as well as the LUBA decision to identify the issues that are before me tonight and on remand. Any testimony or evidence that you present tonight needs to address the issue or issues listed in the LUBA decision for remand, and this is where things are a little different in a remand. The county's remand procedures -- sorry, 1 was going to get these open a moment ago. They are in chapter 22, 1 think it's 34. Excuse me, chapter 22:34 limits the scope of the -- of hearings on remand to those issues that were CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 identified by LUBA, and specifically section 22:34:040 describes under what circumstances those issues can be expanded, and that's basically when the Board of Commissioners enters an order directing that the remand either be expanded or constricted. In this case, as far as I know there is no order from the board; is that correct, will? MR. GROVES: That is correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Nothing specifically from the board, so the issues before me are only those that are identified in the LUBA decision. Any issues or evidence outside of that limited issue I cannot consider on remand. Okay. The failure to address any issue, relevant issue on the remand with sufficient detail for me to understand it, respond to it in my decision, may preclude an appeal on that issue. It's what we call the raise -it -or -waive -it rule. So any -- any claim that you want to make or any argument that you want to make related to the issue on remand needs to be addressed clearly enough at this point that I -- at this level that I can address it and resolve it in my decision. similarly, any -- any claim that -- particularly that the applicant wants to make regarding CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 a condition of approval or some other matter that might be a claim of a constitutional violation or something exceeding the county's authority, any such claim needs to also be made clearly enough at this level for me to resolve it in my decision or you may lose the opportunity to raise that same claim down the road in a -- in a civil case for damages, for example. Okay. Any questions about the procedure we are going to follow tonight before I get started? Okay. As usual, housekeeping matters, if you have an electronic device that rings or buzzes loudly please turn it off. If you need to take or make a phone call during the hearing, that's fine, just please do us the courtesy of doing that out in the hallway. If you need to use the restroom or drinking fountain, they are down the hall and around the corner. Okay. I think with that, unless there are any questions about procedure, I will open the hearing and ask for a staff report. Will. MR. GROVES: Good evening. For the record, Will Groves, Deschutes County Planning. I have no additional materials to submit into the record at this time. Again, the LUBA number that is on remand is 2013-073, and the remand was initiated with an effective date of February 18th, 2014. As you are CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 aware, we have 90 days to process this remand. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That was February 18th? MR. GROVES: February 18th. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. GROVES: The letter's dated earlier than that but the -- it specifies that that's the effective date of the remand. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. So just for clarification for anyone who doesn't know what we are talking about, that means that the decision, any final decision from the county, including any decision from the board on appeal from my decision needs to be issued no later than 90 days from the 18th of February, which I'm guessing is somewhere around the 18th of May, give or take a day or two, unless the applicant extends that time, which the applicant is -- is authorized to do under statute. So we have a little bit tighter time frame on remands than we normally do. Okay. MR. GROVES: Then regarding the status of the record, you are in -- you are currently holding all paper that is in the record. You have your own copy of that. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 MR. GROVES: There were materials that were submitted prior to the hearing and some that were submitted just now prior to the hearing. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. So I have - let me just cover -- let me just talk about what 1 have to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. 1 have a letter, cover letter dated February 11th from Sharon Smith on behalf -- excuse me -- on behalf of Leading Edge, to which is attached the LUBA -- their LUBA brief. I have a burden of proof submitted 1 think just tonight from Leading Edge. 1 have a letter dated March 4th, 2014 from the City of Bend, from Gary Firestone from the City of Bend, and then 1 also have a cover letter dated March 4th, 2014, with -- from Mr. McGean and looks like it's a three-page letter with a number of attachments to it, and on top of that 1 see that 1 also have some oversized airport plans. Mr. McGean, did you submit these as well or -- Sharon, you did? okay. All right. So 1 also have those. These have some markings on them so it looks like there is some things specifically identified and Ms. Smith can explain what those are when she testifies. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 So, that is what I have, along with my own copy of the decision that I issued originally. Is there anything else that's been submitted, Will, that I don't have? MR. GROVES: So, there was a LUBA record prepared by the county that captured all materials that were submitted up to and including the board's declining to hear this matter. That's available as a bound record and we can make that available to you. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. GROVES: Also, a number of materials were submitted to LUBA directly during their procedures. I have not imported anything myself from that, other than the LUBA decision itself. In talking with the parties before the hearing, it's my understanding that you should have all materials that were before LUBA with the exclusion of the city's brief. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. GROVES: And -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: The city's brief before LUBA? MR. GROVES: Before LUBA. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. GROVES: So it's my intention to get that into the record. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So is it your understanding that that's everything that was submitted to LUBA in addition to the record submitted by the county? MR. GROVES: Yes, excluding, you know, there is a variety of letters that go back and forth that don't include testimony or argument submissions, just kind of -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: General correspondence? MR. GROVES: General correspondence. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. GROVES: And to the extent that the parties would like to see those in the record, I don't know why they would, but they are welcome to submit them. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So, what I -- what I normally like to do in a remand is to have the LUBA record as the record, as a part of the record, so that we can all refer to the same documents by the LUBA designation. I know that county legal counsel is not crazy about having -- well, let me put it this way. It's a little -- gets a little complicated if the LUBA record is part of the remand record because then you end up with potentially two copies of the LUBA record CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 in the record. so, if there is a way that you can think of that we might be able to do that, maybe by just having that be a reference for me and if I need to cite pieces of the record by the LUBA record without actually incorporating the record into this record, perhaps that's the way we can do it, but in any case if I want to look at something that was submitted to me in the original matter I would like to be able to do that, and the place to find that is in the LUBA record and the way to refer to that it seems to me is by the designation in the LUBA record. So I would appreciate any ideas that you have on how I might do that without duplicating the LUBA record in this record, and I think that's what county counsel's concern is is just not ending up with several copies of the same record in the record. Okay. Anything else, will? MR. GROVES: That's all. Thank you. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. All right. So I will hear from the applicant. MS. SMITH: Good evening. Sharon Smith on behalf of the applicant, Leading Edge Aviation. With regard to the LUBA designated reference -- record, I understand your preference to CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 have materials that we might cite to reference the LUBA record where possible. I also think we will need to reference any additional materials that get submitted, and I'll try and do both of those things. I know that materials have come in today. I haven't had a chance to review Mr. Firestone's letter, and I received Mr. McGean's materials late afternoon, so it wasn't my intention to respond directly to either of those tonight but will ask that the record remain open, we can address that at the end of the hearing, to address those in writing, and I will try and do kind of a cross citation where I can to any new materials as well as where it might be in the LUBA record, but I think there is really no easy way to avoid having the LUBA record be part of this record if we are going to do that. what we could do is make sure that we only have one set in the records, so I'll work with Mr. McGean and staff to -- to accomplish that. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And I just don't know but it may be sufficient for me simply to make reference to the record location for things that are in the LUBA record and simply use the LUBA record as, you know, a document. MS. SMITH: Historical document. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Historical document CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 that I'm -- that I'm using for reference, so which would be the easiest way to do it. MS. SMITH: Sure. And I'll work with staff and Mr. McGean and make sure that we can accommodate that if legally possible to do that. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: Typically, you have read the decision, I'm assuming, and the briefs, and so it wasn't my intention to go through all of the same arguments. Many of the arguments we made in the LUBA brief are applicable to this because LUBA really stated that the comprehensive plan is a potential source of criteria and I think deferred to you to address that on remand. The question they posed is whether the Airport Master Plan includes any applicable standards or requirement with respect to the fuel facility. They did not say that there were any applicable requirements, but that it just needed to be addressed. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: 5o i5 it -- is it your understanding that the LUBA decision did not reject the arguments that you made but simply said they need to be made before me and I need to address them? MS. SMITH: That is my interpretation and understanding of the remand, if you -- if you read the CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 specific question they posed, and they did very clearly state that it was their decision the comprehensive plan was just a potential source and that needed to be addressed on remand. So all of the arguments we made with regard to why the Airport Master Plan is not prescriptive, does not contain approval criteria such that it, you know, is mandatory approval criterion that would prohibit or limit development 1 think are still applicable on remand. We made several arguments regarding looking at the text in the context of the Airport Master Plan as well as the Airport Layout Plans, which, you know, 1 think Mr. McGean somehow assumes that the Airport Layout plans are the Airport Master Plan, and 1 think looking through the text in the context of how the master plan is implemented and how those Airport Layout Plans are updated and -- and modified that those Airport Layout Plans simply cannot act as a -- a static site plan, if you will, but rather are really guides, and there is case law talking about using the term guide and guidance as really providing not approval criterion per se but -- but is something much less than that, and all of those cases are in the -- in the brief that we submitted. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 If you look also to the text in the context of the Airport Master Plan, looking at how the city of Bend uses the Airport Master Plan and how the civil engineer who prepared the Airport Master Plan as well as the Airport Layout Plans, what they describe is a fluid document that is intended to be used as planning tools really primarily for FAA funding, and if you look at the actual history of the Airport Layout Plans and how they get updated, you know, they are -- they change in response to changing economics, they change in response to new development. And so looking at the 2002 Airport Layout Plan and the iterations throughout time to the current Airport Master Plan, which has been recently adopted by the city of Bend in 2000 1 think '13, and I've included the Airport Layout Plans in the materials that 1 submitted today, there is a series of changes that get notated on the Airport Layout Plans by the FAA. There -- Mr. McGean can't point to any language or any text in the Airport Master Plan or the text of the Airport Layout Plan description that says that the A -- that the ALPS are prescriptive. So, when you look at the text, the context and how they are used, they are really guide -- guiding documents. They are not static master plans. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 If you look at the actual development on the -- at the airport today, it doesn't match the 2002 ALP. so, what 1 submitted in addition to the burden of proof for illustration is a series of Airport Layout Plans, and I apologize for not having them marked as an exhibit but 1 will in -- as -- as the -- as we keep the record open, I will provide you a narrative of what I'm going to do descriptively tonight. So the top page shows the 2002 Airport Layout Plan, and you see circled in red a hand -drawn box, and that is an airport hangar, and as you can see it's drawn in, it's not depicted on the 2002 Airport Layout Plan, and it -- it sits on top of a roadway. So the next page is the current 2013 Airport Layout Plan showing in red that hangar building. where it's now shown on the 2013 Airport Layout Plan, it physically exists out there, but it wasn't on the 2002 ALP. So the third page is also the 2002 ALP, and circled in red are facilities that were designated where Aero Facilities' property is located, and circled in red is item number 24, which says aircraft tie -downs, and if you look at the 2002 ALP there are supposed to be aircraft tie -downs and an aircraft apron in that location but that's not what Aero Facilities CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 built there. If you look at the next page, you can see circled in red where the tie -downs and the apron was supposed to be is now slated for hangar development. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Just for clarification, I've not marked this yet, I'm going to call this Exhibit A, but 1 need to mark the individual pages. MS. SMITH: okay. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So if I recall -- if 1 am following you correctly, the one you were just talking about that you called the third page is noted at the bottom right-hand corner drawing number one of six. MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: And it has -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And the next one that you refer me to is the fourth sheet in this attachment, which is labeled sheet three of 13. MS. SMITH: Correct, and that is the current City of Bend approved Airport Layout Plan. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So I think it would be very helpful to have a narrative that identifies what these are, and what I'll do then is CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 I'll -- each of these pages will have a number so it will be A-1, A-2 through A-9, so we will all be able to refer to it by common number. MS. SMITH: Okay. So you can see that a comparison of the 2002 Airport Layout Plan what is -- if this is indeed a prescriptive document, then what's actually out there is not what is on the 2002 plan in the Aero Facilities location. The next page, which would be page five -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: This one is also labeled drawing one of six. MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So it's another copy of that page but with a different -- MS. SMITH: That's correct, a different focus. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- area identified. Right. MS. SMITH: They are just -- these copies are old and they are very hard to read in many instances, so I wanted to make it clearer the illustration that we are -- we are showing. And so again where it says item number 16 and the circled highlighted in yellow, it says FBO, and on the legend looking at the Aero Facilities site, the FBO, which is a fixed -base operator, is supposed to be CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 located kind of in the center of the airport, but that's not what got built there. The FB0 is not there. The next page again is the 2013 approved Airport Layout Plan, and you can see that instead of an FBO there we have got hangar space. So you can't put the FBO there anymore and that's not what -- what is there, but it's not the same as what's on the 2002 Airport Layout Plan. And then the last -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, I understand the point that you are -- that you are making, that you made in your written materials and that you are making here. I'm just wondering if reading LUBA's decision if that's -- how much import that has for LUBA if they believe that the Airport Master Plan is -- in fact, imposes requirements rather than being a guideline, then the fact that it wasn't followed isn't evidence of anything except that it wasn't followed. MS. SMITH: But I don't think that that's what LUBA said. What LUBA said was if looking at the master plan one concludes that there are criteria, then one has to address them. They -- they didn't say that there are criteria there. They just said they need to be addressed. And so when you look at the -- the question CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 they present after they state that the comprehensive plan is a potential source of criteria, the question is whether it includes any applicable standards with respect to the facility, and our argument is if you look at the master plan, you look at the text of the master plan, you look at the context of the master plan, you look at how it's been used historically, what the FAA says about Airport Layout Plans, there is nothing in the Airport Master Plan that says you must follow and build exactly what is on these Airport Layout Plans. It doesn't say that at all and there isn't anything in the record that would point you to that. 1 think you are going to hear from the City of Bend, which provides additional context, text and context, that specifically with regard to the Airport Layout Plans that they aren't criteria, they are a component that they use for planning tools and as guidelines and they get updated and the FAA uses those to -- to show -- when something changes on the airport, they get reflected with a notation on the Airport Layout Plan. The whole form -- FAA form process once you get an approval from the county that is then submitted to the FAA in a form 7460, and the 7460 then says we CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 are approving this, we are going to note it on the Airport Layout Plan, and when the Airport Layout Plan gets updated it will -- it will be on the new plan. So one of the materials that we submitted tonight are the FAA approvals for this facility. So, I think reading carefully what LUBA said was not that there is criteria in the master plan but that it just needs to be considered whether they -- there is criteria there or not, and -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: What's your -- what's your take on the -- on footnote seven on page nine, the hypothetical that Referee Ryan threw out? MS. SMITH: Right. 5o footnote seven says well, you know, we are concerned that you could have -- a runway is an outright permitted use and certainly you would never change the runway location. well, in reality the runway is different than what's on the Airport Layout Plan. It was moved 80 feet to the east, and I've been having a challenge to try and illustrate that on this plan because it's very difficult to -- to show, but the runway was moved and so, in fact, the runway did get moved, but what they -- what LUBA I think didn't recognize was that the form 7460 process addresses those safety concerns. So if the runway got moved and the FAA looked CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 at it and said hmmm, that's, you know, that's not consistent with the rest of the -- the development out there, it wouldn't -- it wouldn't be approved. so it has to go through site plan approval, but the fact of the matter is they did move the runway and hope -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Did that go through county planning? Did that go through a county planning process? MS. SMITH: I don't know. I'll find out. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: The realignment of the runway? MR. GROVES: I'm not sure. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: It obviously went through an FAA process because it was required by the FAA, if 1 recall correctly, the extension of the roadway at least was. MS. SMITH: Right. My understanding, and I am not a -- I am not an expert in airports and runways, but it had to do with the redesignation of the airport and the capacity for larger airplanes, larger aircraft, but I will in the post -submittal materials provide you as much detail about that as I can. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. The footnote seems to assume that that would have been reviewed by the county and that the county would never let that CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 25 happen, so I'm just curious if it -- if the county got to weigh in on that. I don't recall but I wouldn't necessarily remember. MS. SMITH: We can ferret that out, but, you know, I think that they -- they -- they misread -- their parade of horribles I think is unfounded because you would have to, you know, presumably submit a site plan and go through FAA review and that would vet whether or not it's consistent with the rest of the airport development, so -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: If it was subjected to site plan. MS. SMITH: Right. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yeah. MS. SMITH: And FAA approval. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. MS. SMITH: 50, as we illustrated already, the city has updated their Airport Master Plan and it now is -- functions kind of as an as built. Looking back through the years if -- if the conclusion is that the Airport Layout Plan is somehow a static document, then much of the development at the airport is not consistent with the master plan, so I think that would be the wrong result in terms of how to interpret the comprehensive plan and its role in land use approvals. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 There is also a specific provision in the county's comprehensive plan that says the comprehensive plan is not intended to provide review for land use applications, and we cited that in the brief. LUBA didn't -- didn't address that, but I think that is also very relevant to your interpretation of what is the role of the comprehensive plan in Deschutes County, and in particular in this case when we have all of the context and the text of the Airport Master Plan, that it simply doesn't function as approval criteria and particularly the Airport Layout Plans. You look at the -- the way the FAA treats them, the way they are developed and updated, you couldn't possibly use it as a prescriptive tool because things change, and the city I think will weigh in on this that they have to be able to respond to demand and they are required to allow competition at the airport, and if the Airport Layout Plans are static documents, you couldn't possibly do that. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: So, were there any other issues in the materials that you would like additional briefing on, other than the ones that you just touched on? HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: well, I haven't -- obviously haven't had an opportunity to read all of the CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 materials. MS. SMITH: Sure. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And I will leave the record open. No, I mean I'm -- I'm still puzzling over LUBA'S -- MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- analysis. MS. SMITH: Not very well -reasoned decision, I would say. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Well, I'm just trying to understand it, and obviously a lot of this information was provided to them and that was why I asked the question about whether you feel they rejected it or they just basically said that's all very interesting and the hearings officer has to consider it and rule on it. MS. SMITH: That's what I believe they intended to say. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Although this footnote suggests that some of that entered into their thinking, but it's just not clear to me and it sounds like it's not clear to you either what was going on. MS. SMITH: well, I think the footnote is kind of a dicta, sort of an afterthought, but it's very clear what they said was that the comp plan is a CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 potential source, not that it is a necessity, and oh, by the way, you must, you know, you must find that there is criteria there to address, but I will do some additional briefing on footnote seven. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. MS. SMITH: Or whatever. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yeah. It would be useful to know what, if any, process the county subjected the runway modification to, so -- and I may be mis -- misremembering this, I recall an -- a length extension of the runway but you are talking actually about a -- a horizontal location. MS. SMITH: I believe it was shifted east 80 feet. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: The actual paved runway surface? MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. I wasn't aware of that. I only was aware of the extension in the -- I know the county -- I think the county was involved in the relocation of Nelson Road to facilitate that so perhaps the runway extension fell into that -- that land use application. MS. SMITH: Like I said, I'm not an airport expert but I hopefully can get that information for CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 you. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. And Will, if you can also look into whatever the county's records show for -- for any previous land use decisions on the runway in particular. okay. 1 think that's all 1 all the questions 1 have right now. Thank you. MS. SMITH: okay. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. Mr. McGean. MR. McGEAN: For the record, this is Michael McGean. I'm appearing for Professional Air, Inc. and Aero Facilities, LLC, the opponents and the petitioners on review at LUBA. 1 also submitted today and you should have, in addition to the normally -sized materials, 1 did submit a three -foot -by -four -foot version of the 2002 plan, the one that's enlarged here also. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. will has it folded up there. All right. MR. McGEAN: All right. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So I've not seen that. 1 assume it's similar to what I've been looking at that's in the smaller scale. MR. McGEAN: Correct. That's right. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 MR. McGEAN: And I think that the primary issue on remand from LUBA really starts with an analysis of what the Deschutes county Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation System Plan say. I think that the core issue when you are trying to decide whether or not those are applicable as approval criteria or whether they need to be analyzed for consistency with the application here in question, I think that that really starts with analysis of the text in the context of the comprehensive plan itself under the cases, and I think that in particular there was a Hood River case that we cited in our petition to LUBA that's fairly recent, last year, that discussed that particular question, and the -- it spoke about basically reviewing the intent and interpreting the intent that's set out in the comprehensive plan itself, and the provisions that we have here have a lot of attributes that are -- that stand out really to us, and first of all there is specificity. This particular version of the Airport Master Plan is designated by name as the guide for development at the airport, and it's not -- it doesn't say guideline and that's -- that's a distinction with the quote that's in the respond -- with the Leading Edge brief to LUBA with -- there is a Portland Traffic CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 Commission case that talked about guidelines being more flexible or advisory. This is something that's referred to twice in the comprehensive plan as the guide, specifically showing an intent that this particular Airport Master Plan and the Airport Layout Plan that's incorporated in it, and 1 know -- 1 do recognize that they are two separate documents, but when the Airport Master Plan specifically refers to these documents, they are -- they are incorporated in the master plan, so 1 -- 1 don't think that there is much of a distinction between the master plan and the layout plan, at least for the question that we have here tonight. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Let me -- let me step you back a little bit. 1 think there is probably a little disagreement among the parties that there are -- if you look at the plan, starting with the county comprehensive plan, there is language in the plan and in particular in the -- 1 guess you would call it the preface or the introduction to the plan much like as is in the city of Bend plan that essentially says it's intended to be a guideline and not to establish approval criteria, that that's done through the code -- through the zoning ordinance and other provisions of the land use regulations. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 So you start from that introductory language and then in the code -- in the plan there are -- there are pieces, bits and pieces that may also be -- suggest that it's aspirational or advisory and pieces that could be read to suggest that it's more than that. So, you're -- you're asking me to look at the context of -- a piece of the plan, the TSP, and a piece of -- a piece of that, the Airport Master Plan, without I think looking at the context in which those two documents are found. You have skipped right past that initial language in the code, or in the plan's preface, so help me understand how you reconcile that over -arching statement of the purpose of the plan with the language that you are relying on in the TSP and the Airport Layout Plan, or the Airport Master Plan. How do those -- how do those work together? MR. McGEAN: Well, I think one point is that it is, in fact, prefatory. It's a general kind of statement. I mean obviously the comprehensive plan is not the stand-alone planning document. There are the zoning ordinances that do implement parts of it, but with a comprehensive plan that contains a very specific subpart, like the Transportation System Plan, which in part refers to the airport plan, I -- I really don't CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 think it's -- it's a reasonable way to read that preface to say that the comprehensive plan has basically ruled itself out of any direct usefulness as a planning document later. I really think that it comes down to looking at the, you know, whether you can glean from the part of the comprehensive plan whether it is something that's meant to apply directly or needs to be applied directly, and that's -- that's why I mention specifically the -- some of the attributes about it, what the -- specificity with the -- the reference to the adopted one, and then there is the -- you know, there is another fact this is a, you know, very definite kind of geographical plan that's been incorporated into the comprehensive plan, and there is nothing like that in any of the airport development zone ordinances. You don't have any kind of a map or a layout and, in fact, if you look at the TSP there is a second provision there and it's -- you can find it in our LUBA brief, it's at appendix page 40, but it, you know, among other things it states that the county when it's planning -- when it's coming up with its own airport plan and Goal 16 that it's required to designate any proposed airport facility relocations or expansions on an Airport Master Plan or Airport Layout CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 Plan as amended and establish proper zoning to assure a compatible association of growth. 5o it -- you know, I don't really think you can read that part that I just cited in any way other than reading it to work with the code or the particular zoning ordinance that you might be talking about. I think that the position that the applicant is -- is probably suggesting, I know that they have made the argument before, is that the -- that the airport development code itself should supplant everything about the comprehensive plan and the transportation -- the TSP. I think the part that I just read to you anticipates a different role, that the -- that the Airport Master Plan is supposed to stand with the AD zone and they are supposed to compliment each other. That's supported by the policy statement for the AD zone, which says that the policy for the AD zone is to -- not to supplant, not even to implement the comprehensive plan, but to ensure that growth is allowed consistent with the Airport Master Plan. 50, you know, I think that some small subtleties in the language there are important, and they really do anticipate that the -- that the AMP is going to have a continuing role as a planning document, CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 whereas the applicant here would completely rule that out as a planning document, that it just has no more no more life really since it's been, you know, since we have a -- an AD zone, which as LUBA noted would allow a fuel station in any zone at all, which would completely eliminate any usefulness for this. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So how -- how in your theory, then, how do these two compliment one another when a use that's expressly permitted outright in those zones by your reading of the (inaudible) is, in fact, not permitted in those zones? MR. McGEAN: I think the ALP and the AMP, they provide a couple of things. They provide economic policies, they provide specific geographic locations and planned choices and alternatives that have been selected through the AMP process, and those are some of the excerpts that we've taken from it that we have put in our -- our brief to LUBA to show that the AMP is a reasoned, you know, set of choices, and it really has something that the -- that you wouldn't get from just relying on the AD zone, which is a methodology for it. You know, one of the points that I wanted to make here, I talked about it in the letter that I submitted to the -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Will, is the -- is CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 the mic on the podium hot? MR. GROVES: Give a tap on it and see. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yeah. So we should be able to pick you up over there. MR. McGEAN: Sure. So, I've marked in red here where the current -- where the proposed fuel site is. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And you are looking at page one of six, the earlier version of the layout plan. MR. McGEAN: That's -- this is the -- the 2002 version of the layout plan. It's at record page 333 in the record that went to LUBA, but -- so the Leading Edge site is part of location number nine on that map, which according to the legend shows small conventional hangars, and you have got six that are built out and you can see up on the legend in the upper right-hand corner it has existing and then future, and so the - the future buildings are shown in the broken line and the existing ones are solid. So it's basically taking up one of the proposed future small conventional hangars, but not only does it actually conflict with something that's plotted here but it -- one of the points that we wanted to make, if you look at site number nine and the proposed Leading Edge site and CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 compare it to where the existing gas station is, location number one for fuel storage, which is the Pro Air fuel station, and you see how close they are to each other, it's really hard to imagine how this is going to promote any kind of growth at all on the east side, and it -- it actually would undermine any kind of growth on the east side and it would prevent there being any kind of viable gas station that's plotted in here. So not only does it take up the space for the hangars that were planned, but it also undermines the future east side gas station that was an important part or that was, you know, part of the important east side development that the 2002 master plan anticipated. So, in that way you see how if you resort to the plan, it gives you something that you just don't get from the zone, which 1 think is the point that the -- that LUBA was trying to make in footnote number seven. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, I may be skipping ahead a little bit, but what's your response to the city's argument that in previous separate litigation you took -- your client took the position that there couldn't be a fueling station on the east side, or at least that the applicant couldn't have a fueling CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 station on the east side? MR. McGEAN: Well, it's -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Was that the position that you took in that litigation? MR. McGEAN: It's -- it's more or less accurate. 1 believe that the -- the position was that the city's allowance of the east side gas station was something that conflicted with the rights that my clients had on the east side. So it's totally not a land use type of issue. It was more of a real property issue as far as the lease that my clients have with the city. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So you were not arguing that a fueling station could not be sited on the east side? MR. McGEAN: I do not believe that that was ever anything that we argued -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. McGEAN: -- in our -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I'll hear from the city, they may have a different view, but that was your -- that was your interpretation that it had nothing to do with whether the master plan permitted it, it had something to do with the city's lease. MR. McGEAN: It was a contractual issue. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 That's correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. McGEAN: And we would always take the position that any kind of new fuel station would have to go through this process. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Although it's your client's position basically that there should be no additional fuel stations on the airport, correct? MR. McGEAN: It is our position that that's not something that's economically feasible right now, and it's certainly something that's not allowed under the plan right now. That -- that is our position, correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, even though it's allowed on the east side under the plan that you are relying on, you still don't think there should be a second fueling station? MR. McGEAN: It's projected on the east side. I really don't -- I don't really have any testimony to offer on that point. The question of feasibility is more complicated and I would probably defer to my client on that. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I just -- I want to understand your plan argument. So you have clarified that the op -- your client's opposition to the east CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 side fueling had not -- did not have to do with the master plan, it had to do with the lease with the city. 1 just want to clarify that you are -- whether your client is saying that no fueling station would be permitted on the east side. MR. EVANS: we have no - MR. McGEAN: Let me -- I think I'm going to invite Mr. Evans to come on up after I'm finished here. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. I just -- either the plan does or doesn't permit it somewhere, and 1 understand you to be saying that the master plan and the Airport Layout Plan would permit a fueling station on the east side. MR. McGEAN: I believe that's correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Is that -- is that your position? MR. McGEAN: Yes. I believe so. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. McGEAN: So, you know, all of this discussion that we have heard from the applicant that concerns how the city may be interpreting its own Airport Master Plan, how development has occurred in the past there, it talked -- applicant talked about the FAA and the significance of the FAA, but 1 really think that this comes down to the county's code and the CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 county's comprehensive plan, and in our view reading that comprehensive plan there is no way to avoid the conclusion that this application can't be reconciled with the plan unless you really just turn it on its head. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Did I -- I may have misunderstood Ms. Smith but did 1 -- did 1 hear her say that your client's FBO is not actually in the location that was shown on the master plan? Did 1 hear that correctly? what's your -- what's your response to that? MR. McGEAN: I didn't hear that. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: She just was nodding so that's what 1 thought she said. MR. McGEAN: That our FBO -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That Professional Air's FBO is not actually in the location designated on the plan. MR. McGEAN: I think a lot of the variations that they have talked about are fairly small variations that don't really represent a direct conflict in -- in the map, in the plan. You know, 1 think the question -- the language in the -- the AD zone in the policy statement is that it is to provide for growth that is consistent with CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 and, you know, I think that moving a runway a little bit and -- you know, we don't have a situation like that here where you are just changing the dimensions of something that's already generally planned out, you know. This is something that where one use is being supplanted for another and it's going to actually have the effect of undermining the general -- the entire plan for development for facilities. I -- I don't have any other remarks. I made some points in my letter about development that has occurred since then. I think that, you know, I'm a little -- I'm scratching my head a little bit about why we are here and why the applicant is proceeding under this application because the -- what's been built out there doesn't match and -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Well, let me -- let me ask you about that. I'm -- I'm not entirely clear about the relevance of two arguments that you made. One is that the -- that Leading Edge went ahead and built the fueling station, and it was my understanding there was no stay issued by LUBA; is that correct? MR. McGEAN: That's correct. No, there was no stay. They were free to do that, but they were free -- they did that at their peril. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So why would that be CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 relevant to my review on remand? MR. McGEAN: Well, the -- the issue is that after LUBA came down with their opinion, not only did they continue to sell fuel and store fuel there, not having any kind of valid approval at that point, but they proceeded to build a new roof that was not anticipated anywhere in the - HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So -- and I understand there is a code violation complaint pending on that. MR. McGEAN: That's correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So why -- again, why would that be relevant to the issue on remand? I'm just trying to understand how it ties in. MR. McGEAN: I'm sorry. I think it's the county's policy generally that land use applications shouldn't be granted and shouldn't be approved when there is an outstanding code violation present. You know, it's just another issue also where I'm just kind of wondering -- you know, to us what needs to occur here would probably require a text amendment, but we also believe it would require a brand new application to at least get site plan approval for the new structure that's out there that exceeds the height of the tanks that were subject to the CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 application that we are here on now. That was supposed to be no more than 10 feet and this roof is over 12 feet and it's not even -- it's not present anywhere in the plan materials, and to us it's an instance of the applicant not respecting the process. we do think it would be grounds to deny the application on remand, too, under the county's -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, again, help me understand how given the directions from LUBA and the remand, how I would have authority to deny the application based on subsequent events. MR. McGEAN: Well, it's -- it's my understanding that the county's policy has been to not allow -- it might not be your -- your issue, it might be the county's issue ultimately, but -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That's really my question, is it -- is it something that I have authority based on the limited direction from LUBA to look at it? MR. McGEAN: I didn't -- I didn't want to - HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: It just seems to me it's probably a bit of a red herring in this proceeding. I understand your client's concern about it, but I'm not sure that it's relevant to the -- the CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 issue, the interpretive issue on remand. MR. McGEAN: I think it could affect how the -- how the county chose to deal with it depending on what happens tonight but, you know, strictly as far as the issues for remand go I would probably agree with you. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. McGEAN: And I know my client was gesturing to me. Can I have a moment to talk to him? HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Sure. Yeah. if he would like to speak, that's fine. This would be the opportunity. So I just need you to sign in on the sign-up sheet and then introduce yourself for the record. MR. EVANS: My name is Gwil Evans. I'm the president of The Flight Shop and also I'm an owner in Aero Facilities. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And how do you spell your first name? MR. EVANS: G -W -I -L, Gwil. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. EVANS: So part of the -- one of the questions was why did we object to an east side fuel farm, you know, when they first set about trying to put CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 a farm over there. well, the answer is we really didn't object to that, you know. we were fine with that but what we wanted was for Leading Edge to be required to put in a road and utilities and their own ramp on the east side just as we had been required to build out virtually 24 acres of infrastructure on the east side at the request of the city from way back in 2006 when they first put out the RFP for east side development. You know, we went and answered the call. we did the ground work, you know, we did all the -- the planning and we spent a ton of money to go ahead and develop their land on that side of the airport with the knowledge that hey, here's the Airport Layout Plan that's in place, here's where future fueling facilities are supposed to be located, it may be us who puts them in, it may be somebody else. They made that very clear to us that hey, you guys don't have the rights, you know, somebody else can put an FBO in and that's where it's going to go. so we did our homework, we did, you know, all of the things that they asked us to do, we adhered to the master plan, we adhered to the layout plan. In fact, we went over and aboard -- beyond what they had asked us to do to comply with that plan and then CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 they -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: This was in your RFP? MR. EVANS: Yeah, yeah, and then as we developed that land. so then they come along and -- and say well, we are going to put a fuel farm in and we are going to put it right on the taxiway right next to your development where you have just spent all this money. well, wait a minute, we lease that taxiway, that's part of our property -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: You are still talking about the east side property? MR. EVANS: Yes, on the east side, and we said no, you know, we object to that, I mean you can't use our taxiway, okay? You put -- go ahead and put your -- you know, put your fuel farm in over there, that's fine, just do it the right way, build a road and pull the utilities yourself, don't tack onto our -- you know, what we just spent three million dollars to do. So, you know, that was the real, you know, objection there, and ultimately they said well, you know, we can't do that and they hemmed and hawed and said no, that's our taxiway, and at the end of the day we haven't had a final conclusion to that argument but they did not pursue it and they decided well, we will find another place on the airport, so that's when they CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 ended up going and finding this little sliver of land on the west side that hadn't been ever planned for that, you know. So what I've got now is I've got this development on the east side of the airport where we have spent about four million dollars to develop the city's land, trusting them that they, you know, they were going to, you know, ultimately follow through and have services and fuel and FBO services on that side, and then they have turned around and done completely the opposite, so that's the problem that we had. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. Thank you for the clarification. MR. EVANS: All right. MR. McGEAN: Thank you. That's why I wanted him to -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. MR. McGEAN: Did you have any other questions? HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I don't for you right now, no. MR. McGEAN: Thank you. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Thank you. okay. Let's hear from the City. MR. FIRESTONE: I'm Gary Firestone, Assistant City Attorney for the city of Bend. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 To respond to the last comment first, the taxi lane in question on the east side, yes, there is a dispute whether it's included in the lease to Aero Facilities; however, it was built with state funds by the city, so it's not like Aero Facilities built it. we recognize there is a dispute, and to avoid having to resolve the dispute before the fueling station could be sited, we did move the location of it. Looking at this situation as a whole, the Airport Master Plan does need to be considered in the context of the entire comprehensive plan that is not -- that does not provide binding criteria. Also, if you look at both the texts, primarily at the text of the master plan, and we are talking about both the 1994 master plan and the 2002 amendment, it's not always clear what survives from 1994 but, you know, relevant text is the building area of an airport encompasses all of the airport property not devoted to runways, major taxiways, required clear areas and other related functions, and fueling facilities are allowed in the building area. So, looking at the text of the '94 plan, to the extent it survives, a fueling facility is allowed. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So you are saying to the extent it survives, and then it's not clear how CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 much of it survives, is it -- is it your view that that language is intact in the 2002 plan or as amended? MR. FIRESTONE: I -- I don't see anything that explicitly replaces it. There may be refinements, so I think it survives at least at some base level to support, you know, possible clarifications, or actually probably the better term is further developments in the 2002 plan, and the 2002 plan notes that the majority of the airport is zoned airport development and that uses permitted outright in the zone include airport and non- structural uses, such as fuel storage. So, again, the text says these are the zonings or these are where things can be built and developed, and fueling facilities are included in both, so to me that clear text provides that you can have fueling facilities. Looking at the text, I don't see anything in the text that says you can -- for private development you can build only where it's shown on the plan and you can't build if it's not shown there and you can't build any differently. There is nothing like that. If you look at it as a whole, and I mean literally reading both documents as a whole, I come away with the view that both documents provide guidance for development by the airport operator, and they CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .22 23 24 25 51 recognize the possibility that there will be private development on -- in locations, you know, on the airport property. They don't have the same level of detail for those. Yes, some of them are shown on the plans, but if you look at the text there is nothing that indicates oh, you can only build in these locations or you can't build if it's not shown. And so I think the text provides context for the maps, and I don't see anything in the text that says you can only build here. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Let me -- let me stop you for just a second. I mean this is -- this is a very different master plan from what planners usually think of when they think of a master plan. MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And sometimes I think that the applicant or the opponents may be trying to convert this into a sort of standard master plan when it really isn't, but let me just -- I'm just thinking out loud here. I think about master plans like for Northwest Crossing or some of the planned developments or destination resorts where the master plan -- like in a destination resort it's a conceptual master plan, it actually pretty much lays out where everything is going CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 to be, and in order to change that a plan -- a land use application and approval are required to actually move, you know, one object or one type of development to another location. I assume that something similar occurred when Northwest Crossing was -- was planned and approved. MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: There were industrial areas and zones and so forth. So that -- that plan actually did lay out where things were going to go and presumably was consistent with the zoning district or sub -districts or whatever, whatever they were called. This plan reads differently from those types of plans in some respects. In some respects it doesn't. In some respects it does seem to -- I mean there is language that could be read to suggest that it was intended to operate in the same way, but what the applicant is saying and what I'm hearing you saying and in your written material is that it really isn't that kind of a plan. It's more of a -- I don't want to say aspirational because it's not that either. It -- it obviously has a purpose to identify where certain things can occur, and it's done not only for planning purposes but it's also done to satisfy the FAA because ultimately they -- they call the shots with airport CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 layouts for public use airports, so it's -- it's just a different cat. MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: But it -- it appears that in practice it's not -- it has not been used in the same way as a more traditional master plan has been used. It's been used as much more of a guiding document, shall we say, than as a -- as an actual master plan. Is that a fair statement from the city's point of view? MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. I think that's a very fair -- fair statement. 1 think when it comes to actual development by the operator of the airport, it functions a little more like a master plan for a development, but when it comes to the private development on the airport it functions more -- if you look at the text it talks about zoning and the areas and those are the key things. The text doesn't say fueling facilities can only be here or hangars can only be here. There are some discussion of city -built hangars, but if you look at the text when it's talking about private development, it's talking about areas and zones, not about specific things, you know what 1 mean? HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: so when you said it's CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 -- I'm not quite sure I understood the distinction you made. You said that the city uses it as -- as the manager and owner of the airport that you use it more like the traditional master plan whereas the private developers -- MR. FIRESTONE: So for -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- don't -- aren't subject to it in the same way. MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah. So for runways we are going to put the runway pretty much where it's shown, you know. There was a move in the runway shown and it happened, and if you haven't seen that there is a photograph showing the new runway and the old runway. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Was that done at the same time that it was lengthened or is that -- were those two separate actions? MR. FIRESTONE: There was a lengthening at this time. whether that was the only lengthening I don't know. It was before my time. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. FIRESTONE: Is this black and white? MR. GROVES: would you like to see this? HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yes. The only one I remember is the extension of the runway to the south and the relocation of Nelson Road to accommodate that. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 MR. FIRESTONE: And I also do not know whether a county -- a land use approval was obtained for that. I know that in some other context the county has taken the position if you are not building anything that projects above the ground you may not need a land use approval. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: But this was obviously done by the city. MR. FIRESTONE: Right. And so when it's city initiated, you know, we -- that's the main purpose of the master plan is to guide us in the city in what the city provides. The rest of it is included for general context for -- and so to me there are some things that are relevant that may provide criteria for HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So let me -- I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to think this through a little bit. So thinking about here's the city as the operator and here's an FBO, potential FBO operator. So the city -- unless you are going to penetrate one of the imaginary surfaces where the county code basically says you need to -- we need to talk. MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: You are saying the city may not even go to the county. You may just say CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 I'm going to -- we are going to move the runway or we are going to move this taxiway or -- I don't want to put you on the spot, but it sounds like you see yourself as the operator in a slightly different posture with respect to implementing the master plan MR. FIRESTONE: Right. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- than the county treats a private leaseholder who wants to develop property that's -- MR. FIRESTONE: Well -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- privately developed. MR. FIRESTONE: If we were going to build a building, we would go to the county. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. FIRESTONE: That projects above the ground. All I was saying is that I know that for -- in some other context we have approached the county saying we are putting a new road in, you know, at some city -owned facility, you know, that's outside the city limits and, you know, do we need a land use approval for this or a building permit for this, and sometimes if it's not projecting above the surface of the ground, you know, more than a roadway would, then sometimes the answer is no, you don't need, so if we are building a CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 building -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: You might be moving that road somewhere off where it was shown on the plan, on the master plan? MR. FIRESTONE: We are talking mostly like -- see, 1 was trying to be outside the context -- 1 was just saying that in other situations, non -airport, if we are changing the location of an on-site driveway, you know, because it's not -- it doesn't trigger -- in some cases it hasn't triggered public review. whether or not that applied in this case 1 don't know. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. So you are not you are not looking at it as something as tight as a site plan, for example, where if you wanted to change a factor in a site plan that you got approved for something you would have to get additional site plan approval? You are not looking at it as strictly as that? MR. FIRESTONE: Yes, if it's just a surface type. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. MR. FIRESTONE: But it's just -- we ask the county do we need it and sometimes the answer's yes and sometimes the answer's no. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 MR. FIRESTONE: Going back to the text and when it's talking about, you know, private development, it talks about the description of the A area, which is, you know, air field operations. It defines the area by runway and taxiway setbacks, and so to me that text, you know, is relevant, but it also prevails over anything in any of the attached maps because it, you know, what are the setback standards and if you are outside the setback standards then you are in the A area, and 1 think that prevails over any county -- you know, otherwise indicated A area on the map. And 1 look at the entire document and 1 think there are some standards, yes. we couldn't have allowed a fueling station, you know, that's in the middle of the runway obviously, but beyond that if it's not needed for airport operations, if it meets all the setback and height standards, then it's allowable, and the maps are there just as -- when it comes to private development, to the extent anything's marked as future, that's just anticipated. It's not you must. It's this is what we anticipate from private development. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So if a -- if a potential airport -- on airport operator on some sort of business or whatever comes to the city interested in leasing or building something, how do you use the CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 master plan with that -- with that potential lease, you know, lessee? 1 mean do you sit down with them and say this is where you can do this or -- 1 mean how do you use this plan? MR. FIRESTONE: Well, we use the Airport Layout Plan primarily as a federal document. If it's not shown, we will propose to the FAA that they amend it to show the new facility, you know, assuming we have worked out the lease terms and, you know, lease -- when we look at, you know, somebody coming in, 1 want to put something at the airport, we look at the zoning first, we look at do we have land, what are they proposing, can it fit there, is it too close to a runway, too close to a taxiway, does it have access, all those things, and then we -- you know, if it can be sited we basically say yes, and sometimes it can be sited without a land use approval that, you know, would change a subzone or anything like that, you know. Almost always it will need a site plan review like this one did. when it comes to the master plan, it's there but we really think that the zoning has implemented the master plan, and that comes to, you know, one of the questions here, what was the role of the master plan. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 well, it guided the code amendment that establishes the airport zoning. And so originally it was just, you know, everything's airport development, now there are three sub -zones based on the 2002 master plan. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: More specifics. MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah, so more specifics, and those were implemented in the code. So we have an acknowledged code, we look to the acknowledged code. It's -- it's -- in our view it's not only acknowledged to be consistent with the plan, it is consistent with the plan. And there is one piece of context that I think is really important. If the city is found to have discriminated among service providers and discouraged competition, not allowed competition, the city not only loses future grant funds from the FAA, there is at least the potential for the FAA to claw back past grants. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That's if you do it, not if I do it, right? MR. FIRESTONE: No. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I assume the FAA comes after the operator of the airport. MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: if you -- if you make CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 some sort of a decision that results in - MR. FIRESTONE: Right, and even if you tell us - HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- what the FAA considers discrimination. MR. FIRESTONE: Right. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: If another hearing -- if another jurisdiction's hearings officer says something to you about what you have to do, I wonder would they actually take that kind of enforcement against you? MR. FIRESTONE: They legally could. Now, would they? I agree, maybe not, but this provides context for the inclusion of the -- of the, you know, that type of plan, the map type plan and the master plan. would the city really have submitted and would the county really have approved a plan that could subject the city to that risk that okay, we have a third entity that wants to provide fuel, it's not on the master plan, and the FAA expects us to act fast when we get these requests. So putting it that -- in that context, I don't think there is -- anybody could conclude that the intent was there can only be one place to fuel or to have a second fueling station. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, to -- to put this in legal terms, I gather that -- and thank you for helping me understand how -- how this functionally operates at the city level. I'm assuming that your comments about the FAA really go to the question of the -- excuse me, the broader context, not just the text -- textual context but the practical functional context of -- MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- managing an airport and using the master plan as part of that management tool. MR. FIRESTONE: Right. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, then I guess the discussion that we have been having about how the city actually uses the plan is maybe pushing the envelope a little bit. My -- I guess my question to all the parties is to what extent is that relevant -- to what extent would LUBA consider that relevant if I were to consider that in interpreting the plan language, past actual practice. MR. FIRESTONE: Okay. I think past practice comes in because this plan has been amended -- even the '94 was an amendment, the 2002 was an amendment. The CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 city has always approached it the same way. so if you have a course of practice and then something's amended and then it's amended again and there is no change in practice, 1 think there is an acceptance that this is how it is. 1 think the course of practice when there is an amendment, you know, without addressing it shows confirmation of that course of practice. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So it -- following on that, it seems to me it would be useful to have from the county -- will, if this is something that you can identify, the only airport land use matters that 1 can recall that I've been involved with were -- MR. GROVES: Paladin. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yeah, the -- the question whether it was an airport -related business. That was the issue in that particular case. 1 think that's the only case other than this one that I've had of -- for on airport uses. 1 don't know if there are others where either a private developer or the city has had to or chosen to come to the county for approval of something under the -- for a site plan approval under the zoning ordinance and whether any of these master plan issues came up, so 1 think that's probably the best evidence CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 of past practice is what -- what applications were filed, what decisions were issued. if there aren't any, and there may not be, then it may be, you know, that I can use or at least look to the testimony that you have provided about how you understand the master plan to have been used as evidence of, you know, how it's been previously interpreted by the county. MR. FIRESTONE: I believe Aero Facilities did get a county land use approval. I'm not -- that's my understanding. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: For the original FBO? MR. FIRESTONE: No. Okay. Aero Facilities is the -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Is the east side. MR. FIRESTONE: -- hangar development on the east side. Professional Air is the FBO on the west side. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. Okay. So there would have been at least site plan approval for the east side development and there would have been site plan approval for Cessna. MR. FIRESTONE: Cessna and Epic, I would guess. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. FIRESTONE: Again, before my time. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: What I would like to do is at least take a look at those decisions, and 1 don't think 1 necessarily need to put them in the record since they are official decisions of the county. 1 think that would be useful just to see to what extent the -- the plan was in play there. So, if you can -- and obviously I'm going to be leaving the record open for a little bit, will, to give you some time to see if you can track those down. Okay. 1 think those are all the questions 1 have for you at the moment. MR. FIRESTONE: would you have any questions for our airport manager? Gary Judd is here if you have any specific, you know, airport operations questions. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Well, I -- probably not, other than just to say, you know, while the record is open if there are other examples, kind of getting to what -- the questions I've been asking about, have we done this in the past, how has the city done this in the past, how have -- have the county and city implemented the plan or used the plan, any, you know, any other examples of that that might be useful in terms of past practice would be helpful to know. 1 don't know that you have to testify to that orally CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 tonight, Gary, but maybe something that you could -- Gary Judd, but maybe that's something that you could weigh in in writing while the record is open, if that's something the city wants to put in the record. MR. FIRESTONE: And just to, you know, maybe this is some repetition of what I said, but, you know, have we used the plan? we have always -- we have considered it to be implemented by the code and, you know, we paid close attention to the code. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. All right. Thank you. So, Gary, I don't want to cut you off -- Gary Judd. If you would like to say something now you are more than welcome to. I just need to have you come up to the mic and sign in if you are going to offer any testimony orally. MR. JUDD: Okay. My name is Gary Judd and I'm the Bend airport manager, and I have just a few points i would like to bring out about how I implement the Airport Master Plan in the city, and one of the things I brought out is if you look at the transportation plan, it says that the Airport Master Plan as amended. The only person that can update the Airport Master Plan is the FAA, so there is a process to go through. We go to them and say this is what's proposed on the airport, CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 is that acceptable to the FAA, and they will give us - that's the form 7460, so we go through that process and we did that for this relocation of the fuel system and they said okay, that is acceptable. They may -- they were -- totally could have said no, it doesn't fit, doesn't go with the plan. So another thing, if 1 can borrow the map a little bit up here. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yeah. Go ahead. Just if you can get kind of close to the mic on the podium, then we will have a better chance of picking up your voice. MR. JUDD: That drawing there, and then the one up here is the same as the one 1 have in my hand. if you will see the aviation -related industrial area is empty. There is nothing shown on this map. when it was updated several years ago by the FAA through an amendment, then it shows that Epic was built there. Epic was done with the site plan and according to all of the regulations required, but the specific building and the specific site is not shown. There is just an area set aside that that is allowed. 5o we have that example. Another example is in this pond area. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Wait a minute. Let CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 me -- let me stop you. The drawing that 1 have does not match. MR. JUDD: Right. It does not. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. So I'm sorry. Go over that again with me. You've got a -- so you are talking about a vacant piece on the -- the large layout map of page one of six, which this is the 2002 amendment. MR. JUDD: Right. This is the 2002. It was updated in 2007. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So what I'm looking at, which 1 just marked as Exhibit B, is the 2007 update to the master plan that now shows Epic Air's building. MR. JUDD: Right. So this plan showed nothing and this plan now shows the Epic building. So it was -- it indicates -- and it doesn't show a precise location. It's a general area where it was allowed to be built. Now, one other example we have is once again where the FAA steps in is where our weather station is located, and the weather station as time changes if you look at one example, well, today it's actually over here. That was mandated by the FAA. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So for the record, CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 69 you are now pointing farther south on the west side of -- or excuse me, on the east side of the airport. MR. JUDD: It goes up into this area. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. JUDD: Another example if you look at the older drawing on the -- the one in 2002, this is tie -downs. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And you are pointing to an area on the west side of the airport north of the midpoint. MR. JUDD: Correct. It's on the north side. If you look at the updated plan, in that same area you will now see a hangar, and what happened in this case was this area -- the operator came to the airport and said I would like to build a hangar here and I'll provide another spot for items, so they evidently went through the FAA process and that was moved, and that is -- once again, this -- the older plan in 2002 does not show it, the one in 2007 does. So, these are examples of how it moves across but it definitely follows the FAA. The FAA is contacted, they coordinate with the airport, and because of the complexity of aircraft and air space that's kind of why we look at the zoning. The zoning says okay, it might allow a fuel system here, it might CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 allow an industrial building here, and then we go back to the FAA and say we know that the zoning will allow that but will you allow that, and then we go through the 7460 process. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So then you get -- you get some sort of written response from the FAA blessing it or not, the use takes place, gets land use approval if necessary, gets a lease from the city. MR. JUDD: Correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And then if I understood 1 think it was Ms. smith's testimony, at some point, then, that use is put on the master plan to reflect the as -built, basically, there it is, that's where we put it based on the FAA's approval of that amendment. So you are -- you are after the fact changing the master plan map to show the location of the approved use. MR. JUDD: Correct. On the 7460 it actually is written on -- this example says the fuel facility, it says they will update the master plan. They do a pen and ink update. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: "They" being the FAA. MR. JUDD: The FAA. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 MR. JUDD: They update that, and then they direct us that in our next Airport Master Plan update to show those changes, and then they base their funding on that. They look out in the future. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And how often -- do they require that you update it on a certain -- at a certain interval, or is it just when you feel like it's time to do the update? MR. JUDD: Yeah. It's pretty much how fast the airport's developing. usually you build out kind of close to the end of your master plan and then you do a new one, so there is -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. That's helpful. Thank you. MR. JUDD: okay. I'll set it here. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. Just let me write this down on my exhibit list. So this is -- just to be sure I'm labeling this correctly, the drawing that you gave me that I'm listing as Exhibit B is the 2007. MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. It's listed right on the bottom in this little - small. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: The print is very MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Even with my trifocals I'm having trouble reading it. MR. FIRESTONE: You can have this one. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So show me where -- oh, I see it. There it is, November 15th, '07. Is that what that says, city of Bend approval? MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah. They are a little bit different dates because they had to send it to the FAA after they approve it. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So where is the okay. So the only date I see of 2007 is this one right here where the -- is there another one? MR. FIRESTONE: Actually two signatures, FAA is one. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I see it here. okay. Thank you. So this is the 2007 update. All right. okay. MR. FIRESTONE: You have got this one, too. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Actually, yeah, I've got that. So rather than have a duplicate, let's just leave the one that I've got, the oversized one. okay. so thank you for that clarification. Anyone else here to speak on behalf of the city? Gary and Gary, just the two of you? MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. All right. As I said, I did not -- was not able to locate my notes from the previous hearing so I cannot recall who else appeared as a party to the -- to the original proceedings. Does anybody else recall who else testified? Because I don't want to allow testimony from any party who did not testify in the previous hearing. Is there anyone here -- anyone else here who wishes to speak? Let's start with that. Sharon. MS. SMITH: I may do some rebuttal with my clients here that are parties to the proceeding. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Sure. Okay. I'm just looking to see if there is public or other folks who wanted to testify, then we can figure out if they testified before. So it looks like there isn't anyone else. All right. So let me go ahead and hear from the applicant on rebuttal, then we will talk about the post -hearing schedule. MS. SMITH: Thank you. Sharon Smith on behalf of the applicant on rebuttal. I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time, we will do most of our rebuttal in writing, but I did want to respond to Mr. McGean's comment that -- that some of CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 the changes that I described were inconsequential, and he is making much of the fact that we are putting -- that we put a fuel station in a place where it wasn't identified for a fuel station on the Airport Layout Plan, but I think it's very important to realize that their facilities don't match what's on the 2002 Airport Layout Plan, and in particular if you look at page three of the materials that I submitted, Exhibit A, HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: What's shown is item 24 in the legend, aircraft tie -downs, and then what's circled on the middle of the plan, aircraft apron, and you go to the next page, which is the 2000 -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That's on the -- I'm trying to get myself oriented here. MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That is on the east. MS. SMITH: East side of the airport. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: East side of the airport at midpoint roughly. MS. SMITH: At midpoint. All right. So the next page, which is the 2013 Airport Layout Plan, which reflects what's currently built there, circled in red is a very different configuration. It doesn't have the airport -- aircraft apron, it doesn't have aircraft CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 tie -downs, and it has an aircraft hangar. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And this is in the Aero Air development on the east side? MS. SMITH: Correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. I see what you are pointing to. MS. SMITH: And then the next page, which is also the 2002 Airport Layout Plan, circled in red, is the item 16, which is in the legend as the FBO. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Reserve. MS. SMITH: Reserve. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: The next page, the 2013 Airport Layout Plan, shows there is no FBO there. Rather, what's been built is a modified hangar configure -- a hangar building and a modified aircraft apron -- there is no aircraft apron there, and while 1 don't profess to be -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: At least nothing labeled as such, correct? MS. SMITH: I don't profess to be an expert about FBOs, but my understanding of an FBO, and 1 might have one of my clients come and describe that, is that is a -- an area that is designated to provide services for aircrafts and requires that you have access to the CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 hangar space, and maybe Travis can -- can speak to that, that an FBO is a -- is not a minor thing but a pretty important element at an airport. So I'm going to have Travis from Leading Edge state his name. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Let me just make sure I understand what this is in aid of. You are you are talking about the distinction between what was planned, quote -unquote, on the master plan for the Aero Air space on the east side of the airport and what was physically placed there, what's actually built there. MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And there is an area on the 2002 plan that says FBO reserve. MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And the 2013 as built, whatever we call it, doesn't no longer shows an FBO or an apron labeled as such. MS. SMITH: Correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So this testimony is relative to what -- what an FBO would include and what it should be? MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And if I recall correctly from ancient days when I used to fly, CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 the FBO is defined in the FARS as far as what specifically an FBO has to include, isn't it? And introduce yourself for the record. MR. WARTHEN: So this is Travis Warthen from Leading Edge Aviation. I'm not sure that an FBO is defined in the FARS, but it is defined in the GAMS for the city and the services that they have to provide. One of the requirements is it has to have ramp space, so I think the point is in 2002 the kind of vision for the airport was that there would be an FBO located there -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: On the east side. MR. WARTHEN: And there would be ramp space or an apron for aircraft to taxi into and there would be somebody that could provide the services. So if -- if the Airport Layout Plan truly is a binding document, then it would be impossible for them to eliminate that apron, eliminate that location for the FBO, and instead build corporate hangars that don't allow for things like maintenance or fueling or servicing of aircraft. So, it's clear by what was actually built at the airport that yes, this is an area designated, this is kind of a vision of what we could build here, but the reality of what was actually built is different CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 based on what market demand is. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So there is nothing on the -- this would be page six of Exhibit A, there is nothing on this 2013 drawing that tells me what's actually there. There is nothing -- there is no label here that says what is physically there. So, I'm gathering but I think you need to be clearer with me as to what is physically there now that is not an FBO. I take it that what is there now physically is not an FBO? MR. WARTHEN: Right, and they are prohibited by their lease to provide services that are typically provided by an FBO. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So what is physically there on that space that's circled in red on the drawing that Sharon submitted? MS. SMITH: what's circled in red is you can see - HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I see there is a building. MS. SMITH: A building. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. MS. SMITH: And it says existing building, and then the blank spaces are intended it's my understanding to provide for additional hangar space, CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 and so each of the squares that is highlighted in kind of the orange color that you can see on the legend are physically hangar space. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So the legend that I'm looking at on this drawing -- oh, I see. Okay. So there is -- MS. SMITH: Where it says existing buildings, you can see a building is denoted by a solid black line around a HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. MS. SMITH: -- orange color. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: There is a yellow - I show a yellow marked area for a building. MS. SMITH: Correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And -- okay. And the rest of that is unmarked and unlabeled, the space that is to the north of that -- MS. SMITH: There are - HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- highlighted building. MS. SMITH: There is a couple of buildings in that whole area -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: -- that you can see, that's dark shaded -- CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: -- represents buildings. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Has a bit of another color to it. MS. SMITH: uh-huh. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So those are buildings. MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Then what is not outlined is unbuild -- unbuilt space, vacant space to the north of the building that's highlighted in yellow? MS. SMITH: Yes, and it's -- it is labeled at the top aviation use and it points to one of the empty squares. At the very top of that kind of -- in the blank space above the airport development, see where it says aviation use and it points to one of those empty squares? HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Oh, I see. Okay. And this is way to the east of the area that you have marked in red, so I'm MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I guess I need to be clear about this. This rectangular area that -- a portion of which you have circled in red on this drawing, that entire rectangular area that moves to the CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 east, to the -- to the boundary, basically. MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That is the Aero Air property. MR. WARTHEN: Aero Facilities. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Aero Facilities property. MR. WARTHEN: Correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So what you are saying is these spaces, outlined spaces that have an Aero that says aviation use are buildings? MR. WARTHEN: Potential buildings. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Potential buildings, okay. Then in the area that you have circled, Sharon, there is -- there appear to be two enclosed areas that look like they are actual buildings. MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. One is highlighted in yellow, one is in a paler color. Maybe it was supposed to be yellow as well. So those are two existing buildings. MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And those are hangars? MS. SMITH: I understand, hangars. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 MR. WARTHEN: They are corporate hangars, yes. The one that is yellow is a 10,000 -square -foot corporate hangar. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. WARTHEN: You know, they are not allowed under the conditions of their lease to do any maintenance or any typical type FBO services. So the change from 2002 where they designated that space as FBO services and that -- and as an apron or a ramp area, that has -- that is inconsistent with what was built with Aero Facilities. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So there is the record does not include Aero Facilities' lease for this property, and we are talking about what is and isn't in the lease, and I'm not sure that that actually is even relevant, but what I -- I want to be sure that I understand, and I think I do now, what you are saying in terms of what's physically on their space versus what is shown on the 2002 layout plan as an FBO location. MS. SMITH: Correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. All right. So I understand the point that you are making, and I think unless you want to put -- and I'm not sure that it's relevant but unless you want to put the actual CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 lease into the record, I think that's as far as that testimony is valuable to me. MS. SMITH: And the point being that to the extent that they are making an argument that we can't put a fuel facility where we put it because it's not allowed on that 2002 Airport Layout Plan, their development is also not consistent with the 2002 Airport Layout Plan. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So you're saying it's an example -- another example of what appears to be a practice of broader interpretation of what is permitted within these individual zoning districts. MS. SMITH: Right. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: As opposed to individual designated pieces of property. MS. SMITH: Correct. And what the role of the ALPs are in the bigger context of the Airport Master Plan, in the bigger context of the TSP, in the bigger context of what is the role of the comprehensive plan with regard to applicability for approval criteria. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: In a site plan. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And you had said earlier that you were going to do a narrative. MS. SMITH: Yes. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: To describe, and if you would include that information on the narrative for that page that would be helpful. MS. SMITH: Yes. And -- and I apologize, it's -- I had to have my client walk me through because it's not necessarily all that easy to see the differences. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. MS. SMITH: Without -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Unless you are used to reading an Airport Layout Plan. MS. SMITH: Correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. MS. SMITH: So I think in the interest of time we will respond to the materials tonight in writing. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: And there is -- there is a lot here. I am mindful of the time frame, but I'm inclined to say we probably should keep the record open for three weeks, but I would like to make sure that Mr. McGean doesn't have a concern about whether he needs more time or not. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. MS. SMITH: So -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, in another remand CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 that I'm working on I had talked with the planner in that case, Kevin Harrison, about how much time to leave at the end for board review. MS. SMITH: uh-huh. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And Kevin felt that we needed at least 30 days. MS. SMITH: uh-huh. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: For board review, assuming that the applicant does not extend the 90 days, which you can, in the event that time gets very short for the board, MS. SMITH: And I'm sure we would do that. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay, and I'm running into that problem with this other remand so I'm sensitive about that, but just start -- from that being the starting point, I want to think about what we -- what time we have left. So, all right, so I'm going to go ahead and close the oral testimony and -- oh, I'm sorry, will. MR. GROVES: I have -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I forgot all about you. Go ahead. MR. GROVES: I wanted to address the LUBA kind of nightmare scenario where a fueling station's put in the middle of the runway. CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: In the middle of the runway. Yeah. That would be a fascinating thing to see. MR. GROVES: And that -- it's not poss -- it's not possible because all uses in 1876 in the airport development sub -zones all require a site plan review. That includes runways, taxiways, roads, all facilities, and that 18124 review that's required requires both a harmonious development within the site for the existing development, and also there's requirements that the site plan be designed to provide a safe environment, so there is -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And you don't think a fueling station in the middle of the runway would be a safe environment? MR. GROVES: Not a safe environment. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So you're basically saying site plan -- because everything is subject to site plan review, that's kind of the last -- the last catchment. MR. GROVES: Yeah. There's no -- there's no risk here that without reference to the Airport Layout Plan that you can -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That there would be CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 MR. GROVES: -- successfully site a fueling station in the middle of a runway. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: an inappropriate use. Okay. MR. GROVES: That's all. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Thanks, Will. Okay. I'm going to close the oral testimony and let's talk about the post -hearing schedule. I'll get a calendar if we have got one in here. MS. SMITH: So I think you said approximately May 18th would be the 90 days. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And let's -- rather than approximating it, let's see if we can actually figure it out here. So February 18th was the remand date, initiation date. Will, do I understand that correctly? MR. GROVES: Correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So the county doesn't -- county code says we don't count that day, the first day, so -- all right. Looks like the 90th day is the 19th of April, which is a Saturday, so we would be out to -- MS. SMITH: May? HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Excuse me, May, which CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 is a Saturday, so we would be out to May 21st. So I'm going to -- that will be our working date. So if we back up a month, that puts us to April 21st, or whatever that day is in April. Yeah, April 21st as the date on which ideally a decision would be issued, so that the -- any appeal to the board could be processed. So, that leaves us with about six weeks, give or take. So if we do the normal three week, a week for the first round of evidence, a week for the rebuttal round and a week for final argument, that leaves me three weeks to do a decision, which will be a wonderful period of time for me to have, but that may not be enough time for the parties given the complexity of the issues and the record. so I'm -- I'm open to and Mr. McGean, if you want to come up to the mic so we can talk about time frame. Three weeks might be a little bit short but 1 would sure like to have at least two weeks to do a decision. So, does it make sense to maybe do two weeks, one week, one week? MR. McGEAN: That's -- my only concern would be about next week, so 1 have a short week this week and -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So two weeks for the CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 initial would work better for you? MR. McGEAN: That would be ideal. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. McGEAN: Yeah. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Sharon, would that work for you to do a first round two week closing and then another two weeks, a week for rebuttal and a week for final argument? So we would go out to the 18th, the 25th, and the 8th -- no, the 1st, excuse me. MS. SMITH: Would it be possible to do -- maybe go to the -- extend it out like to the 20 -- I would really like to do maybe the 21st, the 28th, and then the 4th, because we may need to gather some, you know, prior site plans and -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: All right. So we would be going a little more than two weeks, then, to the 21st. MS. SMITH: Two and a half. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Then rebuttal the 28th and final argument on the 4th, and that would give me about two weeks. Does that work for you, Mr. McGean? MR. McGEAN: It does. Thank you. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And Gary Firestone, CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 does that work for you? MR. FIRESTONE: It's fine by the city. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. All right. So it sounds like that's going to work for everybody. will, any of your comments and additional materials into the record would be the first round? Does that work for your schedule? MR. GROVES: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: All right. So the first round, then, will close at five p.m. on March 21st, the rebuttal round will close on the 28th of March, and final arguments would be due on the 4th of April, if submitted. MS. SMITH: Yeah, and it may be possible that given -- if we are able to respond within that second rebuttal that we could waive final argument. In that -- in that case you would have that extra week. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So you just need to let will know if you are going to file or not file or if you are going to file an argument earlier and then Will can let me know. Okay. So then in terms of the record, we talked a little bit earlier about what should be in the record. Sounds like we need -- we still need the city's LUBA brief. Is that the piece that we are CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 missing? So we need to add the city's LUBA brief to this record, and then rather than adding the LUBA record to this record, I will simply make reference I will use it as a reference document and I will -- if I'm going to refer to items in that record I will use the -- the record numbers from the LUBA record but we won't put the record in the record, okay? Does that make sense? So this record will include everything that was in the -- it actually will include everything that was in the lower -- the previous proceeding, which is part of the LUBA record, plus everything that comes in until this record closes, but we won't physically put that LUBA record back into the record. Okay. So, any questions about procedure, where we go from here? Mr. McGean, I didn't ask about this document. Do you want this enlarged document to be in the record? Since you have referred to it and it's marked slightly differently from the ones that Sharon has, I probably at least need to have an 11 -by -17 similarly marked if you don't want me to have the big one. MR. McGEAN: You can have the big one. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: All right. So I'll go ahead and mark -- you don't want it? CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 92 MR. GROVES: No. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I know the county's not crazy about the larger pieces. MR. McGEAN: I'm sorry, is -- MS. SMITH: Is it possible -- is that the same as the large version you have in your submittal? MR. McGEAN: It is. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And it's marked -- it's highlighted in the same way? MR. McGEAN: It is. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: All right. MR. GROVES: We already have it. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So we already have it. So, will, your concern is the fiber board, the mounted version, not the size of it. You don't want the mounted version. So if what you have folded up is the same as this - MR. McGEAN: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- then we don't need to keep this. All right. Okay. So any questions about process at this point? okay. We are adjourned. Thank you. MS. SMITH: Thank you. (Hearing adjourned.) CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 CERTIFICATE STATE OF OREGON ) SS. COUNTY OF DESCHUTES I, GENIE L. KELLEY, certified shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify: That the recorded hearing was taken down by me in machine shorthand and was thereafter reduced to writing through computer-aided transcription, that the foregoing represents to the best of my ability, a true and correct transcript of the proceedings had in the foregoing matter. I further certify that I am not an attorney for any of the parties hereto, nor in any way concerned with the cause. DATED this 24th day of June, 2014, in Bend, Oregon. f,•e`c_\\0,'1 i%,�,/�\y a. ti fi 6_:1 ?O-9149 GENIE L. KELLEY, CM, CSR Registered Professional Reporte CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICE FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY In the Matter of the Review of the Application of LEADING EDGE AVIATION, INC., Applicant. 1 Application No. SP -013-7 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND 10 commencing on March 4, 2014, before Hearings officer 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Karen Green in Bend, Oregon, transcribed by GENIE L. KELLEY, R.P.R., C.M., C.S.R. #90-0149. 3 1 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Good evening. 2 My name is Karen Greene. I'm the hearings officer for 3 this evening's hearing. we just have one matter on the 4 agenda tonight, and that is a hearing on a remand from 5 the Land use Board of Appeals of a decision that I 6 issued, gosh, must be a year ago, year and a half ago. 7 I can't even remember. 8 Anyway, the LUBA number is 2013-073. The 9 original applicant is the Flight Shop -- excuse me, is 10 Leading Edge Aviation. The opponent and one of the 11 parties at LUBA is The Flight shop, Incorporated and 12 Aero Facilities, and both Deschutes County and i 13 believe the City of Bend were parties to the LUBA 14 matter. 15 so, the case is before me because I was the 16 hearings officer that issued the decision that was 17 remanded by LUBA, and these proceedings will follow the 18 county's procedures for remand proceedings that are 19 specified in the county's code. However, because the 20 hearing will be conducted essentially in the same 21 manner as any land use hearing on any other type of 22 case, what I 23 for land use 24 of a hearing want to do is go through the procedures hearings as I normally do at the beginning and I'll note if there are any changes as 25 a result of this being a remand as opposed to more of 1 2 For Applicant: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For opponent: APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL SHARON SMITH; ESQ. Bryant, Lovlien and Jarvis 591 S.W. Mill View way Bend, Oregon 97702 MICHAEL MCGEAN, ESQ. Francis, Hansen and Martin 1148 N.W. Hill Street Bend, Oregon 97701 2 4 1 an ordinary type of land use application. 2 The purpose of the hearing tonight is for me 3 to receive relevant testimony and evidence related to 4 the remand and pertinent to the remand from LUBA. The 5 order of proceedings will be as follows: i'll open the 6 public hearing, I'll ask for a staff report from will 7 Groves, and then i'll hear from the applicant, the 8 original applicant, then I'll hear from the opponent, 9 and any parties who were parties to the previous 10 proceeding may also appear at the remand. I was unable 11 to find my notes from the original hearing so i do not 12 have a record of who else testified at the original 13 hearing and -- will, i don't know if you do or not. If 14 that becomes an issue we will discuss that at that 15 time. 16 so if there are members of the public who 17 testified at the original hearing that preceded the 18 decision that was remanded, they would be allowed to 19 testify again tonight, first in support and then in 20 opposition. if there is opposing testimony, I'll allow 21 the applicant a brief period for oral rebuttal and then 22 I'll hear any final comments from staff. 23 In order to give testimony, as always you need 24 to raise your hand and let me acknowledge you and 25 invite you to come up to the table to your right and my 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 1 to 4 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 left where ask you to address on there is a microphone, and as always I'll first take a moment to print your name and the sign-up sheet and then state your name 5 and address for the record. If you are submitting written materials, which I know the parties already have done, if you are intending to do that as well I appreciate that, I thank you for written testimony, I just would ask that you not read it verbatim into the record tonight at the oral hearing but just give me the highlights or refer to it in your -- in your testimony. Oregon law requires me to make a couple of disclosures before I hear any land use matter. One is whether or not I've had any of what we call ex parte contacts, which would be contacts between myself and a party to this matter outside of the public hearing, and I'll state at this time that I've had no ex parte contacts between the last hearing and tonight's hearing. My only contacts have been with staff to obtain a copy of the decision from LUBA, materials that are in the record, and to schedule tonight's hearing. I also will disclose that I've taken no testimony outside of the public record. I've not conducted a site visit, another site visit to the property following my decision, which was remanded by 6 1 LUBA. I did conduct a site visit prior to that 2 hearing, and my observations and impressions from that 3 site visit are in the record from the previous hearing. 4 Any party may challenge my qualifications to 5 act as hearings officer in this matter, if you believe 6 that I cannot be impartial, and although I was the 7 hearings officer in the previous matter and that's why 8 it's before me again, you are still entitled to have an 9 impartial fact finder and decision maker, so if anyone 10 believes that I cannot be impartial now is the time 11 to -- to challenge me. 12 Does anyone wish to challenge my 13 qualifications? Okay, hearing none I'll proceed. 14 Unless I hear an objection I will rely on the prior 15 circulation of staff's original staff report as well as 16 the LUBA decision to identify the issues that are 17 before me tonight and on remand. 18 Any testimony or evidence that you present 19 tonight needs to address the issue or issues listed in 20 the LUBA decision for remand, and this is where things 21 are a little different in a remand. The county's 22 remand procedures -- sorry, I was going to get these 23 open a moment ago. They are in Chapter 22, I think 24 it's 34. Excuse me, Chapter 22:34 limits the scope of 25 the -- of hearings on remand to those issues that were 7 1 identified by LUBA, and specifically Section 22:34:040 2 describes under what circumstances those issues can be 3 expanded, and that's basically when the Board of 4 Commissioners enters an order directing that the remand 5 either be expanded or constricted. 6 In this case, as far 7 order from the board; is that 8 MR. GROVES: That i5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as I know there is no correct, will? correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Nothing specifically from the board, so the issues before me are only those that are identified in the LUBA decision. Any issues or evidence outside of that limited issue I cannot consider on remand. okay. The failure to address any issue, relevant issue on the remand with sufficient detail for me to understand it, respond to it in my decision, may preclude an appeal on that issue. It's what we call the raise -it -or -waive -it rule. So any -- any claim that you want to make or any argument that you want to make related to the issue on remand needs to be addressed clearly enough at this point that I -- at this level that I can address it and resolve it in my decision. similarly, any -- any claim that -- particularly that the applicant wants to make regarding 8 1 a condition of approval or some other matter that might 2 be a claim of a constitutional violation or something 3 exceeding the county's authority, any such claim needs 4 to also be made clearly enough at this level for me to 5 resolve it in my decision or you may lose the 6 opportunity to raise that same claim down the road in 7 a -- in a civil case for damages, for example. 8 Okay. Any questions about the procedure we 9 are going to follow tonight before I get started? 10 Okay. As usual, housekeeping matters, if you have an 11 electronic device that rings or buzzes loudly please 12 turn it off. If you need to take or make a phone call 13 during the hearing, that's fine, just please do us the 14 courtesy of doing that out in the hallway. If you need 15 to use the restroom or drinking fountain, they are down 16 the hall and around the corner. 17 okay. I think with that, unless there are any 18 questions about procedure, I will open the hearing and 19 ask for a staff report. will. 20 MR. GROVES: Good evening. For the record, 21 Will Groves, Deschutes County Planning. I have no 22 additional materials to submit into the record at this 23 time. Again, the LUBA number that is on remand is 24 2013-073, and the remand was initiated with an 25 effective date of February 18th, 2014. As you are 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 5 to 8 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 9 1 aware, we have 90 days to process this remand. 2 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That was February 3 18th? 4 MR. GROVES: February 18th. 5 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 6 MR. GROVES: The letter's dated earlier than 7 that but the -- it specifies that that's the effective 8 date of the remand. 9 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 5o just for 10 clarification for anyone who doesn't know what we are 11 talking about, that means that the decision, any final 12 decision from the county, including any decision from 13 the board on appeal from my decision needs to be issued 14 no later than 90 days from the 18th of February, which 15 I'm guessing is somewhere around the 18th of May, give 16 or take a day or two, unless the applicant extends that 17 time, which the applicant is -- is authorized to do 18 under statute. 19 So we have a little bit tighter time frame on 20 remands than we normally do. Okay. 21 MR. GROVES: Then regarding the status of the 22 record, you are in -- you are currently holding all 23 paper that is in the record. You have your own copy of 24 that. 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 10 1 MR. GROVES: There were materials that were 2 submitted prior to the hearing and some that were 3 submitted just now prior to the hearing. 4 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So I have 5 let me just cover -- let me just talk about what I have 6 to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i have a letter, cover letter dated February 11th from Sharon Smith on behalf -- behalf of Leading Edge, to which is LUBA -- their LUBA brief. I have a submitted I think just tonight from have a letter dated March 4th, 2014 excuse me -- on attached the burden of proof Leading Edge. I from the City of Bend, from Gary Firestone from the city of Bend, and then I also have a cover letter dated March 4th, 2014, with -- from Mr. McGean and looks like it's a three-page letter with a number of attachments to it, and on top of that I see that I also have some oversized airport plans. Mr. McGean, did you submit these as well or -- Sharon, you did? Okay. All right. So I also have those. These have some markings on them so it looks like there is some things specifically identified and Ms. Smith can explain what those are when she testifies. 11 1 So, that is what I have, along with my own 2 copy of the decision that I issued originally. 3 Is there anything else that's been submitted, 4 will, that I don't have? 5 MR. GROVES: So, there was a LUBA record 6 prepared by the county that captured all materials that 7 were submitted up to and including the board's 8 declining to hear this matter. That's available as a 9 bound record and we can make that available to you. 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 11 MR. GROVES: Also, a number of materials were 12 submitted to LUBA directly during their procedures. I 13 have not imported anything myself from that, other than 14 the LUBA decision itself. In talking with the parties 15 before the hearing, it's my understanding that you 16 should have all materials that were before LUBA with 17 the exclusion of the city's brief. 18 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 19 MR. GROVES: And -- 20 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: The city's brief 21 before LUBA? 22 MR. GROVES: Before LUBA. 23 24 25 into the record. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. GROVES: So it's my intention to get that 1 12 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So is it your 2 understanding that that's everything that was submitted 3 to LUBA in addition to the record submitted by the 4 county? 5 MR. GROVES: Yes, excluding, you know, there 6 is a variety of letters that go back and forth that 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 don't include testimony or argument submissions, just kind of -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: General correspondence? MR. GROVES: General correspondence. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. GROVES: And to the extent that the 14 parties would like to see those in the record, I don't 15 know why they would, but they are welcome to submit 16 them. 17 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So, what I -- 18 what i normally like to do in a remand is to have the 19 LUBA record as the record, as a part of the record, so 20 that we can all refer to the same documents by the LUBA 21 designation. I know that county legal counsel is not 22 crazy about having -- well, let me put it this way. 23 It's a little -- gets a little complicated if the LUBA 24 record is part of the remand record because then you 25 end up with potentially two copies of the LUBA record 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 9 to 12 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 13 1 in the record. 2 So, if there is a way that you can think of 3 that we might be able to do that, maybe by just having 4 that be a reference for me and if I need to cite pieces 5 of the record by the LUBA record without actually 6 incorporating the record into this record, perhaps 7 that's the way we can do it, but in any case if I want 8 to look at something that was submitted to me in the 9 original matter I would like to be able to do that, and 10 the place to find that is in the LUBA record and the 11 way to refer to that it seems to me is by the 12 designation in the LUBA record. 13 So I would appreciate any ideas that you have 14 on how I might do that without duplicating the LUBA 15 record in this record, and I think that's what county 16 counsel's concern is is just not ending up with several 17 copies of the same record in the record. 18 19 20 21 I will 22 23 behalf of the applicant, Leading Edge Aviation. 24 okay. Anything else, will? MR. GROVES: That's all Thank you. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. All right. So hear from the applicant. MS. SMITH: Good evening. Sharon Smith on with regard to the LUBA designated 25 reference -- record, I understand your preference to 14 1 have materials that we might cite to reference the LUBA 2 record where possible. I also think we will need to 3 reference any additional materials that get submitted, 4 and I'll try and do both of those things. 5 I know that materials have come in today. I 6 haven't had a chance to review Mr. Firestone's letter, 7 and I received Mr. McGean's materials late afternoon, 8 so it wasn't my intention to respond directly to either 9 of those tonight but will ask that the record remain 10 open, we can address that at the end of the hearing, to 11 address those in writing, and I will try and do kind of 12 a cross citation where I can to any new materials as 13 well as where it might be in the LUBA record, but I 14 think there is really no easy way to avoid having the 15 LUBA record be part of this record if we are going to 16 do that. What we could do is make sure that we only 17 have one set in the records, so I'll work with Mr. 18 McGean and staff to -- to accomplish that. 19 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And I just 20 don't know but it may be sufficient for me simply to 21 make reference to the record location for things that 22 are in the LUBA record and simply use the LUBA record 23 as, you know, a document. 24 MS. SMITH: Historical document. 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Historical document 15 1 that I'm -- that I'm using for reference, so which 2 would be the easiest way to do it. 3 MS. SMITH: Sure. And I'll work with staff 4 and Mr. McGean and make sure that we can accommodate 5 that if legally possible to do that. 6 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 7 MS. SMITH: Typically, you have read the 8 decision, I'm assuming, and the briefs, and so it 9 wasn't my intention to go through all of the same 10 arguments. 11 Many of the arguments we made in the LUBA 12 brief are applicable to this because LUBA really stated 13 that the comprehensive plan is a potential source of 14 criteria and i think deferred to you to address that on 15 remand. The question they posed is whether the Airport 16 Master Plan includes any applicable standards or 17 requirement with respect to the fuel facility. They 18 did not say that there were any applicable 19 requirements, but that it just needed to be addressed. 20 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So is it -- is it 21 your understanding that the LUBA decision did not 22 reject the arguments that you made but simply said they 23 need to be made before me and I need to address them? 24 MS. SMITH: That is my interpretation and 25 understanding of the remand, if you -- if you read the 16 1 specific question they posed, and they did very clearly 2 state that it was their decision the comprehensive plan 3 was just a potential source and that needed to be 4 addressed on remand. 5 So all of the arguments we made with regard to 6 why the Airport Master Plan is not prescriptive, does 7 not contain approval criteria such that it, you know, 8 is mandatory approval criterion that would prohibit or 9 limit development I think are still applicable on 10 remand. 11 we made several arguments regarding looking at 12 the text in the context of the Airport Master Plan as 13 well as the Airport Layout Plans, which, you know, I 14 think Mr. McGean somehow assumes that the Airport 15 Layout plans are the Airport Master Plan, and I think 16 looking through the text in the context of how the 17 master plan is implemented and how those Airport Layout 18 Plans are updated and -- and modified that those 19 Airport Layout Plans simply cannot act as a -- a static 20 site plan, if you will, but rather are really guides, 21 and there is case law talking about using the term 22 guide and guidance as really providing not approval 23 criterion per se but -- but is something much less than 24 that, and all of those cases are in the -- in the brief 25 that we submitted. 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 13 to 16 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 17 1 if you look also to the text in the context of 2 the Airport Master Plan, looking at how the city of 3 Bend uses the Airport Master Plan and how the civil 4 engineer who prepared the Airport Master Plan as well 5 as the Airport Layout Plans, what they describe is a 6 fluid document that is intended to be used as planning 7 tools really primarily for FAA funding, and if you look 8 at the actual history of the Airport Layout Plans and 9 how they get updated, you know, they are -- they change 10 in response to changing economics, they change in 11 response to new development. 12 And so looking at the 2002 Airport Layout Plan 13 and the iterations throughout time to the current 14 Airport Master Plan, which has been recently adopted by 15 the City of Bend in 2000 I think '13, and I've included 16 the Airport Layout Plans in the materials that i 17 submitted today, there is a series of changes that get 18 notated on the Airport Layout Plans by the FAA. 19 There -- Mr. McGean can't point to any 20 language or any text in the Airport Master Plan or the 21 text of the Airport Layout Plan description that says 22 that the A -- that the ALPS are prescriptive. 23 So, when you look at the text, the context and 24 how they are used, they are really guide -- guiding 25 documents. They are not static master plans. 18 1 If you look at the actual development on 2 the -- at the airport today, it doesn't match the 2002 3 ALP. So, what i submitted in addition to the burden of 4 proof for illustration is a series of Airport Layout 5 Plans, and i apologize for not having them marked as an 6 exhibit but I will in -- as -- as the -- as we keep the 7 record open, I will provide you a narrative of what I'm 8 going to do descriptively tonight. 9 so the top page shows the 2002 Airport Layout 10 Plan, and you see circled in red a hand -drawn box, and 11 that is an airport hangar, and as you can see it's 12 drawn in, it's not depicted on the 2002 Airport Layout 13 Plan, and it -- it sits on top of a roadway. 14 So the next page is the current 2013 Airport 15 Layout Plan showing in red that hangar building. where 16 it's now shown on the 2013 Airport Layout Plan, it 17 physically exists out there, but it wasn't on the 2002 18 ALP. 19 So the third page is also the 2002 ALP, and 20 circled in red are facilities that were designated 21 where Aero Facilities' property is located, and circled 22 in red is item number 24, which says aircraft 23 tie -downs, and if you look at the 2002 ALP there are 24 supposed to be aircraft tie -downs and an aircraft apron 25 in that location but that's not what Aero Facilities 19 1 built there. 2 if you look at the next page, you can see 3 circled in red where the tie -downs and the apron was 4 supposed to be is now slated for hangar development. 5 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Just for 6 clarification, I've not marked this yet, I'm going to 7 call this Exhibit A, but I need to mark the individual 8 pages. 9 MS. SMITH: okay. 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So if I recall -- if 11 I am following you correctly, the one you were just 12 talking about that you called the third page is noted 13 at the bottom right-hand corner drawing number one of 14 six. 15 M5. SMITH: Yes. 16 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 17 MS. SMITH: And it has -- 18 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And the next one that 19 you refer me to is the fourth sheet in this attachment, 20 which is labeled sheet three of 13. 21 MS. SMITH: correct, and that is the current 22 City of Bend approved Airport Layout Plan. 23 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So i think it 24 would be very helpful to have a narrative that 25 identifies what these are, and what I'll do then is 20 1 I'll -- each of these pages will have a number so it 2 will be A-1, A-2 through A-9, so we will all be able to 3 refer to it by common number. 4 MS. SMITH: Okay. so you can see that a 5 comparison of the 2002 Airport Layout Plan what is -- 6 if this is indeed a prescriptive document, then what's 7 actually out there is not what is on the 2002 plan in 8 the Aero Facilities location. 9 The next page, which would be page five -- 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: This one is also 11 labeled drawing one of six. 12 MS. SMITH: Yes. 13 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So it's another copy 14 of that page but with a different -- 15 MS. SMITH: That's correct, a different focus. 16 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- area identified. 17 Right. 18 MS. SMITH: They are just -- these copies are 19 old and they are very hard to read in many instances, 20 so I wanted to make it clearer the illustration that we 21 are -- we are showing. 22 And so again where it says item number 16 and 23 the circled highlighted in yellow, it says FBO, and on 24 the legend looking at the Aero Facilities site, the 25 FBO, which is a fixed -base operator, is supposed to be 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 17 to 20 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 21 1 located kind of in the center of the airport, but 2 that's not what got built there. The FBO is not there. 3 The next page again is the 2013 approved 4 Airport Layout Plan, and you can see that instead of an 5 FBO there we have got hangar space. So you can't put 6 the FB0 there anymore and that's not what -- what is 7 there, but it's not the same as what's on the 2002 8 Airport Layout Plan. 9 And then the last -- 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, I understand the 11 point that you are -- that you are making, that you 12 made in your written materials and that you are making 13 here. I'm just wondering if reading LUBA's decision if 14 that's -- how much import that has for LUBA if they 15 believe that the Airport Master Plan is -- in fact, 16 imposes requirements rather than being a guideline, 17 then the fact that it wasn't followed isn't evidence of 18 anything except that it wasn't followed. 19 MS. SMITH: But I don't think that that's what 20 LUBA said. what LUBA said was if looking at the master 21 plan one concludes that there are criteria, then one 22 has to address them. 23 They -- they didn't say that there are 24 criteria there. They just said they need to be 25 addressed. And so when you look at the -- the question 1 2 3 4 5 they present after they state that the comprehensive plan is whether respect look at 22 a potential source of criteria, the question is it includes any applicable standards with to the facility, and our argument is if you the master plan, you look at the text of the 6 master plan, you look at the context of the master 7 plan, you look at how it's been used historically, what 8 the FAA says about Airport Layout Plans, there is 9 nothing in the Airport Master Plan that says you must 10 follow and build exactly what is on these Airport 11 Layout Plans. it doesn't say that at all and there 12 isn't anything in the record that would point you to 13 that. 14 I think you are going to hear from the City of 15 Bend, which provides additional context, text and 16 context, that specifically with regard to the Airport 17 Layout Plans that they aren't criteria, they are a 18 component that they use for planning tools and as 19 guidelines and they get updated and the FAA uses those 20 to -- to show -- when something changes on the airport, 21 they get reflected with a notation on the Airport 22 Layout Plan. 23 The whole form -- FAA form process once you 24 get an approval from the county that is then submitted 25 to the FAA in a form 7460, and the 7460 then says we 23 1 are approving this, we are going to note it on the 2 Airport Layout Plan, and when the Airport Layout Plan 3 gets updated it will -- it will be on the new plan. So 4 one of the materials that we submitted tonight are the 5 FAA approvals for this facility. 6 So, I think reading carefully what LUBA said 7 was not that there is criteria in the master plan but 8 that it just needs to be considered whether they -- 9 there is criteria there or not, and -- 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: What's your -- what's 11 your take on the -- on footnote seven on page nine, the 12 hypothetical that Referee Ryan threw out? 13 MS. SMITH: Right. So footnote seven says 14 well, you know, we are concerned that you could 15 have -- a runway is an outright permitted use and 16 certainly you would never change the runway location. 17 Well, in reality the runway is different than what's on 18 the Airport Layout Plan. It 19 east, and I've been having a 20 illustrate that on this plan was moved 80 feet to the challenge to try and because it's very 21 difficult to -- to show, but the runway was moved and 22 so, in fact, the runway did get moved, but what they -- 23 what LUBA I think didn't recognize was that the form 24 7460 process addresses those safety concerns. 25 So if the runway got moved and the FAA looked 1 2 3 4 5 6 24 at it and said hmmm, that's, you know, that's not consistent with the rest of the -- the development out there, it wouldn't -- it wouldn't be approved. so it has the to go through site plan approval, but the fact of matter is they did move the runway and hope -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Did that go through 7 county planning? Did that go through a county planning 8 process? 9 MS. SMITH: I don't know. I'll find out. 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: The realignment of 11 the runway? 12 MR. GROVES: I'm not sure. 13 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: It obviously went 14 through an FAA process because it was required by the 15 FAA, if I recall correctly, the extension of the 16 roadway at least was. 17 MS. SMITH: Right. My understanding, and I am 18 not a -- I am not an expert in airports and runways, 19 but it had to do with the redesignation of the airport 20 and the capacity for larger airplanes, larger aircraft, 21 but I will in the post -submittal materials provide you 22 as much detail about that as I can. 23 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. The footnote 24 seems to assume that that would have been reviewed by 25 the county and that the county would never let that 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 21 to 24 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 happen, so I'm just curious if it -- if the county got to weigh in on that. I don't recall but I wouldn't necessarily remember. MS. SMITH: we can ferret that out, but, you know, I think that they -- they -- they misread -- their parade of horribles i think is unfounded because you would have to, you know, presumably submit a site plan and go through FAA review and that would vet whether or not it's consistent with the rest of the airport development, so -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: If it was subjected to site plan. MS. SMITH: Right. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yeah. MS. SMITH: And FAA approval. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. MS. SMITH: So, as we illustrated already, the city has updated their Airport Master Plan and it now is -- functions kind of as an as built. Looking back through the years if -- if the Airport Layout Plan is somehow much of the development at the conclusion is that the a static document, then airport is not consistent with the master plan, so I think that would be the wrong result in terms of how to interpret the comprehensive plan and its role in land use approvals. 26 1 There is also a specific provision in the 2 county's comprehensive plan that says the comprehensive 3 plan is not intended to provide review for land use 4 applications, and we cited that in the brief. LUBA 5 didn't -- didn't address that, but I think that is also 6 very relevant to your interpretation of what is the 7 role of the comprehensive plan in Deschutes County, and 8 in particular in this case when we have all of the 9 context and the text of the Airport Master Plan, that 10 it simply doesn't function as approval criteria and 11 particularly the Airport Layout Plans. 12 You look at the -- the way the FAA treats 13 them, the way they are developed and updated, you 14 couldn't possibly use it as a prescriptive tool because 15 things change, and the city I think will weigh in on 16 this that they have to be able to respond to demand and 17 they are required to allow competition at the airport, 18 and if the Airport Layout Plans are static documents, 19 you couldn't possibly do that. 20 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 21 MS. SMITH: So, were there any other issues in 22 the materials that you would like additional briefing 23 on, other than the ones that you just touched on? 24 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Well, I haven't -- 25 obviously haven't had an opportunity to read all of the 1 materials. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 27 MS. SMITH: Sure. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And I will leave the record open. No, I mean I'm -- I'm still puzzling over LUBA'S -- MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: analysis. MS. SMITH: Not very well -reasoned decision, I 9 would say. 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Well, I'm just trying 11 to understand it, and obviously a lot of this 12 information was provided to them and that was why I 13 asked the question about whether you feel they rejected 14 it or they just basically said that's all very 15 interesting and the hearings officer has to consider it 16 and rule on it. 17 MS. SMITH: That's what I believe they 18 intended to say. 19 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Although this 20 footnote suggests that some of that entered into their 21 thinking, but it's just not clear to me and it sounds 22 like it's not clear to you either what was going on. 23 MS. SMITH: Well, I think the footnote is kind 24 of a dicta, sort of an afterthought, but it's very 25 clear what they said was that the comp plan is a 28 1 potential source, not that it is a necessity, and oh, 2 by the way, you must, you know, you must find that 3 there is criteria there to address, but I will do some 4 additional briefing on footnote seven. 5 6 7 8 useful HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: Or whatever. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yeah. to know what, if any, process the 9 subjected the runway modification to, so 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It would be county -- and I may be mis -- misremembering this, I recall an -- a length extension of the runway but you are talking actually about a -- a horizontal location. MS. SMITH: I believe it was shifted east 80 feet. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: The actual paved runway surface? MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. I wasn't aware of that. I only was aware of the extension in the -- I know the county -- i think the county was involved in the relocation of Nelson Road to facilitate that so perhaps the runway extension fell into that -- that land use application. MS. SMITH: Like I said, I'm not an airport expert but I hopefully can get that information for 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 25 to 28 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 1 you. 2 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And Will, if 29 3 you can also look into whatever the county's records 4 show for -- for any previous land use decisions on the 5 runway in particular. 6 Okay. I think that's all I -- all the 7 questions I have right now. Thank you. 8 MS. SMITH: Okay. 9 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Mr. McGean. 10 MR. McGEAN: For the record, this is Michael 11 McGean. I'm appearing for Professional Air, Inc. and 12 Aero Facilities, LLC, the opponents and the petitioners 13 on review at LUBA. 14 I also submitted today and you should have, in 15 addition to the normally -sized materials, I did submit 16 a three -foot -by -four -foot version of the 2002 plan, the 17 one that's enlarged here also. 18 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Will has it 19 folded up there. All right. 20 MR. McGEAN: All right. 21 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So I've not seen 22 that. I assume it's similar to what I've been looking 23 at that's in the smaller scale. 24 MR. McGEAN: Correct. That's right. 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 MR. McGEAN: And I think that the primary issue on remand from LUBA really starts with an analysis of what the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation System Plan say. I think that the core issue when you are trying to decide whether or not those are applicable as approval criteria or whether they need to be analyzed for consistency with the application here in question, I think that that really starts with analysis of the text in the context of the comprehensive plan itself under the cases, and I think that in particular there was a Hood River case that we cited in our petition to LUBA that's fairly recent, last year, that discussed that particular question, and the -- it spoke about basically reviewing the intent and interpreting the intent that's set out in the comprehensive plan itself, and the provisions that we have here have a lot of attributes that are -- that stand out really to us, and first of all there is specificity. This particular version of the Airport Master 21 Plan is designated by name as the guide for development 22 at the airport, and it's not -- it doesn't say 23 guideline and that's -- that's a distinction with the 24 quote that's in the respond -- with the Leading Edge 25 brief to LUBA with -- there is a Portland Traffic 31 1 Commission case that talked about guidelines being more 2 flexible or advisory. This is something that's 3 referred to twice in the comprehensive plan as the 4 guide, specifically showing an intent that this 5 particular Airport Master Plan and the Airport Layout 6 Plan that's incorporated in it, and I know -- I do 7 recognize that they are two separate documents, but 8 when the Airport Master Plan specifically refers to 9 these documents, they are -- they are incorporated in 10 the master plan, so I -- I don't think that there is 11 much of a distinction between the master plan and the 12 layout plan, at least for the question that we have 13 here tonight. 14 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Let me -- let me step 15 you back a little bit. I think there is probably a 16 little disagreement among the parties that there 17 are -- if you look at the plan, starting with the 18 county comprehensive plan, there is language in the 19 plan and in particular in the -- I guess you would call 20 it the preface or the introduction to the plan much 21 like as is in the City of Bend plan that 22 says it's intended to be a guideline and 23 establish approval criteria, that that's 24 the code -- through the zoning ordinance 25 provisions of the land use regulations. essentially not to done through and other 32 1 So you start from that introductory language 2 and then in the code -- in the plan there are -- there 3 are pieces, bits and pieces that may also be -- suggest 4 that it's aspirational or advisory and pieces that 5 could be read to suggest that it's more than that. 6 so, you're -- you're asking me to look at the 7 context of -- a piece of the plan, the TSP, and a piece 8 of -- a piece of that, the Airport Master Plan, without 9 I think looking at the context in which those two 10 documents are found. 11 You have skipped right past that initial 12 language in the code, or in the plan's preface, so help 13 me understand how you reconcile that over -arching 14 statement of the purpose of the plan with the language 15 that you are relying on in the TSP and the Airport 16 Layout Plan, or the Airport Master Plan. 17 How do those -- how do those work together? 18 MR. MCGEAN: Well, I think one point is that 19 it is, in fact, prefatory. It's a general kind of 20 statement. I mean obviously the comprehensive plan is 21 not the stand-alone planning document. There are the 22 zoning ordinances that do implement parts of it, but 23 with a comprehensive plan that contains a very specific 24 subpart, like the Transportation System Plan, which in 25 part refers to the airport plan, I -- I really don't 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 29 to 32 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 33 1 think it's -- it's a reasonable way to read that 2 preface to say that the comprehensive plan has 3 basically ruled itself out of any direct usefulness as 4 a planning document later. 5 I really think that it comes down to looking 6 at the, you know, whether you can glean from the part 7 of the comprehensive plan whether it is something 8 that's meant to apply directly or needs to be applied 9 directly, and that's -- that's why I mention 10 specifically the -- some of the attributes about it, 11 what the -- specificity with the -- the reference to 12 the adopted one, and then there is the -- you know, 13 there is another fact this is a, you know, very 14 definite kind of geographical plan that's been 15 incorporated into the comprehensive plan, and there is 16 nothing like that in any of the airport development 17 zone ordinances. You don't have any kind of a map or a 18 layout and, in fact, if you look at the TSP there is a 19 second provision there and it's -- you can find it in 20 our LUBA brief, it's at appendix page 40, but it, you 21 know, among other things it states that the county when 22 it's planning -- when it's coming up with its own 23 airport plan and Goal 16 that it's required to 24 designate any proposed airport facility relocations or 25 expansions on an Airport Master Plan or Airport Layout 34 1 Plan as amended and establish proper zoning to assure a 2 compatible association of growth. 3 5o it -- you know, I don't really think you 4 can read that part that I just cited in any way other 5 than reading it to work with the code or the particular 6 zoning ordinance that you might be talking about. 7 I think that the position that the applicant 8 is -- is probably suggesting, I know that they have 9 made the argument before, is that the -- that the 10 airport development code itself should supplant 11 everything about the comprehensive plan and the 12 transportation -- the TSP. 13 I think the part that I just read to you 14 anticipates a different role, that the -- that the 15 Airport Master Plan is supposed to stand with the AD 16 zone and they are supposed to compliment each other. 17 That's supported by the policy statement for the AD 18 zone, which says that the policy for the AD zone is 19 to -- not to supplant, not even to implement the 20 comprehensive plan, but to ensure that growth is 21 allowed consistent with the Airport Master Plan. 22 So, you know, I think that some small 23 subtleties in the language there are important, and 24 they really do anticipate that the -- that the AMP is 25 going to have a continuing role as a planning document, 35 1 whereas the applicant here would completely rule that 2 out as a planning document, that it just has no more -- 3 no more life really since it's been, you know, since we 4 have a -- an AD zone, which as LUBA noted would allow a 5 fuel station in any zone at all, which would completely 6 eliminate any usefulness for this. 7 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So how -- how in your 8 theory, then, how do these two compliment one another 9 when a use that's expressly permitted outright in those 10 zones by your reading of the (inaudible) is, in fact, 11 not permitted in those zones? 12 MR. McGEAN: I think the ALP and the AMP, they 13 provide a couple of things. They provide economic 14 policies, they provide specific geographic locations 15 and planned choices and alternatives that have been 16 selected through the AMP process, and those are some of 17 the excerpts that we've taken from it that we have put 18 in our -- our brief to LUBA to show that the AMP is a 19 reasoned, you know, set of choices, and it really has 20 something that the -- that you wouldn't get from just 21 relying on the AD zone, which is a methodology for it. 22 You know, one of the points that I wanted to 23 make here, I talked about it in the letter that I 24 submitted to the -- 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Will, i5 the -- is 36 1 the mic on the podium hot? 2 MR. GROVES: Give a tap on it and see. 3 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yeah. So we should 4 be able to pick you up over there. 5 MR. McGEAN: Sure. So, I've marked in red 6 here where the current -- where the proposed fuel site 7 is. 8 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And you are looking 9 at page one of six, the earlier version of the layout 10 plan. 11 MR. McGEAN: That's -- this is the -- the 2002 12 version of the layout plan. It's at record page 333 in 13 the record that went to LUBA, but -- so the Leading 14 Edge site is part of location number nine on that map, 15 which according to the legend shows small conventional 16 hangars, and you have got six that are built out and 17 you can see up on the legend in the upper right-hand 18 corner it has existing and then future, and so the -- 19 the future buildings are shown in the broken line and 20 the existing ones are solid. 21 up one of the proposed future 22 hangars, but not only does it 23 something that's plotted here So it's basically taking small conventional actually conflict with but it -- one of the 24 points that we wanted to make, if you look at site 25 number nine and the proposed Leading Edge site and 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 33 to 36 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 1 compare it to where the existing gas station is, 2 location number one for fuel storage, which 3 Pro Air fuel station, and you see how close 4 each other, it's really hard to imagine how 37 is the they are to this is 5 going to promote any kind of growth at all on the east 6 side, and it -- it actually would undermine any kind of 7 growth on the east side and it would prevent there 8 being any kind of viable gas station that's plotted in 9 here. 10 So not only does it take up the space for the 11 hangars that were planned, but it also undermines the 12 future east side gas station that was an important part 13 or that was, you know, part of the important east side 14 development that the 2002 master plan anticipated. 15 So, in that way you see how if you resort to 16 the plan, it gives you something that you just don't 17 get from the zone, which I think is the point that 18 the -- that LUBA was trying to make in footnote number 19 seven. 20 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, I may be skipping 21 22 23 24 25 ahead a little bit, but what's your response to the city's argument that in previous you took -- your client took the couldn't be a fueling station on separate position the east litigation that there side, or at least that the applicant couldn't have a fueling 38 1 station on the east side? 2 MR. MCGEAN: Well, it's -- 3 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Was that the position 4 that you took in that litigation? 5 MR. McGEAN: It's -- it's more or less 6 accurate. I believe that the -- the position was that 7 the city's allowance of the east side gas station was 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 something that conflicted with the rights that my clients had on the east side. So it's totally not a land use type of issue. It was more of a real property issue as far as the lease that my clients have with the city. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: 5o you were not arguing that a fueling station could not be sited on the east side? MR. MCGEAN: I do not believe that that was 17 ever anything that we argued -- 18 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 19 MR. McGEAN: -- in our -- 20 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I'll hear from the 21 city, they may have a different view, but that was 22 your -- that was your interpretation that it had 23 nothing to do with whether the master plan permitted 24 it, it had something to do with the city's lease. 25 MR. MCGEAN: It was a contractual issue. 39 1 That's correct. 2 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. 3 MR. McGEAN: And we would always take the 4 position that any kind of new fuel station would have 5 to go through this process. 6 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Although it's your 7 client's position basically that there should be no 8 additional fuel stations on the airport, correct? 9 MR. MCGEAN: It is our position that that's 10 not something that's economically feasible right now, 11 and it's certainly something that's not allowed under 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 the plan right now. That -- that is our position, correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, even though it's allowed on the east side under the plan that you are relying on, you still don't think there should be a second fueling station? MR. MCGEAN: it's projected on the east side. 1 really don't -- I don't really have any testimony to offer on that point. The question of feasibility is more complicated and i would probably defer to my client on that. 23 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I just -- I want to 24 understand your plan argument. So you have clarified 25 that the op -- your client's opposition to the east 40 1 side fueling had not -- did not have to do with the 2 master plan, it had to do with the lease with the city. 3 I just want to clarify that you are -- whether your 4 client is saying that no fueling station would be 5 permitted on the east side. 6 MR. EVANS: We have no 7 MR. MCGEAN: Let me -- i think I'm going to 8 invite Mr. Evans to come on up after I'm finished here. 9 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. I just -- 10 either the plan does or doesn't permit it somewhere, 11 and 1 understand you to be saying that the master plan 12 and the Airport Layout Plan would permit a fueling 13 station on the east side. 14 MR. MCGEAN: I believe that's correct. 15 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Is that -- is that 16 your position? 17 MR. MCGEAN: Yes. I believe so. 18 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: okay. 19 MR. MCGEAN: So, you know, all of this 20 discussion that we have heard from the applicant that 21 concerns how the city may be interpreting its own 22 Airport Master Plan, how development has occurred in 23 the past there, it talked -- applicant talked about the 24 FAA and the significance of the FAA, but I really think 25 that this comes down to the county's code and the 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 37 to 40 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 41 1 county's comprehensive plan, and in our view reading 2 that comprehensive plan there is no way to avoid the 3 conclusion that this application can't be reconciled 4 with the plan unless you really just turn it on its 5 head. 6 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Did I -- I may have 7 misunderstood Ms. Smith but did I -- did I hear her say 8 that your client's FBO is not actually in the location 9 that was shown on the master plan? Did 1 hear that 10 correctly? what's your -- what's your response to 11 that? 12 13 14 15 MR. McGEAN: I didn't hear that. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: She just was nodding so that's what i thought she said. MR. McGEAN: That our FBO -- 16 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That Professional 17 Air's FBO is not actually in the location designated on 18 the plan. 19 MR. McGEAN: I think a lot of the variations 20 that they have talked about are fairly small variations 21 that don't really represent a direct conflict in -- in 22 the map, in the plan. 23 You know, 1 think the question -- the language 24 in the -- the AD zone in the policy statement is that 25 it is to provide for growth that is consistent with 42 1 and, you know, I think that moving a runway a little 2 bit and -- you know, we don't have a situation like 3 that here where you are just changing the dimensions of 4 something that's already generally planned out, you 5 know. This is something that where one use is being 6 supplanted for another and it's going to actually have 7 the effect of undermining the general -- the entire 8 plan for development for facilities. 9 I -- i don't have any other remarks. I made 10 some points in my letter about development that has 11 occurred since then. I think that, you know, I'm a 12 little -- I'm scratching my head a little bit about why 13 we are here and why the applicant is proceeding under 14 this application because the -- what's been built out 15 there doesn't match and -- 16 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Well, let me -- let 17 me ask you about that. I'm -- I'm not entirely clear 18 about the relevance of two arguments that you made. 19 One is that the -- that Leading Edge went ahead and 20 built the fueling station, and it was my understanding 21 there was no stay issued by LUBA; is that correct? 22 MR. McGEAN: That's correct. No, there was no 23 stay. They were free to do that, but they were free -- 24 they did that at their peril. 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So why would that be 43 1 relevant to my review on remand? 2 MR. McGEAN: well, the -- the issue is that 3 after CUBA came down with their opinion, not only did 4 they continue to sell fuel and store fuel there, not 5 having any kind of valid approval at that point, but 6 they proceeded to build a new roof that was not 7 anticipated anywhere in the -- 8 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So -- and I 9 understand there is a code violation complaint pending 10 on that. 11 MR. McGEAN: That's correct. 12 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So why -- again, why 13 would that be relevant to the issue on remand? I'm 14 just trying to understand how it ties in. 15 MR. McGEAN: I'm sorry. I think it's the 16 county's policy generally that land use applications 17 shouldn't be granted and shouldn't be approved when 18 there is an outstanding code violation present. 19 You know, it's just another issue also where 20 I'm just kind of wondering -- you know, to us what 21 needs to occur here would probably require a text 22 amendment, but we also believe it would require a brand 23 new application to at least get site plan approval for 24 the new structure that's out there that exceeds the 25 height of the tanks that were subject to the 44 1 application that we are here on now. 2 That was supposed to be no more than 10 feet 3 and this roof is over 12 feet and it's not even -- it's 4 not present anywhere in the plan materials, and to us 5 it's an instance of the applicant not respecting the 6 process. 7 we do think it would be grounds to deny the 8 application on remand, too, under the county's -- 9 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: 5o, again, help me 10 understand how given the directions from LUBA and the 11 remand, how I would have authority to deny the 12 application based on subsequent events. 13 MR. McGEAN: Well, it's -- it's my 14 understanding that the county's policy has been to not 15 allow -- it might not be your -- your issue, it might 16 be the county's issue ultimately, but -- 17 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That's really my 18 question, is it -- is it something that I have 19 authority based on the limited direction from LUBA to 20 look at it? 21 MR. McGEAN: I didn't -- I didn't want to 22 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: It just seems to me 23 it's probably a bit of a red herring in this 24 proceeding. I understand your client's concern about 25 it, but I'm not sure that it's relevant to the -- the 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 41 to 44 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 45 1 issue, the interpretive issue on remand. 2 MR. McGEAN: I think it could affect how 3 the -- how the county chose to deal with it depending 4 on what happens tonight but, you know, strictly as far 5 as the issues for remand go I would probably agree with 6 you. 7 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 8 MR. McGEAN: And I know my client was 9 gesturing to me. Can I have a moment to talk to him? 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Sure. Yeah. If he 11 would like to speak, that's fine. This would be the 12 opportunity. 13 So I just need you to sign in on the sign-up 14 sheet and then introduce yourself for the record. 15 MR. EVANS: My name is Gwil Evans. I'm the 16 president of The Flight shop and also I'm an owner in 17 Aero Facilities. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And how do you spell your first name? MR. EVANS: G -W -I -L, Gwil. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. EVANS: So part of the -- one of the questions was why did we object to an east side fuel farm, you know, when they first set about trying to put 46 1 a farm over there. well, the answer is we really 2 didn't object to that, you know. We were fine with 3 that but what we wanted was for Leading Edge to be 4 required to put in a road and utilities and their own 5 ramp on the east side just as we had been required to 6 build out virtually 24 acres of infrastructure on the 7 east side at the request of the city from way back in 8 2006 when they first put out the RFP for east side 9 development. 10 You know, we went and answered the call. we 11 did the ground work, you know, we did all the -- the 12 planning and we spent a ton of money to go ahead and 13 develop their land on that side of the airport with the 14 knowledge that hey, here's the Airport Layout Plan 15 that's in place, here's where future fueling facilities 16 are supposed to be located, it may be us who puts them 17 in, it may be somebody else. They made that very clear 18 to us that hey, you guys don't have the rights, you 19 know, somebody else can put an FSO in and that's where 20 it's going to go. 21 5o we did our homework, we did, you know, all 22 of the things that they asked us to do, we adhered to 23 the master plan, we adhered to the layout plan. In 24 fact, we went over and aboard -- beyond what they had 25 asked us to do to comply with that plan and then 47 1 they -- 2 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: This was in your RFP? 3 MR. EVANS: Yeah, yeah, and then as we 4 developed that land. So then they come along and -- 5 and say well, we are going to put a fuel farm in and we 6 are going to put it right on the taxiway right next to 7 your development where you have just spent all this 8 money. well, wait a minute, we lease that taxiway, 9 that's part of our property -- 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: You are still talking 11 about the east side property? 12 MR. EVANS: Yes, on the east side, and we said 13 no, you know, we object to that, I mean you can't use 14 our taxiway, okay? You put -- go ahead and put your -- 15 you know, put your fuel farm in over there, that's 16 fine, just do it the right way, build a road and pull 17 the utilities yourself, don't tack onto our -- you 18 know, what we just spent three million dollars to do. 19 so, you know, that was the real, you know, 20 objection there, and ultimately they said well, you 21 know, we can't do that and they hemmed and hawed and 22 said no, that's our taxiway, and at the end of the day 23 we haven't had a final conclusion to that argument but 24 they did not pursue it and they decided well, we will 25 find another place on the airport, so that's when they 48 1 ended up going and finding this little sliver of land 2 on the west side that hadn't been ever planned for 3 that, you know. 4 So what I've got now is I've got this 5 development on the east side of the airport where we 6 have spent about four million dollars to develop the 7 city's land, trusting them that they, you know, they 8 were going to, you know, ultimately follow through and 9 have services and fuel and Fso services on that side, 10 and then they have turned around and done completely 11 the opposite, so that's the problem that we had. 12 13 the clarification. 14 15 16 him to 17 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Thank you for MR. EVANS: All right. MR. McGEAN: Thank you. That's why 18 19 20 now, no. 21 22 23 24 I wanted MR. McGEAN: Did you have any other questions? HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I don't for you right MR. McGEAN: Thank you. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Thank you. Okay. Let's hear from the City. MR. FIRESTONE: I'm Gary Firestone, Assistant 25 city Attorney for the City of Bend. 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 45 to 48 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 49 1 To respond to the last comment first, the taxi 2 lane in question on the east side, yes, there is a 3 dispute whether it's included in the lease to Aero 4 Facilities; however, it was built with state funds by 5 the City, so it's not like Aero Facilities built it. 6 We recognize there is a dispute, and to avoid having to 7 resolve the dispute before the fueling station could be 8 sited, we did move the location of it. 9 Looking at this situation as a whole, the 10 Airport Master Plan does need to be considered in the 11 context of the entire comprehensive plan that is not -- 12 that does not provide binding criteria. 13 Also, if you look at both the texts, primarily 14 at the text of the master plan, and we are talking 15 about both the 1994 master plan and the 2002 amendment, 16 it's not always clear what survives from 1994 but, you 17 know, relevant text is the building area of an airport 18 encompasses all of the airport property not devoted to 19 runways, major taxiways, required clear areas and other 20 related functions, and fueling facilities are allowed 21 in the building area. 22 So, looking at the text of the '94 plan, to 23 the extent it survives, a fueling facility is allowed. 24 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So you are saying to 25 the extent it survives, and then it's not clear how 50 1 much of it survives, is it -- is it your view that that 2 language is intact in the 2002 plan or as amended? 3 MR. FIRESTONE: I -- I don't see anything that 4 explicitly replaces it. There may be refinements, so I 5 think it survives at least at some base level to 6 support, you know, possible clarifications, or actually 7 probably the better term is further developments in the 8 2002 plan, and the 2002 plan notes that the majority of 9 the airport is zoned airport development and that uses 10 permitted outright in the zone include airport and non - 11 structural uses, such as fuel storage. 12 So, again, the text says these are the zonings 13 or these are where things can be built and developed, 14 and fueling facilities are included in both, so to me 15 that clear text provides that you can have fueling 16 facilities. 17 Looking at the text, I don't see anything in 18 the text that says you can -- for private development 19 you can build only where it's shown on the plan and you 20 can't build if it's not shown there and you can't build 21 any differently. There is nothing like that. 22 If you look at it as a whole, and I mean 23 literally reading both documents as a whole, I come 24 away with the view that both documents provide guidance 25 for development by the airport operator, and they 1 recognize the possibility that there will be private 2 development on -- in locations, you know, on the 3 airport property. They don't have the same level of 51 4 detail for those. Yes, some of them are shown on the 5 plans, but if you look at the text there is nothing 6 that indicates oh, you can only build in these 7 locations or you can't build if it's not shown. 8 And so I think the text provides context for 9 the maps, and I don't see anything in the text that 10 says you can only build here. 11 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Let me -- let me stop 12 you for just a second. i mean this is -- this is a 13 very different master plan from what planners usually 14 think of when they think of a master plan. 15 MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. 16 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And sometimes I think 17 that the applicant or the opponents may be trying to 18 convert this into a sort of standard master plan when 19 it really isn't, but let me just -- I'm just thinking 20 out loud here. 21 I think about master plans like for Northwest 22 Crossing or some of the planned developments or 23 destination resorts where the master plan -- like in a 24 destination resort it's a conceptual master plan, it 25 actually pretty much lays out where everything is going 52 1 to be, and in order to change that a plan -- a land use 2 application and approval are required to actually move, 3 you know, one object or one type of development to 4 another location. 5 I assume that something similar occurred when 6 Northwest Crossing was -- was planned and approved. 7 8 9 areas MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: There were industrial and zones and so forth. So that -- that plan 10 actually did lay out where things were going to go and 11 presumably was consistent with the zoning district or 12 sub -districts or whatever, whatever they were called. 13 14 15 16 of plans doesn't. there is This plan reads differently from those types in some respects. In some respects it In some respects it does seem to -- I mean language that could be read to suggest that it 17 was intended to operate in the same way, but what the 18 applicant is saying and what I'm hearing you saying and 19 in your written material is that it really isn't that 20 kind of a plan. It's more of a -- I don't want to say 21 aspirational because it's not that either. It -- it 22 obviously has a purpose to identify where certain 23 things can occur, and it's done not only for planning 24 purposes but it's also done to satisfy the FAA because 25 ultimately they -- they call the shots with airport 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 49 to 52 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 53 1 layouts for public use airports, so it's -- it's just a 2 different cat. 3 MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah. 4 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: But it -- it appears 5 that in practice it's not -- it has not been used in 6 the same way as a more traditional master plan has been 7 used. It's been used as much more of a guiding 8 document, shall we say, than as a -- as an actual 9 master plan. 10 Is that a fair statement from the city's point 11 of view? 12 MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. I think that's a very 13 fair -- fair statement. I think when it comes to 14 actual development by the operator of the airport, it 15 functions a little more like a master plan for a 16 development, but when it comes to the private 17 development on the airport it functions more -- if you 18 look at the text it talks about zoning and the areas 19 and those are the key things. The text doesn't say 20 fueling facilities can only be here or hangars can only 21 be here. There are some discussion of city -built 22 hangars, but if you look at the text when it's talking 23 about private development, it's talking about areas and 24 zones, not about specific things, you know what I mean? 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So when you said it's 54 1 -- I'm not quite sure I understood the distinction you 2 made. You said that the city uses it as -- as the 3 manager and owner of the airport that you use it more 4 like the traditional master plan whereas the private 5 developers -- 6 MR. FIRESTONE: So for -- 7 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- don't -- aren't 8 subject to it in the same way. 9 MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah. So for runways we are 10 going to put the runway pretty much where it's shown, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 you know. There was a move in the runway shown and it happened, and if you haven't seen that there is a photograph showing the new runway and the old runway. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Was that done at the same time that it was lengthened or is that -- were those two separate actions? MR. FIRESTONE: There was a lengthening at this time. Whether that was the only lengthening I don't know. It was before my time. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. FIRESTONE: Is this black and white? MR. GROVES: Would you like to see this? 23 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yes. The only one I 24 remember is the extension of the runway to the south 25 and the relocation of Nelson Road to accommodate that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 55 MR. FIRESTONE: And I also do not know whether a county -- a land use approval was obtained for that. I know that in some other context the county has taken the position if you are not building anything that projects above the ground you may not need a land use approval. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: But this was obviously done by the city. MR. FIRESTONE: Right. And so when it's city initiated, you know, we -- that's the master plan is to guide us in city provides. The rest of it is context for -- and so to me there the main the city included are some purpose of in what the for general things that are relevant that may provide criteria for HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So let me -- I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to think this through a little bit. So thinking about here's the city as the operator and here's an FBO, potential FBO operator. So the city -- unless you are going to penetrate one of 21 the imaginary surfaces where the county code basically 22 says you need to -- we need to talk. 23 MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah. 24 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: You are saying the 25 city may not even go to the county. You may just say 1 I'm going to -- we are going to move the runway or we 2 are going to move this taxiway or -- i don't want to 3 put you on the spot, but it sounds like you see 4 yourself as the operator in a slightly different 5 posture with respect to implementing the master plan 6 MR. FIRESTONE: Right. 7 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- than the county 8 treats a private leaseholder who wants to develop 9 property that's -- 10 MR. FIRESTONE: Well -- 11 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- privately 12 developed. 13 MR. FIRESTONE: If we were going to build a 14 building, we would go to the county. 15 16 17 ground. 56 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MR. FIRESTONE: That projects above the All i was saying is that i know that for in 18 some other context we have approached the county saying 19 we are putting a new road in, you know, at some 20 city -owned facility, you know, that's outside the city 21 limits and, you know, do we need a land use approval 22 for this or a building permit for this, and sometimes 23 if it's not projecting above the surface of the ground, 24 you know, more than a roadway would, then sometimes the 25 answer is no, you don't need, so if we are building a 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 53 to 56 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 57 1 building -- 2 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: You might be moving 3 that road somewhere off where it was shown on the plan, 4 on the master plan? 5 MR. FIRESTONE: We are talking mostly like -- 6 see, I was trying to be outside the context -- 1 was 7 just saying that in other situations, non -airport, if 8 we are changing the location of an on-site driveway, 9 you know, because it's not -- it doesn't trigger -- in 10 some cases it hasn't triggered public review. whether 11 or not that applied in this case I don't know. 12 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 5o you are not 13 -- you are not looking at it as something as tight as a 14 site plan, for example, where if you wanted to change a 15 factor in a site plan that you got approved for 16 something you would have to get additional site plan 17 18 19 20 approval? You are not looking at it as strictly as that? type. MR. FIRESTONE: Yes, if it's just a surface 21 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 22 MR. FIRESTONE: But it's just -- we ask the 23 county do we need it and sometimes the answer's yes and 24 sometimes the answer's no. 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 1 MR. FIRESTONE: Going back to the text and 58 2 when it's talking about, you know, private development, 3 it talks about the description of the A area, which is, 4 you know, air field operations. It defines the area by 5 runway and taxiway setbacks, and so to me that text, 6 you know, is relevant, but it also prevails over 7 anything in any of the attached maps because it, you 8 know, what are the setback standards and if you are 9 outside the setback standards then you are in the A 10 area, and I think that prevails over any county -- you 11 know, otherwise indicated A area on the map. 12 And I look at the entire document and I think 13 there are some standards, yes. We couldn't have 14 allowed a fueling station, you know, that's in the 15 middle of the runway obviously, but beyond that if it's 16 not needed for airport operations, 17 setback and height standards, then 18 the maps are there just as -- when if it meets all the it's allowable, and it comes to private 19 development, to the extent anything's marked as future, 20 that's just anticipated. It's not you must. It's this 21 is what we anticipate from private development. 22 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So if a -- if a 23 potential airport -- on airport operator on some sort 24 of business or whatever comes to the city interested in 25 leasing or building something, how do you use the 59 1 master plan with that -- with that potential lease, you 2 know, lessee? 3 I mean do you sit down with them and say this 4 is where you can do this or -- I mean how do you use 5 this plan? 6 MR. FIRESTONE: Well, we use the Airport 7 Layout Plan primarily as a federal document. If it's 8 not shown, we will propose to the FAA that they amend 9 it to show the new facility, you know, assuming we have 10 worked out the lease terms and, you know, lease -- when 11 we look at, you know, somebody coming in, I want to put 12 something at the airport, we look at the zoning first, 13 we look at do we have land, what are they proposing, 14 can it fit there, is it too close to a runway, too 15 close to a taxiway, does it have access, all those 16 things, and then we -- you know, if it can be sited we 17 basically say yes, and sometimes it can be sited 18 without a land use approval that, you know, would 19 change a subzone or anything like that, you know. 20 Almost always it will need a site plan review like this 21 one did. 22 when it comes to the master plan, it's there 23 but we really think that the zoning has implemented the 24 master plan, and that comes to, you know, one of the 25 questions here, what was the role of the master plan. 60 1 well, it guided the code amendment that establishes the 2 airport zoning. And so originally it was just, you 3 know, everything's airport development, now there are 4 three sub -zones based on the 2002 master plan. 5 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: More specifics. 6 MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah, so more specifics, and 7 those were implemented in the code. So we have an 8 acknowledged code, we look to the acknowledged code. 9 It's -- it's -- in our view it's not only acknowledged 10 to be consistent with the plan, it is consistent with 11 the plan. 12 And there is one piece of context that I think 13 is really important. If the city is found to have 14 discriminated among service providers and discouraged 15 competition, not allowed competition, the city not only 16 loses future grant funds from the FAA, there is at 17 least the potential for the FAA to claw back past 18 grants. 19 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That's if you do it, 20 not if I do it, right? 21 MR. FIRESTONE: No. 22 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I assume the FAA 23 comes after the operator of the airport. 24 MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah. 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: If you -- if you make 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 57 to 60 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 61 1 some sort of a decision that results in -- 2 MR. FIRESTONE: Right, and even if you tell 3 us 4 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- what the FAA 5 considers discrimination. 6 MR. FIRESTONE: Right. 7 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: If another 8 hearing -- if another jurisdiction's hearings officer 9 says something to you about what you have to do, I 10 wonder would they actually take that kind of 11 enforcement against you? 12 MR. FIRESTONE: They legally could. Now, 13 would they? I agree, maybe not, but this provides 14 context for the inclusion of the -- of the, you know, 15 that type of plan, the map type plan and the master 16 plan. 17 Would the city really have submitted and would 18 the county really have approved a plan that could 19 subject the city to that risk that okay, we have a 20 third entity that wants to provide fuel, it's not on 21 the master plan, and the FAA expects us to act fast 22 when we get these requests. So putting it that -- in 23 that context, I don't think there is -- anybody could 24 conclude that the intent was there can only be one 25 place to fuel or to have a second fueling station. 63 1 city has always approached it the same way. 2 So if you have a course of practice and then 3 something's amended and then it's amended again and 4 there is no change in practice, I think there is an 5 acceptance that this is how it is. I think the course 6 of practice when there is an amendment, you know, 7 without addressing it shows confirmation of that course 8 of practice. 9 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So it -- following on 10 that, it seems to me it would be useful to have from 11 the county -- will, if this is something that you can 12 identify, the only airport land use matters that I can 13 recall that I've been involved with were -- 14 MR. GROVES: Paladin. 15 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yeah, the -- the 16 question whether it was an airport -related business. 17 That was the issue in that particular case. I think 18 that's the only case other than this one that I've had 19 of -- for on airport uses. 20 I don't know if there are others where either 21 a private developer or the city has had to or chosen to 22 come to the county for approval of something under 23 the -- for a site plan approval under the zoning 24 ordinance and whether any of these master plan issues 25 came up, so I think that's probably the best evidence 1 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: SO, to -- to put 2 in legal terms, I gather that -- and thank you for 3 helping me understand how -- how this functionally 4 operates at the city level. 5 I'm assuming that your comments about the FAA 6 really go to the question of the -- excuse me, the 7 broader context, not just the text -- textual context 8 but the practical functional context of -- 9 MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: managing an 11 airport and using the master plan as part of that 12 management tool. 13 MR. FIRESTONE: Right. 14 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, then I guess the 15 discussion that we have been having about how the city 16 actually uses the plan is maybe pushing the envelope a 17 little bit. 18 My -- I guess my question to all the parties 19 is to what extent is that relevant -- to what extent 20 would LUBA consider that relevant if I were to consider 21 that in interpreting the plan language, past actual 22 practice. 23 MR. FIRESTONE: Okay. I think past practice 24 comes in because this plan has been amended -- even the 25 '94 was an amendment, the 2002 was an amendment. The 62 this 64 1 of past practice is what -- what applications were 2 filed, what decisions were issued. If there aren't 3 any, and there may not be, then it may be, you know, 4 that I can use or at least look to the testimony that 5 you have provided about how you understand the master 6 plan to have been used as evidence of, you know, how 7 it's been previously interpreted by the county. 8 MR. FIRESTONE: I believe Aero Facilities did 9 get a county land use approval. I'm not -- that's my 10 understanding. 11 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: For the original FBO? 12 MR. FIRESTONE: No. Okay. Aero Facilities is 13 the -- 14 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Is the east side. 15 MR. FIRESTONE: -- hangar development on the 16 east side. Professional Air is the FBO on the west 17 side. 18 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. Okay. SO 19 there would have been at least site plan approval for 20 the east side development and there would have been 21 site plan approval for Cessna. 22 MR. FIRESTONE: Cessna and Epic, I would 23 guess. 24 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 25 MR. FIRESTONE: Again, before my time. 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 61 to 64 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 1 65 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: What I would like to 2 do is at least take a look at those decisions, and I 3 don't think I necessarily need to put them in the 4 record since they are official decisions of the county. 5 I think that would be useful just to see to what extent 6 the -- the plan was in play there. 7 so, if you can -- and obviously I'm going to 8 be leaving the record open for a little bit, Will, to 9 give you some time to see if you can track those down. 10 Okay. 11 I think those are all the questions I have for 12 you at the moment. 13 MR. FIRESTONE: Would you have any questions 14 for our airport manager? Gary Judd is here if you have 15 any specific, you know, airport operations questions. 16 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Well, I -- probably 17 not, other than just to say, you know, while the record 18 is open if there are other examples, kind of getting to 19 what -- the questions I've been asking about, have we 20 done this in the past, how has the city done this in 21 the past, how have -- have the county and city 22 implemented the plan or used the plan, any, you know, 23 any other examples of that that might be useful in 24 terms of past practice would be helpful to know. I 25 don't know that you have to testify to that orally 66 1 tonight, Gary, but maybe something that you could -- 2 Gary Judd, but maybe that's something that you could 3 weigh in in writing while the record is open, if that's 4 something the city wants to put in the record. 5 MR. FIRESTONE: And just to, you know, maybe 6 this is some repetition of what I said, but, you know, 7 have we used the plan? We have always -- we have 8 considered it to be implemented by the code and, you 9 know, we paid close attention to the code. 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. All right. 11 Thank you. 12 5o, Gary, I don't want to cut you off -- Gary 13 Judd. If you would like to say something now you are 14 more than welcome to. I just need to have you come up 15 to the mic and sign in if you are going to offer any 16 testimony orally. 17 MR. JUDD: okay. My name is Gary Judd and I'm 18 the Bend airport manager, and I have just a few points 19 I would like to bring out about how I implement the 20 Airport Master Plan in the city, and one of the things 21 I brought out is if you look at the transportation 22 plan, it says that the Airport Master Plan as amended. 23 The only person that can update the Airport Master Plan 24 is the FAA, so there is a process to go through. We go 25 to them and say this is what's proposed on the airport, 67 1 is that acceptable to the FAA, and they will give us -- 2 that's the form 7460, so we go through that process and 3 we did that for this relocation of the fuel system and 4 they said okay, that is acceptable. They may -- they 5 were -- totally could have said no, it doesn't fit, 6 doesn't go with the plan. 7 So another thing, if I can borrow the map a 8 little bit up here. 9 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Yeah. Go ahead. 10 Just if you can get kind of close to the mic on the 11 podium, then we will have a better chance of picking up 12 your voice. 13 MR. JUDD: That drawing there, and then the 14 one up here is the same as the one i have in my hand. 15 If you will see the aviation -related industrial area is 16 empty. There is nothing shown on this map. 17 When it was updated several years ago by the 18 FAA through an amendment, then it shows that Epic was 19 built there. Epic was done with the site plan and 20 according to all of the regulations required, but the 21 specific building and the specific site is not shown. 22 There is just an area set aside that that is allowed. 23 So we have that example. Another example is 24 in this pond area. 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Wait a minute. Let 68 1 me -- let me stop you. The drawing that I have does 2 not match. 3 MR. JUDD: Right. It does not. 4 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So I'm sorry. 5 Go over that again with me. You've got a -- so you are 6 talking about a vacant piece on the -- the large layout 7 map of page one of six, which this is the 2002 8 amendment. 9 MR. JUDD: Right. This is the 2002. It was 10 updated in 2007. 11 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So what I'm 12 looking at, which I just marked as Exhibit B, is the 13 2007 update to the master plan that now shows Epic 14 Air's building. 15 MR. JUDD: Right. So this plan showed nothing 16 and this plan now shows the Epic building. So it 17 was -- it indicates -- and it doesn't show a precise 18 location. It's a general area where it was allowed to 19 be built. 20 Now, one other example we have is once again 21 where the FAA steps in is where our weather station is 22 located, and the weather station as time changes if you 23 look at one example, well, today it's actually over 24 here. That was mandated by the FAA. 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So for the record, 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 65 to 68 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 69 1 you are now pointing farther south on the west side 2 of -- or excuse me, on the east side of the airport. 3 MR. JUDD: It goes up into this area. 4 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 5 MR. JUDD: Another example if you look at the 6 older drawing on the -- the one in 2002, this is 7 tie -downs. 8 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And you are pointing 9 to an area on the west side of the airport north of the 10 midpoint. 11 MR. JUDD: Correct. It's on the north side. 12 If you look at the updated plan, in that same area you 13 will now see a hangar, and what happened in this case 14 was this area -- the operator came to the airport and 15 said I would like to build a hangar here and I'll 16 provide another spot for items, so they evidently went 17 through the FAA process and that was moved, and that is 18 -- once again, this -- the older plan in 2002 does not 19 show it, the one in 2007 does. 20 So, these are examples of how it moves across 21 but it definitely follows the FAA. The FAA is 22 contacted, they coordinate with the airport, and 23 because of the complexity of aircraft and air space 24 that's kind of why we look at the zoning. The zoning 25 says okay, it might allow a fuel system here, it might 70 1 allow an industrial building here, and then we go back 2 to the FAA and say we know that the zoning will allow 3 that but will you allow that, and then we go through 4 the 7460 process. 5 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So then you get -- 6 you get some sort of written response from the FAA 7 blessing it or not, the use takes place, gets land use 8 approval if necessary, gets a lease from the city. 9 MR. JUDD: Correct. 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And then if I 11 understood I think it was Ms. Smith's testimony, at 12 some point, then, that use is put on the master plan to 13 reflect the as -built, basically, there it is, that's 14 where we put it based on the FAA's approval of that 15 amendment. 16 So you are -- you are after the fact changing 17 the master plan map to show the location of the 18 approved use. 19 MR. JUDD: Correct. On the 7460 it actually 20 is written on -- this example says the fuel facility, 21 it says they will update the master plan. They do a 22 pen and ink update. 23 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: "They" being the FAA. 24 MR. JUDD: The FAA. 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 71 1 MR. JUDD: They update that, and then they 2 direct us that in our next Airport Master Plan update 3 to show those changes, and then they base their funding 4 on that. They look out in the future. 5 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And how often -- do 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they require that you update it on a certain -- at a certain interval, or is it just when you feel like it's time to do the update? MR. JUDD: Yeah. It's pretty much how fast the airport's developing. Usually you build out kind of close to the end of your master plan and then you do a new one, so there is HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. MR. JUDD: Okay. I'll set it here. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Just let me write this down on my exhibit list. So this is -- just to be sure I'm labeling this correctly, the drawing that you gave me that I'm listing as Exhibit B is the 2007. MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. It's listed right on the bottom in this little -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: The print is very small. MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. 1 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Even with my 72 2 trifocals I'm having trouble reading it. 3 MR. FIRESTONE: You can have this one. 4 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: 5o show me where -- 5 oh, I see it. There it is, November 15th, '07. Is 6 that what that says, City of Bend approval? 7 MR. FIRESTONE: Yeah. They are a little bit 8 different dates because they had to send it to the FAA 9 after they approve it. 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So where is the 11 okay. So the only date I see of 2007 is this one right 12 here where the -- is there another one? 13 MR. FIRESTONE: Actually two signatures, FAA 14 is one. 15 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I see it here. Okay. 16 Thank you. So this is the 2007 update. All right. 17 okay. 18 MR. FIRESTONE: You have 19 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: 20 got that. So rather than have a got this one, too. Actually, yeah, I've duplicate, let's just 21 leave the one that I've got, the oversized one. Okay. 22 So thank you for that clarification. 23 Anyone else here to speak on behalf of the 24 city? Gary and Gary, just the two of you? 25 MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 69 to 72 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 73 1 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. All right. As 2 I said, I did not -- was not able to locate my notes 3 from the previous hearing so I cannot recall who else 4 appeared as a party to the -- to the original 5 proceedings. 6 Does anybody else recall who else testified? 7 Because I don't want to allow testimony from any party 8 who did not testify in the previous hearing. 9 Is there anyone here -- anyone else here who 10 wishes to speak? Let's start with that. Sharon. 11 MS. SMITH: I may do some rebuttal with my 12 clients here that are parties to the proceeding. 13 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Sure. Okay. I'm 14 just looking to see if there is public or other folks 15 who wanted to testify, then we can figure out if they 16 testified before. 5o it looks like there isn't anyone 17 else. All right. 18 so let me go ahead and hear from the applicant 19 on rebuttal, then we will talk about the post -hearing 20 schedule. 21 MS. SMITH: Thank you. Sharon smith on behalf 22 of the applicant on rebuttal. 23 I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time, we 24 will do most of our rebuttal in writing, but I did want 25 to respond to Mr. McGean's comment that -- that some of 74 1 the changes that I described were inconsequential, and 2 he is making much of the fact that we are putting -- 3 that we put a fuel station in a place where it wasn't 4 identified for a fuel station on the Airport Layout 5 Plan, but I think it's very important to realize that 6 their facilities don't match what's on the 2002 Airport 7 Layout Plan, and in particular if you look at page 8 three of the materials that I submitted, Exhibit A, 9 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 10 MS. SMITH: What's shown is item 24 in the 11 legend, aircraft tie -downs, and then what's circled on 12 the middle of the plan, aircraft apron, and you go to 13 the next page, which is the 2000 -- 14 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That's on the -- I'm 15 trying to get myself oriented here. 16 MS. SMITH: Yes. 17 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That is on the east. 18 MS. SMITH: East side of the airport. 19 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: East side of the 20 airport at midpoint roughly. 21 MS. SMITH: At midpoint. All right. so the 22 next page, which is the 2013 Airport Layout Plan, which 23 reflects what's currently built there, circled in red 24 is a very different configuration. It doesn't have the 25 airport -- aircraft apron, it doesn't have aircraft 75 1 tie -downs, and it has an aircraft hangar. 2 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And this is in the 3 Aero Air development on the east side? 4 MS. SMITH: Correct. 5 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. I see what you 6 are pointing to. 7 MS. SMITH: And then the next page, which is 8 also the 2002 Airport Layout Plan, circled in red, is 9 the item 16, which is in the legend as the FBO. 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Reserve. 11 MS. SMITH: Reserve. 12 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 13 MS. SMITH: The next page, the 2013 Airport 14 Layout Plan, shows there is no FBO there. Rather, 15 what's been built is a modified hangar configure -- a 16 hangar building and a modified aircraft apron -- there 17 is no aircraft apron there, and while I don't profess 18 to be -- 19 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: At least nothing 20 labeled as such, correct? 21 MS. SMITH: I don't profess to be an expert 22 about FBOs, but my understanding of an FBO, and I might 23 have one of my clients come and describe that, is that 24 is a -- an area that is designated to provide services 25 for aircrafts and requires that you have access to the 76 1 hangar space, and maybe Travis can -- can speak to 2 that, that an FBO is a -- is not a minor thing but a 3 pretty important element at an airport. 4 So I'm going to have Travis from Leading Edge 5 state his name. 6 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Let me just make sure 7 I understand what this is in aid of. You are -- you 8 are talking about the distinction between what was 9 planned, quote -unquote, on the master plan for the Aero 10 Air space on the east side of the airport and what was 11 physically placed there, what's actually built there. 12 MS. SMITH: Yes. 13 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And there is an area 14 on the 2002 plan that says FBO reserve. 15 MS. SMITH: Yes. 16 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And the 2013 as 17 built, whatever we call it, doesn't -- no longer shows 18 an FBO or an apron labeled as such. 19 M5. SMITH: Correct. 20 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So this testimony is 21 relative to what -- what an FBO would include and what 22 it should be? 23 MS. SMITH: Yes. 24 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And if I 25 recall correctly from ancient days when I used to fly, 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 73 to 76 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 77 1 the FBO is defined in the FARS as far as what 2 specifically an FBO has to include, isn't it? And 3 introduce yourself for the record. 4 MR. WARTHEN: So this is Travis warthen from 5 Leading Edge Aviation. I'm not sure that an FBO is 6 defined in the FARS, but it is defined in the GAMS for 7 the city and the services that they have to provide. 8 one of the requirements is it has to have ramp space, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 so i think the point is in 2002 the kind of vision for the airport was that there would be an FBO located there -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: On the east side. MR. WARTHEN: And there would be ramp space or an apron for aircraft to taxi into and there would be somebody that could provide the services. So if -- if the Airport Layout Plan truly is a binding document, then it would be impossible for them to eliminate that apron, eliminate that location for the FBO, and instead build corporate hangars that don't allow for things like maintenance or fueling or servicing of aircraft. 22 5o, it's clear by what was actually built at 23 the airport that yes, this is an area designated, this 24 is kind of a vision of what we could build here, but 25 the reality of what was actually built is different 78 1 based on what market demand is. 2 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 5o there is 3 nothing on the -- this would be page six of Exhibit A, 4 there is nothing on this 2013 drawing that tells me 5 what's actually there. There is nothing -- there is no 6 label here that says what is physically there. 7 5o, I'm gathering but I think you need to be 8 clearer with me as to what is physically there now that 9 is not an FBO. I take it that what is there now 10 physically is not an FBO? 11 MR. WARTHEN: Right, and they are prohibited 12 by their lease to provide services that are typically 13 provided by an FBO. 14 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So what is 15 physically there on that space that's circled in red on 16 the drawing that Sharon submitted? 17 MS. SMITH: What's circled in red is you can 18 see 19 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I see there is a 20 building. 21 MS. SMITH: A building. 22 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. 23 MS. SMITH: And it says existing building, and 24 then the blank spaces are intended it's my 25 understanding to provide for additional hangar space, 79 1 and so each of the squares that is highlighted in kind 2 of the orange color that you can see on the legend are 3 physically hangar space. 4 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So the legend that 5 I'm looking at on this drawing -- oh, I see. Okay. 5o 6 there is -- 7 MS. SMITH: Where it says existing buildings, 8 you can see a building is denoted by a solid black line 9 around a -- 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. 11 MS. SMITH: -- orange color. 12 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: There is a yellow 13 I show a yellow marked area for a building. 14 MS. SMITH: Correct. 15 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And -- okay. 16 And the rest of that is unmarked and unlabeled, the 17 space that is to the north of that -- 18 MS. SMITH: There are -- 19 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- highlighted 20 building. 21 MS. SMITH: There is a couple of buildings in 22 that whole area 23 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 24 MS. SMITH: -- that you can see, that's dark 25 shaded -- 1 2 3 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Has a bit of another 4 color to it. 5 MS. SMITH: Uh-huh. 6 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So those are 7 buildings. 8 MS. SMITH: Yes. 9 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Then what is not 10 outlined is unbuild -- unbuilt space, vacant space to 11 the north of the building that's highlighted in yellow? 12 MS. SMITH: Yes, and it's -- it is labeled at 13 the top aviation use and it points to one of the empty 14 squares. At the very top of that kind of -- in the 15 blank space above the airport development, see where it 16 says aviation use and it points to one of those empty 17 squares? 18 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Oh, I see. Okay. 19 And this is way to the east of the area that you have 20 marked in red, so I'm -- 21 MS. SMITH: Yes. 22 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I guess I need to be 23 clear about this. This rectangular area that -- a 24 portion of which you have circled in red on this 25 drawing, that entire rectangular area that moves to the HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. MS. SMITH: -- represents buildings. 80 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 77 to 80 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 1 east, 2 3 81 to the -- to the boundary, basically. MS. SMITH: Yes. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That i5 the Aero Air 4 property. 5 6 7 property. 8 9 10 saying MR. WARTHEN: Aero Facilities. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Aero Facilities MR. WARTHEN: Correct. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So what you are is these spaces, outlined spaces that have an 11 Aero that says aviation use are buildings? 12 MR. WARTHEN: Potential buildings. 13 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Potential buildings, 14 okay. Then in the area that you have circled, Sharon, 15 there is -- there appear to be two enclosed areas that 16 look like they are actual buildings. 17 MS. SMITH: Yes. 18 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. One is 19 highlighted in yellow, one is in a paler color. Maybe 20 it was supposed to be yellow as well. 5o those are two 21 existing buildings. 22 MS. SMITH: Yes. 23 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And those are 24 hangars? 25 MS. SMITH: I understand, hangars. 83 1 into the record, I think that's as far as that 2 testimony is valuable to me. 3 MS. SMITH: And the point being that to the 4 extent that they are making an argument that we can't 5 put a fuel facility where we put it because it's not 6 allowed on that 2002 Airport Layout Plan, their 7 development is also not consistent with the 2002 8 Airport Layout Plan. 9 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So you're saying it's 10 an example -- another example of what appears to be a 11 practice of broader interpretation of what is permitted 12 within these individual zoning districts. 13 MS. SMITH: Right. 14 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: As opposed to 15 individual designated pieces of property. 16 MS. SMITH: Correct. And what the role of the 17 ALPS are in the bigger context of the Airport Master 18 Plan, in the bigger context of the TSP, in the bigger 19 context of what is the role of the comprehensive plan 20 with regard to applicability for approval criteria. 21 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 22 MS. SMITH: In a site plan. 23 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. And you had 24 said earlier that you were going to do a narrative. 25 MS. SMITH: Yes. 82 1 MR. WARTHEN: They are corporate hangars, yes. 2 The one that is yellow is a 10,000 -square -foot 3 corporate hangar. 4 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 5 MR. WARTHEN: You know, they are not allowed 6 under the conditions of their lease to do any 7 maintenance or any typical type Fs0 services. 8 so the change from 2002 where they designated 9 that space as FB0 services and that -- and as an apron 10 or a ramp area, that has -- that is inconsistent with 11 what was built with Aero Facilities. 12 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So there 13 is -- the record does not include Aero Facilities' 14 lease for this property, and we are talking about what 15 is and isn't in the lease, and I'm not sure that that 16 actually is even relevant, but what I -- I want to be 17 sure that I understand, and I think I do now, what you 18 are saying in terms of what's physically on their space 19 versus what is shown on the 2002 layout plan as an FBO 20 location. 21 MS. SMITH: Correct. 22 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. All right. So 23 I understand the point that you are making, and I think 24 unless you want to put -- and I'm not sure that it's 25 relevant but unless you want to put the actual lease 84 1 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: To describe, and if 2 you would include that information on the narrative for 3 that page that would be helpful. 4 MS. SMITH: Yes. And -- and I apologize, 5 it's -- I had to have my client walk me through because 6 it's not necessarily all that easy to see the 7 differences. 8 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. 9 MS. SMITH: Without -- 10 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Unless you are used 11 to reading an Airport Layout Plan. 12 MS. SMITH: Correct. 13 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Right. 14 MS. SMITH: So I think in the interest of time 15 we will respond to the materials tonight in writing. 16 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 17 MS. SMITH: And there is -- there is a lot 18 here. I am mindful of the time frame, but I'm inclined 19 to say we probably should keep the record open for 20 three weeks, but I would like to make sure that Mr. 21 McGean doesn't have a concern about whether he needs 22 more time or not. 23 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 24 MS. SMITH: So -- 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So, in another remand 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 81 to 84 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 85 1 that I'm working on I had talked with the planner in 2 that case, Kevin Harrison, about how much time to leave 3 at 4 5 6 we 7 the end for board review. MS. SMITH: Uh-huh. HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And Kevin felt that needed at least 30 days. MS. SMITH: Uh-huh. 8 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: For board review, 9 assuming that the applicant does not extend the 90 10 days, which you can, in the event that time gets very 11 short for the board, 12 MS. SMITH: And I'm sure we would do that. 13 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay, and I'm running 14 into that problem with this other remand so I'm 15 sensitive about that, but just start -- from that being 16 the starting point, I want to think about what we -- 17 what time we have left. 18 So, all right, so I'm going to go ahead and 19 close the oral testimony and -- oh, I'm sorry, will. 20 MR. GROVES: I have -- 21 22 you. Go ahead. 23 24 of nightmare scenario HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I forgot all about MR. GROVES: I wanted to address the LUBA kind where a fueling station's put in 25 the middle of the runway. 86 1 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: In the middle of the 2 runway. Yeah. That would be a fascinating thing to 3 see. 4 MR. GROVES: And that -- it's not poss -- it's 5 not possible because all uses in 1876 in the airport 6 development sub -zones all require a site plan review. 7 That includes runways, taxiways, roads, all facilities, 8 and that 18124 review that's required requires both a 9 harmonious development within the site for the existing 10 development, and also there's requirements that the 11 site plan be designed to provide a safe environment, so 12 there is -- 13 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And you don't think a 14 fueling station in the middle of the runway would be a 15 safe environment? 16 MR. GROVES: Not a safe environment. 17 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So you're basically 18 saying site plan -- because everything is subject to 19 site plan review, that's kind of the last -- the last 20 catchment. 21 MR. GROVES: Yeah. There's no -- there's no 22 risk here that without reference to the Airport Layout 23 Plan that you can -- 24 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: That there would 25 be -- 1 MR. GROVES: -- successfully site a fueling 2 station in the middle of a runway. 3 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- an inappropriate 4 use. Okay. 5 MR. GROVES: That's all. 6 87 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. Thanks, Will. 7 okay. I'm going to close the oral testimony and let's 8 talk about the post -hearing schedule. 9 I'll get a calendar if we have got one in 10 here. 11 MS. SMITH: So I think you said approximately 12 May 18th would be the 90 days. 13 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And let's -- rather 14 than approximating it, let's see if we can actually 15 figure it out here. So February 18th was the remand 16 date, initiation date. 17 Will, do I understand that correctly? 18 MR. GROVES: Correct. 19 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So the county doesn't 20 -- county code says we don't count that day, the first 21 day, so -- all right. Looks like the 90th day is the 22 19th of April, which is a Saturday, so we would be out 23 to -- 24 25 MS. SMITH: May? HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Excuse me, May, which 1 is a Saturday, so we would be out to May 21st. 2 going to -- that will be our working date. 3 So if we back up a month, that puts us to 4 April 21st, or whatever that day is in April. Yeah, 5 April 21st as the date on which ideally a decision 6 would be issued, so that the -- any appeal to the board 7 could be processed. 8 So, that leaves us with about six weeks, give 9 or take. so if we do the normal three week, a week for 10 the first round of evidence, a week for the rebuttal 11 round and a week for final argument, that leaves me 12 three weeks to do a decision, which will be a wonderful 13 period of time for me to have, but that may not be 14 enough time for the parties given the complexity of the 88 So I'm 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 issues and the record. So I'm -- I'm open to -- and Mr. McGean, if you want to come up to the mic so we can talk about time frame. Three weeks might be a little bit short but I would sure like to have at least two weeks to do a decision. So, does it make sense to maybe do two weeks, one week, one week? MR. MCGEAN: That's -- my only concern would be about next week, so I have a short week this week and -- HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So two weeks for the 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 85 to 88 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 89 1 initial would work better for you? 2 MR. McGEAN: That would be ideal. 3 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. 4 MR. McGEAN: Yeah. 5 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Sharon, would that 6 work for you to do a first round two week closing and 7 then another two weeks, a week for rebuttal and a week 8 for final argument? 9 So we would go out to the 18th, the 25th, and 10 the 8th -- no, the 1st, excuse me. 11 MS. SMITH: Would it be possible to do -- 12 maybe go to the -- extend it out like to the 20 -- I 13 would really like to do maybe the 21st, the 28th, and 14 then the 4th, because we may need to gather some, you 15 know, prior site plans and -- 16 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: All right. SO we 17 would be going a little more than two weeks, then, to 18 the 21st. 19 MS. SMITH: Two and a half. 20 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Then rebuttal the 21 28th and final argument on the 4th, and that would give 22 me about two weeks. 23 Does that work for you, Mr. McGean? 24 MR. McGEAN: It does. Thank you. 25 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And Gary Firestone, 1 does that work for you? 2 MR. FIRESTONE: It's fine by the city. 3 90 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. All right. So 4 it sounds like that's going to work for everybody. 5 will, any of your comments and additional materials 6 into the record would be the first round? Does that 7 work for your schedule? 8 MR. GROVES: Yes. 9 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: All right. So the 10 first round, then, will close at five p.m. on March 11 21st, the rebuttal round will close on the 28th of 12 March, and final arguments would be due on the 4th of 13 April, if submitted. 14 MS. SMITH: Yeah, and it may be possible that 15 given -- if we are able to respond within that second 16 rebuttal that we could waive final argument. In 17 that -- in that case you would have that extra week. 18 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: Okay. So you just 19 need to let will know if you are going to file or not 20 file or if you are going to file an argument earlier 21 and then Will can let me know. 22 Okay. So then in terms of the record, we 23 talked a little bit earlier about what should be in the 24 record. Sounds like we need -- we still need the 25 city's LUBA brief. Is that the piece that we are 91 1 missing? 5o we need to add the city's LUBA brief to 2 this record, and then rather than adding the LUBA 3 record to this record, I will simply make reference -- 4 I will use it as a reference document and I will -- if 5 I'm going to refer to items in that record I will use 6 the -- the record numbers from the LUBA record but we 7 won't put the record in the record, okay? Does that 8 make sense? 9 so this record will include everything that 10 was in the -- it actually will include everything that 11 was in the lower -- the previous proceeding, which is 12 part of the LUBA record, plus everything that comes in 13 until this record closes, but we won't physically put 14 that LUBA record back into the record. Okay. 15 So, any questions about procedure, where we go 16 from here? 17 Mr. McGean, I didn't ask about this document. 18 Do you want this enlarged document to be in the record? 19 Since you have referred to it and it's marked 20 slightly differently from the ones that Sharon has, I 21 probably at least need to have an 11 -by -17 similarly 22 marked if you don't want me to have the big one. 23 MR. McGEAN: You can have the big one. 24 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: All right. So I'll 25 go ahead and mark -- you don't want it? 92 1 MR. GROVES: No. 2 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: I know the county's 3 not crazy about the larger pieces. 4 MR. MCGEAN: I'm sorry, is -- 5 MS. SMITH: Is it possible -- is that the same 6 as the large version you have in your submittal? 7 MR. McGEAN: It is. 8 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: And it's marked -- 9 it's highlighted in the same way? 10 MR. MCGEAN: It is. 11 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: All right. 12 MR. GROVES: We already have it. 13 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: So we already have 14 it. so, will, your concern is the fiber board, the 15 mounted version, not the size of it. You don't want 16 the mounted version. So if what you have folded up is 17 the same as this -- 18 MR. MCGEAN: Yes. 19 HEARINGS OFFICER GREEN: -- then we don't need 20 to keep this. All right. okay. 5o any questions 21 about process at this point? Okay. 22 we are adjourned. Thank you. 23 MS. SMITH: Thank you. 24 (Hearing adjourned.) 25 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 89 to 92 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE 93 1 C E RTI F I CAT E 2 STATE OF OREGON SS. 3 COUNTY OF DESCHUTES 4 5 I, GENIE L. KELLEY, Certified shorthand 6 Reporter, do hereby certify: 7 That the recorded hearing was taken down by 8 me in machine shorthand and was thereafter reduced to 9 writing through computer-aided transcription, that the 10 foregoing represents to the best of my ability, a true 11 and correct transcript of the proceedings had in the 12 foregoing matter. 13 1 further certify that 1 am not an attorney 14 for any of the parties hereto, nor in any way concerned 15 with the cause. 16 DATED this 24th day of June, 2014, 17 in Bend, Oregon. 18 19 GENIE L. KELLEY, CM, CSR 20 Registered Professional Reporter 21 22 23 24 25 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 93 to 93 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE Page: 94 07 - complexity 0 07 72:5 1 10 44:2 10,000-square-fo 82:2 11 -by -17 91:21 1148 2:7 llth 10:8 12 44:3 13 17:15, 19:20 15th 72:5 16 20:22, 33:23, 75:9 18124 86:8 1876 86:5 18th 8:25, 9:3, 9:4, 9:14, 9:15, 87:12, 87:15, 89:9 1994 49:15, 49:16 19th 87:22 1st 89:10 2 20 89:12 2000 17:15, 74:13 2002 17:12, 18:2, 18:9, 18:12, 18:17, 18:19, 18:23, 20:5, 20:7, 21:7, 29:16, 36:11, 37:14, 49:15, 50:2, 50:8, 50:8, 60:4, 62:25, 68:7, 68:9, 69:6, 69:18, 74:6, 75:8, 76:14, 77:9, 82:8, 82:19, 83:6, 83:7 2006 46:8 2007 68:10, 68:13, 69:19, 71:20, 72:11, 72:16 2013 18:14, 18:16, 21:3, 74:22, 75:13, 76:16, 78:4 2013-073 3:8, 8:24 2014 1:10, 8:25, 10:12, 10:14, 93:16 21st 88:1, 88:4, 88:5, 89:13, 89:18, 90:11 22 6:23 22:34 6:24 22:34:040 7:1 24 18:22, 46:6, 74:10 24th 93:16 25th 89:9 28th 89:13, 89:21, 90:11 3 30 85:6 333 36:12 34 6:24 4 4 1:10 40 33:20 4th 10:12, 10:14, 89:14, 89:21, 90:12 5 591 2:4 7 7460 22:25, 22:25, 23:24, 67:2, 70:4, 70:19 8 80 23:18, 28:13 8th 89:10 9 90 9:1, 9:14, 85:9, 87:12 90-0149 1:12 90th 87:21 94 49:22, 62:25 97701 2:8 97702 2:4 A A-1 20:2 A-2 20:2 A-9 20:2 ability 93:10 able 13:3, 13:9, 20:2, 26:16, 36:4, 73:2, 90:15 aboard 46:24 acceptable 67:1, 67:4 acceptance 63:5 access 59:15, 75:25 accommodate 15:4, 54:25 accomplish 14:18 according 36:15, 67:20 accurate 38:6 acknowledge 4:24 acknowledged 60:8, 60:8, 60:9 acres 46:6 across 69:20 act 6:5, 16:19, 61:21 actions 54:16 actual 17:8, 18:1, 28:15, 53:8, 53:14, 62:21, 81:16, 82:25 AD 34:15, 34:17, 34:18, 35:4, 35:21, 41:24 add 91:1 adding 91:2 addition 12:3, 18:3, 29:15 additional 8:22, 14:3, 22:15, 26:22, 28:4, 39:8, 57:16, 78:25, 90:5 address 5:3, 5:4, 6:19, 7:14, 7:22, 14:10, 14:11, 15:14, 15:23, 21:22, 26:5, 28:3, 85:23 addressed 7:21, 15:19, 16:4, 21:25 addresses 23:24 addressing 63:7 adhered 46:22, 46:23 a]Jdjourned 92:22, adopted 17:14, 33:12 advisory 31:2, 32:4 Aero 3:12, 18:21, 18:25, 20:8, 20:24, 29:12, 45:17, 49:3, 49:5, 64:8, 64:12, 75:3, 76:9, 81:3, 81:5, 81:6, 81:11, 82:11, 82:13 affect 45:2 afternoon 14:7 afterthought 27:24 against 61:11 agenda 3:4 agree 45:5, 61:13 ahead 37:21, 42:19, 45:22, 46:12, 47:14, 67:9, 73:18, 85:18, 85:22, 91:25 aid 76:7 Air's 41:17, 68:14 aircraft 18:22, 18:24, 18:24, 24:20, 69:23, 74:11, 74:12, 74:25, 74:25, 75:1, 75:16, 75:17, 77:14, 77:21 aircrafts 75:25 airplanes 24:20 airport 10:18, 15:15, 16:6, 16:12, 16:13, 16:14, 16:15, 16:17, 16:19, 17:2, 17:3, 17:4, 17:5, 17:8, 17:12, 17:14, 17:16, 17:18, 17:20, 17:21, 18:2, 18:4, 18:9, 18:11, 18:12, 18:14, 18:16, 19:22, 20:5, 21:1, 21:4, 21:8, 21:15, 22:8, 22:9, 22:10, 22:16, 22:20, 22:21, 23:2, 23:2, 23:18, 24:19, 25:10, 25:18, 25:21, 25:22, 26:9, 26:11, 26:17, 26:18, 28:24, 30:20, 30:22, 31:5, 31:5, 31:8, 32:8, 32:15, 32:16, 32:25, 33:16, 33:23, 33:24, 33:25, 33:25, 34:10, 34:15, 34:21, 39:8, 40:12, 40:22, 46:13, 46:14, 47:25, 48:5, 49:10, 49:17, 49:18, 50:9, 50:9, 50:10, 50:25, 51:3, 52:25, 53:14, 53:17, 54:3, 58:16, 58:23, 58:23, 59:6, 59:12, 60:2, 60:3, 60:23, 62:11, 63:12, 63:19, 65:14, 65:15, 66:18, 66:20, 66:22, 66:23, 66:25, 69:2, 69:9, 69:14, 69:22, 71:2, 74:4, 74:6, 74:18, 74:20, 74:22, 74:25, 75:8, 75:13, 76:3, 76:10, 77:10, 77:16, 77:23, 80:15, 83:6, 83:8, 83:17, 84:11, 86:5, 86:22 airport's 71:10 airport -related 63:16 airports 24:18, 53:1 allow 4:20, 26:17, 35:4, 44:15, 69:25, 70:1, 70:2, 70:3, 73:7, 77:20 allowable 58:17 allowance 38:7 allowed 4:18, 34:21, 39:11, 39:15, 49:20, 49:23, 58:14, 60:15, 67:22, 68:18, 82:5, 83:6 ALP 18:3, 18:18, 18:19, 18:23, 35:12 ALPs 17:22, 83:17 already 5:6, 25:17, 42:4, 92:12, 92:13 alternatives 35:15 although 6:6, 27:19, 39:6 amend 59:8 amended 34:1, 50:2, 62:24, 63:3, 63:3, 66:22 amendment 43:22, 49:15, 60:1, 62:25, 62:25, 63:6, 67:18, 68:8, 70:15 among 31:16, 33:21, 60:14 AMP 34:24, 35:12, 35:16, 35:18 analysis 27:7, 30:3, 30:9 analyzed 30:7 ancient 76:25 answer's 57:23, 57:24 answered 46:10 anticipate 34:24, 58:21 anticipated 37:14, 43:7, 58:20 anticipates 34:14 anymore 21:6 anything's 58:19 Anyway 3:8 apologize 18:5, 84:4 appeal 7:17, 9:13, 88:6 Appeals 3:5 appear 4:10, 81:15 APPEARANCES 2:1 appeared 73:4 appearing 29:11 appears 53:4, 83:10 appendix 33:20 applicability 83:20 applicable 15:12, 15:16, 15:18, 16:9, 22:3, 30:6 applicant 1:5, 2:2, 3:9, 4:7, 4:8, 4:21, 7:25, 9:16, 9:17, 13:21, 13:23, 34:7, 35:1, 37:25, 40:20, 40:23, 42:13, 44:5, 51:17, 52:18, 73:18, 73:22, 85:9 application 1:3, 1:4, 4:1, 28:23, 30:8, 41:3, 42:14, 43:23, 44:1, 44:8, 44:12, 52:2 applications 26:4, 43:16, 64:1 applied 33:8, 57:11 apply 33:8 appreciate 5:7, 13:13 approached 56:18, 63:1 approval 8:1, 16:7, 16:8, 16:22, 22:24, 24:4, 25:15, 26:10, 30:6, 31:23, 43:5, 43:23, 52:2, 55:2, 55:6, 56:21, 57:17, 59:18, 63:22, 63:23, 64:9, 64:19, 64:21, 70:8, 70:14, 72:6, 83:20 approvals 23:5, 25:25 approve 72:9 approved 19:22, 21:3, 24:3, 43:17, 52:6, 57:15, 61:18, 70:18 approving 23:1 approximately 87:11 approximating 87:14 April 87:22, 88:4, 88:4, 88:5, 90:13 apron 18:24, 19:3, 74:12, 74:25, 75:16, 75:17, 76:18, 77:14, 77:18, 82:9 areas 49:19, 52:9, 53:18, 53:23, 81:15 aren't 22:17, 54:7, 64:2 argued 38:17 arguing 38:14 argument 7:19, 12:7, 22:4, 34:9, 37:22, 39:24, 47:23, 83:4, 88:11, 89:8, 89:21, 90:16, 90:20 arguments 15:10, 15:11, 15:22, 16:5, 16:11, 42:18 90:12 as -built 70:13 aside 67:22 asking 32:6, 65:19 aspirational 32:4, 52:21 Assistant 48:24 association 34:2 assume 24:24, 29:22, 52:5, 60:22 assumes 16:14 assuming 15:8, 59:9, 62:5, 85:9 assure 34:1 attached 10:9, 58:7 attachment 19:19 attachments 10:16 attention 66:9 attorney 48:25, 93:13 attributes 30:18, 33:10 authority 8:3, 44:11, 44:19 authorized 9:17 available 11:8, 11:9 aviation 1:4, 3:10, 13:23, 77:5, 80:13, 80:16, 81:11 aviation -related 67:15 avoid 14:14, 41:2, 49:6 B base 50:5, 71:3 basically 7:3, 27:14, 30:15, 33:3, 36:20, 39:7, 55:21, 59:17, 70:13, 81:1, 86:17 becomes 4:14 beginning 3:23 behalf 10:8, 10:9, 13:23, 72:23, 73:21 believes 6:10 Bend 1:11, 2:4, 2:8, 3:13, 10:13, 10:13, 17:3, 17:15, 19:22, 22:15, 31:21, 48:25, 66:18, 72:6, 93:17 best 63:25, 93:10 better 50:7, 67:11, 89:1 beyond 46:24, 58:15 bigger 83:17, 83:18, 83:18 binding 49:12, 77:17 bit 9:19, 31:15, 37:21, 42:2, 42:12, 44:23, 55:17, 62:17, 65:8, 67:8, 72:7, 80:3, 88:18, 90:23 bits 32:3 black 54:21, 79:8 blank 78:24, 80:15 blessing 70:7 board 3:5, 7:3, 7:7, 7:10, 9:13, 85:3, 85:8, 85:11, 88:6 92:14 board's 11:7 borrow 67:7 bottom 19:13, 71:22 bound 11:9 boundary 81:1 box 18:10 brand 43:22 brief 4:21, 10:10, 11:17, 11:20, 15:12, 16:24, 26:4, 30:25, 33:20, 35:18, 90:25, 91:1 briefing 26:22, 28:4 briefs 15:8 bring 66:19 broader 62:7, 83:11 broken 36:19 brought 66:21 Bryant 2:3 build 22:10, 43:6, 46:6, 47:16, 50:19, 50:20, 50:20, 51:6, 51:7, 51:10, 56:13, 69:15, 71:10, 77:19, 77:24 building 18:15, 49:17, 49:21, 55:4, 56:14, 56:22, 56:25, 57:1, 58:25, 67:21, 68:14, 68:16, 70:1, 75:16, 78:20, 78:21, 78:23, 79:8, 79:13, 79:20, 80:11 buildings 36:19, 79:7, 79:21, 80:2, 80:7, 81:11, 81:12, 81:13, 81:16, 81:21 built 19:1, 21:2, 25:19, 36:16, 42:14, 42:20, 49:4, 49:5, 50:13, 67:19, 68:19, 74:23, 75:15, 76:11, 76:17, 77:22, 77:25, 82:11 burden 10:10, 18:3 buzzes 8:11 c calendar 87:9 can't 83:4 cannot 73:3 case 85:2, 90:17 catchment 86:20 cause 93:15 certain 71:6, 71:7 Certified 93:5 certify 93:6, 93:13 change 82:8 changes 71:3, 74:1 changing 70:16 circled 74:11, 74:23, 75:8, 78:15, 78:17, 80:24, 81:14 city 70:8, 72:6, 72:24, 77:7, 90:2 city's 90:25, 91:1 clarification 72:22 clear 77:22, 80:23 clearer 78:8 client 84:5 clients 73:12, 75:23 close 71:11, 85:19, 87:7, 90:10, 90:11 closes 91:13 closing 89:6 CM 93:19 code 87:20 color 79:2, 79:11, 80:4, 81:19 comes 91:12 comment 73:25 comments 90:5 complexity 69:23, 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 1 to 93 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE Page: 95 comprehensive - extension 88:14 comprehensive 83:19 computer-aided 93:9 concern 84:21, 88:22, 92:14 concerned 93:14 conditions 82:6 configuration 74:24 configure 75:15 consistent 83:7 context 83:17, 83:18, 83:19 coordinate 69:22 case 57:11, 63:17, 63:18, 69:13 cases 57:10 cat 53:2 certain 52:22 Cessna 64:21, 64:22 chance 67:11 change 52:1, 57:14, 59:19, 63:4 changes 68:22 changing 57:8 chosen 63:21 city 54:2, 55:8, 55:9, 55:11, 55:12, 55:18, 55:20, 55:25, 56:20, 58:24, 60:13, 60:15, 61:17, 61:19, 62:4, 62:15, 63:1, 63:21, 65:20, 65:21, 66:4, 66:20 city's 53:10 city -built 53:21 city -owned 56:20 claw 60:17 close 59:14, 59:15, 66:9, 67:10 code 55:21, 60:1, 60:7, 60:8, 60:8, 66:8, 66:9 comes 53:13, 53:16, 58:18, 58:24, 59:22, 59:24, 60:23, 62:24 coming 59:11 comments 62:5 competition 60:15, 60:15 conceptual 51:24 conclude 61:24 confirmation 63:7 consider 62:20, 62:20 considered 66:8 considers 61:5 consistent 52:11, 60:10, 60:10 contacted 69:22 context 55:3, 55:13, 56:18, 57:6, 60:12, 61:14, 61:23, 62:7, 62:7, 62:8 convert 51:18 C.M 1:12 C.S.R 1:12 can't 3:7, 17:19, 21:5, 41:3, 47:13, 47:21, 50:20, 50:20, 51:7 cannot 6:6, 6:10, 7:12, 16:19 capacity 24:20 captured 11:6 carefully 23:6 case 3:15, 3:22, 7:6, 8:7, 13:7, 16:21, 26:8, 30:12, 31:1 cases 16:24, 30:11 center 21:1 certainly 23:16, 39:11 challenge 6:4, 6:11, 6:12, 23:19 chance 14:6 change 17:9, 17:10, 23:16, 26:15 changes 3:24, 17:17, 22:20 changing 17:10, 42:3 Chapter 6:23, 6:24 choices 35:15, 35:19 chose 45:3 circled 18:10, 18:20, 18:21, 19:3 20:23 circulation 6:15 circumstances 7:2 citation 14:12 cite 13:4, 14:1 cited 26:4, 30:12, 34:4 city 3:13, 10:12, 10:13, 17:2, 17:15, 19:22, 22:14, 25:18, 26:15, 31:21, 38:12, 38:21, 40:2, 40:21, 46:7, 48:23, 48:25, 48:25, 49:5 city's 11:17, 11:20, 37:22, 38:7, 38:24, 48:7 civil 8:7, 17:3 claim 7:18, 7:24, 8:2, 8:3, 8:6 clarification 9:10 19:6, 48:13 clarifications 50:6 clarified 39:24 clarify 40:3 clear 27:21, 27:22, 27:25, 42:17, 46:17, 49:16, 49:19, 49:25, 50:15 clearer 20:20 clearly 7:21, 8:4, 16:1 client 37:23, 39:22 40:4, 45:8 clients 39:7, 39:25, 41:8, 44:24 clients 38:9, 38:11 close 37:3 code 3:19, 31:24, 32:2, 32:12, 34:5, 34:10, 40:25, 43:9, 43:18 comes 33:5, 40:25 coming 33:22 commencing 1:10 comment 49:1 comments 4:22 Commission 31:1 Commissioners 7:4 common 20:3 comp 27:25 compare 37:1 comparison 20:5 compatible 34:2 competition 26:17 complaint 43:9 completely 35:1, 35:5, 48:10 complicated 12:23, 39:21 compliment 34:16, 35:8 comply 46:25 component 22:18 comprehensive 15:13, 16:2, 22:1, 25:25, 26:2, 26:2, 26:7, 30:3, 30:10, 30:16, 31:3, 31:18, 32:20, 32:23, 33:2, 33:7, 33:15, 34:11, 34:20, 41:1, 41:2, 49:11 concern 13:16, 44:24 concerned 23:14 concerns 23:24, 40:21 concludes 21:21 conclusion 25:20, 41:3, 47:23 condition 8:1 conduct 6:1 conducted 3:20, 5:24 conflict 36:22, 41:21 conflicted 38:8 consider 7:13, 27:15 considered 23:8, 49:10 consistency 30:8 consistent 24:2, 25:9, 25:23, 34:21, 41:25 constitutional 8:2 constricted 7:5 contacts 5:15, 5:15, 5:18, 5:19 contain 16:7 contains 32:23 context 16:12, 16:16, 17:1, 17:23, 22:6, 22:15, 22:16, 26:9, 30:10, 32:7, 32:9, 49:11, 51:8 continue 43:4 continuing 34:25 contractual 38:25 conventional 36:15, 36:21 copies 12:25, 13:17, 20:18 core 30:5 corner 8:16, 19:13, 36:18 corporate 77:19, 82:1, 82:3 correct 7:7, 7:8, 19:21, 20:15, 29:24, 39:1, 39:8, 39:13, 40:14, 42:21, 42:22, 43:11, 69:11, 70:9, 70:19, 75:4, 75:20, 76:19, 79:14, 81:8, 82:21, 83:16, 84:12, 87:18, 93:11 correctly 19:11, 24:15, 41:10, 71:18, 76:25, 87:17 correspondence 12:10 12:11 couldn't 26:14, 26:19, 37:24, 37:25 58:13 counsel 2:1, 12:21 counsel's 13:16 count 87:20 county 1:2, 3:12, 8:21, 9:12, 11:6, 12:4, 12:21, 13:15, 22:24, 24:7, 24:7, 24:25, 24:25, 25:1, 26:7, 28:8, 28:20, 28:20, 30:3, 31:18, 33:21, 45:3, 55:2, 55:3, 55:21, 55:25, 56:7, 56:14, 56:18, 57:23, 58:10, 61:18, 63:11, 63:22, 64:7, 64:9, 65:4, 65:21, 87:19, 87:20 93:3 county's 3:18, 3:19, 6:21, 8:3, 26:2, 29:3, 40:25, 41:1, 43:16, 44:8, 44:14, 44:16, 92:2 couple 5:12, 35:13, 79:21 course 63:2, 63:5, 63:7 courtesy 8:14 cover 10:5, 10:7, 10:14 crazy 12:22, 92:3 criteria 15:14, 16:7, 21:21, 21:24, 22:2, 22:17, 23:7, 23:9, 26:10, 28:3, 30:7, 31:23, 49:12, 55:14, 83:20 criterion 16:8, 16:23 cross 14:12 Crossing 51:22, 52:6 CSR 93:19 curious 25:1 current 17:13, 18:14, 19:21, 36:6 currently 9:22, 74:23 cut 66:12 D damages 8:7 dark 79:24 date 8:25, 9:8, 72:11, 87:16, 87:16, 88:2, 88:5 dated 9:6, 10:7, 10:12, 10:14, 93:16 dates 72:8 deal 45:3 decide 30:5 decided 47:24 decision 3:5, 3:16, 4:18, 5:20, 5:25, 6:9, 6:16, 6:20, 7:11, 7:16, 7:23, 8:5, 9:11, 9:12, 9:12, 9:13, 11:2, 11:14, 15:8, 15:21, 16:2, 21:13, 27:8, 61:1, 88:5, 88:12, 88:20 decisions 29:4, 64:2, 65:2, 65:4 declining 11:8 defer 39:21 deferred 15:14 defined 77:1, 77:6, 77:6 defines 58:4 definite 33:14 definitely 69:21 demand 26:16, 78:1 denoted 79:8 deny 44:7, 44:11 depending 45:3 depicted 18:12 Deschutes 1:2, 3:12, 8:21, 26:7, 30:3, 93:3 describe 17:5, 75:23 84:1 described 74:1 describes 7:2 description 17:21, 58:3 descriptively 18:8 designate 33:24 designated 13:24, 18:20, 30:21, 41:17, 75:24, 77:23, 82:8, 83:15 designation 12:21, 13:12 designed 86:11 destination 51:23, 51:24 detail 7:15, 24:22, 51:4 develop 46:13, 48:6, 56:8 developed 26:13, 47:4, 50:13, 56:12 developer 63:21 developers 54:5 developing 71:10 development 16:9, 17:11, 18:1, 19:4, 24:2, 25:10, 25:22, 30:21, 33:16, 34:10, 37:14, 40:22, 42:8, 42:10, 46:9, 47:7, 48:5, 50:9, 50:18, 50:25, 51:2, 52:3, 53:14, 53:16, 53:17, 53:23, 58:2, 58:19, 58:21, 60:3, 64:15, 64:20, 75:3, 80:15, 83:7, 86:6, 86:9, 86:10 developments 50:7, 51:22 device 8:11 devoted 49:18 dicta 27:24 differences 84:7 differently 50:21, 52:13, 91:20 difficult 23:21 dimensions 42:3 direct 33:3, 41:21, 71:2 directing 7:4 direction 44:19 directions 44:10 directly 11:12, 14:8, 33:8, 33:9 disagreement 31:16 disclose 5:22 disclosures 5:13 discouraged 60:14 discriminated 60:14 discrimination 61:5 discuss 4:14 discussed 30:13 discussion 40:20, 53:21, 62:15 dispute 49:3, 49:6, 49:7 distinction 30:23, 31:11, 54:1, 76:8 district 52:11 districts 83:12 document 14:23, 14:24, 14:25, 17:6, 20:6, 25:21, 32:21, 33:4, 34:25, 35:2, 53:8, 58:12, 59:7, 77:17, 91:4, 91:17, 91:18 documents 12:20, 17:25, 26:18, 31:7, 31:9, 32:10, 50:23, 50:24 dollars 47:18, 48:6 drawing 19:13, 20:11, 67:13, 68:1, 69:6, 71:18, 78:4, 78:16, 79:5, 80:25 drawn 18:12 drinking 8:15 driveway 57:8 due 90:12 duplicate 72:20 duplicating 13:14 E earlier 9:6, 36:9, 83:24, 90:20, 90:23 easiest 15:2 east 23:19, 28:13, 37:5, 37:7, 37:12, 37:13, 37:24, 38:1, 38:7, 38:9, 38:15, 39:15, 39:18, 39:25, 40:5, 40:13, 45:24, 46:5, 46:7, 46:8, 47:11, 47:12, 48:5, 49:2, 64:14, 64:16, 64:20, 69:2, 74:17, 74:18, 74:19, 75:3, 76:10, 77:12, 80:19, 81:1 easy 14:14, 84:6 economic 35:13 economically 39:10 economics 17:10 Edge 1:4, 3:10, 10:9, 10:11, 13:23, 30:24, 36:14, 36:25, 42:19, 46:3, 76:4, 77:5 effect 42:7 effective 8:25, 9:7 either 7:5, 14:8, 27:22, 40:10, 52:21, 63:20 electronic 8:11 element 76:3 eliminate 35:6, 77:18, 77:18 empty 67:16, 80:13, 80:16 enclosed 81:15 encompasses 49:18 ended 48:1 ending 13:16 enforcement 61:11 engineer 17:4 enlarged 29:17, 91:18 ensure 34:20 entered 27:20 enters 7:4 entire 42:7, 49:11, 58:12, 80:25 entirely 42:17 entitled 6:8 entity 61:20 envelope 62:16 environment 86:11, 86:15, 86:16 Epic 64:22, 67:18, 67:19, 68:13, 68:16 ESQ 2:3 2:6 essentially 3:20, 31:21 establish 31:23, 34:1 establishes 60:1 Evans 40:6, 40:8, 45:15, 45:15, 45:20, 45:23, 47:3, 47:12, 48:14 evening 3:1, 8:20, 13:22 evening's 3:3 event 85:10 events 44:12 everybody 90:4 everything 12:2, 34:11, 51:25, 86:18, 91:9, 91:10 91:12 everything's 60:3 evidence 4:3, 6:18, 7:12, 21:17, 63:25, 64:6, 88:10 evidently 69:16 ex 5:14, 5:17 exactly 22:10 example 8:7, 57:14, 67:23, 67:23, 68:20, 68:23, 69:5, 70:20, 83:10, 83:10 examples 65:18, 65:23, 69:20 exceeding 8:3 exceeds 43:24 except 21:18 excerpts 35:17 excluding 12:5 exclusion 11:17 excuse 3:9, 6:24, 10:8, 62:6, 69:2, 87:25, 89:10 exhibit 18:6, 19:7, 68:12, 71:17, 71:19, 74:8, 78:3 existing 36:18, 36:20, 37:1, 78:23, 79:7, 81:21, 86:9 exists 18:17 expanded 7:3, 7:5 expansions 33:25 expects 61:21 expert 24:18, 28:25, 75:21 explain 10:24 explicitly 50:4 expressly 35:9 extend 85:9, 89:12 extends 9:16 extension 24:15, 28:11, 28:19, 28:22, 54:24 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 1 to 93 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE Page: 96 extent - inaudible extent 12:13, 49:23, 49:25, 58:19, 62:19, 62:19, 65:5, 83:4 extra 90:17 F FAA 17:7, 17:18, 22:8, 22:19, 22:23, 22:25, 23:5, 23:25, 24:14, 24:15, 25:8, 25:15, 26:12, 40:24, 40:24, 52:24, 59:8, 60:16, 60:17, 60:22, 61:4, 61:21, 62:5, 66:24, 67:1, 67:18, 68:21, 68:24, 69:17, 69:21, 69:21, 70:2, 70:6, 70:23, 70:24, 72:8, 72:13 FAA's 70:14 facilitate 28:21 facilities 3:12, 18:20, 18:21, 18:25, 20:8, 20:24, 29:12, 42:8, 45:17, 46:15, 49:4, 49:5, 49:20, 50:14, 50:16, 53:20, 64:8, 64:12, 74:6, 81:5, 81:6, 82:11, 82:13, 86:7 facility 15:17, 22:4, 23:5, 33:24, 49:23, 56:20, 59:9, 70:20, 83:5 factor 57:15 failure 7:14 fair 53:10, 53:13, 53:13 fairly 30:13, 41:20 farm 45:25, 46:1, 47:5, 47:15 FARs 77:1, 77:6 farther 69:1 fascinating 86:2 fast 61:21, 71:9 FB0 20:23, 20:25, 21:2, 21:5, 21:6, 41:8, 41:15, 41:17, 46:19, 48:9, 55:19, 55:19, 64:11, 64:16, 75:9, 75:14, 75:22, 76:2, 76:14, 76:18, 76:21, 77:1, 77:2, 77:5, 77:10, 77:19, 78:9, 78:10, 78:13, 82:7, 82:9, 82:19 FBOs 75:22 feasibility 39:20 feasible 39:10 February 8:25, 9:2, 9:4, 9:14, 10:7, 87:15 federal 59:7 feel 27:13, 71:7 fell 28:22 felt 85:5 ferret 25:4 fiber 92:14 field 58:4 figure 73:15, 87:15 file 90:19, 90:20, 90:20 filed 64:2 final 4:22, 9:11, 47:23, 88:11, 89:8, 89:21, 90:12, 90:16 finder 6:9 finding 48:1 fine 8:13, 45:11, 46:2 47:16, 90:2 finished 40:8 Firestone 10:13, 48:24, 48:24, 50:3, 51:15, 52:7, 53:3, 53:12, 54:6, 54:9, 54:17, 54:21, 55:1, 55:9, 55:23, 56:6, 56:10, 56:13, 56:16, 57:5, 57:19, 57:22, 58:1, 59:6, 60:6, 60:21, 60:24, 61:2, 61:6, 61:12, 62:9, 62:13, 62:23, 64:8, 64:12, 64:15, 64:22, 64:25, 65:13, 66:5, 71:21, 71:25, 72:3, 72:7, 72:13, 72:18, 72:25, 89:25, 90:2 Firestone's 14:6 fit 59:14, 67:5 five 20:9, 90:10 fixed -base 20:25 flexible 31:2 Flight 3:9, 3:11, 45:16 fluid 17:6 fly 76:25 focus 20:15 folded 29:19, 92:16 folks 73:14 follow 3:17, 8:9, 22:10, 48:8 followed 21:17, 21:18 follows 4:5, 69:21 footnote 23:11, 23:13, 24:23, 27:20, 27:23, 28:4, 37:18 foregoing 93:10, 93:12 forgot 85:21 forth 12:6, 52:9 fountain 8:15 fourth 19:19 frame 9:19, 84:18, 88:17 Francis 2:7 free 42:23, 42:23 fuel 15:17, 35:5, 36:6, 37:2, 37:3, 39:4, 39:8, 43:4, 43:4, 45:24, 47:5, 47:15, 48:9, 50:11, 61:20, 61:25, 67:3, 69:25, 70:20, 74:3, 74:4, 83:5 fueling 37:24, 37:25, 38:14, 39:17, 40:1, 40:4, 40:12, 42:20, 46:15, 49:7, 49:20, 49:23, 50:14, 50:15, 53:20, 58:14, 61:25, 77:20, 85:24, 86:14, 87:1 function 26:10 functional 62:8 functionally 62:3 functions 25:19, 49:20, 53:15, 53:17 funding 17:7, 71:3 funds 49:4, 60:16 future 36:18, 36:19, 36:21, 37:12, 46:15, 58:19, 60:16, 71:4 G G -W -I -L 45:20 GAMS 77:6 Gary 10:13, 48:24, 65:14, 66:1, 66:2, 66:12, 66:12, 66:17, 72:24, 72:24, 89:25 gas 37:1, 37:8, 37:12, 38:7 gather 62:2, 89:14 gathering 78:7 gave 71:19 general 12:9, 12:11, 32:19, 42:7, 55:12, 68:18 generally 42:4, 43:16 GENIE 1:11, 93:5, 93:19 geographic 35:14 geographical 33:14 gesturing 45:9 gets 12:23, 23:3, 70:7, 70:8, 85:10 given 44:10, 88:14, 90:15 gives 37:16 33:6 Goaln 33:23 goes 69:3 gosh 3:6 grant 60:16 granted 43:17 grants 60:18 Green 1:11, 3:1, 7:9, 9:2, 9:5, 9:9, 9:25, 10:4, 11:10, 11:18, 11:20, 11:23, 12:1, 12:9, 12:12, 12:17, 13:20, 14:19, 14:25, 15:6, 15:20, 19:5, 19:10, 19:16, 19:18, 19:23, 20:10, 20:13, 20:16, 21:10, 23:10, 24:6, 24:10, 24:13, 24:23, 25:11, 25:14, 25:16, 26:20, 26:24, 27:3, 27:7, 27:10, 27:19, 28:5, 28:7, 28:15, 28:18, 29:2, 29:9, 29:18, 29:21, 29:25, 31:14, 35:7, 35:25, 36:3, 36:8, 37:20, 38:3, 38:13, 38:18, 38:20, 39:2, 39:6, 39:14, 39:23, 40:9, 40:15, 40:18, 41:6, 41:13, 41:16, 42:16, 42:25, 43:8, 43:12, 44:9, 44:17, 44:22, 45:7, 45:10, 45:18, 45:21, 47:2, 47:10, 48:12, 48:17, 48:19, 48:22, 49:24, 51:11, 51:16, 52:8, 53:4, 53:25, 54:7, 54:14, 54:20, 54:23, 55:7, 55:15, 55:24, 56:7, 56:11, 56:15, 57:2, 57:12, 57:21, 57:25, 58:22, 60:5, 60:19, 60:22, 60:25, 61:4, 61:7, 62:1, 62:10, 62:14, 63:9, 63:15, 64:11, 64:14, 64:18, 64:24, 65:1, 65:16, 66:10, 67:9, 67:25, 68:4, 68:11, 68:25, 69:4, 69:8, 70:5, 70:10, 70:23, 70:25, 71:5, 71:13, 71:16, 71:23, 72:1, 72:4, 72:10, 72:15, 72:19, 73:1, 73:13, 74:9, 74:14, 74:17, 74:19, 75:2, 75:5, 75:10, 75:12, 75:19, 76:6, 76:13, 76:16, 76:20, 76:24, 77:12, 78:2, 78:14, 78:19, 78:22, 79:4, 79:10, 79:12, 79:15, 79:19, 79:23, 80:1, 80:3, 80:6, 80:9, 80:18, 80:22, 81:3, 81:6, 81:9, 81:13, 81:18, 81:23, 82:4, 82:12, 82:22, 83:9, 83:14, 83:21, 83:23, 84:1, 84:8, 84:10, 84:13, 84:16, 84:23, 84:25, 85:5, 85:8, 85:13, 85:21, 86:1, 86:13, 86:17, 86:24, 87:3, 87:6, 87:13, 87:19, 87:25, 88:25, 89:3, 89:5, 89:16, 89:20, 89:25, 90:3, 90:9, 90:18, 91:24, 92:2, 92:8, 92:11, 92:13, 92:19 Greene 3:2 ground 46:11, 55:5, 56:17, 56:23 grounds 44:7 Groves 4:7, 7:8, 8:20, 8:21, 9:4, 9:6, 9:21, 10:1, 11:5, 11:11, 11:19, 11:22, 11:24, 12:5, 12:11, 12:13, 13:19, 24:12, 36:2, 54:22, 63:14, 85:20, 85:23, 86:4, 86:16, 86:21, 87:1, 87:5, 87:18, 90:8 92:1, 92:12 growth 34:2, 34:20, 37:5, 37:7, 41:25 guess 31:19, 62:14, 62:18, 64:23, 80:22 guessing 9:15 guidance 16:22, 50:24 guide 16:22, 17:24, 30:21, 31:4, 55:11 guided 60:1 guideline 21:16, 30:23; 31:22 guidelines 22:19, 31:1 guides 16:20 guiding 17:24, 53:7 guys 46:18 Gwil 45:15, 45:20 H hadn't 48:2 half 3:6, 89:19 hall 8:16 hallway 8:14 hand -drawn 18:10 hangar 18:11, 18:15, 19:4, 21:5, 64:15, 69:13, 69:15, 75:1, 75:15, 75:16, 76:1, 78:25, 79:3, 82:3 hangars 36:16, 36:22, 37:11, 53:20, 53:22, 77:19, 81:24, 81:25, 82:1 Hansen 2:7 happen 25:1 happened 54:12, 69:13 happens 45:4 harmonious 86:9 Harrison 85:2 hasn't 57:10 haven't 14:6, 26:24, 26:25, 47:23, 54:12 having 12:22, 13:3, 14:14, 18:5, 23:19, 43:5, 49:6, 62:15, 72:2 hawed 47:21 hear 4:7, 4:8, 4:22, 5:13, 6:14, 11:8, 13:21, 22:14, 38:20, 41:7, 41:9, 41:12, 48:23, 73:18 heard 40:20 hearing 1:9, 3:3, 3:4, 3:20, 3:21, 3:24, 4:2, 4:6, 4:11, 4:13, 4:17, 5:10, 5:16, 5:18, 5:19, 5:21, 6:2, 6:3, 6:13, 8:13, 8:18, 10:2, 10:3, 11:15, 14:10, 52:18, 61:8, 73:3, 73:8, 92:24, 93:7 hearings 1:1, 1:10, 3:1, 3:2, 3:16, 3:23, 6:5, 6:7, 6:25, 7:9, 9:2, 9:5, 9:9, 9:25, 10:4, 11:10, 11:18, 11:20, 11:23, 12:1, 12:9, 12:12, 12:17, 13:20, 14:19, 14:25, 15:6, 15:20, 19:5, 19:10, 19:16, 19:18, 19:23, 20:10, 20:13, 20:16, 21:10, 23:10, 24:6, 24:10, 24:13, 24:23, 25:11, 25:14, 25:16, 26:20, 26:24, 27:3, 27:7, 27:10, 27:15, 27:19, 28:5, 28:7, 28:15, 28:18, 29:2, 29:9, 29:18, 29:21, 29:25, 31:14, 35:7, 35:25, 36:3, 36:8, 37:20, 38:3, 38:13, 38:18, 38:20, 39:2, 39:6, 39:14, 39:23, 40:9, 40:15, 40:18, 41:6, 41:13, 41:16, 42:16, 42:25, 43:8, 43:12, 44:9, 44:17, 44:22, 45:7, 45:10, 45:18, 45:21, 47:2, 47:10, 48:12, 48:17, 48:19, 48:22, 49:24, 51:11, 51:16, 52:8, 53:4, 53:25, 54:7, 54:14, 54:20, 54:23, 55:7, 55:15, 55:24, 56:7, 56:11, 56:15, 57:2, 57:12, 57:21, 57:25, 58:22, 60:5, 60:19, 60:22, 60:25, 61:4, 61:7, 61:8, 62:1, 62:10, 62:14, 63:9, 63:15, 64:11, 64:14, 64:18, 64:24, 65:1, 65:16, 66:10, 67:9, 67:25, 68:4, 68:11, 68:25, 69:4, 69:8, 70:5, 70:10, 70:23, 70:25, 71:5, 71:13, 71:16, 71:23, 72:1, 72:4, 72:10, 72:15, 72:19, 73:1, 73:13, 74:9, 74:14, 74:17, 74:19, 75:2, 75:5, 75:10, 75:12, 75:19, 76:6, 76:13, 76:16, 76:20, 76:24, 77:12, 78:2, 78:14, 78:19, 78:22, 79:4, 79:10, 79:12, 79:15, 79:19, 79:23, 80:1, 80:3, 80:6, 80:9, 80:18, 80:22, 81:3, 81:6, 81:9, 81:13, 81:18, 81:23, 82:4, 82:12, 82:22, 83:9, 83:14, 83:21, 83:23, 84:1, 84:8, 84:10, 84:13, 84:16, 84:23, 84:25, 85:5, 85:8, 85:13, 85:21, 86:1, 86:13, 86:17, 86:24, 87:3, 87:6, 87:13, 87:19, 87:25, 88:25, 89:3, 89:5, 89:16, 89:20, 89:25, 90:3, 90:9, 90:18, 91:24, 92:2, 92:8, 92:11, 92:13, 92:19 height 43:25, 58:17 helpful 19:24, 65:24, 71:14, 84:3 helping 62:3 hemmed 47:21 here's 46:14, 46:15, 55:18, 55:19 hereby 93:6 hereto 93:14 herring 44:23 hey 46:14, 46:18 highlighted 20:23, 79:1, 79:19, 80:11, 81:19, 92:9 highlights 5:10 Hill 2:7 Historical 14:24, 14:25 historically 22:7 history 17:8 hmmm 24:1 holding 9:22 homework 46:21 Hood 30:12 hope 24:5 hopefully 28:25 horizontal 28:12 horribles 25:6 hot 36:1 housekeeping 8:10 however 3:19, 49:4 hypothetical 23:12 I ideal 89:2 ideally 88:5 ideas 13:13 identified 7:1, 7:11, 10:23, 20:16 74:4 identifies 19:25 identify 6:16, 52:22, 63:12 illustrate 23:20 illustrated 25:17 illustration 18:4, 20:20 imaginary 55:21 imagine 37:4 impartial 6:6, 6:9, 6:10 implement 32:22, 34:19, 66:19 implemented 16:17, 59:23, 60:7, 65:22, 66:8 implementing 56:5 import 21:14 imported 11:13 imposes 21:16 impossible 77:17 impressions 6:2 inappropriate 87:3 inaudible 35:10 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 1 to 93 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE Page: 97 inclined - officer inclined 84:18 include 12:7, 50:10, 76:21, 77:2, 82:13, 84:2, 91:9, 91:10 included 17:15, 49:3, 50:14, 55:12 includes 15:16, 22:3, 86:7 including 9:12, 11:7 inclusion 61:14 inconsequential 74:1 inconsistent 82:10 incorporated 3:11, 31:6, 31:9, 33:15 incorporating 13:6 indeed 20:6 indicated 58:11 indicates 51:6, 68:17 individual 19:7, 83:12, 83:15 industrial 52:8, 67:15, 70:1 information 27:12, 28:25, 84:2 infrastructure 46:6 initial 32:11, 89:1 initiated 8:24, 55:10 initiation 87:16 ink 70:22 instance 44:5 instances 20:19 instead 21:4, 77:19 intact 50:2 intended 17:6, 26:3, 27:18, 31:22, 52:17, 78:24 intending 5:7 intent 30:15, 30:16, 31:4, 61:24 intention 11:24, 14:8, 15:9 interest 84:14 interested 58:24 interesting 27:15 interpret 25:24 interpretation 15:24, 26:6, 38:22, 83:11 interpreted 64:7 interpreting 30:15, 40:21, 62:21 interpretive 45:1 interrupt 55:16 interval 71:7 introduce 45:14, 77:3 introduction 31:20 introductory 32:1 invite 4:25, 40:8 involved 28:20, 63:13 isn't 21:17, 22:12, 51:19, 52:19, 73:16, 77:2, 82:15 issue 4:14, 6:19, 7:12, 7:14, 7:15, 7:17, 7:20, 30:2, 30:5, 38:10, 38:11, 38:25, 43:2, 43:13, 43:19, 44:15, 44:16, 45:1, 45:1, 63:17 issued 3:6, 3:16, 9:13, 11:2, 42:21, 64:2, 88:6 issues 6:16, 6:19, 6:25, 7:2, 7:10, 7:11, 26:21, 45:5, 63:24, 88:15 item 18:22, 20:22, 74:10, 75:9 items 69:16, 91:5 iterations 17:13 itself 11:14, 30:10, 30:16, 33:3, 34:10 3 Jarvis 2:3 Judd 65:14, 66:2, 66:13, 66:17, 66:17, 67:13, 68:3, 68:9, 68:15, 69:3, 69:5, 69:11, 70:9, 70:19, 70:24, 71:1, 71:9, 71:15 June 93:16 jurisdiction's 61:8 K Karen 1:11, 3:2 KELLEY 1:12, 93:5, 93:19 Kevin 85:2, 85:5 key 53:19 knowledge 46:14 L label 78:6 labeled 19:20, 20:11, 75:20, 76:18, 80:12 labeling 71:18 lane 49:2 language 17:20, 31:18, 32:1, 32:12, 32:14, 34:23, 41:23, 50:2, 52:16, 62:21 larger 24:20, 24:20, 92:3 later 9:14, 33:4 law 5:12, 16:21 lay 52:10 layout 16:13, 16:15, 16:17, 16:19, 17:5, 17:8, 17:12, 17:16, 17:18, 17:21, 18:4, 18:9, 18:12, 18:15, 18:16, 19:22, 20:5, 21:4, 21:8, 22:8, 22:11, 22:17, 22:22, 23:2, 23:2, 23:18, 25:21, 26:11, 26:18, 31:5, 31:12, 32:16, 33:18, 33:25, 36:9, 36:12, 40:12, 46:14, 46:23, 59:7, 68:6, 74:4, 74:7, 74:22, 75:8, 75:14, 77:16, 82:19, 83:6, 83:8, 84:11, 86:22 layouts 53:1 lays 51:25 Leading 1:4, 3:10, 10:9, 10:11, 13:23, 30:24, 36:13, 36:25, 42:19, 46:3, 76:4, 77:5 lease 38:11, 38:24, 40:2, 47:8, 49:3, 59:1, 59:10, 59:10, 70:8, 78:12, 82:6, 82:14, 82:15, 82:25 leaseholder 56:8 leasing 58:25 least 24:16, 31:12, 37:25, 43:23, 50:5, 60:17, 64:4, 64:19, 65:2, 75:19, 85:6, 88:19, 91:21 leave 27:3, 72:21, 85:2 leaves 88:8, 88:11 leaving 65:8 legal 12:21, 62:2 legally 15:5, 61:12 legend 20:24, 36:15, 36:17, 74:11, 75:9, 79:2, 79:4 length 28:10 lengthened 54:15 lengthening 54:17, 54:18 less 16:23, 38:5 lessee 59:2 let's 48:23, 72:20, 73:10, 87:7, 87:13, 87:14 letter 10:7, 10:7, 10:12, 10:14, 10:16, 14:6, 35:23 42:10 letter's 9:6 letters 12:6 level 7:22, 8:4, 50:5, 51:3, 62:4 limit 16:9 limited 7:12, 44:19 limits 6:24, 56:21 listed 6:19, 71:21 listing 71:19 literally 50:23 litigation 37:22, 38:4 LLC 29:12 locate 73:2 located 18:21, 21:1, 46:16, 68:22, 77:10 location 14:21, 18:25, 20:8, 23:16, 28:12, 36:14, 37:2, 41:8, 41:17, 49:8, 52:4, 57:8, 68:18, 70:17, 77:18, 82:20 locations 35:14, 51:2, 51:7 longer 76:17 looking 16:11, 16:16, 17:2, 17:12, 20:24, 21:20, 25:19, 29:22, 32:9, 33:5, 36:8, 49:9, 49:22, 50:17, 57:13, 57:17, 68:12, 73:14, 79:5 looks 10:15, 10:22, 73:16, 87:21 lose 8:5 loses 60:16 loud 51:20 loudly 8:11 Lovlien 2:3 lower 91:11 LUBA 3:8, 3:11, 3:13, 3:17, 4:4, 5:20, 6:1, 6:16, 6:20, 7:1, 7:11, 8:23, 10:10, 10:10, 11:5, 11:12, 11:14, 11:16, 11:21, 11:22, 12:3, 12:19, 12:20, 12:23, 12:25, 13:5, 13:10, 13:12, 13:14, 13:24, 14:1, 14:13, 14:15, 14:22, 14:22, 15:11, 15:12, 15:21, 21:14, 21:20, 21:20, 23:6, 23:23, 26:4, 29:13, 30:2, 30:12, 30:25, 33:20, 35:4, 35:18, 36:13, 37:18, 42:21, 43:3, 44:10, 44:19, 62:20, 85:23, 90:25, 91:1, 91:2, 91:6, 91:12, 91:14 LUBA's 21:13, 27:5 M machine 93:8 main 55:10 maintenance 77:20, 82:7 major 49:19 majority 50:8 maker 6:9 making 21:11, 21:12, 74:2, 82:23, 83:4 management 62:12 manager 54:3, 65:14, 66:18 managing 62:10 mandated 68:24 mandatory 16:8 manner 3:21 map 33:17, 36:14, 41:22, 58:11, 61:15, 67:7, 67:16, 68:7, 70:17 maps 51:9, 58:7, 58:18 March 1:10, 10:12, 10:14, 90:10, 90:12 mark 19:7, 91:25 marked 18:5, 19:6, 36:5, 58:19, 68:12, 79:13, 80:20, 91:19, 91:22, 92:8 market 78:1 markings 10:22 Martin 2:7 master 15:16, 16:6, 16:12, 16:15, 16:17, 17:2, 17:3, 17:4, 17:14, 17:20, 17:25, 21:15, 21:20, 22:5, 22:6, 22:6, 22:9, 23:7, 25:18, 25:23, 26:9, 30:20, 31:5, 31:8, 31:10, 31:11, 32:8, 32:16, 33:25, 34:15, 34:21, 37:14, 38:23, 40:2, 40:11, 40:22, 41:9, 46:23, 49:10, 49:14, 49:15, 51:13, 51:14, 51:18, 51:21, 51:23, 51:24, 53:6, 53:9, 53:15, 54:4, 55:11, 56:5, 57:4, 59:1, 59:22, 59:24, 59:25, 60:4, 61:15, 61:21, 62:11, 63:24, 64:5, 66:20, 66:22, 66:23, 68:13, 70:12, 70:17, 70:21, 71:2, 71:11, 76:9, 83:17 match 18:2, 42:15, 68:2, 74:6 material 52:19 materials 5:5, 5:20, 8:22, 10:1, 11:6, 11:11, 11:16, 14:1, 14:3, 14:5, 14:7, 14:12, 17:16, 21:12, 23:4, 24:21, 26:22, 27:1, 29:15, 44:4, 74:8, 84:15, 90:5 matter 1:3, 3:3, 3:14, 5:13, 5:16, 6:5, 6:7, 8:1, 11:8, 13:9, 24:5, 93:12 matters 8:10, 63:12 maybe 13:3, 61:13, 62:16, 66:1, 66:2, 66:5, 76:1, 81:19, 88:20, 89:12, 89:13 McGean 2:6, 10:15, 10:19, 14:18, 15:4, 16:14, 17:19, 29:9, 29:10, 29:11, 29:20, 29:24, 30:1, 32:18, 35:12, 36:5, 36:11, 38:2, 38:5, 38:16, 38:19, 38:25, 39:3, 39:9, 39:18, 40:7, 40:14, 40:17, 40:19, 41:12, 41:15, 41:19, 42:22, 43:2, 43:11, 43:15, 44:13, 44:21, 45:2, 45:8, 48:15, 48:18, 48:21, 84:21, 88:16, 88:22, 89:2, 89:4, 89:23, 89:24, 91:17, 91:23, 92:4, 92:7, 92:10, 92:18 McGean's 14:7, 73:25 means 9:11 meant 33:8 meets 58:16 members 4:16 mention 33:9 methodology 35:21 mic 36:1, 66:15, 67:10 88:16 Michael 2:6, 29:10 microphone 5:1 middle 58:15, 74:12, 85:25, 86:1, 86:14, 87:2 midpoint 69:10, 74:20, 74:21 Mill 2:4 million 47:18, 48:6 mindful 84:18 minor 76:2 minute 47:8, 67:25 mis 28:10 misread 25:5 misremembering 28:10 missing 91:1 misunderstood 41:7 modification 28:9 modified 16:18, 75:15, 75:16 moment 5:2, 6:23, 45:9, 65:12 money 46:12, 47:8 month 88:3 mostly 57:5 mounted 92:15, 92:16 move 24:5, 49:8, 52:2, 54:11, 56:1, 56:2 moved 23:18, 23:21, 23:22, 23:25, 69:17 moves 69:20, 80:25 moving 42:1, 57:2 myself 5:15, 11:13, 74:15 N N.W 2:7 narrative 18:7, 19:24, 83:24, 84:2 necessarily 25:3, 65:3, 84:6 necessary 70:8 necessity 28:1 needed 15:19, 16:3, 58:16, 85:6 needs 6:19, 7:20, 8:3, 9:13, 23:8, 33:8, 43:21, 84:21 Nelson 28:21, 54:25 nightmare 85:24 nine 23:11, 36:14, 36:25 nodding 41:13 non 50:10 non -airport 57:7 none 6:13 nor 93:14 normal 88:9 normally 3:23, 9:20 12:18 normally -sized 29:15 north 69:9, 69:11, 79:17, 80:11 Northwest 51:21, 52:6 notated 17:18 notation 22:21 note 3:24, 23:1 noted 19:12, 35:4 notes 4:11, 50:8, 73:2 nothing 7:9, 22:9, 33:16, 38:23, 50:21, 51:5, 67:16, 68:15, 75:19, 78:3, 78:4, 78:5 November 72:5 numbers 91:6 0 object 45:24, 46:2, 47:13, 52:3 objection 6:14, 47:20 observations 6:2 obtain 5:20 obtained 55:2 obviously 24:13, 26:25, 27:11, 32:20, 52:22, 55:8, 58:15, 65:7 occur 43:21, 52:23 occurred 40:22, 42:11, 52:5 offer 39:20, 66:15 OFFICE 1:1 officer 1:10, 3:1, 3:2, 3:16, 6:5, 6:7, 7:9, 9:2, 9:5, 9:9, 9:25, 10:4, 11:10, 11:18, 11:20, 11:23, 12:1, 12:9, 12:12, 12:17, 13:20, 14:19, 14:25, 15:6, 15:20, 19:5, 19:10, 19:16, 19:18, 19:23, 20:10, 20:13, 20:16, 21:10, 23:10, 24:6, 24:10, 24:13, 24:23, 25:11, 25:14, 25:16, 26:20, 26:24, 27:3, 27:7, 27:10, 27:15, 27:19, 28:5, 28:7, 28:15, 28:18, 29:2, 29:9, 29:18, 29:21, 29:25, 31:14, 35:7, 35:25, 36:3, 36:8, 37:20, 38:3, 38:13, 38:18, 38:20, 39:2, 39:6, 39:14, 39:23, 40:9, 40:15, 40:18, 41:6, 41:13, 41:16, 42:16, 42:25, 43:8, 43:12, 44:9, 44:17, 44:22, 45:7, 45:10, 45:18, 45:21, 47:2, 47:10, 48:12, 48:17, 48:19, 48:22, 49:24, 51:11, 51:16, 52:8, 53:4, 53:25, 54:7, 54:14, 54:20, 54:23, 55:7, 55:15, 55:24, 56:7, 56:11, 56:15, 57:2, 57:12, 57:21, 57:25, 58:22, 60:5, 60:19, 60:22, 60:25, 61:4, 61:7, 61:8, 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 1 to 93 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE Page: 98 officer - referred 62:1, 62:10, 62:14, 63:9, 63:15, 64:11, 64:14, 64:18, 64:24, 65:1, 65:16, 66:10, 67:9, 67:25, 68:4, 68:11, 68:25, 69:4, 69:8, 70:5, 70:10, 70:23, 70:25, 71:5, 71:13, 71:16, 71:23, 72:1, 72:4, 72:10, 72:15, 72:19, 73:1, 73:13, 74:9, 74:14, 74:17, 74:19, 75:2, 75:5, 75:10, 75:12, 75:19, 76:6, 76:13, 76:16, 76:20, 76:24, 77:12, 78:2, 78:14, 78:19, 78:22, 79:4, 79:10, 79:12, 79:15, 79:19, 79:23, 80:1, 80:3, 80:6, 80:9, 80:18, 80:22, 81:3, 81:6, 81:9, 81:13, 81:18, 81:23, 82:4, 82:12, 82:22, 83:9, 83:14, 83:21, 83:23, 84:1, 84:8, 84:10, 84:13, 84:16, 84:23, 84:25, 85:5, 85:8, 85:13, 85:21, 86:1, 86:13, 86:17, 86:24, 87:3, 87:6, 87:13, 87:19, 87:25, 88:25, 89:3, 89:5, 89:16, 89:20, 89:25, 90:3, 90:9, 90:18, 91:24, 92:2, 92:8, 92:11, 92:13, 92:19 official 65:4 older 69:6, 69:18 on-site 57:8 ones 26:23, 36:20, 91:20 onto 47:17 op 39:25 open 4:5, 6:23, 8:18, 14:10, 18:7, 27:4, 65:8, 65:18, 66:3, 84:19, 88:15 operate 52:17 operates 62:4 operations 58:4, 58:16, 65:15 operator 20:25, 50:25, 53:14, 55:19, 55:19, 56:4, 58:23, 60:23, 69:14 opinion 43:3 opponent 2:5, 3:10, 4:8 opponents 29:12, 51:17 opportunity 8:6, 26:25, 45:12 opposed 3:25, 83:14 opposing 4:20 opposite 48:11 opposition 4:20, 39:25 oral 4:21, 5:10, 85:19, 87:7 orally 65:25, 66:16 orange 79:2, 79:11 order 4:5, 4:23, 7:4, 7:7, 52:1 ordinance 31:24, 34:6, 63:24 ordinances 32:22, 33:17 ordinary 4:1 Oregon 1:11, 2:4, 2:8, 5:12, 93:2, 93:17 oriented 74:15 original 3:9, 4:8, 4:11, 4:12, 4:17, 6:15, 13:9, 64:11, 73:4 originally 11:2, 60:2 others 63:20 otherwise 58:11 outlined 80:10, 81:10 outright 23:15, 35:9, 50:10 outside 5:16, 5:23, 7:12, 56:20, 57:6, 58:9 outstanding 43:18 over -arching 32:13 oversized 10:18, 72:21 owner 45:16, 54:3 P p.m 90:10 pages 19:8, 20:1 paid 66:9 Paladin 63:14 paler 81:19 parade 25:6 parte 5:14, 5:17 particular 26:8, 29:5, 30:11, 30:14, 30:20, 31:5, 31:19, 34:5, 63:17, 74:7 particularly 7:25, 26:11 parties 3:11, 3:13, 4:9, 4:9, 5:6, 11:14, 12:14, 31:16, 62:18, 73:12, 88:14, 93:14 party 5:16, 6:4, 73:4, 73:7 past 32:11, 40:23, 60:17, 62:21, 62:23, 64:1, 65:20, 65:21, 65:24 paved 28:15 pen 70:22 pending 43:9 penetrate 55:20 per 16:23 perhaps 13:6, 28:22 peril 42:24 period 4:21, 88:13 permit 40:10, 40:12, 56:22 permitted 23:15, 35:9, 35:11, 38:23, 40:5, 50:10, 83:11 pertinent 4:4 petition 30:12 petitioners 29:12 photograph 54:13 physically 18:17, 76:11, 78:6, 78:8, 78:10, 78:15, 79:3, 82:18, 91:13 pick 36:4 picking 67:11 piece 32:7, 32:7, 32:8, 60:12, 68:6, 90:25 pieces 13:4, 32:3, 32:3, 32:4, 83:15, 92:3 placed 76:11 plan 15:13, 15:16, 16:2, 16:6, 16:12, 16:15, 16:17, 16:20, 17:2, 17:3, 17:4, 17:12, 17:14, 17:20, 17:21, 18:10, 18:13, 18:15, 18:16, 19:22, 20:5, 20:7, 21:4, 21:8, 21:15, 21:21, 22:2, 22:5, 22:6, 22:7, 22:9, 22:22, 23:2, 23:2, 23:3, 23:7, 23:18, 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 1 to 93 23:20, 24:4, 25:8, 25:12, 25:18, 25:21, 25:23, 25:25, 26:2, 26:3, 26:7, 26:9, 27:25, 29:16, 30:4, 30:4, 30:10, 30:16, 30:21, 31:3, 31:5, 31:6, 31:8, 31:10, 31:11, 31:12, 31:17, 31:18, 31:19, 31:20, 31:21, 32:2, 32:7, 32:8, 32:14, 32:16, 32:16, 32:20, 32:23, 32:24, 32:25, 33:2, 33:7, 33:14, 33:15, 33:23, 33:25, 34:1, 34:11, 34:15, 34:20, 34:21, 36:10, 36:12, 37:14, 37:16, 38:23, 39:12, 39:15, 39:24, 40:2, 40:10, 40:11, 40:12, 40:22, 41:1, 41:2, 41:4, 41:9, 41:18, 41:22, 42:8, 43:23, 44:4, 46:14, 46:23, 46:23, 46:25, 49:10, 49:11, 49:14, 49:15, 49:22, 50:2, 50:8, 50:8, 50:19, 51:13, 51:14, 51:18, 51:23, 51:24, 52:1, 52:9, 52:13, 52:20, 53:6, 53:9, 53:15, 54:4, 55:11, 56:5, 57:3, 57:4, 57:14, 57:15, 57:16, 59:1, 59:5, 59:7, 59:20, 59:22, 59:24, 59:25, 60:4, 60:10, 60:11, 61:15, 61:15, 61:16, 61:18, 61:21, 62:11, 62:16, 62:21, 62:24, 63:23, 63:24, 64:6, 64:19, 64:21, 65:6, 65:22, 65:22, 66:7, 66:20, 66:22, 66:22, 66:23, 67:6, 67:19, 68:13, 68:15, 68:16, 69:12, 69:18, 70:12, 70:17, 70:21, 71:2, 71:11, 74:5, 74:7, 74:12, 74:22, 75:8, 75:14, 76:9, 76:14, 77:16, 82:19, 83:6, 83:8, 83:18, 83:19, 83:22, 84:11, 86:6, 86:11, 86:18, 86:19, 86:23 plan's 32:12 planned 35:15, 37:11, 42:4, 48:2, 51:22, 52:6, 76:9 planner 85:1 planners 51:13 planning 8:21, 17:6, 22:18, 24:7, 24:7, 32:21, 33:4, 33:22, 34:25, 35:2, 46:12, 52:23 plans 10:18, 16:13, 16:15, 16:18, 16:19, 17:5, 17:8, 17:16, 17:18, 17:25, 18:5, 22:8, 22:11, 22:17, 26:11, 26:18, 51:5, 51:21, 52:14, 89:15 play 65:6 please 8:11, 8:13 plotted 36:23, 37:8 plus 91:12 podium 36:1, 67:11 point 7:21, 17:19, 21:11, 22:12, 32:18, 37:17, 39:20, 43:5, 53:10, 70:12, 77:9, 82:23, 83:3, 85:16, 92:21 pointing 69:1, 69:8, 75:6 points 35:22, 36:24, 42:10, 66:18, 80:13, 80:16 policies 35:14 policy 34:17, 34:18, 41:24, 43:16, 44:14 pond 67:24 portion 80:24 Portland 30:25 posed 15:15, 16:1 position 34:7, 37:23, 38:3, 38:6, 39:4, 39:7, 39:9, 39:12, 40:16, 55:4 poss 86:4 possibility 51:1 possible 14:2, 15:5, 50:6, 86:5, 89:11 90:14, 92:5 possibly 26:14, 26:19 post -hearing 73:19, 87:8 post -submittal 24:21 posture 56:5 potential 15:13, 16:3, 22:2, 28:1, 55:19, 58:23, 59:1, 60:17, 81:12, 81:13 potentially 12:25 practical 62:8 practice 53:5, 62:22, 62:23, 63:2, 63:4, 63:6, 63:8, 64:1, 65:24, 83:11 preceded 4:17 precise 68:17 preclude 7:17 preface 31:20, 32:12, 33:2 prefatory 32:19 preference 13:25 prepared 11:6, 17:4 prescriptive 16:6, 17:22, 20:6, 26:14 present 6:18, 22:1, 43:18, 44:4 president 45:16 presumably 25:7, 52:11 prevails 58:6, 58:10 prevent 37:7 previous 4:9, 6:3, 6:7, 29:4, 37:22, 73:3, 73:8, 91:11 previously 64:7 primarily 17:7, 49:13, 59:7 primary 30:1 print 5:2, 71:23 prior 6:1, 6:14, 10:2, 10:3, 89:15 private 50:18, 51:1, 53:16, 53:23, 54:4, 56:8, 58:2, 58:18, 58:21, 63:21 privately 56:11 Pro 37:3 probably 31:15, 34:8, 39:21, 43:21, 44:23, 45:5, 50:7, 63:25, 65:16, 84:19, 91:21 problem 48:11, 85:14 procedure 8:8, 8:18, 91:15 procedures 3:18, 3:22, 6:22, 11:12 proceed 6:13 proceeded 43:6 proceeding 4:10, 42:13, 44:24, 73:12, 91:11 proceedings 3:17, 3:18, 4:5, 73:5, 93:11 process 9:1, 22:23, 23:24, 24:8, 24:14, 28:8, 35:16, 39:5, 44:6, 66:24, 67:2, 69:17, 70:4, 92:21 processed 88:7 profess 75:17, 75:21 Professional 29:11, 41:16, 64:16, 93:20 prohibit 16:8 prohibited 78:11 projected 39:18 projecting 56:23 projects 55:5, 56:16 promote 37:5 proof 10:10, 18:4 proper 34:1 property 5:25, 18:21, 38:10, 47:9, 47:11, 49:18, 51:3, 56:9, 81:4, 81:7, 82:14, 83:15 propose 59:8 proposed 33:24, 36:6, 36:21, 36:25, 66:25 proposing 59:13 provide 18:7, 24:21, 26:3, 35:13, 35:13, 35:14, 41:25, 49:12, 50:24, 55:14, 61:20, 69:16, 75:24, 77:7, 77:15, 78:12, 78:25, 86:11 provided 27:12, 64:5, 78:13 providers 60:14 provides 22:15, 50:15, 51:8, 55:12, 61:13 providing 16:22 provision 26:1, 33:19 provisions 30:17, 31:25 public 1:9, 4:6, 4:16, 5:16, 5:23, 53:1, 57:10, 73:14 pull 47:16 purpose 4:2, 32:14, 52:22, 55:10 purposes 52:24 pursue 47:24 pushing 62:16 puts 46:16, 88:3 putting 56:19, 61:22, 74:2 puzzling 27:4 Q qualifications 6:4, 6:13 quite 54:1 quote 30:24 quote -unquote 76:9 R R.P.R 1:12 raise 4:24, 8:6 raise-it-or-waiv 7:18 ramp 46:5, 77:8, 77:13, 82:10 rather 16:20, 21:16, 72:20, 75:14, 87:13, 91:2 reading 21:13, 23:6, 34:5, 35:10, 41:1, 50:23, 72:2, 84:11 reads 52:13 real 38:10, 47:19 realignment 24:10 reality 23:17, 77:25 realize 74:5 really 14:14, 15:12, 16:20, 16:22, 17:7, 17:24, 30:2, 30:9, 30:18, 32:25, 33:5, 34:3, 34:24, 35:3, 35:19, 37:4, 39:19, 39:19, 40:24, 41:4, 41:21, 44:17, 46:1, 51:19, 52:19, 59:23, 60:13, 61:17, 61:18, 62:6, 89:13 reasonable 33:1 reasoned 35:19 rebuttal 4:21, 73:11, 73:19, 73:22, 73:24, 88:10, 89:7, 89:20, 90:11, 90:16 receive 4:3 received 14:7 recent 30:13 recently 17:14 recognize 23:23, 31:7, 49:6, 51:1 reconcile 32:13 reconciled 41:3 record 4:12, 5:4, 5:9, 5:21, 5:23, 6:3, 8:20, 8:22, 9:22, 9:23, 11:5, 11:9, 11:25, 12:3, 12:14, 12:19, 12:19, 12:19, 12:24, 12:24, 12:25, 13:1, 13:5, 13:5, 13:6, 13:6, 13:10, 13:12, 13:15, 13:15, 13:17, 13:17, 13:25, 14:2, 14:9, 14:13, 14:15, 14:15, 14:21, 14:22, 14:22, 18:7, 22:12, 27:4, 29:10, 36:12, 36:13, 45:14, 65:4, 65:8, 65:17, 66:3, 66:4, 68:25, 77:3, 82:13, 83:1, 84:19, 88:15, 90:6, 90:22, 90:24, 91:2, 91:3, 91:3, 91:5, 91:6, 91:6, 91:7, 91:7, 91:9, 91:12, 91:13, 91:14, 91:14, 91:18 recorded 93:7 records 14:17, 29:3 rectangular 80:23, 80:25 red 18:10, 18:15, 18:20, 18:22, 19:3, 36:5, 44:23, 74:23, 75:8, 78:15, 78:17, 80:20, 80:24 redesignation 24:19 reduced 93:8 refer 5:10, 12:20, 13:11, 19:19, 20:3, 91:5 Referee 23:12 reference 13:4, 13:25, 14:1, 14:3, 14:21, 15:1, 33:11, 86:22, 91:3, 91:4 referred 31:3, PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE Page: 99 refers - top 91:19 refers 31:8, 32:25 refinements 50:4 reflect 70:13 reflected 22:21 reflects 74:23 regard 13:24, 16:5, 22:16, 83:20 regarding 7:25, 9:21, 16.11 Registered 93:20 regulations 31:25, 67:20 reject 15:22 rejected 27:13 related 4:3, 7:20, 49:20 relative 76:21 relevance 42:18 relevant 4:3, 7:15, 26:6, 43:1, 43:13, 44:25, 49:17, 55:14, 58:6, 62:19, 62:20, 82:16, 82:25 relocation 28:21, 54:25, 67:3 relocations 33:24 rely 6:14 relying 32:15, 35:21, 39:16 remain 14:9 remand 1:9, 3:4, 3:18, 3:25, 4:4, 4:4, 4:10, 6:17, 6:20, 6:21, 6:22, 6:25, 7:4, 7:13, 7:15, 7:20, 8:23, 8:24, 9:1, 9:8, 12:18, 12:24, 15:15, 15:25, 16:4, 16:10, 30:2, 43:1, 43:13, 44:8, 44:11, 45:1, 45:5, 84:25, 85:14, 87:15 remanded 3:17, 4:18, 5:25 remands 9:20 remarks 42:9 repetition 66:6 replaces 50:4 report 4:6, 6:15, 8:19 Reporter 93:6, 93:20 represent 41:21 represents 80:2, 93:10 request 46:7 requests 61:22 require 43:21, 43:22, 71:6, 86:6 required 24:14, 26:17, 33:23, 46:4, 46:5, 49:19, 52:2, 67:20, 86:8 requirement 15:17 requirements 15:19, 21:16, 77:8, 86:10 requires 5:12, 75:25, 86:8 reserve 75:10, 75:11, 76:14 resolve 7:22, 8:5, 49:7 resort 37:15, 51:24 resorts 51:23 respect 15:17, 22:4, 56:5 respecting 44:5 respects 52:14, 52:14, 52:15 respond 7:16, 14:8, 26:16, 30:24, 49:1, 73:25, 84:15, 90:15 response 17:10, 17:11, 37:21, 41:10, 70:6 rest 24:2, 25:9, 55:12, 79:16 restroom 8:15 result 3:25, 25:24 results 61:1 review 1:3, 14:6, 25:8, 26:3, 29:13, 43:1, 57:10, 59:20, 85:3, 85:8, 86:6, 86:8, 86:19 reviewed 24:24 reviewing 30:15 RFP 46:8, 47:2 right-hand 19:13, 36:17 rights 38:8, 46:18 rings 8:11 risk 61:19, 86:22 River 30:12 road 8:6, 28:21, 46:4, 47:16, 54:25, 56:19, 57:3 roads 86:7 roadway 18:13, 24:16, 56:24 role 25:25, 26:7, 34:14, 34:25, 59:25, 83:16, 83:19 roof 43:6, 44:3 roughly 74:20 round 88:10, 88:11, 89:6, 90:6, 90:10, 90:11 rule 7:18, 27:16, 35:1 ruled 33:3 running 85:13 runway 23:15, 23:16, 23:17, 23:21, 23:22, 23:25, 24:5, 24:11, 28:9, 28:11, 28:16, 28:22, 29:5, 42:1, 54:10, 54:11, 54:13, 54:13, 54:24, 56:1, 58:5, 58:15, 59:14, 85:25, 86:2, 86:14, 87:2 runways 24:18, 49:19, 54:9, 86:7 Ryan 23:12 5 S.W 2:4 safe 86:11, 86:15, 86:16 safety 23:24 satisfy 52:24 Saturday 87:22, 88:1 saying 40:4, 40:11, 49:24, 52:18, 52:18, 55:24, 56:17, 56:18, 57:7, 81:10, 82:18, 83:9, 86:18 says 17:21, 18:22, 20:22, 20:23, 22:8, 22:9, 22:25, 23:13, 26:2, 31:22, 34:18, 50:12, 50:18, 51:10, 55:22, 61:9, 66:22, 69:25, 70:20, 70:21, 72:6, 76:14, 78:6, 78:23, 79:7, 80:16, 81:11, 87:20 scale 29:23 scenario 85:24 schedule 5:21, 73:20, 87:8, 90:7 scope 6:24 scratching 42:12 se 16:23 Section 7:1 seem 52:15 seems 13:11, 24:24, 44:22, 63:10 selected 35:16 send 72:8 sense 88:20, 91:8 sensitive 85:15 separate 31:7, 37:22, 54:16 series 17:17, 18:4 service 60:14 services 48:9, 48:9, 75:24, 77:7, 77:15, 78:12, 82:7, 82:9 servicing 77:21 setback 58:8, 58:9, 58:17 setbacks 58:5 seven 23:11, 23:13 28:4, 37:19 several 13:16, 16:11, 67:17 shaded 79:25 shall 53:8 Sharon 2:3, 10:8, 10:20, 13:22, 73:10, 73:21, 78:16, 81:14, 89:5, 91:20 sheet 5:3, 19:19, 19:20, 45:14 shifted 28:13 Shop 3:9, 3:11, 45:16 short 85:11, 88:18, 88:23 shorthand 93:5, 93:8 shots 52:25 shouldn't 43:17, 43:17 showed 68:15 showing 18:15, 20:21, 31:4, 54:13 shown 18:16, 36:19, 41:9, 50:19, 50:20, 51:4, 51:7, 54:10, 54:11, 57:3, 59:8, 67:16, 67:21, 74:10, 82:19 shows 18:9, 36:15, 63:7, 67:18, 68:13, 68:16, 75:14, 76:17 sign 45:13, 66:15 sign-up 5:3, 45:13 signatures 72:13 significance 40:24 similar 29:22, 52:5 similarly 7:24, 91:21 simply 14:20, 14:22, 15:22, 16:19, 26:10, 91:3 sit 59:3 site 5:24, 5:24, 6:1, 6:3, 16:20, 20:24, 24:4, 25:7, 25:12, 36:6, 36:14, 36:24, 36:25, 43:23, 57:14, 57:15, 57:16, 59:20, 63:23, 64:19, 64:21, 67:19, 67:21, 83:22, 86:6, 86:9, 86:11, 86:18, 86:19, 87:1, 89:15 sited 38:14, 49:8, 59:16, 59:17 sits 18:13 situation 42:2, 49:9 situations 57:7 six 19:14, 20:11, 36:9, 36:16, 68:7, 78:3, 88:8 size 92:15 skipped 32:11 skipping 37:20 slated 19:4 slightly 56:4, 91:20 sliver 48:1 smaller 29:23 Smith 2:3, 10:8, 10:24, 13:22, 13:22, 14:24, 15:3, 15:7, 15:24, 19:9, 19:15, 19:17, 19:21, 20:4, 20:12, 20:15, 20:18, 21:19, 23:13, 24:9, 24:17, 25:4, 25:13, 25:15, 25:17, 26:21, 27:2, 27:6, 27:8, 27:17, 27:23, 28:6, 28:13, 28:17, 28:24, 29:8, 41:7, 73:11, 73:21, 73:21, 74:10, 74:16, 74:18, 74:21, 75:4, 75:7, 75:11, 75:13, 75:21, 76:12, 76:15, 76:19, 76:23, 78:17, 78:21, 78:23, 79:7, 79:11, 79:14, 79:18, 79:21, 79:24, 80:2, 80:5, 80:8, 80:12, 80:21, 81:2, 81:17, 81:22, 81:25, 82:21, 83:3, 83:13, 83:16, 83:22, 83:25, 84:4, 84:9, 84:12, 84:14, 84:17, 84:24, 85:4, 85:7, 85:12, 87:11, 87:24, 89:11, 89:19, 90:14, 92:5, 92:23 Smith's 70:11 solid 36:20, 79:8 somebody 46:17, 46:19, 59:11, 77:15 somehow 16:14, 25:21 something's 63:3 somewhere 9:15, 40:10, 57:3 sorry 6:22, 43:15, 55:16, 68:4, 85:19, 92:4 sort 27:24, 51:18, 58:23, 61:1, 70:6 sounds 27:21, 56:3, 90:4, 90:24 source 15:13, 16:3, 22:2, 28:1 south 54:24, 69:1 SP -013-7 1:4 space 21:5, 37:10, 69:23, 76:1, 76:10, 77:8, 77:13, 78:15, 78:25, 79:3, 79:17, 80:10, 80:10, 80:15, 82:9, 82:18 spaces 78:24, 81:10, 81:10 speak 45:11, 72:23, 73:10, 76:1 specific 16:1, 26:1, 32:23, 35:14, 53:24, 65:15, 67:21, 67:21 specifically 7:1, 7:9, 10:23, 22:16, 31:4, 31:8, 33:10, 77:2 specificity 30:19, 33:11 specifics 60:5, 60:6 specified 3:19 specifies 9:7 spell 45:18 spend 73:23 spent 46:12, 47:7, 47:18, 48:6 spoke 30:14 spot 56:3, 69:16 squares 79:1, 80:14, 80:17 55 93:2 staff 4:6, 4:22, 5:19, 6:15, 8:19, 14:18, 15:3 staff's 6:15 stand 30:18, 34:15 stand-alone 32:21 standard 51:18 standards 15:16, 22:3, 58:8, 58:9, 58:13, 58:17 start 32:1, 73:10, 85:15 started 8.9 starting 31:17, 85:16 starts 30:2, 30:9 state 5:3, 5:17, 16:2, 22:1, 49:4, 76:5, 93:2 stated 15:12 statement 32:14, 32:20, 34:17, 41:24, 53:10, 53:13 states 33:21 static 16:19, 17:25, 25:21, 26:18 station 35:5, 37:1, 37:3, 37:8, 37:12, 37:24, 38:1, 38:7, 38:14, 39:4, 39:17, 40:4, 40:13, 42:20, 49:7, 58:14, 61:25, 68:21, 68:22, 74:3, 74:4, 86:14, 87:2 station's 85:24 stations 39:8 status 9:21 statute 9:18 stay 42:21, 42:23 step 31:14 steps 68:21 stop 51:11, 68:1 storage 37:2, 50:11 store 43:4 Street 2:7 strictly 45:4, 57:17 structural 50:11 structure 43:24 sub -districts 52:12 sub -zones 60:4, 86:6 subject 43:25, 54:8, 61:19, 86:18 subjected 25:11, 28:9 submissions 12:7 submit 8:22, 10:19, 12:15, 25:7, 29:15 submittal 92:6 submitted 10:2, 10:3, 10:11, 11:3, 11:7, 11:12, 12:2, 12:3, 13:8, 14:3, 16:25, 17:17, 18:3, 22:24, 23:4, 29:14, 35:24, 61:17, 74:8, 78:16, 90:13 submitting 5:5 subpart 32:24 subsequent 44:12 subtleties 34:23 subzone 59:19 successfully 87:1 sufficient 7:15, 14:20 suggest 32:3, 32:5, 52:16 suggesting 34:8 suggests 27:20 supplant 34:10, 34:19 supplanted 42:6 support 4:19, 50:6 supported 34:17 supposed 18:24, 19:4, 20:25, 34:15, 34:16, 44:2, 46:16, 81:20 surface 28:16, 56:23, 57:19 surfaces 55:21 survives 49:16, 49:23, 49:25, 50:1, 50:5 system 30:4, 32:24, 67:3, 69:25 T table 4:25 tack 47:17 taken 5:22, 35:17, 55:3, 93:7 takes 70:7 taking 36:20 talks 53:18, 58:3 tanks 43:25 tap 36:2 taxi 49:1, 77:14 taxiway 47:6, 47:8, 47:14, 47:22, 56:2, 58:5, 59:15 taxiways 49:19, 86:7 tells 78:4 term 16:21, 50:7 terms 25:24, 59:10, 62:2, 65:24, 82:18, 90:22 testified 4:12, 4:17 73:6, 73:16 testifies 10:25 testify 4:19, 65:25, 73:8, 73:15 testimony 4:3, 4:20, 4:23, 5:8, 5:11, 5:23, 6:18, 12:7, 39:19, 64:4, 66:16, 70:11, 73:7, 76:20, 83:2, 85:19, 87:7 text 16:12, 16:16, 17:1, 17:20, 17:21, 17:23, 22:5, 22:15, 26:9, 30:9, 43:21, 49:14, 49:17, 49:22, 50:12, 50:15, 50:17, 50:18, 51:5, 51:8, 51:9, 53:18, 53:19, 53:22, 58:1, 58:5, 62:7 texts 49:13 textual 62:7 thank 5:7, 13:19, 29:7, 45:21, 48:12, 48:15, 48:21, 48:22, 62:2, 66:11, 71:14, 72:16, 72:22, 73:21, 89:24, 92:22, 92:23 Thanks 87:6 theory 35:8 there s 86:10, 86:21 86:21 thereafter 93:8 thing 10:6, 67:7, 76:2, 86:2 thinking 27:21, 51:19, 55:18 third 18:19, 19:12, 61:20 though 39:14 three-foot-by-fo 29:16 three-page 10:16 threw 23:12 throughout 17:13 tie -downs 18:23, 18:24, 19:3, 69:7, 74:11, 75:1 ties 43:14 tight 57:13 tighter 9:19 today 14:5, 17:17, 18:2, 29:14, 68:23 ton 46:12 tonight 3:4, 4:2, 4:19, 5:9, 6:17, 6:19, 8:9, 10:11, 14:9, 18:8, 23:4, 31:13, 45:4, 66:1, 84:15 tonight's 5:18, 5:21 tool 26:14, 62:12 tools 17:7, 22:18 top 10:17, 18:9, 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 1 to 93 PUBLIC HEARING ON REMAND - LEADING EDGE Page: 100 top - zonings 18:13, 80:13, 80:14 totally 38:9, 67:5 touched 26:23 track 65:9 traditional 53:6, 54:4 Traffic 30:25 transcribed 1:11 transcript 93:11 transcription 93:9 transportation 30:4, 32:24, 34:12, 66:21 Travis 76:1, 76:4, 77:4 treats 26:12, 56:8 trifocals 72:2 trigger 57:9 triggered 57:10 trouble 72:2 true 93:10 truly 77:16 trusting 48:7 TSP 32:7, 32:15, 33:18, 34:12, 83:18 turn 8:12, 41:4 turned 48:10 twice 31:3 type 3:21, 4:1, 38:10, 52:3, 57:20, 61:15, 61:15, 82:7 types 52:13 typical 82:7 typically 15:7, 78:12 U Uh-huh 80:5, 85:4, 85:7 ultimately 44:16, 47:20, 48:8, 52:25 unable 4:10 unbuild 80:10 unbuilt 80:10 undermine 37:6 undermines 37:11 undermining 42:7 understand 7:16, 13:25, 21:10, 27:11, 32:13, 39:24, 40:11, 43:9, 43:14, 44:10, 44:24, 62:3, 64:5, 76:7, 81:25, 82:17, 82:23, 87:17 understanding 11:15, 12:2, 15:21, 15:25, 24:17, 42:20, 44:14, 64:10, 75:22, 78:25 understood 54:1, 70:11 unfounded 25:6 unlabeled 79:16 unless 6:14, 8:17, 9:16, 41:4, 55:20, 82:24, 82:25, 84:10 unmarked 79:16 update 66:23, 68:13, 70:21, 70:22, 71:1, 71:2, 71:6, 71:8, 72:16 updated 16:18, 17:9, 22:19, 23:3, 25:18, 26:13, 67:17, 68:10, 69:12 upper 36:17 useful 28:8, 63:10, 65:5, 65:23 usefulness 33:3, 35:6 uses 17:3, 22:19, 50:9, 50:11, 54:2, 62:16, 63:19, 86:5 using 15:1, 16:21, 62:11 usual 8:10 usually 51:13, 71:10 utilities 46:4, 47:17 V vacant 68:6, 80:10 valid 43:5 valuable 83:2 variations 41:19, 41:20 variety 12:6 verbatim 5:9 version 29:16, 30:20, 36:9, 36:12, 92:6, 92:15, 92:16 versus 82:19 vet 25:8 viable 37:8 view 2:4, 38:21, 41:1, 50:1, 50:24, 53:118 60:9 violation 8:2, 43:9, 43:18 virtually 46:6 vision 77:9, 77:24 visit 5:24, 5:24, 6:1, 6:3 voice 67:12 w wait 47:8, 67:25 waive 90:16 walk 84:5 wanted 20:20, 35:22, 36:24, 46:3, 48:15, 57:14, 73:15, 85:23 wants 7:25, 56:8, 61:20, 66:4 warthen 77:4, 77:4, 77:13, 78:11, 81:5, 81:8, 81:12, 82:1, 82:5 we've 35:17 weather 68:21, 68:22 week 88:9, 88:9, 88:10, 88:11, 88:21, 88:21, 88:23, 88:23, 88:23, 89:6, 89:7, 89:7, 90:17 weeks 84:20, 88:8, 88:12, 88:18, 88:19, 88:21, 88:25, 89:7, 89:17, 89:22 weigh 25:2, 26:15, 66:3 welcome 12:15, 66:14 well -reasoned 27:8 west 48:2, 64:16, 69:1, 69:9 what's 20:6, 21:7, 23:10, 23:10, 23:17, 37:21, 41:10, 41:10, 42:14, 66:25, 74:6, 74:10, 74:11, 74:23, 75:15, 76:11, 78:5, 78:17, 82:18 whatever 28:6, 29:3, 52:12, 52:12, 58:24, 76:17, 88:4 whereas 35:1, 54:4 whether 5:14, 15:15, 22:3, 23:8, 25:9, 27:13, 30:6, 30:7, 33:6, 33:7, 38:23, 40:3, 49:3, 54:18, 55:1, 57:10, 63:16, 63:24, 84:21 whole 22:23, 49:9, 50:22, 50:23, 73:23, 79:22 wish 6:12 wishes 73:10 within 83:12, 86:9, 90:15 won't 91:7, 91:13 wonder 61:10 wonderful 88:12 wondering 21:13, 43:20 wouldn't 24:3, 24:3, 25:2, 35:20 writing 14:11, 66:3, 73:24, 84:15, 93:9 written 5:5, 5:8, 21:12, 52:19, 70:6, 70:20 wrong 25:24 Y yeah 25:14, 28:7, 36:3, 45:10, 47:3, 47:3, 53:3, 54:9, 55:23, 60:6, 60:24, 63:15, 67:9, 71:9, 72:7, 72:19, 86:2, 86:21, 88:4, 89:4, 90:14 yellow 20:23, 79:12, 79:13, 80:11, 81:19, 81:20, 82:2 yet 19:6 yourself 45:14, 47:17, 56:4, 77:3 z zone 33:17, 34:16, 34:18, 34:18, 35:4, 35:5, 35:21, 37:17, 41:24, 50:10 zoned 50:9 zones 35:10, 35:11, 52:9, 53:24 zoning 31:24, 32:22, 34:1, 34:6, 52:11, 53:18, 59:12, 59:23, 60:2, 63:23, 69:24, 69:24, 70:2, 83:12 zonings 50:12 031414 CASCADE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (541) 385-5664 Pages 1 to 93 For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Extending Deadline for Submittal of Written Arguments in the On -the -Record Review of File No. SP -13-7 (A-14-2, A-13-4). * * ORDER NO. 2014-018 WHEREAS, Appellant, The Flight Shop and Aero Facilities, appealed the Hearings Officer's decision in application number SP -13-7; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) agreed to hear this appeal in Order 2014-015 with deadlines for written arguments specified in that Order; and WHEREAS, Appellant failed to submit a timely transcript of the Hearings Officer's hearing, as required under DCC 22.32.024; and WHEREAS, the Board wishes to grant additional time for the submittal of the required transcript of the Hearings Officer's hearing; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The deadline for submittal of written arguments specified in Order 2014-015 shall be extended as follows: July 3, 2014 — written arguments from all parties; July 9, 2014 — rebuttal arguments from the applicant. /// Page 1 of 2- ORDER NO. 2014-018 Section 2. Staff shall mail notice to persons or parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.32.030(A) no later than May 21, 2014. Dated this 56 of A -x2014 ATTEST: Recording Secretary Page 2 of 2- ORDER NO 2014-018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TAMMY BA EY, Chair dvi e le 4 716 I it• ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair ALAN UNGER, Commissioner