Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-24 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 1 of 12 Pages For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and, for a portion of the meeting, Susan Ross and James Lewis, Property & Facilities; Judge Alta Brady; Nick Lelack, John Griley, Lori Furlong and Peter Russell, Community Development; Judith Ure, Administration; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Justice Court Judge Charles Fadeley; Anna Johnson, Communications; Jeff Hall, Court Administrator; and about twenty other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Discussion/Update with Bendbroadband. Gary Lawrence of Bendbroadband introduced himself and advised that Telephone & Data Systems has purchased the company. He explained that the company is friendly to smaller communities and customers. He does not see many changes occurring in the immediate future. Chair Baney said that the relationship between the company and the County has been good, and she is pleased that this can continue. She also mentioned the business loan fund if they hope to bring additional employees here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 2 of 12 Pages Mr. Lawrence stated that he has lived in Bend for years, but was brought into Bendbroadband last year to help with the transition. Tom Anderson noted that the City has asked to use County meeting rooms for lager meetings, and the recording and a/v system has been upgraded to accommodate this. This might result in being able to televise meetings. 2. Discussion and Update of Courthouse Funding Project. Judge Alta Brady said they requested a judge and a referee from the State. They already know that the judge will not be approved, but might be able to obtain a referee. They will continue to ask. Susan Ross said they requested a $4 million bond through the State for facilities upgrades, but feels the larger cities will win out. Chair Baney asked how political it is in getting another judge. Jeff Hall stated that there are various factors. The Chief Justice is the head of this branch of government, so they have to work within that budget process. The Chief has made decisions about this already. They can continue to let local legislators know there is a huge need for this area. There was $65 million in requests and this had to be pared down to maybe $30 million. The legislature is not eager to create new positions, even in good times. This has been the first run at new judgeships in a long time. Chair Baney said that having an inadequate number of judges has been a big problem for many years, and they have tried to compensate and work around it; but at some point there will be consequences to having this shortfall. Mr. Hall stated that a referee is included in the package, but it is not known if this will be approved. There are many competing interests. At this time, power to the building was off for about 20 minutes. Mr. Hall asked if they should completely stop these efforts, or go forward with design at some level. They have to be prepared to even be considered for a new judge. State dollars for any bond should be requested now, since those dollars might not be available in the future. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 3 of 12 Pages Susan Ross said they have a preliminary design for a 3-story structure attached to the existing building. Courtrooms could be added as needed and the rest left as a shell. They do not have a full set of construction documents but useable information is available. The cost would be around $10 million, with $200,000 for design development. Commissioner Unger said they need to be prepared without spending a lot on plans that might never be used. Ms. Ross stated that they geared up for this session, since being ready for a judge is required, but since it will not even be considered at this time, the risk might not be appropriate at this time. The plan would include two courtrooms and ancillary space. They would move some out of the old building. They still have space needs regardless. This would ultimately put court operations in the same building and leave much- needed room for the D.A. There is a need for one story now. Judge Brady said that the sooner they can address some of this, the better. It would be more efficient to do some of this now, and they will cooperate with the construction interruptions. She would like them ready to go when the chance for an additional judge arises again. Chair Baney stated they have not had a lot of luck with the State when it comes to retiring debt. They went through this with the jail project. They need to consider all options and not overcommit. Ms. Ross said they should see if any judges get approved this session to get an idea of the trend, Chair Baney noted that they still need some space. She would like them to go forward slowly and contain costs. Commissioner Unger asked for timelines and trigger points. They need to show they are together on this. 3. Discussion of Mediation Services for County Departments. Judge Fadeley commented on the importance of mediation services to his court and the community. He said they handle about 1,200 cases per year. Erik Kropp introduced representatives of Cascade Mediation and Central Oregon Mediation. He stated that some departments pay for these services, but the courts use this the most. The service agreement was consolidated some years ago, so there is a total amount of compensation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 4 of 12 Pages Representatives of Cascade Mediation have indicated they are interested in working for the County. The question that has been raised is whether to continue the relationship with Central Oregon Mediation as-is, or do an RFP and open it up to other providers. It is possible the cost could change, others may come along at a future time and want to be considered, and Central Oregon Mediation also provides low or no cost services to the community, since 1997. If they did not have the contract, this could jeopardize their ability to operate or offer the low cost or no cost services. They also receive grant funds. Judith Ure said she is not involved with those funds, only those that go to nonprofits. Judge Fadeley said that mediation is very important in keeping the courts from being more pressured than they already are. Many small claims are handled this way. Dick Eisman, who operates Cascade Mediation but who was a volunteer for Central Oregon Mediation for years in addition to his private practice, said that Justice Court charges $300 per case. In his view, this is a lot more than they need to. Most, but not all, mediators will do a good job. He stated that there is little work involved other than an e-mail going out to the mediators to set up the meetings, and perhaps a phone call. There is a way to do it for less than $300 per case. His company would do these cases for less, and he suggested other cases be referred to private mediation services. Judith Ure stated that at one point Central Oregon Mediation was converted from a service provider to a contractor. The $30,000 is not based on actual caseload. Mr. Eisman said that if the County wants to, they could pay actual costs to his company for court mediation and donate the remainder of the $300 per case to Central Oregon Mediation. Chair Baney reminded everyone that mediation is not a dedicated fund, and this is not a mandated service. At this time, the power was restored. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 5 of 12 Pages Jim Ruff of Central Oregon Mediation stated that this should not be viewed in terms of quality or how easy the work is. The bigger issue is that they cannot figure out how they arrived at the $300 per case. They do much more for the County than Justice Court. Most mediation can be done at little or no cost, but they also deal with family cases, divorce, youth issues, probate court, elder cases, nonprofits and the schools regarding conflict resolution, so it is a lot bigger than Justice Court. Most of these other cases are handled at no cost. In Redmond, they worked with the County and the Fair Board regarding various issues. They have worked with Redmond High School. In La Pine, it has been road districts and homeowners associations. They have helped with Sunriver zoning issues, and Sisters Habitat for Humanity. They facilitate a lot of discussions at little or no cost that take a lot of time. Just looking at $300 per case for Justice Court misses the bigger picture. This misses the bigger picture of how much they do for citizens here. Another big issue they are assisting with is the OSU Cascades campus, facilitating and h osting big meetings involving all parties. They are making a lot of progress at a normal cost to all. They also teach required continuing education to anyone who is going to handle mediation. Commissioner DeBone asked who the volunteer mediators are. Mr. Ruff stated that they are people just like any others. Some like to help people come to agreement. They come from all walks of life. (About ten people in the audience indicated they are volunteer mediators.) Mr. Ruff added that they do a lot, continually train, and have partnered with the County for a long time. If all that matters is the $30,000, it will have a negative impact not only on Justice Court whose workload is growing, but other things. The County is growing as well. They need a big, experienced organization to fill that need. Mr. Ruff noted that some of the volunteers are also private mediators. It is difficult to handle only Justice Court cases and make a living. Some handle bigger issues involving sewer, water and other types of cases, in addition to volunteering with Central Oregon Mediation. It is their way to serve the community. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 6 of 12 Pages Chair Baney said that in her view, nothing is broken. They just were questioned on something that had not come up before. They contracted for this amount at the time for good reasons. She does not think anything has gone awry. She now has a better understanding of the complexities. Government needs to be transparent. Any adjustments will not happen at this time. The budget process was completed in June. The next conversation might be whether to structure an RFP process, but she does not want to pursue this now. Commissioner DeBone stated that he wanted to understand the details. He feels there is great service being provided. They can perhaps talk about this at a future work session. He is not ready to change anything at this time. Commissioner Unger said this has been a good discussion regarding partners and funding. These services are need. As a service partner, he wants them to stay whole and function well. It is either that or going to the private sector. He feels it is being done well now and he is happy with the way things are. The $30,000 adds certainty and helps to cover the various aspects. He realizes that the County has to justify what it is paying for. Judith Ure noted that this amount comes out of the general fund, so it was not highly discussed under lottery funds. There is no pressure on the video lottery fund for these services at this time. Commissioner Unger stated that they have expectations of justice court and they have to be realistic. Perhaps the Justice Court has greater needs than this, too. he needs to understand the balance and whether there is even more need for mediation services. Chair Baney suggested they talk about this further in January, with Judge Fadeley’s involvement. Mr. Ruff said that they mediate downtown, and schedule for Justice Court and Circuit Court. They also handle the foreclosure avoidance program and probate, and in one month alone, volunteer mediators handled from 72 to 75 cases by volunteer mediators. If they did not do quality work, the judges would not want them there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 7 of 12 Pages 4. Discussion of Document No. 2014-482, the Community Development Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual. John Griley said they held the hearing on this on August 27, as there was some public interest. Written testimony was left open for seven days. In total, they received seven comments in writing. Today is for a status update, to go over comments received, and seek director on next steps. He envisions incorporating some language, and either go over it again or set a date for deliberations. Chair Baney said no future work session is needed; the business meeting should be enough. Mr. Griley broke down what is part of policy and what are procedures to implement. One policy issue was to limit permit possibilities if the property is already under a Code violation. He referred to a handout, and said there are potentially others if the Board has concerns. They are making one recommendation as well, regarding the notification of complaining parties. Chair Baney stated there were some side conversations, so perhaps there was some clarification after testimony was taken. Commissoner Unger added that there might have been a misunderstanding that has since been cleared up. Mr. Griley said that most was related to legalities, with the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty. This was discussed with Counsel, who advised that it would have to be adjudicated before permits might be restricted. Then they could pursue it further. Mr. Lelack stated that there was confusion on this, as a notice of violation should not prohibit permitting for other things; the party would have to be found guilty first. Laurie Craghead added that it could be incorporated into a land use decision, as a condition to be calrified by the applicant. For example, filing a conditional use permit for a non-farm dwelling and wanting to add an accessory dwelling, they would have to fulfill the first. therefore, the County can ask for them to clarify and justify. This is one route. There could be a finding during the land use process that can then be appealed. However, all of this could be cumbersome. Chair Baney said that she prefers that it is either adjudicated or not. The other is a long path with too many potential issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 8 of 12 Pages Mr. Craghead stated that this is kind of what happened with the Kuhn case when the Dowells wanted a building permit. The Board found the homeowners’ agreement needed to be in place. LUBA remanded because they wanted a finding on the lawful establishment of the building. Chair Baney said they would be hard pressed to end up with another case like that one. She wants to have a broader view. Ms. Craghead noted that to alter an already established use, the underlying use needs to be lawful for the additional one to be issued. Mr. Lelack said that they could craft a text amendment to cover the basics. This is in the work plan, but may not have to be in the Policies and Procedures Manual, until the text amendment is actually in place. Mr. Anderson and Commissioner Unger agreed. Ms. Craghead clarified that it would have to a related modification to avoid permitting. If it is a different use and it is not related, can be permitted. Lori Furlong added that septic systems and other factors are already exceptions. This addresses a small number of cases, and doing a text amendment and the staff time needed seems excessive for just this. Chair Baney noted that there seems to be a significant disregard for the law at that point. The cases are few but they can have a big impact. Mr. Lelack said it does not need to be in the Manual, and is already on the work plan. He does not want to hold up the manual for this. The Commissioners agreed to take this portion out for now. Regarding Policy, Mr. Griley revisited the matrix and reviewed the parts regarding the complaint process, and whether a complaint can be anonymous, etc. Commissioner Unger stated that he feels it works well the way it is. They got sidetracked with other issues at the time. Commissioner DeBone said he is also supportive of the manual and the process, and the system flows well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 9 of 12 Pages Chair Baney asked about the right to farm laws. Mr. Griley replied that they always consider the implication of this protected right when they get cases or hear nuisance complaints. It there is a nuisance violation, this Act says that the County would pay costs if it did not prevail. They know it is guided by statute and does not have to be in the manual. Chair Baney noted that many believe the use of brewery and grain waste will be seen more. It might make sense to reference right to farm issues to staff, but leave it out of the manual. It could be too hard for staff to make that determination at the time. Commissioner DeBone said he does not want to see a frustrated neighbor use this to go after someone. Mr. Lelack added that right to farm is a whole different section of law. Mr. Anderson pointed out that this is a manual and not code. It is policy guidance and does not trump code. Mr. Griley stated that CC&R’s are another big issue. They have to be consistent. The manual says that the County does not enforce CC&R’s because they can be more restrictive than code. Ms. Craghead added that they are a private contract and not County law. There are certain times with destination resorts where they have to be in place, but the County does not enforce them. People have to deal with their own association or the courts. Mr. Griley stated that the notice of complaining parties procedure will be enhanced regarding the status of the complaint. People will be notified after the initial investigation and at the conclusion. They will provide reasons for why they are or aren’t going forward. Ms. Furlong said that there are some concerns regarding staff time. They need to gauge what it takes. Mr. Lelack noted that one individual complained about not getting a response after a clam was filed, but there was an application regarding the same issue shortly thereafter, and that person was very involved in the case for months afterwards. Mr. Griley said that they have rankings on violations, with health and safety being first, with issues along rivers, building code and solid waste after that. Last is zoning violations. They look at all complaints, but some are not suited for them to deal with. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 10 of 12 Pages Mr. Griley pointed out that the time to resolve cases was raised as an issue. The other is the use of discretion. There are a lot of uses of the word, ‘may’. Commissioner Unger feels they need to have some discretion. Commissioner DeBone added that they will close eventually, and they need flexibility and a well thought out resolution. Commissioner DeBone said this all needs to be put into perspective. Commissioners Baney and Unger stated they like how it is handled now. They are ready to move forward. Mr. Lelack said they have worked with County Counsel and the Sheriff’s Office, who were a lot of help. Ms. Craghead added that it was a big effort, and Mr. Griley did a lot of work and coordinated it with all parties. 5. Discussion of Ordinance No. 2014-026, Corrections to the Zoning Map at the Bend Airport. Peter Russell introduced Gary Firestone, attorney; Gary Judd of Bend Airport; and Damian Syrnky of the City of Bend. He gave a brief background on the issue, which is meant to correct two mapping errors from years ago. They are not adding any uses, and not allowing existing uses into other areas. In 1942 this was developed; an exception for agricultural lands was put into place in 1980, and since then digitized, but the zones were not clear. (He referred to a map.) The error remained and another one added in 2003 that should have been adopted differently. It is correct in code, but cannot be administered properly since the map was not also changed. They need to redo the zoning and reestablish the maps to be consistent. He asked that this be handled by emergency. No one has submitted an application but it needs to be fixed before then. The County already paid the City $5,000 for the City to make the changes at their end. This will go to the Planning Commission. Thus far there has been no input from the public. Some cases are in the pre-application process, so this needs to be corrected quickly. The Board indicated that it is appropriate to move forward. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 11 of 12 Pages 6. Other Items. The Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations, at 3:30 p.m., concluding at 3:55 p.m. ___________________________ Commissioner Unger stated that Judge Grasty has asked about the Sage Grouse, after receiving a memo from Gutowsky addressing this issue. Judge Grasty wants more information. Mr. Anderson said that this is an agenda item to be discussed with the Planning Commission on September 25. ___________________________ Commissioner Unger said they have not yet landed on what to do about agricultural lands. He wants to know next steps . Chair Baney replied that the meeting with the Planning Commission would be a work session with limited testimony. She also wonders about the hoped for outcome. Mr. Anderson said they cannot magically change EFU land. They are looking for direction on how to prioritize any changes. They are watching Jackson County to see how that goes. There are a lot of stakeholders involved. Chair Baney asked if the Board should seek the same opportunities as Jackson County. Mr. Anderson stated that they need provide direction on how far to take this. Commissioner DeBone noted that it is a big picture issue and may involve changes in State law. The community needs to be clear on what it wants. Mr. Andersons stated that another issue for discussion is how to proceed regarding endangered species. ___________________________ Regarding a joint meeting with Sisters on October 2, the only thing the Board said they could talk about at this point is the new clinic. Commissioner DeBone asked about the trail system there. Some people complain about the possibilities. Mr. Anderson said it is almost all outside the City on Forest Service lands. He added that most people are in favor of it, and the Forest Service has had a lot of meetings on the plan. The Board had no agenda items for the joint meeting with Sisters. ___________________________ Mr. Anderson said that they have received several surveys and will respond as appropriate. The Board said Mr. Anderson is free to handle them. Chair Baney brought up a possible employee survey. She suggested they wait a bit longer to send it out due to sensitivity regarding certain medical policies. Mr. Anderson said that they can do this in the spring. There will always be something, and it will never be a perfect time. Chair Baney likes the survey as is, but would like to wait a bit to send it out. Mr. Kropp said there is a new EBAC representative for the Deputy D.A. Association, Sarah Foreman. Chair Baney stated that Western Interstate Regional Conference indicated that Doug Brightenthal is the western representative from Jackson County. She suggested to him that the next conference be held in Central Oregon. A decision has not been made regarding the location , which would have about 400 attendees. She asked how to handle this. Mr. Anderson said the only thing that might work is the Riverhouse. It could be handed off to Visit Bend also. Mr. Anderson stated that Sunriver might be an option. Commissioner Unger said that perhaps they could figure out which facility wants it the most. It would not be for a year. Chair Baney will confirm that the group is serious about Central Oregon as a possible venue. Being no furth er items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. /}aJl;, ~ DATED this V! --Day of_--+-=---r:-______2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissione;;' Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair (Jj fiM.~ Alan Unger, Commissioner ATTEST: (8~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 12 of 12 Pages ______________________________________ PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. ______________________________________ Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners’ meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation poss ible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 ___________________________ 1. Discussion/Update with Bendbroadband – Representatives of Bendbroadband 2. Discussion and Update of Courthouse Funding Project – Susan Ross 3. Discussion of Document No. 2014-482, the Community Development Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual – Nick Lelack and John Griley 4. Discussion of Ordinance No. 2014-026, Corrections to the Zoning Map at the Bend Airport – Peter Russell 5. Discussion of Mediation Services for County Departments – Judith Ure and Erik Kropp 6. Other Items Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations -N \"'\ ~ ...9 I t ~~---r ~~~~~~-4------~~ r3t! I I I I < I I ...... ~ ()-' VI Q) CO 0... 4­o ~ Q) CO 0... , c o '" '"Q) "­I"'0 , "'0 « I I I I I V\ Q) co 0.. 4­o Q) co 0.. MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Date: Sept. 24, 2014 Re: Rezoning at Bend Airport to re-establish Airfield Operations (AO), Aviation Support (AS), and Airport Related Industrial District (ARID) zones (File 247-14-000156-ZC) Background The Bend Airport is owned by the City of Bend, but sits on land zoned and administered by the County. During preparation in March for a City of Bend open house on future helicopter operations, City and County staff discovered several zoning errors. First, 16 acres on the northeast edge of the Airport and the intended site of the proposed helicopter operations is incorrectly shown as Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), when in fact the land is zoned Airport Development (A-D). Second, in 2003 the City applied to the County to adopt the 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan, but the maps for the AO, AS, and ARID subzones were not adopted due to a procedural defect. The result is no aviation uses can now be approved at the Bend Airport. The City has applied in File 247-14-000156-ZC to correct these errors. Planning Commission Summary Staff held a work session with the Planning Commission (PC) on Aug. 14, 2014, and the PC was concerned about how the zoning miscue might adversely affect businesses approved at the Bend Airport between 2003 and now. The uses would be considered legally established non- conforming land uses. A second question was for a reiteration about the boundaries of the A-D zone. The boundaries of the A-D zone were established in 1980 by Ord. 80-222 and described in that ordinance as “Tax Lots 200 and 300 of Section 20, Township 17 South, Range 13 East” and “Tax Lot 200 of Section 17, Township 17 South, Range 13 East.” On Aug. 28, the PC held a public hearing, closed the record, and decided by a 7-0 vote to recommend to the Board that File 247-14-000156 be approved as submitted. EFU or A-D? The City of Bend Airport has existed since 1942. When County zoning was developed in the 1970s, the lands were zoned EFU. Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Ordinance 80-221 created the A-D zone and Ordinance 80-222 gave a written description of the A-D lands that received a Goal 3 (Agriculture) exception from the Department of Land Conservation and 2 Development (DLCD). The described areas also appeared on maps that were exhibits to Ord. 80-222. BOCC Ord. 82-031 adopted the A-D zoning map for the 340 acres at the Bend Airport. In the mid-1990s a third-party vendor digitized the County’s paper zoning maps and inadvertently made a scrivener’s error, incorrectly listing16 acres on the northeast edge of the Bend Airport as EFU instead of A-D. This error was not discovered in either the 1994 or 2002 updates of the Bend Airport Master Plan. The error was incorporated into the County’s GIS database for zoning. 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan Update The City updated the 1979 plan in 1994, but did not formally apply to the County for adoption. 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan Update The City updated the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan in 2002 and applied to the County for formal adoption. The 2002 BAMP reports no changes in local land use or airport zoning had occurred since the 1994 BAMP, although State guideline regarding incompatible land uses adjacent to airports had been completed since the 1994 BAMP. The 2002 BAMP contains the 1994 BAMP as an appendix and the County used these to guide land use decisions. In the inventory of existing lands on Page 12 the 2002 BAMP does state: “However, during a review of existing zoning for this project, it was discovered that a small area near the northeast corner of the airport is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) rather than Airport Development (AD). County planning staff indicated this was most likely an oversight, which may have been created a mapping error at some earlier point. The City will pursue re-zoning the small area from EFU to AD at some time in the future. Aviation- related uses are permitted outright in the AD zone. Conditionally permitted uses include light and general industrial uses. Fifteen acres of airport property south of Nelson Road and 80 acres of airport property north of the runway, both used as Runway Protection Zones, are zoned EFU.” (Emphasis added) The figure labeled “Preferred Development Alternative” shows the problematic parcel on the NE side of the airport as labeled EFU. On Page 80 of the 2002 BAMP the plan again summarizes the airport’s zoning as “…the majority of the airport is zoned Airport Development (A-D) with areas of exclusive farm use (sic) (EFU) located at the north and south ends of the airport.” 2012 Bend Airport Master Plan One aspect of the 2012 update is the rise of rotary wing, aka helicopter, operations at the Bend Airport. The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) in the 2012 update depicts helicopter operations on the 16 acres on the northeast side of the current runway. Initially, staff thought the land was zoned EFU, however after extensive research County staff agrees with City staff that land is in fact zoned A-D. EFU or A-D conclusion The language in both the 1994 and 2002 Bend Airport Master Plans is incorrect; the entire 340 acres of the Bend Airport are zoned A-D and have been since 1980. The current land use application corrects the EFU error. At a later date, the City will apply to the County to formally adopt the 2012 update in a subsequent land use action, which will require public hearings before the PC and Board. 3 AO, AS, and ARID subzones The City applied to the County to adopt the 2002 updated Bend Airport Master Plan, which added the AO, AS, and ARID subzones to the A-D zone. BOCC Ord. 2003-035 adopted the 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan into the County’s Comprehensive Plan. BOCC Ord. 2003-036 repealed and replaced DCC 18.76, adding the text for the three subzones into a new DCC 18.76 and mapping those subzones. The subzones’ text appears at DCC 18.76.070 through 090. While the text was adopted correctly, the maps were not and the procedural defect of BOCC Ord. 2003-036 has had unintended consequences. Legally the maps for the AO, AS, and ARID subzones do not exist, which means the subzones cannot be administered. The upshot is the only zoning in effect at the Bend Airport is the A-D zone. Unfortunately, the text for A-D was changed drastically as part of BOCC Ord. 2003-036. Before Ord. 2003-036 the A-D zone read this way regarding core aviation uses: “18.76.020 Uses Permitted Outright A. Airport and non-structural uses such as fuel storage, tie-down areas, and parking facilities; B. Hangars, aircraft site, sale and repair facilities and related offices” That zoning language was then replaced by the language in Ord. 2003-036, which balkanized the A-D zone into three districts, apparently based on the concepts from the 1994 BAMP. The intent was to have the zoning districts’ current and planned uses at the airport be in better synch in the amended DCC 18.76 (A-D zone). The A-D Purpose Statement at DCC 18.76.010 states “[T]he A-D 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.” (Emphasis added). The three zones set forth in Ord. 2003-036 were Airfield Operations District (AOD) at DCC 18.76.070; Aviation Support District (ASD) at DCC 18.76.080; and Aviation-Related Industrial District (ARID) at 18.76.090. The ASD is the largest at 118 acres, AOD has 105 acres, and ARID has 35 acres. These three are the only zoning district in 18.76 that allow aviation or aviation-related uses. After Ord. 2003-036 the A-D zone reads this way: “18.76.0.30. Uses Permitted Outright A. Class I and I road or street projects… B. Class III road or street projects C. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems… D. Farm use as defined in DCC Title 18” The only allowed conditional uses are farm accessory buildings, utility facilities necessary for public service, and selected excavation, grading, and fill and removal operations. No aviation or aviation-related uses are allowed; they were all shifted to the AOD, ARID, and ASD zones. AO, AS, and ARID conclusion The County has administered the AO, AS, and ARID subzones for a decade, believing the maps were adopted correctly and the zones were in full force and effect. The procedural error, where the maps were not adopted as separate exhibits, was discovered by City staff in March 2014 as part of the research on the EFU or AD question regarding the 16 acres on the northeast side of 4 the Bend Airport. File 247-14-000156ZC will simply re-establish the three subzones the County thought it had adopted in 2003. Next steps The Board will hold a public hearing and at its conclusion the Board will have several options: Continue the hearing to a date certain Close the oral record and leave the written record open to a date certain Close the oral and written record and hold deliberations at a date certain Close the oral and written record and hold deliberations immediately Staff would be happy to answer any questions. Attachments: Air photo comparing boundaries of 1980 and 2003 A-D zone Map of AO, AS, and ARID subzones Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Airport Development Zoning 1982 vs. 2003 1982 Zoning 2003 Zoning Z 1" = 750’ March 11, 2014