Loading...
2001-76-Minutes for Meeting February 07,2001 Recorded 2/13/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 76 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DES CHUTE S *02001-76 * Vol -Page Printed: 02/15/2001 14:37:54 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: Feb. 13, 2001; 3:25 p.m. DOCUMENT TYPE: Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 16 Lv� o." -,� MARY SUE PENHOLLOW KEYNCH a DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK FEB 15 2001 Es FEB 13 Ate �<. MM suf. P J--% 7.4 COUNTY CLERK 2� Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING Mike Daly Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Those who attended the Board meeting (approximately thirty people) were delighted by a brief concert given by the Sisters High School Varsity Jazz Band," conducted by instructor Jody Henderson. Mr. Henderson said that due to requirements of their school curriculum, the group has to meet early in the morning and at odd hours to be able to practice, which takes a lot 6f dedication on the part of the students. Commissioner Tom DeWolf thanked the Band, and then opened the regular Board meeting at 10: 25 a.m. Present were Commissioners Tom DeWolf, Dennis Luke and Mike Daly. Also present were George Read, Geralyn Haas, Damian Syrnyk, Roger Everett, Christy Morgan Barbara Rich and Doreen Blome' of Community Development; Mike Maier, County Administrator; Jim Bonnarens, Property Management; Jennifer Scanlon, Commissioners' Office; one representative of the media; and approximately ten citizens. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. Several citizens requested to speak regarding cellular telecommunications towers. The Board asked Legal Counsel if this was appropriate since the record is closed on this issue, and if public testimony is to be allowed this should have been posted. The citizens said that's why they wish to speak during the Citizen Input portion of the meeting. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 1 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Quality Services Performed with Pride Commissioner Dennis Luke questioned whether citizen input would be considered testimony on an item that is to be addressed. He indicated concern that this could create some problems, not just on this issue, but long-term on other issues. County Counsel Rick Isham indicated that he felt citizen comments could be taken on general issues not related to a specific application. If someone's comments went outside the limitations of those parameters, the Board might be required to identify that at a point where the Board makes a decision, in the event an error is inadvertently created in the record. Mr. Isham stated that as a general concept, the Board can receive any citizen input of a general nature with respect to an issue as long as it doesn't affect the matter that is pending before the Board. He further stated that might not be possible in some circumstances, in which case the Board would have to impose limitations. Commissioner Luke asked, then where do you stop? If you allow two citizens to come up and talk about an ordinance where the record is already closed, then someone else will want to come up; where do you stop? Rick Isham said he is speaking in general terms, because he does not know what their comments are going to be. If they are related to the matter before the Board, and the record is closed, and those comments cannot be received. Commissioner Tom DeWolf asked for legal counsel's opinion on this, if the citizens simply want to encourage the Board to either approve or disapprove of a particular ordinance without getting into the merits of the issue. Mr. Isham said that as a general principle, they can petition the Commissioners at any time on any issue. Whether or not, for example, the Board reads the information received is a different matter. Secondly, if it is in the nature of a legislative act, then some of the strict rules regarding quasi-judicial information may be somewhat relaxed with respect to making that decision. Commissioner Luke said that at a legislative work session there is normally no public input. But legislators, at the discretion of the Chair, have had the ability to question individuals or ask for their comments during that work session. He indicated that to him this is somewhat like a work session. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 2 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Mr. Isham stated that public comment may be allowed, and based on the public comment the Board could make a decision as whether it was received outside the record. The Board needs to somehow otherwise disclose that. He said that he understands the issue of whether someone can offer a rebuttal in this case. Obviously if the comments are outside of the record, they should have no effect on the Board's decision. Any citizens wishing to speak should be cautioned not to comment on the specific issue before the Board. Commissioner DeWolf said he is inclined to always allow public to have discourse with their elected representatives whenever possible. Commissioner Luke said if public comment is allowed after the record is closed, it could become a basis for an appeal. He said that he is not especially concerned about this particular issue, but that precedence is being set. If it is done here, will it be allowed on another issue where the record is closed? Mr. Isham replied that the Board has the ability to say that they will accept public comment, but that there is a legislative matter pending before it relating to cellular towers, and will receive no comments related to cellular towers. The Board has the right to do that for the very reasons that were raised. The individuals who may want to make comments should proceed with that in mind. He said that the citizens should be cautioned not to make comments on the issue before the Board, as if they do it can be problematic. Commissioner Luke said if the Chair does not believe this will set precedence on some future item, he has no problem with it. Mr. Isham explained there is a proposed ordinance amendment before the Board, which is somewhat different than a specific application; however, future applications could possibly be affected. He said technically there is no decision until it is in written form. Commissioner Luke said if the comments go specifically to the ordinance, he thinks they have a problem. Commissioner DeWolf decided to let the citizens speak, if they agree to do so without getting into the specifics. Citizen Linda Moscowitz then spoke, and submitted some photos to the Chair. (These photos were given to Damian Syrnyk of Community Development.) She said her comments are not directed at the ordinance, but are directed toward what might occur before the time that the ordinance is adopted or if it isn't adopted. She then read a two-page written statement (attached as Exhibit A) regarding some new applications that had been received, and urged the Board to make their decision with caution. (Her written statement was also submitted to Mr. Syrnyk.) Minutes of Board Meeting Page 3 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Citizen Randy Windlinx spoke. He said he reviewed the County's recent decisions regarding an application from American Tower for a 150 -foot tower, and has been monitoring the opinion of the local pubic in this regard. He said he feels the wireless ordinance as it stands today, as reviewed by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Board, is working well. He stated that he feels it is working as the community wanted it to work. He said there has been a great deal of time spent interacting and interfacing with the different agencies and the community to try to adopt something that is fairly balanced, and feels that it is in its current form. Mr. Windlinx also stated that on behalf of the Planning Department's recent decision, he feels that the review and approval of the proposed 125 -foot pole in La Pine is appropriate, taking into consideration the location and surrounding vegetation. He further said that in regard to the support of the Tetherow Butte facility, for both the U.S. Cellular and Cellular One facility, Cellular One has entered into three co -location leases for their facility and are considering an option on another one. That facility will soon be filled up and U.S. Cellular will stop off- loading as far as the capacity for co -location is concerned. Essentially there will not be a proliferation of towers on that butte. There are two towers, and basically that is what will remain. He noted that with the way Redmond is developing, he can see towers on the buttes around Redmond, but he also sees a proliferation of houses on many of the buttes as well. He stated that it's all on what someone decides to focus his or her attention. If you look at something long enough, you are going to find fault with it. He further explained that there are a lot of inter -working complications to this process, and thinks it needs to go back to a committee if changes to the existing ordinance are being considered. He urged that this process be implemented, and that the Board have another group of citizens and wireless carriers reconsider these things to try to adopt a more fairly balanced approach to this matter. Citizen Tom Grimm then spoke. He said it towers have unfortunately become the billboards of today's world. He urged the Board to stick to the letter of the current ordinance, and that the Board should believe in the experience and expertise of the hearings officers who have denied towers based on certain facts in the ordinance. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 4 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Mr. Windlinx suggested that if the Board proceeds with these changes, that the Board make it very clear to everyone what will happen in the future and how the public can react. There has already been a long process, the Planning Commission has reviewed the issue for countless hours, and the Board probably doesn't want to send it back to them for further review. He encouraged the Board to make it clear whether the public is allowed any further comment; citizens want to know their options. He commended the Board for letting the public speak. He stated that perhaps the Board might have had feedback as to what happened in Sisters at a recent meeting regarding a cellular telecommunications tower to be located within that city. It appears that no public comment was allowed, and the citizens who attended that meeting were very disappointed. Commissioner Luke stated that he feels there are a couple of problems. There is Measure 7; but there also is Measure 56, which has to do with the notification requirement. When this was previously noticed, the notifications went into the tax bills for the entire County, in order to save the County a lot of money. If the Board opens this again, he is concerned that it would have to be re -posted to every citizen in the County as it was before, which could be very expensive. He further said that his feeling is not so much that the Board didn't want citizens to speak today; it is a concern that this could set precedence in land use issues. Commissioner DeWolf said that there are some restrictions by law that keep the Board from doing some things they would like, and sometimes it can be very frustrating to the Board as well as citizens. Tom Grimm said that it is his feeling that this needs to be pushed forward whether or not there are more public hearings or input allowed. He stated that in his opinion that there is enough material before the Board for it to take action. Commissioner Luke said that the Board has spoken with Legal Counsel about Measure 7, and that there are still some possible Measure 7 ramifications that could be very expensive for the County depending upon how things turn out. He said there are photographs of camouflaging in the record that have raised some questions for the Board. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 5 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Rick Lyon of Cellular One then spoke. He said that he has talked with his company's lawyer, who has extreme concerns regarding some of the aspects of the ordinance and may take immediate action. His company may want to challenge the ordinance on one or two particular points, and it is his understanding that if the results of the challenge fall in their favor, the entire ordinance could be overturned. He stated he would like to see it go back to committee so that the citizens and providers could work on it further. He said his company really wants to work with the public, and would like to see further meetings on this issue. That's one reason it is proposing a sixty -foot wood pole on Laidlaw Butte rather than a 150 -foot metal monopole. Commissioner Luke said that this could not be discussed further as that does involve an upcoming public hearing. Mr. Grimm said his company really does want to work with the public and preserve the scenic views in the area. 4. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Proposed Changes to the Deschutes County Code Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance Contained in Title 18 (through Ordinance No. 2001-014); and Proposed Changes to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Contained in Title 23 (through Ordinance No. 2001-015); and Consideration of Continuing until a Date Certain a Public Hearing and Decision. Geralyn Haas spoke. She gave a brief overview of the process surrounding the proposed changes to the ordinance. She said that 42,000 notices went out with tax bills; the Planning Commission held seven work sessions and a public hearing; and the Board held a hearing as well. She said that the Board has a matrix in hand to address further dates for a work session to change wording of the ordinance. She said that the original notice specifically discussed camouflaging; so additional re -noticing should not be necessary. Commissioner DeWolf asked whether the Board would not be reopening the hearing since camouflaging had been included. He also asked if additional public testimony would require additional notice. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 6 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Rick Isham said that the initial notice included camouflaging, and there is evidence in the record on that aspect, so an additional notice should not be required. If the hearing was opened for additional public input regarding camouflaging, notice could be sent to those people who have testified in the past — this is at the Board's option. He stated that clearly the notice included information on camouflaging. Commissioner DeWolf asked that if the. Board adopted what is before them now, then what happens. Mr. Isham said that the notice covers most of the provisions in the proposed ordinance; and the easiest thing is to revise the ordinance rather than to try to add changes later. Ms. Haas said that everything on the matrix has been addressed in the public hearings and it is all on the record. A work session has been scheduled for February 22, and all can be put into the proposal. Commissioner DeWolf asked about including the Planning Commission in the work session to learn why it did not include anything on camouflaging. Ms. Haas said that this did not get included in the Planning Commission's recommendations because industry representatives told them that camouflaging is not viable for this area due to wind and extreme temperatures. Ms. Haas further stated that Community Development's subsequent research indicates, however, that camouflage is a viable alternative and that there are companies that claim they can do this in Central Oregon. The Planning Commission was given incorrect information. Commissioner Luke said that when a land use decision is being made, the law is fairly clear about what you can do if the record is closed and whether you can invite testimony back in. He asked that in regard to an ordinance, if the Board decides to have a work session with staff, can it invite outside testimony specifically for different items, or does the whole thing have to be thrown open for public testimony. Mr. Isham replied that in any land use issue the Board could invite comment from staff and anyone else they feel is engaged to represent the Board's interest. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 7 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 However, Mr. Isham further stated that if he were going to invite comment from anyone on a new provision that was developed, it would need to be posted and notice sent to the service providers. It would also need to be published. This would be reopening the hearing but with notice, similar to the way the first hearing was opened. It could be limited to the specific provisions or the Board could include new proposed provisions. Commissioner DeWolf said that he would like to limit it to things that weren't already addressed. Rick Isham said that the manner in which the previous public testimony was closed could have been interpreted to continue the hearing until this date. The Board could revisit the issue as to whether the public testimony was closed, or alternatively could give additional notice to reopen the hearing at that point. Commissioner DeWolf stated that perhaps the safest thing would be to notice those people who previously testified and do a public notice. Rick Isham agreed. Geralyn Haas reiterated that a work session only is scheduled for February 22, 10 to noon. A public hearing would then need to be scheduled to explain the different options of language available to address the results of the work session. Commissioner Luke said that in his opinion the sooner the public hearing is scheduled, the better, so it can be ready to go when a decision on Measure 7 has been made. Commissioner DeWolf said that he feels Measure 7 won't have much effect on this matter. Commissioner Luke stated that this potentially affects everyone in Deschutes County; Commissioner DeWolf replied that it only modifies an already existing ordinance, and does not, in and of itself, have an impact. Geralyn Haas suggested that this be discussed at the work session. The Commissioners agreed that an evening public hearing should be scheduled, beginning at 5:00 p.m., as soon as possible and perhaps within two to three weeks of the work session. Commissioner Luke asked if a formal motion is required at this point. Mr. Isham replied that no action needs to be taken today; if the existing matter is reopened, the work session need only be published in the Board's meeting agenda, but additional notice can be sent out if the Board wants. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 8 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Mr. Isham further stated that no public testimony will be taken in the work session, but the public certainly can attend. He further indicated that failure to give notice of a work session would not invalidate any subsequent action of the Board. The hearing itself will need to be noticed. 2. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Adoption and Signature of Order No. 2001-008, Approving the Annexation of Territory (Jacobsen Annexation, of Dodds Road) into Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #2. Rick Isham stated that this was a 100% petition. Commissioner De Wolf opened the public hearing. Being no testimony offered, Commissioner De Wolf closed the public hearing. LUKE: I move adoption of Order No. 2001-008. DALY: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was the Consent Agenda. LUKE: I move approval of the Consent Agenda. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items: S. Signature of a Contract Renewal with DataStor, LLC, related to Community Development's Scanning Project. 6. Signature of an Irrigation Line Easement (from Deschutes County to Douglas R. Stout) for Maintaining an Existing Above -Ground Irrigation Pipeline. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 9 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 4-H/EXTENSION COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 4-H/Extension County Service District in the Amount of $1,055.20. LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DALY: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $309234.20. LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers in the Amount of $385,266.04. LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 10 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 3. Before the Board was a Presentation of South County Experimental Septic Systems. Roger Everett introduced Barbara Rich, who previously work for Community Development but who works for the Department of Environmental Quality out of an office located in Community Development. She is the liaison between DEQ and the County on the South County experimental septic systems project, officially known as the La Pine National on -Site Demonstration Project. Ms. Rich then did a short PowerPoint presentation. She explained that his is a cooperative project of DEQ and Deschutes County Environmental Health. She indicated that the Board is aware that there has been a growing problem in the area due to the area's soils, water levels, geology and weather. She explained that additionally there are approximately 13,000 small lots that were allowed to be split years ago; these all require an on-site well and an on- site sewage disposal system. This has the potential of creating a huge environmental problem. Ms. Rich indicated the four major tasks to be addressed are: 1. Experimental on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems; 2. Three-dimensional groundwater/nitrogen fate and transport model; 3. Development of a long-term maintenance program; and 4. Development of a low-interest loan program. She stated the modeling is done through a cooperative effort with the Federal USGS. She then gave a brief status report on experimental systems: ■ Technology selection — focus on nitrogen removal/effluent quality ■ Contracts — County, 5 vendors, 5 installers, 23 homeowners ■ Construction: from monitoring wells to drainfields The vendors that Community Development has been working with are: ■ Orenco Systems (AdvanTex system) — this works like a sand filter system (approximate cost: $15,000). Minutes of Board Meeting Page 11 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 • Nordbeton (Germany) — (Biokreisel system) - a rotating biological system, compact, charismatic, easy to live with - (approximate cost: $5,000 for the unit, plus $5,000 shipping at this point; although the unit may be manufactured in the U.S. sometime soon). ■ University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (Nitrex filter system) — this is a simple system, follows an aerobic system (i.e. sand filter) — expensive and takes a lot of space. Bio-Microbics, Inc. (FAST — Fixed Activated Sludge Treatment) — an aerobic system — compact, relatively inexpensive, and easy to install. Commissioner Luke asked that in view of the newer systems, once testing and monitoring are complete and the systems have been shown to be effective, do we still need the new neighborhood? Mr. Everett replied that there is no magic answer for the "wet" lots. Installing these newer systems does not eliminate potential groundwater pollution from those lots. Mr. Everett further explained that the systems also need to be people -friendly, affordable and have a long life. He explained that this is the only testing ground on a national basis. In other areas of the country they are being put into place in reaction to a crisis situation. Ms. Rich explained another experimental system that is manufactured by MicroSepTec, Inc. (EnviroServer). She said this utilizes a drip irrigation type of system, and is quite complex. There have been no installations of this system yet; this can't be done until spring. This system purportedly never requires pumping, as it utilizes a low temperature thermal baking system. Ms. Rich explained the challenges of groundwater model monitoring, and that most of the testing is for nitrogen reduction. Commissioner Luke asked if any systems have been shown to be better than others; Mr. Everett replied that some systems appear to function better than other systems, but that all of them all are substantially better than a standard system at this point. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 12 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 There was then a general discussion of gophers and ground squirrels getting into the lines since rock no longer surrounds the drainfield lines, and the problem of other animals, such as dogs, digging up the drainfield lines. Ms. Rich said that it appears that nitrates are not getting into the water wells, which typically are shallow — 40 to 50 feet. In addition, they are not seeing a rapid increase in the wells that had previously tested positive for nitrates. The concentrations are greatest near the water table, which is an impact from the septic older systems. She further explained that they are seeing ammonia and methane in the very deep wells (at approximately 500 feet), but attribute this to decay from ancient forests; this is not a health concern. She added that natural (animal) sources of nitrogen can be significant as well. Ms. Rich stated that they are putting together an advisory committee to address the future needs of the systems, including maintenance, education, and interaction with state agencies. They will report back to the Board of Commissioners at a future date regarding the systems and the progress made. Before the Board was an Addition to the Agenda. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2001-016, Authorizing an Exchange of Real Property between Deschutes County and Michelle and Vernon Hoffecker (Oregon Water Wonderland Property) Chair Tom De Wolf opened the public hearing. Being no comments offered, Chair De Wolf then closed the public hearing. LUKE: I move for the signature of Order No. 2001-016 and authorize signatures on the appropriate deed documents. DALY: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes aye. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 13 of 14 Pages Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Being no further additions to the agenda or comments offered, Chair Tom DeWolf closed the meeting at 11:50 a.m. DATED this 7th Day of February 2001 Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, February 7, 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Tom DeWo Chair Den is R. Luke, Co 'ssloner Page 14 of 14 Pages Tccek* Ue AL Y-1 101 Good Morning, Commissioners, Since the public hearing you held on December 4, regarding the proposed revision of the cell tower ordinance, two more cell tower builders have made applications to the county to erect a 125 -foot tower in LaPine and a 120 -tower in Sunriver. Two 60 -foot wooden poles have been illegally erected along west Hwy. 20 by VoiceStream within the LM Zone and are under review by Code Enforcement. And these are just the ones I know about. So far the existing ordinance is holding the speculative tower builders at bay, but only because of a couple of technicalities in the ordinance that the hearings officers have been able to apply in these cases. Although the Planning Department recommended denial for the four American Tower applications, they have recommended approval of the 125 -foot Mericom spec tower in LaPine, even though, according to the hearings officer at a hearing on January 23rd, the same ordinance that prevents American Tower from building their tall towers applies to Mericom. I can only hope the hearings officer for the SBA tower in Sunriver will feel the same should the Planning Department recommend approval of that one. QUESTION: Why is the Planning Department recommending approval of an application from a spec tower builder when 2 hearings officers have denied 4 ATC applications for the same reasons that apply to Mericom. Why is there inconsistency on how the Planning Department interprets and applies the ordinance and how the County's hearing officers interprets them? QUESTION: How long before the spec tower builders find a way around the technicality in the ordinance? QUESTION: What happens when a wireless service provider, not a spec tower builder, applies for a 150 -foot tall tower? Nothing in the existing ordinance prevents such an application from being approved. You have American Tower, Mericom, SBA, SpectraSite, W.O.W., VoiceStream, Sprint, Cellular One, U.S. Cellular, Nextel, and I don't know how many others, trying to develop networks in our community. Most people and businesses, including myself, want and need this wireless technology and the demand will only increase as our population grows and technology continues to change and add more wireless gadgets to the marketplace. I realize that Measure 7 has thrown a wrench into the works of enacting the proposed changes to the cell tower ordinance, and I can understand the cautious approach you choose to take in this matter. However, the tower companies and the wireless providers continue to threaten our views and natural beauty by wanting to site their facilities in highly visible areas such as our open spaces and on top of our buttes. Currently, subsection 2(c) of the cell tower ordinance states that the facility is to be sited "using trees, vegetation, and topography to the maximum extent practicable to screen the facility from view of nearby residences", and subsection 2(e) states that "in all cases, the applicant shall site the facility in a manner to minimize its impact on scenic views and shall site the facility using trees, vegetation, and topography in order to screen it to the maximum extent practicable from view from protected roadways." Mr. Luke, you once asked me to name an existing tower or pole that was approved under the current ordinance which I thought was objectionable. In no way am I aware of all the facilities in the County that may or may not have been approved since the current ordinance was enacted in 1997. However, one such facility, which includes a 100 -foot monopole, was approved for Tetherow Butte in 1998 (File #CU -98-59). Maybe the County approved this monopole at this site because of an already existing 100 -foot pole staff report at the time they recommended approval and subsequently approved the monopole to show why I'm apprehensive in trusting the current ordinance to protect our community from highly visible wireless facilities. 1. "The applicant did not co -locate their antenna platform on the CellularOne monopole because the monopole does not have sufficient space left on it to support the antenna array." Interestingly, the wireless providers and tower builders continue to say they need higher poles to accommodate more than one provider, as required by the ordinance, and they say that antenna platforms are spaced ten feet apart from one another. Does the County have the right to force co -location before another tower is built? Notice in the 2 photos 1 provided that Photo #1 was taken on September 30, 2000, and it shows CellularOne's monopole without any co -location. Photo #2 was taken yesterday and shows an antenna array on the pole. Seems the pole could support another antenna array. 2. Under Section 1 and Section 2(c) and (e) of the ordinance dealing with visibility, the report states, A. "The design and the location of the facility take advantage of the on-site and surrounding tree cover and topography to screen it from view from adjacent properties and Highway 97." B. "Finally, the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding land uses because its location on site takes advantage of the on-site tree cover and the surrounding forest tree cover to screen the equipment shelter and some of the monopole." C. "During the site visit, staff confirmed that the chainlink fence, the equipment shelter, and approximately 20 feet of the monopole will not be visible from Highway 97 or the surrounding properties due to the topography occurring in this location." D. "The location ofthe facility takes advantage of its location on Tetherow Butte, which is screened from view from Highway 97 by the eastern flanks of the Butte. As indicated under above findings, the rest of the facility, including the chainlink fence and equipment shelter, will not be visible due to the site's topography and distance from the Highway." I'm including some photos taken yesterday and last May. From anyone's point of view, this tower is highly visible from Hwy. 97 and along Pershall Road. This is the type of interpretation and application of the law that I hope can be stopped for future applications for wireless facilities. Even though Tetherow Butte seems to be evolving into the Awbrey Butte of Redmond, the public doesn't want to see this happening to other buttes and open areas of the County. So, until the changes to the cell tower ordinance can be enacted, I ask you to direct the staff of the Planning Department to apply these sections and others of the existing ordinance that deal with visual impact to include the entire facility, specifically the tower or monopole and its antennas, and to interpret the law in the broadest terms possible so the beauty and character of our community is protected. The public outcry at past hearings tell you the towers affect more than just "nearby residences" and screening the base does not seem to be the problem in most cases. Until the changes can be enacted, the public needs your assurance that the Planning Department will apply the law in its broadest sense so as to keep these towers and poles from ruining the natural beauty of our area. Thank you. Linda Moskowitz, 20195 Winston Loop, Bend, Or 977 WI