2007-1628-Minutes for Meeting October 17,2007 Recorded 11/9/2007DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS 001.1676
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11/09/2007 02:39;52 PM
IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I III
2007-1628
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded to correct [give reason]
previously recorded in Book
or as Fee Number
and Page ,
{ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2007
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy
Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; and David Inbody,
Assistant to the County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Catherine
Morrow, Dee Van Donselaar and Kristen Maze, Community Development
Department; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel;
Larry Blanton, Sheriff; Susan Ross, Property and Facilities; and one other citizen.
No representatives of the media were in attendance.
Chair Daly opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m.
1. Approval of EEOP Document.
Debbie Legg gave an overview of the document, which is required by the
federal government. There is an under-representation of women in some
categories- Sheriff's officers, maintenance technicians and some others-
according to the population of the County. Commissioner Baney asked if there
is a way to know who has applied for positions. Ms. Legg pointed out that
there is a section in the application form for this information, but completion of
that section is voluntary. She added that there have been no appeals or concerns
voiced by minorities or women. Mr. Kanner said that one way to address the
situation is to target specific organizations when doing recruitments.
LUKE: Move approval.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Page 1 of 8 Pages
2. Discussion of Amateur Radio Facilities Text Amendment.
Laurie Craghead said that County Code is currently more restrictive than that of
the State. There is no language in federal law regarding the height of the
antenna. Therefore, the County has to address the issue on a case-by-case basis.
This amendment would establish guidelines for all users.
Catherine Morrow stated that there used to be an exemption for this use. When
the wireless telecommunications code was adopted, the exemption disappeared.
Therefore, it is not clear. There has been a code enforcement complaint and the
Planning Commission made a recommendation; the applicant withdrew their
application but the issue still needs to be resolved.
Ms. Maze distributed a table that explains how the situation could be addressed.
The Planning Commission vote was not unanimous.
The building permit covers the safety concerns; very little has been brought up
about radio waves creating a problem. Most people were concerned about the
visual impact. The comprehensive plan does not really address this and, except
for the landscape management overlay, there is nothing to reference.
Larry Blanton said that they should consider the entire height of the structure,
not just the tower itself. There could be antennas attached to the top, bringing
the height up even further.
Commissioner Daly said that these people are vital to the area if there is an
emergency, as other radios may not continue to operate.
Commissioner Baney suggested that the choice of doing nothing could be
scratched off, in her opinion. Commissioner Daly agreed.
Commissioner Luke said that there should be a building permit as the guy wires
need to be safe. Ms. Maze added that the State may require specific inspections
or licensing as well.
Ms. Morrow stated that if they are declared exempt from land use laws, people
may or may not obtain a building permit. They are to be inside the setback
areas of the owner's property,
It was decided that an amendment allowing facilities over 70 feet tall should not
be considered.
Ms. Maze then explained the streamlined version. This one was preferred by
Commissioner Daly.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Page 2 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Luke stated that this type of communication can be necessary,
but feels the height should be restricted to what is actually needed to transmit
and receive. It has always been handled on a case-by-case basis, and the idea
was to not touch it.
He said that he is willing to allow seventy feet outright, with a building permit
and adhering to setbacks. If a taller structure is needed, up to 150 feet, they
would have to apply for a variance. Ms. Maze said this is what the Planning
Commission recommended. Ms. Morrow stated that the streamlined version
restricted this in the landscape management zone.
Ms. Craghead said that Code needs to comply with what is stated in the
comprehensive plan. Ms. Morrow said one main issue is the guy wires that
hold up the tower. There is no question about the need, but the landscape
management zone does come into play, per Ms. Morrow. Perhaps the choices
can be made clearer so that public testimony can focus on several ideas. Ms.
Maze added that there could be an exemption for structures over seventy feet.
Commissioner Luke said that they have to show a good reason for that.
Commissioner Luke stated that if the tower was in a large parcel of land, it
would not matter, but if someone wants to put one on a small lot, there are
neighbors to consider. Ms. Maze stated that enthusiasts contend that towers
spiral down, they do not necessarily fall sideways.
Sheriff Blanton said there is ice load and winds to consider, and they need to be
engineered for the proposed use. The tower on Awbrey Butte is 100 feet tall
and is anchored by concrete in a thirty-foot hole.
The Board decided to take testimony on the two options; Commissioner Luke
wants to get more information on whether to include the LM zone requirements.
Ms. Morrow stated that anything over seventy feet has to be narrowly defined.
Ms. Craghead said the State says it has to be the minimum amount needed to
accomplish what needs to be done.
3. Discussion of Rencher Subdivision Appeal.
Ms. Van Donselaar gave an overview of the tentative plan application. The
property is located off NE 5t" Street near Redmond, and was originally part of a
Measure 37 claim. The application was for 21 lots but they were limited to 15
by the County.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Page 3 of 8 Pages
DLCD reviewed the documents and decided that the size of the lots is an issue
and they want it limited to eight lots. The original claim did not specifically list
waivers for any Goals. The application was denied by the Hearings Officer,
and was resubmitted for eight lots. DLCD has not commented on the new
application. The Board then agreed to hear the appeal.
The property is surrounded by EFU zoning, but is close to Highway 97. ODOT
did not testify against this application but 5t" Street will require some upgrades.
Commissioner Luke does not like having a public hearing when the findings are
already written. Ms. Craghead said that these are the findings the applicant has
requested. There has not been much public input or testimony on this particular
claim.
Ms. Van Donselaar stated that the Fire Department has provided comments and
the Road Department may do so at the hearing. DEQ has submitted a comment
regarding Amber Lake, which is located some distance from the property.
4. Consideration of Economic Development Grant Request(s).
The Shop with a Cop program requested $6,000. The Commissioners
granted $2,000 each.
Commissioner Baney said she would like to participate in the shopping
event.
In regard to Central Cascade Lines, Commissioner Luke said that he prefers that
staff meet with them to find out pertinent financial information. He is
concerned about subsidizing their operations. Commissioner Baney said that
they have received a portion of a large grant that will provide some funding.
Commissioner Daly stated that the grant request was to repair a transmission
and is not for normal operations. They had ridership of over 800 people last
month, so obviously the service is needed.
5. Discussion of Jail Architect Recommendations.
Susan Ross reported on the progress of the selection process. An RFQ was
issued and they only received three proposals back, from Steele/KMD, DLR
and Conrad GGL. About 12 scope of work documents were sent out and only
three were returned.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Page 4 of 8 Pages
A team of six was on the review committee. The group recommended
Steele/KMD. The State cannot consider price, but the County can ask for a
price consideration. In professional services, this is not usually the main
consideration. Negotiations on price occur after the selection. If the cost is too
high, the County can go to the other companies.
The first set of numbers was $2,983,000, about 9.5% of the total construction
cost. This has been negotiated down to 8.5% plus some other professional fees.
The base cost for construction was $31.4 million. The fixed fee for design
services is 8.5%. Mr. Kanner said he expected about 12% to be quoted.
Ms. Ross said that standard rates for a project like this plus additional costs
related to remodels usually run higher than 8.5%. A contract should be brought
before the Board in early November. KMD has been involved in the project in
the past.
She said that all three were very qualified and are familiar with this type of
project. Commissioner Baney asked why pricing was not a primary
consideration. Ms. Ross stated that they all had to explain how they came to the
price on the rating sheets. Mr. Kanner said that when considering professional
services, sometimes the lowest price is not the best way to go.
Mr. Kanner stated that the total cost was provided through a professional
estimator. Sheriff Blanton stated that the cost thus far is less than estimated.
Commissioner Luke explained that the review committee does a very thorough
job of interviewing and work down to the correct choice.
Commissioner Daly said that URS gave an estimate on the landfill project and it
was not close. He does not feel the estimators stand behind their numbers.
Commissioner Baney asked if the anticipated costs can be broken down and
provided to the Board - not necessarily exact numbers for each item but a
ballpark amount for the various items. Mr. Kanner stated that this information
was already provided to the Board but he will provide it again.
Commissioner Luke said that until the plans are drawn, it is an inexact science.
The SDC's and other costs cannot be estimated until plans are available.
Sheriff Blanton said the categories are known but some of the costs are not
available until the plans are presented to the City.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Page 5 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Daly voiced concerns. His first question was how the project
will be paid for. The economy is not good at this time, and selling enough
property may not be viable. He asked why the City of Bend doesn't sell part of
the Juniper Ridge to help participate. Mr. Kanner pointed out that the land
belongs to all of the taxpayers.
Commissioner Daly asked about the funding shortfalls in the other departments,
who also serve all the taxpayers. Commissioner Luke said that you need to
trade an asset for an asset. Once you sell it, it is gone. Commissioner Daly
stated that ODOT now requires cash up front before a parcel can be rezoned. If
the jail is designed at a cost of $4 million and no funds are available to build it,
will the design have to be redone at some later date. He said that he can't seem
to get any answers on how this project will be funded.
Mr. Kanner said this has been discussed several times and the Board has
indicated the 216 acres in Redmond would be sold for this purpose. It may not
cover the entire cost. If it does not, the sale of other lands would be considered.
After that, a bond is a possibility. There will be a base price for any property to
be sold so that it won't be a fire sale.
Commissioner Luke stated that they aren't to that point now. The architect was
hired because steps need to be taken to get somewhere. In regard to the landfill,
the amount to be bonded was a guess. In the two years after that, the project
was held up due to land use appeals and other issues, and the cost of materials
and labor escalated so it ended up costing more than originally anticipated. He
said that he supports spending the $4 million for the architect at this point so it
will be known what the project will cost.
Commissioner Daly stated he agrees that a jail is needed, but he is not prepared
to vote for anything until he knows more about how the project will be
financed. Sheriff Blanton said that the project is still under the number of beds
needed in the future. The public will not like it if the jail project does not move
forward. Until there is an architect rendition of the remodel, nothing better than
a loose estimate can be obtained.
Sheriff Blanton stated that he does not support going to the taxpayers and wants
all other options investigated first. Basic public safety is the foundation of all
of the work the County does. As it is, it will take two years to get the project
done.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Page 6 of 8 Pages
He said he was asked why they are planning for emergencies that may never
happen. It is his job and that of the Commissioners to plan for such things and
hope that the need is never there. The longer this project languishes, the more
expensive it will be.
Commissioner Daly reiterated that he feels the City of Bend should participate
in funding the project, and that there should be a more exact way to determine
the cost of the project and how the funds will be obtained. The guess is a cost
of about $42 million. Commissioner Luke stated that there is a year to evaluate
the financing part, and all that has to be done is identifying a source to cover the
debt service.
Mr. Kanner said that he has talked with Roger Lee of EDCO who assures that
there are investors and developers who are very interested in the County's
property. Commissioner Daly stated that he can't see the value there since the
land can't be developed for years.
Commissioner Baney said she feels comfortable to go forward with this part of
the process. Nothing else can be done until this is happens.
6. Other Items.
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of an Oregon Liquor Control
License Application for Tumalo Tavern.
LUKE: Move Chair signature.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Commissioner Baney said she had lunch with Dick Tobiason and other
veterans. They asked if the Board would do a letter of support for the renaming
of Highway 97 and said that David Fairclo should be contacted. The leadership
of COVC (Central Oregon Veterans Council) does not want to support this.
She asked for a list of the individuals involved. Evidently, the other veterans
groups have given support but COVC has not.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Page 7 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Daly said that ODOT will make the decision, and the State
veterans group is not supportive, so this change will probably not happen.
Commissioner Luke stated that he won't go around the COVC because they
represent all the groups. He would rather see the money go into services for the
veterans instead of being spent on signs.
Mr. Kanner will contact the COVC to find out their position on this issue.
Commissioner Baney said that there are rehabilitation grant dollars available to
Neighbor Impact, up to $25,000 through a CDGB process. Commissioner Luke
stated that these dollars are typically very limited. Mr. Kanner will investigate
the possibility of seeking this funding.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
DATED this 17th Day of October 2007 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
Mic ael M. Daly, C air
ennis R. Luke, Vice Chair
ATTEST: (4~ 2
Tammy Ba , Com *ssioner
6A~t~l
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Page 8 of 8 Pages
❑ A& A
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 - REVISED
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2007
1. Approval of EEOP Document - Debbie Legg
2. Discussion of Amateur Radio Facilities Text Amendment - Kristen Maze
3. Discussion of Rencher Subdivision Appeal - Dee Van Donselaar
4. Consideration of Economic Development Grant Request(s)
5. Discussion of Jail Architect Recommendations - Susan Ross
6. Other Items
PLEASE NOTE:
At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to: ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations;
ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated.
lfyou have questions regardinga meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
STAFF REPORT
TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Kristen Maze, Associate Planner
DATE: October 17, 2007
SUBJECT: Work session for Amateur Radio Text Amendment TA-06-10
Purpose
The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners will hold a work session to discuss the
Amateur Radio Facilities text amendment that has been withdrawn by the applicant (See CODX
Club Withdrawal Letter). Staff would like the Board to consider the proposed text amendment as
a County initiated amendment that modifies Deschutes County Code Title 18, Section
18.040.030, Definitions of the Deschutes County Code to include Amateur Radio Facilities and
Amateur (Ham) Radio Services and Section 18.120.040, Building Height Exceptions, adding
limitations for Amateur Radio Facilities.
Background
This text amendment application originated as a result of a code enforcement action in which
the owner of the Amateur Radio tower was issued a Notice of Violation for exceeding the 30 foot
height limitation in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. The Planning Commission held four work
sessions and two public hearings on the proposed text amendment (See Attachment 1, PC
Minutes). The Planning Commission listened to considerable public testimony both for and
against proposed regulations for placement of amateur radio facilities.
Following is a summary of the background for the current Deschutes County amateur radio
facilities regulations.
• In 2000-2001 the County considered adopting regulations for amateur radio antennas.
The issue was considered with revisions to regulations of wireless telecommunications
facilities. However, no ordinance specifically mentioning amateur radio was adopted,
and in the interim, the County has not regulated amateur radio antennas except as a
structure over 30 feet.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Additionally, specific exemption to height limitations for radio and other similar
projections that was in the County Code, Section 18.120.040, was removed at that time
(May, 2001).
Currently, the Deschutes County Community Development Department applies the
general restrictions of building height to the Zoning Code for amateur radio facilities. This
would require an amateur radio facility applicant to meet the height exception
requirement, generally 30 feet, or fall under the specific Zone Area height requirements
However, State law requires the County to not restrict amateur radio facilities 70 feet or
lower unless the county can achieve a clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic
objective (See ORS 221.295 Page 3).
Original Applicant Proposal
The proposed text amendment initiated by the Central Oregon DX Club (Club) was based
originally on the City of Beaverton's Amateur Radio ordinance. The amendment would;
1. add definitions for "Amateur Radio Facilities" and "Amateur (Ham) Radio
Services" to DCC 18.04.030.
2. modify the Building Height Exceptions to allow for all amateur radio facilities in
zones other than the Landscape Management Combing zone with a valid
building permit if required by the Deschutes County Building Safety Director,
including compliance with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Oregon Department of Aviation
(ODA), and with proof of a valid FCC Amateur Radio License at the time of
building permit application (DCC 18.120.040).
Through the Planning Commission work sessions and public hearings the applicant's original
proposal was modified with approval by the applicant to the "streamline version", which is
Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by reference.
Planning Commission Recommendation and Vote
The Planning Commission identified aesthetic concerns regarding amateur radio facilities over
75 feet in height. These concerns became evident as a result of opposition to the proposed text
amendment and site visits by some Planning Commissioners. The Commissioner's voiced their
concerns over the unsightly appearance of the amateur radio facilities next door to other
residence and fact that these facilities could interfere with neighbor's views. The Planning
Commission voted four to two on the following motion;
"Amateur radio facilities greater than 75 feet in height including retractable facilities to
less than 75 feet shall be harmonious to the natural environment and existing
development, minimize visual impacts and preserve natural features including view and
topographical features of the surrounding lands associated with the amateur radio facility
and shall include site plan language from DCC 18.128.340 Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities". (Attachment 2)
This motion also includes aesthetic findings required by State Statute.
There was some confusion with the proposed motion regarding the inclusion of retractable
amateur radio facilities. The Planning Commission's intent was to exclude amateur radio
facilities that can be retracted to less than 75 feet in height from the more restrictive site plan
2
requirements of DCC 18.128.340 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. The recommended
language is intended to address neighborhood meetings, site plan review and
acknowledgement by the neighbors adjacent to the amateur radio facilities. Specifically, the
Planning Commission recommends that the Board include language that would address
amateur radio facilities over 75 feet in height with the incorporation of the Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities language in DCC 18.128.340 (A) (1) (3) (d-i) and (B) (3,4,5,10).
Analysis
The law the County must follow in order to set amateur radio facility standards is established by
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 221.295.
221.295 Ordinances regulating placement or height of radio antennas.
Notwithstanding ORS chapters 215 and 227, a city or county ordinance based on health,
safety or aesthetic considerations that regulate the placement, screening or height of the
antennas or antenna support structures of amateur radio operators must reasonably
accommodate amateur radio communications and must represent the minimum practicable
regulation necessary to accomplish the purpose of the city or county. However, a city or
county may not restrict antennas or antenna support structures of amateur radio operators
to heights of 70 feet or lower unless the restriction is necessary to achieve a clearly defined
health, safety or aesthetic objective of the city or county. [1999 c.507 §1 ]
This ORS is based on State and Federal law and case law from other states and federal courts
since 1985 which restrict regulation of amateur radio towers and antennas by local government
authorities. Any limits or restriction placed on amateur radio facilities lower than 70 feet must be
linked to a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective. Restrictions placed on amateur
radio antennas over 70 feet must also be based on health, safety, and aesthetics, reasonably
accommodate amateur radio communications and be the minimum practicable regulation to
accomplish the purpose of the county.
The original proposal as modified in the "streamline version" provides minimum requirements
to the amateur radio operator.
• The proposal permits outright amateur radio facilities at any height provided the
applicant obtains a building permit, an FCC amateur radio license, and satisfies the yard
setbacks and design criteria.
The Planning Commission's recommendation is more restrictive than State Statute.
• This recommendation would add a new Amateur Radio Section 18.124. with additional
site plan review criteria for amateur radio facilities over 75 feet in height.
It is important that while setting regulations for amateur radio facilities, the Board adhere to the
State Statute that clearly maintains that regulation of the placement, screening or height of the
antennas or antenna support structures of amateur radio operators must reasonably
accommodate amateur radio communications and must represent the minimum practicable
regulation to accomplish the County's' purpose.
Review Criteria
The proposed amendment is a public policy issue. Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in
DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative zoning text amendment. However, the
County is required to comply with State and Federal law regarding amateur radio facilities. The
County shall justify that the amateur radio facilities and services amendments are consistent
with the Statewide Planning Goals, the County's Comprehensive Plan, and State and Federal
law.
For purposes of this discussion, the proposed amendments would satisfy Statewide Goal 1,
Citizen Involvement, and Goal 2 Land Use Planning.
• Goal 1 would be satisfied through our County text amendment process that includes a
Planning Commission work session, followed by a Planning Commission public hearing,
completed with County Board of Commissioners work session and public hearing.
• Goal 2 was reviewed by staff for compliance with the proposed text amendments and
determined not to be adversely affected.
• The other Statewide Goals 3 through 14 were reviewed and determined that they are not
applicable to this proposal.
The proposed amendment would have no effect on Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies because it does not specifically address amateur radio facilities or the
preservation of view sheds.
State and Federal laws are discussed above which states that any limits or restriction placed on
amateur radio facilities must be linked to a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective
Conclusion
Hold the work session to:
1. Discuss the proposal and the options for addressing amateur radio facilities
2. Direct Staff to make necessary code changes to the proposed code.
3. Hold a public hearing on November 26, 2007.
Attachments:
1. CODX Club Withdrawal Letter
2. Planning Commission Minutes
3. DCC 18.128.340 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
4. Table (Applicant's Streamline Version Text and Planning Commission Recommendation)
5. Option Table
4
Community Development.. Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette
Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-.1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (54:1)385-1764
http,//www,co.de.schutes. r.us/cdd
NOTICE OF A PROPOSED LAND USE REGULATION
PROPOSAL: Amend Deschutes County Code Section 18.04.030, Definitions, and Section
18.120.040, Building Height Exceptions to include Amateur (Ham) Radio Facilities and
Services.
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT DESCHUTES COUNTY HAS PROPOSED A LAND USE
REGULATION THAT MAY AFFECT THE PERMISSIBLE USE OF YOUR PROPERTY AND
MAY CHANGE THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY.
Ballot Measure 56, adopted by Oregon voters on November 3, 1998, requires the above
statement be included in this notice. Despite the above cautionary language, not all property
owners in Deschutes County will be affected by the proposal in this notice.
HEARING DATE: The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing
for file number TA-06-10 on Monday, November 26, 2007, at 5:00 P.M. The hearing will take
place in the Deschutes County Service Center, in the Board of Commissioners Hearing Room
(first floor) at 1300 NW Wall Street in Bend. Testimony will be heard on the following item:
APPLICANT: Deschutes County Community Development Department
PROPOSAL: To amend Deschutes County Code Section 18.04.030, Definitions, and
Section 18.120.040, Building Height Exceptions.
Proposed changes are:
1) Add definitions for Amateur (Ham) Radio Facilities and Services;
2) Permit limited height exemptions for Amateur (Ham) Radio Facilities; and
3) Add design and building permit standards for these facilities.
ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY APPEAR, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR
SUBMIT WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN TESTIMONY MUST BE
RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR BE SUBMITTED
AT THE HEARING.
Seven (7) days prior to the public hearing, copies of the proposed documents and attachments
will be available for inspection at no cost at the Deschutes County Community Development
Department at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Copies of the documents and attachments can be
purchased at the office for twenty-five (25) cents a page
Information is available at the Deschutes County web-site www.deschutes.orq/cdd
STAFF CONTACT: Kristen Maze with the County Planning Division at (541) 383-6701 or
send e-mail to: kristenm(a)co.deschutes.or.us
Quality Services Performed with Pride
18.128.340. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
An application for a conditional use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility or its
equivalent in the EFU, Forest, or Surface Mining Zones shall comply with the applicable standards,
setbacks and criteria of the base zone and any combining zone and the following requirements. Site
plan review under DCC 18.124 including site plan review for a use that would otherwise require
site plan review under DCC 18.84 shall not be required.
A. Application Requirements. An application for a wireless telecommunications facility shall
comply with the following meeting, notice, and submittal requirements:
1. Neighborhood Meeting. Prior to scheduling a pre-application conference with Planning
Division staff, the applicant shall provide notice of and hold a meeting with interested
owners of property nearby to a potential facility location. Notice shall be in writing and
shall be mailed no less than 10 days prior to the date set for the meeting to owners of record
of property within:
a. One thousand three hundred twenty feet for a tower or monopole no greater than 100
feet in height, and
b. Two thousand feet for a tower or monopole at least 100 feet and no higher than 150
feet in height. Such notice shall not take the place of notice required by DCC Title 22.
2. Pre-Application Conference. Applicant shall attend a scheduled pre-application conference
prior to submission of a land use application. An application for a wireless
telecommunications facility permit will not be deemed complete until the applicant has had
a pre-application conference with Planning Division staff.
3. Submittal Requirements. An application for a conditional use permit for a wireless
telecommunications facility shall include:
a. A copy of the blank lease form.
b. A copy of the applicant's Federal Communications Commission license.
c. A map that shows the applicant's search ring for the proposed site and the properties
within the search ring, including locations of existing telecommunications towers or
monopoles.
d. A copy of the written notice of the required neighborhood meeting and a certificate of
mailing showing that the notice was mailed to the list of property owners falling within
the notice area designated under DCC 18.128.340(A)(1).
e. A written summary of the neighborhood meeting detailing the substance of the
meeting, the time, date and location of the meeting and a list of meeting attendees.
f. A site plan showing the location of the proposed facility and its components. The site
plan shall also identify the location of existing and proposed landscaping, any
equipment shelters, utility connections, and any fencing proposed to enclose the
facility.
g. A copy of the design specifications, including proposed colors, and/or elevation of an
antenna array proposed with the facility.
h. An elevation drawing of the facility and a photographic simulation of the facility
showing how it would fit into the landscape.
i. A copy of a letter of determination from the Federal Aviation Administration or the
Oregon Department of Transportation - Aeronautics Division as to whether or not
aviation lighting would be required for the proposed facility.
B. Approval Criteria: An application for a wireless telecommunication facility will be approved
upon findings that:
1. The facility will not be located on irrigated land, as defined by DCC 18.04.030.
2. The applicant has considered other sites in its search area that would have less visual
impact as viewed from nearby residences than the site proposed and has determined that
any less intrusive sites are either unavailable or do not provide the communications
coverage necessary. To meet this criterion, the applicant must demonstrate that it has made
a good faith effort to co-locate its antennas on existing monopoles in the area to be served.
The applicant can demonstrate this by submitting a statement from a qualified engineer that
indicates whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by co-location within the
area to be served.
3. The facility is sited using trees, vegetation, and topography to the maximum extent
practicable to screen the facility from view of nearby residences.
4. A tower or monopole located in an LM Zone is no taller than 30 feet. Towers or
monopoles shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or
topographic screening available.
5. 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. Towers or
monopoles shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or
topographic screening available.
6. Any tower or monopole is finished with natural wood colors or colors selected from
amongst colors approved by Ordinance 97-017.
7. Any required aviation lighting is shielded to the maximum extent allowed by FAA and/or
ODOT-Aeronautics regulations.
8. The form of lease for the site does not prevent the possibility of co-location of additional
wireless telecommunication facilities at the site.
9. Any tower or monopole shall be designed in a manner that it can carry the antennas of at
least one additional wireless carrier. This criterion may be satisfied by submitting the
statement of a licensed structural engineer licensed in Oregon that the monopole or tower
has been designed with sufficient strength to carry such an additional antenna array and by
elevation drawings of the proposed tower or monopole that identifies an area designed to
provide the required spacing between antenna arrays of different carriers.
10. Any approval of a wireless telecommunication facility shall include a condition that if the
facility is left unused or is abandoned by all wireless providers located on the facility for
more than one year the facility shall be removed by the landowner.
(Ord. 2000-019 §2, 2000; Ord. 97-063 §2, 1997; Ord. 97-017 §8, 1997)
L-
0
U)
C
Q
-6"
C
E
EC)
X m
a)
O
tL
Q
O
0
a
-a C:
ry
L LO O
0
O E
0 7
ca
U
cu
a
O ca O
0.- Ems,
O
a)
a) L v_ CCU:
O
~ + Q -Cu (u o X ~
N U>
a) 0
)
'
C
•N
O a) 2 w
L C O a) O E 0
Q
=3 :i
U
°
O
~p
E
cn E cn a) L- a) C
E
CL E (n U (1) -p ,
a C
LL
L6
Cn
U O U)
a
O
-oQ E c.~
C
c 2 rn3 3 c}
O
VL/~rn
0)
>,c
V
O
c a) O ca L
•
L O
O
O N
.
O 0.
E
~ a) a Q
Q Rf L
'a LL
N a)
D c_0 a) =(D
0 L ca ca
O
a 0
U co
0- N
(n N
D
ca c
L (n L
_
-
v-
_
®
_
O
p t 0
LO
O~0r~
L
O
p
C
a
-a -T
ca U)
a)
a)
O
.E N d
-0
p (D •
C
L
O
Q
o
a)
ca
>
U-
p
a)
CD
-
~ ~ ~
cnEcno~c
Q
O
0)0)Eu) a)
3 3
0c~
~~U5
Lcn°
~
0U)
a) 0)
a O O
V
M
C
'0 c 2 0'
~
moo
04
>%c
O
d°
° N a) N U
Q ca L_ -c E L_
a)
O 3 'O a)
V ca
-a ca
U ca lY
(n
N
~ (n L_
w
O
'0
cu c
=J
cn ~ E
L L
2 N
0
O
r '41
-0 L
_0 C CU
Q E
M co
N
v
i
U
CL :r
_
E
a) co
o O U
w
. - -C
N N
m
c
E*
mQ:
m U) -a
m O
0- O
0 - C)cn
E u) a) V_ c
g
a)
vi
(
D
~
CU
c
of c
m
0
N
•
U) a)
ca Q)
E
_
cn
x
c/) O
a) 3- Q) -
'
g
c 2 O
'
F
L 2.0
~ p N
Q
E p (
tn
L
Ul
O-
ao
0 p -0 LO L-
°
Q ~
-T a
N
Q3:
0
Q N L_...'a L_
u
~ L ca~v-
U m !Y
U) V)
>
L L
0--
C O
0
C
cal -0 cn
_
E
cn
E T
'L
p
ca > a LL
c
ca 0 C
a) Q
N co
- w
OO
L
U co
EN°a)"a
0)°°'
E
Cy)
:3C:M
.
U
cn0
LO
-
0)
5
-
cn
a) rna)U
c~ O
O 0
to
T
E -2
Q LL E o LU_
75 L_~
(D
_U O
(D
~ ~
(D CL
U cam
CU
04
CAN
(A
r
` O
O O
O
ti
~
L
O
O
W 2
=o=
~
Lcn
-0:3~
C ~ c
o~•°os~
a)
c
O
vi 'ar
co
c
E
°°-)o~
E cu a)
=
acn
0
ca
E Q L- a)
3
o a)
c~ a) L (n (n
cJ)
u, 0
E
a
E L
O d c,
'
ca Qo L
VI E
p0)
x3
a) E °
_0 -0
Lam"-_°
CL
°0N
w
~
cc
U
x
L
L
E
Q
U
N
i
a
L
U
Q
LL
Uc
v
F
a) ~ O L
L faM °L
a)
Cl)
U U
~
=
tnONO.0)
moo
>
n0
_
N ca ' cn + r
_
0 a 0
a)
to
Z
NQL_-L0 - 0
:3
p
o
O ~tn
O
co a) U
a) a) 2 r
"
.
i CL
v
c m ~ fa
p'
c O
cn O N
Q
a E 70 Y c:
' C
a U
C
p~ c-
ca
U in Q
n
N
'
U a
(n N
r..
O
y
'C
d
L.
O O O
d
a) c
ea
C
~ Q
d
4•.
3
E
JQ
ov
L)Q
co co
a
CD
C~
N~
FBI
0
Cc
b
a~
0
Q.
0
a
Cd
as
0
'C
.b
b
O
4. a g _r
O O S 0
4.?
"O
J
O. ' ~U+ y M
n
V
4
C L O
~'C.+ U V G>
C y
.
'O
'
r
42
4
C
.
r
, ~
U
+
C
O
bA -,t
bn
°to
0
C
6
"C O
O rOj y C w
i.
o
Q
c
o
s°. .C
U O
c o O o ai 4.
0 a, Q) (D
0
14Z
0
r.
42
I
Q
L
V
O
0 C*
C
V
4"
O O
C
Cd
0. C)
°
°
lw
Q
°
A
v
U
~
E "2 o ¢
1-4
°
c a~i
o
ee U C c~ °
rA
a)
),I
.01
ol
O
o
o
i
u
°
~
A
.
~
a
O°
o
.
ci
cd
ci
o
'
c
°r
o -
in
c .a
M.
°u
c A c 'L' o w v ° A
Q
O
U
o
U
w
^
° O
a0i ° C
)
U
bA
2 U
C
r,
A
4%
C
CAS
e
e
° ~ ~ "
=
W 6M S. C
42
U Cl
A
O u E
a)
v, o
PC 6
> o o
0;
cu
=
'
C
N N
U
O -a y
C O O
O
i' ~ i
~ i• O v~ ~ C
Q
:a
O U
C
(D
i.
?
W
.5
C .C O
0 y
y
y eC V 'C
R>
'
~
~
'
>
t,
O
C C 'O
Q
O
y
O
O a~ .C a> eC U cv'i a
,
~
a
o E
-
~
°v
00 •
3
i
c
O
N ' p'~
N U
U U ~ • ~ • y: 'C
N
~ ~
~ sU. cd Ct2I
N
Lei
0000
Q
Q
bOA
y
y O C
v
p
C= s,
G~
Q
a
t~ C~
O O C U C
0
J.
C)
PC
tw 9z
ce
~
' ~o
~ °
~ ° ~ C
~ '
S
c ~ ~ ~ .CG c o o `l
2 o
i
,
4.0
°
~
U
L
N
4
O U
U d v
a
ai a~
=S
a P=
C,3
U N 04 D
~ o
~
tj
' 4Ui O ° C t0. ° f~,
N
2 Q
0
.
_
O
N
y
O
Ll
-O
O
rn
"
~
•
.
~y O CP
0 C
d
0
C
i. C i. 'c~ U C v O
O
FBI
.
,
.
~
Q
O
c
-
CL V] E a C
R
Ln
eat 4. y D 6 A
a
`cd' to ~b
~t, o ~'3
o
Q^ o EEO
a
x O U
a
m
°
00
U > a Ci
.2 0- to
z E .C U °
°
ai a~ _
v,
ee O a C
O C
0
p O p U
i p c 0 C y
a~
s
,
L
C y 4~ O C d
o ° o .
w N C,3 i~ o
.
°
0 a(U ° A o Q° o
Q
~
°
`moo
O °
E.r
O U N a'"
'
c~
C L C
~
v^• y C L O ~
c~ C
ce
i.
a
•
r
bCA y
.
i
n
U U O, U
a
U N ^a
>
o
.
.
w i'r C
+
i
,
GEC
Q .
4-0
te
2
O
bDu
cd z
~
w
N A N U O
CC +
c >
~
p.- W Q
E Q m L F A F 0
F=
A
I
.
V.
4. E
.
p
W
L~
Fy
O
a
0
b
b
a~
0
Cl.
0
b
b
0
8
^a
ee a~ o
o
4.
4.4
44
0
.0 ZA
C
ee
o
N
o
w
^o
o
a
w
O
x y a C
bA
O
i.
C~
C
ee
x
4m
O z
%
4-
•
40o
42
C
U
A
C)
O E
y
i°,
p
i
°
00
Ca
O
rA
a~
o
O
Q
i
G
L
O
N
3.. RS
C
4.
;,a
O
C
.r
O
G
a~ C
y
w Cl
w
0
O Q)
O
p
O O
~
w
CJ
0
y y G
A
_ c
Q
i"
0
c
C
3 .O O
p n
C
i
. O
O i.
C
, a
U
O
c m
.
4O
(M
•.V.
p
r
.a O
rr
L^ V V
ct,
4,
E
=o~
0i.- o
a
~
~
w
=o•0
42
L~
^ O 4.r C
•
y
6)
s
W
O
4.r
w
4)
ri
Qj y
,
.0 ~ A
N
~ y
°
O
C•
C,
O
it
C,
=
a
y O
OC
y
C9 rJ
C
~I
G
3 "
°
L Q
h
a+
G~
•
o~
.o
U
0
-dN
a
4)
.54
°
a
o
0
'S
CJ
ow
°
=
o
o o
E
c
a
°
v
.o H R;
•
U
A
n
0
v
a
°
72
a~
,
o 0
w
Q
w
U
L
4
.
a
>
°u
.
.0
=
a
a O 01
F
0
0
~
s
l
d
4
.
o
'
ri
0
H
el
:
cd
d
v
i
~
.
u
„
00
W
eC C5
N
A
2
a~
~E
Q
=
4
p CA
S
Cl
o a
°
d x
_
i,
o
S
.
A a
a~
O
4m W
O
;To 0)
(.4D
^
a
E
O
o
i c~
C 4~
, w
i
v a~
p G
O
0
0
C
A
O
~
w
c
4~
° ~l A
U
v
U
.Q
?
i, +r
O O
p
Q
A
cl
v, C
a c
~ 4~
a~
C
a y i
o
p
°
4
C
.
^o w Q~ Cd
p
Q
w
eC
t:u
U
~
cl
~wAa~
o Cl
Ha
oU
A
~
~
44
y
~
:
N
r~..l
~I
i..l
0
•^y
N~
~I
~I
0
~I
a
C
O
b
as
'c1
a~
O
f1
O
C.
cz
N
b
O
O
b
C
c~
'O
O
Qa
°
•o s
a~ a~
c
as
u a~
c
Q
Q)
v,
o
v
s.
O C
sue
4'
C O 6>
p=
«s O
0
,
1
1
~
PC 4
.
0
t
c
~
c~'
~,~o=
moo
-
E
-
°
c
c
u
PC
4
v 3
c
o
-
PC
sc.
en
W 06
C)
5
a
4
=
ai
e4
c
00
c° 7A
cd
c c
c c 3
°
e~
o
~
w
04
c
p
° s.
01 0
~
O
•O
•O
rn
H
d
C °
V i;
6a O
~ C
y
^
Cd
R
c
u
+
u
E
A
`~w
•
b
a~
~
c...
i
c
~
C
o o
c
C
•
L
L L 'v, .
=
•
4.,
v,
~i
a
6l
.
y
O c
y O
O
c
P
a
c
V
R
"a c
O
"C 'A ri
eC O °
c
'
c
u
•
F.
p
°
°
° eca o c
c °
r. r c
a~
~
"O
a
O
O PE
C a~ °
yr,
L RS a C c .a
v,
3
c
O
~
~
u ~ C'C 6~
~
y y G'i
^ •~j
u ^O ~
u~' y„
V
D V
~
c
v,
Ci
L'
d ~ L' c
d y
~ d V
~ 4~
d c d 'h
~
d d d ~
~ ~
•a
~
u
..r
.
.
c
u
L
c
N
d
«s ..-i
nj
C
L
i.+
x
0
0
a
M
h
e~
O
O
C
0
b
Cd
b
0
0
L
In.
c~
b
b
0
CA
i
a~
'v~ rr
C
C ip,
~ ca
w
"
O
C C
O
C
C
E
°
~
L
E
o
a
u
-
~
ce
°
u
C
m
°
D
w
Q p
'W
•
C C
,
, i
i
"O
C s,
C
.C
CC
s
C
i,
Q
u
10
a~
y
A
.
0
2
S
6
°
•
4
.
"
A
2
CCt
y
O O
C
C
V
"i3 p i, i.
u
0
Z,
C
y
y
y
u
4w
p y C
o
y
y
rn
L C
0i . C
C
= 4
.
3
L
v~
z.
C
C
r+
'
u
C
G~
y
c
_
y ~C
p
C
D
w
C•
^O
r
y
C
3 +
+
O C
y
+u
V
U
a~
~-i
w
°
i,
~
e
°
"
e
C
te 3
V
^c
„
O
•
"
4. ;
C C
w
a
u
°
u
y .a
A
°
°
w
4w 4,
-0
4-4
0
0 .0
0
j
°
U
~
~
=
u~
o
a u
w
a~
'w
°
E
UD Cwn o~'
s
.
°r
~
~
u O
C~
O
i'
~
6~
'
L~
L
C
A
C ~
V
y
a
v' ~
~
~
w y
L+ y
^O
r
°
O
e~
'O C
'n
C
O ~ ra
°
RS
~r
Ch
i n'"
„i
.
° "C
y
u u
s,
~
~
^
h "a ~ p
C
y
i- v~
U •y
j
C C ~ ~
C
O
O
A
V
y
C
C
t;
w w
C
i.
C
4■
s.
t
Q
E ~
C
"
c
~A
C
C
UU
U
s,
y
o
y
C
1
1
v,
+C.+
;a
y
>
7
.u
p
u
CC "O
o
L
u
4
.
O C d "C D C .a
p
a>
O
0
44
C
C
ee
y a~
s,
C
w
y
s.
4,
Cl
i.
-
c
a 6~
~
C E
~
C
C "O C
C r., ~
0
~
"C
~
p
G)
~ "a y • y i.
C
s.
y
G
C
C u
L
C
u
v~ v.
O
'A
4., ~Q
W L u r.+ ~Q
T.
4-4
kid
'61
o
061
.1
0
C
0
s.
a~
a~
8
0
a
a
0
0
a
,Zt
C~
C'
.O
C~'3
i.~
c
0
b
N
0
Q.
0
o.
b
b
b
0
M
W
o
e~
s.
.a
Cl) 61 E
o
o
c ~ :a
R
rA
+ •V C ~
Vi
Q
V i. *1+ 'C
•
C
O
v
o y 6~ '
C~
CO)
Ac
'aca
a, m
yv~
L C O
°
O
•b y y
r+
o c~
n
y
c
~
N yF" ~
~
o D
~ d
o ^r3 ~ bD
x
~
V
C •0
j .
tea,
y ^ L C~ cc
•
A
~
° rA
~
4.0
°
u
o y ea
a~
00
ce C
4) on e o
ci
ad
Q 40
O
R
6),
w
r 'I- w
a~
- x y Q Q= y
~
9z
4)
rA
Q U ~ +r
SC L
U
y
a~ y «s y ~ ^a
~ L
~
'Zi
C
i
7
•
~
EV. S; y O
o
06
0
4
,
o ea'
o
4
,
~
0
c ca
cu u v;
Cl 'A C
o
.
v
o
o y
"Q
N ~F o
u
a°i c-~ 3a
-o
o
E CrAL) ; ^a
a
W,
rA
Cl..
c ,a
°
ue'
y y y
0
° y s
. U
~
~
y
°
° :
a
i
e~ U c 3 a
U
a
c
~ ~
•
i
~
O
q
U
o
a
e
w
~
V
QU.~ ~
Q
w
•
a ~
C
D
o
> ~
.
...i
M
O v
~
S
d
•
°
. '
y
Q ~
~
F+ O ~
ce
C
C
C ~
v
i
.
,
i
.
O
00 rA
ti ¢ 4O
.
kf)
L-
0
Cn
c
Q
O
~0
C:
E
0.U
QO
CO
x
La)
1
O
N~
ry
W
Q
C
O
E
O
0
"a "a
O a) -a m
E
L LO
O O ti Lo
O
t
r_
m (n
-C
w
Fi U
CU N
O C6
u).2
a C
fa
Q cu L r
cu
co
(D M to
a) O 70
L
O
C N =
,y 0 K
m
= > a)
a1
p a) o c U C
C '
co >
L C
(D O E O
O
E
.5 Q
75
O
co
a)
cc L
L
a) L
a
O
CL (D
M
O=
E U)
N
N
a)
U)
O C
L
U O co
0. 003
~Q Ems
C~~'
omt
°'oo
mN
mac
"
a)
i
"O .O
-0 >
O L
(D CL
~
CU
,
.
7 a)
CL
L~.
Q Fu LL y...-0 LL
CT
a)
- L cow (o4-r-r-
U om I.L
0
CD 04
cr CU
L(n LL
O
_ w
O
'a
O L C -
L LO
co
O ti
p
:3
(D
cu
U)
- U
co N
C N~
c (D •°'QQ
- a/~~ a `m
•
c cu acne
E
>0~
=
-a :3 co -a a) Q
L >
co 1.L
co
a
c
-
y,•,
J-+ a) O
L 3
L cn
N Q
= E E
U o U-
cu cu
~
Q 0
v
'
70 cy)
'
cu
~
L
co E
a
E Qua
c0.
~~E~
o
• c N rn(D
5
CU-
,
o vi
O
U
N
U ~a)U
0
C a> O
rj
CU 0 0
Q 70
O O cV
L
d
_o co a) O C.)
Q C5 u c ELL
UOj S N 'a a) -
_ m L co d' c0
Q O
U cu Of
O , N
~ U) N
c ca
L U) ^J LL
r
-aO
-a
E E
L
O
d O
r d
cu c
O (1) _0 cu
L' C
c
co
O O -
QE"-'
_
cn
N co O
co
U
CL
C
E
u
(D 0
O N 0-C c
E N -
:L-
%U)-
>1
O
ea
.
FD
U c4 CL U
~
Q O co)
0. C;)
CA co
0
-a
L
N
L E
cn E co) ~
m
0. Q
C
E co.. o
N m
c
>
rn
~
(D 0-)
a)
U)
d
> ca
p E
c
a) -
o
4-- 0
D O C
"
co 0
w
O N
O
C
O U N cn
a CD
or
a 0 L
mLo
E
_N C)
a- M
CO 04
Q 3
c
_
Q Fa U- "pLL
a
U cow
coU)N
-CU
O
_
W
O -C
(D
O U)
'~,O
N
_0 CD
m cu-a'cn~
o2.Z > a)
C Eu
C
co
S E
mQ-
(D
mcn
mm
u
U~~ L OO~
o
~Q a)
C~co
~*5
U)
c
CO)
W O
M a) U
C 'D •=3
~
n
}
T
U~ L
E - cu
L VE/
Tr
V
Q
/
~
W Yi
cu
1S
f
UV
CU
N
Q FuLL
LL
.
U cam
tnCO
L d
O d
C)
fl-
O
O
CCt
L
N
C L C
p ~.O.C-0
a)
-0 0 ti tM
V~.O
-0
E
Q L5 m O
o
[L' 3
'O
: (D
f6 Cn
0a
i12 =
0
co
E Q U- a)
(D
r- X L w co
0 0
Q x 3•
O Q_cn L
a~ E 0 o
vl~
L-r-~-
0
0M
ON
W O
~
_ o -0 .
U
W
2) co C)
Q
0
N
0.2
U-C
LLLL
M
CnN
L-
Q L
co M O t
~
a
CO)
Co
U
C!1
l~
0)
cn N
-0 E -6
cu
co O p
A
cn O
CID ' to
4
)
a- -Fu
a-
CD
Cl)
O
Z
EEco~rn
6
~QLL -o-
0
OOO
OU
~ LO
O
5
N N 0 C a)
N 0.
C M CL cg
ccn
0)
N
cn (D
0
E~~
O
' C
O
=3 U CU
L
Q
~
a)~-r-
O
C) t
nQ
N'
U.
2
cnN
O
M1
N C
+
p
r
O d C
> d
a> C
M M
_
L
= C.
r
co
cC
CD a E
0 v
v°¢
co co
Attachment 1
CENTRAL OREGON DX CLUB
July 10, 2007
Catherine Morrow
Director of Planning
Community Development Department
Deschutes County
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97701
Re: Amateur Radio Text Amendment, TA-06-10
Dear Ms. Morrow:
On behalf of the Central Oregon DX Club, the original proponents of TA-06-10, we wish to
withdraw our application to amend the Deschutes County Code and end consideration of TA-06-
10.. Based on our understanding of the process, and representations made at a May 2007
Planning Commission meeting by the County's legal representative (Laurie Craighead), we
would expect that any regulation of amateur radio towers and antennas would have to begin
again at the Planning Commission level, and if instigated by the County or some other party,
would require notification to all 700+ licensed amateur radio operators in Deschutes County
under the provisions of Measure 56.
It is clear to us that there are much better venues to resolve the matter of regulation of amateur
radio antennas in this County, in a way that insures that the County applies it's regulation in
compliance with the relevant state and federal laws, and, most importantly, all aspects of amateur
radio can continue to be practiced here. We, and the American Radio Relay League, will
continue to fully support any of our members that become subject to attempts to apply
unreasonable and non-accomodative regulation to amateur radio antennas and towers.
The leadership of CODXC and our legal representatives are available at any time to fully explain
our reasons for withdrawing our Text Amendment to any member of the Board of County
Commissioners.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
JUL 1 0 2007 Richard B. Frey
President
DELIVERED ICY:
61255 Ferguson Road • Bend, Oregon 97702 • (541) 385-6130
1
( / 0 / D/'--77 -
Economic Development Fund
Discretionary Grant Program
Organization: Deschutes County Sheriff's Office
Project Name: 2007 Shop with a Cop
Project Description: Shop with a Cop is a joint venture with local Wal-Mart stores that
began in 2000. With the help of local Family Access Network advocates and school
personnel, disadvantaged students throughout Deschutes County are identified to
participate in a one-on-one Christmas shopping experience with a uniformed police
officer. In 2006, approximately $25,100 was raised and 110 students participated.
Project Period: December 10, 2007
Amount of Request: $6,000
Previous Grants:
• 2006 - $6,000 (Luke $2,000; $4,000 Off the Top)
• 2005 - $6,000 (Luke $4,000; Daly $2,000)
9 2004 - $4,000 (Luke $2,000; Daly $1,000; DeWolf $1,000)
0 2003 - $2,000 (Daly $1,000; Luke $1,000)
1J~E5 C
w 2~
o { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
DESCHUTES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
Direct Application to:
Commissioner Tammy Baney
Commissioner Dennis R. Luke
Date: Project Name:
Project Beginning Date: 12.-O(-07 Project End Date: aZ Z -0'7
Amount of Request: f fog o0o Date Funds Needed: nl- M-10-0-7
b~c6 s C*1--^ a3 (ID0 ZZq Z
Applicant/Organization: Tax ID
Address: (p 3 33 3 W. 17"~ Zo City & Zip: Elm, q-770
Contact Name(s): CQ' /V4-~ Telephone: 3 8B 66-b,3
Fax: Alternate Phone: Ydo.ecf81 Email:
On a separate sheet, please briefly answer the following questions:
1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities.
2. Describe the proposed project or activity.
3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity.
4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health.
5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit.
6. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the
source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. If the grant will
support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future.
Attach:
Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status.
* Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget.
2-007 Sh*,p W,fh A. a jo
Commissioner Michael M. Daly
All Three Commissioners
I V--
Amount Approved:
By:
Date:
Declined: By: Date:
Memo
To: Commissioner Mike Daly, Chair
Commissioner Dennis Luke
Commissioner Tammy Baney
From: Cpl. Neil Mackey, Deschutes County Sheriff's Office
Date: October 5, 2007
Re: Discretionary Lottery Fund request for 2007 Shop-with-a-Cop program
This memo accompanies a Deschutes County
Economic Development Fund Discretionary Grant Program Application
The Deschutes County Sheriffs Office is already making plans for the 2007 Shop-with-a-Cop
program. This year will be the seventh year we've coordinated this program. While the Deschutes
County Sheriffs Office is the coordinating agency, this program would not be possible without the
assistance of other local law enforcement agencies, the general public and the dedication,
cooperation and generosity of local Wal-Mart stores and associates.
This year's dates are:
• Friday, December 14th, 2007, Bend Wal-Mart (Bend-La Pine students)
• Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, new Redmond Wal-Mart (Sisters/Redmond students)
• Wednesday, December 19th, 2007 (COPY program and any "extra" kids)
Shop-with-a-Cop is a joint venture with local Wal-Mart stores in Bend and Redmond. With the help of
local FAN (Family Access Network) advocates and local school personnel, disadvantaged students
at each public school throughout Deschutes County are identified. Those students who are selected
then participate in a one-on-one shopping experience at a local Wal-Mart with a uniformed police
officer. Since its inception in 2000, Shop-with-a-Cop has continued to grow and each year, we've
been able to gradually increase the number of participating students. In 2006, we took 110 students
shopping. They purchased gifts for approximately 518 family members; including getting something
for themselves, 628 people had a little brighter Christmas. We try and make it a practice to "spread
the wealth", meaning that we identify new students each year to participate, attempting to limit
shoppers from prior years.
For the 2006 program, we raised approximately $25,100; $6,000 of that came from a generous
donation of discretionary lottery funds by Commissioner Dennis Luke. We hope that we can count on
that same level of support towards this year's program, either singularly or collectively from all three
Commissioners. Public support from local citizens and businesses provides the bulk of the funding
for this program, and any funding from the discretionary grant program is always a good "kick off"for
the overall fundraising effort.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at
541.383.6503, or by email at neilmadeschutes.org. You can also contact Laura Conard, who
replaced me as the Community Policing Coordinator, at 541.383.4431 or by email at
lauram(cDdeschutes.org.
Thank you so much for your participation and consideration!
Cpl. Neil Mackey
0 Page 2